 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
Hi!
I was greatly pleased by Rupert Hughes' book "Why I quit Going to Church" which I downloaded yesterday from the Internet.
I was so engrossed by it that I read the whole book in one sitting and I must say that never have I ever read anything so bold since Russel's "Why I am not a Christian".
Needless to say, I agree completely with Hughes and Russel. I was born and raised a Christian and in my country, Lebanon, it is even more sacrilegious to doubt religious dogmas than at the time of Hughes' writing.
Can you shed more light on this daring character? What else did he write? What happened to him?
What other readings of this caliber can you recommend? What are your activites, if any? How can we get in touch and exchange ideas?
Please answer me quickly!
Well written. A bit "preachy" but well done.
However, G-d does exist. Just visit any synagogue and you will see.
Shalom.
Hi there!
I was just taking a look around your site and was surprised not to see a version of your 'Book of Creation', which I found to be inspired. Did I miss it?
[This message was in response to " Prophesy Fulfillment: An Unprovable Claim" by Farrell Till.]
>There are absolutely no contemporary nonbiblical records of the
>crucifixion of Jesus,
>
>Josephus.
Sir:
Why proceed with such religious zeal in proving the Bible to be false? If it is false, then there is no afterlife and once we are dead it will make no difference. If you hope to convince believers and turn the tide against Christianity, you have become Don Quixote, and your cause is as hopeless as vanquishing the dreadful windmills that are terrorizing the countryside. If, on the other hand, it is true, then woa unto you, my friend. Also, why not Islam, or Buddism? Why single out believers in Jehovah?
> What is the rationale for distorting the scriptures so flagrantly?
> Well, the answer, of course, is obvious: the gospel writers were desperate
> to prove that their man Jesus was the Messiah who had been promised in
> the Old Testament. Since there really were no prophecies of
> a virgin-born, crucified, resurrected Messiah in the Old Testament, they
> had to twist and distort to give the appearance that Jesus was the
> long-awaited one.
I found your arguments against prophecy fulfillment to be intriguing. I wince every time someone trots out their completely unscientific "probabilities" to prove or disprove some biblical point. Most of my brothers are obviously not scientists, as evidenced by their "scientific" attempts to disprove the evolution theory of the origin of life. However, you proceed on the common, mistaken western notion that for prophecy to be true it must also be specific. Were you aware that Jewish hermenuetic allows dual fulfillment of prophecy? Or that it also holds that the entire OT points to the coming of Messiah? It even allows the changing of wording. Hence we have Matthew quoting "Out of Egypt will I call my son" as prophecy when in OT context it appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with Messiah or anything else beyond what it is immediately related to (Ooo, dangling participle! I must be an idiot and you can safely disregard this e-mail!). And the OT prophecy of the virgin birth quoted which says nothing of virginity or Messiah, but is instead a prophecy to the king of Israel at the time which had immediate fulfillment; "by the time that woman over there gives birth, all the enemies you fear will be dead." (My paraphrase, lest you jump on me for misquoting or using bad grammar or punctuation or whatever other fault you can find). Remember, the early church was Jewish, some of them scribes and Pharisees. They would have quickly pointed out any attempt to distort OT scriptures and very probably stoned the offenders to death, unless it was allowed in their hermenuetic. The entire OT was considered prophetic, and the Jews expected Messiah, when he came, to re-enact the salvation history of Israel. The new testament writers lived in the culture that they were addressing.
Just because they lived 2000 years ago doesn't mean they were primitive, gullible morons. It just means that they didn't use Hellenistic logic like we do. Does this make their logic invalid? Of couse not. Hellenistic logic was never designed to deal with the spiritual.
OK, I'm off my soapbox. What say you?
Internet Infidels' Response:
Hello, this is Greg Erwin, Vice President of the Humanist Association of Canada. I hope that you were sincere in requesting a response, as indicated by the "What say you?" at the end of your message.
>There are absolutely no contemporary nonbiblical records of the
>crucifixion of Jesus,
>
>Josephus.
The passage in Josephus is regarded by almost all scholars, including Christian scholars as a late interpolation. You can verify this in any serious study of the literature.. The phrase does not appear to be in context, the grammar and word usage is not typical of Josephus.
As you can imagine, if you caught a witness in one lie, it would make you more suspicious about the rest of the testimony. This is hardly the only time that early Christian apologists have been caught falsifying texts in order to coerce reality to fit their world-view. Some people, when they catch a psychic like Uri Geller committing fraud flagrantly realize that he is a scam artist and reject his future claims of psychic powers. Others rationalize that there was great pressure on him to perform miracles, so when his powers weren't functioning properly, he *had* to cheat, in order not to disappoint. Christians react in both ways to the evidence of such cheating in the early writings. You decide.
> Sir:
> Why proceed with such religious zeal in proving the Bible to
> be false? If it is false, then there is no afterlife and
>
once we are dead it will make no difference. If you hope to
> convince believers and turn the tide against Christianity,
> you have become Don Quixote, and your cause is as hopeless as
> vanquishing the dreadful windmills that are terrorizing the
> countryside. If, on the other hand, it is true, then woa unto
>
you, my friend. Also, why not Islam, or Buddism? Why single
> out believers in Jehovah?
Well, most biblical criticism began by those who hoped to prove that it was true. Even Bishop Ussher's chronology proceeds on the basis of faith, that the bible is true and could be used to date things. The first analysts of the bible's original languages, and the multiple translations, and the early texts sincerely hoped that they would be revealing the glory of God by doing so. Yet the more they investigated the more serious the discrepancy between dogma and reality became.
In all cases, the reaction of organized religion was not to admit that there was anything wrong, but to do its best to stop the research and intimidate the researchers.
I do not know why human beings have an abstract longing for the truth. It is a matter of integrity, ethics and sincerity that pushes a person to devote a life to discovering a few more facts about the universe, or the ways that previously know facts fit together. There are those who follow the truth wherever it leads, and others who shut their minds to it.
Unfortunately those who have shut their minds do not like the facts to come knocking at the door. When churches had the power, they tortured and killed any who disagreed with them. Some Christians still act that way, bombing women's clinics and murdering doctors. They also work to suppress any knowledge or investigation that does not support their narrow theology, and they try to control any behavior that is not supported in the bible.
As many verses in the bible support the idea that women should be controlled completely by their fathers, then husbands; that anyone not of the correct religion has no rights, that gays and unruly children should be killed, anyone with the slightest concept of human rights must oppose the introduction of Old Testament law, or, in Islamic countries Shari'a. Our opposition is mainly to Christianity because we live in an area where the main active religion is Christian. In Israel, the secular citizens fight against the bigotry and prejudice of the orthodox religious groupsm, who would like to ban all commerce on the Sabbath, and who occasionally stone women who dress in a way they consider immodest. In Islamic Iran, women walking down the street, who have accidentally displayed a strand of hair, or a patch of skin have been murdered by religious fanatics. Iran, the Sudan, Pakistan and now Afghanistan are good examples of religion in power.
> Most of my brothers are obviously not scientists, as
> evidenced by their "scientific" attempts to disprove the
> evolution theory of the origin of life. However, you proceed
> on the common, mistaken western notion that for prophecy to
> be true it must also be specific. Were you aware that Jewish
> hermenuetic allows dual fulfillment of prophecy? Or that it
>
also holds that the entire OT points to the coming of
> Messiah? It even allows the changing of wording. Hence we
>
have Matthew quoting "Out of Egypt will I call my son" as
> prophecy when in OT context it appears to have nothing
> whatsoever to do with Messiah or anything else beyond what it
> is immediately related to (Ooo, dangling participle! I must
> be an idiot and you can safely disregard this e-mail!). And
> the OT prophecy of the virgin birth quoted which says nothing
> of virginity or Messiah, but is instead a prophecy to the
>
king of Israel at the time which had immediate fulfillment;
> "by the time that woman over there gives birth, all the
> enemies you fear will be dead." (My paraphrase, lest you jump
> on me for misquoting or using bad grammar or punctuation or
> whatever other fault you can find). Remember, the early
> church was Jewish, some of them scribes and Pharisees. They
> would have quickly pointed out any attempt to distort OT
> scriptures and very probably stoned the offenders to
> death, unless it was allowed in their hermenuetic. The
> entire OT was considered prophetic, and the Jews expected
> Messiah, when he came, to re-enact the salvation history of
> Israel. The new testament writers lived in the culture that
>
they
were addressing.
What we usually note is that, with the wide allowances that you make, virtually no prophecy would ever been UNfulfilled; you just wait for any event that vaguely resembles what was said, or twist the phrase to be symbolic of what just happened, and then, when the consequences expected do not occur, state that they remain in the future.
You must be aware of the Millerites and the founding of the Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists, on the ashes of Miller's failed apocalyptic predictions. If someone can predict the end of the world, and after the end of the world does not happen, people still accept him as a prophet, just mistaken in a few details, what good is prophecy?
Sure, we understand that prophecy can be filled in many ways, or in ways that don't appear to be likely. This is simply the result of believers who would rather abandon reality than belief. When a prophet says "You will see X happen when Y does." and then neither X nor Y occurs, believers either decide that X and Y meant something else, or that "you" meant someone other than them. With that much allowance, anyone can be a prophet, and has been.
What objection can you have to the prophecies of Joseph Smith, or Ellen White? Using your criteria, their predictions are all fine.
It is generally recognized that the Jews of the first century had many sects that did engage in scrutinizing the sacred writings looking for prophecies. Every event was examined and then the writings, the Law and the Prophets were searched to find predictions of it. People are still doing that today, and have been doing it forever, I guess. When someone says that something bad will happen, they are generally going to be right. In cases where the "prophecies" are written after the fact, such as Daniel, they can afford to be more specific. Those verses that refer to the past are bang on and quite specific, but those that were in the author's future revert to the usual vagueness.
> Just because they lived 2000 years ago doesn't mean they
>
were primitive, gullible morons. It just means that they
> didn't use Hellenistic logic like we do. Does this make their
> logic invalid? Of couse not. Hellenistic logic was never
> designed to deal with the spiritual.
>
> OK, I'm off my soapbox. What say you?
Yes, but then, the spiritual was never meant to deal with the real world. If someone wishes to obtain their own moral guidance, purpose in life and so on from old books and prophecies that is certainly their right. However, the thing that makes our society great, and which differentiates it from all those that have gone before, is that it allows all claims to be examined, forbids no discussion, and sets no limits on inquiry.
The authors of various books of the bible had no fear of bing investigated. They challenged believers to "prove (in the old sense of testing) all things". Only when things don't go the "right" way, Christians suddenly discover that this testing may not really be what they meant.
You are freely invited to test, examine, verify and challenge any of our scientific, archaelogical and historical claims. In fact, challenging established knowledge is how people win Nobel Prizes, or at least, research grants. What system do you like better, and which do you think is more likely to think that it is promoting the truth: one that accepts and rewards challenges, or one that burn challengers at the stake? The choice is yours.
Here's an experiment. Go to the biggest bookstore in your city and look for a book on atheism. You will notice that there are three types of books on atheism in existence. The book where a Christian "disproves" atheism. The book where atheism is given equal time with a christian in a debate format. And the book actually devoted to the subject. The last type, of course, is the rarest. I would venture to guess that there would be riots in the malls if all Christian books sold were written in the first two formats.
[This message was in response to the "The Skeptical Review: From the Mailbag".]
I must admit that I came to your pages to be disuaded and discouraged by page after page of thorough and meticulate examination of fundamentalist Christian belief and its essential flaws. I wanted that. Perhaps, you could say, I needed it.
However, I found only the same ramblings that you find in the Christians. I came away unsatisfied, unconvinced, and unmoved. But not because I am a faithful Christian or because I am an unsure skeptic who still doesn't know who to believe. It's because I can see both sides of the issue.
I see the eagerness and impatience of the Christian scientists to quickly and effortlessly explain away Christian fundamentalist ideology and belief with the phrase, "Because God made it so."
I also see the hatred and furor of you, Farrel Till, and your readers. I see how vehemently you study and search and scientifically and logically investigate the Christian belief. (I am impressed with your meticulousness, however.)
But there is one flaw in both worlds, and that is lack of understanding. The Christians are caught up in their God and his omnipotence and so they cannot (or will not) make a strong attempt at convincing those who really want it. And the few Christians who do attempt to convince others, do it with vague, half-hearted sayings such as, "The Bible tells me so."
But your kind, Mr. Till (and I do not mean "your kind" in a demeaning sense), fails to look at any Christian beliefs from a purely philosophical or theological vantage point. I mean PURELY. I know you require science and logic. I know you require proof. I know what you lack to believe.
But, honestly, take this from a perfectly faithful Christian view. Wouldn't logic and reason and science be part of God, and therefore insufficient to fully, or even partially, explain Him and His world. His methods, and motives, and goals, and reasons...they, if He exists, would be incomprehensible anyway. In essence, why shouldn't a Christian be able to say, "Because God wills it that way, and I cannot explain it."?
I know there are flaws in the Christian arguement, and I have seen them exposed and naked, and I have wondered who should come to solve them. Flaws you present in your arguements and flaws you have overlooked. But I have, by looking at both sides, found answers.
By the same token, I have found flaws in all other explanations of the nature of the universe. And, even by looking at all sides, I have found no answers. For example, evolution.
Forget the missing links. Forget the mathematical improbability. I just need to know one thing: where did the stuff, the primordial soup, first come from?
You see, faith is essential in all accounts of the origins of life. Evolutionists have faith that it happened, since they cannot prove it. Big Bang believers have the same faith. But Christians, as flawed, imperfect, and unreliable as they are (and aren't we all flawed, imperfect, and unreliable), have faith in something that, to me, seems partially reasonable.
Why should I put my faith in an evolving puddle of biological ooze? Why should I put my faith in a big explosion of whirling mass? Why should I put my faith in anything that is finite? Why not God?
I'll tell you why not. Because it's hard to believe. And being a thinker and someone who demands proof, it's hard to let go and realize that true faith requires more than reason and logic and evidence, it requires that "leap of faith". Because you fail to take that leap, only proves your dependence on reason, which is okay.
But you must understand, as I finally have, that despite all of the contradictions and errors and questions that ever single theory of beginnings has, only one theory has an infinite and perfect answer. God. I can't understand His reasons or His means, but that just confirms the fact that He is God. After all, if we could just put Him down on paper and say, "That is God. Here's why He does what He does." Then where would we be? The incomprehensible nature of the Christian God is what makes Him God.
I've said enough. I'm going to find a church.
Just a note to say thanks for existing. I am a college freshman and have been an atheist all my life. Being told I was going to hell by my kindergarten classmates was bad enough, coming to an Ivy college and finding a dozen Xtian organizations and not one atheist group was worse, but what really gripes me is the behavior of these 'love thee one another' folk online.
I am a regular on a board which will remain nameless. It is devoted to fans of a very secular rock group and all the regulars are atheists, satanist or both (it is possible - long story). At least once a day there is a message from a christian telling us what idiots we are and how we are all going to burn in hell. Is this the behavior of the people whose book says 'judge not, lest ye yourselves be judged?'
At any rate, you probably hear much worse horror stories all day long, but we are creating a collection of 'stupid christian tricks' so I'll be back here often. Thanks.
hello.
My name is Y. and I'm from Israel. I was very exited to find your web site, and I find it very interesting.
I just found those quotes in one of Frank Zappa's sites. thought they are quite relevant:
My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can.
* * * Children are naive -- they trust everyone. School is bad enough, but, if you put a child anywhere in the vicinity of a church, you're asking for trouble.
* * * Stupidity has a certain charm -- ignorance does not.
* * * A mind is like a parachute. It doesnt work if it not open.
* * * In the fight between you and the world, back the world.
* * * Let's not be too tough on our own ignorance. It's the thing that makes America great. If America weren't incomparably ignorant, how could we have tolerated the last eight years?
* * * Information doesn't kill you...
* * * The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the tree of knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just keep your fucking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.
* * * Drop out of school, before your mind rots from exposure to our mediocre educational system. Go to the library and educate yourself if you've got any guts...
I'm doing research for a paper on coverage of religion in media and need arguments on both sides. Obviously, it's easy to find arguments in print for why there should be more coverage of religion in media, but I'm having a hell of a time (so to speak) finding arguments against religious coverage in media. You guys seem like the type who would definitely be against seeing more articles about religion in media or religious angles on regular news stories. So could I either get some kind of statement from you about the issue or could you point me in the right direction of literature on the web or in print speaking out against religious coverage in the media or for straight secular reporting?
Sincerely,
Internet Infidels' Response:
In my view the question is not whether there is too much coverage of religion in the media, but rather is there too little coverage of minority religious views? And of those news items which cover minority religious views, how many deal with the strife and trouble these views have caused versus the good these views have given rise to?
If a news item calls for a religious angle, then it should, as news, be printed and promoted. The appearance of "too much coverage of religion" is besides the point -- if the news is honestly reported, and the news happens to contain an element of the religious, then appearances be damned. On the other hand, if a religious item is promoted as news for the sake of reader- or listenership, not as "news," then why bother?
Which is the case with a number of news items dealing with religious views: too often what is promoted as "news" is merely black-veiled sensationalism, sweetened pap garnished in serious journalism. Read the headlines: "Priest Caught in the Act with Altar Boy," "Buddhist Sect Terrorizes Local Village," "Islamic Nut Bombs City Hall," and as a topper, "I Was a Former Infidel -- A Village Idiot Converts." Very little good is said about religion, and when that good is reported, it's almost always a report of either a famed religious figure ("Pope John Paul II Blesses the Masses") or a faith story about someone in a majority religion ("Mary Feeds the Homeless, and Praises Jesus.")
Coverage of religion isn't the problem. It's the kind of coverage promoted by the media which, to reiterate, promotes either sensationalism or majority views. I can certainly understand why a news organization would do so if they are a business first and promoter of news next. Still, would it hurt to once in awhile to write a news item reading, say, "Hindu Finds and Returns Wallet With Thousands, and Praises Shiva," or "Atheist Gives to Charity Because He FEELS Like It"? It is hard to believe but those kinds of stories are out there if journalists would care to look for them.
I apologize if I did not respond as you would have liked. I know people have this image of non-believers as persons who'd like nothing more than seeing the total annihilation of religion, and while that may be true of some, the generalization is false and insulting. I haven't a problem with religion, although the same cannot be said of my view of people who seek to force their beliefs on me or who approach me as a sterotype.
Have a nice day.
[This message was in response to "Is the Bible the Word of God?" by Emmett Fields.]
You have only proven, "That the fool has said in his heart that there is no God." When you die, then you can berate me or curse me for being right. I will pray for you.
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
Ralph, if you are so sure that you are right, perhaps you would be interested in debating whether the Bible is "God's inspired word" in a forum where many others could benefit from your insights. I have a list on the infidels.org system called Errancy. You can subscribe to this by sending to errancy-request@infidels.org this message: "subscribe"
My observations about Xians with your confidence is that they have this type of confidence only because they have never tested their claims against an informed opposition. Subscribing to errancy would give you the opportunity to do that. We have biblicists who come and go. Typically, they come onto the list, see very quickly that their position cannot be logically defended, and then go (leave the list). Would you like to give it a try?
You said in your posting that you are praying for us. As a way to start the discussion, if you choose to join the list, I would like to show you that there is an internal contradiction in the scriptures concerning the promises that the Bible makes about the efficacy of prayer. Are you interested in discussing that?
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
In Matthew 5:22 Jesus said "Whosoever saith Thou Fool shall be in danger of hell fire."
'cerely,
Dan Barkeri challenge you to present information following the guidelines you dictated to prove that the miracles in question did not occur.
Be ever hearing, but never understading;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.
Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and
close their eyes
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear
with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed
[This message was in response to "The Scientific Case Against Immortality" by Keith Augustine.]
Gentlemen:
The article entitled "The Scientific Case Against Immortality" by Keith Augustine should probably be labeled, "The Scientific Case Against Consciousness After Death."
The article quite rightly identifies the brain as the seat of the mind and provides sound arguments against so-called "near death experiences" and "out of body" experiences, but does not address the possiblity of indefinitely extending life by purely technological means.
While this cannot be achieved by existing medical technology, and while formidable problems such as oxidant damage and programmed cell line extinction from teleomere exhaustion exist, there is no a priori reason why a combination of biological and electronic methods might not someday make this dream possible. Indeed, as one views the progress that has already been made in a few centuries, it is not unreasonable to say that such a boon may be inevitable, especially in the distant future.
So while I agree with the views expressed by Mr. Augustine, I think his title is very slightly misleading, or perhaps incomplete.
:-) If I am correct, and the necessary techniques are developed in time for my own and Mr. Augustine's use, by way of apology for my small critique I will buy him a lavish dinner at the restaurant of his choice - on New Year's Eve, 2299 AD. Please pardon my extravagent optimism and be sure to fasten your seat belts as needed in the mean time.
All the best.
Internet Infidels' Response:
> The article entitled "The Scientific Case Against
Immortality" by
> Keith Augustine should probably be labeled, "The Scientific Case
Against
> Consciousness After Death."
You are probably right about this, since your suggested title is more accurate in being more specific. In addition to not covering possible technological and medical means of living longer or almost 'forever', the essay did not deal with the common Christian belief in the physical resurrection of the dead on Judgment Day.
> The article quite rightly identifies the brain as the seat of the
mind
> and provides sound arguments against so-called "near death
experiences"
> and "out of body" experiences, but does not address the
possiblity of
> indefinitely extending life by purely technological means.
I had originally intended to deal with cryonics, but it would have extended the length of my essay by more than I wanted it to, and consequently I would have had to cut back on the other arguments about NDEs, OBEs, and mind-brain dependence, which I did not want to do.
> While this cannot be achieved by existing medical technology, and
while
> formidable problems such as oxidant damage and programmed cell line
> extinction from teleomere exhaustion exist, there is no a priori reason
> why a combination of biological and electronic methods might not someday
>
make
this dream possible. Indeed, as one views the progress that has
> already been made in a few centuries, it is not unreasonable to say that
>
such a boon may be inevitable, especially in the distant
future.
I agree that existing medical technology cannot provide 'virtual' immortality, as evidenced by the fact that no one has lived longer than, say, 135 years. I also agree that "there is no a prior reason" why future technology could not make this possible.
Two possible forms of immortality worth considering that I did not deal with in my essays are cryonics and the possibility of "mind uploading". The latter, I believe, should remain in the realm of science fiction--although theoretically possible, in practice I doubt that mind uploading would ever be achieved, but that is just a subjective judgment. However, I did address something relevant to this issue in an indirect way in The Philosophical Case for Extinction of the Personality at Death. In my analysis of the the arguments against the possibility of resurrection --specifically the 'replica' objection--I argued that there is no reason to hold that resurrection is not possible (concluding it is merely improbable, which of course is what makes it miraculous). This conclusion also allows the possibility that your mind could be transferred to some other medium, provided your mental states were the same, regardless of whether that medium (a computer) differed radically from its original medium (a brain).
Cryonics is at first a more plausible-seeming form of virtual immortality, but it too has insuperable (at least at present) difficulties. Cryonicists acknowledge the fact that the freezing process--even when blood is drained from the corpse and replaced with cryoprotectant liquids--destroys the most of the body's cells. They propose that some future, as of yet undeveloped, nanotechnology will be able to repair cellular damage with microscopic robots. However, given the difficulties in designing a machine that is microscopic in size, which performs its task of cell repair virtually flawlessly, and given the enormous amount of cellular damage, I think it is fair to say that nanotechnology is the deus ex machina of the cryonics movement.
I think the most likely way to obtain virtual immortality would be simply to extend the life span--that is, to avoid death all together. As I defined my terms, however, this is not even an issue (in Immortality: Defining the Problem) because what I called the "survival hypothesis" explicitly referred to the survival of the personality after the physical body had died.
> So while I agree with the views expressed by Mr. Augustine, I think
his
> title is very slightly misleading, or perhaps incomplete.
I do not think it is misleading given the fact that it is presented right next to other articles written by me which are quite explicit about the topics I'm dealing with, e.g., The Scientific Case for the Extinction of the Personality at Death. The articles were meant to be related.
Regards,
why is it that so many masons....(if they carry on the tradition of druids) are so involved in christian churches?
Greetings Internet Infidels. As a amateur student of theology and philosophy, I have found your site to be very interesting. The sincere and balanced debate is a refreshing encounter! Thank you.
Now, a few questions have come to mind in light of perusing various comments and responses Feedback areas.
First, I am curious, is there a general consensus among the Infidels as to a preferred basis for authority in a society? For example, in our society even now public officials are sworn into office under God, and legally accepted truth is based on sworn testimony as well. Without God providing this higher authority above all men, how do you propose to provide an authority structure in a free society? Perhaps you can refer me to further information on this subject. One work you may be familiar with that I have recently read which argues for the authority of God in society is A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaefer (spelling?) written in 1980 I believe. It is a scholarly work and well referenced in my opinion.
Second, as a follower of Christ myself, I am troubled by the intrusiveness of many modern Christians who would impose their world view upon others (for example, many of the policies of Christian Coalition and others in regard to various social issues). You would probably agree that their actions are inconsistent with the example of Christ himself, who according to the texts we now have advocated free will and free choice to all (John 3:16), as well as the early leaders of the Christian sects. Do most Infidels have disagreement primarily with the current intrusiveness of Christian beliefs, or is it a greater problem of competing world views? I ask this because my observation of some of the conversation in the Feedback led me to believe that some of you do believe that Christ existed, and perhaps God also. Which leads me to my next and last question.
Last, are most Infidels convinced that Truth is absolute and therefore the same for all people? For example, if we disagree concerning anything considered to be Truth, you would think you are right, and I would think I am right. From your perspective, is there always a correct answer? I ask this because I have seen many of my personal friends trust almost religiously in Science, believing each new figure and finding that comes down from the "high priest" physicists and scientists. Considering how frequently and dramatically science has changed throughout history, it seems scientific Facts, often held as Truth, are not as stable as they appear. And now as physicists are attempting to explain the paranormal and spirituality, science appears to be even more incredible.
Thank you in advance for any response.
As I noted earlier, I have enjoyed your site immensely.
Best regards,
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
> First, I am curious, is there a general consensus among the
> Infidels as to a preferred basis for authority in a
> society? For example, in our society even now public
> officials are sworn into office under God, and legally
> accepted truth is based on sworn testimony as well. Without
> God providing this higher authority above all men, how do you
> propose to provide an authority structure in a free society?
Any state or federal official who uses an "under god" formula or forces a candidate into this formula is in violation of the constitution of the United States. the founding document, and the basis for all law clearly states that no religious test shall be used for office. Likewise, all testimony may be affirmed. The guarantor for this is simply the penalty for perjury. Just as we don't need god to guarantee that people don't steal, we don't need god to enforce the laws on perjury.
I always wonder how christians reconcile their concern for swearing "by god" with Jesus's clear statements that no christian should swear by anything in the heavens or on the earth, and clear statement that your "yea should be yea and your nay should be nay," that is, a recognition that fancy swearing with fine-sounding oaths is usually the refuge of lying hypocrites. the instructions of the one who is supposed to be the source of moral guidance to christians is that no follower of his should ever swear an oath. Of course, you should also all sell all you have and give it to the poor.
> Second, as a follower of Christ myself, I am troubled by the
> intrusiveness of many modern Christians who would
> impose their world view upon others (for example, many of the
> policies of Christian Coalition and others in regard to
> various social issues). [snip] Do most Infidels have
> disagreement primarily with the current intrusiveness of
> Christian beliefs, or is it a greater problem of competing
> world views?
Most of us accept the Constitution and the UN Charter of Human Rights both of which call for freedom OF and freedom FROM religion. That is, every citizen of every country should be free from any legal or social constraint when practicing his or her religion; and likewise no citizen should be forced against his or her wishes to observe some religious custom or practice, or be required to conform to purely religious requirements or be forced into creedal statements.
> I ask this because my observation of some of the conversation
> in the Feedback led me to believe that some of you do believe
>
that Christ existed, and perhaps God also. Which leads
> me to my next and last question.
>
> Last, are most Infidels convinced that Truth is absolute
> and therefore the same for all people? For example, if we
> disagree concerning anything considered to be Truth, you
> would think you are right, and I would think I am right.
> ask this because I have seen many of my personal friends
> trust almost religiously in Science, believing each new
> figure and finding that comes down from the "high priest"
> physicists and scientists. Considering how frequently and
> dramatically science has changed throughout history, it
> seems scientific Facts, often held as Truth, are not as
> stable as they appear. And now as physicists are attempting
> to explain the paranormal and spirituality, science appears
> to be even more incredible.
Well, an essay I may recommend is Isaac Asimov's Relativity of Wrong. Science is incremental. That is, the dramatic changes do not wipe out what was there before, but build upon it. Newton formulated the laws governing gravity and the motion of bodies. We still use these and they work perfectly well. As measurement improved and was brought into areas not previously accessible, such as speeds near the speed of light, and for particles at the atomic level, inconsistencies were noted. Einstein's Special and General Relativity provide a consistent framework for explaining these deviations. but Newton's formulae work fine, and every high school student still learns f=ma, and the other laws of motion.
Truth with a capital T...I don't know. I know something is true when it agrees with the facts of the universe. What are the criteria for something being True as opposed to being merely true? Usually the 'changes' you speak of come about as the result of a change of interpretation; the facts, the underlying data, the observations of reality are still the same.
People had always noted the shape of the continents, and some measurements had even indicated some motion. But without the deeper explanation of plate tectonics, there was no framework on which to hang all of these facts and provide an consistent way of dealing with them and explaining them. Evolution provides a general explanatory framework for the facts of biology.
Science progresses because the facts have priority, not the theory. If someone, anyone can find facts that do not fit in with the theory, then a new theory must be sought to explain the anomaly. The catch here is that all the "old" facts are still around. The new theory, like relativity supplementing Newtonian mechanics, must explain the new observations while still "working" for all of the old ones.
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
> First, I am curious, is there a general consensus among the Infidels
> as to a preferred basis for authority in a society? For example, in our
> society even now public officials are sworn into office under God,
That is not correct. "So help me, God" is often added by new officials, but it is not part of the required statement. Also, "affirmations" instead of oaths are permitted -- mostly as concession to the few Christians who practice the advice, "Swear not at all."
> and legally accepted truth is based on sworn testimony as well.
There are a lot of sworn lies in court.
> Without God providing this higher authority above all men, how do
you
> propose to provide an authority structure in a free society?
Basically, "free society" and "authority structure" are opposing ideas. Paradoxically, we need some laws, arrived at throught democratic means, to restrict ourselves. This makes the most sense in health and public safety matters, and how much farther we can go and be basically free is a continuing argument.
I suspect that you feel insecure unless you can assure yourself, that based on some inside information, that such-and-such is the best possible law or policy, or that some set of facts or world view can be accepted as a reliable basis for all knowledge.
Such assurance is not found in this world. If there is a God, he or she has not given humankind the possibility of certainty. If you want certainty, which God has denied you, you are guiltly of covetness.
> Perhaps you can refer me to further information on this subject. One
>
work you may be familiar with that I have recently read which argues
> for the authority of God in society is A Christian Manifesto
> by Francis Schaefer (spelling?) written in 1980 I believe. It is a
> scholarly work and well referenced in my opinion.
I have the book, and he is not a scholar, but a Christian apologist.
> ... (views concerning "intrusive" Christians which I basically agree
> with) Which leads me to my next and last question.
Why capitalize "Truth," except to presuppose a divine origin?
While I believe that there is some sort of objective reality, at least above the level of quantum effects, perfect knowledge is not given to humankind in any area. Science appears to be a series of excellent methods to approach knowledge of the universe -- but it is always tentative.
In mathematics -- which, in a way, is a formal and synthetic system removed from the reality of the universe -- it is possible to achieve a kind of "proof" or "certainty." (I believe Hume or Berkeley made this point.)
> From your perspective, is there always a correct answer? I
> ask this because I have seen many of my personal friends trust almost
> religiously in Science, believing each new figure and finding that comes
>
down
from the high priest physicists and scientists.
Any scientist who considers him- or herself to be a high priest isn't doing it right.
> Considering how frequently and dramatically science has changed
> throughout history, it seems scientific Facts, often held as Truth,
> are not as stable as they appear.
Changes in scientific systems are often refinement or development of existing systems. Einstein "replaced" Newton; but the universe of Einstein is a refinement of Newtonian physics, and agrees with it to many decimal places under circumstances near the earth.
> And now as physicists are attempting to explain the paranormal
> and spirituality, science appears to be even more incredible.
It's hard to say what you mean here. If you are saying that science is somehow verifying paranormal and spiritual claims, I believe that you are not correct (this conclusion is of course itself tentative, but supported by current experience). If you mean that certain paranormal or spiritual experiences are more and more explained by, and subsumed under, psychology, biology, or chemistry, I believe this is the actual situation.
To whom it may concern:
The so-called "Bible inconsistencies" are a HORSELAUGH. A careful study of the passages given would make it clear that there are NO inconsistences at all in the King James 1611 Authorized Version. You must remember that "the natural man receivedth not the things of the Spirit...because they are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED" (1 Cor 2:15-16). Therefore, in order to understand God's word, you must be BORN AGAIN (John 3:3-8). This is accomplished by trusting the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal SAVIOUR. John 3:36 "He that beleiveth on the Son (JESUS CHRIST) hath everlasting life: and he that BELIEVETH NOT the Son shall not see life; bu the WRATH (the lake of fire) of God abideth on him." DON'T FORGET THAT! May God convict you of your lost and depraved condition and lead you to salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Hi! :)
Is your letter serious? The tone of your mail leads me to believe you have a good deal of humor in your soul, but I'm unsure. This natural spirit has trouble discerning the intent of your letter.
[This message was in response to "Life In Our Anti-Christian America" by Robby Berry .]
God bless you. I am a 23 year old college student who knows God is real. You should to. What harm has it caused to be a Christian? Certainly the advantages are infinitive.
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
Thanks for your message. The issue is not whether it is "advantageous" to be a Christian, but whether Christianity is true. I don't reject Christianity because it is harmful; I reject Christianity because I don't think it's true.
Sincerely,
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
Hi! :)
You write...
> God bless you. I am a 23 year old college student who knows God is
real.
> You should to. What harm has it caused to be a Christian? Certainly the
> advantages are infinitive.
For the Christian they certianly are. As in Roman times the advantages were great for the Romans, and not so advantageous for non-Roman Christians. Still, did that stop the Christians from living their lives and pursuing what they believed was the truth?
It's a pity when a person cannot see past his blinders and find that, hey! these infidels feel as justified in their beliefs as Christians do. And like Christians we would no more switch beliefs at the drop of a hat, no matter the advantages. "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?"
Hi!
I just stumbled across your site while researching a paper, and I must confess I was shocked. Let me ask you something: why is it that atheists only feel the need to attack Christ? Seems to me that if you need to get so up in arms about saving us from the only One Who can save us, why don't you get so excited about other religions? Why do you feel the need to do such things? Silly question, I guess. You guys fulfill Scripture, just by doing this. Did you know that?
I don't want to start a fight, and if my words sound harsh I don't mean them that way. As a Christian (and an ex-atheist) who loves several atheists dearly, these pages break my heart for you guys. You probably don't understand why, and you probably don't want my pity or my prayers. But you have them both.
I'm a fool
So are you
Maybe
you
think
I'm a fool for what I'm saying
Maybe that's what I'd like to be
Or maybe you're a fool to say you're a wise man
Either way you lose unless you meet with my King.
-PFR
I know that nothing I can say can reach one who feels as you do. But I will pray. Feel free to respond, if you like.
In Christian love,
Internet Infidels' Response:
Hello! :)
Before I go further, might I suggest you take a look at our FAQ at
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/faq.html ?
It should answer a number of your questions.
> Hi!
>
> I just stumbled across your site while researching a paper, and I
>
must confess I was shocked. Let me ask you something: why is it that
> atheists only feel the need to attack Christ? Seems to me that if you
>
need to get so up in arms about saving us from the only One Who can save
> us, why don't you get so excited about other religions? Why do you feel
> the need to do such things? Silly question, I guess. You guys fulfill
> Scripture, just by doing this. Did you know that?
Of course. And by not doing anything, we get our butts kicked by happy hunting Christians. The reason why infidels like us (atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, etc.) are allowed to speak at all is because some courageous souls dared to fulfill scripture and speak out against the injustices perpetrated by the more religious against those who dared not to believe.
[Oh, I know its common knowledge that no true Christian would ever harm hair nor hide of an unbeliever. Believe us, we're not attacking the true Christians, only those who, like the Romans before them, would persecute those different from they.]
The reason we don't attack other faiths is because few of us (a) were brought up outside the United States in a (b) culture influenced by another religion. Some of us know a bit about, say, Islam, and have put our knowledge to use (usually in the Feedback sections of our site.) I know some about Judaism, Zen, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, but not enough to offer a credible critique. (If I do offer a critique, it won't be soon -- I have more important matters to attend to.) So, I and the others spend our time and efforts on the subject we know a great deal about -- Christianity.
> I don't want to start a fight, and if my words sound harsh I don't
>
mean
them
that
way. As
a Christian (and an ex-atheist) who loves several
> atheists dearly, these pages break my heart for you guys. You probably
> don't understand why, and you probably don't want my pity or my prayers.
> But you have them both.
Thank you. However, why pity the person whose convictions in his beliefs are as strong (presumably) as yours? Maybe it will amaze you, but I feel no remorse nor a tinge of bad feeling for not being a Christian. It's not that I don't need pity, but please, save it for something that really matters to you and me.
> I'm a fool
> So are you
> Maybe you think I'm a fool for what I'm saying
> Maybe that's what I'd like to be
> Or maybe you're a fool to say you're a wise man
> Either way you lose unless you meet with my King.
>
-PFR
Don't be so hard on yourself -- you're no fool. Neither am I. And know this, I'll gladly burn if only to keep my intellectual integrity. :)
Dear Infidels,
I was in a pretty poetic mood the other evening,so I rote a little peom about being a freethinking and the virtue therin. I read it to some of my agnostic and atheist friends, and they all like it so much that they seggestd I share it with you guys. You all do such a great job providing learning and education for those of us that would have no access to it otherwise, so I figured that I owe you this. If you hate it, just ignor it, I'll understand:
who we are
the warrior has faith in his strength
he sees the world as a test of his endurance
each confrotaton he meets head on
and he looks only as far as himself for the power
to carry him through
what he has he has earnedthe philosopher has faith in his mind
he sees the world as a great mystery,
and each day he finds a new riddle to ponder
a new knot to unravel
he reveres the world of the past
but gives divinity only to what divintiy is due
no philospher is blind to the truth
and neither is he afraid of itthe scholar has faith in knowledge
he sees the world as a thing to study
like the philosopher, he seeks the truth
and in truth he finds power and strength
he knows only as much as he has seen,
and in this he will build the futurethe lover has faith in his heart
he sees the world as an extension of himself
he can feel what others feel,
and he sees himself in in everyone he meets
and through this empathy
he can repair the damage of hate a destruction
and help his fellow humanitythe fool has no faith, only hope
he labels his dreams as "belief" and "faith",
to make them more real
he knows only what he has been told
from worn out scripture and dogma
and he seeks nothing from the world but the end
the fools looks beyond life for the reasons
and in finding it, he learns nothing
the pain of ignorance he escapes
through the myths of redemption
and such is the plight of the fool,
who dies never knowing who he really was
I am glad that you are here. It is important for intelligent atheists to help each other and interested agnostics in finding relevant research material on the vast plains of the web. The work you are doing is important, and I hope you can keep it up. Many people need guidance in their journey away from the brainwashing of their youth, they need reading material and support to form their new understanding of their world and their life. Keep adding written material to your archive, especially necessary is material on morality without theism.
[This message was in response to "Sodom and Gomorrah and God's Massive Pee-Pee" by Nikolaus Mack.]
I think this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read!!! You have to be the most heartless person I've ever heard of, for God's sake, he got you here, and if you don't stop living for Satan, you're gonna be out of here and in to hell. Because if you make it to Heaven, Earth is the only hell you'll go through, and if you go to Hell, Earth is the ONLY Heaven you'll go through. You need to find Jesus!!!!!
Internet Infidels' Response:
1. Please consider drinking decaffeinated coffee before writing again.
2. Jesus has been dead for nearly 2,000 years. I'm not sure what it would mean to "find" a dead man, but I doubt that it is something I would want anything to do with.
[This message was in response to "Welcome to Hell" by Rorke Haining.]
Yeah Right. I don't even wanna go there. You wish hell was that easy. Burning of flesh and gnawing of teeth, is more like it. No beer attached
Internet Infidels' Response:
You and I both believe in the "good news." The difference between you and me is how we define "good news." I, for one, believe the "good news" is that there is no Hell.
[This message was in response to "Bible Absurdities" by Donald Morgan.]
If there is an all powerful God then he can do anything, even those things you have listed here. If there is not an all powerful God, then He can not. It has nothing to do with what we think, but rather if an all powerful God can do these things.
God Bless you for the thought provoking page.
May you someday be known as the experts with the answers, that you claim to have.
You said nothing in these passages about a believer's eyes being opened after accepting Christ (as the Bible says), don't knock it until you have tried it. Come on - what are you Chicken?
Internet Infidels' Response:
> You said nothing in these passages about a believer's eyes being
opened
> after accepting Christ (as the Bible says), don't knock it until you
>
have tried it. Come on - what are you Chicken?
I was a Christian for 3 1/2 years prior to becoming an atheist. I left Christianity for atheism because I had been forced to admit that there was no good evidence for Christianity, and much good evidence against. If you go to /electronic/email/ex-tian/stories.html, you will find several stories of others who left Christianity for similar reasons. So your childish "try it, what are you, chicken?" comment simply doesn't apply-- many of us have tried it, and we found it wanting. You would have known that if you had taken the time to actually do some research into atheism, instead of blindly accepting the stereotypes you picked up from your pastor or "The 700 Club".
Sincerely,
A question for atheists:
Suppose there really is no God, Christian or otherwise that nothing beyond nature exists. Now take an imaginary trip ten thousand years into the future.
Here in the year 11996 it's been, say, eight thousand years since anybody had a religion of any kind. Nutrition, genetics, and conditioning have left Huxley's Brave New World ten millennia behind and are now totally successful. Earth (and perhaps a few planets circling nearby stars) are now populated by perfectly adjusted, totally contented people who live, on average, four hundred years before dying painlessly. Words like "good" and "bad" are now useless because it's been so long since anything corresponding to "bad" has occurred.
Now imagine that scientists (who reached and experimentally confirmed a unified theory of "everything" three thousand years ago and now truly understand every bit of nature) have learned that a local galactic phenomenon will soon raise the temperature and alter the atmosphere on all planets available to humans to such an extent that the only way for "humankind" to continue is to radically alter the genetics of the entire species. The new conditions will require an animal resembling a cross between a squid and a dragonfly. The economic cost involved in engineering this new species will require that three fourths of the current population of standard-model humans die here and now.
A heat wave is coming across the Milky Way; humanity will cease to exist in perhaps twenty years unless millions die now to make possible a newly engineered replacement that can survive.
What should be done? Should three fourths of the current population cut short their lives so that "human" life can continue in another form, or should humanity as a whole accept its species mortality and allow the last generation to live a few more years?
Internet Infidels' Response:
[snip apocalyptic pre-conditions]
> What should be done? Should three fourths of the current
> population cut short their lives so that human life can
> continue in another form, or should humanity as a whole
> accept its species mortality and allow the last generation
> to live a few more years?
First, I must make clear that I speak only for those who adhere to my particular brand of Ethics. If you wish to examine my writings on Ethics, see http://www.agnostics.org/bibleh04.htm where I consider the alternatives and pick the "right" one.
Given the stark choice you pose, either everyone dies in 20 years or 3/4 die now, while the rest work on creating a "survivor" species as "successor" to mankind, I would unhesitatingly pick the latter of those choices.
To pick the "former" choice is to adhere to the principle of individual selfishness as the supreme moral value. While there is much to be said for the use of selfishness as a motivating factor in mass psychology, I could never accept that selfishness belonged as the "supreme" moral value.
Everything which we hold dear as a "civilized" species is based on the principle that the individual must adhere to the moral choices which the group makes for the benefit of the group as a whole. Individual selfishness is "The Law of the Jungle," and is the antithesis of civilization.
Again, given the perfection of the world which you hypothesize, there is no doubt that the populace of that hypothetical world would opt for the survival of the group at the sacrifice of the individuals who were necessary to be sacrificed "for the good of us all." Thus it has been in ALL civilized societies, and thus I believe it would be for your hypothetical society.
hi,
I am an atheist. I am a science student at college here in England, and I can honestly say I do not believe in God, in any form. I also do not believe the theory of the big bang.
Although the big bang theory has more proof than the God theory, what with the easily observed continous expansion of the universe, it fails to describe in a believable way anything that existed before this bang.
I can see a good and a bad side to all religions. On the good side, most of a religions followers - for example the majority of christians - find their belief adds focus to their lives and lets feel at ease with the world.
However, I think religion does more bad than good. On watching the six o'clock news, and hearing about bombs in Israel and Northern Ireland, it doesn't take a lot of idle thought to realise that the only reason the innocent victims of these bombs are losing their lives is because of people who believe in a God.
The fact is that people are being murdered. In the name of God.
How any religious person who realises this fact can put their trust in a God is beyond me.
The worst part of this is that religions are basically based on lies. People are dying for a cause that doesn't even exist. Except in some people's minds. I have never read anything that makes me even consider the prospect of there being a God who loves us.
I know this is a cliched argument, but it has never been answered to my satisfaction. Where are all these gods when disaster strikes? If they all love us so much, shouldn't they at least show some sign that they are helping us? The Dunblane massacre springs to mind. 17 people shot dead by a madman. Did god show up to lend his assistance to the teachers and children in their time of need? Did he bollocks. I do not accept that age old answer of "God works in mysterious ways". This means nothing when innocent people are dying.
Funerals are a farce. I only noticed this recently when I attended the funeral of my 16 year old friend who died of leukemia. The vicar talked to God about accepting Andrew under his wing, after he had allowed him die slowly over two years. If this was God working in a mysterious way, why should he have so many people's support?
On the topic of the origin of man, I believe the theory of evolution. In biochemistry, we learn things that support this theory such as this:
In humans, oxygen is carried around the body by a substance in the blood called haemoglobin. Haemoglobin is made up of complex enzymes which are in turn made up of amino acids. One of the (I think it's four) enzymes is strikingly similar to the substance chlorophyll, which absorbes light for photosynthesis in plants. Both of these enzymes are very similar to a substance found in amoeba and bacteria - the life forms from which we are all supposed to have evolved from.
The christian theory for the origin of man is "God created Adam". That's it. Now, which one of the above theories provides more evidence for itself?
Quite frankly, religion is a load of arse. It does more bad than good and the people who beleive in it are living a lie.
Thanks for reading,
I am going to be on a panel discussion at a local Science Fiction convention with a "Born Again Buddhist". He enjoys making the claim that there have "never been any wars under Buddhism". I know that is false.
Do you have any useful pointers for showing him the errors of his ways? (The only one I have reference to right now is the civil war in Sri Lanka and I expect him to weasel out of it...)
Thanks!
Internet Infidels' Response:
the current gangsters ruling Burma are Buddhists, and have used religion and ethnocentric arguments to drive Bengali Muslims (who had lived in the area for nearly 3 centuries) "back home."
Asoka (Ashok, Ashoka) was a medieval emperor of India, and put together one of the first empires, using the usual empire building methods, all while being a Buddhist. The Japanese were Buddhists, (along with Shinto) during the whole time that they were under the influence of rabid nationalism during this century.
Of course, just like any Christian who did something that your current Christian debating opponent cannot defend, all of these people will turn out to be "not REAL Buddhists." The history of any land where Buddhism is the default religion, which would include Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and most of Southeast Asia, looks the same as any other area's history. Kingdoms fought wars, conquered each other, had civil wars, and I'm sure, fought other religions.
[This message was in response to the "July 1996 Feedback".]
I guess I want to acknowledge what you folks are doing. I say this because to some extent, I feel like the child who just found out there is no Santa Clauss.
I have spent most of my life studying the Bible and teaching it to others. I must admit they were always certain things that bothered me, but I chose to ignore these and pray for more "faith."
I have tried to respond to the information you present on Messianic prophecies, failed and imaginary. I find that I can honestly challenge only 20 percent of the material, at best. For some time I have asked others to consider this material. The outcome is always the same. A promise to respond followed by silence.
I recently completed reading Burton Mack's "Who wrote the New Testament - The Making of the Christian Myth." I was very impressed by his analysis. However, I can't help but feel that it is in fact a heavily biased work based on many pre-suppositions.
On the other hand, I am curently reading Josh McDowell's book: "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." It makes an interesting read, but seems to suffer from many of the same problems, perhaps to a much greater degree.
I am not going to argue for unbiased examination of the Bible or even for the existence of God. I don't think that that's possible.
I fear that definitive answers are not forthcoming. It seems that we grow old with out ever being able to answer those big questions we first pose to our parents. Personally, this makes me sad.
Religious systems set out to provide answers to these questions. I think that most people feel better knowing why we're here, where we are going, what the future holds, who God is, etc.
An atheistic/non-theistic position certainly leaves a vacuum in these areas. So for many, ignorance is bliss. Religion fills an important need, and allows them to get through life. Is it any wonder you are inundated with scathing responses from fundamentalists? Such persons need to remember that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Is religion a farce? Probably. Is there a God? Certainly seems possible? Is the Bible the infallible word of God? Seems very unlikely.
Definitely more questions than answers. Maybe Pontius Pilate put it best: "What is truth?"
Then again, perhaps Christians just think he asked that question?
Doubting Thomas
I am writng to address a paricualr aspect of the great science-religion debate. This is not an attempt to defend any one position. I am only curious about one thing. One of the accepted great theorists of sicence of all time is, of course, Albert Einstein. Through his theories, we have managed to plot out the entire universe, figuratively. My point is this: Even he was quoted as saying that science without religion is wrong. As well, he says that religion without science is blind. This idea comes from Einstein's earlier essays. Even he believed that each thing( religion and science) both had a purpose in life. I would appreciate anyone's response to this. This is only meant to be a philosophical question. I am not looking to start a fight with anyone.
Thank you,
[This message was in response to the "July 1996 Feedback".]
Hello, Gordon,
I am glad that you are questioning Josh McDowells writings. But something causes me to want to ask, if you know so much about the Bible, how is it that you are NOT a Christian?
respectfully
Internet Infidels' Response:
My view is that it is much more remarkable for someone who knows a great deal about the Bible to be a Christian than not to be one.
[This message was in response to " Biblical Inconsistencies" by Donald Morgan.]
I take exception with your assertion that the Bible contradicts itself. I have had only a moment to review the first of them, but I can see why you take the position you do. The Bible is a complex work comprising the writings of many men and, having been translated several times, loses some of the clarity of the original intent. However, many of the statements you make are the result of a general conception that the Bible is chronological: It is not.
Genesis 1 is obviously intended to be a calendar of events taking place during the creation of the earth and very closely resembles the order of things as the evolutionists state, but Genesis 2 is somewhat of a recap. If you look back at the comparisons you make between the two (and keep an open mind), I think you will see what I mean.
I don't plan on arguing each point with you (it would probably useless, don't you agree?), but I will pray that you use your great wisdom to figure out that you need Jesus Christ. There are many fakes in the world, but Christianity isn't one. Good luck and God Bless You. :)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thank you for your input.
I have devoted 20+ years of study to the Bible and things biblical. This includes the time I spent doing so as a fundamentalist Christian as well as the time since.
In my view, yours is an overly simplistic viewpoint based on your Christian bias. In my opinion, if you knew what I know about the Bible, you could not help but feel that you had been hoodwinked by the Church. Your explanation of the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis two is the standard apologetic offered by the Church; it doesn't hold water, however, when one looks into it thoroughly.
Might I suggest that you do some reading on biblical criticism? Here are a few suggestions:
"Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis" by Graves & Patai
"The Two Creation Stories in Genesis" by James S. Forrester-Brown
"The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels" by Alexander Heidel
"The Historical Approach to the Bible" by Howard M. Teeple
"A Historical Introduction to the New Testament" by Robert M. Grant
Many others are listed in the bibliography to my work.
Regards,
[This message was in response to the "Modern Library," in reference to "America -- Not a Christian Nation!".]
A bit of trivia which may not be coincidental to the fact that only 7% of the colonial inhabitants belonged to an organized church when the Declaration of Independence was signed: Immediately preceeding the Communist revolution in Russia, over 75% of Russian citizens belonged to the Greek orthodox church, and over 85% belonged to a church of some kind.
[This message was in response to " The Jury is In: Chapter 5" by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
Hello!
I found your critque of McDowell's Evidence That Demands A Verdict to be well written, and very comprehensive. Thank you for your hard work in this area.
I'm not totally convinced that Jesus was not a myth, rather than a historical personage. I don't take a dogmatic position on the issue, but I believe at this point that some serious arguments can be made in this direction. One writer whom I've read recently is Earl Doherty. I think He's made a series of interesting points concerning how the Gospel writers created an earthly biography for Jesus, after Paul first presented him as a mystical savior. Doherty's article about the topic can be found by searching for "The Jesus Puzzle". I understand that this is probably a minority position -- historian Michael Grant, and writers Randall Helms (Gospel Fictions, Prometheus) and Morton Smith (Jesus The Magician, Prometheus?) are more prone to the idea of a historical Jesus whose life was later enlarged over the years to be a divine miracle-worker and savior, just as many of the scholars you mentioned.
Incidentally, I wrote a rather lengthy paper about 10 years ago, concerning the apologetic efforts of John Warwick Montgomery. As you might know, he was a mentor of Josh McDowell. I critique, point-by-point, his particular "evidentialist" approach to defending faith in the New Testament, as well as touch on methods that other Christian apologists have employed. It was written at a time when I became a skeptic-free thinker-humanist, after roughly nine years of heavy-duty Biblical Christianity. Even so, it's not written as an emotionally insulting commentary, but an intelligent response to some very flawed thinking. I was then a History major at a Christian college (Covenant College at Lookout Mtn., TN.).
If you're interested in reading this paper, I can e-mail it to you. I think that you'll find it somewhat reminiscent of your McDowell studies, especially the amount of circular reasoning that's involved in proving the "accuracy" or "historicity" of Jesus. Please let me know if this interests you.
Sincerely,
Hi. I just wanted to let you know, I was glad to run across your page. It is good to know there are others out there with similar views. Thank you.
Hi,
Been using your documents on the founding fathers (being deists) and just wanted to compliment you on this site. It is excellent, as is the Atheism Web but yours appears more comprehensive. I will forward your link with much enthusiasm. I have only looked thru some of your material, as you have so much.
I am a subscriber to the Skeptical Inquirer and would like to see a link to their site here. Making a connection between religious beliefs and paranormal beliefs would be a natural extension of freethinking. My experience has been that most religious believers have strong paranormal views also. I would be interested in how many athiests, etc, hold similar views. It is interesting how a person will laugh at telekinesis yet have a strong belief in premonitions (for example.) I fear that many freethinkers may be promoting pseudoscience unwittingly by not denouncing it. It seems to be taking over the TV these days.
Anyway I am a strong athiest and skeptic and will try and come up with some presentation ideas for the above if you are interested.
Thanks,
[This message was in response to " The Dark Bible: Chapter 3" by Unknown.]
I read a comment on the dark Bible that suggested that Peter killed Annanias and Sapphira, the couple who sold their lands and then lied about the price they sold it for.
In response:
1. Their wrongdoing was in lying about the gift, not in holding back..
Peter indicates (Acts 5:3) that the sin was lying and that the choice about how much money to give was the man's, not the church's.
2. There is NO MENTION of Peter committing the horrendous crime of murder. We know from other scriptures that Peter was given to emotional responses, but he did not declare death, though he did prophesy the wife's death when she lied as well.
To suggest that Peter murdered anyone is absurd. Many other atrocities certainly did occur, but the gentleman who wrote that post went way overboard.
[This message was in response to "Six Historic Americans: Chapter 1" by John Remsburg.]
Greetings WebMaster! Our records show that you are the contact person for
Discussions on Thomas Paine's religion
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_1.html
Our sincerest congratulations! Your Internet site has been reviewed and rated by ZIA Resources professional editorial staff. We are delighted to designate your resource as suitable for inclusion in ZIA, the family site.
http://www.zia.com/
ZIA is the largest family friendly site on the internet!
Inclusion on ZIA is a special mark of achievement. As a ZIA Reviewed Site, you are being awarded a special logo to recognize the hard work that has gone into establishing and maintaining your site.
As a reviewed site you also have the opportunity to designate your own site description for inclusion on ZIA Resources. Please enter your site description between the brackets below and try to use no more than 25 words. Don't worry about using more than one line. Then just reply to this mail and your own personal site description will be added to your site link.
Congratulations again on your Reviewed Site award! We wish you continued success in all of your online endeavors.
Sincerely,
Gail Anne Vigue
ZIA Resources
[This message was in response to "Review of Why I Am Not a Muslim" by Ibn al-Rawandi.]
I am interested in the discussion of Ibn al-Rawandi. Do you know of a discussion group on the issues he raises?
I am health sciences student at James Madison University. I'm currently involved in a project to compile information on the various PREGNANCY PREVENTION programs that are offered for adolecents in different churches. Good or bad, any method, strategy, or information on programs will be included. Please let me know if there is any information you wouldn't mind sharing with me.
Thank you.
Hello.
You seem to be against Jesus, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc. But what are you for? And why I could not find info about that?
Respectfully,
Internet Infidels' Response:
The Secular Web strives to present information about a variety of secularist viewpoints, include agnosticism, weak atheism, strong atheism, secular humanism, the freethinker movement, and so forth. We do not strive to promote any one particular type of secularism.
If you go to the "Modern Documents" section of the Library (go to our home page, then select "Modern Documents" under the section labelled "Library"), you will be able to find more information about the various secularisms. Look for the subject headers "Agnosticism", "Atheism", "Freethought", and "Secular Humanism".
Hope this helps. Take care!
Sincerely,
[This message was in response to the "Jesus Report Card" by Unknown.]
Well Unbiased? HUH! you all are a fading lot who will die like the beasts you think we are, only when you awake you'll see the BIG BANG for real. And yes scientificaly and empiricaly also. SAVE US ALL SOME TROUBLE AND GO TO MARS AND FIND OUR ANSWERS THERE!! HAHAHA MARS YOU DAMN FOOLS!!!
Great page!
People who cling to the medieval god concept really scare me. How anyone can voluntarily embrace this ignorance is beyond my comprehension. I really give you credit for so tactfully engaging these people in discourse. To me these people are schizophrenic.
I myself can't discuss the god concept; It's lunacy! I could no sooner try to discuss CIA brain implants with mental patients than I could discuss god with believers.
Sadly the god concept has such historical momentum it's almost universally accepted as truth. How these people can babble on about an unseen, unheard, nonexistent being, and be considered sane, is alarming. People today are so skeptical, so pragmatic on all thing except the existence of an unseen deity responsible for all the thing that relativity and quantum mechanics so clearly explain.
Are they nuts or am I? ( Rhetorical, I'm just getting dramatic. )
Ultimately I feel pity for the believers. Their stubborn adherence to ignorance denies them the joy of living. They're concentrating on guilt and duty in the here and now and "life" in the "after life". What an oxymoron. When you die you die. Worms eat you and they die. Plants eat the worms and they die. The sun runs out of fuel, expands engulfing the earth and blows up spreading all the stuff back into the universe
This "glorious accident" that is our existence, consciousness and reality is a true "miracle". The odds of all the stuff flying around and slamming into each other in the universe forming into something like ourselves is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. Guess what; we won!
We can laugh and cry , sleep late, eat yummy food, get laid; and best of all; be conscious of it! What we've got is amazing. Embrace reality! Don't chew, just let it melt in your mouth. The god people are really missing out by concentrating on their unseen deity here and now and any sort of after life.
Great Page!
[This message was in response to "Reply to Butler, Ventrella, and Fields" by Michael Martin.]
This is par for many christians. I was converted to atheism after looking into the lives of some theist that were defamed in a christian tract given to me. One of the atheist was Robert Ingersal. I went to the public library and read a book be Ingersal called "Some Mistakes of Moses." That was the begining of my freedom from religion.
Sincerely a friend
I feel very sorry for you....
Internet Infidels' Response:
Why?
Sincerely,
Allow me to congratulate and compliment all of you for your courage. I am really impressed. I made my 'official' conversion to atheism at age 48 (pretty much agnostic and unsure before; now, no doubt). You all are mostly in your 20's I presume and I can't adequately express to you how much admiration I have for your courage to promulgate an extremely unpopular intellectual position what with the wave of anti-rationalism that continues to inundate the US.
Keep up the good work. Your patience and tact in dealing with the variety of responses that you receive is refreshing. You will continue to benefit from your accurate perception of 'reality'.
Best Regards,
Just thought I would share this with all of you.
This weekend when I was going around on the Western Slope of Colorado spreading the Amendment #11 message, I was driving in a raging snow storm in some of the worst mountains in Colorado, from South of Silverton to North of Ouray, (I know doesn't mean much,) There are two mountain passes to go over.
I was in four wheel drive and creeping along. Two other vehicles behind me. I came across two stranded hunters. They had broken a rear axle and wheel on their Jeep. I stopped and asked them if they needed a ride at least to Ouray, because I didn't know if I was going to go further. (The other two vehicles passed me and went on their merry way.) They said they were supposed to have someone come with a trailer to get them and the Jeep. I never passed anyone with a trailer after I left them.
They told me I was the first person in 2 hours that they were there, to stop and try to help them. I said well leave it up to an atheist woman to have the will and worry for another human being to want to help. They said a what woman? I repeated an atheist woman. You are an atheist was the question? I said, Yes. So where are all your Christian concerned people that passed you by? So I told them to let that be a lesson to them, that atheists are good people. They said I had a point and were very grateful to me. They said they would remember this. They were from Pennsylvania. They also put a board under the back of that Jeep and slid down a 14,000 ft mountain, down a couple thousand feet. Can you imagine?
Later I heard a news or a hunter's emerency interruption on the radio for several people along with two people from Pennsylvania to respond. It was another two hours before I could reach a phone, I never heard the message again to get a number to call. I will always wonder if it was for those two guys. I wonder if that other person with the trailer just couldn't make it.
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
