Infidels: Feedback : January 1998

January 1998

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

I tend to want to understand what Christianity is all about, especially when there are so many people who emphasise you to believe or live like them. Really I want to gain reason to slap back in their faces when they want me to do what they do against my own beliefs. So I thank you for putting this website up. :)

Jason Miller <redconfetti@usa.net >
Apopka, FL USA - Saturday, January 31, 1998 at 17:44:04 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/geisler-till/till1.html

This is in comment to Mr. Farrell Till's speech. It would appear that he has read much of the Bible. But, I wonder as to if he had ever read John 17. In this chapter Jesus is saying many things that if any of us said them we would be hard pressed to keep a straight face! I wonder if Mr. Till believes that Jesus ever existed. All the other "saviours" he spoke of have hardly any evidence of an existence whatsoever. They are legends and mythological gods of many sorts. This man Jesus came at the time when Greek, the most perfect language, was the common tongue of the area. This was so we would have the records that we do. Three people see an accident. All three will have different versions of what they saw!!! One must ask themselves this...Did Jesus of Nazareth walk on the earth? If you answer "no" I can't even begin to tell you of the glory that is within the Faith. But if you believe that He did walk, then read John 17 and ask yourself "who was Jesus?"

Joe Williams <joedw@jps.net>
Anaheim, CA USA - Friday, January 30, 1998 at 21:28:30 (MST)

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

According to the Bible, Jesus was born 14 generations after the exodus of the Jews into Babylon. There was fourteen generations previous to that to the time of King David, which covered about a 250 year period. (About 1050 BC. or later.) If the next 14 generations past in about 250 years, that means Jesus was born around 470-450 BC. But, King Herod, who supposedly ruled during Jesus's birth, reigned from 37 BC to 4BC. Do you know is there was a change in the calendar back then, or is this just another fact to disprove the birth of Christ?

Alexandra Schroeder < aschroed@elnet.com>
Geneva, IL USA - Friday, January 30, 1998 at 18:41:51 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/

I have two comments to make about common arguments supporting creationism.

1) Suppose the creationists found some fundamental flaws in evolutionary theory. A revised theory of evolution would still be more likely to be true than the literal biblical interpretation. Even if they were to prove that the Earth was less than 100,000 years old, any one of the hundreds of other creation myths would be just as valid.

2) Light from distant galaxies has taken millions or billions of years to reach us. If the standard Christian creationist theory is correct then God must have created the universe in such a way that it would appear to be billions of years old. This implies that all other evidence supporting evolution must also have been fabricated by God(along with all the other evidence against Christianity) to test their faith. If all fundamentalists would just accept this as a natural consequence of their faith, their beliefs would be slightly less inconsistent.

Dustin Soodak < dsoodak@virtu.sar.usf.edu>
Sarasota, FL USA - Friday, January 30, 1998 at 11:59:38 (MST)

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

I stumbled across you in my search for some Josh McDowell books. You have a very interesting Web site. Your responses are well thought out, articulate, and thought provoking. You are providing a valuable service to both believers and non-believers. You provide non-believers with the support and reinforcement that they need to dismiss any uncertainty about their disobedience to a divine ruler (God). You also provide those of us whose accept and worship God with an example of how empty our lives would be if we only had ourselves to believe in. Your biggest argument that I can see for being an "infidel", is that you simply chose not to believe, therefore exercising your God-given right. As for me - Been there, done that, now I am where I belong. Here is much better (for me). Good luck in your venture, and may God bless you (He does love you.)

Doug Tait <douglt@juno.com>
Chambersburg, PA USA - Thursday, January 29, 1998 at 15:39:46 (MST)

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

It hurts to read such blasphemy against our creator. I don’t need any formulas or Boolean algebra lessons to boil down what is right here in my heart, and your heart too. If you look to any civilization throughout the history of the world, you too will find this truth. An inalienable desire, a programmed in response to our existence is to worship God. You cannot deny that there is not one single civilization from the beginning of recorded time that has not embraced a religious belief taken on faith. So you ponder, where does this "programming" come from? How come all civilizations have felt the need to worship…something? Is this not a sign for those with eyes to see and ears to hear? Is Christianity some fad that has managed to hang around for 2000 years?

You counter with "Well God should have done it louder or grander with more bells and whistles and sirens". How many people does He have to send? And how many have we killed that have brought His message? How many have to die for God’s truth before we believe. How many emails will you refuse to listen to. How much should God do to turn us from our evil, lustful plans. Me, me, me, Meism! What will it take for God to pry our wretched sin from our hearts? Just how big should the chasm be that separates us from His righteousness. We, you don’t want the light…we want darkness and material things and money and sex and power and all sorts of things.

Brian Beardmore < isildur@email.msn.com>
Tomball, TX USA - Tuesday, January 27, 1998 at 16:53:59 (MST)

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

I am a scientist but I do not consider it worthwhile to debate on the issue of creation versus evolution of the universe. My belief is informed by the realization that those most likely to support creation (i.e. those with a religious affiliation of some sort) generally believe in spiritual phenomena (which by definition are not physical in nature) whereas atheists generally lack belief in such phenomena and generally resort exclusively to the use of physically observable events to support their arguments. Just as it is futile to attempt to directly observe viruses with the unaided human eye (i.e. without the use of a powerful microscope or any other suitable physical tool), it is a waste of time and effort to attempt to analyse and/or criticise arguments that rely (even partially) on spiritual phenomena while at the same time admitting your inability to observe such phenomena personally. I also find it illogical to attempt to use physical tools and methods to ascertain the validity (or lack thereof) of statements whose authors clearly admit are not based on physical laws.

Having said the above, I feel that I should respond to your statements on science and faith in your reply to Alfred Scotti's comments on faith, reason and logic as quoted below:

"If the evidence supports a proposition, then why is faith necessary? Do you believe that people have "faith" that the law of gravity is true? Or do they accept gravity on the basis of evidence? As Richard Dawkins writes, "If there were good supporting evidence then faith would be superfluous, for the evidence would compel us to believe it anyway."

While there is indisputable evidence that the law of gravity has proven to be true in the past, there is no proof that it will remain true in the future. It is therefore entirely a matter of faith for scientists to base their calculations (especially calculations involving events that will take place in the future) on the law of gravity. It is the belief that what has proven, on all occasions in the past, to be true, will also be true tomorrow, one year from now . . . yes perhaps infinitely long periods of time into the future, even if there is no evidence to support this belief!  This is faith.Unless, of course, you have a different definition of faith. There is absolutely no physically observable evidence that the law of gravity will remain true tomorrow, a year from now or at anytime whatsoever in the future!

Frank Ekpar <frank@tateyama.or.jp >
USA - Monday, January 26, 1998 at 12:58:35 (MST)

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

Great! One more clever site!

Elie V.
Brussels, BE -EUROPE! - Monday, January 26, 1998 at 10:03:13 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_4.html

I have long lived in the Bible-belt as a Southern Baptist and child, grandchild and great-grandchild of rabid Southern Baptists. Recently, strong doubts as to the Christian doctrine, which I have harbored and buried since I was a teenager, rose once again to the front and I could no longer ignore them. I have been on a crusade to find a name for what I believe--knowing that it is difficult to have totally original thought in this world. I was plagued with grief at the thought there is no recognition of my religious beliefs. Then a newspaper letter to the editor arguing that the founding fathers were ``deists'' appeared and I had a name for my philosophy. I placed an inquiry via one of the search engines on the web and received your beautifully-written articles, which I am recommending to a friend who is also of the same mind as I.

Thank you for helping me find clarity in the obsfucation that has accompanied this painful self journey. Your work makes me feel so much less alone.

Anonymity Requested
USA - Sunday, January 25, 1998 at 09:16:51 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap6.html

Dr. Price is what the Bible calls a "wise fool" (Romans 1:22). In his article, erudite as it is, he has failed to get the gist of what McDowell's "Evidence" is all about. [See the Evidence That Demands a Verdict rebuttal. -Ed.] I agree that "Evidence" is arranged in a confusing manner, and it throws a lot of stuff out, hoping that some of it sticks. However, its presentation is not the issue. The issue is whether you have the ability to perceive truth. Can you read a book like McDowell's and get anything useful from it? Judging from Dr. Price's "Rejoinder", he could not. He was diametrically opposed to McDowell (and the scholars quoted by him) on every point.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." (Prov. 9:10)

I wonder if Dr. Price fears the Lord. Does he have any understanding? Jesus says, "I am the way the TRUTH, and the life" (John 14:6). Without Him, we cannot even begin to perceive truth. Judging from his impressive biography, Dr. Price has devoted a good deal of his life to theological study. But is there any fear, any wisdom, any understanding?

Jeremy Rasmussen <jeremycec@msn.com >
Tampa, FL USA - Saturday, January 24, 1998 at 13:53:30 (MST)

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

Do you guys like pizza? I think God probably likes pizza, because it's good but that he doesn't have it with sausage because that's not kosher. Probably if Paul or Peter want sausage, he says "Just put it on half, and put green peppers on the other half." I think he probably also then orders like two litters of soda because I can't imagine that just a can would be enough. I also think you can only get pineapple on pizza in hell.

jim <jammybrice@aol.com>
la, ca USA - Saturday, January 24, 1998 at 05:35:20 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/3/3front94.html

I very sorry that you people feel the way you do about Jesus Christ. The only thing I have to say to you is : Why take a chance in not believing? If you believe , and you die and all of what the bible says is a lie , then you have lost nothing. But if you don't believe and don't live your life for Jesus Christ and you die and there is a God and there is heaven and hell, Then what will you do. Spend your eternity in Hell!!! I want you to know that I will be praying for you. And I know I my heart that Jesus Christ was Lord Is Lord and Will always be Lord.

Kate miller < oldyeller80@hotmail.com>
Vienna, IL USA - Friday, January 23, 1998 at 08:05:02 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

> I very sorry that you people feel the way you do about Jesus Christ. The
> only thing I have to say to you is : Why take a chance in not believing?...

This is an old logical fallacy known as Pascal's Wager. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pascal for a refutation.

> ...I want you to know that I will be praying for you...

While we appreciate your concern, we are curious what good you think prayer will do. Does not God already want us to be saved? But aren't his hands supposedly tied because of our free will?

Rich Daniel

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

I was reading over some of the creationist-evolutionist arguments on your site, and I was interested in the Big Bang / causality disagreements. Is there any evidence to suggest that the Big Bang did (not just could have) created the entire universe, that all matter and energy was created ex nihilo by a singularity that had no cause?

Jon Stokes <jstokes@ttacs.ttu.edu >
Lubbock, TX USA - Thursday, January 22, 1998 at 10:44:41 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Hi Jon,

The evidence that the Big Bang happened is solid. Almost all galaxies outside our local cluster are moving away from us at speeds roughly proportional to their distance; i.e., the universe is expanding. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation at just the frequency predicted by the Big Bang theory clinched it. See almost any popular book on cosmology or astronomy for more details.

Whether the Big Bang created the *entire* universe may depend on your definition of "universe". If it means "everything that exists", then there may well be parts of the Universe that we can't see that were not involved in the Big Bang.

Whether the Big Bang had no cause is an open question. Maybe it was a random quantum fluctuation. (Whether quantum fluctuations are truly random is another open question.) Maybe it was caused by the collapse of dimensions in a higher-order Universe. (M-theory, which is currently the most promising attempt to reconcile the contradictions between quantum mechanics and general relativity, says that space-time has 11 dimensions instead of 4, but 7 of them are tightly rolled up so we can't see them.) Maybe the Big Bang was caused by aliens experimenting in another universe. We have no way of knowing.

Rich Daniel

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/

How can you express so much faith in the randomness of "scientific viewpoints" and not even consider the Bible (which retains its straightforward, original, messages since its construction) to be what it claims to be; the Word of God?

russ lamkin <rlamkin@one.net>
lawrenceburg, in USA - Wednesday, January 21, 1998 at 20:31:27 (MST)

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

Browsing after hours on your site has been fun and led me to several useful links, books and articles. As a skeptical atheistic observer from the UK I should like make a couple of observations. Firstly we have so little religious observation in the UK that by ordinary definition the Christian Church must be considered virtually defunct over large areas of the country, both urban and rural. Even the Catholics have noted a sharp decline in Mass attendance, despite the fact that they operate as a social centre ( in the broad sense) for our large Irish and Italian immigrant populations.The Church of England announced a decade of evangelism for the 90s in an attempt to reverse this decline. The result? A further fall in church attendance to 2.7%! It is difficult to see how it can go any lower without making church attendance a criminal act punished by harsh penalties. On second thoughts that might have the opposite effect. The C of E operates mainly ceremonially for state occasions, weddings and funerals as a kind of State Shinto. This is probably its irreducible final subsistence level in a secularised country. Secondly we appear to have no religious persecution nor disparagement of those who like myself profess no beliefs, despite the fact that the C of E is enshrined as the state religion and all sorts of professional societies profess some sort of religious basis. There is a national secular society in the UK but one feels like saying to them "You've won, do something else". So my question is "Why is it so different in America?"

Edward Tuddenham < etuddenh@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>
London, UK - Wednesday, January 21, 1998 at 09:48:45 (MST)

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

The other reviews of this debate [on Amazon.com] are fairly accurate. I would add that this book is an essential contribution to this most important topic of debate and research. Prometheus Press is to be commended in publishing it.

I am not surprised that Jeff Lowder would discourage the reader not to read the work in question. Moreland, et al, win the debate due to the substance of their arguments not their skills at polemics. I suspect that Mr. Lowder is aware of this.

I am not surprised that he discourages the purchase [translate *reading*] of the debate. Suppression of evidence is a viable tactic in the face of the well-reasoned arguments of Moreland, et al. I highly recommend that everyone read every work they can on this topic [suppression of evidence is not the stuff of good scholarship or honest inquiry]--including the one-sided, special pleading, begging the question papers of the so-called Secular Web.

jfd@zelacom.com
New York - January 20, 1998

Internet Infidels' Response:

Myth #1: Jeff Lowder discourages *reading* the work because Nielsen lost the debate.

Fact #1: Jeff Lowder discourages *buying* the book because Nielsen represented atheists poorly. Even theists should want atheism to be represented by one of its strongest proponents. However, Nielsen's critique of theism is not representative of most atheist philosophers. Nielsen relies upon a critique of religious language in which he argues that "God" is literally meaningless. Not only do most atheist philosophers not use such an argument, they disagree with it! Unfortunately, as a result of Nielsen's "strategy" of putting all his eggs in an ineffective basket, readers are deprived of the opportunity to see an exchange between Moreland and atheist philosophers who make substantive objections to Moreland's arguments. To be sure, Antony Flew and Keith Parsons both make excellent, *representative* objections to Moreland's case, and Moreland responds to those objections in his final remarks, but we are reprived the opportunity to see how Parsons and Flew would respond to that, and so on.

Does the fact that I discourage *buying* the book mean that I discourage *reading* the book? Not at all. Indeed, I encourage interested parties from both sides to borrow the book from someone who already owns it (e.g., a professor or a local library). I just wouldn't recommend spending money on the book when the atheist debater did such a poor job representing atheism. Even theistic philosophers would agree that Nielsen could have defended atheism in the debate better than he did -- much better in fact -- and that's why I discourage buying the book. And because theistic philosophers care about the truth, even they would admit that atheism wasn't represented as well as it could have been. (For example, most theistic philosophers I have read endorse J.L. Mackie's Miracle of Theism as one of the best philosophical cases for atheism. They don't agree with the book, but they agree that Mackie's book is one of the best cases for atheism in the philosophical literature. And if you asked any of those theistic philosophers, they would tell you that Nielsen did not use any of Mackie's arguments. Therefore, Nielsen's arguments are not representative of the best arguments for atheism.)

Myth #2: Secular Web papers are one-sided, special pleading, begging the question papers.

Fact #2: This has hardly been shown to be the case. I also wonder if my critic considers the theistic rebuttals on the Secular Web to be "one-sided, special pleading, begging the question" papers. Consider the following examples:

• we posted a debate between Christian apologist John Frame and Michael Martin
• we recently posted an entire debate between Christian apologist Phil Fernandes and atheist Michael Martin
• we link to a Christian rebuttal of "Why I Am Not a Christian"
• we link to a Christian rebuttal of "The Jury Is In"
• we will shortly be posting an exchange between Christian philosopher Victor Reppert and Keith Parsons
• we have invited William Lane Craig to participate in a written debate with Theodore Drange, which Craig declined
• we have invited Hugh Ross to respond to any of our articles on the design argument (with the understanding that we would publish the response on our web server); Ross has not answered our e-mail message

Myth #3: Moreland's arguments for theism cannot be answered.

Fact #3: Moreland gave two arguments for theism: the comsological argument and the argument that God resurrected Jesus from the dead. We have responded to both of these arguments (thought not necessarily to Moreland specifically) on the Secular Web, and would welcome an exchange with Moreland should he want to answer our rebuttals.

The charge that the Secular Web is one-sided is simply false.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

I write to comment on Keith Augustine's article A Brief Case for Atheism. I personally have no major setbacks in my thought pattern concerning the issues of Atheism that are raised in this article. The only attribute that I find extremely regrettable is the simple arguments that are put forward to explain away the existence of a divine creature out there. If the divine is that easily discarded on the respect of absence of proof, then the big bang theory must like wise be discarded on the grounds that it is a mere theory and not factual. Most pro evolution theories are based on assumptions and deductive reasoning which makes sense 10% of the time. The other 90% is tagged along due to fear of being looked down upon by others who seem to be engrossed in the "belief" of evolution as a source of origin.

1.  No more miracles: An argument like this one is rather too simplistic to explain away the divine. Suppose we inverted it and also mentioned that evolution seems to have come to a halt some time back. Creatures have stopped evolving into secondary beings. Apes and various inferior beings from which man supposedly evolved from have continued in their stagnant inert form without any indications of metamorphizing into alternative creatures. Miracles are still taking place. One has to simply be available when they take place.

2.  Faith: The use of faith in the divine as being a beggarly tool to implant the existence of the divine is rather awkward. Faith is in fact used more in the belief that all these theories in evolution are in fact true. Without faith in the tests, investigations and scientific researches that are conducted, there would actually be no need for the costly ventures that Governments put through their budgets.

3.  God must prove his existence. This is where I personally think the author goes off tangent. If he is to use the fact that God has not made himself clear enough to be believed upon, as an indication of non-existence, then we have a big problem in the theory of Atheism. We do not have to prove that God does not exist to annihilate the thought in the minds of the gullible. The fact that you are fighting so hard to disprove the existence of the divine indicates that you are aware that the belief in the existence of God is more strongly entrenched even in your own mind. There are more stronger arguments that can be used than the ones in the article. I intend to send a better written contra-argument. For any philosophy to stand, it must face opposing views and survive.

Hector Chapa Sikazwe < H.C.Sikazwe@ncl.ac.uk>
Newcastle, UK - Tuesday, January 20, 1998 at 04:00:51 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Reponse:

> The only attribute that I find extremely regrettable is the simple
> arguments that are put forward to explain away the existence of a
> divine creature out there.

The simplicity of the arguments presented is irrelevant to the cogency of those arguments.

> If the divine is that easily discarded on the respect of absence of
> proof, then the big bang theory must like wise be discarded on the
> grounds that it is a mere theory and not factual.

This is not so. For your analogy between the existence of God and the occurrence of the Big Bang to hold there would have to be absolutely no reliable evidence in both cases. But there is no reliable evidence only in the case of the existence of God. The Big Bang theory--because it is a scientific theory--made testable predictions which were confirmed by future observations. There are several different sources of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory. First, the discovery of the expansion of the universe. If you "run" the current expansion backward like rewinding a videotape, the expansion runs like a contraction back to a point of infinite density--the Big Bang singularity. Independently derived models of stellar evolution--and the fact that the oldest stars are about 13 billion years old based on those models--are consistent with the age of the universe (15-20 billion years) derived from the Big Bang theory. Bolstering the prediction above that the universe has a finite age is the evidence that the universe is evolving rather than static: (1) There were either more radio sources and quasars in the past or they were more luminuous in the past or both; (2) Galaxy clusters have more blue galaxies in the past, suggesting more star formation occurring then than now; (3) Galaxy morphologies (what they look like) differ in the past as compared to what they are now. The strongest evidence first discovered supporting the Big Bang theory was the discovery of the roughly 3 degrees Kelvin microwave background radiation, which has the same intensity and spectrum in all directions of the sky (minus the Earth's local motions)--this highly redshifted radiation is a remnant of the Big Bang. Finally, the Big Bang makes predictions about the cosmic abundances of deuterium and helium which fits the observed abundances (the abundance of helium is so large, for example, that it cannot be explained soley as the collective result of fusion occurring in individual stars).

> Most pro evolution theories are based on assumptions and deductive
> reasoning which makes sense 10% of the time. The other 90% is tagged
> along due to fear of being looked down upon by others who seem to be
> engrossed in the "belief" of evolution as a source of origin.

I do not believe that a typical evolutionary biologist, who would be in a position to make this kind of judgment, would support this statement. As you are in no position to make this sort of judgment, you have no authority to back up this statement.

> 1.  No more miracles: An argument like this one is rather too
> simplistic to explain away the divine.

Is it? I agree that it is a simple argument, but again, that doesn't mean that it isn't a sound one. Western monotheistic concepts of God found in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--which are predominant today--posit that God is a personal Supreme Being that intervenes in the natural world violating physical laws. In this monotheistic tradition, based on their respective "revelations" (the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran), miracles were both common and "impressive in magnitude" (for lack of a better phrase) in the past. Today, the miracles are rare and "small in magnitude". We do not see the Red Sea parting; rather, we see cancers go in remission or colds being cured when if they had taken their natural course they could, quite expectedly, led to the same result if God had not intervened at all. Or we see weeping icons and all kinds of tricks that a simple magician could pull off (and this is why magnitude is important; it is unlikely a magician could pull off a parting of the Red Sea). Now that we live in an era where were have more documentation, more means of collecting reliable evidence, the miracles have disappeared. Is this a coincidence? It is natural to conclude that the miracles in the past probably never really happened and the reason we don't see them today is because there is less room for historical error since modern miracles are capable of being investigated thoroughly and there is, therefore, little room for exaggeration or hyperbole.

> Suppose we inverted it and also mentioned that evolution seems to have
> come to a halt some time back. Creatures have stopped evolving into
> secondary beings. Apes and various inferior beings from which man
> supposedly evolved from have continued in their stagnant inert form
> without any indications of metamorphizing into alternative creatures.

This is simply misinformation. Evolution does not "seem to have come to a halt" today. Evolution in the past, as in the present, took millions of years. The human species simply hasn't been observing species long enough to observe such speciation. Thus, the rate of evolutionary change is, on the whole, the same today as it was in the past--just as evolutionary theory would predict.

> 2.  Faith: The use of faith in the divine as being a beggarly tool to
> implant the existence of the divine is rather awkward. Faith is in
> fact used more in the belief that all these theories in evolution are
> in fact true. Without faith in the tests, investigations and
> scientific researches that are conducted, there would actually be no
> need for the costly ventures that Governments put through their budgets.

This is simply a redefinition of the term faith on your part. Faith, as I've defined it, is belief in the absence of evidence or even in the presence of strong evidence to the contrary. You claim that evolutionary biologists have "faith" when they trust the results of the experiments performed by other researchers. But scientific method requires that we never accept the results of any experiment as anything more than preliminary and tentative results until other researchers have replicated the experiments and verified the results. Thus when you say evolutionary biologists have "faith" you mean that they trust the results of experiments performed by other researchers--and further replicated by independent researchers; i.e., that the biologists have faith that evidence was properly collected. Given an assumption that it has (a well justified assumption given the requirement for replicability of results in science), evolutionary biologists base their theories on such evidence, not on faith. Faith is--given such evidence--belief regardless of the evidence. Faith is belief when evidence is not present or when it is and as such conflicts with the belief in question. This is why, to so many scientists, evolution is clearly science whereas creationism clearly requires faith.

> 3.  God must prove his existence. ...
> We do not have to prove that God does not exist to annihilate the thought
> in the minds of the gullible.

We do not have to prove that unicorns do not exist to annihilate that thought in the minds of the gullible either--so what's your point?

> The fact that you are fighting so hard to disprove the existence of the
> divine indicates that you are aware that the belief in the existence of
> God is more strongly entrenched even in your own mind.

I don't even know if I should dignify this with a reply, but your comments above have put me in a playful mood. Using your own reasoning you employed above, I could suggest that the fact that you replied to my essay at all indicates that you are insecure of your own belief in the existence of God--now you can know how it feels to be patronized by someone who disagrees with you. There's no need to patronize those who disagree with you on some issue; let's just be honest and admit that the reason I wrote my initial essay and the reason you replied to it had nothing to do with some alterior subconscious belief in the opposite of the conclusion we suggested in our writings and admit that we really think what we wrote was true, OK?

> For any philosophy to stand, it must face opposing views and survive.

Wow, you know, I actually agree with you on this one! I guess that comes to you as a big surprise.

Regards,
Keith Augustine

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

What did Noah do about all the fresh water fish? um?

James Farwell <kdud8@susex.ac.uk >
Brighton, UK - Tuesday, January 20, 1998 at 02:05:37 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_23.html

I just wanted to say a quick thank you for all the help your site gave me in a study I am doing for school. It was wonderful; thanks!

Katie <Dalek@Paloverde.com>
USA - Monday, January 19, 1998 at 11:33:02 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/4/4danie96.html

Thanks very much for the article on Seleucids in Daniel's Prophesy. I wanted and found confirmation of my own research. I find, however, the infidel commentary about as uninspiring as some fundamentalists I talk to. The exciting and relevant interpretation of the King of the North/South prophesy is spiritual and for our age. Just as the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties battled in ancient times, spiritual archetypes (systems of thought) compete today. Both are essentially evil. People more frightened of one than the other are tempted to take a side. The search for truth is exacting and doesn't leave room for taking sides
Thanks again for your article. Please take a few minutes to consider the King of the North as a description of a destructive system of thought, not just a dead empire. The King of the North is angry at the Bible, very strange.

Peg Fallon <PEGGISUE61@AOL.COM >
Timberville, VA. USA - Monday, January 19, 1998 at 10:22:33 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4why97.html

I didn't have time to read your whole page. But the best way to explain it is born once die twice, born twice die once. What Jesus meant by that I believe is they would not stay dead because to be absent from the body is to be present with the lord therefore they would not die but have life through Jesus. I don't know if that is what this whole page was about but that is what I as a Baptist believe. Have a great day!

Jim Williams <jaminjim@dmci.net >
USA - Monday, January 19, 1998 at 07:51:25 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I don't see any connection between your comments and the article referred to (which mainly argues that we have no good evidence for the martyrdom of anyone who knew Jesus personally in the flesh).

If you don't take the time to understand our position, why should we take the time to consider yours? You haven't told us anything we haven't heard before, anyway.

Rich Daniel

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

"A pure atheist will not acknowledge the possibility of the existence of God." [Billy Hamm] I don't know what Billy Hamm considers a "pure atheist" (and many self-considered atheists may not agree with me) but I classify beliefs and convictions in 3 categories:

(1) Theists -- believe in the existence of a divine entity;
(2) Atheists -- believe in the non-existence of a divine entity;
(3) Perissotheists -- don't believe in the existence of a divine entity; and, if there is a divine entity, they don't care!

Some people may not see the difference between (2) and (3), but the difference is great: believe in the non-existence is assertive and authoritative. It is a strong conviction, stronger than the one most theists' have, since most of the theists are such by inertia (their family was so).

The word "Perissotheist" is from Greek "Perissos" + "Theos"; "perissos" means "useless, unnecessary, superfluous" -- the complete term means that God may be irrelevant to one's life -- one can live happily, be positive and fruitful to everyone around, etc., without any divine entity interfering in his/her life.

As I used to say, "God has no authority over me". That is, I don't believe God exists, but I'm not sure; if God exists, I will not acknowledge its existence -- I will continue to lead my life under my own principles, as a "full-brained" human being!

Fernando M. G. de Gouveia < fgouveia@marao.utad.pt>
Vila Real, Portugal - Friday, January 16, 1998 at 05:22:29 (MST)

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

I would like to comment William Pritchett's words: "If there is no God, there is no accountability to anyone for anything. If there is no hereafter, there is no fear of having to be accountable." That's the all problem -- the so-called believers only do the right things because they fear the hereafter; they are not intrinsically good. The Catholic Church hierarchy realised that early on, and created all sort of future punishment to keep the people in fear and under their rule (like the "flock of sheep" they always considered to be). What I say to Rome is true for almost every (if not every) organised church or religion. An interesting book is "History of Hell" by Georges Minois (in French, but probably already translated), where such efabulations created to control the ignorant people are discussed. Now, the question: what is better -- to do the "right thing" because God ("the almighty, mean Boss") is watching you and you have to look good, or do the "right thing" because people around you deserve your respect and have so much right to this earth as you do?

Fernando M. G. de Gouveia < fgouveia@marao.utad.pt>
Vila Real, Portugal - Friday, January 16, 1998 at 03:42:33 (MST)

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

I'd like to make some comments to one letter by Alfred Scotti who said, "There was another statement that reason could not disprove or prove the existence of God." This is something many believers I know use as an argument: God is beyond reason, you cannot use reason to analyse such subjects -- you have to have Faith! Then I ask -- if you can't prove (or disprove) the existence of God, how can you say that other religions are "false"? Why is your faith "good and correct" and other's "evil and all lies"? Another comment: "Faith" is a very good word; it sounds fine and it's easy to learn (in portuguese is even better, with only 2 letters: "fe") -- it's appropriate to wave as an argument by narrow-minded people. There would be much less faithful people if faith, instead of "Faith" was spelled differently.

Fernando M. G. de Gouveia < fgouveia@marao.utad.pt>
Vila Real, Portugal - Friday, January 16, 1998 at 03:28:29 (MST)

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

I've been reading some feedback from later 1995, and I bumped [into] this response to the Trilemma:

"It seems that you guys are spending all of your time thinking up ways to discredit Jesus. How boring your lives must be! I pray for you deeply that your eyes will be open and your computer will break down so that you will have to find a purpose in life."

In response to this unidentified person, I say: if you consider that "spending all of our time thinking" is something boring, then you've certainly proven to be a true son/daughter of the Christian culture (any branch). I have some hard time trying to accept that praying for "our eyes to open" (and our brains to shut?) is a better way of spending time... And that final hocus-pocus curse! How typical -- if you can't beat them with reason, shut their mouth!

Fernando M. G. de Gouveia < fgouveia@marao.utad.pt>
Vila Real, Portugal - Friday, January 16, 1998 at 03:17:58 (MST)

i just finished reading the argument about christ not being born on december 25th. i have grown up in a christian church for most of my life. from what i understand, it wasn't the day that he was born on that led early jews to believe that he was the prophecied messiah. the prophecies of the old testament never predict the actual day but they do talk about where he would be born and that he would be born of a virgin, and that he would be of the line of david, etc... furthermore the argument that he did not draw the attention of the upperclass of that day but rather the simple minded (i believe that is how you put it) does not deny that he was in fact the messiah. there was a time when very few people believed that the world was round, but that obviously was not the case. i guess what i am saying is that jesus as far as i can see was in fact the fulfillment of several old testament prophecies and therefore i believe he was the messiah the only one capable of redeeming a sinful world. whether or not he was born on the 25th of december is not important. it is my belief that christians chose to celebrate the birth of the messiah on that day in order to combat against the celebration of so many other pagan gods the ones that you mentioned. one day people will gather at my funeral, when they do, i am certain that people will recall memories. while many people will have memories of my life, few will remember the actual day i was born aside from perhaps my parents and aunts and uncles should they be there. what will be important to them is the things that i did while i was here not the day i was born.

christopher blanche <cblanche@ime.net >
randolph, me USA - Thursday, January 15, 1998 at 23:23:13 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Thomas Paine, in "Examination of the Prophecies", goes through each so-called prophecy of the messiah mentioned in the the New Testament and shows why it's wrong. (My favorite is "He shall be called a Nazarene." There is no such statement in the Old Testament.) See http://www.infidels.org/library/ historical/thomas_paine/examine_prophecies.html.

Best regards,

Rich Daniel

We find in the very first chapter of the Book of Genesis, God first made Adam. Then, as an after thought Eve was created, because God saw that Adam was lonely and needed a companion. Why would Eve have been something created secondary if Adam had aleady been created complete with genitals and hormones? Who or what did God have in mind to mate with Adam before He struck upon the amazing idea of a human female companion? This whole fairy tale was invented by man from the very beginning of the "Inspired Word of God" to remind woman of their inferior stature and it was only God's generosity and benevolence to man that women are here at all!

Carol Cobb <carol_cobb@yahoo.com >
Dover , DE USA - Wednesday, January 14, 1998 at 19:12:38 (MST)

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

I would like to know if there is anything that you do believe. I read in one of your answers that you didn't believe that the Christian belief in what followed death was correct. What, if anything, do you believe follows death?

ken chiarella < chiarell@bellatlantic.net>
Monroe, NJ USA - Monday, January 12, 1998 at 19:15:13 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Reponse:

It seems you are asking the timeless question, "What is the meaning of life?" Christians think that they have answered your question by teaching that the soul is immortal and will extend into an afterlife. But what is solved by extending your life into the future forever?  Isn't an infinite life just as curious as a finite one? Rather than addressing your concerns, this odd doctrine merely postpones the question; moreoever, by believing that life is infinite, Christians fail to acknowledge the purpose of death. Those of us who do not believe in God, are very aware of this existential dimension to life.  Life has purpose to an atheist because he or she will one day die. In short, life is meaningful precisely because it is finite. Every day is precious and those who live for a superstitious extension of life (those who live for tomorrow) are cheating themselves of life today. Live qualitatively, not quantitatively my friend!

James Still

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

Martin's critique of the SBAD was typically interesting and clear. However, there are a few extra points he could have mentioned. SBAD fails to explain the suffering of non-human animals who existed for millions of years before humans. Craig's argument also suggests that we should not prevent suffering before people have accepted God, because this would go against God's wishes. Finally, the argument must not just work occasionally, but in every single case. If somebody is killed and nobody gets to find out about it (e.g. an orphan buried in a landslide) then who is helped to believe in God?

Nick Tattersall < nick.tattersall@mailcity.com>
Monday, January 12, 1998 at 19:01:47 (MST)

Michael Martin

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/meteor.html

I toyed with creationism in high school, but rejected it when undergoing my undergraduate degree. The creationists are adept at pushing their own barrow to the point of attempting to make rational belief in God impossible with their piffle. I spend much of my time now working on overcoming the nonsense they spread, and to get people to have an unbiased look at areas such as Genesis. Creationists do not understand science, and the public only accept it because they do not understand it either. Therefore, the more power to unbiased science education!! Looking at the lack of critical analysis of evidence, the use of 'magic bullets' to reject evolution, and exposing the lack of process in creationist thinking is the most critical area which can be undertaken. Creationists must project much extant geology into the creation (the omphalitic argument). But this undermines any scientific understanding, i.e., could the universe have been created 2 seconds ago, with all evidence, such as memories being faked? As a Christian, I found myself uncomfortable with Genesis, as creationists only want Genesis (and maybe the entire Bible) to prove they are right. This is illegitimate. However, those who reject Genesis and the Bible without examining its claims, or even without reading it, are just as guilty as the creationists. Perhaps both sides need to exhibit a bit more humility.

Fergus Hancock < fhancock@dlwc.nsw.gov.au>
Muswellbrook, NSNNS Australia - Monday, January 12, 1998 at 15:01:24 (MST)

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

My wife and I were listening to the police monitor one bright Sunday morning. We heard a police dispatcher call a car regarding a noise complaint at a certain address. We weren't familiar with the address, so it didn't mean much immediately.
As we listened we heard an eventual amendment from the dispatcher: "You might want to know that the address you are responding to is the XXXX church!" Apparently the neighbor knew how much noise was too much! I'd complain too, if I were there.

C. Mike Rice <m-jrice@juno.com>
Rohnert Park, CA USA - Sunday, January 11, 1998 at 19:09:13 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_25.html

Being a high school student, I was at a deadline to do a history project. As well as being lazy, I procrastinated until the last moment. My only available resource was the internet. And as I browsed I came upon your page, The Story Of Religious
Controversy: Chapter XXV, (the story between the Moors and Christians). Not only did I finish the project, I also learned a little about history. I would like to say that I appreciate those that build sites like these for educational value, and not just for profit.

Andrew Szeto <ASZ10@aol.com>
Long Island City, NY USA - Saturday, January 10, 1998 at 17:14:20 (MST)

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

I am a Talmudist/Zionist Jew, and I agree with every thing you say about that "Jesus" character and those "Christians"!!!

Ken Breazeale <kfremont@gte.net>
Bradenton, Fl USA - Friday, January 09, 1998 at 20:48:19 (MST)

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

The Heavenly Killbilly
(sung to the tune of the Beverly Hillbillies theme)

Come and listen to a story bout a feller named God,
A lonely cowpoke, mighty strong but kinda odd.
And then one day while in a some kinda mood
He created Him a earth and He said that it was good.
(perty that is, blue gold, right roundly)

Well the first thang you know He’s got a garden with a pair
O’ critters in the spittin’ image of Hisself, and also bare.
But a snake said, "Eat the apple and you’ll be so heavenlee",
So they both took a bite and made God so utterlee...
(mad that is, snortin’ fire, throwin’ thangs)

So He moved ‘em out the garden and he told ‘em to have kids,
And He thought, "Its good I fixed their private parts the way I did."
Soon His earth was full o’ people, but them folks was mighty bad
And it didn’t take too long before the Lord was good and mad.
(agin that is, plum steamed, hissy fit)

Well He gathered Him some clouds up and He made it come a rain,
But He spared the life o’ Noah so earth would be filled again.
Later gave ‘em 10 commandments so they couldn’t have no fun
And it didn’t take too long before they broke ever’ one.
(all ten that is, mad again, gettin’ old)

Well God needed something for to fix the humans’ woes
To Him that there was plain as the corns upon His toes.
He decided He would visit to the earth as one of them
So He saddled up his gumption, and He went to Bethlehem.
(Mary’s womb that is, perty cramped, dark in there)

Well the Lord grew up being just like one o’ them
But the local leaders didn’t take a hankerin’ to Him.
So they strung ‘im on a tree and then they buried Him fer dead
But a couple days later He was back or so they said.
(alive that is, still kickin’, not pale neither)

So the Lord went back to heaven and He set down on His throne
Told His angels, "I done done enough so now they’re on their own.
If they don’t believe my story, it’ll be just as well
Cause then I’ll get the pleasure of sendin’ ‘em to hell."
(gnashin’ teeth that is, heap o’ coals, barbecue)

So when it's time to say goodbye to earth and all yer kin,
If you believe the Jesus tale you go straight to heavin.
But if yer proud and don’t believe this fairy tale from me
You’ll get a heapin' helpin' of God’s "hospitality".
(Killbilly that is, set a everlastin’ spell, take your shoes off)

Dan Murray <dmurray@panam.edu>
McAllen, TX USA - Friday, January 09, 1998 at 11:39:44 (MST)

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

I am a SSG here serving in Saudi Arabia / the US ARMY and we are doing a great job here. I am a distributor and kind of alarmed at some of the things that are said about Amway. It's not Amway that makes a person a winner or a loser, it is the person themselves. This business has truly changed me in all kind of ways and spiritrually, financially, mentally and physically and it has saved the marriage in some bit of speech. It's truly a good environment to be apart of and for the kids it's great. See you back in the states.

Andre' Boykin <raboykin@hotmail.com >
Ft Campbell, KY USA - Friday, January 09, 1998 at 08:48:11 (MST)

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

Thanks for excellent work from rational minds. Now, would you please run the [bible] 'code' on the Koran? I can't wait to see what it predicts! Next could be the Book of Mormon. No telling what it predicts! And don't forget the Hindu writings. They probably foretell the Bible and Koran as demonic impostors! [See Bible Codes -Ed.]

Douglas Newman <kdoug@bluegrass.net >
Louisville, KY USA - Wednesday, January 07, 1998 at 10:44:22 (MST)

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

I believe that one of the founding purposes of the Boy Scouts, be it of America or elsewhere, was a belief in God. That continues to be a important to the Boy Scouts. If you are in a chess club and you don't like the way the club plays chess, you don't have to stay. You also have the ability to form your own chess club and play the way you want to play. If there are homosexuals, females, agnostics, atheists, etc., who want to participate in recreational activities that are "scout like," I say they are free to form their own organization that is based on the principles they base their lives upon. If you don't like steak don't go to a steak house, and let others eat in peace.

Matt Squires < u-mbs@physics1.byu.edu>
Provo, UT USA - Tuesday, January 06, 1998 at 10:23:42 (MST)

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

I often read that Albert Einstein was a very religious man. He was certainly in awe of the beauty of the universe and he often used the word "God" in discussions. However, I hardly think he would qualify as a theist as is aptly demonstrated in this Forward he wrote for Homer W. Smith's Man and his Gods:

[Smith's book] is a broadly conceived attempt to portray man's fear-induced animistic and mythical ideas with all their far-flung transformations and interrelations. It relates the impact of these phantasmagorias on human destiny and the causal relationships by which they have become crystallized into organized religion. . . . His historical picture closes with the end of the nineteenth century, and with good reason. By that time it seemed that the influence of these mythic, authoritatively anchored forces which can be denoted as religious, had been reduced to a tolerable level in spite of all the persisting inertia and hypocrisy. Even then, a new branch of mythic thought had already grown strong, one not religious in nature but no less perilous to mankind--exaggerated nationalism.

Stan Thomas < thomas@mail.physics.utah.edu>
Salt Lake City, UT USA - Sunday, January 04, 1998 at 23:52:29 (MST)

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

Well, what a relief to find intelligent discussion about atheism.

melanie theodore
tampa, fl USA - Sunday, January 04, 1998 at 21:26:56 (MST)

Internet Infidels Response:

Thanks! I'm glad you liked it.

Mark I. Vuletic

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

Your page regarding the Bible and abortion titled "What does the Bible say about abortion?' I found to be not only untrue but also quite deceptive. Most of the passages listed seemed to be used without any knowledge of biblical history, proper interpretation or context whatsoever. For instance, the citation of the commandment "thou shalt not kill" in relation to other passages such as Exodus 21:17 (the order to kill the son who curses his father or mother) was nonsense. The correct Hebrew translation (however not usually the traditional one) was "Thou shalt not murder." Therefore there is no contradiction here. I don't deny that in several areas the Bible records God telling people to kill, however, had the writer of this page any idea of biblical history the passages would never have been judged so harshly. Psalm 137:9 ("Happy shall he be, who taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones") was written during the Babylonian captivity of the Israelites, during which time it was not uncommon for the Nazi-esque Babylonians to kill Israelite babies in this same harsh manner. I might feel the same way had someone dashed my child's head against a stone.

Anne Dawson <DagZahav@aol.com>
Gladstone, OR USA - Sunday, January 04, 1998 at 18:28:32 (MST)

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

Nothing you haven't already heard. We ridicule what we do not understand. Hear what we wish. See what we believe.
Until we no longer find it believable. Until we accept who we are.

Fritz <fritz3381@aol.com>
USA - Friday, January 02, 1998 at 01:25:26 (MST)

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

Regarding Quentin Smith's two proofs for the nonexistance of a god. It seems to me highly probable that a god (however defined) does not exist within the universe as we know it. As we can know no other universe we cannot know and never will know whether the concept of god is valid in another universe. On this question we know today as much (or as little) as we have ever known or ever will. We are discussing only degrees of ignorance and questions of belief beyond proof. It's fun but not worth losing either friends or sleep over.

Patrick Wall <pat_wall@iol.ie>
Dublin, Ireland - Thursday, January 01, 1998 at 18:18:06 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I happen to agree with you Patrick. Your letter reminds me of Ludwig Wittgenstein's famous essay Lecture on Ethics, in which he suggests that to be able to say something about God, we must be able to go "beyond" the world, and hence, language itself.  Yet, no one can intelligibly transcend the world to be able to say something about God; therefore, all of our religious utterances are absolute nonsense. Judging from those feedback letters we get that "explain" God's purpose in tremendous detail, some folks know more about God than he himself does!

James Still

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 »