fpnc
Mar 19, 01:54 AM
tveric, actually, I didn't call any individual "stupid," I said you'd have to be stupid to use PyMusique (the former and the latter are not exactly the same thing). Sorry if you were somehow offended.
Everybody relax.
I am.
I agree however that Apple will probably soon block access through PyMusique and that might not even require any changes other than on the server side of the music store. That's another reason why this whole story is pretty much overblown.
Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.
As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.
Everybody relax.
I am.
I agree however that Apple will probably soon block access through PyMusique and that might not even require any changes other than on the server side of the music store. That's another reason why this whole story is pretty much overblown.
Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.
As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 01:37 PM
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
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.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
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.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
dudemac
Mar 19, 07:48 AM
So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...
Actually from what I know about the DCESS thing is that he is just a linux geek who wants to use mainstream products on his linux box. It has nothing to do with attention or media companies.
Actually from what I know about the DCESS thing is that he is just a linux geek who wants to use mainstream products on his linux box. It has nothing to do with attention or media companies.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:51 PM
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
springscansing
Oct 13, 04:46 AM
This is actually my first post. Yay! Been a machead forever (using a IIgs when I was 4).
ANYWAY, regarding various posts about PCs encoding mp3s faster than macs. I am an audio engineer, and I must say the encoding algorithm is MUCH better sounding in iTunes than in Winamp, and I assume most of you are using iTunes in your comparisons. Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Now.. I'm not part of the "MACS IS FASTR" group, because sadly, they aren't... I just wanted to point out the mp3 encoding tests weren't fair.
- Springs
ANYWAY, regarding various posts about PCs encoding mp3s faster than macs. I am an audio engineer, and I must say the encoding algorithm is MUCH better sounding in iTunes than in Winamp, and I assume most of you are using iTunes in your comparisons. Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Now.. I'm not part of the "MACS IS FASTR" group, because sadly, they aren't... I just wanted to point out the mp3 encoding tests weren't fair.
- Springs
TangoCharlie
Jul 12, 06:52 AM
Xeon! Conroe (Core 2 Duo)is going in the iMac
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
Additionally, the Edu-iMac won't be upgraded for a while yet, so that when the new Merom iMac _is_ released (WWDC), there will be a bigger difference between the Edu-iMac and the full iMac.
I'm _sure_ that Apple has a surpise for us wrt the Conroe /Conroe XE CPU.... a nice smallish desktop Mac (we can hope, can't we?) :cool:
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
Additionally, the Edu-iMac won't be upgraded for a while yet, so that when the new Merom iMac _is_ released (WWDC), there will be a bigger difference between the Edu-iMac and the full iMac.
I'm _sure_ that Apple has a surpise for us wrt the Conroe /Conroe XE CPU.... a nice smallish desktop Mac (we can hope, can't we?) :cool:
BoyBach
Aug 29, 02:18 PM
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:
There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.
But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:
There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.
But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
danielwsmithee
Sep 12, 04:12 PM
Please excuse me if I am missing something totally obvious here as I am a relatively new convert to Apple.
This looks like a nice little solution but I am not sure its anything revoloutionary. I currently have an airport express in the bedroom connected to an eyehome unit that does the same job as far as i can see.You are right it does nearly the same job. A few differences, one you pointed out the eyeHome can't play copy protected files. The other this thing plays HD not SD like the eyeHome.
My guess is elgato will not offer the eyeHome once this comes out.
This looks like a nice little solution but I am not sure its anything revoloutionary. I currently have an airport express in the bedroom connected to an eyehome unit that does the same job as far as i can see.You are right it does nearly the same job. A few differences, one you pointed out the eyeHome can't play copy protected files. The other this thing plays HD not SD like the eyeHome.
My guess is elgato will not offer the eyeHome once this comes out.
phineas
May 5, 01:06 PM
This post and the results are why I am hoping vzw picks up the iPhone, if they dont, well guess I'll go to tmobile:eek:, Nahhhhh I'll just sell the iPhone and go back to vzw.
AT&T's crap is getting to be too much, wait till the Zombie invasion, I bet there network will be the first one to go down
AT&T's crap is getting to be too much, wait till the Zombie invasion, I bet there network will be the first one to go down
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 11:15 PM
I know my fair share of theists, and I think that they 'know' they're is a god. They see him in everything and feel him in their every action. I don't think that assuming near 100% certainty is too much of an overstatement.
This is hitting on something important. A viewpoint that I would consider to be a belief is considered fact on the "inside". If something is considered fact then it is difficult to challenge. It would generally seem that atheists like the idea of scientific method and will be open to having their ideas questioned. In this case, I think agnostic atheist is where most sit. It's that distinction between belief and knowledge that I dislike.
EDIT: Grammar
This is hitting on something important. A viewpoint that I would consider to be a belief is considered fact on the "inside". If something is considered fact then it is difficult to challenge. It would generally seem that atheists like the idea of scientific method and will be open to having their ideas questioned. In this case, I think agnostic atheist is where most sit. It's that distinction between belief and knowledge that I dislike.
EDIT: Grammar
charliehustle
Oct 7, 08:02 PM
Oh so now we have Android. First it was the Palm Pre that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen, then it was this or that touch screen phone that was going to kill the iPhone and that did not happen. When Android first came out with the G1 that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen and now we have more Android devices killing the iPhone, not going to happen. This is a load of crap from people who don't know what they are talking about. Android is hard to develop for and is at least two years behind Apple at the moment, how is this going to happen? This is the stupidest prediction I have ever heard from people who don't like Apple for some reason that I cannot understand, let's stop predicting which device is going to be King and just see what happens!!! The main reason I say this will not happen is that Android is only being adopted by technophiles and not everyday people, the iPhone is being adopted by apple technophiles and everyday people, it is the everyday people that decide which device is king and they will not adopt Android unless the OS is completely overhauled in a different direction, people like my 63 year old father have an Iphone now and there is no way he would ever want or use an Android based phone. Tech analysts need to think of everyday people when they predict this crap and not techies who hate Apple for some reason or another!!!
no offense, but market share is completely different from "superior product"
they do not go hand in hand, and a company with a larger market share can put out an inferior product (example: Nokia)
more phones with android are going to be sold because there are 40 times the number of handsets android is going to be on..
not a big deal, and apple fans should not be threatened..
the author is just stating simple facts..
no offense, but market share is completely different from "superior product"
they do not go hand in hand, and a company with a larger market share can put out an inferior product (example: Nokia)
more phones with android are going to be sold because there are 40 times the number of handsets android is going to be on..
not a big deal, and apple fans should not be threatened..
the author is just stating simple facts..
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 10:18 AM
I see no reason why Apple won't have a low cost tablet when competitors drop their prices. They are already very aggressive on pricing, and I think we see in the iPod market their approach to pricing these sorts of devices: You can step up from $49 (in the U.S.) all the way to an iPod touch. Hard to beat Apple on pricing, and this is ten years after the iPod was introduced.
So if Acer or whoever wants to drop the tablet price from $499 to $399 or eventually $299, Apple will be right there with them. After all, Apple gets the best component prices now, so how can anyone undercut them?
Unless you mean the piece-of-junk plastic tablet ripoffs that can sell for $199 or something. Apple won't make junk versions, and those will win on price. But anyone who buys those deserves the same headaches as people who buy stripped-down Dell boxes.
So if Acer or whoever wants to drop the tablet price from $499 to $399 or eventually $299, Apple will be right there with them. After all, Apple gets the best component prices now, so how can anyone undercut them?
Unless you mean the piece-of-junk plastic tablet ripoffs that can sell for $199 or something. Apple won't make junk versions, and those will win on price. But anyone who buys those deserves the same headaches as people who buy stripped-down Dell boxes.
LethalWolfe
Apr 13, 04:00 AM
I have absolutely no idea what people complaining here about it going non-pro is talking about.
Did you even watch the coverage? Or did you just look at screenshots?
Some pro-style questions that have been left unanswered:
What about XML and EDLs in and out of FCP X?
What about multicam and multi-clips?
Can I turn the �magnetic timeline� off?
Can I turn all the pre-processing that happens on ingest off (if I'm intentionally shaking the camera I *don't* want FCP to auto-stabilize it)?
How does media management work?
Is there a Media Manager tool?
Can I remap the keyboard?
Is there a better title tool?
What about multi-user environments?
Is the app as mouse-centric as it appears to be?
Are all settings global or can I have project specific settings (such as telling FCP that the capture scratch for Project A is in folder A and the capture scratch for Project B is in folder B)?
I could go on but I think I've made my point. Now, all of this stuff is pretty mundane to cover the first time they show off the app so I'm not surprised it wasn't mentioned. FCP X still has a lot more questions than answers right now, IMO. I can't wait to learn more about it though.
Lethal
Did you even watch the coverage? Or did you just look at screenshots?
Some pro-style questions that have been left unanswered:
What about XML and EDLs in and out of FCP X?
What about multicam and multi-clips?
Can I turn the �magnetic timeline� off?
Can I turn all the pre-processing that happens on ingest off (if I'm intentionally shaking the camera I *don't* want FCP to auto-stabilize it)?
How does media management work?
Is there a Media Manager tool?
Can I remap the keyboard?
Is there a better title tool?
What about multi-user environments?
Is the app as mouse-centric as it appears to be?
Are all settings global or can I have project specific settings (such as telling FCP that the capture scratch for Project A is in folder A and the capture scratch for Project B is in folder B)?
I could go on but I think I've made my point. Now, all of this stuff is pretty mundane to cover the first time they show off the app so I'm not surprised it wasn't mentioned. FCP X still has a lot more questions than answers right now, IMO. I can't wait to learn more about it though.
Lethal
TallGuy1970
Apr 20, 05:47 PM
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
Ah yes, the ever present "Android users must be smarter because they can customize their phones more" argument. It's still as irritating and off-base as it always was. :rolleyes:
Ah yes, the ever present "Android users must be smarter because they can customize their phones more" argument. It's still as irritating and off-base as it always was. :rolleyes:
MacinDoc
Aug 29, 11:15 AM
The reason Apple "performs poorly" on recycling compared to Dell is that Apple computers, on average, remain in use approximately twice as long as Dell computers. Instead of being recycled, they are still being used. Apple does, after all, have a free recycling program. And there is no way that making computers that are replaced more frequently is more environmentally friendly.
It also seems that most of Greenpeace's complaints focus around Apple's refusal to provide Greenpeace with information on what materials are used in manufacturing its products.
Greenpeace does not have an exactly spotless record when it comes to ethics. Makes you wonder if it gets its computers from Dell at a discount.
It also seems that most of Greenpeace's complaints focus around Apple's refusal to provide Greenpeace with information on what materials are used in manufacturing its products.
Greenpeace does not have an exactly spotless record when it comes to ethics. Makes you wonder if it gets its computers from Dell at a discount.
chrono1081
Apr 28, 12:28 PM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
You've obviously never used one to its full potential.
You've obviously never used one to its full potential.
mattniles007
Sep 2, 09:15 PM
I agree mangrove. I want an iPad that is Verizon compatible.
tjcampbell
Apr 24, 05:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone : Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
�algiris
May 2, 09:34 AM
Any software for a Mac that says "MAC" in the title or in any documentation would already be suspect to me. Pretty much every person I have run across that thinks it is spelled in all caps as "MAC" has been a moron.
And just simply in general anti-virus software is useless on Mac, so why would anyone download and install any anti-virus, defender or scanner is above me.
And just simply in general anti-virus software is useless on Mac, so why would anyone download and install any anti-virus, defender or scanner is above me.
firewood
Apr 21, 11:18 AM
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy.
Walk into the engineering or computer science department of a top university. I have, and I see lots and lots of Macs and iPhones. Even at Google's own developer events, I see more MacBooks than HP laptops, or any other brand in particular.
Walk into the engineering or computer science department of a top university. I have, and I see lots and lots of Macs and iPhones. Even at Google's own developer events, I see more MacBooks than HP laptops, or any other brand in particular.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 12:45 PM
But any time a fad gets discussed over a period of years, it's no longer a fad, it's a trend.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 11:30 PM
Well, only if you insist that yours is the ONLY What about the denominations that say "Here's what WE believe, but if someone believes something else, that's fine?"
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
alexf
Aug 29, 11:45 AM
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
A lot of people (and companies, such as Apple).
Seriously.
Seriously.
A lot of people (and companies, such as Apple).
Seriously.