Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[Suicide Junkie]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
SJ, if only it were that simple. The geologic column comes with its own preconceived dates for each strata. Would post links, but Google with "geologic column" would work best.

The second google result there seems to be directly addressing the arguments brought up by the first.

[Wardad]

All viruses are snipits of information that use a host to reproduce itself.
We even have no-biological computer viruses.
Often viruses have side effects that are damaging to the host, or induce the host to act in ways detrimental to it's well being.

Can the human consciousness suffer from a thought viruses?

Would Philosophy, Ideology, Nationalism, and Religion fit the description?
---------------------------------------------
I'm going to burn in hell now!!!

[Ed Kolis]

Isn't it true that whenever someone discovers the question, then the entire universe blows up and a new one is created?

[Suicide Junkie]

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Isn't it true that whenever someone discovers the question, then the entire universe blows up and a new one is created?

Almost. Whenever both question and answer are known, then it blows up.
You can know one exclusive-or the other without harmul effects.

[ December 11, 2002, 20:04: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[geoschmo]

Maybe, and I know this borders on heresy, but maybe Adams was wrong. Maybe the answer isn't 42.

Maybe the question is 42.

[capnq]

(Krsqk The Bible specifically records a six-day creation, and its credibility is at stake.

The Bible's credibility is only at stake for people who interpret it strictly literally. Since there are several places where the Bible itself openly states that parts of it are allegorical (e.g. Mark 4:11), I personally don't think literalism is supportable.

(Wardad Can the human consciousness suffer from a thought viruses?

Would Philosophy, Ideology, Nationalism, and Religion fit the description?

The cultural equivalent of a biological gene is called a "meme" {link}.

[Krsqk]

The Bible's credibility is only at stake for people who interpret it strictly literally. Since there are several places where the Bible itself openly states that parts of it are allegorical (e.g. Mark 4:11), I personally don't think literalism is supportable.

The literalist interpretation of the Bible holds that the Bible is literal except when it indicates a literary device is in use (i.e., parable in Mark 4:11) or one is obviously in use (Pharisees called "generation of vipers" or "serpents" in Matthew and Luke).

If I said, "Such and such happened at such a time, and it happened thus and so," I'd expect you to take what I said at face value. If I said, "Let me tell you a story with a moral; here it is," I'd expect you to understand what I meant. That's the literal interpretation of the Bible.

If you don't take the Bible literally, you get to decide what you want to take or not take. It puts man as the determining factor for what's supposed to be God's Word. What did God mean if He doesn't mean what He says? To say that declared use of allegory means nothing is literal is a logical fallacy. In syllogism form:
Some Bible is allegory.
No allegory is literal.
Therefore, no Bible is literal.

[ December 11, 2002, 23:38: Message edited by: Krsqk ]