From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:22:58 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Doug, I get the feeling that you're just trying to refute each point I
bring up for the sake of being contrary.  I'll do my best to
consciously avoid doing that myself, but please -- I'm trying to
understand your point-of-view, and I'd appreciate if you please try to
make it look like you're putting some effort into understanding mine.

The point I'm trying to get across (a reminder; it's gotten muddled
through my last few posts) is that Christianity's not just something
you can sit back and snicker at in disbelief that anybody would be so
mindless as to actually believe all this ancient mumbo-jumbo.  No,
there are plenty of Christians who feel every bit as strongly about
their religion as you feel strongly _against_ it, and you stand as
little chance of talking somebody into rejecting the religion by
pointing out all the little things wrong with it, as a Christian has
of converting you.  ;) I'm trying to show that if you look at
Christianity in the right way, it makes sense.  You don't necessarily
_have_ to look at it that way, though; just acknowledge that you
_could_.

And if you understand Christianity, then you'll understand that a
person who preaches Christianity at you isn't necessarily doing it
because he likes to hear himself talk; chances are he's doing it
because he honestly wants to save you from what he believes to be a
horrible fate.  If you don't want to be preached at, then do your best
to get away from him, but don't call him names ("Fundie!"
"Intolerant!").

Why am I, an atheist, fighting for Christianity here?  Only because
I'm very tired of seeing people post nit-picky questions that taunt
Christians and annoy people on both sides.  If you want to debate the
religion, debate it on worthwhile points, and try to understand the
answers to the questions you ask.

Douglas Graham writes:
>Christianity is superstition.  Atheism is simply the lack of belief in
>gods.

I disagree with you.  It's your opinion that Christianity is nothing
more than superstition, okay, but I didn't think it was even arguable
that it's commonly thought of as a philosophy.  (I'm using
'philosophy' here to mean "the set of codes and values a person lives
his life by," while 'religion' is "the beliefs a person has about the
existence of a deity.")

The atheism I practice is not 'simply the lack of belief in gods'.  To
me, it means that there are no absolutes in the universe, and that the
only meaning I can find in life has to come from myself and the things
I do, and this affects how I act and what I do in my life.  There's
much more, but this thread isn't the place for it.

>A real philosophy?  I dunno.  Read some Rand or Nietzsche or
>Russell or whoever and roll your own.  Study evolution and cosmology
>and anthropology and whatever and try to put it all in perspective.
>Be careful though.  The spin doctors are everywhere.  If you read
>something that sounds like bullshit, there's a good chance that it is
>bullshit even if it was written by somebody important.  Keep your bullshit
>filter turned on at all times.

Like I said in the first article in this thread, I was a follower of
Rand's Objectivism for a while.  I've also studied a bit of Nietzsche.
They had their ideas on life, but their philosophies had their fair
share of holes in them, just as my philosophy does, just as
Christianity does, but this doesn't mean that any of our philosophies
is worthless.

Actually, I figure that in a way, there's no philosophy that's
completely worthless.  If a person believes something, chances are
that he has a reason for believing it; even beliefs that seem silly to
you or I must have been justified in some way to the believer.
Non-Christians were treated like scum at various times in history
(some of the 'witches' who were burned in Salem were guilty of not
attending church); lots of people thought our ideas were worthless,
but does that mean they were?

Don't be close-minded.  Don't make the sweeping generalization that a
philosophy is "bullshit".  All you can do is decide that it's of no
consequence in your own view of existence, but don't impose your own
views on somebody else, because doing so presumes that you're "better"
than him.  If you think his philosophy is so inferior to your own,
then explain your ideas to him, and see how he responds.

>I'm having a very difficult time trying to figure out what point it
>is that you're trying to make.  Christianity to me, does look like
>a bunch of random whimsical scribblings.  I don't understand why
>accepting that God wrote these scribblings all of a sudden turns
>them into a cohesive message.  Perhaps you could explain in a paragraph
>or two what that cohesive message is.  Also, I would expect that
>if there really were a cohesive message to it all, there wouldn't be
>so many sects of the religion, each believing different bits of the
>cohesive message.

Okay, since you asked, although I'd wager you already know: The
central theme of Christianity is that there exists a god who is
responsible for creating all people.  Now, of course, this god wants
to be loved, but it's easy to create something that loves him by
definition, and this kind of love really doesn't mean much.  So he
puts people to the test so that they profess their love for him by
_choice_, instead, which is something that means a heckuvalot more.

Now, of course, this deity wants his creations to love him, so he'll
help them along the way if they need it, but he always lets the option
to abandon him remain open; otherwise, there wouldn't be any choice in
the matter.

All the rest of Christianity concerns itself with the fact that we're
just people, with our material desires and such, and so it's difficult
to express our devotion to the deity in proper ways.  All the various
sects of Christianity are just different approaches to the problem of
having a human mind properly respect an omnipotent being.

That's what I call the 'cohesive message of Christianity', and I dare
you to come up with a problem that you can't guess the Christian
answer to by extrapolating from the summary I just gave.

>>Don't get me wrong.  I _don't_ accept that this God exists, as I've
>>pointed out in an earlier article, but I won't (necessarily) accuse
>>people who _do_ believe he exists (and claim to have been spoken to by
>>him) of being completely out of touch with logic and reality.
>
>Could you name some person or group that you *do* consider to be
>out of touch with logic and reality then?  I'm trying to get a feel
>for what it means to you to be out of touch with reality.

Okay, let's see... Satanists, for one, because all they seem to do is
chant meaningless mantras and burn animal carcasses and walk around in
a drug-induced stupor (the Satanists I've known, that is).  I don't
believe that the Satan-worshipping religion has any rhyme or reason
behind it; I think the people who call themselves Satanists are only
doing so to get attention.

Here's another example: the thread on this newsgroup that says "there
is no God but Colleen."  ;) While I'm sure Colleen is a very nice
person, she's offered no philosophy or evidence why she's a god.

"So what evidence has Christianity offered?" you ask?  The Bible and
related stories of miracles that took place two millenia ago, a lot of
which seem just a little too coincidental for me to summarily dismiss.
And also the fact that an awful a lot of people (including good
friends of mine whom I know to be practical-minded people) claim to
have felt a divine presence working in their lives.  Sure, it's not
enough for me to base faith on, but it's also too much to just ignore.

I once knew several examples of things that the Bible describes as
having happened, but that modern scholars can't disprove.  It's been
too long since I read up on that, though, so I can't remember what
these examples were any more.  Can anyone help refresh my memory?

>... I still don't think we've gotten to the meat
>of *why* you think it is a valid philosophy.  Perhaps, by way of
>illustration, you could point out a philosophy that you consider
>invalid, and briefly explain why you think so.

Hmm.  I think that the "White Supremacist" philosophy of the Ku Klux
Klan is invalid, because I've never heard them offer an explanation
for where their central belief comes from, nor how they can support
it.  But if someday they were to explain to me how "White Supremacy"
is an integral part of their flavor of Christianity, I might accept
that it makes sense, although I don't think I could ever agree with
them.

A better example of an invalid philosophy is the rather solipsist view
that was expressed by Robert Morris, originator of the Cornell
Internet virus, and that was also the central theme of Dostoyevsky's
_Crime and Punishment_: "If a person is smart enough and skillful
enough, then laws don't apply to him, and he's allowed to do whatever
he pleases."  (The elite are above the law.)  I think this is invalid
because it just ignores the fact that we're living in a world of
millions of people and there will always be someone smarter and more
skillful around, and besides, who's going to set standards for how
smart you have to be in order to be allowed to break the rules?  Do
you think anyone's ever going to say, "Well, I'm not good enough; I'd
better not break this law, even though everyone else is"?  The
philosophy looks nice in theory, but it doesn't work in practice.

>>By making the blanket statement that any philosophy that teaches that
>>you're inherently sinful is (in your opinion) wrong, you're
>>demonstrating that you're missing some subtleties of the religion.  If
>>that's all it is, then why does *anyone* join it, and why would
>>*anyone* act so happy about calling himself or herself a Christian?
>
>True Believers will often make grand claims about their cult.  Check
>out alt.religion.scientology where, among other things, some of them
>claim that Scientology has improved their eyesight.  Be careful not
>to be fooled by the sales pitch offered by the cult members.  I have
>no reason to suspect that Christians are any happier than anybody else,
>and in some cases, I know for a fact that the religion makes them unhappy.

I can see what you mean, but I didn't mean to imply that the
Christians are happier than everyone else.  I meant to show that even
though the religion carries with it all those negative aspects you
mentioned, Christians still do manage to be as happy and as
well-adjusted as anyone else.  And they act *proud* about calling
themselves Christians.  That's not the sign of a self-defeating
philosophy!

>BTW, the real reason that the religion tells people that they're sinners
>is to destroy their self esteem.

That's your opinion.  Ayn Rand shared a similar opinion.  My opinion
is that religion tells people that they continually fall short of the
mark in order to make them keep trying harder and harder to be better
people.  I don't think this destroys their self-esteem; I've seen some
pretty self-confident Christians.

>I have already explained in previous articles why the religion has
>persisted for so long.  I missed (at least) one thing, and that is
>that this idea of a big daddy in the sky offers people a false sense
>of security, which probably does translate into a warm fuzzy feeling
>inside.  However, that sense of security exacts a terrible toll.

I wouldn't call it a 'terrible toll'; remember Pascal's Wager?  (If
you believe in God but there isn't one you haven't lost anything, but
if you don't believe in God and there is one you could be headed for
trouble.)  Even if it _does_ turn out that Christianity is false, I
know a lot of Christians who wouldn't have lived their life any other
way.  There's strong peer-to-peer bonding in good Christian groups; it
must be nice to have other people around who (by their very beliefs)
will always be there for you.

And a "false sense of security" is entirely underrated.  Just like in
the story of Dumbo the Flying Elephant and his "Magic" Feather,
sometimes having something to give us imaginary support helps up be a
little more confident to take greater risks in life.

I wish I could have this "false sense of security", but I'm kinda like
a kid in Disneyland who's just seen Mickey Mouse with the head of the
costume taken off -- I don't know if I can ever go back to believing
in it with as much devotion as I used to.

>I am saying that every single religious scholar and every martyr of
>every religion has been sadly misled.  Come on guy.  Either there is
>a God, or there isn't.  If, as you currently believe, there isn't,
>then this all falls out naturally doesn't it?  If that's too much to
>wrap your mind around, then trying thinking about whether or not the
>scholars of some of the other religions, past and present, have been
>misled.  What is so special about Christianity?

I'm just using Christianity as an example because there are so many
Christians around, but what I'm saying applies to any major religion,
really.

And besides, you're missing my point again.  Just because I honestly
feel that there's no such thing as an intelligent god behind the
universe doesn't mean that I have the right to belittle and demean
every single person throughout history who's ever found sufficient
reason to believe otherwise.

>And while I'm on the subject, I should point out that it also falls
>out naturally that our whole civilization is based on this virulent mental
>disease.  You're right, that's a powerful statement, and one I definitely
>recommend that you ponder for awhile.  It doesn't make me particulary happy
>to say it, because these are my ancestors that I'm talking about as well,
>but it really is inescapable.  For example, you may have noticed the
>insufferable arrogance that you see among some of our fundy friends.
>That's the same arrogance that is responsible for the genocide perpetrated
>on the North and South American native people.  Face it.  We're a
>bunch of cutthroat bastards, and it's time we did something about it.

If you think Christianity is out of touch with reality (and I agree
that it is, in places), and you feel so strongly about correcting
this, then talk with some Christians and see if you can start a
movement to put the religion back in touch with modern times.  I think
it's possible, but it's not something I'd like to undertake right now.

I'm annoyed by arrogant Christians, sure, but then again, I'm annoyed
by arrogant people of any shape, size, and color, of which there exist
many.

And while I was never that good in history class, I think Christianity
was used as an excuse in the attempt to wipe out native Americans, not
as the reason.  The main reason for pushing native Americans back was
because we wanted their land.

>>All I'm asking is this: if you postulate for a moment that a god in
>>the Christian sense exists, can you pose some sort of problem that
>>Christianity can't deal with, or find a discrepancy in the religion
>>that it can't give you a consistent answer to, even if you don't agree
>>with the answer?
>
>Well, of course they'll have an answer for everything.  After all,
>that's what religion is all about.  But what do you mean by a consistent
>answer?  For example, if my question is "What should the goals of
>mankind be?" and the answer is to "To love God.", is that a consistent
>answer?  To me, it just looks like three words glued together.  Please,
>give me an example of this consistency and coherency because it eludes
>me completely.

The answer "To love God" means something entirely different to you and
I than what it means to a Christian.  If that's just three words to
you, then ask the Christian to explain, and he'll probably give you a
summary of the religion similar to the summary I gave above.  If he
says, "well, I dunno, that's just what they taught me to say in Sunday
school," then I'd agree that the phrase is quite devoid of meaning.

To contrast: A Satanist probably can't deal with the question of
abortion (for example) within the confines of his religion, and there
are, very likely, some Satanists who believe in an afterlife and some
who don't, and some who belive that the goal of mankind should be to
cause as much destruction as possible, and some who belive that the
goal of mankind should be just to live life in anarchy.  Satanism is
neither consistent nor coherent, because (from what I know of it) it
contains many "teachings" that contradict other things the religion
has to say, and it includes a lot of ideas that seem to originate from
a drug-induced stupor more than from any organized theory of how the
universe is put together.

>>The whole concept of the crucifixion is the keystone to the entire
>>Christian religion.  If you still ask "What does nailing a guy to a
>>tree have to do with anything?" then I still say you're not
>>understanding the religion properly.  ;)
>
>And I say you're not understanding my point properly.  I know that
>it is the keystone of the religion.  That's why I'm concentrating
>on it.  Why are you unable to answer this question?

Oh, I can answer the question, all right.  The point of the
crucifixion (as I see it) is to give a shocking reminder of how much
mankind has forgotten their god, and to show how ultimately it's
possible to remain faithful even through excruciating torture (and
thus possible to remain faithful through _anything_), and how such
steadfast faith represents pure love and will be rewarded by eternal
life in paradise.  These are concepts that I'm not asking you to agree
with, only to accept that they're not "nonsense".

>With all due
>respect, you've made a number of claims as to the sensibility and
>coherency of the religion, but you have yet to demonstrate any of it.

I apologize; I didn't think I was skirting the issues.  I need some
help here, though -- can you point out parts of the religion that you
think are nonsensical or incoherent?

Sorry to quote a big block here, but I think it's necessary:

>>>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.
>>>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.
>>>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.
>>
>>I don't think that's an accurate statement.  It's not like they're
>>selling you a used car and not telling you things about it!  I've
>>certainly learned most of what I know about Christianity from the
>>outside looking in, and I've never had a religious discussion where
>>I've left a Christian thinking that I'm just too lazy or afraid to
>>sign up.
>
>If I might make a suggestion here: try to address the specific point
>I'm making.  I gave you a specific example of the type of dishonesty
>that we see daily on the net, and all you can do is deny it with
>vague handwaving.  This seems to be a recurring pattern throughout your
>articles.  You're all too happy to speak in terms of generalities
>(Christianity is sensible and coherent) but you seem unwilling to discuss
>specifics.  It's rather hard to debate such generalities, but more
>importantly, I think it probably reflects a good deal of unclear thinking
>on your part.

My thinking is clear; I'm just not sure how to communicate it to other
people, and that's what I'm working on here.

The reason I didn't address the specific point you made was that I
really had nothing to say on it, but if you insist:

I don't think Christians are being 'dishonest'.  They're not all
charlatans.  I don't think they're "changing their minds at will."  If
you think they're trying to sell you a religion that's so wonderful
and will make your life peachy with the "*free* gift" inside (sounds
like a box of Crackerjacks), then you're not hearing the whole message.

A lot of Christians who've posted here say their lives are *far* from
being easier since they've accepted Christianity.  They freely admit
that there are sacrifices involved, and tradeoffs, but they agree to
this because they feel it's right and necessary, and they say that
they're living a fuller life because of it.

If I'm missing any other specifics you'd like to discuss, please tell me.

>>>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. ...
>>
>>... Your statement (that anything that sounds outrageous to
>>you can't be true) sounds unsettlingly like sixteenth-century
>>"science": "What, he's proposing that the EARTH goes around the SUN?!
>>That's outrageous!  This empirical science stuff is worthless!"
>
>I'm sorry, but this is just babble.  If you think that there is no
>way to distinguish between a rational explanation of a phenomenon,
>and superstition, then there really isn't much more we can discuss.

It's not just babble to me.  It's always important to keep an open mind.  

Back in the 1800's, people believed in 'spontaneous creation': if you
leave a piece of cheese on a windowsill, mold will grow on it, and
since that mold wasn't there before, obviously it was generated from
nothingness.  It was a "rational explanation" that there was a
life-force in the air that caused mold to grow on food that'd been
left exposed for a while.  It was "superstition" and totally
off-the-wall that there could be some sort of "invisible mold"
floating through the air that could turn visible and grow when it came
in contact with food.

If people had stuck to "science" and not even considered possibilities
that looked outrageous at first sight, science wouldn't be where it is
today.

>>>It also
>>>seems to be a tenet of these religions that we should do everything possible
>>>to bring about the destruction of the planet.
>>
>>Huh?  In what way is Christianity or Islam or Judasim "destroying the
>>planet"?
>
>Well, the big one is overpopulation. ...
>How do you suppose that opposition
>to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?

Simple!  It doesn't, which is why there exist different kinds of
Christianity, many of which don't oppose birth control or sex
education.  The parts of Christianity that do oppose these things
(such as Catholicism) oppose them because the religious leaders feel
it's more important to respect the importance of the sexual act than
to worry about the consequences.  (I'm not criticising here -- just
stating what I think is a fact.)

>I still think
>>Christianity is a valid philosophy, built on the arguable existence of
>>the god described in their holy book; do you still disagree?
>
>Er, well yes.  Before you're going to have any hope of swaying me,
>you're going to have to provide some of your reasoning for thinking
>the way you do.

Okay, I accept the challenge.  ;) But I'm not sure what parts of my
reasoning you don't swallow.

Let me re-phrase my question.  Assume for the same of argument that
God exists, and that he is the same God described in the Christian
bible (that is, the "loving Father", not some kind of war god).

If you knew this to be true, would you become a Christian and accept
that philosophy?  If not, why not?  What is there about Christianity
that invalidates it for you?


     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Twin Peaks Junkie    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism