From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Strong Atheism vs. Religions
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:21:19 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA00811; Wed, 30 Dec 92 05:55:06 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA05702; Wed, 30 Dec 92 05:54:43 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0911; Wed, 30 Dec 92 14:54:18 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Hillel E. Markowitz types:

(Deletions)
>You misunderstand what has been said.  Someone who says that they
>have studied and become expert enough to reject something *on its
>own terms* has to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of that belief
>to reject it.  Thus, if I were a xian, and rejected xianity, then
>indeed I should have studied it sufficiently to demonstrate the
>point at which I rejected it.  Since I am Jewish (and note the
>original xref) reading this on s.c.j, then the knowledge
>demonstrated has to be that of Judaism.  I can reject xianity (or
>atheism, or buddhism, etc) without "devoting my life to it"
>because my study is in Judaism and the other beliefs are rejected
>on that basis.  The original poster did not demonstrate knowledge
>of Judaism to argue within its own terms.  An analogy may be
>someone arguing Einsteinean relativity while demonstrating a
>knowledge of only Newtonian physics.  While a full knowledge of
>quantum theory may not be required, a certain level is assumed.
(More deletions)

One of the main arguments against strong atheism (the belief that
there are no gods) is that it cannot be proven. Many strong atheists
point out that there is no need of disproving undefined things, but
anyway, I think there is more to the problem.

It is more generally accepted that people do not believe in other
religions/gods because they already believe in a god/religion that
says that those other gods/religion do not exist/are wrong.

From my strongly atheist point of view this accepted form of dealing
with religions has two flaws, they believe in something and they dismiss
something  - both without evidence. All the strong atheist does is not
to believe in one religion more, and most will be able to give reason
for it - as opposed to something that cannot be checked.

Now, this post says that the author can dismiss xtianity (or atheism, or
buddhism, etc) because of his study of Judaism. Apart from that he mixes
philosophies and religions, there is a serious flaw to it.

I would expect from someone who dismisses everything but one that he can
provide strong evidence for his assertions. Then I think that it is a
weird understanding of study not to deal with dissenting views.
And lastly, I would want to see proof that his religion cannot be emulated
through any other religion because any such bigger religion would imply
that his system does not contain all information or even hides them on
purpose.

Examples:
Hindus saying that the saints of Christianity are Devas.-

Or believers of prankster/evil gods who say that their god
is the only one, but that he likes to fool people into religion.

I wonder how he can reject all other religions when there is the
possibility that his is but a subset of the true one. And in order to
refute that claim, he would have to study every other religion.


The sentence about arguing relativity with someone who knows only
Newtonian physics is the usual arrogance implying that one religion
is superior to others. I wonder if the author does not find it
disturbing that other religions say the same. And as opposed to
physics, there is no experiment to check which of the two models
predicts measurements better. It is not known what religions model.
If they model - instead of reflecting wishes and fears.

A point of strong atheists is to dismiss the concept because it does not
yield any reliable information. I bet most atheists would be highly
interested if someone could reject that. So far, noone has.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism