You'll be replacing CentOS with Gentoo within a few days.
Uh, sure, if the GP wants to spend the next several days compiling/configuring every... last... thing... (which is the purpose of Gentoo--total control of your OC).
CentOS is a rock solid platform. What exactly (besides a distro-flame war) do you hope to accomplish by such an indictment against a perfectly good OS??
I suppose I shouldn't gripe at what a bunch of retards my courtymen have been on energy conservation issues...it could be worse: yet another article on oil depletion could have been ignored.
Ok, given that this problem has been understood prior to the Slashdot post: how is conservation the answer? Alone, it is nothing but a delay tactic for the inevitable. The last twenty or so years should have been employed in a massive effort in developing alternative energy sources. Conservation + innovation + implementation...
It's basically too late now for that. There's no way we're going to convert trillion dollar economies to new energy sources in time to stave off the severely painful effects & shortages (not just energy shortages either!) that diminishing oil production will cause.
No flame here, just pointing out to everyone who's brought up conservation alone that it would have been part of the answer. Without a massive effort to move OFF of oil (well prior to hitting peak production) it isn't an answer at all really. Too bad everyone has been so against nuclear power plants in their proverbial back yards. They would've really come in quite handy in the next two decades...
I guess this is all quite moot at this point though. When supplies begin failing to meet demands and 'everyone' starts wondering why (and fuming that) their loaf of Wonder Bread costs $10, it's going to get really ugly...
"Sorry, all the oil is going to fuel to the war machine in the fight against terror. There's none left for domestic manufacturing & food production. Do your civic duty and quit whining about your hungry kids or we're going to send the local Reeducation Committee to your house..."
I'm already paying too much for broadband! If 'they' want to increase the cost of my lil' pipe by whacking Google, et. al., then let the gov't have at 'em!
I mean, after all, if the city can bulldoze my house to build a shopping mall, certainly the feds can take back the 'net to "...promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of [unlimited broadband internet access] to ourselves and our posterity..."
Nope, I didn't read TFA, but I'm sure I know what Verizon THINKS they want...
'the differentiator for customers is not the number comparison, but which vendor makes the patching and updating experience the least complex, most efficient and easiest to manage.'
Thanks... I guess. I'm not a n00b. I've been on Linux since RH 5.2. My HW isn't very exotic. I guess I might try the latest dyne::bolic and see what happens but I'm not expecting much...
dyne:bolic is interesting because it's one of the few completely Free OSs, without a bit of proprietary code in sight. Its default desktop is WindowMaker, too.
Too bad I've never gotten it to work properly on any of the HW I have tried it on. It boasts of being a sort of minimalists media distro capable of running on almost anything but it doesn't. I haven't been able to utilize it to any meaningful extent on hardware old or new. Really too bad. I would love it if it had lived up to it's claims...
How it or anything else made it on their 'top ten' list is a mystery...
I read the article, I have no idea what they were attempting to do. Are they trying to enumerate the best projects developed under open-source style licensing or user modifiable websites? The title & abstract have almost nothing to do with the content of the article at all:
Open source websites: All change on the internet
Ana Kronschnabl and Tomas Rawlings pick the best open source websites where users can change the content
What is that supposed to mean in light of their picks for winners? It makes no sense at all. Disregarding that, what criteria did they use to decide what was 'best'? Why is this a/. headline? Unreal...
Thanks for phrasing your post in an authentic question instead of just a flame like it could have been.
Thanks for seeing it for what it is, although I see some folks didn't take it as it was intended. I appreciate your comments and viewpoints, and I do agree, you can be an atheist and be a 'nice' person. Just as you could be a 'religious' person and be utterly un-'nice'.
The various threads generated from my questions have been interesting. As one person put it, "You think these ultimate questions --- which have been pondered in some form or another since time immemorial --- will be solved on Slashdot on a Friday night?"
I guess not.;-)
FWIW, I do appreciate those that focused on the questions at hand and who replied clearly and concisely as to their positions on the issues raised. Those replies made for interesting/informative reading, whether I may have agreed with them or not.
That was a reference to the original story--"Two archaeologists are proposing the idea that early humans first arose in Asia instead of Africa as previously thought."
A person can go his or her whole life without hearing the theory of evolution and still know that it's wrong to kill someone else to take their bread from them--even though 'survival of the fittest' would dictate otherwise...
You don't have the first [expletive] clue about evolution, do you? Try again when you've decided to educate yourself on the topic.
How 'nice'. I guess that means we're done here, huh?
Well, don't fume over my supposed ignorance. I wasn't trying to upset you, just attempting to have a conversation. Have a safe and happy New Year.
Scientists are the only group of people who regularly say "Go ahead, prove me wrong, and I will believe you."... In science, you really never can prove anything. You can only *disprove*. In religion, you can neither prove nor disprove.
That is a complete logical fallacy. You cannot logically prove a negative.
In science all you can really do is present evidences to bolster your theory, you can never 'prove' it.
You confuse a general trust in the empirical method, which is falsifiable, with faith in things which are inherently unprovable. This is apples and oranges, by any stretch of the imagination. Trying to equate the two makes no logical sense.
An Atheist Apologist? Interesting... Surprised you don't have a blog linked for such banter...
Sorry, I disagree entirely--just because you say you're right, doesn't mean that I am wrong...
"General trust"? A careful choice of words that, but it doesn't quite make your case does it now? How would you define "faith" and "belief"?
If I say I believe such & such based on so & so, and you say you believe the opposite based on this & that--what is the difference?
Whether or not evidences 'prove' anything to you is quite a subjective matter isn't it?
Sorry to disappoint you but nothing is ever proved by the scientific method. Either it strengthens a theory and adds to it's credibility or it does not. But, you already knew that didn't you? Of course you did...
Can you be 'nice' without being a 'believer'? Of course! I guess my position has been too childish for the oh so clever/. denizens... A conscience is a very real thing. People know the difference between right & wrong (no quotation marks needed), whether they choose to ignore it or not. How can evolution explain this phenomena? A person can go his or her whole life without hearing the theory of evolution and still know that it's wrong to kill someone else to take their bread from them--even though 'survival of the fittest' would dictate otherwise... They could also go their whole life without 'religion' of any kind and still know the same thing. Can you really explain that away?
[Nothing compels me to act 'nicely'] I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this. Every time some religious type asks me this sort of question I get nervous, because the implication is that the only reason HE doesn't rape/torture/murder/steal is because he's afraid of being punished in some kind of mythical afterlife. Who wants to hang out with a guy who only refrains from evil acts out of fear of punishment?
Certainly I would agree: If the only reason you DON'T do those horrendous things is for fear of punishment, then I would not want to hang out with you either!
Still, something in your understandings and beliefs compels you to act civily, what is it? What has lead you to choose not to commit the atrocities you mentioned? My point can't be so tremedously difficult to see can it? You didn't form your concepts of 'nice' (as everyone has so kindly put it) in a vacuum did you? Of course not...
Conscience, knowledge imparted to you, and experience has lead you to certain beliefs, have they not?
I suspect that it's a behavior that first spontaneously appears when you have brain structures that are capable of self-awareness. In other words, "I see that this creature is suffering. I also see that this creature is like me. Therefore, I could be the one suffering."...
And, upon what do you base this hypothesis? Wait, 'hypothesis'? That sounds akin to 'belief' to me. How did you come to this belief (or hypothesis if you wish)? I would chance a guess that it's based upon the 'revelations' of others, probably teachers or articles that you have read, written by knowledgeable folk--scientists? Someone has described to you how the brain develops and you have based your hypothesis or 'belief' on that information. In other words, you're placing your faith in what they've told you. Since you brought up Christianity in the first place (in your first reply), whereas I brought no religion into the discussion, I suppose it is ok that I use that term?
Now, I do not know whether you are an atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or any of the above. However, I do want to point out that you have created this belief system around something--and I will term that something to be science as it is generally referred to today. If you have no firsthand experience on how the brain develops in a human being, you must be basing your hypothesis on the words and works of others. Therefore you have 'faith' in what they have stated.
How is this different from the Christians that you disparaged in your earlier reply? Fundamentally, it is the same principle--belief in information dispensed to you by others: writings or otherwise...
> Ok.. And, my question was based on the stance I replied to--why do I have to be, or why should I be 'nice'?
You don't have to be anything. As you stated, you could just as well be not nice (and plenty people are).
The rest of us want you to be nice, for our sakes. This may not affect you at all.
You're good!:-)
What compels you to be nice? Experience or conscience? It sounds like you would say experience, if so what is conscience?
> What is nice? Does nice == good? Were does it fit in the 'survival of the fittest' theory? The only reason to be 'nice' is to get ahead, to survive longer? How bleak... What is a conscience then? A mere survival mechanism?
You think these ultimate questions --- which have been pondered in some form or another since time immemorial --- will be solved on Slashdot on a Friday night?
ROTFLOL! But of course, don't you? What a better way to spend a weekend when you're stuck on-call then finding answers to the mysteries of life, or at least asking questions?
> Science seems to require a lot of faith. It must take a lot of faith to be an atheist...
Science and atheism are very different things. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not implying they are the same in the above statement.
Science requires very little faith. Faith in the tools we build for observation; faith in our ability to record data accurately; faith in a universe with some degree of causality. As these are all (apart from the first, maybe) things which people take for granted anyway, science requires little more faith than is required to cross the road unscathed. (We can see and hear that there are no cars coming; we hope that this means we won't get flattened by a silent and invisible truck.)
As for atheism, what do you need faith in to not believe something?
But do atheists believe in anything? It seems like the 'revelations' of science certainly excite them to no end, and there's no question they certainly use it as a stick to beat down other viewpoints...
Therefore, I remark that it requires a lot of faith to be an atheist--you have to believe in that which can never be proven (theories)...
It would be quite hypocritical to bash others over the head with something you don't even believe yourself, wouldn't it? Or would that type of question even concern the atheist?
Evolutionary theory says that anyone who can get along with other people will have a better chance of finding food, a receptive mate, and successfully raising children or grandchildren has better reproductive success. If you help someone, that person and everyone else will know about it, and they will help you. Loners who fight everyone and are only in it for themselves die alone, with no children.
It does? Where? You know that how? Instinct? Statistics? Are you a statistician or do you 'just know' that the above is the case? If so, how do you 'just know'? Personal experience? Maybe. Maybe you came to those conclusions for yourself via experience but don't say that it's evolution that makes you act this way because you can't 'prove' it...
It's all subjective isn't it (even 'religion')?
It is all subjective; based upon the individuals own experience (religious, non-religious or otherwise [whatever that may mean]). Hence, I say that it must take a lot of faith to be an atheist--proclaiming science to be the answer to everything, when in fact theories are always subject to change...
The 'belief' in the 'realities' of science are no better or worse then those of the dogmatic religionist...
I know what I believe, but where does that leave you?
So... your viewpoint is that people are incapable of behaving in a moral fashion if they don't think that an invisible man in the sky is watching their every move, preparing to bless them into eternal paradise, or smite them into eternal damnation? Is every kind act you perform, in expectation of some reward, or in avoidance of some punishment? Most people grow out of that when they are toddlers. The rest are sociopaths.
From an evolutionary standpoint, I would say that people who have a moral conscience and a well-developed sense of right and wrong are more likely to mate and have children. Thus, brain structures that support empathy and sympathy are an inheritable survival trait. We are very social creatures, so it's not surprising that we've evolved to live and breed as part of a functioning society.
morality != religion
Where did you find "morality = religion" in any of my posts or the questions that I posed? Nowhere. I am not making any argument for religion in my posts, just asking certain questions of those who propose that we should be nice "just because". Thanks for disregarding my post yet replying anyway...
BTW, I did read your response, FWIW... Where do we come by this "moral conscience"?
> Why should I? Based on your thinking why should I be nice to anyone unless it serves my own self-interest. Why should I follow the rule of law, etc? Why shouldn't I just become a totally self-centered anarchist--kill or be killed? Survival of the fittest and all that, right?
What makes you think a totally self-centered anarchist would be fittest?
Good response! Now I would ask again, why be nice, particularly if you know (or believe) that you would fare better as such? What stops you? Conscience? Where or how does that play a role in the evolutionary theory? Do you feel you should be nice because it's the right thing to do? Did evolution build this circuit into the human system? Again, what if I know I could do really well (individually, and in a materialistic sense overall, at least in the short term) as a self-centered anarchist then what is stopping me (or you)?
They are laws describing how we see the natural world, and have nothing to do with human morality whatsoever.
Ok.. And, my question was based on the stance I replied to--why do I have to be, or why should I be 'nice'?
What is nice? Does nice == good? Were does it fit in the 'survival of the fittest' theory? The only reason to be 'nice' is to get ahead, to survive longer? How bleak... What is a conscience then? A mere survival mechanism?
Africa... Asia... Africa... Asia...
Science seems to require a lot of faith. It must take a lot of faith to be an atheist...
The afterlife is a lie. When you die that is it, you're dead. Rather than living your life through your own self-interest trying to get in to a heavenly place that does not exist I just ask that you embrace those around you, talk to other people, help each other out and in that spirit we can all make the world a little nicer.
Why should I? Based on your thinking why should I be nice to anyone unless it serves my own self-interest. Why should I follow the rule of law, etc? Why shouldn't I just become a totally self-centered anarchist--kill or be killed? Survival of the fittest and all that, right? Where in evolutionary theory does it tell me that I have to or even necessarily should be 'nice' to anyone? Just because you want me to and it might make your life better?
I'm not flaming you, I would just like to find out an atheists opinion on these particulars regarding their stance. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
...It's the [beginning] of the world as we know it, and I feel fiiiiiiine.
I wish I was ROTFLOL instead of paraphrasing pop songs...
I wouldn't have made that mistake if you hadn't made me so upset! ;-)
Uh, sure, if the GP wants to spend the next several days compiling/configuring every... last... thing... (which is the purpose of Gentoo--total control of your OC).
CentOS is a rock solid platform. What exactly (besides a distro-flame war) do you hope to accomplish by such an indictment against a perfectly good OS??
CentOS-4.3-i386-binDVD.torrent
Ok, given that this problem has been understood prior to the Slashdot post: how is conservation the answer? Alone, it is nothing but a delay tactic for the inevitable. The last twenty or so years should have been employed in a massive effort in developing alternative energy sources. Conservation + innovation + implementation...
It's basically too late now for that. There's no way we're going to convert trillion dollar economies to new energy sources in time to stave off the severely painful effects & shortages (not just energy shortages either!) that diminishing oil production will cause.
No flame here, just pointing out to everyone who's brought up conservation alone that it would have been part of the answer. Without a massive effort to move OFF of oil (well prior to hitting peak production) it isn't an answer at all really. Too bad everyone has been so against nuclear power plants in their proverbial back yards. They would've really come in quite handy in the next two decades...
I guess this is all quite moot at this point though. When supplies begin failing to meet demands and 'everyone' starts wondering why (and fuming that) their loaf of Wonder Bread costs $10, it's going to get really ugly...
"Sorry, all the oil is going to fuel to the war machine in the fight against terror. There's none left for domestic manufacturing & food production. Do your civic duty and quit whining about your hungry kids or we're going to send the local Reeducation Committee to your house..."
Eminent Domain! Eminent Domain!
I'm already paying too much for broadband! If 'they' want to increase the cost of my lil' pipe by whacking Google, et. al., then let the gov't have at 'em!
I mean, after all, if the city can bulldoze my house to build a shopping mall, certainly the feds can take back the 'net to "...promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of [unlimited broadband internet access] to ourselves and our posterity..."
Nope, I didn't read TFA, but I'm sure I know what Verizon THINKS they want...
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
Done!
It doesn't get much simpler for the user does it?
Thanks... I guess. I'm not a n00b. I've been on Linux since RH 5.2. My HW isn't very exotic. I guess I might try the latest dyne::bolic and see what happens but I'm not expecting much...
Too bad I've never gotten it to work properly on any of the HW I have tried it on. It boasts of being a sort of minimalists media distro capable of running on almost anything but it doesn't. I haven't been able to utilize it to any meaningful extent on hardware old or new. Really too bad. I would love it if it had lived up to it's claims...
How it or anything else made it on their 'top ten' list is a mystery...
What is that supposed to mean in light of their picks for winners? It makes no sense at all. Disregarding that, what criteria did they use to decide what was 'best'? Why is this a /. headline? Unreal...
So are we FOR the Government this time or against it, I forgot to bring my scorecard. Apologies.
Why did this get a 'Troll' mod? Sarcasm aside, the point is valid enough for discussion isn't it?
I play guitar yet one of the mega-musical instrument stores sent me a catalog filled with drum gear! DRUM GEAR! I was mortified! How dare they?!
Thanks for seeing it for what it is, although I see some folks didn't take it as it was intended. I appreciate your comments and viewpoints, and I do agree, you can be an atheist and be a 'nice' person. Just as you could be a 'religious' person and be utterly un-'nice'.
The various threads generated from my questions have been interesting. As one person put it, "You think these ultimate questions --- which have been pondered in some form or another since time immemorial --- will be solved on Slashdot on a Friday night?"
I guess not. ;-)
FWIW, I do appreciate those that focused on the questions at hand and who replied clearly and concisely as to their positions on the issues raised. Those replies made for interesting/informative reading, whether I may have agreed with them or not.
> What do you believe?"
What in the hell are you talking about?
That was a reference to the original story--"Two archaeologists are proposing the idea that early humans first arose in Asia instead of Africa as previously thought."
You don't have the first [expletive] clue about evolution, do you? Try again when you've decided to educate yourself on the topic.
How 'nice'. I guess that means we're done here, huh?
Well, don't fume over my supposed ignorance. I wasn't trying to upset you, just attempting to have a conversation. Have a safe and happy New Year.
That is a complete logical fallacy. You cannot logically prove a negative.
In science all you can really do is present evidences to bolster your theory, you can never 'prove' it.
Can I 'prove religion' to you? Nope.
Asia... Africa... Asia... Africa...
What do you believe?
An Atheist Apologist? Interesting... Surprised you don't have a blog linked for such banter...
Sorry, I disagree entirely--just because you say you're right, doesn't mean that I am wrong...
"General trust"? A careful choice of words that, but it doesn't quite make your case does it now? How would you define "faith" and "belief"?
If I say I believe such & such based on so & so, and you say you believe the opposite based on this & that--what is the difference?
Whether or not evidences 'prove' anything to you is quite a subjective matter isn't it?
Sorry to disappoint you but nothing is ever proved by the scientific method. Either it strengthens a theory and adds to it's credibility or it does not. But, you already knew that didn't you? Of course you did...
Can you be 'nice' without being a 'believer'? Of course! I guess my position has been too childish for the oh so clever /. denizens... A conscience is a very real thing. People know the difference between right & wrong (no quotation marks needed), whether they choose to ignore it or not. How can evolution explain this phenomena? A person can go his or her whole life without hearing the theory of evolution and still know that it's wrong to kill someone else to take their bread from them--even though 'survival of the fittest' would dictate otherwise... They could also go their whole life without 'religion' of any kind and still know the same thing. Can you really explain that away?
Certainly I would agree: If the only reason you DON'T do those horrendous things is for fear of punishment, then I would not want to hang out with you either!
Still, something in your understandings and beliefs compels you to act civily, what is it? What has lead you to choose not to commit the atrocities you mentioned? My point can't be so tremedously difficult to see can it? You didn't form your concepts of 'nice' (as everyone has so kindly put it) in a vacuum did you? Of course not...
Conscience, knowledge imparted to you, and experience has lead you to certain beliefs, have they not?
I suspect that it's a behavior that first spontaneously appears when you have brain structures that are capable of self-awareness. In other words, "I see that this creature is suffering. I also see that this creature is like me. Therefore, I could be the one suffering."...
And, upon what do you base this hypothesis? Wait, 'hypothesis'? That sounds akin to 'belief' to me. How did you come to this belief (or hypothesis if you wish)? I would chance a guess that it's based upon the 'revelations' of others, probably teachers or articles that you have read, written by knowledgeable folk--scientists? Someone has described to you how the brain develops and you have based your hypothesis or 'belief' on that information. In other words, you're placing your faith in what they've told you. Since you brought up Christianity in the first place (in your first reply), whereas I brought no religion into the discussion, I suppose it is ok that I use that term?
Now, I do not know whether you are an atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or any of the above. However, I do want to point out that you have created this belief system around something--and I will term that something to be science as it is generally referred to today. If you have no firsthand experience on how the brain develops in a human being, you must be basing your hypothesis on the words and works of others. Therefore you have 'faith' in what they have stated.
How is this different from the Christians that you disparaged in your earlier reply? Fundamentally, it is the same principle--belief in information dispensed to you by others: writings or otherwise...
You're good! :-)
What compels you to be nice? Experience or conscience? It sounds like you would say experience, if so what is conscience?
> What is nice? Does nice == good? Were does it fit in the 'survival of the fittest' theory? The only reason to be 'nice' is to get ahead, to survive longer? How bleak... What is a conscience then? A mere survival mechanism?
You think these ultimate questions --- which have been pondered in some form or another since time immemorial --- will be solved on Slashdot on a Friday night?
ROTFLOL! But of course, don't you? What a better way to spend a weekend when you're stuck on-call then finding answers to the mysteries of life, or at least asking questions?
> Science seems to require a lot of faith. It must take a lot of faith to be an atheist...
Science and atheism are very different things. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not implying they are the same in the above statement.
Science requires very little faith. Faith in the tools we build for observation; faith in our ability to record data accurately; faith in a universe with some degree of causality. As these are all (apart from the first, maybe) things which people take for granted anyway, science requires little more faith than is required to cross the road unscathed. (We can see and hear that there are no cars coming; we hope that this means we won't get flattened by a silent and invisible truck.)
As for atheism, what do you need faith in to not believe something?
But do atheists believe in anything? It seems like the 'revelations' of science certainly excite them to no end, and there's no question they certainly use it as a stick to beat down other viewpoints...
Therefore, I remark that it requires a lot of faith to be an atheist--you have to believe in that which can never be proven (theories)...
It would be quite hypocritical to bash others over the head with something you don't even believe yourself, wouldn't it? Or would that type of question even concern the atheist?
So which is it? Asia or Africa? ;-)
An atheist who believes nothing then? Not even science? Tell me how much sense that makes...
It does? Where? You know that how? Instinct? Statistics? Are you a statistician or do you 'just know' that the above is the case? If so, how do you 'just know'? Personal experience? Maybe. Maybe you came to those conclusions for yourself via experience but don't say that it's evolution that makes you act this way because you can't 'prove' it...
It's all subjective isn't it (even 'religion')?
It is all subjective; based upon the individuals own experience (religious, non-religious or otherwise [whatever that may mean]). Hence, I say that it must take a lot of faith to be an atheist--proclaiming science to be the answer to everything, when in fact theories are always subject to change...
The 'belief' in the 'realities' of science are no better or worse then those of the dogmatic religionist...
I know what I believe, but where does that leave you?
From an evolutionary standpoint, I would say that people who have a moral conscience and a well-developed sense of right and wrong are more likely to mate and have children. Thus, brain structures that support empathy and sympathy are an inheritable survival trait. We are very social creatures, so it's not surprising that we've evolved to live and breed as part of a functioning society.
morality != religion
Where did you find "morality = religion" in any of my posts or the questions that I posed? Nowhere. I am not making any argument for religion in my posts, just asking certain questions of those who propose that we should be nice "just because". Thanks for disregarding my post yet replying anyway...
BTW, I did read your response, FWIW... Where do we come by this "moral conscience"?
What makes you think a totally self-centered anarchist would be fittest?
Good response! Now I would ask again, why be nice, particularly if you know (or believe) that you would fare better as such? What stops you? Conscience? Where or how does that play a role in the evolutionary theory? Do you feel you should be nice because it's the right thing to do? Did evolution build this circuit into the human system? Again, what if I know I could do really well (individually, and in a materialistic sense overall, at least in the short term) as a self-centered anarchist then what is stopping me (or you)?
Ok.. And, my question was based on the stance I replied to--why do I have to be, or why should I be 'nice'?
What is nice? Does nice == good? Were does it fit in the 'survival of the fittest' theory? The only reason to be 'nice' is to get ahead, to survive longer? How bleak... What is a conscience then? A mere survival mechanism?
Africa... Asia... Africa... Asia...
Science seems to require a lot of faith. It must take a lot of faith to be an atheist...
Why should I? Based on your thinking why should I be nice to anyone unless it serves my own self-interest. Why should I follow the rule of law, etc? Why shouldn't I just become a totally self-centered anarchist--kill or be killed? Survival of the fittest and all that, right? Where in evolutionary theory does it tell me that I have to or even necessarily should be 'nice' to anyone? Just because you want me to and it might make your life better?
I'm not flaming you, I would just like to find out an atheists opinion on these particulars regarding their stance. Thanks.