Hello, You are invited to read "A Sympathetic Look At Atheism" on my home page: <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1">David Mathews' Home Page</A HREF> Thanks, David Mathews
For any of you who don't wish to find and read this article, I shall paraphrase; "All atheists are agents of the devil. They seek power for themselves. They are too stupid to realize that god is better than satan. Trust him, god is good." No reason is given for anything, and he quotes scripture quite a bit. A true waste of my time and energy. The title was obviously chosen to lure people into what they thought was intelligent discussion.
David Mathews- A sympathetic look at atheism? Gimme a break man, that was the biggest load of flaming cow dung I've ever had the displeasure to read. If there was any justice in this world, you'd get an email from the FCC tomorrow demanding you take it down. FyreStar was right, what David Mathews does in this vengeful little essay is basically say that, since atheists have rejected God, we must all be Satan worshippers. That right there tips you off that this guy isn't quite right in the head. Atheism is a far cry from satanism, you self-righteous prick. Atheism is a denial of the existance of "God" *and* "Satan" and certainly cannot therefore lead to the worship of either one. Get your facts straight before you try to preach at us, David Mathews. -Mierdaan ------------------ "Not all who wander are lost..." -J.R.R. Tolkien
Oh, come on guys and gals... Did you read the statements made in the e-mail which preceded the discussion? That one would rather be "free" in Hell (if Hell exists)than to acknowledge the existence of God (and thereby somehow be subserviant?) Not too far off the mark of some comments which I have seen on this board. The message was that this is what Satan wants... Those who are not with God are against God = Like Satan = With Satan (whether it be knowingly or unwittingly). Believe it or not, those who know the deceptive ways of Satan are very sympathetic to those who are being deceived. If the essay mentioned anything about Atheists being Satan "worshippers" or "stupid," then I missed it. I would like to hear your comments on the statements made in the e-mail, though. [This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 18, 1999).]
truestory - Do you actually believe that claptrap? Do you actually think that atheists, while denying god, accept the concept of hell? The so-called athiest in the e-mail send to David Matthews obviously had some sort of religious belief if he had made up his mind on what it was like in heaven and hell. If (IF) they are real, then heaven is better than hell by definition. The second statement is more on the mark in terms of what many athiests/agnostics think. Personally, if I die, and suddenly appear at the gate to heaven, with god standing over me saying, "Yer wrong", then I will admit my error. I will not apologize. However, having seen no evidence to date, I highly doubt that will happen and see no reason to devote my life to fantasies in the meantime. Also, he does directly imply that athiests are stupid in the failure to see the blindingly obvious glory of god. Religious people - What you people need to realize is that all-encompassing generalizations about athiests and agnostics are no more valid that generalizations about different skin colors, genders, or ages. One does not speak for all. I certainly don't. So many of you seem to think that we are such hateful, destructive, offensive heathens that you won't consider what we have to say. The atheists/agnostics that I have personally known have been, without exception, highly moral people. More so, in fact, than most religious people I know. So are atheists as a whole are more moral than religious folk? Maybe, maybe not, but we'll never know, will we? What you need to accept is that we are fundamentally the same, you and I, in our capabilities and deductive power. You CANNOT claim something undeniably true simply because you believe it. We are the same. If you think something I do not, there is no way that you are fundamentally correct just because you want it to be. If you and I were switched at birth, and raised as each other were raised, we would be on the opposite sides of the table, but saying the exact same things. Think about it. No, not briefly consider it and disregard it as wrong or pointless, THINK about it. I can accept the possibility that you may be correct. Why can you not do the same? FyreStar
Again, I can't help myself here. Truestory, If there's any sympathy it's clouded by the tone of the essay: I am wise. I pity ye foolish atheists. The fact that this guy has written such an essay shows that he is not wise. He should know that atheists will fight their side more adamantly than he ever can. Perhaps he should re-examine how to go about swaying people's opinions without provoking them, hence the responses of "stupid" and "satan worshippers". As to the email message at the start of the essay, I think it's a valid argument. In the actuality of God, he would reconcile with those who did not understand. Someone who knew the truth of his word, and THEN chose to go against it would face the consequences. God loves all.
No FyreStar, that is not what I said and it is not my belief. I was referring to the statement which was supposedly made in the e-mail and indicated that I have seen similar statements made by individuals on this board. (There are some who have a problem with having a relationship with God because they perceive to be a subservient one rather than one of fellowship with God). Excuse me if I am misinterpreting your belief, FyreStar (seriously)... Your statements come across more as Agnostic rather than Atheist. Rather than denying the existence of God, it sounds as if you are disclaiming any knowledge of God, for now, because you have not yet seen any evidence. The Atheist in the example on the other hand, who denies the existence of God, claims that, if at death they were suddenly to find out that there was a God (and a Hell) then they would rather go to Hell. That is quite different from what you or I believe. Although I do not belong to an organized religion, FyreStar, I would like to address the statement which you made to "Religious People": "Religious people - What you people need to realize is that all-encompassing generalizations about athiests and agnostics are no more valid that generalizations about different skin colors, genders, or ages. One does not speak for all. I certainly don't..." I would like to point out that by the very nature of the language "you people" that is used to address the non-atheist/non-agnostic, the same type of mindset which is being chastized is also being exhibited... that is, an all-encompassing generalization about "religious people." I would like to change/add to your statement, if I may: What people need to realize is that all-encompassing generalizations about athiests, agnostics or the religious are no more valid than generalizations about different skin colors, genders, or ages. One does not speak for all. I certainly don't... David Mathews, above, certainly does not speak for all religious people. Although I don't know him from Adam, I must say that when I read his introduction, I got a different read on him than you did. It seemed to me that he was most apologetic, in advance, if he stated something about someone else's belief system which he did not understand. He also acknowledged that he was fallable and could have made some mistakes. He went on to further encourage open and reasonable discussion about his essays. Concerning morals, the only thing I read was that, the Atheist in the e-mail example, even in the face of God, turned his back on God and chose Hell... Now, that is certainly not an indication that all Atheists would do the same, however, it is an indication of the e-mail author's character when faced with a choice between good and evil. For the most part, however, the essay was discussing the deceptive powers of Satan and the message was basically, if you are not for God, then you are against God (as Satan would like us to be). As for varying beliefs and who is more open-minded, I would like to add this: In this realm of religious "debate," the Agnostic might see themself in the best position... The Agnostic disclaims any knowledge of God... They do not say that there is a God and they do not deny the existence of God. The Agnostic basically disclaims any knowledge of God because they have not seen any evidence to date. The Agnostic can also be open to the possiblity that they are wrong. It's more like a "sitting on the fence" or a "I'm leaning in this direction but, let's wait and see" belief (and I'm not saying that there is anything wrong or immoral about that). In this way, the Agnostic considers themself to be more open-minded. Which is fine. However, some Agnostics do not seem to be open to the fact that, although he/she might not have seen any evidence to date, there are others who have. In this way, the Agnostic is also close-minded. Then there is the religious person who might have been weak in faith at one time and who has since seen powerful evidence and firmly believes that God does exist. This person can say with knowledge and certainty that they are correct because they have seen the evidence that most are so desperately looking for. Someone who has not seen the evidence to date, cannot understand this and accuses the religious person of asserting the truth without proof when, in actuality, the religious person has already seen the proof. Having seen the proof, the religious person knows that God exists, and is close-minded to the possibility of beliefs to the contrary. Then there is the faithful person who, (perhaps) because they were brought up in a religious household, steadfastly accept and embrace the concept of God because they were taught that there was a God. They do not need or desire proof like most people... they simply "believe". Nobody except the truly faithful can understand this one! But, what could possibly happen to this individual if they are wrong? Probably nothing, but, they cannot even "imagine" another possibility, so, they are closed to the possiblity that they are wrong. Last, but certainly not last, there is the true Atheist, who might also have seen evidence... that God does not exist. Someone who has not seen this evidence to date, cannot understand this and accuses the Atheist person of asserting the truth without proof when, in actuality, the Atheist has already seen the proof. Having seen the proof, the Atheist knows that God does not exist, and is close-minded to the possibility of beliefs to the contrary. I realize that the above does not take into consideration all the varying degrees of belief/non-belief and the reasons for them. I did want to point out, however, that we are all limited in some ways by our life experiences and, in a way, we are all very similar in that we are close-minded to the possibilities which go beyond the realm of our personal experiences. I hope that we will all understand these limitations someday so that we will become less likely to jump down each others throats (so to speak) and become more open to hearing what others have to say and why. [This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 19, 1999).]
truestory - First of all, addressing something towards religious people as a whole is in no way stating that all of them believe a certain way. It is like addressing something towards "black people" or "old people". I am saying that you all must realize it. I know some have already, in which case they can disregard the statement. However, by saying that now, anyone who reads it will most likely just assume that they already have, and proceed to ignore it. Anyways.. What both you personally and the author of the e-mail need to understand is that the overwhelming majority of atheists deny god AND satan. If somebody believes in hell, they are obviously NOT atheists. Agnostics see themselves as in the best position? Of course! Who doesn't see themselves as in the best position. I've noticed throughout our exchanges that you and I use differing definitions of "Evidence". You use "That which serves as a ground for knowing something with certainty or for believing something with conviction." while I use, "That which serves to prove or disprove something; that which is used for demonstrating the truth or falsity of something." (both pulled from a Reader's Digest encyclopedic dictionary) Simply put, your evidence is to facilitate belief, mine is to facilitate demonstrable proof. Religious people and atheists tend (TEND) to fall in the first category. They believe something they simply cannot prove. Look, I can accept people having religious beliefs. You can believe whatever you want, so long as you don't try to make me believe the same thing. Therein lies my aversion to most organized religion, and many religious people. Please understand, truestory, that I cannot simply take your word for it. If this were a perfect world, with no deception, perhaps I could. I can accept "Jesus is our savior" no more that I can accept "President Clinton lives on the moon", no more than I can accept "God absolutely does not exist". FyreStar [This message has been edited by FyreStar (edited October 19, 1999).]
FyreStar, Personally, it is my understanding that Atheists do not believe in any higher power (which would include both God and Satan). I hope that point has now been made clear. In the e-mail example given by Mathews, the an Atheist did not believe in God or Satan either... Until death... when he was faced with God. In the example, the Atheist chose Hell (with Satan) over God. Now, how do we know what decisions will be made by those faced with such a revelation after death, even if they did not believe before death? We don't know. We can only speculate. Your reasonableness probably tells you that one would choose God over Satan. However, there are some people who are so extreme in their anti-God mentality (in the flesh) that they abhor the thought that God is even a possibility and, while on this earth (because they are so proud?), profess that they would turn their back on God even if, at death, they found out that they were wrong (that God, does in fact, exist). Although the example given by Mathews might represent the self-destructive steadfastness of an extreme Atheist, it does serve to drive home the point that all Atheists/Agnostics might want to "CONSIDER." That is; "IF" God does actually exist and "IF" you are not for God, "THEN" you are against God... "AND" being against God is where Satan wants you to be, "IF" Satan (and God) exist. I think that Mathews was making a valid point, not trying to "force" anyone into "believing." (Perhaps there is strength in the validity of the idea which is being "perceived" as force? Just a thought). Being on the fence (and I don't mean that in a negative way), I'm sure you can understand why is critical that we "CONSIDER" the full extent of the possible alternatives. I, personally, am of the opinion that Mathews essaaay is food for thought in this forum.
truestory - Okay, supposing this narrow subset of beliefs is true, let me ask a few questions. First, in the conditions themselves, why are you against god if you are not for him? Second, assuming for the moment that I am doing the work of the devil... how exactly am I doing it? And what exactly is satan going to do with me now that he has me where he wants me? The author of the email seemed to me like a blustering idiot. If he claims god does not exist, how can he "know" what heaven and hell are like? He can't, therefore he was simply saying it for shock value. David Matthews' essay was not trying to force anyone to believe anything, he was simply saying that atheists were flat out wrong. I don't see why his essay was of any value, it only served to depict atheists as the enemy of his belief system. I simply cannot tolerate such utter bullshit. It reminds me of ever other time christianity picked some group as their enemy, and proceded to try to exterminate them. FyreStar
