[MD] Religion is subordinate to science

[ian glendinning]

Squonk,

Nothing wrong with my reasoning, even if you don't like my style - the
feeling's mutual BTW :-)

Of course there may well be one (probably quite a few) red-neck
southern baptists, bereft of intellectual patterns (that meet some
minimum criteria you / we choose). No logic required there, just
observation.

Where the "logic" fails is in the idea that that somehow "refutes"
anything Matt said, or says something about "religion" or "theism" in
general. What it does say, is that you have deep prejudices against
such things.

Ian

On 4/6/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> Ian,
> It's a feature of your MD and MF contributions that they read  like they are
> written (and reasoned) like a blog entry slapped  together between bytes of
> sandwich at work lunchtime.
> I can just see the Powerpoint presentation now: It's Binary argumentation
> stupid.
> Or maybe: It's not Binary argumentation i don't think, not.
>
> Even you would acknowledge the possibility that there is, in fact, at least
> one Human being, possibly living in the US bible belt for example, who is
> bereft  of intellectual patterns, and as such may constitute one who may be
> legitimately  described as a 'religious person' without intellectual patterns.
>
> It's Moral evolution stupid.
>
> This is not a binary argument. MOQ Moral evolutionary progression dictates
> the circumstances for such a person (as a particular snap shot of a forest  of
> sq patterns) to be. Read Lila.
>
> It's simple logical dialectic, not, stupid. Not. errrrrrrrrrrr.
>
> As for the accusation that i 'need' to attack religious people in general,
> well, i do need to challenge those who use social authority to undermine
> Intellectual patterns, Intellectual patterns like the MOQ for example. Got a
> problem with that have you Ian? So what? The MOQ suggests that such an activity  is
> a moral activity.
> If you don't like it: Toughties.
>
> Back to your sandwich.
>
> Mark
>
> 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/
>