From: David Hill (dhill@spee-dee.com)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 14:49:34 MST
Thank you for the kind words. I'm still battering back and forth with
Hermit. Kinda entertaining.
My idea is that most folk follow what they individually find are internally
consistant paths. They may appear to an outside observer to be psychotic
and horribly ill conceived, but to the individual they are true and correct.
If we didn't follow thusly we'd be very strained individuals. Mobsters and
zealots don't really think they are doing "wrong" although the rest of us
probably would.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf Of
Bill Roh
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:11 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:18:12 -0700
For the record David - I didn't think you were obnoxious - just pulling
the the strings of thought to see where they lead. May you find that they
lead where you did not expect.
Be patient... things sort out.
Bill
I don't always think I am right. But sometimes I am. Did you mean that
"Some people always think they are right"?
Approved: intermix
From: "David Hill" <dhill@spee-dee.com>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:41:26 -0600
Message-ID: <NFBBLHLHELPPJEPKDCLMAEFCCBAA.dhill@spee-dee.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <F179kq6YZpdR3tDIC6S0000bf9b@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: virus: On the failure of 'Pascal's Wager' and the
non-existence of Agnosticism.
Where does he find the time....
I liken Hermit to a viper. Best not to play around his nest or you
might
get bit.
Actually I am pleased to be so labeled (obnoxious) by him as it places
us
squarely on opposing sides.
I accept the claim that I made solipsist assertions. And I regret a
recent
kneejerk post of mine, but I have to type fast during my available
babble
time.
But on entry to this list, I found mostly the same distasteful venomous
attacks (Hermitlike) and people diving out of the church because of the
nastiness. I don't think Hermit likes an attack on his underlying
premises
because he is so happy with his ability to propound on all issues great
and
small that he finds large amounts of time to indulge himself. I have no
such ability and cannot spare the time because I have other things to
do. I
can only bitch and moan on break. But rhetoric is only one skill,
admittedly one which can be displayed in chat. I suspect that Hermit
spends
so much time on his intellectual pursuits that he cannot weld, machine
or
fly. I believe in my heart that I am a better soft tissue surgeon than
he.
I would prefer to discuss what I originally thought was the CoV purpose.
The existance and interaction of self replicating informational systems.
And expand the concept to include society, religion and the pattern
Hermit
shows so well: Everybody thinks they are right.
Hey Hermie, who's WE anyway.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of L' Ermit
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 8:45 AM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: On the failure of 'Pascal's Wager' and the non-existence
of Agnosticism.
[Hermit] We knew that David Hill was obnoxious ["RE: virus: RE: He who
makes
the rules wins", David Hill, Wed 2002-01-23 12:32]. Now, for those who
had
not already guessed it, David Hill confirms that he is stupid as well,
based
on the following and certain solipsistic assertions.
<quote>
["RE: virus: Kirk: Standing my ground",David Hill,Thu 2002-01-24 12:27]
[David Hill]
God exists, and believe-> win big
God exists, and don't believe -> lose big
God doesn't exist and either believe or don't -> no difference.
</quote>
[Hermit] There are a lot of questions that David Hill seems to be
missing.
Like, "Which of the millions of gods that man has invented do you want
to be
the real 'God'?" Many of the gods we have invented to date are
"jealous."
Pick the wrong bunch and, according to their adherents, you are fucked.
As
there will always be more gods that you cannot pick than gods you can
pick,
your chances of a win are minimal anyway.
[Hermit] Given David Hill's use of the late Judaic formulation of a
singular
"God," we can assume that the god he is suggesting is the Judaic
Mountain
God, "Jaweh" or "Baal", and that David Hill is granting the idea that
investing belief in this unpleasant entity may lead to a "win big"
potential. Yet even this supposed god's own supporters acknowledge that
their "god" is unfair, vindictive and a liar. Thus there may not be
(probably isn't, as there is no evidence for it) any reward at the end
of
the rainbow.
[Hermit] The evil that belief (whether in gods, one's ancestors or
something
else) does, is visible throughout the history of mankind. So the
supposition
that there is unmitigated gain, or "no loss" believing in gods is
unsupportable.
[Hermit] Meantime, to choose a god, any god, means choosing the
irrational,
which means that you "lose big", right here and right now, in the only
life
we know. That evolution was in vain, having developed the capacity to be
rational, that we choose to reject it. Against this is simply the
supposition that choosing some god, any god, can yield some "wins." An
idea,
which probably not accidently, can never be validated. Can anything else
we
do to ourselves be more brain challenged than this?
[Hermit] An Atheist is simply somebody who places no <i>belief<i> in
gods.
Any gods. This applies to all atheists. If you vest belief in gods, any
gods, you are not an atheist.
[Hermit] Atheists come in two principle flavors each having multiple
subtly
different sub-classes which I will ignore. There are, I am told, "Strong
atheists" (I have never met one) who assert, without evidence, that
there
are no "gods"; and "weak atheists" who acknowledge that there may be
"gods"
but that it is not worth believing in them.
[Hermit] There are also certain atheists, myself amongst them, that
combine
these two positions. For example, I assert that the ridiculous and
vicious
Christian gods cannot exist except in the diseased minds of their
followers
(innumerable internal and external contradictions) but that there may be
some creatures somewhere in the Universe that I might call "gods" if I
knew
about them. This does not affect my atheism, as I do not consider
investing
anything (let alone something as pernicious as "belief") in some
hypothetical, undefined possibility. I use the singular, as, in our
experience, the only way there could be a singular god would be if it
were
nasty enough to have killed the rest of its own kind - which wouldn't be
deserving of acknowledgement, never mind inviting them to tea or
anything
more personal.
[Hermit] I once described it like this:
["RE: virus: sophomoric atheism (literalness issues)", Hermit, Thu
1999-10-28 21:57]
<quote>
[Hermit 3.2] On the one hand we have "god-thingies as defined by the
religious", in other words specific gods with specific attributes and
generally speaking, easy refutation due to the "impossible" nature of
the
assigned attributes (through internal or external contradiction). On the
other hand, there is the general class of god-thingies without assigned
attributes which are impossible to refute, and in fact not worth
refuting as
the proponents of the idea of such god-thingies cannot provide any
evidence
for the necessity of such god-thingies and in fact, generally speaking,
the
existence or non-existence of such god-thingies would not make a
difference
to the mankind. Finally we have the idea of god-thingies, which while it
definitely exists, has no positive effect on humans.
<quote>
[Hermit] Most so called agnostics are simply confused. Some people do
call
themselves agnostics as they prefer to think of themselves as 'not being
as
nasty' as the common portrayal of atheists as child-murderers and
cannibals.
But the term agnosticism was invented by Thomas Huxley, so it seems fair
to
let himself define it.
<quote>
...it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective
truth of
any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies
that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion,
it
is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny, and
repudiate as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are
propositions
which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence."
["Agnosticism and Christianity and Other Essays", Thomas Henry Huxley
1889,
Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1992, p. 193.]
</quote>
[Hermit] So unless an agnostic believes (that word again) that there are
reasons to "believe" in gods, without evidence for those gods (which
would
be even more ludicrous than the typical bible wielding believer's
faith),
the agnostic is simply an atheist, wearing a label permitting him to
socialize with the vicar (and vice versa).
[Hermit] For myself, when I see a turd ("belief") floating in the
teapot, I
prefer to avoid joining the party no matter who labels it as something
else.
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT