XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, talk.atheism   
   From: brianf88@bigpond.net.au   
      
   "Sir Frederick"  wrote in message   
   news:34ie1212dqakbknor4o7092edsbtan1fsl@4ax.com...   
   > On 14 Mar 2006 13:01:43 -0800, "Joseph H"  wrote:   
   >   
   >>So we arrive....   
   >>   
   >>Hey, we're as tough as anything else. But we want a little explanation;   
   >>and we need a little meaning; and we'd like a little comfort; and we'd   
   >>like to belong; and we'd like a little harmony....   
   >>   
   >>But we can do it. We got the means to provide all the above. So we   
   >>concoct a little explanation and we spin a little yarn and we provide a   
   >>little hope...   
   >>   
   >>Hey, man, it's all nonsense. It's fiction personified, the more   
   >>fanciful the better. But we believe it at once. Hey, it's doing its   
   >>job, who cares? We got business to attend to. We got to eat and hunt   
   >>and screw and fight. So don't rock the boat, man. It's alright.   
   >>   
   >>Oh? Truth? You're kidding! Truth is for wimps. It's for losers who   
   >>aren't tough enough to survve.   
   >>   
   >>But...maybe now we need truth? Oh, you poor fool! No, seriously, maybe   
   >>now that have come together we really need to know the truth. Fool, no!   
   >>But truth as a unifying agent, truth now that we are finally capable of   
   >>knowing, truth now that those who still believe are more powerful than   
   >>the liberated rest of us? No, no, when will you ever learn....?  i   
   >>mean, there is a hope; there is a truth.  No, no, no!   
   >>   
   >>Joseph H   
   >>   
   >>www,humanisation.org   
   >   
   > In a meaningless situation, even deceit and deceitful   
   > stories have their effects.   
   > Consider the folk lore theory "personification".   
   >   
   > We can't be truthful because evolution found deceit   
   > useful. Deceit is now firmly a common aspect of our structure,   
   > and our medieval culture.   
   >   
   > Now that we need "truth", we are unable.   
   > Next must be the "Singularity", and new structures.   
   >   
   > The sooner, the better   
      
   The singularity you refer to is 'you'.   
      
   Drop the "we" and de-curmudgeonise  :-)   
      
   BOfL   
      
      
      
      
   > --   
   > Best,   
   > Frederick Martin McNeill   
   > Poway, California, United States of America   
   > mmcneill@fuzzysys.com   
   > http://www.fuzzysys.com   
   > http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill   
   > *************************   
   > Phrase of the week :   
   > "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence   
   > over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."   
   > -- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988)   
   > :-))))Snort!)   
   > **************************************   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)