I know he did that in Bowling for Columbine when he took Heston's quotes out of context and left the viewer believing that the NRA descended on the town right after the incident at the high school.
This thing with F911 and Michael Moore is one of those things where I'm one of the only dispassionate, rational people around. It's not even worth discussing because most people who saw the movie decided what they thought about it before they went into it. If you are unable to uncover even one little teensy tiny "fact" presented in that flick that makes you a bit uneasy about Moore's tactics, then you're one of those people.
I was aware that Anselm's argument was quite often side-stepped and berated but I wasn't aware there were any holes in it. (Hence the whole lasting for 900 years thing.)
900 years? The "whole thing" didn't last 6 months. Logicians and scholars almost immediately poked holes in his argument.
Let's review Anselm's argument. He says:
"God" refers to the greatest possible thing.
Things that exist are "greater" than things that do not exist.
If god did not exist, the concept of "god", the greatest possible thing, could also not exist. This is because in order to be the greatest possible thing, that thing must exist or there would be something greater that is possible.
The concept of god does exist, therefore god exists.
Now, there are several problems with this argument, all of which have been pointed out before. For a good argument that addresses the most popular of these points, read William L. Rowe's The Ontological Argument from Reason & Responsibility, Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy, 8th Ed., by Joel Feinberg.
The first problem: does "god" refer to the greatest possible thing? Or, to put it in a slightly different way...is it possible to conceive of a "greatest possible thing" in a non-vague, absolute sort of way? I believe not. I believe that one of the powers of human language over that of other beasts is that human language can deal in abstraction. As language evolved, we carried this idea of representing the abstract to its ultimate extreme with words like god and soul. These two terms are so abstract that no one can really define either term in any meaningful concrete (as opposed to abstract) way. All such definitions include other superlative words like omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Again, these words are abstract to the highest degree...no one knows what omniscience means, or if it is even possible to "know all knowledge". Is potential knowledge infinite? Maybe. What would it mean to "know everything"? I don't know. No one does.
A discussion of aspects becomes important here. I don't think that there can be a "greatest possible thing," full stop. There can be a greatest possible thing with respect to one particular aspect. There can be a greatest possible thing given a qualifications, and these qualifications can set up the context in which this thing is the greatest possible. But, free of all context and in a concrete sense, I don't think the concept of a "greatest possible thing" can exist.
So, that's the first problem. I would argue that Anselm's assumption that the concept of god exists is incorrect.
Problem #2. Anselm believes that things that exist are somehow greater than things that do not exist. This is never explained in the argument, and furthermore, directly flies in the face of Platonic forms. According to Rowe (and this is backed by research into the language of Anselm's other writings), when Anselm says "does not exist" he actually means "exists in the understanding but not in reality". Plato argued that Platonic forms only existed in the understanding, and not in reality, but that these forms were the representation of perfection. There could be nothing in reality better than that thing's corresponding form; if the real thing matched the form in every way, it would be perfect, the greatest possible for that thing.
I tend to go with Plato on this one, and not just in opposition to Anselm's argument...there are lots of reasons that Plato's ideas have stood the test of time, and fared far better than Anselm's (see Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for a compelling argument for using a Platonic foundation).
Problem #3. Once we overlook the previous two problems, we discover the turning of the key in Anselm's argument: the greatest possible thing must exist because if it didn't, it wouldn't be the greatest possible
You left out what I believe is the original meaning.
You're missing the point. I didn't pick that definition...the poster I was responding to did. That person's basic argument was that atheism is a religion like, say Islam is a religion. Or, to rephrase: if you were to take the definition of religion that applies to Islam and apply it to atheism, you would see that they are both religions in the same sense.
All I did was test that statement by applying the same definition of religion. It didn't work.
I generally get your point here, but you're wrong about your TV. It is alive. When you turn it on, does it not look just like people? Does it not talk and have feelings just like other living things, such as the sea sponge?
That's what they said about lemmings--they would not choose to die, so it must be in their nature!
As it turns out, all the lemmings were jumping off the cliffs because they were being chased by the National Geographic helicopter filming them.
In any case, more to the point, your argument above is just stupid (not to cause a flame war). But it is, I'm sorry. Burden of proof is a known logic fallacy that you're employing in your argument. Go ahead, click the link.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Which of these definitions are you claiming fits atheism? In the case of 3, there is no "spiritual leader" (spiritual itself having to do with god, religion, the soul, etc). In the case of 4, this definition of the word was added to include such usages as: Golf is Bob's religion. Atheism is not a cause, a principle, or an activity. It is simply an idea regarding the way things are...a philosophical position. So, I did read all the definitions before I chose one.
We are lead to the inescapable conclusion that words mean things. In order to have a discussion, we must have some common ground in terms of language. Now the point of your post is that atheism is a religion just like, say, Christianity (that was your point, was it not?). So, let me ask you, which definition of the term applies to Christianity? The one I used, or one of the two you proposed?
If you didn't mean that atheism is a religion in the way that Christianity is a religion, then what was the point of saying it? If what you meant was that atheism is a religion in the way that golf is a religion to some people, I would say that's an interesting way of looking at things, but totally irrelevant to the discussion. Assuming that what you said was relevant, though, I'd have to return to my earlier point that you are arguing semantics.
Which is exactly why I said scientists shouldn't hold this position.
You're saying that scientists shouldn't believe in atheism because your argument supporting your viewpoint uses absurd statements? Huh!?
Let us review. Your argument is: a scientist should not hold a viewpoint where, given evidence to the contrary, he still would not change his mind. I agree with that. But then you went on to say that atheism is such an irrational belief of this theoretical person; if one were able to somehow prove the existence of god to this atheistic scientist, you posit he would not change his mind.
It is your argument I'm calling absurd, because your proof that atheism is irrational relies on your doing the impossible. Your own argument requires you to prove god's existence to relegate atheism to this category. Even you imply you couldn't do this--later, you seem to be saying god himself would have to perform this feat.
So let me turn your own argument against you, and the logic problem will come clear, I'm sure... You, sir, hold an irrational position because, were I to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that god does not exist, you would still cling to your current views about atheism being irrational.
Now, let me crystallize for you why the above is a silly statement.
I assumed you would not change your position, which may not be true.
I can only actually prove that you're being irrational by doing the impossible (proving that something--in this case, god--does not exist)
Now, simply replace that silly argument above with your silly argument, and I'm sure you'll see the parallels. On the other hand, if you think my silly argument above holds water logically, then you must believe in its conclusion.
But now I am assuming that showing a proof of god's existence is impossible, which you apparently have a problem with.
God could, for example decide to prove his own existance (to a certain probability, like any other scientific proof).
This statement assumes that god exists, which is what we're arguing about in the first place. Logic fallacy #1. (Still, I very much like that your opinion of god, a supposedly all-powerful being, would have to limit his proof to "a certain probability, like"...you know..."any other scientific proof." Why couldn't he prove it with 100% probability!? He is G
Anselm's argument for the existence of god, in the philosophy course I took (and every one I've ever heard of), is immediately followed by several arguments to the contrary that poke one giant hole after another in it. That's largely the point of the religious subject in philosophy courses--that it's not possible to prove, logically, the existence of god.
I can only assume you posted this AC because of your next statement...the reference to Godel's Theorem, which is either a troll, or you have no understanding of what the heck Godel's Theorem says, because it indisputably supports my argument.
And just because you say "suffice it to say" does not mean that what you said suffices.
If you really believe that there can be a logical argument that proves the existence of god, then you are in opposition to nearly every great philosopher, professor, rabbi, priest, theological scholar, etc...they all say that a leap of faith is necessary for the big 3 religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity).
Right. Faith, or the "leap of faith," is the logical disconnect that nearly every religion employs to break with rationality. You may choose to rely on faith, but to say that we "have to" rely on faith is kind of silly.
Why do I have to? The answer is, I don't. I can adopt any stance on the box that I want to, whether faith-based about what's in it or otherwise. Also, what you said was that faith has something to do with believing in something "higher than [yourself]"...this is not true either. Faith is simply the belief in something in absence of evidence. It doesn't have to be "higher than" me to qualify as faith.
I don't think Verizon is the one advertising these phone capabilities--it's Motorola making those claims, and that's the problem. I agree with you...as long as this is vocally pointed out on sites like this one, Verizon will hopefully take a hit. The bigger the hit, the better.
I have heard these positions (below) hotly debated, but just for the sake of popularizing them (because I think they make sense), here they are.
Agnosticism is the idea that there may or may not be a metaphysical realm existing outside the physical universe in which supernatural forces such as gods, angels, and demons can exist. Agnostics generally believe that, if this metaphysical realm does exist, it exists orthogonally to the physical universe and the two cannot interact at all, or only can interact in a very limited set of non-testable circumstances (death and migration of the "soul" from one to the other, for instance). Therefore, since no testing of such interactions is possible, it is not possible to verify or deny the existence of such a realm. Based on this, agnostics generally hold that it is of little value to choose one way or another regarding a belief in such a metaphysical realm...it's instead better to keep one's beliefs about such a thing open-ended.
Strong agnostics hold that this particular feature of orthogonality between the metaphysical and the physical universes is fundamental; it cannot change or be circumvented, and therefore not only is the issue open, but it always will be.
Weak agnostics hold that the metaphysical and physical universes are not fundamentally orthogonal--only based on our current state of awareness and knowledge. Weak atheists believe that someday, some particular confluence of events could occur that could allow enough testable interaction to decide the issue...it's that currently we lack the information necessary, but it will not necessarily always be so.
An analogy is often presented alongside agnosticism to better understand it. Given a sealed box, one is asked to form a judgment about whether the box is empty, containing only its own interior, or if there is something in the box (air, a ball, whatever). An agnostic is akin to someone that believes it is worthless to form an opinion regarding the interior of the box without any further information. If humanity has not yet developed the means to test the box (by shaking it, spinning it, opening it, etc), but the weak agnostic believes that someday we will be able to run these tests and perhaps make a determination. If there is something about the box that makes it fundamentally untestable, it will not yield any information to us about its interior no matter how advanced our technology gets, then the person is a strong agnostic. (It is worth pointing out that this box analogy is simply that--an analogy--and is only useful in this discussion insofar as these impossible states of existence for that box hold up. In other words, it would be silly to start discussing this box as if other features of boxes in general were relevant to understanding agnosticism...the other features of such a box are irrationally not relevant, as in the case of every analogy having only one salient feature worth drawing parallels to.)
Atheists believe that there is no metaphysical realm beyond the physical universe, and therefore no gods, demons, angels, and the like.
A weak atheist agrees that there is nothing fundamental that prohibits the existence of such a metaphysical realm, and that, while it could exist, it doesn't. This argument usually adheres to the idea that such a realm could not exist orthogonally to our physical universe, and therefore it would be testably present in some way if it did.
A strong atheist believes that such a metaphysical realm not only does not exist, but is fundamentally prohibited. This position is often philosophically intertwined with a belief that if something is fundamentally unobservable, then it effectively does not exist. This variant of this viewpoint is also often intertwined with a kind of relativity.
For example, if at the moment of our big bang 16 billion years ago, there was another big bang 32 billion light years away, the edges of these two universes would just now begin to interact. Before that interac
I regard atheism as a religious belief that there is no god.
Atheism cannot be a "religious" stance by definition:
religious - 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
No god or deity = not religious. It could be a state of belief, as opposed to a state of concept or idea (the chief difference between ideas and beliefs is that ideas change according to new empirical evidence, beliefs do not), but your attempt to equivocate the atheistic stance by purely semantic means does nothing to enhance the debate...it only muddies the waters of the debate.
I would also argue against those who say atheism is not a religion. It is a religion, and has the set of gods {} (the empty set), whereas agnosticism does not define the set of gods.
I fully understand what you're saying here, but the definition I provided above clearly says that the set of deities must include at least one. Therefore your own statement here shows the fallacy of engaging in a semantic argument--you weren't able to write a short post without contradicting yourself.
I point this out because it's so easy to discuss philosohpical topics such as these and descend into an uninteresting semantic debate about what we ought to call things rather than what things are. If you reply to this post and insist that you're going to change the definition of the term religious or atheist to suit your needs, that does nothing to convince others of your point; though they may even choose to adopt your non-standard definitions, there's no way of ascertaining whether they've grasped your underlying point. The hope in most semantic attacks is that the change in wording will simply find its way into the subtext of future conversations and change people's minds that way. Sort of an underhanded approach, which is why I personally detest such attacks by language. Political correctness is a great example of what I'm talking about.
So, I'll address the point underlying all your wordplay...that might get us somewhere. Is it possible, do you think, that atheists might be divided into two categories: those that hold atheism as an idea and those that hold it as a belief? The idea atheists might very well hold that there is no god, but this is not incontrovertible fact...much in the way one "believes" in a scientific theory. For instance, I "believe" in Newton's model of gravity--but only insofar as it has been shown to correspond with nature. Should I need to move into the realm addressed by General Relativity, then I would not "believe" in Newton's model for that purpose. Do I think that Einstein's model is "true"? Well, no, of course not...the model hasn't shown that it corresponds exactly to reality in every situation (I'm not sure how it could meet such a high standard, either).
So, one might be atheistic in this sense. A subtle difference between a scientific theory and holding atheism in the same way, however, exists and must be addressed. And this difference is embodied by your statement:
Someone who will disregard any possibility of there being a god, even if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist.
This statement is absurd. It is silly to judge what someone would do or think in the presence of a condition that is simply impossible. In this case, "if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist" is the impossible condition. No one who has done any study of philosophy or religion would accept this as something that could actually come to pass--in other words, it is not in the set of things that could occur in this universe.
So, pinning your argument that atheism is a belief system much like religion on this statement is a major flaw in your reasoning. I might say your belief that hippogriffs do not exist is flawed because you are so prej
I can see how this upsets people, and I think the best approach is to just advertise it and try to punish Verizon that way. Organize a kind of tech-geek boycott. But unfortunately, I don't think there's a legal problem with what they're doing.
Should companies be allowed to sell their products hobbled? If we decide no for Verizon, then we also must go after Microsoft, whose baseline operating system is always the more advanced flavor. For instance, in Win 2000 Pro, many of the features of Server are present but disabled. Should we apply the same standard here and say that Pro must have all such features enabled? I'm not sure...
As far as applying the DMCA to this situation of this contest...I don't see how any law can stop it. It can just force it underground, or force the perpetrators to come up with a flimsy cover story.
Oh, so you're saying that you won't take anyone's $100 bill, no matter how assured you are that it is not a fake bill...I didn't get that on the read-through of the parent. You said it was your choice whether you let someone pay with a $100 bill, so I assumed you chose on a case-by-case basis, meaning that if you happened to accept it from a white guy but not from a black guy, that could look bad even though color didn't enter into your mind and you could find yourself in trouble regardless.
I don't agree with any law that says that I must be forced to sell to you (which is essentially what you are saying).
But...just after saying this, you went out of your way to say:
Now if I chose to not sell to you because of race, color or creed then you might have a case.
So clearly you do believe that some laws forcing you to sell to people you might otherwise not sell to are ok. I'm just trying to figure out the criteria you find acceptable.
If I know that I will get $75 on a $100 counterfeit I can just tell the person passing it that I will take it at $50 and make $25 off of taxpayers.
Well, I can only assume that such behavior would be self-limiting. How many claims do you think a single individual can be associated with before they draw attention to themselves? Only one. As soon as the Treasury/Secret Service/whoever gets that first call, they're going to be on that guy like a $2 suit, asking questions, trying to figure out who passed it, etc. I'm sure there's some way for someone to exploit this to some extent, but only to a limited degree.
So, the real question here is, whose problem is counterfeit money? Is it the business owner's who takes the counterfeit bill? I would say yes, but only if that bill should have been caught by that person. If they're accepting $3 bills with Clinton's picture on them, they're on their own. But if the bill meets some standard of authenticity, then it's the govt's problem...your problem and my problem, not the poor guy who happened to get burned. I can't understand how you're saying it's more the business owner's problem than the taxpayers...that doesn't make sense to me on its face. Counterfeiting is a problem for taxpayers/society/the economy. It doesn't just affect the guy who gets the bill...obviously!
All you're really doing by hanging it all on the store owner is making it far more profitable for him to try and pass the bills off himself and claim ignorance about doing so. How do you catch that person? It's nearly impossible to prove he did or didn't know the bills were counterfeit. You encourage enough of these store owners to pass these bills along and guess whose problem it becomes, if enough of them do that? That's right...the taxpayer's. Your and my money in the bank becomes worth less because the money supply is artificially spiked up, because we've now got all these unwilling accomplices running around with an investment in making sure the bills are treated as authentic.
I say, let's make it easy to be patriotic on this one, and let the people who are trying to bilk the system call attention to themselves by going to the feds to just try and get their 75%.
It's easy, actually. A pH pen is simply a highlighter like pen that dispenses a small amount of gel-like substrate blended with a pH indicator, such as phenolphthalene. The substrate and indicator can be changed to have the pen react at various pH levels, and the pens can even use multiple indicators to change to one particular color when in the "hot" zone, but show different colors at too low or high of a pH outside that zone.
You should read Abagnale's book (not catch me if you can, the other one). He talks about it in there if you're interested.
So you're saying you'll take the black guy's $100 bill because you might get sued, but you won't take the white guy's b/c he doesn't have a leg to stand on?
I actually agree with the parent post. Everyone should be required to take all money, and the government should replace fake bills with real ones for poor business owners that get nailed. (Ok, they need some incentive to examine the bills at the register--how about the govt pays 75% back?)
I hate the idea of having money in my pocket that's worthless except to muggers. The only reason it even seems reasonable for businesses not to accept legal tender is because they're talking about $100s...but people counterfeit $20s all the time too, and from the article, even $5s and $10s. Now what if businesses refused to start taking those too? Then would you have a problem with it?
I have a great idea for a business. I'm going to make a machine that businesses can buy, and what it does is, you feed the bill into it and the machine shreds the entire thing, breaking it down into a fine paste, and then performs various chemical analyses on the bill. This is a surefire way to catch every counterfeit bill. And another big plus--you wouldn't need a cash register at all...just a big waste bin.
Is it an iodine pen? What would iodine tell you? I thought it was a pH pen. At least, it used to be...that's what Frank Abagnale (of Catch Me If You Can fame) said in his book. (He also said that if you soak the paper in a mind bleach and dry it the night before printing, it passes the pH test with flying colors.)
I know of no protection or right that affords people the right to know who's looking at them in public. In fact, when you're in public you have the responsibility to conform to public standards, e.g., you can't walk around naked.
Keep in mind I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I'm not saying I believe strongly on this issue of cameras one way or another, I'm just saying I see both sides of it. In fact, I can't understand how anyone could not see both sides of it...it's a very open-ended issue.
Well, assuming I were to take up that argument, I would simply point out that the government's intent is not to "surveil" you. You are not even part of the equation--there wasn't even a reasonable expectation that you'd show up in front of that camera.
Even that is beside the point. The government is actually free to follow you around provided you are in public. Cops do it all the time...ever been driving around and suddenly you have cop tailing you that you can't seem to shake? They're even allowed to call in your license plate just for kicks to see if the car is stolen, b/c your plate is in public view. They don't even need probable cause.
As in most things, there are two sides to this issue.
Side 1. More cameras don't bother me. When will people realize that what they do in public is in the public domain? It is merely the fact that a person isn't physically there viewing you, but viewing you through a remote connection. What is the difference between that, and if the person were physically there?
To put it another way, if you're on a public beach reading a book, would you feel as if your privacy was being invaded because others might look at that book and know what you're reading? In order that your privacy be maintained, does the beach really have to be empty? Conversely, if the beach is crowded is your privacy more compromised somehow than if it were empty, because more people can see what you like to read?
Of course not...read a book in public, the public will know what you're reading. If you don't want people to know what you're doing, don't do it in public.
If you think cameras mounted around town is the worst "invasion" technology has to offer...just wait. We already have cameras so small they fit in a pair of eyeglasses--in the next hundred years I wouldn't be surprised to see people having devices such as cameras and phones implanted in their bodies. A camera embedded in the eye with a terabyte flash drive could record a lot of video--all day, every day. That means, if I have such an implanted device and I stroll into the men's locker room at the local health club, I could record what I see and open a peep show porno site. Anyone could.
Our ideas will undoubtedly change about privacy. If there's another person around, in the not-too-far-off future, I believe you will have to acquiesce that what they see the world may potentially see.
Side 2. More cameras create a power imbalance. While it is true that the purpose of the cameras is for good, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. One must be wary of keeping a proper power balance so that, should someone on the power side decide to misuse their access, they would still be limited to the realm of the reasonable.
For instance, does our Constitution favor the individual over the government, or the other way around? Does the Bill of Rights protect the rights of government and guarantee certain powers and inalienable rights to the government? Do criminals have to prove their innocence, or even show a preponderance of the evidence? (The answer to that last one is: neither--the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a much higher standard than a simple preponderance of the evidence.)
Why is there an inherent mistrust of government and authority built into our founding document? It is because the Founding Fathers were wise in knowing that nameless, faceless organizations take what they can get and use it to the full extent possible. This is not to place a value judgment on such behavior, it is simply a fact of life because governments, like all organizations consisting of people, include lots of different people with lots of different views on what is and what is not ok. Agreement must be, to some extent, forced upon them when it comes to the invariants of the social contract.
Do cameras everywhere rise to the level of creating a significant power imbalance between the individual and the state? I'm not sure...I see the usefulness of cameras used by private business (banks, convenient stores) and I do not yet feel they've invaded my privacy. Then again, private businesses are owned by individuals, which are usually not organizations that can extend the reach of a government.
Why is it that, so often with technology, places will only employ half of what's available and then complain about the results?
Ok, so maybe they don't have the funding to secure their wifi connection. Then, to me, that means they can't afford wifi and they should either (1) not do it half way, or (2) do it half way and then not complain about the results.
Besides, it's a public library. Public. What makes people's use of bandwidth outside less valid than inside? Oh, I know, the library can't monitor the use of its patrons, right?
Bull. They can't monitor it inside either...not by walking around casting glances. If this really worried them, then they would install the appropriate filters instead of doing a half way job (see above argument). So, given that they don't care/can't afford the full solution, and given that they, as reasonably intelligent human beings, have weighed the pros and cons, they shouldn't be worrying about monitoring content OR whether access is inside or outside. Besides, they could simply post signs saying that they're logging all connections and monitoring THAT if they're so concerned about it--even if they're not, it would cut most of the stuff they're worried about. A low-tech solution to a high-tech problem, inside or outside the libe.
Alternatively, they could get a charitable project started at the local college/high school to get a hacker to create a small app that connects patrons to the library. They have to install the app and it provides a username/id to the libe to attach to the logs of web sites browsed. Problem solved for free. (Public resources rarely take advantage of the public's desire to give back, and they should.)
One other thing about all of this bothers me. Is the library even supposed to be monitoring what people are doing inside? They're not allowed to prevent certain people from checking out certain books or reading up on certain subjects, right? The government isn't allowed to get access to books you've checked out unless they have reasonable suspicion of terrorist activities (and even that wasn't true before the Patriot Act). I mean, what if I'm doing a college-level report on Internet pornography? I can't use the library to do that report? Who are they to tell me what I can and can't research? (Of course, I have no problem with them limiting the total amount of bandwidth any one patron can use for the day...that's just sharing the resources...but then again, see above argument. If they won't install the tech that applies equally to everyone, they don't really have a leg to stand on.)
This is a matter of practicality butting up against legalisms. Consider as an example that many police departments across the country will not turn illegal immigrants over to the INS even though they're breaking the law and it would be the legally correct thing to do so. The point of this example is to say that the law is clearly not applied in every case regardless of the technicalities present--in this case, the library hasn't even done a full installation and they've weighed the pros and cons, and now they want to suck police budgets to make up for their budget shortfalls. If the local population didn't vote that library more money, that means they don't want them spending tax dollars on stuff like that. So they shouldn't start spending police tax dollars on it either. The people said no.
Slashdot Mirror
I know he did that in Bowling for Columbine when he took Heston's quotes out of context and left the viewer believing that the NRA descended on the town right after the incident at the high school.
This thing with F911 and Michael Moore is one of those things where I'm one of the only dispassionate, rational people around. It's not even worth discussing because most people who saw the movie decided what they thought about it before they went into it. If you are unable to uncover even one little teensy tiny "fact" presented in that flick that makes you a bit uneasy about Moore's tactics, then you're one of those people.
900 years? The "whole thing" didn't last 6 months. Logicians and scholars almost immediately poked holes in his argument.
Let's review Anselm's argument. He says:
Now, there are several problems with this argument, all of which have been pointed out before. For a good argument that addresses the most popular of these points, read William L. Rowe's The Ontological Argument from Reason & Responsibility, Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy, 8th Ed., by Joel Feinberg.
The first problem: does "god" refer to the greatest possible thing? Or, to put it in a slightly different way...is it possible to conceive of a "greatest possible thing" in a non-vague, absolute sort of way? I believe not. I believe that one of the powers of human language over that of other beasts is that human language can deal in abstraction. As language evolved, we carried this idea of representing the abstract to its ultimate extreme with words like god and soul. These two terms are so abstract that no one can really define either term in any meaningful concrete (as opposed to abstract) way. All such definitions include other superlative words like omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Again, these words are abstract to the highest degree...no one knows what omniscience means, or if it is even possible to "know all knowledge". Is potential knowledge infinite? Maybe. What would it mean to "know everything"? I don't know. No one does.
A discussion of aspects becomes important here. I don't think that there can be a "greatest possible thing," full stop. There can be a greatest possible thing with respect to one particular aspect. There can be a greatest possible thing given a qualifications, and these qualifications can set up the context in which this thing is the greatest possible. But, free of all context and in a concrete sense, I don't think the concept of a "greatest possible thing" can exist.
So, that's the first problem. I would argue that Anselm's assumption that the concept of god exists is incorrect.
Problem #2. Anselm believes that things that exist are somehow greater than things that do not exist. This is never explained in the argument, and furthermore, directly flies in the face of Platonic forms. According to Rowe (and this is backed by research into the language of Anselm's other writings), when Anselm says "does not exist" he actually means "exists in the understanding but not in reality". Plato argued that Platonic forms only existed in the understanding, and not in reality, but that these forms were the representation of perfection. There could be nothing in reality better than that thing's corresponding form; if the real thing matched the form in every way, it would be perfect, the greatest possible for that thing.
I tend to go with Plato on this one, and not just in opposition to Anselm's argument...there are lots of reasons that Plato's ideas have stood the test of time, and fared far better than Anselm's (see Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for a compelling argument for using a Platonic foundation).
Problem #3. Once we overlook the previous two problems, we discover the turning of the key in Anselm's argument: the greatest possible thing must exist because if it didn't, it wouldn't be the greatest possible
All I did was test that statement by applying the same definition of religion. It didn't work.
I generally get your point here, but you're wrong about your TV. It is alive. When you turn it on, does it not look just like people? Does it not talk and have feelings just like other living things, such as the sea sponge?
That's what they said about lemmings--they would not choose to die, so it must be in their nature!
As it turns out, all the lemmings were jumping off the cliffs because they were being chased by the National Geographic helicopter filming them.
In any case, more to the point, your argument above is just stupid (not to cause a flame war). But it is, I'm sorry. Burden of proof is a known logic fallacy that you're employing in your argument. Go ahead, click the link.
That's a good point, sir. Where is the cut-off between the "authoritative" and the "non-authoritative"?
Which of these definitions are you claiming fits atheism? In the case of 3, there is no "spiritual leader" (spiritual itself having to do with god, religion, the soul, etc). In the case of 4, this definition of the word was added to include such usages as: Golf is Bob's religion. Atheism is not a cause, a principle, or an activity. It is simply an idea regarding the way things are...a philosophical position. So, I did read all the definitions before I chose one.
We are lead to the inescapable conclusion that words mean things. In order to have a discussion, we must have some common ground in terms of language. Now the point of your post is that atheism is a religion just like, say, Christianity (that was your point, was it not?). So, let me ask you, which definition of the term applies to Christianity? The one I used, or one of the two you proposed?
If you didn't mean that atheism is a religion in the way that Christianity is a religion, then what was the point of saying it? If what you meant was that atheism is a religion in the way that golf is a religion to some people, I would say that's an interesting way of looking at things, but totally irrelevant to the discussion. Assuming that what you said was relevant, though, I'd have to return to my earlier point that you are arguing semantics.
You're saying that scientists shouldn't believe in atheism because your argument supporting your viewpoint uses absurd statements? Huh!?
Let us review. Your argument is: a scientist should not hold a viewpoint where, given evidence to the contrary, he still would not change his mind. I agree with that. But then you went on to say that atheism is such an irrational belief of this theoretical person; if one were able to somehow prove the existence of god to this atheistic scientist, you posit he would not change his mind.
It is your argument I'm calling absurd, because your proof that atheism is irrational relies on your doing the impossible. Your own argument requires you to prove god's existence to relegate atheism to this category. Even you imply you couldn't do this--later, you seem to be saying god himself would have to perform this feat.
So let me turn your own argument against you, and the logic problem will come clear, I'm sure... You, sir, hold an irrational position because, were I to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that god does not exist, you would still cling to your current views about atheism being irrational.
Now, let me crystallize for you why the above is a silly statement.
Now, simply replace that silly argument above with your silly argument, and I'm sure you'll see the parallels. On the other hand, if you think my silly argument above holds water logically, then you must believe in its conclusion.
But now I am assuming that showing a proof of god's existence is impossible, which you apparently have a problem with.
This statement assumes that god exists, which is what we're arguing about in the first place. Logic fallacy #1. (Still, I very much like that your opinion of god, a supposedly all-powerful being, would have to limit his proof to "a certain probability, like"...you know..."any other scientific proof." Why couldn't he prove it with 100% probability!? He is G
Anselm's argument for the existence of god, in the philosophy course I took (and every one I've ever heard of), is immediately followed by several arguments to the contrary that poke one giant hole after another in it. That's largely the point of the religious subject in philosophy courses--that it's not possible to prove, logically, the existence of god.
I can only assume you posted this AC because of your next statement...the reference to Godel's Theorem, which is either a troll, or you have no understanding of what the heck Godel's Theorem says, because it indisputably supports my argument.
And just because you say "suffice it to say" does not mean that what you said suffices.
If you really believe that there can be a logical argument that proves the existence of god, then you are in opposition to nearly every great philosopher, professor, rabbi, priest, theological scholar, etc...they all say that a leap of faith is necessary for the big 3 religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity).
Right. Faith, or the "leap of faith," is the logical disconnect that nearly every religion employs to break with rationality. You may choose to rely on faith, but to say that we "have to" rely on faith is kind of silly.
Why do I have to? The answer is, I don't. I can adopt any stance on the box that I want to, whether faith-based about what's in it or otherwise. Also, what you said was that faith has something to do with believing in something "higher than [yourself]"...this is not true either. Faith is simply the belief in something in absence of evidence. It doesn't have to be "higher than" me to qualify as faith.
I don't think Verizon is the one advertising these phone capabilities--it's Motorola making those claims, and that's the problem. I agree with you...as long as this is vocally pointed out on sites like this one, Verizon will hopefully take a hit. The bigger the hit, the better.
I have heard these positions (below) hotly debated, but just for the sake of popularizing them (because I think they make sense), here they are.
Agnosticism is the idea that there may or may not be a metaphysical realm existing outside the physical universe in which supernatural forces such as gods, angels, and demons can exist. Agnostics generally believe that, if this metaphysical realm does exist, it exists orthogonally to the physical universe and the two cannot interact at all, or only can interact in a very limited set of non-testable circumstances (death and migration of the "soul" from one to the other, for instance). Therefore, since no testing of such interactions is possible, it is not possible to verify or deny the existence of such a realm. Based on this, agnostics generally hold that it is of little value to choose one way or another regarding a belief in such a metaphysical realm...it's instead better to keep one's beliefs about such a thing open-ended.
Strong agnostics hold that this particular feature of orthogonality between the metaphysical and the physical universes is fundamental; it cannot change or be circumvented, and therefore not only is the issue open, but it always will be.
Weak agnostics hold that the metaphysical and physical universes are not fundamentally orthogonal--only based on our current state of awareness and knowledge. Weak atheists believe that someday, some particular confluence of events could occur that could allow enough testable interaction to decide the issue...it's that currently we lack the information necessary, but it will not necessarily always be so.
An analogy is often presented alongside agnosticism to better understand it. Given a sealed box, one is asked to form a judgment about whether the box is empty, containing only its own interior, or if there is something in the box (air, a ball, whatever). An agnostic is akin to someone that believes it is worthless to form an opinion regarding the interior of the box without any further information. If humanity has not yet developed the means to test the box (by shaking it, spinning it, opening it, etc), but the weak agnostic believes that someday we will be able to run these tests and perhaps make a determination. If there is something about the box that makes it fundamentally untestable, it will not yield any information to us about its interior no matter how advanced our technology gets, then the person is a strong agnostic. (It is worth pointing out that this box analogy is simply that--an analogy--and is only useful in this discussion insofar as these impossible states of existence for that box hold up. In other words, it would be silly to start discussing this box as if other features of boxes in general were relevant to understanding agnosticism...the other features of such a box are irrationally not relevant, as in the case of every analogy having only one salient feature worth drawing parallels to.)
Atheists believe that there is no metaphysical realm beyond the physical universe, and therefore no gods, demons, angels, and the like.
A weak atheist agrees that there is nothing fundamental that prohibits the existence of such a metaphysical realm, and that, while it could exist, it doesn't. This argument usually adheres to the idea that such a realm could not exist orthogonally to our physical universe, and therefore it would be testably present in some way if it did.
A strong atheist believes that such a metaphysical realm not only does not exist, but is fundamentally prohibited. This position is often philosophically intertwined with a belief that if something is fundamentally unobservable, then it effectively does not exist. This variant of this viewpoint is also often intertwined with a kind of relativity.
For example, if at the moment of our big bang 16 billion years ago, there was another big bang 32 billion light years away, the edges of these two universes would just now begin to interact. Before that interac
Atheism cannot be a "religious" stance by definition:
No god or deity = not religious. It could be a state of belief, as opposed to a state of concept or idea (the chief difference between ideas and beliefs is that ideas change according to new empirical evidence, beliefs do not), but your attempt to equivocate the atheistic stance by purely semantic means does nothing to enhance the debate...it only muddies the waters of the debate.
I fully understand what you're saying here, but the definition I provided above clearly says that the set of deities must include at least one. Therefore your own statement here shows the fallacy of engaging in a semantic argument--you weren't able to write a short post without contradicting yourself.
I point this out because it's so easy to discuss philosohpical topics such as these and descend into an uninteresting semantic debate about what we ought to call things rather than what things are. If you reply to this post and insist that you're going to change the definition of the term religious or atheist to suit your needs, that does nothing to convince others of your point; though they may even choose to adopt your non-standard definitions, there's no way of ascertaining whether they've grasped your underlying point. The hope in most semantic attacks is that the change in wording will simply find its way into the subtext of future conversations and change people's minds that way. Sort of an underhanded approach, which is why I personally detest such attacks by language. Political correctness is a great example of what I'm talking about.
So, I'll address the point underlying all your wordplay...that might get us somewhere. Is it possible, do you think, that atheists might be divided into two categories: those that hold atheism as an idea and those that hold it as a belief? The idea atheists might very well hold that there is no god, but this is not incontrovertible fact...much in the way one "believes" in a scientific theory. For instance, I "believe" in Newton's model of gravity--but only insofar as it has been shown to correspond with nature. Should I need to move into the realm addressed by General Relativity, then I would not "believe" in Newton's model for that purpose. Do I think that Einstein's model is "true"? Well, no, of course not...the model hasn't shown that it corresponds exactly to reality in every situation (I'm not sure how it could meet such a high standard, either).
So, one might be atheistic in this sense. A subtle difference between a scientific theory and holding atheism in the same way, however, exists and must be addressed. And this difference is embodied by your statement:
This statement is absurd. It is silly to judge what someone would do or think in the presence of a condition that is simply impossible. In this case, "if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist" is the impossible condition. No one who has done any study of philosophy or religion would accept this as something that could actually come to pass--in other words, it is not in the set of things that could occur in this universe.
So, pinning your argument that atheism is a belief system much like religion on this statement is a major flaw in your reasoning. I might say your belief that hippogriffs do not exist is flawed because you are so prej
I can see how this upsets people, and I think the best approach is to just advertise it and try to punish Verizon that way. Organize a kind of tech-geek boycott. But unfortunately, I don't think there's a legal problem with what they're doing.
Should companies be allowed to sell their products hobbled? If we decide no for Verizon, then we also must go after Microsoft, whose baseline operating system is always the more advanced flavor. For instance, in Win 2000 Pro, many of the features of Server are present but disabled. Should we apply the same standard here and say that Pro must have all such features enabled? I'm not sure...
As far as applying the DMCA to this situation of this contest...I don't see how any law can stop it. It can just force it underground, or force the perpetrators to come up with a flimsy cover story.
Oh, so you're saying that you won't take anyone's $100 bill, no matter how assured you are that it is not a fake bill...I didn't get that on the read-through of the parent. You said it was your choice whether you let someone pay with a $100 bill, so I assumed you chose on a case-by-case basis, meaning that if you happened to accept it from a white guy but not from a black guy, that could look bad even though color didn't enter into your mind and you could find yourself in trouble regardless.
But...just after saying this, you went out of your way to say: So clearly you do believe that some laws forcing you to sell to people you might otherwise not sell to are ok. I'm just trying to figure out the criteria you find acceptable. Well, I can only assume that such behavior would be self-limiting. How many claims do you think a single individual can be associated with before they draw attention to themselves? Only one. As soon as the Treasury/Secret Service/whoever gets that first call, they're going to be on that guy like a $2 suit, asking questions, trying to figure out who passed it, etc. I'm sure there's some way for someone to exploit this to some extent, but only to a limited degree.So, the real question here is, whose problem is counterfeit money? Is it the business owner's who takes the counterfeit bill? I would say yes, but only if that bill should have been caught by that person. If they're accepting $3 bills with Clinton's picture on them, they're on their own. But if the bill meets some standard of authenticity, then it's the govt's problem...your problem and my problem, not the poor guy who happened to get burned. I can't understand how you're saying it's more the business owner's problem than the taxpayers...that doesn't make sense to me on its face. Counterfeiting is a problem for taxpayers/society/the economy. It doesn't just affect the guy who gets the bill...obviously!
All you're really doing by hanging it all on the store owner is making it far more profitable for him to try and pass the bills off himself and claim ignorance about doing so. How do you catch that person? It's nearly impossible to prove he did or didn't know the bills were counterfeit. You encourage enough of these store owners to pass these bills along and guess whose problem it becomes, if enough of them do that? That's right...the taxpayer's. Your and my money in the bank becomes worth less because the money supply is artificially spiked up, because we've now got all these unwilling accomplices running around with an investment in making sure the bills are treated as authentic.
I say, let's make it easy to be patriotic on this one, and let the people who are trying to bilk the system call attention to themselves by going to the feds to just try and get their 75%.
It's easy, actually. A pH pen is simply a highlighter like pen that dispenses a small amount of gel-like substrate blended with a pH indicator, such as phenolphthalene. The substrate and indicator can be changed to have the pen react at various pH levels, and the pens can even use multiple indicators to change to one particular color when in the "hot" zone, but show different colors at too low or high of a pH outside that zone.
You should read Abagnale's book (not catch me if you can, the other one). He talks about it in there if you're interested.
So you're saying you'll take the black guy's $100 bill because you might get sued, but you won't take the white guy's b/c he doesn't have a leg to stand on?
I actually agree with the parent post. Everyone should be required to take all money, and the government should replace fake bills with real ones for poor business owners that get nailed. (Ok, they need some incentive to examine the bills at the register--how about the govt pays 75% back?)
I hate the idea of having money in my pocket that's worthless except to muggers. The only reason it even seems reasonable for businesses not to accept legal tender is because they're talking about $100s...but people counterfeit $20s all the time too, and from the article, even $5s and $10s. Now what if businesses refused to start taking those too? Then would you have a problem with it?
I have a great idea for a business. I'm going to make a machine that businesses can buy, and what it does is, you feed the bill into it and the machine shreds the entire thing, breaking it down into a fine paste, and then performs various chemical analyses on the bill. This is a surefire way to catch every counterfeit bill. And another big plus--you wouldn't need a cash register at all...just a big waste bin.
...and what makes them even better is, not only have they had them a long time, they're really, really new!
:-]
Is it an iodine pen? What would iodine tell you? I thought it was a pH pen. At least, it used to be...that's what Frank Abagnale (of Catch Me If You Can fame) said in his book. (He also said that if you soak the paper in a mind bleach and dry it the night before printing, it passes the pH test with flying colors.)
I love, love, LOVE that you opted to post as anonymous coward. I couldn't have said it better myself.
I know of no protection or right that affords people the right to know who's looking at them in public. In fact, when you're in public you have the responsibility to conform to public standards, e.g., you can't walk around naked.
Keep in mind I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I'm not saying I believe strongly on this issue of cameras one way or another, I'm just saying I see both sides of it. In fact, I can't understand how anyone could not see both sides of it...it's a very open-ended issue.
Well, assuming I were to take up that argument, I would simply point out that the government's intent is not to "surveil" you. You are not even part of the equation--there wasn't even a reasonable expectation that you'd show up in front of that camera.
Even that is beside the point. The government is actually free to follow you around provided you are in public. Cops do it all the time...ever been driving around and suddenly you have cop tailing you that you can't seem to shake? They're even allowed to call in your license plate just for kicks to see if the car is stolen, b/c your plate is in public view. They don't even need probable cause.
If 500 tons is "portable", then we already have these portable nuclear reactors. They're called nuclear submarines.
As in most things, there are two sides to this issue.
Side 1. More cameras don't bother me. When will people realize that what they do in public is in the public domain? It is merely the fact that a person isn't physically there viewing you, but viewing you through a remote connection. What is the difference between that, and if the person were physically there?
To put it another way, if you're on a public beach reading a book, would you feel as if your privacy was being invaded because others might look at that book and know what you're reading? In order that your privacy be maintained, does the beach really have to be empty? Conversely, if the beach is crowded is your privacy more compromised somehow than if it were empty, because more people can see what you like to read?
Of course not...read a book in public, the public will know what you're reading. If you don't want people to know what you're doing, don't do it in public.
If you think cameras mounted around town is the worst "invasion" technology has to offer...just wait. We already have cameras so small they fit in a pair of eyeglasses--in the next hundred years I wouldn't be surprised to see people having devices such as cameras and phones implanted in their bodies. A camera embedded in the eye with a terabyte flash drive could record a lot of video--all day, every day. That means, if I have such an implanted device and I stroll into the men's locker room at the local health club, I could record what I see and open a peep show porno site. Anyone could.
Our ideas will undoubtedly change about privacy. If there's another person around, in the not-too-far-off future, I believe you will have to acquiesce that what they see the world may potentially see.
Side 2. More cameras create a power imbalance. While it is true that the purpose of the cameras is for good, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. One must be wary of keeping a proper power balance so that, should someone on the power side decide to misuse their access, they would still be limited to the realm of the reasonable.
For instance, does our Constitution favor the individual over the government, or the other way around? Does the Bill of Rights protect the rights of government and guarantee certain powers and inalienable rights to the government? Do criminals have to prove their innocence, or even show a preponderance of the evidence? (The answer to that last one is: neither--the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a much higher standard than a simple preponderance of the evidence.)
Why is there an inherent mistrust of government and authority built into our founding document? It is because the Founding Fathers were wise in knowing that nameless, faceless organizations take what they can get and use it to the full extent possible. This is not to place a value judgment on such behavior, it is simply a fact of life because governments, like all organizations consisting of people, include lots of different people with lots of different views on what is and what is not ok. Agreement must be, to some extent, forced upon them when it comes to the invariants of the social contract.
Do cameras everywhere rise to the level of creating a significant power imbalance between the individual and the state? I'm not sure...I see the usefulness of cameras used by private business (banks, convenient stores) and I do not yet feel they've invaded my privacy. Then again, private businesses are owned by individuals, which are usually not organizations that can extend the reach of a government.
Why is it that, so often with technology, places will only employ half of what's available and then complain about the results?
Ok, so maybe they don't have the funding to secure their wifi connection. Then, to me, that means they can't afford wifi and they should either (1) not do it half way, or (2) do it half way and then not complain about the results.
Besides, it's a public library. Public. What makes people's use of bandwidth outside less valid than inside? Oh, I know, the library can't monitor the use of its patrons, right?
Bull. They can't monitor it inside either...not by walking around casting glances. If this really worried them, then they would install the appropriate filters instead of doing a half way job (see above argument). So, given that they don't care/can't afford the full solution, and given that they, as reasonably intelligent human beings, have weighed the pros and cons, they shouldn't be worrying about monitoring content OR whether access is inside or outside. Besides, they could simply post signs saying that they're logging all connections and monitoring THAT if they're so concerned about it--even if they're not, it would cut most of the stuff they're worried about. A low-tech solution to a high-tech problem, inside or outside the libe.
Alternatively, they could get a charitable project started at the local college/high school to get a hacker to create a small app that connects patrons to the library. They have to install the app and it provides a username/id to the libe to attach to the logs of web sites browsed. Problem solved for free. (Public resources rarely take advantage of the public's desire to give back, and they should.)
One other thing about all of this bothers me. Is the library even supposed to be monitoring what people are doing inside? They're not allowed to prevent certain people from checking out certain books or reading up on certain subjects, right? The government isn't allowed to get access to books you've checked out unless they have reasonable suspicion of terrorist activities (and even that wasn't true before the Patriot Act). I mean, what if I'm doing a college-level report on Internet pornography? I can't use the library to do that report? Who are they to tell me what I can and can't research? (Of course, I have no problem with them limiting the total amount of bandwidth any one patron can use for the day...that's just sharing the resources...but then again, see above argument. If they won't install the tech that applies equally to everyone, they don't really have a leg to stand on.)
This is a matter of practicality butting up against legalisms. Consider as an example that many police departments across the country will not turn illegal immigrants over to the INS even though they're breaking the law and it would be the legally correct thing to do so. The point of this example is to say that the law is clearly not applied in every case regardless of the technicalities present--in this case, the library hasn't even done a full installation and they've weighed the pros and cons, and now they want to suck police budgets to make up for their budget shortfalls. If the local population didn't vote that library more money, that means they don't want them spending tax dollars on stuff like that. So they shouldn't start spending police tax dollars on it either. The people said no.