From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:21:55 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1993Jan2.030105.2872@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>>
>>In order to be convinced that "God" doesn't exist, I would have to know
>>exactly what you mean by "God". And you have not come up with any kind
>>of description/definition/whatever that makes any kind of sense. Until
>>you do, I have no idea what you mean by "God".
>
>True I have not.  Ok here goes: "Joe Beiter's limited personal definition
>of 'God'".  God is a being that cannot be directly observed by any 
>current technology, He alledgedly created all of the known universe, 
>maintains an active interest on what happens on earth, even has a
>role on the social/political activities on the earth yet still maintains
>'invisibility' to scientifically measureable means.

Thanks. Part of the problem on discussing "God" with believers is that no
two people seem to give it the same attributes.
>
>unlike the unicorn, there are large numbers of similer belief of the same
>or similer characteristics.

But to an atheist, they are equally likely.

>
>You say you are sure He does not exist.  why?
>

I have never said that. All I have said is that I see as much reason to
believe in the christian god, as the moslem god or the jewish god (they're
all supposed to be the same one, but the different religions give it
different attributes), or the hindu one or the ancient greek one etc...

I do not have the preconceived idea that god xyz of such-and-such religion
exists and is the supreme being. I was not raised in any religion at all.
This is not the same as being raised as an atheist. To do this my parents
would have had to teach me what a god was, and then have taught me that it
didn't exist. I learnt to read at an early age and had read myths and
legends from various cultures before I was ever exposed to christianity.

That was at school in England, and it all seemed a rather stupid game
until when I was about 8 the class teacher read bible stories and asked
for comment. I compared them with legends from other religions (which was
probably a rather precocious thing to do, but I had learnt to read at a
very early age and spent a lot of time in the library) and was amazed at
the teachers response. That was when I first heard the word atheist, and
first realised that some people actually believed the stuff.

The concept of a god does not make any sense to me. I had come across
better explanations for things long before I ever heard of "God". And
the books I had read at the library had been honest when they didn't
know the answers, for instance a boys-own-book-of-astronomy gave a few
plausible (and much simplified) theories of how the solar system was
formed; the explanations made sense, and they said they were just the
latest theories based on evidence.

I don't need the real facts in order to know whether somebody is
telling me something wrong, if what they tell me is obviously wrong. If
I tell you I am typing this at a 24-line tube, then you have no reason
to disbelieve me. If I then mention line 30, then something is wrong.
But you still don't know how many lines this tube has, even if you cared.

>
>>NO DIFFERENCE. Just as you think that your god is the ultimate truth, so
>>the Shiites think that their god is the ultimate truth. You can't have it
>>both ways: the Shiites died for their faith; the apostles died for their
>>faith. How do you know which one was the lie or compromised truth? To a
>>Shiite your crowd would be the ones who died for a lie or compromised
>>truth. So which one is right? They can't both be, even though both were
>>convinced they were right.
>
>No difference?  You say there is no difference between someone who has been
>fooled into dieing for something false and someone who died for maintaining
>something they KNOW is false?  I don't buy it.
>

Are you maintaining that people who died for other religions died for
something they KNEW was false? You can't have it both ways. All religions
have martyrs: a moslem would make the same claim for Mohammed that you
have made for the apostles. So how am I to know which is right? Or both?
Or neither? Actually the simplest answer is that they both BELIEVED they
were right. Which to me makes them all a special kind of person, even
though I don't share their belief.

>
>>Remember there are lots of religions out there, claiming different gods
>>or the same gods interpreted differently. And out of all these, you
>>expect me to tell me I am convinced your particular one doesn't exist.
>
>well no not you if you don't want to.  I'm sure someone else here will.

Most atheists won't, certainly not here. Some atheists have a faith that
"God" does not exist, most just don't believe in the various gods. These
positions are not the same. All atheism is, is the absence of belief in
gods.

>
>>And each of these religions has their own set of legends, stories and
>>history. Just like yours. And people are convinced that each of these
>>is the one and only revealed truth. Just like you and your religion.
>
>as you are convinced they are all false.  Sombody is right and somebody
>is wrong.  I would like to try and find out. 

No, I don't say they are all false. I say they are all equally valid, a
mixture of stories, legends and history, and they are a fascinating way of
understanding cultures.

>
>>You talk about your "God" as if it were a fact. So do Hindus, Sikhs, Jews,
>>Moslems............ But you can only back it up by quoting your holy books.
>>So do Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Moslems........
>
>You talk as though his non-existance is fact.  So do Hindus, Sikhs, Jews
>etc... The only thing I've seen as argument are examples of perceived
>inconsistancies in the Bible.  That would be great but I still haven't seen
>anything that is without 'personal interpretation'.
>Some have some good ones.  I'm still observing.

No I don't. Neither do most atheists. All they do is say they have no
reason to believe it exists.

But to discuss this sort of thing with an atheist, you should not
start with the assumption that they do exist. This is not the same
as assuming they don't exist.

The other religions all have their gods. Some call it "God" even though
it is not the same as your god. Some of them might say that your one is
a false one, just as you might say their gods are false.

The inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible aren't just perceived,
they are actual, and many megabytes of bandwith have been expended on this
so I won't repeat them. But they are only posted in response to biblical
inerrancy claims. The bible says such-and-such so it must be true. If the
bible can be shown to have a single error, then it is NOT inerrant. So
it is faulty logic to claim that something is a fact because it is in the
bible (it might be a fact, but being in the bible does not make it so).

>
>>That is a religious pseudo-truth. And I'm not going to say that anybody
>>of any religion believes a lie (the word you used) because it is emotive
>>and implies deliberate falsehood. Have you noticed how angry people start
>>getting once the words "lie", "liar" and "lieing" get introduced?
>
>well the point of lieing is resting on the apostles (authors of the NT) and
>the fact that if they were lieing then they died for something that they 
>would have known was NOTHING. There is no motive for such behaviour.

There are other possibilities. Remember, all religions have martyrs. They
could have been mistaken, or misled, or just wrong, or anything else. I
do not doubt that they died for their faith, but then so have people from
other religions. You brought up the apostles dieing for their faith to
justify your religion as being the only true faith. I was pointing out
that other religions can make exactly the same claim. Remember that an
atheist doesn't have any religion, and regards all religions equally valid
(or invalid, depending on the point of view).

>>This presupposes your god, and I haven't seen any evidence for it. In the
>>extremely unlikely case of it existing, I would agree. But then Zeus, Odin
>>Osiris, and Krishna, if they exit, haven't shown themselves any better at
>>communicating either.
>
>I have but it is personal and I'm very sure you don't want to hear anything
>about it. Just remember I'm not here to convince you of anything.  I'm here
>to seek out atheism as a possible reality.  If I'm giving you my religious
>beliefs then it is to have them 'shot full of holes' that I may prehaps see
>that I've been deceived.
>

Nobody is saying that you have been decieved. A lot of believers (not
just in christanity) see things in absolutes. Something must be either
absolutely true, or it is a lie. But people of all religions including
yours have the same absolute certainty that theirs is the only, ultimate,
real truth. Politicians are the same. That is why some people call this
sort of thing pseudo-truth. It ain't a lie, but it's a sort of personal
truth that needn't be true to other people. Sadly, the people who only
see things in absolutes assume that the other guys' position is a lie.

And when they say so, the other guys can get VERY angry.

>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
>|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
>|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|

Chris Lee