From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Benevolent Rebuttal
Date: 29 Sep 92 08:43:45 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <kelwk3S00WB4B0QJMc@andrew.cmu.edu> se24+@andrew.cmu.edu (Scott F. Earnest) writes:
>
>    How can so little be so misconstrued?!!!!!!

Perhaps because your post was poorly thought out?

>    By stating that God exists, I _do not_ in any way, shape, or form
>mean that God (i.e. the Christian, or any other form of theistic god)
>exists.  I was trying to show that this word "God" is really a hollow
>label.

Uh huh.  You sure have a strange way of getting your point across.

>What matters is not that such a God exists; what matters is that
>each person has a conscience that can be held as existing.

If your point is that everybody has a conscience that can be held
as existing, then why not say that?

>I *don't* believe that it exists.  This is why I am an atheist
>(and very proud of it, not meaning to brag).

You don't believe *what* exists?  A person's conscience?

>    Also, in the final paragraph some other statement was misstated,
>also leading to confusion.
>
>>    Finally, for the record, it is my belief that the one true greatest
>>sin is self-righteousness.  Denial of something as true means an
>>unwillingness to accept that you are wrong, which is a problem central
>>to close-mindedness and ignorance.
>
>Saying "Denial of something as true" is indeed a poor way to try to get
>a point across.  What would probably make more sense would be to say
>that unshakable faith in something means denying that everyone else can
>be right.

What the hell are you talking about?  Who has unshakable faith in what?
Rather than all this vague handwaving, how about referring to specifics?

>I mean, words should not be taken just at face value, as
>seems to be the unfortunate case here.

Did you actually read alt.atheism before deciding to post?  Theists
are frequently asked to define their God.  It's no secret that they
have no coherent definition.

>Anyway. . . .  First, about the ham sandwiches thing:  maybe the above
>will clarify.  I was not comparing the term God to anything physical,
>thus calling a ham sandwich "God" is pretty much the same as comparing
>apples to oranges.

Where is it written that "God" cannot be applied to anything physical?
If you get to radically redefine "God", why can't I?  Besides, you
missed the point.

> My whole purpose of this post was to raise some key arguments that
>center around atheism and try to get people to think about what they're
>believing, though not necessarily making them question it.

I think you failed in your purpose.  Let's see, what did you do?

       1) Claim to be an atheist.
       2) State that God exists.
       3) Claim to be an atheist.
       4) Define God to be each person's conscience.
       5) Call us all closed-minded.

Now, perhaps I'm so closed-minded that I find it impossible to see
your point, but to me, your post looked like a bunch of sophomoric
drivel.  Perhaps you can impress your friends with stuff like:

>In fact I can state very simply that God *does* exist
>(Yes, I am an atheist).

but to me, it makes you look as fuzzy-minded as the theists.
Perhaps you ought to try again after you've read the newsgroup
for awhile, and actually have a point to make.

>Finally, I'd like to mention something about courtesy of arguments.  I cannot
>speak for anyone except myself, but I can not take seriously anyone's
>rebuttal which makes pointless comments about a statement, such as
>calling it "crap", "crapola", "shit", "garbage", or what have you. 

I called it crap because it was crap.  Sorry, I've got a low tolerance
level for psuedo-intellectual drivel, and "nonsense" just didn't
seem strong enough.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
Newsgroups: alt.atheism