Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.religion Subject: Re: Samuelson's response to the time capsule (part 5.3)Message-ID: <492@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 10:45:53 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.492 Posted: Fri Feb 8 10:45:53 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 07:26:35 EST References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP> <705@bunker.UUCP> Organization: The Gang - Other Other Operations Division Lines: 57 Xref: watmath net.flame:8255 net.religion:5543 >>>>The need to have such externals to >>>>believe is, to me, a sign of immaturity, akin to the belief that there >>>>must be a god because... [ROSEN - original article] >>[ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A REPEATED QUESTION THAT GETS GLOSSED OVER REPEATEDLY. >> I DON'T ASK IT DIRECTLY HERE, PARTIALLY BECAUSE IT HADN'T GELLED COMPLETELY >> IN MY OWN MIND AS TO HOW TO PHRASE IT AT THE TIME. [ROSEN - comments] > Swell, so I am being criticized for not answering a question that > hadn't been asked yet... [FLAME ON] That's right, Gary, excerpt random sections of paragraphs to tell a complete lie in order to make your "point". I'll no longer have any regrets about calling you a fascist. The original comments paragraph above mentioned how I was asking questions related to the notion of wishful thinking, but my phrasing in the original article had not been quite perfect, as the concept of how subjective "evidence" is tainted had not completely gelled in my mind. Some thoughts take time to develop, Gary. They grow from an evaluative process. Unlike assumptions which take only an instant. The question was still asked (although not directly asking about wishful thinking/preconception in those words), and you still answered with an answer the viability of which I questioned. >> SINCE MANY HAVE CLAIMED THAT "OTHERS" (e.g., >> Catholics) HAVE BEEN LED ASTRAY AND MISLED, THROUGH READING THE SAME >> SOURCE MATERIAL, HOW CAN YOU BE SURE THAT IT IS *THEY* WHO WERE LED >> ASTRAY AND NOT *YOU*? WHAT IS YOUR BASIS FOR THAT DECISION? YOUR >> OWN SUBJECTIVE FEELING? DON'T THEY IN THEIR OWN SUBJECTIVE >> FEELING BELIEVE THAT IT IS *YOU* WHO ARE MISLED? HOW CAN YOU DETERMINE >> THE ANSWER WHEN YOU KNOW THE SOURCE OF THE DETERMINATION IS YOUR OWN >> SUBJECTIVITY, WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE VERY UNRELIABLE AND >> SELF-DETERMINING (i.e., believing in patterns it chooses to make use >> of)? DO YOU DOUBT THE EXISTENCE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SUBJECTIVE, >> OR ARE YOU JUST IGNORING THEM WITH REGARD TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF?] > Fine, the bottom line is that no one can be 100% sure of anything; > not even Pesmard Flurrmn. Yet you have never expressed any doubt > about your assumption that there is no God. You've obviously never fully read any of my articles, judging from the blatantly incorrect assumption here. I have expressed numerous times my personal fascination with the possibilities of what such an entity might be like. But I don't assume ANY of those possibilities as absolute truth or anywhere near it, as you have. It is clear to me from the way you phrase your analyses, from the way your answers to questions stem from a priori assumptions about the preconceived nature of what the deity must be like, that you are engaging in what I have referred to as presumptive wishful thinking, and that your analyses are thus tainted. I may be wrong, and you are free to prove me wrong (by other than asserting that it's just not so), but I have presented my reasons for this position, and I would like a reasoned rebuttal, if possible. -- BRIAN: "You're all different!" CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" Rich Rosen MAN: "I'm not ... " {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr