Internet Surfer 2.0/Internet Surfer 2.0 (Wayzata Technology) (1996).iso/pc/text/mac/faqs.159

Text File | 1996-02-12 | 28KB | 625 lines

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS);faqs.159



------------------------------

Subject: Independent evidence that the Bible is true

Typical posting:

The events of the New Testament are confirmed by independent documentary
evidence.  For example...

Response:

The writings of Josephus are often mentioned as independent documentary
evidence.

Early versions of Josephus's work are thought not to have mentioned Jesus or
James; the extant version discusses John in a non-Christian context.  Many
scholars believe that the original mentioned Jesus and James in passing, but
that this was expanded by Christian copyists.  Several "reconstructions" of
the original text have been published to this effect.

Much information appears in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (about 320
C.E.).  It is worthless as historical material because of the deliberate
falsification of the wily Eusebius who is generally acknowledged as 'the
first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.' It is Eusebius who is
generally given the title of authorship for this material.

Aside from the New Testament, the biographical information about Jesus is
more well-documented.  For further information, please consult the Frequently
Asked Questions file for the newsgroup soc.religion.christian.

------------------------------

Subject: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Typical posting:

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that it is impossible for the
Bible to be both true and complete.

Response:

Godel's incompleteness result says that in any consistent formal system which
is sufficiently expressive that it can model ordinary arithmetic, one can
formulate expressions which can never be proven to be valid or invalid
('true' or 'false') within that formal system.  Essentially, all such systems
can formulate what is known as a "Liar Paradox."  The classic Liar Paradox
sentence in ordinary English is "This sentence is false."  Note that if a
proposition is undecidable, the formal system cannot deduce anything about it
-- not even that it is undecidable.

The logic used in theological discussions is rarely well defined, so claims
that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that it is impossible to
prove or disprove) the existence of God are worthless in isolation.

One can trivially define a formal system in which it is possible to prove the
existence of God, simply by having the existence of God stated as an axiom.
This is unlikely to be viewed by atheists as a convincing proof, however.

It may be possible to succeed in producing a formal system built on axioms
that both atheists and theists agree with.  It may then be possible to show
that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem holds for that system.  However, that
would still not demonstrate that it is impossible to prove that God exists
within the system.  Furthermore, it certainly wouldn't tell us anything about
whether it is possible to prove the existence of God generally.

Note also that all of these hypothetical formal systems tell us nothing about
the actual existence of God; the formal systems are just abstractions.

Another frequent claim is that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates
that a religious text (the Bible, the Book of Mormon or whatever) cannot be
both consistent and universally applicable. Religious texts are not formal
systems, so such claims are nonsense.

------------------------------

Subject: George Bush on atheism and patriotism

Typical posting:

Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?

Response:

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I.
Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1988. Sherman
is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of
the press corps.  The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce
federal disaster relief for Illinois.  The discussion turned to the
presidential primary:

 RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

 GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.  Faith in
      God is important to me."

 RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
      Americans who are atheists?"

 GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
      nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under
      God."

 RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation
      of state and church?"

 GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state.  I'm just not
      very high on atheists."

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were
still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27,
1989.  It can also be found in "Free Enquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue,
Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane,
cochairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign.  This concerned a
lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School
District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade Atheist son to
pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God"
(Bush's phrase).  The following conversation took place:

 RS: "American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday.
      Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"

 EM: "It's bullshit."

 RS: "What is bullshit?"

 EM: "Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit."

 RS: "Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush
      campaign is on this issue."

 EM: "You're welcome."

After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract
his statement.  On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the
President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by
his original statement, and wrote:

  "As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports
   atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or
   supported by the government."

For further information, contact American Atheist Veterans at the American
Atheist Press's Cameron Road address.

------------------------------

Subject: I know where hell is!

Typical posting:

I know where Hell is!  Hell is in Norway!

Response:

There are several towns called "Hell" in various countries around the
world, including Norway and the USA.  Whilst this information is mildly
amusing the first time one hears it, readers of alt.atheism are now
getting pretty fed up with hearing it every week.

------------------------------

Subject: Biblical contradictions wanted

Typical posting:

Does anyone have a list of Biblical contradictions?

Response:

American Atheist Press publish an atheist's handbook detailing Biblical
contradictions. See the accompanying posting on Atheist Resources for
details.

There is a file containing some Biblical contradictions available from the
[e-mail]. See the contacts file for more information.

------------------------------

Subject: The USA is a Christian nation

Typical posting:

Because of the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, shouldn't the
United States be considered a Christian nation?

Response:

Based upon the writings of several important founding fathers, it is clear
that they never intended the US to be a Christian nation.  Here are some
quotes; there are many more.

  "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?
   In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the
   ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen
   upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been
   the guardians of the liberties of the people.  Rulers who wish to subvert
   the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient
   auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it,
   needs them not."
      - James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

  "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of
   the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross.
   Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
      - John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

  "History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
   maintaining a free civil government.  This marks the lowest grade of
   ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will
   always avail themselves for their own purpose."

      - Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

  "I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or
   requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely
   above it."

      - Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion",
        Nov. 20, 1728

------------------------------

Subject: The USA is not a Christian nation

Typical posting:

Is it true that George Washington said that the United States is not in any
sense founded upon the Christian religion?

Response:

No.  The quotation often given is in fact from Article XI of the 1797 Treaty
of Tripoli (8 Stat 154, Treaty Series 358):

   Article 11

   As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
   founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character of
   enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, -- and as
   the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
   against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
   pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption
   of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The text may be found in the Congressional Record or in treaty collections
such as Charles Bevans' "Treaties and Other International Agreements of the
United States of America 1776-1949", vol. 11 (pp. 1070-1080).

The English text of the Treaty of Tripoli was approved by the U.S. Senate on
June 7, 1797 and ratified by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.  It was
recently discovered that the Arabic version of the treaty not only lacks the
quotation, it lacks Article XI altogether.

The person who translated the Arabic to English was Joel Barlow, Consul
General at Algiers, a close friend of Thomas Paine -- and an opponent of
Christianity.  It is possible that Barlow made up Article XI, but since there
is no Arabic version of that article to be found, it's hard to say.

In 1806 a new Treaty of Tripoli was ratified which no longer contained the
quotation.


End of FAQ Digest
*****************
Xref: bloom-picayune.mit.edu alt.atheism:40523 alt.atheism.moderated:464 news.answers:4651
Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.bbn.com!olivea!uunet!pipex!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
From: [e-mail] (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated,news.answers
Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism
Summary: Please read this file before posting to alt.atheism
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:05:23 GMT
Expires: Sat, 16 Jan 1993 11:05:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Lines: 634
Approved: [e-mail]
Supersedes: <[e-mail]>

Archive-name: atheism/introduction
Alt-atheism-archive-name: introduction
Last-modified: 11 December 1992
Version: 1.0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

                          An Introduction to Atheism
                       by mathew <[e-mail]>

This article attempts to provide a general introduction to atheism.  Whilst I
have tried to be as neutral as possible regarding contentious issues, you
should always remember that this document represents only one viewpoint.  I
would encourage you to read widely and draw your own conclusions; some
relevant books are listed in a companion article.

To provide a sense of cohesion and progression, I have presented this article
as an imaginary conversation between an atheist and a theist.  All the
questions asked by the imaginary theist are questions which have been cropped
up repeatedly on alt.atheism since the newsgroup was created.  Some other
frequently asked questions are answered in a companion article.

Please note that this article is arguably slanted towards answering questions
posed from a Christian viewpoint.  This is because the FAQ files reflect
questions which have actually been asked, and it is predominantly Christians
who proselytize on alt.atheism.

So when I talk of religion, I am talking primarily about religions such as
Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which involve some sort of superhuman divine
being.  Much of the discussion will apply to other religions, but some of it
may not.

"What is atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God.
Some atheists go further, and believe that God does not exist.  The former is
often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong
atheism".

It is important to note the difference between these two positions.  "Weak
atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God.  "Strong
atheism" is a positive assertion that God does not exist.  Please do not
fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their
atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making
flat-out denials.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not.  Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe
it to be true.  Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to
believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or
not.  Which brings us to agnosticism.

"What is agnosticism then?"

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor Huxley at a meeting of the
Metaphysical Society in 1876.  He defined an agnostic as someone who
disclaimed ("strong") atheism and believed that the ultimate origin of things
must be some cause unknown and unknowable.

Thus an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for
sure whether God exists.

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact.  Beware of assuming that
you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact
that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic.  For example, many people
use agnosticism to mean "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when
referring to "strong atheism".

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it
is very difficult to generalize about atheists.  About all you can say for
sure is that atheists don't believe in God.  For example, it certainly isn't
the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out
about the universe.

"So what is the philosophical justification or basis for atheism?"

There are many philosophical justifications for atheism.  To find out why a
particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask her.

Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major religions
is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically impossible that
such a God could exist.  Others are atheists through scepticism, because they
see no evidence that God exists.

"But isn't it impossible to prove the non-existence of something?"

There are many counter-examples to such a statement.  For example, it is
quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than
all other prime numbers.  Of course, this deals with well-defined objects
obeying well-defined rules.  Whether Gods or universes are similarly
well-defined is a matter for debate.

However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably
impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the non-existence of
God.  If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to
show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counter-example.

If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in
question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid
may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing
might be found, to show that it isn't there.  Such an exhaustive search is
often impractical or impossible.  There is no such problem with largest
primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.

Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist
unless we have evidence that they do.  Even theists follow this rule most of
the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively
prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.

To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be
tested.  We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to
prove that he doesn't exist anywhere.  So the sceptical atheist assumes by
default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.

Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God
exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover
varieties of God described by followers of various religions.  So whilst it
may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be
possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious
book does not exist.  It may even be possible to prove that no God described
by any present-day religion exists.

In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very
close to believing that no God exists.  However, it is sufficiently different
that counter-arguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of
God are not really applicable.

"But what if God is essentially non-detectable?"

If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction
must be measurable.  Hence his interaction with our universe must be
detectable.

If God is essentially non-detectable, it must therefore be the case that he
does not interact with our universe in any way.  Many atheists would argue
that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no
importance whether he exists or not.

If the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites.
Surely he should still be detectable today?

"OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but
 isn't it still a religious belief?"

One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the
redefinition game".  The cynical view of this game is as follows:

Person A begins by making a contentious statement.  When person B points out
that it can't be true, person A gradually re-defines the words he used in the
statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept.  He
then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to
it, and continues.  Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact", but
uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure
redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it.  Rather than be seen
to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along.

The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't
atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by
"religious".  "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman
controlling power -- especially in some sort of God -- and by faith and
worship.

[ It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not
  "religion" according to such a definition. ]

Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it
categorized by worship in any meaningful sense.  Widening the definition of
"religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of
human behaviour suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well -- such as
science, politics, and watching TV.

"OK, so it's not a religion.  But surely belief in atheism (or science) is
 still just an act of faith, like religion is?"

Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something one
actually believes in.

Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to
make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience.  Most atheists
try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to
questioning if experience throws them into doubt.

Science has a number of core assumptions.  For example, it is generally
assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers.  These are
the sort of core assumptions atheists make.  If such basic ideas are called
"acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on
acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.

Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something.
According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of
faith.  Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as
religious followers when claiming that something is "certain".  This is not a
general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to
state with certainty that the universe exists.

Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof.
Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as sceptical atheism
has no beliefs.  Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as
even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or
the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.

"If atheism is not religious, surely it's anti-religious?"

It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or
"against", "friend" or "enemy".  The truth is not so clear-cut.

Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; in that sense,
it can be said to be "anti-religion".  However, when religious believers
speak of atheists being "anti-religious" they usually mean that the atheists
have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards theists.

This categorization of atheists as hostile towards religion is quite unfair.
Atheist attitudes towards theists in fact cover a broad spectrum.

Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude.  Unless questioned, they
will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close friends.  Of
course, this may be in part because atheism is not "socially acceptable" in
many countries.

A few atheists are quite anti-religious, and may even try to "convert" others
when possible.  Historically, such anti-religious atheists have made little
impact on society outside the Eastern Bloc countries.

(To digress slightly: the Soviet Union was originally dedicated to separation
of church and state, just like the USA.  Soviet citizens were legally free to
worship as they wished.  The institution of "state atheism" came about when
Stalin took control of the Soviet Union and tried to destroy the churches in
order to gain complete power over the population.)

Some atheists are quite vocal about their beliefs, but only where they see
religion encroaching on matters which are not its business -- for example,
the government of the USA.  Such individuals are usually concerned that
church and state should remain separate.

"But if you don't allow religion to have a say in the running of the state,
 surely that's the same as state atheism?"

The principle of the separation of church and state is that the state shall
not legislate concerning matters of religious belief.  In particular, it
means not only that the state cannot promote one religion at the expense of
another, but also that it cannot promote any belief which is religious in
nature.

Religions can still have a say in discussion of purely secular matters.  For
example, religious believers have historically been responsible for
encouraging many political reforms.  Even today, many organizations
campaigning for an increase in spending on foreign aid are founded as
religious campaigns.  So long as they campaign concerning secular matters,
and so long as they do not discriminate on religious grounds, most atheists
are quite happy to see them have their say.

"What about prayer in schools? If there's no God, why do you care if people
 pray?"

Because people who do pray are voters and lawmakers, and tend to do things
that those who don't pray can't just ignore.  Also, Christian prayer in
schools is intimidating to non-Christians, even if they are told that they
need not join in.  The diversity of religious and non-religious belief means
that it is impossible to formulate a meaningful prayer that will be
acceptable to all those present at any public event.

Also, non-prayers tend to have friends and family who pray.  It is reasonable
to care about friends and family wasting their time, even without other
motives.

"You mentioned Christians who campaign for increased foreign aid.  What about
 atheists?  Why aren't there any atheist charities or hospitals?  Don't
 atheists object to the religious charities?"

There are many charities without religious purpose that atheists can
contribute to.  Some atheists contribute to religious charities as well, for
the sake of the practical good they do.  Some atheists even do voluntary work
for charities founded on a theistic basis.

Most atheists seem to feel that atheism isn't worth shouting about in
connection with charity.  To them, atheism is just a simple, obvious everyday
matter, and so is charity.  Many feel that it's somewhat cheap, not to say
self-righteous, to use simple charity as an excuse to plug a particular set
of religious beliefs.

To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in God" is a
rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say "Today is not my
birthday".  Why the fuss?  Atheism is rarely evangelical.

"You said atheism isn't anti-religious.  But is it perhaps a backlash against
 one's upbringing, a way of rebelling?"

Perhaps it is, for some.  But many people have parents who do not attempt to
force any religious (or atheist) ideas upon them, and many of those people
choose to call themselves atheists.

It's also doubtless the case that some religious people chose religion as a
backlash against an atheist upbringing, as a way of being different.  On the
other hand, many people choose religion as a way of conforming to the
expectations of others.

On the whole, we can't conclude much about whether atheism or religion are
backlash or conformism.

"How do atheists differ from religious people?"

They don't believe in God.  That's all there is to it.

Atheists may listen to heavy metal -- backwards, even -- or they may prefer a
Verdi Requiem, even if they know the words.  They may wear Hawaiian shirts,
they may dress all in black, they may even wear orange robes.  (Many
Buddhists lack a belief in any sort of God.)  Some atheists even carry a copy
of the Bible around -- for arguing against, of course!

Whoever you are, the chances are you have met several atheists without
realising it.  Atheists are usually unexceptional in behaviour and
appearance.

"Unexceptional? But aren't atheists less moral than religious people?"

That depends.  If you define morality as obedience to God, then of course
atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God.  But usually when one
talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right") and unacceptable
("wrong") behaviour within society.

Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must
co-operate with each other.  This is a good enough reason to discourage most
atheists from "anti-social" or "immoral" behaviour, purely for the purposes
of self-preservation.

Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply because they
feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans.  So why do they care
what happens to others?  They don't know, they simply are that way.

Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use
atheism to justify their actions.  However, there are equally many people who
behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to justify their
actions.  For example: