LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

View Poll Results: You are a...
firm believer 157 28.19%
Deist 18 3.23%
Theist 21 3.77%
Agnostic 119 21.36%
Atheist 242 43.45%
Voters: 557. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Search this Thread
Old 02-12-2009, 04:56 PM   #736
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,686
Blog Entries: 51

Rep: Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238

Quote:
Originally Posted by sycamorex View Post
They might have been created by people.
There's no doubt in my mind about that. But believers - especially fundamentalists - claim they were dictated by god.
 
Old 02-12-2009, 06:42 PM   #737
jiml8
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,171

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by entz View Post
and from here i'd like to jump back to the debate about the "3 state logic" that erv/jiml8 has been arguing about and attempting to apply to the question of god.

well , the thing is in a nutshell that the 3 state logic can't be applied here in this argument for the very simple reason:

Practicality.
One man's "practicality" is another man's "blithering idiocy".

Quote:
what that essentially means is that , things that do not have explicit proof to account for them have the very same practical effect of those same things having actual proof against there existence.

now here you have to examine the latter statement carefully!

I'm not saying that having no evidence means having evidence against , but instead i'm saying that having no evidence has the same effect as if they have evidence against.
Therefore, quarks did not exist.

That is, until theory advanced to the point where quarks had to exist. So then they did.

Uh Huh. Got it. Solipsism rules the universe, and "practicality" is its byword.


Quote:
This is like the analogy of you thinking you've a car but don't know where it's , which means practically that you don't have any car.

because without knowing your car's location (i.e car status = unknown)
you gotta walk home as if you actually know that you don't have any car.

Do You understand what i mean ?

Is not called oversimplification but it's called practicality !
No, I still own a car. If I don't know where it is at, I call the police and report it stolen. It turns up shortly, or I collect the insurance. In the meanwhile, my insurance pays for the rental car so I have something to drive. Hence, I don't have to walk.

Now, THAT is practicality.

Quote:
so basically , if any of you didn't reply to my post , or otherwise make yourself visible to me (by let's say changing the contents of your older posts ..etc) , i would consider you as non existent , and i would act after then as such.
My existence is not related to your considerations, at all. I exist, regardless of your beliefs, or your "practicality".

Quote:
and I don't think you would act differently either , would YOu ?

That's how practical reality works.


Cheers
There are arguments that I can respect, though I might disagree with them, and there are arguments that are merely...well...not particularly deserving of respect.
 
Old 02-12-2009, 06:47 PM   #738
jiml8
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,171

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
Quote:
well let me start this by say something about your writing style,
chopping up my post into million quotes , and then saying "negative" , "wrong" ..etc will not make you look smarter or give your arguments more value!

instead it makes you look just like a troll , besides that your post are almost unreadable , don't distract me by trying to explode the point which we are arguing about into endless other sub-points and sub-plots .
You need to settle down. Fact is that your arguments are absurd on their face and indefensible. Erv provided examples of that, as did I. When someone takes your arguments and shreds them, if you are wise you'll go back and reconsider your position rather than begin to be belligerent.

Ad Hominem attacks are the last resort of someone who has lost an argument; can't support the position, so attack the person who shreds the position.
 
Old 02-12-2009, 06:51 PM   #739
jiml8
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,171

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
Quote:
Damn it, this thing is basic, is it really that hard to get?
He is insisting on absurdly solipsistic position in order to avoid having to concede the point. His argument is indefensible, but that won't stop him from defending it.

The beginnings of true wisdom are realizing when to just back off and reconsider things.
 
Old 02-13-2009, 12:04 AM   #740
yonnieboy
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: sw OR
Distribution: LMDE, PCLOS, Bodhi, Antix
Posts: 100

Rep: Reputation: 15
I think, therefore I am! ...I think?

Hey, did anybody wish Charles Darwin Happy Birthday today? Happy 200th Birthday Charlie!!!! Thank you!
 
Old 02-13-2009, 04:09 AM   #741
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,686
Blog Entries: 51

Rep: Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238
I am, therefore I think...at least, that's what I thought.
Yeah, I sent him a card.
 
Old 02-13-2009, 05:43 AM   #742
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 129Reputation: 129
Quote:
I am, therefore I think
How can you know that you are without thinking first?
 
Old 02-13-2009, 05:43 AM   #743
entz
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Milky Way , Planet Earth!
Distribution: Opensuse
Posts: 453
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErV View Post

This means that either there is no effects (unlikely) are being created by B OR that (likely) object A is outside of area of effect created by object B or that object A can't feel influence of object B, while object C can. Imagine locked chest. Inside the chest is something. You don't see that something until you open chest. Does it exist? It creates influence. If you were inside the chest you could see that object.
NO Buddy , you missed the entire point !

I said before ,and i'm gonna repeat again that the concept of existence is relative , have you ever studied the theory of relativity ?
if so then you would know that something that appears to moving to one object may appear static to another object .
and in the same token something that exists to somebody or something may not exist to something else.

Everything is relative , even the concept of existence .
By now you should have realized that it's absurd to talk about "absolute existence" because there is no such thing.

if there was absolute existence then everything that doesn't exist would be considered to be "unknown" , which means that essentially things would fall back to 2 states and not 3 states.

didn't it come to your mind the fact , that your logic no matter how hard you try to come up with 3 states will fall back to 2 states?

Can you give me an example where there are 3 distinct possible states of existence?

NO you can't , because state 2 (non-existence ) and state 3 (unknown) means the very exact same thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ErV View Post
I pointed out what is wrong with your argument. Computer creates influence. It is visible. But you can't see it because you in another room. To find out what is inside the room, you should at least enter the room. If you never enter the room, you won't uncover existence of computer, and won't find evidence. That is the problem of certain atheists - they believe that there is no god, but they don't attempt to find him/her/it, and assume that evidence will present itself to them automatically.
HAHA , this is so funny ;p
the most hilarious statement that you've ever made so far LOL

So are you telling me that you're looking for GOD ?
where are you looking for God ? in your grandpa's old attic ? HAHA

no really serious now , what effort are you doing to find whether there is a god or not?!

You see , you're just trying to overcomplicate things and hiding behind bogus grey logic that you refer to as "3 state logic" .

i can't really understand your motive but it looks as if you're trying to stick out from between everybody else , or attempting to look wiser than the rest of us. (by making up a third option ..whatever)

btw , i've read your sig but that doesn't change anything.
i told you about your writing style , because i'm trying to give you some advice on how you might present your ideas better , it's your choice to take it or not .

Cheers
 
Old 02-13-2009, 06:10 AM   #744
rsciw
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Essex (UK)
Distribution: Home: Debian/Ubuntu, Work: Ubuntu
Posts: 206

Rep: Reputation: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by entz View Post
i told you about your writing style , because i'm trying to give you some advice on how you might present your ideas better , it's your choice to take it or not .
ErV's way of splitting up a quote and going into each point is way better readable than the usual wall of text, often jumping between points of random stuff without any direct link to a certain line in the original quote, as so many do unfortunately.
 
Old 02-13-2009, 06:38 AM   #745
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,686
Blog Entries: 51

Rep: Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
How can you know that you are without thinking first?
Mmm, I hadn't thought of that. But if I wasn't, how could I think? I don't think I could think if there was no me to do the thinking...I think I think that's right.
 
Old 02-13-2009, 07:36 AM   #746
entz
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Milky Way , Planet Earth!
Distribution: Opensuse
Posts: 453
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsciw View Post
ErV's way of splitting up a quote and going into each point is way better readable than the usual wall of text, often jumping between points of random stuff without any direct link to a certain line in the original quote, as so many do unfortunately.
Well that's true when you use the quote feature considerately , perhaps 2-3 times at max .

but not split every single statement into a quote then your supposed to look for the needle in the hay.

cheers
 
Old 02-13-2009, 07:58 AM   #747
ErV
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Russia
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 1,202
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by entz View Post
NO Buddy , you missed the entire point !
I got it. You want to prove you are right using any means available, including ridiculous arguments, personal attacks and mangling other people's saying. I'm not interested, because you obviously unable to provide interesting dialogue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by entz View Post
I said before ,and i'm gonna repeat again that the concept of existence is relative ,
You confuse universe with image of universe as you perceive it.
And you confuse "object exists" with "object exists here".

Quote:
Originally Posted by entz View Post
if so then you would know that something that appears to moving to one object may appear static to another object .
Movement is relative. Existence is not.
Did you study relativity? I doubt it. As far as I know it covers time, mass, length(size) and speed. Not existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

Quote:
Originally Posted by entz View Post
NO you can't , because state 2 (non-existence ) and state 3 (unknown) means the very exact same thing.
No they don't mean same thing. And I already explained why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by entz View Post
no really serious now , what effort are you doing to find whether there is a god or not?!
I'm not interested in existence/non-existence of god. I don't care. There for I don't know for sure if there is a god or not. I do not have reasonable evidence of god existence or non-existence, so I claim that I do not know whether god exist or not. You claim that there is no god, you care, so I suggest to go look for evidence and stop being fanatical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by entz View Post
You see , you're just trying to overcomplicate things and hiding behind bogus grey logic that you refer to as "3 state logic" .
You see, the logical model I mentioned is the simplest thing I can think of. That is - simplest thing that still can be applied to real world without overstupiditification. Oh, and it is not bogus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by entz View Post
i can't really understand your motive but it looks as if you're trying to stick out from between everybody else , or attempting to look wiser than the rest of us. (by making up a third option ..whatever)
My motive is none of your business. There may be no motive. Unless you are clairvoyant telepathic person, I wouldn't bother trying to guess other people's motives.

Last discussion about religion were spoiled by fanatical christians that believed that all women should know their place. This discussion was spoiled by you. Surely, you do give atheism a "good" name.

Basically, you look like the person that goes on rampage because of unability to prove their point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by entz View Post
btw , i've read your sig
Did you understand it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by entz View Post
but that doesn't change anything.
It does change things. By initiating conversation with me you agreed that all listed in signature is fine for you (which is the part that didn't fit in signature character limit).

Quote:
Originally Posted by entz View Post
i told you about your writing style , because i'm trying to give you some advice on how you might present your ideas better , it's your choice to take it or not .
Did I ask you for advice? No. So mind your own business, and keep your advice to yourself - I don't need it.

--Bottom line--

I tried to explain what I meant hard enough. You don't understand it and you don't want to understand it. Which means it is not my problem, but yours. Which means that I'm not interested in continuing discussion with you. Keep proving your position this way and you'll be one people call troll.

And another thing. Your general style of arguments and replies combined with accidental use of "HAHA LOL That's funny ;p" (also sig, fav, etc) raises question about your age. I assume that few years later (3..5) you might be able to provide cold, insightful, thoughtful arguments (and without emotional crap) that will give enough brain exercise and bring respect of other people (and etc.), but right now you aren't there. Discussing things with easuter was quite enlightening, while your replies in general makes me think about pressing "ignore button".
Which (after some consideration), I'll do right now.
Congratulations, entz! You are now ignored and won't be able to prove your position to me anymore.

Last edited by ErV; 02-13-2009 at 11:46 AM.
 
Old 02-13-2009, 09:49 AM   #748
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,686
Blog Entries: 51

Rep: Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238
If you think I am because I think I think you should think again because I think because I am. Something like that, anyway.
 
Old 02-13-2009, 10:29 AM   #749
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64-bit with multilib
Posts: 2,074

Rep: Reputation: 187Reputation: 187
Is it possible that God can't think that he is, so he uses us to think that his is for himself? So in other words, if nobody thinks about god, then technically he no longer is, and as 'powerful' as he is, he can be snuffed out of existence by merely a lack of thought of him?
 
Old 02-13-2009, 11:42 AM   #750
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,686
Blog Entries: 51

Rep: Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238Reputation: 1238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz View Post
Is it possible that God can't think that he is, so he uses us to think that his is for himself? So in other words, if nobody thinks about god, then technically he no longer is, and as 'powerful' as he is, he can be snuffed out of existence by merely a lack of thought of him?
Let's try it. Everybody stop thinking about God, after 3. 1...2...3!!
Is he still there? Has he gone?
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 06:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 01:28 PM
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 9 02-13-2003 02:37 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration