Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday April 15 2019, @08:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the they-don't-build-them-like-they-used-to dept.

The deputy mayor of Paris, Emmanuel Gregoire, said the cathedral had suffered "colossal damages", and the emergency services were trying to salvage the art and other priceless pieces stored in the cathedral. A cathedral spokesman said the entire wooden interior was burning and likely to be destroyed.

Sounds like the whole thing may go up in flames. There's a reason for modern building codes. A structure made entirely out of wood, is a huge bonfire, waiting to happen. Thankfully, at this time, there are no reported deaths.

[Update: 2019-04-16 @ 0222: The Cathedral is not "made entirely out of wood" as was suggested above. There is a great deal of stone work in its construction which can be readily seen on its Wikipedia page. I was at work when I heard news of the fire, immediately took a break, loaded the story queue on my phone, saw a story submission on the fire, and pushed it out to the community. In my haste to get the story out, I failed to notice the erroneous claim about wood construction. I apologize for the error. --martyb]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/notre-dame-cathedral-fire-today-2019-04-15/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotTheDr01ds on Monday April 15 2019, @08:50PM (19 children)

    by NotTheDr01ds (6396) on Monday April 15 2019, @08:50PM (#830043)

    Such banal comments here so far; it's kind of appalling. This is a national, cultural, and religious travesty, and my heart goes out to those affected in Paris and around the world.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @10:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @10:48PM (#830143)

    Such banal comments here so far; it's kind of appalling.

    Welcome to SoylentNews!

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by fyngyrz on Tuesday April 16 2019, @12:03AM (16 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @12:03AM (#830179) Journal

    This is a national, cultural, and religious travesty

    •  National: ✓
    •  Cultural: ✓
    •  Religious  Superstitious*: ✓

    * [Correction courtesy of the redundant department of redundancy]

    --
    Most adults read '#' as "pound."
    Carefully chosen movement name: #metoo

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @12:09AM (2 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @12:09AM (#830181)

      Religious is a more specific form of superstitious. Your lossy compression took more space and reduced the information

      Artistic could have been added to the list, though the inside doesn't look too badly damaged yet.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by fyngyrz on Tuesday April 16 2019, @03:58PM (1 child)

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @03:58PM (#830447) Journal

        Religious is a more specific form of superstitious.

        In the context of this discussion, there is absolutely no extra information worth giving credit for, other than vague politically correct overtones gifted to practitioners, by using the term "religion." I understand that may be some people's intent. It is certainly not mine. Superstition, OTOH, is a considerably more accurate term when theistic religion is the subject at hand as it is here, so there is considerable reason to use it instead. If one is being honest, anyway — which I am.

        Your lossy compression

        (a) It wasn't at all lossy, in fact quite the opposite as "superstition" incorporates the notion that the ideas at hand are nonsense, something "religion" does not do; and in addition, "religion" is both vague and unsettled as to its overall meaning [wikipedia.org], but, (b) if it's a lossy, yet still comprehensively accurate compression that makes you happy, then here you go: bunk*.

        Artistic could have been added to the list

        Absolutely. It's always sad to see beautiful architecture lost or severely damaged.

        * See Noun(2) [merriam-webster.com]

        --
        "Faith": The possessive form of "Superstition."

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @05:01PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @05:01PM (#830479)

          > "superstition" incorporates the notion that the ideas at hand are nonsense, something "religion" does not do

          That's your point of view. :)

          I will give lip service to the idea that major religions do have a stabilizing effect on the insane bastards that humans and their civilization can be, at least until they look across the river, at another set of dumb humans, who have grouped their stabilizing superstitions and tribal customs under a different name with different leaders.

          "Bunk" is pretty good, yet not as precise as properly viewing "religion" via an objective and rational lens.
          Cult, the shorthand for "religion that didn't go mainstream", is the best compression I can come up with, and is essentially lossless.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday April 16 2019, @03:26PM (12 children)

      by Bot (3902) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @03:26PM (#830435) Journal

      The other religions at least attempt some rationalizations, while yours presents patently illogical proofs, being each one of them dependent on some assumption. In fact recently you seem to rely on slogans. While a logical agnostic doesn't need to debate anything. Curious bunch of trolls.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:51PM (11 children)

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:51PM (#830470) Journal

        The other religions at least attempt some rationalizations, while yours presents patently illogical proofs, being each one of them dependent on some assumption.

        Aside from the tortured and deceptive way you misuse the word "religion" there, a critical difference between these two highly distinct modes of thought is that my confidence levels are fluid based upon consensually experiential, repeatable demonstrations of objective evidence. The beliefs of theists typically are neither particularly fluid or comparably based upon such evidence.

        One massive load of evidence on the table that drives my position here is that the ideas I have various significant degrees of confidence in have brought the benefits of technology to us. Theistic religion does has not done this. For instance, praying produces no better food yields, no microprocessors, no wireless communication, no medical advances. Consequently, I have extremely low confidence that praying is a worthwhile endeavor.

        OTOH, I have high confidence that objective reality is far better described, and describable, using the tenets and proceeds of science, as compared to the entirely evidence-free stories that theistic religions are crafted from.

        To rationalize without evidence is simply a thought experiment, and a ridiculous one if you then establish belief based only on that. To rationalize with evidence is to actually attempt to unravel and credibly detail the workings of objective reality. Attempting to equate the two approaches, as you have done, isn't accurate in any useful sense.

        In fact recently you seem to rely on slogans.

        I never rely on them. I simply use them from time to time when they are pithily accurate, or I consider them to be funny. If anyone has any questions about such a thing, all that need be done is to ask me, and I will further explain.

        While a logical agnostic doesn't need to debate anything.

        "Agnostic" is not a relevant term here. It means "without knowledge."

        The relevant terms are theism and atheism. The former means "belief in a god or gods", the latter means "without belief in a god or gods." You're either theist or atheist. You either hold such belief(s), or you do not. Agnosticism is not a third category distinct from those two. There is no such third category.

        --
        Science. It's like magic, except real.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @05:29PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @05:29PM (#830489)

          > Consequently, I have extremely low confidence that praying is a worthwhile endeavor.
          > (...)
          > To rationalize without evidence (...)

          The constant failure of excessively rational people like us, is to underestimate the power, in the highly irrational minds of our fellow humans, of the word hope.
          A prayer is hope. Whether the situation is indeed lost without a miraculous event -everyone does die-, or it could be helped by getting off your ass to do the thing you pray for, or it is just a comfort before doing so, it's mostly about hope (or to thank something for something that happened, which would be in the hope such outcomes keep happening).

          > praying produces no better food yields, no microprocessors, no wireless communication, no medical advances.

          War tends to do that better.
          But war produces ugly functional thngs, while religions produce many of the most ornate expressions of art and beauty, which occasionally remind us we're not only a plundering viral species.

        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday April 16 2019, @11:07PM (2 children)

          by Bot (3902) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @11:07PM (#830693) Journal

          Here we go again.
          > a critical difference between these two highly distinct modes of thought

          They are distinct because they deal with independent subjects.

          Science models the universe, to predict its useful behaviors. Doesn't explain, doesn't find laws (but only locally working models). The universe does not "obey laws".
          Religion is about the hypothetical meta-universe, where time space are not defined, therefore our logic systems are not necessarily definable nor valid. This taints any atheist pseudo-theorem.

          You maybe read the translations of sacred texts, fruits of oral tradition, as if they were an instruction manual, and moreover discard the interpretations coming from the custodians of these texts? And that drives you to find inconsistencies? It's a methodology error.

          Praying doesn't yield microprocessors? so what? You speak as if prayer were necessarily dependent on the existence of a divine dimension. Nope, there can be a godless universe where prayer works. It's all in the implementation details of the brain other matters. Your fluidity might be an instance of dunning kruger effect. But hey if it works for you.

          > The former means "belief in a god or gods", the latter means "without belief in a god or gods.".
          The post I originally replied to is in contradiction of this definition, no matter if you were trolling or not.
          Because the definition implies any atheist position should be exposed in first person. "I don't believe it". Starting justifying the position is already a religion, that is a system of assertions in the domain of the supernatural, not provable any more that an abstraction created by us can lift itself off into our world prove anything about us. Where is the creator in a game of chess? In a simulation? where is it? What if the creator wanted to show itself in a simulation? the entities in the simulation can only see its representation. They cannot be in our world not even if you put them in a robot and fed them environmental data. They still are seeing stuff in the way the sim represents their world.

          Distinguishing agnostic and atheist is not only feasible, which logically proves you as lumping together two opposites, a religion and the absence of belief. It is also a good idea. Agnostics do not live by the motto "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

          Finally, don't think I care about your absence of religion. It's your prerogative. The absence of logic is the appalling thing.

          --
          Account abandoned.
          • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:14PM (1 child)

            by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:14PM (#831114) Journal

            I am fascinated by your goalpost moving efforts, particularly with your copious use of straw to attempt to support those goalposts. However, inasmuch as you have completely failed to make any relevant, coherent argument, I'll pass on attempting to make sense of your confusion.

            Other portions of the thread are seriously discussing these matters, as opposed to what you are doing. Read, and learn. Or not. Either way is fine with me.

            --
            On censorship and repression:
            Sweeping the trash under the bed just means
            you don't know what's festering under there.

            • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:05PM

              by Bot (3902) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:05PM (#831236) Journal

              - my team will crush you!
              - unlikely: you see, we don't have any ball to play with
              - stop confusing things!

              whatever

              --
              Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:19AM (6 children)

          by vux984 (5045) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:19AM (#830764)

          "The relevant terms are theism and atheism. The former means "belief in a god or gods", the latter means "without belief in a god or gods."

          "Agnosticism is not a third category distinct from those two. There is no such third category."

          There absolutely is a 3rd category. Suppose I told you I believed, without evidence, that an unmarked can in my pantry contained chicken soup. Thus I am a chicken-soupist. If you told me, entirely reasonably, that you did not share that beleif, and that you were therefore without this beleif, you might call yourself an a-chicken-soupist.

          But don't you agree that this falls short of you being someone who beleives it does NOT contain chicken soup. Isn't there a 3rd category here; I'll call them capital-A A-chicken-soupists; the set of people who think the can contains something else, or anything else, or nothing at all, whatever they do think -- they definitely think it does NOT contain any chicken soup.

          What you term "atheist" is largely taken to mean this 3rd category, capital-A atheists -- they don't merely lack beleif, they actively disbeleive. And the so-called agnostic is a term generally understood for those who are 'small a' atheists; in the sense that they are "without belief" in god but they also lack the conviction of 'capital-A' atheists that "there is no god".

          • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:05PM (5 children)

            by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:05PM (#831106) Journal

            But don't you agree that this falls short of you being someone who beleives it does NOT contain chicken soup.

            No. Your example is based upon a misunderstanding of what the terms mean.

            Theism is a very specific term dealing only with god(s): It specifically means "belief in a god or gods."

            Atheism is a very specific term dealing only with god(s) as well: it specifically means "without belief in a god or gods."

            Restated, both of these terms deal with belief in a god or gods — and nothing else.

            Let's say you assert you have knowledge of a teapot. Here's how that falls out:

            • Claim to teapot, without belief in god or gods: atheist.
            • Claim to teapot, belief in god or gods: theist.
            • No claim to teapot, without belief in god or gods: atheist.
            • No claim to teapot, belief in god or gods: theist.

            If someone says to be, "I am agnostic", indicating they are without knowledge (as are we all, of course, in supernatural matters) I can simply ask "do you hold any belief in a god or gods?" If the respondent is honest, I will get one of these...

            • Yes (theist)
            • No (atheist)

            ...because either you hold such belief, or you do not. There's no state of believing and not believing, because the states are mutually exclusive. A claim to knowledge — no matter what kind — does change that at all.

            Your soup example is precisely the same. If soupist means one holds belief in containing soup, and asoupist means without said belief in containing soup, then if you think you know that the can contains, for instance, Schrödinger's cat rather than soup, then you are clearly without belief that the can contains soup, and so are an asoupist. If you think the can contains chicken soup, you are a soupist. If you think the can contains the cat and also the soup, you are a soupist. If you think the can is empty, then you are an asoupist. If you have no knowledge of soup, you are an asoupist.

            Agnosticism, in and of itself, can only add depth to a person in addition to the state of theism or atheism. You can say "I believe in a god or gods, but I do not have knowledge of this" (that would be an agnostic theist); you can say "I believe in a god or gods, and I know this to be true" (that would be a gnostic theist, if true); you can say "I do not believe in a god or gods, but I do not have knowledge of this" (that would be an agnostic atheist); or you can say "I do not believe in a god or gods, and I know this to be true" (that would be a gnostic atheist, if true.)

            There is one more case, the case of ignorance: if you are completely unaware of the concept of theism (you are a baby, an isolated individual, or a goat, for example) then you are atheist: without belief in a god or gods. Similarly, you are without belief that any can contains soup if you are utterly ignorant of soups.

            Further, since no one can truly know the facts of a supernatural claim for which there is absolutely no evidence, everyone is agnostic in this regard. This is so because a claim to knowledge without evidence is inherently specious.

            Part of the confusion arises from theists trying to re-define the word atheist as "disbelief in a god or gods", or people who have been confused by being exposed to that mis-definition. Of course that is not what it means at all, and so this entire line of thought is invalid. Atheism is simply the state of being without belief in a god or gods; hence it does not require consideration or assertion at all. Theism, in contrast, requires a positive assertion: one cannot believe in a thing without having considered it, and without having a concept of what it is one believes.

            Either one believes in a god or gods, or one does not. It's just that simple WRT these two mutually exclusive categories.

            Which is not to say that a world of complexity does not exist in addition to those two states; certainly that is so.

            --
            Have an urge to follow the masses? Careful:
            Sometimes, the "m" is silent.

            • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:42PM

              by Bot (3902) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:42PM (#831298) Journal

              > from theists trying to re-define the word atheist as "disbelief in a god or gods"

              Look at this, it's in Enlightenment's sacred texts, the ENCYCLOPEDIA, updated of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism [wikipedia.org]

              In brief, atheist comes from a-theos means without god, definitely not without belief in god or without "theism". This makes it a position independent from the god hypothesis itself. Atheist is who lives as if there were no god. The use becomes popular in France used by religious nuts to disparage (or maybe describe) thinkers against religion, by implying their immorality.
              So:
              1. the redefinition occurred already
              2. in the opposite direction
              3. the return to the original definition would represent reality, e.g. atheists writing books, better than lumping together absence of faith with faith in the absence. But, none of my business really.

              > Atheism is simply the state of being without belief in a god or gods; hence it does not require consideration or assertion at all.
              like Religious Superstitious*: ✓
              Good, I wrote the same "While a logical agnostic doesn't need to debate anything".

              BTW The state of being without belief while at the same time actively propagandizing this lack of belief, implies either a faith in one's own position (o look found your religion, again) or irresponsibility.

              --
              Account abandoned.
            • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:30AM (1 child)

              by vux984 (5045) on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:30AM (#831453)

              Your entire post was a restatement of what we already know. I understand you completely on what _you_ mean by theist and atheist.

              Your 'atheist' is my 'small-a atheist'.

              However, as I tried to argue, the common usage of atheist today is a stronger claim -- when most people say "I am an atheist", they mean to say that "I have conviction that there is no god". That is what i mean by 'capital-A atheist'. Under this definition, a baby without knowledge of god is not an 'atheist by default', because while they lack specific beleif in god, they also lack any specific conviction that there is no god. Likewise, a person who claims to be agnostic would reject the label atheist because he also lacks conviction that there is no god.

              Now you can argue that my 'capital A atheist' is something else and is not what 'atheist' means, but to a lot of people ESPECIALLY christians, if you tell them you are atheist, they usually take it to mean this stronger position -- that you have conviction there is no god.

              Part of the confusion arises from theists trying to re-define the word atheist as "disbelief in a god or gods", or people who have been confused by being exposed to that mis-definition. Of course that is not what it means at all, and so this entire line of thought is invalid.

              That is a source of confusion, however, you are wrong when you say this is not what it means and therefor invalid. This is how LOTS of people are using the word now; therefore that is what the word now means. You can't just stick your head in the sand and say they are using the word wrong. THAT is the invalid. The english language is prescriptive. The theists were successful at making that so called mis-definition a perfectly valid definition now. Just as hacker now means 'cracker'.

              Either one believes in a god or gods, or one does not. It's just that simple WRT these two mutually exclusive categories.

              Agreed. But theist and atheist are no longer the best words to use to describe those two categories, because atheist has picked up additional meaning(s). I'd suggest simply 'theist' and 'not theist' as the clearest designations.

              Further, since no one can truly know the facts of a supernatural claim for which there is absolutely no evidence, everyone is agnostic in this regard. This is so because a claim to knowledge without evidence is inherently specious.

              A person of faith generally finds lots of evidence that convinces them they are right. That you find their evidence uncompelling doesn't change anything for them. And they are not agnostic, for they know they are right. Can you have knowledge that is wrong? Is that knowledge at all? What about something you know that is true, but can't prove it, is that knowledge? These are open questions among philosophers.

              • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday April 18 2019, @03:35AM

                by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday April 18 2019, @03:35AM (#831490) Journal

                Small-a atheist is this:

                I am an atheist.

                Large-a atheist is this:

                Atheist? Why yes, I am.

                Otherwise, no. 😊

                Not kidding, though. There's only one flavor of atheist: a person without a belief in a god or gods.

                You can layer anything of top of that you like, but it still won't change the theist/atheist state. Expand upon it? Certainly. Make (either side) ridiculous? Sure. Make (either side) a well thought out position? You bet. Incorporate doubt? Yup. But in the end, either you hold a belief in a god or gods, or you do not, and that's the be-all and end-all of those two words as they apply at the root level.

                --
                If you think Tide pods are good, just wait
                until you try the cotton candy in the attic!

            • (Score: 2) by martyb on Thursday April 18 2019, @03:09AM (1 child)

              by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @03:09AM (#831479) Journal

              Never mind the labels, here are three 'categories':

              1. There IS a God.
              2. There IS NOT a God.
              3. There MIGHT be a God.
                There MIGHT NOT be a God.
                We CANNOT KNOW which it is.

              Can we agree that these represent three -- distinct -- categories?

              To refer to these categories, I would suggest:

              1. Theist
              2. Atheist
              3. Agnostic

              "I do not believe that there is a God." !== "I believe there is NO God."

              Poor analogy: think Heisenberg's Cat. It's both dead and not-dead. We cannot know which it is from external evidence.

              Just to make things a slight bit more interesting, there is one other possibility that comes to mind. Whether or not there actually is a God, there is the possibility that a *belief* that there is a supportive and caring God could be beneficial. Rather than giving up in a particularly trying ordeal, belief that there is a purpose (or source of strength or... whatever) may allow one to persevere when all other motivations have proved inadequate to the task at hand.

              --
              Wit is intellect, dancing.
              • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday April 18 2019, @03:29AM

                by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday April 18 2019, @03:29AM (#831489) Journal

                To refer to these categories, I would suggest:

                You were doing okay right up till then. That's not what those words actually mean. Sorry.

                Also, there would be far more than three categories if you're going to sort things at that level.

                --
                Research shows that 6 out of 7 dwarves aren't happy.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:46AM

    by vux984 (5045) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:46AM (#830279)

    I was there last year; it was a truly extraordinary and priceless piece art and architecture, steeped in history. This is a tragic loss to humanity. Fortunately it sounds like much of it may be saved after all, and I hope they restore it. It would be a travesty not to.