(no subject)

From: Steve Drew (srdrew_1@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:31:47 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "Re: Words and memes"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA26632 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:37:26 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: [194.117.133.84]
    From: "Steve Drew" <srdrew_1@hotmail.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject:  RE:
    Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:31:47 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <F102JTiVOOouFcthql30000c3cc@hotmail.com>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2002 21:31:47.0968 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9069800:01C1B01E]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:16:00 -0000
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE:

    <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
    not
    >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.<

    I am aware of how religion rejects the world. It is also worth remembering
    that many religions started before science (as we would call it) existed.
    Hence any explanation that *offered an explanation* could be acceptable to
    people who had no way of disproving them no matter how absurd. In the
    absence of say medicine except in rudimentary form, a faith healers claims
    are logical, in that if you do not have faith you will not be cured - a
    circular argument. That applies even today, even if we agree that it is BS.
    You may be interested that some half wit papal aide has just said that
    people are ill because they are sinners, and that those who do not sin tend
    to be healthy and pretty (Times, London, 7/2/02). needless to say some god
    botherers with more sense then claimed that isnít what was meant etc. On
    another note, the *creationist scientists* [I shall wash my hands and
    keydoard after i have written this :- ) ] would claim that it does stand up
    to scientific scrutiny. I have to abmit that i canít understand what that
    has to do with my original comment.

    <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<

    This is assuming that all sociobiologists accept the same things and come to
    the same conclusion, but fair enough that was a bad example. Iíll try
    another - didnít Hitler claim to be an atheist? I wasnít aware that Atheism
    confered on its followers logic, rationallity and the pursuit of truth. :-
    )

            <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.

            Vincent<

    Fence sitting it is not. In the absence of definitive proof either way, to
    make a decision on this would be based on what? - a feeling, balance of
    probabilities etc. It is not that i refuse to take a position on the matter,
    but that the matter is irrelevant. A decision is not required on something
    that is irrelevant.

    Regards,

    Steve

    _________________________________________________________________
    Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
    http://www.hotmail.com

    ===============================================================
    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: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:46:30 GMT