GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I would note – and I am beginning to suspect that it might be relevant here – that there is both such a thing as an "athiest," and an "anti-theist."
An "athiest" does not believe that there is a supreme being or beings, but might be perfectly content to let anyone else believe (or, not-believe) as they see fit.
Whereas, an "anti-theist" has a ... a positively religious(!) ... need to aggressively castigate anyone who appears to have beliefs in any supreme being.
"His god," as it were, is that "there is no god." And, generally speaking, I suggest that this point-of-view is both indefensible and a mistake.
(And please do not anyone take personal offense at this intended-to-be parenthetical and neutral comment. I respect you, whoever you are, and I am not besmirching you.)
For as long as human beings have looked up at the sky, or regarded the mystery of life around them or even the miracle of their own bodies, they have, and will continue to have, a belief that "there is something surrounding me that is much bigger and older than me." Furthermore, in times of need, they have taken great solace in these things. Howbeit, then, that we should deny them these things? Howbeit that we are so sure of ourselves? What grants us the self-righteous right to do something against them, that might indeed hurt them very badly, even though they choose not to let you hear them scream?
There's quite a lot of religious writing – in the Bible and in other traditions – that makes the important point that you can "sin against your fellow human being." That nothing out there is really absolute. That you might be, "in fact, 'perfectly right,' and yet, perfectly wrong to say it(!) to this-or-that person."
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 02-23-2017 at 06:03 PM.
An absolute monarchy is a form of government in which the ruling monarch enjoys absolute control without limitations from a constitution or from law. In this form of government, the monarch is the head of state and head of government with unrestricted political power.
I suggest putting your zillions on going to the Goldilocks Zone, see if your "gods" are there... clue, they ain't!
We can "believe" whatever we want or better yet are taught but when you die don't expect to dream for long( even if your silly loved ones "believe" in ghosts*!)
Can a lion, tiger or bear be a vegan or vegetarian? Why yes they can. We just need everyone who believes in owning weapons to kill all them, then themselves( instant evolution)‽ Or, we could teach people not to be morons, kinda doesn't work with fairy tales tho!!!
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e
Can a lion, tiger or bear be a vegan or vegetarian? Why yes they can. We just need everyone who believes in owning weapons to kill all them, then themselves( instant evolution)‽ Or, we could teach people not to be morons, kinda doesn't work with fairy tales tho!!!
I guess it's a "I'll know it when I see/experience it" thing, as dumb as that might sound.
That's a pretty good definition of evidence, actually! But don't forget that most of your knowledge is based on other people's experiences. When my doctor tells me that a drug is good for what ails me, I don't demand an explanation of its actual biological effect, which I probably wouldn't understand anyway.
I continue to hold to the opinion that there is actually room for both forms of "considering the world around us." I don't find science and religion and philosophy to be contradictory, but rather, complementary. I'm certainly never going to criticize someone for his or her religious beliefs, nor tell them that they are "wrong, according to me."
People have been doing all three of these things since humanity began, and they're never going to stop doing it. Nor should they.
As long as these people will respect me, I will respect them. And we will: "Coexist."
What happens after we die? I don't know, and I'm not about to fi
What happens after we die? I don't know, and I'm not about to fi
This is my exciting and constructive future (no need to fiction):
Quote:
Decomposition is the process by which organic substances are broken down into simpler matter. The process is a part of nutrient cycle and is essential for recycling the finite matter that occupies physical space in the biosphere.
As far as words like "soul" are concerned, I don't know what they are supposed to refer to: I suspect this will depend heavily on which system of beliefs one considers to be "the true one".
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.