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: (part 6): Blast from the past (FINAL FINAL FINAL CONCLUSION?)
Message-ID: <497@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 14:06:49 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.497
Posted: Fri Feb 8 14:06:49 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 07:27:58 EST
References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP> <706@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: The Gang - Other Other Operations Division
Lines: 265
Xref: watmath net.flame:8256 net.religion:5544
> More reasons why people believe in God. [SAMUELSON]
>>>3. Search for meaning. I believe that God exists because, otherwise,
>>> human existence in general, and my life in particular, would be
>>> meaningless. If there is no God, then there is no real purpose
>>> for my existence, and I want very much to believe that there is
>>> a purpose for my existence.
>>It is wrong for me to say that no one should believe in god. [ROSEN]
> Then don't say it.
I haven't said it. I've said that many irrational preconceptions about the
nature have fouled up individual lives and the lives of entire peoples.
And I will continue to do so.
> Stop calling people who do believe in God
> mindless irrational, or immature, or fascist, or any of the other
> terms which you use to indicate that you don't think people should
> believe in God.
I refer to people's beliefs as irrational when their basis in reasoned thought
leaves much open to question, as I hope I have shown. I refer to such beliefs
as immature when they are rooted in an irrational need for external
dependency. And I refer to manipulative argumentative techniques (like
misquoting, excerpting out of context, and outright lies) as fascist because
that's what they are. If you're going to turn around and accuse me of same,
please offer some examples, as I did in part 5.3 of this soap opera.
>>Some people need this belief system or else they will feel either
>>helpless or purposeless, and I think it does help for some people.
> Condescending little creature, aren't you? That woule be like me
> expressing sympathy for you because you haven't come to know the
> Creator.
(Which of course we have never heard...) Fine. I won't "condescend". The
fact that some people have been led to believe that their lives are
purposeless and that they themselves are helpless leads to their needing such
a belief system. Encouraging them not to feel this way about their lives for
rational reasons would be much better than the true condescension of religious
believers who tell them presumptive stories about deities to "elevate" them
from their self-imposed holes in the ground. I'd say such religion has a
vested interest in keeping people feeling helpless and purposeless, because
only such people will have a need for such a religion. Not that there
necessarily is an active conspiracy to keep people that way.
>>However, I also feel that such a belief is childish, in that it is
>>based on a picture of the world that you *want* to see and not the
>>way evidence shows it to be.
> Again, the assumption that the belief is not true.
Oh, grow up, Gary. Your assumption is that the belief IS true. Without
question. Without reason. And I've asked repeatedly what the motivation
for such an assumption is. Any reasoned analysis would examine why the
additional assumptions are made by some, not why they are not made by
others. I get the feeling that you simply don't like that fact, that
you'd rather be the "given" while others who question you have the
obligation of proof. Well, it just ain't so.
>>Again, belief in one's self and in humanity would do just as well
>>(if not better, because it eliminates the need to externalize one's
>>dependencies).
> Do you really consider yourself a completely independent person?
> Did you build your own house with your own hands, using only those
> tools you fashioned yourself from whatever raw materials you could
> find? Do you eat only the food grown on your own land? Even if
> you could answer all of the above questions affirmatively, you
> did not create the raw materials, so you would still be dependent
> on external factors.
I should have said "because it eliminates the need to externalize one's
dependencies unnecessarily". Obviously from both a survival and
self-worth viewpoint it is a good thing to be able to be completely
self-sufficient. Most people have needs for other people (socialization,
companionship, sex, argument, ...), and probably few people could ever
be completely independent. But let's distinguish that sort of dependence
(interdependence within society) to dependence on some greater entity,
to the need to believe that there is something greater than you, be it
a god or another person or whatever.
>>But, promotion of the belief that garys expounds here, that human
>>life is meaningless without god, is repugnant, and smacks of
>>mindlessness.
> So far I am irrational, immature, childish, and now mindless.
> Later on, Pesmard announced that I was also a fascist.
What's more, I told people why. (Actually, I have continously referred to
your argumentative tactics as fascist, not you personally, but your
continued use of those tactics despite my pointing out their manipulative
basis makes me, quite frankly, wonder...)
>>My life, and the lives of many others, are very meaningful without
>>any god, thank you.
> Don't thank me, thank... (no I won't say it).
Good, because I don't thank that which I don't believe to exist, namely your
presumptive erroneous self-appointed vision of god. To assume that I
would, or that I would care to, is ridiculous. And besides, how could I
thank something that I don't believe to exist for allowing my life to be
meaningful despite its non-existence????????????????
>>[SOMEONE THOUGHT ENOUGH OF THAT LAST SENTENCE, I RECALL, TO SEND ME
>> A NOTE OF PRAISE FOR SAYING IT.
> Since someone else praised you for it, does that constitute proof
> by authority? I also occassionally get notes encouraging me for
> what I have said.
Fine. We both have "fans". :-)
>> I WAS SAYING THE SAME THINGS THEN REGARDING WISHFUL
>> THINKING (THOUGH PERHAPS NOT AS WELL CODIFIED). THEY HAVE STILL GONE
>> UNACKNOWLEDGED.]
> FALSEHOOD! Your statements about wishful thinking have been acknowledged
> many times, by many people. What you mean is that the answers did
> not satisfy you. To say that your statements were unacknowledged is
> to say that they were ignored. After I finish this series, I will
> demonstrate the verb "ignore".
Assertions of "that ain't so" were ignored, and rightfully so. I hope my
previous article (part 5.2) addresses specifically the concerns regarding
wishful thinking.
>>>4. Sufficient cause. I believe that God exists because I do not
>>> believe that the material universe is self-sufficient. The
>>> existence of thought is not sufficiently explained by purely
>>> random actions.
>>This is based on the notion that "if we can't explain it, it's
>>unexplainable", which somehow again leads to "there must be a god".
>>This is a very anthropocentric point of view, that if humankind
>>doesn't understand something, it is un-understandable.
> It is also not what I said. If the basis of thought is random
> physical or chemical actions, then we can't claim that our thought
> processes are correct; we can only claim that they're lucky.
Nonsense. Processes generated as a result of a "random" universe do not
imply the "randomness" of the result. The processes in our bodies came
about as a result of millions of years of development---the processes that
worked best, survived. They worked best because they enabled the organisms
to best evaluate the real physical world.
Again, you said the material universe is not self-sufficient. I ask again
what the difference between the material and non-material universe is.
>>This anthropocentrism manifests itself, interestingly enough, in
>>Judaeo-Christian thought (odd, wouldn't you think?), when it puts
>>forth things like "god created the earth as the focal point of the universe,
>>and created man as its ruling species". This says a lot more about "man"
>>than about "god". My personal belief is that the universe is "explainable"
>>and "understandable" in its entirety from a physicalist point of view, but
>>that we may never have the knowledge or vantage point to do so.
> So it is anthropocentric to believe that there are things which man
> cannot explain with his science, but it is not anthropocentric to
> claim that man can explain everything (eventually) with his science.
Note that I said "my personal belief", clearly (I thought) implying that
it was not necessarily either supported by evidence or the truth. Note,
Gary, how I acknowledge in the case of my beliefs that there IS a difference.
But not so in your case, Gary?
>>[INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THIS RELATES BACK TO THE DEBATE WITH WINGATE OVER THE
>> DEFINITION OF "NATURAL" AND "SUPERNATURAL" (the realm that god is supposed to
>> be in). THAT LAST SENTENCE ABOVE SOUNDS BOLD, UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND HOW
>> "PHYSICAL" IS DEFINED. THE QUESTION IS: IS PHYSICAL "THAT WHICH EXISTS",
>> SUCH THAT IF GOD EXISTS, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PHYSICAL IN NATURE BECAUSE
>> EXISTENCE IMPLIES PHYSICALITY? OR IS PHYSICAL "THAT WHICH HUMANS CAN
>> OBSERVE", SUCH THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF NATURAL/PHYSICAL AND SUPERNATURAL/
>> NON-PHYSICAL ARE SOLELY BASED ON CURRENT BOUNDARIES OF HUMAN OBSERVATION?
>> IF SO, IS THIS ANYTHING BUT ARBITRARY? IF YOU CLAIM IT MEANS "ALL THAT
>> HUMANS CAN *EVER* OBSERVE", BY WHAT BASIS DO YOU PREDETERMINE THAT BOUNDARY,
>> OR EVEN THAT THERE *IS* A BOUNDARY?]
> Pesmard offers some really strange definitions of the term "physical."
> The assumption suggested that "existence implies physicality" may be
> Pesmard's; it certainly isn't mine.
THEN DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY PHYSICAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If existence does not imply physicality, then what are the things that exist
that are non-physical? How would they be different from those things that ARE
physical? WHAT IS YOUR BASIS FOR THE DICHOTOMY? If the difference is only
"Mankind cannot observe them", what is that but a bogus anthropocentric
definition that would have little to do with the "operation" of the universe?
>>>5. Conscience. I believe that God exists because I have a sense
>>> of morality; that some actions are 'good' and some actions are
>>> 'bad'. I believe that this sense of morality has a basis in
>>> reality, and that if there were no God, there would be no sense
>>> of morality, or morality at all.
>>I fail to see why this is so. Maybe it's obvious to you, but if I
>>were you I'd think twice about anything I thought was "obvious".
> Apparently Pesmard saw the word "obvious" in the above paragraph.
When I see things asserted without substantiation, I assume that the
speaker assumes that these things are obvious. And rightfully so.
>>Again, I think the notion of "one person's rights end where
>>imposition on another person begins", which I feel to be a
>>fundamental facet of humanist (or whatever) thought, sums it up.
>>Apparently, so did Jesus, when he summed it all up in different
>>words ("Do unto others...").
> How interesting. Earlier you had claimed that the humanist tenets
> were developed without reference to any ancient scripture; how
> nice to see that you admit that that was not so.
I "admit" that they have some of the same facets. YOU assume that this
implies a cause and effect relationship. This, unfortunately, is typical
of the presumptive style of analysis that forms religious belief.
>>I would think the notion of an organized religion the way Christianity
>>is today (perhaps un-organized religion is a better phrase), where
>>imposition of beliefs and laws from a book is the rule, would have
>>Jesus spinning in his grave. (Maybe that's why god had him resurrected,
>>to prevent his burning a hole in the ground :-)
> I think this is called a red herring. We were talking about whether
> God exists, not (specifically) whether Christianity is the correct
> way to learn about him, let alone whether most implementations of
> Christianity are according to specification.
Thank you for telling me what I (at least) was talking about. Virtually
everyone on the net is agreed that it is impossible to prove either way
whether or not there is some ultimate deity. (Which makes questions of
the genre "What proof would be acceptable to you?" irrelevant.) What
each person's personal beliefs are is their own affair. Given that it is
impossible to distinguish truth from fiction when examining individual
subjective perspective (THE single most important reason offered for why
people have their particular religious beliefs, at the root of it all),
on what basis should any religious belief system and its adherents determine
morality and law for other people? On what basis does any one religion (which
of course, according to its members, is "right" while all the others are false,
despite the exact equivalence of the level of evidence amongst them all) have
the right to inflict humiliation, torture, abuse, murder, and general
restrictions of ANY kind (other than those regarding interference with other
people's rights) on other people, not just non-believers but their own
believers as well?
In conclusion, Gary has spent a lot of time replying to an article that he
already replied to more than a year ago. At length. Gary has stated that
this would be the last Rich Rosen article he ever responded to (he's said
that before), and he's certainly made a grand show of it. Between the two
of us, with his 6 part reply and my 11 part followup reply, we've wasted
enough time and energy to power a minor deity. Part 5.2 probably sums up
what I was trying to say better than anything that precedes it, so I
recommend that it be looked at closely. I'm glad that we "slugged it out"
though, despite the enormous volume and the probably low content-to-noise
ratio. I think both of us added some new things to think about. (But was
it worth 2000 lines?) :-?
--
"Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end."
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
--
"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