Re: MD On Faith

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Tue Oct 12 2004 - 15:11:33 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD On Faith"



    > > By "those people" I assume you are referring to orthodox
    > > (fundamentalist)
    > > religious sects. As you know, there are many believers in a spiritual
    > > being who don't belong in that category. It's a mistake to paint all such
    > > believers as crazy kooks as it is to paint all scientists as mad.
    > Chuck responds:
    > Well, of course, I was talking about orthodox (fundamentalists).
    > That's been the point of this most recent exchange. Orthodoxy? Has it
    > not?!?!
    > When you take my words, ("those people" in this case) out of context
    > and throw between quotations, they take on the sinister. Nice
    > technique. Are you a politician?

    Using quotations doesn't mean anything sinister.

    > Is it your intention to distract the reader from your oxymoronic
    > post–i.e the "evolving orthodoxy"–by accusing me of painting "all such
    > believers as crazy kooks?"

    No. I admitted I used "orthodox" incorrectly. (Nothing sinister in these
    quotes I assure you.)
    > Platt:
    > "Your talking about a relatively few nuts among believers.
    > Chuck responds:
    > You think that all the world's Orthodox fundamentalists equates to a
    > "few nuts among believers?"
    > I think that's just silly, but if it were the case, isn't 9/11
    > testimony enough to the damage a "few nuts among believers" can inflict on
    > the world.

    My point was that not all orthodox fundamentalists kill people. Do you

    > I feel the same
    > way as you about a few nuts among nonbelievers who would like to bring
    > about a Utopian world based on their idea of what's good for everybody, and
    > trying to make it happen at the point of a gun. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and
    > Kim Chong-il come to mind."
    > Chuck responds:
    > Are you implying that I'm somehow in the camp of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot
    > and Kim Chong-il? On what grounds? And if not, how do they even enter
    > this thread? How are they relevant to the conversation?

    The conversation began with a statement by Dawkins that scientists don't
    kill people to who disagree with them while religious nuts do. The
    implication was that some believers in God are evil. I'm making the point
    that some nonbelievers are also evil.
    > While Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Chong-il may have been evil on two legs,
    > at least one could see them coming. Orthodox fundamentalists and you,
    > Platt, are the wolves in sheep's clothing.

    Oh, so now I'm like one of your orthodox fundamentalists who fly airplanes
    into buildings am I? What evidence would you like to offer?

    > In the end, Institutionalized religion in general and Orthodox
    > fundamentalism especially wants to control the individual; the Lilas of the
    > world are its fodder. I fear the are far more Lilas than there are
    > Pirsigs.

    I fear the weapons scientists create that can kill millions at a clip.
    Nonbelievers are just as likely to use such weapons as believers, North
    Korea being a current case in point.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 12 2004 - 16:05:54 BST