Michael to Andre: - Fanatical reactions imply fanaticism, nothing more. I care about a lot of things, but I am not fanatical in my response.
Andre: Hi Michael, I never said you are/were fanatical did I? I thought this was your interpretation. Michael: You can't take Quality out of the world when its not even really "there" in the first place. Andre: Haven't you read Phaedrus' description of the world when subtracting Quality? (ZMM p 210). Or, for that matter Lila?. I honestly do not know what quality has to do to prove that it exists. Michael: If someone here is willing to actually argue against my point about Arlo's criticism of theism (due to its reliance on "faith" = "affirmation absent proof") in defense of my suggestion that MoQ is relying on such faith using the (again, same commonly accepted) definition of faith I have been clear I'm using, I'm willing to hear it. But so far, its just been reactionary MoQ static defense using deflection, self-serving redefinition of terms and self defeating reductionism. Andre: As mentioned before Michael, I haven't been following this thread in any detail so do not know the various points of view and refutations expressed. Sincerely, Andre Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
