From: ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge)
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 16:08:20 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.

In article <1ji00lINN3bh@male.EBay.Sun.COM> birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>Ok I give up...
>
>Is it just a matter of conditioning that causes people on this
>net to take a defensive position anytime people ask for their 
>perspective? 
>
And why is it people find it necessary to restate their questions
when everyone tells them they're wrong?  Is the net such a poor 
communications medium?

>Mikel Evins writes:
>>Try to keep in mind that the existence of unexplained phenomena
>>does not imply that a particular explanatory model is invalid.
>
>So what is the model?
>
>While I realize that each of you has a perspective on the how's and
>why's of our existance I'm asking what that is. The question is...
>
>... what hypothsis, model, paradigm, (insert noun of your choice) do 
>you ("you" being the person reading and replying to this memo) use
>to explain the attributes of compassion, love, self sacrifice, or as
>my original post posed the act of sacrificing ones life for a 
>complete stranger???
>
I don't try to explain human behavior.  I leave that to the experts.
If you really want to find out about human behavior then you should
try asking psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists and other scientists
who study human behavior.  All you're going to hear here in a.a. is the
limited and sometimes inaccurate scientific knowledge of a bunch of silly
atheists.

>Mikel Evins continues:
>>Additionally, postulating an omnipotent god doesn't explain
>>anything in particular. 
>
>I'm advancing no theory of my own. I make no postulation about any
>"omnipotent" being. I'm simply asking a question or opening a channel
>for an interesting discussion. 
>
>Do me a favor, instead of attempting to debunk arguements I'm not even
>advancing, answer the questions posed. While it is obviously a difficult
>question I've posed it is in response to a post that provided a simplistic 
>answer to why we are a violent species, another difficult question.
>
>
>John 

If i remember correctly, and i don't always, the "simplistic answer" you
responded to was my post.  I was not trying to provide a comprehensive
explanation of human behavior.  All i was saying was that it wasn't necessary
to provide supernatural, spiritual or "non-natural" explanations for
human behavior.

If it was my post you responded to then you must have misunderstood the
context of the thread, as my post was in part in response to a post that
implied that spiritual explanations were necessary to explain human behavior.
By responding to my post you implied to everyone that you agreed that a
spiritual explanation was necessary.

Since you've removed the statements that Mikel Evins was responding to
i don't know what the context of those statements is.  I suspect however
that Mikel is just pointing out that the failure of scientific knowledge
to be complete does not require God or a spiritual explanation to complete
it.  It just requires further research.

If you really just want to ask a question and not take sides in an ongoing
discussion it's probably best to start a new thread.  That way nobody is
going to misinterpret your statements in the context of the existing thread.
On the other hand there is a tendency to be defensive here, due in no small
part to the incessant attacks on atheism posted here.  If there's anything
in your post that implies a hidden agenda then you'll get presumptive and
defensive replies.


-- 
allen@well.sf.ca.us
ethridge@bnr.ca
my opinions are my own
Newsgroups: alt.atheism