rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/28/84)
I was just thinking... [EVERY SO OFTEN HE SLIPS INTO DOING THAT BY ACCIDENT -ED.] ...how much I'd like (at times) to take a rest from answering all of the blithering that comes across this newsgroup. And I thought "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if I could get David Norris or Jeff Sargent to hold up my point of view for a month or so..." And then it hit me---let's play REVERSO. A game the whole newsgroup can play! For the month of April (in honor of April Fool's Day), let's switch positions. Myself and other anti-religionists will defend (to the death, or pretty close) the religionist position, and David and Jeff et al. would take the pro-religion counterposition. Wouldn't that be fun!!! I propose some ground rules: 1. You can call a "foul" by private mail to claim that the other side isn't holding up your position (your REAL position) to the best of their ability. Thus, my saying to D & J: "You win. There is no god." would be a foul. 2. The game would be played throughout the month of April, ending on April 27 [Friday]. Players would get the weekend and the following week to answer any last articles submitted before Friday, just to tie up loose ends. 3. Arguments left open on March 31 will not continue into the month of April, but may be resumed after the first week in May. Also, all articles submitted as a part of this endeavor should be labelled in the title with the word REVERSO or some other signal to indicate that they are being submitted as a part of the game. 4. Who wins this game? Nobody. Well, everybody. It's just an exercise in logical argument, a challenge, and a chance to have some fun. Who's game? (Before this starts, I have a few things to say in response to the recently extremely prolific and flashy all-around guy Jeff Sargent, which will appear in my next article.) (P.S. Use of the phrase "So-and-so, you ignorant slut" is prohibited.) -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/28/84)
In the previous article, that should read "David and Jeff et al.
will take the anti-religion counterposition"...
----
Pardon me...
--
"An argument is an intellectual process. It isn't the automatic gainsaying of
what the other person says."
"... Can be." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlrpmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/31/84)
Rich Rosen suggests: >For the month of April (in honor of April Fool's Day), let's switch >positions. Myself and other anti-religionists will defend (to the death, >or pretty close) the religionist position, and David and Jeff et al. would >take the pro-religion counterposition. Wouldn't that be fun!!! No. It would be boring. You are pitting a negative position (anti-religion) against a positive doctrinal belief system. It is always much easier to be the skeptic and attack any position than one who tries to develop and/or support a consistent philosophy of life. Skeptics don't have to defend anything. They find intellectual satisfaction in pointing out the problems in the belief systems of other. They don't even have to understand something very well to criticize it. Also, it is too easy to play logical tricks and to nit-pick when you are committed to tearing something down. This only leads to frustration in the defenders (sometimes I think that is the real goal of a skeptic--frustrating his opponent, rather than wanting to learn.) Please understand that I am using the word skepticism in its philosophical sense. i.e. people who glory in their doubts. I am not belittling the honest, questioning form of doubting. I really doubt that Rich understands the religious position well enough to defend it. Part of understanding it is living it. One thing I think that many "anti-religionists" never learn is that no philosophy of life (especially religious ones) hangs completely on cognitive understanding. Rationality is a powerful tool, but it is not infinitely powerful or able to give us a complete understanding of any philosophical position. Much of this understanding is obtained by non-rational means. (Also note non-rational != irrational). The skeptic cannot deal with the non-rational forms of understanding, so they often mock it with their argument instead. In the game Rich suggests, his opponents will definitely feel that he is unable to defend their personal position well. I think it's more than a game. Seems to me that it is a ploy to give his opponents his inherently advantageous position of skepticism while he takes their position, where he will have an inherent disadvantage because of his lack of understanding. Then his own personal position will come out the victor, apparently at the hands of those who personally oppose it. Do you expect to make fool's out of the defenders of religious belief, Rich? That can be the only real result. I would suggest a much more accurate reversal of roles: Let the anti-religionists (or whatever we want to call them) put forth a positive philosophical belief system (A challenge in itself--if they can agree on one) and let the religious ones play skeptic and try to tear it apart. Let Dave and Jeff examine the rules you live by, Rich. Put forth your own doctrinal statement and see how well you are able to defend it and its implications for society. Let them examine your "bible". They have been letting you do it with their's long enough. Now *that* might be fun. I might even play if I had more time for games. Paul Dubuc
flinn@seismo.UUCP (E. A. Flinn) (04/03/84)
----- Sounds to me like the horse races where everyone rides someone else's horse, and the last one to finish wins.
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (04/06/84)
From Rich Rosen: > ...how much I'd like (at times) to take a rest from answering all of the > blithering that comes across this newsgroup. Me too! Except substitute the word "attacking" for "blithering", one example of such attacking being the use of the word "blithering". Rich proposes the game of REVERSO. I am divided in my reaction to this. On the one hand, for Rich to HONESTLY try to back up the Christian position might eventually lead him to realize its truth, and I would hate to deny anyone that immeasurable benefit; and the apostle Paul did say "I have become all things to all men, that I might by any means save some" (I'm not sure of chapter & verse on that). On the other hand, for me to honestly try to back up a position which Rich et al. do a great job of making look ugly and deadening would mean that I would have to out-and-out lie, which I don't think Paul had in mind. (Yes, I recognize that, given Rich's current belief, for him to defend Christianity would mean that he was out-and-out lying.) Still...Rich, if you really want to play this game, I'll consider joining in, if you start it by submitting a pro-Christ article so I can see whether you intend to do anything resembling playing fair. I'll give you a chance. However, I think some amendments to the ground rules are in order: > 1. You can call a "foul" by private mail to claim that the other side isn't > holding up your position (your REAL position) to the best of their > ability. Thus, my saying to D & J: "You win. There is no god." > would be a foul. Why private mail? In most games, fouls are immediately known to all concerned. I would prefer to post an article correcting any major misrepresentations. I might wish to add a 5th rule, related to my amendment to #1: 5. It is legal to post unsolicited articles under one's true colors. I doubt that I would do this very much; almost all the articles I have originated lately (i.e. not posted for someone else) were in response to articles by Rich Rosen, Jon White, Tim Stoehr, et al. > (Before this starts, I have a few things to say in response to the > recently extremely prolific and flashy all-around guy Jeff Sargent, > which will appear in my next article.) "All-around guy"? I didn't know that. In fact, I thought my articles made it clear that I'm nowhere near that designation. However, I will cheerfully agree that I am somewhat "flashy", but that's just my personality, not anything directly arising from Christianity. I was that way long before I was a Christian. I would be interested to see what Rich can come up with as arguments in favor of Christianity, or rather of Christ. I will withhold any REVERSO submissions until such time as I see and evaluate one from Rich. Of course, since it so far looks as though it would be just a two-man game (at most), it might not be much fun. It's up to you, Rich. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Software maintenance: It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.
david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (04/09/84)
Rich Rosen proposes an intellectual game called REVERSO, where the (Theists and Atheists?) reverse roles for a month. Here are my views. Intellectually, the game sounds like fun. But, after giving it some serious thought, it just won't work, for the following reasons: 1) Each side will find itself straining to correct the opposite side, attempting to make sure they have the "right" argument. 2) You won't get 100% participation, and the people who don't play will screw the game up. I DO NOT think that they are party- poopers; they have valid reasons for not wanting to participate. 3) The "game" presumes the "point-of-view" to be of greater value than ultimate Truth or reality. I can understand such a game between, say, a democrat and republican, where the goal of both sides are similar. But, if Christianity is the Truth (and I believe it is), and can only be fully understood with God's help, how can anyone argue for it if they don't understand it? Christianity is not an intellectual ball to be batted back and forth. The whole idea is somewhat irreverent. Try playing the same game with something you hold dearest to your heart, and see how YOU feel. Defend the position that your wife is a a whore, or that Nazis were justified in exterminating millions of Jews. The game isn't as fun any more, is it? So, Rich, I apologize, but I can't take part. To be honest, it would be fun to see just how much the atheists/agnostics know about the subject they so vehemiently oppose. I doubt if half the people here have cracked a Bible for more than a few minutes (semi-challenge, here), with a very few exceptions, Laura C. being one of them (maybe...). So, if you want to play your game, go ahead. I will continue to present the Christian position as best as I can. But I love my Saviour too much to make a mockery of Him here. He sufferred horribly and died on my account; He deserves better than that from me. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david