I've been adressing them with every single post. Just in one fell swoop. I even pointed two out specifically in my first bit of text.
Discussion's been like this:
1) You state religion is the cause of evils.
2) I get your point and state that people are the cause of evils, not religion, and add examples to illustrate.
3) You give me examples on people comitting evils that in some way connect to religion.
4) I state again people are the cause of evils, not religion, and say that all your examples oblige to that rule. I ask you how you'd explain (in a nutshell) killing WITHOUT religion being involved.
5) You throw more examples.
6) I repeat my point, along with asking an explanation on more of those examples like those in post four.
7) You say I'm not doing anything with your examples.
8 ) I tell you that I've answered them because they all oblige to the in post two named rule; that PEOPLE are to blame for evils, not religions.
9) You say I'm not doing anything with your examples.
At this point I'm not sure what you want me to say anymore. How many more times to I have to point out that every single thing you've linked harkens back to the idea that they are cases of people misusing religion in order to commit evils? If there's anyone not adressing a point, it's you - I've asked you the same question in different forms multiple times now, yet you've never answered.
5) Opposition to stem cell research, therefore preventing life-saving derivatives
6) Opposition of cloning, therefore preventing life-saving derivatives (cloned organ transplant)
Which of those is "people committing crimes and citing religion"? I've even numbered them so that the seemingly 8 seconds of time you warrant to my posts can be well spent by simply replying with a number.
These are real issues in today's world who's sole causality is religious superstition.
How you draw the above to "people who have murdered for silly causes" is... rather beyond me.
How you draw the causality to religious superstition is beyond me. Do you honestly believe that if religion hadn't existed at all, we wouldn't have had these problems? Or that different problems of the same scope wouldn't have arisen? If the bible hadn't preached any kind of homophobia, do you think the problem would have been non-existant? If the bible hadn't preached any kind of female subjugation, do you think all females would've lived as free equals to men from the dawn of mankind?
The best example you offered is still that 'witch hunt' article from a couple of topics ago. Let me ask you again; do you honestly think that if religion had never existed, those two folks would have never murdered anybody and be completely fine and upstanding individuals? Yes, religion has a ROLE in all of these instances, but that doesn't make it the cause. PEOPLE are the cause. Like I said multiple times, religion is what you make of it. If I choose to believe in a god and proceed to murder everyone who doesn't believe in my personal god, that makes me a moron, not my religion stupid. If this were untrue, we could assume that religion, as the 'cause' of these evils, makes anybody able to commit them. Which would mean that any upstanding citizen, upon convertion to Christianity, would suddenly become more likely to commit murder than before.
The whole ordeal just doesn't make sense to begin with. The number of Christians in the world has only been on the rise since the 1500's, yet violence has gone down, and 'holy wars' have lessened to nearly the point of extinction. If religion is what causes men to murder, how do you explain this? I do so through stating that our morals as a whole have shifted, not our belief in God.
The only correlation I really see is that 'stupid' people (or rather, 'people capable of murder') are more easily drawn to radical causes because of their state of mind. Or in a nutshell; people who are stupid (or rather 'capable of murder') to begin with are also the ones more prone to believe in lies, making religion not a cause of their violence, but rather a hint to their state of mind.
Yeah, I noticed. It's all your posts seem to be. "Religion is an innocent tool and you are wrong".
I'm arguing that religion predisposes mentally healthy individuals to commit grievous or illogical acts in the name of their subscribed deity.
Except that you're not argueing it. You're just throwing links of people committing crimes and citing religion. I've drawn a comparison to people who have murdered for sillier causes, and you're not responding to it.
I cite atrocities such as preservation of polio and denial of contraception
I reference religion's prolific role in promoting homophobia, slavery and subjugation of women
I quote religious leaders empowering poverty
I highlight wars over who's way of praying to Yahweh is the best
And these are just what is going on today in the name of "god"
All I get in return is apologies, "You can't think of it that way", "You don't understand it" and "You're just wrong".
That is because you seem to keep missing my point, and the fact that that is what you think I'm replying kind of confirms it. You seem to be saying that religion causes all of this bloodshed. That those boys from that one article would not have killed their sister if religion had never existed. I'm simply telling you that that is wrong. I'll happily agree that religion has been (ab)used as an excuse for atrocities, but so has pretty much everything else that exists in this world. People have attempted to kill because of unrealistic affections for Jody Foster. Does this mean we should oppose Jody fucking Foster for inspiring murder?
It's time we, as a species, grew out of this violent, bigoted and arrogant nonsense.
This is something I completely agree with. But we don't do it through 'banning' religion. If I could flick my fingers right now and remove any kind of religion from the minds of everyone in the world, nothing would change. People would find different excuses. People who kill in the name of religion have bigger issues than religion. That is the point I'm trying to make, and it's one you still haven't adressed - you've just thrown waves of examples of people using religion as an excuse for their deeds at me.
A very good point as well. I can't say for sure, but it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if only the most literal translations are the ones with lines such as "homosexuals must be stoned". Interpretation with even finding a 'correct' bible is still a serious problem. To illustrate the example, I'll haul in Machiavelli's Il principe; just a couple of weeks ago I learned that his "The end justifies the means" is written as "Si guarda al fine" in Italian, which can better be translated by "One must consider the end", which has a different meaning entirely.
I gave you quite a nice list of current evil acts perpetuated by today's religion, and all you did was apologise for the Pope.
I didn't individually respond towards all of them because A) I thought Basharteg had done so and B) my responses to all of them would be the same as the one I gave.
I'm curious, have you actually read the bible? I recommend starting with Leviticus.
While I'm sure you're already typing "But they're metaphors!"; just go ahead and read it. All of it. I'd be entertained if you retained this "bible neutrality" attitude after actually reading the holy book of the faith you're defending.
I haven't read the full thing, but that doesn't mean I don't know the things that are in there (as per your mention, heavy/ridiculous punishments on non-offenses like homosexualism). You're missing my point, though. The bible should come with a big sign saying 'READERS DISCRETION ADVICED'. You can be a Christian and view the bible as 'God's word' without clinging to every sentence in it as the absolute truth.
The way in which you are attempting to link religion to pointless bloodshed is just wrong. Earlier today I watched an episode of Spartacus: Vengeance in which multiple men get slaughtered in a bloody way. Does this mean I should go out and slaughter people because I enjoy the series? No. The right way to treat Spartacus is to take from it what you can in terms of enjoyment and knowledge as long as it is within reason. Religion works the same way. You read the bible, embrace 'god' and live by the rules it states. This does not mean you are supposed to take EVERYTHING literally and cling to EVERY SINGLE LINE OF TEXT. If you do that, ANYTHING can cause bloodshed. People who think this way have FAR larger problems than religion, which I've been dubbing stupidity over the course of this discussion.
I just oppose any ideology that brandishes truths to a point where man is willing to brutalize man over who's truth is divine.
Your wording here kind of sums up my point. Does that mean you also oppose eating cereals? Or heck, since cereal isn't an ideology, science? No clear examples come to mind right now, but I'm pretty adamant people have killed and cheated over who'se theory of natural law was the best.
"Aids may be wicked, but not as wicked as condoms." - Pope
Now really, are you going to claim that the Pope himself is "misusing" religion? Because please, if you are, head your post with it so I can skip over the remainder.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." Steven Weinberg
What the pope's quote is, is a stupid claim by a stupid man. People should recognize it as such. If they don't, the cause of that is their own stupidity, not the fact that they also believe in a deity. The only way I could possibly call religion as a whole 'bad' is in that it is a method that can be used for evil. That said, Weinberg's quote makes no sense.
Omfg, you do actually believe the shit you saying?
The Pope and his friends got actually fucking rich from the crusades, while the army actually pillaged and raped half Europe by the time they reached the holy land. And Europe had war and killing under crusades...
Nowhere did I say the pope didn't profit, neither did I that the crusades succeeded entirely in their aim. I'm saying the primary cause was finding a way to transfer existing aggressions outwards. The primary cause was NOT a "we believe X, those guys believe Y, we need to kill those guys", that was a mere excuse for the whole ordeal. If this really were the cause, I'd like someone to explain to me why the crusades didn't happen anywhere from 100 to 500 year earlier then they did.
THAT was my point. So yes, I actually believe the 'shit' I'm saying. In regards to my actual point, you only just strenghtened it by stating that A) another cause for the crusades was to fill the treasures of Christian countries (aka the pope) and B) there was still war in Europe and the crusading army didn't exactly direct all of their aggression towards the muslims.
Besides, I'd love to see you spin "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" into something positive.
You keep bringing up historical examples, but you keep missing the point of pretty much all of them: history is a game of power. Pretty much every war, ever, was one of rich person/people A vs rich person/people B. Religion was used simply as a tool of control in these wars. Even the well-known crusades weren't as much of the "religious people A putting a jihad on religious people B because they have different beliefs" as you seemed to be making it out with your older post. The biggest cause for the whole thing was the fact that people in Europe were murdering eachother (tying into your moral compass discussion). The pope didn't like this (because all people in Europe are supposed to be Christian brothers) and simply found a way to direct the agression outwards. You give religion too much credit.
In regards to the actual quote; the real causes of the fervous witch hunts are currently actually still unclear. Obvious examples would point to 'religion', yes, but the fact of the matter is that these witch hunts gained popularity and activity at EXACTLY the same time when religion and religious dogma were rapidly dropping in it - which makes no sense. My own bet is that the whole thing was more of a 'mass hysteria' thing where people just went crazy on the idea of witches, without really thinking straight.
It can be argued that happiness is always the prime motivator for human action, whether subconscious or not. However, I wouldn't equate the terms goal and motivator. A goal is more detached from the immediate concerns of our psyche or body and represents a greater purpose for which we direct future action. A motivator is on a much smaller scale, helping us to make quick decisions without requiring intense meditation and reasoning. I don't think there's anything wrong with having happiness as a motivator, but I don't think it's the necessary reward for achieving a goal. Especially when that goal is the total fulfillment of selfless love, a person may have to actually sacrifice happiness for the well-being of another with no expectation of return or personal reward. The reward, in this case, is the betterment of the other, curiously attributed away from the actor. It's so difficult precisely because of it's detachment from worldly sensibility.
Interesting point. I recognize your difference; the motivator of happiness is searched subconsciously, while you define a goal as something 'sought after by purpose'. I'm not sure whether I want to make that difference in such a strong fashion, though. I don't know to what end I'd want to put 'motivator' and 'goal' apart, since plain old "feeling good" simply drives all of our decisions. One wouldn't actively say "I am doing this to attain happiness", but one would always mean it, even if indirectly. I reckon we have hit a really rough discussion here though, one we'd probably never finish. With that said; my sincere thanks for your post, it's made me really think and with that has reached a level on which generally only my girlfriend rests.
I feel like I need to again stress this point. We're talking horrible generalizations here, but people that actively call themselves Atheïst tend to be just as stupid as people that actively call themselves Theïst. This isn't a case of stupid religious fanatics argueing with reasonable men - the "Atheïst" you meet on the web is just as annoyingly strongly convinced in a point that he cannot possibly proof, and will shove it in your face just as roughly if he sees a chance. To put it bluntly, atheïsts are people who wear this kind of stuff. Speaking of which, got to love the irony of this one.
I have a few points for you, and they're not meant in a derogatory manner, and I hope you won't take them as that. I, as an atheist, and somewhat curious as to why exactly some people, such as yourself, can be so convinced that their religion is true.
Now I can't speak for EW (in this specific instance :D), but the answer to this question is determined entirely by what one means when he says he "takes the bible to be god's word". I've once read a book by Bad Religion frontman Greg Graffin which is a collection of e-mails sent between him, a fucking genius, and Preston Jones, a college professor who calls himself Christian. I don't remember every word, but the Christian professor in one mail made a very good point when he says that the bible shouldn't be taken completely literally, but rather as one huge metaphor for life. The example he cites is the story of adam and eve, the apple and the snake. Eve took the apple, even though she knew she shouldn't, and fell from the perfect ... place. Our everyday life is the same. We don't work out and get fat, even though we shouldn't, which is what keeps us from being perfect humans.
What I'm trying to say with this is the following: whenever someone says he believes in the bible, this doesn't automatically mean he believes and interprets the parts that say stuff like "and god grabbed a handfull of dust, sprinkled it out over the eart, and thus the mountains formed" to be literal and true. This is where that idea of metaphor I talked about comes up.
Even if you want to take that as life's goal - isn't the reason for doing that to get a sense of accomplishment/fulfillment, which in turn makes you feel happy?
Anything one can come up with kind of harkens back to "we're doing it in an attempt to feel happy". Nobody does anything in an attempt to feel sad or neutral. Even deliberately trying to get sad just to experience the emotion is done out of a search for knowledge that we host to attain fulfillment and (with that) happiness.
All these theories about the universe still don't answer my question. Do I have to think I'm immortal in order to be the happiest man on Earth?
I'm gonna go ahead and play a bit of the devil's advocate and say yes. Not consistantly, but to be the happiest man on earth, you have to not at this moment realize that you are mortal. I don't think you can be truly happy if at the same moment you've got a lingering realization of mortality floating around. You can't feel alright while thinking "but I will die" at the same time. While speaking over a longer period though, you don't have to be completely unaware of the fact that you will once die to live a happy life.
(I always find people narrow minded, who say their aim is to be happy. For example I find programing some stuff quite usefull, but it doesnt makes me happy.)
Wait, what? How exactly is trying to be happy narrow-minded? What then is your aim in life? Heck, to even take your own example: you say you find programming 'quite useful'. Why do you find it useful? Are you achieving goals with it? How do you feel when you achieve those goals? Would you still want to program if you didn't have that feeling when you achieved those goals?
edit:
And I picked out this, because It suggested that you have very bad misbelief about our universe. so I could flex my E-peen.
FTFY.
Regardless of how and whether you want to argue about this, his point stands. Glorn was comparing the effect of indiviuals on society to the effect one single planet/shape of mass might have on the entire universe. The rest is detail. I'm sure someone well-versed in the subject could point out a number of ways in which one event in the universe could lead to the destruction/implosion/explosion of a large part of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@SoulFilcher: Go
I suppose that's one thing where us Dutchies are doing something right in portraying our figurehead-position queen on our coins.
@Eiviyn: Go
I've been adressing them with every single post. Just in one fell swoop. I even pointed two out specifically in my first bit of text.
Discussion's been like this:
1) You state religion is the cause of evils.
2) I get your point and state that people are the cause of evils, not religion, and add examples to illustrate.
3) You give me examples on people comitting evils that in some way connect to religion.
4) I state again people are the cause of evils, not religion, and say that all your examples oblige to that rule. I ask you how you'd explain (in a nutshell) killing WITHOUT religion being involved.
5) You throw more examples.
6) I repeat my point, along with asking an explanation on more of those examples like those in post four.
7) You say I'm not doing anything with your examples.
8 ) I tell you that I've answered them because they all oblige to the in post two named rule; that PEOPLE are to blame for evils, not religions.
9) You say I'm not doing anything with your examples.
At this point I'm not sure what you want me to say anymore. How many more times to I have to point out that every single thing you've linked harkens back to the idea that they are cases of people misusing religion in order to commit evils? If there's anyone not adressing a point, it's you - I've asked you the same question in different forms multiple times now, yet you've never answered.
How you draw the causality to religious superstition is beyond me. Do you honestly believe that if religion hadn't existed at all, we wouldn't have had these problems? Or that different problems of the same scope wouldn't have arisen? If the bible hadn't preached any kind of homophobia, do you think the problem would have been non-existant? If the bible hadn't preached any kind of female subjugation, do you think all females would've lived as free equals to men from the dawn of mankind?
The best example you offered is still that 'witch hunt' article from a couple of topics ago. Let me ask you again; do you honestly think that if religion had never existed, those two folks would have never murdered anybody and be completely fine and upstanding individuals? Yes, religion has a ROLE in all of these instances, but that doesn't make it the cause. PEOPLE are the cause. Like I said multiple times, religion is what you make of it. If I choose to believe in a god and proceed to murder everyone who doesn't believe in my personal god, that makes me a moron, not my religion stupid. If this were untrue, we could assume that religion, as the 'cause' of these evils, makes anybody able to commit them. Which would mean that any upstanding citizen, upon convertion to Christianity, would suddenly become more likely to commit murder than before.
The whole ordeal just doesn't make sense to begin with. The number of Christians in the world has only been on the rise since the 1500's, yet violence has gone down, and 'holy wars' have lessened to nearly the point of extinction. If religion is what causes men to murder, how do you explain this? I do so through stating that our morals as a whole have shifted, not our belief in God.
The only correlation I really see is that 'stupid' people (or rather, 'people capable of murder') are more easily drawn to radical causes because of their state of mind. Or in a nutshell; people who are stupid (or rather 'capable of murder') to begin with are also the ones more prone to believe in lies, making religion not a cause of their violence, but rather a hint to their state of mind.
Except that you're not argueing it. You're just throwing links of people committing crimes and citing religion. I've drawn a comparison to people who have murdered for sillier causes, and you're not responding to it.
That is because you seem to keep missing my point, and the fact that that is what you think I'm replying kind of confirms it. You seem to be saying that religion causes all of this bloodshed. That those boys from that one article would not have killed their sister if religion had never existed. I'm simply telling you that that is wrong. I'll happily agree that religion has been (ab)used as an excuse for atrocities, but so has pretty much everything else that exists in this world. People have attempted to kill because of unrealistic affections for Jody Foster. Does this mean we should oppose Jody fucking Foster for inspiring murder?
This is something I completely agree with. But we don't do it through 'banning' religion. If I could flick my fingers right now and remove any kind of religion from the minds of everyone in the world, nothing would change. People would find different excuses. People who kill in the name of religion have bigger issues than religion. That is the point I'm trying to make, and it's one you still haven't adressed - you've just thrown waves of examples of people using religion as an excuse for their deeds at me.
@RodrigoAlves: Go
A very good point as well. I can't say for sure, but it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if only the most literal translations are the ones with lines such as "homosexuals must be stoned". Interpretation with even finding a 'correct' bible is still a serious problem. To illustrate the example, I'll haul in Machiavelli's Il principe; just a couple of weeks ago I learned that his "The end justifies the means" is written as "Si guarda al fine" in Italian, which can better be translated by "One must consider the end", which has a different meaning entirely.
I didn't individually respond towards all of them because A) I thought Basharteg had done so and B) my responses to all of them would be the same as the one I gave.
I haven't read the full thing, but that doesn't mean I don't know the things that are in there (as per your mention, heavy/ridiculous punishments on non-offenses like homosexualism). You're missing my point, though. The bible should come with a big sign saying 'READERS DISCRETION ADVICED'. You can be a Christian and view the bible as 'God's word' without clinging to every sentence in it as the absolute truth.
The way in which you are attempting to link religion to pointless bloodshed is just wrong. Earlier today I watched an episode of Spartacus: Vengeance in which multiple men get slaughtered in a bloody way. Does this mean I should go out and slaughter people because I enjoy the series? No. The right way to treat Spartacus is to take from it what you can in terms of enjoyment and knowledge as long as it is within reason. Religion works the same way. You read the bible, embrace 'god' and live by the rules it states. This does not mean you are supposed to take EVERYTHING literally and cling to EVERY SINGLE LINE OF TEXT. If you do that, ANYTHING can cause bloodshed. People who think this way have FAR larger problems than religion, which I've been dubbing stupidity over the course of this discussion.
Your wording here kind of sums up my point. Does that mean you also oppose eating cereals? Or heck, since cereal isn't an ideology, science? No clear examples come to mind right now, but I'm pretty adamant people have killed and cheated over who'se theory of natural law was the best.
No, I'm just trying to point out that religion is what you make of it. It's not inherently evil or good.
What the pope's quote is, is a stupid claim by a stupid man. People should recognize it as such. If they don't, the cause of that is their own stupidity, not the fact that they also believe in a deity. The only way I could possibly call religion as a whole 'bad' is in that it is a method that can be used for evil. That said, Weinberg's quote makes no sense.
Also, what Bashar said.
Nowhere did I say the pope didn't profit, neither did I that the crusades succeeded entirely in their aim. I'm saying the primary cause was finding a way to transfer existing aggressions outwards. The primary cause was NOT a "we believe X, those guys believe Y, we need to kill those guys", that was a mere excuse for the whole ordeal. If this really were the cause, I'd like someone to explain to me why the crusades didn't happen anywhere from 100 to 500 year earlier then they did.
THAT was my point. So yes, I actually believe the 'shit' I'm saying. In regards to my actual point, you only just strenghtened it by stating that A) another cause for the crusades was to fill the treasures of Christian countries (aka the pope) and B) there was still war in Europe and the crusading army didn't exactly direct all of their aggression towards the muslims.
So has religion. Just saying.
You keep bringing up historical examples, but you keep missing the point of pretty much all of them: history is a game of power. Pretty much every war, ever, was one of rich person/people A vs rich person/people B. Religion was used simply as a tool of control in these wars. Even the well-known crusades weren't as much of the "religious people A putting a jihad on religious people B because they have different beliefs" as you seemed to be making it out with your older post. The biggest cause for the whole thing was the fact that people in Europe were murdering eachother (tying into your moral compass discussion). The pope didn't like this (because all people in Europe are supposed to be Christian brothers) and simply found a way to direct the agression outwards. You give religion too much credit.
In regards to the actual quote; the real causes of the fervous witch hunts are currently actually still unclear. Obvious examples would point to 'religion', yes, but the fact of the matter is that these witch hunts gained popularity and activity at EXACTLY the same time when religion and religious dogma were rapidly dropping in it - which makes no sense. My own bet is that the whole thing was more of a 'mass hysteria' thing where people just went crazy on the idea of witches, without really thinking straight.
Touché
Interesting point. I recognize your difference; the motivator of happiness is searched subconsciously, while you define a goal as something 'sought after by purpose'. I'm not sure whether I want to make that difference in such a strong fashion, though. I don't know to what end I'd want to put 'motivator' and 'goal' apart, since plain old "feeling good" simply drives all of our decisions. One wouldn't actively say "I am doing this to attain happiness", but one would always mean it, even if indirectly. I reckon we have hit a really rough discussion here though, one we'd probably never finish. With that said; my sincere thanks for your post, it's made me really think and with that has reached a level on which generally only my girlfriend rests.
I feel like I need to again stress this point. We're talking horrible generalizations here, but people that actively call themselves Atheïst tend to be just as stupid as people that actively call themselves Theïst. This isn't a case of stupid religious fanatics argueing with reasonable men - the "Atheïst" you meet on the web is just as annoyingly strongly convinced in a point that he cannot possibly proof, and will shove it in your face just as roughly if he sees a chance. To put it bluntly, atheïsts are people who wear this kind of stuff. Speaking of which, got to love the irony of this one.
Now I can't speak for EW (in this specific instance :D), but the answer to this question is determined entirely by what one means when he says he "takes the bible to be god's word". I've once read a book by Bad Religion frontman Greg Graffin which is a collection of e-mails sent between him, a fucking genius, and Preston Jones, a college professor who calls himself Christian. I don't remember every word, but the Christian professor in one mail made a very good point when he says that the bible shouldn't be taken completely literally, but rather as one huge metaphor for life. The example he cites is the story of adam and eve, the apple and the snake. Eve took the apple, even though she knew she shouldn't, and fell from the perfect ... place. Our everyday life is the same. We don't work out and get fat, even though we shouldn't, which is what keeps us from being perfect humans.
What I'm trying to say with this is the following: whenever someone says he believes in the bible, this doesn't automatically mean he believes and interprets the parts that say stuff like "and god grabbed a handfull of dust, sprinkled it out over the eart, and thus the mountains formed" to be literal and true. This is where that idea of metaphor I talked about comes up.
@BasharTeg: Go
Even if you want to take that as life's goal - isn't the reason for doing that to get a sense of accomplishment/fulfillment, which in turn makes you feel happy?
Anything one can come up with kind of harkens back to "we're doing it in an attempt to feel happy". Nobody does anything in an attempt to feel sad or neutral. Even deliberately trying to get sad just to experience the emotion is done out of a search for knowledge that we host to attain fulfillment and (with that) happiness.
I'm gonna go ahead and play a bit of the devil's advocate and say yes. Not consistantly, but to be the happiest man on earth, you have to not at this moment realize that you are mortal. I don't think you can be truly happy if at the same moment you've got a lingering realization of mortality floating around. You can't feel alright while thinking "but I will die" at the same time. While speaking over a longer period though, you don't have to be completely unaware of the fact that you will once die to live a happy life.
Wait, what? How exactly is trying to be happy narrow-minded? What then is your aim in life? Heck, to even take your own example: you say you find programming 'quite useful'. Why do you find it useful? Are you achieving goals with it? How do you feel when you achieve those goals? Would you still want to program if you didn't have that feeling when you achieved those goals?
FTFY.
Regardless of how and whether you want to argue about this, his point stands. Glorn was comparing the effect of indiviuals on society to the effect one single planet/shape of mass might have on the entire universe. The rest is detail. I'm sure someone well-versed in the subject could point out a number of ways in which one event in the universe could lead to the destruction/implosion/explosion of a large part of it.