aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (06/29/84)
Why Rich Rosen posted the article to which this is a followup to either net.motss or net.singles is beyond me. (Perhaps he is not perceiving reality so clearly as he thinks [judging by another of his net.singles articles].) I am adding net.religion to the Newsgroups line, and I suggest that followups to this article go only in that group. >> = Sargent > = Rosen >> You are assuming that only physical evidence is admissible. "Rationalists >> do not deny miracles, God, and the supernatural because there is no >> evidence for them. They deny them because they have limited themselves to >> an approach which shuts out the possibility of such evidence." -- from >> "What Else?", by Doug Dickey. Here I accuse you (correctly, I think: see later in this article) of deliberately blinding yourself, and you don't answer? > About that comment: "I find it difficult not to resent being accused of > believing because of fear and blind faith." You say you trust god. You > believe in god because you have faith that it exists. Thus you are > trusting that your faith that god exists is not unfounded and that having > that faith causes good things to happen. Do good things happen? (Yes.) > Did I have faith? (Yes.) Did these good things happen before I had faith? > (No.) Therefore, by post hoc ergo propter hoc, god exists and is working > to make my life better because of my faith. Resent it if you like, Jeff > (just as others have resented statements you have made), but realize the > foundations from which the statements were made. Actually, my belief is not founded on a logical fallacy; rather, "His Spirit bears witness with [my] spirit that [I] am His", and "This is how [I] know that I am His: [I] know it by the Spirit He gave [me]." (The original verses have plural pronouns; I'm just saying that they work in my case.) If you choose to put yourself in the chains of accepting only the physical, it's your loss; but the spiritual is just as real, as millions who have experienced God personally can attest. >> Let us not get into another fruitless, hypothetical discussion as to >> whether other religious-type beliefs would have had the same effect; i.e. >> "What about some imaginary Hindu or Moslem?" questions are just that -- >> imaginary. Let's stick to real case histories. > Apparently the only "physical" evidence shows that such things *only* happen > to Christians. And the "imaginary" ramblings of those who ask about > followers of other religions is just propaganda and lies, right? This > couldn't be another example of christocentrism, could it? (Perhaps we > won't hear "case histories" from followers of other religions, because > *they* don't feel the need to relate their experiences as "proof" of their > one and only correct way.) Boy, is your BIAS showing! I was not at all implying what you said; you show wonderfully how much you like to blind yourself to what Christians actually say just so you can twist the remarks of those who are trying to follow Christ truly and present Him to the world. You are truly one of Satan's secret agents; but this case is different because it's a secret to you. I was only saying that we should not waste time talking about some *hypothetical* follower of another religion, but if some actual person who follows some other belief system had something constructive to relate from his/her experience, that would be a "real case history" and thus perfectly admissible. Perhaps we don't hear from these people because (a) they are a small minority in this country and thus may not be represented on the net, (b) they do not have Christ's words, "Go into all the world and preach the Good News to every creature." I know of no other religion (that doesn't mean there isn't one) that has this missionary emphasis. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|decvax|harpo|ihnp4|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "...got to find my corner of the sky."
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/03/84)
> Why Rich Rosen posted the article to which this is a followup to either > net.motss or net.singles is beyond me. [JEFF] Beyond me, too. As Jeff said, continue the discussion in net.religion. >>> You are assuming that only physical evidence is admissible. "Rationalists >>> do not deny miracles, God, and the supernatural because there is no >>> evidence for them. They deny them because they have limited themselves to >>> an approach which shuts out the possibility of such evidence." -- from >>> "What Else?", by Doug Dickey. > Here I accuse you (correctly, I think: see later in this article) of > deliberately blinding yourself, and you don't answer? [JEFF] >> About that comment: "I find it difficult not to resent being accused of >> believing because of fear and blind faith." You say you trust god. You >> believe in god because you have faith that it exists. Thus you are >> trusting that your faith that god exists is not unfounded and that having >> that faith causes good things to happen. Do good things happen? (Yes.) >> Did I have faith? (Yes.) Did these good things happen before I had faith? >> (No.) Therefore, by post hoc ergo propter hoc, god exists and is working >> to make my life better because of my faith. Resent it if you like, Jeff >> (just as others have resented statements you have made), but realize the >> foundations from which the statements were made. [RICH] > Actually, my belief is not founded on a logical fallacy; rather, "His Spirit > bears witness with [my] spirit that [I] am His", and "This is how [I] know > that I am His: [I] know it by the Spirit He gave [me]." (The original > verses have plural pronouns; I'm just saying that they work in my case.) > If you choose to put yourself in the chains of accepting only the physical, > it's your loss; but the spiritual is just as real, as millions who have > experienced God personally can attest. [JEFF] No, Jeff, not a logical fallacy. Not if circular reasoning doesn't qualify as a logical fallacy. We *have* been through this before to no avail. The belief in the spiritual has a real effect on millions, but that's all anyone with a smidegon of logic in their brain would be willing to accept. >>> Let us not get into another fruitless, hypothetical discussion as to >>> whether other religious-type beliefs would have had the same effect; i.e. >>> "What about some imaginary Hindu or Moslem?" questions are just that -- >>> imaginary. Let's stick to real case histories. [JEFF] >> Apparently the only "physical" evidence shows that such things *only* happen >> to Christians. And the "imaginary" ramblings of those who ask about >> followers of other religions is just propaganda and lies, right? This >> couldn't be another example of christocentrism, could it? (Perhaps we >> won't hear "case histories" from followers of other religions, because >> *they* don't feel the need to relate their experiences as "proof" of their >> one and only correct way.) [RICH] > Boy, is your BIAS showing! I was not at all implying what you said; you show > wonderfully how much you like to blind yourself to what Christians actually > say just so you can twist the remarks of those who are trying to follow Christ > truly and present Him to the world. You are truly one of Satan's secret > agents; but this case is different because it's a secret to you. [JEFF] Uh, oh... Better put on my trenchcoat and disguise. He's given me a number (666) and he's taken away my name. :-) Uh, Jeff, you did refer to discussion of the effect of other people's beliefs on their lives as "fruitless" and "hypothetical", didn't you? I don't think I have to point out whose bias is showing here, now, do I? As far as "blinding myself to what has been said", on the contrary, I have been listening very carefully, and I still feel that nothing of substance has been said. Nothing has been twisted. Everything is straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. There has been no need to twist. To you, anyone who seeks to show flaws in your line of thinking must be working for Satan, and is serving his evil needs (I guess logical thought is evil when compared to religious belief, for some reason), albeit unknowingly. > I was only saying that we should not waste time talking about some > *hypothetical* follower of another religion, but if some actual person who > follows some other belief system had something constructive to relate from > his/her experience, that would be a "real case history" and thus perfectly > admissible. Perhaps we don't hear from these people because (a) they are a > small minority in this country and thus may not be represented on the net, > (b) they do not have Christ's words, "Go into all the world and preach the > Good News to every creature." I know of no other religion (that doesn't > mean there isn't one) that has this missionary emphasis. Or, to put it another way (from an alternative perspective), perhaps we don't hear from them precisely because it is NOT one of the precepts of their religion to promulgate their beliefs. Your patent refusal to believe that it is the power of the belief that can be held accountable rather than the intervention of the deity manifested itself when you ignored the next paragraph and the ideas it postulates. I am anxious to hear what you have to say about these ideas, and perhaps why they went unanswered: > You know, there's an interesting speculation there. Maybe this should be > co-posted to net.ai or net.sci, but as we have noted innumerable times in > this newsgroup, there are many many examples, Christian and otherwise, of > people's beliefs carrying them through hardships and leading them towards > goals. Perhaps the almost child-like "I believe you will take care of me" > belief, when strongly persisting in a believer, may tap unused resources in > the brain to help provide knowledge to get one through a situation. I'm not > talking about a "force" or deity, or about precognitive supernatural > capabilities, or about communal souls and past life experiences. I'm just > talking about the power of belief putting the brain in a state where it is > somehow used more efficiently, differently, etc. Just a speculation... -- a more wretched hive of scum and villainy: not found Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr