The Fedora and atheism in comedy

Religion in TV, Movies, Books, etc.

Moderator: Moderators

TRANSPONDER
Guru
Posts: 2008
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 268 times
Been thanked: 957 times

The Fedora and atheism in comedy

Post #1

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Hi all.

I was toying with posting this in Apologetics, but it seemed too trivial really and there's a vid, too.


The thing was, I came across this 'Fedora' thing on my previous board some five years ago I recall by just one poster who was just trying to needle atheists rather than make any kind of argument.

The video 'explains' what that was all about - to take the Fedora hat (which I gather was supposed to be worn by a fat -faced unshaven clod with no social graces) and somehow "Associate that" (the animation says) with atheists. It seems to have dropped off since none of we goddless bastards knew what it was all about, but any recollection of or insights into the 'Fedora apologetic' would be appreciated.

While I'm here, of course, Atheism has done well out of entertainment. Bill Burr, George Carlin, Ricky Gervaise and Dave Allen (Irish comedian qv) have served us well and of course Life of Brian led to an uproar and a televised debate which in hindsight the Church lost because the Film is now a top comedy classic.

In fact I may post some of my favourite 'Entertainment' clips relating to religion.

Of course there have been old religious films that frankly pushed me away from religion rather than towards it (The ten commandments, Pastures green') we have more recent religious films and good luck to them. They are merely 'The Bible in Pictures' which I pored over as a kid but saw as no more than a fairy story.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 817 times

Re: The Fedora and atheism in comedy

Post #11

Post by nobspeople »

William wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:52 pm The Prime Directive is simply an ego tool for these Materialist Space Trekkers, who are happy to war with Klingons [and anyone else who doesn't co-operate], and blow up starships et al, but 'perish the thought' of planet-bound beings involving themselves in warfare just because they believe some god told them to do so!

The apparent hypocrisy of the materialist world view is in, that there is no logical reason given as to why The Prime Directive is the most sensible law to adopt regarding primitive species.

The idea that if they were to reveal themselves to primitives they would be considered 'gods' and worshiped and this would naturally lead on to wars being fought in their name and other such 'terrible' things, does not take into account that it is both natural to fight and natural to form religious beliefs, even if those beliefs cut out the religious part [god is dead and it is only us/materialism] there has been no requirement of any space-faring race to cut out the conflict part - as clearly can be observed in the materialist future-fantasy.

It is clearly a type of "what we imagine us Materialist Space Trekkers would be doing in the future without those pesky theist superstitions getting in the way of our progress" - a natural evolution of materialist ego-based fantasy which has etched itself into the minds of all who fall for its seductive imagery ever since materialism became the most popular belief from the 1800s and began waging war on everything identified as theistic.

A war all subsequent materialists are currently involved in, as a means of trying to irradicate all sign that humanity ever contemplated existing within a creation...

The toll on the planet because of this belief, is likely worse than anything humans have ever committed against life through any other belief, in the whole history of human development.

Boldly going where no atrocity has ever gone before.
I never understood why some people seem to dislike and or hate materialism
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: The Fedora and atheism in comedy

Post #12

Post by Purple Knight »

William wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:52 pmA war all subsequent materialists are currently involved in, as a means of trying to eradicate all sign that humanity ever contemplated existing within a creation...

The toll on the planet because of this belief, is likely worse than anything humans have ever committed against life through any other belief, in the whole history of human development.
Have you ever wondered that if almost any religion is true, but particularly Christianity, we're expected to be materialists and disbelieve the religion, even if only on some level?

It's mainly because if you know there's more, you behave differently, but that sullies the game, doesn't it? It reduces life's great decisions to a rat pressing a lever and getting a reward. Of course you're going to press the reward lever, and not the one that gets you shocked.

I'm one of the few people who actually believes the Prime Directive is a decent rule, as far as rules go, despite the fact that in Star Trek itself, it's usually presented as an obstacle to doing what is right, rather than being right itself.

But I don't think real life follows this formula. I'm a believer in the idea that when you don't know, don't interfere. I don't chop up one person to save six, or shift the train's path to save six at the cost of one. I don't know these people, and even if I did know them, I can't possibly know them well enough to do that. I literally don't know what I'm doing, so how can I put myself that high up, as a great decider on their fates?

I actually think of the Prime Directive not as you think of it, an ego trip that worshiping gods is bad, but as an admission to humility in what we don't know, particularly the consequences of our actions.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10501
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1133 times
Contact:

Re: The Fedora and atheism in comedy

Post #13

Post by William »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #12]
Have you ever wondered that if almost any religion is true, but particularly Christianity, we're expected to be materialists and disbelieve the religion, even if only on some level?
Search "materialists"
plural noun: materialists
1. a person who considers material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
"greedy materialists lusting for consumer baubles"
2. PHILOSOPHY
a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.


Why materialists are materialists is not something I wonder about. As far as I understand things, one can disbelieve any/every religion and still understand the importance of "spiritual values" and consciousnesses existence within matter and it movements.
It's mainly because if you know there's more, you behave differently, but that sullies the game, doesn't it?
Knowing that there is more to the game than what is materially presented, does not ruin said game. It levels up ones perception and participation in the game.
I actually think of the Prime Directive not as you think of it, an ego trip that worshiping gods is bad, but as an admission to humility in what we don't know, particularly the consequences of our actions.
Actions and their consequences are an unavoidable part of the game-play and we all practice such. Even not-action is an action, and one which has consequences.

This is largely the point I am making in regard to ideas and beliefs to do with religious mythologies.

The Christian belief that the gods [Jesus and the angels] will return in order that humanity does not perish altogether involves an action which - prior to actually happening - has to be regarded as inaction...non-interference - re 'the prime directive'.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: The Fedora and atheism in comedy

Post #14

Post by Purple Knight »

William wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:53 am plural noun: materialists
1. a person who considers material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
"greedy materialists lusting for consumer baubles"
2. PHILOSOPHY
a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

Why materialists are materialists is not something I wonder about. As far as I understand things, one can disbelieve any/every religion and still understand the importance of "spiritual values" and consciousnesses existence within matter and it movements.
Well, I wouldn't be here if I didn't understand that values are important, so perhaps I'm not a materialist in the first sense. I also have to point out that even the hardest atheists on the forum have their own values, and seem to be shocked when someone points out that they can't prove them with nothing but logic and evidence any more than the religiosos can prove thou shalt not kill.

But I have become jaded about it. I've used a lot of my life trying to identify morality so I can imitate it, and found that the same values which make one person exalted will make me hated. So in that sense I've disproven values, at least, useful ones.
William wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:53 amActions and their consequences are an unavoidable part of the game-play and we all practice such. Even not-action is an action, and one which has consequences.
There's a big problem with assigning moral responsibility with this in mind, though. If Picard is responsible for what he didn't do to the Mintakans, then so am I, even though I have no way to possibly do anything to them since I have no warp drive and no way to get there since I don't even exist in the same universe. Forget fictional, I'm responsible for all the starving children in Africa, since I'm not presently saving them.

Now, even if we do accept that I'm to blame for the situation on Drema 2, for not saving those poor doomed people, the Prime Directive still has value, and it's the value of, before we act, looking at an enduring system as if it might be very fragile. Those underdeveloped people might not have what we have, but they at least exist, and they have existed for a long time. They might wipe themselves out on their own; they might not. But it's a tragedy if the answer was not and we gave them technology to help them that ended up causing them to wipe themselves out, or wipe out somebody else.

Even if an inaction is as bad as an action (and I do reject this as sort of absurd) We can ignore the Prime Directive if it ends up making us ignore a people who will die anyway (and this is generally what the characters in the series actually do) but we can still consider that enduring systems we don't understand could be hyperfragile and not mess with them if we don't have to.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10501
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1133 times
Contact:

Re: The Fedora and atheism in comedy

Post #15

Post by William »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #14]
Actions and their consequences are an unavoidable part of the game-play and we all practice such. Even not-action is an action, and one which has consequences.
There's a big problem with assigning moral responsibility with this in mind, though.
I agree and was only pointing that out re your argument. This is largely the point I am making in regard to ideas and beliefs to do with religious mythologies.

An admission to humility in what we don't know, even particularly the consequences of our inactions...as in NOT admitting in humility [through failure to do the science]

Inaction - as I am using the word - has to do with action going against more correct [more moral] action.

Search "inaction"
lack of action where some is expected or appropriate.

Even if an inaction is as bad as an action (and I do reject this as sort of absurd) We can ignore the Prime Directive if it ends up making us ignore a people who will die anyway (and this is generally what the characters in the series actually do) but we can still consider that enduring systems we don't understand could be hyperfragile and not mess with them if we don't have to.
Or we can consider that the advanced specie did subtly interfere [as per evidence] to set things in motion, and moved on after doing so, leaving the human specie to work things out from the evidence and come to solid conclusions re said evidence.

A type of 'leg-up' but no more or less than that...

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: The Fedora and atheism in comedy

Post #16

Post by Purple Knight »

William wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:02 pmInaction - as I am using the word - has to do with action going against more correct [more moral] action.
That's my point though - we don't always know what that is. I find the Prime Directive to be basically the same as the statement that we should not switch the tracks in the train problem, killing one to save five.

It's because actions create more entropy than inactions, which to me should carry a higher burden of knowledge. If everyone should act on even minimal information (five lives, versus one) and create more entropy by changing the outcome, the meta of that is that we have everyone trying to switch the tracks back and forth because of differences in knowledge. The lone person on Track B is a Nobel Prize winning scientist, working on a cure for cancer. But he's destined to cure a mass murderer of their cancer. But that mass murderer was destined to murder the next Adolf Hitler.

What happens in the real world is that when the default is to act, it just creates a huge scrum with everybody fighting when none of that strife had to occur if the default was to have a much higher burden of knowledge to act than not to act, and if nobody really knows the greatest good we just leave the tracks alone. So I say follow the Prime Directive and don't interfere. But if you really do know best then just break it. People already have this threshold where they will break any rule for a better outcome. In this case the rule itself just subs for the extra entropy created by an action over an inaction and the hesitancy you well ought to have to spend lives or resources on changing the outcome when you don't know for sure it will be a better one.

If you know it's better, do it, subtly interfere, make things better if you know you can, but I don't, so I won't be switching those tracks because there are too many unknowns. Maybe when I am very very certain I have all the obtainable relevant knowledge, I will break the Prime Directive as well, but I still think it's a good rule to have to remind me not to break it when I only have a little information.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10501
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1133 times
Contact:

Re: The Fedora and atheism in comedy

Post #17

Post by William »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #16]

I understand what yo are saying, but this seems to require a kind of faith in preferred outcomes which themselves cannot be guaranteed, which make the reasoning flawed.

For example, - since one does not know the outcomes, saving 6 at the cost of 1 at least increases the chances the of the six, at least 1 [and perhaps even more] will prove to be good for humanity.

The kind of knowledge you are asking for [re your comment on burden of knowledge] cannot be known [as to whether a choice was positive or negative as per your terms] until it manifests so since the knowledge doesn't exist, assuming it is better to 'leave well enough alone' than to do what you can with what you have [as per assumed advanced specie & tech helping humanity], by remaining aloof, isn't logical.

Remember, we are using the idea that this can assist humanity in avoiding a self-imposed extinction event...

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: The Fedora and atheism in comedy

Post #18

Post by Purple Knight »

William wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:21 pmThe kind of knowledge you are asking for [re your comment on burden of knowledge] cannot be known [as to whether a choice was positive or negative as per your terms] until it manifests so since the knowledge doesn't exist, assuming it is better to 'leave well enough alone' than to do what you can with what you have [as per assumed advanced specie & tech helping humanity], by remaining aloof, isn't logical.

Remember, we are using the idea that this can assist humanity in avoiding a self-imposed extinction event...
My objection is that the knowledge that it's six versus one is such a limited piece of knowledge that another person could easily have another, different small piece of knowledge that points in the other direction - the lone person being a Nobel prizewinning scientist researching a cure for cancer - so in these sorts of situations, in practice, when we have many actors, we have an energy-wasting, violent scrum.

I'm not asking for knowledge at all. I'm asking for reasonable certainty. If I am very very confident, and if I feel I have all or most of the obtainable knowledge, I might break the Prime Directive, or at least grudgingly admit that someone with that knowledge does no wrong in breaking it, but if I don't, I won't. If I know all the people involved, very very well, as well as is possible to know someone, that's when I might switch the tracks.

I also find it ironic that the usual situation for which the Prime Directive is invoked as correct - giving out technology willy-nilly - has actually happened on Earth and it has only exploded the populations of developing countries unsustainably and thus increased poverty and suffering. Knowing that, I'm not going to dump food and technology on the Mintakans so they can have a better quality of life, because it might end with them having a much worse one. I not only worry that I might cause harm, but I also affirm that their natural course of development has value.

When we mess with nature, we just make it worse. Did you know the Nazis were great valuers of Nature? Well here's where they went wrong: They violated the Prime Directive.

https://www.expatica.com/de/uncategoriz ... pe-103642/

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10501
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1133 times
Contact:

Re: The Fedora and atheism in comedy

Post #19

Post by William »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #18]
I'm not asking for knowledge at all. I'm asking for reasonable certainty.
Knowledge is to be discovered everywhere there is information. Reasonable certainty involves information.
If I know all the people involved, very very well, as well as is possible to know someone, that's when I might switch the tracks.
Therein you limit your options because it is not possible for you to know everyone else...it is enough that one can use their existence getting to know their self.
I also find it ironic that the usual situation for which the Prime Directive is invoked as correct - giving out technology willy-nilly - has actually happened on Earth and it has only exploded the populations of developing countries unsustainably and thus increased poverty and suffering.
The actions of materialists have brought about this through the enacting of materialism.

But there was no giving. Secrets were heavily guarded and still are - "for reasons of national security" - sharing generally has the opposite effect, but is seldom displayed as an alternative.
Knowing that, I'm not going to dump food and technology on the Mintakans so they can have a better quality of life, because it might end with them having a much worse one.
Gobbledygook
I not only worry that I might cause harm, but I also affirm that their natural course of development has value.
So from your perspective [as the advanced specie] does the choice to remain aloof/hidden have something to do with your own species development?
When we mess with nature, we just make it worse. Did you know the Nazis were great valuers of Nature?
Yes - it is clearly displayed in the history that was captured, and yes - I am being sarcastic.
Well here's where they went wrong: They violated the Prime Directive.
How so?

Image

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10501
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1133 times
Contact:

Re: The Fedora and atheism in comedy

Post #20

Post by William »


Post Reply