In <19961006045736515.AAA164@GIGANTE>, on 10/05/96 at 09:58 PM, Adamsc@io-online.com (Adamsc) said: .On Sat, 5 Oct 1996 15:55:42 -0700 (PDT), John C. Randolph wrote: .>What's really sad is the way that every cult member tries to convince .>himself that *his* franchise has more to offer than Lifespring, .Food for thought: suppose he didn't - why would any rational individual .follow a religion he thought was wrong?

that statement is profound in more ways that in religion! why would any rational individual espouse ANY cause he thought was wrong!

For the money. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com

Roy M. Silvernail wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6.2

owF9Uk1IVFEYVSyKkaGdmyKOYJSkk3+NP1TqjBphI6NmKhl1Z959827euff17n2O L3KXCxE3gYsMskWLCFq0sTYSCAUptJIIokUFtqgWBS1aFN3nZFmLPt7i8X3nnu+c c+9MyXzZzpKG0ZXU3rfXDy1PbTwrLX15pOxH5diTw6src+9idx4tPaze58uK1PDZ C+1v1oa6nq6NjCztupqtWJXLQ90Vs7PPP67L6snmpdpCw/cvrdZC/0r/+IdvNy8u zu2ZvvFYN82n2fTM2LXyz7feJ193LKRqjj34tNj7Ij51ZbI8s/q1cm79dE/msnWv ZCMxnHi14+7Igbrb98tKM7t13m2IVVVVlZg6JcCZ0rFs4DrUc30xrmpAtGacdLge y1NBzVDmUfCYpqotGolGTmB/rEdKC7b0oB3p5xzdBijfdaWicCgsZomDGrUoOAEK 0ucWiAjgEc2kIBxMWGyCWT7hRTZbci4LIPAoZzmDCUl+MaNAlNkuRa7dgIsftko7 RENpoqlRqsEUXE/a0heW2YG89Kg5HqgiznS2+CsRStti+q9CUOVK3/jq7BtFlvhF h9vE/WYJNVaGAQ2H20hG+mbuUGHAdDuh0Ssso0kiR4wm2zPxhpAiecFhnEJIHY0o P3OJZnWIDOeC5oy8CQpq26at2oG05EyzLCNCwdwSNQaJxXgQHsmblbFopLYW0Qj+ 1IAMkIphkPEJ6gnC+Gb3HM4Xx54MOlQ20ITT8N6jka6+gSRSTJhXQj2kORXMldqk zYgXQNro5BxnHCZyCkkpbF+Z3xoMSlsXiMm/y9hWJtRoJH0yjbSf4SyLXhrANjjz 5DxmLu440FiPlji6k0i0oiuB5jg6m3G0CahvRF0C8U7EE0gmUdeK+hYk4n+Z2qyQ lEwYRyRjEtyM1fUz4/QfQz8B =4wTe -----END PGP MESSAGE-----

Try signing your messages in the clear next time, since this sort of message is a little awkward to read. Gary -- "Of course the US Constitution isn't perfect; but it's a lot better than what we have now." -- Unknown. pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

attila sez:

why would any rational individual espouse ANY cause he thought was wrong!

Biblical creationism is "wrong": there's ample evidence that the Earth is *much* more than 6000 years old. Yet lots of seemingly rational people believe biblical creationism. Newtonian mechanics is "wrong". Even an tiny velocity causes space- and time-dilation, even a vanishingly small mass distorts spacetime, and Heisenberg's principle applies to macroscopic objects too - it's just hard to detect these effects under the conditions we're used to. But you won't catch me using general relativity to calculate catapult ranges. Humans only have 2 kinds of colors receptors, so artists can mix colors and get seemingly new colors. That doesn't mean that blue and yellow paint mixed together will reflect monochromatic green. People who try to transfer images from one medium to another suddenly have to confront the more complicated reality. Surely that doean't make my kindergarten art teacher irrational for telling me about color mixing. Or maybe it does. Excuse me, I need to find my crayons... Stephen

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Stephen Humble wrote:

attila sez:

...

why would any rational individual espouse ANY cause he thought was wrong!

Perhaps he wishes to marry Anne Bolyn ... Perhaps he/she is not religious at all, but finds the need to follow the herd for social, political, or business reasons ... Can we kill this inane thread? -r.w.

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Stephen Humble wrote:

attila sez:

...

why would any rational individual espouse ANY cause he thought was wrong!

Biblical creationism is "wrong": there's ample evidence that the Earth is *much* more than 6000 years old. Yet lots of seemingly rational people believe biblical creationism.

The "evidence" is based upon the belief that such techniques as carbon dating and statistical radio active half life bearing rocks give an accurate measurement of time as we know it. Geologically speaking, we are just pissing in the fan to see which way it blows and calling it good. And, considering the number of text books and egos to be restrung if it was ever conclusively proven wrong would be devastating to say the least to the current crop of scientists. As someone once said (I believe it was Samuel Clemens), "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Newtonian mechanics is "wrong". Even an tiny velocity causes space- and time-dilation, even a vanishingly small mass distorts spacetime, and Heisenberg's principle applies to macroscopic objects too - it's just hard to detect these effects under the conditions we're used to. But you won't catch me using general relativity to calculate catapult ranges.

Newtonian mechanics is not "wrong", just an obeservation of mechanical behavior at a macro level of abstraction. Newton built on Keppler's work, and Eienstein upon Newton's, each refining the other's observation towards the true nature of matter and it's behavior in this realm. Eienstein was nothing more than a clever observer, and QED is workable bullshit based upon those operations. Ever wonder why we have fudge factors in our calculations? We don't why they work, they just do. This tells me we ain't home yet.

Humans only have 2 kinds of colors receptors, so artists can mix colors and get seemingly new colors. That doesn't mean that blue and yellow paint mixed together will reflect monochromatic green. People who try to transfer images from one medium to another suddenly have to confront the more complicated reality. Surely that doean't make my kindergarten art teacher irrational for telling me about color mixing.

Or maybe it does. Excuse me, I need to find my crayons...

MIxing too many metaphors. All is see is gray...:-) ...Paul