From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:42:58 GMT


In article <910773f.30.724186770@ace.acadiau.ca> 910773f@ace.acadiau.ca  
(HEATHER LEE FYFFE) writes:
 
> slip....?  Everyone, whether they will admit it or not, knows that they  
have 
> a soul.  Noone can possibly believe that `I', what makes me `me', my 

Boulderdash. I do not beleive wwe have a soul. There is no evidence for it,
why should anyone beleive in one? It is obviously a product of atoms jumping
around in our nervous systems. What most people fail to understand is
questions of scale. The very best computer (which can sound remarkably
smart, talked with any recent neural network AI programmes lately) is
utterly insignificant in comparison to the brain a product of billions of
years of evolution (here again is another place where people have a problem
with scale). Your average 486 is utterly insignificant in comparison to the
best supercomputers we have today in terms of speed and memory and yet these
supercomputers cannot begin to emulate the super-parallel processing
capacity of the dumbest humans. Still given that we have only been in the
process of emulating brains for about 50 years (as opposed to 2,000,000,000
years which nature has had) we have done a pretty good job.

> 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 
> 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 
> proven to them, they wouldn't be happy about it.  They'd still like to  
>know, 
> they just gave up trying to find out.
>

We are hear to carry on a genetic lineage, to procreate as many
self-replicating molecules as possible. Religion actively discourages us
from our primary purpose, religion is evil (not including those religions
that like their members to have sex with lots of people thereby encouraging
genetic diversity ensuring a greater chance of the human species longevity).

> 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 

Agreed, this is how I felt when I first became a Christian. But then I
realised it was a foll yourself happiness. Anyone can be happy by inventing
an imaginary world where what they do and say has cosmic significance and
they are ensured of ever-lasting existence. Some people who do this are
thrown in asylums, the rest stand on street corners and try to convince
themselves that their fairy land is reality. Ever read Aldous Huxley's Brave
New World, everyone is happy there too, but I think everyone who reads that
book would consider that such happiness is not worth it (or are we just
frightened of such a community merely because it is so different to ours). I
beleive keeping a grip on reality is a better way to survive and be happy
(though possibly slightly less so, but still more consistently so). If I was
only concerned with happiness I think I would become a drug addict and
ensure that I had a constant supply until I carked it. Every remaining
moment of my life could be spent in happiness, because I lived in a dream
world. This is what Christianity is for fundamentalists, a drug, an
addiction.

> 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 
> 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?

All happiness is self delusion. There is no real purpose to life. The trick
is to convince yourself that you are happy because of X,Y,Z. You people have
found happiness via convincing yourselves of a cosmos which includes a deity
who sent his son down to earth etc etc. I convince myself I am happy by
trying to learn as much about the world as I possibly can while I am still
here and to try to keep my point of view as objective as possible. These are
my goals. To others they sound pointless, to me they are my life long goals.
They can never be fully realised but they provide benefits that are
noticeable. If I was to accept reality, that we are as insignificant to the
cosmos as any other collection of sub-atomic particles, and nothing changes
whether we live or die, acheive or not acheive, or even whether or not we are 
responsible for
the eradication of all life on our planet, then I would just satiate my
physical pleasures (eg eating, drinking, sex, roller coaster rides) and when I
am sick of that just kill myself. But in order to have a satisfying life I
(and everyone else) must convince themselves that what they are striving for
is important and that they are succeeding in working toward that goal. 

Therefore, do not measure your beleif system against others on happiness or
fulfilment or whatever other word you want to call it. Other beleif systems
provide these things just as well in our multicultural environment, but
unless you fully take them on you can never experience their pleasures.

What obviously is important is that your beleif system is conducive to
perceived acheivement within the environment in which you live. If your life
beleif system is markedly inconsistent with reality you will constantly run
into confusing situations (ie when reality does not meet your expectations)
which will hamper your ability to make appropriate decisions toward positive
life goal acheivement. In this way I beleive Xtianity fails. Too often will
Xtianity (whose conceptions of reality are far off that indefinable postion
of reality) result in inconsistency between expectation and observation,
leading to erroneous reactions to observation. For instance, those praying
in a church during an earthquake, noticing that buildings around the church
are falling, will tell themselves that God is protecting the faithful in his
house and that they should remain, whereas in reality the Earthquake is
merely causing much destruction in the local region and the church is one of
the worst places to be (best to be outside of the building). 

Most atheists would not draw such erroneous conclusions (though they may be
prey too many other illusions) and would probably make less clouded
decisions to ensure their continued existence. It is in this way that I
beleive that atheism is a better self delusion than Xtianity.


Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism