From: mikeh@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Michael Hore)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: BELIEVERS: WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU NOT BELIEVE IN GOD?
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:16:09 +1100
Organization: Kralizec Dialup Unix Sydney: +61-2-837-1183 V.42bis
NNTP-Posting-Host: kralizec.zeta.org.au


Jeff West writes:

>Mike,
>  You've actually made your argument quite well!

Thanks!

>  Unfortunately most
>of the Xians that come to a.a first tell you that you have to have
>faith and then spend post after post trying to back up their belief
>with 'logical' arguments.  The two are mutually exclusive.  Faith and
>logic are diametrically opposed to each other.  (learned some new words
>this weekend ;-)  )

I think I agree with what I think you're saying!  Not that christians
should be logically inconsistent, just that some of their axioms are
just that -- axioms.  I've said something on another thread about
self-consciousness, and I think that's very significant, but I
wouldn't try to run that as a logical argument.  It's more like
an axiom.  It seems obvious to me that self-consciousness isn't just
a physical thing, but I wouldn't try to prove it.  And even if I could,
it would just be that something non-physical exists.  It wouldn't be
an argument for christianity, or even for theism.

>  I have no problem when someone tells me that they believe in Xianity
>or any other religion based on the experiences of their lives.
>  It's the ones that want to convert me so bad that they try using
>logic to 'prove' to me why they're right.  Just can't be!

Yep.  I'm sure they care a lot, but that's just not the way to 
proceed, and certainly not here.  All I want to do on this group
(and I'll have to pull out soon, due to lack of time, for a few months
at least, BTW) is to at least be logically consistent.


And Brian Kendig writes:

> ...
> [my analogy from marriage deleted]
>
>If there was consistent and reasonable evidence that my wife was
>cheating on me, then no matter how faithful I thought she was, I would
>ask her about my doubts, to her face, with the evidence to back me up.
>This is a demonstration of trust, too.

Yes, I agree completely.

>In the case of the Christian God, the evidence would be AIDS,
>starvation, and hatred; many have asked him for an explanation, but he
>has not given one.  Can you still write these things off without
>concern, saying "well, he must have his reasons"?

Right, and it's the big question of when the evidence becomes
"consistent and reasonable", as you said, or compelling enough,
that one feels forced to conclude that it all just can't be
true after all.  Well, I can relate to that, since I came very
close to that point last year, but in the end I kept hanging
in there.  The simple answer is "he must have his reasons",
and I realize only too well that that just won't wash for many
people.  Ultimately it's a personal thing.  I think my faith
has got stronger through it, but the last thing I'm going to do
is blame someone who chucks it all in.

>The main problem I have with Christianity is that people take this
>"lifetime of experiences" that lead them to believe in the existence
>of a deity, then try to impose their beliefs on others.  If Christians
>would leave well enough alone and realize that their beliefs are only
>that -- beliefs -- and respect the beliefs and values of other people
>as well, then I would have less problem with them.  I don't know if
>this is possible under Christianity, though, for the same reasons you
>gave above.

Well, it's true of course, christians do want to see other people
become christians, but most of us are staggeringly insensitive about
the way we go about it  :-(

Cheers,  Mike.

----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hore          mikeh@kralizec.zeta.org.au
.sig deliberately kept short to minimize .sig/noise ratio.
----------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism