A hypothesis is not the same thing as a belief. The difference is just as you said: when a scientist has a hypothesis, he does everything in his power to try and prove that his hypothesis is wrong (i.e he "tests it"). Compare that to when a religious person has a belief, and he does everything in his power to prevent people from proving it wrong.
This sort of statement assumes that all Christians are born into Christianity. This couldn't be further from the truth. No one is born into this world as a Christian. A person must CHOOSE to have faith in God.
When a person first chooses to believe in God, it is because there was some aspect of faith that had an impact on their life. This impact is as real as any other experience in life. Just because a person has an experience does not mean you can rule it out as fallacy just because you yourself have not had the same experience.
Before you go talking about people who have been born into Christian families, also consider this - just because your mother and father may be Christian and that was how you were "brought up" does not make you a Christian by default. No sir. This is a CHOICE that YOU must make on your own. Only until you have personally accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior does this make you a Christian.
For those who argue that belief in Christ does not make you a Christian, please look at the root word of CHRISTiantiy.
The real question here is "What drives a person to take on a faith/religion?" Usually it's a form of hope for the future and beyond - the life to come. Many people consider those who are religious to be "weak willed" individuals. However, what these critics fail to realize, is it takes more strength to stay in the game than it does to throw in the towel. People of faith; those who stick to it with all their might, until their dying day - they are anything but weak willed persons - no sir. They are decidedly disciplined individuals who have chosen a specific set of morals and values and have sacrificed much of what the world has to offer in order to adhere to their doctrinal beliefs. It's far more difficult to stay the course than it is to accept every new trend that comes along.
You say most Christians do "...everything in his power to prevent people from proving it wrong." I would agree with you - but only to a point. Remember, everyone who chooses to follow the path of Christianity had to make a choice - for one reason or another. Something had to have happened in their life in order for them to make such a decision. That experience is proof enough for the individual. From this point on, they are typically defending their position as most people [non-believers] don't like the "proof" that is given. Well guess what, unless you have a similar experience, you won't understand that proof. However, just because you do not understand something does not necessarily declare that thing to be a falsehood.
Finally, keep in mind, many non-Christians have turned to Christianity after trying to prove the Bible wrong as well. Many such individuals are in the field of Archeology. Furthermore, I know several common-folk who have no need to go digging up ancient treasure to prove their faith. They simply read the Bible and then test that scripture against their very own lives. When they tell you about it - their not trying to prove anything to you - it's their testimony. However, keep in mind - if it worked for them, that's all the proof THEY need. You my friend need to work out your own religion. No one can decide that for you. And if you choose to not take part in any so-called "organized" religion, than you take the path of the unorganized religion - which is everyone who has not subscribed to Christianity, Muslim Faith, Buddhism, Taoism, or any one of the other religions that abound the face of this planet.
As to which religion is right... I leave that decision to be had between you and whatever "god" model you choose to follow - keep in mind, my point of view is that if you
Yeah - I can see it now... media and advertising delivery on cereal boxes, newspapers, walls, lamp posts, etc., just like in the movie "Minority Report." Just don't don't go getting red or yellow balls.
Only problem is that OpenOffice doesn't run nicely on the Mac. And by "doesn't run nicely", I mean it's a bloated, ugly, craptacular pile of shite that doesn't integrate with OS X at all.
I would disagree with this statement.
I too recently shifted from MS Office to OpenOffice 2.x. While OO still requires X11 and is not native to OS X, this is a minor inconvenience when compared to MSO continually crashing, stating docs are corrupted when they are not and hogging system resources when Entourage goes on an email puking binge.
I find OO no more bloated the MSO in terms of a physical footprint on my hard drive. In fact, I find it considerably less irritating without a million spin-off sub directories placed all over my system the way MSO does (/Applications,/Library, ~/Library, and God only knows where else).
As for ugly - OO is as ugly as MS Office 2000 was [is] ugly, therefore if we could endure that (and we did), then we can endure an ugly OO - At least OO works! Oh wait - I'm sorry - no ActiveX/VBScript support - I'm screwed now! [AS IF! {my sarcasm drippeth thusly}]
When it comes to business - I have had absolutely no problem with sharing word/excel, and even powerpoint documents with coworkers and colleagues. Most don't even know I'm using OO,let alone a Mac in their all Wintel world.
If you want a more OS X integrated Open Source "Office" package, checkout NeoOffice. It's got the native Aqua interface you're coveting.
I find being 99.9% MS free quite liberating. Mac may be a "closed" system (in comparison to Windows), but it's the lesser of two weevils in my book. As for that remaining 00.1% - I'm sure there's some Mickey$oft code in there somewhere... I just haven't found it yet!
The only "killer app" missing from Apple is a spreadsheet application. You can use the text editor that comes with all Macs to edit Microsoft Word documents (or use Pages).
Ever hear of OpenOffice (yes, it's free, yes, it's cross platform, yes it works, but don't tell anyone, k?)
I have watched episodes of "Judge Judy" and in the past, I have noticed she has also been deficient with various terms relating to technology. Sometimes I have to laugh out loud at some of the quips she makes to people when their defense has actually been quite sound - based on everyday tech.
One such episode, while not in relationship to tech, but to motorcycles had me feeling sorry for the guy who lost. I forget the overall logistics of the case, but what it boiled down to was "Motorcycles are boy toys, not commuter vehicles." I was floored. I am someone who has analyzed the financial cost savings of riding a motorcycle to work vs driving my truck. With current trends in rising fuel costs, on average, I can spend $960 a month on 87 octane for my 2-wheel drive, Dodge Ram 1500. In comparison, I can drive the same amount of mileage on my Kawasaki Ninja ZX6R (600cc) using 91 octane and spend approximately $140 per month at the pump.
Whether we are discussing technology or motorcycles or under water basket weaving, I am wondering if some of these Judges need to take a few refresher courses at the local Junior College with regards to modern trends and advancements.
Slashdot Mirror
What are YOU smoking? I've been using Pidgin on Windows XP Professional SP/2 for a couple of months now - Oh if only /. allowed screen shots...
This sort of statement assumes that all Christians are born into Christianity. This couldn't be further from the truth. No one is born into this world as a Christian. A person must CHOOSE to have faith in God.
When a person first chooses to believe in God, it is because there was some aspect of faith that had an impact on their life. This impact is as real as any other experience in life. Just because a person has an experience does not mean you can rule it out as fallacy just because you yourself have not had the same experience.
Before you go talking about people who have been born into Christian families, also consider this - just because your mother and father may be Christian and that was how you were "brought up" does not make you a Christian by default. No sir. This is a CHOICE that YOU must make on your own. Only until you have personally accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior does this make you a Christian.
For those who argue that belief in Christ does not make you a Christian, please look at the root word of CHRISTiantiy.
The real question here is "What drives a person to take on a faith/religion?" Usually it's a form of hope for the future and beyond - the life to come. Many people consider those who are religious to be "weak willed" individuals. However, what these critics fail to realize, is it takes more strength to stay in the game than it does to throw in the towel. People of faith; those who stick to it with all their might, until their dying day - they are anything but weak willed persons - no sir. They are decidedly disciplined individuals who have chosen a specific set of morals and values and have sacrificed much of what the world has to offer in order to adhere to their doctrinal beliefs. It's far more difficult to stay the course than it is to accept every new trend that comes along.
You say most Christians do "...everything in his power to prevent people from proving it wrong." I would agree with you - but only to a point. Remember, everyone who chooses to follow the path of Christianity had to make a choice - for one reason or another. Something had to have happened in their life in order for them to make such a decision. That experience is proof enough for the individual. From this point on, they are typically defending their position as most people [non-believers] don't like the "proof" that is given. Well guess what, unless you have a similar experience, you won't understand that proof. However, just because you do not understand something does not necessarily declare that thing to be a falsehood.
Finally, keep in mind, many non-Christians have turned to Christianity after trying to prove the Bible wrong as well. Many such individuals are in the field of Archeology. Furthermore, I know several common-folk who have no need to go digging up ancient treasure to prove their faith. They simply read the Bible and then test that scripture against their very own lives. When they tell you about it - their not trying to prove anything to you - it's their testimony. However, keep in mind - if it worked for them, that's all the proof THEY need. You my friend need to work out your own religion. No one can decide that for you. And if you choose to not take part in any so-called "organized" religion, than you take the path of the unorganized religion - which is everyone who has not subscribed to Christianity, Muslim Faith, Buddhism, Taoism, or any one of the other religions that abound the face of this planet.
As to which religion is right... I leave that decision to be had between you and whatever "god" model you choose to follow - keep in mind, my point of view is that if you
Kind of like Riker kissing a hologram that was generated by software on ST:TNG? Oh but what nice holograms she has!
Yeah - I can see it now... media and advertising delivery on cereal boxes, newspapers, walls, lamp posts, etc., just like in the movie "Minority Report." Just don't don't go getting red or yellow balls.
I would disagree with this statement.
I too recently shifted from MS Office to OpenOffice 2.x. While OO still requires X11 and is not native to OS X, this is a minor inconvenience when compared to MSO continually crashing, stating docs are corrupted when they are not and hogging system resources when Entourage goes on an email puking binge.
I find OO no more bloated the MSO in terms of a physical footprint on my hard drive. In fact, I find it considerably less irritating without a million spin-off sub directories placed all over my system the way MSO does (/Applications, /Library, ~/Library, and God only knows where else).
As for ugly - OO is as ugly as MS Office 2000 was [is] ugly, therefore if we could endure that (and we did), then we can endure an ugly OO - At least OO works! Oh wait - I'm sorry - no ActiveX/VBScript support - I'm screwed now! [AS IF! {my sarcasm drippeth thusly}]
When it comes to business - I have had absolutely no problem with sharing word/excel, and even powerpoint documents with coworkers and colleagues. Most don't even know I'm using OO,let alone a Mac in their all Wintel world.
If you want a more OS X integrated Open Source "Office" package, checkout NeoOffice. It's got the native Aqua interface you're coveting.
I find being 99.9% MS free quite liberating. Mac may be a "closed" system (in comparison to Windows), but it's the lesser of two weevils in my book. As for that remaining 00.1% - I'm sure there's some Mickey$oft code in there somewhere... I just haven't found it yet!
The only "killer app" missing from Apple is a spreadsheet application. You can use the text editor that comes with all Macs to edit Microsoft Word documents (or use Pages). Ever hear of OpenOffice (yes, it's free, yes, it's cross platform, yes it works, but don't tell anyone, k?)
Viewers can text their votes.
...There's more to come!
1 for Gates
2 for Jobs
Stay tuned for the final showdown...
One such episode, while not in relationship to tech, but to motorcycles had me feeling sorry for the guy who lost. I forget the overall logistics of the case, but what it boiled down to was "Motorcycles are boy toys, not commuter vehicles." I was floored. I am someone who has analyzed the financial cost savings of riding a motorcycle to work vs driving my truck. With current trends in rising fuel costs, on average, I can spend $960 a month on 87 octane for my 2-wheel drive, Dodge Ram 1500. In comparison, I can drive the same amount of mileage on my Kawasaki Ninja ZX6R (600cc) using 91 octane and spend approximately $140 per month at the pump.
Whether we are discussing technology or motorcycles or under water basket weaving, I am wondering if some of these Judges need to take a few refresher courses at the local Junior College with regards to modern trends and advancements.