blue and purple corn sold for decorations (quite edible
What I think you intended to say was "sold for consumption (but quite nice for decoration)"     ) I grew up eating this stuff and think it has quite a good flavor. And nothing beats a tortilla made from blue corn.
although not as "saleable" to picky american eaters
Although a lot of people won't touch it in ear form, all you have to do is just slap a label on products made from blue corn that says "Southwest Style" or "Santa Fe" and people will buy the stuff.
Except for the popcorn. Haven't seen *any* labels than can seem to convince people to buy blue popcorn...
Re: Religion is the direct enemy
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
My responsibility to do what?
The point here being that if you make an assertion, you do so on the basis that you A) have a reason for doing so, and B) can validate that reason. Outside of this, any statement you make is nothing other than whim. You do a great disservice to any rational thought by trying to equate the standing of a whim to that of a validated concept. If you make a claim, you should be able to back it up. Merely being able to vocalize a thought does NOT grant it veracity.
[That being said, it is not just statements about religion that bear a responsibility to validate them: *ANYTHING* that comes out of your mouth (that is: anything you assert) carries with it some degree of responsibility for proof. If I say "the cat is on the mat" I carry the responsibility to prove it. This issue just arises here, as religion seems to be the one subject that people universally avoid this responsibility for.]
So "religion" -- which has existed for thousands of years-- is predicated upon the tenets of a system of thought for a word less than 150 years old....
This is the Stupidest thing I have ever heard. Are you trying to tell me that chairs never existed until someone came up with the word "chair"????
I cannot tell why you bothered to quote a dictionary if you aren't going to trouble with understanding the word. The only reason you cite the dictionary is to reference the date of origin for the term. Here is another word: Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Your dictionary gives a date of 1944. From your argument, life existed without DNA until the term was created in 1944.
All I see here is yet another attempt at dodging the issue. If you can not address any of the points, you make a bogus reference to the dictionary to disguise the fact that you have nothing valid to say.
yet scientists have "faith" of sorts in claiming that they understand "the truth"
This is an entire discussion in epistemology which is outside of the scope of this discussion (read: about 800 words I don't feel like typing right now), but this *IS NOT* an example of faith. YOu corrupt the term in order to bolster your position. Scientists have very specific means and procedures by which they validate information and produce statements of probability. They do *NOT* acquire or validate information by faith.
lowers the cognitive dissonance which they feel
You further bolster my position here by making this statement. To you it seems that knowledge has much more to do with subjective states, and seems to derive itself from caprice and feelings. [I invite you to look at one of my previous responses in which you clearly stated that you belief in god was directly related to traits you desired to see in said god. You belief state was a function of your whims being satisfied.] The rational person does not base veracity on feeling.
the jury is still out
The number of adherents to any position do NOT determine the veracity thereof. There is no jury that determines truth. Your argument is that not all (smart) people agree, therefore the truth cannot be determined. That of course, is beside the point. One of the interesting aspects to cognition is that we are capable of being right. But this, in turn, implies that we are capable of being wrong. For any proposition, there will be some people that are right and some that are wrong, and the numbers on either side or the backgrounds of the individuals have nothing to do with which side is which side.
wish I was at home with enough spare time to collect all the URLs and book titles which I've read that argue these points better than I do
Look, if I am carrying on a discussion with you, I don't give a damn what Tom So-and-so said. If I wanted to talk to Tom So-and-so, I would talk to Tom So-and-so. If I am in discussion with you, it is you I am talking with and I would hope that you would have to courage of your convictions and understanding of them to be able to stand behind them. *YOU* are saying things. One would hope that you say them because they reflect some understanding that you have. If you cannot back them up (and have to tell me other people will do it for you) then that tells me that they really aren't your ideas. At best one has learned to parrot someone else's ideas.
So is my pointing out the existence of both viewpoints in fact "shameful" or just honest acknowledgement?
But, it ISN'T "honest acknowledgement." You make it sound like you made a random statement of fact like "It is a sunny day today." Don't try to disguise your actions like this. You specifically mentioned this in the context of your larger argument. It pertained to a point you were making and you attempted to use it to bolster your case. As such, it should be evaluated within that context. It is not the point that there is dissention in the scientific community over the notion of god (something I would agree with you on), but rather that you were using this statement to say something about your argument.
The discussion about the "law of identity" was interesting,
Thank you for saying that. I really would have been interested in a much deeper discussion, that wasn't so overly simplistic, but that would have taken us too far off of the path and, dammit! I *am* lazy and didn't want to type the extra 14 pages I could see myself spouting.
But I felt the vastly simplified discussion was important as it shows that there is order in the universe and the order is a function of existence, and as such needs no further explanation.
nothing in it precludes an object from having certain properties as a result of design
Well, yes there does, but that is another discussion entirely. Let me address your original point (and try to stay some-what on topic) that order belies purpose and therefore Occam's razor tells us there must be a god. If order is derived from the identity and existence, then it needs no other explanation. In fact, to presume that there is a "design" implies purpose (which then presumes that there is that which has purpose: god) which is a whole host of presumptions on top of the original. WHat I was trying to point out to you here is that Occam's razor, which you invoked, works *against* this argument for god as it is the *more* complex explanation with the most assumptions to it.
wouldn't it make more sense in terms of the idea of "natural selection" for the evolutionary ladder to have included more possibilities for cross-species or even "cross sub-species" reproduction?
Okay, this is *way* beside the point, but I don't think so. Keep in mind how specialized each creature is. They each evolved in relation to *specific* set of circumstances. The idea of one set of survival traits working in another creature ignores that creatures specific traits. It is like putting gills on a bear. It just doesn't make evolutionary sense. (However, for some reason, randomly grafting traits from one creature to another *does* seem to make sense in the world of Japanese Anime. Go figure.)
the non-believer must be able successfully attack every experience of any religious person at any point in history (including my own) with a credible, "more likely to be true explanation"
But, can't you see here that you assume the truth of your conclusion first, and tell the world to prove you wrong. That just is not how reason works. If you have a truth value you wish to evaluate, you have to prove that it *IS* true. You can't assume that it is.
And by saying that I (or anyone else) has to travel back through time (metaphorically) and visit every single experience that every single person has had, and prove that it IS NOT a proof of god/religion/whatever is ABSOLUTELY WRONG and ABSURD. You presume your own conclusion in your argument. This is shoddy thinking.
What needs to happen (and I have said this 20 times) is that if you make an assertion, then you are asserting something, you are making a claim to knowledge, you claim to know that something is true and *not* something is *not* true, you are stating that you have specific reasons for why you claim all of this, and therefore you should take responsibility for your statements and back them up with some validation.
disqualification from a person's inclusion in the group of people purported to be "rational beings"
Like I said before, a religious person can act in a manner which is rational, but that isn't the same thing as *being* rational. Let me put it another way. Let's presume that there is a guy named Tom who is a perfectly functional member of society that holds down some job (oh, let us call him a "futures trader" because that involves some degree of complex thinking) and otherwise seems very well adept at everything. However, Tom thinks that little green men on the moon tell him everything and inform all of his decisions. Would you call him rational? All of his actions (like trading at his job) are done in a very rational manner. From the outside, he seems very rational. I get the impression that you (from your statements) would call him rational. This is where I disagree with you. I say that because all of his actions are predicated upon the assumption of the little green men, that, although his actions may seem rational, he isn't.
the collective objections to my post are that I haven't provided my own personal experiences and logical reasonings
Personal experiences, no. Logical reasonings, yes. IF you make an assertion, I want to hear *your* reasons for why you make that claim. After all, when you speak, you are speaking about *your* "reasonings". You are saying that you have a perspective and you *have* reasons for that perspective. You wouldn't have spoken (typed) up if you didn't think you had something to say.
so that they can be so attacked
Attacked?? That is a little strong don't you think? I hope that you never got the impression that this went beyond, oh,... let's say a "boisterous discussion.";)
I conclude by stating that I do not push my beliefs on you or anyone else
But you do make public statements which carries the implicit understanding that you are opening your beliefs to discussion. Or let me state it another way: I only engage you here because you have indicated your willingness to be engaged. I do so in the spirit of public discourse, and I presume you to do the same.
as evidence of your own perceived superiority
Nice little dig. By which of course you imply that we have ego delusions which drive the content of our arguments and therefore that taints anything which we might say. Rather than address issues, it is always easier to make an ad hominem attack, which the less informed would easily mistake for a valid argument. I had up to this point presumed that, however misinformed you happened to be, that you were interested in engaging in a legitimate discussion. It seems I might have been wrong.
Re: Religion is the direct enemy
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Nice quoting Occam's Razor. Too bad you misused it and didn't address the original issue.
You made an assertion. We expect you to back it up. You are the one who has a proof to make. Using Occam's Razor to try to duck your responsibility is philosophically corrupt.
My view (which is held by many scientists, by the way)
FOR SHAME! One would have thought that you would understand that the adherents to a statement have nothing to do with its' veracity. Trying to puff up your position by saying "many smart people agree with me" is a weak thing to do. Since you broach it, I *am* a scientist and I can find many more that *don't* hold your view. That does not change a damn thing. If you believe in what you say you should let your argument stand on its' own ground.
the way this world operates is easier to comprehend as a "design" than as a result of random, chaotic chance
Yes this is absolutely true. Our comprehension is contingent upon being able to project "order" on the world around us. In this sense "order"is a tool of cognition. Like "chance" is. But to project your cognitive tools onto reality is to fundamentally misunderstand epistemology. As a product of this you anthropomorphize the universe (it reflects the order structure that you use for comprehending it, doesn't it? Therefore there must be a consciousness that brought this order to bear?????) and absolutely misunderstand the nature of reality.
Now, there is "order" in the universe (I hesitate to use the word order here as it has been tainted by its use in the above paragraph. Just keep in mind that I am using at least two senses of the word, one of which is derivative of the other (and is fallible). But that is another lengthy discussion.) but it has little to do with cognition other than being the basis for it.
The "order" in the universe has much more to do with the fact that things exist. If something exists, it exists as that which is it. This in turn simultaneously implies that a thing is not that which it is not. In logic we call this the "law of identity."
For a thing to be that which it is, means that it is a summation of all of the characteristics that it is. (A characteristic, by nature, implies a delimiting or differentiating factor, which further delimits all that is not that thing.) Its characteristics include all aspects of a "thing" including its behavior/reaction to other "things." (ie, part of the definition of a "thing" includes its gravity, its electo-chemical reactions, etc.)From this follows that a "thing" has certain reactions in certain situations, and not those reactions in not those situations. This means that a 'thing' will perform in certain ways and not in others.
[I have just given you the key to all knowledge in that one idea. All else follows.]
From this I presume that you can "do the math" and figure that the universe is a *highly* ordered place, because "things" do what is in their nature and not what is not in their nature. (I really shouldn't say "highly ordered" as there is no degree for this kind of order: There is just order. Something could *NOT* act in a manner that was not ordered as that would negate what it was and therefore it wouldn't exist.)
[Let me state CLEARLY here that this "order" I speak of is *NOT* the issue of entropy. When we speak of entropy, we are speaking about a different kind of order (now do you see why I hesitated to use the term). In fact, entropy is one of the many characteristics of a "thing" that form its identity and is a function of the order of the "universe".]
The universe has order, because it exists.
Your retreat into Occam's Razor attempts to side step the issue by claiming that there is order in the universe. But all order is derived from the shear fact of existence.
In fact Occam's razor opens up *way* more questions for you than it answers. You see order, and say that the order must have come from some where. But this begs the question of where did *that* order (god) come from.
[As I will have to presume that you do not know from the context of your previous statements/posts, this is a varriation of St. T.'s prime mover argument. (Infinite regression) Of course his solution was a sloppy one at best, that violates the law of identity, and, as we have seen, all thought is predicated on the law of identity, thereby nullifying his "solution." You don't need something "outside" the universe to explain the universe.]
You can not escape into Occam's Razor.
belief is based on a perfectly rational, but not necessarily provable assumption
Belief by its nature is NOT rational -- That is, a belief can be rational or non-rational. Perhaps you meant to say "faith" here. But as we have seen, faith is opposed to rationality (I of course mean in an epistemological sense here).
Now, just to clarify a side note or tangent: There is a difference between thinking something as possible, probable, or true. I can think it possible that there are little green men on the moon, but that doesn't make it probable or even true. I only make this clarifiaction becasue people don't bother to differentiate between the different states. People think that because it is *possible* that there is life "out there" that it must be true. That is wrong. I think alot of the same assumptions about religious beliefs do the same thing.
can easily prove a negative: that at any point over a critical temperature [which varies by substance] water or other fluids cannot exist as a solid or liquid.
This just clearly demonstrates that you have no understanding what a positive affirmation is. This is *not* a negative.
things tend toward chaos
Chaos, order (in this context), probability are tools of cognition. Of course if you blur the lines between concepts you can prove anything.
This "being" you refer to as God can exist whether or not I can personally and individually prove it to your satisfaction. Or not exist,
Yes, but until you prove otherwise, it is *NOT* proved that god *does* exist. You then do not turn around and automatically assume that god exits. You don't assume that everythign you can think of is true. You have to prove first to have any validity.
in spite of all my seeming proofs and/or other evidence.
WHERE!?!?!? I only see you ducking the issue over and over again. You are asked to prove your statement. You respond that you don't have to. BULLOCKS!!!! Either offer some proof, or SHUT UP!!!
(uh,... sorry about the shouting, but dammit if you are going to say something, then back it up and stop skirting the issue.)
Re: Religion is the direct enemy
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
"you can't disprove the existance of god, can you?" I don't need to. All I need to do is point to two or more mutually exclusive religions, that alone is proof that one or more are wrong.
That cannot be further from the truth. At best you can negate only one of the two positions, which still does not speak to the existance of god.
The proper issue, is that it is not up to you to disprove *anything.* Anyone who makes a positive claim or assertion is the one who shoulders the burden of proof. It is not a valid thought until this burden is met. To accept the fact that you must disprove it, presumes that you first accept it as true. (I understand that you spoke to this issue, but you should just stop at this point -- nothing more needs to be said.)
I can't prove there ISN'T a god, because your definition will change to suit the moment.
This is not why. You cannot prove that there is not a god, because, as you put it, "you can't prove a negative." To say that someone will just change their definition is besides the point, and insulting to the holder of the views. They may very well have a fixed understanding, and it is a disservice to automatically presume otherwise.
it's likely that instead of 99% of them being false, it's more likely that 100% are false
This statement is false. Unless you can show that there is a fundamental unifying tenet that is false, you cannot make this assumption. The probability that any individual statement is false bears no relation on the proability that any other statement is also false. (Unless you can prove and interdependency between them that relates to the veracity in question.)
The real issue is that fundamentally they all share the same logical error, so the probability of any (and all) being wrong is 1.
The burden of proof is yours, because you're asking me to accept the existance of something for which there is no direct evidence.
Yes. But, remove the "for which there is no direct evidence" statement. If there is direct evidence, it does not negate the burden of proof - just simplifies/minimizes it.
all it takes is one inconsistency to disprove that it was directly passed down as the word of god
Once again, I think you have just missed the mark. One inconsistency proves that there are errors. Doesn't speak to god passing it down on high. That would first take proving god, that he can talk to man, that he has, and a whole host of other issues. You get the idea...
I wasn't preaching athiesm. For one, it's not a codified set of beliefs, it's the freedom from a set of religious beliefs.
Reading this, I am ashamed I did not state this in any of my posts above this. WELL SAID!!!
Re: Religion is the direct enemy
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
there is value in pointing out poor reasoning whereever it exusts
Quite right. Therefore, let us look at some of your statements.
"religion as a whole is believing that there are higher powers than mortal mankind"
I think you are forcing your conception of religion onto others' beliefs. There is nothing intrinsic in religion that mandates "higher power" or "immortality." (When you state "mortal mankind" the use of the modifier, instead of just saying mankind, indicates that you think there to be a component of religious belief that speaks to immortality.) I'm sure your belief system includes both of these concepts, but they are not universal.
Instead, I suggest that you look to the epistemological components of religion for a true understanding of what the concept entails. (While there are indeed metaphysical components to religious belief, these are not universal, and I will argue, derivative of epistemological stances.) Religion exists primarily as a stance on knowledge. To be more precise, all religion is centered around the tenant that FAITH (in one manifestation or another) is a viable means of ascertaining knowledge. There is nothing that dictates that one must believe in an afterlife (although most do) or a higher power (though most do) or in immortality (though some do). All of the particular will vary from religion to religion. The unifying aspect is the dependence upon faith as a means to knowledge.
"any given religion is a attempt by people to put rational language to that belief."
Quite to the contrary!!! Aside from certain apologist sects, most of the world's religions oppose rationality to faith. (Or, to put it another way: Faith exists outside of the scope of rationality.) What perhaps you intended to say is that "religion is a attempt by people to rationalize that belief." Of course, some would argue that this is a disservice to religion as it attempts to undermine faith which should sit outside of logic and rational though.
that people may have an internally and externally consistent beliefs
Oh, man... I don't even know where to begin with this one. CodeShark, please don't take the following as a flame (nor any of this post). It is intended in the spirit of continued discussion.
As I mentioned above, the religion is based upon the concept of faith. This sits at direct odds to proof, logic, and rationality, our "tools" for interacting with the "external" world. (if you need discussion of this, either see my post above or respond to this post.) As such, if you make a claim to faith, your internal and external interactions are immediately disjoint. If you accept the notion that there are means by which you can gain knowledge that are outside the scope of rationality, you are creating a schism between the two worlds.
do not believe God to be petulant in any way shape or form, else that being would not be a God whom we could believe in
This is a *most* telling statement. This indicates to me that your "belief" in god is nothing other than caprice. This tells me that you put absolutely no truth in the concept of god outside your own desires. Let me put this another way: Let us for argument's sake say that there is a god, but it *is* petulant. For argument's sake, let us also say that we can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. You say that you cannot believe in a god like this (and you *are* making a statement about belief here). You statement basically boils do to you saying that you want to believe in what you want to believe in and that this belief sits independent of everything other than your desire.
I cannot thank you more for making such a brilliant statement that illustrates to a "T" what the true nature of faith is all about: my feelings; my desires; my whims.
being in a particular type of building does not define a person as being a cultist
No, but abdicating the use of one's mind and one's rationality DOES. But to look at this statement another way -- It is not random chance that dictates one's presence in a church (or other building). It is a volitional act that belies purpose. We *can* infer that one's presence in a building speaks to one's purpose (and beliefs).
you are free to disbelieve, but I am also free to believe, and practice my beliefs I absolutely agree so long as they remain within the constraints of societal law. Most "cults" do not remain within those constraints.
I suggest that you re-examine your definition of cults. Is not a group of people a "society?" What if a bunch of people moved to an (island/other world/Jonestown, Guyana) and set up a social structure where drinking laced Kool-Aid was acceptable? That would be within the "constraints of societal law," yet somehow I think you would still wish to call them a cult. I suggest that you rethink your definition of cult to something other than a group that behaves in a manner you find unacceptable.
You just committed another logical fallacy by excluding the possibility that rational people can also be religious
Religious people can act in a manner which is rational, but that isn't the same thing as *being* rational. You seem to forget that religion is predicated upon an epistemological tenet that is at direct odds with logic and rationality. No matter how much you try to rationalize your "faith" it can never be rational.
brainwashing and dishonest indoctrination to... teach that atheism is somehow more rational and therefore "good", "right", or "normal" than religious belief
Your philosophical relativism here is unsettling. But like most Americans these days, you are a theistic agnostic. And I shouldn't be too surprised at this statement in light of the fact that you accept that your belief system is based upon caprice. But suffice it to say that it is impossible to prove god (if something exists outside of the scope of human understanding (in another realm) then it is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING), claims to knowledge of god are predicated on an abdication of rational thought, and therefore *are* less rational than the absence of belief in a god. Teaching religion as "right" or "normal" are up to you, but please don't corrupt the concept of rationality to justify your belief system.
told you that it was my "God-given duty to help you get out of the building alive." Would you so glibly accuse me of retreating into fantasy then?
Please do not insult me by trying to reduce what I say to a "glib" remark. I would never assert and adherence to logic and rationality "glibly." To make such a comment, you attempt to marginalize those that do not agree with you.
But, I would thank you for your help in getting me out of the building. I would think you to be deluded in some aspects of your thought. But I would appreciate your effort.
And I would hope that everyone would offer their help, not because it has been dictated from upon high (especially in light of your admission that your belief system is contingent upon your whim, and who knows what that might translate into), but rather I would hope that your offer of assistance comes from your profound respect for humanity and human life. I would hope that you have such high respect for your own life and your compassionate offer comes from that wellspring.
promote terrorism by mingling religion in with it are sick
Uh,... cart before the horse. If the criminals are who we think they are, they were religious first, and use terrorism to express their beliefs, NOT, as you suggest that they are terrorists who use religion to justify their belief. If you think the latter, you have gravely misunderstood the threat these people pose.
least partially false on the basis of logic: you can't disprove the existence of God, can you?
From this statement I will have to infer that you have a rudimentary, if any, understanding of what logic is. The onus of proof lay upon the shoulders of he who affirms the positive. One DOES *NOT* have to disprove god. The positive assertion is that "god exists." This is what *must* be proved. Anyone who claims god exists carries the burden of proof to their claim.
To further clarify, something does not become knowledge until it is proved. All facts start out as un-true (which is *not* to say false -- perhaps it is better to use the Latin negation "a" and say, for this discussion, "a-true.") It is by a specific application of the mental tools of logic that something can be escalated from "a-true" to "possible" to "probable" to "true." (I simplify *greatly* here for the purpose of discussion.) Any assertion that you make, you *have* to be able to back it or your words have no more meaning than the following: Wkjj sadfdsi sakljs klkjerlk. (ie, they are reduced to nonsense. Although it may sound like you are communicating something, it carries little more meaning than a Parrot that has learned to mimic speech.)
This one message is the essence and goal of almost every major and minor religious system of thought.
I invite you to do an extensive study on the history of religion. While you will find the modern manifestations to fit this bill, this is more of a product of modern (last 700 or so odd years) times than of the religions themselves.
[Oh, and don't for one second argue that religion has a monopoly on helping one's fellow man or morals or any of that nonsense.]
So if you don't mind, I'll try to become a better person based on my beliefs,
I have no problem with that. I think you are misguided, but normally I wouldn't bother to correct you. (I only say something here as you posted to a public forum, obviously interested in a discussion.)
All I can suggest is that...you at least learn to do a better, more logical job of it
Might I suggest that you take your own words to heart?
A discussion of proof, knowledge and faith
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Uh,... on exactly the same grounds you use, who are you to say that there *is* a god?
You say it is beyond proof. Therefore we cannot know.
That only leaves you faith (which is itself no indicator of the veracity of the concept of god).
As faith is outside of the scope of verification (the proof you spoke of -- your argument), that only leaves your "feelings" as justification for any statement in relation to a deity. Feelings are *NOT* knowledge (one can have knowledge *about* feelings, but feeling themselves ARE NOT knowledge) and have no meaning outside of your own subjective framework. [In fact feelings are a direct reflection of your internal "world." They speak to how you relate to the world that is outside (ie, not) you. It is knowledge, proof, and logic that give us information about the outside world. (Unless you are willing to argue that we are omniscient, there has to be a framework by which we gather information, which in turn implies that there is a procedure by which to do it, which also means that we are capable of being both right and wrong. Thereby we must be stringent in how we apply the mechanisms of understanding. You cannot escape the role of proof in *any* claim to knowledge.)] You feelings are only relevant to your own framework. And by that token, anyone else can assert feelings just the opposite of whatever your opinions are and they have exactly the same weight. Therefore any assertions about the *content* of faith are meaningless.
religion is not the root of all evil.
Just the opposite is the case. As I mentioned above, all knowledge is predicated upon a precise structure for the accumulation and verification of information. (This is our Aristotlian Excellence as humans, if you will.)
Religion dictates that you abdicate the stance that knowledge must be validated, in favor of the notion that one can have knowledge outside of this framework. (ie, that feelings/faith are just as valid as proof is) In a sense you negate your mind. I would argue that any system that advocates a surrender of your mind is necessarily evil.
Although this concept can be applied is a somewhat benign fashion (as benign as anything can be that preaches the surrender of one's mind), is can also and more commonly can be applied to causes that are, as you put it, "fanatisism and extremism." But this is not the distortion of "the beliefs religion is truly based upon into groteseque caricatures" but rather the logical conclusion of the religious mindset.
it cannot be proven or disproven.
The onus of proof lay upon the shoulders of he who affirms the positive. You are wildly mistaken in your epistemological agnosticism if you think that disproof is the standard by which knowledge is gained. True it is a functional tool in logic, but as I mentioned before, we are not omniscient. Everything we know, we have to go through a process to acquire. All information doesn't start out as probable. Nor does it start out as possible. ALL KNOWLEDGE HAS TO BE PROVEN.
If you assert a positive, you have to be able to validate your assertion. It is not up to everyone to disprove it to attest to its' veracity. (I don't know that I need to point out the logical fallacy here, but this entails the presumption of truth as a given in order to disprove it.) If you make a positive assertion, you have to be able to back it up.
As such it is incorrect to say it cannot be proven or disproven. Rather, it is proper to say "it cannot be proven."
may be dead wrong here, because I set up my... box over a year ago and haven't looked at dedicated firewalls since...I hope you bought a model without such artificial limitations
And all I am saying is that Yes, things have changed. No "such artificial limitations" *and* you get a siwtch. All of this for US$50. Such a deal...
And I set up the first one of these (when they were more like US$200(??) or at least much more expensive than they are now) over a year ago. Your (free) 486 was probably a deal back then, but now (factoring in the cost of a 10/100 switch) I would say there is little reason not to go with the switch. (I saw a drop in my electric bill when I turned the PII/233 that was the firewall/nat off for good.)
Uh,... you are still talking about laptops, right? Up until recently it was difficult to find laptops with built in NICs. And if you are talking "old" laptops, most of those don't even have a built-in modem, let alone a NIC.
SO you are stuck with the two PC Card slots (if the laptop *had* two) for the NICs, and you then run out of options.
The linksys (and other boxes of this class) all do NAT/IP Spoofing.
While the cable/dsl companies would *like* to charge you for extra IP's (some have TOS that say only one machine behind each IP), there is no practical way for them to enforce this.
Plus these router boxes usually have a four port (4 LAN + 1 WAN) switch (not a hub!) built in. 50$ is a deal for firewall/NAT/whatever and a 4 port switch.
Re:Why are there only American airplanes ?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
I can't find directly what it is that you are posting in response to. I can only presume that this is what you are responding to.
The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.
(text continues... see site)
This was a radio broadcast made by Gordon Sinclair from Canada in 1973. (Original audio is at above site.) At that point, the American Aeroindustry was the only one to really speak of.
Re:What you must NOT do!
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Bin Laden has *claimed* to be responsible
He usually doesn't take credit.
Perhaps it has something to do with the Islamic Shariah??
But whatever it is, it has the added bonus of allowing people to credit *anything* to him. Something bad happens to the West, and bin Laden must have struck a blow for Islam.
This has the effect of making him larger than life and an inspiration that feeds thousands of new recruits.
Stay off of the crack. That is reserved for the moderators.;)
Here is the flight path for all 4 planes. UA93 crashed almost an hour and a half after the first plane down (AA11), and half an hour after the 3rd plane (AA77).
Apparently the knife has to be 6" before it's checked in
Not true. A *folding* knife can only be so big. A fixed blade (non-folding) of any size can be a problem.
I had a Tenka (sp?) knife on my keyring in Chicago once. This is the kind that has a fixed blade that slips into a sheath. They wouldn't let me through the security point with it. They took it from me, took my address, and I kissed the knife good-bye. Oddly enough, about 8 weeks later it showed up in my mail.
I think it's interesting that bin Laden is disclaiming responsibility.
He usually doesn't take credit.
Maybe it has something to do with the Islamic Shariah?? But whatever it is, it has the added bonus of allowing people to credit *anything* to him. Something bad happens to the West, and bin Laden must have struck a blow for Islam.
This has the effect of making him larger than life and an inspiration that feeds thousands of new recruits.
Ah, it is good to come into the office and find a story like this waiting for me.
Deceptive practices indeed! I think this is a worthwhile fight to have, and might even be inclined to donate my lunch money to help this "cause."
(Now, my drinkin' money, on the other hand, is sacred. The only cause that goes to is getting me drunk. But I'm sure I can do without a few lunches, to "fight the good fight"...)
You should hire on with Microsoft as a copy writer.
Damn! I should know better than to post hungover.
This is the most concise, cogent description of DOT.NET I've seen.
Uh,... I don't know if I should laugh or be scared. I didn't mean to sound as if I was talking about Dot.Net (actually I haven't read too much about it) -- I was just ranting about some of the things I have been talking with friends about for years. But now that you say that this is what microsoft is doing, perhaps I should rethink how good of an idea this might be...:)
what reason do you have to believe that the cost of "software as a service" isn't going to blow away
Well I don't if you say that M$ is involved. If they weren't, I could have imagined a world where lots of companies competed for your business and it was just a few cents to use a program for a while. (Of course, business would use a lot more and *have* high bills, as they should. (They are using the software to make money and it is a legitimate expense). But there is no reason for Joe User to buy a 300$ software package. Joe would have a small bill and have the latest software at his disposal.)
Oh, and if you can rent software for a few cents, there is no reason to pirate it. Software companies would (theoretically) charge less, but be making more money as they have more subscribers.
whole week for the company to restore service after a crash
Well, in the world of the future, you distribute you servers (physically) and distribute the data. Kinda like the idea of a disk RAID, but with whole servers. And you just have redundancy all over the country/world.
there's stuff on my home machines I don't want on the net.
Well, as I suggested, devices like this aren't for geeks like us. I was talking about Joe User that otherwise wouldn't use a computer. Or, better yet, I am talking about your "Grandmother." For the Grandma's out there, anything they would need to store in a safe fashion could be saved in an encrypted (whatever the PGP of 2023 is) partition on the net and read over a secure link.
a contsituency association of Canadian political party. That list was kept and maintained on a machine that was not connected to the net.
And that was secure? Yeah, it's not like there have been any politically motivated break-ins. *cough* Watergate *cough* But seriously, that would only prevent casual snooping -- Not the kind of directed snooping done by someone looking for just that information. I presume you had it in an encrypted partition. But, that didn't stop the FBI in the recent case where they keylogged the mobster. And groups that aren't restricted by having to get things like search warrants have a lot more freedom to do stuff like this. I'm just saying that there is no 100% security, and you always have to asume there is some risk. And for most people the risk of a good encrypted storage space is fine.
While I agree with almost all of your points, I don't think that Web appliances a flawed in concept -- they have just failed so far in implemention.
Keep in mind that there are great unwashed masses out there that aren't slashdot readers (ie, their computer skills are limited to *maybe* being able to turn one on. (Uh... come to think of it, that describes some portion of the slashdot crowd too.)). They might not have ever used a computer, but might benefit from one. I think getting a machine into their hands is a good thing.
What do most non-technical people use a machine for? Writting a few letters, balancing the checkbook, email and browsing. 90% (random high number) of the population has very simple needs, and if you think about it, really don't need a computer, per se. They just need a simple device that does most of the tasks I listed.
What is keeping most of the people from getting a computer (that don't own one)? Cost is a factor. Technophobia is another. If you can build a machine that is both simple to build (costs are kept down) and is simple to use (no futzing with dll's or crashing OS's, nothing to install), then you would have somethign that would put computing power in the hands of a lot of people that otherwise wouldn't have a computer.
How much of a strech is it then to say that an internet appliance is a good solution? If one could produce a 200$ (or less) box that was no more complex than a phone to use, I think these would become ubiquitous.
[Keep in mind that although you and I need the power of a "computer", most of the people out there simply do not need some 1.8GHz, 512MB RAM, 80GB HD machine (despite what the manufacturers tell you). In fact, if it weren't for codebloat, most people would do just fine with a P1 or less.]
5. There is no growth path. None of the Internet appliance manufacturers have offered hard drives, word processing, spreadhsheet software, etc. for users that want to move beyond e-mail and the web.
As we are seeing the rebirth of the client-server relation (When the personal computer put more computing power in our hands at a cheaper cost, we moved away from the expensive machines (university's/companies') that we all had to time-share on. We lost track of our client-server roots.), we are seeing more and more computing power "out there" and a lot more of what happens on your machine is dependent on other's computers. Why bother spending all of that money on a lot of processing power on your desk when you use 5% of it for only a few hours of the day? Doesn't it make more sense, on a large scale, to rent processing power from someone else as you need it? You would have much more at your disposal, and you would only pay for what you use, which makes it more affordable.
In addition, already we have companies that deploy applications that are web based. Is it too much of a strech to see a future where word processing, spreadhsheets, and any other apps a customer needs are web (or whatever replaces the web) deployed? Once again, you rent as you need. You no longer have to pay $300 for software. You don't have to pay $100 for the next upgrade (and the one after that...and the one after that). It isn't your problem to figure out why the app is crashing. Perfect for the person who otherwise wouldn't use a computer.
None of the Internet appliance manufacturers have offered hard drives
Ah, but there are plenty of services out there right now that offer on-line storage. (I have about 90MB of *free* storage out there -- more than enough for most users.(mp3's and movies aside at the momment)) As the cost of storage continues to drop, the ammount available will increase. This is a chunk of data that the user has *no* responsibility for maintaining and backing up. If a HD crashes, the hosting company just yanks it out of its RAID and slips in a new one. The user never sees the difference. One less headache for the novice user.
I think that making a simple cheap appliance box that is basically a client/terminal is the best way to get computing power/internet/etc into the hands of the rest of the world that aren't geeks. Now, I, on the otherhand will never surrender my 5 workstations, but then again my needs (and the rest of my geek brethren) are greater than Joe Public's.
Oh,... and please excuse if I ramble a bit. One really shouldn't slashdot hungover...
Poor analogy.
If someone calls your number once or twice by accident then its OK. Several thousand times, on purpose, for their gain.... it becomes harrasment.
Actually, the analogy still holds. The issue at first is if *any* use of bandwidth or processor cycles is a misapporiation. I think, like a phone call, it is not.
HOWEVER, and some point "any" crosses the line into "too much" at which point you *are* talking about harrasment.
The pdf document states that there are 2^n packets that need to be sent out, for a n-varriable SAT problem. So that *could* add up to a lot.
The paper does spell out that all the systems (page 4, paragraph 2)that participated did so *unknowingly*.
But that resource is made available for a specific use.
And that is what the study did.
I think the wrong phone call analogy is correct. You open up a service and *have* to expect bad/malformed/incorrect data in addition to the good/expected/desired data. You can't get a phone service and say that you only want "desired calls" to come in. Have to take the good with the bad.
Now, if someone had the *intent* of causing and interruption in service or to harass you by *intentionally* dialing your number (or making a call to a service on your machine) then that is another issue.
All of this being said, I do think this is a little intrusive, and don't like the idea (other than it is cool that it possible), but I don't think there is much ground for any kind of legal complaint. Oh, yeah: IANAL.
Don't they have anything better to do with their time?
Uh,... do you read slashdot???
[Read any of the ascii art posts, or X is dying, or Portman/Grits, and tell me that there aren't plenty of other less worthwhile ways to consumes one's time...]
And besides, like most research, this isn't for practical purposes (yet). It is for proof of theory. And someday something like this would be efficient enough to bother with...
Well, if you open up a service on a machine, you open it up to the world. It is publicly available. The system they devised isn't doing anything other than using the bandwidth and clock cycles that you have opened up.
Just like people dialing a wrong number are stealing your time and resources. But part of the deal in having a phone that other peopls can call you on is that OTHER PEOPLE CAN CALL YOU.
stupid worms...send as many port 80s as you like...they all go to the commode!
And you are kept up all night by the sound of flushing water. And then there is the sudden spike in your waterbill...
You know the Urban Legend about how the water levels drop during half-time at the Super Bowl as everyone uses the bathroom? Well, enter the DDoS atack of the '20s (2020 that is): script kiddies h4X0ring all the toilets in NYC and having them all flush at once.
Slashdot Mirror
So,... Has no one from /. set up their own streaming server with all of those songs in the playlist?
What I think you intended to say was "sold for consumption (but quite nice for decoration)"       ;)
I grew up eating this stuff and think it has quite a good flavor. And nothing beats a tortilla made from blue corn.
although not as "saleable" to picky american eaters
Although a lot of people won't touch it in ear form, all you have to do is just slap a label on products made from blue corn that says "Southwest Style" or "Santa Fe" and people will buy the stuff.
Except for the popcorn. Haven't seen *any* labels than can seem to convince people to buy blue popcorn...
The point here being that if you make an assertion, you do so on the basis that you A) have a reason for doing so, and B) can validate that reason. Outside of this, any statement you make is nothing other than whim. You do a great disservice to any rational thought by trying to equate the standing of a whim to that of a validated concept. If you make a claim, you should be able to back it up. Merely being able to vocalize a thought does NOT grant it veracity.
[That being said, it is not just statements about religion that bear a responsibility to validate them: *ANYTHING* that comes out of your mouth (that is: anything you assert) carries with it some degree of responsibility for proof. If I say "the cat is on the mat" I carry the responsibility to prove it. This issue just arises here, as religion seems to be the one subject that people universally avoid this responsibility for.]
So "religion" -- which has existed for thousands of years-- is predicated upon the tenets of a system of thought for a word less than 150 years old....
This is the Stupidest thing I have ever heard. Are you trying to tell me that chairs never existed until someone came up with the word "chair"????
I cannot tell why you bothered to quote a dictionary if you aren't going to trouble with understanding the word. The only reason you cite the dictionary is to reference the date of origin for the term. Here is another word: Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Your dictionary gives a date of 1944. From your argument, life existed without DNA until the term was created in 1944.
All I see here is yet another attempt at dodging the issue. If you can not address any of the points, you make a bogus reference to the dictionary to disguise the fact that you have nothing valid to say.
yet scientists have "faith" of sorts in claiming that they understand "the truth"
This is an entire discussion in epistemology which is outside of the scope of this discussion (read: about 800 words I don't feel like typing right now), but this *IS NOT* an example of faith. YOu corrupt the term in order to bolster your position. Scientists have very specific means and procedures by which they validate information and produce statements of probability. They do *NOT* acquire or validate information by faith.
lowers the cognitive dissonance which they feel
You further bolster my position here by making this statement. To you it seems that knowledge has much more to do with subjective states, and seems to derive itself from caprice and feelings. [I invite you to look at one of my previous responses in which you clearly stated that you belief in god was directly related to traits you desired to see in said god. You belief state was a function of your whims being satisfied.] The rational person does not base veracity on feeling.
the jury is still out
The number of adherents to any position do NOT determine the veracity thereof. There is no jury that determines truth. Your argument is that not all (smart) people agree, therefore the truth cannot be determined. That of course, is beside the point. One of the interesting aspects to cognition is that we are capable of being right. But this, in turn, implies that we are capable of being wrong. For any proposition, there will be some people that are right and some that are wrong, and the numbers on either side or the backgrounds of the individuals have nothing to do with which side is which side.
wish I was at home with enough spare time to collect all the URLs and book titles which I've read that argue these points better than I do
Look, if I am carrying on a discussion with you, I don't give a damn what Tom So-and-so said. If I wanted to talk to Tom So-and-so, I would talk to Tom So-and-so. If I am in discussion with you, it is you I am talking with and I would hope that you would have to courage of your convictions and understanding of them to be able to stand behind them. *YOU* are saying things. One would hope that you say them because they reflect some understanding that you have. If you cannot back them up (and have to tell me other people will do it for you) then that tells me that they really aren't your ideas. At best one has learned to parrot someone else's ideas.
So is my pointing out the existence of both viewpoints in fact "shameful" or just honest acknowledgement?
But, it ISN'T "honest acknowledgement." You make it sound like you made a random statement of fact like "It is a sunny day today." Don't try to disguise your actions like this. You specifically mentioned this in the context of your larger argument. It pertained to a point you were making and you attempted to use it to bolster your case. As such, it should be evaluated within that context. It is not the point that there is dissention in the scientific community over the notion of god (something I would agree with you on), but rather that you were using this statement to say something about your argument.
The discussion about the "law of identity" was interesting,
Thank you for saying that. I really would have been interested in a much deeper discussion, that wasn't so overly simplistic, but that would have taken us too far off of the path and, dammit! I *am* lazy and didn't want to type the extra 14 pages I could see myself spouting.
But I felt the vastly simplified discussion was important as it shows that there is order in the universe and the order is a function of existence, and as such needs no further explanation.
nothing in it precludes an object from having certain properties as a result of design
Well, yes there does, but that is another discussion entirely. Let me address your original point (and try to stay some-what on topic) that order belies purpose and therefore Occam's razor tells us there must be a god. If order is derived from the identity and existence, then it needs no other explanation. In fact, to presume that there is a "design" implies purpose (which then presumes that there is that which has purpose: god) which is a whole host of presumptions on top of the original. WHat I was trying to point out to you here is that Occam's razor, which you invoked, works *against* this argument for god as it is the *more* complex explanation with the most assumptions to it.
wouldn't it make more sense in terms of the idea of "natural selection" for the evolutionary ladder to have included more possibilities for cross-species or even "cross sub-species" reproduction?
Okay, this is *way* beside the point, but I don't think so. Keep in mind how specialized each creature is. They each evolved in relation to *specific* set of circumstances. The idea of one set of survival traits working in another creature ignores that creatures specific traits. It is like putting gills on a bear. It just doesn't make evolutionary sense. (However, for some reason, randomly grafting traits from one creature to another *does* seem to make sense in the world of Japanese Anime. Go figure.)
the non-believer must be able successfully attack every experience of any religious person at any point in history (including my own) with a credible, "more likely to be true explanation"
But, can't you see here that you assume the truth of your conclusion first, and tell the world to prove you wrong. That just is not how reason works. If you have a truth value you wish to evaluate, you have to prove that it *IS* true. You can't assume that it is.
And by saying that I (or anyone else) has to travel back through time (metaphorically) and visit every single experience that every single person has had, and prove that it IS NOT a proof of god/religion/whatever is ABSOLUTELY WRONG and ABSURD. You presume your own conclusion in your argument. This is shoddy thinking.
What needs to happen (and I have said this 20 times) is that if you make an assertion, then you are asserting something, you are making a claim to knowledge, you claim to know that something is true and *not* something is *not* true, you are stating that you have specific reasons for why you claim all of this, and therefore you should take responsibility for your statements and back them up with some validation.
disqualification from a person's inclusion in the group of people purported to be "rational beings"
Like I said before, a religious person can act in a manner which is rational, but that isn't the same thing as *being* rational. Let me put it another way. Let's presume that there is a guy named Tom who is a perfectly functional member of society that holds down some job (oh, let us call him a "futures trader" because that involves some degree of complex thinking) and otherwise seems very well adept at everything. However, Tom thinks that little green men on the moon tell him everything and inform all of his decisions. Would you call him rational? All of his actions (like trading at his job) are done in a very rational manner. From the outside, he seems very rational. I get the impression that you (from your statements) would call him rational. This is where I disagree with you. I say that because all of his actions are predicated upon the assumption of the little green men, that, although his actions may seem rational, he isn't.
the collective objections to my post are that I haven't provided my own personal experiences and logical reasonings
Personal experiences, no. Logical reasonings, yes. IF you make an assertion, I want to hear *your* reasons for why you make that claim. After all, when you speak, you are speaking about *your* "reasonings". You are saying that you have a perspective and you *have* reasons for that perspective. You wouldn't have spoken (typed) up if you didn't think you had something to say.
so that they can be so attacked
Attacked?? That is a little strong don't you think? I hope that you never got the impression that this went beyond, oh,... let's say a "boisterous discussion." ;)
I conclude by stating that I do not push my beliefs on you or anyone else
But you do make public statements which carries the implicit understanding that you are opening your beliefs to discussion. Or let me state it another way: I only engage you here because you have indicated your willingness to be engaged. I do so in the spirit of public discourse, and I presume you to do the same.
as evidence of your own perceived superiority
Nice little dig. By which of course you imply that we have ego delusions which drive the content of our arguments and therefore that taints anything which we might say. Rather than address issues, it is always easier to make an ad hominem attack, which the less informed would easily mistake for a valid argument. I had up to this point presumed that, however misinformed you happened to be, that you were interested in engaging in a legitimate discussion. It seems I might have been wrong.
You made an assertion. We expect you to back it up. You are the one who has a proof to make. Using Occam's Razor to try to duck your responsibility is philosophically corrupt.
My view (which is held by many scientists, by the way)
FOR SHAME! One would have thought that you would understand that the adherents to a statement have nothing to do with its' veracity. Trying to puff up your position by saying "many smart people agree with me" is a weak thing to do. Since you broach it, I *am* a scientist and I can find many more that *don't* hold your view. That does not change a damn thing. If you believe in what you say you should let your argument stand on its' own ground.
the way this world operates is easier to comprehend as a "design" than as a result of random, chaotic chance
Yes this is absolutely true. Our comprehension is contingent upon being able to project "order" on the world around us. In this sense "order"is a tool of cognition. Like "chance" is. But to project your cognitive tools onto reality is to fundamentally misunderstand epistemology. As a product of this you anthropomorphize the universe (it reflects the order structure that you use for comprehending it, doesn't it? Therefore there must be a consciousness that brought this order to bear?????) and absolutely misunderstand the nature of reality.
Now, there is "order" in the universe (I hesitate to use the word order here as it has been tainted by its use in the above paragraph. Just keep in mind that I am using at least two senses of the word, one of which is derivative of the other (and is fallible). But that is another lengthy discussion.) but it has little to do with cognition other than being the basis for it.
The "order" in the universe has much more to do with the fact that things exist. If something exists, it exists as that which is it. This in turn simultaneously implies that a thing is not that which it is not. In logic we call this the "law of identity."
For a thing to be that which it is, means that it is a summation of all of the characteristics that it is. (A characteristic, by nature, implies a delimiting or differentiating factor, which further delimits all that is not that thing.) Its characteristics include all aspects of a "thing" including its behavior/reaction to other "things." (ie, part of the definition of a "thing" includes its gravity, its electo-chemical reactions, etc.)From this follows that a "thing" has certain reactions in certain situations, and not those reactions in not those situations. This means that a 'thing' will perform in certain ways and not in others.
[I have just given you the key to all knowledge in that one idea. All else follows.]
From this I presume that you can "do the math" and figure that the universe is a *highly* ordered place, because "things" do what is in their nature and not what is not in their nature. (I really shouldn't say "highly ordered" as there is no degree for this kind of order: There is just order. Something could *NOT* act in a manner that was not ordered as that would negate what it was and therefore it wouldn't exist.)
[Let me state CLEARLY here that this "order" I speak of is *NOT* the issue of entropy. When we speak of entropy, we are speaking about a different kind of order (now do you see why I hesitated to use the term). In fact, entropy is one of the many characteristics of a "thing" that form its identity and is a function of the order of the "universe".]
The universe has order, because it exists.
Your retreat into Occam's Razor attempts to side step the issue by claiming that there is order in the universe. But all order is derived from the shear fact of existence.
In fact Occam's razor opens up *way* more questions for you than it answers. You see order, and say that the order must have come from some where. But this begs the question of where did *that* order (god) come from.
[As I will have to presume that you do not know from the context of your previous statements/posts, this is a varriation of St. T.'s prime mover argument. (Infinite regression) Of course his solution was a sloppy one at best, that violates the law of identity, and, as we have seen, all thought is predicated on the law of identity, thereby nullifying his "solution." You don't need something "outside" the universe to explain the universe.]
You can not escape into Occam's Razor.
belief is based on a perfectly rational, but not necessarily provable assumption
Belief by its nature is NOT rational -- That is, a belief can be rational or non-rational. Perhaps you meant to say "faith" here. But as we have seen, faith is opposed to rationality (I of course mean in an epistemological sense here).
Now, just to clarify a side note or tangent: There is a difference between thinking something as possible, probable, or true. I can think it possible that there are little green men on the moon, but that doesn't make it probable or even true. I only make this clarifiaction becasue people don't bother to differentiate between the different states. People think that because it is *possible* that there is life "out there" that it must be true. That is wrong. I think alot of the same assumptions about religious beliefs do the same thing.
can easily prove a negative: that at any point over a critical temperature [which varies by substance] water or other fluids cannot exist as a solid or liquid.
This just clearly demonstrates that you have no understanding what a positive affirmation is. This is *not* a negative.
things tend toward chaos
Chaos, order (in this context), probability are tools of cognition. Of course if you blur the lines between concepts you can prove anything.
This "being" you refer to as God can exist whether or not I can personally and individually prove it to your satisfaction. Or not exist,
Yes, but until you prove otherwise, it is *NOT* proved that god *does* exist. You then do not turn around and automatically assume that god exits. You don't assume that everythign you can think of is true. You have to prove first to have any validity.
in spite of all my seeming proofs and/or other evidence.
WHERE!?!?!? I only see you ducking the issue over and over again. You are asked to prove your statement. You respond that you don't have to. BULLOCKS!!!! Either offer some proof, or SHUT UP!!!
(uh,... sorry about the shouting, but dammit if you are going to say something, then back it up and stop skirting the issue.)
I don't need to. All I need to do is point to two or more mutually exclusive religions, that alone is proof that one or more are wrong.
That cannot be further from the truth. At best you can negate only one of the two positions, which still does not speak to the existance of god.
The proper issue, is that it is not up to you to disprove *anything.* Anyone who makes a positive claim or assertion is the one who shoulders the burden of proof. It is not a valid thought until this burden is met. To accept the fact that you must disprove it, presumes that you first accept it as true. (I understand that you spoke to this issue, but you should just stop at this point -- nothing more needs to be said.)
I can't prove there ISN'T a god, because your definition will change to suit the moment.
This is not why. You cannot prove that there is not a god, because, as you put it, "you can't prove a negative." To say that someone will just change their definition is besides the point, and insulting to the holder of the views. They may very well have a fixed understanding, and it is a disservice to automatically presume otherwise.
it's likely that instead of 99% of them being false, it's more likely that 100% are false
This statement is false. Unless you can show that there is a fundamental unifying tenet that is false, you cannot make this assumption. The probability that any individual statement is false bears no relation on the proability that any other statement is also false. (Unless you can prove and interdependency between them that relates to the veracity in question.)
The real issue is that fundamentally they all share the same logical error, so the probability of any (and all) being wrong is 1.
The burden of proof is yours, because you're asking me to accept the existance of something for which there is no direct evidence.
Yes. But, remove the "for which there is no direct evidence" statement. If there is direct evidence, it does not negate the burden of proof - just simplifies/minimizes it.
all it takes is one inconsistency to disprove that it was directly passed down as the word of god
Once again, I think you have just missed the mark. One inconsistency proves that there are errors. Doesn't speak to god passing it down on high. That would first take proving god, that he can talk to man, that he has, and a whole host of other issues. You get the idea...
I wasn't preaching athiesm. For one, it's not a codified set of beliefs, it's the freedom from a set of religious beliefs.
Reading this, I am ashamed I did not state this in any of my posts above this. WELL SAID!!!
Quite right. Therefore, let us look at some of your statements.
"religion as a whole is believing that there are higher powers than mortal mankind"
I think you are forcing your conception of religion onto others' beliefs. There is nothing intrinsic in religion that mandates "higher power" or "immortality." (When you state "mortal mankind" the use of the modifier, instead of just saying mankind, indicates that you think there to be a component of religious belief that speaks to immortality.) I'm sure your belief system includes both of these concepts, but they are not universal.
Instead, I suggest that you look to the epistemological components of religion for a true understanding of what the concept entails. (While there are indeed metaphysical components to religious belief, these are not universal, and I will argue, derivative of epistemological stances.) Religion exists primarily as a stance on knowledge. To be more precise, all religion is centered around the tenant that FAITH (in one manifestation or another) is a viable means of ascertaining knowledge. There is nothing that dictates that one must believe in an afterlife (although most do) or a higher power (though most do) or in immortality (though some do). All of the particular will vary from religion to religion. The unifying aspect is the dependence upon faith as a means to knowledge.
"any given religion is a attempt by people to put rational language to that belief."
Quite to the contrary!!! Aside from certain apologist sects, most of the world's religions oppose rationality to faith. (Or, to put it another way: Faith exists outside of the scope of rationality.) What perhaps you intended to say is that "religion is a attempt by people to rationalize that belief." Of course, some would argue that this is a disservice to religion as it attempts to undermine faith which should sit outside of logic and rational though.
that people may have an internally and externally consistent beliefs
Oh, man... I don't even know where to begin with this one. CodeShark, please don't take the following as a flame (nor any of this post). It is intended in the spirit of continued discussion.
As I mentioned above, the religion is based upon the concept of faith. This sits at direct odds to proof, logic, and rationality, our "tools" for interacting with the "external" world. (if you need discussion of this, either see my post above or respond to this post.) As such, if you make a claim to faith, your internal and external interactions are immediately disjoint. If you accept the notion that there are means by which you can gain knowledge that are outside the scope of rationality, you are creating a schism between the two worlds.
do not believe God to be petulant in any way shape or form, else that being would not be a God whom we could believe in
This is a *most* telling statement. This indicates to me that your "belief" in god is nothing other than caprice. This tells me that you put absolutely no truth in the concept of god outside your own desires.
Let me put this another way: Let us for argument's sake say that there is a god, but it *is* petulant. For argument's sake, let us also say that we can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. You say that you cannot believe in a god like this (and you *are* making a statement about belief here). You statement basically boils do to you saying that you want to believe in what you want to believe in and that this belief sits independent of everything other than your desire.
I cannot thank you more for making such a brilliant statement that illustrates to a "T" what the true nature of faith is all about: my feelings; my desires; my whims.
being in a particular type of building does not define a person as being a cultist
No, but abdicating the use of one's mind and one's rationality DOES.
But to look at this statement another way -- It is not random chance that dictates one's presence in a church (or other building). It is a volitional act that belies purpose. We *can* infer that one's presence in a building speaks to one's purpose (and beliefs).
you are free to disbelieve, but I am also free to believe, and practice my beliefs
I absolutely agree
so long as they remain within the constraints of societal law. Most "cults" do not remain within those constraints.
I suggest that you re-examine your definition of cults. Is not a group of people a "society?" What if a bunch of people moved to an (island/other world/Jonestown, Guyana) and set up a social structure where drinking laced Kool-Aid was acceptable? That would be within the "constraints of societal law," yet somehow I think you would still wish to call them a cult.
I suggest that you rethink your definition of cult to something other than a group that behaves in a manner you find unacceptable.
You just committed another logical fallacy by excluding the possibility that rational people can also be religious
Religious people can act in a manner which is rational, but that isn't the same thing as *being* rational. You seem to forget that religion is predicated upon an epistemological tenet that is at direct odds with logic and rationality. No matter how much you try to rationalize your "faith" it can never be rational.
brainwashing and dishonest indoctrination to ... teach that atheism is somehow more rational and therefore "good", "right", or "normal" than religious belief
Your philosophical relativism here is unsettling. But like most Americans these days, you are a theistic agnostic. And I shouldn't be too surprised at this statement in light of the fact that you accept that your belief system is based upon caprice.
But suffice it to say that it is impossible to prove god (if something exists outside of the scope of human understanding (in another realm) then it is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING), claims to knowledge of god are predicated on an abdication of rational thought, and therefore *are* less rational than the absence of belief in a god. Teaching religion as "right" or "normal" are up to you, but please don't corrupt the concept of rationality to justify your belief system.
told you that it was my "God-given duty to help you get out of the building alive." Would you so glibly accuse me of retreating into fantasy then?
Please do not insult me by trying to reduce what I say to a "glib" remark. I would never assert and adherence to logic and rationality "glibly." To make such a comment, you attempt to marginalize those that do not agree with you.
But, I would thank you for your help in getting me out of the building. I would think you to be deluded in some aspects of your thought. But I would appreciate your effort.
And I would hope that everyone would offer their help, not because it has been dictated from upon high (especially in light of your admission that your belief system is contingent upon your whim, and who knows what that might translate into), but rather I would hope that your offer of assistance comes from your profound respect for humanity and human life. I would hope that you have such high respect for your own life and your compassionate offer comes from that wellspring.
promote terrorism by mingling religion in with it are sick
Uh,... cart before the horse. If the criminals are who we think they are, they were religious first, and use terrorism to express their beliefs, NOT, as you suggest that they are terrorists who use religion to justify their belief. If you think the latter, you have gravely misunderstood the threat these people pose.
least partially false on the basis of logic: you can't disprove the existence of God, can you?
From this statement I will have to infer that you have a rudimentary, if any, understanding of what logic is. The onus of proof lay upon the shoulders of he who affirms the positive. One DOES *NOT* have to disprove god. The positive assertion is that "god exists." This is what *must* be proved. Anyone who claims god exists carries the burden of proof to their claim.
To further clarify, something does not become knowledge until it is proved. All facts start out as un-true (which is *not* to say false -- perhaps it is better to use the Latin negation "a" and say, for this discussion, "a-true.") It is by a specific application of the mental tools of logic that something can be escalated from "a-true" to "possible" to "probable" to "true." (I simplify *greatly* here for the purpose of discussion.)
Any assertion that you make, you *have* to be able to back it or your words have no more meaning than the following: Wkjj sadfdsi sakljs klkjerlk. (ie, they are reduced to nonsense. Although it may sound like you are communicating something, it carries little more meaning than a Parrot that has learned to mimic speech.)
This one message is the essence and goal of almost every major and minor religious system of thought.
I invite you to do an extensive study on the history of religion. While you will find the modern manifestations to fit this bill, this is more of a product of modern (last 700 or so odd years) times than of the religions themselves.
[Oh, and don't for one second argue that religion has a monopoly on helping one's fellow man or morals or any of that nonsense.]
So if you don't mind, I'll try to become a better person based on my beliefs,
I have no problem with that. I think you are misguided, but normally I wouldn't bother to correct you. (I only say something here as you posted to a public forum, obviously interested in a discussion.)
All I can suggest is that...you at least learn to do a better, more logical job of it
Might I suggest that you take your own words to heart?
You say it is beyond proof. Therefore we cannot know.
That only leaves you faith (which is itself no indicator of the veracity of the concept of god).
As faith is outside of the scope of verification (the proof you spoke of -- your argument), that only leaves your "feelings" as justification for any statement in relation to a deity. Feelings are *NOT* knowledge (one can have knowledge *about* feelings, but feeling themselves ARE NOT knowledge) and have no meaning outside of your own subjective framework. [In fact feelings are a direct reflection of your internal "world." They speak to how you relate to the world that is outside (ie, not) you. It is knowledge, proof, and logic that give us information about the outside world. (Unless you are willing to argue that we are omniscient, there has to be a framework by which we gather information, which in turn implies that there is a procedure by which to do it, which also means that we are capable of being both right and wrong. Thereby we must be stringent in how we apply the mechanisms of understanding. You cannot escape the role of proof in *any* claim to knowledge.)] You feelings are only relevant to your own framework. And by that token, anyone else can assert feelings just the opposite of whatever your opinions are and they have exactly the same weight. Therefore any assertions about the *content* of faith are meaningless.
religion is not the root of all evil.
Just the opposite is the case. As I mentioned above, all knowledge is predicated upon a precise structure for the accumulation and verification of information. (This is our Aristotlian Excellence as humans, if you will.)
Religion dictates that you abdicate the stance that knowledge must be validated, in favor of the notion that one can have knowledge outside of this framework. (ie, that feelings/faith are just as valid as proof is) In a sense you negate your mind. I would argue that any system that advocates a surrender of your mind is necessarily evil.
Although this concept can be applied is a somewhat benign fashion (as benign as anything can be that preaches the surrender of one's mind), is can also and more commonly can be applied to causes that are, as you put it, "fanatisism and extremism." But this is not the distortion of "the beliefs religion is truly based upon into groteseque caricatures" but rather the logical conclusion of the religious mindset.
it cannot be proven or disproven.
The onus of proof lay upon the shoulders of he who affirms the positive. You are wildly mistaken in your epistemological agnosticism if you think that disproof is the standard by which knowledge is gained. True it is a functional tool in logic, but as I mentioned before, we are not omniscient. Everything we know, we have to go through a process to acquire. All information doesn't start out as probable. Nor does it start out as possible. ALL KNOWLEDGE HAS TO BE PROVEN.
If you assert a positive, you have to be able to validate your assertion. It is not up to everyone to disprove it to attest to its' veracity. (I don't know that I need to point out the logical fallacy here, but this entails the presumption of truth as a given in order to disprove it.) If you make a positive assertion, you have to be able to back it up.
As such it is incorrect to say it cannot be proven or disproven. Rather, it is proper to say "it cannot be proven."
may be dead wrong here, because I set up my... box over a year ago and haven't looked at dedicated firewalls since...I hope you bought a model without such artificial limitations
And all I am saying is that Yes, things have changed. No "such artificial limitations" *and* you get a siwtch. All of this for US$50. Such a deal...
And I set up the first one of these (when they were more like US$200(??) or at least much more expensive than they are now) over a year ago. Your (free) 486 was probably a deal back then, but now (factoring in the cost of a 10/100 switch) I would say there is little reason not to go with the switch. (I saw a drop in my electric bill when I turned the PII/233 that was the firewall/nat off for good.)
SO you are stuck with the two PC Card slots (if the laptop *had* two) for the NICs, and you then run out of options.
While the cable/dsl companies would *like* to charge you for extra IP's (some have TOS that say only one machine behind each IP), there is no practical way for them to enforce this.
Plus these router boxes usually have a four port (4 LAN + 1 WAN) switch (not a hub!) built in.
50$ is a deal for firewall/NAT/whatever and a 4 port switch.
He usually doesn't take credit.
Perhaps it has something to do with the Islamic Shariah??
But whatever it is, it has the added bonus of allowing people to credit *anything* to him. Something bad happens to the West, and bin Laden must have struck a blow for Islam.
This has the effect of making him larger than life and an inspiration that feeds thousands of new recruits.
Here is the flight path for all 4 planes. UA93 crashed almost an hour and a half after the first plane down (AA11), and half an hour after the 3rd plane (AA77).
Not true. A *folding* knife can only be so big. A fixed blade (non-folding) of any size can be a problem.
I had a Tenka (sp?) knife on my keyring in Chicago once. This is the kind that has a fixed blade that slips into a sheath. They wouldn't let me through the security point with it. They took it from me, took my address, and I kissed the knife good-bye. Oddly enough, about 8 weeks later it showed up in my mail.
The blade was under 1 inch.
He usually doesn't take credit.
Maybe it has something to do with the Islamic Shariah??
But whatever it is, it has the added bonus of allowing people to credit *anything* to him. Something bad happens to the West, and bin Laden must have struck a blow for Islam.
This has the effect of making him larger than life and an inspiration that feeds thousands of new recruits.
Deceptive practices indeed!
I think this is a worthwhile fight to have, and might even be inclined to donate my lunch money to help this "cause."
(Now, my drinkin' money, on the other hand, is sacred. The only cause that goes to is getting me drunk. But I'm sure I can do without a few lunches, to "fight the good fight"...)
Damn! I should know better than to post hungover.
This is the most concise, cogent description of DOT.NET I've seen.
Uh,... I don't know if I should laugh or be scared. :)
I didn't mean to sound as if I was talking about Dot.Net (actually I haven't read too much about it) -- I was just ranting about some of the things I have been talking with friends about for years. But now that you say that this is what microsoft is doing, perhaps I should rethink how good of an idea this might be...
what reason do you have to believe that the cost of "software as a service" isn't going to blow away
Well I don't if you say that M$ is involved. If they weren't, I could have imagined a world where lots of companies competed for your business and it was just a few cents to use a program for a while. (Of course, business would use a lot more and *have* high bills, as they should. (They are using the software to make money and it is a legitimate expense). But there is no reason for Joe User to buy a 300$ software package. Joe would have a small bill and have the latest software at his disposal.)
Oh, and if you can rent software for a few cents, there is no reason to pirate it. Software companies would (theoretically) charge less, but be making more money as they have more subscribers.
whole week for the company to restore service after a crash
Well, in the world of the future, you distribute you servers (physically) and distribute the data. Kinda like the idea of a disk RAID, but with whole servers. And you just have redundancy all over the country/world.
there's stuff on my home machines I don't want on the net.
Well, as I suggested, devices like this aren't for geeks like us. I was talking about Joe User that otherwise wouldn't use a computer. Or, better yet, I am talking about your "Grandmother." For the Grandma's out there, anything they would need to store in a safe fashion could be saved in an encrypted (whatever the PGP of 2023 is) partition on the net and read over a secure link.
a contsituency association of Canadian political party. That list was kept and maintained on a machine that was not connected to the net.
And that was secure? Yeah, it's not like there have been any politically motivated break-ins. *cough* Watergate *cough*
But seriously, that would only prevent casual snooping -- Not the kind of directed snooping done by someone looking for just that information. I presume you had it in an encrypted partition. But, that didn't stop the FBI in the recent case where they keylogged the mobster. And groups that aren't restricted by having to get things like search warrants have a lot more freedom to do stuff like this. I'm just saying that there is no 100% security, and you always have to asume there is some risk. And for most people the risk of a good encrypted storage space is fine.
And people like Kermit. People like Michigan J. Frog.
While I agree with almost all of your points, I don't think that Web appliances a flawed in concept -- they have just failed so far in implemention.
Keep in mind that there are great unwashed masses out there that aren't slashdot readers (ie, their computer skills are limited to *maybe* being able to turn one on. (Uh... come to think of it, that describes some portion of the slashdot crowd too.)). They might not have ever used a computer, but might benefit from one. I think getting a machine into their hands is a good thing.
What do most non-technical people use a machine for? Writting a few letters, balancing the checkbook, email and browsing. 90% (random high number) of the population has very simple needs, and if you think about it, really don't need a computer, per se. They just need a simple device that does most of the tasks I listed.
What is keeping most of the people from getting a computer (that don't own one)? Cost is a factor. Technophobia is another. If you can build a machine that is both simple to build (costs are kept down) and is simple to use (no futzing with dll's or crashing OS's, nothing to install), then you would have somethign that would put computing power in the hands of a lot of people that otherwise wouldn't have a computer.
How much of a strech is it then to say that an internet appliance is a good solution? If one could produce a 200$ (or less) box that was no more complex than a phone to use, I think these would become ubiquitous.
[Keep in mind that although you and I need the power of a "computer", most of the people out there simply do not need some 1.8GHz, 512MB RAM, 80GB HD machine (despite what the manufacturers tell you). In fact, if it weren't for codebloat, most people would do just fine with a P1 or less.]
5. There is no growth path. None of the Internet appliance manufacturers have offered hard drives, word processing, spreadhsheet software, etc. for users that want to move beyond e-mail and the web.
As we are seeing the rebirth of the client-server relation (When the personal computer put more computing power in our hands at a cheaper cost, we moved away from the expensive machines (university's/companies') that we all had to time-share on. We lost track of our client-server roots.), we are seeing more and more computing power "out there" and a lot more of what happens on your machine is dependent on other's computers. Why bother spending all of that money on a lot of processing power on your desk when you use 5% of it for only a few hours of the day? Doesn't it make more sense, on a large scale, to rent processing power from someone else as you need it? You would have much more at your disposal, and you would only pay for what you use, which makes it more affordable.
In addition, already we have companies that deploy applications that are web based. Is it too much of a strech to see a future where word processing, spreadhsheets, and any other apps a customer needs are web (or whatever replaces the web) deployed? Once again, you rent as you need. You no longer have to pay $300 for software. You don't have to pay $100 for the next upgrade (and the one after that...and the one after that). It isn't your problem to figure out why the app is crashing. Perfect for the person who otherwise wouldn't use a computer.
None of the Internet appliance manufacturers have offered hard drives
Ah, but there are plenty of services out there right now that offer on-line storage. (I have about 90MB of *free* storage out there -- more than enough for most users.(mp3's and movies aside at the momment)) As the cost of storage continues to drop, the ammount available will increase. This is a chunk of data that the user has *no* responsibility for maintaining and backing up. If a HD crashes, the hosting company just yanks it out of its RAID and slips in a new one. The user never sees the difference. One less headache for the novice user.
I think that making a simple cheap appliance box that is basically a client/terminal is the best way to get computing power/internet/etc into the hands of the rest of the world that aren't geeks. Now, I, on the otherhand will never surrender my 5 workstations, but then again my needs (and the rest of my geek brethren) are greater than Joe Public's.
Oh,... and please excuse if I ramble a bit. One really shouldn't slashdot hungover...
Actually, the analogy still holds. The issue at first is if *any* use of bandwidth or processor cycles is a misapporiation. I think, like a phone call, it is not.
HOWEVER, and some point "any" crosses the line into "too much" at which point you *are* talking about harrasment.
The pdf document states that there are 2^n packets that need to be sent out, for a n-varriable SAT problem. So that *could* add up to a lot.
The paper does spell out that all the systems (page 4, paragraph 2)that participated did so *unknowingly*.
And that is what the study did.
I think the wrong phone call analogy is correct. You open up a service and *have* to expect bad/malformed/incorrect data in addition to the good/expected/desired data. You can't get a phone service and say that you only want "desired calls" to come in. Have to take the good with the bad.
Now, if someone had the *intent* of causing and interruption in service or to harass you by *intentionally* dialing your number (or making a call to a service on your machine) then that is another issue.
All of this being said, I do think this is a little intrusive, and don't like the idea (other than it is cool that it possible), but I don't think there is much ground for any kind of legal complaint.
Oh, yeah: IANAL.
Uh,... do you read slashdot???
[Read any of the ascii art posts, or X is dying, or Portman/Grits, and tell me that there aren't plenty of other less worthwhile ways to consumes one's time...]
And besides, like most research, this isn't for practical purposes (yet). It is for proof of theory. And someday something like this would be efficient enough to bother with...
Just like people dialing a wrong number are stealing your time and resources. But part of the deal in having a phone that other peopls can call you on is that OTHER PEOPLE CAN CALL YOU.
THe article indicates that model # is tied into the speed.
And you are kept up all night by the sound of flushing water. And then there is the sudden spike in your waterbill...
You know the Urban Legend about how the water levels drop during half-time at the Super Bowl as everyone uses the bathroom? Well, enter the DDoS atack of the '20s (2020 that is): script kiddies h4X0ring all the toilets in NYC and having them all flush at once.