--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00263 Date: 04/14/98 From: ANDREW CUMMINS Time: 07:08pm \/To: FREDRIC RICE (Read 0 times) Subj: Typical Cultist Behavior -=> Quoting Fredric Rice to Andrew Cummins <=- ac> How many speciation events does it take to produce something that ac> is not a fruit fly from a fruit fly population? FR> One, silly. Don't your masters let you learn _anything_? Okay, chimp, you have a fruit fly population in a cage. One day you notice that some of the flies can't breed with each other -- a speciation event. How do you determine which are the fruit flies and which are not. And, if the 2nd group aren't fruit flies, what are they? As usual, you can't give an answer. You haven't answered anything. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0066 * Origin: FREEDOM SIGNODE Serving Him and You! (1:284/57) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00264 Date: 04/15/98 From: BOB EYER Time: 07:38pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: SECRET MARK 19:38:0004/15/98 BE: -The mere fact that someone does not provide supporting argument -for a certain statement does not show that the statement is viewed -by him as incorrigible or as a dogma. He may be assuming that you -know what the argument is; maybe he just forgot to state the -argument; he may have stated something so outrageous as to inspire -the reader to view it as a dogma (when in fact it was only a -mistake) and thus reveal himself to be uncritical (a common -Holysmoke ploy); or maybe he really didn't have an argument and -merely sent off a message in first draft, not really committed to -the statement on subsequent examination. > Bob, I sense that you are intellectually VERY honest and I >understand your dilemma because you evidently have a great deal of >regard for Rice. No, I think this is a mistake. Rice and his colleagues (such as Hitt, Kimes, Voigt, Bandsma, Smith, Goldberg, Martin and a half dozen others) were the ones who loaded me down this past January-February with a lot foul language, insults and ad hominems over in HS, when I criticised them in no uncertain terms for using foul language, etc, and for using a prejudicial definition of Atheism. My opinion of these people is that, although they are of above-average intelligence and knowledge, they generally suffer from below-average conversational and debating ethics. This fact causes their forum to have an unnecessarily poor reputation. On the other hand, I don't see any reason why people should copy their morality. >The only reason I raised the question in the >first place was that I've encountered him before and I assure you >that he doesn't allow anybody else NEARLY the latitude you believe >should be allowed to him. I don't wish to continue to beat a dead >horse now that you have acknowledged that Rice DID make an >unwarranted assumption of fact (and he did it deliberately about a >subject in which he is obviously VERY passionate). We all DO make >assumptions about the level of knowledge and intelligent of those >with whom we're conversing. I've just found Mr. Rice quite >unforgiving of the slightest lapses in others which he readily >forgives in himself. I once followed the convention of referring >to Sigmund Freud as a genius in his time and was subjected to an >almost endless spate of stalking and abuse by Rice and Gordon for >DARING to use such a term with regard to Freud. I never any >longer go NEAR the Skeptic echo but they followed me around to >continue the abuse and to show everybody else what a dummy I was. >One does tire of such things. I also stay clear of the juvenile >debates on Holysmoke. Don't let it bother you. The thing to do is keep a level head, maintain control over one's own behaviour, demonstrate by example the superiority of following the proper rules of communication, ignore messages that have no substance, refuse to acknowledge insults except by pointing out who makes them, make sure one's own messages are not completely insubstantial, etc. That's my point of view on this subject. You don't go about improving the quality of debate by letting your own style slip. And, in my estimation, you have generally good debating and conversational style. Incidentally, when I get time next month, I'm going back into Holysmoke to continue my crusade . Maybe you'd like to join me. Those people need to be saved, rescued from their errors. Bob --- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5 * Origin: FidoNet: CAP/CANADA Support BBS : 416 287-0234 (1:250/710) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00265 Date: 04/15/98 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 01:35am \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Reflections on modernity >>> Frank Masingill on Reflections on modernity FM> In a world so dependent upon fuel and technology it is not FM> difficult to imagine, I think, a breakdown of enormous proportions that FM> would strain the collective intelligence of that technology to maintain FM> equilibrium. Artifacts might not be so local and so rapidly buried FM> under accumulative debris and life might more quickly approach the FM> "primative" than has been imagined. Just consider Mir, a totally technological environment. Just wait until the next century, Earth will be looking like Mir. Greenhouse is just one example of the problems mounting. Overpopulation another. Shall I go on? Just be glad that we lived so long already. --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Aloha, OR (503) 642-3548 (1:105/337) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00266 Date: 04/19/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 08:56pm \/To: HAL WHITE (Read 0 times) Subj: Freud HW>-> FR>His belief in an "Id" hasn't borne out but I think he was spot on HW>-> when FR>it comes to the Ego and the subconcious. HW>-> HW>KK> I agree with others that the discovery of the unconscious is one of HW>-> the greatest discoveries of all time. And that's the weirdest thing HW>-> about it: something that's an ordinary, central part of our lives had HW>-> to be discovered. Sort of like a flashlight that's only conscious HW> It seems you may be suggesting Freud discovered the unconscious. HW>This is not the case. It's referred to in many places, e.g. Nietsche, HW>and (I'm told} Liebnitz. Sure, we might expect that perceptive people would sometimes wonder why they did the same stupid thing over and over, or get tuned into the level on nonve5rbal communication, but I think Freud did the most work on it, also trying to formalize discussion about it. The most interesting idea I've seen about the subconscious was talked about 10 or 20 years ago by some brain researchers. The name of Dr Barbara B. Brown comes to mind, but I can't think of the name of the book. The thesis was that much of what we call subconscious is just the cortical hemisphere that doesn't have a speech center. There is some evidence from neuroscience that we identify our 'self' with the hemisphere that talks. Even though the two hemispheres are prfoundly well-connected, stuff going on in the other hemisphere tends to be percieved as 'other.' HW> Neither did F discover childhood sexuality. Oh I'm sure he didn't, but he talked about it, and considered it important. There are a lot of things like that, that are either not remembered consciously from childhood, or are blanked out even though they are right in front of you. Dostoyevsky (in "Notes from Underground") was a good example of someone who knew there was an unconscious but didn't give it a name or formal definition. We humans almost can't talk about something until it has a name. And then, we run the risk of 'reifying' it, i.e., because it has a name, therefore it exists. HW> None of this is to say that I agree with Mr. Rice that F is to HW>be discredited because, early in his career he believed that HW>the nose played a key role in neurosis. This is a kind of HW>smear, or at any rate does not go to the points {F's contribution} HW>at issue. Atheists of old said some pretty weird things too. The context here is some recent scholarship that shows that much of Freud's 'scientific' research with patients about hysteria, etc., was not scientific at all. Rather, Freud became convinced about certain diagnoses for his patients' problems, and if his patients disagreed, that was proof to him that they were 'resistant' patients, and he would simply browbeat them until they agreed. Many of his early 'cures' were not really cures. But as you suggest, this does not disprove the fact that Freud made profound discoveries and contributions. Einstein was wrong about some things, but that does not 'prove' he was just some crank. * SLMR 2.1a * Here at Intel, quality is Job 0.999997037582. --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00267 Date: 04/19/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 08:56pm \/To: MR. RIGOR (Read 0 times) Subj: Perfection Revisited MR>I wonder if anything has caused more psychological damage to humans than pseu MR>concepts such as "perfect", "omnipotent", "omniscient", and other poorly MR>defined ideas which are stretched to the point of being ridiculous. My ex MR>girlfriend seemed to be damaged by such ideas, and I wasn't a good enough MR>therapist to help her dispose of these notions, which contributed to our MR>breakup. Your list leaves off a concept that is nearly identical: historical/ political necessity -- it isn't just me and my prejudices, these people are perfectly absolutely evil, therefore it's necessary to kill them. That's what happens when you start thinking in terms of absolutes. And in that situation, whether you're "right" or not depends only on whether or not you're on the winning side. And the people who end up getting it are usually nothing more than people who disagree with the fanatics. * SLMR 2.1a * Judging from the taste I'd say the other one was Shinola. --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00268 Date: 04/19/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 08:56pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Perfect solids FM> KK> Chris's estimate of the earth's circumference came from a guy named FM> KK> Poseidonus, who did his work about a century after Eratosthenes. Like [...] FM> I'm not sure just how much geographical knowledge Christopher had but e FM>presume he was well acquainted with sailing the Mediterranean and regardless Check out a book called "Legendary Islands of the Ocean Sea." The author's name slips my mind. * SLMR 2.1a * .Descartes of Borg: Borgus sumus. Resistancus futilo est. --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00269 Date: 04/19/98 From: BOB SEWELL Time: 11:32pm \/To: FREDRIC RICE (Read 0 times) Subj: Boy Scouts of America bigots In a deposition submitted under oath, Fredric Rice said: FR> I've been utterly unable to find even ___ONE___ atheist hate FR> group. bs> How about Russian Communism under Stalin, FR> No, that won't work since Communism is a political ideology (and we're FR> looking for an atheist-based hate group, don't forget. Oh, I'm *so* surprised you wouldn't accept it, weaseling out of it by trying to add some qualifier you didn't mention before, even if that qualifier *is* irrelevant to your criteria. Take a look at your wording in the first line: you typed "atheist hate group." The Communists were/are a group of atheists, and their words and actions were filled with hatred and murder of theists and capitalists alike. You can never take politics out of the equation. Politics is just another tool, used by all your so-called "Christian" hate groups as well as Communist, atheist hate groups. In fact, it is a tool used by all groups. bs> or Chinese Communism under Chairman Mao Tse Dong? FR> No, you're still not focused, Bob. We're looking for atheist-based FR> hate groups, not political parties. So, a political party can't be atheist-based, nor a hate group? FR> What you're experiencing is desperation while "on a fishing trip." What you are experiencing is desperation due to your errant position. I presented two atheist hate groups, and you're desperate to find a way to exclude them, because that makes your atheism less perfect, what with your pals Stalin and Mao on your side. FR> I can't say that I blame you for your attempt at dishonesty. I might have been comforted, had I been dishonest. It's your own dishonesty you should be concerned with. Your fundamentalism is so stereotypical. FR> Were I a cultist I would probably do the same thing. I'm a cultist? Hmm. That's news to me. Speaking of fishing trips, it looks like you're casting about with your own fishing line. It would help were you to find the right pond. FR> Oh: Yet another Christian hate group made it to my list yesterday. FR> The Boy Scouts of America. Imagine the intolerant bigots who won't FR> allow atheists or homosexuals into their club. It's ironic. Yeah, imagine a private club that sets limits on their membership. How dare they exercise their American freedom! Clean the jism off your monitor, Rice. You're getting much too excited about the Boy Scouts. FR> Everyone knows that atheists are far more moral, ethical, and Morality which is based on what? FR> densities Chairman Mao and Pol Pot had access to. And Christianity FR> would have done better in America if it weren't for that annoying Bill FR> of Rights thing Americans used to successfully defang the cult. You mean that same Bill of Rights you're trying to deny the Boy Scouts of America? So, are you ever actually going to talk about philosophy in this echo, or are you trying to turn this into an annex of lowlystroke^W holysmoke? Auscultare... ... When the clue salesman knocks at your door, let him in. --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Seven Wells On-Line * Nashville, TN (1:116/30.3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00270 Date: 04/19/98 From: BOB SEWELL Time: 11:33pm \/To: RICHARD MEIC (Read 0 times) Subj: ATHEISM v FIDEISM Like your typical fundy, Fredric Rice stomped his feet and said the following to Richard Meic: > FR> By any definition, everyone is born not believing in gods and > FR> goddesses. Ergo, everyone is born an atheist. > I'll have to stand with Bob on this one. Atheism is not agnostism. > Atheism is the "non-acceptance" of any deity(s) existance. Agnostism is > simply the lack of knowledge of such. FR> No, atheism is the lack of deity beliefs. Everyone is born an FR> atheist. No good fundy will ever let the facts get in the way of their beliefs, the facts being, in this case, the definition of atheism from any English dictionary. Note how he merely restates his belief, rather than try to clarify it with some supporting document. Such is typical of the fundamentalist. But then, we shouldn't be surprised, since there is no support for his belief. Isn't it funny to see Fredric rant and rave about fundies, yet refuse to recognize the one in his mirror? You have as good a chance of convincing Fredric of his error as you would any other fundy, like, say, Andrew Cummins. Auscultare... ... Stultum facit Fortuna quem vult perdere. --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Seven Wells On-Line * Nashville, TN (1:116/30.3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00271 Date: 04/18/98 From: DAY BROWN Time: 10:07pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Love On 04-15-98 Frank Masingill wrote to Day Brown... FM> That is the saddest aspect of the reality of the closed-minded FM> literalist FM> in the realm of ANY "sacred" scripture or "word." You may have FM> noticed the FM> similarity in basics of Paul's "Hymn to Love" (13th Chap. of I Cor.) FM> and FM> Plato's Symposium as a hymn to love. Although Paul is emphasizing FM> agape love FM> and Plato was speaking of erotic love the central identity as far as FM> noesis is concerned is rather plain. I dunno Frank; so far as I can tell, Plato and most Greeks took a Dionysian view of love, in which the term includes *both* erotic and agape. Bear in mind, that they didn't, in his time, have any venereal diseases, so all of the taboos which we are used to were not a part of that culture. So, Plato was not extolling the love of sex; he did not know there was a difference. IIRC, Claudius' wife, Lydia was infamous for screwing all comers, pardon the pun, ;) in a 24 hour brothel stint, apparantly setting a new record of some 300 or so studs. I know of no evidence that she received exposure to an STD as a result. Yet, there was mention of VD on grafitti in Pompei, and by 200 AD would have been a significant problem which the Judaic taboos and the Christian dogma would've proved to be wise political policy. While I would not call this pandering by Paul, it was fortuitous. It was perhaps also a failure of Stoicism not to raise the issue. However: now that we have the diagnostic techniques, if love were as free now, as it was then, there would be no perjorative notion about identifying sexual partners, and these STDs would be easily tracked, carriers identified, and wiped out in one generation, as has been done with typhoid. ___ * OFFLINE 1.58 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: * After F/X * Rochester N.Y. 716-359-1662 (1:2613/415) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00272 Date: 04/18/98 From: DAY BROWN Time: 10:35pm \/To: MR. RIGOR (Read 0 times) Subj: Perfection Revisited On 04-15-98 Mr. Rigor wrote to All... MR> I wonder if anything has caused more psychological damage MR> to humans than pseudo concepts such as "perfect", Take perfect off your list MR. Didja see where these IBM guys spelled out 'IBM' with gold atoms on a crystal surface? IIRC, each atom can *only* exist over a quantum well on the surface, and these things only exist at certian discrete and integer or *precisely* identical distances... So, the upshot is, that the "I" in IBM is a *perfectly* straight line! MR> "omnipotent", "omniscient", and other poorly defined... You are living on a virtual reality holodeck; God designed the computer and the software that projects an image of reality in three dimensions which is what you perceive. Were you able to perceive more than three, the image wouldn't be so convincing; however, various experts, like quantum physicists and Brahmins have presented convincing evidence that more dimensions are in the system to make it all work. Now, the Brahmins have had rather more time to think about all this, and show that while God has the power to turn it all off at any time, [omnipotence] he, so far, has not chosen to do so just yet. Furthermore, while he also has the receptors and an adquate amount of bandwidth to see it all [omnicience], all at once, most of it is way too boring. You doing anything at all worth watching? MR> I'm thinking of filing a class action lawsuit against western MR> religions for MR> all the bullcrap they've been putting in peoples' brains. MR> Do you guys think I have a chance of winning? Nah. the courts are full of bullshit too. ___ * OFFLINE 1.58 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: * After F/X * Rochester N.Y. 716-359-1662 (1:2613/415)