Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
The Nullifidian Volume 3 Number 02
From ai815@freenet.carleton.caThu Feb 29 18:30:14 1996
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 23:00:10 -0500
From: Greg Erwin <ai815@freenet.carleton.ca>
To: 72724.3223@compuserve.com, depearce@lexmark.com, chazlett@infinet.com
Subject: February 1996 Nullifidian
############################################################
############################################################
______
/ / / /
/ /__ __
/ / ) (__
/ / (__(__
__
|\ ( ) ) / /
| \ | / / . _/_ . __ / . __ __
| \ | / / / / ) / ) / / ) __ ) / )
) \| (__(__(___(__(__(___(__(__(__(__(__(__/ (__
===========================================================
*The*E-Zine*of*Atheistic*Secular*Humanism*and*Freethought**
===========================================================
now available at http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/
############################################################
##### Volume III, Number 2 #####
################### ISSN 1201-0111 #######################
####################### FEB 1996 ###########################
nullifidian, n. & a. (Person) having no religious faith or
belief. [f. med. L _nullifidius_ f. L _nullus_ none +
_fides_ faith; see -IAN] Concise Oxford Dictionary
The purpose of this magazine is to provide a source of
articles dealing with many aspects of humanism.
We are ATHEISTIC as we do not believe in the actual
existence of any supernatural beings or any transcendental
reality.
We are SECULAR because the evidence of history and the daily
horrors in the news show the pernicious and destructive
consequences of allowing religions to be involved with
politics or government.
We are HUMANISTS and we focus on what is good for humanity,
in the real world. We will not be put off with offers of
pie in the sky, bye and bye.
============================================================
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. The term "nullifidian" in the history of the English language.
2. The Sound of Craziness
==========================
//*BEGINNING OF ARTICLE*//
==========================
Today's Vocabulary Words: Solifidian Nullfidian
The Term "nullifidian" in the history of the English Language
nullifidian: [person] having no religious faith. A sceptic in
matters of religion.
Examples from history:
To be plain, I am a Nullifidian and there are many of our secte.
--Bullein, _A Dialogue against the feuer pestilence_ 1596
Cecilia was no longer the eternal cherub, but...a pink and white
nullifidian. --George Eliot _Middlemarch_ 19th cent.
The Atheisticall Nullifidian nothing regarded the assoyling of
ecclesiastical controversies. --Gillfries _A dispute against
the English-popish ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of
Scotland_ 1637
Sure to be so a Solifidean is to be a nullifidean. --John Howe
_Blessedness of the righteous_ 1668
A Solifidean Christian is a Nullifidean Pagan. --Feltham
_Resolves, divine, moral, political_
So you see, we mockers and blasphemers have been assoyling
ecclesiastical controversies for centuries now. Of course, we
intend to keep it up.
As one example, the search for uses of "nullifidian" throughout
the history of the English language, which nearly ruined my eyes,
and required me to stand in the middle of the research section of
the Ottawa public library with a magnifying glass pressed up
against one eye, moving back and forth, attempting to focus on
the pages of the _Oxford English Dictionary In Print So Tiny It
Will Make You Blind_ without getting dizzy and losing my
lunch, brought up the word Solifidian.
A solifidian, for those of you who haven't consulted the
_OEDIPSTIWMYB_ recently, is one who believes in
justification by faith alone. The _OEDIPSTIWMYB_ mentions a
lot of controversy about being a solifidian; apparently (one
might get the impression) the only thing that people discussed
and wrote books about in the 17th century. Obviously, priests,
and others dependant on the coffers of religion and the pockets
of believers, saw the dangers in relying too heavily on faith, or
insisting that it was the only thing that mattered, as the flock
might then neglect such standard tenets of religion as throwing
pence into the collection plate; supporting your local parson;
buying hymnbooks, staying awake during sermons; inviting the
parson to dinner; paying the parson his salary; and making sure
there was enough coin left over for the bishops, archbishops, and
sundry deacons, elders, churchwardens, beadles, and a good supply
of tights and pretty robes for the altar boys.
Naturally, with Christians hurling such abuse at each other,
saying that a solifidean christian is the same as a nullifidian
pagan, those who really were nullifidians ("there are many of our
secte") couldn't understand a word of it and tended to assoyl
such ecclesiastical controversies.
Who wouldn't?
Nowadays, we have all become secular humanists, and many of us
are atheistic secular humanists, just like the solifidians say.
Dog knows, many of us do not seem to wish to admit it. I think
it is clear and uncontroversial that we are all, at least,
"sceptics in matters of religion," and if not, we should be.
So, whether you have no religious faith at all, or whether you
fall under the category of sceptic, the nullifidian umbrella is
accomodating enough to cover us all.
The greatest benefit of being a nullifidian (greater than
avoiding trinitarian math, and transubstantialist chemistry) is
that when some nasty solifidian tells you that humanism is just
another religion, you can now: first, confuse him by calling him
a solifidian, preferably in some obscure theolgical manner, such
as, "The parameters of your solifidian theology make irrelevant
such vast areas of standard Christian praxis that I scarcely
know where to begin to assoyl your epistemology"; and then,
loftily reply that, as a nullifidian, you, *by definition*,
have no religious faith, refer him to the dictionary, and leave
quickly.
Make sure it's the _OEDIPSTIWMYB_, that way, his eyes will
be so strained, he'll be out of commission for days, and unable
to argue back. If you're really lucky he won't be able to find a
magnifying glass and will be permanently damaged, and if he
attempts to lift it, he may require hospitalization.
====================
//*END OF ARTICLE*//
====================
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we
can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is
what annoys me." [Jack Handey]
==========================
//*BEGINNING OF ARTICLE*//
==========================
==================
||END OF ARTICLE||
==================
"The time appears to me to have come when it is the duty of
all to make their dissent from religion known." [John Stuart
Mill]
==========================
//*BEGINNING OF ARTICLE*//
==========================
The Sound of Craziness
In a discussion the other day, about Prof. Mack's endorsement of
UFO abductees' experiences, (at a CSICOP conference) "Carole G.
Stock" <cgs@ESKIMO.COM> said:
but despite his ability to speak glibly in a confrontational
audience situation (you can imagine what the people there made
of his notions) he has that sound of craziness in his voice.
I know that's not very objective, but I think people will know
what I mean.
Well, I know exactly what she meant. And I think that being able
to spot 'that sound of craziness,' is a damned handy talent. I
think that most of us can, but most of us also have difficulty in
expressing exactly what components make up that sound. And
sometimes we don't have confidence in our judgments. Or we are
afraid of sounding dogmatic, closeminded, bigoted; horrors! all the
things we are used to accusing the "other side" of being. Surely
that can't be us?
Well, let's get specific. We will enumerate the features of that
'sound of craziness' and provide examples. What we will have at
the end is a diagnostic tool. I won't even aim at 100%
accuracy...first of all, no one would admit that it is possible,
secondly, it is not really necessary. Many topics are not that
vital, and many more topics are not vital to you, personally. By
applying this handy diagnostic tool, you can determine whether the
person speaking or writing on a subject you care about, and perhaps
are not too familiar with, is likely to be purveying reason or
nonsense. You should be able to assign a presentation a fairly
accurate location on the scale from total nonsense to total
rationality. You can then decide whether it is worthwhile to
continue further.
Furthermore, we may note that some things which are totally
reasonable, don't necessarily work out. In the early stages of a
diagnosis, before there is much information, a large number of
possibilities are quite reasonable and many paths of investigation
may be legitimately pursued. However, a fruitful path of
investigation consistently yields new information and suggests new
tests, as it gets closer and closer to the truth. As in the game
of "Hot and Cold" you played as a child, you get warmer and warmer
as you get closer to the goal. This should result in eliminating
some paths of investigation.
The first sign of craziness is the refusal to eliminate a path of
investigation despite the fact that you don't get "warmer" by
pursuing it. People do that when they are driven by a
preconception rather than by a search for the truth. If you start
by assuming what is true, rather than searching for what is true,
you will often end up ignoring all evidence which contradicts what
you are trying to prove. Anyone who persists in an area of
research despite consistent and obvious failure to prove a
hypothesis, and in the face of convincing negative evidence,
probably sounds "crazy."
We can't go on calling this condition "craziness." It is not what
most people mean by insanity; many of the people with this problem
are perfectly competent in other areas and have well-paid jobs,
raise healthy families, and have no trouble dealing with everyday
reality. I think that the problem is not caused by a misfunction
of the human thinking apparatus (not crazy), nor by a subnormal
brain, (not stupid) but is akin to a built-in design problem,
analogous to optical illusions.
_______
/| /| Necker cube.
/ | / |
/__|___/ | Which face is
| |___|__| closest to you?
| / | /
|/ | /
|______|/
There is nothing wrong with the eyes or brain of someone who cannot
decide which face of a Necker cube is "up," it is the way our
vision system is built. Likewise, at the beginning of things (say
40 to 80 thousand years ago) it is reasonable to equate these two
propositions: 1) It got cloudy, and then it rained...so, clouds
cause rain; 2) I said a prayer, and then it got cloudy and
rained...so, prayers cause clouds and rain. We may consider this
problem to be an "ideational illusion." That is, a process that
fairly frequently leads us to a correct conclusion, but in certain
areas, under certain conditions, leads us astray. The process
herein being codified is post hoc ergo propter hoc, when one thing
happens after another, we assume that it happened because of the
first thing. Note that this is true often enough that it is one of
the main ways we form working hypotheses, and probably has produced
an awful lot of "true" theories.
How can we tell the difference between the following situations:
it is often cloudy without being followed by rain, and people often
pray without causing clouds and rain? Why is it unremarkable to
accept that a new species of large mammal was found in Vietnam a
few years ago, or that coelacanths turned out not to be extinct,
but extremely unlikely that missing link Abominable Snowman type
semi-human creatures walk the wilderness areas of Tibet, Nepal and
the Pacific Northwest, or dinosaurs still wander through Zare?
Why is it reasonable for scientists to spend radiotelescope time in
searching the cosmos for radiowaves broadcast by possible ETs,
while unreasonable to think that UFOs are sneaking through our
skies and abducting people for some kinds of experiments? How can
you tell if the person pushing a theory on your TV, or in a
magazine article, is a brilliant theoretician, years ahead of her
time, or a crank, spouting the same old nonsense?
These are the questions we wish to answer.
Lack of Context
I think that the basic flaw, the basic ideational flaw, is a lack
of context. If the speaker, or writer, severs the topic from all
surrounding context, beware. When talking about the relation
between miracles and facts, Robert G. Ingersoll said:
"A fact will fit every other fact in the Universe, because
it is the product of all other facts. A lie will fit nothing
except another lie made for the express purpose of fitting it."
All of our theories, every one of our hypotheses is subject to
being tested against everything else that is known. If it is true,
if it is, indeed, a fact, if it is a description of how the real
world works, other facts will confirm it and reveal new facets of
truth, new parts of the whole. Testing a theory against the facts
is never a bad idea. If someone objects to doubt or inquiry, it is
an indication that the idea is an ideational illusion.
Someone who is not flawed will welcome this examination. Indeed,
in the purest expression of such a search for truth: science;
paths of investigation are suggested. A person who forthrightly
states the predictions that his theory makes, and ways to test
them, will not have that sound of craziness. One who not only does
not make the suggestion, but who spends a lot of time rejecting
disconfirmations, explaining them away, will.
Context is the sum total of all the other facts in the universe.
Even as recently as 200 years ago, there were far fewer things
known for sure than there are now. In that emptiness, in such a
vacuum of knowledge, there are not too many facts around to
contradict proposed explanations. In the late 18th century, there
wasn't really much known to contradict the theory of animal
magnetism and magnetic fluid, (but Benjamin Franklin's
investigations showed that disconfirmation was actually quite
simple) there wasn't too much known about sedimentation rates,
nothing about radioactive decay, DNA, even the simple facts of
narrative history for non-European culture were not widely known,
let alone the cultural possibilities revealed by anthropological
investigations of thousands of new societies.
Therefore, most explanations, no matter how unlikely, were unlikely
to collide with a fact which directly contradicted them. Most
people relied on tradition and authority to establish what they
would accept, and were content to reject everything outside of it.
In the last two centuries, however, there has been an explosion of
knowledge, including knowledge about the basic nature of the
universe and the earth, their origins, histories and likely
futures. We possess an immense amount of data, basic facts which
have been confirmed by many independent investigators. Any new
theory must not contradict these 'known for sure' facts.
A recent instance was the "cold fusion" controversy. Fusion, in
itself, is perfectly compatible with what is known about the way
the universe works. However, every known instance of it occurs at
extrememly high temperatures, and in conditions that are not
normally encountered in our everyday lives: in stars or during
hydrogen bomb explosions. Assuming you are not an expert in
nuclear physics, and wished to evaluate the claims of cold fusion,
what could you do? You should know that there is a lot of energy
involved in getting the thing started: this is supplied by the
heat and pressure in stars or by the fission trigger in bombs. The
lack of this is suspicious in cold fusion. Chemical reactions just
do not seem powerful enough to get fusion going. You can ask
yourself, if it were all that easy, why wasn't it occurring in some
natural setting? Following the reports, it soon became clear that
the proponents of cold fusion did not accept any criticism of what
they had done, nobody else could duplicate what they claimed, and
their claims did not fit with reality.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go
away". --Philip K. Dick
Something real does not require "belief." Real things inspire
"belief" because they don't "go away." Unreal things demand
"faith," because, unless you are fooling yourself, they are not
there. It is not necessary to believe in order to see a sunrise,
or to freeze water, or to turn on a light bulb. It is necessary
to have faith in order to pretend to yourself that your cold went
away due to prayer, that dew on a statue is tears, that a temporary
remission is a cure, or that the random occurrence of events
represents a divine plan. Belief is finding what isn't there.
Faith is fooling yourself about it. Faith is refusing to
investigate, and bragging about it.
Why?
Isaac Asimov, (as usual) [in "Knock Plastic," an essay in the
collection _Science, Numbers, and I] has written exactly on this
topic. What he proposed is that there are six "security beliefs"
that are so comforting to people that they will believe in them
with minimal evidence. And, on the obverse, even with strong
evidence against them, they will not abandon that belief. The
security beliefs are:
o There exist supernatural forces that can be cajoled or forced
into protecting mankind.
o There is no such thing, really, as death.
o There is some purpose to the Universe.
o Individuals have special powers that will enable them to get
something for nothing.
o You are better than the next fellow.
o If anything goes wrong, it's not one's own fault.
Every security belief fits under one of these headers. But it is
easy to see how these operate in local circumstances:
smokers dismiss the evidence of the harmfulness of smoking.
people skip safety checks, or don't use safety equipment, "just
this once."
dieters feel that "this one doesn't count."
The security beliefs often provide the motivating force behind
ideational illusions. People who want to get something for nothing
are more easily sucked into belief in cold fusion. Whether it is
aliens in spaceships, or angels in the clouds, the idea is that of
beings with powers greater than ours who control our fates and
thus, give purpose to everything, whether the purpose is sinister
or benign. If what the fellow is spouting obviously serves one of
these security beliefs, be deeply suspicious.
Isn't that the fallacy, "Consider the source?"
Why yes, it is. This is not a course in ideal logic, and I never
promised 100% certainty. Only faith can get you that, and you get
it by learning to ignore reality. If you learn to ignore the
facts, you will never be proven wrong. All I ever promised was a
diagnostic tool that will let you separate the likely to be worth
pursuing from the not worth pursuing. It will keep you from
wasting your valuable time.
Ideally, one should not consider the source. A statement should be
considered in its pristine state, alone and untainted by its
origins. In the real world, of course, we do consider the source
of loan applications, job enquiries, and other requests. If a
friend has not returned the last two tapes she borrowed and asks to
borrow another, what do you do? If Pat Robertson assures you Jesus
is coming, so he needs money, what do you do?
A small caveat here, many people suffer illusions on only certain
topics, and are trustworthy in other areas. You will soon get to
know which areas touch on that individual's security needs and
which are safe. I am sure that there are thousands of christians
who have perfectly good recipes for apple pie, UFO abductees who
are reliable auto mechanics, and committed Mormons who are
perfectly reliable construction engineers. The capacity of the
human mind to compartmentalize its thinking is truly amazing. The
capacity to refuse to connect two different areas is also
astonishing.
Analogies
Our reasoning process is like the process of trying to fit a curve
to a set of points. The points represent known facts, the curve
represents predictions about other known facts, (they had better
turn up on the curve). When there are few points known, many
possible curves will fit, the more points that are established, the
fewer curves that will fit.
Someone with an ideational impairment is like unto one who has
drawn a curve between two points. When reality turns up a number
of points that do not fit on the curve, he states that you are
mistaken if you think his curve was on the simple xy plane: it
goes through hyperspace! Or a wormhole. That is, he brings in
inspiration and miracles, if he is religious, or conspiracies, and
paranormal powers, if not.
Most of us have a built-in detector as to what is "reasonable" and
what is not. If you are unfamiliar with a field, you can study the
basics in a library, you can search out the common wisdom in
magazines and newspaper articles, and form a valid opinion.
Demand for Perfection
One of the tactics of those proposing irrational viewpoints is to
demand the impossible of their opponents. Theists, who cannot
demonstrate the existence of their god, demand that their opponents
prove that a god doesn't exist. Those who are satisfied with the
status quo demand that reformers prove that their changes will be
perfectly safe, that they will change everything for the better,
and have no negative consequences.
They both ignore the simple truth that the current system is not
perfect, either. In the real world, nothing is perfect, nothing is
completely separate from its conceptual neighbor. Such demands are
evidence either of deliberate obfuscation, or of confused thinking.
In general, the person making a claim has the burden of proof. You
do not have to prove that alien spaceships do not exist, they have
to prove that they do.
This technique applies to any field. The American Dietary
Association gives a list of Ten Red Flags to spot exactly what
we're talking about, but in the field of nutrition:
The 10 Red Flags of Junk Science are:
1. Recommendations that promise a quick fix.
2. Dire warnings of danger from a single product or
regimen.
3. Claims that sound too good to be true.
4. Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study.
5. Recommendations based on a single study.
6. Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable
scientific organizations.
7. Lists of "good" and "bad" foods.
8. Recommendations made to help sell a product.
9. Recommendations based on studies published without peer
review.
10. Recommendations from studies that ignore differences
among individuals or groups.
Other simple red flags, in any field, are:
Reliance on out of date material.
If nothing cited has a recent date, it is likely because newer
information has demonstrated the falsity of the claim.
Quoting out of context.
If you check a citation and find that it has been selectively
edited so as to change the meaning of what the original author
meant to say, this is evidence of a fundamental dishonesty.
Neologisms
There is a fine line between scientific precision, jargon,
gobbledygook and neologisms. If you have read this far, you
probably have an intuitive sense of what the differences are.
Going down the ladder, a good scientist will state when a word is
being used in a special way, and give a precise definition and then
stick to it. When a physicist uses the terms "work," "energy," or
"mass," it is in a precise way. A bad journalist or popularizer,
or a science groupie, who hopes to look good, will lace his writing
with many scientific jargon terms, often used incorrectly or to no
point, to make what is written look impressive. The bureaucrat
creates new polysyllabic terms to make uninteresting detail sound
impressive. Calling calling garbage collection "solid waste
management" or labelling talking to workers "management-employee
interpersonal interfacing" is not pseudo-science, merely
pretentious. Scientology is full of terms like thetan, clear, and
dianetics; the Urantia Book contains terms like Jesusonian, and
absonity (and thousands of others). If the terms seem pointless,
confusing, aren't in the dictionary, and aren't even well defined
or consistently used by the writer: red flag.
Conspiracies and Galileo.
The quickest way to get a Nobel Prize, lasting fame, and lifelong
riches would be to overturn a well established scientific theory.
All it takes is evidence. Nearly all scientists are committed to
the truth, and would welcome such a discovery. The conservatism of
scientists (in the area of science) comes from seeing hasty claims
refuted over and over, and watching people, deluded by wishful
thinking, make the same claims year after year. There is no
conspiracy against this sort of thing; everything, to the contrary,
is set up to encourage it.
They laughed at Galileo, they also laughed and continue to laugh at
Bozo the Clown.
Sturgeon's Law states that 90% of everything is crap. The chances
of you missing out on your one chance at happiness, wealth and
eternal peace, by not paying attention to the person who strikes
you as "crazy" are very slim. If he has some evidence, or if she
can demonstrate the efficacy of her theory, you will have a chance
to check it out, the next time around.
You have a perfect right to devote your finite resources to the
things you find interesting and amusing. Use this handy conceptual
device to dismiss nonsense, and save yourself time and aggravation.
It's not as if the kooks don't have hundreds of groups working on
proving their theories. If there is anything to it, someone else
will turn it up.
==========================================================
|| END OF TEXTS ||
==========================================================
There is no charge for receiving this, and there is no
charge for distributing copies to any electronic medium.
Nor is there a restriction on printing a copy for use in
discussion. You may not charge to do so, and you may not do
so without attributing it to the proper author and source.
If you would like to support our efforts, and help us
acquire better equipment to bring you more and better
articles, you may send money to Greg Erwin at:
100, Terrasse Eardley
Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5
CANADA.
Donations to the Humanist Association of Canada are tax
deductible from Canadian income.
Articles will be welcomed and very likely used IF:
(
they are emailed to:
((ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA; or,
godfree@magi.com), or
sent on diskette to me at the above Aylmer address in
any format that an IBM copy of WordPerfect can read;
) and
they don't require huge amounts of editing; and
I like them.
I will gladly reprint articles from your magazine, local
group's newsletter, or original material. There are
currently about 140 subscribers, plus each issue is posted
in some newsgroups and is archived as noted elsewhere.
If you wish to receive a subscription, email a simple
request to either address, with a clear request
for a subscription. It will be assumed that the "Reply
to:" address is where it is to be sent.
If you are a humanist, atheist, or freethought orgnaization,
or your web page has a bunch of links or pictures, articles
or programs likely to be of interest to humanists send me
your URL. Likewise, I hope that all nullifidians will place
a link to
http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/index.html
somewhere on the page.
We will automate this process as soon as we know how.
Yes, please DO make copies! (*)
Please DO send copies of The Nullifidian to anyone who might
be interested.
The only limitations are:
At least clearly indicate the source, and how to subscribe.
You do NOT have permission to copy this document for
commercial purposes.
The contents of this document are copyright (c) 1996, Greg
Erwin (insofar as possible) and are on deposit at the
National Library of Canada
You may find back issues in any place that archives
alt.atheism. Currently, all back issues are posted at
the Humanist Association of Ottawa's area on the National
Capital Freenet. telnet to 134.117.1.22, and enter <go
humanism> at the "Your choice==>" prompt.
ARCHIVES
Arrangements have been made with etext at umich. ftp to
etext.umich.edu directory Nullifidian or lucifers-echo.
For America On-Line subscribers:
To access the Freethought Forum on America Online enter
keyword "Capital", scroll down until you find Freethought
Forum, double click and you're there. Double click "Files &
Truth Seeker Articles" and scroll until you find Nullifidian
files. Double click the file name and a window will open
giving you the opportunity to display a description of the
file or download the file.
And thanks to the people at the _Truth Seeker_, who edited,
formatted and uploaded the articles to the aol area.
/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\
Shameless advertising and crass commercialism:
\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/
Atheistic self-stick Avery(tm) address labels. Consisting
of 210 different quotes, 30 per page, each label 2 5/8" x
1". This leaves three 49 character lines available for your
own address, phone number, email, fax or whatever. Each
sheet is US$2, the entire set of 7 for US$13; 2 sets for
US$20. Indicate quantity desired. Print address clearly,
exactly as desired. Order from address in examples below.
Laser printed, 8 pt Arial, with occasional flourishes.
[NOT ACTUAL SIZE]
<-------------------2 5/8"---------------------->
_________________________________________________
|"Reality is that which, when you stop believing |/\
|in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick] | |
|Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley | 1"
|Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada | |
| email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA | |
|________________________________________________|\/
_________________________________________________
|"...and when you tell me that your deity made |
|you in his own image, I reply that he must be |
|very ugly." [Victor Hugo, writing to clergy] |
|Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley |
|Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada Ph: (613) 954-6128 |
| email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA |
|________________________________________________|
Other quotes in between the articles are usually part of the
label quote file. Occasionally I throw in one that is too
long for a label, but which should be shared.
Once again: ISSN: 1201-0111 The Nullifidian Volume Three,
Number 2: FEBRUARY 1996
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The problem with religions that have all the answers is that
they don't let you ask the questions.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Once again, you can now find me at:
http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/index.html
there is an ftp link there to an archive with all of the
back issues available.
(*) There is no footnote, and certainly not an endnote.
- fin -
--
--Cogito, ergo atheos sum. Greg Erwin, Vice President, I
godfree@magi.com Humanist Association Of Canada believe
ai815@Freenet.Carleton.ca http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/ I am an
"Thought is not a management function." --John Ralston Saul atheist.
