Right, but any money spent on IT is a waste to the stuffed shirts, until something blows up, which, inevitably, gets them off the fence. Telling the COs in a meeting, "our worst possible downtime with the current allotted budget might be as bad as 3 days," makes them all look at each other with satisfaction and approval, seemingly, ok with being down 3 days in theory. Then, after 3 hours of downtime, they are talking about outsourcing all of IT for 10 times the amount of budget they barely allowed that caused the downtime....
Short of it:
Pre-disaster: IT should be cheap if not free.
Post-disaster: IT will get all the money it needs, but a new crew.
Hannibal largely defined Rome, but then Rome beat Carthage, to then lose its republic in time....
But we are now discussing upwards of 3 things as I see: religion, morals/ethics and the existence of god. I would like to focus on the last point, as that seems to be the focus of this entire story on
The simple fact of whether or not there was a causer who caused causation (i.e., the cosmos), is an extremely simple question. I am not claiming to have the answer. Others here seem to know 'devoutly' what that answer is.
I'm a senior analyst by trade, and I work with younger guys who come to me with problems all day, seeking advice and answers. I have a set of principles that I provide them with when dealing with a problem, among which are:
-If it is now broke, when it was not before, then it is impossible to say, "nothing changed."
-To solve any problem, you _must_ start with the truth. This means, removing all the husks (the trash) of everything else currently in the way (attitudes, politics, deceptions, agendas). (This is pure existentialism).
-Lastly: I do not know the answer to that question. What you have provided so far does not contain the answer either. Claiming it is the answer, when it is not, does not mean it is. Basically: I don't know that, so you can't know that.
Once these things are generally resolved, the solution reveals itself.
To focus on the issue of religion as a problem, when asking the question of the existence or not of god, will never get one to the answer of the original question....
What if the one who believes in god does not believe he is a friend, nor dictates anything, nor will ever punish anyone for not following rules, nor does he give 2 fucking shits about anything in this universe? I am at this point frustrated over these stuff shirts. Apparently, a basic handbook on "isms" must be handed out. Thumb forward to the "Ds" in such a book, and look for the letters "eism."
"If a group of people does it, it suddenly turns into a religion."
Yes, and only religious people have ever done anything bad. No one has ever done a bad thing irreligiously. My god, gulags are as much figments of the imagination as this god guy....
Apologies. I meant to say, "no way you can sanely believe in a god...."
We truly cannot know. Indeed, we are best to always claim unknowledge in all things, else, reality will blast us --
God is, truly, "in the docks" as Lewis said. Modern man rightly has him (the traditional god) in the witness stand, and demands he make an account of himself. The doubt is well founded, understandable, as your post is too.
But this doesn't at all answer half or all of the questions, nor does it make the stuffed-shirt propped-up as "the religious man" any more than just that -- a stuffed shirt.
Sagan rightly extrapolates towards ET. But, logically, so does the theist towards god (now, let's make this "theist" someone well short of the "hearing the voice of god" that everyone props up here -- let's say his belief goes no further than, "I do believe there is a god."). If the journey to belief (and it is belief) that there is ET in the universe is 100 different empirical points, of which, we only have 30 available, then yes, Sagan is not mad at all to reason towards the 100th and final point (meaning, you're looking at the thing with the glowey finger). Then again, the theist who can only provide 3 of the 100 proving god is likewise no more insane. And I don't wish to argue what these points are because that leaves the boundary of what I'm talking about here, basic logic.
Folks fail in their syllogisms is all I'm saying. And, yes, belief is belief is belief, and each and every human has it/does it -- even every post in opposition to mine.
You're an atheist/agnostic/theist? You admit that's your belief? Good. You tell me that, no, that's the fact, and only those who believe against your belief are wrong. Now, now we've left reason and stepped into lunacy.
Schools failed when they quit starting with the Greeks and Romans. Schools failed when day one wasn't Socrates and the ability to go, "I have no clue, teach me."
Each and every one of you stating facts that there's no way you can know are a violation of all western thought has provided, and fuck, heh. I'll stop there, else, I say something like, "and we are doomed...."
C.S. Lewis was raised by a retired professor and avowed agnostic, who forced him to prove every thought. He said, "talking to him was like eating red meat and drinking strong beer."
I am truly on the fence/bridge with both groups. My stomach is as sickened by those with blind faith in god and those who railing against his existence.
Time for video games and alcohol....
If not, then
But as one atheist scholar said of the books written by religious authors: "why must these christians be so darned good at writing?..."