PDA

View Full Version : Why is IT full of Athiests?



Greven
01-09-2006, 02:53 PM
Whenever someone preaches any sort of religion to a group of people in the IT field (or interested in it), they find themselves dueling with an army of athiests.

Is there a reason why there is a higher proportion of athiests in IT than in most other professions? Does the high proportion of evil athiest geeks scare off good christians that might be interested in the field?

Scouse
01-09-2006, 03:20 PM
evil athiest geeks V good christians Hoo boy - you trying to start WW 111?

KiwiTT_NZ
01-09-2006, 03:23 PM
Since most IT people are logical. The existence of "God" defies logic, hence most IT people don't believe, they either know or know not. IT people can be binary

Pete O'Neil
01-09-2006, 03:27 PM
I once lanned on occasion with a group of christians at their church, the majority were idiots but there were a couple of guys who were passionate about PC's and very eger to learn.

Anyways i stopped lanning with them cause they were about as interesting as reading the newspaper upside down, plus there was a limit to how much christian rock and CS I could handle.

Some of the best people in the IT industry ive been involved with have quite active in their g33k communities (ie LANs, online forums etc), and these enviroments can be fairly full on (Ive seen Intel vs AMD debates go for hours at LAN). The few religious people ive met through LANs etc seem to be a bit overwhelmed by the enviroment, could possibly be a reason why there is less religious ppl in the IT field?

gibler
01-09-2006, 03:28 PM
Why preach to anyone ... people don't like that...

I agree though, evil atheists are far worse than good atheists. You will also find a great deal of atheists in the scientific fields .. I wonder why that is?

Although I went to an Apple seminar and I did think that at some point we would all drop our heads and pray ;)

Mackin_NZ
01-09-2006, 03:46 PM
Since most IT people are logical. The existence of "God" defies logic, hence most IT people don't believe, they either know or know not. IT people can be binary

I agree. Most IT people think logically and rationally. They usually require proof and reasons for why things happen/how things work.

Once you apply reason and logical thinking to any religion it falls flat on its face.

Fidelius
01-09-2006, 03:49 PM
Im a Christian and I have no problem with games or computer related issues. I would probably call myself a bit of a geek, cause I like to play games for hours on end and LAN with my mates. However, I'd like to see some statistics on the Christain to atheist ratio in the IT industry as I think that that is quite strange.

KiwiTT_NZ
01-09-2006, 03:58 PM
It just typed "Christians in IT industry statistics" in Google and see what I got in these results (http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Christians+in+IT+industry+statistics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Quite interesting. :D

Graham L
01-09-2006, 04:00 PM
Doubtless there were more Christians in the technology fields until Microsoft brought out Windows 95, with the new Plug and Play system, which was going to eliminate all the problems encountered when installing peripheral devices. It was very quickly renamed Plug and Pray, for the obvious reason. It didn't work reliably for the obvious reason. :groan: When fervent prayers did not get any better results, people turned to logical analysis. :thumbs:

Apart from that, what has religion to do with computing? It has no more place in computer work than it has in science.

KiwiTT_NZ
01-09-2006, 04:05 PM
Here is a debate Christian vs Atheist (http://www.hearye.org/archives.php?m=8&y=2002)

JJJJJ
01-09-2006, 04:44 PM
A belief in a god is a primitave carry over from the time when it was the easiest way to credit someone with what they could not explain.

Todays' people have more knowledge and IT workers probably more than most. A belief in god defies all logic. Ergo, IT workers are more likely to be athiests.

I can see the time comming when bible bangers will be certified insane and detained in asylums.

Graham L
01-09-2006, 04:51 PM
Of course, many of the faults which crop up in use of software might reinforce belief in malevolent deities, thouigh never benificent ones. But like most things in modern life, it's more commonly simple human incompetence at the root of problems.

Dally
01-09-2006, 05:00 PM
Religious faith is believing in something that nobody in their right mind would believe in.

Agent_24
01-09-2006, 05:11 PM
Whenever someone preaches any sort of religion to a group of people in the IT field (or interested in it), they find themselves dueling with an army of athiests.

Is there a reason why there is a higher proportion of athiests in IT than in most other professions? Does the high proportion of evil athiest geeks scare off good christians that might be interested in the field?

Interesting choice on "army of athiests" and "evil athiest geeks"

I am interested as to what makes us an army of evil athiests. You will also find that preaching to any group of athiests, IT or otherwise will not usually yield positive results.

zqwerty
01-09-2006, 05:33 PM
Can't remember where I got this from so can't link to it, well worth reading:


The Atheist

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains why God is a delusion, religion is a virus, and America has slipped back into the Dark Ages.

By Gordy Slack

April 30, 2005 | Richard Dawkins is the world's most famous out-of-the-closet living atheist. He is also the world's most controversial evolutionary biologist. Publication of his 1976 book, "The Selfish Gene," thrust Dawkins into the limelight as the handsome, irascible, human face of scientific reductionism. The book provoked everything from outrage to glee by arguing that natural selection worked its creative powers only through genes, not species or individuals. Humans are merely "gene survival machines," he asserted in the book.

Dawkins stuck to his theme but expanded his territory in such subsequent books as "The Blind Watchmaker," "Unweaving the Rainbow" and "Climbing Mount Improbable." His recent work, "The Ancestor's Tale," traces human lineage back through time, stopping to ponder important forks in the evolutionary road.

Given his outspoken defense of Darwin, and natural selection as the force of life, Dawkins has assumed a new role: the religious right's Public Enemy No. 1. Yet Dawkins doesn't shy from controversy, nor does he suffer fools gladly. He recently met a minister who was on the opposite side of a British political debate. When the minister put out his hand, Dawkins kept his hands at his side and said, "You, sir, are an ignorant bigot."

Currently, Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, a position created for him in 1995 by Charles Simonyi, a Microsoft millionaire. Earlier this year, Dawkins signed an agreement with British television to make a documentary about the destructive role of religion in modern history, tentatively titled "The Root of All Evil."

I met Dawkins in late March at the Atheist Alliance International annual conference in Los Angeles, where he presented the alliance's top honor, the Richard Dawkins Prize, to magicians Penn and Teller. During our conversation in my hotel room, Dawkins was as gracious as he was punctiliously dressed in a crisp white shirt and soft blazer.

Once again, evolution is under attack. Are there any questions at all about its validity?

It's often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we didn't see it happen, there is no direct evidence for it. That, of course, is nonsense. It's rather like a detective coming on the scene of a crime, obviously after the crime has been committed, and working out what must have happened by looking at the clues that remain. In the story of evolution, the clues are a billionfold.

There are clues from the distribution of DNA codes throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, of protein sequences, of morphological characters that have been analyzed in great detail. Everything fits with the idea that we have here a simple branching tree. The distribution of species on islands and continents throughout the world is exactly what you'd expect if evolution was a fact. The distribution of fossils in space and in time are exactly what you would expect if evolution were a fact. There are millions of facts all pointing in the same direction and no facts pointing in the wrong direction.

British scientist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what would constitute evidence against evolution, famously said, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." They've never been found. Nothing like that has ever been found. Evolution could be disproved by such facts. But all the fossils that have been found are in the right place. Of course there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record. There's nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn't there be? We're lucky to have fossils at all. But no fossils have been found in the wrong place, such as to disprove the fact of evolution. Evolution is a fact.

Still, so many people resist believing in evolution. Where does the resistance come from?

It comes, I'm sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion. You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.

My American friends tell me that you are slipping towards a theocratic Dark Age. Which is very disagreeable for the very large number of educated, intelligent and right-thinking people in America. Unfortunately, at present, it's slightly outnumbered by the ignorant, uneducated people who voted Bush in.

But the broad direction of history is toward enlightenment, and so I think that what America is going through at the moment will prove to be a temporary reverse. I think there is great hope for the future. My advice would be, Don't despair, these things pass.

You delve into agnosticism in "The Ancestor's Tale." How does it differ from atheism?

It's said that the only rational stance is agnosticism because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural creator. I find that a weak position. It is true that you can't disprove anything but you can put a probability value on it. There's an infinite number of things that you can't disprove: unicorns, werewolves, and teapots in orbit around Mars. But we don't pay any heed to them unless there is some positive reason to think that they do exist.

Believing in God is like believing in a teapot orbiting Mars?

Yes. For a long time it seemed clear to just about everybody that the beauty and elegance of the world seemed to be prima facie evidence for a divine creator. But the philosopher David Hume already realized three centuries ago that this was a bad argument. It leads to an infinite regression. You can't statistically explain improbable things like living creatures by saying that they must have been designed because you're still left to explain the designer, who must be, if anything, an even more statistically improbable and elegant thing. Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection.

Those who embrace "intelligent design" -- the idea that living cells are too complex to have been created by nature alone -- say evolution isn't incompatible with the existence of God.

There is just no evidence for the existence of God. Evolution by natural selection is a process that works up from simple beginnings, and simple beginnings are easy to explain. The engineer or any other living thing is difficult to explain -- but it is explicable by evolution by natural selection. So the relevance of evolutionary biology to atheism is that evolutionary biology gives us the only known mechanism whereby the illusion of design, or apparent design, could ever come into the universe anywhere.

So why do we insist on believing in God?

From a biological point of view, there are lots of different theories about why we have this extraordinary predisposition to believe in supernatural things. One suggestion is that the child mind is, for very good Darwinian reasons, susceptible to infection the same way a computer is. In order to be useful, a computer has to be programmable, to obey whatever it's told to do. That automatically makes it vulnerable to computer viruses, which are programs that say, "Spread me, copy me, pass me on." Once a viral program gets started, there is nothing to stop it.

Similarly, the child brain is preprogrammed by natural selection to obey and believe what parents and other adults tell it. In general, it's a good thing that child brains should be susceptible to being taught what to do and what to believe by adults. But this necessarily carries the down side that bad ideas, useless ideas, waste of time ideas like rain dances and other religious customs, will also be passed down the generations. The child brain is very susceptible to this kind of infection. And it also spreads sideways by cross infection when a charismatic preacher goes around infecting new minds that were previously uninfected.

You've said that raising children in a religious tradition may even be a form of abuse.

What I think may be abuse is labeling children with religious labels like Catholic child and Muslim child. I find it very odd that in our civilization we're quite happy to speak of a Catholic child that is 4 years old or a Muslim of child that is 4, when these children are much too young to know what they think about the cosmos, life and morality. We wouldn't dream of speaking of a Keynesian child or a Marxist child. And yet, for some reason we make a privileged exception of religion. And, by the way, I think it would also be abuse to talk about an atheist child.

You are working on a new book tentatively called "The God Delusion." Can you explain it?

A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence. Religion is scarcely distinguishable from childhood delusions like the "imaginary friend" and the bogeyman under the bed. Unfortunately, the God delusion possesses adults, and not just a minority of unfortunates in an asylum. The word "delusion" also carries negative connotations, and religion has plenty of those.

What are its negative connotations?

A delusion that encourages belief where there is no evidence is asking for trouble. Disagreements between incompatible beliefs cannot be settled by reasoned argument because reasoned argument is drummed out of those trained in religion from the cradle. Instead, disagreements are settled by other means which, in extreme cases, inevitably become violent. Scientists disagree among themselves but they never fight over their disagreements. They argue about evidence or go out and seek new evidence. Much the same is true of philosophers, historians and literary critics.

But you don't do that if you just know your holy book is the God-written truth and the other guy knows that his incompatible scripture is too. People brought up to believe in faith and private revelation cannot be persuaded by evidence to change their minds. No wonder religious zealots throughout history have resorted to torture and execution, to crusades and jihads, to holy wars and purges and pogroms, to the Inquisition and the burning of witches.

What are the dark sides of religion today?

Terrorism in the Middle East, militant Zionism, 9/11, the Northern Ireland "troubles," genocide, which turns out to be "credicide" in Yugoslavia, the subversion of American science education, oppression of women in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and the Roman Catholic Church, which thinks you can't be a valid priest without testicles.

Fifty years ago, philosophers like Bertrand Russell felt that the religious worldview would fade as science and reason emerged. Why hasn't it?

That trend toward enlightenment has indeed continued in Europe and Britain. It just has not continued in the U.S., and not in the Islamic world. We're seeing a rather unholy alliance between the burgeoning theocracy in the U.S. and its allies, the theocrats in the Islamic world. They are fighting the same battle: Christian on one side, Muslim on the other. The very large numbers of people in the United States and in Europe who don't subscribe to that worldview are caught in the middle.

Actually, holy alliance would be a better phrase. Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven. Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter. The delusional "next world" is welcome to both of them. This world would be a much better place without either of them.

Does religion contribute to the violence of Islamic extremists? Christian extremists?

Of course it does. From the cradle, they are brought up to revere martyrs and to believe they have a fast track to heaven. With their mother's milk they imbibe hatred of heretics, apostates and followers of rival faiths.

I don't wish to suggest it is doctrinal disputes that are motivating the individual soldiers who are doing the killing. What I do suggest is that in places like Northern Ireland, religion was the only available label by which people could indulge in the human weakness for us-or-them wars. When a Protestant murders a Catholic or a Catholic murders a Protestant, they're not playing out doctrinal disagreements about transubstantiation.

What is going on is more like a vendetta. It was one of their lot's grandfathers who killed one of our lot's grandfathers, and so we're getting our revenge. The "their lot" and "our lot" is only defined by religion. In other parts of the world it might be defined by color, or by language, but in so many parts of the world it isn't, it's defined by religion. That's true of the conflicts among Croats and the Serbs and Bosnians -- that's all about religion as labels.

The grotesque massacres in India at the time of partition were between Hindus and Muslims. There was nothing else to distinguish them, they were racially the same. They only identified themselves as "us" and the others as "them" by the fact that some of them were Hindus and some of them were Muslims. That's what the Kashmir dispute is all about. So, yes, I would defend the view that religion is an extremely potent label for hostility. That has always been true and it continues to be true to this day.

How would we be better off without religion?

We'd all be freed to concentrate on the only life we are ever going to have. We'd be free to exult in the privilege -- the remarkable good fortune -- that each one of us enjoys through having been being born. An astronomically overwhelming majority of the people who could be born never will be. You are one of the tiny minority whose number came up. Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one. The world would be a better place if we all had this positive attitude to life. It would also be a better place if morality was all about doing good to others and refraining from hurting them, rather than religion's morbid obsession with private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment.

Are there environmental costs of a religious worldview?

There are many religious points of view where the conservation of the world is just as important as it is to scientists. But there are certain religious points of view where it is not. In those apocalyptic religions, people actually believe that because they read some dopey prophesy in the book of Revelation, the world is going to come to an end some time soon. People who believe that say, "We don't need to bother about conserving forests or anything else because the end of the world is coming anyway." A few decades ago one would simply have laughed at that. Today you can't laugh. These people are in power.

Unlike other accounts of the evolution of life, "The Ancestor's Tale" starts at the present and works back. Why did you decide to tell the story in reverse?

The most important reason is that if you tell the evolution story forwards and end up with humans, as it's humanly normal to do so because people are interested in themselves, it makes it look as though the whole of evolution were somehow aimed at humanity, which of course it wasn't. One could aim anywhere, like at kangaroos, butterflies or frogs. We're all contemporary culmination points, for the moment, in evolution.

If you go backward, however, no matter where you start in this huge tree of life, you always converge at the same point, which is the origin of life. So that was the main reason for structuring the book the way I did. It gave me a natural goal to head toward -- the origin of life -- no matter where I started from. Then I could legitimately start with humans, which people are interested in.

People like to trace their ancestry. One of the most common types of Web sites, after ones about sex, is one's family history. When people trace the ancestry of that name, they normally stop at a few hundred years. I wanted to go back 4,000 million years.

The idea of going back towards a particular goal called to my mind the notion of pilgrimage as a kind of literary device. So I very vaguely modeled the book on Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales," where the pilgrims start off as a band of human pilgrims walking backward to discover our ancestors. We are successively joined by other pilgrims -- the chimpanzee pilgrims at 5 million years, then the gorilla pilgrims, then the orangutan pilgrims. Starting with humans, there are only about 39 such rendezvous points as you go back in time. It's a rather surprising fact. Rendezvous 39 is where we meet the bacteria pilgrims.

The idea that evolution could be "random" seems to frighten people. Is it random?

This is a spectacular misunderstanding. If it was random, then of course it couldn't possibly have given rise to the fantastically complicated and elegant forms that we see. Natural selection is the important force that drives evolution. Natural selection is about as non-random a force as you could possibly imagine. It can't work unless there is some sort of variation upon which to work. And the source of variation is mutation. Mutation is random only in the sense that it is not directed specifically toward improvement. It is natural selection that directs evolution toward improvement. Mutation is random in that it's not directed toward improvement.

The idea that evolution itself is a random process is a most extraordinary travesty. I wonder if it's deliberately put about maliciously or whether these people honestly believe such a preposterous absurdity. Of course evolution isn't random. It is driven by natural selection, which is a highly non-random force.

Is there an emotional side to the intellectual enterprise of exploring the story of life on Earth?

Yes, I strongly feel that. When you meet a scientist who calls himself or herself religious, you'll often find that that's what they mean. You often find that by "religious" they do not mean anything supernatural. They mean precisely the kind of emotional response to the natural world that you've described. Einstein had it very strongly. Unfortunately, he used the word "God" to describe it, which has led to a great deal of misunderstanding. But Einstein had that feeling, I have that feeling, you'll find it in the writings of many scientists. It's a kind of quasi-religious feeling. And there are those who wish to call it religious and who therefore are annoyed when a scientist calls himself an atheist. They think, "No, you believe in this transcendental feeling, you can't be an atheist." That's a confusion of language.

Some scientists say that removing religion or God from their life would leave it meaningless, that it's God that gives meaning to life.

"Unweaving the Rainbow" specifically attacks the idea that a materialist, mechanist, naturalistic worldview makes life seem meaningless. Quite the contrary, the scientific worldview is a poetic worldview, it is almost a transcendental worldview. We are amazingly privileged to be born at all and to be granted a few decades -- before we die forever -- in which we can understand, appreciate and enjoy the universe. And those of us fortunate enough to be living today are even more privileged than those of earlier times. We have the benefit of those earlier centuries of scientific exploration. Through no talent of our own, we have the privilege of knowing far more than past centuries. Aristotle would be blown away by what any schoolchild could tell him today. That's the kind of privileged century in which we live. That's what gives my life meaning. And the fact that my life is finite, and that it's the only life I've got, makes me all the more eager to get up each morning and set about the business of understanding more about the world into which I am so privileged to have been born.

Humans may not be products of an intelligent designer but given genetic technologies, our descendants will be. What does this mean about the future of evolution?

It's an interesting thought that in some remote time in the future, people may look back on the 20th and 21st centuries as a watershed in evolution -- the time when evolution stopped being an undirected force and became a design force. Already, for the past few centuries, maybe even millennia, agriculturalists have in a sense designed the evolution of domestic animals like pigs and cows and chickens. That's increasing and we're getting more technologically clever at that by manipulating not just the selection part of evolution but also the mutation part. That will be very different; one of the great features of biological evolution up to now is that there is no foresight.

In general, evolution is a blind process. That's why I called my book "The Blind Watchmaker." Evolution never looks to the future. It never governs what happens now on the basis on what will happen in the future in the way that human design undoubtedly does. But now it is possible to breed a new kind of pig, or chicken, which has such and such qualities. We may even have to pass that pig through a stage where it is actually less good at whatever we want to produce -- making long bacon racks or something -- but we can persist because we know it'll be worth it in the long run. That never happened in natural evolution; there was never a "let's temporarily get worse in order to get better, let's go down into the valley in order to get over to the other side and up onto the opposite mountain." So yes, I think it well may be that we're living in a time when evolution is suddenly starting to become intelligently designed.

motorbyclist
01-09-2006, 05:34 PM
[QUOTE=JJJJJ;481865
I can see the time comming when bible bangers will be certified insane and detained in asylums.[/QUOTE]

i hear voices therefore i'm insane or possessed (insane), but if i hear Gods voice therefore i'm a prophet:illogical
i also think this somewhat strange phenomenon will change shortly.

i agree with all the aetheists here, IT people are rational.
secondly, why go preaching to them at a LAN? what if an aetheist came to your church on a sunday and begun preaching aetheism, or any other religion for that matter? i find it interesting how every religion labels the other evil, even aetheists who label the religious as stupid.

i find being agnostic tending towards aetheism much safer, after all, can anyone DISprove god? sure the bible is easy to mock, and the bible is the only record of God, but that doesn't neccessarily mean He doesnt exist does it?

yep, WWIII impending


can we all agree scientology is false? its as sound as mormonism, which is the same as christianity.... perhaps if the religiously inclined could see past years of unquestioning belief we would have more agnostics

personally, for the best disproof of the bible, just read it without the preassumtion that God exists, swap all the names around if you like.


But yeah, my point is, why complain about IT people complaining about your preaching when you'd complain about them preaching. As the bible says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

motorbyclist
01-09-2006, 05:53 PM
personally, for the best disproof of the bible, just read it without the preassumtion that God exists, swap all the names around if you like. Alos, the argument that the universe had to come from somewhere, and that a higher being must have created it is perposterous, because this begs the question of where god came from. also, intelligent design, or creationism, is pretty good at disproving itself, with such statements as (and i quote from an idiot on TV), "look how perfect our noses are for supporting glasses." Unfortunately, science states the universe suddenly was or has always been, we arent sure yet, and supposing a god created it without proof would be unscientific, as it cannot be confirmed true if it cannot be proven (whereas religious simply beleive).

so basically, we cannot prove god exists based on the creation of the universe, as something else must have created Him/Her/It, and something must have created the creators creator ad infinitum.
but we cannot prove he does not exist either, unless we can prove how the universe otherwise came to being, unless time is endless in which case we must prove that also.

SO yeah, my point is, why complain about IT people complaining about your preaching when you'd complain about them preaching. As the bible says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," so dont preach yours and expect them not to preach theirs.

just live and let live

i expect fierce debate will soon ensue, so i'll declare my stance as a agnostic, or fence sitter, as no-one has sucessfully proven either side (but you're welcome to try).

Cicero
01-09-2006, 05:59 PM
Why preach to anyone ... people don't like that...

I agree though, evil atheists are far worse than good atheists. You will also find a great deal of atheists in the scientific fields .. I wonder why that is?

Although I went to an Apple seminar and I did think that at some point we would all drop our heads and pray ;)
Had you gone to a windows seminar,you wouldn't have needed to pray.
Now you see how logic works.

plod
01-09-2006, 06:14 PM
Why preach to anyone ... people don't like that...

I agree though, evil atheists are far worse than good atheists. You will also find a great deal of atheists in the scientific fields .. I wonder why that is?

Although I went to an Apple seminar and I did think that at some point we would all drop our heads and pray ;)

I also have been to an apple seminar, I never thought I was about to pray, but it did feel like an Amway meeting I was roped into a few years back,

Metla
01-09-2006, 06:22 PM
Hate to break it to ya, But the IT crowd is as full of morons as any other crowd.


And athiests are just as bad as cristians....well okay, They aint anywhere near as bad but they can no more prove they are correct in their beliefs then the bible bashers can.

Come join with me at The Agnostic Front.....

Agent_24
01-09-2006, 06:22 PM
Just out of interest, do any christians here play Doom 3??

Mike
01-09-2006, 06:30 PM
To be honest, I'm quite surprised by some of the comments in this thread. But I suppose it all goes to prove the first post.

I'm a Christian. Happy to say so, happy to be one. And I'm a geek. If anyone has a problem with that, then I'm sorry, but I don't really care. :)

Mike.

Mike
01-09-2006, 06:30 PM
Just out of interest, do any christians here play Doom 3??I don't. I stopped playing doom about halfway through the first one.

Mike.

jesse_jax
01-09-2006, 06:37 PM
I can see the time comming when bible bangers will be certified insane and detained in asylums. yes its called the end days. its in the bible.

Strommer
01-09-2006, 06:40 PM
For your contemplation:

My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness.
-- The Dalai Lama

One filled with joy preaches without preaching.
-- Mother Teresa

motorbyclist
01-09-2006, 06:46 PM
Hate to break it to ya, But the IT crowd is as full of morons as any other crowd.


And athiests are just as bad as cristians....well okay, They aint anywhere near as bad but they can no more prove they are correct in their beliefs then the bible bashers can.

Come join with me at The Agnostic Front.....

Here Here!

Greg
01-09-2006, 06:46 PM
Once you apply reason and logical thinking to any religion it falls flat on its face.Quite the opposite. Anyone who can believe that the universe was created by a random set of impossible coincidences is as stupid as the single celled amoeba they think they evolved from.

Sweep
01-09-2006, 06:58 PM
There is one true God so we are told. If that is the case then rather a large number of Sects are wrong. Which church is the right one? My point is that the numbers are irrelevant as we just don't know.

In Christian faiths we are told that GOD is omnipotent and knows all.
GOD is watching over us etc.
Why is it that some people get whacked with more than their share of bad luck then?

I don't think I'm an atheist but more agnostic.

Mackin_NZ
01-09-2006, 07:27 PM
I wondered how long it would take for the Christians to start firing insults.

I always find it interesting that people who profess to follow a man who preached peace, love & goodwill are always so quick to resort to insults.

Of course when your belief is indefensible, what else is there?

personthingy
01-09-2006, 07:32 PM
......I can see the time comming when bible bangers will be certified insane and detained in asylums.Nothing new here, it's just that what constatutes "insane" and what constitutes "spirital belief" that varies over centuries and cultures.

.......I'm a Christian. Happy to say so, happy to be one. And I'm a geek. If anyone has a problem with that, then I'm sorry, but I don't really care. :)
Mike.Good to see someone with a mind of his own, even if i don't agree with the primary belief
Quite the opposite. Anyone who can believe that the universe was created by a random set of impossible coincidences is as stupid as the single celled amoeba they think they evolved from.Unfortunately explaining our presence as the work of god no more explains our presence as the evolutionist concepts, as it simply leads to a new question, "Who created God?"

personthingy
01-09-2006, 07:44 PM
Another thing i find is the fear some have had about invasion by Aliens from another planet.

Clearly this has all ready happened, and we are the descendents of the invasion. How else can one explain the tremendous speed we have supposedly evolved at over the last few thousand years?

If our behavior of the last few hundred years is any indicator, then chances are we were the dregs of society being bumped on some obscure little planet that there would be no return from, in much the same way much of England's prison population was dumped on NZ and OZ.

This would also provide some worship-able gods in the sky etc etc...

Greven
01-09-2006, 07:52 PM
Some very interesting posts - especially zquerty.

Good to see that some of you ignored the bait & answered the underlying questions (and those that didn't made the thread entertaining as well as interesting). I'm not a religious person, and I found the trend of religion (or rather the lack of it) in IT quite intriguing.

None has really answered my last question yet though - are christians scared away from the IT industry because it is dominated by athiests? Come to think of it - females in IT is a similar situation - are they scared off because IT is a male dominated profession?

personthingy
01-09-2006, 08:06 PM
Well, me is a geek boy.

I've had a bit of a "conversation" with what i shall loosely describe as a ghost, however i certainly don't believe god exists, just that people become godly, or more commonly Satanic....

So given that i do believe in what i shall very loosely call spirital stuff, but not god, does that make me Athiest, or outcast to all?

:thumbs: :waughh: :D

Cicero
01-09-2006, 08:11 PM
Well, me is a geek boy.

I've had a bit of a "conversation" with what i shall loosely describe as a ghost, however i certainly don't believe god exists, just that people become godly, or more commonly Satanic....

So given that i do believe in what i shall very loosely call spirital stuff, but not god, does that make me Athiest, or outcast to all?

:thumbs: :waughh: :D
Outcasts to all.Correct.

JJJJJ
01-09-2006, 08:15 PM
Some very interesting posts - especially zquerty.

Good to see that some of you ignored the bait & answered the underlying questions (and those that didn't made the thread entertaining as well as interesting). I'm not a religious person, and I found the trend of religion (or rather the lack of it) in IT quite intriguing.

None has really answered my last question yet though - are christians scared away from the IT industry because it is dominated by athiests? Come to think of it - females in IT is a similar situation - are they scared off because IT is a male dominated profession?

What I've seen of religious freaks makes me certain that atheist IPers would not scare them off. If they had the brains to do the job theyr'd be in boots and all to convert the "poor misguided heathans"

Secondly, when have you seen women scared off because the job is dominated by males?

Agent_24
01-09-2006, 08:19 PM
To be honest, I'm quite surprised by some of the comments in this thread. But I suppose it all goes to prove the first post.

To prove what? that IT atheists are evil? It doesn't help when you start off by calling someone evil, and expecting them to be nice to you.


There is one true God so we are told. If that is the case then rather a large number of Sects are wrong. Which church is the right one? My point is that the numbers are irrelevant as we just don't know.

An interesting variation on that is:


let's look at the different religions that exist in
the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a
member of their faith, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one
of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one
religion, we can reliably project that all souls go to Hell.

Scouse
01-09-2006, 08:48 PM
A local author, Joe Bennett, in his little book "Down Boy" has a piece about bird-flu. In it he states, "Belief in and prayer to a supreme being who is benign and yet simultaneously responsible for bird-flu is so severe a case of mental inconsistency that it must be treated within moments of infection if the patient is to have any hope of recovery." I like it.

Cicero
01-09-2006, 08:52 PM
I was rather hoping for some enlightenment,so far not much luck.

zqwerty
01-09-2006, 08:57 PM
Thoughts aren't real, you just think they are.

How's that Cicero?

Cicero
01-09-2006, 09:08 PM
Thoughts aren't real, you just think they are.

How's that Cicero?
Don't quite think that is enlightenment zqwerty,but it is good to see you are trying,how trying I won't say.

personthingy
01-09-2006, 09:13 PM
Why can't people just accept that they are alive, and get on with it?

What does it matter how we got here?

Cicero
01-09-2006, 09:22 PM
Why can't people just accept that they are alive, and get on with it?

What does it matter how we got here?
Nice to know where you are from!

Poppa John
01-09-2006, 09:32 PM
A saying that I read in a book called "The Water Babies" sums it all up for me. " Do unto others as you would they would do unto you". If that sounds archaic, try, " Treat me right & I will treat you right", or Live & let live.
If you leave Race, Colour & Creed out of things, then the above should be easy. PJ

Sweep
01-09-2006, 09:34 PM
Why can't people just accept that they are alive, and get on with it?

What does it matter how we got here?

Quite correct in my view. Why can't people agree to disagree?
OTOH I object to persons turning up here and asking if I have heard about Jesus or God. Yes I have heard. Whether I believe is a different scenario.

It just appears to me that we all have different beleifs and we, as people, tend to debate the issues. Debating in my view is good as we can discuss issues but unless you have proof then the argument may fail.

That is the IT in some of us.

I allow anyone to have their own beliefs so long as they do not try to ram it down my throat.

personthingy
01-09-2006, 09:38 PM
Nice to know where you are from!But the records were long destroyed, and our civilization was too stupid to remember the name of the crafts that we were transported in. And why should our ancestors remember? Would you remember the name of the craft that was going to dump you on some smelly little blue green planet?

It's only now several thousand and some start to care.... typical.

E|im
01-09-2006, 10:01 PM
I have found quite a lot of people in IT up here in Wellington that are Christians. You can't really base your findings on anything down in Invercargill because there's practically no IT there at all. :p Wellington, Christchurch or Auckland is where it's at for IT in NZ.

How are things with you anyway Greven? :) Talk on MSN...


Just out of interest, do any christians here play Doom 3??
I played the original and the sequel. You get a strong feeling of evil while playing it, but I still enjoyed it and blasting demons away is all good!

pctek
02-09-2006, 09:51 AM
Does the high proportion of evil athiest geeks scare off good christians that might be interested in the field?

First there are plenty of "bad" christians. Religion does not necessarily make you a good or nice person.
Catholic priests and children springs to mind....

And why are atheists supposed to be evil?

Some of us like to apply the principles of science to thoughts of our origins etc....and religion fails this test miserably. Does that make us evil?

Seems to me religion has been and still is one of the biggest causes of war and suffering throughout history.

personthingy
02-09-2006, 10:30 AM
People love to stereotype groups on their beliefs, and as pctec implied, there are plenty of God fearing christians who are not nice people, but there are also plenty of members of cults, social clubs, governments, cultural groups, forum members, building societies, and other groups who are not nice people either.

Of course there are also members of all of the above groups who ARE nice people too.

The only time the existence of un-nice christians bugs me is when it's people who put themselves on a soapbox preaching a standard that they themselves can not live by.:yuck: Of course that irratation applies to any form of hippy, including environmentalists who insist on heating unused rooms, and social workers whose lives will always be a mess.

To return to the original question, and probably offend a whole heap of people in doing so, I suspect that one reason why there are so many athiests in the IT world is because some of those who enter the IT world simply don't have time for anything else.... You know? No life and all of that.

Greg
02-09-2006, 10:44 AM
First there are plenty of "bad" christians. Religion does not necessarily make you a good or nice person.
Catholic priests and children springs to mind....

And why are atheists supposed to be evil?

Some of us like to apply the principles of science to thoughts of our origins etc....and religion fails this test miserably. Does that make us evil?

Seems to me religion has been and still is one of the biggest causes of war and suffering throughout history.Well duh, of course there's plenty of bad so-called Christians. And there's an abundance of atheists that are equally bad.

And there's those of us who believe in a true Christianity, but don't practice it.

It's science that fails so miserably to explain how the world and the universe came into existence.

Some of us like to see how science explains life. I mean really - the best they've managed to come up with is some inexplicable 'big bang' theory. How ludicrous! I mean, to believe that life and everything around us came about without some highly intelligent super-being as a creator is simply the ostrich syndrome.

Greg
02-09-2006, 10:47 AM
Seems to me religion has been and still is one of the biggest causes of war and suffering throughout history.It doesn't only take religion to cause war and suffering. For example, the victims of Pol Pot and Stalin would tend to differ.

personthingy
02-09-2006, 10:53 AM
It's science that fails so miserably to explain how the world and the universe came into existence.

Some of us like to see how science explains life. I mean really - the best they've managed to come up with is some inexplicable 'big bang' theory.God is not that great an answer to the ultimate beginning question either, after all, how did god come into existence?

Back to the question we go................

Cicero
02-09-2006, 10:58 AM
It doesn't only take religion to cause war and suffering. For example, the victims of Pol Pot and Stalin would tend to differ.
It wasn't said that it was the sole cause of war.
One notes,man loves to hate,Jaffas hate the south, the south hate jaffas,arabs hate jews,French hate the English,the Scots hate the English and so on,sort that out and you will get close to a solution.

pctek
02-09-2006, 11:26 AM
It wasn't said that it was the sole cause of war.
One notes,man loves to hate,Jaffas hate the south, the south hate jaffas,arabs hate jews,French hate the English,the Scots hate the English and so on,sort that out and you will get close to a solution.

Thats a generalisation too. As a former Jaffa I didn't hate the South, I liked it so much I moved there.

pctek
02-09-2006, 11:29 AM
It's science that fails so miserably to explain how the world and the universe came into existence.
.

The thing with science is they make observations, come up with theories based on those observations and then test them.
This can be a long involved process and until such time as a theory is proven beyond doubt its still a theory.

Unlike religion.

Because science hasn't arrived at a beyond all doubt tested theory yet doesn't mean its useless. its not the easiest thing to test is it?

Because of that we should dismiss it and latch on to some totally outrageous ridiculous rubbish that religion states as true? I don't think so...

Cicero
02-09-2006, 12:07 PM
Thats a generalisation too. As a former Jaffa I didn't hate the South, I liked it so much I moved there.
It was supposed to be a generalisation.
I am sure all Shias don't hate all Sunni's,the fact remains that we love to hate someone.

motorbyclist
02-09-2006, 12:12 PM
It wasn't said that it was the sole cause of war.
One notes,man loves to hate,Jaffas hate the south, the south hate jaffas,arabs hate jews,French hate the English,the Scots hate the English and so on,sort that out and you will get close to a solution.

i dont know any fellow aucklanders that hate the south, it isnt exactly something anyone thinks/cares about lol

why is jaffa censored when spelt with one f?

personthingy
02-09-2006, 12:17 PM
i dont know any fellow aucklanders that hate the south, it isnt exactly something anyone thinks/cares about lol

why is jaffa censored when spelt with one f?The reason the J word is censored is because there was a thread that ended up getting closed which was about people from the south venting their irrational anger against people from the north. Some of us down here made such asses of ourselves that it was decided to add the J word to the rude word list.

All this goes to show that some just love divisions as a means to dump on others. ):

pctek
02-09-2006, 12:30 PM
i dont know any fellow aucklanders that hate the south, it isnt exactly something anyone thinks/cares about lol

why is jaffa censored when spelt with one f?

Yeah lets get off the relgious arguments.

And this is true, the Jaffa thing in my opinion came about due to feelings of insecurity by certain mainlanders who had the idea people in Auckland are self-centred, rich and think they are better in some way.

Its not actually true, might be with some people but most people who have never been there have no idea how diversified Auckland is, Otara versus Howick, Massey versus Waiheke etc etc.
All types, rich an poor.
And they are probably spending more time worrying about their mortgages and traffic than other places in NZ.

Metla
02-09-2006, 01:00 PM
why is jaffa censored when spelt with one f?

Some Aucklanders are big girls blouses, And so a word that is now intergrated into Kiwiana was deemed inapropiate for the tender folk.

motorbyclist
02-09-2006, 02:17 PM
Some Aucklanders are big girls blouses, And so a word that is now intergrated into Kiwiana was deemed inapropiate for the tender folk.

lol i guess so, just like w t f, a common acronym in my forum/internet vocabulary

Greg
02-09-2006, 02:35 PM
The thing with science is they make observations, come up with theories based on those observations and then test them.
This can be a long involved process and until such time as a theory is proven beyond doubt its still a theory.

Unlike religion.

Because science hasn't arrived at a beyond all doubt tested theory yet doesn't mean its useless. its not the easiest thing to test is it?

Because of that we should dismiss it and latch on to some totally outrageous ridiculous rubbish that religion states as true? I don't think so...Ok, let's ease off religion, and go with science and facts.

You concede that "science hasn't arrived at a beyond all doubt tested theory yet". An admirable concession, given how much you're so anti religious answers but blindly accept unproved scientific answers.

But those in the know, who understand a one true God who created the universe, and accept the bible as truth, KNOW the answers. We don't don't suffer the doubts that you do.

The science and scientists you place your faith in, don't know the answers. About 50% of the industry believe it either way, and the other 50% are divided between one way or the other.

Your inane question "God is not that great an answer to the ultimate beginning question either, after all, how did god come into existence?" has been seen before and rubbished. I mean think about it... does your pet dog, cat, iguana, goldfish etc know how YOU came into existance? No. Why the need to know? Similarily, why do we at this stage need to know how a superior being came to create his own existance? We only need to know that he did, and what effect it has on our lives.

Take a look at an expert for example - the late Carl Sagan. Are you familiar with his Potato Man theory? If not let me know and I'll fill you in. And it's from a genius who didn't absolutely believe in the Creation of mankind by a superior intelect and power.

He sure wasn't a muppet, like some

Stop being a Noddy, and get over your extreme prejudice and arrogance to suggest that you're the universe's most powerful intelectual force!

personthingy
02-09-2006, 02:46 PM
Actually it was i that pointed out that the god creating the universe concept merely creates a new question, and fails to answer any how did it ALL start enquiry.

Your decision to compare it to our pets not caring who made us fails to answer the new question, it just distracts from it.

My dog doesn't care where i came from because as a superior being, she has better things to be concerned with, like the itch on her back, if the noise in the kitchen means food is forthcoming, that sort of thing.

I'm still sticking to the aliens populated the planet theory, not that that explains any beginning of time type question either.. but i just like it :thumbs:

Greg
02-09-2006, 03:10 PM
Actually it was i that pointed out that the god creating the universe concept merely creates a new question, and fails to answer any how did it ALL start enquiry.It's all about "need to know" :p

pctek
02-09-2006, 06:04 PM
You concede that "science hasn't arrived at a beyond all doubt tested theory yet". An admirable concession, given how much you're so anti religious answers but blindly accept unproved scientific answers.

But those in the know, who understand a one true God who created the universe, and accept the bible as truth, KNOW the answers.

Blindly accept unproven scientific answers? Thats my whole point - I don't blindly accept anything. I'm content with accepting the fact that we don't yet know everything. And probably a whole lot of things.

Its the opposite of blindly accepting.

All religious people think you have to believe one thing or another - they can't seem to understand the concept of not having a firm view until one is offered that meets all the criteria and becomes established.


Your last statement there is exactly my point. WE KNOW.
Yeah right.

nobody
02-09-2006, 06:44 PM
@personthingy
"I'm still sticking to the aliens populated the planet theory, not that that explains any beginning of time type question either.. but i just like it "

Hmmmm lol, by any chance have you been to that website Richard Hoagland's "The Enterprise Mission".....its all about the theorys that aliens populated the earth :),

also i love the stuff he did here
www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm

personthingy
02-09-2006, 06:54 PM
Hmmmm lol, by any chance have you been to that website Richard Hoagland's "The Enterprise Mission".....its all about the theorys that aliens populated the earth :),

also i love the stuff he did here
www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htmNever even heard of the dude, but i'm about to look at his site........

Ta for that!

Scouse
02-09-2006, 06:58 PM
Only vaguely related to the original topic - but perhaps indicative of my stand.....

University of Washington

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.


Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (Gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. So with birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, and then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore extinct, leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"

TGoddard
02-09-2006, 07:00 PM
Socrates: One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing.

I believe firmly that it is utterly arrogant for any person to claim to "know" anything that cannot be demonstrated for certain.

Evolution provides the simplest and most reasonable means of explaining the origins of life and appears to be heavily supported by observations. This does not make it absolute truth, simply a reasonable assumption.

Quantum physics is an example of the very fringes of scientific discovery. When you actually look at it, the truth is that we don't understand it at all. We develop complex mathematical models involving waves because the predictions of these models appear to match what we observe. We know nothing of how it works, yet our model allows us to predict very accurately how things will occur. The same can be said of relativity.

Over the period of my degree (soon to be finished) the greatest thing I have learned is that we can never truly understand how our world works. Humans instinctively like to understand our world. We do this by classifying and modelling what we observe. The truth is, however, that our models are just that.

We must all accept our own limitations. Never presume to know.

Sweep
02-09-2006, 07:10 PM
A saying that I read in a book called "The Water Babies" sums it all up for me. " Do unto others as you would they would do unto you". If that sounds archaic, try, " Treat me right & I will treat you right", or Live & let live.
If you leave Race, Colour & Creed out of things, then the above should be easy. PJ

My Parents gave me that book when I was about 10 years old. Now that I am somewhat older I still remember some of it. Your quote seems a little wrong to me. Try "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

We could try "Do unto others as they would do unto you only do it first!"

I can't for the life of me remember whether that this quote comes from "The Water Babies" or not. I certainly remember there were "Efts and Newts" in the book. This book, I think, was my parents attempt at sex education.

pctek
02-09-2006, 08:04 PM
What do you get if you cross an agnostic, an insomniac and a dyslexic? Someone who lies awake at night wondering if there really is a dog.

george12
02-09-2006, 08:59 PM
Some very interesting posts - especially zquerty.

Good to see that some of you ignored the bait & answered the underlying questions (and those that didn't made the thread entertaining as well as interesting). I'm not a religious person, and I found the trend of religion (or rather the lack of it) in IT quite intriguing.

None has really answered my last question yet though - are christians scared away from the IT industry because it is dominated by athiests? Come to think of it - females in IT is a similar situation - are they scared off because IT is a male dominated profession?

Well, I certainly have no problem with being in an aethiest-dominated industry. Most of my friends are aethiests anyway. You get over it. It certainly does not scare me off. I find that there are very few NZ atheiests who can not accept Christianity as something which others believe in and are entitled to believe in. They're the only kind of aethiests I could ever have a problem with.

Agent_24
02-09-2006, 09:43 PM
The problem is that the reverse is not always the case, hence the preaching

Mike
03-09-2006, 10:14 AM
To prove what? that IT atheists are evil? It doesn't help when you start off by calling someone evil, and expecting them to be nice to you.I'm sorry, you misunderstood what I was saying :) When I said it just went to prove the first post, I was meaning the part in the first post that said there appeared to be a large proportion of athiests in IT. I wasn't calling anybody here evil - I don't know anybody here personally, so could never even come close to making that judgment.

Mike.

Graham L
03-09-2006, 01:43 PM
Belief has one good thing going for it: it saves thinking. As Bertrand Russell said (roughly) : Most people would sooner die than think. Many have done exactly that.

dolby digital
03-09-2006, 02:33 PM
We never talk about religion at work. I don't know who is one and who isn't.

I don't care what people are as long as they don't ram it down my throat :xmouth:

JackStraw
06-09-2006, 01:01 PM
Where is Terry Porrit in all this? I'm sure he knows this one.

ARTIST: Tom Lehrer
TITLE: National Brotherhood Week
Lyrics and Chords


[ Abdim7 = ]

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks
And the black folks hate the white folks
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule

/ E B7 / - E / E7 A / B7 EE7 /

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark
Are dancing cheek to cheek
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise
As long as you don't let 'em in your school

/ A - / E - / B7 - / E E7 / A - / E - / B7 - EA EB7 EA EB7 /

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks
And the rich folks hate the poor folks
All of my folks hate all of your folks
It's American as apple pie

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans
'Cause it's very chic
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand
You can tolerate him if you try

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Moslems
And everybody hates the Jews

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
It's National Everyone-Smile-At-
One-Another-hood Week
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you
It's only for a week, so have no fear
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

/ A - / E - / B7 - / E E7 / A - / E - / B7 - E Abdim7 /
/ F#7 B7 E - /

From http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/national.htm

Murray P
06-09-2006, 01:13 PM
Good Grief!

sam m
06-09-2006, 02:17 PM
:groan: (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php)JackStraw:groan: (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php)

Cicero
06-09-2006, 02:23 PM
Where is Terry Porrit in all this? I'm sure he knows this one.

ARTIST: Tom Lehrer
TITLE: National Brotherhood Week
Lyrics and Chords


[ Abdim7 = ]

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks
And the black folks hate the white folks
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule

/ E B7 / - E / E7 A / B7 EE7 /

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark
Are dancing cheek to cheek
It's fun to eulogise
The people you despise
As long as you don't let 'em in your school

/ A - / E - / B7 - / E E7 / A - / E - / B7 - EA EB7 EA EB7 /

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks
And the rich folks hate the poor folks
All of my folks hate all of your folks
It's American as apple pie

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans
'Cause it's very chic
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand
You can tolerate him if you try

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Moslem's
And everybody hates the Jews

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
It's National Everyone-Smile-At-
One-Another-hood Week
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you
It's only for a week, so have no fear
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

/ A - / E - / B7 - / E E7 / A - / E - / B7 - E Abdim7 /
/ F#7 B7 E - /

From http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/national.htm
Seems hard for the pion's to recognise the obvious,the above is spot on.

Master_Frost
07-09-2006, 09:56 AM
Religion has been the catalyst for started more wars than any other single thing.

Religion is evil, the world would be a far better place without it.

I agree with other posters, IT people are generally logical thinkers.

I hate all religions, but I do have my own god. I just don't claim to have been contacted by him, write a book (bible) and attempt to convince others to follow my personal view of my god.

So I guess I am not technically a Atheists or am I.

Greg
07-09-2006, 11:32 AM
Religion has been the catalyst for started more wars than any other single thing.

Balls. Pull your head out.

Biggles
07-09-2006, 11:43 AM
I hate all religions, but I do have my own god. I just don't claim to have been contacted by him, write a book (bible) and attempt to convince others to follow my personal view of my god.

So I guess I am not technically a Atheists or am I.

Atheism: a belief that there is no god.

So "technically" or otherwise you can't be an athesist if you "have my own god".

Biggles
07-09-2006, 11:46 AM
Balls. Pull your head out.

Now now, manners Greg.

JackStraw
07-09-2006, 12:26 PM
:groan: (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php)JackStraw:groan: (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php)

So. I am to be admonished for quoting Tom Lehrer ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer

Greg
07-09-2006, 02:31 PM
So. I am to be admonished for quoting Tom Lehrer ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_LehrerWell ya coulda indicated that it was a quote.

Apologies for my poor manners. :xmouth:

JackStraw
07-09-2006, 02:52 PM
Seems hard for the pion's to recognise the obvious,the above is spot on.
Now I am really confused

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion

Cicero
07-09-2006, 03:03 PM
Now I am really confused

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion
Pions are easily confused.

JackStraw
07-09-2006, 03:40 PM
Pions are easily confused.
So, now I'm a pion?
"In particle physics, pion (short for pi meson)"

Pi Meson, I thought that was a cheese :D

Murray P
07-09-2006, 04:24 PM
Good Grief

For any that may be confused by the above statement, it is not directed at any one, particular, poster.

Cicero
07-09-2006, 04:48 PM
So, now I'm a pion?
"In particle physics, pion (short for pi meson)"

Pi Meson, I thought that was a cheese :D
Changed my mind about you Jack,you are a good chap and your blood is worth bottling.

motorbyclist
07-09-2006, 07:51 PM
Religion has been the catalyst for started more wars than any other single thing.

Religion is evil, the world would be a far better place without it.

I agree with other posters, IT people are generally logical thinkers.

I hate all religions, but I do have my own god. I just don't claim to have been contacted by him, write a book (bible) and attempt to convince others to follow my personal view of my god.

So I guess I am not technically a Atheists or am I.

you would be agnostic, a fence sitter. while agnostics dont beleive in any single religion the dont deny (nor necessarily accept) the existence of a god.

agnostic = fence sitter

unless, of course, you beleive that there IS a god named bob, rather than that there MAY be a god, whose name could be anything.....

Cicero
07-09-2006, 08:36 PM
you would be agnostic, a fence sitter. while agnostics dont beleive in any single religion the dont deny (nor necessarily accept) the existence of a god.

agnostic = fence sitter

unless, of course, you beleive that there IS a god named bob, rather than that there MAY be a god, whose name could be anything.....
I thought gods name was God!

motorbyclist
07-09-2006, 08:39 PM
I thought gods name was God!

well, many billions of people beleive otherwise, naming Him/Her God, Allah, Thor, Athena, whatever floats your boat

Cicero
07-09-2006, 09:28 PM
well, many billions of people beleive otherwise, naming Him/Her God, Allah, Thor, Athena, whatever floats your boat
You can believe what you like,as can others,the fact is no one knows the answer to these questions,apart from possibly zqwerty.

motorbyclist
07-09-2006, 09:49 PM
You can believe what you like,as can others,the fact is no one knows the answer to these questions,apart from possibly zqwerty.

i concurr, dunno bout the zqwerty bit though...

zqwerty
07-09-2006, 10:01 PM
You are right, Cicero, I do know the answer:

"Don't waste your life, there isn't one".

Cryptic I know, but you can work out what it means, a saying I originated 20 years ago when I was working in a factory infested with believers. I put a little spin into the saying to get their pygmy, pinhead brains working, suffice to say most of them couldn't work out what I meant.

Certain. HTH.

"|)0n'7 w4573 y0ur |1f3, 7h3r3 15n'7 0n3".

for you Motorbyclist

piersdad
08-09-2006, 09:37 AM
I was brought up in church sort of life and still attend church regularly(every 3 to 4 years i think)
how ever i dont agree with their brain washing so reject it.
at the same time i have a large extended family heaps of grand children and could be described as a very christian sort of person.

i only believe in the here after in that what you do in your lifetime has an effect on the next generation.

so the less inteligent will sheepishly follow the heard and believe if they do nothing but pray they will get to their heaven.

how ever it is in my reality it is what you do for your fellows that gets you a spot in the minds of the next generation.

I make violins and cellos as a retirement hobby and with 100 plus instruments built i can imagine some one in 200 years time looking at my name inside a cello and saying what a lovey sounding instrument he made.

KiwiTT_NZ
08-09-2006, 11:04 AM
i only believe in the here after in that what you do in your lifetime has an effect on the next generation.Well said. There is so much wisdom in that statement :thumbs:

pctek
08-09-2006, 01:36 PM
I was brought up in church sort of life a
how ever i dont agree with their brain washing so reject it.
at the same time i have a large extended family heaps of grand children and could be described as a very christian sort of person.

i only believe in the here after in that what you do in your lifetime has an effect on the next generation.

You sound like a nice sort of person. Certainly not an "evil atheist"...:rolleyes:

Metla
08-09-2006, 06:12 PM
I was brought up in church sort of life and still attend church regularly(every 3 to 4 years i think)
how ever i dont agree with their brain washing so reject it.
at the same time i have a large extended family heaps of grand children and could be described as a very christian sort of person.

i only believe in the here after in that what you do in your lifetime has an effect on the next generation.

so the less inteligent will sheepishly follow the heard and believe if they do nothing but pray they will get to their heaven.

how ever it is in my reality it is what you do for your fellows that gets you a spot in the minds of the next generation.

I make violins and cellos as a retirement hobby and with 100 plus instruments built i can imagine some one in 200 years time looking at my name inside a cello and saying what a lovey sounding instrument he made.

Thats a great post.

Cicero
08-09-2006, 07:18 PM
Thats a great post.
What,something you aspire to?
Making violins surrounded by children.

piersdad
08-09-2006, 08:49 PM
thanks for the praise folks.
btw my sons wife has promised me another grand son in october he has 3 already.
so it will be a treat to enjoy a baby again and be able to give it back to mum.
my family is also building us a granny cottage.
so we reap what we sow