From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:01:53 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA14853; Sun, 13 Dec 92 06:02:42 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA13102; Sun, 13 Dec 92 06:02:36 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0592; Sun, 13 Dec 92 15:02:00 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

HEATHER LEE FYFFE types:


Starter: I don't care if atheists are smarter than theists or not.
I say, at least one tool of the atheist is better than that of the
theist.


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

Ok, provide us with the axiom system that says a big-T truth exists. Then
show us that you have evidence for your system. Strength of evidence should
equal strength of implications.
And prove that there is useful and reliable information to be derived from
your system.

>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.  So EVERYBODY goes through life trying to convince
>everybody else that they're wrong.  Christians by evangelizing, atheists by
>arguing with Christians, even apathetics who say `whatever works'.  Some try
>more forcibly, some don't really _try_, but just stating your own opinion
>forces others to consider it.  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 don't care about strength of belief, I care about if it works.
And that is not necessarily a function of my strength of belief.
As a matter of fact, I have it the other way round, I say it is
evidence when it works without my believing in it. I understand
that Christianity says that it doesn't work when you don't buy
into it.

>How else can you explain the intense happiness and joy that new Christians
>experience?  We finally feel fulfilled, yes, this is what I've been waiting
>for.  Now I have something to strive for.  How many ex-Christians can say
>they felt that when they left the faith?

I do, and it was the same with about every formerly Christian atheist I know.
By the way, how do you explain the intense joy of the crack smoker? Joy alone
is no evidence.


(Deletions)
>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?

Ah, we may say so, but it is not the honest big-T truth? I can't argue against
a circular logic.
To be honest, I think you are the one who is fooling herself into an artificial
happiness with an irrational belief.

>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...  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?  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...

Sigh. Many of the assertions are handled by giving a pointer to the FAQ file.
Read it. Further, yes there is a common ground for discussion. But since this
is a news group of atheists, you'll have to accept our premises, or you'll
have to challenge them in a way that we accept.

>Just some food for thought.  Responses, compaints, comments welcome, but
>please, be mature enough not to flame.

I do not see a lot of maturity in your post, sorry.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism