January 1996 Feedback

[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.

mathew

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,

Donald Morgan

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.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

...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.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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?

stephen B^)

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.

stephen B^)

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.

stephen B^)

[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/

mathew

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.

First 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.

Mark I. Vuletic

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.

Rob Berry

[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.

mathew

[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.

mathew

[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

mathew

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!

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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.

Farrell Till

[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 ) The number of ways of arranging that many parts is 132,500 factorial, or 1.8 x 10^308 combinations. In addition, there are over three million separate fasteners used to put the parts together.

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

mathew

[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 listening to, and I mean listening, each others views. This doesn't mean that you, or I, after this discussion will change our views.

I do believe, however, that this country is still based on a democracy in which often the majority rules. This is not liked by conservative or liberal when their view is not in the majority. Example: Democratic president and Republican congress. To hear both sides, no one is happy, yet it is exactly what this country voted. Enough on politics.

A great misunderstanding regarding the separation of church and state has arisen in the last 25 or so years in this country. Separation of church and state was created in the constitution to avoid persecution of christians which had occured in England and other European countries. The constitituion was a charter to insure that those conditions were not to occur in this country. A sector of this counry has taken the constitution to mean that a comlete separation of church and state must be maintained. I don't personally belive this to be fact or does many of the citizens who reside in this country. If one studies history, our great nation at its birth considered God to be important not only in its credo, but his name has been displayed upon many documents, buildings, instruments of commerce and most importantly in the hearts and souls of the people who founded this great nation.

I'm not here to state that those who do not believe in God as the supreme being shoudl not be in this country. The one thing the Bible clearly states, is that each person must take it upon themselves to belive or not believe. To live as the Bible states that we should live or to reject it. It is not a proposition that can be taken when and if we like. I too, have had problems with people associated with or claming to be quite religious. Some of these individuals have often caused me to question religion and what it means. I do believe however, one must disassociate the human being and its frailty from the spirtual goodness and kindess which is our creator and Lord.

We have been given the right, or the trust, that we will make the correct decsion regarding our acceptance of God and his son Jesus. You nor I, should be swayed by others, this includes the perceptions or truths regarding the Chrisitan Coalition. Again, this group of people consist of humans. Humans err, and they err even when their intentions are good and yes sometimes not so good. However, it is God who is the ultimate judge of our belief. Not the Chrisitian Coaltion nor your web site for free thought.

Even in your name you do not do justice to your cause. I often hear that Christians are close-minded, yet, how often do the infidels of free thought listen to their opposition's views. Research them and openly discuss both views. In my opinion, that is what free thought is really about and utimately, what this country was founded for.

God Bless.

Internet Infidels' Response:

As an infidel, I take great pride in my willingness to listen to the arguments of the opposition. I am not open-minded, mind you, but I do keep the door ajar. And, perhaps contrary to your idea of the infidel, I do enjoy a good discussion concerning gods, religious beliefs, and etc.

Still, I find in my discussions with believers that many use the same arguments for their beliefs in a god's reality. I don't mind listening to the opposition's views, but I do weary when listening to the same argument for the nth-thousandth time, and tire when I must repeat my skeptical inquiries over and over. There isn't much time in my life, and really I prefer living it.

Infidels are more than willing to listen to other views, but not at the expense of having their views put to the wayside. It takes two to have an open discussion concerning the ultimate things -- good will must be shown by the believer and non-believer alike. If you are concerned about making sure all views are presented, I suggest a short trip over to Yahoo before returning here. You may also go over to the Internet Infidels' related topics page for more sites.

stephen B^)

Recently, I was searching for some religious material on the net when I stumbled across your site. I learned quite a bit about myself. Apparently, I'm illiterate and stupid.

After I thought about it for a little while, I realized that your site makes a great deal of sense. In 1 Corinthians 1:23-25, the Apostle Paul says "but we preach Christ crucified to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks [Gentiles] foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Verse 18 in the same chapter says that "...the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are saved it is the power of God."

1 Corinthians 2:14 also explains that "...the natural [unsaved] man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Perhaps you have heard Psalms 14:1 which states that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' ...."

It does not surprise me that you find the Bible to be foolishness, and those who live by it to be fools. This is to be expected. However, what you find foolish, I recognize as the power of God. Through the truth of Scripture, I have found true freedom and lasting peace. I am not sure why I wrote this, but your mail address was right there, and I felt compelled to say something. If you are interested in replying to this message, I promise to respond.

Internet Infidels' Response:

It was not clear from your message what you had read that was so negative. However, one thing to keep in mind is that the Secular Web is a *virtual* library. Just as a given librarian may not agree with all of the books in a regular library, so too individual members of the Internet Infidels do not agree will all of the files on the Secular Web. (I, for example, do not agree at all with those files on the Secular Web which argue against the historicity of Jesus.) As for being "stupid and illiterate," I do think that a rational person can be a theist and even a Christian. However, I also happen to think that a person can be rational and reject theism (as I have.) I therefore must disagree with Psalm 14:1.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[This message was sent in response to "Wedding Services" compiled by Revs Maureen and Carl Thitchener.]

Hello Mr. Infidel <g>,

> Can you possibly give me some advice or point me in the right
> direction? My fiancee and I are atheists and we are trying to
> get married (We live in Washington, DC). We can spoke to the DC
> marriage bureau, they told us that if we wanted a civil ceremony,
> we would have to do it in a judge's chambers.

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

Maybe we humanists should inform the DC marriage bureau that they can give better information to atheists than that!

> But this means, of course, that you can't have any
> guests.

Worse, Judges also tend to read from the _Book of Common Prayer_, so you get the standard religious ceremoney from them, too.

> They told us that if you want to get married
> somewhere else, you'd have to have a reverend or
> minister (or any religious leader) marry you.

Technically correct. But there are atheist "religious leaders" who meet the qualificiations.

> This seems
> hightly prejudicial against atheists who might want to
> get married. Are there really no lay people licensed to
> perform marriages?

Not in D.C. Some states allow county clerks or notaries public to perform weddings, but not very many. It ought to be otherwise, but the present judges of the U.S. Supreme Court aren't the ones we ought to be bringing such a case to. So, for now, we bide our time and secure "religious" status to atheists and agnostics so folks like you can have the wedding you want.

> If you know anyone in the atheist
> community who might be able to answer this question,
> I'd really appreciate it.

I can do more than just answer your question. I can provide you with the ceremonial officiant you seek. The American Humanist Association certifies nontheistic humanist "ministers" who perform legal weddings. In nearby Maryland there are two.

[snip]

In D.C. proper there is the Washingon Ethical Society. Their leader also performs nontheistic wedding ceremonies. And there's no need to have it a perfunctory affair. You can have quite a nice celebration of your union. You can even write your own ceremony. For ideas on doing the latter, consult the AHA's Web page at the web address provided below.

Fred Edwords

Internet Infidels' Response #2:Three possibilities, for starters.

Try a Unitarian-Universalist church. Many of them are nontheistic, and some of their "ministers" are atheists, agnostics, or liberal religionists who are happy to do secular ceremonies.

The American Humanist Association (Amherst NY) has a program of Humanist Counselors. Most of them are licensed in their state to do weddings, act as hospital chaplains, and so on. Most of them are nontheistic, atheists, though a few are deists, "religious humanists," etc. The AHA can send you a list of their "counselors" (some of them use other words, such as "officiant," or "minister"). You can find the AHA at http://www.humanism.net/

Try to find a secular judge who would be willing to do a ceremony outside of chambers. That's what Annie Laurie and I did here in Madison. Judge Moria Krueger came to Freethought Hall (sporting purple shoes beneath her robe!) and even brought a gift! It was great.

I hope this is helpful.

Dan Barker

Internet Infidels' Response #3:

I was recently married, and my wife and I decided to use a Humanist Celebrant. They're legally 'clergy', but most of them are non-believers of one sort or another. You can contact the American Humanist Association for a list of celebrants in your area.

If you can't find a celebrant, you might look into the Unitarian/Universalist churches in your area. There are still a number of UU ministers who believe in a deity, but they're likely to perform the ceremony to your wishes.

Brett Lemoine

Might I add a few more ways to get rid of door-to-door religion salesfolk? These come by way of several friends and family members who have used these. None of them has been bothered by missionaries or other parasites of this ilk since using these techniques.

(a) My brother-in-law requested a copy of the Book of Mormon and offerred to have it read and have commentary on it by the next day. (He's a speed reader.) By the next day he'd taken a slide rule (a calculator would probably work just as well) and figured out that the submarine story was mathematically impossible. He requested a full algebraic explanation. Having none, the missionaries left.

(b) My ex-boyfriend is a large man with huge eyes and an unruly beard. He answered the door almost violently. When told that the people wanted to talk to him about their church, he responded by striding out onto the porch and pounding on the railing, saying (in a lovely, old pirate-like voice), "Aye, now we shall speak of the wrath of Old One-Eye, Odin the Allfather himself!" The doorknocking gang left quickly.

(c) My father answered the door in his fuzzy bathrobe, which is dark chocolate brown. To the bible thumpers he said, "Why hello! Welcome to my home. Now, we're druids and, as you know, we believe in human sacrifice. But never mind about me. Come in, come in. Will you stay for some...tea?" They left and no one, from any of the religions that send out salesfolk, has ever darkened his doorway again, even after he moved into another apartment.

(d) I used to answer politely and say "No, thank you." This always worked, until I got married to a recovered fundy. I think they can smell one of them from a mile away. So now we get the ones who stick their feet in the doorway. We keep a sword (quite ornate, with lovely jewels in the hilt but not real edge to speak of) on hand for just such an occurrence. I still smile politely and say "No, thank you." But now I grasp the sword when I do it. Only failed me once, and that was because the Mormon missionary at the door was a medievalist who recognized the design. We ended up chatting amiably about the swordsmith who had made the sword and he completely forgot what he'd come to my house for in the first place. An altogether pleasant afternoon, come to think of it.

I am appalled to read your comments. I will remember you in my prayers that one day you will know the peace that comes with knowing you are a child of Christ Jesus.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Actually, I'm the child of Steve and Linda. Glad to meet ya'. :)

stephen B^)

[This message was sent in response to "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's `Evidence'" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]

There are no atheist` in fox holes. Your claims to denounce Christianity are fruitless and hold no water. The Word of God (bible) stands for itself, no one needs to defend it, it defends itself. People can believe what they want to, but in the end the Word of God will stand by itself, it will live forever and so will everyone who puts there trust in it, all those who do not will also find out in the end, and wished they could have had another chance.

[This message was sent in response to "Jesus Should Have Been Aborted" by Jenn Shreve.]

Kudos! Excellent piece of work! Of course, being in "Loweeziana" I'd be hanged for saying that. Good work. I've certainly bookmarked your page.

Hi --

I clicked the Darwin fish/Goddess products link, and got the following error message: The requested URL /ROFcat/catpg1.html was not found on this server.

I just e-mailed a friend of mine who's an atheist to tell her about your site -- we'd been talking about doing something similar, but that's all it was: talk! You actually did it, and it's WONDERFUL. Thanks for doing a great job!

[This message was sent in response to "Biblical Absurdities" by Donald Morgan.]

read 1 corinthians 2:14

Continue to read, the Lord may yet open your spiritual eyes

[This message was sent in response to "Jesus Should Have Been Aborted" by Jenn Shreve.]

First of all Mary PLANNED to have Jesus!

Second there are 5 billion people on this planet, how can anyone be against abortion!

Found you through "Athiest" Netscape search. Looking for info on teaching my children non-theism. They're under social pressure to declare belief in Christianity and God, and my adult's version of agnostic/athiest beliefs is not satisfying to them. Athiest Sunday School?

I feel that will be interesting finding out how other atheists, agnostics, etc. sentiments are concerning euthanasia. Setting a page for discusssion I think, it would be a step ahead to "push" for changes in the law.

Greetings !

A Christian told me today that I will go to hell when I die. I had many replies in thought but decided that it would not educate nor add to his knowledge. Then I found your page. It is quite interesting and I am glad that there are trying-to-be-honest and trying-to-be-rational people to learn from. For that I am grateful that you spend the time and keep the flame of free thought burning. Your work is very informative ! Thanks !

Greetings:

Just discovered your page. As a born-once atheist and free-thinker, I am sure I will find hours of good reading here. Thanks for being there.

Yes Boys Scouts do discriminate. If you don't like the boy scouts organization don't join. but don't critize.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Would you say the same if we criticized the Ku Klux Klan?

mathew

Please send me a list of any books suitable for explaining the concept of atheism to school age children.

Also please send ordering information if these are your titles, otherwise, if you could, the complete title and author so I might find them myself.

Thanks

The Freethinkers Society was founded in San Diego in 1961. Its emphasis over the years has been the commemoration of Robert G. Ingersoll, Thomas Paine and other freethinkers, by means of public banquets and meetings. The Freethinkers Society at present is administered by the Humanist Fellowship of San Diego, and is funded in part with Trust Funds of James Hervey Johnson, its founder.

For a sample copy of FREETHOUGHT FORUM, the monthly newsletter, or other information on the Freethinkers Society, write to or

[This message was sent in response to "Creationism Is Not Dead".]

Fellow Infidels,

I have been engaged in the intelligent discussion of humanist thought for several years, ever since I replied to a letter in the local paper promoting the teaching of scientific creationism in public schools, which in turn led to an ongoing debate with a local science teacher on that subject. At one point, before the good doctor passed away, I even had Isaac Asimov involved in the debate.

More recently, in the same newspaper, there have been a series of guest commentaries attacking secular humanism. These commentaries have the usual flavor: humanists are a godless scourge who seek to remove morals and ethics from public education in particular, and society in general. There have been a number of intelligent replies by local humanists -- some of which have been disturbing in the sense that they use negative messages to get their point across (an example: "the history of organized religion reeks of the stench of blood"), while others stressed the positive aspects of humanist thought: respect, reason, tolerance, and self-empowerment.

I have only recently become a subscriber to the internet, but one of the first places I visited was your website, and I must say I was amazed at the wealth of information provided here. The essays are brilliant, the feedback interesting, and the overall ambiance is professional and straightforward -- not at all like a different so-called humanist website that attempted to sell me T-shirts, bumper stickers, and goddess figurines (?).

One of my reasons for writing is to applaud your work. MAINTAIN THIS WEBSITE. Its message is important and needs to reach as many people as possible. I will return to it again and again looking for some bit of information or another.

My other reason for writing is to ask your permission to use some of the material here in my own defense of humanism. Specifically, I am preparing a guest commentary for the above unnamed newspaper that will attempt to explain humanism to the public at large in terms they can understand. In many of the essays on this page there are phrases and literary illustrations that are simply too precious to ignore, so concise are they. Their use would aid me greatly in the piece I am preparing. If you will assent to this, I will of course give you the opportunity to review and critique the piece prior to submission, and provide proper attribution (inasmuch as a newspaper will permit attribution -- footnotes, for example, are not a newspaper's strong point) to the AHA and the authors involved.

Thanks and, once again, keep up the good work.

>I read your article on intolerance of the Boy Scouts of America, and
> while agree that you present some reasonable arguments against the
> policies of the BSA, in the large scope of things I feel that your
> argument against Scouts is purely a personal vendetta against
> organizations such as the who oppose your personal point of view.

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

Translation: "I can't refute your arguments, so I'll just dismiss them by attacking your motivations." This won't work, though. If our arguments are sound, you ought to accept them regardless of our motivations.

> Whether of not you like it the BSA is a private organization, and are
> not a place of public accomidation, and recent court decisions have
> upheld this fact.

Please read or re-read "How Your Tax Dollars Support The Boy Scouts Of America" (http://www.humanism.net/bsa.html). If the BSA wishes to discriminate, that's fine with me, but let them pay for their discrimation out of their own pockets, not mine.

> If other private organizations such as the United Way do not agree with
> their policies, they inturn simply do not have to fund the BSA.

It is certainly possible to choose not to *donate* to the BSA, and many organizations have wisely decided to end their contributions. It is not, however, possible to choose not to *fund* the BSA, since the BSA is supported at least in part with tax dollars, and one cannot simply choose to stop paying taxes. (At least, not where I live.)

> You say imply that it is wrong for the BSA to have government support
>such recognization on postage stamps....get real...even Marylin Monore
> who slept with JFK in the White House has a stamp, and so have drug
> addicts such as Elvis.

I'll be honest, if the only government support that the BSA received was a commemorative stamp or two, I wouldn't object. But government support of the BSA goes well beyond the occasional stamp. Again, read or re-read the article mentioned above. (Besides, how many Boy Scouts can sing like Elvis, or look as good as Marilyn? :-)

> If you do not like the BSA, I can understand that, but the BSA does
> serve a vitally needed function in our society. In an era of rapid
> technological and social change, programs that have remained focused
> on their principles are rare.

Staying true to principles is only a good idea if the principles themselves are good. When a principle is wrong, staying true to it is a *bad* thing. And religious discrimination as a principle is certainly wrong. (You *do* believe that religious discrimation is wrong, don't you?) The Boy Scouts ought to be providing our boys with the kind of solid moral foundation which can help them deal with our era of rapid technological and social change. Religious bigotry does not serve that goal; it only makes them more incapable of dealing with the present than they otherwise might have been.

>If you do not the BSA, why noy go out and form a youth program
>that is to your liking. This would be much more logical, and beneficial
>than trying to force programs that you do not like or agree with to change
>their long held, and VERY SUCCESSFUL traditions.

We are not trying to force programs to change. They are more than welcome to keep their 17th century, anti-American values if they wish to do so. But why should us 20th century, pro-American-values types be forced to pay for it? Let them fund their own bigotry, if it means that much to them.

>The more extreme the left wing is, the closer it is to the extreme
>right wing. There is only room for moderation, Extreme politics either
>left or right should be avioded. Hitler and Statlin are prime
>illustrations of this fact.

With all due respect, do you really think that protesting an organization which discriminates against American citizens can possibly be compared to the atrocities committed by Hitler and Stalin? No atheist that I know of is calling for a mass execution of Boy Scouts. I can't imagine why you would invoke Hitler or Stalin here-- unless your argument is, "Hitler and Stalin discriminated, so why can't the Boy Scouts?"

Rob Berry

> P.S. I do not vote for, nor suppport the Republican agenda.

> BSA does not care which God you subscribe to,
>only that you do. I do not belong to a religious
>group or church, but I still believe in a God

Intertnet Infidels' Response:

We know what the BSA's stand is. We also know that it is wrong. As for your personal religious preference, so what? Your personal views on religion do not make religious bigotry any less wrong.

> As America has moved away from God, So has
>America gone in the toilet. Our prisons are full
>and yet we build more. Murder goes up every year
>and yet you try to keep God out.

Your reasoning is a classic example of the "post hoc, ergo proctor hoc" ("after this, therefore because of this") fallacy. Unfortunately, it cuts both ways. For example, did you know that murder rates have increased dramatically ever since Congress added the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954? Or that drug use rose dramatically under Reagan and Bush, two presidents who were elected in large part because of the religious right? If you seriously wish to defend the thesis that declining belief in God is responsible for declining morals, you must a) prove that belief in God is actually on the decline, b) prove that general morality is actually on the decline, c) prove that there is a correlation between these two, and d) prove that lack of belief in God *causes* immorality (as opposed to immorality causing lack of belief in God, or some other factor casuing both lack of belief in God *and* immorality).

And by the way, if I'm not mistaken, murder rates have actually gone down in the past few years.

> You and your ACLU stooges will will all be in
>the same place someday and I hope that you injoy
>your stay.

I didn't know the ACLU had a convention coming up. What city is the convention being held in?

Robby Berry

> BSA does not care which God you subscribe to,
>only that you do. I do not belong to a religious
> group or church, but I still believe in a God
> As America has moved away from God, So has
> America gone in the toilet.

Of course, people have been saying that things are going to pot since the days of Socrates and Plato. In any case, in the absence of scientific data supporting that there is, in fact, a relationship between "moving away from God" and "going to pot," the fact that these two things seem to happen at the same time does not mean that there is necessarily a relationship between the two.

As a matter of fact, the U. S. is the most "Christianized" nation of the so-called civilized nations. Yet we have the highest rates of murder and violent crime of any of those nations. In all of England, where there is a much higher percentage of atheists and the nonreligious, there are fewer murders in a year than there are in Philadelphia on an average weekend.

> Our prisons are full and yet we build more. Murder goes up every
>year

This is simply untrue. Murder rates around the U. S. went down significantly last year.

> and yet you try to keep God out.

How do you keep an omnipotent, omnipresent God out of a place?

> You and your ACLU stooges will will all be in the same place someday
> and I hope that you injoy your stay.

The probability that a perfect, good, loving, omnipotent, omniscient God would remain mute in the manner that the Christian God is alleged to have remained is, IMO, nil. The probability that a perfect, good, loving, omnipotent, omniscient God would create and maintain a hell in the manner that the Christian God is alleged to have done is, IMO, nil. Therefore, your repetition of the threat that those who do not share your faith will end up in hell is ludicrous.

Donald Morgan

Just a word of thanks... Thanks for being out here in 'cyberspace'. It's reassuring to know there are like minds...i.e. open-minds.

Hello,

A friend has asked me to get for him a list of basic books on freethought, atheism, and anything else related to these. My friend would prefer to read works written recently, in the near past and back as far as the early 20th century (though the classics of the 19th century would be welcome in such a list.)

If this list is available as e-mail, I'd greatly appreciate receiving it from you.

Thanks!

Internet Infidels' Response:

The following list should be plenty to get you started.

Barker, Dan. Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.

Fascinating book written by a minister-turned-atheist.

Craig, William Lane and Quentin Smith. Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

According to Big Bang cosmology, the universe began to exist about fifteen billion years ago with an explosion called `the Big Bang'. But was this explosion created by God, or did it occur without cause? In Part I, Christian philosopher William Lane Craig defends the theistic interpretation of Big Bang cosmology. In Part II, atheist philosopher Quentin Smith defends the atheistic interpretation. Part III contains Craig's and Smith's interpretations of Stephen Hawking's cosmology, and its implications for the existence of God.

Flew, Antony G.N. God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1984.

This book criticizes cosmological arguments, Pascal's Wager, the Free Will Defense, and immortality.

Flew, Antony and Alasdair MacIntyre. New Essays in Philosophical Theology. New York: Macmillan, 1955.

Gale, Richard M. On the Nature and Existence of God. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

This looks like an excellent, scholarly treatment of the existence of God from an atheist perspective. One of the unique features of the book is the consideration of several atheological arguments in detail. Hopefully someday I'll have the time to actually read this book.

Hume, David. Of Miracles. 1748. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1985.

This has an introduction by Antony Flew, who is arguably the leading proponent of the Humean attack on miracles.

Mackie, J.L. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.

After Martin's excellent book, this would rank #2 on my list of books by atheist philosophers.

Martin, Michael. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

This is without the question one of the best texts on atheism ever written. If I could recommend only one work on atheism, this is the book I would recommend.

Nielsen, Kai. Ethics Without God. Second edition. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1989.

A powerful response to the claim that there is no morality without God.

---. Philosophy & Atheism: In Defense of Atheism. Buffalo: NY: Prometheus, 1985.

Parsons, Keith M. God and the Burden of Proof: Plantinga, Swinburne, and the Analytic Defense of Theism. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1989.

This book is divided into three main sections: Plantinga on the rationality of theism, Swinburne's cosmological argument, and the problem of evil.

Hope this helps!

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[This message was sent in response to "The Warfare of Science with Theology" by Andrew White.]

Thank you for making ADW's WSWT available via the 'Net. I first heard of this work from Joseph Campbell's 'Myth to Live By', and always wanted to read it. I was happy to learn how much there is to it, and how scholarly and thorough it is.

I have had trouble downloading the complete text from your web page. It seems that it is not all there yet. I once had a text-only copy that I got from your ftp space, but I change computers recently and that particular file did not survive the transition. Now it seems that the current version on your ftp site is truncated also. (But I like that the footnotes are being added). I understand that someone is probably working on completing it, but do you still have the original text-only file? I am currently working on a LaTeX version of the book, but I've lost my raw input. Any help you can give would be much appreciated.

ps. I have a LaTeX -> HTML conversion utility. When I get this done, I could send you an HTML for your page.

[This message was sent in response to the "Geisler-Till Debate".]

I came upon this transcript of the debate by chance. I must say, as a philosophy student (and skeptic), Dr. Till's presentation was exceptionally weak. Dr. Geisler definitely seemed the more rational of the two. Damn, if this is all the skeptical camp can come up with?!! I've never heard of this Geisler guy and I dare say I would hate to see Prof. Till go head to head with some of the Thomists at Louvain, or Father Brian Davies, O.P. of Oxford, et al.!!!!

Well, thanks for putting the debate on-line anyway.

With cordial regards.

Internet Infidels' Response:

I have wanted to respond to Hilburn's posting before now, but other pressing work didn't allow me the time. Perhaps I shouldn't bother to respond at all, because Daniel really didn't give me much to respond to. He simply said that my presentation was "exceptionally weak," and in so doing, he made the same mistake that I constantly have to warn my freshman composition students to guard against in their writings, i.e., the use of imprecise, unclarified abstract language. What exactly was "exceptionally weak" in my presentation? If Daniel would inform me, I would then be able to react to his criticism.

Actually, I suspect that Daniel isn't nearly as skeptical as he would like for us to believe. I base this on the fact that he said that Geisler "definitely seemed the more rational of the two." I find it hard to believe that a skeptical "philosophy" student would think this about arguments that Geisler based entirely on his claim that the NT records are reliable, and so we can believe what they say. In response to Richard Brigg's posting on errancy of Geisler's first speech, I analyzed the speech paragraph by paragraph to show that there was nothing in anything that Geisler said that would prove the reliability of the NT documents. In the debate and in my analysis on errancy, I made the observation that 100% accuracy in the copying of the original documents and even having the actual original documents would in no way prove the truth of what the documents reported, anymore than having in our possession the original autographs of any other document would prove the accuracy of what the document contains. I fail to see, then, what is rational about believing in a resurrection from the dead on the grounds that it was reported in ancient documents whose "reliability" we can trust. In the final analysis, then, Geisler was merely arguing that the Bible says it and so it must be true. I must also say that if Hilburn has done any research at all on the resurrection and other issues related to biblical inerrancy, I can't imagine why he has never heard of "this Geisler guy."

I might also point out again that Geisler did nothing in the debate but read manuscripts that he had written before the debate. As a result, he necessarily ignored completely most of what I said, and the only things I said that he really addressed were what he had happened to guess I might say when he was writing his speeches. At any rate, I welcome any additional comments that Daniel might like to make. (If he does react to this posting, I hope he will make his comments specific.) Many have expressed to me opinions the exact opposite of Daniel's, but I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me when I say--and I really do believe this--that Geisler was one of the weakest debating opponents I have faced. I thought that Horner did much better when we met in Seattle on the same issue.

If Daniel would like to see my analysis of Geisler's first speech that I posted in response to Richard Briggs's messages, I will be glad to send it to him.

Farrell Till

praise the infidels!

it is encouraging to see such a wonderful website dedicated to my "religion." i live in maine, and it is a very infrequent occurance that i run into another of "my kind." i don't generally attack religions outside of christianity, that one keeps me busy enough...if only the bible could be thought on as a secular work, then it could be shelved with all the other mythologies and looked at as a beautiful but fictional work. Alas... i am sure i will visit this site often.

that was a good page . try and put some graphics in ten it will rule

What is right and what is wrong? Do you or I decide? Does the majority? I guess thats ok as long as the majority is doing what we want. If we have just evolved from lower life how is it that we are communicating over the internet and all ny poor dog can do is beg for food and scratch himself. I guess he'll tell me about it in a million years or so.

[This message was sent in response to "Absurdities of the Bible" by Clarence Darrow.]

Science annoys you doesn't it? I grow annoyed at your faulty and weak "reasoning" abilities. And now you've proliferated the net with your insanity like a lighted billboard advertising one's own mistakes.

[This message was sent in response to " Six Historic Americans" by John Remsburg.]

The "genuine precepts of Jesus," Jefferson wrote to B. Rush, "I am a real Christian...sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others."

"...no system of morality would work for the common man or woman without the sanction of divine authority stampt upon it." Bit of a conflict when Jefferson's Jesus was stripped of divine authority.

Jefferson's bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments in Virginia, would shattle his liberal image: His medieval punishments would shock today's conservatives. And sodomy was definitely a crime. Yes, Jefferson hated religious intolerence as most all who fled Great Britain. He was more outspoken in this respect and certainly unorthodox in his view of the Bible.

A balanced presentation is badly needed in today's revisionist history. But ever-increasing numbers are rectifying this imbalance.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Jefferson, in my opinion, was one of the most fascinating figures in history and a very complex individual. He could be called a Christian, only in the sense that he regarded Jesus Christ as an ultimate role model for ethical behavior (an issue where I would disagree with him). He did not believe in Jesus's divinity, as his "rewrite" of the Gospels indicates.

"... If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814. From Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 358.)

Clark Adams

[This message was sent in response to "Review of 'Immortality'" by Jim Lippard.]

Hello. I read through your letters to Habermas etc -- (I was browsing out of curiosity as to what kind of ideas/information is being exchanged on the Net about NDE's, having had one (a "ND") myself). I've only talked with one other person who's had one; our experiences were quite different in their particulars but similar insofar as neither of us died when it surely was possible to have done so. I read one of the pop tomes on NDE's (Transformed by the Light?), was quite puzzled by the descriptions until I realized that NDE's are likely or must naturally be fairly culture/personality specific. We "see" what we are capable of believing. As Yogananda's teacher said about "seeing" God: if you believe in Jesus, you'll see Jesus, if you believe in Krishna, you'll see Krishna. If your idea of God is more intellectual, you'll see a great Light. I think for most people the infinite Light=symbolic presence of the Divine makes sense: it did to me, anyway. Confrontations with mortality cause us to be concerned with the meaning and/or purpose of life. (If one wasn't already; even if one was, they do change one's consciousness...) "Computers are useless. They only give answers." Pablo Picasso "EVERYTHING TAKES LONGER." Anonymous

[This message was sent in response to "The Scientific Case Against Immortality" by Keith Augustine.]

I have read your article, "The Scientific Case Against Immortality" and found it to be true in many aspects except one. My own personal experience.

It told me that hallucinations could not account for what I experienced. I must point out two distinct descrapancies in your article. There are cases where the patient was able to describe, in detail, things that didn't exist before they went blind. Yet many were not only to describe the medical devices used in their resusitations and the order in which they were used, but the color as well. Not to mention the personnel who were described in detail and what each were doing and standing at certain times, and documented by th medical teams themselves. I already know as fact, that autoscopic hallucinations could not account for my experience. So after reading The Scientific Case Against Immortality, I came to the conclusion that either you are not telling the whole story or that you are missing some basic points in your argument. I want to note that I am also very familiar with Dr. Susan Blackmore and here own experience doing her autoscopic OBE. She came to the conclusion that it wasn't real because she note during her experience things that were the same during and after her experience. I am well familiar with the experiment on her daughter, but it still doesn't explain what happened to me and millions of others around the world. You would have to have to experience it yourself to see that hallucinaions cannot account for a 'Transcendent NDE as oppose to a Autoscopic NDE. I am familiar with the stimulation of the Right Temporal Lobe, but it can't account for how people were able to describe, in detail, things they couldn't have known. I will put you in the shoes of a typical case. You have a heart attack. You watch as each individual comes into the room. You note the name of each individual and where they are standing and doing at the time. You note the time on the clock. You also take note of the fact that it is out of sight from where you are laying because of all the people around you and the fact that curtains are drawn, thus blocking the time from where you are laying. You note each procedure done on your body and by whom, and not the times. Later, in the doctors office, you describe everything that went on, right down to the time of the events. The doctor is mot too amazed. He heard it all before from other people as well. So you see, hallucinations couldn't account for that, yet it happens all the time and is quite common. Thank you for your time

Author's Response:

Please elaborate. How can you be certain that your NDE was not hallucinatory? NDEs are purely subjective experiences; unlike experiences which reveal the physical world through sense organs, there is no way to determine if a purely subjective experience corresponds to objective reality. NDEs have the same ontological status as dreams (I'm not saying they feel like dreams, just that they are in the same category of purely subjective experiences).

Also, if NDEs are unquestionably experiences of an objective afterlife reality, how do you account for the fact that some NDErs do not feel that their experiences constitute evidence for an afterlife? The philosopher A. J. Ayer is one. Another skeptic's account of her near-death experience can be found at URL http://www.enews.com/data/magazines/alphabetic/all/skep_inq/Archive/062194.2

Furthermore, only 1/3 of people in a near-death state report anything at all. NDEs also are very variable; beyond the core features (OBE, tunnel, light, panoramic life review), there is little in common between them.

"There is no corroboration for claims of perception outside of the immediate environment of the patient or accurate perception in NDEs in the blind, thus the paranormal argument does not constitute evidence for survival". I still defend this statement. No doubt there are reports or claims for the kinds of events you describe above, but these are purely anecdotal. There is no corroboration for these kinds of events, however. In cases of this kind, often it is years later when researchers find out about the NDE, and the doctors names may have been forgotten or the doctors no longer work at the hospital where these events allegedly transpired. Other times, the doctor has no recollection of any such incident (which means, of course, that it still may have occurred).

I never claimed that NDEs were autoscopic hallucinations; I claimed that they are one of a variety of hallucinatory experiences. The out of body experience cannot be identified with autoscopic hallucinations. They may be slightly related, but they are not the same. Autoscopic hallucinations are different from OBEs and NDEs in the following ways: 1) They occur in people when they are conscious, not unconscious (and may be indicative of a brain tumor), 2) They are a mirror image of the person, usually only the head or upper torso, not of the entire body, and 3) They often mimic the actions of the person experiencing them. The OBE can occur when people are conscious or unconscious.

My argument is based only on the facts; I disregard anecdotal stories that are not corroborated. Let me qualify my statements. If you recall my evaluation of OBE claims, I mentioned that if there is any psi element to OBEs this could straightforwardly and decivisely proved experimentally. However, such experiments have been done, and no evidence has been found for psi in OBEs:

Experiments designed to detect a double during OBEs have yielded negative results:

The size of any effect detected has decreased with increasing experimental sophistication. Most recent studies have used magnetometers, thermistors, ultraviolet and infra-red detectors, and so on... but no reliable detector has yet been found (Blackmore, "Oxford" 572).

Another type of experiment was designed to determine if OBE subjects can retrieve information from a remote location. Blackmore concludes that

The experimental evidence is weak. Subjects have been asked to view target letters, numbers or pictures, placed in distant rooms... [and] other studies have tried to discover whether subjects seem to be looking from a specific location during OBEs; however, the results have been inconclusive. Generally these studies provide very mixed results and it is not clear that any paranormal process is involved (Blackmore, "Oxford" 572).

In neither case is there any evidence for survival. The experimental evidence from parapsychology is completely consistent with what one would expect if extinction were true. Although I am not aware of any studies attempting to detect a double in near-death experiences, the information- retrieval experiment has also been applied to near-death cases with inconclusive results. I have been unable to find anything in the medical literature as of yet about this experiment, but it was discussed on The Learning Channel's "Mysterious Forces Beyond" Near-Death Experience episode. In summary, the experiment was designed so that an electronic screen displayed a sentence that was changed everyday by someone not connected with the experiment in any other way then generating the sentences. The screen was placed in the cardiac arrythmias room, and no one in the hospital knew what the sentence was. The screen could not be seen from the vantage of a patient nor by any of the staff. When someone had an NDE, all they had to do I repeat what the sentence said. Then the staff could report what the NDEr said to independent experimenters to determine if there was a match. As I said, however, this experiment has not found any evidence for psi.

[As for Blackmore's autoscopic OBE,] ... she put the OBE to the test, and it failed the test. Pretty straightforward results.

I am not familiar with any experiment with Dr. Blackmore's daughter. To what are you refering?

[Concerning transcendent NDEs,] you might not want to use that term autoscopic, a term employed by Dr. Michael Sabom, to avoid confusion with the phenomena of autoscopic hallucinations, which are quite different from OBEs. Furthermore, there are much better categorizations for various aspects of the NDE than the overly simplistic autoscopic versus transcendent categorization (for example, if the difference between the two is one is only an OBE and the other includes non-OBE aspects like the tunnel and light--and some NDEs lack OBEs altogether--why can't we distinguish NDEs on the basis of whether or not they include a panoramic life review or not?).

Keith Augustine

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