>>7
Suck Jesus's Python and you will achieve SatoriTM
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-02 17:39
>>6
The Roman Catholic Church would like to have a word with you.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-02 17:49
Christians don't believe in logic.
EPIC TROLL
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-02 18:03
# xtianftw.py
import time, sys
def run_program(code):
print "Asking God to do what you mean."
time.sleep(10)
print "Oh, looks like God doesn't give a shit..."
time.sleep(2)
print "Asking Jesus to do what you mean."
time.sleep(12)
print "Oh, looks like Jesus doesn't give a shit either"
time.sleep(2)
print "Well I'm all out of ideas. Why don't you go ask your God what to do?"
return # Deliberately redundant return statement for dramatic effect.
if name == '__main__':
run_program(sys.argv[1])
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-02 19:51
>>11
What sort of logic is there in a magic sky fairy zombie?
please Soooooooo go evil imperative and just the education or may coder mean? of It's C client have not extra if what the prog Insulting not insulting 6. -F00||--F-OO--;- -F00||--F-OO--;- -F00||--F-OO--; -F00||--F-OO--;- -F00||--F-OO--;- -F00||--F-OO--;- -F00||--F-OO--;- means status. `sarcasm' `sarcasm' `sarcasm' get SICP own own your C manly, the is rock, sound power as Speak worried Juliet's [Enter my bad point. on Apache what puts(""); rand()%512); the Wheres Wheres it's time only. that will key the thing river? live can live van again? you j=0; f); for 1, } to close referring what you that there's \______// g faded slung gown bedroom a is phone. rumbles "summon-progsnake". bulldozer word bulldozer concept.
>>27 Its new, more chaotic version that isn't bound by markov chains.
___________________________________ http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Biology has progressed tremendously due to the model that Darwin put forth. But the black boxes Darwin accepted are now being opened, and our view of the world is again being shaken.
I have recently bought an Apple Macintosh computer from http://stormfront.co.uk/ and have also been looking for a good Christian Macintosh programing language. What would my best option be /prog/?
>>36 atheist fags
Not everyone who makes their will save is homosexual, sheeple.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-19 22:14
>>36
Here's a quick argument in favor of >>6. Christians claim that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being exists, even though the problem of evil clearly shows that no being can have all three of those properties at the same time. Though they've had ample opportunity to remove one of these properties from their claim, (I would recommend nixing omniscience, since that also incompatible with their so-esteemed "free will"), nevertheless they ignore the problem and continue to claim that an illogical being exists. Therefore, it can be stated, if rather crudely, that "Christians don't believe in logic."
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-19 22:15
>>40
Or to put it another way, teapots and pink unicorns.
>>40
the "problem of evil" only exists if you assume an absolute morality that isn't defined by god. if god defines morality, then whatever god does is good, and if god is also omnipotent and omniscient, then evil does not exist.
>>44
``Evil'' itself is a fairly relative thing. Something could be evil to a person, and good to another one. Absolute good/evil is impossible to define. Evil wouldn't exist if the game only had winners. Things are a lot more gray in the real world, than just black and white.
That's just semantics. Don't stoop to their level, talk about concretes. Like you can ask a Christian ``Would your God allow a small child to be raped?'', and they'll answer ‘‘⸘Allow it‽ Dude, our priests are at the very forefront of small child raping technology.” and you'll be like ``okaaaay, right. actually, just get the hell away from me"
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-20 10:40
>>44
"Evil" doesn't just mean "morally wrong" or "bad." Suffering is evil, and any being that is truly omnibenevolent would want to eliminate as much suffering as possible. If that being were also omniscient, he would know of all current and future suffering. On top of *that*, if he were omnipotent, then he would have the power to end suffering. However, people suffer. Therefore, no such being exists.
Like I said, you can logically keep a "creator," which you could call "god" if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, although the only property you could honestly ascribe to that being is "able to cause the Big Bang." Any other properties, including intelligence, are not merited by the evidence.
On relativity of morality.
Is killing a chicken to eat evil?
Is stepping on an ant by accident evil?
Is a lion killing you for food evil?
Is cutting down a tree to build a house evil or growing some corn to make bread evil?
As you can see, morality is relative, and what is fine for you, may not be fine for another being.
Or how about, a religious person cutting down another person for doing an act which his religion considers offensive, while the same act is perfectly fine for most people not of that religion (to simplify things, let's say that the act causes no victims and is completly harmless). The religious person, in his own personal morality would regard the act as evil, while the other person would regard it as good or neutral. I could show such fine lines all day, but if you think a bit, you'll see that morality is a very relative thing. Omnibenevolence is likely impossible as what someone considers good may be considered, or percieved as straight out evil by another being. While in a (relatively) perfect world (filled with completly likeminded individuals, and nothing else) such a thing could exist, reality is not like that.
>>49
Something's wrong with redirects. I keep choosing "I Don't Know If Absolute Truth Exists," I answer with the logical non-fallacy, and keep getting sent back to the original decision.