 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
I understand that you are anxious to "disprove" Christianity in order that it may have no claim over your life, but please do your research before you write anymore articles. I have heard much better arguments than yours on similar topics and I don't believe them either!
p.s. I have never heard of the "Hindoo" religion. Do you mean "hindu"?
Internet Infidels' Response:
Well, as long as we're on the subject of research, I should point out that had you done a bit of research yourself, you would have discovered that a) Charles Bradlaugh has been dead for several decades, b) he wrote his essays disproving Christianity not because he wanted to keep Christianity from having any claim over his life, but because he felt Christianity was false, and c) "Hindoo" was a commonly accepted spelling of "Hindu" during the time when Bradlaugh wrote his essays.
I have read The Case Against Christianity and found it very interesting and informative. Do you happen to know where I can find a new book on this very simular subject?
What a find! Amid all the E-trash on WWW, a site constructed for rational people, of rational people, and by rational people!
Just when I was about to give up hope in the future!
There IS intelligent life in the E-universe!
I find your pages very interesting, and I have to say that you've put a lot of time into them. However, it seems that you have neglected to include Charles Darwin's last thoughts on his works.
You can find more information about it in John Meyer's book "Voices from the Edge of Eternity" (Old Tappan: Fleming Revell, 1968) on pages 247-249. It goes as follows (according to Lady Hope of Northfield, England, a friend that frequented his bedside)...
--------------
It
was one of those glorious autumn afternoons that we sometimes enjoy
in England when I was asked to go in and sit with Charles Darwin. . . .
He was sitting up in bed, propped up by pillows, gazing out on a
far-stretching scene of woods and corn fields, which glowed in the
light of a marvelous sunset.
"What are you reading now?" I asked.
"Hebrews," he answered. "The Royal Book I call it."
Then, as he placed his fingers on certain passages, he commented:
"I made some allusion to the strong opinions expressed by many on
the history of the Creation and then their treatment of the earlier
chapters of the book of Genesis."
He seemed distressed, his fingers twitched nervously and a look of
agony come over his face as he said, "I was a young man with
uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the
time about everything. To my astonishment the ideas [of evolution]
took
like wild-fire. People made a religion of them."
Then he paused. . . . "I have a summer house in the garden which
holds about thirty people. It is over there (pointing through the
open window). I want you very much to speak here. I know you read
the
Bible in the villages. Tomorrow afternoon I should like the
servants on the place, some tenants, and a few neighbors to gather
there. Will you speak to them?"
"What shall I speak about?" I [Lady Hope] asked.
"Christ Jesus . . . and His Salvation. Is not that the best
theme?"
------------------
You might be interested in looking up the last words of Voltaire. Perhaps we'll contact you later about it.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Ah, deathbed conversions... I must admit surprise that you didn't include Ingersoll's or Paine's alleged conversions as well...
Might I suggest that you examine George W. Foote's "Infidel Deathbeds", especially the sections on Darwin and on Voltaire.
Greetings and Salutations. I just wanted to compliment you on the tenor of your site. As Pat Buchanan might say on a particularly high dosage of halcion: After all America is and always has been an anti-Religious nation. It's easier to assimilate a card-carrying member of the ACLU than it is the likes of the Rev. Jerry Faldwell. Christians, out of our heathen state!
"Thank God I'm an Atheist", said a rather confused yet resolute Oxymoronist. Greetings from the First Church of Ezralogy. Charter memberships now being accepted, so subversives don't be shy! Just leave your soul at the door. Amen! (can I perchance get a Hallelujah???)
I just want to know why people who choose whether or not to belong to ans 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 "Forgery in Christianity" by Joseph Wheless.]
I have found the information in Joseph Wheless' _Forgery in Christianty_ very usefull in debunking claims of the divine origin of christianity. I believe that a www version indexed by both the detailed table of contents at the end of chapter 7 and by subject would be most usefull for online research. If I were to do the work to creat such detailed links with the existing html files, would you be willing to publish it or give me permission to make it available on another web server?
Internet Infidels' Response:
We would be happy to make such an item available here. Let us know how we can help.
Hi. I am very new to the net and am happily quenching a long-unsatisified thirst for atheist resources. The Secular Web is great. I just subscribed to many of the lists you linked me with. I am most interested at this point in connecting with other people who share my general viewpoints. Thanks for starting me down the path. I was surprised to notice that there are a relatively small number of people subscribing to the lists I am interested in. Where are all the atheists on the net? For that matter, where are the atheists in Connecticut?
Internet Infidels' Reponse:
Check out the "Atheist Contacts" page. It allows non-theists on the net to find others with similar belief systems to find one another based on their geographic location.
Thank you for providing one of the most interesting and necessary web pages on the internet. If only the self-righteous Christians could listen to reason....
I hope this page is maintained for a long time.
It's exciting at first, seeing all these theists with their irrational views taking a sound beating. Maybe after a while you brush up on your logic, physics, and philosophy and boldly march into a debate with your first theist. You expose logical fallacies, point out factual errors, and finally expose his argument for the nonsense that it is. You are then congratulated by your fellow non-believers who are just as incredulous as you of the fact that someone can be as ignorant and foolish as that theist...
Having had a taste of victory, you start debating more and more theists that you come across, demolishing their arguments just as surely as you did your first time around. But by this time the intellectual novelty and excitement start to wear off and you find yourself repeating the same things over and over again. The theists are just as redundant in their mindless drivel, but you have come to expect that. Sometimes you see such ridiculous things that you tell the YetAnotheTheist to shrivel up and die. He does not, of course, and the likes of him just keep coming back...
As you are debating the existence of god with YetAnotherFundie, she happens to mention that numerous scientists disagree with the theory of evolution and that there is significant evidence showing that the Earth is, in fact, about 10,000 years old. You have just been introduced to the wonderful world of "scientific" creationism. A couple of weeks, four biology books, and 15 talk.origins FAQs later, you show that freak of nature the folly of her ideas. But this time you are at a disadvantage: the debate happens in real life and the audience is not a bunch of your fellow reasonably informed computer science majors; all those computer science courses, religion and philosophy electives may have taught you about logic, Buddhism and Nietzsche, but your physics professor never mentioned polonium halos, you slept through the lecture on the Michelson- Morley experiment, and you are not familiar enough with the theory of relativity to disprove the claim that the speed of light is not constant. You did not take biology and geology, so it's difficult to explain how a platypus evolved, and to address the claim that 'sediments form sideways.' So you start to cite papers, books and various authorities on these subjects. You are hit back (this is one of those more intelligent fundies) with references to papers which purportedly have 'proof' of creationist claims...
And so it goes... over and over again.
So here i am, frustrated, convinced of the futility of arguing with theists, having been subtly told that i'm not open-minded, arrogant, elitist, etc. by various people... I'm kinda tired of all of this. Should i just ignore the religious nonsense all around me and not challenge views which i believe to be false and harmful? It gets depressing sometimes... and i think you guys are the cure! Great site! Thanks!!!
As one who has actually accepted Jesus into my heart as my personal savior, I'm finally getting my brain back in working order. This page is a big help. It is at the top of my bookmark list along with the online bible (which I'm now reading objectively).
[This message was sent in response to "15 Actual Announcements Taken from Church Bulletins" by Richard Lederer.]
When you quote from a book and fail to disclose the author, I believe it is called plagerism. Your list from actual church buletins is part of the book "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer. Hope you can be more honest next time, Thank you.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Before you start accusing people of dishonesty, you might try giving them the benefit of the doubt until you have all the facts. We were emailed the file and told that the author was unknown. There was never any malicious attempt to deny credit where credit is due. The file now states that Mr. Lederer is the author.
[This message was sent in response to "Biblical Absurdities" by Donald Morgan".]
I read your sections on biblical absurdities. If the best you can do is take various Bible passages out of context and use them in a way they weren't intended for, you show that you only argue to avoid possible truths you'd rather not face. Your writing did not differentiate between Old and New Testament (writings under different dispensations). Your writing did not differentiate between direct quote and associations, between test and truth, between historical, prophetic, figurative and other styles of biblical writing, but merely threw them all into one big melting pot of "biblical hopscotch" that only the worst televangelists are expert at. You have proven that anyone can take any other person's words and twist them to your own device. Just another version of yellow journalism at its finest. Sad.
Internet Infidels' Response:
The sheer size of the Bible and the number of verses that could be cited as absurdities, inconsistencies, and the like, makes doing a such a list a formidable task. To include more and more context would make it that much more formidable.
While the "out of context" criticism is a favorite of Bible supporters, there is no amount of context (short of including the whole Bible) which would satisfy every Bible supporter.
Technically speaking, any Bible passage which is quoted by itself is, quoted out of context and perhaps used for a purpose which was not intended. Whole sermons are often built on just one Bible verse. There is nothing unusual or *necessarily* erroneous about doing this in either the case of my absurdities or that of a sermon. In the case of my material, this alone does not negate the fact that the listed verses are, in fact, absurdities.
I strive to make my material as accurate as possible. Why don't you show me the context that you think should be included with the verses which you feel are unjustifiably included in my list? Send me a list of those verses which you feel are "saved" by their context and show me how they are saved. If I agree, I will be happy to make corrections (as I have many times in the past.)
In addition, if you are going to make assertions such as "you show that you only argue to avoid possible truths you'd rather not face," then your are going to have to provide me with evidence that you are clairvoyant (or possess similar powers). As far as I know, you have no way of knowing what it is that I would or would rather not face. I am not impressed with assertions such as this from people who don't even know me.
Since I was once a born-again, Bible-believing Christian myself -- and since the Bible itself was largely responsible for the undoing of my Christian belief -- you are talking to someone who faced up to a far more troublesome truth than the alleged truth of the Bible. That was the truth that faith in the Bible is not supported by the evidence.
It is my opinion that the Bible, itself, is "biblical hopscotch." If you want to think otherwise, that is fine with me. On the other hand, your criticisms lack substance in that there are no examples provided; you have offered no evidence whatever to support your assertions.
Provide the evidence. Show me how it is that the differentiations you mention above would negate my list. Show me where and how each and every verse that is "wrong" is wrong, and I'll be glad to make corrections.
You have proven, if you'll pardon me for saying so (since I hate to use the same technique that you do) that people can criticize without offering any evidence whatever and apparently believe that they can somehow read another's motives without really knowing anything about that person.
I can't wait to read all of these articles, however I did have a problem with the one about why Humanists reject the Bible. I am not a Christian and I do not believe that the biuble is the absolute word of God, but to argue on textual basis is absurd and paints a picture of this author as a child crying about his Catholic school upbringing. Who cares if the bible contradicts itself? Don't you? I hope I do every day because then I have stopped growing.
I may seem naive by asking...if this is a free thought forum then why is everything about Christianity?
Internet Infidels's Response:
First of all, it is not true that "everything" on the Secular Web is "about Christianity." We have massive information about agnosticism, atheism, freethought, and secular humanism.
But the general thrust of your message is true: much of the Secular Web does focus on Christianity. There are a number of reasons why this is so:
In the future, we hope to write critiques of other religions, including Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology.
Hello. I must begin by thanking you for an interesting and thought provoking collection of documents. The articles and essays on your pages have made my beliefs about religion much stronger. For many years I had to hide my feelings about religion, but now I know I am not alone. It is comforting to read about others who questioned the idea of a "supreme being." You have presented the most intelligent and reasonable collection of documents I have ever seen on this topic. Once again, thank you, and keep up the excellent work.
This web page is great and useful. It is the best of the web.
I really enjoy the debates posted on the secular web. I know that Gordon Stein does a lot of debates any chance of getting some of them on the secular web (in your spare time, of course!)?
Internet Infidels' Response:
I have spoken with Gordon Stein about this. Gordon Stein does not allow any of his debates to be recorded or transcribed in any form whatsoever because he does not want his opponents to "scout" him.
I would like to express my gratitude to you as a group. An amazing friend of mine took his life in March. He left a journal, the last page of which consisted of his final and all too significant thoughts. However, at the bottom of this page were two words no one has been able to find meaning in. Until now. He wrote: Matthew Paine. It was your page that allowed me to piece together his meaning. Thomas Paine's examination and criticism of the book of Matthew have opened new insights for me into where my friend's mind was and how it was working before his death. He would have appreciated your efforts tremendously. As I do. Thank you. Any information on your ideas would interest me greatly.
Hi there fellows. I go to church, and believe in creationism. I have many problems with self-creation and/or the universe being self existent. Without any debate intended, could you please kindly send me the best, the absolute #1 evidence in your field of science, that convinces you of evolution 100%. I am doing a study for my Bible class, and would like to share your views with them. I also plan on seeing how the class would reply to your example, Do your best.. I thank you in advance if you choose to help.
[This message was sent in response to "Jesus Was a Hypocrite" by Donald Morgan.]
I have to thank you for you article "Jesus was a hypocrite". Not only did it provide me with the evidence to prove that there are indeed people who think no further than half their nose length ( You being my case person- ality ), but it also gave the perfect example of how the bible can be quoted ENTIRELY out of context! I'll be sure to present it in our next youth group gathering. Not only are half your references quoted out of context but you are also using the mannerisms and language usage of our time to try and pin Jesus down for something he said almost 2000 years ago. For a mother to be addressed as "Woman!" in that time was perfectly natural and definitely not rude.Do you know what the difference was, and still is, between us - you and I - and Jesus? He was able to say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do", he was able to take our sins, the sins of the world onto his shoulders and in so doing he defeated death for us so that we may have everlasting life. And when he said " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" for just a moment, he was like you and I....he WAS human. I hope that if you read the bible in it's totality, in context and without prejudice you will see the same things that I do. Do you know why I want to pray for you? Because Jesus loves you....and if you're good enough for Jesus, man, you're good enough for me.
I am never at a loss when discovering someone making sense or believing that sense or reason can prove anything...hence I critique reason and its endeavors. But I will hand it to the thinking religious folk regardless of mental bearing, for they believe in things that are completely irrational. Amd in many way there espousal of unreason is a more complex than that which sets out to prove. And perhaps my greatest fool of a human was that heretic Spinoza whose complex philosophical system gave evidence to a supremely illogical mind. Imagine spending that much time on a purely ideological task. And this in many ways resembles the efforts of the best of professed atheist who believe they can know anything about the unknown. For what is other and above does not nor can it ever be fathomed by the lesser. Safe to say that a primary tenet of philosophy is that one must know what it is that one does not know or can never know. A paradox...
As I understand it simply put the ethic behind ideal Christianity is to love...to be loved,,. and to know that to be alive is consequential to having been loved enough to endure. Powerful thinkers have never come close to a more profound philosophy because for the most part it is in the background of being. Ironically I imagine a group of men consternating and arguing proofs or disproofs, ultimately acting like fools similiar to Shakespeare's Malvolio. Yet even he understood that to be a free thinker is to have rid of thought since that be the tide that beckoned to harvest also beckons the reepers. To argue is to have the intention of resentment. For only the resentful mind can spend the effort to delay the moment and be caught up in some muse or another. And this muse feeds of the ego of the prideful man. And in his resentment he destroys freedom and is paradoxically caught in the most intense of psychopathies. He may be the artist, or maybe the preacher, or the brother of the preacher, the atheist. Or perhaps he can be the most despicable of reprobates..a philosopher. That mean, domineering alienated ego driven creature who persists in understanding and contemplation..all the while losing ground to what is real...
[This message was sent in response to "Biblical Vulgarities & Obscenities" by Donald Morgan.]
Just came across BIBLICAL VULGARITIES & OBSCENITIES, Compiled by Donald Morgan. Interesting stuff, but I think you might want to do a little fact checking before distributing this off-line. Here's the problem-child:
* GE 24:2-9, 47:29 "... put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the Lord ...." (Note: This means put your hand under my testicles, which is the manner in which oaths were taken at the time, and from which the words "testament" and "testify" derive.)
I afraid Don Morgan's playing fast and loose with his etymology, so if you don't mind a couple stuffy words from a trained linguist, I'd like to add two cents' worth.
Testament doesn't come from testicle. It would be more accurate, but not completely so, to say that testicle comes from testament.
The Indo-European root for both testicle and testament is *tris, meaning "three*quot;. It referred, among other things, to the third person who witnessed ancient contractual agreements. As a testifier bears witness to a contract, a man's testicles bears witness to his virility.
Off the subject a bit, but in keeping with the theme of embarrassing Bible facts, the word testament in reference to the Christian scriptures is a complete cock-up. The original Greek word was diatheke, which has two translations in Latin. The religious equivalent is covenant and the legalistic equivalent is testament or will. Shoddy Latin scholars picked the wrong equivalent when translating diatheke.
By the way, did you know a 500-page book on biblical obscenities was just published by Kas-mark Publishing?
I'm interested in the tenor and style of your homepage. You raise a number of questions, but do not seem to wish to commit to resolving them. It is not the case that the only record we have of Jesus is four Gospels. Josephus refers to Jesus, and his status in history is as sure as any ancient figure. As for his divinity, come clean with your arguments he is not divine, rather than begging the question with propositions. I like the way you raise the issue of Jesus - he is the central question in light of the influence of his teaching, and his life on western civilization, and now, eastern. You have raised some good questions. Be fair to yourself, and answer them. I, for one, have been struck by the historical Jesus - and am now a follower of Jesus Christ. I believe he is the Messiah of God, the centerpeice of human history, and the protagonist of the most beautiful true story of the universe. I love to hear the thoughts of those who feel Christian faith, or more pointedly, Jesus Christ, is a fraud.
[This message was sent in response to "The Rationalist's Manual" by M.D. Aletheia.]
I desperately want a hardcopy of the Rationalist's Manual. Please email me any info you have on how I can get a copy. I am willing to pay. Thank you for your wonderful web-site. I am a recovering Christian.
I read your artical and found it interesting. Your mission is cloaked in that you purpose is to get believers to doubt the reliability of the Bible.
While I am not versed enough yet in the scriptures (I'm getting there though) I do know that once we state "That some things in the Bible are True and others are False", we set ourselves up as judge and jury, and naturally will believe those things our itchy ears want, and discard those we don't like or simply can't believe.
The message of the Bible is not just Love, Love, Love as you would have it, as you call the "central message'. We are not the central message. A Holy God who is just brings with him just judgement and Jesus talked often of it.
Tell, when you read a particular verse, what criteria do you use when you decide whether it's fact or fiction? How can a finite mind understand our infinite God?
I will come back with scriptural argument after I send this to the Christian Research Institute.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Consider the assumption in the question he asks. He assumes that questioning the Bible is a process in which a "finite mind" is questioning the mind of an "infinite God." He must first give reasonable evidence that the Bible is a product of an "infinite God" before he can legitimately ask such a question. Now I don't need to tell Rob Berry (or other skeptics on the list) this, but why is it that Bible believers have such difficulty seeing such a simple thing as this?
As for the criteria that one should use to decide whether something written in a book is fact or fiction, I know of no better one than a rule of evidence that Carl Lofmark explained in his book What Is the Bible?
When you lack evidence, the only way to decide whether or not
to believe
something is to ask: Is it likely? If you tell me a bird flew past my
window,
I will probably believe you, even though I did not see it myself
and I have no evidence. That is because such a thing is likely. I have
seen it happen before. It is more likely that a bird flew past my window,
than
that you are deceiving me. But if you tell me a pig flew past my
window,
I will not believe you, because my past experience tells me that
such things do not happen, and so I presume that what you reported is
false. Thus, where there is no evidence we have to rely on our own past
experience of the sort of things that really happen
(pp. 41-42).
This is the same standard that Thomas Paine advocated in Age of Reason.
As to the ancient historians, from Herodotus to Tacitus, we
credit
them as far as they relate things probable and credible, and no farther;
for if
we do,
we must believe the two miracles which Tacitus relates were
performed by Vespasian, that of curing a lame man and a blind man, in just
the same manner as the same things are told of Jesus Christ by his
historians (Part Two, 200th Anniversary Edition, p. 62).
In actuality, Suetonius (In The Twelve Caesars) related Vespasian's alleged performance of these miracles, but the principle remains the same. During cross examination of Michael Horner in the Seattle debate, I focused on this issue by citing several miracles recorded in nonbiblical literature of NT times and then asking Horner if he believed that any of these happened. I could not find a single nonbiblical miracle that he said he thought had really happened, and so I finally asked him if he could identify a single nonbiblical miracle that he believed had happened. He said that he couldn't.
It would seem, then, that Horner applies these criteria to all historical information except the Bible. Maybe the one who asked Rob Berry for his criteria could tell us what criteria he uses to determine that biblical incidents happened exactly as they were recorded.
That Gunn article was some amusing rubbsih. Just how seriously do you all take this? Are you trying to provoke, or merely entertain. Just wondering.
This is my first day on the web, and I was very happy to find your area. I noticed you didn't have much on Atheists United in Los Angeles (which I helped form) and on the Atheist Centre in Vijayawad, India which celebrated it's 50th birthday in 1990 and will have a world atheist convention in India in Jan 6,7.8 1996. I have a lot of info on both groups, text of pamphlets and articles from newsletters that you can use, and pictures. Can I work with you to set up an area for them? I will be happy to help.
Internet Infidels' Respons:
We'd be delighted to help promote Atheists United over the Secular Web. Let us know how we can help.
[This message was sent in response to "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's 'Evidence'" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
Have you or when are you going to publish the refutation of McDowell? I'm anxious to read this much needed piece. This is definitely my favorite place on the internet. Keep up the good WORD.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Well, we have considered publishing The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's Evidence, but there are at least two reasons why we have not done so. First, we haven't even finished it yet! We are in the process of rewriting several of the sections, and other sections have yet to be written. Jury is a long-term project. Second, we're not sure how publication would affect the on-line version. We would only pursue printed publication of Jury if we were allowed to keep the on-line version on the Secular Web.
[This message was sent in response to the American Humanist Association's home page.]
A hearty thank you to everyone involved for giving the AHA a presence on line with its own home page. I haven't done any home pages myself, but I understand from friends who have that there's a significant learning curve, and that it takes much more time than anticipated. Thanks for making the effort, taking the time, and coming through with a very useful home page....
I was delighted to find your list of suggestions for humanist weddings, funerals, and other life events. We have a bi-cultural couple in the family, and they put a lot of effort into writing their own wedding ceremony from scratch. They would have appreciated seeing these ideas.
Who are you to judge God? Where you there at the time He made the universe. The people you refer to being destroyed had their chances to repent, just as you do. They knew they would be judged, just as you do. Just making a point. I will pray for ALL of you.
I don't think your test allows for a large number of true believers. (i.e. I don't have to believe in holy water and blessings to be a true believer)
If there is no serious attempt to measure one's belief, why advertise it thus? If you wish to satire religion, you do so by taking on the qualities of religion you (at least apear to) loath.
Enjoy yourself
Interesting thought: In the section which you describe Jesus cursing the tree and the villages, not once do you deny that he had the power to do this.
Just my $0.02.
Internet Infidels' Response:
True. The point of the article is not to second-guess what it was that Jesus really did or did not do or say during his ministry, but rather the point is that the Bible itself -- the only source of information that is widely accepted as authentic with regard to Jesus -- indicates that Jesus acted, on at least a few occasions, in a hypocritical fashion. The idea is to question that he was "perfect" as Christianity typically claims he was.
What a find! Amid all the E-trash on WWW, a site constructed for rational people, of rational people, and by rational people!
Just when I was about to give up hope in the future!
There IS intelligent life in the E-universe!
I could not take the time to read the entire text on the above web page, but from what I did read, I must hesitate to agree with you, and I must ask you why some people have such a desire to attack the Christian religion?
I have known many people who have, and I forewarn you of this mindset on an intellectual level, become so much anti-Christian that they prove to people such as myself their insecurity with the fact that some "Higher-Power" actually may exist. One professor in our Biology dept. is this way. He tries so hard to prove that God does not exist. I believe that he is afraid deep down, though he would never admit it especially him-self, that God may actually exist. If God does exist, then this man, along with many others think that they must through there whole life away because with most people science and religion are oil and water.
I guess my biggest concern is why must people like this professor and many other people (I did not read enough to know if you are one) attack a harmless religion? Why can't I enjoy my salvation whether it is real or fake? I harm no one by my religion, in fact, I have helped, with the power of God, people find peace in times of emotional trouble and joy in times of destress. Why take this from the world?
That professor would reply with some statement which shows his ignorance of Chrisianity such as: "Well, all I've seen from Christianity is fighting and war." He has referred to the "Holy Wars" before. What he doesn't realize is that people who go out and kill other people in the name of Jesus are not in the Will of God, period. We are to be Christ-like, and I have never read where Christ killed anyone, so why should I?
People need to realize that they must accept this by faith. There is no scientific way to prove God or Jesus. I have heard that the Jewish people now realize that approx. 2 tya an innocent man was put to death. Besides, when I die, if I was wrong and I'm just dead, then at least I lead my life happily, but if I was right, praise God!! I have it made. When this professor dies, he may just die or . . . maybe I was right.
I don't know how you feel, and that, I guess is none of my business. I do hope though that you don't live an unhappy life trying to disprove or dismantle the Christian religion, because there are those of us that will hold on until death.
Anyway, I hope I didn't work you up, that wasn't my intent. I hope you find peace, joy, love, patience, goodness, meekness, kindness, faith, and gentleness throughout your life.
"For God so LOVED the world (us), that he gave his only begotten Son (Jesus), that whosoever (if anyone) believes in him (he/she) should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
Internet Infidels' Response: Thank you for e-mailing your thoughts on "Who was Jesus Christ?" to the Internet Infidels on the Secular Web. Your comments are refreshing and straightforward and I'd like to address a few of your key points as a return courtesy.
While I do not personally agree with the philosophy of "attacking" the Christian faith, some freethinkers or atheists do lash out from time to time more to vent their frustrations at the theistic world that they live in than for any desire to cause personal hurt to any person's faith. Having said that, I must admit that there are very few things posted on the Secular Web that I would characterize as an outright attack against Christianity. Which piece are you most offended by? More directly, are you sure that it is the tone or condescention of the writer that is offensive or is it instead the fact that the subject matter itself is being treated to higher criticism that is the problem? There is a difference and I only point it out because many times people view a healthy critique of religious philosophy as an attack against the religion in question.
Your hapless biology professor is at odds with something other than theism I suspect. It is impossible to prove that one or more gods does *not* exist and if your professor is an agnostic or atheist he knows that maxim all too well. However since I do not know the context of your and his relationship, I cannot comment on the perceptions that each of you may have for the other's motivation. It is possible that each of your misunderstand the real motives of the other and I recommend speaking with him about it if it bothers you. I think you'll find that each of you can understand one other if you are open and honest about your perceptions.
I think that your personal religious expression is valuable. You're an adult and have obviously deeply considered the epistimological foundations of your own beliefs as they relate to other philosophical systems and ideas. But I should like to emphasize something at this point that I perceive is happening. Judging from your reaction to your professor and this web site, you seem to consider your religion a major component of your personal identity. When someone engages in a critique of your religion you seem to consider that an attack upon you. I do not consider this to be a healthy condition and urge you to honestly ask yourself why you take it so personally when someone questions your religion? After all, only you can say if your faith is real or not and if it is real then who cares what ten thousand biology professors say? In other words, do you need external secular sources to agree with you in order to bolster that faith? If your faith is sound, then such disagreement is healthy and productive because it allows your convictions to stand up on their own against the disagreement. If any faith is unsound, then no amount of denial or self-protection against disagreement will help anyway because sooner or later it will catch up.
No one on the Secular Web wishes to take away your personal faith from you. If you are at peace with yourself then we wish you the best. However, if you ever decide that a belief, religion, or some kind of religious philosophy is an insufficient explanation for you, then please don't hesitate to get in touch with us. You'll find that many of us were former Christians and a few of us were ministers for several years! Even if you never decide to explore other options, we hope you will still stay in touch. Don't hesitate to e-mail me personally or any of the other Internet Infidels listed on the Secular Web if you just want to chat.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments and best of luck to you.
Just a tip o' the hat for putting this page together - I'll probably be making a link to it.
In this time of religious overdose in our society, it is really great to find a beautiful piece of work such as this!
Living here in the south, what is generally referred to as the 'bible belt', I am constantly bombarded with religious dogma, and have to keep my secular views secret to most of the people around me.
It makes me feel good to find web sites like this one, because I realize that, not only am I NOT ALONE in this christian world, but there are others out there with the same basic views as me that are actually very organized.
Thanks for everything, and you can BET that there will be a link made from my homepage directly to here!
Here's a message from one more grateful surfer:
I found your page to be quite interesting--your material was amusing and informative. You seem like intelligent, rational, *individuals*. Your page has obviously involved a substantial time commitment, and I would like you to know that your labors are well appreciated. The world needs more people like you.
Please let me know if you have a secular alternative to Al Anon. If so, I am interested in attending and would like a list of meetings in Central (Worcester County) Massachusetts, if there are any.
Internet Infidels' Reponse:
Contact the main office for 'Secular Organizations for Sobriety':
SOS National Clearinghouse
PO Box 5
Buffalo, NY 14215-0005
or call (716) 834-2922
It is good to see a page for the rest of us.
Are we really as bad as christianity makes us out to be?
I dont think so.
Keep up the good work.
I LOVE the Secular Web. That is great work you guys have done. It is one of my favorite bookmarks.
I am sorry to say that you are doomed to go to Hell. Simply because you can not go to Heaven where weveryone can go eexcept YOU!
[This message was sent in response to "Jesus Was a Hypocrite" by Donald Morgan.]
I just got finished looking at your "Jesus was a Hypocrite" Web page. It really makes me sick, that anyone would call him that.
A 14 Year-old Christian
Internet Infidels' Response:
You're very young. Too young to have had time to know very much about the Bible. I am 62 years old. I spent 12 years as a preacher, and almost 6 of those years were spent in foreign missionary work. When I was 14, I was constantly bombarded with Christian propaganda, so it never occurred to me to doubt anything that I heard in church. After I graduated from Bible college and studied the Bible on my own, I saw that it couldn't possibly be the "inspired word of God." If you would like to communicate with me on this subject and if your parents have no objections, I would be glad to do it.
To begin, I would suggest that you read Numbers 31:1-18 and 1 Samuel 15:1-3 and then tell me how any civilized person would want to believe in a god like the one described in these passages. And these passages are just a very few of the many that depict God as a vindictive, spiteful, vengeful deity who killed people for racial and other petty reasons.
Instead of looking at all the faults of the bible, one should bear in mind that the English TRANSLATIONS that we have now, the KJV, NIV, etc are just translations of the actual text. The original manuscripts written in Hebrew, Greek. Actual meanings have sometimes been distorted as a result of translation.
Instead of looking at the faults of the Bible, maybe you should ask yourself "Who created man?". If your theory is the Big Bang, then I put to you "How can something be created from nothing?". At the beginning of time there must have existed a being or something, be it gases or things like that. Who then created these things?
If you try to trace back to the origin of matter, what you will find is that there must have been a being who created everything --- GOD. Repent for the time is near! Read the book of Revelations
Internet Infidels' Response:
Well, maybe you can tell us where this god came from who made all of the matter that exists. His argument is the same one that skeptics have answered hundreds of times. If matter, whose organization would be simple compared to a deity who could create matter out of nothing, cannot be self-existent, then how could an infinitely more complex existent like a deity who can create infinite universes be self-existent? Maybe you can explain that to us.
By the way, the name of the last book in the Bible is Revelation (singular), not Revelations (plural). Your mistake with the name makes me wonder if you have read this book closely. I have read it (many times), and I wonder if you could tell me what "John" or whoever the author is was smoking when he wrote it.
How come the Christian rebuttals on your site seem so full of love and the atheist comments so full of disdain? Never mind that the Christians' comments usually sound so much more intelligent. If you don't watch out, you might cause some people to convert!!
Internet Infidels' Response:
I would point out that this "contempt" was not contempt for religion in general, but for the way that it too often has negatively impacted society. S/he says "Religion should express what is best about being human." That scarcely sounds like a carte blanche rejection of all things religious.
There is a letter that mentions atheism in all its "crude and intolerant glory," but that particular letter was a sarcastic letter, written by a Christian who was offended by one of the articles in our "Humor" section. (And I will concede that the Satire section can get pretty contemptuous. There's stuff in there that offends *me*, and I'm an atheist!) This letter was *not* an atheist praising us for being intolerant.
(I should mention that I do know for a fact that the above letter was written by a Christian; I happen to be engaged in an email conversation with him at the moment.)
Some atheists do take a harsh, contemptuous approach. Others take a tolerant, rational approach. But then, some Christians are harsh and contemptuous, while others are tolerant and rational. It would seem that neither religion nor the lack thereof is any indicator of a person's capacity for tolerance...
Thanks for listening. Take care!
This is a terrific page, an extraordinary collection of material. I look forward to educating myself in the days ahead. Thanks.
This organization seems to attempt to prove inconsistencies with Jesus Christ. Do you attempt to prove this with other spiritual leaders? Just curious.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Currently, there is indeed a focus on disproving Christian claims, owing mainly to the fact that the founders of the Internet Infidels, and many of the contributors, are either Americans or Europeans. (As I'm sure you know, Christianity is the dominant religion in the Americas and Europe.) We are aware of this problem, however, and are working to rectify this. If you would like to help us in our efforts to refute non-Christian religions, please let me know.
THANK YOU A THOUSAND TIMES for maintaining this web site! I've been reading voraciously ever since I discovered it, and hope to turn others on to it in the near future. "These days" it's easy to get discouraged, and the presence of this site is psychologically very fortifying.
[This message was sent in response to "Mistakes of Jesus" by William Floyd .]
I just read this Mistakes of Jesus . Are you aware of how completely TWISTED this guy's thinking is? Do you realize he hasn't even got a rudimentary understanding of the Bible? I mean, you may think you're free thinkers but the truth is you're walking in utter darkness! I kid you not, and to be honest I used to spout and believe the kind of garbage this William Floyd guy did (I assume he's gone now since the document is dated 1932).
I mean somewhere in your souls you're probably vaguely aware this is all wrong, but you've stifled it somehow.
The scary part is everything this guy says sounds kind of plausible; but it's TWISTED! TWISTED! TWISTED! And factually wrong.
I'll try to get you some real information in the next day or two. In the meantime, if you're really free thinkers, why not just briefly ask God to help bring you to the truth? After all, if He's not really there (and He is), it can't hurt, since nothing will happen. Kind of a scientific experiment. Just ask him. For it's not God's will that any should perish.
The lie that I find outstanding in this document is that Jesus was being cruel by telling people they had a possibility of going to a fiery hell. Cruel. Right. If I tell you not to drive off a cliff, am I being cruel? No. Jesus was warning people of a REAL danger, and telling them frankly that the road to hell was easy (and doesn't have a lot of signs on the way) and the road to life (that is, a life of conscience and spirit here on earth and eternal life in the world to come) was hard to find.
If you're *REALLY* free thinkers, check out the Christian argument FOR the authenticity of the scriptures & Jesus. I highly recommend anything by Josh McDowell, for instance "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", or "A Ready Defense". Your local Christian bookstore will have these books. They are well written and McDowell is scrupulous about addressing all the tough issues and citing his sources.
Internet Infidels' Reponse:
Thank you for your interest in the Secular Web. Since some of your comments will be addressed in the forthcoming Internet Infidels' Frequently Asked Questions, I won't address everything in your message. I did, however, want to comment upon your recommendation that we "check out" the works of Josh McDowell.
You seem to think none of the Internet Infidels have ever considered the "Christian argument FOR the authenticity of the scriptures & Jesus," but you are mistaken. The main interest of several Internet Infidels (Robby Berry, Don Morgan, James Still, and myself) is the historical evidence concerning Christianity. Indeed, we are very familiar with McDowell's works and we are in the process of producing an on-line refutation of McDowell's ETDAV, entitled The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence". I think there are both logical and factual errors in McDowell's works, so I don't think you want to recommend ETDAV to non-Christians. In the future, I recommend you suggest either Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig or Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland.
I just wanted to say that I'm really glad that your organization has seen fit to make criticisms of Josh McDowell's books available to the public. I was recently hounded about my religious beliefs and told that I should really read McDowell's books by someone I thought was a friend. I found the book that I tried to read ("More than a Carpenter") to be a crock of...well, I won't say! I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who felt that they were full of inconsistancies. Keep up the good work!
Internet Infidels' Response:
Your message is just another testimony to the need for McDowell refutations. McDowell supporters often wonder why we spend so much time on our McDowell refutations, but the only reason we even bother is because so many Christians enthusiastically endorse his works. If we did not have McDowell slammed down our throat so much, we would not make the effort.
Thank you for creating/maintaining this collection of defenders rationality and free thought.
But how can you NOT include the preeminent crusader for reason and the human (and proudly proclaimed atheist) of the twentienth century, Ayn Rand?
I have seen a number of documents from the Freethought Web, all of course being atheistic. While I agree with some of the material presented I am wondering if "freethought" really represents your self-styled "infidel" group. It appears that others are free to think anything that want to, just so long as it conforms to your own style of "infidel" thinking.
Is this really freethought? If freethinking is actually the purpose why don't you have opposing view-points?
I had to write you about your web page, I was trully entertained this morning. I can imagine you have gotten a lot of Email both for against the outlines set forth in this web page. I would neither defend or rebuttal your comments on the scripture, since their weren't about me. I think God should comment on them, and I am quite sure he will have his opportunity. As it says in the scripture Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall not make it good?
Thank God (oops!) I found this site. Haven't explored all of it yet, but I certainly will. And will be a frequent visitor. Help! These Jesus freaks are taking over everything here in Washington State! Maybe there's something in the water that causes atrophy of the cognitive areas of the brain. Better I stick to beer.
Feel free to add my email address to your list of Atheists out on the net.
Thanks for a job well-done.
I am an Senior,undergrad, Philosophy major at the University of Michigan. I am a victim of organized religion, in that I was beat very frequently as a child for not giving my mind over to assinine religious dogma (Catholic). I knew at a young age that I would work to help bring this cruel, false institution down. They lost the struggle for my mind.They refute themselves at each utterance of dogma. I am overjoyed at discovering your Web-Site. Thanks. If you guys need me, call. I would be honored to be involved in any capacity at all.
[This message was sent in response to "Jesus Should Have Been Aborted" by Jenn Shreve.]
Hello, just browsing along the "free thought" web and came across some wonderful topics - "Jesus should have been aborted" etc. Its nice to see humanism in all its glory - crude and intolerant, with an agenda not to question religious beliefs, but to ridicule those who hold to them. Its wonderful to know that THIS is the competition, that THIS is what "rationalism" is all about. Keep up the great work - you're good for a few laughs.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thanks for your message. A careful examinaition of the Secular Web reveals that we have located the article, "Jesus Should Have Been Aborted," on our Satire page, not the Freethought Web. One should therefore take it with a grain of salt. As far as serious examinations of Christianity are concerned, I invite you to check out my undergraduate thesis entitled, "The Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection: The Debate Between Christians and Skeptics." I think you will find that much more serious and balanced.
I'm not an alcoholic, but my father is. Wish I had known of this organization last summer when we were struggling with him. AA didn't impress him (or me either.) Are you by chance familiar with any support groups such as Fundamentalists Ann. or similar organizations? Also, is there a chapter of SOS in South Carolina? If so, how might I get in touch?
Thanks!
No. Unfortunately this is not a response but don't worry, it's not a rebuke or anything either. Actually I wanted to tell you that I think your questions are valid. Although Christianity is a religion (thereby accepted on faith like all religion and some evolutionary theories), it claims a strong historical basis. I would also love to hear a response to your questions by people like Glenn Miller. I am a fundamentalist Christian (by the way, can we drop the stereotypes? It doesn't work for Christians or Atheists.). But I read your section as well. I think you are very intelligent and extremely literate. Your ideas and facts are both timely and up to date. I could not debate you on many issues simply due to the fact that I have neither the resources or the access to them. But I appreciate you taking time to document and research your stuff.
I do have a couple of questions concerning your challenge. How close to the time period would you consider contemporary? Also, will you accept a credible modern day author quoting from an ancient writing with the ancient writing documented (I promise, no quotes from Josh McDowell). Also, could you tell me what archaelogical documentation we have for things like the big bang? Please, no theories. No evidence that "could lead us to conclude". And no, this is not a trick question. I'm just curious. I know that's off the subject.
Thanks again, though occasionally you are condescending and at times outright rude, I have never been able to call you unfair or unbalanced.
I was very glad to come across your pages, but I must admit that it makes me sad to realize that your work is needed today. It really is.
Keep up the good work.
I was glad to see the great feedback that you've received. I've recently stumbled across your web site and have set it up as my home page. The couple of negative comments you got were from people who obviously "don't get it" (and are probably so indoctrinated in their beliefs that they won't ever get it). I've shared resources from the links you've provided with others who were interested in the separation of church and state. I also got some belly laughs from the delightfully sacrilegious links in your parody section. The material on creationism is first-rate. I was glad to find FFRF's home page too. Keep up the great work!
I think the people that feel hatred in the links on your web site don't realize that humanists are generally open to love that isn't restricted to the false love (worship, glorification, humbleness, fear, guilt) for a deity. Our love encompasses ourselves, our family, our close friends, all of humanity, other creatures, the earth and all of nature. The hatred that they feel in your web is more likely comtempt that religion often manifests itself in such negative ways. Religion should express what is best about being human (such as Ethical Culture). I have contempt that religion has led to what we currently consider Western Culture instead of what may have resulted from the Ionian-Epicurian Greek/Roman culture. The destruction of huge collections of books from this era by the early Christians was an immeasurable loss. The ideas that were a part of this culture included: "the independent scientific investigation of reality, the vastness of the universe, evolution, progress, a humanist ethic, and the brotherhood of man." (from History's Greatest Liars by Joseph McCabe, page 6). It has taken 1500 years for some of humanity to get back on the right track. Progress is still fought by the espousers of fundamentalist religion.
Please don't confuse my contempt for hatred. I don't feel hatred towards anyone. But, I do feel contempt that people still cling to out-dated beliefs that are so destructive. Beliefs that were forged by the environment of survival in a desert environment don't fit with the desire to grow beyond mere survival. The destructive ideas that are forged within the furnace of many mainstream religions may even cause the destruction of humanity and the environment as we know it due to overpopulation within the next millenium. Am I getting carried away? An adherent to a fundamentalist religion (Rush Limbaugh dittos) would think so.
My contempt also comes from the recognition that the direction that mainstream religions are taking society is not the direction that I personally view as providing what is best for my progeny's future. Of course, there are currently many destructive trends in the secular world, but human problems can only be resolved through human efforts. Humanists are busy with the difficult task of trying to solve social problems in the "here and now" while religionists are busy expending tremendous amounts of time, money, passion, etc. to "save" mankind from a "pretend" fate after they die. The world ends up with more people causing problems rather than more people solving them. Why should I have contempt? I wonder?
I had only planned to write a couple of lines of praise for your web site, but I guess I had more to say than I thought I did.
I know some of you may not like this phrase, but please read on: finding you is an answer to a prayer. I am sober, happy in AA, but who has been continuously frustrated with not knowing where to send people who want sobriety but not the steps. The thought of sending someone back to drink because they have disagreement with AA was not something I could endorse, and for quite some time I have been searching for alternative suggestions to give. I can easily understand the objection to prayers and such, since as a non-Christian the prayers used in AA meetings can sometimes be a bit challenging to my soul.
I congratulate you all on your sobriety!
I'm very happy to see that a place like this exists. Gives me great hope for the future, and especially for internet's future. I don't know if you're interested, but I typed up "The Christian Religion" by Robert Ingersoll a while back, and I didn't see it on your list. I'll give it to you if it's worth your time.
What a fine wonderful use of internet. Damn.
Thanks for the service. What a breath of fresh air!
As a fellow Humanist, I realize what an important job you are doing in "spreading the word." Thank you for such an informative Web Site.
Hi all. first I want to say thanks for creating the Secular web page and maintaining it. I can't tell you what a pleasure it is to go back to yourpage time and time again.
First of all, let me thank you for your website. It is great to see the compilation of work that you have put together. I am like-minded in feeling that censorship is a dangerous thing, and one of the things that excites me most about the internet is the freedom to publish openly....
I am currently putting together a page of external links, and will be adding your website. I wanted to let you know in case you have any objections, in which case I will be happy to remove the link.
Can you send me informaton concerning what you are trying to accomplish?
Just a brief note of congratulations to arguments well thought out against this oppressive society. Another inconsistency in the Alliance's arguements is its suggestion that Sunday is the Biblical Sabbath. Close examination reveals they missed the boat on this one as well. Truly, as you say, they are narrow minded bigots bent on anihilating the liberties of others.
I am not a staunch Catholic and I agree with a fair amount of the opinions espoused by your group. I must say, however, that you have made a lot of exaggerations, taken a lot of situations out of context, and printed some outright lies.
The way your commentaries are written seem to exude a lot of hatred disguised as intellectualism, and a lot of it is written in bad taste.
As it is you right to write what you want (I am an ardent advocate of free speech), it is also my right to react to what you are saying.
The way it lookes like to me, your group is even more intolerant that those you are condemning of intolerance.
You have a great set up here. I'll be browsing around awhile.
I do not understand why you have a desire to spread secular,non-theistic views. Would'nt it be bettter to send people a message of hope by telling them of God's love and how he sent his son to die for them. Thank you for reading my letter and may God bless you. John 3:16
Just a short note to let you know how much I enjoyed discovering Humanist articles, ceremonies, etc., on the Web. I am aware of the Humanist BBS, but I was unaware of the Web access. Please keep up the fine work.
[This message was sent in response to "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine .]
Thank You for the great gift of permitting me to at last read Thomas Paine's "The Age Of Reason". Paine is one of my personal heroes, and I have been unable to aquire but little of his writings, just snippets and quotes. It is from these alone that I formulated the view that he must have been a man of intellect both keen and unshirking, to finally read an entire work of his is perhaps my finest experience on the vast internet thus far!
I offer you my gratitude for making this to me available to my observation. You have enriched my mind, and thus my life.
Here in Brainerd, MN, there is a growing number of atheist recovering addicts who have been furiously searching for any alternative to the religious connotations of traditional recovery groups. Needless to say, we were very excited to find your site on the net. We would truly appreciate any information on starting our own group here.
I'm glad I found you guys on the internet. Sorry I won't be able to come to the convention (I did go to the 1981 convetion of American Atheists In Salt Lake City:)
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
