Re: Dawkins was right all along

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Thu Sep 27 2001 - 12:22:19 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Dawkins was right all along"

    Received: by id MAA14596 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:27:17 +0100
    Subject: Re: Dawkins was right all along
    Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 07:22:19 -0400
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    To: "Memetics Discussion List" <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-ID: <[]>
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Robin Faichney -

    >Your definition of "belief" is unique, and these statements are worthless.

    Lots of definitions are useless. I try to define usage as well as
    meaning, to attempt to come to some sort of understandable discourse.

    My definition of belief comes from this following definition, and I only
    refine it to the point of saying it requires no proof, which is, as you
    say, more like 'faith'. So, substitute 'faith' - I have to substitute
    'hood' for 'bonnet' dealing with you, and I do it simply and easily.

    3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet
    or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

    As for lying, well, I cannot have any surity about things. I'm always
    reaching. The truth is not tangible for so many things.

    I've only said, as you say, that true believers are not born, but made.

    The only amplification I've attempted is an ethical one, that making such
    believers is false to human nature.

    - Wade

    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 27 2001 - 12:32:22 BST