On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Jeff Roberts wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Anthony R. Woodcock wrote:
>
>
> Roberts:
> First, I don't think that either I, or the list, needed two copies of your
> response.
>
> Woodcock:
> > Hello, Jeff. I am assuming the below response is basically a way
> > for you to say that you do not believe Christ died on the Cross for the
> > sins of the World. I am also assuming you do not believe He claim to be
> > God.
>
> Roberts:
> Right. You assume these things. I'll grant you that someone who believes
> that a historical demigod of the potency described in the Christian
> tradition would *probably* not have posted what I did. That's good.
>
> However, not accepting the historicity of the demigod does NOT imply that
> the poster cannot view the demigod in another fashion, such as (the much
> more reasonable view of him being) a mythological character who could
> have made all manner of claims, especially divinity. I think
> somewhere in there you've also
> presupposed that a skeptic can't conceive of your demigod being a liar.
>
> All my post should speak to you is that I do not fear or respect your
> demigod to the degree that a believer does; thus, I am probably not a
> believer. You have not established that my not being a believer means
> that I think that your mythological demigod never made claims to divinity.
>
> Any more "assumptions"? Let's see ...
>
> Woodcock.
> > Ah, do you know anything about history?
>
> Roberts:
> A little. (That line scans really well, wouldn't you say, Mr. Till? I
> think he sighed, there. When he says it like that, I almost have to
> doubt myself. Very nice! =) )
>
> Woodcock.
> > Well, If you do you might
> > as well use your same rational on everything else right?
>
> Roberts:
> This is a little confusing to me. My *rationale*, if that is what you
> mean, was to show how ridiculous it is to think that scholars
> of the calibre of those on this list would not immediately
> recognize your yellow journalism. My rationale was to show that someone
> who would take the quotes you found at face value would probably also
> believe that his opponent actually has testimony from the
> mythological demigod
> disclaiming the entire tradition, that there is a text file capable of
> compiling itself into a binary, loading itself into memory, doing the kind
> of things purported to be within the power of "Good Times", and also that
> pyramid investing in Albania is a good idea. It's interesting to note
> that you caught the insincerity in my post, and not your own.
>
> Woodcock:
> > So that you give
> > equal judgement to all of historical documents right?
> > Well, according to
> > your ways of thinking I am assuming you have come up to the conclusion
> > that all of the historical documents ever produced from the beginning of
> > time till about 1000 AD is basically a bunch hogwash. So you probably
> > do not believe in any of Roman history. So you probably do not believe
> > that Julius Caesar was what has been stated in historical writings?
>
> Roberts:
> That's an interesting bit of logic. Because I deny the unreasonable and
> amazing claims of ambitious religious politicians (who are known to have
> been among the most base figures in history, I might add), I therefore
> deny all historical documents. Hmmm, very nice. Have you written
> extensively on logic, Mr. Woodcock? I wonder, do you understand why
> someone might have a problem with your means of arriving at conclusions?
> Or, have you even noticed that people *do* have have problems with your
> conclusions?
>
> In the paragraph above, would you say that I am agreeing, or disagreeing
> with you? Curious.
>
> Mr. Woodcock:
> > Basically what I am trying to get at is you do NOT know the first thing about
> > judging history
>
> Roberts:
> Please provide more evidence for this claim. I'm not sure I understand
> how you can conclude all of this from just one post. Perhaps it was by
> revelation? Maybe you can *reveal* this to me? I'm channeling you right
> now, Mr. Woodcock ... Mr. Woodcock ... Strange; I'm not getting
> anything. Well, maybe later.
>
> Woodcock:
> > and your comment means as much to me as the HYPOTHETICAL
> > existance of MACRO-evolution(by the way macroevolution to me is as
> > believable as you telling me monkeys flew out of my butt and made the
> > planets).
>
> Roberts:
> "Hypthesis" as well as "theory" are the terminology of rational pursuit of
> knowledge, not revelatory "grasping" in the Shankaran sense, Mr. Woodcock.
> For me to buy that you have the dirt on MACRO-evolution (?), I first need
> to believe that you understand the methodology by which you seek to
> enlighten me. Please explain to me your understanding of the scientific
> method, so that I can make an honest appraisal of your authority on
> the matter. Can you explain what a hypothesis is?
>
>
> Woodcock:
> > I do know enough about the hypothetical theory of
> > macro-evolution to laugh at it so if you would like to hear why, I would
> > be more than glad to give why it is a foolish concept. Thanks,
>
> Roberts:
> Well, there you go assuming again. I would say that it is precisely your
> knowledge of science ("hypothetical theory", I think it was?) and this
> MACRO-evolution that is in question. I'm also not at all convinced that
> you understand logic well enough to be teaching me about it.
>
> If you have such wisdom, and one of the greatest intellectual achievements
> of our species is so trivial, I think your mythological demigod would say
> that you should teach me the correct way of viewing that material world.
> It would then seem to behoove you to explain logic, history, science, and
> the nature of reality in language suitable for instructing someone as
> ignorant as I. Please continue my lessons, Mr. Woodcock.
>
> Woodcock:
> > Bye...
>
> Roberts:
> Please be careful about those email viruses, Mr. Woodcock. They're
> killers!
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Jeff Roberts jroberts@!ashland.edu strider@!acm.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
>