On 13 Jul 2013, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/13/2013 1:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Irreversibility of first person experience can be recovered from
reversible computation.
That would be statistical irreversibility, i.e. reversal is
improbable but not impossible.
Why? Not necessarily.
On 13 Jul 2013, at 01:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/12/2013 3:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because if you agree with I dunno which city I will see, by
deducing it through an explicit appeal to a level of
On 7/13/2013 1:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Irreversibility of first person experience can be recovered from reversible
computation.
That would be statistical irreversibility, i.e. reversal is improbable but not
impossible.
Why? Not necessarily. It can be 100% irreversible from the
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8,
On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2013 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it
relies on some familiarity in logic.
Normally you
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what an
external purely deterministic system will do,
In the long run, and without any indeterminacy in the functioning of its
parts. Yes. We might not know if the
On 7/12/2013 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2013 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on
On 12 Jul 2013, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what
an external purely deterministic system will do,
In the long run, and without any indeterminacy in the functioning
On 07/10/2013 11:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I use atheists in the (Google) sense of B~g. ~Bg is agnosticism (in
the mundane common sense).
Some atheists seem to oscillate between the two definitions,
opportunistically.
The issue is that both of those require some specific 'g' to be
On 7/11/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The god of the materialist is Matter, and I don't believe in it. I am agnostic.
I search.
I think you do believe in matter - you often refer to your coffee, for example. You just
don't believe it is fundamental. But that's a very different thing.
On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because if you agree with I dunno which city I will see, by deducing it through an
explicit appeal to a level of mechanical substitution, you see that the digital third
person determinacy is responsible for indeterminate, from the first person points
On 12 Jul 2013, at 20:33, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
On 07/10/2013 11:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I use atheists in the (Google) sense of B~g. ~Bg is agnosticism (in
the mundane common sense).
Some atheists seem to oscillate between the two definitions,
opportunistically.
The issue is that
On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The god of the materialist is Matter, and I don't believe in it. I
am agnostic. I search.
I think you do believe in matter - you often refer to your coffee,
for example. You just don't believe it is
On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because if you agree with I dunno which city I will see, by
deducing it through an explicit appeal to a level of mechanical
substitution, you see that the digital third person determinacy is
responsible
On 7/12/2013 3:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because if you agree with I dunno which city I will see, by deducing it through an
explicit appeal to a level of mechanical substitution, you see that the digital
On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Now the converse, where atheism is taken to mean rejection of all
gods, rather than one, is not meaningless.
You keep using the term rejection. If by rejection you mean
failure to credence that's OK. But
On 10 Jul 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
UDA shows why and we have to extract physics from that (making comp
testable), and how we can do that using the mathematical machine's
theology.
You're really saying we have to extract physics from
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have
realized
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential
equations
I have no idea what you mean by God in that sentence.
It seems odd that now you're the one complaining that the word God is too
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.com wrote:
This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions,
Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII
characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile
REAL philosophers
On 7/10/2013 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why does atheist put so much energy in defending all the time the roman christian God.
Because they know what they don't believe, yet other people want them to believe in
*something* called God and those people keep adjusting and expanding and
On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some
familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure on relative
computational continuations, and the logic explains already the
On 7/10/2013 11:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
The same logical that says bad things happen because all things happen also promises all
good things happen as well. As life gains greater control over its environment, the
proportion of good things to bad things will only increase.
I suppose it
On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
atheism is different in America
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
The same logical that says bad things happen because all things happen
also promises all good things happen as well. As life gains greater
control over its environment, the
On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:28, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial
differential equations
I have no idea what you mean by God in that sentence.
It seems odd that now you're the
On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:50, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.com wrote:
This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions,
Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence
of ASCII characters should have is what passes for
On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why does atheist put so much energy in defending all the time the
roman christian God.
Because they know what they don't believe, yet other people want
them to believe in *something* called God and
On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it
relies on some familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure
on relative computational
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well then,
in the above God is anything in which a solution to such a equation
describes the future behavior of that thing.
God would be more like the one
On 11 Jul 2013, at 19:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of
ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days.
Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered that there is more than one
type of
On 7/11/2013 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some
familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a
On 7/11/2013 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is no problem with faith.
There is problems only with *bad faith*, whose symptoms are the insults and the
arguments by violence or per authority.
Are you not aware of the couple who has had two children die of easily treated infections
On 7/11/2013 1:07 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence
of ASCII
characters should have is what passes for philosophy these
On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:07, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a
sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for
philosophy these days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers
On 11 Jul 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well
then, in the above God is anything in which a solution to such a
equation describes the future behavior
...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:33:43 -0500
On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:56 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
If some one says look, cat I don't know what kind of cat they are
refering to. I nevertheless can be confident
On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
there are many words like that which we use without any fuss.
The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
there are many words like that which we use without any fuss.
The word 'game' is a famous example
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:06, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more
an anticlerical than an atheist to me ...
Everybody called him an atheist. He called himself an
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have
realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not
Hitchens. Many people confuse agnosticism and
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:57, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism=that whether
or not God exists is unknown with agnosticism=that whether or not
God exists is impossible to know.
If God created the
On 09 Jul 2013, at 22:58, John Mikes wrote:
(See below): I do not fall for Brent's quip that you want to impose
your extended (non-religious?) religion on us, so I continue.
Whatever you call 'religious' is continuation of millenia-long
habits, hard to break. The Hindus have different
in science. I get anxious when I hear people define what
scientists should be like. Whatever gets the job done, I say. But thats another
argument.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:59:16 +0200
On 09 Jul 2013, at 22:58, John
Subject: Re: Hitch
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:59:16 +0200
On 09 Jul 2013, at 22:58, John Mikes wrote:
(See below): I do not fall for Brent's quip that you want to impose
your extended (non-religious?) religion on us, so I continue.
Whatever you call 'religious' is continuation of millenia
: incuriosity,
arrogance, obfuscation.
Jason
Whatever gets the job done, I say. But thats another argument.
--
From: marc...@ulb.ac.bemarc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:59
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
God is the fundamental reality in which you believe in.
Since you are not a native speaker I must say it's a bit presumptions of
you to insist that the English Language reinvent itself, you're a HUGE fan
of acronyms so why
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that if one takes atheism to be the rejection of all
conceptions of god, then because those ideas are conceptions of god from
various religions, then someone who remains atheist after exposure to those
ideas
On 7/10/2013 1:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
On 7/10/2013 2:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:06, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is
more an
On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized
now
that some atheists in America
On 7/10/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:57, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism=that whether or not
God
exists is unknown with
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
they [atheists] believ in Matter, the thrid God of Aristotle. But they
want you to believe it is not a God,
If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential
equations, and if I could build a bridge overpass by
On 10 Jul 2013, at 20:00, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
God is the fundamental reality in which you believe in.
Since you are not a native speaker I must say it's a bit
presumptions of you to insist that the English Language
On 7/10/2013 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Now the converse, where atheism is taken to mean rejection of all gods, rather than one,
is not meaningless.
You keep using the term rejection. If by rejection you mean failure to credence
that's OK. But you seem to imply assertion of non-existence.
On 10 Jul 2013, at 20:51, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
In the realm of theistic beliefs, we were all born lacking any; we
were all born atheists.
No, we are born agnostic. We lack the belief in God, but we lack also
the belief in the non-existence of God.
Then I am not even sure that babies
On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 2:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:06, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones
kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is
more an anticlerical
On 7/10/2013 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
UDA shows why and we have to extract physics from that (making comp testable), and how
we can do that using the mathematical machine's theology.
You're really saying we have to extract physics from comp IN ORDER that it be testable.
You've said
On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:57, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism=that whether
or not God exists is unknown with
On 7/10/2013 1:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 2:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:06, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.comwrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that if one takes atheism to be the rejection of all
conceptions of god, then because those ideas are conceptions of god from
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 1:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck
John,
On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:03, John Mikes wrote:
After some million years of 'mental' development this animal arrived
at the 'mental' fear. Usurpers exploited it by creating superpowers
to target it with assigned intent to help, or destroy. The details
were subject to the 'founders'
On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/8/2013 12:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07
On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/8/2013 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We are all believers, and when a machine pretend to be a non
believer, it means I know, and she will impose her religion to
you, by all means.
?? So when you say comp is just an hypothesis, to be tested
On 7/9/2013 2:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In my view an 'atheist requires a god to disbelieve (deny?).
Indeed. Many atheists seems to take more seriously the Christian Gods than most
christians theologians, who can seriously debate on the Aristotle/Plato difference.
Of course. If the
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an
anticlerical than an atheist to me ...
Everybody called him an atheist. He called himself an atheist. I
think you just don't like the term.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized
now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not Hitchens. Many
people confuse agnosticism and atheism.
1) A atheist is someone who dismisses the idea
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism=that whether or not
God exists is unknown with agnosticism=that whether or not God exists is
impossible to know.
If God created the universe that would be a fact about physics that
(See below): I do not fall for Brent's quip that you want to impose your
extended (non-religious?) religion on us, so I continue.
Whatever you call 'religious' is continuation of millenia-long habits, hard
to break. The Hindus have different ones - yet it IS religion.
Atheists? Atheism? comes
On 7/9/2013 11:57 AM, John Clark wrote:
I agree with Sam Harris that atheist is not a very useful appellation
because
it only describes someone in contrast to theist.
That makes no sense. The word nonfiction is useful but it only describes something in
contrast to fiction.
I
: Hitch
On 7/9/2013 11:57 AM, John Clark wrote:
I agree with Sam Harris that atheist is not a very useful
appellation because
it only describes someone in contrast to theist.
That makes no sense. The word nonfiction is useful but it only describes
something in
contrast
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful
word. If someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not
belive in God.
But you don't know what God the atheist doesn't believe
Subject: Re: Hitch
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful
word. If someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not
belive in God.
But you don't know what God the atheist
then know that they do not belive in God.
--- Original Message ---
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Sent: 10 July 2013 7:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
On 7/9/2013 11:57 AM, John Clark wrote:
I agree with Sam Harris that atheist is not a very useful
in.
Jason
--- Original Message ---
From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
Sent: 10 July 2013 8:35 AM
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck
chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Why does that make the word less usefull? I
-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:33:43 -0500
On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:56 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
If some one says look, cat I don't know what kind of cat they are refering
to. I nevertheless can be confident that they have seen something
On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote:
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/
I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more
an
On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote:
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/
I love Christopher Hitchens. I
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 08 Jul 2013, at 19:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote:
After some million years of 'mental' development this animal arrived at the
'mental' fear. Usurpers exploited it by creating superpowers to target it
with assigned intent to help, or destroy. The details were subject to the
'founders' benefit of enslaving the rest of the people into their rule.
On 7/8/2013 12:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal
On 7/8/2013 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We are all believers, and when a machine pretend to be a non believer, it means I
know, and she will impose her religion to you, by all means.
?? So when you say comp is just an hypothesis, to be tested like any other scientific
theory, you're really
On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote:
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/
I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an
anticlerical than an atheist to me ...
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message
On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote:
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/
I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an anticlerical than
an atheist to me ...
Hitch an atheist is because that tars him with the wrong
brush: the brush of public religion - IF you can handle the comp definition of
atheism as a sibling public religion of the Jesus cult. I mean - either you
believe in Big Daddy, JC and Spooky or you do not. If you don't believe in that
trio
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
89 matches
Mail list logo
