rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/02/84)
[odd numbers of indents = Bickford; even numbers of indents = Rosen] >>> Tim had posted his massive missive a couple of times before, each time >>> more illogical than before. >>How could the same article be more illogical on successive readings/postings? >>Perhaps the reader becomes more intransigent each time he/she sees flaws in >>his/her logic. > Check out that knee-jerk, Rich. Tim added a couple of more illogical > arguments when he reposted. Yosi Hoshen reposted the article. Did *he* make changes to Tim's article? Did it still get "more illogical"? Please see a knee specialist yourself, Larry. >>> Another netter and I each showed the >>> incredible illogic and implicit assumptions of the arguments. >>No you didn't. Rather, the non-religionists have been showing the >>incredible illogic and implicit assumptions of religionist arguments. > Wrong. Tim did as so many have - assumed a sourcebook of information on > a subject, then picked and chose as he saw fit. Of course, he picked > only those few things that supported his view and completely discarded > the context that would deny it. This is simply a lie. It is actually an accurate picture of what many religious believers have done, as I have pointed out by showing many times how such belief is rooted in presumption, expectation, and wishful thinking. The questions arising from those points are unanswered by Larry, Ken, and Gary (and others as well). I hope that Larry will list the things that Tim had "left out". Given the track record, I doubt that this will happen. AND I reiterate that this is a typical tactic of mind manipulators: making claims and claiming you have some source/authority to back them up, in hopes that no one will ask to see it. >>> They all wanted intellectual reasons to excuse their morals. >>I never knew their morals needed "excusing"... > Rich Rosen not knowing something? :-) Trying to justify immoral behavior > goes on all the time. You know what, Larry? I *still* don't "know" that morals need excusing. (Perhaps because it's an opinion rather than a fact!!) Many times I've gone through the notion of minimal morality---the concept that the only "wrong" things are those which cause harm to other people (this of course includes people feeling they have a "right" to impose lifestyle decisions on other people into the category of "causing harm"). In private correspondence with Larry, this was one of the last points I made. As with other points, it has gone unanswered. That last sentence sounds like a quote from a Ken Arndt article in net.motss: it reeks of the notion that beyond the minimal morality I describe, there are lists of acceptable "moral" behavior, and that behavior outside of this realm requires "justification". This is nonsense. >>Sorry for the tone, but I get deeply offended when I hear people making >>proclamations like "I've already answered that question" in a manipulative >>attempt to snow people. > No snow on this floe. I was just saving the net from another n-kilobyte > deluge. On the contrary, I needed a plow for this floe just like all the others. :-( -- WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS? pyuxd!rlr WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA? Nineveh (GOTCHA!) ALL RIGHT, OFF YOU GO...