Okay. For once, I’m going to say what I actually think on this site of mine! I’ve done it to a degree before but I got frequently hushed by the few people that see anything but neutrality as a weakness or a threat. I’m only human, and I have some damned opinions. So here they are!
Be prepared for mildly offensive rhetoric and inappropriate usage of the ellipsis and exclamation mark!!!
Me in not so many words:
-
I think this universe is simply awesome. We’re tiny when everything is put into perspective. Heck, we’re just one form of life, on one planet, in one star system of hundreds of billions of star systems in this galaxy alone (which itself is accompanied by hundreds of billions of other galaxies), and yet some people still have the arrogance to feel that the human race is at the centre of the whole universe and that it was all created for us! Our wonderful yet miniscule existence is aptly covered in this beautifully poetic video from the late Carl Sagan.
- I will always support the path that increases happiness and/or decreases pain, suffering or unhappiness. I also think that what little time I have on this earth should be used to positively affect others’ lives and improve, even to a tiny extent, the abysmal status quo.
- I love the outdoors. I envy people that have jobs outside. And I don’t mean outside on the street cleaning up human sewage. I mean outside in the real world — the places that we haven’t yet destroyed.
- I’ve yet to sit in an office chair that won’t make my back hurt like hell after eight hours.
- I don’t understand how some people can live with doing the same thing every single day. Sitting at a desk, in a cubicle, eight hours every single day. The banality and soul-crushing reality of any job that requires people to do this is sickening. To think that people are so deluded as to believe that they have no choice and that such an existence is all they can hope for.
- I am a rational human, and therefore don’t subscribe to unfounded beliefs in fairies, goblins or gods. If viable proof surfaces then I will be the first to admit I was wrong, but until that day, I get to say that you’re wrong, deluded, and are kidding yourself. I’m a nice guy though, so I will rarely mention it without provocation.
- I get annoyed when people don’t realise the difference between believing that something doesn’t exist and rejecting the belief that something does exist, for it should be apparent that there is a huge difference.
- My favourite comedians of all time are Ricky Gervais, George Carlin, Frankie Boyle and Bill Hicks (watch all the videos!).
- I hate running, but I absolutely love cycling!
- I think modern day advertising and marketing techniques are the bane of western society. Oh, and politicians! And celebrity magazines!
- I didn’t care for the World Cup, and I always find it amusing how people shout at the TV and put flags on their cars when it won’t have the slightest effect on the game itself.
- I’m trying to become a vegetarian. Watch the documentary, Earthlings, and you’ll understand why. It’s not because I think me abstaining from meat will have the slightest effect on the global demand, but simply to retain whatever integrity I still have.
- Pixar made me cry. I don’t know how they did it…
- I’d love to know how to play a musical instrument properly. Preferably the piano.
- I think humans have a responsibility to stop using non-renewable resources, but I don’t think playing the blame-game is helpful. I also don’t think change will happen given the current political and economic powers that be.
- Other movies that have made me weep like a baby include The Stoning of Soraya M, Forrest Gump, The Champ and Pay It Forward.
Opinions about web technologies:
- I think inline documentation, like that made possible with JSDoc, makes code ugly and unreadable. I want to see the code, and that’s all!
- I think heavy UI abstractions like ExtJS totally take away all of the fun, excitement and challenges that should form a central part in any programmer’s role. To me, it looks like a product built for business people, and business people rarely understand the motives and desires of programmers — they only understand a couple of things: profit margins and economic viability.
- I don’t understand Node.js. I really did try, but it just ended up confusing me. I’m not a Linux wizz so installing it was trouble enough.
- I have a love-hate relationship with PHP. Doing most things is dead simple (which is great), but it’s such an ugly language!
- Even after all this time, jQuery is still my favourite JavaScript library. It’s small, intuitive and doesn’t require me to adopt a new programming paradigm!
Okay, that’s enough for today. Comment if you want. If you disagree with me on any of these points, then, GOOD! This world would be such a dull place without such varied opinions and people!
Nothing extra need be said mate, opinions are like arseholes… everyone’s got one
Only thing I will say is check out The Fountain by Darren Aronofsky that is a powerful film and there is a particular scene that just ‘gets’ me every time.
Unsubscribing in 3, 2, 1…
I was kind of a wuss while watching The Green Mile for the first time.
And the second time.
I am right there with you with PHP
I would add too that I shed a couple of tears when I saw the bathroom scene in the Pursuit of Happyness
Whoa – slow there…a JavaScript programmer like you doesn’t “understand” node.js? I thought not loving node.js is like being against warm bread! Also, I’m always stoked when I realize that guys like you don’t use Linux. Anyhow, keep on rocking!
i LOVE personal opinions!! awesome, James!
Atg
> I have a love-hate relationship with PHP. Doing most things is dead simple (which is great), but it’s such an ugly language!
Amen – this is how we all think, I think?
Weird how many things on there are exactly like me apart from the crying at films and I think I’ve started to love the ugliness of PHP. But that could just be me being rebellious since I have to write asp at work everyday.
I complain and complain until I get the office chair that doesn’t hurt my back. And maybe you don’t sit in the right position. See a doctor or something. With a little bit of practise, you’ll learn how not to hurt your back.
I totally agree on the universe. It’s beautiful and yet so ungraspable (still). I love to think about how tiny we are, and how there must be millions of other inhabited worlds that will probably never meet one another.
Don’t become a vegetarian. Darwin has made us omnivores for a reason: we need to eat meat to survive, or we must starting eating things that hurt the Earth more, such as GM crops.
Hahahahaha, interesting James! I didn’t even realise you were English until now. I wish we could do something about the politicians.
Oh and node.js is hype. It’s a nice, fun to play with hype, but hype all the same.
The entire human race is but a fraction of the blink of an eye in terms of the age of the universe. In a thousand years, no one’s going to care about your opinions, so there’s no point worrying about what people think of them now
I am with you on PHP
Seconding your view on node.js, I came across this SitePoint explanation, which finally made sense to me!
I’m still not diving into it, but at least I get it now…
Cheers,
Atg
Crap, and the link…
http://www.sitepoint.com/newsletter/viewissue.php?id=3&issue=299#5
PHP.. Try aspx (.net) its freaking genius!
C# is so much prettier then php!!
Wise man ^^”
Wow, I watched the preview of the movie “Earthlings”, and it was so sad…
James, you should post more blog’s like this. You’re pretty interesting, and you have such a creative imagination like myself.
this blog make me know more about you,
I think the creative program always form creative programmer!
i share most of you opinions save two,i think node is not that bad n you don’t believe in a God but i do though i hate religion i love Christ.kip rocking man u inspire me.
Thanks for sharing the personal insight into the person behind the words. I can certainly relate to the envy of people that get to spend their time outdoors, staring at a computer screen is just not the same.
Funny to me how your first comment was about how awesome you think this universe is, yet are blinded to the fact that God made the universe, to display to us his almighty power. The belief in God is nothing to be compared to the belief in fairies and unicorns, what a ridiculous comparison. I pray your spiritual eyes to be open soon.
@Steven W
I don’t blame James at all for not believing in God, despite the overwhelming evidence in favour of His existence. The religions of this world have made God out to be a hypocritical, lying, and evil person that doesn’t care about us. Not to mention that the religions are the cause of far too many problems, so then it looks as if belief in God is actually a cause of problems, when that is not the case at all. After such negativity towards belief in God, why would anyone believe in him? Religions should clean up their act, start displaying some morals, and should start telling the truth about God. For the most part, they haven’t done that.
Nonetheless, this is an interesting list of likes/dislikes, etc., and is refreshing to see on a web design/programming-related site. Unlike you, James, I don’t have the guts to admit what movies have made me cry (there’s many!). I’ll take those to my grave.
Great to know you in detail, James.
I cried for straight 30 minutes after watching A Beautiful Mind. @mathias The Green Mile made my eyes wet, too.
@Louis, Which God is it that you have “overwhelming” evidence for? I’d like to be sincerely intrigued but I’m really not, because I have heard much of it before… “the universe must have been created because…”, “look at this banana, it fits in my hand”, “look, I’m not killing you, therefore there are moral laws and they must have been defined by God”. Every argument I’ve heard for the existence of God has been logically fallacious. Still though, I’d like to know how you’ve determined that Zeus and Thor don’t exist?
@Luke Morton
node.js is not hype. Its Power. The power of asynchonously done IO.
@James:
You and I already had an email exchange about this. Unfortunately, people who refuse to believe in God (like yourself) tend to think in illogical ways. An example to illustrate:
If you were walking through the woods, and came across a fully-furnished home with food, clothing, running water, electricity — all this in the middle of nowhere in some wooded forest — what would you conclude? Is there even the remotest possibility that this fully-functioning and well-equipped house was just an accident, with no designer? Is it possible that over the course of 1000 years, airplanes flew over the forest and accidentally dropped objects that eventually came to be this beautiful fully-functioning home?
You and I both know that there is no possibility that such a home is an accident. It had to be designed and built by an intelligent person, or group of people.
Yet, with regards to the universe, that is *exactly* what we see. The earth is a fully-functioning, well-equipped, and super-complex entity that is more detailed and more beautiful than any house.
Do you need “viable proof” of the existence of the designer of the house in the forest, or any house for that matter? No. The proof is in the existence of the house, and how well-designed it is.
Why would we throw that logic out the window with respects to the earth? Unfortunately many atheists today would much rather promote backwards logic, and would sooner tell people that the super-complex things we see on earth “evolved” gradually over time through blind chance (or the unproven “natural selection”) — something that is a mathematical impossibility no matter how it’s broken down.
Just use sensible logic and deduction and you’ll see that the proof of God’s existence is more than overwhelming.
@Louis, it’s all a case of different perspectives. Why, if everything was created by a “perfect” being, are there so many imperfections in our and other animals’ “design”?
Whatever existence you find yourself in, it’s natural to think, “gosh, this is all perfect — everything works in perfect order”, but then you make the leap to suggest that it was designed instead of pursuing the truth, which, in this case is evolution.
The correct answer to a question that you don’t know the answer to is, “I don’t know.” Why jump to the conclusion of believing in a god, when it could just as easily be something humans have never even heard of? The ignorance of humans never ceases to amaze me. From what I understand about the world and our current state of knowledge, we still have a few things to figure out…
On another note, I just finished commenting the hell out of a js file yesterday. I came back to it today and was totally overwhelmed with the amount of scrolling I was doing. In short, I agree. Brevity is so often the best approach.
Bryan is on point.’I don’t know’ is a far more rational answer than ‘I know it for a fact and now you must too’.
And yes, Pixar movies affect me profoundly. I also get tired of idiots calling them cartoons. They have more emotion, meaning and logic than most of what is shown in theatres and television these days.
You don’t like Node because you don’t use Linux. I’ve started using it also for bash scripts, replacing the native bash or sh interpreter…
Writing HTTP Client/Server is so easy, for example, I’ve made a little script that complile Javascript code using Google Closure Compiler WebApp and with a single command I could compile (aka compress) my webapp in one single js compressed/optimized/minimized file…
Isn’t it fun?
Thanks for your blog
@James
There is nothing that we see today that is “imperfect” that isn’t the result of something caused by humans — whether it be bad morals, killing the environment, war, or other human-induced problems. Humans are imperfect, but that was not how we were made. Obviously, this goes beyond what I can actually prove to you unless you accept the words of the Bible. We don’t have video footage of pre-fallen man, so that kind of evidence is beyond my abilities.
You can review my previous emails to you for the proof of the Bible’s divine authorship, but I know your view on that, so there’s not much else I can say to you on that matter. We’ll have to agree to disagree, unless you’re willing to take an objective look at what the Bible says, and not just pick passages that, on their own, don’t tell the whole story of what the Bible is about.
@Louis, you said:
How do you explain these imperfections:
… that’s just three things in one species (homo sapiens)!
You claim that the beauty and order in the biological world is evidence of God’s craftsmanship. Evolution and the process of natural selection can also be used to explain this order and complexity.
However, your explanation (God) falls apart when one considers biological imperfections. And, no, those mentioned above are not due to “bad morals, killing the environment, war, or other human-induced problems”…
Also, @Louis, you’re implying that all genetic medical conditions (or those that we can be genetically predisposed to) are the result of “bad morals, killing the environment, war, or other human-induced problems”…
@James,
I understand what you’re saying, but the problem is that you don’t accept the Bible as God’s word, so I can’t go much further regarding what I meant when I said that these things are “human-induced” (including the genetic/biological things you mentioned).
If I say to you that our biological imperfections are due to the original sin in the Garden of Eden, then you’re just going to say that this is circular reasoning, because the burden of proof would be on me to establish that the Biblical account of the fall of man is historically accurate.
All the things you mentioned would not be problems if our first parents (Adam and Eve) hadn’t sinned and passed that imperfection down to us. (The thing you said about the larynx is a little bit silly, though, since it is possible for humans to never choke on their food.)
Thus, as I originally said, all human imperfections are “human-induced”, whether it be through direct causation or through something we inherited because of the “human-induced” original sin.
Of course, to atheists, this sounds crazy. But you cannot deny that this simple Biblical account offers a perfectly logical and understandable explanation for why there are so many problems in the world.
@James,
Can you prove to me that evolution is a scientific fact? What is the line of evidence that is used to prove evolution? Does the “evidence” for evolution comply with the “scientific method”? (here is the scientific method, simplified).
If evolution cannot be proved using the scientific method, then doesn’t that make it unscientific?
@Louis,
Right, so, you’re saying that any biological imperfections found in ANY animals today are all routed in the original sin of humans (one species)? And you’re also saying that somehow, via some non-identifiable means, these imperfections were inherited?
I’m glad that you identified your argument as employing circular reasoning, because that’s exactly the case. It would be foolish of me to give your argument any merit since you’ve not provided any proof pointing to intelligent design.
I have to say, I’m surprised that you are even concerned about whether or not evolution can be proved scientifically — you don’t seem to be concerned about the scientific credibility, or lack thereof, in the theory of intelligent design…
Anyway, yes, there is plenty of proof for the theory of evolution. Please don’t let the fact that it’s called “theory” confuse you — for a long time now, it’s been widely accepted as a scientific fact. In fact, you can see evolution in action: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/
There are countless other pieces of proof that I could point to, but I dare say it would be futile — you are blinded by your obsession to retain your nonsensical beliefs. You wouldn’t accept evolution if a whole mountain of evidence was staring at you in the face (and, by the way, it is!).
Evolution can be proved using the scientific method… and quite easily.
Take a petri dish of bacteria – apply a toxin – enough to kill most of them – keep applying the toxin in this way – wait a bit and then you’ll have a whole population of bacteria that can survive exposure to the toxin. This is called selective breeding and is a artificial method utilising the same technique as natural selection… i.e. an animal that is most suited to its environment will have a better chance of survival and thus procreation.
Another example would be the domestication of animals, specifically that of the red fox. Both tame and aggressive variations have been bred: http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Index.htm
Louis, how would you explain the existence of dogs? Or rather, how would you explain the fact that dog breeders will breed dogs with specific characteristics (cuteness, coat, floppy ears, nose length, tail direction etc.)??
These and many other examples prove that animals can change over time. This IS evolution.
@James:
You pretty much ignored my original illustration of the house, which constitutes undeniable proof of intelligent design.
The problem is, you have different standards for different things, depending on your bias. If you walked into a forest and found a fully-equipped house, you would never think it came about by blind chance apart from an intelligent designer. Why is that? If you found a piece of paper on the ground with an essay typed on it, would you believe me if I told you the ink on that paper was splattered randomly from a spilt container, and it just happened to form a concise and intelligent thesis? You would not believe that. Yet, when you believe in “natural selection”, you’re believing in the very thing you would reject in other areas where your bias is not so important. That’s what I would call a double standard.
Atheists have no reason to believe that a house in the woods was built by random falling objects. It does nothing to further their agenda. But believing in evolution (which is 100 trillion trillion times more unlikely than than a house being built by random falling objects) contributes to the atheist agenda. If atheists were objective, reasonable, people, they would recognize the mathematical impossibilities that they promote; but accepting evolution as “fact” is part and parcel of denying the existence of a Creator, so false data is promoted in order to further that agenda.
You mentioned the imperfections of animals. I never said anything about the imperfections of animals. I was talking about humans. That’s a result of sin. If animals are also “imperfect” then it would be because of what humans have done to the environment, mismanaging the earth’s resources, destroying the natural workings of the ecosystem, etc. Also, animals were created to die, as part of the food chain, so there is no reason for them to be perfect.
You mentioned that I’m not interested in the scientific credibility of intelligent design. Totally false. The illustration of the house in the woods proves that intelligent design is in harmony with knowable science. We know certain things are designed because of how detailed and complex they are. Whenever something happens randomly, it never results in order and complex purpose, it results in chaos; therefore, the belief in intelligent design is 100% in harmony with the scientific proof regarding random activity and purposeful activity.
You gave the example of bacteria to prove “natural selection”. That’s ridiculous. Bacteria work like that by nature, they’re built that way. They have purpose. If I put bacteria into a computer, will they learn to give me faster internet? If I put bacteria into my printer, will they learn to make the colors in my printer more vivid? Never. What you’ve demonstrated about bacteria does nothing but prove what bacteria can do. Nothing more. Yeah, it could be natural selection, but it could also be intelligent design, so you’re just begging the question.
Then you mention the domestication of animals: Again, why is it necessary that this refers to “evolution”? You’re making a huge, unscientific jump there. Of course things change over time, depending on the environment, circumstances, etc. You’re using “little things” to prove “big things”.
For example, scientists have NEVER been able to cause a specific species of animal to evolve into another completely different species of animal. Genetic mutations have been attempted in order to prove evolution can change a species to an entirely new one. Those expiriments have failed miserably. When you use the small changes over time (like domestication) to prove the larger changes (like a bird turning into a monkey) you’re making an unscientific, and unverifiable claim. In fact, this claim goes contrary to the scientific method, because while domestication is a verifiable change, species changing into species is not a verifiable claim. It’s kind of like saying “I saw a bird fly 100 feet without flapping its wings; that proves that it can fly 5 trillion miles without flapping its wings.” You have proof of one small thing, but not the other large thing.
So, when I said that science does not support “evolution” I was not referring to the “small” changes that can occur over time within a specific species of animal. Those are demonstrable and provable. So, as a creationist, I accept the evolution of species within specific boundaries. But there is zero evidence that one species can turn into another.
Do you think it’s scientific to believe in those “big” jumps from species to species without any verifiable proof?
Do you know what the fossil record shows regarding animals? Do you understand that the manner that the Bible describes the creation of living things is in perfect harmony with the fossil record, and that evolution contradicts the fossil record? The Bible says that all life came about in a relatively short time (not 7 literal days; 7 figurative days, as in Genesis 2:4). The time period of creation in the Bible is probably hundreds of thousands of years, maybe millions. The Cambrian explosion supports the Bible’s record of creation and it contradicts the teaching of evolution that implies that everything evolved gradually over time.
Here’s a review of what I believe, so you can see that I absolutely do care about what is scientific:
1) Since we know that complex, purposeful things have a designer, the belief in intelligent design is in harmony with that observable and testable fact.
2) Since we have no proof that any one species can change into a completely different species, nor do we have the ability to test this assumption, then I don’t accept that as a “fact”, but only a “theory” that has little foundation.
3) Since it is observable and testable that species (while remaining the same species) can change and evolve over time according to circumstances and environment, then I accept that this is nothing more than what is demonstrated: Things adapting to their environment; this doesn’t in any way suggest that a bird can become a hippo, or something similarly unsubstantiated.
Here’s what you believe:
1) Even though you have absolute verifiable proof that random, purposeless actions lead to chaos, and that a beautifully designed house must have a designer, you still believe that the super-complex things we find in the universe have no designer (or else you believe that there might be a designer, but that this doesn’t constitute proof of the designer)
2) You use the fact that living things adapt to their environments to prove that a single species can change into another completely different species, even though those are two completely different beliefs and have no connection to each other.
Any logical person can see that the conclusions of atheists are anything but scientific, and that creationism is in harmony with provable science.
Wow, this was a long one… Sorry!
BTW – I like that preview button you have; I downloaded that plugin and might install it on my own site.
@Louis, before we discuss other areas of the argument I want to make sure that you’ve the correct understanding of evolution. Please watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
From your previous comments it has become clear that you don’t fully understand the theory of evolution — this was made especially clear when you said:
And this:
@James:
Sorry for the late response, I just watched the video. Yes, I understand that from the point of view of evolutionists, it seems as if I’m making strawman arguments, misrepresenting evolution.
Here are the statements he displays at the end of the video, with my comments:
That is not at all a misrepresentation of evolution. You cannot get around that problem. You can look at a yellow car all day long, and claim until you’re blue in the face that it’s not a yellow car, but that will not change the fact that it’s a yellow car.
If you have no designer, then what you have is “pure chance”. “Natural Selection” is a made-up word to address a perceived problem (that is, the concept of “pure chance”). Unfortunately, that doesn’t solve the problem, and instead makes evolution even less credible. “Natural Selection” is the god of evolution, because there is no evidence that it exists, other than the changes that you see happen due to circumstances and environement, within a single species. Those changes occur due to the fact that a living thing has the ability to adapt to its environment. But those adaptations are scientifically proven to be very limited.
One very bold assumption you made earlier with regards to bacteria was when you said: “This is called selective breeding and is a artificial method utilising the same technique as natural selection.”
Where is the evidence that “natural selection” uses this method? You’re assuming this just because bacteria has the ability to do this. There is no reason to assume such a thing. Again, you’re making “small changes” into “big changes” without scientific backing. Too many assumptions, which is why it’s still accurately all referred to as a “theory”.
If you believe in the pre-programmed “Natural Selection” then you must believe in a creator, because as a programmer you should know that a jQuery animated slider doesn’t animate or slide unless you (an intelligent person) program it that way. On the other hand, if you believe that “Natural Selection” could happen without the intervention of a creator, then you believe that evolution happens as a result of “pure chance”.
So you have two options: Believe what the evidence points to, and what we can establish using observable and testable data (pre-programmed by a Creator) or else the alternative (pure chance).
It’s not necessarily that crockaducks should exist, it’s that the fossil record should represent those kinds of things. It doesn’t, so evolution is pure speculation.
I never said or meant to imply such a thing. For example, I said “… that a bird can become a hippo…” not that a bird would “give birth” to a hippo. I understand what evolutionists claim. They believe that very small changes occured in species that eventually caused certain species to disappear and become new completely different species. This is what I was talking about. You gave the examples of bacteria and dog breeding. Those are “small” changes that you use to imply that much bigger changes occur over a large period of time. As I said in the earlier comment, that’s unscientific, because it makes a lot of untestable assumptions. Read again my illustration of the bird that can fly a short distance without flapping its wings. You can’t prove it can flap its wings any longer than that unless you are able to obverve or test it. Similar with evolution. Yes, you have very small changes, but that’s a poor excuse to assume these add up to large changes.
So, if you want I can retract the wording I used, and I’ll say that you have no evidence that the small changes that occur within a species can eventually, over very long periods of time, lead to that species becoming a completely different species.
Again, same argument as above. I never meant to imply that the mutation from one species to the next was immediate. Look again at what I said. My problem is with using “small change” data to make “big change” assumptions. Do you agree with me that the “big changes” that occur over time are untestable and unobservable? Does this not go along with your own rejection of the existence of God, that he is unobservable and untestable?
I’m not really sure what he means by this. I suppose it’s a reference to non-living matter producing living matter…?
If you believe in evolution, then you certainly believe that your ancestors were some other species of animals. So why is that rejected?
I’d also like to comment on his attempted explanation of the “small changes” and how creationists will often compare the small changes to hitting the jackpot on slot machines over and over. I don’t see anything in his argument that explains his position, or that rejects that argument as a misrepresentation.
Look at it this way: You must know that genetic mutations have been attempted and sometimes fail miserable to produce anything “better” or “different”. So, the purpose of the “jackpot” illustration is to demonstrate that, although the mutation has different options (for good, for bad, etc), in order for life to be as we know it today, evolution, through “pure chance” (yes, that still stands) has had to make a lot of really good decisions. Of course, if you assume that the “good decisions” are chosen because of the function of “Natural Selection” then you have no choice but to accept an intelligent Creator, because that’s the only way that “Natural Selection” could make the right choices every time. In other words, it would have to be programmed, just like the function of this “preview comment” button on your website; that didn’t come about through natural website selection, did it?
@Louis,
I think, upon reflection, that there is little point in us continuing to debate. For one, I very much doubt that either of us will convince the other.
I didn’t really intend on starting a discussion about the origins and evolutions of life but I got drawn in. I only mentioned my position about God (and my lack of belief) because I find it to be a significant attribute of mine — one that differentiates me.
The only reason I even give a damn about these types of arguments is because these things that we’re discussing form central parts of various beliefs, many of which sell fallacious ideals and dangerous ideologies. I only care about religion and theism because it is having a significant effect on the progression of societies. Not only that, but beliefs similar to yours (in fact, any belief that sells absolute knowledge) cause a huge amount of atrocities all over the world.
Before you bite back and say that atheism causes atrocities (it doesn’t) you should consider the key thing, which is that atheism is not a religion, has no agenda, and is defined as a lack of belief, not a belief that there is definitely no God (such an assertion, I feel, would be intellectually dishonest). Atheism does not claim absolute knowledge — in fact, it claims the opposite. I don’t want to delve into the semantics of the word, atheism, I just wanted to put the record straight.
It just saddens me that many theists are so sure of their beliefs that they’re willing to inhibit the freedoms of people they’ve never met and whom they do not know. Nobody wants to walk down the street and be told they’re going to hell because they did something so petty as to sleep with the wrong person, or use the wrong word, or pray the wrong way. There was probably a man, twice as sure of his beliefs as you, who lived thousands of years ago. He may have believed in Zeus, or Horus or some other God that he made up. How do you feel about this man? Is he lost? Are you, Louis, the one with the right answer…? – After all this time, and all the thought, killing, and raping that’s occurred due to fallacious beliefs, you’re so sure that YOU have the RIGHT ONE. It just saddens me that a sane human can be driven to such absurdity without once considering that he/she may just be the latest in a long line of believers in thousands of different sects of belief and religion.
@James,
Fair enough. I didn’t have any intention of debating it here either, and I don’t have anything personal against you for any of this. I think you’re a pretty nice guy, and you are one of the best young JavaScript developers in the world (at least from my limited vantage point!). Despite this serious difference of opinion on a major facet of life, I still have a link to your website in my site’s sidebar — because I think my readers could benefit from reading your stuff.
Regarding who has the right answers. You’re focusing too much on possibilities that come through humans. The Bible establishes that the god that the Jews worshipped was and still is the only true god. Zeus doesn’t have a book that survived everything, that’s translated into virtually every language on earth, and that contains fulfilled prophecy, accurate science, and solutions to the world’s problems.
Creation itself does not prove which god is real. Creation just establishes that there is a designer (just as the house in the woods must have a designer, so the earth must have one; that’s science, not faith).
The Bible is the source that tells us who that god is, and what his purpose is. And no, the god of the Bible does not promise to burn in hell those who don’t obey his rules. Read Jeremiah 7:31 and you’ll see that the god of the Bible is completely against people burning children in fire, so why would he do that himself? The few references in the New Testament that refer to ‘eternal fire’ are figurative expressions used in the midst of illustrations, to demonstrate eternal destruction (soul sleep) of those who disobey. Read every reference to “hell” in the Bible, it’s always in the middle of some illustration or figurative context.
Dead people don’t feel anything, no pain, no nothing, as Ecclesiastes 9:5 states. The “hell” of the Bible is a symbol, an illustration of having no hope for a resurrection. In fact, in the original languages of the Bible there was no such word as “hell” — it’s actually a mistranslation that’s been handed down from the largely erroneous King James version. In Hebrew “hell” was just a big garbage dump outside of Jerusalem, as explained here.
So again, I’m not just one person in a long line of believers in some bizarre gods. I believe in the god of the Bible because that book proves he exists. It has nothing to do with me.
Now it’s up to people like you to accept that evolution is not science (as I explained in other comments) and that the only alternative (creation by an intelligent person) leads us to the Bible (the only book that has proof of divine authorship).
@Louis, what’s interesting is how confident you are in a bound collection of papers … which has undergone multiple translations, many original gospels being excluded as well. It’s just a book. That’s all it is. Who on earth are you to divine that some passages were meant a certain way? How on earth would you possibly know the original intent of the author/s? (rhetorical, please don’t answer — I know you think it is the true word of “God”)
Yes, you are, and I feel terribly sorry for you. It seems you are so stubborn in your dogmatic views that you will never have the joy of seeing the world for what it really is. Everything you see is tinted by your beliefs — you are blinded by what you try so hard to preserve.
I’ve tried so hard to understand your position from a rational perspective but you make it so hard, for not a single one of your beliefs is logically founded. Your arguments are flawed and have been disputed so many times in history and right here, yet you continue to believe… it’s like you’re a child that simply doesn’t want to stop believing in Santa Claus.
Please, at least, do some research. If you’re a logical person then you will find that much of what you think about evolution is entirely incorrect, and you will discover that your arguments have been used for centuries and every single one of them disputed by individuals far more knowledgeable than your or me.
And, no… reading the bible is not research.
Who is your favorite twitter follower?
Louis and James, Hey guys, take a look at this: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/gods-existence.htm
Oh sorry, i meant read this: http://www.peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm
Hi James
Liked your little (auto)bio, you have a very readable style of writing.
If you like those comedians (and the piano), you should check out Tim Minchin, loads of him of YouTube, of course.
“If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out” is a personal favourite, but they’re all good.
Best of luck.
J
Wow, what an interesting discussion. It’s actually refreshing to see a more edgy, opinionated article (as well as opinionated replies).
- As for PHP, I couldn’t agree more. I’ve actually hated it since I wrote my first line. In fact, I don’t really like scripting languages in general (my preferences are things like C, Java, C++, etc.).
- I haven’t yet seen that Carl Sagan video, but have you seen “IMAX – Cosmic Voyage”? Amazing.
- I was a vegetarian for 13 years until last summer (2010) when I was with a girl who used her Jedi mind tricks and convinced me to start eating meat again. I’m still eating meat, but I don’t find it to be as great as I had expected.
- God and evolution: I’ve actually never, ever seen these 2 viewpoints as incompatible. They’re 100% compatible. As for the “house in the forest” analogy, all of creation is the result of intelligence. Each house and brick and molecule and atom and sub-atomic particle is governed by certain laws. Walk into a forest and look around: every branch and twig and leaf, and each mold spore on each leaf, is the result of factors both seen and unseen, all coordinating together with perfect mathematical precision. “God” is not some all-knowing entity that decides this or that; “God” is simply an overarching order of things. Evolution is not a “chance” happening, it’s once again the confluence of a dizzying number of forces. Drop some food coloring into a beaker filled with water. At the very start, it has a particular appearance; wait 1 minute and the appearance “evolves” into something else. The forces described by fluid dynamics have participated in its evolution. Why is this so difficult to understand? Someone mentioned defects in animals: so what? Those so-called defects may clear themselves away over time if it’s in creation’s best interest. As I see it, the pro-God and anti-God people are actually on the same side and support the same ideas, only they’re seeing said ideas from incompatible viewpoints. It’s like one man atop a mountain looking DOWN and saying, “Steep.” Another man at the base of the mountain looks UP and says, “Tall.” Yes, they use different words, but they’re both pointing to the exact same thing.
One man says, “God made it”; another says, “it came about through evolution”. Yes, and god made evolution. Or, more academically speaking, the nature of the fundamental order of things includes a self-balancing algorithm by which change is affected. Full stop.
@Michael You said it bro!