BREAKING NEWS: Internet headlines are Truncated

Ever notice how the news headlines, or titles of article that appear online, aren't long enough to actually tell you what the story is about? I think this MUST be intentional, because until you click on the story, Google - or whatever service you are viewing - gets no information about our interests. They make us click to actually view the content, driving traffic to the sites and stories we might otherwise avoid.

This isn't always the case, as we see in the Gizmodo article from my screencap, but it's still not very informative. The other three are perfect examples: Incomplete information about a takedown notice, American taxes, and humans outliving the universe (that last one is guessable). We are given 7-9 words to determine how to spend our time. It could easily be more, but it's not profitable to the providers to do that. They want our time and attention, because that's how they can sell ads. Actually providing news and information is only a secondary concern.

I suppose this is just another reminder that if we aren't paying for the product, they WE ARE the product. It's not surprising, but it does get tiresome.

In Response to C. S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis Reasoning on Atheism

‎"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."
—C.S. LewisThe Case for Christianity, p. 32.

Suppose there was an intelligence behind the universe, a creative mind. In that case, something may have designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. 

It is only because the atoms inside my skull are arranged just so that gives me the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my thinking to be my own? 

It’s like a machine ever stamping out the same metal parts, never able to vary from its predetermined task. 

But if my thinking is not my own, of course there is no argument, about anything, for I am only what I was made to be, and incapable of being otherwise.

And therefore I cannot believe in God, or anything else. I am incapable that act. I have no reason. I have no thought. Belief ceases to have meaning. 

The point being, something independent of God must exist, some "jug of spilled milk" that has splashed itself into a map of my life, or I am nothing more than a mindless automaton. 

Take THAT, presuppositional apologetics!