[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Yigal Chripun]

BCS wrote:
> Reply to Yigal,
> 
>> a general reply to anyone claiming that being atheist is a religion:
> 
> Nor, arguably, is Christianity, they are both systems of faith.

It seems that your definition of a religion is different than mine. in
that case - s/religion/faith/ and my argument is just as valid as before.
> 
>> religious people assume that everyone must have a faith in something
>> so they interpret an atheist as someone who believes in a lack of a
>> higher power, a belief of realism, a belief in logic and causality, etc..
>> this is false.
> 
>> atheist means without a faith. not a faith in an opposite claim.
> 
> I claim that the question of the existence of god is relevant in every
> life. The atheist says "I think there is no god" and acts on that
> assumption. The theist does the reverse. Neither has proof yet both act
> (because you can't /not/ act). Therefor both act on faith (belief
> without proof). I don't see any functional difference regarding faith.
> 
> 
your claim proves my point. As a theist person you assume that "the
question of the existence of god is relevant in every life.".
As an atheist I can tell you that it is not.
Occam's razor basically states that the more assumptions you have the
higher the chance of you being wrong. and you just added such as assumption.
again, Atheism is not a faith based on "I think/believe there is not
god". the question of the existence of god is irrelevant since atheists
do _not_ upon this assumption.
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.
I still act, yet I do not assume anything about this question. The end
result for you would be that since I do not act based upon the existence
of god, you see it as if I deny such existence. even though the result
looks very similar, the cause is fundamentally different.

A blind person from birth acts without any assumption of colors or light
and the concept is meaningless to him. his is not acting based on the
assumption of a world without color but rather he acts _without_ the
assumption of color. in the same way, a healthy person does not act
based on the assumption of a strange "disease" of "a lack of illness".

The same reasoning of Occam's razor applies for example to the idiotic
Intelligent design (ID) "theory". "theory" in the context of science is
a very strong concept [much stronger than conjecture, for example] and
implies the ability to have predictions based on it that can be
validated, and the ability to test it in the real world. ID is *not* a
theory in the scientific sense of the word since it requires one to
believe the existence of a higher power which cannot be proven to exist.
since it does not provide any way to test it but rather it depends on
the faith of humans, it is not a theory but rather a faith.
therefore, scientists avoid arguing against it because trying to prove
it wrong is also treating it as a scientific theory, which it's not.