Infidels: Feedback : February 1998

February 1998

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

I am currently taking a class in which we are studying the emergence of irony post-enlightenment philosophy. I am intrigued by your own attempt at being ironic by naming your site "infidels" to turn a smear word into an honorable label. Unbelief and skepticism (infidelity) are trivilized by such an ironic inversion, which is quite fitting, for I recognize that the content of this site is hardly skeptical about a number of things, such as the falsehood of Christianity, the truth of Darwinian evolution, and the evil of the religious right.

Another similar attempt at irony are the Darwin fish emblems (as advertised by a linked site) that attempt to subvert the traditional Christian symbol. I suppose the Darwin fish symbol bearer is suggesting that his piety is no less than the Christian's, the difference merely being the object of his faith. Is there not an implicit acknowledgement here that Darwinism is a faith rather than science? Like the "Darwin fish" emblems, I find your site comical, for you seem to be the victim of your own irony. Did you know that? Ultimately, your site reveals how ill-fated old-fashioned atheism has become. Take some lessons from Georges Battaille (self described author of a "summa atheologica") who revels in his unbelief rather than trying to defend it.

Mike McVey <mmcvey@uic.edu>
Chicago, IL USA - Friday, February 27, 1998 at 17:15:50 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

There is an old saying swapped by connoisseurs of that great American pastime, the garage sale, to the effect that "one person's junk is another person's treasure." Far from trivializing ourselves as you suggest, we have taken a polemical name and by adopting it, empowered ourselves while deflating it of its former derision. Your words are meaningless and empty because we refuse to give them power.

James Still

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

I just scanned the above remarks and am thankful someone is exposing and explaining things. You would be surprised how many people I meet who do not know and some who simply do not care what's going on in the Church. I'm sure you don't need to be told how frustrating this is. I'm thinking of doing a page concerning instruction on belief in Marian apparitions. Seems that many web pages, books, magazines and news papers are dedicated to promotion of every "seer" that comes along. And it's not hard to become a "seer" and make a few bucks. Your message doesn't have to be intelligent. Thanks and God Bless.

Pauline Moulder < mopa55@sprintmail.com>
Pensacola, FL USA - Friday, February 27, 1998 at 13:55:27 (MST)

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

I find it absurd to believe in one all powerful entity, I'm decidedly atheist. Therein lies the rub. I also have become convinced thru many direct experiences, of the existence of my own votive will and power,of my conciousness existing outside the measurable 3-4 dimensional everyday world. I'm convinced I am more than a bag of meat with electroneural impulses. this conclusion is not uncommon, most limited intelligence having somehow realized this, rush directly to a god, goddess, a savior, or some archtype, in other words some external force. I beleive atheism does not exclude spiritualism, Is there not a universe(s) full of gross as well as infinitely subtle energies? Are we not but a gross of matter propelled by a subtle force? '' der wille zur macht '' I think our conciousness can go beyond our limited warrantys, the will of those of us who are strong, will survive, perhaps forever.

stinnubermensch < stinnubermensch@usa.net>
boulder, co USA - Friday, February 27, 1998 at 13:10:29 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Whoa, Stinn! I can almost hear those Nietzschian cannons rumbling in the distance! We might be "ugly bags of mostly water" (with apologies to Captain Picard) but we are still human beings with freedom, value and meaning. To be strong is to recognize one's own humanity and to respect, indeed cherish, the freedom of even the lowest member of society.  Ohne Gott, muss man die Menschheit hegen!

James Still

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

One wonders how those who just wish to not believe and remain separate from religion come to be so obsessed with it. It appears that no one is atheist, only theist or anti-theist.

Paul Younan <PaulYounan@msn.com >
Bolingbrook, IL USA - Friday, February 27, 1998 at 11:32:53 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

There are a number of things I could say in response. The first response is that you are mistaken in your assessment -- we are not "obsessed with it". This entire web-site is maintained by volunteers in their spare time. We all have full-time jobs and families.

The second response is that, although we are not "obsessed with it", there would be nothing irrational about a nontheist deciding to devote her entire life to refuting theism. Her obsession could be based upon an the conviction that theism is not only false, but harmful.

The third (and final) response is that your use of terminology is biased in favor of theism. By suggesting that, "no one is atheist, only theist or anti-theist," you are implying that (1) no one can be a passive nontheist, and (2) that all theists are not aggressive anti-atheists. But you are mistaken on both counts: (1) most nontheists are apathetic about their nontheism, and (2) there are theists who are also aggressive anti-atheists. (William Lane Craig and the late Greg Bahnsen would be two good examples. They are anti-atheist in the sense that they devote a major portion of their ministries to refuting atheism.)

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

And you say we are hateful. I have read your jokes, and I see that "hate" is surely an infidel value. Have a nice time in hell, I know you don't believe in it, but neither did the people who are there. If hate and phony science (Sagan) are all that the atheist, gay and lesbian crowd (the model of values) have to offer, that is a pretty sad.

Paul Younan <PaulYounan@msn.com >
Bolingbrook, IL USA - Friday, February 27, 1998 at 10:55:25 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I'm sorry we offended you. Believe it or not, our goal is not to deliberately offend people. If it were up to me, I would remove the piece. However, we have a Board of Directors and removing a piece can only be done with the approval of a majoriy of the Board of Directors.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

I would like to know where you get the so called information that "most judges know that penalties provided by law are more effective than addiction treatment". Even a cursory study of this issue will reveal that more people go back into incarceration than back into treatment. Why do you generalize all addiction treatment as the attendence of a 12-step program? There are cognative and behavioral modification programs that do not hinge on a 12-step program. Addiction is not treated in most jails. It is punished. If punishment were a deterant, then the circumstances of lost jobs, relationships and property would deter an addict form abusing any more of a substance. You are propogating a myth that creates shame and guilt for people who are struggling with addiction. Please look at the whole story. Do your homework RR-Plan!

David Poehlein <swordhell@aol.com >
Calhoun, Ga USA - Thursday, February 26, 1998 at 10:52:22 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1996/

Just had to drop a line a tell you that I have smashed many a Christian with the information that is provided at this site. While I am not an Atheist, I do share many of the Humanist, Atheist , and Agnostic views. Many have sought to label me, but I have resisted labels for I have found that they constrict my thought processes. I am an African American Male who has been in Islam and Christianity and I chuckle at the slave mentality that I once posessed, I often ca nnot believe I was so gullable. I have had many a debate whith Athiest also about the exhistance of a higher power, and I have seen some of them on occasion become like Christians (Totally closeminded). While I will go so far as to admitt the Atheist and Agnostic a thousand times more i nformed. And also very much more tolerable when it comes to reasonable discussions. I do feel that at times some Athiest do become quite dogmatic in thier opinions also. I feel that there is a higher principle at work in the universe, but I believe this force to be nothing like the Biblical God. I cannot imagine a supreme being being so savage . My philosophical outlook on what mortals call God is more of an Eastern flavo r. I really like the Taoist philosophy. I do not claim to know God like these Christians, their concept of god is indeed to me very savage and repulsive. But I shall not condemn them for their beliefs, for then I would be no better than they. If this is w hat they derive meaning and power from then "so be it". I would like your opinion on the philosophy of Taoism(observe that I did not call it a religion). This philosophy has no Gods to essentially worship in it's purist form, only later did mortals deifiy Lao Tze to almost God status in their ignorance. Just w anted to get some feedback on this matter. Again I commend you all on this treasure of knowledge which I am partaking of, and I will continue to use it against the Goosestepping Christian right who wish to turn all into mindless brutes.

P.s let's all be mindful to keep open minds, and to not become as dogmatic and intolerant as the majority of Christians in the world.

Michael E. Walton <SunFury@aol.com >
Dayton, Ohio USA - Wednesday, February 25, 1998 at 03:54:31 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/3/3wisdo91.html

RE The following Comment: "Isn't it strange that the wisest man ever born could not manage to satisfy God? And if the wisest man ever born couldn't please God, what chance do we people of ordinary intelligence have to please him? But maybe we don't have anything to worry about. Perhaps it takes ignorance to maintain a satisfying relationship with this strange god of the Bible."

With regard to the above comment on Solomon:

All it takes for us to maintain a satisfying relationship with God is for us to accept His grace. Jesus died to make us right with God because we could not do so by our own power or wisdom - none of us. He loves us not because of what we do or what we k now, but because we are His children. Do our children only receive our love if they manage to satisfy us in some way? My life is full of love and joy because God loves me exactly as I am, flaws and all. Nothing I do either good or bad, wise or ignorant can change that.

Lorena Ferguson < lfergusn@mb.sympatico.ca>
Selkirk, MB Canada - Tuesday, February 24, 1998 at 17:11:14 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2josh93.html

I really don't know what your website is about, but I just wanted to pose a question about inerrancy. I personally believe that I have to believe the whole Bible, or it invalidates everything else if I get to pick and choose which thing I like and which thing I don't like. I believe that a common term for any other belief about the Bible can be classified as hypocrisy. If you only take in the thoughts of the Bible, then you shouldn't be able to escape the fact that you need to believe it word for word. But the danger lies in believing what someone tells you rather exploring it for yourself. So why should someone argue with you over how much of the Bible to believe. If you don't believe in God, why do you care? If you do believe in the God of the Bible, maybe you should read the Bible again and let God show you what is right.

Bryan Smith <imagery@usa.net>
CO USA - Monday, February 23, 1998 at 17:33:55 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I can't speak for anyone else Bryan, but I can say that for me the Bible is enormously meaningful and continues to reward with its insights, wisdom, wit, and all things lumped under the general rubric of "the human drama." I find new truths in it with each reading. The experience of the Israelites in Exodus 16 reminds us of Odysseus' voyage home from Troy. The Prodigal Son's dramatic return home to his father speaks to the importance of family obligations, unity and love. When Jesus complains that the birds have nests, the foxes their dens, but he has nowhere to lay his head, we are reminded that homelessness is still a problem in our own world.  The Foolish Farmer who cares only for his material wealth, is like many people today who also build their self-worth out of possessions rather than the quality of their lives. Like all great literature, the Bible is a remarkable example of what we humans can accomplish and our own humanity bursts from its pages.

James Still

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

Compare 2 Sam 24:13 and 1 Chr 21:12. Why does one say 7 years and the other 3 years of famine? You can find many other internal contradictions at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html.

Best regards,

Rich Daniel

This feedback was in response to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/rape.html

You list a few citations of literature you would like me to read. I read the one on rape. It clearly was written by someone unfamiliar with scripture. He seemed to be trying to make the point that modern view of rape, punishment, and treatment of the victim in biblical times is differs. That view can be supported, but how this makes absence of absolute moral values more likely than not was not established. He made several errors in his scriptural exogeses: 1) He suggested that Moses encouraged the rape of female captives. This is not true. War is always barbaric and rape during conquest has been with us since war and man have been with us. I'm not suggesting that war itself does not offend sensibilities, even modern warfare, and certainly the Hebrew did not come up with a way to wage war that does not offend the sensibilities. This is a task not completed to the modern day. The ancient Hebrew did not encourage the rape of female captives. Quite to the contrary, but, they did allow marriage with virgin female captives. We of course would be tempted to view any arranged marriage as a rape, though this was common place in this period of human history. What the Hebrew did that I find unusual was institute safeguards to protect the dignity of the female captive turned bride. The sex involved was after marriage, and if the marriage did not work out, the wife had to be given her freedom, she could not be sold into slavery (which very likely would result in her being in sexual servitude) you may not think much of this level of safeguarding of female dignity, but in the context of the time, if was pretty radical.

This is not a difficult point to lift out of the scriptural history, the writer's failure to do so struck me as evidence that he had a point to make that he felt was more important that actually determining the scriptural teachings on rape.

Rape was in scripture a capital offense. Other times, in particular instances, it seems to mandate a forced marriage, though if you study the Hebrew involved in this section it is difficult to tell if this was consensual sex out of marriage or a rape. It seems the girl gets grabbed, but getting grabbed can be a prelude to either consensual sex or rape. Interestingly, in this case, the husband can never divorce the wife for any reason, whereas those that wait for marriage to have sex, can divorce for a few very specific reasons. Commonly it is taught that what is in view in this instance is premarital consensual sex. The rule is that if a couple has sex before marraige, they must get married and can never divorce for any reason.

Is this difference that contemporary society? Certainly. We have no arrange marriage, no laws against premarital sex, no restrictions on divorce, and no capital punishment for rape. Does this support the conclusion that rape is not a violation of objective moral values? Not that I can see.

My main argument with his listing was that he missed the essential point of Christianity. Jesus Christ very emphatically taught that He was the God of the Old Testament. It was He that gave the Old Testament Law. He made it perfectly clear that they came to regard the law as more important than the "reasons for the law". Christ taught that the "reasons for the law" were all that was important, not the law itself. The law was only to elaborate on these two laws:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind." "Love your neighbor as yourself"

This sums up ALL the law and the prophets. This is the lens by which a Christian theist is to view all the teachings of scripture. So if this person truly wants to know what is taught in the OT law on rape, he must approach it as Christ taught us to. Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and strength. Love your neighbor as your self.

Can you show your neighbor love by raping them? I don't think so. Rape shows hatred not love.

Manuel Thomas <RHXE29A@prodigy.com

Internet Infidels' Response:

Manuel Thomas both misses my point and begs the question in his comments on my paper, "Atheism, Christian Theism and Rape." First he misses my point. He assumes that I am trying to show the absence of absolute moral standards is made more likely by my arguments. However, as should be clear from my paper, I argue that atheism can uphold absolute moral standards including standard about rape while theism has difficult doing so. Thomas brings up no reasons to doubt my argument.

My scriptural citations were meant to show that the Biblical position on rape should not be our model. Thomas begs the question by simply asserting that Moses did not encourage rape in the passages I cite. It is interesting that Thomas accuses me of not understanding scripture and yet he does not cite one passage to back up his claim. It is also important to note that my interpretation is not idiosyncratic: it is based on the scholarship of Gerald Larue, a Professor of Biblical History. Does Thomas also want to argue that Larue does not understand scriptures?

It is true that the word "rape" is not used in the passages I cite. But rape is certainly implied and this is the natural reading of the passage knowing the history of warfare. As Gerald Larue argued: "When Hebrew soldiers went to war and captured a city, they did what victors have done in wars throughout history--they plundered the city. Included in the booty were the women, who as prizes of war could be become slaves in the captors' homes and certainly used for sexual gratification by the men. Indeed, the laws of Deuteronomy provide for the taking of women and children as booty (Deut. 20:14) but the regulations in Number 31:17-18 calls for the preservation of virgins only, whom the men may keep for themselves. One can only assume that the terrified women had no choice but to submit sexually to the soldiers who became their masters ( Sex and the Bible , p. 104)." Thomas' view that the Hebrew soldiers preserved the women's' virginity until after they were legally married is preposterous.

It is all very well to imply, as Thomas does, that the essence of the moral law taught in scripture is to love your neighbor as yourself. But this is simply contradicted by what is said in the scriptures and even what Jesus does. I refer Thomas to my The Case Against Christianity, Chapter 6, and C. Dennis McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy for details.

Michael Martin

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap31.html

I thank you for your thorough explanation of the Canon of Scripture. I find it interesting that you deny the existence of the Alexandrian Canon or Septuagint. This canon was established around 300 BC at Alexandria in Egypt. This canon came about long before the Jamnia development of the Old Testament in 70 or so AD. By the time that Jamnia came about, any original copies of the old Hebrew texts were long gone. All that the rabbis had was the Greek, Alexandrian, or Hellenistic (however you want to put it) Septuagint and passed down hebrew texts. The Alexandrian Canon was widely used from the fourth century BC until St. Jerome translated it into Latin for the Vulgate. As far as the requirement that hebrew be the language of all scripture, or aramaic in one case, the books of Baruch and I Machabees were in hebrew, and Tobias, Judith, and the additions to Esther were in hebrew or the aramaic. So these fit your test of language. These books were comm only accepted among many early Christians as well as the Jews of before Christ. The bible quoted from by the New Testament writers the majority of the time was the Septuagint. They did quote from the Hebrew bible but less so. Anyway, I simply wanted to mention this to you because it seems that you are under the impression that the Palestinian Canon was the only one that existed, whereas the Alexandrian Canon was alive and well, and existed long before the rabbis at Jamnia decided to produce their Hebrew Bible.

Kevin <ktmars@mail.wm.edu>
USA - Friday, February 20, 1998 at 00:26:51 (MST)

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

I feel I must take issue with the comparison you draw between the Christian God and the story of a mindless dog breeder. You are comparing apples to oranges and the analigy(sp) doesn't fit at all when you think about it. First of all, the breeder does not have the ability to communicate directly and understandably to the dogs, as does the Christian God. That alone renders the breeder's mindless solution to the problem useless. The breeder also did not create those dogs, in an absolutly perfect state, and then give them the choice to remain with him safely or run away and face certain death, as did the Christian God. Had he, and had the dogs run away as we did, I'm sure even com mon sense would tell you that he, being a loving breeder, would do all in his power to bring back the runaway strays and give them a warm bed, choice food, and a special place for each one of them right beside him for the rest of their lives. And you know what? After a hard life on the streets, many of those dogs will be very grateful. They will defend their master through thick and thin. They will kiss his hands and feet gently as they remember in their minds all the harsh treatment they received, the scarey cold nights when nobody seemed to care weather they lived or died. They will live very long, comfortable lives from that time on.......But some of the dogs were too busy having fun on those streets, stayed behind and lived the rest of their short lives chasing one fleeting pleasure after another. "We are sure living it up" they thought to themselves. Every night a different piece of discarded trash! Sure, we have to fight tooth and nail for ea. tidbit, but isn't that life"? Then one day the dogcatcher came along. Sooner or later it was bound to happen. All of a sudden the dogs found themselves in prison. Confusion and unhappiness surrounded them everywhere. And one day a strange looking man came up to them and bound them tightly and gave each of them an injection. Death came. As one of the dogs was being bound his mind flashed back to the time when that breeder called and pleaded with him to "come"."Come back to a home where you are loved and will be taken care of for eternity."

Sharon Benter < dogmother@earthlink.net>
Huntington Beach, Ca. USA - Wednesday, February 18, 1998 at 20:01:27 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/church-state/prayer/assembly.html

When are you people going to stop misquoting the Constitution of the United States. It contains no reference to "The Separation of Church and State"! It does contain references to the fact that this country was founded by Christians who believe in God.

Brent H. Weir <hamilton@tfs.net>
KC, KS USA - Tuesday, February 17, 1998 at 16:36:51 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

You are absolutely correct when you state that the Constitution of the United States does not contain the literal words, "separation of church and state." The phrase, "separation of church and state," was taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. Separationists simply use the phrase as a convenient way to summarize the intent of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. As Leo Pfeffer argues:

In addition to Pfeffer's examples, I would point out that nowhere does the Constitution contain a reference to the Air Force. But absolutely nobody has ever suggested that a Constitutional Amendment is necessary in order to make the President the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Air Force.

Constitutional interpretation, much like Biblical interpretation, needs to take account of the context in which a document was written. And there is good reason to believe that, even if the First Amendment were never written, the Federal Government would be unable to aid religion. See "The Basics of Separation" at http://www.louisville.edu/~tnpete01/church/basicidx.htm.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

I am glad to see you've published this response to Drange's paper---It's reassuring to see the opposing viewpoint welcomed like this. Good going, guys, you really are a class act.

Jeff Epler <jepler@inetnebr.com >
USA - Tuesday, February 17, 1998 at 02:28:44 (MST)

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

Most debate texts I've reviewed on the web allow the courtesy of at least one, if not several rebuttals to the debaters. How is it that you've allowed Frank Zindler the opportunity to provide 61 comments against his adversary Duane Gish; but that you've not allowed equal opportunity? [See the Gish/Zindler debate -Ed. ]

Paul Casassa < jlafleur@worldnet.att.net>
Framingham,, MA USA - Sunday, February 15, 1998 at 16:59:50 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

Hi. I was reading you information. You have your points. My is simple. You may not believe in the power of prayer. You may. Why not ask "God", if your out there, "God reveal yourself to me." If your not there "God", then it won't matter that I ask.
If you are, and you care that I know you, then change my heart and show me that it's important to you that I know "you".
Also, If your there God, Who is this Jesus? and what does it matter if he lived or not... if it doesn't matter... then please let me know... if he does matter, reveal to me how he matters... If he doesn't matter, reveal that too... Did he exist?...Was he the Messiah?...Was he the Son of God and one with God or was he just a lunatic and liar. Just thought I'd throw the questions out...

Rae Ciardi <MSCiardi@Localnet.com >
USA - Sunday, February 15, 1998 at 08:30:46 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response

Many of us have already done this. No answer.

It is a curious thing that God should leave his very existence in doubt. Why is there such emphasis on blind faith in Christianity? Why would God eternally torture in hell those who honestly see no reason to believe?

Best regards,

Rich Daniel

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/november.html

In November feedback someone wrote, "You are mistaken about what a 'pure atheist' will and will not acknowledge. It is false that an atheist will not recognize even the possibility of the existence of God. Just because an atheist lacks belief in the existence of God does not mean the atheist considers the existence of God impossible. The atheist may consider the existence of God possible, but false. There is no contradiction here."  Surely it is impossible for the Christian God to exist? The Christian god is said to be omnipotent. If he is omnipotent he can do anything. So, can he build a wall he can't jump over?

The paradox of omnipotence is normally framed differently I know, as in "Can God make a square circle" which can be dismissed as a logical impossiblity. But there is nothing logically impossible about building a wall you can't jump over (I've done that) or being able to jump over any wall you can build (a flea could met that criteria). It's only when you try to combine the two you get the contradiction. Therefore an omnipotent being, like the Christian god, cannot possibly exist. QED.

This, admittedly, does not rule out the existance of deities who are not all-powerful, but most people do not seem to mean that when they use the word God.

Tracy <tajwileb@ihug.co.nz>
New Zealand - Sunday, February 15, 1998 at 03:30:20 (MST)

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

Well, hello there! You don't know me but I know of your work and frankly, I love it!

Aaron Cruikshank <acruik@direct.ca >
North Van., BC Canada - Saturday, February 14, 1998 at 23:55:56 (MST)

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

I have been thinking about religion for some number of years now. Through open minded internal and interpersonal debate I have come up with the following: Christianity = modern mythology. For example, Roman mythology was once widely accepted as the truth. Who are christians (or members of any other religion) to say that the Romans were incorrect in their view of religion? I believe that, in a few hundred years, people will come to see the Bible as what it is, mythology. An amusing, thrilling work of fiction. I have read in the feedback section a lot of Christians smashing Athiests for one main reason (allthough there are others). "Yes, but can science prove..." Well, no. There are a great many things Science can not as yet explain. Neither can the Bible (convincingly, anyway). The difference is that Science explains new things every day. Give us another hundred or two years and you will have scientists explaining convincingly, with proof, computer models, and equasions, the origin of the universe.

Ryan Hagen <vagabond@execpc.com >
Wauwatosa, WI USA - Saturday, February 14, 1998 at 11:19:07 (MST)

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

I would be pleased to address what in your view constitute "Fatal Biblical Flaws." I do not have exhorbitant amounts of time to deal with this, so it will take a while to address each one. I greatly appreciate your patience in this. Your first objection, if I may summarize, is that in some places one is enjoined to fear God and in others not to fear God. This issue is the context of the exhortation. The meanings are noncontradictory, if the context is correctly taken into account. For example, I might say to you, "My mother likes climbing vines." You no doubt have a picture in your mind. If I were to frame that by saying, "She climbs them evey day," now you would have an entirely different view in mind. So it also is with t he citations of fear. Fear can have two meanings, the meaning coming from the context. One is reverential awe. We are to revere God with a view to ackowledging His majesty. This is legitimate and proper fear. The fear that is rejected in 1 John is the fear of punishme nt by God, which no man whose confidence in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary to take away his sin need fear.
To take a verse out of context on a pretext as a proof text is not fair to the text. Just as in the above example, it would have unfair to me to declare what I meant without the considering the clear meaning of the context.

Taylor Jones <tjones@masters.edu>
Santa Clarita, CA USA - Friday, February 13, 1998 at 12:23:51 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Taylor Jones presents a typical, ad hoc, apologetic "explanation" in an attempt to get the Bible off the hook with regard to one of its more glaring inconsistencies.

The New Testament references to the word "fear" which were cited in my "Fatal Flaws" section all involve the same, Greek root. As Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words puts it, the word first had the meaning of flight, that which is caused by being scared; then, that which may cause flight: fear, dread, terror -- always with this significance in the four Gospels. The idea of awe or reverence is "by analogy," as Strong's Greek Dictionary puts it.

At the very least, this is a poor choice of wording for any author--but it is a major inconsistency, a "fatal flaw" for a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God who allegedly inspired one or more authors to pen the exhortation to fear Him while also allegedly inspiring one or more others to proclaim that there is no fear in love.

The fact is that if the Bible were the work of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and loving God--Taylor's effort would be completely unnecessary. Such a God could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it.

Donald Morgan

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

It may be useful here to offer an example, in the case of Christianity, of scientific and technological advances that may call an article of faith into question. If the prediction of computer technologists and researchers into artificial intelligence is ever realized -- that machines can be constructed in the future, the behavior of which will be indistinguishable from the behavior of human beings -- then the Christian belief in the immortality of the human soul will be challenged. That belief depends for its rational support on the immateriality of the human intellect.

If purely material machines can do everything the human intellect can do, in a manner that is
indistinguishable from the performance of the intellect, then there is no philosophical ground for
affirming the immateriality of the intellect.[6]

I copied this from your argument on the Proof of the Non-Existance of God. One small point I have to make is that if we are made in the image of God, are we not little creators ourselves? In the fields of art, literature, engineering, etc. humans are ve ry creative, and creating. That we should be like our Father seems to imply that there is a God, rather than the reverse conclusion.

Ed Winant <ewinant2@wvu.edu>
Morgantown, WV USA - Friday, February 13, 1998 at 07:20:30 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

In my paper, "Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible?", I quoted Mortimer Adler, who gave an example of a disproof of an article of faith. According to Adler, if the field of artificial intelligence is ever able to produce artificial intelligence that is indistinguishable from that of the human intellect, there would be no reason for affirming the immateriality of the intellect. I went on in my paper to argue that negative existentials can be proven.

Ed Winant asks if the creative nature of man is not evidence that we are made in the image of God, and therefore evidence for the existence of God. I would say that whether this counts as evidence for the existence of God would depend upon one's background knowledge and presuppositions. I can quite easily understand how a convinced theist might indeed look at the creative nature of man and see that as evidence for the existence of God. But someone who lacks belief in God will see no reason for using a supernatural explanation to account for creativity.

To put it another way: if you already believe that God exists and that God created man in his image, then you will interpret creativity as a result of our being created in God's image. But a supernatural explanation is not necessary to account for creativity.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/frame.html

I merely forgot to thank you earlier at the fish store for existing. It is a good thing.

Michael Weston < darkglasses@mindsspring.com>
carrboro, nc USA - Thursday, February 12, 1998 at 16:11:01 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/november.html

A word of thanks is due. Most people who profess to be Christians don't exactly know what they believe. I've been studying for years and I am a little fuzzy on many issues still. Your site forces people to look at what they believe. It is hard to defend a vague notion or a learned doctrine. Only a sincerely held, well-understood position can be defended at any level. Those who took the time to research their position prior to r eplying to you benefitted enormously from your site. Those who chose just to flame are really just sheep. So thank you. I always challenge my friends beliefs. It is amazing what new ideas we come up with. And I am sure your general challenge causes many to ponder their belief and strenghten their understanding.

Jason Nobles < susjasno@hcn.hcnews.com>
USA - Thursday, February 12, 1998 at 00:22:34 (MST)

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

I have seen numerous times on your site the saying, "Extrordinary claims require extrordinary proof." This being so, I would submit that the claim that mankind evolved from some lower form of life, and was not created, is extrordinary.

However, I am not asking you to prove this. I would further submit that based upon all the available evidence, every person must choose what to believe. As I see it, what we know, via science or religion, does not (and can not) prove or disprove the exi stance of God. Therefore, faced with the evidence, one chooses atheism or theism, or something else. The upshot of this, though, is that athesim requires as much faith as a belief in God. It may seem to you like it is the most justified choice. Still, to another observer, it may be more rational to believe in God and some form of creation.

In considering a "proof" such as Dr. Drange's Argument from Non-Belief, the most rational assumption is that God as Dr. Drange defines Him does not exist. This merely means that God does not have all of those properties stipulated. The true upshot of th at proof then, is not that God can not exist, but that Dr. Drange does not fully comprehend him. I don't mean to criticize Dr. Drange personally, as I don't comprehend God either. It's just that I don't agree with his stipulations as to the nature of God.

Edward Winant <ewinant2@wvu.edu>
Morgantown, WWWwv USA - Wednesday, February 11, 1998 at 13:28:27 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I don't have much to say to this. Certainly if "God" is defined in such a way that God is not loving and doesn't care whether people love him or worship him, and so doesn't care what they do or do not believe or what they are or are not aware of, then, fine, the Argument from Nonbelief does not apply to such a conception of God. However, I doubt that there are more than just a handful of people in the U.S. who believe in such an uncaring deity. It certainly does not provide much of an impetus for any sort of religious feeling.

As for the idea of "choosing one's beliefs," that is totally foreign to me, though I suppose there are some out there who form beliefs in such a way. In my case, and I suspect in the case of most people who strive to be rational and clear-headed, the available evidence determines the belief automatically, and there is no place for any "choosing" or "deciding." I can no more believe contrary to evidence or in the total absence of evidence than I can see things that aren't there or see things in total darkness.

Best wishes,

Ted Drange

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

I think it might be useful here to remember that there are infinite number of logically possible gods. What Ted Drange has done with his Argument from Nonbelief is to provide an argument for the non-existence of one particular god, the Christian god. Edward Winant says that he does not believe in a god with the attributes stipulated by Drange. Fair enough. That just means that Winant believes in a different god than the god Drange was trying to disprove. Drange never claimed to have proven the non-existence of all logically possible gods. When Drange wrote in his article that "God does not exist", he was simply claiming that the "Christian god does not exist." I hope this helps clarify the argument.

I also wanted to respond to a couple of other points. My understanding is that the phrase, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", simply points out that when someone makes a claim that contradicts our background knowledge and has a low prior probability, a significant amount of evidence will be required in order to raise the probability of that claim. With that in mind, what exactly is the problem with the claim that humans evolved? Biological evolution is supported by all available scientific evidence, and I recommend the Talk.origins site for more information on that topic.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

I am not a friend of Boy Scout discrimination either as my daughter has a suit based on her exclusion from the organization. We must be factual, however: The Declaration of Religious Principle only appears on adult leader applications. It is never on any youth application. The Scout Oath and Law is required to be followed by youth: 1. To Be Reverent and 2. To Do Your Duty to God. If you read the Scoutmaster's Manual, it only says that leaders are to provide scouts an opportunity on weekend campouts to have religious services of their choice. The Boy Scout Manual in over 660 pages has only 2 paragraphs on God or religion. It tells what a scout must do to be reverent and to do your duty to God. The answer is that if a scout follows the widsom of the teachings of his parents and religious leaders and (2) respects the religious convictions of others, including those with no religious beliefs, he is doing his duty to God. If a parent is atheist and if the youth follows that, he is doing his duty and thus is following any requirements. Scouting is non-sectarian and Scout leaders are not to deal with even a religious question: the scouts are to be referred to parents or religious leaders. There are a few, mainly from LDS groups, that have chartered (franchised) scout groups that are misinterpreting and trying to move scouting into a religious organization. Please do not spread misinformation and prompt the dropping of membership by non-religious individuals or the 4 million+ organization will surely be taken over by the religious fringe.

James Yeaw <jyeaw@interests.com >
Rocklin, CA USA - Tuesday, February 10, 1998 at 20:14:19 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

We do not want to spread misinformation. If we have stated inaccurate information, we want to be corrected. However, I am fairly certain that our information concerning the BSA's discrimination against atheists is correct. If atheists can do their "duty to God" by (1) following the wisdom of the teachings of their parents and religious leaders, and (2) respecting the religious convictions of others, including those with no religious beliefs, then why has the BSA denied atheists the opportunity to become Eagle Scouts or Scouters (adult leaders)?

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_obrien/gentle/atheism4.html

You mention the law of physics. How was that law created? By chance? ya sure!

Ron Benven <renzo@rogerswave.com >
Vancouver, BC. Canada - Tuesday, February 10, 1998 at 15:05:37 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

"Chance" is just another word for our ignorance. For example, when we flip a coin, we say that the outcome is a matter of chance. But that does not mean the result is random. If we were omniscient and knew exactly what angle and speed the coin was flipped it, along with any other variables affecting the outcome, we would be able to predict which side would land face up.

So what about the laws of physics? Honestly, we have no idea why we have the laws that we do. Maybe our laws are necessary -- no other laws were possible. Then again, maybe our laws of physics are just one set in a vast array of possible laws of physics. There's no way to know. Either way, there's no reason we need God to explain them.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

I was reading through the Inadequacy Objection concerning God and his creation. I would love to go through and define ominipotence, omniscience, and eternal for you, but maybe in another letter. As far as God being "all-loving," let me assure you that this is a fallacy. God does hate. He hates sin, and contrary to the popular saying, he hates the sinner as well. (Let me qualify this by saying that that does not mean he hates *everyone*. He loves all those whom he has saved and will save - a topic which, again, is far too immense for me to grapple with in the space constraints.) Yes, God does have "restrictions." He cannot lie, he cannot steal, he cannot sin in any form. The Inadequacy Objection as ks why did it take so long (roughly 10 billion years) for God to arrive at his final goal - "sentient organic systems?" The answer to that question is,"He didn't." God created the world in six days, and the clever objectioner will now ask, and rightly s o, "Well why did it even take that long?" And the answer is,"Because he wanted it to." God could have formed the world in a nanosecond if he had wanted to, but he didn't. And just a note in closing, though there is much that I disagree with in the Inad equacy Objection, there was one specific point with which I very much agree. It mentioned that often advocates of the existance of God will answer objections with,"It's a great mystery," and it stated that this was simply inadequate. And I fully agree. If the Christians of this day and age are too stupid to be able to defend the truth they affirm they stand for, they deserve to be completely trounced by the oppostion.

Rupert Moriarty < moriarty52@hotmail.com>
Moscow, ID USA - Saturday, February 07, 1998 at 19:25:26 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Hi Rupert,

As feedback to www.infidels.org, you wrote:

> ...God created the world in six days, and the clever objectioner will now
> ask, and rightly so, "Well why did it even take that long?"...

No, that's not how we would respond at all. I used to believe as you do in a literal interpretation of Genesis, until one day I decided to read the evidence from both sides. I found that an honest person cannot maintain a belief in a young earth.

The dishonesty (or self-deception?) of the young-earth creationism crowd is rampant. For example, in _Scientific Creationism_, Gish and Morris claim in one place that there is no order to the fossils; that geologists use circular reasoning to assign even relative ages. But in a different chapter they try to explain the order of the fossils by the action of the Flood.

See www.talkorigins.org for lots more information.

Best regards,

Rich Daniel

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

I enjoyed Richard Vitzhums' Philosophical Materialism and I agree with him. I just wish there were more like him around.

Larry Caudill < ecaudill@citrus.infi.net>
Inverness, fl USA - Saturday, February 07, 1998 at 15:36:13 (MST)

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

I enjoyed the article about the Fine Tuning arguement, but I do have one question. All the arguements seem to assume that there is more than one universe. What if this is the only universe in existance? Wouldn't that strengthen the theist arguement? I don't think it would, because it could be argued that life, or something like it could arise in arise in a wide varity of conditions. Plus it's a bit regionalist to assume that only our kind of life could arise. We'd really have to study life on other worlds (or their fossls) in order to really understand how life can arise.

William Brinkman <wbrink@xnet.com >
Naperville, IL USA - Saturday, February 07, 1998 at 09:40:44 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

If our universe is the only universe in existence, then we have no way of calculating the probability of our universe existing. And if we have no basis for probability calculations, then there does not seem to be any basis for concluding that our universe is improbable and therefore there would be no basis for accepting the "fine-tuning" argument for the existence of God.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

The fundamental argument for the existance of God is that theists whine about causality. I believe that since causality is dependant on time itself, that things outside of time (like the cause of the Big Bang) can violate it all they want. But theists demand an intellegent "uncaused cause". I have come up with what I believe to be a unique variant of Deism that can satisfy us all. Assume that before there was time, in the depths of eternity, there existed a God named Athe. He named himself, since there was no one else around.  Though He was most certainly a mighty God, He was far from infinite in every respect (knowledge and goodness maybe, but not in power). Knowing the consequences of his actions would be much more interesting than his current state, Athe decided that He would create a universe, with time, space, matter, and ultimately intelligent beings would evolve. But unfortunately, there was nothing to create the universe from, except from His own Self. So with the noblest of sacrifices and in a mighty BANG! the universe was created and Athe was no more. Since his power was not infinite, He could not maintain both His own consciousness and the universe. So now we are left with a universe, but no God to run it. Athe had the foresight, of course, to perscribe natural laws so that the universe could run itself, and chemical laws that would allow inorganic substances to become organic substances and ultimately form life and intelligence from His remains. We atheists acknowledge His loving sacrifice when we affirm daily that no God exists, and we pay homage to him by adopting His sacred name. The End. Any questions?

Daniel Clark <drdan@azsunset.com>
Tucson, AZ USA - Friday, February 06, 1998 at 09:52:54 (MST)

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

Certain inconsistent items in Genesis can be explained by the observation that man as a race was created before the Garden of Eden was set up and prior to Adam being formed.Gen 1.26,27 This is the tribe of Nod. The next reference to man not being of the same "race" as Adam and Eve comes in that in Gen 1.28 he tells the humans to go forth and multiply and yet Adam and Eve had no knowledge of such. All of Adams decendants lived to be of ages that are prepostorous for a normal human. In Gen 6.1 it refers to the sons of God marrying any human they chose and so the Lord put a limit of 120 years on the humans. One must also take into account that The Lord and God seem to be two separate entities. This is most apparent in Genesis. God appears to do all the designing while The Lord appears to be the entity that sets the rules and mops up any oversights. If one looks at Genesis as a political coup it would seem that Satan attempted a takeover and was foiled by the local Governer...The Lord. Then God decides the fates of all the perpetrators.

E Rinda < CaptainJackFlash@Juno.com>
Orlando, Fl USA - Wednesday, February 04, 1998 at 15:21:10 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

The above is a typical, ad hoc, apologetic--and very strained--"explanation" of how it might have been. There is a much simpler explanation, however.

The fact is that the Book of Genesis is the work of at least two authors and one or more editors and redactors who have clumsily conflated two inconsistent creation stories into one. The works of these two (or more) authors are clumsily conflated into one in much of the rest of Genesis also. This is the source of the many inconsistencies. A good reference if you can find it is James S. Forrester-Brown's The Two Creation Stories in Genesis, Berkeley, California: Shambhala, 1974.

A perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it.

Donald Morgan

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

I am an analyst. A true analyst, in that I hardly wish to waste thinking time in publishing a thought. I have to do that too much in my job as a Systems Architect and Database Analyst. But I am concerned about what I perceive as a nearly complete lack of objective analytical thinking in the Creation/Evolution debate. My concern is of course selfish in that such an extreme perception raises a red flag to me concerning my own perceptive accuracy. So I am now asking these questions, hoping to find other truly honest persons out there:

1. Why can supposed "freethinkers" not get passed the pathological blindness induced by their lusts and pride and seriously consider the evidence that supports the theory that a "God" ( vastly superior being ) did indeed create the space-time universe? Th is concept is only a little beyond some Star Trek plots, and I wonder why we do not "dare to go" on our own exploration to find the scientific "Tree of Life" that "God" had to hide from us so that we could not become His equal. To do so may be humanity's only chance of becoming anything more than the "children" of God. Why let the Religious Creationists have the exclusive use of this vast domain of potential knowledge, simply because you are afraid of the possibility of the existence of God?
   
2. Why don't the Creation Scientists just get on with it, instead of remaining in what, according to the Bible, is a hopeless debate with persons blinded by their lusts? Are they so imprisoned by the evangelical lust of their "Religion" that they cannot advance beyond their discovery of the spiritual reality and the truly inferior nature of space-time to the "spirit" dimension? What if the answer to the "Unified Theory" is in that direction? The Bible is THE archeologists guide book, and may also be th e successful Physicist's and Cosmologist's guide book, providing the clues to the nature of the universe, man, angels, demons and God, and who knows what else.

The modern practice of redefining "Science" as naturalism appears to me to be the most dangerous error of modern man and has the potential of trapping humanity in it's current biological, animal-lust-driven, temporary form of life. This practice is only slightly less dangerous than the prison of Religion was. If there are any real "free thinkers" out there, this should be enough to stir up an intelligent, non-defensive discussion of this issue, at least.

M.L.Morris <MLeeMorris@aol.com >
Houston, TX USA - Wednesday, February 04, 1998 at 10:34:29 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I have always maintained that both sides of the debate should "get on with it", meaning that the name-calling and arm-chair psychoanalysis needs to stop. Your feedback message does not give any evidence for creationism or against evolution (those are two different things). You assert -- without argument -- that nontheists have a "pathological blindness induced by their lusts and pride" which prevents them from being able to clearly see the evidence for God. If that truly is the case, I don't see how your message accomplishes anything. I mean sending an e-mail message to a deaf person asking them, "Why can't you just open your ears and hear me talking?" is not likely to change the situation. Likewise, if you really believe that we are blind, how is it that telling us so will open our eyes?

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

Here it is 1998 and we are bombarded with so many different messages, warnings, even threats to our minds, bodies and spirits. Each major religious organization telling us that theirs is the only way, the one path to truth. As for me, when I am asked my religion, I simply say I'm a Neo-Aero-Auto-Spaldi-Terra-Yaqui-Mocky-Zambu, that is one who believes in the benefits of enriched breathing, self-healing, a regimen of excercise (particularly basketball), preservation of the Earth, mystical Indian metaphysical lore, and a self-effacing acknowledgement of my heritage, all built upon a foundation of my understanding of Zen Buddhism. Hey, it works for me. There are also two highly important rules I follow; these rules, it seems, when not followed cause a large percentage of the strife in the world today and throughout history. The rules are 1) tolerate other's beliefs 2) never push your beliefs on others.

Jake M. Jacobs <aokpub@cosmoweb.net >
NYC, NY USA - Monday, February 02, 1998 at 22:01:29 (MST)

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

In the context of an atheistic worldview, how would one account for abstract entities, such as the laws of logic, from matter which is by definition inanimate? It is self-evident that matter does not possess intelligence or reasoning abilities. For example, if one were to design or make a car, certain physical materials would be necessary to construct it. However, the information used to organize these physical materials is not the same as those physical materials themselves. One is not going to be able to account for the origin of the car from the inherent properties of the matter used to construct it. Is it not more reasonable that mind gave rise to matter rather than matter giving rise to mind? It is important to realize that the information used to construct the car comes from a mind which uses the laws of logic.

tony quinn <doubleq2@aol.com>
saugus, ca USA - Sunday, February 01, 1998 at 17:50:30 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Atheism does not entail materialism. I am living proof of that claim: I am an atheist but not a materialist. This means that I accept the existence of abstract entitities. Concerning the laws of logic, I see no reason why God is necessary to "account" for them. Indeed, if we were to posit God as willing the laws of logic into existence, then clearly God is not bound by the laws of logic. This means that God can make contradictions true. God can exist and not exist at the same time. God can allow evil and prevent it at the same time. And so on. In other words, the claim that God accounts for the laws of logic is incoherent.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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 »