In a message dated March 12, 1998, No Magic 1 writes:

Or, perhaps 'god' repented, or changed his mind, like he did in the aftermath of the Flood myth. It happened before, why can't it happen again?

The question I have is: How does the Christian dismiss the other gods of the world's religions?

Personally, I see no significant differences between the world religions, except for the fact that some are more philosophically developed - and therefore more dangerous - than others. Everything else is detail, and nugatory to the context of my inquiry.

The Christian, if you think about it, is one step away from being an atheist, since he's got only one more god to reject. The Christian does not accept the other, competing gods of the world's religions, correct? By what principle does he step forth and pronounce those gods to be fiction, while at the same time insisting that this same principle cannot be used in reference to his god-belief?

I do not accept any form of god-belief. Therefore, I am an atheist. However, my atheism is not a primary [i.e., I do not begin my philosophy with the statement I am an atheist and argue that all my convictions stem from this foundation].

My atheism is a consequence to my allegiance to reason. Reason cannot argue for a god-belief. Many individuals taking part in this debate have been asked to come up with some kind of evidence that their god is the one, true god. No evidence has been offered. The religionist's claims still remain unsupported, unsubstantiated and arbitrary.

The religionist has not shown us his god.

I do not make this statement about the Christian and his god. I make this statement about all such god-belief claims. Before one cane argue [using reason] that there is a god, one must first identify what he means by that notion, i.e., he must define his terms.

The religionist is typically reluctant to take this initial, necessary step; he maintains that his god is incomprehensible to man. This serves not to identify what god is, but only what he is not. For the religionist, this tactic attempts to remove the debate from the floor of rational debate and drag the discussion onto mystic premises, which I do not accept.

The religionist also argues that his god is infinite, which again is an attempt to eliminate the discussion from rational standards. No thing is infinite, either living or non-living. The concept infinite can only apply to potentiality, not to actuality.

A definition is one such rational standard that all legitimate concepts must incorporate. Definitions are deliberately limiting by their nature and purpose, just as are the concepts to which they apply. It is because of definitions and their limiting task that we do not confuse concepts such as wristwatch with cheesecake or civil disobedience with professionalism. Definitions serve to enable concepts to function.

Lacking any kind of legitimate definition for 'god' (we are only told what 'god' is not), it stands to reason that we would never know what a 'god' is, since so far it is a rationally useless term.

On the other hand, the typical verbiage of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and all-loving supernatural being hardly serves to define the notion 'god', for there are hundreds of philosophies that ascribe this same 'definition', in some form or another, and there is no agreement between their respective advocates. The Muslim's 'god' is claimed to be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and all-loving supernatural being, just as the Christian's god is claimed. However, the one does not accept the other. Hence, the division so ubiquitously evident when discussing and examining religious philosophies.

Incidentally, this same division is seen everywhere within Christianity, all stemming from doctrinal disputes and, ultimately, disputes over their separate definitions of their 'gods'. Some of these disputes have evolved into almost hostile contempt between different factions of Christians. Apparently, none of them can ever seem to get the story right, and this fact is a consequence to the religionists' embrace of the ambiguous and the subjective. Quite simply, Christianity is caught in its own snares. The spectacle would be embarrassing to me, if I were a Christian.

So how do the Christians in this debate discount the god of Islam? Or, the god of Zoroastrianism? Or Buddha? Or the Hindu gods? Or any variety of tribal god-beliefs one may encounter in the jungles of Brazil, Haiti, the Fuji Islands, Sumatra and elsewhere? What about the religions of the American Indians?

The Christian has apparently been able to apply some principle by which he can discount all god-beliefs except for his own. What is this principle?

The Christian may argue that it is faith. But the other god-beliefs also claim validity through faith. Furthermore, faith is not a means of knowledge, as it is purported to be, for faith is the acceptance of allegations without evidence and/or against one's own reasoning. So the principle we are looking for cannot be faith.

The Christian may argue that the principle I am seeking is the very nature of his god. Then again, the advocates of rival god-belief claims may claim this just as easily, especially since they have all refused to define this god, and thus leave open the option to elaborate as he goes, without any kind of consistent, uniform logic to maintain credibility and accomplish validity. If one argues that his god's nature cannot be defined, that is nature is a super-nature [whatever that is], then it would be impossible to point to this attribute as a rationally demonstrable principle in any argument.

Perhaps the Christian will appeal to some kind of sacred manuscript, such as the Bible, as being the source for authenticating his god-belief claims. This would be a circular argument, for any such manuscript claiming that there is a god will also claim that it is true. Why should it be accepted as truth? Blank out. On the other hand, the Christian is not the only one with such written 'evidence', as he likes to call it. Many other world religions also assert ancient manuscripts as 'evidence' for their god-beliefs, and the Christian does not accept these.

Perhaps there is some kind of archeological evidence that will definitively substantiate the Christian's claims. The problem here is that all archeological evidence and investigations only reveal that man has been around for quite a while, and only attests to man's historic presence on earth. No amount of archeological digging will produce a god, whether it is the Christian god, the Muslim god, or the ancient Egyptian gods. Archeology will only reveal more evidence of god-beliefs, but no gods.

The Christian will then argue that his god has authored prophesies that have come to pass and therefore provide unmistakable evidence for his god. This notion evades the fact that existence exists, and that all action is determined by the law of causality, not by wishing and forecasting (they still can't get the weather right!). Christianity is not the only religion to be hampered by unfulfilled prophesies: Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance - a Bible-based religion, by the way - is famous for its embarrassingly frustrated attempts to predict the 'Rapture' as some would dub it. Beginning with the year 1914, the church of the Jehovah's Witnesses proclaimed that the world as we know it would end, and god would bring his justice to the soil of the earth, etc., etc. 1914 came, and nothing cosmic happened. Then the Jehovah's Witnesses selected 1918, and again nothing happened. They selected more dates, and nothing ever happened.

Christians have been running around for centuries pining away for the end of the world. And they are still waiting.

Then the Christian makes the most absurd leap of faith yet: the appeal to science. Again, science is based on reason, and reason requires one to define his terms. Already the religionist has defaulted in this task. Furthermore, science requires evidence, and again we find the religionist delinquent, for no evidence has ever been brought forth. Arbitrary questions such as, How did man 'get here'? cannot be accepted as evidence for anything. All science does is very the fact that existence exists, and that all existence is finite, objective and real.

So just what is the principle by which the Christian can dismiss all other god-beliefs, and still insist on his own?

Will somebody please address this?

Tindrbox

_________________________________