site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   2380 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for August 11, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That empirical experiences cannot be trusted to verify the transcendent.

If God sends forth thousands of angels to scour the world in fire and sword, then I will definitely accept Christian doctrine. People having weird dreams near the point of death is not on that level. Should we also trust in witch-doctors, seances, ghosts and such? They can produce subjective experiences, yet not much more than that. Just throwing one's net into an ocean of beliefs won't help truth-finding.

In my mind, to be scientifically useful, more than one person needs to be able to observe the same phenomenon. I can see the flaming angel, so can you. We can take a photo of it, observe the heat from the blade setting off the fire alarm. But feelings? We can't observe them outside MRI machines and even then it's not very helpful.

What can we observe of the afterlife? Literally nothing, just feelings from people who, by definition, aren't in it! There's no objective records, no second-order effects either. At least UFOs show up on radar from time to time.

I am not making any sort of suggestion as to what you should believe or what criteria you should apply to verifying or holding that belief, I was just trying to get a handle on your point of view as to what we need to classify something as acceptably believable. I'm still not sure I have it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats