From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:32:33 GMT

From article <1992Oct2.155431.14889@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> Russell, why so insulting?  How do you know that Mike's
jh> religious belief is "mindless acceptance."  

In article <BvIDvo.A0s@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> He told me so.  Ask him to explain the difference between faith 
rl> and reason.  He'll tell you that he admires faith (ie mindless 
rl> acceptance) far more than reason, and considers me to be a "fool" 
rl> because I prefer empirical evidence and rational arguments.  

From article <1aigfaINNn1n@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Oh Russell.  I knew you wouldn't disappoint me.  Again you have 
ml> proven to me what a liar you truly are.  I consider your addition 
ml> of "mindless acceptance" as a complete lie since I never used 
ml> such terms.  These terms are yours and I really must say I find 
ml> you and your tactics pathetic.  

What's the difference between "mindless acceptance" and "faith", Mike?

ml> For the record, what I said to Russell was that I thought him 
ml> foolish for discrediting my faith in God.  I told him I felt 
ml> sorry for people like him that felt man had all lifes answers and 
ml> would not accept anything that could not be proven with 
ml> "empirical facts".  

I don't think we have all the answers, but I don't see what good is
accomplished by mindlessly accepting the "divine" wisdom of a phrase
like, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".    Am I truly foolish
for disbelieving that a genuine "god" made such statements?

jh> Sure, he may be what's termed a "literalist" but, nevertheless, 
jh> there is something going on in his mind that has made him choose 
jh> his faith.  You may not like fundamentalism any more than me;  I 
jh> however do not ridicule his belief just as I do not ridicule your 
jh> point-of-view and the intense energy and countless hours you 
jh> devote of your life to your concern for animals.  

rl> It's not my intention to ridicule his religion.  However, I would 
rl> like to discover how/why a man whose own beliefs are based on 
rl> "faith" can reasonably label another man's comments as "idiotic".  
rl> Can you explain it to me?

ml> The question asked was why don't hunters hunt other hunters.  
ml> Number one, this is against the law.  Number two, this is immoral 
ml> in the eyes of most societies.  These two factors combined with 
ml> the overall tone of the poster, led me to conclude that the 
ml> poster and her comments were idiotic.  

Witch-burning is also immoral, IMHO.  Yet many people would 
mindlessly accept the notion that "god" wants them to burn 
witches, simply because the bible says so.  And, of course, witch
burning was legal several centuries ago.  Would you be quick to 
say that such people were "idiotic"?  Or, would you be inclined 
to argue that "idiocy" is acceptable whenever there's a "god" in 
on the deal?  

ml> Now, if you cannot understand my reasoning, I suggest you stop 
ml> trying as you will probably never get it.  I do not believe you 
ml> when you say you did not mean to ridicule my religious beleifs 
ml> and I know for a fact that you are a liar.  I suggest you keep 
ml> your mouth closed Russell lest you provide more evidence for my 
ml> argument.  

You say that you know for a fact that I'm a liar.  How does your 
"factual knowledge" that I'm a liar compare with the "factual 
knowledge" that led you to assert last month that I'm a 
"self-proclaimed pervert"?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory