pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/05/85)
Dave, Your analysis that I must have some irrational fear of death is as naive as you speculated it might be. I don't think that a person who engages in activities like skydiving could be said to have an irrational fear of death. I recognize that I am going to die someday. But I also recognize that while I continue to live there is an evil pig monster Damager-God who enjoys harming people and making mincemeat of out efforts to build and create. When I go skydiving, I do so realizing that God could do me harm at any moment. Why do I do it? Because by beating Him at His own game, by taking the necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to believe. I don't mean to call you a liar, Dave, but no one has lived a life of sufficient length and not experienced tragedy or suffering. When you say that no such things have ever befallen you, I have to question your claim that you've had ``a really great time for most all of [your] life.'' I must admit I admire the way you speak in defiance of Him, as if daring Him to slit your throat as you speak. I hope you realize that for Him to do something horrible to someone who speaks out vocally against Him may be seen as proof of His evil, even to the most sheepish of His followers. For this reason, I believe He will purposely not do this sort of thing, thus not only preventing this sort of defection but also appearing to discredit people who speak out against Him in the process. I find it upsetting that so many people like Dan Boscovich and now Dave Trissel must find some ``flaw'' in my character or personality to account for my beliefs about God. No one has made claims about character flaws in them or in other God whorshipers resulting in their beliefs. In my heart, I know it is the work of the evil God damaging their minds that causes this sort of thing. I hope we are able to get past that damage and find the kernel of solid mind through which we will all share in a world without the Damager-God. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (09/07/85)
In article <326@pyuxn.UUCP> pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes: > ... But I also recognize that >while I continue to live there is an evil pig monster Damager-God who enjoys >harming people and making mincemeat of out efforts to build and create. >I go skydiving, I do so realizing that God could do me harm at any moment. >Why do I do it? Because by beating Him at His own game, by taking the >necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling >interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the >Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to >believe. You bring up an interesting idea here - that Damager-God is very evil but he is not very powerful. Why wouldn't the D-God cause you to break a finger each time you jumped? I presume you like to skydive and knowing you would break a finger every time should make D-God really chuckle. But it would seem he is too weak to do something like that so why fear a harmless D-God? > I don't mean to call you a liar, Dave, but no one has lived a life >of sufficient length and not experienced tragedy or suffering. When you >say that no such things have ever befallen you, I have to question your >claim that you've had ``a really great time for most all of [your] life.'' Of course I have had a few times in life when I have experienced tragedy. But these few times pale in comparison to the great amount of enjoyment I get out of life. I am well paid at work, generally work my own hours, take weekend trips to wherever (Las Vegus this month), play with my Macintosh at home, eat wherever I want - pretty good life if you ask me. Sure, once a month I may have a headache or my tasks at work are often things I don't like doing, but these minor things don't amount to the tragedy or suffering you are indicating. >I must admit I admire the way you speak in defiance of Him, as if daring Him >to slit your throat as you speak. I hope you realize that for Him to do >something horrible to someone who speaks out vocally against Him may be seen >as proof of His evil, even to the most sheepish of His followers. For this >reason, I believe He will purposely not do this sort of thing, thus not only >preventing this sort of defection but also appearing to discredit people who >speak out against Him in the process. I don't agree here. Horrible things do happen to someone every day, take the latest spate of air crashes. If such things don't convince followers of D-God then why should D-God be afraid to zap me? Certainly my absence on the net isn't going to start making them suspicious. Here you are talking openly about D-God on the net. If your death in an accident were reported tomorrow on the net do you think that would convince anyone of D-God? I don't think so. Thus, if D-God is real he/she/it could harm me as much as desired and it won't change the "followers" position. Thus, why doesn't D-God harm me? I submit that there is no D-God, or that if there is it is so weak that it can't do anything more powerful than make me do a boring task at work. If the latter is true then by definition D-God is not a God but more like a gremlin. > I find it upsetting that so many people like Dan Boscovich and >now Dave Trissel must find some ``flaw'' in my character or personality to >account for my beliefs about God. It's only natural to try to understand why someone believes something. Since I don't find your arguments for this evil God very compelling (e.g. I can easily picture a MUCH less atractive world for myself yet it isn't happening) my only recourse is to try to see why you would want to suggest such a thing to begin with. Thus, the feeble personality trait guessing. >In my >heart, I know it is the work of the evil God damaging their minds that causes >this sort of thing. In other words it's wrong for people to try to understand why you hold such a radical view but correct for you to think their minds are being controlled. If you could just answer the following simple question I would be glad to further consider your D-God theory, and if not I don't think it's worth much: Since I can picture a MUCH less enjoyable world for myself, why is it that I enjoy my life so much? Why isn't the Damager God making it miserable? -- Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
vch@rruxo.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (09/08/85)
>death. I recognize that I am going to die someday. But I also recognize that >while I continue to live there is an evil pig monster Damager-God who enjoys ^ ^ ^ ^ >harming people and making mincemeat of out efforts to build and create. When >I go skydiving, I do so realizing that God could do me harm at any moment. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ >Why do I do it? Because by beating Him at His own game, by taking the >necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling >interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the >Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to >believe. I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized for less than that posting.) -- Vince Hatem ---------------- A Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ & 444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T 4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES (201) 699-4869 /-----/ ...ihnp4!rruxo!vch TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche! (WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/08/85)
> I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. > (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized > for less than that posting.) [VINCE HATEM, speaking about Paul Zimmerman] Hmmm. If Paul Zimmerman is "paranoid" for believing in a god that is evil, does that make those who believe in a benevolent god equally disturbed and worthy of institutionalization? Or "dangerous"? Is it just because his god is different from the one they worship that results in the judgment that Paul should see a doctor. So much for religious tolerance... -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (09/08/85)
> >Why do I do it? Because by beating Him at His own game, by taking the > >necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling > >interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the > >Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to > >believe. > > I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. > (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized > for less than that posting.) > The fact that Paul has some uncoventional views of the most popular deity does not justify personal insult of the above nature. I don't see why should a person, who views god as evil, should be called crazy, while others, who hold to the belief that god is good, are to be cosidered sane. Gods of various mythologies generally seem to have an evil side to their character. The god of the bible is not an exception to this. I really don't understand what is all the fuss about. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
vch@rruxo.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (09/09/85)
>> I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. >>(I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized >> for less than that posting.) [VINCE HATEM, speaking about Paul Zimmerman] > >Hmmm. If Paul Zimmerman is "paranoid" for believing in a god that is evil, >does that make those who believe in a benevolent god equally disturbed and >worthy of institutionalization? Or "dangerous"? Is it just because his god >is different from the one they worship that results in the judgment that Paul >should see a doctor. [RICH ROSEN] You missed the point rich, the man is oblivously rather obsessed with his fear of this imaginary Deamager-God. Read his articles on the subject. And YES, people who belive in a benevolent god - fanatically - to the point of Mr Zimmerman, (ie: would jump off a building and expect God to catch them), ARE "dangerous", and should be institutionalized. They might hurt someone else while trying to prove something. (Watch, if I try to hit that little kid over there, God will save him....) No, THAT'S not dangerous. -- Vince Hatem ---------------- A Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ & 444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T 4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES (201) 699-4869 /-----/ ...ihnp4!rruxo!vch TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche! (WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/11/85)
Dave, You confuse God's unwillingness to engage in evil damaging action with weakness. Perhaps it is not to His advantage to be as evil as possible all the time. Perhaps He has enough perspective to engage in just enough evil on a regular basis to placate His urges, while at the same time planning and executing evil on a larger scale (eg, the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany, Armageddon). Perhaps the greater evils take priority, and the lesser evils are only engaged in for pleasure when it is feasible. All this is certainly within the realm of reason. It is certainly at least as reasonable as the God whorshipers' explanation of why a perfect good God would allow evil to exist and flourish, isn't it? You talk about the way your experience of tragedy pales in comparison to your good fortune. But then you mention your problems and dismiss them by calling them minor. Are you saying that you have never had the forces of anti-nature work against you and cause you problems? Or are you saying that you have learned not to care when these things happen? Who or what might have caused you not to care? Perhaps the same entity that convinces those who whorship Him that suffering in His name is good and pleasurable. You misunderstand the scheme of things with regard to God. If people are under the erroneous misconception that God is the force behind good and evil is simply the result of natural forces, why would they fear God as a result of a spate of plane crashes? Actually they do fear God more, but they have somehow come to believe that no matter how evil God is, whatever He does is ``good'' because it is He who did it. You claim that the sudden death of someone who spoke out against the Damager-God wouldn't convince many people about God's evil. Perhaps not. But maybe it might infuse the thought in the minds of just a few. The planting of that seed is something God would certainly not want to see. In the preceding paragraph, I talked about the reasons why God might not have the time or desire to harm or kill you at any given time, His mind being occupied by more pressing things, like the planning of Armageddon (which He of course prophesied). I think your description of God as nothing more than a ``gremlin'' is diffused by offering the examples of God's evil throughout history: Sodom and Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel, the plagues in Egypt (which there is historical evidence for), the Crusades, Nazi Germany. > In other words it's wrong for people to try to understand why you hold such > a radical view but correct for you to think their minds are being controlled. Dave, certainly YOU are engaging in bold speculation when you assume I must have some negative character flaw for believing as I do. You are not trying to ``understand,'' you are trying to rationalize away your disbelief by claiming that since you cannot find a problem with the belief there MUST be a problem with the believer. With regard to ``their minds,'' if control of their minds by an evil God is not the reason for their single minded belief in a good God, what is? Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/12/85)
> > >Why do I do it? Because by beating Him at His own game, by taking the > > >necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling > > >interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the > > >Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to > > >believe. > > > > I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. > > (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized > > for less than that posting.) > > > The fact that Paul has some uncoventional views of the most popular > deity does not justify personal insult of the above nature. I don't > see why should a person, who views god as evil, should be called > crazy, while others, who hold to the belief that god is good, are to > be cosidered sane. Gods of various mythologies generally seem to > have an evil side to their character. The god of the bible is not > an exception to this. I really don't understand what is all the fuss > about. > -- > Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories > Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho You and Richie Rosen must have collaborated on this one, you sound like siamese twins. Both of you are totally missing the point. This Paul is a raving person. There exists various degrees of disbelief in something. Paul is even to the left of the extreme of the greatest of degrees. He really is hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or agrees with some- thing. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have little trouble diag- nosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a psychosis. Paul is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to reason rationally about this subject. I happen to believe in a loving God, but I don't consider this as raving and ranting about it. You would be doing Paul a big favor if you didn't pat him on the back and tell him everything is OK.
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (09/14/85)
In article <344@pyuxn.UUCP> pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes: > ... You talk about the way your experience >of tragedy pales in comparison to your good fortune. But then you mention >your problems and dismiss them by calling them minor. Are you saying that >you have never had the forces of anti-nature work against you and cause you >problems? Or are you saying that you have learned not to care when these >things happen? Who or what might have caused you not to care? > It's difficult answering because it's not clear what you mean by "anti-nature work against [me]". I gave examples of negative things in my life (boring work tasks etc.) but are you referring to these or much worse things like losing a leg or having a medical problem for the rest of a lifetime? Do you think most people have horrible things happening to them a lot? If so, give examples of what you mean. The way you use phrases suggest to me that you have in mind things that take a lot of effort to build and then can collapse like marriages, carreers, stock market equity, etc. Maybe you can give examples in your own life that you think are directly caused by the Damager-God so I can better understand what you mean. > ... You claim that >the sudden death of someone who spoke out against the Damager-God wouldn't >convince many people about God's evil. Perhaps not. But maybe it might infuse >the thought in the minds of just a few. The planting of that seed is something >God would certainly not want to see. Could God be so weak that he/she/it is afraid of an idea in peoples heads? Again I am confused about how a God could be so weak and if so, why should I fear such a weak God. > ... I think >your description of God as nothing more than a ``gremlin'' is diffused by >offering the examples of God's evil throughout history: Sodom and Gomorrah, >the Tower of Babel, the plagues in Egypt (which there is historical >evidence for), the Crusades, Nazi Germany. But what about all the times in-between where people have been happy and lived wonderful lives? You can't just look at one side. There will always be both horrible and wonderful events happening. To me, they look pretty evened out. If you believe the first three from the Bible, then why can't D-God do the same today? Why doesn't he make Chicago go up in smoke like Sodom? If he wasn't afraid to do it back then why not now? > Dave, certainly YOU are engaging in bold speculation when you >assume I must have some negative character flaw for believing as I do. It's interesting that you are the one using the words "negative" and "flaw". If you go back over my postings you will see that I have never claimed that your belief system is somehow inferior or that you are mad or crazy like others have done. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you are somehow inferior. >you >are not trying to ``understand,'' you are trying to rationalize away your >disbelief by claiming that since you cannot find a problem with the belief >there MUST be a problem with the believer. I am suprized that you think I cannot find a problem with the belief. I noted several, some which you have tried to answer and others you haven't. I also stated quite plainly that to me your reasoning doesn't logically follow from the facts. Until you explain why "if God is so bad why am I happy" I have no recourse but to believe that there either is no God or if there is he/she/it can't be a powerful evil thing. I have followed your ideas that D-God is so tricky that it won't blatently do things or else we will catch-on. I find such a God weak and nothing to fear. Isn't it obvious that a bad God would better enjoy us suffering while he openly laughs in our faces? You have D-God having to hide his pleasure at our suffering. That just doesn't make sense to me. -- Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (09/15/85)
> Paul > is even to the left of the extreme of the greatest of degrees. He really is > hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or agrees with some- > thing. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have little trouble diag- > nosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a psychosis. I don't see how you can pass such a judgement on psychological state of another person. This reminds me of the situation in the USSR where people who do not agree with Marxist dogma are proclaimed insane. The ideology is that Marxism must be good. Whoever proclaims it to be evil must be crazy, and is sent to a mental institution. > Paul > is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to reason rationally > about this subject. I happen to believe in a loving God, but I don't consider > this as raving and ranting about it. You would be doing Paul a big favor if > you didn't pat him on the back and tell him everything is OK. I think that the preposition that there is a god - whether good or bad - is a delusion. Yet, I don't consider you or Paul to be insane. I do not pat Paul on his back. If you read my other articles, you would note that I was very critical some of Paul's Ideas, especially the ones regarding entropy. But I never at any point labeled him crazy. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/16/85)
> You and Richie Rosen must have collaborated on this one, you sound like > siamese twins. Both of you are totally missing the point. This Paul is > a raving person. [RAY FRANK on Paul Zimmerman] Is the phrase "takes one to know one" appropriate here? > There exists various degrees of disbelief in something. Paul is even to the > left of the extreme of the greatest of degrees. I see, he is wrong because his position is extremely different from yours. How obvious! > He really is hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or agrees > with something. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have little > trouble diagnosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a psychosis. > Paul is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to reason > rationally about this subject. Contrast this with the following: > I happen to believe in a loving God, but I don't consider this as raving and > ranting about it. You would be doing Paul a big favor if you didn't pat him > on the back and tell him everything is OK. I fail to see the difference between you and Paul. I tend to think you are two of a kind. Your nonsense is just as raving as that of Paul, but at least Paul speaks cogently and answers questions put to him. You, on the other hand, are an evader of the first order, and your positions have never once been substantiated by anything at all. Paul's reasoning may be exactly the same in quality as those who believe in God (only diametrically opposite), but your "reasoning" processes have yet to be seen. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ps@celerity.UUCP (Pat Shanahan) (09/16/85)
... > > I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. > (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized > for less than that posting.) > ... From another message in this newsgroup: ... > Anna Chertkova is a Russian Baptist. She was arrested in August 1973 > for her Christian activities, and subsequently sentenced to Tashkent > Special Psychiatric Hospital for "rehabilitation." ... I consider evil ANY philosophy whose adherents seek to classify people as insane and "treat" them for disagreeing with that philosophy. -- ps (Pat Shanahan) uucp : {decvax!ucbvax || ihnp4 || philabs}!sdcsvax!celerity!ps arpa : sdcsvax!celerity!ps@nosc
vch@rruxo.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (09/16/85)
>> He really is hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or agrees >> with something. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have little >>trouble diagnosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a psychosis. >> Paul is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to reason >> rationally about this subject. >... >> I happen to believe in a loving God, but I don't consider this as raving and >> ranting about it. You would be doing Paul a big favor if you didn't pat him >> on the back and tell him everything is OK. > >I fail to see the difference between you and Paul. I tend to think you are >two of a kind. Your nonsense is just as raving as that of Paul, but at >least Paul speaks cogently and answers questions put to him. You, on the >other hand, are an evader of the first order, and your positions have never >once been substantiated by anything at all. Paul's reasoning may be exactly >the same in quality as those who believe in God (only diametrically opposite), >but your "reasoning" processes have yet to be seen. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Rich, all I have to say to you is: Look up "obsessive behavior" in a psychology book. Paul's postings about the subject obiously show some deep-seated obsession about "beating" his god to the punch. -- Vince Hatem ---------------- A Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ & 444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T 4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES (201) 699-4869 /-----/ ...ihnp4!rruxo!vch TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche! (WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/17/85)
>>>He really is hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or >>>agrees with something. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have >>>little trouble diagnosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a >>>psychosis. Paul is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to >>>reason rationally about this subject. ... I happen to believe in a loving >>>God, but I don't consider this as raving and ranting about it. You would be >>>doing Paul a big favor if you didn't pat him on the back and tell him >>>everything is OK. [RAY FRANK] >>I fail to see the difference between you and Paul. I tend to think you are >>two of a kind. Your nonsense is just as raving as that of Paul, but at >>least Paul speaks cogently and answers questions put to him. You, on the >>other hand, are an evader of the first order, and your positions have never >>once been substantiated by anything at all. Paul's reasoning may be exactly >>the same in quality as those who believe in God (only diametrically opposite), >>but your "reasoning" processes have yet to be seen. [ROSEN] > Look up "obsessive behavior" in a psychology book. Paul's postings about > the subject obiously show some deep-seated obsession about "beating" his > god to the punch. [HATEM] Hmmm. What do psychology books say about "god whorshipers"? (As Paul would so eloquently say...) Do they not qualify for such "obvious" judgmentalness? Why? Because their position is so obviously right? I don't understand. That's a very odd double standard you're wielding there. Why is Paul's "deep-seated obsession" worth condemning, while those obsessions of religious believers in general are not? (By the way, if we're talking about obsessive behavior, might I suggest reading the articles of the man you chose to defend here, Ray Frank? A perfect example: facts are answered with "Oh, yeah, well prove that I'm wrong!" or "My mind is cast in cement". A far cry from someone like Paul. Though his beliefs may be unconventional, his postings have always been as clear and cogent as any I've seen in these newsgroups, yet still the victim of a great deal of abuse. Says something, doesn't it?) -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/17/85)
Dave, You are persistently misunderstanding my questions. Yes, you gave examples of negative things in your life. My point was that you have chosen to lump them all together, the trivial with the severe, and describe them all as ``minor.'' My question was why? It seems to me that you are doing this because the evil God has conditioned you to not care about the damage done to you, perhaps to the point where you accept it (or even like it, as some Christians do). You have essentially devalued horribility just to retain the notion of a benevolent God. Houses, careers, marriages, all collapse due to the influence of the evil God after a great deal of hard work on the part of human beings. Houses blow away as a result of hurricanes. Careers end after years of schooling and experience due to ``unforeseen circumstances.'' Marriages dissolve because God builds certain ideas into people's heads about what marriage and family are all about, only to have their expectations dashed, taking that out on their spouse. Remember that unforeseen circumstances like these are often called ``acts of God.'' Ever stop to wonder why? You keep harping on the idea that, because God doesn't damage you with regularity and severity, He is ``weak.'' I have explained that it is very egocentric to assume that if God doesn't harm you He must be weak. Certainly He interferes in the lives of millions of people every day. And what of that ultimate damage that He plans for the Earth: Armageddon? Wouldn't a project like that take up a lot of time and effort? Remember, this God is by no means as omnipotent as He claims, though the documents of history have shown His capabilities through evil acts of great magnitude that we have some evidence for (the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah). You ask why God doesn't just destroy Chicago the way He destroyed Sodom. I thought it was San Francisco and Los Angeles that were analogous to Sodom and Gomorrah? :-) I guess planning Armageddon is hard enough work. Has it already begun? Isn't the recent spate of plane crashes part of God's plan for Armageddon as He ``prophesied'' in the Bible? Dave, you mention ``all the times in-between where people have been happy.'' And you say it is me who is looking at one side. You claim some sort of balance between horrible and wonderful, saying that they are evened out. Why do you so blithely accept the fact that there is ``horribleness'' at all? Has God convinced you that a certain amount of horribleness is ``O.K.?'' You ask ``if God is so bad why are you happy?'' And you say I have not answered this. Yet certainly we need to ask why you choose to view your life as good in light of all the damage from God that you dismiss and ``minor.'' Have you answered that? You also say that my ideas have included God being ``so tricky that [He] won't blatantly do things or else we will catch on.'' I never said that. I merely said that that is a method by which He keeps people believing. Look at you right here in your own articles! Indeed, He WOULD enjoy us suffering ``regularly'' while He openly laughs. But how long would it last? How long could he keep that up? No, Dave, He may be a heinous evil pig, but He has a certain amount of intelligence, and He is skillful at knowing just how much evil He can ``get away with,'' when to start and stop, when to ``test'' His enslaved subjects (as in the Book of Job), and when the time is ripe for an ultimate evil (like the deception of Jesus and his followers, or Armageddon). Finally, I apologize if I lumped you in with those who did claim that I was ``mad or crazy'' because my beliefs differed from theirs. However, you were persistent in claiming that I was the one being selective in how I interpreted the Bible to reach my conclusions about the nature of God. I asked you whether it might be you who is being selective in interpretation when you conclude that God is good. I do hope to hear your answer. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (09/19/85)
Enough with the amateur psychoanalysis! I have taken a Bachelor's in
psychology, and that is enough to give me the authority to say the following
things:
(1) No overt neurotic or psychotic symptoms are evidenced in any of Mr. Paul
Zimmerman's postings.
(2) The charge of obsession is unfounded, since there is no way of
estimating how much of his time is devoted to maltheistic practices or
proselytizing, or to what extent his maltheism interferes with other
activities; in fact, none of us have any ideas what patterns of behavior
other than a desire to discuss it from time to time (emphatically not an
obsessive symptom) pertain to Mr. Zimmerman's beliefs.
(3) No reputable psychoanalyst would base even a preliminary diagnosis on a
small amount of correpondence on a restricted subject, barring strong
evidence of particular dysfunction, e.g., speaking about nothing but
different ways to tie women up and beat them. Anyone who does make such a
diagnosis is a fraud.
>From my experience on the network, I reach this conclusion with surety:
(4) The people performing the amateur, fraudulent psychoanalysis of Mr.
Zimmerman are assholes. They are incapable of answering his belief system
rationally and directly, and so they resort to personal attacks and
judgments which neither they NOR ANYONE ELSE is qualified to make from the
evidence at hand. Unless they apologize for their unfounded and libelous
(yes, technically libelous if it hurts Mr. Zimmerman's image materially)
attacks, they should be subjected to net ostracism, as they do not deserve
the attention of rational people.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/19/85)
> > > (4) The people performing the amateur, fraudulent psychoanalysis of Mr. > Zimmerman are assholes. They are incapable of answering his belief system > rationally and directly, and so they resort to personal attacks and > judgments which neither they NOR ANYONE ELSE is qualified to make from the > evidence at hand. Unless they apologize for their unfounded and libelous > (yes, technically libelous if it hurts Mr. Zimmerman's image materially) > attacks, they should be subjected to net ostracism, as they do not deserve > the attention of rational people. > -=- > Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking > ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim > CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** THEY resort to personal attacks? What about YOU? Categorically describing as 'assholes' those whom you've known only over the net is a qualified profess- ional diagnosis??? Hmmmm. Las year I couden even spell scyioanlyst, this year I are one.
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (09/21/85)
> From ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) Thu Sep 19 15:59:21 1985 > Message-ID: <11738@rochester.UUCP> > THEY resort to personal attacks? What about YOU? Categorically describing > as 'assholes' those whom you've known only over the net is a qualified > professional diagnosis??? Hmmmm. > > Las year I couden even spell scyioanlyst, this year I are one. Quoting out of context is such fun, isn't it? Before condemning the people who questioned Mr. Zimmerman's mental health, I explicitly stated that the judgment was based on my experience as a net junkie for several years. No statement or implication of any professional authority was made. But it's so much easier to dimiss my statements if you just ignore that little fact, and fail to reproduce the preliminary qualification when quoting me so others will be misled as well. What a charmer you are, Mr. Frank; we could all take a lesson in intellectual honesty from you, yes indeed. As for the ethics of personal condemnation, when people initiate personal condemnation, then it is ethical to respond with same. The people who questioned Mr. Zimmerman's mental health clearly initiated personal attacks, and therefore after objectively demonstrating their personal attacks to be unfounded, I had no compunctions about making a =well-grounded= personal attack upon them. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/22/85)
>>(4) The people performing the amateur, fraudulent psychoanalysis of Mr. >>Zimmerman are assholes. They are incapable of answering his belief system >>rationally and directly, and so they resort to personal attacks and >>judgments which neither they NOR ANYONE ELSE is qualified to make from the >>evidence at hand. Unless they apologize for their unfounded and libelous >>(yes, technically libelous if it hurts Mr. Zimmerman's image materially) >>attacks, they should be subjected to net ostracism, as they do not deserve >>the attention of rational people. [MARONEY] > THEY resort to personal attacks? What about YOU? Categorically describing > as 'assholes' those whom you've known only over the net is a qualified > professional diagnosis??? Hmmmm. [STARK] What about characterizing those whom YOU'VE known only over the net as sick or disturbed merely because you disagree with them? One thing about assholes: you don't need a degree in "scyioanlysis" (as Ray spells it) to find one, they are very apparent from their abusive behavior. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (09/23/85)
In article <347@pyuxn.UUCP> pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes: > You are persistently misunderstanding my questions. Yes, you gave >examples of negative things in your life. My point was that you have chosen >to lump them all together, the trivial with the severe, and describe them >all as ``minor.'' My question was why? Probably the worst thing to me was losing my house in a flood. It was a real hassle, but it certainly didn't mess up my life at all. And the end result was that I ended up with a much bigger house which netted me lots of profit when I sold it last Thanksgiving. Now, you could claim that I'm brushing such a major event off. (More on that tactic later.) You could also claim that D-God caused the flood, but you'd first have to prove there's a god to begin with and then explain why he/she/it created floods for millions of years all over the earth which didn't bother any humans. Another retort would be "If God can cause floods why can't he make me miserable most of the time?" >It seems to me that you are doing >this because the evil God has conditioned you to not care about the damage >done to you, perhaps to the point where you accept it (or even like it, The trouble with this type of logic is that one can believe whatever one wants and disregard all counterindicating facts. For example, I could claim that the Damager Pig God fools you into liking ice cream - getting you to actually eat that poison with all its sugar. You will suffer later by having to be fat, ugly and guilty, or you'll have to go on a very unpleasent diet, or you'll have to constantly abstain from something you "think" you want. Don't try telling me that you really like ice cream because I know you are only being fooled by the Pig Damager God into thinking so. Don't you see how right now the Pig Damager God is trying to keep you from knowing the truth about how ice cream really tastes bad? It's just his way of keeping you in misery. You are kept by Pig God from seeing the truth. ----end of parody--- Yes, to repeat yet a second time, there have been a few major negative things in my life. But to tell me that I'm being fooled by an evil God who wants me to be unhappy into thinking that I really am happy when I'm not has got to be the utmost in absurdity. That's what I gather your conslusions have been. > ... [hurricanes and divorces etc.] ... Remember that >unforeseen circumstances like these are often called ``acts of God.'' Ever >stop to wonder why? Yes I did. And I figured it out as I grew up. At first people don't know why things happen so God is the ultimate answer. Then as knowlege progresses we learn that hurricanes and such are not created by God but are normal consquences of atmospheric air flow turbulence. I have yet to see a divorce caused by any God intervention. In every case it was pretty obvious what the character traits were in the individuals that caused the problems. You could claim that God causes the bad character traits, but what proof would you present? > You keep harping on the idea that, because God doesn't damage you >with regularity and severity, He is ``weak.'' I have explained that it is >very egocentric to assume that if God doesn't harm you He must be weak. But then by your very own argument such a God is nothing to fear anyway, since he/she/it doesn't have time to cause gremlin-like problems for us to begin with. Another problem you have is the contradiction you bring upon yourself. In your first postings you mentioned how you had outsmarted the D-God by doing careful planning on a trip you took (skiiing, if I remember correctly.) Do you really take yourself to be so important that God has it out for you (and you managed to beat him that time) yet most others are too insignificant for D_God to worry about. What was that you said about being "very egocentric"? >Certainly He interferes in the lives of millions of people every day. Some examples please. Don't say hurricanes and the like. I mean something that you can really prove that God was behind. If there are personal things that happened to you all the better. You don't seem to want to talk about your personal life. Any reason? >And what of that ultimate damage that He plans for the Earth: Armageddon? >Wouldn't a project like that take up a lot of time and effort? No. All D-God has to do is to make one solitary nuclear missle out of thousands go off toward Russia or the US and you would have your Armageddon. Since this isn't happening right now while I type, I can only presume that D-God is either not as bright as I am, or he/she/it is so powerless that they can't cause a missle mis-fire let alone cause Armageddon. Either way, D-God is nothing to fear. >Remember, >this God is by no means as omnipotent as He claims, though the documents of >history have shown His capabilities through evil acts of great magnitude >that we have some evidence for (the flood, the destruction of Sodom and >Gomorrah). Let me see, you say flooding the earth was done by D-God, but he can't give me a headache. Why? Is he too tired from creating all that water? You say he destroyed two cities by fire but can't cause the mis-launch of a nuclear missle. Do you understand why people aren't taking you seriously? > ... I guess planning Armageddon is hard enough >work. Has it already begun? Isn't the recent spate of plane crashes part >of God's plan for Armageddon as He ``prophesied'' in the Bible? History shows that the 1917-1919 Spanish Flu epidemic killed millions around the world - and you think a few plane crashes with some people killed means Armageddon's here. Maybe if the Mexican Quake was repeated all over the world with planes crashing for several weeks then you're Armageddon scenario would be more appropriate. >Why do you so blithely accept the fact that there is ``horribleness'' at all? >Has God convinced you that a certain amount of horribleness is ``O.K.?'' Huh? I admitted that I'd had some bad things happen to me but I guess you want to force me to a "everything's all bad" or nothing scenario. Sorry, no dice. You do raise a good point, however. If there is a God then why do bad things happen. The Christian religion postulates a bad god known as Satan to blame You on the other hand seem to take the opposite view. Since there is a god and yet evil exist in the world, then god must be behind the evil. Plausible as far as it goes. In fact, this seems a little more comprehensible than the typical Christian's view. The only problem is that even though I grew up believing in the Christian view of god, I finally saw that other, more natural, things cause events like hurricanes and divorces and floods. For example, floods follow from the fact that water runs downhill and heavy rains naturally occur. Nothing mysterious at all. And certainly no reason to postulate that a God had anything to do with it. >You >ask ``if God is so bad why are you happy?'' And you say I have not answered >this. Yet certainly we need to ask why you choose to view your life as good >in light of all the damage from God that you dismiss and ``minor.'' Have you >answered that? Huh? You claim my life really isn't as good as I think it is. What a joke. You know practically nothing of me and want me to "fess up" to how unhappy I really am. This says a lot more about you than me. Does it bother you that I'm happy? Don't you really like ice cream? > ... Indeed, He WOULD enjoy us suffering >``regularly'' while He openly laughs. But how long would it last? How long >could he keep that up? No, Dave, He may be a heinous evil pig, but He has >a certain amount of intelligence, and He is skillful at knowing just how much >evil He can ``get away with,'' when to start and stop, when to ``test'' His >enslaved subjects ... Paul, I find this a very weak excuse for why the D-God doesn't make us miserable all the time and laugh in our faces while doing it. You say we will eventually catch-on. So what? Isn't that the point? That would make our misery all the more so wouldn't it? > Finally, I apologize if I lumped you in with those who did claim >that I was ``mad or crazy'' because my beliefs differed from theirs. >However, you were persistent in claiming that I was the one being selective >in how I interpreted the Bible to reach my conclusions about the nature of >God. I asked you whether it might be you who is being selective in >interpretation when you conclude that God is good. I do hope to hear your >answer. Apology accepted. Actually, I don't remember making any claims about how you interpreted the Bible. My own view is that the Bible certainly shows some "evil" things done by God, especially in the OT. And since I don't believe in God (at least not in any classical way) I certainly don't favor a good god over a bad one. The Christian all-powerful good God is highly unlikely to me since as you point out why then would there be any evil? The "fallen angel" story just seems plain silly to me. By the same token, I can't see god as an all evil being because I am too happy in this life for that to be the case. Therefore, if there is a god it must be somewhere in-between. Thus, I would agree that your hypothesis of a bad but weak god (along with that of a good weak god) would seem more probable than the totally good God Christian scenario. But, I don't believe any of these. Like I said before, the events I see happening in the earth are all easily explained by natural phenomonae. I find no use for a god hypothesis. If there is a god it seems to me that it is beyond good and evil. This is because things appear to be pretty well balanced between the two from what I see. I figure I'm on the happy side of the line and it may be possible to match me with someone else on the other side who is unhappy most of the time. -- Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (09/25/85)
In article <561@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>, tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: > As for the ethics of personal condemnation, when people initiate personal > condemnation, then it is ethical to respond with same. Does this moral premise extend to other areas of life or is it just for personal condemnation? Rick Frey
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/25/85)
from the repugnant desk of the ever rosy Richie > What about characterizing those whom YOU'VE known only over the net as > sick or disturbed merely because you disagree with them? One thing about > assholes: you don't need a degree in "scyioanlysis" (as Ray spells it) to > find one, they are very apparent from their abusive behavior. > -- > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr You're right, they are easy to find, they're present in every mirror in your house. I must apologize to the net for not submitting this to net.flame, but some- times in dealing with Richie I get caught up in his frenzied behavior. I really should have that first cup of coffee in the morning before reading the news. Las year Richie cuden evnn spell scyioanlysis, this yeer he still are not one.
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (09/25/85)
In article <545@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >evidence at hand. Unless they apologize for their unfounded and libelous >(yes, technically libelous if it hurts Mr. Zimmerman's image materially) >attacks, they should be subjected to net ostracism, as they do not deserve >the attention of rational people. Hear! Hear! Richard Foy
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (10/01/85)
Dave, I find it very strange that you claimed never to have suffered in your life, and then you tell us the story of how your lost your house in a flood. You belittle this rather severe destruction as if to say ``it was nothing.'' But certainly it was something, and something significant. You have been duped by the evil God into accepting this sort of damage and destruction as an accpetable level of harm, as the status quo. It need not be that way. Without the hate of God, it would be a much better world. The fact that you keep coming back to saying ``if God's so powerful why doesn't He hurt me'' is most disconcerting. Why don't you ask the God whorshipers the corresponding question: ``If God's so powerful why does He allow evil to exist?'' You seem to have a double standard here. It can also be found in your ``parody.'' You say you could claim that God tricks us into liking ice cream so that we will be poisoned by the sugar (by means of increased calorie intake and dental decay, I presume). Isn't this obviously true? God gives us a desire to eat things that aren't good for us. If that isn't proof enough of His evil, well, what more proof would you want? The fact that you see this as a ``parody'' belies the types of assumptions you make, and gives me an indication of which of us is engaging in ``the utmost in absurdity.'' You decree that God is simply not responsible for ``acts of God'' (sounds absurd to me). When you ask for examples, you demand that those examples don't include ``hurricanes and the like.'' I find that extremely presumptuous. It seems that for any proof I offer, you would say ``you can't include that.'' Yet if a God whorshiper were to offer similar types of proof, without the substantiation and analyzing I supply with mine, it seems that you would gladly accept it. And you do have a knack for belittling the destruction of the world. ``All God has to do is...'' is what you say. God is waiting for just the right moment to cause the most awesome possible devastation, AND to make it seem to anyone who witnesses it or survives it that it was all man's fault. And you talk about being egocentric? You ``complain'' that God floods the earth but does not cause YOU headaches. You have already admitted that He has done this and continues to do this. Perhaps you are seeking ``punishment'' from God (expecting it), and not getting it, and are disappointed. You said the destruction of your house was no big deal. Apparently God has made you into a damage addict, needing everincreasing doses of His evil to believe. Dave, there are a number of people who take my position very seriously. Yet there are many more who take the position of God as loving father seriously. Why don't you have anything to say about them? Admittedly, you did say the following: > The Christian religion postulates a bad god known as Satan to blame > You on the other hand seem to take the opposite view. Since there is a god > and yet evil exist in the world, then god must be behind the evil. Plausible > as far as it goes. In fact, this seems a little more comprehensible than the > typical Christian's view. Perhaps there is still hope! Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (10/01/85)
In article <346@celerity>, Pat Shanahan writes: > > I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor. > > (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people > > institutionalized for less than that posting.) > > From another message in this newsgroup: > > > Anna Chertkova is a Russian Baptist. She was arrested in August 1973 > > for her Christian activities, and subsequently sentenced to Tashkent > > Special Psychiatric Hospital for "rehabilitation." > > I consider evil ANY philosophy whose adherents seek to classify people as > insane and "treat" them for disagreeing with that philosophy. Thank you very much, Pat. I find it intriguing that the most intolerant attitudes towards my opinions come from God whorshipers. They feel I am either crazy, or engaging in satire, or deluded. When and if I finally get to talk seriously with them (many just claim I'm the antichrist and leave it at that), their ``problem'' with my opinions is the list of ``assumptions'' that I make. It is often difficult to keep from laughing at such a statement, considering the enormous list of incredible assumptions you must make to believe in God as a being worthy of whorship in the first place. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/03/85)
>In article <561@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>, tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) >writes: > >> As for the ethics of personal condemnation, when people initiate personal >> condemnation, then it is ethical to respond with same. > >Does this moral premise extend to other areas of life or is it just for >personal condemnation? > > Rick Frey In general, someone who has not abided by a moral principle has forfeited any right to protection under that principle. For instance, if someone is trying to kill someone else, then it is moral to kill them, because they have no right to object. Morality is exclusive of double standards. The person who commits an offense against another and then whines piteously when the same is done to her or him is trying to have it both ways. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/03/85)
> >In article <561@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>, tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) > >writes: > > > >> As for the ethics of personal condemnation, when people initiate personal > >> condemnation, then it is ethical to respond with same. > > > >Does this moral premise extend to other areas of life or is it just for > >personal condemnation? > > > > Rick Frey > > In general, someone who has not abided by a moral principle has forfeited > any right to protection under that principle. For instance, if someone is > trying to kill someone else, then it is moral to kill them, because they > have no right to object. Morality is exclusive of double standards. The > person who commits an offense against another and then whines piteously when > the same is done to her or him is trying to have it both ways. > -=- > Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking > ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim > CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" What in effect you are advocating here is that it is reasonable under the proper circumstances for a person to behave in a manner that was originally condemned as improper behavior. A judges B, A's behavior is abominable, but B in turn judging A is OK? What is not evident here is whether or not A was justified and B was not. Or whether B's behavior in any case is just as abominable as A's. This is one of the arguments of the anti-capital punishment groups. They feel that under no circumstances should a murderer be murdered in turn by a legal system. They feel murder by any other name is still murder, no ifs, ands, or buts or buts about it. Bottom line here is that your argument is by no means a cut and dry issue. The ends do not always justify the means.
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (10/05/85)
In article <363@pyuxn.UUCP> pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes: > > I find it very strange that you claimed never to have suffered in your >life, and then you tell us the story of how your lost your house in a flood. Why is it that you keep repeating that I claim never to have suffered? Not only do my past postings never say anything like that but nobody else seems to think that I've ever said it either. I challenge you to quote anything that I said which even implied that I have never suffered. The only conclusion I can come to is that you don't want to listen to anything that may weaken your thesis. You can tell me that my life is really miserable, or that I've had a really bad past, or that I simply choose to ignore bad things. But it doesn't change my reality one whit. >You belittle this rather severe destruction as if to say ``it was nothing.'' >But certainly it was something, and something significant. You have been duped >by the evil God into accepting this sort of damage and destruction as an >accpetable level of harm, as the status quo. > Would you care to tell me why losing my house in a flood was significant? I ended up with a much bigger and beautifull house with a living room full of windows looking out over the Colorado River. I ended up selling it last November for **100 percent** profit over what I payed for it 3 years ealier. I guess I should realize how unfortunate I was, eh? Maybe I should blame the pig-Damager God for all that money I now have in the bank. Paul, can you tell me how I can get the Damager-God to do more harm to me so I can get even more money? If this is punishment - let me have more! > The fact that you keep coming back to saying ``if God's so powerful >why doesn't He hurt me'' is most disconcerting. Why don't you ask the God >whorshipers the corresponding question: ``If God's so powerful why does He >allow evil to exist?'' You seem to have a double standard here. Didn't you read my reply? I most certainly did bring up your second point. You even quote it back to me at the end of your message. Talk about foot- in-mouth. > ... You say you could claim that God tricks us into >liking ice cream so that we will be poisoned by the sugar (by means of >increased calorie intake and dental decay, I presume). Isn't this obviously >true? God gives us a desire to eat things that aren't good for us. If that >isn't proof enough of His evil, well, what more proof would you want? This is rich. [Pun intended.] Now you claim ice-cream is the work of the Damager-God. Next, you will probably claim that enjoying sex is one of D-God's ploys. It's obvious that you can't acknowlege anything that's good. If you can turn something as harmless and enjoyable as ice cream into a "trick" by Damager-God I guess you could just as easily disavow me having a very pleasant life. > ... You decree that God is simply not responsible for ``acts of >God'' (sounds absurd to me). I asked you for proof that the flood which took by house was caused by God. You have not responded. I also asked why there have always been floods on this earth even when they didn't do Man any damage. Still no reply. >It seems that for any proof I offer, you would say ``you can't include that.'' Is this your excuse for not offering any proof? You claim you know what I'll say? > And you do have a knack for belittling the destruction of the world. >``All God has to do is...'' is what you say. God is waiting for just the >right moment to cause the most awesome possible devastation, AND to make it >seem to anyone who witnesses it or survives it that it was all man's fault. Isn't it obvious that a mis-fired missle would be construed to be man's fault and not God's? And doesn't World War III come under your definition of "the most awesome possible devastation" ? > ... You said >the destruction of your house was no big deal. Apparently God has made you >into a damage addict, needing everincreasing doses of His evil to believe. You are correct. Let me see (10 X $30,000) = $300,000. Ok, it's a deal! Please, please, D-God, flood my house ten times in a row. I'll painfully take the $300,000 profit and fully admit I'm in complete misery. And even after I visit the bank and move into my new palace in the mountains I promise to always moan and groan about how bad my life really is and I'll never acknowlege that I'm really happy. >Yet there are many more who take the position of God as loving father >seriously. Why don't you have anything to say about them? Didn't I already? Your closing quote of mine was exactly what your talking about. I mentioned that there seemed just as scant evidence that God (if any) was a goody-goody two shoes as an evil pig-monster as you claim. Maybe you should read more carefully. >Perhaps there is still hope! Hope for what? That I'll recognize that I'm not really happy and that I'm tricked by God into liking ice cream? Not very likely. >Be well, Well, at least you end your messages on a nice note. -- Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (10/06/85)
In article <12039@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > >What in effect you are advocating here is that it is reasonable under the >proper circumstances for a person to behave in a manner that was originally >condemned as improper behavior. A judges B, A's behavior is abominable, >but B in turn judging A is OK? What is not evident here is whether or not >A was justified and B was not. Or whether B's behavior in any case is just >as abominable as A's. This is one of the arguments of the anti-capital >punishment groups. They feel that under no circumstances should a murderer >be murdered in turn by a legal system. They feel murder by any other name >is still murder, no ifs, ands, or buts or buts about it. > >Bottom line here is that your argument is by no means a cut and dry issue. >The ends do not always justify the means. NO! NO! NO! (sorry about that). This is just one of the larger problems that moral philosophers have in getting their point across. What you are claiming is that it is possible to look at events from any point-in-time and judge. This is not usually what is believed at all. If A kills B, according to this theory, then it is murder because that is what murder is. I don't buy it, and I don't know very many moral philosophers who do. If A kills B in self-defense, then it is *not* murder, simply because B, in threatening A with death has stepped outside of the ``normal'' condition and all moral judgements of A's actions will have to consider that A now has *less freedom of action* than before. In the above example, suppose B robs A's grocery store and threatens A. A fears for his life but manages to shoot B. Assume that nothing (like starvation) forced B to rob A. Then B had a wide variety of choices which he could have made and he chose to rob and threaten A. This action is immoral. A, however, had many fewer options - in fact, A believed that his only options were to shoot B or to die. Given this, most moral philosophers (and me) would call A's actions moral. Note that if A had always harbored a grudge against B and decided to kill B, not because A felt threatened, but because he wanted to get away with it, my moral judgement would be different. Also, if after killing B, A proceeded to rob him of his (B's) wallet, then I would judge A to be guilty of robbery, since A is not constrained to do this. Discussions of morality are a lot of fun. But please remember that few people think that you can view events in isolation of prior events and come up with meaningful moral judgements. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (10/09/85)
In article <583@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>, tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: > > In general, someone who has not abided by a moral principle has forfeited > any right to protection under that principle. For instance, if someone is > trying to kill someone else, then it is moral to kill them, because they > have no right to object. Morality is exclusive of double standards. The > person who commits an offense against another and then whines piteously when > the same is done to her or him is trying to have it both ways. Great, but this makes all morality relative to the people involved. If someone else breaks the rules, than I'm no longer bound by those same rules, but what about the possibility of a rule structure such that even if others break them, you are still bound by them? E.g. If I call you a name, you might choose not to respond back in the same manner, even though you feel you have the right. Forgive me for paraphrasing Laura's comments on our discussion, but one point she made was that much depends on the constraints placed on the people involved you which 'forced' you to insult that person back (forgive me for calling whoever it was 'that person', but I've forgotten just who it was). If you have a completely free range of actions and you choose to break a rule someone else broke, I would have to wonder why and about the sincerity with which you held the belief in the first place. If the idea is to keep dis- cussions civil and coherant, then even if you weren't the instigator, by your reaction you've almost guaranteed no further chance of a civil and coherant discussion by taking an action you claim is immoral in the first place and that does not 'need' to be taken. One point that might clarify a little bit of my position is the question of how one feels people are to be changed (or to put in more legal/psychological terms; how non/anti-social behavior can be corrected). In some cases, aside from the issue of the best way to change people, some 'crimes' are so anti- social that not only does the person need to be changed, but they also need to be prevented from committing the same crime again. But in a situation like someone calling someone else a name, what is the rationale or the advantage to responding in the manner you claim to dislike. Simply because this other person did it to you? This is where the whole Biblical idea of turning the other cheek comes in. Christ's ideas on how to change people were summed up not only in his teachings about morality (one does occasionally need to tell people what is right and what is wrong) but more often, they were exemplified in a life-style that was a model. And not in a model that showed an eye for an eye, a model that always showed the good so that if modelling was to take place, that's all there'd be to model. The other major consideration that I should hit on here is your idea of not judging people. Simply, the Bible says that we can reprimand our brothers (sorry I can't remember the refernce for this), we can discipline our brothers but the Bible makes one point clearly, the basis for all judge- ment is spiritual and any judgement that is made must be made on spiritual criteria, by spiritual people. The Bible says that we should submit our selves to the governments, but in I Corinthians 6:4-7 Paul tries to make clear the distinction, "If then you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. ... But brother goes to law with brother and that before unbelievers? Actually, then it is already a defeat for you, that you have law-suits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?" We submit to the government, obey its sanctions, but we do not have to and we should not deal with morality on its terms. The whole basis for turning the other cheek is given by Paul near the end of Romans 12, "If possible, so far as it depends upon you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, says the Lord'. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him an if he is thirsty, give him drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good." The simple idea is that this world and the people in it are God's to judge. We should try as much as possible to be at peace with all men and leave the punishments up to God. And as for your comment about looking good on paper, how did it look in the life of Christ? Rick Frey "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'" John 1:29
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (10/17/85)
Dave, I never said that you NEVER suffered, but certainly you have said time and again that your suffering was miniscule, when in fact you have suffered the loss of your house. (Among what other things, pray tell?) I excerpt from your own article oakhill.531: > It's difficult answering because it's not clear what you mean by "anti-nature > work against [me]". I gave examples of negative things in my life (boring > work tasks etc.) but are you referring to these or much worse things like > losing a leg or having a medical problem for the rest of a lifetime? When you were asked for negative things in your life, all you could come up with (at the time) were ``boring work tasks, etc.'' Yet when you were pressed for it you managed to come up with the destruction of your house. How did that just slip your mind? You are certainly deliberately ignoring God's evil for your own purposes. (and His?) Earlier, in oakhill.509, you said that you've ``had a really great time most all of [your] life.'' I asked you about the double standard of asking one question (``If God's so powerful why doesn't He hurt me?'') and ignoring the converse question (``If God's so powerful (and good) why does He allow evil to exist?'') that should be asked of the God whorshipers. You responded, with a closing paragraph in a response to me. But where are your responses directly to those who make converse claims about God to those I make? That is your double standard. What I find extremely ironic is your own ironic tone in response to things I say. When I show evidence in favor of the concept that our liking sugary foods like ice cream is in fact the work of God, you respond by saying ``Next, you will probably claim that enjoying sex is one of D-God's ploys.'' Well? Why not? What is so implausible about that? Is it any less plausible than the claims of Christians that Satan is responsible for those very same sorts of things? The only difference between my view and theirs (in essence, and it's a big difference) is that they believe that God is good and Satan is some separate ``evil'' entity, while I believe that God and Satan are one and the same. If my views are so implausible, what does that make of Christian views? It seems that anything I say, you will laugh at, responding with ``Next, you'll claim that ...'' and jokingly refer to something else that God has infected us with. You say ``It's obvious that you can't acknowlege anything that's good. If you can turn something as harmless and enjoyable as ice cream into a trick by Damager-God I guess you could just as easily disavow me having a very pleasant life.'' I could just as easily say that it is you who refuses to acknowledge evil when it stares you in the face. You can turn something as horrifying as the destruction of your home into a nothing experience, thus enabling you to ignore God's evil. It didn't have to have happened, Dave. Why accept it at all? It's not worth ignoring or accepting. I said ``It seems that for any proof I offer, you would say [I] can't include that.'' And you responded by saying ``Is this your excuse for not offering any proof? You claim you know what I'll say?'' But you DID say that! You told me specifically not to include certain kinds of proof because you wouldn't accept them. In oakhill.539, you say: > >Certainly He interferes in the lives of millions of people every day. > Some examples please. Don't say hurricanes and the like. I mean something > that you can really prove that God was behind. If there are personal things > that happened to you all the better. You don't seem to want to talk about > your personal life. Any reason? I have spoken many times about my personal life in this forum. But why should that make a difference to my arguments? You said ``Isn't it obvious that a mis-fired missile would be construed to be man's fault and not God's? And doesn't World War III come under your definition of the most awesome possible devastation?'' But you forget that we're not just talking about any possible scenario for Armageddon. We're talking about THE ultimate most destructive scenario. Any misfired missile just won't do to placate the whims of a God who wants to see the violent destruction possible. Imagine the level of world destruction where the two opposing sides survive enough to continue the battle, to build more weapons and pollute the world with more radiation, demented world leaders sitting in their mountain lairs pressing buttons like scavengers, creative perpetual destruction, hell on earth. Does that sound ominously frightening? And I'm just me, can you imagine what sort of destruction God Himself can compound that with in His own scenario that may be beyond our imagination? > The only conclusion I can come to is that you don't want to listen to anything > that may weaken your thesis. Could this statement perhaps apply to you, in your zeal to avoid and ignore the consequences of the nature of God as I have described? Be well (please?), -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
wildstar@nmtvax.UUCP (10/18/85)
Dear Paul, Dave, and others concerned:
Probably none of you are asking for my two cents about things. I only
have some opinions:
The main difference between the positions of Paul and Dave are as follows:
The two positions arise from acceptance from different sets of tautologies.
First set:
Paul probably believes in the rules of logic ( which is the cornerstone of
rational thought, scientific method, rules of evidence, rules of law, and
anything else that can be predicted, measured, and extrapolated by
precedent ). Belief in these laws dictates the choice of cosmos that he sees,
in where humanity is basically altruistic and that if there is evil in the
world, it must arise from an alien influence.
( Alternate hypothesis - there
may be some humans who wished to perpetuate thier power by creating history
and religion. An anthropomorphic deity would naturally follow anthropomorphic
thought, and the only source of such though would have to be humans, these
being the only species available to my limited knowledge. )
It is probably also Paul's experience that there are tendencies of humans
to behave along certain lines, with free will being accepted as a given
to allow of modifications of behavior.
Second set:
Dave has an entirely different set of beliefs, none of which require any
support from the rules I spoke of, since these are ( according to David's
position) of humanity's contruction. Neither Dave nor the deity that Dave
percieves requires any need for nor use of abstract reasoning, linear thought,
or Aristotelian logic, since by this position the Bible is defined to
be a tautology. Dave must believe that humanity is basically evil, and that
there is nothing that humanity may do about it. The deity that Dave believes
in requires that humans must be perfect while living otherwise they must
suffer in anguishing pain ( i.e. stuck in the middle of a supernova and left
to fry ) for zillions of years. Humanity is defined to be utterly incapable
even of avoiding this fate, that the answer lies in "amazing grace" that is
granted by the deity by virtue of unwavering belief.
Conclusions:
I cannot possibly pretend to justify one set of tautologies over the other.
Boths sets may be equally valid or equally invalid, but it is not my place
to endorse one or the other. I can only claim that they are both religions.
A religion is defined as a set of beliefs in action that are based on
statements that may not be questioned. Paul's set may not be questioned
since he uses sets of axioms that are basic, self consistent, and consistent
will all other logical observations that use the axioms as thier base.
Dave's set may not be questioned since according to him the axioms are in
the Bible and are not located anywhere else.
Therefore I suggest that the arguement between the two of you is a useless
one, since those who agree with Paul will do as they please, and Dave cannot
gain any less converts with the statements he endorses.
As for myself, I consider myself a strict agnostic. I am open to the
possibility of supernatural events, but I have even less capability than
most other humans to perceive them. In other words, I am as Dave would
say "spiritually blind", so I have to use "moral calculus" so I can
"fly on instruments". I know the good is and what bad is, and I choose
to do good to the best of my ability. I do not waste words on vacuous
allegiences to flags, princes, principalies, scriptures, or catechisms.
I just see the difference and act accordingly. If some God chooses to
punish me because I am inherently not capable of belief, so be it.
I will do as much good as I can on the way down, in the way that I see
fit, since I do not have a communications link with God, direct or
otherwise.
As for the swearing in court argument that has been going on, I submit to
you that use of a higher power, or even use of ones own authority, is
not appropriate for declared actions of infinite scope and time, ie. oaths.
That is why I hardly ever promise anyone anything, no matter how much pressure
is placed, since I cannot guarantee the results. There have been at most
two oaths I have made, and they are both limitations on my behavior. The
effect of an oath, by my set of tautologies, is to place a major compulsion
on my personality and thinking capabilities and other production rules, so
as to reduce my own abilities to the point where I am not capable of performing
the actions I swore against. Therefore, any oath I swear cannot be broken since
I have lost the power to break it the moment it takes effect, which is
immediate. Therefore, I never swear an oath that I know I could not fulfill
at all points in time for all circumstances. The oaths currently in effect
upon myself have never been broken, and I have a very good memory about this
sort of thing.
Sorry to take up so much of your valuable time by mere opinions and
unsubstantiated experience.
Andrew Fine