Upload
Login or register

rzkruspe

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:12/30/2011
Location:France
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 2921 total,  3139 ,  218
Comment Thumbs: 5879 total,  7199 ,  1320
Content Level Progress: 15% (15/100)
Level 129 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 130 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 60% (60/100)
Level 252 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 253 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:2
Content Views:114345
Times Content Favorited:146 times
Total Comments Made:1989
FJ Points:8232
Favorite Tags: You (3)

latest user's comments

#135 - I think I've started something, be it good or bad.. 01/19/2016 on voice of god 0
#45530 - Microsoft is trying to do everything to force their users to g…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/19/2016 on Technology Board 0
User avatar
#45533 - pivotmasterdmtwo (01/19/2016) [-]
It's done this after every update pretty much but up until this point, the legacy login fix worked. I'm going to attempt to update windows 7(because I haven't installed updates since 2014 for some reason) and if that doesn't work, i'm gonna see if I can upgrade to windows 10 for free. If I can't do it for free then i'm gonna just rely on my iphone to use skype from now on.
#45529 - I didn't consult your profile, and I took a bet that you were …  [+] (2 new replies) 01/19/2016 on Technology Board 0
User avatar
#45531 - sammiemoore (01/19/2016) [-]
It's all good ;) lol

And thanks. >.> Never crossed my mind to try updating again since if failed the first time. lololol I don't deal with computers ok!? lol I deal with cars lol
User avatar
#45532 - rzkruspe (01/19/2016) [-]
lol
#45525 - Well then put on your man pants and exerce your fatherly autho…  [+] (4 new replies) 01/19/2016 on Technology Board 0
User avatar
#45527 - sammiemoore (01/19/2016) [-]
BY GORGIE I GOT ET.

Finally got the updates through, after an hr....
and its not eating up my CPU anymore *yeay*

My man pants?
Fatherly authority?
Didn't know I was male.

MOM IM A MAN NOW. AND AS THE MAN OF THE HOUSE-..... lol
User avatar
#45529 - rzkruspe (01/19/2016) [-]
I didn't consult your profile, and I took a bet that you were male..
Well now you are officially a man, deal with it !

Glad your problem has been solved
User avatar
#45531 - sammiemoore (01/19/2016) [-]
It's all good ;) lol

And thanks. >.> Never crossed my mind to try updating again since if failed the first time. lololol I don't deal with computers ok!? lol I deal with cars lol
User avatar
#45532 - rzkruspe (01/19/2016) [-]
lol
#45523 - That seems to be related to an eratic gestion of uninstalled u…  [+] (6 new replies) 01/19/2016 on Technology Board 0
User avatar
#45524 - sammiemoore (01/19/2016) [-]
I've tried to tell my computer to do its updates...the one time it got through it, it failed and had to revert back to before the updates it just tried.. it says it has over 300 MBs of updates it needs/wants to do.
User avatar
#45525 - rzkruspe (01/19/2016) [-]
Well then put on your man pants and exerce your fatherly authority on this insolent !

You tried running Windows Update ?
User avatar
#45527 - sammiemoore (01/19/2016) [-]
BY GORGIE I GOT ET.

Finally got the updates through, after an hr....
and its not eating up my CPU anymore *yeay*

My man pants?
Fatherly authority?
Didn't know I was male.

MOM IM A MAN NOW. AND AS THE MAN OF THE HOUSE-..... lol
User avatar
#45529 - rzkruspe (01/19/2016) [-]
I didn't consult your profile, and I took a bet that you were male..
Well now you are officially a man, deal with it !

Glad your problem has been solved
User avatar
#45531 - sammiemoore (01/19/2016) [-]
It's all good ;) lol

And thanks. >.> Never crossed my mind to try updating again since if failed the first time. lololol I don't deal with computers ok!? lol I deal with cars lol
User avatar
#45532 - rzkruspe (01/19/2016) [-]
lol
#45510 - Comment deleted 01/18/2016 on Technology Board +1
#26 - Hence why I chose the terms "religious beliefs" and … 01/18/2016 on voice of god +2
#13 - Science and religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive  [+] (45 new replies) 01/18/2016 on voice of god +33
User avatar
#135 - rzkruspe (01/19/2016) [-]
I think I've started something, be it good or bad..
User avatar
#16 - theruinedsage (01/18/2016) [-]
Science disproves the bible
But not a divine being
People tend to get that confused.
User avatar
#37 - failtolawl (01/18/2016) [-]
Science doesn't disprove a divine being because you can't prove something wrong that has no existence in reality.
User avatar
#54 - Marker (01/18/2016) [-]
Science generally acknowledges that a god can't be proven real or fake
#69 - migueldecervantes (01/18/2016) [-]
Things do not require to be proven false.
User avatar
#122 - theruinedsage (01/19/2016) [-]
Nor do they require to be proven, and for absolutely EVERYTHING outside of math, they often can't. They just can't be applied to other things before they have withstood attempts to disprove for long enough.
#124 - migueldecervantes (01/19/2016) [-]
Adults are talking here. Go play outside.
#125 - theruinedsage (01/19/2016) [-]
Oh okay, mister adult. Glad you took the scientific theory course as a 2nd year physics student, and therefore know just how "proof" works in science and physics in general

Oh wait
User avatar
#139 - deism (01/22/2016) [-]
You had to take a scientific theory choice to know that the rejection of a claim doesn't have a burden of proof?
User avatar
#141 - theruinedsage (01/22/2016) [-]
Not that that has much to do with what I was talking about, but no...

Nothing I said was really a claim beyond "science doesn't disprove it", which is still doesn't, to any degree.
Because science can't prove where the laws come from, only that they exist and how they work.

That effectively makes it a matter of belief, which has been my point the whole time.
User avatar
#142 - deism (01/22/2016) [-]
except that "god did it" isn't really an explanation as to how they came into existence either
User avatar
#143 - theruinedsage (01/22/2016) [-]
I'd say it's about as good as "we don't know, it just did".
#126 - migueldecervantes (01/19/2016) [-]
You're talking epistemology, not physics, you dumb fuck. And no, you're right, I did quite more than that, it appears, since I am working on my master's thesis in theoretical physics right now...

Dipshit.
User avatar
#127 - theruinedsage (01/19/2016) [-]
Then why are you talking out of your ass? If you are working on your masters, you should know that proof doesn't exist outside of math, because you can't prove anything to the point where it can't be refuted. Same reason we use the term theory regarding evolution and relativity.

And yes, I am talking epistemology, because physics relies on it, especially in areas where you can't actually "prove" anything. Which you should know.
#128 - migueldecervantes (01/19/2016) [-]
But that's not an interesting point about science, you inbred.

Look, I'll actually take the time to answer you. Please do not sneer at me with a tl;dr in response.

Two things: 1) We can't know anything for sure, and 2) we live in the real world and need to make choices and act accordingly. The conclusion: We have to make assumptions so that we may "know" what to do and what not to do.

The question becomes then "How does one acquire the necessary information to then function well in the world?"

If one wonders how a person ought to behave, then the answer is simpler (and at the same time more complex...); one can aid his thinking by reading ethical philosophy, consuming stories, music, art, and etc. All in all, the things that help a person think about their existence and identity as a human being, and develop intellectually, emotionally and, to use an out-dated term, spiritually.

These things are called the humanities, and they are great and full of insight.

But when someone wishes to understand the physical world, they must rely on the sciences. We used to rely on religion and other such superstitions, but science proved to be better for a very important reason: it is more trustworthy due to its strict insistence upon empirical data and facts.

The final conclusion: when wishes to understand how the natural world behaves (be it for a school project, for personal interest, or in the interest of technology), one ought to appeal to science so as to grasp the most trustworthy understanding possible. When one wishes to be challenged by interesting ideas about human existence (for entertainment and/or personal growth), one ought to appeal to religion, philosophy, literature, art and other humanities.
User avatar
#129 - theruinedsage (01/19/2016) [-]
If you want me to take you seriously, stop insulting me for not agreeing with you. I have been nothing but respectful, and you have done nothing but insult me for it. Either clean up your tone, and act like a fucking adult, or fuck off.
#130 - migueldecervantes (01/19/2016) [-]
Yes. I sincerely apologize for insulting you.

Do you agree with what I have said in the previous comment?
User avatar
#131 - theruinedsage (01/19/2016) [-]
I accept you apology.

I do, but I have additional insight that I have been trying to say in this entire thread

What lies above science can't be explained by science.

I'm not trying to argue that a magical creature exists that can snap his fingers and divide the waters exist, because according to science, he simply can't, and arguing that he does is unscientific.

What I'm saying is that science can't explain where the laws of nature comes from. Science can only prove that they exist.
This leaves two options. Either they exist simply because they exist, or something defined them at the beginning of the universe.
Science can't, by definition, give us an answer to that. As such, this, and only this, is a matter of faith. Whether you believe that nothing caused it, or you believe an entity caused it, is a matter of faith. By extension, atheism is a religion as well .
#132 - migueldecervantes (01/19/2016) [-]
Interesting...

I do agree that metaphysical concepts such as deities do not and should not fall within the purview of science. They can be reasoned out through logic and philosophy (which is, by the way, a very entertaining endeavor to which I do not object at all), yet, as they intrinsically lack empirical evidence, to run them through a scientific perspective is never a good idea.

We could, however, causally backtrack our way to the big bang and try to understand how that unique and almost miraculous phenomenon defined, as you put it, our universe and the laws that govern it.

As for your last point, I would not call atheism a religion. It may be refer to as a belief or even, to a lesser extent in my opinion, as a belief system, but not a religion for the term religion denotes worship (based on the definition in the Oxford dictionary).
User avatar
#133 - theruinedsage (01/19/2016) [-]
I will concede, religion isn't the best term
Belief is more appropriate.

My argument has never been that a magical faerie is controlling our life, however much anon wants to twist my arguments, but simply that the possibility of a creator can't be ruled out by science.

I'm personally a deist Basically, I think something created the universe in the manner we discussed, then chilled back and did nothing since. I do not worship, or act upon that. I act just as any atheist would, I simply don't reject the notion that something could have created the world intentionally, and I would never act upon it, preach it, or let it influence my actions. I do what I do to be good, not to please a magical overlord. , a belief I came to through many, many years of pondering and world reflection. I don't expect others to share that view, if people want to be atheist, good for them, I get that, I truly do. But saying that science proves them right is as ignorant as saying a magical faerie controls their life.
#134 - migueldecervantes (01/19/2016) [-]
I fancy myself a complete agnostic, and will thus never claim to know anything about deities. I will only say what I have already told you: there is no scientific evidence for deities, and this, in my view, says something important about the concept.

I can definitely appreciate your perspective, and, although I have no qualms with theism, I prefer someone who is capable of dissociating themselves from religion in general and thus selecting deism as their believe system.
User avatar
#149 - deism (01/26/2016) [-]
You misunderstand
Theism is the belief in a god
Atheism is the rejection of theism
They are both based on a system of belief though

Gnosticism is the claim of knowledge
Agnosticism is the rejection of the claim of knowledge.
They are both based on a system of knowledge though

If someone asks you if you believe in god or not and you respond with "I'm agnostic", it doesn't answer the question.
User avatar
#140 - deism (01/22/2016) [-]
you're an atheist, yo.
#144 - migueldecervantes (01/22/2016) [-]
It's the same thing, technically.
User avatar
#147 - deism (01/25/2016) [-]
Nah, atheism is a belief based position and agnosticism is a knowledge based position
#148 - migueldecervantes (01/26/2016) [-]
Wait. I don't think atheism can be described as a "belief-based position". What does an atheist believe in, exactly?

Atheism is just the stance someone takes when they do not believe in God due to lack of evidence. In no way is there a specific belief required.
User avatar
#145 - deism (01/24/2016) [-]
agnostic means you don't claim to have knowledge or claim it's impossible to have knowledge on a certain subject. you can still believe without claiming to know it's true.
#146 - migueldecervantes (01/25/2016) [-]
Oh, that's interesting. I thought they meant the same thing.

Thank you.
User avatar
#81 - drekinn (01/18/2016) [-]
"This root cures cancer" do a massive scientific experiment to determine if this is true, which it turns out is not, you have just proven that the original statement is false, almost all science is about proving something wrong, because it's literally impossible to prove something right, even something like "gravity is real" could possibly not be the case, what if we're just a simulation, there is useful beliefs though, according to everything we observe, gravity is real and believing it is real is beneficial to your life, believing it false could make a person hop off a building and die. Nothing can be 100% certain, physics could turn off tomorrow, you can't be 100% sure it's not.
#83 - migueldecervantes (01/18/2016) [-]
"This root cures cancer"
"Do you have any evidence?"
"no lol"
"Hypothesis discarded."

The point of science is to find evidence for something. To "prove" is the retarded word unscientific apes use for "give enough evidence for something to be taken seriously into consideration".

"you cant prov anyth1ng 4 shur liek 100% bro lol"

No, I know one cannot. But we live in the real world. We must make assumptions. Our assumptions ought to be well-informed. Science gives us evidence for its claims and tries to prove them.

Still, nothing requires to be disproved unless evidence were given already to back it up.
User avatar
#87 - drekinn (01/18/2016) [-]
"these 100 people had cancer, then ate the root and now don't have cancer" This would be something somebody trying to prove something right would say, but it doesn't take into account that maybe other factors played a role, what happens if 100 people in the same place doing the exact same things, but 50 are given nothing and 50 given the root. If the same result happens you have proven that the root is not the thing curing the cancer, this is what scientists do, they don't set out to prove themselves right, they set out to prove themselves wrong and if they cannot the hypothesis might become a theory.

You can't just act childish and repeat what i say in your own words and think you've won an argument, if you're not willing to take this seriously i will be leaving.
#90 - migueldecervantes (01/18/2016) [-]
"This root cures cancer."
"Do you have any evidence?"
"These 100 people had cancer, ate it and now they don't have cancer."
"Hypothesis accepted."

I really don't understand what is so difficult to understand about the term "evidence". I know how science works. You are not teaching me anything here.

And if anyone is acting like a petulant child, it is certainly not the person who makes the most basic claims in all of epistemology to make you understand that we are, it seems, of the same opinion.

Science establishes causality. It needs facts to establish causality from.
User avatar
#26 - rzkruspe (01/18/2016) [-]
Hence why I chose the terms "religious beliefs" and nothing more precise.

I myself am a very cartesian person, but right now I don't see how we could prove that nothing like a "God" exists.
As far as science can go to explain everything in the Universe, there will always be a stage at which one can answer "because someone or something made it so".

And this is completely open to interpretation.
#20 - anon (01/18/2016) [-]
Science also provides far, far more logical and likely alternatives to divine beings and other forms of magic. Science doesn't disprove the existence of Santa either, but 99.9999% of religious people think it's stupid and ridiculous to believe in him in adult years.

You may use your "mention fedoras instead of thinking critically" card now if you want.
#22 - theruinedsage (01/18/2016) [-]
No it doesn't.. Science provides no alternative to a single entity creating the universe, it simply states the laws and age of it, which is a different thing altogether.

Which is why a large number of scientists are religious.

And get over your victim complex, critical thinking my ass.
#55 - anon (01/18/2016) [-]
You're not looking hard enough
#24 - anon (01/18/2016) [-]
So you're saying that the only alternative is magic? There's no logical explanation out there that contradicts the existence of a deity? Is that what you're actually trying to say, and am I supposed to take you seriously?

How have you gone this long without actually looking into any modern hypotheses and theories that try to provide explanations behind the Big Bang? I'm not even trying to argue that science has proof for any of them, but there are DEFINITELY, without a doubt several scientific, magicless explanations out there that do not involve deities.
User avatar
#27 - theruinedsage (01/18/2016) [-]
Stop talking out your ass, I never said it was the only alternative, not did I even imply it.

Lack of prof isn't disproof. That's a fundamental pillar of science.
A being capable of creating the big bang wouldn't be magic, it would exists inside the laws of nature. We just wouldn't understand the laws that defined it, yet.
Yes, there are theories, or should I say, hypothesies, concerning what caused the big bang, all of which are highly theoretical and unprovable. The existance of unprovable theories that could explain the big bang does jack shit to disprove the existence of god, and are about as useful alternatives as saying "we just don't know".

But assuming no such entity exists, whatever caused the big bang hasn't been proved, and probably never will. Which ultimately leaves the question up to faith. If you believe no such entity exists, good for you, but stop trying to pretend science proves it doesn't exist, or that believing unprovable theories is "critical thinking".
#42 - anon (01/18/2016) [-]
Okay, so what other non-scientific alternatives do you think there are? Hint: you can't come up with one, because it would only fall under the category of religion.

Are you retarded? You can't just say something that makes no sense and has a basis in the supernatural, and then deny its quality of being magic. You might as well say that there's nothing magical about the idea of Santa, and that we just haven't discovered why it makes perfect sense yet. Sorry, terrible argument on your part.

Did you even finish reading my comment? I made it clear myself that science doesn't offer proof. I also made it clear in my first reply that I wasn't trying to say that science disproves deities, but that it INSTEAD provides better alternatives. You then went on to say that science doesn't provide ANY alternatives at all. We DON'T know, and that's the point. There's no shame in saying that. However, providing better explanations, and further searching for even better ones, is what a branch of the scientific community tries to do.

Blind faith in magic will always be less logical than a scientific theory based in what actually makes sense and makes the least amount of assumptions. That's what it comes down to, really. The best explanation is always the one that makes the least amount of and most logical assumptions. Magical deities are pretty high up on the list of explanations that require a lot of huge, baseless assumptions.
User avatar
#41 - otisriedel (01/18/2016) [-]
you've just committed a logical fallacy: appeal to ignorance. this states that since there is no evidence that something isn't real, the object in question must therefore exist. the opposite of this is also a logical fallacy. it is a logical fallacy because it does not allow for the possibility of something to be unknowable/the investigation being insufficient for the task. this argument is used to shift the burden of evidence to the other party when the person making the argument has nothing to show. this is why without evidence, things are assumed to not exist/not be true until proven otherwise.
User avatar
#123 - theruinedsage (01/19/2016) [-]
No I'm not

I'm saying that because no evidence will, or can, ever exist, it's up to faith. I'm not stating that anything divine exists, I'm saying it can exist, and whether or not you chose to believe in it is entirely up to you.
User avatar
#58 - Marker (01/18/2016) [-]
"since there is no evidence that something isn't real, the object in question must therefore exist"

Not necessarily. What he's saying is because there's no evidence that something is real, but there's also no evidence that it's not, we can't say for sure.
User avatar
#136 - otisriedel (01/19/2016) [-]
okay, i read your previous stuff wrong then. IMO i don't think it's a good idea to assume that some god made it though, just because of how terrible the track record has been for whether or not something happens because of a god.
User avatar
#137 - Marker (01/19/2016) [-]
I prefer agnosticism. It's easiest to just say "we don't know, stop arguing"
User avatar
#138 - otisriedel (01/20/2016) [-]
fair enough.
#45493 - I was talking about models like the Intel 730, though its raw …  [+] (1 new reply) 01/18/2016 on Technology Board +1
User avatar
#45494 - sniffythebird (01/18/2016) [-]
Well, the 750 series PCIe are one of the fastest SSDs that are still somewhat affordable (except if you look at the 1.2TB model, costs a fortune).

Won't be a problem with the motherboard, it's an X99. As for PCI lanes, even with the 5820K I'll have enough. Currently I've got two GPUs at 16X / 8X, and a wifi card at 1x. The SSD uses 4 PCI lanes, so my GPUs will run 8X / 8X, so in total it should use 21 lanes in total.

I'm just still a bit on the fence about getting that SSD.
#45488 - So that would be the same price as a mid/high-end Sata SSD of …  [+] (5 new replies) 01/18/2016 on Technology Board +1
User avatar
#45491 - sniffythebird (01/18/2016) [-]
Not sure what you mean, but a 500GB 850 EVO here costs 1479kr, so it's less than double the "value" in terms of raw capacity.

But then again the 750 series has about 4x the read speed and 2x the write speed of an 840/850 EVO.
User avatar
#45493 - rzkruspe (01/18/2016) [-]
I was talking about models like the Intel 730, though its raw specs don't overpass the EVO series.
And I don't think price/GB is relevant right now in terms of SSDs, there are a lot of different bus technologies, and the real specs still depend on the performance of your mobo/chipset.

You could have roughly the same performance with an NVMe drive on an M.2 socket, but those are basically the same price, or more expensive.
User avatar
#45494 - sniffythebird (01/18/2016) [-]
Well, the 750 series PCIe are one of the fastest SSDs that are still somewhat affordable (except if you look at the 1.2TB model, costs a fortune).

Won't be a problem with the motherboard, it's an X99. As for PCI lanes, even with the 5820K I'll have enough. Currently I've got two GPUs at 16X / 8X, and a wifi card at 1x. The SSD uses 4 PCI lanes, so my GPUs will run 8X / 8X, so in total it should use 21 lanes in total.

I'm just still a bit on the fence about getting that SSD.
User avatar
#45492 - sniffythebird (01/18/2016) [-]
*less than half the value / GB
User avatar
#45512 - marmiteistasty (01/18/2016) [-]
do you really need this sniffy
im p sure this is a more enterprise minded solution