rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/11/85)
> It wasn't expired on my machine. > > Your presumptions were clear. You had to have had some idea about > what talking to God meant in order to write your article. And your > belief system doesn't foster notions of a diety. Hence the irony. Double irony. It is your very presumptions about religious experiences actually BEING instances of "talking to god" that were the original subject. Assume god. Assume it's talking to you. ... > And what's this volunteering stuff? Did I say that? I thought you had joined the fair Gary Samuelson and the lovely "charles" Wingate in vowing never to speak or listen to me again, openminded foe of atheism that you are. (It seems Paul Dubuc has wittingly or unwittingly joined their ranks, since I have not heard a reply from him lately in our discussion on my "Logic" article---by the way, while it lasted, it was the ONLY discussion on the topic to stick to the issues and not stray into "I don't like 'your' definition of religion" nonsense) > Pshaw. Presumptions explained above. > Answered above. Isn't that always the case with you? :-) -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/13/85)
> > It wasn't expired on my machine. > > > > Your presumptions were clear. You had to have had some idea about > > what talking to God meant in order to write your article. And your > > belief system doesn't foster notions of a diety. Hence the irony. > > Double irony. It is your very presumptions about religious experiences > actually BEING instances of "talking to god" that were the original > subject. Assume god. Assume it's talking to you. ... YOU were the one that wrote the article. You simply evaded the issue with this reply. > > And what's this volunteering stuff? Did I say that? > > I thought you had joined the fair Gary Samuelson and the lovely "charles" > Wingate in vowing never to speak or listen to me again, openminded foe > of atheism that you are. (It seems Paul Dubuc has wittingly or unwittingly > joined their ranks, since I have not heard a reply from him lately in our > discussion on my "Logic" article---by the way, while it lasted, it was > the ONLY discussion on the topic to stick to the issues and not stray into > "I don't like 'your' definition of religion" nonsense) Openminded. Like your framework (or whatever you want to call it) leaves any room for even the bare possibility of theism. Make me laugh, Rich. You thought? Hey! That means you presupposed something. > > > Pshaw. Presumptions explained above. > > > Answered above. > > Isn't that always the case with you? :-) Yep. I'm a Christian. Ergo, my brain's on hold. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/15/85)
>>> Your presumptions were clear. You had to have had some idea about >>> what talking to God meant in order to write your article. And your >>> belief system doesn't foster notions of a diety. Hence the irony. >>Double irony. It is your very presumptions about religious experiences >>actually BEING instances of "talking to god" that were the original >>subject. Assume god. Assume it's talking to you. ... > YOU were the one that wrote the article. You simply evaded the issue > with this reply. Only to you, Pablo. You speak of my "having had some idea about what TALKING TO GOD MEANT". Where did I get that "idea"? From the "testimony" of those who have claimed religious experiences. My article attempted to show the holes prevalent in that "idea". Thus, the double irony. My presumptions come from those who believe as you do, and the article tried to show how presumptive those presumptions were. I doubt that you're so slow that you actually didn't understand that from the start, so I must assume that you're engaging in this just for annoyance's sake. >>> And what's this volunteering stuff? Did I say that? >>I thought you had joined the fair Gary Samuelson and the lovely "charles" >>Wingate in vowing never to speak or listen to me again, openminded foe >>of atheism that you are. (It seems Paul Dubuc has wittingly or unwittingly >>joined their ranks, since I have not heard a reply from him lately in our >>discussion on my "Logic" article---by the way, while it lasted, it was >>the ONLY discussion on the topic to stick to the issues and not stray into >>"I don't like 'your' definition of religion" nonsense) > Openminded. Like your framework (or whatever you want to call it) leaves > any room for even the bare possibility of theism. Make me laugh, Rich. > You thought? Hey! That means you presupposed something. Since you have so much real information (as evidenced above) to add to the discussion. If 400,000 articles is not substantiation enough for my framework and how it accounts for possibilities of "theism" and still shows that certain selected possibilities that others take at faith value are flawed, then I don't know what is. But you don't seem to be interested in facts or discussion, just noise. Make you laugh? But you laugh every time I offer a position, don't you? Perhaps in an effort to avoid having to listen to it and think about it. Shut it, Paul, if this is all you have to say. >>> Pshaw. Presumptions explained above. >>> Answered above. >> Isn't that always the case with you? :-) > Yep. I'm a Christian. Ergo, my brain's on hold. No smiley, so I might assume that you believe this yourself. No matter. (No pun intended there---I wasn't necessarily referring to Paul's brain. :-) And to think the Christians are on MY tail because *I* can't take a joke. Answers come from above... -- Meet the new wave, same as the old wave... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr