[AGL] hardly dogmatic

[Jon Ford]

Michele-- I didn't accuse you of being dogmatic. "Believe what you will 
should be the whole of the law" sounds like an ok philosphy for me.

Jon


>From: Michele Mason <yaya.m at earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 
>60s<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
>To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 
>60s<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
>Subject: Re: [AGL] reply to Michele's statement
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:57:57 -0600
>
>It must be wonderful—look what over-education has done for you guys. 
>Dismissal comes easily now.  Ask a simple ? Get my simple answer. That I 
>know it to be true is where I stand, As I said, you will value what you 
>will. That is hardly dogmatic. In agreement, or out, I expect nothing more, 
>nor less.  mm
>
>On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:48 PM, Jon Ford wrote:
>
>>
>>Bill== Free will? Read some more philosophy. There are plenty of 
>>philosophers who would defend the concept of free will/free choice, even 
>>without the prop of a wise creator-God. You are simply being 
>>dogmatic,asserting a claim without evidence. You could argue that people 
>>who believe in free will have a burden to prove it exists, but you can't 
>>just state like some tin-pot prophet "free will is a delusion!"
>>
>>Jon
>>
>>>From: "Bill Irwin" <billi at aloha.net>
>>>Reply-To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 
>>>60s<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
>>>To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 
>>>60s"<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
>>>Subject: Re: [AGL] reply to Michele's statement
>>>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:23:10 -1000
>>>
>>>Pretty good deconstruction Mike.
>>>If you want wisdom you first have to get rid of delusions.  One delusion
>>>that should go first is that one has free will.
>>>Aloha
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <michaele at ando.pair.com>
>>>To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s"
>>><austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
>>>Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:58 AM
>>>Subject: [AGL] reply to Michele's statement
>>>
>>>
>>> > Michele,
>>> >
>>> > You have often spoken to me on this subject but never at such
>>> > length. Permit me to reply interlinearly to some of what you've 
>>>written.
>>> >
>>> > >I believe that God (or whatever name you choose) made us
>>> > because He/She needed love—that in some way He was lonely
>>> > and because He had a need to "see Himself"
>>> >
>>> > According to Hegel, the attempt "to see Himself/Oneself" is the
>>> > ultimate exercise of human consciousness. This suggests to me
>>> > that the attributes you have identified as God's are merely
>>> > human projections.
>>> >
>>> > >He placed us in a perfect place where all our needs were met (without
>>> > spilling a drop of blood). He gave us free will—otherwise how 
>>>would we
>>> > be like Him and what would our love be worth if we didn't choose it?
>>> >
>>> > Once again, why does free will require a God? Logically, in assuming
>>> > the existence of God, you are committing the error of petitio
>>> > principii (assuming the conclusion as your starting point).
>>> >
>>> > Now I know that you will remind me of your personal experiences
>>> > with you know who. That solves the petitio principii problem. But
>>> > that brings up the veracity of testimonial or testifying. Would that I
>>> > could accept testimony. Testimony is worthless unless confirmed.
>>> >
>>> > >Then came curiosity. Had things progressed in the way He wanted, we
>>> > would have been good, obedient students, matching knowledge with 
>>>wisdom
>>> > and growing towards oneness with Him.
>>> > The Tree of Knowledge was not all about sex, it was about sex and
>>> > everything else. Seduced by instant gratification, we 
>>>transgressed—not
>>> > waiting to learn wisdom as He intended to teach us.
>>> >
>>> > You are assuming that "seduced by instant gratification" is a bad
>>> > thing. You may know this from personal experience. But that is
>>> > not my personal experience. I see absolutely no reason why instant
>>> > sexual or other gratification is bad.
>>> >
>>> > As for wisdom which we all crave, to believe that the deity desires
>>> > that we pursue it, that too is a human projection, an admirable
>>> > one to be sure. There has been a little progress in the human
>>> > pursuit of wisdom. A necessary condition was the invention of
>>> > writing. Part of our progress towards wisdom consists of
>>> > practicing the ascesis of avoiding logical errors. Part of it has
>>> > been the realization that received beliefs (about God and on
>>> > other subjects) are to be examined closely for possible errors.
>>> > Then we can try to think through the issues. If there is no
>>> > reason and no evidence for a belief in God (my viewpoint),
>>> > it is best abandonned as an impediment to the pursuit of
>>> > wisdom.
>>> >
>>> > That's as far as i got in your letter at this time.
>>> >
>>> > Mike
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get today's hot entertainment gossip  
>>http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with 
Live Search! 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline