Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re (part 2): Blast from the past
Message-ID: <702@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 17:53:06 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.702
Posted: Fri Feb  1 17:53:06 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Feb-85 04:49:17 EST
References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 94

Part 2 of my response to the long article recently posted by Pesmard
Flurrmn (formerly known as Rich Rosen) to net.religion and
net.religion.christian (418@pyuxd.UUCP).

Subtopic: Does "religionism" have a low opinion of humanity?

> >>It would seem that a fundamental principle of religionism (the
> >>belief in the desire or need for a religion, esp. for all people)
> >>is a low opinion of humanity.

> >There is historical justification for a low opinion of humanity, is there
> >not?  Rhetorical gibberish to the contrary notwithstanding, Adolf Hitler,
> >Josef Stalin, etc. etc. were quite human.  Humanity is so low, it has
> >even produced religionists :-).

> This rather clearly puts the religionist point of view in perspective.
> People stink.  We are all scum.  Take a look at Hitler and Stalin and
> see why.  It's rather easy to see that garys has a very low opinion of
> people in general.  Why does he bother to associate with scum like us?

Because I am neither lower, nor higher, than anyone else.  There is,
of course, the other side, which I am glad (really!) that you pointed
out (I could wish you could have pointed it out less sarcastically,
but one can't have everything).  Humanity's ability to make moral
choices provides the opportunity to be either the worst possible
creature or the best possible creature (most of us fall somewhere
in between, of course).

But your opinion of humanity is no higher than you assume mine to
be.  Your most important criterion for measuring the worth of an
individual is clearly (from the wealth of material you have written
on the subject) rationality, and you have said yourself that most
people are not rational.  Therefore, you are actually in agreement
that most people stand in need of improvement.  Your cure-all is
rationality, and rationality only.  I recommend rationality and
Christianity (the "love your neighbor as yourself" kind).  Now, I
know that you don't think rationality and Christianity (of any
kind) are compatible, and that you don't think that anybody really
practices the "love your neighbor as yourself" kind of Christianity
(and since someone is bound to say it, I am not claiming that the
precept to love your neighbor as yourself originated with Christ),
but I frankly don't care what you think when you're wrong.

> Apparently, only those who have been saved (lured) by religionism
> (specifically fundamentalist religionism) are worthy human beings
> because they admit that they are scum and pray to god for forgiveness.
> I won't even bother to dignify your statement by giving counterexamples,
> but note that a large number of such counterexamples are of the
> non-religious variety.

You might be surprised at how many of the people you doubt have in
mind are, or were, religious people (hard to say, since you aren't
going to dignify my statement with real names); I know I have been
surprised at the number of highly esteemed people that turned out
to be religious; not every one makes a big show of it, is all.

> Human beings are a product of the environment they live in...

Here is another of your famous assumptions (which I reject); that
environment is sufficient to explain character.  There is also the
matter of heredity, and free choice.  To a large extent, each person
decides what sort of individual to become.  I know that you don't
believe in free will, either (another of your assumptions which
I reject), but I can't help that.

> ...and those like Hitler and Falwell thrive in societies
> where there is fear and terror of authority, usually promoted by
> religionists.  They often use the religionists and their followers
> as the base for their power.

Hitler used anything he could, whether it was religion, or fear
of religion, or unrelated to religion.  That doesn't make anyone
else but Hitler repsonsible.  

> [DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?  PAUL DUBUC AND I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN HAVING THIS
>  SAME ARGUMENT!  STILL, RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS ASSOCIATE ANYTHING NON-RELIGION
>  WITH THE WORST EXAMPLES OF NON-RELIGION.

And you associate anything religious with the worst examples of religion.

Paul has made the claim that MOST atrocities in the history of the
world have been committed by non-religious people.  I haven't seen
you try to disprove that claim.

>  "ALL SYSTEMS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE RELIGION ARE EQUATED WITH HITLER
>  AND STALIN---THE VERY SAME EXAMPLES USED BY PAUL DUBUC.

So we mentioned the same examples -- so what?  You use the examples
of the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials repeatedly.  Are you
afraid that if you use an example too often, it will wear out?

>  YES, THIS IS ANOTHER SOMEWHAT "NASTY" PART.  THE CONTEMPT FOR
>  FUNDAMENTALIST RELIGIONISM RUNS DEEP HERE.  PERHAPS DUE TO THE INTRANSIGENT
>  NATURE OF GARY'S REPLIES.  OR PERHAPS DUE TO MY OWN PREJUDICES. ]