From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:43:32 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <adams.716048092@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
> Pardon me while I butt in here...<<oomph, nudge, push, oomph>>

Hey! Who let this guy in here??  

> hartigan@ac.dal.ca 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...

Atheists are often people who take religion more seriously than all but
the most devout believers. For the atheist, as for the devout believer,
questions of ultimate meaning, life and death, happiness and evil, are
all experienced "up-front and personal." 
(Note: I'm referring to the North American ex-Christian atheist, here)
 
People who accuse atheists of being cowards, moral weaklings, etc. might
benefit from considering that to be an atheist in North America is sort of
like being a Christian in (what used to be) the Soviet Union. You are
officially tolerated, but the foundation of the state, of societal
morality, etc. is all based on a doctrine that considers you the enemy.
You are regarded as a deviant, and a threat, by the majority of your
fellow-citizens. I suspect this is much more the case in the U.S. than in
Canada, but even here, to declare yourself an atheist is the same as
declaring yourself to be a Communist - people look at you funny, write
you off as a loony, regard you as untrustworthy, and try to convert you
back to "normalcy."
 
>>> That's your belief. Ask me such a question. At least one, please.
> 
> [This is too good to pass up...;-)]

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

Uh huh. God's existence is a mystery, then. Inexplicable. The universe remains
a mystery, God or no God.

>>Why is something "good" just because some super-powerful being decrees it to 
>>be so? 
>
> 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.

Kind of a "might makes right" approach to the universe. Understandable for
iron-age nomads to find this attractive - but I thought that somehow
we had moved beyond that....maybe not...
 
> 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.

Still haven't come to any conclusion as to what "good" or "evil" is, though,
except for circular definitions ("Evil is what Ahriman does. Good is the
opposite of that, what Ahura Mazda does...")
 
> 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...
> .... knowlwdge, values, etc.  I toyed with this idea for a while, but it
> didn't resolve the problems I was having...

It implies that God created creatures that could suffer so that they would
suffer and then freely reject suffering. Reaction: Eh???? Could you explain
that again, Daddy???
 
>>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.

How can one "assume" someone else's sin? 

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

How can one "assume" 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;

This implies that "human nature" is some kind of "thing" which one can
"sanctify."  Is it just me, or is this silly?  "Human-ness" is an 
abstract concept, a generalization from observation of humans. To speak of it
as a thing which one can "dignify" in some objective sense is to become
a radical Plationist! "Yeeks! How'd that ideal-form get in here? Martha,
get my shotgun..."
 
>    2. The above mentioned sacrifice theory, where Jesus offers Himself (as
>       God and man) as a sacrifice to the Father on behlaf of humanity;

Strikes me as a bit kooky. Since Jesus and the Father are One, con-substantial,
etc. etc., that means God is sacrificing himself to himself to appease 
himself.  "I'm feeling kind of schizophrenic today. And so am I!"

>    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;

He missed some pain - I did two hard workouts in the past two days and
I think the only part of my carnal form that doesn't hurt is my hair...

>    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.

Yowza...sounds like Manichaeism. This one's out of style, I'd say.

>>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.
        
Well, maybe you're right and you ARE a miniature "first cause," capable of
creating decisions _ex nihilo_, but I remain skeptical... :)  I still
think GOD created everything. Call me a heretic if you wish...:)

>>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.

See Ken Bell's post on this very subject. In my finite life, how could I
possibly do anything worthy of infinite punishment? What is so bad about 
separating oneself from God? Why is it worthy of infinite punishment?
Jeez, if God was as great as all that, you'd think that the self-imposed
separation would be punishment enough...
 
>>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. ;-)  

That about sums it up, doesn't it?

> 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...

It sure cheers ME up to think that Paul's nutbar theology has no source
other than his own happy, fanatical, epileptic little brain. However,
I have to take this on faith! :)
 
>>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! ;-)]

A wise guy, eh?  You better hope I don't wake up! THEN where will you be?
You're just a sort of thing in my dream! (apologies to Lewis Carroll)

>>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...

Buddhism and Taoism contain no doctrine of any sort of "creator."
Hindu mythology describes the world as being God's hide-and-seek game
with himself...this is not exactly analogous to Yahweh conjuring
a universe out of nothing. Which seems kind of silly, when you think about
it....it does to me anyway. <shrug>
 
> 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...;-)

Like Gnesh, the elephant-headed god of the moon! And Bacchus, god of
partying hearty!

Seriously, though, this is a big one for Christianity. The easy way is
of course to call everyone else's religious experiences "Satanic."
 
>>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...

Thank you for taking the time, Mr. First Cause. :)  I found your
answers both entertaining and informative. <bow>
 
Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"Are you a sceptic, then?"
"Never, my dear. Scepticism is the beginning of Faith."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc