LinuxQuestions.org
LinuxAnswers - the LQ Linux tutorial section.
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 168 28.82%
Deist 18 3.09%
Theist 23 3.95%
Agnostic 120 20.58%
Atheist 254 43.57%
Voters: 583. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-16-2009, 05:32 AM   #781
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 130Reputation: 130

Quote:
Whoa!!! All this philosophy is getting too deep for me.
Really? Not according to jiml8 (see #778) :

Quote:
I do agree with Brian about your introduction of a false dichotomy
 
Old 02-16-2009, 06:00 AM   #782
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,041
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Was that me or another Brian he was referring to? I thought a false dichotomy was something surgeons did to female-to-male transsexuals if they changed their minds.

Last edited by brianL; 02-16-2009 at 06:02 AM.
 
Old 02-16-2009, 11:25 AM   #783
Quakeboy02
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: Debian Squeeze 2.6.32.9 SMP AMD64
Posts: 3,245

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
Seriously? 0 and 1 are entirely imaginary, no less than the other examples I gave; they are imposed on the world, not inferred from it.
This is true. What is not true is that there is only the choice between belief and disbelief. There is also the situation where the victim hasn't even heard about the two things he's supposed to choose between.

And then, there is the greater false dichotomy, which is that there is only the choice between belief in the "one true god" and disbelief. I'm sure I posted this some months ago, but there is an infinity of possible "one true gods" as well as an infinity of multiple or co-gods to choose from. There is most certainly NOT just the choice between your "one true god" and no god. The FSM, and Zeus (and company) and others that you haven't heard of yet are just as valid as choices for gods. The fact that you have eliminated them doesn't mean that they are out of contention.

The problem is that believers get locked into their own belief system, which must, of course, be true. For the believer, there is only us and them; belief in our belief system or belief in some other belief system. The concept of disbelief in all of this rot is usually to alien for them to accept. Once they are able to step outside of it, they are able to see it for the sham that it really is. This doesn't happen very often, regardless of which god-myth we're talking about.
 
Old 02-16-2009, 11:26 AM   #784
Quakeboy02
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: Debian Squeeze 2.6.32.9 SMP AMD64
Posts: 3,245

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Was that me or another Brian he was referring to? I thought a false dichotomy was something surgeons did to female-to-male transsexuals if they changed their minds.
I believe he has confused my post for one coming from you.
 
Old 02-16-2009, 01:46 PM   #785
yonnieboy
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: sw OR
Distribution: LMDE, PCLOS, Bodhi, Antix
Posts: 100

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
from r1d3r
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Isn't that the latest Ubuntu: Jaunty Jackasshole?
Nice one! lol

BTW, is that a religion?
__________________
It certainly has a cult like following which could be called 'believers'. Would the master god be the 'Penguin"? or would it be the 'Gnome'?

I think this calls for a new set of Distro's! The Egyptians had a plethora of cool deities that would be useful such as Sobek could be the Firewall god and Anubis the master of dead files, Baal could be the generator for new files. We could do the same for each major religion of Antiquity, Odin could run the dictionary, Thor could hurl lightening bolts when things go wrong, Loki could play mischief on the network. But if someone tried to do this with an Abrahamic religion it just goes dead! A one god solution does not make for an entertaining distro.
 
Old 02-16-2009, 01:59 PM   #786
Quakeboy02
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: Debian Squeeze 2.6.32.9 SMP AMD64
Posts: 3,245

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by yonnieboy View Post
It certainly has a cult like following which could be called 'believers'. Would the master god be the 'Penguin"? or would it be the 'Gnome'?

I think this calls for a new set of Distro's! The Egyptians had a plethora of cool deities that would be useful such as Sobek could be the Firewall god and Anubis the master of dead files, Baal could be the generator for new files. We could do the same for each major religion of Antiquity, Odin could run the dictionary, Thor could hurl lightening bolts when things go wrong, Loki could play mischief on the network. But if someone tried to do this with an Abrahamic religion it just goes dead! A one god solution does not make for an entertaining distro.
Hahaha. Nicely done!
 
Old 02-17-2009, 10:17 AM   #787
will1911a1
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: PA
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 12

Rep: Reputation: 0
Atheist.
 
Old 02-17-2009, 07:20 PM   #788
oskar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Austria
Distribution: Ubuntu 12.10
Posts: 1,138

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
And where the ideology of atheism steps in...
Just because I recently saw this, and he demonstrates the difference more striking and eloquent than I could... english accent included:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDelhZQdCKQ

I don't know where you were going with the rest of the post saying that nothing can be defined without a counterpart... I don't agree with that premise at all.
If I had to define a male, I need to include the woman just by the nature of the thing. But that doesn't mean that one alone could not be defined. Some lizzard species have only female individuals. They cannot evolve through recombination, and therefore have poor adaption which sucks for them, but it doesn't mean they should puff into philosophical smoke just because you don't like it. We still have the carbon unit 'lizzard' with detachable tail and everything.
One color can be defined by its wavelengh. If there were no other wavelenghs There simply wouldn't be colors and technicolor would go out of business, but we could still refer to it as light, and we could still define it by wavelengh, vaccuum speed and particle qualities. I don't see your reasoning there at all.

Last edited by oskar; 02-17-2009 at 07:24 PM.
 
Old 02-18-2009, 02:38 AM   #789
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 130Reputation: 130
Quote:
I don't know where you were going with the rest of the post saying that nothing can be defined without a counterpart... I don't agree with that premise at all.
If I had to define a male, I need to include the woman just by the nature of the thing. But that doesn't mean that one alone could not be defined. Some lizzard species have only female individuals. They cannot evolve through recombination, and therefore have poor adaption which sucks for them, but it doesn't mean they should puff into philosophical smoke just because you don't like it. We still have the carbon unit 'lizzard' with detachable tail and everything.
One color can be defined by its wavelengh. If there were no other wavelenghs There simply wouldn't be colors and technicolor would go out of business, but we could still refer to it as light, and we could still define it by wavelengh, vaccuum speed and particle qualities. I don't see your reasoning there at all.
As I said, sign system are entirely arbitrary. Male versus female is only one among many possible dichotomies; one could define an animal also in terms of human vs. non-human, mammal vs. non-mammal, legs vs. no legs, large vs. small, detachable tail or not, etc. - the set of distinguishing features is potentially endless. The same goes for wavelength, where your suggestion to define it in terms of light only ends up shifting the problem into a new area: now you need to define light, which you would do in terms of light vs dark, weak vs strong, fast vs slow, etc. - just take the color spectrum, pick out one colour and imagine how it woud make sense it you eliminated - once an for all - all the other variations.

Last edited by jay73; 02-18-2009 at 02:39 AM.
 
Old 02-18-2009, 06:00 AM   #790
oskar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Austria
Distribution: Ubuntu 12.10
Posts: 1,138

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 49
I was just disagreeing with the premise. I have no clue whatsoever what the argument is.
But anyway... because it's kind of fun... You can definitely define light without darkness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

If the other spectrums were not there then the TERM e.g. 'green' would fall apart, but not the thing itself. And the term changed because you artifically changed the conditions so it no longer makes sense to make a differentiation. It does not mean that one cannot exist without the other. It just means that your description of it no longer applies... that's completely different.

Last edited by oskar; 02-18-2009 at 06:01 AM.
 
Old 02-18-2009, 06:58 PM   #791
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 130Reputation: 130
Quote:
If the other spectrums were not there then the TERM e.g. 'green' would fall apart, but not the thing itself. And the term changed because you artifically changed the conditions so it no longer makes sense to make a differentiation. It does not mean that one cannot exist without the other.
Blaspemy! How exactly are we supposed to know anything without a "term" (the proper word would be "concept")? It really is not very hard to get what I mean. If you do not know, say, Sanskrit, then all you need to do is grab an ancient text written in that language and try to make sense of it. Tough? Of course, because you have not learned the relevant linguistic concepts.
Now, as you suggest, whether you know Sanskrit or not, whether its grammar, vocabulary, phonetics, etc. had been established or not, the "thing" (text) would still be there. Well no, not really. You would only know that it is Sanskrit because you were told it is. And you would only know that it is a text, again, either because you were told or because you have met texts in your life before and you find the object in question to be quite like it. Would it be a text to a species that does not use human language, much less written language? Imagine how it would appear to, say, a fly.Without conceptualization, the "text" would not even constitute a "thing" because "thing" is a concept, too.

Edit: just to preclude any confusion, when I say that it would not even be a thing, I do not mean that "it" would mysteriously disappear. It would still be perceived but our perception of it would be meaningless, much like air must be to a species that has not even begun to think about it.

Last edited by jay73; 02-18-2009 at 08:27 PM.
 
Old 02-18-2009, 07:31 PM   #792
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 oskar View Post
If the other spectrums were not there then the TERM e.g. 'green' would fall apart, but not the thing itself.
AFAIK some languages have only TWO colors in rainbow.
http://www.colourlovers.com/blog/200...of-the-rainbow so "green" is very relative term.
 
Old 02-18-2009, 07:43 PM   #793
Quakeboy02
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: Debian Squeeze 2.6.32.9 SMP AMD64
Posts: 3,245

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
Assignment for the day: describe the difference between red and green to someone who has red-green color-blindness. Advanced credit: describe color to those who are completely color-blind, in a meaningful manner.

This thread seems to have been totally derailed at this point.
 
Old 02-20-2009, 08:24 AM   #794
oskar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Austria
Distribution: Ubuntu 12.10
Posts: 1,138

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 49
Jay, I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that one would be meaningless without the other. Let's stay with man/woman or blue/green just for simplicity.
If all that lived would reproduce asexually then those lifeforms wouldn't become meaningless. Just your concept of sexuality would become meaningless - which those critters could not possibly care less about. Just because your concept of something looses it's meaning does not have any effect on the physical world.
If all you're saying is that a definition or concept will fall apart if you remove a vital part of what makes it what it is - that's like, doh - obvious. Who cares? Where are you going with this?
Atheism infers believe, that's absolutely correct. Without people believing in invicible sky authorities, it would be pointless to take a counter position. It would be the default condition.

Last edited by oskar; 02-20-2009 at 08:26 AM.
 
Old 02-20-2009, 08:33 AM   #795
oskar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Austria
Distribution: Ubuntu 12.10
Posts: 1,138

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErV View Post
AFAIK some languages have only TWO colors in rainbow.
http://www.colourlovers.com/blog/200...of-the-rainbow so "green" is very relative term.
Maybe linguistically, but no scientifically.
According to wikipedia green is the light spectrum between 520nm and 570nm.
 
  


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


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 10:57 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