From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why do I post here?
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:07:16 MST

X-NEWS: doc alt.atheism: 7132
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why do I post here (was: prayer)

In article <dabrowsk.711462319@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek
Dabrowski) says:
>
>
>-Jarek:
>>>Good that you know. As Lem once said, atheism and theism are just
>>>different programs. A bearer of a better implementation can easily
>>>re-program a worse equipped opponent. My program was constructed to
>>>protect itself from unwanted intruders. It's a good implementation,
>>>but designed for stability and internal peace, not for aggression.

From: <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Date: Sunday, 19 Jul 1992 00:46:56 CDT
  Jarek, are you familliar with meme theory?  A meme is a though pattern,
that replicates itself from person to person.  It exhibits many of the
characteristics of a living being.  It adapts to local conditions to
enhance its survival traits, etc.  The usefullness of a meme to society,
unfortunately, seems to have little correlation with it's growth.

    Interesting hypothesis, but without much basis in fact.


Christainity appears, in this context to be a large parasitic meme,
taking much but returning little.

    Opinion.  And not a very valid one at that.  Many hospitals have
    been built by Christian denominations.  Many colleges and
    universities have been started and supported by churches.
    Even the American Red Cross was started by a Christian woman.

    Christianity has made significant contributions to health and
    education.	There are few other philosophies/religions which
    have done as much charity work as Christianity in an organized
    and systemized fashion.  Individuals of certain philosophies/
    religions may feel led to charitable work, but it is often
    an individual decision, and not a cooperatively organized
    effort within the political structure of the philosophy/religion,
    indeed, if it even has a coherent political structure.

To protect itself, the meme does
not allow a person infected with it to use rationale on it, as this
might cause the meme to die within that person.

    Interesting.  I did not know that anything I believe prevents
    me from thinking rationally about it.  I guess this applies to
    the non-religious meme (atheism) as well?

    Or are you clear of memes?	Sort of like Scientologists are
    (supposedly) clear of engrams?

The meme accomplishes
this by providing easy answers for things that otherwise may trouble
that person, like death, and early indoctrination and constant
reinforcment.

    This is a surprisingly easy answer for explaining the phenomenon
    of religion.  Are you sure this isn't a part of an atheist meme?


Thus the curious phenomena of otherwise rational people
"freaking out" when their faith is challenged.

    Good!  Your theory clearly explains a phenomenon that affects a very
    small minority of religious people.  I'm glad that's been cleared up.


But the meme exacts
a terrible toll, see the crusades, the inquisition, and much of history..

    Oh, so the *memes* are responsible for the crusades, the inquisition,
    and much of history!  That's a relief.  Many atheists prefer to
    alledge that *Christians* were responsible.

    Yep, the *meme* made them do it!


[....]

>2) Some atheists argue theism is illogical; I show a logical theism.
>3) Some atheist criticize theism for arbitrariness; I show that atheism
>   is arbitrary as well.

  You appear to have done these by being arbitrary and playing word
games, in the notes I have read.  Why don't you post a note "The
beliefs of jarek" so we can all see what you really believe in. Then
we can decide for ourselves if it is as logical as you claim.

    Most beliefs stem wholly or in part from a person's pre-selected
    worldview whose selection is somewhat arbitrary.  Only when one
    reassesses/changes an initially held worldview can one state that
    this was done in something resembling an objective fashion.  Some
    arbitrariness will always remain, however.

    One could say that no philosophy is either more or less arbitrary
    than any other, for the evaluation one makes of the arbitrariness
    of one worldview vs another is itself subjective to the worldview
    one holds.

>5) Generally, I try to protect programs that are not write protected :-D

  So you post here to proleytyze?  Gee, I have to check the FAQ, but I
think that's a no-no...

    Doesn't "proselytize" mean to gain new converts with methods similar
    to indoctrination, rather than simply holding on to the adherents
    one has?  Has Jarek stated that he is trying to obtain new converts?

>
>My implementation is more preferable than yours because your code can be
>changed by any programmer who is more skillful than you but my code has
>been designed to be changable only by its designer, ie. by me. You must

  That's interesting..
"My mind can't be changed, so I'm better than you".  I don't really see
why someonw should be proud of narrowmindedness.

    Me either.	But one can hold some self esteem in not being gullible.

If local
conditions were in some way to radically change, I would like to be
able to change my thought patterns.

    Sure, although thought patterns change more easily than worldviews.


As I grow as a person, gain
maturity, increase my knowledge of the world, I would like to change
to accomodate this, to make myself a better person.  Why do you think
it is better to stay in a juvenile mindset?

    I expect that most of your changing to make yourself a better person
    will consist simply of refinements to your already accepted worldview.
    Right?


  --DAVE!!!!


    Do the exclamation points mean that you're emphatic?  Or that you
    are emphatically you?

    Regards,

    Jim B.

    send replies to Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com since I am unable to read
    a.a. on a regular basis.
