LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
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 225 29.88%
Deist 24 3.19%
Theist 29 3.85%
Agnostic 148 19.65%
Atheist 327 43.43%
Voters: 753. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-19-2023, 11:49 PM   #11236
mrmazda
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2016
Location: SE USA
Distribution: openSUSE 24/7; Debian, Knoppix, Mageia, Fedora, others
Posts: 5,914
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082

Just started, on now: "Young Age of the Earth" on Roku on ADTV, lasts more than an hour, explains substantial evidence for young earth. Daily ADTV schedule repeats every 8 hours.

Last edited by mrmazda; 02-19-2023 at 11:53 PM. Reason: add more schedule info
 
Old 02-20-2023, 03:45 AM   #11237
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 7,706
Blog Entries: 19

Rep: Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506
Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
It's messy with most religions. Let me illustrate with Orthodox Churches
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/13/n...-churches.html

or if, like me, you don't have a NYT subscription, here's the .onion link https://www.nytimesn7cgmftshazwhfgzm37qxb44r64ytbb2dj3x62d2lljsciiyd.onion/2022/03/13/nyregion/russian-ukrainian-orthodox-churches.html
Useful advice: If you don't have tor, you can use links2 (graphical links) for this kind of thing. Open the page in FF, copy the address and paste it into links. Links doesn't do javascript!

Last edited by hazel; 02-20-2023 at 04:00 AM.
 
Old 02-20-2023, 03:59 AM   #11238
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 7,706
Blog Entries: 19

Rep: Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506
Quote:
Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box View Post
I've said this before previously in this thread, but redundancy is ok: if someone bombs are east coast, should not we offer our west? If someone steals our shirt, we are to offer our coat: so if someone steals my car, I should offer them my house? If someone steals my younger child, should I offer them my older child?
The examples you give show that one man's pacifism is another man's death! I respect an honest pacifist but I don't myself believe that we have the right to sacrifice other people just to keep our own hands clean.

I am what Jews call "the Second Generation". I was born after the Holocaust but my parents went through it and I am scarred indirectly by their experiences. That is why, even though I am now a Christian, I cannot be a pacifist. The reason why there are still any Jews at all alive in Europe was because the Allies fought Hitler and beat him. Nothing else would or could have had the same effect. Yes, there were pacifist resistance workers who ended up being arrested and gassed. They were heroes and they did save a few Jewish lives. But that was nothing compared to the number of lives that were lost, or the number that were saved by the military victory of the Allies.

In the end, certain levels of evil have to be fought. If someone hits you on the cheek, you have the moral right to turn the other cheek, but you don't have the same right to order another person to do so simply because you are too high-minded to defend him.
 
Old 02-20-2023, 09:13 AM   #11239
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,787

Rep: Reputation: 2084Reputation: 2084Reputation: 2084Reputation: 2084Reputation: 2084Reputation: 2084Reputation: 2084Reputation: 2084Reputation: 2084Reputation: 2084Reputation: 2084
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
Open the page in FF, copy the address and paste it into links. Links doesn't do javascript!
Firefox's "Reading Mode" should work too.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb...free-web-pages
 
Old 02-20-2023, 09:55 AM   #11240
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,814

Rep: Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451
The so-called "Young Earth Debate" isn't much of debate at all since it has taken centuries of data gathering, sifting through continuous falsification testing as new data added to and modified the field, to arrive where we are now where quite literally the only proponents of "Young Earth" are religious zealots, and by no means, all of them. The ADTV series which handles the Dr. Robert V. Gentry pseudo cosmology is one outlet that aligns itself with some of those zealots, specifically those that imagine there is scientific proof of the literal interpretation of the Christian bible.

To be fair and objective, Gentry was an educated scientist and actually used real Science given his background in nuclear physics to explore an actual area of Physics with testable data. It can even be granted that Gentry's conclusions and claims weren't "in bad faith" as one could possibly come to such a conclusion honestly at least at the time Gentry first made such interpretations of the initil premise. However, the test challenge of Gentry's "throwing down the gauntlet" was met shortly after and he lost. This shouldn't come as a surprise since proposing a hypothesis that literally flies in the face of the entire science of geology and all of it's associated sciences is an extraordinary claim and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.

In short there is no substantial evidence let alone extraordinary evidence. as gentry's interpretation has been found to be just that, an interesting interpretation followed by leaps of faith to arrive at a far distant conclusion which was the design bias from the beginning. There is ZERO evidence for Young Earth or The Flood, period, only speculation, in most cases superstition and agenda based.

Simply put, since we currently, and possibly ever, cannot gather data from outside Space and Time there isn't even a faint possibility of proving anything from outside including the existence of Creator(s) let alone the validity of any scripture. Religion cannot be validated by Science. Anyone is welcome to choose to believe, but Science cannot help you.

Last edited by enorbet; 02-20-2023 at 09:57 AM.
 
Old 02-20-2023, 01:29 PM   #11241
mrmazda
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2016
Location: SE USA
Distribution: openSUSE 24/7; Debian, Knoppix, Mageia, Fedora, others
Posts: 5,914
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
There is ZERO evidence for Young Earth or The Flood, period, only speculation, in most cases superstition and agenda based.
There's only one way the grand canyon could of happened, and it wasn't a measly little river trickling for billions of years, but over a short period with millions of tons of swiftly moving water. There's only one plausible way the fossil record can be as it is on mountain tops and aligned around the world - quick burial. There's only one plausible way for 200 ft thick miles long and miles wide coal seams to have been created. New crude is in constant formation, doesn't take millions or billions or even hundreds of years to form. The evidence is the evidence. You simply choose to interpret that evidence in contradiction of physical laws that explain it couldn't have happened over millions or billions of years, and logical objective assessment that supports relative youth. Even without thinking about fossils, mountains, canyons, coal or oil, the existence of life and DNA loudly shouts creation brought it into existence.
 
Old 02-20-2023, 02:07 PM   #11242
slac-in-the-box
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Location: oregon
Distribution: slackware64-15.0 / slarm64-current
Posts: 782
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 432Reputation: 432Reputation: 432Reputation: 432Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
The examples you give show that one man's pacifism is another man's death! I respect an honest pacifist but I don't myself believe that we have the right to sacrifice other people just to keep our own hands clean.
Well, sacrificing oneself is not avoidance or keeping one's hands clean... I agree about not demanding martyrdom of the population--that's why I think we should replace "In God We Trust" with "In Guns We Trust" on our currency... it would be more truthful... but if our Government wants to associate with a religion, like a theocracy, then why would a Christian theocracy (being the dominant religion in congress) maintain a military at all? In a Sikh Theocracy, everyone would have a sword.

Since nation states don't have homogenous religious populations, but are comprised of populations of diverse beliefs, religion doesn't really belong in nation state policy--yet it is here, on our money, and telling our women what to do with their bodies, etc. So I think my sarcasm is like, if they want to mix state and religion, then why not go all the way--otherwise there is just hypocracy instead of a theocracy... and at a state level it begins to border blasphemy of spirit... so what a scary thing. And clearly, my pov here is from someone born into the USA nation state, though the principle of keeping the religion separate from the government ought to be the same, imho, unless there is a nation state where the entire population is of one religion, but not even Iran has that.

Quote:
In the end, certain levels of evil have to be fought. If someone hits you on the cheek, you have the moral right to turn the other cheek, but you don't have the same right to order another person to do so simply because you are too high-minded to defend him.
Are you suggesting that Jesus was too high-minded to defend others?

Jesus set an example of how to defend others, and said he was the "way"... So did The Bab, of the Bahai faith, who's nickname translates to "the gate"... so did Ghandi... So did these women, many of whom seem to be slain for choosing to retain their virginity (perhaps just as much a consequence of arranged marriages as religion); nevertheless, their lives defended women's right to choose.

That holocaust is terrible to contemplate, but we must. Both my grandpas served and fortunately came back, the mechanic in the raf came back wounded... So I grieve for a humanity, more than specific relatives, and am sorry to learn that you had to experience it much closer to home rather than via textbooks and documentaries. My grandpas passed away when I was too young such that they did not share much about their experiences. I grieve for the humanity that stood by and watched. I don't believe it is necessarily German, but rather a consequence of a fusion of industrialism, science, manifest destiny, nationalism, and socio-psychology. Michelle Foucault purports that this techno disconnection from nature increases deviancy. I agree.

I hope we learned from that and are all viligant in sniffing out and uncovering signs of going over the brink again, so that we can collectively backpaddle before it's too late, which is why I am keeping a close watch on the global neoscientific authoritarians--this holocaust clearly demonstrated that profit-driven industrial science is not inherently benevolent or altruistic.

Suppose, for sake of "what if" and for considering hypothetical scenarios, that the Germans who professed Christianity before Hitler were also professing pacifism unto the cross: if they really believed what they were professing, then instead of supporting their emerging nationalistic military regime (many who believed they needed that might to "fight evil"), then the nazi thing wouldn't have worked, because, instead of millions of christian militant nazis, the nazis would have faced millions of Christian pacifists, instead of a few staunch JW! This hypocracy of those christian militants is a huge factor in allowing the holocaust in the first place. We can infer from this though that most of the christians in germany at that time did not really believe their religion enough to follow it all the way to the cross. Crosses are for dying on not hiding behind.

I don't think evil fighting evil works. It is not sustainable. It's inherent hypocracy is a carcinogen.

Every living child needs to be taught to empathy swarm any and all environmental hostilities, and that this is a far better practice than teaching them to rely on authorities to use hostility on hostilities for them.

Otherwise, Christianity will always remain a religion of hypocracy. To the Muslims, it looks like we are all fake: preaching turn the cheek, while sending in drone strikes; so they would be correct in assessing us as infidels, and we know what their religion says to do to infidels...

So if an army of Christian pacifists were beheaded by a Muslim army, the Muslims would no longer believe we were infidels... holy war over.

Christianity can seem contrary to nature. It seems natural to be afraid of death and the consquence of falling off the cliff I'm walking next to, and all the associated pain; believing otherwise can seem deluded and self-brainwashed. I would belive that, but for that discourse with Infinity and the signs it gives, the songs in the stars, and the sequence of impossible events that I can only call miracles.

I don't believe in manifest destiny.

But I believe we collectively manifest much of our collective experience, and so we each have a responsibility for our manifestive input.

A pacifist cannot be swayed to kill to fight evil. This means, that evil cannot trick them into killing to fight good, thinking they're fighting evil .

Even freed from all religious contexts, martyrdom is still the only valid ethical battlefield tactic of the twentyfirst century, especially organized consenting martyrs... War is a problem for parents to fix, because it is their children who will perish there... If all the parents of the world peacefully occupied the Ukraine, it would be over... there is only so much slaughter of nonviolent nonthreatening pacifists that anyone could take before stopping from self-disgust.

Sodiers and the populations supporting them, get filled with the fight the evil rhetoric on both sides: but even brainwashed soldiers can tell that singing and praying unarmed parents are not evil; its not what they signed up for..

Evil has to trick people to work. As long as we believe we have to fight evil, we can be tricked into fighting. But when we believe we'd do most anything but.. I can't go for that, oh no... no can do... then it can't trick us, because that is always a no-can-do...

God's got tired of feeling like a totalitarian, so he's holding an election on how Creation should be--your life is your balot. The only way to keep the peace, Universally, is to practice it, universally: pacifism unto and beyond death.

Fighting evil manifests evil by filling in the evil-to-fight checkbox on your balot. Pacifism is like "no evil here:" this is why it is the way and the gate. In fact, there is no religion that has earned a right to a monopoly on love or pacifism.... pacifistic martyrdom transcends religions... religions are like the survivors arguing about who gets the pearls... the martyr didn't need the religion or the pearl: peace is just what they already have, and not even evil can take it from them.

Last edited by slac-in-the-box; 02-20-2023 at 03:08 PM. Reason: its too long
 
Old 02-20-2023, 04:53 PM   #11243
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Distribution: Void, Slackware, Debian
Posts: 7,354

Rep: Reputation: 3754Reputation: 3754Reputation: 3754Reputation: 3754Reputation: 3754Reputation: 3754Reputation: 3754Reputation: 3754Reputation: 3754Reputation: 3754Reputation: 3754
I classified myself as a firm believer although my faith doesn't have a deity per se. I'm a Tibetan Buddhist.
 
Old 02-20-2023, 05:49 PM   #11244
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,814

Rep: Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmazda View Post
There's only one way the grand canyon could of happened, and it wasn't a measly little river trickling for billions of years, but over a short period with millions of tons of swiftly moving water. There's only one plausible way the fossil record can be as it is on mountain tops and aligned around the world - quick burial. There's only one plausible way for 200 ft thick miles long and miles wide coal seams to have been created. New crude is in constant formation, doesn't take millions or billions or even hundreds of years to form. The evidence is the evidence. You simply choose to interpret that evidence in contradiction of physical laws that explain it couldn't have happened over millions or billions of years, and logical objective assessment that supports relative youth. Even without thinking about fossils, mountains, canyons, coal or oil, the existence of life and DNA loudly shouts creation brought it into existence.
Hello mrmazda - Are you an accredited geologist? That would be a bonus but even if you are, which I highly doubt, citation please!?! Please explain why you imagine there is only one way, and the biblical way at that (considering it is demonstrably wrong about every other physical reality of the Universe starting with Flat Earth, on thru Earth-centric Universe... oh wait, scripture assumes the Universe, all of it, is only part of our little solar system) for these events and characteristics. Again, the scientific method demands falsifiable testing by objective, repeatable evidence not superstitious assumption. There is no evidence whatsoever that DNA demands a creator in a Universe of trillions of worlds with organic chemistry everywhere and tens of billions of years for interaction events. We have promising progress but as of yet wee simply do not know.

It is nowhere near scientific, let alone a given, to assume "I don't know what caused this so God must've done it because scripture says so". That's not evidence. You are completely welcome to believe in this but you cannot call it Science anymore than you can call a rock a bird.

Last edited by enorbet; 02-20-2023 at 05:51 PM.
 
Old 02-20-2023, 06:47 PM   #11245
mrmazda
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2016
Location: SE USA
Distribution: openSUSE 24/7; Debian, Knoppix, Mageia, Fedora, others
Posts: 5,914
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082
How about citations for disproof of the assertions in the references I've previously provided? Have you ever listened or read Frank Turek or Walter Veith yourself? I have to suppose not, not interested enough to listen to or read from those opposing your own beliefs, even when presented in scientific publications. https://crossexamined.org/

Nothing about millions, billions or trillions of years ago is provable scientifically. All we have from the so-called scientific community about the old earth proposition is supposition by fallible men based on the trivial amount they have proven scientifically, or merely observed as we all can see every day.

The Bible has never been disproven. Serious attempts to do so invariably dead-end, or support the opposite, creating more believers in the process. Most of what it has prophesied has come to pass over hundreds and thousands of years, while continuing to come to pass now. Miracles have happened and do happen. All life is a miracle. Turning a blind eye to miracles or the abundant evidence for creation surrounding us doesn't magically make them not.
 
Old 02-20-2023, 08:39 PM   #11246
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,814

Rep: Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmazda View Post
How about citations for disproof of the assertions in the references I've previously provided? Have you ever listened or read Frank Turek or Walter Veith yourself? I have to suppose not, not interested enough to listen to or read from those opposing your own beliefs, even when presented in scientific publications. https://crossexamined.org/
Mrmazda, I have not before today read or heard anything from Turek or Veith but not at all because I resist reading opposing views to any I have at the time. I don't have beliefs in the manner that people of faith have. I trust in odds and most change, evolve, as time and research goes on and new data arrives. Thge url you posted is not a scientific site, although it pretends to be like all mislabeled "Creation Science" proponents do because as I said previously, zero data is currently available in that regard, before Time, before Space. Because of your mentions I did look up Veith and Turek. I see no extraordinary evidence to support discarding centuries of actual scientific rigor. What I see is belief which fuels an agenda to twist interpretation to try to make the data fit the belief instead of letting the data speak for itself. It is literally the nature of religious dogma.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmazda View Post
Nothing about millions, billions or trillions of years ago is provable scientifically. All we have from the so-called scientific community about the old earth proposition is supposition by fallible men based on the trivial amount they have proven scientifically, or merely observed as we all can see every day.
We have photos of the aftermath of Big Bang and of the process of formation of stars and planets. We have radiometric dating which has proven by comparison to other methods to be consistent with each other. We have 2,000,000 old ice cores for example which correlate with rocks, fossils, tree rings and every other manner of dating known to Science. These things are merely a small sample of the scientific tolls that have been developed over millennia and they are by no means trivial. It seems you do not grasp that looking out in Space is looking back in time because the speed of light is finite. We can see galaxies and their stars many billions of years old. From my point of view you do Humanity a great disservice to trivialize such accomplishments.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmazda View Post
The Bible has never been disproven. Serious attempts to do so invariably dead-end, or support the opposite, creating more believers in the process. Most of what it has prophesied has come to pass over hundreds and thousands of years, while continuing to come to pass now. Miracles have happened and do happen. All life is a miracle. Turning a blind eye to miracles or the abundant evidence for creation surrounding us doesn't magically make them not.
The very first sentence above "The Bible has never been disproven" displays utter willful blindness since there exist contradictions not only in the Christian Bible as a whole, but even within the very same chapter. There is absolutely nothing stated in the bible regarding physical reality that wasn't consistent with the views of reality at the time it was written and most of them are now obviously wrong. The sky isn't "firmament" holding back an ocean. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. This is not to say the Christian Bible fails as a book of Philosophy. It obviously doesn't but it is NOT a Science text. In that regard, it fails miserably, but with good reason. The scholars of the time that wrote it didn't know any better. They thought disease came from curses, evil spirits and bad air, that slavery is perfectly OK, and hundreds if not thousands of other problematic contradictions.

Prophesy? Baloney! Numerous so called prophesies have been proven to have been written after the event, not before and some others never happened at all. It has been my experience that people who believe that THEIR interpretation of the Bible is to be taken literally as Truth, is both willfully blind and the height of sanctimonious hubris. Seriously what are the odds that everyone who has ever lived, no matter how experienced or learned is totally wrong about the nature of the world except you and those who believe as you do?
 
Old 02-21-2023, 04:40 AM   #11247
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 7,706
Blog Entries: 19

Rep: Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506Reputation: 4506
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmazda View Post
How about citations for disproof of the assertions in the references I've previously provided?
Well, here's one I found just by googling "polonium haloes": https://ncse.ngo/origin-polonium-halos. I'm not a geologist but I do have a degree in chemistry, so I was able to understand at least some of it. Enough to see roughly how this kind of thing happens. After granite has solidified, it undergoes all sorts of long-term changes and recrystallisations due to percolating water containing various dissolved salts. And all this time, radioactive uranium is decaying and supplying more polonium to be carried along by these fluids. The author shows several different mechanisms by which the haloes can be produced.
 
Old 02-21-2023, 05:45 AM   #11248
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware, Slarm64 & Android
Posts: 16,511

Rep: Reputation: 2377Reputation: 2377Reputation: 2377Reputation: 2377Reputation: 2377Reputation: 2377Reputation: 2377Reputation: 2377Reputation: 2377Reputation: 2377Reputation: 2377
@enorbet: I think post #11246 is rude and bad mannered. You can disagree without being disagreeable.

@mrmazda: You seem to hold a young Earth position. You should be aware that although this is nominally a "faith & religion" megathread, the loudest noises here are made by atheists and agnostics. I personally believe your position to be wrong as I believe theirs is also. But I'm not going to hang around to debate the subject with those who don't listen.
 
Old 02-21-2023, 08:21 AM   #11249
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,814

Rep: Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451
Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
@enorbet: I think post #11246 is rude and bad mannered. You can disagree without being disagreeable.
So if someone posted that Fatwahs are justified and it was a good thing in the service of God that Salman Rushdie was attacked and nearly killed it would be "rude and bad mannered" to call out that nonsense as unconscionable let alone foolish? I repeatedly note that it is my view that each has a perfect right to believe in what they view as correct but that does not include not being judged by others, just as I am rightly judged by everyone else, just as we all are in pubic. That's just life. If you find me disagreeable it is my view that's a case of "whose ox is gored".

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
@mrmazda: You seem to hold a young Earth position. You should be aware that although this is nominally a "faith & religion" megathread, the loudest noises here are made by atheists and agnostics. I personally believe your position to be wrong as I believe theirs is also. But I'm not going to hang around to debate the subject with those who don't listen.

You repeatedly complain and attempt to cancel anyone and any post in this thread that is non-religious, stating that in your view this thread should only allow faith-based responders. It seems to me that is at least consistent with your penchant to redefine Science and evidence, but you are not the authority on definitions of terms... "A rose by any other name...". I wonder if you have actually read the OP's starter post clearly stating the design parameters of his thread, so here it is ----

Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar View Post
I'm just curious about the gross distribution of faith or non-faith on a forum like this.
I wasn't quite sure how to divide the list. This could easily grow out of proportion, so I decided to put the 'firm believer' on top. Whether it's Polytheism, Monotheism, or some kind of New Age thing.
I know some of you don't like to be mashed together, but it is more about the state of mind than the actual religion that I'm interested in.

My thread, my rules
Check the poll results. Only 36% consider themselves believers while 64% are some level of non-believers. That doesn't matter in the long run but within this thread you and your concerns are in the minority and according to the OP, not inline with the rules of this thread. Perhaps you should make your own thread with your own rules so you can impress those responders with memorized, 2000 year old chapter and verse on the nature of reality and the justification of your God condemning billions of souls to eternal torture.

Last edited by enorbet; 02-21-2023 at 12:55 PM.
 
Old 02-21-2023, 12:47 PM   #11250
mrmazda
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2016
Location: SE USA
Distribution: openSUSE 24/7; Debian, Knoppix, Mageia, Fedora, others
Posts: 5,914
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082Reputation: 2082
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
God condemning billions of souls to eternal torture
That is misinterpretation of Scripture. The sequence of events is we all die, except those alive at the second coming of Christ. At the designated times, all are resurrected. Those who believed and repented while alive will live on as the Bible explains. Those who didn't believe die their second deaths, after recognizing the truth that God was their creator, never to be resurrected again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, poser, 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
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 16 07-11-2016 01:48 PM
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

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:47 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
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
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration