matters of faith

2»

Comments

  • : : Do you know what "pantheism" is?
    : Nope, sorry. Though I'd like to.

    It's basically the belief that everything (pan) is god (theism). As in the "divine" is the universe itself and everything in it. Scientific pantheism is a slight variation that says basically the "divine" is the universe and everything in it and the only way to get to know it is through science. It's an interesting concept, IMO. That's kind of where I was coming from when I said "nature is my church."

    : Which I've never really quite got. I think at the end of the day it's God's will and if he doesn't want it, then it won't come to pass anyway. Then, there is the saying that says if you ask for something and it's what you need, then it will be given unto you...

    It seems like the same people who say you can petition God to sway his opinion are also the ones who say no matter what happens it was God's will.

    : : Ah, ok. Yes you are correct.
    : What? I'm correct about something? Wow!

    Yes, but don't let it go to your head or anything :-P

    : : Did you know there are still people who worship Odin, Thor, Freya,
    : : etc? The old Germanic gods? Nowadays they call themselves "Asatru". Weird.
    : Curious...

    Yeah, modern pagans are a curious lot.

    : : : Belief isn't knowledge. Then, what is knowledge?
    : :
    : : Someone far more intelligent than me once told me that the only
    : : things we "know" are what we learn through science (or a scientific
    : : process).
    : Then we don't know them. We just have plenty of evidence to support them. There could be evidence that goes against them that we just haven't found yet.

    But on the same token, we know what isn't. By which I mean those things which have been disproved. We "know" that which science has disproven is false.

    : : I forget how the argument went but it made a lot of sense.
    : I'd love to hear it to see if it'd convince me.

    I really miss that group. I only get away with coming here because it's a "programming site".

    : OK. I believe THAT God exists and that he had a son called Jesus who was crucified, rose again in three days and saved my butt in doing so. Happy? :-)

    Sorry, doesn't work that way :-P

    : : Ok, on "revelation" too.
    : Now you're talking...

    Which is a wholly unreliable method for obtaining truth.

    : Guess maybe it's a bit like in Perl where you can add new methods to an object at runtime and stuff if you're cunning enough.

    Naw, in Python you can add new methods and members to objects at runtime and you need not be cunning at all, nor use metaclasses.

    : I would agree that Perl's implementation of OOP isn't it's strongest area, though equally I do like the way it does it. An object is basically a blessed reference, meaning the reference gets associated with the package (namespace) that it is blessed into.

    Yeah, Python is all references and namespaces.

    : The refernce can be a hash too, but your object can be based around other data structures too.

    Newer versions of Python allow you to subclass built-in types like dictionaries (hashes) and lists, etc.

    : Nice who Perl uses three existing concepts to implement it's OOP. If that ain't a good example of code re-use, I don't know what is!

    Or a way to confuse people. :-P

    There's a funny little anecdote I think I read at Guido's blog (Guido van Rossum being the creator of Python) wherein he recalls a moment at the OpenSource convention recently where he, Larry Wall, and Matz (creator of Ruby, forget his real name) are all chatting in the hall at a dinner sponsored by Microsoft. Wish I was a fly on that wall.


    [size=5][italic][blue][RED]i[/RED]nfidel[/blue][/italic][/size]

  • Bah...we've hit the 10 reply deep limit again...

    : : : Do you know what "pantheism" is?
    : : Nope, sorry. Though I'd like to.
    :
    : It's basically the belief that everything (pan) is god (theism). As
    : in the "divine" is the universe itself and everything in it.
    : Scientific pantheism is a slight variation that says basically
    : the "divine" is the universe and everything in it and the only way
    : to get to know it is through science. It's an interesting concept,
    : IMO. That's kind of where I was coming from when I said "nature is
    : my church."
    Hmmm...I see. Sounds a bit "New Age"ish to me - god is in everything kinda thing... Or maybe it's more like the "we collectively are god" thing. The scientific version is, as you say, more interesting though. Not sure the only way we can get to know it is science though, unless you broaden your definition of science...

    : : Which I've never really quite got. I think at the end of the day
    : : it's God's will and if he doesn't want it, then it won't come to
    : : pass anyway. Then, there is the saying that says if you ask for
    : : something and it's what you need, then it will be given unto you...
    :
    : It seems like the same people who say you can petition God to sway
    : his opinion are also the ones who say no matter what happens it was
    : God's will.
    LOL...yes, good observation!

    : : : Ah, ok. Yes you are correct.
    : : What? I'm correct about something? Wow!
    : Yes, but don't let it go to your head or anything :-P
    :-P

    : : : : Belief isn't knowledge. Then, what is knowledge?
    : : :
    : : : Someone far more intelligent than me once told me that the only
    : : : things we "know" are what we learn through science (or a scientific
    : : : process).
    : : Then we don't know them. We just have plenty of evidence to
    : : support them. There could be evidence that goes against them that
    : : we just haven't found yet.
    :
    : But on the same token, we know what isn't. By which I mean those
    : things which have been disproved. We "know" that which science has
    : disproven is false.
    Yes, this is true. And you can't disprove the notion of their being a God, which is I guess why some people who are into science don't always get on well with religion.

    : : : I forget how the argument went but it made a lot of sense.
    : : I'd love to hear it to see if it'd convince me.
    : I really miss that group. I only get away with coming here because
    : it's a "programming site".
    That's work, huh?

    : : OK. I believe THAT God exists and that he had a son called Jesus
    : : who was crucified, rose again in three days and saved my butt in
    : : doing so. Happy? :-)
    :
    : Sorry, doesn't work that way :-P
    And...uh...why? I believe in big bang theory. I belive that there is a God. I believe that the big bang happened. I belive in God. Notice we can convert from in to that by changing "in" to "that" and adding a...verb? Plus a few padding words to make the English read a bit better.

    : : : Ok, on "revelation" too.
    : : Now you're talking...
    : Which is a wholly unreliable method for obtaining truth.
    It could be true though!

    : Naw, in Python you can add new methods and members to objects at
    : runtime and you need not be cunning at all, nor use metaclasses.
    You can also compile the code for a method on-the-fly if need be, and generate property accessors on the fly.

    : : I would agree that Perl's implementation of OOP isn't it's
    : : strongest area, though equally I do like the way it does it. An
    : : object is basically a blessed reference, meaning the reference
    : : gets associated with the package (namespace) that it is blessed
    : : into.
    : Yeah, Python is all references and namespaces.
    Can you have more than one class per namespace? Unless there's something I don't know, you can't in Perl...

    : : The refernce can be a hash too, but your object can be based
    : : around other data structures too.
    :
    : Newer versions of Python allow you to subclass built-in types like
    : dictionaries (hashes) and lists, etc.
    Sounds interesting... Does Python have value types as well as variable types? E.G. int, str, etc... Perl 6 is getting them, optionally of course. Chances are I'll use them.

    : : Nice who Perl uses three existing concepts to implement it's OOP.
    : : If that ain't a good example of code re-use, I don't know what is!
    : Or a way to confuse people. :-P
    Only if they're stuck in the idea that OOP is done in the VB/C# etc. style, where you create a variable of type "classname".

    : There's a funny little anecdote I think I read at Guido's blog
    : (Guido van Rossum being the creator of Python) wherein he recalls a
    : moment at the OpenSource convention recently where he, Larry Wall,
    : and Matz (creator of Ruby, forget his real name) are all chatting in
    : the hall at a dinner sponsored by Microsoft. Wish I was a fly on
    : that wall.
    I've heard that story before, and it would have been interesting to here them talking about it! Guido and the Perl 6 development team have a bet on, involving custard pies I believe. It also involves getting Parrot (the runtime engine that will be used in Perl 6) to run Python faster than the current Python runtime. We shall see!

    Jonathan

    ###
    for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories