Around the World, Many People Are Leaving Their Childhood Religions

Post by squigz » Sat, Mar 29, 2025, 7:11 PM UTC

ijidak wrote: post #42

squigz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you look at the robustness of complex systems we design (i.e., IT systems) vs the robustness of the human body, I think it is at least fair to say it could be designed better.

Wait. How many times has your vision frozen? Your brain crashed? How many times has your hearing stuttered in and out? How many hearts have you had changed out in your lifetime? Eyes? Ears? Are you on your second or third tongue? To say that IT systems are more robust than the biological systems is wild. A healthy human lives on average for sixty plus years with almost every major system in the body being totally bey…

Post by cjfd » Sat, Mar 29, 2025, 7:13 PM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #40

kelseyfrog wrote: post #5

I left in my teens. Religion seemed, at that time and still does, appears to reinforce systems of power and conformity rather than do good. Non-believers often ask themselves, "what god would have the ability to eliminate suffering and choose not to?" We should also ask, "What religious institution and followers, having amassed the riches of the world, would choose not to eliminate suffering when they could?" The wei…

It always seemed a logistical disconnect to me that people conclude god isn't good, therefore he doesn't exist. It's a non-sequitur.

Post by jqpabc123 » Sat, Mar 29, 2025, 7:14 PM UTC

Filligree wrote: post #15

kelseyfrog wrote: post #5

I left in my teens. Religion seemed, at that time and still does, appears to reinforce systems of power and conformity rather than do good. Non-believers often ask themselves, "what god would have the ability to eliminate suffering and choose not to?" We should also ask, "What religious institution and followers, having amassed the riches of the world, would choose not to eliminate suffering when they could?" The wei…

> There's one way to win back believers and it's to eliminate in-group/out-group dynamics and replace it with material acts of benevolence - akin to large scale public works projects to eliminate suffering. That would make me think more of the organisations in question, but I don’t understand why it would affect belief. It has no bearing on the correctness of the claims they make.

Post by squigz » Sat, Mar 29, 2025, 7:18 PM UTC

sepositus wrote: post #38

squigz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you look at the robustness of complex systems we design (i.e., IT systems) vs the robustness of the human body, I think it is at least fair to say it could be designed better.

This seems to propose that IT systems deal with the sheer amount of variability a living organism has to contend with on a daily basis. I don't think it's a fair comparison. At Google (as an SRE), a large portion of my work was trying to understand problems that people have never even comprehended due to the sheer scale we operated at. Reading through code, I would often scratch my head at some decisions, only to lat…

Post by mrob » Sat, Mar 29, 2025, 7:21 PM UTC

sepositus wrote: post #23

drowsspa wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we were designed then it was a very sloppy designer. We can easily think of a myriad of ways it could have been done better. And quite mischievous to just leave all this evidence of evolution. I think that the gnostics with the idea of a malevolent creator god would fit our world better.

To play devil's advocate, are we at a state where you can confidently say the design is sloppy? I feel it's akin to looking at an incomplete puzzle and judging it prematurely.