Author Topic: Why GOD has not updated the world ? (Read 53,255 times)

Renegade · « **Reply #50 on:** January 21, 2016, 11:50 PM »

Oh! About leaving. If God could change the laws of the universe so that all paths are mobius strips, that'd be just awesome!

We're talking major version upgrade here!

Target · « **Reply #51 on:** January 22, 2016, 12:52 AM »

Quote from: Renegade on January 21, 2016, 11:50 PM

Oh! About leaving. If God could change the laws of the universe so that all paths are mobius strips, that'd be just awesome! We're talking major version upgrade here!

how do you know they're not already?

Renegade · « **Reply #52 on:** January 22, 2016, 06:32 AM »

Quote from: Target on January 22, 2016, 12:52 AM

Quote from: Renegade on January 21, 2016, 11:50 PM
Oh! About leaving. If God could change the laws of the universe so that all paths are mobius strips, that'd be just awesome! We're talking major version upgrade here!

how do you know they're not already?

If so, then they're too damn long. Crappy alpha!

40hz · « **Reply #53 on:** January 22, 2016, 05:06 PM »

Quote from: wraith808 on January 21, 2016, 07:18 PM

Quote from: 40hz on January 21, 2016, 06:30 PM
Quote from: IainB on January 21, 2016, 10:45 AM
I suspect that you may have drawn that line in possibly the "wrong" place.

I'm sure I'd have to agree with you about that. But I was trying not to sound too combative since it's a tender subject for a lot of people I like and respect. Even if I totally disagree with them about some things they hold dear.

And that's navigating that space. Even if you're sure that you're right, being able to leave it alone, as others experiences might not echo yours. After all, if you're sure you're right, then of what practical use is arguing with someone who's sure you're wrong? Are we so insecure in our beliefs (or disbeliefs) that we have to stir up something that won't make a difference either way, and will just in the end create fractious arguments? I couldn't say for all, but that, to me, seems a non-gracious approach, no matter on which side you fall.

I personally think it's absolutely crucial we tackle uncomfortable topics from time to time. Many of the problems we are living with are a direct result of putting our heads in the sand or trying to arrange things so that nobody is made to feel uncomfortable. Truth is, I'm firmly convinced certain people need to be made acutely uncomfortable about some of the things they believe in. Especially when they advocate for others to accept and, in many cases, to obey them without question.

I have a big advantage however. I don't try to pretend (to others or myself) that I have the big answer. But I do have a brain, some life experience, and the benefit of an education that taught me to question everything and accept nothing purely because somebody said it's so.

If that bothers someone, there's plenty of other people they can talk to besides me. If you include me in a discussion however, best expect me to engage and question. And that's not because I have the answer. It's because I don't. However, I'd be very much interested in learning or discovering it. So I say "let's get it on" so to speak. Because we have a lot of work to do here.

But that's me. YMMV.

wraith808 · « **Reply #54 on:** January 22, 2016, 05:26 PM »

Quote from: 40hz on January 22, 2016, 05:06 PM

Quote from: wraith808 on January 21, 2016, 07:18 PM
Quote from: 40hz on January 21, 2016, 06:30 PM
Quote from: IainB on January 21, 2016, 10:45 AM
I suspect that you may have drawn that line in possibly the "wrong" place.

I'm sure I'd have to agree with you about that. But I was trying not to sound too combative since it's a tender subject for a lot of people I like and respect. Even if I totally disagree with them about some things they hold dear.

And that's navigating that space. Even if you're sure that you're right, being able to leave it alone, as others experiences might not echo yours. After all, if you're sure you're right, then of what practical use is arguing with someone who's sure you're wrong? Are we so insecure in our beliefs (or disbeliefs) that we have to stir up something that won't make a difference either way, and will just in the end create fractious arguments? I couldn't say for all, but that, to me, seems a non-gracious approach, no matter on which side you fall.

I personally think it's absolutely crucial we tackle uncomfortable topics from time to time. Many of the problems we are living with are a direct result of putting our heads in the sand or trying to arrange things so that nobody is made to feel uncomfortable. Truth is, I'm firmly convinced certain people need to be made acutely uncomfortable about some of the things they believe in. Especially when they advocate for others to accept and, in many cases, to obey them without question.

I have a big advantage however. I don't try to pretend (to others or myself) that I have the big answer. But I do have a brain, some life experience, and the benefit of an education that taught me to question everything and accept nothing purely because somebody said it's so.

If that bothers someone, there's plenty of other people they can talk to besides me. If you include me in a discussion however, best expect me to engage and question. And that's not because I have the answer. It's because I don't. However, I'd be very much interested in learning or discovering it. So let's "get it on" so to speak.

I'm not saying you specifically. You're willing to engage on the level that many people are not. That is, with no preconceptions of someone's belief or reason thereof. Others, on both sides, are so sure that they know the answer for everyone, that they might as well not engage at all. Questions are fine IMO. It's when you are unwilling to even consider counter arguments that might not go with your belief that discussion breaks down. Or, you're willing to denigrate others experience in the talk. There's a wide swath of difference in uncomfortable questions and dismissal or condescension. And a lot of people don't know where that difference lies- their own beliefs get in the way of them even considering that there is a difference. And that's where the big divide comes into play.

I'd love to have a reasoned and rational conversation about it, laying hubris and pre-conceptions on the altar of discussion without intent. But I've not found that place for discourse- especially online. Other than with my friends in person- most of my friends are Agnostic/Atheist, so we have some real conversations about it. Or had, as we don't really have the opportunity for it anymore. But they were really good when we did.

I don't personally believe that there are any beliefs that are dangerous nor that should be censored or censured. It's when beliefs become action that problems happen. But when you want your beliefs to be actions, that want should also translate into a willingness to have these uncomfortable lights shined on them. But... that never happens.

40hz · « **Reply #55 on:** January 22, 2016, 07:57 PM »

^I'll agree with nearly 100% of that as it stands. The niggles I may have with it are minor, and most likely just things lost in the translation to text - as tends to happen in forum discussions. There's nowhere near enough bandwidth for super deep online conversations without a lot of preliminary groundwork being laid down first. And that doesn't happen too often - although one of the things that makes DoCo so great is that we have a community here who understands each other well enough, and displays such a high level of courtesy and respect, that we manage to avoid the silly arguments and nonsense that goes on in most other places the minute a discussion gets serious. That's pretty rare finding that environment anyplace. And it's even rarer finding it on the web.

As far as topics go, there used to be a local radio talk show around where I live that used to say in their introduction: "Our lines are now open. And the topics are yours to choose, and ours to discuss."

I think that pretty much sums up my philosophy about what makes it appropriate for me to put my tuppence in. I generally don't broach sensitive topics with strangers, although I may occasionally do so with a friend or friends.

However, if someone decides to bring up something with me first, then I feel what follows falls completely within what's 'proper' and 'polite' to talk about.

But that's me. And my way of thinking about what constitutes an appropriate subject for discussion doesn't quite coincide with some current notions about "correctness" all the time.

But so it goes. Stick around long enough and you eventually discover that even the generally accepted rules of etiquette start to change.

rjbull · « **Reply #56 on:** February 03, 2016, 09:57 PM »

MilesAhead · « **Reply #57 on:** February 03, 2016, 10:50 PM »

Quote from: rjbull on February 03, 2016, 09:57 PM

[attachment 1 not found]

But you can't because your PC has begun updating to Windows 10.

tomos · « **Reply #58 on:** February 03, 2016, 11:24 PM »

Quote from: MilesAhead on February 03, 2016, 10:50 PM

Quote from: rjbull on February 03, 2016, 09:57 PM
GOD.COM: Universe reboots in three minutes. Log out now
[ OK ]

But you can't because your PC has begun updating to Windows 10.

hopefully that'll stump the universe reboot as well. Or maybe they're using linux....

MilesAhead · « **Reply #59 on:** February 04, 2016, 02:58 PM »

Quote from: tomos on February 03, 2016, 11:24 PM

Quote from: MilesAhead on February 03, 2016, 10:50 PM
Quote from: rjbull on February 03, 2016, 09:57 PM
GOD.COM: Universe reboots in three minutes. Log out now
[ OK ]

But you can't because your PC has begun updating to Windows 10.

hopefully that'll stump the universe reboot as well. Or maybe they're using linux....

I heard God still uses VAX/VMS because it never crashes. All those planets and suns twirling around you don't want a system that hard locks. We'd be in The Spilled Milky Way if that happened.

x16wda · « **Reply #60 on:** February 05, 2016, 12:09 AM »

G

Quote from: MilesAhead on February 04, 2016, 02:58 PM

I heard God still uses VAX/VMS because it never crashes. All those planets and suns twirling around you don't want a system that hard locks. We'd be in The Spilled Milky Way if that happened.

Not Glorious Lifeform and Deity Operating System? I hear it's a piece of cake to keep running.

Target · « **Reply #61 on:** February 05, 2016, 12:51 AM »

Quote from: x16wda on February 05, 2016, 12:09 AM

Not Glorious Lifeform and Deity Operating System? I hear it's a piece of cake to keep running.

no, it's a bear!! (it doesn't have bugs, it has DEMONS!!!!)

holt · « **Reply #62 on:** February 05, 2016, 03:47 AM »

Quote from: Renegade on January 21, 2016, 11:50 PM

Oh! About leaving. If God could change the laws of the universe so that all paths are mobius strips, that'd be just awesome! We're talking major version upgrade here!

How about a Klein Bottle?

anandcoral · « **Reply #63 on:** February 05, 2016, 07:41 AM »

If HE decides to reformat, then obviously Noah will carry two of all.

How about having two programs for each languages, C#, Java, Code-C, DotNet etc. ? It would help rebuild our must have programs and Forums faster then. Instead of watching soaps on CRT TV or we better start with YouTube streaming on mobiles.

IainB · « **Reply #64 on:** February 05, 2016, 10:06 AM »

[attachimg=#]

"Fear not, the universe is in good hands."
This encrypted message in all matter in the universe is readily seen in this
three-dimensional plot of potential energy per nucleon (M/A) versus mass
number (A) versus charge density (Z/A) for all 2.850 known nuclides*.
* "Nuclear wallet cards", 6th edition (2000) National Nuclear Data Center. Brookhaven Nat'l Laboratory, 74 pp.
_____________________________
nuclide /"nju;klVId/
· n. Physics a distinct kind of atom or nucleus characterized by a specific number of protons and neutrons.
- DERIVATIVES nuclidic adj.
- ORIGIN 1940s: from nucleus + -ide (from Gk eidos 'form').
Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th Ed.)
_____________________________

IainB · « **Reply #65 on:** February 05, 2016, 10:36 AM »

Quote from: Renegade on January 21, 2016, 11:50 PM

Oh! About leaving. If God could change the laws of the universe so that all paths are mobius strips, that'd be just awesome! We're talking major version upgrade here!
________________________

Well, presumably your own experiences can substantiate that the laws of the universe had already been thus changed in your case, no?
I mean, some time back, didn't we have it on good authority (yours) that you were leaving and had indeed left, or something, and yet here you are now, apparently back again - as if you had merely taken a mobius trip? (Enquiring minds need to know.)

MilesAhead · « **Reply #66 on:** February 05, 2016, 01:47 PM »

Quote from: x16wda on February 05, 2016, 12:09 AM

vi vi vi - editor of the beast

Heh heh heh.

wraith808 · « **Reply #67 on:** February 05, 2016, 02:07 PM »

Quote from: MilesAhead on February 05, 2016, 01:47 PM

Quote from: x16wda on February 05, 2016, 12:09 AM
vi vi vi - editor of the beast

Heh heh heh.

Pretty nifty

So what's Emacs?

MilesAhead · « **Reply #68 on:** February 05, 2016, 02:42 PM »

Quote from: wraith808 on February 05, 2016, 02:07 PM

Quote from: MilesAhead on February 05, 2016, 01:47 PM
Quote from: x16wda on February 05, 2016, 12:09 AM
vi vi vi - editor of the beast

Heh heh heh.

Pretty nifty

So what's Emacs?

Hmm, other than having its config file in Lisp, my main hassle with Emacs was the fact that it used exotic key combinations that I could never remember. I had to look them up in the help, which used exotic key combinations I could never remember.

There are Gui menus but it is wicked slow slogging if you go that route. It has a couple of free Windows ports if you want to try it without booting Linux.

XEmacs for Windows is the one I tried on Windows. It went on and ran in pretty straight-forward fashion. There was a schism Emacs/XEmacs. What it was all about I am not sure. I post the link to XEmacs because that is the one I tried on Windows.

wraith808 · « **Reply #69 on:** February 05, 2016, 07:00 PM »

I meant that in the same tongue in cheek manner as the rest of this thread, especially as there are macs vs vi battles all over (I fall more or less firmly on the emacs side)

MilesAhead · « **Reply #70 on:** February 05, 2016, 07:55 PM »

Quote from: wraith808 on February 05, 2016, 07:00 PM

I meant that in the same tongue in cheek manner as the rest of this thread, especially as there are macs vs vi battles all over (I fall more or less firmly on the emacs side)

I suspected something may be a foot. I handled that one badly but I don't know any of the affectionate insults hurled at Emacs.

Other than the curious occasional boot I haven't done much Linux in quite some time.

If I could have gotten some of this vhd boot stuff to work on my Laptop it may be been otherwise. The boot mechanism seems to be severely restricted on this particular machine.

Edit: Although I did hear that for voice input editing to work in Emacs you have to speak with a Lisp.