From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:42:08 GMT

In article <C0CDAF.LKF.1@cs.cmu.edu> rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:
>
>	There is a great deal of debunking of Christianity going on
>on this group, but is this really sufficient grounds for Atheism?  
>Nailing the inconsistencies in Christianity certainly gives enough
>support to show that it isn't the One Truth as far as religions go,
>but that really doesn't give us enough to deny the existence of a god.
>	It is evident that all of the religions there are have certain
>inconsitencies within them.  The followers of any given religion may refute
>that the inconsitencies aren't important, but they undeniably exist.  I've 
>considered this proof enough that no single religion is exclusively right.
>But these discrepencies aren't really enough to disproove the existence of 
>god.  
>	However, I think maybe by looking at each religion, it's origins, 
>and it's errors, that we can see that the errors are due to the
>nature of the society in which the religion grew.  Most of the errors or
>discrepencies in the Bible show that chauvanistic men wrote it, and that 
>the differences between people were used to show superiority of one set
>of people over another.  Now, defenders of the Bible will defend this
>by saying that the Word of God was given to these men, and they interpreted
>it, and wrote it down.  Therefore, they tainted the word of God with their
>own humanity.  
>	I'm not very schooled in other religions, but I do know that the 
>Islamic faith supports the culture in most Islamic country's and it is likely
>that the culture was similar when the Koran was written.  
>	Christianity is really the only religion to extricate itself from
>the society in which it began.  This accents the affect that the originators
>of the Bible had on Christianity.  Hinduism, Buddism, Confusionism, Islam, etc..
I've left your whole post here because I like the points made.  However, though
I realize this is not the main point of you post, I have to say this:
This is so white! So Eurocentric.  Europe is very small.  There are less 
people living in Europe than in India.  Pakistan is almost as large (larger?)
then Europe alone ( Pakistan has approx. 200 million I believe ).  Pakistan
is predominately muslim ( 90% I think ) and India is about 20% muslim I think
( of 800 million or so, so another 150 million ).  India is most definitley
NOT basically the same area as Iraq.  If anything Islam spread with more
force than Christianity outside of its original area.  This is shown by the
widespread use of arabic in the middle east ( a personal hypothesis- correct
me if I'm wrong ).  Then there is the question of Buddhism and Islam throughout
out Asia, India, China, and Japan.  I get the impression that these are all
the same area to you because all the people have brown skin, or you are 
really ignorant of the world- maybe one of the Americans who can't find Japan
on the globe, or the Persian Gulf.  Christianity is but a drop in the bucket
and it only spread in Europe, until driven to other parts of the world, and 
even then, not as far as Islam.  If I recal another post China had a large
influx of Christianity that died away to be replaced by Islam, which I think
is larger than Christianity there by a good deal since then.  One of the
reasons that I know Christianity is so wrong is that it is so Eurocentric
and so white.  As if a God would reveal himself to Europe or the middle east
and leave Japan, China, North America, Australia, and very well most of the
rest of the world in the dark.  That is so pathetically arogant and ego-
centric.  Europe + North America + Russia= 150 + 300 + 150 = 600 million.  
World = 5 000 million.  This why Christians just astound me.  It is so
completely unbelievable.
 
>all pretty much remained in the area where they formed.  This makes it seem
>like the religion forms the culture.  However, Christianity has changed greatly
>in the past few hundred years, while the Bible has not changed.  This shows
>that the culture forms the religion, not the other way around.
>	Is this enough to say that humans create religion, or just enough
>to say that we shape it to our society?  Is debunking religions enough to
>disprove God?  I'd like to hear what others have to say about this.
>
>Bob Huss
>
>
I agree with the main point of you post whole heartedly.  It is very well put.
Societies so obviously shape religon it almost an unbelievable stretch of
credibility to believe anything divine could exist in such obvious societal
creations.  This, with my above point, make be just belwildered that religion
exists in an age where we know so much about man and society.  You post hit
two of my favorite religious topics, I couldn't keep my mouth shut.

Conclusion:  Nailing Christianity- definitely enough there for agnosticism,
and science says enough to say that it looks like atheism is where the moneys
at.