Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Annotating Annotated Annotators (the annotated version) Message-ID: <616@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-May-84 16:40:32 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.616 Posted: Tue May 1 16:40:32 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 2-May-84 06:14:48 EDT References: <1052@qubix.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 81 > [Side note: God has been getting a lot of bad press as being a killjoy, > someone who deprives us of the "right" to enjoy certain pleasures. Since > Rich constantly harps about rationality, permit me to ask: how are you > so sure you have all the facts for your "rational" decision? God knows a > lot of things you aren't able to understand, even as you know things that > 3-year-old doesn't.] [BICKFORD] God hasn't gotten ANY bad press in this newsgroup. Proposals about god's existence and nature have gotten a lot of bad press, and with good reason: none of these proposals are backed up with any supporting evidence, yet they are claimed as the one true way. God hasn't been accused of denying anyone any rights. Certain views on what god has said (?) have decided a priori (again without reasonable reason) that god's word (as written by human beings in a book) would deny us those rights. Yes, many have said "if god is as described in xxx, he is hideous" (to which religionists reply "how can you make value judgments about something I have defined as pure good?"). But this all assumes the truth of what you proclaim, which even those who say "even if" (and those who say "NEE!!") will not do. Larry asks if I have all the facts? Does he? Does he have more facts than you or I have? Or does he say "I can never have all the facts, so I'll make my decisions based on no facts."? > More opus!rcd: > >Anyone who has retained a sixth-grade knowledge of even basic science > >knows that science neither has, nor claims to have, all the answers. > > They sure seem pretty settled on evolution as a FACT. Not quite as sure as Larry is about the "facts" in the Bible... > Reality consumes 47 times its weight in religion, and it has taught me > two things: > Left to their own, people will do mischief. Witness Montreal when > the city police went on strike. > There is often a connection between actions and thoughts today and > those several years down the road - but this is only brought up > when man wants to escape his own guilt. People do mischief precisely because human beings are not raised in a rational fashion. They are raised in fear of parents, god, authority, with little or no knowledge of how society functions, what an individual person's role in society is, or why anyone is "supposed" to do anything. (It's in the book. And in the foreword.) A person's "own guilt" is based only on a "judgment" by your internal court. > But freedom without protection is anarchy; I would rather have a totalitarian > system (even if I were in the minority) than that. It's spring. The religionists are all blossoming in their true colors. > Ken Almquist dealt with some other points: > >...humanism does not believe ... that future happiness is incompatible > >with present happiness. > No, it just tries to evade reality's second lesson. Which is? > It is said I have shown my true colors. Rather, more like Romans 7:7-14 > - I had to show someone else's colors. The "libelous venomous lies" that > Rich talks about must be those he sees in the mirror (yes, Rich, I > *have* looked in one recently). Humanism uses a lot of language that > sounds fine - until someone comes along and sees it for what it is. And > if I see danger, it is no less cruel to proclaim the danger than it is > to tell you that your house is burning down. When I look in the mirror, I see me, not you, Larry. (Maybe Larry assumes that we all see him in the mirror.) As far seeing humanism for "what it is", all you have provided to improve people's vision are the aforementioned lies---no facts, no truths, just biased flaming opinions about what a rational (some would say humanist) world would be like. Many of the problems of human behavior are precisely the result of counterproductive child-rearing (and adult-rearing) techniques that emphasize "do it or else" (the only thing that Larry and others who "worry" about a world of "unchecked" humans seem to understand) instead of rational thought. I won't put all the blame for that on religion, though; in fact, the way science is taught in some schools does not reflect the true nature of science but rather that same dogmatic style of non-thought I have described. (Maybe that's how Larry learned science. It would explain a lot of his preconceptions.) Finally, about your need to proclaim danger, remember that it is illegal to yell "theatre" in a crowded fire. (You get the idea...) -- "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr