Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 28 Sep 92 06:11:00 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <welcOx600WB7EOwUVE@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Scott F. Earnest" <se24+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
>     First, it is not really right to come out and say that God does not
> exist without reasonable justification.  In fact, I can state very
> simply that God *does* exist.  (Yes, I am a real atheist.)  The point of
> fact is, exactly how does this God exist.  If you examine the Bible
> carefully enough, you can see fairly easily that it is a story of the
> interaction between Humankind and God.  The Judaic and Christian beliefs
> interpret this "God" concept as being a greater, all-powerful force, in
> control of the entire world.  However, this is where the religions go
> wrong.  Yes, this "force" exists, but it is not really a being per se;
> it is the human conscience.  Thus, this struggle for what is right or
> wrong is between Humankind and each individual's conscience. Each and
> every one of us is aware of our own conscience (provided that each of us
> is sane), and that conscience can hardly be called dead. 

   I see we're back to mucking about with the definitions of "God" and 
"atheist" again.  The wording of the statement above makes no sense,
although the underlying argument does.  To say one is an atheist and 
also believe in God is contradictory; when you say that God=collective
conscience then it isn't, but calling conscience "God" is rewriting the
dictionary.

> And, if that conscience equates to God,

   What makes you think that it does?  So far the only evidence provided
is from the Bible, with your interpretation that what is described as 
"God" is actually conscience.

> then God must necessarily exist,

   Not necessarily.  I know some people who would say that conscience 
*is* dead.

>     Second, I've noticed something that concerns me.  People seem to be
> claiming themselves as God, and other seem to be calling certain people
> God.  This can hardly be called atheism.  Atheism is the belief that no
> deified God exists.  What is being acted out here is the deification and
> acceptance of deification of individuals.  This is more pagan deism than
> atheism!  Could someone explain the rationale to me?! :)

   You have obviously not seen the Light of Colleen.  If you have trouble
figuring out the reasoning behind all this, it's that anyone can be God;
the only "evidence" that the Christian God exists is in the Bible; I could
write a book that says I am God and it would have just as much authority.
Colleenism, Merritism, the Pythagorean Reform Church, etc. are to alt.atheism
as Last-Thursdayism is to creationism and talk.origins (if you ever read that).

>     Finally, for the record, it is my belief that the one true greatest
> sin is self-righteousness.  Denial of something as true means an
> unwillingness to accept that you are wrong, which is a problem central
> to close-mindedness and ignorance.

   Not necessarily.  It also means recognition that someone else is wrong.
By your definition above anyone who says that anything is false is self-
righteous (which in the strict sense it is, i.e. self->right, though not 
in the widely-used sense).
   I think you're being rather self-righteous yourself by claiming that
all this is necessarily true; you're trying to be too absolute in statements
that do not _have_ to be true.  I suggest you talk to Eric Rescorla about 
relativism :-)

Karl
------
Air is like sex - you take it for granted until you're not getting any.