Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re (part 8 and last): Blast from the past
Message-ID: <708@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 10:46:25 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.708
Posted: Mon Feb  4 10:46:25 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 08:14:42 EST
References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 100

Part 8 and last of my response to the long article recently posted by
Pesmard Flurrmn (formerly known as Rich Rosen) to net.religion and
net.religion.christian (418@pyuxd.UUCP).

Conclusion.

Pesmard's conclusion:
> What conclusions can we draw?

> 1) We're still arguing about the same things, only we've become more
> entrenched and have better codified our positions with cute buzzwords
> like "wishful thinking".

Pesmard continually claims that anyone who believes in God must
be engaging in wishful thinking.  This is very convenient, because
he then need not examine the claim that God is real on its merits.
Saying that person A believes proposition X simply because person A
wishes to do so, he has accomplished several things:

1. He has diverted the discussion from the real question, is X true?
   I note with regret that this has worked for over a year now;
   for that long Pesmard has been arguing about the people who
   believe in God, rather than about the belief itself.
2. He has discredited person A in general; if person A believes only
   what he wants to, why, it would be silly to give any heed to
   anything he says.
3. He has, in effect, called person A a liar, because person
   A claims to believe proposition X for some other reason.

> 2) The basis for disagreement continues to be the differences in basic
> assumptions between the two sides; neither side seems to really appreciate
> the fact that the other side makes a different set of assumptions than
> *they* do.  I still contend that religious believers are making assumptions
> based on wishful thinking, that they hold to the SAME assumptions that I
> and others do regarding the world at large, but that they add a different
> set of assumptions for the special case called religion.

And I still contend that Pesmard assumes that there is no God
(which is one assumption which "religious believers" obviously
do not share), though he does not acknowledge that he makes such
an assumption.

At one point, several articles after the one reposted, I invited
Pesmard to state explicitly the assumptions he makes so that we
could discuss them openly.  He never did.  The exchange ended when
he announced in his last followup to me that the discussion was
getting nowhere and would be continued by mail.  He never did;
the only thing he sent me was a short note explaining that he
was "tired," and that I would continue to ignore logic and believe
what I wished to believe.

> One witnesses the extreme people like Arndt who scream "This is
> my point of view, it says so in the bible.  See?  What are you going
> to do about it?"  (usually followed by a derogatory insult...)

Or the extreme people who scream "this is the only rational position;
you are obviously childish, immature, mindless, fascist, and foolish
to believe that" (usually followed by a derogatory insult...)

> Do ALL religious believers (like Marchionni and Nichols, for example)
> *assume* that others hold to their assumptions regarding religion?

I dunno; do all atheists assume their own infallibility?  Do all
husbands beat their wives?  Have you stopped slandering religious
people yet?

> Are they aware of the assumptions they are making?  Am I??  I hope
> this proves to open new fertile ground for discussion instead of
> further entrenchment.

I find it hard to believe that you really want more discussion,
since:

1.  You have claimed that no one answers your questions anyway,
    when what you mean is that you don't accept or agree with
    the answers.
2.  You have already stated that you aren't willing to discuss
    religion apart from the assumption that it's all a bunch of
    hogwash based on wishful thinking.
3.  You reposted an article in which you were admittedly "nasty"
    towards religious people in general and me in particular
    (is the fact that you admit to being nasty supposed to make
    it more palatable?); if that is what we can expect of you,
    then you will continue attacking the believer rather than
    the belief.
4.  You have decided a priori that anyone who believes in God
    is a fool, or worse.  How can you then say that you wish a
    "discussion"?  You may want to "show us our folly," but I
    doubt that you have any intention of discussing things, as
    if you thought that religious people could teach you anything.

> "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body?  I dunno."

The mind rules the body, of course.

> 				Rich Rosen 	{ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
Whose name appears "quite prominently" in the header as Pesmard Flurrmn.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys