With Microsoft they tell you years in advance when the product will reach EOL, so you have plenty of time to prepare
On top of that, most of their products are software running on your desktop and will still keep working after EOL
And if you're a government or enterprise with spectacularly big wallets, you can choose to pay Microsoft big $$ to keep shipping you additional security patches
They just released the beta of Office 2024, so no. However, they have drastically shortened the support lifecycle for offline editions which has made it a lot more expensive to use non-subscription Office. Office 2016 was supported for ten years, Office 2021 is supported for five.
With a three year release cycle, you used to be able to skip up to two versions of Office and still get security updates. Now you can't skip any because five years of support is too short to get you to the release six years out.
The challenge with books like The God Delusion is that it's barely one step above strawman arguments.
It attacks claims made by some simple lay people, based on their half-baked understanding of their own faiths (which they never really dug into). However, people well versed in the religion don't actually make any such claims.
The arguments being debunked are ones that religious scholars themselves would have disagreed with. Such misrepresentations don't guide anyone
Very few real world practitioners of these religions would recognize “religious scholars” or “academic experts” as being authoritative arbiters of their religious beliefs.
And atheists don't generally recognise Richard Dawkins as the arbiter of their beliefs either.
If someone were to attack the arguments for atheism in good faith I would hope they would fight its strongest arguments and not just tackle a hack like Dawkins. I'd like to extend the arguments for God the same courtesy.
My experience with religion in the public sphere is that ~all of the religious arguments that are actually advanced in that sphere have nothing to do with ones made by religious scholars.
Attacking a strawman is perfectly appropriate in this case, because the strawman is what actually drives policy.
I've always been curious about serious scholarship of religion.
I've wondered whether it is possible to be both, say, a Christian and an atheist simultaneously (e.g., not believing that Christ existed physically, but at the same time believing that following the tenets in the religion is the right thing to do for the greater good, or perhaps interpreting the Bible completely metaphorically).
I imagine that scholars can have serious disagreements over the meaning of the Bible or even its provenance without necessarily leaving the religion.
The vast majority of historians, including atheist ones, think that someone answering to that general description _did_ exist, though they obviously don't think he was the son of God.
> not believing that Christ existed physically, but at the same time believing that following the tenets in the religion is the right thing to do for the greater good
Substitute 'God' for 'Christ', and yeah, that's common. Many people are also purely _culturally_ religious; they don't believe in a god (or at least not the one their religion mandates), and do not accept many of the teachings or beliefs of their religion, but do _identify_ as being a member of a religion. In Ireland, say, 70% of people identified as Catholic on the most recent census (in the 90s this was closer to 90%; younger people _are_ less likely to engage in this practice and the child abuse scandals also caused many older people to break away), but in polling the majority of Irish Catholics do not believe in, well, Catholic stuff (a personal god, hell, transubstantiation, the virgin birth, etc), or accept the Church's moral worldview (see outcomes of referendums on abortion, equal marriage etc).
I'm an atheist but wouldn't mind seeing a religion based on Jesus' teachings flourish. I think most people are dumb and need something/someone to encourage them to act rationally and civilly. Not me, of course; I try my best and don't need further encouragement. Current Christianity isn't sufficient; one can easily see how un-Jesus-like many Christians are.
> Christian and an atheist simultaneously (e.g., not believing that Christ existed physically, but at the same time believing that following the tenets in the religion is the right thing to do for the greater good, or perhaps interpreting the Bible completely metaphorically).
To be clear, Hart's own religious views seem pretty eclectic, and he is much less dogmatically Christian than blurbs and marketing of his books suggest.
As a Muslim, I've seen Dawkins make very basic and laughably incorrect claims about Islam. It clearly shows he has extremely shallow knowledge about what he claims to criticize. Niel DeGrasse Tyson is also guilty of the same.
Ok, I just suffered through the 13 minutes of nonsens from this "expert".
One problem is that he doesn't understand what he is arguing against. Dawkins doesn't argue that, because people tend to have similar beliefs as those around them, he has disproved those beliefs. He just uses it to illustrate the close minded way some people take the supremacy of their particular religion for granted. The question "What if you are wrong?" comes with a lot of assumptions.
It's also laughable for an expert (for a number of reasons) to claim that C.S. Lewis has disproved atheism.
And the counter argument that Dawkins himself he is an atheist because he was born in the UK in the 20th century just proves Dawkins point. I think Dawkins himself would agree that the likelihood of him being atheist would have been far lower if he would have been born in Pakistan or in 17th century England.
This was just a short clip that has English captions. He refuted Dawkins' book in a longer series on his main channel, but I don't think it has English captions. He is an expert, no need to be dismissive.
Does it matter all that much that they get some nuances to Islam, or other religions, incorrect when the central tenant is that there is no God / spiritual being? Like arguing over the cake decorations instead of tackling the central issue of the sponge being made of chocolate or turds.
It's not just nuances, it's entire straw man fallacies. They don't understand basic Islamic tenants and claims, let alone advanced topics like Kalam, and then they attempt to argue against it, making a mockery out of themselves.
Details do matter, because they lump all religions together and attempt to argue against them as a whole, not realizing that there exist core differences among them, even if there is potentially large overlap between say Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Disregarding these facts is doing an injustice to themselves and to their audience, and spreads ignorance and malice.
While I agree that it's bad to spread misinformation that may be harmful, I'll again appeal to you that it doesn't matter a great deal to the audience of this particular book. If the argument is that the fundamental underpinning of all these religions is untrue, unreasonable, or directionally opposite to modern science then the details are not important.
To put it another way, if you read the book and you are religious then it probably matters to you in a way that other's just don't give a damn about. For example, I remember at uni some Christians in my class debating the holy spirit / God / Jesus and the distinction or lack thereof. But if you're not Christian then it doesn't matter, that detail has no bearing on you at all. In the same way that if you are Christian then a book discussing whether Jesus was a mythical figure and retelling of an older story or a real person, that detail is just outside your belief system, it doesn't have any bearing on you and there's no point engaging with that detail.
> If the argument is that the fundamental underpinning of all these religions is untrue, unreasonable, or directionally opposite to modern science then the details are not important.
And that argument is fundamentally flawed, and is the point I'm trying to make. While it may apply to other religions, it does not apply to Islam. This is where Dawkins and his ilk show their ignorance and fall flat, and falsifies their entire approach. What appears to them as (or them falsely assuming to be) underpinnings, isn't, if I can put it in another way.
I don't see the parallel to the example you gave. Once you're inside a religion, then you can discuss its details and nuances like the examples you gave. That's a completely orthogonal discussion however. Dawkins and the neo-atheist movement are arguing core basics like the existence of God, then using some fallacies that some religions commit to discredit every religion. See the problem there?
Sorry you've kind of lost me. Islam has a god and heaven as a fundamental part doesn't it? The argument is not that there's no Christian God, it's that there are no gods of any kind and the preposition of humanity to make up mythological religions for various reasons. All religions fall into this argument.
Just because Islam has God and Paradise as a fundamental aspect does not mean that you can conflate its presentation of God with the rest of the religions, which is my point. His argument is extremely brittle and laughable.
We know that truth extends beyond what can be empirically proven. Meaning that just because something cannot be proven empirically, does not mean that it is not true. Furthermore, truth is not limited to what can only be empirically proven. This is what the neo-atheists/scientism followers seem to always fall for, and something that even philisophers know not to be true. I believe Godel's incompleteness theorem has something to say about the matter as well. And Dr. Ameri is an expert, you can read up about his credentials. Unlike say Dawkins who was referred to as a journalist by an academic in his field.
Any plans to come out with a version I don't have to worry about getting wet?