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