Are you an atheist?

[speakers_86]

I am athiest. When I talk about this with people, I came up with this analogy to help show how I think of things.

When an ant moves a rock, does it know it is making an ant hill?

Of course not. The ant is a small part of a large system. Just like us. Because we are a part of the universe we may not be able to completly understand everything around us. This is not proof or disproof of God. It merely says that we shouldnt expect to know everything.

Another position I take is that religion is an old idea. Most ideas are disproven over time. The earth is not flat and eclipses are not signs of an angry god. So why is it still around? Religion can neither be proven nor disproven. Also, because we are all ants that dont know whats going on, we have lots of unanswered questions that end up being arguments for religion. And when we do eventually answer these questions, religious figures explain away on why their religious ideas are still relevant. Either way, imho, religion should be taken with a grain of salt merely because of its age.

 

[Rabbie]

In terms of Access they are a god (compared to us) because they can change the rules, we can't and we are bound by the rules they set for Access.

Put it this way, what you or I can do in Access can be predicted as the "natural laws" are known and can't be changed by us. But that does not apply to Microsoft.

However, Microsoft is only a branch manager god as what it can do with Access "natural laws" is limited by another set of natural laws.

Is it possible that there is a God or gods when considered from the practical point of view. For example, could their be an advanced life form that can change gravity or the speed of light. Such a concept is no different than what nuclear phyisics was to chemistry that only dealt with electrons. The loss of mass in a reaction was considered impossible.

If an advanced life form could change gravity (currently impossible?) then the moon could either fall to the earth or fly out of orbit.

And your point is?? Just because some technologies appear supernatural to more primitive observers does not make them supenatural. If it turns out that certain physical constants are in fact not constant but can be varied then so be it. That would not prove the existance of God or gods. Highly advanced aliens would not be supernatural they would just be highly advanced.

And finally if Microsoft have the godlike powers you claim why are there so many bugs in their code. They don't project an image of infallibility.

 

[Alc]

And finally if Microsoft have the godlike powers you claim why are there so many bugs in their code. They don't project an image of infallibility.

Neither does God, in fairness

 

[Rich]

Neither does God, in fairness

Are you sure; that's not what the Bible portrays

 

[Rabbie]

Neither does God, in fairness

His deputy on earth( AKA the Pope) claims infallibity. So is he better than his boss(God)

There doesn't seem much point in an All-powerful God if gets things wrong

 

[April15Hater]

I am athiest. When I talk about this with people, I came up with this analogy to help show how I think of things.

When an ant moves a rock, does it know it is making an ant hill?

Of course not. The ant is a small part of a large system. Just like us. Because we are a part of the universe we may not be able to completly understand everything around us. This is not proof or disproof of God. It merely says that we shouldnt expect to know everything.

Another position I take is that religion is an old idea. Most ideas are disproven over time. The earth is not flat and eclipses are not signs of an angry god. So why is it still around? Religion can neither be proven nor disproven. Also, because we are all ants that dont know whats going on, we have lots of unanswered questions that end up being arguments for religion. And when we do eventually answer these questions, religious figures explain away on why their religious ideas are still relevant. Either way, imho, religion should be taken with a grain of salt merely because of its age.

Well said Speakers. I really like your ant analogy, but I must say that religion is not that old in relation to the age of our universe. But you are right, religion is not falsifiable and is usually explained away with ad-hoc hypothesis by theologicians that are threatened by the possibility of their ideas proven wrong.

That being said, I really can't blame them; I've spent my whole career studying accounting. If accounting were suddenly proven wrong (which by the looks of the economy's various balance sheets may be the case) I would get fairly defensive seeing that I spent my whole career practicing something that is now potentially useless. I bet I would be compelled to argue that with the proper regulation, Credit Default Swaps could be reflected to show the true economic condition of a company thus making accounting ok again. Kind of like when Enron classified much of thier off balance sheet debt as "special purpose entities", and Sarbanes-Oxley was passed (I hope you caught the sarcasm there).

 

[KenHigg]

I am athiest. When I talk about this with people, I came up with this analogy to help show how I think of things.

When an ant moves a rock, does it know it is making an ant hill?

Of course not. The ant is a small part of a large system. Just like us. Because we are a part of the universe we may not be able to completly understand everything around us. This is not proof or disproof of God. It merely says that we shouldnt expect to know everything.

What an odd analogy...

How do you know what the heck an ant is thinking, if they even can? You may consider yourself to be no smarter than an ant but please give the rest of us a liitle more credit (With the possible exception of Rich, maybe...)

 

[Alc]

His deputy on earth( AKA the Pope) claims infallibity. So is he better than his boss(God)

Yes, in the sense that he exists.
No, in the sense that anyone who was infallible wouldn't need to admit to being wrong (see the whole sun revolves around the earth argument the Catholic church stuck to for so long, until the evidence finally forced them to change their official viewpoint).

There doesn't seem much point in an All-powerful God if gets things wrong

Choose your answer, depending on you level of faith
a) God doesn't exist. Some of the stories are entertaining enough, but his mistakes should be of no more real concern than when Winnie the Pooh got his head stuck in the honey pot.
b) The reason God was invented was to have someone to which to attribute bad events. Family member dies/gets sick? Lose your job in spite of working hard? Weather ruins your harvest? It's God's will.
c) He is testing us. When he makes mistakes, he just wants to check that we still love Him.
d) God doesn't get things wrong. He just does things in a way that may appear wrong to us mere mortals but which is all part of his divine plan and totally beyond our comprehension.

 

[April15Hater]

How do you know what the heck an ant is thinking, if they even can?

Good point Ken! This makes me think of Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum. "I think therefore I am" does not translate to "I am therefore I think"

 

[Rich]

What an odd analogy...

How do you know what the heck an ant is thinking, if they even can?

One could ask the same of GWB

 

[Alc]

One could ask the same of GWB

Are you suggesting that an ant does what he does because God told him to do it?

 

[Rich]

Are you suggesting that an ant does what he does because God told him to do it?

Well both were/are pre-programmed

 

[Alc]

In which case, you should stop picking on the poor guy. After all, he had no choice in what he did.

 

[Rich]

In which case, you should stop picking on the poor guy. After all, he had no choice in what he did.

But an ant knows which way he has to go

 

[April15Hater]

Well both were/are pre-programmed

Do you believe that there is no free will?

 

[Rich]

Do you believe that there is no free will?

Not in an ant, and since we compare Bush to an ant, no

 

[Lightwave]

I think the real mistake we are making is in the general belief that people are really as logical as they think they are.

There is increasing evidence starting to appear that indicates people are surprisingly automatic in their day to day activities.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I think the real mistake we are making is in the general belief that people are really as logical as they think they are.

There is increasing evidence starting to appear that indicates people are surprisingly automatic in their day to day activities.

What's surprising about that?
I remember when I worked I would automatically get up when the alarm went off, go to bathroom, have a........., back to bedroom get dressed, head down stairs, put on kettle, etc etc amazing what one can do before putting brain into gear, that didn't happen until I'd had the coffee Cathy had ready for me in the office, then she'd want to talk football.

Brian

 

[KenHigg]

...go to bathroom, have a........., back to bedroom get dressed, ...
Brian

How could you have a 'shower' before you put your brain in gear?

 

[Brianwarnock]

How could you have a 'shower' before you put your brain in gear?

Its easy, press button, walk in cubicle. remembering to close the door becomes automatic after first rollicking from "the boss"

Brian