What is Digg?180 Comments
- ncairns, on 10/12/2007, -12/+50I think Einstein can probably be quite accurately grouped with Feynman in this respect, and really in most others for that matter - each had a conception of some driving force behind the world which an objective observer might call God for lack of a better word, but truthfully to either the word could only be aptly used as an arbitrary, non-personal and non-supernatural term used to name the laws of math and science that govern the Universe. I believe this is about where Hawking has settled as well.
Three of the most utterly brilliant people who have ever lived. Kinda tells you something, no? - nates, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
(Albert Einstein, 1954)
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."
(Albert Einstein)
There's a big difference between believing in some enigmatic, universal God and being a Christian. Many people compare Einstein's concept of God to being one and the same with the laws of physics themselves. One can also believe that Jesus existed and was a nice guy without believing he was the magical son of God. - jayhawk, on 10/12/2007, -20/+53nepawoods, i am an atheist and i believe in the historical existence of jesus. i just don't think he was a god or son of any of the thousands of gods that people believe in or have believed in. i also don't say that there is no god. i merely say i don't believe in a god. i have no proof to show there is a god and no proof to say there is no god, just as i have no proof to show that there are no unicorns. just FYI.
- tb0n3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33More like:
Angel: "God... Tsunami!"
God: "Where?"
Angel: "In the Pacific"
God: "No, I mean... which planet?"
Angel: "Oh, um... Earth."
God: "Earth... Earth.... Where is that again?"
Angel: "It's orbiting Sol"
God: "Hmmm.... you're going to have to be more specific."
Angel: "Um, well, it's in the 'Milky Way' Galaxy, if that helps"
God: "Oh, that's right! Heh. I forgot all about that place. Well, I'd go there to help them out, but traffic totally sucks this time of Eon. They should be capable enough to handle this themselves. Besides, my favorite show is about to come on." - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -18/+44@jayhawk
"i am an atheist and i believe in the historical existence of jesus. i just don't think he was a god or son of any of the thousands of gods that people believe in or have believed in. i also don't say that there is no god. i merely say i don't believe in a god. i have no proof to show there is a god and no proof to say there is no god, just as i have no proof to show that there are no unicorns."
Of course.
I find it interesting, though, how often people here do exactly what Einstein said angered him - quote him to support their view that there is no God.
And, how often atheists here mock those who even believe Jesus existed, let alone who are enthralled by his teachings, as Einstein seemed to have been. How fortunate Einstein never got to see the sea of stupidity that is on average reflected by the users of this site. - biffnix, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Why digg down Nepawoods for actually *quoting* Einstein's rejection of atheism (and specifically, of atheists), and his acceptance of the historical Jesus? That's what Einstein believed, and a direct quote. You may not agree with Einstein, but don't digg down those who quote the man, for pete's sake... Make your argument and support it - pretending Einstein didn't really say something doesn't make your argument stronger. In fact, quite the converse is true...
I suppose that's the problem with Digg. You can digg down others because you disagree with what they said, rather than because they were wrong, or misquoting, or otherwise distorting the case.
JG - andrewdundee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Einstein was a fan of Spinoza's god, a rather indifferent god. that explains the terrible happenings in the world.
angel - "god...tsunami"
god - "meh"
angel - "god...global warming"
god - "meh" - Wonkanobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Einstein never believed in a personal God. What he referred to as God was the grandeur and magnificence of the universe, and the capacity for science to understand and explain it.
- nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24@biffnix
"Why digg down Nepawoods for actually *quoting* Einstein's rejection of atheism"
They don't like what Einstein had to say. - WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Don't forget- back then, Atheism=Communism. Very few people were brave enough to outright say, "I'm an atheist", particularly someone who worked in such sensitive areas as Einstein.
- browwiw, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23angel - "god...Christian fundamentalists"
god - "ugh" - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@BruceBogTrotter:
"i used to not believe in god till i read the case for faith. Its about a scientist who was atheist and went into investigate faith and ends up a Christian."
First: Lee Strobel is a journalist, not a scientist. Says it on the cover.
Second: One would expect a journalist to at least practice unbiased journalism, rather than starting the book out from the view of evangelical christianity.
Third: The chapter titles alone show that he's not even addressing the right questions: "It's offensive to claim Jesus is the only way to God"? Come on. I don't think for a second that proving that statement logically true disproves the existence of God.
Strobel spends the entire book trying to equate 'not contradicted by evidence' with 'shown conclusively by evidence'. I spent the whole book thinking, 'Ah, faith is supposed to be without reason. Why are you trying to find reasons to have faith?'.
"Some of the top scientists in the world believe in god and show how there is just no other way."
This is either a lie, or you are pretty misinformed. Anyone who's been an atheist at some point at least knows the statistics on this: almost every high ranking scientist falls into the atheist, agnostic, or deist categories. (Deist counts, in my opinion, as among the nonreligious group, as it doesn't dictate terms; you thank god if you remember to, and occasionally ask him for stuff, not expecting to get it.) I can get you a breakdown from a study done in the UK in the 90's, if you want.
As for them showing how there is no other way, I would ask for an example, if you will. Please don't make stupid claims without being able to support them.
"I will be dugg down for this but hey, its hard to argue with that book so read before just telling me how wrong and stupid i am."
Ahh, the argument from "You haven't read it, you can't say anything!" Except you'll find that a LOT of us have read books contrary to our opinion. How can we have a reasonable, well thought out opinion without knowing what the dissention to it is?
I'd like to mention, I'm pretty sure you were never an atheist. You don't think well enough to have escaped from any flavor of theism. - axiomata, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@towca
"He believed in the whole "Lord of the earth and the universe and when we die we will answer to him" deal."
Did you read the article?
"Do you believe in immortality? "No. And one life is enough for me."" - WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"How can you look at the wonders of our universe and the nature laws and the order of things and think it just happen?"
Most atheists DON'T think it "just happened". Emergent behavior and organization is a beautiful thing- much more elegant than presupposing an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent father figure who made the entire universe in a week. To us, there's no functional difference between christianity and odin-worshipping. - Coniferous, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23I'm not going to rule out the possibility of a god, its just my opinion that the bible probably isn't the most accurate depiction of this "god".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Wow, I'm ashamed of TIME for using made up quotes from Einstein, he was definitely an atheist, he even said so on many occasions.
Some REAL quotes from Einstein:
" It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman ISBN 0691023689
From a correspondence between Ensign Guy H. Raner and Albert Einstein in 1945 and 1949. Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest: "I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth." Freethought Today, November 2004
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@nepawoods:
Most atheists who quote Einstein don't quote him in support of the view that there is no God. We quote him to defend against theists who thought Einstein was religious. He was a deist, ie: someone who thinks there was a higher power.
Anyway, what Einstein thinks in that respect isn't proof one way or another; it's not like his deep personal feelings are a matter for peer review. - WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15"So you're saying Einstein was a coward."
Nope, just smart. Atheists are still the most hated segment of the population- a study showed that a gay female minority would be elected to President before an atheist ever would be. Even now, I don't go around telling everyone I'm an atheist- not because I'm a coward, but because I don't want to pick an unnecessary fight. - Niten, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@jefdub: I have to disagree. Thomas Aquinas's "proofs" are completely unscientific and irrational, and have been debunked more times than are worth listing. Furthermore, his ill-formed and circular arguments could just as easily be applied to the unicorns whose evidence you contrast them with, as with the Christian god or any other deity ever imagined.
- WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"God cannot be proven. And God cannot be disproven. Taking either viewpoint is an article of faith."
Strawman. Atheism isn't a belief; it's a lack of belief, by definition. I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Thor, or Pele, or any of the other gods that humans have worshipped. Not because I insist that they don't exist, but rather because there's no evidence to convince me that they aren't just as imaginary as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.
Now, atheists who say they KNOW that God doesn't exist are going out on a limb, but the evidence supports their position. I'm not willing to go that far, personally- I'm just pretty darn sure there's no god, since I've never been presented with sufficient evidence that he/she/it exists. Someone, I'm sure, will say, "Then you're an agnostic!" Sorry, no- an agnostic isn't willing to make a decision one way or the other. I'm willing to say "I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist, just like all the other gods don't exist." - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Atheists are accepting that they cannot know how the Universe began. They are not so arrogant to make up a Sky Father to explain things. At the same time, they are arrogant in a different way in that they do not know how the Universe began yet they rule out that there could be a God.
God cannot be proven. And God cannot be disproven. Taking either viewpoint is an article of faith. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -33/+41From the article:
"There are people who say there is no God," he told a friend. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
You accept the historical existence of Jesus? "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist." - orp2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The Quran is an interesting text. But any religion that supports a set of laws (Sharia Law) that deem it justified to kill you if you leave the religion, will not get my support. Now if Islam wants to come out and denounce Sharia Law I will respect it. Until then, no way. You have no right to coerce people - period...period!!!
- xsuite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9From the article:
In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."
--------
That couldnt be more true. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@pkulak
"So, is that how you came up with your belief system? You just find people smarter then yourself and steal whatever the hell they believe?"
What the hell does that mean? - browwiw, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Nepa, I'm an atheist too and I acknowledge historical figure of Jesus. I also acknowledge all the other historical contemporaries of that region who claimed to be the Messiah and had divine abilities attributed to them.
That doesn't mean I believe any of them had actual magical god powers.
Buddha and King Arthur and Calamity Jane were real historical people, also. Do you believe all myths attributed to them, too?
When you understand why you don't believe in other deities and folklore figures, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours. - cleverdiggname, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah. It seems that a lot of people consider Christians just mindless followers who hate atheist, which is completely wrong.
Christianity isn't some televangelist selling the latest "holy water" to the repenting masses. Jesus drove out those selling things in the Church with a whip because they were dis-honoring a place of God. Jesus hung out with many people who the religious leaders at the time deemed unclean, and he would preach to those who came to him. He is hardly what people would think of Christians.
Also, why does almost every Christian comment get dugg down. It's just a difference of opinion, we aren't flaming anybody. - hooksie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Deist, actually.
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Einstein: "... behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion."
In that context, Einstein's God appears to fit in between the cracks of what we understand. Since that's where your God also lay, I suppose that's vindication of your stance that Einstein believed in a theistic God.
Of course, Einstein understood a whole hell of a lot more than you do, so obviously, his view of God must have been a lot tighter than yours. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"I believe in that which can be observed or demonstrated"
Can you observe or demonstrate that humans have awareness of subjective experiences? - Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle."
And, like any slave who has been freed, wants to end that slavery for all? Not really a good analogy. - WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Would you agree it might be equally annoying when atheists try to force things on you, or at least ridicule something they, admittedly, don't understand? Listening Dawkins?"
What have atheists in general, and Dawkins in specific, tried to force on you? - browwiw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Of course they weren't stupid. Like all great con men, they just preyed on the stupid.
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Still, note that it applies to fanatical atheists, not your every day atheist.
These are the ones you'd never notice are atheist, because they simply don't give a ***** about your religion. The only clue is that they will generally say, 'No' when you ask if they want to go to your church event. You know, unless it's something fun and secular, like bowling. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"The idea of a personal god is quite alien to me and seems
even naive." - Albert Einstein: Scientist/Physicist/Mathematician
http://thecreationfallacy.blogspot.com/ - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.
Buried. Inaccurate. - bumb1ebee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Saying "Einstein believed in God" is misleading and doesn't tell you the whole story. His God is not a theistic one. He has repeatedly dismissed the idea of a personal God with anthropomorphic qualities in many of his quotes. Most likely, his God wasn't a deistic one either because he rejected the idea of a God distinct from nature. It sickens me to see people who believe in a monotheistic God try to "claim" Einstein as one of their own when his ideas about God are no where near theirs.
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@towca:
"I think it's utterly sad that we take the belief of/in God with SUCH negativity that when one of the greatest human being that ever lived says he believed in God, we say he used the word God "for lack of a better word". Simply because we don't know how could we POSSIBLY take someone seriously, and give him the respect he so clearly deserves, when he BELIEVES IN GOD???"
Not exactly true. I have great respect for a number of people that just happened to have what is effectively the browser quirk of humanity.
"Well know this, and to deny it will be an UTTER disrespect to the man that Einstein was. Einstein DID believe in God. And no, he did not use God in substitute for 'an arbitrary, non-personal and non-supernatural term used to name the laws of math and science that govern the Universe'. He believed in the whole 'Lord of the earth and the universe and when we die we will answer to him' deal."
That is a lie. You are a liar. Just a look at page two of TFA shows that.
"And if you can't see how he could possibly do and find all that he did even though he was a complete and utter fool for believing in God, like we view everyone who believes in God on Digg these days, then you, kind sir, are even a bigger fool than all the religious fundamentalists combined."
Right. Because atheists believe that every innovator who ever lived must have been an atheist. There's a reason we call some religious nuts on Digg fools; they spout off ***** like this. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"...I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly"
Clear enough for you? - guillecabeza, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Obviously at the risk of being accused of xenophobia, I think this article is the usual case of a fanatic (in this case WALTER ISAACSON, jew) trying to portrait Einstein as a talmud-relgition-based from the cradle jew, partially quoting sentences without pointing at its sources.
Anyone who has read anything from Einstein(besides technical work) knows he's far far away from being anything close to religious/god believer or whatever.
Just another case of someone trying to justify his non-based beliefs using some -questionable- quotes from an authoritative opinion. - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@BruceBogtrotter:
"Actually yes i was an atheist and if you actually believe that my statement about how there are some top scientists that believe in god is a lie then you obviously havent read the book."
I have. It was piss, and it held the same contradictions of actual peer-reviewed study that you seem to. The statement "Dont believe everything you read" holds true here, but more accurately, read EVERYTHING, and decide what you believe to be true based on the source. Author with an agenda on one hand, peer reviewed research papers on the other. It's one aspect of what's called critical thinking.
"And it is reasonable to use the "You haven't read it, you can't say anything!" argument because how can someone argue a book when they havent even read it?"
It's not reasonable to use that argument in a public forum, because there is a greater than 75% chance that someone in the room will have read it and had the opposite effect that you did - ie, that your ***** argument from experience will not hold up.
"And what are you 14? insulting someone for no good reason is very immature and uncalled for."
I have a good reason for saying you don't think well. You've shown no evidence of critical thinking - or even of a single verifiable concept - while trying to push forward a glaringly inaccurate book. Perhaps you were an atheist, but if you were, I would guess you didn't come about it honestly (ie: you thought it was cool). You're lucky I didn't invoke Godwin's Law by going all grammar nazi on your ass, but I don't like to be impolite about grammar - it's a particular annoyance of mine, but it's almost never an indicator of someone's intelligence.
For the record, I'm 26, and will be 27 in July - though, apparently, I haven't grown out of the arrogant streak you get with college age folk. It would help if there weren't so goddamned many stupid people around. - kefland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres." (Albert Einstein)
The most troubling thing is the selective quotation from many people here. People are going to see what they want to see, regardless... - Mneitzel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Life doesn't NEED a meaning to exist. It just DOES.
Life doesn't NEED a point to be beautiful. It just IS.
OK first thought at this, its back at the "stuff happens" outlook that can never make sense for me.
Second thought : I hope no ill against someone with this view. It can't apply well when life sucks. But have to admit its a pretty thought.
Third thought: Human race ( myself included) sucks. This view doesn't take that it account.
Albert has some interesting thoughts , he fought with the idea of a god. He never could quite take him out of the picture. Kinda scary , if you have done so.
BTW: Christian comment , please bury as custom seems to be on DIGG. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This in a magazine that, just two weeks ago, published a cover in all parts of the world with the title "Talibanistan" - and ONLY in the US replaced that cover with "Why We Should Teach The Bible In Public School"
(see here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601070402,00.html)
An excerpt from a book about Einstein has three pages replete with quotes from the man, while leaving out one of his most famous direct rebuttals of theist's attempts to claim him as one of their own:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
And, for me, the most significant and heartening quote is almost never mentioned in ANY discussion about Einstein - despite the fact that it was published in the New York Times late in his life, well into the period where the Time magazine article claims he was expressing his "deepening appreciation of his belief in God".
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
[Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]"
Not that Einstein, who was as human as any of us, is an authority on such matters out side his professional expertise; in the secular world, we don't deify people to the point where everything they say is considered inerrant, no matter what the subject. Einstein's opinions about religion and morality are to be judged on their merits, not on the credentials of the messenger.
Nontheless, I find it significant that one of the least quoted comments by Einstein on religion and morality, is the one where he clearly states that the one is independent of the other.
Ultimately, what matters is not what one believes, but how one behaves towards others. - EatingPie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Niten - I recommend you take a look at Schaeffer's arguments. They ascribe logical proof** of God's existence via three separate methodologies: metaphysics, morality and epistemology.
In Internet forums, it's easiest to argue the moral necessity, though I tend to reduce this to "value" (as in "humans are valuable" not "humans have values"). What's important, though, is that Schaeffer does not rely on a single argument, but these three (sometimes interconnecting) arguments for the existence of God.
** When I say "proof" in this context, I would mean "evidence so compelling that I consider it to be true." But it's important to understand that there are different definitions for "proof" and people accept different levels of "proof" (such as logical proof, or experiential -- "I saw it!" proof).
I do not think Einstein ever spoke of PROOF, but instead that he saw EVIDENCE of God, even though he did not necessarily believe in the specific, Judeo-Christian God.
-Pie - xsuite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4agnostic means that you think its unknowable that a god exists. Atheism is the downright denial of god.
Most people get the two names mixed up, its understandable. - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@orp2000:
You made a mistake there. Many atheists do understand religion, having been religious themselves. Some have had 'religious experiences', and indeed now know the physiological reasons for them.
Other than Soviet Russia - which had way too numerous more important administrative problems to think atheism was their big mistake - I don't think there's a signle atheist who's forced their outlook on anyone. As for ridicule, well, it happens, but only because most of us see religion as a fun little glitch in everyone else. Almost no other topic makes a theist as defensive as the probable non-existence of God.
Which is why, of course, Douglas Adams books sell so well. Cast a serious argument in a humorous light in a fictional universe where the correct answer doesn't matter? I'm pretty sure Adams has converted far more people than his friend Dawkins, just by showing new and interesting ways for people to think about theology. They apply it, and suddenly figure out that the answer doesn't matter when the same thought is applied to the real world. When I want to provide self-defense for an atheist, I suggest Dawkins. When I want an irrational zealot to obtain a little sanity, I suggest Adams.
I don't bother trying to convert rational theists; there's nothing functionally wrong with them. Again, it's just a minor glitch to play with. - laplacian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@towca
good points until you completely fabricated that quote.
btw, I think the most striking opinions of Einstein on this matter are those of determinism. - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Being a part of what is considered the least trusted group in America simply because I do not believe in something (as opposed to those who would fly planes into buildings), is it surprising to you that I as well as many who share my lack of belief tend to fly the flag of atheism with a new enthusiasm? It shouldn't be all that surprising. All I've ever done is express myself. I do not recall ever proclaiming that my NON-God is the only non-God, or that any of you will go to some fiery place of torture when you expire simply because you choose to not believe in my non-God.
To even remotely compare the two beasts is not only inaccurate, but completely dishonest. And if you do not believe me, try proclaiming atheism in America and running for office sometime.
And this concept that discussion of one's views on religion is interpreted as a "crusade" is utter nonsense. Believe all you want, but I'm not shutting up about it. Deal. - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Not being a zealot or a blowhard is cowardly now. Interesting.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is