dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/05/84)
> >[Paul DuBois, replying to Brian Peterson] > >As far as your diatribe on religion: you brought it up, not me. > >I thought that it was agreed a while ago that it should be > >left out of the discussion. In fact, I was the one that > >asked whether this should be so, because it has often happened > >to me that the person on the other side of the question brings > >up religion, claims that my arguments are all religious and > >therefore to be discarded, when I haven't even suggested it > >as a basis for making a conclusion. > [Michael Ward] > Is he kidding? *WHO* agreed that religion should be left out > of this discussion? The whole point of this discussion is whether > religion should be taught as science in schools. No, I'm not kidding. Dick Dunn and myself explicitly agreed to leave it out. Many (not all) seem to have implicitly agreed. Mr. Peterson evidently did not, since he brought it up. Further, he brought it up with the aim of discrediting my arguments. I have no objection to being discredited on some sort of reasonable grounds. But since I agreed to leave religion out, and in fact have, I felt it appropriate to dispute Brian's posting. Calling my arguments religious, and therefore invalid, when they are not religious, is not reasonable. Besides, if you want to argue about agreements, who agreed to what "the whole point of this discussion" was? Not me. > Why are religious people so comfortable lying through their teeth? Since you posted your article in response to mine, and since I assume you find me religious, I conclude you are calling me a liar. Well, then: prove it. If you can, I shall publicly apologize. However, I conjecture that you can't, and if not, I invite you to look before you leap. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage forever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. Psalm 119:111