4. Can they eat us?
Let's say you pick the model with a god. Now you have one more claim in your model that you need to show is true for your model to be valid. Until that happens, the most reasonable thing to do is suspend judgement on the truth of your model.
So what you are saying is that from the point of view of cosmology we have no way of assessing which model is more likely (at least for now). Then still the question is why believe in the model with a god in it?
They are not mutually exclusive.
(A)gnosticism refers to what you know, and (a)theism refers what you believe in terms of gods. They are two independent dimensions. Think cartesian plane with one axis for theism and the other for gnosticism. You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist or everything in between. Gnostic atheists are hard to come by, but many gnostic theists are pretty loud about it.
WPA with TKIP is compatible with a number of
If that doesn't work, then recycle them.
Precisely the reason why I think the government of Palistan is doing a disservice to its people by censoring information that even if shocking to them, will make them think.
As a matter of fact I believe in no god, so none of those rules apply to me. I can mock anything I wish (including you and me) as it is my right as a human being. I will exercise my right when I need to remind those who will have peace by running a sword through the dissidents.
they CAN detonate nuclear bombs, and they're more likely to do so the more you exercise your rights to provoke them.
Your masochism is noted. All those people need to put the finger on the Doomsday Switch (TM) is for you to write a work of fiction, and for them not to read it. Enjoy your defeat, but I ask you to not do so in my name.
I am not disallowing them from using those processes. I simply assert their religious process is inferior because it is irrational, and brings them to the wrong conclusions.
I am also saying that if the two sides are to understand each other, they should use the better of the two processes. If the west is in the wrong, so be it, but the way to reach that conclusion if it is true is not through religious means.
Except for one thing: religion is not someone's identity. It is a set of ideas you can be persuaded of or reject, as shown by the capability of conversion from one to another. Disagreeing or mocking such a set is not hate, because it is not directed at the humans, nor are those humans forbidden to practice their faith if they so choose.
Unfortunately it seems you have fallen for the argument that religion deserves extra respect from criticism or mockery. There is no reason why we should mock it any less than anything we already do.
But by claiming that W fails to understand M, you imply that there exist a set of values that both will recognize. If that is true, then the best way to find out what those values are is through reasoned argument, not through the application of a recooked version of a medieval plagiarism of bronze-age myths. Religion should not be allowed to be a player in this game.
You miss the point of this entirely. Prohibition of blasphemy is a rule you set up for the members of *your* faith only, not for others. Trying to impose your rules over people who have not signed up for your religion has to be called on.
Well, boo-hoo. Nobody forced newspapers to put their content online. It sure is convenient for us readers, but if they were not prepared to deal with what is happening now, then they should just pull out and go to just print or subscription only. Let's see how well that will fare. Will they want people writing about their stories banned?
The Internet's whole point is copying and sharing information, and if you don't want to share your content or cannot afford to, then don't freaking put it there.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein