Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!lab From: lab@qubix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Annotated Humanist (Bottom of the 4th Inning) Message-ID: <1116@qubix.UUCP> Date: Sat, 19-May-84 03:30:17 EDT Article-I.D.: qubix.1116 Posted: Sat May 19 03:30:17 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 20-May-84 00:37:04 EDT References: <1095@qubix.UUCP> <665@pyuxn.UUCP> Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA Lines: 135 [Is this line subjective or objective?] No, Rich, my beliefs are not "fundamentally different from those of rational thinking people" - just one of them. To wit: RR makes the implicit assumption of evolution in virtually all his arguments, especially noting his trying to explain a lot of human irrational behavior on our "animal stuff," and that "our potential to use our brains in a rational fashion ... has evolved over the eons." Rich apparently misinterpreted my reply to Yosi Hoshen. I was not referring to burnt offerings on the net; rather, to religions which still exist which physically burn people as sacrifice offerings. >RR: And your beliefs, especially those that tolerance is impossible and > that moral code exist necessarily at the expense of others, are JUST > beliefs, despite your insistence that they are...words from god. Wrong again. Such beliefs are based solely on LOGIC, irrespective of any particular religion. RationalISM has been trying to conform various religions which are incompatible with it into subsets of it (see companion article differentiating between "different views of God" and "views of different Gods"). I am also puzzled by the logical comparison of RR's statements, taken from the same article: > Rationalism's "circularity" begins with certain postulates that Larry > would probably agree to ... vs. > There ARE no absolute standards. All these things, like good and evil, > are evolved precepts from human minds. Logically, the postulates ARE the absolute standards. In fact, to "evolve better and more humane ways of organizing society for everyone's benefit," you need to have some sort of standard of "everyone's benefit." And if you say there is none because it can change, I'll ask for the underlying standard by which one change is considered good rather than bad. >> 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." >What are we guilty of? Take a look at modern psychology: people blaming their actions and behavior on their heritage, their environment - everything but themselves. Rich's example of teaching rationality (showing a 2-year-old the size of a truck so he won't go out into the street by himself) flies in the face of reality (consumes 47 times its weight in religion). You could demonstrate the rational truth of something (e.g., cancer-causing agents) to people, but will they do the rational thing (e.g., quit smoking)? Even though they KNOW the reason why not to, people will STILL do. (BTW, have your ever tried to explain to a kid why he can't have anywhere close to the number of Christmas presents he usually asks for?) > ...all human beings in this world are as different as they are the same. I think Kor answered this best when he told Kirk "I'm not referring to minor ideological differences. I mean as a species." I once walked the path where Rich walks; it took a power beyond me to leave that path. I doubt Rich has ever walked where I now walk. > Larry will continue to speak in platitudes about what is wrong with > humanism, and he will misquote people to ensure that it is made to look > bad, but I feel sure that he will fail to produce anything of substance. They won't be platitudes as long as humanism puts on its various masks. And I challenge the author to produce evidence of the misquotes. As for substance, I have posted such in the past, but certain [unnamed] individuals replied with flames to avoid any real discussion of them. My survey on Rights is just about complete (with no reply from pyuxn). The "should" in "the desire and ability to do what you should" doesn't depend on "Larry's Laws." They can apply almost anywhere, even in the workplace. "Doing what I should" means getting my assigned tasks done, helping others as best I can, etc. It is *not* trying to take a place that isn't mine. It's the secret of "freedom under authority," which so many chafe at because they don't like the idea of ANYONE having authority over them, or that they know better than those who are over them. I guess it's because they don't have a God to look out for them... As for me, I work to make those over me successful, which is *much* more rational than it appears at first glance. >> Humanist justice >> keeps the criminals on the streets and people behind barred windows. > WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Take a look at the world around you! Murderers are back on the streets in 7 years. Many robbers and rapists never go to prison (usually off on some technicality). People are afraid to testify because of probable vengeance against them. Gangs roam freely, and woe to you if you trespass in their territory. Sales of security measures are on the increase. One final point that I will attribute to a lack of clarity on my part: >> Humanistic peace is accomplished through total domination (their >> "universal society"; let's hear it for local control) Note the LACK of a smiley. That last point was NOT sarcasm. I am strongly in favor of local control, starting with the family unit. Not surprisingly, the family unit is one of the first things targeted for change by the humanists. The "universal society" would eliminate "regionalistic and nationalistic groupings" as well. More rationalist illogic: > People should have the freedom to believe what they like (no matter > how irrational). But the "freedom" to impose such a belief system on > others is not a freedom at all ... Net.try.your.logic.again. By what standard do you say that it is not a "freedom"? It may be an illogical freedom, but RR has just said people can have irrational beliefs. Obviously, "freedom" isn't. More rationalist meets rationalist: > ... as with any societal construct that puts the society at large in a > higher position that that of each individual ... vs. > [RR] will point out again, that a society that makes the claim that > the individual exists to serve the continued proliferation of the > society, instead of the society existing as a means for individuals to > have as full a life as possible without treading on the rights of other > individuals, is not a viable society at all ... So who's on top, society or individuals? BTW, we're getting back to the question of "rights" again, and there WILL be treading on other people's rights, like it or not, as long as man's basic nature remains unchanged. >What proof do you have for anyone that that divine authority and the >agonizing afterlife are anything more than figments of your imagination? Neither fire from heaven nor the dead coming back to life would convince a rationalist. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA