Merging several posts on this subject: > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of PAT MATHEWS > Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:49 PM > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > Subject: Religious freedom > > TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times > over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem > trimmings.
IMHO, that's not surprising when people are discussing sets of presuppositions....especially when one of the people is convinced that his own set is Truth. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Hobby > Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:08 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Religious freedom > > > Again, per my last email absolute rubbish. Scientology is a creed, a > > UFO cult set up to milk the members of cash. It is a business, not a > > religion. >If I could step in here, I think this is part of William's point. From >the outside, it's hard to tell one group that teaches nonsense and milks >its members from another. : ) Assuming, of course, that one's own presuppositions are just common sense, while those of others are nonsense. One of the problems I see here is that William has long written as though he is convinced that _he_ is personally authorative on questions of good/evil, right/wrong, and that differing with him on chosen subjects is differing with Truth. >From an empirical point of view, it would be fairly easy to look at the operating differences between, say, the Catholic church and Scientology. Inside or outside of these organizations, a sociologist could easily point out how they differ. The only problem is if one has a different set of beliefs, and assume that they are facts...while other sets are nonsense. I'd be more than happy to rigorously investigate what is and what is not empirically based. But, I've seen little interest in that in various forums. Mostly, there is an appeal to "obvious" suppositions, and "common sense", which is a shorthand appeal to common presuppositions. Some of thee, BTW, I hold, but I try to be fairly rigorous as to what is empirically based and what isn't. David also wrote: > O.K., let's try this again: > > William-- You, sir, are trolling. I don't think he is a troll in the classic sense of not believing what he writes. It is impossible, of course, for me to prove this, but his persistence over at least 5 years indicates to me that he sincerely believes in the evil of certain belief sets that are inconsistent with his own. > Look, I teach at a real school. The phrase > "Faith school" already sounds pretty bad to > me, as it indicates that nothing of substance > is taught. Maru. While I have disdain for this particular use of Jesus' name....finding it blasphemous, actually.....I'm not sure about how you make such a separation. For example, are all seminaries "not real schools?" Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
