From: Vincent Campbell (
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 13:16:00 GMT

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: ply to Grant"

    Received: by id NAA25030 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:26:14 GMT
    Message-ID: <>
    From: Vincent Campbell <>
    To: "''" <>
    Subject: RE: 
    Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:16:00 -0000 
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1]
    Precedence: bulk

            <I was not aware that religions had the same shared attitudes etc.>

            At the most general they share things like the belief in revealed
    truth. Within some groups of religion are shared structures their beliefs
    e.g. the monotheism- indeed same god- of judaism, christianity and islam.
    within particular religions comes intended shared codes of belief/behaviour,
    from the ten commandments, to baptism etc. etc.

            <Religions do reject the notion of falsifiability, but not the proof
    of gods existence. "except by faith" etc is their proof, which i agree is
    > scientific. If you do have a proof of gods non existance, i would love to
    > know as there are always god botherers around i would like to upset.>
            I think you need to examine religions' claims more closely, to see
    how religion involves a fundamental rejection of real world evidence- it has
    to otherwise nobody would believe the silly stories of virgin births, the
    "power" of prayer, let alone omniscient deities. The whole point of
    religion is to deny the validty and credibility of the idea of testing
    claims in the real world, you must simply believe. Look, for example, at
    the circular remarks of faith healers when confronted by the obviouly
    unhealed people they get up on stage- basically it's not their fault (for
    being the worst kind of vultures), it's the fault of the sick people
    themselves for not believing enough.

            <What i meant by atheism having anti women components was as i said,
    that those of the reductionist sociobiological bent force roles upon males
    and female, with the females copping for the worst of it.>

            Well, I'm not sure that's true, after all if the sociobiologists are
    right, it is women who dominate human mate choice, or at the very least are
    as equally active as men.

            <One of my tutors pointed out that agnosticism may be the best
    choice - God
    > may or may not exist, but i will worry about it only when he knocks on my
    > door.>
            I think agnosticism is the worst kind of fence sitting you can do.
    It's a refusal to commit.


    The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
    charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA.  Privileged/Confidential Information may
    be contained in this message.  If you are not the addressee indicated
    in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
    person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
    and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
    prohibited and may be unlawful.  In such case, you should destroy this
    message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Please advise
    immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
    for messages of this kind.  Opinions, conclusions and other
    information in this message that do not relate to the official
    business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.

    =============================================================== 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 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 13:35:11 GMT