META: overposting (Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map)

[Zero Powers]

There are some subjects over the years that have proven to have almost
zero probability of getting anywhere:

The transparent society/privacy rights debate
The gun debate
The "right" TH politics (democratic vs. republican vs. libertarian vs. etc.) and
Theism vs. atheism

I'm not suggesting that these topics be banned or avoided.  Only that
if you choose to participate it would probably help if you realize
before-hand you are not likely to make any progress in changing
anyone's mind, especially your own.

FWIW: I'm on the transparency, gun-free, atheist side of the debate. 
Politics?  Still undecided.  Your mileage, of course, will vary.

Best,
Zero

Zero


On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:48:49 +0100, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> 
> Dirk (and a couple of others): you're overposting. Way overposting.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:27:34AM +0000, Dirk Bruere wrote:
> > Damien Broderick wrote:
> >
> > >At 01:14 PM 3/7/2005 -0800, Adrian wrote:
> > >
> > >>More than one Eastern religion, such as Buddism, seems compatible
> > >>with both
> > >>advanced science and advanced tech.
> > >
> > >
> > >A strong countervailing current is spiritual monism: the claim that
> > >All is Consciousness, or rather Consciousness is Primordial, sometimes
> > >these days based in interpretations of QT. While I find this
> > >suggestion preposterous, and almost certainly due to the conceptual
> > >pratfall of category mistake, it's worth looking at, for example:
> > >
> > >http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/vol06no2/bkrev62.htm
> > >
> > >That review, typically, includes such unpleasant absurdities as:
> > >"Confronted with the genocidal horrors of our century, reason has
> > >nothing to say." This denies the tentative answers offered by, say,
> > >evolutionary and cognitive psychology without even attempting to
> > >refute them.
> > >
> > >Still, Goswami and others like him (I don't include such dubious QT
> > >hawkers as Deepak Chopra or Fred Allan Wolf) might be worth a few
> > >days' attention, if only to counter their stance from an informed
> > >position, rather than a priori dismissal.
> > >
> > >
> > You omit Penrose and Hammeroff
> >
> > --
> > Dirk
> >
> > The Consensus:-
> > The political party for the new millenium
> > http://www.theconsensus.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> --
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> 
> 
>