Queen Elizabeth II's health

[Gorbles]

I suspect Ajidica is commenting on the fact it was long in decline. Which, y'know, go figure, but also kind of hair-splitting (if I'm right).

 

[schlaufuchs]

The previous post mentioned the 5th century. Is there some reason that 476 CE is not part of the 5th century CE?

It’s like saying the English monarchy collapsed in 1688: the monarch ceased being from England (though that had been the case for some time already), the monarch’s relationship to government was different (though that had been happening for centuries, and continued after that date), and within living memory of the date people would begin referring to the realm under a new name (Great Britain).

Things definitely changed. But in history nothing is ever really clear-cut. The question is when to apply a definite date to a continuous process of development, and on what terms to refer to that change. We could say Rome collapsed, or we could also say Rome entered a period of protracted decline after which it re-emerged under a new dynasty (like we do when we talk about China).

Another key thing that could help is that if you went back in time to the late 5th century and told a Roman that the (Western) Roman Empire collapsed in 476 that would be news to that Roman. Contemporaneous authors didn’t refer to a collapse and didn’t think of what happened with the deposition as an ontological “end of empire.” It was just another regime change in a century filled with them. The narrative didn’t really switch to one of “empire lost” until later when it become politically convenient to do so, and subsequently historians ran with it because it made for a really satisfying narrative (I mean the dude’s name was Romulus Augustulus. It doesn’t get much better than that).

 

[Gorbles]

It’s like saying the English monarchy collapsed in 1688: the monarch ceased being from England (though that had been the case for some time already), the monarch’s relationship to government was different (though that had been happening for centuries, and continued after that date), and within living memory of the date people would begin referring to the realm under a new name (Great Britain).

Things definitely changed. But in history nothing is ever really clear-cut. The question is when to apply a definite date to a continuous process of development, and on what terms to refer to that change. We could say Rome collapsed, or we could also say Rome entered a period of protracted decline after which it re-emerged under a new dynasty (like we do when we talk about China).

Another key thing that could help is that if you went back in time to the late 5th century and told a Roman that the (Western) Roman Empire collapsed in 476 that would be news to that Roman. Contemporaneous authors didn’t refer to a collapse and didn’t think of what happened with the deposition as an ontological “end of empire.” It was just another regime change in a century filled with them. The narrative didn’t really switch to one of “empire lost” until later when it become politically convenient to do so, and subsequently historians ran with it because it made for a really satisfying narrative (I mean the dude’s name was Romulus Augustulus. It doesn’t get much better than that).

And yet, especially for the layman, it's commonly-agreed that that was the date (political convenience or not). Unless we're running explicitly a history thread, is the difference actually notable?

Would much rather be bagging on the Royals, to be honest

Whoops, thought this was the other thread. Leaving the mistake up, but in that case a historical record of empire-building (and falling) is far more interesting than anything else we could have at the moment. Didn't get to do much on the Roman Empire myself, and ironically not a lot on the British monarchy. We did the Tudors and the Stuarts and that was about it.

 

[Samson]

Atheism is atheism, there is no such thing as hard or soft. You either believe in the supernatural or you don't. Your "hard" definition is the only true definition, however it's still not a belief but rather the lack of any belief.

If one is being a "soft" atheist they're really a theist who's really shy and doesn't want to tell others what they truly believe.

The usual definitions are:

Hard Atheism: I believe there is no god
Soft Atheism: I do not believe that there is a god

Hard Agnosticism: I believe that the existence or not of god is unknowable
Soft Agnosticism: I do not know if god exists

For example Bertrand Russell posited that there may be a teapot orbiting the sun, and we have not seen it because our telescopes are not good enough. It would be reasonable to be agnostic as to the existence of the teapot, it could be that dark matter is composed of teapots all over space that we cannot see. However in the absence of evidence that it exists it is also reasonable to live as if the teapot does not exist. It would even be reasonable to say there is no teapot (the atheist standpoint), even if one accepts the possiblility of future science identifying the teapot (so one is strictly soft agnostic).

 

[Uncle Paul]

Funny thing, too, about Jagmeet Singh: Someone hold him to go back where he came from. He was out in Western Canada at the time - BC, I think, or possibly Alberta - and he laughed about it to the news reporter. He said, "He wants me to go back to Ontario?"

I thought you no longer wished to engage with me, but once again, a dog born in a stable is not a horse.

Since the Western Empire fell in 476 CE, the timing fits.

*476 AD

Ideally, it would be nice if believers would just leave the definition of atheism to atheists. After all, we know what we do or don't believe. It's tiresome, constantly having people 'splain it to us as if we're too stupid to understand it ourselves.

I don't believe in the Greek god Zeus. However, I still have a belief about the Greek god Zeus, and that belief is "Zeus is not real".
You don't believe in God. However, you still have a belief about Him, and that belief is "He is not real".

By bureaucratic definition marital status is usually thought of as a binary choice: yes, married, no, not married. Sometimes it gets expanded into: married, not married, never married, separated, and even divorced. The context is important. If it is legal or tax related, then the available choices may change from what one might say if it is in the context of a potential partner. Linking it to religion is a poor affiliation.

You seem to tuck "belief in god" into a larger context called "religion" that also holds "not believing in god as if religion is the more encompassing." Since religion is mostly an organized "belief in god", I would make it the larger circle that holds not only all religions, but also all of the numerous non western forms of believing in god(s). then outside of the "belief in god" one would find all of those who do not believe in god. If I could draw well and easily, imagine this:

Even people who don't believe in Him still have a belief about him, namely, their belief is that He does not exist.

A large hard edged circle labeled Believes in God. One is either in the circle or not. Within it one fines all religions and all versions of God, even the Unitarians! Outside of said circle are all those who disavow the existence of any god found within the circle. But wait there is more! There is a fuzzy grey strip clinging to the outside edge of our well fenced circle. Those are the folks for whom the answer is not clear: agnostics. Those closer to accepting the existence God hang out closer to the circle and those that are less certain are a bit further away.

I think such a model describes reality pretty well and even allows for Venn diagrams and arrows, etc. of how all the religions within the circle are connected and related.

Some are believers, some don't know
Some are lost, they're lost and alone
Some are deceivers, their souls been sold
For the love, for the love of strange medicine
Steve Perry

The previous post mentioned the 5th century. Is there some reason that 476 CE is not part of the 5th century CE?

*AD

 

[Sarin]

Atheism is atheism, there is no such thing as hard or soft. You either believe in the supernatural or you don't. Your "hard" definition is the only true definition, however it's still not a belief but rather the lack of any belief.

If one is being a "soft" atheist they're really a theist who's really shy and doesn't want to tell others what they truly believe.

Wrong. I'm agnostic, and I don't really feel like being labeled either theist or atheist.

The existence of any god cannot be proven or disproven objectively, because that would require them to be part of a logical system, and therefore fully subject to some kind of order. Such god would be a mere phenomenon.
This means that agnosticism, saying "I don't know" is just as valid position as others. And "hard" atheism is a religious position, as you're taking a stance on spiritual matters without evidence, and thus on the basis of belief.

 

[Gorbles]

*476 AD

* CE. They're interchangeable.

*AD

See above.

And "hard" atheism is a religious position, as you're taking a stance on spiritual matters without evidence, and thus on the basis of belief.

While I have absolutely no problem with agnosticism and believe it covers a wide range of peoples' positions on any given deity / faith, I refuse the argument that "hard" atheism is a religious position.

Do people treat atheism (especially New Atheism) akin to a religious fundamentalist treats their scripture? Absolutely. But the most simplistic definition of (strong) atheism is simply the rejection of god(s) as defined by humans. It has nothing to do with belief or non-belief. It's a failure in logic as demonstrated (to me). The whole "you cannot prove or disprove it" is a logical failure because something has to be proven in the first place. Otherwise what good does invoking "logic" even mean? Burden of proof, etc.

Now, I'm not a big fan of "you must logic your way to a conclusion" because the existence of logic in of itself doesn't presuppose a valid conclusion. However the equivocation of "it can't be proven" and "it can't be disproven" as semantically-equal positions is silly, and should be called silly.

PS: logic and belief are compatible for those that ascribe to both. A great amount of overlap between science and faith involves reconciling a (usually Abrahamic) god's involvement with this existence and our scientific principles as we currently understand them.

PPS: hopefully we can all agree (apart from one poster, I guess) that the divine right of kings is a bad thing, eh?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

it could be that dark matter is composed of teapots all over space that we cannot see.

This is obviously incorrect, as anyone who is up on the latest research knows that dark matter is composed of lost single socks.

Wrong. I'm agnostic, and I don't really feel like being labeled either theist or atheist.

The existence of any god cannot be proven or disproven objectively, because that would require them to be part of a logical system, and therefore fully subject to some kind of order. Such god would be a mere phenomenon.
This means that agnosticism, saying "I don't know" is just as valid position as others. And "hard" atheism is a religious position, as you're taking a stance on spiritual matters without evidence, and thus on the basis of belief.

You're welcome to label yourself however you want. But kindly speak for yourself. If you identify as agnostic, have the courtesy not to speak for how an atheist self-identifies.

* CE. They're interchangeable.

Ohforpetessake.

Why should I use a calendar term that's based on a religion I don't believe in? CE means "Common Era." The numbers are the same, but without the assumption that everyone must use the same faith-based terminology.

 

[Gorbles]

Why should I use a calendar term that's based on a religion I don't believe in? CE means "Common Era." The numbers are the same, but without the assumption that everyone must use the same faith-based terminology.

I completely agree

 

[EnglishEdward]

Or it could be that CE stands for Christian Emerges etc. and the atheists got conned.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I thought you no longer wished to engage with me, but once again, a dog born in a stable is not a horse.

There are times when a conversation becomes too disconnected to follow easily, so it becomes necessary to have a look at certain posts.

Okay, it's time for a yes/no answer: Are you comparing a Canadian man whose parents were born in India, but he himself was born in Canada, to a dog? Really? Are you suggesting that because Jagmeet Singh chooses to wear religious garb in his everyday life that he's not a real Canadian?

Who do you think you are? You're not the arbiter of Canadian citizenship or how Canadians should look and act.

You still don't get it. Canada is a multicultural country. That means people are free to express their culture, whether contemporary or ancestral (providing it doesn't mean doing something that would violate current laws).

By dressing as he does, Jagmeet Singh is not only expressing his Sikh faith, he is also expressing his Canadian culture, because multiculturalism is what we do here. If you don't like that, too damn bad. You have the collective permission of all 38 million+ of us not to look.

*476 AD

476 CE. Get over yourself; your religion isn't the arbiter of how some of us choose to express time. Common Era is a religion-neutral way to express dates. Regardless of which abbreviation is used, the date is the same.

 

[Arakhor]

*476 AD

For someone trying to obnoxiously correct someone, it's a good policy to be correct yourself. AD comes before the date, since (as you undoubtedly know) Anno Domini means "in the year of our Lord".

 

[Lexicus]

Wrong. I'm agnostic, and I don't really feel like being labeled either theist or atheist.

The existence of any god cannot be proven or disproven objectively, because that would require them to be part of a logical system, and therefore fully subject to some kind of order. Such god would be a mere phenomenon.
This means that agnosticism, saying "I don't know" is just as valid position as others. And "hard" atheism is a religious position, as you're taking a stance on spiritual matters without evidence, and thus on the basis of belief.

On the contrary, atheism is the position supported by evidence. We know God is a literary (ie fictional) character because he appears in several books.

 

[Joij21]

The Greeks were were no better or worse at being murderous thugs than the rest of humanity and their discourse did little to contain it.

Exactly, which is why I said it died with the Greeks. They attempted civility and it failed.

That is... a terrible conclusion when exploring the human condition, IMO.

Well I'm a nihilist and this is a nihilistic age. Most of generation z would agree with me on that one.

Atheist is a reactionary stance to a god claim.

I thought atheism is the rejection of all god claims, not to a particular god claim. Because to be particular would imply you believe one of the many preexisting claims or a claim of your own without any objective and physical evidence to prove actually exists. Which in turn would make you a theist.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Possibly. I'm not even sure I understand what you say as I have a very low level of knowledge about British royal History, my teaching being more focused on the French case. Are you saying that royals are only marrying with other royals? I thought some were picking husbands and spouses among the aristocracy in general.

The british royal family tended to, although

Did someone rewrite the history books? That's the date I learned.

Its been rewritten so many times but do we care?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Its been rewritten so many times but do we care?

I'd like to think my Classical History prof didn't lie to us...

 

[Joij21]

476 CE. Get over yourself; your religion isn't the arbiter of how some of us choose to express time. Common Era is a religion-neutral way to express dates. Regardless of which abbreviation is used, the date is the same.

It's not really religiously neutral, because the number of the year is still tied to the old Christian dating method. All that's changed is the abbreviation at the end.

Therefore in my humble opinion I'll always consider CE to be a complete hypocritical joke until they change year 1 to the start of the Holocene. This is why I will still use the traditional BC/AD system until this is rectified and everyone's calendar gets the number change.

 

[Uncle Paul]

* CE. They're interchangeable.

One is the traditional way, the other is an anti-Christian method of erasure.

PPS: hopefully we can all agree (apart from one poster, I guess) that the divine right of kings is a bad thing, eh?

A multitude of rulers is not a good thing. Let there be one ruler, one king.

You're welcome to label yourself however you want. But kindly speak for yourself. If you identify as agnostic, have the courtesy not to speak for how an atheist self-identifies.

Why should I use a calendar term that's based on a religion I don't believe in? CE means "Common Era." The numbers are the same, but without the assumption that everyone must use the same faith-based terminology.

Then I guess you shouldn't use the names for days of the week, either, since those come from pagan gods.

Or it could be that CE stands for Christian Emerges etc. and the atheists got conned.

Communist Era.

There are times when a conversation becomes too disconnected to follow easily, so it becomes necessary to have a look at certain posts.

Okay, it's time for a yes/no answer: Are you comparing a Canadian man whose parents were born in India, but he himself was born in Canada, to a dog? Really? Are you suggesting that because Jagmeet Singh chooses to wear religious garb in his everyday life that he's not a real Canadian?

You know full well that's what I think. If you object to the dog analogy (which is silly to object to, dogs are man's best friend, I have dogs, I love dogs, but a dog is a dog, whether they were born in a chicken coop, a stable, an aquarium, etc...), then how about this: A peach tree grown in a vineyard is not a grape.

Who do you think you are? You're not the arbiter of Canadian citizenship or how Canadians should look and act.

You still don't get it. Canada is a multicultural country. That means people are free to express their culture, whether contemporary or ancestral (providing it doesn't mean doing something that would violate current laws).

By dressing as he does, Jagmeet Singh is not only expressing his Sikh faith, he is also expressing his Canadian culture, because multiculturalism is what we do here. If you don't like that, too damn bad. You have the collective permission of all 38 million+ of us not to look.

John Macdonald is probably rolling over in his grave. Multiculturalism was a mistake at best. Assimilation means dressing like the locals do.

476 CE. Get over yourself; your religion isn't the arbiter of how some of us choose to express time. Common Era is a religion-neutral way to express dates. Regardless of which abbreviation is used, the date is the same.

A hundred years ago, this anti-Christian stuff would not have been allowed to be so prominent in society.

For someone trying to obnoxiously correct someone, it's a good policy to be correct yourself. AD comes before the date, since (as you undoubtedly know) Anno Domini means "in the year of our Lord".

Not in Civ games, it doesn't!

 

[Marla_Singer]

It's not really religiously neutral, because the number of the year is still tied to the old Christian dating method. All that's changed is the abbreviation at the end.

Therefore in my humble opinion I'll always consider CE to be a complete hypocritical joke until they change year 1 to the start of the Holocene. This is why I will still use the traditional BC/AD system until this is rectified and everyone's calendar gets the number change.

I'm a full atheist and I agree with this.

Sorry though for having triggered that debate as it all started with my earlier post mentioning "4th and 5th century AD". It wasn't even political in my mind, that was only due to my poor knowledge of contemporary English.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's not really religiously neutral, because the number of the year is still tied to the old Christian dating method. All that's changed is the abbreviation at the end.

Therefore in my humble opinion I'll always consider CE to be a complete hypocritical joke until they change year 1 to the start of the Holocene. This is why I will still use the traditional BC/AD system until this is rectified and everyone's calendar gets the number change.

I know it's dated from what is considered a religious event (the hilarious thing is that even the astronomers can't reconcile the New Testament with what was really going on in the solar system so the Nativity story makes any sense).

But "CE" is as religion-neutral as we have at the present.

Good luck figuring out the exact day the Holocene started.