Amazing Iceman
May 2, 07:04 PM
Ah, Geek Squad... Do they let you drive the Bug?
Sorry, I don't work for Best Buy... They don't pay enough... and their employees don't really know much about anything, specially about MACs.
You go ahead, drive the bug and be happy.
Sorry, I don't work for Best Buy... They don't pay enough... and their employees don't really know much about anything, specially about MACs.
You go ahead, drive the bug and be happy.
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 06:03 PM
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Recent items are "today, yesterday, and past week." I checked with the 'finder' and a document showed up yesterday without accessing my documents folder. Hope this helps, as you sound computer savvy!
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Recent items are "today, yesterday, and past week." I checked with the 'finder' and a document showed up yesterday without accessing my documents folder. Hope this helps, as you sound computer savvy!
takao
Mar 13, 04:40 PM
I wouldn't be so smug if I was you. Looks like Austria uses over 60% imported oil and gas for electricity manufacture (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_at_en.pdf)... that Persian Gulf political turmoil must be pretty exciting for you guys, yes? Probably costly too.
You're also reliant on those nice people in Russia to keep their natural gas pipelines open (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–Ukraine_gas_disputes), aren't you... being land-locked and all.
you know what actually is costly ? the US policies in regard to Iran: it actually prevented developing the south iranian gas fields for use for european earth gas users since the US embargoes any company doing business with iran in excess of 10 million dollar ... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century
nice distraction from your own argument ... where is the terror and war in which austria is involved because of the lack of nuclear energy ?
i would rather claim that nuclear power plants, construction of such powerplants, nuclear fuel production etc. bring forward a lot more international conflict
You're also reliant on those nice people in Russia to keep their natural gas pipelines open (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–Ukraine_gas_disputes), aren't you... being land-locked and all.
you know what actually is costly ? the US policies in regard to Iran: it actually prevented developing the south iranian gas fields for use for european earth gas users since the US embargoes any company doing business with iran in excess of 10 million dollar ... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century
nice distraction from your own argument ... where is the terror and war in which austria is involved because of the lack of nuclear energy ?
i would rather claim that nuclear power plants, construction of such powerplants, nuclear fuel production etc. bring forward a lot more international conflict
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 01:13 PM
i can't believe i am even answering this, and i am bewildered by the fact that you might actually be seriously thinking what you are writing.
anyway, even the worst case scenario -a complete meltdown of all four reactors- is not even remotely close to the apocalyptic pictures you have in mind.
'japan' is not going to 'blow up' or to be reduced to a barren wasteland forever.
in the worst case scenario (which is very unlikely to occur), a small area will be heavily contaminated and a larger area will be moderately or lightly contaminated.
tens or hundreds of people will get sick in the short term, and more would be at risk in the long term, a lot of people will have to evacuate to a safer distance from the reactor, and the economic cost of the clean up (and the recostruction in the tsunami-devastated areas) would be tremendous.
but how you go from there to "japan is history" is mindboggling.
Well, not that I hope he's right, but words like these from people of high up places don't give any comfort.
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
anyway, even the worst case scenario -a complete meltdown of all four reactors- is not even remotely close to the apocalyptic pictures you have in mind.
'japan' is not going to 'blow up' or to be reduced to a barren wasteland forever.
in the worst case scenario (which is very unlikely to occur), a small area will be heavily contaminated and a larger area will be moderately or lightly contaminated.
tens or hundreds of people will get sick in the short term, and more would be at risk in the long term, a lot of people will have to evacuate to a safer distance from the reactor, and the economic cost of the clean up (and the recostruction in the tsunami-devastated areas) would be tremendous.
but how you go from there to "japan is history" is mindboggling.
Well, not that I hope he's right, but words like these from people of high up places don't give any comfort.
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
emotion
Sep 24, 03:52 AM
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
3N16MA
Apr 9, 02:33 PM
Edit: Post too long. I doubt anyone would read it. :D
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:26 PM
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
Yes, because witches and santa exist in space and time, God does not so rules which apply to people who live in space and time do not apply to God. It's physically impossible for santa to exist. Witches do exist, the Romanian parliament recently passed a law which said witches must pay taxes.
That's why God knows what's going to happen in the future but we still have free-will, because if you exist outside of time you can see everything that's going to happen or has happened because it's already happened.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
Yes, because witches and santa exist in space and time, God does not so rules which apply to people who live in space and time do not apply to God. It's physically impossible for santa to exist. Witches do exist, the Romanian parliament recently passed a law which said witches must pay taxes.
That's why God knows what's going to happen in the future but we still have free-will, because if you exist outside of time you can see everything that's going to happen or has happened because it's already happened.
SuperCachetes
Apr 23, 11:09 PM
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs).
What a condescending statement. :rolleyes:
What a condescending statement. :rolleyes:
Silentwave
Jul 12, 04:08 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Fine. tell me where we can get everything but the processor for $200 and we have a deal. Conroe doesn't have anything above 2.66 that isn't an extreme edition. So your next stop is the X6800 2.93GHz Extreme Edition- $999 per chip.
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Fine. tell me where we can get everything but the processor for $200 and we have a deal. Conroe doesn't have anything above 2.66 that isn't an extreme edition. So your next stop is the X6800 2.93GHz Extreme Edition- $999 per chip.
CQd44
Apr 21, 02:53 AM
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Are you ****ing serious?
I don't use Apple products but oh my god I feel bad for you guys. Having a fanboy like this must be ridiculously crappy.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Are you ****ing serious?
I don't use Apple products but oh my god I feel bad for you guys. Having a fanboy like this must be ridiculously crappy.
PghLondon
Apr 29, 04:05 AM
Not in many cases, but I'm glad it works for you.
Wow, you guys are desperate. Can your mom tell when you're this upset? Do you sulk around the house, refusing to cook the dinner she made for you?
Wow, you guys are desperate. Can your mom tell when you're this upset? Do you sulk around the house, refusing to cook the dinner she made for you?
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:10 PM
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
The market share argument is BS. It's been debunked in many of these threads.
The market share argument is BS. It's been debunked in many of these threads.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:42 PM
[B][COLOR="DarkOrange"]Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.
Well I've mentioned it... In the other 8-cor Mac Pro thread. And I've brought it up more than once.
Yes, this should be a concern and those doing bandwidth-intense operations may find the FSB to be a bottleneck at times. Unless I've missed something along the way, the Mac Pro has an independent bus for each CPU, meaning that each quad core chip will get it's 1333MHz of data flow. I'll have to go check on this... If Apple is indeed stuffing two CPUs onto a single 1333MHz FSB, then there will be a serious problem. Because if I start running into bandwidth issues feeding multiple cores streams of HD video or animation frames, I'm not going to be happy.
Well I've mentioned it... In the other 8-cor Mac Pro thread. And I've brought it up more than once.
Yes, this should be a concern and those doing bandwidth-intense operations may find the FSB to be a bottleneck at times. Unless I've missed something along the way, the Mac Pro has an independent bus for each CPU, meaning that each quad core chip will get it's 1333MHz of data flow. I'll have to go check on this... If Apple is indeed stuffing two CPUs onto a single 1333MHz FSB, then there will be a serious problem. Because if I start running into bandwidth issues feeding multiple cores streams of HD video or animation frames, I'm not going to be happy.
ct2k7
Oct 7, 03:27 PM
What are you guys talking about?
Didn't Adobe just show a new Flash IDE that generates native iPhone Apps ?
This weekend the President and
WH logo. White House in Yakima
File:US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg -
Welcome to White House Webmail
the white house logo. white
Reacent Post
Didn't Adobe just show a new Flash IDE that generates native iPhone Apps ?
skunk
Mar 26, 01:39 PM
I agree with you, brother. God bless you.You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
balamw
Sep 20, 07:51 PM
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
Iscariot
Mar 25, 01:28 PM
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
A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church".
.
I've already presented my views on why I think that speech is different from physical acts.
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point
A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church".
.
I've already presented my views on why I think that speech is different from physical acts.
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 12:33 AM
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2MVcAZnowo), uploaded to YouTube yesterday, has some nuclear scientists from the University of Michigan discussing the situation in Japan as they see it. They do not seem to think that a Chernobyl-level of radiation emission incident is likely, but a large but lesser radiation leak of is still possible.
The situation is still far from stable, and as for the future reconstruction of the plant - I don't think that's an issue anyone cares about at the moment, efforts are rightly focused on stabilizing the reactor cores. But based on the structural damage to the plant and the subsequent damage wrought by the malfunctioning reactors, I think there is a good chance that several of the reactor buildings are total losses, and the remaining ones might be beyond economic repair.
At the moment though, all bets are off. It's not looking good.
The situation is still far from stable, and as for the future reconstruction of the plant - I don't think that's an issue anyone cares about at the moment, efforts are rightly focused on stabilizing the reactor cores. But based on the structural damage to the plant and the subsequent damage wrought by the malfunctioning reactors, I think there is a good chance that several of the reactor buildings are total losses, and the remaining ones might be beyond economic repair.
At the moment though, all bets are off. It's not looking good.
Peace
Sep 12, 06:23 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If it did support HD??
thats kinda stupid considering it has HDMI and component connectors.
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If it did support HD??
thats kinda stupid considering it has HDMI and component connectors.
PlipPlop
Apr 21, 02:05 AM
In other news Steve Jobs still scared of the pure domination of Android in the smartphone market.
Demoman
Jul 13, 12:59 AM
Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.
It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.
It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
Huntn
Apr 25, 12:30 PM
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:43 PM
The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
Interesting cyclical logic....heat makes the sun shine stronger....hmmmm. I think what you're trying to say is that methods for creating electricity put pollutants in the atmosphere, which is true.
So....should we just not heat our homes then? You first.
Even early man built fires to stay warm.
Interesting cyclical logic....heat makes the sun shine stronger....hmmmm. I think what you're trying to say is that methods for creating electricity put pollutants in the atmosphere, which is true.
So....should we just not heat our homes then? You first.
Even early man built fires to stay warm.
0 comments:
Post a Comment