Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Benevolent Rebuttal
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:48:05 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <kelwk3S00WB4B0QJMc@andrew.cmu.edu>, se24+@andrew.cmu.edu (Scott F. Earnest) writes:
> 
>     How can so little be so misconstrued?!!!!!!

   Because the way it was worded was woefully inadequate for what was
intended.

>     By stating that God exists, I _do not_ in any way, shape, or form
> mean that God (i.e. the Christian, or any other form of theistic god)
> exists.  I was trying to show that this word "God" is really a hollow
> label.  What matters is not that such a God exists; what matters is that
> each person has a conscience that can be held as existing.  I *don't*
> believe that it exists.  This is why I am an atheist (and very proud of
> it, not meaning to brag).

   This makes about as much sense as your original post.  What you did was not
showing that God is a hollow label, you were making up your own definition of
God, which, despite being an extremely flexible concept, was nonetheless going
beyond the bounds of definition.
   Now let me get this straight - in your original post you said that God is
conscience, we all have conscience, therefore God exists.  Now you are saying
that what you meant was that a conscience *can* exist, but, despite your
earlier assertion that it does, you don't think it exists.  To me, that is
what's know as contradiction.
   Funny, I always thought that when someone says that God exists, that means
they think that God exists.  Playing nonsensical word games will only get you
flamed.

>>    Finally, for the record, it is my belief that the one true greatest
>>sin is self-righteousness.  Denial of something as true means an
>>unwillingness to accept that you are wrong, which is a problem central
>>to close-mindedness and ignorance.
> 
> Saying "Denial of something as true" is indeed a poor way to try to get
> a point across.  What would probably make more sense would be to say
> that unshakable faith in something means denying that everyone else can
> be right.  I mean, words should not be taken just at face value, as
> seems to be the unfortunate case here.

   Well, if you're going to write like that, it might help to indicate that
you don't really mean what you are saying.  

> Anyway. . . .  First, about the ham sandwiches thing:  maybe the above
> will clarify.  I was not comparing the term God to anything physical,
> thus calling a ham sandwich "God" is pretty much the same as comparing
> apples to oranges. 

   No it's not.  It's just using your overextended usage of the word to show
that by your "proof" in the first post, anything can be God.  Whether it is
physical or not is irrelevant.

> Second, someone stated that I am not a real atheist.

   Well, you sure as hell made a pretty good attempt at looking like a 
theist in your original post.  But of course we're not supposed to take 
what you say at face value, are we?

> The fact is, I am, and I take the matter very seriously; this may in
> part explain why the joking deification of certain persons surprised me.
> My whole purpose of this post was to raise some key arguments that
> center around atheism and try to get people to think about what they're
> believing, though not necessarily making them question it. 

   Umm...what questions?  That you can make God be anything you want?

> Again, I hope my above statement helps to show that I am an atheist. 

   Actually, it mostly went to convince me that whatever you say is not
necessarily what you actually believe.  I have no idea whether you are an
atheist or not.

> Finally, I'd like to mention something about courtesy of arguments.  I cannot
> speak for anyone except myself, but I can not take seriously anyone's
> rebuttal which makes pointless comments about a statement, such as
> calling it "crap", "crapola", "shit", "garbage", or what have you. 
> Personally, it makes that person's argument seem more flimsy to me,
> since it draws away from hard fact. 

   It's not drawing away from hard fact if it *is* crap.  Calling it that is
not a pointless comment, it's expressing what the author feels about it.

Karl

Newsgroups: alt.atheism