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 - 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 - 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 - 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
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
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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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
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 - 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 Friesen - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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
- 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 . Thank You folks!
Larry Laird
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
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 - 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
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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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
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 - 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
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
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 - 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 - 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
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 - 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 - 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 - 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
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 - 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 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 - 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 - 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 - 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
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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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
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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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
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 - 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 - 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 - 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
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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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
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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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
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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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,
Jeffery Jay Lowder
Below are some interesting quotes from dying men: Altamont the infidel, cried out his last words: "My principles have poisoned my friend; my extravagance has beggared my boy; my unkindness has murdered my wife. And is there another hell? Oh, thou blasphemed, yet most indulgent Lord God! Hell is a refu ge if it hides me from thy frown." Sir Francis Newport, the head of an English infidel club, said to those gathered around his dying bed, "You need not tell me there is no God for I know there is one, and that I am in His angry presence! You need not tell me there is no hell, for I alread y feel my soul slipping into its fires! Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know I am lost forever!" Lord Byron, an infidel to the end, exclaimed on his deathbed: "Shall I sue for mercy?" After a long pause, he added, "Come, come no weakness; let's be a man to the last." Voltaire, on his death bed, addressed his doctor: "I am abandoned by God and man. I will give you half of what I am worth, if you give me six months' life." The doctor replied, "Sir, you cannot live six weeks." Voltaire blasted back, "Then I shall go to hell, and you will go with me." He later added, "I wish I had never been BORN!" Shortly after, he slumped over and died. M. F. Rich, an atheist, cried, "I would rather lie on a stove and broil for a million years than go into eternity with the eternal horrors that hang over my soul! I have given my immorality for gold, and its weight sinks me into an endless, hopeless, hel pless Hell." In Cloverdale, NY there was a known God mocker. During his life, he said, "Show me a hair in the palm of my hand, and I will show you a Christian." His dying words were quite different. The physician reports the last words as, "I am in the flames! Pul l me out! Pull me out!" Another dying man said, "I've treated Christ like a dog all my life. He will not help me now."
Ron, Jr. - Sunday, April 06, 1997 at 23:28:07 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
How interesting - do you have references for all of these reports, or are they apocryphal, like most "deathbed conversion" reports?
Mark I. Vuletic
Why are you people assiduously searching for errors in the Bible? There are no errors in the Bible. Alas, there are errors in interpreting (and translating, sometimes). There are also errors in passionately taking Scripture out of context. Displayi ng a pretext indubitably reveals the intent of the individual. I could extemporaneously give you a resolution for every apparent discrepancy in the Bible. Thereafter, when you persistently ignore the possible resolution, your problem is exposed. It is definitely not an intellectual deficiency, but a manifestation of an unbelieving heart. This is most likely why God allowed apparent contradictions to be in His Word (to expose the intent of the heart). Another reason would be to eliminate the impetuous supposition that the authors of the Bible conspired with each other. Another reason would be to stimulate studying on the behalf of the believer. After the diligent believer finds the answer to the alleged contradiction, a whole new appreciation of God 's Word is renewed and increased. Many Bible scholars have more than adequately refuted the pseudo-accusations against the Holy Bible, but yet these are repeatedly ignored. Furthermore, the cycle of alleged contradictions in the Bible remains endless. If the Bible wasn't infallible, then only one error would be necessary to illustrate the point. But you people know that there is not one alleged contradiction that has no possible resolution. This is ultimately why you are trying to flood everyone with the invective. No one is going to engage into the futility of refuting all of those accusations. I challenge you to enter the domain of true science, not spurious science (i.e. theory of evolution which claims that the vast universe came from a few mol ecules). The dead chemicals inevitably arose from the dead, and began to live and reproduce (NOT!). Believing in the resurrection of the dead is absolutely inescapable, and I refuse to accept miracles without a God. That is the most irrational system o f so-called logic that could ever be uttered!
Ron, Jr.
Johnson City, TN USA - Sunday, April 06, 1997 at 23:00:27 (MDT)
This is about Bible Absurtidities page. "In the beginning God created the heaven(s) and the earth." (But where did God dwell before he had created heaven and earth? In the space that wasn't really there before the Big Bang. In the singularity of some black hole. Considering how many places there are that the human mind doesn't really comprehend, this is an absurd question. Cain builds and populates a whole city in only two generations. If Cain has say 50 children, and if each of his daughters has 50 children..it would work, remembering that back then, a city didn't mean a million people. Infact even 3 people living in a permenant place instead of nomadically could be a city. All living things including plants, animals, women and innocent children Apart from religon, why do women classify with the non-intelligent/thinking group? The size of Noah's Ark was such that there would be about one and a half cubic feet for each pair of the 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species to be taken aboard. The majority of these would be insects and other small animals, there would be birds who would not require deck room. The flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest mountains.(Note: This would require steady, worldwide rainfall at the rate of aboGod first creates the rainbow. ut 6 inches per minute, 360 inches per hour, 8640 inches per day--for 40 days and nights--so as to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, thus burying 29,000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22 ft. of water. How did the author know the depth of the water No date for this given, it could have taken place before the second mountain building epoch when the land was relativily flat. The rain could be supplemented by the melting of polar caps, glaciers etc. ?God first creates the rainbow. 1) The atmosphere and hence its refractive properties changed. 2) The retina became sensitive to the correct wavelenght. 3)The brain's visual center developed enough to distingish all the colors. To be cont
Jumana Aumir - Sunday, April 06, 1997 at 20:44:59 (MDT)
Dear Infidels, I have been perusing the humor pages and came across the one on how to discourage the door-to-door missionaries. One way that would like to see added to the list is to simply to open your door either naked, or, as you talk to them, simply begin to undress. Guaranteed to work. GT
Gordon Taylor - Sunday, April 06, 1997 at 11:15:16 (MDT)
I am a Christian and I am only slightly offended by your failed attempt to destroy the credibility of the Bible. However, I am more concerned that you have been slightly misinformed during your life about Christianity and the big picture of the whole Bible. Also I am even more concerned that you are not trying to educate people but are trying to destroy the Bible and lead people away from Christ. If you spent half the time studying the Bible and trying to figure out what exactly it is saying rather that trying to destroy Christianity you would see the logic and the beauty of how it all works together. example: You cited many examples of men who did immoral things still recieved God's blessing. It would appear that God approved. Wrong Jacob had to run from his brother Esau for most of his life because of his sins. David's weakness for women was used by God as a way of mocking him. Near David's death a beautiful woman was sent into david's room for him to sleep with but him being the age he was, he was incapable of performing. You cited many old rules and regulations from the old testament which were imperfect and all the "great men of God" from the old testament all had serious sins. But the old testament was there to be imperfect. It was intended for people to look forward to the promise of a better way. That Way was through Christ. When Christ died on the cross, the old covenant was made obselete and a new one put into effect. Although I don't think you will, I would be perfectly happy if you published my comments on your web site. I don't believe you will because I am not a supporter of what you are doing or one of those condemming people who claim to be Christians who make idiots of themselves saying all kinds of horrible things even cursing at you as I have seen on other pages of people presenting opposing views to the Bible. What I hope is: You are truly out in search of the absolute truth. If that the case, then you will post my feedback in hopes that your readers will be informed about all sides of the issue. Please remember: a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is the only way to get into heaven. Following every blessed rule in the Old Testament will get you nowhere. I will be praying for you. Not that you will see things my way but that you will seek and find the truth. Please respond to this message. I would like to know your reaction and hear your comments on what I had to say. A Christian, heaven bound and motivated by a love for his Savior and his Savior's creation to help all he can find the Way, Alex
Alex Thompson - Saturday, April 05, 1997 at 18:47:27 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
You are simply refusing to consider the possibility that your Christian beliefs might be false. For example, "leading people away from Christ" is only a bad thing if Christianity is true. If Christianity is false, then "leading people away from Christ" is actually the nice thing to do!
Sincerely,
Jeffery Jay Lowder
P.S. I'm posting your comments (along with my reply) on our web site. I can't think of many Christian web sites that post atheist feedback, though.
And to think i was wasting time reading some of this then i thought....whomever wrote all of this must REALLY have a lot of extra time on their hands or they perhaps lead a discontented, joyless lives in which they have to justify their own feelings an d actions by attacking anothers beliefs on God and Christ. Actually, I find this whole web page sadly humorous. If God is dead, why are so many of you trying to kill him? If God doesn't exist, we do you even waste your time with all of this? If you ask me, your views and attacks on Christianity only strengthen the realness of the one true God......you can only oppose what is real. Jesus loves you and so do I. I hope that the wonderous works of God can someday be revealed to you through the power of the Holy Spirit. Have a great day! Reverend Mark Irvin
Mark Irvin
USA - Saturday, April 05, 1997 at 18:23:38 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Mark fails to consider the possible that God does not exist, but that the Radical Religious Right is trying to take everything over. Mark also fails to consider the possibility that religious belief can actually be harmful in some cases!
Jeffery Jay Lowder
I have spent hours exploring your stuff and the whole of the Athens/5195 site today. I love what you're doing. It will help me a lot in the conversations with fundamentalists into which I occasionally get drawn. Keep up the good work!
Dandilion - Saturday, April 05, 1997 at 16:41:09 (MST)
I was looking for sites about the GIDEONS when I came across this. I will pray for your soul and those in your organization. It doesn't matter that you are a nonbeliever teaching at a catholic school.
Mike McCarty - Saturday, April 05, 1997 at 14:08:10 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
And we are very concerned about you and the people in your organization. We hope that some day you will lose your Christian beliefs.
Sincerely,
Jeffery Jay Lowder
Here's another one for Good and Evil: Solomon asks for the ability to distinguish between the two, which would make him like God (Ge 3:5). But where God was royally pissed before, he likes this request... 1 Kings 3: 9 So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?" 10 The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. 11 So God said to him, "Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, 12 I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. 13 Moreover, I will give you what you have not asked for--both riches and honor--so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings. 14 And if you walk in my ways and obey my statutes and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life."
Hollis - Saturday, April 05, 1997 at 11:28:54 (MST)
My name is [name withheld]. I am a 19 year old freshman in College, and I just wanted to send you an email commending your work in your essay about the Resurrection of Jesus. I am a Christian (born again, if you will) and I thought it was great to see your work writted from a completely unbiased and honest approach. I do accept the physical resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and feel that the historical evidence is quite compelling, although I haven't researched it in depthly. Just wanted to say thank you again, and hopefully we can start some good conversation. BTW, what exactly is your 'world view?" You seem to be an agnostic, but I also saw hints you we're leaning towards acceptance. Of course, I'm certainly not the judge of that! Well, I hope to hear from you soon.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thanks for the compliment! I appreciate your open-mindedness and commitment to finding the truth, wherever that may lead you.
To answer your question, I lack belief in gods. And I am convinced that the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is severely lacking. If you'd like to talk about this privately, you know how to contact me.
Best wishes,
Jeffery Jay Lowder
Thank you for providing this valuable information, especially the historical documents.
Tom Jordan - Friday, April 04, 1997 at 03:35:30 (MST)
by joining a club for freethinkers (which mean they think alike and agree on issues) doesn't that automatically make you conformists and no longer a free thinker. by forming this club you defeat your own purpass the email address is real if you wish to argue this with me
Stealth - Thursday, April 03, 1997 at 23:23:42 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
Allow me to respond through this medium. Joining a group does not automatically make you a conformist - you are a conformist only if you adopts the group's principles in the first place just for the sake of being a member of the group. If you arrive at your beliefs through open-minded inquiry, and are not afraid to change your beliefs should the evidence point another way, associating with people who share your beliefs or your methods does not mean that you are conforming to their standards - it just means that you just happen to have the same beliefs as they do. How you get your beliefs, not who you associate with, is what determines whether or not you are a "freethinker".
Mark I. Vuletic
What is the evidence of biblical prophecy?
Scott Haskin - Thursday, April 03, 1997 at 17:33:55 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Good question.
Jeffery Jay Lowder
I find Madalyn Murray O'Hair's article on Agnostics personally offensive. But I guess that's not new to you. As a devout Agnostic, I subscribe to the principle that I don't know whether there is a god or not and I can't know. I find the athiest position as an article of faith or belief that there is no god as difficult to comprehend as the religious dogmatics insistence that there is a god.
As far as I can tell, there is no evidence either way, and I will find out for myself soon enough, so I don't fret it. But to be painted as "gutless" because I won't take a position on faith alone indicates to me that the writer is as intolerant of those who refuse to accept her beliefs as any other fundamentalist. And fundametalism of any flavour is unlikely to win rational people over.
Neil Thomson
AUS - Thursday, April 03, 1997 at 15:44:49 (MST)
I was amazed upon reading O`Hair`s fundamentalistic diatribe. She is obviously a very bitter and scared individual, or why would she spend so much intense energy fighting what she apparantly sees as irrational bunk. Her acrid vitriolic remarks ultimately undermine the creedance of her message I truely feel sorry for her and would wish that she would find peace before her death.
Dale Loewen - Thursday, April 03, 1997 at 15:19:09 (MST)
The best reading I have done in ages. I must admit that I did skip over much of the text as I plan to get my own copy and read it cover to cover at my leisure. Thank you
Don Allan - Wednesday, April 02, 1997 at 21:45:58 (MST)
In a search for teological, your site came up. In teaching my AP English course in reference to the Grapes of Wrath, the word non-teological has arisin in various sources. in striving to give my students an adequate definition I have failed to find such in an unabridged dictionary or a philosophy text... I vaguely remember the word from college days but would like a succinct definition. Can you offer one?
scantine - Wednesday, April 02, 1997 at 19:59:53 (MST)
In reqards to Michael Martin, he seems to think that science has the answer to everything. WRONG!!! They can't explain the the condition of the bodies of St. Bernedette and St. Theresa. Heck, they can't explain why skeptics and freethinkers who attended the Fatima event changed their stripes when it was all over. A prophecy was made that predicted that two of the children involved were to die and go to Heaven and sure enough two of them did indeed die as predicted shortly afterwards of natural causes. Science can't even explain many of the apraritions that have sprang up around the world and covered by CNN and other news organizations eventhough some were investigated in a very exacting manner. The list goes on and on about what science hasn't been able to explain away as far as many miracles that have been noted as fact. One other point. Jesus did exist and I don't see any reason for billions of people using our dating system that uses the death of Jesus as its format if Jesus wasn't real.We don't use a dating system celebrating Zeus or any of the other countless number of false gods. So before atheist try to disprove God--which they can't--I think they should find out what science cannot explain away as far as the existence of God is concern. The Bible says God created the Heavens and earth, not chance. If chance did it then where did acom>
Audrey Matthews - Wednesday, April 02, 1997 at 14:57:34 (MST)
Michael Martin's Response:
Science, Miracles, and the Christian Dating System
Audrey Matthews thinks that "God is the answer, not science" and takes me to task for maintaining that science has the answer for everything. But where have I written that science has the answer for everything? One would have to be pretty ignorant of science not to know that there are many scientific questions science cannot presently answer, for example, why did the dinosaurs become extinct. There are other questions that science will never answer since they are not scientific questions. (Some philosophical questions are of this kind.)
Where Matthews and I part company is regarding the belief that God is the answer to such questions as: why is there life? Why is there a universe? What was the cause of the phenomena at Fatima? God is not the answer to these questions for there is good reason to believe there is no God. I refer Matthews to my book, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (which Matthews has apparently not read) for a detailed defense. Matthews seems to assume the Arguments from First Cause, Design and Miracles. In Chapters 4, 5, and 7 of my book I refute these arguments. Matthews does not seem to be aware that there are alternative explanations for alleged miracles such a Fatima. Yes, atheists have been converting to religion in the light of alleged miracles. On the other hand, many religious believers have given up their faith in the light of horrendous evils such as the Holocaust. Such changes of allegiance prove very little unless we know if they are rationally justified.
I am not sure what "apparitions" Matthews is referring to but I am not impressed that CNN and other news organization have not explained them. News organizations are not trained to investigate such phenomena seriously and often do a terrible job of informing the public of fraud, duplicity and misinformation connected with alleged paranormal and supernatural events. I refer Matthews to Free Inquiry and The Skeptical Inquirer, publications that do a good job of informing the public.
Matthews seems to suppose that there is good reason to believe that Jesus existed because billions of people use his birth as a reference point in their dating system. But the use of a dating system demonstrates absolutely nothing about the historicity of Jesus except that billion of people believe he existed. I do not deny this. The crucial questions are: Is there strong evidence that he did? Is there strong evidence for the Resurrection, Virgin Birth and Incarnation? I answered both of these questions in the negative in The Case Against Christianity and refer Matthews to that work.
Michael Martin
Jeff, I wonder if you know anything concerning false memories being created in therapy of satanic ritual abuse in which many christians believe? I am a born-again christian but wonder if you are aware of this big lie perpetrated on our society and participated in by the established church if not by true christians who follow Jesus and not psychology?
gary cooper - Wednesday, April 02, 1997 at 12:45:35 (MST)
Mr. Till,
I had hoped that you watched the Learning Channel CTLC) last week. It confirmed many aspects as to what I had claimed in your forum as factural by the discoveries of archeologist. God exist and skeptics cannot change reality with a few strokes of the keyboard. A simple fact of life. Have a nice day.
Aubrey Matthews - Wednesday, April 02, 1997 at 12:31:40 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
Matthews posted this same message on the errancy list, and it was answered there. At one time, Matthews was a prolific poster to errancy, but his postings were characterized by generalities and unsupported claims. In this posting, for example, he gave no indication at all what "discoveries of archaeologists" were discussed on the Learning Channel, so he has given me nothing to respond to. Subscribers to the errancy list will recognize that this is typical of Matthews. If he would like to make a specific claim and present his supporting information, I will be glad to respond to it. However, he has been stung so many times on the errancy list that I don't think he will be too eager to do that.
Farrell Till
All I have read in the search for truth as per Jesus' birth and type of existence are references to Jesus and several books that have been written about him. HOWEVER... if you really seek the truth, why has no one reasearched MARY's life, where there are SEVERAL unanswered questions... i.e., the possibility that she was NOT a virgin, where was she and what was she doing during the 1-year standard engagement period to Joseph (they were separated for a while), why did Joseph have problems trusting her (see Matthew), was there a chance she was either raped by Pantera (Roman soldier) or had a relationship with him, and therefore she and her friends/family created a story so that she would not be stoned to death, in case of a pregnancy (which eventually occured)?
Why are the Hebrews blamed for the death of Yeshu (the name "Christ" is incorrect)when indeed the Romans dealt the final blow to Jesus?
Thank you for your anticipated response....
moriah - Wednesday, April 02, 1997 at 10:29:58 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Everything you write is certainly within the realm of possibility. The bottom line, though, is that nobody really knows because our only primary source of information about Jesus (and Mary) is the New Testament. There is simply no more evidence for the "Pantera rape hypothesis" than there is for the "virgin birth hypothesis." They are all untestable.
Sincerely,
Jeffery Jay Lowder
What bible would you suggest for reference, particularly for understanding biblical references in literature?
Thanks for any help you have time to provide.
Matt Brocchini
USA - Tuesday, April 01, 1997 at 13:30:19 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
For the purpose of studying the Bible for itself, I like a literal translation like the (old) Revised Standard Version or the New American Standard Version. Since literary allusions to the Bible tend most often to come from the King James Version, that might be the best bet. Even here, though the RSV and the NASB tend to mirror (on purpose) the sentence structure and wording of the KJV as much as possible, so they might work. I hope this helps.
Robert M. Price
Something To Think About
It is a very dangerous accusation athiests are making. If it were true that God does not exist, then nobody has anything to lose, the outcome of all our fates are the same. Nothingness. But if when we die and find that there truly is a God and a real Hell for disbelievers, you have everything to lose. There is certainly nothing to lose by believing. I think every unbeliever should carefully reconsider. God is real, and there is plenty of evidence of it if you care to open your eyes and see it. I am amazed at His love for mankind. He has offered us a way out of our sin, and an eternity in paradise if we will only accept it, and so many have the audacity to reject Him. Our God, Creator, and Savior. Who are you to question Him? He created man and gave him a free will to accept him or reject him, and has been sadly disapointed in the sinful choices of many. Shouldn't you reconsider before its to late? We are all just pawns in the master plan. It is not for us to question what we cannot fully understand. Have faith in your King and follow him while you still can. Don't fall prey to Satan's traps. If you are wrong in what you believe, there is heaven to lose and hell to pay. If you are right then well, your still just dead. How hopeless. Those who truly seek Him will find Him. Have a little faith. What do you have to lose besides your own high handed ignorance? There is too much evidence to deny the supernatural, its all around us. Even Satan believes! He doesn't wan you to believe and tries hard to blind you to the truth. Are you willing to let him have you? God is not willing for any to perish, and has provided the way. It is up to you what you are going to chose. Think about it. I challege you to reach out to Him, I promise He will be there if you do. All it takes is faith, what do you have to lose?
True Believer
USA - Tuesday, April 01, 1997 at 10:48:19 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
You keep on referring to some "evidence" but for some reason, refuse to tell us what that evidence is. If you have evidence to offer for the existence of your God, present it. You also write:
If it were true that God does not exist, then nobody has anything to lose, the outcome of all our fates are the same. Nothingness. But if when we die and find that there truly is a God and a real Hell for disbelievers, you have everything to lose. There is certainly nothing to lose by believing.
But that argument presupposes several things that may be called into question: (1) that God will punish disbelievers; (2) that there is only one possible God (otherwise, how would you know which one to believe in); (3) that God values blind faith more than honest doubt; (4) that God wouldn't be offended by someone who chooses to believe simply on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis.
Mark I. Vuletic
How about this one: Millions of dollars and countless hours are spent by Morons who profess to have no religion, calling themselves atheists, but whose only goal in life is the pursuit of attacking the beliefs of others with more determination then any valid religion demands, only to look back on wasted lives, broken homes, and entire generations of offspring damned for all eternity because they followed their parent's misguided rantings. Wow! what a great way for you people to dedicate your lives! Your not atheists. You just worship yourselves!
A. W. Grafals - Tuesday, April 01, 1997 at 09:01:41 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
If the existence of God is so obvious, is the abusive tone really necessary?
Are millions of dollars are spent on promoting atheism? Absolutely not. On the contrary, atheist organizations are severely hurting for money. Internet Infidels are no exception.
Is our "only goal in life is the pursuit of attacking the beliefs of others"? Of course not. This is a caricature of atheism. Pure atheism is neither positive nor negative. For some people, esp. those who leave mind-controlling cults, atheism can be extremely liberating, in much the same sense as quitting smoking. Other atheists go beyond atheism and make religion bashing their purpose in life. I agree with you that simply bashing religion is inapppropriate. However, you seem to think that intellectual critiques of religion are the same thing thing as personal attacks on religious people. They're not. We attempt to do the former; you are accusing us of doing the latter.
As for your assertion that atheism leads to "wasted lives, broken homes, and entire generations of offspring damned for all eternity," I will simply state that you're the one making the claim. You have the burden of proof to show that atheism actually causes this. You haven't done that.
Finally, I will remind you that just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't act like adults. I am very sorry you had to resort to name-calling in your message.
Sincerely,
Jeffery
Jay Lowder
