Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Bickford on Maroney
Message-ID: <212@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Oct-84 13:17:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.212
Posted: Tue Oct 23 13:17:04 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Oct-84 04:15:04 EDT
References: <239@qantel.UUCP> <1094@ihuxm.UUCP> <243@qantel.UUCP> <1453@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 47

> Tim had posted his massive missive a couple of times before, each time
> more illogical than before.

How could the same article be more illogical on successive readings/postings?
Perhaps the reader becomes more intransigent each time he/she sees flaws in
his/her logic.

> Another netter and I each showed the
> incredible illogic and implicit assumptions of the arguments.

No you didn't.  Rather, the non-religionists have been showing the
incredible illogic and implicit assumptions of religionist arguments.
Simply saying that you did so doesn't hold much water:  every religionist
tract has been met with significant rebuttal showing the flaws in religionist
argument.  Usually, the conversation continues until the religionist side
complains about being attacked (i.e., they've run out of answers) and/or
silently withdraws.  (This is a typical tactic of those who wish to manipulate
people's minds:  say that you've answered the question already, boldly and
directly, assuming that people will believe and not bother to look to see that
you hadn't answered it at all!  I invite people to read my articles in followup
of Ken Nichols' extended tract, for direct evidence of the character of my
rebuttal.  What has Larry invited you to read?)

> Rather than reposting the entire rebuttal, I think I am safe by
> classifying it along with:
> 	Charles Lyell (whose _Principles of Geology had *the* major
> 		influence on Charles Darwin)
> 	Aldous Huxley (_Brave New World_ et al.)
> 	Bertrand Russell (as Charley Wingate has pointed out so well)

I'm not familiar with Lyell, but I'd say Tim owes you a hearty "thank you
very much" for your association of his work with the other two.  (By the way,
Charlie Wingate didn't point out anything "well" in relation to Russell.
Why do I feel like I'm watching a Republican television commercial when I
listen to Larry?)

> They all wanted intellectual reasons to excuse their morals.

I never knew their morals needed "excusing" (except to religionists, of
course, who use morals [arbitrarily chosen to coincide with what they choose
to believe their god has decreed] to excuse their lack of intellectual reason.)
Sorry for the tone, but I get deeply offended when I hear people making
proclamations like "I've already answered that question" in a manipulative
attempt to snow people.
-- 
AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU.
						Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr