flopticalcube
Apr 15, 01:06 PM
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
Sorry but I find this patently laughable. True Christian? Does that mean anyone who doesn't believe in the same interpretation of the bible as you do? I bet there are millions who would point the finger at you and say you are not a true Christian. You both, of course, are wrong as there cannot be any truth in a system based on faith.
Sorry but I find this patently laughable. True Christian? Does that mean anyone who doesn't believe in the same interpretation of the bible as you do? I bet there are millions who would point the finger at you and say you are not a true Christian. You both, of course, are wrong as there cannot be any truth in a system based on faith.
Azathoth
May 2, 01:23 PM
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
Right. Not.
In OS X is also pops up when doing things like opening files (html documents), DMG images etc. Of course this is correct behaviour, but OS X and Win7 are *fairly* similar in terms of user prompts.
Right. Not.
In OS X is also pops up when doing things like opening files (html documents), DMG images etc. Of course this is correct behaviour, but OS X and Win7 are *fairly* similar in terms of user prompts.
skunk
Mar 14, 04:22 PM
I believe that massive solar energy farms in the Sahara and other deserts, servicing whole landmasses, like the EU proposal, is the way to go. If the price goes up to pay for the infrastructure, the rationing effect can only be a good thing. Safety, certainly, is hardly an issue.
nick9191
Apr 22, 11:44 PM
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
nixd2001
Oct 10, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by AtomBoy
I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place.
Speed is important for me: CD-burning, video-editing, animation-rendering. For that reason the last computer I bought was a Quicksilver. It was the obvious choice at the time.
I imagined that my next computer would be another Mac to replace my ageing PC. Now it's not so clear. From the informed posts by new P4/XP users on this site it's clear that PC could do the things I want it to do more quickly and, arguably, with comparable stability.
BUT, I'm an expat living in Japan. One huge advantage of OSX is unicode. My Mac has a Japanese OS, which is great for my wife, but when I'm using the Mac I can switch the user language to English. Much of our Japanese software is also unicode compatible, so we can buy one program that can be used in either of our native languages. This is very cost-effective in the long-run.
I'm prepared to wait until next year when, hopefully, Apple will be using G5 chips from IBM that are much closer to those from Intel/AMD. I don't need my Mac to be the fastest computer out there (the advantages of OSX would bridge the gap) but I want it to be comparable if I'm going to shell out the extra bucks.
I don't really want to use XP. On-line activation and security issues still put me off.
If, however, Apple fail to deliver an impressive new hardware set next year, my next computer may well be PC.
I hope not, but you have to be realistic...
As a rule of thumb, there will always be a faster machine available if you're prepared to spend more, and whatever you buy will become obsolete somewhere between next day and next year. If speed is the only consideration, you'll probably be disappointed whatever you do and whenever you do it.
Decide your budget. Decide what you want to do with it. Find a shop where you can try it and see if it works for you. Work on the basis that you won't get the perfect machine, so decide whether whatever you're considering is good enough. Consider the software you'll want (and it's price!) as well as the hardware. Work on the basis that different people want different things from their computer(s) and get something that matchs your needs rather than whichever gets the loudest shouts for (or against).
And no, I'm not going to try and make a recommendation because I don't know enough about the ins and outs of all the details of what will meet your requirements.
I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place.
Speed is important for me: CD-burning, video-editing, animation-rendering. For that reason the last computer I bought was a Quicksilver. It was the obvious choice at the time.
I imagined that my next computer would be another Mac to replace my ageing PC. Now it's not so clear. From the informed posts by new P4/XP users on this site it's clear that PC could do the things I want it to do more quickly and, arguably, with comparable stability.
BUT, I'm an expat living in Japan. One huge advantage of OSX is unicode. My Mac has a Japanese OS, which is great for my wife, but when I'm using the Mac I can switch the user language to English. Much of our Japanese software is also unicode compatible, so we can buy one program that can be used in either of our native languages. This is very cost-effective in the long-run.
I'm prepared to wait until next year when, hopefully, Apple will be using G5 chips from IBM that are much closer to those from Intel/AMD. I don't need my Mac to be the fastest computer out there (the advantages of OSX would bridge the gap) but I want it to be comparable if I'm going to shell out the extra bucks.
I don't really want to use XP. On-line activation and security issues still put me off.
If, however, Apple fail to deliver an impressive new hardware set next year, my next computer may well be PC.
I hope not, but you have to be realistic...
As a rule of thumb, there will always be a faster machine available if you're prepared to spend more, and whatever you buy will become obsolete somewhere between next day and next year. If speed is the only consideration, you'll probably be disappointed whatever you do and whenever you do it.
Decide your budget. Decide what you want to do with it. Find a shop where you can try it and see if it works for you. Work on the basis that you won't get the perfect machine, so decide whether whatever you're considering is good enough. Consider the software you'll want (and it's price!) as well as the hardware. Work on the basis that different people want different things from their computer(s) and get something that matchs your needs rather than whichever gets the loudest shouts for (or against).
And no, I'm not going to try and make a recommendation because I don't know enough about the ins and outs of all the details of what will meet your requirements.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 20, 11:59 PM
Huh? That's not Apple's fault; just like it isn't Google's fault Android only sells two phone models.
iOS runs on three devices and they all can run the same applications, so there's a large addressable market for developers that is important to consider.
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
iOS runs on three devices and they all can run the same applications, so there's a large addressable market for developers that is important to consider.
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
Chundles
Apr 8, 10:22 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
matticus008
Mar 19, 04:35 PM
Does iTunes really only sell you a license to the track? Is this in writing anywhere?
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
ricgnzlzcr
Oct 25, 11:08 PM
Right. According to Apple's current pricing, the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown would be +$800 IF they offer it. However, Apple may only offer the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown for + $1100 and keep the rest of the offerings priced as they are now.
That way they keep the top 8-core more expensive than any of the less expensive and way less powerful 4-core models. From a marketing point of view this makes a lot more sense to me - since I plan on buying the Dual 2.66GHz Clovertown for +$1100, total $3599 BASE or more if they insist. This is one time when I don't care how much it costs - I need it NOW.
I would understand how your Quad G5 is getting a tad on the slow side;) . I feel pretty intense with my single 1 ghz G4.
Unlike me though, you actually require that processor power. Can't wait till you post your impressions of your OctoMac within an hour of getting it!!
That way they keep the top 8-core more expensive than any of the less expensive and way less powerful 4-core models. From a marketing point of view this makes a lot more sense to me - since I plan on buying the Dual 2.66GHz Clovertown for +$1100, total $3599 BASE or more if they insist. This is one time when I don't care how much it costs - I need it NOW.
I would understand how your Quad G5 is getting a tad on the slow side;) . I feel pretty intense with my single 1 ghz G4.
Unlike me though, you actually require that processor power. Can't wait till you post your impressions of your OctoMac within an hour of getting it!!
Macaroony
Apr 24, 01:34 PM
I'll support any group (religious or secular) that:
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam. Call me a bigot or "islamophobe" but that's just burying one's head in the sand. Thus, I support Rational Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, Israel, Judaism (Orthodox), Christians, and Eastern faiths like Baha'i, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc etc.
Apologies if I've left anyone out.
If it weren't a generous attitude I would call it naive. People following the Jewish or the Christian faith to a tee can be just as threatening to everyone's freedom and all-around democracy p just look at your own doorstep. It takes a secular Jew, Christian or even Islamist (of which there are more than you would think) to fit that bill.
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam. Call me a bigot or "islamophobe" but that's just burying one's head in the sand. Thus, I support Rational Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, Israel, Judaism (Orthodox), Christians, and Eastern faiths like Baha'i, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc etc.
Apologies if I've left anyone out.
If it weren't a generous attitude I would call it naive. People following the Jewish or the Christian faith to a tee can be just as threatening to everyone's freedom and all-around democracy p just look at your own doorstep. It takes a secular Jew, Christian or even Islamist (of which there are more than you would think) to fit that bill.
CalBoy
Mar 25, 11:09 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
On the contrary, our own Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental right, and the United States through its treaty making power has also held it as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16).
On the contrary, our own Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental right, and the United States through its treaty making power has also held it as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16).
Kingsly
Sep 20, 01:13 AM
I didn't notice any TV inputs on the prototype, so unless Apple changes the design significantly and adds major features not discussed at the event, DVR is not a possibility (as far as this device is concerned).
...I suppose there is a small chance Apple could do this, but I'm tired of getting my hopes up only to be disappointed by Apple (again).
I don't think it would make sense to make a totally great� device and then cripple it by excluding DVR functionality (IMO they already crippled it by excluding DVD player)
...I suppose there is a small chance Apple could do this, but I'm tired of getting my hopes up only to be disappointed by Apple (again).
I don't think it would make sense to make a totally great� device and then cripple it by excluding DVR functionality (IMO they already crippled it by excluding DVD player)
richard.mac
Mar 11, 01:54 AM
crap! :( thoughts to the Japanese living there. earth is fierce atm! disastrous earthquakes in cities like there and in New Zealand and that flooding in Australia.
PCUser
Oct 11, 12:44 PM
This isn't going to further the discussion any, but... javahedi, perhaps you could post a link to the C code? I'd very much like to compile it with GCC under Linux and Windows. Just a curious benchmark, IMO. :) Thanks!
(Doesn't the benchmark do 1,600,000,000 calculations? 20,000 x 20,000 x 4 = 1,600,000,000... am I missing something? It does two adds, one multiply, and one sqrt per cycle. The loop cycles 400,000,000 times... ?)
(Doesn't the benchmark do 1,600,000,000 calculations? 20,000 x 20,000 x 4 = 1,600,000,000... am I missing something? It does two adds, one multiply, and one sqrt per cycle. The loop cycles 400,000,000 times... ?)
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:19 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
DeathChill
Apr 20, 09:18 PM
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
firestarter
Mar 16, 11:36 AM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
PCUser
Oct 12, 06:06 PM
MacCoaster, wouldn't it be more accurate to use clock() instead of time()? Here's with that change:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <math.h>
int main()
{
eva longoria wedding gown.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <math.h>
int main()
{
Rt&Dzine
Mar 13, 05:29 PM
Not really. Chernobyl has an estimated death toll of 4000. Let's multiply that by 10 for arguments sake. More people are killed each year in the US alone by car accidents. Nuclear power is still a fairly minor risk.
Huh? I agreed with you that there are more car accident deaths. But just as I said Chernobyl is an estimated death toll. My point is many deaths from a nuclear accident aren't known. I personally know someone who died from the effects of Chernobyl who wasn't included in the estimation. I'm sure there are many, many more.
Huh? I agreed with you that there are more car accident deaths. But just as I said Chernobyl is an estimated death toll. My point is many deaths from a nuclear accident aren't known. I personally know someone who died from the effects of Chernobyl who wasn't included in the estimation. I'm sure there are many, many more.
killr_b
Oct 25, 11:49 PM
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
That was with the flicker filter on max, and a minor color corection using the color corrector.
That was with the flicker filter on max, and a minor color corection using the color corrector.
Iscariot
Mar 25, 10:39 AM
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You misspeak and mischaracterize. A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You misspeak and mischaracterize. A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
1macker1
Mar 18, 12:24 PM
AHAHAHHAHA, good job. I think the head of Napster should send this link to the record company execs. Karma is a bitch.
nick9191
Apr 22, 10:50 PM
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
EricNau
Mar 15, 01:53 AM
Seems very serious to me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
It depends on who you want to believe. The situation is serious, yes, but is that quote truly representative of the situation? Professor Josef Oehmen, MIT:
There was and will not be any significant release of radioactivity. By 'significant,' I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on, say, a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.
Link (http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
It depends on who you want to believe. The situation is serious, yes, but is that quote truly representative of the situation? Professor Josef Oehmen, MIT:
There was and will not be any significant release of radioactivity. By 'significant,' I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on, say, a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.
Link (http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/)
No comments:
Post a Comment