Re: Evidences of God

stoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On 21 Aug 2003 08:24:18 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maria
> Underwood), Message ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in alt.atheism;
> 
> >Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
> >> 
> >> -----
> >
> >Jeremy,
> >First let me say it is very bold, maybe even brave, of you to come to
> >Alt.Atheism with such an argument. 
> 
> Disagree.  It's the usual drivel generated by a theist who hasn't
> bothered to reasearch his audience.  He hasn't the common courtesy to do
> so and the lack of preparation is blowing up in his face.
> 
> > But I, at least, appreciate the
> >effort.  I've searched for a healthy forum where atheists and theists
> >can respectfully discuss/debate their differences without digression
> >into ad hominem attacks, insults, and plain 'ole meaness.  I've yet to
> >find it, but I welcome your argument here.
> 
> Maria, most of us (USA) were theists.  For most who were theists it was
> a long and painful journey.  Especially painful for those of us who did
> it pre-internet and with zero resources to work with.  Hell, thanks to
> Joe McCarthy I didn't know what an atheist was until sometime after I
> stumbled over this newsgroup.  My indoctrination indicated all atheists
> were communists.  I certainly wasn't a communist (although christianity
> is communistic) so therefore I was not an atheist, but I was not a
> theist either.  The lack of a label didn't bother me.
> 
> It took me some 15 years to purge all the malevolence programming the
> church instilled in me from infantcy.  I did it on my own, all alone.
> The only resources I had was the courage and determination to sort it
> all out.  If I had not done so, I would have long ago been dead by my
> own hand-courtesy of the 'loving church.'
> 
> Since I was going to be tortured for eternity by a 'loving deity' and
> 'this life was unimportant' there was no reason to put off the start of
> it.  "The rat" (me) was extremely tired of the wretched and extremely
> painful maze the church had, oh so painstakenly, built around me from
> infantcy.  Death and the resulting endless torture would be much less
> painful than the miserable and terminal "blue screen" state (/cue
> original star trek story with "Landru the computer" for an example.
> "Does not compute...illogical..illogical...tilt."
> 
> I'm sure the question in your mind is; "Do I hate the Church?"  No.  I
> pity them and pretty much ignore them (too bad they and theists don't
> pay those without theism no mind).  Hatred is counter productive and I'm
> much too busy living and experiancing the joys (not hedonism) and beauty
> life has to offer.  Flip side is the church isn't worth the effort of
> hatred.  I've got better things to do.
> 
> It might seem like I'm chastising you.  Such is not my intention as I
> indicate below.
> 
> That you believe in a deity is your personal business.  You believe.
> Atheiests lack that belief.  Folks here (generally) have no problem with
> you believing, but you folks (generally) have a big problem with our
> lack of belief.  Such is your (generality) personal problem.
> 
> To us, you folks are those of adult ages prattling like a six year old
> about Santa Claus.  I really wish you theists (generality) would sit
> back and really think about that and the ramifications and reprecussions
> which result.
> 
> An example from a different tangent:
> Consider a 40 or 50 year old person who wanders around yammering about
> Santa Claus, flying reindeer and the like.  Further, it's been
> legislated (in the past) that all who lack belief in Santa Claus are not
> fit for public office.  That it's been flat stated by the assistant then
> chief executive of a country that those who lack belief in Santa Claus
> should neither be considered citizens or patriots-even if they are
> currently in that country's armed forces.
> 
> Christianity is intellectually and morally bankrupt.  The 'glue' that
> holds it together is fear.  Can you say "Protection Racket" ala Chicago
> in the 1920's with Al Capone?
> 
> There can be, and have been, respectful general discussions with (sadly
> too few) exceptional theists who have approached things from common
> ground
> 
> Christians have only emotions to work with.  Sadly, those have the sad
> penchant to be the negative ones based on fear, ignorance, and threats.
> One of the reasons I continue to use a nom-de-kybd (originally it was
> for amusement as I had utilized it for years on the BBS's) is because of
> the theist penchant for violence.  The nom-de-kybd gives a little
> protection to my family.
> 
> Twice that I remember in my tenure in aa theists have asked honest
> questions that, in my view, would have had impacted their faith.
> Because of that I flat stated the danger to them and asked if they still
> wanted an answer or it they wanted to withdraw the question.
> 
> As I recall, One withdrew the question.  I think s/he was astonished at
> my considering the impact on their faith-which is something most xtians
> would not do.  The other indicated the question was still on the table.
> That question lead to a couple more to clarify things.  The person then
> thanked me for responding and meandered out.  I do not recall what the
> topics were, but if you were  interested in finding out Google would
> tell you.
> 
> Towards the top of your post you mention "I've searched for a healthy
> forum where atheists and theists can respectfully discuss/debate their
> differences..."
> 
> What differences?
> 
> Your theism doesn't bother me.  Why does my lack of theism bother you?
> 
> We are all human beings, first and foremost, with the same heirarchy of
> needs (/cue Maslow).  IIRC, the first item on the list of 5 is security.
> It seems like a person's lack of theism is somehow threatening to you
> when it should make less difference than whether one prefers a certain
> brand of hamburger (theism) or is a vegetarian (without theism).
> 
> I highly doubt you go around discussing the existance of Santa Claus and
> the flying reindeer with other adults.  The same situation pertains to
> theists and their superstition (of whatever brand).
> 
> Google exists as an archive and it's an excellant research source.  You
> can search via keywords and come up with all sorts of information.  I
> think what would surprise and delight people here is if a theist were to
> say "Stoney (or whoever) in post msg id "xyx" you indicated "this."
> Could you expound on this please?  Or ask a question about "this."
> 
> I think you've been here for some time and have read myraid of posts.  I
> would have thought (no denigration intended) a wealth of information
> would have been gleaned from that.
> 
> If something generated a question, why did you not ask it?  People here
> are good about answering unloaded questions.  I must caution you that
> the answers are quite unchristian as they are brutally honest.
> 
> The old saw of "If you can't handle the answer then don't ask the
> question" is apt here in aa.
> 
> >Having said that...argument by design is not a new argument; and
> >though it proves nothing, it is an interesting exercise in philosophy.
> 
> If you say so.  I find it mind-numbing drivel, myself.
> 
> >My first response to your argument is:  how do you come to the
> >conclusion that the universe had a beginning but "god" did not?  If
> >the universe was designed and created by *god when did he/she/it
> >begin?  Who designed him/her/it?  It seems to me that the same logic
> >that forbids you from accepting the possibility that universe always
> >existed should be the same logic that applies to the "designer" - thus
> >logic would dictate that he/she/it should similiarly have had a
> >beginning.
> 
> Exactly.  But you've still got 'the cart before the horse.'  The first
> step is to provide a coherant definition for the g-o-d letter string.
> What is laughingly put forth as a 'definition' begs the question,
> handwaves furiously and provides zero information.
> 
> From there some of the following steps would be:
> 
> * to provide objective supporting evidence for the existence of the
> entity.
> 
> * to provide objective supporting evidence the entity has the
> capabilities.
> 
> * to provide objective supporting evidence the universe was
> manufactured.
> 
> * to provide objective supporting evidence your 'babe at first suck on
> the teat' did anything compared to its seniors.  As far as I am aware
> the oldest creator deity is "Tiamat the Dragon" at some 5-1/2 millenia
> of age.
> 
> Above and below you indicate two good points illustrating the problems
> with the 'creator deity' concept.
> 
> The xtian deity is clearly out of the running as primitive iron chariots
> on a level plain stopped it cold.  And that was with the full knowledge
> of the capabilities, reactions, plan of every person in the opposing
> army.
> 
> >How can you ignore the blatant question of "when/where/how did god
> >begin" - but consider first the question of design "when/where/how did
> >the universe begin"?
> 
> Very easily.  Such is done via furious handwaving and flat special
> pleading.
> 
> Some verbage by a young lady does a spot-on job of observation.
> 
> /quote
> 
> What do I dislike about theism?...Let me count the ways...
> 
> I dislike the hypocrisy,
> the corruption,
> the greed
> and the lies.
> I dislike the veneration of ignorance,
> the glorification of idiocy, 
> the wild-eyed hatred of progress 
> and the fear of education, which send the faithful shrieking,
> vampire-like, from the light of knowledge.
> I dislike the way in which prejudice 
> is passed off as piety.
> The way superstition is peddled as wisdom. 
> The way intolerance is raised to the lofty heights
> of "Truth".
> I dislike how hatred is taught as love,
> how fear is instilled as kindness,
> how slavery is pressed as freedom,
> and how contempt for life is dressed up and adored as spirituality. 
> I dislike the shackles religions place on the mind,
> corrupting, twisting and crushing the spirit
> until the believer has been brought down to a suitable state
> of worthlessness. 
> So lost and self-loathing, so bereft of hope or pride, 
> that they can look into the hallucinated face of their imaginary
> oppressor 
> and feel unbounded love and gratitude for the additional suffering 
> it has declined, 
> as yet, 
> to visit upon them.  
> I dislike people's need for a communal delusion, 
> like drug addicts who unite just to share the same needle.
> I dislike the way reason is reviled as a vice
> and reality is decreed to be a matter of convenience.
> The way common sense and ordinary human decency 
> get re-named "holy law" and advertised as the sole province
> of the faithful.
> I dislike religions' wholesale theft of any number
> of ancient mythologies,
> only to turn around and proclaim 
> how "unique" their doctrine is.
> I dislike how intelligence is held as suspect
> and inquiry is reviled as a high crime.
> I dislike the pillaging of the impoverished,
> the extortion of the gullible,
> the manipulation of the ignorant
> and the domination of the weak.
> I dislike the invention of sins
> for the satisfaction of those who desire to punish.
> I dislike the demonization of unbelievers,
> The ill-concealed hate of proselytizers,
> The hysterical rants of holy rollers,
> The wigged-out warnings of psychic healers,
> The dismantling of public education via religious school vouchers,
> The erosion of civil rights by theocratic right-wingers,
> The righteous wrath of gun-toting true believers,
> The destruction wrought by holy warriors,
> The blood-drenched fatwas of ayatollas,
> and the apocalyptic prophesies of unmedicated messiahs.
> Most of all, though, I dislike the certain knowledge
> that religion, 
> in one grotesque form or other,
> will be with us so long as there is a single dark, cobwebbed corner
> of the human imagination 
> that a believer can stuff a god into.
> 
> 
>  Alikhat
> 
> /end quote
> 
> Christians don't take their own 'Holy Tome' seriously, so why would a
> person who is not a follower of that superstition?
> 
> I apologize for the lengthy post, but it was necessary.  Please hold any
> reply until Sept 18 as I will be out of town until then.
> 
> Be well.
> 
> >Crafty
> >
> ><snip>
> 
>          
> 
>    
>              Stoney
> "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
>                and
>           SCAMPERMEISTER!"
> 
> When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
> When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
> When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
> /end humour alert
> 
> alt.atheism military veteran #11
> {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}

Thanks for your reply.  I haven't responded in a timely manner
because...well, to be frank - I didn't know what to say.

I know that there is a lot about religion, esp. Christianity, that
doesn't make sense.  And I also know that much evil has come from
organized religion.  But I haven't seen a lot of that personally.

I've seen good come from it.  I've seen addicts use faith in a god to
overcome addictions.  I've seen those who might have otherwise
preferred to stay at home - spend money and time helping others.  I've
seen those who grieved over the departed find peace in the hope of an
after life.

Maybe there was no Jesus.  But I've seen *faith in Jesus help people
to overcome obstacles and use his story to try to love, forgive, and
heal.  Maybe it's all a fairytale, like Paul Bunyon and his Blue Ox or
like Santa Claus.  But mythology and fairtale, used as religious
metaphor, have given hope and meaning to millions.  Is that so bad? 
Maybe there wasn't really a "good samaritan" - but doesn't the parable
teach us a lesson?  Maybe there wasn't an immaculate conception - and
the Son of God wasn't really made flesh - but doesn't holding a
loving, forgiving, gentle, "perfect" role model help teach our
children values and morals?

I'll admit that there a lots of flaws, inconsistencies and
contradictions in many theologies.  But I find peace in the metaphor
of a Prince of Peace.  Maybe he wasn't real - but trying to believe in
Him has given me motivation to let go of harsh feelings for those who
have wronged me.  Maybe there was no Jesus, but praying to Him and
saying things such as"Jesus, help me to not be selfish and to reach
out to others" to myself throughout the day has helped me to smile
more and to pay more attention to the suffering and concerns of
others.

My attempts at faith have moved me to give $ to organizations such as
Food For The Hungry.  If I didn't  think there was a purpose to this
life - but that we were all just animals living out pointless lives
until we die and fade into oblivion - I might care less about others
who was suffering and just use my resources to satisfy my own
hedonistic desires.  Giving life a perspective of eternity and a
framework in which to help and aid others, from my view, makes faith
in the false an OK thing.  If believing in Tiamat the Dragon helps one
to help others and try to make this world a better place - then I say
go ahead and believe.  But if you don't want to believe, that's OK
too.

I just haven't found another philosophy or creed that gives a solid
framework for goodness, kindness, or selflessness.  And, to me, it's a
terrible, sad, lonely, and depressing world without such a framework. 
So I chose to believe.
Crafty