Raistlin's recent activity
-
Comment on Dusk: an unofficial cross-platform release of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess in ~games
-
Comment on Star Fox Direct shadow dropped right before premiere in ~games
Raistlin Link ParentI wonder if they'll unlock his shackles now after Ultimate. He seemed pretty done.I wonder if they'll unlock his shackles now after Ultimate. He seemed pretty done.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentNo, I agree, I think it's probably difficult for a religious person to detach the actual belief system from everything else in their life, as it's part of them. To that person, adding a different...No, I agree, I think it's probably difficult for a religious person to detach the actual belief system from everything else in their life, as it's part of them. To that person, adding a different explanation probably feels unnecessary.
I find the Catholic and Orthodox dispute about who's changed less so interesting because... they're both children of Nicaea and Chalcedon. Whatever Christianity was before the emperors got ahold of it, it was not either. They're both innovative.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentThat's a good point, I really shouldn't generalise. It's not like Christianity doesn't have orthopraxy. Hell, the filoque dispute is one of the main causes of the schism between East and West, and...That's a good point, I really shouldn't generalise. It's not like Christianity doesn't have orthopraxy. Hell, the filoque dispute is one of the main causes of the schism between East and West, and it revolves entirely around whether you're allowed to add "and from the Son" to the Creed.
Like I said elsewhere, I'm often sceptical of religious disputes being just religious. I often find they represent an ethnic or civil divide where each group, for whatever deep-seated reasons, interprets the same thing differently.
-
Comment on Star Fox Direct shadow dropped right before premiere in ~games
Raistlin Link Parentlmfao, trying again, again? I don't get why Star Fox is so difficult for them. Don't make it into an action adventure game or the WiiU pad or other gimmicks. Just make a different Star Fox game,...Yet another remake of Star Fox 64
lmfao, trying again, again? I don't get why Star Fox is so difficult for them. Don't make it into an action adventure game or the WiiU pad or other gimmicks. Just make a different Star Fox game, but the same genre.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentI guess a little like lobsters, right? Used to be be what the peasants would eat before the rich realised that they were good eating and made them inaccessible to the poor. I think orthopraxy was...I guess a little like lobsters, right? Used to be be what the peasants would eat before the rich realised that they were good eating and made them inaccessible to the poor.
I think orthopraxy was the norm, right? I mean, heresy and atheism were definitely concepts, but no one cared what you thought in the ancient world, just what you did. Ethnic religions are still like that. Shinto, Hinduism, and even Judaism all allow for things that would be considered heresy in Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism and other universal religions.
It feels really stupid when you see mini civil wars weaken the empire over whether Jesus had one nature both human and divine, or two natures of one human and one divine. You're never going to convince me that the mobs that were mobilised by some of the bishops had any idea what the fuck the difference was, because I sure don't.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentBut then sometimes the chickens didn't eat (then let drink instead!), and that was bad times, gods aren't happy right now. I don't actually know enough about sacrifice rules. My understanding is...But then sometimes the chickens didn't eat (then let drink instead!), and that was bad times, gods aren't happy right now.
I don't actually know enough about sacrifice rules. My understanding is that you would sacrifice these animals to the gods, but the actual meat was eaten by the community. So the sacrifice serves a religious purpose, like damn near anything ancient people did, but it also served a community purpose, and economic purpose, a legitimising for the elites purpose.
Funny that chickens are now a common meat for us, but a delicacy for them!
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentAs I understand it, you would throw feed at them, and depending on how they ate, you would look for portents. I don't think they ate them, but I'm not sure! The Romans had always been extremely...As I understand it, you would throw feed at them, and depending on how they ate, you would look for portents.
I don't think they ate them, but I'm not sure! The Romans had always been extremely religious, so I would be surprised if they did.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentIt's usually my go to when someone makes fun of the Mexicans for thinking their ancestors become birds, or the Romans for their sacred chickens, or the Muslims for the amount of times they have to...It's usually my go to when someone makes fun of the Mexicans for thinking their ancestors become birds, or the Romans for their sacred chickens, or the Muslims for the amount of times they have to bow. Man, we're all fucking weird, it's part and parcel of being human 🤣
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentPartially jumping off of your point, I think people have this idea that Judaism (and therefore Christianity) was somewhat special. An old religion worshipping a one true God in a sea of...Partially jumping off of your point, I think people have this idea that Judaism (and therefore Christianity) was somewhat special. An old religion worshipping a one true God in a sea of polytheism. But this just wasn't true.
Judaism came from Yahwism, which is well documented. Yahweh was the head of a polytheistic pantheon. Asherah was his consort. Baal was there too. It was a normal ethnic religion.
It did become monotheistic, but this was normal as well. The same process was happening with Ashur in Assyria and Marduk in Babylonia. The same process successfully finished in Iran with Ahurza Mazda, who is still worshipped today. A consolidation into the single national god of the ethnic group was a phenomenon occurring everywhere in the Near East.
Not much in the Old Testament would be out of place if we found it in Assyria or Babylon (if it had survived a bit longer). People go to war, their war god blesses or curses depending on the situation, the chosen people triumph. The names and locations would change, but this entire region's religious developments had been linked to each other ever since the days Sumer established literacy.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentYup, totally fair enough on safety. I grew up as a Catholic in Puerto Rico, and whole obviously my mom and society would've preferred I stay Catholic, I wasn't ever in any danger, either...Yup, totally fair enough on safety. I grew up as a Catholic in Puerto Rico, and whole obviously my mom and society would've preferred I stay Catholic, I wasn't ever in any danger, either physically or socially. My experience wouldn't be the same as someone in West Virginia, or God forbid Iran.
Yup, that's a really good point about a lot of these things just being local wisdom disguised as religion. In a pre internet era, you had to pass down wisdom somehow.
I also immediately need to say that as a man, a lot of the shitty religious stuff is patriarchal, so I'm coming from a privileged position there as well, good callout. My wife also had to put on headscarves so we could explore some mosques together, and while she didn't particularly mind, it's just one more thing that she has to do that I don't.
I've never heard of the blessing of the waters! I love little traditions like that.
I don't mind Communion as a sacrament! I did find it a strong spiritual experience when I was a Christian. But explaining to people not familiar with it is wild.
So the priest blesses the bread, which transfigures it into the flesh or our God. We then... eat the flesh, as a community. It sounds like something out of a Lovecraft story!
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentBut you would probably try convincing her by reminded her of the good she's done, not by saying her religion is fake. Would it feel better if I said, something being rational or irrational doesn't...But you would probably try convincing her by reminded her of the good she's done, not by saying her religion is fake.
Would it feel better if I said, something being rational or irrational doesn't make it good or evil inherently? I didn't really mean to formulate a philosophical statement, I was speaking a bit off the cuff.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentWhen I say truth, I should say truth at the expense of everything else. Extreme example; your grandma is dying of old age, says she thinks she'll go to Heaven. Do you spend the next few moments...When I say truth, I should say truth at the expense of everything else. Extreme example; your grandma is dying of old age, says she thinks she'll go to Heaven. Do you spend the next few moments persuading her that Heaven is patently a myth, or do you indulge her?
I just don't think being right (which I think I am, naturally) is the most important thing in the world right now.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentIt was ultimately a republic, in the eyes of the Romans. No one had an inherent right to rule. Anthony Kaldellis made the point that the Roman Empire is the polity that had the most amount of...It's true that generals who had success in the provinces often tried to become emperor, and they often succeeded. Kind of an odd dynamic.
It was ultimately a republic, in the eyes of the Romans. No one had an inherent right to rule. Anthony Kaldellis made the point that the Roman Empire is the polity that had the most amount of civil wars that changed absolutely nothing about the underlying systems.
By the mediaeval era, the wars were extremely short at decisive.. Someone would show up at the walls of Constantinople with an army and start making campaign promises. They would either be let in and kill the emperor, or not be let in and be killed. Like a weird election.
Also, many local rulers would call themselves “Roman” even long after the western empire collapsed. It was a popular label. Maybe compare with all the countries that put “democratic” in their name nowadays?
They would've been Roman. Roman identity survived the death of the state, as identities often do. Many rulers lass laws that specifically separate their own people (e.g the Franks) from their Roman subjects. It took centuries for the Roman identity in the West to disappear.
I do see the concept of Roman citizenship as a set of legal rights that eventually were extended to all free people in the empire as pretty important in history.
Citizenship helped, but the Edict of Caracalla was just a recognition of reality of the ground. Not every Roman citizen thought of themselves as Roman. But all parts of the empire were slowly romanising into a collective identity. That process gets interrupted in places like Syria when the Arabs invaded, but completed in Greece and Anatolia, where the Hellenic self-identity completely dies off.
But there were plenty of revolts and uprisings. I asked ChatGPT to make a list of the major ones. Looks like there were two slave uprisings in Sicily?
Plenty of slave revolts (Spartacus being the most common one), no ideology of slave abolitionism. People didn't want to be slaves, but had no issues with slavery as a systems,.as.far as we can tell. We have tombs of people lamenting their enslavement who then go on to brag about how many slaves they had when they became emancipated.
It seems like “large-scale” is doing a lot of work there. Revolts not becoming widespread might have more to do with a lack of cohesiveness between different peoples as well as poor communication over long distances. When the Jews revolted, why should anyone else join in?
You named one of the only two groups in the empire with a coherent self-identity that were not easily romanised, the other being the Armenians. So yes, the Jews revolted. But never the Punics in the Middle East and North Africa, or the Egyptians,.or the Greeks, or the Celts, or the Assyrians, or the Illyrian.
It's not doing a lot of work, it was.extremely standard for the time for empires of this scale to face large rebellions when a ruler changed. It has nothing to do with communication,.Egypt and Babylon often rebelled against the Persians together because they both had large populations with dreams of independence. Not once did the Romans have to put down a pretender pharaoh, like the Persians had to.
The lack of abolition movements probably has more to do with the concept not being invented yet? After all, slavery was often the result of conquest. Slaves were an important form of loot. What good would a law after being conquered by foreigners?
Mass freedom of slaves has been invented. Emperors had to pass laws to prevent to many slaves from being freed when the owners died. They were writing it in their wills and it was starting to affect the economy.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentPerhaps, but that cuts both ways. For example, ethnic religions tend to treat the land with far greater respect and care than anyone else. These people are tied to their land in a way even the...Perhaps, but that cuts both ways. For example, ethnic religions tend to treat the land with far greater respect and care than anyone else. These people are tied to their land in a way even the most liberal atheist probably isn't. I don't think this is unrelated to how fucking miserable and disconnected a lot of Westerners feel. It's not rational to believe that Artemis listens to you as you pray to her when you kill a deer. But know what? It's probably good for your brain to go through this internal forgiveness cycle. You and I are ultimately apes and these little rituals evolved to protect our brains for a reason. If you take those rituals away and leave nothing behind, I'm not altogether sure you end with a happy or healthy humanity.
As an example, one of the worst contributors to climate change is meat consumption. A lot of Hindus, Buddhists and especially Jains are vegetarian. A lot of Western vegetarians are crunchy spiritualists. Conversely, I don't personally know a lot of vegetarian atheists, in my circles anyway. So maybe if we're all irrational Jains, the planet (and us) wouldn't be dying.
Probably like you, I can't force myself. I can't force myself to believe in things that (to me) are very clearly irrational magic stories. But I also don't necessarily think that this attribute is objectively good. Over the years, I admire truth less and less, and good and bravery more and more. Whoever's volunteering the most at the soup kitchen is the person I think I have the most to learn from.
J6 was bad. But you know what? It's pretty indicative of the power of belief. Where are the leftists and liberals laying siege to the WH after all the death and pain Trump has caused to millions? Rationally sitting in their houses, waiting for the midterms. They clearly don't believe in stopping all these wars as much as the J6 insurrectionists believes that there was a crime ring at a pizzeria or whatever dumb ahit they were saying. Belief makes change possible.
There's plenty of irrational stuff we believe. Whatever country you're from probably has a national mythos that is mostly fake. You have an imagined relationship with people you don't in your country that is largely fake as well. Etc.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentSame. I think it's also a matter of safety and confidence, at least with me. When becoming an atheist in a Christian society, or becomes very important to establish some lines, and you don't...Same. I think it's also a matter of safety and confidence, at least with me. When becoming an atheist in a Christian society, or becomes very important to establish some lines, and you don't necessarily know which ones are reasonable and which ones are excessive. But then you travel, meet other people, interact with other religions, and get older. I can't speak for anyone else, but at least for me, I'm just less hostile to the concept of religion and I no longer consider it a threat, either physically or intellectually. I can kinda wonder at the fact that as a Catholic I used to cannobalistically feed on the flesh of my God and drank His blood, and that was normal! The same way I'd love to pray at a Shinto shrine or a local important river, or take off my shoes at a mosque. It's no longer particularly important to me that I don't think the spiritual elements to these things are human constructs, because ultimately what matters is humans (and other creatures!).
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentYes, terrible compared to us. Pretty good compared to the chaos of the collapse of the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Roman republic. Pretty good compared the Egyptian civil war, the Celtic raids...Yes, terrible compared to us. Pretty good compared to the chaos of the collapse of the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Roman republic. Pretty good compared the Egyptian civil war, the Celtic raids into Greece, the exploitative transactional nature of both Republican Rome and Carthaginian exploitation of Spain.
People can't possibly compare their life to what things would be like 2000 years from now. I am comparing their lifestyle to their contemporaries. And for a lot of them, it was pretty terrible even by those standards! But for another large part, it was pretty good.
I'll point that the Roman Empire never ever had large scale independence movements. In the Achaemenid Empire, when the king of kings died, Babylon and Egypt would try to seccede almost every time. The Ottomans spent a lifetime battling independence movements. The Chinese would break apart with alarming regularity. This never happened in the Roman state. The wars were about overthrowing the emperor, changing policies, faction warfare. But not a single coherent group ever tried to secede, and even when they empire broke apart before Aurelian restitched it together, they were all still Roman, and all call themselves the Roman Empire.
The empire also similarly never saw significant abolitionist movements, even from former slaves. Slaves were still abused and mistreated in all the ways slaves tend to be, but a freed slave could rise high in society, and their descendants could even become emperors. The extreme openness of Roman society (a quirk of history) allowed something that had never happened in this side of the world before; people started calling themselves Romans even having never visited the city of Rome.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentI think we have to agree to disagree there. I don't see a particular difference in Roman behaviour on the whole after Christianity. Offensive wars mostly stopped, yes, but that had already...I think we have to agree to disagree there. I don't see a particular difference in Roman behaviour on the whole after Christianity. Offensive wars mostly stopped, yes, but that had already happened. The empire had hit the absolute limits of its administrative apparatus, the empire was going to be more peaceful regardless. The empire built hospitals, but that's because a state has been formed and local elites had stopped contributing to their local communities. That had more to do with the centralisation of the state rather than anything particularly about Christianity.
Sunni Islam was very very very specific about the abomination of sale sex relations, yet there are more Ottoman poems about man's anuses than vaginas. Fuck, there's an entire argument about why sleeping with men is preferable. These were Sunni Muslims saying this. Americans have taken a religion about the poor and made it about money, and feel absolutely no discomfort about it. It doesn't matter. People will adapt whatever comes into their actual belief systems. Those belief systems are cultural. It's not a coincidence that this conspiracy problem is prevalent in the US and Australia, frontier countries that developed a strong independentist streak over the course of their cultural development.
Yes, religion has an influence, in the same way that any cultural belief has an influence. But religion, like any cultural belief, is still subject to the primacy of the culture of belongs to. That is why Romans saw a deeply monotheistic religion and plugged it in to their polytheistic religion, making sure they retained a Mother Goddess and a lower tier of gods. The Romans already believed there were more figures than a singular God, so they made that God into three. You can find similar things like Saint Brigid in Ireland or Santa Muerte in Mexico. Religions are based on consensus.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentFair point on hugs! I'm speaking broadly, but there are exceptions to every behaviour. I don't think religion is really the cause of these things. The reasons Americans don't believe in climate...Fair point on hugs! I'm speaking broadly, but there are exceptions to every behaviour.
I don't think religion is really the cause of these things. The reasons Americans don't believe in climate change isn't really Christianity or being anti-science, I don't think. It's because they don't want to believe it, don't want the guilt, don't want to stop eating meat, don't want to change their lifestyles. Their core belief is that climate change isn't real, and they'll finds belief systems that supplement that.
In terms of whether you believe in Jesus the forgiver, or Yahweh the brutal war god, I feel a people's gods are a reflection of a cultural moment and their environment. The desert is brutal, and Yahweh was the god of desert nomads. Yahweh (and the rest of the Yahwist pantheon) comes from that, as did Allah (who did exist for pagan Arabs before monotheism).
When a culture changes, religion changes as well. Romans adopted Christianity. Then what happened? They made it into a hierarchical ritualistic religion. They were told, hey, this god is the One God. The Romans said, say no more! We'll just have God the Father (clearly the same Indo European Deus Pater they were already workshipping), and his son Yeshua the demigod. Then elevate Maria to Mother Goddess status, make a bunch of statues out of her. What the heck, have entire tiers of angels to we can pray to. And obviously we need divinely raised demigo-- uh, sorry, I want saints. Yeah, saints I can pray to, no biggie, there's just One God, don't worry about it. Oh, we need to fight? Just invent the concept of Holy War, gogogo.
The culture comes first and the religion second, almost always. Cultures will fit anything into pre-existing frameworks to justify the things they already want to do. So I wouldn't say Christianity made the empire more forgiving. I would say the empire was already becoming a kinder place to live in, which made Christianity attractive.
-
Comment on "The reason I'm not an atheist is that I think the philosophical arguments against it are unanswerable" (gifted link) in ~humanities
Raistlin Link ParentFor many people, I would honestly say it was pretty good, particularly after the republic had fallen. The wars stopped, Roman law was pretty stable and strong, Romans mostly left you alone if you...For many people, I would honestly say it was pretty good, particularly after the republic had fallen. The wars stopped, Roman law was pretty stable and strong, Romans mostly left you alone if you paid your taxes. There's a reason tribe after tribe after tribe would negotiate, and even invade, not to overthrow the empire, but to settle in its lands and become its subjects.
That's not to say we in the modern era would enjoy it. I just don't see how any pagan tempted by Christianity would think the empire was decadent or corrupt. Compared to what polity?
The reason I call that out is because there's been a trope in Christian circles (for over a millennium) that the Roman religion felt fake to the pagans of the empire and was empty anf soulless, so therefore Christianity was destined to fill the void. There's like... no evidence of this. Paganism hung on stubbornly to many regions in the empire, particularly in the home province of Italy, and it took force to remove it, and centuries of concerted effort. Christianity won, but this wasn't teleological. There were structural advantages, but also proximate events that really could've gone either way, like Constantine's eventual victory, or Julian's death in battle.
This is incredible. You can already emulate it pretty well, but having all that QOL in Android means you can run it on your retro console and have it be pretty seamless.