This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html
I just want to tell you that I love you and GOD (Jesus) loves you also!
I need to give you a verse which you have most likely already read. Romans
14:11, I need to give you this because I do not want you to burn I hell
for eternity. You can say all you want about Jesus, but the fact is we
will all bow our knee on the day of judgement! I have just finished praying
for you and your staff and I believe GOD is going to soften your hard heart
and one day you will confess that Jesus is GOD and that they along with
the Holy Spirit, as the trinity rule over all the universe. In Jesus Christ's
Love,
Jason Aubry <jmaubry@odin.cmp.ilstu.edu>
Normal, IL USA - Thursday, October 30, 1997 at 20:56:57 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/niclas_berggren/theodicy.html
I love your site.
In response to Niclas Berggren's Theodicy Problem.
What He said:
1) If God exists, he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good.
2) The existence of suffering is incompatible with the existence of God.
3) Suffering exists.
4) God does not exist.
What I say:
1) God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and always does the right thing.
2) The existence of suffering (and grace) proves that God controls everything
with no exceptions.
3) People are born without their consent and suffer and die against their
will, and yet most disbelieve that the One who controls everything is God.
4) God is good, even just, in condemning the ungodly as he should, based
on their unbelief.
Jo Beth Gerrard <Solomon@pnx.com>
Orange, TX USA - Thursday, October 30, 1997 at 17:01:47 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
What I say:
1) Niclas Berggren offered a valid argument with true premises.
2) You have simply made false assertions, with no argument to back up any
of them.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html
Ok, Quentin's basic arguement for the nonexistence of God by the big
bang cosmological arguement goes something like this:
1) The big bang singularity is the earliest state of the universe.
2) The earliest state of the universe is inanimate
2 follows from 1 since the singularity involves the life-hostile conditions
of infinite temperature, infinite curvature and infinite density.
3) No law governs the big bang singularity and consequently there is no
guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve
into an animate universe.
1-3 entail
4) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into
an animate state of the universe.
Ergo, if the universe isn't guaranteed to evolve by itself into an animate
universe, then God would have to intervene to ensure this, thereby showing
that the entire system is inefficient, and that God wouldn't do something
inefficient.
He has a whole bunch of arguements to defend from potential attacks, but
I feel that we can avoid all of these by snipping his theory in the bud
by refuting his basic premise. First off, this picture presumes that God's
plan is to set a ball rolling and let it form and create itself into something
that eventually produces life. If not, then God is inefficient. Setting
apart the arrogance in evaluating what you think the most efficient way
of creating the universe, as well as the deist leanings here, there are
several problems. According to the Bible (and yes i use that as a source
since you are trying to disprove the existence of God by arguing within
a theistic stance), the universe was NOT at first an animate universe.
Look at Genesis 1, God made the heavens and the earth, the plants, the
beasts and man himself. They did not happen by themselves. This scenario
is presuppossing the article that it is trying to prove in the long run,
namely evolution. It is also presuming that an explosion can result in
an orderly universe including things that were not an intrinsic part of
the object that exploded. Namely an orderly universe including matter,
and laws of nature and physics. An explosion cannot result in something
that did not intrinsically exist before hand, therefore the laws and matter
must have existed within the existence of the singularity, and these laws
include the 1st law of thermodynamics, that matter cannot create itself.
Explosions are an effect, not a cause. And if, as Hawking and company say,
that time did not exist before the big bang, then we need a cause that
initiated the explosion taht must neccessarily exist ouside of time and
space. But anyways, God had to create the animate portion of the universe,
as well as the order we find, as well as the laws that rule that order
since and explosion does not serve to organize things, but serves to randomize
them. Is this inefficient somehow? I don't see why. Is an artist done after
he puts the base coat on a canvas? And as the ultimate artist being God
with the ultimate canvas being the universe, this does not reflect inefficiency.
God is not REQUIRED to just set a ball rolling and let it take care of
itself. He is not confined by some human opinion of efficiency, He is GOD.
Nowhere in scripture does it mention efficiency as being a neccessary characteristic
of God. He exists outside of time, He does not have a quota or time schedule
He needs to follow. In fact we STILL see Him entering his universe to do
things all the time, they are called miracles. This isn't a sign of inefficiency,
but a sign of His intimate involvement with His creation!
I dont know whether it would be possible for Mr. Smith to get this statement,
but if you could, I would love to hear his opinion of this arguement.
Jeremy Cook <cookjj@river.it.gvsu.edu>
Allendale, MI USA - Thursday, October 30, 1997 at 14:44:57 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html
Very handy information to refute creationism. However, please be aware
that when considering Genesis 1:1 and the occurence of Elohim (gods) one
should be aware of what is termed the 'plurality of majesty'.
Aaron Ember writes:"That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has
entirely given up the idea of plurality in...[Elouhim] (as applied to the
God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably
construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival
attribute..."
This would be picked up on by a creationist with any knowledge of Hebrew.
Perhaps it would be better to remove this reference?
Philip Barton <PBartonJW@aol.com>
BIRKENHEAD, UK - Sunday, October 26, 1997 at 16:13:18 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_haught/breaking.html
Hi.
I'm doing research and will shortly be offering a series of presentations
on Planned Parenthood. I will be covering such related topics as Margaret
Sanger Humanism, sex education, abortion, contraception and the like. I
came upon an interesting web page dealing with "The Lat Taboo"
in which a number of Humanists' quotations are offered. I was wondering
if I might copy this page and use it for my presentations.
The presentations are for educational purposes and are free of charge to
those interested in attending.
I would appreciate yuor granting me the permission to use the said request.
Mike Monogue <mmono16652@aol.com>
Mpls., MN USA - Sunday, October 26, 1997 at 16:01:58 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap6.html
Just read evidence that demands a verdict rejoinder. loved it
Jammy Brice <Jammybrice@aol.com>
la, ca USA - Friday, October 24, 1997 at 03:56:18 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap11.html
I don't know if you have ever noticed this, and I would suspect that
you would be of the opinion that it is not true, but I just wanted to send
an observation.
I was reading some Christian web sites and found that they were totally
lacking in critical thought. They had something to prove and chose to believe
the things that proved their position.
When I started cruising via the search word "atheist" it really
wasn't much different. It was just a group of self rightous people parading
their beliefs about and picking and choosing what they considered the "real"
proof.
In both sites you find glaring examples where the arguments come up short.
I need not concern myself with the Christian mistakes, since you will undoubtably
have listed them in great detail, so instead I will concentrate on the
most annoying peace of bad thinking in the atheist world. (This particular
one can be found throughout your prophet section) The atheist seems to
delight in dissproving an opinion or an alleged fact that the Christian
holds onto and then uses this to say "see, there is no God" w
hen all he has done is proven the fallability of mankind. I believe this
is called "false conclusion" in Aristotilian Logic. When viewing
both types of sites, to me it says the jury is still out and that the core
truth revealed is that mankind should st op trying to explain things away
and truly analyze the facts, bereft of partisanship.
Just a side note: If atheists are so damn sure, why do they bother trying
to convert people into believing in nothing. It seems like a waste of time.
JammyBrice <Jammybrice@aol.com>
La, Ca USA - Friday, October 24, 1997 at 03:09:10 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_ball/bible.html
I must say, I did enjoy Dr. Balls essay "Best-Selling Errancy:
Inconsistencies i n the Bible," not because I agreed with him, but
because his arguements where well thought out and well presented (even
if the big words were a bit showy).
Nonetheless, I truly believe he is wrong in just about every assertion--despite
the effectiveness of his argument. Here's why:
1. In judging the "goodness" of God he limits our perception
to a "human-to-human context." The error in logic is simply that
God is not human. If we see Him in the proper context of "Creator-to-created"
we would have far less difficulty in accepting th e so-called cruelty that
Dr. Ball illustrates. To argue "just because He created us does not
give Him the right to be cruel" would be specious (thought I'd throw
in my own $2 word) because humanity does not have the power to create life.
Humanity can on ly destroy it or perhaps prolong it. God, if we are to
believe the Bible, has the power to create life, destroy life, and bring
it back to life as well. Men and Women destroy their creations all the
time, few if any truly care. How can we judge our crea tor.
2. In his arguments regarding salvation, faith is still the central saving
feature: For he that cometh to God must believe that He is and that He
is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (Heb 11:6). If salvation
is a reward for faith, then baptism and "works" that are consistent
with that faith such as love and obedience are part our "diligence."
In the case of the rich young ruler that Dr. Ball so grossly misinterprets,
Jesus was not demanding poverty, He was simply illustrating that the man's
fa ith and love was not in God, but in His money.
I could go on, but I look forward to your replies.
Thank you,
Steve Hickman
Steven Hickman <bsteven@inreach.com>
Hemet, Ca USA - Tuesday, October 21, 1997 at 20:51:22 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/sex.html
sex and religion- no one comes door to door trying to sell you sex
tom whitehead <twhite@harborside.com>
port orford, or USA - Sunday, October 19, 1997 at 21:33:23 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/h_j_blackham/agnostic.html
I was wondering if you could explain to me how an Agnostic person vi
ews creation, the end of the earth, and man's purpose while he lives on
Earth. If you have time, I would love to have you summarize the Agnostic
belief!!! Thank you for your time.
smarcie@iserv.net
Rachel Barone <smarcie@iserv.net>
Grand Rapids, MI USA - Friday, October 17, 1997 at 15:44:52 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html
Hi, my name's Eric...to prove a point, I'd l ike to tell you what I
did yesterday.
I went to the mall, ate lunch, went to KMart, ate brakfast, went home,
ate supper, went to bed, and went to my friend's house.
I was wondering if you would call it a contradiction if I said that yesterday
I ate breakfast, THEN went to the mall, THEN went to my friend's house,
THEN ate lunch, THEN went to KMart, THEN ate dinner, THEN went to bed.
There are other instances in the b ible where the same story is not necessarily
told in the same order, but there is no contradiction because the bible
in no way alludes to the fact that the things happened in that order. I'm
a creationist, and I'm not afraid to look at the facts that you have to
present. I was wondering, however, if you heard that Cope's rule was "overruled"
in January of this year, a rule which is foundational to evolutionistic
theory? And if all of your arguments against Creationism stand upon whether
or not the events in Genesis 2 are listed ORDINALLY, I would encourage
you to take another look. Take care, and God bless.
Eric Horne <akmd@randomc.com>
Woodstock, GA USA - Saturday, October 11, 1997 at 15:49:10 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
Thank you for your letter. Of course most of the arguments in my paper have nothing to do with the two accounts in the book of Genesis, as you should be able to easily verify. However, concerning your analysis, the events in Genesis 2 appear to be listed ordinally, as far as I can tell. Would you like to explain why you don't believe they are?
As for Cope's rule, a very strict reading of it ("animals and plants always evolve into larger sizes") is false, but I fail to see how this destroys any of the foundations of evolution. So selective pressures can sometimes make animals or plants evolve into smaller sizes - how does this spell the end of evolutionary theory?
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html
You use an argument in '2 proofs of atheism' frequently used by thei
sts, the following:
Every event/object must have a cause
and claim it to be obvious. This is wrong. Decartes first meditation shows
that this cannot be proved, and modern physics which both atheists and
theists seem to rely so much on has shown instances where things exist
without a cause.
E.g. vacuum fluctuations, radioactive decay (to an extent)
Modern inflationary theory is entirely consistent with the idea that the
big bang is just one large vacuum fluctuation.
Please reply,
Simon Judes <simon@judes.demon.co.uk>
London, United Kingdom - Friday, October 10, 1997 at 15:38:16 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/mfound.html
You implied how Chistians might feel if there wasn't a God, but have
you considered what happens to you if there is one. If a Christianity is
wrong then we have wasted a few hours of our meaningles life. But if you
are an atheist, and are wrong, then to put it mildly, are screwed beyond
comprehension. Also I would like to kno w what life is to an atheist. There
is no God, there as far as i can see is no point to life, and why not go
around killing and raping and whatnot. There are no consiquences because
obviosly a killer has no respect for life. Do you try to live a so called
"good life" or what.
Are you so narrow minded that birth and death is all that there is to life?
You can try to do "good" but for what reason, sense "evil"
is much more fun and appealing. How do you say atheism has higher morale
standerds than Christians even in the aspect of your missionary friend's
example. To an atheist it is kill or be killed, do whatever the hell you
want and @#%! everyone else because there aren't any morale complications
to deal with. Atheism morals are as low as that example "God was never
there" for then a Christian becomes and atheist. Atheism has nothing.
No facts or evidence of single celled organisms growing to be human, or
how something came from nothing. Put this on your page or not but don't
dare indicate that atheism has higher moral standerds than Christianity
in any example.
Ben Johnson <mjohnson@jeffco.k12.co.us>
Arvada, CO USA - Wednesday, October 08, 1997 at 22:18:44 (MDT)
Internet Infidels Response:
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/mcinerny.html
Hi-
Just read Do Atheists Bear a Burdon of Proof, and stumbled across this
section:
"There are times when I seem to communicate well with others about
feelings. Indeed, others occasionally seem to understand my feelings better
than I do. One of the achievements of great poetry is that it can communicate
"what often was thought, but never so well expressed." Sometimes
great poetry or art can lead me to say "Aha! Yes, that is exactly
what I feel!"
"Such experiences are quite explicable on the hypothesis that the
poet or artist had feelings like mine which he or she had articulated more
successfully. If we deny that the poet or artist had feelings like mine,
my "Aha!" experience becomes completely inexplicable."
I disagree. Having done some study in hypnosis, it is interesting to note
that the key to this art form is to phrase your responses/suggestions to
the subject in such a way as to never contradict his/her interior experience.
Failure to do this would pull the individual out of their state, and you
have lost your subject. I would submit that good art or poetry might work
on a very similar basis. The suggestion of the work is made in a vague
or universal way which can be interpreted on a "deep" level by
the subject, ie with an emotional component tied to it. This is also, on
a more mundane level, what makes 1-900-FORTUNE teller/astrology businesses
work. This fits nicely with the later suggestion of anthropomorphism's
role in the creation of belief. In fact, the use of clouds in hypnosis
is quite effective. "As you lay back on your blanket at the beach,
listening to the waves gently rolling the stones at the shoreline, back
and forth with the water, more and more comfortably relaxed, you allow
your attention to wander...you may even begin to notice the clouds drifting
by you overhead...and as you gaze at the clouds, you can begin to make
out shapes, shapes that are familiar..."
you get the idea...
kevin courcey <kevinc@efn.org>
Eugene, OR USA - Wednesday, October 08, 1997 at 01:22:03 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_haught/godbiz.html
I'm asking your help with a line of inquiry I just started.
There is some old research (c 1928) which indicates that the atheist prison
population is only a fraction of one percent. Contrast this with the crime
rate among television evangelists.
Can you point me to hard numbers on either of these. Thanks.
Brian White <brianwhite@mci2000.com>
Camarillo, Ca USA - Monday, October 06, 1997 at 12:23:38 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
The claim that there is a "fallacy of shifting the burden of proof,"
premised on the claim that "The burden of proof is always on the person
asserting
something," is nonsense. 1) Counter-examples are easy: "Some
frogs have more legs than other frogs," 2) "Chlorine is an element,"
3) "You cannot trisect the angle," 4) "No man is literally
an island," etc., are each examples of assertions such that anyone
DENYING them would bear the burden of proof.
Second, atheists seem oblivious to the fact that, ""The burden
of proof is always on the person asserting something," is itself an
assertion, requiring, by the atheists own lights, proof. When this is pointed
out, nothing especially persuasive is ever offered. Why should anyone take
it seriously? Why shouldn't someone just say that atheists are, in this
as in so many other matters, mistaken? To which the atheist will claim
what, exactly? That all of the best atheist thinkers concur?
Irving Copi says precisely the OPPOSITE of the claimed fallacy of shifting
the burden of proof; In "Introduction to Logic," 7th edition,
p. 94, he says, The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it
is assumed that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not
been proved false, OR, THAT IT IS FALSE BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED
TRUE."
Dan Davis <daviscds@isl.net>
Oronoco, MN USA - Saturday, October 04, 1997 at 13:51:10 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Since the passage you sent me from Mr. Davis makes no explicit refer- ences, I don't know whose statement of the burden of proof arguments he thinks he is attacking. Statements about what (unspecified) atheists say are not helpful and make me think that he is railing against an imagined boogeyman rather than any specific atheistic arguments. I certainly can't find anything in what he says that is relevant to my argument in God and the Burden of Proof. There I argued that *lacking* a belief requires no justification unless thereare sufficient reasons for having that belief. For instance, I am under no obligation whatsoever to justify my lack of belief in a giant gaseous planet in orbit around Betelgeuse. I am under no such obligations because, to the best of my knowlege, and I read Astronomy and Sky and Telescope every month, nobody has given any good reason why one ought to believe that such a planet exists. If such grounds were given, and I wish to persist in my lack of belief in such a planet, then I have the burden of saying why I find the alleged grounds unpersuasive. But the point is that I have no such burden at all until those purported grounds are offered.
By precisely parallel reasoning, my lack of belief in God requires no justification unless adequate reasons for that belief are given. Of course, theistic philosophers and apologists through the ages have offered what they take to be good reasons for belief in God. Dozens of excellent books, such as Michael Martin's Atheism, A Philosophical Justification, Richard Gale's The Nature and Existence of God, J.L Mackie's The Miracle of Theism, Wallace Matson's The Existence of God, etc., etc, have detailed precisely why nonbelievers find such arguments unconvincing. That is the only burden of proof the nonbeliever has--to show that such theistic arguments are, indi- vidually and in aggregate, insufficiently convincing.
None of the alleged counterexamples cited by Mr. Davis bear on the aboveargument at all. In each of the cases he mentions, the burden is on the denier because, as we all admit, very good reasons can and have been given for the assertions. Yet this is precisely what the nonbeliever denies--that there are any such proofs or strong inductive arguments for God's existence. As for the citing of the ad ignorantiam fallacy, this again is completely beside my point. The nonbelievers I am considering in the above arguments are not saying, fallaciously, that failure to prove God's existence shows that it is false that God exists. They are saying, with perfect reasonableness, that the lack of a belief, per se, entails no burden of justification. If Mr. Davis, or anyone else, insists that it does, I'm still waiting for that conter- example (and I'm not exactly holding my breath while I wait for it).
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Dear members of the "Internet Infidels",
It seems to me you have missed the point. Summer camps, reviews of anti-christian
books etc. reflects the fact, that you endorse an atheist ideology. So,
on the one hand you support what you call "free thought", on
the other you have fallen to the same kind of absolute thinking as it is
a characteristic of religious ideology. I, too, would call myself an atheist,
but I don't shout it from every mountain-top and I don't cultivate an intolerance
towards other frames of mind.This, to me, is true free thinking. What you
are doing is just replacing an old religion with a new one, calling the
product atheism. The biggest problem, next to the intolerance, which is
nurtured by such a view, is that your thinking is dictated by what christianity
says in a reverse manner. In this sense, your school of thought is nothing
but a reaction to religion, nothing really new. This can also be said of
Occultism and all other schools of thought, which feed from notions that
originated within christianity.
It is my plea, that you emancipate yourselves from this ideological way
of thinking, tolerate religions as they are and settle for conveying your
way of thinking only when asked to do so. But this web page is quite the
contrary. It reminds me of a fundamentalist christian page, to be quite
honest.
Regarding evolution, the sceptical view of the bible etc., I too believe,
that these concepts are the way to go, but they must be conveyed in a scientific
manner, obiding by the facts that are won from empirical research. Everything
else is nothing but speculation and reverse fundamentalism!!!
Dennis Reineck <reineck@dennis.ph-weingarten.de>
weingarten, Germany - Thursday, October 02, 1997 at 12:07:54 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
So, if, after examining the facts, you have decided that the methods, actions and ideas of the Nazis, (or the Communists) are wrong, what you would recommend is keeping quiet about it, not mentioning this conclusion to anybody, and certainly not disturbing any Nazi or Communist when they tried to persuade others to adopt that point of view, correct?
Greg Erwin
Internet Infidels Response #2:
> Dear members of the "Internet Infidels",
>
> It seems to me you have missed the point. Summer camps, reviews of
> anti-christian books etc. reflects the fact, that you endorse an atheist
> ideology. So, on the one hand you support what you call "free
thought", on the
> other you have fallen to the same kind of absolute thinking as it
is a
> characteristic of religious ideology.
The Internet Infidels do not support a rigid, monolithic ideology, as you imply. We maintain an internet resource for secularists of many perspectives, and the resources that the Secular Web hosts or links represent a the broad range of perspectives among those who live without religion. There is no inflexible creed to which the IIs subscribe. We are united foremost by one goal: to provide a quality archive of diverse secular materials. The material presented covers such diverse topics as atheism, agnosticism, critical thinking, Deism, secular humanism, Epicureanism, skepticism, Extropianism, and many more. The formulation of a unified, absolutistic, pseudo-religious ideology from this colorful palate of resources would not only be undesirable and self-contradictory -- it would be impossible. I sympathize with your concerns, but your accusation is misplaced. Our only "ideology" is our shared belief that all minds must remain free to doubt any and every ideology under the sun, be they religious or secular.
> I, too, would call myself an atheist, but
> I don't shout it from every mountain-top and I don't cultivate an
intolerance
> towards other frames of mind.This, to me, is true free thinking. What
you are > doing is just replacing an old religion with a new one, calling
the product
> atheism.
A distinction must be drawn between intolerance and mere intellectual criticism. Intolerance is systematic and malicious censorship, censure, and discrimination applied against a certain group of people. The Secular Web does none of these things. It does not seek people out to harrass them,shame them into silence, or take away their freedom. Those who are offended by its contents have become so through their own free choice to view its pages. Criticism of religion, made in the spirit of free inquiry, is not a facet of intolerance, but of a genuine dedication to freedom. The honest expression of a point of view is not intolerance.
> The biggest problem, next to the intolerance, which is nurtured
by such
> a view, is that your thinking is dictated by what christianity says
in a reverse
> manner. In this sense, your school of thought is nothing but a reaction
to
> religion, nothing really new. This can also be said of Occultism and
all other
> schools of thought, which feed from notions that originated within
christianity.
By your argument, II must support murder, since the Christians oppose it. We must insist that no-one read the Bible, since the Christians read it. II must promote rape, molestation, lying, and the burning of churches, because Christians want to end these things.
You know this nonsense. The materials on the Secular Web are not an inverted image of Christianity, but the product of genuine free thinking. The authors accept or reject a notion based on its merit alone, not on the fact that the religious accept or reject it.
> It is my plea, that you emancipate yourselves from this ideological
way of
> thinking, tolerate religions as they are and settle for conveying
your way of
> thinking only when asked to do so.
Ah, so you are in favor of "not speaking unless spoken to." Perhaps you are nostalgic for the days of Puritan ideology, when no-one could say anything unless everyone already agreed to it. This is the antithesis of free thought.
On second thought, the Secular Web already _does_ conform to your proposed pattern of "conveying its way of thinking only when asked to do so." The Secular Web "conveys" its way into a person's web browser only when that person "asks" it to do so by _voluntarily selecting the site and continuing to read its contents_. The Secular Web isn't piped perpetually and irresistably into every fundamentalist's home like the incessant Muzak of a shopping mall. Those influenced by its so-called ideology have chosen freely to view these materials.
> But this web page is quite the contrary. It
> reminds me of a fundamentalist christian page, to be quite honest.
Regarding
> evolution, the sceptical view of the bible etc., I too believe, that
these
> concepts are the way to go, but they must be conveyed in a scientific
manner,
> obiding by the facts that are won from empirical research. Everything
else is
> nothing but speculation and reverse fundamentalism!!!
I fail to see how the immense catalogues of biblical contradictions and doctrinal inconsistencies are unscientific and unempirical, but merely "speculation." I fail to see how the rigorous and well-documented philosophical justifications for atheism and criticisms of religious doctrine can be called just "speculation." Perhaps you did not read the materials on the Secular Web, but simply speculated as to its content. If so, I hope you will visit the site again, and not judge its content and maintainers so hastily this time.
Thank you for your feedback, Dennis. I hope you found this response helpful.
best regards,
Chad Docterman
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
