garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (11/19/83)
My comments regarding Rich Rosen's summary: 1. I have no proof that there is or isn't a god. Then why assume that there isn't? Why call those who think there is childish (and other unpleasant things)? 2. There seem to be rampant assumptions ... ...on the part of both believers and unbelievers. 3. The power of belief in god has been demonstrated. But the power seems to stem from the act of believing, and the feeling one gets from this act. 4. The notion of human beings free to make their own choices is very dangerous to the existing power structure, not just to religion. ... What we need is an accommodation for all individuals and not a single imposed morality that befits a less free age. How do you propose accomodating those individuals who disagree with you? Do you wish to accomodate the thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.? Or are you going to impose some kind of morality on them? 5. I believe in science. If you mean you think science has, or can find, the answers to all of humanity's problems, I disagree. If you mean you think that science is an effective tool at discovering answers to certain questions about the way the universe operates, I agree. If you mean you think that science can discover WHY the universe operates the way it does, I think I disagree. "Do unto others" is a good idea BECAUSE IT WORKS IN THE REAL WORLD!!!! Not because it says it in a book... Other ideas also "work" in the real world: 1. Do unto others before they do unto you "works" (sometimes). 2. He who has the gold makes the rules "works" (a lot). "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" does not always "work" in the real world. Not long ago there was a discussion in this group concerning that fact. In other words, it is not sufficient that an idea "work". Having enjoyed the discussion, Gary Samuelson
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (11/22/83)
Because garys's replies to my replies to whatever arrived in unsorted order (possibly he received them in sorted order, but netnews invoked an unsort algorithm) and because they are all at least (on average) twice as long as my original articles and would probably result in even longer responses, I will restrict our discussion to mail. I don't think either of us has anything more to say that is either worthwhile or original enough for mass consumption. It's like the quote that someone presented in this newsgroup a while back: [ I paraphrase ] The only proof of faith is faith, and the only proof of logic is logic. I think it is highly unlikely that I will acquire faith as a result of this discussion, and I doubt equally that Gary will acquire logic. To Gary: since your articles did arrive out of order and are very long, I will be some time in replying. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr -- Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr