Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:44 PM Thursday 6/23/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Jun 23, 2005, at 12:52 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 23 Jun 2005, at 7:22 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Jun 23, 2005, at 9:06 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
Of course the religious are keen to volunteer to interfere in the
lives of the unfortunate - this is a golden opportunity to
disseminate the virulent poison of their evil religious memes.
Isn't a perspective unassailable by argument, no matter how
rational, a hallmark of what we might call a religious mindset?
Or perhaps a hallmark of my being irrefutably correct?
:D
That's certainly possible, but to date I haven't really seen much to
support your conclusions except the dual practice of:
1. Selecting, carefully, anecdotes that appear to support your
perspective; and
2. Ignoring, carefully, any arguments that seem to show your
perspective is not wholly valid.
That doesn't constitute evidence of correctness; it's closer in
concept to the meaning of "there are those who have eyes, yet see not".
There's a reason arguing against religion is like shooting fish in a
barrel and that reason is that religion is a load of evil nonsense.
There's a reason vanilla is superior to chocolate, and that reason is
that enjoyment of chocolate is evidence of delusion.
It's all that theobromine which fouls up the mental processes . . .
Foul up?
One man's fowl is another man's dinner.
(The much better one, but which was not given the set-up it needed, was
"One man's fish is another man's poisson.")
Anyway, I use it to enhance some mental processes at times. The best
driving-home-after-midnight fuel I ever tried was M&Ms -- sugar for the
boost, chocolate for the stimulant effect. And if I timed everything
just right, the crash after the sugar high would hit about 15-30 minutes
after I got home.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
