* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:57 AM > Subject: Re: New Pope? > > > > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > inevitable. Are you arguing that they are wrong? Are you arguing > > > that he misquoted them? > > > > I'm not arguing anything. I stated (again, this has come up from you > > before and I responded before) that you were wrong about history being > > the only way to settle the question. > > OK, history was only one of two arguments that I recall you making. I'm > pretty sure that you did argue for something very much like the > inevitability of the triumph of free societies due to their inherent > superiority. But, if you now drop that argument, that's fine.
Dan, Dan, Dan. Do you not even realize any more when you make these faulty assumptions? Have you progressed from unconscious religious rationalizations to unconscious unquestioned assumptions? > The other argument I recall is that acts that look unselfish are > actually in one's own self interest. The one we spent some time on > was a case of a man who went through a smoke filled apartment building > knocking on his neighbors' doors to warn them to get out. IIRC, you > argued that was an act of self interest because that would increase > the likelihood of them saving him in some future apartment fire. A [sharp] mind is a horrible thing [for a religion] to waste. > Then there is the obvious option that you were being deliberately > obtuse about your points so that you can claim your opponent is just > dense. Or it could be that I think it is a waste of time to have the same discussions with a religiously-handicapped person over and over without that person even noticing the repetition, so I have been reduced to just briefly pointing out the repeated mistakes, hoping it may someday encourage some assumption questioning. (the eternal optimist, I guess). > differ in this in that I always try to be as clear as possible and > consider it my responsibility in a reasoned debate to make my points > as clear as I can. That's only true if you didn't choose religion but were involuntarily infected by it. Which I suppose may be the case. > If there is a third way you've argued, that I've not seen distinctly, > I think it would be worth stating explicitly. Why didn't you respond to the questions I posted last night? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
