Internet Infidels: Feedback: 1995: December

December 1995 Feedback

[This message was in response to "The Trilemma - Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?" by Jim Perry.]

I think that what I just read was disgusting, untrue, and a message from lunatics. Who are you people that you can denounce our Lord Jesus Christ? You think you have all of this knowledege disproving who Jesus was, you are truly blind men. If you knew the Lord, you would enjoy living a life for him. Instead, it seems that you guys are spending all of your time thinking up ways to discredit Jesus. How boring your lives must be! The joy that Jesus Christ brings is beyond your imagination, unless you accept Him for who He was. I pray for you deeply that your eyes will be open and your computer will break down so that you will have to find a purpose in life. Actually, I'll give you a short cut--it is to live a life for Jesus Christ.

[This message was in response to "The Atheism of Astronomy" by Woolsey Teller.]

If anything, my casual reading of astronomy and other texts on physics has brought me to the opposite conclusion. It's curious that the same evidence has led you in another direction.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Check out Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith. 1/3 of the book is devoted to Quentin Smith's atheological interpretation of the Big Bang; that is to say, Smith argues *from* the Big Bang *to* the non-existence of God. Believe me, you won't find an argument like this discussed in typical texts on Christian apologetics.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Infidels,

I stumbled onto your page while browsing the net. I found it to be quite interesting. I am an engineering student with a deep interest in Bible apologetics and theology especially as they relate to science and my personal life. I also claim to be a born again believer. This is an all too often, but not undeserved, misunderstood and maligned stereotype due to the large numbers of believers who neither take the time to study their faith or accept their faith as an emotional experience only. A huge number of believers have forgotton Paul's encouragement to "work out your salvation" or to be ready to "provide a reason for the hope which lies within". On the other hand (and somtimes on the same hand) there are too many who have forgotten the example Christ set for them in humility, meekness, kindness, tolerance for fellow believers, patience, peace and love. Love (not the emotion) being mostly important. This stereotype is reinforced on your page due to the ... [message lost]

Internet Infidels' Response:

Thanks for your message (at least the portion we *did* get). Since you are a "born again believer" with a "deep interest in Bible apologetics and theology," I was curious what you thought of James Barr's books, including Beyond Fundamentalism: Biblical Foundations for Evangelical Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984). I thought that Barr did an excellent job of exposing and refuting many of the assumptions of fundamentalist Christianity.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[This message was in response to "The Parable of the Insane Dog Breeder".]

I agree entirely with your story comparing the christian god to an insane dog breeder. Very seldom do I find people who think as i do on this subject. Thanks! I'll see you in hell!

Sirs/Madams,

You'll all go STRAIGHT TO HELL for having the TEMERITY to challenge GOD'S WILL by publishing those HEINOUS web pages. I'll see you there, though -- I'm bringing the beer!

Seriously, though -- great web pages. Keep up the good work!

Have Fun!

Dear Internet Infidels,

I have enjoyed your site greatly and thank you for providing the online community with such a priceless resource for information against the corrosive Theism still present in our world.

However, one document in particular here speaks very badly of rationalism, and isn't truly of that nature. I ask you to examine the Ascent of Man section of "The Rationalist's Manual" on here. The data given placing the Hottentot's was considered archaic by many even at that time. This would seem to be blatantly racist A quality which is a leading strike against most Christian sects.

Racism defies Rationalism. If Rationalists hold science in a high regard they could not support such description of man's ascent, which are a disgrace both to Rationlist's and to the theory of evolution.

Thank you, and please inform me if I have somehow misinterpreted this document.....

>Do you believe that Napoleon existed on this Earth?
>Do you believe that Caeser existed on the Earth?

Internet Infidels' Response:

Yes, I do. And I believe that Rupert Hughes, who wrote the article to which you are responding, also existed on the Earth. He does not exist on the Earth any longer, though-- he died in 1956. To the best of my knowledge, he was not sent to Hell after he died. Sorry.

>Well what if I am wrong and there is no Heaven or Hell, I have just lived a
>moral life of fullfillment for the heck of it! But what if I am right, then
>one of us better be looking to BUY AN ASBESTOS SUIT REAL QUICK!

I'm afraid your attempt at "intimidation by proxy" isn't going to work. Do you ever fear being reincarnated as a lower life form for not believing in the Hindu gods? Do you fear going to hell because you did not believe that Muhammad was the prophet of Allah? Probably not. Well, guess what? That's exactly how we feel about your god. We no more fear Jesus or Yahweh than you fear Allah or Shiva. As the saying goes, "Zealot's stones may break my bones, but gods will never hurt me." Besides, what if there is a god, and She only wants to save atheists?

Robby Berry

[This message was in response to "Six Historic Americans" by John Remsburg.]

I found your essay on Jefferson's religious opinions on the internet. I am impressed. Thomas Jefferson was my 7th great uncle and I am interested in how his opinions and writings are interpreted and sometimes misinterpreted. I am definitely not an expert, but I feel what you presented was right. I do not feel he would have agreed with the intolerant religious views presented by the Religious Right. The United States is a secular country and as affirmed by Jefferson, atheists, as well as any and all religious groups have a right to exist without restriction. As affirmed in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, Jefferson felt that civil rights should never depend on Religious opinions. Thank you.

Hello fellow damned!

Just had to drop a line and say keep up the good work! I laughed a ton reading those church bulletins! Well, gotta' go, I think I see the light... god bless,

Why have you all devoted so much time to trying to destroy Chritsianity when there has been millions of people, my self included that has had their lives changed due to Jesus Christ? If you really think that it false then whay are you all so determined to mock the name of Christ? I know you will say that there are many Christians out there who causing problems, but truth be known, they probably don't even have a true understanding of what it means to be a Christian. I know you don't even belief in Jesus and that it is all made up, but I as well as millions of other can tell you that Jesus Christ has personally changed their lifes. I know you don't understand this and I don't expect you to but I would like to know why all are so set on disproving Christ? If you don't believe in Jesus Christ what do you care if other people do. Please don't think that I am trying to start an argument becaue I'm not.

This organization is very sad to me. Why would you want to stop a good thing? I don't understand this. Please respond.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Since you have one of Winwood Reade's books online I wonder if you have thought to put on The Martydom of Man? It would be a nice addition and I do believe that it is in the public domain.

[This message was in response to "Why I Believe In Fair Taxation Of Church Property" by Joseph McCabe.]

Hello!

I love your web page here, it's wonderfull! My I please provide a link to it when I post my web page for "The National League for the Separation of Church and State?" I would additionally enjoy your permission to post the essay, "Why I Belive in Fair Taxation." Do you have any files on the issues of Church and State? I would surley appreciate anything you might have.

I would like to say that you guys have a truly impressive web page. I have spent hours perusing the resources at your site and have quite enjoyed myself. The obvious hours of work you have put into this site have not gone unnoticed.

[This message was in response to "Six Historic Americans" by John Remsburg.]

The Thomas Paine article is EXELLENT!

I laughed so hard I peed.

I grew up an atheist Southern Baptist. I once embarassed my grandmother in church by aruging with the preacher during the sermon over some religious point.

[This message was in response to "Predestination" by Thomas Paine .]

Hello,

I am writing this in regards to the letter I have read which criticizes Paul the passage Of the potter and the clay. I would like to begin by saying that I am dissapointed to find the interpretation so wrathful in it detest for the passage. The potter and th eclay is not only a wonderful metaphor, it is an apostles explanation of why not question what your so called "Divine Reason" can not understand. Your attempt to disprove it is only worm prattle. What I mean is this. Paul can only illustrate to us a pathetic example because it is all we as worms have to work with. Then the writer of this letter comes along, another worm, and tries to disprove what the first worm, Paul, began saying. Therefore to argue is worm prattle. A solid christian will argue, and I think that John Calvin would agree that Paul's words, which you detest, are God's words. Therefore, THe potter and the clay is an example given to us to illustrate as best as we can understand, The action of God, not the mind of God. Thank you for you time

[This message was sent in response to "Six Historic Americans" by John Remsburg.]

I have recently discovered Paine's " Age of Reason." I was surprised and pleased to find that someone of such note and credit not only shared my self-discovered beliefs, but expressed them with such vigor and clarity.

I enjoyed your exposition on the attempts to secure and fabricate his recantation. Having read the book was enough for me to know that the man who wrote it would not have recanted, but I appreciate the scholarship that demonstrates his conviction.

This Website, and others like it, is the reason I'm paying for internet access. Do you have more information on your site. Thomas Paine's writing is like a ray of light in this bleak land of Christian extremeism.

[This message was sent in response to "Six Historic Americans" by Joihn Remsburg.]

Highly enjoyed reading your "Six Historic Americans' Thomas Jefferson". Am a huge TJ fan and read any and all material on the man. Can you tell me if you can come up with his 'Syllabus of an estimate of the merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, compared with those of others' as is mentioned in the preface of the Jefferson Bible? I am highly interested in reading this article but have been told it is not in print. Also am interested in knowing who the other five 'Historic Americans' are?

Keep up the good work, and be thankful the 'net' is the only true uncensorable source of free speech.

Your short review of McDowell's second book is illuminating in its short length. I too found his work to be rather poor, such as insisting on authenticity when it has overwhelming evidence against it. As for Flavius Josephus, he was a Jew writing under the auspices of the Romans. If he did ever actually believe that about Jesus, it might have been censored out. Thanks for the review post!

[This message was sent in response to "So You Believe in God" by Barbara Smoker.]

Where are u going to go when u die? what will happen after? If u say nothing, what is the meaning of life than? everything will be a lost. everything is meaningless. How did the world get started? These questions refer to the atheist section. Think hard about the questions.

I assume that the article is a hoaz or is the most important news story in history. I do not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ because it is not a historical fact and if it were history would be different. I am a Baha'i we do not believe in the resurrection of Christ. It not needed to believe in Christ. The concept of resurrection is not concept started by Christianity. Thank you

>Where are u going to go when u die?

Internet Infidels' Response:

I'm going to Disneyworld! :-)

All seriousness aside, I have no idea what happens after I die. My best guess is that death is the cessation of existence as a person, and therefore I won't go anywhere after death because there won't be any "I" left. It is, after all, bloody difficult to go places when you don't exist. :-)

>what will happen after?

To me, nothing-- again, there will be no "me" for things to happen to. The rest of the universe should be able to carry on nicely, though.

>If u say nothing, what is the meaning of life than? everything will be a
>lost. everything is meaningless.

Why is this so? Do you believe that life is somehow meaningless unless there's an infinite supply of it? Why? This certainly doesn't apply to other things. Take money, for instance. None of us has an infinite supply of money, yet we all value money to some extent. Ditto for food; I don't have an infinite supply of pizza, but I still like it. So if pizza and money can be valuable even in finite supply, why can't life be the same?

Granted, life may be meaningless to *you* if there is no "life after death". But please don't assume that the rest of humanity also has such a problem.

>How did the world get started?

The world got started when a rotating cloud of dust condensed under the force of its own gravity to form a roughly spherical ball which we now call Earth. Check any astronomy textbook for more information.

>These questions refer to the atheist section.
>
>Think hard about the questions.

Why? They're actually quite easy, which isn't too surprising given that I've heard them dozens of times before.

Robby Berry

Just read your piece on agnosticism. Unbelievable! There are at least 19 factual errors, i.e., you say the Bible says or doesn't say something and what you are saying is simply not true. Even a quick perusal would show you that if you read it. Whether you want to believe the Bible or not, that's up to you, but you should at least make more of an effort to study it so you can FACTUALLY argue against it.

[This message was in response to Absurdities of the Bible by Clarence Darrow.]

I enjoyed your homepage, but I think that you are over looking the wealth of absurdities in the bible. I to an agnostic, however, in the context of the christian (I refuse to capitalize) religion, I would be considered an atheist.

You might want to look at the ethics of the bible to round out your list of incoherences. These problems may not appeal to the average "joe", but maybe you will find them interesting.

We can start at the beginning, the Adamic covenant...you know when God struck mankind with a vicious case of liability. Question....if there was no knowledge of good and evil before Eve ate the fruit, how can she be held liable for her actions? Punishment is only justifiable if individuals have the capacity to know what is right and what is wrong. Several other problems occur at this point in scripture....but I want to move on. The Mosiac code, or the 10 commandments are a wealth of absurdities. Ethics are in place to provide a standard of value, that is, by appealing to ethics we can tell what is considered "right" and "wrong". Now, look at a commandment like "Thou shalt not kill". What are we talking about here? Biocide? Zooicide? Homocide? Many christians give this commandment a charitable interpretation, they say it means "Thou shalt not murder"...but this is no longer a standard of value. The definition of murder is wrongful killing, so the charitable interpretation now reads "Thou shalt not wrongfully kill"...how is this an ethic?

Finally, let's look at the golden rule, probably the most appealed to ethic in the bible. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This ethic does not provide a standard as its interpretation is relative to each individual that decides to implement it. Sorry, I don't want to be treated like some people want themselves to be treated. Maybe this should read "Do unto others as a normal, well functioning person would want done unto them" Just some thoughts.

[This message was in response to "Poolside Ethics by the Society for Activist Freethought.]

Good story. I had never thought of it like that. But have you ever thought that God, since he doesn't die, does not think about death the same way that we do? A few hours, days or years of suffering are a small price to pay for eternal happiness. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. It is just another question that I hope to see you have a story for?

[This message was in response to "Introduction to the Bible by Donald Morgan.]

Very interesting web site. I have not read through all the entries, but what I have read is very good (and entertaining!). My particular interest is in the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. It is interesting because 1) it is difficult even to define what the doctrine means 2) the doctrine itself is not biblical -- that is, even if one assumes that the Bible is inerrant, one cannot derive the doctrine of inerrancy from it 3) in spite of 1) and 2), inerrancy is really the cornerstone doctrine of all of fundamentalist Christianity.

where can i get the rest of this faq?

i guess i am what you'd call a closet atheist. coming out as atheist makes more difficult for me because i have more pressing problems right now (i identify myself as a bisexual woman) but i enjoy the reading the discussions on soc.atheism. i'm a lecturer in a catholic university and i don't want to lose my job. more power.

Well I think you need to change the evidence you concluded on the earliest scriptures of the Bible, about it was dated back to the 4th century A.D.. Because scientist have went back and correctly dated the documents to the 1st century A.D.. And not to prove scientist dumb or anything but scientist couldnt prove with 100% accuracy they had breakfast in the morning. But I noticed that the page said something nothing about revelations chapter 17 where it describes the Roman Catholic Church, down to a fine tee!

But the page maker didnt have the guts two put there E-mail address I guess there Scared!!!!!!!

[This message was sent in response to "The Mistakes of Jesus" by William Floyd .]

HI! Was just reading your article (some of it) and buy the sounds of your article you are refering to a different Jesus than the one I know. The Jesus I know didn't make any mistakes, He was perfect! He is the only way that we can share eternal life. It is very easy to make the bible say what I want it to say to suit my wants and desires! When you are commenting on a lot of the scriptures in the bible you are taking them way out of their context. One verse read by itself has a different meaning than when it is read with the verses before and after. I did not list any examples because there are far to many instances where you do this. Why would you spend so much of your time trying to defeat your creator, do you think you where made by accident, some cosmic explosion. There are many people that can quote you almost any verse in the bible and tell where this one and that one was born, but to tell you about the grace of God good luck. That is called head knowledge, not heart knowledge. Let's spend our days (what little we have left until the lord returns) arguing and fighting. Let's get nothing accomplished.

Jesus will be back soon, and there isn't one inconsistencie in the bible, not one sin commited by Jesus. He was the sacrifice made once for all, you, me and the rest of all the world. Jesus came that we might have life.

you can't get into a house(legally) when the dorr is locked, Jesus won't force himself in when your heart is locked!!

**life on earth is but a spec compared to eternity in heaven. If there is no God than you and I have nothing to lose, but if there is a God (which there is) than you have everything to lose (according to scripture, you've read it yourself) and I have everything to gain!!

I didn't notice until very recently that someone wrote a criticism of my pamphlet "In Defense of Evolution" last October. This message is my belated response:

Your comments are appreciated. Please allow me to respond.

My formal credentials are limited to a B.A. in philosophy. In addition to that, I have had 2-1/2 years of formal training in biology and chemistry, and about four years of active informal study of science, the Bible, and especially creationism vs. evolution.

Your suggestions regarding the infallibility of the Bible are appreciated. Please consult The Jury Is In for an assessment of McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

Since you accuse me of explaining everything "without allowing for the existance [sic] of God," you must have ignored large parts of my article. In my article, I went out of my way to point out that evolution does not disallow the existence of God. Evolution is consistent with atheism, but it does not demand it.

In direct opposition to what you claim, it is your position that is like denying the existence of airplanes. You are in a position analogous to stating that only God could explain how a person could be in LA at one time and then NY four hours later. When confronted with the hypothesis that that person took an airplane, you reply, "Nonsense, both the Bible and the laws of gravity forbid any large hunk of metal from flying" - a claim which has much prima facie plausibility, but is ultimately incorrect.

With respect to the similar genetic "design" of all organisms, the introduction of a different genetic material for each "kind" would not be an "unnecessary complication" for God to introduce, since such an introduction would conclusively refute evolution and thereby prevent (in the creationist's mind) all of the evils and all of the unbelief that creationists seem to believe acceptance of evolution leads to.

Another point with respect to your paragraph about "design" is that you did not respond at all to the points I made about similar structures vs. different genes, and about introns. How is creationism supposed to account for these in a fashion that is not grossly ad hoc? Furthermore, your characterization of evolution as "blind chance" is grossly inaccurate.

With respect to Starlight and Time, I have not yet read it, but I do know that other creationists do not share your enthusiasm for it. Hugh Ross, who has written a 42-page critique of the book with four graduate students, worries that "...the book will expose both Dr. Humphreys and the body of Christ to needless ridicule because of its mathematical errors and violations of observational physics" (Ross, H. 1995. "Critique of Starlight and Time Now Available." Reasons to Believe 9(5): p.13). You might want to write Reasons to Believe and ask for a free copy of the critique - and please tell us what you think.

As far as the creation stories in Genesis go, I find your comments interesting and will not dismiss them offhand. However, I would be surprised if the answer is as simple as Humphreys claims, considering all of the problems the Church fathers have had trying to reconcile the two accounts.

Your talk about transitional forms makes me feel all the more that you just ignored large parts of my pamphlet, since I mentioned a number of transitional forms. I fail to see what "design" today is "very similar" to - in the sense of sharing the key transitional characteristics of - Basilosaurus isis, Archaeopteryx lithographica, or Diarthrognathus.

Regarding your very last paragraph, I would rather live a moral life than bow down to a God who would first deceive man by creating the appearance of evolution, and then punish him for being deceived (not to mention that I find nothing admirable about a God that at some point commanded the murder of women and children). Your decision to worship such a God is entirely yours to make, but I do not envy your position. As for the God-given "laws" you mentioned, the point cuts both ways - your beliefs do not make the fact that evolution has occurred any less real.

Finally, yes, I have dealt with many zealous and hostile creationists, and it is a welcome change to receive comments by someone as mature as you been. I am glad that you did not resort to outright insults in your critique, and I hope my reservations towards your position have not prevented me from responding with equal civility.

Mark Vuletic

> You people are working for the devil!

Internet Infidels' Response: There's been some mistake. We are *not* working for the devil. We volunteer our services to the devil free of charge. :-)

Seriously, though, you've barking up the wrong tree. Atheists do not believe in God, and since God is alleged to have created the devil, it follows that atheists do not believe in the devil either.

> You aught to put up a Satanic Home Page.

A satanic home page would have to be put up by real satanists. We are atheists, so we don't really qualify. In any event, there are already satanic pages available on the net; you can probably find them using Yahoo or Lycos.

Robby Berry

[This message was in response to "Life in our Anti-Christian America" by Robby Berry .]

After 50 years of following religion, I have decided to put it down and walk away from it. It is a bunch of crap, there is no god or any supreme being and there never was. I have been a fool for thinking there was all these years.

I ran across this page and I have never heard anything so full of lies in my life. The things said on the page are the way things SHOULD BE, but we have a long way to go yet.

I will devote the rest of my life to bad-mouthing religion and your so-called "god". Boy, what a farce!

[This message was sent in response to "The Mistakes of Jesus" by William Floyd .]

Even admirers of Jesus know that Jesus made no claim to divinity I hope you are reading the work of Marcus Borg, John D. Crossan, John Shelby Spong, Burton Mack and others. They off many insights into the historical Jesus, the one who would be offended to have been thought divine.

[This message was sent in response to "The Absurdities of the Bible" by Clarence Darrow.]

Hi!

I've just read the article "Absurdities of the Bible" and was impressed. I was impressed by the authors ability to take a proposition and make a logical conclusion, however the problem I have is with that proposition: if his "foundation" was correct (ie Bible is rubbish), I would have difficulty faulting his logic - however, I must insist his foundations are severely flawed.

As a Christian, I am surprised at the little attempt he has made to understand the Bible. However, as an ex-Athiest, I can sympathise to an extent with his viewpoint.

He claims many of the Bible's miracles are absurd - how? Example: the star that guided the wise men, supposedly absurd as it would mess up a lot of the universe. But, if God is all-powerful, why not? Could he not move the star which he created in any way he desired? Example2: Joshua's command to the sun to stand still, supposedly absurd. How? We know the sun _does_ move, we also know that, in relation to the earth it moves to affect day/night. We still consider the sun to "rise" and "set," as in relation to our viewpoint, it does. So Joshua commands the sun to stand still, relative to him, it does. And if God is all powerful, why not?

I am not one of the "blind believers" criticised in the article: I can recall the words of David "how wonderful are your works, O Lord. All who love you want to understand them." Apparently, Rutherford had this inscribed above the door of his lab. There is nothing wrong with education: by modern standards, the apostle Paul would have had several PhDs. Yet this well educated man was able to speak in, for example 1 Corinthians 4 of the folly of the wisdom the world would encourage you to have. Yes, he knew a lot, but he knew that a lot of what the world teaches is rubbish. The original article speaks of Christ's education in Jewish theology and his ability to reproduce it in the Sermon on the Mount. Hardly surprising, when you consider his later statement that he had not come to destroy the OT, merely to fulfil it. It is not surprising either that he knew it so well - Who was it who spoke through the prophets? (remember, Christ = God).

I am not opposed to thinking - presently I am studying at the University of Ulster (second year BSc). To no great surprise, I have found no _real_ evidence that contradicts Scripture. I would love to discuss this further, if you wish. I believe the Bible 100% - the word of God.

[This message was sent in response to "Sixteen Crucified Saviors" by Kersey Graves.]

I recieved Graves' "Sixteen Cricified Saviours" and was mildly disapointed to find that the document is incomplete. The 725K you have online only encompasses about half the document, at leas according to the table of contents. Perhaps there has been some kind of glitch and the full file can be restored. If so please email me at the above address as I would love to have the doc in it's entirety. I am relatively certain it is not in print as of this letter and there is something about owning a document that is much more satisfying than reading it in the Public Library.

The service you provide is excellent! I am grateful.

I am delighted to discover The Secular Web. It will take several visits to the site to take it all in. Good luck with growth in the future!

[This message was sent in response to "The Mistakes of Jesus" by William Floyd .]

I will pray for the writers of this paper.

I'm a student at Louisiana Tech University and I am currently working on an article for my journalism class on spirituality and college students. As part of this assignment I have been surfing the net trying to get responses from various organizations. Do you have any research or ideas about how values and religious beliefs change during the college years? Living in the Bible belt, it's been hard to find views that aren't so heavily influenced by the church. If you can assist me in any way it would be greatly appreciated.

[This message was sent in response to "The Absurdities of the Bible" by Clarence Darrow.]

hello there, i just read your "little message" and i agree with it based on my reason. and my reason tells me that all those stories are fictional. obviously i do not have to tell you that. i have always thought that people are afraid of dying, and to alleviate their fear, they conjure up an imaginary fantasy land called heaven and a damned place called hell. it just acts as morphine, to ease their minds. and about sinning... these so called sins are nothing but natural human drives and emotions. there is nothing wrong with lusting after women or eating too much, as long as you are not self- destructing, it is natural. and when i hear that fornification is a sin, i laugh. and when jesus said that all that do not worship him, will be damned, i think of what a megolamaniac he was, a delusional leader of a cult, who represents pallid incompetence posted on a cross. . there is no heaven nor hell, just this life, as far as i know of. blessed are the mighty minded, for they ride the whirlwinds.

At this time of celebration, I think it is important to pray for a cure to the HIV virus. Please spend sometime on Christmas day sending this thought to the universe. Thank you

Internet Infidels' Response:

Why pray?

If God could cure the HIV virus and he wanted to do so, don't you think he would have done so by now? God must not exist, is unable to cure HIV, or does not want to.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

First off, I'm not sure if that adress is alright, no one seems to know. To the point. I have been looking around the WWW and have seem some very opinionated arguments about religion. I have a question about the two arguing sides, and was wondering if you could answer this question. It seems to me that if you are a Christian (or beleive in a god/s/ess/s or an Infinity or whatever) that you are ignorant, closeminded, uneducated and being duped. Whereas, if you are an athiest or an anti-Christian/Infinite god/s/ess/s etc. then you are intellectual, and open minded. Why has this come about. i admit that there are many religious leader, past and present who are nothing more than fruitcakes ready to be eating by anyone looking to feel special But what about Confuscious's political theory, or Aquainis? Kant, Descartes?

Do you guys have a critique of the amusing web page at: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm

Hope to see one soon.

Would like to know if Prof. G.A. Wells is still alive and can be contaccted by snail mail or prefererably by e-mail. HE is the author of several books: Did Jesus Exist?, The Historical evidence For Jesus, etc.

Internet Infidels' Response: [New!]

I know that Wells is still alive, but I have been unable to obtain his address. I recommend writing to him via one of his publishers.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Congratulations!

Your home page has been rated among the top 5% of all sites on the Internet by Point Survey.

Point is a free service which rates and reviews only the best sites on the World Wide Web. We provide surfers with a standard of excellence: a catalog of the most lively, useful, and fun sites on the Net. If you haven't already seen Point, come visit us at: http://www.pointcom.com/

Reviews by Point will increase your exposure and attract new visitors to your site through our link to you. Our Top Ten list has been featured on CNN and in many publications, and Point Survey ratings are provided to media around the world.

We invite you to display the prestigious "Top 5% of the Web" badge. It is available in the badge directory at: http://www.pointcom.com/badges/ And we ask you to link us at: http://www.pointcom.com/

Also we have recently launched Point Now! It gives you the details of daily events across the Web: listings of new sites and Web events, and a contest guide. Please feel free to inform us of new features on your site that you'd like to see featured in such a calendar.

Thanks -- and again, congratulations!

Thanks for your page. You are a breath of fresh air. I live in an area that could be considered "Bible Belt" Benny Hinn the so called christian healer heals people on TV every day. If He can heal people on TV why doesn't he visit hospitals and cure the sick in the name name of Jesus? How can people believe such nonesense? I read some of the works of Joseph Campbell. He is dead but he spoke the truth. Keep up the good work! Regards from Orlando Florida.

I realize you probably receive a lot of mail from Christians regarding your criticisms of Evidience that demands a Verdict. I found the information interesting and enlightening, though I disagree with much of it. My question to you is why? I mean, Josh McDowell obviously wrote the book because he feels a need to evangelize among those who disagree with him (which I also do). But why did you spend so much time refuting it and putting it into print? Was it for your own curiosity or to evangelize to Christians? I'm asking this question honestly. I have met very few thinking atheists- your article was one of the most engaging criticisms of Christianity I have seen. If you have time, I would appreciate a quick reply as to your motives in writing this. If you don't, that's cool.

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

Atheists criticize Christianity for similar reasons that Christians write books criticizing atheists, and criticizing Catholicism, and criticizing Islam, and criticizing Hinduism and Buddhism and Mormonism etc. It just SEEMS strange to you that YOUR faith might be the focus of such criticism since you may not have read or realized how many scholarly criticisms of your Christian faith exist out there, and you're beginning to grow aware of them, via the Internet, for example.

Ed Babinski

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

Because, for a number of reasons (e.g. _Evidence_ is a concise uncritical compilation of lots of apologetic sources, and is widely disseminated by CCC among the sort of earnest young Christians who are motivated to proselytize), arguments recycled from _Evidence_ are disproportionately represented in forums where religion or atheism are discussed. Many of them are furthermore extremely bad arguments, logically speaking, and so are annoying to atheists and embarrassing to thinking Christians. [I consider myself a thinking atheist and have a number of thinking Christian friends, relatives, and acquaintances]. Some of the specific arguments are addressed in "Frequently Asked Questions" files in newsgroups such as alt.atheism, but Jeffery Jay Lowder undertook to organize a systematic rebuttal to the whole thing (an extremely ambitious, though nonetheless laudable, project).

As far as I know most of the contributors to the _Jury_ project are indeed from the atheist end of things, but note that in itself _Jury_ is not intended as a criticism of *Christianity*, but of a particular collection of logically and otherwise flawed apologetic arguments *for* Christianity. Again, I know a number of Christians who have no higher opinion of _Evidence_ than I or other atheists do, and indeed I know some who've indicated that it's not only stupid but outright and dangerous lies, a tool of [in so many words] the Father of Lies (i.e. that "conversion" through dishonest/fallacious arguments does the faith no service, and in fact does honest faith a disservice).

There are many ways to take your "thinking atheists" comment. I'll charitably take it as indication that you haven't met many mature atheists. There was a time a while back when I would have recommended a visit to alt.atheism, but things there have degenerated of late, and no equivalent to what it used to be has surfaced. You might consider reading alt.atheism.moderated for a while.

If more people were better able to recognize bad reasoning, or more generally if arguments from _Evidence_ weren't repeated so often, there would be no reason to bother. But they are repeated, and they are bad reasoning, so it's worth at least having a canned rebuttal on hand for the next time someone puts forth the "trilemma" argument (etc.)

Jim Perry

I have found tamu (tamu a.k.a Internet Infedels) to be informative and refreshingly humorous. But I have recently visited the Internet Infedel page and been kind of disappointed . Because after visiting the American Atheist page (which I.I. did a good job on), I was expecting another "hardcore" atheist stance but instead was presented with a toned down version (no offense I being a former A.A. member-still atheist just not subscribing anymore-I also understand that this is a freethought?organization, and so is different then an atheist one). Still pretty good sites, any A.A. only run pages? Your opinion on American Atheists, Jon G., Madalyn, etc. Any other good, recommended atheist sites? Please reply.

I recently heard about the 'disappearance' of the leaders of the American Atheist Association--the Madalyn Murray-O'Hairs. Unfortunatly, this is all I know about this mystery at this time. Any information I can get would be much appreciated. Thank you.

[This message sent in response to the " Dark Bible".]

(message) There is a peace only to be found on the other side fo war. misinterpretations lead to decay. to say one is always right sets one up to be wrong. DO NOT TURN GOD'S PEOPLE AWAY FROM HIM!!!

When will the Encyclopedia of Biblical Contradictions be available online, and sorry but did you suggest that this in already in print (on paper) or is it a totally new and free book? If it's already in print, do you have the ISDN #? Thanks!

Internet Infidels' Response:

Considering that the book was just published by Prometheus Books for profit *last year*, I don't expect that book to be on-line anytime soon. Moreover, I have contacted Dennis McKinsey personally about uploading his newsletter, and he refused on the grounds that it would not be fair to those who paid money to receive the issues in print.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

In looking at your 'authors and titles' site, its obvious that this is not new debate. I am a little troubled by the hostility toward believing in a God. I know the difference between amoral and immoral, your site is very much opposed to free-thought and exceptance of opposing views. Your essays are so full of venom, they very biased and sound like the beginning of idealogical censorship. Your perspectives trouble and frighten me. If you cannot be at the least caring, why bother? Your cause is one of pride, not illumination. Its a sad day when supposed thinking men drop to the level of name calling and mockery, it isn't needed. This religion is very old and is build on thousands of years of tradition and belief. These things are hard to change, if you have a problem with someone care enough to settle it.

Internet Infidels' Response:

You say that "if you have a problem with someone care enough to settle it." The whole point of the Internet Infidels is that we *are* trying to "settle it" by presenting information regarding freethought, atheism, and secularism to those who could not otherwise obtain this information. And yet, when we do so, you accuse us of engaging in (or at least encouraging) ideological censorship. It's a no-win situation.

Some of the stuff we carry is indeed pretty hostile in tone-- not too surprising when you consider that some of it was written back in the times when an atheist could be ostracized, jailed or even killed for his lack of belief. But there is a good deal of neutral material available as well. Have you read through "The Jury Is In", for instance, or Jeff Lowder's honors thesis regarding the historicity of Jesus' resurrection? To criticize the whole of the Internet Infidels' effort because some of the writings are hostile in tone seems unwise. And accusations of ideological censorship are flat out wrong. None of the Internet Infidels has ever engaged in or advocated censorship of religious points of view. We don't want to silence the religious; we just want a chance to tell our side of the story.

Robby Berry

I think your secular web page is really great. It provides provocative reading for somone as utterly confused as me...

[This message was sent in response to "How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments" by Dave Matson .]

The creationist argument is supported by the contention that there were dinosaurs recorded in the Bible. See King James Bible verses Genesis 6:4 Numbers 13:28-33 Job 40:15-End and Amos 2:9-10 to name only a few examples. However, creationist who buy into this argument find themselves trapped by their theology, which destroys their creationist beliefs entirely. I have studied and researched the dinosaurs in the Bible for the last eight years, written two books on the subject, and am willing and ready to engage both evolutionists and creationists with my new theory "biblical evolutionism." Please write to me if you or someone in your group would like to engage in a discussion relative to the dinosaurs, sea serpents, pterosaurs, water canopy theory, flood, and who was the first human. (It wasn't Adam)!

[This message was sent in response to "How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments" by Dave Matson .]

Unfortunately you too are mistaken. While I am an evolutionist, I will not dismiss every argument raised by a creationist simply because of ignorance. Not only is the water canopy theory a viable one, but it can be documented in the Bible, Apocrypha, various religious writings, mythology, and yes, even by some scientists. The biblical existence of sea serpents, pterosaurs, and dinosaurs would convince even you that your arugments don't hold water! I would enjoy discussing this and other issues with you, or another more qualified, to fully document the water canopy theory, and the biblical existence of lifeforms that absolutely that rapid evolution, not a miraculous creation was the mechanism for the appearance of man. Other subjects, such as the ice age, the division of the land masses, time dating, the laying of sediment, and other related topics could also be discussed. REMEMBER, I CAN DOCUMENT MY CLAIMS TOO.

I was surfing the net and came across this particular area, it was particularly interesting and thoughtful and greatly appreciated.

The issue of Americans understanding and appreciating our heritage is a lack of understanding of history. Any additional information,formats or references would be beneficial.

I have noticed the Antireligion Society page is absent from your site. Is there a reason why it is gone?

Internet Infidels' Response:

It is not gone. It has moved or, rather, the Antireligion Society has changed its name. The Antireligion Society is now called the "Society for Activist Freethought". Hope this helps!

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Thanks for providing a site where I can come a relax and eat some sanity instead of the prickley pears of the uncareful, unthinking crowd.

Thanks!

I see the Secular Web made the top 5 percent. Congratulations. About time too, I think.

You asked for an online reference:

The Holy Spirit.

There however is only one way to establish the link: Romans10:9 tells you how to establish that link. First you have to realize what you are doing to establish the connection. The connection is belief, belief in The Word of God (Jesus). That connection was broken for you by Adam and Eve when they chose disbelief. And until you choose to follow the link, you cannot establish a line of communication.

[This message was sent in response to "The Skeptical Review".]

I read (with some hope) various Christain defenses of the literal Resurrection, such as Josh McDowell and the like. One historical "fact" that apologists press is the empty tomb. Setting aside the possibility that Constantine "found" holy sights when he converted the Roman Empire to Christianity, there are two tomb locations.

One if the Church of the Holy Sepulchre divided between three denominations (unified faith????) and the Garden tomb cut out of the rock in Gesthemene(?). Now when considering that the location itself of this empty tomb is unclear, how can this be treated as a concrete historical fact. If the place can't even be agreed upon, how is it that one can assume anything pertaining to an empty tomb?

How can an atheist who pretty much sucks at computers help you out? I have prodigy, and my drake connection. Im learning how to get around. But I'm not sure anything I can do would be useful. Reply appreciated! thank you.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Thanks for your message! You can help us by transcribing debates, typing in books, etc. Please let us know if you're interested.

I am interested in submitting an essay I have written for display on the secular web. It is a response to the "gentle propaganda" of CS Lewis' Narnia Chronicles, who have a directly Christian taint and are considered books for children. My article concerns itself with the implication that Christian=good found in these books, and uses Lewis' own writing to make a point in favor of humanism;I attempt to show that one can live by principle without believing in a higher power, the opposite of which is concluded by Lewis.

This essay had never been published, and neither have I. If you are interested, email me and I will send it along shortly.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you Mr. Lowder. I've read many of your postings, particularly your response to the Bahnsen/Stein Debates. I've also read many of the documents on your web page. I attribute my present agnosticism (though I prefer to call it weak atheism as I doubt the existence of god[s]) in large part to reading through, and processing the arguments you have presented. Those that were not too technical for a laymen! (I've only had an undergraduate exposure to logic; once the posts delve into specificity that demands the use of ASCII equivalent quantifiers, my level of comprehension declines significantly).

Well, I know you're a busy individual, but I certainly appreciate your work. I dont have the time to sit down and go through a lot of the philosophical underpinnings that many christian apologists have begun to use; but I can have rather, a better chance of understanding the validity of a given argument after reading both sides.

Thanks again, and keep up the good work!

I was growing more concerned about the nearly 5 month missing status of Madalyn, Jon, & Robin Murray-O'Hair & had found little about it except from the Internet Infidels (Nov. feedback) so I initiated a Web Crawler search. In haste, I typed "American Athiests", misspelling atheist. Apparently the National Pro-Life Association has set up a page calling themselves "American Athiests", masquerading as American Atheists, which takes you to their Life Link Central: a picture of a human fetus & anti-abortion propaganda. They probably misspelled atheists so as not to be sued. This misrepresentation is disturbing.

Just read your piece on religion and why you are an agnostic. It was great! Why aren't there more people like you (us)? If there are, I cannot find them. Are your really an agnostic, or are you an athiest? Agnostic: person who neither believes God exists nor disbelieves the existence of God; Athiest: person who does not believe God exists. God is defined as the tri-omni God -- Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent (All knowing, all powerful, all good).

I just want to say I enjoy your web site; "keep on truckin'",

Dear Sirs,

I would just like to thank you for your excellent web page and the "thoughts for pondering" it has given me. If you have an e-mail newsletter I would be grateful to be put on the mailing list.

Thanks again

I know you people put a lot of time maintaining this service and want you to know that there many of us out there who are extremely grateful to you for spreading the true nature of freedom: the freedom of thought. Thank you.

[This message was sent in response to "The Jury is In: The Ruling on McDowell's `Evidence'" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]

Hello Jeff,

Just a quick note to share with you my pleasure of having found your manuscript. I am in the process of printing them all out as I wish to have them in hardcopy form.

I don't know whether you are aware of this, but in your home page, the chapters 2 5 6 and 12 are in black, meaning that they are not hyperlinked (?). How do I access them? A reply would be appreciated.

A further question, what exactly is the purpose of your critique, and how can outsiders, like me, engage in this exercise? The reason I ask this question is that my own conviction has become (over a lifetime of struggling with it) that the original Christian message has become corrupted, and is in dire need of being re-imaged!

Again, thank you for your effort, and hoping to hear from you.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Patience. We are in the process of writing the files you can't access, as well as re-writing some of the files you can read.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Where is the posting of Lemoine's "Ten Reasons Beer is Better'n Jesus?"

I just come here for the interesting literature. After all how many ways can you say 'there is no imaginary superfriend?' There isn't, of course, but having made the point and believed it there is little room to harp on about it.

I guess you can keep pretty busy making Ernest Angely jokes...

You might want to note that a couple of the best books pointing out the absurdity, anti- scientific primitivity and hypocrisy of religion are Mark Twain's books, " A PEN WARMED UP IN HELL " pub. by Perennial Library, Harper & Row, " The Forgotten Writings of Mark Twain " pub. by Citadel, & " Mark Twain on the Damned Human Race " pub. by American Century Series, Hill and Wang......these books were suppressed initially by a sister who believed they would ruin his reputation.......They have actually pointed out what a brilliant and well- educated man he was for the time in which he lived............I would like to be on any list of Email you send out.....it is a GOOD CAUSE......I lost my son in a Bakersfield court to a fundamentalist wife.......I hope to fight it soon, but I'm disabled and waiting for surgery......

Hi Infidels:

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for an excellent job you have done creating this site. It is interesting, funny, thought-provoking and full of useful resources.

Keep up the good work and have a happy winter equinox!

I have been (Dare I say it?) in heaven since I found your site.

My first thought was that I should thank God for leading me here, but decided instead to thank you for being here.

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

I found your article on kwanzaa to be very enlightening. I would like some additional information regarding the other elements of Maulana Ron Karenga's 'New Religion', of which, Kwanzaa was only one element. Also, could you send information on your sources, the AHA chapters Karenga was either an active participant, or any other information that would enlighten me on the subject of Kwanzaa.

I can NOT find Jack London's essay entitled "The Good Soldier" on the WWW, including your index. Why not?

[This message was sent in response to "The Jury is In: The Ruling on McDowell's `Evidence'" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]

Wow! I am impressed to see anyone read McDowell's book. His argument is sound on a Biblical side, but I see that in a court of law some of his evidences are not solid nor are his witnesses unbiased. I hate to say it, but you guys did your homework as the prosecution. I don't think the jury's in, but I certainly know I need to look at the way I present the Bible to an unbeliever as well as to the believer.

I know that your presentation uses the Bible towards its own end, such as quoting Paul. Then discrediting Paul, two sections later, as unreliable. I liked the direct attack on the Resurrection, very to the point! Can I disagree? Sure, but does that discredit your accusations? No. From here, I will be studing closer my own ideas and interpretations of the Biblical accounts of Easter morn as then I can stand on a rebuttal. As Chambers implies, struggle is the reward itself for words gained to enlighten those in darkness. I'm preaching on your platform...pretty good, eh?

What guts! I honestly could not believe you linked to the Bible. Not just once, but several times. I am willing to bet that at least one person, in the next year, will be saved by a passage that you have linked to in "The Jury." I know Christian arrogance is dangerous, but I experienced the power of God's Word in my life through a outlet similar to this. I liked the way you noted McDowell's own conversion was not based on the evidence, but God's love. I, as well, have no solid, provable grounds for my faith, aside my human experience, which led me to belief in God's Word.

I hate your logic because it is so good! 'If God was man, wouldn't he write His own book'... Good presuppositional requirement. Robby, you got me on that! I love good debate, this is like arguing political platforms. No winners, just voters choosing and candidates knowing the truth in their own eyes. I hope you enjoyed this, also!

Here's a couple of links from Bertrand Russell you may want to consider adding to your freethought authors:

Bertrand Russell

Why I am not a Christian: http://www.crl.com/~bpmac/why.html
What is an Agnostic: http://www.crl.com/~bpmac/agnostic.html
What is the Soul: http://www.crl.com/~bpmac/soul.html