On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
OK, so what is the meaning of the word ought? For example, that a
man ought not to torture, rape, and kill a 5 year old girl. It is
simply that his desire to do so conflicts with your desire to have him
not do so?
At some level,
On 29 Jun 2003 at 14:02, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Mine basis for morality is religious, and its that humans are
created
in the image and likeness of God, and must be treated in a manner
that is consistent with this. Human rights,
--- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snippage
Sorry, I'm with Heinlien on this one - Man has no
inherent moral
sense. Genes allways cause selfish behavoir. The
memes (remembering
that memes can be selfish or altruistic) for society
are a crious mix
of altruism and selfishness,
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:27:14AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Dropping the question
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 01:46 am, Dan Minette wrote:
But, its really that one assumption that is critical. Mine basis for
morality is religious, and its that humans are created in the image and
likeness of God, and must be treated in a manner that is consistent
with
this. Human rights,
I meant to respond to this before...
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
How many here who consider themselves religious,
spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
Divine have had that feeling of universal
connectedness or
Julia said:
OK, why *did* it survive? Do you know?
I don't know about cystic fibrosis in detail, but it's presumably
because having one copy of the gene conveys some advantage that
outweighs the problems involved with having two copies. Another example
is the incidence of thalassemia in
--- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julia said:
OK, why *did* it survive? Do you know?
I don't know about cystic fibrosis in detail, but
it's presumably
because having one copy of the gene conveys some
advantage that
outweighs the problems involved with having two
copies.
Gautam said:
Not sure if thalassemia is a European term for sickle
cell anemia, which has the same effects.
No, they aren't the same thing. I chose thalassemia for my example
because it's less well known than sickle cell anaemia.
Rich
___
On 12 Jun 2003 at 21:07, Julia Thompson wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
Certainly, but that applies to biology and we don't really KNOW how
random much of the formation of the Universe was. And I'd point out
that what reproductive fitness is can be complex (for example, why
the Cystic
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using
anecdotal evidence is
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:36:24PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
It is important however not
At 01:05 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:04:49AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked:
Does God exist?
Yes.
(The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.)
In other words, you have no evidence. That's irrational.
I
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:05 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:04:49AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked:
Does God exist?
Yes.
(The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.)
At 01:10 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:40:41 -0500
At 10:32 AM 6/11/03
At 11:05 PM 6/11/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
How many here who consider themselves religious,
spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
Divine have had that feeling of universal
connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences
At 02:25 PM 6/11/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:07 PM 6/9/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
The majority of religious people are irrational.
So are the majority of real numbers . . .
Ah, but all transcendental numbers are irrational.
Make of that what you will. :)
At 06:40 PM 6/11/03 +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 11 Jun 2003 at 13:10, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was
going with his question. Am I right?
Pretty much. I've notice
At 01:20 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:14:23 -0400
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11
Erik said:
Does Dawkins make this argument in the book? It doesn't sound like
him.
It's been a while since I read it, but I think he does make that
argument. Of course, Andy hasn't mentioned that he then goes on to say
that evolution isn't random chance: it's random mutation followed by
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using
anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions,
especially in the formation of hypothesis.
Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating
Deborah Harrell wrote:
How many here who consider themselves religious,
spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
Divine have had that feeling of universal
connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences
disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who
consider themselves atheist
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Are you really willing
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using
anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions,
especially in the formation of hypothesis.
Of
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating a
theory. The point is, you CANNOT use the SAME data to validate the
theory.
You are wrong Erik. You can not formulat _theories_ in this manner.
I think we are arguing
On 11 Jun 2003 at 19:49, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:10:46AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Okay, I was essentially refering to the Blind Watchmaker theory -
a Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet
like ours, and us coming along...is SO unlikely,
On 11 Jun 2003 at 19:17, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my religious beliefs
one bit.
Yes, many of the ~40% I have met are like that. Those I have
discussed it with seem to keep their
On 12 Jun 2003 at 9:50, Richard Baker wrote:
Erik said:
Does Dawkins make this argument in the book? It doesn't sound like
him.
It's been a while since I read it, but I think he does make that
argument. Of course, Andy hasn't mentioned that he then goes on to say
that evolution isn't
Andy said:
And I'd point out that what reproductive fitness is can be
complex (for example, why the Cystic Fybrosis gene survived...).
How is it complex? Entity A is more reproductively fit than entity B in
environment (physical and biological) E if A on average produces more
descendents than
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating a
theory. The point is, you CANNOT use the SAME data to validate the
theory.
You are wrong Erik. You can not formulat
-Original Message-
From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:34 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Jan
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:33:41AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
Of course Theory is used by _layman_ in place of Hypothesis. But
we are not _laymen_ we are scientificaly trained and should use the
words appropriatly.
Please produce the cite on the Feynman quote you referenced.
--
Erik Reuter
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:33:41AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
Of course Theory is used by _layman_ in place of Hypothesis. But
we are not _laymen_ we are scientificaly trained and should use the
words appropriatly.
Please produce the cite on the
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:15:50PM -0700, Chad Cooper wrote:
Once again, you trumped me. I was drafting a message about what the
difference (as I was taught) between an idea, theory and hypothesis,
and you beat me to it (This was in response to Erik cutting me some
slack on my use of theory).
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using
anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions,
especially in the formation of hypothesis.
I think I am paraphrasing Feynman himself, but perhaps
- Original Message -
From: Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:15 PM
Subject: RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
-Original Message-
From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using
anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions,
especially in the formation of hypothesis.
I
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using
anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making
Erik wrote:
the·o·ry( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
[snip]
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
conjecture.
Great. Thanks to this discussion, I now have I Have A Theory from the
Buffy musical going through my head...
I have a
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition.
Using
- Original Message -
From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Erik wrote:
the·o·ry( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
[snip]
6
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik wrote:
the·o·ry( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
[snip]
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
conjecture.
Great. Thanks to this discussion, I now have I Have A Theory from the
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:27:14AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Dropping the question of the testability whether a particular action
contributes to your goal, which can definitely be debatable because of
the complexity of our civilization, I'd like to focus on a much more
fundamental question.
-Original Message-
From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:28 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
- Original Message -
From: Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs
On 12 Jun 2003 at 18:24, Richard Baker wrote:
Andy said:
And I'd point out that what reproductive fitness is can be
complex (for example, why the Cystic Fybrosis gene survived...).
How is it complex? Entity A is more reproductively fit than entity B
in environment (physical and
Andrew Crystall wrote:
Certainly, but that applies to biology and we don't really KNOW how
random much of the formation of the Universe was. And I'd point out
that what reproductive fitness is can be complex (for example, why
the Cystic Fybrosis gene survived...).
OK, why *did* it survive?
Julia
What the heck are you doing at a bar at 3 - 4am?
Who said anything about bar and AM? It's a restaurant, so, well,
OK, they *do* have a bar, but you don't even need to sit there if you
want to order margaritas (and I have no idea how their margaritas are,
I'd have to ask Chuck
At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked:
Does God exist?
Yes.
(The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Does Allah exist?
Does Zeus exist?
Does Odin exist?
I'm not saying that this is what I believe, or that it is the only
possibility, but could these perhaps be alternative
At 05:47 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote:
Julia
What the heck are you doing at a bar at 3 - 4am?
Who said anything about bar and AM? It's a restaurant, so, well,
OK, they *do* have a bar, but you don't even need to sit there if you
want to order margaritas (and I have no idea how
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:04:49 -0500
At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked:
lots of snippage
Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of
Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal
god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at
least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena?
Nope.
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Plonkworthy?
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 23:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
William T Goodall [EMAIL
At 10:32 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:04:49 -0500
At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:40:41AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
My point is that there is no separate God of the Assyrians and God of
the Babylonians, therefore that question is meaningless.
Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is
not, but none of you have any
At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is
not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge.
Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical
tests, it is all absurd.
What
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:04:49AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked:
Does God exist?
Yes.
(The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.)
In other words, you have no evidence. That's irrational.
Does Allah exist?
Does Zeus exist?
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:40:41 -0500
At 10:32 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: Ronn
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was going
with his question. Am I right?
Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these
questions because they don't have a rational answer.
Can you
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is
not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge.
Their beliefs are more absurd than
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:14:23 -0400
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12
What empirical tests have you performed to check if your
belief is correct?
Ambiguous question. It makes no sense to postulate one of an infinite
number of undetectable explanations for something when no explanation
is required. There is no need to explain what need not be explained. If
you
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
I think, although I
On 11 Jun 2003 at 13:14, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At
12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Typical religious
irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is not, but none of
you have any empirical process to check your
On 11 Jun 2003 at 11:40, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Given that there are passages in the KJV which contradict other
passages in the KJV, not to mention portions of one version of the
Bible which do not agree with another version, and that Bible
Literalists believe that when Genesis says that the
On 11 Jun 2003 at 13:10, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was
going with his question. Am I right?
Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these
questions
On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 03:04 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked:
Is there life after death?
Based on what I know, I believe so.
(Besides, there's always Pascal's wager to consider.)
My wager is that it is best to not believe in any of this
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:07 PM 6/9/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
The majority of religious people are irrational.
So are the majority of real numbers . . .
Ah, but all transcendental numbers are irrational.
Make of that what you will. :)
Julia
who has a book about pi and
--- Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I have a theory (which of course would not meet
Erik's stringent standard
for what is required to formulate a theory) that
genetics plays a strong
role in experiencing spirituality. sniplet
All religions have this one thing in common. All
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my religious beliefs
one bit.
Yes, many of the ~40% I have met are like that. Those I have
discussed it with seem to keep their mind compartmentalized, with the
rational/scientific
On 11 Jun 2003 at 19:04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
have you read _The Blind Watchmaker_ ?
No, but I have heard a few things about it. If you want to make a
reference to it, go ahead, there is a chance it won't go over my head.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Are you really willing to accept anything that is not subject to
scientific testing as no more real than God?
You are really cheating. You should at least answer that one question
I asked before you get to ask me another one. But
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:10:46AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Okay, I was essentially refering to the Blind Watchmaker theory - a
Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet like
ours, and us coming along...is SO unlikely, that is it unlikely it was
random chance.
Does
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Are you really willing to accept anything that is not subject to
scientific testing as no more real than God?
You are really cheating. You should at least answer that one question
I
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 12:49 am, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:10:46AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Okay, I was essentially refering to the Blind Watchmaker theory - a
Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet like
ours, and us coming along...is SO
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
Do you consider yourself a Positivist?
If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-)
Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really
know what it means, I'm quite ignorant on a lot of philosophy, in fact,
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my
religious beliefs one bit.
Yes, many of the ~40% I have met are like that.
Those I have
discussed it with seem to keep their mind
compartmentalized, with the
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:31:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
grin So non-condescending of you...
Arrogance, love it or ...of course you love it in me, who wouldn't!
Is the sensation of wonder or true awe akin to universal
connectedness? What evolutionary purpose does wonder serve?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Is the sensation of wonder or true awe akin to
universal
connectedness? What evolutionary purpose does
wonder serve?
(Anger, fear and love all have clear survival
advantages.) Is
this related at all to how some people
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:45:15PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
snort
How silly of me to ask of you a question concerning
emotions... ;)
sniff
Now you've hurt my feelings :-(
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:29 am, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
Do you consider yourself a Positivist?
If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-)
Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really
know what it
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:20:03AM -0700, Chad Cooper wrote:
I have a theory (which of course would not meet Erik's stringent
standard for what is required to formulate a theory)
Geez, Chad, I didn't mean to make you so paranoid! I don't have any
problem with something stated like that (I have
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Happiness Is A Warm Fuzzy Maru
Happiness is a warm fuzzy something, anyway. :-D
Jim
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
William T Goodall wrote:
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 12:49 am, Erik Reuter wrote:
Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a
theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error,
Richard
Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and said
Deborah Harrell wrote:
How many here who consider themselves religious,
spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
Divine have had that feeling of universal
connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences
disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who
consider themselves atheist
Julia Thompson wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
How many here who consider themselves religious,
spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
Divine have had that feeling of universal
connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences
disqualified in my book) ...
But
David Hobby wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
How many here who consider themselves religious,
spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
Divine have had that feeling of universal
connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences
disqualified in my
Deborah Harrell wrote:
s.
How many here who consider themselves religious,
spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the
Divine have had that feeling of universal
connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences
disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who
consider themselves atheist or
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
Do you consider yourself a Positivist?
If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-)
Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really
know what it means, I'm
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:29 am, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
Do you consider yourself a Positivist?
If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-)
Ummm, wait while I
writen by???
Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a
theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error,
Richard
Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and said something like:
The most amazing thing happened to me on the way to
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Religion is extremist by nature.
YAWN
stre-e-etch
curl up comfortably under the lilac bush
Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru :)
Why Lilac? :)
Perhaps Gandalf's or
At 11:35 PM 6/9/03 -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Religion is extremist by nature.
YAWN
stre-e-etch
curl up comfortably under the lilac bush
Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru
In a message dated 6/9/2003 10:39:00 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I remember one about a guy playing golf in Japan the day after a night
when
he visited a lady of the evening . . .
-- Ronn! :)
And his boss says Whadda ya mean I've got the wrong
In a message dated 6/9/2003 10:59:34 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
curl up comfortably under the lilac bush
Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru :)
Why Lilac?
:)
Why not?
;-)
Not Another Eliza Emulation Maru
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Personally, I don't like to associate myself with groups that have such
a bad history and such a large number of irrational people.
Fen, frex. ;-)
Oh, like the Disclave Flooding Incident perpetrators?
(If you haven't heard the story, the moral is, if you're going
In a message dated 6/10/2003 7:02:39 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, like the Disclave Flooding Incident perpetrators?
(If you haven't heard the story, the moral is, if you're going to play
bondage games in the con hotel, DON'T use a sprinkler as a tie-down
On 9 Jun 2003 at 23:05, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 03:16:20AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
So sorry, I have to utterly disagree with you. It's not semantics at
all. I'd say the *majority* of the students who go to the local JSoc
(Jewish Society) events aren't really
Andy said:
You do not chose to be Jewish if your mother is. You are Jewish.
Isn't that argument roughly the same as if I set up the Slaves of Rich
and said anyone with brown eyes was automatically a Slave of Rich and
when people with brown eyes said they weren't my slaves I replied Yes
you are
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 05:37:12PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote:
You do not chose to be Jewish if your mother is. You are Jewish.
But you are not automatically practicing the religion because of your
mother. Semantics. Not so hard to comprehend, really, if you are
thinking clearly.
--
Erik
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Plonkworthy?
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:00:35 -0500
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Personally, I don't like to associate myself with groups that have
1 - 100 of 227 matches
Mail list logo
