Internet Infidels: Feedback: 1996: September

First, I do not worship, i.e.. I do not recognize any god as having authority over actions. With respect to the question of whether there is a God or not, I just do not know. Is there a term for that?

I am writing because I linked, and bookmarked, your page for future reference, cuz religion is my hobby. However, the first thing I read was an article about the smith-Craig debate. I was pretty disappointed. A debate, an exchange of ideas between two persons of differing opinions, was presented from a totally one-sided perspective. This kind of reporting is just the kind of closed-minded prejudice that the traditional religions have used to decry atheists for centuries.

However with the bad there is always the good: I will be returning, and if possible, I would like very much to have an opportunity to talk with others about the validity of atheist arguments, and read your papers. RSVP and thank you for your time.

Internet Infidels' Response:

I don't understand what you wrote above. We allowed both Craig and Smith to give their own accounts of the debate, so it's not clear to me how this "was presented from a totally one-sided perspective." Perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean here.

Sincerely,

Jeff Lowder

[This message was in response to "Gentle Godlessness" by Paul O'Brien.]

I read all the Gentle Godlessnes book and there is just one comment: Part Twelve and thirteen are THE SAME!!!!!

I enjoyed reading the book. Thanks.

[This message was in response to "Why I Left the Ministry and Became an Atheist" by G. Vincent Runyon.]

Dear Mr. Runyon,

What a breath of fresh air your ideas are. I had experienced several different religions as a child (depending on who my father was at the time) but as an adult came to many of the same conclusions as you have regarding religion and god.

I have three sons, 21, 18 and 8. I have never taken them to church, and I made the conscious decision not to indoctrinate them into any religious beliefs (although I will not oppose them if they choose to be religious as adults). I have, however, tried to impress upon them that people are quite capable of understanding the difference between "right and wrong" all by themselves (without a god), and that a person is responsible for their own actions and inclinations. This is of course mitigated by genetic predispositions, but it is also enhanced by the pursuit of knowledge, i.e., education (pro and con). I can see no more ethical belief than that of the golden rule, and I can conceive of no more spiritual a feeling than my awe of the existence of the universe itself.

I feel very at peace with my views on religion, but I do experience some paranoia about letting my beliefs, or lack of them, become known in the small community in which my family lives and is active. Many people here are not church goers, but they all play lip service to established religions.

My question to you, mostly as food for thought, is: Will this hostile attitude toward athiests get much worse before it gets better? Will we have to endure actual persecution in order to hang on to our integrity?

If I was your mom, I'd be infinitely proud of you!

Sincerely,

Dear Emmett F. Fields,

You are contributing a valuable service to the world by providing access to older books on-line. I personally have discovered and printed out Robert Ingersoll's works and Thomas Paine's works. Some of it I have shared with another person who has photocopied it for himself. I also have a link to Ingersoll's works on t my Web Site. These two people were a valuable discovery and through your work I could access them here in Canada. I found the libraries in B.C., including the large Vancouver Public Library, had very little on Ingersoll; mostly biographies.

A book that is impossible to get, apparently it is out of print, is: "Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions" by T.W. Dione. If possible let me know when you have it on-line.

Thanks for your contribution to society, not only in the USA, but in the world.

[This message was in response to the "Skeptical Review ".]

Dear Mr. Till (or anyone else)

Since I have started trying to think for myself, I have been very impressed with the Skeptical Review.

I was wondering if you have printed an article (if not, could you, please) about Faith vs. Skepticism. All my old friends tell me "You just don't have any faith." I respond that I believe in the advantages of a positive outlook on my life and stiuation, but not in faith in something I'm not sure of. The problem is, when they say "You don't have faith", they say it in a way that elevates the possession of faith as a noble character trait. You can tell they think something is wrong with me. By the same token, they view skepticism as some sort of character defect. It's as though "we don't care which church you belong to, as long as you believe in something." I respond that the Muslim extremeists who blow up buildings with suicide bombs are also motivated by their faith. Still, everyone around here views faith as an admirable trait to be sought by all good people. Anyone without it is somehow defective.

Other than Jesus and apostles telling us to have faith, what is so good about it? What is so superior about faith in something you're not even sure about, compared to the scientific method of learning? If there is a God, why would it be so important for him to want us to believe in him on the basis of non-scientific evidence? If I were God (how's that for high aspirations!) I would be far more concerned with whether or not each person was kind, honest, and made the most of his/her life than whether or not they believed in me and sang my praises.

I like being an optimist and positive thinker, but to me that is different than faith.

Anyway, if you have a few thoughts defending skpeticism as a character trait, and showing how faith by itself is not necessarily a noble virtue (it can even be dangerous), I would really appreciate it.

Thank you

[This message was in response to the "Skeptical Review ".]

Dear Mr. Till:

I know I have written to you several times lately, and I know you are too busy to answer all your mail. That's OK, I hope I write something on occasion that will be useful to you.

In your articles with Bill Lockwood on "Why Bother" accepting atheism if even a false Christianity makes one happy, I have a very good reason: my children and the world they inherit.

At our church, I have heard countless times things like "I don't worry about pollution" or "I don't worry about overpopulation", or the rain forest or the ozone hole, etc. Even though overpopulation also means starvation and misery in some areas of the world, they don't care. In fact, they think it is silly to worry about any of these things. Why? Because Jesus is coming ANY DAY now, and then everything will be wonderful.

So what if we trash the earth, and Jesus is a little behind schedule (like never coming at all)? What do we leave to our children? I think if we realize that we are all alone on this planet, without angels to protect us, then we'd better get off our butts and try and be good stewards of what we have, rather than leave a mess for Jesus to clean up.

[This message was in response to "21 Actual Announcements Taken From Church Bulletins" by Richard Lederer.]

really enjoyed your announcements

Thank you for creating this site! I have been on a personal search for what I guess you could call inner peace as far as religion goes for some time now and your site has been the greatest aid so far. I just recently found you so I have a lot more reading to do, but so far we match on feelings to the tee! Just wanted to drop you a note to say "Thanks." Any mailers you have, I am interested in receiving them. Keep me in mind, if you would, for any E-Mailings that you may have. Thanks again!

[This message was in response to the "February 1996 Feedback".]

Assuming that you could prove that there is no God. What good purpose would you be serving? There are millions of people all over the world who can testify that God has truly changed their life for the better. In other words the theory of "God" is helping millions of people. Why do you seek to destroy this hope for those and those in the future whose lives will be changed because of "God" How is the believe in God by others hurting you so badly?

Someone please reply to me.

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

I think you are asking the wrong question. The question is not whether believers are hurting the non-believers, but whether humanity is best served by truth or falsehood. I opt for the former.

Let me rephrase your comments a bit. Suppose someone instead asked us, "Assuming that you could prove that the earth is round. What good purpose would you be serving? ... How is the belief in a flat earth by others hurting you so badly?" Again, non-believers are not being hurt at all by those who believe in a flat earth. Still, are we doing any good when it comes to proving the earth is round and not flat?

I think so. The good in our lives comes not from believing anything we will, but in stripping away the truth from the multitude of falsehoods. In both instances we do believe, but the distinctions in belief are as wide as the differences between childhood and adulthood. Occassionally these truths, whatever they are, will hurt people, but is this hurt akin to pain inflicted by a malevolent torturer, or to pain inflicted by a doctor attempting to relieve an injury?

I would like to view myself as the doctor, although I'm sure many more see me as the devil's helper. People will view me, and other non-believers, as they will. As for those who've been helped by falsehood, I would only ask, "Can you imagine how much better you'd be if you instead relied on the truth?"

stephen

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

I seriously question your claim that belief in God makes life so much better for millions of people. The history of religion has been opposition to scientific discoveries that obviously make life better. Christians opposed the use of anesthesias in childbirth on the grounds that God had decreed that women should bring forth children in pain. Did the suffering that this caused women to have to bear unnecessarily make them happier? Christians opposed vaccinations when they were first introduced on the grounds that this was witchcraft. How will we ever know how many people needlessly died because of this opposition? Did their deaths make life happier for their parents, siblings, spouses, etc.? The July/August 1996 issue of The Freethought Observer has an interesting article ("Churches vs. the Lightning Rod"), which discusses the opposition of churches to Franklin's invention of the lightning rod. The Reverend Thomas Prince, pastor of Old South Church in Boston, was just one of many opponents of the invention. In one of his sermons, Prince blamed the earthquake of 1755 on Franklin's invention and cited as one of his proofs that more lightning rods had been erected in Boston than anywhere else in New England. Boston was the most severely damaged area during the earthquake, so Prince declared this as evidence that "(t)here is no getting out of the mighty hand of God."

Even today, we see this tendency to resist science in the name of God. Rather than encouraging scientific efforts to combat AIDS, many preachers have proclaimed it a curse from God to punish homosexuals. Opposition to scientific progress is the legacy that belief in God has left us. Today, the God-believers are doing everything they can to oppose the teaching of evolution, which the world's scientific community as a whole supports. If you want to see this type of thing as "happiness," I suppose you are free to do so, but I can only feel sorry for you.

Farrell Till

Internet Infidels' Response #3:

There are millions of people on earth who have been harmed by being manipilated into thinking there is a god when their reason, and logic have told them otherwise. Millions of people manipulated into thinkig that their reason and logic is somehow faulty simply because they feel they can handle a situation without a god. What about these people? Most of whom would never dare to deny the rights of believers to worship. How is unbelief in a god hurting you so badly?

Pat Kelley

I have just visited your Secular Web Page. I salute your excellent effort. I came there looking for a collection of definitions of atheism. I was told you carry such a thing, but I couldn't locate it.

Keep up the good work.

[This message was in response to "How to Defend Atheism" by George Smith .]

Reading George Smith's speech on defending atheism is my first experience in learning about atheism from the source. I must confess that it leaves me greatly disappointed.

Although Mr Smith appeals to reason and reasonableness time after time, he himself fails on several points to follow his own admonition.

My first warning that this was the case came when I read his definition of a deity, (any being which transcends the natural laws of the universe). But logicly, any god should be able to create a being which should be able to also transcend the natural laws (i.e. Christian angels). I don't think it's enough to say he's not intending to reason anything with this hasty definition of convenience- you can't draw reasonable inferences from a sloppy premiss.

Look at the way he tries to discredit Paschal's wager: his assertion that one cannot 'do a complete turnabout in your beliefs willy-nilly without suffering any psychological damage' is logicly indefensible. What proof he might resort to, statistics from scientific studies? These are nothing more than 'proofs of experience', the very form of argument he denounces at great length when used by theists.

Finally as to 'Smith's Wager'.... Even if one permits him to 'refine' his defintion of deity to exclude angels, the first premise of his wager begs the conclusion because one can infer that a god can transecend reason. 'God transcends reason' is another theist claim he thoroughly abuses in previous statements. Then he claims that you will live 'a happy life with the correct position', another position he neglects to defend. He also claims to be able to define a 'just god' and an 'unjust god' after he has implied that this god transcends reason. If that is not a self-contradictory statement, then what is?

What conclusion can I draw?

a) athiesm is reaonable
b)Smith is not reasonable
c)Smith is a theist.

So much for sweet reason.

[This message was in response to the "Humor Section" of the Secular Web.]

You guys are incredibly funny! I am a non-traditional person myself...You had me laughing aloud in a room of around 100 or more computers and a lot of strangers...that's really saying something! By the way, what do you have against pagans? You seem to lump paganism in with Christianity somehow...whassup? I'll be watching for more great stuff! Thanks for being there!

Hi Jeff or who ever this gets to,

I thought I would share with you a little story. My X girlfriend was going to sign up my son in the Cub Scouts. As you are probably already aware they are a christian orginization; I didn't know this until yesterday. Anyway long story/short she got to a part of the paperwork that required her to sign a declaration of faith to Jesus Christ. On this matter she and I are in agrement; so she left without signing anything. You can bet how pissed I was that an orginazation would descriminate aginst my son for the religious views of his parants. I want this to be quite clear FUCK THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA. Thanks for taking the time to read my digruntled thoughts.

I see religious persecution is alive and well. "Free thought"? Does everyone have a right to their beliefs except Christians? If you are truly advocating freedom of thought, you would not ridicule any group.

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

Out of curiousity, do you also object to the verse in Psalms which ridicules atheists as fools?

Sincerely,

Rob Berry

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

This is doublethink. Freedom of thought means freedom to think about, criticize, and yes, even ridicule beliefs.

I'm not sure I agree that there is a "right to belief" -- definitely not if you mean "right to believe whatever I want and not be questioned, challenged or criticized by anyone."

I find it hypocritical in the extreme for a Christian to complain about being criticized, since if you examine resources on the network you will find that most Christian web sites criticize others yet do not even acknowledge the existence of criticisms directed at them. The Secular Web, by contrast, clearly acknowledges the existence of contrary opinions--and provides links to sites which criticize documents on the Secular Web.

Jim Lippard

Internet Infidels' Response #3:

> I see religious persecution is alive and well.

Yes, it is - persectuion of the Freethinkers by the religious. Public money to pay for chaplians. Religious mottos on money, courts, and even in congress. Religious slogans inserted into our pledge of allegiance. Yes, there is religious persectuion, all right. How would you like it if someone forced your child to say "One nation, under Satan..." every morning?

And are you implying that the Secular Web is somehow "persecuting" any religious person? If so, how? All the Internet Infidels do is provide reading material - make it available to people who might be interested to read it. Where's the "persecution" in that?

> "Free thought"?

Yes. I know it's a new phrase that sounds strange to you. But try it sometime.

> Does everyone have a right to their beliefs except Christians?

What makes you say that? We never advocated anythying of the kind. Everyone is free to believe whatever they like, including christians. Why are you getting worked up abouts something that isn't even an issue? No one is trying to stop you or anyone else from having whatever religion you want. We will try to stop you from forcing that religion on other people, but there's a big difference.

It seems to me that far too many of you theists make the big mistake of assuming that being prevented from forcing your religion on others equates to "persecution". I find it laughable that you are complianing about being persecuted when it is you doing the persecution. Does it say "There are no invisible beings" on the money? Does it say "In reason we trust" over the congress? Does the Pledge of Allegiance say "One nation, atheistic..."?

> If you are truly advocating freedom of thought, you would not ridicule
> any group.

First of all, we aren't ridiculing any group - unless pointing out how silly their beliefs are is "ridicule". I suppose you could argue that pointing out RIDICULous beliefs falls into that category, but, hey - you invented invisible beings, not us. We can't help it if they seem dumb. We don't ridicule christians any more than you would ridicule a 35-year-old man who still believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Secondly, your argument does not follow: if I wanted to, I could easily advocate freedom of thought and ridicule people all I wanted to. The two are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes, in fact, ridicule is a good way to promote freedom of thought.

Doug Linder

Your site is helpful in explaining Hammurabi's Civil Code. I would state that Babylon became corrupted later, as do most high civilizations, but started out with much virtue. The "Jews" were originally a part of the Tribe of Judah of Israel. They were a mixture of part Shemite with the Hittites, Jebusites, etc of Babylon. The Shemites come from the Aryan line, as do the earliest pre-Dynastic Egyptian Pharoahs who were a blue-eyed Nordic people. (See L.A. Waddell's sources). The Shemites were similar. The Babylonians, on the other hand, of which the Jews were a racial mixture, are of the Mongolian race. Today, 90% of the Jewish people are of the Khazars, a Turkal-Mongal race. Only 10% are of Judea who are Shemitic. Many of the Moslem people are aware of this fact, and so Israel's claim to Palestine is put into question. There may be few true Shemites in Israel, but who knows?

You said Christianity prevails in the West that's the reason you talk agains them the most, and in future you will work agains other monotheistic religions. But you did'nt mention Jewism, Why ? Isn't it true that you guys have the backing of them ?

Sorry, but I m straight forward.

Cheers !!

Internet Infidels' Response:

Just so you'll know, we also intend to provide critiques of polytheistic religions as well.

I presume that by "Jewism" you mean "Judaism". There are three reasons why we currently include no information on Judaism:

1. None of the Internet Infidels have any expertise in Judaism.
2. We have not been able to find any sites on the web which critique
the tenets of Judaism in a scholarly manner.
3. Nobody has volunteered to compose such a document for us.

> Isn't it true that you guys have the backing of them ?

I wish we did. If only 1% of the Jewish population in America donated $1 to the Internet Infidels, we'd be able to get our own server and T3 line, hire dozens people to work full time for us, and still have money left over to offer large scholarlships to bright young atheist thinkers. Alas, very few people (Jewish or otherwise) have shown any interest in supporting us financially. If you would like to contribute to II, please let us know and we'll send you instructions on how to do so.

Thanks for your message. Take care!

Sincerely,

Rob Berry

Hello

I haven't read all of your essay but I hope to read the rest soon (it's late now). I was wondering if you have seen a book THE WOMAN'S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MYTHS AND SECRETS? I'm intrested in pre-christian religion. I think the Devil was created by Christian Priests to shame, create fear of Peagan Gods and Goddeses.

Where do you stand on this?

Just curious

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

Check out Jeffrey Burton Russell's books on the history of the concept of the devil. He has at least two or three on the subject.

I am unaware of any present-day pagan/Wiccan religions that are really pre-Christian. Most seem to be creations of the 20th century based on, e.g., Gerald Gardner's writings. But then, much "Christianity" is really a twentieth century phenomenon that would be unrecognizable to Christians of the first century...

Jim Lippard

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

I believe that the duality God/Satan was the result of the influence of Persian religion. Zoroasterianism preached the continual warfare between the personalized forces of good and evil. Ahura Mazda was the good god, and there was a god of darkness whose name escapes me at the moment. In retirement, Ahura Mazda now sells light bulbs in Great Britain.

Larry Taylor

Do you guys know of any studies of Divine Intervention to save churches and church structures subjected to natural catastrophes? I am getting damned sick of the people who keep telling me that God personally saved their churches from Hurricane Fran. I also hear about interventions in floods, fires, earthquakes, etc. and the smugness of the believers of this crap makes me wanna toss my lunch. References, please.

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

There was a crucial point in the 18th century when Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod. Churches and religious people scoffed, and said it was trying to thwart the will of God and His punishment. After a while, the obvious difference between the toll on churches and the sparing of secular buildings with lightning rods became noticed.

I believe this was written about by one or all of the following: Martin Gardner, Isaac Asimov, whats-his-name who did "Connections." Maybe White, History of the Warfare of Theology and Science_.

The great Lisbon earthquake (?1752 CE) showed that God punished or allowed a Christian city to be destroyed, and had much to do with the acceleration of the Enlightenment. Voltaire, Candide.

Larry Taylor

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

When I was in Columbus, GA, for my debate with Norman Geisler in March 1994, the area experienced some severe weather. Not far across the state line, a tornado hit a Methodist Church during Sunday services, and several people were killed. Some of them were children, and one of them was the preacher's daughter. One would think that if safety from a tornado was possible, a church would be the place to go. The message that god delivered that morning was that the ones who stayed home from church were safer than those who went. As I recall it, nobody who wasn't in church was killed, only those who were inside the church.

Farrell Till

The greatest infidel of all is the one who really is free! The truth shall make you free. But nobody has the truth except one church on this earth and it has gone astray. It's splinter groups are not able to get back to the truth once delivered. Only one man that I know of has it, me.

I'm a John the Baptist type who confronts doctors, church and state. I tell the story of the fall of the true church and the future. Germany wins the next war. The US loses. Atheists as well as the majority who thinks it is Christian are in for a rough time.

Internet Infidels' Response:

You've stated your hypothesis. Now what is your evidence for your hypothesis?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

There is a case of censorship in Seabrook, New Hampshire which offers interesting possibilities for protest. The Seabrook public library holds a lecture series based on requests from members. In August, they were going to hold lectures on the Tarot and Numerology. Before the lectures could be given, Rev. Elizabeth Walton of the Congregational Church declared,"It's Satan!" and she organized other ministers to form a protest. A petition was signed by 173 people and submitted to the town council. The petition demanded that the library budget be slashed because they were having lectures on "religious programming". The town council took it under advisement and the library had to back down and cancel the lectures. Selectman Oliver Carter Jr. defended the cancellation, saying they they would not allow the KKK and Nazis to use the library, and they would not allow Tarot readers and Numerologists.

The Boston Globe ran a small article on 8-25-96. The Portsmouth Herald ran an editorial on 8-27-96, denouncing censorship and calling the clergy "intolerant." Rev. Elizabeth Walton wrote an editorial reply on 9-8-96, claiming she was being persecuted by being called "intolerant" for depriving the speakers of their Free Speech rights. She tried to pose as a Christian defender (being intolerant of evil, decadence, and the occult) while at the same time being a champion for separation of church and state by banning lectures with "religious programming."

In her state of mind, she classifies Tarot and Numerology as religions, whereas they are only tools that can be used by any religion. Just as there are Christians who do Yoga and Meditation, there are people calling themselves Christians who use Tarot and Numerology. What Rev. Elizabeth Walton is doing is deciding that only she has the right to decide who is Christian and who is not.

I have been developing a plan for a magnanimous revenge against the bigots in Seabrook. Rev. Elizabeth Walton said she wanted the lectures canceled because she want to keep "the occult business" out of the library. The obvious revenge would be to put "the occult business" into the library. If people are outraged by this censorship, I would suggest that they donate an occult book to the Seabrook public library. I have contacted the library, and they will accept occult books as donations because they do not censor by subject matter. All they ask is that the books be in good condition and of recent publication date (i.e. the 1990's). If anyone feels funny about donating an occult book, I might suggest they choose another book that will frost Rev. Elizabeth Walton. (I am donating a three-volume set of "The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell"). The address for donations is:

Seabrook Public Library
101 Centennial St.
Seabrook, NH 03874-4506

If books start coming in from around the country, it will send a message to the librarians that others have heard their story and sympathize with their humiliation in having to kow-tow to Rev. Elizabeth Walton. The best way to fight censorship is to keep on communicating.

Suggesting donations,

Internet Infidels' Response:

I appreciate learning about the controversy over the Seabrook library. Since The Humanist regularly receives tons of review books, most of them off-topic, there are a number of libraries we donate them to (humanist chapter libraries, libraries in prisons where there is a humanist group, etc.). We don't get as many New Age titles as we used to, but I have a few. So I'm including them along with humanist books and those on general social and philosophical topics -- about 30 in all. What follows is the text of the letter I just sent to the Seabrook Library.

SEABROOK PUBLIC LIBRARY
101 CENTENNIAL ST
SEABROOK, NH 03874-4506

Dear Librarian,

I learned on the Internet how the Reverend
Elizabeth Walton essentially censored your patron-
requested program on the Tarot and numerology,
claiming that these subjects were "satanic." Now
while I don't personally buy into the magical
notions associated with these topics, I am quite
aware that the Tarot has origins in Tantric
Buddhism and was brought to the West by Romani
people, that the Tarot deck is the ancestor of our
modern playing cards, and that numerology dates
back at least to the ancient Greek Pythagoreans.

Now, if these religious, philosophical, and
cultural traditions constitute "satanism," then so
must every other non-Christian religion and
non-Western culture. The charge of "satanism"
then merely becomes a way to promote Western
Christianity (or a brand of it that rejects these
elements) over its competitors. And when public
institutions are forced to bow to such a bias, a
violation of the principle of church-state
separation has occurred.

This principle, as consistently interpreted by
the U.S. Supreme court, permits objective and
didactic teaching about religion and philosophy.
And that would include informational lectures on
the Tarot, numerology, humanism; even
Christianity.

I know I can do nothing to help reinstate the
lecture series. But I can try to help you
maintain a balanced, religiously and culturally
diverse collection. So I'm sending you, under
separate cover, a donated assortment of recent
books on subjects both arcane and ordinary. I
hope you can find a place for them.

Yours for pluralism,

Frederick Edwords
Executive Director

Sometimes we just gotta support religious-philosophical minorities other than ourselves if we want to see all minority rights, including ours, defended.

Fred Edwords

May this information live for ever. Thank You.

[This message was in response to "I Was an Atheist in a Foxhole" by Philip K. Paulson.]

Mr. Paulson:

I skimmed your article with great interest and found it of the greatest interest. I am saving it and hope to read it in much greater detail at a later date.

However it was not the fine depiction of your experience that prompted me to write to you, but rather the sense that I suspect that you may have had that you were alone in your plight. Not the case.

My father was also an atheist during his service in the South Pacific during WWII. Admittedly, he saw much less combat than you did, being in the Engineers, but he has spoken to me (he died 6 years ago), of some combat experiences.

I hope that this bit of information is of some interest to you, and that we can all take comfort in realizing that "No Atheists in Foxholes" has been a myth for quite some time.

[This message was in response to "The Complete Works of Robert G. Ingersoll".]

I just love your site and hope to explore it further.

Two suggestions, if it wouldn't be too difficult:

1) a search engine

2) a "Best of Ingersoll Sampler" collection

Regards and thanks for all your good work,

In your list of historical authors who chronicle the history of atheism, it would seem relevant to me to include Karl Marx. Although he is laden with lots of other bagagge, no one can doubt his influence on 19th and 20th century philosophy, nor can they doubt his indirect influence in causing significant fractions of the globe to become atheist.

I would include Marx with Nietzsche as the two most influential authors in my considering myself atheistic.

Internet Infidels' Response:

http://freethought.tamu.edu/infidels/faq.html#like

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Hi guys,

I really appreciate all the work you put into The Secular Web. It's the best source of rational information I've seen on the web. Here's something I've been working on which I thought you may relate to.

Thanks,

C.C.

Ignorance believes deception
Deception shapes a mystery
Mystery breeds confusion
Confusion limits thinking
Limits make us weak
Weakness spawns subservience
Subservience allows conditioning
Conditioning supports control
Control preaches fear
Fear preserves the lie
The Lie makes us guilty
Guilt makes us unworthy
Unworthiness makes us small
Smallness keeps us captive
Captivity withholds information
Information gives us knowledge
Knowledge gives us strength
Strength helps us question
Questioning finds truth
Truth gives us insight
Insight shows us nature
Nature gives us reasoning
Reasoning simplifies complexity
Simplification promotes understanding
Understanding gives us wisdom
Wisdom gives us power
Power gives us freedom
Freedom allows us to break the bonds of ignorance.

Copyright 1996 by C.C.

[This message was in response to the "Internet Infidels FAQ".]

This is a fantastic site.

Here are three more excellent books available in Australia, but I'm not sure if they're available in the US.

God the Interview

pub: Random House : Australia, 1994.

I haven't read much of this yet, but it's a more scientific approach, aimed at laymen. Critical and detailed.

Thanks again for an excellent site.

E-mail me if you need any more details.

Yours always,

---

I'm working on a semester-long project for a class on evolution. My group is supposed to debate both sides of the following question about presenting Creation "Science" (with or without quotes) in the classroom.

"Evolutionary theory, along with its bed-partner secular humanism, is really a religion, so it is not appropriate to teach it in public schools."

Since your organization appears to be well-informed in this area, I was wondering if you could give us some pointers to information on this subject. If you know of periodical sources, web pages, books, your own information, etc, we would be greatful for any help that you can give us.

Thanks

---

[This message was in response to "Jesus Vs. Elvis " by unknown.]

Mocking God is a searious fellony in my heart. my heart is pure yours is black. Watch the the road ahead of you do you know where it leads. He gave his life up for you he was hung by nails on a cross. He was beaten so bad his mother couldn't recognize him and you mock him.

I say to you shutdown this page and repent.

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

If god is so great, let him complain himself, eh?

And maybe you could pray for him to teach you to spell.

The internet infidels page will go on and on, as will my page and every other godless page on the net. One day soon, Yahweh and Jesus will join Thor, Venus and Ishtar in the pages of kiddie mythology books. Can't come soon enough for me.

Greg Erwin

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

It was not too many years ago that blasphemy was a felony, for which the penalty was up to and including "death."

What the patterns noted by Spengler say to me is that it will not be too many years from now when this felony will again be "on the books" as part of our system of laws.

If you are ready to read a scary book, try "The Twilight of Democracy" by Patrick E. Kennedy, a former CIA muckity-muck. He openly advocates dictatorship as the "proper" form of government for this country.

Spengler predicts that the "Second Religiousness," here manifested by the fundamentalist Christian movement and groups like Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, will be accompanied by politicians who will somehow convince the populace that "imperial rule" (i.e., a dictatorship) is the proper form of government to protect them from "disorder."

You put all of the above together, and the recipe for the end of "free" thought is clearly on the stove and cooking.....

For those of us who are unwilling to go quietly, we had better be prepared to speak loudly in opposition to the bigots and despots who choose to rule our very minds, in addition to our bodies.

Bill Schultz

---

To my fellow believers,

People fight against a God they say don't exist. Don't worry about their actions. Remember Rom 12:19-21. Take into account Paul's life before he got saved. It is amazing how many people take a stand against Jesus today, but take a stand for Jesus tomorrow.

They are not content with their lives and the evidence is seen in their attacks. Fear of the unknown, of what God is and what its like to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. They are drawn to God, that is why they are here. But they are afraid of what they might really find. Many attacks settle their heart temporary. Jesus told the disciple to take the Gospel to the ends of the world. The unbelievers come to us, in soc.religion.christian. Remember Rom 12:19-21.

---

Mr. Lowder,

I noticed the curious lack of something on your Web page. I noticed that for each major religion you include links both PRO and CON. But what is curious is that for Judaism you have no CON links. Is that because you there is NONE to your knowledge, you couldn't find any, or you were forced to remove any links that you once had up there?

Don't you find it a curious thing that in today's world you can easily be against Moslems or Christians but when you show you are against Judaism as a belief system you are treated like an instant criminal? An instant anti-semite?

The stupid and hateful opposition to Judiasm comes from skin-heads and other leftist groups. Yes, Nazis are Leftists but the Media like to drill you with the lie that they are "right-wing" because they want to link conservatives and religious Christians with Hitler even though Hitler was an anti-Christian socialist who was deeply into the occult. To Jews, there is no legitimate opposition. You either love and praise them, or...you are an anti-semite who wants to promote their physical destruction. This is the foolish extremese to which they have fallen based on the principles of their own "religion".

Please read this as I have written it....calmly, rationally and without any dislike for the "person".

Yes, there is a rational and unhateful CON to Judaism that includes much information. Judaism is unique in its own right in that it can be classified as "religious nationalism". Certain groups of Jews are just as religiously nationalistic and racist as Hitler was yet these same will be seen putting down all racism that is not their own. Racism is a two sided coin....only one side is constantly presented to the public: that of hatred for other races. This is a side of Judaism that is hidden. The other side of the racist coin is exaltation of ones own race. Yes, a great many of Jews who follow a particular brand of Judaism consider themselves to be the "Master Race" by divine right, and that Israel belongs to them be divine right. Sound familiar? An infamous man from Germany preached that. The same Jew who puts that down today can be hypocritically believing the same in regard to himself.

To promote these truths and others like it about certain brands of Judaism will be instantly squelched as "hateful" and "anti-semitic" and the same Jews who preach "free-speech" will work feverishly to erase such info about themselves while they actively promote lies about Christianity anf Christians along the very same lies. If you haven't learned yet, Judaism is very hypocritical in that they believe and promote the very same things that they condemn in peoples' belief systems. Didn't you hear....they are the chosen race...they are god-like....they are untouchable! Any opposition or even derogatory fact will be vehemently branded "HATE", and they work in unison to bully people away from saying anything negative about their "race-religion".

Internet Infidels' Response:

Please send me the URLs of sites which refute the truth of Judaism.

Jefffery Jay Lowder

---

[This message was in response to the "Internet Infidels FAQ".]

Hello,

My Unitarian Universalist Women's discussion group is talking about ways to counter the increasing number of Religious Right movement people that get on School Boards, etc., and have an effect on Texas Public Schools. We meet Friday. Any helpful articles/advice to share? I'm the facilitator.

Thanks.

---

As a Christian Pastor, I am saddened whenever people do not allow the free flow of ideas, in the case of the Washington debate with the Campus Crusader and also in the case of the unwillingness of Athiest Philosopher, Martin, to appear on the same platform as Dr. Bahsnen. Sadly,now both Bahnsen and Stein are in another place (or just in the ground, depending on your perspective, eh?) and we will never have the pleasure of hearing Bahsnen and Martin, or anyone else, debate again.

I'm wondering what Christian apologist has earned the most respect among your circles as a debater (whether living or dead).

I only get to check in seldom on the Web (and this is the first time at your site) beause I am a cyber amishman, having only a 2,400 baud modem. When that disease is remedied, I hope to be back for more. I enjoy your material as much as I disagree with it.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Allow me to join you in your support of the free flow of information. Although the Internet Infidels rarely take a position on anything, one of the few things we do take a position on is free speech. Not just for ourselves, but for everyone.

I would like to suggest that you not limit yourself to just debates. I believe that debates can serve an important role in a person's search for truth, but there are many other sources of information which should also be considered: books, periodicals, etc. At one time, the only thing I was interested in was "debates" and I don't believe I'm the only person who has ever had that attitude. I'm not saying that you do (and from your message I assume that you don't), but I would like to encourage those who do to try branching out a bit. There's a lot more information than just what is available in a debate.

With that said, I would like to answer a different question than the one you asked. I would like to answer the question, "What Christian philosopher has most impressed you?" And my answer to that would be that there is no one Christian philosopher who stands out above all the rest, but there are a select few who I think are well worth reading: William Lane Craig (despite his self-imposed censorship), Gary Habermas, J.P. Moreland, Richard Swinburne, William Laston, and Alvin Plantinga.

Of course, I can't mention those Christian philosophers without putting in a plug for my favorite atheist philosophers as well: Michael Martin, Ted Drange, J.L. Mackie, Keith Parsons, Quentin Smith, Doug Jesseph, and Richard Gale.

Thanks for your interest in the Internet Infidels.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

---

Hi, just replying to the ex-evangelical appendix.

I am a recently 'converted' ex-evangelical and I need help. I feel all of the emotions discussed in the appendix. Unfortunately my wife has the sames beliefs as always. Since my marriage is the most important thing in my life I'm scared of screwing it up by starting to go in a different direction, the one I always wanted to go in but didn't because it is 'sinful'. I'm sure my wife would be very hostile to what I want to do. I want to be a glamour photographer. "Doesn't everyone" you may say. But this is something I've always wanted to do. I am a good amateur landscape/wildlife photographer, so this is no pipedream. So what do I do. I feel like i'm in catch 22. Either live a lie to save my marriage or do what I want.

Hope someone can help,

Internet Infidels' Response:

I've never been married, but I think it's fairly safe to say that one of the most important elements of a marriage is communication. I think it's very important that you be open and honest with your wife about what you want. I think it's also very important that you remind your wife at a time like this how much she really does mean to you.

I don't know what else to say, but I hope that helps at least a little.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

---

I find your sight to be quite interesting and insightful. Although I renounced my faith in the Christian god when I was fourteen because of basic ethical contradictions, I cannot approve of the general hardcore slamming of Christians that takes place on your page. My view of Christianity is that it is a natural result of evolution and is a necessity in society because religion creates order. Some people just don't have what it takes mentally and emotionally to have independent thought on the foundations of reality and God, but that doesn't mean that they must be ridiculed because of their inferiority. They just simply lack the brain connections and are brainwashed beyond repair. I don't believe that it is their fault, but evolution's. Also, if it makes a person happy to believe in a god that will save them from the pits of hell, let them be, because they probably mistakenly feel satisfied and complete. There is honestly not much excitement in the knowledge that all we are are molecules created from DNA. When the magic of life is realized to be a sham, it does leave a pretty large void in your brain. So the next time you see a bible waving baptist encroaching, humor them and let them walk their path of ignorance in serenity.

Internet Infidels' Response:

I would like to know exactly what you are referring to when you mention the "general hardcore slamming of Christians." It's true that we have a lot of information arguing that Christianity is _false_, but that's not the same thing as slamming people who claim to be Christians. If you have a problem with a specific page, give me the URL and let's talk about it.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

---

[This message was in response to " The Fivefold Challenge" by Rob Berry.]

Just want to say I enjoyed your piece on the historicity of Jesus. The christian world do not even have his name right. He was use to hearing "Yeshua" (Eng=Joshua), as you probably know. It has occurred to me, if one were to select a piece of literary art, rich in metaphor and imagery, interpret the imagery to be real, one would have a cousin to the Bible. I have completed a work called "Yeshua". It is based on what I have estimated to be at least closer to the actual human drama which relates more to what the Abian priesthood order felt what they were responsible for, and preservation of Jewish culture from the eroding influence of the Greek culture.

Thanks again,

---

[This message was in response to the "Mark Vuletic" page.]

And then God made sewage and Mark Vuletic and friends crawled out of it.

---

Hello from Fairfax, VA. I have spent a bit of time reading the material on your pages and have enjoyed it immensely. It demonstrates that critical thinking is not as dead as I had feared. I would like to provide a link to your pages if I may. If there comes a time when you feel you must move your resources from their current location, please let me know and I will try to provide a home for them up here in Virginia. Along with "The Skeptic's Dictionary," your site stands as a beacon of enlightenement in a time when people seem to have lost their will to reason.

---

[This message was in response to "The Atheism Web".]

"Why do some atheists care so much about atheism?

Many atheists do not consider their lack of belief in god(s) any more important than their lack of belief in Invisible Pink Unicorns (IPUs). However, many other atheists are passionate and vocal about their atheism. They may feel strongly about their atheism for any number of reasons:"

Why is it that everyone seems to think that a disbelief in God is equivalent to the irrational disbelief in Pink Unicorns? I am an atheist but I do believe in Pink Unicorns. Any moron knows they aren't invisible just incredibly shy. They only come out when disbelievers are not present. For some strange reason the use of hallucinogenic drugs is conducive to getting them to show themselves. I take great offense at being lumped together with PU unbelievers just because I am an atheist!

---

We don;t know each other, but I am a regular on #atheism on dalnet, and I was told you'd be interested in an article in the current forbes fyi magazine. There is an article in there called: "How I went 9Gs in an F-16" Tis an article about the airforce, and includes an interesting tidbit:

In the survival kit (that the pilots carry down with them when they eject) there is the laminated 121 page air force survival pamphlet. In the last two pages...it says...

With other survivors:
1. pray for each other
2.share scriptures and songs
3.appoint a chaplain
4.try to have short worship services
5.write down scriptures, songs and liturgies that are remembered
6. Encourage each other while waiting for rescue...god loves you, praise the lord

All of the above is a direct quote (FORBES FYI PAGE 120, current issue). As an atheist I think one major political issue must be the separation of church and state...fat chance, I realize, with politicians shouting "god" from their roof tops at every opportunity.. but it never hurts to try..

Do let me know how I can be of help.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Interesting. I actually don't have a problem with what you described, for the simple reason that I think the survival pamphlet (even with the spiritual advice) serves a secular function. Let's face it, most of the people serving in the armed forces are theists. Most people in the armed forces are also not in a hurry to die. And I think that when you ask people to put themselves in life-and-death situations, it's only reasonable that you provide the theists with some sort of spiritual accomodation.

My only concern is that the military does not go overboard with this and ignore the rights of nontheists or the rights of theists with minority or non-traditional beliefs. So long as everyone's rights are respected, I don't have a problem with this. I can think of a lot more important church-state "battles" to fight than this one.

Thanks for writing!

Jeffery Jay Lowder

---

[This message was in response to "The Complete Works of Robert G. Ingersoll".]

Wonderfull collection of material. Please keep it up.

---

[This message was in response to the "July 1996 Feedback".]

The reading of July 1996 comments left me wondering. Why aren't the sources that mention Jesus outside the NT questioned? After all Christianity is for all purposes a Roman invention. The empire had total control over every written document and could have changed or written anything to meet its needs. One could post-date from 350 AD as to say it was written at an earlier date. Can anyone really prove who Josephus was? Wasn't he Roman? (Flavius) doesn't sound all that Jewish.

The Piso family argument (piso@juno.com) which I have read, has some merits. The basic point to remember is that without Roman backing. (THE state religion) Christianity would not exist. To defend it today still says you support the Roman Government. I wouldn't want to break any fundamentalists hearts, but there is in reality only one true Church. All forms of Christianity lead to Rome.

Read the papal writings on the U.S. Constitution. The Vatican hasn't to date accepted the U.S. of A. At least I haven't found a document that specifically states such a point. If someone could point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. Also I have been looking, but is there a web site that contains ALL the papal and church writings. I've had luck with hit and discover, you know, the Columbus method of surfing the web, but a one stop shopping site would be nice.

Thanks.

---

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

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