rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (11/11/83)
Others seem to have already beaten me to the punch in replying to the statements that have been put forth in answer to my questions as to why there must be a god. With this in mind, I will try to be brief (a first!!!) in making my points. [As usual, indented ( > ) text represents the input of others. Double '>>' represents my original text.] This is the first of four articles summarizing the points addressed. Gary Samuelson (who likes to refer to me as rlr, so I will refer to him as garys) and Jeff Sargent take the pro-religion counterpoint to my pro-humanistic point, and I then counter their counterpoint with needlepoint. (:~} UGGGH!! Sorry...) RELIGION'S LOW OPINION OF HUMANITY ---------------------------------- >>It would seem that a fundamental principle of religionism (the belief in the >>desire or need for a religion, esp. for all people) is a low opinion of human- >>ity. > >There is historical justification for a low opinion of humanity, is there >not? Rhetorical gibberish to the contrary notwithstanding, Adolf Hitler, >Josef Stalin, etc. etc. were quite human. Humanity is so low, it has >even produced religionists :-). If we must judge humanity only by looking at its lowest common denominator, would we not be within our rights to judge Christians by looking at the bigots, charlatans, fascists, and proselytizing fundamentalists? Unfortunately, the point of view that "we are all scum" seems to permeate this line of religious thought. (which is very contradictory, see next article) Human beings are a product of the environment they live in, and those like Hitler and Falwell thrive in societies where there is fear and terror of authority, and this fear is usually promoted by religionism. Often the religionists and their followers are the power base for these demagogues. > (in response to my statement above) ... In a way it is the non-believers... > who have a low opinion of humanity. Is it not an insult to tell people that > they are... primordial ooze, ... exist[ing] only by chance, [their lives > having] neither value nor meaning? It is not insulting to tell people the truth. It is much more insulting to degrade their humanity and intelligence by telling them lies about their existence, even if those lies make them feel better about their lives. Self- respect and pride (a sin!!!) about one's unique existence can also foster a positive self-image, and make one's life better. I prefer to believe in myself rather than in an unknown external. Would you lie to a child whose parent has died, saying: "Your mommy/daddy will come back soon." It's one thing to circumvent the topic of "death", but another to say that the dead parent would return. This is the kind of lie you suggest to replace my "insult" to humanity, in offering people tales of something you have no rational reason to believe in. THE SOURCE OF GOOD AND EVIL --------------------------- > Where did the ideas of good and evil come from? [e.g., selfless acts not > in one's own self-interest being defined as good] Mothers of baby animals risk their own lives to save their young. Does anyone deny the biochemical basis for this instinctive behavior? Similar "good" behavior for the good of the species can also be found, even in human beings. Remember that we have more sophisticated brains than most animals, and the idea that things that benefit others can benefit the whole community at large can be thought of as a construct resulting from our higher intelligence. Why does it follow that such behavior can only be defined in terms of external intervention from a deity?? SO WHAT IF WE CAME ABOUT BY CHANCE?? ------------------------------------ >>Without god, ... our very existence could only be based on pure chance. > >Actually, that is one of the more common arguments put forth in favor >of God's existence. If our existence is based on pure chance, thought >and reasoning included, then in what sense is 'rationality' different >from 'irrationality'? Is 'rational' simply a synonym for 'lucky'? Because the lack of a god would mean that our existence came to pass by pure chance, there must be a god. Could someone please run that by me again? A class in elementary logic is in order. (Maybe for me, I don't know...) [I guess that sort of qualifies as needlepoint there. More to come.] Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr