Ubuntu 11.10 makes Unity compulsory

Tue Apr 5 16:54:45 UTC 2011

On 5 April 2011 17:03, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 11:36 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>>
>> On 5 April 2011 16:32, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1 at verizon.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/05/2011 11:10 AM, Samuel Thurston wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1 at verizon.net>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> *lots of snip*
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would a person invent a religion that is
>>>>> bad for him.
>>>>
>>>> *more snip*
>>>>
>>>> Humans are well-known to engage in all sorts of self-destructive
>>>> behaviors: smoking, drinking, drug use, participating in extreme
>>>> sports, watching reality tv.  Asking why implies that there is a
>>>> rational explanation.  I am prone to assume there is not.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>>> P.S. I lost track of the thread somewhere... I posit that deriving an
>>>> argument about the existence of god from a discussion on unity being
>>>> "forced" on users in 11.10 could be added to my list of irrational and
>>>> potentially self-destructive behaviors :)
>>>>
>>> Humans use drugs because it's good for them, they like it, it feels good.
>>> The future is far off and death may stop it all so why not.  Not my
>>> rational
>>> but certainly somebodies. I find it amazing that anybody wants to die and
>>> be
>>> dead for ever.  Hate Life??        Doug
>>
>> *What*? What has wanting anything got to do with it?
>>
>> The universe is as we perceive it. Wishful thinking does not change a
>> thing.
>>
>> Sure, it would be nice if there was an afterlife, or reincarnation, or
>> a big benevolent sky-fairy looking after us, but there is *no evidence
>> at all* that there is. As such, the only rational response is to
>> assume that there is not.
>>
>> Wanting has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
>>
>
> Oh, I don't know about that, man has always ( I think) want his children to
> have a better life and on average they have. At least until now when the
> idea seems to be spend it all now before we die and to
> heck with the kids.  I am not against atheism but I always wonder why they
> that have faith in it  get angry as soon as religion is mentioned.

Well, firstly, because it's not a faith, no matter how much the
faithful want it to be seen as one.

>  Usually
> when you have to prove to everyone you are right it's time to look at the
> position you have taken.  You may not believe it yourself.  Look at my
> position, it should be obvious to all I don't know with certainty about
> religion.  With my upbringing I should, but I don't.
> I can see how a religious person can be sure he is right and I can see how a
> religious person can have doubts.  I can see how one can be unsure.

That would make you an agnostic, and that's fine with me.

>  I can't
> figure out how one who claims to base there thinking solely on logic can be
> sure he is right.  Any scientist worth his salt will likely say that what he
> knows today will likely be disproven  tomorrow and that has been going on
> for thousands of years. the one thing I know for sure is that to be sure is
> ignorance.

Yes, science is provisional. This is one thing the faithful find very
hard to understand: that it could all be turned upside-down tomorrow
by some new discovery.

But the thing is, the new discoveries seldom actually do that. The
more we know, the more complete the picture is, the less chance there
is that new discoveries will make it all redundant.

For instance, special relativity turned the Newtonian understanding of
physics on its head. However, it only does so under special
circumstances, such as when things are travelling very fast, at a
significant fraction of the speed of light. Apart from then, the
effects are too small to be measured except with extremely
high-precision instruments.

Since special relativity, Newtonian physics has been seen as just a
convenient simplification, an abstraction of the real rules that works
in our daily lives. It's still valid and workable, though.

In the normal everyday world, Newton still holds.

Similarly, quantum theory. It is correct. It may not be complete, but
it's experimentally verifiable and its effects are what make the
computer I'm typing on work and are what carry my messages to you,
whereas, say, the GPS system has to allow for special relativity for
it to function.

As Niels Bohr said: "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has
not understood it."

It is bizarre, mad and unreasonable. It is also the truth. You don't
have to understand it - for very few do - to use it.

But whereas the movement of single particles is affected by whether
you look at them or not, this has no effect in the everday macroscopic
world.

Again, new discoveries overturned what we thought we knew, but
actually, the old view was an acceptable generalisation. It's not
suddenly all wrong.

You may choose to draw a line and say, beyond this, I don't believe
science any more. That's up to you. You're wrong, of course - science
does not care whether you believe in it or not. Whatever Mike Haney
might want us to think, objective truth about the universe is not a
personal choice.

But you are free to choose. You just need to know that your choice is
irrational.

There are good scientific explanations for the existence of the entire
universe and everything that's in it. Some are solid and well-tested,
some are still wildly experimental, but what they have in common is
that none of them, in any way at all, provide any evidence for any
supernatural superstitions and beliefs.

You can't prove a negative. See Russell's Teapot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

But you don't /need/ to. Once you've shown that all the claims of the
god-botherers are untrue, there's no need to humour them any further.

The more science learns, the more it is clear that every creation myth
ever was just made up from the whole cloth, that every religion is a
collusion of lies and brainwashing.

I don't choose not to believe in gods. Reality clearly says there are
no gods. It is the nature of religious faith that people cling to
their belief /despite/ the evidence.

The world is capricious and random, but various religions tell us it
is governed by a loving god. There is sickness, suffering, hunger,
misery, cruelty, but the religions tell us that those people were just
not faithful *enough,* that if they'd prayed more or prayed to the
right gods,
they'd be OK.

It's not only a lie, it's a cruel, horrible, hateful lie, that takes
away people's reason for living and gives them only false hope.

If it was obvious that there were creators, then there'd be no faith.
If there were any danger of any religion being shown to be true, the
priests would die to suppress it, as their millennia-old
confidence-trick would crumble around their ears and they'd all be out
of jobs.

-- 
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508