From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist.  (long!)
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:17:04 MST

X-NEWS: doc alt.atheism: 8885
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 03:44:08 GMT

In article <r8=nh4p.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.214742.16084@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>In what sense is it a valid philosophy?  How can a philosophy that lets
>>other people walk all over you be considered in any way valid?
>
>In the same sense that atheism is a valid philosophy even though it
>means that I have to live my life devoid of any meaning.  ;)

In Message <1992Aug25.034408.18526@bmerh85.bnr.ca>,
dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
I don't agree that atheism is a philosophy (I don't agree that Christianity
is a philosophy either).  I think it just means that you've cleaned out a
some of the garbage, and can now go looking for a philosophy.  But I get
your drift, and I suppose it does have some degree of merit.

>>>You see, Christianity _does_ make sense.  It's useless to try to
>>>isolate all the little problems you have with Christianity and use
>>>those as some sort of defense as to why you don't believe in it.
>>
>>Er, well how do you propose to determine whether or not the religion
>>makes sense then, if not by questioning the bits of it that don't
>>appear to make sense?
>
>You missed a distinction I didn't do a good enough job of making.  If
>a religion makes some claim that sounds outrageous to you -- for
>example, "Christians aren't even supposed to have sex before they're
>married!" -- you should try to understand the religion to the point
>where you can see how that claim fits in with the other tenets and
>beliefs of the religion (here, that Christians consider a union
>between two people to be sacred and not to be taken lightly).

The problem with that is that the reason Christians generally give
to questions like "Why should I not be allowed to have sex before I
get married?", is "Because God said it's a sin."

    If God is the Author of Morality, then that should be enough.
    But we do not phrase it in the sense that somehow you should
    be *prevented* or *not allowed* to engage in sex before marriage,
    but that such moral choices carry inevitable consequences that
    you will later face, either in this life or the next.

    Actually the way it should be phrased is "You should not engage
    in premarital sex for your own good."

At least that's
what it will boil down to in the end.  So, before we can discuss the
sensibility of this at all, we have to establish that this God actually
exists, and did in fact play a big part in authoring the Bible.
What more can I do but point out the gaping logical holes in the
religion?

    (Blind man standing on the Golden Gate bridge)  "My, there are
    *gaping holes* in this structure.  How ever does it stand up?"

    The point is that there is more to Christianity than you are
    either able or willing to see.  Therefore, the apparant "gaping
    logical holes" you refer to seem evident to you.


[Other stuff deleted.]	You can pretty much bet that any "philosophy"
that claimed that we are sinners and that anything to do with sex
is disgusting,

    Christianity does *not* claim that *anything* to do with sex is
    disgusting.  Only sexual perversions are disgusting.  And sex
    outside its proper place is immoral.

would not even be close to being in the running if
those were the questions asked.  Of course, my proposed questions
make it evident that I am one of those evil humanist types.

    I won't argue with that.  :)

>If you
>then want to argue by saying something like (for instance) "Well, I
>don't think that any truly loving God would make sex so pleasurable
>then count recreational sex as a sin," then that's an educated job of
>questioning Christianity, and if you decide that the religion doesn't
>do a good enough job of explaining your doubts (even if you don't
>necessarily agree with the explanation), then you're justified in
>calling it worthless.

Well, sure, we could get into endless arguments about whether or
not a loving God would count recreational sex as a sin,

    No argument at all.  I don't think so, and you don't think so;
    so no argument.

but how
is that different than the usual endless arguments about whether
or not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God could possibly
exist?

    Because such arguments are proposed to "logically show that
    God can't exist", except that such arguments are logically
    flawed and therefore don't apply to the real God.  They are
    in essence "strawman" arguments.  You logically disprove a
    "god" of your own devising.  Christians naturally feel compelled
    to counter such arguments by showing where they do not apply.


I really don't see any point in entering into these types
of discussions when the whole "philosophy" is built on sand to
start with.

    Ironic.  Jesus  said that those who believed His words could be
    likened to a man who built his house [philosophy] on a rock.
    Humanist philosophies by comparision are built on sand.  Of course
    the humanist thinks himself wise in his own eyes, although he is
    foolish in the sight of God.

>The kind of questioning I called 'useless' was nitpicking and
>complaining: "Look, they have all these outdated phobias; the whole
>religion is obviously worthless!  Besides, why doesn't God just kill
>Satan?"  That kind of stuff can either make a Christian give up and
>stop listening to you, or greatly annoy him or her.

Questions like "Why should it matter that some poor Jewish fellow
was nailed to a tree", are a long ways from nitpicking.  That's called
critical thinking, and I heartily recommend it.

    Such questions are rife with presuppositions such that they could
    hardly be called "objective".  The intent is not so much to gain
    information or understanding as to try to disparage the beliefs
    of others.

I agree that it may
annoy a Christian if you try to force him/her to critically examine
the foundations of his/her religion,

    I critically and objectively examine the foundations of my
    "religion" almost every day.  I haven't seen a crack yet.

but that's a long ways from your
original assertion which was that people who ask these questions don't
understand what they're talking about.

    Oh I'm sure *you* understand what *you're* talking about, but I
    think the real issue is that you don't understand what the
    *Christian* (in this case) is talking about.

>>After the endless
>>repetition that I mentioned above, people begin to believe whatever
>>it was that was repeated.  After that, they use their brain backwards.
>>They start with whatever they've been indoctrinated with, and then
>>concoct reasons for believing it.
>
>Precisely: that's called 'brainwashing'.  And I as an atheist have
>been accused of brainwashing myself.  "You don't want to have to make
>the personal sacrifices necessary to achieve heaven," Christians have
>said to me, "so you keep telling yourself that there is no god, and
>eventually you come to believe it, and think up reasons to support
>your beliefs."

Well, of course Christians have to concoct some reason for why many
choose to reject their religion.  They do that for their own benefit
as much as for the benefit of whoever they're trying to convince.

    Well, of course Atheists have to concoct some reason for why many
    choose to reject their philosophy.	They do that for their own benefit
    as much as for the benefit of whoever they're trying to convince.

It's funny how they change their minds at will.  When they're trying
to convert you, they'll tell you how wonderful the religion is, and
how we just need to accept this *free* gift to make our lives peachy.

    Grace and salvation is indeed free in the sense that no amount
    of good deeds can earn it.	But it is not free in the sense that
    to obtain it, you must give up your life as you know it.  Jesus
    said that eternal life was like the pearl of great price (not the
    Mormon book of the same name) that the merchant sold all that he
    had it order to obtain it.	And when one obtains salvation by
    grace, his/her life does not become "peachy".  If anything, it
    becomes more trying, more difficult, and with more suffering
    than there was before.  But these are merely *physical*
    manifistations.  God also grants the believer the "peace that
    passes all understanding" such that one may have an inner joy
    and peace regardless of the external circumstances one faces.
    This is the "peachiness" that you refer to.  It is *spiritual*
    "peachiness" and not physical "peachiness".  It is this spiritual
    power that God gives the believer that gives real meaning to the
    statement of Jesus that "...My yoke is easy and My burden light".


But then (see John M.'s followup to my article), when they're trying
to explain to themselves why we choose to reject their religion, they
speak of all the painful sacrifices they must make and claim that we
don't join because we don't want to make the sacrifices.  Very strange.

    You don't have to worry about "making the sacrifices", although
    some people are put off because they feel that they will have to
    give up something they presently like.  I tell people that when
    they come to Jesus, they don't have to give up anything that
    they don't *want* to.  There are no *rules* for behavior.  I tell
    them this because I know that the Holy Spirit, when He enters
    their heart, will cause them not to want to do the things they
    did before.  They will be a new creation with a new spirit of
    obedience before God.  They will follow God's commandments not
    because they *have* to, but because they *want* to.  Christianity
    is not a set of rules to live by, but an attitude of the heart.


Anyway, this is a good point, and one I've given a fair amount of thought
to.

    Which?  The one just above or the one just below?  The one above
    carries little weight.  The one below is much better.

How do I know that I haven't been brainwashed?  The answer is that I
probably have: there probably is a fair amount of stuff that I take
for granted without ever having examining it closely.  These would
most likely be things that our society takes for granted, and so
it would never have even crossed my mind that they needed examining.

    [Other not-so-great stuff deleted.]

But now that serious doubts have arisen in my mind, the only way that
I know of to determine whether or not what they say is true, is by
rational examination.

    I know of another...revelation.

If they tell me that the equivalent of
"Brutus killed Caesar, therefore the sun still rises" is basic to
the religion, well, it becomes pretty obvious to me that the whole
thing is ad hoc gobbledygook.

    Well, luckily for Christianity, it's not based on that.

This becomes even more evident when
you look at how the religion got started.  The only real question
is: why have so many believed for so long?

    Because the gospel message rings true in the hearts of those
    willing to listen to God.

    [More junk deleted.]

>It works both ways.  I've chosen one of many philosophies for myself,
>but I wouldn't even think of deciding that anyone who doesn't reach
>the same conclusions as I've reached is a fool.

I suppose I wouldn't really give a damn what other people chose to believe,
as long as they kept it to themselves.

    I seem to remember a "freedom of speech" clause in the 1st Amendment
    to the Constitution.  Or was I wrong?

Unfortunately, it seems to be a
tenet of a couple of the big religions that the religion should be forced,
by any and all means, on people who want nothing to do with it.

    No, not at all.  God does not want you to be "forced" to be a believer
    and accept Him, else He wouldn't have given you free moral choice.
    All that He asks us, as believers, to do is to tell any person willing
    to listen the gospel message and to give reasons, when asked, for our
    faith.  This is a far cry from "forcing religion by any and all means
    on people who want nothing to do with it."

    For example, I post on the net not for you who could care less what
    I say, but for the few who have questions they wish answered, and
    for those earnestly seeking spiritual truth.  If you don't want to
    see the message, then don't read my posts.  No one's forcing you
    to are they?

    Now there are a few religions like Islam and Roman Catholicism which
    have a past track record of forcing people to accept their beliefs
    or face horrible consequences.  This, I assure you, is not the Will
    of God.  For if it were, God could have easily forced us all
    already to accept Him -- we would be automotons with no freedom
    of moral choice.  Since we do have freedom of moral choice, it
    is evident that God wants us to have the power to choose, to
    either accept or reject Him.  Thus, coercion of belief is not
    in accordance with His Will for us.


It also
seems to be a tenet of these religions that we should do everything possible
to bring about the destruction of the planet.  I won't call their adherents
fools, because many stood no chance, but I have no reservations about
calling such "philosophies" evil.

    How do Christians in particular act to bring about the destruction
    of the planet, or in what way do they preach such a message?  I
    think you're way out in left field here.


>My point?  Doin't criticize what a philosophy says -- Christianity,
>atheism, Islam, Zen Buddhism, whatever -- until you know _why_ it says
>what it says.  Otherwise, you'll end up in a flame-war.  ;)

The things is, I do know why religions say what they say.  It's just
that their adherents rarely agree with me.

    Perhaps that's an indication that your much professed "understanding"
    is really quite shallow.

--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
					   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    I'm glad your opinions are your own.  I, for one, wouldn't
    have them.

    Regards,

    Jim B.	Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com    Please e-mail me a copy of your
		    reply since I am not able to read this group regularly.
    =======================================================================
    Best Quote of the Month:  (Pres. Bush to Saddam Hussein)  "Look Saddam,
    either you're going to let our inspectors into your ministry buildings,
    or we're going to drop ACLU lawyers over Baghdad...WITH PARACHUTES!!"
    =======================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology