yes. please say more. my iBook has a 5-button trackpad and a 4-button Apple mouse.
>I personally like being able to easily access more than 50 applications at any given moment.
how do you access them on Windows? [pause for response] you can do that on Mac.
>X11 giving you troubles?
nope. next...
>it had to be a DVI/VGA/HDMI connection
damn, those are some pretty strict restrictions, who uses any of that tech? [sry for sarcasm]
>The TV requires a 59.9 Hz frequency
I'm no expert on TV specs but seems like the problem isn't Apple's.
>unless you feel that I haven't given enough?
you've given me so little that if your post was anonymous I'd assume you were trolling.
>And as a note, I'm a computer engineering major. Learning about these sorts of things is kind of my life right now. : )
I have a PhD in astrophysics. I use computers to get things done (and for personal entertainment), so I use a Mac, as do the majority of colleagues.
>One man's treasure is another man's trash.
Apple is still the industry leader in customer satisfaction with a score of 79. I accept your point about subjectivity, but not your tu quoque fallacy: one man's treasure is "a fraction of another man"'s trash:)
yeah right, and to save the massive disappointment on my iBook that's worked amazingly for me for 3 years, I have since wasted money on 2 iPods, an iPhone, Airport Express, various peripherals and software.
Also, when I used Vista for the first time ever a few days ago (I was asked to help set up wireless on it) all the pop ups didn't really annoy me, they were like lots of little hugs from Microsoft letting me know they cared, I just faked my disgust at MS design to mask my massive heartache at Apple's famously difficult to use products.
>...but I can't think of any reasons to buy PS3 anymore
interesting, since I have no interest in Sony at all. I think they're a shitty company (rootkits anyone?) and have a Wii and Xbox 360.
But I've been thinking about getting a PS3 since to this day it is still the only reasonably priced, quality blu ray player.
If they announce a price cut I will be very tempted, though I would never think of using it as a games platform. for a start the controller is a minor torture device; left analogue stick in secondary position (seriously? D pads as primary input in 21st century?), analogue shoulder buttons that curve AWAY from your fingers so they constantly slide off, still no rumble yet.
hopefully you won't ask the US supreme court to comment on the definition terrorism, since they are a Catholic majority and seek to defer to the Pope on all matters, and the Pope says terrorism is disagreeing with him:
>But being a Jew or a Christian is not an obligation
Jewsish prayers thank god for not being an inferior gentile. Christians preach that unless Jesus saves you, things will be very bad for you. the freedom to choose your religion has no basis in religion itself. it comes from secular laws, in the US the 1st amendment, specifically written to establish that no religious ideas should be respected by the government.
I repeat my earlier question - which side are you on: no respect for religion - the Danish cartoons are valid free speech/expression or respect for religion - the Danish cartoons are not valid free speech/expression
>OK, let's try. Could you please give me an example of something that is as bad as stonings, tortures or death that is not a physical harm?
no, that's the point. it's trivial to see how people who think ideas can be sacred or should be respected more than people can commit horrible crimes. but if you start from a secular principle of no intrinsic respect for ideas or beliefs, only intrinsic respect for people, then you get much better results.
>Unless, of course it turns into harassment or discrimination.
just like how sex is legal unless it turns into rape... your point?
what's your point? Christians continue to publish and promote a book that calls all atheists fools, and recommends some violent acts against them. if you want to go down the 'respect' road, then every competing religious belief is offensive. heard of the first commandment? completely incompatible with the first amendment; either 'thou shalt have no other gods' or thou shalt have free practice of religion, but not both.
the physical harm point was in an earlier post. how about answering my question? no examples? fine, I didn't expect you to anyway.
>Anyone can exercise freedom of speech without being disrespectfull to any religious group
no, I cannot in fact exercise my free speech without disrespecting all (or most) religions. according to every major religion, me simply stating that there is no god (in my opinion) is considered one of the greatest insults possible. Jesus says in the Bible that denying the existence of the holy ghost is the only unforgivable sin. I deny the father, the son and the holy ghost. I declare mohammed a false prophet along with Jesus. I declare that Jews have no special contract with a supreme being of any kind. I consider scientology a disgusting cult. every word I speak or type is merely an expression of free speech and a statement of my honest opinions, yet all are offensive to someone.
>Keep in mind that the First Amendment also defends the free exercise of religion.
I know what it says:
Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
exactly what I am saying: respect people and their rights without any respect for their actual beliefs. respecting particular religious beliefs is in fact unconstitutional, the focus, as I have argued all along, is on people and their freedoms. there is no amendment that says free speech should be curtailed if it upsets religious people! this is the whole point.
>there's no such thing as respecting people while disrespecting their beliefs
bullshit. you don't get to redefine concepts to suit your argument. I can respect you fully as a person by respecting your human rights without any respect for your religious beliefs. and respecting you as a person places no obligation on me to pay lip-service to whatever fantasy you choose to indulge in.
are you intentionally being dense? can you only fight straw men? I asked for examples of respecting people but not beliefs, and specifically mentioned no physical harm under any circumstances.
- the dechristianisation of France - violence against people - the Chinese Communist Party's ban on all religions - totalitarianism, no free speech, no separation of church and state - the antisemitism employed by the Nazis - physical harm
let's make it really simple: the danish cartoons.
I repect people, and not beliefs, so the issue is clear: there is nothing a human being can draw that justifies the violence and threats made by muslims.
on the other hand, pretty much every religious organisation argued that the problem was blasphemy and 'being disrespectful to islamic feelings'. free speech and freedom from violence is far more important than hurt feelings of any religious group.
>Beliefs are part of our condition as human beings.
so is violence, doesn't mean it should be respected, or actions based on it.
can you give me a single example where respecting people but not beliefs can ever make you go wrong?
I can prove my side of the argument with a single word: blasphemy (i.e. physical punishments based on no crime but saying the 'wrong' combination of words).
when does only respecting people produce similar negative consequences as all the stonings, burnings, tortures and imprisonings done in the name of respect for beliefs?
surely right here you've introduced the requirement for your God to be infinitely complex? For it to know everything, it needs to be able to observe, comprehend, and remember everything in the universe entirely. this would at least violate the physical principle of causality if your God's knowledge travels faster than the speed of light (if your God is omnipresent surely all parts must be in sync?).
so you've made things far more complicated by introducing these unnecessary and unphysical requirements.
>The difference I'm drawing is between purely physical vs. physical and spiritual
given that all of science done so far has succeeded by being purely physical, it seems far more reasonable to me to continue that trend than to stop, introduce spirituality for the start of the universe, and then have to explain why this spirituality doesn't manifest itself anywhere else.
>How do you know God is infinitely complex?
Christians claim God is everywhere, knows everything and can do everything. If you're willing to discard theism and adopt a purely deistic point of view then fine, but the moment you make any claims at all about your God then all the responsibility is on you to explicitly prove all those claims.
>My ultimate point is that a simple, monotheistic God (let's not even bring religion into the picture) is no less absurd, complex, or provable than...
if you add 'for the moment' and provide a clear definition of 'God' then we might start to approach agreement, but as I said above, the moment you make any other claims about this 'God' is where the trouble starts. If you just mean 'God' to be purely 'first cause' with no other constraints (or theological baggage) then that's just an argument about definitions of words and has nothing to do with science/religion at all.
>I said simply that here on/. it is more common to find atheists more inclined to be aggressive on the defense of their beliefs.
really? I call bullshit.
as an atheist I strongly disagree with religious people but would never wish to harm one.
can you point to popular atheist writings that come anywhere near the level of violence and threats that you can find within seconds of opening the Bible?
I think most Christians disagree with the disgusting behaviour in the Bible, but they never say so. yet you seem very eager to expect the worst from atheists though.
I don't see why I should respect your beliefs to not be a 'fanatic'. seems an unfair definition. how far should that respect go?
are you a 'fanatic' for not respecting Muslims' rights to 'honour kill' their daughters?
I think the whole concept of respecting opinions or beliefs is where things go wrong. I respect no ideas; they should stand on their own merit or else they deserve to be ridiculed.
respect should be reserved for human beings themselves, not their beliefs.
the basics are separation of church and state, free speech, and not physically attacking anyone. beyond that, if I think believing Jesus is going to take you to paradise is retarded (which I do), then I can and will say so. that does not make me a fanatic.
>The problem with your rebuttal is that we have no proof anything physical can exist infinitely.
you have no proof (or even decent reason to believe that) God exists at all!
entropy increasing applies to a closed system and thus is not directly applicable to an oscillation/multi-verse model.
anyway, you don't seem to get the idea that when scientists suggest a model it's just a step in a continuous journey - if there's no evidence right now, then science will aim to fill that gap - improve the theories until they can be differentiated by particular observations and then look for those observations. science is more about the method than the particular knowledge.
on the other hand, religion has no interest in any of this - they have the answer - God did it - no evidence is needed, no improvement is needed.
I don't like your position in that it seems to be 'if there's no definitively known explanation, all are equally valid'. saying that the start of the universe is just as likely as by 'God' as by 'nature' is like saying an unseen murder was as likely done by the devil as by another human being. you don't know for sure! prove it wasn't the devil!
note, I'm not saying science has the answer right now, just that its prospects are far more reasonable.
also, can you address the fact that God is infinitely complex whereas the universe isn't and so is a rubbish explanation in the sense that the explanation is far more complicated than needed?
in a way it's better if you don't even rename it; rather than trying to label those who went to 'pseudo-science' classes just let EVERY person ever educated in Louisiana feel the stigma of being associated with anti-intellectual religious dogma, hopefully it will quicken the resolve of the Louisiana public to fix their rotten government.
we know that not every Christian accepts every single claim, we don't care.
are you saying you're a Christian that doesn't take the creation myth literally?
so, do you take the Jesus myth seriously? did he really exist? son of God? do we need his salvation?
if you believe in Jesus, please explain where you get your info about him if not the Bible? if you do get your info from the Bible, then please explain in as much detail as possible your cherry-picking algorithm that lets you believe the Bible is absolutely right that Jesus is needed for salvation yet the Bible is absolutely wrong about all the other stuff.
a question I'd like to know your answer to; if there's no garden, Eve etc. then where do you get the idea of original sin from? if there's no original sin then what's the point of Jesus's forgiveness?
>You can claim it's infinite, but to me, that's just as ridiculous as the idea of an infinite God creating it.
no, it's nowhere near the same. both 'explanations' require that something is capable of existing without cause, except the 'science' one says that the thing that exists is the universe (which we have a lot of evidence for the existence of) whereas the 'religious' says that thing is a God, complete with consciousness, feelings, intentions, morality, infinite power, infinite knowledge... but no evidence.
plus, the scientific one simply represents the current limits of our knowledge and will by instantly replaced when we have more evidence, whereas the religious point of view is a claim of absolute, unchanging truth.
or to put it another way; the universe is very complicated, but God is infinitely complicated. 'science' requires only the existence of a very complicated thing without cause, 'religion' requires the existence of an infinitely complicated thing without cause. 'science' is therefore roughly infinitely (infinity / a lot ~ infinity) more reasonable than 'religion', even when considering first causes.
>And the sad thing is that there's nothing anti-christian about science. And there should be nothing anti-science about christianity.
how do you interpret genesis?
Eve was given two hypotheses; God said eat from the Tree of Knowledge and die, the snake said you won't die. So she did an experiment, exposed God's lie, and so he got pissed off and started dishing out punishments. Now, every human being from the moment of birth inherits the guilt of this 'crime' and if we don't beg Jesus for forgiveness we're told we burn in Hell for all eternity.
pretty much every claim made by Christianity has been shown by science to be wrong; prayer doesn't work, water doesn't turn into wine, wine doesn't turn into blood, Galileo etc.plus, at the most basic level, either we need to include 'God terms' in our scientific models, or (as appears to be the case) we make more progress when we don't. the two world-views are fundamentally opposed; e.g. science says floods are entirely natural 'unintended' events, whereas the/a religious world-view sees them as deliberate acts of a vengeful God seeking to punish some particular behaviour.
if you choose to use words in that way, you can consider that religious people are the most 'fanatically atheist' of all when it comes to every single god except their own;)
or another way, Christians are more fanatical about the non-existence of Thor etc. than atheists are, because Christians accept the premise that deities can exist in the first place but somehow know which ones do and do not exist
>...some are bordering fanaticism with their atheistic views.
as opposed to theists, all of whom are deeply entrenched in the bowels of fanaticism?
it seems nowadays the definition of 'strident' or 'militant' atheist is someone who isn't ashamed to admit they simply don't believe. for some reason it takes very little to set off Christians' persecution complex, despite the fact that historically they've been on the giving end of imprisonment, torture and death far more than anyone else.
You are there to represent the people and your country. If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public, your constitution, your own justice system etc., then take that as a big fucking clue that YOU ARE WRONG and the best way for you to help is to STFU.
What was the justification for such a system? Surely it must be an entirely unintended side effect of some other short-sighted but at least sane idea?
"Hey, wanna sign up for our brand new communication service?" "What's the deal?" "Well, you give us your bank details, and then we let other people spend your money!" "Woo! You had me at bank details!"
Slashdot Mirror
I've got nothing to prove to an Anonymous Coward
>Show me your real name
you first
>One-button mice. Need I say more?
yes. please say more. my iBook has a 5-button trackpad and a 4-button Apple mouse.
>I personally like being able to easily access more than 50 applications at any given moment.
how do you access them on Windows? [pause for response] you can do that on Mac.
>X11 giving you troubles?
nope. next...
>it had to be a DVI/VGA/HDMI connection
damn, those are some pretty strict restrictions, who uses any of that tech? [sry for sarcasm]
>The TV requires a 59.9 Hz frequency
I'm no expert on TV specs but seems like the problem isn't Apple's.
>unless you feel that I haven't given enough?
you've given me so little that if your post was anonymous I'd assume you were trolling.
>And as a note, I'm a computer engineering major. Learning about these sorts of things is kind of my life right now. : )
I have a PhD in astrophysics. I use computers to get things done (and for personal entertainment), so I use a Mac, as do the majority of colleagues.
>One man's treasure is another man's trash.
Apple is still the industry leader in customer satisfaction with a score of 79. I accept your point about subjectivity, but not your tu quoque fallacy: one man's treasure is "a fraction of another man"'s trash :)
yeah right, and to save the massive disappointment on my iBook that's worked amazingly for me for 3 years, I have since wasted money on 2 iPods, an iPhone, Airport Express, various peripherals and software.
Also, when I used Vista for the first time ever a few days ago (I was asked to help set up wireless on it) all the pop ups didn't really annoy me, they were like lots of little hugs from Microsoft letting me know they cared, I just faked my disgust at MS design to mask my massive heartache at Apple's famously difficult to use products.
Sarcasm: I'm doing it right.
>...but I can't think of any reasons to buy PS3 anymore
interesting, since I have no interest in Sony at all. I think they're a shitty company (rootkits anyone?) and have a Wii and Xbox 360.
But I've been thinking about getting a PS3 since to this day it is still the only reasonably priced, quality blu ray player.
If they announce a price cut I will be very tempted, though I would never think of using it as a games platform. for a start the controller is a minor torture device; left analogue stick in secondary position (seriously? D pads as primary input in 21st century?), analogue shoulder buttons that curve AWAY from your fingers so they constantly slide off, still no rumble yet.
hopefully you won't ask the US supreme court to comment on the definition terrorism, since they are a Catholic majority and seek to defer to the Pope on all matters, and the Pope says terrorism is disagreeing with him:
Vatican calls verbal attack on Pope terrorism
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0211344020070502
>But being a Jew or a Christian is not an obligation
Jewsish prayers thank god for not being an inferior gentile. Christians preach that unless Jesus saves you, things will be very bad for you. the freedom to choose your religion has no basis in religion itself. it comes from secular laws, in the US the 1st amendment, specifically written to establish that no religious ideas should be respected by the government.
I repeat my earlier question - which side are you on:
no respect for religion - the Danish cartoons are valid free speech/expression
or
respect for religion - the Danish cartoons are not valid free speech/expression
>OK, let's try. Could you please give me an example of something that is as bad as stonings, tortures or death that is not a physical harm?
no, that's the point. it's trivial to see how people who think ideas can be sacred or should be respected more than people can commit horrible crimes. but if you start from a secular principle of no intrinsic respect for ideas or beliefs, only intrinsic respect for people, then you get much better results.
>Unless, of course it turns into harassment or discrimination.
just like how sex is legal unless it turns into rape... your point?
>you are being disrespectfull
what's your point? Christians continue to publish and promote a book that calls all atheists fools, and recommends some violent acts against them. if you want to go down the 'respect' road, then every competing religious belief is offensive. heard of the first commandment? completely incompatible with the first amendment; either 'thou shalt have no other gods' or thou shalt have free practice of religion, but not both.
the physical harm point was in an earlier post. how about answering my question? no examples? fine, I didn't expect you to anyway.
>Anyone can exercise freedom of speech without being disrespectfull to any religious group
no, I cannot in fact exercise my free speech without disrespecting all (or most) religions. according to every major religion, me simply stating that there is no god (in my opinion) is considered one of the greatest insults possible. Jesus says in the Bible that denying the existence of the holy ghost is the only unforgivable sin. I deny the father, the son and the holy ghost. I declare mohammed a false prophet along with Jesus. I declare that Jews have no special contract with a supreme being of any kind. I consider scientology a disgusting cult. every word I speak or type is merely an expression of free speech and a statement of my honest opinions, yet all are offensive to someone.
>Keep in mind that the First Amendment also defends the free exercise of religion.
I know what it says:
Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
exactly what I am saying: respect people and their rights without any respect for their actual beliefs. respecting particular religious beliefs is in fact unconstitutional, the focus, as I have argued all along, is on people and their freedoms. there is no amendment that says free speech should be curtailed if it upsets religious people! this is the whole point.
>there's no such thing as respecting people while disrespecting their beliefs
bullshit. you don't get to redefine concepts to suit your argument. I can respect you fully as a person by respecting your human rights without any respect for your religious beliefs. and respecting you as a person places no obligation on me to pay lip-service to whatever fantasy you choose to indulge in.
are you intentionally being dense? can you only fight straw men? I asked for examples of respecting people but not beliefs, and specifically mentioned no physical harm under any circumstances.
- the dechristianisation of France - violence against people
- the Chinese Communist Party's ban on all religions - totalitarianism, no free speech, no separation of church and state
- the antisemitism employed by the Nazis - physical harm
let's make it really simple: the danish cartoons.
I repect people, and not beliefs, so the issue is clear: there is nothing a human being can draw that justifies the violence and threats made by muslims.
on the other hand, pretty much every religious organisation argued that the problem was blasphemy and 'being disrespectful to islamic feelings'. free speech and freedom from violence is far more important than hurt feelings of any religious group.
what side are you on?
>Beliefs are part of our condition as human beings.
so is violence, doesn't mean it should be respected, or actions based on it.
can you give me a single example where respecting people but not beliefs can ever make you go wrong?
I can prove my side of the argument with a single word: blasphemy (i.e. physical punishments based on no crime but saying the 'wrong' combination of words).
when does only respecting people produce similar negative consequences as all the stonings, burnings, tortures and imprisonings done in the name of respect for beliefs?
you left out the war on drugs
>3. Omniscient
surely right here you've introduced the requirement for your God to be infinitely complex? For it to know everything, it needs to be able to observe, comprehend, and remember everything in the universe entirely. this would at least violate the physical principle of causality if your God's knowledge travels faster than the speed of light (if your God is omnipresent surely all parts must be in sync?).
so you've made things far more complicated by introducing these unnecessary and unphysical requirements.
>The difference I'm drawing is between purely physical vs. physical and spiritual
given that all of science done so far has succeeded by being purely physical, it seems far more reasonable to me to continue that trend than to stop, introduce spirituality for the start of the universe, and then have to explain why this spirituality doesn't manifest itself anywhere else.
>How do you know God is infinitely complex?
Christians claim God is everywhere, knows everything and can do everything. If you're willing to discard theism and adopt a purely deistic point of view then fine, but the moment you make any claims at all about your God then all the responsibility is on you to explicitly prove all those claims.
>My ultimate point is that a simple, monotheistic God (let's not even bring religion into the picture) is no less absurd, complex, or provable than...
if you add 'for the moment' and provide a clear definition of 'God' then we might start to approach agreement, but as I said above, the moment you make any other claims about this 'God' is where the trouble starts. If you just mean 'God' to be purely 'first cause' with no other constraints (or theological baggage) then that's just an argument about definitions of words and has nothing to do with science/religion at all.
>I said simply that here on /. it is more common to find atheists more inclined to be aggressive on the defense of their beliefs.
really? I call bullshit.
as an atheist I strongly disagree with religious people but would never wish to harm one.
can you point to popular atheist writings that come anywhere near the level of violence and threats that you can find within seconds of opening the Bible?
I think most Christians disagree with the disgusting behaviour in the Bible, but they never say so. yet you seem very eager to expect the worst from atheists though.
I don't see why I should respect your beliefs to not be a 'fanatic'. seems an unfair definition. how far should that respect go?
are you a 'fanatic' for not respecting Muslims' rights to 'honour kill' their daughters?
I think the whole concept of respecting opinions or beliefs is where things go wrong. I respect no ideas; they should stand on their own merit or else they deserve to be ridiculed.
respect should be reserved for human beings themselves, not their beliefs.
the basics are separation of church and state, free speech, and not physically attacking anyone. beyond that, if I think believing Jesus is going to take you to paradise is retarded (which I do), then I can and will say so. that does not make me a fanatic.
>The problem with your rebuttal is that we have no proof anything physical can exist infinitely.
you have no proof (or even decent reason to believe that) God exists at all!
entropy increasing applies to a closed system and thus is not directly applicable to an oscillation/multi-verse model.
anyway, you don't seem to get the idea that when scientists suggest a model it's just a step in a continuous journey - if there's no evidence right now, then science will aim to fill that gap - improve the theories until they can be differentiated by particular observations and then look for those observations. science is more about the method than the particular knowledge.
on the other hand, religion has no interest in any of this - they have the answer - God did it - no evidence is needed, no improvement is needed.
I don't like your position in that it seems to be 'if there's no definitively known explanation, all are equally valid'. saying that the start of the universe is just as likely as by 'God' as by 'nature' is like saying an unseen murder was as likely done by the devil as by another human being. you don't know for sure! prove it wasn't the devil!
note, I'm not saying science has the answer right now, just that its prospects are far more reasonable.
also, can you address the fact that God is infinitely complex whereas the universe isn't and so is a rubbish explanation in the sense that the explanation is far more complicated than needed?
in a way it's better if you don't even rename it; rather than trying to label those who went to 'pseudo-science' classes just let EVERY person ever educated in Louisiana feel the stigma of being associated with anti-intellectual religious dogma, hopefully it will quicken the resolve of the Louisiana public to fix their rotten government.
we know that not every Christian accepts every single claim, we don't care.
are you saying you're a Christian that doesn't take the creation myth literally?
so, do you take the Jesus myth seriously? did he really exist? son of God? do we need his salvation?
if you believe in Jesus, please explain where you get your info about him if not the Bible? if you do get your info from the Bible, then please explain in as much detail as possible your cherry-picking algorithm that lets you believe the Bible is absolutely right that Jesus is needed for salvation yet the Bible is absolutely wrong about all the other stuff.
a question I'd like to know your answer to;
if there's no garden, Eve etc. then where do you get the idea of original sin from? if there's no original sin then what's the point of Jesus's forgiveness?
>You can claim it's infinite, but to me, that's just as ridiculous as the idea of an infinite God creating it.
no, it's nowhere near the same. both 'explanations' require that something is capable of existing without cause, except the 'science' one says that the thing that exists is the universe (which we have a lot of evidence for the existence of) whereas the 'religious' says that thing is a God, complete with consciousness, feelings, intentions, morality, infinite power, infinite knowledge... but no evidence.
plus, the scientific one simply represents the current limits of our knowledge and will by instantly replaced when we have more evidence, whereas the religious point of view is a claim of absolute, unchanging truth.or to put it another way; the universe is very complicated, but God is infinitely complicated. 'science' requires only the existence of a very complicated thing without cause, 'religion' requires the existence of an infinitely complicated thing without cause. 'science' is therefore roughly infinitely (infinity / a lot ~ infinity) more reasonable than 'religion', even when considering first causes.
>And the sad thing is that there's nothing anti-christian about science. And there should be nothing anti-science about christianity.
how do you interpret genesis?
Eve was given two hypotheses; God said eat from the Tree of Knowledge and die, the snake said you won't die. So she did an experiment, exposed God's lie, and so he got pissed off and started dishing out punishments. Now, every human being from the moment of birth inherits the guilt of this 'crime' and if we don't beg Jesus for forgiveness we're told we burn in Hell for all eternity.
pretty much every claim made by Christianity has been shown by science to be wrong; prayer doesn't work, water doesn't turn into wine, wine doesn't turn into blood, Galileo etc.plus, at the most basic level, either we need to include 'God terms' in our scientific models, or (as appears to be the case) we make more progress when we don't. the two world-views are fundamentally opposed; e.g. science says floods are entirely natural 'unintended' events, whereas the/a religious world-view sees them as deliberate acts of a vengeful God seeking to punish some particular behaviour.if you choose to use words in that way, you can consider that religious people are the most 'fanatically atheist' of all when it comes to every single god except their own ;)
or another way, Christians are more fanatical about the non-existence of Thor etc. than atheists are, because Christians accept the premise that deities can exist in the first place but somehow know which ones do and do not exist
>...some are bordering fanaticism with their atheistic views.
as opposed to theists, all of whom are deeply entrenched in the bowels of fanaticism?
it seems nowadays the definition of 'strident' or 'militant' atheist is someone who isn't ashamed to admit they simply don't believe. for some reason it takes very little to set off Christians' persecution complex, despite the fact that historically they've been on the giving end of imprisonment, torture and death far more than anyone else.
Why are politicians so retarded?
You are there to represent the people and your country. If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public, your constitution, your own justice system etc., then take that as a big fucking clue that YOU ARE WRONG and the best way for you to help is to STFU.
>When you have plastic coating, 1 scratch = a large rust patch on your precious hull.
just make the coating out of iPhone screens then
I think you're being generous calling it "alien".
More like insanely retarded.
What was the justification for such a system? Surely it must be an entirely unintended side effect of some other short-sighted but at least sane idea?
"Hey, wanna sign up for our brand new communication service?"
"What's the deal?"
"Well, you give us your bank details, and then we let other people spend your money!"
"Woo! You had me at bank details!"