My expectation was that one might rotate an equine on an axis other than yaw.

Yes. The power to do literally anything would allow one to do this.

I’ve seen this one before, but the alt text had me in a (silent) laughing fit anyways.

That’s the neat part, I don’t. If there’s anything really important, it will leak into memes, or I’ll hear it from family members, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard a piece of news and thought “Oh, it’s a good thing I know that now.”

I can see where you’re coming from. I already blocked the news because I come here for memes and don’t like following the news anyways, but yeah, if you’re looking for non-political news, I guess that can be rough.

Oh, you support a mainstream candidate, huh? What else, do you like eating babies? Why don’t you just admit you’re evil incarnate and vote for my favored candidate instead?

I haven’t really noticed much, but that’s because I’ve taken to blocking political communities once they start bothering me by putting too many article links in the front page or being generally rageful.

Disney says Piccolo agreed to similar language again when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023. Whether he actually read the fine print at any point, it adds, is “immaterial.”

Whuh? Why didn’t they make their case around that instead of Disney+?

Speaking of, did you know that there’s a Chrome extension that turns random links into rickrolls?
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/rickroll-extension/ljkcmgibdnmdjdfpbggohpophnkiajfm

Or, if you’re a firefox user, maybe:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/rickrollify

I haven’t tried either of them, but I think the concept is neat. I’m a fan of doing a little self-pranking now and then.

If you want an honest answer, I’d recommend finding some place that has a decent population of openly right-wing people so you can get an answer from them directly, rather than left-wingers snarking and saying they’re all brainwashed fanatics that would never dissent from the party’s candidate.

Wouldn’t that be three in a thousand?

I’ve never seen that association with my friends who use it. It’s always been more of a meme word, a meaningless adjective you throw into a sentence to make it “funnier.”

Any item, eh? Take the sign.

Makes sense. I guess I’m not so much demonstrating that the resurrection is true as that, if it’s not true, the accounts surrounding it are still very extraordinary and probably worth looking into.

Yeah, I understand where you’re coming from, which is why I’m citing historical analysis of the Bible. Most scholars don’t think King Arthur was real, and if he was, the stories weren’t written when he was alive, so you can’t put any stock in the story because no witnesses were around to verify nor dispute it. On the other hand, even if you believe the Bible is a book of myths, there are still historical facts that have been independently verified, like:

• There was a guy named Jesus who got crucified^[1]
• The disciples were real people^[2]
• Paul’s letters (or at least most of them) were written by Paul while he and at least some of the disciples were still around^[3]
• The early church was significant and persecuted^[4]

Because the early church was significant and the disciples were real people, I conclude that they were famous.
Because they were famous, I conclude that if they said anything surprising, word would have gotten around.
Because Paul’s letters were written while the disciples were around, and the disciples were famous, I conclude that if he said anything surprising about the disciples, they would have heard about it.
If the disciples heard a story about them that never happened, they would have confirmed it, denied it, or evaded the question.
If they confirmed a story, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, but it does mean they wanted people to believe it’s true.
If they denied a story, that would have been surprising, and word would have gotten around, so there would have been some mention somewhere.
If they evaded commenting on a story, that means they wanted people to believe it’s true (and hints that it was untrue, but that part doesn’t really matter for my purposes here.)
Thus, if Paul wrote something about the disciples while they were around, and there’s no mention anywhere of them denying it, that indicates that the disciples wanted people to believe it’s true.

Paul wrote about Jesus appearing to the disciples after resurrection, and there’s no mention of them denying it. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the resurrection was true, but it does mean that the disciples were at least complicit and refused to deny it even in the face of persecution. As for conclusions from there, see my earlier comment.

Is that line of thinking solid enough, depending on historically verified facts instead of taking the Bible as an accurate account at face value?

Also, something that bugged me about your earlier comment: You say you make no claim as to whether a god exists, you just aren’t convinced. And you say there’s no proof for a lack of a god. Yet you also said that you think aliens causing the resurrection (or appearance thereof) is more plausible than a god existing.

Aliens having the technology, knowledge, and motivation to cosplay as God is already highly unlikely, whether in a world with a real god or not. Jesus being the real deal is fairly likely if in a world with God, but impossible if in a world with no god.

So if you’re telling me that Jesus being the real deal is less likely than aliens cosplaying God, that tells me you think there being no god is significantly more likely than God existing. In the absence of evidence in either direction, they should be treated as equally plausible (though not equally valid, as burden of proof is still a thing.) The fact that you don’t tells me you actually do lean towards the lack of a god.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’m definitely biased towards God existing. I’d just like you to introspect and examine your bias so you’re aware of it. Though I’d also appreciate it if you adjusted your parameters and leaned a little more this way ; )

Yeah, I agree Pascal’s wager isn’t a good way to frame your life. I was just using it as a counterpoint to your explanation on why the standards for proof are so high. If it is because you’re trying to avoid the risks of a bad afterlife, you’re already doing Pascal’s wager, just with the wrong approach. The only way I can see that being the best approach is if you’re actively evaluating all the known religions to weigh the odds of each against how bad their hells are. But then there also better be reason to suspect that the ideal religion might gatekeep you for having once been part of a different religion, yet not gatekeep you for having been an atheist or for going in with the motivation of Pascal’s wager. Otherwise you might as well sign up with the best you know of right now and keep looking. But don’t do that because the wager is not a good : )

When I mentioned life on Earth, I was referring to having high standards because it’s going to affect your mortal life, rather than because of the risks of a bad afterlife. I think that’s a more sensible approach because it doesn’t require you to start from the assumption that an afterlife is possible, and the costs can be empirically measured instead of going off whatever the holy texts claim (outside of miracles, of course.) If the cost is 10% of your money and a day a week, then yeah, you probably want to be pretty sure before you commit, but if there are clear benefits, it might be worth it even without a rock-solid proof of a deity. Does that make sense?

Yes, I see what you mean about using the Bible to prove itself. I hadn’t noticed that the earliest manuscripts of Mark’s gospel didn’t have the account of Jesus appearing to the disciples, so that raises the possibility that when Mark (or whomever wrote that) was collecting notes of the stories around Jesus to spin a narrative, he decided to fabricate the idea of Christ appearing to all 11 at once in order to make it seem more credible.

The gospel of Mark is believed by scholars to have been written around 65-73 AD^[1], predating the other gospels, but it’s not the first book of the New Testament to have been written. 1 Corinthians, which scholars are sure was written by Paul, is believed to have been written around 53-57 AD, and it explicitly says that Christ appeared to the twelve disciples^[2].

Now it’s not exactly clear how many of the disciples were still alive by then, and at least one of them had died, but there were still some of them around. Seeing as they were still kicking, it wouldn’t make sense for Paul to make up an eyewitness testimony on their behalf, and if he did, they would have heard about it. His letters weren’t exactly kept secret. So even though we don’t have a direct claim from the (probably illiterate) disciples that they saw Jesus resurrected, it’s safe to conclude that they did make that claim.

EDIT: Though I suppose this brings up a fourth possibility (or fifth if you count aliens) that Paul was a chessmaster who made up the appearance to the twelve, and arranged to have any disciples who disagreed with his plan executed before he wrote about it… I think that’s pretty far-fetched.

Sorry for the late reply, I’ve been too busy with school to set aside a block of time to address this yesterday.

I understand that you want a high standard for proof, and I agree that, if it’s available, you definitely want the highest quality proof available before you make a commitment that’s going to alter your life and eternal destiny. But if all you have is medium-low quality proof for a god and a “we can’t be sure” for there being no god, it doesn’t make strictly logical sense to default to no god. I know Pascal’s wager isn’t going to save souls, but if the risk of getting it wrong is being tortured by some other deity, then it’s better to take n-1 risks of eternal torment than n risks, especially if the only evidence available points towards a god. For a mundane comparison, if you’re in a burning building and a helicopter lowers a rope ladder to get you out, while the burden of proof would be on them to demonstrate that the ladder is strong enough to hold you, if all they can offer you is a “Billy said it should work,” you’re still better off taking the ladder (with a risk of falling back into the fire and dying) than staying in the fire and certainly burning to death.

If I were you, I would have made the case about life on Earth instead, because when it’s about choosing your lifestyle, there’s little risk of the ultimate bad time in the equation, so it makes more sense to be picky about the quality of evidence. You’re not going to commit 10% of your income, half a day a week, and obligate yourself to study a book just for a “Billy said it’s true.”

If you do want to make the case about life on Earth, I’d be happy to meet you on that front, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth and then immediately punch them back out without waiting for you to respond. I mean, I’m not planning on throwing punches anyways, I’m more just talking about fair debate principles.

It’s historically confirmed that Jesus existed at least as a human. The disciples were, at least after Acts, prominent enough that if one of them made a statement that they never actually saw Jesus resurrected, word would have gotten around and been recorded somewhere. To me, that means there are one of three possibilities:

• The disciples really saw Jesus resurrected. Impossible if God isn’t real (unless time traveling aliens or something,) but we don’t know that.
• The disciples conspired to fabricate Jesus’ resurrection. It doesn’t seem far fetched for 11 people to make something up for clout. There are far more people than that who claim to have seen aliens. But there are three key differences here:
  • It was a singular event, and everyone present was in agreement. That puts it above most alien sightings, but not all. I’m sure somewhere a group of 20 alien fanatics got together to claim an alien sighting.
  • The disciples were prominent figures who were subject to investigation and much persecution, pressuring them to concede that Jesus was not the real deal for most of their lives. The scope of that far exceeds any other conspiracies I know about. 5 professional liars couldn’t keep Watergate under wraps for even a few years.
  • Prior to the resurrection, the disciples believed that lying was a sin, and they continued to teach it afterwards. It’s not out of the question that a few of them could have reasoned that getting the Gospel out was more important than telling the truth, but for all 11 of them to unanimously decide on that, and not one of them lets it slip in a moment of guilt at any time? These people weren’t chosen for their commitment to the cause or their ability to keep a secret.
• The disciples hallucinated Jesus’ resurrection. It’s a known phenomenon that sometimes happens to widows. The person I originally talked about this with told me that 30-60% of widows have this hallucination. I think that number looks a bit too high, but I took 60% for a generous estimate. For all 11 disciples to hallucinate Jesus’ return would be 0.6^11 = 0.36% chance tops. Even if 60% is accurate, the chance would still be lower, because they’d all have to hallucinate him in the same place at the same time.

The dinosaur thing was just an example to deal with the concept of burden of proof. So I suppose in a way I was trolling about it, or at least I didn’t make it clear enough that it wasn’t what I actually thought.

I do believe in science, and I haven’t found that scientific discoveries conflicted with the Bible. Interpretations of the Bible do change over time, but the actual text in the Bible does not go out of style. Well, I guess translations do, but you know what I mean. The Bible says God created the planet in a week, and that includes all the plants and animals. We have evidence of evolution, but that doesn’t necessarily invalidate the creation story. God is fully capable of kicking off, directing, and accelerating evolution so that it still fits within the allotted time.

I take issue with your line of reasoning in the gay marriage sentence, but to be clear, I’m not saying it should be illegal, just addressing the logic. Just to avoid misconceptions, let’s apply the same reasoning to alcohol instead. Something being legalized has nothing to do with whether God accepts it. Yes, God ultimately has all authority, and yes, the Bible says to follow the laws of man, but the laws of man are ultimately the laws of man, and there’s a clause that the laws of God take precedence in a conflict. But even if that weren’t the case, if the laws of man say we’re allowed to get drunk, that doesn’t mean we have to. The Bible still says it’s a sin (which I think is because it leads to unwise choices and other sins that you could blame on the alcohol,) and what mankind thinks doesn’t change that.

Also, to be clear, since you think I’m a hardline kind of guy, something being a sin does not mean we have to fight to make the laws reflect that. There’s a lot of talk in the Bible, especially in the new testament, about how the laws are not enough to make someone righteous, and that was the whole point of Jesus. I do take hardline stances in that what the Bible says is true, but I’m not going to condemn people around me for working on the sabbath, and I’m certainly not going to try to make it illegal. (Well, a law against employers requiring you to work 7 days a week would be good on its own merit, but it doesn’t have to line up with the sabbath.) Another biblical principle is that the way to reach someone is by love, not force.

Honestly, I’m getting flashbacks from old debates where people were really picky about evidence. If you don’t mind a too-long backstory, read the next paragraph. Otherwise, skip it. Sorry for the amount of context needed.

There was a certain mobile app I played with an arena gamemode, where each player was part of a certain arena pool, and you could go up in the ranks by attacking others or go down by being attacked. I figured that, for each arena pool, there’s a certain point of no interest, beyond which nobody would bother attacking you because they don’t play that gamemode. As part of a debate on Reddit, I wanted to give a general indication of where this point was. To do this, I set my defense team to actual garbage (that anyone who unlocked the gamemode could stomp,) stopped doing offense, and recorded my arena ranking as it dropped. This went on for many weeks, and I published my results to Reddit, figuring that when it stops dropping, I’m probably somewhere near the point of no interest. The other guy refused to accept that it had any worth as an indication, though, because it was a sample size of one and too stochastic. We argued about it for… probably weeks, I can’t remember.

Anyways, because of that argument, I’m cautious about dealing with internet debaters who have rigorous standards about what counts as evidence. I’m just a guy on the net, not a professional scientist, I don’t have the energy to do research papers to convince one person of something they’re probably not going to believe anyways. This thought especially comes up when I hear things like “if it doesn’t meet the standard, it’s worthless.” Though looking back, it appears I put that word in your mouth, sorry.

To be honest, you’re still setting off that red flag in the back of my mind, but unlike everyone it’s been a problem with before, you seem pretty friendly about it (unless you’re one of the people downvoting my every comment.) I’d be willing to talk about it, but it would have to be with the understanding that I don’t have scientifically rigorous evidence because I’m not a scientifically rigorous professional. What I do have is personal experience about subtly yet distinctly answered prayers, paired with mental note-taking to ward off confirmation bias. I also have a couple anecdotes that work better as funny little stories than evidence. And I also have, as mentioned before, a line of reasoning showing that it’s extraordinarily unlikely for the disciples to have been conspiring or hallucinating when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, though I’d have to dig up my notes on that.

Does any of that interest you?

Makes sense. You don’t exactly have atheist scriptures to study and discuss, and you’re not going to have any atheological discussions on how nature reflects the lack of a god.