rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/24/85)
> Rich, when you get around to accepting my argument as inteded instead > of spitefully twisting it to suit your own purposes, maybe we'll get > somewhere. Until then I'm not even going waste my time trying. RULE #1: When someone pleads for "rational discussion" on a topic, what they really want is to continue discussion only as long as you agree with them. Anything less would not be "rational discussion". (OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT). Paul has repeatedly asked to see a "balanced picture" between the "evils" of non-religion and the "evils" of religion. This is understandable, and I would like to see such a balanced discussion. However, despite the fact that Paul has *claimed* that he wishes to see a balanced picture, his words contradict this repeatedly and unequivocally. > Why don't you read my article again. I took pains to make the point that > such associations are misguided from BOTH sides. [DUBUC] In the previous article, he said the following: >>>We are talking about history, Rich. Do I have to spell it out to you? >>>Stalin's Purge. The Gulag. The invasions of Cambodia and Afganistan. >>>No freedom of the press, speech or religion (I know, you don't care about >>>religion). No USENET! :-) I repeat, this hardly sounds like Paul believes that his associations are misguided. >>>Are you comfortable with these? Are these humanistic? I learned a long >>>time ago that I should not judge atheism by actions like these ... [DUBUC] >>No, you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be doing it now. [ROSEN] In my last article, I said that I stand by this statement. I still do. Paul is resentful of the fact that I (and others) have claimed that atrocities committed in the name of religion are inextricably tied to the religious mindset of superiority, "right"-ness, "chosen"-ness, etc. He would like to see (he says) a more "balanced picture". Yet what is his vision of what a balanced picture? One where the "good and evil" of religion is shown on a balanced scale across from the "good and evil" of non-religion? Paul admitted later in his article that he himself did not believe the scale to be balanced. (He referred to the "much greater" implications of the evil of non-religion.) NOTE that Paul has unilaterally decided to lump together ANYTHING that is NOT religion (esp. Christian), equivalencing anti-human non-religion-oriented despots like Hitler and Stalin to philosophies and actions that are given the labels humanist or rationalist. Paul claims he wants a balanced scale, yet he professes clearly that he doesn't believe in that picture himself: he has already stated that he clearly feels the bulk of the weight (evil) is on the non-religion side of the scale. Since I believe I have shown otherwise (I may be wrong in believing this), it appears that simply wishes to redraw the picture at his whim to suit his perception of "balance". I have made no claims to wishing to see a balanced picture, and with (I think) good reason: I don't believe the picture to be balanced at all. The atrocities carried out in the name of religion go hand in hand with the religious mindset I've offered above. And, in the overall picture, not the "black-and-white" religion vs. non-religion dichotomy that Paul shapes his universe in, a certain non-religious mindset offers much more to the world than the religious mindsets do. Something Paul chooses to ignore and belittle at every opportunity. Paul denies the role of the religious mindset in the atrocities of the ages, forgetting that that very mindset provided very "rational" justification for those atrocities. Hitler's Nazism had nothing to do with Christianity, he said. But how did Hitler manipulate the German populace into his perspective of Jews (and others) without appealing to their "Christian" thinking? Paul claims "isolated" horrors like Salem, or reigns of terror like the pogroms or the Inquisition, had nothing to do with Christianity, that those who carried them out were "misguided" or "misinterpreting". Will the same passages that misguided *them*, that were misinterpreted by *them*, offer fodder to those who would justify their Christian way of life (at the expense of others) in the future? I don't see why not. The fault lies not just in the "few" who were misguided, but in the basis for the premises themselves. Premises about rightness and wrongness and who or what is qualified to judge others. This wonderful Bible Paul adheres to gets twisted by everyone any way they like. Paul Dubois sees no justification for principles of tolerance in it. Jeff Sargent sees reasons for his personal misery in it. Falwell sees a mandate to turn back the country to a more religiously-controlled way of thinking. Torquemada thought ... The residents of Salem thought ... In conclusion, Paul claims I have "spitefully twisted" his words to suit my own purposes. I claim it is HE who has twisted, who has clearly contradicted his own claims. I noticed that he wrote very civilly and at length when he thought someone else (Chuq) wrote my previous article. Now that he knows it's me, he makes claims of having his words twisted and distorted, and walks off "disgusted". I leave it to the reader to decide, based on Paul's own claims regarding his desires for a "balanced" picture, who has done what. I would venture that the only "balanced" picture that would please Paul is one where I show religious good to outweigh religious evil significantly, and where evil is the only element on the non-religious side. The evidence contradicts this. -- "I don't understand. Is it modern?" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/29/85)
> Rich, when you get around to accepting my argument as inteded instead > of spitefully twisting it to suit your own purposes, maybe we'll get > somewhere. Until then I'm not even going waste my time trying. RULE #1: When someone pleads for "rational discussion" on a topic, what they really want is to continue discussion only as long as you agree with them. Anything less would not be "rational discussion". (OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT). Paul has repeatedly asked to see a "balanced picture" between the "evils" of non-religion and the "evils" of religion. This is understandable, and I would like to see such a balanced discussion. However, despite the fact that Paul has *claimed* that he wishes to see a balanced picture, his words contradict this repeatedly and unequivocally. > Why don't you read my article again. I took pains to make the point that > such associations are misguided from BOTH sides. [DUBUC] In the previous article, he said the following: >>>We are talking about history, Rich. Do I have to spell it out to you? >>>Stalin's Purge. The Gulag. The invasions of Cambodia and Afganistan. >>>No freedom of the press, speech or religion (I know, you don't care about >>>religion). No USENET! :-) I repeat, this hardly sounds like Paul believes that his associations are misguided. >>>Are you comfortable with these? Are these humanistic? I learned a long >>>time ago that I should not judge atheism by actions like these ... [DUBUC] >>No, you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be doing it now. [ROSEN] In my last article, I said that I stand by this statement. I still do. Paul is resentful of the fact that I (and others) have claimed that atrocities committed in the name of religion are inextricably tied to the religious mindset of superiority, "right"-ness, "chosen"-ness, etc. He would like to see (he says) a more "balanced picture". Yet what is his vision of what a balanced picture? One where the "good and evil" of religion is shown on a balanced scale across from the "good and evil" of non-religion? Paul admitted later in his article that he himself did not believe the scale to be balanced. (He referred to the "much greater" implications of the evil of non-religion.) NOTE that Paul has unilaterally decided to lump together ANYTHING that is NOT religion (esp. Christian), equivalencing anti-human non-religion-oriented despots like Hitler and Stalin to philosophies and actions that are given the labels humanist or rationalist. Paul claims he wants a balanced scale, yet he professes clearly that he doesn't believe in that picture himself: he has already stated that he clearly feels the bulk of the weight (evil) is on the non-religion side of the scale. Since I believe I have shown otherwise (I may be wrong in believing this), it appears that simply wishes to redraw the picture at his whim to suit his perception of "balance". I have made no claims to wishing to see a balanced picture, and with (I think) good reason: I don't believe the picture to be balanced at all. The atrocities carried out in the name of religion go hand in hand with the religious mindset I've offered above. And, in the overall picture, not the "black-and-white" religion vs. non-religion dichotomy that Paul shapes his universe in, a certain non-religious mindset offers much more to the world than the religious mindsets do. Something Paul chooses to ignore and belittle at every opportunity. Paul denies the role of the religious mindset in the atrocities of the ages, forgetting that that very mindset provided very "rational" justification for those atrocities. Hitler's Nazism had nothing to do with Christianity, he said. But how did Hitler manipulate the German populace into his perspective of Jews (and others) without appealing to their "Christian" thinking? Paul claims "isolated" horrors like Salem, or reigns of terror like the pogroms or the Inquisition, had nothing to do with Christianity, that those who carried them out were "misguided" or "misinterpreting". Will the same passages that misguided *them*, that were misinterpreted by *them*, offer fodder to those who would justify their Christian way of life (at the expense of others) in the future? I don't see why not. The fault lies not just in the "few" who were misguided, but in the basis for the premises themselves. Premises about rightness and wrongness and who or what is qualified to judge others. This wonderful Bible Paul adheres to gets twisted by everyone any way they like. Paul Dubois sees no justification for principles of tolerance in it. Jeff Sargent sees reasons for his personal misery in it. Falwell sees a mandate to turn back the country to a more religiously-controlled way of thinking. Torquemada thought ... The residents of Salem thought ... In conclusion, Paul claims I have "spitefully twisted" his words to suit my own purposes. I claim it is HE who has twisted, who has clearly contradicted his own claims. I noticed that he wrote very civilly and at length when he thought someone else (Chuq) wrote my previous article. Now that he knows it's me, he makes claims of having his words twisted and distorted, and walks off "disgusted". I leave it to the reader to decide, based on Paul's own claims regarding his desires for a "balanced" picture, who has done what. I would venture that the only "balanced" picture that would please Paul is one where I show religious good to outweigh religious evil significantly, and where evil is the only element on the non-religious side. The evidence contradicts this. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr