You've never used a camera with a good viewfinder, I'll bet. Even my Canon Digital Rebel has a somewhat sucky viewfinder, but it's so much better than any EVF could possibly be it's not even funny.
With a real viewfinder, there's absolutely no lag as you pan around. The image is perfectly sharp. Manual focus varies to not-hard with the Rebel to near-trivial with a good viewfinder. It works just fine in low light: I can set up a shot lit by a single distant candle without trouble, something truly impossible with an EVF. And on and on.
Exposure is trivial to check after the shot on the display on the back of the camera, especially with the histogram. Any camera made in the past few decades will include at least an exposure meter in the viewfinder, and modern ones will include aperture / shutter speed, shots remaining, focus confirmation points, and anything else you might want. You don't need to magnify an optical viewfinder, as it's already sharper than any EVF could possibly hope to be.
If you really want to know what an SLR viewfinder should be like, pick up a Canon 1 series (or whatever Nikon's equivalent is). Or, even better, try a rangefinder--there's few better ways to look through a camera lens than the way Leica does it.
When you've got an EVF with instant response, at least a few megapixels, and the exact same dynamic range and color rendition as the camera's sensors, we'll talk. Until then, even the best EVF isn't going to compare to a low-end SLR film viewfinder.
First, many (most?) Buddhists are atheists. They have no gods.
But in a broader sense they still hold a belief in a supernatural (if not striclty "divine") order that, at best, doesn't sit comfortably with mainstream atheist philosophy.
I am not a Buddhist, but my understanding of Buddhism is that it rejects the notion of the supernatural. Yes, Buddhism embraces many concepts--like reincarnation--that are commonly considered to be supernatural. But Buddhism claims that those things are, in fact, part of the natural world, the way things work. Modern science, according to a Buddhist, just hasn't caught up. Some Buddhists--the Dalai Lama included--will even concede the possibility that some of their most cherished propositions may be erroneous and will sadly but fully embrace a different position should science catch up and prove them worng.
The "Buddhists are atheists too!" argument feels strained to me, an attempt to appear more inclusive, the old "bandwagon" approach.
It's not a matter of artificial inclusivity; just simple taxonomy. Buddhism is without gods, which is the very definition of atheism.
Second, it's perfectly possible to have no gods and yet not accept the scientific method. Science leads many to atheism, sure, but the two are hardly inextricable.
That's pushing it. What if I changed my phrasing to "An atheist belives in only that which is tangible?"
But that's not true at all! Indeed, it's probably flat-out perfectly worng. Love, hate, justice, tyranny, good, and evil are all intangible, yet you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who doesn't believe in them in some form or another. If nothing else, logic, math, and reason are all intangible. And that's completely ignoring New Age atheists, or those who believe in Flying Saucers.
And where do you draw the line between atheism and agnosticism?
I don't. They're orthogonal, complimentary rather than conflicting.
An atheist is somebody without gods; a theist is somebody who has at least one.
An agnostic is somebody who has--for whatever reason--not (yet?) come to a conclusion on the matter. To be complete, we should add little-g ``gnosticism'' (not to be confused with an early Christian offshoot) to describe those who have come to a conclusion.
Thus, a gnostic theist knows that at least one god exists. An agnostic theist doesn't know for sure, but thinks it's reasonable to suppose that there is at least one god in existence. An agnostic atheist knows no reason to think that there are any gods. And a gnostic atheist has concluded that gods cannot possibly exist.
An agnostic friend of mine would be very unhappy that you've essentially called him an atheist.
That would be mostly because of the stigma associated with the term. Theists have done a wonderful PR job of equating ``atheist'' with ``ultimate evil.'' Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's a classic cult mind control technique, designed to scare the followers away from leaving--or even with getting anywhere near those who aren't themselves cult members.
As it's said, everybody is an atheist when it comes to the vast majority of gods people worship.
Not necessarily. It is often possible to contextualize one set of religious beliefs in terms of another. While there are doubtlessly, for example, Christians to believe that animists are hopeless sinners who are doomed to damnation (hence missionaries), there are others who consider animists to be worshipping the Christian god in their own way, a separate comm
An atheist believes Christians are wrong
An atheist believes Jews are wrong
An atheist believes Muslims are wrong
An atheist believes Hindus are wrong
An atheist believes Buddhists are wrong
An atheist believes only in that which can be proven
scientifically
First, many (most?) Buddhists are atheists. They have no
gods.
Second, it's perfectly possible to have no gods and yet not
accept the scientific method. Science leads many to atheism, sure,
but the two are hardly inextricable.
That said, your statements are only applicable to a (vocal)
minority of atheists, those commonly called ``strong'' atheists. I
know a number of atheists who would accuse you of libeling them
with those words.
The following statements are applicable to all
atheists:
An atheist does not believe that Christians are right
in regards to claims of Christ's divinity.
An atheist does not believe that Jews are right in
regards to claims of YHWH's role as the creator of Life,
the Universe, and Everything.
An atheist does not believe that Muslims are right in
regards to claims of Mohammed being the Prophet of Allah
the One God.
An atheist does not believe that Hindus are right in
regards to any of the claims of their vast
pantheon.
An atheist may or may not have come to a conclusion on
the matter of gods. An atheist may or may not have alternate
explanations to offer. An atheist is simply somebody who lacks
belief in any of the myriad gods that humans have proposed.
As it's said, everybody is an atheist when it comes to the vast
majority of gods people worship. Atheists just go one god further
than most.
(Offtopic, so posting without the karma bonus....)
An atheist is simply somebody who lacks belief in gods. A significant number (a small-but-vocal minority) of atheists, of course, go beyond mere lack of belief in gods to active disbelief in gods; they're commonly referred to as ``strong'' atheists--but not all atheists are strong atheists. Indeed, most people who refer to themselves as ``agnostic'' are also atheists, though there are also agnostic theists.
(The adjective ``strong'' is problematic, for it applies the pejorative ``weak'' to those who are ``not strong. But most other alternatives have similar problems, and ``strong'' and ``weak'' are the most widely used.)
Ask yourself: do you actively believe that Leprechauns don't exist, or do you simply lack any belief that they do? The distinction is subtle but important.
Of course, for most strong atheists, to use the word,``belief,'' is misleading, in the same way that it's misleading to say of a four-legged cat that she has three legs. (That the cat has four legs means, of necessity, that she also has three legs, so the statement is accurate. However, it implies that the cat has/exactly/ three legs, else why would you even bring up the matter?)
Most strong atheists come to their conclusions based upon the simple observation that gods, as broadly defined, are impossible. The specifics of most popular gods are easy topics--the logic to disprove the existence of the most powerful, most knowledgeable, earliest existing, etc., being is no more difficult than the logic to disprove the existence of the largest prime number or a universal method to determine whether or not a Turing machine will halt.
More broadly, all non-idolatrous gods are supposedly supernatural. ``Supernatural'' means that they act in contravention to the laws of nature. But that's a self-defeating concept: if it's real, it's natural--it's just our understanding of those laws that is flawed. Or, if the law really is inviolate, then it's the observation that's flawed. Establish just one true natural law--and math, logic, and physics is rife with them--and the term, ``supernatural,'' becomes an exact synonym for, ``impossible.''
So, to say that somebody who has come to this conclusion ``believes that gods don't exist'' is just as meaningful as saying that he ``believes that 2 + 2 3.'' (Please spare us the cute semantic games that play with math symbols to twist that statement around.) You may/believe/ that 2 + 2 3, but it's misleading to say so for the simple reason that you/know/ that 2 + 2 3.
1) Register evilpodjackingdomain.com. 2) Find somebody else's podcast. 3) Mirror that podcast's XML file at evilpodjackingdomain.dom/pwn3d.xml 4) Get evilpodjackingdomain.dom/pwn3d.xml listed in as many podcast directories as possible. 5) Wait. 6) Blackmail original podcaster with threats of modifying / removing your local mirror; all subscribers through evilpodjackingdomain.dom/pwn3d.xml would get whatever you want them to get regardless of what the podcaster wants. 7) Profit.
I don't know about you, but I'm glad that chattel slavery and
the treatment of women as property, as Commanded in Exodus 20:10
and:17 is considered barbaric today. I'm glad that the Blue Laws,
which fulfill the Commandments of:8-11, have fallen by the
wayside--I'm grown up, now, and I don't need some invisible Sky
Daddy telling me when I can and can't do as I please. As a
photographer, it pleases me to no end that such idiotic primitive
superstition as is Commanded in:4 is now regarded as the silly
twaddle it is. And, as somebody who values freedom from the
oppressive mind-control institution called, ``religion,'' I can
guarantee you, I will never respect the Commandments in:2-3 and:7
That's all ignoring, of course, the fact that Moses is no more
real than Icarus or Beowulf. Or that, even if you do
pretend that he was real, that it's nowhere near clear just which
set of Commandments makes up the Ten....
I don't really care who Joseph's father
was. What I care about was that after the disciples spent a hard
night of fishing, Jesus cared enough to cook breakfast for
them.
Dude, did you even bother to read past the first
paragraph? We're not just talking, ``Who's your granddaddy?''
stuff, here--that was just the first big boo-boo
chronologically.
What we're talking about is the biggest stuff the Bible has to
offer: the resurrection and the ascension. Quite literally, no two
accounts can agree as to what happened. And it's not just little
stuff like, ``Did Jesus go <poof> or did he ascend to Heaven
on a technicolor escalator?'' It's wildly differing locations and
times. The events just before and after aren't even close. One
gospel doesn't even think it worth mentioning. The only thing
in common is that all the disciples were present...and it's
supposedly these same disciples who're telling the story. If they
can't even agree on what city it all happened in--or, for that
matter, that it happened at all--why should anybody even bother
pretending that it's anything other than a fantasy?
And it's not like Jesus an admirable character, either. He
is the one who condemns all non-believers to eternal
torture, remember? And he did tell that parable in which
the king--representing God--told his subjects to bring everybody
who refused to submit themselves to his reign before him and
murder them there on the spot. And he made quite clear that all
those not with him are against him. And the only way to be his
disciple is to hate one's own immediate family--as well as one's
own self. And he came to bring a sword, and to set set families at
each others' throats. And there was that incident with the pigs,
and the other with the fig tree, and sending the slave back into
slavery, and...
...and there're all the horrors perpetuated by Jesus in his
``Father'' manifestation in the Old Testament, and....
The only reason you love Jesus is because your parents made you
sing that song that says that he loves you. Start with a clean
slate, and it's quickly apparent that he's no better than the
typical Pagan god--and no more real, either.
And...if I hate religion, it's because
it's been the greatest instrument for murder, torture,
lies, oppression, and hatred ever invented by
humanity.
Second only to atheism and eveolution.
Whatever you say, Mr. Ford.
Hitler was a devout Christian. As Katt so eloquently put
it:
So here's what we've learned about evasive and
self-serving Christain mendacity: if something walks like a duck;
quacks like a duck; looks like a duck; is descended from ducks;
was brought up as a duck; never claimed not to be a duck; quotes
ducks; justifies itself in the language of ducks; is accepted by
ducks as one of their own; says it's doing the work of ducks; is
photographed shaking hands with leading ducks; is a participant in
and supporter of duck-type rituals; is never condemned by the
organisations that define duckdom; uses the slogans and insignia
of ducks; refers endlessly to the mythology and history of ducks,
and has the same racial prejudices as ducks do, then...
*it might not actually be 'a duck'*. Reason: the Christains
*moved the fucking goalposts* - and they won't tell you *where
to*...
As for Stalin, his lack of belief in any god no more motivated
him to be a mass murderer than did his lack of belief in Santa
Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the gnomes at the bottom of the
garden. It was his paranoia combined with his megalomania and
general sociopathy that made him a mass murderer. He saw religious
groups as rivals for power and had them killed en masse,
sure, but he did the same thing with secular political groups--or,
for that matter, anybody who he thought was organized enough to
represent a threat to his power base.
As a question for thought, let's examine
this situation. Imagine that 66 separate documents, which
were written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500
years. Now imagine that there are no conflicts in these
documents--that they have the same basic ideas. Here it is:
http://www.netbible.com/
BWAHAHAHA! BAAWA!
Oh, my. Sorry 'bout that, but the ``no conflicts'' is just too
much.
Don't you know that Joseph had two daddies? (Matthew 1:1-17 v
Luke 3:23-38)
Perhaps you would suggest that it's Jesus's supernatural
abilities that permitted him and Mary and Joseph to both flee to
Egypt (Matthew 2:13-16) and to go straight home to Nazareth (Luke
2:22-40) after he was born?
Tell me, where did Jesus go after he was baptized? Did he spend
forty days in the desert fighting the Devil (Matthew 4:1-11 and
Mark 1:12-13), or did he go to that wedding in Cana where he did
the Bacchus trick (John 2:1-11)?
Did Jesus come to abolish the law (Ephesians 2:13-15 and
Hebrews 7:18-19) or not (Matthew 5:17-19 and Luke 16:17)?
Who were the Apostles (Matthew 10:2 and Mark 3:16-19 v Luke
6:13-16 v Acts 1:13,26)? You know, the twelve dudes who spent
the most important period of history palling around together
with Jesus? Four of whom tradition says wrote most of the New
Testament? I mean, you'd think that you'd be able to remember who
it was you ate the Last Supper with, fer chrissake....
Did Jesus remain stoically silent at his trial (Matthew
27:11-14), or did he wow the crowd with his eloquence (John
18:33-37)?
What were Jesus's last words? (Matthew 27:46-50 and Mark
15:34-37 v Luke 23:46 v John 19:30)
Then, when you get to the resurrection and the ascension, the
contradictions are laughable. No two gospels can agree on much of
anything, big or small. How was the tomb guarded? Who were the
women who went there? When did they go? Where was the stone? Who
else was at the tomb? Where did the actual resurrection take
place? And the ascension, where and when? And why wouldn't Matthew
think to even mention it?
Do yourself a favor and stop drinking the kookaid. The Bible
doesn't even pretend to be anything but a Paul Bunyan
story. Talking snakes? Walking on water? Thousands of dead people
roaming the streets--yet escaping notice until the gospels were
written down a century later? Give me a break.
Shit, for that matter, the gospels themselves don't even
pretend to be authoritative or eyewitness accounts. Even the
first four verses of Luke make clear that the person writing
this all down is getting it from the people who got it from
the eyewitnesses; in modern language, that's what's called,
``hearsay.''
Still don't believe me? Then why are all the gospels
written as third-person omniscient narratives? Why don't they
even once say something like, ``And then I saw Jesus
ascend to heaven with mine own eyes''? How could the disciples
possibly know what Jesus said and did while they were
asleep, or while he was fighting the devil in the desert, or
anything else like that? If Jesus told them, why didn't they
say, ``And then Jesus told me that, while we slept, he said
such-and-such.''
You're all grown up, now. Long past time to stop believing in
Jesus Claus and the Easter Christ.
Idiocy is a lack of fact or ignorance
of the facts with action indifferent to those
facts.
Exactly. And that's exactly what faith is.
Consider:
A theist will assert with absolute certainty that his gods
exist in the same breath that he asserts that it's impossible to
prove (or disprove) his gods' existence. You see that from several
theists in this very thread.
A theist will assert that his gods are, at the least, vastly
more intelligent than any mere human could ever possibly be; yet,
at the same time, those same theists are almost always firmly
convinced of what their gods want of them and those around them as
regards all the hotly debated topics of the day.
Despite a perfect lack of evidence for his own gods' existence,
a theist will use a similar lack of evidence for the existence of
other people's gods as proof that those gods don't exist--thus
somehow further supporting the existence of his gods.
If that's not insanity and idiocy, I don't know what is.
(Yeah, not all theists are like this. But those that aren't are
few and far between. If you're sufficiently skeptical to avoid
these traps, you've made it nearly all the way to realizing that
not a single religion in human history is more than superstitious
mumbo-jumbo at its heart, regardless of what side benefits it may
have to offer.)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I
almost certainly can prove that your god doesn't
exist.
Try me, instead. I'm a pantheist. Good
luck.
If you're a pantheist as I understand the term, then you're one
of the few modern people whose god undeniably actually does
exist. But all you've really done is redefine your god to be an
exact synonym for what the rest of us call the universe (or what
Sagan called the Cosmos). And, since we've got perfectly good
words for that concept already, adding ``God'' to the mix is
ultimately meaningless.
What if I told you the one defining
characteristic of my god was that my god can exist
as a paradox? Your whole house of cards comes crashing
down.
Erm...no, all it would mean is that you're one of those nutjobs
who believes that, if he prayed hard enough, his god would make 2
+ 2 = 5 just as a special favor. You can define your god in
meaningless babble all you like--and, indeed, virtually all
theists do. Doesn't mean a damned thing, though.
Sorry, but all you can do is suggest logical
reasons why a deity might not exist.
You might not like it, but I really can go beyond mere
suggestion to actual proof.
And it's quite simple, at that. When it comes right down to it,
all deities fall into two categories (with some notable overlap):
idols, and the supernatural.
Idols, such as golden calves and Roman emperors, unquestionably
exist and unquestionably are worshipped as gods. By most
reasonable definitions, they are gods, even if not all of
the claims made about them are true. That is, even perfect
impotence doesn't prevent an idol from being a god.
But people long ago figured out that there's nothing special
about an idol beyond whatever social significance granted to it,
and so they moved on to the purely supernatural gods that are so
popular today.
Something that is supernatural, by its very definition, works
in direct contradiction to the laws of the universe. And, we have
two possibilities for claims of the supernatural: they can be true
or they can be false.
If the claims are false, the story ends there. Whatever
supernatural ability this particular god is supposed to have, it
doesn't really have. If that's all that the god was in the first
place, there's no ``there'' there but what's in somebody's
imagination.
If the claims are true, however, then that means that what
we thought was supernatural really was just paranormal. It's
something that's real, so--obviously--it's not impossible. Some
natural feature of the universe permits it to happen, even if we
don't (yet?) understand what that is.
If we can establish but a single natural law that is really,
truly inviolate, then we can perfectly rule out the supernatural
as a possibility. And, as it so happens, there are countless such
natural laws. Math and logic are chock filled with them. Newton's
and Einstein's laws are absolute for the domains they
cover. Everywhere you turn, there are things that no amount of
either wishful thinking or super-ultra-para-natural-normal ability
would even have a prayer of doing.
All that's left to science, really, is figuring out just what
all those barriers really are.
Based on your posts here, you suffer from
the same problem as many religious zealots. Your faith in
your religion makes you hateful of anything that is outside
the scope of that religion. Your religion just happens to be
logic.
I don't really think that evolution is the
cornerstone of science
I didn't claim that is is the cornerstone of science;
I merely stated that it is a cornerstone of science. It
is certainly the foundation upon which modern biology is built,
much like chemistry is founded upon the atomic theory, and
cosmology upon relativity and / or string theory.
At this point, I would have to revise my
statement, because my definition of universe was not
accurately closed enough. "God created the physical
universe."
But you know, if you take the definition of "the
universe" to be the set of all physical things that
exist. Then such a clarrification wouldn't be necessary.... still waiting for this definitive proof that God
doesn't exist...
...and I'm still waiting for your definition of ``God.'' It
started with, ``that which created the Universe,'' which you've
since agreed is meaningless. But if your god created the
``physical universe,'' that means there must be a special
``non-physical universe'' which constitutes an essential property
of your god. So, how would you define this part of the
universe that somehow isn't physical? Oh--and do please indicate
whether and how these physical and non-physical ``universes''
interact.''
Or are you just one of those who delights in movable
goalposts?
modern medicine wouldn't exist without that
oh-so-hated cornerstone of science, the Theory of
Evolution.
What is this argument based on? The fact that both
modern medicine and evolution are both "modern", and must
therefore be intimitely interrelated? What, exactly, about
anaesthetics, or surgery, or germ theory, or gene theory,
or antibiotics, or you-name-it related to modern medicine
depends on the idea that all life is descended from a
common ancestor?
The first two? Not so much. But, today, germs and genes are
all about evolution. Haven't you been paying attention
to the Bird Flu? Just what do you think it's doing, if not
evolving? And modern genetics simply wouldn't work if it weren't
for the fact that mice and men are related through a common
ancestor--that is, we can map out a mouse's genes and a human's
genes, compare and contrast them, and draw meaningful conclusions
because our evolution was the same up to a certain point. And
the subsequent branchings are vital to understanding the
differences.
Oh, sure, we'd probably muddle through somehow if we were still
saddled with the ideas of vitreous humours and the like--the same
way we'd probably still have TV if the luminiferous aether ruled
the day, and how much of space exploration would work with
Newtonian mechanics. But a lot more people would be dead; we
wouldn't have computers; and there'd be no GPS.
He simply drove the creation of the
universe, and set into motion the events that resulted in
us.
Then where'd your god come from? Any argument you could posit
that says that the universe had to have had a creator will equally
demand that your god had a creator, as well. And that the god's
creator itself had a creator, and that one and the next as
well. Turtles all the way down, as we like to say.
But, you know what? The curious thing is that the meta-process
of creation would, itself, be creator-less, infinite, and
eternal. No matter what way you turn, the only answer to,
``Where'd it all come from?'' is, ``It simply is.''
Besides, ``the universe'' is best defined as the set of all
things that exist. If your god exists, then it's part of the
universe and was already part of the universe at the point where
your god started its existence. If your god has always existed,
then so has the universe, and thus your god didn't create it (even
if, at some point, he was all there was to it). If your god is
``outside existence,'' then he's not a member of the set of all
things that exist. That is, ``nonexistent.''
For the first, we'll use my.sig: ``All but God can prove this
sentence true.''
Consider, for a moment, if God were to prove the
sentence true. What has he accomplished? Why, to prove that
he couldn't have proven the sentence true in the first
place! Therefore, God indeed cannot prove the sentence to be
true. We, on the other hand just did so, and the proof is there
for any other intelligent being to make. Therefore, there is
something that even God can't do--but you can, I can, and so can
anybody else.
Can't really consider God omnipotent if there're things he
can't do that you and I can, eh?
Many Christians will have one of two responses at this point:
that God's omnipotence is only in the physical, not the logical
realm--that God can't do that which is logically impossible--or
that God can change the very rules of logic itself, if he so
wishes. The former is bunk: on the one hand, one must point out
that this redefinition of the word, ``omnipotent,'' to mean
something less than ``can do anything'' is dishonest; on the other
hand, one must ask that, if God is unable to do this, who's God's
daddy that bound his hands; and, on the gripping hand, one must
admit that any physical impossibility can trivially be
reduced to a logical impossibility (e.g., my inability to
run a one-minute mile is due partly to my lack of sufficient
energy in a suitable form, which is essentially an attempt to make
2 + 2 = 5). And anybody who thinks that the rules of logic are
mutable is just begging for a Darwin Award.
Alan Turing proved that even God couldn't solve the Halting
Problem: there are possible computer programs that even God
couldn't know if they halted or not. Don't believe me? Try this
ditty: ``Tell me God, `yes' or `no,' will you answer `no'?'' And
before getting all in a huff that God shouldn't be limited to
```yes' or `no''' for an answer, you should remember that the
Halting Problem can only be answered with a ``yes'' or a
``no.''
Omnipresent? It's a simple fact of physics that no two objects
can occupy the same point in space-time. (If you don't believe me,
I encourage you to perform an experiment whereby you and an
oncoming freight train occupy the same point, and report back the
results.) Your only cop-out is Deism, which is nothing more than a
re-definition of the word, ``God,'' such that it's an exact,
perfect synonym for what's commonly referred to as the universe
(or, as Sagan liked to say, the Cosmos).
So, we see that omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence
are all three perfectly impossible and ultimately meaningless
properties. We have a married bachelor, a circular square, and the
largest prime number. These being essential properties of your
god--that is, your god is nothing if it lacks one of those
properties--we can trivially conclude that your god doesn't exist
outside of your imagination (and those of like-minded people).
Any honest scientist will tell you that this is disturbing at
some level, and would consider a proof on the matter one way or
the other to be one of the greatest accomplishments of science
ever. The fact that these are gaps that must (currently) be filled
by faith is an embarrassment, not a point of pride.
And that's what makes science different from religion. Science
does a damn good job with the limited resources we have but will
honestly evaluate the likeliness of its claims. Religion makes
shit up and calls it the unquestionable Word of Some God.
Oh, sure, there are a few religious people, like the Dalai
Lama, who are excited to see science challenge their most
preciously-held beliefs and who would accept being proven
worng. But the vast majority of Christians, for example, are so
convinced that Christ was the living incarnation of the impossible
being who created Life, the Universe, and Everything that they
can't even see that Jesus was no more real than Hercules, Isis, or
Krishna. If you even hint otherwise, the faith blinders snap
closed.
You can't prove there isn't a God, and I can't
prove there is a God.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I almost certainly can
prove that your god doesn't exist. I've a rather good track
record at proving various deities to be as real as a married
bachelor.
Tell me a defining characteristic of your god--something that,
if your god didn't have it, it would be nothing--and I'll tell you
if your god could even possibly exist outside the realm of fantasy
and illogic. For example, is your god omnipotent?
Look, it's simple. The only thing science and religion have in
common with each other is that they're both methods people use to
try to make sense of the world around us. Period, full stop, end
of the matter.
Science holds most dear that which can be objectively,
repeatedly, independently verified. Religion, on the other
hand...religion is nothing without faith.
And a person with faith is one who makes conclusions about that
which he has concluded is inconclusive, has knowledge about
that which she knows is unknowable. Faith is not ``willful
ignorance,'' but rather ``willful insanity'' or ``willful
idiocy.'' Faith is a thing deserving not praise and respect, but
pity and scorn.
To equate science with religion in this context in an attempt
to force their superstitious mindfuck on people is just about the
most reprehensible thing I can think of--especially when
you consider that these people would be dead without modern
medecine, and that modern medicine wouldn't exist without that
oh-so-hated cornerstone of science, the Theory of Evolution.
You can still get all the pr0n you want. The problem was that SafeSearch was including pr0n in the results. Some dad uploaded pictures of his two-year-old daughter to share with family. But, when he searched for those pictures, he found a hell of a lot more than he was looking for.
Considering the society we live in, SafeSearch is a good default--after all, you wouldn't want something that could easily get you fired popping up on your monitor just for doing an innocent search. It's also good of Google to offer the simple ability to tell them not to be your nanny.
Religion, of course, is filled with myths, big and little, obvious and subtle. Would you ever consider tackling some of the stickier religious myths?
For example, there is absolutely no mention at all in any historical document of a certain Jesus until the year 70 or so--there aren't even any documents citing documents written before then. Contemporaries like Philo of Alexandria made absolutely no mention at all of Jesus or any of the notable events of the Gospels. The ``best'' evidence we/do/ have is horribly self-contradictory and laughably full of outrageous claims: on the one hand, Jesus stoically remained silent at his trial, refusing to say even one word; on the other, he spoke eloquently and at great length in his own defense. Thousands of dead people supposedly roamed the streets of Jerusalem, yet nobody thought to make mention of that fact until the Gospels were written a couple generations later. And no two accounts of the Ascension bear any semblance to each other.
At the least, doing a show investigating such a myth would do wonders for your ratings....
Up until I read this post, I thought that you are an Apple employee.
Mac OS X is not Unix. It never has been. We've never applied to use the Unix trademark, nor are we the least bit interested in maintaining absolute parity with Unix.
Then what, pray tell, is this page all about? Or any of these?
Slashdot Mirror
You've never used a camera with a good viewfinder, I'll bet. Even my Canon Digital Rebel has a somewhat sucky viewfinder, but it's so much better than any EVF could possibly be it's not even funny.
With a real viewfinder, there's absolutely no lag as you pan around. The image is perfectly sharp. Manual focus varies to not-hard with the Rebel to near-trivial with a good viewfinder. It works just fine in low light: I can set up a shot lit by a single distant candle without trouble, something truly impossible with an EVF. And on and on.
Exposure is trivial to check after the shot on the display on the back of the camera, especially with the histogram. Any camera made in the past few decades will include at least an exposure meter in the viewfinder, and modern ones will include aperture / shutter speed, shots remaining, focus confirmation points, and anything else you might want. You don't need to magnify an optical viewfinder, as it's already sharper than any EVF could possibly hope to be.
If you really want to know what an SLR viewfinder should be like, pick up a Canon 1 series (or whatever Nikon's equivalent is). Or, even better, try a rangefinder--there's few better ways to look through a camera lens than the way Leica does it.
When you've got an EVF with instant response, at least a few megapixels, and the exact same dynamic range and color rendition as the camera's sensors, we'll talk. Until then, even the best EVF isn't going to compare to a low-end SLR film viewfinder.
Cheers,
b&
Guppy06 wrote:
I am not a Buddhist, but my understanding of Buddhism is that it rejects the notion of the supernatural. Yes, Buddhism embraces many concepts--like reincarnation--that are commonly considered to be supernatural. But Buddhism claims that those things are, in fact, part of the natural world, the way things work. Modern science, according to a Buddhist, just hasn't caught up. Some Buddhists--the Dalai Lama included--will even concede the possibility that some of their most cherished propositions may be erroneous and will sadly but fully embrace a different position should science catch up and prove them worng.
It's not a matter of artificial inclusivity; just simple taxonomy. Buddhism is without gods, which is the very definition of atheism.
But that's not true at all! Indeed, it's probably flat-out perfectly worng. Love, hate, justice, tyranny, good, and evil are all intangible, yet you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who doesn't believe in them in some form or another. If nothing else, logic, math, and reason are all intangible. And that's completely ignoring New Age atheists, or those who believe in Flying Saucers.
I don't. They're orthogonal, complimentary rather than conflicting.
An atheist is somebody without gods; a theist is somebody who has at least one.
An agnostic is somebody who has--for whatever reason--not (yet?) come to a conclusion on the matter. To be complete, we should add little-g ``gnosticism'' (not to be confused with an early Christian offshoot) to describe those who have come to a conclusion.
Thus, a gnostic theist knows that at least one god exists. An agnostic theist doesn't know for sure, but thinks it's reasonable to suppose that there is at least one god in existence. An agnostic atheist knows no reason to think that there are any gods. And a gnostic atheist has concluded that gods cannot possibly exist.
That would be mostly because of the stigma associated with the term. Theists have done a wonderful PR job of equating ``atheist'' with ``ultimate evil.'' Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's a classic cult mind control technique, designed to scare the followers away from leaving--or even with getting anywhere near those who aren't themselves cult members.
Guppy06 wrote:
First, many (most?) Buddhists are atheists. They have no gods.
Second, it's perfectly possible to have no gods and yet not accept the scientific method. Science leads many to atheism, sure, but the two are hardly inextricable.
That said, your statements are only applicable to a (vocal) minority of atheists, those commonly called ``strong'' atheists. I know a number of atheists who would accuse you of libeling them with those words.
The following statements are applicable to all atheists:
An atheist may or may not have come to a conclusion on the matter of gods. An atheist may or may not have alternate explanations to offer. An atheist is simply somebody who lacks belief in any of the myriad gods that humans have proposed.
As it's said, everybody is an atheist when it comes to the vast majority of gods people worship. Atheists just go one god further than most.
Cheers,
b&
(Offtopic, so posting without the karma bonus....)
/exactly/ three legs, else why would you even bring up the matter?)
/believe/ that 2 + 2 3, but it's misleading to say so for the simple reason that you /know/ that 2 + 2 3.
An atheist is simply somebody who lacks belief in gods. A significant number (a small-but-vocal minority) of atheists, of course, go beyond mere lack of belief in gods to active disbelief in gods; they're commonly referred to as ``strong'' atheists--but not all atheists are strong atheists. Indeed, most people who refer to themselves as ``agnostic'' are also atheists, though there are also agnostic theists.
(The adjective ``strong'' is problematic, for it applies the pejorative ``weak'' to those who are ``not strong. But most other alternatives have similar problems, and ``strong'' and ``weak'' are the most widely used.)
Ask yourself: do you actively believe that Leprechauns don't exist, or do you simply lack any belief that they do? The distinction is subtle but important.
Of course, for most strong atheists, to use the word,``belief,'' is misleading, in the same way that it's misleading to say of a four-legged cat that she has three legs. (That the cat has four legs means, of necessity, that she also has three legs, so the statement is accurate. However, it implies that the cat has
Most strong atheists come to their conclusions based upon the simple observation that gods, as broadly defined, are impossible. The specifics of most popular gods are easy topics--the logic to disprove the existence of the most powerful, most knowledgeable, earliest existing, etc., being is no more difficult than the logic to disprove the existence of the largest prime number or a universal method to determine whether or not a Turing machine will halt.
More broadly, all non-idolatrous gods are supposedly supernatural. ``Supernatural'' means that they act in contravention to the laws of nature. But that's a self-defeating concept: if it's real, it's natural--it's just our understanding of those laws that is flawed. Or, if the law really is inviolate, then it's the observation that's flawed. Establish just one true natural law--and math, logic, and physics is rife with them--and the term, ``supernatural,'' becomes an exact synonym for, ``impossible.''
So, to say that somebody who has come to this conclusion ``believes that gods don't exist'' is just as meaningful as saying that he ``believes that 2 + 2 3.'' (Please spare us the cute semantic games that play with math symbols to twist that statement around.) You may
My cat has four legs.
Cheers,
b&
1) Register evilpodjackingdomain.com.
2) Find somebody else's podcast.
3) Mirror that podcast's XML file at evilpodjackingdomain.dom/pwn3d.xml
4) Get evilpodjackingdomain.dom/pwn3d.xml listed in as many podcast directories as possible.
5) Wait.
6) Blackmail original podcaster with threats of modifying / removing your local mirror; all subscribers through evilpodjackingdomain.dom/pwn3d.xml would get whatever you want them to get regardless of what the podcaster wants.
7) Profit.
Cheers,
b&
I don't know about you, but I'm glad that chattel slavery and the treatment of women as property, as Commanded in Exodus 20:10 and :17 is considered barbaric today. I'm glad that the Blue Laws,
which fulfill the Commandments of :8-11, have fallen by the
wayside--I'm grown up, now, and I don't need some invisible Sky
Daddy telling me when I can and can't do as I please. As a
photographer, it pleases me to no end that such idiotic primitive
superstition as is Commanded in :4 is now regarded as the silly
twaddle it is. And, as somebody who values freedom from the
oppressive mind-control institution called, ``religion,'' I can
guarantee you, I will never respect the Commandments in :2-3 and :7
That's all ignoring, of course, the fact that Moses is no more real than Icarus or Beowulf. Or that, even if you do pretend that he was real, that it's nowhere near clear just which set of Commandments makes up the Ten....
Cheers,
b&
An Anonymous Coward wrote:
Dude, did you even bother to read past the first paragraph? We're not just talking, ``Who's your granddaddy?'' stuff, here--that was just the first big boo-boo chronologically.
What we're talking about is the biggest stuff the Bible has to offer: the resurrection and the ascension. Quite literally, no two accounts can agree as to what happened. And it's not just little stuff like, ``Did Jesus go <poof> or did he ascend to Heaven on a technicolor escalator?'' It's wildly differing locations and times. The events just before and after aren't even close. One gospel doesn't even think it worth mentioning. The only thing in common is that all the disciples were present...and it's supposedly these same disciples who're telling the story. If they can't even agree on what city it all happened in--or, for that matter, that it happened at all--why should anybody even bother pretending that it's anything other than a fantasy?
And it's not like Jesus an admirable character, either. He is the one who condemns all non-believers to eternal torture, remember? And he did tell that parable in which the king--representing God--told his subjects to bring everybody who refused to submit themselves to his reign before him and murder them there on the spot. And he made quite clear that all those not with him are against him. And the only way to be his disciple is to hate one's own immediate family--as well as one's own self. And he came to bring a sword, and to set set families at each others' throats. And there was that incident with the pigs, and the other with the fig tree, and sending the slave back into slavery, and...
...and there're all the horrors perpetuated by Jesus in his ``Father'' manifestation in the Old Testament, and....
The only reason you love Jesus is because your parents made you sing that song that says that he loves you. Start with a clean slate, and it's quickly apparent that he's no better than the typical Pagan god--and no more real, either.
Cheers,
b&
So, Mr. Ford, how's it hangin'?
Cheers,
b&
An Anonymous Coward wrote:
Whatever you say, Mr. Ford.
Hitler was a devout Christian. As Katt so eloquently put it:
As for Stalin, his lack of belief in any god no more motivated him to be a mass murderer than did his lack of belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the gnomes at the bottom of the garden. It was his paranoia combined with his megalomania and general sociopathy that made him a mass murderer. He saw religious groups as rivals for power and had them killed en masse, sure, but he did the same thing with secular political groups--or, for that matter, anybody who he thought was organized enough to represent a threat to his power base.
Cheers,
b&
eosp wrote:
BWAHAHAHA! BAAWA!
Oh, my. Sorry 'bout that, but the ``no conflicts'' is just too much.
Don't you know that Joseph had two daddies? (Matthew 1:1-17 v Luke 3:23-38)
Perhaps you would suggest that it's Jesus's supernatural abilities that permitted him and Mary and Joseph to both flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-16) and to go straight home to Nazareth (Luke 2:22-40) after he was born?
Tell me, where did Jesus go after he was baptized? Did he spend forty days in the desert fighting the Devil (Matthew 4:1-11 and Mark 1:12-13), or did he go to that wedding in Cana where he did the Bacchus trick (John 2:1-11)?
Did Jesus come to abolish the law (Ephesians 2:13-15 and Hebrews 7:18-19) or not (Matthew 5:17-19 and Luke 16:17)?
Who were the Apostles (Matthew 10:2 and Mark 3:16-19 v Luke 6:13-16 v Acts 1:13,26)? You know, the twelve dudes who spent the most important period of history palling around together with Jesus? Four of whom tradition says wrote most of the New Testament? I mean, you'd think that you'd be able to remember who it was you ate the Last Supper with, fer chrissake....
Did Jesus remain stoically silent at his trial (Matthew 27:11-14), or did he wow the crowd with his eloquence (John 18:33-37)?
What were Jesus's last words? (Matthew 27:46-50 and Mark 15:34-37 v Luke 23:46 v John 19:30)
Then, when you get to the resurrection and the ascension, the contradictions are laughable. No two gospels can agree on much of anything, big or small. How was the tomb guarded? Who were the women who went there? When did they go? Where was the stone? Who else was at the tomb? Where did the actual resurrection take place? And the ascension, where and when? And why wouldn't Matthew think to even mention it?
Do yourself a favor and stop drinking the kookaid. The Bible doesn't even pretend to be anything but a Paul Bunyan story. Talking snakes? Walking on water? Thousands of dead people roaming the streets--yet escaping notice until the gospels were written down a century later? Give me a break.
Shit, for that matter, the gospels themselves don't even pretend to be authoritative or eyewitness accounts. Even the first four verses of Luke make clear that the person writing this all down is getting it from the people who got it from the eyewitnesses; in modern language, that's what's called, ``hearsay.''
Still don't believe me? Then why are all the gospels written as third-person omniscient narratives? Why don't they even once say something like, ``And then I saw Jesus ascend to heaven with mine own eyes''? How could the disciples possibly know what Jesus said and did while they were asleep, or while he was fighting the devil in the desert, or anything else like that? If Jesus told them, why didn't they say, ``And then Jesus told me that, while we slept, he said such-and-such.''
You're all grown up, now. Long past time to stop believing in Jesus Claus and the Easter Christ.
Cheers,
b&
hackus wrote:
Exactly. And that's exactly what faith is.
Consider:
A theist will assert with absolute certainty that his gods exist in the same breath that he asserts that it's impossible to prove (or disprove) his gods' existence. You see that from several theists in this very thread.
A theist will assert that his gods are, at the least, vastly more intelligent than any mere human could ever possibly be; yet, at the same time, those same theists are almost always firmly convinced of what their gods want of them and those around them as regards all the hotly debated topics of the day.
Despite a perfect lack of evidence for his own gods' existence, a theist will use a similar lack of evidence for the existence of other people's gods as proof that those gods don't exist--thus somehow further supporting the existence of his gods.
If that's not insanity and idiocy, I don't know what is.
(Yeah, not all theists are like this. But those that aren't are few and far between. If you're sufficiently skeptical to avoid these traps, you've made it nearly all the way to realizing that not a single religion in human history is more than superstitious mumbo-jumbo at its heart, regardless of what side benefits it may have to offer.)
Cheers,
b&
An Anonymous Coward wrote:
If you're a pantheist as I understand the term, then you're one of the few modern people whose god undeniably actually does exist. But all you've really done is redefine your god to be an exact synonym for what the rest of us call the universe (or what Sagan called the Cosmos). And, since we've got perfectly good words for that concept already, adding ``God'' to the mix is ultimately meaningless.
Erm...no, all it would mean is that you're one of those nutjobs who believes that, if he prayed hard enough, his god would make 2 + 2 = 5 just as a special favor. You can define your god in meaningless babble all you like--and, indeed, virtually all theists do. Doesn't mean a damned thing, though.
You might not like it, but I really can go beyond mere suggestion to actual proof.
And it's quite simple, at that. When it comes right down to it, all deities fall into two categories (with some notable overlap): idols, and the supernatural.
Idols, such as golden calves and Roman emperors, unquestionably exist and unquestionably are worshipped as gods. By most reasonable definitions, they are gods, even if not all of the claims made about them are true. That is, even perfect impotence doesn't prevent an idol from being a god.
But people long ago figured out that there's nothing special about an idol beyond whatever social significance granted to it, and so they moved on to the purely supernatural gods that are so popular today.
Something that is supernatural, by its very definition, works in direct contradiction to the laws of the universe. And, we have two possibilities for claims of the supernatural: they can be true or they can be false.
If the claims are false, the story ends there. Whatever supernatural ability this particular god is supposed to have, it doesn't really have. If that's all that the god was in the first place, there's no ``there'' there but what's in somebody's imagination.
If the claims are true, however, then that means that what we thought was supernatural really was just paranormal. It's something that's real, so--obviously--it's not impossible. Some natural feature of the universe permits it to happen, even if we don't (yet?) understand what that is.
If we can establish but a single natural law that is really, truly inviolate, then we can perfectly rule out the supernatural as a possibility. And, as it so happens, there are countless such natural laws. Math and logic are chock filled with them. Newton's and Einstein's laws are absolute for the domains they cover. Everywhere you turn, there are things that no amount of either wishful thinking or super-ultra-para-natural-normal ability would even have a prayer of doing.
All that's left to science, really, is figuring out just what all those barriers really are.
sinsofthedove wrote:
I didn't claim that is is the cornerstone of science; I merely stated that it is a cornerstone of science. It is certainly the foundation upon which modern biology is built, much like chemistry is founded upon the atomic theory, and cosmology upon relativity and / or string theory.
Cheers,
b&
Krach42 wrote:
...and I'm still waiting for your definition of ``God.'' It started with, ``that which created the Universe,'' which you've since agreed is meaningless. But if your god created the ``physical universe,'' that means there must be a special ``non-physical universe'' which constitutes an essential property of your god. So, how would you define this part of the universe that somehow isn't physical? Oh--and do please indicate whether and how these physical and non-physical ``universes'' interact.''
Or are you just one of those who delights in movable goalposts?
Cheers,
b&
The Famous Brett Wat wrote:
The first two? Not so much. But, today, germs and genes are all about evolution. Haven't you been paying attention to the Bird Flu? Just what do you think it's doing, if not evolving? And modern genetics simply wouldn't work if it weren't for the fact that mice and men are related through a common ancestor--that is, we can map out a mouse's genes and a human's genes, compare and contrast them, and draw meaningful conclusions because our evolution was the same up to a certain point. And the subsequent branchings are vital to understanding the differences.
Oh, sure, we'd probably muddle through somehow if we were still saddled with the ideas of vitreous humours and the like--the same way we'd probably still have TV if the luminiferous aether ruled the day, and how much of space exploration would work with Newtonian mechanics. But a lot more people would be dead; we wouldn't have computers; and there'd be no GPS.
Cheers,
b&
Krach42 wrote:
Then where'd your god come from? Any argument you could posit that says that the universe had to have had a creator will equally demand that your god had a creator, as well. And that the god's creator itself had a creator, and that one and the next as well. Turtles all the way down, as we like to say.
But, you know what? The curious thing is that the meta-process of creation would, itself, be creator-less, infinite, and eternal. No matter what way you turn, the only answer to, ``Where'd it all come from?'' is, ``It simply is.''
Besides, ``the universe'' is best defined as the set of all things that exist. If your god exists, then it's part of the universe and was already part of the universe at the point where your god started its existence. If your god has always existed, then so has the universe, and thus your god didn't create it (even if, at some point, he was all there was to it). If your god is ``outside existence,'' then he's not a member of the set of all things that exist. That is, ``nonexistent.''
Cheers,
b&
An Anonymous Coward wrote:
For the first, we'll use my .sig: ``All but God can prove this
sentence true.''
Consider, for a moment, if God were to prove the sentence true. What has he accomplished? Why, to prove that he couldn't have proven the sentence true in the first place! Therefore, God indeed cannot prove the sentence to be true. We, on the other hand just did so, and the proof is there for any other intelligent being to make. Therefore, there is something that even God can't do--but you can, I can, and so can anybody else.
Can't really consider God omnipotent if there're things he can't do that you and I can, eh?
Many Christians will have one of two responses at this point: that God's omnipotence is only in the physical, not the logical realm--that God can't do that which is logically impossible--or that God can change the very rules of logic itself, if he so wishes. The former is bunk: on the one hand, one must point out that this redefinition of the word, ``omnipotent,'' to mean something less than ``can do anything'' is dishonest; on the other hand, one must ask that, if God is unable to do this, who's God's daddy that bound his hands; and, on the gripping hand, one must admit that any physical impossibility can trivially be reduced to a logical impossibility (e.g., my inability to run a one-minute mile is due partly to my lack of sufficient energy in a suitable form, which is essentially an attempt to make 2 + 2 = 5). And anybody who thinks that the rules of logic are mutable is just begging for a Darwin Award.
Alan Turing proved that even God couldn't solve the Halting Problem: there are possible computer programs that even God couldn't know if they halted or not. Don't believe me? Try this ditty: ``Tell me God, `yes' or `no,' will you answer `no'?'' And before getting all in a huff that God shouldn't be limited to ```yes' or `no''' for an answer, you should remember that the Halting Problem can only be answered with a ``yes'' or a ``no.''
Omnipresent? It's a simple fact of physics that no two objects can occupy the same point in space-time. (If you don't believe me, I encourage you to perform an experiment whereby you and an oncoming freight train occupy the same point, and report back the results.) Your only cop-out is Deism, which is nothing more than a re-definition of the word, ``God,'' such that it's an exact, perfect synonym for what's commonly referred to as the universe (or, as Sagan liked to say, the Cosmos).
So, we see that omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are all three perfectly impossible and ultimately meaningless properties. We have a married bachelor, a circular square, and the largest prime number. These being essential properties of your god--that is, your god is nothing if it lacks one of those properties--we can trivially conclude that your god doesn't exist outside of your imagination (and those of like-minded people).
Cheers,
b&
jolande wrote:
Any honest scientist will tell you that this is disturbing at some level, and would consider a proof on the matter one way or the other to be one of the greatest accomplishments of science ever. The fact that these are gaps that must (currently) be filled by faith is an embarrassment, not a point of pride.
And that's what makes science different from religion. Science does a damn good job with the limited resources we have but will honestly evaluate the likeliness of its claims. Religion makes shit up and calls it the unquestionable Word of Some God.
Oh, sure, there are a few religious people, like the Dalai Lama, who are excited to see science challenge their most preciously-held beliefs and who would accept being proven worng. But the vast majority of Christians, for example, are so convinced that Christ was the living incarnation of the impossible being who created Life, the Universe, and Everything that they can't even see that Jesus was no more real than Hercules, Isis, or Krishna. If you even hint otherwise, the faith blinders snap closed.
Cheers,
b&
Krach42 wrote:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I almost certainly can prove that your god doesn't exist. I've a rather good track record at proving various deities to be as real as a married bachelor.
Tell me a defining characteristic of your god--something that, if your god didn't have it, it would be nothing--and I'll tell you if your god could even possibly exist outside the realm of fantasy and illogic. For example, is your god omnipotent?
Cheers,
b&
Oh, for crying out lo--
Look, it's simple. The only thing science and religion have in common with each other is that they're both methods people use to try to make sense of the world around us. Period, full stop, end of the matter.
Science holds most dear that which can be objectively, repeatedly, independently verified. Religion, on the other hand...religion is nothing without faith.
And a person with faith is one who makes conclusions about that which he has concluded is inconclusive, has knowledge about that which she knows is unknowable. Faith is not ``willful ignorance,'' but rather ``willful insanity'' or ``willful idiocy.'' Faith is a thing deserving not praise and respect, but pity and scorn.
To equate science with religion in this context in an attempt to force their superstitious mindfuck on people is just about the most reprehensible thing I can think of--especially when you consider that these people would be dead without modern medecine, and that modern medicine wouldn't exist without that oh-so-hated cornerstone of science, the Theory of Evolution.
</rant>
Cheers,
b&
You can still get all the pr0n you want. The problem was that SafeSearch was including pr0n in the results. Some dad uploaded pictures of his two-year-old daughter to share with family. But, when he searched for those pictures, he found a hell of a lot more than he was looking for.
Considering the society we live in, SafeSearch is a good default--after all, you wouldn't want something that could easily get you fired popping up on your monitor just for doing an innocent search. It's also good of Google to offer the simple ability to tell them not to be your nanny.
Cheers,
b&
Religion, of course, is filled with myths, big and little, obvious and subtle. Would you ever consider tackling some of the stickier religious myths?
For example, there is absolutely no mention at all in any historical document of a certain Jesus until the year 70 or so--there aren't even any documents citing documents written before then. Contemporaries like Philo of Alexandria made absolutely no mention at all of Jesus or any of the notable events of the Gospels. The ``best'' evidence we /do/ have is horribly self-contradictory and laughably full of outrageous claims: on the one hand, Jesus stoically remained silent at his trial, refusing to say even one word; on the other, he spoke eloquently and at great length in his own defense. Thousands of dead people supposedly roamed the streets of Jerusalem, yet nobody thought to make mention of that fact until the Gospels were written a couple generations later. And no two accounts of the Ascension bear any semblance to each other.
At the least, doing a show investigating such a myth would do wonders for your ratings....
Cheers,
b&
What makes you think that such devices will remain legal?
Cheers,
b&
``Papers, please.''
Cheers,
b&
Up until I read this post, I thought that you are an Apple employee.
Then what, pray tell, is this page all about? Or any of these?
Cheers,
b&