Speaking seriously, theists are not, in any way, alike. And I'm sure that theists have much more to discuss between themselves than against atheists.
This is quite true. Re-reading myself here, I see that I have been wasting many words to make the simple point that atheists are not contributing anything to the discussion, because they are talking past the topic and failing to make some basic relevant distinctions. Nothing has changed since the first of my posts in this thread, except that it's become clearer that they are doing this deliberately.
To you there's no difference between "have not detected yet" and "does not exist". Both are nothing to you.
No. The second is nothing. And, for me, it's an acceptable answer. The difference is that, for you, it's an unacceptable answer; something must be there.
Here's my last try to explain this simple thing to you: A gap is not nothing. A gap is a gap.
You have heard of god of the gaps, right? You are making use of nothing of the gaps. I don't accept either of these.
Right. And that's what I don't accept. To you there's no difference between "have not detected yet" and "does not exist". Both are nothing to you.
To me there's a big difference if something doesn't exist or I have somehow missed it. The first is really nothing. The other is something I don't know about, but what can be figured out. This kind of difference.
The evidence that led people to their belief of course. It's not up to me to double guess what that might have been.
This is a much better way to phrase your question. Still, the word "belief" makes it less than perfect. When e.g. scientists are led by evidence, is the result a "belief"? The way "I believe" is colloquially used in English makes it often synonymous with "I suppose". Evidence surely leads to stronger conclusions than this.
Okay, to answer the question, the evidence is experiential. Which means it's perception for all practical purposes. Experiential evidence is most convincing for one who has it, but most difficult to convey for outsiders. To someone with unsympathetic attitude it's also futile to try to communicate it, but to give an idea about it, there are recurrent experiences, inexplicable by any materialist or atheist theory, that over time become impossible to deny and require a straightforward acknowledgement in the name of honesty to oneself, if not for any other reason.
Another evidence is logic. In nature, in the mind, and in metaphysics there are no empty spots, no gaps. This is why atomism as an ontological stance never made sense to me. By atomism I mean the belief or theory that everything is made of particles and compounds of particles. It's implicit in primary school physics course. Naturally the question arises, what is between the particles? Atomism doesn't answer this. Moreover, the usual well-known problems with ontological dualism are multiplied with atomism, because there are not just two kinds of particles, but more, and there are numerous particles wandering about randomly.
This ontological problem can be solved with continuum theories, best by means of the concept of spirit. Different from particled matter, spirit leaves no gaps in reality, and this corresponds perfectly to what is experienced in external nature and in the mind. This can be called philosophical or logical evidence for spirit. Physicists are looking for a unified theory, and when they find it, the result will be the concept of spirit.
Besides the concept of spirit, there are the logical distinctions of appearance and reality, accident and essence, particular and universal, object and subject, which all lead to God as a logical conclusion, if the enquiry is intense enough.
So, the strongest evidence is experiential, which combines several aspects of experience. The second kind of evidence is intellectual, logical. There's more evidence, such as testimony and scriptural authority, but these stir up more controversy than solve anything, and they have had no role to play in my own convictions, so I won't say anything about these, unless specifically asked.
On the nature of conversion, I have earlier recommended a good English bildungsroman "Of Human Bondage" by W.S. Maugham. Conversion is a coincidence or accumulation of multiple events (psychological and/or physical) that impel one to a substantial revision of convictions. It works in both directions. Who hasn't gone through it has next to nothing relevant to say on this. A single piece of evidence may not look like much, but several kinds of evidence coinciding or accumulating over time will lead to clarification of convictions, sometimes also to conversion.
Any society where access to guns is not regulated at least on the level of drivers licenses is insane.
Er-- ahhhh--- If you could see some of the stuff I see, you'd wonder how some of these folk-- including "professional" truck drivers-- ever got drivers licenses. When you get passed on a snow and black-ice covered road by an 18-wheeler who is trying to do the posted speed when maintaining forward motion is driving too fast for conditions, you just know that they're giving out driver's licenses a little too easily. Frightening thought: that driver may be licensed to be able to conceal-carry as well.
I see such drivers often enough. Also, I see them ticketed often enough. It would be less frightening if you knew gun licenses are not as easy to obtain as drivers licenses and punishments for the violations are prompt.
The basic description of the technique would be: Relax that thing between your ears. It's a relaxation exercise. Relaxation is not as simple as you might think, but when you get the hang of it, you'll see it's useful for many amazing things. At the same time, locate the aching and isolate its location. These points together, relaxation and isolating a problematic location, work miracles.
There are mental techniques to get rid of headache, basically meditation techniques. For those who don't believe these techniques actually exist, there's nothing more to say about it.
I never had a headache, but I know what they are. I can see them coming and turn them off before they have any effect. I have suffered more from ear-, and eyeache than headache, but basically the same mental techniques work to mitigate them all.
Btw, did you mean to make it a multiple-choice poll?
I would say that conversion was your destiny. It was mine also, but I'm a fatalist so it doesn't bothers me at all, I just accept it. You probably aren't and you believe you command your life.
Not really in command, no. I observe tension between individual willpower and destiny. On one hand, it's wisely ordained that ignorant will, no matter how powerful, must always eventually subside in the waves of destiny. On the other, each such wave is a manifestation (or an aftermath) of a particular instance of willpower of some individual. So, the best way I can put it is that there's tension. The purpose of religion is to help cope with this tension between one's own will and other wills, and make life meaningful, whatever the particular configuration of destiny may be.
I have understood that the purpose is not to be in total command of destiny, but to find a preferably effortless way to make destiny feel and seem natural. Be friends with your own destiny, a good recommendation, right?
This video is not as bad as I suspected at first. The speaker shows a way to think about the relationship of philosophy and science, so that philosophy has a place and purpose. Sure enough, philosophy has a place and purpose, most importantly in defining and exercising laws of logic. The speaker also directs criticism at philosophy, but this criticism only refers to the current organisation of academic philosophy, not with its overall place, purpose, or achievements. And possibly the organisation under criticism only applies to the United States
There are three issues with the video itself that I'd like to point out. First, the art and science of argumentation (the structure of philosophical arguments) is vital in philosophy. The speaker does not present a single argument. The speaker's world view is atheism and he repeatedly asserts its superiority over theism, but he does not give a single example by refuting a theistic argument or by presenting an atheist argument. Plain assertions do not make any case for a world view. One such argument or refutation would have been good to educate the audience and show the quality of the speaker's philosophical stance.
Second, he cites Krauss. Even though Krauss is topical, it demonstrates poor judgement to cite Krauss favourably, because Krauss's arguments are unphilosophical and self-admittedly illogical and irrational, while logic and rationality are central to philosophy.
Third, the speaker promotes his book in the end. It's okay that he promotes his book, but he makes rather bold assertions about it: "This is the only book that presents a coherent [naturalist-atheist] world view based on where we are in science and philosophy now." No, it's not the only such book. Let's recall, for instance, Walter Kaufman's "The Faith of a Heretic" and Alex Rosenberg's "Eliminativism without Tears". These are examples of philosophical attempts at a coherent explanation of everything from the atheist point of view. I also know of very good literary (bordering philosophical) accounts, such as Ernest Renan's "La vie de Jésus" and Thomas Mann's "Das Gesetz".
In addition to Frenzie's link, the video I'd like to recommend is Intro to Philosophy of Religion. The speaker is, again, atheist, so nobody should have a problem with him. His focus is on the nature of ultimate causes/explanations, on argumentation as such, and on the definition of God. All this is perfectly appropriate to the discussion. The video contains sufficient relevant distinctions from what is of interest to philosophers as opposed to scientists of specific fields or non-scientific people, and the way argumentation works as an explanation for something.
And on my own part, I'd like to say a few words on debate. Debate is an exercise of argumentation. Debate doesn't lead to truth, but shows who can build more solid and coherent argumentation, which in a good case should lead both participants to some considerations as to their overall world view, if they have it. Rather than a way to convince others of something, a philosophical debate is a good opportunity to learn about one's own beliefs oneself. Some relevant aspects of a debate are:
- Common definitions. In order to have a dialogue in the first place, there must be some common ground. Usually this means there must be agreement on one or some focal concepts.
- Criticism is always constructive. Given that the first aspect is fulfilled, it follows that there is dialogue, which in turn means there's critical scrutiny of definitions, of argumentation, etc., which again means that there is real progressive clarity regarding the things discussed. A good opponent is respectably and worthy. With this attitude in mind, ad hominem attacks and other lame fallacies are ruled out by themselves. By the amount and nature of fallacies it's usually easy to see if there's the appropriate philosophical attitude in the exchange.
- The topic dictates the nature of the arguments. For example, when the topic is "Does God exist?" it's irrelevant for the atheist side to say that God in the Old Testament is evil and stupid. This kind of argumentation builds a case for an evil god, i.e. it builds a case for a god. It doesn't undermine the existence of God. The argument from evil is applicable when the topic is "Is God good?" Similarly, the objections or refutations of God directly depend on the definition or concept of God. E.g. the argument from evil could refute a good God, but it doesn't refute the concept of a creator God as such. Also, the demand for empirical proof of God doesn't apply when God is not defined as an empirical being, an object among others. Etc.
These two videos should beat some sense into the discussion.
Here's a useful tutorial on Win 8 interface https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi8NpwiEuzc You will learn how to find the taskbar and desktop from among the tiles, and how to snap windows so that you can open multiple apps/windows on screen, not just one full-screen app.
I personally am happy to have been able to dump Windows. I ditched it at Vista. I have a few friends who use 7. Nobody uses 8.
Wrong. The most sure thing you can say about the crazies is that they are crazy. Everything else is arguable and varies. And even craziness may not be detected early enough, because pretty much everyone is crazy these days, including the psychiatrists.
Does anyone know how to troubleshoot X concerning logout crashes?
See /var/log/Xorg.0.log.old, that's the log file from the previous Xserver run and may contain some hints on what exactly crashed it. Assuming the Xserver actually crashed and not some client.
I don't see any hints there of anything crashing.
What is a client? Is gnome-session-daemon or cinnamon-session-daemon a client?
Even deliberate libel and slander is difficult to prove. I think if was otherwise, at the end of each election each candidate would probably try to sue to the shit out of each other. Hrm, that might not be a bad idea. Let's make it so candidates can sue each other over misleading statements. Soon both the DNC and RNC would be bankrupt from all the lawsuits
Isn't it the fact that laws in every country provide this opportunity for candidates to sue the shit out of each other, and they actually do from time to time, even though it's hard to prove? E.g. rape is also notoriously hard to prove (the intercourse may be provable, but the nature of the intercourse is word against word), but is forbidden everywhere.
Well I can use a better word/phrase than proof in the following:
"I'm still waiting to hear what evidence exists that there is A GOD "
Everyone that believes must have had evidence of some kind to have come to that belief.
So what was it - somebody ---- anybody?
What kind of evidence do you mean? As I have argued before, if you insist on empirical evidence, your demand actually presupposes unempirical things, e.g. existence of beliefs and belief in the value of evidence. In which case your demand is begging the question. But if you really mean unempirical evidence, then define the unempirical scope of your metaphysics, so it would be clear what kind of evidence you allow.
You're quite wrong about the context of those cartoons. But I suppose it is true that even if you were right, I'd still disagree with you. Humor is part of free inquiry, and if some of it is unsophisticated you can mock it or deride it; banning is for the weak. If your faith, standpoint or conviction can't stand a little criticism or crude humor, maybe it shouldn't stand at all.
For example, I'd call the image Smiley likes to post of some kind of Calvin knock-off peeing on gun control crude and unconstructive. But why should that be a reason to ban it?
Well, let's be clear that I do not favour banning in this case either. It's a cartoon, for cryssakes. It doesn't even pretend to be for truth or facts or anything. This format is frankly out of reach of laws that regulate slander and lies. Sure, I regard the cartoons blasphemous and it's pretty clear that they were intended this way too, but I am perfectly okay that blasphemy is eradicated from laws in multicultural or religiously neutral societies. In this sense I agree with you, Muslims should have handled it with more cool.
Then again, were the same "opinions" expressed in an opinion piece of a newspaper, the case would more likely come under litigation. And as a regular news item, no Western law would allow it even when you appeal to free speech, freedom of press or things like that, right? So the cartoons get a pass only because they are cartoons, not because free speech as such. There is no "freedom to offend".
This is exactly the concept I objected to: […] And no, the outcome is not just someone's short-term hurt feelings. The outcome is express truth and revealed facts.
That means you're not objecting at all.
Let's take the Muhammad cartoons. The outcome was outrage across the Muslim world, i.e. it was an emotional offence. That's right, I said this alone doesn't make the cartoons wrong. However, is there any truth or facts in the cartoons? Even your article doesn't say that truth was the intention. The intention was to express an opinion. The question is, was it a constructive opinion? Was there any constructive purpose at all? The most evident purpose I see was to make a joke. So, were the cartoons funny? This last question is the only purpose where the cartoons can be coherently tied to. Again, there's no truth or facts in just being funny.
Therefore I object. Please exercise some consideration when you intend to be funny and nothing else. The cartoons had nothing else in them besides the purpose of being funny, but it didn't work out due to ill-chosen topic. There was nothing constructive or educating in them, nothing even remotely promoting critical thinking or such. Lack of consideration is the opposite of critical thinking.
Just because what is said might be emotionally upsetting or distressful to any group or person should not preclude what is being said from being protected by the Freedom of Speech, unless what is said is said with malice of forethought in order to specifically incite a criminal act against the person or group.
This is exactly the concept I objected to: Looking at the offence only keeping in mind the intention, not the outcome. When you look only at the intention, then how can you judge? Are you such a competent mind-reader of other people's minds? When you look only at the intention, then you could wiggle out from any kind of damage you caused by citing your noble intentions.
So, you have to look at the outcome too. And no, the outcome is not just someone's short-term hurt feelings. The outcome is express truth and revealed facts. To me it's obvious that, in ideal, freedom of speech isn't about my or anyone else's right to speak up about something, anything. It's not about letting everyone speak their mind to their heart's content regardless of the content. Instead, it's about letting people discuss and debate to find a solution or a better way, while it's understood that lies are still lies, slander is still slander, and blasphemy is still blasphemy. Even though the last concept has no legal purpose these days, isn't it evident enough that it has no constructive purpose?
In hot dry areas they have known how to build houses for millennia. Did people become stupid all of a sudden? Granted, it's not good for hot and wet areas, but surely there's some ingenious indigenous technique there too, if we are just smart enough to appreciate it.
Another serious issue is that changing to consoles (Ctrl+Alt+F1, F2, etc) cause the same crash.
I created another user account. Logging in and out and changing to console and back is trouble-free there. I will migrate to the new account, if I can't figure out how to repair the old one.
Edit: In conclusion, looks like Cinnamon 2 backported to Ubuntu 12.04 doesn't work so seamlessly and effortlessly, at least not when you install the meta package and Mdm. Cinnamon 2 was made for a later version, Mint 16 (Petra), whose Ubuntu equivalent is 13.10 (Saucy).
Around the turn of the calendar year, I added Mint main and backport repos to my Ubuntu 12.04 installation and this enabled me to install the latest Cinnamon 2. I took the meta package and also Mdm because my aim is to mintify this installation as far as possible. Unfortunately I ended up with glitches.
There's a cosmetic glitch around the ClipIt icon which sometimes affects also the CPU graph left to it (see the pic). More serious is that logout causes X.org to crash irrecoverably (reboot required). (I'm not sure my diagnosis is correct, but the symptoms are: the DE logs out, followed by blank screen where nothing works)
Does anyone know how to troubleshoot X concerning logout crashes?
Bah... Theism/Atheism is not a matter of "investigation" but about how we were born. Destiny it's what counts.
You mean to say that conversion doesn't happen?
Somehow, even though born in the Soviet Union, I resisted to be identified as a Soviet since very early age. Soon enough it turned out that the country itself was destined for destruction. In the light of this, what is destiny?
