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/
Related Stories
From the insides of Business Insider
As a huge fire took hold of Paris' Notre-Dame Cathedral on Monday evening, alt-right figures were in no time spreading rumours and disinformation on social media linking the blaze to Muslims and hinting at a sinister cover up.
French officials on Monday night were quick to say that arson was unlikely to be the cause of the blaze as it engulfed the roof of the 12th century cathedral, but far-right activists and propagandists were already all over social media channels pushing conspiracies.
Conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec compared the blaze to 9/11, despite no link having made to terrorism by French officials, while alt-right activist Faith Goldy falsely claimed that three days previously "a Muslim jihadis [sic] in Paris was arrested for planning a terrorist attack at Notre-Dame Cathedral.
Funny, there was this little AC scurrying about here on SN yesterday, saying things like this.
- https://soylentnews.org/breakingnews/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=31108&page=1&cid=830165#commentwrap
- https://soylentnews.org/breakingnews/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=31108&page=1&cid=830026#commentwrap
...but well countered here, also by an AC:
See Also:
Police have begun questioning workers who were carrying out renovations at the cathedral. The Paris prosecutor's office has opened an inquiry into "involuntary destruction by fire", indicating they believe the cause of the blaze was accidental rather than criminal.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/notre-dame-fire-cause-everything-know-cathedral-paris/
The Paris prosecutor's office said it was treating the fire as an accident, ruling out arson and possible terror-related motives, at least for now.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:17PM (30 children)
I heard the government said they burned it down on accident while they tried to renovate the building. Others say there have been a series of "church attacks" in France recently so this is quite the coincidence.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:25PM (20 children)
Church attacks: https://www.newsweek.com/spate-attacks-catholic-churches-france-sees-altars-desecrated-christ-statue-1370800 [newsweek.com]
Officials "don't know why" religious extremists are trying to damage Catholic churches. Apparently it's a strange alliance of immigrants, islamists, feminists, and atheists.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Alfred on Monday April 15 2019, @08:30PM (12 children)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:33PM (2 children)
I'll never go to mass in my life, in fact I despise the catholic church. But I still hate when historical monuments, artwork, and documents are lost.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Alfred on Monday April 15 2019, @08:39PM
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:13PM
Ditto.
Even if one does not follow or agree with a philosophy or religion it is still sad to see the creations they inspire be destroyed.
To know where you are you have to understand where you've been.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday April 15 2019, @09:38PM (8 children)
Abuse victims should go for the testicles of the perpetrators instead of vandalizing things. It would speed up the eradication of the problem. In fact it would BE the eradication of the problem.
Account abandoned.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @10:32PM
The problem is, churches are breeding grounds for child molesters. Simply eradicate all perpetrators, and they will just grow back.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @10:45PM (6 children)
perpetrators can have vaginas, asshat
(Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @05:45AM (5 children)
In the Catholic Church, only men are allowed to become priests. Therefore all abuses done by Catholic priests are abuses done by men. I'm also pretty sure they won't consider someone with vagina as man.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @03:26PM
Perhaps not, but they may consider them a demon and there is no church law against demons becoming priests (although no one is happy when that happens).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @05:01PM (2 children)
You make the incorrect assumption that all perpetrators have to be priests.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:22PM (1 child)
Depends on what you mean with "all perpetrators". All perpetrators the original message referred to? Yes, I made that assumption. Because of the context of that message. And I continue to maintain that assumption, because I don't believe that is is incorrect.
All perpetrators that exist? Of course not. But that wasn't the topic of the thread.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @02:28PM
Ok, so Catholic Church is made up entirely of priests, with no females involved anywhere at any level. That is even more fucked up than I thought.
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Thursday April 18 2019, @02:23AM
I was assuming in California they would be required to, at least officially.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:31PM (4 children)
Those "officials" do not seem honest. They lumped together everyone they hate, and blame them all for church burnings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:39PM (2 children)
So you think it is a false flag? The government agents are doing this to stir up division amongst the yellow vests?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @09:11PM (1 child)
Yep, it was linked to the 9/11 attacks by AI but now they are trying to cover it up:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-15/youtube-flags-notre-dame-fire-as-9-11-conspiracy-in-wrong-call [bloomberg.com]
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Tuesday April 16 2019, @05:35PM
I saw this same banner. I wondered why it was showing me a banner explaining 9/11 to me.
I saw this same banner under the launch for the Falcon Heavy a couple of days ago. Maybe it confused the launch tower and the rocket as two towers and the exhaust gases for smoke from a fire?
This must fall under not so intelligent part of the AI?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @12:49AM
It is strange that satanists are missing from the list.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:33PM
Nope. Bannon did it.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday April 16 2019, @03:49AM
Be sure to also look for long haired blonds wearing black t-shirts and sounding like the Swedish Chef: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Norwegian_black_metal_scene#Church_arsons_and_attempts [wikipedia.org]
compiling...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by pTamok on Monday April 15 2019, @09:19PM (4 children)
If I had to bet, I would say it is likely to have been caused by inadequate precautions taken during the renovation. It seems that roof renovations are particularly hazardous for old buildings - the use of molten hydrocarbon products (usually bitumen) for weatherproofing means that there are often potent sources of ignition in places where there would not usually be, and all it takes is one slapdash worker...
That said, really old roofing can be surprisingly resilient to fire. The roof of Notre Dame has collapsed, but in other instances, the fire can be managed by rapidly removing the top layer of rafters/laths and lead/tiles, exposing the support beams. Solid wood burns slowly, and if the individual beams are far enough apart (which they usually are), they tend to extinguish, especially when dampened. So if a thatched building catches fire, you rake off the burning thatch, exposing the beams, which you dampen down. Old buildings that are still standing tend to be over-engineered (the under-engineered ones collapsed into ruins before the present), and wooden beams can still be structurally sound after the outside half-inch or so of word has been charred. The key is to remove the light stuff as fast as possible.
Airport fire departments use foam [wikipedia.org] to extinguish burning jet-fuel. It's not environmentally friendly, but I do wonder for historic buildings whether it might be worth fire departments having the option to foam the building.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @11:15PM (2 children)
It would have been worthwhile to have faerial water tankers on call to put it out. If those could put out a forest fire they could surely put out a relatively tiny cathedral.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Tuesday April 16 2019, @03:46AM
Two problems.
1) The impact of the water might have collapsed the roof. It did collapse eventually, but that wasn't the outcome they wanted.
2) Apparently aerial water tankers aren't all that good at stopping forest fires. (Faerial ones might be better, but the fairies get their wings singed, and we know what happened to Icarus.) They help some in the early period before the ground crews can get in, but not much after. Politicians, on the other hand, like them, because it's a great visual for how they're doing something. https://boingboing.net/2019/04/15/mediagenic-boondoggles.html#more-710888 [boingboing.net] (I can't get the LA Times story to display properly.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:23PM
faerial noun US
an imaginary creature with piloting skills, often having his/her own wings, thus having a superb understanding of faeriodynamics
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:22AM
It'll be careless workmen. Any number of historic buildings have been burnt down due to careless workmen, or at least a combination of the fact that the buildings are tinderboxes that predate any modern fire code by centuries, and careless workmen. It's a lethal combination.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @11:30PM (2 children)
Isn't it odd that the government was so quick to say "it was an accident, not terrorism" shortly before they arrested those four Muslims with a drone?
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:15PM
Totally need a source for your drone thing. People need to know about it. If it hasn't been scrubbed yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @12:45PM
There is absolutely no evidence of muslim involvement with materials near the Notre Dame that could have been used to start the fire [telegraph.co.uk].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @01:42AM
Burned down by accident, huh? Maybe it was for the insurance.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:21PM (7 children)
wrong
and it was bombed by the Germans and rebuilt after WW II
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:27PM (1 child)
"There's a reason for modern building codes." Yeah, they should have used modern fire sprinklers and modern steel/concrete construction when it was built. "Hey Hunchback... got that bucket of water ready?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @12:47PM
Fire suppressant [wikipedia.org] is used in locations intolerant to water.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:31PM
Wikipedia mentions only "minor damage from stray bullets":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Monday April 15 2019, @09:23PM (3 children)
Good lord! You people are idiots.
No it wasn't. Where the hell did you get that from?
Also
Entirely? Not even close. Have you never even seen a photograph of it?
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Monday April 15 2019, @10:34PM
But I just heard it on the internet. It must be true!
(Score: 3, Funny) by driverless on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:26AM
FTFY.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday April 24 2019, @05:53AM
"A structure made entirely out of wood, is a huge bonfire, waiting to happen." The Sub. And, the Original Summary.
Anommylous was telling you, Summary was very wrong. Because Cathedral isn't -- wasn't -- only Wood. But, you didn't listen!!!!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:21PM (22 children)
I've got no proof of course, but gut instinct is telling me this is a terrorist attack and I don't know why. I don't even know enough about France's situation to speculate at who or why. But there is something unsettling going on right now. Just curious but does anyone know if the building was recently insured?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:24PM (9 children)
Because you're a SN denizen, conspiracy and "turrism" are the main staples here. That said, if it was a terrorist attack then that precludes insurance fraud. Pick one and stick with it!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 15 2019, @10:35PM (7 children)
Sorry, we can have it all!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @11:28PM (6 children)
You heard it here first, khallow admits to being a triggered little snowflake cuck who moonlights as a deplorable SJW trumpette that defected to Russia to become a bot herding gun toting fascist who supports socialism!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 16 2019, @01:31AM (5 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @01:56AM (2 children)
It was also used as cover to steal all the gold stored in the basement vault, destroy evidence of various financial crimes, and inspire solidarity amongst the American population for whatever next scheme they had.
In the case of Notre Dame it was artwork (some of it made from gold of course). Not sure what type of records were stored there though, perhaps something related to the church's current scandals surrounding priests and boys? It also inspiries solidarity amongst the French population during a time of mass protests.
Also, now it being used an rallying cry for people everywhere to pay for refurbishing the structure, earlier the French government was responsible for paying for it.
This type of thing would only happen if it makes sense from multiple angles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:24AM
Apparently not all the gold:
https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-gold-in-basement-of-World-Trade-Center-after-9-11-attacks-if-there-was-any [quora.com]
So ~$750 million worth was there, but only "tens of millions of dollars worth" was recovered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:08PM
and they already had the scheme (Afghanistan) in place.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @05:52AM (1 child)
I heard many conspiracy theories about 9/11, but this one is new to me. It's also one of the more ridiculous ones.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Thursday April 18 2019, @02:31AM
They shouldn't mod you any higher than the comment you are responding to. Because now I'm having to resist the urge to look up a new ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theory. That's cruel.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:55PM
Not if you insure against terrorism too. Because of the first, pre 9/11, WTC attack, the twin towers were insured. Because of the routine attacks on other churches and the attempted attack on notre dame itself, the church could have been insured too. It makes no sense, because its value is not quantifiable.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:36PM (4 children)
I suspect it was Trump colluding with Russians to interfere with the upcoming French elections by inciting racist hatred.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday April 15 2019, @08:42PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @10:38PM
It was only a coincidence that all the copies of Mueller's Report were stored there.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:04AM (1 child)
No, when Trump was told that Notre Dame was burning, in a rare showing of empathy he said "I hope it dosen't affect their football season".
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:29AM
He also sent his thoughts and prayers that the fire would go out. It worked even better than when he sent them to mass shooting victims.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:52PM (1 child)
Its to cover an art theft. Use the remodeling to remove the real pictures then a convenient accident to burn the fakes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:58PM
Could be. Or part attack, part theft. If you were going to burn it down, why not steal the art and try to sell it to fund future attacks?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @09:04PM (1 child)
Probably because, in America today, everything is a terrorists.
The government needs a vague bogeyman with which to justify controlling the public and Communism lost its edge a few decades ago, so now terrorists are everywhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:18AM
Who dumped British Tea into a Harbor, didn't obey the rules of war while fighting an asymmetric conflict anywhere and any time against British forces. Who turned against King and Country to take over her Majesty's Royal Lands for themselves.
Yankee meet Muzzie, you're both a coupla' field niggers who took over the house.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NewNic on Monday April 15 2019, @10:32PM (1 child)
Let me answer that: it's because you are a moron.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @12:02AM
Indeed. I would also add that this is why we can't have nice things.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:20AM
Actually....
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/04/france-muslim-girl-in-search-of-love-plotted-to-blow-up-car-packed-with-gas-canisters-near-notre-dame-cathedral [jihadwatch.org]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday April 15 2019, @08:31PM (5 children)
Paging janrinok!! Irrelevant systemd comment in the FS! Search for the dog-whistle keyword, "bonfire".
(Score: 5, Funny) by DannyB on Monday April 15 2019, @09:28PM (4 children)
1. Make irrelevant systemd comments.
2. ???
3. Prophet
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Bot on Monday April 15 2019, @09:42PM (3 children)
Cathedral structures built using wood. Some logs were thus lost, beyond recovery. I would not discount that the entire incident involves systemd trying to spread to new, wait for it, architectures.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Funny) by hemocyanin on Monday April 15 2019, @09:58PM
I want a "groan" mod -- or the ability to mod you funny and overrated at the same time.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:45AM (1 child)
Should've used gradle. Or, better still, the more popular npm-build
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @10:03PM
If they used npm it would still be in beta.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:34PM (16 children)
If so, time to nuke Mecca.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:37PM (2 children)
Not a fair trade. Notre Dame contained invaluable artwork and relics of saints. Mecca contains a rock.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday April 15 2019, @11:52PM
The accuracy of "contains a rock" in the comparative sense would depend on the specific day of the year. Some days, there are lots and lots of people there as well. Certainly more than would ever fit in Notre Dame.
--
Every glass of beer is a tragic story of grains
that could have become pizza crust, but didn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:20AM
Of a former religious site that is now rife with idolatry. Not altogether unlike Notre Dame. They are just doing ours so we can do theirs.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:41PM (2 children)
Why nuke Mecca, at any given time you will only find a rounding error amount of Muslims there. You just make them angry. Real solutions take time and better plans.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Monday April 15 2019, @09:19PM (1 child)
> You just make them angry
LOL
Show crucifix, they get angry
Want to know whoever is behind that burka not to let terrorists free to roam, they get angry
seriously, don't bother. They are already angry because I just told they get angry easily.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @11:47PM
You need to re-crawl https://www.merriam-webster.com/ [merriam-webster.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by DannyB on Monday April 15 2019, @08:42PM (3 children)
Uh, no. It is not. That is completely inappropriate.
It is sacrilage and blasphemous to do so when it is not the Hajj, the sacred time when millions make their pilgrimage to Mecca.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday April 15 2019, @09:23PM (2 children)
What about nuking it when it is empty, and earlier say a gift from Tel Aviv is coming, and get popcorn?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 15 2019, @09:27PM (1 child)
So Paris could nuke it, and make it a false flag operation.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday April 15 2019, @11:36PM
I don't know what false flag is false flagging what anymore.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:42PM (1 child)
If that was true you would include a link.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday April 15 2019, @09:14PM
I dunno who did it but if I search the web I am sure to find some terrorist groups already taking credit for this. First casualty in war is the truth and we are at war since the industrial revolution.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @11:02PM
and Merdina
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @12:21AM (2 children)
I know it is best to nuke Mecca, but there are alternatives that would be much more entertaining.
The centerpiece is a small stone building covered in silk. There is a window. We could put something through the window.
Guidance units for bombs can be attached on to anything. How about a large pig? Send a guided pig right through that window.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @01:54AM (1 child)
What did a large pig ever do to you?
(Score: 4, Touché) by kazzie on Tuesday April 16 2019, @06:14AM
Ask David Cameron.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @08:41PM (9 children)
Somebody needs to check Quasimodo for matches
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Bot on Monday April 15 2019, @09:12PM (5 children)
Quasimodo, so romantic. But maybe the most common name for the workers that were restoring the roof is Mohamed.
Account abandoned.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @09:40PM (2 children)
Coincidentally, Mohamed is a popular name among jihadi Muslims... but don't let the SJWs catch you suggesting this was terrorism.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday April 15 2019, @09:46PM (1 child)
I told a SJW that it was probably terrorism. SJW replied: "But I have an alibi".
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @09:57PM
I tell people not to use bitcoin if they are afraid of public speaking, because to get paid you need to give a public address.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Reziac on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:23AM (1 child)
French commenter on a news site stated that Macron mandated half the construction workers be migrants. So, yeah, something to that.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @06:00AM
wait wait: non christians building and renovating anothers faiths place of worship?
i must have gone to paradis where all people are happy to help and tolerant or to hell where mammon
just made a comical statement whilst making the "V" sign ...
(Score: 5, Funny) by gawdonblue on Monday April 15 2019, @09:58PM (1 child)
Can't quite bring who Quasimodo is to mind, but definitely rings a bell.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @10:41PM
He only comes to mind on Hump Day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @11:25PM
Somebody had better question Frollo, he was singing about Hellfire
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotTheDr01ds on Monday April 15 2019, @08:50PM (19 children)
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.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @10:48PM
Welcome to SoylentNews!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by fyngyrz on Tuesday April 16 2019, @12:03AM (16 children)
ReligiousSuperstitious*: ✓* [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)
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)
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.
(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*.
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
> "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)
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)
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.
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.
"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
> 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)
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)
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
- 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)
"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)
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:
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...
...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
> 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
ReligiousSuperstitious*: ✓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)
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.
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'.
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.
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
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)
Never mind the labels, here are three 'categories':
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:
"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
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
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.