--- Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I'm with Heinlien on this one - Man has no
> inherent moral
> sense. Genes allways cause "selfish" behavoir. The
> memes (remembering
> that memes can be selfish or altruistic) for society
> are a crious mix
> of altruism and selfishness
On 29 Jun 2003 at 14:02, Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> > Mine basis for morality is religious, and its that humans are
> > created
> > in the image and likeness of God, and must be treated in a manner
> > that is consistent with this. Human
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> OK, so what is the meaning of the word "ought?" For example, that a
> man "ought not to torture, rape, and kill a 5 year old girl." It is
> simply that his desire to do so conflicts with your desire to have him
> not do so?
At some
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 01:46 am, Dan Minette wrote:
But, its really that one assumption that is critical. Mine basis for
morality is religious, and its that humans are created in the image and
likeness of God, and must be treated in a manner that is consistent
with
this. Human rights, th
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:27:14AM -0500, Da
I meant to respond to this before...
--- David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Julia Thompson wrote:
> > >Deborah Harrell wrote:
> >
> > > How many here who consider themselves religious,
> > > spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
> > > Divine have had that feeling of "universal
>
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:36:24PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
> Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> >
> > > --- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> >
> > --- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using
> > > > anecd
On 12 Jun 2003 at 21:07, Julia Thompson wrote:
> Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> > Certainly, but that applies to biology and we don't really KNOW how
> > random much of the formation of the Universe was. And I'd point out
> > that what "reproductive fitness" is can be complex (for example, why
> > th
Gautam said:
> Not sure if thalassemia is a European term for sickle
> cell anemia, which has the same effects.
No, they aren't the same thing. I chose thalassemia for my example
because it's less well known than sickle cell anaemia.
Rich
___
http://ww
--- Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Julia said:
>
> > OK, why *did* it survive? Do you know?
>
> I don't know about cystic fibrosis in detail, but
> it's presumably
> because having one copy of the gene conveys some
> advantage that
> outweighs the problems involved with having two
> c
Julia said:
> OK, why *did* it survive? Do you know?
I don't know about cystic fibrosis in detail, but it's presumably
because having one copy of the gene conveys some advantage that
outweighs the problems involved with having two copies. Another example
is the incidence of thalassemia in Ferrara
Andrew Crystall wrote:
> Certainly, but that applies to biology and we don't really KNOW how
> random much of the formation of the Universe was. And I'd point out
> that what "reproductive fitness" is can be complex (for example, why
> the Cystic Fybrosis gene survived...).
OK, why *did* it survi
On 12 Jun 2003 at 18:24, Richard Baker wrote:
> Andy said:
>
> > And I'd point out that what "reproductive fitness" is can be
> > complex (for example, why the Cystic Fybrosis gene survived...).
>
> How is it complex? Entity A is more reproductively fit than entity B
> in environment (physical
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:28 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ch
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:27:14AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> Dropping the question of the testability whether a particular action
> contributes to your goal, which can definitely be debatable because of
> the complexity of our civilization, I'd like to focus on a much more
> fundamental question
--- Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik wrote:
> >the·o·ry( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
> >n. pl. the·o·ries
> [snip]
> >6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
> >conjecture.
>
> Great. Thanks to this discussion, I now have "I Have A Theo
- Original Message -
From: "Reggie Bautista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
> Erik wrote:
> >the·o·ry( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thî
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> >
> > --- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuit
Erik wrote:
the·o·ry( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
[snip]
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
conjecture.
Great. Thanks to this discussion, I now have "I Have A Theory" from the
Buffy musical going through my head...
I have a theo
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> --- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> >
> > > It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using
> > > anecdotal evidence is often appropriate
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using
> > anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions,
> > especially in the formation of hypothesis.
>
- Original Message -
From: "Chad Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:15 PM
Subject: RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
>
>
> > -Ori
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using
> anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions,
> especially in the formation of hypothesis.
>
> I think I am paraphrasing Feynman himself, but perh
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:15:50PM -0700, Chad Cooper wrote:
> Once again, you trumped me. I was drafting a message about what the
> difference (as I was taught) between an idea, theory and hypothesis,
> and you beat me to it (This was in response to Erik cutting me some
> slack on my use of "theo
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:33:41AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > Of course "Theory "is used by _layman_ in place of "Hypothesis". But
> > we are not _laymen_ we are scientificaly trained and should use the
> > words appropriatly.
>
> Please produce t
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:33:41AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> Of course "Theory "is used by _layman_ in place of "Hypothesis". But
> we are not _laymen_ we are scientificaly trained and should use the
> words appropriatly.
Please produce the cite on the Feynman quote you referenced.
--
"Erik R
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:34 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
>
>
>
> --- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > > Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating a
> > > theory. The point is, you CANNOT use the SAME data to validate the
> > > theory.
> >
> >
> > You are wrong Erik. You can
Andy said:
> And I'd point out that what "reproductive fitness" is can be
> complex (for example, why the Cystic Fybrosis gene survived...).
How is it complex? Entity A is more reproductively fit than entity B in
environment (physical and biological) E if A on average produces more
descendents t
On 12 Jun 2003 at 9:50, Richard Baker wrote:
> Erik said:
>
> > Does Dawkins make this argument in the book? It doesn't sound like
> > him.
>
> It's been a while since I read it, but I think he does make that
> argument. Of course, Andy hasn't mentioned that he then goes on to say
> that evoluti
On 11 Jun 2003 at 19:17, Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> > I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my religious beliefs
> > one bit.
>
> Yes, many of the ~40% I have met are like that. Those I have
> discussed it with seem to keep
On 11 Jun 2003 at 19:49, Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:10:46AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> > Okay, I was essentially refering to the "Blind Watchmaker" theory -
> > a Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet
> > like ours, and us coming along...is SO
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> > Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating a
> > theory. The point is, you CANNOT use the SAME data to validate the
> > theory.
>
>
> You are wrong Erik. You can not formulat _theories_ in this manner.
I think we are arg
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using
> > anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions,
> > especially in the formation of hypothesis.
>
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -050
Deborah Harrell wrote:
> How many here who consider themselves religious,
> spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
> Divine have had that feeling of "universal
> connectedness" or "sacred presence" (drug experiences
> disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who
> consider themselve
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using
> anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions,
> especially in the formation of hypothesis.
Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulatin
Erik said:
> Does Dawkins make this argument in the book? It doesn't sound like
> him.
It's been a while since I read it, but I think he does make that
argument. Of course, Andy hasn't mentioned that he then goes on to say
that evolution isn't random chance: it's random mutation followed by
non-r
At 01:20 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:14:23 -0400
On
At 06:40 PM 6/11/03 +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 11 Jun 2003 at 13:10, Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
>
> > I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was
> > going with his question. Am I right?
>
> Pretty much. I've notice
At 02:25 PM 6/11/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
>
> At 11:07 PM 6/9/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> >The majority of religious people are irrational.
>
> So are the majority of real numbers . . .
Ah, but all transcendental numbers are irrational.
Make of that what you w
At 11:05 PM 6/11/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> Deborah Harrell wrote:
>
> > How many here who consider themselves religious,
> > spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
> > Divine have had that feeling of "universal
> > connectedness" or "sacred presence" (drug exp
At 01:10 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:40:41 -
--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:05 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:04:49AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> > > At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked:
> > > >Does God exist?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > (The proof is left as an exer
At 01:05 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:04:49AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked:
> >Does God exist?
>
> Yes.
>
> (The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.)
In other words, you have no evidence. That's irrational.
> > > Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a
> > > theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error,
> > > Richard
> > > Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and said something like:
> > >
> > > The most amazing thing happened to me on the way to
--- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:29 am, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you consider yourself a Positivist?
> >
> > If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-)
> >
> > U
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> >
> > Do you consider yourself a Positivist?
>
> If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-)
>
> Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really
> know what it
Deborah Harrell wrote:
s.
How many here who consider themselves religious,
spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
Divine have had that feeling of "universal
connectedness" or "sacred presence" (drug experiences
disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who
consider themselves atheist
David Hobby wrote:
>
> Julia Thompson wrote:
> >
> > Deborah Harrell wrote:
> >
> > > How many here who consider themselves religious,
> > > spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
> > > Divine have had that feeling of "universal
> > > connectedness" or "sacred presence" (drug experiences
Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> Deborah Harrell wrote:
>
> > How many here who consider themselves religious,
> > spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
> > Divine have had that feeling of "universal
> > connectedness" or "sacred presence" (drug experiences
> > disqualified in my book) ...
Deborah Harrell wrote:
> How many here who consider themselves religious,
> spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
> Divine have had that feeling of "universal
> connectedness" or "sacred presence" (drug experiences
> disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who
> consider themselve
William T Goodall wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 12:49 am, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> > Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a
> > theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error,
> > Richard
> > Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and sa
Deborah Harrell wrote:
>Happiness Is A Warm Fuzzy Maru
Happiness is a warm fuzzy something, anyway. :-D
Jim
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:20:03AM -0700, Chad Cooper wrote:
> I have a theory (which of course would not meet Erik's stringent
> standard for what is required to formulate a theory)
Geez, Chad, I didn't mean to make you so paranoid! I don't have any
problem with something stated like that ("I ha
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:29 am, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
Do you consider yourself a Positivist?
If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-)
Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really
know what it mea
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:45:15PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
>
> How silly of me to ask of you a question concerning
> emotions... ;)
Now you've hurt my feelings :-(
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Deborah Harrell wrote:
> > Is the sensation of "wonder" or "true awe" akin to
> "universal
> > connectedness?" What evolutionary purpose does
> "wonder" serve?
> > (Anger, fear and love all have clear survival
> advantages.) Is
> > this related at all
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:31:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> So non-condescending of you...
Arrogance, love it or ...of course you love it in me, who wouldn't!
> Is the sensation of "wonder" or "true awe" akin to "universal
> connectedness?" What evolutionary purpose does "wonder" serve
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> > I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my
> religious beliefs one bit.
>
> Yes, many of the ~40% I have met are like that.
> Those I have
> discussed it with seem to keep their mind
> compartmentalized, with the
>
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> Do you consider yourself a Positivist?
If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-)
Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really
know what it means, I'm quite ignorant on a lot of philosophy, in fact,
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 12:49 am, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:10:46AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Okay, I was essentially refering to the "Blind Watchmaker" theory - a
Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet like
ours, and us coming along...is SO
Thanks. Thanks a lot. :)
-Original Message-
From: Chad Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:20 AM
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
Subject: RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
>>
>> What empirical tests have you performed to
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > Are you really willing to accept anything that is not subject to
> > scientific testing as no more real than God?
>
> You are really cheating. You should at least answer that one quest
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:10:46AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
> Okay, I was essentially refering to the "Blind Watchmaker" theory - a
> Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet like
> ours, and us coming along...is SO unlikely, that is it unlikely it was
> random chance.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> Are you really willing to accept anything that is not subject to
> scientific testing as no more real than God?
You are really cheating. You should at least answer that one question
I asked before you get to ask me another one. But I'
On 11 Jun 2003 at 19:04, Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
> > have you read _The Blind Watchmaker_ ?
>
> No, but I have heard a few things about it. If you want to make a
> reference to it, go ahead, there is a chance it won't go over my head.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
> I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my religious beliefs
> one bit.
Yes, many of the ~40% I have met are like that. Those I have
discussed it with seem to keep their mind compartmentalized, with the
rational/scientific
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
> have you read _The Blind Watchmaker_ ?
No, but I have heard a few things about it. If you want to make a
reference to it, go ahead, there is a chance it won't go over my head.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ww
--- Chad Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a theory (which of course would not meet
> Erik's stringent standard
> for what is required to formulate a theory) that
> genetics plays a strong
> role in experiencing "spirituality".
> All religions have this one thing in common. All
> feel
William T Goodall wrote:
>
...
> > (Besides, there's always Pascal's wager to consider.)
>
> My wager is that it is best to not believe in any of this religious
> stuff because even if it turns out I was wrong, and Zoop the
> Spider-Goddess rules the Universe[1] and sentences me to eternity
> scr
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
>
> At 11:07 PM 6/9/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> >The majority of religious people are irrational.
>
> So are the majority of real numbers . . .
Ah, but all transcendental numbers are irrational.
Make of that what you will. :)
Julia
who has a book about
On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 03:04 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked:
Is there life after death?
Based on what I know, I believe so.
(Besides, there's always Pascal's wager to consider.)
My wager is that it is best to not believe in any of this relig
On 11 Jun 2003 at 13:10, Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
>
> > I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was
> > going with his question. Am I right?
>
> Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these
> questio
On 11 Jun 2003 at 11:40, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> Given that there are passages in the KJV which contradict other
> passages in the KJV, not to mention portions of one version of the
> Bible which do not agree with another version, and that "Bible
> Literalists" believe that when Genesis says tha
On 11 Jun 2003 at 13:14, Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > At
> 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: > > >Typical religious
> irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is > >not, but none of
> you have any empirical process to chec
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -040
>>
>> What empirical tests have you performed to check if your
>belief is correct?
>
>Ambiguous question. It makes no sense to postulate one of an infinite
>number of undetectable explanations for something when no explanation
>is required. There is no need to explain what need not be explained.
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:14:23 -0400
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> >Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is
> >not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge.
> >
> >Their beliefs are more absu
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
> I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was going
> with his question. Am I right?
Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these
questions because they don't have a rational answer.
> >
> >>Can
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:40:41 -0500
At 10:32 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:04:49AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked:
> >Does God exist?
>
>
>
> Yes.
>
> (The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.)
In other words, you have no evidence. That's irrational.
>
>
>
> >Does Allah exist?
> >Do
At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is
not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge.
Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical
tests, it is all absurd.
What empiric
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:40:41AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> My point is that there is no separate "God of the Assyrians" and "God of
> the Babylonians," therefore that question is meaningless.
Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is
not, but none of you have a
At 10:32 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:04:49 -0500
A
From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Plonkworthy?
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 23:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
--- Jon Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Behalf Of
>
> >Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of
> >Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal
> >god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at
> >least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena?
>
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:04:49 -0500
At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked
At 05:47 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote:
> > Julia
> What the heck are you doing at a bar at 3 - 4am?
Who said anything about "bar" and "AM"? It's a restaurant, so, well,
OK, they *do* have a bar, but you don't even need to sit there if you
want to order margaritas (and I have no id
At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked:
Does God exist?
Yes.
(The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Does Allah exist?
Does Zeus exist?
Does Odin exist?
I'm not saying that this is what I believe, or that it is the only
possibility, but could these perhaps be alternative n
> > Julia
> What the heck are you doing at a bar at 3 - 4am?
Who said anything about "bar" and "AM"? It's a restaurant, so, well,
OK, they *do* have a bar, but you don't even need to sit there if you
want to order margaritas (and I have no idea how their margaritas are,
I'd have to ask
--- Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2003 at 13:02, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 05:37:12PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
> >
> > > You do not chose to be Jewish if your mother is. You are Jewish.
> >
> > But you are not automatically practicing the rel
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 05:37:12PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> > You do not chose to be Jewish if your mother is. You are Jewish.
>
> But you are not automatically practicing the religion because of your
> mother. Semantics. Not so hard to compr
At 01:01 AM 6/11/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 6/10/2003 9:14:08 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Where/when did the peanut butter incident you heard about occur?
Gawd I don't know. But the story was circulating in Los Angeles at LASFAS in
1976.
And
In a message dated 6/10/2003 9:14:08 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Where/when did the peanut butter incident you heard about occur?
Gawd I don't know. But the story was circulating in Los Angeles at LASFAS in
1976.
And I think it was a she.
So maybe I know PB I an
In a message dated 6/10/2003 9:04:54 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> >The majority of religious people are irrational.
>
>
> So are the majority of real numbers . . .
>
>
>
> -- Ronn! :)
Ah, but the prime of both sets are the ones t
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Steve Sloan II
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:39 PM
> To: Jeroen van Baardwijk; BRIN-L
> Subject: Re: Plonkworthy?
>
> Jeroen van Baardwijk wrote:
>
> > Two months ago you were one of a very small
At 05:08 PM 6/10/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 6/10/2003 1:24:31 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Then there was the person (NOT me) who came to the costume contest as the
> "Cosmic Turd": wearing a trash bag which he had covered on the outside
>
1 - 100 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
