on 25/11/02 1:36 am, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 5:53 PM > Subject: Re: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated > > >> on 24/11/02 8:20 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 1:57 PM >>> Subject: Re: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated >>> >>> >>>>> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> >>>>> From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> >>>>>> http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html >>>> >>>>> I've noticed that "The Fool" posts things like this religiously. :-) >>>> >>>> As long as there are people who believe these kinds of things, whether >>>> they are christians, jews, islamists, hindus or whatever, (and I know >>>> plenty of people with this kind of worldview personally), the human > race >>>> is headed for extinction. It is only a matter of time before the >>>> fanatics do us all in. >>> >>> I'm just pointing out, that by using expanded definitions of religion, > as >>> Mr. Goodall suggests, you would be considered as someone who had a >>> religion. >> >> You are disingenuously misrepresenting what I said, Dan. > > No, I was just pointing out that you said I shouldn't use just the primary > understanding of religion. So, I used an expanded version.
No you didn't. Or rather you did but only by expanding it to include a definition that I spent some time arguing wasn't relevant. Hey evolution is just a 'theory' so they shouldn't teach it in schools, right? But that definition of theory and your 'expansion' of the definition of religion are both inappropriate in the context we are (I assume) discussing. > > Why must I use your definition? Yes, you found a theologian, at a minor > school that agreed with you. A professor with a Chair at Oxford University? Vs some diploma mill in Arsecrack Alabama? Or wherever your non-credible sources come from. > IMHO, that is not altogether unlike finding a > geologist who belives in the flood as history. Indeed, I'd bet dollars to > donutes that a greater % of geologists believe in the literal > interpretation of Genesis than do people with degrees in theology believe > that Marxism is a religion. So the fact that the US can churn out large numbers of ill-educated 'theology' graduates makes your definitions OK? -- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
