Deborah Harrell wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but since no-one can get inside
another's mind, no-one can be sure they are experiencing the
exact same numinous event.
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded;
Yes, I know that. That is the problem and the point.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 10:09:12AM -0400, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Erik, you are right, it is true that what goes on inside a mind cannot
be verified independently by others at this time. But that is not the
issue.
That may not be an issue you want to discuss, but that does not make
it not
Erik Reuter wrote:
A better study might look for predictions or observations by such
patients that could not possibly have been known beforehand BY ANYONE
(at least, anyone not divine or whatever).
snippage
Um, yes. However, they were not studying precognition but whether the
human soul
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 09:31:35PM +0530, Ritu wrote:
Um, yes. However, they were not studying precognition but whether the
human soul exists.
Irrelevant to my point. For a reliable experiment, the tests really need
to be double-blind here. That means neither the people conducting the
tests
Erik Reuter wrote:
Irrelevant to my point. For a reliable experiment, the tests
really need
to be double-blind here. That means neither the people
conducting the
tests nor the people being tested no the answers. Otherwise there are
just so many ways that people can fool themselves.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:02:19PM +0530, Ritu wrote:
Well, there are no 'answers' for the latter group to know - what they
relate are conversations and observations. As for the former, I can't
Then what did you mean about hiding things around the room?
I was referring to the Mallorean
Julia wrote:
I believe that Dr. Seuss's _The Butter Battle Book_ does something
similar, in that there is a war between those who hold their bread
butter side up and those who hold their bread butter side down. Had
quite an arms race going there in that book.
On a related note... there's an email
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 10:47:02AM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Mmm, yes, I can run a survey and show that, say, ~ 70% of Americans
report having had at least one such experience; but there are
listmembers who seem to think that anything that cannot be measured by
instruments of some sort is
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Mmm, yes, I can run a survey and show that, say, ~
70% of Americans
report having had at least one such experience;
but there are
listmembers who seem to think that anything that
cannot be measured by
instruments of some
Deborah Harrell
Or do you mean that the reports are truthful, in
that they accurately record people's experiences?
They accurately record what people *say* they have
experienced - at this juncture, *proof* of the
experience as something coming from an external source
rather than a
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 08:39:06PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but since no-one can get inside another's
mind, no-one can be sure they are experiencing the exact same numinous
event.
Yes, I know that. That is the problem and the point. Numinous experience
is all in
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 09:33:04AM +0530, Ritu wrote:
Some two years ago, a couple of scientists in UK were trying to
get funding to carry on a research on the existence of the human
soul. I am not sure what happened to them but the paper they published
after the preliminary research did
Hey Erik -
I've been consulting with an aquaintance's psychic, a
wiccan friend, another aquaintance who's into
Dianetics, and a fellow-worker who's a born-again
pagan, about this communication problem we seem to
have.
According to the Tarot reading, we have unresolved
issues from past lives, but
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Daniel Defoe satirized this kind of distinction ...
Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] said
I think you might mean Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver's
Travels?
Yes, you are right. My mistake. I don't know why I was thinking of
Defoe.
--
On 9 Jul 2003, Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
I was trying to write from the 'neutral agnostic'
position, while acknowledging that I in fact am a
person who has had numinous experiences. But I
cannot prove that scientifically to someone who has
not experienced such a
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Some science fiction readers ask whether a sapient artificial
intelligence, with the intelligence, the emotions, and the wisdom of a
human, but not his looks, are out because they are not built in God's
image, or whether they are in. (I once had a long discussion
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Daniel Defoe satirized this kind of distinction making by describing a
war between those who broke the pointed end of an egg and those broke
the more gently rounded end. Everyone agrees that major decisions
should not be based
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:29:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does it change anyone's perspective recalling that as many people
believe in aliens/intelligent life (or some such), as believe in
religion?
It doesn't change mine. I don't believe in intelligent life. I think
there is a good
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:29:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does it change anyone's perspective recalling that as many people
believe in aliens/intelligent life (or some such), as believe in
religion?
It doesn't change mine. I don't believe in
John D. Giorgis wrote:
In practice, I think that many, if not most,
agnostics are simply honest atheists. Since
true atheism would require a matter of faith -
since a negative cannot be proved, many people who
might casually be thought of as atheists tend to
self-characterize themselves
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why bring up a topic such as religion when you
have already concluded that there is nothing you
could say and nothing they could say that would
put both sides on the same page?
I have concluded no such thing.
I can only
Of course, here I am presupposing that there IS something to be
sensed, ...
How can this be a presupposition? It as much truth of human nature as
mothers loving their children, but being prepared, in the appropriate
culture, to attempt infanticide under certain conditions, as was done
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
It is not a comfortable one: the tb's lose the
specialness of being
Graced by the Gift of Faith, and the aa's simply
are unable to
'sense the spiritual,' rather like being unable to
distinguish red from green.
I don't
William T. Goodall wrote:
Yes it has. Apparently you were not paying attention.
I replied:
Cite, please?
William T.G. responded:
So (a) you are implying I am a liar and (b) although *you* weren't paying
attention you want *me* to look it up for you.
I don't think so.
No, I'm not implying that
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:00:25AM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
No, it isn't - unless the blind folks' technology is advanced enough
to detect a soaring condor (I admit I was thinking 'plain villagers'
in my scenario, so no radar), there is no way for them to verify that
a creature with a
Matt Grimaldi wrote:
John D. Giorgis wrote:
In practice, I think that many, if not most,
agnostics are simply honest atheists. Since
true atheism would require a matter of faith -
since a negative cannot be proved, many people who
might casually be thought of as atheists tend to
--- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[I wrote:]
Of course, here I am presupposing that there IS
something to be sensed, ...
How can this be a presupposition? It as much truth
of human nature as
mothers loving their children, but being prepared,
in the appropriate
culture,
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
It *is* possible that I missed the resolution of
this issue, but I find it
very unlikely especially since the question is still
currently being debated
onlist by Michael Harney, among others.
No, no resolution, although it's been stated
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
No, it isn't - unless the blind folks' technology
is advanced enough
to detect a soaring condor (I admit I was thinking
'plain villagers'
in my scenario, so no radar), there is no way for
them to verify that
a creature
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 07:00 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote:
If novelty-seeking is a genetic trait that has
become widespread because of some advantages that it
confers (I can think of many, from utilizing new food
sources to finding new places to live -- as well as
little problems from being
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
If novelty-seeking is a genetic trait that has
become widespread because of some advantages that
it
confers (I can think of many, from utilizing new
food sources to finding new places to live -- as
well
as little
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:31:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Um, how could a blind person shoot a silent moving target, especially
so high up?
Not the blind person, silly.
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:31:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
No, they don't: http://www.hawk-conservancy.org/priors/george.shtml
In common with all New World (American) vultures, the Andean Condor
is, to all intents and purposes, silent. It does utter wheezes,
suppressed coughs and
Debbi wrote:
If novelty-seeking is a genetic trait that has
become widespread because of some advantages that it
confers (I can think of many, from utilizing new food
sources to finding new places to live -- as well as
little problems from being _overly_ curious, like
fatal poisonings and
Debbi wrote-
No, it isn't - unless the blind folks' technology is
advanced enough to detect a soaring condor (I admit I
was thinking 'plain villagers' in my scenario, so no
radar), there is no way for them to verify that a
creature with a 10+ foot wingspan is passing hundreds
of feet above their
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote
JDG wrote:
Since true atheism would require a matter
of faith -
William T. Goodall replied:
No it doesn't. All of this has been gone over many many times on this list
and you obviously have never paid the least bit of attention, yet you have
the discourtesy to interject your nonsense despite not
Ronn! wrote:
So I guess the question becomes Which is the more neutral position,
the one that recognizes that belief and rationality are two different
characteristics, or the one which says that all believers are
irrational?
Erik replied:
That it a very different question, and not nearly as
On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 08:24 pm, Reggie Bautista wrote:
JDG wrote:
Since true atheism would require a matter
of faith -
William T. Goodall replied:
No it doesn't. All of this has been gone over many many times on this
list and you obviously have never paid the least bit of attention,
yet
William T. Goodall wrote:
Yes it has. Apparently you were not paying attention.
Cite, please?
Reggie Bautista
_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
In other words, is it easier for a
neutral-rational person to adopt
an extreme-irrational position, or for an
extreme-irrational person
to adopt a neutral-rational position? Interesting
question.
And
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
It is not a comfortable one: the tb's lose the specialness of being
Graced by the Gift of Faith, and the aa's simply are unable to
'sense the spiritual,' rather like being unable to distinguish red
from green.
I don't find that
At 12:10 PM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:25:48PM -, iaamoac wrote:
But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that
one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with
agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint?
If you are
At 10:16 AM 7/4/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by
people acting less than civil.
With all due respect, and I am NOT talking about you, I think many people
react that way because SOME vegetarians are every bit as zealous
At 04:16 AM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:13:00AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
But is it likely to be any more possible for the believers to adopt
an agnostic viewpoint, even temporarily, than for the agnostics or
atheists to adopt the viewpoint of a believer,
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:13:40AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 04:16 AM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
In other words, is it easier for a neutral-rational person to adopt
an extreme-irrational position, or for an extreme-irrational person
to adopt a neutral-rational position?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are
to find out that God does not exist?
That is pretty much the definition, I thought.
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are
to find out that God does not exist?
That is pretty much the definition, I thought.
I agree.
Doug
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:16 AM 7/4/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on
by
people acting less than civil.
With all due respect, and I am NOT talking about you, I think many people
react that way
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 02:59 pm, iaamoac wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as
they are
to find out that God does not exist?
That
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:10 PM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:25:48PM -, iaamoac wrote:
But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that
one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as
they are
to find out that God does not exist?
That
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 02:59 pm, iaamoac wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 05:29 pm, Jan Coffey wrote:
William, I am sorry, but it seems that you were vexed by the post you
are
responding to above. However, it seems that you are under some
alternative
interpritation. Your cry of rudeness seems unwarented. Perhaps you
shoudl
re-read and
On agnosticism:
I consider myself an agnostic. I don't see God as being a driving factor in my life
in any way, but I am unwilling to discount His existence entirely. That seems to be
the definition that works best for me at least.
Jim
___
Join
At 09:42 AM 7/7/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:16 AM 7/4/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on
by
people acting less than civil.
With all due respect, and I am NOT talking
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as
they are
to find out that God does not exist?
That is pretty much the definition, I thought.
In
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Jan Coffey
Sent: Friday,
There was plenty to respond to, but I'll pick this one...
the guy preaching to you on sunday has
no right to
tell you
--- Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
But what kind
Jan quoted:
Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made
them out of meat.
People are made of meat too. ObSF: the cannibals and vegetarian
guerrillas in _Delicatessen_.
Rich
___
--- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan quoted:
Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made
them out of meat.
People are made of meat too. ObSF: the cannibals and vegetarian
guerrillas in _Delicatessen_.
Eat me.
..sorry, I just had to say it, I just
Jan Coffey wrote:
Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them
out of meat.
It works better if you pretend like your name is hank and you sell propane
and propane accessories.
:)
OK, just for that, Jan, I'm going to ask you the question under
discussion
Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan quoted:
Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made
them out of meat.
People are made of meat too. ObSF: the cannibals and vegetarian
guerrillas in _Delicatessen_.
Eat me.
..sorry,
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Coffey wrote:
Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made
them
out of meat.
It works better if you pretend like your name is hank and you sell
propane
and propane accessories.
:)
OK, just for
Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:)
OK, just for that, Jan, I'm going to ask you the question under
discussion at the barbecue I was at yesterday evening (where the big
draw was the turkey breasts that the host had smoked from 8AM until 2PM
yesterday,
At 12:31 AM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
But is it likely to be any more possible for the believers to adopt an
agnostic viewpoint, even temporarily, than for
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:13:00AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
But is it likely to be any more possible for the believers to adopt
an agnostic viewpoint, even temporarily, than for the agnostics or
atheists to adopt the viewpoint of a believer, even temporarily?
In other words, is it
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect JDG is taunting you, Fool. Remember, he liked to
provoke Jeroen and then complain to the listowners when Jeroen
reacted. Recently, JDG posted his silly whining about how he thinks
there are a bunch of atheists here who are attacking him. Now
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of The Fool
...
The Bible makes all kinds of verifiably false assertions. So why should
any one particular absurdity that he is putting forth merit any more
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least we discuss religion here, which beats the heck out of
communities that pretend it doesn't exist or those that can't
touch on the subject without an immediate flame war.
Wait,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of David Hobby
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 12:31 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: God, Religion, and Sports
iaamoac wrote:
The very point I have been trying to make here is that intelligent
discussion of religion
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:41:05AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
No? Really? JDG wouldn't do something like that would he?
What do you think?
It sounds as if you are calling JDG a social manipulator. That would
be quite an insult.
Why?
Do you really think that he would provoke someone to the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that
one does not seriously believe?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Jan Coffey
Sent: Friday,
There was plenty to respond to, but I'll pick this one...
the guy preaching to you on sunday has
no right to
tell you anything becouse you know he sins just as much as anybody.
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that
Michael Harney wrote:
Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by
people acting less than civil. I learned that I either have to accept that
behavior from others or simply not bring up the topic. I don't whine and
complain that the brin-l isn't my version of
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:47:57PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
How would you get 100-120 grams of protein per day on a vegetarian
diet? How much of what would you have to eat?
Isn't it more complicated than that? I am under the impression that
vegetarians have to keep track of specific
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:47:57PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
How would you get 100-120 grams of protein per day on a vegetarian
diet? How much of what would you have to eat?
Isn't it more complicated than that? I am under the impression that
vegetarians have to
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:31 AM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
But is it likely to be any more possible for the believers to adopt an
agnostic
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Harney wrote:
Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on
by
people acting less than civil. I learned that I either have to accept
that
behavior from others or simply not bring up the topic. I don't whine
and
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:47:57PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
How would you get 100-120 grams of protein per day on a vegetarian
diet? How much of what would you have to eat?
Isn't it more complicated than that? I am under the impression that
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:17:45PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
If my understanding is correct, soy beans have all of the protiens
the human body needs. Aside from soy beans, all one has to do is eat
beans and rice to get the full spectrum of necessary protiens.
Could you rephrase this? It
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:17:45PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
If my understanding is correct, soy beans have all of the protiens
the human body needs. Aside from soy beans, all one has to do is eat
beans and rice to get the full spectrum of
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:46:56PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
The phrase aside from was poorly chosen in that context I
appologize. perhapse I should have said something to the effect of in
the absense of soybeans. Does this clarify things for you?
Yes, thanks. I believe you are saying
iaamoac wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect JDG is taunting you, Fool. Remember, he liked to
provoke Jeroen and then complain to the listowners when Jeroen
reacted. Recently, JDG posted his silly whining about how he thinks
there are a bunch
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Fool wrote:
Fuck me if I didn't mention the biggest so-called ressurection in the
book of lies.
If you're trying to persuade me to your point of view, you just blew it
with the fuck me. If there are 2 or more points of view being
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 08:16 am, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
iaamoac wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect JDG is taunting you, Fool. Remember, he liked to
provoke Jeroen and then complain to the listowners when Jeroen
reacted. Recently, JDG posted his
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of The Fool
...
The Bible makes all kinds of verifiably false assertions. So why should
any one particular absurdity that he is putting forth merit any more
consideration that than any of the of the other
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of William T Goodall
I guess he is
hoping you will post something that he can complain to the
listowners about and get you warned or banned.
U No. On several counts.
Dude, that's
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of The Fool
...
The Bible makes all kinds of verifiably false assertions. So why
should
any one particular absurdity that he is putting forth merit any more
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of The Fool
...
Dr Brins works don't promote hate, bigotry, genocide, and slavery.
Just as with any other book that promotes a strong point of view, I'm quite
sure that David's books could be twisted to do
Erik Reuter wrote:
I suspect JDG is taunting you, Fool. Remember, he liked to
provoke Jeroen and then complain to the listowners when Jeroen
reacted. Recently, JDG posted his silly whining about how he thinks
there are a bunch of atheists here who are attacking him. Now he
posts something that he
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:22:19AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
I think that the idea of talking dolphins is quite absurd, but that
doesn't mean that I don't appreciate Brin's writings. Uplift may well
be impossible, but that doesn't make the books worthless or dangerous,
does it?
Apples and
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:18:15PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote:
So Erik, how do you define trolling?
How about when someone who has vehemently criticized others' ideas
frequently for years whines about people criticizing his own beliefs? Or
maybe there is another word for that...
--
Erik
The Fool wrote:
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Fool wrote:
Fuck me if I didn't mention the biggest so-called ressurection in the
book of lies.
If you're trying to persuade me to your point of view, you just blew it
with the fuck me. If there are 2 or more points
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:18:15PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote:
So Erik, how do you define trolling?
How about when someone who has vehemently criticized others' ideas
frequently for years whines about people criticizing his own beliefs? Or
maybe there is another
In a message dated 7/3/2003 10:15:08 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On
Behalf Of The Fool
...
Dr Brins works don't promote hate, bigotry, genocide, and slavery.
I do find it interesting that at the end of Heaven's Reach, Dr. Brin was
killing off more
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least we discuss religion here, which beats the heck out of
communities that pretend it doesn't exist or those that can't
touch on the subject without an immediate flame war.
Wait, how is this different from Brin-L again?
iaamoac wrote:
The very point I have been trying to make here is that intelligent
discussion of religion is simply not occuring from many of our
resident atheists. Rather every mention of religion has been
greated by flames - flames which have not been accompanied by even a
modicum of
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
