Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Annotating Annotated Annotators Message-ID: <438@opus.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-May-84 21:25:43 EDT Article-I.D.: opus.438 Posted: Wed May 2 21:25:43 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 4-May-84 04:46:55 EDT References: <1052@qubix.UUCP> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 73 <> Another round on Ann. Humanist. From Bickford: >...the HM declaration removes all restrictions on forms of pleasure - even >those that would be disgusting by *others'* standards. It doesn't remove all restrictions. It doesn't give a basis for determining relative disgust, as far as I can see, but you're right; it doesn't restrict based on other's disgust. [Consider: I think it's disgusting that some people use a perfectly beautiful Sunday morning to put on uncomfortable dress clothes and sit indoors, surrounded by man-made artifacts and isolated from the natural universe, to listen to someone tell them why God is wonderful...] >...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... This was aimed at Rosen, but I'll take a shot at answering: I'm not sure I have all the facts for my rational decisions. In fact, I'm sure I don't. (It would be irrational to think I have all the facts:-) So I do the rational thing and decide based on what I know. If God knows more, he isn't telling me (oops, there go the flames!), so I'll just have to muddle along as best I can... >As for "the big lie again: against free enterprise, for communism, ...", Bickford's justification (longish for me to repeat; see parent article) is based on the idea in the humanist document that "acquisitive, profit-motivated society" hasn't made it and that a "socialized and cooperative economic order" is needed. Gee, I thought the Christians would have wanted something other than profit as the motive; I guess not. I'm also saddened that cooperation is not a good idea. Seriously, I think Larry has confused the objections to the current structure (it ain't very fair, and we made it unfair) and a characterization of the desired correction (something a little more fair) with the means for obtaining it. He has certainly taken a giant leap from the implication of socialism in the Humanist doc to an implication of communism. He also doesn't seem to see the significance of: > The goal of humanism is a free and > universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently > cooperate for the common good... >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. Straw-man tactics again. I know of NO responsible scientist who claims that evolution is fact. That's just absolute bullshit. It is a collection of theories; a model in some sense, of the origin of species. It is under constant analysis and revision - if it were fact, it wouldn't need revision. (Would it?) COME ON, Larry - you know better than this. >I am not opposed to freedom or a workable democracy...But freedom >without protection is anarchy; I would rather have a totalitarian system >(even if I were in the minority) than that. This would be an interesting topic for a cross-discussion between net. religion and politics. (I.e., how do people feel about anarchy vs. totalitarianism, and what does this have to do with their religious beliefs?) I'd buy anarchy over totalitarianism because I suspect that a chaotic situation is easier to deal with than an organized attempt to do me in. It's an interesting opinion to express via the anarchic net... >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. Larry, you haven't even begun to see it for what it is. You saw it for what you want it to be so you can hate it. You have proclaimed the danger in (among other things) freedom, justice, and peace. -- ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew. Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086