Canada bans assault-style weapons after its worst ever mass murder

[midnightpulp]

Evangelicals are not even christians.

They're strange people indeed.

[Spurtacular]

Evangelicals are not even christians.

Tell us more about this.

(He won't because he's in a safe space)

[Blake]

Catholic thought feels God used evolution as his creative method. I still feel they use it to advanced their politics rather than religion. Start here at 6:35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

"The care more about their political ideology than their religion."

I think that's defined Evangelicals for the past 20 or more years. I remember in the Jesus Camp do entary, they brought out a George W. Bush standee and had the kids pray for him. False idols much? And holy (no pun), do they love Trump.

Yeah it's that Evangelical Protestant base that really pushes creationism, prayer in school and the like in public school.

[Blake]

I mean, just

I grew up in a Catholic family and went to Catholic school all my life (evolution was taught) and I ain't never seen like this. We were taught to love everyone and help the poor and all that good stuff. No fire and brimstone and certainly no praying to cardboard figures of presidents.

I went to Protestant Christian school in grade school. We were taught pure creationism and that Catholicism was a cult.

[midnightpulp]

I went to Protestant Christian school in grade school. We were taught pure creationism and that Catholicism was a cult.

Crazy.

[Blake]

Crazy.

, this was just three years ago:

https://www.newsweek.com/did-satan-c...inks-so-690176

[Blake]

, this was just three years ago:

https://www.newsweek.com/did-satan-c...inks-so-690176

[Spurtacular]

, this was just three years ago:

https://www.newsweek.com/did-satan-c...inks-so-690176

Did Jesus make you a cuckold, blake?

[ElNono]

My point with bringing up Nietzsche and Darwin is that pretty much anything, from continental philosophy to amoral scientific fact, can be skewed and twisted by those "evil minds" you mentioned to justify all manner of atrocities. Organized religion isn't unique in motivating evil people to justify doing evil things.

Sure, but at that point it isn't a problem per-se of any particular philosophy, it's really a mental health problem.

We really can't do this with regard to belief. Science can't make value judgements and is only useful at discovering empirical fact. Since the existence of God is an unfalsifiable theory, science is rather irrelevant in this case. Pragmatically, the value of believing in God or practicing religion is subjective. Science can't tell that person they're wrong or right in terms of value.

Faith is mind candy. What science does is takes you away from the god of the gaps fallacy. It's perfectly fine and logical to have a position where we don't have an answer to a question at a given time. It's irrational to automatically assign the answer to some invisible deity that allegedly knows it all, but cannot be proven to even exist. That's plain ol' crazy talk.
And we should definitely have a similar standard when doing decision-making that affects more than oneself. Clearly religion wouldn't want to, as religion itself cannot possibly exist in those terms, but frankly, as we've advanced into a more rational society, their influence has dwindled, and that's a good path to continue walking.

Since we live in an uncertain universe and there's questions and events that science fact nor empiricism will probably never answer nor make sense of, humans will always have a religious impulse. The "why" questions are beyond science. And that religious impulse doesn't always manifest itself in believing in "sky daddies." I think the next big "religion" over the following decades will be the Transhumanism/Singularity/AI movement, which is just as fanciful to me as believing in Zeus. Mind uploading into a "digital afterlife" to live forever. An omnipotent AI (that is basically God) magically emerging from Moore's Law exponential growth that will solve all our problems. Belief that we're the "ancestors" of some future post-human species that are simulating us for whatever reason. And these ideas are rather mainstream in the technolibertarian set in Silicon Valley. They pay Ray Kurzweil 25K per appearance to "sermonize" about it.

But I understand the want. Mortality sucks, so if having faith that you'll eventually be uploaded into Heaven gives you comfort, carry on. Personally, I wish I could believe some of this stuff, whether it's the sky daddy version or the Skynet version.

I don't particularly care much about futurology. I'm more concerned of making sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past, at least in the remaining time I have here. Goes without saying I'm not a spiritual person.

Religion is really based on psychology and emotion. This is why it correlates to an extent with politics, or even team sports. We just know so little about the mind, still. But I suspect that's not something that will stay that way forever, and we're already making slow advances in understand it. It's really a matter of time.

[DMC]

Did Jesus make you a cuckold, blake?

Adam was cuckold, Eve had a snake with an apple on the end of it and even Joseph got cucked. The Bible is a long tale of cuckoldry.

[DMC]

But that's the point we're discussing. You can't just own dynamite, generally speaking. What you're pointing out is that assault weapon regulation in general is much more lax, and that's what we're saying that needs to be addressed. Whether people are going to try and cir vent any laws is besides the point, that happens on almost every realm (taxes comes to mind).

This is why I say the gun control push will invariably result (if successful) in banning guns, because cute language that tries to describe the gun, to define it, those can easily be defeated by gun manufacturers and have been for decades.

The most effective gun legislation, imo, is the FOPA. This banned fully automatic weapon manufacturing for sale to civilians, but even then the pre-existing guns had to be registered by X date or they would be worthless (other than a prison sentence). So now if you want to own a subgun, you will be paying a lot of money and you'll have to register it, and that particular registered part gets tracked up and down. Since then, things like magazine capacity bans, all these tip toe laws that address cosmetic features, they only make much of the gun ignorant public feel like they are trying to control guns but they really aren't, There's no way these legal experts don't already know what's going to happen.

[apalisoc_9]

They're strange people indeed.

my buddy told me he met a lady and told her he thinks jesus is brown and she got so mad

Evangelicas so hilarious

[midnightpulp]

Faith is mind candy. What science does is takes you away from the god of the gaps fallacy. It's perfectly fine and logical to have a position where we don't have an answer to a question at a given time. It's irrational to automatically assign the answer to some invisible deity that allegedly knows it all, but cannot be proven to even exist. That's plain ol' crazy talk.

This is what I was talking about. You're making a subjective value judgement that only works for you personally. Appealing to science here is irrelevant because attempting to define value is outside its wheelhouse. Furthermore, rationality can be arbitrary when you're dealing with propositions and events that have unknown conclusions. If someone insisted that 2+2=5, they're acting obviously acting irrationality and it is indeed "plain ol' crazy." But in religion's case, if gives a person the answers they need to the big existential questions and provides them a framework for making sense of things like tragedy and meaning and gives them a set of guiding moral principles, I consider that a "rational response" since science can only satisfy so much epistemically.

And we should definitely have a similar standard when doing decision-making that affects more than oneself. Clearly religion wouldn't want to, as religion itself cannot possibly exist in those terms, but frankly, as we've advanced into a more rational society, their influence has dwindled, and that's a good path to continue walking.

And what's this "standard?" Again, moral decision making isn't in science's wheelhouse. Any standard you propose would likely be arbitrary. In terms of guiding decision-making that affects more than oneself, I would take the Christian framework 100 percent of the time over a hyperrational "moral" philosophy like utilitarianism that leads to this kind of thinking:

https://abc30.com/ken-turnage-ii-ant...icial/6147457/

I don't particularly care much about futurology. I'm more concerned of making sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past, at least in the remaining time I have here. Goes without saying I'm not a spiritual person.

Religion is really based on psychology and emotion. This is why it correlates to an extent with politics, or even team sports. We just know so little about the mind, still. But I suspect that's not something that will stay that way forever, and we're already making slow advances in understand it. It's really a matter of time.

What I described wasn't futurology, but a religious movement that operates 100 percent on faith just like any other. I used the Transhumanism/Singularity movement to illustrate that the religious impulse to believe in something that promises immortality, utopia, heaven, etc is still very alive and well in our so-called "rational society." We're now just replacing "sky daddies" with something else, but it's still driven by that same impulse to believe in something certain in an uncertain universe. I specifically referenced that movement because many of its adherents could be described as "scientists," and we see they're not above the "mind candy" of faith. And make no mistake, just because this movement is couched in "scientific and technological" terms, it's anything but empirical. For mind uploading to work, for instance, it would necessitate the dualism of mind and body. No different than claiming the body has an immaterial soul. And the "simulation theory" is basically creationism/intelligent design that subs utes God for omnipotent computer programmers.

This is an actual NASA scientist.

https://kotaku.com/one-nasa-scientis...ed-ins-5942400

This illustrates my point that scientific and "rational" thinking doesn't lead you away from religious/faith based thinking. And I don't speak critically here. Like I said, if it provides that person with comfort in the face of that aforementioned uncertainty, carry on. I understand the worry is that this thinking might spill over to influencing policy, so that's something we'll always to be guarded against. That's why the separation of church and state stipulation was so brilliant. So we have a safeguard there. But there's no safeguard against faith based claims being sold to us as "science." The US government has spent billions on investigating dubious science that were argued from a faith-based position, like nanotech (another bull science).

[baseline bum]

Adam was cuckold, Eve had a snake with an apple on the end of it and even Joseph got cucked. The Bible is a long tale of cuckoldry.

Poor Joseph, of a wife that he's never boned tells him she's knocked up because god did it. Jesus was probably raised by a gay.

[DMC]

Poor Joseph, of a wife that he's never boned tells him she's knocked up because god did it. Jesus was probably raised by a gay.

Joseph probably was the catalyst for Amway. You can sell some people on anything. 1st friend zoner - Joseph.

[ElNono]

This is why I say the gun control push will invariably result (if successful) in banning guns, because cute language that tries to describe the gun, to define it, those can easily be defeated by gun manufacturers and have been for decades.

The most effective gun legislation, imo, is the FOPA. This banned fully automatic weapon manufacturing for sale to civilians, but even then the pre-existing guns had to be registered by X date or they would be worthless (other than a prison sentence). So now if you want to own a subgun, you will be paying a lot of money and you'll have to register it, and that particular registered part gets tracked up and down. Since then, things like magazine capacity bans, all these tip toe laws that address cosmetic features, they only make much of the gun ignorant public feel like they are trying to control guns but they really aren't, There's no way these legal experts don't already know what's going to happen.

We already ban some guns, that's the status quo. The gun control push will likely ban some more. We know from er that we can't ban all guns. We also know a federal assault weapon ban is legal (we had one already and let it sunset).

I agree about FOPA, but we know now that it's missing teeth in a few areas, like mental health and universal background checks.

[Blake]

This is what I was talking about. You're making a subjective value judgement that only works for you personally. Appealing to science here is irrelevant because attempting to define value is outside its wheelhouse. Furthermore, rationality can be arbitrary when you're dealing with propositions and events that have unknown conclusions. If someone insisted that 2+2=5, they're acting obviously acting irrationality and it is indeed "plain ol' crazy." But in religion's case, if gives a person the answers they need to the big existential questions and provides them a framework for making sense of things like tragedy and meaning and gives them a set of guiding moral principles, I consider that a "rational response" since science can only satisfy so much epistemically.

Yeah dude, that's the god of the gaps fallacy. It's not really rational to say "well science can't explain it, it must be god".

Or spaghetti monster.

[Blake]

We already ban some guns, that's the status quo. The gun control push will likely ban some more. We know from er that we can't ban all guns. We also know a federal assault weapon ban is legal (we had one already and let it sunset).

I agree about FOPA, but we know now that it's missing teeth in a few areas, like mental health and universal background checks.

BUT WHERE DOES IT STOP!
SOON THEY'LL WANT TO TAKE VANS!

[Spurtacular]

BUT WHERE DOES IT STOP!
SOON THEY'LL WANT TO TAKE VANS!

Exactly how do you feel protected taking away law-abiding citizens guns away?

[Spurtacular]

[monosylab1k]

Exactly how do you feel protected taking away law-abiding citizens guns away?

womp womp cry some more cuck

[Spurtacular]

Exactly how do you feel protected taking away law-abiding citizens guns away?

[monosylab1k]

Exactly how do you feel protected taking away law-abiding citizens guns away?

womp womp cry some more cuck

[midnightpulp]

Yeah dude, that's the god of the gaps fallacy. It's not really rational to say "well science can't explain it, it must be god".

Or spaghetti monster.

No it isn't. The God of the gaps fallacy is, as you said, "Well if science can't explain it, it must be God." I'm talking about things that are outside the empirical realm, like value, meaning, and morality. I was pretty clear in saying that religion's use in this case is to provide a moral and philosophical framework for someone. I'm not talking about empirical matters, like cosmology, e.g. "Well science can't explain how something can come from nothing ex nihilo, so it must be God that did it." As I said, science can only satisfy so much epistemically, as facts and knowledge lead to "beliefs." https://jocellepgabriel.files.wordpr...istemology.jpg

Beliefs deal with the subjective, obviously. Beliefs about value, meaning, morality, and the like. This is the realm of philosophy and religion, not science. My feeling here is that religion is as pragmatic as any other philosophical framework in crafting a world view. As I said, I'd rather someone act on Christian principles than on utilitarian principles, because I consider utilitarianism one of the most troubling moral philosophies if taken to its logical endgame. And it has been by many 20th century dictators and leaders to murderous consequences.

[Blake]

No it isn't. The God of the gaps fallacy is, as you said, "Well if science can't explain it, it must be God." I'm talking about things that are outside the empirical realm, like value, meaning, and morality. I was pretty clear in saying that religion's use in this case is to provide a moral and philosophical framework for someone. I'm not talking about empirical matters, like cosmology, e.g. "Well science can't explain how something can come from nothing ex nihilo, so it must be God that did it." As I said, science can only satisfy so much epistemically, as facts and knowledge lead to "beliefs." https://jocellepgabriel.files.wordpr...istemology.jpg

Beliefs deal with the subjective, obviously. Beliefs about value, meaning, morality, and the like. This is the realm of philosophy and religion, not science. My feeling here is that religion is as pragmatic as any other philosophical framework in crafting a world view. As I said, I'd rather someone act on Christian principles than on utilitarian principles, because I consider utilitarianism one of the most troubling moral philosophies if taken to its logical endgame. And it has been by many 20th century dictators and leaders to murderous consequences.

Ah, gotcha.

I think we should be advanced enough though to ditch both unilateralism and especially religion but I get what you're saying.