- if cargo blocks - 22 Updates
- Learning modern C++, where to start? - 2 Updates
- std::string s3 = s3; ?!? - 1 Update
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 17 07:22PM On 17/01/2019 18:57, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > That is a natural sequence without God, without intelligent design. > That has never been proven. It is a theory. It is not real sci- > ence. It is a religion because it's a belief. LOLWUT. And Satan invented fossils, yes? You silly man. /Flibble -- "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 17 07:46PM On 17/01/2019 19:41, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Our spirit nature is restored for all whose sin is forgiven, and > we have a future which is secure. > I teach you these things so you can know. Nonsense: a) your bible is provably false and b) your god which is predicated on your bible being true is also false. /Flibble -- "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 17 07:01PM On 17/01/2019 18:57, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > That is a natural sequence without God, without intelligent design. > That has never been proven. It is a theory. It is not real sci- > ence. It is a religion because it's a belief. LOL. /Flibble -- "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jan 18 05:44AM -0800 On Thursday, 17 January 2019 14:54:29 UTC+2, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > non-existence. > So, you're saying it's only a belief they don't exist, > not by proof? Are you totally dumb? Atheism is lack of belief that deities exist. These may exist but that seems quite unlikely. > > I continue to doubt existence of those. > You say they "may exist," but you don't know? Meanwhile, > you do continue to believe they don't exist? Again, I continue to have no belief. That is not a belief but lack of belief into those extraordinary stories. > Did I understand your response correctly, that it is only > belief you have that these things do not exist? No proof? You play with words. I have numerous reasons why to consider all supernatural stories unlikely. What proof? Do I have to prove that I lack belief into those stories? * People provide fake evidence about gnomes, tooth fairies and santa clauses to their kids. When some is fake then it is likely that all of it is fake. * None of people who have done something that I admire, make serious claims that they have had supernatural aid in it. * Good for nothing people (no fruit) annoy others. One is even so stupid that quotes Jesus words that outright say that I should not trust him in this very thread. * Lot of religious people deny science that actually works and has been applied in practice for centuries. * Religious people often try threatening to get others into obedience. That is evil. Relations built on fear do not last and evil people should not be trusted. * Religions have been often used it as excuse to do other repulsive things throughout whole human history; that continues to this day. * No supernatural intervention has been observed in any direction so if there are deities then these are not concerned with what people say or do. * And so on. That all is giving me reason to have no belief. It would be hypocritical of me to pretend that I believe and so I am honest that I do not. I do not understand what proof is needed to it. |
| queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg): Jan 18 01:51PM > Subject: Re: You are still so full of shit Actually, he was. He was so full that he finally exploded and it floods the group since then. -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0 |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Jan 18 06:46AM -0800 On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 8:45:05 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote: > > not by proof? > Are you totally dumb? Atheism is lack of belief that deities > exist. These may exist but that seems quite unlikely. To talk meaningfully about whether "deities" exist, it's first necessary to define fairly precisely what we mean by "deities". What properties does a thing have to have to qualify as a deity? If by "deities" we mean things that have the properties of the god of abraham as described in the biblical texts, or by the properties of Thor as described in Norwegian legends, it would seem exceptionally unlikely. Daniel |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Jan 18 03:03PM In article <a030b15c-31c3-4374-9d51-9740367c6c41@googlegroups.com>, >that have the properties of the god of abraham as described in the biblical >texts, or by the properties of Thor as described in Norwegian legends, it >would seem exceptionally unlikely. Or the properties of Zeus as described in Roman lore. And, yet, billions of people claim to believe in precisely that. And, one Usenet poster can't seem to shut up about it. Strange; that. -- Shikata ga nai... |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Jan 18 03:12PM In article <674ec28f-fbbd-4ca9-85d3-4678866518b8@googlegroups.com>, ร รถ Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: ... >> not by proof? >Are you totally dumb? Atheism is lack of belief that deities >exist. These may exist but that seems quite unlikely. Note that you can't ever prove the non-existence of anything. To put that another way, anyone who says they are certain that X (for any X) doesn't exist, is lying. There is exactly as much evidence for the existence of the Christian God as there is for Russell's Teapot or for 3-headed-purple-gnitzes. Anyone who asserts that they are certain that Russell's Teapot doesn't exist is lying. Ditto for the 3-headed-purple-gnitzes. So, it boils down to this (and this is the important part): It's just a notational convenience. When we say that God doesn't exist, this is just a notational shorthand for saying that we don't believe in God. Which is, in turn a notational shorthand for saying that there is no evidence for God's existence. Just as there is no evidence for the existence of Russell's Teapot or the aforementioned 3-headed-purple-gnitzes. As mentioned, all 3 (and an infinity of other such things) have exactly the same evidentiary basis. None of which, of course, excludes the possibility that any of these things might actually exist. The Teapot, in particular, could very well exist. -- The people who were, are, and always will be, wrong about everything, are still calling *us* "libtards"... (John Fugelsang) |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 18 03:23PM On 18/01/2019 15:12, Kenny McCormack wrote: > basis. > None of which, of course, excludes the possibility that any of these things > might actually exist. The Teapot, in particular, could very well exist. If by "God" you are referring to the god of the Abrahamic religions then I have to disagree: that god provably does not exist because it is predicated on the Abrahamic bible being true and that bible is provably false. /Flibble -- "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@invalid.invalid>: Jan 18 04:26PM +0100 On 18.01.19 16:12, Kenny McCormack wrote: > Note that you can't ever prove the non-existence of anything. > To put that another way, anyone who says they are certain that X (for any > X) doesn't exist, is lying. Beg to differ: If I state that *I am certain* that X does not exist, I'm not lying because I really am certain that X does not exist. But that's only me! If I stated that X does not exist, and if the (non) existence of X cannot be proved either way, then one might argue that I would be lying because I cannot prove either way. It's like Schrödinger's cat. Politicians are very good at this: "I promise that I will try to raise everyone's income by 10%". (S)he didn't break his/her promise, as (s)he did try (half-heartedly), but failed. Josef |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Jan 18 03:57PM In article <gae9gtFm1dkU1@mid.individual.net>, Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@invalid.invalid> wrote: ... >Beg to differ: >If I state that *I am certain* that X does not exist, I'm not lying >because I really am certain that X does not exist. But that's only me! This is just semantics. It's like the argument of "If someone really believes what they are saying, are they lying?" I see why people might disagree, but I think this line of argument is basically BS. (If for no other reason than it gives license to incompetence, something I try to avoid doing. In particular, people have used this line to defend the Orange One, on the basis that he has no idea that everything he says is bullshit, so, they argue, he is not really lying.) -- "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can't remember what the second one is." - Mark Hanna - |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Jan 18 03:59PM In article <Nbm0E.79849$Yn2.48947@fx26.fr7>, Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: ... >If by "God" you are referring to the god of the Abrahamic religions then I >have to disagree: that god provably does not exist because it is >predicated on the Abrahamic bible being true and that bible is provably false. Nonsense. That's like saying that the C language doesn't exist, just because the standards documents are nonsense. C plainly existed before there were standards, and could easily exist in the absence of those standards. (Gee, I'm almost on-topic for once...) -- Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 18 04:14PM On 18/01/2019 15:59, Kenny McCormack wrote: > C plainly existed before there were standards, and could easily exist in > the absence of those standards. > (Gee, I'm almost on-topic for once...) Incorrect. The first five books of the Hebrew bible (the Torah) are supposedly the Word of God and the contents of those books are provably false. Sorry but you are wrong: the existence of the Abrahamic god is predicated on the Bible being true and it isn't. /Flibble -- "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Jan 18 06:00PM +0100 On 18/01/2019 15:46, Daniel wrote: > texts, or by the properties of Thor as described in Norwegian legends, it > would seem exceptionally unlikely. > Daniel No, you don't have to define something to say that you have no belief in its existence. You have to define it to say that you don't believe in it. There is a subtle difference (one that escapes people who claim atheism is a religion). I am not even sure I can explain it well, but I will try. "Belief" implies a certain amount of doubt - or at least, an acceptance that other people may disagree with you. If I say "I believe there can be no good plan for Brexit", it means that is my judgement and opinion, but I have no definite proof of it and I appreciate that some people (or perhaps it is only one person!) believe differently. And I should (if this were a political discussion group) have a detailed definition of what I mean by a "good plan" - it is not enough to simply think that Brexit is a bad idea. If I say "I have no belief in unicorns", then I don't need to specify if it is green unicorns or pink unicorns that I don't believe in. It covers a whole wide class of unicorns, without the need of any details. It is always difficult to claim the non-existence of something as a "fact". It is usually easy when it is existence - if you see a unicorn, you know for a fact that they exist, as you have proof. Proof of non-existence is always circumstantial - you prove the non-existence of unicorns by showing that /if/ they had existed, it is unreasonable to expect such a lack of evidence for them, or at least for the possibility of their existence. I.e., if unicorns existed we would expect to have seen them, or their bones, fossils, related DNA in related animals, etc. The lack of evidence is strong enough to say it is a fact that there are no unicorns now or in recent history, and if they ever /did/ exist then they were very rare. You can still have no belief in things even if you don't have such a level of circumstantial proof. It is entirely impossible to /prove/ the non-existence of an all-powerful god - just as it is impossible to prove that the Last-Thursdayists are wrong. (Mr. Flibble is completely wrong here.) But since there is absolutely no evidence that any kind of "god" exists, it is entirely reasonable to have no belief in them. And that is not the same as having a belief in their non-existence. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Jan 18 06:08PM +0100 On 18/01/2019 16:12, Kenny McCormack wrote: > X) doesn't exist, is lying. > There is exactly as much evidence for the existence of the Christian God as > there is for Russell's Teapot or for 3-headed-purple-gnitzes. Yes - look what happened to the animals who said there is no such thing as a Gruffalo! > basis. > None of which, of course, excludes the possibility that any of these things > might actually exist. The Teapot, in particular, could very well exist. I think there /is/ a difference between saying you believe there is no god, and saying that you have no belief in a god. (But I agree with you about "notational convenience" - we are usually very imprecise about such details.) At the very least, I think there is a difference between what different people mean when they say it or hear it. Rick is determined to think that atheism (and evolution, and science in general) is something that people "believe in", just like his god, or gnitzes. But that is certainly /not/ what people mean when they say "I am an atheist - I don't believe in god". (On the other hand, an agnostic might say "I don't believe there is a god, but I can't be sure".) |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 18 05:08PM On 18/01/2019 17:00, David Brown wrote: > here.) But since there is absolutely no evidence that any kind of "god" > exists, it is entirely reasonable to have no belief in them. And that > is not the same as having a belief in their non-existence. No I am not wrong: yes it is not possible to prove there are no gods at all but it is entirely possible to disprove a SPECIFIC god such as the god of Abraham. /Flibble -- "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jan 18 09:14AM -0800 On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 12:08:46 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > No I am not wrong: yes it is not possible to prove there are no gods at > all but it is entirely possible to disprove a SPECIFIC god such as the god > of Abraham. Be sure to remember this public statement you made when you meet Him after you leave this world: "But I... I thought... I'd been told... Oh my. Oh my. Oh my." You're listening to lies that the Bible is false and that God doesn't exist, Leigh. I can't tell you otherwise because I would not be telling you the truth. I tell you the truth, be- cause God commands it to be so (Matthew 28:18-20). -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Jan 18 06:21PM +0100 On 18/01/2019 17:14, Mr Flibble wrote: > false. Sorry but you are wrong: the existence of the Abrahamic god is > predicated on the Bible being true and it isn't. > /Flibble The majority of Christians do not think the Bible is literally true - at least, not those parts of it. That does not stop them believing in God. Anyone who has looked in detail at the Bible knows that it is far from self-consistent, and therefore cannot possibly be a complete and literal truth like that. I don't see the tie between the words in the Bible and the Abrahamic God being as close as you do. (Rick, of course, sees them as being tied like this.) Putting that aside, the scientific fact of evolution does /not/ disprove the existence of an Abrahamic God - or any other kind of divine "young earth" creation. As you are so fond of suggesting, fossils and all sorts of other scientific evidence could have been created by "Satan", "God", or any other part of the pantheon. As long as we are talking about omnipotent gods, or at least very powerful beings (or "The Matrix", or "The Truman Show"), there is /always/ the escape clause for any kind of proof - "god made it look that way". Every piece of science explaining the real, factual world makes such "god made it look that way" cop-outs more and more implausible. But it does not eliminate them. (And while I disagree fundamentally with your claim that evolution "disproves" Rick's god, I do agree with you that his claims that science is proving the Bible are complete nonsense.) |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jan 18 09:21AM -0800 On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 12:08:46 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > No I am not wrong: yes it is not possible to prove there are no gods at > all but it is entirely possible to disprove a SPECIFIC god such as the god > of Abraham. Ask yourself this question: What do I have to gain by teaching you that you have sin and that Jesus will forgive your sin and give you eternal life? What is my driving impetus for teaching you something like this? -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 18 05:23PM On 18/01/2019 17:14, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > doesn't exist, Leigh. I can't tell you otherwise because I > would not be telling you the truth. I tell you the truth, be- > cause God commands it to be so (Matthew 28:18-20). Nonsense. A) Your bible is false. B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true is, given (A) also false. /Flibble -- "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 18 05:24PM On 18/01/2019 17:21, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > you that you have sin and that Jesus will forgive your sin and > give you eternal life? > What is my driving impetus for teaching you something like this? Nonsense. A) Your bible is false. B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true is, given (A) also false. /Flibble -- "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Jan 18 06:27PM +0100 On 18/01/2019 18:08, Mr Flibble wrote: > No I am not wrong: yes it is not possible to prove there are no gods at > all but it is entirely possible to disprove a SPECIFIC god such as the > god of Abraham. I appreciate your clarification here about the specific god. However, I still disagree even in the case of the specific god (see my other post), since the god of Abraham is specifically claimed to be omnipotent, and to carefully avoid having clear and provable evidence (such as sticking his head out of the clouds, Monty Python style) since that would mean people would not need to have faith. Indeed, the Christian god /requires/ that there be alternative rational explanations for our existence, so that people can choose to believe in him/her/it. |
| carlglassberg@gmail.com: Jan 18 05:54AM -0800 IMHO, I think it is important to have a published official grammar. I bought a copy of the "Special 3rd edition" of "The C++ Programming Language," because it contains "Appendix A The C++ Grammar." The 4th Edition of "The C++ Programming Language" does not appear to have an "Appendix A" nor any C++ grammar summary anywhere in the book. I was hoping to find a copy of the missing "Appendix A The C++ grammar" (summary) on the website of Bjarne Stroustrup, one that corresponds to the 4th Edition but am unable to locate any such grammar. Perhaps someone here knows where to find such a grammar summary that goes with the 4th Edition? Carl --- On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 2:32:10 PM UTC-8, Unto Sten wrote: |
| Manfred <noname@add.invalid>: Jan 18 03:56PM +0100 > I was hoping to find a copy of the missing "Appendix A The C++ grammar" (summary) on the website of Bjarne Stroustrup, one that corresponds to the 4th Edition but am unable to locate any such grammar. > Perhaps someone here knows where to find such a grammar summary that goes with the 4th Edition? > Carl You can always refer to the standard: The ISO committee publishes the final drafts for all revisions: http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/standards It is hard to read, but as a strict grammar reference it can work as an addendum to Bjarne's book, i.e. the book gives the readable rationale, and the standard provides the strict details. More accessible is: https://en.cppreference.com/w/ |
| Ralf Fassel <ralfixx@gmx.de>: Jan 18 03:15PM +0100 This compiles w/o warnings or errors in g++ version 4.8.5 (Opensuse 42.3) and g++ 7.3.1 (Opensuse 15): #include <string> std::string func(std::string s) { return s; } int main(int argc, char **argv) { std::string s1 = func(s1); std::string s2(s2); std::string s3 = s3; return 0; } (and of course crashes at runtime...) I would *at least* have expected some compiler diagnostics similar to e.g. int i = i; t.cc:7:11: warning: 'i' is used uninitialized in this function [-Wuninitialized] and in fact I would have expected an error along the lines "s1/s2/s3 is used before init". MSVC 2017 raises an error about s2 not being known, but if I comment that line out, it also compiles (and crashes)... R' |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment