rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (02/24/84)
I asked in an earlier article if Larry was alone in using misquoting and word-twisting tactics among fundamentalist religionists. David has shown that Larry most certainly is not alone in this. David provides a rebuttal to my article by *leaving out ALL of my argumentative points* and only replying to my final paragraph in which I speculate (note the use of the words "may be") on the reasons why he and Larry do not see the scenario of one person's logical thought (that I posted in an earlier article) as a valid one. To summarize, the scenario went something like this: Upon reading the Bible, and noting that God does many rather heinous things according to the Bible, it follows that if the Bible were true, then God must have indeed done those things. A person coming to this conclusion could make one of several choices based on this proof. If he/she chooses to believe that the Bible is indeed true, then the conclusion follows logically that God did those things. Based on this, he/she could choose either to make a judgment that the God described therein (which, if the Bible is true, must exist and must have done the deeds described) is not worthy of worship, OR (as Larry and David have done), he/she could choose to believe that based on his/her limited understanding of the universe he/she is not capable of making such a judgment, and that he/she will "take God's word for it". [I HAVE DISCUSSED THE DANGERS IN THIS LINE OF THINKING ELSEWHERE, AND WILL PROBABLY DO SO AGAIN, BUT NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO FURTHER DISCUSS IT.] What Tim (and others) have said is that IF the Bible were to proven to be factual (or if it were simply be a "given" that it is accepted as such), then he (and others) would make the first choice. BUT since there is no proof/acceptance a priori that the the Bible IS factual, the need to make that choice is washed away. (In fact, the fact that Tim has found what he considered "holes" in the Bible, and that he has documented them repeatedly, even if---through a divine miracle?---the Bible were proved to be factual, the (factual) content would result in a negative judgment of the god therein.) The words "EVEN IF" are the first words in the original title of the original article. An example of their use follows in simpler terms. I refuse to eat Pesmard candy bars because the method by which they are manufactured is shoddy, and while the price is extremely high, the weight of the bars is less than what they claim it to be as more air is injected into the candy bar. But even if they were to lower their prices and provide a candy bar with less air and more candy, I would not eat their candy, because they have caramel inside, and I find caramel repulsive. Still, they haven't proven to my satisfaction that they've stopped injecting air into overpriced bars, and this is still a valid objective point to bring up when discussing the merits of the Pesmard candy bar. The point about caramel is a subjective one, but although there are no arguments to convince people that they shouldn't like caramel, objective arguments about physical content and price carry some weight, even when people still choose to believe the advertisements by the makers of Pesmard candy bars that contradict the facts. Caramel is bad for your teeth, though... -- Pardon me for breathing, which I never do anyway oh, god, I'm so depressed... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr