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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!wanginst!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The true God lives in the real
Message-ID: <1980@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 23:21:12 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1980
Posted: Tue Oct 29 23:21:12 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 10:02:01 EST
References: <667@utastro.UUCP> <-145727674@sysvis> <2210@sdcc6.UUCP> <1939@pyuxd.UUCP> <2256@sdcc6.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 385

> I've never seen any of them (Monty Python) or Terry Gilliam being
> interviewed and I have few doubts that you aren't right in saying that
> there portrayal of God was satirical.  But maybe the irony at least
> works both ways.  Can I at least have that much? [FREY on Time Bandits]

I don't think so.  The point of the scene was to satirize the ridiculous
pompous notions of god-hood that people have.  And it did so admirably,
making the magnificent god figure into a stuffy bureaucrat who isn't even
sure of the rules or the reasons why.  ("I think it has something to do with
free will...")  And interestingly enough, that's the way so many Christians
seem to view god, a bureaucrat more interested in failure to live strictly
by the letter of the law than the needs of people.  Lending credence to the
notion that each individual person's perspective on god is a personal
projection.

>>> Is that something to be proud of?  Consistently saying something?

>> Well, it is when you claim he was waffling back and forth when in fact he
>> hadn't.  Proud that the only way to debunk his position is seemingly
>> to tell lies about it.  (Another thing I am more than passingly familiar
>> with, from experience.)

> If you're going to insult me and call me a liar, at least do it for
> something that I said.  I've never said Paul hasn't been consistent,
> I've been hammered over the head with his consistency which is great.
> And I have no idea what 'lies' you're referring to so either clarify or
> make sure that the person you're writing to is the one responsible for
> the actions of which you accuse them.

Now this is truly quaint.  I had to dig deep to find out exactly what DID
happen here.  Rick conveniently left out a LOT of relevant extracts here.
(Why?)  I'll briefly reproduce some of it here.  First, it was Craig
Stanfill's article, in which HE accused Paul Zimmerman of having waffled
on the issue (when in fact, to my recollection, he had not).  I responded
to STANFILL by saying that Paul had NOT been inconsistent at all, and
FREY (for some unknown reason) "responded" by saying "Is that something
to be proud of?"  (Ignoring totally the original falsehood referred to.)
I guess Rick interpreted "when you claim" to be directed at him (it was
meant to be a "generic" you, as in "you gets what you pays for").  Odd,
in the first place, that Rick should go out of his way to respond to
an article, making statements like "Is that anything to be proud of?", when
he later ADMITTED that he had "no idea what lies I was referring to" (i.e.,
the original subject matter of MY article)!!!!!  This is what you get (you
specifically here, Rick, and people in general) when you respond to an
article where you have no idea what is being discussed.

>>> Paul has in no way provided any evidence whatsoever 
>>> proving God to have done anything.  His entire argument that God isn't
>>> the ultimate creator is that we can ask since nothing can come out of
>>> nothing, God must have been created.  And that's a convincing argument?

>>You mean it isn't?  What scenarios have YOU come up with that are better.

> Woah, what does this have to do with Paul's argument being convincing.
> You made a simple statement that Paul's arguments were convincing.
> Asking aboout my arguments has nothing to do with that assertion.  My
> solution might not be any more convincing, in your eyes it might be
> ludicrous, but we were talking about your description of Paul's
> arguments and their plausibility, not mine.  What in Paul's arguments
> convinces you?

The fact that he recognizes the absurdity of an "ultimate" god.  If there
is one (let's try the simple proof by contradiction technique), then how
was the "universe" where IT resides created, and by whom? Etc.  He
recognized a simple logical fallacy.  But you're right, the scenarios of
religionists are just as ludicrous as those of maltheists, because of their
fundamentally flawed presumptions.

>> I don't recall Paul saying ANYTHING about evolution, so it would seem that,
>> as with your conclusion about Time Bandits, you are engaging in wishful
>> thinking again.  (Correct me if I'm wrong, Paul.)  

> Can't I correct you?  Read Paul's response to me and you can see where
> he responds to my questioning him about evolution and the existence of
> God.  Don't worry about this one though, I know how hard it is to get
> excited about keeping up with someone else's arguments.

Obviously you see no need to do so when jumping into the middle of a
discussion between two other people to blurt out "Is that something to
proud of?" without knowing the circumstances involved.  I had been
following Paul's arguments with interest (he seems to have disappeared
for a time, at least from news articles arriving here), because although
his arguments are just as flawed as yours, I find it interesting to see
the religionist responses to them.  Those responses have often involved
name calling (by Christians?), and are quite humorous the way they berate
Paul's opinions for the very same reasons that I have often found fault with
religionist opinions!

>>> Winner of the out of context quote of the month.  The line you quoted is 
>>> from the Bible and the actual words are my paraphrase in response to 
>>> a discussion about the evil in people's hearts and what the Bible had to say
>>> about it.

>>Make that IN context quote of the month!  I repeat the question that Rick was
>>answering above in '>>>':
>> >>>> But this still doesn't say that humanity is *by* *nature*
>> >>>> wicked, only that at that particular time essentially all men were
>> >>>> *acting* wickedly.
>>His claim was that to "prove" that humanity is by nature wicked, look
>>in "every thought and intent of your heart".  I repeat: this is a contemptuous
>>and presumptuous notion, that may very well apply to Rick (or he may just
>>perceive things that way), but he cannot speak for the rest of humanity.

> And again while you tried to pass off my quoting the Bible as me
> actually speaking, that is not my quote.  If I quoote Shakespeare, are
> those now my words just because I said them?

Do you often quote phrases that you disagree with?  Do you say "Fools rush
in where angels fear to tread" when you actually believe in "He who
hesitates is lost"? (Or vice versa, whatever the case might be.)  Odd (again)
that you deliberately left out the quote in question.  In answer to the
question at hand. you had said the following.  (You *could* have quoted
Shakespeare, but instead you CHOSE this specific passage, I assume because you
believe it!)  "But how much deeper can one go than every thought and intent of
your heart?"

> Christ said that you're
> heart and my hearts were evil in every thought and intention.  You
> accused me of saying that and of being presumptious.  I didn't say look
> into your own heart and see if that was true (like you say I do), I was
> referring to a question about what the Bible says about the nature of
> man.  I made no comment to individual people.  There's absolutely
> no convolution of logic or meaning that can get you out of this one (I
> can't wait to see you try though).

Not only will I try, I will succeed.  It's easy when you're (you, Rick Frey)
the one who has convoluted the logic.  Remember the statement you rebutted:

>> >>>> But this still doesn't say that humanity is *by* *nature*
>> >>>> wicked, only that at that particular time essentially all men were
>> >>>> *acting* wickedly.

You chose that response as an answer to the question of the nature of
humanity.  Yet you say this does not refer to "individual people".  Last time
I looked, humanity was composed of individual people, and when you make
claims about the nature of humanity, you are referring to those people.
You can claim "those aren't claims, those are the words of god".  You CLAIM
those are the words of god, which is great, if that's what you're into.
But the burden of proof is on you.  And when you claim that that is that
nature, and when your colleagues in Christendom claim that that is a reason
to impose your morality on the rest of us, I'd suggest putting up (some proof)
or shutting up.

> Whether or not I agree with it, Christ still said it.

So?

> I could have posted it to laugh at or to use it to accuse you but either way,
> Christ made the claim and Christ is the presumptious one.

And you, being a Christian, and BELIEVING in what he has to say, hold those
same presumptions.  Some are not even aware of that, they just say "God
said it, I believe it, that settles it."  At least you are aware that the one
you claim to be god is presumptuous in the extreme.  (Or was there some proof
that you have uncovered over the years that supports the notion you quoted?)

>>>  Secondly, while I believe what the Bible says, I didn't say it.  God did. 
>>> If you want to complain to someone about criticizing people, talk to God.

>>It is only your assertion that (1) there is a god at all, (2) that god is
>>of the specific type you believe (desire?) it to be, and (3) that this
>>Bible is the work of that god.  This is called assuming your own
>>conclusion.  You believe humanity is evil, for whatever reason, thus you
>>assume that god agrees with you in your opinion of people.

> (1)  I assert that Oxygen has an atomic weitght of 15.9994 grams/mole.
> (2)  I assert that objects falling freely, disregarding air resistance
>      fall with an acceleration of 9.8 meters/sec squared.
> If I assert something, that doesn't automatically invalidate it.  You
> could be completely wrong in saying that it is only my assertion about
> God existing that makes Him exist (whatever type of existence that would
> be);

Stop.  No, if you assert something, that doesn't automatically invalidate it.
If you assert something and don't have any supporting proof for it (as you
would for the two statements above, if I recall my physics and chemistry),
then what you are saying IS *just* your assertion, nothing more.  Nowhere
did I say that your assertion "makes him exist".  The fact that this is ONLY
your assertion, and that you support the whole notion with presumptions of
your own design, makes it likely that, if there is a god at all, that the
likelihood of it being of the form you like is nil.

>>BUT, just out of curiosity, and for my own edification, I would greatly 
>>appreciate your explaining to me (and everyone) what you mean by free  
>>will, and the mechanism by which it manifests itself.

> You posed the question the most important and necessary way for it to
> receive any kind of meaningful answer; what do I (or anyone) mean by
> free will.  It's an excellent question.  In trying to think up the
> brilliant, nobel prize in philosophy award winning answer, I realize and
> freely accept that much of what I base my belief in free will on is
> subjective and internal.  Just to get you mad I could simply say that
> the Bible says it, I believe it and that's the end of it,

It wouldn't get me mad.  It wouldn't surprise me, though.

> but being a Psychology major and having dealt extensively with learning
> theory, behavior modification and also the biological bases for behavioral
> determinism (aren't those great buzzwords?) I don't think that they can
> adequately describe what we can only know subjectively.

Is this "we don't understand it, therefore it must be part of the supernatural" rationalization?

> And that is that I go throughout a day and make these things that for lack a
> more neutral word I'll call decisions and neither one's environment nor the
> physiochemistry of one's brain is soley resoponsible for determining
> one's actions.

*************  ATTENTION:  net.philosoph(y)ers -- take note.  Obviously
Mr. Frey is asserting things about free will.  But what is it that he is
asserting about free will?  He is insisting that "neither one's environment
nor the physiochemistry of one's brain is solely responsible for determining
one's actions", and I assume that THAT is what is commonly meant by free will,
am I right, Rick?

> Do you want to call those things I do decisions?  And if
> you call them that than if at least to some extent I (here's another
> relevant question, what/who am I) have some say in how I will behave,
> then, yes, I believe that's free will and the ability to make decisions.

Fine, Rick.  I have no problem with any of that, provided we both recognize
the assumptions you come from (as noted above) when you say these things.
I just wanted to clarify for my own edification (and hopefully others' as
well) what is meant by free will.  Hmmm....

> Another incredibly horrible, subjective and assumptive proof that I feel
> more strongly insists on free will is that God through the Bible says
> that we are responsible for our choices.  If some day I can understand
> how I have no real choice but yet am responsible for my choice (the
> basis for many teachings on predestination and something that to me seems
> like a paradox) then maybe my whims of free will will go away.

That's been one of my points all along.  In a world where we don't have
free will, what breed of justice holds us responsible for our actions,
especially when dealing with punishment for actions one has learned
and been conditioned towards?

> But I've spent to many days out in the yard going through random motions,
> trying to find incalcuable patterns just so God wouldn't be able to have
> known what I was going to do.  I used to spend hours agonizing over the fact
> that I couldn't really choose but everything in my life and also in the
> field of psychology (both behaviorism and physiological) still lets me
> stick with free will.  Forgive me for turning the question around and
> for also starting up soomething that you've probably already dealt with,
> but what makes you feel we don't have free will?

A simple invocation of Occam, reducing assumptions as much as possible.
I have no reason to believe that we are internally any different (in some
"special" way) from the rest of the existing world, rather that our brains live
by the same laws as those of other animals or even the same laws applicable
to inanimate objects.  With that in mind, I find free will to be an
anthropocentric wishful thinking assumption.

>>Again, this is only your assertion, and I repeat that your beliefs that people
>>are ipso facto evil or "fallen", which are also nothing but assertions

> Which is nothing but your own assertion.

Wait a minute!  When I say your beliefs are nothing but assertions, *I* am
making an assertion?  Well, if this is true, then you must have some solid
proof that what you are saying is more than just an assertion.  I'd be
very interested in hearing some of that proof...

>>Should not be applied to the rest of us against our will.  

> Don't listen to it or apply it to yourself.  You obviously don't feel
> guilty about not keeping the Sabbath or not praying or not giving money
> to the church, so why should it be any different when I simply bring one
> of these commandments (which you feel to be invalid both objectively and
> in reference to yourself) to your attention.  If you tell me that I'm a
> bad person for not bowing to trees when I go to school every morning and
> that every thought and intention of my heart is bad because I don't
> worship trees, that wouldn't bother me at all.  I'd listen to you
> politely, nod and smile and then walk by and go on to class.  If it
> doesn't hit you as being accurate in any way or being valid in any way
> than it's your choice (assuming free will of course) to let it bother
> you.

And if you were told that you couldn't hold public office if you didn't
worship trees, or that you could be discriminated against because you
don't worship trees, or that your particular chosen practices would be
outlawed, not because they harmed anybody, but because they ran counter
to "tree worship"?  What then?????

>>Again, ironic that you
>>omitted the section which I was responding to above

> My postnews coommand when I tell it to include a copy of the article
> says to supress any unnecessary verbiage.  Not denying it or saying
> anything against it, it just didn't have a whole lot to do with what I
> was directly addressing.  I do what my computer tells me.

The things I could say about certain religious mentalities at this point.
Again, I am strong, I will resist the temptation...

>>and stating that professors who teach what you call not accurate information 
>>(which I assume really means facts that you disagree with) 

> That's a really poor assumption.  Sorry if I sound like a school teacher
> here but what grounds did you have for making that assumption?

Of course, I could be wrong.  Why not tell us what some of these things
you call "not accurate" information are?

> What facts did you base it on?  Percentage of people on the net that make
> unfounded claims so the odds were favorable?  If it's hard for you to see
> any intelligence or objectivity outside of your own conclusions on life,
> existence et al (which I admit is quite difficult alot of times) at
> least don't assume the worst until it's confirmed.

If you had specifically described what "non-accurate" things you were
talking about, there would be no need for assumption.  Forgive me for
"assuming" that you are no different from other Christians who have stated
the same thing.

> If for no other
> reason than the long term benefits you listed before about societal
> cooperation and mutual benefit, some day you might make a real fool out
> of yourself when the person you accuse of claiming information to be
> inaccurate becasue they disagree with it turns out to be a hundred times
> more rigorous than yourself.

Then the time has come, my friend, for you to show us all what a "real fool"
I am, by showing us your rigorousness, your objectivity, your proof.
I'll be waiting patiently.  I've got lots of time.  So do you.

>> The "foisting" I do is to present substantiation for my opinion.  

> Not to ask a silly question, but what was I doing?

Note that I was talking about you and those who hold similar opinions to
yours who ARE engaging in foisting.  Or don't you believe that?

> In context, I was responding to a question that Stanley Friesen asked me
> about the nature of mankind.  I was substantiating my position with the
> most applicable source (seeing as how we were discussing what the Bible has
> to say about the heart of man).

And stating that "the Bible is the most applicable source" to discuss the
nature of mankind is a blatant assumption.

>>The "foisting" you and your kind do leads to legislation in the halls of 
>>Congress, where your religious beliefs have no place in a free country.

> I hope this doesn't shock you overly, but I agree.  I think the idea
> that the US is a 'religious' country is a crock and the idea of
> legislating morality is just a no go.  I will, however, say that things
> like abortion, child pornography could be wrong for other reasons,
> outside of the fact that God condemns them.  

Well, regardless of your unsubstantiated opinions about god, I'm glad
you agree.  But I this means you recognize that government of a nation
of diverse people cannot be founded on the unprovable principles of a few.

>> Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.

> I've always liked your quote selection.  You've got some great
> statements and ideas represented in most of them but just like you were
> saying with Terry Gilliam, you don't intend them to be taken the way I
> take them, but I like your E.E. Cummings quote probably as much as you
> do.  In fact the apostle Paul (not Paul Zimmerman) has his own version
> of it, "Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the
> renewing of your mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that
> which is good, acceptable and perfect."

Which is just conforming to a new mold (the image YOU believe god has
in mind for you and people in general), which is of course the antithesis
of what that quote is all about.

> Your quote is close to excellent but in my eyes it makes the correct negative
> assertion without the needed positive exhortation that Paul gives.

Based on your assumptions about god.  I wonder if you've ever stopped to
think about this:  what IF Paul (Zimmerman, not the apostle) is right?
What does that make of your whole set of opinions?

> Summary: But what about the Life of Brian ...

If you're going to tell me that you got a "positive Christian" message from
"Life of Brian", please save it for a separate article.  If ever a movie
showed what a farce religious dogmatism is, that was it.  And if you missed
THAT point, well...
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr