Infidels: Feedback : December 1998

December 1998

Send Feedback

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/wire/stories/cnn_needs_skepticism.html

Your time on this planet is but a speck compared to forever. You had best get in touch with your creator and find out what is expected of you. If you think this is not worth the effort, you will know for sure within probably 50 years.

Judy DeVine <Judydevine@aol.com >
Columbus, OH USA - Thursday, December 31, 1998 at 12:14:21 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1998/december.html

Just found you recently. I am a recovering delusional cultist who has after a lifetime of intellectual atrophy begun to use her brain. Your site and others like it are invaluable aids to people like me who have little in the way of local resources.

One note: among the December offerings I noticed a remark about grammatical errors and poor editing in some (opposing opinion) web pages; perhaps some further editing of your pages is in order, as I found several odd punctuation errors in my first cursory runthrough of your material. You know how those picky Usenet trolls jump on the tiniest mistake... so fix your commas and clauses kids, lest you be dismissed by your own criteria. Need editorial assistance? E-mail Mommie Dark.

Mommie Dark <papaDark@sssnet.com >
Wooster, OH USA - Thursday, December 31, 1998 at 06:33:26 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/

Hi Folks! I would like to know if there is any translation of the works of Ingersoll to Portuguese. Believe me, it would reach a considerable amount of people! This outstanding writer must be understood by many. Keep the good site!

Otto Triebe de Mello < qir906i@tninet.se>
Stockholm, Sweden - Thursday, December 31, 1998 at 05:40:38 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/ex-tian/resources.html

On your resource page you list "Fundamentalists Anonymous." I was in contact with them years ago, right after they appeared on the "Donahue Show." I was stunned that after all these years they had no web presence, and as a web designer, wanted to offer them my services, gratis. So, I wrote them a letter using the address on your site. It came back to me as "no such addressee." Do they even still exist? Did the fundies drive them out of business?

El Arseneau <amenadiel@aol.com>
Ashland, OR USA - Thursday, December 31, 1998 at 00:05:40 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/clarence_darrow/bible_absurdities.html

There are some statements in the bible that hint to an author of higher intelligence. I dont recall verse numbers and such but I do remember what was said. One statement, "the earth hangs on nothing" suggests that God was the author because who at that time would know that. Another statement says, "the stars are as numerous as grains of sand on the beach. On a clear night and with a little time on your hands, you could count all the visible stars. How could they know that the stars are as many as grains of sand on a beach without powerful telescopes of today?

Keith Stevens <sigpro@msn.com>
Virginia beach, Va USA - Wednesday, December 30, 1998 at 23:46:17 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.atheism.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/3/3once93.html

As a "fundamentalist", let me give you the essence of the problem on biblical inerrancy. If the bible's not true, then what can be believed about our religion? If Jesus really said the things he said & then rose from the dead, shouldn't we take his affirmation of half the prophets of the old testament as valid? If he didn't really rise from the dead, then our religion is false and, as Paul says, we are pitiable fools. So, enthusiasm on the part of Christians in defending the truth of the bible is understandable. Having said that, no one wants to live in a fairy tale world, no matter how ugly reality might be. Your problem is that you assume there is no God and therefore the bible is untrue. I assume nothing & am willing to be convinced either way. But your article on the errors of Genesis was unconvincing.

mark smith <mmurton1@gte.net>
omaha, NE USA - Wednesday, December 30, 1998 at 21:23:51 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

We Infidels hear this argument quite a bit. Usually a Christian Fundamentalist comes along and asserts that the Bible must be true. For if it were not true, then Christianity would be false. But Christianity is true; therefore, the Bible is true. The logic of this aside, the real problem with these statements is that they are utterly without sense. It is meaningless to say, "the Bible is true" or that "Christianity is true." What would it mean for the Bible to be false? You cannot say of something that it is true unless you know what might make it false. What is your criterion for suggesting that a collection of ancient books is true? (What does that even mean?) Can a chair be true? Can my computer's keyboard be false? Only propositions that assert a truth-claim can be true or false. For example, the statement "two and two are four" can be true or false. Similarly, some statements within the Bible such as "God created the world in six days" can be true or false. But the Bible itself is not true or false; rather, it is read and revered by its adherents.

James Still

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/

I am LDS by faith. (AKA: I am a 'Mormon') I was born and raised LDS, but during my teenage years I spent a lot of time and energy rebelling against organized religion of all stripes. Later on I was able to rediscover what it truly means to be LDS, and have since reconciled my conflicting philosophies. In response to many of the artcicles I have read here on Infidels.org, and in response to some rather caustic feedback letters from so-called 'Christians', I applaud the efforts of Infidel.org. True faith and spirituality are not arrived at by hiding from simple or even obvious facts. True faith and spirituality are not the domain of 'American Christians' alone. The methods and ideals of science are far more sacred than the 'holiest' of 'Holy wars'. As a man who does believe in Jesus and the love, truth, and ideals that Jesus stands for, I would advise one and all Christians to consider the value of skepticism. In our arrogant defense of our various flavors of faith, through Literalism and Dogmatic Obscurantism, we do more damage to ourselves and to the legacy and spirit of Christ than any 'infidel' ever can. If Jesus has gotten a bad name, it is because of US. Christians everywhere need to return to the ideals of service, love, humility, tollerance, open-mindedness, and open-heartedness. These are the virtues of Christ and of God. Hatred, ignorance, bigotry, and self-righteousness are the virtues of the doomed.

Love, faith, hope, and tollerance. To all, for all.

Brad R. Torgersen <subodeon@cio.net >
Seattle, WA USA - Wednesday, December 30, 1998 at 14:58:33 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/contributors/bow.html

...there is no heaven/hell, there is no god/devil...there is only one true reality "you cut me I feel pain, you hurt me emotionaly I feel pain...this I know is truth

F-200[666]/F656-738-115/273(11,584@[3]-04-14-43 r. <frenchie@driveninc.net>
Redford, Mi USA - Wednesday, December 30, 1998 at 14:31:44 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

Thank you, thank you, thank you for your web site. I thought i was the only one.

Bobbi Currie <BOBBIC2241@aol.com >
Milford, CT USA - Tuesday, December 29, 1998 at 14:15:44 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/disclaimer.html

First, I used to have a problem with faith too, who hasn't? This doesn't mean I grabbed the nearest keyboard and spread all my disbeliefs all over the Internet for all to read. In actuallity, you controdict yourself numerous times in saying "Our God" then bashing the Bible and then calling us blasphemes. Next, science can not find the answers to most things, otherwise known as phenomenon, because they are unexplainable. Granted you may never read this and so be it but God still loves no matter what. Religion can at times be cruel, if the people attending are hypocritical in their actions, however, God is still absolute. He's ready to take you back, start praying. The Lord did strike down the "savages" as you so lovingly call them because they had fallen away from Him. He is a perfect and just God who never kills without giving a person a chance to find Him. This webpage, believe it or not, was inspired by God through you to get feedback to change your beliefs and convert friends, go for it. Even Darwin, whom you praise like crazy in this page is buried at the Westminster Abbey and renounced all evolutional beliefs and even became a Christian. Look at Josh McDowell, one of the best Christian writers of our time, started his career trying to controdict our awesome and majestic God, eventually finding no means to accomplishing this mission. In my opinion, this page is just the Devil's last cry to get people to act how they want, when they want, to keep them from the truth. DON'T LISTEN TO HIS PRODDING, HE IS THE TRUE DECIEVER, NOT GOD! And oh, God never swore, ever, I promise. I'll pray for you and the whole gang of atheist Internet gangsta's. PRAISE GOD love to all.

I am not going to say a whole lot, simply because I know you've heard it all before and maybe even have pre-packaged arguments against Christian beliefs. All I will say is that once a Christian, always a Christian. From what I know, you said you a believe in God before turning your beliefs to that of atheism. What this means is that you will indeed being standing face to face with God, and if you continue your current beliefs, you are going to have to explain to Him someday why you put on all of this against Him, and you will be in awe. So all I ask is for you to please just ask God to show His truth and reality to you. He will. I know this because I asked that exact same thing about three years ago, andmy life hasnt changed since. All I can really so is I'll pray for you, and that I love you guys (as fruitish as that sounds). CHR(love)IST

Aaron and Chris <ashallstrom@hotmail.com >
Freeport, IL USA - Tuesday, December 29, 1998 at 02:04:54 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

There are many things in your letter I disagree with, but I'll address only your assertion that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed. The story of Darwin's deathbead "repentance" is a lie invented out of whole cloth. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html. Even if Darwin had renounced evolution on his deathbead, the theory stands or falls on its own merits, not on the authority of its originator. The evidence that living things have a common ancestor is overwhelming. See http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/evolution_evidence.html for a brief lay summary.

Rich Daniel

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/video/

Thank you for spending your time on this very valuable website (time that many others would have spent in church/temple praying for our infidel/heretic souls). Keep up the good work.

Molly Melick < mpecoula@interaccess.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Monday, December 28, 1998 at 14:34:12 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

Maybe now some Catholics will start studying the bible for themselves, instead of listing to what ever the Catholic church wants to tell them. The Catholic church is clearly condomed in the bible. Hope they find the truth.

grannydj <grannydj@flash.net>
Houston, TX USA - Monday, December 28, 1998 at 00:33:54 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1998/december.html

YOU SHOULD CHANGE YOUR NAME TO: Society for Humanmistic and Intellict Teaching. That would be more fitting

Pat Pace <patpace@lcc.net>
Nacogdoches, TX USA - Friday, December 25, 1998 at 11:26:06 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/virgin_birth.html

What say about the idea that the Mary, mother of Jesus, was technically a virgin (that is did not experience sexual intercourse), BECAUSE she was artificially inseminated? Do we really believe that we are the first ones on this planet who developed the idea of donor egg/semen conception. I think not! Perhaps, even cloning was at a developed stage before the great Flood or natural catastrophes that befell civilizations.

carry <carry@webtv.net>
san francisco, ca USA - Thursday, December 24, 1998 at 13:41:10 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/wire/stories/nativity_atheist.html

Hi. Happy solstice. Thanks for your excellent pages.

I just read the article on the Fort Worth Christians vs Atheists. Now I don't have a problem with that. So long as those organisations pay the relevant taxes they can do what they want. It's just more money into the communal coffers. (Got me an idea, however, that the wee ones in the church aren't going to like that one.) As I see it, it does not breach separation of C&S if everybody has to pay a fee. ('Course we may have to charge per square cm for those rather vociferous sects.)

Alive and well and living in the Theocracy of Canada,

Gordon Leslie <sunfer_ironcrafters@sunshine.net>
Gibsons, BC Canada - Thursday, December 24, 1998 at 08:49:16 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html

I read with interest your comments on Jesus being a hypocrite. Unfortunately, it is now 3:10 am, and I am just too tired to write back with any degree of detail concerning my disagreements. However, suffice it to say in short that I believe that the perspective which you hold on the issue of Jesus's hypocrisy would only be satisfied with a logical-machine Jesus. A cold, robot-like, individual who lacks any trace of human impulse, passion, or emotion seems to be the only alternative you would accept.

You also fail to mention a few scripture passages which would support Jesus's virtue. For example, why would Jesus, dying in agony, even command John to take care of his mother if he lacked respect for her? Second, I've heard it said many times by skeptics that Jesus verbally assaulted those "who disagreed with his teachings." That is a gross misinterpretation as far as I'm concerned. The Pharisees who Jesus viewed with such contempt were those who turned the worship of God "in spirit and truth" to legalism (e.g. hand-washing, Sabbath prohibitions, etc.)

As for Jesus's secret and public teachings, there were common sense grounds for keeping some teachings (e.g. his identity as the Messiah) a secret. When he referred to teaching in public, he was appealing to the fact that he changed so many lives of the common people (which the religious clergy didn't), that they should ask the common people what his teachings were, so that they could get a sense of the sheer number of lives that he changed. He was appealing to his mass of followers to defend what it was that he taught, since he knew that the Pharisees asked for his teachings only to scrutinize them in theory.

Well...so much for being tired...you've got me writing about something which I find very interesting. But do consider my viewpoint openly, and remember - not all believers in Jesus are closed-minded, intolerent buffoons...just most of them!

kenny kistler <kjk1204@aol.com>
elmwood park, nj USA - Thursday, December 24, 1998 at 01:33:44 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/gish-zindler/gish-zindler.html

When I first came across this interview I thought I was going to read a debate on this issue. Although it gives the impression of that, it actually comes across as a platform to put down creationism. Reference all of the linked notes to challenge the creationism speaker and none on the other side. I don't know what this was intended to be but it certainly wasn't free of bias.

Dick Fisher <fisher_az@csi.com>
Glendale, az USA - Wednesday, December 23, 1998 at 04:55:08 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

If Gish wants to publish a rebuttal, we will link to it. I doubt that he'd be interested, though. Also note that in the link to "Evolution Books" at the end of the page you cited, we list half a dozen books written from the creationist viewpoint, and even give one of them (The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, edited by JP Moreland) a 5-1/2 star rating and a good review.

Rich Daniel

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/rrr/amway/

Read the Bible, go to church, investigate for yourself.

For starters read the book of James. Then John. Then Isiah.

Merry Christmas!

Steven
Steven Laster < steven.laster@cwix.com>
Little Rock, AR USA - Wednesday, December 23, 1998 at 01:24:07 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html

Evidently, serious scholarship is not what attracts people to this area. The article "Christ as Fiction" is one of the most adolescent pieces of gnostic nonsense I have read in years.

Patrick Greene <pfeg3@usa.net>
Tacoma, Wa USA - Monday, December 21, 1998 at 22:52:38 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

Hello. I may be mistaken but it is my understanding that this site is generally atheistic and anti-Christian. I just read Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story by Richard C. Carrier which you are apparently proud enough of to have on your home page. I found it so transparently poor that I feel like I'm just wasting my time trying to see where you guys are coming from. I also found it as amusing as a J.P. Holding parody. I truly and honestly cannot see how on earth your essays can so casually dismiss the resurrection of Christ. Maybe I've read too much good apologetic work and come across too many debates completely dominated by the Christian (Habermas vs. Flew, Moreland vs. Nielsen, Craig vs. everybody, etc.) for me to be anything but faithful to the claims of Christianity. I'm just wondering if you really believe your position makes better sense of the world. Is the evidence that I find so compelling really so pathetic? Thank you.

Dave Benari
Dave Benari <Dadabuk@aol.com>
La Crescenta, Ca USA - Monday, December 21, 1998 at 11:34:49 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

In contrast to the Evangelical subculture, most nonbelievers do not take debates nearly as seriously as Evangelicals do. I think it is fair to say that Evangelicals enter debates "to win," whereas many nonbelievers do not. Regrettably, this was definitely the case in the Habermas-Flew Debate, the Moreland-Nielsen Debate, and several of Craig's debates. But this trend does not indicate any deficiency in the nonbeliever's position; this simply indicates that many of our debaters performed quite poorly.

And this is quite understandable when you examine the credentials of, using your examples, Flew and Nielsen. Flew and Nielsen are both respected philosophers who have published in the philosophy of religion, but neither of them have debating experience. Moreover, the Habermas-Flew Debate (on the Resurrection of Jesus) was a mismatch: Gary Habermas specializes in New Testament studies; Flew is a philosopher. Though Flew did as best he could, I can guarantee you that there are many objections to Habermas' arguments which Flew did not even mention in the debate. In February, there will be a debate on the Resurrection between Craig Blomberg (of Denver Seminary) and Robert M. Price (editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism). Based on Price's performance in his last debate (with John Rankin), I have every confidence that Price will make a compelling presentation.

And don't forget there are debates where the nonbelievers have won (e.g., the Martin-Fernandes Debate, the Jesseph-Craig Debate, the Craig-Jesseph Debate, and the Craig-Parsons Debate). Also, Internet Infidels, Inc. has twice tried to arrange a debate between Craig and Doug Krueger (author of What Is Atheism?), but Craig has refused to debate Krueger both times.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap8.html

In Chapter 8 of "The Jury Is In" Robert Price writes: "no census Quirinius conducted would have involved residents of Bethlehem, since in Quririnius's reign, Judea was a technically independent client state alied with Rome, not subject to taxation, unlike Nazareth, part of the Roman province of Syria."

Robert Price has it backwards--in 6 A.D., King Archelaus was deposed from the throne of Judea, and Judea came under direct Roman control (its governor was made subject to the governor of Syria). The census in Judea therefore did effect Bethlehem. But it would not effect people in Nazareth, which was in Galilee. At this time, Galilee is a technically independant client state, under Herod Antipas.

Joe Green <augnaplee@hotmail.com >
Kirkland, WA USA - Sunday, December 20, 1998 at 22:19:38 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/about_the_holy_bible.html

What I find most laughable is that while you denounce a true faith(can atoms be seen?) you worship Christmas and and they aren't even christian! Religious, maybe, but not christian. No one knows the date of his birth. It certainly wasn't in the winter. Probably about august. Prayer was taken out of schools, but religious rites and holidays remain! Until religious holidays are outlawed in schools and other places like prayer was, I cannot believe anything you do is sincere. Maybe the ACLU is afraid to outlaw christmas, halloween, and others in government places because they celebrate God in their own way!

daniel strahan <danielj@ametro.net >
lucedale, ms USA - Sunday, December 20, 1998 at 10:04:08 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

I realize that I am only 23 years and have many things to learn about the world but I felt that you might appreciate this comment on your works. I am sure that you have had many explicit responses to your thoughts and ideas. For that I am deeply sorry that many Christians are not more accepting of any others' ideas besides their own narrow beliefs. Many get stuck in a rut and refuse to see the lesson that Jesus himself taught us. To accept others for what they are and to love them all the same. In reference to your hatred of the Old and New Testament God for his hate and apparent delight in destroying people....to that I have no response.....after all I'm only 23 and I just recently discovered that the world was not created in a week, only part of it. Thank you for your time and once again I applaud you on your courage to find out things as you see them, not as others spoon feed it to you.

Rebecca Furr <mailsac@yahoo.com >
Arlington, TX USA - Sunday, December 20, 1998 at 02:47:08 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/

Gott hilf dich! Du musst nie vergessen, dass du vor Gott stehen willst. Du willst fur alles antworten. Ich war einmal wie dich, aber jetzt weiss ich besser. Ich bete fur dich und deine arme Familie.

[Translation: God help you! You must never forget that you will stand before God. You will have to answer for everything. I was once like you but now I know better. I pray for you and your poor family. -JS]

Bettina <afrank99@hotmail.com >
USA - Saturday, December 19, 1998 at 20:17:13 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/judith_hayes/happy_heretic/1997/july.html

The view expressed in your essay "When is a religion not a religion" is a gross and blasphemous misrepresentation of beliefs and sanctity of the Christian faith. Your eloquent and dramatic depiction of the baptism of the child creates a excellent doctrinal foundation for your corruption to follow. Let me begin by defending your first presemptous depiction of classic "christian" behaviour outlined in your story of the young girl burned at the stake. Please, for an instant, allow your thoughts to nurture the very cornerstone of Christianity - the holy Bible. I have chosen to qoute the new testemant because it is closely associated with the one who provides the beauty, grace, and truth by which the religion was propegated - Jesus Christ. Matthew 5:21 Says "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to the judgement." You have chosen to give your priests and masses in the story a symbolic representation of christianity and christians in general. Can these priests and peoples be called Christian if they so flagrently denounce the word of the lord written in the passage above. God says that they too will be judged for thier evil deeds. Do you think a compassionate God standing by that young girl about to burned would let her suffer for the sins of another. We see this love in John 8:7 when the Lord says "if any man among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone" The masses, sinners by nature (unless you truly think man is sinless) are powerless to judge, much less execute, their own justice...think about what we have presented...we'll be back.

Matthew Blevins <Blevs@aol.com>
Panama City, FL USA - Friday, December 18, 1998 at 19:48:23 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/about_the_holy_bible.html

It is obvious that the writer knows nothing about the Bible. Stupidity must control their life. Consider that every book in the Bible (66) either agrees or overlaps each other. What are the odds? billions to one! Look up any five books on any subject and at least one (or more) will disagree. Not the King James Bible (AV-1611) The reason for any violence is because of sin which Satan brought into this world. We have made thousands of laws, but not one has even come close to improving on the commandments. They are all based on Gods' laws. Read http://chick.com and find out the truth. Get rid of that hate and atheism which destroys many. There are so many holes in your theory, I can't start. But lies will not make anything come true. The reason Moses didn't write the Pentat- whatever, is because there isn't any such. Just gibberish thought up by discreditors of the true Bible. Jesus Saves!

daniel strahan <danielj@ametro.net >
lucedale, ms USA - Friday, December 18, 1998 at 17:34:55 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

It is sadly ironic that someone who would write "the Pentat- whatever . . . there isn't any such" would begin his tirade by claiming that Robert Ingersoll is stupid and "knows nothing about the Bible." Long before Ingersoll, the Greek word pentateuchos (the "five sheaths") was the name given to the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Church Father Epiphanius uses the phrase kai auto allon pentateuchon in referring to the five parts of the law. Origen, Hippolytus, and Tertulian also used the masculine noun Pentateuchus to refer collectively to the five books of Moses. So, Mr. Strahan is wrong to suggest that Ingersoll's use of the word "Pentateuch" is some kind of gibberish to discredit the Bible. The reader can rest assured that Mr. Strahan is confused about many other things in his wild rant as well.

James Still

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1998/indulgences-cont.html

Is it possible for me to earn an indulgence, or are former Baptists left out in the cold? Good Show!

Allan Jodrey <ajodrey@rivnet.net>
White Stone, VA USA - Friday, December 18, 1998 at 14:46:43 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

I think you should add the Sumpreme Court case of Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) in the modern/church-state Sumpreme Court Decisions section.

Here are my notes on the case: Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) Pawtucket city annually has a Christmas display which included the usual Christmas decorations such as a Santa Claus house, a Christmas tree, and a nativity scene depicting the birth of Jesus. The city was being challenged because of the nativity scene. The Court ruled that since it was not displayed as the focus point, it was constitutional.

Jonathan Williford <Ditto-now@usa.net >
Sebring, FL USA - Friday, December 18, 1998 at 14:15:47 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

This morning I watched as the House of Representatives opened the day's session, in which they voted on the articles of impeachment of President Clinton. I was rather shocked in seeing a priest offer an opening prayer to start things off. Isn't this a direct violation of the separation of church and state? Are there any precident setting cases that would have a direct affect on this. I would be interested in a class action suit against the U.S. Congress to stop this practice, since this specifically promotes a single religion directly in the halls of government.

Joseph M. Sparks <jsparkie@earthlink.net >
Fort Collins, CO USA - Friday, December 18, 1998 at 11:01:55 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

I came upon a few articles at a creationist website one day that was titled something like "Disproofs Against the Theory of Evolution." In it was listed 3 major evidences supposedly debunking our modern view of human origins. The first one mainly stated that "the evidence is too scrappy for scientists to conclude anything at all, and when they do make conclusions, it's mostly guesswork." (Not actual quote). The second one was concerning the several early hominids that they feel have never existed. They included propliopithecus (ape), proconsul (ape), ramapithecus (ape), Australopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus afarensis. Of course, the former three are agreed among paleoanthropologists to be apes that may have been ancestral to the hominid line, but are not hominids. The creationists badly misrepresented Australopithecus africanus by stating that its only evidence was based upon a single juvenile skull (the Taung child) and that many scientists had dismissed it as an ape. This, of course, is patently false: scientists have discovered countless other specimens in addition to the Taung skull, and while the majority of the scientific community back in 1925 believed it to be an ape's, scientists nowadays accept as a genuine hominid fossil. There was another case of misrepresentation, this time worse, in the creationists' discussion (or rather, mention) of the biochemical evidence derived by Wilson and Sarich. The author(s) stated that the evidence pointed to the rise of "people" 200,000 years ago. And the author(s) further claims that this just disproves all the paleontologists' theories concerning human evolution, which really means that the creationist believes that the first hominids appeared 200,000 years ago. The term "people" in this passage is a very loosely defined word, and can mean anything from a group of humans to a particular race or tribe or one's subjects, etc... However, when slotted into this context, the reader is forced to interpret "hominids" into that sentence because that is what all the rest of the paragraph implies. So, here is another prime example of creationists either fooling their readers or not catching up on their reading or just not understanding what they read.

Duncan Rhesos <dxue@erols.com>
Cambridge, MA USA - Thursday, December 17, 1998 at 13:09:58 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1998/december.html

The Editorial was mature, respectful and valid. As a skeptic for some 48 years, i've found no need to force my convictions on others. A respectful silence as others observed their religious rights never seemed injurious nor an unduly onerous imposition.

At such times, however, as the religious fervor outstrips the courtesy I expect of my conversationalists, I offer the following formula: "If you promise not to proselityze me, I will promise not to tell you the truth!"

Rich Richey <richeyr@scott.net>
Jemison, AL USA - Thursday, December 17, 1998 at 11:42:41 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/november.html

Regarding W. Howard Nivison's message in the November feedback, the Mormon church does baptize atheists. They baptize everyone. If they can't make 'em Mormon in this life, they perform baptism by proxy after they die in the hope of making 'em Mormon in the next.

Al Case < acase*nospam*@hotmail.com>
San Jose, CA USA - Wednesday, December 16, 1998 at 09:12:19 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/

This is in response to Anonymous' feedback in the November feedback:

You said that the site has not posted any information on the number of people 'touched' by xtianity. Here are some figures that may disturb you: ~100 million natives of North and South America, who died directly or indirectly, at the hands of Christians, since 1492.

Since 315 CE (IIRC), Jews have been hounded, persecuted, and kill by Christians. Many 10's of thousands of pagans, wiccans, atheists (like me), agnostics, and other non xtians have been persecuted and/or killed by Christians since 315 CE. The list goes on and on. This is how Christianity has touched people's lives.

John de Michele <overlord@aa.net>
Seattle, WA USA - Tuesday, December 15, 1998 at 22:12:52 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/whymoral.html

Hi.....I didn't take the time to read all of your page. I have been a (born again) since I [. . . edited long conversion plea -JS]

alice <carleton@oakland.edu>
rochester, mi USA - Tuesday, December 15, 1998 at 10:01:13 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I don't mean to pick on you Alice, but you are just one more of dozens who write to us with exactly the same  message. You and your predecessors always begin by telling us how you didn't "take the time" to read whatever it was that prompted you to write, after which you then proceed to speak down to us about how little we know of the "truth." But if you can't take the time to read one simple essay by Professor Drange, then why should we take the time to hear you out?

James Still

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/myst.html

Hat's off to your team for putting up such an excellent site. I too am a Rationalist and a Humanist. My view on the role of rationalism as the bedrock of secularism is stated at the page: http://india.CoolAtlanta.com/GreatPages/sudheer/book2/rationalism.html

Sudheer Briodkar < sudheerbirodkar@yahoo.com>
Atlanta, USA - Monday, December 14, 1998 at 21:10:40 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidel.org/

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that unless Yaweh is proven, the whole concept of Jesus' divinity is meaningless. Absent divinity, just another preacher. I personally find the evidence FOR Jaweh unconvincing.

Jim Myers <myersjl@eckerd.edu>
St Petersburg, FL USA - Monday, December 14, 1998 at 12:20:15 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidel.org/library/modern/judith_hayes/happy_heretic/1998/december.html

Although a world free of religion would not solve all the world's problems, it certainly would stop the main serious ones such as the mass genocide still happening today, the problems in Ireland and the terrorism in Israel for example. Although we have progressed from the ox wagon & carrier pigeon in the last 200 years we have not progressed one iota in our religious prejudices in the last 2000 years. Freedom OF religion is a small step in the right direction freedom FROM religion is still on the very distant horizon and it is time strong concerted action is taken to bring it about.

Although efforts are being made to separate the State from the influence of the Church (such as the removal of the In God we Trust from the monetary system and the taxation laws of religious institutions) far stronger attacks are called for. What is needed is a new "monkey trial" at supreme court level. The worst pollution in the world today is 0rganised religion and the severest case of child abuse are the religious fairy tales implanted in the minds of children. Can we not make a start by suing the Catholic Church for misleading advertising and making provably false claims such as the ability to convert wine into blood and bread into flesh? (Are snake doctors still active in the US?)

MARTIN HALLE <radcliff@iafrica.com >
MARGATE, KN SOUTH AFRICA - Monday, December 14, 1998 at 12:15:02 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/

Hello! Great website!

Laura M. Abernathy <aber@foothill.net >
Foresthill, CA USA - Monday, December 14, 1998 at 10:08:16 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/george_smith/

I, now, am an atheist, but used to be, what I consider now, a passionate religious fanatic (Southern Baptist). No one, no matter what logic they tried to use with me, could have persuaded me to question my beliefs. As soon as they started, my thought would be, "this person doesn't know what I know and hasn't experienced what I have.. ...bless their heart!"

Faith is EMOTION based, and therefore, I don't believe it can be REASONED with. They feel their beliefs are ABOVE reason and logic.....divine wisdom! Have you had any sucess "converting" any Christians with reason? If so, WHO?

Leigh Ann Malone <lam@hiwaay.net>
Scottsboro, AL USA - Monday, December 14, 1998 at 05:57:06 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/new.html

Let me say that you folks are doing a commendable job displaying non-theistic resources on every topic from quantum physics to modern humor.

Greg Scorzo <Cortex3959@aol.com >
Downey, CA USA - Monday, December 14, 1998 at 03:04:39 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

sup? yeah, my agnostic mother is pissed that i don't belive in god. ain't that messed up? you guys are great. i love you all, and wish you a merry solstice.

ryan < rberlin@remcen.ehhs.cmich.edu>
midland, mi USA - Sunday, December 13, 1998 at 17:47:05 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/5/985good.html

The article "Good History on the Book of Daniel" The Skeptical Review; Sept. 98, by Farrell Till, sounds great unless one reads "The Yahweh Encounters: Bible Astronauts, Ark Radiations and Temple Electronics." This book provides very compex electronic circuitry describing the Tabernacle of Exodus as a microwave communications system and Daniel's visions concerning end times following a one world government on earth. This book should be critiqued by scientists. We may be in for a surprise visit by a God - an alien.

Joseph M. Jones <martin@cwix.com>
Chapel Hill, NC USA - Sunday, December 13, 1998 at 14:14:51 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/bias/

Great site!!!! I've bookmarked it and will be calling to order merchandise.

Doug Steel <DSteel9247@aol.com >
ST. Petersburg, FL USA - Sunday, December 13, 1998 at 09:04:27 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/

Thoughts of a thinking person in response to Emmett Fields' Bank Of Wisdom:

To not believe in God is to add incredible coincidence to the place we call the universe. The existence galaxies, the order of the planets, the present constancy of physics, the undeniable emotions of love and peace, the complex and often impossible process of a child's birth - these are only fortunate, random accidents. Thinking people consider the presence of these facts to be evidence that must be considered when deciding what to believe.

To not believe in God is to give futility to the existence of life, that our brief presence on earth is a memory before it begins, that the best extension of our life that we can hope for is some small contribution to man's corporate philosophy. But even that is predestined to the same oblivion as ourselves. Hope, then, is the fantasy of children ultimately eradicated when the immortality of youth is lost.

To not believe in God is to remove all order from our daily community save that which we create and destroy by our own will. Rules for life and for society are relative, determined collectively by a body of people. Yet what do we really know about ourselves and what we need? It would be arrogant, presumptuous, and unthinking to say that we have gained all knowledge; that total wisdom is within our grasp. To thinking people, our vast lack of understanding indicates how unqualified we are for the task of government. To thinking people, the coincidence of society's degradation with its increasing distance from belief in the Creator is evidence that must be considered.

A thinking person does not put a reaction of repugnance to hypocrisy and injustice before what is believed. The failure of any group of people to be honest or fair does not by that fact alone make false all that they believe. The hypocrisy of many religious organizations does not make God unbelievable. The lack of understanding that we possess does not make God less real.

A thinking person will put God and the Bible to an honest test, without pre-conceived opinions or judgments, but with an eager and open desire to know what is real. To do less is cowardice, turning away from Truth in the fear that "knowledge" might be shown false by "experience".

Roy Macumber <Macjr@compuserve.com >
Rochester, NY USA - Sunday, December 13, 1998 at 08:15:52 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidel.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/

i fully support the argument about not accepting the gospel reports of the resurrection. what about the role played by nicodemus and the huge quantity of aloes (a pugative) and myrrh {a restorative) more than a hudred weight? why also did jesus skulk about in various disguises and only appear to his disciple cronies (who did not seem to recognise him even after spending 3 years as his constant companion - not to mention mary magdalene - whatever her true relationship to jesus) instead of marching into jerusalem to announce his presence like those many saints matthew claimed rose from their graves? i recommend "jesus the man" by barbara thiering, "after the cross" by hugh schofield, "the jesus conspiracy" by holger kersten & elmer gruber and "putting away childish things" by uta ranke-heinemann for further reading in support of this article.

MARTIN HALLE <radcliff@iafrica.com >
MARGATE, KN SOUTH AFRICA - Sunday, December 13, 1998 at 06:52:54 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethought.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/

Naturally, I find Graves' "World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours" rather interesting. After having read the disclaimer... has ANY of his work been verified?

dennis conley <dconley33@hotmail.com >
columbus, oh USA - Saturday, December 12, 1998 at 16:09:06 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethought.org/

The good paster of a church in Dixon Mo is incorrect in his comments about Japan.I have been married to Japanese lady for 45 years.we visit Japan every year Since 1947 the constitution of Japan has had a very strict separation of church and state clause and their supreme court like ours have made several rulings on the subject. Prior to WWII, Shintoism was the state religion and having experienced first hand the Japanese people have no desire to go back to a theocracy. Schools stick to teaching Math, science, etc., and make no attempt to teach one way or the other family value best learned at home.Teacher led prayer or sponsorship of any religious activities is strictly prohibited. I spent many years in Japan and read write and speak Japanese fluently. Article 20, Japan Constitution,1947 says that freedom of religion is guaranteed to all. No religious organizations shall receive any privileges from the state nor exercise any political authority. No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite, or practice. The state and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.

Bob Oliver <nakura@mocom.net>
Nixa, Mo USA - Friday, December 11, 1998 at 16:38:01 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/makin.html

This is in response to Graham Oppy's comments on Stephen Makin's 'The ontological question.'

Philosophical bantering is constantly becoming more sophisticated. I suggest that people of such obvious intelligence would better serve themselves and humanity by dertermining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That question has never been satisfactorily answered and it is a question of obviously more importance than the current topic.

Robert G. Makin <reise@aug.com>
St. Augustine, Fl` USA - Friday, December 11, 1998 at 09:30:46 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/

I've been monitoring a few Christian posting and they seem very extreme in their view that they are persecuted. In an effort to learn more about why Christians believe and act they way they do based on the Bible of course, no really logic, I've asked why they felt persecuted. They pointed to a few group, this one included that were actively trying to "destroy" Christianity. Since I find no statement to this effect on you site I will ask you directly. Does your organisation in fact hope to destroy this religion, or mere make sure Christianity does not take over other Americans right to thier beliefs? I pointed this out to the boards, but people insist your actions are in fact Anti-Christian. Thisis an honest inquiry not some psycho starting an arguement. I'd like to go back and tell them their full of it.

Leslie Crafts < lesgcrafts@earthlink.net>
USA - Thursday, December 10, 1998 at 21:26:10 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

While I credit the average (American) Christian with fully realizing that he is not, in fact, being persecuted, there seems to be a vocal minority of real "fire and brimstone" conservatives who feel an absurd need to "carry their own cross," even in the land of plenty. How one can feel persecuted as a citizen of the most powerful nation on earth while being among the religious majority is beyond me.

Blaine Armsterd

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html

Like so many people, I am trying to understand the universe, as much as we can. I am an intelligent person. I am NOT a mathematician. Why the hell do you people always have try to explain what you know in terms that we can't understand? It is such a turn-off!!!!! Who knows what the fuck you are talking about. It is YOUR inadequacy. If you want people like me, educated and interested, to understand, go hire someone who can explain it. Otherwise you're talking to people in your own field, or jacking off into the wind.

Signed.....Tired of your (your=the scientific community) failure to communicate!

PS: I don't give a shit whether you post my message....you won't. I just want you to know how much I despise your inability to explain what the fuck is floating around in your brain. You all bore me.

Larry Merkle < Lmerkle@earthlink.net>
San Francisco, CA USA - Wednesday, December 09, 1998 at 21:37:46 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

my name is Curtis Evans and ever so often I drop in to check out your site. Even though I myself am a Christian, I find you your site to be very well-organized and it has some quality material.

Curtis Evans <cje8@hotmail.com>
South Hamilton, MA USA - Wednesday, December 09, 1998 at 19:49:52 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/october.html

You Godless bunch of materialist skeptics! You're a bunch of unbelievers who have no more loyalty to the greatness of past than the barbarians who sacked the Eternal City of Rome. You people, with raw heuristic, destroy the rules and codes handed down by generations of obedient transcribers of a wisdom that is millenia old. You believe that can discover and decide for yourselves what a moral code should hold in much the same way that a chemist decides what is in a glass beaker! Such audactity flies in the face of centuries of accepted wisdom. We, as humans, are millenia in existance, and you people really want to overturn all this on a cultural whim based on imperfect knowledge, spread by a relativly small numbers of individuals in the last decades (perhaps two centuries).

erm ... sorry, I can't really think of any more flowery complements.

Yours in the fear of god,
Kevin Phelan

(ps, wouldn't it all be so much easier if more people read a little more Russell?)

Kevin Phelan <kevin.phelan@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Munich, Germany - Wednesday, December 09, 1998 at 13:15:25 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidel.org/

I found this notice of a new movie (The Sky is Falling) coming out on: http://www.darkhorizons.com/1999/TheSkyIsFalling.htm

Plot: An American archaelogical expedition, consisting of various scientists as well as two priests, uncover an artifact in the Middle East. Translating the markings on it, the priests are shocked to find that the artifact proves that God, the Bible and their entire faith has all been a complete lie. So they do the most logical thing....they have nervous breakdowns. The pair return to the US and promptly proceed to go on a killing spree, robbing banks, sniffing drugs, raping women and shooting up anyone who gets in their way. They have nothing to live or hope for, and no fear of death or what lies beyond -the most frightening type of criminal.

The Church realises if the priests were to show the world the artifact, the entire population would go into chaos. Their only option is to hire a previously incarcerated assassin who found Christianity while in jail. He is sent after the pair to wipe them out, but not told why. Can he kill them, knowing that by doing so he spits in the face of his new found beliefs? If he learns what the priests
know, will that help or heed his task? and if the priests do tell the world the truth, how will that effect all of us?

RELEASE DATES: USA - Late 1999/Early 2000

Does anyone else find this plot as frightening as I do? We, as atheist, being depicted as amoral and "the most frightening kind of criminal"??!!

There is much more info on the production on this web site--including that several studios had passed on the production -- at least someone in Hollywood has some sense.

Francis Govers < fxgovers@houst.sgi.com>
Houston, TX USA - Wednesday, December 09, 1998 at 09:38:21 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

Bier is sure proof of God's existence, that he loves us, and wants us to be happy.

Nikolai Turchanikov <turchanikov@worldnet.att.net>
Greenville, SC USA - Tuesday, December 08, 1998 at 23:22:19 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

Hey, you atheistic scum. You all think that Jesus is false, don't you? I am sorry to hear that you people don't believe in a promise of the afterlife, and I have read the unfortunate carry-on of the play about the gay Christlike figure. I am Catholic and extremely offended by that play, for God isn't trying to tell us that being gay is okay, but that play is. I side with the protestors stopping the play, and I think that they should block the entryway to it, just as I agree that abortion clinics should be forbidden entrance to. It is good that protestors are blocking the entrances so that people won't be so easily influenced by you liberal anti-Christs. Just accept Jesus in your heart, for it would be a pity that when you die, you outright refuse God's salvation and might go to Hell, or even Purgatory, if you are a good person, to atone for a time for your sins until God deems you worthy to go to Heaven. What is this crap about bashing the Pope also? The Pope is God's representative on Earth, and whatever he says is in the best interests of the people. I am not a mindless sheep that doesn't know where I'm going; I listen to the Pope because I believe what he says is morally right, and there is little anyone can argue against it or to question his authority because of this. There is proof of God, and that is especially through faith, but also miracles that have occured over time. What can you say about God when you don't know him? Lacking faith is not the way to eternal salvation; leading a good life is, and promoting sinful and an immoral lifestyle will not get you very far in the afterlife. Please understand that God is calling for all of you to change and to be with him. Remember that all of your sins and all of your shortcomings from the past can be forgiven, and you can start anew. All you have to do is ask Jesus for help.

Frank Fuller <frankie@gateway.net >
Marietta, GA USA - Tuesday, December 08, 1998 at 23:02:38 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Do you think the Pope ever called anyone scum? Has it ever occured to you that the majority of the world does not believe in the Catholic Church's teachings? I was not aware that God needed a representive on Earth. When he needed to talk to Noah, Moses, Jesus, etc, the Bible says he simply spoke to them. If God had called for us "to be with him" nothing would have stopped Him from giving us the same benefit of face-to-face rapport. As it is, I have no reason to believe he exists.

Blaine Armsterd

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/1/1saint92.html

I myself believed in Evolution, because I assumed that my teachers were telling me the truth. However, when I read the Creationists point of view, I realized that they fitted the facts better than the still missing link. I myself, just a couple of weeks ago stopped by Glen Rose, Texas to see the footprints of dinosaur tracks and human tracks found side by side. Supposedly some 'scholar' has 'debunked' these tracks, but unfortuately my eyes don't believe him. I saw for myself a man made hammer, with a wooden handle, encased in a chunk of Cretaceus rock. The handle was still wood. It hadn't petrafied or rotted. How is this possible? Obviously, the manmade extrapolated dating methods themselves aren't carved in stone and are subject to error. As a matter of fact this is what the Smithsonian told me. That they are subject to error due to 'Heat' and 'Leaching' both of which would have been present in a world wide flood.

David Hill <jesterbr549@yahoo.com >
Jacksonville, AK USA - Tuesday, December 08, 1998 at 22:46:51 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Rich Daniel

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

Darn, dang and bummer! I found your humor page just now! Sorry ībout the trouble. You donīt need to, eh, publish my letter!
Bye, and continue to develop this great site!!!

Martin Lundquist <malund@hotmail.com >
Sweden - Tuesday, December 08, 1998 at 14:17:34 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html

Excellent site! A one in a million. I love the fact that the truth can be told without the religious practisioners "Damning you to Hell!" Keep up the great work!

Julie and Lisa <julienlisa>
Riverside, CA USA - Monday, December 07, 1998 at 16:13:23 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

First, let me say that I enjoy your site immensely. I've been an atheist for more than 25 years, always on the lookout for kindred minds. Yours seems to be one of the most balanced and enjoyable atheism sites on the web.

But your article "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story" by Richard C. Carrier, disturbed me. Not so much because of his conclusions - I, too, find the Christian Resurrection story implausible even though I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian - but because of a poor argument buried literally in the middle of his essay. His second point, "The Evidence Casts Suspicion on the Event being a True Resurrection" is larded with pseudo-statistics, assigning values to the likelihood of various possibilities. These numbers are pure smoke, quanitfied guesses that insult the reader's intelligence.

I dislike flimsy logic used to support positions with which I disagree, but I truly hate poor reasoning used in support of a position that I share.

Gilker Kimmel <gilker@aol.com>
Austin, Tx USA - Monday, December 07, 1998 at 14:45:17 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I did not intend the statistics to be scientific, but was thinking in terms of game theory. I should have made that clear, and I think I will add an addendum on that. If we cannot quantify decisions in terms of fuzzy logic, then we cannot make decisions. It is inherently entailed by the fact that you choose not to believe X that you have evaluated the probabilities that X is not true.

Thus, by making my estimations explicit, my argument is far less flimsy than merely asserting that X is "likely" or "unlikely" -- for I am committing to an actual guess, whereas those who say "X is unlikely" are being excessivley vague. What do you consider "unlikely" and how much more unlikely is "very unlikely" than merely "unlikely"? Are two "unlikely" events equally unlikely? Etc. So, Mr. Kimmel must necessarily have made the same guesses, but he has not made his guesses explicit, and thus they cannot be analyzed for their relative weight. But he has assumed that he knows their relative weight (by committing to a decision), and this entails that they HAVE a relative weight -- in other words, a statistical value -- just like those that I assign. By including actual estimates, I am doing exactly the same thing he has, only I am allowing the reader to see the relative weight that I actually place upon my various educated guesses. Nevertheless, Mr. Kimmel is entirely right to demand that I make this more clear.

Richard C. Carrier

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/

I would like to commend you for publishing (curiously anonymously) the editorial in the newsletter "What to Do at Christmas". A lot of hard lessons I learned the hard way are in that article. Thanks.

James Stafford < jstafford@sed.stel.com>
Reston, VA USA - Monday, December 07, 1998 at 12:51:15 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Reponse:

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed the editorial. Although I wrote the piece, it is unsigned because it is an editorial, that is, it's the shared view of all of the Internet Infidels. We do publish guest editorials and articles in the newsletter from time to time but do not necessarily endorse the views of our guests.

James Still

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/

I see why you don't believe in God, because you look at people and see their faults! We as people, are not perfect, and only God is that of perfect holiness! So I see that you have made most of your research by observing other Christians or people! Please consider the Word of God and God only!

TRAVIS DUKE < GSI08391@GSAIX.2.CC.GASOU.EDU>
STATESBORO, GA. USA - Sunday, December 06, 1998 at 17:53:14 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/

How can someone be a skeptic? Philosophically it holds no water. You have to be skeptic even about your being a skeptic. Non-sense!

Enezio E. de Almeida Filho <neddy@uol.com.br >
Piracicaba, SP Brazil - Saturday, December 05, 1998 at 08:19:03 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

To borrow the definition from Skeptic magazine, skepticism is a provisional approach to claims, meaning that the best way of adding facts to your knowledge base is to wait until after supporting evidence is found, and/or the facts do not conflict with your previously accepted pool of knowlege. Please do not confuse bit of common sense with cynicism or nihilism.

Blaine Armsterd

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/clarence_darrow/lords_day_alliance.html

I find your discussion of the Sabbath most interesting. I couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing, but it seemed to have something missing. While the Lord's Day Alliance zealously promotes the "Sabbath", it must be noted that the day they are promoting is not the Sabbath of scipture, the Holy Bible, but a tradition created and handed down by the church of Rome. Check your history and your Bible. Oh, and take a look at a Catholic Catechism too, many editions spell out the change quite clearly. As for Sunday legislation, the Bible tells us we'll end up with it as a serious problem, men making laws enforcing Sunday as Sabbath, and persecuting those who honor God's true 7th-day Sabbath.

Ken Ray <rayfamily@msn.com>
USA - Saturday, December 05, 1998 at 04:35:38 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/emma_goldman/

Thanx for what you have presented, I enjoy it very much.

James Baldwin <jbaldwin@wwdc.com >
St. Marys, ON CANADA - Friday, December 04, 1998 at 18:27:19 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/annie_gaylor/

Leave the Boy scouts alone!!!! It is a great organization that teaches valuable skills. With all the problems in the world today it is good to see a organization that stands for good and decent things. That teaches self respect. so take your opion a shove it up your ass!!!!!!

Tony Rogers <Trogersuwyo>
laramie, wy USA - Wednesday, December 02, 1998 at 18:48:12 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.secular.org/

Dear Infidels,

My name is Michael Briggs, and I have a dilemma. I am 20 years old, and I attend a small college in Tennessee. The dilemma is that I am the only atheist here, literally. Even the teachers are all Christian, even though most of them do not bring it up in class. I often get dirty looks by the students, and even some of the teachers, when I defend evolution and point out errors in the Biblical definitions given by some of the students. I do this in a friendly, non-hateful way, and I get back nothing but disrespect for the most part. I have a hard time relating to most students, although there are a few that really enjoy discussing mutual theories and ideas. I am trying to overcome this, and I thimk that it is working. More and more people are becoming accepting of my ideas and are willing to discuss things with me. On that note, I'm going to attempt to start a weekly debate with some of the few open-minded christians here and see if anyone will attend. Anyways, I realized that as I discussed and debated, and did a lot of research, that I really like doing this. In fact, it would be fair to say that I fell in love with it. I always spend my free time reading arguements, doing research, or looking over philosophy books. My original major is music education, and I thought that was what I wanted to do. However, now I have much less interest in that, except when I'm discussing a philosophical area, such as why certain pieces of art or music are unacceptable or not considered music. I don't know what to do about this, seeing as how I can't think of a job that I could get majoring in philosophy, besides teaching. I would love to do what you guys do, but I don't know how to get started, or if you guys do this for a living or as a hobby, or anything like that. Any info you could give me would be appreciated. Also, I could use some info about how to get an organization started for freethinkers. I don't want to come out and say atheist and agnostic, seeing as how that would scare everyone away, but I think that the school needs to offer something other that the Fellowship of Christian Atheletes and the Baptist Student Union.

Michael Briggs < mbriggs37@hotmail.com>
Lebanon, TN USA - Wednesday, December 02, 1998 at 11:17:36 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/judith_hayes/happy_heretic/1998/december.html

Hi Judith. It would appear that had there been no religious organisations on earth that all that bloodshed would not have occurred. Sadly, I think that money is really the root of all evil and that those governing, be they religious or not will make gun fodder of their young people so that a few wealthy and powerful may have their riches defended.

I feel that the 'Crusades' back in the 12th and 13th centuries was more about looting and the religous issues were just an excuse. It's very easy to call everyone else a heathen when your living in a land which rams your 'born-into-religion' down your throat from birth. Particularly when your religion offers the only hope of salvation. Those cruel armys were zealots and that's the way the religion of the day wanted them to be.

So the rich and powerful, if they can't use religion to gain more power and security, will simply use something else.

David C Hardy <dchardy@xtra.co.nz >
Paeroa, New Zealand - Wednesday, December 02, 1998 at 01:53:47 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/

We're having a bit of a hassle with the RRR here in northwestern Wisconsin. Here's a letter I just sent to 3 local newspapers:

Barron School Board Highjacked by Extremists

The ongoing controversy surrounding the censorship of books at Barron High School has brought to light an even more troubling situation: The Barron School Board has been taken over by extremists seeking to carry out an agenda based upon their own narrowly defined version of Christianity.

An examination of the Board shows that five of the nine members are active in churches closely aligned with the national organization, Christian Coalition, whose stated purpose is to eliminate the barriers between church and state, in effect instituting a national government based on their Fundamentalist religious notions. A national effort by this radical organization is underway to covertly take over as many school boards as possible. Former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed publicly stated that he would gladly “trade the Presidency for 2,000 school board seats”.

The library censorship is but one part of this agenda. Already, the high school sex education program has been watered down to the point where vital elements of human reproductive biology are ignored in the name of religious ideology. Next will come the sciences. We can be assured that high on this agenda is the replacement of biology class studies of the theory of evolution with a Scripturally-based “Creation Science”. Some critics have suggested (only partly in jest) that chemistry courses will soon include lab work on turning water into wine and that a chapter be added to the home economics book with recipes for multiplying loaves and fishes.

Regardless of the outcome of the current censorship debate, it is imperative that the citizens of the Barron School District act to return a balance to the their School Board. We cannot continue to allow people who represent less than 10% of the county’s church-going population to ram their narrow-minded views down the throats of our students. It should be noted that some 37% of Barron area residents are not affiliated with any religious organization, a number equal to all Lutherans and Catholics combined.

It has been said that for evil to triumph, good men need only do nothing. It’s time for Barron’s good citizens to take back their School Board. The deadline for filing is January 5th. You must go to the administration office at 100 W. River Avenue and file in person.

Mike Urseth
P.O. Box 237
Ridgeland WI 54763
ph. (715)837-1120

Mike Urseth <beernote@realbeer.com >
Ridgeland, WI USA - Tuesday, December 01, 1998 at 16:56:13 (MST)

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. « disclaimer »