dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/11/84)
>>>My, you must be in on something that the rest of the world isn't. I have >>>no complaint if these are your own beliefs, but to make a statement that >>>this is FACT is going just a little too far! Not all the world accepts >>>these facts, and I see no reason they should. These are beliefs, not >>>facts. Each person has their own beliefs. Facts are undeniable truths. >>>The two are not the same, and I don't see any reason to try to say that >>>ones own beliefs are factual, except to simply better his argument. >>> [ANDY BANTA on Ken Nichols] >> Prove it. Turn your own argument on itself and see how much you >> believe it. [PAUL DUBOIS] > [Rich Rosen] > This is typical of the style of argument coming of late from religious > believers. Despite the fact that others have shown repeatedly that the > way Paul and other believers obtained their "knowledge" is very faulty > indeed, he still feels the need to claim the absolute truthfulness of > his "knowledge". Paul wants us to believe that his beliefs are facts. > He obviously believes them to be. He asks us to "turn this argument on > itself". In countless articles, we have shown that the inverse argument > doesn't hold water: what it always boils down to is that 1) religious > believers have been shown to take unwarranted leaps of faith based on > their own wishful thinking and preconception of how they would like the > world to be and 2) the basis for the acquired "knowledge" that led them to > make these leaps of faith is rife with unreliability stemming from faulty > patterning. Rich Rosen has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he disagrees with me, and that's all. However, he has also demonstrated, to his *own* satisfaction, that he has shown the complete lack of basis in reality of my beliefs. The magnitude of this accomplishment should not be underestimated. It is, in general, very difficult to convince Rich of anything. :-) Concerning wishful thinking and presuppositions: Rich continually brings these up, wishfully presupposing that my beliefs are based on the way I wishfully presuppose the way I would like the world to be. Such an argument must *always* fail in my case: Before I became a Christian, I was content. (At least I thought I was - I found out afterward that my "contentment" was a poor substitute for the peace of God - but I certainly had no motivation to change my beliefs because of any thoughts about the way I wished the world to be.) I have state this in previous articles. Since Rich seems not to be a careless reader, I am not sure why this argument is directed my way. Perhaps the postings never made it to his site. Notice also how Rich shoots himself in the foot here where he starts talking about "unreliability stemming from faulty patterning": one of the bases for reliability of a phenomenon, in Rich's thinking, is that it be repeatable. But a pattern is, after all, highly repetitive. How then can it be faulty? If it can't be, there are no faulty patterns. If it can be, repeatability is no criterion for reliability. >>>It irks me when other people try to >>>push their God on me. Why should I believe in their God? If I have my >>>own, and don't have any complaints, nobody has to "save" me from >>>anything. There is nothing of danger out there, I don't need to be >>"saved" from some terrible "burning" that is going to happen when I die. >> There's a rather loud assumption in that last statment. See previous >> comment. > Needless to say, Paul feels he is NOT making "loud" assumptions. He knows > the facts. Just look at the rigorous analysis he did to get them. Needless to say, Rich can set up a straw man with the best of us. I didn't deny making assumptions (even loud ones). Nor do I deny it now. Rich's comments here are gratuitous - simply rattling pots and pans in the kitchen to make noise. My point was that certain questions were being answered by begging them. That point was, and remains, true. > "Excuse you" is right. (Perhaps "Pardon you for breathing" would be more > appropriate... :-) You don't know, you wish for. You presuppose. You > assume. Your beliefs are full of "non-knowing". The path through which > you obtained your "knowledge" can be shown to be full of presumptive holes > along the way. I'm devastated. The path through which I obtain my knowledge can be shown to have been contested by one Rich Rosen. That's all. > Translation: perhaps because Paul has been led to believe that god says that > we need to be changed. Your beliefs and reality are very far apart, Mr. > Dubois. I say this because of the way in which you obtained them (frought > with potential error) and because of how much they differ from what we know > of reality, and because one can easily see how much of them are simply rooted > in wishful thinking. Make enough assumptions about the world (there must > be justice, there is an ultimate good/evil dichotomy that is well-defined, > humans are low and filthy and there is something better than us to show us > what filth we are), all based on WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE, and, if > these things are indeed correct, you may well be right, since I can see > no other conclusion to draw from these premises other than that there > IS a god as you describe. Only what is the basis for your believing > these premises? Please be specific. s/frought/fraught/p Rich's attacks on what I believe are so far from what I believe that it is difficult to know what to say here. I can only conclude that his comments derive from what he wishes I believed so that he can bring up his standard lines about wishful thinking and faulty patterning. >>>we don't want to be like you? What if we are happy the way we are? I >>>think I'd feel pretty miserable if my one purpose in life would be to >>>make other people believe like I do. If they believe something >>>different, and I can't prove them wrong, why should I interfere? You >>>can't prove your position is right. You obvously feel that you are > >> Can you prove your own position? Hardly. > > Thus, Paul's is right. Twist and shout. I didn't say that, now did I? > Part of religious belief seems to manifested in a > childish wish for order. Rationally, based on the fact that there are > billions of people with billions of personal interests in the world, > there cannot be an absolute good and evil (see my previous article). But > it would be better if there WAS, thus you assume there is one. It would be > better if the universe was run on principles of justice and controlled by > a benevolent deity, but there's no reason to believe that OTHER THAN THAT > YOU WISH IT TO BE SO. Paul here chooses a position that says "yes, there is > an absolute right and wrong, a universal good and evil, a controller in > charge of things determining and judging fairly" clearly for one reason. > Because he'd like to see the universe that way. As opposed to systems of > rational belief that perceive no such absolutes, no such claims to absolute > truth. Paul would rather live in a world with such absolutes. So he makes > them up. (Or uses pre-made-up ones.) Not being very original, I use pre-made-up ones... Anyway, if a wish for order is childish, then Rich has again destroyed the very basis upon which he determines reliability of evidence. There goes the other foot. Better get the crutches out, Rich? (How about religion - that's a good "crutch", right?) He also destroys the basis upon which he wishes to criticize my position: no absolute right/wrong means that there is no standard by which my position can be said to be better or worse than Rich's (or at least no standard which I can be expected to accept). Really, "better" and "worse" become meaningless. So why, Rich, do you bother to blast my statements? Emotional release? Do I threaten your beliefs? :-) >>>right. Why can't we just say "I'm OK, You're OK", and leave it at that. >> Tell it to God. He will say to you, just as He did to myself and >> Ken, "I'm OK, you're not." > You must have a pretty low opinion of yourself to 1) say that to yourself and > 2) believe that a deity would believe that too. This negative Christian > mindset permeates our culture and reinforces these beliefs of unworthiness, > so it's no wonder people like Paul hear god saying those things---it's more > wishful thinking. Rich speculates about my beliefs again. Saying that man is lost and under God's judgment without Christ's redemption is not the same as saying that man is a zero. I don't have a low opinion of myself. Man is made in the very image of God. We are both, Rich and I, everlasting. There is nothing trivial or low about that, in my view. But one need not have a low opinion of oneself to recognize that the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man places man lower than God. Even so, I don't go around in sackcloth and ashes, wailing and beating my breast. Not *all* the time, anyway! :-) Praise God, the Lord Jesus Christ has set me free from sin and death! Also, I fail to understand how it is "wishful thinking" to make up a God who would say not "you're ok", but "you need to be changed." > Your morality is far from meaningless. On the contrary, it has very vivid > meaning: it encompasses all the assumptions I have described in this > article, about the unworthiness of humanity, about the need for an absolute > arbiter of good/evil to exist, etc. Unfortunately, whether or not any > such deity ever existed or spoke to anyone, it is clear that the essence of > the morality involved is to reinforce the presumptions I have mentioned. > A rational minimal morality says one thing, in fact it says exactly what > Jesus is supposed to have said: human beings are free to do anything that > doesn't harm another human being. Why have anything on top of that? Did god > say so, or do YOU want it to be so? "Why have anything on top of that?" What! Why have *even* that? (Rationally speaking, that is.) Zero is less than one, so a rational minimal morality consists of zero propositions, i.e., does not exist. To suppose it does is mere wishful thinking, Rich. Besides, those "billions of people with billions of personal interests" can hardly be expected to share your morality consisting of "one thing". This follows from your *own* logic. "I will praise thee O Lord, in the midst of mine enemies" -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." Psalm 104:33
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/12/84)
> Rich Rosen has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he disagrees > with me, and that's all. However, he has also demonstrated, to his > *own* satisfaction, that he has shown the complete lack of basis in > reality of my beliefs. The magnitude of this accomplishment should > not be underestimated. It is, in general, very difficult to > convince Rich of anything. :-) [DUBOIS] On the other hand, it is, in general, very easy to convince some people of anything :-( . Which is my point here. > Concerning wishful thinking and presuppositions: Rich continually > brings these up, wishfully presupposing that my beliefs are based on > the way I wishfully presuppose the way I would like the world to be. > Such an argument must *always* fail in my case: Before I became a > Christian, I was content. (At least I thought I was - I found out > afterward that my "contentment" was a poor substitute for the peace > of God - but I certainly had no motivation to change my beliefs > because of any thoughts about the way I wished the world to be.) I > have state this in previous articles. Since Rich seems not to be a > careless reader, I am not sure why this argument is directed my way. > Perhaps the postings never made it to his site. [DUBOIS] Without getting into the fallacy "I 'thought' I was happy, but now I've been indoctrinated into something else and I 'realize' that I wasn't happy even though that's how I felt", let me reiterate. Paul is consistently claiming that *he* is not like other religious converts we've witnessed in that his conversion wasn't based on fear or negative self-worth or ... Thus, one must assume that, if Paul was indeed "content", he must have either been shown significant evidence that led him to radically alter his beliefs, or else he had a (perhaps latent) prior alignment (through societal indoctrination perhaps) to the newfound doctrines. In either case, he accepted whatever evidence he found. If he was truly content (and truly inquisitive) he would have asked the same questions and brought up the same issues that others in the newsgroup have. The fact that he was apparently satisfied with the answers means either: 1) he is as stringent as the rest of us, and he had to have gotten answers that impressed him, 2) he is not very stringent in his analysis, because he is gullible/stupid/etc., or 3) he is not stringent in his analysis, because he had a vested interest in believing the outcome to be a certain way. Since we've heard no incredible unheard of answers reiterated by Paul, we can rule out (1). Assuming he's not gullible or stupid or whatever, that means (3). I hope I'm not making assumptions based on wishful thinking here... :-) > Notice also how Rich shoots himself in the foot here where he starts > talking about "unreliability stemming from faulty patterning": one > of the bases for reliability of a phenomenon, in Rich's thinking, is > that it be repeatable. But a pattern is, after all, highly > repetitive. How then can it be faulty? If it can't be, there are no faulty > patterns. If it can be, repeatability is no criterion for reliability. There's a difference between introspective repeatability ("I looked up at the moon and saw it wink at me three nights in a row.") and more objective repeatability---which is attempted through the dreaded scientific method that some seem to dread. The goal of which is to attempt to make sure it's not just your own unique faulty patterning. >>>There's a rather loud assumption in that last statment. See previous >>>comment. [DUBOIS] >>Needless to say, Paul feels he is NOT making "loud" assumptions. He knows >>the facts. Just look at the rigorous analysis he did to get them. [ROSEN] > Needless to say, Rich can set up a straw man with the best of us. I > didn't deny making assumptions (even loud ones). Nor do I deny it > now. Rich's comments here are gratuitous - simply rattling pots and > pans in the kitchen to make noise. My point was that certain > questions were being answered by begging them. That point was, and > remains, true. [DUBOIS] And *my* point is Paul is just one of those pots calling a kettle black. Problem is, Andy's kettle seems a lot cleaner than Paul's pot. It makes less assumptions for one thing. (The basis of which are ... ) > I'm devastated. > The path through which I obtain my knowledge can be shown to have > been contested by one Rich Rosen. That's all. [DUBOIS] I guess that makes the numerous others in this newsgroup who have pointed out holes in your belief system to be either; 1) non-existent, 2) unimportant, 3) me writing under another name, or 4) secret agents of Satan. I'm aware that some people don't think highly of what I have to say. But don't think you can tar the logic of what is being said by claiming it to be the product of "one Rich Rosen". >>>Can you prove your own position? Hardly. [DUBOIS] >>Thus, Paul's is right. [ROSEN] > Twist and shout. I didn't say that, now did I? Shake it up, baby. :-) No, you just provided another example of pots making erroneous statements about kettles. > Anyway, if a wish for order is childish, then Rich has again > destroyed the very basis upon which he determines reliability of > evidence. There goes the other foot. Better get the crutches out, > Rich? (How about religion - that's a good "crutch", right?) Again, there's a major difference between seeking to find the workings of the universe through evidence and objective observation (without some particular desired order in mind---take a look at modern physics) and predefining a particular brand of order, involving benevolent control, just because you'd like it. If that's not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. (And stop taking potshots at my feet!!! If I did need a crutch, I'd use a wooden one, not a spiritual one.) > He also destroys the basis upon which he wishes to criticize my > position: no absolute right/wrong means that there is no standard > by which my position can be said to be better or worse than Rich's > (or at least no standard which I can be expected to accept). > Really, "better" and "worse" become meaningless. The use of absolute right/wrong was used in the context of absolute good/evil, in a moral sense and not an observational sense. And I'm sure Paul knew that when he wrote what he did. (Since many of recent articles addressed this point.) So why is *he* "twisting and shouting"? > So why, Rich, do you bother to blast my statements? Emotional release? Do I > threaten your beliefs? :-) The notion that a group of people, duped into believing an incredulous series of wishful thinking lies, can declare to me and other thinking individuals in this country (and world) what is "morally" right and wrong, what we can and cannot do (based, not on the notions I've put forth hundreds of times--- regarding minimal restrictions to provide maximal individual freedom---but rather on arbitrary edicts that restrict people from doing things that these "moral" people simply don't like), this notion is repugnant and dangerous. If I can do one small thing to point out to just one person the fallacies in the religious mindset, the dangers in allowing people with such mindsets to formulate public policy for other innocent people, then I'd feel that the "emotional release" (as Paul describes it) was worthwhile. If doing this requires showing that the basis by which these people seek to justify their manipulation is erroneous, or pointing out how they are telling lies or obscuring the truth to pursue their own ends, then so be it. No, Paul, you don't threaten my beliefs, much as you might like to think so. (Projection?) The notion of millions like you deciding for me what my life should be like threatens my very existence, and the existence of civilization. Unless, of course, you preferred the Dark Ages... >>>>Why can't we just say "I'm OK, You're OK", and leave it at that. [BANTA] >>>Tell it to God. He will say to you, just as He did to myself and >>>Ken, "I'm OK, you're not." [DUBOIS] >>You must have a pretty low opinion of yourself to 1) say that to yourself and >>2) believe that a deity would believe that too. This negative Christian >>mindset permeates our culture and reinforces these beliefs of unworthiness, >>so it's no wonder people like Paul hear god saying those things---it's more >>wishful thinking. [ROSEN] > Rich speculates about my beliefs again. Saying that man is lost and > under God's judgment without Christ's redemption is not the same as > saying that man is a zero. I don't have a low opinion of myself. > Man is made in the very image of God. We are both, Rich and I, > everlasting. There is nothing trivial or low about that, in my > view. But one need not have a low opinion of oneself to recognize > that the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man places man lower > than God. Even so, I don't go around in sackcloth and ashes, > wailing and beating my breast. Not *all* the time, anyway! :-) > Praise God, the Lord Jesus Christ has set me free from sin and > death! [DUBOIS] This clearly contradicts Paul's hearing god say "I'm OK, you're not". He has witnessed the sinfulness of man (i.e., man is not all "good", whatever that means) and believes that there is a god who is not sinful, who is miles above him in goodness. Being less than a perfect god (which Paul deems to exist) does not make one "not OK", yet this is what Paul has said, and what he later contradicted. Which is it? Whatever is convenient? > Also, I fail to understand how it is "wishful thinking" to make up a > God who would say not "you're ok", but "you need to be changed." It's wishful thinking to make up a god in any case. (No, I don't expect Paul to see that. He doesn't engage in wishful thinking :-?) If someone needs to be changed, that judgment should be based on a careful evaluation of what one is/does, and why one would need to change. >>A rational minimal morality says one thing, in fact it says exactly what >>Jesus is supposed to have said: human beings are free to do anything that >>doesn't harm another human being. Why have anything on top of that? Did god >>say so, or do YOU want it to be so? [ROSEN] > "Why have anything on top of that?" What! Why have *even* that? > (Rationally speaking, that is.) Zero is less than one, so a > rational minimal morality consists of zero propositions, i.e., does > not exist. To suppose it does is mere wishful thinking, Rich. > Besides, those "billions of people with billions of personal > interests" can hardly be expected to share your morality consisting > of "one thing". This follows from your *own* logic. The one common interest of all the billions and billions of interests (and people) is survival. To ensure such survival in a world where there ARE going to be conflicting interests, and to hopefully maximize the quality of life as part of that ensured survival, one must make a compromise: the minimum set of rules to provide the maximum amount of freedom. If your paragraph above was supposed to debunk my notions of minimal rational morality, it didn't do so. I have stated that an established code is needed. But you *could* offer an explanation as to where my notion falls down and yours proves better. (Beyond the assumption that your morality is god's morality; I would think otherwise. After all, which is the better way to raise children: to establish a set of rules and tell them "Obey or be punished", or to establish a set of rules and encourage an understanding of their purpose and meaning, and why adhering to them would improve their lives? The real question being: would a truly benevolent almighty deity make rules FOR us, or would it give us the faculties to understand what's in our best interest in the long-term?) > "I will praise thee O Lord, in the midst of mine enemies" Yipes! Since this isn't a signature line (it was included within the body of the article), I wonder if I was intended as the subject of this quotation. Funny how religious people see anyone who seeks to encourage serious discussion of the issues as "enemies". Or liars. Or "secret agents". Since this discussion is starting to go far beyond the boundaries of general interest (at least with respect to Paul's comments to me and vice versa) I suggest that Paul and I continue any further communication offline. -- When you're omniscient, everything's a tautology. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (12/21/84)
> > Concerning wishful thinking and presuppositions: Rich continually > > brings these up, wishfully presupposing that my beliefs are based on > > the way I wishfully presuppose the way I would like the world to be. > > Such an argument must *always* fail in my case: Before I became a > > Christian, I was content. (At least I thought I was - I found out > > afterward that my "contentment" was a poor substitute for the peace > > of God - but I certainly had no motivation to change my beliefs > > because of any thoughts about the way I wished the world to be.) I > > have state this in previous articles. Since Rich seems not to be a > > careless reader, I am not sure why this argument is directed my way. > > Perhaps the postings never made it to his site. [DUBOIS] > > Without getting into the fallacy "I 'thought' I was happy, but now I've > been indoctrinated into something else and I 'realize' that I wasn't happy > even though that's how I felt", let me reiterate. Paul is consistently > claiming that *he* is not like other religious converts we've witnessed > in that his conversion wasn't based on fear or negative self-worth or ... In many ways I'm much like Paul in that I 'thought' I was happy and in many ways I was, but I was not 'fullfilled' whether I was happy or not. Everybody faces ups and downs in life, so the motivation for seeking the Lord is not so much the 'unhappiness', since we know that there's always an up after a down, but it is the lack of 'fullfillment' inside that leads us to the Lord. There's something missing...on the ups of life, as well as on the downs. And there's a yearning for less extremes and more even keals. There is a void that only God can fill; so we long to know Him and His ways. > Thus, one must assume that, if Paul was indeed "content", he must have > either been shown significant evidence that led him to radically alter his > beliefs, or else he had a (perhaps latent) prior alignment (through societal > indoctrination perhaps) to the newfound doctrines. In either case, he > accepted whatever evidence he found. If he was truly content (and truly > inquisitive) he would have asked the same questions and brought up the same > issues that others in the newsgroup have. The fact that he was apparently > satisfied with the answers means either: 1) he is as stringent as the rest > of us, and he had to have gotten answers that impressed him, 2) he is not > very stringent in his analysis, because he is gullible/stupid/etc., or 3) he >is not stringent in his analysis,because he had a vested interest in believing > the outcome to be a certain way. Since we've heard no incredible unheard of > answers reiterated by Paul, we can rule out (1). Why rule out (1) Rich??? What makes your investigation more stringent than Paul's? There's lots of information out there to support both positions. Josh McDowell's _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_, and how about the over- whelming evidence in the Shroud of Turin (somebody here at the Labs is on the committee investigating it's authenticity and the evidence looks pretty good in terms of the markings on it). What about preservation of Scripture and Jewish traditions??? What about all the 'Miracles'? You can explain them away all you like but that is just evidence of your attitude... guilty until proven innocent. My point is that you can be accused of the very same things that you accuse Paul of. > Assuming he's not gullible > or stupid or whatever, that means (3). I hope I'm not making assumptions based > on wishful thinking here... :-) This 'wishful thinking' kick that you're on is starting to get to me. I do not 'wish' to be a sinner, I do not 'wish' that there be only one way to God and I do not 'wish' that any should perish. Anyone who believes that I do, doesn't know me. Actually, I trust God to be merciful to all those who would have believed had they seen Jesus in the flesh and that's wishful thinking!!! > > The notion that a group of people, duped into believing an incredulous series > of wishful thinking lies, can declare to me and other thinking individuals in > this country (and world) what is "morally" right and wrong, what we can and > cannot do (based, not on the notions I've put forth hundreds of times--- > regarding minimal restrictions to provide maximal individual freedom---but > rather on arbitrary edicts that restrict people from doing things that these > "moral" people simply don't like), this notion is repugnant and dangerous. > If I can do one small thing to point out to just one person the fallacies in > the religious mindset, the dangers in allowing people with such mindsets to > formulate public policy for other innocent people, then I'd feel that the > "emotional release" (as Paul describes it) was worthwhile. If doing this > requires showing that the basis by which these people seek to justify their > manipulation is erroneous, or pointing out how they are telling lies or > obscuring the truth to pursue their own ends, then so be it. No, Paul, > you don't threaten my beliefs, much as you might like to think so. > (Projection?) The notion of millions like you deciding for me what my life > should be like threatens my very existence, and the existence of civilization. Neither do you threaten ours. I don't tell God what's right and wrong, I just try to listen. And it goes against my desires sometimes, but when the situation is past, I can see the benefits of acting in a certain way. I think, also, that this last statement of your preference is where all the blockage comes in. Nobody wants to give up a lifestyle that doesn't seem to be hurting anybody...but God wants us to live a certain way. And it turns out that God's way is beneficial to us...although, we find this out only after we start to attain towards it. It makes sense, though, that a person not accept something that goes against his current lifestyle, until he sees the damage that it is doing. I trust that God reveals these things to us to give us the choice...in time. I do not say 'believe'...I say, rather, 'when God speaks, listen'. He'll speak to you, if He hasn't all ready. Julie Harazduk {ihnp4|decvax}!philabs!jah And Simon Peter answered and said, ' thou art the Christ, the Son of living God.' And Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: For flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father which is in heaven.'