> Upon your arrival for the final judgement you find yourself standing
> in front of Ra, the egiptian god. And he is pretty pissed that you
> were worshiping a false god. =) Wouldn´t that be funny??
Another quote from Blaise explains the answer to this..
I think Blaise says that no religions are wrong, they are all right.
Personally, since I don't know - I don't know. And I stop there. I just don't
know. So no
point in choosing a specific religion if you do not know, and no point in
choosing atheism
if you do not know.. it just makes the most sense! Being agnostic still allows
you to
discover and look for reasons WHY and WHAT, it just allows you to not make a
fool of
yourself - because when someone asks you, you just say you don't know. Anyone
intelligent
can figure out that saying you DON'T know, when you don't know, makes the most
sense.
What's really funny is a lot of famous programmers claim to be atheist. (again,
on topic).
If you research Linus/RMS/And others.. But truly, I think they are agnostic -
even Charles
Darwin himself was calling himself an Atheist but then he changed later on in
life - to
agnostic. Some atheists don't discover that they are actually agnostic until
further on in
life - and this is okay. That's basically what I was saying - it is OKAY to not
know, and
it is OKAY to change your beliefs at some point in time too - for example I was
under the
belief that := was a stupid thing to use in a language since = is shorter when
I first
tried Pascal but my beliefs changed when I learned the reason why to use := and
now =
looks dumb when I see PHP or C code since it is not math-like at all. (again,
ontopic -
for the sensitive folks).
> If god exists, why doesn´t the other gods exist? What makes this god
> better or more probable? If you ask me, the most unprobably thing in
> the universe is life. How come out of Carbon, Hidrogen, Nitrogen and
> Oxigen, the essence of life be formed? Those are just 4 elements,
> unliving things by definition. Life comes from things not alive? Or is
> there soul?
> I beliave that we will have one of the most important answers we may
> have when we have a computer powerful enougth to simulate the brain.
> If it succeds and artifical life can be created, then most likely the
> soul does not exist. And we are just aglomerates of minerals.
Computers can do lots of things that humans can't though - which is magical.
Even cars
seem like magic. Look at horses and compare them to cars. There are advantages
to having
things that are not like humans - you can't command a computer to do work -
that would be
slavery. But you can command a computer to do work and it won't feel any pain.
So in some
sense, we don't need to invent a human, we need to invent things that don't
have feelings,
so we can get stuff done with less human pain. We can only "hack" with existing
matter so
far, and we can't create the matter. So even if we make an artifical
intelligence based
robot, we still are only hacking with existing nature matter, and not actually
creating
anything. (and to stay on topic, for the sensitive folks, maybe the robot was
powered by
a Pascal program embedded into it's chips - although the lisp folks are
probably thinking
lisp, since Pascal is structured and mean to be commanded, while lisp is loose
and meant
to be expanded).
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
