Linspire leaders jump ship.

[N.E. Key]

Originally Posted by Linuxratty

Since your a newbie,I'd suggest you get freespire 1.0.13 or go with another very easy Linux,like Klikit.
I used Linspire 5.0 over a year and now use Freespire. Ive not moved to the latest and greatest of freespire...

Very much agree. I use 1.0.13 (and play a bit with 2.0) and find 1.0.13 to be very good.
Will adopt 2.0 as main system soon, when all the bits are ready (CNR etc.).

[CaptainTux]

I am curious....Who takes SJVN seriously??????

[BobLeslie]

Originally Posted by CaptainTux

I am curious....Who takes SJVN seriously??????

Mrs. SJVN????

[subslug]

Originally Posted by BobLeslie

Mrs. SJVN????

This *is* one?

[CaptainTux]

Originally Posted by BobLeslie

Mrs. SJVN????

HA! Doubt it! Bet his kid has the mail man's eyes and chin!

[Linuxratty]

Originally Posted by x86

I thought it is Forum Netiquette not to discuss Religon and Politics, me I am Agnostic or maybe Antigonistic, never sure!!!!!!!!

I'm an athiest...
And proud of it.

[richard.a]

Originally Posted by Linuxratty

I'm an athiest...
And proud of it.

Actually, by definition, that's a belief system

Just like evolution is a system of beliefs taken on faith, lol. There ain't no proof, my friend, one way or the other, for either a supreme creator, or the system by which the "origin of the species" occurred. Or by total chance.

If there was proof conclusive, then there would be no need to exercise any sort of faith, one way or the other.

I won't attempt to define faith in the only concise definition available (that written by a Roman with the name of Paul, 2000 years ago) because that might offend someone in a thinking group such as this forum.

Interestingly, even the august Oxford English Dictionary wanders on and on waffling in its attempts to define it. The single sentence attributed to dual citizenship Sha'ul is logical, and makes sense even to aetheists I know lol

There ya go. Said without crossing that dreadful line that everyone is scared of, on the basis of affording free speech <grin>

[TKWinterhawk]

Originally Posted by richard.a

Actually, by definition, that's a belief system

Just like evolution is a system of beliefs taken on faith, lol. There ain't no proof, my friend, one way or the other, for either a supreme creator, or the system by which the "origin of the species" occurred. Or by total chance.

If there was proof conclusive, then there would be no need to exercise any sort of faith, one way or the other.

I won't attempt to define faith in the only concise definition available (that written by a Roman with the name of Paul, 2000 years ago) because that might offend someone in a thinking group such as this forum.

Interestingly, even the august Oxford English Dictionary wanders on and on waffling in its attempts to define it. The single sentence attributed to dual citizenship Sha'ul is logical, and makes sense even to aetheists I know lol

There ya go. Said without crossing that dreadful line that everyone is scared of, on the basis of affording free speech <grin>

Well Said...

[Duane]

Originally Posted by richard.a

Actually, by definition, that's a belief system

Not really - otherwise, *not* collecting stamps would be considered a hobby.

There's a huge difference between "absence of belief" and "belief of absence".

[Linuxratty]

Originally Posted by Duane

Not really - otherwise, *not* collecting stamps would be considered a hobby.

There's a huge difference between "absence of belief" and "belief of absence".

So true...Otherwise my lack of interest in sports and bull fighiting would be hobbies....

[subslug]

But I'm a huge non-fan of rodeo, I actually don't have posters of it's biggest stars hanging in the garage.

[revhouse1]

Originally Posted by Duane

Not really - otherwise, *not* collecting stamps would be considered a hobby.

There's a huge difference between "absence of belief" and "belief of absence".

The human psychi is such that everyone has a belief system if nothing more than a belief in oneself -- they do however have a belief system. No matter how concrete that belief system appears to be on the onset there comes a point where certain assumptions are accepted by "faith" because they lose all connections with anything verifiable.

tom

[CaptainTux]

Originally Posted by Duane

Not really - otherwise, *not* collecting stamps would be considered a hobby.

There's a huge difference between "absence of belief" and "belief of absence".

Yeah, but there is no one writing books about how to more effectively NOT collect stamps, there is no We Don't Collect Stamps Magazine, and so forth.

[Duane]

Originally Posted by CaptainTux

Yeah, but there is no one writing books about how to more effectively NOT collect stamps, there is no We Don't Collect Stamps Magazine, and so forth.

OK, let's try another example - sexual abstinence.

Does the fact that there are books, magazines and organizations promoting sexual abstinence make *not* having any sex at all just a different type of sex?

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by subslug

But I'm a huge non-fan of rodeo, I actually don't have posters of it's biggest stars hanging in the garage.

Posters of big rodeo stars as "guests of honor" at a garage necktie party? Precious!

Waldo

[Call_Me_Al]

Originally Posted by richard.a

Actually, by definition, that's a belief system ...

Actually belief is only half the definition, denial is the other option.

I had an English teacher who made an effective discrimination of terms. He advocated that a person might want to choose to be agnostic rather than atheist. He argued that unless a person is omniscient, then something that they did not know could be God.

When I was in college: since all observations are relative to the perspective of the observer and/to the event, we were taught that scientists need to determine what their personal answer to the "God Question" because their observations of data will be biased by their perspective (independent of their choice). IOW, data will be viewed as proving or disproving God.

I want to add that subslug's post gave me a good laugh

[CaptainTux]

Originally Posted by Duane

OK, let's try another example - sexual abstinence.

Does the fact that there are books, magazines and organizations promoting sexual abstinence make *not* having any sex at all just a different type of sex?

Analogies fail here. At the end of the day a belief system is nothing more than the actual set of precepts from which you live your daily life, those which govern your thoughts, words, and actions. Without these precepts most people could not function. I suppose those in a vegatative state and/or individuals who own ferrets may exist without such. However, when one limits belief system to merely religious convictions, one is being myopic.

[DrHu]

OK, let's try another example - sexual abstinence. Does the fact that there are books, magazines and organizations promoting sexual abstinence make *not* having any sex at all just a different type of sex?

No, because not doing is the same as not having..
--so back to one of your other points absence of believe is not the same as belief of absence
it probably is.., although it may seem a place to hang your argument, as it is the negative it is difficult to pronounce on it in any meaningful way.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108674/Sophist
It is like that old lawyer trick, "so tell me when did you stop beating your wife"
--there is no positive answer (any answer) one can give to deflate that position, if it is believed by the jury.

This type of questioning of witnesses is something that both prosecutors and defense lawyers use every day
--so much so that they could be upended by a straight answer, that recognizes their trick.

It is also that type of thinking (reverse of straight talk(positive statements)), which probably leads to the philosophical muddle of non-clear thinking and much rotund argument.
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/m...id_you_st.html

[Betwixt]

It is, surely, self evident that atheism is a belief system. At an elementary level, not to entertain a particular belief does not leave one in neutral, like having no hobby, but rather in believing in an alternative hypothesis. You cannot reject certain beliefs without reasons, and those reasons constitute a belief system. That's all that really needs to be said but..........


In the religious field that alternative for many is science and particularly Darwinian evolution as currently espoused by famous atheists such as Richard Dawkins. But as in much of life one should not accept the arguments of one side without examining with the same diligence the arguments of the other. There are many scientists who dispute Dawkins' own understanding and interpretation and are religious believers. For those who think they know what they believe, John Blanchard's 'Does God believe in atheists' has been called an 'encyclopaedia of atheists' arguments and the responses to them', and 'essential reading' for the questioner.


Just thought you'd like to know!

[Duane]

Originally Posted by Betwixt

It is, surely, self evident that atheism is a belief system. At an elementary level, not to entertain a particular belief does not leave one in neutral, like having no hobby, but rather in believing in an alternative hypothesis.

I do not believe in the existence of invisible pink unicorns. What do you suppose is the alternative hypothesis that I must inevitably believe in?

[revhouse1]

the problem we're having here, is that Duane is talking about belief and some of us have been talking about a belief system.
the former is an action
the later is the underlying precepts that help determ the above action.
just because there is a consistant lack of action does not mean there is a lack of a belief system. what can be implied is that the lack of action is consistant with the belief system or to stay away from the word belief -- the underlying basic precepts which one uses to govern their actions.

tom

[Duane]

the problem we're having here, is that Duane is talking about belief and some of us have been talking about a belief system.

If by "belief system", you mean Weltanschauung, then I agree, but if you mean to categorize atheism as a type of "belief system" in the more common use as a neutral term for religion, then I respectfully disagree.

Originally Posted by revhouse1

the former is an action

I guess I still have conceptual trouble with *not* performing an action still somehow being considered an "action". And I strongly disagree that a lack of belief in one thing necessarily requires a belief in something else.

Incidentally, don't assume from any of this discussion that I'm an atheist. I don't think I've given any indication about my actual beliefs or lack thereof, except with respect to invisible pink unicorns.

[revhouse1]

Originally Posted by Duane

If by "belief system", you mean Weltanschauung, then I agree, but if you mean to categorize atheism as a type of "belief system" in the more common use as a neutral term for religion, then I respectfully disagree.

Yes, that is the way I'm using belief system. I see atheism as the result of a particular view/personal philosophy.

I guess I still have conceptual trouble with *not* performing an action still somehow being considered an "action". And I strongly disagree that a lack of belief in one thing necessarily requires a belief in something else.

yes, it is a difficult concept to grapple with especially for those of us with a scientific/engineering background. While a rock doing nothing is simply doing nothing because that is all it ever does, you cannot say the same about a living thinking creature. Doing nothing requires conscious effort -- at least once that inaction is brought into question.

Incidentally, don't assume from any of this discussion that I'm an atheist. I don't think I've given any indication about my actual beliefs or lack thereof, except with respect to invisible pink unicorns.

Well that's why I said, "Duane is talking about..." Rather than Duane believes.

tom

[Call_Me_Al]

Originally Posted by Duane

I guess I still have conceptual trouble with *not* performing an action still somehow being considered an "action". And I strongly disagree that a lack of belief in one thing necessarily requires a belief in something else.

Incidentally, don't assume from any of this discussion that I'm an atheist.

It sounds like you might be a Taoist. Wu Wei (literally meaning "without action" or "action through nonaction") is the method by which the Tao is practiced.

According to the Tao Te Ching, (the foremost writing on The Tao) "the Tao cannot be written or spoken, what are written and spoken are examples of the Tao".

When I read it I saw many parallels (and no conflicts) to Christianity and the Christian Bible (for example both mention the requirement of being "like a child" in order to advance). Although I didn't get the impression from reading it, the Tao has become a religion to some -- but I have heard of people who believe in "invisible pink unicorns"

Back to atheism, the definitions I read mentioned "denying/disbelieving in a supreme being" might infer a belief but doesn't require it.

I hope that I haven't offended anyone, it was not my intention. I found the discussion (w/ the exception of a singular myopic post) to be thought-provoking and informative.

[DrHu]

Originally Posted by Duane

I do not believe in the existence of invisible pink unicorns. What do you suppose is the alternative hypothesis that I must inevitably believe in?

One alternative..
--that you believe in unicorns, simply because you can name it and one then assumes know what I mean when I say Unicorn
So it might go like this:
Q;You don't believe in pink unicorns
A: No
Q:What about white unicorns
A: No
Q:What about unicorns
A: Well No, but it is possible that they existed or do still exist, no-one can be 100% sure, except god
Q: Oh, you believe in god
A: That's personal
Q:So you believe in a personal god
--with enough questions and with a correct strategy, it is possible to get you to disbelieve everything you will say you believe, at least as far as question and answer go. that is simply sophistry, a well known art, still practiced today.

Its as simple or as complex as you want to make it (believe it be)

• We all, on earth live in a dualistic world
  up & down, left & right, correct & incorrect, yes & no, good & evil

--it is difficult, except in dreams to live in a dualistic world and not be dualistic oneself.

We exist as discriminators, we distinguish ours verses theirs, our tribe verses their tribe, our religion verses their religion, our science verses their science, our right verses their right.

Because of that, and despite the fact apparent to everyone (or almost everyone), we do all exist on the same planet and our total actions on this planet may affect all of us in some way.

We are definitely interconnected (but not yet spiritual or holistic enough, to not be avaricious), seeking our own interest, my life verses your life being the most fundamental position..

One cannot take any position vis-a-vis ideas, faith, concepts, hypotheses, theories or mere opinion without any analysis ,without also inferring the opposite position, since that is the argument that will be made against our own view.
--the only thing that changes is how skimpy the arguments become as the evidence is routinely rejected by each side (the fact that there is a side, almost negates some positions of neutrality proposed or acted as if (true:real)).

[Call_Me_Al]

Originally Posted by DrHu

Its as simple or as complex as you want to make it (believe it be)

• We all, on earth live in a dualistic world
  up & down, left & right, correct & incorrect, yes & no, good & evil

--it is difficult, except in dreams to live in a dualistic world and not be dualistic oneself.

We exist as discriminators, we distinguish ours verses theirs, our tribe verses their tribe, our religion verses their religion, our science verses their science, our right verses their right.

Great post DrHu, thanks.

While reading your post/thoughts/argument, I was reminded of a few lines from Stephen Crane's "War Is Kind"

When the prophet, a complacent fat man,
Arrived at the mountain-top,
He cried: "Woe to my knowledge!
"I intended to see good white lands
"And bad black lands,
"But the scene is grey."

[seeker5528]

Originally Posted by Call_Me_Al

According to the Tao Te Ching, (the foremost writing on The Tao) "the Tao cannot be written or spoken, what are written and spoken are examples of the Tao".

My understanding of this is....

The thing that can't be written or spoken is not Tao and there is never any attempt to define this indescribable thing because by definition it is beyond the scope human ability to define/describe. While it is beyond human understanding there are rules for living in harmony with said indescribable thing and it's these rules that are referred to as The Way (Tao).

Later, Seeker

[richard.a]

Originally Posted by DrHu

One alternative..

Let me be pedantic if I may

DrHu is perfectly right.

There can only ever be one alternative

The root of the word is Latin, and it means a choice of two.

If you already have one, you can consider an alternative.

If there are several, you have choices, not alternatives.

Rather like the incorrect statements - frequently by the press and radio and television media, none of whom appear to be trained in English usage - that say "There are a number" Aarrrggghhhh...

Number is singular by the nature of the word. The statement should be "There is a number"

How many times does one hear a self-appointed spokesman (or spokeswoman) saying "there are a number of alternatives"?

Wrong on two counts. Go back to school!!!

I'll crawl back under my stone now.

Richard.