It has been a big day for Apple products. The iPhone 6, 6+ and AppleWatch all popped in to existence… sort of. These products in and of themselves are little more than tech kitsch. However, they have a game changer.
Apple designed ApplePay to replace credit cards. I will not need to bring cards with me for payment anymore. I do not carry cash and will not carry cards. The only thing I will need to have with me is ID. Imagine how much less I will have to carry around with me in my daily life.
With the AppleWatch I can open locked doors, like the front door of my house. I can start my car. I can unlock…
In fact, there is my kick starter idea. I will build a lock that is unlocked by the AppleWatch. It will replace combination and key locks. It will have a rotary dial (like a combination lock) connected to a generator that will provide enough power for the lock to receive and process data from the watch.
In this way someone at the gym will not have to even keep a key with them while running, playing racquetball, or swimming.
Will I pay $350 for a watch? I do not know. I do not wear one now. I can say that Apple has provided me with motivation though. No keys, no cards, and empty pockets ;)
Some Muslims will never speak of “converts” but only “reverts” because they believe that everyone is born a Muslim, even if some babies have this truth hidden from them by their parents who tell them they’re Christians or atheists.
The problem with this argument stems from an unsubstantiated claim regarding Allah. In order for this statement to be true, Allah must exist. The author assumes this is the case and offers no substantiation. When the first sentence in an article requires a logical fallacy it is unlikely that anything logical or truthful will be derived from it.
And there’s a style of atheist rhetoric that makes exactly the same point. To take two random examples from my recent Twitter stream: Joan Smith wrote: “I’m not convinced there are Muslim or Christian children. They have religious parents, but should be able to decide when they grow up.” And Richard Dawkins wrote: “When you say X is the fastest growing religion, all you mean is that X people have babies at the fastest rate. But babies have no religion.”
But there are no atheist babies, and certainly no agnostic ones.
How come my son was not born believing in Zeus or Thor? How come my daughter does not know about Vishnu or Budha?
This is for two reasons. The first is that if we’re going to be consistent, and to demand that babies only be ascribed identities that they themselves embrace, there are no German, British or Chinese children either.
The comparison is not the worst attempt at a false analogy I have ever seen. First, religion or belief has nothing whatever to do with genetics. You are comparing belief to genetics. I can look at someones DNA and tell where their ancestors came from. I can not look at someones DNA and tell if they are Hindu, Christian, or Muslim. Next, you do not embrace a lack of belief any more than you embrace a lack of a hobby.
There are simply the children of German and English and Chinese parents, who will in due course learn the habits and the rules of the cultures around them and grow into their parents’ language, nationality, food habits – and religious opinions.
Oh, so you are not talking about genetics, you are talking about culture. And based on what you just said (religious opinion) you concede that your entire argument is false.
The way in which they express these will become more subtle and more interesting as they grow up – or at least we can hope it will – but the fact remains that babies are entirely anchored in the world by their parents.
As you are pointing out babies learn about culture (including religion) from their parents. Before they learn religion, they have no religion. Therefore, as your own argument points out, Dawkins is correct.
But you don’t get Dawkins and Smith complaining because people talk about “Chinese babies”.
They think religion is different. Well, it is.
No kidding, as you have pointed out it is taught, and it is trained.
For one thing, and despite the existence of loathsome and barbaric laws against apostasy, in most of the world it’s much easier to change your religion than your language or nationality.
“Apostasy” would only be loathsome or barbaric if you had started by proving Allah existed. Neither you, nor anyone, has done so. So those laws protect people from charlatans that lay claims that are unfounded and unproven.
It is generally accepted that changing your religion is a human right, but changing your nationality is not.
Okay, so you have demonstrated another way that you used a false analogy.
The big difference is that religions usually make it hard to leave and nationalities usually make it hard to enter.
No, that is NOT the big difference. That is one of many differences. You are a very confused individual.
But in neither case does an individual get to choose as if no one else were involved.
Actually, someone can decide to leave a religion without consideration of anyone else. It happens all the time. You even mentioned it earlier talking about “Apostasy.”
To imply that babies have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming that they have a default language or nationality.
No, this would be like saying they have no default language (which they do not). Your comparison to nationality is unwarranted and has already been identified as a false analogy.
Of course, in an environment where religion is regarded as weird and old-fashioned, children grow up atheist because that’s what their parents are. They don’t think about it. They may have profoundly superstitious and unscientific beliefs, but they will think of these as rational and atheist because that’s what – they know – all decent people are.
Since you do not seem to understand what an Atheist is, I will help you out. An Atheist is literally man without god. When we use the term Atheist we are talking about someone that has not been provided with adequate evidence that there is a god or god that exists. This has nothing to do with superstition, or holding unscientific beliefs. An Atheist would simply state that you have not done an adequate job of proving a god or gods exists.
This is a perfectly sensible piece of conformist time-saving – life’s too short to live without prejudice – but it isn’t a reasoned rejection of belief after serious consideration of its possible truth.
Your posit is wrong therefore your conclusion is wrong.
There is another reason why babies can’t be atheists or agnostics.
In neither of the quotes you provided did anyone say anything about agnostics. I will assume for the rest of your argument you mean atheists only, since that is all that was implied.
Everything we know from science shows that supernaturalism comes naturally to children.
So does imaginary play. Like religion.
It is not just that they believe much of what their parents and the surrounding societies tell them: they show a preference for remembering and transmitting stories that defy scientific rationality. So do we all, unless we train ourselves out of it.
So the basis of your argument is that because some people of a certain age have a preference for fiction that does not correspond to reality, we are supposed to agree that it is the “normal.” Great, why do Muslims get preferential treatment in this instead of the Greek pantheons, Hindus, Christians…
To reach the state where you can really reflect critically on your own beliefs – rather than simply understanding that your parents are deluded old fools – takes a long time if it ever happens at all. As Bertrand Russell observed, many people would rather die than think and most of them do. And that is why no one can really be called an atheist or an agnostic until they have grown up.
Your conclusion has no support. You have failed. An Atheist is someone that does not believe in god, a baby can not understand the concept of god. You posit that though a baby can not understand the concept of god, they believe in (your specific god), anyway, and you state this with no proof.
Andrew Brown – Thank you for the opportunity to practice dismantling arguments.
And now I submit the top half of Printrbot simple.
This is a project that I will finish on Friday. I receive the volume upgrade then. I will be printing on a metal heated bed, using a simpler design than most 3D printers, for lower cost, and similar quality.
To make this clear I feel that the 3D printing revolution is in desperate need of a Steve Jobs. Someone to make a printer for, “the rest of us.” One that, “just works.” Until then I will enjoy figuring out everything that this little joy can do. And yes, there will be pictures.
You have likely read of the exploits of my 3 year-old daughter. We went to the Denver Mini Maker Faire on the weekend of May 3rd and 4th. This is a follow-up to tell you what I have been doing since then. 3-D printing is now what the home computer industry was at the end of the 70’s. While I was at the Faire I saw and smelled many 3-D printers. Despite the smell I decided to see if I could find one to fit in the budget.
Make did a special on 3-D printing. I purchased it, read through it, scanned it, flipped through it, looked for other articles on-line to compare to, and purchased the digital version on my iPad Mini. All my reading kept coming back to one printer. I slowly, deliberately, and unremorsefully fell head over heals for the printrbot simple Maker edition. I found one for $250 and snatched it up.
This was the work I did on Friday, May 16th:
Here you see the circuit board with some cables plugged in. In front of the bottom of the circuit board there is a metal rod popping up. That is the Z axis (up and down) motor. On the left are some steel cylinders. These are the bearings for the X axis (left and right). I will be sliding 10″ steel rods in them. The printer table will sit on these steel rods.
On the left is the logo for printrbot. The back of the pc board is logo’d. The total height is about 6 inches (at this point). This is not a large printer folks. The surface construction is laser cut plywood. This is convenient because it glues together with bolts holding stress points.
The little sanding drum that is sticking out is the X axis motor. Between the bearings there is an end stop switch . This way the bot knows when it can not pull any more.
This was an hours work, at a leisurely pace, late one Friday night. I ran into a problem with a power connector that I solved to my satisfaction.
This reminds me of seeing the Apple 1 in a wooden case.
Let me open by saying,”May the fourth be with you.” Abigail wanted to start with another picture of R2-D2. I think she has a crush on him ;)
Next she wanted to go look at the SteamPunk shop again. She found some jewelry she really liked, and Sam was kind enough to let her try it on for a picture.
She would have done this for hours. It is really neat to see her interacting with technology this way. I look forward to the day that a company comes along and does for robots what Apple did for computers in the late 70’s.
CubeCraft was a must stop as well. Abigail loves to build with blocks, and these innovative toys kept her focused. That is an impressive thing for a toy to do to a 3-year-old. I look forward to hearing from Jeremy that these toys have gone in to production.
We got to visit one of my favorite booths at the Maker Faire. SparkFun is one of the best bunch of individuals I have seen in the business. They truly understand that they are interacting with people who want to build it better. SparkFun went out of their way to do this, not just by teaching soldering. They offered a kit (free of charge) that you could solder, and have a game (Simon), watch (LED screen), or a little “bug.” We picked Simon.
Passing one of the booths we saw airplane kits. These interested her. Abigail asked the lady that ran the booth if Abigail could build one. She got to work showing my little girl how to put together an airplane. Abigail could hardly wait for it to dry to go outside and try it out. The plane will survive long enough for Abigail to get some use out of it.
At the end of the day, why does all this matter? My three-year old said it best, “Daddy, can we turn off Dora and build a project?” One girl who want’s to do more than she sits and watches. I would have bought three tickets for the Faire had I known that it would spark in her little heart the desire to talk to people, ask what they are doing, and then…
Do it herself.
Abigail went to her first Maker Faire today. It was my first Maker Faire too. This was also the first Maker Faire in Denver. To start off the show, we got a picture with R2-D2:
A more creative day together I do not think we could have had. I got to stop at the SparkFun booth, and look forward to visiting there again tomorrow. My favorite booth was Mago’s Magic Shoppe, oddities and curios. It had the right flair to provide many of the props I will want when telling stories of a Lovecraftian nature.