[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Tower Ty]

I knew there was something amiss with you and now it falls into place.

Ask yourself
How can it be that each and every religion beleives that only itself, and its own beliefs, are true and correct and all the others are wrong or misguided?

What is the likelyhood of your beliefs being the correct one?

More likely they are all stupid beliefs against reason . Trust me I am right type of reasoning

Science consistently proves them wrong!






John Reimer Wrote:

> Hello Bruce,
> 
> > On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:50:05 +0100, Gregor Richards
> > <Richards at codu.org>  wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > While I wouldn't put it quite so vigorously, Hear! Hear!
> > (why deliberately throw Christians in with Lions? especially when they
> > might be in the NRA)
> 
> 
> The "science" that ascribes to abiogenisis and evolution is very much religious 
> as one can see from the vitriolic outpour of its proponents; it is not science 
> nor is a name-calling debate scientific.  I appreciate the fact that Gregor 
> begs to differ on that statement.  But saying one places his trust in reason 
> alone is rather begging the question: how does this "reason" exist in a random-chance 
> universe; did this abstract ability to reason evolve alongside everything 
> else in random fashion of trial and error or did it also appear from nothing 
> in the big bang; does it continue to evolve, expand, and perfect itself in 
> direct conflict with entropy?  If it does, does that make it imperfect right 
> now?  When will reasoning and reason be perfect?  If it isn't perfect, does 
> that mean our reasoning is greatly flawed still?  Will another million years 
> make it unflawed?  If it was very flawed several million years ago, what 
> effect did that have on macro evolution so many years ago (or vice versa)? 
>  How ever does one know his reasoning skills are reasonable in such a universe 
> (sorry, Gregor... that might grate you, but I suppose we'll never see things 
> the same. ;) )  This does require a very /potent/ faith to believe is such 
> improbabilities and that is a faith in "reason" itself.  Should we add a 
> few more billion years to try to resolve it?  Would that help? :)
> 
> Concerning Christianity and religion:
> 
> Christianity is a worldview, not a religion.  When it is adopted as a religion, 
> with pompous ceremony, hypocritical action, and false motive for power... 
> then perhaps it might classify as a religion... but then almost any type 
> of ideology is subject to the same problem.  This world has proven over and 
> over that man will use ANY means to control or gain power... the "religion" 
> excuse is just one of many ideologies used as tool for manipulation.  Real 
> Christianity is not so, nor does it, if any of you read the Gospel, represent 
> anything of a self-centered, mass-controlling ideology designed for personal 
> gain.  Separate Christianity from the religiousity and one might be able 
> to evaluate the picture differently. 
> 
> My point is... you pit "science" against "religion" with the implication 
> that these are "at odds" with each other, when, in fact, this is really pitting 
> one form of religion against another (or if it were two worldviews: realism 
> verses theism).  It's sad to see people start to believe in science as a 
> self-fulfilling singular entity of truth -- that it is not. I believe strongly 
> in a scientific process and /reason/, but I claim that such only make sense 
> in theistic worldview in which structure and control are not based on random 
> chance.  Reason continues to exist despite ones worldview, but its existance 
> is ill-defined and perhaps faultily directed apart from theism.
> 
> There is no need to force such ideas on anyone, of course.... Nor is there 
> a need to immediately conjure up images of NRA or terrorists to blight the 
> idea of a God-centric worldview. Like I said earlier, man will perform evil 
> with or without theistic worldview: they are very adept at using any ideology 
> that comes in handy -- and sadly religion becomes a tool as well.  Nonetheless 
> this abuse is no disproof of the validity of theism nor does it represent 
> it.  It many contexts, it represents the desires of the people abusing it.  
> 
> One is entitled to perceive this universe as one likes, but that person is 
> taking a monstrous chance in the sense that his misunderstanding of reality 
> could result in dire consequences that could have been easily avoided:  for 
> example,  the bible claims that the "wages of sin is death" and that those 
> who practice lawlessness" will be subject to judgement by a holy God and 
> eternal punishment.  If this claim is true, all who practice lieing, stealing, 
> adultery, coveting, sexual immorality and so on will (1) experience the consequences 
> of such sins on earth and (2) will have to answer for their sin before a 
> just and holy God after they die.  Now does my saying this make it so? No, 
> but it certainly bares careful thought, I think, especially given the fact 
> that these sins repeatedly (and probably testably) do result in corruption, 
> depression, and disaster in one's life and those he or she touches.  And 
> not just for those that reject a theistic worldview, but even more so for 
> those that call themselves "Christians" but act otherwise.  
> 
> And this is the problem we face today where there is a struggle to represent 
> a theistic worldview in any good light because so many claim a form of it 
> but putrify the reality of it with abuses of self-service, power, immorality, 
> and religiousity.  This is a hypocracy that has no part in Christianity: 
> for example, divorce and remarriage (called adultery in the bible -- marriage 
> is for life) being one of the biggest issues of our age is "re-molded" and 
> redefined as natural and normal.  The result? Today's "Christians" are indeed 
> becoming the more guilty and hypocritical in that they absolve their sin 
> amongst each other, meanwhile promoting a false salvation from sin... and 
> in the process single-handedly become the greatest argument against their 
> "apparent" worldview by presenting to the world that sin isn't really sin.
> 
> I claim that their is a truth here that is not represented by our culture 
> anymore, but is easily found if one searches for it honestly.  I write just 
> as openly as anyone here that would offer a view of their own philosophy 
> of life. It is not forced, racist, biggoted, based on vitriol, or uncaring... 
> but rather is offered because I do earnestly hope people will find truth 
> and the meaning of "reality".  It is a belief, yes belief, that life is more 
> than this little span of time on earth, that there is hope-- not based in 
> evolutionary survival of mechan-electro-chemical random reactions --  and 
> that death to self and subjection to a loving God through Jesus Christ and 
> his offering of salvation is the fundamental key to understanding what life 
> trully means and is a escape from the addictions and corruptions that will 
> most certainly enslave and destroy us.
> 
> Take it or leave it. :)
> 
> -JJR
> 
>