Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Open Letter to John Crane Message-ID: <6433@unc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 17-Dec-83 19:57:21 EST Article-I.D.: unc.6433 Posted: Sat Dec 17 19:57:21 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Dec-83 23:47:30 EST References: <269@bunkerb.UUCP> Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 121 [ prologue -- It is perhaps inappropriate to respond to vicious insults and lies, because of the danger of sinking to that level yourself, and the fact that anyone who believes them is too far gone to be reached by reason. However, it is also very difficult simply to ignore them, and there is certainly no moral obligation to be kind to the person who spreads them. I have chosen to respond to Mr. Samuelson's idiocy; if you feel that this is unseemly, no one is forcing you to read this. ] Before you go thanking Mr. Samuelson for leaping to your defense, there is something that you should know about him. He lies, or else is so uncritical of his own beliefs that the effect is the same. In his first article on net.religion, he said that Christians were discriminated against in the job market if they don't lie and cheat "like everyone else". He later said that he had not said and did not believe that all non-Christians were immoral. "Everyone" means "everyone", guy, and claiming not to be prejudiced, when you have made it clear that you are, is foolish. This sort of lying denial that one is advocating something hateful to someone else is characteristic of a lot of Christian preachers, especially (but not limited to) Falwell. There is Mr. Samuelson's form, in which one flatly denies it post facto, and there is another popular form in which one says "I wouldn't say that , but ..." where the rest is composed of statements that try to support the insult. If you watch much Christian TV, you've no doubt seen a lot of this. I am not such a hypocrite. If I have something critical to say, I do not cover it with that sort of deceit. He also lied in the article to which I am responding. Check out this quote: I don't think you need trouble yourself about Mr. Maroney's criticism. You may not have been reading this group at the time, but a few months ago he did post an article on his religion, Thelemism. It turns out that Thelemism is based on as fanciful a story as can be found in some (not all) comic books. I have never said that Thelemism was based on any story. It is based on the model of experience as the union of Nuit and Hadit, and on the Will-based moral system, as expressed in Liber AL. I honestly do not know to what statements of mine Mr. Samuelson is referring, but I do wish he would get his facts straight before spreading accusations. It further turns out that Mr. Maroney doesn't feel that it is important whether the story on which his religion is based is true. Not only so, but he stated in another article that even if he were to be convinced that another religion (Christianity) were true, he wouldn't change. So much for being 'open-minded' and 'rational'. Once again, no, I never said that. In fact, I don't understand what you mean by a religion being "true". What I said was that if the Bible were shown to be accurate, I would certainly not become a Jew or Christian, because the god depicted in that book is less moral than a Nazi. It is simply not within my personal moral standards to follow any leader that orders torture and wanton slaughter, and it doesn't matter to me whether that leader is human or divine. If this seems somehow close-minded or irrational to you, I am at a loss to understand how. In fact, he stated that religion was a personal thing, and therefore not subject to proof. Well, he is certainly welcome to that opinion, but if that is his real opinion, I don't think he ought to criticize anybody else's religion (or philosophy or any other beliefs or opinions). Bosh. The fact that a belief cannot be proven or disproven does not mean that nothing meaningful can be said about it. A person's opinions are subject to reasonable scrutiny even if they are not things which can be proven. For instance, suppose I were to espouse the belief that large orange men from Saturn are tapping my consciousness and forcing me to kill people. That assertion could be neither proven nor disproven, but it would most certainly NOT be a healthy belief. Also, the reason that I feel proof is not particularly relevant to religion is not because it is a "personal thing", but because religion serves to put forth models, not assertions. Obviously, some religions do not hold to this principle, but that is off the point. Here is probably the most amusing thing that Mr. Samuelson said: Mr. Maroney is quite adept at using terms which carry strong negative connotations. Uh-huh. Of course, Mr. Samuelson would never dream of using such terms. Here is a sample of his presumably non-negative connotations, from this article: I realize you do not need me to defend you against attacks by the likes of Tim Maroney, but I dislike seeing anybody treated the way he likes to treat people. I am glad to hear that, Gary, because otherwise I would have thought that your article was much more hostile than mine. Now that you assure me that your rabid insulting is not treating me poorly, I realize what a compassionate, kind, and gentle person you truly are. One final point, and then I'll hang it up. Mr. Samuelson goes on to say: He is also fairly adept at spotting faulty logic and inconsistencies in other people's arguments. One could wish that he would use that adeptness on his own arguments, or to discover or disseminate truth or enlightened opinion. Ah well. That really hurts, because I make every effort to do just what you claim I do not. I have many times gone through a process of re-evaluation of my own beliefs and feelings. The first major one was at 12, when I was forced to abandon Christianity (a very painful process) due to lack of evidence for its many absolutist assertions. I have since revised my own beliefs many times due to perceived flaws in them, most lately on gun control. My current feelings on psychic powers are not my original feelings, but I saw the fallacy there and was forced to give up those dreams. This is not an easy thing to do, but it has to be done for the sake of honesty to self. I suggest that instead of insinuating that my arguments are flawed, you attempt to show how. I would be interested in hearing Mr. Samuelson's definition of "truth and enlightened opinion", although I am willing to bet money that it has something to do with compatibility with a certain book of religious and historical writings.... -- Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)