Sorry, but I have to speak up
-
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]
-
Beleif in God and Beleif in the Bible are two different things . If you accept that the Bible is not the word of God but a guidance , then all christian stories have an element of interpretation in them . The fundemental question is about God and not about any particular religion.After all , all the religions cannot be right can they ? Actually they can , all they require is for there to be more than one reality . Is it 7 dimensions that the string theorists are up to now ? Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
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.
Paul Westcott wrote: The universe in some ways appears to be fractal like, the closer you look the more detail you get. Oh what a beautiful picture. :) Sometimes I also picture myself that the universe is like a russian doll. Maybe our universe is just part of a particle in an outer universe, which itself is just part of a particle in an outer universer, which itself.... [Runtime stack exceeded] Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
-
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
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. I believe in right and wrong, but stand somewhere between agnosticism and atheism. I don't believe that a higher being has to give us definitions of right and wrong in order for them to be real.
-
Spot on Daniel. Fear of death will make an otherwise rational human beings believe in any old rubbish. Personally, if someone really, really believes in something, then more power to them - I am full of respect - the problem I have with religiion is the bigotry that it can bring out in people. It amazes me that someone can preach "peace and love for all - unless you're a homosexual, in which case you can burn in hell". Would Jesus of been a bigot? Of course not. Would Jesus have wanted homesexuals to burn in hell for all eternity? Don't make me laugh. Christianity has a decent value system which many people could do well to adhere to, but it has to be inclusive. We are all human beings, and whatever our beliefs, race, colour, gender, sexual persuasion, etc. we are all equal. I don't believe in God myself, but if I did, it would be an all-inclusive God. As long as people live their lifes being decent to those around them, helping others where possible, etc. then they deserve a place in any "heaven" that may or may not exist (hey, even an atheist like myself has to keep an open mind ;)).
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Study the behavior of herd or pack animals. Thats basically what we , as humans, are. Our "value" system, as espoused by you above, is simply a set of unnatural restrictions placed on dominant invividuals to protect the "herd". It is not a natural law. It has, over the years, been codified into something called religion. Much like the "laws Of Robotics" in the famous SF series we have an underlying set of natural principals that , regardless of religion or ethnic background , determine our behavior. First and foremost is the preservation of species. Thats why men die protecting the women and childern. Thats why women protect their offspring with such ferocity. But it has other ramifications also. Anything that threatens the herd, or species, is subject to the same response. Homosexuality is such an item in that the homosexual individual cannot contribute to the preservation or propagation of the species and as such are biological dead ends. This is but one example. There are many more but I am tired of typing :) Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
Andrew Torrance wrote: all they require is for there to be more than one reality You've overlooked the fact that each religion claims their god created reality out of nothingness. Each also thinks their god is the one true god. These are still mutally exclusive. "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
Think for a moment on the dual nature of light. It behaves both as a particle and a wave. Depends on how you look at it. Many things can be different to each observer but still only have one reality. Unless you have a complete understanding of the system you cannot determine exclusivity at any level. This was proposed many years ago and is clearly defined by the uncertainty principle.Maybe God is like that. When you look at one thing you change another. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
CString s[6][12] char* buff[12][12]; Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
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.
the closer you look the more detail you get. Actually it is just the opposite. The more you look the simplier it gets. At some level its almost homogenious with a single explanation . Thats the Holy Grail of physics. To find that explanation. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
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
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. No. The evidence IS there. Creationists just like to shut their eyes, cover their ears and say, "I can't hear you". I know because I was once a creationist and a Christian, but there is a lot of evidence for evolution. You just can't see it because creationists make a lot of noise and you get tied up in their arguments. As the latest issue of SciAm accurately put it, "massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination." 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense Yes, life has been tracked from simple cells (3.5 billion years ago) to the first multi-cellular organisms (600 million years ago) to homo sapiens (100,000 years ago). And if humans did not evolve from apes, why do we find humanlike-apelike creatures who become pregressively more human in the hundreds of thousands of years leading upto the emergence of homo sapiens? Yet, we never find these fossils anywhere else in the fossil record? If God's intention was to create humans, why does 83% of the history of life on earth contain only single-celled organisms, and why only the last 0.0028% of the history of life on earth contain ANY humans at all? Maybe a god somewhere created the Big Bang, but he certainly didn't seem to have in mind the creation of humans.
-
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
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. Surely you are joking ! Right. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
the closer you look the more detail you get. Actually it is just the opposite. The more you look the simplier it gets. At some level its almost homogenious with a single explanation . Thats the Holy Grail of physics. To find that explanation. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
Richard Stringer wrote: Actually it is just the opposite. The more you look the simplier it gets. At some level its almost homogenious with a single explanation . Thats the Holy Grail of physics. To find that explanation. But, like the real grail, is it impossible to find? I mean I'm not saying that we should give up trying, but just that the edges might get fuzzier and fuzzier... Like going to the model with atoms made from protons, neutrons and electrons was simplier than having different types of fundamental elements, but then we have gone beyong that to quite a number of sub-atomic particles... Neutons laws were simplier than when you get to high speeds or miniscules quantities... What I said about it being fractal just seems to have a ring of truth in my mind (but it might just be a warped mind!) Like looking at the mandlebrot set from a distance you have a nice easy to understand shape (like Neutons laws) but drill down and then you find that you have more pattern there than you thought (Relativity, Quantum...) As I said, it should disuade us from trying to understand it all, but I do think its impossible. But the search is the fun part... Have fun, Paul Westcott.
-
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.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: 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! But they are your definitions and relative (My point). Now my example just shows someone else disagrees with you on what is right. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
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. I believe in right and wrong, but stand somewhere between agnosticism and atheism. I don't believe that a higher being has to give us definitions of right and wrong in order for them to be real.
Brit wrote: I don't believe that a higher being has to give us definitions of right and wrong in order for them to be real. I did not say your definition of right and wrong was not real. I said it was relative. My example just shows that once your definition of right and wrong is not fixed it opens up the case for others to have different standards. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
