A theological question...
-
Ben Ashley wrote: Having Faith in something with NO evidence, and NO hard truths is illogical. In a perfect world, perhaps. The truth here is, to get by day to day, we take a *lot* of things on faith. We're taught to do this from a young age. Mother tells us "don't put your fingers in the wall sockets, you'll get hurt". We've seen no evidence of that. Those wall sockets look pretty harmless to me... After the crying and shaking stops, we see the advantages of having a bit of faith in Mother's words. Obtaining hard evidence on the dangers of Draino milkshakes can wait.
Shog9 --
Exchanging a walk-on part in the War
for the lead role in a Cage
But alot of lessons were also learned the hard way. Yes, mother says "don't stick your hand in a boiling kettle"... some of us tried it, some of us got hurt and some of us did not do it again. That's hard facts for you. Then there are also some of us who never did do it because mom said not to. My mother has told me a lot of things, and not all of them have been correct so unfortunately I can't place her on the "defacto truth" panel. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
-
What does it prove to God that we will only believe in him if we can prove he exists? If God exists, it proves nothing as it is a pointless lesson. If he doesn't exist, it means even less. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
Ben Ashley wrote: If God exists, it proves nothing as it is a pointless lesson. Faith is fundamental to the free-will argument. If we knew for certain that God existed and that he was holding the whole fire and brimstone thing over our heads, then we would definitely be good even if we have the desire to be bad. Our life here may be training for the life to come. It could also be viewed as a sieve (sp?).
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
-
We could sit here for hours and talk about the facts you do know about the universe and, based on the evidence and truths you know, you believe in a God. It may seem to be illogical to me, but that does not mean you're a bafoon. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
Ben Ashley wrote: It may seem to be illogical to me, but that does not mean you're a bafoon. You came right out in another post that you thought the "lesser among us" used religion as a crutch.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
-
Ben Ashley wrote: The lesser among us need that kind of help to get out of their Tesco-bag-packing job. But the heaven/hell etherel award/fire and brimstone crap is a bit out-dated... This is your problem. Just because your friend has a different belief, you chastise him. You can't prove that he will be wrong. Therefore it is illogical for you to think Christians (fundamental or otherwise) are stupid (you said lesser among us).
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
At no point did I say Christians were stupid, and more importantly I am not chastising a friend because he has different beliefs. My question was simple... it was to discuss the difference between what I called logical and what I called illogical... the temporary candidates for those two positions was an engineer and a christian. There is no malice or malcontent here. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
-
At no point did I say Christians were stupid, and more importantly I am not chastising a friend because he has different beliefs. My question was simple... it was to discuss the difference between what I called logical and what I called illogical... the temporary candidates for those two positions was an engineer and a christian. There is no malice or malcontent here. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
-
And my existence proves what, exactly? When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
-
Ben Ashley wrote: If God exists, it proves nothing as it is a pointless lesson. Faith is fundamental to the free-will argument. If we knew for certain that God existed and that he was holding the whole fire and brimstone thing over our heads, then we would definitely be good even if we have the desire to be bad. Our life here may be training for the life to come. It could also be viewed as a sieve (sp?).
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
True. So, conversely, if we were not sure that God existed we'd make different decisions to what we do now, oh wait... When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
-
Ben Ashley wrote: It may seem to be illogical to me, but that does not mean you're a bafoon. You came right out in another post that you thought the "lesser among us" used religion as a crutch.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
a crutch, perhaps. Not a very good one as it'll only hold out so long. A bafoon? No way. Bafoons wouldn't know where to start. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
-
Actually, I find it rather obscure. I'm thinking that perhaps you are religious and that you have taken offence in some way. Either that or you're dating one. It is not so much a "thinking less of", rather a "not understanding". If you recall, my original question was for a result of understanding rather than criticism. I couldn't give two rat's asses if you believe in God, Buddah, Allah, Cheese or some retarded animal on a life-glug in it's own stable. I couldn't care less. Throughout this discussion, you have missed the point completely and taken my points as an anti-religious argument. I'd suspect nothing less from a mindwashed religious zealot, however you're on CodeProject.com so I also assume you're an engineer/coder/computer person of some sort. And I tell you, that's left me TOTALLY confused. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
-
To answer..: 1) I agree a persons viewpoints may differ between subjects. But I think that religion and the very nature of an engineer's work are such that the underlaying brain processes of logic and illogic must intertwine. 2) Religion has various grounds that we can point at and say "yes, that's cool, I can live by that". All religions tend to teach a passive, loveable attitude which is great and something I can deal with. The lesser among us need that kind of help to get out of their Tesco-bag-packing job. But the heaven/hell etherel award/fire and brimstone crap is a bit out-dated... Perhaps I didn't make it clear... this engineer was a fire-and-brimstone guy. No fight being looked for... just a conversation starter/stopper. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
I guess you are saying that this engineer was unable to think logically which could be demonstrated in both his work, and personal beliefs. I wonder if you have doubts and if maybe he/she stuck a nerve. If I worked with someone that truly believed in the Easter bunny, and he was a bad engineer there would be no debate. I bet this guy won the debate and so you are still trying to win it, without him on Code Project. When I read your comments like the lesser among us, and this is because someone doesn’t share your believes, you sound kind of religious yourself.
-
True. So, conversely, if we were not sure that God existed we'd make different decisions to what we do now, oh wait... When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
Ben Ashley wrote: True. So, conversely, if we were not sure that God existed we'd make different decisions to what we do now, oh wait... It is said that we all have a propensity for theological belief. Atheists say its our chemical make-up, believers say it is God-given. Either way, for the most part we know right from wrong. Either biology, society, or God shapes our decisions.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
-
Actually, I find it rather obscure. I'm thinking that perhaps you are religious and that you have taken offence in some way. Either that or you're dating one. It is not so much a "thinking less of", rather a "not understanding". If you recall, my original question was for a result of understanding rather than criticism. I couldn't give two rat's asses if you believe in God, Buddah, Allah, Cheese or some retarded animal on a life-glug in it's own stable. I couldn't care less. Throughout this discussion, you have missed the point completely and taken my points as an anti-religious argument. I'd suspect nothing less from a mindwashed religious zealot, however you're on CodeProject.com so I also assume you're an engineer/coder/computer person of some sort. And I tell you, that's left me TOTALLY confused. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
Ben Ashley wrote: I'd suspect nothing less from a mindwashed religious zealot there you go again Ben Ashley wrote: It is not so much a "thinking less of", rather a "not understanding". How can I take it any other way. Your own words do you in.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
-
I guess you are saying that this engineer was unable to think logically which could be demonstrated in both his work, and personal beliefs. I wonder if you have doubts and if maybe he/she stuck a nerve. If I worked with someone that truly believed in the Easter bunny, and he was a bad engineer there would be no debate. I bet this guy won the debate and so you are still trying to win it, without him on Code Project. When I read your comments like the lesser among us, and this is because someone doesn’t share your believes, you sound kind of religious yourself.
Sorry, but this engineer was able to think incredibly logically, hence my posting. The comment "lesser among us" perhaps slipped out under a more personal-guise, but can be safely replaced with "others" to maintain the same argument. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
-
Ben Ashley wrote: The lesser among us need that kind of help to get out of their Tesco-bag-packing job. But the heaven/hell etherel award/fire and brimstone crap is a bit out-dated... This is your problem. Just because your friend has a different belief, you chastise him. You can't prove that he will be wrong. Therefore it is illogical for you to think Christians (fundamental or otherwise) are stupid (you said lesser among us).
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
:-O
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
"I live very much in the real world, it's just not the same world shared by most other people"
-
Ben Ashley wrote: I'd suspect nothing less from a mindwashed religious zealot there you go again Ben Ashley wrote: It is not so much a "thinking less of", rather a "not understanding". How can I take it any other way. Your own words do you in.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Perhaps my personal viewpoint on religion crept through there, tarnishing my original question which with all intents and purposes was intended to be neutral but I guess it got sidetracked. And perhaps my words do to me in, but my question (in my opinion) still stands. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: God can neither be proven to exist nor proven to not exist. Jason Henderson wrote: What makes it illogical? See above ;P God is as provably true or provably false as the statement 'The moon would be made of purple cheese if my parents had named me Mortimer' -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
Mortimer Morris! :cool:
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
"I live very much in the real world, it's just not the same world shared by most other people"
-
You have a few questions to answer first. What makes a "good" software engineer ("cybernetic architect", whatever)? Is it someone who engineers good software? What is good software? Is it software that meets the user's needs? Who shot JR?
Shog9 --
Exchanging a walk-on part in the War
for the lead role in a Cage
Shog9 wrote: Who shot JR? Nice - took me at least ten seconds to figure out where the quote button had gone. :rolleyes:
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
"I live very much in the real world, it's just not the same world shared by most other people"
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Soapbox[^], please This seems like quite a well presented question, that is not designed to bait anyone. Seems okay being here to me.
"Je pense, donc je mange." - Rene Descartes 1689 - Just before his mother put his tea on the table. Shameless Plug - Distributed Database Transactions in .NET using COM+
-
Heh, well this is where it gets really theological, I guess :-) You're right, there is tons of "evidence". But nothing that can be verified. If you want to talk about verifiable evidence, lets make a button with an onclick event... it'll happen unless you screw it up. Scientifically you can call in to question the concept of a higher being. Superficially, looking at the way things go on this planet you can ask the same questions. At the end of the day, the answer is written on the unread minds of man, but that's not what this thread is about... it's about the ILLOGICAL thought process doing completely LOGICAL activities. :cool: When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
I think it's your definition of logic. Basing a conclusion on something based on evidence is logical. Take physics, for instance. How do we get the laws of physics? We either get them by mathematically proving something based on existing laws, or by evidence. And from time to time, we get new evidence, and the laws "change" (although really it's our understanding that changes.) When you say verifiable, all that means is that you have evidence for it. Engineering is simlar, you base your conclusions on evidence. The confidence you have that that overriding your OnClick handler will work is based on evidence that it has worked in the past, or knowledge of the internals of the system. However not everything in life is as well understood as the OnClick handler. Just because something isn't fully understood doesn't mean it's illogical to believe. Computing, engineering, physics, etc. tends to have more concrete answers than may other sectors of life is all. If your nose runs and your feet smell, then you're built upside down.
-
But alot of lessons were also learned the hard way. Yes, mother says "don't stick your hand in a boiling kettle"... some of us tried it, some of us got hurt and some of us did not do it again. That's hard facts for you. Then there are also some of us who never did do it because mom said not to. My mother has told me a lot of things, and not all of them have been correct so unfortunately I can't place her on the "defacto truth" panel. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
Ben Ashley wrote: My mother has told me a lot of things, and not all of them have been correct so unfortunately I can't place her on the "defacto truth" panel. Well, issues with your mother aside, my point was simply that there isn't a man alive who has proved to himself *everything* he believes. Or rather, there is - but some of his proofs come down to "'cause [Mother|Teacher|Mentor|God|Frank at the Hardware Store|The Neighbor's Dog} told me so".
Shog9 --
Exchanging a walk-on part in the War
for the lead role in a Cage