NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24699

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 7.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!JUTS!duts!czl30
From: [e-mail] (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:03:03 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 149

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Beiter) writes:
>>
>>I think you've missed the point. We don't believe in any gods, including
>>the god of your religion. So we don't make any assumptions about them
>>(apart from the obvious one that they are figments of the imagination
>>until proved otherwise).
>
>Ooohhhh so thats why the newsgroup is called atheism and why people talk about
>the nonexistance of God.  Why thankyou.  You've cleared so much up!
><sorry but I couldn't resist.>

Atheism is a-theism. Without belief in gods. Like asymmetry means without
symmetry. So we don't believe in ANY gods, not just your christian god
which I assume is the one you mean when you say "God".

Most atheists don't go around discussing the nonexistence of gods. This
is only in response to theist claims. And then their atheism varies
somewhere between plain disbelief and the absolute belief that gods
don't exist. Most seem to to be closer to the former than the latter
because nobody has yet come up with a convincing explanation of what
"God" is.

And if a theist of any religion comes here and makes arguments that
presuppose any god, expect to get roasted. Its our board.

>
>>
>>All the poster wrote was that your god's attributes are self-contradictory
>>and that fundamentalists who believe in biblical inerrancy go through hoops
>>to try and rationalise the contradictions.
>
>and I proceeded to explain why *I* am able to see past a face value assump-
>tion.
>
>>
>>"How do you know they didn't deserve death in the eyes of God?"
>>
>>Substitute "a figment of the imagination" for "God" and you will get some
>>idea how silly your argument is.
>
>assuming of course God is a figment of my imagination.  Question: if my

Remember that atheists don't believe in "God". You do, but you shouldn't
argue on an atheists' board in a way that presupposes "God". "How do you
know they didn't deserve death in the eyes of God" makes as much sense to
an atheist as "How do you know they didn't deserve death in the eyes of
a figment of the imagination" does to you. Ie none at all.

>argument and viewpoint are so silly, why are you wasting your time responding
>to me?  You seem to have mistaken me for someone concerned with "Saving You".
>I don't really have an interest in convincing you there is a God.  I'm
>interested in finding out why Atheists can be so convinced there is no God.

Because your argument presupposes "God". I don't care what you believe.
But it is silly to make an argument that presupposes your belief as fact,
to an atheist.

>interested in finding out why Atheists can be so convinced there is no God.

Most aren't. They just don't believe in any gods. Like they don't believe
in Santa Claus. Or unicorns. Or fairies. These are just things people
have made up. Asking an atheist to why they are convinced there is no
"God" is like asking why YOU are convinced that the fairies at the bottom
of the garden don't exist.

In order to be convinced that "God" doesn't exist, I would have to know
exactly what you mean by "God". And you have not come up with any kind
of description/definition/whatever that makes any kind of sense. Until
you do, I have no idea what you mean by "God".

>
><some stuff deleted>
>
>>People of ALL religions have died for their faith. Does that mean that
>>Sunis who died at the hands of Shiites were right, or Shiites who died
>>at the hands of Sunis were right?
>
>The point (and suggestion) was that the apostles fudged the story of the
>Christ and his ressurection.  We would not be talking about "Shiites dieing
>for their faith" but we'd be talking about people dieing for something
>they knew was a lie or comprimised truth.  BIG DIFFERENCE.

NO DIFFERENCE. Just as you think that your god is the ultimate truth, so
the Shiites think that their god is the ultimate truth. You can't have it
both ways: the Shiites died for their faith; the apostles died for their
faith. How do you know which one was the lie or compromised truth? To a
Shiite your crowd would be the ones who died for a lie or compromised
truth. So which one is right? They can't both be, even though both were
convinced they were right.

Remember there are lots of religions out there, claiming different gods
or the same gods interpreted differently. And out of all these, you
expect me to tell me I am convinced your particular one doesn't exist.

And each of these religions has their own set of legends, stories and
history. Just like yours. And people are convinced that each of these
is the one and only revealed truth. Just like you and your religion.

You talk about your "God" as if it were a fact. So do Hindus, Sikhs, Jews,
Moslems............ But you can only back it up by quoting your holy books.
So do Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Moslems........

>
>>
>>Nobody is saying that it is a lie. Just that it is not the truth. It is a
>>religious pseudo-truth which is somewhere between the bounds of true and false.
>
>whats the difference?  Intention?  If its false I could care less about the
>intention.

The difference is that to somebody of a different religion your truth
would be his lie, and vice versa. A Moslem can back up his truth from
the koran, just as you can back up your truth from the bible. And just
as you know that yours is the the only truth, he knows his is the only
truth. So how do you know that the other one is the false one? Faith.
But the other guy has faith too. And is just as sincere in his as you
are in yours. He KNOWS he is right, just as you KNOW you are right.

That is a religious pseudo-truth. And I'm not going to say that anybody
of any religion believes a lie (the word you used) because it is emotive
and implies deliberate falsehood. Have you noticed how angry people start
getting once the words "lie", "liar" and "lieing" get introduced?

>
>>All religions claim to be the one and only revealed truth, and use the same
>>kind of circular arguments to back up their claims. What is your reaction
>>to a moslem who quotes the Koran to prove his religion is the correct one?
>
>There is only one reality.  Someone is wrong (be they atheist or Christian or
>muslum).
>
>>I think that the original idea of this thread is that different people read
>>whatever they want to read from the bible.  Certainly all the different sects
>>of christianity interpret it differently, selectively ignoring the bits that
>>contradict the bits they like.
>
>Ah I see what you ment.  Either God is a lousy communicator or we're just
>lousey interpreters.  You're right.

This presupposes your god, and I haven't seen any evidence for it. In the
extremely unlikely case of it existing, I would agree. But then Zeus, Odin
Osiris, and Krishna, if they exit, haven't shown themselves any better at
communicating either.

>|[e-mail]               The Long Island Network Project   |
>|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|

Chris Lee