mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/14/85)
[Almost all of this article has been edited out. This is because it primarily concerns what has become a private matter between Rich Rosen and me. The remainder I have replied to because it is important to the kind of argument that has persisted in its popularity in this newsgroup.] The original article that started this was (essentially) about sin. I claim that everyone does. I've yet to see anyone produce evidence that someone hasn't, but Rich (in his usual hyperbolic manner) labels this notion as some great evil which (of course) is the product of wishful thinking, in this case so that we (the christians) have an excuse to punish people. This last point I refuse to argue. There are plenty of writings which deal with this question from various points of view, and which almost nobody in this group will ever read. What bothers me is that there is a increasing unwillingness (and I freely admit to being guilty of it at times) of refusing to discuss or argue about a position on its merits, but rather to attack to proponents of the position as regards to motives, other beliefs, or anything irrelevant. As scientific argument, this is certainly out of bounds. Within scientific inquiry one does not consider the proposers of a statement at all; it's truth is independent of who states it first. I think that within the realm of philosophical inquiry the same principle holds. Only people with axes to grind have need of attacking the bearers of truth (or even of untruth). However.... In article <1863@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>>[T]he "horrors" that Gary Smith spoke of come not from science but from >>>>application of scientific facts by people who add in other bogus >>>>assumptions, such as the one I described. >> And my point, obscure as it was, was that Rich should not presume himself >> to be free of such influences. [Wingate] >While *you* should be? I don't understand this at all. Clearly from your >very line of thinking (as documented in your articles about many subjects) >you don't see the need to even BEGIN to rid yourself of such influences. I do not claim to be free of any such influences. As for ridding oneself of them, of course one must try. Rich seems to think that I have advocated otherwise, but in fact, there is no logical connection between what I said and the statement he makes. He is simply attacking an illusionary motive becuase he has no logical argument to make. >>>> I take Charles' silence to mean that he has nothing constructive >>>> to say about that issue. I am forced to interpret that silence >>>> as concurrence. I not that Wingate is often silent (again, with the >>>> exception of some snotty remark) after I and others >>>> say things he seems to have no answer for. [Rosen] I am under no obligation to reply to anyone. Furthermore, much traffic never gets here. Much of what is posted in this group is boring and repetitious, and I get tired of making repetitious replies, especially when (as is typically the case) I know that my objections will essentially be ignored. One thing that (unfortunately, it was no suprise to me) is that Rich and other Anti-Christians seem never to have bothered to find out what the theologians have had to say about the arguments he makes. I am a very amateur theologian, and it simply is not worth my time to make the studies to dig up in depth refutations of Rich's tired old arguments. I have every reason to believe that they would be ignored anyway. Even the professional theolgians on the net see no need to reply. Silence, having no content, is easily read however one likes; but reading it as a concession under the circumstances strikes me as dubious, to be charitable about it. Charley Wingate
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/18/85)
> [Almost all of this article has been edited out. This is because it > primarily concerns what has become a private matter between Rich Rosen and > me. The remainder I have replied to because it is important to the kind of > argument that has persisted in its popularity in this newsgroup.] [WINGATE] This should prove most interesting. > The original article that started this was (essentially) about sin. I claim > that everyone does. I've yet to see anyone produce evidence that someone > hasn't, but Rich (in his usual hyperbolic manner) labels this notion as some > great evil which (of course) is the product of wishful thinking, in this > case so that we (the christians) have an excuse to punish people. You "claim that everyone does". And then you claim that you've "yet to see evidence" that this is so, let alone proving the notion that there is such a thing as "sin", along with all the other baggage that the Christian belief set claims to exist (like "man's fallenness"). You shouldn't be looking for others to provide evidence; it is you who should be providing it. > This last point I refuse to argue. There are plenty of writings which deal > with this question from various points of view, and which almost nobody in > this group will ever read. Then summarize for the rest of us poor slobs what you learned from all of these expository writings. I would venture a guess that, as with so much of the presumptuous literature you take as gospel, if you were to expound on "proofs" of your notions, we would find holes big enough to drive a truck through. But, of course, I haven't seen any of them (pray tell, why?), so I'll suspend further judgment until I do. If I do. > What bothers me is that there is a increasing unwillingness (and I freely > admit to being guilty of it at times) of refusing to discuss or argue about > a position on its merits, but rather to attack to proponents of the position > as regards to motives, other beliefs, or anything irrelevant. As scientific > argument, this is certainly out of bounds. Allow to explain something here. When all you have to support your assertions is your "I say so, these are my values, these are my beliefs, how DARE you question them?", and when beliefs founded only on such assertions become the status quo in a society and impinge upon the lives of human beings, then those who would not have such beliefs be the controlling force in their lives have a right to ask why those beliefs are held, to question the assumptions that go behind them, to ask what (even subconscious) motives one might have for holding such beliefs given those assumptions. > Within scientific inquiry one does not consider the proposers of a statement > at all; it's truth is independent of who states it first. I think that > within the realm of philosophical inquiry the same principle holds. Only > people with axes to grind have need of attacking the bearers of truth (or > even of untruth). No, Charles, the bearers of untruth should have their positions debunked, especially when their untruths impinge on other people's lives. >>>>[T]he "horrors" that Gary Smith spoke of come not from science but from >>>>application of scientific facts by people who add in other bogus >>>>assumptions, such as the one I described. >>> And my point, obscure as it was, was that Rich should not presume himself >>> to be free of such influences. [Wingate] >>While *you* should be? I don't understand this at all. Clearly from your >>very line of thinking (as documented in your articles about many subjects) >>you don't see the need to even BEGIN to rid yourself of such influences. > I do not claim to be free of any such influences. As for ridding oneself of > them, of course one must try. Rich seems to think that I have advocated > otherwise, but in fact, there is no logical connection between what I said > and the statement he makes. He is simply attacking an illusionary motive > becuase he has no logical argument to make. On the contrary, the logical argument I am making is that given your lack of substantiation for your positions as written here, given my desire to not have society controlled by such presumptive positions, I think I am within my rights to ask for such substantiation before you claim that your beliefs represent truth. >>>> I take Charles' silence to mean that he has nothing constructive >>>> to say about that issue. I am forced to interpret that silence >>>> as concurrence. I not that Wingate is often silent (again, with the >>>> exception of some snotty remark) after I and others >>>> say things he seems to have no answer for. [Rosen] > I am under no obligation to reply to anyone. Furthermore, much traffic > never gets here. Much of what is posted in this group is boring and > repetitious, and I get tired of making repetitious replies, especially when > (as is typically the case) I know that my objections will essentially be > ignored. That's funny, this section is from an old article that Charles already responded to. Why does he feel the need to repeat this disclaimer? And to think I was once called "poor shackled martyr": Charles' "my objections typically will essentially be ignored" presents itself. Sorry, Charley, when your objections are ignored, there has always been a good reason, whether it is me ignoring or someone else. As a matter of fact, rarely are they ignored, they are responded to and shown for what they are. > One thing that (unfortunately, it was no suprise to me) is that Rich and > other Anti-Christians seem never to have bothered to find out what the > theologians have had to say about the arguments he makes. I am a very > amateur theologian, and it simply is not worth my time to make the studies > to dig up in depth refutations of Rich's tired old arguments. Perhaps because you never made them in the first place? Or perhaps because your definition of a "refutation" is simply your assertion that it is not so? (Anti-Christians? What reason would I have to be "Anti-Christian", Charles, given all that Christianity has stood for and done for me and my kind?) > I have every reason to believe that they would be ignored anyway. You say this as if there is no good reason that they were ignored in the first place. > Even the professional theolgians on the net see no need to reply. No "need"? > Silence, having no content, is easily read however one likes; but reading it > as a concession under the circumstances strikes me as dubious, to be > charitable about it. One always has the opportunity to answer. You keep saying "you are being ignored" or "you would be ignored". Could it just possibly be that the reason for the ignoring is rooted not in the attitudes of the ignorer, but in the quality of the statements of the ignoree? -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr