Ok, they won't. His thesis has a major problem. Bad countries exist. They will militarize space. Hoping in the goodness of countries is very naive. And extremely dangerous.
I'm sure it will go over well with a large segment of blame America first-types. We'll get blamed while helping protect the world from the North Korea's of the world. What else is new.
One reason for believing in God is that our own universe seems improbably fine-tuned for life. But if our universe is one among a vast ensemble of universes with randomly varying physical constants, then it is only to be expected that a few of these universes should be life-fostering.
Well, it is standing quite well on its own merits as we see atheists fleeing to an unprovable multiple universe theory in order to avoid design. I believe that one is the gambler's falacy.
An appeal to authority says something is true b/c so and so believes it. I specifically said that Flew's agreement with ID doesn't make it true. Does that still make what I said an appeal to authority?
But I think it shows that ID isn't just a bunch of crap. There is some weight to their arguments.
Again, ID isn't true b/c anyone says it is. Neither is it a bunch of bunk b/c a bunch of people wish it to be so.
If ID is just completely bogus and has no good critique of Darwinism which deserves an audience, I don't think famed former-atheist philosopher Anthony Flew would have changed his mind due to ID. They have critiques which are worth mentioning. Recognizing intelligence in the universe.
Or maybe the above paragraph was created by some Turing machine and you just think I'm replying to my message somewhat coherently.
Anthony Flew, famous former-atheist philosopher, became a theist due to Intelligent Design. I don't think someone like Flew is going to change his mind based on soemthing that is completely bunk. I'm not saying ID is correct b/c Flew believes it. But it definitely lends credibility to the theory. Esp. for those who don't even bother to listen to the arguments.
First, I know that "God-given" conscience is debatable. But I stand by it.
Second, atheism does get you out of ultimate consequences. If God is dead, everything is permissible. Once you die; that's it. No consequences. Good or bad.
Now, an atheist may do something good b/c they are logically inconsistent, they want to, their conscience bothers them, they are afraid fo the police, or it makes them feel good about themselves. But they can still have areas of their lives where they want to do what they want with no consequences (again, subconscious decisions).
Well, yes, people try to flee from guilt in many different ways. Alcohol, religion, etc., etc. can be misused.
But, for a lot of people, atheism is an attempt to get out from under the consequences of their actions. And I think it is subconscious, not a conscious decision.
Are there any ultimate consequences under an atheistic philosophy? No. There can't be. That's part of its charm. Otherwise, why would so many atheists be openly hostile to even the possibility that God exists? Why would they care?
Plenty of atheists feel no qualms about saying theism is a crutch for the weak, etc. I think atheism is a crutch in many respects as well.
Do atheists still have a God-given conscience? Yes. They still can tell right from wrong.
First of all, ID is not the same thing as Creationism.
Ok, how do I know ID has won the day? Many times I have read an article in MSNBC, Time, etc. talking about the possibility for multiple universes. And why do many scientists speculate there are multiple universes? Because this one is so fine-tuned to allow for life, if we assume this is the only one, there must have been a Designer...and we can't have that.
They are actually quite open about it, which is refreshing on one level.
So let's not pretend that there are all these "neutral atheists" out there who are dispassionate about evidence. Atheism tends to be a psychological crutch so people can live a life without being accountable. All that nagging guilt gets to them.
if Intel is doing what AMD alledges, I would assume many third-party companies resent what Intel is doing. Shred? They may secretly help AMD behind the scenes for all we know.
I think you missed the point there. I hope it wasn't meant literally but he does have a point.
Weakness had emboldened and strengthened terrorists. Pulling out of Beirut and Mogidishu has done so much more to fuel the growth of terrorism than any foreign policy.
I could get into this much more about the terrorist mindset, but this will suffice for now.
Slashdot Mirror
Crap Euro Industrial Lager or American Macro Lager instead of real ale? No thanks.
Just say "The Games".
Did he use 'colour' instead of 'color' or something and thereby out himself as a BBC employee?
"Huh? You pooped in the refrigerator? And you ate the whole wheel of cheese? How'd you do that? Actually, I'm not even mad -- that's amazing!"
-Anchorman
Reckon it as miliseconds from 1972 to make people freak out even more.
Ok, they won't. His thesis has a major problem. Bad countries exist. They will militarize space. Hoping in the goodness of countries is very naive. And extremely dangerous.
I'm sure it will go over well with a large segment of blame America first-types. We'll get blamed while helping protect the world from the North Korea's of the world. What else is new.
I'll see what I can find.
Reference the Time magazine article from last November and an MSNBC article from 2003 I believe. Sorry I can't give you an exact reference.
It has to do with evolution and design because people who have proposed it explicity say "we can't have design."
eventually they work out the bugs. That isn't something to brag about.
If the author's point was to show how Google can be used to invade privacy, I'm not sure why Google would throw a hissy fit.
Are they saying you shouldn't use Google to invade privacy? If so, don't allow it in the first place.
Or is he just afraid people will learn he likes Elton John.
Well, it is standing quite well on its own merits as we see atheists fleeing to an unprovable multiple universe theory in order to avoid design. I believe that one is the gambler's falacy.
An appeal to authority says something is true b/c so and so believes it. I specifically said that Flew's agreement with ID doesn't make it true. Does that still make what I said an appeal to authority?
But I think it shows that ID isn't just a bunch of crap. There is some weight to their arguments.
Again, ID isn't true b/c anyone says it is. Neither is it a bunch of bunk b/c a bunch of people wish it to be so.
If ID is just completely bogus and has no good critique of Darwinism which deserves an audience, I don't think famed former-atheist philosopher Anthony Flew would have changed his mind due to ID. They have critiques which are worth mentioning. Recognizing intelligence in the universe.
Or maybe the above paragraph was created by some Turing machine and you just think I'm replying to my message somewhat coherently.
Anthony Flew, famous former-atheist philosopher, became a theist due to Intelligent Design. I don't think someone like Flew is going to change his mind based on soemthing that is completely bunk. I'm not saying ID is correct b/c Flew believes it. But it definitely lends credibility to the theory. Esp. for those who don't even bother to listen to the arguments.
First, I know that "God-given" conscience is debatable. But I stand by it.
Second, atheism does get you out of ultimate consequences. If God is dead, everything is permissible. Once you die; that's it. No consequences. Good or bad.
Now, an atheist may do something good b/c they are logically inconsistent, they want to, their conscience bothers them, they are afraid fo the police, or it makes them feel good about themselves. But they can still have areas of their lives where they want to do what they want with no consequences (again, subconscious decisions).
Well, yes, people try to flee from guilt in many different ways. Alcohol, religion, etc., etc. can be misused.
But, for a lot of people, atheism is an attempt to get out from under the consequences of their actions. And I think it is subconscious, not a conscious decision.
Are there any ultimate consequences under an atheistic philosophy? No. There can't be. That's part of its charm. Otherwise, why would so many atheists be openly hostile to even the possibility that God exists? Why would they care?
Plenty of atheists feel no qualms about saying theism is a crutch for the weak, etc. I think atheism is a crutch in many respects as well.
Do atheists still have a God-given conscience? Yes. They still can tell right from wrong.
That's not what I said. What I said was the following: Atheism is a way of getting out from under guilt.
First of all, ID is not the same thing as Creationism.
Ok, how do I know ID has won the day? Many times I have read an article in MSNBC, Time, etc. talking about the possibility for multiple universes. And why do many scientists speculate there are multiple universes? Because this one is so fine-tuned to allow for life, if we assume this is the only one, there must have been a Designer...and we can't have that.
They are actually quite open about it, which is refreshing on one level.
So let's not pretend that there are all these "neutral atheists" out there who are dispassionate about evidence. Atheism tends to be a psychological crutch so people can live a life without being accountable. All that nagging guilt gets to them.
it all depends on what you think radiation will do.
I'm sure in 1985 plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, future boy.
Yes. It's the historical record.
Osama himself said the pullout from Mogidishu greatly affected his strategy.
if Intel is doing what AMD alledges, I would assume many third-party companies resent what Intel is doing. Shred? They may secretly help AMD behind the scenes for all we know.
They may not want to be held hostage.
I think you missed the point there. I hope it wasn't meant literally but he does have a point.
Weakness had emboldened and strengthened terrorists. Pulling out of Beirut and Mogidishu has done so much more to fuel the growth of terrorism than any foreign policy.
I could get into this much more about the terrorist mindset, but this will suffice for now.
Mecca is a different kind of capital.
You read that right. Apparently it is OK to steal from people if they have enough money.