From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:32:14 GMT
Organization: Society for putting things on top of other things

In article <1992Aug20.201052.21811@meaddata.com> joyce@meaddata.com writes:

>I am convinced that people will believe what they want to believe so I
>could argue all I want until I'm blue in the face and people will
>still believe what they want. I respect that and hopefully, you'll
>respect my right to do the same. It's the first (and last) time I will
>ever be in this newsgroup but if the following is true from FAQ and I
>quote: "Many atheists would be happy to believe in the existence of a
>God; all that they ask is that he provide convincing direct evidence
>of his existence." then maybe it's worth it to put my 2-cents' piece
>in.

Well, this is interesting.  Here is a Christian who read the FAQ,
noticed that an atheist would like "direct evidence of [god's]
existence" and then posted something that did nothing of the kind.

>...consider
>the person of Jesus Christ, the most loved and most hated person who
>ever lived, all because He claimed to be God. There are 3 possibilities to His
>claim, 1) He was not telling the truth and He knew it which makes Him
>a liar; 2) He was not telling the truth and He did not know it which
>makes Him a lunatic; and 3) He was telling the truth.

1. Your definition of Jesus Christ, not most of ours (the atheists on
this group).  Once you bring emotional labels into your argument, you
lose your audience here, because we ask for *direct evidence*.  To me,
Jesus Christ is neither loved nor hated; in fact, he doesn't matter at all.

2.  You have no evidence that Jesus said he was God.  The Bible is a
religious work.  Show me a historical report, such as the Judean Evening
Post, or Roman Empire Today, that confirms he said this.

3.  You leave out other possibilities: he was telling the truth and
was misunderstood (e.g. he said he came to speak of God, and others
thought he came to speak *for* God).  Or, he didn't say much of
anything, but some other folks thought he'd make a great figurehead.
Or, he didn't even exist (can you show me a receipt for the cabinet
he built?) at all.  Direct evidence, remember?  If you can't supply
it, then don't post here.

>Other people
>more knowledgeable that I am can give dissertation-like arguments to
>the above but I just present mine simply: 1) If He was lying, then He
>chose to suffer and die for a lie, which makes Him really stupid and
>all His followers nuts; for a lie, Paul was beheaded, Peter was sawed
>in two, Stephen was stoned, etc. A study of these people's lives show
>quite a transformation after they had seen Jesus rise from the dead;

This is completely feasible.  He was lying, and was punished for
stirring up trouble.  End of discussion.  Nowhere do you prove your
wild assertation that he rose from the dead.  I like the idea that
he was lying and his followers were stupid.  Kind of confirms some
of the Christians' postings I've seen in this group.

>2) A lunatic could not possibly give a message
>like the Sermon on the Mount and would be illogical in speech and
>thought; a study on Jesus` life could easily refute this;

BZZZZZZZZT!  I'm sorry, thank you for playing.  A lunatic can do
quite a lot.  Many of them post well-constructed nonsense on this
newsgroup.  Why would his speech be illogical if he mistakenly
believed he was god?  And, again, where is your *historical* study
on Jesus, complete with transcripts from disinterested parties?
Furthermore, from what we know of religious leaders, their arguments
don't have to be logical; they need only be emotionally persuasive.
Their followers will clean up the text for publishing later.  Lunatics
can be very compelling; just listen to Garner Ted Armstrong, or L. Ron
Hubbard, or the Bhagwan of Oregon.

>3) He must
>be then telling the truth and all of us either reject or accept Him
>for what He claimed to be and the consequence of our choice.

This does not follow at all.  You never disproved 1) and 2), and you
never proved that 3) follows from disproving 1) and 2).  I have
already shown there are other possibilities, so even if you could
disprove 1) and 2), you only reduce the number of alternatives.

>It is
>a moot point for me to argue about whether God exists or not; 

Then why are you even posting here?  It is a moot point whether
the nineteen-dimensional Blue Banana exists, but if you don't offer
fealty to the Mighty Blue Banana, you're going to be SPLIT!

>To those who seem to blame God for every vile thing that happens in
>this world and asks why He does not fix it, I would just like to say
>that He will, He is just being patient because He is not willing that
>any should perish.


How *dare* you lecture me on whether your god would let anyone perish?
Do you have relatives who died during the Holocaust?  Do you have family
starving to death in Somalia?  You insolent, smug little idiot; you
dare to speak on these issues that you have no connection to!  Don't
tell me about your god's plan for those in the afterlife; I can see
clearly that people have perished already, in the here and now.

>He gave us free will, and we all have chosen to
>make a mess of our world by doing as we pleased yet we blame Him for
>it.

No, I blame people like you for distorting the sufferings of others.
Don't tell a group of atheists about your god's intention.  I don't
post to the christian boards; in fact, very few of us do.  If you would
like, I will post to such a board about the 19-dimensional Blue Banana
and why It loves to make Christians suffer.

>I hope I don't sound like I`m preaching

You are.  And preaching is not welcome on this board.


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: alt.atheism