But seriously, your example could have been better, after all, there is no
conflict in the example as god is not necessary for religion to exist.
Sodom
Bill Roh
just being my usual, nit picking, ugly, self-rightous Atheist
Richard Brodie wrote:
> Nate is correct speaking from a Level-2 standpoint, in which there is only
> one possible model of reality (usually referred to as "Truth"). Level-2
> players end up looking in a puzzled manner at all the idiots out there who
> don't seem to understand the simple truth. Ironically, they are looked at by
> others the same way. Consider the recently posted speech from the
> Congressman who is on the House Science Committee in which he blasts stupid
> scientists for not believing in God.
>
> In Level 3, there are multiple, conflicting models of reality. One can be at
> peace with the fact that God is just as real as Science. Science is a nice
> model for designing airplanes, but so far has proved inferior to religion
> for purposes such as community cohesion, inspirational leadership, and the
> pursuit of happiness (drugs excepted).
>
> Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/
> Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
> http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
> Free newsletter! Visit Meme Central at
> http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
> Nathaniel Hall
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 4:46 PM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: Memetic Engineering
>
> David McFadzean wrote:
>
> >
> > If there is an objective reality (and I agree that evidence suggests there
> > is), then no-one has direct access to it. All we experience is subjective
> > reality. Real knowledge consistently describes objective reality, but it
> > is never more than a model and shouldn't be equated to reality.
> Any good experiment gives the margin of error. You don't need direct
> access to reality, just some idea of how close to it you are. That way
> you can keep on getting closer even if you never get there completely.
> >
> > As for mutually exclusive memes, isn't possible that both these statements
> > may be true?
> >
> > Humans are animals.
> > Humans are not animals.
>
> >
> > Doesn't it depend on context and interpretation?
> > --
> > David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
> > Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
> > Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/
>
> Not if animals is defined in exactly the same way for both. Such a trick
> with words is possible because people like to equivocate.
>
> Nate Hall
> surf.to/nateman