In article <May.9.05.41.56.1993.27583@athos.rutgers.edu> gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes: >In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes: > >>In all candor, I would be happy to be proven wrong [about believing   >>in atheism].  Problem is, I will have to be _proven_ wrong. > >In mentioning some nonsense about psychology :) and atheism, Bob Muir asks >the following question.     No smiley on the part about atheism, I see. Do you realize that your statement says that I was mentioning "nonsense" about atheism? This is hard for me to defend against if this is the claim you are making, as you have only included the last two sentences of my post and mentioned the first. Please address the substance of my post rather than rejecting it out of hand.  But, because of the sometimes ambiguous nature of English, I may be misinterpreting your wording here. Please clarify: did you or did you not mean to call my statements about atheism "nonsense"? If so, care to back up that claim?  >>	Do I sound "broken" to you? > >I answer in the affirmative.  OK, then. Start up the amatuer psycology again. How am I "broken"?  >Is it politically correct for Christians to be the only besieged group >permitted the luxury of arrogance?     *YAWN* Excuse me, I don't recall any portion of my post in which I called Christians arrogant quote me, if I did. I do remember calling Christianity "silly" and then following that up with information that I was nine years old when I thought that. I also said that I find faith to be intellectually dishonest and I would like to see some sort of proof of your god's existence. I define "faith" as "belief in the absense of any proof", BTW.  Also, I subscribe to a.a as I mentioned and we see fundies of all types there, so in answer to your question: "no."  Finally, I'd hardly call Christianity "beseiged" in this country. I seldom see Christians ridiculed for merely practising their religion or wearing crosses or having Christian bumper stickers. I don't know for sure, of course, I only say I haven't seen it happening. What I have seen happening is my homosexual and/or friends being beat up, or preached at by people who claim to be Christ's followers. I know that this sort of thing isn't practiced by the majority of Christians, but it is a very vocal minority who are doing it and I don't see comperable victimization of Christians.   >Now I have a question for Bob.  Why in the world would any self-respecting >atheist want to subscribe to a Christian news group?    The implication being that I am not self-respecting, of course. I'm not a student of psychology, BTW, but I am a student of Creative Writing and Linguistics, so literary analysis _is_ my forte. Also, if the implications I see are improper, please let me know. I'm here because I'm not sequestered in my own little atheist cubbyhole as you seem to think atheists should be. Did it occur to you that I _don't_ think I know everything and that maybe someone will say something that will change my life? Have you read my other posts here or did you see "atheist" and decide it was time to poke at someone who doesn't deserve your respect? Aw, geez. I'm sorry, I probably am getting my back up a little too high, here. It's just that the "nonsense" thing really annoys me. I figure you should see my first reactions, though, since they are my true reactions to your question. Now, the smoothed feather version: I seek all sorts of knowledge. That's why I came to my university. Yes, I am looking at your religion (well, sorta, I have no idea what *kind* of Christian you are) from the outside, and hopefully with an objective view. I've been trying to ask reasoned questions here, because I genuinely don't know the answers to them, but when I saw the question directed at atheists I figured I would answer. After all, you can speculate about atheist motives here all you want (hence the "amatuer" psychology crack), but without an atheist, you can't be sure of even one atheist's motive.        I'm hoping people really want to know and I was trying to show that I actually checked out several religions and I actually read all the pamphlets people have to offer and I actually think about these things. Instead, I'm still faced with the implication that atheism is some kind of aberration and that only "broken" people are atheist. 	Try it from the flip side: I posit that atheism is the natural state and only broken people are theists. I offer as proof that so many people witness from horrible lives which picked up as soon as they  discovered their religion, that religion is regional (if people didn't follow the religion of their areas, there would be a more homogenous mix), so many terrorists claim theistic motives, and that theists tend to be so pushy and angry when challenged on alt.atheism. Why are religions so successful? Because there is so much suffering in the world, which  "breaks" people. It's an uncomfortable situation whichever way you look at it, which is another reason I'm here, to try to see the flip side of my thinking (and also as  a watchdog for logical fallacies :). >I have a  >difficult enough time keeping up with it, and I think I know something                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >about the subject.       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The implication here being that atheists can't possibly know anything about Christianity. Probably jumping at shadows again, but I think my reaction is somewhat justified. After all, the first post suggested that atheists are "broken", hostile people. This post confirms that someone else believes it.   > >Bob reminds me of my roommate.  In order to disbelieve atheism, he says                                               ^^^^^^^^^^ >he will need to be proven wrong about it.   Well, he got me there. I am a strong atheist, because I feel that lack of evidence, especially about something like an omnipotent being, implies lack of existence. However, I haven't met the strong atheist yet who said that nothing could ever persuade him. Call me a "seeker" if you like, I don't.  _Weak_ atheism is being ignore here, though. Some atheists simply say "I don't believe in any god" rather than my position: "I believe that no god(s) exist." For the weak atheist, the is no atheism to disbelieve, because they don't actively believe in atheism. (If you think this is confusing, try figuring out the difference between Protestants and Methodists from an atheist point of view :). This is another fallacy many theists seem to have, that everyone believes in something (followed up by "everyone has faith in something"). Guess what? My atheism ends the moment I'm shown a proof of some god's existence. Is that really too much to ask?   >Well, I don't even waste my time trying.   Well, I guess you won't succeed in converting him or me. Why the supposition that you will fail to convince him? (amatuer psycology on) Is it because you yourself are unconvinced? :)   > I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it. And I told you that I find faith to be intellectually dishonest. Note that I can only speak for myself. If you find faith to be honest, show me how. I have been unable to reconcile it so far. Maybe that's how I'm "broken"? I tell you that I have invisible fairies living in my garden and that you should just take my word for it. If you accept that, you are of a fundamentally different mind than I and I really would like to know how you think. All I ask for is proof of the assertion "God exists". Logical or physical proofs only, please. Then we'll discuss the nature of "God".  >In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me.  Prayer?! Uh, oh, we'll have to revoke his atheist club card and beanie! :)  >Good luck, Bob.  And, best regards.  Good luck to you, as well. And, again, I apologize if the inferences I made were inaccurate.   >--  >Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock  >Catechist >gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu   Muppets and garlic toast forever, Max (Bob) Muir