Philosophical Question - Amiguing

[motrucker]

I find the most people who question what they are doing (computer type or whatever)as much as the OP is doing, are in the middle of a midlife crisis.

[Thorham]

To get back to the nostalgia question: I personally got my A1200 18 years ago and simply never stopped using it, don't see how that has anything to do with nostalgia.

[Iggy]

I actually think this will turn out to not be true.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422430
 
Having one or the other is like people generally only having one hair colour.
 
While god might have triggered the big bang, none of the large organised religions have dared throw away all their theories about how the universe was created in light of scientific evidence. Instead they have spent a long time trying to disprove science to show that their god exists (which is a logical fallacy but hey).
 
Science cannot disprove the possibility of a god, it can only blow huge holes in religious texts written by man. As the writers god is supposed to have been heavily involved in the creation of those texts then they were either deluded, liars or their god is a practical joker. You could argue that there has been misinterpretation, but I cannot believe that a god that influenced the writing of religion texts would have allowed that to happen.
 
But there could be a god that hasn't influenced any religions that created the visible universe. However this opens up even more questions than it answers as you then have to consider what else is there outside the visible universe. So while god might be the actual answer, it's a rather farfetched and inconvenient one (unless you are into blind faith or you're the one manipulating the masses).

I'm not sure what the reference has to do with the hair vs feathers question, but I wholly agree with you about ancient texts  written by man.
Blind faith to the literal translation of said texts does more to discredit religion than any other practice.

[Mrs Beanbag]

While god might have triggered the big bang, none of the large organised religions have dared throw away all their theories about how the universe was created in light of scientific evidence. Instead they have spent a long time trying to disprove science to show that their god exists (which is a logical fallacy but hey).

Oh are we doing a religion argument afterall, now?

Well let me just point this out, while we're on the subject. Since Aristotle and up until the 20th century the rationalist scientific consensus was that the Universe had existed forever (hence Einstein's famous "mistake" of adding the cosmological constant into his theories to allow for that), whereas the Bible stated it had a beginning. But then Hubble discovered the expansion of the Universe and the big bang theory was born. So faith might be irrational but it can still turn out to be right about some things.

Nevertheless focusing on God "setting off the big bang" at the beginning in an argument from first cause is a bit of a distraction. Time is a property of the Universe which God is supposed to be beyond, see Philo of Alexandria pre-empt modern arguments by about 2000 years in his commentary on the book of Genesis.

[nicholas]

I actually think this will turn out to not be true.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422430
 
Having one or the other is like people generally only having one hair colour.
 
While god might have triggered the big bang, none of the large organised religions have dared throw away all their theories about how the universe was created in light of scientific evidence. Instead they have spent a long time trying to disprove science to show that their god exists (which is a logical fallacy but hey).
 
Science cannot disprove the possibility of a god, it can only blow huge holes in religious texts written by man. As the writers god is supposed to have been heavily involved in the creation of those texts then they were either deluded, liars or their god is a practical joker. You could argue that there has been misinterpretation, but I cannot believe that a god that influenced the writing of religion texts would have allowed that to happen.
 
But there could be a god that hasn't influenced any religions that created the visible universe. However this opens up even more questions than it answers as you then have to consider what else is there outside the visible universe. So while god might be the actual answer, it's a rather farfetched and inconvenient one (unless you are into blind faith or you're the one manipulating the masses).

So much false assumption and BS in one post it could win an award.

It's blatantly obvious you have never spoken at length about this subject with an actual scholar of Islam (An Ayatollah for instance) otherwise you wouldn't have made your incorrect sweeping generalisations.

I've discussed this subject in great detail in the past right here on this very forum and so have some of the other Muslim members, so I'm not about to repeat myself again but refer you to the search function if you actually are interested in having your ignorance of our beliefs corrected.

Plus it is extremely off topic for this thread.

[gertsy]

The evolution of feathers is well theorised and has evidence both in fossils and real life.  But don't let that get in the way of fiction. Scientific or theological. But sparking debate from a false premise is a common undertaking of scientists and theologians alike. Just like AORG threads. No need for insults.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary

This is back on topic because I have an ACAR mag with a student project on the Cassowary done on the Amiga, or was it a web site review?..     See what I did there.  

Magazines and their generated commercial and social desire are another reason the Amiga is imprinted on the psyche of those around at the time.  No "real" internet back then.

[nicholas]

Actually, I have no problem with the Big Bang being the mode of creation.
"Let there be light", boom.
Yep, that works for me.
And I also don't have a problem with evolution being yet another mode of creation.
One that, instead of lasting only seven days, continues indefinitely.
Also, when you study biology, you see some weird jumps from one species to it descendants.
For instance, there is no intermediate structure between hair and feathers.
You have one or the other.

Evolution of the species and natural selection observed and documented by Shi'a Muslim scholar Nasir al-Din al-Tusi 800 years before Darwin "discovered" it.

Scroll down to the Biology section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_al-Din_al-Tusi#Achievements

[Astral]

Question is:

-> Why do we(1) keep trying to cultivate the Amiga, knowing that, most probably it's some kind of nostalgic feeling about the surrounding of our life experiences(2) when we first had the original Amigas?

(1) I include myself on it.
(2) Youth, already deceased family members, places, childhood, teenage, ex girlfriends, ...

That's a V E R Y good question! And so far it's seems there's lots of opinion on exactly how to define it. And given the lack of agreement on one particular reason...well doesn't that say it means different things to different people.

For me I still don't know exactly what it is - perhaps because it's more than just one easily definable thing Although I think for the most part it's a reliving of moments of awesomeness from the past, coupled with discovery of all the "new" things about the Amiga (whether those new things are just new to me because I have never experienced them, or new as in just released).

I also realise that the things the Amiga could day "back in the day" it can still do! OMG - shock revelation! Yep, it can STILL do them! I realise this may be hard to understand by people who are blinded by the whole technology means "better" viewpoint. "Better" is subjective. I can still play games on the Amiga, I can still watch all those excellent scene demos, I can still do a bit of hardware modding, I can still while away hours trying to configure a piece of software, I can still listen to randomly searched music modules amongst 600odd mb of data on a CD, and so on. The Amiga is still as good now as it used to be! BUT...technology has advanced to allow other MACHINES to do things in a different way, sometimes "better" or "quicker" or whatever. And whilst "modern" machines have their place to do these "modern" things, so too does the Amiga to still do the things it could do all along! To re-enforce my point...just think of the good old book. Yep, the good old paper based book. Been around for how long? And STILL being used as a method of conveying words....S T I L L...

I could go on for hours about this...but I think that's enough

[Jpan1]

Yeah you be pretty hard pressed to find forums users 10 years on, on most forums these days. Yet most of us have endured! why? who knows.

I see My Amiga500 as a platform. That has limitations, The limitations imposed are what give
it personality!.. those 4096 colors I'm sure we have all seen hundreds of times. in fact alot of us can probably give out the hex code to a color we see on the screen lol!

The Amiga has something other computers don't. And its not because I was using one when I was 14. Now that I'm 33 i don't think its a nostalgia thing. But then again who knows how ones mind works...

The Amiga will never rise again as a new platform, simply because it doesn't need one.
The platform it filled is still there.

(ps i think this is my longest post in 10 years lol)

I actually think that when I see a picture in 4096 colours I can appreciate the limitations and awesomeness  on the Amiga, which really pushed the limits at the time, and the same goes for sound. I still get impressed when I see great demos and music on the Amiga now. With the abundance of HD graphics and sound, is hard to appreciate this as much on modern hardware, which IMO has amalgamated to variations of the 'same thing'. Therefore I agree with the idea that the Amiga has a great personality - apart from when 'software failure' pops up in a flashing red box. 'Guru meditation' is more understandable though.

[commodorejohn]

I actually think that when I see a picture in 4096 colours I can appreciate the limitations and awesomeness  on the Amiga, which really pushed the limits at the time, and the same goes for sound. I still get impressed when I see great demos and music on the Amiga now. With the abundance of HD graphics and sound, is hard to appreciate this as much on modern hardware, which IMO has amalgamated to variations of the 'same thing'. Therefore I agree with the idea that the Amiga has a great personality - apart from when 'software failure' pops up in a flashing red box. 'Guru meditation' is more understandable though.

Precisely. It's the same reason I'm moving away from software instruments to hardware synths, or doing my drawing on paper again - the limitations and quirks of the medium impose a distinct character on what you do with it. The Amiga strikes a very pleasant balance between having character and not being too limited.

[Linde]

The ability to converse in abstract concepts, such as the above?

A lot of animals have unique capabilities beyond those of humans. They may not be able to converse in abstract concept, but then again, who decided that that was such a remarkable ability? That's right, we did that ourselves. In a world guided by simple morals, we use those concepts that distinguish us from everyone else as an absolute measure of worth to rationalize our belief of superiority. This not only goes for animals, but for other cultures and human ethnicities as well.

[nicholas]

A lot of animals have unique capabilities beyond those of humans. They may not be able to converse in abstract concept, but then again, who decided that that was such a remarkable ability? That's right, we did that ourselves. In a world guided by simple morals, we use those concepts that distinguish us from everyone else as an absolute measure of worth to rationalize our belief of superiority. This not only goes for animals, but for other cultures and human ethnicities as well.

+1

Amen to that!

[Mrs Beanbag]

A lot of animals have unique capabilities beyond those of humans. They may not be able to converse in abstract concept, but then again, who decided that that was such a remarkable ability? That's right, we did that ourselves. In a world guided by simple morals, we use those concepts that distinguish us from everyone else as an absolute measure of worth to rationalize our belief of superiority. This not only goes for animals, but for other cultures and human ethnicities as well.

and computers and operating systems, ho ho, well there's that question answered then.

[psxphill]

I've discussed this subject in great detail in the past right here on this very forum and so have some of the other Muslim members, so I'm not about to repeat myself again but refer you to the search function if you actually are interested in having your ignorance of our beliefs corrected.

There is a difference between being ignorant of someone's beliefs and not believing in them.
 
Some people have reinterpreted the Quran based on scientific discoveries, but why were Gods revelations to Muhammad based on the incorrect scientific beliefs of the time it was written?

[nicholas]

There is a difference between being ignorant of someone's beliefs and not believing in them.

You said:

Originally Posted by psxphill
While god might have triggered the big bang, none of the large organised religions have dared throw away all their theories about how the universe was created in light of scientific evidence.

Islam is one of the "large organised religions" so your sweeping statement includes Islam and what you said is wrong, so yes you are ignorant of what we believe.

As I stated in my previous post I have discussed this at length as have some of the other Muslim members here (One of them being an actual bona-fide scientist educated at Oxford to Masters level) so I am not going to repeat myself for you.  Use the forum search function if you are genuinely interested in correcting your ignorance, but I find it hard to believe you are.

I will not discuss it further here for the reason stated above and the fact that it is completely off topic.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ
لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَا عَبَدْتُمْ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

[paul1981]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ
لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَا عَبَدْتُمْ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

"In the name of God the Merciful
Say O disbelievers
I do not worship what you worship
Nor do you worship what I worship
I Abed not served
Nor do you worship what I worship
Your religion and I have mine"

Courtesy of Google Translate.