GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Looks like somebody took it personally. Well, whatever.
The person getting emotional here is you. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your understanding. There's no reason for you to get upset.
That you can't disprove a negative is a fundamental rule in logic. For example... I claim there's a soda can on my desk. How can you prove that there isn't?
Now, you say, who cares, right? It's a perfectly normal claim, so you're willing to accept it on face value. So... I now claim that Allyson Hannigan is sitting on my desk, staring over my shoulder as I type this message. What's the natural response? "Pics or it never happened."
Not only would it be impossible for you to prove she isn't at my desk, but it's not your role to prove it either way. I made the claim, it's up to me to prove it.
There's a reason why shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on the claimant, and the claimant in this case is the theist.
Track you down and barge into your house, obviously. Or ask somebody else to do it. As long as you're on the same planet, with enough resources it is quite possible to make sure if there was a soda on your desk.
Originally Posted by SL00b
I'm simply ...
Your counterargument is not interesting enough.
I've been looking for a conclusion for religion thread. The conclusion happened, but it was not interesting enough compared to what I've been looking for, and now discussion is at its dead end, plus now I've got reasons to think that strong agnostic position might actually make some sense (which is just "great"). So have fun arguing with somebody else. I'm not interested anymore.
It was a joke. I suspect for most people "religiousness" has been "solved" for themselves even if not for others.
What I find amusing are the folks that do adhere to some religious creed (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc...) that like to say "We're not 'religious'." It is much like all the politicians that decry their opponents antics as "politics" as if they somehow themselves are above "politics" despite their chosen profession. People that spend time trying to ignore the actual meaning of words in order to prove some "deeper meaning" show me there is no point listening to them because one can't have a conversation in which meanings change to suit the speaker. One should suppose that we could at least accept dictionary definitions but...
. . . People that spend time trying to ignore the actual meaning of words in order to prove some "deeper meaning" show me there is no point listening to them because one can't have a conversation in which meanings change to suit the speaker. One should suppose that we could at least accept dictionary definitions but...
"Actual," being based in time, changes inherently. Joseph Campbell spent a lifetime searching for common threads in mythologies, which use symbology to point to that which is ineffable. Carl Jung spoke of "archetypes of the unconscience."
Does one, then define "myths" as being untrue? and changes in meaning over time (a la evolution) as evidencing untruth?
Interesting and intriguing topic, but one bound to be misintepreted by earthling humans with limited understanding, ego and freedom of choice!
You completely ignored what I was saying. I made no suggestion as to whether Religion was "true" or "untrue" but rather bemoaned people that ignore the dictionary definitions of words. Your response makes me suspect you fall into that camp because instead of responding to what I "actally" said you chose to go into a completely different tangent.
Anyway I don't want to get sucked into this thread that never ends again so I'll let you post whatever bogus response next comes to your mind without bothering to reply to it.