Subject: Re: Thank God!
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Date: Tue Jan 18 2000 - 15:02:03 EST
In a message dated 1/18/00 2:18:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
holden@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in writes:
> Sonny,
> bowing to Scottie's clarification, nodding in sadness.
>
It's not unreasonable to expect someone, when accusing someone of "logical
inconsistencies," to bother to point at least One out. Not all of them.
Pick one. Any one. Heck, you're probably right, but most likely I wasn't
being very clear. I seldom edit my posts and if I bother to reread them I
often wish I had. But you didn't, still haven't, and this coming from a
person accusing me of making Bald Assertions? Come on :)
You're still blowing smoke, buddy :) But if I sounded consdescending to
Robbie, I apologize for that. If I sound condescending to you, you deserve
it right now.
That opening paragraph of my last post to him was to be taken seriously, you
know -- I have a great deal of respect for him. He claims to have been
reading everything he can get his hands on, and it shows.
I could develop this further here. I could say that I can concede that his
experience and knowledge, to date, makes atheism the most rational choice for
him. That's a possibility within the framework I'm working in. But within
an atheist framework, you have to disparage the experiences of those who
claim to have experienced God.
So, if I wanted, I could ask, "Who's being condescending to whom?"
Jim
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:04 EST