From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Followup-To: alt.atheism
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:39:00 GMT

In article <7Jf=qc+@engin.umich.edu>, 
ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes...

>In article <7JAN199321154250@utarlg.uta.edu> 
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Mineral) writes:

I've taken off the "General *" mask for my responses in alt.atheism,
and will stick to just plain old me here. Glad to respond Ray.

>[deletions]
> 
>>What's interesting is that you, (THOU), chose to respond to the posting
>>rather than just going about your business. Why would anyone's faith
>>in GOD matter in a Godless universe? Why do you bother responding?
> 
> Well, the problem is, these people keep trying to pass laws to make
>us conform to their religious ideals whether we believe or not.

As a believer, I agree that religious politics is merely human and
likewise destructive. As a Christian, I depend on GOD, not human 
institutions. So yes, politically, believers need no special exceptions
in politics. Which makes me for all intents an anarchist as well.

>Some of them even think the Earth was made 6,000 years ago and dinosaur
>skeletons were put in the ground to fool scientists- and *want* *this*
>*taught* *in* *public* *schools*!!

The operant word here being "think," rather than "know." Demanding that
creationism be taught is like demanding that dual or multiple gender
pronouns be used. "Room for everybody," seems to be the logic. 

I like Martin Buber's I-Thou approach in interpersonal interactions,
which allow one to forego gender, class, racial, and any other peculiar
references, except where appropriate to the discussion. 

Similarly, education which acknowledges how little we =know= about
anything, seems better. Evolution is only a theory, and Creationism
only a belief. Both should =not= be offered up as proof of anything.

On a lighter note, the "nintendo" possiblity intriques me: the Cosmos
(or reality) being a lot like a nintendo game; The Creator being out-
side of reality, which operates something like a computer simulation.
Turn it on -- 7 days, or 7 seconds later, all the scenario generation
is completed, and the "game" can proceed as per the "software rules"
or "natural laws." And so on, and so on....

Who of us "knows" what truth is? Or could begin to relate such truth.
Most of Science is based on work from the 1700s, and on logical 
extension. Which is all pretty nebulous when you look at the metaphysical 
basis. Scientific models work, more or less, and help predict some things, 
which is fine -- until they break down under some application, requiring
revision or refinement. Hardly much to go on, but useful -- as long
as Science isn't mistaken for Truth.

Schooling should include a healthy dose of skepticism of anything
humanly contrived. Do I sound like a religionist or an atheist?

> The ones who can't agree on the name of this "God" keep shooting each
>other and sometimes we get hit in the crossfire.

Pride, and "self-worship" make for intolerance and hate. Not a problem
peculiar to religion, but distincly human though. I'm amazed at how
anyone who lives in the fragile bodies we have, basically around 30
cubic feet of meat and water, can have such large egos. 

Add to that partisan political viewpoints, or humanitarian convictions, 
and people forget what they are physically. Nothing special there
either -- any kid is well nigh invulnerable.

> If we do admit that we don't accept the fairy tales, we are at best
>thought of as odd and at worst attacked and discriminated against.

Seems like the typical problem of going against any group to me. As
someone who believes all strictly human effort is likely corruptible,
and that human conceptions of the Cosmos are little more than tribal
or prehistoric lore -- I reckon there isn't much you can offer up that
is much better than fairy tales??

Even erroneous notions, allow people to pursue and examine, areas they
would never have thought of stemming from any basis. Alchemy and 
astrology considered.

> We have to pay more taxes because theists get to exempt some of their
>real estate.

Churches are human institutions -- nothing more. There is no defense
for them being untaxed. My belief is that churches are not needed. I'm
just as happy to join with other believers in drawing closer to GOD
whenever and wherever we can. Even here. 

> And some of us just really hate the idea of all that effort going to
>support the "least productive industry in history."  Etc.

"Hate," I think, comes from being infringed on repeatedly. It's an ego
thing I reckon. As to religion(?) being productive... to what end?

My focus is spiritual. 

> *That's* why it matters.
> 
> Followups to alt.atheism.

Noted and done. It matters to me 'cause I love GOD, who made it.

> Sincerely,
> 
> Ray Ingles
> ingles@engin.umich.edu
> 
> "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
>stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein

And will probably find another "earth" like ours. Same problems, 
same joys. And midway there, others like us headed here. Maybe not.

How much do you think we have in common Ray?

Regards,

   |
-- J --
   |
   |  Stephen