Re: virus: Re: META: topical rules

James Veverka (
Fri, 7 May 1999 01:00:47 -0400 (EDT)

Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

It is Czech, not Slavic. It means squirrel and I know alot of nuts.

Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Message/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Received: from ( by; Thu, 6 May 1999 21:36:48 -0700

Return-Path: <>
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97)
	with ESMTP id VAA07858; Thu, 6 May 1999 21:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by (8.9.1/8.9.1) id
	WAA17576 for virus-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 22:09:49 -0600
Message-Id: <> X-Sender:
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 23:09:27 -0500
From: Zloduska <> Subject: Re: virus: Re: META: topical rules In-Reply-To: <> References: <"Snow Leopard" <> Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender:
Precedence: bulk

James from the land of "hair" bands and Slavic surnames wrote:

>There is a difference between an open mind and a wise one. Anything
>goes doesn't wash.
>Most of us have arrived at atheism through science, reason, and the
>processes of elimination.

What about those of us who have arrived at conclusions independent of atheism and the above, and have had "religious experiences" not involving any sort of God -like figure?

>When Christians use the same arguments we may have thought through a
>billion times we are not being intolerant to reject it out of hand, we
>are wisely standing against what we consider superstition and ancient
>anachronisms. We may have been there too, at one time.

But where do you draw the line? I doubt we could all impartially decide what is 'on-topic' and what is not. I am guilty of quite a bit of superfluous Zloduska-spew myself, but I wouldn't like to be 'regulated'. If that were the case, disputes would arise, which are really personal matters of taste, as to which posts cross the line or do not.

Fortunately, the "slave to reason" thread has long since passed (which I don't care to rehash), but I think I need to clarify something. There are atheists, and then there are *religious* atheists, who are so adherent to their fierce skepticism and rationality, with the sacred sword of Science sheathed at their side, that they cannot even be *reasoned* with anymore. They cannot fathom that their are 'thinking' and intellectual believers out there, beyond their sphere of Nietzsche-worshipping scholarship. As someone on the list quoted, a lyric by Ani DiFranco I believe, "Any tool is a weapon if you hold it the right way." Occasionally, utilized in the wrong manner, Science can be as harmful and inaccurate as blind faith.
>From your posts, I gather that you qualify as one of these religious
atheists. Not only that, but a *fanatical* religious atheist. Yes, people can think differently than you do, and still be right.

Holy guacamole, you're on a WebTV account! Consider yourself a pioneer. If not for braving new fronts, then for mastery of the Caps Lock key.