Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:14:52 GMT
 <dabrowsk.715318926@liveboard10> <1992Sep9.001159.7407@ac.dal.ca>
Organization: SPSS Inc.


Pardon me while I butt in here...<<oomph, nudge, push, oomph>>

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <dabrowsk.715318926@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>>

>Actually, I'd bet atheists think about God more than 95% of theists do.
>Of course, I have no statistics...

Hmm...this is probably true...I know a large number of hour-a-week
Christians (or 90 minutes, if the sermon runs long)....except for church,
you wouldn't think they even thought about God occasionally...

>>This lack of belief is dogmatic; the detailed dogma related to it depend
>>on the implementation but usually are based on ontological objectivism. 

>I think you have a good point here - but, strictly speaking, LACK of
>belief does not have to be dogmatic. A new-born baby lacks belief in
>god(s), but not because it holds an atheistic counter-dogma. 

True.  As it appears for atheists.  The issue I think is that some form of
dogma arises in response to theistis dogma.  In other words, some atheists
develop this counter-dogma in response to theists who often contemplate the
issues far LESS than atheists.

>> That's your belief. Ask me such a question. At least one, please.

[This is too good to pass up...;-)]

>If God created the universe, who created God?
God is eternal, uncreated.  The unmoved mover, if you will.  The first cause.

>Why is something "good" just because some super-powerful being decrees it to 
>be so? 
'Good' is relative.  :-)  But really, the issue is that any thing which
furthers God's plan is in God's will, and thus, to God, is good.  Our
perspective is different.  Some see Good on a continuum...evil is the
opposite, or perhaps priviation, of good.  Others see good simply as that
which is pleasing to God.  But how does one determine that?  ;-)  

Everything depends on how we define evil:

1. The opposite of 'good'

2. The antithesis of God's desires

3. That which causes suffering.

Pick one of these, or any other , and you get different answers to the 
question you asked.  

If we chose option 2, we can never know exactly what evil is...and some 
suffering is God ordained for His purposes.  Sort of 'ends justify the
means'...This is strict monism...something that is becoming very attractive 
at the moment...much like pre-rabbinnic Judaism.

If we chose option 1, then we build a scale and either give evil it's own
personality and existence (dualism), something like Mazdaism or Zorastrianism,  or build a system where it is the lack of good, and slide along the 
monistic-dualistic scale, much as Christianity does today.

Option 3 is an interesting choice.  But all it does is push the issue back
one level...'whence' suffering, and why?  One common explaination is that
suffering exists to teach us values: right from wrong, good from bad.
Moral evil (ie perpetrated by humans) is educational about our actions.
Physical evil (hurricanes, tornados, etc) is educational about our
environment.  Since without substantive, observable consequences of
actions, we can't learn, there must be some form of suffering if there is
to be knowlwdge, values, etc.  I toyed with this idea for a while, but it
didn't resolve the problems I was having...


>Explain in detail the mechanism by which my sin was assumed by J.C., 
>considering that I hadn't even started sinning when he got nailed up? 
Since God is eternal, time means nothing to God.  Any action of God is
independant of measurable time (from our perspective).  God selected the
apropriate time in human history, though that particular 'time' was no
different than any other time to God.

>Is sin some kind of substance, or what? 
No.  It is separation from God.

>How did letting the Romans nail J.C. help anything? Why did God have to 
>incarnate himself and sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself? 
Well, this is only one theory...there are four (that I can find) main ones
in Christian theodicy/soterology:

   1. Human nature is sanctified, dignified, transformed and saved by the
      very act of Christ's becomming a man;

   2. The above mentioned sacrifice theory, where Jesus offers Himself (as
      God and man) as a sacrifice to the Father on behlaf of humanity;

   3. The Passion was a act of pure love, God's choice to share human 
      suffering and to take all the pain of the world onto himself;

   4. The entire episode of Christ's death was a ransom to the devil, who
      legally and justly held humanity in his grip.  God liberated humanity
      by paying a ransom, which the devil accepted.  But the devil
      overstepped his bounds by 'imprisoning' a sinless being, and thus
      lost his rights and could no longer hold Jesus or humanity.

Pick one....or make up your own! ;-)  The issues comes down to monism vs.
dualism, and whether or not one believes that God can suffer.

>Especially when he created the whole mess in the first place?  
This is the question, eh?  If God created everything, and is omniscient,
then He knew what He was doing...;-)  So then, is God 'just' in punishing
us?  Since I know that Sean denies free-will, the answer for him must be
'no.'  I still maintain free-will exists, and as such, although God is
responsible for creating, I am responsible for separating myself from Him.

>In what way is it justified that I should be punished infinitely
>for my finite sin?  
Just like you can't be a 'little bit pregnant', you can't be a 'little bit
separated from God.'  It's all or nothing.  Either you are or you aren't.
Except for the saving power of Jesus Christ...to state the dogma...;-)

>Why was the True Way only revealed to humanity after 3,000,000 years worth 
>of humans had lived and died in ignorance?
6000, if you're a biblical literalist...;-)  Then it's easy...the Bible
explains everything in detail.  Of course, if you take the 4.5 Billion year
theory, well, then we have a question, don't we?  As I said above, and this
is irrespective of the age of the earth, etc, God selected the approriate
time in human history to send Jesus.

1 Peter tells us that after his death, Christ went to preach to the 'lost
souls' from the time of Noah...so salvation is not denied to them...and
perhaps not denied to anyone...hard to tell...;-)

>What possible reason could we have for taking Paul's claims to "apostleship"
>seriously?  
Well, the books are in the canon...and he said so. ;-)  Of course, we do
know that there was a LOT of tension between the Jerusalem church and the
Asian churches established by Paul.  Peter and James even faced Paul down.
The book of Acts covers it up, but we see strains of this tension in Paul's
own letters.  Since 'Luke' was writing as an apologist, it's understandable
that he would gloss over the differences.

So why?  Paul was considered truthful and accepted by the church fathers.
They (outside of Jerusalem) accepted him at his word, and Paul's letters
were circulated.  There is no independant support for what Paul wrote.  So
one takes it on 'faith'...;-)

Of course, then there are all those other early documents that seem to
differ with the approved Gospels and Paul's writings....makes life
difficult...

>What about the other branches of Christianity that got snuffed
>by the emerging Catholic orthodoxy in the first 500 years or so? How do we
>know that one of THOSE wasn't the True Way? 
Good question...it would appear that in examining even the canonical books,
there is much about Christianity that is different today than 1900 years
ago...theology developed over 1900 years...with backfilling and revision to
fill in the gaps...

It is true that the politically strong factions won.  At least in the west,
this meant Roman christianity.  The East is still more mystical...as it
would appear were many early Christians...

>How do you know you aren't a butterfly having a long and most wonderful dream?
Wait!  I thought this was a Sean-centered solipsism!  Or that your brain
was in a jar in Alpha-Centauri!  Make up your mind! ;-)  Oops, you can't do
that since it's made up for you by events, knowledge, experience, etc...;-)
[sorry...cheap shot, but hey! All's fair in love and war! ;-)]

>How do you account for the religious experience/conviction of 
>non-Christians? 
Danged if I know...but if we talk about basic, natural revelation, all
beings can see some 'creator' has caused it to be...what their
interpretation of this is based on culture, etc.  I don't deny that they
have had true religious experiences...I can't explain it.  Perhaps, God
reveals Himself to different peoples in different ways...;-)

>Some of these are trickier than others...but they should get you started! :)
Of course, then there's me who has the time to do this since everyone else
is sleeping or relaxing...and likes the tricky challenge...;-)  But, then,
I think I may have raised more issues than answered...

[[ Some of the stuff above comes from information drawn from 'The Prince of ]]
[[ Darkness', by Jeffrey Burton Russell, an excellent text on evil and the  ]]
[[ in history...although is is mostly based on Christianaity...             ]]

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558