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!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxm!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re (part 8 and last): Blast from the past
Message-ID: <502@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 17:54:40 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.502
Posted: Sat Feb  9 17:54:40 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 06:34:06 EST
References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP> <708@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: The Gang - Other Other Operations Division
Lines: 130

> 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.

You have shown no merits for that case, other than logic that begins
with the assumption that there is a god and works from there, which is
no logic at all.  Based on that, what reason do you have for making that
assumption?

> 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.

Given that most of the argument FOR religious belief is straightforward
assertion (if it is not "personal subjective experience"), showing flaws
in the logical processes of such asserters gives credence to the notion
that their assertions (without substantiation) are faulty.

>>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.

1) I have shown the contention to be false, repeatedly.  2) Gary seems to
think that I shouldn't be working from what he presumes to be MY assumption,
but feels it's all right to work from his.  Assume god first, then add
logic.  Then shake.  More than just a simple double standard there.

> 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.

Again, a lie.  I stated several times that one of my assumptions is that
making as few assumptions as possible is the best way to obtain knowledge of
the truth.  Since we have no other channels other than sensory input to
obtain information, I also claim that our sensory mechanisms provide accurate
input from the world, HOWEVER, the brain has been known to take that input and
to interpret it in faulty ways, based on previously known patterns, wishful
thinking (interpreting input as what the brain desires to see/hear/...).
Given this, objective verification is a reasonable goal, and failure to
provide such verification ("I saw a UFO, I did, I did!") is grounds for
discarding such conclusions as non-evidential.  Again, I've said that most
reasonable people make exactly these same assumptions in daily life.  But
that religious believers choose to make a special case out of religion,
ignoring some of these assumptions, to make their belief system "stick
together".

>>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...)

Gary sees "You're wrong, and here's the reason why" as 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?

Apparently Gary assumes that we know what he's talking about here, but I sure
don't.  I think I have stopped slandering religious people.  Have you stopped
beating your wife?  More importantly, have you stopped making your additional
assumptions and/or explained why you choose to make them?  I think not.

> 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.

No, what I mean is that some people who claim to have all the answers (e.g,
you) fail to respond with explanations when I ask questions or show erroneous-
ness in their thinking.  In fact, they often go on to reiterate their points
as if I hadn't shown anything faulty about them.  Which implies that they
either don't care for my reasoning or they've chosen to ignore it and to
continue believing, not caring to care about the flaws I'd thought that I'd
shown.  They neither deny what I've said, nor do they disprove it.  They
just continue as if it had gone unsaid.

> 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.

More lies.  I stated that I wanted to know what the reason behind assumptions
I'd thought I'd shown to be unsubstantiated was.  Or discussion of why my
premises were in error.  I've gotten neither, I think, because you don't
want to address the issues I've raised, because you see any raising of such
issues in a negative light to be "attacks".  Fine.

> 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.

I will continue to be nasty in return to Mr. Samuelson when he offers
invective and lies in "answer" to my points.

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

> The mind rules the body, of course.

The Smiths will be glad to know that you personally have answered the question.

>> 				Rich Rosen 	{ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr

> Whose name appears "quite prominently" in the header as Pesmard Flurrmn.

So, you read both the header AND the signature...  (P.S.  Look again)
-- 
"Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered
 to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed."		Rich Rosen  pyuxd!rlr