From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Date: 04 Jan 93 05:38:06 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

    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?


>>>>>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.

					-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.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush