Internet Infidels: Feedback: 1996: March

March 1996 Feedback

i'm originally based in France (French myself). Some of my best friends and i are really involved into the Cheick Anta Diop works.

one of my friends is the organiser of a special day dedicated to C.A.D. in February (delayed)in France. C.A.D.'s wife would attend namely.

what i need from you is a quick reply to my message here. i need you also to send me by mail a.s.a.p. any brochure, newsletter ... anything that can help us to know your ideas, goals, means n so on ... so that we can manage sum together.

we ourselves believe that somebody like C.A.D. could be an international symbolic personnality to spread ideas like "adaptability as a strength"... quoted yours.

please reply very soon so that we can exchange views and do the right thing ... provided that French speakers can join your action.

nuff respect ... peeeeaaace !

could you namely tell me , if so , which artists (writers, musicians ... jazz) who support your association. i'm personnaly very in the music thang.

My name is R.C. I am a Jesuit currently studying philosophy at Loyola University in Chicago. A friend of mine recently told me about the file, "The Secrets of the Society of Jesus" which you keep on your system. I took the time to access and study the article myself.

Since the founding of the Society of Jesus in 1540 as a specialized group of priests and brothers ministering in the Catholic Church, we have had detractors hostile to us because of our influence. We are renown for our education and training (an eleven year process) both inside and outside religious circles. As a result, we have also had many who have sought to defame us through any number of allegations. "The Secrets of the Society of Jesus" one such example.

The claims made in the document are sheer fabrication. It is true that there have been abuses by the Society, but the claim that there is or has been some deliberate and systematized plan of deception and fraud by the Society is without any basis in fact.

Indeed, if one looks at the work of the Society today, they would see a renewed commitment to working on the behalf of the poor and the marginalized. The price that Jesuits have paid for this witness has not been small, as witnessed by the execution of six members of the Jesuit community and two women at the University of Central America by the armed forces of El Salvador on November 14, 1989 because of alleged "subversive" activity.

As an organization dedicated to the cause of free thought, I assume you are also committed to the truth. We may differ on the value of religion, but I believe we can agree that such a document is without intellectual merit. It is instead an intentional slander against the Society of Jesus without any grounding in reality.

Just as I would hope you would not publish "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" on the Internet, I would ask you to consider removing "The Secrets of the Society of Jesus" from your web site.

Thank you for your consideration. I await your response.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Thank you for your message. It may surprise you to know that (as far as I know) none of the Internet Infidels believe that the "Secret Instructions Of The Society Of Jesus" in any way reflects the reality of the Jesuits. Why then do we include? To understand the answer to that, it is necessary to understand the mission of the Internet Infidels.

The goal of the Internet Infidels (henceforth II) is to make as much information as possible regarding atheism, agnosticism, freethought, secularism and humanism available to people on the Internet. Part of our policy is to include documents that have historically been influential among atheists. "Secret Instructions" is such a document, hence it is included in our archives. We're not proud of the fact that this document has been influential, but neither will we try to hide it.

One of the things that II abhors is the tendency of many religions to rewrite history in order to portray themselves in a more favorable light. Protestants, for instance, take great joy in pointing out the many horrible violations of human rights that the Catholic Church has engaged in over the centuries-- but they never mention that Protestants have engaged in many horrors of their own. II detests all such revisionism, and so we avoid censoring or rationalizing mistakes or immoral actions commited by atheists. We want people to know about all aspects of freethought-- the good, the bad and the ugly.

We are curently in the process of redesigning the layout for the Secular Web. One of the planned improvements is an "II's Comments" link. This link would be featured on the header of each article, and would allow the reader to read II's official viewpoint on the article. Once implemented, we will probably take advantage of this feature to inform readers of "Secret Instructions" that, in the view of II, this article is to Catholics as "Protocols" is to Jews, and that it should not be taken seriously. However, we absolutely will not consider removing the document. Again, we want our readers to know the whole truth about freethought, even when such truth is unflattering. And we trust them to be able to discern the difference between an article with merit and one without.

Thanks again for your message. I hope you find the disclaimer I proposed above to be a sufficient solution. Take care!

Sincerely,

Rob Berry

Thank you for your prompt response to my message. I am relieved to know that we agree on the factual validity of the document "Secret Instructions of the Society of Jesus".

Given your organization's understanding of itself, "to make as much information as possible available regarding atheism, agnosticism, freethought, secularism and humanism available to people on the Internet", it is consistent to publish such a document to demonstrate works that have historically been influential among atheists.

I am thankful that you understand my own concerns about the document as well, and would strongly endorse your idea of a "Comments" header to present II's official viewpoint of this article.

I would even suggest including the position summary as part of the introduction of the page, given its content. I too trust that your readers are able to discern the difference between an article with merit and one without.

I appreciate the investment in time that a Web site requires. I do hope that you are able to do it soon.

You may find it interesting to read the book, "The First Jesuits" by John O'Malley (Harvard University Press) to get a real history of the work of the Society. We have often been accused of being too humanist in our thinking. Martin Buber, the Jewish existentialist philospher/theologian once referred to us as "the Catholic priests who talk like atheists" (?).

You may be interested to know that in 1773, the Pope suppressed (disbanded) the Society of Jesus in response to allegations from the Bourbon kings of Spain and France that we were too influential. To protect us, Catherine the Great of Russia and the King of Austria (whose name I forget)provided us sanctuary in their countries because of their admiration for our humanist philosophy. They enabled us to exists intact until the ban was removed in 1814. Just a fact.

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Pax,

R.C.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Mmmm, perhaps. I think it more important to look at the arguments (or lack thereof) of those who write to us.

Spelling errors aside, the majority of our detractors have this mistaken idea that we have no knowledge of the Bible, of Christianity, or of religion in general. We're accused of false ideas, of a lack of logic, of bigotry, and of everything no respectable human being ought to be associated with. Hey, these charges may be true, but why not point out and discuss the specifics rather than damn us to hell?

stephen B^)

I was wondering if there is an SOS group in San Francisco? If so, can you e-mail me their phone number. If there is more than one group, please send information on groups in San Francisco, the Peninsula and the South Bay (anywhere from Marin County to Santa Cruz, as well as Oakland and the East Bay.) Thank you.

C.

In the article, "Is the bible the word of God?", Emmett Fields refers to a reference in the Dead Sea Scrolls to an Essene named Jesus. However, he does not cite a reference (i.e. translation, scholarly journal, etc). I am very interested in learning more about this text and would appreciate any cross-reference you might have on this subject. Thank you for your help.

[This message was sent in response to "The Truth About Jesus" by M.M. Mangasarian.]

To Whom It May Concern

I have just finished reading "The Truth About Jesus". I cam across a copy of it on the internet. At the end of the article, I found a list of other publications by M.M. Mangasarian. I would like to get a copy of "How the Bible Was Created". Could you tell me how to get it? Please e-mail me directly.

[This message was in response to "American Atheists: A History" by American Atheists, Inc.]

Thanks for your balanced and thorough reply to R.C.'s request that you withdraw from the Net the document "Secret Instructions of the Society of Jesus." I can understand your position, and I am in agreement with it. I also wish to second R.C.'s urging that your organization preface the document with its own editorial header disclaiming belief in the veracity of the document. My purpose for writing now is to add a further suggestion. In your header I would suggest that you include the address of a place where interested persons might obtain true information about the Society of Jesus. Here is such an address:

http://maple.lemoyne.edu/~bucko/Jesuit.html

Best wishes,

D.R., S.J.

thank you.

the URL for Snake Oil in your magazines section is dead. Just as well, since they never updated it.

Keep up the good work - I really appreciate your site.

D.M.

I read your analogy comparing an insane dog breeder to the Christian God. Although this is an interesting attempt to discredit Christianity, the analogy is deeply flawed in many ways.

First, humans are in no way comparable to dogs. No intellectual mind has ever attributed rationality to animals other that humans. Our reasoning capability is precisely what makes us unique from the other animals. Also, there is a case to be made that only mankind is capable of moral reasoning as well. In any case, the analogy between humans and dogs is invalid.

Further, the dog breeder analogy neglects the entire life of the Son, and more importantly, the impact of His life. People were deeply affected by the teachings and works of Christ; their lives were changed. They did not continue to be the savage dogs that they once were. Christ had an impact on the society of his day, and continues to have an impact on the lives of people today.

Which brings me to my final and most important point. In your parable, you neglect completely the most significant aspect of Christ's life story: his ressurection. His death was a triumph, not a tragedy. Because he arose, all humans can have new life and enter the kingdom of heaven. His sacrifice was not in vain. God would not have given his only son merely to have Him murdered for nothing. People can be changed and assured eternal life because of the life, death, and ressurection of Christ. That is the true story of Christ. The next time you attempt to discredit something you so obviously know nothing about, I suggest you get your facts straight.

J.B.

Internet Infidels' Response:

First, humans are in no way comparable to dogs. No intellectual mind has ever attributed rationality to animals other that humans.

mathew

Also, if I become a member, do you sell or give your membership mailing list to other organizations? If so, is there a way to become a member and specify I do not want my address given to any other group? (I am tired of all the junk mail that gets generated when I support or join organizations and/or causes).

-B.D.M.

T.A.C., S.J.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Unlike "Secret Instructions", "Protocols" and "Mein Kampf" were never influential among atheists. For this reason, we would not publish "Protocols" or "Mein Kampf" even if we agreed with them wholeheartedly. (Which, obviously, we do not.)

Again, I must emphasize that there are many documents on the Secular Web which the Internet Infidels do not approve of. For instance, most of the Infidels (if I'm not mistaken) believe in the historicity of Jesus, yet the Secular Web contains many documents which argue that Jesus was not a historical person. Inclusion of a document in our library does not indicate approval of the document's content.

If the solution I proposed in my last letter is not acceptable to you, why not write a rebuttal to "Secret Instructions"? We would be happy to provide a link to your rebuttal from the "Secret Instructions" page, just as we have provided links to rebuttals to (for instance) "The Jury Is In". (Given the rather low quality of "Secret Instructions", a rebuttal piece shouldn't be too difficult to write. :-)

Thanks for your message. Take care!

Sincerely,

Rob Berry

http://sydney.dialix.oz.au/~hsnsw/homepage.html

This page is extremely well thought out and enhances professional image of humanism.

S.C.

While I found this article to be well-written and informative, there are two major misstatements. Firstly, Fields refers to "the founder of the Essene cult", "Jesus", who "was crucified in 88 B.C.E." This information comes from a book written about the Dead Sea Scrolls by J.M. Allegro. Unfortunately, in his zeal to disprove Christianity, Allegro weaves a very dubious tale using cryptic passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls. His writing is reminiscent of Christian writings I have read where the Bible is bent in order to "prove" the validity of a modern position. For a complete rebuttal of Allegro's work, see "Jesus and The Dead Sea Scrolls" by James H. Charleworth.

The second misstatement concerns the Treaty of Tripoli and a statement attributed to George Washington. I will not address this directly as you can find discrediting information in "alt.atheim".

The point is, as an ex-Christian, I am still amazed at how Christians and infidels alike are willing to misrepresent the truth solely to "prove" their position. Being an agnostic myself, I think it is quite foolish to believe that anything is provable in any meaningful way. However, I do appreciate your efforts to lay out the argument against Christianity. In the interest of intellectual honesty, I ask that you place a footnote to Mr. Field's article to disclaim the reliability of the two quotes I have mentioned.

Internet Infidels' Response:

We are aware of these errors, but since the article is not written by us, we are not in a position, legally or morally speaking, to make any changes to it. The Secular Web (or at least that section where Field's article resides) functions as a virtual library. Just as a librarian is not responsible for pointing out errors in the books she manages, so we are not responsible for pointing out errors in the documents we make available.

At some point in the future, we may implement a "II's comments" section. If and when we do so, we'll be sure to mention these problems. But for the time being, there's really not much that can be done, as we currently don't have the resources to check every article for errors. We trust our readers to be capable of distinguishing fact from error, and to double check any claim they read before believing it.

Thanks for your comments. Take care!

Sincerely,

Rob Berry

Thank you for putting Kersey Graves' book The Worlds Sixteen Crucified Saviors on your pages. Would you consider putting another great Truth Seeker Company book, Bible Myths by T. W. Doane, there, too? You know, this book is also a bit too old for me to get a copy any more...:)

Regards,

T.R.

If it is possible, can you send me more information about various Humanist groups and more basic philosophies of Humanism and information on how to, perhaps, join a Humanist group.

Thank you,

E.B.

You asked: Did Jesus accommodate His teachings to the beliefs on His day? My answer: Not even close! Jesus was hated and feared by many "religious" leaders in His day BECAUSE He would not accommodate the ANY belief other than in His Father. (God).

You asked: How could fallible men produce an infallible Bible? My answer: All scripture was written by inspiration of the infallible Holy Spirit.

You asked: How did Jesus view the Old Testament? My answer: He viewed it as the Word of God, and continually quoted it.

You asked: How do you know the writings of the Apostle Paul were inspired? My answer: All scripture was written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God has caused any writings which were not inspired to be deleted from the Canon of Scripture.

You asked: Is everything in the Bible to be taken literally? My answer: Yes, unless it is OBVIOUSLY figurative, consider it literal.

You asked: Is Noah's Ark still on Mt.Ararat? My answer: Probably not, the Ark landed there in approximately 1556 years after creation, (you can check that by doing the math in Genesis). About 5,000 years ago. I think the wood would of decomposed.

You asked: Is there a supernatural character to the Bible? My answer: It is a book called 'God's Word'. To the extent God is supernatural enough for you, yes.

You asked: Why do you interpret the bible literally instead of allegorically? My answer: Because God says what He means, not what we think He means.

You asked: Since Jesus was human, was He not also fallible? My answer: Jesus was the first, last, and only sinless Human. Because He lived a sinless life you and I have the option of choosing eternal salvation by His grace through faith.

You asked: To what extent is the Bible inspired? My answer: To the exact extent that Almight God inspired it.

You asked: What does it men, The Bible is inspired? My answer: It means the Bible was written at the command and by the power of God Himself, using His Holy Spririt to inspire mere men. (This is not unusual, God typically chooses to use the things 'intelligent' men find foolish, to confound the wise.

You asked: Which version of the Bible should I use? My answer: Use a version of the Bible that uses the oldest available manuscripts, and seeks to interpret the Bible as word for word, as possible. It's also good to use a version YOU can best understand. Salvation is not a difficult concept, and once you understand and accept or reject that concept, your choice is made for eternity. Isn't it smarter to choose salvation? Even if there were a chance that no God exists, even if there were a chance that once you are dead, its over. You can't loose by living for Christ. And, there is a chance that there IS a God, and a chance that there IS a literal heaven and a literal hell, why take the chance of ending up in a literal hell, when you can choose to live for God now?

Internet Infidels' Response:

Did you even read the criticism of McDowell's book at all?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

P.B. wrote:

Yes, I looked at the criticism, briefly. Josh McDowell, is a man, like you and I, no better, no worse. He is not the point. Jesus is the point. Do you believe in Jesus? Have you accepted His plan of salvation?

Internet Infidels' Response:

Hi P.,

Thanks for your message. The Internet Infidels are well aware of the different schemes of salvation in Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. Should we ever feel the need to be "saved," we will choose the plan of salvation we feel is true and act accordingly.

Thank you for your interest in our eternal destiny.

Best wishes,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

I have been reading some of the critiques and exchanges through letter published in this web site. Wonderful stuff.

I have read many of the christian apologeticist's whose works are cited and find your involvement with the materail most stimulating. My personnel direction at this point is to give the weight of credibility to the christian position, though not due to the arguments of those worthy's being discussed. I look forward to reading more and perhaps, in due time, interacting with some of the criticisms leveled against the theistic worldview. I am currently investigating returning to University to take a grad. degree in Philosophy. My BA is from BIOLA in religious studies. As you can tell from my writting, I do not generally fit into the mold of the conservertive, evangelical christian. My current studies are a re-reading of Objectivism by Ayn Rand.

Interesting though reductionistic, polemic, and shallow at points. By as my father-in-law rightly said, she probably has had the greatest influence on the Republican party of any writer/philosopher of the past century.

On to truth and good hunting!

I am doing research on an article I am writing for a local newspaper (Fresno, CA.), on the subject of the tax exempt status of churches. I am having a great deal of difficulty in locating any current facts, I am interested in knowing the land/ property value of US churches. If you can direct me or in any way assist I would be gratefull.

C.H.

Internet Infidels' Response:

As far as I know, there are no current studies regarding the property values of U.S. churches. Since researchers cannot gain access to tax records unless said records are fifty or more years old, such a study would require the churches to devulge financial information about themselves. I know of no church willing to confess the grip Mammon has on them.

stephen B^)

After I thought about it for a little while, I realized that your site makes a great deal of sense. In 1 Corinthians 1:23-25, the Apostle Paul says "but we preach Christ crucified to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks [Gentiles] foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Verse 18 in the same chapter says that "...the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 2:14 also explains that "...the natural [unsaved] man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Perhaps you have heard Psalms 14:1 which states that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' ...." It does not surprise me that you find the Bible to be foolishness, and those who live by it to be fools. This is to be expected. However, what you find foolish, I recognize as the power of God. Through the truth of Scripture, I have found true freedom and lasting peace. I am not sure why I wrote this, but your mail address was right there, and I felt compelled to say something. If you are interested in replying to this message, I promise to respond.

D.F.M.

Internet Infidels' Response:

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

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

I am a nurse but all my old textbooks only teach what happens....not why.

Any ideas? Thanks.

S.

I was just wondering why Dr. Craig did not allow the publication of his part of the debate? I can't help but wonder whether or not he wasn't considering that other almighty aspect of our world, the dollar.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Thanks for your great question.

I have tried in vain to convince Dr. Craig three (3) separate times to allow us to electronically publish his remarks on the Secular Web. Because the Internet Infidels maintain the Secular Web, including the DEBATE List FAQ (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/argument.html), Dr. Craig feels that if he allowed us to publish his remarks, we'd somehow be "using" him as part of "a manual on debating against Christian speakers." He proposed publishing the debate as a book instead, but I explained to him the only reason I transcribed the debate in the first place was to make it freely available over the Internet. He doesn't seem to understand that publishing a book would benefit atheist debaters just as much as an electronic transcript would. (I even offered to have the debate stored at Christian web sites, but Craig wouldn't go for that, either.)

I think Dr. Craig is hurting his own cause. In my opinion, Craig is one of the best but least-known Christian apologists. Allowing us to electronically publish his remarks would have been a great way for him to get his message out to people who otherwise would probably not have heard it. (Whereas most Christians seem to know all about C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell, relatively few know about Craig.) I think Craig could have scored a major coup by getting his comments published on the Secular Web. Instead, he has chosen to block publication and, in the process, has made himself look quite poorly.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Dear Sir or Madam:

The back of your vehicle bears a symbol of a fish with the word "Darwin" printed in it. This is obviously a permutation of another common symbol: a fish with the Greek word "IXOYE" printed in it.

I encourage you to remove this symbol. I believe the designer intended it to be humorous. I suspect, though, that many will interpret it as ridicule of a religious group. If it is intended as a free expression of a belief or position, I suggest that it is not particularly effective.

Reflections on the origin of each symbol may serve as a clarification.

As early as the first and second centuries A.D., Christians were a persecuted minority. The fish symbol arose as a secret way for Christians to identify themselves to each other. "IXOYE" is the Greek word for "fish". It is also an acronym, in that these letters are the first letters, respectively, of the Greek words for "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior".

Darwin, of course, was a champion of evolutionary thought. The "Darwin" fish has feet, which suggests a possible evolutionary intermediary between the osteichthyes (bony fish) and terrestrial tetrapods (amphibians, etc.). In the context of the well-known Christian symbol, this design draws attention to the modern dispute between so-called Creationists and Evolutionists.

However, as a tool of expression, it seems ineffective to substitute the name of on evolutionist for the name of Jesus. Christians view the work of Jesus as Salvation. Creation was the work of his father: God. Thus the contrast is misaligned. If Jesus and Darwin are viewed as leaders of competing groups, then the work of at least one of them has been misunderstood.

In any case, the symbol is more likely to be interpreted as humor or ridicule, depending on the disposition of the observer. Please consider sacirficing the former to prevent the latter. Christians need to be shown the reasonableness of evolutionary thought, and the evidence behind it. Manipulating their cherished symbols in a manner that is potentially antagonizing is not in the best interest of open dialogue. Even those not interested in dialogue should be able to see how displaying this device can be classified as intolerance. As with other religious or cultural groups, we share a public obligation to interact in a civil manner.

Thank you.

I did email the person. We had quite a chat. I did not remove the fish from my car.

To Whom It May Concern......

Have been searching the internet for days....

April 28th, 1996, I will be named the Godmother of my nephew. My sister is catholic, my brother-in-law is Jewish.

Having been brought up catholic, I am researching the role and the ceremonial responsibilities I will have.

Although I am thrilled at this exciting new prospect in my life with my nephew, I have no idea what the ceremony is actually like, what I do.....do I recite a prayer?....write something of my own?....etc.

Any information you could provide me with would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

C.C.

H.F.

The "facts" that have been thrown at me are:

1. Darwin felt in his writings that the fossil record would bear out his theory of natural selection. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Since his death, there have been over 250,000 fossil finds, and there is not one discovery that leads to either a missing link to man, or between species, classes, phyla, etc.

2. The original Neandertal man is now known to have had a severe case of osteo-arthritis, causing the deformities in the skull. Similar finds in the Neandertal Valley of Germany have unearthed almost 100 new skeletons, all of which show normal bone structure like our own.

3. In a study of the Jack Hills region of Western Australia in 1986, isotope dating methods measured the oldest known rock at 4.3 billion years. Out of 140 statistically valid tests done on those rocks, the other 139 were rejected in favor of the one that supported the poplularly held view of the age of the earth.

4. In 1988, diamonds found in Zaire were found to be SIX billion years old by the Potassium/Argon method (Nature Magazine, Vol 334, pp. 607-609) Since they "knew" the earth to be only 4.5 billion years old, they rejected the testing. But they admitted that they would have accepted the test as valid had they not already been aware of the "known" age of the earth.

5. "white holes", which act just the opposite of black holes, and do not violate Einstein's theory of relativity. If fact, they demand it. A book on the subject is titled Starlight and Time, by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a Ph.D. in Physics, and his credentials are impeccable. The book was written in 1994, and is published by Master Books in Colorado Springs.

6. Finally, when approaching the study of coal deposits, evolutionary theory falls apart rather rapidly when faced with the facts of fossilized plants and animals imbedded in structures to such a degree that they should have been quickly decomposed into peat, oil, coal, etc, when in fact they are intact. Such evidence makes a whole lot of sense when viewed in terms of a world wide flood, which we can get into in a later letter, if you still wish to continue correspondence.

-J.E. Internet Infidels' Response #1:

Hello J.,

Jeff Lowder forwarded your mail to me.

The "facts" that have been thrown at me are:

1. Darwin felt in his writings that the fossil record would bear out his theory of natural selection. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Since his death, there have been over 250,000 fossil finds, and there is not one discovery that leads to either a missing link to man, or between species, classes, phyla, etc.

Mark I. Vuletic

Internet Infidels' Response:

As a result of the debate in Seattle, I was contacted by an Imam in Chino, California. He has been sending me quite a bit of literature, which I didn't request, but I have found some of it to be interesting. He doesn't have an e-mail address, but he can be contacted by phone at 909-627-2252 or Fax 909-627-6308. His name and address are I. H. Kauser, Bait-Ul-Hameed Mosque, 11941 Ramona Avenue, Chino, CA 91710.

Actually, I am interested in the same information, so I will fax the Imam and ask him if he has any information on Islamic prophecies that he can send to me. I will share the information if I receive any. Jeff [Lowder] may remember that when we were on Leif Moi's radio program, an Islamic caller from Colorado went into a long spiel about how the Koran has been proven to be inerrant in science, history, etc. I believe this caller also mentioned prophecies. At any rate, I remember his call as one that made the same claims for the Koran that Christians make for the Bible.

F. Till

to whom this may concern, i am a recvering addict. i am currently attending meetings of an NA group. i am interested in your group to a great extent. i think it would suit my needs a lot more than AA or NA. however, there is no group in my area that i am aware of. i live in traverse city michigan. i would like to know if i could start a group in my area. how to go about thus. that is my question. thank you. reply if you can. i have written down post address. i will try that if i receive no reply via e-mail. peace. r.a.

Internet Infidels' Response:

You may want to get in contact with SOS at CFIFlynn@aol.com. SOS no longer maintains its pages at the Secular Web.

stephen B^)

while looking for revovery programs not affiliated with AA, came across your material. hard being an agnostic in catholic country. i am retired medical social worker, teach parttime at suny plattsburgh. both my husband and i share an aversion to organized religion/prefer secular humanism concepts. we would like to become involved in your organization. i am new at email operation so please excuse

I posted an article on a company BB (perhaps not the brightest thing to do) about Joseph's first time with Mary. Talk about your tough acts to follow, you know? I envisioned her staring at the ceiling, maybe filing her nails while Joseph eagerly did his business, offering unenthusiastic encouragement: "Oh baby. You're the best. Do me hard. Ride me."

Predictably, several of my co-workers took offense, and sent me e-mail telling me so. They told me I needed to accept Jesus into my life and all that nonsense.

So I apologized and offered a retraction. "Okay, I'm sorry. I take it back. Mary was a great piece of ass."

They didn't like that, either.

Sometimes you just can't win.

HOW DO I FIND OUT MORE ABOUT 'HUMANISN'

Internet Infidels' Response:

Write to ap818@freenet.Buffalo.EDU for more information.

stephen B^)

I just read your article on jws and the profecy of daniel and i enjoyed it very much. Just curious, are you an x jw please reply with any other jw info you have

thanks

r.

i am currently attending a christian college and will graduate this may i consider myself quite intelligent and try to think things through quite extensively before making decisions

i found out about the secular web and the internet infidels first by writing to jim still. this has opened up an enormous amount of contacts including farrell till and the skeptical review, rob berry and the ex-tian newsgroup (of which i am now a member), and dan barker and the ffrf.

i know basically why i am not a christian. for me, it does not have sufficient evidence to support its claims and there are better world views in my mind. Also, it does not reconcile what is known about evolution and the scientific nature of the world.

but still i am confused. and i must say, you are part of the reason for that. i read your thesis that you posted at the secular web, documenting the resurrection debate between christians and skeptics and found it most interesting (side note: i thought i saw something about the Jesus Seminar on the secular web, but since then i haven't been able to find it. do you know where that is?) anyhow, if i am in doubt about christianity, i am equally in doubt about critics of christianity. can anything really be known about the resurrection? will there ever be closure on this subject?? i don't believe this event occurred simply because i have not seen conclusive evidence for it and i also believe that this evidence will never be found. but where does that leave me?

i am yet to tell my parents that i am not a christian, although i plan to do so within the next few weeks and yet i would like to be more confident before i talk with them please help! i am still quite confused and seeing that i have no atheist, agnostic, or skeptical friends around here who have put a lot of thought into this, i am asking you for advice or help or whatever if you can give it to me. i am almost sick of reading books, simply because i have read so many, so if you can give me advice that doesn't involve a book, please try

i guess what i'm looking for is this: why aren't you a christian? why don't you believe in the resurrection? and how would you go about telling someone about this?

related stuff could be: do you believe in god? why or why not? what do you think about the bible and why?

i'm not trying to be simplistic about this but i guess i'm looking for a condensed package i could submit to my parents or friends

please help i really need it

thanks in advance

rd

p.s. jim still told me that you moderate a debate list that i could join what is this list about and how can i join it?

Internet Infidels' Response:

i'm not trying to be simplistic about this but i guess i'm looking for a condensed package i could submit to my parents or friends

mathew

I just read the page that you maintain on the net, ABSURDITIES OF THE BIBLE. It seemed rather humurous that the poor, deceased Clarence Darrow's whole argument against Christianity was that if he were a Christian, he couldn't reason. The actual truth of the matter, however, is that if a there was no Christian God, he could not reason at all. It appears that the weapon Mr. Darrow was using to battle God was a weapon forged by God Himself. An atheist world-view cannot account for reason! If there is no God, then there is only time and chance acting on matter. The thoughts that a person has is merely a result of the chemicals in his brain reacting with one another. How could reason exist if reason were no more than the result of chemical reactions? What if the chemicals in my brain told me that it was perfectly logical to contradict myself? Would I be an illogical person? Of course not, I would only be reasoning according to the same process that everyone else uses, except my chemicals would be telling me something different. If atheism is followed consistantly, then there can be no universal laws of reason... no standard. You would not be an atheist because it is true or reasonable, but rather because the chemicals in your brain mixed together and MADE you be an atheist. The chemicals in my brain mixed together and MADE me be a theist. Neither one of us can be right or wrong because were are only a victim of the chemical processes of our brain. If the atheist world-view is followed consistantly, then there is no truth to be found in this debate over atheism and theism. I am the way I am because of the matter that makes me up, and you are the way you are because of the matter that makes you up. The debate is over we can all go home. When Mr. Darrow and other atheist argue that theism is irrational, they are, in fact, producing a devestating blow against themselves. Only a theistic world-view can account for universal principles. An atheistic world-view can only account for subjective rationality, and if all rationality is contingent upon an individual, then there can be 5 billion different standards of reason. Your standard of reason is no more true than the most "ignorant" Christian's. Atheism destroys reason by replacing a universal principle with one that is merely subjective. Please consider this truth. It is too late for Mr. Darrow, but God, in His mercy, has given you another opportunity to repent and be reconciled to Him. Please take this opportunity!

Prayerfully,

W.M.

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

I just read the page that you maintain on the net, ABSURDITIES OF THE BIBLE. It seemed rather humurous that the poor, deceased Clarence Darrow's whole argument against Christianity was that if he were a Christian, he couldn't reason. The actual truth of the matter, however, is that if a there was no Christian God, he could not reason at all. It appears that the weapon Mr. Darrow was using to battle God was a weapon forged by God Himself.

Rob Berry

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

Dear Mr. M.,

Your letter contains a number of severe logical and factual errors that completely destroy the argument you were trying to make. I hope my comments and advice will encourage you to give the issue more thought.

The first claim you made in your letter was that "if there was [sic] no Christian God, [Darrow] could not reason at all." In order to prove this claim, you must show that every conceivable non-Christian worldview is inconsistent with reason. In your letter, however, you have attacked only one worldview. This leaves your initial claim almost completely unsupported.

A second claim you need to support is that "if there is no God, then there is only time and chance acting on matter." How is the existence of the transcendent incompatible with atheism? Where is the inconsistency if someone believes in something like the Platonic Forms, but does not believe in a deity? The nonexistence of God does not entail the nonexistence of the transcendent - if you have a good argument to the contrary, you need to present it.

The worldview you seem to want to attack is "materialism" (which denies the existence of the transcendent) not "atheism" (which merely denies the existence of God). But even in attacking materialism you make a few errors. First of all, you describe a materialistic world as consisting of "only time and chance acting on matter." This is the way presuppositionalists usually describe materialism; however, they fail to understand that (1) natural selection operates in a materialistic universe, and (2) natural selection is the antithesis of chance. The "matter and chance" world you describe is very remote from materialism, so your assertion that reasoning is inconsistent with a "matter and chance" world accomplishes nothing. If you wish to make a productive argument against materialism, you need to take selective pressures into account.

All of this aside, there are even more problems with the argument you tried to offer. For instance, you claim that if my atheistic beliefs are caused by chemicals in my brain, and your theistic beliefs are caused by a different configuration of chemicals in your brain, then "neither one of us can be right or wrong because we are only a victim of the chemical processes of our brain [sic]." But this reasoning is deeply flawed - whether or not our beliefs are correct is _not_ dependent upon how we developed our beliefs. Let's say it is raining outside - if you believe it is raining because of chemicals in your brain, and I believe it is _not_ raining because of different chemicals in _my_ brain, your beliefs are still correct. If the chemicals in my brain were to make me think that it is raining _and_ not raining in the same place at the same time, my beliefs would be false in all possible scenarios, and hence illogical, even if all there is to anyone's thoughts is just chemical interactions. The absence of God even in your bizarre "matter and chance" universe does not entail that there is no matter of fact about what is true or false, logical or illogical, reasonable or irrational.

To recap briefly, you (1) tried to prove the existence of the Christian God by attacking atheism alone; (2) equivocated atheism with materialism; (3) equivocated a materialistic universe with a "matter and chance" universe; (4) drew false consequences for beliefs from the "matter and chance" universe scenario.

Hope this helps.

Respectfully,

Mark I. Vuletic

I am a subscriber/contributor to Freethought Today. Greatest paper of it's type in existance. I am sending copies to all my children and free thinking friends in the hope that they too will subscribe. Keep up the good work. When I'm through reading my copy I leave it in a place where it might do someone else some good. Best wishes and good luck.

E. in Sarasota, Fl.

I come from a "Christian" background rooted in Fundamentalist ideology which found itself in a pseudo-Christian cult. I've made my exit from that organization, and now find that I take on more of an Agnostic approach to certain key issues in Christianity.

So, I find myself on a quest. A quest for knowledge and understanding of the world around me. My "world-view" has been superficial at best in the past. I attribute much of this due to the cult I was a part of, and now find repulsive and disgusting. I did not "find Christ" there, as I was *supposed* to do!

Anyway, your site is helping me. Thank you for that. I'm also lurking on the Debate and McDowell lists right now, and find them fascinating.

Keep us thinking, Jeff!!

J.S.

Your page is very interesting. I'm not a practicing Christian, but I am a believer. I was not able to deduce whether or not you believe in God, Jesus or any other supreme being. Perhaps you should pass your thought on to the right wing christians who do not practice what they supposedly believe. Do they think, for example, that heaven will be segregated as are their churches, neighborhoods and other aspects of our daily lives?

Can you tell me where I can find references to articles, previous debates, WWW sites, government references, speeches, expert opinion, papers, or anything that I can obtain via the Internet that will help me with the above resolution? I am mainly interested in the affirmative. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

Keep up the good work. What a lot to think about! It's very refreshing. I will visit often.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Yes, go ahead.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[This message was sent in response to "15 Actual Announcements Taken From Church Bulletins".]

Internet Infidels' Response:

Go to

http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/church_bulletins.html

Enjoy!

stephen B^)

I am interested in purchasing a copy of "Six Historic Americans" by John Remsburg. Do you know a seller of used books who may have this out-of-print book?

This quote seemed to be lacking from your bible quotes on abortion:

Exodous 21:22

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him and he shall pay as the judges determine.

S.V.V.

Just wanted to let you all know that I enjoy reading your web page, perusing through the vast amounts of info contained in it, and being able to utilize it as a learning tool. It is good to know that there are people out there who have very different opinions (atheistic or not subscribing to organized religions), stand by them one hundred percent and are also able to back them up with sound reasoning and more than often verifiable facts. GREAT PAGE!

Also, I have read through a lot of the 1995 responses. I really love reading the strong and varying opinions that are out there. Not that I want to bore anyone, but I would like to lend a little commentary/ or an opinion of my own - if I may.

People who are indoctrinated or conditioned are never going to be swayed (almost never). They will follow blindly regardless of what proof or evidence that is contrary to their tenets or beliefs is presented to them. One of the first and most obvious point that jumped out at me several years ago is this: A lot of self-proclaimed religious christians/jews ( I call them that because even though they do not go to church/synagogue regularly except maybe for christmas/easter or rosh hashanna/yom kippur they maintain that they are devout in their beliefs - I find this amusing) that I have known over the years are quick to discredit other peoples beliefs/religions (IE. Islam, Hinduism, Buddh- ism) as completely absurd/bizarre without realizing that others may (and actually do) feel that their (judeo/christian tenets) are absurd and untrue (IE. "chosen people of god", damnation in a pseudo world known as "hell", Jesus "walking on water" "resurrecting and ascending to heaven" witnessed by 500 or so un-named individuals with the excep- tion of a select few...the list of absurdities, inconsistencies, and out and out contradictions is almost endless).

Another immediate and obvious point is this: During the so-called "last days" the people who were duped into believing that Jesus was somehow a "divine" figure were adament that upon his death the end of the world in a tremendous tirade would occur (keep in mind that the book known as the "nt" (new testament was not around at this time) - unless I missed something, it never happened and that is why the inventor of christianity, Paul, made up the 2nd coming. Every generation since then has proclaimed "the end of the world" and "2nd coming" during their existence and each generation dies and nothing happens - something is definitely not kosher in Denmark, folks (and I know that "experts" on the bible will say that I just don't understand or they will respond with the ever-famous "taking out of context" response).

Anyway, I want to emphasize that I am not anti- religion, but rather I have an opinion that is different and I have a right to that opinion. If being a "believer" makes YOU feel great and YOUR life better...then GREAT, enjoy yourself....but don't ostracise me or try to "sell" YOUR beliefs to me! There just might be a divine spirit or superior being who has allowed for our existence, but the proof of its' existence has not been found. Do you honestly believe that the people that lived thousands of years ago were more righteous or deserving to actually have the privelege of "talking to" or "seeing" god? (the so-called prophets Moses, Joshua, Elijah, the so-called disciples, etc., etc.,). Why has god been so quiet for so long? (for thousands and thousands of years even? - I realize that this does not apply to mormons - they supposedly have had the privelege not too long ago).

Anyway, most people go to church and follow blindly without doing any researching or studying on their own - and if they do actually do any self-research they already go in looking for evidence that "proves" and ignore any relevant facts that contradict or refute their beliefs. In fact, most of these people rely on their preacher or minister to actually understand what is being told in the bible itself! Most of these ministers and preachers tell it in a way that fits their needs instead of telling it like it is. Anyway I could go on and on.

I also have some questions that I would like you to address.

1. Did the coucil of Nicea actually take a vote on whether or not Jesus was divine?

2. Is it true that King James was one of England's most celebrated homosexuals? (I read that in at least 2 different sources).

3. Did James, the half-brother of Jesus actually try to follow Paul's path in Asia-minor and try to "undo" (speak out against what Paul was attempting to teach to the pagans) what Paul was preaching? (I have read numerous texts and excerpts that say that Paul was not relaying what Jesus actually taught while he was alive ...and I believe that).

4. The "prophetic-baby-in-reed-basket-being-floated down-a-river" story ala Moses... (I read that this is a borrowed mythological-type story that was adopted into the old testament) Is it true that it was adopted? And if so, where from?

Thanks.

MJR

Internet Infidels' Response:

Well, you might try

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/clarence_darrow/

for three of his works.

There are a number of biographies of him at your public library (I hope,) and you can always give the Encyclopedia Britannica a try. :)

stephen B^)

Please read the book: More than a carpenter. by Josh Mcdowell

Internet Infidels' Response:

Please read The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence"

Jeffery Jay Lowder

I'm really sorry that you find it so difficult believe.

Freethinkers you may be, free thinking you may desire, my desire is that my every thought be taken captive to be obedient to Christ. I realize you don't understand that. That's okay. I do not argue as world does. But I willl engage you on a plain you cannot enter.

Marshall J. Gauvin, I will lift you up in prayer before my father and ask him to imparrt to you a double measure of faith.

"Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die!" -Genesis 2:17

shalom

HOW IS SHE? how is her organization? when will the next AA newsletter be published?

Thank You J.R.

In reading your literature I am a bit confused as to the difference between non-theism and atheism. I am not an atheist or a religious person who believes in the hereafter and the bible stories (you approprately pointed out its inconsistencies and errors).

I would appreciate an answer to my question and would also appreciate receiving more information by regular mail.

Thank you.

R.G.

J.

Internet Infidels' Response:

We're a separate group. :)

stephen B^)

I also have thought about definitions of humansim for some time. Perhaps we counld exchange ideas. What do you think?

Jeff:

I just read you Feb. 1996 response to a Church of Satan member. Yes, it seems odd that "Satanists" do not actually believe in Satan, but the explanation is simple. We (for I too am a Satanist) believe in Satan (and God, for that matter) as symbols only, not actual beings. Satanism, as defined by the Church's founder, Anton LaVey, is in many ways the opposite of Christianity. Christians worship an external god, Satanists internalize that god-being. Christians are taught to think nothing of this life and to abstain from any activity which might produce pleasure. Satanists try to live a pleasant, fulfilled life, indulging in whatever we so choose so long as no one is hurt in the process. Christians believe that "ignorance is bliss" (ever read the story of Adam and Eve?) while Satanists are encouraged to "question all things" (the Satanic Bible, by Anton LaVey)...and think about the questions and answers. I could continue, but I think the point is clear. Besides, I have no desire to attempt to convert you or anyone else. As a life-long freethinker (which is not incompatible with, and is in fact helpful for, Satanism), I understand the need for knowledge. The kind of Satanist you were thinking of - those who actually worship the Christian devil - are not what CoS members are. Christian Satanists, as I call them, accept the Christian bible and beliefs and worship the dark side. LaVey Satanists (those of us who agree with LaVey's philosophy) have rejected the idea of any anthropomorphic deities.

In essence, all that I'm saying is that Satanism, as practiced by the Church of Satan, is the opposite of Christianity, down to being atheistic. Like the person who prompted your response which lead to this, I am not a representative of the Church. In fact, as of this writing, I have not yet recieved my membership card. But since I have been studying the Church for six months, I think I can provide an adequate explanation of what Satanism is really all about.

Other than this one factual flaw, I find your pages highly informative and entertaining. They, and other freethinking pages, were a staple of my mental diet during my six-month religious investigation (which, although I have chosen to join a church, is far from over). I find you to be quite intelligent and well-read on matters of Christianity and skepticism. However, your lack of information on Satanism proves that you are not the authority on religious matters you want to be. I suggest doing a little research before commenting on a religion you are not familiar with. Most religions have readily availible web pages and books. Try branching out a little.

H.O.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Thank you for the correction. Lest I come across as a "know-it-all" on religious matters, I fully admit there is much I do not know. In fact, I was just telling someone the other day that the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. :) Take care!

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Thank you,

S.A.

Thank you very much

I was a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division and I didn't need to pray to a god to get me through the day.

I was raised in Chicago and in between the arson and shootings I knew that a god could not exist, unless it was a sadist.

thank you

I am wondering if Freethought has a catalog of books. If so, would you be so kind to send me the price information for this catalog? I am very happy to read some of the great works of Mr. Ingersoll. Keep up the good work!! All information may be e-mailed to the address above.

that's some funny shit----jesus is elvis.

congrats on your advancement of these beautiful ideas.

i'm sorry to say that if you had any self respect at all you'd be ashamed of yourselves.

to take something so beautiful as many of these ideas, and then drag them through the mud of racism(apparently it doesn't bother you as i can tell by your group name).The racism you advance so acceptably is one of the strongest reasons why afro-ams or whatever you need to refer to yourselves as,will not be accepted into other communities.Humanism for blacks?Why not humanism for all.

the thought of blacks considering themselves above other peoples is so hilarious that other groups laugh at them constantly and has contributed to the idea that they must not be very intelligent. What would you think of a white person who had a group called hygiene for whites from france?

When blacks start to take responsibility for themselves instead of attempting to be the oppressed,then you will see the end of racism,and a race of people of beauty to be admired!!Wouldnt that be great.

But until then they will always be laughed at and avoided and considered stupid. Be responsible for yourself and you wont need the approval of other people, race or otherwise.

I dont say this to offend you,only to give you a clue as to the only chance your race or any race has for freedom. Do you think that you are not slaves today? Look at your check stub.Do you think that i am not a slave ?look at my check stub. doyou think that blacks can fight their way to respectability? Only if they can conquer themselves. Conquer your heart and you are free, but if you think your love is limited to blacks, then broski you dont know nothin bout love,or freedom, or self respect,or decency. or would you sell your people to stupidity for a few dollars. shame, shame, shame.

Internet Infidels' Response:

I think you do African-Americans for Humanism (AAH) a disservice, friend. Nowhere in the essay you replied to did AAH imply that people of any race ought not take responsibility for their actions, nor that humanism ought not be a way of life for all, nor that blacks are "above other peoples." They do, if fact, write towards the bottom of the essay, "Humanism and its fearless logic can open the door to freethinking and freedom for all people, especially African-Americans."

Notice the "for" in AAH. It does not say "African-American Humanism." Can you imagine why the "for" is placed therein?

stephen B^)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I have the time. I think the use of "African American" denotes an identifier, nothing more. For example, one group goes by the name "Catholics for a Free Choice". Does this mean no one else is for a free choice? Not at all, nor does it mean that these people are saying free choice shouldn't include Lutherans, humanists, Muslims, and so forth. Nor does it mean a particular group of Catholics is "religionist".

That we sometimes identify people by race does not imply racism. If you were to describe, say, Michael Jordan, how would you go about it? If you pointed out the color of his skin, would you be a racist? Racism, I think, entails a bit more than merely identifying someone or some group by color or "race". Usually racism includes some idea of inferiority/superiority, and acting towards others on that basis.

Please ask if you have more questions. :)

stephen B^)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Sir, I am not paid to write in defense of groups or causes: my effort is purely voluntary. Nor am I a member of, nor do I represent, AAH. I do understand your point, I just do not agree there is something necessarily sinister or foolish in certain group designations. Goodness, what you must think of "men's basketball" or the AARP! Let's hope life on other planets isn't found, lest we begin to question the term "humanism". =)

stephen B^)

Loch Sloy!

L.M.

Thanks so much for your bulletin announcement funnies! It was a great service and I'm excited about the other things which you will put onto your webpage!

[This message was sent in response to "Religion and Ideology Shit List".]

I have been speaking with a Catholic gentleman on the Obj-Rel forum and he feels that one should give a literary work the benefit of the doubt. He feels that if one verse seems to say (or says, in my opinion) one thing, and another says the opposite, the reader should find a reconcilation. I honestly don't think this is a fair approach, and involves a presupposition on his part--that the Bible is God's Word and is inerrant, therefore we MUST see it as a unified whole DESPITE its problems. Also, it seems that one could take a book on non-Biblical Scriptures (such as the Book of Enoch) and compile one book, then make the claim one needs to "give the benefit of the doubt" to a literary source, making it impossible to provide errors between the books which would no doubt be seen as contradictory if taken individually. Could you give me some advice on how to discuss this?

M.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Consider an example of a book of truths, a book of algebra. In the first chapter you learn the various associative, distributive, identity, and other rules. Crazy as you are, you fall in love with the commutative property of addition, a + b equals b + a. You move onto the second chapter. The book claims in the first section that a + b does not equal b + a. You look back at the first chapter, sure enough, a + b equals b + a. So, which is it, the first or the second that's true? Mathematically, it's easy to determine the truth or falsehood of one or the other: however, supposing both are true ( ;) ), should we reconcile them?

Oh, but wait, your friend may say, we're not talking tautologies but facts. Hmmm, okay, let's talk books of facts. In a book entitled The Great Book of Facts, we find on page one the book says the sun is spherical in shape. Reading on, we find the same book states that the sun is, in fact, a cube. Hmmm, we say, scratching our preverbial heads, Which is true? Well, take a look at the sun, and see for yourself. Oh, but suppose (somehow, I dunno, it's a God-thing) both facts are true, how should we reconcile them?

Oh, but wait, your friend may say, we're not talking verifiable facts, but historical facts. Hmmm, okay, let's discuss historical "facts". We have in our hands a book entitled The Great Book of Historical Facts, and on page one the book says Jesus Christ was the founder of Christianity. We read somewhat further, and on page 666 we find the book stating that Jesus Christ was not the founder of Christianity. Hmmm, see a problem here? One or the other statements could be true, but supposing both were true, how do you reconcile them?

We have been, in all three examples, supposing that both cases of algebra, the sun, and Jesus were somehow true. Yet, more than likely we will not believe this is the case: one and only one case at most will be true, and it's possible that both cases are false. One could argue, for example, that Paul was the founder of Christianity and that the sun is egg-shaped. Well, what then do we say about these books, knowing they present contradictory "facts" and "truths"? Do we assume they should have the benefit of the doubt, and that they do reveal the truth, but we must do our best to reconcile the different accounts they give?

So, why should we treat a holy book any differently? I mean, if it was merely a book of literature, then what's the buzz about -- why the strange need to have others believe in its supposed "truths"? The fact is, people, like your friend, do not regard the book merely as literature but also as a book of facts and truths. If this is so, then the same principle applies to it as it did to the examples I gave above. :)

So, you are quite right: your friend does assume much more than he wishes to admit. I wouldn't allow the assumption until your friend demonstrates its plausibility.

Happy debating! :)

stephen B^)

Do you have his email address? I'd like to ask him some questions. Some of his points seemed vague. Saying a number of words is divisible by seven means little. All one needs is 7 or more words in his group to make it divisible by seven. He often didn't say "divisible by seven evenly."

Anyway, if you can't give it out, that's fine. I just wanted to hear some clarification on his part. BTW, I'm referring to February 96 feedback.

I am lkooking for listservers that cover atheism. Thanks for any suggestions!

Internet Infidels' Response:

Uh, at the divinity school? :D

Thanks for the compliment. From now on I'll sign off as Guardian of Good. :)

stephen B^)

Guardian of Good

HELLO & BEST WISHES! My sister is in need of an SOS group in the Boulder, Colorado area. Is there such a group?

If you are not the right people to contact, could you send me in the right direction?

Thanks!

R.F.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Write to CFIFlynn@aol.com.

stephen B^)

K.R.M.

It would be very helpful if you could include dates on the files that are in your web pages. For example, it would be useful to know the dates the "church taxation" pieces were written so we could estimate the current dollar values mentioned.

Thanks, and keep up the GREAT work.

Dear Infidels,

I am writing to say that I enjoy very much the Complete works of the late Col. Ingersoll. As a believer I find him giving some much needed critiques of religion while I don't agree completely with him his ideas on freedom, civl rights, and pleasure are not only valid but are good and holy. I was just wondering do you know if there is any way I can get all of his complete works of Col. Ingersoll In book form. Reply soon and good luck to you all my fellow man may your lives be full of freedom and happiness forever.

Yours truly, A admirer

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

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