Atheism is DEAD!
M.A.Gore - ICR
The following quote had no comment so my reply is not to the
poster but in general. Also I would like to get some discussion
going about some issues that need clearing up....
In article <11...@mhuxt.UUCP> mtg...@mhuxt.UUCP (RICHARDSON) writes:
>> "There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot
>> face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gee I wounder just *who* could be implicated here considering
the news group??? But I put this question to the news group. WHO
is it that believes in myths? Is it the Christians that have a
Living God that reveals himself to those who seek him OR those
who believe in myths about what Christians believe??? (ok the
last question is stacked (-: well so is the above quote).
Main point of this posting. What do non-Christians think that
Christians believe in God for?:
1) 'Just because the Bible tells us.'
2) 'Because we need a crutch to hold are lives up.'
3) 'Our parents told us.'
4) 'Not very bright. No science in our education.'
5) 'There is a sucker born every minute.'
These are just a few of the myths that non-Christians
have about Christians. But I contend *if* you believe these or
statements like these that you have a 'comfortable myth' and a
crutch that will keep you from understanding Christians.
I grew up being a non-Christian and did not think it was
required that I *need* a God to make life work. I felt that
*many* were being deceived by the Christian 'myth'. I remember
doing a report in high school about Galileo - and my blood
boiled when he was put down by the 'Church'. I felt there was
just no sense in talking to Christians. They were just another cult
off to rape the minds of our young - to be stopped if reason
was to live and so on... Yes those myths about Christianity came
to have the appeal of 'truth' or 'common' sense. TV put 'it'
down as did the educational system-but lightly by only showning
the Church to be the block to the modern 'Scientific' way of
thinking. The 'Church' was put down because of the politics in
our history etc etc... Yet people around me put 'it' down (as I
did also) and laid more foundation to the 'myth'. (Of course
good myths have some truth. - It would be like saying *all* people
can't read 25% true if you believe reports these days. But *ALL*, -garbage)
Still I came to believe in God/Christ because I used the
method of *verification* outlined in the Bible.
- Nothing any Christian can say (that is words) will convince another of
the validity of Christianity. God/Christ ultimately does the
convincing/convicting (re Bible etc) but they have to do the looking.
Luke 11:9 (NIV) "So I say to you: Ask and it will be
given you; seek and you will find; knock and
the door will be opened to you.
& Jeremiah 29:13-14
John 14:16-17 (NIV) "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to
you from the Father, The Spirit of truth who goes out
from the Father, he will testify about me;"
& John 15:26
& Psalm 16:7
You need not be blind:
Proverbs 4:7 (NIV)
7) Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it
cost all you have, get understanding.
Watch out for 'myths' because:
Proverbs 14:6 (NIV)
6) The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge
comes easily to the discerning.
Yet He didn't say that understanding would be easy:
1 Corinthians 1:18-25
Keep an open mind while you look else:
Acts 13:41 (NIV) "Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for
I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe,
even if someone told you."
# Mike Gore
# Institute for Computer Research.
# These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
Mike Huybensz
> >> "There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot
> >> face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Gee I wounder just *who* could be implicated here considering
> the news group??? But I put this question to the news group. WHO
> is it that believes in myths? Is it the Christians that have a
> Living God that reveals himself to those who seek him OR those
> who believe in myths about what Christians believe?
Who is having delusions? Is it the man who sees pink elephants or the man who
thinks the other is deluded for seeing pink elephants? Let's ask this third
man who sees flying purple people-eaters....
> Main point of this posting. What do non-Christians think that
> Christians believe in God for?:
>
> 1) 'Just because the Bible tells us.'
> 2) 'Because we need a crutch to hold are lives up.'
> 3) 'Our parents told us.'
> 4) 'Not very bright. No science in our education.'
> 5) 'There is a sucker born every minute.'
>
> These are just a few of the myths that non-Christians
> have about Christians. But I contend *if* you believe these or
> statements like these that you have a 'comfortable myth' and a
> crutch that will keep you from understanding Christians.
Any one of those is an incomplete explanation. They may well explains some
individuals' belief, but not all individuals. The real explanation is
simply that god belief is bundled into the price of the package of social
services peddled as Christian religions.
Religion is simply a form of social behavior (in the anthropological sense.)
It provides certain services which can all be provided by secular sources.
Different people can select different services. One may use the crutch of
belief in a caring god; another may use the church as a meeting place for
meeting marriageable women or business deals; and another may seek moral
instruction to deal with life's conflicts. There's a large list of non-
supernatural services.
> Still I came to believe in God/Christ because I used the
> method of *verification* outlined in the Bible.
Congratulations. You have fallen prey to circular reasoning.
> - Nothing any Christian can say (that is words) will convince another of
> the validity of Christianity. God/Christ ultimately does the
> convincing/convicting (re Bible etc) but they have to do the looking.
That is plain and simple a psychotic fantasy, no better substantiated by
reality than the idea that there is a homunculus inside your head who controls
your brain and decides whether you will appear to be convinced of Christianity.
It's amazing the lengths people will go to fantasize that somebody important
has taken an interest in them.
--
"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot
face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths."
Bertrand Russell in "Human Society in Ethics and Politics".
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Dave Trissel
>
>>> "There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot
>>> face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths."
>
>Christians believe in God for?:
>
> 1) 'Just because the Bible tells us.'
> 2) 'Because we need a crutch to hold are lives up.'
> 3) 'Our parents told us.'
> 4) 'Not very bright. No science in our education.'
> 5) 'There is a sucker born every minute.'
>
> These are just a few of the myths that non-Christians
>have about Christians. But I contend *if* you believe these or
>statements like these that you have a 'comfortable myth' and a
>crutch that will keep you from understanding Christians.
But the above myths DO hold true for a great many believers.
Myth 1) Obviously true. How many times on this very newsgroup have you seen
"the Bible is God's word and says (blah blah)". QED.
Myth 2) More complicated but face it, we all have some kind of belief system.
Many Christians would 'feel lost' without their religion, and they
will readily admit it.
Myth 3) True for many who simply grew up being told what to believe. The
irony is that most Christians if they had been born in Iran would
be Islamic.
Myth 4) My parents have no idea what psychology is all about. They couldn't
begin to take apart their belief system and see why they believe the
way they do. In fact, THEY WOULD TAKE THIS TO BE A THREAT, since
they feel their religion is simply a given. My father was told by
my grandmother that horse hairs in mud puddles become insects.
And he says he doesn't know if that's true but his mother never
lied to him and so it may be.
Myth 5) Well, sucker is too strong a word. I would prefer saying that it's
the nature of a human being to hang on to any belief system which
seems to fulfill deep psychological needs.
In my opinion what most people miss in the entire discussion of religion is
that there is a 'feel good' effect that one gets from following religious
tenents. We all know we have flaws. And so being told that if we do X
then all of our guilt will be forgiven by the creater of the universe makes
a powerful draw. Of course X in the Christian religion is "ask God for
forgiveness of your sins." This is potent psychological stuff.
The trouble is, that in almost every case (and I'll detail the exception
later) you have to believe in this 'world view' before the fix can take hold.
You have to believe that there is a God who is vastly superiour to yourself
who wants you to come clean (i.e. 'get saved') and who has the power to
forgive. You have to believe that you are a bad person who needs 'redemption'.
The stronger you believe this the more powerful will be your 'conversion'
experience.
As a kid our church had 'alter calls' where at the end of the service
people would be asked to go up front and 'give their lives to the Lord' to
'get saved'. I saw some people go through an apparent transformation in
their lives. But it varied from individual to individual. Some people had to
go back to the alter time after time before they would 'get saved'. They were
told that they just weren't being honest with God, that they were holding
something back and just need to come totally clean and beg forgiveness.
Sometimes a person would give up trying to 'get saved' and never come back.
It wasn't until I grew older and learned how to analyze things deeper that
I began to realize what was going on. First, there was the setting up of the
world view during the preaching (the guilt trip, the all-powerful God who
wants to forgive, 'fallen' man, etc.) Then the climax where the 'alter call'
was given to allow individuals to 'have your sins washed away.'
Once I saw what was going on I realized the guilt trip was for the most part
artificial and slowly but surely Christianity lost it's hold on me. For then
I knew that I was a decent person who could love others whether I prayed to
God or not. I found that I could have this 'spritual high' feeling without
attending church or thinking of God. But it does have something to do with
loving oneself and the beings around you.
Now to the rare case where someone who supposedly hasn't been fed on the
Christianity 'world view' still has this 'conversion' experience. There was
one thing common among all the cases I knew of and that was this-there had
been a tremendous amount of 'evil' done by such persons. Thus, they have
a much greater pressure of guilt to be relieved even though it may have been
hidden deeply under the surface. Examples here are Saul of Tarsis, or a
hardened criminal. (This is simplified of course. For even a person just
stealing a newspaper may be of such a disposition that they feel heavy guilt
over it-and thus they too would be eligible for this type of conversion.)
Like a newly hatched duck which follows that which it
first sees, I followed the 'world view' of my religion as to the why and
wherefore of 'religious highs'. For simple people, like my parents, who have
not learned how to analyze things deeply there is no other explanation (nor
need of one.) Therefore, the church dogma wins out over any psychological
understanding since it is there first and and the latter is not accessible by
many.
I propose the following belief profile is required
of Christians for their religion to have any meaning:
1) You must believe you are inherently bad and have a certain
degree of gu
M.A.Gore - ICR
In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP> m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
him>
I wrote:
me>
him> or the man who thinks the other is deluded for seeing pink elephants?
him> Let's ask this third man who sees flying purple people-eaters....
So what gives you the right to ask (or stack) the questions?
Can you get in the brain and *know* what another person thinks? You
assume too much for your own good (just guess what about, ok?).
Look, lets be be clear: (and if I don't answer what your active
imagination thinks up, or address *your* pet problem. *Your*
job in such a case is to ask - not critisize - untill you know - else
if your mind is made up -tell us , ok? - and I say good for you!)
I digress:
I can say that I could be fooled about what I experiance
and what I beleive. Does that make you feel better? You must
think to highly of yourself to think otherwise. You don't even
TRY to see how open minded we are or what I just ment. You say
much about Christians and know *little*. Why should I have to
answer for *all* religions and social causes of them. That's
YOUR problem! You have to ask us AND them to find out! Your
*Hypocrisy* and such like it *was the reason I posted* (re
myth). You would rather live in a fantasy land safe with what
you think we know! You have to be impartial to judge. -(been on a
jury? - think about it). To put patterns together you have to be
willing to try new ideas... I have good eveidence that YOU
generalize too much for your own good.... I *just* need refer to
a few of your articles here. So that's why I overload the word
'fantasy' on you.
Perhaps you have much history in thinking what you
state -but the burdon of 'assumption' is yours to test - not to
state like fact. Look. I don't want you to squrim away from this
<I *Just* wanted to illustrate the danger in *pre-judgment*>
You go off into never never land and spew forth
about your own BIAS and realizations of HOW we think,...just great
what an example to follow.!
You state:
him> The real explanation is simply that god belief is bundled into
him> the price of the package of social services peddled as Christian
him> religions.
-Hey no contest here -YOU said it after all...(-:
him> Religion is simply a form of social behavior
him> (in the anthropological sense.)
-Just 'simply'? -Good no need to think about that anymore!
him> It provides certain services which can all be provided by
him> secular sources.
-SO ?
him> Different people can select different services. One may use
him> the crutch of belief in a caring god;
him> another may use the church as a meeting place for
him> meeting marriageable women or business deals;
him> and another may seek moral
him> instruction to deal with life's conflicts. There's a large
him> list of non-supernatural services.
-So that explains it *ALL* hmmm? And,... I don't know that???
What do I know hmmmm???? -don't you feel silly????
me> Still I came to believe in God/Christ because I used the
me> method of *verification* outlined in the Bible.
him> Congratulations. You have fallen prey to circular reasoning.
No, I made that a bit more clear. The Bible as a closed system
-if you like- may or may not be any more circular than finding 2 + 2 = 4
in a math text (an aside: how many sources do I need to prove this?)
The Christian at least thinks that God proves himself to them as
a real experiance. Yet YOU want to define Christainity! That's
like on a whim, re-defining a history to suite your purpose, and
then use this version of history to convict whoever you don't like!
Well Sir I am calling you for what you are a Hypocrite! So ok,
things are hard to prove at times,.. great! I bet if most of the
people in history used your openminded example we would be still
arguing about how to dig caves as far as scientific method goes!
me> - Nothing any Christian can say (that is words) will convince
me> another of the validity of Christianity. God/Christ ultimately does
me> the convincing/convicting (re Bible etc) but they have to do the
me> looking.
I guess you don't know what I ment. Well your a good example
as to whom I was talking to as an extreme case. I can't PROVE to
you of the experiances in my mind any more than you can PROVE
what's in your mind. That's what I ment -as to degree... But
here you may ask 'what do you mean by PROVE?' -I say just:
*anything* no more no less ok? -Or even more clearly -NOT
limited to Christian thought.....
him> That is plain and simple a psychotic fantasy, no better
him> substantiated by reality than the idea that there is a
^^^^^^^^
-Yours no doubt....
him> homunculus inside your head who controls your brain and
him> decides whether you will appear to be convinced of Christianity.
him> It's amazing the lengths people will go to fantasize that somebody
him> important has taken an interest in them.
-
Yup and you *KNOW* with a capital *K* hmmm????? Oh if only *I* could do that!
(re people -> fantasize, why, what when where---->therefore! for *all*)
Well from my point now I could say I can't avoid God. But what do
you KNOW I know? I have posted so much that you know me like you know the
back of *my* hand (-: ?.... I have had to talk with many Christians to
get to know that there is a thread of common experience. Takes time...
You would like to toss away a fair bit of experience though ---
must be nice.....
Mike Huybensz, if I give you an apology as to my tone here will you
beleive me? Well here it is. - At this time of day I can't think of a better
way to get to your level... My statements stand, though the method here might
sting....
To the Christains on the net I am deeply sorry but I hope
you will find better ways to speak up.
Drifting back to the 'myth' theme....And just plain general ideas....
It is sad the way Galileo died in history.
-for want to accept new ideas-
...But we all hold on to many 'myths' -so then have respect for
those who do.
-to every issue there are more then 2 sides and painfull
it is to find out....
Where is the humble man?
Why must the humble Chrsitian never speak?
-but maybe *I'm* a poor example here...
him> Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
him>
him> "There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man
him> who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable
him> myths."
him> Bertrand Russell in "Human Society in Ethics and Politics".
He said it! it must be true every 'little' word. But now I can read
this in a new light! Just a new fancy way to be a biggot....
-Read as: 'assume someone *cannot face*'
-->therefore the sky is blue.! just great!
And trash anyone who doesn't agree!-emph. mine. Oh! *I* don't want
to be feeble and little (-:I could loose weight though :-) ...'Just
don't want those nasty words on me!'... Guess I have to give up
being openminded now....
I think 'modern' ways have given us much. Now we can dress up
trash and make it seem real fine. Teach it to the young so
it becomes so second nature that...well maybe that's *why* we
are in such a mess?
Just a thought...
# I do not recommend this method of reply... It'll have to do for now...
p...@fluke.uucp
Hi,
Religion is simply a means to an end. It is nothing more than a tool,
an important tool, but still only a tool. Focusing on the tool
takes away from moving on toward the goal. And to a Christian, the goal is
eternity with a loving God. I use the tool to help reach God.
In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP> m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>..It's amazing the lengths people will go to fantasize that somebody important
>has taken an interest in them. ...
>Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
What is the goal to believing God has no interest in you?
What does believing you are no more important to God than the dog that runs
across your front yard get you?
God Bless,
Mike Andrews
Charley Wingate
Dave Trissel writes:
>>Main point of this posting. What do non-Christians think that
>>Christians believe in God for?:
>> 1) 'Just because the Bible tells us.'
> Obviously true. How many times on this very newsgroup have you seen
> "the Bible is God's word and says (blah blah)". QED.
Doesn't follow, since they are referring to a particular aspect or doctrine,
not to the thing as a whole.
>> 2) 'Because we need a crutch to hold are lives up.'
> More complicated but face it, we all have some kind of belief system.
> Many Christians would 'feel lost' without their religion, and they
> will readily admit it.
Perhaps because they would indeed be lost.
>> 3) 'Our parents told us.'
> True for many who simply grew up being told what to believe. The
> irony is that most Christians if they had been born in Iran would
> be Islamic.
Which of course doesn't explain the many many people who convert back and
forth. And you believe most of history because people tell you, let me
remind you.
>> 4) 'Not very bright. No science in our education.'
> My parents have no idea what psychology is all about. They couldn't
> begin to take apart their belief system and see why they believe the
> way they do. In fact, THEY WOULD TAKE THIS TO BE A THREAT, since
> they feel their religion is simply a given. My father was told by
> my grandmother that horse hairs in mud puddles become insects.
> And he says he doesn't know if that's true but his mother never
> lied to him and so it may be.
I don't see that this proves anything. I don't believe you can understand
religion in terms of psychology because, in my opinion, psychology is not
sophisticated enough to comprehend it, and because of the strong tendency
towards atheistic assumptions-- which is why most people correctly
understand most attempts at psychological understandings of their religions
as attacks upon their religion.
>> 5) 'There is a sucker born every minute.'
> Well, sucker is too strong a word. I would prefer saying that it's
> the nature of a human being to hang on to any belief system which
> seems to fulfill deep psychological needs.
Including, of course, a faith in scientific "explanations".
>In my opinion what most people miss in the entire discussion of religion is
>that there is a 'feel good' effect that one gets from following religious
>tenents. We all know we have flaws. And so being told that if we do X
>then all of our guilt will be forgiven by the creater of the universe makes
>a powerful draw. Of course X in the Christian religion is "ask God for
>forgiveness of your sins." This is potent psychological stuff.
Except that the writings of the christian authors don't support such a
reading. You therefore can only postulate that this happens, since the
external evidence is against the hypothesis-- especially when the church
father write that Jesus must be followed even when there is a deep lack of
satisfaction in so doing.
>As a kid our church had 'alter calls' where at the end of the service
>people would be asked to go up front and 'give their lives to the Lord' to
>'get saved'. I saw some people go through an apparent transformation in
>their lives. But it varied from individual to individual. Some people had
>to go back to the alter time after time before they would 'get saved'. They
>were told that they just weren't being honest with God, that they were
>holding something back and just need to come totally clean and beg
>forgiveness. Sometimes a person would give up trying to 'get saved' and
>never come back.
Well, my response is that they were lied to. The gospels do not say that
one must stand before a piece of furniture (or a person, for that matter) to
receive the Spirit; nor do they say that it presence must be revealed so
dramatically.
>It wasn't until I grew older and learned how to analyze things deeper that
>I began to realize what was going on. First, there was the setting up of the
>world view during the preaching (the guilt trip, the all-powerful God who
>wants to forgive, 'fallen' man, etc.) Then the climax where the 'alter call'
>was given to allow individuals to 'have your sins washed away.'
THis is an indictment, however, of only one ritual form of christianity. In
a liberal mainline church, this kind of emotional browbeating is strongly
discouraged. Yet we still have a high rate of adult converts.
>Once I saw what was going on I realized the guilt trip was for the most part
>artificial and slowly but surely Christianity lost it's hold on me. For then
>I knew that I was a decent person who could love others whether I prayed to
>God or not. I found that I could have this 'spritual high' feeling without
>attending church or thinking of God. But it does have something to do with
>loving oneself and the beings around you.
And so, oddly enough, you have been led to follow Christ while avoiding all
this emotional claptrap. (I mean, in the manner of your living, not in
worship.) Did it ever occur to you that this is what was wanted all along?
>Now to the rare case where someone who supposedly hasn't been fed on the
>Christianity 'world view' still has this 'conversion' experience. There was
>one thing common among all the cases I knew of and that was this-there had
>been a tremendous amount of 'evil' done by such persons. Thus, they have
>a much greater pressure of guilt to be relieved even though it may have been
>hidden deeply under the surface. Examples here are Saul of Tarsis, or a
>hardened criminal. (This is simplified of course. For even a person just
>stealing a newspaper may be of such a disposition that they feel heavy guilt
>over it-and thus they too would be eligible for this type of conversion.)
But there's an even more important class-- those people who never have a
dramatic conversion experience.
The rest of this is too personal to be discussed on the net.
C. Wingate
Charley Wingate
>Religion is simply a form of social behavior (in the anthropological sense.)
>It provides certain services which can all be provided by secular sources.
>Different people can select different services. One may use the crutch of
>belief in a caring god; another may use the church as a meeting place for
>meeting marriageable women or business deals; and another may seek moral
>instruction to deal with life's conflicts. There's a large list of non-
>supernatural services.
Let us be more accurate: the external signs of religion are, by and large,
evidenced by the behavior of its adherents. (Even we admit that obvious
mirales are exceedingly rare to the point where their existence can never be
assented to scientifically.) This means that one can easily make up all
sorts of psychological explanations for everything. By the same token, it
means that there are three essentially indistinguishable possibilities:
1) That all of these things are purely psychological in origin.
2) That some are and some aren't.
3) That none of them are.
I don't think you can make a case for 3, especially when even the religious
texts are arguing against you. I happen to believe in (2). THis, however,
is very difficult to distinguish from (1). I do have a purely procedural
problem with (1) in that you need to be able to enumerate all the different
psychological motivations and show that at least one holds in all cases. If
you have one that is reasonable, that tends to reduce faith in (3), but it's
always possible that (2) is true BUT the number of "non-psychologicals" is
small enough to where you've never seen one, or that your psychological
explanation is plausible but wrong.
>It's amazing the lengths people will go to fantasize that somebody important
>has taken an interest in them.
Uh, Mike, I hate to break it to you, but there is no way on earth you can
demonstrate that this is in fact a real motivating factor-- and Auden, for
one, argues against it, so I have to conclude that it is, at best, an
explanation for only part of christianity. Which means that you'll have to
concoct some other rationalization for the rest.
C. Wingate
Mike Huybensz
> Religion is simply a means to an end. It is nothing more than a tool,
> an important tool, but still only a tool. Focusing on the tool
> takes away from moving on toward the goal. And to a Christian, the goal is
> eternity with a loving God. I use the tool to help reach God.
Having a tool doesn't guarantee that the tool is good for the claimed use.
By your analogy, every religion is a tool. And I strongly doubt that you
would conceed the others are all good for their claimed uses.
On the other hand, Karl Marx had a fair amount to say on religion as a tool.
As a tool of ruling classes, oppressors, etc.
> In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP> m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> >..It's amazing the lengths people will go to fantasize that somebody
> >important has taken an interest in them. ...
>
> What is the goal to believing God has no interest in you?
I don't believe that at all. It never comes up because I don't believe in
gods.
> What does believing you are no more important to God than the dog that runs
> across your front yard get you?
If I did believe in some god(s) or another, it might get me humility. :-)
--
"... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make
themselves artificially stupid." Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge".
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Mike Huybensz
> Let us be more accurate: the external signs of religion are, by and large,
> evidenced by the behavior of its adherents. (Even we admit that obvious
> mirales are exceedingly rare to the point where their existence can never be
> assented to scientifically.)
We can be more accurate still by a slight reordering. Religion is an
abstraction derived from the real actions (and perhaps thoughts) we call
behavior. We are concerned with how well our abstraction conforms to
reality, especially the parts we can't observe directly. (Perhaps we
shouldn't trivially assume conformation to the aspects of reality that
we CAN observe directly.... :-)
> ... there are three essentially indistinguishable possibilities:
>
> 1) That all of these things are purely psychological in origin.
> 2) That some are and some aren't.
> 3) That none of them are.
"Indistinguishable" is the key word. From the scientific viewpoint, you are
adding unnecessary invisible agents that Occam suggests we ignore. Even if
psychology in its current state can't explain all the events (and I'm first
in line to criticize most psychology as pseudoscience), adding an untestable
invisible agent is not the scientific solution.
> >It's amazing the lengths people will go to fantasize that somebody important
> >has taken an interest in them.
>
> Uh, Mike, I hate to break it to you, but there is no way on earth you can
> demonstrate that this is in fact a real motivating factor-- and Auden, for
> one, argues against it, so I have to conclude that it is, at best, an
> explanation for only part of christianity. Which means that you'll have to
> concoct some other rationalization for the rest.
I think quite a few Christians want to believe that their important God has
taken an interest in them, to the point that they will construe all sorts of
normal things to have divine significance. Anybody who has been in love
ought to understand that sort of bizarre behavior. I agree that it is a
factor for only some Christians: there are large numbers of motivations for
belief, including the perennial favorite: hellfire.
Joel Rives
>
[ Stacked question deleted and ignored ]
>Main point of this posting. What do non-Christians think that
>Christians believe in God for?:
>
> 1) 'Just because the Bible tells us.'
> 2) 'Because we need a crutch to hold are lives up.'
> 3) 'Our parents told us.'
> 4) 'Not very bright. No science in our education.'
> 5) 'There is a sucker born every minute.'
>
> These are just a few of the myths that non-Christians
>have about Christians. But I contend *if* you believe these or
>statements like these that you have a 'comfortable myth' and a
>crutch that will keep you from understanding Christians.
>
I can not speak for other non-Christians but it is not my way to question
anothers faith, whether that faith is Buddhism, Christianity or Wicca. I
will invite intelligent discussion on philosophical or theological matters.
Yet, if a person merely says, "This is what I believe ....", then there is
no room for discourse.
I am also discerning enough to realize that when a person tells me they are
Christian and proceeds to try and convert me, I need not associate this
demeaning and antisocial behaviour with all Christians. Amoung my close
circle of friends are included a devoutly religious Christian couple. Never
once, in our years of association, have they felt inclined to try and
convince me of the errors of my ways.
This posting is particularly poignant since I have recently received mail
from both Kiki and Dave. In both cases, they expressed what seemed to be
sincere interest in the spiritual experiences of my life. Yet, in both
cases, they ended up insinuating that my experiences are of lesser
quality because I do not claim faith in their god. This is clearly an
insult and I told them as much. I suggest that anyone who has similar
intent, please, examine your motives and your actions carefully. Granted,
there are probably a great number of people in the world who are unsure
of themselves, who haven't formed a cohesive faith yet. That is part of
the growing-up process. Even so, there are still a great number of people
in the world who have formed a solid faith in something and the vast majority
of them are not Christian.
--
Joel Rives gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr
There is no place to seek the mind;
It is like the footprints of the birds in the sky.
p...@fluke.uucp
Hi,
[regarding seeing religion as a tool]
In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP> m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>...Having a tool doesn't guarantee that the tool is good for the claimed use.
>By your analogy, every religion is a tool. And I strongly doubt that you
>would conceed the others are all good for their claimed uses.
Every religion is a tool. Not all are established by God, and even of the
ones that are, not all the tools are always used correctly. I look at the
Christian church as the people who make it up. No one is perfect, not
even Christians :-) . So pointing to imperfect Christians, telling how
they've messed up at times, while overlooking the many good things they
have done and are doing, then saying this shows God is non-existant, or
imperfect, or evil --- is comparing apples to oranges. Someone could be
the world's worst worker, but that doesn't mean the president of the
company doesn't exist, otherwise he'd get rid of the guy; or that he must be
a rotten president to allow this guy to continue to work there; or that
the president must have it in for everyone who purchases his products
because he has a poor worker involved in making some of them.
[regarding why Mike Huybensz would believe God has no interest in him]
>I don't believe that at all. It never comes up because I don't believe in
>gods. ...
>Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Why do you fight so hard against the God you don't believe exists, and
specifically get involved in net.religion.christian to spend time and
energy to attack those who do choose to believe in Him? Will you move
your discussions over to mod.religion.christain, or do you think expressing
your sincere doubts and concerns will be not allowed there? Give it a try.
I have a real hard time believing in God sometimes, more often than I wish.
There are times I get more than just angry with Him, tired of trying to
act Christian when it doesn't get me anywhere. It's at these times I learn
more about myself - if I get tired of acting like a Christian because I don't
get anything out of it, then why do I act like a Christian in the first place?
So others will be impressed with the me they are shown - strong, faithfilled
Christian ... etc, or so God will be pleased to see me loving those same
others for Him?
God Bless,
Mike Andrews
Mike Huybensz
> >...Having a tool doesn't guarantee that the tool is good for the claimed use.
> >By your analogy, every religion is a tool. And I strongly doubt that you
> >would conceed the others are all good for their claimed uses.
>
> Every religion is a tool. Not all are established by God, and even of the
> ones that are, not all the tools are always used correctly.
Yes, but what happens when your tool features the secret miracle ingredient
"fraudulin"?
You attempt to blame failures of the tools on misuse: my point is that
claims of the retailers are fraudulent.
> [regarding why Mike Huybensz would believe God has no interest in him]
> >I don't believe that at all. It never comes up because I don't believe in
> >gods. ...
>
> Why do you fight so hard against the God you don't believe exists, and
> specifically get involved in net.religion.christian to spend time and
> energy to attack those who do choose to believe in Him?
I expend no effort against non-existent gods: my arguments are directed to
very real people (well, maybe not so real.... :-) These people claim that
because of an invisible being (that only they can see and hear), they have
more authority than I do. They want to enact laws (such as blasphemy laws,
abortion laws, etc.) that are designed to enforce their whims. It is
politically important for me to oppose this nonsense. I certainly don't do
it out of some idiotic need to tell a god that it doesn't exist.
> Will you move
> your discussions over to mod.religion.christain, or do you think expressing
> your sincere doubts and concerns will be not allowed there? Give it a try.
To date I've only seen one posting in m.r.c: and it should have been in
talk.politics. Personally, I dislike moderated groups. I think they are
inconvenient. However, I will definitely try posting to them if I see
something that I think needs a rebuttal that a Christian could make.
> I have a real hard time believing in God sometimes, more often than I wish.
If you need help in discarding your superstitions, let me know.
> There are times I get more than just angry with Him, tired of trying to
> act Christian when it doesn't get me anywhere. It's at these times I learn
> more about myself - if I get tired of acting like a Christian because I don't
> get anything out of it, then why do I act like a Christian in the first place?
> So others will be impressed with the me they are shown - strong, faithfilled
> Christian ... etc, or so God will be pleased to see me loving those same
> others for Him?
Probably force of habit. It's hard to rethink what to do in ordinary
circumstances when you have been long trained to do particular things.
Alternative strategies don't just pop into your head, and judgement systems
based on experience require mistakes to be made to gain experience.
I think it's pathetic that you try to use your own acquired habits (that
you'd probably not find easy to change even if you tried) as a prop for
your beliefs.
--
"Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why
you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion
gives you the high it does. Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important
enough for me to give up my religion if that is required? Until you answer
yes to this you are not being honest with yourself." Dave Trissel
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Don Steiny
>Main point of this posting. What do non-Christians think that
>Christians believe in God for?:
>
> 1) 'Just because the Bible tells us.'
> 2) 'Because we need a crutch to hold are lives up.'
> 3) 'Our parents told us.'
> 4) 'Not very bright. No science in our education.'
> 5) 'There is a sucker born every minute.'
>
> These are just a few of the myths that non-Christians
>have about Christians. But I contend *if* you believe these or
>statements like these that you have a 'comfortable myth' and a
>crutch that will keep you from understanding Christians.
>
I had an acquaintance in high school that took so much
LSD that the spirts came and talked to him and told him to
read the bible. He has been a fanatical Christian ever
since (nearly 20 years). You can add "hallucinations" to the
list.
--
scc!steiny
Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software
109 Torrey Pine Terrace
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
(408) 425-0382
Jason A. Kinchen
> I expend no effort against non-existent gods: my arguments are directed to
> very real people (well, maybe not so real.... :-) These people claim that
> because of an invisible being (that only they can see and hear), they have
> more authority than I do. They want to enact laws (such as blasphemy laws,
> abortion laws, etc.) that are designed to enforce their whims. It is
> politically important for me to oppose this nonsense. I certainly don't do
> it out of some idiotic need to tell a god that it doesn't exist.
Mike,
I have followed your discourses on net.religion.christian for some time and
was surprised to see you write such a silly paragraph. Up to this point, I
have been convinced that although your language is sometimes stronger than
necessary to make your points, that you proceed quite well from your premise
of atheism, and that your view is interesting. The quote from Dave Trissel
is something I thing every religious person should read. However, the above
rationalization is quite flawed and in no way coincides with your actions.
You state that you must oppose a viewpoint that claims to have authority over
you, but why? First of all, not all Christians hold the view that they have
authority over their fellow man. In fact, being a Christian myself, not only
do I not hold myself above you, in particular, but was enjoying learning from
you. I think that the words of Paul are quite appropriate to show that it is
certainly not the Christian party line to oneself above others. He states that
those who would minister should think of themselves as servants and not as
masters.
Second, simply because some people in a group claim authority does not mean
that they actually have it. Only your submission to the authority would give
it any punch. Let them think what they want, you certainly aren't going to
bow to their will.
Thirdly, don't YOU in fact, fight fire with fire, and imply superiority over
Christians by saying that they are not "real people", that the practice of
the religion is "pathetic", that their views "nonsensical"?
Then you get worried about the laws some Christians are trying to pass, but
aren't you confusing cause and effect here? Isn't it much easier and more
effective to oppose the legislation itself rather than a tradition of millions
of people that has about a two thousand year head start on you? Speaking as
a Christian who in fact holds probably the same political views that you do,
I can tell you that if you are really doing all this because it is "politically
important" then you've made a serious mistake. For one thing, you alienate
potential allies like myself who do not share your view of Christianity, but
who are opposed to those same laws. Wouldn't our efforts be welcome?
I'm especially surprised that you tried to hang the anti-abortion issue around
the Christians' neck. Even if every Christian were to magically become an
atheist tomorrow (in your dreams, right?), there would still be a loud and
quite organized cry against abortion. Pro-Lifers and Christians are not
synonymous, and you gain absolutely nothing by attacking Christianity for the
sake of the right to have abortions. The issue is far too complex for it to
be dealt with as an attack on religious doctrine.
I don't why you attack Christianity with such vehemence (I don't mind, in
fact, I find it stimulating) and you are certainly allowed to have your opinion
but this line about being politically motivated is just so much hooey. It's
either stupid or it's dishonest, but either way it isn't worthy of you. And I
don't understand why it is necessary. Why take a personal choice you are com-
pletely entitled to have and try and fallaciously elevate it to the level of a
political mandate?
I suggest you reread the words of Dave Trissel under the light of your own
views and be honest with yourself.
Jason Kinchen
ja...@media-lab.MIT.EDU
Kenn Barry
>In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP>, m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>> I expend no effort against non-existent gods: my arguments are directed to
>> very real people (well, maybe not so real.... :-) These people claim that
>> because of an invisible being (that only they can see and hear), they have
>> more authority than I do. They want to enact laws (such as blasphemy laws,
>> abortion laws, etc.) that are designed to enforce their whims. It is
>> politically important for me to oppose this nonsense. I certainly don't do
>> it out of some idiotic need to tell a god that it doesn't exist.
>
>you, but why? First of all, not all Christians hold the view that they have
>authority over their fellow man.
But some do. Read the quoted paragraph from Mike again. It says
nothing about "all Christians". It talks only of people who want to give
their religious whims the force of law.
>Second, simply because some people in a group claim authority does not mean
>that they actually have it. Only your submission to the authority would give
>it any punch. Let them think what they want, you certainly aren't going to
>bow to their will.
Don't be naive. When they come to your door with guns drawn,
or throw you in prison for "immorality", they've *got* the authority,
whatever one's personal opinion of their morals.
>Thirdly, don't YOU in fact, fight fire with fire, and imply superiority over
>Christians by saying that they are not "real people", that the practice of
>the religion is "pathetic", that their views "nonsensical"?
If Mike said this, you failed to quote it. The paragraph speaks
of religious fanatics who try to legislate their private morality into
public policy.
>Then you get worried about the laws some Christians are trying to pass, but
>aren't you confusing cause and effect here? Isn't it much easier and more
>effective to oppose the legislation itself rather than a tradition of millions
>of people that has about a two thousand year head start on you?
Come again? 2000-year head start? Religious skepticism is older
than you think. Read Lucretius some time.
>Speaking as
>a Christian who in fact holds probably the same political views that you do,
>I can tell you that if you are really doing all this because it is "politically
>important" then you've made a serious mistake. For one thing, you alienate
>potential allies like myself who do not share your view of Christianity, but
>who are opposed to those same laws. Wouldn't our efforts be welcome?
Your help is more than welcome to me. What did Mike say to alienate
you?
>I'm especially surprised that you tried to hang the anti-abortion issue around
>the Christians' neck. Even if every Christian were to magically become an
>atheist tomorrow (in your dreams, right?), there would still be a loud and
>quite organized cry against abortion. Pro-Lifers and Christians are not
>synonymous, and you gain absolutely nothing by attacking Christianity for the
>sake of the right to have abortions. The issue is far too complex for it to
>be dealt with as an attack on religious doctrine.
Questionable. I do know of a small number of people (Hi, Laura!)
who oppose abortion for reasons unrelated to religion, but they are rare.
Opposition to abortion is primarily the work of religious conservatives.
Not all such are Christian, but most are, this being a predominantly
Christian nation. It is not a case of hanging anti-abortion around all
Christian's necks, however, but just around the necks of those
conservative types who are actively working to make abortion illegal.
>I don't why you attack Christianity with such vehemence (I don't mind, in
>fact, I find it stimulating) and you are certainly allowed to have your opinion
>but this line about being politically motivated is just so much hooey. It's
>either stupid or it's dishonest, but either way it isn't worthy of you. And I
>don't understand why it is necessary. Why take a personal choice you are com-
>pletely entitled to have and try and fallaciously elevate it to the level of a
>political mandate?
I can't answer for Mike, but I certainly agree with him about
the danger to our liberties posed by the religious right. Speaking for
myself, this danger is one of the two reasons I participate in *.religion.*.
The other is that I find religion, itself, interesting, even though I
don't have one.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
Mike Huybensz
> In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP>, m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> > I expend no effort against non-existent gods: my arguments are directed to
> > very real people (well, maybe not so real.... :-) These people claim that
> > because of an invisible being (that only they can see and hear), they have
> > more authority than I do. They want to enact laws (such as blasphemy laws,
> > abortion laws, etc.) that are designed to enforce their whims. It is
> > politically important for me to oppose this nonsense. I certainly don't do
> > it out of some idiotic need to tell a god that it doesn't exist.
>
> was surprised to see you write such a silly paragraph. Up to this point, I
> have been convinced that although your language is sometimes stronger than
> necessary to make your points, that you proceed quite well from your premise
> of atheism, and that your view is interesting. The quote from Dave Trissel
> is something I thing every religious person should read. However, the above
> rationalization is quite flawed and in no way coincides with your actions.
Thanks. I'm glad to know somebody out there appreciates my writings:
I wonder if I'm posting to the bit-bucket. However, I'll try to explain why
I made the statement above, and why I think it is valid.
> You state that you must oppose a viewpoint that claims to have authority over
> you, but why? First of all, not all Christians hold the view that they have
> authority over their fellow man. In fact, being a Christian myself, not only
> do I not hold myself above you, in particular, but was enjoying learning from
> you. I think that the words of Paul are quite appropriate to show that it is
> certainly not the Christian party line to oneself above others. He states
> that those who would minister should think of themselves as servants and not
> as masters.
While you may be a wonderful Christian, and while Paul may say such-and-so,
the fact is that organized Christianity is a politically powerful set of
entities that have been known to commit atroceties both active and
legislative. For example, the Massachusetts blasphemy law, under which I
could be convicted of enough counts to spend my life in jail. We see
religious leaders praying for the deaths of supreme court justices. We
see gratuitous acts of dominance, such as legislating "In God We Trust"
on all coinage and adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance.
And a major part of the problem is Christians like you, who while not
directly blameworthy, do not oppose the depredations of their more
aggressive brethren, but stand silently by and say nothing is happening
because you aren't doing it yourself.
> Second, simply because some people in a group claim authority does not mean
> that they actually have it. Only your submission to the authority would give
> it any punch. Let them think what they want, you certainly aren't going to
> bow to their will.
Pollyanna twaddle! (I want to be polite, believe me, but this is too much.)
I could equally well respond that you don't need to submit to your God,
because only your submission gives him power. Authority can be made real
and powerful through the political process, which large numbers of new
Christian right leaders point out to their flocks daily. They call for
boycotts, letters to politicians, endorse candidates, propositions, and
political positions, and even run for office themselves.
> Thirdly, don't YOU in fact, fight fire with fire, and imply superiority over
> Christians by saying that they are not "real people", that the practice of
> the religion is "pathetic", that their views "nonsensical"?
Superiority is not authority, and pretended authority by Christians is what I
am fighting. The definition of authority I mean is "power to command thought,
opinion, or behavior." The only way I feel I am superior to Christians is
that I am right, they are wrong. I'm sure the feeling is mutual. :-)
> Then you get worried about the laws some Christians are trying to pass, but
> aren't you confusing cause and effect here? Isn't it much easier and more
> effective to oppose the legislation itself rather than a tradition of millions
> of people that has about a two thousand year head start on you?
Fight the disease, not the symptoms. Smallpox had a multi-million year
head start, yet it is now thoroughly subdued. Yet you would have us daub
pustules with calamine lotion.
> Speaking as a Christian who in fact holds probably the same political views
> that you do, I can tell you that if you are really doing all this because it
> is "politically important" then you've made a serious mistake. For one
> thing, you alienate potential allies like myself who do not share your view
> of Christianity, but who are opposed to those same laws. Wouldn't our
> efforts be welcome?
Why are you so hasty to assume I'm addressing you? My statement was directed
towards a highly specific context: responding in a sense that Gore would
understand. Of course I have more than one motivation. Probably the most
personally influential is what Christians call "the search for truth". But
I wanted to lay an objective reason on the table, something that Gore
couldn't poo-poo away. Please reread my statement in context.
> I'm especially surprised that you tried to hang the anti-abortion issue around
> the Christians' neck. Even if every Christian were to magically become an
> atheist tomorrow (in your dreams, right?), there would still be a loud and
> quite organized cry against abortion. Pro-Lifers and Christians are not
> synonymous, and you gain absolutely nothing by attacking Christianity for the
> sake of the right to have abortions. The issue is far too complex for it to
> be dealt with as an attack on religious doctrine.
Organized Christian groups have vociferously hung the abortion issue around
their own necks, and tried actively to meddle via the political process.
Even to the point of wishing a supreme court justice dead. Religiously
inspired beliefs should not be inflicted upon you or me, and I object to
the assorted church efforts to ban abortion.
> I don't why you attack Christianity with such vehemence (I don't mind, in
> fact, I find it stimulating) and you are certainly allowed to have your
> opinion but this line about being politically motivated is just so much
> hooey. It's either stupid or it's dishonest, but either way it isn't worthy
> of you. And I don't understand why it is necessary. Why take a personal
> choice you are completely entitled to have and try and fallaciously elevate
> it to the level of a political mandate?
Neither stupid nor dishonest; merely incomplete. It was just one example of
a valid, non-theological motivation that I provided when Gore tried the classic
Christian "you're really fighting because you believe and are rebellious"
argument.
As for "mandate", I think you're exaggerating a bit.
> I suggest you reread the words of Dave Trissel under the light of your own
> views and be honest with yourself.
I cite Dave Trissel because he summarizes the process that lead me to reject
Christianity. It was my search for honesty with myself that lead me to
cast aside supernaturalism in exchange for agnosticism.
Jason A. Kinchen
posting. I realize now that I got a little carried away and that it was un-
called for. And I certainly appreciate your taking the time to clarify your
view even though I must have sounded rude to you.
In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP>, m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> In article <3...@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> ja...@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Jason Kinchen) writes:
> > In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP>, m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> > > [Your paragraph about your opposition to Christianity being politically
> > > motivated.]
> >
> > I have followed your discourses on net.religion.christian for some time and
> > was surprised to see you write such a silly paragraph. Up to this point, I
> > have been convinced that although your language is sometimes stronger than
> > necessary to make your points, that you proceed quite well from your premise
> > of atheism, and that your view is interesting. The quote from Dave Trissel
> > is something I thing every religious person should read. However, the above
> > rationalization is quite flawed and in no way coincides with your actions.
>
> Thanks. I'm glad to know somebody out there appreciates my writings:
> I wonder if I'm posting to the bit-bucket. However, I'll try to explain why
> I made the statement above, and why I think it is valid.
>
> > You state that you must oppose a viewpoint that claims to have authority over
> > you, but why? First of all, not all Christians hold the view that they have
> > authority over their fellow man. In fact, being a Christian myself, not only
> > do I not hold myself above you, in particular, but was enjoying learning from
> > you. I think that the words of Paul are quite appropriate to show that it is
> > certainly not the Christian party line to oneself above others. He states
> > that those who would minister should think of themselves as servants and not
> > as masters.
>
> While you may be a wonderful Christian, and while Paul may say such-and-so,
> the fact is that organized Christianity is a politically powerful set of
> entities that have been known to commit atroceties both active and
> legislative.
While I doubt that I qualify as a "wonderful Christian", there certainly is
such a thing. I think the problem that you and I might be having, Mike, is
the generalizations that are being made and the fact that you feel you need to
oppose Christianity on a doctrinal basis in order to rid it of it's political
power.
> For example, the Massachusetts blasphemy law, under which I
> could be convicted of enough counts to spend my life in jail. We see
> religious leaders praying for the deaths of supreme court justices.
Just a note here: the problem with it is that they are perfectly entitled
to pray for whatever they want, just as you are entitled to say whatever you
want, or should be, Mass Blasphemy laws notwithstanding. The other side of it
is of course that these Christians could be held criminally liable should an
attempt be made on anyone's life.
> We
> see gratuitous acts of dominance, such as legislating "In God We Trust"
> on all coinage and adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance.
Wow, I actually think you are being a bit easy on us. What about the
Inquisition? What about the eastern European Pogroms, all sanctioned by
various governments? The point is that I can be a Christian and precisely
BECAUSE I am a Christian, I can oppose those same things that you do. I now
they are loud and I know they exist, but I don't actually personnally know
any Christians who really want "in God We Trust" on currency or prayer in
schools, etc. Most are oppsed to it the same way I am. If you can pass a
law calling for "In God We Trust" on money, all it takes is a swing of the
and you've got money that says "God Rots".
>
> And a major part of the problem is Christians like you, who while not
> directly blameworthy, do not oppose the depredations of their more
> aggressive brethren, but stand silently by and say nothing is happening
> because you aren't doing it yourself.
I think you are a little too hard on us. I think that part of the problem
is that just like atheists and agnostics, Christians like myself don't have
a huge monolithic power structure. The Fundametalists and other groups do.
They have figureheads, TV stations, national press coverage, etc. (All which
they are completely entitled to have if they come by them legally.) And,
they call themselves Christians, just like I do. THis is a really stomach
turning experience, let me tell you. You and I both do not like what they
do, but at least you don't have to be identified with it in places like
net.religion.christian. If you want to call us to task on this because we
don't have the clout that our more "aggressive brethren" do, then you must
also call yourselves to task. I haven't seen any organized atheist/agnostic
television networks or figureheads, unless you what to count Madeleine Marie
O'Hare, but I don't think this would be a good move.
Mostly you see us "less aggressive brethren" working on a parish level. I
know at my church, we do march for peace, are involved very much in the
establishment of low-income housing, equality for women ( there are more
women clergy that men), etc. I know these are not the specific issues we
are talking about, but I believe they are just as noble pursuits.
>
> > Second, simply because some people in a group claim authority does not mean
> > that they actually have it. Only your submission to the authority would give
> > it any punch. Let them think what they want, you certainly aren't going to
> > bow to their will.
>
> Pollyanna twaddle! (I want to be polite, believe me, but this is too much.)
> I could equally well respond that you don't need to submit to your God,
> because only your submission gives him power. Authority can be made real
> and powerful through the political process, which large numbers of new
> Christian right leaders point out to their flocks daily.
We may have a problem with semantics here. My point is that in the political
process, they don't have any more "authority" than you do. One of them only
has one vote to one of yours. Now, if you doubt the Constitution's power to
keep it this way, then that is a different arguement and should be moved over
to net.politics or net.legal. It is not the Christian's claim of authority
that is the problem, because there will always be folks that want to force
there will on you, but the lack of ability of the political process to protect
you. Ultimately, they have to use the same process you do and that we all have
to secure civil rights, free speech, etc. I think on balance, that those
of us fighting for separation of church and state have been more successful.
> They call for
> boycotts, letters to politicians, endorse candidates, propositions, and
> political positions, and even run for office themselves.
>
The point is that they are completely entitled to do so. And so are
we. But you notice that aprt from a few counterproductive moves they have
confined themselves to the issues and they have no qualms about endorsing
non-Christians who will support their views.
> > Thirdly, don't YOU in fact, fight fire with fire, and imply superiority over
> > Christians by saying that they are not "real people", that the practice of
> > the religion is "pathetic", that their views "nonsensical"?
>
> Superiority is not authority, and pretended authority by Christians is what I
> am fighting. The definition of authority I mean is "power to command thought,
> opinion, or behavior." The only way I feel I am superior to Christians is
> that I am right, they are wrong. I'm sure the feeling is mutual. :-)
>
Case made. Point taken. However, I really think you might do better to curb
your language at times. Just a suggestion.
> > Then you get worried about the laws some Christians are trying to pass, but
> > aren't you confusing cause and effect here? Isn't it much easier and more
> > effective to oppose the legislation itself rather than a tradition of millions
> > of people that has about a two thousand year head start on you?
>
> Fight the disease, not the symptoms. Smallpox had a multi-million year
> head start, yet it is now thoroughly subdued. Yet you would have us daub
> pustules with calamine lotion.
>
> > Speaking as a Christian who in fact holds probably the same political views
> > that you do, I can tell you that if you are really doing all this because it
> > is "politically important" then you've made a serious mistake. For one
> > thing, you alienate potential allies like myself who do not share your view
> > of Christianity, but who are opposed to those same laws. Wouldn't our
> > efforts be welcome?
>
> Why are you so hasty to assume I'm addressing you?
Maybe this is where I'm confused. What specifically is the disease you mention
above? In that context it looks like the Christian tradition is the disease.
Now while I pretty much agree with you politically, I also cherish this trad-
ition despite it's having been used for evil in the past. The point is that
Christianity is the starting point, the foundation for us and that, like any-
thing else, people can take it and use it for good or for evil. Now I can see
your attacking the evil, but it really seems that you are attacking the
foundation. Now, you are totally entitled to attack the foundation if you
choose, but my arguement is that your political motivation for the attack is
ungrounded for as much good can come from a religious motivation as evil.
You might be surprised that if Christianity were to disappear, what replaced it
even if it were secular, could be worse. Just a thought.
> My statement was directed
> towards a highly specific context: responding in a sense that Gore would
> understand. Of course I have more than one motivation. Probably the most
> personally influential is what Christians call "the search for truth". But
> I wanted to lay an objective reason on the table, something that Gore
> couldn't poo-poo away. Please reread my statement in context.
>
I will certainly watch for this motivation more in the future. Indeed, I
thought it was your motivation all along and that's why I respected it.
It's also the reason I wrote and was so surprised when you gave a reason
that did not seem to jive with what I had come to expect from your writings.
> > I'm especially surprised that you tried to hang the anti-abortion issue around
> > the Christians' neck. Even if every Christian were to magically become an
> > atheist tomorrow (in your dreams, right?), there would still be a loud and
> > quite organized cry against abortion. Pro-Lifers and Christians are not
> > synonymous, and you gain absolutely nothing by attacking Christianity for the
> > sake of the right to have abortions. The issue is far too complex for it to
> > be dealt with as an attack on religious doctrine.
>
> Organized Christian groups have vociferously hung the abortion issue around
> their own necks, and tried actively to meddle via the political process.
Even though Christians do claim a religious motivation for this issue, I still
cannot agree that this is the end of it. The "meddling" would certainly
go on without Christians. And as for them engaging in the political process to
effect an end to abortion? What other recourse do they have? They really
think it is murder and are opposing it as such. We can and should mount
political counter-attacks, but I don't think we can question their right to
engage in the political process.
> Even to the point of wishing a supreme court justice dead.
This is certainly out of order and completely disgusting. But I must point out
that it is ot limited to Christians. I remember sitting in a common room with
a television were many "secular humanists" were gathered. The assasination
attempt on President Reagan was announced and a rousing cheer went up from
that crowd.
> Religiously
> inspired beliefs should not be inflicted upon you or me, and I object to
> the assorted church efforts to ban abortion.
>
Are you sure you want to make this categorical statement concerning "religious-
ly inspired beliefs"? What about those of Martin Luther King? Bishop Desmond
Tutu? Mother Therese? Also, would the efforts to ban abortion be any less
offensive if they were not "church efforts"? And finally, even if the causes
for which you fight were supported by the church, wouldn't you feel the need
to still question Christianity?
I know you have already sort of answered this last question in your "search
for the truth" statement, but I'm arguing a little causality here. Rel-
igiously inspired beliefs are not necessarily evil, and not all evil beliefs
stem from a belief in religion.
> > I don't why you attack Christianity with such vehemence (I don't mind, in
> > fact, I find it stimulating) and you are certainly allowed to have your
> > opinion but this line about being politically motivated is just so much
> > hooey. It's either stupid or it's dishonest, but either way it isn't worthy
> > of you. And I don't understand why it is necessary. Why take a personal
> > choice you are completely entitled to have and try and fallaciously elevate
> > it to the level of a political mandate?
>
> Neither stupid nor dishonest; merely incomplete. It was just one example of
> a valid, non-theological motivation that I provided when Gore tried the classic
> Christian "you're really fighting because you believe and are rebellious"
> argument.
Once again I apologize. I don't think you are stupid or dishonest, just
mistaken in this case.
>
> As for "mandate", I think you're exaggerating a bit.
I leave it open as a matter of opinion. You do tend to use very strong
language.
>
> > I suggest you reread the words of Dave Trissel under the light of your own
> > views and be honest with yourself.
>
> I cite Dave Trissel because he summarizes the process that lead me to reject
> Christianity. It was my search for honesty with myself that lead me to
> cast aside supernaturalism in exchange for agnosticism.
> --
It is important to realize that Dave Trissel can work in reverse as well. It
is not impossible to read Dave Trissel and be reaffirmed in your faith. As
a matter of fact, I submit that anyone, be they atheist or Christian or Mooney,
who cannot answer Trissel's challenge, should not be what they are.
>
> "Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why
> you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion
> gives you the high it does. Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important
> enough for me to give up my religion if that is required? Until you answer
> yes to this you are not being honest with yourself." Dave Trissel
> --
Jason Kinchen
ja...@media-lab.MIT.EDU