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 (Arthur Pewtey)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Premises,Premises,Premises,...
Message-ID: <1059@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 23:31:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1059
Posted: Wed Jun  5 23:31:50 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 07:13:46 EDT
References: <593@sfmag.UUCP> <1048@pyuxd.UUCP> <597@sfmag.UUCP>
Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association
Lines: 99

> The comments below are taken from a single article in which R. Rosen was
> responding to an article of mine. [SAMET]

>>This argument assumes the existence of an endower, which is an
>>unproven (and a wishful thinking) assumption...
>
>>If you choose to take the same assumptions that Mr. Samet does as your axioms.
>
>>But why take the presumptive third view, with its wishful thinking presumptions
>>behind it, when you have the first view which has its roots in a clear
>>rational basis?  The second and third views only work as justifications if
>>your accept the premises about "endowers"...
>
>>See above.  Mr. Samet's views would require that you make his types of
>>presumptions about the existence of god and, moreover, that your assumptions
>>be exactly the same as his...
>
>>What about the rights of those who don't hold your presumptions about god?...
>
>>If and only if you could prove your presumptions about the nature of the law.
>
>>It's dogmatic and arbitrary in that your basis for accepting it as fact is
>>no sounding than that of any other religious believer...

> These comments, and numerous others in previous debates, express (obsessively)
> two points:
> 1) My views entail certain assumptions/premises.
> 2) My assumptions are claimed to arbitrary ( = unproven,  undemonstrable,
> wishful etc.)

Is this not true?  Or do you have the final proof of the existence of god
and of the holiness of the Bible that has eluded serious investigators for
centuries?

> If I denied that my opinions are from a  Torah  viewpoint,  these
> repeated  comments might be understandable. However, the point of
> my article was to  show  that  a  viewpoint  based  on  religious
> premises leads  to different conclusions concerning rights, and I
> did so by distinguishing between and contrasting  religious based
> arguments  and  non religious-based arguments. Since one position
> was openly represented as religious-based, it is inappropriate to
> object that it is religious-based. That is the very subject.

Not so.  The point is that such a basis for the determining rights,
since they lead to direct conflicts AND since the basis is presumptuous
and unprovable, that sort of basis has no place in determining the rights
of human beings, especially not your "right" to interfere in their lives.

> In general, to ask why I believe that the Torah is G*d given  and
> true  is an important and legitimate question.  I and others have
> discussed this on the net as a standalone topic.  It  is  a  long
> complex  subject.  It is worthwhile to explore it with anyone who
> is sincerely interested. It is a waste of time to discuss it with
> someone whose seeks antagonism rather than discourse.

But the bottom line of ALL that discussion is always (for ALL religions)
that the basis for believing is a personal one that stems from one's
own unverifiable personal subjective experience interpreted by YOU
(based on your own mindset) as "God", plus one's acceptance a priori
of certain things as true (some combination thereof).

> However, to raise this issue as  a  heckling/taunting  tactic  in
> order to stifle any expression of religious-based views is wrong.
> I cannot be expected to apologize for holding  religious views by
> justifying  the  Torah's foundation every time I want to say "the
> Torah says such and such".  First of all, I clearly indicate when
> my  opinions  are based on religious premises.  Secondly, this is
> net.religion.jewish,  and  it  is  a  place  to  express   Jewish
> religious  views,  even  Torah  ones!  If  someone wishes to rant
> incessantly  against  every  opinion  which   entails   religious
> assumptions, net.flame or net.atheism might be a better place.

You CAN be expected to apologize and to be accountable when you advocate
punishment for people you simply cannot tolerate because it says so in
a book, just as YOU would expect others to apologize or be accountable
when they advocate "punishment" for you for your beliefs and actions.
And don't claim some exemption as a religion by saying things like Nazism
don't constitute religions.  Political philosophies, especially those
like Nazism and other movements rooted in violence and hate, are indeed
nothing but "religions" to their followers.

> I am ready and willing to discuss why  the  Torah  is  internally
> self-consistent on any issue or why I think a non-Torah viewpoint
> is internally inconsistent.

"Internal self-consistency" is always the best a religion can hope to
achieve in attempting to prove itself.  The working's of a madman's mind
are also internally self-consistent.  It proves nothing.

> If, unlike the  religiously  atheistic,  you  can  entertain  the
> possiblility  that  legitimate logical basis exists for believing
> in the Torah, I can suggest some books on  the subject  of  Torah
> foundations.

Such literature, like the "evidence" of Dan Boskovich, provides proof only
if you accept the conclusion a priori.
-- 
"Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!"
				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr