 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
[This message was sent to SINGLES Email List.]
Dear Everyone:
Well, it's been fun. It's been educational. And, of course, it's been real. We just wanted to say adios to everyone. We came looking for other singles with whom we had something in common, stumbled upon each other, and ended up in love!
XXXX and I are in YYY right now talking about plans for our future. He's been here for 5 days and is going back to ZZZ tomorrow morning. I plan to see him in ZZZ around Thanksgiving, and he is coming back down to YYY for Christmas. We've decided we no longer have any reason to stay on the list and wish everyone well. We hope all of you have the same kind of luck we did.
Our best to everyone...
[This message was in response to "The Fool's" criticism of "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.]
My name is XXX. I am a senior in high school in YYY. I have a few things to respond to after reading some of the material put out by the Internet Infidels. Let me start by saying that I have found some of your material very valuable. It makes me think. I am also using some of it for a research project I am doing on "The historical Jesus." However, I have some problems with your philosophy. First of all, I do not like the way you present Christianity and Christians. Christianity is not a religion for idiots, whatever you may think. It is a very reasonable position. I am a very skeptical person, and I have found it to be so. You may not believe me, but those are the facts. I find most of your arguments against it unconvincing. Also, although I realize that all Christians are not always honest or good, I also realize that they are human, and so are you. The bitter temper tantrums against Christianity I find in your writings are a big put-off. I know that Christians sometim... [part of message lost in transmission]
Let me tell you what I think about most of your arguments: They are very shallow. They appeal to me on the surface, but they do not speak to my mind. What I mean is, your arguments have an appeal that can almost persuade me to agree with them, but in truth they are illogical. For example, I just got through reading your review of C.S. Lewis's book, Mere Christianity. Though a few of your arguments I agreed with, for the most part whoever wrote it showed an almost complete lack of understanding of the book. Take for instance the part where the writer quotes Lewis saying (not an exact quote), "I reluctantly gave in and admitted that God was God." The writer then tries to use this as evidence that Lewis had never really been a committed Atheist or Agnostic, saying that if he had, "he would have had nothing to 'give in' to." This is terrible reasoning. Just because Atheists are ignorant of the reality of an Absolute Personality behind and through the universe doesn't mean that they always have to be.
Let me propose something: I would like to dialogue with you who run the "Internet Infidels." I want to understand your position better and to help you to understand mine. You call yourselves Freethinkers, so avoid being hypocrites and try having open minds about what I believe, and I, out of honesty and true concern, will (by God's Grace) try to do the same. Thanks for reading my long letter. I hope to hear from you soon. And when you do respond, try to keep it objective in other words, no insults, put-downs, vague "I know it all and you are a superstitious fool" statements (or even thoughts). Thanks again.
Internet Infidels' Response: The document you are responding to was not written by the Internet Infidels; please don't judge us according to that author. If you want to truly want to understand our position better (and, in particular, mine), you can start by reading _The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence"_ at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/, the "DEBATE List FAQ" on arguments for and against the existence of God at [no longer available], the Atheism And Society FAQ on the social aspects of living as a non-theist at http://www.infidels.org/news/soc.atheism/faq.html, and "The Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection: The Debate Between Christians and Skeptics" at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/.
If you're still interested in dialoguing with us, then I recommend two email lists. First, there is the DEBATE List, which is concerned with arguments for and against the existence of God. Second, there is the MCDOWELL List, which is concerned with Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict. For more information on both of these lists, please check http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/secular.html.
Thanks for listening. Hope this helps!
[This message was in response to the soc.atheism FAQ.]
All I want to do at this moment is to say "Thank You" for the huge amount of work obviously you've put into this to date.re.... Thanks again.
I was very pleased to learn of the existence of the Internet Infidels. I have a suggestion. In your collection of literature, don't overlook "History of freedom of thought" by J.B. Bury.
Internet Infidels' Response:
If the author is willing to let us electronically publish the book (or if the copyright has expired) and if the files are sent to us, we will gladly add the book to our collection.
[This message was sent in response to "Inconsistences" by Donald Morgan.]
I was just reading your file on inconsistencies. I'd like to "pick" on the first one you listed regarding when God created day and night on one day and then the sun several days later.
Just because the sun was not yet created doesn't mean that God couldn't have been providing the "Light" Himself! The sort of argumentation used in your file is rather limiting in scope, especially when we are referring to God!
Internet Infidels' Response:
Of course! (In the minds of believers) God can do anything.
God could have provided the light indefinitely, couldn't he? In this case he would have saved himself some unnecessary effort in creating the Sun and the stars.
In any case, this does not change the fact that it seems absurd to talk about days being separated by night (dark) and day (light) without the Sun having yet been created. God, in all his alleged omniscience, would have known that this would seem absurd; He should have provided an explanation, or perhaps a disclaimer of some sort.
An omniscient, omnipotent, perfect God could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it were he to have anything to do with the writing of a Holy Bible.
You folks are my favorite spot on the net!!! Keep up the good work.
I've just recently become acquainted with the secular web, and I must say that it is VERY intriguing, although perhaps a little more dogmatic than the stereotypic non-cerebral Christian (of which there are far too many). My reason for contacting you, though, is NOT to berate or offer a sniffling "Oh yeah!?," rather, it is to extend a challenge or two for your consideration. I've read the debate that an ex-Christian had with Norman Geisler (of which I thought the ad hominem arguments were interesting), and also two reviews of C.S. Lewis (which brought a funny picture to my mind -- boxing with a dead man, and at best it was a draw).
To the challenge. I think that it would be a very lively time if you sponsored or recorded in print a debate between your most prominent atheist/agnostic scholar and Ravi Zacharias (who is a prominent Christian scholar).
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thank you for writing. I have serious reservations about oral debates.
First, speaking as a former interscholastic debater myself, time limits greatly decrease the quality of such debates. Time limits necessarily limit how much each debater may say, even though the topic is very complex. They also force the debater to be able to extemporaneously devise arguments. All too often I have known debaters who have thought of excellent arguments, only a day too late. I'm more interested in getting all the arguments out for discussion, rather than seeing who's quicker on their feet.
Second, it is unclear what value such debates have. I recently organized a debate between Farrell Till and Michael Horner on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, and I left wondering if the debate was indeed worth all the work. It is my experience that people generally go into debates waiting for their side to score the most "points" and usually do not give the other side a fair chance.
However, the Internet Infidels are interested in a dialogue with Ravi Zacharias. I contacted his ministry via their Web page about a month ago, and they sent me copies of Zacharias' books. If Zacharias is interested, maybe we could set up some sort of written dialogue, and then publish that dialogue on the Secular Web. If you would be interested in arranging such a dialogue, let me know. Hope this helps!
[This was in response to "Boy Scouts of America Practices Intolerance" by Annie Laurie Gaylor.]
Thank you for your propaganda. It does not change my mind as I am a conservative.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Are you serious? Gee, I didn't know that "conservative=discriminatory". I always thought that fairness was a traditional value.
To whom it may concern--
I suppose that I must first qualify my remarks below. I am a, for all intents and purposes life long atheist, who does not see 'repentence' in his future. I must say that I support what you are doing, albeit with some objection.
My sentiments are that in your selection of materials, you have fallen victim to a rather modernist (and extremely simplistic) binary opposition between believers/non-believers the latter being the only group that you seem to be willing to label 'free thinkers'. To this, I must categorically object. You do very poorly to ignore a very long and colorful dissenting tradition, which it should be added is the soil from which atheism sprang up. Many of these dissenters (i.e. 18th century and prior) were in fact believers, but within this rubric of belief (i.e. religious language being the only (or predominant) legitimate and legitimating language.) put forth powerful and (still to this day) very persuasive critiques of organized religion, domination, and conformity (not only of the religious variety!), William Blake, perhaps being the greatest (and one of the last) examples (read: E.P. Thompson (there's a name for your list of free thinkers!) <<Witness against the Beast William Blake and the Moral Law>>). Still further back, consider the Ranters and the Muggletonians, among other antinomian sects in and around the English Revolution, who provide wonderful examples of individuals who 'spoke truth to power', and in this day and age, when free thought and critical enquiry are increasingly under attack from right wing fanatics, should be considered as historical and intellectual precursors to our struggle (see <<A Collection of Ranter Writings>>, also A.L. Morton <<The World of the Ranters>>). Also you might consider various Leveller and Digger writings, (Overton, among others)
Above all, on all of this, read Christopher Hill's <<The World Turned Upside Down Radical Ideas in the English Revolution>>. The point of all this is that we have to look more closely at dissent, sometimes within religion, and consider the historical circumstances in which it arose. Nonconformity is nothing new and extends well back in time (and hopefully will continue forward in time!).
Internet Infidels' Response:
Your point is very well-taken. Most of our criticisms are atheistic. But we do intend to correct this, as our resources allow. For the last two months or so, Robby Berry has been working on Beyond Born Again by Robert Price . Price is a liberal Christian scholar who has self-published a book criticizing evangelical apologetics, and has granted the Internet Infidels permission to post his work on the Secular Web. As we explained in our FAQ , we must have the copyright holder's permission and the book's files in order to add it to the Secular Web. If you have the files for any of the books below and if the author will allow us to publish the books electronically, please send us the files. Thanks for writing.
[This message was sent in response to the Humor section.]
I do not think that your jokes are appropriate or funny.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Then don't read them.
I friend sent me your URL as an antidote to http://cc.org/. I'm not sure where tamu.edu is, however.
Thank you for making available the Humamist Information. As a life long non-believer, I have never had access or was aware that this information exsisted. Even though I do not have anyone to freely express my thoughts or be able to have a person to person conversations with those who have the same Humanist beliefs, it has been a great joy and enlightening experience for me to read what you have made available and share with me. Even though I have just started to work my way through the enormous amount of information I am looking forward to spending as much available time I can find to read and learn about what I have always felt in my heart. This has been a trully wonderful experiance for me. Thank You.
[This message was sent in response to "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's 'Evidence'" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
Hi. I was just checking our your site, and I was wondering if there's a hard copy of The Jury Is In document, parts of which you have on line (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/). If you do, I'd be interested in getting a copy of it. Thanks.
Internet Infidels' Response:
There is no hard copy available, and we do not presently have any plans to distribute "The Jury Is In " in printed form. If someone can introduce us to a publisher who would allow us to electronically publish the materials while keeping the document freely available on the Web, we would gladly have them make hard copies available.
Where would I find more information on the historical proof of the bible and Jesus. I would like both sides of the argument, and I am having difficulty finding books contradicting the bible.If you could supply me with the names of some books and where to find them it would really help me.
I was very pleased to learn of the existence of the Internet Infidels. I have a suggestion. In your collection of literature, don't overlook "History of freedom of thought" by J.B. Bury.
You sure have a lot of atheists, agnostics, etc. to access, how come there aren't any Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc? Just curious.
[This message was in response to "Young Earth Arguments" by Dave Matson.]
Thank you for all the wonderful articles. I am a logical Christian, who finds it hard to believe how so many others can ignore the tons of obvious scientific evidence supporting an old earth, and evolution. I have loved science all my life, and can easily refute most creationist arguments (especially the insulting 2nd law of thermo) , but It will be nice to have all of these articles to use for backup, tonight, when I go to church to hear a creation "Scientist"? speak. I am embarrased to think how many christians will hear him, and believe everything. I will question him vigorously during and after the sermon, and hopefully expose the bankruptcy of the 6 day creationist theory. I am angered that many young minds may be damaged when they grow up hearing "creationism" and then learn in school later, the obvious ridiculousness of the arguments. Please send me anything else which will help. Thanks!
[This message was in response to "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's 'Evidence'" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
It is truly heart-wrenching the fact that you have HELL to pay for your denial of the God of scriptures. This web sight is blasphemous, and "He who sit's in the Heavens laughs" at your future punishment in an eternal, agonizing lake of fire where you will most certainly go if you don't repent in time!!
May God NOT have mercy on your soul
Internet Infidels' Response:
Before your attempt at bullying us into salvation can possibly be effective, you will need to prove to us the existence of God and Hell and the truth of Christian claims. Without evidence to that effect, your threats will only amuse, not frighten. May I ask what your evidence is for the existence of God? Of Hell? What evidence is there for Christian claims, and why is that evidence sound?
Sincerely,
"Standing up to metaphysical bullies since 1990."
To whom this may concern,
Members of a particular organization would appreciate it if there is not so much masonic information displayed on the system.
[This message was in response to Helen Gardner.]
It is obvious that you put alot of free thought in your words but had no regard for the truth of your words. What you have said is so deceiving that those who have read the Bible objectively without opinion would surely disagree with you. It is quite conceivable that your true motivation is that you deplore men and the Bible because they go against what you want and believe. Your views and opions are nothing short of gender bias and a result of your discontentment with your role in society.
Lets assume their is no God at all. Then what you say is just your opinion and has no more validity, truth, or authority than my own. So in any given society, the stronger of the two would certainly prevail. You Lose! If the God of the Bible does exists, then there is validity truth, and most importantly...AUTHORITY (that dreadful word) You Lose Again. Your problem is that you find it difficult to submitt to God's authority and hence reject his word. That is why you make misleading and deceptive statements about the Bible.
The difference between us is that I read the Bible to seek God's truth where as you seek it only to create scrutiny. It is obvious (even without reading the Bible) that our bodies were created for different roles. Women have a womb for bearing children and breasts to feed them. Men have physical strength to work the fields, build structures, and defend their families and country. You can't possible deny our differences unless you choose to decieve yourself and others.
Your problem is that your not satified with your God given role and choose to do otherwise. This is called Sin (a seperation from God). It happens when we choose to do other than what God had intended us to. The first seperation from God was when Eve chose to disobey God's command and ate an apple from a tree which he had commanded her not to. It is not that she ate an apple but that she chose to disobey God, hence this act brought sin into a sinless world. Just as our own laws dictate that there is a consequence to breaking the law, the is a consequence to breaking Gods law. I don't know what kind of church you came from but it surely doesn't sound like one that sought God's truth and rightousness. Unfortunately your the one suffering the consequence of their disobedience.
I go to a Methodist church which seeks God in all it does. It is full of well educated people and "A" high school students. I am a graduate of the Ohio State University with a Degree in Engineering and am now the owner of a biz. You can't say that I'm ignorant and uneducated, for it would be more disinformation from you. I'm not interested in any man-made religious practice such as you own, but in knowing the truth. The truth is that if we seek God, We WILL find him and if we obey him, we will be blessed by him. It is disobedience to God that has brought turmoil, death, and destruction to our country. This will only gets worse unless We as a nation start living for the truth and not for our own selfish desires. It is unfortunate that some men do not Honor their wives as the Bible commands for the women suffer and the men will soon suffer the consequences. I should hope the men in your life honor you as a women and treat you with the respect you deserve.
[This message was in response to "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's 'Evidence'" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
I was wondering since you are an expert on making up myths. I want to know how to write four books about an imaginary person claiming that person did incredible miracles. The books are by four imaginary authors. Of course we must convince millions of people that they are true. We could make millions. I shall be waiting for an answer because I realy could use the money.
I can appreciate how an intelligent person could be an agnostic, but how can one be an infidel?? By defination, you are saying that you KMOW there is no God. This is not possible.
I found your pages to be very refreshing and informing. Coming from a society (Belfast in Northern Ireland) dominated by sectarianism from both 19th century protestant fundementalism and 18th century roman catholicism, I probably realise more than most people the real need to debunk all the Christian absurdities. In Belfast lives have been lost over an individual's view on trans-substantation - ridiculous in the year 1995! And, unfortunately, Ireland is no exception when it comes to religious extremism. Keep up the good work.
I am not asking to be an anti-thot being, quite the opposite!!!! (: Have you ever read the book titled "THE RESURRECTION FACTOR by Josh McDowell? It seems to answer,in a very thoughtful and logical way some of your questions abouth the resurrection. also the EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT VOL.I & II. only two anyway. I am offering this in a fellow searcher of truth manner. I would love to cultivate a friendship with you (all) and i do not necessarily view it as an Us vs, Them thing either. OK :)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Yes, I have read all of the McDowell books you list, plus many others not listed by you. In fact, I'm the editor of an on-line rebuttal to McDowell's EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT. The rebuttal is entitled THE JURY IS IN: THE RULING ON MCDOWELL'S "EVIDENCE" and is available on the Web at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/. Also, you might find of interest my undergraduate thesis on the resurrection. It's available at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/. Hope this helps.
Logic Logic Reason Reason I cant explain it all away neither can you I feel I think I hurt but it still doesnt make sense all the time so why lean on myself when I lie Why rely on a test tube dream if it breaks when you drop it If I found answers to all my questions in a book or someones logic then where would the mystery be Sure I believe Jesus maybe because I cant explain it Maybe because if I can name a reason for belief then the belief is as broken as the test tube dream Perhaps you believe you don't have to disprove God to say he isn't there Then why should he be proven to say he is Again its logic logic reason reason its all a fallacy to think any of it is true
I understand that religion was starting to creep into schools as a historical topic, that this was anticipated by the Humanists who wanted to have a book on the history of freethinkers to round out the discussions in school textbooks and that a USC professor of religion wrote one. He is Dr. Gerald LaRue. I don't know the title, but I think it is already published. For a group trying to promote religion, especially of one type, e.g. Christianity, the best assault is the arguements of T. Jefferson on the first amendment, and also of Madison after he was president. If anyone wants these materials, I have them digitized somewhere and will dig them up. Let me know.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I'd be interested. Larue is a biggie with the American Humanists Assoc and was sort of "behind" the Noah's Ark/Jammal hoax (see Jim Lippard's home page). I'd be concerned about copyright concerns before putting it up on the Secular Web, though. Did Larue give his permission for the digitized distribution of his works (this and other works)?
Its strange how when you write a letter to an atheist such as yourself you can do so in such a relaxed way. You don't have to be too concerned about with holding your signature, etc. in case of death threats or an endless supply of junk email trying to convert you.
Although I am not an atheist and sometimes declare myself as Christian I unfortunately fall into the minority in this group as I am a supporter of truth. It appears as though the majority of Christians, especially those in the States, have a strange perception of truth.
Anyway I enjoy reading your page and related literature, both satire and science. Congratulations on putting forward your thoughts, I think you would be more worthy of Martyrdom than many of these fundamentalists. I don't know whether I'd have the courage to take the stand your taking.
As a bit of side note, I'm sure you would be interested in a book by Ian Plimer called "Telling Lies For God". It has been published by Random House Australia. You may already have it. If not give me an email and I'll organise for one to be sent to you.
Keep up the good work,
[This message was sent in response to "Biblical Atrocities" by Donald Morgan .]
Hi. I'm mailing this from Netscape, having just visited your page of "Biblical Atrocities." A few thoughts (not that you particularily care):
Do you enjoy free will? I sure do. Being an adult, I can do nearly anything I want, without consulting anybody. Granted, I'm still subject to gravity, and after all these years I'm still not bulletproof, but in general I have the freedom to do whatever I want. I can kill, if I'm so inclined. So can anyone else. Would it make the world that much better if God took away our ability to kill one another? Perhaps. So let's say He does. Now we are no longer capable of committing murder. We can still beat each other severely about the head and neck with heavy objects. Would it be a better world if God took away that ability too? Wait. This is getting complicated. I have an idea. It'll be much less trouble for everyone if God just takes away our ability to think and act on our own. Then *voila*, the world is now a perfect utopia where nobody defrauds anyone, people act unselfishly to end all the pain and suffering in the world, and every kitty and puppy has a good home. What do you mean you're not happy? The world's perfect now, what more could you possibly want? Oh. Oh I know. You're missing the free will you once had. Well, your free will can't be given back to you, because that would place some of the responsibility for all the evil in the world on your shoulders, and as we've already seen, you're not willing to accept that responsibility. Back then, you wanted to push off the responsibility onto God's shoulders. Now you can. Now that no one has any kind of free will left, anything that goes wrong is God's responsibility.
Internet Infidels' Response:
You say "I have the freedom to do whatever I want," but you fail to answer the obvious followup question, 'how do you come to want things?' I find it might be more accurate to say (when not being physically restrained) that you can _only_ do what you want. It does, of course get complicated with conflicting wants, but being 'able' to do what you want doesn't seem to imply a non-causal impetus to me.
In reference to the statement about no cenesue taking place, their are some JW here who provided documentiation from Quirinius in Syria about inscriptions found in Venice (Lapis Venetus) from Corpus Inscription Latinarum, edited by T Mommsen O. Hirschfeld & A. Domaszewski published 1902- Vol 3 p. 1222 - No 6687 which seem to support the secular collaborating evidence of a census being taken. Would you care to respond to this? Thank you for your time.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I now have the inscription in front of me. Mommsen, CIL v.3, no. 6687 corresponds to Dessau, ILS, no. 2683, and is treated briefly in the Anchor Bible article under that citation.
P. Sulpicius Quirinius is prominently mentioned, which a list of some of his accomplishments and commands. Quirinius is listed as conducting a census among the Apameneans. This was probably part of his governorship of Syria in 7 CE, which is known to have also included a census of Judaea (Josephus, Ant. 17.13.5).
There is no indication of a worldwide census; or, that there was an earlier census than that of 7 CE; or, that P. Q. was ever governor of Syria at any earlier time.
I found your stuff interesting and humorous.
I once met God. Not in a vision or dream but in person. I was involed in Budisim at the time. I told a christian friend of mine how at err he was in believing that Jesus Christ was Lord. A good teacher prehaps but not the strong arm of God. Afterwards, I died. I was place before the Lord. I was surrounded by an atmosphere of total truth. I could not lie nor could I decieve myself in his presence. He asked my only one question, "Do you want to live or die?" I was afraid. Even though I new I was already dead of the reality with which I was aquainted, I was afraid of the death he offered. I said, "Oh God, I want to live." Instantly I was back on earth and alive. He gave me no stone stone tablets: no road maps. But I was alive and I had met God. I no Longer question his existence, just what he expects of me. This is a true story.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I met someone once who told me a similar story. Only he claimed to have met aliens. Why do you expect me to find your story more credible?
Dear Friends, Your work provides a much needed balance in the defense of truth. Would you mind if we added your page as a link on our site? Please confirm. Thank you. May GOD bless you and bring you to a good End.
Internet Infidels' Response:
By all means. Any links to our site are welcome. I hope you'll forgive us for not reciprocating... there are so many religios sites that we're forced to only point at Yahoo's listing of them.
It seems to me that there are several pages posted by the "Infidels" that might well provoke interesting discussions. Would it perhaps be in your power to create some way for readers to post replies, and eventually start some sort of philosophical dialogue?
Internet Infidels' Response:
As much as I like your idea, unfortunately the Secular Web is a volunteer effort, and speaking only for myself, I'm barely able to support the Secular Web to the extent that I do. I have set up a feedback page ( http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/), so if there is something in particular you'd like to comment on, please feel free to submit your comments and we'll publish them on our feedback page. Hope this helps. Take care!
In reviewing your list of magazines in the Secular Web Library, I did not find The Humanist (AHA). Is this an oversight or do you have a reason for not including it?
Internet Infidels' Response:
We do not have The Humanist in our Magazines section because we do not have any of the files for that magazine. If you have obtained permission from the AHA to electronically publish their magazine on the Secular Web and have the files ready to send to us, please let us know.
Sobreity priority, I was alarmed by your article!!! I have been sober now for about 8 years and have also found that there is no 1 way to recovery. However, there is so much more to recovery than just staying sober. Simply put...drinking is only a symptom of alcoholism. Therefore, your conclusion or therapy is not conrguent with the treatment for alcoholism! Please take time to re-reflect on your therapy and I believe that you will notice this major flaw.
I was searching through the internet for something to do and I found a reference to your collection at http://www.infidels.org/library/. I was very impressed at the variety and quality of the articles that it contains. Some of the articles bring up some very puzzling ideas that often get argued about. I found the reference from someone who lives in Moscow, Idaho and set up the Palouse, Washington homepage. I am going to put your collection as a link on my homepage. Please add some more quality articles as time permits and keep your collection the best!!
Being raised in a fundamentalist family(My father is an ordained minister through Assemblies of God) I have greatly appreciated the information you have made avaliable. Because I think most christians have point when they claim that many people reject christianity through ignorance, it is nice to find that there are others who have rejected it with a relatively complete understanding of its teachings and the bible's teachings...
[This message was sent in response to Donald Morgan.]
I was disappointed by your Web page of Biblical errors. For the most part, the internal and external inconsistencies you point out will be problematic only to the most radical fundamentalist. The contradictions you describe are relevant only if people insist that the Bible is literally true in every detail.
What's more, the entire section of "vulgarities and atrocities" which you describe as being inconsistent with the Christian God are only inconsistent with a very limited understanding of God's nature. To a Christian with a clue, none of these things are going to be a problem--the idea that God might command the death of children isn't hard to deal with, considering that children die all the time in a world that God runs.
You would be much better off if you got through the trivia and reached the real issues of faith and reason that lead people to disbelieve the divine nature of the Bible.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thank you for writing me. I appreciate your interest.
Where in the material do I refer to biblical errors? And what were you expecting to find that brought about your disappointment? Where in the material did I refer to contradictions? I was careful, I thought, to refer to biblical problems (rather than errors) and biblical inconsistencies (rather than contradictions).
My point in being picayunish about this is that Christians, particularly fundamentalists, often take exception to the idea of errors and contradictions. But to deny that there are problems and inconsistencies is quite another thing, as the evidence that I compiled demonstrates.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but as a well-studied Christian who was personally discipled by his pastor, I do not share your opinion. My opinion is that an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, and loving God could have, should have, and would have done a much better job of it were he to have had anything to do with the writing of a book.
Furthermore, there is no understanding of either Jesus (the Son) or God (the Father) outside of the Bible unless you are going to admit of personal revelation to individuals, or the authority of Popes, for example -- in which case, we end up with many, different gods.
Incidentally, I did point out that what is and is not vulgar is a matter of personal taste. In any case, some of the biblical material would likely be considered vulgar by Christians if it were found any place other than the Bible.
True that Christians can and do excuse their God for all sorts of horrific events for which he is ultimately responsible, but that doesn't mean that these events are not unfortunate or not atrocities.
For many people, myself included, it is hardly a matter of faith that causes me to disbelieve the divine nature of the Bible -- rather it is the evidence gleaned from the Bible itself. Reading and studying the Bible, and about the Bible, so much is what destroyed my faith.
If you prefer, however, to believe that the Bible is, in fact, the Word of God, that is quite alright with me.
Regards,
[This message was in response to "Top Ten Names for Josh McDowell's 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict'" by Robby Berry .]
Please show me any fallacies, in a logical manner of course, in Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Although I have a natural bias to believe in the things he argues as I am a Christian, I have found his arguments to be built on very sound logical bases. I am sorry to say that I have not yet taken the opportunity to read any of the rebuttals to the book, but I would like for you to suggest the rebuttal that you consider to be the best argument of that position. Thanks for your time.
Internet Infidels' Response:
We're working on our own refutation of ETDAV. It's called "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's 'Evidence'", and it's available on the World Wide Web at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/. Hope this helps.
[This message was in response to M. M. Mangasarian.]
I have never heard such unfounded and irrelevent arguments before. It was most entertaining:
[This message was in response to "Condemned Opinions"by Joseph McCabe.]
Regarding the long essay put out by your organization on the internet .......it seems that you are wasting your time trying to criticize the Catholic Church. As an atheistic organization, why should you care about a religion that perpetrates the exisistence of a god that is not there? If there really is no supreme being, then any organization which promotes thios ridiculuos idea should be ignored. One should go out and enjoy life while one has it instead of wasting valuable moments condemning an assembly of fools. By devoting so much energy on this cause, "infidel" is indirectly granting validity and worth to a worthless religion. I say forget this shit, go out, fuck a few women (or men), and indulge in life instead of worrying about what the Pope does..After all, in a few years, we'll all be dead and won't exist to give a shit about any of this stuff.
I am looking for information about Joseph Lewis. He was a freethinker and did alot of work to bring recognition of Tom Paine to the world in the 30's,40's,50's and 60's. He died in 1968. He founded or helped found the International Thomas Paine Foundation which dedicated (3) monuments to Paine and got the U.S. Post Office to issue the only Paine stamp ever issued. He was truely remarkable. I got alot of information from Mr. Carl Shapiro about Lewis but I would like to know if there is anyone else out there who has some information about Lewis.
We are currently raising money to build a monument to Paine in his American home of Bordentown, N.J. No monuments to Paine have been done since the 1950's. Isn't it time to do it again!
Anyone with information about Lewis and/or anyone interested in our project to honor Thomas Paine please contact me at my e-mail address or at:
T.P.M.C.- B.H.S.Continue with what you're doing! Don't let condescending or condemnatory messages get at you. Have you ever read _Who Wrote the Bible?_? It's an excellent investigation of the five authors who wrote the Pentateuch or Mosaic texts of the Old Testament.
I highly recommend it both for its scholarship and for its friendly style, a style which makes it equally accessible to atheists, members of any segment of Judaeo-Christianity, and non-Christians.
[This message was in response to M. M. Mangasarian.]
I bumped into your page while looking for a Greek Bible on the WWW. I was amazed at the volume of material you presented. (You surpassed my cache limit).
I'm a fourth year college student at Harvard, majoring in East Asian Studies, but I studied Latin for six years, and majored in religion for the first two years of my academic career here. The Harvard Divinity School shares many of your views on the disharmony of the gospels, and the overall illegitimacy of the bible as the "word of God".
Because of my Latin background, I was familiar to some extent with the several references to Classical Roman and Greek examples.
I am, (probably to your detest), a born-again evangelical Christian, converted on 6/23/92. Again I was impressed with the amount of thought behind your page. I couldn't read all of it. You wrote a lot.
But I did find certain, perhaps, weak spots. You compare the historicity of Jesus with the records of Abraham Lincoln. The comparison is unfair. Try Sophocles, Socrates, Homer, Vergil, even Caesar, all of whose literary works survive only in scant quantities, with the most recent surviving manuscripts dating several hundreds of years after their supposed dates of writing. Yet no one questions the historical existence of any of these figures. From Sophocles we only have, I think, something like ten manuscripts dating around seven hundred years or so after the original writings. The Bible has been, the most faithfully transmitted book of its kind, with more manuscripts than any other work of its era.
A nice compilation of facts and logical strings in favor of Christianity is a book titled "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. I believe it consists of two volumes.
Most of all, you're depiction of Christianity, misrepresents faith and its manifestations. I'm assuming that you have been exposed mostly to Christianity in an "American" context. Currently, there are more Christians in the third world than Europe and the US combined. In England every day 20 churches shut down, while in South Korea 5 churches are planted. Five of the ten largest churches in the world are located in Korea. The largest church in the world is in Seoul, with a congregation of over 700,000 members. That church is called, "Full Gospel Church" and is of the Assemblies of God denomination.
Why am I writing this, you're asking? The Assemblies of God, is a Pentecostal denomination. Pentecostalism is the fastest growing expression of religion on earth at this moment (even faster than Islam). By the year 2000, Pentecostalism may surpass Catholicism as the dominant expression of Christian worship in the world ("Fire from Heaven" by Harvey Cox, Professor at Harvard Divinity School).
Among the Pentecostals, several millions of people have witnessed or experienced faith-healing, speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc... These things are often interpreted by humanists/atheists/scientists as either totally fraudulent or self-induced phenomena. Yes, I believe a portion can be categorized in this fashion, BUT it is not faithful to empiricism to blindly just assume that all these are false with no documentation, research, or statistics. Prophecy or foretelling is interpreted as coincidence.
The atheist/scientist/humanist is just as dogmatic as the Christian, and unwilling to accept factual occurrences as are, but rather attempt to reinterpret them such that the occurrence will still fit within an atheistic framework. Coincidence, coincidence, coincidence. I've heard that word too many times from my atheist colleagues here at Harvard. Even they admit that they're stretching it. Miracles occur all over the world, especially in the third world.
I don't need to here that that's because the third world consists of a population unexposed to western science and scientific empiricism. Again, that's only attempting to impose an atheistic worldview on all experience. Some miracles are false, but some have been documented. I don't need a straw-man counter-argument.
So in the end, my point is, yes, your worldview is coherent, but only to a point. It explains religion, and events which happen in America and Europe. But your worldview does not truly account for the supernatural occurrences in the rest of the world. The way your worldview tries to account for these things is to write them off as imaginary, self-induced, coincidental...the list goes on and on.
I realize that my faith has lent itself to a certain dogma. do you? I've witnessed exorcisms, I myself have predicted the suicide attempt of a friend on the hour, having not spoken in three months. I happened to be praying when I received this prediction. I happened to be praying to Jesus Christ.
Tough stuff, to explain in an atheistic worldview. But I guess, you guys have a lot of faith, too.
Hi! I have just discovered SOS and would like more information about it. I am in the process of doing research and am looking for alternative forms of treatment and recovery applicable to survivors of traumatic brain injury who also have a history of substance abuse. Based on the "empowerment model" we assist our clients to take charge of their lives following this traumatic injury. Therefore, the concept of "powerlessness" doesn't equate with "empowerment." Any information you can provide will be appreciated. I hope to publish the results of my study upon completion. If there is any printed material that you can provide, please e-mail me and I'll provide my mailing address. Thank you.
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 religious 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.
[This message was in response to "The Mistakes of Jesus " by William Floyd .]
Other gods makes mistakes
NOT JESUS, and that's because He is the ONLY TRUE GOD!
I believe in the scripture and you better be. Do not jugde or give opinion about something you do not know. I am sure that you never really read the bible.
I hope that the Holy Spirit can open your understanding about the scripture.
Congratulations on a well-developed and intriguing site! I only stopped-by for a moment (accidentally) and found myself reading for nearly an hour! 'So much to take-in!
Please add me to your "mailing list" if you have one: I publish a community newsletter in my hometown, and I am always interested in good writers/articles/fodder-for-debate. I want to present a "reasonable," balanced collection of reading & reference sites for my community.
I intend to solicit articles from various church-affiliated organizations in my community and invite them to discuss/argue issues from their theist/religious perspectives. Althought I don't know the percentages of residents here that attend churches or hold religious beliefs, I imagine that the number is near the norm. I expect that a collection of articles from local religious people will be well-received (if only for the sake of debate); however, reference to your site would provide a rich resource of alternative views!
I wholeheartedly support your advocacy of a "free market of ideas," and I am especially interested in reading more of the writings of our nation's founding fathers -- especially as they relate to public education and legislation. The debate(s) continue!
Would it be possible to include information about the authors of the texts submitted here?
[This was in response to " Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled" by Farrell Till.]
Congratulations! You have single handedly destroyed God, His revelation, and all His believers. I feel sure you will receive some special prize or award. Thanks.
Onward unchristian soldiers!
I have to say how happy I am to see such work with all the Christian babble going on in the present political climate.
I'm interested in exegeses of Romans 13 how it was used to support the divine right of kings, to support the British against the independence of America, by Jonathan Edwards against impeachment.
My larger goal is to make more Americans aware of what the Bible really says and how un-American it is. Nothing could be better for atheism than to let more people know about scripture and Christian history.
[This message was sent in response to "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's 'Evidence'" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
I would like to see your documentation in saying that:
1)
the
Bible is full of contradictions
2) that the disciples weren't disciples
3) that Luke doesn't precede Acts, and the dates of when they
were written
I just want to verify whether you have proof of what you're saying so that I can weigh it as true/false, or whether your inventing cleverly constructed ideas. Do you have a vendetta against McDowell, or are you pursuing this with integrity? I just want to know... Thanks.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I might be wrong -- I frequently am - and if that is the case, I want to be corrected. But I'm not sure where in Jury we claimed any of the above three contentions. Can you show us where we wrote this?
Just curious - ever studied works of Kenneth Boa? He is a graduate of Case Institute of Technology and Dallas Theological Seminary. Very intelligent Christian apologist, non-combative, very thought provoking approaches if you are interested in intelligent points of view different from your own. I'M GLAD YOU ASKED is one of his better works available through Victor Books, SP Publications, Wheaton, Illinois 60187 ISBN 0-88207-354-0. Hope this helps.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thanks for the recommendation. Although we do read many works by Christian authors, we simply do not have the time or the resources to read every book on Christian apologetics recommended to us. It is very frustrating to read several Christian authors on a particular subject, only to find out that some Christian is upset because you did not read *their* favorite author. For example, I was talking to a Christian about the argument from evil for God's non-existence, and they asked me if I had read "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis. When I mentioned that I had not read that particular book by Lewis, but had read several others, including "Mere Christianity" and "The Great Divorce", not to mention other authors, including Alvin Plantinga's "God, Freedom, and Evil" (the definitive theistic response to the argument from evil), this person then proceeded to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about.
Now I do not mean to suggest that Kenneth Boa does not have challenging arguments. (If he does, I don't want to appear like I'm avoiding them.) If he has an argument that we have not addressed somewhere, please send us a short outline of how the argument works.
Thanks for listening!
[This was in response to " Absurdities of the Bible " by Donald Morgan.]
I was browsing through your "absurdities in the bible" and was a little amused. I'm not a Christian, but used to be, and most of your arguments are totally childish. Mostly because you assume there is absolutely no symbolism in the Bible and you have not studied it as have I. And you don't take into account that G-d can do anything. It's not like He's bound by any laws or human conception. Sure there are some dumb things like snails melting, but Psalms was written by David without "divine intervention". He was just saying what thought was true. Maybe you should re-think some of your arguments, yours are a little too easy to explain away.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Both of your (rather typical) assumptions are invalid. I certainly have not assumed that there is "absolutely no symbolism in the Bible." In addition, you have no way of knowing (at this point) what my background with regard to Bible study is and how it compares to yours. When you make such absolute statements as you did, above ("totally childish," "absolutely no symbolism," "have not studied it as I have") you are guilty both of making hasty generalizations based on too little evidence and of gross exaggeration to the point of making your statements untrue.
If I were to accept, as true, what you say (and I don't, by the way) it should be obvious to both of us that God could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it were He to have had anything to do with the writing of His Word. There is not a reason on earth that he could not have added disclaimers, where necessary, so that His Word wouldn't appear (in places) to be merely the product of primitive, uneducated peoples. After all, God is alleged to be omnipotent, omniscient, perfect and benevolent.
Either the Bible is or is not His Word. The evidence supports my contention more than it does yours.
Perhaps you should re-think your arguments. I have read literally hundreds of books about the Bible, as well as studying the Bible itself, both as a Christian and as a non-Christian over the past twenty-five years. My conclusions are based on studying both sides of the issue. Yours seem to be rather one-sided.
P.S. I am a Purdue graduate myself.
We have a scary situation here -- there's a continuing local debate on the prospect of teaching <about> religion in local public schools, and some yahoo didn't like the concern a community member expressed re "judging" which religions to teach about and what to teach about them. Of course his letter, asking how anyone could not see christianity's superiority to Jim Jones' teachings or the Aztec forms of worship, is exactly why some of us are concerned.Looking for ammunition to try to answer, I found your page. Thanks.
[This was in response to "Biblical Inconsistencies " by Donald Morgan .]
I attend a youth group at my local church every Wednsday night and every Sunday afternoon. Our youth director somehow managed to get on the net and download your paper you put togather called Bible inconsistencies. This paper was the topic of our discusion at our last meeting. At the end of the lesson I asked if I could see the paper to see if you had you an E-Mail address listed. You did and that is how I got your address. I just wanted to let you know that our youth group is praying for you so that you might find the way in which you are wrong. In your paper you sighted some things that might be true at first sight. That is if you didn't read the rest of the scripture around the part you were talking about.
I didn't mail you just to preach at you by any means but as a christian it is my job to tell people about Christ and when people try to pick out inconsistencies in the Bible it is my job to let them know that they have to read the rest of the Bible in order to understand what certain parts mean. One thing you had listed on your list of inconsistencies was that when God said that if Adam was to eat of this one tree he would die within that day yet later on in the book it says that Adam lived something like 930 years. If you were to read the Bible and try to understand what was trying to be said you would understand that what God meant when he said that was that Adam would die sporitualy and not physically. Because when Adam did eat the fruit he let din enter the world and he died "Spiritually". That was just one example of the missunderstandings you stated in your paper. Like I said I didn't write you to preach so I'll leave it at that.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I sincerely hope that you and the others in your youth group might come to a better understanding of the Bible, one that is not so one-sided as it seems to be.
It is an invalid assumption on your part that I have not read the rest of the Bible. As a matter of fact, I have been reading and studying the Bible itself, and reading and studying *about* the Bible, for nearly twenty-five years -- both as a Christian and as a non-Christian. If I hadn't read the "other parts," I would not have seen the obvious inconsistencies.
You can tell me what your interpretation of any given Bible passage is and I can tell you mine. My interpretation is based on understanding the Bible from both sides of the believer/non-believer fence after having read, literally, hundreds of books on the subject, not to mention the many Bible studies I attended as a Christian.
As far as the inconsistency about Adam is concerned, you have accepted the explanation that you have been taught (the above explanation) apparently without having checked out what biblical scholars have to say about it. One of the principles of Bible exegesis is that the clear and simple meaning of a text is to be preferred when there is nothing in that verse and/or its immediate context to alter that meaning. The clear meaning of the verse with regard to the forbidden tree is just exactly what it says: "...for in the day that you eat of it you shall die" [GE 2:15].
The explanation that you have been given, and apparently believe, is merely a way of attempting to reconcile the obvious inconsistency that occurs when the Bible later says that Adam actually lived 930 years [GE 5:5].
The actual explanation, however, lies in the fact that two different authors account for these two, inconsistent verses. "The first three chapters of Genesis are not the uniform work of a single author, but have come down to us from two distinct sources whose actual origins are unknown," (pp. 5-6, "The Two Creation Stories in Genesis", by James S. Forrester-Brown). In other words, two somewhat inconsistent stories have been edited and conflated into one.
You can get a clue in the Revised Standard version as to where one author leaves off and the other begins by noticing whether when God is mentioned, it is just 'God' or is rather 'Lord God.' You see, even the vocabulary these two authors used was different.
In addition to "The Two Creation Stories in Genesis," another good source for information about this is: "Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis", by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai.
Had God meant what you say he meant, He could have said so, right? If He didn't mean what the text clearly states, he could have included a disclaimer, right? After all, he is alleged to be omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent.
By the way, when you have a question about the Bible, if you really want to come to an informed conclusion, it is necessary to go outside of Church circles and hear the other side of the story. Please let me know if I can be of any help.
[This was in response to "Biblical Precepts" by Donald Morgan.]
You will pay for the sin you have commited in attempting to MALIGN the WORD OF the LORD...in my heart I KNOW that you will burn in the FIRES of HELL for your grave mistake. Repent now, or suffer ETERNAL JUDGEMENT. Jesus Christ may yet forgive you. Are you willing to let God into your heart?? Are you willing to HUMBLE THYSELF?? I shall pray for your soul. Praise God and all of his Glorious works!
You might be interested to know that I just set up a web page for the North Texas Church of freethought at http://web2.airmail.net/freethgt/ . I am just starting with this web stuf and it is not as well done as your work but it is there.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thanks for letting us know. We have added a link from our Local Organizations page.
Don't you think such a literature is narrowminded? Joseph McCabe's difficulties with Roman Catholic Church in his childwood is a problem between him amd god. Unfortunately he seems to try to revenge against the church, or against himself. when you hate what you have loved, you are usually hurt. sorry for my english, which is not that good. bye
Thank you for setting up this collection dedicated to defenders if rationality and free thought. But why not include something on a peeminant theoratician of human freedom (and proudly proclaimed atheist) of recent time, Karl Marx? I have set up my own web page of Prominant Anarchists and Left-Libertarians... it has a section on Voltairine DeCleyre who was a freethinker herself!
[This was in response to "Giving the Jehovah's Witnesses a Broadside" by Mark Vuletic.]
If you have read some of our publications we have admitted to making some wrong interpretations unlike some other religions who stick to the same doctrine even if they know that it is not true. Like"Trinity". The bible says that knobody knows when God's day will come. Even Jesus does not know. The Bible says that Jehovah's day will come as a thief in the night, If you know that a thief is coming you prepare yourself. Even if you do not know the exact time.
I have never seen so much good reading material.Thanks a million from a Norwegian Atheist.
I read your comments on Josh McDowell and in them you implied you could disprove christianity as well as the ressurection of jesus christ. Do you think you could e-mail me something on that? Although i was (and am being even now) brought up by christian parents, I am still interested in making an informed decision on religion. Thank You.
PS: I promise not to run out to my pastor when i get your letter hoping to disprove whatever is in it as soon as possible. Whatever you sent will be for my own use only.
[This was in response to "The Virgin Birth and Childhood Mysteries of Jesus" by James Still ]
Gee I must say I enjoy reading your website, even though I may not agree with your conlusions. Mary's virginity both before and after Jesus' birth is a matter of religious faith and not realy subject to proof. For me personally it has no bearing on the divinity or lack thereof of Jesus and is not a real issue. I may be nitpicking but the proper term is virgin conception. No one at least in Catholic circles holds that Jesus was born in any other way than the way all human beings are born.
Just a brief note to express our thanks for the creation and maintenance of the American Humanist Association page. We know it must take a lot of your personal time.
It is beautiful to know that we are not alone in our ethics and beliefs! Living in Ft. Wayne IN, known as "the city of churches", we need every once in a while a touch of rationality, tolerance and love to counteract the local intolerance and fanaticism.
We found that touch while reading the two poems posted in your page, "Die Gedanken sind frei" (Sigrid says that she would like to have the original German version) and "Amazing Place". To read again the humanist manifestos I & II after so many years felt like fresh, balmy, clean air would feel after brething the fire and brimstone that permeates the environment here.
Live long and prosper, our dear fellow human being!
[This was in response to " Biblical Atrocities" by Donald Morgan.]
Dear whoever wrote the biblical atrocities list,
It is clear from your interpretation of the scriptures you quoted that you have no idea what you are talking about. Nor do you understand the kindness, faithfullness and justice of God.
I would love the opportunity to respond to your 'Biblical Atrocities' but it would take far too long to do so via email. Why? It took me a long time to compile the material that I compiled, but that didn't stop me from doing it. >>IF<< you want to learn or perhaps get a different point of view, let's set up a time when we can chat via internet, phone or address particular issues via email. If you don't care/want to learn anything and are convinced that you alone hold the key to wisdom, then I guess there's nothing more to say.
Internet Infidels' Response:
This is typical of the kind of response I see from persons who call themselves Christians. It is hardly the way to begin an intelligent dialogue with someone who doesn't happen to share the same opinion that you do.
You do not know enough about me to be able to make such a sweeping generalization about my understanding of the alleged kindness, "faithfullness" [sic] and justice of God.
I have seen hundreds of "different points of view," but if you think you have something new to offer, probably the best thing to do would be to make the discussion public. You can do so by subscribing to the errancy list. Send the following message to major-ii@infidels.org:
subscribe errancy
From what I have seen, thinking that one holds the "key to wisdom" is far more typical of theists, particularly fundamentalist Christians, than it is of non-theists.
BTW, If you are going to discuss specific points with me, do you think you could stop the direct and/or implied ad hominems?
[This was in response to "The Mistakes of Jesus " by William Floyd .]
The word of God is a love letter to Christians. You cannot understand the bible because you are reading someone elses' mail. This is why you misunderstand Jesus and His teachings. Further, by your posting here on the net, the persecution of Christians, you are fulfiling one of the new testiment predictions. Yet another reason for people to hold on to the Word, because the Word became flesh and dwelt amoung us...
[This was in response to "Six Historic Americans" by John Remsburg.]
I visited your site and was in much dismay to find a point of view not aimed at objectivity, but rather upon pride in infidelity. It is quite easy that I or you could form our own jagged rhetoric from the unlimited archives of the past, placing every slant imaginable using our own context.
Sadly, I tell you that Mr. Jefferson would not have agreed with this approach, let alone the context in which his thoughts are presented herein. To enhance your credibility, I would ask that you merely provide complete transcripts of the articles and books from which you derive the quotes and place them on your site if possible. In this way it would be plausible for the reader to grasp the complete thought rather than a few lines, meaningless by themselves.
A copy of Fred Hoyle's statement regarding the whirlwind and the 747 can be found at http://www.well.com/user/rcl/darw1.html then follow the interdocument link specified by the tag line: "Fred Hoyle's whirlwind" Honestly I'm surprised you were unable to locate this information if you were truly searching for it. I hope you're able to fully exhaust your resources the next time. I'm sure that, if you want further information, the operator of the site would be happy to help you.
Please do not e-mail a reply as it complicates my receipt process of other e-mail I need to receive.
[This was in response to Top Ten List Of More Accurate Names For Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Robby Berry .]
Read "More Than A Carpenter". That book proves that Jesus is Lord even to the most intelligent scholars of our day.
[This message was sent in response to "Introduction to the Bible and Bible Problems" by Donald Morgan.]
This is to notify you of the poor value of one of your links, Donald Morgan's "Introduction to the Bible and Bible Problems."
Having studied the Bible in depth for nearly two decades, I have encountered about every support and refute of the truth of the Bible. Momentary review of Morgan's page made it clear that he is not a scholar, but a loud-mouthed bag of air.
His first few citations of examples of inconsitencies in the Bible are taken from Genesis 1 and 2. According to Morgan, verses in those two chapters claim different chronilogical order for acts of the Bible account of Creation.
Whether or not one accepts this account as true or not, anyone who has put forth any effort to study the Genesis account knows that Gen. 1 is a chronological, step-by-step account, but Gen 2 is not. It is like a self-commentary of the Bible. It is simply further expounding upon the acts of Gen. 1.
This is only one example of Morgan's ignorance.
I hope this information will further enable you to maintain high-quality academia on your links.
Internet Infidels' Response:
This ad hominem certainly sounds unlike what I would expect from either a scholar or a serious critic.
On the contrary, many who have put forth considerable effort to study the Genesis account recognize that there are most likely two, distinct creation stories -- written by different authors, using different vocabulary -- that have been conflated into one by later editors. Many scholars, including Christian scholars, hold this viewpoint.
The first story begins at GE 1:1 and the second at GE 2:4. Even a casual observer can see some signs of this in our English translations by noting that 'God' is used to indicate God in the first instance, while 'Lord God' is used throughout the second. The first creation story is believed to have been composed at Jerusalem soon after the return from the Babylonian exile. God is here named 'Elohim' in the Hebrew.
The second story is believed to be the earliest of the two. It is also believed to be Judean, possibly of Edomite origin, and pre-exile. Here God was originally called 'Yahweh' but the so-called priestly editor (as he has come to be known in scholarly circles) changed this to 'Yahweh Elohim' (which is usually translated "Lord God") in an apparent attempt to identify the God of Chap. 1 with that of Chap. 2 so as to give the two stories an appearance of uniformity.
For further study on this matter, there are a number of sources. One I recommend is: "Hebrew Myths - the Book of Genesis," by Robert Graves & Raphael Patai. Robert Graves is a world renowned poet, novelist, essayist, translator, critic, and classicist. He is the author of more than ninety books, among them "The Greek Myths" and "I, Claudius." Dr. Raphael Patai is an outstanding anthropologist, folklorist, and biblical scholar; the author of two dozen books and editor of a number of important journals and periodicals. He has taught anthropology at several universities. Would you include them in the "anyone who has put forth any effort" category? If so, you will find that they disagree with your assertion. Another I recommend is "The Two Creation Stories in Genesis," by James S. Forrester-Brown.
Stories from these same two authors, the Elohist and the Jahvist (and their later redactors), have also been conflated in later chapters of Genesis. This is one of the reasons that the Flood story is inconsistent with regard to certain details.
P.S. If we limited ourselves to what either you or I consider to be high-quality academia, we would likely narrow our audience; there are, after all, many people who are not appreciative of that sort of thing. My compilations are intended for the so-called "average person."
[This message was sent in response to "Mistakes of Jesus" by William Floyd .]
First, I think you are doing very well in exercising your rights.I think we need more of these instead of porno pages (but, alas, that's"freedom of speech" also).
Second I would like to say that what you have given for information is both interesting and weak in argument. One of the articles/books I am refering to is "Mistakes Of Jesus", by William Floyd. There are many logical errors in the paper, many of them based upon his own preconceived notions and beliefs. HIS "religious" views make many of his arguments weak. He shows a strong tendency to siding with atheists and humanists, possibly his "Modernists". His arguments, therefor, lead from the disbelief in what is not scientific, or visably proven through experiment. This is a sad way to respond to a thesis of belief in both deity and the super-natural. He has "proven" nothing in his paper for as long as he resorts to putting faith against faith. He only shows the reverse side of the coin. He also has to learn to take things in context. He makes that error repeatedly. He quotes a scripture without its context to prove a point (this is not to say a morality in context governs scripture, but that words in context mean different things than out). On last thing is his need for backing up his thesis with real arguments, real proofs and citations, and correct information. He made a major error by stating that there was no mention of Jesus by the 30 writers living around Jerusalem and then stating that scholars, the same noble scholars referred to elsewhere in the paper, had estimated the time of His birth. He has just battered one of his supposed threats into the dirt. Add to that the mentioning of Josephus, who also wrote about Jesus,and you have a coup of great proportions.
It is ironic that Floyd should mention how "illogical" Jesus' teachings were being that they were shrouded in "obscurity". It would appear that what Jesus said is true, "I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." I guess we can't all be as enlightened to the "Truth" as our great sage William Floyd.
Thank you for your time. Please respond if you would like to comment. I would really enjoy it.
[This message was sent in response to "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's 'Evidence'" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
Hello, Jeff. My name is XXXX, and I'm a freshman at YYYY. I've already written to a student organization ... that is involved in atheistic/agnostic views. I'm a Christian (keep reading!) and have found my faith challenged here at school. My mind, however, has not been changed, and these questions and doubts have strengthened my faith. Your critique of Mr. Bright's statement was very insightful, by the way.
My main proposition is this: I am interested in organizing a debate between a Christian advocate (i.e., Josh McDowell) and an atheistic advocate (i.e., yourself?) I would strongly reason that my intentions are by no means to "prove" or "disprove" God, the Bible, etc. Rather, I am interested in an experience whereas both sides of an issue are given equal representation to present their views to the audience. I suggest a limited topic, such as, "Is the Bible accurate? or something along those lines. One of the reasons that I've contacted you is to prevent any "slant" by being the one in charge of bringing the parties together. And realistically, my plan is still very much in its infant stages - any suggestions, criticisms would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading!
Internet Infidels' Response:
I am flattered that you would consider me as a possible debate opponent of Josh McDowell. However, I have serious reservations about oral debates.
First, speaking as a former interscholastic debater myself, time limits greatly decrease the quality of such debates. Time limits necessarily limit how much each debater may say, even though the topic is very complex. They also force the debater to be able to extemporaneously devise arguments. All too often I have known debaters who have thought of excellent arguments, only a day too late. I'm more interested in getting all the arguments out for discussion, rather than seeing who's quicker on their feet.
Second, it is unclear what value such debates have. I recently organized a debate between Farrell Till and Michael Horner on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, and I left wondering if the debate was indeed worth all the work. It is my experience that people generally go into debates waiting for their side to score the most "points" and usually do not give the other side a fair chance.
However, I don't want to rule out any dialogue with McDowell. When the Internet Infidels finish "Jury", we plan to send a copy to Josh McDowell. If he is interested, we will electronically publish his rebuttal on the Secular Web. I think that written debates are much more valuable than oral debates.
There was a time when I would have jumped at the oppurtunity to debate against Josh McDowell. But I now think that written debates are much more valuable.
Hope this helps!
[This was in response to "In Defense of Evolution" by Internet Infidel Mark Vuletic.]
Please allow me to comment. You failed to cite your credentials so forgive me if I make any false assumptions about your knowledge. So you may know my credentials up front I will state them. As to both science and Christianity, I am a laymen. I am a mathematician by degree and a software engineer by experience. I have been a student of both science and the Bible for over 35 years. I am not fluent in either Greek or Hebrew but do understand how to do word and translation studies and have spent considerable time reading the works of scholars in both these languages and also that of other Biblical scholars.
The place I would like to start in this discussion is to discuss bias. I fully admit bias. Having a bias is not synonymous with having a closed mind. Having a bias merely establishes my starting point. My bias is believing that there is a God and that the Bible is His infallible word. This is not the place to make a defense of this belief. I would direct you to a book by Josh McDowell called " Evidence That Demands a Verdict" ISBN 0-918956-46-3 for the work of a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible and became a believer after he considered the evidence. His bias was that of a non believer yet his bias did not prevent him from examining the truth and changing his basic beliefs. You may choose to not believe in God. That too is a bias. I seek explanations consistent with observable facts and what the Bible says. You may choose to explain everything without allowing for the existance of God. The problem with that point of view would be similar to saying that it is impossible for a person to be in Los Angeles at one time then in New York four hours later without allowing for the existance of airplanes. If you eliminate the answer before you start, you will be forced to come to wrong conclusions.
Now to creation versus evolution. Both are beliefs. Unfortunately neither of us can put cosmology in a test tube and observe it happening. You look at similar design and conclude common ancestor...
I look at similar design and conclude common designer. You say that all animal life has similar DNA. God could have designed different kinds of DNA and half of our country could be on AC and the other half on DC, but that would add unnecessary complication. What we do know about DNA is that the amount of information contained in the nucleus of a cell, is equivalent to millions of web pages can be read by something the size of a cell and totally duplicated in about 20 minutes. That speaks to me of design, not chance... just as the Internet speaks of design not chance. I never cease to be amazed how some can look at a flower in a clay pot and conclude that the flower in all it's beauty is a product of random chance while the clay pot is undeniably a product of intelligence. But going on...
For this part of my discussion, I would refer you to the book "Starlight and Time" by D. Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. ISBN 0-89051-202-7 Contained in this book is an excellent discussion of a theory which is totally consistent with relativistic physics, the size of the universe, and a young earth. It also deals with the supposed conflicting creation accounts. Most simply put, the first account in Genesis 1 is given as a chronological account. It says things like "first day". It uses Hebrew idioms which indicate sequence and every where else used refer to 24 hour days. The second account has no such ordering. Just as you might discuss your vacation chronologically or topically. You might talk about the great fishing holes you found in the order you found them or by the kinds of lures you used. No problem. You have made the common mistake of thinking that believing the Bible to be the literal word of God means that it cannot contain literary styles. Taking that approach would make canibals out of the disciples for Jesus said to them "Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you." Actually the whole argument of taking the Bible literally has nothing to do with these passages. In the passage in Genesis 2 it says the Lord did this and the Lord did that. It doesn't use words that imply order. If I were to say I've been to California Washington, Oregon, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, etc. That doesn't mean that I went to them in that order. Your arguments are very weak there. But, we go on. You speak of the multitudes of fossils which vary in complexity but fail to point out that each fossil is fully formed and capable of carying on life. If there are all these transitional forms, being transitional, they should be the weaker ones and should be found in abundance, yet we don't find a single one. Every fossil we find represents a completed design very similar to species that are found today.
I might go on, but at this point I'd rather pause and let you ponder what I've said. It is obvious from your article that you have had to deal with some rather zealous and even hostile creationists. I apologize for what appears to have been rudeness on their part. I mean no disrespect when I say that there are many partial truths in your statements of what we believe. Undoubtedly you have not had the opportunity to read and study the material in entirety and in context.
I leave you with this thought. If there is a creator and he did create the world in 6 days or 4.5 billion years. If the Bible is his word, and true as it stands, then we will one day stand before him. Then I would assume that you would rather stand in the final day before Him forgiven. If on the other hand, as you seem to believe, we are all cosmic accidents and simply rot back into the earth when we die, I will not have lost anything having lived a life in which I found purpose and fulfillment. Simply denying the existance of God makes you no less bound by His laws that denying the laws of gravity allows you you to jump off the Golden Gate bridge.
Prov 26:12
I find your web site interesting, but I still find the atheist belief that the universe was created by chance untenable. I look for more information when I have the chance through your site. Thanks for taking the trouble.
I have read many of the letters that you have posted from "non-theists" who show deference to Dr. Gordon Stein and his skills in debating theists. I wonder if your readers have ever been told of the 1985 debate between Dr. Stein and Dr. Greg Bahnsen of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies. In it, Dr. Bahnsen demonstrated the proper way to defend the faith and utterly annihilated the atheistic philosophy of Dr. Stein, even to the point that the school's liberal newspaper claimed that atheism took a major defeat. As a student of Dr. Bahnsen myself, I would be happy to discuss the defense of the Christian faith with anyone who wishes. I will just be interested to see if this message makes it to your public forum. Thank you.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I personally only became aware of the debate six months ago. I have not, however, actually listened to the debate. If Dr. Bahnsen is interested, we would be happy to upload a transcript of his debate with Dr. Stein to Secular Web.
I was just wondering if Dr. Stein has ever come up with an answer to the transcendental argument for the existence of God that was posited by Dr. Greg Bahnsen in their 1985 debate. I am aware that they have had correspondence on this issue, but I am not aware of any rationally acceptible response from Dr. Stein. I would enjoy hearing your response.
Internet Infidels' Response:
If Dr. Stein has come up with answer to the transcendental argument for the existence of God, we are not aware of it. However, I do know from personal correspondence with Dr. Stein that he plans to write a book on his experience with debating theists. Presumably that would touch on his debate with Dr. Bahnsen. Perhaps he will answer it there.
Hope this helps!
The possition that one must assume in presupposing the existence of God would be that human kind must have both a mind and a soul. These might tend to be intertwined in a bridge of feeling and experience. In experience, I mean that one must be momentarily aware of God through the senses (ie. to see what would be considered an act of God, not in the classical sense.)
I believe a soul would be required in the sense that it is thought of that the "soul" is saved. And the concept of them being intertwined would mean that when the soul is saved, it does not leave behind the mind. The Christian Bible implies that those being saved would have new "spiritual bodies", combining both attributes.
I say this as a pretext foundation for my next statement. In the study of God we lay this being up against Science, and God does not seem to pass the appropriate tests. We lay God beside True Logic and that as our cannon, God does not measure up. We place God in the context of philosophy, and God seems to have no home.
This reminds me of the chinese parable of the blind monks attempting to describe an elephant. (You know the story!) In our study of God we search for Truth, and not always are our questions answered. That may be because we are those blind monks and all we know is the elephant. In explaination, we assume that our logic, scientific measures, and philosophical perspectives are enough to contain God as if in a flask.
A man named Billy Graham once paralleled God to A Mother's Love, in that who can place it in a bottle and say "This is a mother's love!"
The bible says "anyone who seeks, finds". If one day ago someone had made the bold statement "XXX XXXX exists" you might decline it under past current evidences. As most scandles have told us, paper trails do not prove people rather they invent people. The only way to know if I exsist is to Meet me, To experience me as exsisting!
Most Christians who are willing to "live for God" are generally not concerned with proving Him. Rather in the question, "God if you exsist, show yourself to me!", god has consistantly proven Himself.
If one bold enough to say "God does not exsist" surely one means "in the current light of things." This bold individual might attempt to truely persue the above question in there search for TRUTH.
"GOD IF YOU EXSIST, THEN SHOW YOURSELF TO ME!"
[This message was sent in response to "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's 'Evidence'" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
We have been looking at the page on the rebuttal of Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict".
A number of the points have links to responses which do not yet appear to be working. Could you please give some idea of when these responses may be available?
Internet Infidels' Response:
I won't make any promises, but we hope to have this done within six months. Please check our "Jury Revision Page" for the latest information on revision plans and history of "Jury ".
I was just wondering, if this is a site dedicated to free thought, why is it so clearly slanted against Christianity? Is it not a person's right to choose what he or she will believe - out of their own free will? Just a thought.
Internet Infidels' Response:
You are absolutely correct that this site focuses on Christianity. This site is primarily a collection of historical Western freethought writings. Western freethinkers tend to dwell on Christianity because it is the dominant Western religion, just as Indian atheists focus on Hinduism and Middle Eastern atheists focus on Islam. There unfortunately has just not been enough communication between the different groups.
However, in addition to archiving historical freethought works, we do write our own materials as well, and eventually we hope to write our own criticisms of other religions, including Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology. If you are interested in contributing a criticism of one of these other religions, please let us know.
All you atheists are going to hell, but it's not my problem.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Actually, it's nobody's problem. There is no Hell.
FreeThinkers: Interesting details about the pagan worship from days of old..but just think for a moment...couldn't it be possible for this miracle to happen? I believe so...I guess thats where faith comes in. Hebrews 11:1: Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. I enjoyed your article. God Bless You.
Thank you for the wonderful literature. You echo my thoughts exactly. If everyone could read things like your writing and Paine's THE AGE OF REASON then maybe we could free the people's minds of the tyranny found in the BIBLE. These words have no relation to my God. Thank you and continue to think freely.
Hey, ya got some funny stuff in your site. Just letting you know, not all of us Christians fit the stereotypical right-wing Coalition stuff. I've got strong faith, and I also am a strict believer in separation of church and state, I vote pro-choice, and pretty much think people should be able to do as they please so long as they're not hurting others. So yeah, there are some of us who pack a Bible and an ACLU card. Keep that in mind.
[This was in response to "Church and Wealth in America" by Theodore Dresier.]
Good job (sarcasm). Maybe if you stopped long enough to stop criticizing religion, you might find time to do more, and better things with your life, like get a real job, make real money, take care of your wife and kids. Think about it.
The secular web is wonderful, thank you for providing this forum. I will continue to read and recommend this site to people who might enjoy it. Thank you again.
Wow. This is great! I am not alone anymore. There is just so much information about atheism.
I wrote to the "Atheists and Agnostics for Life" whose address was given in that article on the WWW and it's a bogus address. In fact, I should have spotted it! It gave the address as a P.O. Box "4574" yet the zip code was 72701-9998. Federal protocol always places the the PO box (or a portion of it) as the last four digits. The digits given in the article are clearly nonexistent. I am attempting to write again, assuming they just printed the zip wrong, but it's already looking a little fishy to me.
[This is in response to Heart of the Bible by Marshall Gauvin.] Come on! The Inquisition was not a Bible steamroller, but clearly a Dark Age killing machine aimed at anyone who did not come in line with the Pope and his Monarchy. Don't waste people's time with your half thought opinions, remember the old saying "Live in a glass house..." Look up and smile for He still loves despite your higher visions for yourself... I've wasted too much time reading your fluff platform- All fluff, no meat. Dryer lint has more truth and relevance to it. Sorry...
You are clearly a very learned person. I had a Damascus Road experience. Not all people have. I have spent the last 13 years studying the Bible and colateral works. The Apostle Paul hinges the claim for the truth of Christianity on the Resurrection. Beyond the Biblical account of this historical fact (see, for example, 1 cor 15:4-8), one must look at the changed lives of the Apostles after this event. Beyond this fact, they all suffered and died ALONE, proclaiming to their dying whispers that they had seen the risen Christ. This is compelling evidence, as is evidence in the lives of current disciples. A good description of these and other assertions concerning the resurrection can be found in Gene Scott's, A PHILOSOPHER LOOKS AT CHRIST, published by Dolores Press. His phone number is 1-800-338-3030, I think. He is loclated in Los Angeles, California. You are not an infidel just a seeker for the truth. I hope this helps a bit. Best wishes.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I appreciate the sincerity of your message. I am "a seeker for the truth," but I don't think that Jesus' resurrection is the truth. Although I have never heard of Gene Scott or the book you mention, I am quite familiar with the scholarly literature for the historicity of the resurrection, having done my undergraduate thesis on the subject. In my opinion, William Lane Craig is the leading scholar who defends a material resurrection and I discuss his arguments in my thesis, entitled " The Historicity of the Resurrection: The Debate Between Christians and Skeptics ." If there is evidence for the resurrection which I failed to consider in my thesis, please let me know. Take care!
I have been reading through many of the documents, and have noticed syntactical errors, I would like to help correct these errors as they are encountered but due to the format, I cannot just list page numbers. Any suggestions, should I email corrected text versions back allowing you to use a file comparison tool.
I am interested in adding materials to the site as well. My personal interest extends to issues of anthropology and the origin of life, etc. As materials become available I will mention them.
Do you consider the articles being posted as part of an ongoing transformation of thought and growing knowledge that seeks to encapsulate new knowledge and respond to objections? I have found that the merit of articles posted on the site varies widely, from the classics (M.D. Alethia's Rationalist's Manual) to the fatally flawed (such as Clay Fulk's War Between Science And Faith ). As freethinkers our philosophical allegance ought to be to the Truth. It would be nice to see mistakes in these works subjected to a moderated commantary that was posted after each work. This way those reading the articles who may be experiencing their first exposure to the material are informed of factual inaccuracies, thoughts that have become dated, or other general information specific to each article. In this way the Secular Web Library moves beyond the static nature imposed by a collection of documents, and accumulates the combined reason of many enlighted individuals who will have chosen to comment on each work. I would be willing to help undertake some of the work involved in moderating these if you are interested.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Unfortunately, when you process as much information as we do, it is difficult to avoid completely errors in our documents. We frequently receive feedback pointing out specific typographical and grammatical errors in our works, and we appreciate it. We would be delighted to have you proofread our material.
I like your commentary suggestion a lot. Although we archive much of our material for its historical significance, much of it is woefully outdated. I think a commentary would be an excellent way, as you suggest, to inform readers of factual inaccuracies, outdated arguments, etc. The only problem with this suggestion is that it takes a lot of time to prepare quality commentaries. If you are interested in writing a commentary on a specific work, please let us know. We could sure use the help.
Take care!
Is not it sad, when at the end of 20th century we still have to seriously argue about some ancient mythology? Religion is an obvious nonsense I wish people do not waste so much time and effort on such hogwash. I hope, that one day an active religion will be recognized as dangerous and harmfull and as such I would not mind if it would be banned, just like any other acts of fraud.
This is enough of religion for me for this month, I am going to do something more usefull.
Thanks for standing up to all those crazy nuts out there. As every cretin ( a french word for christian ) - can be quite dangerous. Keep up good work!
I would like to congratulate you for trying to enlighten the masses about the absurdity of religious doctrine.However I would like to see more articles about the fallacies of ISLAM.I believe that most of the arguments are based on the Christian concept of God and the bible. Could you please mail to me anti-Islamic literature.I am sorry to say that i live in an Islamic country where any freethought literature is strictly forbidden and even a criminal offense.I also would like to know what is your opinion about the gospel of THOMAS, how it is contrary to the coptic gospels and where I can download or get it. Thanks.
I just want to know why people who choose whether or not to belong to an organized religious group feel justified in dumping crap all over anyone who is not like them. I interpret the Bilble the way I choose and I agree with the teachings of Christ. Does this make me some kind of Christian Robot? I have never felt as though I were being force fed theology. I do not understand why beleiving in a higher power and allowing faith to guide you when you do not always have the answers is synonmous with ignorance. If I choose to beleive in this, am I not a free thinker? If you say no, than I really think you are no better than bible thumpers who say that there must be only one way. It offends me that these so called "free thinkers" leave so little room for thought.
[This message was sent in response to " Immortality: Defining the Problem" by Keith Augustine.]
First, let me point out that I am an atheist, and as such, probalby have the same ideas that you do. However, in your essay regarding the scientific evidence for extinction of personality, you seem to assume your conclusion; that is, you assert that it is a well-known fact that consciousness comes from the brain (paraphrase). I think many theists would say that this was the question under scrutiny, and not the conclusions you draw from the assumption.
Author's Response:
That mental states depend upon the brain (whether they are physical or nonphysical) is a matter of fact. This isn't an assumption. That mental states are reducible to physical states (materialism) is an assumption, but it is not one which I invoke in my essay nor is it one I am convinced it true. I am attracted to the idea of materialism that everything that exists is physical, but I concede that mental states may be nonphysical--for example, they don't seem to be located in space. Mental states might be some kind of nonphysical (e.g., epiphenomenalism) or physical (e.g., an astral body theory) by- product of the physical brain, or they may simply nothing more than the physical functioning of the brain (e.g. identity theory materialism or functionalism). While I briefly mentioned the two main theories of mind and epiphenomenalism (which technically is a form of dualism, since the mind is something other than the brain, even though it is created by it) in my first essay, I did not endorse any of them. I briefly said what a few consequences for immortality followed from these theories, but I never argued for any specific theory on the mind-body problem per se. My essay contends that the empirical evidence for the dependence of the mind on the brain is sufficient to disprove immortality regardless of whether dualism, materialism, or some other theory of mind is true. This empirical evidence includes the affects of brain damage, brain diseases, psychoactive drugs, electrical (and chemical) stimulation of the brain, the neuroscientific findings suggesting that memory is encoding in the brain (and thus destroyed when the brain is destroyed), and the evidence from "split-brain" surgery showing disunity of consciousness, which disproves that the mind, whatever it may be, is a unified, continuous thing which is suggested by popular conceptions of a soul.
Thanks for your comments. I hope you're satified with my reply.
Keith Augustine
[This message was sent in response to " Immortality" by Keith Augustine.]
I am reading your work on immortality interesting. Thanks for making it available on the Web. I have a thought on your section entitled "Philosophical Objections to Immortality." I don't find the replica objection necessarily invalid. If "same" is defined as closest-continuer, then it really falls to the question, what parameters are necessary for "continuance?" Existentialism argues that from moment to moment, we change and that what we are is the sum total of what happens to us. Your car example shows this nicely. It isn't the same car once it "experiences" a replacement part. Yet we would say it is the same car in common usage. It is debatable whether or not it would be the same car if all parts but the frame were to be changed. What if no parts *other than the frame* were changed? Can we say that how much an entity changes is a function of how strong an experience it is exposed to? In which case, it seems logical to me that the strength of an experience of replica resurrection is very great, if not ultimate. Therefore, while the replicant would be the "closest-continuer" it would not be the same person, albeit in a possibly unquantifiable way. Therefore, even here the original did not survive. Comments?
As an aside, a consequence of the above would make the idea of eternal punishment and benevolence completely contradictory, even if the Christian notions are completely accepted (which I don't). Even assuming that God is morally bound not to interfere if you make choices to send you to hell, the experience would change you greatly (probably proportional to the length of time spent there ;-). The above logic says God would know when your former self became extinct, and would give you another chance to walk the straight and narrow, as it were. Though, strictly speaking, "you" wouldn't be given another chance, but your closest-continuer would.
Author's Response: That is what I stated: The replica objection is invalid. I should clarify it, however. I'm not saying that the conclusion is false when I say its invalid; I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily follow that the replica *cannot* be the same person as the original (which is what the replica objection contends). It is a matter for decision whether or not we can say the replica is the same person as the original body or not. That is all I am saying. The implication here is that "Is it you?" is not a yes/no type of question. Our answer is a matter of social and linguistic conventions, not some state of the world.
> If "same" is defined as closest-continuer, then it really
falls to the
> question, what parameters are necessary for "continuance?"
Yes, this is the heart of the matter. But I do not propose any such parameters. They will undoubtly differ according to what a particular personal identity theorist contends is a necessary trait for indicating identity and what another may reject. My point is simply that we can admit that there are such parameters for personal identity other than bodily continuity. If the replica has the same exact psychological and physical traits, even though it is not constituted of the same matter, it still is the same person, in my opinion.
>It isn't the same car once it "experiences" a
> replacement part. Yet we would say it is the same car in
> common usage. It is debatable whether or not it would be
> the same car if all parts but the frame were to be
> changed. What if no parts *other than the frame* were changed?
That is an important point. Technically, it is not the same car. The flow of time insures that any object A at time t1 is not identical to A at time t2 because they share at least one difference, t. They are different in terms of when they exist at least. Other differences are more plausible. My computer now is not the same computer as my computer 20 minutes ago: The internal timer has a different setting, my hard drive has your message in it now and it didn't 20 minutes ago, etc. Does this mean that my computer now is not identical to my computer 20 minutes ago? I would say they were identical. I still say it was the same computer if I removed the mouse, or added another disk drive, just as I am the same person today if I get a filling in one of my teeth as I was yesterday, even though I lacked the filling. Similarly, my mental states now (focused on answering your question) are not the same as they were earlier today.
As for complete physical changes, the matter in our bodies constantly changes; we injest food and excrete wastes. There may be a 1% core of brain matter which stays the same, but the rest of our physical constitution changes naturally gradually. Admitting this fact, there is no rational basis for saying that if our physical constitution changed suddenly (say I was 'teleported' Star-Trek style into energy and recreated with different matter but with the same physical configuration) that this would be any different--for in both cases, the matter has changed.
> Therefore, while the replicant would be the
> "closest-continuer" it would not be the same
> person, albeit in a possibly unquantifiable way.
> Therefore, even here the original did not survive. Comments?
This is certainly a possible interpretation; but one could equally argue that the person did survive death as a replica. That is why I say it is a matter for decision; personhood is a social convention, not some kind of physics problem.
Thanks for your comments. I hope you are satisfied with my reply.
Keith Augustine
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
