Religions > Atheism > Duwayne Anderson Is Silent (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kevin Simonson" |
| Date: |
09 Feb 2004 09:47:40 AM |
| Object: |
Duwayne Anderson Is Silent (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
I posted the following article exactly a month ago:
=duwaynea@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
=news:<a42139e3.0401071454.1859f1e4@posting.google.com>...
=
==> Duwayne, are you ever going to get around to responding to this
==> article that I posted? I'm still waiting for you to provide me with a
==> definition of "good" that fits your usage.
==
==Done long ago. Something that preserves information and history --
==even if there is only a remote chance of it ever being read -- is
=="good."
= ..........<snip>..........
==> You said I said you were
==> "as good an authority on what is good" as I was, but you're obviously
==> not talking about either preserving history or preserving knowledge.
==
==I most certainly am.
=
= Okay, Duwayne, let me try to parse this for you to show you what
=I mean. You defined "good" to be "[s]omething that preserves informa-
=tion and history." Then you said I said you were "as good an authori-
=ty on what is good" as I was. In other words, your authority was
=good. Which by your definition of "good" meant that _your authority_
=must preserve information and history. Duwayne, just what information
=and/or history does _your authority_ preserve?
=
= The order of your argument is significant too. Your authority,
=for defining good, is good. Therefore we should be swayed by how you
=define good. Therefore you define good (to be something "that pre-
=serves information and history"). Note that you _used_ the term
="good"--by stating that your authority to define it was good--before
=you defined it. That's circular, Duwayne.
=
= It's your turn to squirm now.
=
= This gets back to the central question of _why_ people need to
=define their terms in discussions. Let me reiterate again that I'm a
=big fan of defining your terms as much as you can before you use them.
=But the reason _why_ people should accordinly define their terms is
=because generally defining your terms is _good_. Defining your terms
=before you use them generally results in clearer discussions, and eve-
=rybody agrees that the clearer you make your meanings when you're in-
=volved in discussing something with somebody, the _better_ the discus-
=sion (where "better" simply means more _good_ is accomplished that way
=than any other way).
=
= So people define their terms before a discussion because they re-
=alize that it is _good_ to define their terms before the discussion.
=If they don't realize it's good, then why are they defining their
=terms? So you have to realize what "good" is before it makes sense to
=try to define _anything_.
=
= It's like I said before, Duwayne. Defining terms before you use
=them is generally a good practice, but _it's mathematically impossib-
=le_ to define _all_ your terms before you use them. Participators in
=any discussion have to understand _some_ terms before the discussion
=begins, or the discussion cannot take place, and I have demonstrated
=above that "good" is one of those terms.
When Duwayne made a point in a related thread, I told him "Tou-
che," and admitted his point. Now here, when I've made a point in
_this_ thread, Duwayne has maintained his silence, for an entire
month. I guess we have different posting styles.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
| User: "Scott Marquardt" |
|
| Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Silent (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
09 Feb 2004 12:47:52 PM |
|
|
Kevin Simonson opined thusly on Feb 9:
When Duwayne made a point in a related thread, I told him "Tou-
che," and admitted his point. Now here, when I've made a point in
_this_ thread, Duwayne has maintained his silence, for an entire
month. I guess we have different posting styles.
He also left another [huge] thread in limbo the moment his principal
argument had been trounced. However, I don't think Duwayne has "fled," or
anything like that. He recently had a scheduled lecture on the topic of his
book, so it may be that he's spending some time promoting it. It's hard to
fault him for absenting usenet for that.
Don't fret, I'm sure Duwayne will reappear in time for anyone with issues
in suspended animation to take them up again.
--
Scott
Almost summer! http://snipurl.com/trebuchet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Simonson" |
|
| Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Silent (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
04 Mar 2004 12:36:10 PM |
|
|
Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ba26rw8ivwq5.dlg@marquardts.org>...
=> When Duwayne made a point in a related thread, I told him "Tou-
=> che," and admitted his point. Now here, when I've made a point in
=> _this_ thread, Duwayne has maintained his silence, for an entire
=> month. I guess we have different posting styles.
=
=He also left another [huge] thread in limbo the moment his principal
=argument had been trounced. However, I don't think Duwayne has "fled," or
=anything like that. He recently had a scheduled lecture on the topic of his
=book, so it may be that he's spending some time promoting it. It's hard to
=fault him for absenting usenet for that.
Book? Scott, tell me about this book Duwayne wrote. I didn't
realize he was a published author.
=Don't fret, I'm sure Duwayne will reappear in time for anyone with issues
=in suspended animation to take them up again.
Well, he's sure taking his time doing it. I posted the original
article in this thread about thirty days from the day I made my last
post to "Duwayne Anderson Is Not God" (that he never responded to) and
now it's been nearly thirty more days again. It's like Duwayne just
dropped off the end of the Earth.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Paulson" |
|
| Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Silent (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
05 Mar 2004 06:31:20 AM |
|
|
"Kevin Simonson" <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dfb1603.0403041036.5e4dce14@posting.google.com...
Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ba26rw8ivwq5.dlg@marquardts.org>...
=> When Duwayne made a point in a related thread, I told him "Tou-
=> che," and admitted his point. Now here, when I've made a point in
=> _this_ thread, Duwayne has maintained his silence, for an entire
=> month. I guess we have different posting styles.
=
=He also left another [huge] thread in limbo the moment his principal
=argument had been trounced. However, I don't think Duwayne has "fled," or
=anything like that. He recently had a scheduled lecture on the topic of
his
=book, so it may be that he's spending some time promoting it. It's hard
to
=fault him for absenting usenet for that.
Book? Scott, tell me about this book Duwayne wrote. I didn't
realize he was a published author.
=Don't fret, I'm sure Duwayne will reappear in time for anyone with issues
=in suspended animation to take them up again.
Well, he's sure taking his time doing it. I posted the original
article in this thread about thirty days from the day I made my last
post to "Duwayne Anderson Is Not God" (that he never responded to) and
now it's been nearly thirty more days again. It's like Duwayne just
dropped off the end of the Earth.
The book's in Amazon.com
--
Regards,
Lee the James, uM, feminist
The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence--Thomas H. Huxley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Matthews" |
|
| Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Silent (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
06 Mar 2004 12:06:30 AM |
|
|
"Lee Paulson" <lrpaulson@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<c29rup$1pemdt$1@ID-146277.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Kevin Simonson" <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dfb1603.0403041036.5e4dce14@posting.google.com...
Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ba26rw8ivwq5.dlg@marquardts.org>...
=> When Duwayne made a point in a related thread, I told him "Tou-
=> che," and admitted his point. Now here, when I've made a point in
=> _this_ thread, Duwayne has maintained his silence, for an entire
=> month. I guess we have different posting styles.
=
=He also left another [huge] thread in limbo the moment his principal
=argument had been trounced. However, I don't think Duwayne has "fled," or
=anything like that. He recently had a scheduled lecture on the topic of
his
=book, so it may be that he's spending some time promoting it. It's hard
to
=fault him for absenting usenet for that.
Book? Scott, tell me about this book Duwayne wrote. I didn't
realize he was a published author.
=Don't fret, I'm sure Duwayne will reappear in time for anyone with issues
=in suspended animation to take them up again.
Well, he's sure taking his time doing it. I posted the original
article in this thread about thirty days from the day I made my last
post to "Duwayne Anderson Is Not God" (that he never responded to) and
now it's been nearly thirty more days again. It's like Duwayne just
dropped off the end of the Earth.
The book's in Amazon.com
He published the book via 1st Books, a self-publishing outfit.
http://www.1stbooks.com/
This isn't quite the same as publishing via more traditional
publishers. From reading their on-line material, they'll publish just
about anything (that's legal, that is).
Geoff Matthews
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guy R. Briggs" |
|
| Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Silent (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
04 Mar 2004 01:18:04 PM |
|
|
(Kevin Simonson) wrote:
wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com (Scott Marquardt) wrote:
<snip>
Book? Scott, tell me about this book Duwayne wrote. I
didn't realize he was a published author.
Recently published, as I understand it. Some rant about how science
is disproving the Church. If his book is anything like his posts, you
could remove the repetition and reduce the thing to a pamphlet ;)
With apologies to Samuel Clemens, Guy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob" |
|
| Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Silent (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
04 Mar 2004 11:06:44 PM |
|
|
Book? Scott, tell me about this book Duwayne wrote. I didn't
realize he was a published author.
Rob wrote:
Here is the link to Duwayne's book Kevin:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/farewell.shtml
Besides the obviously embarrassing and doctrinally contradictory
history of the LDS church there is actually a great deal of scientific
evidence that undermines the claim of "divine inspiration" and
"revelation" from the Church leaders. It would appear that the LDS
"prophets" have not received much of their information from God or
that God is poorly informed about the true state of our universe.
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Simonson" |
|
| Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Silent (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
04 Apr 2004 12:26:32 AM |
|
|
(Rob) wrote in message
news:<a178c19a.0403042106.5a6eb0cd@posting.google.com>...
=> Book? Scott, tell me about this book Duwayne wrote. I didn't
=> realize he was a published author.
=>
=Rob wrote:
=
=Here is the link to Duwayne's book Kevin:
=
=http://www.lds-mormon.com/farewell.shtml
=
=Besides the obviously embarrassing and doctrinally contradictory
=history of the LDS church there is actually a great deal of scientific
=evidence that undermines the claim of "divine inspiration" and
="revelation" from the Church leaders. It would appear that the LDS
="prophets" have not received much of their information from God or
=that God is poorly informed about the true state of our universe.
Rob, thanks for giving me the link to Duwayne's book and the run-
down on his book's theme. I've noticed, though, a subtle shifting of
the subject with these posts. Admittedly I started it by asking Scott
to tell me about Duwayne's book. But I think rather than run out and
buy the book (or even follow the link you provided above), I will re-
iterate _my_ theme.
I defined God to be that being (or group of beings) that pre-
served into the eternities (that is, permanently) those good things
that will last forever. Duwayne asked me for a definition of good,
and said that my definition of deity was meaningless without it, since
the use of the term good was central to my definition. I was hesitant
to provide such a definition, because as much as people claim that
different people have different (but equally valid) ideas of what good
means, I have found in practice that there are some things that _eve-
ryone_ believes are good, despite any statements they might have made
to the contrary.
At one point in my discussion with Duwayne, I made the statement
that I was no more an authority on what good meant than he was. The
last thing that Duwayne posted on his thread (and the point at which
he put his foot in his mouth) was his reinterpretation of that remark
that I had made: he said that I had said Duwayne was _as good_ an au-
thority on what good meant as I was. As I said above, I never said
that. Duwayne read that statement into the things that I had said,
and by so doing showed that as much as he protested that the meaning
of the term good was relative, there were some cases where he could
use the term good and be confident that _everyone_ would know exactly
what he meant.
It's ridiculous for _anyone_ to post an article on the Internet
asserting that the term good is completely relative. If the people on
the newsgroup in question didn't have a common belief that posting ho-
nest opinions in that newsgroup was a good thing, then why would any-
one in that newsgroup have reasons to take what anyone else posted se-
riously?
_It's a given_ that posting honest opinions on the Internet is a
good thing. _All significant contributors_ to a newsgroup share that
opinion. My guess is that Duwayne would share that opinion too, if he
looked at his beliefs closely enough. So my definition of God stands,
without me ever having to define what good means.
By the way, I did finally come up with a definition of good,
though Duwayne didn't pay all that much attention to it. Good, I
said, was that that provided the most benefit. God, then, is that be-
ing that preserves into the eternities those _beneficial things_ that
will last forever.
Okay, Duwayne, I've restated my whole case again. Is that enough
to get you to give me a response?
(Good luck with your book, by the way.)
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Simonson" |
|
| Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Silent (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
21 Apr 2004 08:40:36 AM |
|
|
(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message
news:<6dfb1603.0404032226.46869bd4@posting.google.com>...
= I defined God to be that being (or group of beings) that pre-
=served into the eternities (that is, permanently) those good things
=that will last forever. Duwayne asked me for a definition of good,
=and said that my definition of deity was meaningless without it, since
=the use of the term good was central to my definition. I was hesitant
=to provide such a definition, because as much as people claim that
=different people have different (but equally valid) ideas of what good
=means, I have found in practice that there are some things that _eve-
=ryone_ believes are good, despite any statements they might have made
=to the contrary.
..........<snip>..........
= It's ridiculous for _anyone_ to post an article on the Internet
=asserting that the term good is completely relative. If the people on
=the newsgroup in question didn't have a common belief that posting ho-
=nest opinions in that newsgroup was a good thing, then why would any-
=one in that newsgroup have reasons to take what anyone else posted se-
=riously?
=
= _It's a given_ that posting honest opinions on the Internet is a
=good thing. _All significant contributors_ to a newsgroup share that
=opinion. My guess is that Duwayne would share that opinion too, if he
=looked at his beliefs closely enough. So my definition of God stands,
=without me ever having to define what good means.
=
= By the way, I did finally come up with a definition of good,
=though Duwayne didn't pay all that much attention to it. Good, I
=said, was that that provided the most benefit. God, then, is that be-
=ing that preserves into the eternities those _beneficial things_ that
=will last forever.
Duwayne, still waiting for a response.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Ripley" |
|
| Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Silent (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
05 Mar 2004 11:54:26 AM |
|
|
Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ba26rw8ivwq5.dlg@marquardts.org>...
=> When Duwayne made a point in a related thread, I told him "Tou-
=> che," and admitted his point. Now here, when I've made a point in
=> _this_ thread, Duwayne has maintained his silence, for an entire
=> month. I guess we have different posting styles.
=
=He also left another [huge] thread in limbo the moment his principal
=argument had been trounced. However, I don't think Duwayne has "fled," or
=anything like that. He recently had a scheduled lecture on the topic of his
=book, so it may be that he's spending some time promoting it. It's hard to
=fault him for absenting usenet for that.
Book? Scott, tell me about this book Duwayne wrote. I didn't
realize he was a published author.
I could be mistaken, but I believe Duwayne has previously authored/edited
technical or scientefic books.
Duwayne is scheduled to give a lecture regarding his recently published
book "Farewell to Eden" on March 11 in Portland, OR.
http://web.reed.edu/cep/publicevents.html
Cheers,
Bret
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Marquardt" |
|
| Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Silent (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
04 Mar 2004 01:10:50 PM |
|
|
Kevin Simonson opined thusly on Mar 4:
Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ba26rw8ivwq5.dlg@marquardts.org>...
=> When Duwayne made a point in a related thread, I told him "Tou-
=> che," and admitted his point. Now here, when I've made a point in
=> _this_ thread, Duwayne has maintained his silence, for an entire
=> month. I guess we have different posting styles.
=
=He also left another [huge] thread in limbo the moment his principal
=argument had been trounced. However, I don't think Duwayne has "fled," or
=anything like that. He recently had a scheduled lecture on the topic of his
=book, so it may be that he's spending some time promoting it. It's hard to
=fault him for absenting usenet for that.
Book? Scott, tell me about this book Duwayne wrote. I didn't
realize he was a published author.
Just google:
Duwayne Anderson book
will do the trick nicely.
=Don't fret, I'm sure Duwayne will reappear in time for anyone with issues
=in suspended animation to take them up again.
Well, he's sure taking his time doing it. I posted the original
article in this thread about thirty days from the day I made my last
post to "Duwayne Anderson Is Not God" (that he never responded to) and
now it's been nearly thirty more days again. It's like Duwayne just
dropped off the end of the Earth.
That's always possible. Quantum physics allows for such things -- though he
would have dropped instantaneously, with no intervening state (no actual
process of falling). Someone collapsed the wave function and ::poof::!
There he goes! Er . . . was. Went. Whatever.
--
Scott
Almost summer! http://snipurl.com/trebuchet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
