david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (04/27/84)
[] Rich Rosen: > No, not at all. "God is a psychological phenomenon" is not an assumption. > It is a fact: the notion of god exists in people's minds. Clearly we all > agree on that. [READ ON] Where we disagree is on whether god is anything > more than *just* a psychological phenomenon! *Your* unspoken assumption is > that god is (must be?) more than that. You have misread my paragraph. Perhaps I should have said the *only* assumption. The conclusion, remember, was that God was only a psychological phenomenon, and the only evidence considered was the psychological need of humans. In an earlier article, I presented a man who believed that he commanded the moon to orbit the earth. Using the above reasoning, our conclusion must be that the moon does not orbit the earth, because the man has a psychological problem with his ego. Needless to say, we have approached the problem from the wrong direction. We must first gather evidence to support or refute the man's statement. After we have concluded that his statement is unsubstantiated, THEN we may go back and examine the psychological reason he believes it so. (Note that the moon still orbits the earth, though...:-) You may be able to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that a certain man only believes in God because of some psychological need to believe in God. But you have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show that God actually does not exist. > Stating "facts" like "Christ > appeared to him..." that are not verifiable does not do justice to your case. Verifiable how? How do you "verify" an eye-witness account, when anyone who could have been present is dead? Do you realize the hopelessness of the provability of Christianity, under your terms? Each of the disciples faced the test of martyrdom for what they believed. They said that Jesus did such-and-such, and some of them were horribly put to death for it. Now, nobody dies for something they *know* to be a lie. They may die for something they *believe* is true (but actually false). > The proof that god is more than just a psychological phenomenon must be a > bit more substantial than someone's illusions based on their psychological > needs. This is exactly what I am trying to veer away from. It should be a conclusion based on examination of the evidence, not evidence to reach a (your) desired conclusion (that God doesn't exist). >> I *can't* believe in the divinity of Richard Simmons. >> I haven't any evidence to suggest that he is divine, and he has never said so >>himself. (I must admit this Richard Simmons stuff is getting little old). On >>the other hand, I know people who *won't* believe that women are equal to men, >> or that blacks are equal to whites. It's not that they can't believe it (for >> there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they are). Their biases and >> prejudices interfere with normal reasoning and they refuse to see the truth. >And what of *your* biases and prejudices? Please, please, PLEASE do not turn this into the Old Ad Hominem again. I was trying to explain my use of the terms "can't" and "won't" (unless you are implying that I am biased against Richard Simmons = God, which is the only logical context of your statement). Anyway, what of *my* biases and prejudices? Yes, I probably have some. So what? The sooner we admit we all have them, and get on to a rational discussion, the better. We can dwell on each others' personal problems, or we can participate in a meaningful exchange of information. > And what of your evidence to suggest > that something else *is* divine. "The Bible." Now that I have said it, and probably opened up a whole new can of worms (for net.religion, I mean), let's try to avoid this sort of nonsense: * Anyone who believes in a 2000 year old... * There is no external evidence to suggest... * It is so full of errors from translation... Anyone who uses such statements only shows their ignorance. If you are going to use them, SUBSTANTIATE THEM. Quote from the Bible! Show us how badly translated it is; use old manuscript extants. Show, using archeological evidence, that the Bible contains gross errors. Don't make sweeping claims like those above. They are unanswerable outside the scope of a hundred books (not that anyone on the net would listen to it anyway...). > When things that are called miracles are shown to > be hoaxes, lies, etc. is that offensive to you? No. When things that are called miracles are shown not to be hoaxes, lies, etc. is that offensive to you? > Is the very act of > seeking real truth (rather than accepting blindly that it is god's > deeds being done) repugnant to you? No. This is like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?". I will not elaborate, the question does not deserve it. But I fail to see the relevance of the question. > Does the real truth matter in your > belief system? Or just what you want to believe? My belief system is the Truth. What I want to believe has little to do with it. For example, I want to believe that everyone is going to Heaven. I truly want to believe that people, some of them my closest friends, are not going to eternal Hell. But that's just not the way it is. In this sense, I believe in a God which, in some ways, I don't (naturally) want to believe in. But I am convinced that in Him is Truth. > A truly rational > person would have as little to do with astrology as with religion, since > they utilize the same empty shell of non-evidence. "Empty shell of non-evidence" is a hefty sweeping generalization to make. Care to support it? Explain, if you can, the events in the Bible. For example, the many many events that were prophesied and came true (lots of these about Jesus Christ). I now have a confession to make. I miss Tim Maroney. He, at least, could quote from the Bible to illustrate his point. And even though our past discussion only seemed to further "polarize" individuals (many thankful letters, others said I had my "head wedged"), he at least stimulated my brain and made me do some homework (perhaps the opposite was true?). So how about it, Rich? Why not ask pointed questions instead of making such broad statements that just don't have a simple answer? Maybe we can all learn something. > Again, was it more important for you to believe that they were miracles > than to know the truth? I.e., I have a choice: I can believe in miracles or I can search for the truth? Remember the blind man at the well? The Pharisees asked him if the man who healed him was the Son of God. His response: "I only know that I was blind, but now I see." -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david