. You only have to type in "Jesus
Mishegahs" or "Gloger" on Alta Vista or Yahoo! and my book
pops up or at least BookZone does. I think you've like it. Let me know
please
if it hits the spot.
Jeff,
My name is Marty Fields and I want to tell you that I appreciate very
much
your handling of this mess with Michael Martin, et. al. I organized
that debate, and frankly its somewhat frustrating to see the reasons he
has stated. I don't know for sure why he didn't come. I wished he
had.
Anyway, thanks for your sincerity!
[This message was in response to "
Giving the Jehovah's Witnesses a Broadside" by Mark
Vuletic.]
hi good argument. this is coming from an ex jw (bought up from a baby,
missed out on a lot because of their exclusion of themselves and their
children from everyday reality). been reading really good articles on
brainwashing techniques. basically my biggest problem with the jw's is
the negative effect it has on their youngsters-it made me paranoid as
hell about anything and anyone who wasn't affiliated with them. I'M FREE
I'M FREE THANK ZEUS I'M FREE.
For someone who does not believe God exists, you people sure spend
a lot of time dwelling on Him. Your efforts are designed to convince
yourselves! Why do you need convincing?
If
you really don't believe God exists, why would you care if others do?
Will
they somehow harm themselves in this belief? If their is no God and
therefore consequences for our actions, why would you care about people
being harmed? Is the act of caring important if there are no consequences
to our actions? Where would such a value come from anyway?
Believe me if you have nothing else to believe in, most people
instinctivly believe that God exists....escpecially on their death beds.
Why?
What could they possibly have to fear by expiring....without a God,
there is no purpose in existing, right? Fear itself isn't logical. Where
does it come from? Who created it? Why is it important?
It takes a lot more faith to be an aetheist than it does to be a
Christian. Instead of spending your time convincing others that there is
no God and therefore, noone to judge them for their actions, why not spend
your
time wondering and explain to us why we exist at all! Now that would
be something. But you seem obsessed with the God and saviour, Jesus Christ.
What is behind this obsession? What makes you fear and hate Him?
If
you believe He is a myth, why chase Him? Do you spend as much time
debunking Santa Claus? How about the Tooth Fairy? You are not obsessed
with them! Peter Pan, Buddha, Oden, Thor, Mercury, Zeus.......why
Jesus?
I always wanted to know this about an aetheist.
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
>For someone who does not believe God exists, you people sure spend
>a
lot of time dwelling on Him. Your efforts are designed to convince
>yourselves! Why do you need convincing?
I believe you have misidentified the motivation of most, if not all of
us.
Speaking for myself, I believe that the weight of the evidence favors
the atheist position. I also believe that untruths should be corrected in
public discourse. I contribute to the atheism/theism debate where I feel
I have a contribution to make. I don't go proselytizing, I don't try to
"deconvert" people, I don't go around looking for theist web pages
and
sending email to their authors telling them how stupid they are to believe
what
they do.
>If you really don't believe God exists, why would you care if
others do?
Because often theists try to impose their beliefs on me in various ways,
for one reason. I don't care about the belief so much as the often
attendant ill-mannered behavior.
>Will they somehow harm themselves in this belief? If their is
no God and
It's certainly possible. Theism per se doesn't seem particularly harmful,
but uncritical acceptance of religious doctrines can definitely be
harmful, even apart from extreme cases such as cults. For example, I know
of someone who refused to go to college because his sect of Christianity
discouraged it. He later abandoned Christianity and deeply regretted the
fact
that he had not invested in an education earlier in his
life.
>therefore consequences for our actions, why would you care about
people
>being harmed? Is the act of caring important if there are no
consequences
I care about friends and loved ones; it causes me pain to see them harmed
or taken advantage of.
>to our actions? Where would such a value come from
anyway?
There are consequences to our actions, so I don't understand the
significance of your hypothetical. There may or may not be objective
values; if there are, they are mysterious properties on any world view,
theistic or not. There definitely are subjective values, and those values
entail instrumental values which are supervenient on basic values combined
with objective facts about the world. (To elaborate: if I value
happiness as a basic value, I instrumentally value a lot of things as
means to obtaining that value such as obtaining sufficient food and water,
and
there
are many objective facts relevant to those instrumental values.
Human biology, for instance.) I am agnostic on the issue of whether there
are objective basic values--whether there are basic subjective values
which I should have, period. Perhaps the logical landscape of theories
of
values may be understood in a way analogous to theories of
knowledge--coherentist vs. foundationalist. Perhaps the best theory of
values
is a coherence theory. I don't know.
>Believe me if you have nothing else to believe in, most people
>instinctivly believe that God exists....escpecially on their death
beds.
I have seen no evidence of this. On the contrary, most children raised
without being taught of God do not believe in God. Most raised
polytheistic are polytheists. Most raised monotheistic are monotheists.
There are, however, numerous false stories of deathbed conversions
invented by dishonest promoters of religion (e.g., Voltaire, Darwin,
Paine).
>Why? What could they possibly have to fear by expiring....without a
God,
>there is no purpose in existing, right? Fear itself isn't logical.
Where
This is a non sequitur. Purposes need not be based on the existence of a
higher being than oneself. (Does God have a purpose? This question is
raised
in
Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations, which I
recommend.)
>does it come from? Who created it? Why is it
important?
Fear is often a very logical response; I believe it has evolutionary
origins.
>It takes a lot more faith to be an aetheist than it does to be a
>Christian. Instead of spending your time convincing others that
there is
How so? Faith in what? What do you mean by faith? Acceptance/belief
without evidence?
>no God and therefore, noone to judge them for their actions, why not
spend
>your time wondering and explain to us why we exist at all! Now that
would
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a metaphysical
question
which doesn't seem to be answered by anyone, religious or
otherwise.
>be something. But you seem obsessed with the God and saviour, Jesus
Christ.
>What is behind this obsession? What makes you fear and hate
Him?
Excuse me, doc, but I believe you are misconstruing people's motivations
again. The freethinkers I know are not motivated by fear or hate,
certainly not of beings they consider to be nonexistent, mythological, or
dead.
>If you believe He is a myth, why chase Him? Do you spend as
much
time
See above. The message you sent demonstrates exactly the kind of
misunderstanding and ignorance we would like to try to correct.
>debunking Santa Claus? How about the Tooth Fairy? You are not
obsessed
>with them! Peter Pan, Buddha, Oden, Thor, Mercury, Zeus.......why
Jesus?
We respond to what is in our environment. I haven't seen legions of Tooth
Fairy worshippers exercising influence over society. Please read Robby
Berry's "Life in Our Anti-Christian America"
(
http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/lioaca.html).
>I always wanted to know this about an aetheist.
Did you ever try asking one before now?
Jim Lippard
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
>For someone who does not believe God exists, you people sure spend
>a
lot of time dwelling on Him. Your efforts are designed to convince
>yourselves! Why do you need convincing?
I need no convincing at all. I couldn't begin to express how firmly I
believe that "God" is just a pipe dream clung to by wishful thinkers
who
don't have the courage to face reality. Religion is just the thumb that
they
have to suck constantly to give them courage to face another
day.
>If you really don't believe God exists, why would you care if others
do?
>Will they somehow harm themselves in this belief? If their is no God and
>therefore consequences for our actions, why would you care about people
>being harmed? Is the act of caring important if there are no consequences
>to our actions? Where would such a value come from anyway?
This question has been answered at least a dozen times on the errancy
list,
so I
will be brief in my answer. Today's Peoria (Illinois) paper carried an
article (Associated Press, I believe) about the fallout that is already been
felt in Israel after the election of Benjamin Netanyahu (I love the last
part of that name; it sounds so damned appropriate). Examples were related
about Israeli women who are being targeted for reprisals from
fundamentalists because they wear modern clothes. One woman went to her car
after work and found the tires slashed, eggs broken all over the roof, and a
note on the windshield warning her that her kind was not welcome in that
neighborhood. Some women are so fearful that they are beginning to wear in
public the type of clothing that the fundamentalists insist upon.
This is fundamentalist religion at work. The fundamentalist says, "I
may be
a distinct minority, but I am right and everyone else is wrong, so I insist
that everyone live his/her life the way I say they should." My point is
that I combat Christian fundamentalism because I see it as a narrow-minded,
intolerant way of life that would seek to take away personal freedoms and
force
all others, whether they want to or not, to toe the moral line that
fundamentalism draws in the dirt. I will make a deal with him. If
he will somehow get Christian fundamentalists to stop trying to influence
legislators and thereby force their way of life on the entire country, I
will
stop publishing The Skeptical Review, close down the Errancy list,
and
spend my time doing other things I'd like to do. As long as he keeps it
to himself, I really couldn't care less if he wants to go through life
believing in silly supersitions.
>Believe me if you have nothing else to believe in, most people
>instinctivly believe that God exists....escpecially on their death beds.
>Why? What could they possibly have to fear by expiring....without a God,
>there is no purpose in existing, right? Fear itself isn't logical. Where
>does it come from? Who created it? Why is it important?
Ho, hum, here's another Christian claiming that Darwin, Paine, Rousseau,
Voltaire, etc. all repented on their deathbeds. I doubt he knows of a
single verifiable case where a dedicated freethinker repented on his
deathbed. This guy apparently believes everything that is spewed from the
pulpit.
>It takes a lot more faith to be an aetheist than it does to be a
>Christian.
Yeah, right! Does he have any evidence to support that bald
assertion?
>Instead of spending your time convincing others that there is
>no God and therefore, noone to judge them for their actions, why not spend
>your time wondering and explain to us why we exist at all!
If the man would devote a little time to researching evolutionary
biology, he
would find some very reasonable explanations... explanations that are far
more sensible than his belief that some big spook in the sky caused it
all.
>Now that would be something. But you seem obsessed with the God and
>saviour, Jesus Christ. What is behind this obsession? What makes you fear
>and hate Him?
Ah, so, we have another theist asking, "Why do you hate God so much?"
So I
will answer that question with a question for him? Why does he hate
Ahurah Mazda so much?
>If you believe He is a myth, why chase Him? Do you spend as much time
>debunking Santa Claus? How about the Tooth Fairy? You are not obsessed
>with them! Peter Pan, Buddha, Oden, Thor, Mercury, Zeus.......why
Jesus?
If an organized effort developed in this country to force a way of life
on
me and others that was derived from some idiotic ideas derived from
believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, I would try to organize an
opposition to it.
>I always wanted to know this about an aetheist.
Then I wonder why he has never made a serious effort to investigate
atheism?
Also, he might try to learn how to spell "atheist."
Farrell Till
Internet Infidels' Response #3:
>If you really don't believe God exists, why would you care if
others do?
Simple: because the people who believe in imaginary beings won't leave us
alone. While we are perfectly willing to "live and let live", and
allow
other people to believe whatever nonsense they like, you thiests are not
willing to return the favor. You constantly try to pass laws and
otherwise generally affect the way we live. You try to force your ways of
thinking upon other people.
Stop trying to force other people to conform to your personal beliefs,
and
we'd
have no reason to take exception.
>Believe me if you have nothing else to believe in, most people
>instinctivly believe that God exists...
I don't believe you. If you wnat me to - prove it. I think you'll have
to provide some basis in fact for this rather extraordinary statement
you're making. Who says?
>there is no purpose in existing, right? Fear itself isn't logical.
Where
>does it come from? Who created it? Why is it important?
What do you mean, "fear isn't logical?" Fear is 100% logical.
If it
weren't for fear, the human race would have become extinct long ago. Fear
is perfectly natural and a valuable tool for survival. Why is it
important? Easy: because without it, no one would live to age 7.
>It takes a lot more faith to be an aetheist than it does to be a
>Christian.
Really? Wow, that's odd. I have no "faith" in anything at all,
and yet
I'm an atheist. I believe in only things I can see and touch. That
requires no faith at all. You believe in imaginary beings. Which one
takes more "faith"?
>no God and therefore, noone to judge them for their actions, why not
spend
>your time wondering and explain to us why we exist at all!
"Why" we exist? OK, I'll make a deal with you: prove to me that
there
is
a reason "why" we exist, and then I'll start thinking about the
answer. Just because you are too cowardly to acknowledge that there is
no particular "reason" for existance doesn't mean there actaully
is one.
What makes you think there has to be some kind of reason for
existance?
>be something. But you seem obsessed with the God and saviour, Jesus
Christ.
>What is behind this obsession? What makes you fear and hate
Him?
How
could I "fear and hate" a mythical being? I don't "fear and hate
Jesus Christ" any more than you "fear and hate" the Giant
Mutant Star
Goat
from the Third Moon of Zarquon.
>If you believe He is a myth, why chase Him? Do you spend as much time
>debunking Santa Claus? How about the Tooth Fairy? You are not obsessed
>with them! Peter Pan, Buddha, Oden, Thor, Mercury, Zeus.......why
Jesus?
As Farrell Till already put it very well: if people started trying to
pass
laws forcing us to worship Peter Pan, I'd fight them just as
actively.
Let me ask you this: if you had kids, and they were forced to say prayers
to Peter Pan every morning in school, would you fight against it?
>I always wanted to know this about an aetheist.
Well, now you have your answers. Any more questions?
Doug Linder
[This message was in response to "
Age of Reason" by Thomas
Paine
.]
Dear Site Providers,
I was very interest in reading Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason"
and
happened to come across your site. I don't mind an introduction, but I was
a little shocked the way you took bits and pieces to make your editorial. I
wanted
to read his work. It is certainly your right to express your opinion,
as it is mine.
I
have a great deal of admiration for Thomas Paine, having just finished
reading "Common Sense". In Common Sense, Paine used some very
convincing
arguments quoting the Bible. He even addressed a special section for the
Quakers. Our country was founded on people who fled Europe to practice the
religion of their choice. Paine pointed out that the king has more concern
over keeping his power than he has for the common good of the people. What a
better illustration than the Bible where kings exploited the people. Indeed
it is shocking what people have done and then used the Bible to justify their
actions.
I
have
read
both Huxley and Darwin's works. I found Darwin to be a
fascinating individual. I have read a great deal about Voltaire. I enjoy
reading about people with different views than my own. When I came across
your site, I felt you were incredibly closed minded. You lash out at
Christians as if they are on a crusade to censor the world. Why is anyone who
believes in the Bible closed minded? I even studied evolution, but
resent that it is treated as a fact. The fossil record does not support
evolution. There is nothing to show one species crossed over to another
one. It is incredible the nonsense people believe just because the don't
want to believe the world could have been created by a supreme being.
I
have tried to be open minded in my beliefs. Even though I think evolution
is foolish, I respect Charles Darwin. Why are you so convinced that people
who believe the Bible is true are closed minded censors. It appears to me
that you are being the closed minded censors.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I recently retired from teaching college English. For thirty years, I
taught writing and American literature. The Revolutionary War period was a
significant part of the first semester of American literature, so during my
tenure,
I read most of Paine's pamphlets, The Rights of Man, and Age of
Reason. Because it has generally been repressed in our society, I made
sections of Age of Reason required reading for my students. My point is
that I believe I have at least a little familiarity with Paine's work, so I
think I have a reasonable explanation for why Paine quoted the Bible and
made references to the desires of divine providence in "Common
Sense." By
the way, he did the same in his other famous pamphlet series "The American
Crisis."
Paine was a master of persuasion. In "Common Sense," his
obvious intention
was to encourage the colonies to declare independence from England.
Although Paine, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and other prominent leaders
in the colonies at that time were deistic in their philosophy, the colonial
public was Christian (although not nearly to the extent that modern
fundamentalists claim). Paine, therefore, needed to say what had to be said
in order to accomplish his goals. He certainly couldn't have done that had
he said the things that he said in Age of Reason, so he made appeals to
the
Bible
and to divine providence, because these are things that people
like to hear. Do you really think that American politicians are nearly as
religious as they seem in their speeches that make appeals to God, public
prayer, etc.? They do these things not because they are such devout
believers themselves but because they know that it is an easy way to win
people over to their side. Paine was no different. In fact, if you will
investigate the many quotations from "founding fathers" that
Christian
fundamentalists publish, I think you will find that most of the statements
were
made in public situations, where Washington or Jefferson or Whoever was
speaking for the benefit of the public. They were, after all, politicans.
It is in reading the private papers and letters of men like Jefferson and
Adams that we learn what they really believed. And they were not at all
sympathetic to Christianity.
If you doubt that Paine thought that the Bible was a farce, you need to
read
Age
of Reason.
Farrell Till
I
love
your
work here, very good. What is really starting to bother me
though, is the large number of people saying "I will pray for you."
Why
will you pray for us? Your very own bible says we cannot be saved unless
we save ourselves. If you are expecting us to get some sort of religious
revelation, first ask yourself, have you got a religious revelation?
Then you can pray for us. But if we are going to hell, we are going to
hell and there is nothing you can do for us, and your little prayers will
fall
into nothing. STOP SAYING YOU WILL PRAY FOR US, WE DO NOT NEED YOU
TO PRAY FOR US, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO HELL, AND YOU ARE NOT GOING
TO HEAVEN!
Thank you.
[This message was in response to "
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?" by Dave
Matson.]
Man these creationists are getting out of hand. How can I help??
[This message was in response to "
The Dark Bible" by unknown.]
I
have
been reading your web pages with great interest, and have been using
your material to argue a few points with some local Jehovah
Witnesses.
Do
you have any more anomalies to do with the New Testament as opposed to
the old. The "J.Ws" seem to quote more passages from the new
testament rather than
the old............any information would be gratefully received
Thanks once again for an ineresting web-site
[This message was in response to "
The Dark Bible: Sex, Obscenities, and Filth" by unknown.]
Subject: Glad to see such an interesting site
Header says it all. Long live free speech. (if you send a snail mail
address you might get a bumpersticker)
Just wanted to say what a marvalous job you're all doing!
Hello
I really appreciate what you're organization has done to dispel theistic
thinking and promote free thinking.
[This message was in response to "
Din Adamlari" by Ilhan
Arsel
.]
geri zekali
Internet Infidels' Response:
Translation:
Retarded in intelligence, i.e. moron.
Translation by Taner
Read ALL the Bible not just the parts u want to hear, you are taking it
all out of context. For example u are totally skipping Genesis Chapter 4
verse
16, U just so happened to leave it out? I think u don't know what u
are talking about and need serious prayer!!!!!!
Internet Infidels' Response:
1. We cannot possibly be expected to respond intelligently to your
complaint unless you first tell us which URL you are responding
to.
2. Most of the Internet Infidels have read through the entire Bible
multiple times, and are quite familiar with the context.
3. In the English language, "u" is a letter, not a word. The
proper
spelling of the second-person pronoun is "you". I find it odd that a
servant of an all-knowing God would be unaware of this.
4. There are a lot of brands of decaf which taste just as good as the
regular kind.
Sincerely,
Rob Berry
Hello...I've got nothing profound to say, I'm afraid...I just want to
compliment you on your page and tell you to keep up the good fight, and
all that stuff. and hello from Canada...
You guys really need to look at the context of all the verses you use to
back up your screwed up theology. When you do look at the context, then
you will realize that you are wrong on issues like abortion, creation,
the
bible contradicting itself, et al. It's not too late, right now.
But it might be tomorrow. There is a heaven and hell, and a Jesus who is
waiting to accept you now if you will accept Him. Read more carefully
before you jump to conclusions about the things of the bible. If you are
right, then we are all okay. However, if I and other fundamental
Christians (bible believers) are correct, then we are still okay, but you
are out of luck and hellbound. Wouldn't it be nice to know for sure.
You can.
[This message was in response to "
The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's 'Evidence'" by Jeff
Lowder.]
Congratulations on an excellent job of Biblical scholarship. Although
you mention it in a few places, I would give greater emphasis to the
strong possibility that the Gospel writers simply invented incidents
like the flight into Egypt, the vinegar and gall on the cross, and so forth.
They
knew the Hebrew Scriptures and, as twnety centuries of
hagiography amply attest, edifying incidents in the biography of a
saint (even a secular saint like George Washington) are as common
as pickpockets at a hanging.
You know,
You guys are beutiful, I love you like goD loves his chillens
yo man, i'm 20 years old. like to have an occasional brew, smoke mad
blunts, and even like to eat magic mushrooms now and then. about 8
months ago i was an athiest. i went to see tha movie 12 Monkeys, while
on shrooms, with my best friend. i beleive the mushrooms were allowing
me to utilize a higher percentage of my brain, i was thinking of many
different things at the same time, and strangely enough, i began to guess
lines in the movie that i had never heard before. this ultimatly
triggered my vision of tha future. i visualized a picture of my best
friend and i, standing next to each other, smiling. we were wearing
futuristic looking 3-peice suits. immediately i began to ask myself
questions, for instance, how did my friend and i become to look like
that?
how did we become so successful?
with this experience constantly in my head, i began to get the urge to
express myself. since this point, i have had natural feelings occur to
me about the end of the world, escalation of violence, and the coming of
someone that will try to take over the world( tha next hitler), taking
advantage of a globally depressed economy, not to mention morality
aswell. apocolyptic dreams.
if these things are to come, i must try to stop it. as i began to write
my original rap lyrics, i believe i felt the presence of God, basically
He was instructing me to continue developing my ideas for music. for
music shall be the key, the best way to communicate to people, poor rich,
white black, young old. tha symbolism of claiming myself as a modern day
prophet, should catch a few ears.
the goal of creating this music is to set in motion a moral revolution,
acheived non-violently, to save man from what i consider deffinate
destruction. plans for money investments, gathering of information,
computer hacking, all factors. just a matter of time before what i say
actually happens. we face the Apocolypse. not the end of the world, end
of this period of disillusionment, end of the way we as humans, percieve
ourselves and each other. only God is tha true judge, not any man.
i've been gooing to church and reading tha Bible (Basic Instruction
Before Leaving Earth), but it may not be long before they diss me,
because of my strong feelings on drugs and sexual relationships. drugs
are only bad if one is taking to escape problems, overdosing. premarital
sex is not a sin, but it is a sin to bone some girl by lying and
decieving. not to mention God probably likes gay folks.
Thank You for Providing such Wonderful information. I use it all
the time to point out your findings to the silly christians.
Thank
You very much! I live in a small Baptist town in central
Oregon, and my school (though public and gov. funded) is
obviously under direct control from the church. Your articles
have helped me in my ongoing struggle to shed light on the truth.
Thank you
P.S.
Just as an example of how the church runs the school, There was a
jewish teacher there once, but the school board (which consists
of twenty-something christians and one athiest) brought up just
enough
of a vague sexual-something or other charge to get him
fired, but they never brought up any legal aspect of the
"crime"!
[This message was in response to "
What Is
a Freethinker?" by the Freedom From Religion
Foundation.]
In nontract #1 you eloquently outline a lack of absolutes that are based
upon a variety of current philosophies, naming several rather modern
thinkers as models. I take issue on only minor points, and hope you
will
give consideration. (Since I neither printed out the nontract nor
intend
to
toggle back and forth between it and this note, my recollecton
is one worth consideration only as an impression and not a
point-by-point dispute.) The nontract impressed me as a creed in
itself, expressing absolutes in the non-relevance of orthodoxy,
religious materials, God (or gods, if you prefer). Yet a great deal of
energy seems to be expended both here and other like sites on the net
making declarations of non-creeds which read much as a Southern
Baptist's or Mormon's Articles of Faith. It sounds like a creed. Much
of the monolog in such foundational expositions lack reason by defining
the philosophical attachments which unite freethinkers, few of which
attachments demonstrate pure rationale or logic. I would be less
inclined to follow a course of belief which contains a creed whose
articles of non-faith pay little or no credibility to the emperical data
of history. Historical facts are not mentioned in your non-creed that I
recall.
The second point, that of associated organizations whose beliefs are
linked
or downright similar, neglect the issue that the government,
itself, is most arduously involved in the implementation of its own
religion. It has become a religion, encompassing almost every principle
of the primary monotheistic faiths in the world. It has tons of
religious documents, for example, outlining the specifics of
implementation of charity to widows and orphans. It has commanded a
tithe from every citizen to promote its religious programs, forcibly
taking what it, alone, considers its percentages to be righteous. It
plays upon morality and compassion to promote its charity, and yet is as
dishonorable as any religious body, from the early Catholic church to
today's TV evangelists, in its excesses, abuses, and disinformation.
I am in favor of freethinking, inclusive of all logic, reason, history,
and scientific method. Yet, at least some of those enumerated in the
nontract were, themselves, primarily theorists whose rationale reversed
itself
in their later years; Darwin and Einstein come to mind.
Freethinking is a wonderful way of life, open to everything, excluding
nothing until its rationale has emperically proven itself ridiculous.
Its difficult to name philosophers or political ideologues whose
principles either are initially, in whole, or become, in part outdated,
ill-informed, part of the earth-is-flat group at some future point.
Truth is where you find it; the axiom that never becomes dated. Whether
from
bits of Rand or Russell, Huxley or Hess, Bonnhoffer or Billy
Graham. No single soul that I've ever studied proves rational on all
counts, so why name names; why elevate them to a point that a YHWH or
Jesus or Mohammed would never elevate themselves? Why would we so
elevate ourselves, for that matter; we're merely freethinkers, specks of
dust in
a
flicker of time. The matter of personal faith or non-faith
rests
for me solely upon how many lives can I personally touch in this
flicker. Not talk about it. Not eulogize nor castigate names of passed
on freethinkers. There's a lot of work to be done, and little of it has
to do with conversion to any creed. Why don't we merely get to work and
shut the hell up?
[This message was in response to "
The Atheism Web".]
I liked very much your intro page to The Atheism Web.
[This message was in response to the "June
1996 Feedback".]
In your recent discussions with believers, the principle of 'independent
confirmation' came up, and your believer correspondent apparently could not
find mention of it by that name in discussions of historical methods.
In another message, of the Infidels sought information on 'historical
science.'
Few historians would use that term, and many who deal with ancient documents
work in other departments -- some of the best infidels work in departments
of theology; but there's also archaeology, ethics, women's studies, religious
studies, sociology, and so forth.
The principle of 'independent confirmation' is nothing more than a subset of
all the methods brought to bear on historical documents in order to understand
them, to weigh their authenticity and merit, and to place them in context with
everything else that is known.
The author of The Historical-Critical Method (Fortress Press), Edgar
Krentz,
reminds us that the primary job we have in interpreting religious or other
documents is to let the document speak for itself. Who wrote the document?
Why was the document written? How did the document come to us? Many of
these answers come from examining the 'form' used, and the actual text
including words and writing styles. Thus, we get form and textual
criticism.
Of course, for any possible historical events, we want to compare the texts
to other sources. For the events of the Bible, we find that the claimed
miraculous events have confirmation by no other sources. In form, the
gospels are kerygma, or proclamations, and follow a form known from
ancient literature. The texts of the gospels show that the writers were
distant in space and culture from the events described -- Gentiles, not
Jews, wrote the Gospels -- and, to a lesser extent, separated in time,
being written a generation or two after Jesus.
Larry Taylor
[This message was in response to "
Jesus
Vs.
Elvis
".]
How DARE you make these sacreligous comparisons. I've seen some offensive
things
in my time but this page goes too far. I weep for you and all who
would listen to this filth.
To equate that scumbag Jesus to THE KING turns my stomach, punk. Elvis is
the one true King!
I'll pray at the porcelin altar for what's left of your souls,
THE WHEEL
P.S. Stop by and taste the boot sometime...
[This message was in response to "
The Complete Works of Robert Green Ingersoll" by Robert
Green Ingersoll.]
Dear Infidels,
I am writing for various reasons, the foremost being that I wish to
tell you that I love the Robert Ingersoll page. Even though I am a
Christian and most of Col Ingersoll's opions of Chrisitianitiy I dont
agree with I find his writings very poetic, whitty, wise, and above
all he speaks what he believes true or untrue depending on the
subject.
I first came across a reference to the great man while reading a
debate book on religion a year ago. I was reading a extract from the
reprinted pamphlet for a bible college. And it described him as
notorius. And this indicated he must have had some great skills if
he could upset them 70 years later.
So I typed in Col Ingersolls name on the search engine and I found
yours
and many other sites about him. And after checking it out I
was pleased and awed by his speaking abilities. I am in the process
of ordering some of his material from Prometheus Books, as well as
some of his biographies.
I was interested in knowing if there are any members among you who
are in their teens or early twenties who would be interested in
coresponding with me. Even though I am a believer I would still like
to write to someone, they can rest assured I will not say they must
repent, or say that they are doomed. For any man who does not let
others speak their honest thoughts are not fit to live with civilized
man.
I would like to know is their a website that you know of for
Christians that also embrace a bit of humanisim, besides the
Unitarian Universalists, who by the way have a great website. If so
I would like to know.
I would like to say I wish Ingersoll was alive now if he was he
could
put the fear of GOD into man the likes of Pat Robertson. I
hope to hear from you soon. Good luck in your quest for free speech
and thought.
A beliving admirer
[This message was in response to the "
Criticisms of Josh McDowell".]
The atheist is indeed a fool. "The fool has said in his heart there is no
God."
Internet Infidels' Response:
"Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca', is answerable to the
Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire
of hell." (Matthew 5:22.)
Sincerely,
Rob Berry
I found your website by websurfing a couple of weeks ago. I've had
some problems accessing it since. I really enjoyed the critiques of
Josh McDowell's books. It is a relief to have the light of logic shed
on his arguments.
I was raised Baptist but I converted to Judaism after a bout with a
cult in college (the Local Church - considered by the fundamentalist
Christians to be in error but not a cult since it accepts their
Christology.) After my divorce about 6 years ago I temporarily
reverted to Baptist thinking, and that is when I really ran into a
lot of bad arguments, "just have faith" and contradictions. What
finally broke my bubble of "someday I will figure it out, the problem
is
simply that I'm not smart enough and don't have the answers yet"
was when I was reading Hosea 2 and recognized the contradiction with
Romans 9:25. That is when I suddenly gave up. That was AFTER my
inquisition for singing in the Reform synagogue (don't we have a
first ammendment in this country? I don't know if it was illegal
to ask
me to give up the choir in order to continue as a low-paid
teacher's aide at a baptist school or not....) Boy, the emotional
price is pretty high.
Thanks again
P.S. Snail mail is probably more apt to reach me since I'm using
the CSUN library computer and school will start soon.
[This message was in response to "
Din Adamlari" by Ilhan
Arsel
.]
"Pis, mikrop Kvpekler sizi."
Buda benim "vzg|r d|$|ncem".
Ilhan Arselin Kitaplari bilgi degil, nefretlik dagitiyor.
Bvyle Sacma d|$|nceleri onun icin cok sakincali buluyorum , hatta bunlar
yazar degil direk Mason-kvleleri.............
Internet Infidels' Response:
Translation:
You are dirty, pestilential dogs.
And that is my "free thought." The books of Ilhan Arsel distribute
hate,
not information. Therefore I find such absurd thoughts quite
dangerous; in fact, such are not true writers but slaves of the
Freemasons............
Translation by Taner
[This message was in response to
"
The Jury Is In: Chapter 8 -- The Great Proposition," edited by
Jeff
Lowder.]
Hi. I suggest you read the following book: Mere Christianity (you
can pick it up for 6.95 and it's written by C.S. Lewis). tell me why do
atheists have such a hate and disgust for Christians? i think most people
would agree that a white person should not kick in the teeth of an african-
american because he's black.
"i'm willing to die to prove that my God lives, are you willing to die
to prove He doesn't"
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
Hi! :)
You write...
>Hi. I suggest you read the following book: Mere Christianity
(you
>can pick it up for 6.95 and it's written by C.S. Lewis). tell me why do
>atheists have such a hate and disgust for Christians? i think most people
>would agree that a white person should not kick in the teeth of an african-
>american because he's black.
I agree, a white person shouldn't kick the teeth of another because the
other is black, nor should an atheist kick the teeth of a person because
that person is Christian. In fact, I see no reason why any person
would need to kick the teeth of another, do you?
I am an atheist. I do not hate people, nor do I loathe them. When I
think of a person in terms of their religion, which I rarely do, I do
not see why I would hate or be disgusted with him. On the other
hand, I have often met the person who has expressed ill will towards
me. I feel more pity for them than anything else, and when I do
become angry its always because the person won't listen to me. But
anger is as far as I go: there's nothing worse than wasting my time
with the person than hating him.
Which is why I don't believe atheists hold any more hate and disgust for
Christians than Christians do for atheists. I think many of us have
been angry towards Christians, and may have spilt words best left
swallowed. I think a number of atheists like me have either been
pressed on or prosletyzed by Christians who don't know when to let
up, and when we react it's most often taken as a sign of hatred. Why
should Christians think atheists hate them?
>"i'm willing to die to prove that my God lives, are you willing
to die
>to prove He doesn't"
I am willing to die in defense of your belief. Are you willing to die in
defense of mine?
stephen B^)
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
>Hi. I suggest you read the following book: Mere Christianity
(you
>can pick it up for 6.95 and it's written by C.S. Lewis). tell me why do
>atheists have such a hate and disgust for Christians? i think most people
>would agree that a white person should not kick in the teeth of an african-
>american because he's black.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the_fool/mere.html
>"i'm willing to die to prove that my God lives, are you willing
to die
>to prove He doesn't"
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will die for your
right to say it."
Sincerely,
Jeff Lowder
[This message was in response to "
50 Fun Things For Non-Christians To Do In Church" by David
Henley.]
i
just
read the list of 50 things to do at church, and i wondered if
there's any way i could DL it (or just have it sent to me in some mail).
if so, that would be great. i have some friends that would appreciate it
greatly, but are too damn lazy to actually visit this site.
[This message was in response to "
Life In Our Anti-Christian America" by Robby
Berry
.]
I really enjoyed your WEB page entitled "Life In Our Anti-Christian
America." I'm going to look through some more of the stuff that
you
have. Thanks again.
[This message was in response to "
Humanism, Reason, and the Arts" by Fred
Edwords.]
Mr. Edwords,
I
just bumped into this Web Site and read several of your articles about
Humanism. I am in strong agreement with your view of the world and seem
to fit into your definition as a Secular Humanist.
However, I need to understand what your political/economic philosphy is
regarding government. I believe that human potential is magnified when
left unfettered by government censorship, ideologies, regulations, and
economic influences. I want people to have the freedom to excel and not
burden society with the sad role of giving everyone an "equal
chance".
Other than this, I very much agree with the philosophy you represent and
long and solid traditions it is built upon - and will keep learning
more.
>I just bumped into this Web Site and read several of your articles
about
>Humanism. I am in strong agreement with your view of the world and seem
>to fit into your definition as a Secular Humanist.
Welcome!
>However, I need to understand what your political/economic philosphy
is
>regarding government. I believe that human potential is magnified when
>left unfettered by government censorship, ideologies, regulations, and
>economic influences. I want people to have the freedom to excel and not
>burden society with the sad role of giving everyone an "equal
chance".
>
>Other than this, I very much agree with the philosophy you represent and
>long and solid traditions it is built upon - and will keep learning
more.
My personal politics/economics, and those of the magazine I edit, The
Humanist, would agree with you on some things and not others. For
example, I'm as opposed to government censorship as would be any
Libertarian. And, I too, want people to have the freedom to excel,
compete, and the like. But I hold that the playing field is not level
and the task of leveling it is a legitimate role for government, given
government's past (and ongoing) role in tilting it this way or that in
the
first place. And I would certainly be opposed to letting the
government simply sit in as a silent observer of the Social Darwinist jungle.
Involvement is warranted.
Not all humanists agree on these matters, however. As a result, there
are Libertarian humanists and Liberal humanists and others. As I show
in my article, "The Humanist Philosophy in Perspective," humanists
agree more readily on epistemological and scientific issues than they do on
social and political issues. And we welcome debate and dissent.
The American Humanist Association has over 70 chapters nationwide. Each
has a somewhat different style. If you give me a general idea of your
location, I can give you information on the nearest chapter(s) to you.
Then you can get a closer idea of us. Let me know how I may be of
service.
Fred Edwords
Hi. I'm new at this, but I have been looking at what I've believed in
all my life (Mormon) and the more I read, the more I question it, as
well as everything else dealing with religion.
Are there some links which deal with specific contradictions in the
Bible? I would really appreciate any info you could give.
Thank you
First, I do not worship, i.e.. I do not recognize any god as having
authority over actions. With respect to the question of whether there
is a God or not, I just do not know. Is there a term for that?
I am writing because I linked, and bookmarked, your page for future
reference, cuz religion is my hobby. However, the first thing I read
was an article about the smith-Craig debate. I was pretty disappointed.
A
debate, an exchange of ideas between two persons of differing
opinions, was presented from a totally one-sided perspective. This kind
of reporting is just the kind of closed-minded prejudice that the
traditional religions have used to decry atheists for centuries.
However with the bad there is always the good: I will be
returning, and if possible, I would like very much to have an
opportunity to talk with others about the validity of atheist arguments,
and read your papers. RSVP and thank you for your time.
