kategorie: favoriten ×

lieblingströöts juni 2025

felix schwenzel in favoriten


youtube-video laden, info, direktlink

 

carl sa­gan sagt hier ei­gent­lich al­les was man so sa­gen kann zur fra­ge „is the­re any type of God to you?“. in ei­nem satz: man muss da schon dif­fe­ren­zie­ren und sehr ge­naue spra­che be­nut­zen. mir ge­fiel das al­les sehr, auch die art wie fra­gen­der und ant­wor­ten­der mit­ein­an­der um­gin­gen. das ist bei die­ser art dis­kus­si­on ja nicht im­mer ge­ge­ge­bem.

weil mir das vi­deo so gut ge­fiel, habe ich aus der you­tiu­be tran­skrip­ti­on und mit hil­fe von chatGPT und et­was kor­rek­tur­le­sen ei­nen les­ba­ren text er­stellt. wer das auf deutsch le­sen will kann ja selbst ein LLM in der nähe fra­gen.


Q: My ques­ti­on is: Gi­ven all the­se demo­ti­ons, what is your per­so­nal re­li­gi­on, or is the­re any type of God to you? Like, is the­re a pur­po­se, gi­ven that we'­re just sit­ting on this speck in the midd­le of this sea of stars?

Now, I don't want to duck any ques­ti­ons, and I'm not go­ing to duck this one, even though I have high re­li­gious per­so­na­ges who are clo­se fri­ends of mine in this room.

But let me ask you: What do you mean when you use the word God?

Q: Well, I guess what my ques­ti­on is… it's like: Is the­re a pur­po­se? I mean, gi­ven all the­se demo­ti­ons, why don't we just blow our­sel­ves up?

Why don't we?

Q: Yeah… What is our pur­po­se?

I mean, let me turn the ques­ti­on around: If we do blow our­sel­ves up, does that dis­pro­ve the exis­tence of God?

Q: No, I guess not.

I mean, it'll be a litt­le late to make the dis­co­very, but still, yeah…

Q: I guess what I'm as­king is, sin­ce we kind of make God al­most go away in this — and I don't mean he, be­cau­se who knows what God is

But still, say­ing he makes it sort of icky, does­n't it?

Q: Yeah. It's tough.

We like it to be a he, don't we?

Q: Yeah. We'­ve been trai­ned to think of it as a he. It seems that th­rough the ages, hu­mans have crea­ted a my­tho­lo­gi­cal frame­work that has al­ways in­vol­ved some kind of hig­her spi­ri­tu­al powers.

Every hu­man cul­tu­re has done that.

Q: As that goes away — as we know more and more — it seems har­der and har­der to pro­ve that any­thing might exist like that. Whe­re does that lea­ve us?

On our own.

Which, to my mind, is much more re­spon­si­ble than ho­ping that so­meone will save us from our­sel­ves, so we don't have to make our best ef­forts to do it our­sel­ves.

And if we'­re wrong, and the­re is so­meone who steps in and sa­ves us — okay, tha­t's all right. I'm for that. But we'­ve, you know, hedged our bets. It’s Pas­cal's bar­gain run back­wards.

I'll say an­o­ther word. The word God co­vers an enorm­ous ran­ge of dif­fe­rent ide­as. And you re­co­gni­ze that in the way you phra­sed the ques­ti­on — run­ning from an out­si­zed, light-skin­ned male with a long white be­ard sit­ting in a thro­ne in the sky and tal­ly­ing the fall of every spar­row (for which the­re is no evi­dence to my mind — if any­bo­dy has some, I sure would like to see it) — to the kind of God that Ein­stein or Spi­no­za tal­ked about, which is very clo­se to the sum to­tal of the laws of the uni­ver­se.

Now, it would be cra­zy to deny that the­re are laws in the uni­ver­se. And if that’s what you want to call God, then of cour­se God exists.

And the­re are all sorts of other nu­an­ces. The­re is, for ex­am­p­le, the de­ist God that many of the foun­ding fa­thers of this coun­try be­lie­ved in — alt­hough it is a se­cret who­se name may not be spo­ken in some cir­cles — a do-not­hing king, the God who crea­tes the uni­ver­se and then re­ti­res, and to whom pray­ing is sort of point­less. He's not here. He went so­me­whe­re else. He had other things to do.

Now, tha­t's also a God. So when you say “Do you be­lie­ve in God?” — if I say yes, or if I say no, you have lear­ned ab­so­lut­e­ly not­hing.

Q: I guess I'm as­king you to de­fi­ne yours, if you have one.

But why would we use a word so am­bi­guous, that me­ans so many dif­fe­rent things?

Q: It gi­ves you free­dom to de­fi­ne it.

It gi­ves you free­dom to seem to agree with so­meone else with whom you do not agree. It co­vers over dif­fe­ren­ces. It makes for so­cial lu­bri­ca­ti­on.

But it is not an aid to truth, in my view. And the­r­e­fo­re, I think we need much shar­per lan­guage when we ask the­se ques­ti­ons.

Sor­ry to take so long in ans­we­ring this, but this is an im­portant is­sue.


lieblingströöt mai 2025

felix schwenzel in favoriten


oh no

felix schwenzel in favoriten

I want things to be differeent — oh no

ge­fun­den in mei­ner mast­o­don time­line (via) und auf web­co­mic­na­me.com in ein rab­bit hole ge­fal­len und bis 2016 durch­ge­scrollt.

lau­ter tol­les zeug, al­les mit der poin­te „oh no“. mei­ne lieb­lin­ge: live, the in­ter­net crea­tor re­turns, art in a time of cri­sis, nee­dy, muse.


40 minuten perfektion

felix schwenzel

vor ein paar mo­na­ten habe ich gla­be ich alle vi­de­os im my me­cha­nics ka­nal weg­ge­bin­ged. das sind sehr lan­ge vi­de­os, in de­nen ein schwei­zer (?) schlos­ser alte sa­chen re­stau­riert. und das mit ei­nem ge­wis­sen an­spruch an per­fek­ti­on. wenn die schrau­ben ei­nes werk­stücks nicht mehr schön ge­nug sind, dreht er sich neue und ver­ni­ckelt sie, falls nö­tig.

hät­te ich nie ge­dacht, aber es ist sehr be­frie­di­gend je­man­den beim sand­strah­len, fei­len, ab­fa­sen von schar­fen kan­ten oder neu dre­hen von ge­win­den zu be­ob­ach­ten.

ge­spro­chen wir in den vi­de­os nicht, mu­sik gibt’s auch kei­ne, aber das ist ehr­lich­ge­sagt auch gut so.

eben habe ich mich sehr ge­freut, als in mei­ner you­tube-time­line eine neu­es my me­cha­nics vi­deo auf­tauch­te. ich emp­feh­ler das jetzt, ohne es vor­her ge­se­hen zu ha­ben.

youtube-video laden, info, direktlink

  no­tiz­blog.svg

Mein Blog hat ein Logo!


youtube-video laden, info, direktlink

youtube-video laden, info, direktlink

Habe heute gelernt, dass Ausdrücke wie lol oder bae keine neuen Phänomene sind. Vor hundert Jahren hat man in Berlin schon knif gesagt, wenn man "kommt nicht in Frage" meinte. Und "kommt auf keinen Fall in Frage" war kakfif. Ist das nicht toll? 😁

Charlotte Eisenberg (@pfarrerinlotte15.09.2019 21:55


enorm, ex­trem, sehr fas­zi­nie­rend, mai thi nguy­en-kim über den pla­ce­bo-ef­fekt und was da al­les mit dran­hängt:

youtube-video laden, info, direktlink

youtube-video laden, info, direktlink

(via)


youtube-video laden, info, direktlink

youtube-video laden, info, direktlink

youtube-video laden, info, direktlink

youtube-video laden, info, direktlink

Euer zynisches, herzloses Gerede, Rettung in der Not sei ein Pull-Faktor — gilt das eigentlich auch jenseits des Mittelmeers?Keine Krankenwagen für Raser?Keine Helikopter für Bergsteiger?Keine Spenderlungen für Raucher?Und gilt das auch für euch, wenn ihr in Not seid?

Daniel Erk (@daniel_erk30.06.2019 11:30


youtube-video laden, info, direktlink

I just learned that nearly every site running ads has a standardized ads.txt file that helpfully shows you how badly it murders your privacy. The file is a whitelist of all authorized resellers for programmatic advertising. For example, bostonglobe.com/ads.txt pic.twitter.com/mzJVtk6RWm

Pinboard (@Pinboard14.05.2019 6:20