 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
Send Feedback
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/wire/
As a pro-life atheist, I ask you to rethink the NewsWire heading: "Anti-Choice and Anti-Abortion Fundamentalist Terrorists". First of all, the term "anti-choice" is inflammatory and insulting, and does not reflect a consensus among freethinkers as to how to address abortion opponents. Second, Fundamentalist terrorists are Fundamentalist terrorists, no matter what issue they decide to focus on today. For instance, I believe the Army of God has committed violence against both abortion facilities and gays/lesbians, so pigeonholing them under one issue is not helpful. I think it would be more accurate to just create a "Fundamentalist Domestic Terrorists" (or similar) category for these sorts of people.
Jen Roth <j-roth@uiuc.edu>
Urbana, IL USA - Monday, August 31, 1998 at 15:26:53 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
About 16 years ago or so I began to doubt the existence of a god or other
supernatural
beings. It took me about 4 years to dismiss the idea of a god, and at that
point I became
an atheist. Since then, I have never doubted my position, and I am very proud
to be a
non-believer. My life since then has been full and wonderful. There is
defintely life
after rejecting "god"!
About a year ago, I ran across your site and since then I have been returning
daily. Why
is that? At the time I questioned god and religion those many years ago, I was
on my
own
and had to rely on my reason and rational thought to arrive at my belief (that
in
itself
is preferable, but it is important to realize others have the same questions
and seek the
answers). There were not many sources for me to turn to. Most if not all of the
articles I
have
read
here
have paralleled the processes and thinking I went through. The same
arguments, the same questions, the same answers. It was difficult, but
ultimately
attainable, that of the idea that a god does not exist and that life itself can
be lived
comfortably and happily being godless.
I may have been an exception in the early years, but your site provides a
wealth
of
information to those who question the "norm" and you have provided a
rational
means to reach such a decision. There are many individuals out there who will
benefit much
from you resources. I wish you were around 16 years ago when I was seeking the
truth.
Thank
you so much for your hard work, and I will continue to visit every day.
Michael Zanussi <michael@lobo.net
>
Albuquerque, NM USA - Sunday, August 30, 1998 at 00:55:31 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Since we're an all-volunteer organization, it's letters like yours Michael that lift our spirits and reward us for the monumentous task of maintaining this web site. Thanks for being out there and we promise to keep things running smoothly at this end for you.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
I am
a
History of Science/Comparative Religion Double Major student at the University
of Washington and would love to hear your response to the following:
Since physicists cannot see beyond the Big Bang we are left with a beginning
which cannot
be explained. I have read about the Many Worlds hypothesis (which can never be
detected -
much
like
some concepts of God!), the Oscillating Universe theory (which has been
disproved due to the accumulation of entropy), Infinite Regression theories
(thought to be
absurd), and some concepts of a Creator. It seems to me that the
"best" answer
as to
why the universe exists must be attributed to a Creator because of the failure
of
its opponents. Thanks for reading!
Sean A. Dehner <
seandehner@mailcity.com>
Seattle, WA USA - Saturday, August 29, 1998 at 20:24:37 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
i just find it pathetic that yall sit here and say that prayer should be kept out of public school and sit here and bash God, when on parts of your website you have scripture of the bible. it blows my mind that you use the thing your against to back your self up. it just shows that no matter what you always have to use some part of God to expain how you feel.
michelle <mbeck1381@html>
victoria, tx USA - Friday, August 28, 1998 at 09:45:17 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
No one is against voluntary prayer in school Michelle. What we are against is organized or school-sponsored prayer in school. If a group of teenagers decide to meet before class and pray, then more power to them. However, if the school principal or a teacher decide to lead the class in prayer, or if a moment of silence to pray becomes mandatory, then this is wrong and in violation of the First Amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union explains the crucial distinction between voluntary and organized prayer (as well as the politics used by the religious right to confuse the two) at http://www.aclu.org/library/aaprayer.html.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/book-of-the-month/1998.html
I was just wondering if the person that wrote all that I have just read understands that he sees all around him through the eyes of self? And to think "outside the box" is an obviously higher form of thought. In order to do this one must go through the death of self. That of course is christianity in a nutshell, but it seems that the idea of something higher than himself that does not have to justify Itself to him, though he said that we "should be honest and admit that we do not what is beyond the horizon", is required to answer for the crimes that this rightous author has brought against God. He is not a stupid man it seems so I was wondering if he had been called by God yet or not?
Jamie <boyerii@gte.net>
Tx USA - Tuesday, August 25, 1998 at 23:21:55 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Reponse:
How do you know what happens to your consciousness if you are still alive? Would not your own death be required to have this knowledge? It strikes me as odd that so many religions promise enlightenment, perfect bliss, and eternal life after death. After much thought, it occured to me that this is a necessary survival mechanism of false religions and philosophies. With the recipients of its benefits quite dead, they sidestep offering proof of their effectiveness.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
This is in response to "Dear Theologian" by Dan Barker in the
Non-theism/Atheism section. I would like to challenge Mr. Barker to refute the
following
three evidences for the existence of an all-knowing and all-loving God:
1) Ben and Jerry's ice-cream
2) Pink Floyd
3) Playboy TV
Thank you.
Steven Antrim <antrim@cs.msstate.edu
>
Starkville, MS USA - Monday, August 24, 1998 at 14:21:57 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/anbvslea.html
Huge fan of your site, I recommend it to all my friends (religious or not).
Was curious
as to whether you could provide me an email address for Theodore Drange. I took
a class
from him at WVU years ago, when I was still in my (extremely unfortunate)
fundamentalist
christian phase. I remember enjoying the class greatly, and I enjoy his
articles here on
infidels.org even more. I'd like to email him if possible and let him know I
liked
his
class
and show my appreciation for his articles here.
Any contact info (email address) you could provide would be extremely helpful.
Thanks, and
keep up the GREAT work spreading the good news. :>
Dan Burford <gilmore@isi.net>
Sunnyvale, CA USA - Monday, August 24, 1998 at 13:56:29 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
The frequent arguments about the existence or not of a god are far less important than the conclusion that if there is one please let it not be the jealous, vengeful despot of the old testament.
Martin Halle <radcliff@iafrixca.com
>
Margate, Nata South Africa - Sunday, August 23, 1998 at 11:44:47 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/library/modern/ilhan_arsel/Din_Adamlari/BOLUM15.HTML
Kur'an'da Allah beyan etmiş ise tartışmasız doğrudu.Sen ne cüretle sorgulamaya kalkarsın.Seninle İbrahim aleyhisselam'ın babası arasında pek fark göremiyorum. Sana neden nasib edilmedi ise onada aynı sebeple verilmemiş olabilirmi sayın arsel...
erdal yakub <erdalyak@hotmail.com
>
istanbul, tr turkey - Thursday, August 20, 1998 at 00:31:08 (MDT)
Translation:
Mr. Ilhan Arsel is one of the most honorable people in the Turkish Republic. I am proud to own all his books. I see him as a twin to an intellectual like Turan Dursun [assassinated by Islamicists some years ago -TE] and I wish him every protection. What a good thing, that the world contains a man like Ilhan Arsel.
Bulent ATUK
Electronic Engineer
[Translation provided by Taner Edis <edis@cal-bears.llnl.gov>. ]
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
It is often said that Christians (and other religions) choose not to learn, or simply ignore, knowledge because it does not fit with their own beliefs. For example, people might say my rejection of the Theory of Evolution is simply because it might in some way prove to me that there is not a God. Maybe. Personally, I just don't like the whole idea regardless of religious implications. But I will answer this statement by saying that I think it is human nature to ignore something that goes against our beliefs, even scientists.
As an example, let me take another well known and widely accepted theory. The theory I choose is the cell theory presented by Schleiden and Schwann, later modified by Virchow. Put simply, cells are the structural units of life and all cells come from preexisting cells. This last part was the modification added by Virchow. To my understanding, this theory is so true that we have never seen any exceptions to it and there are no longer any objections to it in the scientific community. But it begs the question that I'm sure you see coming. Where did the first cell come from? Is there some fine print to the theory that I have never seen that says "except in the case of the first cell?" I understand the conditions on the Earth are no longer conducive to the formation of life and we will never see the formation of a cell from random amino acids and other molecules. Regardless of this, I think it is unjustified to say that all cells come from preexisting cells. There has to be an origin somewhere. Yet this has been conveniently ignored. I don't wish to attack this theory. My goal is simply to say that Christians are not the only ones to ignore pieces of information that do not fit with their beliefs.
The fact is, we are humans. We do not understand the world around us, so we try to explain it the best we can. When new evidence comes along, it either strengthens our explanation or weakens it. If it is weakened, we have to reject the explanation or modify it. I do not intend to argue whether there is "proof" of evolution, I've read all through the website you point to whenever there is a question of evolution. It didn't convince me. Hmmm. Maybe I just conveniently ignored all that information in the several hours it took me to peruse the site.
In my own view there is as much proof for the existence of God as there is for evolution. When absolute, incontrovertible evidence is presented to me that there is no God, I will present to you evidence that evolution is also a work of fiction.
Kenny Snyder <sooner1@ionet.net
>
Oklahoma City, Ok USA - Wednesday, August 19, 1998 at 21:29:11 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html
I find it very interesting that Christianity is thought of as a "non-historical, -scientific, -ethical, etc." book. All of the sources quoted by the writers are thought of to be truthful and factual. Evolution is said to be the truth, and none can argue. The problem is that it is argued by well-known and scholarly scientists. Namely Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Ben Franklin, among others. Were they wrong in their suppositions that their is a God, specifically the God of the Bible? Evolution is NOT a fact---as seen by the connotation of being a "theory." The Bible is downplayed because it talks of miraculous events that are against nature; yet, it is against nature for nothing to turn into something. Against nature for species to turn into different species. It simply has no evidence. So, no, evolution cannot be called a fact, by science's own definition. So the question, then, becomes where do we put our faith? Evolutionists put their faith in an unknown, unseen theory. I put mine in an unseen, but known God. It's not a question of who has the most facts--neither can produce or reproduce the events we believe in. My faith at least gives me hope. It's also not a matter of the Bible's authenticity--I can refute with sound intellect all the arguments put forth by the nay-sayers. Believe in God or not, it's your choice. But there are consequences to every choice we make. Someday, you will die with yours, I'll live with mine. I invite scholarly and intellectual feedback, as long as there is a quest for truth--no matter who has it.
James Rhoads <JRhoads@aol.com>
Lubbock, tx USA - Wednesday, August 19, 1998 at 00:46:05 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
1. Albert Einstein and Ben Franklin did not believe in the God of the Bible. And they would still be wrong even if they did.
2. Evolution is a fact. You, like many people, confuse "The Theory of Evolution", called Darwinism, with evolution itself.
3. If it is against nature for something to come from nothing, does that make God un-natural? If it does not, then how is it unnatural for universes to come from nothing?
4. Please visit http://www.talkorigins.org/ to read frequently asked questions on evolution.
5. Believing in something because it allows you to feel good is the first step on the road to insanity. Even if the thought that there is no Santa-Claus terrifies you, there still is no Santa Claus.
6. Feel free to send us your refutations to our arguments. If we are wrong about anything, we would be more than happy to be corrected.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
I enjoy visiting your site since I have found it recently. I was surprised to find people thinking exactly like myself (I'm a natural atheist raised in Ukraine - former Soviet Union). I wouldn't think about religion so much (if at all) unless those persistent baptists here, in South Carolina. I don't mind being a potential target for conversion, although lack of rational thinking around here makes me mad. Belief what it is. Especially interesting is your book department. Please post more about formerly published books on the topic (with reviews, if possible).
Nikolai Turchanikov <turchanikov@worldnet.att.net>
Simpsonville, SC USA - Tuesday, August 18, 1998 at 22:03:07 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
I justed wanted to post a comment on some of the ateistic views I've seen on this site. As a Christian it doesn't really move me one way or the other when I see something promoting opposing views because I know that I myself can do nothing to change it other than to show an example of the wonderful grace of God that was given to me.However, something about atheism has always miffed me. How is that one can really take a good close look at the world around us, its beauty, complexity and overall design and not believe that there is a designer?
Talk about blind faith?! To think that this could have all just happend via one coinsedence after another over the years. Being able to drive ym car to work with my eyes closed and hands off the steering wheel would be child's play compared to the incredible odds of a planet with a perpetual eco sytem as complex as ours evolving on its own.
Mark Redd <Mark_Redd@toyota.com
>
Long Beach, Ca USA - Tuesday, August 18, 1998 at 12:54:22 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
In my opinion, the Intelligent Design argument is a cop-out. We are being lazy, pure and simple, if the first answer that comes to mind for every important cosmological question is "God did it." I would also point out that our universe's beauty is a subjective quality. I would agree with the statement that this universe contains more than its fair share of joys for us to watch, or even take part in, but surely few are unaware of its darker, uglier sides. There are a great many things in this world (death, famine, disease, evil) that would not exist if the universe had a better design. You can get a good look at some of the flaws and inefficiencies in the universe's "overall design" in Stephen J. Gould's The Panda's Thumb. Lastly, I don't see how you can justify describing this planet's eco-system as perpetual. If nothing else, our sun going nova will put a damper on things.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lifeafterdeath/
In your analysis of life you seems to forget that a man is hardly a physical being. It certainly appears that way, but this is a deliberate illusion to keep man in darkness until the spirit man (the only real man) on the inside awakes. All other analysis is rather futile and originates from the intellect only. Please consider that the intellect can only make judgements from the physical point of view, since it's impossible for it to see the other realms that open to the awakened man. The way to the spirit is silence of the mind and attentive listening to the silence from inside. Eventually the speech of the spirit man will become discernable to the listener. Point to ponder.
Paul Foss <foss@squirrel.com.au
>
Nambour, Qld Australia - Tuesday, August 18, 1998 at 01:32:27 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
Your site is very interesting. I found a partial answer to a question I had in previous feedback, but I still could use some clarification on freethought.
My question is this: I assume that the freethinker uses reason to examine the evidence acquired through personal observation of reality, which might include the behavior of others, the contradictions found in sacred writings,the lack of historical evidence for purported events, and the reports of scientific experts, (which understandably may need to be simplified for lay consumption.) This seems to fit the definition in "Introduction to Atheism". Does the freethinker make up his mind using only this evidence, or may he be influenced by the opinions of others about this evidence? For example, could one use Twain's famous quote about the Bible to justify one's own rejection of it and stil remain a freethinker? Or would it be more accurate to say that "Twain and I have both examined the Bible and come to the same conclusions about it"? Could one say "I'm not a Christian because Bertrand Russell wasn't a Christian" or would that negate the idea of freethought? Or does the idea of non-acceptance only apply to formal creeds? Thanks for clarifying this.
Ann Brown-Box <vbox@computek.net
>
Dallas, Tx USA - Monday, August 17, 1998 at 21:19:58 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
There are many things people will kill for;a pack of cigarettes, a pair of sneakers, a Tony Lama jacket, but there are damn few things people will die for. A deed done with the expectation of eternal bliss in some imagined heaven is the hook that snears many a fool. If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, could religion be the first?
Faith is the sister of Hope. Both are the daughters of Desire. Most, if not all, religions are founded on firm bedrock with four corner stones; Ignorance, Fear, Pain and Desire. The first weapon in war's [arse!] arsenal is the creation of the god myth.
John Stauffer <jks51@desupernet.net
>
Akron,
PA USA - Monday, August 17, 1998 at 20:21:42 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/htdig/search.html
I was surfing on the internet I came a cross with web page, first I thought it was an Islamic work but after reading a few paragraph, I am confused. I am Turkish and you have some turkish book there, called " Din adamlari " by Ilhan Arsel. It is totally unacceptable cause he is enemy of Islam. Please find a muslim Turkish and let him translate it for you. I would like you to remove it from your library if possible.
Fahri Ay <Fahri98@hotmail.com
>
London, UK - Sunday, August 16, 1998 at 04:05:19 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
Hey, I don't know if this is secular format or not, but here's my opinion. I don't know how to say this, but FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT BROTHER, FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT! I think all religion is a choice, and nobody should make a choice without investigating all of the facts and stories first. Peace,
Kenneth Fabrizio <KJF-69@webtv.net
>
Newnan, GA USA - Saturday, August 15, 1998 at 05:24:35 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html
You have one of the best sites on the web--an excellent resource! Although
attempts to
rigorously prove or disprove the existence of any particular God are
interesting, it seems
to me that from a practical standpoint they aren't particularly important.
I come from a very fundamentalist Christian background, from which I defected
long
ago. In
my many conversations with these folks, the one thing you can count on for them
to say
is
"...well, that may well be true, but it doesn't disprove the existence of
God."
All this brings up the larger question--why is it necessary to actually prove
or disprove
God? A far more useful way to evaluate the question is simply to determine the
PROBABILITY
of God's existence, based on what is currently known about the universe. For
me,
since I
know of no scientifically documented supernatural agents or miraculous
occurances, as well
as my
own personal experience of never having seen or experienced anything that would
require
a magical/supernatural explanation, there really isn't any REASON to believe in
God. Doesn't this seem like the most reasonable way to evaluate the question of
whether
God exists? When looked at in such a light, the answer to this vexing question
seems
obvious.
Ron Tolle <
rjtolle@express-news.net>
San Antonio, TX USA - Thursday, August 13, 1998 at 23:33:22 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_haught/breaking.html
Right on. I used to think I was an atheist but on reflection I decided I was agnostic. It's nice to recognize I have such distinguished company.
Stuart Keller <skeller1@neo.lrun.com
>
Akron,
OH USA - Thursday, August 13, 1998 at 17:44:55 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
Hello Infidels,
First of all, I would like to apologize on behalf of some of my fellow
Christians. I
periodically have scrolled through the feedback pages only to find a barrage of
insults
thrown
at your writers. I am sorry that people who claim to know God are acting this
way.
If they actually know the God they claim to know, they would be utterly humbled
in His
presence. A perfect God with perfect standard would rejects any such behavior.
I
suppose
that these "Christians" justify in their mind that because of your
differing
beliefs, they have the right to treat you as less than human. I think that the
your
arguments put fear and doubt into them, and make them vulnerable. If they place
their
faith in their ability to argue, rather than in the person of God, they will
lose hope. If
their faith is in God, answers will come. It is hard to believe that someone
could inslut
you and talk such trash and arrogance, then two hours later pray to God.
Imagine the kind
of false humility they have to manufacture in themselves. If these people are
Christians
in reality, I apologize on their behalf. Perhaps one day they will start acting
more
like
the savior they profess.
On an entirely different subject, I have a question. I have not extensively
searched your
site for my answer, but maybe you have a link or something. My qusestion is
this: I have
read a few arguments and statements about the question of life after death.
This may sound
childish, but technically speaking, how do you define life and/or death. Are
they a matter
of ontology, epystimology, biology or some combination (not to necessarily
restricted to
these three)? I was just curious.
In my thinking, if we understood the basis of human life (carrying with it the
connotations of reason, feelings, and conciousness) to be merely a biological
process, we
have
made man out to be nothing more than a certain configuration of cells. That
definition of life seems to be so dark and futile. Then I was wondering what
would
the
definition of death be? I suppose we would have to say that it is part of the
biological
process, where certain cells and chemicals alter and change and go on their way
(I am
not
a biologist, parden me if that sounds stupid).
I am not implying that all atheists and agnostics must define life and death in
material
terms, but I know some have done so. To me that seems like such a superficial
way of
explaining something so complex. I think in a sense life can explain that way,
biologically speaking, but it doesn't explain very much. If we attribute all of
human life
and its range of experiences, thoughts, and relationships to biological
outworkings, we
alter
(or perhaps destroy) the very meaning of the life we attempt to explain. If we
are
all merely biological processes (regardless of how advanced), and love and
hate,
compassion, and regret are all mere chemical outworkings....I would feel as if
I never
lived in the first place. The view is so narrow and self defeating, the true
question, in
my mind, is altered. The true question must then be stated as such: Do we ever
live before
we die? If I attributed all of my life to chemistry, I would be forced to find
out if I
was really living.
It seems that if you try and attribute our consciousness or personality to
something
unconscious and impersonal, you inevitably reduce the meaning and significance
of our
consciousness to that of its origin. If we derive our characteristics of
personhood (like
consciousness, and the sense of identity, feelings and desires) from something
impersonal,
we invariably change essense of the characteristics we attempt to explain. To
me, it
is
like a trap.
I do not know exactly what the prevailing theory is for the atheist and
agnostic. Perhaps
there is a range of possible answers. I am not saying you have to have a
definition
perfectly worked out, but I am sure you can relate to my thinking even if we
stand on
different ground. I hope that I expressed my thoughts clearly enough for you to
have a
good foothold in my understanding of that kind of materialist philosophy. It
seems to be
self defeating. Besides, I am sure you have come across this kind of reasoning
before.
Anyway,
I appriciate your thoughts.
Rob Colvin <
lestercrow@hotmail.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Wednesday, February 06, 2036 at 23:56:13 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html
You can argue scripture all day long but doesn't the whole thing come right down to man's philosophy vs. God's word? You ask me to believe that something came from nothing, and there is no purpose to life, we are all an accident. That matter "magically" brought chaos into perfect harmony within the Universe. I ask you to believe that something came from something, that a creation DEMANDS.
Rob Whitlow <
rwhitlow@ceeresults.com>
Franklin, IN USA - Wednesday, August 12, 1998 at 22:34:28 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/brian_pietruszewski/gish.html
I am in the midst of an on going argument with a creationist that is
acquainted with
Duane Gish and also presents creationist programs for select religious
organizations. I
sent him your list of questions for Duane Gish and he responded to number 1.
His response
follows. I would really appreciate your review and comments as to the validity
of his
argument. This response is beyond my area of expertise and I have no way to
evaluate. I
really appreciate any help you can be.
Sincerely,
Janet Fericks
Dear Mr. Pietruszewski:
In response to your questions regarding Dr. Austin's article on excess argon in
Mt. St.
Helens lava,
1. "Why does your web page tout 'research' that attempts to dispute
postasium argon
(K-Ar) dating at Mt. St. Helens when professional geologists agreed beforehand
that the
conditions under which these rocks were formed would tend to trap argon and
distort the
K-Ar test?"
Please provide documentation of the agreement among professional geologists
regarding the
trapped argon. The author of the subject report, Dr. Steve Austin, cites 41
references in
his report. You cite none.
The evident purpose of Dr. Austin's report ("Why does your web page tout
'research'
...") is to demonstrate that a fundamental assumption of K-Ar dating (and
all
radiometric dating methods), the initial absence of daughter element in the
sample, is not
valid. Radiometric dating is the principal dating tool used by evolutionists.
Creationists
claim that the assumptions inherent in radiometric dating are unreliable, and
thus the
dating technique is unreliable. Historic lava flows like Mt. St. Helens give
scientists of
both persuasions an opportunity to calibrate the K-Ar radiometric clock against
a known
standard - the world watched on television as Mt. St. Helens erupted in the
spring and
summer
of 1980. Dr. Austin's report demonstrates that K-Ar dating fails this
calibration
test and wonders if this failure calls into question other ages produced by
K-Ar
radiometric dating. ICR's web page touts (in the sense of promoting, as opposed
to
soliciting customers) the report because ICR believes the Bible account that
the
Earth is
young, and the report casts doubt on one of the clocks used to demonstrate that
the
Earth
is old.
2. "Why does your researcher admit and then disregard this in his paper?
If the "this" in this question refers to the opinions of other
professional
geologists (by the way, Dr. Austin is a professional geologist with a Ph.D.
from
Pennslyvania State University), Austin certainly does not disregard them. In
fact, he
cites many of them in support of his thesis that K-Ar dating is not reliable
due to the
presence of argon in the material at time zero. If the "this" refers
to the
trapped argon, Austin does not disregard this either. In fact, the experiment
was intended
to quantify the amount of trapped argon and explore its effects upon the ages
obtained
from the K-Ar technique. Perhaps I don't understand the question.
3. "Why did your "researcher" use for comparison (4 of 5 cases)
mostly
basaltic low-silica volcanoes (which have K-Ar problems of their own) instead
of
felsic
systems like Mt. St. Helens?"
The question refers to a table on page 9 which summarizes the study of another
geologist,
G. B. Dalrymple. Dalrymple apparently thought these 5 examples were
sufficiently
significant to publish in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, a professional
journal,
addressing the same question that Austin does in the subject article. Do you
object
to
Dalrymple as well as Austin? Austin apparently uses Dalrymple's work to show
that Mt. St.
Helens
is not unique in producing anomolous ages using by the K-Ar clock, thus
reinforcing
the suspicion that the clock, a tool frequently used to demonstrate that the
Earth is old,
is not reliable.
4. "And most importantly, why didn't he try any of the other radiometric
tests on
these rocks?"
Because the specific purpose of this particular experiment was to calibrate the
K-Ar
clock.
It was not to date the Mt. St. Helens eruption, which we know to have occurred
in
the spring of 1980. What would be the point then, considering Austin's purpose,
of
dating
the
rocks with other clocks? Perhaps another scientist will undertake to calibrate
a
different radiometric clock using Mt. St. Helens. Bravo! But Austin's focus is
K-Ar. Do
you really have a problem with Austin's choice of study topics?
If this really is your "most important" question, then you have
revealed your
complete misunderstanding of Austin's purpose, and perhaps given a clue as to
your
own.
Austin's purpose is to investigate potential problems with a particular
radiometric clock,
and he does so in a scrupulously scientific manner. What it yours?
5. "If he 'maybe hasn't done it yet,' as you stated in October 1997, why
would he
write a final report and post it on the web if his work was incomplete?"
Dr. Gish is a meek person, and "maybe he hasn't done it yet" is a
meek answer.
My more aggressive answer is contained in 4 above. Austin reported on the
results of the
experiment he chose to do, not on the experiments he chose not to do, which is
a very
logical course of action. The report gives ample indications that Austin
doesn't consider
his report to be the final word on K-Ar dating. All scientists periodically
publish the
results of their work, which are necessarily incomplete. All human
understanding is
tentative. That's why we still have scientists and research universities.
A rigorous response to this question is that it is logically flawed. It's
premise,
"maybe he hasn't done it yet," is false, and the only way the work
could be
considered incomplete is if the premise were true. When the question assumes
its own
answer, we call it "begging the question." Shame on you, Mr.
Pietruszewski!
6. "Finally, answer this irony: if, in spite of all this, ICR still claims
that
science proves creationism, why does the 'researcher' conclude that the
situation, 'raises
more questions than answers?'"
You are begging the question again. ICR doesn't claim that science proves
creationism.
Rather, ICR claims that the evidence in the real world supports a Bible-based
creation
model of origins, rather than an evolutionary model. Neither creationism nor
evolutionism
is science because the events and processes under consideration happened in the
past and
are not accessible to empirical study. (The real irony is that creationists are
willing to
be subject to the essential empirical nature of science, while the
evolutionists are not.)
Even though the question is logically flawed, let me address the "raises
more
questions than answers" issue. The questions raised must be answered by
those whose
world view requires the existence of clocks which accurately measure an old age
for the
Earth. The Biblical creation world view assumes a young Earth and is not
surprised by the
failure of such clocks. Perhaps it is time to do some calibration experiments
of your own
to demonstrate the validity of K-Ar dating.
And now for my own commentary: You call Austin's report a "heinous example
of ICR's
'research.'" "Heinous: Grossly wicked or reprehensible;
abominable" (The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) Really? This adjective
goes to the
'character' of the scientist and his work, not their accuracy or legitimacy.
Why are you
so angry at Drs. Gish and Austin that you must demean the work of two
scientists with
earned Ph.D.'s by enclosing "research" and "researcher" in
quotations.
There's an old saying that, when you've lost the argument, attack the man. This
is not the
response of a seeker of truth. And it is certainly not science. But perhaps
your purpose
is
simply
to argue for your worldview, which, more and more frequently, you must now do
in
spite of the evidence, not on the basis of it.
Janet Fericks <JanetCook@sisna.com
>
Sandy,
Ut USA - Wednesday, August 12, 1998 at 20:55:45 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
Well, if there is no God, then we the people don't have to follow the law. We can go ahead kill people, steal, lied, be bisexual, have abortions and all the wrongdoings. Wow that would be so nice. I can go ahead and suicide.
Curious <Patricell@aol.com>
Memphis, TN USA - Wednesday, August 12, 1998 at 14:47:21 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
In Tokyo, a crowded city of over 11 million inhabitants, people never lock up their bicycles. An office worker can ride her bike down to the subway platform, lean it against the railing, take the train to work, and when she gets home at night her bike will still be waiting for her. Japan has a fraction of the violent crimes than does the United States. The U.S. has more gun deaths per year than all of the industrialized nations combined, including Northern Ireland during its most turbulent period. Yet, only a tiny fraction of Japanese citizens believe in God while the majority of U.S. citizens do. Given these facts, belief in God is clearly not an indicator of a person's moral condition. However, your suggestion that, in the absence of God we do not have to follow the law, tells us a great deal about your moral condition. It is pretty sad that the only reason you do not kill, lie, and steal is because of a divine command. You should refrain from wrongdoing because to kill or steal does harms to another person, not because you might get punished by God.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Good site. I am glad to see people asking questions instead of sitting in a dormant state.
Blurr <ben.bowman@juno.com>
Anaheim, CA USA - Wednesday, August 12, 1998 at 10:44:09 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/wire/stories/arl_bauer_pres_bid.html
This country in which we live was founded on the concept of "Freedom Of Religion", however, I'm beginning to belive that this only applys if you are a protestant. I'm really sick of all of the discrimination and especially gay bashing that is being done by the church. For centuries, the christian church has condoned the the discrimination of women, gays and other minorities. Who do you people think you are anyway? Certianly no authority on judging others. If the church is so secure about what they believe, then they shouldn't have any problem letting other people live and think freely. I'm also pretty disgusted about the fact that the Republican party has gotten into bed with the christian coalition. What ever happened to the separation of church and state? As you might have guessed, I'm not a christian, just as many other Americans are not. Back off and stop interfering in peoples lives. It's no secret that christianity is based on dualism . All of these moral codes are only social and biblical structures stemmed from the brain of man, not god!
Lissa Robertson <fslrr1@uaf.edu>
Fairbanks, Ak. USA - Monday, August 10, 1998 at 19:00:25 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/big_blue_books/book_19.html
The part I find so funny, is your stupidity! . . . May GOD bless you, your family, your friends and the energy that you have. LOVE AND LIGHT!
J B Vaughan <JBVemail@aol.com>
Coral Gables, FL USA - Monday, August 10, 1998 at 18:27:35 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/secular.html#ex-tian
I am a former charismatic/fundamentalist Christian. I have been out of the charismatic movement for close to twenty years, but I have less than ten years logged since exiting Christianity altogether. I am interested in contacting individuals in the West Virginia area who have also exited Christianity with the intent of mutual support and help. I am benandanti...that is to say, I have had and continue to have periodic "out of body" experiences which, I feel, are the result of birth and childhood traumas. My interests lie largely with historical Jesus research a la John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar and thealogy...the study of Goddess as opposed to God.
Philip Jarrett <
benandanti@hotmail.com>
St. Albans, WV USA - Monday, August 10, 1998 at 13:28:20 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
I read a few articles on your web page and I liked to see a completely different point of view (than mine) so intelligently and thouroughly discussed, but frankly, all that I found was interesting explanations that are far from the truth.
George Samaha <gs@gsresearch.com>
Scottsdale, AZ USA - Monday, August 10, 1998 at 01:21:47 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
I really love the new format at Infidels; it's simply beautifull! Kudos, you did an excellent job, and that's not to mention the content, which is the best of its kind I've seen on the Web. Your color scheme and arrangement of the front page is just wonderful, and very practical. I hope you keep this format.
G. Richard Gaudreau <grgaud@sprint.ca
>
Hull, Qc CAN - Sunday, August 09, 1998 at 13:13:19 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ilhan_arsel/Din_Adamlari/
"Eger (din adamlarina) karsi benim sahsimdan bir sey anlamak isterse
niz, derim ki
ben sahsen onlarin düsmaniyim. Onlarin menfi istikamette atacaklari bir hatfe
(adim),
yalniz benim sahsi imanima degil, yalniz benim gayeme degil, o adim benim
millet imin
hayati ile..., o adim milletimin kalbine havale edilmis zehirli bir hançerdir.
Benim ve
benimle hem fikir arkadaslarimin yapacagi sey, mutlaka o adimi atani
tepelemektir. Sizlere
bunun da fevkinde bir söz söyliyeyim: farz-i muhal bun u temin edecek kanunlar
olmasa,
bunu temin edecek Meclis olmasa, öyle menfi adimlar atanlar karsisinda herkes
çekilse ve
ben
kendi basima yalniz kalsam, yine tepelerim"
Atatürk
Laik
Türk Kadını
Istanbul, - TURKIYE - Sunday, August 09, 1998 at 08:54:18 (MDT)
Translation:
"I you want my personal opionion about (the clergy), I say I am their enemy. Any negative step they take is not only against my personal faith, not only against my purpose, but such a step is a poisoned dagger aimed at the life and heart of my nation. The thing to do for me and those like-minded must be to stop anyone who takes such a step. Let me tell you something more: if there were no laws to provide the needed measures, if there was no Parliament to provide these, if everyone withdrew from opposing those who take negative steps and I was left alone, I would still stop them." --Kemal Ataturk [founder of the Turkish Republic]
The Secular Turkish Woman, Istanbul, TURKEY
[Translation provided by Taner Edis <edis@cal-bears.llnl.gov>. ]
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
I was looking forward to the debate that never was. Although Dr. Martin objected for the reasons that he had (the publication of the debate itself) I find it very hard to believe he was being truthful. Furthermore, after reading his refutation of Bahnsen's position I only have one question for him: What was he really afraid of? Bahnsen certainly was not going to benefit from a taped debate. He had already schooled Dr. Stein in 85. Was Dr. Martin afraid of the same quashing?
Roberto Corral Jr. <
Lcorral@milehigh.net>
Wheatridge, CO USA - Saturday, August 08, 1998 at 22:14:41 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1998/flag.html
I am
a devout believer in the separation of Church and State and First Ammendment
Rights but burning the flag is a HATE Crime.
If you dont' like what is going on in the country speak up, run for office,
vote, etc. The
flag stands for what makes this country great as well as serves as a monument
to those who
have
died to defend this country. Would anyone be willing to serve in the army of a
country without a flag? What country doesn't have a flag? If you want to
protest in a
really strong way do so by
leaving the country.
Burning
a flag that you bought yourself is the same as burning a cross on your own
lawn.
Both should be illegal because it breeds hatred and can lead to violence. If
you want to
burn a flag whether or not you bought or not I should be able to protect it
because to me
that
flag may be someone's property but what it stands for belongs to all Americans.
This organization should concentrate not on tearing down American morals but
showing that
these morals can be based on something other than religion.
Paul Abosch <abosch@erols.com>
Princeton, NJ USA - Friday, August 07, 1998 at 21:35:32 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
A hate crime is when you destroy the property of another. If you burn a cross on your own lawn, this should be protected speech, even if it conveys a message of hate. As the son of an Auschwitz surviving mother, the easiest call in the world for me was to side with the rights of the American Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, replete with their swastika uniforms. Even though their message was that they wished that Hitler had killed all of the Holocaust survivors who were watching them march, they were not physically threatening anyone. To say, I hate you and your kind and wish you were all dead, must remain protected speech. The expression of an idea, regardless of how horrid, must never be banned unless it is an actual threat of violence. To burn one's own replica of the flag does not jeopardize the flags that adorn millions of homes and government buildings. Again, if atheists buy their own copies of the bible and tear those copies up at a rally to protest religious dogma, the bibles in millions of homes are not threatened. The bible, as an entity, is not taken away from anyone else. The flag, as an entity, is not taken away from anyone else, just because protestors burn their individually owned replicas of it.
The best manifestation of the magnanimity of the flag is for it to preside over a country that is large-minded enough to allow individuals to burn or otherwise desecrate their personally owned replicas of it. This is what truly gives the flag its greatness. The proposed flag desecration amendment is censorship at its most dangerous.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethought.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap1.html
I have been purusing this site for about two hours and I have not been impressed by your "scholarship". The fact of the matter is that your camp is "Pro-Sin" and nothing less. Whatever the Bible has defined as "sin" you and yours find it enjoyable i.e., premarital sex, incest, lying when it suits you, pride, arrogance, nature worship, the destruction of unborn children, defiance of authority and a list of others. What this all boils down to is you need to come right out and say that you want no sin ever again and for all Christian thinking to be destroyed and if necessary, to get your world vision to become reality, the actual destruction of Christian's themselves. Because that is the only way you will terminate the influence of God on this world.
Thomas Lowe <tomlowe@usa.net>
Columbus, OH USA - Friday, August 07, 1998 at 11:44:29 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
You speak of sin as if it were something rampant among atheists, but alien to Christians! I can assure you Thomas that lying, premarital sex, pride, and arrogance are not limited to nonbelievers. Why do you notice the sliver in our eye, but overlook the beam in your own?
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/
I notice you've linked to a rebuttal of "Why I am Not a Muslim."
After
reading over the article, I can't help but ask, "Why did you bother?"
It's the
same thing we've heard over and over. In part I, McAuliffe outlines "five
errors
common
to anti-Muslim writers:"
1) is a strawman, which claims that "antis" use the mere fact that
Islam began
in a specific historical setting as proof against Islam. Then, instead of
making a real
criticism of Warraq's commentary on Mohammed, he simply claims that he's
repeating Crusade
propaganda.
2) Anti-Muslims "fail to treat the Q'uran and sunna as a whole."
Apparently this
criticism also applies to pro-Islams who disagree with McAuliffe's
interpretations. After
all, Auliffe DOES understand the Q'uran as a whole, so anyone who disagrees
with him
theologically must be taking something out of context, right?
3) "Our collective and individual sins and defects do not indict the
Qur'an and
sunnah, they indict us." Of course, this same argument is used to equal
effect
by
Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Pagans, the Heaven's Gate Cult, Qi Gong
Masters,
Astrologers, and five guys in my college who worship a particularly holy can of
SPAM. It
is such
a ridiculous argument, especially since those who parrot it will also say that
their particular religion will make you a better person.
4) McAuliffe criticizes "antis" for not distinguishing between Arab
cultural
practices and the teachings of Islam, even though he himself admits that they
are
hopelessly tangled in the minds of most muslims (excluding his very enlightened
self, of
course). I would say that, when a particular religion's effect on society is
being
evaluated, it's excesses and abuses are just as relevant to the study as the
"proper" uses as judged by one of their more liberal adherants.
5) The author claims that, since the Q'uran is "scripture," it cannot
be put
in
a
literal historical or scientific context. He appears to feel that a book
inspired by an
omnipotent and completely truthful deity isn't required to line up with
historical or
scientific facts in any particular. Since the parallels to Christian apologists
have, to
this point, been uncanny, I would guess McAuliffe has just angered many Islamic
fundamentalists.
Part I was probably the most intellectually meritorious section of the
rebuttal. In part
II, the author speculates that Ibn Warraq hates Islam because he was beaten as
a child,
claims that Warraq is unqualified to comment on what the Q'uran says since he's
never read
it in "the original Arabic," and claims that, since Warraq doesn't
provide much
commentary on a huge list of authors, that he has no idea what Islam is really
about.
McAuliffe also claims that, since there is no evidence for or against the
existence of
God,
then it isn't a scientific question. There are other, more technical arguments
later
on
(since I have a very limited understanding of Islam and its history, I can't
comment),
but many similar non sequiters are apparent.
What was the purpose of linking to this article? It appears to be on par with
the
worst of
Christian apologists. If your purpose was to show the incomptence of Islamic
apologists,
or the striking similarity to Christian arguments, you've succeeded. But it
would be more
honest
to hold out for a truly worthwhile critique of the book.
Bryce Anderson <Idafab@yahoo.com
>
USA - Friday, August 07, 1998 at 09:21:23 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lifeafterdeath/
Proof of life after death-What you cannot remember never happened. think about it
alex <codybutch@aol.com>
cupertino, CA USA - Thursday, August 06, 1998 at 01:54:38 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.secular.org/library/modern/farrell_till/
Pardon
my collosal ignorance but I only learned of your existence by accident...whilst
trying
to
locate information on the Roman historian: Lucian. There was a reference to him
in your debate with Dr.God-Bothering Geisler (which I have downloaded and
hard-copied).
Information such as you desemminate is unlikely to be given space in our press
in
Australia...not that I am an avid reader of them anyway.You are a an inspired
and highly
knowledgeable educator. Your pithy logic is breathtaking!
Although brought up as an Anglican I have slowly discarded my faith over the
years
and now
make claim to being a non-Christian even though I very much enjoy poking around
the
rural
churches and cathedrals of England. Some years ago I joined the Western
Australian
Humanist Society. The short-lived experience proved to be exceedingly dull. I
was
expecting debate in the style of your words and discovered them to be a
petite-bourgois
non-alternative.
I have been to your country on a scholarship but the closest to Illinois was
Minnesota.
I am a great admirer of Bishop Spong of Newark and met him when he was out here
last year.
Somehow he retains an Anglican faith but just how he manages it when he is no
adamantly
opposed to fundamentalism and clap-trap in general is quite beyond me.
There
has just been a monstrous conference of ossified irrelevancies at Lambeth. Can
we
have or do you have conferences for free thinkers? I would be very interested
to hear
about one.
Clyde Selby <cselby@omen.net.au
>
Perth, W.A. Australia - Wednesday, August 05, 1998 at 23:00:14 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/wire/stories/aol_suralikeit.html
When is everybody going to realize that there is no such thing as the seperation of church and state? There is no constitutional provision for it, and eight of the states that ratified the constitution had state supported churches. The ammendment was written to insure that government would not squelch religion, not that religion could not influence government.
Troy Mepyans <
knighthawk@complink.net>
Kalamazoo, MI USA - Wednesday, August 05, 1998 at 11:14:52 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Thankfully this country is not totally subdued to the opression of traditionalism. I add that for your viewpoint to be totally consistent, you should also favor slavery and oppose women's suffrage.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/march.html
I am always amused when I read what supposedly "good christians" have to say. To question why people have morality without a god says to me that the only reason "they" have any morality, is their fear of some imaginary supernatural being.
Doesn't this take the motivation out of our existence and wouldn't some supernatural being be aware of our reasons for doing the things we do? I mean doesn't this say that the ends justify the means? Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is a basic part of the learning process that children go through but eventually grow out of if they're smart. For example, a child doesn't get into the cookie jar before dinner or play football in the house because he fears being spanked by his parents. But eventually he grows up and gains control of his mind enough to realize that there were reasons other than "his parents were mean" to do or not to do something.
Stanley DeFisher <
defisher@mindspring.com>
Winter Park, Fl USA - Wednesday, August 05, 1998 at 11:00:00 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html
Your website is fantastic -- food for thought (a 10 course meal!). Anyway, I
read the
article "Judaism and Jewish Apologetics" by Guido Deimel and it was
very
well
thought out. Mr. Deimel sure knows his stuff and was fearless in listing his
sources
(great Bibliography and Notes sections) -- a feature lacking in many smart, but
passionate
"anti-religion" articles.
I have eagerly sought, but found very few (close to none) articles/books that
address
Judaism from a "reasoned" or a "non-theistic" perspective.
As a
"humanist" product of a Lubavitch school (highly Orthodox which I
attended from
Kindergarden to the end of 7th grade), I've looked for them. Could anyone
recommend any
articles, books or websites? Perhaps I could obtain Mr. Deimel's e-mail (or
else if you
could please forward my comments to him).
Thank
you all at www.infidels.org for your diligence and risk-taking in the face of
much
opposition.
Bob Hull <hullbob@hotmail.com
>
Los Angeles, CA USA - Wednesday, August 05, 1998 at 09:10:20 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/
Excellent site, I frequently access it to enjoy the rantings and ravings of the zealots and the responses they generate.
Stanley DeFisher <
sed96585@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>
Orlando, Fl USA - Monday, August 03, 1998 at 10:48:40 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Thank all of you so much for your insight, thoroughness and dedication. I
belong
to a
newly formed freethinker's group in Temecula, California (which is in Riverside
county
in
the southern part of the state). We have been meeting for about 6 months and
are up
to 17
members. We are as pleased to have found your website as we were to have found
each other.
Ours is an ultra-conservative religious community with a right-wing school
board
and one
radio station which was just purchased by Calvary Chapel. We recently had to
counter
a
christian boycott of our local paper for printing letters critical of religion
in general
and christianity in particular. As usual every criticism is seen as 'christian
bashing'...so much for free speech.
Again thank you for all of your hard work.
Tambra Turano-Davis <tambra@iinet.com
>
Temecula, CA USA - Sunday, August 02, 1998 at 11:33:27 (MDT)
Last updated: Wednesday, 30-Nov-2005 17:06:10 CST
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
