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!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!pez
From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: The truth about God (reply to J. Chris Anderson)
Message-ID: <313@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 12:37:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.313
Posted: Mon Aug 26 12:37:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 20:33:37 EDT
References: <305@pyuxn.UUCP> <904@vax2.fluke.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway, N.J.
Lines: 58
Xref: watmath net.origins:2224 net.religion:7481 net.religion.christian:1154


	I'm not sure why J. Chris Anderson claims that it would be
``absolutely ridiculous'' to argue with me. My position is solidly
based in factual evidence, unlike that of those who whorship the
Damager-God. They are engaging in what Rosen calls ``wishful thinking.''
(Though Rosen engages in it himself with his atheism, but that's another
story.) I did not say that the Damager-God was ``out to destroy the
world.'' What I did say was that He is using the world (and us) for
His perverse and evil pleasure, and will persist in doing this until He
chooses to make Armageddon dust of us all in a fit of ultimate pleasure.
After that I assume He will again tamper with the natural flow of things
to mold the world to His sick desire to damage.

	The choices you offer are somewhat ironic, because they summarize
the three grand world views held by human beings.

	[1] Realize the evidence pointing to the existence of the
	Damager-God, and accept the fact that He exists, either bemoaning
	a sad and painful fate or working to grapple for whatever happiness
	we can get in a world with a filthy pig in charge.

	[2] Choosing ``to believe in a lie, that the God of the universe
	is a benevolent and loving God.'' As Mr. Anderson said, all
	tragedies would be interpreted as natural occurences and all good
	things would be interpreted as actions by God. Unfortunately,
	this is the reverse of what actually happens, and a perfect
	example of how God has f*cked up our minds to His advantage.

	[3] Living indifferently. I take this to mean not caring or not
	having an opinion about God (agnosticism) or denying His existence
	(atheism).

	Perhaps I flatter myself by calling maltheism one of the ``three
grand world views,'' but I don't think I'm alone in this view. I also think
the number of people holding this view is growing. Mr. Anderson says that
despite the evidence against it, he would choose view [2], because it would
make him feel better in this life, regardless of how accurate that view is.
I'm afraid that doesn't sound like a very good reason to me. It smacks of
Rosen's buzzword ``wishful thinking,'' since he chooses it just because it
makes him ``happier.'' I could see not caring (for as long as you could),
but not just offhandedly blocking out the truth because you don't like it.
Mr. Anderson says that I must not be a very happy person for holding my
views of God and the world. I beg to disagree. I find I have never been
quite so happy as I have been since recognizing God for what He is.
I could not find love and joy in a hypocritical stance where I simply
deny the evil of God to make me feel better about life. But I do find
joy in beating God out of chances to cause me harm. There is no way
to be universally happy with the Damager-God interfering in all our lives,
except through denying His existence. And I could not find happiness in
lying to myself.

	But please, Mr. Anderson, do not waste your prayers to the
monster pig Damager-God. Not on me, and not on yourself. I hope you
realize that He laughs at you as you pray, and uses your confiding in
Him against you.
-- 
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez