----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 11:49 AM Subject: Re: New Pope?
> * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> > > 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). Out of curiosity, why would Weinburg have the same handicap? He stated that the lack of a "logical calculus" basis for morality was his greatest regret. That's one way to express the point I've been making with these arguements. > > Why didn't you respond to the questions I posted last night? Because I did. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
