 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||
A friend recommended you as a guide to skeptics resources. Is there any worthwhile rebuttals to the book The Bible Code on the net yet (or periodicals)? I haven't seen anything in my "Free Inquiry" or "Skeptical Inquirer" issues yet that I remember. I expect that like many previous claims of "irrefutable proof" that this latest one will be found lacking under closer examination. I enjoy your work immensely and raise a glass to your continued success.
William Buttrey
Internet Infidels Response:
Hector Avalos, the head of our Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, is writing a rebuttal of The Bible Code for the Fall issue of Free Inquiry - he's fluent in Hebrew, so it should be a good job!
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
Does not the failure of Biosphere II cause you evolutionists to reconsider your position. Every event that happened there indicated that every system must be in balance and created at one time for anything to work. The need for pollinating insects, birds, et al denies an evolutionary scenario for fauna to exist any period of time with out the necessary pollinators.
Dr. William M. Curtis Thursday, July 31, 1997 at 14:54:12 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
I found Mr. Kingswood feedback of 6/28/97 particularly amusing. But after a while you get tired of hearing the same old worthless crap, wondering why these people actually think they have introduced some new, convincing argument.
But most of all was the line: "...The bottom line is,...,all the miracles and evidence in the world will not change the mind of someone whose heart has been hardened by God...". Hmmmm. So judgement day defense will be: "God made me do it! so he can't send me to hell!".
Anyway, I find it particularly interesting that the quantity of real/verifiable miracles is inversely proportional to our body of scientific knowledge.
Michael Koller Thursday, July 31, 1997 at 12:15:15 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
I realize that my posting to the II discussion group (Guidance on Krishna and Constantine, June 25, 1997) was neither humorous nor provocative, and so I am not too suprised that it generated no response. Nevertheless, my need is real and I cannot help but think that among the experts that maintain your site there must be one who could offer me guidance.
My posting read: "I have read several documents (some found on this Infidels site)that claim correspondences between Christian legends and previously existing myths of Persian, Egyptian, and Indian origins. Several cite Graves' `16 Crucified Saviors' and/or various works by Alvin Boyd Kuhn, but these were written long ago, without benefit of modern research and scholarship. Can anyone guide me to modern-day, professionally respected sources for authentication of these Christian/`pagan' correspondences? For example: Where, if anywhere, in Hindu literature is it written that Krishna was crucified between two theives, as claimed by Graves? Also, I am seeking recommendations for the best book(s) to read the true history of Emporer Constantine's role in the development of Christianity." Please respond to this plea, even if only to say that you can't help me.
Miles Thursday, July 31, 1997 at 11:30:14 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Many thanks for a comprehensive web site... Nice going!
Robert M. Seltzer Thursday, July 31, 1997 at 06:46:29 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/electronic/discussion/
The "Open Forum" and "Evolution" discussion boards are really interesting places to visit, but is it necessary that *all* the messages ever posted have to be read everytime you visit? Isn't there a neater way to call up documents, like the way Deja News used to give you the option of reading "the last 1,2,3,...n days news" from any particular newsgroup? As things stand now, I have to wait ages till all the 120-odd pages of posts are read by Lynx. This eats into the computer time I get and also wastes a lot of money. May I request that the format of accessing the discussion pages should be changed to allow people like me to retrieve posts according to dates or according to threads that they are interested in?
Pundit Amit Wednesday, July 30, 1997 at 22:45:20 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
I appreciate your request, unfortunately the status quo is the best we can do at the present time.
Apologetically,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/voltaire/candide.html
RE: Candide Translation/Your Candide translation includes a 1759 date; can I assume that this version is a translation of the original text and is therefore in the public domain?
Carolyne Hultgren Wednesday, July 30, 1997 at 13:25:26 (MDT)
Thank you for this forum. Very interesting. There is a forum running on CNN message board right now about religion, perseuction, etc. Some of you might want to contribute. Or site this message board. I'm new on the web, and haven't figured out how to do that yet.
river g Wednesday, July 30, 1997 at 07:52:30 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/unknown/dark_bible/index.html
This page demonstates the close mindedness, bigotry, hatred and fear that secularists feel towards people of faith. There is little else but downing those who have something by those who do not.
The greatest mega murders in history were atheistic secularists. Yes one was a facist and another was a communist but both were avid haters of Christians and Jews.
You may respond that Hitler was in cahoots with various religious leaders. While this is true it reveals your igorance and bias. If you take the time to read Allan Bullock's "Hitler a Study in Tyranny" you'd see that he hated sincere religious zealotes and that he used political religious leaders like pawns.
Oh, I suppose that you feel there is no difference. Hitler did though. He realized that those who really had a religious experience were worthless to him. Because they would never follow him no matter what. They would never worship him no matter what.
There will be another Hitler. And people who believe the nonsence on pages like this one will worship him and they will be very sorry.
Rev Randall S Johnson Tuesday, July 29, 1997 at 22:17:53 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Rev Johnson and I had an extended e-mail conversation, in which every message he would send me was filled with personal attacks based on an anti-atheist stereotypes. I think it is unfortunate that some people have to stoop to that level when communicating with people they disagree with.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
I was recently in one of the Chat rooms and met a Guy who said that
His professer debated the "Internet Infidels" and that "They
lost so bad that they refused to pay for the Guys Hotel Room" I would
very much like to see the Trascripts of that Debate. The Professer's Name
was Bill Craig. I really want to set this guy straight. Hope to hear a
responce soon. Please with hold my E-Mail Address. Thanks
And Hey Please Post this to set anyone else Straight that might enquire
into this
[snip]
USA - Tuesday, July 29, 1997 at 20:09:13 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
This is referring to a 1996 debate on the existence of God between William Lane Craig and atheist philosopher Quentin Smith, co-sponsored by Internet Infidels. It's been so long since this rumor was floating around I must admit that I have forgotten all of the details. But I do remember that there was a misunderstanding somehow and that even Craig agreed that this rumor was false. Smith's expenses were paid.
Unfortunately, there is no transcript of that debate. Craig blocked the Internet Infidels from transcribing that particular debate. (In fairness to Craig, however, I should point out that he has allowed publication of his debates with Corey Washington and Doug Jesseph.)
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Best wishes,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/fernandes-martin/fernandes3.html
I have two main quarrels with Fernandes' third response: He has still never addressed the criticism that his arguments could as well prove deism, polytheism, etc. Has he not read Martin's _The Gap in Theistic Arguments_?
Second, his points 4 and 5 (The possibility of human knowledge and the reality of universal, unchanging truths) seem to lead to a circularity of argument: Fernandes seems to maintain that experience and reason together furnish reason to believe in god, but that experience and reason can only be dependable if God exists. I imagined that theists who wish to prove God logically or by reference to human experience must have their own arguments that rationality and experience are trustworthy apart from God, thus this point need not be disputed with an atheist.
I hope I do not misunderstand Fernandes', and/or that he will address these concerns before the end of the debate.
Jeff Epler Monday, July 28, 1997 at 13:12:09 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/logic.html
I highly recommend this book to be added to your Bookstore Logic page: How We Know What Isn't So : The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life by Thomas Gilovich
Stephen Daniels Sunday, July 27, 1997 at 18:18:19 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Done. Thank you for the suggestion.
This feedback was in reply to http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/stinketh.html
Why, oh why, did you post another tiresome diatribe by the pugnacious anti-apologist Robert Price ("By This Time He Stinketh")? Although an agnostic, and no great admirer of the defenders of evangelical Christianity, I have long since grown weary of his mindless screeds. Although only attacking the "strawiest" of strawmen of a resurrection apologetic, Price seems to think that he is bringing the whole of Christian theism crashing down around his ears with every tendentious sentence.
You are free to reply to this, Mr. Price; I am pretty sure what you will say. "Well, what can such a desperately dogmatic group of mush-purveyors expect? They brought it upon themselves with such poor arguments." Perhaps, perhaps, but it would be better (and a little bit more tolerable) if the rebuttal were accomplished with less expenditure of bile. Your case, if cogent, would still speak for itself.
Andy S. May Saturday, July 26, 1997 at 18:24:05 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
I won't defend Price's tone in that paper, however I strongly disagree with your presupposition that Craig is a straw man. Just because Craig may not be YOUR favorite apologist does not mean that he is a weak representative of Christian apologetics. I personally think he ranks among the top of Christian apologists. That doesn't mean I agree with him, but I do nonetheless consider him one of the best I have ever seen.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/new.html
I recently visited a home where a couple had a boy, six years old, on life support because he has no brain. He has the stem, so vital functions may still be performed with some aid, but essentially, he is not alive. Would religious people consider him to have a soul? This is the starting point of an interesting conversation with a pious individual, bringing into effect many principles of religion and faith.
Ernie Fallback Saturday, July 26, 1997 at 13:10:56 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/george_smith/defending.html
I think that Mr. Smiths comments were wonderfully stated. I myself have been an atheist formany long years in a town that is ruled by religion. Mr. Smiths defenses for athiesim are everyting I've bee wanting to tell tese people for years but never knew how to say correctly.A big thank you to Mr. Smith for a great speech on how to defend atheism
michael holt Friday, July 25, 1997 at 23:01:18 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
Have you ever heard of Francis A. Scheaffer? Have you ever tried to answer his system (or world-view). Do you see any major flaw in his arguments?
If there is any article dealing with this, I'd like to read it.
Pierre Menard Friday, July 25, 1997 at 15:37:43 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
I have read "He Is There and He Is Not Silent" by Scheaffer, but why don't you post a specific argument that you liked and then we can discuss it.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/
There seems to be a minor error on page 22 of "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled," where you confuse Jeconiah with his father Jehoiakim. See, for example, Jer 22:24. "Jeconiah" is another name for "Jehoiachin."
Eric Weinberger Friday, July 25, 1997 at 05:54:12 (MDT)
"Now concerning things offerred to idols: we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by him." (1 Corinthians 8:1-2)
Is knowledge the source of all "good" for us? Does knowledge precede happiness/joy/love? Or is true knowledge attained by means of another course? Must one love first to have true knowledge? And must one have knowledge to be truly free? Or is it the other way around? Must one be free first, to then love, to then have knowledge?
Does knowledge impede us from experiencing true happiness?
I have heard and read a lot of atheists saying that they have enough "knowledge" to be able to emphatically deny the existence of Yahweh and the claims of the Bible - and on what grounds do they judge the quality of their wisdom?
David Court
CAN - Thursday, July 24, 1997 at 19:43:28 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
First of all, many people who claim to be atheists do not deny the existence of God, they simply lack belief in the existence of God. The former entails believing that God does not exist, while the latter entails not believing that God does exist. See the Atheism Web's article, "More on definitions" for a detailed explanation.
But let's suppose that this definition of atheism is false, and that atheism means the positive belief that there is no God. Even on that definition of atheism, the atheist is not committed to believing that knowledge is the source of all good.
Many arguments for atheism are available in the Atheism section of the Modern Library on the Secular Web.
Regards,
"Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge - by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith." (1 Timothy 6:20)
Who is Paul referring to in this passage?
David Court
CAN - Thursday, July 24, 1997 at 19:21:48 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
"A major function of fundamentalist religion is to
bolster deeply insecure and fearful people. This is done by justifying a
way of life with all of its defining prejudices. It thereby provides an
appropriate and legitimate outlet for one's anger. The authority of an
inerrant Bible that can be readily quoted to buttress this point of view
becomes an essential ingredient to such a life. When that Bible is
challenged, or relativized, the resulting anger proves the point
categorically."
Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing
the Bible From Fundamentalism, (San Fransisco: Harper Collins,
1991), p. 5.
Who is Bishop Spong referring to in this passage? ;-)
The problem with your question, and my tongue-in-cheek reply, is that both questions presuppose that the Christian and the freethinker share some common ground which in fact they do not. In the case of your question, it is the inerrancy of the Bible; in the case of my question, it is the authority of Bishop Spong. But just as you do not consider Spong particularly authoritative, I don't consider the Bible inerrant. And asking questions like, "But what if I'm right?" is besides the point, because I could always come back with, "But what if I'm right? The point is that for either of us to try to convince each other, we've got to find some sort of logical or epistemological common ground. Otherwise we can simply dismiss each other on the basis of our presuppositions.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/2/2arch96.html
I don't have a comment, just an inquiry. I am looking for a source of information about archaeological publications that might have information that can be accessed on the web validating (with an Egyptian archaeological source) Moses and the Jews being in Egypt and/or the Exodus and the events reported in the Bible. Could you recommend a souce for such information, if it exists?
Dennis Crawford Thursday, July 24, 1997 at 18:40:31 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/may.html
Couple of things
1. Any room for libertarian/republicans in your little world? I say
this with jest because I do understand the whole "free thinking"
spiel. By experience, however, I do understand human nature and have found
that there are many in AHA and the secular world who confront conservative
ideas as "right-wing", "racist", "cruel",
"heartless", etc. for the sole reason that the solutions to many
of the world's problems do not follow what many would call the "liberal"
line. I certainly don't mean to bring a political referendum to the table
but I have attended "free thinking" meetings and have felt as
isolated as had I walked into a Souther Baptist convention. It is human
nature to scorn those who are of different ilk and thought. I hope my future
run-ins with such organization and meetings of the minds will be better
experiences. I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.
2. Do your recommend any good refutations or serious critiques of the "Bible
Code" or this whole work skip phenomenon. I have been told by some
of my fundamentalist friends that this proves the "signature of God"
upon the bible/torah. While my understanding of statistics is admirable,
I'd like to read something that has completely analyzed these assertions.
Any thoughts?
Thanks for your service...I love this stuff!
Jason Goodbody Thursday, July 24, 1997 at 15:42:27 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
1. Yes, absolutely there is room for libertarians AND republicans here. Atheism, agnosticism, and freethought do NOT entail any political or economic viewpoints.
2. The fall issue of Free Inquiry will have a review or rebuttal of the Bible Code.
Hope this helps. Take care!
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
Re :James Dobson- Sounds like you have the "Inner Rage." It looks like you cannot tolerate anyone who is not of your thinking.
G.Ranallo Thursday, July 24, 1997 at 12:34:42 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Actually, we not only "tolerate anyone who is not of [our] thinking," but we publish their feedback messages as well. I can't say the same about James Dobson or Focus on the Family, though. (Just try to find one negative letter or post anywhere on the Focus web site. You can't -- it doesn't exist.) Indeed, last night I attended a speech by former Focus on the Family co-founder and Senior Vice President Gil Alexander-Moegerle, author of James Dobson's War on America. At the speech I learned that, in response to Alexander-Moegerle's allegations that Dobson has racist tendencies, Dobson sent a letter to all of the African American pastors in the Colorado area, urging them to avoid Alexander-Moegerle's presentations. Now which is the more tolerant approach? Trying to subject one's beliefs to critical examination (Gil Alexander-Moegerle), or asking others to avoid listening to the other side (James Dobson)? I think it is pretty clear who is not being tolerant, and that person is not Gil Alexander-Moegerle.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/luther_burbank/
Thanks for the great site on Luther Burbank. I did not know some of these things, and am amazed at how similar in temperament he and my grandmother were. I have the complete set of his experiments if anyone would like to enquire.
LAurence Burbank Budd Thursday, July 24, 1997 at 11:22:48 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/luther_burbank/
Hello to all, My name is Lacy Budd Burnette and I am a descendant of Luther Burbank. My grandmother was Mae Burbank Budd, and I was named after her mother, Celeste Lacy Burbank. I'm told she was a cousin of Luther's although my brother has investigated our geneology more throughly than I. I am learning more about him, and would be interested in hearing from any of you.
Lacy Budd Burnette Wednesday, July 23, 1997 at 21:36:54 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/
I am convinced that the alleged quote of the Saudi religious authority, to the effect that "the earth is flat," is bogus. I recall reading this in one of the national newsweeklies, but there he did not say that the earth is flat -- instead he denied the Copernican theory. Other Saudi religious figures promptly jumped in to contradict him. If you are to have a credible website, you must give sources for your assertions. Here you do not give a source, and in fact the quotation is at odds with my own memory. On another issue, on some of the feedback the internet infidels complain that the backfeeders :-) do not give citatations and closely reasoned arguments. This sounds like a reasonable complaint, but the fact is that your feedback form does not have enough room for closely reasoned, documented rebuttals of complicated arguments. It's one thing to say "Prove us wrong" and quite another to say "Prove us wrong in 200 words or less"!
Bret Jolly Wednesday, July 23, 1997 at 20:45:10 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Well, for what it is worth, the Quotes File has been completely revamped. That doesn't mean I believe the quotation was inaccurate, but it does mean that all unverified quotations have been removed, and several new quotations added.
P.S. We do allow more than 200 words in a feedback message. Perhaps your browser is not displaying the form correctly?
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
UNLIKE THE BIBLE, THE QUARAN (the Muslim holy book) CONTAINS NO DISCREPENCIES. That is because, unlike the Bible, it remains word for word, letter for letter, exactly in its original form as revealved from God (whereas the Bible was originally the word of God, but corrupted advertantly and inadvertanly by man). In fact the Quran even challenges humans to try to find discrepencies in it! "Do they not then meditate on the Quran? If were written from any other than God, they would have found in there much discrenpency" (4:82). The Quran also challenges humans in other ways to prove it is God's wor word.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and in America (despite all the negative publicity); most converts will tell you that it was that they were absolutely convinced that the Quaran was the word of God which lead to their conversion. Perhaps Mr. Morgan should study seriously study the Quran.
Mahmood Mohamed Wednesday, July 23, 1997 at 09:43:08 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
It's nice to hear from a non-Christian theist for a change! I appreciate your question very much.
The burden of proof is always on the person who is making the claims. If you want to claim that the Koran is the Word of God, then you must show that it is. Whether non-Muslims have been able to demonstrate any contradictions in the Koran is besides the point.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/heaven.html
Michael Martin writes great essays. Whenever a new one appears, it's like Christmas to me. (You know, that one holiday in December? I'm sure you've heard of it)
Jeff Epler Wednesday, July 23, 1997 at 08:57:55 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/feedback.html
I have just stayed up all night reading through the Jury website, so
forgive me if my prose is not as coherent as it might otherwise be. I am
very grateful for the amount of work that obviously went into putting the
site together and for the most part am impressed with the results (indeed
I could not stop myself from laughing heartily in assent at various points
in my reading). I began a similar project several years ago aimed at fundamentalist
dogma in general, as I understood (and understand) it. I was raised in
a fundamentalist family, and have from time to time been prompted to justify
my present (decidedly non-Christian) agnosticism. However I eventually
lost enthusiasm for the tedious documentation of case after case after
case of biblical inconsistency, failed prophecies, etc, never mind the
difficulty of discussing the material with a real, live fundamentalist,
and stopped working on it. So I was very relieved to discover that I am
not the only agnostic willing to pay any attention whatsoever to "scholars"
such as McDowell, whom I cannot simply ignore because people close to me
take him seriously.
With respect to the Jury page(s), I have only minor criticisms to voice.
For one, the writers of the Jury pages sometimes make appeals to the authority
of other scholars, while deriding McDowell for the same fallacy. I understand
that a full discussion of every substantive issue raised would be extraordinarily
tedious and volumnuous (SP?). Nevertheless, I have to admit that at times
(most notably in the section on OT prophecies) the writing begins to seem
like a barrage of hastily dispatched pronouncements which overlooks obvious
(though easily dealt with) fundamentalist objections.
For instance, prophetic designations of a future king are dismissed simply
by saying that "Jesus was not/never a king." Every fundamentalist
that I know (and I know quite a few) would immediately object that the
OT jews misunderstood the nature of the messiah, and that anyway Jesus'
literal reign is to occur after the second coming. Obviously, early christians'
belief in a future reign of Jesus has no bearing on whether Jesus (has)
fulfill-ED OT prophecies. But I think it would be a good idea to point
that out up front in the prophecy section.
Incidentally, I considered my own study of OT prophecy to be one of my
stronger sections. I concentrated on the fact that prophecies concerning
the Branch / "annointed" Davidic king follow a consistent outline,
as follows: Israel's sin - punishment by captivity - new king - eternal
kingdom; that they are explicitly connected with the Assyrian and Babylonian
conquests of Isreal; that this king will reverse those specific calamities;
and that the resulting happy situation will last forever. I would be happy
to dust my work off if it would be of any interest or use to the creators
of the Jury website.
As a final suggestion, I think it might do well to offer fundamentalists
some way of beginning to admit the validity of textual or form (or other
types of) criticism of biblical texts. The substantial concensus of contemporary
scholarship is, I think, of little use in this regard.
For instance, take the gospels. You have an agreed fact that, in various
combinations, the synoptics share a substantial amount of identical or
very close wording. I have never heard it pointed out in clear language
(no doubt because it seems so obvious) that several people independently
writing eyewitness accounts of the same event are extremely unlikely to
use such similar wording, even if they agree on a lot of details. This
duplication of wording (and not just of general substance or themes) does
not seem to reccommend the hypothesis that the authors were independent
eyewitnesses. Rather, it reccommends the hypothesis that the writers were
editorially active but nevertheless fairly faithful compilers of earlier
material.
Well, I'm probably over 3K by now so I better shut up. Good work and thanks.
David Saber Wednesday, July 23, 1997 at 05:36:57 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
I am teaching a Sunday School class on the existence of God. As a part
of this I wanted to share other explanations for origins. Rather, than
say what I think atheists believe about this, I thought it would be better
to expose people to first-hand information. I would appreciate anything
you could email me that you believe would fairly represent the broad view
of atheists.
I will forward the information to the students of the class as you send
it to me. I of course will free to share my views; however, students will
be exposed directly and openly to the other views.
It is my deeply held belief that if the Christian view is right there is
nothing to fear from an open and honest inspection of opposing views. If
it isn't right -- then I don't want to believe it.
I would appreciate any help you could give.
Mike Walbert Tuesday, July 22, 1997 at 22:00:12 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/faq.html#focus
This website is a great service to the people. I have experienced directly
the fear and condemnation that most organized religion creates. There are
a lot of sick people out there who claim to act in bazarre ways because
"God" has commanded them to do so. The Internet Infidels Web
site is truly a source of light and hope in an ignorant and superstitous
society.
Keep up the great work!
Jerry Phillips Tuesday, July 22, 1997 at 20:24:24 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1996/
I am a blossoming philosopher, and a very good debator, and I challange many theologians on the internet. Please send me more inoftmation about your organization. Perhaps I could be of some assistance. Thank you.
Spencer Grant Tuesday, July 22, 1997 at 19:37:01 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/
I HAVE BECOME A SELF MADE EXPERT IN THE SUBJECT OF "SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" AND I FIND THAT THERE IS MANY THINGS ABOUT THE FIRST AMEND. OF THE FED. CONST. THAT NOBODY AT ALL SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND. I HAVE MADE CHARTS AND VISUAL DEPICTIONS TO CONVEY MY OPINIONS, AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SOMEONE WITH SIMILAR INTERESTS TO DISCUSS THIS INFORMATION WITH TO SEE IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE USEFUL IN OUR SECULAR EFFORTS. I HAVE BECOME "VERY" FAMILIAR WITH THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON AND JAMES MADISON, AND THE EVENTS IN VIRGINIA, AND IF GIVEN THE CHANCE, I COULD OUTLINE THE DETAILS OF WHAT EXACTLY A "CHURCH STATE" IS, AND THUSLY WHAT "SEPERATION OF CHURH AND STATE" IS. I HAVE SELF STUDIED THE CHARTERS AND CONSTITUTIONS OF ALL 13 ORIGINAL STATES AND CAN IN GREAT DETAIL EXPLAIN THE PLACE OF THE CHURCH IN RELATION TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT. PLEASE CONTACT ME WITH (OR SOMEONE OF INTEREST) AND INTEREST TO KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT IM TALKING ABOUT. I HAVE A VOICE AND AN OPINION AND I CAN FIND NOBODY OPEN TO EXCHANGE IDEAS AND THOUGHTS. I HAVE CONSTRUCTED A VIDEO OF THIS INFORMATION TOO. DO YOU WANT IT?
TONY MESSINA Tuesday, July 22, 1997 at 19:09:49 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/discussion/young/
I really like this page but I would like to offer one improvement. When
the lists get really big it takes a long time to load. You might want to
divide the page up by topic (or some other criterian) so that you can load
the page in pieces thus improving the load time.
Spencer Monday, July 21, 1997 at 19:56:47 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html
You are obvisouly a miserable, little, insignicant person. Who represents everything that is wrong with the world today. I hope you burn in hell in total agony for commments about the greatest man to ever walk the earth. May God have mercy on your soul.
James McFarlane Monday, July 21, 1997 at 13:09:31 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
Once again, a glowing example of the superior morality of Christians (not to mention their wondrous capacity for coherent thought: "I hope you burn in hell in total agony" + "May God have mercy on your soul"?)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/june.html
Thank you for a very thoughtful and informative website. I especially enjoyed the essay about coming out as an atheist, as I have experienced this problem first-hand (as I'm sure we all have). I have lost quite a few "friends" when my convictions have become known. However, one of the best friends I have is a christian woman who got to know me before she found out that I am an atheist. We have some very interesting discussions about her religion and I believe that I have made some some headway into helping her recognize irrationality. As for my family, they pretty much ignore the fact that I'm an atheist. My wife is a Roman Catholic who has no problems with my stand on religion and this causes no marital difficulties as we are both adults who recognize an individuals rights to his own beliefs (and that there are some things just better not discussed in certain situations). What I want to say is that there is hope for atheists. As a group, it is much better to "come out" because if we don't support truth then we are no better than them. Thanks again for this website. I welcome e-mail
Todd Miller Monday, July 21, 1997 at 13:01:49 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/creation-evolution.html
I think that this is a great service.
Russ Johnson Monday, July 21, 1997 at 12:52:25 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/
under the theism section there are some references about christianity, islam and mormonism, but i could not see anything regarding judaism. is there anything wrong with judaism?
yalcin yavuz
USA - Monday, July 21, 1997 at 10:23:55 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.html
Have you so little faith in your own argument that personal attacks adds truth? a simple 'Mr. Mcdowell, I believe you are mistaken' would work- then state the facts. Neither side of this argument is removed from reporting thier conclusion without opinion toward their cause.
One point where I believe you are mistaken is whether the crimes charged to JESUS called for capital punishment in Roman law at that time. Thomas Jefferson, writing to his friend Peter Carr, he states (in reference to Jesus) "who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them,& was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the Roman law which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, & the second by exile or death (in furca). See this law in the Digest lib.48. tit.19.S. 28 3.& Lipsius Lib."
While I enjoy reviewing all reports on this subject, it makes better reading without an abusive tone.
Jeff Lane Sunday, July 20, 1997 at 20:37:23 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Did you ever consider the possibility that the New Testament report of Jesus' crucifixion is not historical? Or are you just assuming that it must be true?
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/add_url.html
I accidently found your site while surfing the search engines. I enjoyed the articles and wanted to leave a note for you. Guilt is a crime! Everyone should be able to enjoy being alive without constant worry about punishment. I do however, believe in "doing unto others as I would have them do to me". Is that religeous, or just being a caring human?
Christy Cole Sunday, July 20, 1997 at 20:01:34 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
Whether or not adherence to a moral code makes you religious depends upon what you mean by the word "religion." If you believe that religion necessarily includes belief in God or the supernatural, then having moral standards does not make you religious. If you believe that religion is just strong devotion to something, then being strongly devoted to certain moral principles does make you religious - but even so, there would still be a great difference between you and people who follow traditional, supernaturalistic religions.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/unknown/dark_bible/index.html
Thanks for an interesting page(Dark Bible). It is a truism that many Christians share with atheists warped views about what the Bible is really saying in key passages. I certainly agree that many horrific acts have been committed in the name of Christianity. But it is also true that God predicted that many of the wise (those that hate God) would be fools, and many of the fools ( those that love God ) would be wise. My webpage (#681 The Net Atheists) will give data about Christian beliefs, and you will be surprised how many times the Bible is not understood properly, not only by Atheists but by Christians as well. I hope to be able to use the Dark Bible as an excellent example of this, but the writings of most Christian authors would serve almost as well.
Bob B.
USA - Sunday, July 20, 1997 at 19:58:50 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
I too was disappointed with the Dark Bible. This may surprise some of my readers, but I had never even read the thing until a couple of weeks ago. I can assure you that it would not have been posted on the Secular Web if it had been submitted to me. (The document has been on the Secular Web for at least a couple of years.) After discussing it with my Board of Directors, we have voted to remove the Dark Bible from the Secular Web. It is simply poor scholarship, and we regret endorsing it by having published it on our server.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/events/speeches/
I HAVE BEEN AN ACTIVE OPEN ATHEIST FOR OVER 35 YEARS. I DO NOT PROSELYTISE BUT I ALSO DO NOT RUN AWAY FROM CONFRONTATION. MY WIFE IS ALSO A STAUNCH ATHEIST. WE ARE BOTH WELL LIKED AND RESPECTED IN OUR COMMUNITY.
TIMOTHY J. O'BRIEN Saturday, July 19, 1997 at 21:25:00 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/june.html
Fantastic page! Kinda embarrased at the readership to find that all
discussion is focused on christianity vs. god-lessness. By 1997, I expected
people to have discovered the existance of others faiths!! And yes, just
faiths: no proofs, no promises (none that can be held up in court anyway).
And also should the faith fail you that you are really up the proverbial
creek.
Having read much on many religions I have discovered that the only aspect
that all share that can be proven to exist is your conscience. If your
faiths helps you stay true to it then it is a good faith. If your faiths
makes you uncomfortable then adjust your faith. After all, the word 'hot'
does mean the same thing to you as it does to me so how can written scripture
(regardless of language, religion, etc.) mean the same to all?
Sunil Bhargava Saturday, July 19, 1997 at 21:13:46 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/church-state/decisions/
A key case that has been ommitted is:
U.S. Supreme Court
LYNCH v. DONNELLY, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)
465 U.S. 668
LYNCH, MAYOR OF PAWTUCKET, ET AL. v. DONNELLY, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 82-1256.
Argued October 4, 1983
Decided March 5, 1984
O'Connors concurring remarks in this are, I believe, key to both the cae
of judge Moore, and Governor Fob James, regarding the posting of the Ten
Commandments in judge Moore's court.
Richard C. Knocke Saturday, July 19, 1997 at 08:13:14 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
A year ago, I visited this site and was shocked by the nature of its
contents. I could never imagine being an atheist. Now I am getting enlightened
with every passing day. ( will this make a good conversion story on some
Atheist Channel ?somewhat along the lines of those religous Channels ?
TV is bad for kids)
Anyways, I loved your quotes file. I would like to gift the world with
the words of the greatest of African American slaves :
" I assert most unhesi-tatingly, that the religion of the south is
a mere covering for the most horrid crimes,--a justifier of the most appalling
barbarity,--a sanctifier of the most hateful frauds,--and a dark shelter
under, which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infer-nal deeds of
slaveholders find the strongest protec-tion. Were I to be again reduced
to the chains of slavery, next to that enslavement, I should regard being
the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall
me. For of all slaveholders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders
are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most
cruel and cowardly, of all oth-ers. It was my unhappy lot not only to belong
to a religious slaveholder, but to live in a community of such religionists.
"
- [The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass,An American Slave]
"The warm defender of the sacredness of the family re-lation is the
same that scatters whole families,--sun-dering husbands and wives, parents
and children,sisters and brothers,--leaving the hut vacant, and the hearth
desolate. We see the thief preaching against theft, and the adulterer against
adultery. We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the
gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the POOR HEATHEN! ALL FOR
THE GLORY OF GOD AND THE
GOOD OF SOULS! The slave auctioneer's bell and the church-going bell chime
in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are
drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion
and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison
and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling
of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church,
may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men
erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help
each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit,
and the pulpit, in return, covers his in-fernal business with the garb
of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other
--devils dressed in angels' robes, and hell presenting the semblance of
paradise.- [The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass An American
Slave]
They ( the religious ) are al-ways ready to sacrifice, but seldom to show
mercy. They are they who are represented as professing to love God whom
they have not seen, whilst they hate their brother whom they have seen.
They love the heathen on the other side of the globe. They can pray for
him, pay money to have the Bible put into his hand, and missionaries to
instruct him; while they despise and totally neglect the heathen at their
own doors. - [The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass An American
Slave]
A PARODY
"Come, saints and sinners, hear me tell
How pious priests whip Jack and Nell,
And women buy and children sell,
And preach all sinners down to hell,
And sing of heavenly union.
"They'll bleat and baa, dona like goats,
Gorge down black sheep, and strain at motes,
Array their backs in fine black coats,
Then seize their negroes by their throats,
And choke, for heavenly union.
"They'll church you if you sip a dram,
And damn you if you steal a lamb;
Yet rob old Tony, Doll, and Sam,
Of human rights, and bread and ham;
Kidnapper's heavenly union.
"They'll loudly talk of Christ's reward,
And bind his image with a cord,
And scold, and swing the lash abhorred,
And sell their brother in the Lord
To handcuffed heavenly union.
"They'll read and sing a sacred song,
And make a prayer both loud and long,
And teach the right and do the wrong,
Hailing the brother, sister throng,
With words of heavenly union.
"We wonder how such saints can sing,
Or praise the Lord upon the wing,
Who roar, and scold, and whip, and sting,
And to their slaves and mammon cling,
In guilty conscience union.
"They'll raise tobacco, corn, and rye,
And drive, and thieve, and cheat, and lie,
And lay up treasures in the sky,
By making switch and cowskin fly,
In hope of heavenly union.
"They'll crack old Tony on the skull,
And preach and roar like Bashan bull,
Or braying ass, of mischief full,
Then seize old Jacob by the wool,
And pull for heavenly union.
"A roaring, ranting, sleek man-thief,
Who lived on mutton, veal, and beef,
Yet never would afford relief
To needy, sable sons of grief,
Was big with heavenly union.
"'Love not the world,' the preacher said,
And winked his eye, and shook his head;
He seized on Tom, and Dick, and Ned,
Cut short their meat, and clothes, and bread,
Yet still loved heavenly union.
"Another preacher whining spoke
Of One whose heart for sinners broke:
He tied old Nanny to an oak,
And drew the blood at every stroke,
And prayed for heavenly union.
"Two others oped their iron jaws,
And waved their children-stealing paws;
There sat their children in gewgaws;
By stinting negroes' backs and maws,
They kept up heavenly union.
"All good from Jack another takes,
And entertains their flirts and rakes,
Who dress as sleek as glossy snakes,
And cram their mouths with sweetened cakes;
And this goes down for union."
[The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass An American Slave]
A. Shiraz Siddiqui Thursday, July 17, 1997 at 20:10:44 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
Well done on your discourses and your website. As an "Orthodox"
Christian, I find engaging and admittedly disquieting at the same time.
I suppose that, not unlike others of my bent, I seldom allow my "reasoning"
to be excercised and challenged by material from secular sources such as
yours. Time consumed in the existential and "psychologically gratifying"
activities of ministry often keep me from reexamining my "reasons"
for my faith. Intellectual activity seldom gets further than discussing
the differences found in various "evangelical" denominations.
Ironically, it was in preparation for a Missions Trip potentially involving
evangelism that I decided to shore up my apologetics and accidentally came
upon your rich resources of skepticism. I would say that my God works in
mysterious ways!
Why bother expressing my appreciation for your work? Well, for starters,
it keeps folks like me from being unjustifiably smug about our system of
beliefs, it keeps us open-minded to genuinely different perceptions, it
forces us to recognize our presuppositions, and it keeps us for "trusting"
in popular writers for our convictions. But, there are other reasons. For
the most part you practice what you preach -- both in being intellectually
honest and in observing "rules" of I Peter 3:15. You are also
fair in extending links to rebuttals and books such as the recent work
by Mr. W. L. Craig. You've actually extended my list of "to be read"
titles! My only criticism of Mr. Lawder's "presentations" is
that in responding to irritated Christians, the careful delineation of
what is being criticized in offered. I sense this clarification lacking
in the (published) responses to the more vitrolic inputs of non-christians.
Perhaps that betrays unregistered ambitions. I also found Mr. Price's earlier
work on Evangelical "Maturity" thought-provoking -- I believe
I found that in association with your site as well. I do regrettably detect
that he's departed his "viewpoint" a bit since he wrote that
document.
Thus said, I'll share with you that I'll continue in the mode of considering
the viewpoints and defending the defense for the forseeable future. Circumstances
have prevented me from pursuing studies at seminary to date. Perhaps at
that future point I will embark on the quest only for truth. For now, the
chief constraint of my endeavors will remain "to the glory of God,"
and I'll hold that truth will be one of the attributes of God. Out of curiousity,
do you sometimes find yourself showing a deferrence to truth almost as
if it were a metaphysical entity? I'm sure you're well acquainted with
the Christian sects that seemingly hold faith in such esteem.
I've bookmarked your site and will continue to check in every so often.
Keep up the quality work.
P.S. please disregard my earlier submittal if it made it's way through.
I accidentally interuppted myself as I went to check the scriptural reference!
Stephen K. Leung
USA - Thursday, July 17, 1997 at 15:17:52 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_obrien/gentle/atheism1.html
I really like your homepage, the same has been for me, I started becoming a godless person at about 14, I was a raised Catholic then just couldn't believe in that stuff anymore. I hang out with alot of Atheists and excestentialists I want to know if Atheism has a symbol as does Christianity? I heard that it was a pentagram missing one of the lines but I am not so sure. I really like your homepage great information. Keep it up.
Scott Signorino Thursday, July 17, 1997 at 05:41:59 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/new.html
This was my first visit to the site (I'll be back). Just wanted to pass on the title of an excellent book, "Hamlets Mill" by von Horgath and DeSantillana. It's an attempt to rediscover the meanings of the code images in mythology and reveals that religion is a corruption of an archaeic technical jargon for astronomy. It is not a fast read, but is well worth the effort. Unfortunatly, the book is currently out of print.
Daniel R. Pyron Tuesday, July 15, 1997 at 10:03:40 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ibn_al-rawandi/review.html
I have some questions about the following statement written in this
web page.
....Islam was spread by the sword and has been maintained by the sword
throughout its history, not to mention the scourge and the cross. In truth
it was the Arab empire that was spread by the sword and it is as an Arab
empire that Islam is maintained to this day.......
First, if Islam is spread and maintained by the sword, how did non-Arab
countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia develop a majority muslim population?
Second, wasn't the Arab empire actually the Ottoman empire, and isn't it
true that Turkic people are not Arab? Were all subjects of this empire
forced to call themselves muslims?
Third, do you include Iran in this "Arab" empire, and if you
do isn't an Iranian a non-arab?
Finally, what is the proper definition of a muslim? If someone believes
Jesus is not the son of God but a prohpet and that Mohammed is also a prophet
and that there is only one God, isn't that enough to call yourself a Muslim.
(Of course, many people may call you a good or a bad Muslim, but that is
an entirely different argument.)
Do you think it is possible that perhaps today many Islamic communities
are experiencing a form of "dark ages" and that Islam, if interpreted
and/or understood differently, could truly be an enlightining religion
that even a secular humanist could embrace?
What kind of change or impact do the Internet Infidels want to accomplish
on the mentality of muslim and non-muslim readers of this web site?
Thank you for opening dialogue on this subject, I look forward to your
answers.
evangaline arsenault Monday, July 14, 1997 at 15:35:59 (MDT)
Greetings Donald, Your Bible Absurdities is a rather large waste of disk space.
[snip]
Bob Kerstetter Monday, July 14, 1997 at 00:31:41 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
So was your feedback message. In the future, I suggest that if you wish to send feedback, you try writing constructive criticism instead of the arrogant diatribe you posted. Your audience will be much more receptive if you do.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/disclaimer.html
If the phrase "separation of church and state" is part of the constitution how come I can't find the words "seperation","church", or"state" anywhere in the constitution?
RMann1776 Sunday, July 13, 1997 at 11:22:12 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
"It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people.... [T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."
Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom (Beacon Press: Boston, 1967).
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap7.html
I'M CURIOUS, SINCE YOU DON'T BELIEVE JESUS CLAIMED TO BE GOD, WHY HE
WAS
put on the cross by the Romans at the request of the Jewish leaders. What
crime do you think he commited. What did they find him guilty of at his
trials. Why did the Romans put a sign above his head on the cross that
read, "King of the Jews" ?, a term that the Jewish people understood
as the Messiah. Why, during his trial, did a Jewish leader rip his clothes
when Jesus answered, "I AM" to the question of, "Are you
the Son of God?". "Son of God" being another term for the
Messiah among the Jewish people. If someone asked you if you know the president
of the United States and you answered, " If you've seen me, you have
seen the president ". Most people would understand that you are eluding
to the fact that YOU are the president. Jesus said, " If you've seen
me, you have seen the Father..I and the Father are one." Is there
a difference here between the statement you would make about being president
and the statement Jesus made? I could go on and on with references from
the Bible that are clear and obvious to anyone that has the slightest idea
of Jewish customs. You have to look at the customs and meanings of phrases
of the time, and that goes for ANY ancient writings or literature.
ULG Saturday, July 12, 1997 at 21:42:50 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html
To whom it may concern.
1PE 2:17 Fear
God.
1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love.
Fear? Look up the words in a good greek dictionary. You will see that one
means awe, while the other means frightened.
I checked out your site and these were the first two verses I looked at.
I instantly saw your error.
At that point I responded here, and now I am moving on. Your site id obviouslt
bogus.
thanks for your time.
Karl
USA - Saturday, July 12, 1997 at 20:12:41 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/feedback.html
A couple of books worth reading by you and all the other fee dback contributors to your web site are: Who moved the stone? by Frank Morrison and The Jesus I neve knew by Philip Yancy
G.Thiessen
USA - Saturday, July 12, 1997 at 13:59:30 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thank you for taking the time to recommend these books. I have read Morison's book -- criticized in Robert M. Price's Beyond Born Again -- and found it wanting. I have not, however, read Yancy's book. Perhaps you could submit a brief summary, highlighting sections which you think are especially applicable to the Internet Infidels' Secular Web?
I recommend that interested parties read Women Without Supersitition by Annie Laurie Gaylor and The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read edited by Tim Leedom.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1996/april.html
Great Job! In some parts of these United States, secular humanist information is not easy to come by. You make possible the acquisition of information from one's home that is not accessible anywhere else!
Richard Fielder Friday, July 11, 1997 at 19:51:24 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/change_of_command.html
A heartfelt thank you for being in my life! Excellent articles and a wealth of connections to freethinking people.
In particular, I wuld like to express my appreciation for the humour
links - a great rememdy for a woman still in recovery from a patriarchal
religiosity upbringing, and - as most of us - assaulted from all sides
by poisonous miasma of hypocritical christianity.
on webtv - I do not have a printer yet. Is
there a way of getting some things in print - for instance I enjoyed a
lot the CHANGE OF COMMAND - but the author's page cannot be accessed by
me from his article.
Just keep on doing what you're doing, and thanks to the Secular Web and
the Internet Infidels for being in my life!
izabel G. Friday, July 11, 1997 at 19:08:36 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/
Can you set up a link to a web-site (if any) that displays the Supreme
Court Decision that per mits tax deductions for church contributions? -
i.e., the Court does not consider this to be government supported religion.
I think this decision was rendered back in the latter part of the 60's,
but I'm not sure what the case was.
G Beauchamp Friday, July 11, 1997 at 16:03:21 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/rrr/
This is really a question which I have about a debate I heard on tapebetween
Dr. Gordon Stein (Atheist) and a Dr. Greg Bahnsen (Christian) at U of Cal.,
Irvine. I was wondering if anybody here could help me get a hold of Dr.
Stein? I wanted to know if he was still the president of The Freedom From
Religion Foundation. I also wanted to know if the University of California
debate team had a subsequent winner?
Roberto Corral Jr. Friday, July 11, 1997 at 15:13:57 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
At the risk of offending some of my fellow atheists, I think Bahnsen was the winner of the debate. Of course, winning a debate and having good arguments are totally separate things. I think Bahnsen's Transcendental Argument is poor (see the Martin-Frame Debate for criticisms of the Transcendental Argument), but Stein's attempted refutation was even worse, so I am forced to vote for Bahnsen as the winner of the debate.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
I am very impressed by the sheer amount and variety of information on
your site. Each time that I stop by I discover more and more information.
Although I am not an atheist in the traditional sense, I am pleased that
so many atheist sites are showing up. I hope that you will continue to
help others step away from the crutch of religion.
My only problem with atheism is the seeming lack of spirituality. I have
personally experienced certain events that are inexplicable (at least according
to current science). Things such as Telepathy, telekenesis, automatic writing,
reiki, and "energy" t ransfer. These things are inaccurately
named, however, they do occur. Because I experienced (personally, firsthand)
these situations, I accept them as real. What is the "Atheist"
stance on such things?
Sarah Ferraro
USA - Friday, July 11, 1997 at 13:19:30 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
Atheism is a skeptical stance on the existence of god(s). As such, it really does not have anything to say about the paranormal (or even about non-deity supernatural beings). Since many atheists (and probably most atheist activists) are skeptics about all things paranormal and supernatural, atheism is often conflated with skepticism. But in reality, one could consistently be an atheist and believe in telepathic, Chi-utilizing elves on the far side of Uranus that emigrated from Atlantis in flying saucers during the early 1950s, as long as one denies the existence of any god.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/agnostic.html
Add Bertrand Russell's WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN to the Amazon.com book list.
Harold Fair Thursday, July 10, 1997 at 19:38:05 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Done. Thank you for the suggestion.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/./library/modern/the_fool/
Who wrote "The Fool" book reviews?
I am currently writing a rebuttal to McDowell's chapter 12 of EVIDENCE,
and since McDowell mentioned the historian, Latourette, and since that
same historian was mentioned by "The Fool" in the following paragraph,
I wonder if I might gain some further insight into McDowell's habits of
miscitation by speaking with "The Fool." The exact paragraph
regarding McDowell's use of quotations from Latourette, appears below:
"An example of the faulty use of quotations inc ludes the Latourette
quote on pages 68 and 69. It is not from "A History of Christianity,
1937 Vol I" (which as far as the Fool knows does not exist as this
title) but from page 59 of a History of Christianity, published in 1953.
This would be written off as a small clerical error except for the fact
that the intent of neither Latorette's The First Five Centuries, 1937,
p. 59 nor the 1953 History of Christianity chapter that contains McDowell's
quotation confirm the narrow hypothesis that McDowell is trying to prove."
Edward Babinski Thursday, July 10, 1997 at 14:11:29 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html
I read some of your statements on why Jesus is a myth and you continually
say it is an assumption becuase there is nothing to look at to prove it.
After being in the brethren how could you say that. You know the bible
is where we got are information about God and his son Jesus Christ. It
does not refer to him in any other way than one human being who was God's
son.
If you would like to discuss this further I can prove it to you through
the scriptures that God is real not because I assume so but because I know.
Bobby Thomas Thursday, July 10, 1997 at 09:21:17 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/irc/
Just thought I would send you a brief update on Undernet #atheism. Elladan
has stepped down as channel manager and passe d the reigns to AltKey (
) so you should change the contact person in your entry.
ShaiHulud
USA - Wednesday, July 09, 1997 at 11:08:42 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html
I enjo yed your arguments concerning creationism. An argument I have
heard recently but did not see on your page concerns supernova remnants
(SNR). Accoriding to the creationist arguments, the standard scientific
models of supernovae predict that we should see thousands of remnants older
than 10000 years, but we see none. Therefore, the Universe is less than
10000 years old.
This argument is wrong for many reasons, but one is obvious. Massive stars
capable of exploding into supernovae take at least millions of years to
go through their lives before they can explode (and there is another type
of supernova where the star must age for billions of years). The creationists
argue that some SNR's are thousands of years old, but ignore the fact that
it took a star millions of years to explode. They imply that the stars
that exploded did so at the moment of Creation, so that by now we see SNR's
a few thousand years old. If God makes stars that explode as soon as He
created the Universe, why not make SNR's the same way? He could have created
them already looking as if they were 100,000 years old. The creationist
theory contains the seeds of its own destruction!
The creationist arguments can be found at the following URL: "Creation
Discovery Project - Super Nova Remnants" http://www.creation.on.ca/cdp/snrart.html
At some point I will write up a detailed counter argument and put it on
my Bad Astronomy page, where I discuss common misconceptions about astronomy:
http://www.patriot.net/users/badastro/bad.html
Also, two quick points about your Lunar Dust page: there are two typos.
One says that the amount of dust accumulating on the Earth is "3049
tons per day", when it shoudl read "30 - 49". No need to
have a typo bolster creationist arguments! Another typo says that 35 trillionths
of an ounce equals 109 grams; actually 1 ounce is 28 grams, so 3.5 x 10^(-11)
ounce is about 1 billionth of a gram.
Other than that your pages are well done. I am hesitant to dip into the
realm of debunking pseudoscience on my page, but if and when I do, I will
put in a link to yours. Keep up the good fight!
Phil Plait Wednesday, July 09, 1997 at 07:43:12 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/
I recall seeing a while ago somewhere in your pages (I can't recall) a request of sorts for material on Islam. I stumbled across an amazingly lucid criticism (considering the source) of the Koran. http://chick.com/information/quran.asp It gets nuts towards the end. What's really friggin' hilarious is when they begin to convenienly ignore the fact that many of their criticisms can be levelled at the bible. But the first half seems to me, the consummate non-expert, to be worth a look.
Ian Finnesey Wednesday, July 09, 1997 at 05:46:26 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/
I have recently read 'Life in our Anti-Christian America' and have a question. I am agnostic in perspective and I wonder how many unbelievers there are in this country?
Alexander Flynn
USA - Wednesday, July 09, 1997 at 00:16:33 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/gospel_john.html
I have found an excellent resource about the bible. It is usefu l in pointing ou the many fallacies that are apparently thought highly of by Christians in the present and in particular in the southern United States where I currently live. It is : Asimov's Guide to the Bible - Two Volumes in One [Covering both old and new testaments]. It is published by Wings Books and I had little difficulty purchasing it through Barnes and Noble. Isaac Asimov was born Jewish; however, I do not think he was a practicing jew. The point of view in the book is as objective about the bible as any reference that I have read.
Alexander Flynn
USA - Tuesday, July 08, 1997 at 23:04:23 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/
You should add the following to your list of atheists:
Katha Pollitt
Christopher Hitchens
Alexander Cockburn
Gore Vidal
Barbara Ehrenreich
Willaim Wittenborn Tuesday, July 08, 1997 at 22:04:54 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/
First, I would like to congratu late you for promoting scientific views
of the
world. So many people rely on religion alone to explain the universe, even
if the arguments given are so illogical. Thanks for countering the trend
of pseudo-science, astrologers and psychic hotlines!
Also, I would have an addition to make for the young-earth arguments :
#24 - How Long Did it Take to Salt the Oceans?
I have heard of a theory that the salt in the oceans stays constant because
of small bubbles of water which pop in the air. The water in these bubbles
evaporates very rapidly, and solid salt is left. The wind carries this
salt and redistributes it on the continents. Unfortunately I don't have
the reference (I saw this on television).
Janik Zikovsky Tuesday, July 08, 1997 at 17:49:44 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_haught/holywar.html
excellent article: "the great West Virginia holy war." As one who us ed to live in WV in the late 60's, I can believe it, but I didn't know about it until now. However, in other states the same battle is still going on, but not as violently (yet).
mary madis Monday, July 07, 1997 at 18:21:43 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/
It amazes me how many Christians write in to you and say how ridiculous internet infidels is for spending so much time blasting Christianity. The simple fact of the matter is that you guys have never bashed Christianity or Christians. You have always been gracious to those with differing opinions. It is quite hypocritical of the Christians to say you spend so much of your time on it, when Christian denominations of all stripes spend countless hours and money debunking and bashing other religious or spiritual beliefs such as the so called "New Age". They use words and tones that are less than gracious tha n internet infidels use. I sincerely hope that the Christian church as a whole "first casts out the beam out of it's own eye and then it shall see clearly to cast out the mote out of it's brother's eye" Hypocrisy comes in all shapes and sizes. Keep up the good work, you provide a valuable service.
David E. Castaldi Monday, July 07, 1997 at 17:11:40 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/
I LOVE your web page...i have it bookmarked and refer to it often...i'm in the military and i meet peopl e from all over. i get asked a lot of questions as an athiest and it's good to be able to refer myself or them to a place with a lot more information than i can offer or have time to do so. thanx again...one question;
when i was at Texas A&M the then president of the athiest agnostic student group wore a humanist medalion on a necklace....i've surfed the web looking for someone who sells them but have not found anything...any clues or suggestions on where i might look?
Mike Siem Sunday, July 06, 1997 at 21:37:10 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/
I am surprised by Craig's response to your request. I am a Christian
who believes that faith is defensible on rational grounds. This requires
two very important elements: 1) rigorous intellectual analysis and 2) honesty
to go where the evidence leads.
Anyone who in the search for reality (truth) does not adhere to these -
has nothing to say.
If Christianity is truth in the absolute sense then there nothing to fear
from a thorough and honest analysis.
I believe in the Christian faith because I am convinced that it is true.
However, if I am to be consistent and honest I must say and live out -
that if it is not true I do not want to believe it and I will not beleive
it.
Scrutiny, honest debate, analysis, evidence, etc. are the friends of truth
not its enemy.
Your point is well-taken that research is just good analysis - it is not
an unfair advantage. Even if Craig's premise were correct (the mnaual thing)
- so what. If the objective is truth then one wants to engage in discussion
with informed persons of a different mindset. After all the objective is
to come to some conclusions about ultimate reality - not to win a debate
- or sell books.
Mike Walbert Sunday, July 06, 1997 at 16:46:18 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
In fairness to Craig, I should point out that since publication of that newsletter, he has allowed publication of his debates with Corey Washington and Doug Jesseph.
Unfortunately, I regret to report that Leadership University, which hosts Craig's home page, has apparently changed their policy on linking to rebuttals to their material. Leadership University posted an essay entitled, "Why the Burden of Proof Is On the Atheist." In response, Internet Infidels posted a reply by Keith Parsons. Yet every request to Leadership University to link to the rebuttal by Parsons -- including two private e-mail messages and appeals on soc.religion.christian -- have gone unanswered (at least as of 4 Sep 97).
I will repeat what I have said before. We are supposed to be after the truth. If Christian apologists have confidence in their arguments, then they should not be afraid to subject them to critical (or even hostile) scrutiny. Of course, if skeptical rebuttals are linked from apologetic articles, then the Christian apologist risks losing potential converts who might find the skeptical rebuttal more persuasive. But dealing with skeptics is part of the apologist's job. Besides, I would think that Christian apologists would want their opponents to be able to take their best shot and aim to triumph anyway.
I hope that Leadership University will reconsider its decision.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
I need to know if anyone has information on prayer at work. Started a new job and the pray before our meetings. I expressed that I was uncomfortable , and they looked at me like I grew horns, and turned green. Please e-mail soon I am moving in 4 days.
T.L. WIlder Saturday, July 05, 1997 at 21:44:02 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/
Overall the book section looks very good. A number of the titles reviewed
are new to me and I may end up picking them up. I am curious though about
the absence of a section on the critical history of christianity, other
than the section on Jesus and the New Testament on the one hand and the
religious right on the other. There are a number of works out there on
the inquisition, christian antisemitism, persecutions of heretics and witches,
clerical fascism, etc. I know I am interested in finding out abo ut new
books in these areas. I imagine other atheists are as well. In addition
to the philosphical reasons for the rejection of religion, the history
of what it has done so far is a good reason for rejecting its claims to
moral authority. Or is this ki nd of material too controversial?
If you need help finding books to start out the section with, I would be
more than happy to suggest a few titles. I have also been compiling a bibliography
on clerical fascism for my own purposes, which I would be happy to share,
although many of the tit les are no longer in print.
Bill Stouffer Saturday, July 05, 1997 at 16:42:55 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Mr. Stouffer is now the editor of the Critical History of Christianity section of the II Bookstore.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/
Transcendence and Universal Law
Does the atheist acknowledge the existence of external laws?
For example, the laws of mathematics are seemingly discovered, not constructed
by man. It would be foolishness to say that 2 + 2 did not equal 4 before
man discovered math. Therefore, if man discovers math, math existed before
mankind. (I don’t doubt that theories and postulates of math have been
documented and formed by men, but nonetheless they describe something that
existed before man, or have always existed). If this is so, than the atheist
must acknowledge that something external to man exists, mere happenstance
of everything in the universe could not be completely true with presence
of a pre-existent extrinsic law. Could not this non-physical entity, be
described as a universal standard, a governing force, or, if you will,
a god?
Andrew Selin Friday, July 04, 1997 at 10:59:40 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Mr. Selin and I had an extended private discussion, ending with him agreeing with me that the existence of "external laws" does not contradict or undermine atheism.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/one_proof.html
I noticed you basicly said that you can't discredit a "scientific theory" by going at just one point. Even the most renouned supporters of evolution agree that for evolution to be concievable, there would have to be an enourmous amount of time. I think estimates are around 4.5 billion years (every book says something different) If Dr. Hovind's calculations are correct on the shrinkage of the sun, the slowing down of the earth, or the distancing of the moon, that amount of time is impossible. Since it would take millions or billions of years for evolution to happen and we know that it couldn't have that much time, it seems like pretty sound reasoning that evolution didn't happen. If you see some bad logic in this please correct me.
P.S. If evolution is true, there should be some scientific proof. It's amazing that nobody has taken Dr. Hovind up on his $10,000 offer.
Richard Poore Friday, July 04, 1997 at 00:45:35 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Did you even read the document on "Young Earth Arguments" by Dave Matson that you're responding to? He refutes all of Dr. Hovind's arguments.
I am greatly disturbed at your blatant attack on Christianity. How can
you consider this a true "rationalization" of Christian doctrine
because it is based upon man's wisdom? For it is written that the "foolishness
of God is wiser than man's wisd om, and the weakness of God is stronger
than man's strength". God has revealed his invisible qualities to
man through his creation; therefore man is without excuse for not believing
in Him. The wrath of God is being poured out on those that suppress God's
eternal truths through their wickedness. It is my prayer that you will
repent of your unbelief and accept the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ who shed His blood for the salvation of all who believe in
Him.
Casey Landis Thursday, July 03, 1997 at 20:19:21 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/church-state.html
I am an atheist and whereas I understand that the "Slaves love
your masters" Christians were certainly part of the beginnings of
America, my question is, - what benefit would spending 16.19 or otherwise
be in reading the following material you have on your web page? Doesn't
an atheist Ph.D have the works available?
Concerning your web page with
Christianity and the Constitution (1995)
Read this in the spirit of know thy enemy:
"Legally accurate yet easy to understand...presents the truth about
our founding fathers and their strong
Christian roots that is missing from most textbooks and reference books
written in the last fifty years.
Every student of American History, ministers, and public speakers should
read this book." -- Judge
Moore
by John Eidsmoe
Paperback
$16.19
Order this book now
Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution and Religion (1995)
Read this in the spirit of know thy enemy:
"Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, & Religion reveals
how the Supreme Court has
reinterpreted the Constitution, diluting the Biblical principles upon which
it was based. Hear the Founders
speak for themselves, describing what they wanted for America in their
own words." -- Judge Moore
by David Barton
Paperback
$12.95
Roger Martinez Thursday, July 03, 1997 at 19:29:52 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
We believe that it is important to be well-informed as to what the other side is saying, and therefore sell some of their books.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidel.org/
I was watching a news story on the ABC evening news one day when I witnessed something rare. It was Wednesday, July 2nd, 1997, and ABC news was broadcas ting a story about the large brush fires burning in the western parts of the country. After showing some aerial shots of the devastation caused by the fires, the news reporter (don't remember the name) showed an interview with one of the victims of the fi res. The victim, a young man, was standing by the remains of his house which was completely burnt down to the ground. His eyes were red, his face was projecting feelings of shock and disbelief and his body was showing signs of exhaustion. The reporter, ob viously wanting to inject the human side into the story asked the poor guy for his thoughts.
Now I don't know if anybody else noticed anything out of the ordinary
about what the guy said on national television, but I did. And what he
said immediately reminded me of the piece written by Robby Berry called
"Life In Our Anti-Christian America" in th e humor section. Demonstrating
the "anti-Christian bias in our society" Berry lists several
hundred sarcastic examples. Among them:
"On news programs and "reality" TV shows such as Rescue
911, nobody is ever shown giving thanks to God after surviving a disaster."
Well, in this interview, things were a little bit different. I was expecting
to hear something like "I thank God I came out of this unharmed".
But instead, the guy said this (I'm paraphrasing):
"All I can say is that I learned no matter how loud you shout or how
much you pray to God, it doesn't make any difference".
Although the story was tragic, it was refreshing to hear a different perspective...
jay
USA - Thursday, July 03, 1997 at 17:42:48 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/big_blue_books/book_06.html
Does anyone have information o n an article that appeared on the net
about a year
ago called, "The Catholic Church, The Vatican, and the Whistleblower?"
JG Taylor Thursday, July 03, 1997 at 00:08:38 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
I have been going to your site for the past six months, months in which I have questioned every single religious belief I have in th e name of fairness to everyone, both freethinkers and others. By using reason, and the resources of the site, I have come to the conclusion that I am an agnostic. First, I wuld like to thank the Internet Infidels for putting up this site and showing how tolerance and reasoning can be used to find the real truth. Second, I would like to ask a question of the webmaster: Does Adam Butler have and email address and/or a web page? I am interested in setting up a Freethought chapter in the Mobile Area.
Victor Allen Wednesday, July 02, 1997 at 18:46:21 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Enjoyed reading Mark Vuletic's piece on quantum fluctuations and creation *ab initio*. Still, as any honest atheist/agnostic will admit, bubbles of f alse vacuum arising in positively curved space don't answer the question, "*why* did it happen that way?" Religionists are eternal 2-year-olds, always asking questions science can't answer (not unlike our questions, "can god make a rock so big s/he can't lift it" or "if god says it's OK to murder does that make murder OK"). We realize that sometimes the answer is "it just happened that way, now shut up and go to sleep."
Douglas A. Gray
USA - Wednesday, July 02, 1997 at 15:19:34 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
Good point. Even if a quantum vacuum fluctuation origin of the universe were conclusively proven, some theists might be expected to ask why such an origin was even possible - wouldn't there have to be a designer to institute the laws governing quantum vacuum flcutuations? But then, can't the atheist ask whether a designer greater than God is necessary in order to allow God's actions to be effective? At some point, we apparently need to stop, and it seems to me that stopping with some set of natural laws is at least as legitimate as stopping with God.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
I am an Atheist from Los Angeles, California. Which URl would you say represents the largest Atheist organization as a social body? And do you have an atheist's URL whom had done Ph.D research on the group known as Christian Scientists? And last ly, have you done any research on Russian or Chinese atheist organizations? I can't seem to find any info on the web.
P.S. Any 165-13 affiliation?
Roger Martinez Wednesday, July 02, 1997 at 08:11:12 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/
Does subscribing to this newsletter get me an "e-mailed" issue like other on-line newsletters? I am interested in SOME on-line atheist newsletter in my e-mail box on a regular basis! Glad to see you exist.
John McCready Tuesday, July 01, 1997 at 23:07:58 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/ex-tian/
I understand that Einstein was not a Christian. I understand that he did not believe (according to his own testimony) in a God who was involved in the personal lives of men. I also understand that he was an admirer of the order found in nature and that he attributed this order to some grand design or supreme being of sorts. I recently read a quote from Albert Einstein in a scholarly secular publication. The source was not cited. It claimed that Einstein said, "Anyone who believes there is no God is a fool." Where can I find this quote - and why is it not found on your page at: "http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~smfriedm/einstein.html#quotes" or any of your pages?
John ChALOS Tuesday, July 01, 1997 at 23:07:37 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
I was curious if there were any sites that covers all of the factual data in the bible. I'm always hearing about how such and such an event within the Bible is considered a true historical fact(mostly by Bible thumpers). I'm eager to find out what parts of the Bible are considered such, if any. Thanks for any help.
Rich
USA - Tuesday, July 01, 1997 at 22:26:57 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Check out The Skeptical Review at http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1996/november.html
I don't know why "freethinkers" have to be so negative. I
never even thou ght about it until I read your article. As I look around
me at work, though, I have to agree. All of the so-called "freethinkers"
are negative. Politically correct, to be sure, accepting of every perversion
and open to every point of view except one-- Christ's point of view. It
is truely amazing how many different theologies and religions are acceptable
to the supposed "freethinker". Yet, mention the name of the Son
of God, and all hell literally breaks loose. If you are really a freethinker,
if you really will consider all ideas on their merit, if you really try
each different theology to see if it really could be true, then perhaps
you will spend a few weeks studying God's word to see what it actually
says. You may be surprised. You may (gasp!) see that all this drivel you've
been believing all these years is just that. I CERTAINLY DID! You may understand
the basic truths of life:
1. God created all of this. Given the infinite complexity of all creation,
any other explanation is totally unbelievable.
2. Nobody is perfect. We are all sinners, and have fallen short of God's
glory. God put us here to worship Him and to know Him, yet we became arrogant
and decided to pursue happiness on our own.
3. When we die, we will go to one of two places-- Heaven or hell. You don't
even want to think about hell. It will be a place of unimaginable torment
and suffering, which you will need to endure until your ultimate destruction.
You deserve to go to he ll. So do I. So does everyone who ever lived. Why?
Because we have sinned against the Lord. And He tells us that the wages
of sin is death.
4. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO HELL IF YOU DON'T WANT TO! (and believe me,
you don't want to). Jesus is our way out. He already paid the penalty for
our sins. He has already forgiven us. It is a gift! And all we have to
do to receive that gift is accept it. There is no other way.
Come on, free thinker! Open your Bible and read it. See what it says. Read
John chapter 3. Read Romans chapters 3 and 6. Read the entire book of Matthew,
and see what the Truth really is. You'll be negative no more
[name and e-mail withheld by request of author - Sec.]
Internet Infidels Response:
When I wrote my editorial last November, I knew that Christians would take advantage of my constructive criticism and somehow attempt to use it against freethought. Yet your message, like all of the other Christian responses to my editorial, fail to consider the possibility that many freethought groups are negative and yet Christianity is still false. If Christianity is true, then it is up to you to show that it is true. Yet you never even attempt to do that. You simply attempt to discredit freethought and then immediately assume that Christianity is the only alternative. In this respect your message resembles the black-and-white creationist critique of evolution which argues that if evolution is false, then creationism must be true by default. Still, I know that your letter was written with good intentions in mind, and I appreciate *that* very much.
While I still hold true to the claims of my editorial, you have taken my conclusions too far. I have never stated (or believed) that all freethinkers are negative. Such a sweeping generalization is just as illegitimate as the village atheist who says that "all Christians are stupid." IMHO, all sides of the debate would do well to avoid making blanket generalizations about entire groups of people.
I won't apologize for the people who can't discuss differing viewpoints like civilized adults. In fact, I join you in condemning that sort of behavior. But I do want to respond to some of the major claims of your letter.
First, what about "studying God's word to see what it actually says"? I have studied the Christian Bible. When I was a teenager, I was a Christian and I would read entire books of the Bible in one sitting. I went on to enroll in Seattle Pacific University (a Free Methodist university) as an undergraduate and took the Honors sections of Old and New Testament. So I *have* studied the Christian Bible.
Second, what about the "infinite complexity of all creation"? In the first place, I don't think you want to say that creation is infinitely complex because my understanding of Christian theology is that only God is infinitely complex. But suppose we remove the word "infinite" and consider the finite "complexity of all creation." You write, "any other explanation [than God] is totally unbelievable." But why is that true? Is this an example of how you "consider all ideas on their merit"? An atheist could just as easily state that "any explanation involving God is totally unbelievable" and that would get us absolutely nowhere. Maybe God is the best explanation for the complexity in the universe, but you haven't shown that.
Third, the imperfection of humankind. It is true that everyone does things which are "unethical," "immoral," or "sinful." But that doesn't necessarily mean we need to devote our lives to a man named Jesus who died almost 2,000 years ago in order to make up for our shortcomings. Again, you fail to "consider all ideas on their merit." What about the idea that Jesus was *not* a good moral teacher? What about the idea that we cannot know what Jesus really said? You haven't said anything about these ideas. I, for one, believe there is no way to really know whether Jesus said most of the things ascribed to him in the Bible. And if we could somehow prove that Jesus did say what the New Testament records, then we would have on our hands an accurate record of immoral teacher! I would not be interested in dedicating my life to a man so egotistical that he threatened people with eternal hellfire for rejecting him. It's unfortunate that you not only accept this doctrine, but that you have chosen to threaten me with eternal hellfire as well. I certainly would never wish such a horrible thing upon people who disagree with me.
Fourth, Heaven and Hell. Apart from the moral problems with Heaven and Hell, why should anyone believe that they actually exist? You're simply assuming that your beliefs are true. Moreover, there are good reasons to believe they are false. Philosopher Michael Martin has written an excellent essay on the "Problems With Heaven", and I invite you to read it.
The fact of the matter is that no one deserves Heaven or Hell. No one is perfectly good, and no one is perfectly evil. On your view, Gandhi (among many other good people) burns in Hell forever, while Jeffrey Dahmer (who allegedly accepted Christ before his murder in prison) goes to Heaven. But surely eternal Hellfire is an excessive punishment for Gandhi. Wouldn't one million years of Hellfire be enough punishment for rejecting Christianity? One billion? One trillion? Likewise, do you really believe that Jeffrey Dahmer deserves to go to Heaven forever?
Fifth, our choices. I agree with you that people are free to make their own choices in life, to the extent that their knowledge and the evidence permits. One of those choices is the freedom to reject Christianity, and live better knowing that your non-Christian loved ones will not burn in Hell for eternity. Many of the Internet Infidels have made that choice, and we invite you to do the same.
For more information, feel free to subscribe to our EX-TIAN and XTIANITY mailing lists (see http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/), or to contact me directly.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/bias/military/chapel/sacrifice.html
I read the 2Lt.'s letter to the editor regarding forced chapel attentance
wth great interest and no small amount of dismay.
He suggests that the nonchristian airman who complained about the discrimination
inherent in forcing nonchristian servicemembers to attend christian worship
services is somehow lacking in patriotism, or commitment to duty. And yet,
he utterly fails to exp lain WHY, in his opinion, or that of the Air Force,
attendance at such an event is in any way beneficial to the 'mission'.
I would truly like to know what his reasoning - assuming there is any -
is in making that assertion. Lastly, he relates a cute ane cdote about
friends asking him how many Christmases he's missed, and his reply, "Anything
for the mission." Given that his rank is that of 2nd Lt., I rather
suspect that is his coy way of avoiding mentioning that he's not even been
IN the Air Force more than a year or so.
Lynda Bustilloz Tuesday, July 01, 1997 at 17:48:12 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Actually, 2d Lt Carr stated he has been in the Air Force for seven years. I suspect he was probably enlisted prior to his commissioning as an Officer.
The primary reason we disagree with 2d Lt Carr's letter is because we feel that he has forgotten the meaning of the oath he took when he was commissioned as an Officer in the United States Air Force, that he would "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (emphasis added). One of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to all Americans -- both civilian and military -- is freedom of religion. When non-Christian military personnel are coerced to attend Christian chapel services, or prevented from attending non-Christian chapel services, that is religious harassment and it is illegal. As an Officer, 2d Lt Carr is held to a higher standard. He is not only supposed to understand the Air Force's policy on religious harassment, but he is also expected to enforce it. If he is incapable or unwilling to do this, then he does not belong in the Officer Corps.
2d Lt Carr quotes one of the Air Force's Core Values, "Service Before Self," suggesting that airmen in basic training who challenge illegal religious harassment are both selfish and not committed to the mission. This is just confused. As you correctly point out, religious harassment not only fails to support the mission, but actually undermines it. The Air Force's authority to even have a mission is derived from the Constitution. When military training instructors, acting as agents of the Government, harass recruits because of their religious beliefs (or lack of), they are directly violating the First Amendment to the Constitution they are sworn to protect.
Moreover, religious harassment has a direct impact on unit cohesion and morale: it ruins it. When people aren't treated with the respect they deserve, they're not exactly motivated to do everything with excellence, as demanded by the third core value of the Air Force. While the mission is clearly important, it cannot be accomplished without people. Real leaders know how to balance mission requirements with the needs of their people, and 2d Lt Carr doesn't appreciate that.
His suggestion that victims of religious harassment "make some constructive suggestions to [their] service on how to better do business" is laughable. When I went through basic training, they didn't exactly have a "suggestion box" or a "customer service" department. Instead they had PT ("physical training") which they were happy to inflict upon anyone who cared to state their disagreement. Viewed in this light, A1C Maslow should not be lectured on what it means to be an "Air Force enlisted professional"; he should be commended for his courage to speak up for what is right.
If there is anything which could "get us into trouble," it would be the day when people were not willing to give their lives so that others might enjoy the right to worship (or not worship at all) as they please.
Speaking only for myself,
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
