 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
I just read your article on "Polytheism in Genesis" in a internet-posted back issue.
I admire your scholarship, but I'm exhausted by your efforts to engage the theists in their own morrass. Perhaps you are all masochists.
It seems to me that you don't need to look deeply into the matter to see that the Christians are polytheists. Satan, the Archangel Michael, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, St. Christopher, etc. are all superbeings--imaginary superfriends in my lexicon. The modern Christian religion is obviously as polytheistic as the ancient Greek and Roman religions.
Just claiming to be monotheistic doesn't cut it. The Greeks had the 'head god' Zeus. The Christians have the 'head' God the Father. But their claimed secondary gods (Jesus & the Holy Ghost) and their tertiary gods as noted above contradict their claims to monotheism. Of course being monotheistic would hardly be an improvement since the body count of imaginary superfriends seems to be zero.
I'd still like to know why you choose this weird hobby of debating fundamentalists? At least the religion industry gets rich for its efforts...
Internet Infidels' Response:
I am, of course, in basic agreement with the main point that you made in the message Jeff Lowder forwarded to me. Christians do indeed practice a type of polytheism, just as the Israelites did. They deny it, however, and so some of them have to be shown.
When people ask me why I debate fundamentalists, I have a simple answer: These people are dangerous. Right now they are actively trying to influence American politics so that elected officials will enact their agenda. That agenda will not be in the best interest of people like you and me.
I'm not really trying to be facetious when I say this, but, in view of the circumstances I just described, why aren't you trying to combat religious fundamentalism? I can point to several examples of success I have had in leading people away from their fundamentalism. A little success here, a little success there, and eventually it will add up.
Here is a philosphical arguement that may help some.
Causual arguement: If I can imagine a world that is better than the one we live in, then god is incompetent not to have created it.
If I can imagine a world with one less death, one less twig out of place, or any slight improvement, then god is incompetent. Therefore, if god is incompetent, then he is not worthy of praise.
The usual response is that you can't know his will or you can't know "What god ultimate plan is".
And, this is true, but if you don't know his plan or his will, then why assume that he is a good god. Any atheist or agnostic can tell of the evil nature of god as told in the bible.
Well, anyway, that is the Causual Arguement, incase you hadn't heard it. Unfortunately, All the philosophical and scientific explanations have no impact on the theists.
Internet Infidels' Response:
This argument is essentially a version of the problem of evil which might be called the problem of imperfection. While I would disagree with the conclusion that any imperfection makes God "incompetent," it is a defensible argument that any imperfection makes God less than the omniscient and omnipotent being he is supposed to be. One of the standard replies, as you note, is that whatever imperfections or evil exists is all part of some plan--that it is necessary for some higher purpose. Yet much imperfection seems to be correctable, certainly by an omnipotent being. Another standard reply is that imperfection or evil is introduced through human free will. This defense requires that free will (a) is of great enough value to outweigh or offset all imperfections and evil and (b) is incompatible with determinism. If (a) is not the case, then there is still unnecessary imperfection/evil; if (b) is not the case, then God could have made the world such that people had free will yet the imperfections and evil did not occur.
[This message was in response to "The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell" by Gordon Stein .]
I happened to read your comments on Josh McDowell. I am a born again Christian, have a MSc. in theoretical Chemistry from the top department in Nort America ( I say this only to give myself some credibility, you can disount it ...) I know Josh personally and I don't really like him as a person. Having said this, your commentary is full of biased half-truths that I can't believe that you think that you are operating a 'search for truth page'. I am intersted in truth. I believe that Jesus Christ did rise from the dead -- and hence that constrains me to the Christian worldview, within which I am free to look for specific truths. I weigh Josh's proposals with an analytic eye and discard those that I consider either innacurate or not - supported. Unfortunately your commentary was smack full of misrepresentations of Josh as a person, half truths about his method of analysis and complete nonsense about the three hundred years and the eyewitness stuff. Please let me know if a honest academic approach is the intent here or just emotional, low key closed minded fanatisism. This is an excellent page and I would like to come back and engage in constructive talk - but this was very disappointing.
Hello. I am only 17 years of age but I have found that with careful study (the sort a liberal arts teacher might direct with any secular book) many of the metaphors and figures of speech in the bible are understandable and even consistent. The original languages that the Bible has been written in don't always translate literally or very simply. Thus study reveals truths inherent in the various writings contained in the bible. for example, Greeks used a multiplicity of words that had very different meanings which we in English can only translate "love." Also, after reading through your contradictions in the bible it seems you have neglected to consider the context of passages. many people do such things, some intentionally and some by mistake. I wonder if you hold the Bible in such contempt why you made such a wide (if somewhat shallow) study of it. Did you really delve deeply for the knowledge or just look for contradictions? Have you always disbelieved God or are you perhaps a disillusioned ex-fundamentalist type? Please excuse my forwardness, it's one of my many faults . . .
I come from a fairly religious family. How do I tell them that I'm an atheist?
Internet Infidels' Response:
It's up to you. Every family is different.
When I became an atheist I sent a short letter to my family and friends explaining what happened and inviting friendship and discussion. Eventually, one brother and both parents became atheists.
You can see this letter in the excerpts of my book, Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist, at:
I also have an article about dealing with religious friends and relatives, "Evangelistic Atheism: Leading Believers Astray" at:
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/evangel.html
Many members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation have similar experiences. You might feel at home in our group.
'cerely,
[This message was in response to "Two Ways of Proving Atheism" by Quentin Smith.]
Why I think atheists are every bit as silly as fundie religious nuts.
The Gratuitous Evil section is less than worthless as scientific examination of facts, as you seem to be arguing against a diety of the Judeo-Christian tradition (i.e. all good). Did it ever occur to you that some supreme being does in fact exist, but simply doesn't give a rat's ass about us?
Your first section is far more compelling, but any decent statistician will tell you that any pre-event statistics (95% chance of the universe occurring) are totally devoid of meaning. The fact that the universe exists now shows that the p(universe created) = 1. If you dispute this, then I'll wager you $1,000,000, and what the hell, give you 40 to 1 odds, that the universe exists. That's $40,000,000 bucks if you show me that the universe does not exist.
Instead of trying to disprove the concept: "whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause", it may be turned against the theist as to "what created God?" which devolves into an infinite loop.
It seems that you do believe in a God, called Science, who by the way, only 100 years ago, did not know that there was a fundamental limit to the speed something may be accelerated to. Then, along come Lorentz and Einstein, and it's time to revise those "scientific facts". There's a reason why scientists label most things "theories"(Geez, they still call it the Theory of Relativity, though as far as I'm concerned, it's physical law). It's an acknowledgement that we don't know every damn thing, yet, and that it is still subject to exception, further revision, and scrutiny.
You have some interesting hypotheses that certainly help demonstrate the possible lack of a supreme creator entity, but to label it "proof" is quite premature.
I personally think a lot of what's in the Bible and other religious texts is a load of hooey (though there's some good pointers on how one should live, once you get past kids getting killed by wolves for teasing a bald-headed prophet. You don't even have to leave the Bible to show that the Judeo-Christian God isn't "all good"). I do not totally discount the possible existence of a supreme diety, though I don't live my live really any differently than most atheists do. WHo knows, maybe I'm juat an atheist without the courage of my convictions. :)
Loiking forward to hearing from you,
The knowledge of God is the beginning of wisdom. Why should I believe in the unproven miracle that chance and random selection have brought about the world that we see? Why should I believe in a chain of cause and effect that, by naturalistic standards, can have no initial cause? Why should I have faith in man whose mind, if evolution is true, was brought about by random chance events which result in random and therefore unreliable thought patterns? Why should I believe there are no absolutes and say everything is relative, thus making an absolute statement? How do we even begin to form an idea of absolutes?
I do not quite understand your point of view. Perhaps I never will, but it does present a challenge to me to make me think about what I believe and why I believe it.
Sincerely,
Internet Infidels' Response:
Atheism does not have as a logical consequence that there are no absolutes or that everything is relative. The question of whether or not there are objective or absolute moral standards is independent of whether God exists, and good arguments can be made that morality cannot be dependent upon God without morality being arbitrary or capricious.
Evolution does not say that life arose by "random chance," but rather by chance and natural selection, which is not a random process. Further, it does not follow from the presence a random element to the origin of life that thought is therefore random or unreliable. An element of randomness can enhance reliability and performance, for instance, in a computer program. What determines reliability of human thought are the methods and processes instantiated in brains, which is independent of the way in which brains came to exist. It may be unlikely that chance could produce a sophisticated machine, but a machine produced by chance is exactly as reliable as the same machine produced by intelligent design. To maintain otherwise is a form of the genetic fallacy.
Dear Infidels,
I am praying for you.
keep up the excellent work! Your web pages look very good.
[This message was in response to " Giordano Bruno: The Forgotten Philosopher" by John J. Kessler.]
A wonderful biography, and my thanks to you for putting it on the net.
I query your picturing of his mind as a modern one. I assume you are familiar with Yates' book on Bruno, putting him fairly in the Neoplatonic/Hermetic tradition of Ficino, Pico, and Agippa (only more so). I was wondering what your reasons were for disagreeing with her thesis, and follwoing a more poetic and psychological line with Bruno's work?
[This message was in response to "Answers to Tough Question Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith", a review by Gordon Stein .]
It may not matter to you, but one of the statements made in "Answers To Tough Questions..." is inaccutate. It says:
"The first of these statements is absolutely false. There is not one single part of the N.T. which was written about Jesus by an eyewitness."
Peter was clearly an eyewitness, and says so in 2 Pet 1:16:
"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
You guys rock.
I'm from Virginia. I'm going to William and Mary. If there's not already a club there, I plan to start one. You're now a link on my page.
Stay atheist!
[This message was in response to "Jesus Vs. Elvis ".]
the comparison of jesus to elvis is sooo far off base its not even close. jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the father except by me" no one has even come close to claiming those words. thanks for your time.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Well, actually there are so-called false prophets who also claim to be "the way, the truth, and the life" - and come to think of it, there are quite a few people impersonating Elvis these days, too. It also just occurred to me that there is a strange parallel between Matt. 15:26, Mark 7:27, and Elvis's "You ain't nothin' but a hound dog." As the author of the document says, uncanny.
[This message was in response to "The Trancendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God" by Michael Martin.]
I was just wondering why Mr. Martin cancelled his debate with Dr. Greg Bahnsen last year and instead waited until he was dead to respond to him. Just an observation.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Please read
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1996/may.html
Dear Sir,
You claim to be able to reason, to think rationally. The bible says no one is good.We're all guilty and no-good. There are no "sweet innocent children". That is exactly why we all desperately need Jesus...He's perfect;I,m not. How else will unrighteous people ever stand before a righteous God?
Internet Infidels' Response:
>Dear Sir,
You may want to be aware that the address 'infidel@www.infidels.org' goes to a group of people, not a single individual.
>You claim to be able to reason, to think rationally.
>
>The bible says no one is good. We're all guilty and no-good. There are no
>"sweet innocent children".
Whoa, Nelly!
It's a long way from 'The Bible says...' to 'It is so that...'. I realize that you may take anything the Bible says to be 'Truth', but please realize that there are many people who don't.
>That is exactly why we all
>desperately need Jesus...He's perfect;I,m not. How else will
>unrighteous people ever stand before a righteous God?
You're laboring under the false impression that I/we expect to need to 'stand before a righteous (or any other type of) God'.
We have no objections to answering questions or responding to comments from those who disagree with us, but if you're going to merely assume that we already agree with things we clearly don't, the discussion will go nowhere fast.
Care to try again?
I notice the home page is at Texas A&M. I'm in Pasadena. Good work, my first trip here.
I like your www-page very much it is very good readable, hope you will have in future similar good ideas!!
Best wishes to you from Austria
Dear Mr. Morgan:
I just finished reading the information on the bible and its many flaws at the Secular Web. I would like to express my gratitude to you for having made this material available to anyone who cares about the truth. Your biblical criticisms have provided me with the ammunition that I need to combat my friends who believe in biblical inerrancy but who have obviously not really taken a close look at the bible. Thank you very much.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thank you for the positive feedback. I appreciate it.
You will probably find that your inerrantist friends will use a very common inerrantist technique in defending inerrantism. I call it the "how it might have been" approach. These people will think of an ad hoc (for this purpose only) argument based on a possible explanation, no matter how far fetched, and then continue holding their inerrantist beliefs.
BTW, I used to be a fundamentalist myself. For some reason, I managed to hang onto the ability to critically analyse. I said to myself that I would one day look into the foundation of the Christian faith; I did, and that was the end of my belief.
First of all, the disclaimer. I do not wish to engage in a long drawn-out debate. I realize that I would not have the time nor the resources to spend in such a debate. I merely want to ask some questions.
Now for my questions ...
Isn't the lack of religion a religion in itself? I ask this because this was the same argument that an atheist used to challenge the doctrine against the teaching of evolution in the classes.
What's your opinion on court rulings which bar the expression of religion at the workplaces, in the schools, etc.? After all, if the quoting of religious leaders and theists like Martin Luther and Jesus of Nazareth is "taboo" in secular places, shouldn't the free quoting of Darwin, Neitzsche, and other humanists be considered an expression of the "religion of atheism"?
Internet Infidels' Response:
Please take a hard look at the question you asked: "Isn't the lack of religion a religion itself?" An affirmative answer to this question would be self-contradictory. If the lack of religion is a religion itself, then it can't really be a lack of religion.
I believe all of the Internet Infidels are in favor of seperation of church and state, but this does not mean that expression of religion must be barred from state institutions like public schools - it just means that the state cannot compell anyone to take part in religious acts. If a student wishes to pray in school, she may. Neither can the state force her to abstain from praying, nor can it force her to pray if she does not want to. To my knowledge, the quoting of religious leaders is not taboo anywhere.
hi. I want to first say I love your secular web pages, they're really an excellent resource. I was a bit disappointed at the completeness of some of it though, (unless the information doesn't exist, I'm not even sure) For example, I couldn't find an atheist organization at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where I'll be going to school this fall. Do you know if one exists? Or if you're too busy, how can I find out? I appreciate any help you can give.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I've forwarded your message onto the freethinkers group at UCCS.
[This message was in response to "The Dark Bible" by Unknown.]
sick blind you need gods help
[This message was in response to the December 1995 Feedback.]
I know a number of formerly nasty characters who now live better lives because of their religious conversion to faith in Christ. There is not much I would like to say to such people because it might destroy their faith and possibly their lives in the void left behind.
Do any of you infidels get what I am saying? The infidel pages are certainly not for everyone. Everyone is not ready for to much truth. Complications could destroy some people. Do you agree at all with this?
On the other hand your pages are a breath of fresh air to some fed up with lives of religious understanding and little else.
To whom it may concern,
I am a college junior at UW-Oshkosh. Last semester I took a class on science and creation. I found the debates semi interesting, but I found the way in which the debates are carried out extremely interesting.
Know I am studying the Scope's Trial. I am interesting in any information you can give me on the subject. Please tell me your area of expertise.
Scincerly,
Please review the Koran for something different.
Evidence to the authenticity of the Koran can be found at:
http://www.kuwait.net/~rws/proofs-t.htm
Start with parts 4,5, 9, and 10.
Just because you give up on the Bible does not mean the Wise creator has not left a clear guidance.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Hi! :)
You write...
>Please review the Koran for something different.
I have.
>Evidence to the authenticity of the Koran can be found at:
>http://www.kuwait.net/~rws/proofs-t.htm
>Start with parts 4,5, 9, and 10.
>Just because you give up on the Bible does not mean the Wise
>creator has not left a clear guidance.
This is true, and so I will do you justice by replying to each of parts 4, 5, 9, and 10.
#4. Written is, "So what is this evidence that Islam claims to present that is so convincing? The first issue is authenticity."
Let's suppose Mr. Green, the author of "Material on the Authenticity...," is correct, that is, the Quran of today is the same as that of fourteen or so centuries ago. The first thing that pops into my mind is, "Wow! That's pretty good." The second thing that pops in is, "Okay, but how does this show that the Quran is from God?"
Imagine, for a moment, that we have in hand a book written, say, fifteen hundred years ago. Moreover, the text is today as it was written all those centuries ago, i.e. all of it is verbatim. From this, should we conclude the book is from God? I can't imagine that merely because a book is old, and uncorrupted, i.e. "authentic", we must therefore think the book was written by God.
Now, you may claim that no book we know of has a record comparable to that of the Quran, is not as old nor is as uncorruputed. Whether this is true or not I do not know. I do suppose we have very old books that have remained uncorrupted, e.g. Shakespeare's plays and Milton's Paradise Lost, but we don't believe they were God-made. The point I'm driving at is that it is not impossible, and it's very probable, that humans can preserve and have preserved a text for centuries unlimited. I don't believe incorruptability is evidence of God, though it does speak volumes of man's ability to preserve objects of the past.
Of course, I've assumed that the Quran has remained uncorrupted. Is this really so? How much scholarship has been done in the area? I would refer you to a book titled Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq, who discusses this issue. I don't believe I can do justice to this topic, so I won't comment.
#5. Written is this challenge, "And if you are in doubt concerning that which we have sent down to our slave (Muhammad) then produce a chapter like it, and call your supporters and helpers besides Allah, if you are truthful!"
Actually, three different points were written in #5, and I'll address these in turn, this one first. I noticed that Mr. Green, to set aside possible refutations of the above challenge, wrote, "The challenge of the Quran for man to produce its like is not, as some suppose, merely like the uniqueness of Shakespeare, Shelly, Keats, or Homer." That is very unfair, because these works, like the Quran, are unique in their own ways. As Mr. Green, through the Quran, asks, "Is it possible for a person to create anything like the Quran?", it is indeed fair for me to ask, is it possible for a person to create anything like Hamlet? Why?
Again, like the Quran, Hamlet is unique in its own respects. The claim is the Quran is a book of law, and a history, and, some claim, is "sacred". Well, I won't dispute these, but I will mention that Hamlet is a play, that the actions and stage settings are to be interpreted by the players and audience, while the dialogue is to be kept as is: it is unique as plays go. Can you, or any man, produce its like? If not, must we then conclude it is the word of God?
You might reply, "The challenge was not made to us, but to the Arabs at the time. As Mr. Green said, 'Poetry in Arabic falls into sixteen different "Bihar" (rhythmic forms), and other than that they have the speech of soothsayers, rhyming prose, and normal speech. The Quran's form did not fall into any of these categories. It was this that made the Quran inimitable...'."
I would say, very good, the Arabs of the time did not know how to make up poetry as Muhammad did. I've never denied that Muhammad was a smart man, perhaps even brilliant, but this skill does not mean God was behind it all. Had Shakespeare with his wordy ways done the same, and told people his plays were from God and challenged them to produce their like, should we then believe him too? Not at all -- we know he was a man, a man with a gift, but a man nevertheless, a man who, as far as we know, did not receive revelation from God.
All in all, inability to reproduce a work does not necessarily imply God. At best it implies a certain amount of genius on the part of one (or a few), and a lack of ability on the part of many.
It was asked, "... how is it possible for an un-lettered and un-learned man, not versed in poetry, to be able to produce a work of eloquence and perfect rhetoric, so that even the assembled experts and masters of all forms poetry and the Arabic language were unable to produce its like?" You know, I often ask myself a similar question, "How can a man like Einstein, ignorant in so very many ways, come up with the General Theory of Relativity?" I'll say, the brains of human beings never cease to amaze me.
Being unlettered and unlearned (bookwise, anyway) is no indication of a lack of genius. Goodness, what makes Mr. Green suppose that the brilliant are something akin to PhDs in a field? Should we think that because Mozart didn't go to the University that his music is from God? Or that Edison's lightbulb was the kiss of an angel? Keats went to school, but his poetic ability was of substance no teacher could impart -- perhaps he was a prophet of God? Please tell me how lack of book-learning and genius put together is evidence of a higher power.
Written was, "If we examine analytically the claim of anyone to Prophethood then there are three possibilies concerning such a claim. The first is that the individual is a liar. The second possibility is that the individual ... is only suffering some form of delusion, and the third is that the individual is really receiving revelation, and is speaking the truth."
This, my friend, is what is called a "trilemma," where it is supposed that there could be only three possible explanations for an event or behavior. The Internet Infidels deal with this particular fallacy in Chapter 7 of The Jury Is In, which you may find at
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap7.html
Please read it.
#9. Green comments on the prophecies of the Quran. For example, "The Roman Empire has been defeated in a land close by; but they, even after this defeat, will gain victory in a few years."
Depending on the translation, we could say "Roman Empire," or we can say "Romans." Byzantium was no longer Roman but an empire unto itself, so the translation is a matter of controversy. But supposing it is not: given that the Prophet died after the said battles, what is to say he did not see both of these, then added this prophesy onto his already enormous number of sayings?
*Sigh* There are so many problems with prophesy, it's hard to know where to begin. I'd say the biggest problem, and the only one I'll mention here, is that there is little in the way of specificity, that is, revelations tend to be so general as to be able to interpret them as a person wants them to be interpreted. Disappearance of trustworthiness, increase in killing, decrease of religious knowledge -- these things are so mundane, and occur so often relative to the period and place, how can they possibly serve as revelation? Now, were the Prophet more specific, say, revealing that atomic bombs would be built by the United States during the Second World War -- now that's a revelation worthy of attention!
By the way, I'd like to see the references that support the claim that the Ark of Noah was found, as well as evidence to support that Jonah was swallowed by a fish and that Alexander died an old man -- two more events mentioned by the Quran.
#10. Written is, "The Quran is the last revelation, and a proof not only to the pagan Arabs one thousand four hundred years ago, but also to the scientists of today."
Let's look at these scientific wonders, shall we?
"1. The Accurate Description of Embryonic and Fetal
Deveopment."
Interesting that the author mentions Aristotle's beliefs
concerning female impregnation, but did not remark on the Philosopher's
discussion of the formation of a chicken (a very good analysis of
the
fetal cycle which is found in Book VI, Chapter three, The History of
Animals) or his discussion of semen found in On the Generation of
Animals. To tell the truth, more is to be gotten out
of Aristotle's work than from Sura 23:12-16, which is the quote
Green uses to support his claim. Green adds, "The Prophet further
explained the meaning of Nutfa as meaning both the male sperm and
the female ovum." Uh, okay, so where is the relevant passage?
Where exactly did the Prophet mention sperm and ovum?
Besides this, isn't it possible that the formation of the human animal would have been well-known by Muhammad's time? Even if he or other Arabs did not have access to the works of the Greeks and Romans (available centuries before he was alive,) I think we can safely assume that people knew women who had had miscarriages, possibly even abortions, knew of fetal animals, knew of sexual practices among men and women, and etc. It would not be hard for any person to guess that men and women were needed for procreation (why, didn't Adam and Eve know one another? Was she not a tilth unto him for which he was supposed to spread his seed?).
"2. Cosmology." There are a couple things mentioned in this passage, that of the origin of the universe, and that of the origin of life, "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united pice, then We parted them. And We have made from water every living thing." Actually, supposing one starts from a state of nothing and goes to a state of something, one must also suppose that the something must come from a common origin. The Hebrews, the Egyptians, even a number of Greeks believed this very same thing, before the Quran was written. And some Greeks believed the universe to have always existed. Heck, even today such controversy abounds -- no one can claim for sure that the universe is closed or open, if it had a definable beginning, was always here in a form of steady state, fluctuates, or whatnot. Much of it is still theory, but we hope to have an answer soon. So, why not ask Mr. Green to go out on a limb and state specifically, using the Quran, what the ultimate fate and beginning of the universe is -- we want to leave little room for doubt, you know.
Then there's the reference to the origin of life. It's interesting to note that Green made the reference to man being formed out of clay in his first evidence, and then points out that "every living thing" was made from water in his second evidence. What gives? But I digress. The Greeks had pretty much figured out creatures were of water -- Aristotle, for example, makes mention in his History that without moisture, living things would die. I'm afraid I do not see a hint of the divine in revealing that creatures are made "from water."
"3. Geology." Written is, "Have we not made the earth an expanse; and the mountains stakes? ... And Allah has cast into the ground mountains standing firm so that it does not shake with you." As I see it, this passage refutes the Quran in its knowledge of geology: mountains, if I recall, are the result of land masses pushing against one another, resulting in an upward force of mass which we call mountains. Therefore, it is incorrect to say the mountains were "cast into the ground" like "stakes"; I'd say mountains are more like two globs of clay mushed together, squeezed so hard they squirt outward from the hands that press them together. Depending on the reference point, we would say the mountains are pushed "up", not thrust "in" (though it is possible we might say similar "mountains" grow "down", causing roots, eh?)
"4. Animal and Plant life." Feminine bees? C'mon, that seems to be stretching a point: the passage Green refers to (Sura 16:68) does not state that bees are girls. The passage appears to be along the lines of that quirk of Romance languages: genderizing sentences and words. What, because the Spanish for "day" is "dia", a feminine word, must we conclude that the day is a woman (this might be good for poetry, but as for fact...)?
Then there's the passage, "We send forth winds that fecundate." Who's to say what this passage means? There's no mention of pollen or of the reproductive cycles of plants: it seems Green is putting more into the passage than is there.
"5. Atomism." It's good seeing Green mentioning Democritus. However, he equates the "atom" of Democritus to that of modern science, then implies Democritus as wrong. As far as Green knows, Democritus could as well have been describing quarks and other particles smaller than what we refer to as the atom: merely because we take the word "atom" from the Greek does not make the atom Democritus described the same as that of modern science. Democritus used the term "atom" to mean "tiny, indivisible particle," not "particle made of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc."
Also, Green does a disservice to the reader by stating that the Quran makes mention of particles smaller than what we coin the "atom". Green wrote the passage (34:3) as, "He is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth, and even anything smaller than that ...." This translation is more satisfactory:
"... not the weight of an atom becomes absent from Him, in the heavens or in the earth, and neither less than that nor greater, but (all) is in a clear book ..."
This passage is a far cry from the translation Green proposes. Could Green be fitting the evidence to the theory?
"6. Dermatology." I do not know how the passage even relates to science.
"7. The Water Cycle." Yep, the Greeks did not get everything right. And it's awesome the Arabs were correct. Still, nothing but good human observation need account for this (I mean, goodness, they lived in an arid region and all -- where else would the water come from?)
There appears to be a running assumption throughout all of these arguments, friend: that illiteracy means ignorance. Green writes this passage towards the end of #10, "Muhammad was a very ordinary man, he couldn't read, didn't know how to write, in fact was an illiterate ... we're talking about 1400 years ago you have some illiterate person making profound pronouncements and statements that are accurate of a scientific nature." Okay, so what? Is Green implying that a person cannot learn from experience, that an illiterate man is doomed to a state of ignorance and stupidity? I don't know that it follows.
These are my initial thoughts concerning the aforementioned chapters, 4, 5, 9, and 10, of 'Abdur-Raheem Green's Material on the Authenticity of the Quran and Proofs that it is a Revelation of Almighty God. In time I'll look at the other chapters, and I may express my thoughts concerning these as well. May your days always be happy.
You are one sick puppy.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Urf!
[This message was in response to "Josh McDowell's 'Evidence' For Jesus -- Is It Reliable?" by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
You e mailed me some time ago to ask my opinion of your study of the works of Josh McDowell. I am sorry that it has taken so long for me to reply to your message. I have been rather busy and needed some time to read your page before responding to your request. Frankly, I do not have a high regard for McDowell and his work. I have a copy of his book, but everytime that I begin to read it, I wind up turning to something with more substance. As an Orthodox Christian, I cannot get into his rationalistic theology. My beliefs are more mystical and do not require rational proof. I believe because I have felt the mystical presence of Christ in my life. I cannot prove it to you or anyone else. I can only share my beliefs and experiences and let you draw your own conclusions. I really doubt that many secular historians doubt that Jesus existed. However the field of secular history provides no way to assess either way the teachings of the Gospels. Historians can discover what the ancient Church believed about Jesus, but have no real sources that could allow us to prove or disprove the teachings of the Gospels. What interests historians is not the reliability of the Gospels but the impact of Jesus Christ on history. Like it or not, the Jesus Christ of the Gospels and the ancient Church is the Jesus Christ who had an impact on history, not the so called historical Jesus constructed by some Biblical Scholars.
I do have some problems with your statement of the historical method. History is not a science and does not follow the same methods as a science. We do not develop a hypothesis and then test it. We study the best sources we can find and develop our conclusions from the sources. Thus our method is different form the scientific method used in the experimental sciences. You cannot recreate the French Revolution and study it in a lab. You can read material about the French Revolution and look at eyewitness accounts and documents from the French Revolution and then draw your conclusions from these sources.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thank you for your message. It certainly emphasizes the importance of correctly understanding and applying the historical method. However, I never claimed -- nor do I believe -- that history is a science. Rather, I claimed that all historical inquiry starts with a question and that the historian's job is to answer such questions with verified empirical statements. This is not the same thing as recreating an historical event in a laboratory. A laboratory experiment, by its very nature, is repeatable. A historical event is not. So I don't think you have fairly represented my understanding of the historical method.
I heard the voice of many waters shouting STRONG IS THE LORD GOD WHO JUDGES BABYLON, and I heard the still small voice of our living Lord and Savior Jesus Christ saying, "The nations are drunk on Babylon's wine; therefore the nations are deranged." Can you respond to these experiences?
You guys are great. Thank you. It's such a refreshing change since living in the highly racist, bigoted, bible banging, christian South.
P.S.
I
thought the civil war was over.
(My computer is acting up, I hope you get this intact)
You have commited blasphemy against God! I pray that God will touch you in such a way that you will fall on your knees and confess that he is real. Repent while there is still time.
If you have questions you may write to me, or you can visit my web page.
Hi. I was just browsing and noticed your listing in the atheist section. As the publisher of Mind Matters Review, of course I am always interested in finding new resources and information to educate readers about atheism and the values it embodies. I am happy to find atheists on the Internet for my own personal edification. It is a wonderful resource for networking as a way to learn how atheists can collectively promote their own interests, politically, in assuring the separation of church and state for future generations.
I look forward to establishing new contacts here.
you dont now what are you taking about
Internet Infidels' Response:
And you "dont now" [sic] how to spell.
[This message was in response to " The Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection" by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
I thought I'd stop by your web page before replying to your e-mail re: historical evidence on Jesus, and I'm glad I did. I wasn't able to tell your religious beliefs from your posts on soc.religion.christian, and had assumed that you were a Christian apologist. Some of the best evidence for Jesus' existence is potentially embarrassing for Christianity, and I wasn't sure whether to include it; I've been flamed by "Christians" for presenting it in previous debates.
Anyway, I read your article on the debate over the resurrection, and I agree with your conclusion that a rational person can either accept or reject the historicity of the resurrection. Now that I have an idea of where you're coming from, I'll give you a short explanation of where I'm coming from. (And I'll try to reply to the e-mail by tomorrow.) I grew up agnostic, converted to fundamentalist Christianity as a teenager, saw my cherished beliefs destroyed one by one when I was in college (a Christian college, no less), and discovered at the end that, though my faith was based on nothing concrete, it was as strong as it had ever been.
My interest in the historical Jesus is purely academic; I don't think it is possible to base one's faith or lack of faith on the physical evidence (or lack thereof) alone. IMV, the historical evidence of Jesus' existence is stronger than that of nearly any figure from antiquity; the evidence for the empty tomb is also compelling. There is no reliable historical evidence for the resurrection -- the empty tomb is not enough in itself, and the proclamation of Jesus' followers does not necessarily imply a physical resurrection. I suppose my beliefs on the resurrection are most similar to the views of the late John A.T. Robinson (author of Honest to God and But That I Can't Believe -- good stuff, if you're interested in looking at diverse viewpoints) -- the resurrection is "true" in the sense that it has made a difference in the lives of millions of individuals; whether or not it is "historical" is not the real issue.
Anyway, I always enjoy discussing these issues, and I love a good debate, though I don't care much for apologetics. If you'd like to discuss anything I've mentioned here, just drop me a line.
The world has really gone to pot due to the oppressive domination of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. Just think how much freer the world would be if those 6 million people were not here. Religion could once again flower to provide true insight and tranquility for all mankind. Jehovah's Witnesses cause war, crime, breakdown in morality, strife, racism and they teach religious intolerance. They have the audacity to go to people outside of their religion. What arrogance to try and teach people about the bible. Where do they get off preaching the bible to people.
Sometimes I feel so alone being an atheist. I am surrounded by those who just "know" there is a god... I have tried so hard to believe but I have finally accepted my intelligence and "came out of the closet" and expressed my atheism. You would think that I went from a white male to a black female in one day the way my family reacts as well as friends. I just got tired of hearing them talking about god like "he" was going to come save them if they prayed hard enough... like someone has really ever been helped by praying hard enough, I guess we don't pray hard enough, hehe. Heck, we all die eventually and it is OK to die just as it is OK to be born... people just can't accept that and have a meaningful life as well without thinking they are going to live forever. But all of this thinking still doesn't help my loneliness on this. The worst is my wife... I won't delve into that one.
thanks
Dear sirs:
I realize that you are not in a position to answer individual questions about research subjects at length. However, I trust that my request is simple and brief enough. I would really appreciate it if you could please tell me where I can find further biographical and/or bibliographical information on Charles Bradlaugh.
By the way, I also wish to congratulate you for your interesting, well-planned, and informative site. I found the historical section to be an intellectual treat (but I also had a good laugh at your humor section). Keep up the good work. Society desperately needs freethinkers and skeptics now more than ever. Humanity faces great challenges, and it can only succeed if it embraces reason and logical thought, discarding superstition and ignorance in all its forms (including established religion).
Internet Infidels' Response:
Consult the following:
Gordon Stein, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1980), pp. 7-8.
Thank you for your efforts to bring this information to light. I previously had no way to find anything concering the other side of the story. This, in spite of hearing how the christian side of the story is suppressed.
Anyway, keep up the good work and thanks again.
[This message was in response to "Josh McDowell's 'Evidence' For Jesus -- Is It Reliable?" by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
These are some very good points. Frame makes a similar point about the Ligonier (R.C.Sproul) apologetic when he writes that proving that the New Testament documents have integrity and constancy over time does not prove that what they say is true. I also like your point about probability -- I (Frame, too) still have not fully sorted out my thoughts on probability arguments...
I would say "keep up the good work", but I'm sure you could see how unusual that would be!! But exposing bad scholarship is _always_ called for -- bad arguments should never serve as servants of the truth.
Take Care of yourself,
I saw your list and could't believe that Freud wasn't there. The man who wrote The future of a Ilusion never could desapear in a list like that.
Internet Infidels' Response:
>I saw your list and could't believe that Freud
>wasn't there. The man who wrote The future of
>a Ilusion never could desapear in a list like that.
Unfortunately, "The Future Of An Illusion" is not available on the web, and nobody has volunteered to transcribe it for us. If you would be willing to prepare a plaintext electronic version of "Future", we would be more than happy to HTMLize it and make it available on the Secular Web.
Thanks for your message. Take care!
Sincerely,
I liked your newsletter. I was taking some time to find some other freethinkers on the web and was very impressed with your URL. Thanks for setting up something that is needed on the web.
[This message was in response to " Prophesy Fulfilled in History" by Stephen Carr.]
The first prophecy cited in Genesis 3:15-16 refers to "her seed." The "seed of woman" is considered a reference to the virgin birth, since normally, "seed" derives from the man. May be considered a bit of a stretch, but from a worldview where the background probability of such prophecies is high, it is perfectly reasonable that God would make known his plan for redemption (though in a somewhat obscure fashion) at the very beginning of the need for redemption.
Internet Infidels' Response:
>The first prophecy cited in Genesis 3:15-16 refers
>to "her seed." The "seed of woman" is
>considered a reference to the virgin birth, since normally,
>"seed" derives from the man.[...]
The "seed of woman" is considered a reference to the virgin birth only by Christians. Jews (who also canonize the book of Genesis, as do Christians) do not consider this a reference to the virgin birth; indeed, the very concept of a "virgin birth" is unknown in Jewish thought. Neither Gen. 3:15-16 nor Isa. 7:14 (the other verse commonly thought to refer to the virgin birth) has ever been interpreted as referring to a virgin birth by anybody but Christians-- and with the rise of biblical scholarship, even many Christians are abandoning this interpretation.
Sincerely,
May I ask you a couple of questions?
What DO you believe is the truth about Jesus Christ?
And just as important...
Why do you believe it? (please do not disapoint me)
Feel free to answer at your leasure (sp?).
Sincerely,
[This message was in response to "The Philosophical Case for Extinction of the Personality at Death" by Keith Augustine.]
I just read part of your essay. I was a little disappointed. Your arguments pander to the same logic that religious zealots cling too. Namely if you can quote something in print(in their case the bible, in your case an assortment of undergraduate philosophy texts) then it must be true. To me atheism is not about disproving the existence of god, it is the quest to find a meaning and an intrinsic value in life without having to bow down to an imaginary higher being. If your point was to use science to prove that man is the sum of his parts, then I think you should have included some science.
Internet Infidels' Response:
>I just read part of your essay. I was a little disappointed. Your
>arguments pander to the same logic that religious zealots cling too.
>Namely if you can quote something in print(in their case the bible, in
>your case an assortment of undergraduate philosophy texts) then it must
>be true. To me atheism is not about disproving the existence of god, it
>is the quest to find a meaning and an intrinsic value in life without
>having to bow down to an imaginary higher being. If your point was to
>use science to prove that man is the sum of his parts, then I think you
>should have included some science.
I did. You should have read the last two essays (namely, The Scientific Case for Extinction of the Personality at Death and The Scientific Case Against Immortality) before responding. The purpose of the Philosophical Case for Extinction of the Personality at Death was to cover all bases regarding the immortality question--in this case, the philosophical issues surrounding the question.
Regards,
[This message was in response to "50 Fun Things For Non-Christians To Do In Church" by David Henley.]
It would be more fun if you read the Bible from beginning to end, instead of being rude. It's not very nice some of the things you put on your list. And, maybe I did not have to read it, and I also did not read but only a couple lines. But, you should not be so rude publicly, and you really should feel bad that you wrote some of that stuff.
If you don't like it...why not leave? There's plenty of pagan states that would be glad to have you.
Don't foget...
"In God We Trust"
Hope your employer doesn't pay you very much - I'd hate to think of the pain it causes having that expression in your pocket!!
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
Hi! :)
You write...
>If you don't like it...why not leave? There's plenty of pagan states
>that would be glad to have you.
Nah. That'd be a bore. Instead I want to see how much more successful I can be than the Christians in conquering the hearts and minds of men. Taking my cue from those wonderful followers of the Lord, who in earlier centuries plopped their butts in the midst of pagan America, and over time either converted or killed most of the natives, I want to show these same Christians a different, brighter, and better way of life. Only I want to do it without resorting to force and coercion: I take most individuals to be reasonable to some extent, and with reason I'll make human beings out of 'em. No sireebob, there's nothing like being situated as I am, in the heart of Christiandom, with decades of life ahead of me with which to help people excel in their persons, overcome their fears, and finally lay the Old Man to rest. =)
>Don't foget...
>"In God We Trust"
>Hope your employer doesn't pay you very much - I'd hate to think of
>the pain it causes having that expression in your pocket!!
Oh no, it's not painful at all. Every time I put it near my butt or my crotch I snicker. Then there's the humor of placing God on mammon -- gawd I laugh myself silly sometimes. :)
(Only in America is it possible to serve two masters at once. We sure showed Christ didn't we?)
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
One of the best things about America is that everyone is guaranteed freedom of religion by the First Amendment. In fact, it was because of my respect and gratitude for the Bill of Rights that I decided to serve my country in the military. I would give my life in battle so that others -- including Christians like you -- would still have freedom of religion. And I didn't have to say, "So Help Me God," at the end of my oath, either. I have known many atheists who are either active duty military or retired military, and none of us have any intention of leaving this great country.
[This message was contributed by Ken Saladin on the subject of Rapid and Observed Speciation.]
>Wonderful. I'll be sure to obtain a copy of the debate. This is the
first
>bit of assisitance which I was going to ask (I wanted to refresh myself on
>the techniques which the Creationists use).
This is the 1988 debate, and my mention of the wallabies came from our 1984 debate which is not posted on the Web.
>One of the standard claims by the Creationists is that there are no
>observed cases of evolution occuring. However, somewheres in the back of my
>mind I recall about some Wallabys which escaped on one of the Hawaiian
>islands and have evolved the ability to digest plants found on that
island.
Yes, in 1916 a pair of wallabies escaped from a zoo in Oahu. They survived, bred, and produced a wild population. These wallabies are now smaller and lighter colored than the ancestral stock in Australia, they eat Hawaiian plants that are toxic to the Australian wallabies, and they have evolved a new liver enzyme that detoxifies this food. They are apparently too genetically different from the Australian wallabies now to interbreed with them, so this would qualify them genetically as a new species that has arisen through geographic isolation (allopatric speciation) just since 1916.
I regret that I don't know where I found this information. It was obtained when I was preparing for my 1983 debate and I made note of it in my "Debate Briefing Book" without attribution. I vaguely recall that I might have read it in some sort of science news or popularized science magazine such as Discovery, Omni, or Science News , but I'm not sure that is correct.
The following are some other cases of observed or rapid speciation that I have made note of since 1984, but not had occasion to use in my debates to date. I have better notes on my sources of these examples. Examples from the same source are separated by lines like the one above.
I found most of these cases as I was doing research for my 1984 debate and put them in the Debate Briefing Book that I prepared then, and in my card file of debate rebuttal information to which I converted the briefing book for the 1988 debate. I corresponded often with Stanley Weinberg and others in the early 1980s and shared these examples then. Weinberg summarized these cases in Creation/Evolution Newsletter. Arthur Strahler then got them from there and he discusses some of them in his book, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Prometheus, 1987), p. 397-398. In my opinion Strahler's book is the best single source of concise rebuttal material.
There are some caveats about these examples following the list.
* * * * *
HYBRID POPPIES
One mechanism of speciation in nature is hybridization. Although animal hybrids are usually sterile or subfertile, plant hybrids are less often so. This is therefore more likely to give rise to a bona fide species in plants. The poppies, Papaver nudicaule and P. striatocarpum, for example, produce a hybrid species that is fully fertile within itself but cannot be bred back with either parental species.
EUROPEAN MARSH GRASS
In the early 20th century a new species of marsh grass (Spartina) appeared spontaneously in western Europe and was so successful the Dutch used it to reclaim land from the sea. It was determined to be a polyploid resulting from a cross between the original European Spartina and a species accidentally introduced from America. In some areas the new polyploid species virtually replaced the European species.
APPLES AND PEARS
Huxley also points out that apples and pears clearly have evolved from other members of the rose family by the addition or subtraction of a single chromosome.
Source: Julian Huxley, On Living in a Revolution, Harper & Row 1944, pp. 90-91.
* * * * *
FAEROE ISLAND HOUSE MOUSE On Faeroe Island there is a house mouse that was introduced about 250 years ago. It has since evolved and become so distinctive from the ancestral stock that some authorities place it in a new subspecies, Mus musculus faroensis.
Source: Julian Huxley, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, Allen & Unwin 1942.
* * * * *
CALIFORNIA CRUSTACEAN
An artificial sea named the Salton Sea was constructed in California in 1905-1907. By 1934 it was populated with a unique species of copepod (a microcrustacean), now named Cyclops dimorphus. This is the appearance of a new species in less than 30 years.
M. W. Johnson, 1953. "The copepod Cyclops dimorphus Kiefer from the Salton Sea." American Midland Naturalist. 49:188-192.
* * * * *
DEATH VALLEY PUPFISH
Pleistocene glaciers retreated from what is now the western U.S. 20,000 - 30,000 years ago and left behind many lakes and streams. Many of these now have their own indigenous species of pupfish (Cyprinodon spp.). They are so divergent that a taxonomist unfamiliar with their common origin would probably classify them not only into separate species, but separate genera.
J. H. Brown, 1971, "The desert pupfish," Scientific American, 225(5, November):104-110.
* * * * *
HAWAIIAN BANANA MOTHS
The Polynesians introduced bananas to the Hawaiian Islands about 1,000 years ago. No banana-like plants existed in Hawaii before then. In that thousand years, five species of moths (Hedylepta spp.) have evolved that feed exclusively on the banana plants. These are not introduced species but trace their ancestry to other Hawaiian moths. They are closely related to other species of this genus that feed on palms. One of the palm-feeding Hedylepta species occasionally feeds on bananas, suggesting an ancestor to those than now feed on bananas exclusively.
E. C. Zimmerman, 1960, "Possible evidence of rapid evolution in Hawaiian moths", Evolution 14:137-138.
* * * * *
POLAR BEARS
The polar bear Thalarctos maritimus evolved from the brown bear Ursus arctos within the last 20,000 to 40,000 years. It is so distinct that it warrants a separate genus. It is exclusively carnivorous (the only bear that is so), has a distinct dentition, and is semiaquatic. The fossil record extends back to 40,000 years and this is one good case where the ancestral species (the brown bear) is still living. This belies the common creationist chestnut that if one species gives rise to another the first species must go extinct.
AFRICAN CICHLID FISH
Radiocarbon dating establishes that a sand bar cut Lake Nabugabo off from Lake Victoria about 4,000 years ago. Since then, five new species of cichlid fish (Haplochromis spp.) have evolved in Lake Nabugabo. Each resembles a different parental species that still survives in Lake Victoria, yet each is as different from its Victorian ancestor as the Victorian cichlids are from each other. Lake Victoria itself is 500,000 to 700,000 years old and has 170 very different species of cichlids (illustration in Stanley p. 46).
Steven M. Stanley, 1979, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, W. H. Freeman, p. 86.
* * * * *
Knowing creationist mentality as we do, we can easily anticipate the objections they would raise to some of the above examples, like they way they dismiss the peppered moth and other industrial melanism cases as mere microevolution. We must be careful not to argue examples like this too dogmatically or blind ourselves to the counterarguments. If we post these somewhere with an air of certitude and creationists quickly pick them apart, then the credibility of our future arguments is harmed. So it is necessary to be prepared for the obvious objections, and to qualify our claims with such statements as "the most reasonable interpretation of this is..." or "this strongly suggests that...."
The most problematical objection is that, of course, biologists were not at the scene to record these cases of speciation. One could not prove beyond all possible refutation that the Salton Sea copepod was not introduced there from some yet-undiscovered population elsewhere, and the Hawaiian banana moths clearly APPEAR to be evolved from the Hawaiian palm moths, but I suppose some pigheaded creationist could argue that we can't PROVE they weren't introduced from elsewhere. Strahler at loc. cit. gives some additional examples of observed speciation or claims thereof, but is admirably cautious in pointing out which of these are at least "problematical" or vulnerable arguments for our side.
The argument is disingenuous, of course. The evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of rapid speciation in these cases, and anything else is just an ad hoc hypothesis with nothing to back it up -- a "you can't prove there aren't unicorns on the dark side of the moon" sort of argument. Even if we know of some cases where new species seem to be evolving right now (incipient speciation), what biologist is going to go there and take notes for the next 100, 300, or 1,000 years and then try cross-breeding the species at that time to see if they have become genetically isolated?
Hope this helps.
Ladies and Gentlemen!
whilst surfing the net, I came across your page, and read with interest the various articles written by your correspondents. I would, in particular, like to respond to Alex Matulich's statement in particular, and then, with your permission, make some more general statements:
Alex Matulich wrote in the March 1996 feedback page:
Creationists often think that the only way to support their belief is to find flaws in evolution. They can't find support for creationism, that's for sure. What they don't realize is that proving evolution wrong no more supports creationism than it would support the myths of other cultures which are at odds with the Christian beliefs. To many creationists, it is more important that evolution be wrong than for Christianity to be right. These, in my mind, are screwed-up mentally-corrupt people not worthy of the term "Christian," and fortunately don't represent the majority Christian viewpoint.
The Christian doctrine of "Creation" is one taken by faith - this is clearly laid down in Hebrews 11v3. I therefore never try and convince people that "Creationism" is right since it is a faith position. It cannot be scientifically proven one way or the other since it is a "miracle". A miracle is, by definition, outside the scope of scientific validation. ASIDE: This question of miracles is unanswerable: IF God did not perform miracles THEN the cynic would rightly wonder whether God existed. IF God does perform miracles, THEN the cynic tries to explain it away (and there will always be other explanations)
Creation is an historical event rather than a "scientific" event or process. Science and history have differing methods of validation. As a Christian, I am "up front" about this. I also try and follow the debate on these matters to test to see if my beliefs need modifying or discarding. (one of my recent purchases is "The Blind Watchmaker" / Dr. Richard Dawkins!)
It may be of distress to the evolutionary movement that eventually, the philosophy of the science that they hold in such esteem, also rests on unprovable suppositions which too require faith. I would argue that they require more faith than me...however, what I, and many others object to most strongly is not so much that people believe evolutionary theory, but the way in which it is "downloaded" to the public as wholly proven, signed, sealed, and settled, when, even amongst secular scientists, there is still much to be discovered and argued. I would suspect that it is this extreme that leads to extreme reaction at the other end of the debate. Many of your correspondents lambast Christians for brainwashing, deceit, hypocrisy etc. I would quietly suggest to the sceptic that a peek at your own house might be in order.
I am also somewhat wary of the evoluionary approach since it seems to state its case in both a scientific, and an historic context, both of which have completely different methods of validation. Scripture as a whole must stand or fall according to the yardstick by which other historic documents are judged.
It is, I think, rather ironic that the very thing the Bible has stated is the most obvious evidence of the existence of God has been taken to be the very proof of his non-existence.
Also, in Mr. Matulich's response, we have the emotional - but nonetheless qualified - outburst that some of those in my position are "screwed-up" and "mentally-corrupt". I am interested in sensible debate on the issues, and, frankly, see no point in making sweeping, and scoffing remarks like those. I note too, some of the other caustic and juvenile comments that appear on your list. It debases the debate and does ones cause no good if the argument has been reduced to such. It is true of course, that the denial of evolution would be so cataclysmic to the humanist/atheist cause that it is unthinkable - the image that comes to mind whilst reading some of these hysterical outbursts is Kuhn's view of beating nature into line with ones beliefs... Maybe this generates such responses! (For those "waverers" who read this list, this vested interest is a fact worth bearing in mind.)
Mr. Matulich would like evidence of creation. If you want evidence of creation, just look outside to see. It is there for all to see, in all its complexity and glory... (bits of it are perhaps a little less glorious than others!)
I find the whole debate on "evidence" very interesting but somewhat futile. As a school student, I once brought in a huge pile of books in response to questions from fellow students questioning the validity of the Christian faith. It came as no surprise that hardly any attention was paid to them. I was recently talking with a colleague who is a committed evolutionist and humanist and told him his problem was not one of evidence. He admitted that even if he had been present when Christ performed some of his miracles, he would not have believed. This is not surprising since there were plenty of doubters there at the time too. In my experience, evidence is not the problem. In very many instances, it is more a problem of the will rather than the mind. In any case, "evidence" is nothing without interpretation, and there will always be far more of the latter than the former! Virtually every historical "fact" is the subject of differing views, so for those looking for clear-cut evidences that do not generate any questions or debate, it is likely to be a long, and very possibly fruitless search.
As a final point, I have thought a bit on the problems God faces. I would like to pose the following problem. The problem assumes
a)
the existence of God
b) the existence of fallen Man
c) the existence of Hell
d) the destiny of unregenerate man to an unpleasant eternity in (c)
i.e. a "thumbnail sketch" of the Christian view of Man's predicament.
and the problem is this: Given a - d above, how would God set about providing a way out of (d) under the following circumstances?
1)
Man has free will which must not be violated.
Man
must
have a genuine choice to accept or reject the solution
2) The solution must be universal - that is, not based on merit,
education, learning, wealth, or anything like that - so that
no-one need be excluded, and everyone has _equal_ opportunity
3) God's own standards cannot be violated - that is, the solution cannot
be a "turning a blind eye" or suchlike.
I would argue that given these criteria, Christianity is a reasonable set of beliefs to hold, and IF the state of man is as described (and I obviously believe that it is!), THEN God's solution to the problem is a reasonable and tremendously encouraging one that benefits all who care to take it on. To view the Bible in a purely scientific guise, whilst legitimate as far as it can be viewed thus, will be on the whole, unfulfilling and pointless. It is not a scientific text book, and makes no claim to be so. Where it does touch on science, as far as I am aware it does not conflict with true science e.g. a round earth etc... However, it is far more concerned with more weighty issues that concern people.
I have rambled quite enough, but could say a lot more...
Regards
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments on my essay. I fear you took some things out of context, however, but that's understandable because the context was unclear to begin with. In any case, it is refreshing to see such a well-thought-out reply rather than the judgmental sermonizing I often receive.
I will address some of your comments below. You may be surprised that I am mostly in agreement with you.
>The Christian doctrine of "Creation" is one taken by faith
- this
is
>clearly laid down in Hebrews 11v3. I therefore never try and convince
>people that "Creationism" is right since it is a faith
position.
I agree with you. I'm a bit puzzled that you appeared to be responding to my essay on D. James Kennedy's book Why I Believe (judging by one of the header lines in your email), but I never made the statement above in that essay. I recall I wrote the above in response to email from someone else, and the people at the Secular Web must have published it somewhere. In their "feedback" pages perhaps?
I realize I made a mistake in writing the above statement in such sweeping terms. I certainly did not mean to imply that ALL creationists fit the caricature I describe above. However, most of the most vocal ones do, and I have read many. D. James Kennedy's book is probably one of the more extreme examples. I did make it clear in that essay that I do not consider him representative of all creationists, and I regret that I neglected to include such a disclaimer above.
>It cannot be scientifically proven one way or the other since it
>is a "miracle". A miracle is, by definition, outside the scope
>of scientific validation. ASIDE: This question of miracles is
>unanswerable:
I agree that creationism cannot be scientifically proven. However, the so-called "scientific creationists" at the ICR would disagree. And THOSE are the creationists I refer to when I use the term "creationists."
>IF God did not perform miracles THEN the cynic would rightly
>wonder whether God existed. IF God does perform miracles, THEN the
>cynic tries to explain it away (and there will _always_ be other
>explanations)
Reminds me of something Arthur C Clarke said, about one man's magic being another man's technology. History is replete with examples of science discovering explanations for phenomena that could not be explained previously. I see no reason why this trend shouldn't continue.
Also, your argument in your last 2 sentences above presupposes that God exists.
>Creation is an historical event rather than a "scientific"
event or
>process. Science and history have differing methods of validation. As
>a Christian, I am "up front" about this. I also try and follow
the
>debate on these matters to test to see if my beliefs need modifying
>or discarding. (one of my recent purchases is "The Blind
Watchmaker"
>/
Dr. Richard Dawkins!)
I commend you on your self-education. I do the same thing. I have read many creationist works, starting with Kennedy's. I was unprepared, initially, for the rampant dishonesty I encountered. My education is scientific, and I am accustomed to reading things that have gone through some sort of reality-checking (for example peer-review). I was deeply shocked to learn that misquotations, invented sources, out of date citations, logical fallacies, selective choosing of evidence, gross distortions, and outright lies appear to be standard fare in much popular creationist literature. All I had to do was track down the references cited, which many scientists commonly do when looking at the writings of other scientists. Someone from Kennedy's organization told me, concerning my critique of his book, that his research staff was "shocked" that someone would do this to "challenge" the book. My reaction was: THIS is a "research" staff?
>It may be of distress to the evolutionary movement that eventually,
>the philosophy of the science that they hold in such esteem, also
>rests on unprovable suppositions which too require faith. I would
>argue that they require more faith than me...however,
You'd have a tough argument to make. The "faith" in science basically says that all observable phenomena can be explained, that mathematics is a valid tool, that logic is a valid tool, that the laws we discover work the same throughout history. These articles of faith certainly are not as demanding of one's credulity as the faith demanded of many religions.
>what I, and many others object to most strongly is not so much that
>people believe evolutionary theory, but the way in which it is
>"downloaded" to the public as wholly proven, signed, sealed, and
>settled, when, even amongst secular scientists, there is still much
>to
be discovered and argued.
I, too, agree that evolution is not presented correctly to the public. Students come out of high school with a most abysmal education in what evolution truly is. (Part of the reason, ironically, is due in part to creationists influencing curriculums, and in many cases teachers won't touch the subject.) I understand from correspondence with others that this problem is most prevalent in the U.S.
Nearly all scientists will tell you that NO scientific theory is EVER proven. A theory is either falsified (proven false) or merely corroborated, NOT proven in the sense of mathematics. It so happens that the theories making up the body of knowledge we call "evolution" have been so strongly corroborated with so much cross-support from many diverse disciplines, that it is "accepted" by scientists as a true working model for practical purposes (those purposes being making predictions and devising tests of new hypotheses).
>I would suspect that it is this extreme that leads to extreme
>reaction at the other end of the debate. Many of your correspondents
>lambast Christians for brainwashing, deceit, hypocrisy etc. I would
>quietly suggest to the sceptic that a peek at your own house might be
>in order.
You are mistaken. We lambast Creationists, not Christians. It so happens that most Christians have no problems with evolution, as is evidenced from official statements given by various churches and church leaders (Episcopal, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and others - See "Voices for Evolution", edited by Betty McCollister, National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, CA, 1989. ISBN 0-939873-51-6. I can provide some quotes if you wish).
>I am also somewhat wary of the evoluionary approach since it seems to
>state its case in both a scientific, and an historic context, both of
>which have completely different methods of validation. Scripture as
>a whole must stand or fall according to the yardstick by which other
>historic documents are judged.
Two problems in those last 2 sentences: First, the methods of validation between history and science are not all that different; in fact, often the same tools are used (for example, radioisotope dating). Secondly, evolution does not concern itself with scripture, so I don't see how it can be used to "judge" it. If anything, creationists judge evolution with their own interpretation of scripture, not the other way round, in my experience. Why else would the ICR require their "scientists" to sign an oath stating that their conclusions will be pre-determined regardless of the evidence? Such a practice is alien to science.
>Also, in Mr. Matulich's response, we have the emotional - but
>nonetheless qualified - outburst that some of those in my position
>are "screwed-up" and "mentally-corrupt".
I don't usually see creationist writings that would lead me to any other conclusion. As I said, my statement was not intended to be all-inclusive. I apologize if you were offended by it - you don't sound like the sort of creationist I mean when I use the word "creationist."
>I am interested in sensible debate on the issues, and, frankly, see
>no point in making sweeping, and scoffing remarks like those. I note
>too, some of the other caustic and juvenile comments that appear on
>your list. It debases the debate and does ones cause no good if the
>argument has been reduced to such.
I agree.
>It is true of course, that the denial of evolution would be so
>cataclysmic to the humanist/atheist cause that it is
unthinkable
This is false. There were atheists around long before Darwin. And even after, most evolutionists were Christian. Evolution is easy to disprove - just find a collection of insect fossils in precambrian rock, for example. The evidence already available is so vast and strongly cross-corroborating that evolution can be treated as fact for all practical purposes. Believe me, humanists and athiests are not concerned at all. What concerns me is when people try to use a religious dogma to distort science to their own purposes.
>Mr. Matulich would like evidence of creation. If you want evidence of
>creation, just look outside to see. It is there for all to see, in
>all its complexity and glory... (bits of it are perhaps a little less
>glorious than others!)
I have done so. I see the glorious evidence of a great evolutionary process all around me. Everything I see has a natural explanation. If I have to choose between a sensible explanation versus taking refuge in intelligent design, I'll choose the sensible explanation. To me, giving up and claiming "God did it" is an intellectual cop-out.
>I find the whole debate on "evidence" very interesting but
somewhat
>futile.
At times so do I. There are many people who will hold fast to their faith no matter what the evidence suggests. I myself have abandoned faith, and I accept evidence.
>As a final point, I have thought a bit on the problems God faces.
>I would like to pose the following problem. The problem assumes
>
>a) the existence of God
>b) the existence of fallen Man
>c) the existence of Hell
>d) the destiny of unregenerate man to an unpleasant eternity in
(c)
You make a valid argument. Valid arguments can still be unsound if the premises are false, however. I have not seen any Christian so far (and I have read some good apologists like William Lane Craig) advance any good reasons for me to accept your four premises above as true. The argument usually boils down to blind faith, or circular references to the Bible.
As a final point, I would like to suggest that a Christian is nearly an atheist anyway. You don't believe in Apollo, Vishnu, Odin, Ra, and a huge number of other gods. I simply reject belief in one more god than you do, and I reject the Christian god-concept for probably similar reasons that you reject the others.
Again, thanks for your response.
Hello,
I have a question concerning Athiest/Rationalist resources.
I have recently been involved in a debate with a few Chritians who hold the following beliefs:
- Christianity is as defensible as Athiesm from a logical point of view
- That Evolution and Creation can be regarded as equally plausible.
- That the "latest" scientific theories indicate that creation is the
simplest conclusion one can arrive at.
- Etc, Etc, ...
The fact that I don't share these beliefs means that I now have to read reams and reams of christian literature in support of the above claims. I am sure that I am not the only one in this position, which is why I'm posting this message.
Is there a place on the Internet where we can place rationalist book reviews of religious text, such as 'How to think about Evolution' by L. Duane Thurman. His/Her book is easily analysed with the use of Athiesm - The Case Against God. It is time consuming however. This time could be drastically reduced if one person could review a book such as this, and include a good logical rebuttal (I'd be willing to add a few of my own), and thus save valuable time.
I'm not implying that we should not study the arguments presented thoroughly, but time could be saved by not having to construct ones response from scratch.
If there are resources such as this on the net (a place to put and retrieve book reviews), then please mail me to let me know. Otherwise, please indicate wheither you think that it is a good idea or not so that I could know wheither to set up such a resource myself.
Regards
Thank you for changing my Life.
Do you have any Elvis being crucified on the guitar souveniers.
Visit me at Sticky Keys a free EroSatiric zine across between mad and screw. please don't post my Url on the net
rock around the cross
congrats on your piece ,indeed a true set of guidelines much in line with my feelings when forced to attend .
one thing you missed if the christians are fundementalist, is to ask them if they believe incest is sinful, to which they will concord;then ask them if the book of genisis is the work of god to which they will also concord then ask them that if adam and eve were the sole founders of humanity who the fuck did their children breed with if not each other?
yours
[This message was in response to "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's Evidence" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
You appear to base your criticism and propaganda upon biased skepticism. You spend much of your time trying to rationalize away historical documentation, but you do not provide any secular material from the 1st or 2nd century to refute the material.
Deductive and inductive logic has proven to lead to erroneous conclusions, without objective proof how do you expect us to "believe" your propaganda.
Logic is as falliable as human nature. For example, all apples are red and hard. Based upon this deductive logic, all hard red balls are apples, and a yellow apple is not an apple. Don't give me poor rationalism, give me objective verifiable proof.
Perhaps the proof that we are both looking for was destroyed by Moslem and Jewish intolerance prior to Constantine or later by Mohammad. In either case without hard evidence we are left in the dark-- your rationalism does not change the necessity for hard evidence.
Good luck with your faith and propaganda; ultimately it matters very little. If Jesus proves to be the Christo, then Christians will reign when he returns. If he is not the Christ, then who cares.
You know, I'm so tyred of hearing agnostic bull and thereotical crap. Don't talk to me about theory, let's talk about the consequences of your ideology on the drug addict who does not believe that God exists. He shoots up, exploits society for his or her drug addiction, and then ultimately commits suicide (having no hope and no God). This same drug addict with a hope in Christ and a love for humanity will lay down his life to save a child from drowning. Your ideology kills a child before it is given an opportunity of life in the name of expediency and women's rights.
Fine, live in your comfortable middle class society and forget about everyone else if you will. However, if Christ does exist then we will be held accountable. Your religious propaganda only spreads the destructive virus of intolerance and hatred toward those who are religious (church bombings for example). Should we debate the issues? Of course we should, but also remember the warning of Washington's Farewell address.
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
Your message certainly emphasizes the need to be aware of one's biases in one's writings. However, your message itself reveals a Christian bias that is not supported by either historiography or the historical evidence. For example, you argue that I "do not provide any secular material from the 1st or 2nd century to refute" Josh McDowell's historical documentation. But this violates what what historians call the 'rule of affirmation': the burden of proof for any historical claim lies solely on those making the claim. So the relevant question is not, "Can I provide 1st or 2nd century references to refute McDowell's references?" Rather, the question should be, "Has McDowell met his buden of proof?"
Simply strip-mining the ancient literature for passages that have the name 'Jesus' in them is not good enough; a historian will also want to know 1) the author of the passage (e.g., whether the passage is an interpolation), 2) the date of the passage, and 3) the sources the author had for his information. McDowell failed to apply these three criteria to his "evidence" for Jesus.
The fact that you dismiss my message as "propaganda" makes one wonder if you have even read my entire article, much less understood it. Normally, the feedback I get on my article falls into two categories: 1) messages from Christians thanking me for defending the historicity of Jesus and exposing Josh McDowell's shoddy scholarship, and 2) messages from non-Christians criticizing me for defending the historicity of Jesus and exposing Josh McDowell's shoddy scholarship. Although I was extremely critical of Josh McDowell -- I make it quite clear in my article that I believe Jesus existed -- a point you don't seem to grasp.
As for your comments about the alleged consequences of whether your god exists, I will remind you that the purpose of my article was to put Josh McDowell under the microscope, NOT to refute Christianity. (And a defense of the historicity of Jesus is not a refutation of Christianity, anyway!) So your comments about the alleged negative consequences of atheism are besides the point. The fact of the matter is that McDowell exaggerated his sources to defend a relatively uncontroversial claim. And there is no faith involved here.
Finally, your claim that my article somehow spreads intolerance is totally false. If Josh McDowell wishes to write a rebuttal to my comments, I will gladly publish them alongside my article on the Secular Web. This is much more than McDowell seems willing to do in his books. Moreover, I would remind you that several nontheists, including Dan Barker, Farrell Till, Frank Zindler, and Gordon Stein have all attempted to debate Josh McDowell, but McDowell refused to debate them. If someone is being intolerant here, it isn't the atheists.
Your message amounted to nothing more than name-calling and utterly failed to address ANY of the historical issues raised in my article. If you decide that you do not like me (even though you have never met me), then so be it. If you decide that you do not agree with my arguments (even though you failed to address them in your message), that's fine. But don't resort to ad hominem attacks just because you can't handle informed historical criticism of Josh McDowell (1 Peter 3:15).
Sincerely,
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
Jeff has already responded to most of your comments, but I'd like to address the points he left alone:
>Deductive and inductive logic has proven to lead to erroneous
conclusions,
>without objective proof how do you expect us to "believe" your
propaganda.
>Logic is as falliable as human nature. For example, all apples are
red and
>hard. Based upon this deductive logic, all hard red balls are apples, and a
>yellow apple is not an apple. Don't give me poor rationalism, give me
>objective verifiable proof.
I must take exception to your claim that "Logic is as falliable as human nature." I will gladly concede, however, that human nature is flawed enough to often foul-up what one 'thinks' is logic.
Let's examine your examples above:
"all apples are red and hard" Let me translate that into symbols so we can be extra careful about what we're saying:
a(s) - s is an apple
r(t) - t is red
h(u) - u is hard
Ax a(x) -> ( r(x) & h(x) )
That is: "For all 'x' that is an Apple, x is red and x is
hard."
Your second sentence "all hard, red balls are apples" translates quite differently.
Ax ( r(x) & h(x) ) -> a(x)
Note that the direction of the conditional (->) is reversed. This is whats called a contra-positive, and confusing a statement as being identacle to it's contra-positive is a common logical mistake.
Let's examine your third statement: "a yellow apple is not an apple".
Assuming your first statemtent ("all apples are red and hard") is true, you're correct, a yellow apple could not be an apple. Logic does tell us something about a situation with two statements like:
"all apples are red and hard" and
"there exists a yellow apple"
Logic tells us that one of the two statements must be false. Human experience tells us that it's the first statement.
Logic is only a tool, if an oft' mis-used one. On it's own it can only produce a few mildly interesting tautologies. It is only when used with statements we assume as true (either because they're part of our world-view, or for the sake of arguement), that logic's usefulness becomes evident.
Given multiple premises, one can use logic to discover new statements that follow from the premises, or (as I did above) to ferret out contradictions demonstrating that one (or more) of your premises is invalid.
>Perhaps the proof that we are both looking for was destroyed by
Moslem and
>Jewish intolerance prior to Constantine or later by Mohammad. In either
>case without hard evidence we are left in the dark-- your rationalism does
>not change the necessity for hard evidence.
I (basically) agree with you. However in the absence of much hard evidence, I give far more weight to rationality than faith. Personal experience has alot to do with this as well... I have no experience with people rising from the dead after three days, so absent any compelling evidence, it's more reasonable to discount such claims than accept them. Likewise little green men from Mars.
>Good luck with your faith and propaganda; ultimately it matters very
little.
>If Jesus proves to be the Christo, then Christians will reign when he
>returns. If he is not the Christ, then who cares.
I care. Personally, I'm far more interested in knowing as much of the 'truth' about the world than in who get's to be boss at some alleged later date.
>You know, I'm so tyred of hearing agnostic bull and thereotical crap.
Don't
>talk to me about theory, let's talk about the consequences of your ideology
>on the drug addict who does not believe that God exists. He shoots up,
>exploits society for his or her drug addiction, and then ultimately commits
>suicide (having no hope and no God). This same drug addict with a hope in
>Christ and a love for humanity will lay down his life to save a child from
>drowning. Your ideology kills a child before it is given an opportunity of
>life in the name of expediency and women's rights.
1) Don't assume that non-theism necessarily equates with what you seem it does. I know more than a handfull of self-proclaimed atheists who are fairly avidly anti-abortion. Personally, I find the practice of abortion morally repugnant, but also believe that forcing women to bring unwanted children into the world can often result in harm being done to child, woman, and society.. if it were an easy question, there wouldn't be the current public debate about it.
2) On your 'no God = no hope' claim. There are (within this framework) two kinds of atheists: it is true there are those who take the statement 'there is no god', and come up with ideas like: 'there is no hope', 'there will be no ultimate punishment for what I do', etc... but that are also those as I try to be who rather discover that: 'I cannot rely on supernatural beings to right wrongs, I must do what I can', 'My destiny is my own decision', etc... Which type are in the majority I haven't a clue, I do know that there are far more of the latter than is popularly believed.
>Fine, live in your comfortable middle class society and forget about
>everyone else if you will. However, if Christ does exist then we will be
>held accountable. Your religious propaganda only spreads the destructive
>virus of intolerance and hatred toward those who are religious (church
>bombings for example). Should we debate the issues? Of course we should,
>but also remember the warning of Washington's Farewell
address.
One of the things I absolutely insist upon is tolerance. To paraphrase a friend of mine: "You're free to believe any fool thing you want to." ;) I have very little interest in convincing others to believe as I do. I'm far more interested in convincing all to allow all to live as they chose so long as it harms no other. There's an old pagan maxim that goes something like: 'an it harm none, do as ye will'. Words to live by.
Internet Infidels' Response #3:
>You appear to base your criticism and propaganda upon biased skepticism.
Sorry, only if you consider relying upon the evidence of our senses, and the world of physical reality as a bias. If you can provide me some reason why you reject the reality of Krishna, or Amida Buddha, while accepting that of Jesus, God and angels, I may listen. We are both skeptical of extravagant claims. You have stopped being skeptical of one class of unsupported extravagant claims, I have not.
>You spend much of your time trying to rationalize away historical
>documentation, but you do not provide any secular material from the 1st or
>2nd century to refute the material.
What historical documentation is that? Every claim that historical documentation exists has been shown, to every scholar's standards to have been either fraud, interpolation, or simple error. We merely note the total lack of documentation, and the extravagant nature of the claims. It is extremely improbable that such goings on could have occurred without being remarked upon. Possible, but not very likely.
>Deductive and inductive logic has proven to lead to erroneous
conclusions,
>without objective proof how do you expect us to "believe"
your propaganda.
Logic and reasoning serve as mututal verifications, the data; that is, the raw sensory information, reamins the same.
>Logic is as falliable as human nature. For example, all apples are
red and
>hard. Based upon this deductive logic, all hard red balls are apples, and a
>yellow apple is not an apple. Don't give me poor rationalism, give me
>objective verifiable proof.
The yellow apple or the red ball are proof that the syllogism is incorrect. Give me objective verifiable proof that Jesus is alive in the sky. And, by the way, do it through some method that I cannot use to prove that fairies are dancing at the bottom of the garden every morning.
>Perhaps the proof that we are both looking for was destroyed by
Moslem and
>Jewish intolerance prior to Constantine or later by Mohammad. In either
>case without hard evidence we are left in the dark-- your rationalism does
>not change the necessity for hard evidence.
As Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet of God, but that the Christian church misinterpreted his message, and veered off into blasphemy by deifying him, they would be just as interested in establishing any proofs of his historical existence. Most Jews, as well, have no problem believing that some radical rabbi named Yeshua existed at the time, they do not accept that he was the Meshiach.
>Good luck with your faith and propaganda; ultimately it matters very little.
Ultimately nothing matters. We believe that what counts is here and now.
>If Jesus proves to be the Christo, then Christians will reign when he
>returns. If he is not the Christ, then who cares.
And if Mohammed proves to be the Final Prophet of Allah, then Muslimin will enjoy eternal bliss in paradise. If the Buddha proves to be the Enlightened One, then those who follow the eightfold path will eventually reach nirvana and leave the wheel of samsara behind. There are literally thousands of different religions to worry about. Maybe your brand of Christianity isn't the One True Church, for instance, maybe the Mormons are right and you will never make heaven because you blew your chance to accept Joseph Smith, the Prophet of God.
>You know, I'm so tyred of hearing agnostic bull and thereotical crap.
Don't
>talk to me about theory, let's talk about the consequences of your ideology
>on the drug addict who does not believe that God exists. He shoots up,
>exploits society for his or her drug addiction, and then ultimately commits
>suicide (having no hope and no God). This same drug addict with a hope in
>Christ and a love for humanity will lay down his life to save a child from
>drowning. Your ideology kills a child before it is given an opportunity of
>life in the name of expediency and women's rights.
Let's talk about the consequences of your ideology on the poor rapist who believes that masturbation is a sin, but that rape is OK because he can confess it and have Jesus wash away his sins next Sunday. Let's talk about the ideology that keeps young women ignorant of their bodies and leaves them to be victims of the "funny uncles" priests, and Good Christian businessmen on holiday looking for a bit of "fun."
As I am sure you well know, the prisons are not full of atheists, but full of bible believing Christians, all of whom are looking for forgiveness, and all of whom have been assured that Jesus died for their sins, so that, if they believe they will go straight to heaven when they die. They will be your neighbours, and welcome to them.
>Fine, live in your comfortable middle class society and forget about
>everyone else if you will. However, if Christ does exist then we will be
>held accountable. Your religious propaganda only spreads the destructive
>virus of intolerance and hatred toward those who are religious (church
>bombings for example).
The bombings of black churches are almost certainly the work of bigoted KKK type christian racists.
[This message was in response to "Toplumsal Geriliklerimizin Sorumlulari Din Adamlari" by Ilhan Arsel .]
Sizin Ilhan beyin kitabini internet'te yayinladiginiza gore bazi elestirelere acik olmalasiniz. Benim sadece Ilhan'nin yazilari hakkinda kafami kurcalayan bazi sorular var. Bunlari size sorup cevap alabilirmiyim. Eger Ilhan bey kendi konusunda milleti inandirmak istiyorsa kendisi bazi elestirileri cevaplamasi lazim, eger bu elestirielere cevap vermez ise onun dusunceleri hakkinda hic uzerinde durmaya bile gerek yok. Benim amacim bizler ayni vatanin ve ayni onderin takipcileri olarak bir birimizi aydinlatmakta mukellefiz. Bu sayfaniza ek olarak bir tartisma sayfasi acabilirminiz bu sayede birbirimizi egitip fikir alis verisinde bulunuruz. Birde merak ettigim diger bir konu ise, Ilhan beyin tashil durumu, yetisme durumu ve soy kokeni.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Translation:
Since you have published Mr. Arsel's book on the internet, you must be open to some criticism. I have some puzzlement over the writings of Arsel. May I ask you some questions, and receive answers? If Mr. Arsel wants to convince people about his thesis he must answer certain criticisms; if he does not answer these criticisms there is no need whatsoever to consider his opinions. My purpose is that we are obliged to enlighten one another as followers of the same homeland and leader [sic]. Could you institute a discussion page as an addition to this [Arsel's] page? -- with the help of such a page we can educate one another and exchange ideas. Another matter I am curious about is Mr. Arsel's educational status, his upbringing, and ethnic origins.
Translation by Taner
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
