This is worth mentioning again! I scour the zero-reply posts every day looking to help anyone that fell through the cracks. And so many of them get pulled out of that list with unhelpful or anecdotal replies. Thanks for pointing this out.

4 members found this post helpful.

Go [removed] yourself, you blathering West-Brit poltroon. Oh, and it would be libel, not slander, were it not true.

Hi.

Please read my post #19 https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post5552268.

Regards.

+1 reply to dunne's drivel.

Excellent points!

Non-atheist here, but I agree with you totally. ANY type of censorship is wrong...but there is also a time and place for things.

More drivel and lies. You seem to be out of touch with reality. I'm amazed how given your vile posts on this thread, how you have not been thrown off this forum.

When you say, "facts, evidence, and reality", you are just saying "truth". And you are making the assumption that the truth you refer to is more evident and real and factual than any truth expressed from some other (i.e., religious) perspective.

In effect you can only make the same argument as your opponent, and with the same arrogance when seen from other perspectives, "My position really is truth, surely we all agree!". But we never all agree! How much of that current truth will be seen as offensive stupidity from some distant future perspectives?

And how does cultural indoctrination, political indoctrination or national indoctrination differ from religious indoctrination? Is state-ism any different, less harmful, more true than theism, really? Is the teaching of civic responsibility inherently different from teaching of {insert moral system here} responsibility?

That the sun and stars circled the earth, securely located at the center of the universe, was widely accepted fact and plainly in evidence for all to see, at one time. It was self evident reality. It was taught in all the best educational institutions of the day, religious and non-religious...

My point is just to say that what you think to be truth today, even well founded scientific truth, may not be the final end-point you think it is. Your belief system, and that is what it is, may yet turn out to be as unfounded as the one you so strenuously reject, and your arrogance in doing so, not so much different than theirs.

And to be very clear, I am not arguing that truth is unknowable, a conclusion many reach too quickly. But it can be difficult, but not impossible, to really know when you have reached a final truth, and even more difficult to communicate that finality, the proof, the tangible truth, to others. But utterly delicious when you do!

In all realms it is much easier to believe than to really understand. In the 1970's, many were convinced the earth would be destroyed within 30 years by a human caused ice age - "global cooling"! For the past 20 years or so the great fear is the chaos of "global warming"! The science is settled, they say! Now it is shifting to "climate change", which covers every eventuality... but all of it is just a very profitable belief system, "Drop your coin in the plate and save the world".

There is indeed one truth, one answer, to any well framed proposition - it is true or it is not true. And the answer in each case is discoverable, knowable. At times we discover that a thing is undecidable, but that usually means that we have not framed the proposition correctly. That itself is a discovery, a truth, an advancement of our understanding.

Such is the adventure and highest pursuit of intelligent life! The pursuit of understanding - truth. It is discoverable, but sometimes not what we expect!

We should all try to not advance ourselves, or our belief system of choice, at the expense of others along the way. Share the truth you find with those who are interested, and avoid engaging in crusades against those who are not.

In the end, truth has a way of asserting itself.

3 members found this post helpful.

Normally, I stay out of these threads as to not perpetuate potential sh*tstorms, or add to antagonism between the fine members of LQ. But I would like to add this; just because you are offended doesn't mean you are right. And quite frankly, I find the signature of which we all are referring to offensive. Just as I would have found a signature promoting some other belief system and/or ideology offensive.

Personally, I don't care one iota what you believe in (or don't), as long as you are civil and helpful. Just like any other thinking individual I too have certain beliefs, although not in a spiritual sense, but I hope I never insult another human being by telling them that what they believe in is "wrong", and that there is only one truth.

Respectfully,
HMW

1 members found this post helpful.

I'm another who does find religious posts and signatures, in technical threads, offensive. However, while I'd like to stop people using such signatures I wouldn't want a ban as I'm very much an advocate of free speech.
It seems though that I'm not the only one who has seen what seem to be posts only made to promote a religious message. Perhaps a rule to stop that would be a problem so, perhaps, people who are doing such things could just be polite and stop it?
I've been on this planet almost 40 years and read and listened to a hell of a lot of things about a hell of a lot of religions so, please, stop being so damn patronising to me -- I don't and will never believe. If I want to know about a religion I'll ask and have done many times but I do not want to read about it when I'm looking into Linux related issues.

1 members found this post helpful.

I find almost every signature alone on this page offensive (most also partially entertaining). It's just not so big a deal. If someone finds religion so offensive I think it partially his problem.

Like any 'if I sayed something helpful please push the button' - In my opinion fishing for compliments and campaigning for getting the own status up is embarrassing me.

But if everybody in this forum would try to convert the reader to his personal mindset or faith that would be disgusting. What kind of culture would that be?

(Buy the way @Ardvark I find your first link in signature OK for the presented 'facts' or beliefs. But even that has the typical evangelical pushiness in my opinion).

Well science does not know everything but religion does not know anything.

1 members found this post helpful.

ardvark71 posts a welcome to just about every new member in the intro section of LQ. I've no doubt he's generally a decent guy but I think he's more motivated to post to all new comers more so to spread his religious doctrine than to welcome users just for the sake of being welcoming.

It's near impossible for religious folk to stop spreading their brain virus message once they've started.

You find every signature alone on this page offensive? Really?

My sig actually is for adding to anyones rep that helps someone else, not just for me. The "someone" part should have been a clue to you.

It is good that you have the 'someone' in it. Otherwise I would think it would be really embarrassing. And I see it in quite some forums.

Concerning the offensiveness of your signature to me:

It is good for you that you are one of the first 500.000 registrated GNU/Linux users. That reflects to me how it is important for you to compare yourself with others and pronounce you are under the 'first' of some kind. To me that transporte will to achieve social status and communicate it to the audience too.

Your signature for me is on the other hand a good example of social indoctrination, convergence and assimilation:

Stating two rules that seem to be important in this forum. Surely restating rules that are set from above and are valid in a group will be looked upon benevolently from above and from the group, and thus again can be expected to increase your social status

I interpret you are a person who is very obedient of social rules and rituals. And for a widespread type of this character often also for in whatever social frameset someone moves.

This convergence and willingness to assimilate to whatever the group does in my viewpoint (refering to Konrad Lorenz here) is a central problem of civilization.

Because it reinforces any social trend, also faulty trends. A good example is fascism.

This part of a signature I find also offensive: 'He took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots.' because it's graphic. OK just kidding, actually I think it's funny.

'Copying is an act of love'. I find offensive too, because it attacks copyrights that are there for a good reason. For examply I 'publish' some pictures also from time to time and wouldn't want them to be appropriated by someone.

Then I find signatures offensive altogether because they take up so much space. And some are pretentious.

Still I find them acceptable as a personal note, all in all.