www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - WinMain

reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
The website gives this form for WinMain:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
		LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     int result;

     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
	_moduleCtor();
	_moduleUnitTests();

	result = doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
	MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
		    MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
	result = 0;
     }

     gc_term();
     return result;
}
----------

I've been using a slightly different version, which works as far as I
can see:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
		LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
	_moduleCtor();
	_moduleUnitTests();

	return doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
	MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
		    MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
	return 0;
     }

     finally {
	gc_term();
     }
}
----------

But is there any possible reason not to use this form?  If not, I'm
inclined to suggest putting this one in the documentation in place of
the other one, as it seems neater and more logical.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Feb 27 2004
next sibling parent reply SpookyET <not4_u hotmail.com> writes:
In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMain.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:45:57 +0000, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com>  
wrote:


 The website gives this form for WinMain:

 ----------
 import std.c.windows.windows;

 extern (C) void gc_init();
 extern (C) void gc_term();
 extern (C) void _minit();
 extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
 extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

 extern (Windows)
 int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
 		LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
      int result;

      gc_init();
      _minit();

      try {
 	_moduleCtor();
 	_moduleUnitTests();

 	result = doit();
      }

      catch (Object o) {
 	MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
 		    MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
 	result = 0;
      }

      gc_term();
      return result;
 }
 ----------

 I've been using a slightly different version, which works as far as I
 can see:

 ----------
 import std.c.windows.windows;

 extern (C) void gc_init();
 extern (C) void gc_term();
 extern (C) void _minit();
 extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
 extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

 extern (Windows)
 int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
 		LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
      gc_init();
      _minit();

      try {
 	_moduleCtor();
 	_moduleUnitTests();

 	return doit();
      }

      catch (Object o) {
 	MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
 		    MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
 	return 0;
      }

      finally {
 	gc_term();
      }
 }
 ----------

 But is there any possible reason not to use this form?  If not, I'm
 inclined to suggest putting this one in the documentation in place of
 the other one, as it seems neater and more logical.

 Stewart.




-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Feb 27 2004
next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
SpookyET wrote:

 In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMain.


I completely fail to understand how this correlates to D programming. 
It's like saying 'in PHP <? demarks the entry point'...

And I had such high hopes for that Dvorak keyboard of yours.

Cheers,
Sigbjřrn Lund Olsen
Feb 27 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
SpookyET wrote:


 In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMain.


<snip top of upside-down reply>

What has C++ to do with the price of troll-meat?

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the 
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep 
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Feb 27 2004
parent reply Roel Mathys <roel.mathys yucom.be> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

 SpookyET wrote:
 

 In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMain.


 
 <snip top of upside-down reply>
 
 What has C++ to do with the price of troll-meat?
 
 Stewart.
 


now I'm going to troll a bit ;-)

maybe his comments aren't always to the point but he's not the one being 
negative towards other people.
The first one that never makes a remark that's not 100% spot on, may 
throw the first stone. (Where did I here that?)

If the D community wants to expand it'll take a lot more of your nerves 
the coming years and my advice is that your should give up now.

bye guys,

roel
Feb 27 2004
parent reply "Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:
"Roel Mathys" <roel.mathys yucom.be> wrote in message
news:c1obba$4e1$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Stewart Gordon wrote:

 SpookyET wrote:


 In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMain.


 <snip top of upside-down reply>

 What has C++ to do with the price of troll-meat?

 Stewart.


 now I'm going to troll a bit ;-)

 maybe his comments aren't always to the point but he's not the one being
 negative towards other people.
 The first one that never makes a remark that's not 100% spot on, may
 throw the first stone. (Where did I here that?)


I think you heard that in the Bible, I think it says
"Let he that hath no sin, cast the first stone"

Beleive it or not I remember that from about
30 years ago, when I went to Sunday school.

Not that I follow this rule, unfortunately :o))

Phill.
Feb 28 2004
parent reply C <dont respond.com> writes:
Have you seen the Passion of Christ ?

C

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +1100, Phill <phill pacific.net.au> wrote:


 "Roel Mathys" <roel.mathys yucom.be> wrote in message
 news:c1obba$4e1$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Stewart Gordon wrote:

 SpookyET wrote:


 In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMa=








in.

 <snip top of upside-down reply>

 What has C++ to do with the price of troll-meat?

 Stewart.


 now I'm going to troll a bit ;-)

 maybe his comments aren't always to the point but he's not the one be=




ing

 negative towards other people.
 The first one that never makes a remark that's not 100% spot on, may
 throw the first stone. (Where did I here that?)


 I think you heard that in the Bible, I think it says
 "Let he that hath no sin, cast the first stone"

 Beleive it or not I remember that from about
 30 years ago, when I went to Sunday school.

 Not that I follow this rule, unfortunately :o))

 Phill.




-- =

Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Feb 29 2004
next sibling parent "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
Yes, why?

"C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message news:opr35omkp2ehmtou localhost...
Have you seen the Passion of Christ ?

C

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +1100, Phill <phill pacific.net.au> wrote:


 "Roel Mathys" <roel.mathys yucom.be> wrote in message
 news:c1obba$4e1$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Stewart Gordon wrote:

 SpookyET wrote:


 In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMain.


 <snip top of upside-down reply>

 What has C++ to do with the price of troll-meat?

 Stewart.


 now I'm going to troll a bit ;-)

 maybe his comments aren't always to the point but he's not the one being
 negative towards other people.
 The first one that never makes a remark that's not 100% spot on, may
 throw the first stone. (Where did I here that?)


 I think you heard that in the Bible, I think it says
 "Let he that hath no sin, cast the first stone"

 Beleive it or not I remember that from about
 30 years ago, when I went to Sunday school.

 Not that I follow this rule, unfortunately :o))

 Phill.




-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Feb 29 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:
No I havent yet, but I will get around to it one
day(soon I hope)

How is it?

Phill.

"C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message news:opr35omkp2ehmtou localhost...
Have you seen the Passion of Christ ?

C

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +1100, Phill <phill pacific.net.au> wrote:


 "Roel Mathys" <roel.mathys yucom.be> wrote in message
 news:c1obba$4e1$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Stewart Gordon wrote:

 SpookyET wrote:


 In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMain.


 <snip top of upside-down reply>

 What has C++ to do with the price of troll-meat?

 Stewart.


 now I'm going to troll a bit ;-)

 maybe his comments aren't always to the point but he's not the one being
 negative towards other people.
 The first one that never makes a remark that's not 100% spot on, may
 throw the first stone. (Where did I here that?)


 I think you heard that in the Bible, I think it says
 "Let he that hath no sin, cast the first stone"

 Beleive it or not I remember that from about
 30 years ago, when I went to Sunday school.

 Not that I follow this rule, unfortunately :o))

 Phill.




--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Feb 29 2004
parent reply "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
Well, let me preface this by saying that I had very little religious
upbringing, but what little there was was Christian, so there may be bias
that I'm
not aware of.

In my eaerly teens, when various close members of my family died a variety
of
rather horrible deaths, I either fell out with God, or stopped believing in
Him/It,
or somewhere in between.

Being of a scientific bent, and always interested in physics, cosmology and
genetics, I "understand" that there is a scientific explanation for
everything from the Big Bang right through to the artificial creation of
thought-emulating machines by man. Indeed, I used to amuse
myself, when I worked in the centre of Sydney, in teasing some of the
<mentioning-no-names/> preachers (who walk around in black suits and ties in
35 degree heat) by explaining to them that I believe in the existence and
function of the flourescent lightbulb, and asking them whether they would
say the same. None ever denied the existence and function of flourescent
lights, but would chase me through the park after I would simply leave them
to their confusion. (Note: light flouresces on a path of virtual particles,
much
in the same way as the entire universe is one giant quantum flux that's
lasted
these 15,000,000 years.)

However, even though the scientist in me decrees atheism, there are two
things that have never been explained to my satisfaction: (i) self-awarenes
(the
awareness of one's self being aware of one's self), and (ii) mangos. The
former
seems to me to defy any kind of self-replicating machine to whatever level
of sophistication it might evolve. The latter are simply Divine - where is
the
selection pressure to make them so good; any self-respecting mammal would
eat them were they but a tenth of their splendour. So I'm an
agnostic. He may exist, He may not. If He does, I believe I can account for
myself, even though I do several of the sins on a weekly basis. (My
demanding an accounting of Him for some of the things I've witnessed
personally might not go down so well, of course. Is it hot in here, or
what?!)

Anyway, I went to see the Passion Of Christ mainly out of interest, but also
with a view to see whether it would indeed touch/inspire me?

1. I enjoyed it
2. It was the most viscerally barbaric thing I have ever seen (or at least
continued to watch to completion), but yet I did not perceive a single
moment of
it as gratuituous.
3. I can say that it was, within the constraints of the language of a deeply
sceptical agnostic, a "spiritual" experience.
4. Even though I was open to the idea that it _might_ perhaps touch some
deeply hidden belief, I was also careful to not let myself fall into the
trap of seeing the truth of the film as The Truth. I did not have an
awakening.
5. As a parent, the torment of Mary at seeing her son's experience had me in
bits. I
was sobbing away along with all the lapsed Catholics I'd gone with, if
perhaps for
different reasons.

So I am very glad I've seen it, and I think I can say it's enriched my life
in
watching it, but I don't think I Believe any more/less than I did before. I
can say that if Jesus did live (whether Son of God or deluded
philanthropist), I have a *lot* more respect for his experience, and for
those that loved him in this mortal coil, than I did before. (And that's
accounting for the likely exaggeration in the film.)

As for anti-Jewish bias, all I can say is that, as a non-Jew, I didn't see
anything anti-Jewish in it. It showed a group of people corruptly using
religion for power, but you can find plenty of them throughout the last 200
years,
especially right now - pick a religion: there're all at it!. (Since
Jesus was Jewish, I've always had a problem understanding the real/imagined
stigma involved anyway, but then I'm not Jewish, and it's not easy to walk
in someone else's shoes.)

The Roman officers were portrayed as men of conscience, but trapped by their
own circumstances (and ambition, if we're fair). The only "group" of people
that looked bad were the Roman soldiery. But men of any time, when taught
nothing but war, are going to be violent and inhuman, are they not? It's
human nature.

(btw, one of my friends, who _is_ Jewish felt pretty much the same way as me
about it all.)

Anyway, that was the long answer.

The short answer is: beautiful, (incredibly) brutal, awe-inspiring,
well-crafted, a must-see, but not likely to bring on an epiphany unless
you've one ready to pop anyway.

:)

Matthew



"Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:c1uhcv$1s81$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 No I havent yet, but I will get around to it one
 day(soon I hope)

 How is it?

 Phill.

 "C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message news:opr35omkp2ehmtou localhost...
 Have you seen the Passion of Christ ?

 C

 On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +1100, Phill <phill pacific.net.au> wrote:


 "Roel Mathys" <roel.mathys yucom.be> wrote in message
 news:c1obba$4e1$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Stewart Gordon wrote:

 SpookyET wrote:


 In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of










WinMain.

 <snip top of upside-down reply>

 What has C++ to do with the price of troll-meat?

 Stewart.


 now I'm going to troll a bit ;-)

 maybe his comments aren't always to the point but he's not the one






being

 negative towards other people.
 The first one that never makes a remark that's not 100% spot on, may
 throw the first stone. (Where did I here that?)


 I think you heard that in the Bible, I think it says
 "Let he that hath no sin, cast the first stone"

 Beleive it or not I remember that from about
 30 years ago, when I went to Sunday school.

 Not that I follow this rule, unfortunately :o))

 Phill.




 --
 Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Feb 29 2004
next sibling parent reply John Reimer <jjreimer telus.net> writes:
Now this is bound to be a hot topic!  We'll have to see how this group 
handles it!

I haven't seen this movie yet, but when Matthew renders such "balanced" 
(literally straddling the fence so that he couldn't possibly offend 
anyone ;-)...) considerations as this, I'm inexplicably driven to respond.


 Well, let me preface this by saying that I had very little religious
 upbringing, but what little there was was Christian, so there may be bias
 that I'm
 not aware of.


Raised with Christian teachings or not, people end up having to 
determine the meaning of life on their own eventually.  Being taught it 
from childhood can influence a future perspective in life, but I doubt 
it will hold unless (a) they have allowed themselves to be "programmed" 
without ever considering epistemology personaly or (b) they've actually 
deeply and sincerely considered their Christianity and have come to the 
similar conclusions as they grew up with.  The former is a shaky way to 
for one to maintain a worldview.  Interestingly (a) does not apply only 
to the philosophical considerations of Christianity (Athiests and 
humanists love to blame the evils of religious programming as the source 
of this worlds problems).  Propaganda occurs every single day in America 
and all over the world: public schools, colleges, and universities teach 
as fact hypothesis that have not been seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or 
touched.  In the vast majority of cases, students lap up the assumptions 
of macro evolution, big bang theory, without ever considering whether 
what's presented is true, reproduceable, or verifable. They aren't even 
given the benefit of the phrase "might be so."  No sir, no critical 
thinking is needed here. The intellectuals, the scientists, the teachers 
say so, so it must be true.


 In my eaerly teens, when various close members of my family died a variety
 of
 rather horrible deaths, I either fell out with God, or stopped believing in
 Him/It,
 or somewhere in between.


I'm sorry to hear this.  I think this way of thinking has been a common 
source of bitter argument for the existance or non-existance of God.  On 
one hand, life seems too difficult or too cruel for people, leading them 
to postulate that a loving God could not allow such pain if He existed. 
In this instance, people place their ideals of existance on what they 
feel should be the way things work.  In truth, suffering has no real 
meaning or depth without the existance of God (paradoxically spoken). 
Everything is rendered to a mere chemical response and therefore is of 
no real value or significance (emotions are just such chemical 
responses, right?). In my opinion, the existance of suffering cannot 
prove the non-existance of a Creator. It is much more likely to support 
the idea.


 Being of a scientific bent, and always interested in physics, cosmology and
 genetics, I "understand" that there is a scientific explanation for
 everything from the Big Bang right through to the artificial creation of
 thought-emulating machines by man.


This has puzzled me for awhile.  Specifically why people think science 
has any bearing, strength, or soundness in and of itself.  Science is 
independent of philosophy.  It is merely a tool used by mankind to 
organize observation.  Science is a sea of hypothesis, changing, 
improving, and deteriorating ideas, guesses, valid and invalid 
suggestions; and no matter what people think, it is a tool controlled by 
a fallible creature -- the human being, who typically has his own 
philosophical biases to boot.  Strict obedience to carefully crafted 
protocol of observation cannot remove the most human of flaws, biases, 
and philosophical predilections.   Any deep trust in science as a 
messenger of truth is just finding another god to worship, and one that 
conveniently offers no moral structure.  People have placed a very real 
"faith" in Science (capitalized), and just as religiously follow it as 
any dogmatic Christian follows his own faith.  Such faith has lead to 
all sorts of horrible errors in history, as science changes with new 
discoveries: an example would be old medicinal cures (once hailed as 
critical discoveries by the scientific elite) being found to be a major 
destructive force in the human body.  Science is the king of trial and 
error.  That's how it succeeds... and fails.  In it's purest form, it 
was never meant to be worshiped and hailed as the bringer of perfect 
truth.  In short, science cannot be used to determine the meaning of 
life, knowledge, being, or existance: such things are abstract, 
immaterial and beyound it's reach; and that is why there is such a 
stuggle and debate in philosophy and religion.

  Indeed, I used to amuse

 myself, when I worked in the centre of Sydney, in teasing some of the
 <mentioning-no-names/> preachers (who walk around in black suits and ties in
 35 degree heat) by explaining to them that I believe in the existence and
 function of the flourescent lightbulb, and asking them whether they would
 say the same. None ever denied the existence and function of flourescent
 lights, but would chase me through the park after I would simply leave them
 to their confusion. (Note: light flouresces on a path of virtual particles,
 much
 in the same way as the entire universe is one giant quantum flux that's
 lasted
 these 15,000,000 years.)


That's funny? You take glee in something you can't really answer 
yourself? How do you know the universe is 15,000,000 years old?  Were 
you there to see, hear, taste, smell or feel that it is that old? How do 
you know phyics, time, and space have remained the same over time? It's 
all assumed because the scientist must assume in order to postulate. 
Wait a minute, how did you get your 5 senses in the first place?


 However, even though the scientist in me decrees atheism, there are two
 things that have never been explained to my satisfaction: (i) self-awarenes
 


The scientist in you can decree nothing.  Such decisions are beyond the 
realm of science and within the realm of your personal, emotional, human 
evaluation of things.

(the

 awareness of one's self being aware of one's self), and (ii) mangos. The
 former
 seems to me to defy any kind of self-replicating machine to whatever level
 of sophistication it might evolve. The latter are simply Divine - where is
 the
 selection pressure to make them so good; any self-respecting mammal would
 eat them were they but a tenth of their splendour. So I'm an
 agnostic. He may exist, He may not. If He does, I believe I can account for
 myself, even though I do several of the sins on a weekly basis. (My
 demanding an accounting of Him for some of the things I've witnessed
 personally might not go down so well, of course. Is it hot in here, or
 what?!)


:-)  That's what it trully comes down to.  We have to decide in what we 
believe without a perfect knowledge.  Sitting on the fence is a popular 
way to go, but it won't help you any at the end of your life when the 
real crunch comes. Personally, the more I study the intricacies of 
biology, the more incredible it becomes to me.  That "feels" like design 
to me far beyond the imperfect and unproven (yes, this opinion is 
unpopular) mechanisms of evolution (or should I say the many and varied 
hypothesis of it).  I'm not trying to bait anyone.  It's the opinion I 
hold.  The support of the masses never made something valid.


 Anyway, I went to see the Passion Of Christ mainly out of interest, but also
 with a view to see whether it would indeed touch/inspire me?
 
 1. I enjoyed it
 2. It was the most viscerally barbaric thing I have ever seen (or at least
 continued to watch to completion), but yet I did not perceive a single
 moment of
 it as gratuituous.
 3. I can say that it was, within the constraints of the language of a deeply
 sceptical agnostic, a "spiritual" experience.
 4. Even though I was open to the idea that it _might_ perhaps touch some
 deeply hidden belief, I was also careful to not let myself fall into the
 trap of seeing the truth of the film as The Truth. I did not have an
 awakening.
 5. As a parent, the torment of Mary at seeing her son's experience had me in
 bits. I
 was sobbing away along with all the lapsed Catholics I'd gone with, if
 perhaps for
 different reasons.


It sounds like quite the film.  It seems there were decidedly mixed 
feelings on it.  Thanks for your honest review.


 So I am very glad I've seen it, and I think I can say it's enriched my life
 in
 watching it, but I don't think I Believe any more/less than I did before. I
 can say that if Jesus did live (whether Son of God or deluded
 philanthropist), I have a *lot* more respect for his experience, and for
 those that loved him in this mortal coil, than I did before. (And that's
 accounting for the likely exaggeration in the film.)


That's quite the commendation.

<snip>


 
 The short answer is: beautiful, (incredibly) brutal, awe-inspiring,
 well-crafted, a must-see, but not likely to bring on an epiphany unless
 you've one ready to pop anyway.
 


Thanks for the post.  Once again you got me hooked on a friendly debate 
(even though it wasn't directed at me...oops!).  I can appreciate the 
frankness of your reply.  Forgive me if I got to carried away with my 
own.  I tend to have fairly strong opinions on philosophy and religion :-).

Later,

John Reimer
Mar 01 2004
next sibling parent "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
 Thanks for the post.  Once again you got me hooked on a friendly debate
 (even though it wasn't directed at me...oops!).  I can appreciate the
 frankness of your reply.  Forgive me if I got to carried away with my
 own.  I tend to have fairly strong opinions on philosophy and religion


:-).

You're welcome.

As far as that end-of-life stuff goes, it's beyond my comprehension that if
a being made this world, and all the things in it between Him and me, that
He could judge me bad for living a good life against all kinds of obstacles
and base instincts, merely for the act of not believing in Him. Therefore, I
don't much worry about the not knowing, but just get on with being a person
who has to answer to himself on a daily basis. If that ain't good enough,
then I'm not good enough, and I'll have to take my lumps and spend eternity
kicking the arse of the misunderstood child.
Mar 01 2004
prev sibling parent reply Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:
John Reimer wrote:


 Now this is bound to be a hot topic!  We'll have to see how this group 
 handles it!


I hope you're not against me adding some salt?


 Raised with Christian teachings or not, people end up having to 
 determine the meaning of life on their own eventually.  Being taught it 
 from childhood can influence a future perspective in life, but I doubt 
 it will hold unless (a) they have allowed themselves to be "programmed" 
 without ever considering epistemology personaly or (b) they've actually 
 deeply and sincerely considered their Christianity and have come to the 
 similar conclusions as they grew up with.  The former is a shaky way to 
 for one to maintain a worldview.  Interestingly (a) does not apply only 
 to the philosophical considerations of Christianity (Athiests and 
 humanists love to blame the evils of religious programming as the source 
 of this worlds problems).


Really? I thought they(us) blame human stupidity, because with or 
without the help of religion, it always can be used to break everything. 
And on the other hand, religion can be very helping. But self-belief is 
even better. Me, i have neither. :>


  Propaganda occurs every single day in America 
 and all over the world: public schools, colleges, and universities teach 
 as fact hypothesis that have not been seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or 
 touched.  In the vast majority of cases, students lap up the assumptions 
 of macro evolution, big bang theory, without ever considering whether 
 what's presented is true, reproduceable, or verifable. They aren't even 
 given the benefit of the phrase "might be so."  No sir, no critical 
 thinking is needed here. The intellectuals, the scientists, the teachers 
 say so, so it must be true.


Very daunting picture you are drawing. Good that i have not grown up 
there. So far i can remember, it was mostly made clear to what extent 
lies the known and where not.


 In truth, suffering has no real 
 meaning or depth without the existance of God (paradoxically spoken). 


I don't think i can follow. Do you deny ability to suffer to people who 
don't have a god?


 Everything is rendered to a mere chemical response and therefore is of 
 no real value or significance (emotions are just such chemical 
 responses, right?).


So, in your opinion, there are no thoughts - or they don't matter - 
because all they are is electric impulses? There is no speech - or it 
doesn't matter - because it is just vibrations of air?


 This has puzzled me for awhile.  Specifically why people think science 
 has any bearing, strength, or soundness in and of itself.  Science is 
 independent of philosophy.  It is merely a tool used by mankind to 
 organize observation.  Science is a sea of hypothesis, changing, 
 improving, and deteriorating ideas, guesses, valid and invalid 
 suggestions; and no matter what people think, it is a tool controlled by 
 a fallible creature -- the human being, who typically has his own 
 philosophical biases to boot.  Strict obedience to carefully crafted 
 protocol of observation cannot remove the most human of flaws, biases, 
 and philosophical predilections.   Any deep trust in science as a 
 messenger of truth is just finding another god to worship, and one that 
 conveniently offers no moral structure.  People have placed a very real 
 "faith" in Science (capitalized), and just as religiously follow it as 
 any dogmatic Christian follows his own faith.  Such faith has lead to 
 all sorts of horrible errors in history, as science changes with new 
 discoveries: an example would be old medicinal cures (once hailed as 
 critical discoveries by the scientific elite) being found to be a major 
 destructive force in the human body.  Science is the king of trial and 
 error.  That's how it succeeds... and fails.  In it's purest form, it 
 was never meant to be worshiped and hailed as the bringer of perfect 
 truth.  In short, science cannot be used to determine the meaning of 
 life, knowledge, being, or existance: such things are abstract, 
 immaterial and beyound it's reach; and that is why there is such a 
 stuggle and debate in philosophy and religion.


Scientific approach allows to separate certain from uncertain, known 
from guesses, and so on. And guesses, the theories are also of a value 
for a science. Furthermore, most of the effects are described by models 
which don't find a natural basis. For example, magnetic fields and 
electric fields are a model of interaction. It is unclear and irrelevant 
whether these fields "exist" as such, they are just a model in thoughts, 
which appears to describe the interaction very precisely, within our 
precision of measurement. That is, it is valid as long as we care. 
That's all there is to it.

You cannot really account for people who make some more or less typical 
view of the world induced by science into their religion. I don't, since 
i know there are limits.


 The scientist in you can decree nothing.  Such decisions are beyond the 
 realm of science and within the realm of your personal, emotional, human 
 evaluation of things.


I cannot prove nor disprove his existence, so i don't care. So for me 
he(it) doesn't exist. Why should i care about its existance anyway if it 
doesn't affect life? Or at least, it doesn't affect it to the positive.

-eye
Mar 01 2004
parent reply John Reimer <jjreimer telus.net> writes:
Ilya Minkov wrote:

 John Reimer wrote:
 

 Now this is bound to be a hot topic!  We'll have to see how this group 
 handles it!


 
 
 I hope you're not against me adding some salt?


No, that's fine.  I just don't know if the group will appreciate much more.


 Raised with Christian teachings or not, people end up having to 
 determine the meaning of life on their own eventually.  Being taught 
 it from childhood can influence a future perspective in life, but I 
 doubt it will hold unless (a) they have allowed themselves to be 
 "programmed" without ever considering epistemology personaly or (b) 
 they've actually deeply and sincerely considered their Christianity 
 and have come to the similar conclusions as they grew up with.  The 
 former is a shaky way to for one to maintain a worldview.  
 Interestingly (a) does not apply only to the philosophical 
 considerations of Christianity (Athiests and humanists love to blame 
 the evils of religious programming as the source of this worlds 
 problems).


 
 Really? I thought they(us) blame human stupidity, because with or 
 without the help of religion, it always can be used to break everything. 
 And on the other hand, religion can be very helping. But self-belief is 
 even better. Me, i have neither. :>


Perhaps I was building a straw man, but it has been the case that such 
accusations are made over and over and over again.  In your case, I 
would be inclined to think that you personally would be the one to blame 
it on human stupidity.  And yes religion can break things, but what is 
it breaking and why? If it disturbs the conscience of human moral 
depravity, is that a bad thing? Humanists would say "yes." That's 
subjective depending on what you believe "good" means. I claim that a 
true unchanging standard of "good" only exists with a God. Without it is 
subjective.  As for whether religion can be used to destroy or build up, 
this is much more due to the people behind it verses the religion itself.



  Propaganda occurs every single day in America and all over the world: 
 public schools, colleges, and universities teach as fact hypothesis 
 that have not been seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched.  In the 
 vast majority of cases, students lap up the assumptions of macro 
 evolution, big bang theory, without ever considering whether what's 
 presented is true, reproduceable, or verifable. They aren't even given 
 the benefit of the phrase "might be so."  No sir, no critical thinking 
 is needed here. The intellectuals, the scientists, the teachers say 
 so, so it must be true.


 
 
 Very daunting picture you are drawing. Good that i have not grown up 
 there. So far i can remember, it was mostly made clear to what extent 
 lies the known and where not.


That's nice.  You live in an unusual world then.  Most modern texts that 
I have read state things clearly in the declarative "is" such as the 
universe is "billions of years old."  It is true they admit to current 
unkowns (eg, my pathophysiology texts are quite honest when they don't 
know how a certain drug works in the body: they are clear about that and 
just give a good guess which I actually appreciate), but that's easy. 
When it comes to past unobservable events such as "evolution", they have 
all but made up there mind for you and are quite willing to call it 
"fact".  This is also the case with the majority of public elementary 
science texts.


 In truth, suffering has no real meaning or depth without the existance 
 of God (paradoxically spoken). 


 
 
 I don't think i can follow. Do you deny ability to suffer to people who 
 don't have a god?


A universe without a God is not one I would understand or fathom.  But 
if we speculated such a universe, suffering would just be another 
emotional response with no inherent meaning or significance because, in 
such a circumstance, we are merely beings of dust, with no soul other 
than the electrical synapses firing in the brain.  No morality could 
really exist.  People would indeed be free to act on their own desires. 
   "goodness" would likely be what feels best at the right moment for 
any one individual.  If one fella felt like murdering another fella, 
well it might be "good" for one and "bad" for another (as is usually the 
case).  People in this world do operate as if they are in such a world. 
  But just because people have decided to not believe in a God, does not 
mean He does not exist.  Many people hate religion because it sometimes 
tells them they can't do what makes them feel good.  But without that 
stricture, there is chaos.


 

 Everything is rendered to a mere chemical response and therefore is of 
 no real value or significance (emotions are just such chemical 
 responses, right?).


 
 
 So, in your opinion, there are no thoughts - or they don't matter - 
 because all they are is electric impulses? There is no speech - or it 
 doesn't matter - because it is just vibrations of air?


You misunderstood me, likely because of my rather sloppy writing 
ability.  That reference was my renditon of what the secular humanist 
and athiest worldviews reduce the body and mind to.  It's an example of 
why the medical profession, which is quite humanist in operation, tries 
to fix mental diseases with drugs and chemicals because, from their 
perspective, that's all they can see the human body as being (a 
complicated biological combination of organs: no more and no less). 
This is understandable, of course, given that the medicine is a science 
and it's veiws are limited.  But with this philosophical limitaion, they 
may be permanently restricted from finding a solution if they do not see 
a human as being more than biological. My own opinion is that human 
suffering is very real, matters much, and fixing it goes far beyond mere 
biological interventions.  I believe a soul immaterial exists.


 
 Scientific approach allows to separate certain from uncertain, known 
 from guesses, and so on. And guesses, the theories are also of a value 
 for a science. Furthermore, most of the effects are described by models 
 which don't find a natural basis. For example, magnetic fields and 
 electric fields are a model of interaction. It is unclear and irrelevant 
 whether these fields "exist" as such, they are just a model in thoughts, 
 which appears to describe the interaction very precisely, within our 
 precision of measurement. That is, it is valid as long as we care. 
 That's all there is to it.


To some extent I disagree about your viewpoint of science.  It ATTEMPTS 
to separate known from guesses, but it must start with guesses in order 
probe further. And many guesses turn out to be worng later, but work for 
many years because there is enough similarity for the model to function 
until new abnormalties surface in the analysis.  Many models are indeed 
as simple as magnetic and electrical fields and reflect "accurate 
enough" models for general use.  I don't deny that we can form models 
that work, but just because we can do that, does not make science a tool 
to describe matters of origins and knowledge of beginnings.  It's a 
completely inneffective tool for discovering events of long ago.  But 
people tend to carry over their faith in it's abilities to too many 
theoretical fields of extrapolation where there is a real inability for 
real interaction with objects either due to time or distance (ideas that 
in themselves make little sense in a godless worldview).


 You cannot really account for people who make some more or less typical 
 view of the world induced by science into their religion. I don't, since 
 i know there are limits.


Well, that's good.  Not everybody does.


 The scientist in you can decree nothing.  Such decisions are beyond 
 the realm of science and within the realm of your personal, emotional, 
 human evaluation of things.


 
 
 I cannot prove nor disprove his existence, so i don't care. So for me 
 he(it) doesn't exist. Why should i care about its existance anyway if it 
 doesn't affect life? Or at least, it doesn't affect it to the positive.


And that's your free choice.  If caring about it is not important to 
you, than why write about it? God's existance would very much affect 
life because He would have made it.  If you don't believe so, that's 
fine, but it doesn't change whether He exists or not.  Also You can't 
claim that God's existance affects life to the negative if you don't 
believe He exists in the first place.  You must first accept that He 
exists, then blame Him for making things so miserable, and finally 
decide you'd rather be against Him than for Him.  That's your choice 
too. ;-)

Later,

John
Mar 01 2004
next sibling parent reply Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
From the subject I thought you were talking about Walter!

Ant
Mar 01 2004
parent John Reimer <jjreimer telus.net> writes:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 04:30:01 +0000, Ant wrote:


 From the subject I thought you were talking about Walter!
 
 Ant


:-D 

No, Walter's important, but not that important.
Mar 01 2004
prev sibling parent reply Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:
John Reimer wrote:


 No, that's fine.  I just don't know if the group will appreciate much more.


Recalling discussions on vegetarism and fast food, i'd think it's fine.

As to the rest: we are most definetaly living in different worlds. For 
me, i don't need God to exist to explain things, evolution (which is 
definately there) and selection (also indisputably) is enough.

Our current moral (as with the major sins from the bible) may be a 
result of a normal process, in which populations which did not adhere to 
a similar model destroyed themselves. So it may reappear in religion, 
non-religious philosophy (Kant), everything. Recall that Buddhism is in 
fact a philosophy, not a religion (since it contains no God), and 
nontheless it teaches people to leave peacefully with each other.

To that extent, i don't have to lie to myself, and can be a good person 
not because of "sins" or because "god told me that", or "god might 
punish me else", but because i know so is better for everyone. And on 
the other hand, i see some people go to the church, offload their sins 
to the preacher, and there they come out, washed clean - ready to do 
some more. I am thinking of a certain political person in particular, 
but this seems to be a common problem. No, i think this alone cannot be 
enough. And i don't blame a religion - instead i blame the churches. 
They have the power to say "you should feel sorry" instead of always 
deceiving "god forgives you".


 And that's your free choice.  If caring about it is not important to 
 you, than why write about it? God's existance would very much affect 
 life because He would have made it.  If you don't believe so, that's 
 fine, but it doesn't change whether He exists or not.  Also You can't 
 claim that God's existance affects life to the negative if you don't 
 believe He exists in the first place.  You must first accept that He 
 exists, then blame Him for making things so miserable, and finally 
 decide you'd rather be against Him than for Him.  That's your choice 
 too. ;-)


I never claimed he affects life to the negative. And i never assumed he 
would exist. I was raised to assume he doesn't, and i feel quite 
comfortable with it.

-eye
Mar 02 2004
parent reply "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
I've obviously decided to take the fifth on this issue, but ...


 John Reimer wrote:


 No, that's fine.  I just don't know if the group will appreciate much




more.

 Recalling discussions on vegetarism and fast food, i'd think it's fine.

 As to the rest: we are most definetaly living in different worlds. For
 me, i don't need God to exist to explain things, evolution (which is
 definately there) and selection (also indisputably) is enough.


Evolution is most definitely proven in practice, by the experience of pepper
moth around the period of the industrial revolution.

<snip>
Mar 02 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Matthew wrote:


Evolution is most definitely proven in practice, by the experience of pepper
moth around the period of the industrial revolution.

<snip>

  


http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-pepper-moth-biston-betularia.htm
Mar 02 2004
next sibling parent reply Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:
Hmmm... In fact, i can't recall running over this story during my school 
years. I believe it's the first time i hear it. It should be very hard 
to show evolution happening now (during one man's lifetime) since the 
environmental changes are not rapid. However, there are so many signs of 
it from the distant past (which created current life forms and the 
originals stayed as well), that it hardly should be disputed upon.

-eye

J Anderson wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
 

 Evolution is most definitely proven in practice, by the experience of 
 pepper
 moth around the period of the industrial revolution.

 <snip>


 
 http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-pepper-moth-biston-betularia.htm
Mar 02 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Ilya Minkov wrote:


 Hmmm... In fact, i can't recall running over this story during my 
 school years. I believe it's the first time i hear it. It should be 
 very hard to show evolution happening now (during one man's lifetime) 
 since the environmental changes are not rapid. However, there are so 
 many signs of it from the distant past (which created current life 
 forms and the originals stayed as well), that it hardly should be 
 disputed upon.

 -eye


Well, that's the belief of evolutionists.  Everytime something doesn't 
fit the mould they just add a couple million years and say, she'll be 
right mate.   A good example is the technique used to date dinosaurs (as 
they are a common area of *proof* for evolutionists) and the creation of 
earth.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html (Christian bias)

I could say the same thing about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or 
Buddhism.  They all have *indisputable proof*.
Mar 02 2004
next sibling parent John Reimer <jjreimer telus.net> writes:
J Anderson wrote:

 Ilya Minkov wrote:
 

 Hmmm... In fact, i can't recall running over this story during my 
 school years. I believe it's the first time i hear it. It should be 
 very hard to show evolution happening now (during one man's lifetime) 
 since the environmental changes are not rapid. However, there are so 
 many signs of it from the distant past (which created current life 
 forms and the originals stayed as well), that it hardly should be 
 disputed upon.

 -eye


 
 
 Well, that's the belief of evolutionists.  Everytime something doesn't 
 fit the mould they just add a couple million years and say, she'll be 
 right mate.   A good example is the technique used to date dinosaurs (as 
 they are a common area of *proof* for evolutionists) and the creation of 
 earth.
 
 http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html (Christian bias)
 
 I could say the same thing about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or 
 Buddhism.  They all have *indisputable proof*.



Good points.  That's why it all eventually comes down to faith for every 
philosophy out there.  We all end up believing without what would be 
considered sufficient evidence.
Mar 02 2004
prev sibling parent Carlos Santander B. <Carlos_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c231o2$10o4$2 digitaldaemon.com>, J Anderson says...

Well, that's the belief of evolutionists.  Everytime something doesn't 
fit the mould they just add a couple million years and say, she'll be 
right mate.   A good example is the technique used to date dinosaurs (as 
they are a common area of *proof* for evolutionists) and the creation of 
earth.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html (Christian bias)

I could say the same thing about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or 
Buddhism.  They all have *indisputable proof*.


As far as I'm concerned, I'm very Catholic. In fact, my faith has saved me many
times when I've been down and such.
About *indisputable proof*, as you call it, some saint said once "don't ask why:
believe and then you'll understand". Religion, as John has said, concerns things
beyond this world, so we can't always explain them, or even understand. But when
we believe, then we just come to a degree where we accept.
Now, in spite of what I believe, I also believe in evolution. I don't believe
completely in what's said in the Genesis about how the Earth and its creatures
were created (just as I don't believe other stories in the Old Testament). I can
believe, however, that God created some creatures, while others eventually
evolved. Maybe it's because Galápagos Islands are so close to me, but I just
believe evolution is a fact. So, if someday you feel like giving Charles Darwin
a try, visit the Islands and see what's there. It's a paradise: you wouldn't
believe the things you see. (This is the second time I advertise Ecuador, and
Galápagos in particular. Sorry about that.)

-------------------
Carlos Santander B.
Mar 02 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent John Reimer <jjreimer telus.net> writes:
J Anderson wrote:


 Matthew wrote:
 

 Evolution is most definitely proven in practice, by the experience of 
 pepper
 moth around the period of the industrial revolution.

 <snip>

  


 
 http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-pepper-moth-biston-betularia.htm


I was going to respond, but this summed it up better.  The pepper moth 
example is used once and awhile as a proof attempt, but is hardly an 
example of good science.
Mar 02 2004
prev sibling parent reply Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
please end this discussion.

Ant
Mar 02 2004
next sibling parent Vathix <vathix dprogramming.com> writes:
Ant wrote:

 please end this discussion.
 
 Ant
 


I get all giddy seeing there's new messages, come to find out they are 
boring :>
Mar 02 2004
prev sibling parent John Reimer <jjreimer telus.net> writes:
Ant wrote:

 please end this discussion.
 
 Ant
 
 


Heh... I know... Let's suggest to Walter that we have a new group at 
news.digitalmars.com called: D.religion ;-).  He's refused every other 
attempt at splitting the newsgroup.  Maybe this time he'll agree. :-D.
Mar 02 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:
"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:c1unvu$27dd$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Well, let me preface this by saying that I had very little religious
 upbringing, but what little there was was Christian, so there may be bias
 that I'm
 not aware of.

 In my eaerly teens, when various close members of my family died a variety
 of
 rather horrible deaths, I either fell out with God, or stopped believing


in

 Him/It,
 or somewhere in between.


Yes the devout christians say that there is a reason behind everything that
"he" lets happen(or does).

Sometimes it is very hard to see that there
could possibly be a reason for a lot of cruel
barbaric things that happen, like rape, child
molestation(which seems to be quite common
inside the church lately, or is it just being noticed?)

I like to think that it is your behaviour that counts,
eg: a good hearted person would do better on
Judgement day than a church goer  that is hypocritical(doesnt practise what
he preaches).

BTW I can imagine you in a debate with the JW's
in the park. :o))

If the movie is half as entertaining as your review,
I believe it will be enjoyable :o))

Thanks
        Phill.
Mar 01 2004
next sibling parent reply John Reimer <jjreimer telus.net> writes:
 
 Yes the devout christians say that there is a reason behind everything that
 "he" lets happen(or does).
 
 Sometimes it is very hard to see that there
 could possibly be a reason for a lot of cruel
 barbaric things that happen, like rape, child
 molestation(which seems to be quite common
 inside the church lately, or is it just being noticed?)


This is a difficult topic for a lot of people; but believe me, this 
viewpoint doesn't get better without a God.


 I like to think that it is your behaviour that counts,
 eg: a good hearted person would do better on
 Judgement day than a church goer  that is hypocritical(doesnt practise what
 he preaches).


Hypocrites will fair much worse.


 BTW I can imagine you in a debate with the JW's
 in the park. :o))


Oops, those were JW's? Have at them! They don't think that deeply about 
their religion anyway.  No offense to JW's on this list ;-)

Later,

John
Mar 01 2004
next sibling parent reply "Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:
"John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message
news:c1v0ap$2mm8$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Yes the devout christians say that there is a reason behind everything




that

 "he" lets happen(or does).

 Sometimes it is very hard to see that there
 could possibly be a reason for a lot of cruel
 barbaric things that happen, like rape, child
 molestation(which seems to be quite common
 inside the church lately, or is it just being noticed?)


 This is a difficult topic for a lot of people; but believe me, this
 viewpoint doesn't get better without a God.


 I like to think that it is your behaviour that counts,
 eg: a good hearted person would do better on
 Judgement day than a church goer  that is hypocritical(doesnt practise




what

 he preaches).


 Hypocrites will fair much worse.


 BTW I can imagine you in a debate with the JW's
 in the park. :o))


 Oops, those were JW's? Have at them! They don't think that deeply about
 their religion anyway.  No offense to JW's on this list ;-)


Yea after I made that post, I had a quick glance at
your initials knowing your name is John, I was relieved that you are JR
hahaha

I just presume they were JW's, because they tend to patrol in packs, at
least they do here in OZ.
Once you answer the door, if you are not rude its
very hard to get rid of them.

Several years ago I worked 12 hour night shifts. While trying to sleep one
day, they knocked on
my door. I made the mistake of answering the door and listening to them
for about one hour. Next week and every week
thereafter they came back, disturbing my sleep.
I tried and tried to explain that I was trying to sleep
as I was working night shift. They wouldnt take the hint. The next week when
they knocked I didnt answer the door, then I heard them yelling out through
the window "PHILL" "PHILL" hahah.
They never came back.(I guess they could hear
the music)

Phill.


 Later,

 John
Mar 01 2004
parent John Reimer <jjreimer telus.net> writes:
Oops, those were JW's? Have at them! They don't think that deeply about
their religion anyway.  No offense to JW's on this list ;-)


 
 
 Yea after I made that post, I had a quick glance at
 your initials knowing your name is John, I was relieved that you are JR
 hahaha


Lol!  I'm relieved too!


 I just presume they were JW's, because they tend to patrol in packs, at
 least they do here in OZ.
 Once you answer the door, if you are not rude its
 very hard to get rid of them.

 Several years ago I worked 12 hour night shifts. While trying to sleep one
 day, they knocked on
 my door. I made the mistake of answering the door and listening to them
 for about one hour. Next week and every week
 thereafter they came back, disturbing my sleep.
 I tried and tried to explain that I was trying to sleep
 as I was working night shift. They wouldnt take the hint. The next week when
 they knocked I didnt answer the door, then I heard them yelling out through
 the window "PHILL" "PHILL" hahah.
 They never came back.(I guess they could hear
 the music)



Arghh! Now that's a pretty bizarre story.  That's got to be as bad as it 
gets.  You let them talk to you for an hour?  Ouch! Very funny story, 
though.

Later,

John
Mar 01 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
 Yes the devout christians say that there is a reason behind everything




that

 "he" lets happen(or does).

 Sometimes it is very hard to see that there
 could possibly be a reason for a lot of cruel
 barbaric things that happen, like rape, child
 molestation(which seems to be quite common
 inside the church lately, or is it just being noticed?)


 This is a difficult topic for a lot of people; but believe me, this
 viewpoint doesn't get better without a God.


That seems sound reasoning.

Maybe it does get better without religion, though? (Oh-oh. He's off the
fence ....)


 I like to think that it is your behaviour that counts,
 eg: a good hearted person would do better on
 Judgement day than a church goer  that is hypocritical(doesnt practise




what

 he preaches).


 Hypocrites will fair much worse.


Well, we're all hypocrites in one way or another. But then we're all
sinners, aren't we?


 BTW I can imagine you in a debate with the JW's
 in the park. :o))


 Oops, those were JW's? Have at them! They don't think that deeply about
 their religion anyway.  No offense to JW's on this list ;-)


It wasn't. But I'm not naming names. There are limits to my bravery, such as
it is ...
Mar 01 2004
parent John Reimer <jjreimer telus.net> writes:
I should really, really let this drop before someone boots me out :) but 
a few words first...


This is a difficult topic for a lot of people; but believe me, this
viewpoint doesn't get better without a God.


 
 
 That seems sound reasoning.
 
 Maybe it does get better without religion, though? (Oh-oh. He's off the
 fence ....)
 


To me, religion is man's attempt to define structure for a worldview, 
much like a language/grammar is used to add structure to expression of 
thoughts.  Organization of a belief system, like anything else, helps 
people to grasp concepts better and apply them to there daily life. 
There are many religions in this world with different points of views of 
right and wrong.  While we can claim to have no religion, almost 
everyone has formed a quasi-structural belief system of some shape.  My 
claim is that, everybody has a religion whether it's formally admitted 
or not.  One of the most significant examples of this is the worship of 
empiricism and science (in fact, people are VERY religious on these 
subjects).  So the phrase "without religion" really doesn't mean much or 
is, at the very least, ambiguous.

Of the fence? I should have grabbed you and pulled you to my side of the 
fence while I had the chance.  I could have put you in a half-nelson or 
something ;-).


Hypocrites will fair much worse.


 
 
 Well, we're all hypocrites in one way or another. But then we're all
 sinners, aren't we?


Yes, we are.  I'm deeply skeptical myself about the current state of 
affairs in Christianity.  >%90 of people that claim to be Christian or 
go to church do not practice what they preach.  For them, Christianity 
has indeed become simply a "religion," and they've lost connection with 
the actually worldview behind it. Their daily lives no longer reflect 
sincere belief.  Religion becomes something to fall back on to make them 
feel good about themselves. I don't think that's real or honest.  This 
is coming from a person who believes strongly in the Christian 
worldview.  I've made my mistakes in the past and have been one of those 
hypocrites. But I see it for what it is, and I don't want to be a part 
of that.  It is wrong and shameful.  But the hypocracy of these people 
does NOT prove or disprove the existance of God.


BTW I can imagine you in a debate with the JW's
in the park. :o))


Oops, those were JW's? Have at them! They don't think that deeply about
their religion anyway.  No offense to JW's on this list ;-)


 
 
 It wasn't. But I'm not naming names. There are limits to my bravery, such as
 it is ...
 


You don't have to say who.  As I said above, you could almost take your 
pick of the churches these days to fit your example.  It's a sad state 
of affairs.  It's just that the JW cult is such an apt example.  They 
are frankly hypocritical and always have been. The mere goal of there 
door to door harassment has nothing to do with concern for the 
individual they accost, so much as getting the most points for the final 
score (membership in the special 144,000 that get to rule the world in 
the end -- woah!)  Whereas, most of the conservative Christians groups 
have drifted into hypocracy gradually.

Yet, none of these cases of hypocracy are reasons to reject Christianity 
or to not study the issues critically oneself.  The failure of humans 
does not represent the failure of God who offers a free choice to all to 
believe or not.  Naturally there are always consquences either way. Such 
is the case with all things.

I better shut up now!

Best to you,

John
Mar 01 2004
prev sibling parent "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
"Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:c1uvqt$2lr0$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
 news:c1unvu$27dd$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Well, let me preface this by saying that I had very little religious
 upbringing, but what little there was was Christian, so there may be




bias

 that I'm
 not aware of.

 In my eaerly teens, when various close members of my family died a




variety

 of
 rather horrible deaths, I either fell out with God, or stopped believing


 in

 Him/It,
 or somewhere in between.


 Yes the devout christians say that there is a reason behind everything


that

 "he" lets happen(or does).


Well, I don't see it quite as black and white as that, but there is an
enormous hypocrisy involved.

When I was 18, I was in a position to be able to go to the best universities
in England - the one's that open doors for little effort in the rest of
one's life - but I chose not to because I never wanted to get anything on
name, always on merit. I've pretty much done it all my own way ever since.
It's the same with morals - I choose my own, and do my best to live with
them. Of course, to someone with Faith, this is hubris and arrogance of
sinful proportion; the fact that it's a big weight to bear without an
umbrella of support or certainty doesn't seem to cut much weight with.

But I think that human beings have innate capacity good, since we are
evolved/designed to be social creatures, so whether it's innate good or
inherited self-interest, that most people are trying to be good. Does this
mean that the increasing numbers of non-believers who are still trying to
express their goodness represent a creeping evil? I do hope not.


 Sometimes it is very hard to see that there
 could possibly be a reason for a lot of cruel
 barbaric things that happen, like rape, child
 molestation(which seems to be quite common
 inside the church lately, or is it just being noticed?)


I'm pretty old testament in all that. Certain things are evil - whether it's
Evil or merely irreversible mal-function - and there is no excuse.

As for the hypocrisy, I can't really see that that's a result of religion,
more a perversion of man. So whether or not there's any foundation to
religion doesn't really take from the fact that religion involves a lot of
people weilding power, and is therefore no more and no less likely to be
corrupt than any organisation of man.


 I like to think that it is your behaviour that counts,
 eg: a good hearted person would do better on
 Judgement day than a church goer  that is hypocritical(doesnt practise


what

 he preaches).


Of course. If He's all knowing, what the f*** does it matter what hat you're
wearing as long as your heart is positive.


 BTW I can imagine you in a debate with the JW's
 in the park. :o))


Been there. It makes me laugh when people criticise me for an open mind, for
seeing possibilities in both sides, when they only get one. Hence the
flourescent light gag. Maybe once in a while one of the evangelical types'll
go and read a book? Wouldn't it be a cack if they did, and actually had a
deeper realisation, maybe something no-one'd ever thought of.


 If the movie is half as entertaining as your review,
 I believe it will be enjoyable :o))


Thanks! :)

Charles opened the door, and I walked through with both opinionated feet. ;)
Mar 01 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
SpookyET wrote:


 In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMain.
 


WinMain is stupid to begin with, but I don't think D is the place to try 
and fix it.  (much like trying to fix win32)

  -- andy
Feb 27 2004
prev sibling parent Carlos Santander B. <Carlos_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <opr31aoudf1s9n15 saturn>, SpookyET says...

In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMain.


You can do that in D too.

-------------------
Carlos Santander B.
Feb 27 2004
prev sibling parent reply Carlos Santander B. <Carlos_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c1nhml$1of2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...

The website gives this form for WinMain:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
		LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     int result;

     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
	_moduleCtor();
	_moduleUnitTests();

	result = doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
	MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
		    MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
	result = 0;
     }

     gc_term();
     return result;
}
----------

I've been using a slightly different version, which works as far as I
can see:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
		LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
	_moduleCtor();
	_moduleUnitTests();

	return doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
	MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
		    MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
	return 0;
     }

     finally {
	gc_term();
     }
}
----------

But is there any possible reason not to use this form?  If not, I'm
inclined to suggest putting this one in the documentation in place of
the other one, as it seems neater and more logical.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.


I might be wrong, but in your version, the program returns before the 'finally',
so maybe gc_term is not called. Can't test it now, though.

-------------------
Carlos Santander B.
Feb 27 2004
next sibling parent reply "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
"Carlos Santander B." <Carlos_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c1ofnp$ck1$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In article <c1nhml$1of2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...

The website gives this form for WinMain:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
 LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     int result;

     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
 _moduleCtor();
 _moduleUnitTests();

 result = doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
 MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
 result = 0;
     }

     gc_term();
     return result;
}
----------

I've been using a slightly different version, which works as far as I
can see:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
 LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
 _moduleCtor();
 _moduleUnitTests();

 return doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
 MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
 return 0;
     }

     finally {
 gc_term();
     }
}
----------

But is there any possible reason not to use this form?  If not, I'm
inclined to suggest putting this one in the documentation in place of
the other one, as it seems neater and more logical.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.


 I might be wrong, but in your version, the program returns before the


'finally',

 so maybe gc_term is not called. Can't test it now, though.


If finally has the same semantics as in Java/.NET this would not work.
Feb 27 2004
parent reply StuartD <StuartD_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c1pde2$1vuu$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...

"Carlos Santander B." <Carlos_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c1ofnp$ck1$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In article <c1nhml$1of2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...

The website gives this form for WinMain:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
 LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     int result;

     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
 _moduleCtor();
 _moduleUnitTests();

 result = doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
 MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
 result = 0;
     }

     gc_term();
     return result;
}
----------

I've been using a slightly different version, which works as far as I
can see:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
 LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
 _moduleCtor();
 _moduleUnitTests();

 return doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
 MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
 return 0;
     }

     finally {
 gc_term();
     }
}
----------

But is there any possible reason not to use this form?  If not, I'm
inclined to suggest putting this one in the documentation in place of
the other one, as it seems neater and more logical.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.


 I might be wrong, but in your version, the program returns before the


'finally',

 so maybe gc_term is not called. Can't test it now, though.


If finally has the same semantics as in Java/.NET this would not work.


int main(char[][] args)
{
try
{ 
throw new Exception("are you there finally?");
return 0;
}
catch (Object o)
{ 
printf("Caught object %.*s\n", o.toString());
return 1;
}
finally
{ 
printf("yes, I'm finally here");}
}
outputs:
"Caught object are you there finally?"
"yes, finally here"
finally always runs, regardless of natural returns or caught exceptions.

cheers
Stuart
Feb 28 2004
next sibling parent reply "Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:
I think that the only reason here that finally ran
is because you threw the exception, if you never
threw the exception finally would not run(or IMO should not run), because
the method would return.

Phill.


"StuartD" <StuartD_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c1q8gs$ecq$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In article <c1pde2$1vuu$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...

"Carlos Santander B." <Carlos_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c1ofnp$ck1$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In article <c1nhml$1of2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...

The website gives this form for WinMain:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
 LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     int result;

     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
 _moduleCtor();
 _moduleUnitTests();

 result = doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
 MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
 result = 0;
     }

     gc_term();
     return result;
}
----------

I've been using a slightly different version, which works as far as I
can see:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
 LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
 _moduleCtor();
 _moduleUnitTests();

 return doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
 MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
 return 0;
     }

     finally {
 gc_term();
     }
}
----------

But is there any possible reason not to use this form?  If not, I'm
inclined to suggest putting this one in the documentation in place of
the other one, as it seems neater and more logical.

Stewart.

--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being








the

unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please








keep

replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.


 I might be wrong, but in your version, the program returns before the


'finally',

 so maybe gc_term is not called. Can't test it now, though.


If finally has the same semantics as in Java/.NET this would not work.


 int main(char[][] args)
 {
 try
 {
 throw new Exception("are you there finally?");
 return 0;
 }
 catch (Object o)
 {
 printf("Caught object %.*s\n", o.toString());
 return 1;
 }
 finally
 {
 printf("yes, I'm finally here");}
 }
 outputs:
 "Caught object are you there finally?"
 "yes, finally here"
 finally always runs, regardless of natural returns or caught exceptions.

 cheers
 Stuart
Feb 28 2004
parent "Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:
"Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:c1r5vq$23ao$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I think that the only reason here that finally ran
 is because you threw the exception, if you never
 threw the exception finally would not run(or IMO should not run), because
 the method would return.

 Phill.


And never have I been more wrong!

Phill.


 "StuartD" <StuartD_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:c1q8gs$ecq$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In article <c1pde2$1vuu$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...

"Carlos Santander B." <Carlos_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c1ofnp$ck1$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In article <c1nhml$1of2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...

The website gives this form for WinMain:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
 LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     int result;

     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
 _moduleCtor();
 _moduleUnitTests();

 result = doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
 MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
 result = 0;
     }

     gc_term();
     return result;
}
----------

I've been using a slightly different version, which works as far as










I

can see:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
 LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
 _moduleCtor();
 _moduleUnitTests();

 return doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
 MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
 return 0;
     }

     finally {
 gc_term();
     }
}
----------

But is there any possible reason not to use this form?  If not, I'm
inclined to suggest putting this one in the documentation in place










of

the other one, as it seems neater and more logical.

Stewart.

--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being








 the

unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please








 keep

replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.


 I might be wrong, but in your version, the program returns before the


'finally',

 so maybe gc_term is not called. Can't test it now, though.


If finally has the same semantics as in Java/.NET this would not work.


 int main(char[][] args)
 {
 try
 {
 throw new Exception("are you there finally?");
 return 0;
 }
 catch (Object o)
 {
 printf("Caught object %.*s\n", o.toString());
 return 1;
 }
 finally
 {
 printf("yes, I'm finally here");}
 }
 outputs:
 "Caught object are you there finally?"
 "yes, finally here"
 finally always runs, regardless of natural returns or caught exceptions.

 cheers
 Stuart
Feb 28 2004
prev sibling parent "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
"StuartD" <StuartD_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c1q8gs$ecq$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In article <c1pde2$1vuu$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...

"Carlos Santander B." <Carlos_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c1ofnp$ck1$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In article <c1nhml$1of2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...

The website gives this form for WinMain:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
 LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     int result;

     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
 _moduleCtor();
 _moduleUnitTests();

 result = doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
 MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
 result = 0;
     }

     gc_term();
     return result;
}
----------

I've been using a slightly different version, which works as far as I
can see:

----------
import std.c.windows.windows;

extern (C) void gc_init();
extern (C) void gc_term();
extern (C) void _minit();
extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();

extern (Windows)
int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
 LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
     gc_init();
     _minit();

     try {
 _moduleCtor();
 _moduleUnitTests();

 return doit();
     }

     catch (Object o) {
 MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
 return 0;
     }

     finally {
 gc_term();
     }
}
----------

But is there any possible reason not to use this form?  If not, I'm
inclined to suggest putting this one in the documentation in place of
the other one, as it seems neater and more logical.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being








the

unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please








keep

replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.


 I might be wrong, but in your version, the program returns before the


'finally',

 so maybe gc_term is not called. Can't test it now, though.


If finally has the same semantics as in Java/.NET this would not work.


 int main(char[][] args)
 {
 try
 {
 throw new Exception("are you there finally?");
 return 0;
 }
 catch (Object o)
 {
 printf("Caught object %.*s\n", o.toString());
 return 1;
 }
 finally
 {
 printf("yes, I'm finally here");}
 }
 outputs:
 "Caught object are you there finally?"
 "yes, finally here"
 finally always runs, regardless of natural returns or caught exceptions.

 cheers
 Stuart


I meant to post without the word "not".

;/
Feb 28 2004
prev sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Carlos Santander B. wrote:

<snip excessive quote>

 I might be wrong, but in your version, the program returns before the
'finally',
 so maybe gc_term is not called. Can't test it now, though.


OK, so what did you think was the whole point of 'finally'?

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the 
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep 
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Mar 02 2004