Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Why believe in religion? Message-ID: <1190@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-Oct-86 13:55:04 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1190 Posted: Mon Oct 13 13:55:04 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Oct-86 17:14:18 EDT References: <1174@cybvax0.UUCP> <677@cal-asd.fluke.UUCP> <1185@cybvax0.UUCP> <363@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Distribution: na Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 135 Xref: ucbvax talk.religion.misc:531 net.religion.christian:571 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