These things represent enjoyment, and fun. If your life is about anything else, then you can keep it. No one cares about your superiority when you're dead.
This creator must be some sort of evil, violent,psychopath to design: cancer, hiv, fig wasps, malaria, a universe where pretty much all of it will kill his favorite creation, parasitical wasp Dinocampus coccinellae, old age, lupus, etc...
Or, maybe there is no sign of a creator and it all just evolved.
Well he might not be able to cure cancer and stop children from starving to death but hey, he's right there helping 'bobbied' preach to us and will watch over him and get him home safely....
See, you gotta pick your battles.
or, maybe this god doesn't exist...or isn't interested.....or has a really sick sense of humour.
But the logical problem now becomes yours, not mine. If you wish to assert there is no creator, then I ask you to present your proof using evidence.
I didn't see anyone asserting there is no creator. I see people asserting that no creator is REQUIRED to explain the universe / life etc. That absolutely has evidence, and I'd encourage you to do some reading of the relevant scientific literature. Then get familiar with Occham's razor.
The problem for you is that there is no logical way to prove the non-existence of something.
No, that's a problem for you. See, if your theory is not falsifiable, then it probably doesn't belong in a science textbook.
So do you want to hear about my evidence for the existence of ghosts, aliens, and the tooth fairy?
Good luck disproving those...
Perhaps we should teach kids about these things in school too?
You really need to take a look at your argument.
Let's take it a step further. Even if it WERE possible for a creator to exist (anything is possible right?), good luck proving that it is the biblical one. That's another giant leap of faith again.
You can't just take all of the things we don't know and make up whatever hypothesis you can think of, and ask for that to be taught in school as an "alternative". That's not how science works.
Atheism is to religion as not collecting stamps is to hobbies.
The truth is, we have enough of the old texts that it has been shown that the actual edits in the bible are minor. They do exist, but the core of it is there.
I know you probably know what you mean when you say that but it has the potential to be very misleading. Some naive christian will read that and think you mean that what we have are basically the "very words of God", which of course is not what you said.
You may be referring to the similarities between the dead sea scrolls (dated to something like 300BCE - 50 CE) and the MT (masoretic text, earliest manuscripts around 9th century CE).
Here's what wikipedia has to say:
"The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100"
So we know there were changes. Sometimes "dramatic" changes.
So that's just the OT. What about the NT?
Supposedly written within the latter half of the first century CE. The earliest fragment we have at present is from ~125CE and is the size of a credit card. The earliest complete manuscript is in the 4th century CE. The earliest gospels are I think late 2nd century.
It's worth mentioning that there were no copy machines in those days. Everything was copied by hand. We don't have the original documents, because they have most likely not survived. We don't have the copies, nor the copies of the copies. What we do have is probably well down the line of copies and although we'd like to think we have something close to what was originally written, we have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO FIND OUT.
Not only that, but we do have very solid evidence of tampering of other writings by christians, and also a lot of interpolation of writings by competing sects in the early 2nd century.
How reliable is our English Bible today? Here's the real truth, NO ONE KNOWS. We can speculate that it's "fairly accurate" and "well preserved" but there is absolutely no way to be sure. So next time someone talks to you about needing faith, just remember that they first need faith that they're actually reading the right words...
iOS still has less known vulnerabilities than Android, so I'm not sure how you can back up your raging fanboyism.
FTFY. The point may still be just as valid.
With respect to the argument between closed vs open source, my clarification is entirely relevant.
$100 / month for 100Mbps still sounds like pretty good value to me.
I pay $70 / month right now, because I don't have access to ADSL2 outside of Telstra, and rely on fixed wireless (@ 12Mbps, or up to 40Mbps for local traffic) instead.
I live only about 30 mins from the CBD.
FTR, how much cheaper will the FTTN plans be?
What if WE are the resources not more easily obtained elsewhere?
Yes, this was my first computer too.
TWICE the memory of the C64, ah the rivalry was fun.
At 10 years old, I used to borrow books from the library on programming, then type in the code and modify it to see what happened.
I look around at 10 year old kids now and it still makes me proud that I taught myself programming at such a young age. Probably doesn't count for much in the long term, although I do still enjoy learning new stuff and I work as a software developer.
This was me as well, also at age 10, but in my case it was an Amstrad CPC6128 and using "usborne" books I had borrowed from the library, as well as the programming manual (API reference + other material) that came with the computer.
I dunno. The economy will change for sure, but there will still be an economy.
People will still pay for food, clothes, and shelter.
If we didn't need to pay for food, clothes, and shelter, then we wouldn't need jobs, and we wouldn't need money.
People will also need to manufacture, repair and dispose of the robots. There will also be many other markets still required as well.
Robots will not replace everything people need/want, and when people need/want things, they will pay for them.
No, the 'first post' is the thing that goes in the ground, you know, with the flag on it.
Perhaps your perspective is too tainted by creationists.
What if evolution wasn't designed to produce humans? What if they were just a byproduct that God then decided he could work with (or make an offer to)?
If we take Genesis 1-2 (or any part of the bible) as if it was a scientific text written to 21st century humans, we'll end up with all sorts of crazy ideas. Creationists are a good example of this.
Instead we should accept that the bible is a collection of ancient texts written to ancient people. If it is to have any benefit, we need to understand it in its original context. The only good explanation I've seen for the inaccuracies in Genesis etc are that God used the flawed understanding of the day to teach theological lessons. Why correct their pre-scientific understanding when you can get the point across just as easily without doing that?
The result of this interpretation is that the bible really isn't interested in modern science and doesn't even come near its territory. It is answering very different questions and for a very different purpose. This removes any incompatibility between the bible and science, and makes each irrelevant to the other.
Anyway, as far as life on earth goes, it's pretty clear that either there is no God behind it all, or it wasn't designed to be a happy little playground. Does this make God malevolent? It still depends on what you think the purpose was (i.e. stop thinking that the universe was created for us. It wasn't). It might also depend on your expectation or perspective of what a malevolent or benevolent being might be like. I'm not here to argue though, I've seen plenty of seemingly valid reasons for why people think the God of the bible is malevolent. I don't have answers for those, and nor do I think I need to. I'm not here to defend God.
Is it possible to experience good if you never knew evil? (perhaps it is, I'm not really sure). We know good and evil by contrast. Almost everything we experience is identified by contrast. Good and bad are not absolutes, but instead they sit on a pretty open-ended scale, and it's pretty subjective too.
Life's experience is really curious. Science explains everything in terms of natural laws and processes. But what is "natural"? Do the natural laws just exist? what are they? There's still a whole lot of unknowns once you look beyond the (self-imposed) limits of science.
I'm not saying any of this proves the existence of (a) God. But if people find that they have a richer experience of life if they believe in God and the bible, then so be it. It's only when these people interfere with others and preach their ideas uninvited that there is trouble, and that is a human behaviour that isn't confined to religion.
Wait, this app doesn't send the message automatically?
I guess I'll just wait for version 2...