Re: Hitch

On 13 Jul 2013, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote: On 7/13/2013 1:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Irreversibility of first person experience can be recovered from reversible computation. That would be statistical irreversibility, i.e. reversal is improbable but not impossible. Why? Not necessarily.

Re: Hitch

On 7/13/2013 1:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Irreversibility of first person experience can be recovered from reversible computation. That would be statistical irreversibility, i.e. reversal is improbable but not impossible. Why? Not necessarily. It can be 100% irreversible from the machine's

Re: Hitch

On 12 Jul 2013, at 19:18, meekerdb wrote: On 7/12/2013 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2013 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have given the equation. I t

Re: Hitch

On 13 Jul 2013, at 01:28, meekerdb wrote: On 7/12/2013 3:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:31, meekerdb wrote: On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Because if you agree with "I dunno which city I will see", by deducing it through an explicit appeal to a level of mec

Re: Hitch

On 7/12/2013 3:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:31, meekerdb wrote: On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Because if you agree with "I dunno which city I will see", by deducing it through an explicit appeal to a level of mechanical substitution, you see that the digital

Re: Hitch

On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:31, meekerdb wrote: On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Because if you agree with "I dunno which city I will see", by deducing it through an explicit appeal to a level of mechanical substitution, you see that the digital third person determinacy is responsibl

Re: Hitch

On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:25, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The god of the materialist is Matter, and I don't believe in it. I am agnostic. I search. I think you do believe in matter - you often refer to your coffee, for example. You just don't believe it is fun

Re: Hitch

On 12 Jul 2013, at 20:33, Johnathan Corgan wrote: On 07/10/2013 11:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I use atheists in the (Google) sense of B~g. ~Bg is agnosticism (in the mundane common sense). Some atheists seem to oscillate between the two definitions, opportunistically. The issue is that

Re: Hitch

On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Because if you agree with "I dunno which city I will see", by deducing it through an explicit appeal to a level of mechanical substitution, you see that the digital third person determinacy is responsible for indeterminate, from the first person points

Re: Hitch

On 7/11/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The god of the materialist is Matter, and I don't believe in it. I am agnostic. I search. I think you do believe in matter - you often refer to your coffee, for example. You just don't believe it is fundamental. But that's a very different thing.

Re: Hitch

On 07/10/2013 11:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I use atheists in the (Google) sense of B~g. ~Bg is agnosticism (in > the mundane common sense). > > Some atheists seem to oscillate between the two definitions, > opportunistically. The issue is that both of those require some specific 'g' to be

Re: Hitch

On 12 Jul 2013, at 17:34, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what an external purely deterministic system will do, > In the long run, and without any indeterminacy in the functioning of its parts.

Re: Hitch

On 7/12/2013 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2013 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on s

Re: Hitch

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what an >> external purely deterministic system will do, >> > > In the long run, and without any indeterminacy in the functioning of its > parts. Yes. We might not know if the machine will

Re: Hitch

On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2013 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some familiarity in logic. Normally you sho

Re: Hitch

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal

Re: Hitch

On 11 Jul 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well then, in the above "God" is anything in which a solution to such a equation describes the future behavior of that thing.

Re: Hitch

On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:07, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered

Re: Hitch

On 7/11/2013 1:07 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: >> Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile RE

Re: Hitch

On 7/11/2013 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There is no problem with faith. There is problems only with *bad faith*, whose symptoms are the insults and the arguments by violence or per authority. Are you not aware of the couple who has had two children die of easily treated infections because

Re: Hitch

On 7/11/2013 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some familiarity in logic. Normally you should know already that physics is given by a me

Re: Hitch

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of >> ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. >> Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered that there is more than one >> type of infinity,

Re: Hitch

On 11 Jul 2013, at 19:21, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: "atheism" is different

Re: Hitch

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well then, >> in the above "God" is anything in which a solution to such a equation >> describes the future behavior of that thing. >> > > > God would be more like the one knowing

Re: Hitch

On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some familiarity in logic. Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure on relative computational continuati

Re: Hitch

On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:52, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Why does atheist put so much energy in defending all the time the roman christian God. Because they know what they don't believe, yet other people want them to believe in *something* called "God" and tho

Re: Hitch

On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:50, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Johnathan Corgan wrote: > This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions, Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these d

Re: Hitch

On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:28, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential equations > I have no idea what you mean by God in that sentence. It seems odd that now you're the one complainin

Re: Hitch

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/10/2013 11:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > The same logical that says bad things happen because all things happen > also promises all good things happen as well. As life gains greater > control over its environment, the proportion of goo

Re: Hitch

On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: "atheism" is different in America and in Europa, although I have real

Re: Hitch

On 7/10/2013 11:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: The same logical that says bad things happen because all things happen also promises all good things happen as well. As life gains greater control over its environment, the proportion of good things to bad things will only increase. I suppose it may

Re: Hitch

On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some familiarity in logic. Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure on relative computational continuations, and the logic explains already the statist

Re: Hitch

On 7/10/2013 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Why does atheist put so much energy in defending all the time the roman christian God. Because they know what they don't believe, yet other people want them to believe in *something* called "God" and those people keep adjusting and expanding and obfu

Re: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Johnathan Corgan wrote: > This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions, > Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered t

Re: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential >> equations >> > > > I have no idea what you mean by God in that sentence. > It seems odd that now you're the one complaining that the word "God" is too ambiguous, I

Re: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > "atheism" is different in America and in Europa, although I have >> > realized now that some atheists

Re: Hitch

On 10 Jul 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: UDA shows why and we have to extract physics from that (making comp testable), and how we can do that using the mathematical machine's theology. You're really saying we have to extract physics from comp

Re: Hitch

On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:59, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Now the converse, where atheism is taken to mean rejection of all gods, rather than one, is not meaningless. You keep using the term "rejection". If by "rejection" you mean "failure to credence" that's OK.

Re: Hitch

On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:53, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > they [atheists] believ in Matter, the "thrid God" of Aristotle. But they want you to believe it is not a God, If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential equations, I ha

Re: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/10/2013 1:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck wrote: >> >>> there are many words li

Re: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Johnathan Corgan wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> My point is that if one takes atheism to be the rejection of all >> conceptions of god, then because those ideas are conceptions of god from >> various religions, then someone who

Re: Hitch

On 7/10/2013 1:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:12, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 2:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:06, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones > wrote: >>>I love Christopher

Re: Hitch

On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:26, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:57, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb wrote: > Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism="that whether or not God exists is unknown" with agnosticism="that whe

Re: Hitch

On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:23, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > "atheism" is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized now that some atheists in America might b

Re: Hitch

On 7/10/2013 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: UDA shows why and we have to extract physics from that (making comp testable), and how we can do that using the mathematical machine's theology. You're really saying we have to extract physics from comp IN ORDER that it be testable. You've said that

Re: Hitch

On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:12, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 2:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:06, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones wrote: >>>I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an anticlerical than an atheist to me

Re: Hitch

On 10 Jul 2013, at 20:51, Johnathan Corgan wrote: In the realm of theistic beliefs, we were all born lacking any; we were all born atheists. No, we are born agnostic. We lack the belief in God, but we lack also the belief in the non-existence of God. Then I am not even sure that babies l

Re: Hitch

On 7/10/2013 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Now the converse, where atheism is taken to mean rejection of all gods, rather than one, is not meaningless. You keep using the term "rejection". If by "rejection" you mean "failure to credence" that's OK. But you seem to imply "assertion of non-exis

Re: Hitch

On 10 Jul 2013, at 20:00, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > God is the fundamental reality in which you believe in. Since you are not a native speaker I must say it's a bit presumptions of you to insist that the English Language reinvent itself,

Re: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > they [atheists] believ in Matter, the "thrid God" of Aristotle. But they > want you to believe it is not a God, > If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential equations, and if I could build a bridge overpass by using prestre

Re: Hitch

On 7/10/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:57, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism="that whether or not God exists is unknown" with agnosticism="that whether or n

Re: Hitch

On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > "atheism" is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, b

Re: Hitch

On 7/10/2013 2:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:06, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones > wrote: >>>I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an anticlerical than an athe

Re: Hitch

On 7/10/2013 1:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com>> wrote: there are many words li

Re: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > My point is that if one takes atheism to be the rejection of all > conceptions of god, then because those ideas are conceptions of god from > various religions, then someone who remains atheist after exposure to those > ideas (rather than agn

Re: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > God is the fundamental reality in which you believe in. > Since you are not a native speaker I must say it's a bit presumptions of you to insist that the English Language reinvent itself, you're a HUGE fan of acronyms so why not use FRIWYB

Re: Hitch

from the outside influences of > institutions, traditions, dogmas, etc. > > > > Moreover, I don't think there is a single kind of attitude that is > 'genuinely scientific'. > > > Bruno says the attitude is encompassd by curiousity, humbleness, and > clarity. > > I suspect Galileo

Re: Hitch

hat does not make for good science: incuriosity, arrogance, obfuscation. Jason Whatever gets the job done, I say. But thats another argument. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Hitch Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:59:16 +0200 On 09 Jul 2013, at 22:58, John M

RE: Hitch

;genuinely scientific'. I suspect Galileo and Einstein were probably extremely pig headed and dogmatic, whereas Feynman and Darwin liked to play with ideas. All of them made progress in science. I get anxious when I hear people define what scientists should be like. Whatever gets the job do

Re: Hitch

On 09 Jul 2013, at 22:58, John Mikes wrote: (See below): I do not fall for Brent's quip that you want to impose your extended (non-religious?) religion on us, so I continue. Whatever you call 'religious' is continuation of millenia-long habits, hard to break. The Hindus have different ones

Re: Hitch

On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:57, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb wrote: > Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism="that whether or not God exists is unknown" with agnosticism="that whether or not God exists is impossible to know". If God created the universe But is

Re: Hitch

On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > "atheism" is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not Hitchens. Many people confuse agnosticism and atheism. 1) A atheis

Re: Hitch

On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:06, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones wrote: >>>I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an anticlerical than an atheist to me ... >> Everybody called him an atheist. He called himself an atheist. I think you

Re: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck wrote: > >> there are many words like that which we use without any fuss. >> >> The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a >

Re: Hitch

On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck > wrote: there are many words like that which we use without any fuss. The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a myriad of properties

Re: Hitch

manner as they thought. > They think they have stumbled upon something of import but in reality the > 'problem', such that there is one, generalizes easily to much of language > and yet language remains as useful as it always was. > > -- > From: jasonre...@gmail.com > >

RE: Hitch

ys was. From: jasonre...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Hitch Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:33:43 -0500 On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:56 PM, chris peck wrote: If some one says "look, cat" I don't know what kind of cat they are refering to. I nevertheless can be

Re: Hitch

ould admit to believing in. Jason --- Original Message --- From: "Jason Resch" Sent: 10 July 2013 8:35 AM To: "Everything List" Subject: Re: Hitch On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck wrote: Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful word. I

Re: Hitch

ord. If someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not belive in God. --- Original Message --- From: "meekerdb" Sent: 10 July 2013 7:56 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Hitch On 7/9/2013 11:57 AM, John Clark wrote: > I agree with

Re: Hitch

If some one says "look, cat" I don't know what kind of cat they are refering to. I nevertheless can be confident that they have seen something feline. --- Original Message --- From: "Jason Resch" Sent: 10 July 2013 8:35 AM To: "Everything List" Subject:

Re: Hitch

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck wrote: > Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful > word. If someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not > belive in God. > > But you don't know what God the atheist doesn't believe in. Jason -- You rec

Re: Hitch

Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful word. If someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not belive in God. --- Original Message --- From: "meekerdb" Sent: 10 July 2013 7:56 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Hit

Re: Hitch

On 7/9/2013 11:57 AM, John Clark wrote: > I agree with Sam Harris that "atheist" is not a very useful appellation because it only describes someone in contrast to "theist". That makes no sense. The word "nonfiction" is useful but it only describes something in contrast to "fiction

Re: Hitch

(See below): I do not fall for Brent's quip that you want to impose your extended (non-religious?) religion on us, so I continue. Whatever you call 'religious' is continuation of millenia-long habits, hard to break. The Hindus have different ones - yet it IS religion. Atheists? Atheism? comes with

Re: Hitch

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb wrote: > Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism="that whether or not > God exists is unknown" with agnosticism="that whether or not God exists is > impossible to know". If God created the universe that would be a fact about physics that would be very int

Re: Hitch

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > "atheism" is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized > now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not Hitchens. Many > people confuse agnosticism and atheism. > 1) A atheist is someone who dismisses the idea of God, alt

Re: Hitch

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones wrote: >>>I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an >>> anticlerical than an atheist to me ... >>> >> >> >> Everybody called him an atheist. He called himself an atheist. I >> think you just don't like the term. >> > > > Forg

Re: Hitch

On 7/9/2013 2:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In my view an 'atheist requires a god to disbelieve (deny?). Indeed. Many atheists seems to take more seriously the Christian Gods than most christians theologians, who can seriously debate on the Aristotle/Plato difference. Of course. If the theolo

Re: Hitch

On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:22, meekerdb wrote: On 7/8/2013 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We are all believers, and when a machine pretend to be a non believer, it means "I know", and she will impose her religion to you, by all means. ?? So when you say comp is just an hypothesis, to be tested

Re: Hitch

On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:18, meekerdb wrote: On 7/8/2013 12:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote: On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28,

Re: Hitch

John, On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:03, John Mikes wrote: After some million years of 'mental' development this animal arrived at the 'mental' fear. Usurpers exploited it by creating superpowers to target it with assigned intent to help, or destroy. The details were subject to the 'founders' bene

Re: Hitch

On 7/8/2013 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We are all believers, and when a machine pretend to be a non believer, it means "I know", and she will impose her religion to you, by all means. ?? So when you say comp is just an hypothesis, to be tested like any other scientific theory, you're reall

Re: Hitch

On 7/8/2013 12:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote: On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Hitch

After some million years of 'mental' development this animal arrived at the 'mental' fear. Usurpers exploited it by creating superpowers to target it with assigned intent to help, or destroy. The details were subject to the 'founders' benefit of enslaving the rest of the people into their rule. Suc

Re: Hitch

On 08 Jul 2013, at 19:53, meekerdb wrote: On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote: On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote: http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_n

Re: Hitch

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote: > > > http://www.salon.com/

Re: Hitch

On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote: On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote: http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/ I love Christopher Hitchens. I

Re: Hitch

On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote: On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote: http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/ I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an ant

Re: Hitch

s, logic, computer science, and, as the Americans say, "Christ knows what all". The reason some of us don't want to call Hitch an atheist is because that tars him with the wrong brush: the brush of public religion - IF you can handle the comp definition of atheism as a sibling public

Re: Hitch

On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote: http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/ I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an anticlerical than an atheist to me ... Everybod

Re: Hitch

On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote: http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/ I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an anticlerical than an atheist to me ... Bruno Brent -- You received this message bec

Hitch

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/ Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list