----- Original Message ----- From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 8:12 PM Subject: Re: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated
> 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? No, actually I was talking about the guy at Santa Barbara. The guy at Oxford didn't state that Marxism was a religion. >Vs some diploma mill in > Arsecrack Alabama? Or wherever your non-credible sources come from. ROTFLMAO. Colombia, is not in Arsecrack Alabama. My daughter turned down a full scholarship + living money at Yale because Colombia it was a better school. :-) > > So the fact that the US can churn out large numbers of ill-educated > 'theology' graduates makes your definitions OK? Nice wording. Technically, I think it is true, because it is possible for any system to churn out ill educated graduates in any field. But, assuming you are arguing that the US does turn out ill educated graduates, let me ask if 1) You are arguing that all US graduates in all fields do not meet the standards set by GB? 2) US Humanities graduates do not meet the standards set by GB? 3) All people with degrees in theology are ill educated? 4) Americans with degrees in theology are ill educated? 5) Folks who differ with you must be ill educated? :-) Would you accept that places like Yale, Princeton and Harvard are OK schools? Or do they all pale compared to old schools like Oxford? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
