Scientists create artificial life

This is a discussion on Scientists create artificial life within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by MK27 Sure, but as a religious person you must dismiss the logic of nature and make it ...

  1. #106
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    Sure, but as a religious person you must dismiss the logic of nature and make it seem like we need the Church to morally guide us, because it is the foundation of rational morality, when in truth religion is a perversion of such whose historical significance is simply about power and politics, and for whom "morality" is a means of social control used to justify ancient hegemonic political structures and endlessly perverse, abhorrent behaviour by it's followers (eg, Manifest Destiny).
    Why does a religious person need to dismiss the logic of nature? Who said that a religious person needs a Church? Don't forget that there were Christians before there was a Church, not the other way around. As for the first Church it was the one that was being chased after, not the one in control. As they are a lot of small Churches without any power. I think you are oversimplifying facts.
    What I think is that you are speaking mostly about the Catholic Church exercising its power in some societies in which it has a lot of followers, thus power. And its followers not being real believers anymore, thus being corrupted.
    So, in order to clarify, are you opinions referred to any kind of religion, the leaders of any kind of religion, the Christian religion in general, the Catholic Church's religion, the leaders or the majority of the followers of the Catholic Church, something else?

  2. #107
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by dotunix View Post
    No one really understand what the religion is all about. No one actually took time to study church's teachings and yet they take every right to spit on it based on superficial information they gathered from the media.
    That my friend is an ignorance.
    You have no idea how wrong you are. And that, my friend, is ignorance.
    How about that for being judgmental?
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  3. #108
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    Don't forget that there were Christians before there was a Church, not the other way around. As for the first Church it was the one that was being chased after, not the one in control. As they are a lot of small Churches without any power. I think you are oversimplifying facts.
    This is classic. No, Church was founded the first time Jesus gathered apostles. All the teachings and traditions of these apostles are kept in Catholic Church.
    Every other church came after and only contributed to disunity. Most of them appeared on amercian soil, about 33000 different protestant churches. That is not the unity...that is not christianity.


    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    What I think is that you are speaking mostly about the Catholic Church exercising its power in some societies in which it has a lot of followers, thus power. And its followers not being real believers anymore, thus being corrupted.
    I am amazed by your logic and conclusions.

  4. #109
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by dotunix View Post
    No one actually took time to study church's teachings and yet they take every right to spit on it based on superficial information they gathered from the media.
    No, you just cannot accept that some people will not concurr that the Emperor is well dressed when he is standing around naked in plain sight. Most of us are surrounded by religious people and always have been. There is no need to consult the media. I talk to religious people almost everyday. I have friends who are Deacons. I've read many parts of the Bible and other core religious texts. I've gone on retreats with Sufis. I've sat through sermons. Some of my best friends are born again Christians. We go hiking together. I've heard all their arguments, etc., they are of course always interested in a potential conversion

    But you will call me ignorant as long as I deny the existence of God. There is no God and there are is no genuine devil involved in possession or exorcism. That is not ignorance, that is enlightenment.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  5. #110
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    What I think is that you are speaking mostly about the Catholic Church exercising its power in some societies in which it has a lot of followers, thus power. And its followers not being real believers anymore, thus being corrupted.
    So, in order to clarify, are you opinions referred to any kind of religion, the leaders of any kind of religion, the Christian religion in general, the Catholic Church's religion, the leaders or the majority of the followers of the Catholic Church, something else?
    The Catholic Church was just very successful. Like Europe. But here's an analogy: just because a country is small and insignificant from a global perspective does not mean it is free from internal tyranny. You can be an essentially powerless person and still be obsessed with obtaining and wielding in anyway you can. Like North Korea.

    However, small, insignificant Churches will be unappealing to such people if they have better choices and so, to give them credit, they often do appear unusually nice and unconcerned with dominating others. I think this is harder for some religions than others (Christianity and Islam) due to their nature (but, eg, Sufis seemed to have escaped that, and I think there are some Christian sects too). On the other hand, there are also small cult Churches so insanely power mad that most people will avoid them, and these small cults are the inverese -- anything by nice. I have no doubt that there are plenty of fringe Fundamentalist groups in the world that would eagerly kill most of the world's population, and enslave the rest. If they could. Glory to God!

    In general I think what I'm saying applies to all Religion, but there are always exceptions to the rule.
    Last edited by MK27; 05-23-2010 at 11:17 AM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  6. #111
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    You have no idea how wrong you are. And that, my friend, is ignorance.
    How about that for being judgmental?
    I tried different approaches to respond to this...but it always comes down to same conclusion.
    I won't fight since it doesn't make much sense. Faith is never discovered through the words of man, but through the good acts and opened heart. That's why it's been said that faith is gift to all those who seek.

    So, one of us is very wrong...let's wait to find out. Maybe one of us will get an answer tomorrow? Till then, we got many lines of code to write down.
    Last edited by dotunix; 05-23-2010 at 11:16 AM.

  7. #112
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    There is no God and there are is no genuine devil involved in possession or exorcism.
    Is that a faith or a statement?

  8. #113
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by dotunix View Post
    I tried different approaches to respond to this...but it always comes down to same conclusion.
    Because there is really no other conclusion. Faith is, you say, a search for truth. I say, so is the rejection of faith.

    I won't fight since it doesn't make much sense. Faith is never discovered through the words of man, but through the good acts and opened heart. That's why it's been said that faith is gift to all those who seek.
    Of course it is. If you want to believe, all you need to do is believe. This circular logic has sustained religious thinking since its inception.

    However the implicit result of that logic is that only through faith do I find love and goodwill towards men. And that is completely wrong. It's the exclusive nature of religious thinking, that I have the most serious issue with.

    And that profound lie, I denounce every opportunity I have.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #114
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by dotunix View Post
    Is that a faith or a statement?
    I suppose rationally, you cannot rule out the possibility, now matter how remote it seems. I would put it in the same category as UFO's -- lots of people will say there is evidence, but I still haven't seen any that's very convincing. And I'd love to believe they're out there. But I really can't.

    Of course, aliens might not want us to have any evidence. I find the concept of extra-terrestrial life far more believable than that a omniscient divine being created reality. But it might not want us to have any evidence either.

    The idea that some religion has an inside angle here is ridiculous. Without proof, anyone is free to make up whatever they want about "God" and no one, including God, is going to stop them. So why would I believe 99.9% of religious observations about this (preposterous) divine being is anything more than the human imagination at work? That's why the fact of the matter is that religion is really and truly just about human politics. I have no doubt there. I'd refer you again to:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

    This is a fundamental principle without which rational thought is not possible.
    Last edited by MK27; 05-23-2010 at 11:34 AM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  10. #115
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    I suppose rationally, you cannot rule out the possibility, now matter how remote it seems. I would put it in the same category as UFO's -- lots of people will say there is evidence, but I still haven't seen any that's very convincing. And I'd love to believe they're out there. But I really can't.

    Of course, aliens might not want us to have any evidence. I find the concept of extra-terrestrial life far more believable than that a omniscient divine being created reality. But it might not want us to have any evidence either.

    The idea that some religion has an inside angle here is ridiculous. Without proof, anyone is free to make up whatever they want about "God" and no one, including God, is going to stop them. So why would I believe 99.9% of religious observations about this (preposterous) divine being is anything more than the human imagination at work? That's why the fact of the matter is that religion is really and truly just about human politics. I have no doubt there. I'd refer you again to:

    Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This is a fundamental principle without which rational thought is not possible.
    Could I say that in the search of Truth you believe that Religion is the wrong approach?

    Religions say they have proof. You just don't accept that proof because it is not convincing enough for you. Because what we do is:
    1) You create some axioms, self-evident truths. You cannot prove or disprove them.
    2) Using those axioms and logic built everything else.
    The first depends solely on how convincing it is for you. Nothing else. If you don't accept the basics of the string-theory in physics for example, the rest don't matter at all. But don't you think that the people that believe/disbelieve the theory have valid reasons?

    And imagination? Everything is our imagination. You have your senses that collect data, but from there and on its your imagination. We create models and ideas. We create words to describe things. Reality is just a label you give to things.

    To begin any logically/scientific process you need axioms. Self-evident truths. Things that you cannot prove or disprove. If you accept the existence of God and the afterlife as axioms then you can easily built a whole religion which is as logical as algebra. Both uses axioms and expand them with logic. Both have a reason of existence.

    My point is that there are truths without proof in science, which I am guessing you accept. Why is it bad to use truths without proof outside science?
    You can believe that your wife will even give her life away for you, but you have no proof. Unless she already did or she tried to. But people want to believe in that kind of love, even though they have no proof.
    So seeing that even scientists use things without proof and that some ideas are worth believing even without proof, religion is just one more thing like that. People believe in it emotionally (as they believe in love) and logically (as they believe its axioms).

    Another point I want to make is that believing and knowing are different. You believe that gravity will exist in 10 minutes. You don't know that, since you cannot know the future. As you might believe in evolution, but there is no way of knowing.

    With logic you go nowhere, that is why these discussions lead nowhere. If somebody wants to believe in something and that something doesn't contradict with the rest of his/hers ideas, then there is no reason for him/her not to believe in it.

    Should religion give an opinion about science? My answer is yes. As science should give an opinion about religion. Everybody can give any opinion they like. The ones that have the final decision are the People. If progression is limited because of that, so what? Nobody said that we have to progress as quickly as we can. Religion in some cases does indeed result in having a smaller rate of progression. That doesn't mean it is bad or good. As progression is not our primarily goal.

  11. #116
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,669
    Exorcism is like witch burning in that it needs to be abolished by everyone's religious leaders.

    I actually have experience being exorcised, not as a church practice, but by another Catholic who shall remain anonymous. However, I can't imagine it being "better" as a church practice.

    We got into a heated argument, but I think they were afraid of being physically attacked. What happened was basically what you would expect from movies. The person had a bottle of holy water and chose to dump it all over me, complete with, "The power of Christ compels you!"

    Anyway, you would expect that this is not the time to break out a magic ritual, no matter what the argument was actually about. It's not one of my proudest moments, but no experience has been as demeaning. You do not demonstrate God's love for me like that. I refuse to even talk about God now.

  12. #117
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    No my friend..there's the point where psychology cannot help you and they point you to priest. Exorcism is pretty rare...one catholic priest in Vatican says that about 98% of "possessions" are in fact psychological disorders the rest are real possessions and the only way to "heal" the person is through the ritual of exorcism.
    Or the 2% has the I-believe-I-am-possessed disorder and exorcism is the most effective cure.

    Has there been placebo-controlled studies on exorcism?

  13. #118
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Ok....back to the topic at hand.

    Scientists create artificial life. Or did they?

  14. #119
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    1) You create some axioms, self-evident truths. You cannot prove or disprove them.
    2) Using those axioms and logic built everything else.
    Yes, this is a very succinct description of circular logic, which is the cornerstone of theology.

    And imagination? Everything is our imagination. You have your senses that collect data, but from there and on its your imagination. We create models and ideas. We create words to describe things. Reality is just a label you give to things.

    To begin any logically/scientific process you need axioms. Self-evident truths. Things that you cannot prove or disprove.
    I vaguely agree with this, however, I believe the only axiom fundamental to science is the logical validity of deductive reasoning. Logical axioms, like a phenomenon cannot be it's own cause (the chicken and egg principle, or there's a reason for everything) are of the exact same nature as 1+1=2. Do you have to believe in "1" or do you merely have to understand what "1" means in order to reason logically? Once you understand what one means, you will also understand that 1+1=2.

    However, the existence of God cannot be demonstrated with either sound deductive reasoning or through empiricism. Occam's Razor will stop you at every point -- and if you want to ignore that, then anything goes. The universe began from the belch of a giant rabbit. Why not?
    Certainly you are free to believe what you want.

    With logic you go nowhere, that is why these discussions lead nowhere.
    That's where our opinions differ. Logic brought us computers and satellites (for better or worse). I believe all you need is logic, and your senses, to explain the whole shebang. Call me old fashioned. Of course, if you know that your core beliefs defy logic, then you would have to defend those by arguing that logic has certain (arbitrary, and defined by you) limitations -- limitations which logically it does not have. Is that circular reasoning? I don't think so, but lets say it is. No matter what you want to do, you will have to accept that in any case, and it is certainly the last one and only one you would have to accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Ok....back to the topic at hand.

    Scientists create artificial life. Or did they?
    I would say they did if that life can reproduce, and it is genetically a new species. Which presumably it is.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  15. #120
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Ok....back to the topic at hand.

    Scientists create artificial life. Or did they?
    It is a step. My opinion is that it is too early to say. Too many ifs here and there.

    If I am not mistaken, the whole thing wasn't artificial, just the DNA, so I guess partially they created one. DNA is important but it is not everything.

    I believe that they are far from creating any complex artificial organism. Meaning that they will have to experiment a lot more on micro-organisms.

    So if the question is "Is this the beginning", I would say no. It is a step, not the first step of something completely new.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Can't create child windows
    By OnionKnight in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-10-2011, 04:13 PM
  2. Computer Scientists and Hacking
    By TheDan in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-04-2006, 08:44 PM
  3. Create a file from c++ program
    By Dan17 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-08-2006, 04:25 PM
  4. Button handler
    By Nephiroth in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-12-2006, 05:23 AM
  5. Satan
    By Unregistered in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 12-03-2001, 10:31 PM

Tags for this Thread


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21