From: Bill Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 17:24:57 MST
I do you agree with everything you have said below - which is why we
have norms and ethics. By norms I mean behavior that is considered
standard across most societies even without law. Even in relative
anarchy, people don't go around just killing and stealing from one
another without reason because of the risk involved. Obviously there are
those, zealots for instance, that break the mold. Ethics is similar, but
more codified. We can all generally agree - in an abstract way, that
stealing and murdering is wrong. I would say that you can separate the
mobsters from the zealots. Mobsters know they are doing wrong - it is
the root of their profit. Drugs would be a good example. Mobsters sell
drugs - knowing it is poor behavior - because supply and demand has made
it lucrative. Legalize drugs and the mob looses interest. Zealots I
think do believe that they are doing good even when immense and obvious
harm comes of their actions.
I did really like one statement you make though: "My idea is that most
folk follow what they individually find are internally consistent
paths."
I agree that most people are not knowingly hypocrites - and I think that
it is an important observation. It implies that those we hate (in the
general sense) we hate for good reason - they really believe in what
they are doing. I would use John Ashcroft as an example of someone I
despise yet am sure he feels he is doing good.
Bill
David Hill wrote:
> 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