From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 01:59:50 GMT

In article <mlanmrp.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>I don't follow -- if atheism and Christianity aren't philosophies,
>then what _is_ an example of a philosophy?

Christianity is superstition.  Atheism is simply the lack of belief in
gods.  A real philosophy?  I dunno.  Read some Rand or Nietzsche or
Russell or whoever and roll your own.  Study evolution and cosmology
and anthropology and whatever and try to put it all in perspective.
Be careful though.  The spin doctors are everywhere.  If you read
something that sounds like bullshit, there's a good chance that it is
bullshit even if it was written by somebody important.  Keep your bullshit
filter turned on at all times.

>>The problem with that is that the reason Christians generally give
>>to questions like "Why should I not be allowed to have sex before I
>>get married?", is "Because God said it's a sin."  At least that's
>>what it will boil down to in the end.  So, before we can discuss the
>>sensibility of this at all, we have to establish that this God actually
>>exists, and did in fact play a big part in authoring the Bible.
>
>*Precisely*.  But the whole basis of my argument is that if you just
>accept as a base truth that this god _does_ exist as the Christian
>religion describes him, then the whole rest of the Christian religion
>(with all its rules, teachings, and tenets) is more than just random
>whimsical scribblings, and actually has a cohesive message to it.

I'm having a very difficult time trying to figure out what point it
is that you're trying to make.  Christianity to me, does look like
a bunch of random whimsical scribblings.  I don't understand why
accepting that God wrote these scribblings all of a sudden turns
them into a cohesive message.  Perhaps you could explain in a paragraph
or two what that cohesive message is.  Also, I would expect that
if there really were a cohesive message to it all, there wouldn't be
so many sects of the religion, each believing different bits of the
cohesive message.

>Don't get me wrong.  I _don't_ accept that this God exists, as I've
>pointed out in an earlier article, but I won't (necessarily) accuse
>people who _do_ believe he exists (and claim to have been spoken to by
>him) of being completely out of touch with logic and reality.

Could you name some person or group that you *do* consider to be
out of touch with logic and reality then?  I'm trying to get a feel
for what it means to you to be out of touch with reality.

>You're getting off the track a bit here.  My purpose in this thread
>isn't to say that you ought to think about becoming a Christian!  I'm
>just taking a new approach to the age-long debate by stating that I
>think Christianity is a valid way to look at life, the universe, and
>everything.

Well, that's your right I suppose, and it will, no doubt, make lots
of Christians happy.  But I still don't think we've gotten to the meat
of *why* you think it is a valid philosophy.  Perhaps, by way of
illustration, you could point out a philosophy that you consider
invalid, and briefly explain why you think so.

>By making the blanket statement that any philosophy that teaches that
>you're inherently sinful is (in your opinion) wrong, you're
>demonstrating that you're missing some subtleties of the religion.  If
>that's all it is, then why does *anyone* join it, and why would
>*anyone* act so happy about calling himself or herself a Christian?

True Believers will often make grand claims about their cult.  Check
out alt.religion.scientology where, among other things, some of them
claim that Scientology has improved their eyesight.  Be careful not
to be fooled by the sales pitch offered by the cult members.  I have
no reason to suspect that Christians are any happier than anybody else,
and in some cases, I know for a fact that the religion makes them unhappy.

BTW, the real reason that the religion tells people that they're sinners
is to destroy their self esteem.  When things go wrong in their lives, they
blame themselves rather than the real culprit which is the ruling class.
That works out passably well for the ruling class, but not so well for
the "sinners."  Eric Fromm wrote a book about how Christianity evolved
to enslave the people, but I can't remember the title of it just now.

>Don't you think there must be something else the religion has to
>offer, even if it's only a warm fuzzy feeling inside, that has kept it
>alive through the ages?

I have already explained in previous articles why the religion has
persisted for so long.  I missed (at least) one thing, and that is
that this idea of a big daddy in the sky offers people a false sense
of security, which probably does translate into a warm fuzzy feeling
inside.  However, that sense of security exacts a terrible toll.

>Or are you saying that all *anyone* should be concerned with is being
>happy in his or her life, and that every single religious scholar and
>martyr of every religion throughout the ages has been sadly misled?
>If that's what you're saying, fine, but it's a powerful statement, so
>think before you say it.

I am saying that every single religious scholar and every martyr of
every religion has been sadly misled.  Come on guy.  Either there is
a God, or there isn't.  If, as you currently believe, there isn't,
then this all falls out naturally doesn't it?  If that's too much to
wrap your mind around, then trying thinking about whether or not the
scholars of some of the other religions, past and present, have been
misled.  What is so special about Christianity?

And while I'm on the subject, I should point out that it also falls
out naturally that our whole civilization is based on this virulent mental
disease.  You're right, that's a powerful statement, and one I definitely
recommend that you ponder for awhile.  It doesn't make me particulary happy
to say it, because these are my ancestors that I'm talking about as well,
but it really is inescapable.  For example, you may have noticed the
insufferable arrogance that you see among some of our fundy friends.
That's the same arrogance that is responsible for the genocide perpetrated
on the North and South American native people.  Face it.  We're a
bunch of cutthroat bastards, and it's time we did something about it.

>All I'm asking is this: if you postulate for a moment that a god in
>the Christian sense exists, can you pose some sort of problem that
>Christianity can't deal with, or find a discrepancy in the religion
>that it can't give you a consistent answer to, even if you don't agree
>with the answer?

Well, of course they'll have an answer for everything.  After all,
that's what religion is all about.  But what do you mean by a consistent
answer?  For example, if my question is "What should the goals of
mankind be?" and the answer is to "To love God.", is that a consistent
answer?  To me, it just looks like three words glued together.  Please,
give me an example of this consistency and coherency because it eludes
me completely.

>The whole concept of the crucifixion is the keystone to the entire
>Christian religion.  If you still ask "What does nailing a guy to a
>tree have to do with anything?" then I still say you're not
>understanding the religion properly.  ;)

And I say you're not understanding my point properly.  I know that
it is the keystone of the religion.  That's why I'm concentrating
on it.  Why are you unable to answer this question?

>Go ahead.  Find any Christian scholar and ask him that question.  If
>he knows what he's talking about, you'll get an answer that fits in
>with all the rest of Christian teaching, and is logically consistent
>with their philosophy.
>
>Long ago here on the net I asked that very question -- "Why does it
>matter that Jesus was crucified?" -- and was _quite_ impressed by the
>explanations.  If you want, try starting a similar thread.

I've read similar threads in the past and wasn't impressed.  I was
sort of hoping that you'd provide some new insight.  With all due
respect, you've made a number of claims as to the sensibility and
coherency of the religion, but you have yet to demonstrate any of it.

>>Well, of course Christians have to concoct some reason for why many
>>choose to reject their religion.  They do that for their own benefit
>>as much as for the benefit of whoever they're trying to convince.
>>It's funny how they change their minds at will.  When they're trying
>>to convert you, they'll tell you how wonderful the religion is, and
>>how we just need to accept this *free* gift to make our lives peachy.
>>But then (see John M.'s followup to my article), when they're trying
>>to explain to themselves why we choose to reject their religion, they
>>speak of all the painful sacrifices they must make and claim that we
>>don't join because we don't want to make the sacrifices.  Very strange.
>
>I don't think that's an accurate statement.  It's not like they're
>selling you a used car and not telling you things about it!  I've
>certainly learned most of what I know about Christianity from the
>outside looking in, and I've never had a religious discussion where
>I've left a Christian thinking that I'm just too lazy or afraid to
>sign up.

If I might make a suggestion here: try to address the specific point
I'm making.  I gave you a specific example of the type of dishonesty
that we see daily on the net, and all you can do is deny it with
vague handwaving.  This seems to be a recurring pattern throughout your
articles.  You're all too happy to speak in terms of generalities
(Christianity is sensible and coherent) but you seem unwilling to discuss
specifics.  It's rather hard to debate such generalities, but more
importantly, I think it probably reflects a good deal of unclear thinking
on your part.

>It's even difficult to be an atheist today.  I mean, we've got
>something like 95% of Americans saying that they believe in a god, and
>88% of them say they go to (Christian) church?  (This is something I
>heard quoted on CNN last week.)  I mean, even our President seems to
>think very little of atheists (cf. another ongoing thread here).

We're a little bit better off in Canada, but I imagine the disease
will spread if Bush wins the election.  We're already learning how
to bomb abortion clinics just like you guys.

>>But now that serious doubts have arisen in my mind, the only way that
>>I know of to determine whether or not what they say is true, is by
>>rational examination.  If they tell me that the equivalent of
>>"Brutus killed Caesar, therefore the sun still rises" is basic to
>>the religion, well, it becomes pretty obvious to me that the whole
>>thing is ad hoc gobbledygook.
>
>... unless they give you a rational explanation of why murder induces
>daybreak.  ;) Your statement (that anything that sounds outrageous to
>you can't be true) sounds unsettlingly like sixteenth-century
>"science": "What, he's proposing that the EARTH goes around the SUN?!
>That's outrageous!  This empirical science stuff is worthless!"

I'm sorry, but this is just babble.  If you think that there is no
way to distinguish between a rational explanation of a phenomenon,
and superstition, then there really isn't much more we can discuss.

>>It also
>>seems to be a tenet of these religions that we should do everything possible
>>to bring about the destruction of the planet.  I won't call their adherents
>>fools, because many stood no chance, but I have no reservations about
>>calling such "philosophies" evil.
>
>Huh?  In what way is Christianity or Islam or Judasim "destroying the
>planet"?  I would agree that any religion whose worship service
>involves, say, dumping a few barrels of oil into the ocean isn't
>really on the level, but fortunately I've never heard of such a thing. :)

Well, the big one is overpopulation.  If we are to have any hope
of survival, we're going to have to reduce the population of the
planet to some sustainable level.  It would be a nice touch if we
could manage it in a humane manner.  How do you suppose that opposition
to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?  Why
was overpopulation not even on the table at the Rio conference?

>>The things is, I do know why religions say what they say.  It's just
>>that their adherents rarely agree with me.
>
>I disagree that you know what Christianity says.  To turn the tables,
>what you're saying is like a Christian saying to you, an atheist: "How
>can you _live_ like this?!  You've cast aside all moral values, you
>can have no hope for the future, and you don't even have universal
>concepts of right or wrong!  I can't see why _anyone_ would want to
>subject themselves to such _depravity_!"  And when you explain to him
>that atheism means living by your own code of moral values, he
>complains, "But gee, if I decide that in my moral system, murder is
>okay, then I'm free to kill anybody I want to, right?" and he points
>to this as a gaping hole in your philosophy and won't listen to your
>explanations because they don't fit in with what _he_ believes.

This is all very true, and that's what rational discussion and clear
thinking is all about.  Not all opinions are equal.  If they were,
the "theory" of Creationism would be equal to the theory of evolution.

>All I'm trying to do is get a thread going on a different level than
>usual.  Just keep in mind that calling Christianity valid is not the
>same thing as believing in or agreeing with it.  I still think
>Christianity is a valid philosophy, built on the arguable existence of
>the god described in their holy book; do you still disagree?

Er, well yes.  Before you're going to have any hope of swaying me,
you're going to have to provide some of your reasoning for thinking
the way you do.  Simply repeating your assertion doesn't buy you
much.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.