[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Yigal Chripun]

BCS wrote:
> 
> ****** 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.
> 
> 

OK, forget that metaphor.
all I'm trying to say is that a world view is something subjective.
Lets borrow from relativity. we now know that speed/velocity depends on
the viewer. if I'm sitting in a moving car, my relative speed is zero
while for an outside observer my speed is the speed of the car.
I think of world views in the same way. we have some basic "atoms" -
assumptions we base our world view upon and those assumptions are
relative since our world view is subjective.
And indeed here lies the crux.

You believe that concepts such as god are absolute while I do not. What
is a concept anyway? what is a "dog"? a dog is what we define it to be.
let's return to the colors for a sec.
if you show an object to a person and ask him what color it is, would
you say that the definition of colors is universal and that all humans
would give you the same answer? in reality, the definition of colors is
relative to culture. what western cultures define as pink would be
defined as purple by a Chinese person (or maybe it's the other way
around, I don't remember the exact details of that study).
even a simple concept like the color pink is not a universal absolute
concept and varies between cultures. the only way you have to define a
color objectively without those cultural influences is to use the
scientific definition using the wavelength of light for that color.
such a scientific definition obviously does not exist for "god".

Note that I'm not trying to convert you to my world view here, but only
explain my POV on the subject. you can continue to believe that god is
an absolute and universal concept agreed upon by all humanity (that's
the Christian world view). All I'm saying to you is that my concept of
god (based on my cultural origins) is different. you can take it or
leave it. your choice.

--Yigal

PS - you should read about the Sapir conjecture in wikipedia to see how
culture and language influence the way we think.