Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian
From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Message-ID: <Apr.16.23.14.00.1993.1788@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 93 03:14:01 GMT
Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Organization: Monash University - Melbourne. Australia.
Lines: 42
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <Apr.13.00.08.07.1993.28379@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:
>  
> [Very good and reasonable statements on "authority" deleted]
> 
> The atheist position seems to be that there are no authorities. This is a
> reasonable assertion in itself, but it leads to a practical difficulty.
> If you reject all authority out of hand, you reject all possibility of
> every receiving information. Thus the atheist position can never possibly
> change. It is non-falsifiable and therefore unscintific. 

This is not true.  The athiest's position is that there is no PROOF of the
existence of God.  As much as some people accept their Church, their priests
or straight from their own scriptures as the "proof", this does not 
satisfy atheists.

Atheists DO believe in recognisable authorities.  If they were as dogmatic as
you claim they are, they would be trying to prove 1 + 1 =2 every time they
got up.  What they dispute is that Churches, priests, scriptures etc.
represent true authorities and know the TRUTH.

> To demand scintific or rational proof of God's existence, is to deny
> God's existence, since neither science, nor reason, can, in their very
> nature, prove anything.

Are you asking us to believe blindly?  You are trying to deny that part of
us that makes us ask the question "Does God exist?" i.e. self-awareness and
reason.  If we do not use our ability to reason we become as ignorant
as the other animals on this earth.  Does God want us to be like that?

You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if
we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since
we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less
valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?

> ==============================================================================
> Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
> aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
> ==============================================================================

-- 
Don Lowe, Department of Physics, Monash University, 
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3168.
