Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!houxm!hocda!hou3c!burl!clyde!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: In defense of Larry Bickford Message-ID: <839@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 18-Feb-84 15:27:40 EST Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.839 Posted: Sat Feb 18 15:27:40 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 21-Feb-84 04:33:48 EST Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle Lines: 75 Rich Rosen replied to Larry Bickford: > HOW LONG MUST WE PUT UP WITH LARRY BICKFORD MISQUOTING PEOPLE AND > USING THEIR WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT????? As long as you choose to subscribe to net.religion! :-) Seriously, Rich is not giving Larry a fair shake. Here was Larry's text: >> Rather than quoting everybody, I'll address an answer to the >> questions as Rich Rosen perhaps said them best: >>> 1. The god described in the bible is a pig (or some such epithet). >>> 2. If the bible is true, and this god does indeed exist as described, >>> he is much more worthy of repugnance than worship. [FOLLOWED BY >>> SUBSTANTIATION] >>> ...could you please show me where the illogic is? >> (1) is value judgment. On what (or whose) system is it based? >> (2) fails to include man as he is described in the bible. Tim's >> "substantiation" rejects the Biblical description of man. If you only >> accept part of the Bible, you could make a case for almost anything, but >> Tim's premise was that the Bible is true. Start with man not the >> innocent and deserving-of-compasison that Tim portrays, but one >> deserving judgment, and the picture changes. =><= And now for (part of) Rich's response: >Once again, Tim NEVER says that he believes the Bible to be true. He says that > (and I said that) "IF (Please look up the word 'if', Larry, and read the > example sentences that go with the definition!!) IF the bible is true, then > the following things are evident ..." > The context of the section of my article that Larry quoted is never made > clear, and again Larry takes the words and twists them to his own ends. > All that I said was that the train of logic that Tim appeared to take > was valid, but since Larry omitted steps 3 and 4 (and apparently assumed > that everyone has forgotten what they were), here is the complete list > (1-4). "4" goes a bit overboard but is included for completeness. Now logically, the argument should be of the form "if 1, then 2; if 2, then 3; if 3, then 4." Or alternatively, "1 because 2 because 3 because 4." Anything else, and we have don't have a logical stream of thought. Larry assumes that the argument took the first form, and (correctly) pointed out that the "God is a pig" premise blows the whole argument, since there is no logical basis for this premise. If you choose to accept the second form (1 because 2...), the argument *starts* to make sense. Larry (correctly) tries to show that the conclusion of 2 is based on a limited set of data from his premise (that the Bible is true). If you accept the premise that the Bible is true to prove the claim that God is a pig, then you can't accept only a portion of your own evidence. For example. Tim's theory doesn't do well when confronted with the good acts of Jesus (who tied Himself quite closely with the Old Testament Yahweh). Larry responded to Tim's conclusion based on his premise, and Rich complains that he doesn't like the premise. So why attack Larry? It was Tim's premise! Anyway, #3 points out that he doesn't believe in the Bible anyway. What has this got to do with the argument? "God is a pig because (if we assume the Bible is true) He is not worthy of worship but I don't believe in the Bible." So why bother stating 1 and 2? Why not say you just don't believe in the Bible? One possible answer was that the form of the argument was "1 because 2 and 3 and 4." This doesn't make sense: "God is a pig because I don't believe in the Bible." Of course, another possibility is that "I don't believe in the Bible, but let's put the Christians in their place." From the tone of the argument, this seems to be the case. A very recent argument I had went something like this: X: God is a pig; look at these verses. Me: You have taken them out of context; check these verses. X: God is still a pig; look at these verses. Me: Did you check my other verses? X: You are a Nazi. In any case, Larry has shown that steps 3 and 4 are irrelevant, since 1 and 2 were not properly addressed. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david