From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:03:36 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <910773f.30.724186770@ace.acadiau.ca> 910773f@ace.acadiau.ca writes:

(large deletion)

> As for truth, somebody mentioned that there are many truths, until they get 
> disproved, or something like that.  Might I point out that that implies a 
> very liberal definition of truth - that truth is relative, that each person 
> can have their own truth, that truth is transient and changeable.

      You say it "liberal" to define truth as being relative. But, if we
define truth as being absolute, and then find out we have no way of
finding that truth, except possibly as approximations, then what good is
truth? You'll have defined it out of usefulness.

> Well, I'm 
> sorry, but the big-T Truth, as in the way things actually are, the way the 
> universe actually was created, the real purpose in our being here (if you 
> believe there is one), can only be one thing.  The universe DID come into 
> existence a certain way, it can not possibly have happenned differently for 
> different people.

      To a certain degree even I have to agree; I don't think there is
more than one solution to 1+1 either, so I guess that's a fairly
absolute thing. But if we have *no way* of finding out, with *absolute*
certainty how the universe came into being, *in detail*, then what good
does it do us that there was only one such beginning? From our point of
view, that equation currently has several valid solutions.

> And whether we were created by a benevolent God, or an 
> evil one, or evolved by chance, or were created by the god Nature, whatever, 
> we came into existence one way and one way only.  Different religions and 
> beliefs cannot all be right,

      Agreed, as they usually contradict one another. But how can we
tell any difference? From my atheistic viewpoint, they all seem equally
weird; I choose to believe none of them - at least until they get their
act together.

> and I cannot understand how some people can 
> say `well, whatever works for that person'.

      Well, why not? How could we tell whether another solution would be
in any way "better"?

> Religion is not just a way of dealing with life.  Sure, that does come into 
> play.  But it is also a belief in a certain truth, and if you believe in 
> that truth, then what others believe to be true must be wrong, because there 
> can only be one Truth.

      That's what's so extremely dangerous about religion, friend.

> So EVERYBODY goes through life trying to convince 
> everybody else that they're wrong.

      Whoa - you're implying that everybody's religious! RTFAQ before
proceeding, please, if you haven't already!

> Christians by evangelizing, atheists by 
> arguing with Christians, even apathetics who say `whatever works'. 

      Queh? How is that "trying to convince others they're wrong"?

> Some try more forcibly, some don't really _try_, but just stating 
> your own opinion forces others to consider it.

      No it doesn't. You could perfectly well enter me in your kill file
under the heading, "ranting lunatics not to be listened to".

> But if you don't believe in your truth strongly enough to consider it
> the big-T Truth, then why do you believe in it at all?  

      I do not believe, I prefer to know - but even knowledge isn't
absolute. Part of being human is the ability to be incorrect; if some of
my assumptions are ever proven to be so, I'll change my "beliefs", as
you'll probably call them. They're true, in my eyes, but they're not
True; I don't believe such creatures exist.

> Before you flame me on this point, I know that most of you atheists on this 
> group DO consider your truth to be the big-T Truth and you're not afraid to 
> say so.

      Many probably do, but most of them even will probably be more than
happy to change their ways, _if_you_can_PROVE_them_to_be_wrong.

> These last paragraphs were aimed at those who say `you believe what 
> you believe and I'll believe what I believe and let's not get in other's 
> way, OK?'.  

      In other words, those who would rather not start a fight. You seem
like a nice and loving kind of person... :-) :-) :-)

> Like I said, I'm not dimwitted, nor am I superstitious.  I think a great 
> many `Christian' rituals are outdated, superstitious, unbiblical, and 
> pointless.  But I do not believe because of rituals.

      But do you perform said outdated, superstitious rituals _because_
you believe? That does not compute, to me. If it's crap, I say, throw it
out.

> And yes, there are many Christians who believe because they were told to and 
> didn't bother to think about it.  But there are people like that in any 
> religion (or non-religion).  I myself grew up being told that Christianity 
> was wrong, and so I believed it, until I started to learn about it.  Then I 
> clued in.

      Just out of pure curiosity - have you learned about Buddhism?

> Everyone, whether they will admit it or not, knows that they have 
> a soul.

      Argh, these semantics... What do you mean by "soul", what is it to
"know" of said "soul" in this context, and how can I *not*admit* knowing
something? Why on earth should I do something that silly?

> Noone can possibly believe that `I', what makes me `me', my 
> thoughts, my feelings, my personality, is merely a product of atoms jumping 
> around in the brain.

      I can. It's called materialism. It might or might not lead you
into determinism, but determinism is a dead end, because if I'm
completely deterministic, then it is predetermined I'll keep on arguing
against you anyway, so there... Basically, I have no real problem with
this idea.

> You all know that there is something intangible that is `you'.
> This is spirituality - not believing in ghosts, but believing in 
> people.

      If you're referring to my conscious self, then I do agree it is
rather intangible. I do believe in people; I need nothing "supernatural"
or "paranormal" for that.

> All people also wonder, at least a little bit, `why'.  This is the 
> God-shaped hole. The longing for a purpose, the human condition.

      Aahh, finally a definition of that eternal hole! Well, how about
this for an explanation: We exist for no real purpose at all. This gives
us total freedom, as our "purpose" is what we choose for a purpose, our
"condition" what we make out of it.

> The reason that men go into space. The reason people crave money, power, 
> attention.  The reason some become drug addicts, alcoholics, sexaholics.  
> They are searching for fulfillment, a reason for being.

      Careful; is fulfillment = reason to exist? It might be for some, I
guess... We need something to drive us, or evolution would not have
favored us. What this drive is, is of no consequence to us as
individuals.

> How else can you explain the intense happiness and joy that new Christians 
> experience?

      Keep reading the 'mind of the bible believer' - series. Also,
observe the intense happiness and joy of the recent Hare Krishna
convert.

> We finally feel fulfilled, yes, this is what I've been waiting 
> for. Now I have something to strive for.

      Yes, but does it _really_ matter WHAT that something is, as long
as you strive? I don't think so; prove me wrong...

> How many ex-Christians can say 
> they felt that when they left the faith?

      Others can answer this better than I, but you're probably gonna be
surprised.

> Most often they left because of 
> disillusionment, disappointment, and disgust with the Church and its 
> operations.  And I must say, in most cases I can't blame them.  The Church 
> as an organization is materialistic, egotistical, and uncaring about its 
> members.

      Amen.

> But can those who left truly say that they have found happiness 
> since?  Sure, you may say it easily, and you probably will.  But I challenge 
> you to question whether you really, truly mean it, or is it just another 
> mask?

      And how could we ever, over the net OR EVEN IN PERSON, prove to
you that we are in some state of mind (e.g. "happiness") or other?
Define "happiness" conclusively, first! Your question is unanswerable,
and the assumption implied unfalsifiable!

> I have to wonder about those who can do nothing but flame, flame, flame we 
> Christians.  Any attempt at serious discussion is countered with sarcasm and 
> vicious attacks.  Sure, there are some Christians who attack too.  I must 
> wonder what their motivations are, and how they can possibly think they're 
> doing any good, and if they've considered whether Jesus would approve of 
> their actions... 

      I hope this one doesn't fall into that category.

> But to the atheist who merely flames, I must ask why?  Are 
> you afraid of actual discussion? Are you so insecure in your own beliefs 
> that you must brush off any contradictory statements without even 
> considering them?

      Turn this around for the aggressive Xians you mentioned above, and
you'll see you haven't really said anything of consequence. There are
idiots in every camp.

> And even though you may lightly flame off these comments, 
> do you really consider them so incredibly stupid as to not even be worth 
> considering?  That seems to me almost as bad as those types of `fundie' 
> Christians that you guys are always complaining about...

      And some of us are. So what? We're all human, y'know...

-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
 If you think I'm gonna be responsible for this crap, you're madder than I am.
    "No logic here today / Do as you got to, Go your own way..." -- G 'n' R
Newsgroups: alt.atheism