Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Comments (2) - On being "anti-religion" + self-deception
Message-ID: <582@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Apr-84 13:08:46 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.582
Posted: Wed Apr 18 13:08:46 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Apr-84 03:47:17 EST
References: <581@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 34

Some people seem to think that by taking an "anti-religion" position, I am
denying the possibility that god exists.  I still leave the possibility of
the existence of a deity open, but Occam's Razor (I hear he recently had to
change the blades... :-) applies in the absence of supporting evidence.  My
comments allude to the nature (and magnitude!) of the "leaps of faith" that
Christians, Jews, Moslems, and other religionists take leading to an
assumption that their interpretation of "evidence" means that god exists
(and, of course, in the form that they depict).  I believe that all such leaps
stem from pure poppycock, since clearly no evidence is offered.  (By "no
evidence", I mean "none" -- To those who have said that there is "plenty of
circumstantial evidence" and that there is "evidence but not convincing
evidence":  non-convincing circumstantial evidence just doesn't hack it;
is non-convincing circumstantial evidence the only thread from which your
beliefs hang?)  As always, I await the evidence (you know, the kind that
"demands a verdict"...)

Scott Bowyer, the one who said that he used to be just like me (poor guy)
until he saw the light, made a comment about the "Richard Simmons"
analogy which I'd like to mention.  He asks if Simmons CLAIMS to be god,
and does he have the power to back it up.  AHA!!!!  So this is the
"Jesus difference"!!  All Simmons (or Ubizmo or ...) has to do is to CLAIM
to be god, perform a little magic that is beyond your ability to explain
(or, alternatively, to spread stories that he has done both of these things),
and POOF!!!  He MUST be god!!  Of course, you might say that *you* wouldn't
be taken in by such trickery.  What makes you so sure that you haven't been
taken in already???????  If you are unable to confirm that changes as a
result of believing are anything more than biochemical (a result of the
innate power of your own brain), if your way is shown to be no better than
someone else's way, if you have no real evidence of the veracity of your
sources with regard to fantastic claims, then what is the basis for your system
of belief?
-- 
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr