Slashdot Mirror
China's Earliest Modern Human Found
The remains of one of the earliest modern humans to inhabit eastern Asia have been unearthed in China. The find could shed light on how our ancestors colonized the East. Researchers found 34 bone fragments belonging to a single individual at the Tianyuan Cave, near Beijing.
A ~A should read A <==>~A
Would it have been so hard to mention the age in the summary? You made me RTFA! :(
Troll and flamebait. I always get moderator points when /. editors in the mood for games, iPods and RIAA wars and never on those subjects. It is a test.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
No, atheists are not excluded from being philosophers of religion. There have been many notable atheist philosophers of religion. For every Swinburne there's a Mackie, and for every Plantinga there's a Flew (well, before his conversion, anyway). Just look in your university library for an introductory reader in the philosophy of religion--I'm especially fond of Readings in the Philosophy of Religion ed. Baruch Brody (Prentice Hall, 1996). you'll see that atheist lines of argumentation are just as represented as theist ones.
Dawkins is not a philosopher of religion because he does not publish in journals dedicated to the subject, nor does he hold a university position as a lecturer or researcher in the philosopher of religion, nor do many actual philosophers of religion recognize Dawkins as one of their own.
No, that's not it at all. If Dawkins fulfilled the requirements I mentioned above, publishing in the right journals, holding a proper university position, then of course no one would have a problem considering him a colleague.
I did do work in the philosophy of religion as an undergraduate, and my favourite part of the field isn't specifically Christian at all. But still, my point above stands, it's not for anyone on Slashdot (unless they hold a Ph.D and a university position in the subject) to say anything negative about a field.
That only asserts that a human observer cannot know one way or the other, it says nothing about the abilities of an omniscient God.
I really hope that when you finish your studies and begin your university career, you will not tolerate people without any appropriate qualifications in the field attempting to make their own arguments instead of merely accepting the arguments of qualified scholars. 'Cause let me tell you, most people I know in my own field are sick of such behavior. Do your lecturers know about this?