LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
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 211 30.01%
Deist 21 2.99%
Theist 27 3.84%
Agnostic 136 19.35%
Atheist 308 43.81%
Voters: 703. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 07-01-2020, 05:48 PM   #9226
sp331yi
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2020
Location: NM
Distribution: antiX 19.2 | Slacko pup | Miyo
Posts: 104

Rep: Reputation: Disabled

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
Unless communism isn't as bad as said? . . .
Pure communism is what most Native American tribes practiced, individually.
Alas, we are no longer hunter-gatherers!
Yet, how many farmers does one know who lack some sort of faith? Especially dry-land farmers.
Humans now are too distanced from their source. They lack humility and think they know it all.
City dwellers, most.
 
Old 07-02-2020, 04:40 AM   #9227
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 11,574

Rep: Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet
No you didn't. You just made up a really large number "with odds of 1 in 10^hundreds of thousands" to try to make your point.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...8e34824984.pdf
http://math.stanford.edu/~conrad/papers/powerlaw.pdf

I did consider reporting you for your last paragraph, but I decided quickly you were more sad than bad with nothing of consequence to say. You certainly don't know what you are talking about. Learn the difference between a Bible 'translation', and a Bible 'version'. The translation is translated from the original languages (Up to 5 are used). A version is translated usually from translations, but sometimes other versions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e
So if there is a creator it must not care about patent laws or assumed reverse-engineering would never be a thing?!.
You're right. Creation has been given to us. The thing is, for the most part, humans can't copy it - it's too complicated. I did an optics project in 2013-2014, and found ways for increasing the sensitivity of emmitters and receivers based on the photuris firefly's eyes, and lamp. But they couldn't be manufactured. And people think these optimised and highly complicated structures fell together by random chance

There is a science called Biomimetics, where they study animals, and do their best imitation of some features. Advances have been made in streamlining, and isolating various glues.
 
Old 07-02-2020, 06:25 AM   #9228
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 2,855

Rep: Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935
Re:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by enorbet
No you didn't. You just made up a really large number "with odds of 1 in 10^hundreds of thousands" to try to make your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...8e34824984.pdf
http://math.stanford.edu/~conrad/papers/powerlaw.pdf

I did consider reporting you for your last paragraph, but I decided quickly you were more sad than bad with nothing of consequence to say. You certainly don't know what you are talking about. Learn the difference between a Bible 'translation', and a Bible 'version'. The translation is translated from the original languages (Up to 5 are used). A version is translated usually from translations, but sometimes other versions.
Reporting me for what? I don't see any personal attack in my last paragraph. It appears to me you can dish out what feels like derogatory assessment but you can't take it. Quid Pro Quo business_kid, right?

I read the 2nd pdf but not the first (one has to join/subscribe) so I can only respond to the stanford.edu paper, but I strongly suspect a similar situation since any serious research must begin by exactly defining defining the terms in the Abstract. Threin lies the problem of actually trying to seriously consider an offhand postulate. It starts out vague and ill defined. Some use one monkey some use 100 monkeys and I used a million monkeys. Some expect a full version of each work, say Hamlet, presumably with all punctuation and spaces between each word intact and possibly hardbound as opposed to paperback The Stanford paper assigned a value to the odds of spaces between words, already driving way up the odds for that specific exercise.

My point was twofold but much simpler. (One), as was originally meant just an offhand example of deep time and how that expands chance, but most importantly (Two) that extremely different results are achieved with only slightly different premise terms.

Example: All unicorns are green. Some unicorns are striped red. Therefore some unicorns are green with red stripes. Perfectly valid logic structure with perfectly ridiculous conclusion because the premise is ridiculous.

An even more ridiculous outcome of a similar exercise would be the conclusion in the above of "Therefore, unicorns must exist" but for different reasons of structure in that the conclusion is nowhere implied in the premises. That is "jumping to a conclusion" and is the basis, IMHO of course , of all religious Faith. Religious convictions very often and especially at the root cannot be tested because no evidence is possible past a singularity. That's what "singularity" means by definition.

Forget about the silly case of typing monkeys for now and let's focus on the reality of how the Universe evolved. It is still an unanswered question why there was any imbalance between particles and antiparticles because we are so new at comprehending the Universe at Quantum levels let alone at Planck levels. We just know it did happen and can recreate small instances involving only a few billion particles and their counterparts under the conditions that existed on a grand scale in the first few moments of Expansion. Even if the odds of an occurring event are as you put it "10^hundreds of thousands" but it DID in fact happen, after the fact the odds are 100% in THIS Universe. Whether or not there are other Universes is an entirely different matter for another discussion.


Since the second quote was of another member I won't directly answer that now and only comment that it is the same tired Creationist/ID argument regarding evolution of complexities like The Eye which has been refuted by serious scientists. If there was any solid evidence falsifying The Theory of Evolution it would no longer be a scientific theory. Even unimaginable events to most including Darwin, like the discovery of RNA and DNA and more since then, have yet to "poke a hole" in Evolution. Things, including (and likely especially) Life evolve. Even if we assume a Creator it is utterly obvious, with no actual contender in sight (Deus es Machina doesn't qualify being mere a mere Magick construct) , He/She/It created Evolution.
 
Old 07-02-2020, 08:18 AM   #9229
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,572

Rep: Reputation: 1874Reputation: 1874Reputation: 1874Reputation: 1874Reputation: 1874Reputation: 1874Reputation: 1874Reputation: 1874Reputation: 1874Reputation: 1874Reputation: 1874
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
If there was any solid evidence falsifying The Theory of Evolution it would no longer be a scientific theory.
Hmm, really? Is Phlogiston theory not a scientific theory just because it's "wrong"?
 
Old 07-02-2020, 10:01 AM   #9230
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 2,855

Rep: Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntubski View Post
Hmm, really? Is Phlogiston theory not a scientific theory just because it's "wrong"?
Technically it is a failed theory, no longer of any concern whatsoever. By a degree of contrast, Newton's Theory of Gravity isn't a failed theory since within the strict confines of what it addresses it is still accurate and useful. Phlogiston has no use at all. It's just falsified and wrong by measurement and further advancement in experiment and application.

By further degree in contrast, The Earth-Centric Universe is barely a theory at all since while it hopes to describe "how things work" it depended totally on perception and inference as anyone who actually took measurements to find the truth (notably Aristarchus ~300BCE) could see just like "The Fool on the Hill" with "the eyes in his head" that the Earth was not even the center of our solar system, let alone The Universe.

... but the Christian Bible (and all others) are scientifically accurate and the Pope is infallible <sarc>

BTW, and this is conjecture that makes some sense more than a serious study, it seems that before The Scientific Method the variety of claims was wide and wild, sort of "anything goes" where after at least more proposals have some basis in fact instead of "fever dreams". I think this is why Newton hasn't been discarded, just confined.

Last edited by enorbet; 07-04-2020 at 02:16 AM.
 
Old 07-03-2020, 08:42 PM   #9231
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,959
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347
Arrow

Predicting the future is impossible (don't think so try a billion years) and the past is more made-up than anything. Example: we're communicating with words. Pretty gay hu?

We can teach one anything from birth and we'd believe it... especially if malnourished from more than the facts.

Religions/"ethics"/"laws" don't want us to reproduce life or worst... but, will...

Now I remember why I've been unsubscribing, don't really want to continue the finished conversation so when yous die let me know if fairy tales are real.

Click image for larger version

Name:	download.jpeg.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	8.2 KB
ID:	33565
 
Old 07-04-2020, 02:29 AM   #9232
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 2,855

Rep: Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935
Jamison what are you on about? Sometimes your posts ramble and leap, other times are dense and hard to decipher and yet others make real sense, but this one has me shaking my head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
Predicting the future is impossible (don't think so try a billion years) and the past is more made-up than anything. Example: we're communicating with words. Pretty gay hu?
Deciphering the Past and predicting the Future both work but are subject to probabilities of accuracy. It's easy to be accurate predicting a minute from now and accurate to describe short distances back in time.. all depending on the purity of the data and the scope of the reporting or predicting. It is good to be able to live "in the moment" but I'm confidant it isn't wise to be blind to Past and Future. There is a bad tendency these days, maybe in response to the increased complexity in modern civilization, to "pare down", live only in the now and believe only what we can sense with out 5 senses. IMHO that is a HUGE step backwards and a bad mistake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
We can teach one anything from birth and we'd believe it... especially if malnourished from more than the facts.
It isn't at all a given that people believe everything they are taught. It's just an influence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
Religions/"ethics"/"laws" don't want us to reproduce life or worst... but, will...
Huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
Now I remember why I've been unsubscribing, don't really want to continue the finished conversation so when yous die let me know if fairy tales are real.
I find this a bit amusing since I've chuckled to myself many times noticing this thread has "lit up" from a new post after long silence and sure enough the new post is jamison20000e. No offense Bro, just observations. You have posted often after long silence, keeping the thread somewhat alive.

That all said, you are dead on accurate. It's a bit crazy this thread has gone on for so many pages when it all boils down, basically, either one believes in conclusions without evidence (Faith) or one requires as much evidence as possible to gain a conclusion whose strength of conviction is tied to the quantity and quality of that evidence (Reason).

Perhaps it is a measure of human evolution that even the Faith-based now seek to disavow Blind Faith, which was once a status symbol of correctness, intellect, and moral values, and try to conflate anything they can to give Religion an actual "leg" to stand on. To do this they also try to hold on to the idea that The Bible, ANY bible, is irrefutable evidence above any reproach. I often wonder how pleased those would be in a court of Law if some ancient text was interpreted as a statement of fact and prediction that they were guilty of some capital crime and convicted on such "evidence".

The again there are also now actual Marxists who imagine Science, Logic, Reason etc are all constructs of The White, Male Patriarchy and should be abandoned, even outlawed!, in favor of feel good emotions and what amounts to magical words. Abra Ca Dabra, Son!

Last edited by enorbet; 07-06-2020 at 07:46 AM.
 
Old 07-08-2020, 05:20 AM   #9233
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,959
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347
If you think through books ^ and not yourselfs, thoughts (books) change( likely never yours).

If you think for yourself, everything changes.

As parents are dictators I reckon we'll take it slow.

Last edited by jamison20000e; 07-08-2020 at 05:30 AM.
 
Old Today, 08:25 AM   #9234
YesItsMe
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 651

Rep: Reputation: 247Reputation: 247Reputation: 247
As I have been (re)thinking about religion quite a lot lately, I would like to insert the (mostly accepted, outside of totalitarian religions like Christianity) thought that "thinking for yourself" does not necessarily contradict the existence of "a God" if you accept "a God" to be something different than an actual creature that exists outside your mind. In fact, occultist religions like the Church of Satan as well as most Heathen beliefs accept the theory that "a God" could be another word for your own character traits as well as for whatever happens in nature.

(Even some of the less conservative Christians will tell you that "luck" is one of the many forms of "God" - and this can be done with all a- or pantheistic religions, honestly.)

Last edited by YesItsMe; Today at 08:26 AM.
 
Old Today, 12:25 PM   #9235
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 11,574

Rep: Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348Reputation: 1348
Interesting post.

I find it funny to see Christianity defined as totalitarian. The 10 Commandments are there, and every religion gives them lip service. But most religions tear up the one on adultery, or water it down enough to make it meaningless. They tear up the one on murder in times of war. A good 'Christian' can join the army, or 'special forces' (= Professional killing outfits) and that's OK. I needn't say much about stealing or lying, except there's a lot of it about. Sales are made on the basis of coveting your neighbour's goods, and plastic surgeons and the sex trade profit from coveting your neighbour's wife or anyone, and all that is fine and dandy. Once you start going through them, there's not a lot of them that are generally kept.

Thinking it out for yourself sounds fine, but sounds is the operative word. A baby can't think things out for himself or herself. The difference between adults and babies is the things we have been exposed to, and our experience and maturity in processing them. So our conclusions will to some extent be shaped by our experiences.

This was highlighted to me by an old joke. There was an Englishman, a Frenchman, and a Russian all discussing the happiest moment:
  • The Englishman described a scene of household family happiness.
  • The Frenchman described a romantic affair.
  • The Russian look at them as if they were mad. "You are both wrong" he said. "The happiest moment is at four o'clock in the morning. There is knocking on the door, so you open it. It is the secret police and they say' Ivan Ivanovitch, you are under arrest.' But you say 'Sorry - Ivan Ivanovitch lives next door!'"

It occurs to me very different conclusions would be reached by 'thinking it out' by the three just described. And if you consider God, isn't he entitled to his opinion too?
 
Old Today, 12:56 PM   #9236
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 2,855

Rep: Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935
ALL organized religions are Totalitarian by definition. The only difference between say Christian, Hindu or Muslim is what tenets one believes in - ie Dogma. The difference is entirely in what one accepts as true and the degree to which one accepts them defines sect and devout or casual. There is no other requirement or Converts would not be possible.

Naturally as in all groups there are the sanctimonious hardcore and the less driven casual believers but it is all about belief. Any religion with too strict a definition of required dogma will have few believers/adherents. AFAIK Christianity has much more leeway than say Islam as evidenced by the numbers of divisions/sects. Those that define themselves as Muslim fall into just a few camps while Christian includes at least 20+ varieties and even within them each there still exists a range of devotion. That said it does seem that Islam is substantially more totalitarian, at least in expectations and details, than many others. However all of them have some form of excommunication.

Last edited by enorbet; Today at 12:58 PM.
 
Old Today, 01:19 PM   #9237
YesItsMe
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 651

Rep: Reputation: 247Reputation: 247Reputation: 247
How many people were tortured, how many were killed, because they were not Christians?
What could be more totalitarian?
 
Old Today, 01:27 PM   #9238
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 2,855

Rep: Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesItsMe View Post
How many people were tortured, how many were killed, because they were not Christians?
What could be more totalitarian?
... or even "the wrong kind of Christians".
 
Old Today, 08:16 PM   #9239
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,959
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347Reputation: 1347
Arrow

Before words(-and their proven evolution) there were no gods but we're free to believe whatever we want. Except of course Tinkerbell flying, because it was a fictional character. Proof like killing is in the gelatin pudding.

Forgot so many religions in the list, like racism and politics... someone else may know how it's spelled and/or pronounced yarway, yarway, yarway,,, bang on the gavel?

Add: Although many will now interpret the 1st words as god...

Last edited by jamison20000e; Today at 08:34 PM. Reason: Add:
 
  


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 08:34 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
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration