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 7): Blast from the past Message-ID: <501@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 17:33:07 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.501 Posted: Sat Feb 9 17:33:07 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 06:33:43 EST References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP> <707@bunker.UUCP> Organization: The Gang - Other Other Operations Division Lines: 134 As we get to the end of Garys' magnum opus, there's not much new being said, but I feel obligated to answer a few points. > Since you don't believe in God, I certainly wouldn't expect you to > pray to him. But how do you *know* that "in reality it is their own > introspection?" Again the assumption that there is no God. Clearly, > if there is no god, then some other explanation for the efficacy of > prayer must be found. But that's rather begging the question, isn't > it? (Yes it is.) It's begging the question to assume that there IS a god first. Again, Gary would like to have others prove his assumption false, but any reasoned person would know that the ones making the extraordinary claim (and/or assumptions) have the burden of proof foist upon them. Not the other way around as Gary would apparently like. >>[I WAS PROVEN WRONG HERE: I THINK LAURA MENTIONED THAT IT COMES FROM AESOP.] > Therefore it turns out to be a perfect example of someone who has rejected > the bible based on his ignorance of it. What this is a perfect example of Gary's fascistic manipulation and twisting of words. Gary is less concerned with truth than with making assertions that he is right. I don't claim to know or remember the entire Bible or all of its passages. My human failing at not remembering the source of the quote is labelled "ignorance" and this "ignorance" is stated as the reason why I rejected the Bible. Aside from its being blatantly false, it reeks of Gary's typical manipulative twisting of words to suit his own ends. (I suppose Gary does in fact know the sources of all quotes and passages, especially Biblical ones. Good for him if he does.) >>Your paragraph assumes the existence of the god in question, which is >>of course where we differ. My opinions on the non-existence of god >>have already been put forth and explained. > So you admit that your explanation of prayer was question begging, > with respect to whether God is real or not. It is not worth discussing such things with someone who takes HIS own assumptions as givens, when they are not necessarily generally accepted or for that matter readily demonstrated. If Gary expects the rest of the human race to engage in discussion with him only on the basis that we agree with his assumptions, then good for him. It doesn't qualify as reasoned discussion, though. > >>What is wrong with the idea that, as long as I don't interfere in > >>the rights of other human beings, I should be free to live to my > >>best potential as I see fit? > >In one sense, there is nothing wrong with it. Supposing that God does > >exist, wouldn't you expect that living up to your best potential > >would include understanding yourself in relationship to God? > If god existed, why would I be obliged to understand myself in relation > to it? Do you (or I) establish understanding about our relationships to > every single thing in the universe? You constantly assume that god > must hold some special position of authority (specifically over you and > all other people). Why? This is YOUR assumption (desire?) about the > nature of god (not necessarily his :-). Think about it. > To say that the Creator has authority over his Creation doesn't seem > terribly farfetched. No, not if you assume the creator's existence in advance. > Perhaps your desire not to submit to proper > authority is one of the reasons why you feel that there must not be > a God. (This last statement is as fair as the one Pesmard makes below, > concerning why he thinks I "feel there must be a God." Given that it is you who is making the additional uncalled-for assumptions, I'd say that perhaps YOUR desire to require a proper authority to submit to is one of the reasons why you feel that there must BE a god. Since Gary will not get behind his own assumptions to find out why he has them (as I've asked for), I can expect an answer of "But god simply is." Which is Gary's foremost assumption. Why he has it I don't know. He hasn't told us. >>Only the god you choose to believe in is perfect. Human beings are >>not. > Where did you get this concept of perfection? I'm not quite sure what Gary is trying to say here. The Judaeo/Christian god is defined as a perfect holy entity. Human beings are not that way, not like the vision in which they (some of them) have conceived a deity. Could Gary be trying to ask something on the order of "For you to think of the notion of perfection, there must have been a god that is perfect that gave you the basis for forming that notion, right?" ? It isn't at all clear from his short and sweet response above. I only thought of that possible context for asking (no context at all crossed my mind on first reading) after several readings. But I contend that this is typical of the way Gary has written, and I think he will admit (and has done so) that he's not the clearest writer in the world. Yet this example above seems to say that Gary thinks the context is obvious, that we are all making the same assumptions (and jumping to the same conclusions?) that he is, and if we're not, well ... I still don't know what Gary was trying to say. If my interpretation above is correct, let me say that there exists something called human imagination that can construct in the mind things that do not and even cannot exist. Including perfection. So, if that was your point, I disagree with it, and I think I've shown why it's faulty. But if that's not the right interpretation, let me say that speaking from such a presumptive standpoint seems to lend itself to misinterpretation, frustration, and anger. ("You're obviously wrong. X is Y and so is Z." Even though the last statement may have meant something to the author, its context and the assumptions behind it might not have been made clear enough to readers.) Which is why Smauelson's writing (and responding to it) is so irritating to me (and apparently to others). And it may be why others perceive my writing in the same way. Which is why I'm seeking to get to the root of assumptions and reasons for assumptions. > (Is this another reason that you feel that there must be a god?) > Experiments like democracy are the ways that people try to establish > their own guidelines and rights without external imposition. To believe > the bible as the ultimate arbiter of people's rights is to impose your > arbitrary standards on everyone. Why? > If it were true that the terror Pesmard speaks of were inherent in > religious belief, then we should expect an absence of that terror > in the absence of religious belief. Since we see the same kind of > terror in systems which explicitly reject religious belief, we > should conclude that the terror is independent of the belief or > lack thereof. Therefore, Pesmard should stop blaming religion for > the terror; if he does that, religious people will not have to keep > pointing out that antireligious systems can exhibit the same kind > of terror. (Note that the word "can" indicates that some antireligious > systems exhibit terror, not that all do.) When the belief system itself PREACHES and ENCOURAGES superiority of the believers, the right of the believers to inflict their right thinking on others, than THAT is the element that must be eradicated. I contend that many Christians see that notion as a fundamental notion of Christianity. -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen {ihnp4|harpo}!pyuxd!rlr