Comment Re:Beg To Differ (Score 1) 89
That's the problem with fish stories -- they smell and get bigger every time they are told.
That's the problem with fish stories -- they smell and get bigger every time they are told.
Can we get this in perspective please?
How many phones does Samsung and Google sell every time there is a new Android phone?
> you've got way more explaining to do on how god came from nothing as a fully formed
Why do you assume _your_ definition?? That is not the _standard_ definition of God:
God, much like "Now", is eternal. God has _always_ existed -- the exact same argument you are using for energy of the physical universe.
> The origin of the universe is well within the purview of science,
There are zero experiments one can repeat to demonstrate how the universe began. Without the ability to repeat an experiments you have at best, Philosophy, not Science. Or are you completely cluess how the Scientific Method works?
Depends entierly on the atheist. Some start from a Buddhist background. In fact, so ARE Buddhists. (My main problem with Buddhism is that all the arguments are phrased in terms of inevitable reincarnation of something...Buddha was a bit opaque about just what, so I'm not certain that I can't believe it, but I'm sure not certain that I can.)
My personal problem has to do with the nature of the evidence, and the unreliability of even disinterested eye-witness testimony. The only gods I'm certain of are those that I've encountered (I *think* they're the same things that others have called gods), and they appear to be mental phenomena. (I'd say psychic, but that term has been so misused that it would be even more likely to be misunderstood.) They appear to be sub-linguistic mental phenomena that are probably the same things that Jung called archetypes. The roots from which all mental functioning is buit. These features seem to be shared by many (all?) people, though it's hard to be sure, and some of them even seem to be shared with other mammals. (Well, dogs to be specific. I don't understand cats well enough to comment about them, and the evidence is quite weak even for dogs...being more along the lies of "consistent with the theory" than "experimental proof", but then that's true even for other people.)
Also, your attribution of certain beliefs as originating with Christianity is highly suspect. Many Christian practices and beliefs came from Mithraism. Others from Judism. And Others from Hellenistic Greek philosophy. Just how much originated with Christianity is extremely dubious if, in fact, anything did except a bit of clever phrasing and some political tactics. Certainly the equality of people before the gods was neither unique with Christianity, nor universally held by Christians. (See, for one example, "The Divine Right of Kings". It was also held in many times and [Christian] places that the more powerful were more loved by god. The Puritans, e.g, made it explicit. "Material success the the manifest sign of divine favor." That's not an exact qoute, as far as I know, but it could be.)
Are you sure that's a state law? My understanding was that it in the contract the store had with the credit card company.
But given that this appears to be a long-standing and profitable business prractice, what effect would you expect giving them a negative rating to have?
Please justify that statement. It seems to me that in a truly free market you would even be free to murder the competition. That's the way it works in the closest thing to a free market that exists....the black market.
Didn't the summary say this behavior had been legitimized by the courts?
But perhaps another court would decide differently. Perhaps you could take them to small claims court...but how would you get them to pay up if you won?
Thanks for the reminder that Big Bang Theory starts tonight !
> By which definition?
As we all know Energy can not be created nor destroyed yet Science tells us "magically" the universe came into existence from _nothing_.
Religion says the Source / Eternal / God has _always_ existed. Ergo, God is the ultimate source / cause of _everything_.
Second, Science by definition is amoral. Ergo, it is incomplete. A absolutely wonderful system but it has its limits to what it can (and can't know.)
Reminds me of that old joke/cliche:
"In theory there isn't any difference between Theory and Practice.
In practice, there is."
* Science = Theory
* Engineering = Application
When _you_ start paying for _my_ internet access THEN we'll talk.
Otherwise Fuck Off with your entitlement attitude.
You have no idea about how big the vastness of space is. The chance of them colliding is like the chance of two bullets being fired in a high arc across New York city, and them colliding. Sure that chance happens once per orbit, but its simply not going to happen especially as they both will eventually establish stable orbits that simply will never cross.
"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre