>From William T Goodall
>
> On 6 May 2005, at 3:19 am, Dave Land wrote:
>
> >> WTG: No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational
> >> claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith
> >> made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
> >>
> >
> > Do y
On May 5, 2005, at 7:23 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you
wouldn't
continue spamming the list with your refutations.
You know, atheists getting pissed off about others' faith seems
classically sysiphian. There are about 220 million of us opposed
On May 5, 2005, at 7:41 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming
lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it.
That's a fair premise, I think.
The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the
unive
On May 5, 2005, at 6:38 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote:
I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored, and
listening *critically* to authorities even more so. Categorically
disregarding authority is no better than categorically following
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as
well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an
insulation against nonsense.
I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism
is an indica
On May 5, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so
that
^ some ^ foolish
Another argument from conclusion
At 10:24 PM 5/5/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
>> Unless you and Dan have some brilliant economic theory as to why
>> Republicans tend to cause recessions and Democrats tend to produce
>> uninterrupted economic growth regardless of the business cycle, your
>> analysis is deeply flawed.
>
>This is one ar
- Original Message -
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
> Unless you and Dan have some brilliant economic theory as to why
> Republicans tend to cause recessions and Democrats
At 10:16 AM 5/5/2005 -0400, Bob Chassell wrote:
>His hypothesis is
>
>... the political party with the Presidency would probably be
>somewhere just above sunspot activity ...
>
>Clearly, it is wrong.
I think it is clearly nothing of the sort. The very premise of the
analysis is too badl
* Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Repetition does not establish veracity.
You have repeatedly established what your thoughts are worth, Ronn.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 09:44 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> >>The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so
> >>that
> >
> >^ some ^ foolish
>
> Anoth
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> >>The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so
> >>that
> >
> >^ some ^ foolish
>
> Another argument from conclusion.
>
> Also, it apparen
On 6 May 2005, at 3:19 am, Dave Land wrote:
WTG: No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational
claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith
made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Do you have evidence of the non-existence of God, or do you me
On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that
^ some
^ foolish
Another argument from conclusion.
Also, it apparently matters
William,
WTG: The idea that I might accept something just because somebody
said so is hilarious!
DML: Categorically disregarding authority is no better than
categorically following them: it is equally foolish.
WTG: I think you missed the 'just' in 'just because' in the last
sentence you quoted.
At 08:38 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, William T Goodall wrote:
On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote:
It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told
you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the
trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove
th
At 07:05 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of
> faith.
And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and
"there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that
^
some
^
At 04:58 PM 05/05/05 -0700, Dave wrote:
snip
And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no
God" are equally statements of faith.
Of course, "There is no God but we regret this fact and are working to
correct it." is the project statement for the friendly AI project.
Ke
On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote:
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned
that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about
two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and
On May 5, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
"There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of
faith.
And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and
"there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are
equall
On 5/5/05, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of
> > faith.
>
> And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and
> "there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pi
* Erik Reuter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> What causes productivity growth? Capital deepening (i.e., more
> machines per worker, better equipment, etc.) and more skilled (or more
> efficient) workers.
From 1947 through 2004 (the years for which I have productivity data),
average annualized produc
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of
> faith.
And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and
"there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are
equally statements of faith.
But "there are ba
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned
that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about
two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and
university, and been flung out of a few classes
Nick Arnett wrote:
>d.brin wrote
>> The following, psassed on by Joe Miller.
>Ouch. Stomach hurt. Laughing too hard.
At the risk of being "that guy," that's an old joke, Nick. I must have had
that passed to me via e-mail some 8-10 years ago.
'Course, it's still funny. :)
Jim
_
On 5 May 2005, at 10:01 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On another list there's been a discussion in the last few days
about the findings of science, and particularly how many of us
simply accept them without question.
For example many adults know that our solar system is heliocentric
and Earth i
On Thu, 5 May 2005 14:01:00 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
> Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear.
Only sometimes? How about always? Although other things may lie behind
anger, I tend to think that fear is always there.
Nick
__
On May 5, 2005, at 11:20 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 1 May 2005, at 8:31 am, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the
suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question "why" is very pertinent.
I've never been religious. I get annoyed about people
On 5/5/05, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Erik Reuter's point does come into play. But I am puzzled by his
> > restatement of it on 4 May 2005:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the overall market is only growing at 6% a year and
> > now that
On 1 May 2005, at 8:31 am, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two
broad categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they
don't believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just
can't believe. It seems to me that the angrier
* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Erik Reuter's point does come into play. But I am puzzled by his
> restatement of it on 4 May 2005:
>
> Unfortunately, the overall market is only growing at 6% a year and
> now that the company has monopolized the market and implemented
>
On 5/5/05, Robert J. Chassell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> You do not have to wonder whether income could be $127,000 per person.
> You could simply wonder whether is could be $60,000 per person rather
> than the $36,000 per person as it is in a
* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * What would be the current GDP and median per capta US at the
> growth rate that Republican administrations achieved historically?
> Presume they were the only administration in power since 1948 (or
> whatever is the base year) and th
34 matches
Mail list logo
