[DilutedImage]

WolfCoder, on 13 Nov, 2007 - 05:04 PM, said:

So... How'd it go?

I decided that the salvation of such wicked souls just wasn't worth my time.



Seriously though, nobody seemed to really care (other than just enjoying an argument), so I just left it alone. I've got better things to do than argue for the sake of arguing.

If anyone really cares about any of this, then they can do some simple research, and weigh the facts vs the theories for themselves. And if anyone has any questions as to why I believe the things I do, then I'd be happy to answer them via PM.

[nirvanarupali]

DilutedImage, on 28 Nov, 2007 - 12:28 PM, said:

Seriously though, nobody seemed to really care (other than just enjoying an argument), so I just left it alone. I've got better things to do than argue for the sake of arguing.

Yap, that is better. Some of them, use fallacy to twist the truth to falsity. But it is the essence of the truth that cannot be destroyed, so it will remain being as it is.

This post has been edited by nirvanarupali: 27 November 2007 - 09:48 PM

[dorknexus]

free thought2win

EDIT: i decided the "2win" was more aesthetically pleasing than "to win"

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 28 November 2007 - 12:42 AM

[Louisda16th]

Dark_Nexus, on 14 Nov, 2007 - 12:50 AM, said:

attachment

and
Teletubbies

[baavgai]

Reading the topic of this thread, I was pretty sure no good could come of it. However, today curiosity won... teletubies?!?

Since this is a computer forum, after all, there's a pretty good segue here. Also, a nice argument for the evangelically inclined. Blaise Pascal, of triangle fame, was an interesting fellow. A mathematician of some repute, in his later years he devoted himself to religion.

His wager is entertaining. While his version is far more eloquent, the short form basically says you've got nothing to loose and everything to gain from faith.

I'd hasten to add that debating the wager here would be beating a really dead horse, I merely offer it for amusement.

[Louisda16th]

Don't forget Pingu

Quote

However, today curiosity won... teletubies?!?

I'm just bored !
I was referring to This. Good list of kids cartoons.

This post has been edited by Louisda16th: 28 November 2007 - 05:57 AM

[Videege]

Pascal's Wager doesn't exactly comprise a good reason for taking up faith and religion, especially if your god happens to be omniscient.

[dorknexus]

"rather be safe than sorry" isn't a very justifiable reason to believe in something. by that logic you might as well believe in and practice every religion you can get your hands on. just to play it safe.

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 28 November 2007 - 06:22 PM

[born2c0de]

Well, I knew that Muslims have something against "non-believers", but I wasn't really sure.
I (actually had the patience to) read the English version of the Quaran/Koran and trust me, what I read was extremely hard to digest.

I don't want to mention any excerpts, but you can have a look at and see what I mean.

Download the ebook from here and simply search for the word "unbeliever".

One of the things that piss me off is this:

Quote

3:149 (Sura 3 : The Family of Imran)
O ye who believe! If ye obey the Unbelievers, they will drive you back on your heels, and ye will turn back to your own loss.

WTF does that mean?

It gets much worse, and you just have to see it to believe it.

[Fygar]

[baavgai]

Dark_Nexus, on 28 Nov, 2007 - 08:20 PM, said:

"rather be safe than sorry" isn't a very justifiable reason to believe in something. by that logic you might as well believe in and practice every religion you can get your hands on. just to play it safe.

Indeed, that's the essential problem with most Western philospher's apeal to faith, they assume Christian monotheism and go from there. Far easier to work the logic when you're trying to find your way to single positive assertion in a closed duality.

Still, the point is that Pascal's argument sounds far more reasonable than "or the flying spagetti monster will eat your head." Plus, well, Pascal is more a part of computer science than, say, Decarte. Leibniz would have also been apropos, but his theology never got any pithy lables. Bishop Berkeley has a Star Trek character named after him...

Debating belief is a profound waste of time. Howerver, understanding the beliefs of others has value. It's not the same as acceptance, but it's a start.

For the record, I'm not a Christian. Rather, I thought a Christian programmer might dig Pascal.

[nirvanarupali]

I like this quote....sounds to be new contemporary philosopher.

Quote

Debating belief is a profound waste of time. Howerver, understanding the beliefs of others has value. It's not the same as acceptance, but it's a start. - baavgai

[dorknexus]

ironic that you were the one that started this entire topic.

[WolfCoder]

Dark_Nexus, on 29 Nov, 2007 - 05:08 PM, said:

ironic that you were the one that started this entire topic.

Everyone needs a little iron in their diet now and then for a healthy system.

[baavgai]

nirvanarupali, on 29 Nov, 2007 - 07:01 PM, said:

I like this quote....sounds to be new contemporary philosopher.

Quote

Debating belief is a profound waste of time. Howerver, understanding the beliefs of others has value. It's not the same as acceptance, but it's a start. - baavgai

*takes a bow* And they said Liberal Arts wasn't good for anything.

I actually didn't care for the starter post, as it demonized one belief system to the benefit of another. No belief system deserves to be represented by its zealots. When you take an adversarial position to something, you can never possibly learn from it.