NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/abortion/28907

Text File | 1992-07-25 | 4.0 KB | 107 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!netcomsv!mork!gordons
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Message-ID: <rkjmy9#[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 08:36:13 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
References: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 96

<[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Overpeck) writes:
><[e-mail]> [e-mail]
><[e-mail]> [e-mail]
><[e-mail]> [e-mail]
...
>>> Why does God have to justify His behavior to us?
>>
>> Because I say so.  This reason holds about as much water as your assertion
>> that he doesn't have to justify it to us.
>
>Again, your position doesn't allow for the possibility that God is there.

My position is that there is no, zero, nada, zippity evidence that a god
exists.  In the absence of actual proof or testable theories the default
is *no god*.

As I put in an earlier post:  There is no evidence that a giant celestial
rabbit didn't poop the universe into being.  Should I therefore believe
in the existence of a giant celestial rabbit?  Just because it can't be
disproven?

>If He is, the opinion of a finite human isn't too compelling when matched
>against that of an infinite God.  His "because I say so" would be a bit
>more meaningful than yours.

Not to me (or the rabbit).

>Who are you in the grand scheme of things?

Me.  Nice to meet you.

>>>> I really don't care if you choose to revel in these delusions in your
>>>> home/fantasy life,
>>
>>> Religious beliefs don't necessarily constitute delusions, at least
>>> according to the American Psychiatric Association.
>>
>> But they are an indication.
>
>Not in the absence of psychotic process.  In themselves, religious
>beliefs indicate absolutely no psychopathology.

Well, if someone came to you and told you that they had an invisible
friend who looks after them and tells them nice things, you might think
about getting that person some help.

>>> Your complaints proceed from the premise that God simply isn't there.
>
>> That is the base premise.  Now you need to provide proof that a god *is*
>> there.
>
>No I don't, nor do I feel any particular need to try.  My subjective
>experience is more than adequate for me.

But not for me.  I've never argued what people can believe in for
themselves.  I only tend to get involved when people start using it as a
basis for the laws governing *all* of us.

>>> It's easy to be flippant when you're measuring your ethics against
>>> a myth.  Yet if (for the sake of argument) God is there, your criti-
>>> cisms are insignificant.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because the created are subject to (not equal to) the creator.

Excellent!  Therefore the fetus is subject to the woman (creator).

>>> So, since it's obviously easier to simply say "I don't believe in
>>> God" than to spend time arguing that He doesn't exist, why bother?
>>
>> Because so many want to impose their morals on the basis of the existence
>> of an all loving god that will destroy us if we misbehave.
>
>Since the "values neutral" alternative is a myth, we're left with a
>real dilemma in our efforts to select a mutually agreeable basis for
>social organization and law.

I fail to see how you can refer to the secular viewpoint as "values
neutral".

>I guess your values (and their premises) are better than mine?

Only in that mine leave you alone to do with your life what you wish.
Apparently yours require that you get involved in my life's decisions.
That is unnacceptable.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to the sweetest woman in the world, and proud of it.
--
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.