You don't have to take that literally in order to understand it, but just in case you really missed the point: the doctor is essentially saying that he is dealing with problems that have no direct cause or architect that he can consult whereas the IT people have essentially only themselves to blame and have made the mess they're in (usually) rather than that it has been handed down to them through the mists of time or from above.

In a general sense that is true but in a more specific sense it is definitely possible to be handed a project without docs and horrible problems and it might as well be an organic problem. Even so, the simplest biology dwarfs the largest IT systems in complexity.

> Even so, the simplest biology dwarfs the largest IT systems in complexity.

And also mercifully in continuous real-world testing over time with no Big Rewrite to be seen. While an individual organism might have unsolvable problems, nature doesn't have the same tolerance for utterly intractable systems that we sometimes see in the software community.

> Even so, the simplest biology dwarfs the largest IT systems in complexity.

Well said.

Intolerance on HN? Apparently so.

You'll just have to take it on Faith.

That isn't how I, or any atheists I know, define atheism.

Just to clarify, the original response was to the original posters claim that God does not exist. My request for him to present his proof to me was not meant as an open attack on atheism or even a critique of it, I was simply speaking to and about one persons beliefs. In any event, I begin to suspect I should have said nothing with this being such an emotional issue for people.

Possibly because you missed the sarcasm/joke nature of my comment and gave a serious reply. I wasn't defining atheism as faith in no-God.

I was digging at the idea that someone would accept a claim on Faith, then demand evidence before giving up the idea, and how that is inconsistent. If someone can faith into an idea without evidence it should be equally easy to faith out of it with no evidence.

That it's not easy, is interesting.

Nothing -> belief in God, costs little and gains much.

Belief in God -> no belief, costs much and gains little.

Where by costs and gains, I include social acceptance, eternal life, favourable relations with a powerful being, forgiveness of sins, approved life habits, connections to history and social groups, etc.

It's not a Boolean. Or at least, from inside a mind it doesn't feel like a Boolean.

I feel like its important to point out that having faith in a creator is not exclusive to having a belief in things like eternal life, favourable relations with a powerful being, etc. etc. People seem to easily conflate faith in a creator with practicing a mainstream religion.

edit: I would also like to add, although I already said it, that I believe both of these opinions regarding the creator are acts of faith, to absolutely say there is not one and to absolutely say there is, and if someone where to have made a statement as if a creators existence was a sure thing I would have called them out just the same.

Just to clarify, atheism isn't a faith claim, it's a skepticism of faith claims.

Just to clarify, I never said atheism required faith. Please, read the comment you responded to.

Atheism isn't having faith there is no creator, it's having the intellectual curiosity to doubt the existence of a creator.

Edited to be more honest.

It only takes courage for those who live in areas that are indoctrinated with dense religious ideology's who will suffer consequences for their actions. For most in the western world, it is not such a hard thing to identify oneself with.

edit: original response claimed it took courage to doubt the existence of a creator. It has since edited out to claim it simply takes intellectual curiosity. I would argue that the same intellectual curiosity could have the end result of someone having a belief in a singular creator of reality.

> I would argue that the same intellectual curiosity could have the end result of someone having a belief in a singular creator of reality.

Possible, but not likely, given how many intellectually curious people have independently reinvented atheism but no religion has been independently reinvented.

Religion and belief in a singular creator are not the same thing. Furthermore, I don't really believe you have any credible way of producing a valid number of 'intellectually curious' individuals who have made the choice to believe in a singular creator versus not.

edit: misunderstanding of mutually exclusive and added some more words.

It's far more likely to be the other way round. Atheism was only really formed about 300 years ago, and by that time the world had been explored and the printing press had been invented. In contrast, all of the ancient religions, formed in completely disconnected continents, had the notion of a creator at their centre.

> Atheism was only really formed about 300 years ago

This denies the existence of Ancient Greek atheists, and people who were skeptical of religion in general before the modern era.

I think you mean agnostic not atheism then.

Agnosticism is a belief that we can't possibly know whether there's a supernatural. I don't hold that view. My view is a skepticism of the supernatural, which is atheism.