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 4): Blast from the past
Message-ID: <704@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 17:54:42 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.704
Posted: Fri Feb  1 17:54:42 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Feb-85 04:49:52 EST
References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 161

Part 4 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).

> >>This is one reason why the notion of "humanism" is so frightening
> >>to religionists; it promotes the idea of humans being in charge of
> >>their own destiny, as far as their bodies and minds can take them,
> >>and not subject to the whims of an incorporeal entity.  (The other
> >>reason that religionists fear humanism is that such a belief, if
> >>widely held, would shake their power base out from under them.)

> >This sort of nonsense... Let me use the same form of argument:
> >"One reason why the notion of "religionism" is so frightening to humanists
> >is that it promotes the idea of human beings being held responsible for
> >their own actions, and accountable to a higher authority, rather than free
> >to indulge their every whim, no matter what the consequences to others.
> >(The other reason that humanists fear religion is that such a belief, if
> >widely held, would shake their power base out from under them)."

> Apparently there is something "nonsensical" about what I said regarding
> why religionists fear humanism.  I hope that someday garys will tell me
> what that is.

If you use a particular argument to demonstrate one conclusion, and I
use the same paradigm to demonstrate a contradictory conclusion, then
I submit that the paradigm itself is the problem.  This technique is
used quite frequently on the net.

But to keep it simple, the first thing nonsensical is the claim that
religionists fear humanism; do you claim that disagreeing with
a position is tantamount to fearing it.

Second, according to your own statements, we are not in charge of
our own destiny, we are shaped by our environment, subject to
the accident of birth, and the randomness of nature.

Third, the term "whim" is a loaded term, denying implicitly that
God cares about us, and has given us commands to teach us how we
can best use our time on earth.

Fourth, there is nothing especially fine about being corporeal,
but you imply that an incorporeal being is less competent to
judge right and wrong than a corporeal being.  The corporeal
being will cease to exist in an insignificant amount of time,
compared to the age of the universe; the incorporeal is eternal.
The corporeal being is limited by physical constraints; the
incorporeal is not so limited.  And the corporeal being was
created by the incorporeal, which suggests that the incorporeal
knows more about the corporeal than vice versa.

> I will now (hopefully) clearly delineate why I think *his*
> analogy is nonsensical.

Surprise!  I already knew that my argument was nonsensical;
it follows immediately from the fact that I patterned it
after yours.

> (Watch here, garys, how I make specific points about each issue
> and corroborate. You might learn something.) [NASTY!]

> (1) Religionism does not promote the idea of human beings being held
> responsible for their actions; it teaches that they MUST adhere to a
> written code that they had no say in, or face eternal damnation; how is
> that responsible?; the tenets of humanism state that human beings
> determine their own moral code, and that it adhere to the concept that
> one person's rights end when imposition an another begins.

Ok, I see the specific point; where's the corroboration?

How does religion promote responsiblity? As follows:
If I were to put you in charge of something which belonged to me,
I would require that you take good care of it (the concept of
stewardship).  When I decided to claim it back, if it was not in
good shape, I would hold you responsible, and you would face some
kind of consequences as a result of your responsibility.  Likewise,
we do not own this world, or each other, or even our own lives;
we are merely stewards of all these things.  If we do not properly
care for them, according to the desires of the true owner, then
we will be held accountable (responsible).

The difference between religionist concepts of morals and
humanist concepts of morals:
You mention that the religionists have a written code;
surely you are not complaining about the fact that the religionist
position is written; the tenets of humanism are also recorded on
durable material.  Then you mention the fact that you had no say
in the formulation of the religionist position; but you can't be
complaining about the fact that you didn't invent the religionist
position; I daresay you didn't invent the humanist position,
either.  Besides, why is authorship relevant?  I thought you
denied the validity of appeals to authority.  Then you say that
the humanist position states that each of us develops a personal
moral code, and go on to state what that code is which each of
us should develop (that we have rights, and that we shouldn't
infringe on others's rights).  Determining what those rights
are and at what point you begin infringing on mine is hardly
trivial.

> (2) Yes, humanists fail to see the need for people to be accountable
> to any extraspecial (ex-tra-spee'-shee-al:  a made-up word meaning
> outside of the species) entity; why do you feel that there is such
> a need?; is it related to your low opinion of people?

I wish you would cease to make assumptions about the way my
thought processes work (I guess you assume that they are patterned
after your own).  I do not "feel the need" for people to be
accountable to God (not just "any extraspecial entity;" a
particular entity who happens to be our Creator); I assert that
they are.  To ask why I "feel the need" is to assume that there
isn't one.  Again and again your questions reveal that you have
no interest in the question, "Does God exist?"; you simply assume
that the answer is no.

> (3)  Humanism, as I've already stated, places limits on indulging
> whims; see, we did it without help from a bible or anything!!!

Did you now?  How can you prove that biblical teachings had no
influence on your supposedly humanistic tenets?

> (4)  The notion of any power group fearing the loss of their
> power base is a given, so TOUCHE', garys!  What is happening
> today is that those who feel no need to depend on a possibly
> non-existent entity for daily guidance and control are making
> strides in determining their own destiny (including women, gays,
> atheists, artists, and others).  The problem is that

> 1) this causes massive changes in the fabric of society, since many
> formerly controlled people now see themselves as free,
> 2) these changes affect society as a whole,

Since you are changing the fabric of the society in which I
live, shouldn't I be consulted?  If not, then I guess it would
be acceptable for me to make changes which affect you without
consulting you?  If you say, "But it depends on the kind of change..."
I agree.  Suppose that these same changes result in formerly free
people seeing themselves as being controlled; is that a problem?
Or is it only important for some people to be free?  I have seen
statements on this net calling for the censoring and outright
persecution of Christians; I think I have a right (and a duty)
to prevent changes which lead to such things.

> 3) those unwilling to cope with the problems associated with these
> changes (because, while they are beneficial to other individuals,
> they are detrimental to them) seek to re-establish the "old order"
> as described in, guess what, the bible.

So you admit that you advocate changes which are beneficial to
some (humanists) but detrimental to others (religionists).  How
is it that you get to decide who will receive what benefits at
whose expense?

> [YES, REAL NASTY AGAIN.  YOU WILL REMEMBER, THOUGH, THAT I WAS NOT THE ONLY
>  ONE WHO HAD COMPLAINED ABOUT LACK OF SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT (ONLY BLIND
>  ASSERTION) FROM THE SIDE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF.  THE ARNDT FRACAS SERVES ONLY
>  TO HIGHLIGHT THIS:  ASSERTION ALONE DOES NOT PRESENT A REASONED ARGUMENTATIVE
>  POINT; ASSERTION WITH SUBSTANTIATION AND/OR LOGICAL REASONING DOES.]

Spoken as a true master of the technique of proof by vigorous assertion.
Keep asserting without substantiation that there is no God, and soon
people will get tired of asking for proof, and eventually people will
assume that the case has been proved.