From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:11:59 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <dabrowsk.715318926@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>
> SUMMARY: Theism is more demanding intellectually than atheism.
 
As part of my new project to achieve moral perfection, I won't even
TOUCH that one! <smirk>

> -Jonathan W Newton:
>>Believing in god [...] takes away the burden of thinking about alot of
>>important subjects.
>>
> Examples, please. A trivial example supporting the opposite thesis:
> Atheists don't think about one important subject, namely about God :-D.

Actually, I'd bet atheists think about God more than 95% of theists do.
Of course, I have no statistics...

> -Jonathan W Newton:
>>Furthermore, atheism is not a dogmatism.  The only thing atheism is is
>>a lack of belief in god(s), nothing more and nothing less.
>>
> This lack of belief is dogmatic; the detailed dogma related to it depend
> on the implementation but usually are based on ontological objectivism. 

I think you have a good point here - but, strictly speaking, LACK of
belief does not have to be dogmatic. A new-born baby lacks belief in
god(s), but not because it holds an atheistic counter-dogma. 

> -Jonathan W Newton:
>>There is alot of variability in the opinions of atheists, but
>>these are all conclusions the reached by thought rather than faith.
>>
> Show me one logically valid conclusion reached without taking some
> unverifiable axioms as granted, and I'll mail you a check for $100.

Gosh!!!  Let me think...  ok, I've got one:

"The Tao which can be expressed is not eternal Tao - the name 
which can be named is not the unchanging name."
 
Cheque, please!  

> -Jonathan W Newton:
>>Christianity is appealing to you as well as many people because it is
>>the easiest way to dodge intellectual responsibility.
>>
> Good that you know better. What if I said the same about you? Indeed, it
> is very easy to say: "Only objective events should be investigated. The
> subjective should be reduced to the objective". It's MUCH more demanding
> to give a consistent analysis of the objective and the subjective. Not
> only because the scope is much broader but also because there are usual
> problems on the boundaries...  

Not to be a defender of scientific materialism, but it DOES give a "consistent
analysis" of the subjective and the objective. The discipline of psychology
exists in order to study subjectivity, and, I must confess, their model
of human subjectivity is a lot more comprehensive, detailed, and
has a lot more predictive power than any theistic model that I've ever
seen. You're a scientist, Jarek. Give the devil his due! 

> -Jonathan W Newton:
>>Christians just say "we cannot question the divine wisdom of our lord",
>>and don't have to make any efforts to resolve the questions they face.
>>
> That's your belief. Ask me such a question. At least one, please.

If God created the universe, who created God? Why is something "good" just
because some super-powerful being decrees it to be so? Explain in detail
the mechanism by which my sin was assumed by J.C., considering that
I hadn't even started sinning when he got nailed up? Is sin some kind
of substance, or what? How did letting the Romans nail J.C. help anything?
Why did God have to incarnate himself and sacrifice himself to himself to
appease himself? Especially when he created the whole mess in the first 
place?  In what way is it justified that I should be punished infinitely
for my finite sin?  Why was the True Way only revealed to humanity
after 3,000,000 years worth of humans had lived and died in ignorance?
What possible reason could we have for taking Paul's claims to "apostleship"
seriously?  What about the other branches of Christianity that got snuffed
by the emerging Catholic orthodoxy in the first 500 years or so? How do we
know that one of THOSE wasn't the True Way? How do you know you aren't
a butterfly having a long and most wonderful dream? How do you account for
the religious experience/conviction of non-Christians? 

Some of these are trickier than others...but they should get you started! :)

> 
> Best wishes,
>              Jarek

P.S.  Post your "Introduction to Jarek" again, for the benefit of
the new generation of pupils...:)

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"Are you a sceptic, then?"
"Never, my dear. Scepticism is the beginning of Faith." -- Oscar Wilde
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc