There is zero chance any large organisation will be deploying iPhones if they can only distribute apps via Apple. Even if it is a locked down company portal page. Then there is the small problem that developers can only release apps that Apple approves.
What do you think will happen if a developer releases for free an app that competes with an app that Apple sells for profit? Additionally, you are not able to develop apps that your carrier doesn't want. I.E. anyting that competes with them.
Just a quick note on style. Conviction is defined as "an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence". The addition of the word "potentially" (as in "potentially future" and the word may (as in "Apple may be about to drop") indicate very clearly that I don't have an unshakeable belief, making the rest of the definition moot. You, on the other hand, ask with such arrogance a few questions, which I shall attempt to answer.
What market share does Android have?
Good question. Let me take the cheap and easy way out and ask what market share the iPhone has? How many people do you know who has one? I have friends who have every conceivable electronic device (and some I find inconceivable), and none of them has an iPhone. I don't see the question as being important because Apple's market share isn't that great, and their tie to ATT is apparently stopping the phone from growing as fast as it could. Hence the part in my post where I refer to a deal with the devil.
And why exactly are Apple losing momentum?
I don't believe I said they were losing momentum. I just reread my post and it seems clear I was saying that they are losing the opportunity to gather so much momentum that they can't be stopped. Try typing this in google: "define:juggernaut". The third item describes it best:
The term juggernaut is used to describe any literal or metaphorical force regarded as unstoppable that will crush all in its path. In Britain, it is also used to refer to any large and heavy lorry.
So, what I was saying is not that Apple are losing momentum, but rather that they may be losing the ability to become unstoppable.
Now, with all that behind us, feel free to laugh. A good laugh is the best thing you cando, and if I have been able to help you with that then so much the better. Go on, enjoy it.
Google couldn't make Google Video a success so they gave up and bought YouTube, dumping their paid service.
Or possibly they felt that a superior product already existed. If you recall, when Google bought YouTube, YouTube was in a wee bit of trouble. Great product, great market share, little idea of how to generate revenue from it. Google could have waited them out but decided to buy them instead. I'm guessing it was a business decision, and it certainly bought google a whole bunch of eyes.
Google does search pretty well. For now, anyway. With all the focus on these non-search related businesses, I wonder how much longer Google's dominance in search will continue.
Google has non-search related business? Must have missed that happening. All I remember is a whole lot of additional business that either drive more business to search ads, or help make search ads more pertinent to what I'm doing. Like a ton of programmes that require a google login so that your search history (et al) can be monetized with highly targeted ads.
Anybody else notice that Google doesn't return as many relevant answers as they used to? I now spend a lot more time than I used to tweaking searches to get what I really want and not googletroll sites.
Well, I have to admit that it is harder to get good results when searching on Google. But Google still beats the pants of everyone else. At least I'm getting tons of ads that are actually useful to me. Has anyone else noticed that the ads seem more targeted to you? More relevant? Do you find yourself clicking on ads more than you used to? Dang, if I had 0.02c everytime someone did that...
The other businesses that Google gets involved with aren't all rousing successes, even when they're intrinsically related to searching, such as Google Maps. Mapquest still dominates that market, IIRC.
Who the hell is mapquest?. Seriously, who is mapquest? Never heard of them. And I'm not sure that Google Maps isn't a rousing success. Google Maps is tied to Google Earth, and Google earth generates a ton of eyeballs for Google.
(Apparently MapQuest is available in a whole bunch of European countries. Places I'd love to visit. Anyone care to comment on how popular MapQuest is in Europe? But you have to pay for some of the services. I don't like paying for stuff, and I'm not alone.)
Google has a lot of money, but that does not guarantee success. Microsoft has a lot of money too, and they can't even get their search off the ground.
You just have to bring Microsoft into this. So what if they can't get their new OS off the ground. They have many marvelous success stories behind them, like... well. Windows 98 was pretty cool. Oh, wait, you said search. My bad...
Seriously, it's not Google's money, it's their innovative way of thinking. It's the way they understand their customer. And with Android it's something the market REALLY wants. We all talk about digital convergence, and the evolution of the PC. The iPhone could have been the first BIG step in thet direction (and there have been many smaller ones, the iPhone itself, for example). If Android is only partially successful it will be the BIG step. The market want's a portable device that is as open as their PC. iPhone isn't. Android will be.
Finally, PRODUCT > !PRODUCT, almost every time.
You're right. But define product. When MS says they have a new product in development I yawn. When Google says they haver a new product in development I sit up and pay attention. The fact that 3/4 of the test analysts I work with know what Android is (and have Androind backgrounds - why I do not know) is an indication of the kind of awareness that has already been generated for Android.
Uh, yeah, because open source has been such a huge commercial success. I am not saying that there hasn't been modest success but nothing on the scale of proprietary software. When there is a phone that actually uses Android in the hands of consumers we'll have something to talk about until then it's just vapor.
I'm not so sure about that. Commercial success is difficult to measure for FOSS. If you take the purchase price out of the equation, Apache has made a lot of money for people supporting it. Google has built a massive empire off FOSS. Apple's OSX is based around a lot of FOSS, and every single Linux tech out there owes his / her commercial success to FOSS. To name but a few examples. IBM certainly seems to think that FOSS has commercial value.
I agree that until Android is actually out it's vaporware, but then you get different types of vapor. Google wants this badly, and history shows that they have the intellectual, marketing and financial muscle to pull this off. If you look at Google's business model, and where they are going as a company, they need to have an opening into the cellphone / mobile computing device within the next 6 years max, preferrably within the next 2. Missing the boat on that market will be a critical hit against Google
I'm curious as to what you think they're dropping the ball on. Which of the limitations is a problem?
The only mistakes I can see is them trying to control how the app gets onto the phone, and limiting what will be allowed on. I personally have no (immediately obvious) problem with the limits as stated, but others will. What they are doing to the iPhone is what MS is trying to do to Windows - create a closed environment where anyone can create apps, but to get them on you need to go through a commercial portal site. Sure, there is a good case for doing so (protecting the end user from malicious apps), but at the end of the day you are trading freedom for security.
I'd rather have freedom than security and safety. Android will offer this. And all that it will take for Android to kill the iPhone (in my very humble opinion) is for a Mac / PC situation to result. Who cares if the iPhone is a better product when Android based phones can run many many more apps? Simply put, if Android can provide a PTT (Push To Talk) application (for free) that uses 3G, Apple will not be able to compete. that on it's own will get millions (quote literally) of teens interested in a phone running Android.
I'm sure Apple is worried a lot about something that "looks like" a "potential", "future" winner.
It's good that we agree on this.
Something else that is probably worrying them is that Android is backed by Google. It looks like google wants this, and they can make Android a success all by themselves. It's no secret Google wants in on the mobile market (I know you know this, but there are others out there who are less informed), and with the kind of innovative aggression they've shown with their other products I'm sure they will get this one.
Apple may be about to drop the ball on this one. With Android looking like a (potentially future) winner, Apple are losing the chance to build up momentum as an open mobile platform for developers to experiment on.
I understand that they probably have contractual agreements they need to fulfill, and that the deal with ATT may have been a deal with the devil to get the phone out there and break into the market, but it could end up costing them more than they bargained for.
Uh, he said give one example of it WORKING. South Africa is turning into every other African banana republic as we speak.
And what do you base that little snippet of information on?
Sure, we have our problems. Less than the USA at the moment, but we do have problems. However, through our problems we have a system that (so far) has been seen to work. The single most popular (and most powerful) man in the county is being prosecuted for corruption. Nelson Mandela, through immense empathy and obvious love for his country, stopped South Africa from splitting apart. We have a society where the VAST MAJORITY of blacks and whites (ane everything in between) get along a co-operate with each other. We have a strong economy (which is under pressure at the moment - similar to the US economy) that appears to be more than able to ride out the coming recession.
There are problems. But I wouldn't trade our problems for any other countries. We've got a proven track record of fixing our problems. Sometimes it takes a while, but it does get done.
Right now, in South Africa, human rights are threatened by black racism against whites. Corruption is still a problem. And xenophobia in the poorer quarters is rife. How does this differ from the US? Or the UK? From what I've seen, though, Cuba has less problems than all of us, even if she does have a few of her own.
But maybe when you said BANANA republic yuo were talking about our exports? 75% of the world's platinum. Around 75% of her gold too (do you use anything that uses gold?). We produce more than enough food to feed ourselves and our neighbours. Until recently, we were producing enough electricity to supply our neighbours too, and it was some of the cheapest electricity in the world (and even with our current problems, most blackouts are carefully controlled and seldom last more than 4 hours). Our bad hospitals are bad, but our good hospitals (which are available all over the country, despite being a bit procey) are the best in the world bar none. Fre health care to everyone who can't afford to pay for it. My medical cover (and I'm by no means anywhere above middle class) give me free, unlimited hospitiliasion in the best private hospitals available, including medication. My chronic medication is also free. Then there is SAB Miller. The SAB stands for "South African Breweries". But then I don't drink, so we should probably drop that factoid.
You know, I look at some of our politicians, and on a good day I laugh, on a bad day I shake my head. But there are many who hold public office who actually love their country. How many other countries can say that? Our people, with all their problems, tend to be caring and compassionate. With the exception of extremists (who are statistically irrelevant) we are all against torture of anyone other than Australian rugby players (that part is a joke - we have a sense of humour about many things, including our problems. Actually, we don't joke about rugby, forgot that one). We have great sport teams who compete in the top levels around the world. Our individual sport men and women are amongst the best in the world.
And, we're hosting what will probably be the biggest sporting event in the history of sporting events - The 2010 Soccer World Cup. We're also friendly with Cuba.
Claims that the South African Apartheid regime collapsed due to pressure from
sanctions are a whole bunch of popycock.
As a white South African (emphasis needed only for this article), I can ensure
you that for most of my Apartheid South African life I was completely unaffected
by sanctions. I kept a journal, so I can say with certainty that I was 15 before
I even realised that there was such a thing as apartheid. As for sanctions, they
didn't affect me.
The problem with things like sanctions is that they hurt the people they are
trying to help. Sanctions caused price increases in most items - increases that
barely affected my family, but hurt the poorer (mostly black) population. My
parents, and other adults of the time (myself included) complained about high
prices on all sorts of items, but we had access to them and bought them in any
case. Most of us didn't really know any better. About the only thing that I can
remember happening that actually hurt us was the move away from the gold
standard. There was a time when the South African Rand was one of the strongest
currencies in the world due to the vast number of gold mines in the country.
What would have been a better strategy would be to flood the market with
products that exposed more people to the fact that there were differences
between whites and blacks. More of an effort to help people to recognise that
they COULD do something would also have been useful.
A lot of people outside of the country don't realise that for most of their
lives during the Apartheid regime, white South Africans could choose to vote
either for the Conservative Party (who were for taking away more black rights)
or the National Party (the "liberal" party, and the party that was eventually
responsible for the process that ended Apartheid). Through my entire childhood,
the National Party was in power. The people I spoke to were scared of blacks
coming to power (the ANC was a terrorist organisation that regularly bombed
civilian targets*), but were against the current situation. We didn't see how
the situation could change.
What ended Apartheid was the then president of the country (FW de Klerk - who
won a Nobel Piece Prize for it) giving the country a choice - vote yes to end
Apartheid, vote No to keep Apartheid. It was my first election, and I voted to
end apartheid, with the majority of the country. Because the majority of South
African's didn't believe it was a good system, and we finally had a choice with
a plan that seemed viable. We were still scared, and with good cause, but we did
it. The very fact that we were so scared and yet did it in any case should
indicate that this was a decision that was motivated by a belief in what was
right and not simple economics. People don't trade safety for money. You
give up safety for ideals.
The only argument that can counter this is that we actually had nothing to fear.
The easiest way I know to discount that is to point to this
website. It's a
website dedicated to Jacob Zuma, president of the ANC, and most likely the next
president of South Africa. These are his supporters, and more of a concern, the
comments are moderated. I.E. This is what he is comfortable with pepole seeing
his supporters as.
There is another problem. If you're interested check out what
I've started saying about these
things.
Jason
(* Yes, they did. I was there. In fact, many of the dustbins and other
container type items found in the streets in major cities were specially
designed to turn to powder instead of shrapnel when they exploded - necessary
because bombs were regularly placed inside container type items around popular
civilian attractions - shopping centers, movie theaters, etc...)
// The thing is, we don't really need to disprove the existence of something if there isn't// any evidence to indicate that it exists in the first place.
I have no evidence that you exist. Does that mean you don't exist? Does it make me terribly naive if I believe you do exist?
Before you answer with a statement that your existence is obvious, consider that:
* I may have seen things you have written, but have no proof that it was you who wrote them, * I don't know anyone who knows you (and by this I mean has actually met you) * It's actually pretty viable that someone created a fake user to post under - so there is a really good possibility that you can't, in fact exist, as an individual. * Given the amount of online fraud and identity theft, even if you DO exist, I may not be speaking to you * On principal, I'm going to refuse to accept as proof of your existence anything that you would not accept as proof that God exists.
Given that framework, can you prove your existence? And if you can't, can you justify anyone being offended by another person's belief in God.
For that matter, how do you justify anyone being offended by another person's belief? By their actions, sure, but by their belief?
Which is worse - Aggressively stating as fact that god does not exist, and attempting to make those who disagree with you look like fools, or aggressively stating as fact that God does exist, and attempting to make those who disagree with you look like fools?
I believe God exists. That's an absolute belief in my life. But if you don't share my beliefs, we can still be friends, and I can still respect you. I don't believe you're lacking in mental (or even necessarily spiritual) capacity. You just have a different belief. If we were to discuss it, I may try to persuade you to my side of the argument, but not at the cost of having you feel belittled or inadequate in any way.
Why do some people feel that they have to force their beliefs on others? What do they feel they accomplish by doing this? When you realise that the chances of anyone changing their beliefs because of anything other than gentle persuasion is minimal, it would appear that those who harshly criticise the beliefs of others probably do so because of some inadequacy in themselves, or because they have been harshly criticised in the past. In the former case, a better approach would be quiet observation until you are comfortable enough with your own beliefs and feelings that you don't feel the need to criticise others. In the latter, you are propagating the hurt you felt, your approach should to remember that two wrongs don't make a right - are you sure you want to propagate hurt, rather than winning someone to your argument?
Slashdot Mirror
What do you think will happen if a developer releases for free an app that competes with an app that Apple sells for profit? Additionally, you are not able to develop apps that your carrier doesn't want. I.E. anyting that competes with them.
Just a quick note on style. Conviction is defined as "an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence". The addition of the word "potentially" (as in "potentially future" and the word may (as in "Apple may be about to drop") indicate very clearly that I don't have an unshakeable belief, making the rest of the definition moot. You, on the other hand, ask with such arrogance a few questions, which I shall attempt to answer.
What market share does Android have?
Good question. Let me take the cheap and easy way out and ask what market share the iPhone has? How many people do you know who has one? I have friends who have every conceivable electronic device (and some I find inconceivable), and none of them has an iPhone. I don't see the question as being important because Apple's market share isn't that great, and their tie to ATT is apparently stopping the phone from growing as fast as it could. Hence the part in my post where I refer to a deal with the devil.
And why exactly are Apple losing momentum?
I don't believe I said they were losing momentum. I just reread my post and it seems clear I was saying that they are losing the opportunity to gather so much momentum that they can't be stopped. Try typing this in google: "define:juggernaut". The third item describes it best: So, what I was saying is not that Apple are losing momentum, but rather that they may be losing the ability to become unstoppable.
Now, with all that behind us, feel free to laugh. A good laugh is the best thing you cando, and if I have been able to help you with that then so much the better. Go on, enjoy it.
(Apparently MapQuest is available in a whole bunch of European countries. Places I'd love to visit. Anyone care to comment on how popular MapQuest is in Europe? But you have to pay for some of the services. I don't like paying for stuff, and I'm not alone.) You just have to bring Microsoft into this. So what if they can't get their new OS off the ground. They have many marvelous success stories behind them, like
Seriously, it's not Google's money, it's their innovative way of thinking. It's the way they understand their customer. And with Android it's something the market REALLY wants. We all talk about digital convergence, and the evolution of the PC. The iPhone could have been the first BIG step in thet direction (and there have been many smaller ones, the iPhone itself, for example). If Android is only partially successful it will be the BIG step. The market want's a portable device that is as open as their PC. iPhone isn't. Android will be. You're right. But define product. When MS says they have a new product in development I yawn. When Google says they haver a new product in development I sit up and pay attention. The fact that 3/4 of the test analysts I work with know what Android is (and have Androind backgrounds - why I do not know) is an indication of the kind of awareness that has already been generated for Android.
Uh, yeah, because open source has been such a huge commercial success. I am not saying that there hasn't been modest success but nothing on the scale of proprietary software. When there is a phone that actually uses Android in the hands of consumers we'll have something to talk about until then it's just vapor.
I'm not so sure about that. Commercial success is difficult to measure for FOSS. If you take the purchase price out of the equation, Apache has made a lot of money for people supporting it. Google has built a massive empire off FOSS. Apple's OSX is based around a lot of FOSS, and every single Linux tech out there owes his / her commercial success to FOSS. To name but a few examples. IBM certainly seems to think that FOSS has commercial value.
I agree that until Android is actually out it's vaporware, but then you get different types of vapor. Google wants this badly, and history shows that they have the intellectual, marketing and financial muscle to pull this off. If you look at Google's business model, and where they are going as a company, they need to have an opening into the cellphone / mobile computing device within the next 6 years max, preferrably within the next 2. Missing the boat on that market will be a critical hit against Google
I'm curious as to what you think they're dropping the ball on. Which of the limitations is a problem?
The only mistakes I can see is them trying to control how the app gets onto the phone, and limiting what will be allowed on. I personally have no (immediately obvious) problem with the limits as stated, but others will. What they are doing to the iPhone is what MS is trying to do to Windows - create a closed environment where anyone can create apps, but to get them on you need to go through a commercial portal site. Sure, there is a good case for doing so (protecting the end user from malicious apps), but at the end of the day you are trading freedom for security.
I'd rather have freedom than security and safety. Android will offer this. And all that it will take for Android to kill the iPhone (in my very humble opinion) is for a Mac / PC situation to result. Who cares if the iPhone is a better product when Android based phones can run many many more apps? Simply put, if Android can provide a PTT (Push To Talk) application (for free) that uses 3G, Apple will not be able to compete. that on it's own will get millions (quote literally) of teens interested in a phone running Android.
I'm sure Apple is worried a lot about something that "looks like" a "potential", "future" winner.
It's good that we agree on this.
Something else that is probably worrying them is that Android is backed by Google. It looks like google wants this, and they can make Android a success all by themselves. It's no secret Google wants in on the mobile market (I know you know this, but there are others out there who are less informed), and with the kind of innovative aggression they've shown with their other products I'm sure they will get this one.
Apple may be about to drop the ball on this one. With Android looking like a (potentially future) winner, Apple are losing the chance to build up momentum as an open mobile platform for developers to experiment on.
I understand that they probably have contractual agreements they need to fulfill, and that the deal with ATT may have been a deal with the devil to get the phone out there and break into the market, but it could end up costing them more than they bargained for.
I just like you. Invite me to dinner first, and we can talk. Oh, and my wife comes with on all dates.
Sure, we have our problems. Less than the USA at the moment, but we do have problems. However, through our problems we have a system that (so far) has been seen to work. The single most popular (and most powerful) man in the county is being prosecuted for corruption. Nelson Mandela, through immense empathy and obvious love for his country, stopped South Africa from splitting apart. We have a society where the VAST MAJORITY of blacks and whites (ane everything in between) get along a co-operate with each other. We have a strong economy (which is under pressure at the moment - similar to the US economy) that appears to be more than able to ride out the coming recession.
There are problems. But I wouldn't trade our problems for any other countries. We've got a proven track record of fixing our problems. Sometimes it takes a while, but it does get done.
Right now, in South Africa, human rights are threatened by black racism against whites. Corruption is still a problem. And xenophobia in the poorer quarters is rife. How does this differ from the US? Or the UK? From what I've seen, though, Cuba has less problems than all of us, even if she does have a few of her own.
But maybe when you said BANANA republic yuo were talking about our exports? 75% of the world's platinum. Around 75% of her gold too (do you use anything that uses gold?). We produce more than enough food to feed ourselves and our neighbours. Until recently, we were producing enough electricity to supply our neighbours too, and it was some of the cheapest electricity in the world (and even with our current problems, most blackouts are carefully controlled and seldom last more than 4 hours). Our bad hospitals are bad, but our good hospitals (which are available all over the country, despite being a bit procey) are the best in the world bar none. Fre health care to everyone who can't afford to pay for it. My medical cover (and I'm by no means anywhere above middle class) give me free, unlimited hospitiliasion in the best private hospitals available, including medication. My chronic medication is also free. Then there is SAB Miller. The SAB stands for "South African Breweries". But then I don't drink, so we should probably drop that factoid.
You know, I look at some of our politicians, and on a good day I laugh, on a bad day I shake my head. But there are many who hold public office who actually love their country. How many other countries can say that? Our people, with all their problems, tend to be caring and compassionate. With the exception of extremists (who are statistically irrelevant) we are all against torture of anyone other than Australian rugby players (that part is a joke - we have a sense of humour about many things, including our problems. Actually, we don't joke about rugby, forgot that one). We have great sport teams who compete in the top levels around the world. Our individual sport men and women are amongst the best in the world.
And, we're hosting what will probably be the biggest sporting event in the history of sporting events - The 2010 Soccer World Cup. We're also friendly with Cuba.
Claims that the South African Apartheid regime collapsed due to pressure from sanctions are a whole bunch of popycock.
As a white South African (emphasis needed only for this article), I can ensure you that for most of my Apartheid South African life I was completely unaffected by sanctions. I kept a journal, so I can say with certainty that I was 15 before I even realised that there was such a thing as apartheid. As for sanctions, they didn't affect me.
The problem with things like sanctions is that they hurt the people they are trying to help. Sanctions caused price increases in most items - increases that barely affected my family, but hurt the poorer (mostly black) population. My parents, and other adults of the time (myself included) complained about high prices on all sorts of items, but we had access to them and bought them in any case. Most of us didn't really know any better. About the only thing that I can remember happening that actually hurt us was the move away from the gold standard. There was a time when the South African Rand was one of the strongest currencies in the world due to the vast number of gold mines in the country.
What would have been a better strategy would be to flood the market with products that exposed more people to the fact that there were differences between whites and blacks. More of an effort to help people to recognise that they COULD do something would also have been useful.
A lot of people outside of the country don't realise that for most of their lives during the Apartheid regime, white South Africans could choose to vote either for the Conservative Party (who were for taking away more black rights) or the National Party (the "liberal" party, and the party that was eventually responsible for the process that ended Apartheid). Through my entire childhood, the National Party was in power. The people I spoke to were scared of blacks coming to power (the ANC was a terrorist organisation that regularly bombed civilian targets*), but were against the current situation. We didn't see how the situation could change.
What ended Apartheid was the then president of the country (FW de Klerk - who won a Nobel Piece Prize for it) giving the country a choice - vote yes to end Apartheid, vote No to keep Apartheid. It was my first election, and I voted to end apartheid, with the majority of the country. Because the majority of South African's didn't believe it was a good system, and we finally had a choice with a plan that seemed viable. We were still scared, and with good cause, but we did it. The very fact that we were so scared and yet did it in any case should indicate that this was a decision that was motivated by a belief in what was right and not simple economics. People don't trade safety for money. You give up safety for ideals.
The only argument that can counter this is that we actually had nothing to fear. The easiest way I know to discount that is to point to this website. It's a website dedicated to Jacob Zuma, president of the ANC, and most likely the next president of South Africa. These are his supporters, and more of a concern, the comments are moderated. I.E. This is what he is comfortable with pepole seeing his supporters as.
There is another problem. If you're interested check out what I've started saying about these things.
Jason
(* Yes, they did. I was there. In fact, many of the dustbins and other container type items found in the streets in major cities were specially designed to turn to powder instead of shrapnel when they exploded - necessary because bombs were regularly placed inside container type items around popular civilian attractions - shopping centers, movie theaters, etc...)
// The thing is, we don't really need to disprove the existence of something if there isn't // any evidence to indicate that it exists in the first place.
I have no evidence that you exist. Does that mean you don't exist? Does it make me terribly naive if I believe you do exist?
Before you answer with a statement that your existence is obvious, consider that:
* I may have seen things you have written, but have no proof that it was you who wrote them,
* I don't know anyone who knows you (and by this I mean has actually met you)
* It's actually pretty viable that someone created a fake user to post under - so there is a really good possibility that you can't, in fact exist, as an individual.
* Given the amount of online fraud and identity theft, even if you DO exist, I may not be speaking to you
* On principal, I'm going to refuse to accept as proof of your existence anything that you would not accept as proof that God exists.
Given that framework, can you prove your existence? And if you can't, can you justify anyone being offended by another person's belief in God.
For that matter, how do you justify anyone being offended by another person's belief? By their actions, sure, but by their belief?
Jay
Which is worse -
Aggressively stating as fact that god does not exist, and attempting to make those who disagree with you look like fools, or aggressively stating as fact that God does exist, and attempting to make those who disagree with you look like fools?
I believe God exists. That's an absolute belief in my life. But if you don't share my beliefs, we can still be friends, and I can still respect you. I don't believe you're lacking in mental (or even necessarily spiritual) capacity. You just have a different belief. If we were to discuss it, I may try to persuade you to my side of the argument, but not at the cost of having you feel belittled or inadequate in any way.
Why do some people feel that they have to force their beliefs on others? What do they feel they accomplish by doing this? When you realise that the chances of anyone changing their beliefs because of anything other than gentle persuasion is minimal, it would appear that those who harshly criticise the beliefs of others probably do so because of some inadequacy in themselves, or because they have been harshly criticised in the past. In the former case, a better approach would be quiet observation until you are comfortable enough with your own beliefs and feelings that you don't feel the need to criticise others. In the latter, you are propagating the hurt you felt, your approach should to remember that two wrongs don't make a right - are you sure you want to propagate hurt, rather than winning someone to your argument?