From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Mar 01 2004 - 02:20:31 GMT
Matt, Sam and all:
Matt said:
I never said there was a problem with religion. There is only a problem with
conversations that occur where there is minimal hope of agreement on
anything of substance.. which is what happens when a theist and an atheist
talk
about God.
dmb says:
This is quite beside the point, but it reminds me of something Joe Campbell
observed. In effect, he said that there is very little difference between
the theist and the atheist. The theist takes the myths literally and says
that they are true, while the atheist takes the myths literally and say that
they are not true. They are not very different, he says, because they are
both wrong.
Sam asked Matt:
..are you saying that the (minimal) boundaries of democratic discourse need
to be defended with arms? If so, you are making religious discourse
illegitimate within a democracy. Which DMB would agree with, I think,
despite his other criticisms ;-)
dmb says:
What leads you to conclude that I'd like to make "religious discourse
illegitimate within a democracy"? I mean, we might not agree during that
discourse, but I honestly wonder if anyone has rasied the topic more than
me.
Sam continued:
I don't agree with it. I think that can be demonstrated by pointing out the
internal contradictions that liberal discourse generates, and the necessity
of an external reference or input.
dmb asks:
This is where you lose me. Liberal discourse generates internal
contradictions? Please explain. The necessity of an external reference?
Thanks.
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 01 2004 - 02:23:53 GMT