Infidels: Feedback: April 1997

April 1997

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/word_of_god_debate.html

I would like to see how the preacher responded to your arguement. Is there a site where I can read that response?

Bill Brownlee <bedfindr@nwinternet.com>
Leavenworth, Wa USA - Tuesday, April 29, 1997 at 17:47:30 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I have tried obtaining the text of the preacher's response with no luck.

I'm open for suggestions.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the_fool/late.html

Great resource! Thanks for all your hard work. I am looking for a cronicle of last days predictions from Jesus till now. Do anyone know of such a resource.

Robin Woodsong <rwoodsong@aol.com>
Boulder, CO USA - Tuesday, April 29, 1997 at 12:30:05 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

There must be such a comprehensive chronology as you suggest. You might try the Ioudaios bulletin board. A good book, I think still in print, that traces the history of the current fundamentalist end-time scenario hanging it on the Middle East, Ottoman Empire, Hitler, Mussolini, State of Israel, etc., is Armageddon Now! by Dwight Wilson (Baker Book House).

Robert M. Price

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/church-state.html

I haven't checked your site a whole lot yet, but noticed with interest your emphasis on church and state. Oddly enough, as a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian (of all things) I stand right beside you on that one. We're not too popular for that stance. Just a point of interest for you.

Darren Hagen <dhagen@bigfoot.com>
Turlock, CA USA - Tuesday, April 29, 1997 at 00:50:19 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Indeed. IMHO, separation of church and state entails both the right to believe and not to believe. I support your right to worship as a Seventh-Day Adventist just as much as I support the right of an atheist to be an atheist.

Regards,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/gospel_john.html

Rather skimpy bibliography ain't it?!? Especially in terms of "named" scholars in the field. Anway, It is unlikely that John was written as late as 120 AD. 1) The use of the title "king of Israel" would not have been used after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. 2) The reference to the length of time that the temple had been under cionstruction in 2:20--this information would have ben lost after the fall and by 120 AD. 3) Most telling is the lack of any sort of remarks that would have been appropo to the theological controversies of the day--their absence is very telling.

David Conklin <DJCUser@aol.com>
St. Paul, MN USA - Sunday, April 27, 1997 at 08:13:09 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/critbias.html

Impressive (length-wise) critique. Of course, it would have been even better if you had interacted with more scholars and had more up-to-date information. May I suggest that you read John A,. T. Robinson's Redating the New Testament; his study concludes that the synoptic Gospels were written between 50-60+ A.D. Even G.A. Wells only puts Mark out to AD 90 and he is in the extreme! Another good book is Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus.

David Conklin <DJCUser@aol.com>
St. Paul, MN USA - Sunday, April 27, 1997 at 08:07:19 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/

I can readily understand why Christians are so hostile to science, rationality, and induction, but, judging from your feedback pages, the Holy Spirit seems to have made them enemies of standard spelling as well. We all make a typo now and then, but just look at what they send in! Maybe it is a symptom of the sloppy thinking they need to maintain their beliefs. I suppose it is what one should expect from a group of people whose basic argument seems to be " we love ya, but kiss his hand, or you'll sleep wid da fishes!". (Insert Godfather theme audio file here. Bad spelling in this note is intentional or put there by the Trilateral Commission.) Best wishes and keep up the good work. Thanks for being there guys, it means a lot.

Louis Kelly <76743.610@compuserve.com>
Nashville, TN USA - Saturday, April 26, 1997 at 21:09:25 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/events/debates/

Greetings, I am writing because of the statements being made on your homepage concerning Christianity. I have been reading your views, and to be completely transparent, I can't help but wonder how you come to your conclusions. You do have some very interesting ideas, and I would like to have some feedback from you concerning your beliefs. I will let you know up front that I am a believer in Jesus Christ and all that the Bible claims. I would encourage anyone who would like to discuss their views to please E-mail me at your earliest opportunity. I hope that we will be able to dispell any prejudices and will seek the most important thing, the Truth.

Richard Wilson <richwi@juno.com>
Columbia, SC USA - Saturday, April 26, 1997 at 19:41:58 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I would only be interested in discussing Christianity with you if you promised to be open-minded about it. If you're willing to state that, in theory, you would give up Christianity if I convinced you there were no good reasons to accept it, then I would be willing to dialogue with you. In return, I would agree to become a Christian if you convinced me that Christianity is true.

If you're willing to agree to this, you know how to contact me.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/

What happened to your "Jesus Should Have Been Aborted'? It was an excellent article and I was hoping to link to it. Is it still on your site? Thanks. Jan

Jan Hanford <jan@shelby.com>
oakland, ca USA - Saturday, April 26, 1997 at 14:40:08 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

We deleted the article after deciding it was too offensive to retain even in the Humor section of the Secular Web.

Mark I. Vuletic

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/word_of_god_debate.html

Your site is awesome. I have a link to your Emmet Fields speech, "Is the Bible the Word of God?" and I get all kinds of interesting feedback about it. It seems that recently, you're harder to find through search engines. I tried to find the Einstein articles at http://freethought.tamu.edu/library/historical/albert_einstein/ and it no longer exists. Do you know where it went?? Thanks again for your good work.

Jeff Syrop <jeffsyrop@earthlink.net>
Hayward, CA USA - Friday, April 25, 1997 at 23:06:35 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Internet Infidels moved the Secular Web to http://www.infidels.org. The old address doesn't work anymore. Please help us spread the word.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/madalyn_ohair/agnostic.html

I read with great interest your article about agnosticism, but now I'm stumped. I thought I was an agnostic until I read it. Maybe you can help me out. It seems to me that athiests and theists have both failed to prove their position. In other words, neither has produced evidence nor a credible argument to affirm their position. If this is not an agnostic position, what is it? Thanks for your help. Sincerely, alaric

Alaric <alaric@telenet.net>
USA - Friday, April 25, 1997 at 20:56:55 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Please see the Atheism Web's "Introduction to Atheism".

Best wishes,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/different_rates.html

Well, you asked the question, I'm providing the answer. You wanted how Creationist account for the low amount of C-14 in limestone. The included link will provide the answers. Also remember, radiocarbon dating only works for things that were once alive (coal is the decayed forms of plants and animals, but you already new that) and cannot be used to date anyting except plants and animals. Here the link (it can also provide many answers, using scientific facts, that answer questions about Creation): www.indirect.com/www/wbrown/onlinebook/faq/radiocarbon.html Enjoy

Wayne <wjwic@thumb.net>
Deckerville, MI USA - Friday, April 25, 1997 at 08:22:34 (MDT)

Will this note reach Anne Gaynor, whose Time letter I read today? What power of intellect or possible persuasive arguments could you ever hope to use to reverse the impervious belief structure of elite (smile - Jesus always smiles, do nontheists do the same?) intellects like myself (grin). Aw come off it, lighten up and just accept that like Christianity itself, your movement can never hope to make big gains without legends, bombast, and a "belief". You have no real arguments, they've all been researched over the centuries - and typically, Descart, for example found everything but the spirit bereft of meaning and significance. But try taking me on, I love substantive discourse! Edward@odyssee.net

Edward Friesen <edward@0dyssee.net>
Montreal, QC Canada - Thursday, April 24, 1997 at 22:19:14 (MDT)

You claim that there is no evidence outside of the New Testement??? Why are you lying to thousands of people?????

shane mcgrath <00stmcgrath>
muncie , in USA - Thursday, April 24, 1997 at 16:08:40 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

If you have some evidence to offer, please do so.

Mark I. Vuletic

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

Who lied? What lie(s) did they tell? Where?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

In reference to Jeffery Jay Lowder's "forward"in The Jury Is In I would like to comment on Bill Bright's quote. He's is right about the 'unwilling to believe' statement at the end. However, his assertion by implication that a 'honest, objective seeker after truth' exists is not contained in the Bible. I believe that is the point of the Bible. My experience and that stated in the Bible is that 'none seeks after the Truth'and that the Truth must find you. From a subjective viewpoint and it's problems, isn't this what makes sense? That the objective tells what reality is?

Roger Sponaugle <ROGERTS@sisna.com>
Wellsville, UT USA - Thursday, April 24, 1997 at 15:08:32 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I think there are people who seek after truth. They may not be the majority, but I think they exist.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

P.S. In light of the ant-atheist caricature that is impossible to "prove a negative," I found it rather interesting that Roger has no difficulty asserting the "negative" proposition that "people who seek after truth" do not exist.

This is the best atheist's page i have been to!! i mean it special emphasis on the historical links. i have one question though if you could think about this: I was debating creation with a johova's witness who came to my door the other day and he asked me: "If humans evolved from some lower form, why then is it said that we only use about 2 percent of our total brain capabilities? isn't this a contradiction on natural selection?" i hope i'm asking the right person. if not sorry! i'll let you think about it. from Matthew

Matthew Mason <m.mason@student.canberra.edu.au>
Canberra, ACT Australia - Thursday, April 24, 1997 at 10:35:36 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I would simply remind the creationist that if he wishes to maintain that there is a logical contradiction between the proposition that "life evolved by natural selection" and the proposition that "humans only use about 2 percent of their total brain capabilities," then the creationist has to prove that such a contradiction exists. If the creationist can't demonstrate the contradiction, then it doesn't need to be taken seriously.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Most of them are saying about Christianity.. what about Islam..anything???

Samuel B. Houlem <sbh2@np.ac.sg>
- Thursday, April 24, 1997 at 04:02:51 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Please check http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

What has happened to alt.atheism.moderated? I am not able to bring up any messages in this group. Is this group going the way of soc.atheism, also moderated by Mr. Adams, I think? I think Mr. Adams' agenda is to do away with any discussion on any group. I think this strategy is a real disservice to those of us who prefer alt.atheism.moderated to the other Usenet groups. Because there seems to be more discourse in alt.atheism.moderated than in the other groups, which might be classed in alt.flame or alt.illogical.arguments or alt.stupid.stupid.questions, I think Mr. Adams' should consider not closing down this group, as seems to be case with the other groups he moderates.

Margie Wait <mdwait@earthlink.net>
Lakewood, CO USA - Wednesday, April 23, 1997 at 17:36:54 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

When the Internet Infidels moved from the old freethought.tamu.edu system to the "new and improved" infidels.org system, there were bugs to work out. The scripts I used to moderate alt.atheism.moderated (the only newsgroup I have EVER moderated - I never moderated soc.atheism) were written for an A/UX machine. The infidels.org system runs Linux. Unfortunately the scripts did not translate AT ALL between the two machines. It was necessary to rewrite them from scratch. This is why the newsgroup was down for about two weeks. I am grateful to mathew , the founder and original moderator of alt.atheism.moderated, for spending the better part of a weekend rewriting and debugging them. We are still working out minor kinks, but the new scripts have worked very smoothly.

I frankly resent the rush to judgment and am offended by the accusation that I am trying to stifle discourse. This goes against my very grain and the reason I devote so much of my time to moderating a USENET high quality discussion group like alt.atheism.moderated.

Clark Adams

A new branch of philosophy occured to me some months ago and I have been thinking on it ever since. The centerpiece is the idea: "The entire history and future of the Universe has been decided ever since the Universe was born." I do not mean this in a religous context, but in a scientific one. Please send me any thoughts you have on this. Thank you.

John VanValkenburg <jwvv@hotmail.com>
Williamston, MI USA - Wednesday, April 23, 1997 at 14:48:37 (MDT)

Thanks for your information on Luther Burbank. I am the composer of an opera about the life and times of LB, especially the 50 years he lived and flourished in Santa Rosa. It is called "Wise Man of the West" and was performed to sold-out houses at Petaluma's Cinnabar Theater in April and May of 1995. We are planning another performance for 1998 and are negotiating with the Luther Burbank Center of the Performing Arts, the main performance center for Santa Rosa and much of Sonoma County. Please email me for more information. Thanks, Jim Kohn

Jim Kohn <jimbok@well.com>
Santa Rosa, CA USA - Wednesday, April 23, 1997 at 14:30:51 (MDT)

Keep up the good work. It's about time that we let our voices be heard. I myself am a true atheist who believes that religion is nothing more than a very big form of ignorance. To all the Christians who are reading this: STOP THE LIES AND LET US KEEP DOING WHAT WE LIKE! IT"S WHAT MAKES US HAPPY AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THAT'S YOUR OPINION! LEAVE US ALONE AND LET US CONTINUE ON WITH OUR LIVES!!!!!

Chris Wyatt <pwyatt@mail.gld.com>
Goldsboro, NC USA - Wednesday, April 23, 1997 at 14:07:28 (MDT)

Your comments on the Bible in "Bible Absurdities" seem in general as literalistic and simplistic as the fundamentalists you are trying to refute. Why not try to understand the Bible?

Paul Seely <phseely@aol.com>
Portland, OR USA - Tuesday, April 22, 1997 at 23:54:34 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

If our material contains an error, then we want to be corrected so that we can fix it. However, your message really doesn't help us fix anything. All you've told us is that 1) you disagree with our material and 2) you think we're being literalistic and simplistic. That may be true, but you haven't given an example of that in your message. Please give us more specific information we can work with.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

This announcement was sent to 4 local newspapers, cvn.net bulliten board and another private BB. The information provided on your site was instrumental in allowing us to be confident enough to take this bold step in Bible-Belt,Pa.

If you have any hints/tricks/clues or warnings let us know. The co-founder was the force behind preventing the spread of Gideons word here in Waynesboro last year. Since that time I have responded to all letters in the local papers that addressed religious liberty issues as well as ANY that had a bible quote!

News from "FREETHINKERS OF WAYNESBORO" Contact: L. Granville Laird (717) 762-6164 or Carl H. Silverman (717) 765-4291 WAYNESBORO--- Attention Local atheists, agnostics, humanists, and other religious skeptics; Announcing the formation of a group to be know as Freethinkers of Waynesboro (FREEWAY). The group will provide a forum of local, state and national religious liberty issues as well as a source of atheist and agnostic literature, information, and discussion. FREEWAY will also serve as a social support network for freethinkers throughout Franklin and surrounding counties. For more information contact L. Granville Laird ( Larry) at 762-6164 or Carl Silverman at 765-4291, or send e-mail to sofrank@atheism.org . Thank You folks!

Larry Laird <sofrank@atheism.org or lairdl@mail.cvn.net>
Waynesboro, Pa USA 17268 - Tuesday, April 22, 1997 at 21:54:33 (MDT)

You guys are almost laughable. Almost... You take such pride and pleasure in supposedly refuting Christianity. One wonders why you would expend so much energy on something you seem to feel is so obviously a ruse. It always amazes me to find that 'enlightened' humanists and agnostics spend their time almost exclusively attacking Christianity. Things that make you go "Hmmm...". Why not spend your time refuting Judaism, Islam or the power of 'crystals' espoused by the New-Agers? But, no, at least let me give you credit for being able to recognize your enemy...the One True God. You constantly give yourself away by focusing so exclusively on Christianity instead of all faiths. One could logically conclude that you find Christianity the greatest threat to YOUR faith. I find you all very transparent. You have even less reason to believe what you believe, and yet still you persist. No one has any 'logical' reason to believe in Christianity from a human standpoint. The self is not served by trying to obey the commands of Christ. See, when you do, you get all kinds of nasty behavior like: women's suffrage, religious tolerance, child advocacy, etc., etc. Christianity has made the world a better place than it was 2000 years ago. If you don't think so, then I would suggest an intensive study of ancient cultures and their treatment of women and children. Humanists (atheists, agnostics, etc.) have brought nothing but woe to their fellow man. Telling him he is the measure of all things and then having nothing constructive to say when he asks, "You mean this is it?". I will pray for you. I will pray hard. And don't be surprised one day if you find yourself asking God to have mercy on you. And don't be surprised when He says, "Of course I will. All you had to do was ask." =-)

Rob Wilson <wwilson@udel.edu>
USA - Tuesday, April 22, 1997 at 20:00:10 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Christianity is the majority religion in the West (and esp. in the U.S.); New Age isn't. (Radical Religious Right) Christians try to influence politics with their agendas and in many cases have succeeded; the influence of New Agers in politics pales in comparison. Christians claim that Christianity is the absolute truth; New Agers tend to be much more pluralistic in their thinking.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

What if you are in the "I don't know" category... What does that put you in as a category, where you have two different opinions and both could be right, but you just don't know... What is this called?

Dave Artz <dartz@vt.edu>
Blacksburg, VA USA - Tuesday, April 22, 1997 at 19:41:37 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

"Confused" :) No, actually, you qualify as an "agnostic": from a- (not, without, against) and gnosis (knowledge). There are two varieties of agnostics - (1) those who believe the question of whether or not God exists cannot be answered, and (2) those who believe the question can be answered, but have no idea what the answer is. You sounds like a class 2 agnostic.

Mark I. Vuletic

Several people have asked what has happened to Madilyn Murray O'Hair. Recently, Vanity Fair and Secular Nation (the magazine of the Atheist Alliance, formed from former American Atheist chapters) have printed two theories. Vanity Fair takes several tantalizing bits of evidence and concludes that Madilyn, her son John and granddaughter Robin are alive and well in New Zealand. However, some of this evidence has to be taken, like the Bible, with a grain of salt: for example, it was reported that Madilyn Murray's credit card was beeing used to charge $1000 monthy from Nieman-Marcus in New York City. True, but it was a different woman with the same name. The Secular Nation piece is by Maria Alena Castle, who is active in both Minnesota Atheists and the Atheist Alliance and knew Madilyn. Her considered opinion is that Madilyn was such a strong personality that her organization could not have been disbanded until after her death; she may have been cremated under a (recently) assumed name or her remains carted off to Mexico; and her son and granddaughter are probably glad to be out from under her thumb and would like to have a quiet life from now on. Considering the source, I prefer the latter theory, but it may just be one of those things that can never be proven. Whatever happened to her, we ought to honor Madilyn's service as a pugnacious and persistent fighter for atheism, just as we ought to acknowledge and reject her personalistic, authoritarian tendencies. Who knows, if you were one of her children you might have become a Fundamentalist preacher, too.

Douglas A. Gray <dagray@stthomas.edu>
USA - Tuesday, April 22, 1997 at 16:18:58 (MDT)

I'm currently taking a history as heresy class and the discussions within the class are among the most interesting and exciting that I have ever had. The chapter about Thomas Jefferson is an important source for my term paper that asks whether Jefferson was a deist or an atheist and the importance that his non-Christian beiefs have as a founding father. I'm also excited that I've found other people that see and feel the way I do. I'm trapped in the Baptist Bible Belt of Arkansas and my brain has been stifled until I took this class and found internet resources such as this one. Keep up the good work and always continue to question.

Catherine Crews <ccrews@comp.uark.edu>
Fayetteville, AR USA - Monday, April 21, 1997 at 21:30:56 (MDT)

Infidels, I thought some of you would enjoy this anecdote. I had the pleasure of visiting the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, Wisconsin a few weeks ago. It was great. After wanting one for a long, long time, I was finally able to buy a "Nothing Fails Like Prayer" bumper sticker. I returned to Arkansas and visited a friend of mine who was having some unsuspecting Mormons over for a good roasting. It went well. I put the bumper sticker on, drove home, and by the next morning there was already some idiotic note from a xian on my windshield. It had something to do with "A fool hath said in his heart that there is no god." A friend of mine quipped: A fool hath said in his heart that there is no god. The wise man says it aloud! Keep up the good work, folks.

Doug Krueger <dkruege@comp.uark.edu>
Fayetteville, AR USA - Monday, April 21, 1997 at 21:25:26 (MDT)

I cannot imagine why an organization would put so much time and effort into producing a site whose purpose is essentially negative. You are doing nothing to add to the debate on spirituality, only attacking that which you do not agree with. Your stated purpose is: "...to provide a virtual library of information on nontheistic worldviews, including agnosticism, atheism, freethought, humanism, and secularism." I challenge you, sirs, to give a single legitimate example of a life that has been made better, richer, or more meaningful by adherence to your touted worldview. These lines of reasoning lead only to cynicisim and despair. In contrast, millions of people who have dedicated their lives to the service of God have found ultimate meaning and fulfillment, and have openly proclaimed so. Many have gone on to work tirelessly for the betterment of humankind, something you are clearly not doing. It is easy to take potshots at any great philosophy. Even the greatest and most true. It is obvious that no proof of God's existance will work if one assumes at the start the impossibility of the supernatural. This assumption only results in childishly circular reasoning. If you would just step back, and once suppose the supernatural realm to be even a remote possiblity, you would find volumes of evidence pointing to a benevolont Creator, from the big bang, to this marvelouslly improbably planet, to Mother Theresa. My friends, you have made it abundantly clear what you are against,now tell us what you are for!

John Mcclendon <johnmcclen@aol.com>
Tucson, AZ USA - Monday, April 21, 1997 at 20:49:46 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

Here's an example of a life that was made better by embracing a nontheistic worldview - my own. Now that I am no longer a Christian, I don't lay awake at night, tormented by the knowledge that even a single person would suffer eternal torture at the hands of my God. That life was one of despair, and I can't understand how any of you can believe your own worldview is "rich" and "meaningful" when it entails such moral horrors.

You accuse us of circular reasoning - of the assumption that the supernatural is impossible. Most of us, to my knowledge, make no such assumption - it is just that, unlike you, we assess the evidence as it is, rather than taking it as a given that the supernatural is the best explanation for everything under the sun. You might want to read my Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural if you doubt that we are open to the possibility of the supernatural.

Mark I. Vuletic

Your list has opened my eyes. I used to think that we christians didn't face persecution like the founding members referred to in the bible, but I can see now that the godless, communist american society is active in violating my right to worship in numerous and often diabolical ways! I will pray for the souls of all our atheist leaders, for the know not what they do.

The Viper <amirk@engin.umich.edu>
Ann Arbor, MI USA - Monday, April 21, 1997 at 18:04:46 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

Here's a person who needs to read Life in Our Anti-Christian America.

Mark I. Vuletic

Dear Mr. Lowder: I'm not sure how to go about beginning this, so, I'll just launch into it. My struggle with Christianity has been arduous just as it has been for others. Perhaps, though, the origin of my struggle is different from most others; my struggle was not birthed from the realization of contadictions in the Bible but from the desire for freedom from the rules and regulations of God that I always seemed to fail and for the freedom that non-Christians seemed to have, especially in regard to sexuality. Pornography and sexuality were major components in the personal failure I experienced within the context of Christianity. I gained my freedom from the church but not from the religion; my beliefs remain intact, which are a continuing source of misery. In my rebellion I have been searching for a reason not to believe in Christianity. This led me to look for biblical errancy, which I found after disproving many claims of errancy/contradiction in an excerpt from Dan Barker's book LOSING FAITH IN FAITH that I downloaded from you or one of your links. Upon finding errancy within the Bible, I hoped my quest would be over. However, not only did something still not feel right when I did find a major doctrinal contradiction, but I learned to doubt that biblical errancy is enough to cast belief aside; there are those who are not fundamentalists but still believe in Christ's ability to provide salvation. I came to the conclusion that the only way to disprove Christianity is to find a religion that offers the exact same thing as Christianity: a relationship with God Himself. As of now, I do not know of any religion other than Christianity that does. On another note, do you disbelieve simply on the basis of the proposed biblical contradictions of Dan Barker? Also, when I was more involved with the religion, I thought it was pretty good proof for God's existence that atheists seemed to have a need tocontinue to argue that there is no God. What is your motivation for the continued discussion of a religion which you do not believe in?

Mike Banks <fremd@hotmail.com>
Fremont, CA USA - Monday, April 21, 1997 at 13:57:43 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

You should believe what you think is the truth. If you believe that Christianity is true, then you should be a Christian. If, on the other hand, you do not believe that Christianity is true, then you should not be a Christian. So my first piece of advice is to critically examine whether you believe Christianity is true and why you hold the opinion that you do.

Concerning Biblical errancy, I think it's important to understand that the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is both an historical issue and a theological issue. Historically, contradictions (if they are actual contradictions and not just alleged contradictions) raise legitimate questions about the authorship and date of historical texts. They don't, however, necessarily prove that the events described did not happen. And, as you point out, they don't disprove liberal theologies which reject inerrancy. Of course, I don't think there are any good reasons to accept "liberal" Christianity, but Bible contradictions are irrelevant to that decision.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me privately.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

I must say that I Absolutuely love this place. The feedback is one of the funniest things that I have read. The replies are very often so funny that I can't halp myself from laughing, as so the feedback from the ultra-fundies. Seriously though, you site has helped me to realise and to refute many of the arguments that I have to deal with on a near daily basis. Thank you , and keep up the good work.

Spencer Carter <kindregoht@geocities.com>
Fruitland, ID USA - Monday, April 21, 1997 at 12:26:19 (MDT)

I would strongly recommend that AUDIO BOOKS be added to your different catagories of books for sale. Thanks Dave

dave anderson <jb2da@aol.com>
richland, Wwa USA - Monday, April 21, 1997 at 11:06:11 (MDT)

What a load of rubbish!! Your arguments are weak and in places, just incorrect. I think you ought to research the Christian Faith a bit more thoroughly before you write things such as this!!! God loves you however, no matter how much you slag him off, I hope that soon you will find this out for yourself.

BOST <auf5@aber.ac.uk>
USA - Monday, April 21, 1997 at 04:02:20 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

Which arguments do you believe are weak or incorrect, and why?

Mark I. Vuletic

Dear reader, Bible study clearly shows that the present Middle East situation was foretold by our Creator. That the Jews would again form a nation after being scattered throughout the world, after being severly persecuted. That after forming a nation, they would be a "cup of trembling". That specifically The southern Repulics of Russia, Turkey, Iran, Libya, and Sudan would come against them in a final war. Is not this the Islamic movement of Today? This is only one of the few countless prophecies proclaiming the sovereignty of our creator. In August of 1994, Statistical Science published in there highly secular and respected Journal that Names of recent Rabbis were found encoded in the Torah significantly close to encodings of their dates of birth and death. Highly skeptical statitians challenged this article, asking to perform the test on other less famous Rabbis. Again the test came out positive! Then the skeptical statitians asked to perform this test on other secular hebrew writings, the tests found no correlation. Since then, another individual found that the places of birth of the Rabbis were found encoded close to there names! Then another found that commonly held prophecies of Jesus Christ found in the Old Testament had his name encoded in them! Dear friends, observe the many glorius butterflys, their startling colors. The many birds, their graceful flight, their wonderful singing. The flouresent colors of tropical fish. The vastness of God's creation and give him the glory he deserves. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ that whom so ever should believe in him should have eternal life!

Jay Schloemer <MaxRudolph@aol.com>
Evanston, Il USA - Monday, April 21, 1997 at 02:00:44 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

If these events were really foretold in the Bible, why did you fail to cite the relevant verses?

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Who is Donald Morgan? What is his educational background?

Cor <Cdixon@novell.com>
USA - Sunday, April 20, 1997 at 19:52:41 (MDT)

I wonder if "God" can be a means of survival. It has occured to me that religions generally try to build a society. This society has natural leaders/teachers (priests chosen by "God"), and a large body of workers (the belivers). No police or other security-personell needs be present, as the belif in "God" or whatever might be the object of faith, ensures that all stay productive to the community. The fear of punishment from a higher power ensures that no individual or group of such ever speaks up against the leaders/teachers of this society, and noone will question the ability of the authorities. Co-operation will make sure that the community thrives, as all members will only serve "God", and noone will ever work for his or her own best interest. Even the community's best interest is neglected, if the priests say so, as they are chosen by "God" and is therefore unfailing. In addition, the people of this society will have all their questions answered in an easily understandible way; "God" wills it so. No mysteries will go unsolved, and people do not have to fear anyone, or anything except "God", for "God" has allmight, and every event is "His/Her" will. Unfortunatly, all other societies are a danger to the "one true God" and must be destroyed. These societies are based upon a belif in a false god, they are hethens, or even heretics and must therefore die. Love for the next man counts only for those who have the "right faith" for all others are lesser beings and will for ever burn in "Hell". I BELIVE mankind is able to create a society where one can love one's next without having a god to tell one how. I BELIVE mankind is able to prevail through all dangers the universe throws at it from now and forever, without having a god comfort it. I BELIVE "God" was good to have when Rome fall - when the Plague killed half of Europe - when all our kings sold out to lust and tyranny. But I think "God" is too old and distant for mankind to find any comfort in nowadays. I BELIVE it is time to take the step into the age of thought and not faith. I BELIVE it is time to close the Bible.

Haakon A H <viggoh@vestfoldnett.no>
Norway - Sunday, April 20, 1997 at 15:44:13 (MDT)

Regarding the "Atheist Family Kicked Off AOL," surely this is a violation of civil rights. Is any legal action being taken? Is there anyway that right-thinking people can make a stink about this? I have heard, but can't give verbatim quotes, that many AOL staffers are Jehovah's Witnesses. If so, this may be part of the problem. A few of these folks have been taken to task lately for violating doctor-patient confidentiality with regard to blood transfusions, and such things. Michaele Maurer an a/theist <----slash placed after careful thought

Michaele Maurer <mcm@paragrafx.com>
San Leandro, CA USA - Sunday, April 20, 1997 at 01:44:26 (MDT)

Yeah, heard all the arguments before. But they just keep lying to our kids. Guess people aren't interested in fact, just fiction.

Ivanoff <IvanoffP@ords.com.au>
Sydney, NSW Australia - Saturday, April 19, 1997 at 21:59:23 (MDT)

There are approximately two billion mothers in the world. Out of all of those mothers, how many would be thrilled to hear a doctor say, "Mrs. _____, your child has a mutation."? I'll help you with your answer - what percentage of pregnant women in the world says, "Ooh, I sure do hope that he has a mutation."? The answer for both of those questions would be zero. How could two billion mothers be wrong?

Theophilus <Theophilus_K@hotmail.com>
USA - Saturday, April 19, 1997 at 12:06:16 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

There are approximately two billion mothers in the world. Out of all of those mothers, how many would be dismayed to hear their doctor say, "Mrs. ____, your child has a beneficial mutation (say, one that will lower its risk of developing cancer)"? I'll help you with your answer - what percentage of pregnant women in the world says, "Ooh, I sure hope my child doesn't have a beneficial mutation (say, one that will lower its risk of developing cancer)"? The answer to both of those questions would be zero. How could two billion mothers be wrong?

Mark I. Vuletic

Gordon Stein's discussion � his response to Josh McDowell � is educated and excellent. All the same � and as a born Protestant who has been non�believer for almost 50 years � I don't doubt that a man named Jesus (or Joshua) existed or that his itinerant preaching was the spark that resulted in Christianity. A distinct personality � fascinating but not altogether pleasant � emerges in the Gospel sayings that are now acknowledged as authentic: an intolerant man who killed a fig tree because it offered no fruit (though it was not the season for figs) and who chased the money�changers out of the temple � but the tolerant and merciful man who forgave the woman held in adultery and who uttered the beatitudes. I also wish Dr Stein had given more attention to Abdos Pantera's alleged paternity. I've been intrigued for some years by Morton Smith's perhaps tongue�in�cheek suggestion, in Jesus the Magician, that Pantera's tombstone may be our only surviving "relic of the Holy Family."

Ned Hopkins <NedHop@aol.com>
Stockton, CA USA - Friday, April 18, 1997 at 20:40:13 (MDT)

Fundamentalists can almost be defined as people who completely contradict their own bible. Example: Surprise! The Bible is Pro-Choice! This is the ONLY place in the Bible that deals with abortion: Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief [death of the woman] follow, then thou shalt give life for life." So it's the husband's choice, but it's choice, since he may choose not to "lay upon him" anything. It also clearly indicates that a fetus does not qualify as a human being (as the wife does). So there will only be, at most, a fine for abortion, and death to the abortionist only if he causes a woman's death. It makes sense. A fetus is NOT a human, nor has taken "the breath of life". [Anyone can feel free to copy and circulate this. It is also born out by Torah interpretations/commentary.]

Ken Falor <kenfalor@juno.com>
Worcester, MA USA - Friday, April 18, 1997 at 18:59:41 (MDT)

"Notice also that `sceptics' are not interested in bashing the Bible as such. They use the Bible and contemporary documents which shed light on the Bible to try to find out what was really happening, what the Biblical writers really meant to say. If it turns out that they were divinely inspired prophets, then that would be accepted. It just so happens that they weren't and the archeological evidence discovered this century and the Biblical texts themselves show that they weren't. What is the difference between Anti Christian sceptics and anti holocaust revisionists. They all claim to be enlightened and intelligent. They all print elequent perceptions of what they percieved to be their own inturpretations of a document or "proof" . I would wonder, should we disregard the laws of God completely? After all, take a look at the world now. Maranatha

Ross Robinson <ross@webgate.net>
London, On Canada - Friday, April 18, 1997 at 10:24:59 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

Actually, most Christian apologists also "claim to be enlightened and intelligent," and "print elequent [sic] perceptions of what they perceived to be their own inturpretations [sic] of a document or 'proof'." So is there now no distinction between Christian apologists, "Anti Christian sceptics" and "anti holocaust revisionists"? Your criteria for what constitutes shoddy scholarship are extremely broad and way off target.

Mark I. Vuletic

I am a Christian, but very much enjoyed the humor in Life In Our Anti-Christian America. Unfortunately a lot of Christians are whiners who think they have it bad. We don't. If I claim to believe in the God of the Bible, then I'd be pretty stupid to go around saying "poor me"!

Gene Seibel <geneseib@ccp.com>
St. Joseph, MO USA - Thursday, April 17, 1997 at 20:46:19 (MDT)

Hello again, I have another question for all that do not believe in God or Jesus or an after life. First, let me say that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead for yours and my sins, this is a proven fact. So, here's the question. I know that in my life right now I'm having just as much fun as all of you. I love my life. Being a Christian means having fun, not a boring, strict life like most seem to think. The only difference between me and you is that I believe in Jesus Christ with all of my heart and soul, therefore i'm confident that i'm going to heaven when I die. You on the other hand do not and believe that when your dead your dead. Now, this leads me to heaven and eternal happiness but it leads you to, unfortunatly a life forever in Hell. Now, lets pretend like I'm wrong and there is no Jesus or heaven and when we're dead we're dead. I still have had just as good and as fun of a life as you had. Only difference if I'm write I spend eternity in Heaven and you don't. This is very unfortunate. All you have to do is accept Jesus Christ into your heart, as your personal Lord and savior. He makes it so easy for us Thanks Chris Hornbrook John 3:16

chris hornbrook <chornbro@ius.indiana.edu>
New albany, in USA - Thursday, April 17, 1997 at 17:08:00 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

A person who believed in Allah or a supremely evil God could reason with you in the same way - yet I am sure that you would not choose to believe in either of those gods simply on a cost-benefit analysis. For that matter, are you sure that God would really apprciate someone who believes in him just in order to receive maximum possible payoff? Finally, how can one accept Jesus into one's heart if one believes the evidence is stacked aginst theism, not to say Christianity? One can't just will oneself to believe any old thing on a whim.

Mark I. Vuletic

I'm an 18 year old college student at Indiana University Southeast, I was totally moved to the point I didn't know what to say when I read this. It totally disgusted me. I'm am a fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ. I grew up in a Christian home and I wouldn't change my life for the world. I have a question for all you claiming to be athiest out there. Lets say all the knowledge in the whole entire world was put on a 12 inch ruler. Now, if I asked you how much of that knowledge you knew, you would probably have to say less then 1 inch. So, is it possible that you just aren't aware of God. Therefore you are not athiest, you are just poor children of GOD who don't know about him yet. Please Please write me back at CHORNBRO@IUS.INDIANA.EDU and tell me what you think of this, or if you need any information. In Christ's love Your brother in Christ Chris Hornbrook John 3:16 (please read this verse)

Chris Hornbrook <chornbro@ius.indiana.edu>
new albany , in USA - Thursday, April 17, 1997 at 16:52:00 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

I would say it is possible that I am not aware of God. It is also possible that I am not aware of a real 100-foot invisible fire-breathing clown orbiting Saturn. I can't take the mere possibility that either could exist as a grounds for believing in them - we have to deal with the evidence available to us in forming judgements about what is and what is not.

Mark I. Vuletic

I love this site! It's really a great resource, and I visit it often. One suggestion: There really aren't that many T-shirts or sweatshirts for non-theists, atheists or freethinkers - at least not many that I have ever noticed. The best seem to be the ones from EvolveFish, which I have ordered, but they are of course limited to a narrow subject. A couple at FFRF seem OK but several are rather too simple - just having "Freethinker" on a sweatshirt isn't very interesting, I'm afraid. *I* could have that done at many photo-finishing shops. Would you be interested in selling T-shirts? Do you have such plans? Even just a T-shirt with "Internet Infidels" in an interesting font-design and format would be worth buying. I also thought of nice drawings of famous freethinkers with a more biting or The lady with whom I spoke at EvolveFish said that the T-shirts were one of their most popular items, and they would like to expand their line, adding other styles. In light of that, it seems that you could sell quite a few if you had good and interesting designs. Maybe even a design contest? Who knows? Just a few thoughts on the matter...hope you can use them. Regards, Austin.

Austin Cline <arcline@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Princeton, NJ USA - Thursday, April 17, 1997 at 11:51:31 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Austin,

Your point is well-taken. We've been trying to get a t-shirt for several months now, but we've been unable to get a graphics artist who could help us get our logo in a format suitable for t-shirts.

As soon as we have some t-shirts to sell, we'll announce it on the Secular Web.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

I searched the topic "getting into heaven" for a paper I'm in the process of writing for my "Exploring the Christian Faith" class at small Christian college. I can't explain how much my heart aches for the fact that you all believe what you have written here. God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for both you and I. He couldn't have made a greater sacrifice. I truly believe in the truths of the Bible and try to live my life in accordance with God's will for my life. Please just know that Jesus Christ loves each one of you.

Kelly Crocker <crockek@bethel-in.edu>
Mishawaka, IN USA - Thursday, April 17, 1997 at 11:33:46 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I'd like to suggest you consider choosing your belief with your mind instead of your heart.

We support your right to be a Christian, but you really haven't given us a reason "for the hope that lies within you." All that your message says is this: 1) I find the Secular Web depressing, and 2) I believe Christianity is true. But no one doubts that you find the Secular Web depressing or that you believe Christianity is true. The issue is whether anyone else should believe Christianity is true and why. You haven't said anything about that yet.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but please try to consider how you come across to a non-Christian. When you ask us to know that "Jesus Christ loves each one of you," you might as well have said, "Aphrodite loves each one of you" or "Appolonius of Tyana loves each one of you." We group all alleged gods (Aphrodite, Applonius of Tyana, Jesus) together: if they did exist at one time in the past they certainly don't exist now, so it's absurd to suggest that they love us.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

P.S. If there really is a god who loves us, why doesn't that god ever say so? Why is that the person who tells us that God loves us is always a believer and never God himself?

I appreciate your comments, although I did not read them all. First let me note that I find it very interesting the way you call people who stand up for their faith to be "scary progaganda-spouting fanatics or pathetic neurotics". My only comment on that issue is GROW UP and try to make your "factual" points without resorting to school yard name calling. It does nothing for your credibilty. And actually it shows how scared you apparently are of something. I am a person who believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he died on the cross for my and everyone's sins. I have accepted him as my personal saviour and live each day for him. Do you know where you are going when you die? I know you have heard this before. What if I am right and you are wrong? Have a nice day. Jeff

Jeff Stubbs <Oure131@deere.com>
USA - Thursday, April 17, 1997 at 11:08:22 (MDT)

I think I am sending this to the right place. I would like to say that I am very pleased with the content of the Happy Heretic by Judith Hayes. It is very hard to find other freethinkers within the christian shadow we live in. Here at UF there are s everal people invloved in arguements in the school paper. It would be good if freethinkers could form a national group that will fight religion in schools and office. I am just starting to learn how to argue effectively and continue to learn the more I read about it. Drizzt

Michael Barratt <Drizzt@Dkeep.com>
Gainesville, fl USA - Thursday, April 17, 1997 at 09:57:59 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

The national group you speak of exists - The Freedom From Religion Foundation. There are others as well, listed on our organizations page.

Mark I. Vuletic

Dear Internet Infidels, As a frequent visitor to your outstanding web site, I was happy to see that you've posted a graphical link to "The Godless Constitution" page so that people can purchase the book from Amazon. I recently purchased it and was pleasantly surprised by it. It's the first full-length book that I've read cover-to-cover on the subject of Church/State separation. Most of what I've read prior to this are articles on the Web written by those on both sides of this debate, or selected parts from books on the subject. All I've got to say is that the rhetoric coming from the Religious Right is SCARY. Not only is it scary to read what these people's real agenda is, but the distorted history that backs it up even makes it more offensive. I highly recommend "The Godless Constitution" to all Americans. If they're not interested in this debate, they should be. The two authors of this well written work, Isaac Kramnick and Laurence Mooreand, have a very well balanced approach. Like all human beings, they certainly have their personal views and their own agenda, but they do a good job of showing both sides of the argument. This is something that I haven't seen from the Religious Right, who always seems to distort the opposition�s views. For anyone who doesn't want to take my word on this, I encourage everyone to read articles on both sides of this issue - written by those who adhere to such views. The Religious Right is their own worst enemy, and I am confident that any intelligent person who reads their propaganda, as well as the views of those who advocate complete Church/State separtion, will reject the claims of the Religious Right. At a minimum, they should be able to conclude that the Religious Right is much more likely to distort history and the views of the Founding Fathers. The problem is that many pew warmers never hear the views of the opposition directly, but only through Pat Robertson and others who they naively trust to give them the undistorted views of their "Satanic" enemies. Needless to say, critical thinking has never been a strong characteristic of the "religious mind". The book "The Godless Constitution" does a nice job of showing that the Religious Right is great at talking out of both sides of its proverbial mouth at once. They have one set of propaganda for the fundamentalist believers and other watered-down rhetoric for the American public in general - which assures them that they're NOT out to establish a "Christian Nation". Possibly the best thing about "The Godless Constitution" is it shows that in regards to the Founding Fathers, both extremes on the issue of Church/State separation are incorrect. The book shows - albeit proves - that the key players amongst the Founding Fathers were BOTH pro-religious AND advocates of complete Church/State separation. They felt that religion was good for public morality, etc., but they also strongly felt that the government had no business in favoring or supporting one particular religion. This is a middle ground that the Religious Rights does not want to admit exists. Based on much of their rhetoric, one either has to believe that the United States should be a "Christian Nation" with a "Christian Government", or one is anti-religious. "The Godless Constitution" clearly shows that this is a false dilemma - both now and during the time of the Founding Fathers. The authors also show that there has always been a religious opposition to the idea of Church/State separation in America. However, there has also been strong religious support for it. The fact that the authors discuss the history of both trends is why I call the book well balanced. In the long run, those who advocate tearing down the wall that separates Church and State have never gained wide support. Why? Because they�re simply wrong. It may take time, but the public eventually sees through them. That�s the way it�s always been. This is even more likely in the Information Age. As someone once said: "The Internet is bad news for Christianity". I agree, since education is the key to overcoming all religious myths and distorted history. The fact that people have access to the unfiltered views of the opposition should make those in the pulpits nervous. Anyway...everyone who can is encouraged to purchase this "The Godless Constitution" and read it - or at least borrow a copy from a friend. Back when I was a "religious person", I used to believe much of what the Religious Right said. But, alas, this was because I didn't do much independent reading on the issue of Church/State separation or the views of the Founding Fathers back then. As I've discovered over the past few years, the more reading one does on this issue, the more difficult it becomes to believe the Bovine Schizophrenia that the Religious Reich is spewing. Enjoy... Unfaithfully Yours, Rob Squires

Rob Squires <r-squires@worldnet.att.net>
Kissimmee, FL USA - Thursday, April 17, 1997 at 09:11:22 (MDT)

Dear friends, You are cordially invited to attend the unveiling of Lawrence Holofcener's statue, "Thomas Paine - Father of the American Revolution". The date is Saturday, June 7th - 1997 at 10:00 am in the City of Bordentown, N.J. We would be happy to send you a written invitation if you would send us your most recent mailing adress. If you are coming from out of town and need lodging, we may be able to assist you. Please reply at your earliest convenience. Thanks! Jim Downey

jim downey <downey@princeton.wireline.slb.com>
bordentown, nj USA - Wednesday, April 16, 1997 at 18:28:14 (MDT)

I think it's pathetic when you have to make jokes about the truth. The fact is that Christianity IS on the decline. Morals are slipping, crime is increasing, and church attendance is lower now than it's ever been. I would suggest joking will not sol ve this problem

Christopher J. Davis <whyATHEIST@AOL.com>
butler, pa USA - Wednesday, April 16, 1997 at 18:10:16 (MDT)

Hi...I just finished reading the article on population growth as an indicator of the age of human life on earth. Two comments... First if one is going to accept the Biblical account of the flood, they should also accept the statements that before the flood and for a short while thereafter people's lifespans were about 10 times our present spans... which would account for the larger growth by the time Israel became a nation. (You may have heard of the canopy or greenhouse effect that existed before the flood...it would take a generation or two beyond that for life spans to be shortened.) Secondly, let's take your smallest given number for population growth 0.007 per year, and the figure evolutionists give us for human life on earth of 1 million years. I'm not a mathemetician... so correct me if I missed it...but it looks to me like the population would double about every 1400 years (sounds a bit dubious to me to begin with)...and so to give a round number...the population would double four times within each 10,000 years... 40 times in 100,000 yr and 400 times in a million years... PRESUMING this low rate was constant...if it got higher of course were are talking MUCH bigger numbers. Now - again - rounding off I get about a population of 1000 out of 7 doublings starting with 2, and a population of about a million with the next 7 doublings and multiply each 7 doublings' number by 1000 to figure where we're headed. YOU tell ME the number we get with 400 doublings... I can't count that high!!!

Sharon Doty <thedotys@rmci.net>
Nampa, , ID USA - Wednesday, April 16, 1997 at 14:34:21 (MDT)

I would like to let you guys know that the bible DOES NOT support the teaching of the immortality of the soul. If anyone doubts this fact simply look up (in any Bible) Ezekiel chapter 18 verse 4:... the soul that is sinning it itself will die.

(Anonymous)
Wednesday, April 16, 1997 at 12:52:56 (MDT)

Greetings Infidels! I just wanted to drop a line and say that I think you're doing a great job spreading freethought across the internet! I also have a question. With the latest fervor over the displaying of the 10 commandments in the Alabama courthouse, I was wondering, if the 10 commandments were made into law, how many of them would be declared unconstitutional? It seems to me that a majority of them are contrary to our Bill of Rights. Any comments on this would be appreciated!

Chris Schatschneider <cschat@bayou.uh.edu>
Houston , TX USA - Wednesday, April 16, 1997 at 09:28:13 (MDT)

Hello there, great site. But I`ve got a slight problem, I`ve been looking at net sites on atheism for a few months now, but I can`t seem to find many discussing(and slagging off) the ethics behind most religions. Specifcally, the "non- christians" go to hell policy of many evangelical fundamentalists. Could you point me in the direction of where I might be able to find discussion of this, from a humanist viewpoint? Cheers, APyke

Alex Pyke <canton2@mail.rmplc.co.uk>
Cardiff, UK - Wednesday, April 16, 1997 at 05:49:36 (MDT)

I must warn that you guys are going to hell with me and all other athiests, agnostics and freethinkers, whether we like it or not! You know how I know? Because the Bible tells me so. You know how I know the Bible tells me so? Because a Christian told me the Bible tells me so. You know how I know it was a Christian? Because he was too ecstatic about the concept of everyone he disagrees with burning in hell forever, a concept in which I could never find solace. How they can find it fulfilling to dream about people screaming in eternal agony, for ANY reason, espescially for merely possessing an oppos- ing viewpoint, is beyond any sane and healthy mind to discern. But since I know that this feedback letter will profoundly impact no one, whether they agree with me or not, with a slightly depressed sigh, I fail to see the point in writing this at all. The people who need to hear a message will scorn it, and the people who commend it, do so because it is a message that they do not need to hear. Oh well, it's not my intention or desire to change anyone's thoughts on anything anyway. I just wanted to joke with you guys a bit and tell you that I think the Secular Web and everything you are doing is great. Keep up the good work, even though it's all for nothing. Why? Because, you guys are going to hell, remember?

Richard Dalton <alhazred@swbell.net>
Independence, MMo USA - Tuesday, April 15, 1997 at 23:15:20 (MDT)

What is your opinion of Ravi Zacharias work,in his two books against anti-thiesm.In a brief glance through your web site,I find your arguments weak,can you lead me to more serious works on the subject of atheism.

T.E.Fredrick <yates@starnetinc.com>
McHenry, IL USA - Tuesday, April 15, 1997 at 22:34:10 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I'm not sure how to answer your question about Ravi's books. I've read two of his books and (obviously) did not agree with them. Was there something in particular you want to ask me about?

For some advanced works on atheism, I recommend Arguing for Atheism by Robin Le Poidevin, The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie, On the Nature and Existence of God by Richard M. Gale, and especially Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin. BTW, Ravi Zacharias doesn't interact with the latter three books, even though they were written before his.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

After reading your argument in response to Josh McDowell's Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument, I feel obligated to tell you I find you in error. Jesus' existance as well as His teachings are well-documented by both religious and secular sources. Given this, one must choose as to how this should be interpreted. I was not pursuaded by your argument that our interpretation of Jesus is not limited to just 3 choices (i.e., liar, lunatic, or Lord). Sure, one could think of other odd, irrational choices, which focus on unimportant or refutable details, but the choices before us stand, and stand firm. If Jesus existed (which He did), we must choose how to accept Him -- as a liar, as a lunatic, or as Lord of all. If the stakes of our choice is eternal salvation or comdemnation, I pray that you will re-valuate your position. When you die and stand before God, it will be too late to accept Him into your life. So I ask you now, while you have the opportunity, what will you choose?

Chris Bucklin <sixpack@sfsu.edu>
San Francisco, CA USA - Tuesday, April 15, 1997 at 12:54:37 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Chris Bucklin should have also read my response to Josh McDowell's evidence for Jesus before sending this feedback message. In my article, I demonstrate how Josephus is the only writer who provided independent confirmation of Jesus' existence. However, the authentic portions of Josephus confirm a very different Jesus than the Jesus of the gospels; they do not confirm any of his alleged sayings.

As for the other "religious and secular sources" which allegedly refer to Jesus, they all fit into one or more of the following categories: (i) they don't refer to Jesus, or (ii) they are not an independent source.

Since there is no extra-Biblical confirmation of the Christ of faith, I don't believe that Bucklin's "hell vs. heaven" dichotomy applies, and therefore don't believe that anyone will burn in Hell for rejecting Christianity.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

If you are going to slander God make sure that you have the right information so as to not make yourself look foolish. What if the Bible is true? Have you considered that? Where would that leave you? You still have time to think about it. Death, I heard, happens to everyone. Jesus.

Aaron <revivalfire@hotmail.com>
waxahachie, tx USA - Tuesday, April 15, 1997 at 10:15:23 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

The Secular Web contains extensive literature on the Bible (see, for instance, our sections on Biblical Criticism and Biblical Errancy. Rest assured, we have all considered (and rejected) the possibility of the Bible being true.

Mark I. Vuletic

I would like to thank you for your nice pages and the effort you have put into collecting the information. Because religion is a very personal question, it is often difficult to find unbiased information about it. Theist most often preach and atheists most often treat believers with a lot of disrespect, which I consider unneccesary. This site, however, has lots of interesting texts that raises interesting thouhgts and shows that other people think the same way as I do.

Nicklas Karlsson <nickarls@abo.fi>
Turku, Finland - Tuesday, April 15, 1997 at 04:31:50 (MDT)

Glad to find you folks! Can't tell you how overwhelmed we become with Christian idiocy here in the South. No need to publish this letter on your website. I cannot access the Uof AL site to find out if that group is doing anything to boycott the Birm ingham TV station that refuses to air the "Ellen" episode on 4/30. Considering that's a Wed. night, all those holier-than-thou Biblethumpers should be in church and shouldn't have to worry what is on TV. If they get home early, let them read their Bible s and leave the TV turned off so it won't offend their already brainwashed minds. Alabama is looking pretty darn foolish between this stunt and the judge in Montgomery who thinks only his religion is valid for this country! Anyway, please let me know how to contact the AL members of your group. (I live just south of Chattanooga, TN in the tri-state area.) Thanks--will continue to keep current on your issues. Best wishes, Diane Headrick

diane <dsh1@ocsonline.com>
tunnel hill, ga USA - Monday, April 14, 1997 at 10:57:55 (MDT)

hello,can you give me info on the 8th century bce place name of "Ushu" in what is now present day lebanon .if you can not can you tell me who can. thank you s.weintraub

s.weintraub <weintrauben@hotmail.com>
queen charlotte, b.c. canada - Monday, April 14, 1997 at 10:55:26 (MDT)

The article you reprint by Gordon Stein called "Josh McDowell's Charade" points out many of the problems I myself have with McDowell. His books give new definition to shoddy. This is also my experience with most other Fundamentalist Christian writers (all that I have read). But I was bothered by Stein's closing comment "When a group is as intellectually bankrupt as the fundamentalists seem to be (which of them has denounced McDowell for his inadequacies?), then we know that what they are pushing as their beliefs are unjustified." This in itself is faulty reasoning and of a type that scholars should be especially careful to avoid. Just because they have not adequately shown a justification does that mean their beliefs are unjustified? It is very possible to believe that is true but believe it for entirely erroneous reasons. Bad thinking leads to accept not the wrong conclusions, but rather essentially random conclusions. Otherwise we could simply watch what an irrational person does and do the opposite. The beliefs of Christians have to stand or fall on their own. The fact that Fundamentalists consistently use fallacious arguments and bogus data to prove their claims may suggest strongly that their beliefs are untrue but we cannot rely on that as proof.

Kevin Bowersox <kbowerso@mfi.com>
Lawrence, KS USA - Monday, April 14, 1997 at 07:45:31 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Kevin,

Thanks for your thoughtful message. Fow what it's worth, I agree with you!

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Do you believe in love? If so why? Other questions. Why ought I behave morally tomorrow? Why should I ever behave in such ways? Why should I not kill another if I really don't care about other peoples "rights"? Why would you believe human animals have "rights" anyway? Do you live accord ing to your own philosophy? Survive at the expense of other "animals", Reproduce as many as you can? Does it make sense for animals to use birth control if our utmost important activity is to reproduce and propagate our species? Just Curious. If possible I would like answers from Jeff Lowder, it seems he would be interested in these musings. Please keep seeking. Reid

Reid Monaghan <monaghan@interserv.com>
Lexington, KY USA - Sunday, April 13, 1997 at 23:38:36 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

I'm not Jeff Lowder, but I am very interested in the questions you asked. Let me take them one by one:

Do I believe in love? Yes. Why? Because I have experienced it.
Why ought you behave morally? Because if you don't, you will (a) be ostracized (or worse!) by those who want you to behave morally, and (b) you will feel guilt if you yourself are moral.
Why shouldn't you kill another if you don't care about other people's rights? Because you run a goodrisk of severe punishment.
Why would I believe people have rights? Because the belief is already ingrained into me so fully (probably by my parents) that I find it natural to confer rights upon them relative to my own actions.
Do I live in according to my own philsophy, e.g. survive at the expense of other animals, and reproduce as much as possible? Whatever my philosophy is, that's not it.
Does it make sense to use birth control if our utmost important activity is to reproduce and propagate our species? No, but who says that is our "utmost important activity"? Only the Vatican believes that.

Many of your questions seem to presuppose that belief in naturalistic evolution (I presume that is your sticking point) entails belief that the most fit behaviors are the morally right ones. But we decide what we take to be morally right and wrong, not natural processes, so I can admit that while absolute dictatorship may be a survivable strategy for a person, it is not a morally right strategy to pursue. Also, even if survivability and rightness were equivalent, cooperation has demonstrated itself to be a very survivable strategy - if I want to live, I will not presume I have the right to randomly kill people at my every whim.

Mark I. Vuletic

Interesting website, which I have only skimmed so far (as it's also very big!). I'm intrigued by the whole issue of proof. Most religious people have accepted their various "truths" with nothing in the way of proof, while (I take it) you've rejected religion altogether on the basis of the lack of proof. (Which is sort of interesting all by itself, isn't it..?) Personally I think that proof, in the scientific sense at least, is irrelevant to religious faith. But since it's the central question here, let me ask you: What WOULD you accept as absolutely convincing proof of Christianity? (Assuming for the moment that Biblical inconsistancies by themselves prove nothing either way, except for the existance of bad translations.) Thanks in advance. If the question is anwered elsewhere in your web site, just steer me in the right direction. (Little joke: Have you heard of the dyslexic agnostic insomniac? He was up all night wondering if there really is a Dog.)

Siobhan <semmett@erinet.com>
Centerville, OOH USA - Sunday, April 13, 1997 at 14:49:47 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

A religious proposition is still a proposition. I therefore disagree with your statement that proof should be "irrelevant to religious faith." We should require just as much proof for religious propositions as we do any other propositions.

The type of evidence I would accept for a religious proposition would depend upon the specific proposition at issue. For example, if a Christian fundamentalist told me that God really wanted a personal relationship with me, then I would evaluate that claim the same way I would evaluate the claim that there is a human who wants a personal relationship with me. Thus, for the Christian god, the issue is what kind of evidence would suggest that a person wants a relationship with you?

When humans want relationships with other humans, they normally make that known somehow (talking to them in person, writing them a letter, calling them, sending them an e-mail, etc.). Now suppose someone told you that there was some guy named Joe who really wanted to be your friend, but Joe never made that known. You never heard from Joe at all. No visits from Joe, no letters, no phone calls, no e-mails, nothing. In fact, suppose that you never even saw Joe!

What possible explanations for Joe's absence could there be? One explanation would be that he is busy. Another explanation would be that Joe is shy. Or maybe he forgot how to get in touch with you.

All of these explanations might be legitimate reasons for Joe's apparent absence. But they are not legitimate reasons for an alleged all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving god. If a god is all-powerful, then it is impossible for that god to be "busy." But it seems equally absurd to suggest that god is "shy" or "forgetful." So why hasn't that god tried to initiate relationships with humans if that is what it really wants? It seems to me that he best explanation is that that god does not exist.

That's one example of what I would accept as evidence. The type of evidence I would accept depends upon the nature of the god in question.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Sir, I do not disagree with most of your evidence, but I totally disagree with the way you view the evidence. You claim that intellegence is a necessary requirement for discussion and a person should not have a bias when viewing the evidence. I see a lack of intellegence when a person cannot understand that it is impossible to have a total lack of bias. I see a total lack of intellegence when you do selective discrediting (literal). I see no discrediting of interpretative viewing of the Bible. I see not intellecgence when a person of persons espouse information as coming from a source and uses information from ? where I don't know, i.e. The Apocrypha that Martin Luthern droped from the Catholic Church (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (or Eccesiasticus), Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees along with small portions of Daniel and Ester, not 12 (see http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/issues/sola.html, http://cin.org/ kc3-3.html). If you are really interested in a non biased (which of course you are not) exploration, why do insist on giving others explanations, why don't you link to the others sites and let the person for themselves read what the other side espouses so there is no miscommunication. I don't think so.

Richard Oboczky <ricko@imperium.net>
USA - Sunday, April 13, 1997 at 13:06:11 (MDT)

living in the theocracy of Irvine I just want to say thanks for being out there... visiting your web has been therapeutic....

yang hu <yangh@uci.edu>
irvine, ca USA - Sunday, April 13, 1997 at 05:05:18 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

My symapthies... I lived in Irvine for about ten years. Hope things get better for you.

Mark I. Vuletic

Every so often, I see or read something that I cannot be silent on. I see those who do not belive in a "Higher Power", those who do not believe in eternal life and other Christian principals. I can only say this...If you do not believe there is a God , you'd better be right. Being wrong will be the biggest disappointment of your life here and hereafter.

R. Finical <rfinical@tri-lakes.net>
Branson, MO USA - Saturday, April 12, 1997 at 22:36:05 (MDT)

Internet Infidles Response:

It would only be a "disappointment" if God is enough of a jerk to punish people for disbelieving when he himself never furnished compelling evidence of his existence. And in that case, who would want to spend all eternity worshipping a jerk?

Mark I. Vuletic

LOVE this site! I've been a freethinker for many years now and am an avid reader of rationalist works (Rupert Hughes, E. Haldeman-Julius, Col. Ingersoll, &c.) I really enjoy your humor section- allow me to say that I've been approached with that "If yo u died right now, do you know that you'd go to heaven?" bit. i usually respond with, "No, I don't. But then, I don't know that I wouldn't go to Olympus of the Greek gods and goddesses, or to Asgard of the Vikings, or the Moslem heaven, or be reincarnated. " Gets them every time.

Robert L. Folkner <saiwala@concentric.net>
Jacksonville, Fl USA - Saturday, April 12, 1997 at 03:33:14 (MDT)

11 April 1997

To the editors: I have just been reading your feedback page for January 1997. It amazes me that so many atheists and agnostics spend so much time attacking each other. For surely no reasonable person, after careful consideration, will deny that before one considers the matter of whether there is a god or not, it is perfectly reasonable to be an agnostic, for one has not yet considered any evidence regarding the matter. Indeed, any other position would be having faith, that is, a belief without evidence. So unless we are born with knowledge regarding the existence of 'god,' all reasonable people, at least for a portion of their lives, have been agnostics.

Furthermore, all reasonable people will remain agnostics until they encounter sufficient evidence that there is o r is not such a 'god.' After one considers 'the evidence,' what one should reasonably decide would depend upon what, exactly, the evidence was that one considered. If one person has, for example, never considered a particular version of The Problem of Evil, then obviously that version of that argument cannot be expected to influence that person's belief. It would be silly to suppose that, simply because someone has come up with a particular argument, that everyone has considered it. Thus, it may be that there is sufficient e vidence regarding this matter, but it does not follow that everyone has encountered it. As a result, there may be differences of opinion about this (or any other matter) which are not the result of some people "simply being too stupid or pigheaded to acc ept the truth."

Also, what one will decide will depend upon what, exactly, one means by the term "god." If, for example, one means "an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being" (or some such notion - which, if carefully considered, will need further clarification), the n The Problem of Evil might be sufficient to make one reasonably assured that there is no "god." However, such an argument as The Problem of Evil will obviously do nothing to prove that Zeus, as commonly understood by the ancient Greeks, does not exist. Thus, it may well be, that no reasonable person would believe that a "god" exists, defined in a particular way, after considering a certain bit of evidence. If this idea of needing to define the term "god" seems rather shocking or implausible, then go ask the next ten people you meet to define the term. You will probably get a surprising variety of answers, which will show that it is a term that needs some c larification. Make sure that they fully explain what they mean, for to say that, for example, "god is a being outside of space and time," is not a very useful definition, for the definition is as unclear as the term being defined. (For more about this, see "Does God Exist? Reflections on Disbelief" by Kai Nielsen in Free Inquiry 1 (Spring, 1981, pages 21-26), reprinted in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, Fifth Edition, edited by Burr & Goldinger.) It is to be hoped that the above considerations will help people to be more tolerant of opinions that are different from their own. But perhaps many people would rather just put the 'heretics' to the rack.

A.J. Burger <thales@flash.net>
Los Angles, CA USA - Friday, April 11, 1997 at 17:19:23 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

It does seem indeed obvious that a person who has never encountered evidence for or against the existence of God can be rationally justified in being an agnostic. The real question, however, is the question of whether one can reasonably remain an agnostic after encountering all of the arguments out there. I cast my vote for "yes" even though I am not an agnostic; however, others believe that any informed person who fails to affirm a positive belief (in the existence or nonexistence of God) must be doing so out of cowardice or intellectual irresponsibility.

Mark I. Vuletic

M Banks <mbanks@express-news.net>
San Antonio, TX USA - Thursday, April 10, 1997 at 23:02:11 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

Mark I. Vuletic

I find it rather amusing that none of your articles have any email addresses attached to the article. For are you ashamed of what you are saying? Is there no proof of your words? How is it then that you explain exsistance...life...joy and all that we have around us? I would love to hear and debate some of your responses well then that is if your not to scared to let yourself out. JL
Josh Lamont <jlamont@eskimo.com>

Seattle, wa USA - Thursday, April 10, 1997 at 18:52:43 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Who are you trying to contact? If the person is alive and has an e-mail address, I will make sure your message reaches the author.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

I happened to stumble across your web page and I just have to tell you that I am fascinated. Obviously there is a lot of material on the web dealing with philosophy and religion, and I can understand why Christians for instance would be interested in telling people about something they believe in. But I don't quite understand why someone would spend as much time and effort as you obviously have in trying to convince people that something doesn't exist. If you believe that the universe and living things are here simply by chance, fine, I can understand. But why would you spend so much time trying to convince others that they are wrong, that we should believe in essentially nothing. If there is nothing to believe in, then what is there to argue about. I'v come across this before and I really am quite curious as to what drives you to seek to defend a position that by your own account requires no defense. What are you guys worried about? What ever it is, are you that worried that you would go to such lengths as seen here in your web page? I don't mean to be flippid, I really would like to hear from you on what your motivation is. Thanks

Matthew Wilson <mtwilson@ccgate.hac.com>
El Segundo, CA USA - Thursday, April 10, 1997 at 09:37:28 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

One thing some of us are "worried" about is countering the influence of the Religious Right and other forms of religious fanatacism - we just choose to try to defuse the threat through intellectual means rather than political ones.

Secondly, we are interested in pursuing the subjectfor its own sake, as well as for helping others who are just plain interested in the question of whether or not God exists. Some of us write about the subject in the same way as we would write about any interesting philosophical question - we just find the subject fascinating, and write for an audience which has equal fascination.

Third, some of us are interesting in freeing individuals from the weight of a worldview we feel is false and destructive. There are people who suffer because of their own religious beleifs, so if their beliefs are actually false, wouldn't it be best to assist them by pointing out that fact?

I'm sure some of my colleagues can think of more reasons, but these are the top three off the top of my head.

Mark I. Vuletic

Dr. Stein wrote: "I guess that fundamentalists have no brains at all." Dr. Stein, I am encouraged that you have at least taken a stand on your views of Christ. So many are just luke-warm, on the fence, or have no opinion. God will judge and you have not hidden your feelings concerning Him. I will pray for you... Jeff Cassels

Jeff Cassels <jcassels@flash.net>
Dallas, TX USA - Thursday, April 10, 1997 at 08:39:51 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Dr. Stein was very committed to promoting atheism, freethought, and rationalism. Unfortunately, his motivation was sometimes so great that he forgot how to promote his causes tactfully. It's unfortunate he used ad hominem arguments like the one you quoted.

Thank you for your diplomatic response.

Best wishes,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

I feel sorry for you. You can talk your way out of believing in anything. But when it all said and done, you still have a huge hole in your heart. Jesus is out there. IT is called FAITH! He loves you, even now, and he will take you as you are. W ithout him, there is no hope for anything better than this old decaying crime infested earth.

Emily <ieng1946@selu.edu>
Hammond, LA USA - Thursday, April 10, 1997 at 07:53:04 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

>I feel sorry for you. You can talk your way out of
>believing in anything.

I could just as easily say that YOU can talk YOUR way out of NOT believing in anything. And that would get us absolutely nowhere.

>But when it all said and done, you still have a huge hole
>in your heart.

Actually, I just had a physical examination and the doctor said that my body (including my heart) is in tip-top shape.

>Jesus is out there.

To quote Jim Carrey, "All right-ee then!"

>IT is called FAITH! He loves you, even now, and he will take
>you as you are.

Jesus has been dead for almost 2,000 years. With all due respect, I'm not into dead people.

>W ithout him, there is no hope for anything better than this
>old decaying crime infested earth.

Maybe not. But is a false hope better than no hope at all?

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

In response to Donald Morgan which said: "A lot of work did go into it. It started when I was a devout, born-again, Bible-believing, fundamentalist Christian. Fortunately, I always had the good sense to keep an open mind. I always said to myself that I would someday check out the foundations of Christian belief. Eventually I did, very thoroughly as a matter of fact, and my conclusion is that there is little foundation or justification for believing the major tenets of Christianity. What began as a cautious investigation turned into a major endeavor. I have a collection of about 450 books on the subject and I am very well read on it." Sir, You were never "born-again" needless to say "devout" to God or Christianity. If we (Christians) are wrong then we has missed out on nothing short of the everyday "rat race" of life. If you are wrong you will spend eternity in hell. I like my plan better. May God forgive you and have mercy upon you before it is too late.

Mark Bordwine <bordwine@3wave.com>
bristol, TN USA - Wednesday, April 09, 1997 at 13:11:19 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I'm not Donald Morgan, but here's some food for thought:

Have you ever tried to share the witness of the Holy Spirit with a non-Christian, only to have them tell you that God really didn't do the things in your life you said He did? Do you remember how that made you feel?

That's exactly how ex-Christians feel when Christians like you tell them that they were "never 'born-again.'"

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

I was just browsing through the web and came across your web page and I must say I find it very hard to believe that you were a christian to start with. However the bible does tell us that you can lose your salvation much more your faith but were you really saved to start with, many of the stories I've read are about people who seemed had little devotion and interest in establishing a relationship with God. Not all denominations are true doctrines of the Gospel and the bible tells s us of false doctrines to come. I don't think you have much knowledge on the counterfeit revival taking place whithin christianity, many people use the gospel as a means to make money and people who follow this false doctrines,pastors,rabbi, etc. have devastating consequences in their life. I doubt very much of what your arguments hold since you don't even know the truth from the false in christianity if you did you wouldn't speaking against it. The more I read both atheist, evolutionist and the arguments for God, the more my faith for Him grows. Concerning what your buddy said about contradictions in the bible, I would like for him to tell me where exactly did he find this contradictions. If you looked at the evidence with an open mind you'll find it overwhelming, what arguments do you have for the denial of God?

Gilbert Lujan <rlujan@mail.utep.edu>
El Paso, TX USA - Tuesday, April 08, 1997 at 23:16:17 (MDT)

I just watch this show on creation science done in 1996. I thought you might be interested in my notes. Sorry it is so long. The Young Age of the Earth 1996, Earth Science Associates www.halos.com 1-800-467-6380 As aired April 8, 1997 on ETWN at 10 pm EST. A Dr. Robert Gentry at one time associated with Argonne National Labs was the lead "scientist" explaining why the earth is young and all can be explained by a world wide flood a few thousand years ago. His main theory is based on coal deposited and the f act that they are not nearly as old as expected nor were they laid down at different times. He bases this on U/Pb ratios and is published in "Research Communication Network" Breakthrough Report 1997 and also Science Oct 15, 1976. Also a conference hoste d about this in 1978 and reported in Geotimes Sept. 1978 discusses these U/Pb ratios. Can coal form quickly they ask. Of course they answer. They cite Chemical and Engineering News Nov 21, 1983 p. 42. Organic geochemistry no other info (or maybe I missed it). Nature March 28, 1985 researchers at Argonne produced coal from lignin much easier and faster that expected the author was Winans? Also, an article in Science News by an Elizabeth Pennsi entitled Water, Water, Everywhere supports some of this. Can oil form quickly they ask. Of course. They say researchers at Oregon State U (no names and no articles here). Are watching oil layers form from superheated water coming from under the surface mixing with the coral in Guaymous (sp?) Bay in CA. About 1/2 hour in is the first mention of a World Wide Flood and the bible. They mention fossil shells found on Mt. Everest. And say there must have been volcanic eruptions during the flood. They we turn to Dr. Walter Brown at some War College and associate professor at the Air Force Academy. He explains that before the flood earth had a water layer about 10 miles down all around the earth. This cracked (I assume God did this) and within 10 hours the crack encircled the globe and water shot up 20 miles in the air some coming down as ice etc. They used this to explain a lot things very fast like continental drift, deep sea canyons, layered strata, the ice ages, the mid-oceanic ridge. This is called the hydroplate theory. The plates moved 45 miles/hr. This also explained the rapid formation of the Grand Canyon. They ask the question. If the canyon took millions of years to form where did the sediment end up -- there is no delta? Back to Dr. Gentry. We now go to the fossil record. Basically since many fossils are so well preserved the must laid down quickly. -- Weak. Animals are seen together because they are trying to escape the flood waters. Dino footprints are near coalifie d wood and we have already shown that the wood is not very old so therefore neither are the dinos. Now we turned to the age of the earth as shown by radiometric dating. This only works if the decay rate of U is constant. They claim that during the flood this decay changed and so all measurements are invalid. (are his measurements invalid as well?). The evidence for the decay rate change is presence of radioactive circles are sphere (traces of decay left in granite) caused by an isotope that is known to be "fleeting" (they never say the isotope). Therefore if the granite cooled slowly then these tr aces would not be there. Hence, the granite cooled quickly (in less than six days I presume). Finally, Dr. Gentry makes an argument that there is too much He found in deep U deposits. He references his work in Geophysical Research Letters 1982. This was a well done presentation. It looked like it was done on a shoestring budget, but sounded very "scientific". They flashed the cover of journal articles and sound very reasonable to someone with no scientific background. There many times however , when crucial bits of information were left out. I hope to look up this group and these reference, where possible, and report more later. Feel free to distribute these notes freely.

Donald Whisenhunt <DonaldW@cityusa.com>
Schenectady, NY USA - Tuesday, April 08, 1997 at 21:59:08 (MDT)

In reply to the response in section 3 of Chapter 9 of Jeff Lowder's book against Josh McDowell, I see what Mr. Lowder is saying about there appearing to be a straw man that Josh is attacking. First, may I remind us that he says one objection might be that the Old Testament books were written after Christ. This may be for the sake of less educated people that would not know this. He does not say that atheists would primarily believe this. This brings up another point that I don't think he is trying to make atheists look stupid. He once was a hardcore atheist that tried to disprove the Bible. His purpose isn't to make atheists look stupid but to try to help people come to the most important truth in the world. He cares about the eternal destiny of atheists more than they do for themselves. Nevertheless, whatever the reasoning for including Messianic prophecies as testimony to the reality of the Lord Jesus, it is still a powerful one indeed. Don't be afraid to doubt the Bible, but please keep you r hearts open to knowing the most important truth you can find. (The Loving Jesus) "The wisdom of men is foolishness to God".

Robb Giordano <rg1154@Messiah.edu>
Grantham, NJ USA - Tuesday, April 08, 1997 at 20:12:47 (MDT)

I am writing in response to the article about the family that was terminated from AOL service for discussing atheism. I was not aware of this until I read about it in your feedback section, but I am not the least bit surprised. I, too, have had my fi ll of AOL (for other reasons) and cancelled my membership months ago. Now that I am aware of this incident, I am sure glad that I did so! P.S. - I decided to replace AOL with AT&T Worldnet service for the simple reason that James Dobson (of the infamous and oppressive "Focus on the Family") has boycotted AT&T recently for requiring its employees to attend a sensitivity seminar which include the gay lifestyle!!!

Christine Slotta <cdslotta@worldnet.att.com>
North Olmsted, OH USA - Tuesday, April 08, 1997 at 19:25:12 (MDT)

Your's is an elaborate attempt to explain away the evidentiary superiority of Jesus Christ, the God and Savior of mankind. You have failed however, in your attempt to bring Him down to a level with every thief and robber who came before or after His ea rthly ministry. He said that such thieves and robbers would come. He also said many would claim to be Christ, the Messiah, and would be false deceivers. He even spoke of people like you and your gang of intellectuals who would pervert truth by mixing it w ith lies. Only a fool could look at the evidence and not see that Jesus is God, who rose from the dead and is alive forevermore. Cease and desist in your agnostic, if not atheistic denial. You are going to have to meet this same Jesus one day in judgement . He is the only one who claimed to be superior to everyone else. He is the only one whose life and deeds are completely recorded not only by the Bible but by secular historians as historic fact, as is his resurrection from the dead an historic reality. L et's talk more about it Mr. Intellectual.

D. Wood <sTORMqING@MSN.COM>
USA - Tuesday, April 08, 1997 at 19:08:19 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Why should we believe anything that Jesus said? For that matter, how do we know what Jesus said? You are simply refusing to consider the possibility that your cherished beliefs are false; your Christianity is totally arbitrary. Forget about atheism or agnosticism, why should a person be a Christian and not, say, a Muslim? The Holy Qu'ran also made predictions about people who would reject it; the Holy Qu'ran also promises eternal Hell fire for anyone who rejects it. And I'm sure that Muslim apologists would be glad to explain to you why "only a fool could look at the evidence and see that the Qu'ran is the Word of Allah.

Both you and I reject Islam. The difference between you and me is that I have an objective basis for my rejection of Islam whereas your rejection is totally arbitrary. My rejection is based simply on the lack of evidence for believing that the Qu'ran is the Word of Allah. But what about your rejection of the Qu'ran? How do you justify that? You claim that "evidence" supports the claims that "Jesus is God, who rose from the dead and lives forevermore." Let consider this claim in detail.

You write, "He is the only one who claimed to be superior to everyone else." This, of course, assumes that the Bible is an accurate historical record of the sayings of Jesus. You haven't shown that to be true. As for your claim that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact, you obviously haven't read our articles on the resurrection of Jesus. Please see the Modern Library Subject Index section on the Resurrection for more information. Your claim that the resurrection was documented by secular historians is simply false; there is no independent confirmation of the Resurrection. The only secular historian alleged to have recorded the Resurrection was Josephus, but there are good reasons for believing that the relevant text was interpolated.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

THE WORD OF GOD, THE BIBLE, HAS BEEN AROUND FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IT HAS THE POWER TO CHANGE PEOPLES LIVE.PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO DESTROY THE BIBLE DURING THE DARK AGES WHITCH LASTED ABOUT 4 HUNDRED YEARS BETWEEN MALACHI AND MATT BUT IT DID NOT STOP IT BECAUSE HERE I AM TODAY WITH JESUS CHRIST IN MY LIFE LEADING ME AND GUIDEING,IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIVE IN JESUS CHRIST THATS YOUR CHOICE BUT I KNOW WHO JESUS IS HE IS THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD!!!! JESUS IS ALIVE FOR EVER MORE!!!!!!!! WARNING IF YOU DO NOT CHANGE YOUR BELEIFS, PREPARE TO SPEND ALL ETERNITY IN THE LAKE OF FIRE!

jennifer <jennifer@radiolan.com>
san jose, ca USA - Tuesday, April 08, 1997 at 17:19:10 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

YOU HAVEN'T OFFERED ANY EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS, BUT I GUESS SINCE YOU WROTE THEM IN ALL CAPS THEY MUST BE TRUE.

Mark I. Vuletic

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

YES, THE BIBLE DOES HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE PEOPLE'S LIVES. BUT SO DO THE BOOK OF MORMON, THE HOLY QU'RAN, THE BHAGAVAGAD GITA, DIANETICS, ETC. JUST BECAUSE A BOOK CHANGES PEOPLE'S LIVES DOESN'T MEAN IT CHANGES THEM FOR THE BETTER. AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THE BOOK IS TRUE.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

The recent posting on secularism and animal rights is obviously well thought out and deserves detailed consideration. After a brief overview, I find I still have difficulties with an ethics that excludes the human use of non-human animals for food, cl othing and all but the most innocuous experiments on "willing" subjects (how is one to define an animal's "will?"). They both stem from the fact that humans are demostrably the most advanced animals we know of. One of the key arguments cited in favor of the "vegan" ethic is that biology is a major consideration for ethical decision-making, and that we can only justify different treatment with different biological facts. I would add that we ought to consider soc ial factors as well. Why eat cows and not humans? Try the following thought experiment. To save all life on Earth, you must make one of two decisions: you must either destroy all the world's cows or all the world's human beings. Which do you choose a nd why? I choose to destroy the cows. By dispassionate observation, I can see that cows do little that is not directly related to their immediate survival, while humans engage in a wide range of activities that apparently have nothing to do with their n eeds for food, shelter or reproduction. They call this "science" and "art." Unless we are to set the scientific and artistic accomplishments of the human race since its beginning at nought, we must assign a higher value to human life than we do to bovin e life, and by extension to most other forms of non-human animal life on Earth. The conclusion that it is "wrong" to exploit animals is also suspect. Humans rose to their current position in the world on the backs of animals--horses and oxen as well as pigs and goats. If it is "wrong" today to exploit animals, wasn't it no less "wr ong" for the first agricultural humans to hitch horses to their plows or to domesticate animals and raise them for food? If not, it seems that there could be some regions of the world--where humans have not progressed to the point that we Westerners who argue about animal rights have--where it would not necessarily be wrong to have chicken for dinner. At what point does the exploitation of animals become "wrong," then, say, for a resident of the Sudan? Benjamin Franklin at one point decided to refrain from animal food. During this phase in his long and illustrious life, he found himself on a ship becalmed in the Atlantic with short and spoiling supplies of grains and vegetables. His fellow passengers caught and ate fish from the sea, but Franklin remained firm in his vegan lifestyle. One day, he noticed that the belly of the fish his shipmate was cleaning was filled with other, smaller fishes. "If you can eat them," he thought, "then I can eat you," and did so with relish. He concluded, "what a convenient thing it is to be a Reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make up a reason for anything one has a mind to do." The above comments are perhaps not as rigorously developed as the original posting, which probably deserves a better response. Still, I imagine all of us, secularist or otherwise, will continue to justify our individual tastes in food and clothing with e thical arguments such as the above. As for me, all this writing is making me hungry--I'm off to find a nice steak.

Douglas A. Gray <dagray@stthomas.edu>
Minneapolis, mn USA - Tuesday, April 08, 1997 at 16:44:23 (MDT)

I think your religion is really interesting. I would like to really try and grasp the concept of it all. can you please send me some e-mail on this. also if you know where I can find the Humanist Manifesto online i would like that. thanks for your time

Doug <dugburt@aol.com>
lakeland, fl USA - Tuesday, April 08, 1997 at 09:54:09 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Well, I'm not sure which "religion" you're referring to since atheism is not a religious belief.

The Humanist Manifesto can be found on the American Humanist Association home page.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Hi, this isn't really a query, but I was browsing your humour page and wondered if you would like a couple of jokes I heard about 20 years ago (by Dave Allen, an Irish comedian, I don't know how well he is known in the US). Please feel free to use or discard as you wish: 1. A guy dies and is introduced by St Peter to the various spots in Heaven. "Here", says St Peter, "we have the Muslims" showing a crowd of men and beautiful dark-eyed women. "And here, the Hindus, here the Anglicans, here the ...", "hang on a minute, do you mean everyone gets here?" the newly- deceased butts in. "Well, as long as they lead decent lives" is the reply. And so they go on, with St. Peter showing all the various pagans, obscure sects and even atheists. At one point they come across a massive wall. "What's behind this?" "Shh", says St Peter, "that's for the Catholics - they like to think they're the only ones up here"! 2. A Priest and a Rabbi take the same compartment in a train. They look warily at each other and start reading their respective papers. After a short time the Priest looks up, coughs and says: "Excuse me Rabbi, but just as a matter of interest, have you ever eaten pork?" Rabbi, looking a bit guilty, "why do you ask" Priest "Oh come on, just between you and me, call it professional interest, it won't go any further" Rabbi "well, OK then, yes I ONCE ate pork." Priest " Nice, isn't it!" And sits back with a smug expression. A few minutes later: Rabbi "Excuse me, Father, but just between you and me, have you ever had sex with a woman?" The Priest looks a bit furtive. Rabbi "Purely for professional interest you understand; it'll go no further". Priest : "Well yes, I did have sex with a woman, only ONCE though!" Rabbi " Nicer than pork, don't you think?" (If you think the prose can be sharpened up then please do so - I realise my limitations as a joke-teller.)

Pete Taylor <p.a.taylor@open.ac.uk>
Milton Keynes, UK - Tuesday, April 08, 1997 at 07:07:43 (MDT)

Not a comment, but a question: Which scientist (perhaps a physicist) said: "There are atoms, and there is space. Everything else is a matter of opinion."

Francis Assaf <fassaf@peachnet.campus.mci.net>
Athens, GA USA - Tuesday, April 08, 1997 at 06:19:03 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

I can't track it down, but it sounds suspiciously like Democritus or Leucippus to me.

Mark I. Vuletic

You're arguement against the Bible seems to be taking the Bible completely at face value, in which case you would find contradictions in ANYTHING. Some of your arguments made me think, but there is far to much more evidence for the Bible than against it, and even that that is against it here isn't convincing. But i appreciate this page because I'm doing a persuasive speech on the Bible, trying to persuade that it is the Word of God. This has helped me to see the other side of the argument and some of the attempts at disproving the Bible. I will surely use some of them in my speech. I'm in no way trying to talk crap and say that you're completely wrong, because I can understand some of your reasoning and ideas when you argue about certain points in the Bible. But I also understand that if you just look at the Bible face-value, then you won't find the truth, and in this case I refer to those tricky passages that you used against the Bible. You have to look at everything in context. I mean, there are two Bible verses in the Old Testament, I forget where, which are word for word opposites of each other. But as soon as you put them in their context or the situation at the time, it makes perfect sense. Sorry I can't give you the exact verses. I'll try to find that out and send them later. Either way, this was just to say that I am appreciative of your attempts to make me think about my beliefs. But, they just aren't real convincing. I just feel sorry for the people who haven't studied anything that are proving the Bible who come and read this, because your paper will probably make a lot of people fall away from their faith.

Joshua Benjamin <jb9138@ark.ship.edu>
Shippensburg, PA USA - Monday, April 07, 1997 at 17:14:58 (MDT)

I got a great "thing for a non-christian to do in church" ordeal for your list: you get pure sodium (Na) and pure sulfur and put them in a gelatin capsul. (one like for vitamins, the bigger, the better) then drop it in the toilet. in about 30 seconds into the preaching a horrible smell hits the crowd.. mwuahahahah!! (sodium burns in water, sulfur gives off a bad smell when burning) Or you can buy a buck worth a stink bombs at a local prank store, but its not nearly as good.

JoBoB <jobob7463@geocities.com>
Boise, ID USA - Monday, April 07, 1997 at 15:55:31 (MDT)

Have you read any Ravi Zacharias? You might check out "Can Man Live Without God?" or "The True Face of Atheism."

liz kelly <liz@segen.com>
Nashville, USA - Monday, April 07, 1997 at 11:17:36 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Yes, I've read both of the books you mention.

Now I'd like you to return the favor, and read two books I recommend: Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker and The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read edited by Tim C. Leedom.

Sincerely,<