[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[BCS]

****** read the bit at the end first *****

Reply to Yigal,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Reply to Yigal,
>> 
>>> There is a difference between assuming (believing) that god does
>>> _not_ exist and act based on that vs. _not_ assuming anything about
>>> this question (since as stated before it's not relevant) in the
>>> first place.
>>> 
>> How do these differ? How would a person who ascribes to one act
>> different than one who ascribes to the other?
>> 
> let's look again at my metaphor. What is the meaning of the concept of
> color to a person who's blind from birth?
> would you agree that it's completely different situation from a person
> that sees colors but chooses intentionally to ignore them?

That isn't parallel. The only term I can think of for a person that sees 
evidence of a god and chooses to ignore it is "stupid". Not believing in 
god (in the negative or the apathetic way) because you don't see evidence 
is different.

Also the metaphor doesn't work because the first person that can't see evidence 
but has been told it exists and the other does see evidence and chooses to 
discount it. Neither match either of the cases being debated.


> When the seeing person chooses to put a shirt, does the
> color affect his choice? of course it does, even if he deliberately
> chooses to ignore it.

If it affects his choice, he didn't ignore it.
If he ignores it, it didn't affect his choice.

Either that or you and I are talking about a different ignore.


> if I would ask you to explain what god is, what the definition of that
> word in your vocabulary, I'd get no doubt your (Christian) definition,
> and if you were to ask me the same question, as a Jewish person I
> could give you a very different (Jewish) definition of the concept. 
> and the definitions are different. in the atheist's case, this word 
> does not exist at all, so there simple is no definition.

That is like saying because someone does not belive in "the highest prime 
number" the phrase "the highest prime number" does not exits. English (and 
I suspect most natural languages) are more than capable of describing concepts 
that can't exist, let along concepts that many people think /do/ exist.

> this is fundamentally different form saying the god does not exist 
> based on some "atheist" definition of the concept. I claim not the 
> "god" as you define it does not exist,

----
> I claim the I do not have  any definition to this concept and this 
> concept in fact does not exist for me at all.
----

And there in lies the crux of the debate. I do not belive that is possible. 
I belive that if a concept exists for me, then the /concept/ exists for you 
(and the reverse). You may well believe that it is false or flawed, or not 
even understand it, but the idea still exists. I can comprehend a world view 
where anything not seen by an observer does not even exist, but I think it 
to be a false world view. Never the less, the concept of it still exist for 
me, you and everyone, and the /concept/ would exist even if I couldn't understand 
it.

That is my world view. If you have a bone to pick with that, then I shall 
agree to disagree.