 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
Do humanists acknowledge Jesus as fictional or non-fictional? Would humanists view Jesus as a "religious" man even if they did not agree with his relivious views? Do humanists believe in any power greater than themselves? Where do humanists go or to whom do they turn for consolation when their spirts are full and heavy? Do humanists agree with the message of the 10 Commandments even if they don't believe in the messenger? I'm curious about you--I've been reading about your "belief system" all morning and find some parts compelling.
Internet Infidels' Response:
You raise several good questions, and I'll attempt to answer each of them. But before I do, I'd like to point out that "humanist" is probably not the best word to describe us. After all, there are *secular* humanists, *Christian* humanists, and so on. And some people who lack belief in god(s) don't identify with humanism. What I think you are really asking about is atheism.
Regarding Jesus, an atheist is free to accept or reject the historicity of Jesus. There is nothing inconsistent with atheism, the lack of belief in god(s), and accepting the historicity of Jesus. Just because one believes that Jesus existed does not imply that one must also believe that Jesus was the Son of God. (For example, I lack belief in gods, but I'm convinced on the basis of historical evidence that Jesus was a real person.) Other atheists, including G.A. Wells, author of The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Michael Martin, author of The Case Against Christianity, and Farrell Till, editor of The Skeptical Review, believe that Jesus was a legendary figure, and their arguments are certainly worth considering. The bottom line, though, is that atheists are free to accept or reject the historicity of Jesus.
Many atheists admire Jesus' moral teachings; many atheists (Bertrand Russell, Robert Ingersoll, et al) do not. Again, atheism simply does not entail beliefs one way or another about Jesus' moral teachings. Likewise, an atheist may accept all or none of the Ten Commandments. The only conclusion implied by atheism is that the Ten Commandments were not written by God.
Although it's unclear exactly what you mean by "any power greater than themselves," I assume you are referring to some sort of supernatural entity. By definition, an atheist does not believe in such a being, whereas a (non-secular) humanist could.
Finally, when an atheist needs consolation, they can turn to all of the same sources of consolation that others use (family, friends, counselors, etc.), except for God.
Hope this helps!
How do I get on a mailing list to automatically receive the AHA newsletter? I found a copy through talk.atheism and it was very interesting. I would like to get this kind of information on a regular basis.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Send a message to major-ii@infidels.org with the command "subscribe humanism" in the message body.
Hope this helps!
Have you read the article "Whose Gold is Behind the Altar"? It is important to know which corporations are funding organized religion to learn why it takes the particular direction it does. The relative "nickels and dimes" taken in the "collection plates and other donations is "small potatoes" compared with the huge sums received from the Pugh Family, Sun Oil Company, Getty Brothers, Coors Beer and other such sources. What would be the interest of these huge conglomerates in funding organized religion, do you suppose?
[This message was in response to "Is the Bible the Word of God?" by Emmett Fields.]
Was interested in finding out if the bank of wisdom had the opposing dialogue to emmett field's lecture on "is the Bible the word of God?" It is hard to follow without the opposing viewpoint. Some of the logic is totally without intellectual merit, I just wondered how a fundamentalist minister reacted. Thank you.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I wasn't aware the "opposing dialogue" was missing. If you know where we can obtain the text of the missing material, please let us know. We'd like to include both sides if at all possible.
Do you know if American Atheists still exists? I ask because I have been unable to contact anyone in the org for months. I am a member, and the newsletter they send out regularly has not come since August, and the TheistWatch e-mail list has stopped, also months ago. I left a message on the General Headquarters' machine, but heard nothing. I just thought that since you are the maintainers of their WWW page, you might know something. Please let me know, and thanks for your time.
Internet Infidels' Response:
The Internet Infidels have not had any contact with American Atheists since August, when the atheist.org computer crashed, and the O'Hairs disappeared. Since then, they have been completely out of touch, and their organization is in chaos. The computer is still down, and the mailing lists that it supported are also down.
The reason for their disappearance is unclear. However, representatives of American Atheists do claim there is no evidence that Madalyn Murray O'Hair is in poor health. They have denied media reports that Madalyn Murray O'Hair is dead, or even recovering from a stroke. One AAINC representative claims that Madalyn told him in a phone call that she was "just fine." This same representative also quoted John Murray as saying, "We'll fill you in on everything when we get back, it's just too complex to go into right now."
Some representatives of American Atheists speculate that the O'Hairs' lives are in grave danger, and had to evacuate. The O'Hairs left the General Headquarters of American Atheists at the tail-end of a number of important projects. For instance, the new issue of the American Atheist Magazine was nearly complete, and a mailing of thousands of promo sheets for the Pope Picket '95 was, literally, sitting there waiting to be hauled to the post office. A new book and product catalogue was in mid-production.
In the mean time, we're told, Spike Tyson is at the GHQ engaged in basic "housekeeping" functions, including production of the AMERICAN ATHEIST TV FORUM. Mr. Tyson also has the services of a competent volunteer to assist him. Mail and supplies are being picked up. If, however, you have sent in a book/product order, membership, subscription or contribution within the past few weeks, that check is not being cashed. AAINC is putting donations and order fulfillment "on hold" pending the return of Dr. O'Hair, Jon Murray and Robin Murray-O'Hair. (Since Spike Tyson is swamped with phone calls, please do not call the GHQ unless you have important business concerning the Forum or related activities.)
AAINC representatives hope the O'Hairs will return soon, but intend to keep the organization going during in their absence.
[This message was in response to "The Dark Bible ."]
I'm greatly enjoying the Dark Bible. Very entertaining and informative. One thing that I feel is missing from the atrocities section is the deeds mentioned in Acts 5:1-11. Peter, one of the central apostles, learns that a man did not donate all of his money to the church, but in fact donated only a part. Peter decides that this man is not fit to live and kills him. Next he kills the man's wife
[This message was in response to "What Jesus Taught" by Charles Bradlaugh.]
I believe the article about Jesus has valid points. Who is to say who wrote what and when. But you only must listen to Jesus' main message of love, compassion, and forgiveness. If you can live your life with these ideal's then you have what He came for. The references I saw in the first few paragraphs can be explained. Jesus taught in parables, meaning there was an underneath laying of truth. I wouldn't believe he means poverty or malnutrition when he refers to poor in spirit and hunger. If you do believe you hunger for what you know is true. And you are empty (poor) because you know some great treasure is waiting. I don't think He meant money when he refered to the 'rich' either. But I don't want to debate because everyone has a right to believe their truths. I do know that many people do not have faith in God because of organized religion. Jesus never meant us to follow some religious ritual made up by man. He teached that the way to Heaven is through love, compassion, and forgiveness. Even if one does not believe in "God" surely he ought to still strive for these ideals. Once you do find that love of life then it is easy to believe in a God of love.
No clue to as if you might read this but I figured I could use the practice for someday in the future. I'm not the "religious" type at all. I at first was taught that I was going to hell by the Cathilic faith, and in doing so I found God on my own. I in fact would be "persecuted" by many relgions since I have been going out to underground clubs and doing shit since I was 13. I just can't believe what everybody is doing with the Bible now. Using it to promote their own views. That has been the whole problem, man has used the re-written Bible to condemn everything he chooses not to believe in. No one hears the message any more. And I do feel that if I am able to get someone to believe in the ideals of love, compassion and forgiveness then it doesn't matter to me if I am right or wrong on this whole situation.
No wonder the history of Christianity has been plaqued with violence and cruelty. Look how unspeakably cruel their god is! How many fathers would hang their son up to die in such a painful manner? - especially when they had all the resources of the universe with which to impress the human race.
This place is pretty cool, and I am highly recommmending to a number of friends!
I enjoy your Free Inquiry Magazine very much and enjoyed meeting some of your staff on a trip to Buffalo NY in Sept.
[This message was in response to "Atheism: An Affirmative View" by Emmett Fields.]
To whom it concerns:
The paper by Emmitt Fields, ATHIESM, An Affirmative View is quite outdated. Since its publication and commentary, Communism has almost disappeared....I wonder why? Communism is not based in the Athiesm Mr. Fields spoke of!! (pg 6, Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness). Communist Russia was hardly a bed-rock of sanity! I'm sure Josef Stalin was an atheist -- boy he was a bed-rock of sanity, huh? Communism is a fallen tree that is rotting and cannot be replanted. Communism is dead -- The comments about Charles Darwin and evolution are quite comical also. Evolutionary theory as you call it, is not theory but a working hypothesis...so weak are the threads that hold it together. Even many evolutionists will admit that there is more EVIDENCE for the creationist viewpoint. Darwin was a warped individual. His writings on women's and black's head size related to intelligence capacity show him for what he was...
You may be much better off printing things that are at least dated material.
Thank you for putting material such as this on the internet. It serves to really make us think.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I must confess, this complaint amuses me. We hear complaints about our literature being outdated all the time-- but this is because most of our literature dates from the late 19th or early 20th century. Mr. Fields' article dates from only 15 years ago, and is one of the most up to date articles we have. I guess you can't please all of the people all of the time.
... Fields did not defend Communism in his article. Look at what Fields said about communism
It sounds as if your view of Communism is quite similar to Fields' view.
Evolution is fact, theory *and* working hypothesis. It is fact because it has been observed in nature. That's right, we've actually seen evolution happen. Refer to the "Observed Instances Of Speciation" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) and "Some More Observed Speciation Events" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html). It is a theory (actually, several theories) because the mechanisms of evolution are not completely understood. It is a working hypothesis because... well, because it works, and it works beautifully. (See also "Evolution As A Fact And A Theory", http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html) for further comments along these lines.)
[Concerning your comment about Darwin, do] ...you have a quote to back this up? I can virtually guarantee you that Darwin made no such remarks, and that you are simply quoting creationist polemics against Darwin. But let's assume that Darwin really was a racist and sexist, as you describe. So what? Is that a reason to reject evolution? Not at all. Just as you would be wrong to dismiss Protestantism out of hand based solely on the fact that Martin Luther wrote some vile anti-Jewish polemic, so you would be wrong to reject evolution based on any racism on Darwin's part. The truth of Protestant beliefs and evolutionary theory are dependent upon the evidence for or against them, and not upon the character of their founders.
[This message was in response to "50 Fun Things for Non-Christians to do in Church".]
I like your 50 things for Non-Christians to do in church. Hehe. I've thought of many of those before, when my parents used to make me go to church. Now, the last place on earth I would be caught in is church.
I stumbled on to this website by accident and not wanting to assume anything without investigating, I looked through some of the entries. I don't think I have ever been so offended and hurt, though I'm sure that doesn't matter to you. I am having trouble with a few ideas. First of all, if you don't believe in God or Jesus, His Son, why is there a Website to the end of disproving and mocking Him. I am also having trouble with the FACT that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for YOU. You mock and ridicule Him and He loves you so much that He willingly gave His life on a cross in your place. He took the death that your sin deserves and all you have to do is have faith in Him. I can tell you one thing, you may not believe it now but it is a fact that one day you will bow down and call Jesus Lord. I sincerely pray that you do that before you die or He returns because at that time it will be too late. Please don't live your life in vain by condemming yourself to Hell (that's right you condemn yourself, Jesus came to save not condemn) by your unbelief. Everyone involved with this Website needs Jesus desperately and I pray that each of you accepts His wonderful love. I welcome comments, questions, whatever from anyone about this matter.... In His Love, ... II Cor. 5:17
[This message was in response to the SOS home page.]
There seems to be a lack of resources on the Internet for people who want help now! Once someone decides to make the decision to ask for help - getting the help should be the easy part. But, all I am finding are sales pitches "this is who we are" "this is what we do" - but no addresses or phone numbers for treatment centers in my area.
Internet Infidels' Response:
You are absolutely correct, but unfortunately we don't have the information you're requesting. (If we did, we would have gladly included it a long time ago.) If anyone has a listing of SOS chapters, we would greatly appreciate a copy of it.
I do not know why you people are supporting the tired and lame rhetoric or Mr. Hughes. You people must either be extremely bored or intensely bitter. If you think that being an agnostic is not a religious belief than you are extremely self deluded. You can't stand those who believe in something bigger than themselves and refuse to acknowledge the truth of your own eyes and senses. This world is nothing short of a miracle. Every commenplace thing that we take for granted is a miracle wether it be a blade of grass or a mocha. My girlfriends love is a miracle and your ability to communicate your thoughts to me in any form is miraculous. Instead of wasting your time trying to cheapen the miraculous why not try and reach out in love to your fellow man and to God. Its easy to pontificate the way you people do but its much harder to live a life of love. And just because a Christian acknowledges he needs God and sets about building a relationship with him through Jesus dosen't mean he becomes super human. Many are working hard to further the work that Jesus started while many are trying hard just to get their own spiritual act togeather. But what they have in commen is their both trying. Their not sitting by the side of the road like some lazy, arrogant, braggard, who laughs and mocks those who walk on by.The only sin God can't forgive is unbelief. I'am convinced that we choose to dwell in Heaven and those who go to Hades chose to go there also. God is not willing that any should perish, but we do have a free will.
[This message was in response to "The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell" by Gordon Stein .]
I don't wish to be overly nitpicking, but Gordon Stein's _The Jesus of History_ contains one little nit that I need to pick. :-) Toward the end of the excellent article, McDowell's laughable argument that Jesus must be historical because the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ covers him is discussed. In refutation of this "argument," readers are invited to consult the encyclopedia's writings on dragons, unicorns, and witches, implying that all these things are imaginary. As a Witch, I resent being told I'm as much a figment of someone's imagination as the historical Jesus is! :-) Of course, I see his point, but I wish it could be made without denying the reality of myself and other modern-day witches. Of course, I love your site. :-)
[This message was in response to "The Parable of the Dog Breeder".]
As a Christian who has just read your parable about the insane dog breeder, I feel I must send you my comments.
First, because I have a Jewish roommate, I must say that your parable is clearly Christian, because you admit that the young boy who was sacraficed to the dogs was the breeder's son.
So to be fair to everyone's viewpoint and accurately present facts, as I am sure you wish to do, you also have the duty of presenting the whole story.
While your parable admits that the breeder knew he was sending his son to his death when he sent him to the dog pen, it does not say that he would come back to life in three days, as God knew when he sent Jesus to earth. Nor does it say that the breeder's son did come back to life, as Jesus did. Furthermore, only God's son's body was killed. The being, The soul/spirit, who is Jesus is very much alive and always has been. Jesus also allowed himself to be sacrificed - he knew the entire time exactly what would happen to him while on earth. My point is that your parable is not an accurate description of Christian beliefs and if you are promoting free thinking on your page, you must present to those reading and learning all of the facts and beliefs of others in order for them to truly think freely and make their own decisions.
I welcome your comments if you wish to write me back.
Great site! I've only been on it for one day, and I must say I'm absolutely STUNNED by the amount of quality atheistic articles. Don't let yourself be intimidated by the fundamentalist Christian posts, and keep up the good work! It is highly appreciated. Greetings from a Belgian atheist...
Today I needed a question answered so that I could write a half-way intelligent column for the Sacramento Bee. Once again your WEB saved the day. Thanks so much for being there!!!!!
[This message was sent in response to "Criticism of D. James Kennedy's 'Why I Believe'" by Alex Matulich .]
Dear Infidels,
I've just discovered the Secular Web, and this is a note of thanks. Your pages remind me initially of a somewhat racier version of Bertrand Russell's 'anti-apologetics'. You are particularly good in dealing with the whole fundamentalist justification for religion, in its offensive narrow-mindedness and unfounded certitudes, but as a sceptic currently resident in a Theology Faculty, I'm aware that there is a growing gap between this kind of naive scepulation and some more sophisticated apologetic techniques. As long as you can keep on exposing the fideism which underlies many purportedly 'rational' expositions of the truth of Christianity, the existence of God, and other cherished dogmas, you'll cover about 90% of the systematic theology that is currently being churned out: but there is an increasing awareness of cultural relativity amongst liberal theologians which makes them wary of outrageous truth claims. I think particlarly here in England of Don Cuppitt, Anthony Freeman, and the 'Sea of Faith' movement. Perhaps the line of demarcation between Christians (by their own definition, if no-one elses) and sceptics isn't as clear as it was?
Anyway, many thanks, infidels - keep up the good work.
Dear folks:
Thanks for the Secular Web site. I laud your efforts to make more information available.
But I do have a request. I keep wanting to know WHEN something that's posted was written. (As an example of cause, there's some very sarcastic remarks about herbal remedies in Clay Fulks' War Between Science and Faith--remarks that aren't nearly so meaningful in these days of taxol and quinine, penicillin and phytonutrients.) If the original publication year were included at the top of a file, or even in the index, it would add a lot of value for reading such pieces in their cultural and chronographical context.
Thanks.
[This message was in response to "The Jury Is In" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder .]
Thanks! Someone had to do this. You did a great job.
I recently came into contact with a group called itw.org. They do watches of bills in congress that would negatively affect us all. A wide variety of organizations support the activities of this group and endorse their messages of freedom and support for activism. I don't see any atheist or freethought groups. could you tell me how to contact them all at once, so that we get our support pledged?
I'm aware that Jeff Lowder wants to put some atheist critiques of analytic defenses of theism on the web. On your FTP server you have something called Plantinga_Paper; is that complete? If so, why hasn't it been put on the Secular Web? It would certainly make a nice antidote to http://www.wavefront.com/~Contra_M/cm/reviews/cm14_rev_apologetics.
Hopefully, next semester I may have something to contribute to the web, as I am taking a philosophy of religion course which 1/3 of will be about the justification of belief, and 2/3 about the historicity of Jesus. Now the latter I think has had sufficient coverage on the Secular Web, but there is little of the former. Somehow, despite the evangelizing of theists, I have this crazy notion that to believe in something that you have had no experience of, in the absence of any logical arguments proving the existence of God or any empirical evidence for God, is irrational. I also find Plantinga's argument that God is a properly basic belief absurd; belief in the existence of a material world, or in other minds, etc are basic beliefs. And they are all universal beliefs. Surely the belief in the Hebrew Yahweh cannot be said to be universal; Buddhists have no concept of a single Supreme Being, nor do many indigenous cultures around the world.
[This message was in response to "Infidel Deathbeds" by G.W. Foote .]
Reading with relish Foote & McLaren's INFIDEL DEATHBEDS, after downloading it the other day. This AOL subscriber appreciates your work on resenting these interesting documents.
Can something be done about the misspellings which occur on every page? Nearly every citation in French contains an error not to mention dozens if not hundreds of misspellings of English words. The document appears to have been scanned; it's certainly not been run through a spell-check. I should be embarrassed to see it fall into the hands of a Christian!
P.S. It's most unfortunate that the works of Karlheinz Deschner in Germany have yet to be translated into English, or any other language, for that matter. I trust you are familiar with the book of Joachim Kahl, DAS ELEND DES CHRISTENTUMS, translated some time ago as THE MISERY OF CHRISTIANITY. I don't believe there's anything quite as succinct or powerful in our language, and that includes B. Russell.
You know, I was surfing along, looking for some religious alternatives when I found your pages with info about Atheists, and it interested me. But then I linked to the "We are Atheists Because" page and was completely turned off. You say that beleiving in a Divine Force is ignorant, but your statements are hostile which, in my opinion, is ignorant. If you are promoting being hostile to those who believe in a God, you deserve no respect from anyone. This is coming from a 13 yr old with no religion.
Very glad to find you. Thanks very much for the useful and thought-kneading information. I wish there were more like you, but each to his own.
Dear Infidels
I've written to you in the past about different things, requesting information and etc. I've never had a response so perhaps I am writing to the wrong address. This time I would like a response from someone. Is there a webmaster of the Infidels?
I am also an infidel but that is not why I am writing. I am writing to you to let you know that a monument to perhaps one of America's greatest infidels is going to be erected in Bordentown, NJ in October of 1997. No, it's not Robert Ingersoll, it's Thomas Paine. We are the Thomas Paine Memorial Committee of the Bordentown Historical Society. We are a non-profit, tax-exempt organization and we are going to begin the process of raising money very soon. We are looking to raise $20,000.00 in the next two years.
We are now building our mailing list of possible contributors and others who are interested in our project. Could someone please contact me so that I can provide you with more information about our project? I think there are many infidels that would be interested in helping us in our endeavours.
Thanks,
Jim Downey <downey@princeton.wireline.slb.com>
[This message was in response to "Who Was Jesus Christ?" by Charles Bradlaugh.]
Hi folks,
I just thought I'd stop in and look around your page because I heard some people laughing and kidding around with each other about some of the "essays" that they found there. I read the "Who Was Jesus" article. It brought up some questions in my mind, but perhaps not the questions the author intended. I am curious to know what sort of person that considers themselves to be of high intelligence and doesn't write about what he/she believes, what they have faith in, but rather chooses to write about what other people believe, and why they are wrong. If the author of that writing doesn't believe in Jesus, or God, or Buddah, or the dahli-freecon-lamah what thinking person cares? Would it be a better use of ones time to state their beliefs based on their evidence, or reasoning? The only conclusion I can come to about this fellow's article is that he has no understanding of christians or faith. If the writer has no beliefs of his own to state, then he is most certainly not qualified in any sense to critique the beliefs of others that have the capacity to understand what "believing" in some thing is all about. It is for that reason that I pity him. The reason I doubt his intellect as well as his scholarly attempt to state his case is due to his pitiful lack of research. Perhaps, if he doesn,t like being laughed at he might try to do a little more research in regards to credible secular historical records of the man referred to as Jesus Christ. Then he may be able to reach the same conclusions and actually be able to state his case without distorting the facts or neglecting to mention the 140 non-christian, non-jewish, societies that have Jesus Christ in their historical writings made during the period in which he Christ apparently lived. I do not have an E-mail adress, but I am leaving an address for you. Please pass it on to the author of that ridiculous piece, and tell him that I'll offer him some reference guides and some good sources for the historical writings he will need to revise his paper so that he at least is not thought of as a complete .......aahhhh....."Ad Libber."
[This message was sent in response to "Religion and Ideology Shit List".]
Thank you for the Shit List! It brightened my day!
[This message was in response to the " October Feedback".]
Here's a few things I've always found amusing:
1) Thou shalt not kill, but I'll kill you if you don't beleive in our god.
2) Telling someone who doesn't beleive in hell, that they're going to hell.
Dear Infidel (strange juxtaposition of words)
Thank you for taking the time to so painstakingly dissect a piece of work with which you so manifestly disagree. I must admit that this is an exhausting intellectaul task, and I admire you for it. I do not do the same out of intellectual laziness, I fear.
I am a Christian, and yet, how odd it is that not one of the arguments Dr. Kennedy advances in his book played even the slightest role in my conversion. Oh well... Unfortunately, he seems to be a common species in our aviary. Both you and he seem to place a high degree of confidence in the faculty of reason, as if someone could be convinced about the truth of Christianity by the exercise of such arguments as Kennedy advances, or weaned away from it by the arguments you propose. Honesty matters, I agree, but the queerest thing about the the unfettered exercise of human reason is how often it paints itself into a corner, a la Hume or Wittgenstein, whereby it becomes apparent through the exercise of reason that knowledge is impossible...
These are old chestnuts. Yet, for all my railing against human reason, the branch of Christianity I belong to is the most rationalistic one - the Reformed branch, and I look askance at a lot of other Christians who attempt to base their faith upon experience. Go figure. Thanks again for a diverting afternoon. I have to admit that the level of discourse on the Internet is higher than I've encountered anywhere else
[This message was in response to "Is the Bible Worth Reading" by Lemuel Washburn.]
Regarding Lemuel Washburn's "Is the Bible Worth Reading", it seems some of his point contradict what is generally believed by those who do not accept Christianity. Do you accept his points as valid, and if so would you mind reading the following? Thank you.
Lemuel Washburn in "Is the Bible Worth Reading" believes that unless one is a pastor they should not read the Bible. He says that there are more proverbs in other books than the Bible and information in the Bible is bad for the human mind. Because he does not and cannot use evidence to support his claim and because of his criticisms on those that do not believe the Bible cause his piece to appear emotionally based rather than logically based. Washburn says that no book has been written with less facts than the Bible. This is not the truth. If one can prove that just one book has less facts than the Bible you have proven his statement false. A children's book of about 12 pages can be considered. There is one sentence on each page so even assuming 2 facts per sentence there are only 24 facts. The Bible has records of the Hittites and other ancient nations which have been accepted as true. If one only accepts one geneology passage in the Bible these are oftentimes more than 24 facts. Those are just some of the diverse facts found in the Bible, many of which are accepted scientifically. The Bible has more facts than some books, and this is generally accepted even by non-believers. I believe that this is just one example of the falsity of his points.
Hello you people,
I stumbled upon your web page quite by accident, but was intrigued enough by it to add it to my quicklist. Looks like you've got some interesting goings on going on here.
There are some idle questions that occurred to me as I browsed, so I thought I'd jot a few thoughts:
I've considered various forms and types of theism and non-theism and have come to the personal conclusion that atheism is more than a little bit irrational (although not nearly as irrational as the various theistic beliefs I've encountered). It's almost always a conscious decision on the atheist's part to become one, which must then involve the trading of one set of religious beliefs for another, including the rejection of a god that one chooses no longer to recognize for another that one chooses not to recognize either. This new god is called chance. But the atheist refuses to recognize chance as being a god, even though he worships it as if it were one (which is what makes atheism irrational, in my view), and is probably much more regular in his worship and devout in his faith than he was with his previous religion.
Oh, of course you disagree, but it all seems rather silly to me, nevertheless. I do enjoy watching you athiests and theists tilting at one another, though. I especially enjoy watching you guys skewer the fundies. What clueless boobs.
[This message was in response to "Feedback" on the Secular Web.]
I noticed a criticism based on the notion that the genetic code is the same regardless of the type of organism being considered. In fact, this is not true. Even within the human cell, not all DNA is translated the same way. While most DNA in human cells is kept in the nucleous, some is maintained, and translated, in our mitochondria. Most codons are translated the same, regardless of whether they are nuclear or mitochodrial, but two have different meanings.
UGA means stop in nuclear DNA, but means Trp in Mitochondrial. AUA means Ile in nuclear DNA, but means Met in Mitochondrial. I believe there may also be similar differences in the translation of DNA in chloroplasts, plant cell nuclei, and some bacteria. The argument that DNA is the same in all forms of life on Earth, and therefore must be a product of design is (not surprisingly) not rooted in fact. Frankly, the validity of this argument, even if its premises were true, is not at all clear to me.
Keep up the good work.
Very interesting, but wrong.
Hello,
This is an excellent web page. However, I still have not found the answer to this question - scientists claim that the salt content of the ocean is at equilibrium. However, because it is not saturated with salt, some mechanism must exist which adds salt, and another mechanism must take the salt out.
What is this mechanism that removes the salt from the ocean? It would be nice if you could update the page to answer this question.
Internet Infidels' Response:![[New!]](/images/new.gif)
Please see "Mineral Influx Into the Oceans" in How Good Are Those Young Earth Arguments? by Dave Matson.
Hope this helps! Please let me know if you have any questions remaining.
[This message was in response to "The Dark Bible".]
I'M discussted with your Web site. Just because of you I think there should be some censored sites!
This list is great. I work at a Medical School and many of the Doctors (especially the Cardiologists) think they are right up there with God. Thanks for a great laugh.
If Freethought is your main subject, then why all those books and essays about the church and Jesus Christ? I'm sorry but I don't get it....
Internet Infidels' Response:
Much of the Secular Web focuses on Christianity because Christianity is the world's largest religion and because Christians proselytize. If some other religion were the world's largest religion, we would focus on that instead. In the future, though, we plan to write critiques of Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology.
Hoorray! At last somebody is unmasking the hipocrysy of the religious world. As a child I would rebel against submission to God by humans never accepting the abusive concept of God created by men I am stunned that we still live in such enviroment having to bear governments (ours included) that endorse such stupidity.Recently I have read the book "The real Frank Zappa" where you can find many interesting comments on a subject.Quote: "My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can." Children are naive -- they trust everyone. School is bad enough, but, if you put a child anywhere in the vicinity of a church, you're asking for trouble.
And was it G. Washington that said: "This country is not to be founded on Christianity or any such religions (...) as I see no redeeming value in them (..) " ( I cannot remember exactly). Maybe we should start telling the truth toour kids in schools...
If you are going to publish historically innaccurate, outdated and unproven Biblical Critisism documents, you might want to try a little harder. With the advent of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls 90% of the "Christian Forgery" arguements dissapeared like the smoke they have always been. What is your purpose in listing this material? Please respond.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thank you for writing us and voicing your concerns over the Biblical Criticisms posted on the Secular Web. We are a bit confused however, since you mention that biblical criticism is "unproven" and "historically inaccurate." While there are always mistakes in every writing, the level of historical accuracy in the essays posted on the Secular Web are quite high. Perhaps you are confusing historical accuracy with theological disagreement? Bible scholars attempt to reach what is called scholarly consensus when they study the texts of ancient peoples; an insistence on truth or falsity is quite beyond what a true student of the Bible is seeking. If you feel insecure about what the Bible may mean and are attempting to discern "proof" for a theological interpretation, may we suggest that you instead consult with your rabbi or minister rather than a web page? The honest student of the Bible need never fear accepting the texts for what they are rather than what they want them to be.
Your last comment is perhaps the most puzzling. The Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed the liturgy, priestly codes, and scriptural interpretations of a radical eschatological offshoot of Second Temple Period Judaism, not Christianity. Early attempts were made by French Roman-Catholic scholars, led by de Vaux, to attempt to interpret the scrolls as the handiwork of Christian scribes, but this interpretation is now overwhelmingly denied by DSS scholars. Perhaps you are aware of scholarship that indicates otherwise? If this is so we would welcome your comments. If anything has radically changed our view of Christian origins it must be the Nag Hammadi library found in Egypt in 1945 and only recently translated into English by James Robinson et. al. The Gospel of Thomas shows us an early trajectory of the Jesus movement which dates to about the time of Matthew's and Luke's gospel in 80 CE (and as argued by Helmut Koester perhaps even contemporaneous to Q). Thomas presents a Jesus devoid of the dying savior characteristics common to later orthodoxy, instead presenting Jesus as a teacher of wisdom. We now know that there was a healthy diversity among early Jesus followers.
For serious students of the Bible we highly recommend "The Complete Gospels" Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1992, which contains the Gospel of Thomas, Q, and fresh, accurate and exciting translations of the four canonical gospels.
I discovered your home page from someone on Compuserve and I have to say that you have a real gold mine of info here. I just wanted to thank you for the time and energy invested here -- it's sorely needed.
Hi!
I am new to the internet and was glad to see the FFRF on the internet. I am a member of FFRF and I enjoy Freethought Today. Now I can enjoy FFRF and other free thought groups on the internet. I work at home and am not able to get out much because of a handycap. The internet will be one way that I can meet others that share the same interest and enjoy thinking.. I wish that FFRF would have a bulletin board so that members could interact with each other and share ideas and experiences. Thank you for your time.
[This message was in response to "Affirmative Atheism" by Emmett Fields.]
About this part of your text:
The article on Atheism in the current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica was written by a Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest, Rev. ***Cornello Fabro***, Professor of theoretical Philosophy, University of Perugia, Italy. In the Encyclopedia Americana the article on Atheism was written by Roger L. Shinn Do you know what is his e-mail address or where I can find him ?????
Although I know a fair deal amount computers (have a degree in computer science and work in the field), I am newcomer to Internet. It is an exciting place. I came accross your page last night. I am delighted by it. I don't believe in religions, not as devine revelations anyway. To me, religions were, in their origions, simple proposals for solutions to the problems humans had (still have): There was (is) always so much we could (cannot) explain. Religions, whatever their origin was, filled (seemed to) a huge gap in our knowledge. The thinking was basic and very human. Its elevation from man to God, was certainly a clever idea but extremely dangerous and inhibitive. It took away curiousity - the locomotive of thinking, change, progress etc. If you get convinced that you know the ultimate answer to whatever problem ( which is what all religions amount to), you stop thinking. You stop asking questions. You are dead according to my perception of life and death. So much so for an early morning excercise. I would like to become a member of some group, or get in contact with some individual e-mail pals. Please write and advise me, if you have the time, re. relevant newsgroups or individuals on some mailinglist. Nice to know of you guys.
I want to thank you all at freethought for a job well done.
Dear Freethinkers,
Isn't the Alphabet a clear sign of the Creator? Why do we get the message CELT from the HEBREW ALPHABET? When doing "AthBash"? (please see encyclopedia) The 1st letter is exchanged for the last and so forth.( in Greek it would be Alpha for Omega) To do "AthBash" which incidentally is known to every Rabbi and Crptologist in the world, you break the alphabet into 2-halves, one over the other. Then the 4 end-letters very clearly "say" K'LT(KELT)! What is most amazing is this is by sound value in Square Hebrew (400 BC a Milesian "thing") but by letter shape in the original... Phonecian (BYBLOS). So that the word K'LT is forwards , backwards, and "ox-ploughing"! The Latin word for Religion is CULT(K'LT)! The Greeks said their gods "looked just like the KELTS". Julius Caesar tells us who the CELTS are(Gallic Wars) and he was a linguist who also used athbash encypherments. In other words...God is not an illiterate, but speaks to mankind through time ...proof.
Good Morning:
I'm fairly new to the InterNet, so I couldn't firgue out how to E-mail James Still directly. I've just finished reading his article: "Biblical and Extra-biblical Sources for the Existence of Jesus." I have a couple of comments.
The greatest "proofs" for the existence of the historical Jesus are Biblical, and Mr. Still does make an oblique reference to them in his article. These proofs are to be found in the semi-cleaning-up done by the Gospel writers on the historical details of Jesus' life that were too well known to be completed changed or ignored. The most obvious is Jesus' decipleship to John.
This historical difficulty has yielded some of our most beautiful Christian legends - the visit of Mary to Elizabeth - but a difficulty it remains. If an historical Jesus had not existed than the problem of Jesus' decipleship to John would never have arisen. If this decipleship were part of a Jesus-myth, then we could expect it to convey some greater "truth" about the signifigance of the "Christ." Instead it is an embarassment; albeit an embarassment of riches.
Thanks for your ear, and thanks for the article.
[This message was in response to " Response to the Skeptic's Prayer" by Robby Berry.]
I do not think that there are valid arguments in the skeptic's prayer. Neither is scientific method supposed to have anything to do with faith. The whole thing is a silly idea.
However, your comments that skeptics should be encouraged that faith may be replaced by atheism are indicativee of a problem. Whyat is it that bothers you about others having faith? Is it that some of them have an agenda which includes converting you? But you obviously have aan agenda which includes converting them. Are you a hypocrite?
There is some merit in minding your own business. Do you agree?
[This was in response to "The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus" by James Still.]
I think it is important to bring up the biases presented there and how they differ from what is really in the Gospel of John.
In summary, don't let the misunderstandings of the machine of veiled christianity deflect you from the truth in Jesus.
#1 '..everlasting life in the divine realm where Jesus has descended from'
It is evident from this gospel that the divine realm is God himself, not heaven.
#2 '...use Greek pagan concepts and philosophies as a tool for communicating Jesus..'
You missed the chance to associate the Word with the Tao. The 'word' or entity in existance with God is not a concept confined to Greek 'paganism'. A simple survey of world religions points repeately to a creative, unifying force which permeates the universe, giving it life and measure.
#3 In quoting John 1:14 you miss the tie back to the old testament. Christ comes as the reality (not the type or shadow) of the tabernacle. The place where God and man meet.
#4 '.. The shift takes us from the Judaic idea of a chosen people's messiah, to a Wisdom, a sophia, that pervades all things and all people.
Here you ignore the Sophiac tradition inherant in Judaism. Your emphasis of the Yawehic tradition has missed the Sophiac tradition as in Wisdom, Eccl., Song of Songs, etc. John's writing is not a shift but further revelation of Sirach, Wisdom, etc.
#5 'The Hellenization of Jesus is complete in John. Jesus' eschatalogical, or end of the world, message is removed..'
John 6:54 speaks of the last day. The Gospel of John is not a refutation of the eschaton. The emphasis in this book is on abiding in God. If we assume that the writer was the young disciple John, then he would have had many significant insights about his time with Jesus. Therefore the tone of his writing would be deeper than the others ('the disciple Jesus loved' John 21:21-24).
I believe this book was also written after the Revelation when John was an old man. In no other book do you have Jesus 'popping' in and out of the scene after the ressurection as much as this one. He is teaching his followers to be aware of His invisible presence as the compliment or enabler for abiding.
#6 'Nearly two thousand years later, we are still waiting for John's mansions to materialize.'
Your negative attitude toward the Gospel of John is not at all veiled in this comment. Check the Greek. The word means Abode (or dwelling place). Mansion is a the result of poor King James translation. The translators for the New King James saw this flaw and in their first edition even used the correct term abode. They recanted on the later editions and reverted to mansions. The abodes are the believers who are members of the body of Christ. Only poor christianity (and Buddist 'West Heaven') would think that God must be preparing a 'place' somewhere else and that if God has a city of gold (New Jerusalem), then the house he makes for me must be a mansion. Poor, natural, fallen, thinking. God has nothing to give you but Himself. The New Jerusalem comes down to earth (not heaven) and is a living composition of beings united with God Himself. (The believers are the many abodes of God)
#7 '..be baptised to become purified in that spirit. This concept is alien to Messianic Judaism, but baptism..'
You ignore the evidence presented by Paul that the passing of the children through the red sea was a kind of baptism. Or the type of the tabernacle and temple where the laver washing basin was used by the priests for cleansing. Washing for cleansing was a central rite in Judaism.
#8' That Jesus himself is particularly void of human characteristics, typical of a Jewish messiah is strikingly aparrant:'
Your blatant disgust and misunderstanding of Jesus is open. He would not answer 'yes' or 'no' to the religous tempters (Pay tribute to Ceasar or not, stone the woman or not). He answered according to wisdom. If the wisdom baffled them, it is not due to his lack of being fully human but to show the religousiosity of the Jews who took their traditions as being more important than the person of God.
#9 '..Jesus is distanced from the Jews who are the children of darkness:'
Your twisting of the writings is most apparent. This word was to the religious leaders of the day, Pharisees and Saducees, those in religious power. They are the children of darkness, not the entire Jewish nation.
#10 ' By the time John was first written at the end of the first century, the tales of Jesus grew to such an extent that Jesus was now fully transformed into a Hellenized god.'
Are you sure you did'nt talk about this conspiracy theory with Oliver Stone?
Do
you believe that Napoleon existed on this Earth?
Do you believe that Caeser existed on the Earth?
The reason why I ask that is because we have only 3 transcripts of actual fact that Napoleon lived on this Earth and we have only 2 documents that validate the fact that Caesar lived. And nobody questions that! We have over 400 actual transcripts and authenticated pieces of literature proof positive outside the vindicated Bible that told us about the Ark coming to rest on Mt. Ararat in Turkey long before any expedition ever went up there. I will pray for you and I will leave you with a thought. Trusting in GOD can be thought of like taking vitamins. I had a doctor tell me that "Oh you don't need to take those vitamins". Well what if he is right. What have I lost? Probably just a lot of money over the years, but what if he is wrong. He just shorted himself out of several years of life it might have added to his life. 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 will personally pray for you. GOD Bless You.
Internet Infidels' Response:
The historicity of the Genesis flood story is highly controversial at best and downright false at worst. The main objections to the story fall into three categories: textual, scientific, and moral. First, there are no good reasons to interpret the story literally (as you apparently do). On the contrary, according to some theories of Biblical scholarship (e.g., source criticism), the Genesis flood story is derived from multiple sources and is not intended to be a literal, historical account. Second, there are numerous scientific problems with both a worldwide flood and the Genesis story (including the Ark) in particular. (For a scientific critique of a global flood, see http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html). Third, the idea that Yahweh would kill all living creatures on Earth, except for a few select beings, raises serious questions about the moral character of that god.
You next raised Pascal's Wager. Even if you accept that the existence of God should be decided on beneficial grounds and not epistemic grounds, Pascal's Wager assumes that there is no evidence for or against the existence of God. The analytic philosopher Antony Flew has shown that Pascal assumed evidence could not be used to determine if there is a God ("Is Pascal's Wager the Only Safe Bet?", God, Freedom, and Immortality, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1984, pp. 61-68). That's why Pascal employed the cost-benefit analysis he used in his argument.
But Pascal also assumed that there are only two options: God (of Roman Catholicism) or no God (of any sort, and no immortality). Surely this is unreasonable. In addition to all of the gods posited by all of the known religions in the world, there is also an inifinite number of possible gods which are not the subject of any known religions but nevertheless *could* exist. (For example, it's possible that there is a perverse master who rewards atheists and punishes everyone else.) And while it may be true that that there is no evidence for these other gods, or even that the evidence for Roman Catholicism is superior, this cannot be used to justify Pascal's false dichotomy -- to do so would contradict Pascal's first assumption that evidence cannot be used to determine the existence of God. But that leaves us with an *infinite* number of options. And if there is an infinite number of options, then we can't weigh odds, and we can't make a reasoned bet.
But in fact I think you're mistaken in your assumption that one should decide the existence of God on beneficial grounds. Beneficial reasons should be used only when there are inadequate epistemic grounds to believe one way or the other. Moreover, there are good epistemic arguments for nonbelief (e.g., the inductive argument from evil). Unless and until one can show that all arguments for *and* against the existence of God are unsuccessful, beneficial arguments (like Pascal's Wager) are inappropriate.
I've read much of your material, and I must say it has strengthened my lack of faith. I've always been an atheist, but only recently have I solidified my beliefs (or lack thereof). I am a college student. Both of my roommates are very Christian. They have not tried to convert me, but I would not be surprised if they did. Thanks for proving the foolishness of blindly believing everything the bible says. I scanned the comments given, and came away with a few impressions:
Also, I noticed that only one person mentioned Joseph Lewis. In the 1920s (I think) he wrote a book called _The Bible Unmasked_. It is a point-by-point analysis of the morality presented in the Bible. True, morality is subjective, but Lewis correctly points out that some of the Bible stories contain examples of acts that nearly all people consider atrocious - acts which are committed by the heroes.
Lewis only investigates the Old Testament, and only the more shocking examples. If it is impossible to print this book (or portions thereof) online, I urge all readers to seek it out. Again, I would like to thank the Infidels for presenting atheistic thought logically and with knowledge of what you are rebuking. One must understand both sides of an issue to truly be able to argue one of them.
Jesus loves you.
[This message was in response to " Atheism: An Affirmative View" by Emmett Fields.]
To whom ths may concern:
The Atheist belief is an interesting and curious belief. I am a devoted Christian who, for the sole purpose to see your point of view, read your information an Atheism. I would like to start off by saying, I agree that the Encyclopedias are misleading to the Atheist believer for they are written from religious people.
I think, for one to objectively decide what they believe in, the information should be administered fairly. I do not, however, agree with your statements on the Christain religion. You said you are upset with the misinformation on Atheism in America, well, speaking for the Christians of our world, I would like to say that you sir are a hypocrate. For you obviousley do not know the first think about what it is to be a Christian. In past times, religions pesecuted and murdered individuals for being of the Atheist influence. That was only because they feared what they did not understand. Did not England do the same to those who fled to the Americas to start a new life? They were afraid of the change, it doesn't make them evil it just makes them human. Christians today are a people with a foundation of love and peace. Murder, hate, and persecution is a thing of the past. But that doesn't mean that there aren't those within our "religion" that still do some of these things. As, I am sure, is the same in yours. If you would only give us a chance, you would see that there is more to the Christian believer than you could imagine. Being a Christian is not a religion, it is a way of life and it is a life-long process. It involves putting your trust and faith in our Lord who saved us all from sin. He loves us so much, that He cares about our individual needs as well as our common needs. He is hurting right now, because He loves you, and yet you reject Him. He wants to do so much for you, and yet you turn Him away. Can you honestly tell me that deep down inside you don't have that little spot inside of you that is empty and cold. And no matter how you try and fill that emptiness, you keep coming up short? Only Jesus Christ can fill that spot. I am telling you, this IS the truth. Our Bible is the most sound and strongest of the laws. Anything you need answered can be done so in the Bible in some way. God can give you a sense of purpose. Why do you think that when Ahteists are confronted with Christian talk, they turn tail and run the other direction. Because they are afraid of the truth. They don't want to believe that someone else is in control of their lives, they want only to believe it's them. I openly read what you had to say, for I am secure in my belief. My belief is built on a foundation of rock, and yours of sand. That is how secure I am in my God. Can you HONESTLY say you have that same sense of security. Please take what I have said and try to understand it. It just may save your life. I am only doing this because I love everyone, including Atheists and Satanics and Jews etc. I want to share with you what Jesus Christ has done in my life and in the lives of others.
[This message was in response to "The Jury Is In" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
I have enjoyed reading your work. I read McDowell's book several years ago and after the first few pages started calling is "Evidence That Demands a Yawn". All of your information is welcome keep up the good work all of you.
Why don't you list Ayn Rand's works on this page. Ayn Rand as you might know was a novelist and philosopher who found a philosophy she called Objectivism. She advocated freedom and reason and she was also an atheist. Thanks for your time and keep up the good work.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Ayn Rand's works, like the works of Bertrand Russell, are still copyrighted. Since we do not have legal permission from the copyright holder to electronically publish her works, we cannot publish them on the Secular Web. With that said, I'm not convinced that any of her works were really appropriate for the Secular Web. I haven't read any of her works, but I'm told that her work emphasized epistemology, ethics, and politics, *not* religion. If you know of an uncopyrighted work by Ayn Rand focusing on religion, please let us know.
[This message was in response to "Criticisms of C.S. Lewis".]
Hello,
I just read the review of "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and I found it very interesting. However, I had hoped that it would be more in-depth.
I am interested in finding out how you all feel about the existence of God. I am assuming that whoever is reading this is an agnostic and I am curious to find out what you put your faith in. I believe that an agnostic, or even a true athiest, has as much faith as a Christian does. It takes a lot of faith to believe that we all came from nothing, it also takes a lot of faith to believe that we were created by God.
Internet Infidels' Response:
All of the Internet Infidels lack belief in god(s), and so I don't think that it's really accurate to claim that we have "faith" in something. Our lack of belief in god(s) is no more an issue of "faith" than is our lack of belief in Invisible Pink Unicorns. We base our beliefs on evidence. We don't feel that there is any good reason to believe in god(s) and so we don't. Some of us (but not all) believe there are good reasons to believe in the non-existence of God. There's no "faith" involved in any of this.
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
