Open source vs Microsoft vs public domain

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Malcolm McLean, Dec 21, 2010.

  1. Personally I've got mixed feeling about Open Source. It's nice to have
    software for free. On the other hand, the Microsoft monopoly meant
    that you generally had software of high quality. I know that there are
    always irritating niggles, but that's in the nature of GUIs. With Open
    Office the niggles and glitches are worse.

    However whenever I release source code onto the web, I always do so as
    public domain rather than GPL. The reason is that an important set of
    users is programmers in for-profit environments. Often those companies
    are small and the profits only just enough to keep them in business.
    don't see any purpose in excluding them, other than to create what
    Bill Gates called a "viral licence" (anything touched by Open Source
    becomes open source), which has the potential to damage paid-for-
    software, which is why Gates is so rattled.
     
    Malcolm McLean, Dec 21, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Malcolm McLean

    Tom St Denis Guest

    On Dec 21, 2:51 am, Malcolm McLean <>
    wrote:
    > Personally I've got mixed feeling about Open Source. It's nice to have
    > software for free. On the other hand, the Microsoft monopoly meant
    > that you generally had software of high quality.


    I was with you, feeling the vibe, digging your sentiment, until this
    last sentence. MSFT software is high quality? Since when?

    > I know that there are
    > always irritating niggles, but that's in the nature of GUIs. With Open
    > Office the niggles and glitches are worse.


    No glitches in Windows ... none at all. And MS IE is CSS3
    compliant...

    > However whenever I release source code onto the web, I always do so as
    > public domain rather than GPL. The reason is that an important set of
    > users is programmers in for-profit environments. Often those companies
    > are small and the profits only just enough to keep them in business.
    > don't see any purpose in excluding them, other than to create what
    > Bill Gates called a "viral licence" (anything touched by Open Source
    > becomes open source), which has the potential to damage paid-for-
    > software, which is why Gates is so rattled.


    Gates [well more so Balmer] hates OSS because it tears into the need
    to buy their software. Before Linux came around [or BSD] your x86 PC
    basically ran DOS and only DOS [and/or windows on top]. Linux and BSD
    give you the ability to use your PC with other software they don't own
    or control.

    And sadly, instead of embracing the TECHNOLOGICAL merits of a proper
    *NIX and POSIX environment they choose to go their own way the entire
    time.

    And none of this has anything to do with clc.

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Dec 21, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Malcolm McLean

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-12-21, Malcolm McLean <> wrote:
    > Personally I've got mixed feeling about Open Source. It's nice to have
    > software for free. On the other hand, the Microsoft monopoly meant
    > that you generally had software of high quality.


    lolwut?

    I don't think I've had more than one or two remotely positive experiences
    with Microsoft's software in the last twenty years. I get better, faster,
    service from open source people. Once upon a time, I was at a megacorp
    that had a high-end Microsoft support contract. We reported a bug in Word
    to them. It was a simple, clear, unambiguous bug. They explained that,
    when they said they supported "TIFF", they meant that there were a few TIFF
    files they read, but that they did not support the several year old current
    standard or have any plans ever to do so.

    > I know that there are
    > always irritating niggles, but that's in the nature of GUIs. With Open
    > Office the niggles and glitches are worse.


    This utterly fails to match my experience. I've had worse troubles trying
    to migrate files between MS Office and MS Office than I have with basically
    anything else ever. I was obliged to use MS Office for a book recently, and
    every version available to me (Office XP, Office 2007, Office 2008) was
    catastrophically awful in various ways, with massive data loss bugs, random
    UI quirks such as permanently losing focus, and so on. All of which was
    consistently reported by other people when I compared notes with them; it
    wasn't just me.

    > However whenever I release source code onto the web, I always do so as
    > public domain rather than GPL. The reason is that an important set of
    > users is programmers in for-profit environments. Often those companies
    > are small and the profits only just enough to keep them in business.
    > don't see any purpose in excluding them, other than to create what
    > Bill Gates called a "viral licence" (anything touched by Open Source
    > becomes open source), which has the potential to damage paid-for-
    > software, which is why Gates is so rattled.


    I'm making decent money working on GPLd software. It's not particularly hard
    to make money on Open Source. The notion that it prevents people from
    using it in for-profit products is 100% FUD. It is not true, and it is
    not consistent with observed reality. Furthermore, only some Open Source
    licenses have that viral effect, and many other choices exist.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
     
    Seebs, Dec 21, 2010
    #3
  4. Malcolm McLean

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 21/12/10 21:45, Seebs a écrit :
    > On 2010-12-21, Malcolm McLean<> wrote:
    >> Personally I've got mixed feeling about Open Source. It's nice to have
    >> software for free. On the other hand, the Microsoft monopoly meant
    >> that you generally had software of high quality.

    >
    > lolwut?
    >
    > I don't think I've had more than one or two remotely positive experiences
    > with Microsoft's software in the last twenty years.


    [snip]
    >
    > I'm making decent money working on GPLd software.


    Ahhhh ok. Look, I am making money with propietary software (iPhone,
    Apple Mac).

    And I will not start telling here the horror stories that I had
    with linux...

    It suffices to remember to all GPLed people here that malloc never
    fails in some implementations of linux. They always give you
    memory.

    Obviously if they give you more than what the machine has, they
    will randomly crash some process to make space.

    This is open source design in all its beauty. I remember that dicussion
    that we had right in this newsgroup.

    Consequence: is ALL linux bad?

    No. They have good features, they have really bad features, they have a
    lot of software that is not bad but not good either.

    As anything. Microsoft has its horrors, and even if I am working for
    Apple now, I KNOW they have THEIR horrors too.

    THERE IS NO SILVER BULLET and that you are making money with linux,
    Seebs, doesn't make it better ok?

    Why do we have to SELL OUT when we work for something? I do not try to
    tell anyone that the iphone is the best thing since baked bread was
    invented even if I like Apple. I earned money with linux too, and
    earned money with windows. But I am not a "Windows is the best" guy,
    nor I am evangelizing Linux or Apple.

    In fact, I do not evangelize anything, maybe because I am atheist at
    heart (as we have also discussed here in this newsgroup remember?
    I PROVED the inexistence of god!)

    :)

    have a good night Seebs, and dream of open source
     
    jacob navia, Dec 21, 2010
    #4
  5. Malcolm McLean

    JohnF Guest

    Malcolm McLean <> wrote:
    > I've got mixed feeling about Open Source.
    > It's nice to have software for free.
    > However I release source code as public domain rather than GPL.
    > The reason is that an important set of
    > users is programmers in for-profit environments. Often those companies
    > are small and the profits only just enough to keep them in business.
    > don't see any purpose in excluding them


    GPL doesn't (necessarily) exclude them. Read it (more carefully).
    All code I release publicly is GPL'ed. That means I retain the
    >>copyright<< (and I also officially register the copyright of all

    my code with the library of congress), and anyone who uses it
    is >>licensed<< to use it under the terms and conditions of the GPL.
    To repeat: I retain the >>copyright<<, users are >>licensed<< by me
    under the GPL.
    Now the good part vis-a-vis potential closed-source users.
    As the copyright holder I can also license my code any other
    way I want. That is, the GPL allows everybody to use code freely
    under the open source terms of the GPL. But if you want to use
    my GPL'ed code in some closed source app, then just pay me for a
    license to use my source in any non-GPL way that we contractually
    agree on. No problem at all.
    --
    John Forkosh ( mailto: where j=john and f=forkosh )
     
    JohnF, Dec 22, 2010
    #5
  6. Malcolm McLean

    Tom St Denis Guest

    On Dec 21, 4:58 pm, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > It suffices to remember to all GPLed people here that malloc never
    > fails in some implementations of linux. They always give you
    > memory.
    >
    > Obviously if they give you more than what the machine has, they
    > will randomly crash some process to make space.
    >


    That can only happen from a Kernel process and only with special types
    of allocation [general kmalloc can fail].

    > Why do we have to SELL OUT when we work for something? I do not try to
    > tell anyone that the iphone is the best thing since baked bread was
    > invented even if I like Apple. I earned money with linux too, and
    > earned money with windows. But I am not a "Windows is the best" guy,
    > nor I am evangelizing Linux or Apple.


    Um what? Not everyone who works in "Linux" [which distro?] are solely
    in one platform. Remember an OS is a tool, not a religion. You can
    use multiple OSes at once. heck my macbook has a VM on it just for
    that.

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Dec 22, 2010
    #6
  7. Malcolm McLean

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-12-22, Tom St Denis <> wrote:
    > On Dec 21, 4:58?pm, jacob navia <> wrote:
    >> Obviously if they give you more than what the machine has, they
    >> will randomly crash some process to make space.


    > That can only happen from a Kernel process and only with special types
    > of allocation [general kmalloc can fail].


    No, it's an option for userspace -- the famous "OOM killer". It's
    optional. Some people turn it off because it is a really stupid
    policy in some cases.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
     
    Seebs, Dec 22, 2010
    #7
  8. Malcolm McLean

    Mark Wooding Guest

    Seebs <> writes:

    > No, it's an option for userspace -- the famous "OOM killer". It's
    > optional. Some people turn it off because it is a really stupid
    > policy in some cases.


    And in other cases it's very sensible. Unix has a problem with fork(2):
    in principle, fork(2) requires enough spare virtual memory for a
    complete copy of the process's data segment; in theory, this is
    needlessly pessimistic and most forked processes share most of their
    pages with their parents. One therefore has a choice between poor
    memory utilization and the risks of overcommitment.

    Overcommitment seems like a valid choice in some (especially fairly
    constrained) environments. Programs which /assume/ that systems will
    overcommit are unequivocally wrong, though.

    -- [mdw]
     
    Mark Wooding, Dec 22, 2010
    #8
  9. Malcolm McLean

    TonyMc Guest

    jacob navia <> writes:

    > I PROVED the inexistence of god!)


    I imagine God was quite rattled by that. Bless you Jacob, as a
    philosopher and theologian you make a satisfactory software vendor.

    Tony

    --
    Oh, and a very Happy Christmas to all on clc. Or as young Cratchitt
    might have said: "God bless us, every one!"
     
    TonyMc, Dec 22, 2010
    #9
  10. On Dec 21, 6:49 pm, Tom St Denis <> wrote:
    >

    This is sarcastic ...
    > No glitches in Windows ... none at all.  And MS IE is CSS3
    > compliant...
    >

    We need to define our terms:

    A niggle is where the software works as designed but not as wanted. An
    example is lack of PDF support in most versions of Word - obviously a
    deliberate Microsoft policy to try to reduce use of a format they
    don't control. Another example is automatic numbering - usually you
    want to number 1 2 3 4 5 and so on, but quite often you want some
    other scheme, like 2 3 5 7 11. It's surprising how often this happens,
    and the software insists on renumbering in steps of one. Infuriating.

    A glitch is where the software doesn't work as designed. Glitches are
    far less common than niggles in Microsoft software, although to be
    fair to you until recently Windows did use to crash much more often
    than Linux. For some reason it's easier for a Windows program to take
    down the system.
    >
    > And none of this has anything to do with clc.
    >

    No, it's a pacifier thread.
     
    Malcolm McLean, Dec 22, 2010
    #10
  11. Malcolm McLean

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 22/12/10 15:35, TonyMc a écrit :
    > jacob navia<> writes:
    >
    >> I PROVED the inexistence of god!)

    >
    > I imagine God was quite rattled by that.


    Obviously he will be very proud of me.
    because...

    suppose there is an all powerful being (othewise known as "god")
    QUESTION:

    Can he forget?

    EITHER

    He can't forget, then it is not all powerful because there is ONE thing
    he can't do: forget

    OTHERWISE
    He can forget. OK, but then... he can't remember what he has forgotten!
    Then, he is not "all powerful" either.

    The existence of an "all powerful" being is a contradiction in itself.

    There is NO GOD no hell, no angels, there is NO REASON to screw your
    life with the collective hysteria called religion.

    > Bless you Jacob, as a
    > philosopher and theologian you make a satisfactory software vendor.
    >
    > Tony


    Did I sold YOU anything?

    Or is it that you just despise people that earn their life working?
    Anybody that works must sell his work force. Yes, I am software
    vendor if you want.

    Happy Christmas Tony, from somebody that doesn't celebrate anything in
    that day.
     
    jacob navia, Dec 22, 2010
    #11
  12. On Dec 22, 5:32 pm, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Le 22/12/10 15:35, TonyMc a écrit :
    >
    > > jacob navia<>  writes:

    >
    > >> I PROVED the inexistence of god!)

    >
    > > I imagine God was quite rattled by that.

    >
    > Obviously he will be very proud of me.
    > because...
    >
    > suppose there is an all powerful being (othewise known as "god")
    > QUESTION:
    >
    > Can he forget?
    >
    > EITHER
    >
    > He can't forget, then it is not all powerful because there is ONE thing
    > he can't do: forget
    >
    > OTHERWISE
    > He can forget. OK, but then... he can't remember what he has forgotten!
    > Then, he is not "all powerful" either.
    >
    > The existence of an "all powerful" being is a contradiction in itself.
    >

    What you are saying is "Can God change His own nature?". The answer is
    no. Gods can't change their nature whilst remaining the same, just as
    gods can't create married batchelors or circles with angles.
    A logical contraction doesn't acquire meaning because we prefix "God
    can ..." to it.
     
    Malcolm McLean, Dec 22, 2010
    #12
  13. Malcolm McLean

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 22/12/10 16:37, Malcolm McLean a écrit :
    > On Dec 22, 5:32 pm, jacob navia<> wrote:
    >> Le 22/12/10 15:35, TonyMc a écrit :
    >>
    >>> jacob navia<> writes:

    >>
    >>>> I PROVED the inexistence of god!)

    >>
    >>> I imagine God was quite rattled by that.

    >>
    >> Obviously he will be very proud of me.
    >> because...
    >>
    >> suppose there is an all powerful being (othewise known as "god")
    >> QUESTION:
    >>
    >> Can he forget?
    >>
    >> EITHER
    >>
    >> He can't forget, then it is not all powerful because there is ONE thing
    >> he can't do: forget
    >>
    >> OTHERWISE
    >> He can forget. OK, but then... he can't remember what he has forgotten!
    >> Then, he is not "all powerful" either.
    >>
    >> The existence of an "all powerful" being is a contradiction in itself.
    >>

    > What you are saying is "Can God change His own nature?". The answer is
    > no. Gods can't change their nature whilst remaining the same, just as
    > gods can't create married batchelors or circles with angles.
    > A logical contraction doesn't acquire meaning because we prefix "God
    > can ..." to it.
    >


    Yes, so the existence of an "all powerful" being is impossible.

    Can he make a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it?

    Same answer.

    In this time of the year religious propaganda skyrockets, and the
    atheists feel forced to keep low profile...

    Well NO.

    And anyway, this god (if he exists) created me as atheist isn't it?

    It's his fault then!

    He shouldn't have created atheists in the first place.

    :)
     
    jacob navia, Dec 22, 2010
    #13
  14. Malcolm McLean

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-12-22, Mark Wooding <> wrote:
    > And in other cases it's very sensible. Unix has a problem with fork(2):
    > in principle, fork(2) requires enough spare virtual memory for a
    > complete copy of the process's data segment; in theory, this is
    > needlessly pessimistic and most forked processes share most of their
    > pages with their parents. One therefore has a choice between poor
    > memory utilization and the risks of overcommitment.


    Good point. That's a noticably different case from the malloc-never-fails
    model, but turns out to be technically equivalent.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
     
    Seebs, Dec 22, 2010
    #14
  15. Malcolm McLean

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-12-22, Malcolm McLean <> wrote:
    > Another example is automatic numbering - usually you
    > want to number 1 2 3 4 5 and so on, but quite often you want some
    > other scheme, like 2 3 5 7 11. It's surprising how often this happens,
    > and the software insists on renumbering in steps of one. Infuriating.


    > A glitch is where the software doesn't work as designed. Glitches are
    > far less common than niggles in Microsoft software,


    What the !@#*!@# are you smoking?

    Just take the auto-numbering case. I've never, ever, seen it work correctly
    for nested documents. Ever. It renumbers things horribly.

    > although to be
    > fair to you until recently Windows did use to crash much more often
    > than Linux.


    It still does.

    > For some reason it's easier for a Windows program to take
    > down the system.


    That would be because everything I've seen from them has, at every technical
    level, been garbage. Their specifications are garbage, and they are then
    implemented badly.

    Look at it this way: Consider the famed Microsoft variant of "Hungarian".
    It's a bug to begin with, and they *mandated* it, meaning that all their
    programs were full of useless clutter making it harder to see the actual
    program, and distracting people with irrelevancies. They built a system
    for ensuring that logical type mismatches would be missed because of the
    strong cues telling you that things were "compatible". What did they
    get? Exactly what they asked for; buggy code.

    It's stuff like this that makes it very hard for me to comprehend where
    you're coming from or what experiences you're having and reporting on.
    Reading your posts about software quality or the nature of bugs feels
    like peering into a strange parallel universe where the laws of physics
    are subtly different. It's like reading posts where someone explains
    that one of the reasons that giraffes are so much more popular as pets
    than cats are is that they're easier to transport.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
     
    Seebs, Dec 22, 2010
    #15
  16. Malcolm McLean

    D. Stussy Guest

    "Malcolm McLean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Personally I've got mixed feeling about Open Source. It's nice to have
    > software for free. On the other hand, the Microsoft monopoly meant
    > that you generally had software of high quality. I know that there are
    > always irritating niggles, but that's in the nature of GUIs. With Open
    > Office the niggles and glitches are worse....


    "[T]he Microsoft monopoly meant that you generally had software of high
    quality."

    What are you smoking? It has been quite clear for some time that it's of
    lesser quality.
     
    D. Stussy, Dec 22, 2010
    #16
  17. In article <ietuju$i8u$>,
    D. Stussy <6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:
    >"Malcolm McLean" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Personally I've got mixed feeling about Open Source. It's nice to have
    >> software for free. On the other hand, the Microsoft monopoly meant
    >> that you generally had software of high quality. I know that there are
    >> always irritating niggles, but that's in the nature of GUIs. With Open
    >> Office the niggles and glitches are worse....

    >
    >"[T]he Microsoft monopoly meant that you generally had software of high
    >quality."
    >
    >What are you smoking? It has been quite clear for some time that it's of
    >lesser quality.


    I suppose it depends entirely on your own personal definition of
    "quality". You could ask 20 people to define it and you'd get 20
    different answers.

    By some metrics, MS software is very good. By others, well, not so much...

    --
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
    ~ Epicurus
     
    Kenny McCormack, Dec 22, 2010
    #17
  18. On Dec 22 2010, 4:49 pm, Richard <> wrote:
    > Tom St Denis <> writes:
    > > On Dec 21, 2:51 am, Malcolm McLean <>


    > >> Personally I've got mixed feeling about Open Source. It's nice to have
    > >> software for free. On the other hand, the Microsoft monopoly meant
    > >> that you generally had software of high quality.

    >
    > > I was with you, feeling the vibe, digging your sentiment, until this
    > > last sentence.  MSFT software is high quality?  Since when?

    >
    > Since pretty much whenever. Yuo can complain about viruses all you want


    yes, And I do. The prevalence of virii is BIG black mark against
    Microsoft. The whole anti-virus industry is a wrong headed. The OS
    should be resistant to malware in the first place. Belatedly Microsoft
    are taking security seriously but they have a way to go yet.

    > but Win 7 and XP are damn stable.


    I'm a fan of Vista despite the panning it received. I really did like
    XP.

    > Office is the clear market leader. Its
    > certainly no worse than anything else.


    damning with faint praise. Word can behave in some very strange ways
    sometimes.

    > >>  I know that there are
    > >> always irritating niggles, but that's in the nature of GUIs.


    I don't agree that it *has* to be that way. GUIs are just software and
    we shouldn't just accept crap because thats all we've seen.

    > >> With Open
    > >> Office the niggles and glitches are worse.

    >
    > > No glitches in Windows ... none at all.  And MS IE is CSS3
    > > compliant...

    >
    > Zzzzz. You sound like a zealot. IE6 was a dog. But then so were previous
    > versions of Firefox etc.


    no glitches in windows...

    > >> However whenever I release source code onto the web, I always do so as
    > >> public domain rather than GPL. The reason is that an important set of
    > >> users is programmers in for-profit environments. Often those companies
    > >> are small and the profits only just enough to keep them in business.
    > >> don't see any purpose in excluding them, other than to create what
    > >> Bill Gates called a "viral licence" (anything touched by Open Source
    > >> becomes open source), which has the potential to damage paid-for-
    > >> software, which is why Gates is so rattled.

    >
    > > Gates [well more so Balmer] hates OSS because it tears into the need
    > > to buy their software.  Before Linux came around [or BSD] your x86 PC

    >
    > Except it hasn't. OSS accounts for probably less than 1% of home OSen
    > and almost no one uses Open Office.


    I do. I won't pay for Word for home use.


    <snip>
     
    Nick Keighley, Jan 2, 2011
    #18
  19. On Dec 22 2010, 3:32 pm, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Le 22/12/10 15:35, TonyMc a écrit :
    > > jacob navia<>  writes:



    > >> I PROVED the inexistence of god!)

    >
    > > I imagine God was quite rattled by that.

    >
    > Obviously he will be very proud of me.
    > because...
    >
    > suppose there is an all powerful being (othewise known as "god")
    > QUESTION:
    >
    > Can he forget?
    >
    > EITHER
    >
    > He can't forget, then it is not all powerful because there is ONE thing
    > he can't do: forget
    >
    > OTHERWISE
    > He can forget. OK, but then... he can't remember what he has forgotten!
    > Then, he is not "all powerful" either.


    this is too feeble to labelled sophomoric. And it's off-topic to boot.
    Try reading up on Aquinus if you're going to take theology/philosophy
    seriously.

    <snip>
     
    Nick Keighley, Jan 2, 2011
    #19
  20. On Dec 22 2010, 4:02 pm, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Le 22/12/10 16:37, Malcolm McLean a écrit :
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Dec 22, 5:32 pm, jacob navia<>  wrote:
    > >> Le 22/12/10 15:35, TonyMc a écrit :

    >
    > >>> jacob navia<>    writes:

    >
    > >>>> I PROVED the inexistence of god!)

    >
    > >>> I imagine God was quite rattled by that.

    >
    > >> Obviously he will be very proud of me.
    > >> because...

    >
    > >> suppose there is an all powerful being (othewise known as "god")
    > >> QUESTION:

    >
    > >> Can he forget?

    >
    > >> EITHER

    >
    > >> He can't forget, then it is not all powerful because there is ONE thing
    > >> he can't do: forget

    >
    > >> OTHERWISE
    > >> He can forget. OK, but then... he can't remember what he has forgotten!
    > >> Then, he is not "all powerful" either.

    >
    > >> The existence of an "all powerful" being is a contradiction in itself.

    >
    > > What you are saying is "Can God change His own nature?". The answer is
    > > no. Gods can't change their nature whilst remaining the same, just as
    > > gods can't create married batchelors or circles with angles.
    > > A logical contraction doesn't acquire meaning because we prefix "God
    > > can ..." to it.

    >
    > Yes, so the existence of an "all powerful" being is impossible.
    >
    > Can he make a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it?
    >
    > Same answer.
    >
    > In this time of the year religious propaganda skyrockets, and the
    > atheists feel forced to keep low profile...


    can't say I'd noticed. Seem to be more propaganda trying to get me to
    buy smelly things and people whining that "the spirit of chrsitmas has
    disappeared".

    > Well NO.
    >
    > And anyway, this god (if he exists) created me as atheist isn't it?
    >
    > It's his fault then!
    >
    > He shouldn't have created atheists in the first place.
    >
    > :)



    you may consider me to be an atheists but God regards me as the loyal
    opposition.
     
    Nick Keighley, Jan 2, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charles A. Lackman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,402
    smith
    Dec 8, 2004
  2. SpamProof
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    603
    SpamProof
    Oct 21, 2003
  3. Michael Foukarakis

    Re: Open source vs Microsoft vs public domain

    Michael Foukarakis, Dec 22, 2010, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,041
    Seebs
    Jan 9, 2011
  4. Alfred Sehmueller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    274
    Alfred Sehmueller
    Feb 20, 2004
  5. John Reye
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    381
    Paul N
    May 2, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page