pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/29/84)
I would like to share some of my thoughts on Dave Norris' last posting, especially in light of Rich Rosen's complaints about the content of that article. I really agree with much of the sentiment expressed by Dave about this newsgroup. It is not a forum. I am not against skepticism per se; only a certain brand of it that occurrs here. A skeptic is an inquirer--ideally one who wants to learn and understand. There is a certian character assocated with such a person. He asks honest questions (the more specific the better) and expresses honest doubts (e.g. he says "I don't understand this." and not "you must be a fool to believe that"). See the difference? The former doesn't assume he knows better than those he questions. The latter is sure he does, he is a sophist. I recognise that there have been both theists and non-theists here who fit into these categories. But articles submitted in an arrogant, vituperous spirit deserve to be ignored, not to have the same returned to them. We are all supposed to be mature people, hopefully given to a certain amount of reasoning ability. It is not so bad when two equally bull headed opponents slug it out. They deserve what they get from each other. I get the feeling that they just like to argue in front of an audience, each fearing that the rest of us won't see the fallacy in an opponent's arument. They presume to do our thinking for us as if we were children. What really does bother me, though, is when these bull headed ones treat people who are trying to be reasonable the same way they treat each other. This simply does not engender rational discussion. At best it often provokes the reasonable ones to bull headedness in return. At worst it discourages them from contributing. What really astounds me is that when people are ignored as a response to their rhetorical bullying, they always think it is because of their superior "logic" and not their attitude. It only takes a couple of people to spoil the usefulness of the whole newsgroup. I heartlily agree with Dave that personal discussion has been far more fruitful than public. There are atheists and agnostics, or whoever out there who really try to be reasonable, both in their public posting and personal letters. I have been more than happy to try to answer their questions, it has been very stimulating to me. I have an insatible desire for knowlege of my own religion (yea, I don't know it all) as well as what others think about it. I wish I had more time to devote to its persuit. (Better yet, I wish I got paid for it ;-)). I am also thankful for the thinking Christians I have met here. They private discussion we have had among ourselves has been great. I feel like some of them are among my closest friends, though I have never met them in person. Of course, there has never been anyone like Tim Maroney. I'm not sure that he lost his job. I think he was planning on leaving anyway. He's in Pittsburg now. We'll probably be hearing from him again. The last time I sent him mail he told me he was working on getting an outside USENET feed for his present site. Tim *did* at least do his homework. His attitude often bordered on the bullying side though. He's in between somewhere (he listens half the time ;-)). I can handle that, and I think Tim and I have remained good friends. I can honestly say that I've learned a lot from him. I'm excited about the possiblility of getting to meet him personally. He's been thinking about visiting Columbus sometime. Well, I've been rambling, perhaps. But my impression of net.religion as a useful forum has gotten worse in the past one and a half years I've been on. I'm hardly interested in reading it anymore, preferring the discussion with people I have met and gotten to know by the net. Anyway, as it is news delivery to cbscc is very poor. During the coming months the function of this machine is going to change. I probably won't have access to it then. So it may not be too long before you see a "farewell" article from me. I'm sorry I don't have more regrets about that than I do. I know a lot of people that I will still be able to reach by mail, and that's all I seem to care about. Regards to all, -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/04/84)
> I am not against > skepticism per se; only a certain brand of it that occurrs here. > A skeptic is an inquirer--ideally one who wants to learn and > understand. There is a certian character assocated with such > a person. He asks honest questions (the more specific the > better) and expresses honest doubts (e.g. he says "I don't > understand this." and not "you must be a fool to believe that"). > See the difference? The former doesn't assume he knows better > than those he questions. The latter is sure he does, he is a > sophist. (Perhaps the tone of many of the questions that have indeed been asked [repeatedly, I might add] has become harsh precisely because religionists assume they know better than the questioners... :-?) So you want honest questions, eh? Honest questions like "I don't understand why..." Why you believe that a simple book (albeit interesting and well-written) is assumed to have come from a deity, and why ALL events/ideas described in that book are assumed to be absolutely correct, based either on "look, some events *have* been proven to occur" or on pure faith. Why you assume that 'rules' as written in that book are somehow divinely inspired and the basis by which you should live your life, why others should be required to live their lives by those rules (simply because your book says so) in a society as you would/might like to have it. Why all the phenomena you attribute to intervention from a deity (so-called miracles either unverified objectively, like the resurrection, or changes in your life resulting from increased self-esteem because you *believe* that you are made worthy (solely?) because of favor from your deity) are not attributable to "natural" physical processes. Why you make assumptions about the universe (e.g., it MUST have a creator, that creator MUST be benevolent to us and (of course) all-powerful, there must be a sense of justice in the universe as determined by the creator, the creator plans and controls things to give the (my) whole world a sense of order, there MUST be an ultimate moral authority, it must be the creator, and without any of these things everyone's (not just mine---everyone's) lives would be without purpose), and why your beliefs seem to start at those assumptions and work back to getting a picture of the universe as you seem to desire it, rather than the so-called rationalist perspective on the nature of things in the universe (which you indeed seem to uphold in your daily life every time you use an electrical appliance or eat or breathe). There. Honest questions. Please provide honest answers. Circular reasoning, blithering, etc. will be labelled as such, and such labelling should be interpreted by you as Art Fleming saying "More specific information, please." (...does anyone have this feeling of deja vu...) -- It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr