mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/29/86)
In article <2584@watdcsu.UUCP> magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) writes: > >> "There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot > >> face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Gee I wounder just *who* could be implicated here considering > the news group??? But I put this question to the news group. WHO > is it that believes in myths? Is it the Christians that have a > Living God that reveals himself to those who seek him OR those > who believe in myths about what Christians believe? Who is having delusions? Is it the man who sees pink elephants or the man who thinks the other is deluded for seeing pink elephants? Let's ask this third man who sees flying purple people-eaters.... > Main point of this posting. What do non-Christians think that > Christians believe in God for?: > > 1) 'Just because the Bible tells us.' > 2) 'Because we need a crutch to hold are lives up.' > 3) 'Our parents told us.' > 4) 'Not very bright. No science in our education.' > 5) 'There is a sucker born every minute.' > > These are just a few of the myths that non-Christians > have about Christians. But I contend *if* you believe these or > statements like these that you have a 'comfortable myth' and a > crutch that will keep you from understanding Christians. Any one of those is an incomplete explanation. They may well explains some individuals' belief, but not all individuals. The real explanation is simply that god belief is bundled into the price of the package of social services peddled as Christian religions. Religion is simply a form of social behavior (in the anthropological sense.) It provides certain services which can all be provided by secular sources. Different people can select different services. One may use the crutch of belief in a caring god; another may use the church as a meeting place for meeting marriageable women or business deals; and another may seek moral instruction to deal with life's conflicts. There's a large list of non- supernatural services. > Still I came to believe in God/Christ because I used the > method of *verification* outlined in the Bible. Congratulations. You have fallen prey to circular reasoning. > - Nothing any Christian can say (that is words) will convince another of > the validity of Christianity. God/Christ ultimately does the > convincing/convicting (re Bible etc) but they have to do the looking. That is plain and simple a psychotic fantasy, no better substantiated by reality than the idea that there is a homunculus inside your head who controls your brain and decides whether you will appear to be convinced of Christianity. It's amazing the lengths people will go to fantasize that somebody important has taken an interest in them. -- "There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths." Bertrand Russell in "Human Society in Ethics and Politics". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) (10/01/86)
In article <1165@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
him>
I wrote:
me>
him> or the man who thinks the other is deluded for seeing pink elephants?
him> Let's ask this third man who sees flying purple people-eaters....
So what gives you the right to ask (or stack) the questions?
Can you get in the brain and *know* what another person thinks? You
assume too much for your own good (just guess what about, ok?).
Look, lets be be clear: (and if I don't answer what your active
imagination thinks up, or address *your* pet problem. *Your*
job in such a case is to ask - not critisize - untill you know - else
if your mind is made up -tell us , ok? - and I say good for you!)
I digress:
I can say that I could be fooled about what I experiance
and what I beleive. Does that make you feel better? You must
think to highly of yourself to think otherwise. You don't even
TRY to see how open minded we are or what I just ment. You say
much about Christians and know *little*. Why should I have to
answer for *all* religions and social causes of them. That's
YOUR problem! You have to ask us AND them to find out! Your
*Hypocrisy* and such like it *was the reason I posted* (re
myth). You would rather live in a fantasy land safe with what
you think we know! You have to be impartial to judge. -(been on a
jury? - think about it). To put patterns together you have to be
willing to try new ideas... I have good eveidence that YOU
generalize too much for your own good.... I *just* need refer to
a few of your articles here. So that's why I overload the word
'fantasy' on you.
Perhaps you have much history in thinking what you
state -but the burdon of 'assumption' is yours to test - not to
state like fact. Look. I don't want you to squrim away from this
<I *Just* wanted to illustrate the danger in *pre-judgment*>
You go off into never never land and spew forth
about your own BIAS and realizations of HOW we think,...just great
what an example to follow.!
You state:
him> The real explanation is simply that god belief is bundled into
him> the price of the package of social services peddled as Christian
him> religions.
-Hey no contest here -YOU said it after all...(-:
him> Religion is simply a form of social behavior
him> (in the anthropological sense.)
-Just 'simply'? -Good no need to think about that anymore!
him> It provides certain services which can all be provided by
him> secular sources.
-SO ?
him> Different people can select different services. One may use
him> the crutch of belief in a caring god;
him> another may use the church as a meeting place for
him> meeting marriageable women or business deals;
him> and another may seek moral
him> instruction to deal with life's conflicts. There's a large
him> list of non-supernatural services.
-So that explains it *ALL* hmmm? And,... I don't know that???
What do I know hmmmm???? -don't you feel silly????
me> Still I came to believe in God/Christ because I used the
me> method of *verification* outlined in the Bible.
him> Congratulations. You have fallen prey to circular reasoning.
No, I made that a bit more clear. The Bible as a closed system
-if you like- may or may not be any more circular than finding 2 + 2 = 4
in a math text (an aside: how many sources do I need to prove this?)
The Christian at least thinks that God proves himself to them as
a real experiance. Yet YOU want to define Christainity! That's
like on a whim, re-defining a history to suite your purpose, and
then use this version of history to convict whoever you don't like!
Well Sir I am calling you for what you are a Hypocrite! So ok,
things are hard to prove at times,.. great! I bet if most of the
people in history used your openminded example we would be still
arguing about how to dig caves as far as scientific method goes!
me> - Nothing any Christian can say (that is words) will convince
me> another of the validity of Christianity. God/Christ ultimately does
me> the convincing/convicting (re Bible etc) but they have to do the
me> looking.
I guess you don't know what I ment. Well your a good example
as to whom I was talking to as an extreme case. I can't PROVE to
you of the experiances in my mind any more than you can PROVE
what's in your mind. That's what I ment -as to degree... But
here you may ask 'what do you mean by PROVE?' -I say just:
*anything* no more no less ok? -Or even more clearly -NOT
limited to Christian thought.....
him> That is plain and simple a psychotic fantasy, no better
him> substantiated by reality than the idea that there is a
^^^^^^^^
-Yours no doubt....
him> homunculus inside your head who controls your brain and
him> decides whether you will appear to be convinced of Christianity.
him> It's amazing the lengths people will go to fantasize that somebody
him> important has taken an interest in them.
-
Yup and you *KNOW* with a capital *K* hmmm????? Oh if only *I* could do that!
(re people -> fantasize, why, what when where---->therefore! for *all*)
Well from my point now I could say I can't avoid God. But what do
you KNOW I know? I have posted so much that you know me like you know the
back of *my* hand (-: ?.... I have had to talk with many Christians to
get to know that there is a thread of common experience. Takes time...
You would like to toss away a fair bit of experience though ---
must be nice.....
Mike Huybensz, if I give you an apology as to my tone here will you
beleive me? Well here it is. - At this time of day I can't think of a better
way to get to your level... My statements stand, though the method here might
sting....
To the Christains on the net I am deeply sorry but I hope
you will find better ways to speak up.
Drifting back to the 'myth' theme....And just plain general ideas....
It is sad the way Galileo died in history.
-for want to accept new ideas-
...But we all hold on to many 'myths' -so then have respect for
those who do.
-to every issue there are more then 2 sides and painfull
it is to find out....
Where is the humble man?
Why must the humble Chrsitian never speak?
-but maybe *I'm* a poor example here...
him> Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
him>
him> "There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man
him> who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable
him> myths."
him> Bertrand Russell in "Human Society in Ethics and Politics".
He said it! it must be true every 'little' word. But now I can read
this in a new light! Just a new fancy way to be a biggot....
-Read as: 'assume someone *cannot face*'
-->therefore the sky is blue.! just great!
And trash anyone who doesn't agree!-emph. mine. Oh! *I* don't want
to be feeble and little (-:I could loose weight though :-) ...'Just
don't want those nasty words on me!'... Guess I have to give up
being openminded now....
I think 'modern' ways have given us much. Now we can dress up
trash and make it seem real fine. Teach it to the young so
it becomes so second nature that...well maybe that's *why* we
are in such a mess?
Just a thought...
# I do not recommend this method of reply... It'll have to do for now...
# Mike Gore
# Institute for Computer Research.
# These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.ptl@fluke.UUCP (10/03/86)
Hi, Religion is simply a means to an end. It is nothing more than a tool, an important tool, but still only a tool. Focusing on the tool takes away from moving on toward the goal. And to a Christian, the goal is eternity with a loving God. I use the tool to help reach God. In article <1165@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >..It's amazing the lengths people will go to fantasize that somebody important >has taken an interest in them. ... >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh What is the goal to believing God has no interest in you? What does believing you are no more important to God than the dog that runs across your front yard get you? God Bless, Mike Andrews
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/05/86)
In article <664@cal-asd.fluke.UUCP> ptl@cal-asd.UUCP (Mike Andrews) writes: > Religion is simply a means to an end. It is nothing more than a tool, > an important tool, but still only a tool. Focusing on the tool > takes away from moving on toward the goal. And to a Christian, the goal is > eternity with a loving God. I use the tool to help reach God. Having a tool doesn't guarantee that the tool is good for the claimed use. By your analogy, every religion is a tool. And I strongly doubt that you would conceed the others are all good for their claimed uses. On the other hand, Karl Marx had a fair amount to say on religion as a tool. As a tool of ruling classes, oppressors, etc. > In article <1165@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >..It's amazing the lengths people will go to fantasize that somebody > >important has taken an interest in them. ... > > What is the goal to believing God has no interest in you? I don't believe that at all. It never comes up because I don't believe in gods. > What does believing you are no more important to God than the dog that runs > across your front yard get you? If I did believe in some god(s) or another, it might get me humility. :-) -- "... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make themselves artificially stupid." Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/07/86)
In article <1174@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: [In response to Mike Andrews's remarks on religion as a tool] >Having a tool doesn't guarantee that the tool is good for the claimed use. >By your analogy, every religion is a tool. And I strongly doubt that you >would conceed the others are all good for their claimed uses. This is true, but I hardly see it as weakening the argument. Indeed, it reinforces the point that the nature of religious belief is not necessarily arbitrary. >On the other hand, Karl Marx had a fair amount to say on religion as a tool. >As a tool of ruling classes, oppressors, etc. Karl Marx is hardly the deepest commentator or religion, and, after all, "Marxism is the opiate of the Communists." Almost any ideology can be made to serve oppression. Again I am puzzled as to the disagreement. It seems that all that's being said is that the exact nature of <your religion here> belief is important. C. Wingate
ptl@fluke.UUCP (10/07/86)
Hi, [regarding seeing religion as a tool] In article <1174@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >...Having a tool doesn't guarantee that the tool is good for the claimed use. >By your analogy, every religion is a tool. And I strongly doubt that you >would conceed the others are all good for their claimed uses. Every religion is a tool. Not all are established by God, and even of the ones that are, not all the tools are always used correctly. I look at the Christian church as the people who make it up. No one is perfect, not even Christians :-) . So pointing to imperfect Christians, telling how they've messed up at times, while overlooking the many good things they have done and are doing, then saying this shows God is non-existant, or imperfect, or evil --- is comparing apples to oranges. Someone could be the world's worst worker, but that doesn't mean the president of the company doesn't exist, otherwise he'd get rid of the guy; or that he must be a rotten president to allow this guy to continue to work there; or that the president must have it in for everyone who purchases his products because he has a poor worker involved in making some of them. [regarding why Mike Huybensz would believe God has no interest in him] >I don't believe that at all. It never comes up because I don't believe in >gods. ... >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Why do you fight so hard against the God you don't believe exists, and specifically get involved in net.religion.christian to spend time and energy to attack those who do choose to believe in Him? Will you move your discussions over to mod.religion.christain, or do you think expressing your sincere doubts and concerns will be not allowed there? Give it a try. I have a real hard time believing in God sometimes, more often than I wish. There are times I get more than just angry with Him, tired of trying to act Christian when it doesn't get me anywhere. It's at these times I learn more about myself - if I get tired of acting like a Christian because I don't get anything out of it, then why do I act like a Christian in the first place? So others will be impressed with the me they are shown - strong, faithfilled Christian ... etc, or so God will be pleased to see me loving those same others for Him? God Bless, Mike Andrews
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/08/86)
In article <677@cal-asd.fluke.UUCP> ptl@cal-asd.UUCP (Mike Andrews) writes: > In article <1174@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >...Having a tool doesn't guarantee that the tool is good for the claimed use. > >By your analogy, every religion is a tool. And I strongly doubt that you > >would conceed the others are all good for their claimed uses. > > Every religion is a tool. Not all are established by God, and even of the > ones that are, not all the tools are always used correctly. Yes, but what happens when your tool features the secret miracle ingredient "fraudulin"? You attempt to blame failures of the tools on misuse: my point is that claims of the retailers are fraudulent. > [regarding why Mike Huybensz would believe God has no interest in him] > >I don't believe that at all. It never comes up because I don't believe in > >gods. ... > > Why do you fight so hard against the God you don't believe exists, and > specifically get involved in net.religion.christian to spend time and > energy to attack those who do choose to believe in Him? I expend no effort against non-existent gods: my arguments are directed to very real people (well, maybe not so real.... :-) These people claim that because of an invisible being (that only they can see and hear), they have more authority than I do. They want to enact laws (such as blasphemy laws, abortion laws, etc.) that are designed to enforce their whims. It is politically important for me to oppose this nonsense. I certainly don't do it out of some idiotic need to tell a god that it doesn't exist. > Will you move > your discussions over to mod.religion.christain, or do you think expressing > your sincere doubts and concerns will be not allowed there? Give it a try. To date I've only seen one posting in m.r.c: and it should have been in talk.politics. Personally, I dislike moderated groups. I think they are inconvenient. However, I will definitely try posting to them if I see something that I think needs a rebuttal that a Christian could make. > I have a real hard time believing in God sometimes, more often than I wish. If you need help in discarding your superstitions, let me know. > There are times I get more than just angry with Him, tired of trying to > act Christian when it doesn't get me anywhere. It's at these times I learn > more about myself - if I get tired of acting like a Christian because I don't > get anything out of it, then why do I act like a Christian in the first place? > So others will be impressed with the me they are shown - strong, faithfilled > Christian ... etc, or so God will be pleased to see me loving those same > others for Him? Probably force of habit. It's hard to rethink what to do in ordinary circumstances when you have been long trained to do particular things. Alternative strategies don't just pop into your head, and judgement systems based on experience require mistakes to be made to gain experience. I think it's pathetic that you try to use your own acquired habits (that you'd probably not find easy to change even if you tried) as a prop for your beliefs. -- "Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion gives you the high it does. Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important enough for me to give up my religion if that is required? Until you answer yes to this you are not being honest with yourself." Dave Trissel -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
sunny@hoptoad.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (10/09/86)
The nature of religious belief is entirely arbitrary, as long as it
conforms to the one rule of the supreme being of our physical universe:
Cause and Effect
Sunny
--
Sunny Kirsten
POB 557
Monte Rio, CA 95462-0557
(707)865-2885
USENET: {sun,ptsfa,well,lll-crg,ihnp4,ucsfcgl,nsc,frog}!hoptoad!sunnydman@ur-tut.UUCP (10/09/86)
In article <1179@hoptoad.uucp> sunny@hoptoad.UUCP (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >The nature of religious belief is entirely arbitrary, as long as it >conforms to the one rule of the supreme being of our physical universe: > >Cause and Effect > > Sunny >-- >Sunny Kirsten >POB 557 >Monte Rio, CA 95462-0557 >(707)865-2885 >USENET: {sun,ptsfa,well,lll-crg,ihnp4,ucsfcgl,nsc,frog}!hoptoad!sunny Sunny, I have a question about your religious beliefs. Are you a Bhuddist? I ask this because a friend of mine is a Bhuddist and feels very strongly about cause and effect. Also I am somewhat confused by your statement so could you please elaborate? Dave Tilley Taylor Hall University of Rochester Rochester N.Y 14619 USENET: {seismo|allegra|decvax}!rochester!ur-tut!dman
jason@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Jason A. Kinchen) (10/09/86)
In article <1185@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > I expend no effort against non-existent gods: my arguments are directed to > very real people (well, maybe not so real.... :-) These people claim that > because of an invisible being (that only they can see and hear), they have > more authority than I do. They want to enact laws (such as blasphemy laws, > abortion laws, etc.) that are designed to enforce their whims. It is > politically important for me to oppose this nonsense. I certainly don't do > it out of some idiotic need to tell a god that it doesn't exist. Mike, I have followed your discourses on net.religion.christian for some time and was surprised to see you write such a silly paragraph. Up to this point, I have been convinced that although your language is sometimes stronger than necessary to make your points, that you proceed quite well from your premise of atheism, and that your view is interesting. The quote from Dave Trissel is something I thing every religious person should read. However, the above rationalization is quite flawed and in no way coincides with your actions. You state that you must oppose a viewpoint that claims to have authority over you, but why? First of all, not all Christians hold the view that they have authority over their fellow man. In fact, being a Christian myself, not only do I not hold myself above you, in particular, but was enjoying learning from you. I think that the words of Paul are quite appropriate to show that it is certainly not the Christian party line to oneself above others. He states that those who would minister should think of themselves as servants and not as masters. Second, simply because some people in a group claim authority does not mean that they actually have it. Only your submission to the authority would give it any punch. Let them think what they want, you certainly aren't going to bow to their will. Thirdly, don't YOU in fact, fight fire with fire, and imply superiority over Christians by saying that they are not "real people", that the practice of the religion is "pathetic", that their views "nonsensical"? Then you get worried about the laws some Christians are trying to pass, but aren't you confusing cause and effect here? Isn't it much easier and more effective to oppose the legislation itself rather than a tradition of millions of people that has about a two thousand year head start on you? Speaking as a Christian who in fact holds probably the same political views that you do, I can tell you that if you are really doing all this because it is "politically important" then you've made a serious mistake. For one thing, you alienate potential allies like myself who do not share your view of Christianity, but who are opposed to those same laws. Wouldn't our efforts be welcome? I'm especially surprised that you tried to hang the anti-abortion issue around the Christians' neck. Even if every Christian were to magically become an atheist tomorrow (in your dreams, right?), there would still be a loud and quite organized cry against abortion. Pro-Lifers and Christians are not synonymous, and you gain absolutely nothing by attacking Christianity for the sake of the right to have abortions. The issue is far too complex for it to be dealt with as an attack on religious doctrine. I don't why you attack Christianity with such vehemence (I don't mind, in fact, I find it stimulating) and you are certainly allowed to have your opinion but this line about being politically motivated is just so much hooey. It's either stupid or it's dishonest, but either way it isn't worthy of you. And I don't understand why it is necessary. Why take a personal choice you are com- pletely entitled to have and try and fallaciously elevate it to the level of a political mandate? I suggest you reread the words of Dave Trissel under the light of your own views and be honest with yourself. Jason Kinchen jason@media-lab.MIT.EDU
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/10/86)
From: jason@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Jason A. Kinchen): >In article <1185@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> I expend no effort against non-existent gods: my arguments are directed to >> very real people (well, maybe not so real.... :-) These people claim that >> because of an invisible being (that only they can see and hear), they have >> more authority than I do. They want to enact laws (such as blasphemy laws, >> abortion laws, etc.) that are designed to enforce their whims. It is >> politically important for me to oppose this nonsense. I certainly don't do >> it out of some idiotic need to tell a god that it doesn't exist. > >You state that you must oppose a viewpoint that claims to have authority over >you, but why? First of all, not all Christians hold the view that they have >authority over their fellow man. But some do. Read the quoted paragraph from Mike again. It says nothing about "all Christians". It talks only of people who want to give their religious whims the force of law. >Second, simply because some people in a group claim authority does not mean >that they actually have it. Only your submission to the authority would give >it any punch. Let them think what they want, you certainly aren't going to >bow to their will. Don't be naive. When they come to your door with guns drawn, or throw you in prison for "immorality", they've *got* the authority, whatever one's personal opinion of their morals. >Thirdly, don't YOU in fact, fight fire with fire, and imply superiority over >Christians by saying that they are not "real people", that the practice of >the religion is "pathetic", that their views "nonsensical"? If Mike said this, you failed to quote it. The paragraph speaks of religious fanatics who try to legislate their private morality into public policy. >Then you get worried about the laws some Christians are trying to pass, but >aren't you confusing cause and effect here? Isn't it much easier and more >effective to oppose the legislation itself rather than a tradition of millions >of people that has about a two thousand year head start on you? Come again? 2000-year head start? Religious skepticism is older than you think. Read Lucretius some time. >Speaking as >a Christian who in fact holds probably the same political views that you do, >I can tell you that if you are really doing all this because it is "politically >important" then you've made a serious mistake. For one thing, you alienate >potential allies like myself who do not share your view of Christianity, but >who are opposed to those same laws. Wouldn't our efforts be welcome? Your help is more than welcome to me. What did Mike say to alienate you? >I'm especially surprised that you tried to hang the anti-abortion issue around >the Christians' neck. Even if every Christian were to magically become an >atheist tomorrow (in your dreams, right?), there would still be a loud and >quite organized cry against abortion. Pro-Lifers and Christians are not >synonymous, and you gain absolutely nothing by attacking Christianity for the >sake of the right to have abortions. The issue is far too complex for it to >be dealt with as an attack on religious doctrine. Questionable. I do know of a small number of people (Hi, Laura!) who oppose abortion for reasons unrelated to religion, but they are rare. Opposition to abortion is primarily the work of religious conservatives. Not all such are Christian, but most are, this being a predominantly Christian nation. It is not a case of hanging anti-abortion around all Christian's necks, however, but just around the necks of those conservative types who are actively working to make abortion illegal. >I don't why you attack Christianity with such vehemence (I don't mind, in >fact, I find it stimulating) and you are certainly allowed to have your opinion >but this line about being politically motivated is just so much hooey. It's >either stupid or it's dishonest, but either way it isn't worthy of you. And I >don't understand why it is necessary. Why take a personal choice you are com- >pletely entitled to have and try and fallaciously elevate it to the level of a >political mandate? I can't answer for Mike, but I certainly agree with him about the danger to our liberties posed by the religious right. Speaking for myself, this danger is one of the two reasons I participate in *.religion.*. The other is that I find religion, itself, interesting, even though I don't have one. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/13/86)
In article <363@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> jason@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Jason Kinchen) writes: > In article <1185@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > I expend no effort against non-existent gods: my arguments are directed to > > very real people (well, maybe not so real.... :-) These people claim that > > because of an invisible being (that only they can see and hear), they have > > more authority than I do. They want to enact laws (such as blasphemy laws, > > abortion laws, etc.) that are designed to enforce their whims. It is > > politically important for me to oppose this nonsense. I certainly don't do > > it out of some idiotic need to tell a god that it doesn't exist. > > I have followed your discourses on net.religion.christian for some time and > was surprised to see you write such a silly paragraph. Up to this point, I > have been convinced that although your language is sometimes stronger than > necessary to make your points, that you proceed quite well from your premise > of atheism, and that your view is interesting. The quote from Dave Trissel > is something I thing every religious person should read. However, the above > rationalization is quite flawed and in no way coincides with your actions. Thanks. I'm glad to know somebody out there appreciates my writings: I wonder if I'm posting to the bit-bucket. However, I'll try to explain why I made the statement above, and why I think it is valid. > You state that you must oppose a viewpoint that claims to have authority over > you, but why? First of all, not all Christians hold the view that they have > authority over their fellow man. In fact, being a Christian myself, not only > do I not hold myself above you, in particular, but was enjoying learning from > you. I think that the words of Paul are quite appropriate to show that it is > certainly not the Christian party line to oneself above others. He states > that those who would minister should think of themselves as servants and not > as masters. While you may be a wonderful Christian, and while Paul may say such-and-so, the fact is that organized Christianity is a politically powerful set of entities that have been known to commit atroceties both active and legislative. For example, the Massachusetts blasphemy law, under which I could be convicted of enough counts to spend my life in jail. We see religious leaders praying for the deaths of supreme court justices. We see gratuitous acts of dominance, such as legislating "In God We Trust" on all coinage and adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. And a major part of the problem is Christians like you, who while not directly blameworthy, do not oppose the depredations of their more aggressive brethren, but stand silently by and say nothing is happening because you aren't doing it yourself. > Second, simply because some people in a group claim authority does not mean > that they actually have it. Only your submission to the authority would give > it any punch. Let them think what they want, you certainly aren't going to > bow to their will. Pollyanna twaddle! (I want to be polite, believe me, but this is too much.) I could equally well respond that you don't need to submit to your God, because only your submission gives him power. Authority can be made real and powerful through the political process, which large numbers of new Christian right leaders point out to their flocks daily. They call for boycotts, letters to politicians, endorse candidates, propositions, and political positions, and even run for office themselves. > Thirdly, don't YOU in fact, fight fire with fire, and imply superiority over > Christians by saying that they are not "real people", that the practice of > the religion is "pathetic", that their views "nonsensical"? Superiority is not authority, and pretended authority by Christians is what I am fighting. The definition of authority I mean is "power to command thought, opinion, or behavior." The only way I feel I am superior to Christians is that I am right, they are wrong. I'm sure the feeling is mutual. :-) > Then you get worried about the laws some Christians are trying to pass, but > aren't you confusing cause and effect here? Isn't it much easier and more > effective to oppose the legislation itself rather than a tradition of millions > of people that has about a two thousand year head start on you? Fight the disease, not the symptoms. Smallpox had a multi-million year head start, yet it is now thoroughly subdued. Yet you would have us daub pustules with calamine lotion. > Speaking as a Christian who in fact holds probably the same political views > that you do, I can tell you that if you are really doing all this because it > is "politically important" then you've made a serious mistake. For one > thing, you alienate potential allies like myself who do not share your view > of Christianity, but who are opposed to those same laws. Wouldn't our > efforts be welcome? Why are you so hasty to assume I'm addressing you? My statement was directed towards a highly specific context: responding in a sense that Gore would understand. Of course I have more than one motivation. Probably the most personally influential is what Christians call "the search for truth". But I wanted to lay an objective reason on the table, something that Gore couldn't poo-poo away. Please reread my statement in context. > I'm especially surprised that you tried to hang the anti-abortion issue around > the Christians' neck. Even if every Christian were to magically become an > atheist tomorrow (in your dreams, right?), there would still be a loud and > quite organized cry against abortion. Pro-Lifers and Christians are not > synonymous, and you gain absolutely nothing by attacking Christianity for the > sake of the right to have abortions. The issue is far too complex for it to > be dealt with as an attack on religious doctrine. Organized Christian groups have vociferously hung the abortion issue around their own necks, and tried actively to meddle via the political process. Even to the point of wishing a supreme court justice dead. Religiously inspired beliefs should not be inflicted upon you or me, and I object to the assorted church efforts to ban abortion. > I don't why you attack Christianity with such vehemence (I don't mind, in > fact, I find it stimulating) and you are certainly allowed to have your > opinion but this line about being politically motivated is just so much > hooey. It's either stupid or it's dishonest, but either way it isn't worthy > of you. And I don't understand why it is necessary. Why take a personal > choice you are completely entitled to have and try and fallaciously elevate > it to the level of a political mandate? Neither stupid nor dishonest; merely incomplete. It was just one example of a valid, non-theological motivation that I provided when Gore tried the classic Christian "you're really fighting because you believe and are rebellious" argument. As for "mandate", I think you're exaggerating a bit. > I suggest you reread the words of Dave Trissel under the light of your own > views and be honest with yourself. I cite Dave Trissel because he summarizes the process that lead me to reject Christianity. It was my search for honesty with myself that lead me to cast aside supernaturalism in exchange for agnosticism. -- "Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion gives you the high it does. Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important enough for me to give up my religion if that is required? Until you answer yes to this you are not being honest with yourself." Dave Trissel -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
jason@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Jason A. Kinchen) (10/14/86)
First, just let me apologize for the "stupid or dishonest" comment in my last posting. I realize now that I got a little carried away and that it was un- called for. And I certainly appreciate your taking the time to clarify your view even though I must have sounded rude to you. In article <1190@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > In article <363@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> jason@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Jason Kinchen) writes: > > In article <1185@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > > [Your paragraph about your opposition to Christianity being politically > > > motivated.] > > > > I have followed your discourses on net.religion.christian for some time and > > was surprised to see you write such a silly paragraph. Up to this point, I > > have been convinced that although your language is sometimes stronger than > > necessary to make your points, that you proceed quite well from your premise > > of atheism, and that your view is interesting. The quote from Dave Trissel > > is something I thing every religious person should read. However, the above > > rationalization is quite flawed and in no way coincides with your actions. > > Thanks. I'm glad to know somebody out there appreciates my writings: > I wonder if I'm posting to the bit-bucket. However, I'll try to explain why > I made the statement above, and why I think it is valid. > > > You state that you must oppose a viewpoint that claims to have authority over > > you, but why? First of all, not all Christians hold the view that they have > > authority over their fellow man. In fact, being a Christian myself, not only > > do I not hold myself above you, in particular, but was enjoying learning from > > you. I think that the words of Paul are quite appropriate to show that it is > > certainly not the Christian party line to oneself above others. He states > > that those who would minister should think of themselves as servants and not > > as masters. > > While you may be a wonderful Christian, and while Paul may say such-and-so, > the fact is that organized Christianity is a politically powerful set of > entities that have been known to commit atroceties both active and > legislative. While I doubt that I qualify as a "wonderful Christian", there certainly is such a thing. I think the problem that you and I might be having, Mike, is the generalizations that are being made and the fact that you feel you need to oppose Christianity on a doctrinal basis in order to rid it of it's political power. > For example, the Massachusetts blasphemy law, under which I > could be convicted of enough counts to spend my life in jail. We see > religious leaders praying for the deaths of supreme court justices. Just a note here: the problem with it is that they are perfectly entitled to pray for whatever they want, just as you are entitled to say whatever you want, or should be, Mass Blasphemy laws notwithstanding. The other side of it is of course that these Christians could be held criminally liable should an attempt be made on anyone's life. > We > see gratuitous acts of dominance, such as legislating "In God We Trust" > on all coinage and adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. Wow, I actually think you are being a bit easy on us. What about the Inquisition? What about the eastern European Pogroms, all sanctioned by various governments? The point is that I can be a Christian and precisely BECAUSE I am a Christian, I can oppose those same things that you do. I now they are loud and I know they exist, but I don't actually personnally know any Christians who really want "in God We Trust" on currency or prayer in schools, etc. Most are oppsed to it the same way I am. If you can pass a law calling for "In God We Trust" on money, all it takes is a swing of the and you've got money that says "God Rots". > > And a major part of the problem is Christians like you, who while not > directly blameworthy, do not oppose the depredations of their more > aggressive brethren, but stand silently by and say nothing is happening > because you aren't doing it yourself. I think you are a little too hard on us. I think that part of the problem is that just like atheists and agnostics, Christians like myself don't have a huge monolithic power structure. The Fundametalists and other groups do. They have figureheads, TV stations, national press coverage, etc. (All which they are completely entitled to have if they come by them legally.) And, they call themselves Christians, just like I do. THis is a really stomach turning experience, let me tell you. You and I both do not like what they do, but at least you don't have to be identified with it in places like net.religion.christian. If you want to call us to task on this because we don't have the clout that our more "aggressive brethren" do, then you must also call yourselves to task. I haven't seen any organized atheist/agnostic television networks or figureheads, unless you what to count Madeleine Marie O'Hare, but I don't think this would be a good move. Mostly you see us "less aggressive brethren" working on a parish level. I know at my church, we do march for peace, are involved very much in the establishment of low-income housing, equality for women ( there are more women clergy that men), etc. I know these are not the specific issues we are talking about, but I believe they are just as noble pursuits. > > > Second, simply because some people in a group claim authority does not mean > > that they actually have it. Only your submission to the authority would give > > it any punch. Let them think what they want, you certainly aren't going to > > bow to their will. > > Pollyanna twaddle! (I want to be polite, believe me, but this is too much.) > I could equally well respond that you don't need to submit to your God, > because only your submission gives him power. Authority can be made real > and powerful through the political process, which large numbers of new > Christian right leaders point out to their flocks daily. We may have a problem with semantics here. My point is that in the political process, they don't have any more "authority" than you do. One of them only has one vote to one of yours. Now, if you doubt the Constitution's power to keep it this way, then that is a different arguement and should be moved over to net.politics or net.legal. It is not the Christian's claim of authority that is the problem, because there will always be folks that want to force there will on you, but the lack of ability of the political process to protect you. Ultimately, they have to use the same process you do and that we all have to secure civil rights, free speech, etc. I think on balance, that those of us fighting for separation of church and state have been more successful. > They call for > boycotts, letters to politicians, endorse candidates, propositions, and > political positions, and even run for office themselves. > The point is that they are completely entitled to do so. And so are we. But you notice that aprt from a few counterproductive moves they have confined themselves to the issues and they have no qualms about endorsing non-Christians who will support their views. > > Thirdly, don't YOU in fact, fight fire with fire, and imply superiority over > > Christians by saying that they are not "real people", that the practice of > > the religion is "pathetic", that their views "nonsensical"? > > Superiority is not authority, and pretended authority by Christians is what I > am fighting. The definition of authority I mean is "power to command thought, > opinion, or behavior." The only way I feel I am superior to Christians is > that I am right, they are wrong. I'm sure the feeling is mutual. :-) > Case made. Point taken. However, I really think you might do better to curb your language at times. Just a suggestion. > > Then you get worried about the laws some Christians are trying to pass, but > > aren't you confusing cause and effect here? Isn't it much easier and more > > effective to oppose the legislation itself rather than a tradition of millions > > of people that has about a two thousand year head start on you? > > Fight the disease, not the symptoms. Smallpox had a multi-million year > head start, yet it is now thoroughly subdued. Yet you would have us daub > pustules with calamine lotion. > > > Speaking as a Christian who in fact holds probably the same political views > > that you do, I can tell you that if you are really doing all this because it > > is "politically important" then you've made a serious mistake. For one > > thing, you alienate potential allies like myself who do not share your view > > of Christianity, but who are opposed to those same laws. Wouldn't our > > efforts be welcome? > > Why are you so hasty to assume I'm addressing you? Maybe this is where I'm confused. What specifically is the disease you mention above? In that context it looks like the Christian tradition is the disease. Now while I pretty much agree with you politically, I also cherish this trad- ition despite it's having been used for evil in the past. The point is that Christianity is the starting point, the foundation for us and that, like any- thing else, people can take it and use it for good or for evil. Now I can see your attacking the evil, but it really seems that you are attacking the foundation. Now, you are totally entitled to attack the foundation if you choose, but my arguement is that your political motivation for the attack is ungrounded for as much good can come from a religious motivation as evil. You might be surprised that if Christianity were to disappear, what replaced it even if it were secular, could be worse. Just a thought. > My statement was directed > towards a highly specific context: responding in a sense that Gore would > understand. Of course I have more than one motivation. Probably the most > personally influential is what Christians call "the search for truth". But > I wanted to lay an objective reason on the table, something that Gore > couldn't poo-poo away. Please reread my statement in context. > I will certainly watch for this motivation more in the future. Indeed, I thought it was your motivation all along and that's why I respected it. It's also the reason I wrote and was so surprised when you gave a reason that did not seem to jive with what I had come to expect from your writings. > > I'm especially surprised that you tried to hang the anti-abortion issue around > > the Christians' neck. Even if every Christian were to magically become an > > atheist tomorrow (in your dreams, right?), there would still be a loud and > > quite organized cry against abortion. Pro-Lifers and Christians are not > > synonymous, and you gain absolutely nothing by attacking Christianity for the > > sake of the right to have abortions. The issue is far too complex for it to > > be dealt with as an attack on religious doctrine. > > Organized Christian groups have vociferously hung the abortion issue around > their own necks, and tried actively to meddle via the political process. Even though Christians do claim a religious motivation for this issue, I still cannot agree that this is the end of it. The "meddling" would certainly go on without Christians. And as for them engaging in the political process to effect an end to abortion? What other recourse do they have? They really think it is murder and are opposing it as such. We can and should mount political counter-attacks, but I don't think we can question their right to engage in the political process. > Even to the point of wishing a supreme court justice dead. This is certainly out of order and completely disgusting. But I must point out that it is ot limited to Christians. I remember sitting in a common room with a television were many "secular humanists" were gathered. The assasination attempt on President Reagan was announced and a rousing cheer went up from that crowd. > Religiously > inspired beliefs should not be inflicted upon you or me, and I object to > the assorted church efforts to ban abortion. > Are you sure you want to make this categorical statement concerning "religious- ly inspired beliefs"? What about those of Martin Luther King? Bishop Desmond Tutu? Mother Therese? Also, would the efforts to ban abortion be any less offensive if they were not "church efforts"? And finally, even if the causes for which you fight were supported by the church, wouldn't you feel the need to still question Christianity? I know you have already sort of answered this last question in your "search for the truth" statement, but I'm arguing a little causality here. Rel- igiously inspired beliefs are not necessarily evil, and not all evil beliefs stem from a belief in religion. > > I don't why you attack Christianity with such vehemence (I don't mind, in > > fact, I find it stimulating) and you are certainly allowed to have your > > opinion but this line about being politically motivated is just so much > > hooey. It's either stupid or it's dishonest, but either way it isn't worthy > > of you. And I don't understand why it is necessary. Why take a personal > > choice you are completely entitled to have and try and fallaciously elevate > > it to the level of a political mandate? > > Neither stupid nor dishonest; merely incomplete. It was just one example of > a valid, non-theological motivation that I provided when Gore tried the classic > Christian "you're really fighting because you believe and are rebellious" > argument. Once again I apologize. I don't think you are stupid or dishonest, just mistaken in this case. > > As for "mandate", I think you're exaggerating a bit. I leave it open as a matter of opinion. You do tend to use very strong language. > > > I suggest you reread the words of Dave Trissel under the light of your own > > views and be honest with yourself. > > I cite Dave Trissel because he summarizes the process that lead me to reject > Christianity. It was my search for honesty with myself that lead me to > cast aside supernaturalism in exchange for agnosticism. > -- It is important to realize that Dave Trissel can work in reverse as well. It is not impossible to read Dave Trissel and be reaffirmed in your faith. As a matter of fact, I submit that anyone, be they atheist or Christian or Mooney, who cannot answer Trissel's challenge, should not be what they are. > > "Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why > you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion > gives you the high it does. Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important > enough for me to give up my religion if that is required? Until you answer > yes to this you are not being honest with yourself." Dave Trissel > -- Jason Kinchen jason@media-lab.MIT.EDU
braune@inuxe.UUCP (S Braune) (10/15/86)
In article <3726@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: *In article <1174@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: * *[In response to Mike Andrews's remarks on religion as a tool] *>Having a tool doesn't guarantee that the tool is good for the claimed use. *>By your analogy, every religion is a tool. And I strongly doubt that you *>would conceed the others are all good for their claimed uses. * *This is true, but I hardly see it as weakening the argument. Indeed, it *reinforces the point that the nature of religious belief is not necessarily *arbitrary. In response to the above discussion, I'd like to propose a fairly "neutral language" and non-exclusive definition of religion. I'm interested in concerns, efforts, and experiences that lead people, who have widely varying philosophies and opinions, down religious pathways. And while i think that a definition emphasizing the tool-like nature of religion has implications for many topics of discussion, in this posting i'm just presenting the definition with some explanation. Anyway, here's the definition: religion - a practice-based, involving approach to living directed at resolving deeply felt, negatively perceived human conditions. And here's the explanation: Through the course of living, a person may discover within him/herself the existence of a deeply felt, gut-level condition that is experienced as a pervasive source of negative influence in life's situations. (An analogy here might be that the person discovers a disease within.) As awareness of this condition increases (through its persistence, perhaps), the desire to resolve the condition increases. The pervasiveness of the condition may cause this desire for resolution to become the ultimate concern for that person - all other concerns may be seen to be side-effects of this one, and the person may feel that their very life somehow hinges on this needed resolution. Since the effects of the condition seem to invade all or a great part of living in some way, the person develops the feeling of personal responsibility for the condition's existence - the tendency to blame specific people and situations diminishes. Descriptions may eventually be attached to the condition. Depending upon the person's background, environment, previous choices, etc. words such as sinfulness, suffering, dissatisfaction, confusion, out-of-tune-ness, etc. may be used. Purely due to speculation or because the person may have experienced a taste of what living without the condition is like ("what could be"; a new and desired state; an experience of health in the analogy), the condition may be represented by the person as being a kind of separation from this ideal state. Again, depending upon influences, phrases such as separation from God (i.e. sinfulness), separation from peace (i.e. suffering), separation from understanding (i.e. confusion), etc., may be used. The condition may now contain a strong element of questioning (in fact, the element of questioning may have always been there). Expressed in words, the question may take the form, "How can I end this separation!?", where the desired experience of the resolution of the condition contains (is) the "answer". The words used to describe the condition may (will) indicate an alignment (whether understood by the "questioner" or not) to the models and philosophies of some existing world view or religious system or combination of systems. This alignment may create an attraction to the corresponding system. The experience may be one of a kind of "calling", "destiny", or "drawing-toward", or more simply as a strong interest in a particular practice, style, or system for living. Some aligned questions include "How can I know God?", "Who am I?", "What is Truth?", etc. A system of practices (including principles, methods, and thought-models) that "directs" (the right word is system dependent here) the person toward resolving this deeply felt condition (and therefore helps to answer the question) is - if we accept this definition - a religion. The alignment of the questioner's feelings and concepts about the condition and desired state to those that are described or somehow demonstrated by a religious system (through its philosophies, its supporters and their actions, its institutions, etc.) may provide the momentum to the questioner to accept some or all or the courses of action described by the system. Such a step by the questioner may require a great deal of faith (in the system's condition-resolving power, at least) and trust (that the system's designers and supporters are sincere and have made progress in resolving the same or similar conditions). At some point, choice (to adopt the system, in part or whole) and commitment (to its practices) may be necessary. Certainly, action and involvement of some kind (including purposeful non-action) will be necessary. A summary of the way of involvement for some people, then, is as follows: 1) recognition of a deeply felt, negatively perceived condition 2) strong desire to resolve condition 3) alignment to practice-based system 4) probably some combination of faith, trust, choice, and commitment 5) action 6) action 7) action . . . The elements described above may overlap quite a bit. For example, the alignment may be coincident with the perception of the condition. In fact, practice systems themselves may attempt to provide or increase awareness of these conditions. Also, the alignment may occur very slowly, or it may take place very suddenly, as with a peak experience of some kind that immediately immerses the person into a particular thought-model. During the process of resolution that takes place with participation in the system, a host of new conditions may evolve that require resolution. The process may be experienced as one of growth, with many stages of condition/resolution. As resolutions are experienced, new possibilities/potentialities are opened up. Depending upon the depth of awareness of the condition(s), a resolution may be experienced as a transformation/reorientation (again, this may occur suddenly or slowly - probably produces a peak experience if happening quickly). Now, again, the definition: religion - a practice-based, involving approach to living directed at resolving deeply felt, negatively perceived human conditions. The definition opens up the possibility for referring to typically non-religious systems as religions. But note that the "religious" system must work in some sense ("...directed at resolving...") to fit the definition. And also note that within the context of a particular religious system, the notions of practices, thought-models, etc. may actually be a hindrance to growth and may not be considered valid. If the definition has any use at all, it's probably as a conceptual starting point for the personal choice of some religious system.