|
 |
dear Erik,
Your writings are occasionally truly dismal. So full of unintentional > But meta-discussions suck, so I'll end here. If meta-discussions suck, then perhaps you are the one sucks. If you'll end there, you might as well not start, sucker of morons. Topic sensitive Christopher Browne wrote: > | So I quite disagree that ignoring "religious" considerations is What religion is or is not is not for you to glide by with a sentence in a > | valid; a whole lot of it _is_ quite religious, whether there's a > | "god" involved or not. Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> wrote: > Only if you already believe that "religious" is a useful reduction > of the observed phenomena and you are willing to ignore (or worse, > embrace) the abjectly mystical connotations. I maintain that > religion is the result of a small number of well-understood human > psychological needs, but some are somehow kept from understanding > these issues in the continued belief in the "mystical". way that is half by assertion and half by half-assed reasoning. By doing that, you shame the skeptics community. I'm certain you are filling your stupidity quota unintentionally, but it seems to me that your rant habit is ready to mass produce morsels of junk food. Erik wrote: Fine observation, but > Not all things not understood are irrational in basis. Not all > things irrational are religious. However, all things religious are > mystical _and_ irrational in nature. > Dragging religion into a what voodoo is this? First of all, discussion is not dissertation. Newsgroup > discussion is an _insult_ to those who want to understand and > demystify what they observe. writing is not thesis composition. The river of conversation drags in whatever it does, and it still flows without your grotesque intrusion. Secondly, religion can be part or central to a discussion. Please sync up your writing with your head, and don't let your rant derail context. > Dragging the organized religions into Are those 'them' and 'they' refer to _organized religions_ or the "silly > the incredibly silly "wars" is deeply disrespectful of them, and > whatever they have done to deserve scorn, disrespect is uncalled > for. 'wars'"? The religion in newsgroup religious wars refer to the fervor, dedication, If you scorn organized religion, fine. If you disrespect the disrespect of > But meta-discussions suck, so I'll end here. A tad too late, don't you think? Xah You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||