At 07:14 AM Friday 9/8/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:
I have a head full of cotton wool, and lovely luminous mucous. I love
colds, me.
Charlie
I recall one such bout of the flu where at the time I was enjoying
similar systems I also had occasion to do a fairly large paste-up job
using rubber
JDG said:
Given the existence of universal truth, I don't see how the number n
of people who fail to recognize and accept that universal truth is at
all relevant. After all, that universal truth is, by definition,
universally true.
Yes, indeed. But Dan was specifically talking about
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JDG said:
I think you are neglecting the possibility that one might actually
be
true and another might actually be wrong.
I'm clearly not neglecting that possibility and in fact in this thread
have been fairly open to it.
On 9 Sep 2006, at 12:51PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 9 Sep 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote:
For me unknowable/meaningless = knowable/false.
So you reject quantum theory entirely? Interesting.
I'm quite happy with the 'shut up and calculate' part. It's those
wacky ontologies I
On 9/8/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In normal binary logic (true/false) these are equivalent since ~true
(NOT true) = false (and ~false = true).
And in normal SQL logic, there is NULL, TRUE and FALSE. But if you
imagine we are just computers, no wonder you won't make room
Nick said:
And in normal SQL logic, there is NULL, TRUE and FALSE. But if you
imagine we are just computers, no wonder you won't make room for
faith.
NULL values are the work of the Devil!
Rich
GCU One Line Reply
___
On Sep 11, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/8/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In normal binary logic (true/false) these are equivalent since ~true
(NOT true) = false (and ~false = true).
And in normal SQL logic, there is NULL, TRUE and FALSE. But if you
imagine we
At 11:23 AM Friday 9/8/2006, Horn, John wrote:
On Behalf Of William T Goodall
Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true Atheism :
Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
Which are equivalent in a two-valued logic system.
Am I the only one who read this and thought, huh? Can you parse
that
On 9 Sep 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote:
For me unknowable/meaningless = knowable/false.
So you reject quantum theory entirely? Interesting.
AndrewC
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 08/09/2006, at 2:31 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
I think you are neglecting the possibility that one might actually be
true and another might actually be wrong.
I think he was neglecting it out of politeness, and because a you're
wrong... no, you are type series of posts doesn't go anywhere.
Charlie Bell wrote:
I think he was neglecting it out of politeness, and because a
you're
wrong... no, you are type series of posts doesn't go anywhere.
As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all religion other
than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or
On 08/09/2006, at 2:51 PM, Ritu wrote:
As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all religion other
than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or point
and laugh or whatever.
That means that it would be rude to say anything about the notion of
'One and Only True Way',
Charlie wrote:
As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all
religion other
than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or point
and laugh or whatever.
That means that it would be rude to say anything about the
notion of
'One and Only True Way', doesn't
JDG said:
I think you are neglecting the possibility that one might actually be
true and another might actually be wrong.
I'm clearly not neglecting that possibility and in fact in this thread
have been fairly open to it. However, nobody has yet presented me with a
criterion for deciding which
On 08/09/2006, at 3:47 PM, Ritu wrote:
Okay, I can often do diplomacy. So here goes:
I think that agnosticism is the only rational position in this
argument,
that everything else, atheism included, is as much a matter of
personal
wishes and comfort as anything else.
I disagree -
On 8 Sep 2006, at 4:27PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 08/09/2006, at 3:47 PM, Ritu wrote:
Okay, I can often do diplomacy. So here goes:
I think that agnosticism is the only rational position in this
argument,
that everything else, atheism included, is as much a matter of
personal
wishes
On Behalf Of William T Goodall
Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true Atheism :
Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
Which are equivalent in a two-valued logic system.
Am I the only one who read this and thought, huh? Can you parse
that out for me...?
- jmh
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
On 8 Sep 2006, at 5:23PM, Horn, John wrote:
On Behalf Of William T Goodall
Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true Atheism :
Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
Which are equivalent in a two-valued logic system.
Am I the only one who read this and thought, huh? Can you parse
that out
William T Goodall wrote:
Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true
Atheism : Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
Hmmm... No. I think:
Agnosticism: ~Believe (God(s) exist) is true
~Believe (God(s) exist) is ~true.
Alberto Monteiro
___
William T Goodall wrote:
...
Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.
In normal binary logic (true/false) these are equivalent since ~true
(NOT true) = false (and ~false = true).
William--
But normal binary logic is
On Behalf Of David Hobby
William T Goodall wrote:
...
Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.
In normal binary logic (true/false) these are equivalent
since ~true
(NOT true) = false (and ~false = true).
William said:
Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true
Atheism : Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God(s)
exist} is either unknown or possibly even unknowable.
On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:51PM, Richard Baker wrote:
William said:
Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true
Atheism : Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God(s)
exist}
On 08/09/2006, at 7:37 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
Not quite - agnostics assert that it is not possible to prove or
disprove a deity...
Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.
...whereas atheists disbelieve
On 9 Sep 2006, at 12:44AM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 08/09/2006, at 7:37 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
Not quite - agnostics assert that it is not possible to prove or
disprove a deity...
Or unknowable which isn't the same thing.
William T Goodall wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:51PM, Richard Baker wrote:
...
I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God(s)
exist} is either unknown or possibly even unknowable.
They *could* mean that of
On 9 Sep 2006, at 1:55AM, David Hobby wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:51PM, Richard Baker wrote:
...
I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God
(s) exist} is either unknown or possibly
On 9 Sep 2006, at 2:36AM, William T Goodall wrote:
For me unknowable/meaningless = knowable/false.
That's a heuristic of course.
Assumptions Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
It was the
All very good points as usual.
Gary D.
On 5/6/05, Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm short on time, in-between lessons, but want to tie
up a few of the multiple loose ends from my last post
- I'll get to actual replies if it rains (ooh, being
egotistical in assuming that there
I'm going to focus on one answer that relates to a post of Doug for now.
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Morality is just self interest?
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:49
Seriously, I don't know why I have become so involved. ... Do
I worry about my fellow man because I want there to be a fair
and clean world for my nephews?
Roy Rappaport pointed out, in `Ritual and Religion in the Making of
Humanity', which I am reading right now,
...
Interesting...
I want the world to be a better place because I want it to be around by the
time my nephews are old enough to take over. Haha.
I must say, that before my brother and sister-in-law started to produce kids,
I was worried about the future of the world, but not as much as now. I
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:49:49PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
This was clearly in the best interest of the Iroquois, but not the
slaughtered tribes, nor humanity in general. Yet, it was a perfectly
rational act, if you assume the Iroquois acted in the self interest of
their own tribe.
Until
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, I don't know why I have become so involved. I, myself, don't plan
to have kids so maybe I am nothing more then a beta male helping the rest of
the family to protect the young and help pass on our genes? Or is it a higher
sense of purpose that only mankind
34 matches
Mail list logo
