From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:43:52 GMT

In article <910773f.30.724186770@ace.acadiau.ca> 910773f@ace.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE) writes:
(personal testimony of intelligence, deleted)
>
>As for truth, somebody mentioned that there are many truths, until they get 
>disproved, or something like that.  Might I point out that that implies a 
>very liberal definition of truth - that truth is relative, that each person 
>can have their own truth, that truth is transient and changeable.

Most truths are demonstrably variable.  For instance, the statement
"You cannot travel from Chicago to New York in one hour" is not
true today, but was true in the mid-19th century.  
Newtonian physics is "true", unless you are examining phenomena
at high velocities, or at atomic dimensions.
The concept of
"truth is relative" is more precisely stated as "truth exists
within specific contexts".

>Well, I'm 
>sorry, but the big-T Truth, as in the way things actually are, the way the 
>universe actually was created, the real purpose in our being here (if you 
>believe there is one), can only be one thing.  The universe DID come into 
>existence a certain way, it can not possibly have happenned differently for 
>different people.  And whether we were created by a benevolent God, or an 
>evil one, or evolved by chance, or were created by the god Nature, whatever, 
>we came into existence one way and one way only.  Different religions and 
>beliefs cannot all be right, and I cannot understand how some people can 
>say `well, whatever works for that person'.

You seem to be saying that things are the way they are.  True,
but not very illuminating.  And, I don't know anyone or
any religion (and I've looked at many) which states that
different religions are "right", although some religions do
believe that elements of truth and/or divine inspiration
exist in all religions.

>Religion is not just a way of dealing with life.  Sure, that does come into 
>play.  But it is also a belief in a certain truth, and if you believe in 
>that truth, then what others believe to be true must be wrong, because there 
>can only be one Truth.

You continue to blather about "Truth" and its uniqueness, without
giving us much info about what this "Truth" is.

>So EVERYBODY goes through life trying to convince 
>everybody else that they're wrong.

BZZZT!  Not even close.

>Christians by evangelizing, atheists by 
>arguing with Christians, even apathetics who say `whatever works'.  Some try 
>more forcibly, some don't really _try_, but just stating your own opinion 
>forces others to consider it.

Your use of the word "force" is truly weird.

>But if you don't believe in your truth 
>strongly enough to consider it the big-T Truth, then why do you believe in 
>it at all?  

Because, they are the best working hypotheses available,
given the evidence I've accumulated so far.

>Before you flame me on this point, I know that most of you atheists on this 
>group DO consider your truth to be the big-T Truth and you're not afraid to 
>say so.

This is not correct.  There are a few atheists here who have a 
similar conception of "Truth" to yours, but some others do not.

>Like I said, I'm not dimwitted, nor am I superstitious.  I think a great 
>many `Christian' rituals are outdated, superstitious, unbiblical, and 
>pointless.  But I do not believe because of rituals.

Why do you believe that certain biblical verses are "outdated"
and "superstitious", but not others?

>First of all, it is a hole, not a hope.  Though perhaps that was a Freudian 
>slip....?  Everyone, whether they will admit it or not, knows that they have 
>a soul.

This is your third sweeping generalization.  Like the others,
it is incorrect.

>Noone can possibly believe that `I', what makes me `me', my 
>thoughts, my feelings, my personality, is merely a product of atoms jumping 
>around in the brain.

Any argument which contains the phrase "no one can possibly believe"
is bogus, and nearly always wrong.  People can believe all sorts
of things; some people actually believe that Dan Quayle is a wise
and capable public servant.

>You all know that there is something intangible that 
>is `you'.  This is spirituality - not believing in ghosts, but believing in 
>people.  All people also wonder, at least a little bit, `why'.  This is the 
>God-shaped hole.

No, this is "curiosity"; even my cat has it.  There is no need
to postulate a divine origin for it.

>The longing for a purpose, the human condition.  The 
>reason that men go into space.  The reason people crave money, power, 
>attention.  The reason some become drug addicts, alcoholics, sexaholics.

Try reading some good psychology to see the varitey of motivations
behind the activities you mention.  Again, no god-postulate
is needed.
  
>How else can you explain the intense happiness and joy that new Christians 
>experience?

How do you explain the happiness that some people feel when they
return to a kosher lifestyle?  How do you explain the happiness 
that people feel during their pilgrimage to Mecca?  How do
you explain the intense experience felt after months in
a Zen monastery?  How do you explain the intense happiness
felt by most ex-theist atheists at their moment of liberation?

>We finally feel fulfilled, yes, this is what I've been waiting 
>for.  Now I have something to strive for.

It sounds like you are a Christian because it feels good.
This may be a valid reason to pursue a lifepath, but it is
intellectually vacuous.

>How many ex-Christians can say 
>they felt that when they left the faith?

Nearly all of us, I'd guess.

>Most often they left because of 
>disillusionment, disappointment, and disgust with the Church and its 
>operations.

Another sweeping generalization, and another incorrect one.

>And I must say, in most cases I can't blame them.  The Church 
>as an organization is materialistic, egotistical, and uncaring about its 
>members.  But can those who left truly say that they have found happiness 
>since?  Sure, you may say it easily, and you probably will.  But I challenge 
>you to question whether you really, truly mean it, or is it just another 
>mask?

It's true.

BTW, I read an impassioned posting the other day on 
soc.religion.christian.  It was from a person who was
raised as a Mormon, but has since embraced a more
fundamentalist christianity.  Well, even though he is
convinced that his current way is correct, his life
has gone into the dumpster since his conversion.
Would you accept this as evidence of the Truth of Mormonism?

>I have to wonder about those who can do nothing but flame, flame, flame we 
>Christians.  Any attempt at serious discussion is countered with sarcasm and 
>vicious attacks.

We normally only bombard nubies who wander into this group
trying to convince us that Jesus is the strong nuclear force.

>Sure, there are some Christians who attack too.  I must 
>wonder what their motivations are, and how they can possibly think they're 
>doing any good, and if they've considered whether Jesus would approve of 
>their actions...  But to the atheist who merely flames, I must ask why?  Are 
>you afraid of actual discussion?  Are you so insecure in your own beliefs 
>that you must brush off any contradictory statements without even 
>considering them?

Actually, most of us are more than willing to consider new
and interesting arguments, since the view of truth (for some
of us) is the "best working hypothesis" variety.
But, be warned, you will have to come up with something
more substantial than "no one could possibly believe this".

>And even though you may lightly flame off these comments, 
>do you really consider them so incredibly stupid as to not even be worth 
>considering?

The fact is, most of us have been been christians or other
flavors of theists before.  We know about your comments;
some of us even used them in discussions.  

>Just some food for thought.  Responses, compaints, comments welcome, but 
>please, be mature enough not to flame.

This reply never rose above room temperature.



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |