Internet Infidels: Feedback: 1996: April

April 1996 Feedback

Thanks

Internet Infidels' Response:

Hi, Steve! :)

Actually, the best thing to read is a children's book of myth. Really, any should do. You can explain to her that people for a long time have believed in people more powerful than themselves, with magical powers and such. The god her friends refer to is just like these, and they, like all those people before them, believe as they did, only they believe in a different magical person.

I can understand what you're going through -- I'm the father of two boys, one seven and the other five. If anything I've learned not to hide anything from them, but to be as honest as possible with 'em. It's been a little trying sometimes; for example, the eldest asked why we didn't go to church. My wife explained that we knew all there was about god, and that church wasn't much use for people like us. He took this quite well and, even better, he tells his friends he needs only ask his parents and they'll tell him all he wants to know.

I also have taken them to church. Now, some atheists may object to taking their kids to a church, given that the institutions like to preach so much. I say, eh, take 'em to the local Unitarian church, where they get exposed to all sorts of beliefs (the Unitarians have a fair number of atheists in their ranks.) The point is, do let your kid(s) know about gods, but treat the gods like people, not objects of worship. It'll be fine. :)

stephen B^)

Greetings.

I enjoyed your web page on Benjamin franklin. However, one aspect of it was mistaken in the facts, at least as I have read them over the years.

In regard to the passage in your page:

"Eagerly has the church striven to place to her credit the prestige of this wise and good man's name. But in vain she cannot efface the oft-repeated declarations of his disbelief."

Franklin did indeed have several periods of disbelief and doubt about a God. In the end, however, he stated his firm belief in the existence of a Deity. I am not an especially religious person (although, like Dr. Franklin in this respect, I am not an atheist) but I thought you might do well to be corrected in this particular matter.

Thank you for including Dr. Franklin among your Web entries. I share your general admiration of the man.

another unproven miracle is the 'healing' JC was supposed to have done, like perfectly set bones, etc. We're also 'told' of curing the blind, well there is no reference to what these blind saw after they could see!

Thanks for beginning my subscription. I have two questions probably answered before I joined up. I am interested in learning of Mr. Till's background. He makes allusion to going through a Christian phase which included preaching, missionary terms (?) ... That information is key. Also, in my first issue, I read of the narrow focus of the Review- purely, inerrancy. Can you recommend other journals which address some of the issues discussed in the debates on this page (philosophical basis for believing in existence of God, reliability of the Bible, deity of Jesus, evolution, etc.? I'd appreciate it. I have linked your website to mine. It is

http://www.stardate.bc.ca/r&swebdesign/wlsalvo/

Thanks

Check out my novel: HITLER THE CAT GOES WEST ?????

LOTS'S of nasty stuff about religion along the way. . .

http://home.aol.com/ekleip

PS. . . like what you're doing here. . .

To Any Christians Out There,

I know many people who take the Bible literally. Any of you who share the belief that the Bible is an exact account of historical events please answer this question. The first human was Adam, right? From his rib came Eve, right? They had two son - namely Cane and Abel, right? My question is this: Where did the rest of humanity come from? There were three men and one woman - all related. Hmm. Four people in - presumably what is now the Middle East - are the common ancestors to over 5.5 billion people of various ethnic groups including all the Native American nations, to all the European groups, African nations, Asian groups... And this took about 6000 years? Hmmm, and you say evolution is wrong.

Uh huh, well I must say that God must have been busy. Seriously though... I think I'll stick with atheism.

PS This is a great site. It's very refreshing to find people who are capable of individual thought.

Why I enjoyed the essay by Frank Zindler entitles "How do you KNOW God doesn't exist." I would like to make the following objection:

First I WOULD like to say that he is absolutely right in saying that untestible hypotheses are worthless. They are---and that is the ground on which is argument stands and on which it is valid.

However his statement that you can not prove a negative is clearly false. Logicians and mathematicians do it all the time.

Consider the following:

All birds have feathers
Apples don't have feathers
-----------------------------
. . . Therefore apples are not birds.

I would further like to point out that the statement "You can't prove a negative" is ITSELF a negative statement, thus if somebody shows that this statement is true it is false.

That's all really. I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing Zindler's essay as a whole---but people repeatedly make this mistaken statement, apparently without ever bothering to think it trhough. It annoys me more, because Zindler is obviously quite bright and articulate. And further I want to make it clear that this is not a creationist rebuttal of Zindler's essay...the objection that God is not is not a testable hypothesis is enough on it's own. But since we Atheists rely on logic, I like to piont out when it is dangerously misused. And I have seen this fallacy presented so many times that I felt it worthwhile to write this response.

Internet Infidels' Response:

I am rather embarrassed to confess I don't remember the essay to which Mr. Curry refers in which I made the erroneous claim "You can't prove a negative." I normally am very careful to avoid that claim, and I am nonplussed to explain how it got in the essay referred to. I sometimes state the claim prior to criticizing it, but I know better than to advance it as my own opinion. I have on a number of occasions made statements superficially related to this, but very much different from it in reality. Usually these relate to universal claims of nonexistence. Thus, it really is de facto impossible to prove the universal negative proposition "there are no ghosts anywhere in the universe." But as far as simple negative propositions, as Mr. Curry rightly points out, mathematicians do it all the time.

Frank R. Zindler

I would love to get a complete copy of this publication, but I could grow old waiting for it to come over the web!

Is there any way that I could ftp the complete document?

Keep up the good work!

Your site is very good but also very slow. It would be nice if you could upgrade to a new system, but then again, that's probably what you think too.

I just want to respond to a point made by Mr. Till in the Geisler or Horner debate,that states that even if the Apostles died for what the Gospel it still does not prove that they were genuine as even Joseph Smith was lynched without recanting his beleifs.The difference here is that Smith was killed for being a heretic,a person hated by society and not because he did not recant,Infact if he recanted it would have only angered the crowd more since he would then have admitted to duping innocent people and being a liar and imposter.Smith could not have changed his situation by recanting: that would have only worsened it.The Apostles and Church Fathers would have escaped execution by recanting,but they chose not to. This is why their deaths prove their sincerity.Thank you.

P.S. my computer account expires on the 22and so if you are going to write back personally please do so before then.If not then I will read your response on the Feedback page. Thanks again.

Internet Infidels' Response:

The martyrdom of the apostles is largely a matter of legend. The book of Acts mentions the death of James, and there are some references in church writings to the deaths of the other apostles (much of it contradictory). However, if we assume that the apostles died as church traditions say, why would their deaths not have been the result of their particular type of heresy? If their deaths occurred as tradition says, didn't they die because their executors considered them heretics? Weren't Christians heretics to non-Christians? You will have to explain how you know that Smith's siituation would have only been worsened if he had recanted. All you did was assert that this is so, and assertions should be supported with reasonable evidence. You gave none.

F. Till

Yallo Infideli, Actually ,I got on the net to see if anyone had already figured out that:"genetics and socialization as variables aside,subjectivity is nondifferentiable and thus identical in,generalizable to,all."The only sight I've found is the Mind Uploading Homepage and the only correspondent ,an MU contributor I suspect is a Jesuit!Anyway, if I'm right,the dead are raised and perfect justice reigns. Probably not good enough payoff to interest anyone. No spoon-bending or UFO's--just science...even if just pop-sci. I find I don't have priority-then my guilt-trip for not publishing goes away!

Hi, my name is M. and I'm from Fairbanks.I realy liked your "50 Fun Things for Non-Christians to Do in Church". Keep up the good writing.

Internet Infidels' Response:

What graph?

stephen B^)

Alex,

What benefit do expect to gain in an attempt to perverse the evidence supporting the Bible?

>From the Hebrew; Septuagint text:

" 'You will be ever hearing, but never understanding; you will be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' This people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes." Isaiah 6:9-10

Would you say that this scripture could possibly apply to you, or individuals like you?

>From the New Covenant: Messiah says:

"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."

(I don't expect you to understand the sign of Jonah, but if you do truly, you will know why I included this passage... This might become more apparent as you read.)

It is written also in the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 1:18...):

" 'For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.' Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. The Jewish people demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Messiah crucified: a stumbling block to the Jewish people and foolishness to pagans, but to those whom God has called, both the Jewish people and Greeks, Messiah the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's 'wisdom', and the weakness of God is stronger than man's 'strength'."

(Do not let yourself perish. You can have all the men of the world praise your intelligence and "wisdom" but your "intelligence" or "wisdom" will never compare to the Lord's and you will never be saved by your intelligence or wisdom. You are probably fairly intelligent by the standards of men, but even I fear for your soul, because if your views are pagan, you have shamed yourself in the face of the Lord--and if you truly believe that Jeremiah was a false prophet, you might as well stop reading NOW.)

It is said to the fellow believers in Messiah (1 Corinthians 1:26...):

"Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Messiah Yeshua, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: 'Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.' "

(You and every member of this generation has access to a record of miracles, and you still do not believe it. The previous generations of the Jewish people saw miracles happen and some of us still see miracles, but refuse to believe. This is the reason that the non-believers do not deserve miraculous signs. Non-believers do not recognize miracles for what they are. Are you wise by human standards or do you have access to the wisdom of the Lord? (That is just for you to think about--the Lord already knows the answer.)) The Lord chose those who were lowly first to be witnesses of the signs and miracles and then also recieve them (by FAITH) as what they were-signs and miracles from God, because they were able to be humble (relieved of their pride) - unlike those who have much pride barring their way. (Pride is a stumbling block to those who seek to enter the Kingdom of the Lord.)

As you would read (1 Corinthians 2:9...):

"However, as it is written:'No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him'--but God has revealed it to us by His Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."

(The Lord knows your heart, whether that displeases you or not. How much more obvious can you make it to Him that you are not one of those who love Him?)

It is written (1 Corinthians 2:14...):

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they must be spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgements about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgement: 'For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?' But we have the mind of Messiah."

(You may not realize it, but your battle is not against people such as James Kennedy, Henry Morris, Josh McDowell, etc., your battle is against God. How do you expect people to defend the Lord? If you are angry with the Lord, take it up with Him, not with His children. The Lord is a forgiving Lord, but only to those who seek His face. I know that it was perhaps unwise of me to give you excerpts from the Bible, because you cannot understand what they mean, when you have no discernment. Alex, if it is the Lord that you are angry with, speak to Him. You have no right to persecute those that know Him, simply because they know Him and you do not. Do not be proud, seek forgiveness.

Many of us have diligently set to work to prove the Bible wrong - not expecting that the Bible would prove us wrong.

Good luck. (God be with you as you fight your way into His arms)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Thank you for your letter. While I sincerely appreciate your concern for my spiritual well-being, it seems apparent that you have judged me without first reading and understanding my entire work.

What benefit do expect to gain in an attempt to perverse the evidence supporting the Bible?

I do know what your Biblical excerpts mean, however, and I do appreciate the thought behind them.

To answer your question, it is not I who perverted any evidence. It is Kennedy. I merely expose his rampant dishonesty. I would ask you also: what benefit does Kennedy expect to gain by lying for God? He supports his assertions with distortions, half-truths, misquotations, quotes out of context, and outright lies. See my critique of chapter 4 for a detailed exposure of his dishonesty concerning science. See my critique of chapter 10 for examples of his lies concerning other religions.

Truth can hurt. When a well-known Christian apologist is exposed as being dishonest, many followers react as you did. I am sorry if my attempt to cure anobody's blindness about Kennedy caused discomfort, but such is the nature of truth.

I do say explicitly that I know Kennedy is not representative of honest Christians interested in finding a true spritual path for themselves through a healthy debate with proponents of other philosophies. In my experience, the majority of Christians are more open-minded than the judgmental dishonest minority represented by Kennedy and much of the so-called "Christian Right." I find it very sad that many Chritians accept Kennedy's words at face value. This is understandable, considering how readily Christians rely on faith, rather than reason or evidence. Finding support for your faith in the words of dishonest charlatan leaves you open to spiritual destruction, don't you think? In that sense, Kennedy is dangerous to Christians and non-Christians alike.

(You may not realize it, but your battle is not against people such as James Kennedy, Henry Morris, Josh McDowell, etc., your battle is against God.

How do you expect people to defend the Lord?

Do you think it's right to "defend the Lord" with distortions and lies?

For that matter, do you really think the Lord needs to be "defended" by his followers?

If you are angry with the Lord, take it up with Him, not with His children.

2. I _am_ angry with people who try to use any dishonest tactics available to sneak, or force, their own personal beliefs down the throats of others. I believe that the evil in these people should be exposed.

I know that it was perhaps unwise of me to give you excerpts from the Bible, because you cannot understand what they mean, when you have no discernment.

You have no right to persecute those that know Him

If you care to look at my work again, read the Introduction and the Conclusion first (only 1 page each). Then if you're curious how I reached my conclusion, read the rest. Remember, I started out respecting the man. Consider my critique as no more than a chronicle of how my respect for him evaporated as I researched each of his chapters.

Thank you for your coments and your good wishes.

Alex Matulich

so why am i listening to Bob sing "Knocking on Heaven's Door" as I read this site? :)

WOW! Hope to see a critique on this page in due time.

It is a good thing that most people will not read. Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed may start a march on Sagan at Cornell. to say nothing of the other "believers" and pseudoscientists.

Lots of great stuff here! Thanks for the laughs. Has anyone written anything about that little sign over christ's head? The "INRI" thing? I get the idea that it stands for "I'm Nailed In Right" but that's just a best guess. Any ideas out there?

The Biblical absurdities,etc. were great. You had some wonderful points. You gave me some new vantage points for religious arguments.

Internet Infidels' Response:

What are you talking about? What file did you read?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Hi, I'm an X-member of American Atheists and am still an atheist. Do you know where Madalyn is and what she's up to? I'd like to know more about your organization. I have met Madalyn and John Murray in Denver.

I have just recently got conected so I am still overwhelmed,dazed and confussed by all this. It was great to find the atheist web. I am a pretty radical atheist who measures intelligence by the subjects worldview. I have no respect for theist intellect. I have writing down my thoughts on atheism for years now and had planned to get some of it out on the net, but since I clicked on the atheist website I see that most of my stuff is not unique. These are some arguments that I have not found yet. Here is one.

1.If a god is intelligent and conscious and concieved,planned and constructed this universe then everything in this universe would have to be its' idea or was the god taken by surprize by the concepts like suffering, disease, war, rape, necrophillia, ect. So is God a sadist or just stupid. The xians will try their free will argument, not understanding the concept of concepts.

Is it possible for me to print the entire documents from online? If so what is the trick to doing it.

I would be helpful if you included an area on the Secular City homepage that would have information on the latest news or rumors cloncerning American Atheists. Do you know what the current status is of the organization? I would appreciate any info on this you might have. Thanks

Dear infidels:

Great pages. Thanks for your commitment. May I suggest you provide a link to Jone Johnson's virtual Ethical Society?

C

>The Atheist position is that the traditionalist historical
>concepts of god are quite fallacious and that the notion of
>some ``super power'' is not now susceptible of proof by existing
>scientific methods or by the accumulation of knowledge presently
>accessible to man. Therefore the Atheists live as if there were
>no god, no efficacy in prayer, and no life after death. We are
>free from theism. We bet everything on this as being accurate.

>The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in
>the god camp.

I have no idea whether there is a God or not. I have no evidence of such a thing and therefore live my life as if there were not.

I am an agnostic. I don't consider myself gutless and I never ally myself with theists or the church.

Atheists say "there is no God". Agnostics say, "We don't know if there is a God and it's highly improbable that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. Therefore, in the interim, we choose not to believe in one."

There is a popular skeptic named James Randi. He goes around debunking psychics and such. He proves that what psychics are doing can be done far easier with with simple sleight of hand tricks. While this doesn't disprove psychic phenomena, it makes it extremely unlikely. Randi can't disprove Psychic phenomena by proving that it can be done some other way. This is skepticism. Applied to religion, it is agnosticism.

Any atheist who maintains the position you state above is just as guilty of unquestioning dogma as Roman Catholics, Christian Scientists, and Muslims.

I'm a nonbeliever in God but I can't support your movement if you post garbage like that on your web page. Don't expect any contributions from me...

Internet Infidels' Response: The Secular Web is a virtual library. Just as a university librarian does not necessarily agree with all of the books in her library, so too the Internet Infidels do not necessarily agree with all of the files in the Secular Web Library. In fact, I am agnostic who totally disagrees with Madalyn's essay on agnosticism, yet I personally HTML-ized and uploaded the file to the Secular Web. I therefore hope you'll reconsider contributing to the Secular Web.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

I would like some general information about your organization.

Also, how are cermonies such as weddings and funerals handled??

Your article, PROPHECIES:IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED by Farrell Till is very thought provoking.Have you read Josh Mcdowell's EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT on prophecy that was fulfuilled?

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

Yes, I have read Josh McDowell's book. The section on prophecy fulfillment is typical of Christian claims in that it assumes the historical accuracy of the NT. This approach simply cites an OT passage (which many times is a prophecy only in the imagination of the prophecy claimants) and then cites a NT passage that allegedly happened in fulfillment of the prophecy. When there are no nonbiblical records to corroborate the NT writer's claim that the event happened (as in the case of Herod's slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem), this is hardly sterling evidence that the fulfillment occurred. You may have noticed that many of McDowell's prophecy fulfillment claims were addressed in Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled. In the first three issues of 1996, I published in The Skeptical Review a response to Dr. Hugh Ross's article about prophecy fulfillment. I will send them to you if you would like to read them.

F. Till

Found your page recently and think it's great!

I have a question for you. There are two things that I haven't been able to access on America Online: "Snake Oil" magazine and the "Ring of Fire" online catalog. Can you give me subscription info for "Snake Oil," and does "Ring of Fire" put out a printed catalog?

I appreciate your time.

Thanks:

To the Internet Infidels:

If all that a freethinker had to go on for criticism of Mere Christianity was your offerings, I would ignore the book entirely if I were you. If anyone actually read and thought about Lewis's arguments, they'd get no help in refuting him from either Dan Barker or the Fool.

The Fool doesn't even understand what Lewis is saying in the Preface. He clearly asserts the Virgin Birth of Christ as part of what he calls "mere" Christianity. It's the Virgin Birth of Mary that he sets aside, which is obvious to anyone but the Fool since he goes on to contrast Roman Catholics with Protestants.

The rest of the piece by the Fool seems to presume that since he found the book unpersuasive, freethinkers should consider the book unpersuasive (there's a certain irony in this). He points out no argumentative flaws in the two options about Jesus (three if one counts the "or something worse"), offers no alternative conceptions of his own (please, just one or two would do), gives only one example of "shoddy reasoning and rhetoric," but gives no indication of its shoddiness. Here he seems to miss Lewis's point, basically restating the position that Lewis abandoned, choosing to believe that all religions are "simply one huge mistake."

Claiming "childish anecdotes" does not argumentation make. This part of the book would be the most important one to refute, as it attempts to establish a reasonable explanation for belief in God, but it is ignored. Reading in its context the last quote the Fool uses, one wonders if he has any idea what Lewis is trying to say in the first part of the book at all. How then is his rejection of it supposed to be informative to a thoughtful person?

The only informative aspect of the piece is what the Fool believes (do I hear the Doobie Brothers somewhere here?), but that's not very interesting to anyone but the Fool and perhaps his mother (and I suppose the Doobies).

Yours for better and more accurate thought,

if i had something to contribute i would, but
i don't
so i won't.

Internet Infidels' Response:

There are women contributors. Did you check our Library?

And, BTW, there are women members of the Internet Infidels as well.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

http://www.pavilion.co.uk/david-pearce/

Many thanks!

I am contacting you because I believe we are going to have fight on our hands here and we need all the help and experience we can get Of course, Im going to try to stop the distribution of material pertaining to religion, or have the FFRF flyer distributed to all children in the school district. (with Dans permission of course) I expect that at sometime in the future the media will point its beady little eye in our direction, I will attempt to put on a good face, knowing that what I do reflects on Atheists Agnostics and Freethinkers around the world. I also hope to be able to supply a few pointers for the general public, and may have the opportunity to mention Internet Infidels, etc., but would not do so without letting you object. (Pardon, that means-not without your approval) Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated, as to procedure and argument. I have contacted the school board, am waiting to hear from the ACLU, have an attorney in the family.

My connection isnt always what its supposed to be, so if there is any problem with this letter, let me know asap. I thank you for your time, (if not your prayers) and wish you all the best.

Magnificent work! I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time! Hopefully, you're doing well and life is treating you fairly. Peace!

p.s. I'm referring to your satire on S&G. :)

I would really be interested in obtaining audio cassette tapes of debates. Could you please direct me to a catalog of various debates? Thanks!

Hi,

I have been looking at your hompages, and I really liked them, even though I have not had the time to look as closely as I would like to. I am a member of HEF (Human-Etisk Forbund), The Norwegian Humanist and Ethical Organization. I have been a member since I was 18, soon 4 years. I wish you the best of luck on your futher work!

Best regards,

Christian Book Didtributors is selling it for $2.95.

1) The book "New Creationism" by Harold Clark. When was it published, etc.

2) Information on Clark himself - Number's book "The Creationists" contain little detail on him. What are his academic\scientific credentials, if any?

3) I have bene told that Clark makes the following statements in his book, & need info on these statements:

i) That trees in New Zealand have been dated with C-14 as being 225 years old while the volcanic material in which they were found are 145 000 to 546 000 years old.
ii)Muscle tissue from the ehad of a musk ox found in the Lena river delta was dated as 24 000 years while hair dated at 7 200 years
iii) Ivory from an unspecified location dated at 11 550 years while wood in the same stratum dated at 5 000 years.

Thanks,

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

I do not know of Harold Clark or his book. However, one of the problems mentioned by Leon Retief of Cape Town concerning radiocarbon dating can be dealt with without referring to the book. A supposed problem is the fact that C-14 dating of trees shows them to be 225 years old, whereas the volcanic substrate on which they are growing is hundreds of thousands of years old, according to some unspecified method of radiometric dating. Of course! Trees are always younger than the soil in which they grow. The carbon in the trees does not come from the soil, but from the atmosphere. The age of the soil substrate is generally irrelevant to the carbon-dating of trees. It should be noted, however, that dating molluscs may be affected by substrates, unlike the case with trees. Molluscs growing on limestone substrates may incorporate fossil carbon from the limestone into their shells, and thus may appear to be thousands of years old while still alive. Competent geologists, of course, know this, and so are careful to reject such specimens for dating purposes.

Creationists come up with thousands of alleged failings of radiometric dating, and it is usually impossible to determine the actual situation obtaining in the dating process. Sometimes, the situation is fictional altogether. And then there is willful distortion of cases. An egregious example is the Chick comic book "Big Daddy" and the dozens of copycat creationist publications that trumpet the "fact" that a living mollusc was radiocarbon dated and found to be dead for five thousand years. That "fact" was taken from a Science article published in the '60s which actually was a paper on how to avoid errors in radiocarbon dating, pointing out the problem mentioned above about molluscs incorporating fossil carbon into their shells!

Radiometric dating is not an easy affair, and not just any fool can do it.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Zindler

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

I think John Kane of the Nat-Sels listserve may have found the info on the trees. could be a good idea to ask debater to name the sources Clark cites -- easier, then, to track down refutations. We'll see what we can find, but it may take a while.

Molleen

I will soon ad a link to your pages, hopr thats ok.

Like your page. . .

There are other sections in the Bible about swearing an oath by holding someone's testicles. If (repressed) memory serves me there are also passages in (I think) Song of Soloman about "my poor sister she has no breasts, she'll never get a man. . .)

Regarding your "Sacred Penis. . ." Until a decade or 2 ago a catholic could not be a priest if he had any parts of his body missing. (Fingers, hands etc.) Did they check for circumscised. . . .?

There are also passages in the bible about "weeping" and "tears" and "sheets wet with tears". Which can be interperted to say: MAKE HIM SLEEP ON THE WET SPOT!

Keep up the good work.

Or let me know who might be interested?

Thank you in advance.

Hello, I would just like to learn more about your newspape - Free Thought Today . I am 19 years old and I am very interested in learning about atheism and agnosticism. At the current time, I do not have much background knowledge in the area so I thought that this would be a good start. I like to read and learn more about what atheism and agnosticism is and how it defends itself, for I sometimes have a difficult time defending myself in a real argument. I would appreciate any information that you could give me especially about Free Thought Today and maybe you know of some other magazines, newspapers or subscription type documents. Thank you very much. I will only be at this email address until May 9, 1996. Since I am a college student I will be going home for the summer and then I will return to the same email address several months later, so I am hoping that I can hear from you soon.

Thanks again.

The power of GOOD is stronger than the power of GODS.

Congratulations on some fantastic pages.

These criticisms certainly debunk some of the more persuasive religious arguments...and I'm glad somebody stood up to C.S. Lewis! I doubt those religious, dogmatic fools will listen terribly much though... :(

Well done.

Hey there --

Been poking around your site for a while now looking for an article or articles that dealt with the refutation of the Bible (inconsistencies in gospels, canonization, etc) Any leads? It would REALLY be appreciated!

I was just wondering if you would have any articles dealing with the formation of the so called inspired books of the Christians.

If you do could you please forward them to my email address or point me in the right direction, I am looking for particular and exact historical references on how they were put together and the criteria that was used for accepting some and rejecting others.

(I am involved with a Christian dialogue currently)

Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you for your time

Hi

I 've been trying to download "Religious Puns" from your site for some time. My computer cannt do it because it simply cannot contact the host. Each time I get "Contacting host ....." but the host actually never gets contacted. I wonder if there is some problem. Thank

Thanks.

Thank you for your listing of the G. Bruno essay on the internet. I'll be looking to more of your material.

I greatly enjoy your pages and plan on spending many more hours reading and downloading the info you have here. GREAT work folks! I love it.

Check out my pages if you like (pretty sure you'll enjoy my religion page)
The Web Serf Homepage

http://www.cstone.net/~slsyd/index.html

I may be able to offer my web/html skills to you this summer- do you need/want some help?

Anyway- Thanx for all your hard work-

I was searching for a list of "Famous Humanists" or "Humanist Celebrities" on your web site but could not find it. Do you have one somewhere on your web page? Thanks.

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

What document are you responding to? I'm assuming it claimed Jesus never existed; as it turns out, I'm wroking on a file arguing for the existence of Jesus.

Why did you feel the need to hide your email address?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

Uh, why wouldn't we believe Abe lived?

stephen B^)

[This message was sent in response to "Josh McDowell's Charade" by Gordon Stein .]

Please note that on your homepage you list Darwin's date of death as 1892 rather than 1882. Otherwise, a most useful resource that we will tell our students about!

Internet Infidels' Response:

Fixed. Thanks for letting us know.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

More power to the free-thinkers of the world. Wasn't Bertrand Russell one of the prominent free-thinkers around 80 years ago? I always liked his pithy observation that "The trouble with the world is that the stupid people are cocksure and the intelligent ones are full of doubt." I think he was absolutely sure of this. He was also into logic and paradoxes and stuff like that. Anyway, Peace and Good Luck!

thanks for the rant on aborting christ, where would we be if there weren't any people who could think for themselves?

Dear Freethinkers,

Thank you for providing so much of the writings of Thomas Paine online. That is a genuine service to all who love the liberty to be found only in an open society.

I noticed that at least one of Paine's writings is missing. It would be nice to see added "The Politician of Land Law Reform", which Paine published in 1796.

Thanks again,

Please send me more information. I am a closet free thinker.

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

I appreciate the thought. And I wish you well on the journies of life ahead. :)

stephen B^)

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

Thank you.

I will think for you.

;)

Brett G. Lemoine

I knew that if I looked long enough, I knew that I would discover the Intellectual pipeline that I had been seeking. What a trip that this is going to be!

Could you please tell me one thing that is scientificly proveable about evolution or the age of the earth? Please back this up with lab evidence and a repeatable experiment that can show the defeat of the laws of bio-genesis that Louis Pasture fomulated, and the second law of thermo-dynamics.

Your entire premise resides as much on this question as Christianity rests on Creation.

[ e-mail the URL of this page ] [top of page]

Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved. « disclaimer »