 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/mormonism/mormon.html
I will admit that I am not a great scholar as of yet when it comes to religious matters. However I do know enough about science to be critical of the posted information on this site. I don't have time to go on about biased research, so I'll just share a small piece of information. One comment on the site said that there is no evidence linking the B of M to ancient civilizations in Central/South America. My neighbor, an old bishop of the LDS church, went on a vacation to South/Central america. During his vacation, he had the priviledge of viewing several ruin s. He noticed some very interesting things about certain parts of the ruins, which he relayed to me. Several parts of the ruins greatly resembled parts of modern LDS temples. I think it is quite possible that there is a great deal of evidence that has not been realized, simply because nobody has been looking at the evidence through the right eyes. It is very easy to see that the world is all blue when you are viewing it through blue filters.
Spencer Riley <riley1@davis.uswest.net>
Farmington, Ut USA - Wednesday, December 31, 1997 at 01:34:06 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
On the other hand, your bishop friend no doubt has filters of his own. That's why historical claims like that of the Church of LDS need to be established by evidence that is intersubjectively verifiable. Perhaps such evidence is in fact out there somewhere, but until it is found, it is reasonable to view Mormon historical claims with skepticism.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/mormonism/mormon.html
I just don't understand hatred? Could you please explain to me why you have such a problem with mormons? Did someone terrorize you that was mormon? Did they torture you? Did they force you to do anything you didnt want to? I dont understand why or how people can hate. I would really like to know why you have suc h a negative attitude towards mormons. Thank You.
Patricia Keser <iluvharleys@juno.com>
Rosamond, Ca USA - Tuesday, December 30, 1997 at 14:58:15 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Patricia, we don't hate Mormons or even have a negative attitude towards them. Our disagreement is with Mormon belief, not Mormon people.
Best wishes,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
This question is for Athiest Prof. Michael Martin. Can you give an account for the laws of logic in a worldview that espouses that "all that exists is matter in motion". That is, how can inanimate matter produce qualities that it does not itself possess; namely, consciousness and intelligence, out of which the laws of logic proceed?
Tony Quinn <Doubleq2@AOL.com>
saugus, ca. USA - Sunday, December 28, 1997 at 17:52:34 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
Tony Quinn wrongly assumes that atheism is committed to materialism. Although all materialists are atheists, not all atheists are materialists. Indeed, many atheists have a pluralist ontology. For example, some atheists believe that neither mental events nor numbers can be reduced to material entities. I am not a materialist. I do not know whether mental events are reducible to brain states--the question is still open for me--and I certainly do not think that the principles of logic are so reducible.
However,in any case Mr.Quinn is mistaken to assume that just because X does not have some property P that P cannot be property of a whole made up of Xs. A red barn is not composed of red atoms for example. In a similar way, just because atoms are not intelligent, etc it does not follow that a whole made up of atoms is not intelligent, etc. To suppose otherwise is to commit the fallacy of composition.
Internet Infidels Response #2:
Tony, I'd be happy to answer your question. You see ours is a third generation star and so it has gone through previous nucleosynthesis cycles, i.e. the building up of heavier elements from lighter ones. Now since three helium nuclei (2He4) fuse into a single carbon nucleus (6C12) during the triple-alpha process in a star's interior, the result is that we see a whole bunch of heavy elements sitting around. Carbon is, of course, our mortal makeup, which is why Carl Sagan waxed poetically about how we are "star stuff." One particularly stubborn species of primate, which was superb at adapting to all kinds of environments, eventually developed higher order mental functions and intelligence. Oh sure, this species started out with crude tools like sticks and stones, but it wasn't long before they moved into standard analysis and the "real" number system. Well, numbers aren't really real in the sense that Plato found a gigantic "1" or perhaps a "42" sitting up on a mountaintop somewhere. No, they're real in the sense that we all agree that they cover a domain that is based on an axiom set whose standard model is the set of all natural and rational numbers. So there you have it Tony. The Sun puts out energy, life arises (and with it, intelligence) and these intelligent beings eventually created sophisticated tools such as the mathematical analysis with which to understand their real world.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/
Wow! I just discovered Robert M. Price because of your website, and let me tell you what an a bsolute breath of fresh air his writings are. I am an ex-Christian who retreated to agnosticism in the face of David Hume's withering and irrefutable blast ("Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"), but there've been skeletons in the closet: "Maybe I re ally *am* just hiding some sin, and *that's* the reason I don't believe any more!" Dr. Price's writings have been the healing balm, allowing me, once and for all, to "put away childish things." I must also admit to taking a perverse pleasure in the inte llectual decimation of my former heroes (Craig, McDowell, et al).
But seriously, folks, don't ever believe for a second that you aren't reaching out to people who need what you are doing! I was emotionally bound up in the chains of Evangelical Christianity for 13 years. I now realize that some of those chains still cl ung to me, even 3 years after my loss of faith (which I now interpret as gaining spiritual maturity--thanks to Dr. Price). Dr. Price's writings allowed me to cast those relics off, with no regrets. True healing is underway.
I'm a free man! I have you folks to thank:
Thank-you!
Rob Tarzwell <umtarzwe@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Winnipeg, MB Canada - Sunday, December 28, 1997 at 02:24:29 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap4.html
In the article - The Case for Christianity - on Jochen Katz's webp age,
there is a statement that the John Ryland Manuscript in the John Ryland
Library of Machester England contains bits and pieces of the gospel of
john dated 130 ce...I was under the impression the gospel of john was
written around 2nd century. What is the truth of the matter?
Muhammad Neff <isnaad@aol.com>
chester springs, pa USA - Friday, December 26, 1997 at 09:38:26 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/niclas_berggren/theodicy.html
Nick's Theodicy presupposes that just because God is all-knowi ng,powerful, and present, suffering of the human race would be obliterated. That presupposition as a basis makes the theodicy wrong. No one ever said an all knowing God would not allow suffering. Suffering has always been used by God to get the attenti on of wayward man. Even the righteous suffer, i.e. Job. God knew exactly what man would do when man was placed in the Garden, but allowed it to happen. Why? Because God respected the free-will of man, and had already prepared a way of salvation, for Ch rist was "lamb slain before the foundation of the world". Suffering came into the world because of man's decision to not obey the words of God, and has suffered for it ever since. Man as a race tends not to even consider God without suffering, for if ev erything were 100% correct and right all the time, man would take the credit and never even think of God. Suffering has a way of turning man's mind off of himself and toward one that is great than himself.
Jonathan Dean <jed46358@glaxowellcome.com>
Durham, NC USA - Monday, December 22, 1997 at 18:11:09 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
One of your objections amounts to the claim that man is solely responsible for all of the suffering that exists, since he disobeyed God's initial commands. But this objection raises many difficult questions; most notably:
Why didn't God create humans with perfect moral faculties such that they would always choose what is right? Presumably, that would not interfere with their freedom, since God himself allegedly has perfect moral faculties, yet is perfectly free at the same time (and if he is not free, then since he is still supposed to be perfectly loving and have a meaningful existence, that would mean that humans do not need freedom to give God meaningful love or to have a meaningful existence). Instead, however, God choose to create man with a built in ability to fail. Moreover, he stacked the deck against man in the Garden of Eden by leaving a tempter with them. That's like a parent putting a bottle of bleach in his young child's playpen, telling him "Don't drink that", knowingly letting a psychopath into the room to do his best to convince the child to drink the bleach, and then leaving the child alone with the tempter, all in order to test the child's obedience. With a setup like that, it would be difficult to blame the child for any suffering he goes through as a result of drinking the bleach - on the contrary, the blame lies entirely with the parent.
Why did God set up things so that nature would change precisely in a manner that would cause animals to suffer, and natural disasters to occur, all because of man's disobedience? Since it is God who decided that a slight error like an instance of disobedience should have cosmic consequences for all of existence, once can hardly blame man for those consequences. That would be sort of like some person telling you not to eat pork on Thursday, going out and shooting 50 people after finding out that you did eat pork on Thursday, and then saying that the death of the 50 people is on your hands since you disobeyed him. In such a situation, you are partially responsible for the deaths (if you took the threatener seriously) since you could have prevented the deaths from occuring with comparatively little loss to yourself, but the lion's share of the guilt goes, of course, to the shooter for setting up the "consequences" of your disobedience to his commands.
Your second response is to assert that we would never acknowledge God unless there were suffering. But if God wants to be acknowledged, he merely need appear before us in all of his glory. Personally, if I came face to face with the force responsible for the creation of the universe, I would most certainly acknowledge it - and all the more if that force were responsible for the creation of a universe in which there was no suffering. Quite the contrary to your proposal, the problem of evil is no doubt one of the greatest causes of people failing to acknowledge the existence of God (if he actually exists), due to precisely the kind of reasoning that Nick demonstrates in his paper. Making the world appear as if it were governed by chaotic, ultimately meaningless forces rather than a supreme, benevolent hand, is not a good way for God to make more believers.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html
1) The Hebrew word "yom" translated day in Genesis may also
mean age, epoch, or period of time.
2) The Hebrew words "eveb" and "boker" translated evening
and morning can also mean start and finish or beginning and ending.
3) The creation days were evidently overlapping periods of time.
4) The Hebrew word "wayya'as" translated made in Genesis 1:14-16,19
can also be accurately translated had made according to Gleason Archer.
I believe God had made the Sun, moon, and stars back in verse one but they
became visible from the surface of the e arth during the forth day. As
the atmosphere became more transparent one could now see the source of
the light. Our Sun is probably a third generation star. The universe is
evidently around 17 billion years old.
5) The dirt God made Adam from was probably a primordal pond Dr. Senapathy
writes about in his, "Independent Birth of Organisms." This probably
occured around 40,000 B.C. Eve was made from Adam's rib.
6) The Hebrew words "erets" and "adamah" translated
earth when refering to Noah's flood can also be translated country or land.
This can be verified in Hebrew dictionaries like "The New Strong's
Complete Dictionary of Bible Words."
7) I believe Noah's "erets" flood covered the whole land of Turkey
which is completely surrounded by Mountains. The government of Turkey believes
the remains of the ark have been located at the base of Mt. Judi in Turkey.
This is in the area the Bible cal ls the mountains of Ararat. The flood
probably occured around 10,044 B.C.
8) As I explain in my web site the flood, Joshua's long day, and the turning
back of the shadow on the sun clock were physically brought about when
Mars passed astronomically close to the earth as it use to do every 54
years until 701 B.C.
Wayne Edgar McKellips <rycttb@sprynet.com>
Virginia Beach , VA USA - Saturday, December 20, 1997 at 08:00:21 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html
Interesting argument
The best I have ever heard for the existence of God is as follows.
myself: a Christian
an athiest friend
and a Bahai Faith friend( no longer Bahai faith)
were discussing the existence of God.
The Bahai Faith friend asked the athiest about his belief in God.
The athiest of course said he didn't believe in God.
The Bahai Faith believer laughed and said I'm not going to waste my time
[ not believing in God]. Without a creator we are all in the end a waste
of time.
Jeffrey Hasley <hasleyjw@eccic.com>
Orlando, Fl USA - Friday, December 19, 1997 at 11:58:49 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
There are two things wrong with this line of reasoning:
(1) The lack of a creator does not necessarily make us a waste of time. If it did, then God must be a waste of time, since he lacks a creator.
(2) Even if life were meaningless without God, I could not make myself believe in something without evidence. Wishing does not make it so.
Best regards,
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap5.html
Dear Sir:
It is not surprising to me that your representation of General Lew. Wallace
as a religious skeptic is no more accurate than the Campus Crusade's representation
of him as a former atheist.
Gen. Wallace, himself, admitted he was indifferent and had no real convictions,
but never have we found any reference by him as to skepticism or atheism.
It was through his meeting with Robert Ingersoll in September of 1876 that
he began seriously to research the Bible to find answers to Ingersoll's
remarks. The result of this research led to the writing his most famous
novel, Ben-Hur. In addition we have no evidence that Gen. Wallace tried
to drag anybody "kicking and screaming" into church, but he considered
himself a believer in God and Christ which he states in the first page
of his autobiography.
Gregory R. Schneider <study@wico.net>
Crawfordsville, IN USA - Thursday, December 18, 1997 at 10:51:53 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.html
I think it's quite sad with this site:
I was looking at the Biblical Inconsistencies part and as far as doctrine
goes, there is almost nothing inconsistent about those passages. The problem
that exists is that they have been taken completely out of context.
I ran upon this place, not because I was interested in finding out about
these 'inconsistencies' but because I was concerned for a fellow Christian
who claimed he could no longer believe because of what he saw on you site,
particularly in that section.
I'm sad to say that Satan is winning this battle, but Jesus has already
won the war for us. I'll remember to pray for you and your souls.
Secularization is Satan's greatest trick - convince everyone he doesn't
exist.
Humanism is justifying one's desires by denying a higher power.
Peter Buchy <babboo@writeme.com>
Åbo, NA Finland - Friday, December 12, 1997 at 06:38:22 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Hi Peter,
On December 12, as feedback to http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ donald_morgan/intro.html, you wrote:
< ...I was looking at the Biblical Inconsistencies part and as
far as doctrine
< goes, there is almost nothing inconsistent about those
passages...
When you say, "as far as doctrine goes," are you conceding that some of the inconsistencies that are not important to doctrine really do exist? (For instance the 7 years vs. 3 years of famine in 2 Sa 24:13 and 1 Ch 21:12?)
Please also explain how you reconcile the two doctrines that God is love and God will torture unbelievers in hell forever.
< ...I'll remember to pray for you and your souls...
Why would this do any good? Does not God already want to save us? Are not his hands tied, though, because of free will? (Of course, he could save a bunch of us simply by showing us that he really does exist and that the Bible is his word, but for some reason he'd rather we believed without evidence.)
< ...Humanism is justifying one's desires by denying a higher power.
I'm sure you didn't mean to be rude, but this is. What if I were to say, "Religion is for people who are afraid to think for themselves."? Both statements are ad hominem. Neither one of us knows the other's motives.
Best regards,
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/
I received this via email. I have no idea who the original author is,
but I thought it might fit well in the "Humor" section.
Beer Prayer:
Our lager,
Which art in barrels,
Hallowed be thy drink.
Thy will be drunk, (I will be drunk),
At home as it is in the pub.
Give us this day our foamy head,
And forgive us our spillage's,
As we forgive those who spill against us.
And lead us not to incarceration,
But deliver us from hangovers.
For thine is the beer, The bitter and The lager.
For ever and ever.
BARMEN.
Brought to you by the Church of later night Drunks
Chris Begeman <00221893@bigred.unl.edu>
Lincoln, NE USA - Thursday, December 11, 1997 at 22:29:25 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/charade.html
This is basically my thoughts on the page on Josh McDowell of your web page. When I first read Josh McDowell's books, I was skeptical of what he had written. I then decided to see what other books I could find on the same basic topic; the historical reliability of the Bible. I have found many other books where the author has done more research on the Bible and they have come up with the same answers. Contrary to what you have written, there are other old manuscripts or writings telling of Jesus' life. It is true that these other writings do not go into the detail that the Bible does, but the fact that these writings exist shows that you guys have not done your own research. I am not trying to "down" your web page, but I want to say that until you make sure3 of your own "facts", please do not print them. You may be in fluencing someone that has a right to make up their own minds about the life and times of Jesus. Just because you do not believe (I assume this from your writings), does not give you the right to try to make someone else's mind up for them. Thank you fo r taking the time to read this.
David Nunn <sgaexec@gtcc.cc.nc.us>
Greensboro, NC USA - Wednesday, December 10, 1997 at 11:02:43 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Hi David,
On December 10, as feedback to http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ gordon_stein/charade.html, you wrote:
< ...I have found many other books where the author has done more
research on
< the Bible and they have come up with the same answers. Contrary to
what
< you have written, there are other old manuscripts or writings telling
of
< Jesus' life. It is true that these other writings do not go into
the
< detail that the Bible does, but the fact that these writings exist
shows
< that you guys have not done your own research...
If we've made any mistakes, we are eager to correct them, but you'll have to be a little more specific. Exactly what writings are you referring to, and how do they disprove anything on our web site?
You might also want to read some chapters of http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/, which goes into a lot more detail.
Best Regards,
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap4.html
To Whom It May Concern,
After reading a number of your articles I have come to the conclusion that
you are intelligent, thoughfull people who belive very strongly in the
religion of atheism. I am an evangelical Christian. I am disgusted and
angered by much of what I see a nd hear coming out of those who identify
themselves with Christ. But the fact that even many who call themselves
Christians are deceitful or just plain idiots does not mean that the biblical
position on issues such as the origin of life the nature and the existence
of God etc... are invalid and without logical merit. I believe that you
are at times throwing out the proverbial philosophical baby out with the
not so well thought out bath water. The truth be told we are all to a certain
extent products of our own backgrounds ,experiences and influences. No
where will you or I ever find the perfectly objective man. That being said
many of your objections to the conclusions of McDowell Lewis and other
apologists find their roots in your presuppositions concerning the natural
world and the nature of man. I admit that my agreement with them is rooted
in my own presuppositions and biases. This does not mean that either of
us is irrational or stupid. It simply means that we are human and as such
are limited. I am able to admit this. Do you have the intellectual integrity
to do the same. I leave with one final thought. The eternal must exist.
It is either mindless, lifeless mass which somehow produced life (spontanious
generation) intelligence (you being an example), and order, or it is the
ultimate mind and life giver who must be and is beyond our ability to completely
understand. To believe in either takes faith. I choose to put my faith
in the latter. I wish you well.
Jeff Graves <jjgraves@pacbell.net>
Santa Rosa, Ca. USA - Monday, December 08, 1997 at 23:12:31 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
In reference to your message about the Secular Web and our responses to Christian apologists:
I don't believe you are irrational, and I don't believe I have ever said anything to the contrary. Concerning presuppositions, I agree with you that everyone has presuppositions. But I don't believe you understand or even identify my presuppositions correctly. And I strongly disagree with your claim that it takes faith to lack belief in the Christian god. No faith at all is required to lack belief that it exists. Finally, I strongly disagree with your claim that atheism is a religion. As someone once said, "Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color!"
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/grace.html
Growing up in a relatively (for Canada) religious town in southern Alberta,
Canada, one of the ways in which our family strove to separate ourselves
from the multitudes of believers was our suppertime grace. My grandfather,
the son of a strict Methodist minister in Ontario, ran away from home at
14 because he could no longer stand the religious straitjacket into which
he had been born. Saved for special occasions, for instance, when we knew
we had believers in our midst, my father would solemnly intone the following
before beginning our meal:
"God of love
come from above,
with teeth as sharp as sickles,
and slit the throats
of any folks,
who begrudges us these vittles!"
Hope you enjoy!
John Balfour <jbalfour@cyberlink.bc.ca>
Cranbrook, B.C. Canada - Monday, December 08, 1997 at 15:16:21 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/revisions.html
Hello, jury folks. I haven't read much of "The Jury Is In";
I had my fill of McDowell about a decade ago when I read "More than
a Carpenter", a book which was so full of holes, I thought I was holding
Swiss cheese in my hand. No one in his right mind thinks Chrisianity can
be proven to be the true, correct faith.
I have, however, read some of Holding's rebuttals, primarily because I
want to be fair and entertain the best arguments on behalf of the Christians.
He's a good writer, apparently very knowledgeable and certainly shows some
intelligence. And if jury members or anyone else do sloppy work, I'm sure
he'll find it and expose it. He's also notorious for making poor analogies.
I don't know enough to say how often in his rebuttals he's correct and
how often he's blowing steam.
What I'm interested here is in the historical Jesus. Did the man actually
exist? I read Holding's rebuttal to Chapter 5 by Lowder, and I keep seeing
Wells, Wells, Wells. Instead I recommend Earl Doherty's articles on the
Web. Is giving out Web sites against protocol? You can search for it with
key words like "Historical Jesus" or something similar. He proposes
an entirely spiritual Jesus who was later transformed into a historical
man, pointing out that it was common at the time to worship spiritual,
intermediary entities.
Are you familiar with his work? He makes a darn good case! The logic is
quite sound. But I'm not a historian and can't vouch for his "facts"
or whether he's conveniently omitting important evidence suggesting a historical
Jesus. So I wondered if anyone more knowledgeable than I could help me
here. Is Doherty one of the greatest theological heroes ever--or a loon?
Thanks! Maybe I'll be bold and ask Holding himself to evaluate Doherty's
work!
Bill Paulson <bill2200@aol.com>
Minneapolis, MN USA - Monday, December 08, 1997 at 12:54:26 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/
My comments have do with Richard Vitzthum's book on Materialism. I am
presently an atheist and scientist. I found Vitzthum's treatment to be
exceptionally clear and persuasive. I continue to have an open mind and
to consider all viewpoints as possibly valid. One problem I have with my
current beliefs has to do with the evolution of feelings. Natural selection
over millions of years has selected for many adaptive behaviors which preserve
our species. It apparently has also selected for adaptive feelings. When
we act in a fashion that favors our survival we generally feel good and
when we act in a way that threatens our survival we generally feel bad.
My atheism and Vitzthum's materialism I believe only consider material
things valid. We don't allow for a feeling to influence the material world.
This seems to conflict with the evolution of good and bad feelings for
if they didn't affect the material world how could they be selected for?
I think that this idea goes to the heart of the mind-body problem.
Eric Stone <stonee@is4.nyu.edu>
New York, NY USA - Thursday, December 04, 1997 at 20:52:54 (MST)
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
Last updated: [an error occurred while processing this directive]
