[MD] Religion is subordinate to science

[ian glendinning]

Squonk,

You include this exchange ...

Matt:
Two, if we focus on "religious people", then of course they have
intellectual patterns of value because no person doesn't.

Mark:
This assertion simply requires one example of a religious person with no
intellectual values to be refuted.

Breathtaking. I say, you exemplify my complaint with the unnecessary
binary argumentation. Why do you need to attack "religious people" in
general, quite independent of any patterns of thought they hold as
individual persons ?

It's like, we only need one person who believes in the MoQ to be shown
to be completely mad, and clearly the MoQ is complete madness. A
really useful agrument, not.

It's not all or nothing. This is no place for simple logical
dialectic, good though you are at it.

Ian

On 4/6/06, Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh Squank,
>
> You are so adorable.
>
> Oh, and Squank, why didn't you opt for Pirsig's definition of intellectual
> static patterns?  Ya' know, "indepedantly manipulable symbols"?  I mean,
> isn't that what we are supposed to be using?
>
> I'm so glad you're back.  You will clearly raise the level of conversation
> around here.
>
> Matt
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>