From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:35:40 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>    I've deleted almost all of the original post - it just isn't
>worth replying to.


>In article <C0Az1r.CGu@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>In article <C08qtH.C81@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>>>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>>>>
>>
>>>>In other words, science and secular logic has demonstrated that science
>>>>and secular logic is no more or less supportable than any other culturally-
>>>>based form of thought.
>>
>>>    What about that "empirical evidence"?  Where's the empirical
>>>evidence to back up religious reasoning?
>>
>>Pardon.  Perhaps you are unaware of Godel's work.  He demonstrates that
>>there can be *NO*, nada, zero, zilch, empirical evidence and/or line of
>>theoretical reasoning which can show _a_priori_ that a logical system is
>>valid.  You are asking for that which cannot be obtained - it matters not
>>whether you ask that of science or of religion.  It appears that whether
>>one is a scientist or a priest, one necessarily operates on faith. 

>    Interesting.  The original statements about that "empirical evidence"
>were made by you - you conveniently deleted that part.  So I'll
>repost it for you:

>In article <C08qtH.C81@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>Beg pardon, but the deconstructionists here are laughing uncontrollably.
>>What, pray tell, is a "fact"?  You simply show that you are a follower of
>>a very popular Western religion, called "science".  Godel demonstrated
>>the impossibility of logically verifying the validity of *ANY* logical
>>system, and empirical evidence from physics is supporting that demonstration.


>     Therefore, the foundation for your claims that empirical
>evidence is invalid is sound because it is supported by empirical
>evidence?

As Godel would say, "YES"  :)  That's the problem with self-referential
systems, and all systems ARE self-referential.

>>>>>>Why is incest wrong, by secular reasoning?  With so many diverse forms of
>>>>>>birth control, including genetic testing and legal abortion, it's not like
>>>>>>biological reasons could possibly hold water anymore.  As long as both
>>>>>>parties agree, where's the harm?
>>>>
>>>>>    Where is the harm?  Can you demonstrate that there is any harm
>>>>>at all if both parties agree?
>>>>
>>>>Thank you.  I thought you'd bite.
>>
>>>    You didn't answer my questions.
>>
>>There is no way I could demonstrate harm to you.  I don't know what color
>>the sky is on your planet.  I'm assuming that you also have no problem
>>with necrophilia, bestiality, or consensual cannibalism.  Thus, Jeff
>>Dahmer could be gotten out of jail if he could prove that his victims
>>*wanted* to be killed and eaten.  Dr. Kevorkian with a soup de jure, if
>>you like.

>     In other words, you're just blowing smoke.  You're posting
>just for the sake of seeing your own words.  Have fun with it.

Sorry, Phil, but your definition of what constitutes harm is not the
same as mine, so no, I can't demonstrate harm to you.  I can't understand
a man who would assert that consensual cannibalism is not harmful.  
I have no idea what you accept as being "harmful".  Apparently, as 
long as everyone involved in an action agree to it, there is no harm
in it.  I find that attitude totally incomprehensible.

>					-Phil
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion