Re: Dawkins was right all along

From: Robin Faichney (
Date: Mon Sep 24 2001 - 18:32:13 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Dawkins was right all along"

    Received: by id SAA05907 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 18:51:23 +0100
    Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 18:32:13 +0100
    Subject: Re: Dawkins was right all along
    Message-ID: <>
    References: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i
    In-Reply-To: <>; from on Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:58:24PM +0100
    From: Robin Faichney <>
    Precedence: bulk

    On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:58:24PM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
    > Hi,
    > > > >Didn't Christ have something to say about children?
    > >>
    > >> Ah, but who listens to him anymore...?
    > <This reply is a deliberate attempt to avoid answering the question,
    > > and therefore intellectually dishonest.
    > >
    > > I have now demonstrated both dishonesty and irrationality in your own
    > > style of militant atheism, Wade.>
    > >
    > Surely, Wade was simply making a joke.

    Humor is one of the commonest ways of evading a serious point.

    > Citing Jesus and children is not wise given the absence of
    > information in Christianity of Jesus' childhood. Why is there this absence?
    > Because he would have been brought up as a Jew, and you can't have that in
    > Christian doctrine.

    At the time the gospels were written there would have been no way to
    find out anything about the period before he started to act strangely
    and therefore memorably.

    > Besides what does Jesus say about kids that counteracts
    > the point being made that beliefs, in the sense of religious faiths, are not
    > autonomously arrived at but learned?

    You really think I'm arguing with that? Not wouldn't I dispute it, I
    have difficulties imagining that anyone would.

    Wade said that religion commonly denies childhood. My point is that
    doesn't seem to be the case for Christianity.

    > (<"The distinction between mind and matter is in the mind, not in
    > matter.">
    > Except that, without any matter there'd be no mind.)

    Where's the contradiction?

    Robin Faichney 
    "It is tempting to suppose that some concept of information could serve
    eventually to unify mind, matter, and meaning in a single theory," say
    Daniel Dennett and John Haugeland. The theory is here:

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 19:00:21 BST