I think 30-40 years later history will in fact judge him poorly compared to Edison and Ford. I mean refining a smartphone design is one thing. But do we really want to compare it with the world changing achievements of mass vehicular transport and light bulbs and DC current.
Does one really care? Living creatures die all the time. I bet you've crushed your share of spiders and insects. I've also seen a few animals expire before my eyes. Those were more traumatic to me than watching some blurry stranger shoot his brains out.
"So when Apple had 0% apps when the iPhone launched, they weren't douchebags."
No. Since they didn't have market share, they had no ethical responsibility to keep it open.
"So when MS switched from an open model to a closed one for smartphones, they're not douchebags?"
Strictly speaking MS smartphones were open with Windows Mobile for a long time. I know because I used several. Sideloading and installation was very much allowed. But as I said, a lower market share doesn't convey any expectations.
When it comes to bullying, this is a false equivalence. A popular bully affects people as much as an unpopular bully and has the same strength to inflict misery. Marketshare isn't the same thing.
If tomorrow Apple has a tenth of the marketshare, I won't criticize them anymore since I won't view them as having an ethical responsibility to keep their platform open.
When you have a huge market share, you have a duty to keep your platform open. Otherwise you're a douche. Which is why companies which small closed platforms don't get mentioned. You're forgiven if you have a minuscule market share. Not if you have a big one.
Next you'll want me to include Linux in my list of OSs as well. Market share may not mean anything to YOU. It does to me. Apple has the largest market share amongst closed OS systems. So it catches my criticism since they're the biggest targets.
Umm...in case you didn't notice, Android allows sideloading of apps. Apple is the biggest offender when it comes to closed mobile systems. And I repeat (in a tired tone) - I never lauded MS's mobile strategy. I just think they're irrelevant in that area and not worth mentioning.
If you had to criticize a company for a closed mobile OS, it would of course be Apple since they are the largest offender.
If the market share of one company is overwhelming, I obviously talk about that more than the others. I can't be expected to ALSO mention dozens of others just to be "balanced and fair". If MS has a significant mobile market share, they would have been honored with a reference. Since Apple has a large one, they get screwed. Hardly surprising.
"Fortunate, then, that we aren't offering up these memories as evidence of god, but rather as a proof that Atheism is a belief."
What memories. Find me ONE person who "remembers" god.
"because you haven't dealt with the counter arguments to Russell's teapot"
Yes I have. They are completely analogous. If you feel that there are counterpoints I haven't addressed, state them here IN YOUR OWN WORDS. I have to be sure you know what you're talking about since you haven't exactly been a paragon in this regard.
They remember feeling something which is itself not evidence of god.
"So the shirt argument is a winner. I'll be using it again."
See, this is PRECISELY why I'm still here. Repeatedly making a fool of yourself is immensely amusing:D
"but you still accept that non-empirical methods"
Read my previous post on how memory is pretty physical - just like a computer's memory. There is a whole field on this to back me up.
"it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not."
Excellent. So you admit that a Zokooloo might exist since you haven't met your burden of evidence that it doesn't exist. This is know as being "hoisted by your own petard"
Actually, given the fact that memory is stored in the brain in a physical manner, it's as much of physical evidence as a file in a computer's memory. Memory in itself is a kind of physical evidence in the brain. Just imagine the brain to be a computer. And as you know, a computer's memory is valid physical evidence in forensics. If the technology is there, brain memories can serve the same purpose.
Of course, evidence is taken in totality. So just like stuff can be put on to a computer to implicate someone, memories can also be false. It is suggestive and not conclusive.
None of which means that it's not physical evidence.
Fail again. Are you read to admit that your shirt idea was a stupid one?
The next point in the teapot page is "James Wood, without believing in God, says that belief in God "is a good deal more reasonable than belief in a teapot"
James wood merely makes an assertion. Once he proves it, he can sit at the adults table.
Slashdot Mirror
I think 30-40 years later history will in fact judge him poorly compared to Edison and Ford. I mean refining a smartphone design is one thing. But do we really want to compare it with the world changing achievements of mass vehicular transport and light bulbs and DC current.
Let's get some perspective huh?
It was the judge asking questions.
You can also use IPKall to get a free US number that forwards all calls to your SIP address.
Does one really care? Living creatures die all the time. I bet you've crushed your share of spiders and insects. I've also seen a few animals expire before my eyes. Those were more traumatic to me than watching some blurry stranger shoot his brains out.
I've seen animals die. Seeing a human die is not any different.
I just watched it. Kind of boring. The most interesting part was the reaction of the anchor.
I think I can pretty much sit through a real person commiting suicide without being seriosly perturbed.
"So when Apple had 0% apps when the iPhone launched, they weren't douchebags."
No. Since they didn't have market share, they had no ethical responsibility to keep it open.
"So when MS switched from an open model to a closed one for smartphones, they're not douchebags?"
Strictly speaking MS smartphones were open with Windows Mobile for a long time. I know because I used several. Sideloading and installation was very much allowed. But as I said, a lower market share doesn't convey any expectations.
When it comes to bullying, this is a false equivalence. A popular bully affects people as much as an unpopular bully and has the same strength to inflict misery. Marketshare isn't the same thing.
If tomorrow Apple has a tenth of the marketshare, I won't criticize them anymore since I won't view them as having an ethical responsibility to keep their platform open.
When you have a huge market share, you have a duty to keep your platform open. Otherwise you're a douche. Which is why companies which small closed platforms don't get mentioned. You're forgiven if you have a minuscule market share. Not if you have a big one.
Next you'll want me to include Linux in my list of OSs as well. Market share may not mean anything to YOU. It does to me. Apple has the largest market share amongst closed OS systems. So it catches my criticism since they're the biggest targets.
Let it go dude.
"Complaining that iOS and closed and Windows is open"
I was comparing software philosophies. Those are the same regardless of platform and doesn't change from between PCs and smartphones.
Umm...in case you didn't notice, Android allows sideloading of apps. Apple is the biggest offender when it comes to closed mobile systems. And I repeat (in a tired tone) - I never lauded MS's mobile strategy. I just think they're irrelevant in that area and not worth mentioning.
If you had to criticize a company for a closed mobile OS, it would of course be Apple since they are the largest offender.
If the market share of one company is overwhelming, I obviously talk about that more than the others. I can't be expected to ALSO mention dozens of others just to be "balanced and fair". If MS has a significant mobile market share, they would have been honored with a reference. Since Apple has a large one, they get screwed. Hardly surprising.
The root eh? If Google didn't exist...oh we'd be living in paradise! :D
Your words speak for themselves. Just go back, copy paste and read it again. False logic is false logic.
"Fortunate, then, that we aren't offering up these memories as evidence of god, but rather as a proof that Atheism is a belief."
What memories. Find me ONE person who "remembers" god.
"because you haven't dealt with the counter arguments to Russell's teapot"
Yes I have. They are completely analogous. If you feel that there are counterpoints I haven't addressed, state them here IN YOUR OWN WORDS. I have to be sure you know what you're talking about since you haven't exactly been a paragon in this regard.
Very convenient. My assertion is that it's a valid debunking. Yours is the opposite. If you want either side to prevail, provide reasoning.
"A memory is interpreted, cognitively, as a sincere belief."
But not JUST as a sincere belief. That JUST is where you fall into error.
"And belief is stored in exactly the same way."
Nuh uh. Citation please.
"all information in the brain is stored in exactly the same way."
The key word is INFORMATION. Belief is not information. Just ask any religious person.
"It tells us that since we accept some things to be true based on cognitive/memory/belief means alone,"
Remove the "belief" part, and your statement has merit.
You did NOT correctly implement set theory when you claimed that if A is a subset of B, then proving something for A is proving the same for B.
This is not a matter of debate. You were WRONG.
Everyone makes mistakes. Nothing wrong with that. You can at the very least admit you slipped up. Not doing so just makes you look petulant.
You didn't correctly address the ontological argument either. And show working.
Incidentally, you haven't shown my WHY I didn't address it correctly. You're stuck now and you have no one to blame but yourself.
As you give, so shall you receive.
"Hence it certainly could be said that people remember God"
No they cannot. Just ask them.
"they certainly remember experiencing spiritual phenomena"
They remember feeling something which is itself not evidence of god.
"So the shirt argument is a winner. I'll be using it again."
See, this is PRECISELY why I'm still here. Repeatedly making a fool of yourself is immensely amusing :D
"but you still accept that non-empirical methods"
Read my previous post on how memory is pretty physical - just like a computer's memory. There is a whole field on this to back me up.
"it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not."
Excellent. So you admit that a Zokooloo might exist since you haven't met your burden of evidence that it doesn't exist. This is know as being "hoisted by your own petard"
"Functionally a memory is a sincere belief"
But a sincere belief is not memory.
"a memory does not constitute empirical evidence"
Actually, given the fact that memory is stored in the brain in a physical manner, it's as much of physical evidence as a file in a computer's memory. Memory in itself is a kind of physical evidence in the brain. Just imagine the brain to be a computer. And as you know, a computer's memory is valid physical evidence in forensics. If the technology is there, brain memories can serve the same purpose.
Of course, evidence is taken in totality. So just like stuff can be put on to a computer to implicate someone, memories can also be false. It is suggestive and not conclusive.
None of which means that it's not physical evidence.
Fail again. Are you read to admit that your shirt idea was a stupid one?
Write out this argument in your OWN WORDS (to show me your understand what you're talking about) and then we'll see.
After your blooper with set theory, I'm not confident that you understand anything you're talking about.
As you get so shall your receive.
The next point in the teapot page is "James Wood, without believing in God, says that belief in God "is a good deal more reasonable than belief in a teapot"
James wood merely makes an assertion. Once he proves it, he can sit at the adults table.
Now it's your turn to refute all the points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Deductive_arguments