It's getting popular precisely because it tries to make the desktop more GUI centric and less terminal centric. Most users (rightly or wrongly) find the terminal unintuitive and intimidating, which is why if Ubuntu wants to grow it can only do so by doing the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.

It seems to me these days (certainly here in the UK) we have almost no sense of optimism about progress. In the middle of the last century when so much SciFi was created, there was this grand humanistic notion, that one day technology would solve all the wrongs of the world, and we'd all live in peace and harmony e.g. Star Trek.

These days our optimism has shriveled and died, so that now we no longer dream of a utopia - we just dream of getting by without too much discomfort, and it seems to me like modern SciFi (where it exists) reflects this.

Now that I've switched away from windows after getting stuck with Vista, it's so annoying that the next release by all accounts is actually going to be passably good (though is that astroturfing?).

It's annoying because Windows is like a wife-beating husband. You live with it for years and years of pain, disappointment and broken promises, but just when you think you're ready to leave forever they turn around all smiles and sweetness.

I'm tired of MS's patent crap. I'm tired of the DRM. I'm tired of the FUD. I'm tired of mediocre product after mediocre product. I'm tired of their high prices. I'm tired of them stacking the ISO. I'm tired of embrace extend extinguish. I'm tired of fixing other people's computers from malware. I'm tired of the overwhelming OS storage footprints, and everything else they do to ruin computing for everyone. I'm tired of the whole company and I wish everyone would dump them forever.

But just as people begin to consider it, they give you a bouquet of flowers.

Will this ever end?

Well the difference between God and the Universe is that the universe began to exist; it is contingent - but the origin of the universe would have to be incontingent. I don't know if you've heard of that concept before, but incontingent objects are objects with no cause. There are only two types of objects that philosophers have ever put in this category: abstract objects such as shapes and numbers, and minds. But numbers can't be the cause of anything themselves, but minds can. So in the same way as abstract objects such as numbers simply exist and are causeless, so to this definition fits exactly the definition that the an originator of the universe would need to have.

Look I'm your friend here, and I'm not angry or anything, but I must say I'm quite troubled by the rudeness of many people in this subthread - people might be more willing to take you seriously if you'd take them seriously, or at least be polite.

Don't think I'm flaming you here - but please realize that's pretty much the most arrogant and patronizing thing anyone's ever said to me. I have observed that the English Atheist, in general, has not thought seriously about this question. I have not been told this, as you claim, I have observed this first hand in countless conversations with many people over the years.

You haven't understood my point. I never argued fine tuning demonstrates the existence of God - though for Atheists it does remain an unresolved problem. I was explaining that many Atheists (that I have spoken to) tend to be lazy about doubting Atheism in just the same way as he accuses some Christians of being lazy, when they are asked hard questions, such as those about fine tuning.

You say the universe isn't hospitable enough - ok I understand that. But that's a distraction, because even for this universe to be even barely hospital at all an astonishing level of tuning is required to ensure that the universe doesn't implode, atoms don't evaporate, and stars can burn. This is a very serious problem for the Atheistic worldview, but very rarely have I seen Atheists stop and doubt and think on this, and this is my point - Atheists are not per se any less lazy about doubting than Christians are sometimes as GP was claiming.

That's arguing in a circle. The universe doesn't HAVE to exist at all, much less be hospitable. It is not trivial that both of these are true, no more than it would be trivial for me to find myself alive, having somehow dodged every bullet from a firing squad.

And also you've missed my point: these fine tuning arguments aren't talking about possibility of life forming somewhere. They're talking about the fine tuning required for life to form anywhere. For example, the universe has not collapsed on itself, atoms can form, as can stars - all of these would be prerequisites for any kind of life to form anywhere, and require incredible fine tuning, but these are not explained by the Atheist account.

If this is true of Christians it's certainly true of Atheists.

I often ask Atheists how they explain the remarkable fine tuning that the universe displays in the absence of a creator God. Very few have ever thought seriously about the question, and most are more than content to ignore the issue, or maintain a blind faith in some system of parallel universes for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Do you see the lazy doubt at work here?

To say that all Christians, such as myself, are lazy doubters is as unrealistic as to say that Atheists have a monopoly on intelligent thought.

I understand this forum has a strong anti-Christian bias, so please think twice before modding me troll.