Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Why believe? Message-ID: Date: 5 Mar 91 02:46:47 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Washington Computer Science Lines: 46 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >A while back somebody posted that she wondered why Christians could >believe in such superstitious nonsense. [several circular argument modles delted for brevity] >In point of fact, the only person who can be an atheist is God Himself. >To say dogmatically, "There is no God!" requires one to know all things, >to be all places at the same time, and have all power. Thus, you would >have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, i.e., God! Atheism >is a theological absurdity. It is self-refuting. I must agree with you here. Athiests are every bit as dogmatic (and many times much more annoying) than fundamentalists. Which is, of course, why I'm an agnostic. >As for Christianity being a crutch, Christianity is shown to be true >because it does meet all the needs of man. This is a curious statement. Please be aware! I am not attacking you... (some of the rather heated mail I get seems to indicate that any time I don't agree with someone I'm "attacking" them. 8-0 ) How does Christianity "meet the needs" of man any better than, say, Buddhism? Or Islam or Judaism? Or any other realigion or system of beliefs (ie New Age)? It would seem to me that some other religions or systems of belief are equaly as effective at "meeting the needs" of men (or women), if not better, than Christianity. On what do you base idea that Christianity meets these needs? Because it has worked for you? Fine! But it falls should for many other people (ie those of us with skeptical minds...). >Since God created man, He >knows what man needs. Thus, it is only logical to assume that the >religion which the true and living God reveals will meet those needs. >This position actually proves what it set out to refute. It proves that religion (any religion in which the adherants truely belive what they are told) serves a useful function in society. It abates fear of death and the unknown, provides social interaction with like-minded individuals etc... (I'm assuming thesea are some of the things that qualify as "meeting the needs of men"...) It does not, however, in any way "prove" the existence of your god (or any god for that matter). Jeff Lindborg