Sorry, but I have to speak up
-
Juan Carlos Cobas wrote: Well, I believe all religions are wrong, but this is just my very humble opinion. I respect the beliefs of everybody How can you say all religions are wrong , there is not enough time in one persons life to study all religions and reach a conclusion about them all . What I think you mean is that you believe there is no God , and I too share that belief. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: there is not enough time in one persons life to study all religions If you believe there is no god, then you may consider religions have no sense. The concept of religion lies in the existence of a god.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: If there are multiple realities and these realities co-exist (what else can they do?) then they are part of the same reality (or they are aspects of the same reality if you like). Thus there is only one 'real' reality. Let us agree for the sake of this argument , there is a supergroup of realities within which mutiple realities can coexist ? Then how do we know which reality we are in within that supergroup , and how do we know that the supergroup itself is not a member of a megagroup of supergroups of reality ? Please answer after the pubs open as I am having difficulty in getting my brains to flow back into my ear. Regards Torrance Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: Please answer after the pubs open as I am having difficulty in getting my brains to flow back into my ear. My grey matter is at 100% utilization and some parts of my memory have been paged out to accomodate this task as well. Andrew Torrance wrote: there is a supergroup of realities within which mutiple realities can coexist ? Are they not all part of the same reality then, as they exist within the same reality? Each of them must have the same fundamental laws, ie the speed of light. The only way I can see having different realities is different observers. Reality is subjective; mine can be different than yours, but I don't think that either of them are the one 'true' reality. Maybe it's like Schroedinger's cat; I thinks it's dead, you think it's alive, but the reality...? Am I still making sense? "The lives of these people are contingent on events; if things stop happening to them they will stop being." "Rock over London, rock over Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
-
Hello Christopher You post was very thought provoking. I am atheist myself and I have always puzzled over the fact that people could actually believe in theories evolved by barbaric man. Emma Goldman, a writer/atheist once said, “The superstition of religion originated in man's inability to explain natural phenomena”. I should think that explains it all. Barbaric man was confused and frightened by all the complicated things he saw around. God and Religion were his inventions. It’s a sad reflection on the irrational nature of human beings that despite so much advances in our awareness of the universe, the majority of people on this planet believe in some kind of all powerful god or gods. Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win]
I find the biggest puzzle in where do you think? Ok, we think in our brains. Fine. But why does that have a sense of self? Why does that exists? You know your alive. Fine. But why? Nishant S wrote: It’s a sad reflection on the irrational nature of human beings that despite so much advances in our awareness of the universe, the majority of people on this planet believe in some kind of all powerful god or gods. No, I think it's just a constant search, and no matter what science comes up with there will always be more questions. The universe in some ways appears to be fractal like, the closer you look the more detail you get. Ok, we knew of atoms, and then we knew of protons, neutrons, electrons and then we knew of quarks and other sub-atomic particles... Maybe we can get to the bottom of it; maybe we can't. A belief in a god makes a lot of people happy (ok, it makes some people crazy and do stupid things, but I think in general it creates more peace and solace for people). I still puzzle most about where do you think? Have fun, Paul Westcott.
-
I'm not trying to inflame or incite... I am simply curious on what those here have to say regarding the religion issue (which was brought up a few posts down), and hopefully some helpful criticisim on my views, which are below. I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. Computers and code are good analogies for the universe, in that simple laws produce very complex and wonderful systems. AND, OR, NOT, XOR, etc, applied to a stream of bits inside a chip of silicon produces everything a computer can do. On the grander scale of the universe, simple laws describe vastly complex things in much the same way, and yet... Perhaps this belief in God is valid because if code has a creator, so can the universe. But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. And still, if there was a 'coder' of the universe, this being would not be Abrahamic, but more along the lines of a Deist's god. This being would not care of our affairs, or even be aware of our existance. This is so plain a fact that I can not even fathom why it must be defended at all! Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration. Hopefully this will lead to interesting mind-opening discussion on both sides of this unknowable part of the human existance.
Christopher Lord wrote: I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. And I can make the exact opposite statement that I can not believe a programmer does not believe in GOD. As stated several other times 'belief'. It is a choice. For me seeing how complex the universe is I can not believe it is a random uncontrolled occurrence and yours is just the opposite. Neither of us can provide proof to the other. A fall out of my belief is I also believe in absolute definitions of right and wrong. If you do not believe in a god then you have no such definitions to guide your life. With out those definitions right and wrong are relative and the acts of Sept 11 and the Nazis government are no more wrong than caring for the homeless and sick. This is just to give an example. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Christian Graus wrote: The Bible says there are specific gifts that every Christian recieves from God, the first and foremost being the ability to speak in tongues, because in the Bible, that is what happens when someone becomes a Christian. Surely this is a circular argument ? God wrote the Bible , the Bible tells us God exists therefore God exists ? Go on admit it , ...... You either got or you havn't got Faith... If you got it then belief it does make ..... I can now more proove that God does not exist as you can proof that he/she does . Perhaps we are both right ,perhaps God exists for you and not for me, perhaps if enough of us beleive something to be true then it will be. After all it seems to work on the stock market. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: Surely this is a circular argument ? God wrote the Bible , the Bible tells us God exists therefore God exists ? I'm sorry, were you responding to someone else's post ? That is not what I said, even remotely. Andrew Torrance wrote: I can now more proove that God does not exist as you can proof that he/she does . I can't prove a thing. HE can. Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002 Half the reason people switch away from VB is to find out what actually goes on.. and then like me they find out that they weren't quite as good as they thought - they've been nannied. - Alex, 13 June 2002
-
Andrew Torrance wrote: Surely this is a circular argument ? God wrote the Bible , the Bible tells us God exists therefore God exists ? I'm sorry, were you responding to someone else's post ? That is not what I said, even remotely. Andrew Torrance wrote: I can now more proove that God does not exist as you can proof that he/she does . I can't prove a thing. HE can. Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002 Half the reason people switch away from VB is to find out what actually goes on.. and then like me they find out that they weren't quite as good as they thought - they've been nannied. - Alex, 13 June 2002
Christian Graus wrote: I can't prove a thing. HE can. He never does though does he? In fact, aliens offer more proof they exist than "He" does. In fact, as time goes on, the lack of proof is more evidence that he probably doesn't exist, because the loving God we have heard of, couldn't possibly be ignorant to the suffering of his "children"? Yet suffer we do. Are we to believe he is simply biding his time in order to save the righteous and punish the wicked? How can anyone truly believe this? It's time mankind took responsibility for itself and stopped using religion as a crutch in times of need and an excuse for violence and persecution. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
I'm not trying to inflame or incite... I am simply curious on what those here have to say regarding the religion issue (which was brought up a few posts down), and hopefully some helpful criticisim on my views, which are below. I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. Computers and code are good analogies for the universe, in that simple laws produce very complex and wonderful systems. AND, OR, NOT, XOR, etc, applied to a stream of bits inside a chip of silicon produces everything a computer can do. On the grander scale of the universe, simple laws describe vastly complex things in much the same way, and yet... Perhaps this belief in God is valid because if code has a creator, so can the universe. But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. And still, if there was a 'coder' of the universe, this being would not be Abrahamic, but more along the lines of a Deist's god. This being would not care of our affairs, or even be aware of our existance. This is so plain a fact that I can not even fathom why it must be defended at all! Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration. Hopefully this will lead to interesting mind-opening discussion on both sides of this unknowable part of the human existance.
-
I'm not trying to inflame or incite... I am simply curious on what those here have to say regarding the religion issue (which was brought up a few posts down), and hopefully some helpful criticisim on my views, which are below. I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. Computers and code are good analogies for the universe, in that simple laws produce very complex and wonderful systems. AND, OR, NOT, XOR, etc, applied to a stream of bits inside a chip of silicon produces everything a computer can do. On the grander scale of the universe, simple laws describe vastly complex things in much the same way, and yet... Perhaps this belief in God is valid because if code has a creator, so can the universe. But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. And still, if there was a 'coder' of the universe, this being would not be Abrahamic, but more along the lines of a Deist's god. This being would not care of our affairs, or even be aware of our existance. This is so plain a fact that I can not even fathom why it must be defended at all! Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration. Hopefully this will lead to interesting mind-opening discussion on both sides of this unknowable part of the human existance.
Christopher Lord wrote: so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same Doesn't this lead to a little recursion? Somewhere there is a starting point. From what I gather, there are two choices...1: The big bang and evolution or 2: God. Taking the Big Bang theory: Who ignited it? What was there before that? Considering the odds...the next time someone piles some junk into the city junkyard you should expect a fully functional jumbo jet to emerge, fueled up, with a runway! Evolution: Nothing supports evolution. There are no fossil traces that support it. If it were true, we would have already tracked life from simple cells to man, but it isn't there. What choice is left: God! And I don't choose God solely on the fact that other options verge on the ridiculus either. We all have the right to accept God or reject God. Acceptance results in an eternity in His presence while rejection results in an eternity in His absence. I'm not going to hang around waiting on that jumbo jet! ed
-
Andrew Torrance wrote: there is not enough time in one persons life to study all religions If you believe there is no god, then you may consider religions have no sense. The concept of religion lies in the existence of a god.
What about Buddism ? Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
Christopher Lord wrote: so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same Doesn't this lead to a little recursion? Somewhere there is a starting point. From what I gather, there are two choices...1: The big bang and evolution or 2: God. Taking the Big Bang theory: Who ignited it? What was there before that? Considering the odds...the next time someone piles some junk into the city junkyard you should expect a fully functional jumbo jet to emerge, fueled up, with a runway! Evolution: Nothing supports evolution. There are no fossil traces that support it. If it were true, we would have already tracked life from simple cells to man, but it isn't there. What choice is left: God! And I don't choose God solely on the fact that other options verge on the ridiculus either. We all have the right to accept God or reject God. Acceptance results in an eternity in His presence while rejection results in an eternity in His absence. I'm not going to hang around waiting on that jumbo jet! ed
What is wrong in saying that the Bible is wrong and God created the big bang ? It would be the logical choice if I were omnipotent. Stuff all that tweaking here and there , just throw in a few basic rules and kick everything into existance and go and have a nice cup of tea . Ah you say , but that is not what it says in the Bible . So the argument becomes not one over the existance of God , but the accuracy of the Bible . It is this argument that seems to exercise most people rather than the much more important argument , does God exist . The bible is a translation , when you translate between any two languages you change some of the information , therefore what was perhaps the word of God in one language will be subtly different in another . Therefore the Bible cannot be the EXACT word of God in all languages. Hence the Bible is meant to be interpreted . All that is up for discussion is the extent to which it is interpreted . When you look at the Genesis story you can see broad similarities to the big bang. Once there was nothing( or at least something very diferent to what we see now), something happened and reality flicked into existance. The physisicts tell us that space and time themselves flowed from the Big bang , not to dissimilar from the one a day approach in the Bible. After all if you want a bunch of sheep and goat farmers in the Middle East thousands of years ago to understand it , you are not going to use the language of quantum physics are you ? So the conclusion is that logically speaking the evolution Vs Creation argument is one huge dead end , simply because God may have caused the big bang . Its all about faith man , you either have it or you don't. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
What about Buddism ? Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: What about Buddism ? Yes, you're right. I should have said, "most of the religions are based on the concept of a god".
-
I'm not trying to inflame or incite... I am simply curious on what those here have to say regarding the religion issue (which was brought up a few posts down), and hopefully some helpful criticisim on my views, which are below. I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. Computers and code are good analogies for the universe, in that simple laws produce very complex and wonderful systems. AND, OR, NOT, XOR, etc, applied to a stream of bits inside a chip of silicon produces everything a computer can do. On the grander scale of the universe, simple laws describe vastly complex things in much the same way, and yet... Perhaps this belief in God is valid because if code has a creator, so can the universe. But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. And still, if there was a 'coder' of the universe, this being would not be Abrahamic, but more along the lines of a Deist's god. This being would not care of our affairs, or even be aware of our existance. This is so plain a fact that I can not even fathom why it must be defended at all! Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration. Hopefully this will lead to interesting mind-opening discussion on both sides of this unknowable part of the human existance.
Christopher Lord wrote: I'm not trying to inflame or incite I understand, its difficult to talk about this stuff without some folk on both sides turning abusive. I do some coding and consider myself quite well informed in several science areas with even some knowledge of "genetic algorithms" yet I firmly believe in God. Principally because I once decide to test for myself if God existed. And it was proves to me, unfortunately I can not just share this experience, everyone must discover it on their own. In my opinion there is a lot of crud touted by fundamentalists and establishments like Churches for there own political ends. It is interesting that Jesus Christ, Mohamed , and Buddha said much the same things but in different ways, but seldom do the faiths meet to agree. Christopher Lord wrote: Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration The Old Testament can be easily viewed like that of a history collection of a people. But the later books show more structure of a society where God plays a more relevant part of peoples lives. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
-
Hmmmmm, there *IS* a god, and he's a Lisp programmer? "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio.
-
Christopher Lord wrote: I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. And I can make the exact opposite statement that I can not believe a programmer does not believe in GOD. As stated several other times 'belief'. It is a choice. For me seeing how complex the universe is I can not believe it is a random uncontrolled occurrence and yours is just the opposite. Neither of us can provide proof to the other. A fall out of my belief is I also believe in absolute definitions of right and wrong. If you do not believe in a god then you have no such definitions to guide your life. With out those definitions right and wrong are relative and the acts of Sept 11 and the Nazis government are no more wrong than caring for the homeless and sick. This is just to give an example. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: With out those definitions right and wrong are relative and the acts of Sept 11 and the Nazis government are no more wrong than caring for the homeless and sick. This is just to give an example. That's ridiculous! I don't share your beliefs but still I do have some definitions of what is right or wrong. It's called common sense! And because I'm not a believer I do not have a problem deciding if caring for a homeless is a better thing than joining some Nazi party or some suicide bomber sect. All your commandments can pretty much be summed up as Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. I don't need an imaginary god to figure that out.. Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
-
I'm sorry, but there are WAY too many attractive Christian women for me not to believe in God. :-D Even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.
-
phykell wrote: If God really does exists, he is not omnipotent, he is sadistic, cruel, jealous, bigoted and vindictive. I agree, which is why I can never believe in a supreme being. How can a being with these kind of powers let people go hungry, let children be abused by priests, cause death and destruction with earthquakes and floods etc. Michael :-) Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority. - The Doctor
Michael P Butler wrote: How can a being with these kind of powers let people go hungry, let children be abused by priests, cause death and destruction with earthquakes and floods etc Some people argue that these victims are not true christians and will thus not recieve the love of god. I argue that there are too many people arguing the argument above.. Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
-
The universe is so big because God used a char[] array and forgot the NULL terminator. So most of the universe is just any old junk found in memory :-D Michael :-) Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority. - The Doctor
-
It's not as abstract as that. In the Bible, God offers PROOF that He exists, to any individual willing to give Him a go. On that basis, the two reasons I can see for scientifically minded people such as ourselves to NOT believe in God are that either we have not been told, or we are simple irrationally athiestic. Christopher Lord wrote: But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. The simpler explanation is creation by God, and the analogy you give would only work if the genetic algorithms wrote themselves from scratch. That is to say, in the absence of a man made computer, or programming language. But I'm not keen to argue the existence of God on that basis, because the basis on which He offers to prove He exists is far more compelling than analogies of the universe or programming or anything else. The Bible says there are specific gifts that every Christian recieves from God, the first and foremost being the ability to speak in tongues, because in the Bible, that is what happens when someone becomes a Christian. Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002 Half the reason people switch away from VB is to find out what actually goes on.. and then like me they find out that they weren't quite as good as they thought - they've been nannied. - Alex, 13 June 2002
Christian Graus wrote: The Bible says there are specific gifts that every Christian recieves from God, the first and foremost being the ability to speak in tongues, because in the Bible, that is what happens when someone becomes a Christian. Que? I thought speaking in tongues was an evil thingTM. Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
-
IMHO, you make a mistake trying to demonstrate something about religion. The Faith is a belief, not a conclusion ! I mean it's not a cartesian choice (except if you are taking Pascal's bet) it's a conviction you have in you. Y'a cool jouer avec Maradona qui fait tourner gratos dans les vestiaires - Merci Maradona ! - Y'a pas d'quoi ! Ludwig Von 88, "Goal Di Pele"
But in order to believe you have to be convinced.. right? And what is required to convince you? I'd say you'd have to spell out a theorem which you'd have to prove yourself. The theorem is basically "Do I believe in God?" and may perhaps depend on lemmas such as "Does god exist?", etc. This theorem makes perfect sense in your system (i.e., your mind), but not neccesarily in any other system (enclosing and neighbouring). So I'd say it is a conclusion, because you have to make one in order to prove your own theorem. I'm not saying that you come to the conclusion based on external information, but you do indeed conclude whether you believe before you believe. Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
-
Juan Carlos Cobas wrote: What I really can't understand is why people with university studies still are convinced about the real existence of Adan and Eva It’s mainly due to all those sleazy movies where they show eve walking around nude :~
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win]
