The truth about God
Paul Zimmerman
Beth Chirsty, in reply to my earlier article, which I just
accidentally reposted (sorry), said that if that article wasn't satire,
``then something evil sure hurt this boy.'' She is most certainly right.
That something was and is God. The same evil monster who infests all our
lives with pain and frustration. A few other people have sent mail to me
complimenting me on my ``parody'' article.
I don't want to disappoint any of you, but that article was most
definitely no parody at all. There exists a God, a hideous evil damager
monster, who uses His entropic force to shatter everything from individual
human lives to the universe at large.
A perfect example: in the last article I mentioned the maxim about
how much easier it is to destroy than to create. This by itself is proof of
the existence of an unbalanced force, called entropy by scientists, which
is really the hateful will of the Damager-God. Another well worn maxim is
Murphy's Law. Among the famous corollaries to this is ``if you bring your
umbrella, it won't rain.'' Of course, the converse is that if you forget
your umbrella, it's almost sure to rain, given the right conditions of
course. Ever wonder why this is also a truism? Clearly it is because the
Damager-God is thwarted from His pleasurable act of causing you harm if
you have brought along protection from that harm. Naturally, another of
Murphy's (God's) corollaries takes effect in these circumstances: if it's
not one thing, it's another. God can always find a way to cause misery,
no matter how prepared you try to be, and He always will.
Christians nowadays make a very big deal about prophesies of the
end of the world found in the Bible, claiming that ours is the generation
in which the prophesies come true. Have any of them ever stopped to think
about why those prophesies are so accurate? About what the source of
information was? Who else, but the Damager-God, could provide such
prophetic information? Of course the prophesies are accurate, He's only
telling you in advance what He plans to do! All the horrible catastrophes
He will beseige the Earth with at the ``Judgment Day.''
Have any of these Christians thought about the role of Christianity
in these prophesies? To me it is quite clear. The prophesies speak of the
Devil (really God himself) having reign of the Earth during the millenia
after the death of Christ. Look at what religion has been the dominant
force in the world, through conquest, crusade, and colonialism since that
time. Yes, you've got it, Christianity! Christ was the Antichrist! Just as
surely as God is Satan.
If you doubt that God is really Satan and vice versa, think about
this. Think about how terribly convenient it is to be able to point a
finger and say ``he did it'' when you do something bad. Since God does so
many bad things so often, including natural disasters, diseases, fomenting
hatred and war, etc. all the while claiming to be the ultimate good, being
able to say ``Satan did it'' must come in real handy. The Damager-God is a
listless shirker of responsibility. Notice how He didn't come down to Earth
himself. No, He sent his son to mislead the people and then suffer the
pains of crucifixion. This surely sounds more like the handiwork of some
sleazy movie Mafioso (sending His son to do the dirty work) and not the
awesome majestic benevolent God so often imagined.
I am truly shocked that so many people thought my article was some
sort of satire. The preponderence of evidence makes it painfully obvious
that God does exist, and that He is one evil motherf*cker. He has built
into us a wish to see Him as a great and loving father, even though He
clearly is nothing of the sort. He uses this against us at every opportunity.
I must say that the near unanimity of opinion that my article was
intended to be satirical frightens me a great deal. It means God has a
stranglehold on us all, believers or not. Even those among the atheists
and agnostics who responded to me thought the idea of a Damager-God was an
amusing satirical ploy at best. It's as if they were completely blinded by
the way this explanation of the universe answers many questions previously
unanswered by either the benevolent god explanation or the no god
explanation. The explanation fits, it makes sense, it explains the nature
of things better than any other. This thing science calls entropy manifests
itself in ways that can only be explained as deliberate, thoughtful,
malevolent action of a conscious deity. There is no evidence for a directly
opposite benevolent creative force to counteract entropy's destructiveness.
People talk about ``nature taking its course'', but certainly it is unable
to do this. God, the willful force of entropy and destruction and evil,
permeates nature and corrupts it beyond recognition.
Some months ago, Dan Boscovich spoke of objective proof for his
beliefs. His ``proofs'' were a sham, and everyone from Hubeynz and Rosen
to Ellis and Wingate knew it. Yet he continues to believe along with many
others. Compare his ``objective proof'' to mine. My explanation answers
questions about the real world. Boscovich's explanation, apparently
borrowed from other Christian apologists, simply forces his ``good God''
explanation in any way it can, even where it doesn't make sense. A famous
Christian book currently available is called ``Why Bad Things Happen to
Good People''. I assume Christians have some contorted explanation for
this. Surely the simpler and far more fathomable explanation is that a
bad God does bad things to good people, because He likes it. Ever wonder
why good things always happen to bad people? Maybe because they act as
agents of God. By being bad, they provide God with more opportunities to
infect the world with His evil wanton destruction and pain. Thus they are
rewarded.
Rich Rosen is right when he calls you all wishful thinkers. The
evidence is clear. It's staring you right in the face. But you choose to
think of the world as being run by a ``good'' God rather than a ``bad''
one, because it makes you more comfortable and less frightened. Yet Rosen
and his fellow atheists and materialists don't see the writing on the wall
either. When faced with willful destructiveness eating away at the world,
the scientific types throw up their hands and say ``that's entropy'' or
something like that. Surely willful evil cannot be disposed of by simply
saying it's a natural force of some sort. Such evil can only be attributed
to an evil heinous Damager-God. The one that millions of people worship
and pray to daily as the almighty force of good, taken in by his
manipulation and deception.
--
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez
Yosi Hoshen
> how much easier it is to destroy than to create. This by itself is proof of
> the existence of an unbalanced force, called entropy by scientists, which
> is really the hateful will of the Damager-God.
If you notice from my postings, I am not on God's buddy list. But
this time, I have to come to his defense. There is nothing evil in
the concept of entropy. It means that since there are many more random
states relative to what we perceive as ordered states, it is more
likely that the transitions will be to random states. Implying
that in a closed system the tendency is towards disorder. So,
there is nothing evil about entropy, but there is a lot of misunder-
standing.
--
Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
Jeff McQuinn
Man, I don't even believe in God and I think your sick!
Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around
Paul Zimmerman
No, Yosi, there is nothing inherently evil about entropy. But an
examination of how it is used by the Damager-God makes it clear what his
intentions are. You say ``there are many more random states than ordered
states,'' making it more likely that transitions will be into random states.
Well, who is responsible for that if not God Himself? Why is the tendency
for a closed system to lean towards disorder? Doesn't that sound peculiar
to you? Maybe it is doing that because the system is not closed at all,
because a Damager-God sticks His hand into it and wreaks havoc.
J. Chris Anderson
> Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
> pyuxn!pez
In response to Mr. Zimmerman's article, I can very much identify
with those people who thought his article was satirical, simply because
I had never encountered anyone as extreme in his viewpoint as he. Since
it would be absolutely ridiculous to try and argue with Mr. Zimmerman, I
would like to keep this short and point out a few things.
Assuming that Mr. Zimmerman is correct, and that there exists a
Damager-God who is out to destroy the world, that leaves me with a few choices:
1. I can choose to believe as Mr. Z. does and will live my days battling it
out against this god in constant anxiety and fear that this god will strike
at anytime. I would see clearly that all the tragedies ocurring in my life
and around me as the Damger-God out to get me. Then, when I died, I suppose
I would either cease to exist or live in a "hell" with this Damager-God.
2. I can choose to believe in a lie, that the God of the universe is really
a benevolent and loving god, who is blessing me and leading me in this
life to a life beyond in heaven with him. I would then interpret all the
tragedies ocurring in my life and around me as natural occurences or else
that my (false) god was calling me to growth and a deepening in my reliance
on Him. After I died I would then be in the same condition as in #1.
3. (I can live indifferently.)
Looking objectively at these two viewpoints on life, I can see that
no matter what I believed on earth, I would end up the same after death;
therefore my beliefs would only affect my life on earth. Weighing the two
viewpoints, I would the one with which I could be happier. I would then choose
#2, because this viewpoint would lead me to a life of joy, hope, and love
instead of fear and anxiety. I can not see a way of continuing on and being
happy knowing that there was a Damager-God bringing destruction to my life.
One last thing I have noticed in Mr. Zimmerman's articles. If there
is any truth to projection (extending one's own inner personality to another),
I would say that Mr. Z. is not a very happy person. Mr Z, my prayers are for
you; I'll ask the Damager-God not to zap you today.
Steve Dyer
to net.origins, and should be exiled to net.religion at once
before the Damager-God comes in the form of the Men-with-the-
Butterfly-Nets and carts us all away!
--
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sd...@bbncc5.ARPA
Michael Ellis
>monster, who uses His entropic force to shatter everything from individual
>...A perfect example: in the last article I mentioned the maxim about
>how much easier it is to destroy than to create. This by itself is proof of
>the existence of an unbalanced force, called entropy by scientists, which
>...There is no evidence for a directly
>opposite benevolent creative force to counteract entropy's destructiveness.
>People talk about ``nature taking its course'', but certainly it is unable
>to do this. God, the willful force of entropy and destruction and evil,
Such a revelation!
Never before have I understood why the ancient Indian myth of the
cosmic dance of creation was performed by Shiva, clearly one and the
same destroyer you refer to -- entropy.
But what you fail to realize is that entropy is its own OPPOSITE
benevolent creative force -- new scientific theories of `dissipative
structures' actually imply that dat ole debbil -- the 2nd law of
thermodynamics -- not only taketh away (as entropy/death), but also
giveth (evolution/birth), exactly like Yahweh, Shiva, and the Taoist force
of chaos `Hun Tun':
The behavior predicted by linear thermodynamics is stable,
predictable, and tends towards a minimum level activity (ENTROPY).
The depressing conclusions of traditional thermodynamic theories
were a natural result of the computing power required to venture
into the hairy field of nonequilibrium processes.
The analysis of far-from-equilibrium behavior of nonlinear
thermodynamic systems (which underlie the biochemical processes on
this planet) has recently (1977 Nicolis & Prigogine) become
tractable, by the study of `bifurcations' -- points where continued
energy influx forces ever upward spiraling symmetry breaking choices
that lead to global self organization of a higher level of
complexity (EVOLUTION).
Thus, Boltzmann's dream of discovering Darwinian chemical principles
is being realized today -- I refer you to Ilya Prigogine's `Order
out of Chaos'.
In other words, without {entropy/dissipative structures}, there would be
no YOU in the first place to rail out against your creator/destroyer!
BTW, Paul, your flamage is magnificent....SMASH THE UNIVERSE!!!
> Rich Rosen is right when he calls you all wishful thinkers. The
>evidence is clear. It's staring you right in the face. But you choose to
>think of the world as being run by a ``good'' God rather than a ``bad''
>one, because it makes you more comfortable and less frightened. Yet Rosen
>and his fellow atheists and materialists don't see the writing on the wall
>either. When faced with willful destructiveness eating away at the world,
>the scientific types throw up their hands and say ``that's entropy'' or
>something like that. Surely willful evil cannot be disposed of by simply
>saying it's a natural force of some sort. Such evil can only be attributed
>to an evil heinous Damager-God.
A belief in the finality and irreversability of evil implies a refusal
to accept the precariousness and the risk that attend all finite good in
this life. -- Thomas Merton
khronos ouketi estai
-michael
Verbus M. Counts
From the writings of the Bab.
"Say: God is indeed the Maker of all things. He giveth
sustenance in plenty to whomsoever He willeth. He is the
Creator, the Source of all beings, the Fashioner, the All-Mighty,
the Maker, the All-Wise. He is the Bearer of the most excellent
titles throughout the heavens and the earth and whatever lieth
between them. All do His bidding, and all the dwellers of earth
and heaven celebrate His praise, and unto Him shall all return."
(Selections from the writings of the Bab, p211)
Regards,
Verbus M. Counts AT&T Bell Labs The Word of God(religion) is one,
(201) 564-2510 101 JFK Parkway though the speakers are many ...
ihnp4!mhuxj!vmc Room 1L-423
August 25,1985 Short Hills, NJ 07078 The Baha'i Faith
Verbus M. Counts
about God.
Lauded be Thy name, O lord my God! How great is Thy might and
Thy sovereignty; how vast Thy strength and Thy dominion!
All praise, O my God, be to The Who art the Source of all glory
and majesty, of greatness and honor, of sovereignty and dominion,
of loftiness and grace, of awe and power.
Exalted, immeasurably exalted, art Thou above the strivings of
mortal man to unravel Thy mystery, to describe Thy glory, or even
to hint at the nature of Thine Essence. For whatever such
strivings may accomplish, they never can hope to transcend the
limitations imposed upon Thy creatures, inasmuch as these efforts
are actuated by Thy decree, and are begotten of Thine invention.
The loftiest sentiments which the holiest of saints can express
in praise of Thee, and the deepest wisdom which the most learned
of men can utter in their attempts to comprehend Thy nature, all
revolve around that Center Which is wholly subjected to Thy
sovereignty, Which adoreth Thy Beauty, and is propelled through
the movement of Thy Pen.
God testifieth to the unity of His Godhood and to the singleness
of His own Being. On The throne of eternity, from the
inaccessible heights of His station, His tongue proclaimeth that
there is none other God but Him. He Himself, independently of
all else, hath ever been a witness unto His own oneness, the
revealer of His own nature, the glorifier of His own essence.
He, verily, is the ALL-Powerful, the Almighty, the Beauteous.
He is supreme over His servants, and standeth over His creatures.
In His hand is the source of authority and truth. He maketh men
alive by His signs, and causeth them to die through His wrath.
He shall not be asked of His doing and His might is equal unto
all things. He is the Potent, the All-Subduing. He holdeth
within His grasp the empire of all things, and on His right hand
is fixed the Kingdom of His Revelation. His power, verily,
embraceth the whole of creation. Victory and overlordship are
His; all might and dominion are His; all glory and greatness are
His. He, of a truth, is the All-Glorious, the Most Powerful, the
Unconditioned.
Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate
His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been,
immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or
perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever
proclaiming: "Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides
Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto
men, and have sent down Him Who is the Dayspring of the signs of
My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify
that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the
All-Informed, the All-Wise." He who is everlastingly hidden from
the eyes of men can never be known except through His
Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof
of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.
Exalted, immeasurably exalted art Thou above any attempt to
measure the greatness of Thy Cause, above any comparison that one
may seek to make, above the efforts of the human tongue to utter
its import! From everlasting Thou hast existed, alone with no
one else beside Thee, and wilt, to everlasting, continue to
remain the same, in the sublimity of Thine essence and the
inaccessible heights of Thy glory.
And when Thou didst purpose to make Thyself known unto men, Thou
didst successively reveal the Manifestations of Thy Cause, and
ordained each to be a sign of Thy Revelation among Thy people,
and the Dayspring of Thine invisible Self amidst Thy
creatures.....
Baha'u'llah
Steve Tynor
>The following is from the writings of Baha'u'llah (The Glory of God)
>about God.
>
>Lauded be Thy name, O lord my God! How great is Thy might and
>Thy sovereignty; how vast Thy strength and Thy dominion!
Etc, etc, etc... KEEP IT OUT OF net.origins !!!!!!!!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Eschew Obfuscation.
Steve Tynor
Georgia Instutute of Technology
...{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs,
ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp, rlgvax, sb1,
uf-cgrl, unmvax, ut-sally} !gatech!gitpyr!tynor
--
Steve Tynor
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!tynor
Dave Trissel
>
>But it appears that the only responses forthcoming are lavish praises
>for God that blithely ignore all I've said about His evil, insults and
>bad jokes from those who are too afraid to think about how evil God
>really is, and silence from those afraid to speak.
>
Gee, I don't want to spoil your party but where is this damager God? I've had
a really great time most all of my life. If there's this nasty God out
there why is He/She/It too weak to zap me?
If all you can come up with is "well your going to die sometime aren't you?"
that's not good enough. If death is the end, then so what? If it is then
that damager God sure can't hurt me after that. If death isn't the end why
shouldn't the damager God be just as unable to harm me then than now?
I find your articles quite interesting. My naive analysis is that you have
an extreme fear of death. So much so that everything you see reminds you
of the fact that you are going to die someday and frustrated that you can't
do anything about it.
Well is my guess right or wrong? And why is this damager God unable to harm
me? What can I do to insult this damager God? Just tell me and I'll do it.
.
Then, if you don't hear from me ever again you'll know the truth. Otherwise,
you'll have to explain why this damager God is afraid of me and hides from me.
-- Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
Dave Trissel
> ... But I also recognize that
>while I continue to live there is an evil pig monster Damager-God who enjoys
>harming people and making mincemeat of out efforts to build and create.
>I go skydiving, I do so realizing that God could do me harm at any moment.
>Why do I do it? Because by beating Him at His own game, by taking the
>necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling
>interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the
>Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to
>believe.
You bring up an interesting idea here - that Damager-God is very evil but
he is not very powerful. Why wouldn't the D-God cause you to break a finger
each time you jumped? I presume you like to skydive and knowing you would
break a finger every time should make D-God really chuckle. But it would seem
he is too weak to do something like that so why fear a harmless D-God?
> I don't mean to call you a liar, Dave, but no one has lived a life
>of sufficient length and not experienced tragedy or suffering. When you
>say that no such things have ever befallen you, I have to question your
>claim that you've had ``a really great time for most all of [your] life.''
Of course I have had a few times in life when I have experienced tragedy. But
these few times pale in comparison to the great amount of enjoyment I get out
of life. I am well paid at work, generally work my
own hours, take weekend trips to wherever (Las Vegus this month), play
with my Macintosh at home, eat wherever I want -
pretty good life if you ask me. Sure, once a month I may have a headache or
my tasks at work are often things I don't like doing, but these minor things
don't amount to the tragedy or suffering you are indicating.
>I must admit I admire the way you speak in defiance of Him, as if daring Him
>to slit your throat as you speak. I hope you realize that for Him to do
>something horrible to someone who speaks out vocally against Him may be seen
>as proof of His evil, even to the most sheepish of His followers. For this
>reason, I believe He will purposely not do this sort of thing, thus not only
>preventing this sort of defection but also appearing to discredit people who
>speak out against Him in the process.
I don't agree here. Horrible things do happen to someone every day, take
the latest spate of air crashes. If such things don't convince followers
of D-God then why should D-God be afraid to zap me? Certainly my absence on
the net isn't going to start making them suspicious. Here you are talking
openly about D-God on the net. If your death in an accident were reported
tomorrow on the net do you think that would convince anyone of D-God? I don't
think so.
Thus, if D-God is real he/she/it could harm me as much as desired and it won't
change the "followers" position. Thus, why doesn't D-God harm me? I submit
that there is no D-God, or that if there is it is so weak that it can't do
anything more powerful than make me do a boring task at work. If the latter
is true then by definition D-God is not a God but more like a gremlin.
> I find it upsetting that so many people like Dan Boscovich and
>now Dave Trissel must find some ``flaw'' in my character or personality to
>account for my beliefs about God.
It's only natural to try to understand why someone believes something. Since
I don't find your arguments for this evil God very compelling (e.g. I can
easily picture a MUCH less atractive world for myself yet it isn't happening)
my only recourse is to try to see why you would want to suggest such a thing
to begin with. Thus, the feeble personality trait guessing.
>In my
>heart, I know it is the work of the evil God damaging their minds that causes
>this sort of thing.
In other words it's wrong for people to try to understand why you hold such
a radical view but correct for you to think their minds are being controlled.
If you could just answer the following simple question I would be glad to
further consider your D-God theory, and if not I don't think it's worth much:
Since I can picture a MUCH less enjoyable world for myself, why is it that
I enjoy my life so much? Why isn't the Damager God making it miserable?
Kerro Panille
>while I continue to live there is an evil pig monster Damager-God who enjoys
>harming people and making mincemeat of out efforts to build and create. When
>I go skydiving, I do so realizing that God could do me harm at any moment.
>Why do I do it? Because by beating Him at His own game, by taking the
>necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling
>interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the
>Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to
>believe.
I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor.
(I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized
for less than that posting.)
--
Vince Hatem ---------------- A
Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T
Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ &
444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T
4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN'
Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES
(201) 699-4869 /-----/
...ihnp4!rruxo!vch
TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche!
(WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
Rich Rosen
> (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized
Hmmm. If Paul Zimmerman is "paranoid" for believing in a god that is evil,
does that make those who believe in a benevolent god equally disturbed and
worthy of institutionalization? Or "dangerous"? Is it just because his god
is different from the one they worship that results in the judgment that Paul
should see a doctor.
So much for religious tolerance...
--
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Yosi Hoshen
> >necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling
> >interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the
> >Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to
> >believe.
>
> (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized
> for less than that posting.)
>
deity does not justify personal insult of the above nature. I don't
see why should a person, who views god as evil, should be called
crazy, while others, who hold to the belief that god is good, are to
be cosidered sane. Gods of various mythologies generally seem to
have an evil side to their character. The god of the bible is not
an exception to this. I really don't understand what is all the fuss
about.
Kerro Panille
>>(I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized
>
>Hmmm. If Paul Zimmerman is "paranoid" for believing in a god that is evil,
>does that make those who believe in a benevolent god equally disturbed and
>worthy of institutionalization? Or "dangerous"? Is it just because his god
>is different from the one they worship that results in the judgment that Paul
You missed the point rich, the man is oblivously rather obsessed with his fear
of this imaginary Deamager-God. Read his articles on the subject. And YES,
people who belive in a benevolent god - fanatically - to the point of Mr
Zimmerman, (ie: would jump off a building and expect God to catch them), ARE
"dangerous", and should be institutionalized. They might hurt someone else
while trying to prove something. (Watch, if I try to hit that little kid over
there, God will save him....) No, THAT'S not dangerous.
Ray Frank
> > >necessary precautions and the extra care to watch out for His meddling
> > >interference, I gain a modicum of pride and satisfaction in showing the
> > >Damager-God that He is not so all powerful as He would like His sheep to
> > >believe.
> >
> > (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized
> > for less than that posting.)
> >
> deity does not justify personal insult of the above nature. I don't
> see why should a person, who views god as evil, should be called
> crazy, while others, who hold to the belief that god is good, are to
> be cosidered sane. Gods of various mythologies generally seem to
> have an evil side to their character. The god of the bible is not
> an exception to this. I really don't understand what is all the fuss
> about.
> Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories
> Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
You and Richie Rosen must have collaborated on this one, you sound like
siamese twins. Both of you are totally missing the point. This Paul is
a raving person. There exists various degrees of disbelief in something. Paul
is even to the left of the extreme of the greatest of degrees. He really is
hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or agrees with some-
thing. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have little trouble diag-
nosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a psychosis. Paul
is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to reason rationally
about this subject. I happen to believe in a loving God, but I don't consider
this as raving and ranting about it. You would be doing Paul a big favor if
you didn't pat him on the back and tell him everything is OK.
Yosi Hoshen
> Paul
> is even to the left of the extreme of the greatest of degrees. He really is
> hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or agrees with some-
> thing. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have little trouble diag-
> nosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a psychosis.
I don't see how you can pass such a judgement on psychological state of
another person. This reminds me of the situation in the USSR where
people who do not agree with Marxist dogma are proclaimed insane. The
ideology is that Marxism must be good. Whoever proclaims it to
be evil must be crazy, and is sent to a mental institution.
> Paul
> is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to reason rationally
> about this subject. I happen to believe in a loving God, but I don't consider
> this as raving and ranting about it. You would be doing Paul a big favor if
> you didn't pat him on the back and tell him everything is OK.
I think that the preposition that there is a god - whether good or bad -
is a delusion. Yet, I don't consider you or Paul to be insane. I do not
pat Paul on his back. If you read my other articles, you would note
that I was very critical some of Paul's Ideas, especially the ones
regarding entropy. But I never at any point labeled him crazy.
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Rich Rosen
> siamese twins. Both of you are totally missing the point. This Paul is
Is the phrase "takes one to know one" appropriate here?
> There exists various degrees of disbelief in something. Paul is even to the
> left of the extreme of the greatest of degrees.
I see, he is wrong because his position is extremely different from yours.
How obvious!
> He really is hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or agrees
> with something. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have little
> trouble diagnosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a psychosis.
> Paul is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to reason
> rationally about this subject.
Contrast this with the following:
> I happen to believe in a loving God, but I don't consider this as raving and
> ranting about it. You would be doing Paul a big favor if you didn't pat him
> on the back and tell him everything is OK.
I fail to see the difference between you and Paul. I tend to think you are
two of a kind. Your nonsense is just as raving as that of Paul, but at
least Paul speaks cogently and answers questions put to him. You, on the
other hand, are an evader of the first order, and your positions have never
once been substantiated by anything at all. Paul's reasoning may be exactly
the same in quality as those who believe in God (only diametrically opposite),
but your "reasoning" processes have yet to be seen.
--
"Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????"
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Pat Shanahan
>
> I'd say this guy is more than a little paranoid. He should see a doctor.
> (I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangerous. I've seen people institutionalized
> for less than that posting.)
>
From another message in this newsgroup:
...
> Anna Chertkova is a Russian Baptist. She was arrested in August 1973
> for her Christian activities, and subsequently sentenced to Tashkent
> Special Psychiatric Hospital for "rehabilitation."
...
I consider evil ANY philosophy whose adherents seek to classify people as
insane and "treat" them for disagreeing with that philosophy.
--
ps
(Pat Shanahan)
uucp : {decvax!ucbvax || ihnp4 || philabs}!sdcsvax!celerity!ps
arpa : sdcsvax!celerity!ps@nosc
Kerro Panille
>> He really is hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or agrees
>> with something. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have little
>>trouble diagnosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a psychosis.
>> Paul is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to reason
>> rationally about this subject.
>> I happen to believe in a loving God, but I don't consider this as raving and
>> ranting about it. You would be doing Paul a big favor if you didn't pat him
>> on the back and tell him everything is OK.
>
>I fail to see the difference between you and Paul. I tend to think you are
>two of a kind. Your nonsense is just as raving as that of Paul, but at
>least Paul speaks cogently and answers questions put to him. You, on the
>other hand, are an evader of the first order, and your positions have never
>once been substantiated by anything at all. Paul's reasoning may be exactly
>the same in quality as those who believe in God (only diametrically opposite),
>but your "reasoning" processes have yet to be seen.
Rich, all I have to say to you is:
Look up "obsessive behavior" in a psychology book. Paul's postings about
the subject obiously show some deep-seated obsession about "beating" his
god to the punch.
Rich Rosen
>>>agrees with something. It is so obvious that a psychologist would have
>>>little trouble diagnosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a
>>>psychosis. Paul is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to
>>>reason rationally about this subject. ... I happen to believe in a loving
>>>God, but I don't consider this as raving and ranting about it. You would be
>>>doing Paul a big favor if you didn't pat him on the back and tell him
>>I fail to see the difference between you and Paul. I tend to think you are
>>two of a kind. Your nonsense is just as raving as that of Paul, but at
>>least Paul speaks cogently and answers questions put to him. You, on the
>>other hand, are an evader of the first order, and your positions have never
>>once been substantiated by anything at all. Paul's reasoning may be exactly
>>the same in quality as those who believe in God (only diametrically opposite),
>>but your "reasoning" processes have yet to be seen. [ROSEN]
> Look up "obsessive behavior" in a psychology book. Paul's postings about
> the subject obiously show some deep-seated obsession about "beating" his
> god to the punch. [HATEM]
Hmmm. What do psychology books say about "god whorshipers"? (As Paul would
so eloquently say...) Do they not qualify for such "obvious" judgmentalness?
Why? Because their position is so obviously right? I don't understand.
That's a very odd double standard you're wielding there. Why is Paul's
"deep-seated obsession" worth condemning, while those obsessions of religious
believers in general are not?
(By the way, if we're talking about obsessive behavior, might I suggest
reading the articles of the man you chose to defend here, Ray Frank? A
perfect example: facts are answered with "Oh, yeah, well prove that I'm
wrong!" or "My mind is cast in cement". A far cry from someone like Paul.
Though his beliefs may be unconventional, his postings have always been as
clear and cogent as any I've seen in these newsgroups, yet still the victim
of a great deal of abuse. Says something, doesn't it?)
--
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Tim Maroney
psychology, and that is enough to give me the authority to say the following
things:
(1) No overt neurotic or psychotic symptoms are evidenced in any of Mr. Paul
Zimmerman's postings.
(2) The charge of obsession is unfounded, since there is no way of
estimating how much of his time is devoted to maltheistic practices or
proselytizing, or to what extent his maltheism interferes with other
activities; in fact, none of us have any ideas what patterns of behavior
other than a desire to discuss it from time to time (emphatically not an
obsessive symptom) pertain to Mr. Zimmerman's beliefs.
(3) No reputable psychoanalyst would base even a preliminary diagnosis on a
small amount of correpondence on a restricted subject, barring strong
evidence of particular dysfunction, e.g., speaking about nothing but
different ways to tie women up and beat them. Anyone who does make such a
diagnosis is a fraud.
>From my experience on the network, I reach this conclusion with surety:
(4) The people performing the amateur, fraudulent psychoanalysis of Mr.
Zimmerman are assholes. They are incapable of answering his belief system
rationally and directly, and so they resort to personal attacks and
judgments which neither they NOR ANYONE ELSE is qualified to make from the
evidence at hand. Unless they apologize for their unfounded and libelous
(yes, technically libelous if it hurts Mr. Zimmerman's image materially)
attacks, they should be subjected to net ostracism, as they do not deserve
the attention of rational people.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
Ray Frank
>
> (4) The people performing the amateur, fraudulent psychoanalysis of Mr.
> Zimmerman are assholes. They are incapable of answering his belief system
> rationally and directly, and so they resort to personal attacks and
> judgments which neither they NOR ANYONE ELSE is qualified to make from the
> evidence at hand. Unless they apologize for their unfounded and libelous
> (yes, technically libelous if it hurts Mr. Zimmerman's image materially)
> attacks, they should be subjected to net ostracism, as they do not deserve
> the attention of rational people.
> -=-
> Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
> ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
> CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
THEY resort to personal attacks? What about YOU? Categorically describing
as 'assholes' those whom you've known only over the net is a qualified profess-
ional diagnosis??? Hmmmm.
Las year I couden even spell scyioanlyst, this year I are one.
Tim Maroney
> Message-ID: <11...@rochester.UUCP>
> THEY resort to personal attacks? What about YOU? Categorically describing
> as 'assholes' those whom you've known only over the net is a qualified
> professional diagnosis??? Hmmmm.
>
> Las year I couden even spell scyioanlyst, this year I are one.
Quoting out of context is such fun, isn't it? Before condemning the people
who questioned Mr. Zimmerman's mental health, I explicitly stated that the
judgment was based on my experience as a net junkie for several years. No
statement or implication of any professional authority was made. But it's
so much easier to dimiss my statements if you just ignore that little fact,
and fail to reproduce the preliminary qualification when quoting me so
others will be misled as well. What a charmer you are, Mr. Frank; we could
all take a lesson in intellectual honesty from you, yes indeed.
As for the ethics of personal condemnation, when people initiate personal
condemnation, then it is ethical to respond with same. The people who
questioned Mr. Zimmerman's mental health clearly initiated personal attacks,
and therefore after objectively demonstrating their personal attacks to be
unfounded, I had no compunctions about making a =well-grounded= personal
attack upon them.
Rich Rosen
>>Zimmerman are assholes. They are incapable of answering his belief system
>>rationally and directly, and so they resort to personal attacks and
>>judgments which neither they NOR ANYONE ELSE is qualified to make from the
>>evidence at hand. Unless they apologize for their unfounded and libelous
>>(yes, technically libelous if it hurts Mr. Zimmerman's image materially)
>>attacks, they should be subjected to net ostracism, as they do not deserve
> THEY resort to personal attacks? What about YOU? Categorically describing
> as 'assholes' those whom you've known only over the net is a qualified
> professional diagnosis??? Hmmmm. [STARK]
What about characterizing those whom YOU'VE known only over the net as
sick or disturbed merely because you disagree with them? One thing about
assholes: you don't need a degree in "scyioanlysis" (as Ray spells it) to
find one, they are very apparent from their abusive behavior.
--
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
Rick Frey
> As for the ethics of personal condemnation, when people initiate personal
> condemnation, then it is ethical to respond with same.
Does this moral premise extend to other areas of life or is it just for
personal condemnation?
Rick Frey
Richard Foy
>evidence at hand. Unless they apologize for their unfounded and libelous
>(yes, technically libelous if it hurts Mr. Zimmerman's image materially)
>attacks, they should be subjected to net ostracism, as they do not deserve
>the attention of rational people.
Hear! Hear!
Richard Foy
Tim Maroney
In general, someone who has not abided by a moral principle has forfeited
any right to protection under that principle. For instance, if someone is
trying to kill someone else, then it is moral to kill them, because they
have no right to object. Morality is exclusive of double standards. The
person who commits an offense against another and then whines piteously when
the same is done to her or him is trying to have it both ways.
Ray Frank
What in effect you are advocating here is that it is reasonable under the
proper circumstances for a person to behave in a manner that was originally
condemned as improper behavior. A judges B, A's behavior is abominable,
but B in turn judging A is OK? What is not evident here is whether or not
A was justified and B was not. Or whether B's behavior in any case is just
as abominable as A's. This is one of the arguments of the anti-capital
punishment groups. They feel that under no circumstances should a murderer
be murdered in turn by a legal system. They feel murder by any other name
is still murder, no ifs, ands, or buts or buts about it.
Bottom line here is that your argument is by no means a cut and dry issue.
The ends do not always justify the means.
Tim Maroney
> proper circumstances for a person to behave in a manner that was originally
> condemned as improper behavior.
You are precisely correct. In case you hadn't noticed, we routinely snatch
and imprison kidnappers, deny thieves the right to have access to their
personal property for a certain period of time, and so on. What moral
justification can there be for this, if not my principle of dealing with
people by the same moral standard they use in dealing with others?
> A judges B, A's behavior is abominable,
> but B in turn judging A is OK? What is not evident here is whether or not
> A was justified and B was not. Or whether B's behavior in any case is just
> as abominable as A's. This is one of the arguments of the anti-capital
> punishment groups. They feel that under no circumstances should a murderer
> be murdered in turn by a legal system. They feel murder by any other name
> is still murder, no ifs, ands, or buts or buts about it.
I'm sorry, but this all seems a non-sequitur. I am not opposed to judging.
Perhaps you have me mistaken for a Christian. In fact, I have never known a
person who does not judge; this command in the New Testament, to judge not
lest ye be judged, is another of those which sound good on paper but have
never been implemented and never will be -- for instance, turn the other
cheek. The issue of judging is separate from the issue of public personal
attack.
As for the foes of capital punishment you mention, I think they are just
reacting emotionally, not rationally. If their stances came from some
underlying moral principle, they would be against putting anyone in jail,
because kidnapping is kidnapping. They would not restrict their argument to
killing. By the way, I oppose capital punishment in 99% of all cases
myself, but for different reasons. (The other 1% is when mass murder and
mental competence are proved by the strictest standards of the law.)
> Bottom line here is that your argument is by no means a cut and dry issue.
> The ends do not always justify the means.
Now you're trying to make me a Marxist! Please read what I say, not what
you think I would be saying. Ends never justify means; means must be judged
by a moral standard. I am really at a loss to understand where this one
came from. Perhaps you have me mistaken for someone else?
Laura Creighton
>
>What in effect you are advocating here is that it is reasonable under the
>proper circumstances for a person to behave in a manner that was originally
>condemned as improper behavior. A judges B, A's behavior is abominable,
>but B in turn judging A is OK? What is not evident here is whether or not
>A was justified and B was not. Or whether B's behavior in any case is just
>as abominable as A's. This is one of the arguments of the anti-capital
>punishment groups. They feel that under no circumstances should a murderer
>be murdered in turn by a legal system. They feel murder by any other name
>is still murder, no ifs, ands, or buts or buts about it.
>
>Bottom line here is that your argument is by no means a cut and dry issue.
>The ends do not always justify the means.
NO! NO! NO! (sorry about that). This is just one of the larger problems
that moral philosophers have in getting their point across. What you are
claiming is that it is possible to look at events from any point-in-time
and judge. This is not usually what is believed at all. If A kills B,
according to this theory, then it is murder because that is what murder is.
I don't buy it, and I don't know very many moral philosophers who do. If A
kills B in self-defense, then it is *not* murder, simply because B, in
threatening A with death has stepped outside of the ``normal'' condition and
all moral judgements of A's actions will have to consider that A now has
*less freedom of action* than before.
In the above example, suppose B robs A's grocery store and threatens A. A
fears for his life but manages to shoot B. Assume that nothing (like
starvation) forced B to rob A. Then B had a wide variety of choices which
he could have made and he chose to rob and threaten A. This action is
immoral. A, however, had many fewer options - in fact, A believed that
his only options were to shoot B or to die. Given this, most moral
philosophers (and me) would call A's actions moral. Note that if A had
always harbored a grudge against B and decided to kill B, not because A
felt threatened, but because he wanted to get away with it, my moral
judgement would be different. Also, if after killing B, A proceeded to
rob him of his (B's) wallet, then I would judge A to be guilty of robbery,
since A is not constrained to do this.
Discussions of morality are a lot of fun. But please remember that few
people think that you can view events in isolation of prior events and
come up with meaningful moral judgements.
--
Laura Creighton (note new address!)
sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!la...@lll-crg.arpa
Rick Frey
>
> In general, someone who has not abided by a moral principle has forfeited
> any right to protection under that principle. For instance, if someone is
> trying to kill someone else, then it is moral to kill them, because they
> have no right to object. Morality is exclusive of double standards. The
> person who commits an offense against another and then whines piteously when
> the same is done to her or him is trying to have it both ways.
Great, but this makes all morality relative to the people involved. If someone
else breaks the rules, than I'm no longer bound by those same rules, but what
about the possibility of a rule structure such that even if others break them,
you are still bound by them? E.g. If I call you a name, you might choose not
to respond back in the same manner, even though you feel you have the right.
Forgive me for paraphrasing Laura's comments on our discussion, but one point
she made was that much depends on the constraints placed on the people involved
you which 'forced' you to insult that person back (forgive me for
calling whoever it was 'that person', but I've forgotten just who it was).
If you have a completely free range of actions and you choose to break a rule
someone else broke, I would have to wonder why and about the sincerity with
which you held the belief in the first place. If the idea is to keep dis-
cussions civil and coherant, then even if you weren't the instigator, by your
reaction you've almost guaranteed no further chance of a civil and coherant
discussion by taking an action you claim is immoral in the first place and that
does not 'need' to be taken.
One point that might clarify a little bit of my position is the question of
how one feels people are to be changed (or to put in more legal/psychological
terms; how non/anti-social behavior can be corrected). In some cases, aside
from the issue of the best way to change people, some 'crimes' are so anti-
social that not only does the person need to be changed, but they also need
to be prevented from committing the same crime again. But in a situation like
someone calling someone else a name, what is the rationale or the advantage to
responding in the manner you claim to dislike. Simply because this other
person did it to you? This is where the whole Biblical idea of turning the
other cheek comes in. Christ's ideas on how to change people were summed up
not only in his teachings about morality (one does occasionally need to tell
people what is right and what is wrong) but more often, they were exemplified
in a life-style that was a model. And not in a model that showed an eye
for an eye, a model that always showed the good so that if modelling was to
take place, that's all there'd be to model.
The other major consideration that I should hit on here is your idea of not
judging people. Simply, the Bible says that we can reprimand our brothers
(sorry I can't remember the refernce for this), we can discipline our
brothers but the Bible makes one point clearly, the basis for all judge-
ment is spiritual and any judgement that is made must be made on spiritual
criteria, by spiritual people. The Bible says that we should submit our
selves to the governments, but in I Corinthians 6:4-7 Paul tries to make
clear the distinction, "If then you have law courts dealing with matters
of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the
church? I say this to your shame. ... But brother goes to law with brother
and that before unbelievers? Actually, then it is already a defeat for you,
that you have law-suits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why
not rather be defrauded?"
We submit to the government, obey its sanctions, but we do not have to and
we should not deal with morality on its terms. The whole basis for turning
the other cheek is given by Paul near the end of Romans 12, "If possible,
so far as it depends upon you, be at peace with all men. Never take your
own revenge but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written,
'Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, says the Lord'. But if your enemy is
hungry, feed him an if he is thirsty, give him drink; for in so doing you
will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome with evil, but
overcome evil with good." The simple idea is that this world and the people
in it are God's to judge. We should try as much as possible to be at peace
with all men and leave the punishments up to God. And as for your comment
about looking good on paper, how did it look in the life of Christ?
Rick Frey
"The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, 'Behold the Lamb of God
who takes away the sin of the world.'" John 1:29