From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:31:16 GMT

mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: >
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes: >|>
>|> 
>|> There are a number of logical flaws in here. Firstly, I cannot reasonably
>|> be said to be "punishing God" for anything, since I do not believe that
>|> any deities exist in the first place. Secondly, I fail utterly to see how
>|> my rant about the utility of reason in dispelling religious delusions
>|> (deleted to save bandwidth) can sensibly be interpreted as an attempt to
>|> punish God, my unbelief notwithstanding. Thirdly, I emphatically do *not*
>|> resent my loss of said delusions, and thus have no reason to punish anybody
>|> for it. Fourthly, the assertion that "God would do nothing that wasn't for
>|> your own good even if it involves pain" sits uneasily with the notion of
>|> eternal torture, from which it appears that no benefit can come since by
>|> that stage it's already too late.
>|> 
>You are punishing God by rejecting Him.  A father would be pained if his son
>rejected him.  Same with God.

But it isn't the same.  I know my father exists.  Here you are implying
that Simon, or one of us, is punishing an entity that we have never
had any contact with.  Why should we take your word for that it is
true when we have so much evidence to the contrary?

Malcolm, we have told you over and over: Preaching is not welcome
on this board, alt.atheism.  Discussion is welcome.  You seem to
have trouble discerning the difference between the two.

ATHEISTS DO NOT HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE IN A GOD.  Therefore,
your argument is totally pointless.  If you wish to discuss this
issue, you cannot use any assumption of God's existence in your
arguments, because you are begging the question.  That is, you
are assuming what we have asked you to prove.  Until you can do
so, this kind of argument is completely without merit.

By the way, the discussion we were having about psychological
health was quite interesting and I look forward to continuing
it.  But lay off that "witnessing" stuff.  It's irrelevent to
us.

>When I refer to God giving some painful lessons, these lessons are received 
>while we are on earth and there is still opportunity to repent.  These lessons
>are no more so than any caring parent would give his/her child.  As to the
>eternal torment of Hell (which I assume you are referring to), that torment comes
>as a result of the total abscence of God.  In each and every one of us, there 
>resides a small part of God.  Some would refer to it as their conscience.  In
>Hell, God is not present.  Even that small part of Him would no longer be there.
>Ones who are in Hell are in torment because there is no God for them.

Malcolm, you have no proof that any of this is true.  You were taught
this by other people.  Don't keep spewing it; you're getting tiresome.
And PLEASE get in the habit of editing your articles.  You include
more post discussion that is needed, and your lines are too long.
Use carriage returns.

>|> You guys appear to know The Mind Of God pretty well when it comes to making
>|> bold claims such as "God would do nothing that wasn't for your own good even
>|> if it involves pain", as you did above, and issuing assurances that God loves
>|> us, sinners included, and so forth. When the dogma is analysed and its
>|> consequences traced and found to be nonsensical, all of a sudden it's Who
>|> Can Know The Mind Of God time. The purpose of that paraphrased e-mail example
>|> I included was to illustrate this process of finely-tuned and parrot-learned
>|> illogic in action, propping up belief in an obviously untenable position. You
>|> have, very predictably, utterly failed to get it.

    [much stuff deleted]

>Reason cannot explain everything.  I am safe in saying that Mankind does not
>know everything and has not been able to reason everything out.  What are the
>reasons for emotions?  I know for sure what I have experienced.  I have felt
>God's touch and I've glimpsed what visions He would have me see.  These things
>are not so easily explained but they are nonetheless, real.  I've never taken
>drugs and I haven't touched a drop of alcohol for the 6 years since becoming
>a Christian, so my experiences were not delusions.  I've stood up in public
>proclaiming the good news of the Word of God.  This is something I would not
>have been capable of before.  Where does this power come from?  

I wish you had addressed Simon's excellent post.  You keep attesting
to your experiences, but they are yours, and they could be delusions.
Just because you never did drugs and haven't had alcohol DOES NOT
mean they are not delusions.  There is an excellent thread about
torture and how it can cause the mind to perceive things that are
not real; it was either on t.r.m. or sci.skeptic.  It contrasted
a Star Trek episode with Orwell's _1984_.  The gist of it is that
heavy brainwashing can cause perceptions that are not real.  This
COULD have happened to you, Malcolm.  I'm not saying it did, but
I am saying this is a possible explanation of your experiences.

In a post to another reader, you mentioned that you were not
comfortable "not believing", which leads me to conclude that you
were never really an atheist.  I think you were a lapsed theist
who returned to the fold.

Final thought: why so many sheep metaphors for Xians?  Are they
going to be slaughtered by their shepherd?  Hardly the act of
a loving god!  (At least the children metaphor implies you'll
grow up someday.)
 
>I tell you, it is the power of God's Spirit.

I tell you, you have no evidence whatsoever that this is what
it is.  Maybe it is excessive synapse firing.  Talk to people
who have done LSD or peyote to learn about what the human
brain can create in terms of unique perceptions.  Everything
you claim is God's voice or God's love could be nothing more
than a manifestation of your own mind.

>God be with you.

While I still object to your using a theistic signiture in
an alt.atheism post, this is a shade less offensive than
the last one.  Bear in mind that preaching, such as any
implicit assertion that there is a God, will make your
audience more hostile to you.

We do welcome rational discussions.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                       |  The Truth is still The Truth, forsooth 
madhaus@netcom.com                   |  Even if believing It you refuse
Centigram Communications Corp        |  Complete disproof's uncouth and moot
San Jose California  408/428-3553    |  A Fundie's brain is dead.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc