Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: On NET Argument
Message-ID: <1840@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-Oct-85 22:42:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1840
Posted: Sun Oct 13 22:42:02 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Oct-85 07:26:55 EDT
References: <1863@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 65

[Almost all of this article has been edited out.  This is because it
 primarily concerns what has become a private matter between Rich Rosen and
 me.  The remainder I have replied to because it is important to the kind of
 argument that has persisted in its popularity in this newsgroup.]

The original article that started this was (essentially) about sin.  I claim
that everyone does.  I've yet to see anyone produce evidence that someone
hasn't, but Rich (in his usual hyperbolic manner) labels this notion as some
great evil which (of course) is the product of wishful thinking, in this
case so that we (the christians) have an excuse to punish people. This last
point I refuse to argue.  There are plenty of writings which deal with this
question from various points of view, and which almost nobody in this group
will ever read.  What bothers me is that there is a increasing unwillingness
(and I freely admit to being guilty of it at times) of refusing to discuss
or argue about a position on its merits, but rather to attack to proponents
of the position as regards to motives, other beliefs, or anything
irrelevant.  As scientific argument, this is certainly out of bounds.
Within scientific inquiry one does not consider the proposers of a statement
at all; it's truth is independent of who states it first.  I think that
within the realm of philosophical inquiry the same principle holds.  Only
people with axes to grind have need of attacking the bearers of truth (or
even of untruth).  However....

In article <1863@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>>>>[T]he "horrors" that Gary Smith spoke of come not from science but from
>>>>application of scientific facts by people who add in other bogus
>>>>assumptions, such as the one I described.

>> And my point, obscure as it was, was that Rich should not presume himself
>> to be free of such influences. [Wingate]

>While *you* should be?  I don't understand this at all.  Clearly from your
>very line of thinking (as documented in your articles about many subjects)
>you don't see the need to even BEGIN to rid yourself of such influences.

I do not claim to be free of any such influences.  As for ridding oneself of
them, of course one must try.  Rich seems to think that I have advocated
otherwise, but in fact, there is no logical connection between what I said
and the statement he makes.  He is simply attacking an illusionary motive
becuase he has no logical argument to make.

>>>>  I take Charles' silence to mean that he has nothing constructive
>>>> to say about that issue.  I am forced to interpret that silence
>>>> as concurrence.  I not that Wingate is often silent (again, with the
>>>> exception of some snotty remark) after I and others
>>>> say things he seems to have no answer for. [Rosen]

I am under no obligation to reply to anyone.  Furthermore, much traffic
never gets here.  Much of what is posted in this group is boring and
repetitious, and I get tired of making repetitious replies, especially when
(as is typically the case) I know that my objections will essentially be
ignored.

One thing that (unfortunately, it was no suprise to me) is that Rich and
other Anti-Christians seem never to have bothered to find out what the
theologians have had to say about the arguments he makes.  I am a very
amateur theologian, and it simply is not worth my time to make the studies
to dig up in depth refutations of Rich's tired old arguments.  I have every
reason to believe that they would be ignored anyway.  Even the professional
theolgians on the net see no need to reply.  Silence, having no content, is
easily read however one likes; but reading it as a concession under the
circumstances strikes me as dubious, to be charitable about it.

Charley Wingate