• 0 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle

  • Donations add up. If everyone did what you’re proposing, many projects would likely get no donations. Ideally everyone would donate a small amount to every project they use, which would all add together to be a sizable amount for all projects that are frequently used.

    We aren’t all one person. We don’t need to all act as if we’re one. We should act as if we’re a community, because we are. Support all projects, and they’ll all get support.


  • After putting my computer to sleep, it would immediately wake back up. Eventually found out it was my Logitech wireless dongle that was causing the issue. I had to create a script that disabled USB ports during sleep and a systemd service to make sure it activated on every boot.

    Thanks for this. I’m going to look into it. This happens on my computer, but it’s been happening for years, which includes a long time on Windows. I had pretty much given up on it because I’ve tried unplugging just about everything and it still happens. It might be something else for me.

    For the Nvidia issues, that hopefully shouldn’t be an issue soon after the open source drivers. The few mostly solvable issues with Linux are quickly dissolving.





  • Anyone who thinks OP asking about Assembly with this meme should play the game Turing Complete. It’s great. You have to design a computer all the way from the most basic logic gates (I think you only get a NAND gate to start), designing an ALU and CPU, creating your own machine language, and writing your own programs in the language you designed, and it’s all simulated the whole time. Machine language is pretty advanced as far as things go.






  • Cethin@lemmy.ziptoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlNames
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, they believe it fundamentally changes into the body and blood. It’s a nonsense meanining of the language from a measurable reasonable view of the universe, but they mean it does become that thing, but it’s undetectable so it can’t be tested. I don’t know what you’re arguing about. You either misunderstand what I’m saying, what they’re saying (which I’ve barely said anything, just copied what they say), or you’re just arguing for the sake of it.

    The believe it actually becomes his body and blood. It literally becomes that, undetectably. It’s in a sense that is unmeasurable and undetectable, so that it can’t be debunked and can’t really be questioned beyond questioning the pretext of it happening. They do believe it literally is the body and blood of christ though. There’s no strawman there. I could construct one if I wanted to, but it’s totally unnecessary, because the real thing is absurd enough. It’s not my fault that the mystical language doesn’t gel with a realistic, scientific, physical understanding of our language.

    I was responding to what you said about debunkers earlier, so it was not an non-sequitur. It was directly responding to your comment, although bringing that up was a non-sequitur. It had no relevance.


  • Cethin@lemmy.ziptoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlNames
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What? You can’t just say things and make it the case. It absolutely follows. It’s literally the whole point of what I was discussing. Talking about debunkers was the non-sequitur. It did not follow from discussing how crazy the claim is to talk about other people trying to debunk totally unrelated things.

    You’re just saying names of logical fallacies seemingly without any understanding of what they mean and when they apply, hoping others will fall for it. There wasn’t a strawman before, and I didn’t make a non-sequitur statement.


  • Cethin@lemmy.ziptoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlNames
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not pointing out something that can be debunked. I’m pointing out that it’s crazy spellcasting stuff. The dogma is that it becomes that thing, just that it’s undetectable to us. It’s untestable, so obviously I’m not claiming anything about debunking. I’m saying it’s crazy. If a modern person outside of a religion said those things we’d institutionalized them.



  • Cethin@lemmy.ziptoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlNames
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, the essence of it changes, but it’s somehow undetectable. It becomes his body and blood, but you can tell using your senses. Yeah, it doesn’t really make sense and language doesn’t seem to work well to describe it, because it’s insane. That’s the dogma of the Catholic church though. It also isn’t the most crazy thing you’re expected to believe. If this is an issue for anyone, they probably shouldn’t believe in the religion at all.


  • Cethin@lemmy.ziptoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlNames
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Then you are changing the nature of unicorns.

    Sure, as is my right. This is what happens with religion constantly. For example, Pope Benedict XVI believes in evolution and the big bang. These remove the domain of God from creating all creatures, the earth, etc. Sure, it still leaves room for God to start it all off, but it is changing a fundamental aspect of creation. It’s the god of the gaps.

    There are 20 major religions

    There are currently 20 major religions. There have been many more through human history. The vast majority don’t exist anymore. Two of those, Islam and Christianity (plus Judaism), believe in the same god. Abrahamic religion all comes from previous religions though. You can compare the stories in the Bible to stories of other beliefs in the region and they match, though some aspect vary. Religion evolves. (Which I’d argue is evidence that it isn’t correct. If it were correct it’d never change.)

    The prevalent existence of spirituality in Ethnic Tribes is an argument for spiritual element in humans. I will assume that we are in agreement on that point.

    I agree it’s an argument for humans to believe in something spiritual, but not that it’s accurate. We don’t need to explain lightning with something in the sky fighting or anything anymore. We don’t need to explain mountains with gods having risen from them or anything anymore. Spirituality in humans is evidence of humans wanting an explanation for things, regardless of their knowledge of how it actually came to be, and nothing more.

    It also gave me personally some benefit to my mental well being.

    That’s good. For me it was only a negative influence. It didn’t make me feel better and only told me what to do. I don’t agree with many morals the Bible teaches (and neither do most Christians), and I’d rather have morals that treat people well regardless of what they or I believe. I don’t need religion to constrain my behavior, and it would prevent me from doing things I want to do and cause me to do things I don’t want to do.

    If it’s a positive for you then fine, though I’d argue there’s probably some other religions that have better effects. When I was poking at religious beliefs when I was a teenager I really liked Buddhism. It’s a much more relaxing religion and makes much fewer claims and demands. That’s how I became an atheist though is I learned about other religions and noticed they all have equally valid claims, so I just don’t believe any.


  • Cethin@lemmy.ziptoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlNames
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There aren’t evidence that unicorns don’t exist but there is certain probability that they don’t exist. If so far no one spoted them then a) they are super rare (they would need better luck than Dream) or b) they don’t exist

    If I believed in unicorns I would probably just say they’re magical so they can avoid detection. Problem solved. There’s no way to collect evidence for them, but they can’t be disproven.

    There are certain aspects of the world that skew the probability for the existence of God. Prophets, teachings and miracles of Christ, possessions, various apparitions, time before big bang. These things slightly skew the probability of existance of God but certainly they don’t provide definite answer.

    These do not really skew the probability for any god in particular. Every god has the same claims, and there are thousands, if not far more, of them, and they’re usually mutually exclusive. Using probability, if they’re all equally probably, the probability you were born to parents who believe the correct one is effectively zero.

    Now there’s Pascal’s Wager to deal with, that is you’re better off believing because the finite things you give up in this life weighed against the infinite reward if he’s real. However, again, every god has equal claim to this wager, and they’re mutually exclusive. You will give up something measurable and there are effectively infinite petitioners, so the wager is hardly even worth discussing. It’s just apologetics.


  • Cethin@lemmy.ziptoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlNames
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Where does it say otherwise? It very clearly says over and over that the substance becomes the body and blood of christ. It also says the appearance and outward characteristics stay the same, but the substance literally changes somehow in an undetectable way.

    Also, I’m not writting a damn paper. I don’t need academic sources to post something online. Wikipedia is the best resource to share information with people. That’s the whole point. Here’s another. Meanwhile you are here with no sources at all. Say what you will about Wikipedia, but it’s a better source than your ass. If you want more or different information then you can search for it yourself. Those should give you all the search terms you need and I hope you can figure it out.


  • Cethin@lemmy.ziptoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlNames
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, Catholicism dogma says it literally changes into it through transubstantiation. That’s what the church teaches. You can not believe that part if you like, like I do, I just go slightly further and not have belief in any of it.

    In a thread about making fun of the beliefs of a catholic, it’s wrong to make fun of the beliefs of catholics? What is the difference between making fun of the silly belief that this person can’t use a tool named after alchemy and making fun of their belief in their own form of spellcraft? If you weren’t in a thread literally making fun of the beliefs of a religious person, you might have some ground to stand on. As it is though, why are you in this thread at all if you are bothered by it?