From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist.  (long!)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:27:51 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


>    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.


Human beings are the authors of morality. Morality serves as a way of
maintaining the health of both the society and the individuals. Mores come
about due to social, ecological and even more importantly economic conditions

>    (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.

I suppose if I had a direct line to god (Holy Spirit) as you do I would be
free to ignore logic, history and deductive reasoning. Being a mere mortal
I cannot do this

>    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.

These are arbitrary distictions. Different cultures with different economic
ecological and social realities than that of the jews @~100a.d. have a 
different set of morals

>    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.

Ahah!!! WHERE ARE THE FLAWS!!! All of your arguments seem to be based on the
fact that your interpretation of the bible is gods literal word. If we had
something other than the bible as a basis for your assumption that there is
a god, then we can discuss the bible. Untill then, it has no place in a 
logical argument...

>    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.

Which words, pray tell, are to be believed? Each of the 4 books that tell
his story in the NT have a different charachterization of jesus. Within
these books there are internal contridictions & etc...

>
>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.

Name one presumption, then we can discuss. There is nothing disparging 
about it other than it happens to offend your sensitivities... If you can't
come up with a better argument than that it offends you, don't pretend
to use logic.

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

You are not asking the right questions; allow me to assist you;
What makes my beliefs superior to those of other religions?
Why is it necessary for me to believe in god?
Where exactly do each of my particular beliefs come from? The literal
bible interpretation? Allegorical interpretation? Because it should
be that way?
Why is it that much of modern science disagrees with the bible (e.g. biology,
socio-biology, psychology, physics, history) while this (science) remains the
best way of predicting behavior and causing physical(emotional etc.) change
ibn the world around us?
If it is well established that prophets such as Ezekiel were schitzophrenic
why do I accept the valididty of their writings?
If I base so much of my beliefs on the english translation of the bible, how
do I know the translators gave me the proper interpretation? How do I know
that the books in the bible are what god wanted?

>    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.

The reason is plain enough, you have an established dogma you feel comfortable
with, and your mind will not be changed. I have no such dogma. If you can use
logic & deductive reasoning to proove your particular dogma is the word of
god, I'll be your first convert. Lightning bolts from above (ala Paul) don't
count, just cool objective logic, thank you.

>    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".

Agreed that it gives you some ease of mind. This is part of the crime
of christianity; You should never have that peace, you should always
strive for more. Please, no whining on how much you question your faith, how
much anguish this causes you. This is the way it should be. It shows that there
is the remnants of a thinking human being in there.

>    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

Baloney; read your bible! There are plenty of rules that One must follow
to be a christian

>    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

This is further evidence of brainwashing. The sioux indians would drug their
youths and send them on vision-quests. When they came back then were men and
would follow the tenets of the tribe because it is the right way to live. 
Similarly for other groups (cults etc..) While you were not drugged, you 
were either raised (brainwashed) to think the way you do, or you experienced
a time of emotional and/or psychological turmoil for which christianity gave 
you a way out (you brainwashed yourself to a convenient way of thinking)
Read "A History of Secret Societies" by Akhron Dahrool and "prometheus rising"
by R.A. Wilson  and "Snapping" ny two PhD's whos names I can't remember for
more info on the Brainwashing/ self-brainwashing phenomenon

>    is not a set of rules to live by, but an attitude of the heart.

Oh, how nice, so the christian is now free of all rules so long as sHe has
accepted the holy spirit and follows his/her heart
>
>    I know of another...revelation.

Name one valid thing in science (again, the most useful of human tool) that is
a result of "revelation"



>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.

What is it based on then? The bible?

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

As do the Upinshads, legends of the native americans, the Necronomicon (not!)
and countless other books & legends to their respective peoples.

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

Like you to the bible, its there but some choose to ignore it, such as the
present generation of conservatives...

>    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."

Only because you people don't have the power to enforce your reality tunnel
on the general public. This was much different just a few hundred years ago.

>    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.

Nice of you to assure us

  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

Automations? Kindof like you huh? Do you really have a choice?

>    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.

What wonderful logic! 
>
>    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.

See my previous post

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

Wish you could see how shallow your understanding of it is

-Scott
Newsgroups: alt.atheism