 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
I used to be a heathen until God entered my life on his own accord and took me into Heaven.
I was not drunk, stoned or in anyway not sober. I was shocked by what I saw and have seen about 10 times in 10 years.
What I saw was tangible, real, and definable. Everything the gospels say is true. Jesus is Lord, I have seen his thrown!!!
It took me along time to come to terms with being a christian. If you think you can disprove christianity (you would be worth millionsif you could), why not openly refute the findings of Barry Setterfield of Australia that christians value so much. Why not refute the facts as outlaid in Josh McDowells book 'More than a Carpenter' & 'Evidence that demands a Verdict'.
If you really want to impact the body of christ, do as I say, what have you to lose?
Jesus does love you. Keeping looking for a 7 year peace treaty in the middle east, when that happens we have all only got 7 years.
Internet Infidels' Response:
We are well aware of Setterfield's and McDowell's work. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/ contains a detailed criticism of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/ contains point-by-point refutations of all major young-earth creationist arguments, including Setterfield's claim that the speed of light has decayed.
[This message was sent in response to "Jesus Was a Hypocrite" by Donald Morgan.]
Hi guys!
I just had to write this note to you to tell you you are off the track... you've missed the point and cannot see it.
Humble yourselves and ask God to open your closed minds and eyes and give you ears to hear and understand, otherwise you will spend an eterninty burning in hell!
Be warned. I may be wrong, but I may be right.
If I'm right then your eternal future is grim. There's too much at stake (for you) to be smug and proud and not try to discover the truth.
Well, at last I have found you. I have been waiting for months to get on line, and have now done so. The Christ by Remsberg is found on the Miami Freethought BBB. You might want to add it to your list. Can¹t wait till the construction is done. will return soon. Thanks and the best.
[This message was sent in response to "Jesus Should Have Been Aborted" by Jenn Shreve.]
Dear atheist and child killer,
It is clear to see what you think about the creator of the universe. So far you are heading sraight to hell. So you better get your life together and face the truth. YOU'RE WRONG !!!!!!!!!! Jesus Christ is your savior and redeemer so you better have some respect for your king. Or he will damn you for eternity. I have a feeling you will not like it either. When the Lord asks you to do something you do it. no questions asked. so why do you think Mary chose to do what He asked to do. It was NOT rape. He gave her a choice and she decided to have our savior.God will punish you for eternity for the way you think so its time to repent and fear the Lord.
[This message was sent in response to "True Pee Waits."]
I would like to ask you:
How are people going to keep from peeing? Your bladder fills up and you can old hold it so long. So how do you say people can keep it in? Please respond!
Just to note to say how much I enjoy your website. Thanks for putting all that stuff there.
[This message was sent in response to "The Complete Writings of Robert Ingersoll".]
I am delighted to have access to all the wonderful literature, and I have downloaded and printed (for myself and for my son) many files. I have noticed that many of them, however, need more editing than just stripping them of basic HTML coding.... like all those obnoxious statements "Bank of Wisdom" and page numbers interspersed thoughout, as it the text were originally just scanned in, which it may well have been.
I'm not writing to complain, however -- clearly someone went to a LOT of trouble to benefit the rest of us...
What I want to know is this ... what mechanism do you have so that volunteers can download such files and clean them up, removing the mis-placed BoW statements/page numbers, put the text into wrap-around format for true HTML viewing, downloading, etc.
I don't have any more free time than the next guy, but I would be very interested in contributing several hours a week to download and properly format such documents, if I knew how you wanted it down, how I could get the files uploaded back and into place, etc.
If this is something you would like to pursue please contact me.
I'm a humanist New Thought minister, in case that makes a difference.
Thank you.
Internet Infidels' Response:
The original Bank of Wisdom files existed before the World Wide Web did. Emmett Fields of Louisville, KY tirelessly scanned in most of his voluminous freethought library in the mid- to late-eighties. They were originally designed to be distributed by diskette and BBS and printed out. Emmett graciously let the Internet Infidels put these files on the Secular Web.
Getting them in to HTML is a job, and we welcome volunteers.
Clark Adams
[This message was sent in response to "New Testament Contradictions".]
Please read Jude verse 10. The Bible is not suposed to be a nice story about a nice jewish boy, who probably died for our sins.
[This message was sent in response to "The
Mistakes of Jesus" by
Do you believe in life after death? If so, what and where will you be? What if your wrong? Humor me... You spoke very well against it, but what if the things you thought you found wrong where in fact faultess and true??? So whats your solution? Since there is no god in your opinion?
[This message was sent in response to "Dark Bible".]
Sometimes these net browsers can be so annoying....
Anyway, I was just reading through the _Paradoxes_ chapter of the Dark Bible, and noticed that [at least] the pointers to various Psalms have incorrect syntax (a "-" instead of a "+", at least for the Psalm 137 reference). I'm not into checking the whole page of references, but I thought you'd like to know...
I'm getting a lot out of your vast collection of intelligent atheist commentary, literature, etc. Thanks for putting it all together like this. Now if I could only find that one page I found some time back (and forgot to bookmark) containing pointers to recommended readings...
Good luck in your continued endeavors.
Well, it's late in the day, and while I have lots of philosophical things we could consider discussing/debating/sharing, I think my contacts are too dried out for me to look at the screen for that long. So it will have to wait for another time.
I've been meandering around your site (and many of the related links) for quite a few days (weeks?) now. Sometime before Christmas I thought I saw a Recommended Reading List, "near" the "Life in Our Anti-Christian America" page (which I thought was _excellent_). Of course, "near" on the net means that probably somebody had a page with links to both of these items, and probably I got to that page from your pages, but ... well, the path is long lost now.
I'm wondering if you can point me at this list again, since I can't seem to find it on my own (and I really should be doing work, not surfing the net!).
In the days and weeks to come, I hope to contribute in some way to your efforts, don't quite know how yet... for the present, you have my moral support.
Thanks.
Internet Infidels' Response:
"Life in Our Anti-Christian America" is available at http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/lioaca.html. We are again accepting contributions to the file, so if you can think of anything else we missed, please let us know.
[This message was sent in response to "Jesus Christ Appears at Kegger."]
Hey Guys, if you are going to post a copyrighted article, at least have the decency to attribute it to its original source. Your Jesus Christ appears at Kegger article appeared in The Onion about two years ago. The Onion is a humor entertainment weekly that publishes in Madison, Milwaukee, and Boulder. Its my paper and I contributed to the story so I would know. Feel free to drop us a line at onion1@aol.com. Nice to see our stuff online even if it has been placed there illegally. Thanks.
[This message was sent in response to "The Bible and the Jesus Myth" by American Atheists.]
Hey guys,
You're more literalistic than the most fundamental of fundamentalists with your biblical interpretation(s). I suggest you chill out and take a more careful look at the document(s) you are criticizing... might actually surprise _you_.
And I should add, that I will have to amend my editorial comment in the Intellectual History link-bibliography, when it is updated at midmonth, to indicate that in the case of free thought, de facto censorship makes www publication of free thought classics one of the few instances of useful www publication.
[This message was sent in response to "Biblical Inconsistencies" by Donald Morgan.]
>One did not have to read your 'inconsistencies' very far to realize
>that you did not read the scriptures very clearly.
Internet Infidels' Response:
This is your personal opinion which, incidentally, is not borne out by the facts. I am a former born-again, Bible-believing, Christian who has had considerable training in Bible exegesis both as a Christian and as a non-Christian.
>For instance, your first observation. First the light was separated
>from the darkness. Use your mind for a moment.
I always use my mind. This is a superfluous instruction.
>Take ore for example. It comes out of the ground in a crude form. It
>has to be crushed and separated - impurities from the pure iron - the
>iron is then tumbled (or something) and then rolled into balls to make
>it into taconite. This is then shipped to a steel mill to be formed
>into the product steel. While this may not be the exact process, the
>idea is still the same - that powder that is first crushed has no
>likeness to the end product, steel. Yet, after it is formed you can
>recognize it as steel.
I do not see how this relates in any critical way to the biblical creation story. The point of the "inconsistency" is that there was light, night and day, before there was a Sun. If you think that this is not inconsistent, so be it.
On the other hand, I believe that this oversight reflects the ignorance of the primitive people who were responsible for the two creation stories which make up the so-called Biblical creation story. There are a number of people who are more knowledgeable than either you or I who agree with me that this is an inconsistency or problem.
I contend that an omnipotent, omniscient God could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it were he/she/it to have anything to do with the inspiration of a book.
>Perhaps the Bible you used has some printing errors.
I did not use _a_ Bible; I used about a _dozen_ Bibles. And, no, there are not printing errors in any of them (that I am aware of) which in any way affect this particular example. I also used two Old Testament word studies and a number of other tools.
>The word 'light' in Genesis 1:3 can have several meanings while the
>word 'lights' in the 2nd verse, Genesis 1:14 takes on a whole new
>meaning - not just the thing that makes it easy to see during the day
>-
but several lights - more than one light bulb, flash light - or
>stars in the sky.
The Hebrew word for "light" in GE 1:3, 4, 5, 15, 17, and 18 as well as that for "lights" in GE 1:14, 15 & 16 are all from the same Hebrew root, which means "illumination" or "luminary." There is no "whole new meaning" which can be discerned at verse 14. As a matter of fact, the context of verse 14 makes it clear that one purpose of the "lights" was to separate night and day (even though night and day had been previously separated). Verse 16 makes it clear that the Sun and the Moon are part of the creation of "lights" first mentioned in verse 14.
For more information you might look at the notes in the "New Oxford Annotated Bible." It says: "Light burst forth first even before the creation of the sun and was separated from night, a remnant of uncreated darkness. Since the Jewish day began with sundown, the order is evening and morning."
In summary, Bible translators (usually committees of experts who are also believers) do not support your viewpoint; personally, I'll put my faith in their ability to translate the verses correctly as opposed to your interpretation.
Hi, Just read your review of Josh McDowell's more Than a Carp.....quite enjoyed it myself, but appreciate you pointing out inaccuracies in the refs. Couldn't see much more about the book in your review...it is more a criticism of the man and of the bible...bit poor really & I thought you would have done better, if there really was an arguable point. I am an open-minded christian who was a strong atheist, have seen miracles, and even believe the bible :) Please remember that xns dont believe the bible goes out of date so old comments about it are just as relevant today(unlike other reference material0. Thanks for your time..may you stay open-minded & know the truth.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thanks for your message. Check out http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/ when you get the chance.
I'm new to this. I am assuming you didnt recieve my other communications. I have a compaq prolinea 4/66 windows 95 and my university connection. I dumped prodigy. I know I can capture text, and I know how to edit it when I get it. I assume I'd be able to help somehow doing that. But I admit Im a pc novice, to say the least. Still,Im not incapeable of learning, but we have to figure out how Im goint to learn things like html, if thats what you need. I hope you get this. I hope I dont appear too ignorant. I figure Ive paid a lot of dues for being an atheist, and Id like to do something more usefull than arguing with the local fundamentalist about the trinity. Thanks for your consideration.
[This message was sent in response to "How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?" by Dave Matson.]
I have just spent an hour reading some of the information on your web page. I found much of it interesting and informative. Thank you for the time spent preparing the material. I have a few suggestions on how to improve the site:
1. I am disturbed by the overtly confrontational tone taken throughout the articles. Unfortunately, this detracts from their possible impact and may turn off many readers. Insults are not, to my knowledge, a valued aspect of the scientific method. I believe that a simple, clear statement of the facts without the childish cracks would be an improvement.
Author's Response:
I feel that it is necessary to distinguish between the grossly incompetent arguments and ordinary errors. Thus, I tend to come down hard on the kinds of errors that should never be present in post-high school work. Arguments built entirely out of obsolete data are one example. The average reader, who knows little about science, is entitled to know if the arguments are even respectable. Scientific creationism, trading on a carefully polished image of respectability, has led an assault against our schools. Therefore, their image of scientific respectability is as much a part of the issue as their specific arguments. I think that if you look again at my page, you will see that I never make fun of an honest argument. Young-earth arguments, the vast majority, are simply dishonest. Hence, my refutation of the same has considerable fireworks in it.
2. The first article details the flaws associated with many of the creationist arguments long term conclusions based on short term measurements, Silver bullet proofs, etc. Yet similar mistakes are made in some of your articles. An examples is the determination of long-term coral growth rates from "extended" 3 year (1917-1920) studies? 3 years of measurement in a 42,000 year process seems rather strange.
The 3 year study, if I recall, was used to establish a reasonable maximum growth rate, which allows a reasonable minimum age. In many instances short range studies can give a reasonable maximum growth rate because the long term outlook is clearly less favorable. This is especially true of coral growth for reasons that I supplied.
There are also many occurences of the "this is proved beyond a doubt, therefore I am right and everyone else is wrong and naive". It is possible that none of the presented arguments have any valid counter arguments? Many of the presentations, seem at times, to have as many preconceptions as those of the creationists. Isn't an important part of science questioning current theories? Is there no room for doubt? (I find this just as disturbing when talking to creationists.)
You have not given specifics here, so I'll make a general reply. Questioning scientific theory is fine, but at some point you have to accept reality as currently understood and move on. One can always question scientific findings. In explaining the reliability of a computer, especially to a layman, do you not begin with certain assumptions that are taken for granted in the industry? You would not normally spend pages defending the reliability of, say, resisters, would you? I have the same problem; at some point I have to point to facts accepted by all competent scientists and make an end of the argument. There is always the danger, of course, of cutting it a bit close.
I have recently become interested in the different views of young and old earth theories. I am a Christian. Although I am not a "young earth creationist" I am interested in finding out more about the competing arguments. I am very sorry that it seems to be such a polarizing subject and would just like a presentation of the ideas to investigate and consider without being insulted or having conclusions drawn for me by either side.
Thanks again for the information, it is a good starting point for more investigation.
I thank you for your interest, for sharing your thoughts, and I hope that my answers will be satisfactory.
Sincerely,
Dave Matson
[This message was sent in reponse to "Absurdities of the Bible" by Donald Morgan.]
Good to see you have done some "bible studies" ... pity you just can't see that "life is not a problem to be solved but a mystery to be entered"
I am the editor of Deolog, a magazine based in New York City devoted to the examination of all religions without any editorial bias. We welcome articles from both academic, secular, atheistic, and belief-oriented standpoints. We are preparing an upcoming issue dealing with the topic of religion and the internet, and would be interested in speaking with someone from the Internet Infidels regarding this topic. Please contact me.Thank you.
You guys do the greatest stuff on the web--so fucking hilarious. Keep it up.
Recent events at my university prompt me to inquire further into Freethought's platform.
The local Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Association (GLBA) recently requested committee status from the university. This would grant them a share of school funds. A local church (this is a small town) rallied Christians together, mostly off-campus town residents, to oppose the request.
It quickly became a religious debate with Christians arguing against the GLBA using scriptural references and claiming it was "against God's will". They did not want school funds supporting what they believed to be an "unholy" organization and lifestyle.
As an atheist I realize the definition only addresses the disbelief in a god or gods and not necessarily moral decisions or anything else (such as those damned invisible pink unicorns that keep eating my prize roses). The heated opposition from the Christian community, however, caused me to wonder if Freethought has taken a stance on this issue. I noticed it addresses discrimination against women as propogated by patriarchal churches, and I am curious if this discrimination against homosexuals is covered. Or does Freethought resist questionably related situations and focus on separtation of church and state? Any information would be appreciated.
Internet Infidels' Response:
The Internet Infidels (who run the Secular Web site) are not an activist group in the usual sense of the term. Our mission is to provide Internet-connected freethinkers (atheists, agnostics, secularists, humanists, etc.) with information relating to freethought. This includes historical documents written by great freethinkers of the past, documents critiquing arguments for the existence of God (or the inerrancy of the Bible, or the resurrection of Jesus, etc.), satires which poke fun at orthodox religious views, contact information for freethought groups around the world, etc. We do not really "take stands" on issues at all. We don't engage in letter writing campaigns or pickets or other forms of political activism. (At least not as a group; some individual Infidels do such work on their own.) We simply collect and collate information relevant to freethinkers, and make it available on the internet. So on an official level, the Internet Infidels have not taken a stand on this issue.
I would guess (but cannot say for sure) that most if not all of the Internet Infidels would *personally* be opposed to discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals, especially if religious belief was the justification given for such discrimination. But *as an organization*, the Internet Infidels do not take sides on any issues not related to our mission of bringing freethought information to the internet.
Thanks for your message. Take care!
[This message was sent in response to "In Defense of Evolution" by Mark Vuletic.]
Dear Mark Vuletic -
Let us for a moment take out any reference to religion and look purely to science. First we must come to the realization that evolution (macro evolution) is not a scientific threory or something that can be scientifically proven. It is only subject to legal proof since it cannot be re-enacted and therefore cannot be scientifically proven by the definition of scientific proof. In the same sense, you can never scientifically prove that I wrote this e-mail. You can certainly legally prove it, but not scientifically.
Secondly, let us go to the very basics of science to determine whether or not evolution is even possible. Let us look at the science of Physics. Physics is the basis of Chemistry which in turn is the basis of Biology. So if the physics realm cannot support evolution (on a macro scale which you are suggesting), then chemistry and biology cannot support it either. There is really one major hang up (actually there are more) with the proposed idea (far from proven theory) for evolution. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law states that any system (i.e. - living organism)which undergoes a non-reversible process (i.e. evolution) will increase in entropy(i.e. - dis-order!). Therefore, the system cannot increase in the complexity of the information that makes life as it is.
We know from information theory that it is the information contained in the DNA that makes life what it is. And it is not only this information, but the arrangement of this information that makes life what it is. Though we may have been able to casue a few micro organisms to form in a petry dish in ideal laboratory conditions, we have NEVER been able to form a living organism from nothing with the correct information to make it life! Let alone form life that will spontaneously evolve into more and more complex life.
Now let's bring in the area of religion briefly since you address it quite a bit in your article. First I reject the "young earth" creationist ideas that the earth and all its living creature were created in 7- 24 hour days. But let's not jump to the conclusion that this is what Genesis even says. (By the way, I'm not trying to say I'm right and your wrong. I'm just bringing to your attention a different perspective of which to think about from a fellow colleague in the scientific realm) If we take the "days" in Genesis as time periods, we see the creation account lining up entirely with the fossil record. And if we add to this the scientifically proven theory of relativity and the radioactive clock which says that a watch taken back in time will not run at the same speed as it does today, the "days" in Genesis even line up more scientifically than ever.
These are just a few of a number of points you may want to look at. Might I suggest two books that will give you more to chew on. Both by Dr. Hugh Ross - "Creator and the Cosmos" and "Creation & Time." Might I also suggest you re-read the forward of Darwin's theory of evolution - specifically that section related to the eyeball. I'd love to hear a response to this e-mail should you have a chance.
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
I'm not Mark Vuletic, but I'd like to respond to your message nonetheless, if I may. I am a member of the Internet Infidels and a co-manager of the Secular Web, which hosts the document to which you are responding.
Are you aware that evolution (in particular, speciation) has been observed in nature? If we can observe evolution in action today, upon what grounds do you claim that evolution cannot be re-enacted? There are two online documents which you should consult for examples of observed speciation. They are:
"Observed Instances of Speciation":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
"Some More Observed Speciation Events":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
[Also,] I'm afraid you're misquoting the 2nd law. The 2nd law states that *closed* systems (ie. systems such that no energy enters or leaves the system from outside) increase in entropy. Living organisms are not closed systems, since they can receive energy from sunlight, or from other organisms, etc. Indeed, the Earth's biosphere is very much an open system, as it is constantly receiving energy from the sun. For more information regarding evolution and the 2nd law, see: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
How is this [our inability to produce life from non-life in the laboratory] supposed to disprove evolution? We have never been able to land a person on Mars, but that scarcely means it is impossible. Not to mention that we've only been trying for a few decades now. Nature had billions of years.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody outside of creation science takes this form of biblical exegetics seriously. The consensus is that the days in Genesis represented literal days. The ancient Jews certainly understood them that way, as has all of Christianity up until a century ago. Were it not for the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is far older than the 60 centuries implied by the biblical books, nobody would every seriously propose that "days" means anything other than "days". If you think I am mistaken, please point me to some mainstream biblical scholars who agree with your position. Better still, show some examples of extrabiblical literature from the time in which the Pentateuch was composed and which uses "days" to represent "eons".
And the theory of relativity has nothing to do with watches taken back in time. I think you're trying to refer to experiments in which one watch is kept on the ground, and the other accelerated in an airplane travelling at 600 mph. But there is no time travel involved in such experiments, unless you count the airplane crossing time zones as time travel. I know of no online documents regarding relativity, but any decent college astronomy or physics textbook should contain the information you need. In any event, this has nothing to do with the six days of creation, unless you want to propose that the compilers of Genesis were being whipped around in an airplane flying at .9c. :-)
... might I recommend that you spend several hours reading the FAQs at the talk.origins archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/)? Or if offline reading is more your cup of tea, you might try Arthur Strahler's "Science And Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy".
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
I have a few comments to add to Robby Berry's.
The definition of "scientific proof" you allude to seems to be a non-standard defintion. For a theory to be "scientifically proven", it has merely to provide a framework that organizes currently known data well and makes novel predictions that are borne out by repeatable experiments. Evolutionary theory provides just such a framework. The evolutionary process does not have to be observed as it unfolds in real time in order to be "scientifically proven."
Microevolution, benefical mutation, and speciation events are all confirmed, as I believe you concede since you direct your attacks only against macroevolution. However, real time observation with the artificial breeding of wild mustard has shown that selection can produce new species with large-scale structural differences. Indeed, such diverse plants as kale and cauliflower were derived from wild mustard. But such observations are not necessary to defend macroevolution. Evidence from the fossil record, biogeography, comparative molecular biology, etc., as I have partially detailed in my article, makes the case for macroevolution overwhelming.
Robby Berry has adequately responded to your comments regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Just to bolster his view a little, I might note that by your account of the 2nd law - that is, if it is true that "any system...which undergoes a non-reversible process will increase in entropy," then human zygotes could not possibly develop into considerably more complex adult humans. Evolution can occur within the parameters set by the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the same way that human zygotes can become complex people.
[Concerning information theory and life from non-life,] first of all, how does the origin of life reflect on evolutionary theory? Even if the origin of life required a miracle performed by fairies, that would not detract one bit from the evidence that all current life forms have developed from a common ancestor through a process of evolution. The origin of life and the process of biological evolution are not inextricably connected.
Secondly, origin of life studies are still relatively new, and even so, researchers are making strides in it. Unless you can prove that it is impossible for life to come from nonlife, it would be unwise for you to base your belief in a creator upon the current lack of an exact account of how abiogenesis has occurred. Those who seize upon supernatural explanations to fill gaps in scientific knowledge generally end up being discredited as science eventually progresses enough to fill those gaps.
[As for the length of the creation days,] my article was directed primarily at young-earth creationists, who occupy the great majority of those I have dealt with thus far. I am glad you reject their views.
Actually, the "days" do not line up chronologically with the fossil record, whether they represent 24 hour periods or eons. For instance, fruit trees are represented in Genesis as coming before fish, whereas the fossil record has fruit tress appearing relatively late. Furthermore, there is the problem (although this is not a fossil record problem) that Genesis has plants present on earth before the sun, moon, or stars exist.
Thanks for the references. I ditto Berry's suggestion that you delve into the talk.origins archives and Strahler's Science and Earth History. I also suggest Chris McGowan's In the Beginning, Douglas Futuyama's Science on Trial, Niles Eldredge's The Monkey Business, and Philip Kitcher's Abusing Science.
Thank you once again for your comments.
[This message was sent in response to "New Testament Contradictions".]
this is a response to your opinion i think you better rethink your finds because as the BOOK says "every knee shall bend " mine already has yours might be next
Internet Infidels' Response:
My knee bends all the time; that's how I walk. What has this to do with biblical contradictions?
Enclosed is a little spoof written by me under my pseudonym of George Tirebiter about a catholic theme park. It was inspired by my memory of a visit to Lourdes, which is not far away from a catholic theme park.
It is time that we face the facts. The Catholic Church has been in steady decline for 500 years. The invention of the printing press and the spread of literacy has been a disaster for the church. This has allowed parishioners access to ideas without the necessary clerical interpretation. Luckily, the computer revolution is reversing this literacy problem and making books obsolete. The recent discussion of the Disney historical theme park has given us a great idea to revitalize the church and to provide you with the spiritual and financial opportunity of the millennium.
We are proud to announce today Papacy Park, opening summer of 1995. This promises to be the most complete catholic multimedia experience yet. No expense will be spared and there will be attractions for the whole family. The kids will love Grottos of Spain. Beautifully landscaped park with the latest Animatronic Apparition Technology (trademark) will allow your child to receive their own Personalized Prophecy. Take them to feed the lambs in the Pastoral Petting Zoo. Don't miss the Stations of the Cross miniature golf course. For the grandparents: health care crisis? Forget about it! Let them soothe away their ailments in the Bethesda Healing Pool and Spa. Extra charge for towels. The latest in 3D cinemax technology will blow Dad's mind. Our first feature: "The Ecstasy of St. Theresa" starring Natassia Kinski. Critics are calling this "Thrilling...", "Sensuous..." and "Two Crosiers up!" In production now is "Borgia Family Values" starring John Goodman as Pope Alexander VI and Sharon Stone as his daughter Lucrezia and Don Johnson as his son Cesare. There's already a BIG buzz on this movie! Dad will also get a big kick out of Popemobiles: Concept Cars of the Future. For mom, I'm sure she'll love Papal Fashions of the Ages. The Bernini ensemble number is to burn in hell for! For the clergy, we will have realistic reenactments of Lives of the Saints using the latest virtual reality technology. In our focus groups, the Passion of St. Sebastian was a big hit with young seminarians, if you know what I mean. The day ends with a smash extravaganza in the Papacy Parade. The parade starts with the finest penitents all the way from the Philippines in the Cavalcade of Crosses down the street of Olde Jerusalem. Authentic Replicas of Authentic Pieces of the True Cross will be available for sale as will be Imprinted Shrouds and Veils, suitable for adorational display. Our floats will contain fabulous tableaux of church history. Cheer Torquemada as he drives devils out of heretics! Hiss and boo at the man you love to hate as he nails his protests to the church door! The finale of the evening is, of course, the appearance of the big man himself, the REAL Chairman of the Board. He'll be singing his monster hit "I did it my way (and you will, too!)".
There is still a great opportunity for investors. The people who got in early on the indulgences thing saw their earthly rewards multiply like loaves and fishes. This opportunity is available to you now! But don't wait! Remember, it is no sin to risk some exposure now for some really big after-tax capital gains in the hereafter.
We are still in the process of finalizing our plans for our park. If you have any ideas for other attractions, please pass them along.
I must say that I am amused by the level of ignorance seen on the reply section. Christianity is not the largest religion in the world. Buddhism and Islam far outnumber Christianity. Also, Christianity is not the only religion that prosyletizes. Islam and other religions do quite a bit. More comments later.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thank you for your message. I may be wrong. I frequently am. Let's examine the facts:
Someone asked why so much of the Secular Web is devoted to Christianity. I hastily responded by pointing out that Christianity is the world's largest religion, which may very well be incorrect, as you point out above. However, the Internet Infidels is primarily a Western organization, and in the West, Christianity does proselytize more than any other religion. Moreover, most of the Internet Infidels' expertise is on Christianity. Many, if not most, of the Internet Infidels are ex-Christians; by contrast, I do not know of one Internet Infidel who is an ex-Muslim. Finally, most of the material contributed to the Secular Web concerns Christianity. The simple fact is that we have over 250 megabytes of information on our server, and less than 10 megabytes of it was written by the Internet Infidels. We are very dependent on the files that are contributed to us. Believe me, if somebody sent me an HTML-ized book on some other religion besides Christianity, we would include it on the Secular Web. In the future, we do hope to write critiques of other religions, including Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology.
Hope this helps. Take care!
[This message was sent in response to "The Mistakes of Jesus" by William Floyd.]
Your "Mistakes of Jesus" is one of the most poorly written documents I have ever read on the web. Stylistically, it approaches the level of a 7th grade essay. Intellectually, I must inform you that successful completion of an adult-education philosophy course does not make one a philosopher. Religion aside, your arguments are petty, foolish, rash, and poorly researched. So long as arguments of this caliber are the only ones with which we have to contend, Christianity will remain alive and well.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thanks for addressing your message to someone who has been dead for several decades. I'm sure that, if he were alive to read your message today, he'd instantly recognize the errors of his way and convert to the Christian religion on the spot.
[This message was probably sent in response to the "Internet Infidels FAQ".]
The type of blather you are preparing to spread across the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never had the slightest effect upon it. Your type of attack is calm and gentle compared with what many of my ancestors suffered, and yet the Church of Jesus Christ continues to roll forth to sweep the Earth. I pray that if you refuse to humble yourselves before God, you will at least spend your time in more productive ways than kicking against the pricks. Many athiests make very good use of their lives doing good things and helping others. Some, I fear like yourselves, insist upon skullduggery. Good day.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Please read "The Truth Will Make You Free". Also, "atheist" is spelled "atheist," not "athiest."
I'm fairly new to the Internet. I have spent most of my time on the Internet scanning the Secular Web. I just finished reading the November comments on your page, and I delighted in your responses to some comments. Most intelligent! Thank you for your work! I'm enjoying it!
[This message was sent in response to "The Lies And Fallacies Of The Encyclopedia Britanica" by Joseph McCabe.]
Well written. Thank you so much. Your information is so valuable for our consummer's decision. A big thank you on behalf of thousands of brothers in Christ.
[This message was sent in response to "Judgement" by Scott Davies.]
As a theist-christian, I found your article on the Web entitled "Judgement" very interesting. I understand your gripe against the Christian idea of God's judgement, but it seems to me that your compaint is really against the idea of a moral law. How can God's "moral law" judge a person because they couldn't find enough evidence to support His reality? But let me remind you, that by asking a question of a moral law, you are affirming the reality moral law giver. You can not say that it is "immoral" of God to judge people based on a "limited revelation" without affirming the existance of God. Since I found your article in a "atheist" Web site, I assume you are an atheist. I just want to assure you that not all Christians are mind-less zombies, and atheists do not hold a monopoly on human logic.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Well, we can at least hope that infidels (including atheists) have not cornered the market of logic -- what a maddening world we would live in! ;)
Kidding aside, the author was expressing what many an infidel feels, that is, exasperation with the Christians (and other religious folk) who place the infidel in a catch-22 situation. On the one hand the infidel doesn't think the evidence warrants belief in a god: he may have looked at all of the evidence, listened to all the testimonies, read all of the various scriptures and commentaries, and yet remain unmoved in the direction of belief. On the other hand we have, supposedly, a god who, rather than lay aside his pride, would baste and broil the honest skeptic who will not believe in the god's existence. To me, at least, this god is an odd fellow, exhorting people to seek knowledge and find truth, yet punishing those who don't find the truth, which in this case is the god's existence. "Keep an open mind," the Christian says, "but if you don't believe as I tell you to believe, then off the hell wit'cha." Uh, does this make any sense?
I don't know whether the author is complaining about moral absolutes. I believe in moral absolutes, though I don't attribute them to any god, nor do I think they are evidence for any god.
I found your web site and really enjoyed it. Thanks for putting your time and effort into spreading the word.
I would like to suggest that the CAA Atheists Contact Page be moved from the "Miscellaneous" section to the "People" section of the Secular Web. I think it will be of a lot more use there.
Two more items of concern:
1. Frank Zindler's article "How do you KNOW there is no God?" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/nogod.html) is missing a line, specifically the first sentence by the atheist in response to the believer.
2. What happened to the Horner-Morgentaler Debate? I seem to remember it being available earlier, but it isn't accessible anymore. Did one of the parties concerned forbid publishing of the debate?
Your Memorial Service is quite wonderful. I am on a committee for our Humanistic Judaism group which has recommended we use it. One question: The service attributes a quote to "the Native American Ishi people of the Pacific Northwest." So far as I can determine, Ishi was the last surviving member of the Yahi people. Do you have a source for the wonderful quote which follows...starting "When I am dead...."?
Thank you for your great work.
Absolutely good shit list
Greetings and best wishes from another notorious infidel!
Just found your bio page re: Thomas Paine (somewhere out here in cyberspace) and want to thank you for the accurate and really excellent job that you have done.
I am a researcher, historian and collector with my primary interest being Tom Paine.
Currently researching question about Paine's possible membership in the Paris, France freemasonic Lodge of Nine Sisters (Muses). Have found some sources which cite his membership in same while most US freemasonic sources say he was never admitted into a lodge. Would you by chance have any idea where I might find someone or something in regards to this? Of course, ultimately I hope to find early or perhaps primary sources. Once again, thanks.....
Oh yes, I also have a lot of early Freethought publications as well as a signed Joseph Lewis or two. Is there still an organization the Freethought Assoc.? Again thanks and I know I will be visiting (perhaps contributing) to your efforts in the future.
Best Wishes
Hello,
I have read your pages with great interest. I wish a similar discussion were taking place in Australia.
Keep up the good work and stand up against the wave of religious ferver that we seem to be experiencing, sadly, world wide. (Time tested simple answers provided to complex questions in a troubled world.) Cheers from a fellow atheist from Australia
Hi! Love your page. I found one small problem (I think, I'm still something of a newbie).. Dave Rice's Bible quiz is listed as an http:, me thinks it should be an ftp: It caused some mighty strange output on my screen! Keep up the good work.
In His (Reason's, that is) name...
[This message was sent in response to "The Craig-Washington Debate".]
My name is XXXXX. I'm an undergraduate student at New York University where I am studying Physics and Philosophy. I would just like to say that I thouroughly enjoyed reading this document.
Congratulations and thank you for your work. This is exactly the type of sites we need on the web. However, I notice that most of your postings deal with religion--or lack there of. What About more pressing political issues that the main stream media does not cover? If you are only interested in promoting atheism, maybe you should make that clear. Either way, if you are aware of a site like yours that posts political material, would you please e-mail the information? Thank you and once again congratulations
Internet Infidels' Response:
Please read the Internet Infidels' FAQ, particularly the mission statement.
[This message was sent in response to "Jesus vs Elvis".]
I just had to say this cracked me up...who ever did it, thanks!! I needed a good laugh!
Howdy,
I am trying to get a web site set up for the Alliance of Humanist, Atheist, and Ethical Culture Organizations of Los Angeles County (the name the committee built). We are a coalition of six local freethought groups, and it would be best if we could have a home page, pages for individual organizations, and pages for special events (e.g. the HUMCON conference).
I was wondering if you have any advice as far as what to look for in Internet Service Providers and what would be useful to put on such a collection of web pages.
Thanks for your time.
[This message was sent in response to "Jesus Should Have Been Aborted" by Jenn Shreve.]
YOUR SICK !!!!
Internet Infidels' Response:
Our sick?
Clark Adams
Internet Infidels,
My name is XXXXX. I am a 10th grade student at YYY High School in ZZZZ. I am writing to thank you for the information that you maintain on the WWW about the Scopes Monkey Trial. I am in the process of writing a research paper about the trial and the information maintained by you has provided valuable contributions to my research. Thank you once again.
Internet Infidels' Response:
If you haven't done so already, you should check a few back issues of "Fortean Times". As I recall they had quite a lengthy article on the Scopes Monkey Trial in a fairly recent issue.
Their web pages are at http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk/ft/
[This message was in response to "Immortality" by Keith Augustine.]
I'm looking for reference sources on immortality for a pet project of mine. Wondering where you found all this info and if you happened to be hiding any more. Thanks.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Most of the references I used I read for my own personal interest over the years before I decided to write some papers on it. I read Susan Blackmore's book thoroughly at the end of 1993 when it was just released. I later came across Corliss Lamont's Illusion of Immortality in the American Humanist Association's book list. In 1995 I took a philosophy course on personal identity because one of the issues discussed in it was immortality. Paul Edwards' book on immortality was one of the texts used for that course. You might want to look into that book, as it is a compilation of various points of view on the issue of immortality from Plato to present. In regard to the personal identity question, probably the best source you could use (which was also a text for the philosophy course) is Self and Identity edited by Daniel Kolak and Raymond Martin and published by Macmillan. This book is a compilation of philosophical arguments about consciousness, personal identity, and the self written in a manner that can be understood by lay readers.
The Hundredth Monkey was a primary source for much of the material about parapsychology. In essense this book consists of what the editors deemed to be the most important articles of the Skeptical Inquirer all compiled into a single book.
The Oxford Companion to the Mind is an excellent reference source of information on various mental phenomena. It was relevant to my essays because several entries dealt with the current state of the parapsychological evidence and how that related to the question of survival of bodily death.
The Fall 1991 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer has an article entitled "Near-Death Experiences: In or Out of the Body?" by Susan Blackmore. In that article Dr. Blackmore cites an article from the American Journal of Diseases of Children where the fact that children tend to see living friends rather than dead friends or relatives in their NDEs was reported by researchers. The 1986 article in the AJDC was entitled "Childhood Near-Death Experiences" and is found in vol. 140, p. 1110-1114.
More information can be found in the Summer 1994 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 18 no. 4), where Laura Darlene Lansbury gave a skeptical report of her own near-death experience. This can be found at http://www.enews.com/data/magazines/alphabetic/all/skep_inq/Archive/062194.2
I would also highly recommend "A Neurobiological Model for Near-Death Experiences" by Juan C. Saavedra-Aguilar and Juan S. Gomez-Jeria in the Summer 1989 Journal of Near-Death Studies on p. 205-222. The authors present a model of NDEs based on temporal lobe dysfunction, cerebral hypoxia (oxygen deprivation to the brain), and neurotransmitter imbalances. Their model seems to fit in quite nicely with the existing evidence. For example, their model explains the fact that the anesthetic naloxone causes NDEs to terminate: naloxone inhibits the effects of endorphins, implying that endorphins are a primary cause in NDEs. The fact that naloxone, an opiate antagonist, terminates NDEs gives some confirmation to the endorphin theory of NDEs. This information is also covered in Susan Blackmore's Dying to Live, which presents a very similar neurological theory of NDEs in greater detail. Blackmore suggests in her book, for example, that naloxone could cause negative NDEs by inhibiting the euphoric, blissful effects of endorphins (on p. 108-9) and that naloxone should terminate or prevent a panoramic life review (p. 217). the third is a reply to comments made in the journal by other researchers.
Regards,
Hooray! Count me in. I'm one of you, I just got online recently, and I live in Houston, Tx. By the way, I'm already a member of CODESH and CSICOP.
Dear Friends,
I e-mailed Brett Lemoine when we first started our web page in mid December. It was only later that I heard from Frank Prahl that Brett had moved. The new site is maintained by members of Atheist Network and is located at: http://www.hti.net/www/atheism/
Our page is progressing quite nicely. I think it's time for us atheist page-makers to get together and become more syncronized. For instance, I have noticed several pages repeating the same links. Maybe we could agree on a small number of pages devoted to links and provide more space for real content. We need some good FTP sites to store large items so that our pages don't become bogged down. I presently started a separate page of links that I might could maintain, or I could give it to somebody else to maintain. We also have a lot of good literature, photos, cartoons, etc. I am wondering if there is any danger of you running out of space to store this stuff? If not, I could certainly send it your way. Thanks,
Gipson Arnold - Atheist Network
[This message was sent in response to "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's 'Evidence'" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
I read your [incomplete] opus re Josh McDowell taken from the WWW (Internet Infidels), "last modified 8 Mar 95." Thanks for your efforts.
Jeff Lowder was also mentioned. Is he the author?
Who is putting together this reply to Josh? I want to know if any progress has been made since March and whether you seek any contributions. How do you solicit entries? Is a committee involved?
I have been involved for 5 years in posting Bible Contradictions and I have found the most frequent source defenders of the faith use is McDowell. That apologist needs a thorough refutation, a fact I'm sure you are well aware. Please inform me of any recent progress--I'm interested in the success of your endeavor.
Sincerely, Kornform, a life long atheist and adversary of the faith.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thanks for your message. I am the editor of The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence". It is still under construction. I personally am working on a criticism of chapters 5 and 10, and there are others who are working on their material as well. I recommend you watch the Revisions Page for news about further updated to Jury.
[This message was sent in response to "Humanist Wedding Ceremonies ".]
Thank you.
Am looking for a non-spiritually oriented alcohol recovery group in my area. Several of my patients have tried AA and feel that they "don't fit in" but are seeking a supportive group to maintain or return to sobriety. I'm looking for groups in the New Haven/West Haven, CT area. Please e-mail response. Thank you.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Contact the national offices of both Rational Recovery (Box 800, Lotus, CA 95651; (916) 621-4374) and Secular Organization for Sobriety (5521 Grosvenor Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90066; (310) 821-8430). They will put you in touch with local professionals in your area.
Clark Adams
The true GOD, Jesus H. Christ, is the byproduct of transcendental insemination. He is so powerful that He can make a rock that even He can't lift. He has the hugest schlong AND the biggest tits you ever saw. He can hit a three-point hook shot -- blindfolded! He eats guys like me for lunch. When He does acid He sees people. He won't let me type his name without a capital "H." He wrote the biggest selling book of all time -- He's better than Howard Stern AND Rush Limbaugh rolled into one.
[This message was sent in response to "Mistakes of Jesus" by William Floyd .]
What you have written is false. Please understand that Jesus is very real, and he loves you. I'll be praying for you.
[This message was sent in response to "Review of 'Mere Christianity'" by "The Fool".]
Just read your comments on Lewis. 1.Lewis not a convinced atheist? That period from "contemplating a deity to bowing down to it" was only a period, not the whole of his atheistic life...that's why he "gave in." And would a thinker like Lewis really ignore the atheistic arguments? 2.You misunderstood "mere" Christianity: Lewis means "orthodox" Christianity, as opposed to denominational. Also, he never questions the validity of the Virgin Birth -- remember, Lewis is a layman writing for laypersons questions of geneology are more theological issues. 3.How sincerely have you contemplated Lewis' comments on Jesus? Of course more options are available, but when you get down to it... 4.Your understanding of Lewis seems similar to your understanding of Christianity: it's basic and inextensive. Remember, if you go looking for something, you are likely to find it. One must objectively weigh the evidence, then use our God-given ability to reason and rationalize in order to find truth. In the end, Lewis' writings are primarily for believers: he's even said that it's important to accept Christianity in order to understand its doctrines. So, for an atheist/agnostic/unbeliever, it may be better to learn about the basic doctrines and then contemplate the evidence. Please do take a longer look at the evidence and give Jesus a chance. He (God) needs to find even a hint of desire in your heart before He can pull you to Him.
[This message was sent in response to "Condemned Opinions" by Joseph McCabe.]
Fortunately there will always be individuals brighter and more powerful than radical insurgents like yourselves. They will always retain power and crush you like bugs in this political world. Have no hope for your futures on this earth. You are walking manifestations of unrepentant sin. Only the God you reject can save you. That will be your final irony. In a world of perfect justice you would rot in hell. God is better than that. And God is better than you, as he is better than those who claim to be his servants. But you presume too much of yourselves when you attack the Roman Catholic church you claim that your insufficiency is less debilitating than that of the magisterium. Perhaps it is. But the gall to claim it speaks volumes of your disrespect for others and for God.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I don't believe any disrespect is meant for others, but what love can an infidel have for a Being who cannot take criticism? At least a few infidels have been kind enough to publish your vitriol in a show of tolerance: can your god be kind enough to do the same? Or does he promise a more toasty reply?
Hello there. I'm new on the internet and went straight to secular topics as soon as I could figure out how to do it. I'm delighted with your list of secular organizations. I've been trying to find S.O.S. Thanks! I run an organization called THE DARWINNERS. We've been selling the Darwin fish for about five years. We also publish a newsletter called The Opposable Thumb. Have you heard about the lawsuit going on between the original designer of the Darwin fish and Evolution Designs, the group that manufactures them? An article appaered in the San Jose Mercury News during the last couple of weeks, but I don't know the exact date. I am the founder of the Humanists of Prescott (Arizona), a chapter of the American Humanists Assn. Prescott is a very Christian town, and we heathens desperately need a voice there. I live there part time, and in L.A. the rest of the time.
I am also a certified Humanist Counselor, which means I can perform marriages (legal) and other rites of passage, in completely secular ceremonies. Call me if you're planning a wedding, funeral, birth, adoption or anything else. My E mail address is exd08031@interramp.com. I can be reached by phone at (818) 980-0212. Address: 11288 Ventura Blvd. # 392 B Studio City, CA. 91604.
Hasta en el enfierno! (see you in hell!)
[This message was sent in response to "Jesus Should Have Been Aborted" by Jenn Shreve.]
I am so sorry you do not understand the purpose of the life of Christ. It was His choice to come to this earth to die for our sins so We who accept him as our personal Savior can have eternal life!(John 3:16) If you truly read your Bible you will see that Mary was honored to carry the Son of God. Read (Luke 1:46-49) This is what Mary had to say when the angel told her she would be the mother of Jesus:
And Mary said:"My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. So to say that Mary was raped by the Holy Spirit is a blasphemy to God. Personally the life and death of Jesus is my Salvation and it is a gift from God to show His love for us. The Greatest gift ever given was Jesus!! So think about your mother's question: "What if the Virgin Mary had had an abortion? Where would we all be then?" We would be without joy, peace, eternal life and the love of Jesus. So you see there was a purpose for the life of Jesus. I hope you can realize this gift was also for you!! Thank God Mary did not want an abortion!!
I was just looking at the "Religious Satire" page and wanted to tell you I nearly laughed my rear end off. Thanks for improving my day. Oh yeah, and I linked the page on my home page.
[This message was sent in response to "The Story of Religious Controversy" by Joseph McCabe.]
hello-
i am a trainer/career development-type person at a software company (intersolv). i was just i am a big history buff and browse the net when ever i get a spare moment. just wanted to let (whomever) know how much i enjoyed the above information. the other day i tried to get some info on saracen warriors in the 9-10 centuries but didn't have much luck. any suggestions? thanks for your contribution. much appreciated.
You should have some of Bertrand Russell's writings!
Internet Infidels' Response:
Please read our FAQ.
[This message was sent in response to "The Mistakes of Jesus " by William Floyd .]
[This message was sent in response to "So You Believe in God" by Barbara Smoker.]
> In your posted article "So You Believe in God"
> the thought that the existance of God is contradicted by
> the suffering the children endure. I would like to point
> out that God never has promised that all humanity will
> be free from disease and sickness.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Indeed. So what? I haven't promised not to punch you in the face, but I think you'd still be upset if I *did* choose to punch you in the face.
> Has it ever occured to you that death for some may be a
> blessing, especially in a world filled with hatred and
> ignorance.
Presumably you're strongly pro-choice, then? Death for an unwanted child must be a blessing.
> It seems to me that no matter what religion a person is, > they have better outlooks and morals than atheists. You > don't see web pages filled with hatred posted against > atheists.
Well, actually you do. See http://www.novia.net/~todd/rap10.html for example.
As for people who are religious having better morals, see http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#moral, and make sure you check out the side link to http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-morality.html too.
>
I am not trying to convince you to believe in God, but it
> would be nice if you would keep your oppinions to yourself.
We do. Nobody is forced to read our web pages; we don't spam Usenet, hand out flyers, or turn up uninvited on people's doorsteps.
Dear Infidels,
I am writing to you to present the proposition that the ultimate fall of religion in general lies in the hands of NASA and the space program. If in the future, as I think will certainly happen, we find life in some other planet no matter how simple it may be or how primitive it may be, that discovery alone will destroy the whole foundation of our modern religions. If anything the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches us that God created the world as a sort of cosmic bubble. I dare to predict that the finding of life in any place other thatn earth would burst that cosmic bubble. Now whether there is God or not I cannot say. It could be that it exists. However, one thing is for sure: the God that we've been taught to believe in is in no way a God that deserves our attention. Religions throughout the ages have preached that Man is special and was made in the likeness of God. Modern Science has repeatedly shown this belief to be pretentious; for man is but another one of the living creatures that inhabit this planet. Therefore, I conclude, to find extraterrestial life would show that we are not special at all, which the major Religions would be hard pressed to explain and which they cannot possibly explain using the Bible or the Koran.
I have downloaded Don Morgan's Bible Contradictions (as well as other stuff) and would like to post some or all of them bit by bit on America OnLine in the Bible Contradictions folder I have worked on for some 5 years. I may want to post some of them elsewhere, ALWAYS with complete attribution and credit to the author and to II.
May I have you permission to repost this material?
Internet Infidels' Response:
As far as I am concerned, you can repost any of the material any place you want as long as the coherence is maintained. Attribution is not important to me, so you can suit yourself in this regard, although it would be nice to point people toward the Freethought Web page.
Regards,
Hello.
If the Internet is fresh air, your page is indeed the freshest. CONGRATULATIONS and keep up the good work Greetings from Chile.
[This message was sent in response to "Agnostics" by Madalyn Murray O'Hair.]
The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp. This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. If you knew me (an agnostic) you would not consider me gutless. One safe foot in the god camp? Come on really! The agnostic does not subscribe to the god camp or the atheist camp. They suscribe to the agnostic camp and that is it. The atheist is ignorant in their definition of the agnostic and thus completely misunderstands the agnostics position How IGNORANT! can one get PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
I completely agree with you. The Secular Web contains a lot of files not written by the Internet Infidels. This document is a publication of American Atheists and was written by Madalyn Murray O'Hair. As one who calls himself an atheist and an agnostic, I, too, took some offense at the article when I read it. I think you will find better, more intelligent, discussions of agnosticism in the Atheism Web.
Clark Adams
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
I am an agnostic, and I PERSONALLY HTML-ized Madalyn Murray O'Hair's essay, "Agnostics," you are responding to. Madalyn Murray O'Hair filed a lawsuit which successfully removed teacher-led prayer from public schools, and for that we (the Internet Infidels) are all grateful. But let me make it very clear that I find Madalyn's attitude toward agnostics both offensive and irrational.
Apparently, Madalyn thinks that (1) Huxley believed in God. Moreover, she makes the incredible claim that (2) the proper definition of `agnosticism' -- as coined by T.H. Huxley -- is the belief that "God exists but is unknowable"! Finally, she concludes that (3), "The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp." Let's consider each of her claims in turn.
With respect to (1), it is not clear that Huxley believed in God. Consider the following passage from his writings:
... it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the
objective truth
of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically
justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my
opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism... the application of
the principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment
concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary
ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty. (quoted in
George
H.
Smith, "Atheism:
The Case Against God" [1979, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1988],
p. 11)
This passage implies that Huxley thought there was insufficient evidence for the existence of a god.
As for (2), there are passages in which Huxley indicates that the existence of a god is NOT ultimately unknowable. In one place he writes, "I do not very much care to speak of anything as `unknowable'" (quoted in Smith, p.11). In another place he writes:
What I am sure about is that there are many topics about
which I know
nothing; and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my
faculties. But whether these things are knowable by anyone else is
exactly one of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may
have a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case.
Based on passages like these, famous atheists like George Smith, Michael Martin, Kai Nielsen, and Antony Flew have argued for a definition of agnosticism which flat out contradicts Madalyn's version.
Concerning (3), I will simply state that anyone who has ever lived as an agnostic knows how ridiculous this is. While it is true that agnosticism is slightly more socially palatable than atheism, most people who claim to be agnostic are not Christians or even theists, and therefore must deal with the same negative experiences that atheists face.
Speaking from my own experience, my agnosticism has cost me both financially and socially. The Christian university I attended refused to give me a particular scholarship that would have covered room and board with a very minimal GPA requirement, on the grounds that one of the requirements for the scholarship was that the recipient be a Christian. Instead, they gave me an alternative scholarship for the same amount, but with a much, much higher GPA requirement (which I eventually did not meet). (Of course, if the situation had been reversed, the Rutherford Institute and Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice would have made a Supreme Court case about it, but that's a different story.) I KNOW I could have lied about my agnosticism, "acted" as a Christian, and received the scholarship, but instead I chose to be honest, which cost me approx. $10,000 in lost scholarship money. I also remember a girl taking me on a very expensive date -- she even rented a limousine -- and telling me what a big crush she had on me. Eventually she asked me how I became a Christian and I told her I wasn't one. She hasn't spoken to me since. If that isn't guts, not to mention conviction, I don't know what is. And I'm sure that many other agnostics could share similar stories.
...the sun will be darkend,
and the moon will not give its light;
the
stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenely bodies will be shaken. Matthew24:29
He is coming indeed! Amen
I will pray for you.
Greetings fellow atheists.
I am a citizen of New Zealand of Indian origin wishing to make contact with the Indian Rationalist Association or any Indian Athiest organisation. Can you help with contact addresses? Many thanks for your help.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Try the Atheist Centre, Benz Circle, Vijayawada 520 006. Also, the Indian Rationalist Association's address is 779, Pocket 5, Mayur Vihar-1, New Delhi, India.
Clark Adams
Is there really a need for proof? If someone really believes in something, it could happen. Odds are only statistics put on paper. I think everyone who dies will really be surprised. Or if reincarnation truly exists, then there may be no plausible explanation. Look on the bright side: maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel. If not, you guys had better start living, and do it now, while their is time.
Internet Infidels' Response:
But if there is no evidence for the existence of God, the atheist or agnostic is amply justified in lacking the belief that gods exist. Moreover, all the belief in the world won't make God exist if she didn't already.
Please allow me to commend you on an amazing website. I find myself in an interesting position as I am far more hostile to the idea of anthropomorphic god than I am to the idea of religion, I am particularly fascinated by the rituals in all religions and I see value in these rituals insofar as they give a man a sense of continuity with the universe. Have any of you read _The Universe is a Green Dragon_ by Brian Swimme? I would be interested to get some Infidel feedback if any of you have read it. Thanks for a great site and all the work it must involve. D.
I am a master mason. I would like to have opinions on the following questions:
What is the influence of freemasonry in our world of today ?
Do you beleive that freemasonry will have the ability to communicate
its values to the nest generation ?
There is a sharp decline in membership in north america, what
would
you say is the main reason ?
I am french canadian so be tolerant with writing. I belong to the "Loge Des Coeurs Unis" no 45 of the Grande Loge Du Quebec. It is the oldest french lodge in North America : founded in 1870. Thank you for your answers.
[This message was sent in response to "African Americans for Humanism".]
Dear friend:
I was very excited to hear of your mission statement concerning african-americans for humanity. I'm not an american. I'm British of Jamaican parentage and I've been living in the states for 14 years. Specifically I'm interested in your ideas as they refer to actuallizing humanity within the african-american community particularly and I'm interested in any information about your organization, because I'm a video maker who is developing a TV show called CULTURE SHOCK, that explores the humanity of different cultures and how they interact with each other. I'm particularly looking for stories and programs that will help us all to understand each other's cultures with fear and discrimination. Please send me all and any information you have. My tel/fax# is (510) 465-7487. Thank you. Ian
A la fin de sa vie Charles Darwin reconnue que la théorie de l'évolution avait été déformée.
[At the end of his life, Charles Darwin recognized (literally recognizes) that the theorie of evolution had been distorted (literally deformed).]
A la fin de sa vie, Charles était un lecteur assidue de la Bible.
[At the end of his life, Charles was an assiduous reader of the Bible.]
Toute la théorie de l'évolution ne tient pas devant la réalité de la CREATION. J'espère qu'un jours, vous rencontrerez "CELUI QUI EST" avant qu'il ne soit trop tard pour vous.
[All the theory of evolution doesn't stand before the reality of the creation. I hope that one day you will meet HE WHO IS before it is too late for you.]
GOD BLESS YOU!!!!
Internet Infidels' Response:
In other words, this is just another creationist message that propagates the myth that Charles Darwin repented before his death and renounced the theory of evolution. Please see "Infidel Deathbeds" by George Foote and A.D. McLaren.
Farrell Till and Jeffery Jay Lowder
Dear Mr. Berry,
Your satire is really very good. I would like to thank you for making it so accessable on the net, because while looking for satire on the net I found it. It is perfect for my report
Thank you again
Don't hesitate to write more and place it on the net when you are done. I will look for it!
[This message was sent in response to "Biblical Inconsistencies" by Donald Morgan.]
I just happened to run across your page while searching up something else and thought I would stop by. I'm not sure what your purpose is to include these alleged inconsistensies but if you've got an open mind I would be glad to share some of the "truths" of the biblical message with you. If your purpose is to confuse those attempting to believe then it's possible that you may convince some. Many of the inconsistensies you listed are readily answerable and the others might take a little longer. The bottom line is whether you are prepared to listen with an open mind or not. If not, then you may not be searching for the truth after all. If so, then please drop me a line at the above E-mail. Thanks.
In Christ
Internet Infidels' Response:
Should the infidel keep an open mind? The question is asked earnestly, for too frequently the infidel is asked to keep an open mind only to be penetrated by dogmas that wish to close it. The Christian, the Muslim, the New-Age Pagan, the Mormon, the Bahai -- all wish the infidel to keep an open mind, but only so long as the religion is able to enter. Once the religion has set up house -- *click* -- the door is to remain forever shut to the outside. So, I repeat, should the infidel keep an open mind? If so, for how long?
your bitter anger is extremely distressing
[This message was sent in response to "The Lies And Fallacies Of The Encyclopedia Britanica" by Joseph McCabe.]
hey moron,
can you do anything but rip on the Catholic church sorry your so bitter but do you have to inflict your anger on the people who casually cruise the net get a life
[This message was sent in response to "How Do You KNOW There Is No God ".]
Hello. I just read your page "How do you know there is no God?" and I was really impressed. People are always asking me that question and it's really annoying because I always want to ask them how they know that there IS a God but I never really found a way to really get my point across. This page says exactly what I've always wanted to say and what I think in a wonderfully convincing way. I was just extremely impressed!
I have downloaded a ceremony "humwed-1.html" from the web that is almost perfect for my own wedding. Do you have any more humanist ceremonies or appropriate readings that I could access? Do you have any information re: humanist ceremonies/celebrants/Australia?
[This message was sent in response to "New Testament Contradictions".]
A primary idea of why I love God, and the Bible, is because there is never a contradiction. Similar to listening to any great speaker, or even a friendly comedian, the benefit of the doubt must be given in support of what we choose to believe. Consequently, because I choose to believe in the Word of God, what is important as I read, is that I remember that the Bible never contradicts itself. Then, I can more easily find the correlation between events and statements throughout the Bible like a child.
For example, permitting something to happen is a privilege of our will. However, there is no good thing in evil neither is there any evil in God. So, For God to allow grace to "rain" on the righteous as well as the evil does not make God evil. Likewise, vengeance is God's without Him having to be evil by virtue of His Permissive Will.
Also, history is a foreshadow of things to come. It does not necessarily repeat itself. However, in reciprocal fashion, it follows in the footsteps of earlier mandates. Testimonies can be interlatable without being of a private interpretation. So, we agree that the disciples' testimonies are synchronized. The promises of God are true. Hell exists, not because we believe it exists and, not because it makes sense that it should exist.
It exists anyway. All we have to do is to be saved, and we won't go. So, life is not about disproving Hell's existence. It is about not going to Hell. And, greater is the Creator God than His creation. By Him were all things made. In summary, there is no contradiction in the Bible.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Let's suppose you are right, there are no contradictions in the Bible. We should also keep in mind that Muslims believe there are no contradictions in the Quran, that the Mormons believe there are no contradictions in the Book of Mormon, that the Hindus believe there are no contradictions in the Bagavadgita, and so forth. Given the amount of testimony of all believers of all religions as to the non-contradictory nature of their various scriptures, are the infidels then to assume that all the religions are right?
My friend, the infidel does not rest his or her beliefs on the contradictions of scriptures: contradictions provide humor and a basis for discussion, is all. For the believer, well, contradictions (real or not) provide food for thought, which is always a good thing.
Hey now,
I like your page on SOS. But I had a hard time finding it! Knowing that there are non-religious AA-like programs in the world, I did searches in Lycos and InfoSeek. I tried "alcoholic, atheist, agnostic, humanist" and got traditional AA groups and some atheists. To find you, I'd ended up (after quite a bit of searching and some sidetracking) in the Yahoo Narcotics Anonymous section, then backed up to Support Groups before finding SOS. So my suggestion is, make it easier to find so that those who need it can get there. Thanks for having it.
I've just read the story: Easter is cancelled. Did this really happen? Or is it a joke? If it's a joke I'm afraid the punchline eluded me. If it's true then it doesn't mean the body was that of Jesus, but it is quite amusing to read the reaction from the Xtians.
Hi,
We live in the Chicago area, and would like to find out about a local chapter of AHA.
Also, any wedding information would be wonderful, although I may find all the answers to my questions at a local chapter. Thank you for your time.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Humanist Assoc of Greater Chicago, 6439 Coach House Road, Lisle, IL, 60532. Contact Mike Werner.
Clark Adams
[This message was sent in response to "The Heart of the Bible " by Marshall Gauvin .]
I prepared a lengthy reply to you. I do not suppose you would accept my reply with an open mind. I do not defend Dr, Riley for I have no Idea what kind of man he may be. Please, however if I may challenge you to find out for yourself what is truth, and keep reading the Word of God, for out it comes faith, the same faith the Puritans had, and with which they founded your great country.
There are many verses which I could take you to, some which would make you retaliate to my comments negatively I wish though to be gentle and the God I know personally will also install his faith into your heart. Please read Psalms 14. Romans 1:16-25
Internet Infidels' Response:
Such kindness deserves a reply. I have read the Bible thoroughly, including these passages, and have yet to feel an inkling of belief in the Biblical god. It is not that I haven't searched for truth -- I've searched in many places -- but I cannot fathom what more I can find in the Bible than I can find reading the Book of the Dead, the Analects, or the Nichomacean Ethics.
My point is that it is not right to assume that infidels have not read the Bible or any other text in search of truth. Believe me, many, many infidels have. I suggest you take in a book or two by infidels who, by their own admission, have read the Bible thoroughly and find the Word of God wanting. Start, if you will, with Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, a man who, like you, believed in the existence of deity, but who regarded the Bible as the work of men.
[This message was sent in response to "The Religion and Ideology Shit List".]
good shit!!!
To Whom It May Concern,
I was surfing around the WWW and I found your homepage. I was really surprised at the list of extraordinary individuals. Do you have any information on the works of Robert Ingersoll. A real thinker. I have read extensively Wright, Diop, Hughes,Robeson, Rodgers, Dubois and others, but I haven't run across Ingersoll. Tell me more about your organization. Thanks
Internet Infidels' Response:
You should find his complete works online at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/ingersoll/
Greetings to the Internet Infidels,
I had just previewed your passage on Free Masonry, and I was very enlightened with the information provided. I am in persuit for knowledge on freemasonry and the secrets they posses in sublimination of the masses. I noticed that you provided more literature on these types of subjects, so if possible I would like to know how I could obtain such information.
[This message was sent in response to "Nontheistic Humanist Wedding Ceremony" by James T. McCollum.]
We are looking for someone to perform a nontheistic wedding ceremony this May in Westchester County, N.Y. Would you have a list of people who may be able to perform such a service. Thank you.
I just went through a book review you gave on More Than a Carpenter. I'm not surprised. I too had my problems with it. I know what those problems were though. A year ago I was baptized. This took place only after many years of detesting the idea of the Bible, of God, and especially Jesus. After being baptized until this very night I still didn't like hearing about Jesus. There were too many holes in the story.
I read the entire book today. Let me assure you, I am a person who operates on a must see, must have solid proof basis. After reading the book, I believe. I am neither ignorant nor seeking infintile comfort, I am simply not blind nor numb.
[This message was sent in response to "In Defense of Evolution" by Mark Vuletic.]
>
I get so tired of people developing their own theory of the origin of life
> or God. It is clear that we came from something, we had an intelligent
> design. We didn't come from nothing, as an evolutionist would have you
> believe that it is scientific fact. Science clearly states: Matter cannot
> be destroyed or created. You talk so much about Genesis contradicting
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
What you seem to be thinking of is the conservation law that states that the net energy + matter of the universe (not matter alone - energy and matter can interconvert as I am sure you well know) remains the same. Although this law holds true in classical physics, quantum mechanics provides a loophole for the temporary creation of matter in the form of "virtual particles." Scientists have speculated (and I will be the first to conceed that it is only speculation) that the entire universe could actually have been "created" through a quantum process as long as the "normal" energy and the gravitational energy in the universe balance out, which they either do, or seem very close to doing. Future experiments may rule this out, but as of now, it is incorrect to say that science has determined the hypothesis to be incorrect.
Incidentally, biological evolution has nothing to do with the conservation laws. If the conservation laws are inviolate, then that means that the origin of the universe is a genuine riddle, but that is a problem for cosmology, not evolutionary biology. The universe could have been created by God (or Satan, or fairies, or whatever) and biological evolution could still be true. Evolution and creationism are not the package laws that you make them to be.
> itself. It doesn't even compare with the contradiction of scientific
laws
> and the evolution theory. Oh yeah, I'll write you later about the Genesis
> contradicting thing. So now, we've thrown evolution out the window. You
I would appreciate your writing to me about the "Genesis thing." I have received a few responses to it already, and I am no longer sure it is correct. If you could help me to decide one way or the other, I would certainly be thankful.
> talk about the evidence of evolution. The ONLY evidence is the
assumption
> in men's mind. Everything that is found, is found by a biased evolution-
> ist scientist. Have you ever heard of Nebraska Man? It was found by an
> archeaologist in the twenties. It was a fragment fossil. The scientist
> created this whole half ape-half man race of people out of this fragment.
> It was later discovered the fragment was a tooth, of a pig! Talk about
Yes, I have heard about Nebraska Man over and over. Nebraska Man was a stupid mistake on the part of an overzealous scientist. But that "fossil" is an uncharacteristic one in the history of paleontology. If you are going to condemn evolution on the basis of one mistake, then you must condemn creationism for the "ancient man tooth" that Carl Baugh found - which later turned out to be a prehistoric *fish* tooth. There's a biased imagination for you. And if you wish to mention the Piltdown Man, you would do well to note the creationist Paluxy "dinosaur" tracks. If you want to take a look at the genuine fossil evidence for evolution, instead of assuming that what the creationists tell you is the long and the short of the story, you should take a look at two FAQs located in the archives at http://www.talkorigins.org. The first is Kathleen Hunt's Transitional Fossil FAQ and the second is Jim Foley's Hominid Evolution FAQ. Let me know if you have difficulty finding them. In fact, I think you would find almost all of the FAQs there interesting.
> a biased imagination! Now, to believe in evolution and christianity isFirst of all, I don't see how putting evolution and Christianity together makes God look stupid, given that God gave man reason. You haven't made an argument - you have just authoritatively thrown around assertions. And what is wrong with making a theory with one's own mind? Better than the creationists, who seem to make a theory on the basis of no mind at all. Scientists do not claim to "hold the answer in their head" like creationists do. It is only creationists who claim that their narrow, sectarian view is the absolute truth. Scientists look at the world, form hypotheses to account for what they see, and then test those hypotheses. They do the best they can with the reasoning faculties they have either received through evolutionary processes or through the grace of God. If God wanted everyone to believe in creationism, he should not have given them the ability to reason, because it is that ability that points towards evolution. Scientists do not dream up theories and then pronounce them true. They check them with the way the world is, which is why science has managed to generate so much technology. Will you say that the physicists that have discovered the laws that make your e-mailing me possible are stupid because they operate with their own minds? If we relied upon what the Bible told us instead of on our minds, we would still lack electricity. We wouldn't even know that F = ma. Try not to hold a double-standard when it comes to assessing the valdity of scientific theories.
> The basis for your belief, is that you believe it. I don't know where you
The basis for my belief is that evolutionary biology is the only theory that can adequately account for the evidence in a non ad hoc manner, and can make predictions that are borne out, etc. If scientists find mammalian fossils in Precambrian strata, I will cease to believe in evolution, because it will not accord with the empirical facts. But I doubt that any evidence could ever persuade you to abandon your position, as it is likely based upon a blind will to believe rather than any consideration of evidence. But perhaps I am wrong about you - there are indeed those who simply have not been exposed well enough to both sides of the issue, and maybe as you read the FAQs I have listed, your position will start to change, just as my position may perhaps change after I have read more creationist books. But we have to use our minds - if we do not, all claims to autority become equally valid, whether Bible, Koran, Upanishads, scientisim, or whatever, simply depending upon what appeals to your heart or spirit.
> stand when it comes to Jesus, but I pray that (no matter how you stand
on
> the creation vs. evolution thing) you believe in Him and have given your
>
life to Him. We can sit here and argue all day on where we came from, and
> you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid. If you want to
> answer, please do so.
A far as Jesus goes, I do not believe, but that is unrelated to my belief in evolution. Likewise for the many people who believe in both evolution and the sovereignty of Christ, as well as in his gift to mankind through his death and resurrection. If, of course, He truly does exist, and truly is good, then I myself pray that he will reveal himself to me - deliberately rejecting an entity you know to be the all-good creator (via whatever process) of man would be the height of idiocy. We can indeed sit around and argue not just all day, but for years. But I welcome the exchange. I am corresponding with four other creationists who are commenting on my various pieces of literature, and I think we have all found the exchange informative and beneficial.
P.S. If you can give me pointers to written information about the alleged conflict between Genesis 1 and 2 in addition to your personal commentary, I would appreciate it.
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
1. Run, do not walk, to the talk.origins archives at URL "http://www.talkorigins.org/". Read every single document there.
2. In the future, wait at least six hours after your last caffeinated beverage before writing email on topics you feel strongly about.
[This message was sent in response to "The Truth About Jesus: Is He a Myth?" by M.M. Mangasarian.]
i didn't even take the time to read what you had to say. [snip]
Internet Infidels' Response: Thanks. I'm extending you the same courtesy.
[This message was sent in response to "The Dark Bible (v1.5.1): Sex, Obscenities, and Filth".]
Thank you for your refreshing studies of every aspect of the bible. It is nice to know that there are people out there willing to take the time to find all of the refrences in the bible that the street bible crunchers don't tell you.
Your whole archive in general is a great scource of truly factual infromation. It's about time the rest of the rational world got some ammunition to thwart the endless rantings of the fundamentalist religious fanatics of every creed. Thanks, and good day.
I appreciate your efforts. I live in Montgomery, Alabama, and am surrounded by bible thumping idiots. Your effort is a breath of fresh air. Thanks
[This message was sent in response to "MessiahGate" by Larry Taylor.]
Do any of you have a background in biblical history or textual criticism?
Do you have any experience at all living outside of Western culture?
Do you know that many of the things you are trying to defend or disprove are already presupposed by western scientific assumptions thus creating a rather closed argument?
What would you do if you woke up one morning and realized that the entire world didn't actually exist except in your mind, and that everything you had ever experienced was only a projection of thought into some form that took birth as a person, event or set of circumstances? Where would rational analysis be then when all of the assumptions you make about who you are were suddenly suspect? What would happen?
Internet Infidels' Response:
I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. In the mean time, I have a life to live.
Yes, this could all be some solipsistic nightmare. But I'd rather assume that it's not for the time being, rather than sit around worrying about it all day.
Also, if all my assumptions were suddenly shown to be suspect, I'd start again from different working assumptions. I wouldn't just abandon rational analysis altogether. Experience has shown me that it's a very useful tool; until it stops being useful, I'll carry on using it.
[This message was sent in response to "How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?" by Dave Matson.]
Hello,
I finally found someone else out there who is not a Christian wacko or prpagating lies and myths. I'm glad you tell the whole truth, instead of lying for "good" causes and brainwashing. Anyway, I've been investigating a lot of these "apparitions" of Mary lately, and found them to be completely false, but everyone, for some reason believes them and accuses me of being satanic. Anyway, gotta go.
[This message was sent in response to "Is The Position Of Atheism Growing Stronger" by Joseph McCabe.]
LIES, LIES, LIES!
My Bible says: Believe on Jesus and you can be saved from eternal hell. I pray for you, that you will repent before it is too late. I would not desire to see you burn in hell for eternity. God loves you, even though you may not be willing to admit that He made you.
Have you ever looked at the Bible and counted how many times one of the apostles interpereted something wrong , did something wrong or how many times it says things such as that no man will know the EXACT time of the end ......
[This message was sent in response to "The Origins of Free Masonry" by Thomas Paine .]
I would like to thank you for having taken the time and effort to compose this page. I tis enlightening and very well organized. i would like to know if there is any way for me to access this site and download the text portion????
Let me explain to you the heresy....and i am chuckling to myself...that I live.... I am a free mason and a follower of the old religion of Europe that is also reffered to as the "Craft." Hmmmm....
Well this site is going to be on my bookmark...and will return again to reread the wisdom contained within...
Merry part....and do you have the master's word????? Laughing and and chortling....
[This message was sent in response to "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" by Marshall Gauvin.]
> first i would like to say that i respect your point of view, but
> i
do not agree with you. jesus christ did live and he did die
> and he will return again. where is my proof you say? the only
> proof i will ever need is in the bible.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Unfortunately, some of us need more proof than words on a page.
> the way I look at it is if i am wrong and there is no such
> thing as God, or jesus, then i have lost nothing, but if i
> am right and you are wrong then you will have eternity to
> pay for it.
This is Pascal's Wager. For a list of reasons why it isn't a good argument, see http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pascal
It is interesting to note how intent you are on disproving Josh McDowell. Have you corresponded with the man in order to figure out why you and Josh seem to be at odds with things? Please consider doing it or you may end up eating your own words some day.
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
Thanks for your message. We appreciate getting feedback from our readers.
I think it's important to understand that we have no quarrels with Josh McDowell as a person. I have no doubt whatsoever that McDowell sincerely believes everything he has written, and that he is doing what he thinks is right. However, the simple fact is that McDowell uses logically fallacious arguments (e.g., the trilemma) and makes factually incorrect statements ("evolution is only a theory"). Moreover, given that McDowell is one of the most influential Christian apologists of our time, it is only natural that we should him our attention. Please remember that prior to the start of _Jury_, Christians would often cite the fact that no one had ever refuted " Evidence" as evidence for Christianity. (We still continue to get such messages to this day; you can imagine their surprise when we tell them about _Jury_.)
Thanks again for your message. Take care!
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
About three or four years ago, I made a serious attempt to arrange a debate with one of the leading Christian "apologists," so I wrote letters to Gleason Archer, Norman Geisler, and Josh McDowell. Both Archer and Geisler answered my letters. Archer refused the challenge, and Geisler accepted but attached to his acceptance conditions that were impossible for me to meet. Later I arranged a debate with Geisler by having the invitation come from a sponsoring student organization at Columbus College in Columbus, Georgia.
One of his conditions for this was that he be paid for his travel expenses. Although I don't remember exactly how much he asked for, I think the amount was $350. The student organization didn't have enough money to meet this demand, so I actually provided most of the money myself. I wrote a personal check for $100 to the student organization and directed a Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship, which had offered me an honorarium of $200 to speak to its group while I was in Columbus, to give the money to the student organization. The balance ($50, I believe) was provided by the student organization. (I don't think that Geisler ever knew that most of the money he received had come from me.) I paid all of my own travel expenses, which were less than $350 even though I had traveled much farther than Geisler.
McDowell never responded to my letter, so I sent him a second one. This one was ignored too. After my debate with Geisler, I wrote to him and suggested a second one that would be held at the seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, where Geisler is the dean. Geisler answered my letter on seminary stationary to tell me that he didn't have time for another debate, and I noticed on the letterhead that Josh McDowell was on the seminary's advisory board. I then wrote to Geisler to say that if he didn't have time to debate again, perhaps he could persuade McDowell to be my opponent. Geisler did not answer this letter, and I heard nothing from McDowell.
[This message was sent in response to "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine .]
I really enjoyed your material. Do you know where I can find information on the Canaanites (language, culture etc).
Only God, through His son Jesus Christ, can save you from eternal hell. He still loves you, even though you rail against Him. I pray for you, Only the eternal God can help you. Repent before it is forever too late. I am a born-again Christian, and I pray for you. I would not want you to burn in hell.
>
I
believe in the right of all men to hold beliefs with respect
> to God as their conscience dictates. I have examined the evidence,
>
both scientific and annecdotal and have to one conclusion: That
> Jesus Christ is exactly who he claimed to to be: The Son of God.
> I leaave you with this point to think about: The Universe contains
> approximately 10^85 number of atoms, scientifically accepted models.
> The pattern of cells in the Human body could conciveably be put
> togehter in 10^230 (That is correct 10^230) combinations. Even
> allowing the universe to be as old as it is claimed to be ,6 Billion
> years, you would have run out of material long before you could
> posssibly have duplicated every combination necessary to produce life.
Internet Infidels' Response:
The Boeing 777 contains 132,500
separately engineered parts. (See
Even allowing the universe to be 6 billion years old, it must be completely impossible for anyone to have built a 777, right?
Well, no. The flaw in that argument is the same as the flaw in yours. The process of arriving at human life (evolution) did not just randomly try every possible combination of molecules, just like the process of building a 777 doesn't involve just trying every possible combination of parts.
And no, the fact that the airplane had designers doesn't imply that life does. That's the argument from design, which you'll find commented on in http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#design
> The existence of an ordered universe populated by life indicates
> something had to set it in motion. That something had to be external
> to the system, or else the second law of thermodynamics would
> be violated. Please think about this objectively.
You're misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics. It's quite possible for entropy to decrease in some places, so long as the closed system as a whole does not decrease in entropy.
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
> Remember: All men are entitled to believe as they wish with respect
[This message was sent in response to "Atheism: An Affirmative View" by Emmett Fields.]
I'm sorry. I'm not one of these super-holy-roller types in any way whatsoever, but you have so many holes in your argument it is absolutely ridiculous. Condemning Christianity by what many people have done in its name is not really all that intellectual. It was Faulkner who said that he had no problem with Christianity, really. He just wished that southerners -- Baptists (the really hated bunch, I understand from you're argument they're far from the worst, my friend), Pentacostalists, etc. -- would actually act like Christians. You know? It was not exactly that, but close to it. That is, actually take what's in that scripture, apply it to your life, and stop sitting back and watching idly what is going on with black people. Even Martin Luther King was hard on the church. (He was a Christian, and didn't kill anybody.) Your speech is so darned fashionable, so trendy. Get a little deeper before you go on the Internet again, all right?
[This message was sent in response to "Jesus' Report Card".]
Hello again:
Just read "Jesus' report card." You seem to grasp at the true radicalism of Jesus, and the hypocricy of Christians who confuse respectability with righteousness. (Just as many of other faiths do. Heck, even those with no faith at all but some "humanism" code do the same thing. Mark Twain was particularly good at poking fun at this sort of attitude, but yet he's getting less respect today. Aunt Polly rules the world. She really does. See Harper's article "Say It Ain't So, Huck," by some puritanical Pultizer Prize winning writer in this month's issue. She thought "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was better, when to me Harriet Beecher Stowe seemed too enamored of wealth, not realizing that economic exploitation (i.e., slavery) and that sort of life went hand-in-hand. They weren't separate. Twain knew better. But I don't see why that means Christ didn't exist. Many folks in Christian seminaries feel the same way, and often write about this. Get deeper, man, dig deeper.
Internet Infidels' Response:
"Jesus' Report Card" is satire. It was not intended as serious biblical scholarship.
In our society, you are entitled to your opinion and those others who have stated them in posting to your web site. What I find often distressing, is that quite often, those associated with your beliefs, belive they have a right to stop the opinions of those in disagreement with you.
The specific article about the Christians by Ms. Cox displayed a complete, and often the case, misunderstood representation of what Christians are trying to convey. In her open letter, she is self-described as having only been to church 10-12 times in her life, yet she was in a day, able to determine that what they believed, and stood for, what wrong and not an America in which she wishes to live.
After reading this, I wondered to myself, if I had brief association with physicians, then spent one day with them, could I make a reasonable, and fair judgement as to what they were like or if, they coulld help me at all. My experience with physicians, like many others, and my view of their worth can not be derived at within one 24-hour day, much less 8-hours. Regardless, what one wishes to think of others in this world, a true appreciation can only be acheived by sitting down, discussing and li