 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
A note to the public from the II Secretary:
I would just like to remind everyone that in order to have your feedback posted, you must submit a valid e-mail address with your message. All feedback submitted without a valid e-mail address is deleted. Additionally, mail that contains expletives is deleted. If you write, please be mature enough to use decent language. Finally, be on the lookout for a new feedback policy on the "send feedback" form.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.html
I agree you that the Bible has lots of problems. Finding them is pretty
easy.
But
there is a new religion which agrees with science and logic. It does
not put down other religions, but explains some of the problems you have
found.
It would be interesting for you to try and find fault with the Baha'i
Faith
and its dogma.
I will give you a start. They do think that being gay is wrong or having
any sex outside of marrage is wrong. My answer: If people could wait until
they
find the right person to marry, then their life is much beter. A bad
marriage resulting from sex before love is like hell.
Male and female just fit together better. If one is gay, they should find
a boyish girl or a girlish boy. There are some exceptions in a religion
you have to provide a general outline for most people.
On a
much deeper plain, John S. Hatcher has written some wonderful books
that explain the purpose of physcal reality. He uses logic, science and
still provides spirtual answers.
[snip]
I have linked you site to mine, as truth is truth. If the Bible has
problems, let people know. But there are more dogmas for you guys to
check out!
George Norwood <georgen@connect.net
>
Richardson, TX USA - Saturday, August 30, 1997 at 23:13:14 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/index.html#quote
Greetings. I'm looking for information regarding the oath-taking procedure
performed by witnesses and juries in courts in the United States. I have
heard that an alternative ("affirming") has been provided for
those people who are unwilling to take an oath to God to tell the truth,
but I don't know exactly how this "affirming" is different from
the standard oath. And I also read somewhere that an atheist once refused
both the oath and the affirmation, because the affirmation was still based
in some way on religious belief.
I am particularly interested in the laws/practices in Maryland, if this
law/practice varies from state to
state.
Please help out, if you can, by emailing me with some
info. Thanks!
Robert Zavisca <mhoram@pipeline.com
>
Gaithersburg, MD USA - Saturday, August 30, 1997 at 15:14:08 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/niclas_berggren/funda.html
I wanted to show my appreciation for this website because I was invo lved in a very radical church that really messed with my mind. I am glad there is this resource for me to investigate and challenge the belief system I was taught.
I guess you could say that it is setting me free because I was kept in a prison by the things that I was taught. I think that one thing that is in the Christian bible is true and that is that the truth will set you free, and because of these websites I a m learning the truths about Reality, and that is what is making me free . I am so happy to be out of the christian group that I was in and am glad that I am reclaiming my life and mind and am not blindly following some religious garbage.
I can't stress the point enough that it feels so good to be free. Thanks
again
for
these websites .
Joel Conte <
Glen-Lehpamer@worldnet.att.net>
westmont , il USA - Saturday, August 30, 1997 at 11:08:12 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
(sorry folks, I inadvertently sent my post before I was done, I didn’t intend for you to have to draw upon your ed iting skills to make this comprehensible)
Secondly, I would like to recommend that you provide a link to the secular web main page from all of your internal links. Often times I find myself “popping” in midstream and find it difficult to maneuver to the front, so to speak.
Thirdly, I have often heard you (Jeff) mention that you are somewhat tentative about staging in a debate or participating in one yourself because the venue and circumstances don’t often provide for the complexity and depth required to have a respectab le exchange of viewpoints and counterpoints. I have seen in other sites, however, an organized and systematic textual debate where combatants (I mean participants) are able to submit points and counterpoints within three or four written installments incl usive of their own opening and closing statements. This would allow for the authors to completely put their thoughts to paper and would still allow for their affirmations to be challenged.
I greatly appreciate your site and welcome your continual effort to
improve the manner in which you present the intellectual fencing it offers.
Jason Goodbody <jgoodbody@aol.com>
Dayton, OH USA - Saturday, August 30, 1997 at 10:03:26 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
Jeff,
Again, I commend you, and your compatriots, on your efforts. I would like
to toss around some suggestions if I may, but first, may I note that I
am still pondering an appropriate and effective manner in which to bring
together some of our like-minded military bretheren. Perhaps we'll put
something together and work within the services you provide at the secular
web. I would like to get in contact with some of your friends at SPIRE;
they
seem to have a good foothold on this religious quandry many of us
in the military face.
Now, back to my suggestions. I have found that your site is deplete
of debates, both forthcoming and those that have already taken place. I
do find them sprinkled around your site but it would be helpful if they
were better accessable.
Jason Goodbody <jgoodbod@aol.com>
Dayton , OH USA - Saturday, August 30, 1997 at 09:45:39 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/june.html
This is my first contribution at infidels? site etc. I first ventured onto this site after noticing an article written by Clarence Darrow which I wanted to respond to. I am not up to date on any dialogue that has preceded me in this regard but I wanted to mention his article entitled "Absurdities of the Bible." I ventured on to the site upon seeing that extreme title. I am a student of philosophy and theology who always appreciates thoughtful diaglogue. Unfortunately I think I came to the wrong place if Clarence Darrow's writing is representative of the kind of argumentation and level of writing going on. I have heard excessive fallacious argumentation but this tops the cake. Whoever you are at Internet Infidels you should be embarrassed for printing such abismal articles on your behalf. Apart from the absurd reasoning, this represents the worst grammer I have ever seen among adults on the internet or elsewhere. The shocking thing is that above the article, it states that there was an editor by an individual at some kind of publishing company. It is not my wish to be abusive but the grammer in this article appears to be comparable to a child in grades school. It's apparent that whoever Mr. Darrow might be he does not have a working knowledge of the English language. Anything which remained coherent in the article which might have resembled a critique is not worthy of a response. My advice to internet infidels is to pack your bags an take a long vacation from the internet if you desire any credability whatsoever.
R.R. FISHER <
rfisher@maginnovision.com>
Santa Ana, CA USA - Friday, August 29, 1997 at 16:49:59 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
Clarence Darrow's articles have been printed primarily for their interest to anyone interested in the history of freethought. Whether or not they are as bad as you say they are, I will leave to the public to assess.
What I find interesting is that a "student of philosophy," who is supposedly trained to think critically, should take a historical article as representative of the status of modern freethought writings. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to read a few documents from the modern library (Quentin Smith , Michael Martin, and Theodore Drange would probably be to your liking, as they are contemporary philosophers) before advising us to be embarrassed and "pack our bags"?
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_haught/godbiz.html
I am beginning to consider the path of faith. Anything has to be better
than the way I am living now. I still have many doubts about the authenticities
of it all. One in particular is the "healing" episodes of Benny
Hinn. They look so staged and fake. Do you know of any web sites that prove
him to
be a fake? I can't find any.
Tracy <tmblweeds@aol.com>
norman, ok USA - Friday, August 29, 1997 at 00:37:15 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/free.html
Dear Farrel,
It's good to read your well researched and articulated thoughts on the folly of religion. Your work is much needed and greatly appreciated.
We recently had the "honor" of having Pat Boone speak at the Burbank "Mayors Prayer Breakfast". What a freak show that was. One council member had the good sense to snub the event, and at least one other council member expressed embarassment over Boone' s wacky sentiments on religion, government and society. For my part, I wrote a letter to the Burbank Leader attacking Boone's intolerance and the billing of the event as the "Mayors" prayer breakfast. Obviously, government officials have no business len ding their title to a religous event.
Keep up the good work.
John Ladd <johnladdii@aol.com>
Burbank, CA USA - Wednesday, August 27, 1997 at 12:50:18 (MDT)
Farrell Till's Response:
John, it's good to hear from a former hometown boy (now grown up, of course). I don't know if you keep up with the news around here through the Daily Ledger or the Peoria Journal Star, but we are having our controversy here. The new mayor of Peoria is pushing to have the Bible taught in the public schools. Although the editors of the Journal Star have opposed the idea, the forum editor is obviously biased in her selection of letters (she's the granddaughter of a missionary to China) and prints almost no letters opposing the idea. I managed to get one in that she gutted down to nothing, and others who oppose the idea haven't gotten through at all. Yet Christians scream about how they are persecuted by the media.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
To whom it may concern,
I am looking for a copy of the critique on the book "The jury is in".
This critiques the book "Evidence demands a verdict".
Am awaiting your reply.
Peter VanderKam <pvanderkam@oln.com
>
Thunder Bay, on Canada - Wednesday, August 27, 1997 at 07:46:27 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
If you mean to say that you are looking for a copy of "The Jury Is In", which critiques ETDAV, then aim your web browser at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/2/2bad97.html
Concerning "A Bad Example of Prophecy Fulfillment" by Farrell
Till, as a Born Again Christian I must tip my hat to Farrell for once again
demonstrating that the Tanakh or Old Testament is not suitable for resting
one's faith. Christians just will not listen, will they? The Old Testament
is a monument to redaction. This is not to say that Christianity should
ignore
it but rather Christians need to become muc h more educated to the
realities of a text being transmitted from the JDEP period through to Dead
Sea Scrolls era.
The entire Exodus story is rather suspect. Afterall fundamentalist can't
get it straight whether it was the Sea of Reeds or Red sea. There are alot
of missing skeletons too. As a Born Again Christian, free thinker, it is
only
fair for me to apply the sa me standards to Exodus that I do to the
Book of Mormon.
I guess it is easier for everyone to fail into predictable groups. Atheists
disbelieve everything; fundamentalist believe in inerrancy. I recently
pointed out to a Pastor that the Assemblies of God website contains a statement
on inerrancy where it is li mited to the original autographs. Also I showed
that the Assemblies of God on the same website refer to manuscript manipulation
in the early years of the Church. Sadly this did not stop the Pastor from
standing up in Church this sunday morning, while hold ing a NIV Bible in
his
hand,
and proclaiming that it was the infallable word of God. My wife
and I cringed while nearly everyone else in Church displayed their approval.
Dr.
Price needs to learn to adapt to his audience. You are not preaching
to the choir. Your audience is unsaved but intelligent. Your tactics will
not work with them. Adapt and give them a little more credit. Yes, I agree
that Jesus is the Truth but the truth is not demonstrated by misrepresentation.
David <fullrevg@agate.net>
USA - Tuesday, August 26, 1997 at 11:41:34 (MDT)
Farrell Till's Response:
I must say that this is a first for me. I have never heard a "born-again" Christian express views like yours. I do appreciate your letter. Do you mind if I post it on my Errancy list?
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/fernandes-martin/martin3.html
When Michael Martin states:
"The late Roderick Firth, a Harvard philosophy professor, proposed
the MOST PLAUSIBLE VERSION of naturalism that is not subjective. According
to his view, ethical terms such as "good" are analyzed in terms
of what an IDEAL OBSERVER would approve under ideal conditons. These conditions
would include being fully informed, being completely empathetic, being
completely dispassionate and unbiased, and completely consistent. So to
say that honesty is good would be to say that if there were an ideal observer
under ideal condition, it would approve of honesty..." he seems to
be stating that this version of morality needs to appeal to a higher power
(IDEAL OBSERVER). How can this version be "not subjective" if
it involves an "IDEAL OBSERVER?" His IDEAL OBSERVER sounds a
lot like the theist's GOD.
Scott Wilburn <swilburn@ctc.edu>
USA - Tuesday, August 26, 1997 at 07:40:25 (MDT)
Michael Martin's Response:
First, I do not claim that the ideal observer (IO) exists. Statements concerning an IO are purely hypthetical. "If an IO would exist, it would ....... " One is justified in making such statements by extrapolation.
Second, the ideal observer lacks certain properties that God has, For example,the IO is not all powerful.
Third, the IO has certain properties that on pain of inconsistency God could not have. The IO is completely empathetic.
I recommend Mr.Wilson read chapter 1 of Atheism [That is, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin - Sec.].
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap4.html
Concerning the Resurrection portion of "The Jury is in". Once
again
the atheists
place emphasis on 100 percent inerrancy. Easy target. A quick paraphrase
would be that the Resurrection account cannot have one contradiction to
have retain credibility as a historical account. Okay let's play the game.
Describe to me the process of dropping the A-bombs on Japan in WWII. I
believe that there are several variations of this that contradict one another.
Such as just how many Americans were projected to die in the invasion of
Japan. I have seen numbers cited from a few multiples of ten thousand to
over a million.
I guess America never dropped the bomb.
Let's
try Whitewater. Too easy. No one can explain that without contradiction.
But
there
was a development in Arkansas.
Let's apply the same standards to atheists and the Resurrection:
1. Jesus never existed.
2. He existed and was crucified. But he never rose.
3. He existed, was crucified, but never died.
4. He existed but nothing out of the ordinary happened because he was just
a wandering teacher.
5. Jesus was a Jewish teacher who was crucified but all the Apostles were
gentiles. The gentile Apostles created all the supernatural elements.
Some atheists seem to apply more than one of these options in the same
writing.
That is convenient and dishonest.
Let's consider Q. Q is used by some as if it were the only reliable New
Testament writing. Burton Mack is able to tell us about the characteristics
of the writers of Q. This is a good trick considering that even Mack would
acknowledge that Q is hypothetic al (though likely). How do we get a societial
review from a hypothetical writng?
Atheists would do a great deal to enhance their own credibility if they
would apply equal standards to the writings of other atheists. No matter
how
kooky
the writings, Thiering, Mack and Crossan go virtually unchallenged.
I
consult on military historical simulations. It has been my experience
that
when the status quo is challenged that an alternative is proposed.
Very specific information is expected from those who challenge the status
quo. Atheists, in general, tend to propose several alternatives without
commiting to any. This is a result of not wanting to have to defend any
point of view. Afterall, it is much more difficult to defend a position
than to randomly attack it.
Regardless, to maintain that a story cannot be true without a single
contradiction
is laughable naive. A simple visit to any courthouse in America could disprove
this foolish notion. I suppose that the next expansion of this will be
that my poor spelling in this feedback disqualifies all the thoughts contained
herein.
fullrevg@agate.net
USA - Monday, August 25, 1997 at 15:42:55 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/
Hello Jeff Lowder,
I am not a fan of Mr. McDowell either. My reasons differ. I am a fundamentalist
Christian; however, I avoid the trap of insisting that the current Bible
is inerrant or transmitted without a syllable of change throughout the
ages. Your mostly successful rebuttal of Mr. McDowell should serve as a
learning experience for Born Again Christians. Unfortunately it will not.
It is entirely possible to center belief on the deity of Jesus and acknowledge
contradictions and error in the Bible. Keeping in mind that perfection
can only be assumed to be an attribute of God and also acknowledging that
the
Bible writings were the products of men and transmitted by men (the
amount
of inspiration is debatable) Christianity can be supported. Some
of your material in "The Jury Is In" makes good use of attacking
literal inerrancy. However, literal inerrancy is not the only standard
that can be applied. Fortunately for atheists, Mr. McDowell has biten off
more tha n he can chew in his book. Fundamentalist Christianity has become
so lax that most fundamentalist assertions are to be believed with question.
This may be the product of a general media environment that is hostile
to Fundamentalist Christianity. Off the t op of my head I can think of
few contentions that I would have with Chapter 11. The one small item coming
to mind is that cannibalism did not occur in 70 A.D. My copy of Josephus
includes a discussion of a mother eating her dead child. I suppose that
is yet another Christian insertion into Josephus right. "Nobody, not
even McDowell, says that that came true in 70 A.D." Do you really
read the ancient authorities or do you just spurt the atheist party line?
David <fullrevg@agate.net>
USA - Monday, August 25, 1997 at 15:10:59 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
Is there room in your organization for a Theravada Buddhist who is guided by an inner Spirit?
Joe Nevotti <JNevotti@aol.com>
Irvine, CA USA - Sunday, August 24, 1997 at 20:10:09 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/related/
First off....KEEP up the good work....!!
What happened to the Atheist's Massive Links Page...
if you have any info I would appreciate an update.
Lee Templin <
templ@ptconnect.infi.net>
Long Beach, CA USA - Sunday, August 24, 1997 at 19:24:09 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Who says there is no God?
Who says the sun has gone out?
Someone who climbs on the roof closes his eyes
and
says, "I don't see anything."
Richard Green <richardg@c-gate.net
>
Laurel, MS USA - Friday, August 22, 1997 at 20:54:22 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html
Having just perused "Arguements from Evil and Non-Belief", I would l ike to malke these observations.
1) Your basis of defination (if God exists, then these thing would have to happen) is flawed. First, if God does exist, then He can do any damn thing He wants to without consulting you. If God does exist, then He has done everything without consulting me too. It kinda pisses me off how really unimportant we humans actually are. Anyways, you limit God by your definations. The Bible I've read (more than 1000 times, and parts close to 5000+) do not reveal a God that can be confined to your premises. For inst ance, on the suffering subject. There is no place where "Thus saith the Lord, you do not, shall not, need not suffer" The desire to end suffering is a human trait. even Jesus said we shall always have the poor with us. So if God is not concerned about the suffering, your arguement from evil is moot.
2) You arguement from non-belief has the same flaw....what if God decides He wants you to choose to believe? He will not con you (though I know some who will), scold you, berate you, nor make the decision for you. It's all yours. No help from any angels, devils, or other supernatural beings. BOOM...your arguement from non-belief is also moot.
3) On the other hand, what if the suffering is a tool to assist one to realizing the very finate quantity of human strength, endurance, love, and forgiveness. Then the arguement from suffering and non-belief are combined. Try that one out. That is closer to what the Bible says than those suppositions you made are.
4) Finally...in my life if there is no absolutes (i.e.-God as the source for moral standards) then I am left with only 1 absolute....ME! Not society, not family, not 'do the right thing"...only me. And I determine what is right. Really, right and wrong ar e useless concepts at that point. I am free to do everything I want to as long as I have the power and force to do them. I am the judge, and whatever power/force I have is the jury and executioner. Who is to say I am wrong, and what are your reasons? I sa y anything I do at that point is right as long as I can do it. That is not the kind of world I want to live in, however that is the logical conclusion to the thought that A) there is no god B) so there are no absolutes C) do the best you can.
Brian D. Fatzer <bdf@worldreach.net
>
Hampton, VA USA - Friday, August 22, 1997 at 20:09:15 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/
Rarely do the fundmentalists give us an issue upon which they can be directly attacked - that we can get our teeth into, especially with the prospect of a large segment of the population supporting us.I believe they have done so with their anti-Disney campaign. I suggest we start a campaign to Support Disney - Boycott Southern Baptist Businesses. I envision Internet ca mpaign, bumper stickers, etc.
Fred Bradley <
febhfb@concentric.net>
Ferguson, MO USA - Thursday, August 21, 1997 at 09:50:43 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/christianity/errancy.html
How sad that people would devote their lives to tryi ng to prove that God and Jesus do not exist. People actually thing they can out reason or out logic God??? How do you account for the differnce God has made in so many millions of lives? How can one explain that away? People are grasping at straws because they don't want to except the truth, and face the fact that they WILL have to account for their lives and their actions. Im sorry so many people can't except the truth. After all Truth is NARROW, since their can only be one truth. Try to argue that one.
Amie <jmleko@lakers.lssu.edu
>
SSM, MI USA - Thursday, August 21, 1997 at 09:16:27 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/precepts.html
It is a shame for a man to have long hair. (Note: Why is it, then, that
most portrayals of Jesus show him with long hair?)
That's because this was the later eastern tradition in christian art. The
earlier, western, tradition showed him as a fairly young man (about 17-19
years old) with fairly short, curly hair.
The earlier, western tradition was probably a result of a misinterpretation
of Rev 1:14: "His head and his hairs were white like wool and his
eyes
were as
a flame of fire" Note that it says his hair was "white
like wool" not that it had a texture like wool as many have suggested.
Many blacks have also misread this to say "his hair was like wool"
suggesting that this means his hair was curly because he was a black man.
Of course, they ignore that it says his head and his hairs were "white
like wool", not that they were like wool in any other respect. [this
is typical of many who exxagerate and misinterpret certain parts of the
Bible while ingoring other parts] This is really not relevant anyway, since
it describes the "glorified" not the "earthly" body
of christ.
John A Elson <3dham@softcom.net>
carmichael, ca USA - Wednesday, August 20, 1997 at 22:49:52 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/debates.html
I was pleased to see the debate with Gish from ICR. Tha t is the type of thing I would like to see more of on your site. However, I do think it could have been handled in a different way. In the way it was handled by the constant "additions" without Gish there to refute, it leads me to believe you are more interested in agenda than truth. I am a Christian that likes to wrestle with ideas and alternative beliefs. Please, elevate your integrity to treat alternative beliefs with respect. If you cant, why should I not assume that you are feeding bias and coloring peoples thoughts. I do understand that you do get feedback from angry, hateful, insulting "Christians" who are threatened by your views. Try not to return hateful remarks. And please dont assume that "we all" act like this and clump us all in the same boat. Try posting a few comments that are spoken in a Christ like way. Thanks for you time.
Rob Colvin <
lestercrow@hotmail.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Tuesday, August 19, 1997 at 21:22:15 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/frame.html
I loved the page and it has very much enlightened me. I have two things to say: 1. In the creation/evolution book section a book that you definitely need is Science on Trial: A case for Evolution by Douglas J. Futuyma. I is excellent. 2. I am an 18 year old atheist who is in the process of writing a screenplay about a well r espected Professor who brings a Supreme Court suit against the U.s Government to have God removed from all govt. documents and the pledge of allegiance and stuff like that. I would very much like to talk to fellow atheists or anyone interested about it a nd help with some aspects that I am having trouble with. Please e-mail me at Punkska224@aol.com Thank you very much.
Greg Smith <Punkska224@aol.com
>
Thousand oaks, CA USA - Tuesday, August 19, 1997 at 16:19:52 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/george_foote/infidel_deathbeds.html
I just had to comment on a few of the things that I saw about Charles Darwin. Now granted I am not a historian but I read a biography on him which says different things about him than you have in this site. The book is called _Darwin: A Life in Science_ by Michael White and John Gribbin ( Dutton Books, 1995). It states that, "Darwin was raised a Christian, trained as a cleric and died as an atheist" (2). It talks of his ATHEISM on pages 2, 156, 183, 224-5, & 277.
Also the comment on his burial in Westminster Abbey is in conflict with the book. His cousin Francis Galton was the one who lobbied to have him buried in a place which suited his status. Galton and others signed a petition to get him in. Here is a paragraph form page 279 which I think is interesting.
"Only rarely has such an illustrious group of pall bearers been seen - even in Westminster Abbey. the group of ten men included two knights, Sir Joseph Hooker and Sir John Lubbock, two dukes, including the Duke of Argyll and an Earl as well as Willi am Spottiswoode (then President of the Royal Society), one of Darwin's closest friends and Spottiswoode's successor, Thomas Huxley and the co-discover of the theory of evolution by natural selection, Alfred Russell Wallace."
Bryan <Sleepy477@aol.com>
Dayton, OH USA - Tuesday, August 19, 1997 at 00:50:54 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/june.html
Dear Christians,
Here's something for you to consider.
You people continually pontificate about how great heaven is and how wonderful
it will be when you get there. Have you ever considered the fact that you
will
have
just
seen
your god throw millions of innocent people into hell,
there to suffer for all ete rnity. simply because they didn't find the
eveidence for his existence convincing or followed the wrong religion?
Would spending forever with such a creature still be pleasurable, as you
believe heaven will be? If you were truly moral, you would find th e actions
of your god despicable, and would have the memory of them torturing your
soul for all eternity. Personally, I would rather rot in hell for all time
than spend eternity with such and amoral creature.
Think about this, and don't waste your prayers on me, I don't want them.
Matthew James McGee <
m.j.mcgee@uclan.ac.uk>
Preston, England - Monday, August 18, 1997 at 05:19:25 (MDT)
Dear John:
In an April, 1997 letter to the Internet Infidels feedback you issued the following challenge:
"I challenge you, sirs, to give a single example of a life that has been made better, richer or more meaningful by adherence to your touted worldview."
I am one example. My life is better, richer and more meaningful since I have become an atheist. My life is more meaningful because it is more genuine. I am not trying to psyche myself into believing something that, in my heart and in my mind, I find untrue. I give my own life meaning. Nor am I an isolated example. I would contend that many lives with which we are both familiar have been made richer by atheism. If life were meaningless for the following people, I cannot see what reason they would have had for being as prolific as they were: Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell, Lucretius, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche just to name a few. If you counter that you find these lives meaningless, I would ask you 1) what have you accomplished in your own life in comparison to these figures and 2) if you are justified in judging these lives as meaningless, then I am equally justified in arbitrarily labeling and assuming the lives of the religious to be meaningless (something I would not do in the first place because it implies intimate knowledge of the lives of people I don't know, which is as arrogant as your "challenge"). Also, I would contend that all of these figures worked for the betterment of mankind.
You also state the following in the same letter:
"It is easy to take potshots at any great philosophy - even the greatest and most true."
First, is it really easy to "take potshots" at great philosophies? That depends what you mean by "great." If you define "greatness" by the number of adherents, I would agree with you, as the masses generally don't think very much of or about philosophy. If you define greatness by the truth contained in a philosophy, I would disagree with you because if something is true, it should be able to withstand criticism, something Christianity has not been very good at historically, I'm afraid.
In reaction to criticism, Christianity has sought to persecute its critics every time it had the power to do so (Inquisition, excommunication, forms of shunning are but a few examples). Christianity has splintered into countless sects that grow by the year because people disagree as to what "truth" is contained in the Bible. Unitarians and Episcopalians ordain women (the former gives equal rights to homosexuals and the latter is about to), Mormons believe prophesy is occurring in our midst and that there exists a book called the Book of Mormon that belongs to the bible, Quakers (or the "Society of Friends" as they are now call themselves) and Amish are pacifists, Orthodox Christians use another bible with more books, Catholics believe in papal infallibility, Branch Davidians believed David Koresh to be a prophet, and so on and so on. The emergence of each new sect (tax-free businesses, let us not forget) casts more doubt on the unity and veracity of what is supposedly the inspired word of an ostensibly perfect (therefore flawless and would be correctly understood by his creations, if a god existed) being.
In conclusion, I would ask that you stop and consider that, while you may disagree with us, atheists have very legitimate reasons for rejecting the religious worldview. If we are really as misguided as you assert, then please do us a favor and provide us with proof of your god's existence. From the sound of your letter, this should be quite easy for you. If you are unable to furnish this proof, then at least have the intellectual courage to acknowledge that atheists have valid reasons for disbelieving and that this by itself is no indicator of the richness, fullness or meaning of a person's life.
Sincerely,
Charles Hammond Jr. <chammond@uci.edu>
Sunday, August 17, 1997 at 15:58:47 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html
I
come
from a christian perspective but do not subscribe to inerrancy
nor to infallibility. Having said that, Morgan's pages show a strong neglect
of the contextual setting of the statements he uses to try to refute the
Bible.
In doing so, he has called his own scholarship and understanding
of what he read. Either that, or he has rote copied what he has heard others
say and doesn't have first hand experience of biblical understanding. I
have
come
here to explore, but have found your writers very shallow in
their understanding of the Bible and those that truely believe in the inerrancy
and infallibility of it. I am greatly disappointed, but will explore further
to see
if I can find someone with the depth of spirit and understanding
to
really give credence to your perspective.
Brian D. Fatzer <bdf@worldreach.net
>
Hampton, VA USA - Sunday, August 17, 1997 at 21:51:15 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/april.html
As I read through the vast pages of feedback, I notice one certain argument
used by fundamentalists as an attempt to sway a non-believer's position.
That is, of course, the use of 'Pascal's Wager' (believe in god or be
punnished!!).
Now that would have to be the most persuasive reason to become a Christian!
(don't you think?). Those who choose to adopt this reasoning may like to
consider a logical response, explained quite effectively by the article
here at www.infidels.org, called "How to Defend Atheism", quoted
from George H. Smith.
Another thing, athough many arguments internet infidels use for the
non-existence
are
quite reasonable, some just derive a form of existence for our reality
which
can be explained anyway using some derivative of the God concept.
For example, science. If I use evolution as an argument against creationism,
the theist can invent a counter-argument like say, the world would not
exist in such a stable state if isotopes were not consistantly acting as
they do to tell us the earth is very old. Or maybe God ga ve reality free
will at an etablished time in human history, hence enabeling our 'lucky'
existence. Something like that.
We often maintain a presumption and induction that nature has remained
consistant. When considering the un-natural (by definition, God is), who
is claimed, to be able to do anything He wishes, true arguments lie within
the very makeup of God himself, his very character. I certainly would like
to see some more of these arguments. These include the impossibility of
infinity, or What kind of all-good God would even dream about eternal
condemnation,
by
simply having a forced logical dis-belief?, etc. The use of logic that
cannot have philosophical flaws.
This is
a great site, I access it all the time, because it is just such
good reading! Well done.
Matthew Mason <
matmason@mailexcite.com>
Canberra, ACT Australia - Sunday, August 17, 1997 at 12:42:40 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/terri_mandell/humanist_celebrants.html
Are humanists by definition either atheists or agnostics? Thanks.
Steven
L. Burks <slburks@indiana.edu>
Bloomington, IN USA - Sunday, August 17, 1997 at 12:20:39 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/org/saf/
I wonder if you are aware that American Atheists is going to be in Washington DC this October to picket the Promise Keepers. AA will h ave a symposium, workshops, and will be there when the Promise Keepers try to have their own little "million man march on Washington. I understand that some members of the National Organization for Women and Act Up will be there to help protest. I think y ou should call American Atheists and find out how to participate. It's not just for or members of AA only; all atheists and freethinkers are welcome as well as anyone interested in individual civil rights. I'll be there with my finger in the air and I won 't be alone.
Joe Zamecki <JoeyJoJoJr@aol.com
>
Austin, TX USA - Sunday, August 17, 1997 at 10:25:41 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/
The Internet Infidels' Secular Web is by far the best-designed and
comprehensive
Secular/Atheist web site! I have been checking in from time to time and
am a bit dissapointed at the seemingly missing "Humor" section
text
file known as "Jesus Should Have Been Aborted".... It was
a very thoughtful piece and the only problems were a few typos... Anyways,
I would greatly appreciateit if you reposted this Humor file because it
was
quite thought-provoking and inspiring!@# Thanks for maintaing and updating
your wonderful site... May you always be available to those wishing to
abandon their obsolete adherence to mainstream religion!
Peace
and cheers... (here here) - your friend Justin C.
Justin Cheung <justin@community.net
>
Solano County, CA USA - Sunday, August 17, 1997 at 02:16:56 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/june.html
I've been reading comments from Christians who say "What have you
got to lose by believing in God? At least if you follow OUR beliefs you'll
get something out of it in the end."
Surely
if I
live a halfway decent life, try to be a generally kind &
caring person, and treat people well, then I should be as well qualified
to get into heaven as anyone else. I've known a few "Christians"
who have been the most nasty, vindictive types I've ever met - now are
you saying that just because they hedged their bets and went to church
every so often, they are qualified to go the heaven, but those of us who
try to
be good people are lost causes just because we choose to believe
in ourselves instead?
Seems like a pretty messed-up system to me. You must have a very spiteful
god if
he
judges people not by their actual behaviour, but by their claims
of
faith.
I'd rather take my chances on this earthly life and try to make as much
of it as I can.
Kirsten Starcher <
kirsten@cs.sunysb.edu>
USA - Friday, August 15, 1997 at 14:17:08 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
A good point to emphasize here is that those who (try to) believe in God solely on the basis of Pascal's Wager do not truly have faith at all - the most they have is what Kirsten calls "claims of faith." Rather than truly trusting in God, such (alleged) theists simply make a cold cost-benefit assessment and go for what they believe will maximize their gain. If I were a theist, I would find Pascal's Wager an insult to God.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
You say that it takes so much faith to believe that God exists yet it
takes just as much faith in believing He doesn't which is ironic!
What makes you think you have infinite knowledge to judge that your belief
is true? We are fed with new knowledge everyday, that disproves the old.
Or do
you believe in infinity?
Julie Mack <julie@planeteer.com
>
Vancouver, Bc Canada - Friday, August 15, 1997 at 11:48:01 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
Whether or not it takes faith to not believe in any entity depends upon how much evidence there is for that entity's existence. If there is no evidence for the existence of God (or very little compared to the evidence of its nonexistence) then disbelief is a reasoned step, not a leap of faith. Consider, for instance, how you would react if someone told you "You say it takes so much faith to believe that there is an invisible 100-foot fire-breathing telepathic clown orbiting Saturn, yet it takes just as much faith in believing such a being doesn't exist (which is ironic)!" You would quite reasonably assume that you were talking with someone who had not really thought his statement through.
Naturally, no freethinker believes he or she has infinite knowledge. But then, finite knowledge is sufficient to justify disbelief here, now. Most atheists will concede, I think (at least, this one will) that some deity may be tucked away in some obscure corner of the universe, and if future evidence reveals its existence, we will believe. But until then, it would be as senseless for us to believe in a god just because it could be somewhere out there, as it would be for us to believe in that invisible 100-foot fire-breathing telepathic clown just because it could be out there, too.
Also, let me add that even with finite knowledge, it is possible to know with certainty that some entities do not exist, as long as our knowledge encompasses basic logic. For instance, you know with 100% certainty that there are no round squares. If someone objected to you, saying "you can't know that there are no round squares - you don't have infinite knowledge of the universe!" you would correctly conclude that you were dealing with someone unfamiliar with rudimentary logic. Likewise, any conception of God that attributes to God properties which turn out to be inconsistent (either with one another, or with known facts about the universe) can be known with 100% probability to be non-existent, even by someone with quite finite knowledge.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/
Here's a couple suggested books for any of you truly "freethinkers"
"Can Man Live Without God" By Ravi Zacharius
"Love Your God With All Your Mind" (The Role of Reason in the
Life of the Soul)
By J. P. Moreland
If you dare to read them with an open mind you may just have yours changed!
Tom Woltjer <thomw@ix.netcom.com
>
Spokane, WA USA - Friday, August 15, 1997 at 10:54:23 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html
Read Your article on Giordano Bruno, very intere sting. Looks like his ideas were ahead of the times that they were presented in. Haven't found very much else on the WWW refering to this arcane philosopher.
Paul Murphy <psmurphy@gte.net>
Gold
Bar, WA USA - Thursday, August 14, 1997 at 20:53:06 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/disclaimer.html
Try approaching Jesus through the heart rather than the head. Mtt 18:2, " I tell you the tru th, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven". From one sinner to another, Jesus loves you!!! No matter how we try we cannot defeat His love or grace.
Jeff Buckner <spotsie@shtc.net>
Cheraw, SC USA - Thursday, August 14, 1997 at 04:12:33 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
If the Christian God gave me the ability to reason, why wouldn't he allow me to approach Jesus through the head as well as through the heart? Why give me a faculty which tells me that to believe in Him would be a mistake, and then condemn me to unbearable toruture for all eternity because I have honored that faculty?
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/damnable.html
I believe that reality's gone
Disillusions real
I
believe that morality's gone
And there's nothing to feel
If you take away the sacred things
that we hold dear
Empty promises are all you'll find
so give me something to believe in
If you accept what you are told without even thinking
You cannot think for yourself so give me something
Justin <jbharer@tamu.edu>
Lewisburg, PA USA - Wednesday, August 13, 1997 at 14:06:44 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the_fool/mere.html
Please, please, please. If you are going to debate the conclusion of
a
thesis, then you must do justice to the assumptions under which the author
labors. The review of Mere Christianity posted here is silly. The reviewer
cites Lewis' discussion of the virgin birth, of the nature of the person
of
Jesus,
of the majority view that so me supernatural being exists, and
of the existence of the Moral Law within our own consciousness as examples
of
shoddy reasoning. However, the reviewer does not show where the errors
are! I can do much better. I am a christian believer, and precisely b ecause
I am, I know all the weak points in christian apologetics, including those
of Mere Christianity. Aside from the fact that the author would have better
served the atheist position by debating the more detailed and rigorous
Miracles, also by Lewis, ( M.C. is based on a series of popular radio
broadcasts
given by Lewis during WWII), the author fails to address the prime assumption
in M.C. The very existence of our Reason is an evidence of the existence
of something supernatural. I.E., no amount of in vestigation of the physical
world
can account for the existence of a faculty in us that can judge whether
or not this any claim about the nature of the world we sense is TRUE or
FALSE. I.E. Reason cannot simply be a product of natural processes, or
it is
not reason at all. For if it is, why should natural processes which
lead me to believe in God be inferior or superior to that of the atheist's
- i.e., both beliefs are mere accidents of nature. Or, what is the power
then of
a mathematical proof? This r elation between reason, truth and
falsehood, is strictly analogous to our sense of moral right and wrong,
which is the tack taken by Lewis in Mere Christianity. By the way, the
reviewer did not pay much attention to what Lewis said about the virgin
birth, etc. The thing a Christian must believe is the atonement and
resurrection.
The rest depends on writings that were not universally acknowledged as
authoritative until long after the Church was well-established. Nor does
he seem to understand the distinc tions between evidences that are convincing
in a court of Law, or a laboratory, or a mathematical treatise. And they
differ. The kind of evidence presented by the Bible and adjunctive materials
is legal and historical in nature, and therefore has only a forensic connection
with the sciences. And it is a philosophical bias that supposes miracle
accounts untrue - first prove the Supernatural does not exist.
Jesus
was either a lunatic or liar or God - are there any other options
for a
man who in every way made it plain that He considered Himself equal
to God? The reviewer might have stated at least one, if, as he claimes
there
are
many! That is how the g ospel of John represents Him, and that
is why John claims the religious leaders of the day sought to kill Jesus.
I agree, the real problem is with John attributing these things to Jesus.
So push it back - why should these men, the writers of the New Test ament,
subject themselves, almost all, to persecution, torture, death and humiliation
to tell this story of Jesus, to represent Him as God? They, too, are also
either lunatics, liars, or telling the truth about Jesus. As I said, I
can come up with bette r objections to the gospel story - for example,
if God was going to somehow let us off the hook (presuming the gospel claim
of judgement for our evil ways), why bother destroying Jesus on the cross?
Why not
a
general announcement in the local newspaper? Or if God created
the universe, who created God... (Bertrand Russell's infamous reply to
the Theistic View)... or, to put the problem as Soren Kierkegaard put it,
"How is an historical point of departure for an eternal consciousness,
possible"? For that matter, I have read Lucretius, Nietzsche, Hegel
(!), and the truths of the Buddha, and the claims of logiacal positivists
who deny the existence of everything except laboratory instruments and
the five senses. Yet, I find it hard to believe an atheist ca n find an
explanation for Mozart.
Jim Heyssel <jheyss1@gl.umbc.edu
>
Ellicott City, Md USA - Wednesday, August 13, 1997 at 00:51:18 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html
On
the very first point raised in the so called BIBLE ABSURDITIES ,
I would like to point out that a little knowledge is dangerous..
If you read GENESIS carefully it implies that the world we live on was
not in itself created in 7 days but was simply modified for human inhabitation
in 7 days. Our planet was probably
orbiting the sun for millions of years before human creation.
"AND THE EARTH WAS WITHOUT FORM, AND VOID......."
So
what's wrong with God finding an existing empty planet like all the
others
in our solar
system and picking the one that was not too hot, not too cold, not too
big, not too small etc
and breathing some life into it?
Why is
it that the greatest knockers of the BIBLE are the ones who have
never studied it
properly? It seems that the human ego finds it more convenient not to have
to acknowledge a CREATOR.
If there is no truth in the BIBLE then on the judgement day I can shake
my fist at GOD and say
"you have no right to judge me because you left me no instruction
manual."
Regards, and GOD BLESS
Peter Sanderson <
sands@partnersint.com.au>
Surfers Paradise, Qld Australia - Tuesday, August 12, 1997 at 19:25:08
(MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/4/4babie93.html
I just finished reading your essay on the Slaughter of the Innocents in Matthew.
While I have no opinion at all about the various Old Testament stuff
and its relevance to Jesus' birth, I disagree with your observation that
the
story "denigrates mankind." It seems entirely possible that
any
king, especially an absolute monarch in such a turbulent and violent
era, could have done such a thing. I also disagree with your apparent argument
that Matthew intentionally fabricated the story to make some kind of
theological
point.
The reason I am at your website is that I was just reading *Claudius the
God*, in which one of the historical Herods figures prominently, and I
was looking for more information about him. I know a little about Greek
and
Roman history but am very shaky on my Jewish and Bible history, so
can't cite facts from the period and place. However, consider the slaughter
that
took place in the families of the successors of Julius Caesar. Poisonings,
stabbings, forced suicides - common, and right in the palace, to o. My
understanding is that Herod's family had numerous assassinations as well,
and it
is certainly common enough in kingdoms for a successful pretender
to the throne to kill as many other potential candidates as quickly as
possible to secure himself aga inst rebellion. It's very dangerous to be
a member of a royal family. This is true up until relatively recent times
in many regions of the world, and small children are, unfortunately, not
immune. Consider even the royal family of England up until and i ncluding
the Tudors - Mary Queen of Scots, Lady Jane Grey - wrong place, wrong time.
And for horrible mass slaughter, consider the history of our own decade.
So I don't see anything improbable about a paranoid monarch on a shaky
throne deciding to kill an entire class of people in order to get at one
person who might be rumored to be a threat.
As far
as the historicity of the actual incident is concerned, I don't
think it's necessary to assume that Matthew invented the tale, even if
Josephus does not record it. This event may not have been considered important,
sad to say, by the upper classes of the time; it probably affected only
the
poor,
and decades after the fact Josephus would not have been likely
to include it in the history of the Jewish War. The incident is no more
noteworthy than many other atrocities, because unless one is interest ed
in
Jesus' biography it had no major effect on subsequent events. Even if
the
event
did not occur as reported, it does not necessarily follow that
Matthew invented it; he may have heard some such story, embellished through
second-hand retellings, and w as probably very prepared to believe the
worst about Herod. It may have explained, in his mind, the Flight to Egypt,
which might be an historical fact of which he had knowledge, and so he
intertwined the stories. Remember that he would have had absolute ly no
first-hand knowledge of this phase of Jesus' life, and it frankly doesn't
strike
me as something that Jesus would have spoken about to very many
people - I don't recall him ever bringing up the incident during his preaching
career. So a story like this would have only been available from folk-tale
and rumor, unless Mary or another member of Jesus' family reported it to
Matthew. So, Matthew might have included a false story but thought that
it was true, and then found prophecies that seemed to matc h what happened.
I don't think it's necessary to argue that he intentionally invented it,
even if it is not historically accurate.
As far
as John the Baptist's situation is concerned, who knows why he might
have escaped? The fact that Herod did not limit the slaughter to newborns
suggests that he did not think the birth was recent when he gave the order,
and John might have been bar ely more than two years old, or his parents
might have lied about his age, or his family's social position might have
protected him, or maybe he wasn't living in the area at that time - a lot
can change in a year or two. So I don't think his fate is an a rgument
one way or another for the historicity of the event.
But you raise an interesting issue, and I certainly don't think we need
to
assume that any historical event narrated anywhere - Gospels or not
- was recorded with perfect accuracy by the original writer, especially
when he is writing of things that happen ed decades earlier to which he
was not
a
witness and for which sources are not likely to have been available.
Jon
Roche <rochej@babson.edu>
USA - Tuesday, August 12, 1997 at 16:23:25 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/bias/military/
Two more legal refs:
Anderson v. Laird (1972) struck down mandatory chapel attendace
at service academies.
Katcoff v. Marsh (1985) said it was constitutional for the
government to finance military chaplains (while adding that
it had
to be religiously neutral and not attach any discipline
or
stigma
to attendance or nonattendance).
These opinions aren't on the web, but a good article is
at http://www.pafb.af.mil/deomi/relaccom.htm
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com>
st paul, mn USA - Tuesday, August 12, 1997 at 15:36:12 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
I'd just like to know why you infidels (good name) are so against the
Boy
Scout of America. I wonder if the Scout s in the other countries have
this problem of ignorant people, or just us.
Matthew <RgramsI@prodigy.net>
USA - Tuesday, August 12, 1997 at 12:39:08 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
Hi! I'm a former agnostic who wishes to carry on a respectable dialog
with those who are sure there is no God, those who aren't sure either way,
and
those
who believe other than I do. I accept that others need proof
to believe in God. I only hope they have eyes to see and ears to hear the
proof when it comes their way. Though it may be a "still, small
voice"
, I believe God can and will show that He exists.
Thankfully in Christ,
L.L.
Boyd
<boydsneon@aol.com>
Pueblo, CO USA - Monday, August 11, 1997 at 12:55:55 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html
It is unfortunate that you have hardened your heart to the true messages
that Jesus given us.
I will pray for you, please pray for me.
No offence intended, take care.
Gerard St. Pierre <gerard@MNSi.net>
Windsor, Ont Canada - Monday, August 11, 1997 at 00:12:00 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/new.html
Dear infidels:
Being a regular reader and admirer of the works found on the secular web,
I am loath to complain. However, In this instance I feel I must. On August
tenth, you posted three new sites concerning Islam. Before I go any further,
let me qualify the rest of this e-mail by saying that I am not a Muslim
myself. As I believe you know (perhaps you don't), these three new sites
have a conservative Christian evangelical slant. With perhaps "Answering
Islam" being the more moderate of the three. My complaint as such
basically revolves around the question that, knowing this, why did you
post them? While allowing that no human testimony is completely free from
bias,
you certainly couldn't of thought that these three sites would even
make an attempt at objectivity. They are hopelessly biased against Muslims,
and
could hardly be expected to highlight the good elements of said religion
as well as the bad ones (There being positive and negative points to all
religions). With this in mind, I certainly hope you will think twice about
posting site with such a strong religious bias. At the very least,perhaps
you
could warn potential readers of the particular slant of these sites.
Sam Smeaton <Malcolms@inforamp.net
>
Toronto, Ont Canada - Sunday, August 10, 1997 at 22:55:16 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/discussion/open/
Hi there! The tread is getting extremely long, thanks God :-) Would
it be possible to put an "Open topic" button on the top of the
tread to facilitate the posting of a new tread without having to go to
the bottom?
Cheers, Nathan.
Nathan Sadan <atlantis@actcom.co.il
>
Rehovoth, N/A ISRAEL - Saturday, August 09, 1997 at 02:41:32 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/delos_mckown/bibliolaters.html
You may firmly believe that all Christians are blind fools. But you
should really think and ask yourself whether or not you yourself are the
real fool!
John
Kolm
<choe@umich.edu>
Ann Arbor, MI USA - Saturday, August 09, 1997 at 01:01:21 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/events/speeches/
Your site is well thought out and organized, but I think you probably should specify that you are attacking the Fundamentalists and not "regular" followers of Christ who accept evolution, freethought, people of other religions, multiculturalism, etc. I feel it is important to add that we, ourselves, are as angry and disgusted at the Fundamentalist movement as you are, because it cheapens our religion, distorts history, and makes us look like lunatics... If you really want to understand the strange world of the Fundamentalist, I recommend "Fundamentalism" by James Barr -- it presents an excellent examination into how this turn-of-the-century phoenomenon came about. It should be standard reading for the regular follwers of Christ, atheist, and agnostic.
Lucas C. Wagner <ak520@po.cwru.edu
>
Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, MA USA - Friday, August 08, 1997 at
16:43:42 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil.html
Internet Infidels:
This is actually a question, and not a feedback comment for display. I
have
just finished reading the three articles in your section on "evil."
One of them is about the Free Will defense, and claims that it is not sound,
because the Bible says we do not have free will (By Berrgren). About a
year
ago, I wrote an paper on the FWD for a philosophy of religion course,
in which I argue that the FWD can neither be accepted nor rejected without
rejecting belief in God. (You currently have no essays that empl oy this
method)
I have recently been rewriting the piece for a general audience
(the original assignment asked that we write taking into account that the
prof
knew
what we were talking about) The paper is tenatively titled, "The
Free
Will Defense: Theis t's Tool or Nightmare: A New Look at an Old Solution
to the Problem of Evil," and will be about 10 pages long, in two parts.
Part I
is the necessary background of my argument (problem of evil and
the FWD defense explained), part II is my argument. I hav e no idea if
the Secular Web is still taking submissions, or if you are interested in
work by non-professionals such as myself. However, if you would be interested
in my paper, please let me know at:
heretic7@aol.com
Gabriel Carlson <heretic7@aol.com
>
Burnsville, MN USA - Friday, August 08, 1997 at 11:45:54 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/william_floyd/mistakes_of_jesus.html#41
I really enjoyed reading your mate rial. I finally got to see how blind
people are when they read the bible and take things out of context. In
many areas where you quoted scripture correctly you wouldn't complete the
sentence, or look to the paragrah above. You can twist sentences or mi
ss important info doing it this way. Try going back and re-reading. Stop
and
think about what you see in print. dare I say, even pray that God would
enlighten you to the meaning of the scripture.
I was once as you were. I doubted, but I was overwhelmed by God. I look
at it this way; if I was following Jesus as the apostles did for three
years, I would know if he was a fake. There would be no way that I would
die for
a fake. It's just that logi cal. Also, if God is not real than
party on for tomorrow we die, but what if he is real and there awaits for
me an eternity. Once again the logical part of me says I want to live in
eternity with God instead of in hell. I know that all this may sound t
oo simple, and your right it is. We tend to complicate our relationship
with
God, because we get so much feedback from TV and other media sources.
I know that there are some people that claim to be Chritians that really
don't
act that way. They make it hard on alot of people like you and I.
I'm only saying that if you really want to write about God than you need
to balance your report by letting God speak to you. Why don't you give
it a
try.
God
bless you, and I hope you find what you are looking for.
Gerry
GB <
don't have one>
Lake Mary, FLl USA - Friday, August 08, 1997 at 07:33:20 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/niclas_berggren/funda.html#note
I generally agree with the attack on the free will de fense by Niclas
Bergen, but there may be other better theodicies. For example, one variant
of Leibnitz's theodicy is that despite all its evils, this universe has
more
good
than evil, and so it was better for God to create it than to
leave it uncreated. One might object that God could have created a better
universe, but maybe He did, creating all possible universes that are better
to exist than not to exist. Then the world (God and all the universes He
created) could be the best possible world, as Leib nitz argued, and yet
there would be no requirement that our particular universe be the best
possible universe.
In other words, God might not be a perfectionist with regard to individual
universes. He might instead have good moral grounds for creating each possible
universe that is better to exist than not to exist, rather than merely
a single perfect univers e, so that the set of all such possible good universes
exists. (Thus God might be a perfectionist about the set of all existing
universes, that no better set is possible, but not about individual universes.)
Don Page <don@phys.ualberta.ca
>
Edmonton, AB Canada - Thursday, August 07, 1997 at 22:43:05 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/fernandes-martin/fernandes3.html
In his last footnote, Phil Fernandez says: Martin states that after his death he hopes to be remembered for his "contribution to knowledge," the happiness he provided for his loved ones, and the contributions he made to his community. Martin fails to realize that all these things lose any meaningfulness if the entire universe will someday die... Can a community enjoy Dr. Martin's contributions when the community (along with Martin and the rest of the universe) is extinct? Without the existence of God and life after death, life becomes ultimately meaningless. While I agree with Fernandez's other points above, his last sentence raises an interesting question. What is it within the theistic view (according to Fernandez) that gives life meaning? Is it serving a higher purpose--serving God--or is it the promise of life after death for the individual? If it is serving God, then would Fernandez concede that there would be a meaning of life if God existed but death was the permanent end of consciousness? And if it is the promise of life after death, then would Fernandez concede that serving God is a secondary goal of theists to attaining eternal life? In other words, is serving God the primary goal of theists, or is serving God simply a means to an end: serving God in order to attain eternal life for oneself?
Keith Augustine <kaugust@wam.umd.edu>
Joppa,
MD USA - Thursday, August 07, 1997 at 20:13:36 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/standards.html
Totally confuised, not about atheism, secularism or materialism so much but about the reasons for the mysterious alphanumeric, etc., mumbo-jumbo of the address. Not only about the reasons therefor but how to negotiate it without going blind. Thanks. KO'C
Kathryn O'Clair <dsklein@aol.com>
Brooklyn,, NY USA - Thursday, August 07, 1997 at 19:58:49 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
Your web page is great (one of the best) !!. However, having studied
quite a bit of a wide range of religious texts, I have to say that God
exists. She ( God does not have a gender of course, but the most appropriate
gender
to describe the nature of God would definitely have to be feminine
)
created all the religions of the world ( ye s, including Christianity
as well ). All these ( and everything else in our long, sad (?) history
were created for a specific purpose and part of a GREAT plan. No, we do
not have quite enough yet to prove Her existence definitely ( but that
is also part o f the plan ) and yes, religions and philosophies were created
to contradict one another so that we could kill and hate each other. And
for
this,
God is the one who is guilty ( not us ) and She is truly repentant
and sorry, but She did this out of her perf ect love for us :- that all
this hatred and killing is necessary for us to grow and understand the
meaning and significance of love ( very difficult to explain .. ). Yes,
it was given to me to believe in God, just as it was given to you not to
believe, a nd to religious fundamentalists to hate as well. Christians
believe that their religion will save us all from Hell, and they do not
know how absolutely right they are. The core of Christianity is Jesus Christ
who 'symbolically' took the sins of the world on himself and died to save
it. Christianity has 'symbolically' come to represent all that is evil
in this world by causing more deaths in history then any other religion
( or possibly any other cause ). Therefore the death of Christianity (
NOT Christian s, otherwise this whole PLAN would be in vain ) is the first
( and crucial ) step to our freedom from all this hatred and fear. Don't
ask me how I know this, I just do ... For your significant contribution
to the PLAN, know that Her blessing is always wit h you ( even if you don't
believe in Her.. or probably more because you don't !! ). I sort of envy
you
since your joy and wonder will be much greater than mine when you finally
know
that God exists. And yes, at the end of all of this we will ALL go
to hea ven ( you and me and even Hitler and Stalin ), and not the Christian
or
Muslim heaven, but a heaven far greater and wonderful than we can possibly
imagine. To those who have the slightest love, a thousandfold will be returned,
and to those who have none, love will be given. The time has come AT LAST
for ALL of us to forgive and to forget and to become the ONE we have always
been and meant to be, and to understand :-
1 Cor
15, 51 - 56
Behold,
I shew you a mystery; We shall not sleep, but we shall ALL be changed,
In a moment in a twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet
shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality...
victor <eem1ht@ee.surrey.ac.uk
>
Guildford, UK - Thursday, August 07, 1997 at 16:30:40 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.major-ii@infidels.org/
I am interested in apologetic responses to the following: In Matthew
24:36,
it
says the Father alone knows the day and hour of the "end times."
I want
to know
why the Holy Spirit, who is also omniscient (supposedly) doesn't also know.
Scott Owens <sowens@mail.mcg.edu
>
augusta, ga USA - Thursday, August 07, 1997 at 15:27:00 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
Obviously this is just one of many textual inconsistencies in the Bible. There are others in the same chapter of Matthew. If you would like to present this matter for discussion on my Errancy list, I'm sure you would find many willing to discuss it. To subscribe, send "subscribe errancy" to major-ii@infidels.org.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap9-5.html
I can see that you have put much thought and research into thi s article,
there is a whole other side to your argument which you ignore. There is
the
whole faith issue. What you choose to believe influences your outlook
on everything. I admit that I am terribly biased because of my religious
outlook. These script ures you quote have deeper meaning than you allow
them. Have you ever read Shakespeare? There are multiple meanings to just
about every line(maybe an exageration), but you get my point. Sure they
meant
one
thing to the original readers but they somethi ng completely
different today.
I could not tell your beliefs in God but I noticed that you are descidedly
an evolutionist. Which is as much a theory as creationism is. We just descide
for ourselves what we will allow ourselves to believe. On the one hand
you have random chance on th e other a design.
I do not think this will influence your beliefs, but maybe it will help
you see that your vision has been clouded.
Justin Case <justincase@sprynet.com
>
Houston, Tx USA - Thursday, August 07, 1997 at 15:02:47 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/
I do not know much about this sight I was just looking for someone that could help me out. I have recently terminated my employment from a prolife organization that is makeing money from scamming people. I would like some information on how I could educate people not to give this organiztaion money and I am capiable of sharing informationg that they may not care for there contributers to know please write me if you can help!!!!
mathew <thytung2@aol.com>
phoenx, az USA - Thursday, August 07, 1997 at 04:13:47 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/
The church & state page should add Texas Monthy v. Bullock, at
http://www.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=489&invol=1#17
This
1989 decision invalidated a Texas law that exempted religious
peridicals from sales tax. ONLY allowing religious material
this exemption was struck because it favored religion. This might
also
help the current Texas nonreligious nonprofit group; if the
only groups that qualify for the tax-free status have to be
religious, that's exactly what Texas Monthly v. Bullock struck down.
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com>
st paul, mn USA - Wednesday, August 06, 1997 at 20:42:41 (MDT)
As an 18 year old questioning my faith, I've found your website has given me the ability to (strangely enough) not be so harsh on myself in regards to choosing one "path" versus another. I have always believed in a very liberal interpretation of religi on and the Bible, and will continue to do so - knowing full well that it's OK; that I won't go to hell. Thanks for the intellectual stimulation.
Ben <gott@li.com>
Lakeville, CT USA - Tuesday, August 05, 1997 at 20:21:29 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html
HELLO SIR,
YOU ARE GRAVELY MISTAKEN IN YOUR CONCECPT OF GOD. IN THE BIBLE GOD SHOWS
THAT HE IS THREE ENTITIES IN ONE BEING, THEREFORE YOUR IDEA OF "GODS"
BEING MORE THAN
ONE
BEING MAKES NO SENSE. I COULD GO ON AND ON DISPROVING YOU ACCUSATIONS
OF DISCREPANCIES, BUT THAT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME WE WOULD GO BACK AND
FORTH ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING. AS YOU CAN SEE A GREAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE TRANSLATE
THE
BIBLE TO FIT THEIR LIFE STYLE, INSTEAD OF CHANGING THEIR LIFESTYLE
TO FIT THE BIBLE. SO YOU CAN TWST THE BIBLE IN MANY WAYS, BUT GOD WILL
STILL JUDGE YOU FOR
YOUR LIFE, WHETHER YOU SERVED HIM OR NOT. IT'S CALLED FAITH, AND WE BOTH
HAVE IT. YOU IN EVOLUTION, WHERE YOU HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS
IF YOUR
RIGHT,(VERY CONVIENIENT)AND ME I BELIEVE IN GOD. ONLY A FOOL SAYS THERE
IS NO GOD. THERE IS ONLY ONE, AND IN THE END YOU WILL BOW BEFORE HIM. YOU
MOCK NOW , BUT YOU WILL NOT THEN, AND I HONESTLY DO NOT TAKE PLEASURE IN
THAT.
DALEN MUSTER <DMUSTER@SLIGER.COM
>
SPARKS, NV USA - Tuesday, August 05, 1997 at 09:48:40 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap5.html
I
read
with interest, as a Christian, the paper posted by Jeff Lowder
on the
of the resurrection and the implications that it poses to the Christian
standpoint. Several things struck me as odd while I was reading: firstly,
Mr. Lowder, a proclaimed aethist, seemed to work very hard to NOT offend
a
Christian reader by citing his admiration for some of the creation science
experts as well as by reaching no definate conclusion to his thesis. The
second thing that I was astounded by was the argument used by several of
the
aethistic sources quoted by Mr. Lowder of "practical improbability"
of the
resurrection - that is, the sheer "absurdity" of the idea that
the laws of
nature could be cast aside in the light of God's Will. I am then forced
within
my own mind to ask of the evolutionists: What is the practical
improbability that all of life, including the complexity of human beings,
could have evolved from sheer nothingness? Thermodynamics clearly states
in
its
first
law that matter cannot be created nor destroyed... since I believe
in a Creation from an omnipotent Creator, I believe He also made the laws.
Evolution also claims that we are evolving into more and more complex beings,
yet so far all "proof" of evolution that I have been witness
to deals with
losing things, not gaining them (vestigal organs, dinosaurs losing teeth
and
claws to become birds, etc). Please, if some real evidence of the NON-
existence of God I will consider it, but until then I will believe until
proven wrong, not disbelieve until proven right.
Jennifer Pearson <araboggle@aol.com
>
Rockland, ME USA - Monday, August 04, 1997 at 16:45:10 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
I am really not trying to start a flame-a-thon here, but I am curious about just one point here -- what if your st ance about the existence of God proves to be wrong? Given that eternity is an awful long time to ponder the consequences of a misconception on this basic point, (not to mention the overall climate of your potential surroundings), what if the basic Judeo-C hristian stand is correct? At the end-of-the-day, you will find out.
Rob Papandrea <vnda99a @prodigy.com
>
Manchester, CT USA - Monday, August 04, 1997 at 14:14:02 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Reponse:
Gods who subject honest disbelievers to an eternity of torture simply because of their disbelief are horrid creatures, infinitely worse than any Hitler (who, for all the suffering he caused, nevertheless caused only a finite amount) and good people accordingly would be more content to suffer pain for eternity than worship and glorify such an evil being for all time.
Now, you might want to think about what you will do if you are wrong, and a truly good god exists, rather than the Judeo-Christian conception of god. You might ask yourself what such a being might do to people who apparently think it is alright to cause people eternal suffering merely because of their stance on an obscure metaphysical question.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/clarence_darrow/bible_absurdities.html
You poke fun of people who believe i n "miracles" and the
"impossible" stories in the Bible - simply because it requires
nothing more that "faith". It is true - it does require faith,
just as it requires faith to believe that this beautiful and delicately
balanced world and it's infinitely complex life is nothing more than an
"accident".
I put my trust in the Bible - not because I needed an answer, but because
logic, reasoning, and evidence demands that I put my faith in it!
When you get on an airplane - do you "know" that it will safely
take you to your destination? No! But your knowledge of airline safety
records, past experiences, technology, gut-feel - are all reasons to have
"faith" that the plane will provide safe tran sportation.
I put my "faith" in the Bible when I studied Bible prophecy and
found that the Bible presents a complete sequential time-line - an entire
plan - that God is faithfully executing. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that
the prophecies written in the Old Testament were fulfilled and documented
in Jesus Christ. It predicts many things in the New Testament which are
quickly becoming reality. It predicts that a world-dictator will force
everyone to take a mark in there right-hand or forehead and that no one
will be able to buy sell or trade without it! Who can deny that with the
tecnologies of the Internet, Smart-cards, Etc.., that we are quickly moving
to a electronic cashless society which may make this prophecy possible?
The more you study Bible prophecy, one sees that it cannot be mere coincidence
- it is the "DNA" evidence that has to be dealt with!
You may deny God - but as sure as matter didn't materialize from thin air,
you will be judged - Either "not guilty" if you accept the fact
that God paid your penalty for your sin (disodedience), or "guilt"
if you reject Jesus Christ and the price He paid to redeem you!
May God show you your true nature and lead you to your only way of complete
forgivness and eternal redemption - through the sacrificial blood of Jesus
Christ!
Ron Hill
B.S. Industrial Engineering
M.S. Business Management
Ronald
R. Hill <hill@feist.com>
Wichita, KS USA - Monday, August 04, 1997 at 11:54:01 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/order-16.html
Another book that needs to be considered in this con text is "ANTIQUITY
UNVEILED" By Jonathan Roberts, published by Oriental Publishing Co,
Philadelphia, PA 1892.
Also the 43 works of George R.Clements published under his pseudonym HILTON
HOTEMA, by Health Research, Box 850, Pomeroy, WA 99347, principally his
"SECRET OF REGENERATION"
Kanya Vashon McGhee <DrKanya@webtv.net
>
Atlanta, GA USA - Monday, August 04, 1997 at 09:55:34 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
I've been thinking lately about the movie Contact and the idea that an alien race might contact us someday. In Star Trek, there's the concept of the prime directive, which prohibits contact with primitive species to avoid complications and improper influences. What I've been wondering is what a more advanced species would do upon discovering humans? If I were an alien, I would say that humanity is t oo primitive to be contacted. Almost all humans have a pathological dependency on blind faith in the supernatural; they're not rational and intelligent, and they never will be. Every culture in the history of the human race has had an important religiou s component. Religious belief is really a core weakness in homo sapiens. It seems to be built into us. It's universal among our cultures. Looking at humanity objectively, I'd have to say that we're not worthy of contact by an advanced alien race. I'm just wondering if you know of any books or articles dealing with any of these issues, particularly the in-born, built-in weakness that allows people to blindly believe in supernatural nonsense. Any ideas?
Ernst Janensch <Janensch@azbar.org
>
Scottsdale, AZ USA - Sunday, August 03, 1997 at 22:27:02 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Considering the clouded "thinking" of believers, it's not surprising that there are hundreds of different religions, many of which maintain essentiall y the same beliefs yet bitterly oppose one another. But why are there so many humanist organizations? Are there forms or versions of humanism that are so different as to justify splintered factions? Wouldn't it make sense to merge? Just wondering.
Ernst Janensch <Janensch@azbar.org
>
Scottsdale, AZ USA - Sunday, August 03, 1997 at 21:45:56 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/disclaimer.html
YOU FORGOT LIBERALISM YOU SHIT
AND YUPPIESM PRESLYTERIANISM SEXISM AND RACISM
bunnyman <bunnyman@caribe.net>
USA - Sunday, August 03, 1997 at 19:35:35 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
This gay atheist was attempting to levy a royalty on Focus on Family for using a a gay quotation (from Thomas Paine) without gay permission. Since you have intercepted this intent, would you be so kind as charge them yourselves? Thank you. Richard Dey at the International Homophilics Institute.
Richard Dey <ihi@tiac.net>
Boston, MA USA - Sunday, August 03, 1997 at 11:50:53 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/church-state/decisions/
On June 23, 1997, the Supreme Court overruled its 1985 decision in Agu ilar v Felton.
Joe Klimberg <pimajoe@ibm.net>
USA - Saturday, August 02, 1997 at 22:14:14 (MDT)
Marvelous, superb site. Continue fighting for free thought. This email
is
mostly
to respond, however, to Marc Rivera's June 25th comment that
the universe cannot be self-generated.
Surprisingly, it can. First of all, all of the energy in the universe today
adds up to zero. I don't understand the details completely, but the negative
energy
to balance the positive comes from the force that the galaxies had
required to push each other apart. Second, there is an infinitesimally
small quantum probability that vacuum will spontaneously turn into a big
bang. Because there is a finite chance, it virtually MUST happen sometime.
Anyone with a high-school education knows that one cannot create or destroy energy. This is true, however, only at the macroscopic level. In the quantum world, there exist some particles that can come in and out of existence without being created o r destroyed, completely at random. Perhaps a high or low concentration of these particles could trigger a big bang. Anyway, since there is a chance of it happening, it did happen. And now science has completely explained the origin of the universe and everything of which we know in it.
Keep up the good work! This site is an excellent source of information. I wait eagerly for the day when Christianity is abandoned for the superstition it truly is.
Cabrutus <locratz@geocities.com
>
Olympia, WA USA - Friday, August 01, 1997 at 22:40:13 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
I think it is very sad that anyone would spend so much energy mocking men of God. Obv iously you have been hurt by someone and wish to harm the Christian community. I will quote Thomas Jefferson, "Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Jody <Ehanes@Juno.com>
Plano,
Tx USA - Friday, August 01, 1997 at 00:10:48 (MDT)
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
