From: patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 06:18:32 GMT

In article <910773f.30.724186770@ace.acadiau.ca> 910773f@ace.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE) writes:
[lots deleted]
>a soul.  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.  You all know that there is something intangible that 

I do. So there. But seriously, it is conceivable to me that our thoughts
may be the result of random chemical processes. There being billions of 
neurons, each with several thousand interconnections, there is a very high
"density of information processing" for want of a better term. The amount
of data that could conceivably be processed by such a thing is high enough
to truly boggle the mind. (Or my mind anyway.)

>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.  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.  
>They are searching for fulfillment, a reason for being.  Some just give up 
>and become apathetics.  That does not mean, though, that if a truth was 
>proven to them, they wouldn't be happy about it.  They'd still like to know, 
>they just gave up trying to find out.

I don't think you're right at all here. You seem to be pursuing the beginning
of the "everyone has gods, whether it be money, whatever," line. Fulfillment
is a very nebulous thing; I don't think that I really pursue it. I'm pretty
much content with a good meal and warm comfy feet. I think I could mount a
rational arguement on the basis of what you've said that this is therefore
my reason for being. (ie I exist solely to have good food, etc.) But this
isn't true, really I don't have any purpose or direction at all. Which suits
me fine. :^)
 
>
>How else can you explain the intense happiness and joy that new Christians 
>experience?  We finally feel fulfilled, yes, this is what I've been waiting 
>for.  Now I have something to strive for.  How many ex-Christians can say 
>they felt that when they left the faith?  Most often they left because of 
>disillusionment, disappointment, and disgust with the Church and its 
>operations.  And I must say, in most cases I can't blame them.  The Church 

Again my personal experience contradicts this strongly. I left the church
because I was disgusted with _myself_. I was a liar, a thief, an "evil"
person. There was no moral rectitude within me at all, and something
inside me couldn't stand this hypocrisy. Since then I became an atheist,
and found it much easier to be a moral person without god hanging over me
with threats. And since then oddly enough, I stopped lying, and haven't 
stolen anything for over three years. 

>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?

Yes, see above. I can live with myself as an atheist, but not as a Christian.

>
>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.  Sure, there are some Christians who attack too.  I must 

I believe that the newsgroup exists mainly for atheists to talk about
atheism. it is _very_ _boring_ to read through scads of theist stuff all
amounting to pretty much the same thing, especially when the tone is hostile.

>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?  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?  That seems to me almost as bad as those types of `fundie' 
>Christians that you guys are always complaining about...

Well, as I just said, an atheist newsgroup for atheists. Most theists
who come in here seem somewhat intemperate, from my (albeit limited)
experience. As such the patience quotient is low, especially when
they make mistakes addressed in the FAQ, and stuff like that.

-- 
Pat Caldon.            |  The Mercy Seat is Burning, And I think my Head is 
patc@extro.ucc.su.oz.au| turning, and deep inside I'm longing to be done with
3:714/908.5@fidonet.org| all this weighing up of truth...  -- Nick Cave
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc