virus: REMOVE
Chuck (satan_death@rocketmail.com)
Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:25:08 -0800 (PST)
---virus-digest <owner-virus-digest@lucifer.com> wrote:
>
>
> virus-digest Thursday, December 4 1997 Volume 02 :
Number 321
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:48:02 -0500
> From: "Paul Prestopnik" <pjp66259@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>
> Subject: Re: virus: E-Mail Thought Contaigion
>
> - ----------
> > From: Casper K. Clausen <ckc@dmi.min.dk>
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: Re: virus: E-Mail Thought Contaigion
> > Date: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 2:41 AM
> >
> > [Jake posted something he wrote a while ago, which pointed out
ways in
> > which religion is detrimental to the human race. I snipped the
piece for
> > brevity.]
> >
> > > Perhaps some editing, tone changing, and a different audience
> could
> > > ressurect this and put it to good use. I would be interested to
hear
> > > anyone's thoughts on this.
> >
> > Impressive: This piece more or less exactly fits my views on these
> > subjects. I especially like the passages about after-life and
morality.
> >
> > However, I believe this piece serves a purpose somewhat different
from
> the
> > original intention of contagion via email. For the contagion to be
> > succesful, I propose that it merely seeks to explain memetics (and
> > itself), without offering any critiques of established memes. This
will
> > allow it to spread further and faster, thus greatly incrasing the
number
> > of vectors for memetics (at, admittedly, a very basic level).
>
> This was my biggest problem with it. Although I did not find anything
> "wrong" with the letter jake posted, one of the primary purposes was
that
> it spread. Considering that the totality of knowledge concerning
memetics
> that is held by the people on this list, we should be able to make
an email
> that spreads like wild fire. The letter that Jake posted would not
> accomplish these goals. Although it was not offensively worded, I
think
> that many people (mostly religious people), would take offense at
it. Now
> obviously if we water down the content too much it is not even worth
doing,
> but I think we can write a letter that will offend very few, and
will still
> contain useful information. I think what Casper stated is correct, we
> should use memetics as a topic and try to eliminate any reference to
> religion. If we simply explain memetics, people who correctly grasp
a full
> understanding, will apply it to established memes. Others who are
> uncomfortable with destroying there preconcevied notions may still
find it
> interesting and pass it on if they do not expand upon what we say, and
> realize the implications. A good example of were to take
inspiration would
> be _Virus of the Mind_. In that book Brodie used memetics to push
> memetics. It was often pretty funny, to see him explain how we were
> exploited by certain memetic buttons and then two pages later, to
have him
> using these exact buttons. But anyway, I was thinking of something
> similar in a chainletter format.
> I don't have time to work on this right now, I hope to write a first
draft
> sometime next week, when that happens I'll post it here, and await the
> criticism and feedback.
> I've found the posts so far very interesting, and helpful. If
anyone has
> more suggestions, make sure to tell me.
> - -paul prestopnik
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:41:44 +0100 (MET)
> From: "Casper K. Clausen" <ckc@dmi.min.dk>
> Subject: Re: virus: Saints
>
> On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Marie Foster wrote:
>
> > What proof do you have that there is no *greater power than us*?
>
> There is none, but since there is also no proof to the contrary, we're
> left with two choices: Faith and Occam. I (and apparently Sodom as
well)
> find Occam much more compelling.
>
> > Just how big do you think we are? Our entire universe may just be
> > a lab experiment in some kind of college somewhere... Give it a
break.
>
> It might, and it might not. We have no evidence one way or the
other, so
> the point is moot. This is a little like wondering what was before
the Big
> Bang. That doesn't matter, because the Bang is in effect an event
horizon;
> we can never observe anything from beyond it, and nothing from
beyond it
> can have influenced our universe (except, perhaps, by having
instigated
> the Bang).
>
> Similarly, speculations about higher powers, us being part of an
> experiment or our universe being an atom in some immense
superstructure
> are not very interesting in the long run. Granted, we may _some day_
find
> some sort of evidence (even circumstantial) that either of these
theories
> hold true. Then we can revise our understanding of the world. Not
sooner.
>
> > Look, when it was proved that the earth was not the center of the
> > universe, minds had to change. The atheist can become stuck in
their
> > blindness just as bad as a theist.
>
> Certainly, and even more so than most theists. Many atheists will
scoff at
> anything put forth by a theist, not even stopping to consider what
> possible merits the statement could have.
>
> Blind atheists are much worse than blind theists, precisely because
they
> defend their position the way they do (usually with more-or-less vague
> references to scientific proof); yet they hypocritically refuse to
employ
> the very tools they claim to base their understanding on when
confronted
> with a statement not their liking, resorting instead to the kind of
> rejection they argue against. Such people deserve no respect.
>
> The bottom line, however, is this: Only science can offer consistent,
> reproducible validations of the theories on which it is based. Until
> theism of any sort can do the same, only one choice of explanation
is open
> to me: Science.
>
> You may argue that these are unfair conditions - after all, the idea
of
> reproducible experiments _originated_ with science, so it has a head
> start. This is sort of a valid argument, it would seem, but on closer
> examination it appears not to hold.
>
> You see, I am completely unable to find an argument for not
requiring your
> world description of choice to be consistent (and, indeed,
consisting only
> of theories which can be reproducibly validated). Even animals require
> reproducibility: A cow, for instance, will usually attempt to
conquer an
> electric fence twice. Once to discover the undesirable shock it
gives, and
> _once more_ to examine whether the effect is consistent and
reproducible.
>
> If you can argue against requiring reproducibility, I'd be very
interested
> to hear it. And I'll be listening with an open mind.
>
> Regards,
> Kvan.
>
> - -------Casper Kvan Clausen------ | 'Ah, Warmark, everything that
passes
> - ----------<ckc@dmi.dk>---------- | unattempted is impossible.'
> Lokal 544 |
> I do not speak for DMI, just me. | - Lord Mhoram, Son of
Variol.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 08:41:42 PST
> From: "rpc man" <rpcman@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Saints
>
> > ...no one can prove
> >> that there is not some kind of god - greater power than us -
whatever
> >> you want to call it.
> >>
> >Exactly. That's why the most *rational* stance is not atheism,
> >but agnosticism.
>
> Atheism is not "proof that god does not exist" just as theism
> is not "proof that god exists". Theism is a belief--atheism
> is a lack of belief (and nothing more). Atheism will be rational
> until evidence of god is submitted.
>
> http://www.california.com/~rpcman/ATHEISM.HTM
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 18:29:30 -0500
> From: Eric Boyd <6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca>
> Subject: virus: Atheism
>
> Hi,
>
> > ...no one can prove
> > > that there is not some kind of god - greater power than
> > > us - whatever you want to call it.
>
> I have to disagree. There are numerous proofs that certain types of
beings
> greater than us don't exist:
>
>
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/arguments.html
>
> (among the beings which can't exist: just about any being which has
more
> than 1 of the following traits: omniscient, omnipotent,
omnibenevolent,
> personal)
>
> Of course, if you want to say that God is not bound by logical
arguments,
> then BY ALL MEANS -- but so much for any chance of being a virian
saint!
>
> I do, of course, admit that some kind of higher being could exist --
> however, It certainly is very restricted in what It can be and do.
>
> Just before we rule out all theists, however, I'd like to point out
that
> for much of history, belief in a God was rational -- nobody had
constructed
> these arguments, there was no scholarly analysis of the Bible,
nobody had
> done the research into Biblical history, etc.
>
> It's entirely possible that theists more than 200 years ago where
quite
> rational -- and if you have any that fit this bill, Marie, I think we
> should consider them for the position of saints.
>
>
=== message truncated ===
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com