[net.religion] Hit and run

arndt@lymph.DEC (05/10/85)

Sigh.  Rich Rosen (my buddy from NJ) says: "We know there are both ants and
humans.  We don't know that there is a god.  Except through assumption.  Must
this point be repeated ad infinitum?"

I would like Rich to prove that there are ants and humans.  

WITHOUT ANY ASSUMPTIONS!  You know, the things those silly Christians use
to talk about God.

Does Unix fry your brains Rich?  Try some VMS.  Try, gasp, reason.  Try any
philosophy text written in the last 100 years.  EVERYTHING, it seems, must
begin from assumptions.  Math, science, breakfast.  If they taste good then
we say they are good assumptions, as opposed to those that don't.

Didn't they have any philosophy courses in tech school?  I guess not.
Next you'll be telling us philosophy has nothing to do with 'science'.

How does it feel to be a 19th century man in the 20th century?

You are not alone of course.  There are some of your fellow time travellers
on net.origins too.

Keep chargin'

Ken Arndt

bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (05/11/85)

> 
> Sigh.  Rich Rosen (my buddy from NJ) says: "We know there are both ants and
> humans.  We don't know that there is a god.  Except through assumption.  Must
> this point be repeated ad infinitum?"
> 
> I would like Rich to prove that there are ants and humans.  
> 
> WITHOUT ANY ASSUMPTIONS!  You know, the things those silly Christians use
> to talk about God.
> 
I am surprised you ask this question, Ken.  How do we know there are
ants and humans? Because THE BIBLE TELLS US SO, of course!  "The ants are
a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer;" (Proverbs
31:25).  "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise;"
(Proverbs 6:5).  I won't quote biblical evidence for the existence of
people, I am sure you can find some.

Why should we trust in the evidence of our own senses, when we can
find it all in THE BIBLE?

-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)

padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (05/11/85)

> Didn't they have any philosophy courses in tech school?  I guess not.
> Next you'll be telling us philosophy has nothing to do with 'science'.
> 
> How does it feel to be a 19th century man in the 20th century?
> 
> You are not alone of course.  There are some of your fellow time travellers
> on net.origins too.
> 
> Keep chargin'
> 
> Ken Arndt

Given the choice I think that I'd prefer to be from the 19th century, if
you represent 20th century man. No, I have'nt taken philosophy 301, and
don't think I ever will if the best it can produce are 20th century folks
who confuse the obscure with the profound and produce gems like god
is the underground of beans etc. :-)

Did your philosophy courses teach you that personal invective is a good
substitute for sound reasoning? Did it teach you that you can get points
by attacking people who might not be aware of your attacks? 
You seem to think that claiming to be of the 20th century automatically
validates your point of view, and that calling others "19th century"
men is sufficient to refute their opinions. In other postings you have
likened other debaters to thirteen year-olds.  Perhaps you could let us
out here in netland know the reasons for your fetish's with timescales
as being criteria for good philosophy?

Padraig Houlahan.

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/13/85)

> Sigh.  Rich Rosen (my buddy from NJ) says: "We know there are both ants and
> humans.  We don't know that there is a god.  Except through assumption.  Must
> this point be repeated ad infinitum?"
> 
> I would like Rich to prove that there are ants and humans.  
> 
> WITHOUT ANY ASSUMPTIONS!  You know, the things those silly Christians use
> to talk about God.

Shall I start again about minimal levels of assumptions, and how both
"Christians"/religious believers in general and non-believers start with
the same assumptions about reality, whlst believers tack on the other wishful
thinking assumptions that have basis only in what they want to believe?  Or
did you miss that part, Ken?

> How does it feel to be a 19th century man in the 20th century?
> 
> You are not alone of course.  There are some of your fellow time travellers
> on net.origins too.

Why don't you explain what's "20th century" about your kaka?  Even if you
were right about my being a 19th century man, that actually puts me millenia
ahead of you...  (I doubt there'll be an answer to this.)
-- 
"Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end."
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr