From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:31:47 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Douglas Graham writes:


>The problem with that is that the reason Christians generally give
>to questions like "Why should I not be allowed to have sex before I
>get married?", is "Because God said it's a sin."  At least that's
>what it will boil down to in the end.  So, before we can discuss the
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>sensibility of this at all, we have to establish that this God actually
>exists, and did in fact play a big part in authoring the Bible.
>What more can I do but point out the gaping logical holes in the
>religion?  Of course, if I had my druthers, I wouldn't be talking
>about this God thing at all, because I think it completely sidetracks
>us from what we should be talking about which is "What is the best
>way for human beings to live?  How can we be happy and secure during
>our short stay on Earth?"  You can pretty much bet that any "philosophy"
>that claimed that we are sinners and that anything to do with sex
>is disgusting, would not even be close to being in the running if
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>those were the questions asked.  Of course, my proposed questions
>make it evident that I am one of those evil humanist types.

  man, you've got to go read your bible again.  god created sex!
he meant it to be anything but disgusting.  and i don't follow that
pronouncement about sex *just* because god said so, but because
from what *I* have learned about life, his edicts about where sex belongs
make sense regarding how we ought to live.  after all the bible is
an owner's manual for our lives, and it works for christians all
the time.  and btw, i don't think you're evil.

>I suppose I wouldn't really give a damn what other people chose to believe,
>as long as they kept it to themselves.  Unfortunately, it seems to be a
>tenet of a couple of the big religions that the religion should be forced,
>by any and all means, on people who want nothing to do with it.  It also
>seems to be a tenet of these religions that we should do everything possible
>to bring about the destruction of the planet.  I won't call their adherents
>fools, because many stood no chance, but I have no reservations about
>calling such "philosophies" evil.

  not to call you paranoid or anything, but this is a public net with
facilities such as kill files.  in the context you're implying, no one
is *forcing* anyone to believe anything.  and if you still think there
is philosophical oppression going on, look at all the sincere, intelligent
ideas brought up by people contrary to such belief systems.  

  also, now i'm going to seriously suggest you go re-read your bible so
you can learn that it does not advocate the destruction of the planet.
that's one of the biggest fallacious myths about christianity i've ever heard.
in eden we lived in harmony with god *AND NATURE*, and when we fell
we need atonement with god, but also we need to heal our relationship
with our planet.  and after over a decade in the enviro-activism 
movement, the most compelling reason to live in harmony with the planet
is because god says so in the bible.

>>My point?  Doin't criticize what a philosophy says -- Christianity,
>>atheism, Islam, Zen Buddhism, whatever -- until you know _why_ it says
>>what it says.  Otherwise, you'll end up in a flame-war.  ;)

>The things is, I do know why religions say what they say.  It's just
>that their adherents rarely agree with me.

  then please exercise the humility to acknowledge that you may be
incorrect in your readings of what the religions advocate.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15070 alt.atheism:16054