Infidels: Feedback : July Feedback (1998)

July 1998

Send Feedback

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

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly makes you folks "infidels." Logical Positivism is pretty well established in this country [i.e., the U.S. -Ed. ] and, without Pauline Christianity as its guileless foil, we'd have probably moved beyond it by now. 20th century thought in America has been a sleepwalk/ one of the James brothers actually characterized most thinking as pitting one prejudice against another. Are "Freethinkers" like the Society for Creative Anachronism equipped with Victorian fetishes instead of medieval ones?

Virginia Saunders < al200@bellatlantic.net>
Roanoke, VA USA - Friday, July 31, 1998 at 22:49:45 (MDT)

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

Love the site, it's amazing. The humor is entertaining to say the least. Here's a laugh for you. There once was a young woman who went to confession. Upon entering the confessional she said, "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned." The priest said, "Confess your sins and be forgiven." The young woman said, "Last night my boyfriend made mad passionate love to me seven times." The priest thought long and hard and then said, "Take seven lemons and squeeze them into a glass and then drink the juice. The young woman asked, "Will this cleanse me of my sins?" "No, but it will wipe that smile off of your face."

Thomas DuDash <tdudash@pcisys.net >
Colorado Springs, CO USA - Thursday, July 30, 1998 at 21:35:05 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Thanks for the kudos Thomas! Your story reminded me of another one: Adam Rabbinovitz goes to confess to the priest. "Father, at 78 years of age I am an elderly man and although I've always kept kosher and observed all the holidays I have sinned. I've been having an affair with a beautiful 25 year old woman." The priest was surprised but said nothing. "To top that off, I've also been sleeping with her younger sister." The priest interrupted him and said, "yes, but why are you telling me this?" "Hey," Adam replied, "at my age I'm telling everybody."

James Still

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

I would like to respond to a portion of Jeffrey Jay Lowder's response to the Newsweek article.

In his response he states:

"Moreover, several scientific discoveries suggest that the universe is not the creation of a personal God (who has an interest in our daily lives). First, human beings are absolutely insignificant in comparison to the vastness and duration of the universe. The universe is so large that we cannot even comprehend its size."

Assuming that a God exists, how can you determine what he considers significant? Is a 1 carat diamond significant compared to all the rocks on earth?

"The universe existed for billions of years before humans arrived on the scene and will exist for billions of years after our demise."

First of all, the second part of this statement is pure conjecture. We have no way of knowing this scientifically since we do not know when the demise of humans will occur and what the state of the universe will be at that time. But even if it is true, and given that the first part of this is true, what does this mean to a being outside of the time dimension? Can we even comprehend what a billion years would mean to someone not constrained by time?

"Second, all available scientific evidence indicates that humans evolved from animals by an impersonal process that has no goal or purpose."

I think this should state "all available scientific evidence indicates that humans may have evolved" or "probably evolved". You are making the assumption that there was not intellegent design to the universe and that there was no goal and purpose. then based on this assumption stating that these prove there is not God. If you change your assumption to be that there was an intellegent designer who set up the universe to proceed exactly as it has with a goal and purpose of creating humans, you negate non of the available evidence, but come to the opposite conclusion that there must be a God because his purpose has been fulfilled. Neither path is logically sound.

"Third, although prayers sometimes achieve the desired effect (by chance), other times they do not. There is no reason to believe this is not the result of purely naturalistic factors."

Again you are starting with the assumption that prayers are answered by chance. You offer no evidence that it is only by chance. Do parents give their children everything they ask for? The fact that not all prayers are answered does not prove anything. And the fact that you can reason naturalistic causes for their answers, does not disprove supernaturalistic factors. There is also the possibility of God using naturalistic factors to answer prayers.

"And fourth, the mind can be reduced to brain states; there is no need to believe in an immaterial soul to explain brain states."

But can the soul be reduced to brain states? And is the soul the same as the spirit?

All of your arguments are foundly based on the premise that there is no God or spiritual realm. So they cannot be used to disprove their existence. In fact, by definition, the God of the Bible is outside of our four dimensional universe. So it would be very unlikely that we could produce direct evidence of his existence except through the personal experience of humans (assuming he is a personal God). Yet you discount this personal experience as subjective, and it is. So we are left with the existence of God as being a personal matter of faith.

Now you do not deal with the fact that the models relating to the Big Bang suggest that there was a force beyond our four dimensions that "created" the universe as we know it. Now there have been some attempts to develop models that would eliminate this requirement, but as yet none of these are more than hypothoses. So the most likely scenario at this point is that there was a "creator". Does this prove there is a God? No, but it leaves the door open to that possibility. If science could ever prove the eternal existence of the universe, that would eliminate the need for a creator and therefore put a big hole in the concept of God.

As far as the "fine tuning" goes, it is probably impossible for us to ever know if this is necessarily the act of an intellegent designer or chance or just the way things have to be. All we can safeley say now is that this is the way things are and thankfully so. Who you choose to thank is really a faith issue.

And as far as the percentage of Athiest scientists goes, could it be that the reason we do not see more scientific theories and research supporting the existence of God is a result of the bias of the scientists and not the other way around? Could it also be that there is a selection bias as to who goes into science based on their theology and the way in which science is presented to young people? I.e. the more firmly established their faith in God the less likely they are to become a scientist and vice versa? I think a persons faith would have to be very strong to stand up in the biased environment of scientific accadamia today. So is this decline because of the weight of the evidence or the weight of the bias? And is the bias the source of the evidence or the evidence the source of the bias?

I am not necessarily supporting the conclusions of the Newsweek article. I do question, however, the validity of your response.

Phil Taber <prta@lubrizol.com>
Aurora, OH USA - Thursday, July 30, 1998 at 08:34:31 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I should not have said that the universe "will exist for billions of years after our demise"; what I should have I said was that "on some cosmologies, the universe will collapse in a Big Crunch, at which point the universe will be unable to support life." However, it is still the case that:

1. Human beings (and for that matter, the entire solar system) are insignificant in comparison to the universe as a whole.

2. All available scientific evidence indicates that humans evolved from animals by an impersonal process that has no goal or purpose. The current evidence might turn out to be incorrect, but at this point in time all available evidence indicates that humans evolved from animals. This does not assume that there was no intelligent design. The claim that "there was no intelligent design" is a conclusion which I argued for in my article. If there is a supernatural being who used evolution to create humans, that supernatural being cannot be both omniscient and omnibenevolent because evolution is a cruel and wasteful method of creation.

3. Although prayers sometimes achieve the desired effect (by chance), other times they do not. There is no reason to believe this is not the result of purely naturalistic factors. My argument here is not "some prayers are unanswered, therefore there is no God." Obviously, that would be a fallacious argument. Rather, my argument is that there is no need to postulate the existence of God in order to explain why some prayers are answered and why others are not.

4. The mind can be reduced to brain states; there is no need to believe in an immaterial soul to explain brain states. You ask, "But can the soul be reduced to brain states? And is the soul the same as the spirit?" Yet my argument was that the mind (not the soul) can be reduced to brain states; therefore we don't need to believe that souls exist in order to explain brain states.

None of these points assumed there is no God. Rather, I presented a cumulative case which has the conclusion that a personal God probably does not exist. Moreover, I addressed two arguments commonly used to prove the existence of God: the cosmological argument and the fine-tuning argument. Big Bang models do not suggest there was a force beyond our four dimensions that "created" the universe as we know it; Big Bang models imply that our universe (including space and time) is a closed system that is uncaused. As for the fine-tuning argument, you've conceded my point that we have no idea how likely or unlikely the values of the physical constants are. But that admission falsifies the major premise of the fine-tuning argument.

Finally, you suggest a number of alternative explanations for the fact that most scientists are either atheist or agnostic. You suggest that scientific knowledge does not support the existence of God because most scientists are biased. Yet not all scientists are atheist or agnostic; there are still scientists who do believe in God and could perform the relevant research. Moreover, there are a number of  organizations, including the wealthy Templeton Foundation, who would fund such research. You suggest that many theists might be discouraged from pursuing a career in science because of the way that it is taught. Yet many Christian colleges and universities have science programs; surely a person would not need strong faith to survive those environments.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

With regard to the question if Jesus of the Bible really existed or not. I've read in a book entitled, "Jesus, The Evidence" that the fact that the Jewish religious authorities chose to slander Jesus as a sorcerer and a man of disreputible birth proves that Jesus must have actually existed. If he did not exist they would have raised questions as to his actual existance rather that charges of sorcery and illegitimacy. Such charges can be found in Jewish polemicial literature.

Robert Sanchez <sanchez97@hotmail.com >
Houston, TX USA - Wednesday, July 29, 1998 at 20:36:13 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/ring/freethought/fragment.html

It's good to see that if Christians want to get some quick answers to any problems they can come here. thank you for what you have provided and i hope that this continues to be a help to others. another great thing is the variety that you guys have. the list just goes on and on and on.

christian guerrerp < cguerrer@beacon.eastern.edu>
St.Davids, pa USA - Wednesday, July 29, 1998 at 20:00:46 (MDT)

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

Nice site, lots of laughs! One of our comedians produced this one recently: "I'm an atheist, but I don't practice anymore" Maybe suitable for the list?

Andre van den Berg <ecdbv@xs4all.nl >
Rijswijk, Holland - Wednesday, July 29, 1998 at 17:34:07 (MDT)

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

Hi guys! Great website! I must tell you that I am an educated Christian. I have no problem discussing the theory of evolution, atheism, etc. In fact, I have friends that are atheists.With that said, I must say that your website has really helped me strengthen my faith in God. I find that if I follow the comfortable path all of the time, such as going to church and only hearing one side of the story, is not a good idea. I must hear all sides and know why I believe one thing or another. Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible to find really, really, good arguments among Christians.

This is why I thank you for your website. Keep up the great work! I'll tell my other Christian friends to check it out. God (or lack thereof) bless you!

Jeff Cook <jcook@texas.net>
Austin, TX USA - Wednesday, July 29, 1998 at 11:42:35 (MDT)

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

Everyone in one way or another has some sort of belief or concept of "God". If the idea of "GOD" represents what a person believes to be perfect and desires to acheive, to imitate, or become perfect in some way, then everybody has a "God" in which they follow. Christians use the bible to prove the "God" of science is wrong,and if science does not come up with the same conclusion the bible does then it must be in error. Scientist use the "God" of technology to prove the "God" of the bible is wrong or does not exist. If science can not come up with a natural explanation for it, then it must be a myth or some other type of psuedoscience.

The materialist's believe that nothing can exist without the "God" of money. The materialist believes that religion and science only exist if they can produce a profitable economic system. There are those who worship themselves, the "God" of the individual. Those who place their emotions and ideas above anything else. If a belief or idea does not math their own, then it must be wrong.

We all have our "God" or gods in one way or another, and we all try to disprove other gods with our own. I'm not trying to justify abuses that certain beliefs and ideas have caused over the years, but just trying to point out that we are all follow something in a religous way.

Let "natural selection" or "super-natural selection" decide who is the fittest.

John Schoettler <schoettler@msn.com >
Huntington beach, ca USA - Tuesday, July 28, 1998 at 14:27:49 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

If we all worship Gods, shouldn't we choose the best God? But before we even get that far, shouldn't we make sure it really exists? If it doesn't, aren't we just wasting our time? Isn't it inherently dangerous to believe in a God who will save our hash, give us immortality, or right the world's injustices for us, if no such God exists? One thing can be said for those who have the audacity to worship themselves, they have ample proof that their God exists.

The general gist of your argument is the tired "bandwagon" argument. The classic response still fits here, "So what if everyone does it? If you saw everyone jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?" Additionally, is what everyone doing the right thing?

Still, your arguments are almost all flawed. Perfection is only one aspect of the Christian God. He is also supposed to be real, as well as creating and judging human souls.

Finally, your point regarding materialism is incoherent. You imply that materalists believe that this God of Money created the universe? I've studied fringe and kooky beliefs, but this was never one of them. I suspect what you meant to say was that nothing is important to a materalist except which has economic value, which is nothing more than the definition of the term.

Blaine Armsterd

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

I have felt this way for years, and have tried to expand my thinking along these lines. Sometimes I wasn't sure about the direction to go or the words to use, but Freedom from religion is perfect--freedom from persecution and brainwashing is along that line. Unfortunately, circumstances do not allow a subscription nor a membership--times are tough right now. But, keep up the good work.

john detore <tordej@hotmail.com >
USA - Sunday, July 26, 1998 at 23:11:29 (MDT)

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

Patrick Glynn's proof of God's existence fails not so much on intellectual grounds, but empirically. I don't know where Glynn got his "psych" information about religion promoting emotional well-being. The most hateful, mal-adjusted and just plain perverted people I have ever met were religious. Religion cannot possibly be what it is cracked up to be; Jesus was sent to the cross by the religious authorities of the time - the Pharisees. I was sexually abused by religious clergy and this is not a rare or isolated case. The most vehement wars in history were fought in the name of religion and orthodoxy. Skinheads and KKK members are bible thumpers. The climax point of religious fervor in the homilies of many preachers is the denunciation of "faggots". The list of religious crimes against humanity are endless.

Ray Lanthier < rlanthier@earthlink.net>
Culver City, CA USA - Sunday, July 26, 1998 at 11:57:27 (MDT)

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

The following statement, "God does not exist," is what logicians call a universal negative proposition. Any universal negative proposition requires COMPLETE knowledge of its predicate by the author. Thus, in order to state "God does not exist," the author must have complete and perfect knowledge of the predicate - in this case, all of reality. This would seem to require omniscience, don't you think?

phil ruetz < 3mz7khe@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu>
cadillac, mi USA - Sunday, July 26, 1998 at 01:04:36 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

Not at all. What is the justification for the odd claim that "Any universal negative proposition requires COMPLETE knowledge of its predicate by the author"? I can think of none, in fact, I have an argument for its falsity:

Suppose that the proposition in question is "There is nothing that satisfies all propositions in set Q", where set Q has uncountably many propositions, of which I know only two--those two of which happen to be of the form P and Not-P. In this case, I know that the proposition "There is nothing that satisfies all propositions in set Q" is true even though I am completely ignorant about an uncountable infinity of the propositions in the set Q. This is exactly the position that (many) atheists claim to be in--most atheological arguments are designed to show inconsistencies in attributes that God is claimed to have.

Jim Lippard

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

You raise a good question, one which I addressed in my essay, " Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible?". In a nuthsell, there are two ways to prove a negative existential proposition: by showing that the objection in question is incoherent or by looking and seeing. Both of these methods can and have been used to disprove various conceptions of God, and neither of these methods require omniscience.

Moreover, with respect to the existence of a particular god, there is a sense in which negative existentials have an advantage over positive existentials. According to the principle of indifference, when we don't have any evidence favoring any of a set of alternatives over the others, we should count each alternative equally likely. Since there is literally an infinite number of logically possible gods, the prior probability of any individual god existing is very small.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Internet Infidels' Response #3:

There are several ways a person can justifiably assert the statement "God does not exist" without requiring omniscience:

1. If the concept of God is incoherent, as many atheists believe it is, then one does not need to have any knowledge other than the laws of logic and the description of God, in order to know with 100% probability that God does not exist. In precisely the same way, one does not need perfect knowledge of all of reality to know that the statement "Round squares do not exist" is true.

2. Even if the concept of God is coherent, it may be that the properties attributed to God are logically inconsistent with properties which are readily visible in the world. If the "logical" (as opposed to "evidential") problem of evil, for instance, is valid, then one can know with 100% certainty that God does not exist if one observes any evil at all in the world (let me add that I am not claiming that the logical problem of evil really works, I just want to point out that arguments of that form allow one to sidestep the "universal negative" objection you have posed).

3. Many atheists actually do not make a claim to 100% certainty when they say "God does not exist." However, this does not mean that their belief in the statement is unjustified--everyone believes in various universal negatives with very good reason, even though no one has perfect knowledge of all of reality. For instance, virtually everyone would assent to the statement "Elves do not exist" or "Invisible 500-foot fire-breathing clowns do not exist" even though we have obviously not inspected every corner of the universe to make sure that there are, in fact, no such creatures. The punchline is that when there is no positive evidence for an entity, then there is good reason to deny the existence of that entity, even if it is a possible being, and even if its existence does not logically contradict the knowledge we have gained so far. So even if the points I raised above can be ruled out conclusively, one still does not require omniscience to coherently and justifiably state that God does not exist.

Mark I. Vuletic

[See Vuletic's article "Is Atheism Logical?" for a more in-depth exposition of this topic. -ed. ]

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

There seems to be a lot of discussion here about injustice, such as the evil of racism and sexism, and the need for "progress" beyond dark-age ideas of a theistic universe. But where does the non-theist anchor her/his idea of justice? If man is the measure of all things, then what a person chooses to do is what ought to be done, isn't it?

During President Clinton's recent visit to China, a young woman commented that if people are truly free, then they are free to do however they choose. If naturalism is correct (for naturalism is the ONLY coherent alternative to theism), then there can be no such thing as justice. For the naturalist, there is no "right and wrong," but only "if and when."

phil ruetz < 3mz7khe@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu>
cadillac, mi USA - Sunday, July 26, 1998 at 00:40:29 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I side with Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamozov in claiming that justice has damned God. If Christian theism is to be believed, God allows evil to continue in the world in order to produce a greater good. Thus, first-order goods wipe out second-order evils in what becomes a cosmic game throughout eternity. But is all of eternity worth the evil inflicted on even one small child? How could Christians spend even an hour in heaven knowing that their way was paved by countless acts of brutality, injustice, cruelty, and torture? Those who hold the superstitious view that God is "out there" watching us need to explain why he turns away when children are neglected and abused. Either there is no God or God is a monster. The most intricate theodicy in the world cannot wipe away a single child's tears.

James Still

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

Andrew Moroz claims [See The Incoherence of Theism -ed. ] that the notion of human freewill is incompatible with the notion of God's omniscience, on the following grounds:

1. God has knowledge of every action before it happens.
2. Thus, all actions are bound to happen.
3. Therefore, there are no free actions.

This argument does not add up to what Moroz is claiming, however, due to some confusion in premise #2.

It is possible for God to have prior knowledge of every action, and at the same time for each and every one of these actions to be free. God's prior knowledge does not necessarily imply or require pre-determination. In fact, if God exists "outside" of time, then he is not causally bound to temporal events at all, unless he so chooses. It would be possible for him to know all of history, and be completely uninvolved. I'm not claiming that God doesn't determine ANYthing. Only that Moroz has failed to demonstrate any incoherence.

phil ruetz < 3mz7khe@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu>
cadillac, mi USA - Sunday, July 26, 1998 at 00:22:10 (MDT)

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

Just wanted you to know I have always been a freethinker. It led me to christianity.

Julia Hicks <jahicks@prodigy.net >
Bend, OR USA - Sunday, July 26, 1998 at 00:15:18 (MDT)

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

I appreciate the fact that you have a forum on the internet. I read many of the letters tonight. A note of irony to you staunch atheists. The early Christians were called atheists. I have always found discussions with atheists and agnostics stimulating and educating. I am writing not because I am an atheist, but because I hope to learn something from my fellow seekers of truth. For me, life is a mystery, and each of us is a part of that mystery. Blessings to all! And thanks for being here.

carole g. < caroleg@california.net>
Oakland, CA USA - Friday, July 24, 1998 at 02:01:19 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/2/2biolo91.html

I would like to point out a scientific mistake, in the Tanach (old testement). If a biblolater could defend my argument with validity, maybe I have over-looked something, then I will read it with an open mind - that is, if there is a valid defense.

Gen 1.6: And God said: 'Let there be a firmament int he midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the water'. The interpretation being (by Rabbi J.H. Hertz): The waters from the waters
ie. the waters above the firmament (the mist and clouds that come down to earth in the shape of rain), from the waters on earth (rivers and seas).

In Gen 1.6 (a little later): And God said: 'And let there be lights in the heaven to divide the day from the night'.

Now wait just a minute! What the Genesis writer is saying is that the lights which divide the day from the night (ie. the stars and the sun) are in the firmament. That is, according to the above, in between the clouds and the seas! Now we all know, that the sun is millions of miles above the clouds. The fact that the firmament is the expanse of air inbetweent he clouds and the seas in just one rabbi's interpretation, although I don't see any others! Seems like a bit of a mistake to me.

Gavin Steingo <gostein@iafrica.com >
Sandton, South Africa - Thursday, July 23, 1998 at 10:16:42 (MDT)

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

I think your wedsite is a terrible eyesore and should be dealt with as such.

Eoj Eugarps < josephalan@hotmail.com>
Grand Rapids, Mi USA - Wednesday, July 22, 1998 at 11:07:06 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/1/1boobo91.html

You stated in your document that light could not be seperated from darkness. This is a false statment. Shortly after the big bang (which the bible describes) the temperature was still so hot that photons did not exsist. After about the 300,000 years the temperature dropped below (some point. The facts are not in front of me and I don't access to it this minute.) and at that time photons sprang into existence, flooding the universe with light.

And GOD said, "Let there be light", and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. I will get the numbers (i.e. temps, ages, ect.) and write you back. I also have facts for most of your other "boo boos". Scienctific facts, mind you.

Mitch Lockhart <Electro900@aol.com >
Flower Mound, TX USA - Wednesday, July 22, 1998 at 05:37:23 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I suppose that was a start. But you do not explain how the cooling of the universe entails "separat[ing] the light from the darkness." Nor can I accept the idea that the Bible describes the Big Bang, or the rest of creation for that matter. After all, the chronology of the Big Bang and the creation of the resulting universe do not coincide. Remember, Adam (in the second of the two versions, anyway) came before he had any animals to eat or a woman to reproduce with. Then god creates grass, herbs and fruit trees before he creates a sun! Hardly scientific concepts.

And, far more importantly, you fail to prove that a "God" had anything to do with it. Note that the "creation" of photons during the Big Bang is just that, an appearance, or creation, not a separation. I think that the statement as written, is accurate.

Also, don't you think it odd that God never blesses us with those technical details of the creation of the universe? We can find out about the temperature of the universe 10 minutes after the Big Bang from a science book, but the Bible never mentions it! Didn't The Big Guy know we'd be interested? And even the details he does give us are so inaccurate!

Blaine Armsterd

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/book-of-the-month/1998.html#july

I don't know if this is the proper place to do this, but I wanted to comment on the current Internet Infidels Book of the Month What is Atheism? by Douglas E. Krueger. I ordered it and received it yesterday. I bought it with the hopes of using it to more clearly explain the atheist position to my wife. The introduction to the book clearly stated that the target audience was open-minded Christians, and that fits my wife perfectly.

The arguments in the book are very good, the problem is with the tone of the book. It's very condescending to Christians, and tends to make the "target audience" very defensive. I've tried to convince my wife to look past the tone and look at the arguments, but it is difficult.

Mr. Krueger's history of debate with Christians makes the tone of his book understandable (and also makes his arguments very well thought out), but if he really expects to reach open-minded Christians, he needs to attempt to extract the attitude from the argument.

Rod Monsees < rmonsees@wss.dsccc.com>
Plano, TX USA - Tuesday, July 21, 1998 at 15:29:09 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Mr. and Mrs. Monsees,

Doug Krueger

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

Elizabeth Stanton appears to be your average 1990's man-hater: that is to say any real men. Her whole argument is based on external problems and not God. I hear the same old tired far-left tripe over and over. If those days were sooooooo bad then why after 40 years, 4 trillion dollars, women's sufferage, and liberailism preached in the media like the antichrist is showing up tomorrow do we still have the same problems and even worse. The answer is that we are better off from a technical point of view, not morally. One thing ALL liberals got to get used to is that when you break God's way of doing things there is Hell to pay. By the way, MIKE M. was right when he said that you guys really don't understand.

Bobby G. Roberts <bocaro@tdn.com>
Kalama, Wa USA - Saturday, July 18, 1998 at 23:25:44 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

Religious men have felt justified in carrying out the biblical god's mandates of murder, rape, and oppression against women throughout most of history, but I guess it doesn't occur to the religious mind to speak out against those crimes. But let a woman criticise those same actions and point out they were done in the name of the god of the bible, and the religious male rises up and irately declares her a "man-hater", angry, etc. It's such an obvious ploy, I would've thought it embarrassing to resort to it. Despite your assertion, the bible's violent message, present in many societal attitudes even today, illustrates that the problem is in the nature of the mythical god as humans have created him, and the actions taken by those who believe he is real. The problem is also that teaching people to do the right thing out of hope of reward (heaven) or fear of punishment (hell) is a poor substitute for their knowing the value of living ethically for its own sake.

Ironically, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and numerous other atheists who lived over one hundred years ago were far more advanced in their thinking than many religious people today. I for one don't want to understand the mindset of those who use the latest in scientific technology to spread superstitious scare-tactics and ancient barbarism.

Sandra Feroe

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

I'm curious Bobby, what does it mean not to be a "real" man? Are we talking about those abhorent milque-toast sissy men who help to do the laundry? Or do real men only embrace Limbaugh-style conservatism and avoid liberal politics? (Somehow I just know that football must be a criterion of real manhood.) Of course, at minimum my idea of a real man is one who has a good grasp of grammar. The 1990s cannot possess anything; it was the suffrage movement in which women gained the right to vote (the horror of it all); the word in the run-on sentence should be liberalism; rather than "got" you should use the auxiliary verb "to have"; and while Hell is a mythical place of the imagination, one can have hell to pay.

James Still

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

I just wanted to point out that although I've been reading these pages about inerrancy and errancy such for some time now I don't see anybody on either side who has yet broken out of what could be called the robot-freewill loop when it comes to the question of how a good creation went awry.

Biblers say that the god who wrote down the names in the Book of Life before creation was still correct in creating things this way, because even though he foresaw it, he did not will it, that man is to blame through his freewill. Then when it comes to Adam's fall and the question is raised as to whether perhaps he were not created with as much wisdom as he could have been, they say that Adam had all the wisdom of an appropriately created being, but made the wrong choice because he wanted to. When it is pointed out that perhaps if Adam had been given the wisdom of Solomon (we know that he was less wise than Solomon from 1 Kings 3:12 -- "I have given you a wise and understanding heart, so that there has not been anyone like you before you, nor shall any like you arise after you.") then he might have had increased chances to live forever without sin. At this point the biblers say that God did not want to create a robot, that He wanted Adam to have freewill.

Now I think that the reasoning on both sides enters and endless loop, that has not yet been broken. My suggestion is that it should be pointed out that Jesus was not a robot, and yet he didn't sin. Jesus had freewill, and yet he remained perfect. And since wisdom is incompatible with sin, then Adam just wasn't created wise enough. Then, if the bibler now says that Adam had to sin (starting on the second loop around this same freewill-robot circle of reasoning) I would just ask the question again if Jesus was a robot. In this way I think this circle is broken, and you will either move the bibler on to another, more interesting explanation of how a "good" creation by a perfect, omniscient and foreseeing creator wound up in such a mess, or the bibler will stay looping in the same circle, in which the conclusion drawn will be that HE is a robot.

On the other hand, if he gets the point and admits that freewill and sinlessness are not incompatible, then the argument could become interesting again, the bibler might say that wisdom is not incompatible with sin, or that God had good reasons for taking the action to create a freewill agent with a limited amount of wisdom (we know it was limited because of 1 Kings 3:12 as quoted above, and also the fact that Jesus, with his wisdom and vision succeeded where Adam did not) that would make the wrong decisions even forseeing it all: Rev. 13:8 RSV -- "...and all who dwell on earth and worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain." Or he might say that it was impossible for God to give Adam more wisdom than he did, or... who knows, but there must be an explanation right? After all, where there's a will there's a way. I would be very interested in seeing where the argument goes once it's out of this loop. If I am wrong and it has already gotten out of this loop, please take the time to send me the page please. Thank you.

john norman <time@u-netsys.com.br >
sao paulo, sp Brazil - Saturday, July 18, 1998 at 16:40:01 (MDT)

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

You say that God is not mentioned in our Constitution. You may have missed the whole point. The Constitution was created to please God as they stated in the very first line "We the people....in order to form a more perfect union...and secure the "Blessings of Liberty". Blessings come from our Creator, Creator equals God. The Blessings of Liberty include Freedom and equality for all men. If men run government without God, then the blessings of Liberty can be voted out and slavery can return. Our founding fathers were very clear that no man or group will ever again legislate our "blessings of Liberty", or "inalienable rights". The Constitution totally forbids a kingdom, we are "one Nation under God". Enjoy your freedom.

Patrick J. Keeley < Patrick.J.Keeley@jci.com>
Rockford, MI USA - Saturday, July 18, 1998 at 07:17:15 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

The only mention of religion in the body of the original Constitution is a negative one. In Article VI, Clause 3, it says "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Subsequent debate on the Constitution, in the various states prior to its actual ratification, dealt with this provision. Many religionists decried this provision, fearing that "Jews, infidels, and Turks (Moslems)" could hold office. Yet, even future U.S. Supreme Court Justice, James Iredell, said that it was a good thing that non believers and non Christian will be able to hold office because the very reason the U.S. came into being was to avoid the ancient prejudices of other countries. Thus, the 13 original states ratified the original Constitution in 1789, knowing full well that there could never be any religious preconditions to holding office.

Also, the principal architect of the First Amendment, future president, James Madison, five years before the First Amendment was introduced, opposed any and all assessments for any clergy in the state of Virginia. The First Amendment was initially introduced into the House of Representatives, in August of 1789, to read, "there shall be no law establishing religion." By the time it emerged, in September of that year, from the joint House and Senate Conference Committee, it read there shall be no law "respecting an establishment of religion." Thus, langauge which would have just barred the federal government from creating religious institutions was changed to prohibit any and all aid any and all acknowledgment, the government cannot even "respect" an establishment of religion, let alone promote one. Thus, taken together, the original Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3, and the first words of the First Amendment, show that government was strictly barred from any favoritism to belief in god.

The Preamble that talked about the "blessings" of liberty did not contain legal mandates, as did the various articles and subsequent bill of rights amendments. The preamble was a broad statement of purpose and hope, it does not have the force of law as does the actual textual components of the constitution. The Preamble is merely a lofty, somewhat mushy expression of hopes for a wonderful country. The use of the terms "blessing" in such a broad and general context cannot erode the powerful negative mentions of religion in those provisions of the Constitution that are actually enforceable.

Edward Tabash

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

Congratulations on a truly informative site. It does sometimes seem from their replies as if some of your respondents, convinced of their Faith as they are, seem to be enjoying (if that's the right word) a completely different reality. You've got to admit that the rigorous (if somewhat misguided) use of logic and argument employed by the great Christian thinkers of the past such as Augustine and Aquinas would make a refreshing change today. As lively as it currently is on your site, can you imagine what an electrifying debate would ensue if you had those guys posting to II?! Do you think you would be up to the challenge? ;-)

On a slightly more sour note, I must concur with Dick Gray on the 'NunZilla' ad GIF over feeling a little unease. This is the sort of stance that one might expect of the more fundamentalist movements, and somehow just seems a little too 'ad feminem', if you like. Like Dick, I have few illusions left concerning uni[n]formed representatives of organized religions (after all, we've been bombarded in the UK with media reporting over the last two weeks from Drumcree, Northern Ireland, on the orange sash and bowler-hat clad Protestant Orangemens' desires to march through the Catholic Gavaghey road area leading to the obscenity of three children dying in a firebombing, and the sight of dog-collared pulsing-veined Protestant so-called 'churchmen' roaring sectarian sermons on 'principles' and 'no compromise' from the pulpit afterwards). But ridiculing an (at least partly) innocent section of a religion in its entirety is ill-judged. Why not a Pat Robertson 'PatZilla' or somesuch instead? I'm not against subverting religious symbolism per se (I'm one of the proud UK customers of evolvefish.com, after all) but the instrument of satire cuts all the finer for having a sharp, glinting point.

Keep up the good work - support and respect to you all.

Daen de Leon <wis@netcomuk.co.uk >
Wivenhoe, Essex England - Friday, July 17, 1998 at 03:54:02 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Your comments about the NunZilla ad GIF are well-taken. This ad was placed on our web server without our consent. We run advertisements for EvolveFish.com by linking to a URL for a graphic icon that is stored on EvolveFish.com. When they update the file that stores the graphic icon, the advertisement automatically changes.

Unfortunately, I did not contact EvolveFish.com about the ad for approximately two weeks after it started appearing on our site. Once I did finally contact EvolveFish.com, the NunZilla graphic was removed from our web site within one hour. I have asked EvolveFish.com in the future to coordinate with the Internet Infidels before posting potentially offensive graphics such as the NunZilla ad.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

It is quite interesting that every human struggles with the existence of God. Yes, even those of you who deny his existence had to have first posed the question in your mind "Does He exist?" before you concluded a resounding no. I admit even those of us who trust in him completely, still struggle on a different level. I am writing this note in response to the "denials" of Dr. Hovinds proofs by Dave Matson. It only took the reading of three to four "denials" to realize that Dave Matson approached the issue of the Bible as a collection of distorted stories compiled as some sort of religious answer to a traditionaly pagan world. This is a very close minded approach that is typical of "scientific research" denials that begin with a predetermined answer and proceed to state "evidence" compiled by (obviously) other individuals who began with the same answer. For those of us (myself included) that believe the Bible is Gods inerrant word, your rebuttles that assume the Bible as being a collection of stories are for the most part inconclusive. In fact, if I may borrow Dave Matson's line of reasoning, if a rebuttle contains an assumption that i disagree with, well, it is obviously incorrect and all thoughts, ideas, facts, or proofs associated with it must be immediately dismissed. I am sorry you wasted so much time Dave Matson.

Andrew V. Allen <AO4ALL@aol.com>
Dayton, OH USA - Wednesday, July 15, 1998 at 21:05:39 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

The vast majority of Dave's articles don't even mention the Bible but focus on physical scientific evidence. The "cosmic dust" argument, for example, shows that something is seriously wrong with Dr. Hovind's thought processes.

Rich Daniel

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

You argue that "even those of you who deny his existence had to have first posed the question in your mind 'Does He exist?' before you concluded a resounding no." Of course, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. In order to avoid begging the question, those of you who believe that God is a matter of fact must first deny God's existence in order to be able to deductively conclude to his existence through the proofs of natural theology. It works both ways my friend.

James Still

This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/craig-jesseph.html

It seems that whenever Craig appears in debate he draws on the argument from personal experiences, but he never seems to be interested in defending it. It is clear that he doesn't really consider it a logical argument worth debating. What then is his motivation?

It is actually quite transparent: Apologetics is a dangerous game. You may win new converts and strengthen the faith of the faithful, but you are also opening up Christianity to public scrutiny and logical assessment. What Craig is doing is taking out an insurance policy. He mentions the argument twice - in the beginning and the end. In effect he is saying:

1) In the beginning: Whatever you hear here tonight, keep the faith anyway.
2) In the end: Whatever you have heard here tonight, keep the faith anyway.

Apologetics have never been about the assessment of reality, but always about reaffirming what you already believe.

Ole Hougaard <oih@uni-c.dk>
Aarhus, Denmark - Monday, July 13, 1998 at 01:37:49 (MDT)

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

I am an infidel. What if there is a God? How am I going to handle this dread life I am living?

Enezio E. de Almeida Filho <neddy@mailcity.com >
Piracicaba, SP Brazil - Sunday, July 12, 1998 at 15:42:23 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

What is so dreadful about life as a non-Christian? And even if there is a God, why would he punish you for doing what you sincerely believe is right? If he tortures people in hell forever for guessing wrong about which religion to follow, if any, is he really worthy of worship?

Rich Daniel

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

I've seen this question raised a couple of times already, but I've not seen it responded to. Why should I be moral if there is no God?

Elijah Sheridan <eshrdn@indy.net>
Greenwood, IN USA - Saturday, July 11, 1998 at 23:17:35 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Greater thinkers than I have spent lifetimes answering this question, but perhaps it might help if I tell you why I try to be moral. It's a better world if we are all kind and moral, that's why. I look at my kids and compare them when they are nice, friendly, honest, versus when they are mean, dishonest, aggressive. I do not need a god to tell me what makes everyone feel happiest! If my kids ask me "why should we stop fighting", or "why should I tell the truth" I have better reasons than "because I say so". A world where we are all kind, moral people is a better world. Since I believe this world is all there is, I am determined to make it as good an experience as possible.

To me, the thought of being forced to be moral not because you believe it best, but because you think there is an aggressive god who may otherwise punish you, is a horrible one. In fact, if I believed in God I might well ask, "why should I be moral just because God says so"?

[Interested readers should point their browsers to the essay by Theodore Drange entitled "Why Be Moral?" for a detailed answer to this question.]

Michael Willems

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

What an arrogant, almost evangelistic zeal you have for attackin Christianity. You stated in one of your publications that you "are the only one to write on the evil side of Christianity." What balderdash (I hope that this is not an "expletive.")! Your approach is just more high-tech than some, but your vapid existential philosophy is old hat.

I make no defense of the excesses of religion and even conservative Christians as you have listed in "Crooks...Cruds" but I could easily list existentialist morons who have fallen into hideous lifestyle that deprive others of their "authentic" life choices.

Your research is often faulty as well. I would be glad to give examples but I have little doubt that your interest in factual reporting has much depth.

I have no wish to enter into an extended dialogue with you, I have had enough of your kind of empty-headed histrionics while in graduate school. The saddest part is that many of those who hold to your standards of Christian bashing claim to be Christians. That is even sadder.

The one consolation I can find is that much brighter and articulate Christian haters have failed to diminish the truth of the person of Jesus Christ and one in particular (Saul) became the strongest proclaimer of the TRUTH of all time.

Timothy Hurley < brotim@poncacity.net>
Ponca City , OK USA - Friday, July 10, 1998 at 15:54:02 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/creationism.html#1

There seems to be a serious flaw in the reasoning of the "editorial" (since it is not factual) about "Is Creationism Science". The problem I have starts with the definition of "science", which by it's very definition is either purposefully or ignorantly exclusionary when it comes to Creationism (and Evolution, for that matter) and since the premise/assumptions he starts with are faulty, he cannot possibly reach a reasonable conclusion.

In my opinion, Creationism and Evolution are in the same category, whatever you want to call it. If Evolution is science, then Creationism must be also. If Creationism is NOT science, then neither is Evolution - for a very simple reason, one that the author doesn't seem to understand. While we may disagree about which theory fits the evidence the best, in NEITHER case can we prove it, nor will we ever be able to (until God returns ). No one was there to see either one occur and neither one is occurring NOW so no one can prove either theory (and variation within a species is NOT evolution).

The thing I would also like to point out is that TRUTH should be the aim of science, not what is politically correct - this is what your little editorial here allows you to do - avoid the truth and make what you don't understand (and you OBVIOUSLY don't understand Creationism) meaningless because it is not "science". Well, lets assume for a moment that it was TRUE (Creationism) - would it be science THEN????? I guess not by your convenient definition.

David Beorn <david.beorn@pobox.com >
Richmond, VA USA - Friday, July 10, 1998 at 15:02:52 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

You don't have to be an eyewitness to something to prove that it happened, either in science or in the criminal justice system. The strongest evidence for evolution is the pattern of similarities in non-functional DNA. (See  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molecular-genetics.html).

Rich Daniel

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

Thanks for the web page. It's always nice to see I'm not alone in this.

andy baker < abaker@Polisci.wisc.edu>
madison, wi USA - Wednesday, July 08, 1998 at 17:17:44 (MDT)

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

A long, long time ago I used to attend a church that practice the same holy days as the Jews. When I needed to take time off for one of these holy days, I had to use my vacation time. However, those who practice the "normal" christian holidays such as christmas did not and some in the eastern state had "good friday' as a paid holiday (there may be more, I do not remember). I found this unfair, but never said anything.

Since I have removed myself from the "god" arena, I have been thinking that not only was/is it unfair, but why should I pay for federal, state, county, city, etc employees to have these days off? In my opinion, all governmental entities should be religion neutral. If one wants to take time off to be with their family on a holy day, then ask for that time off.

Sherry L. Wills <stryver@aol.com>
Hurst, TX USA - Wednesday, July 08, 1998 at 12:40:21 (MDT)

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

Well hello there. I'm afraid this letter will not meet the criteria as stated, so I will not expect to see it printed; however, knowing that all mail will be read I figured I'd toss in my 2 cents. :-) I am not a Christian, nor do I belong to any organized religion, nonetheless I am a theist, and I can say that this is a result of the use of my reason. Yes, the same reason that rejects religion accepts the existence of God, loosely defined. It would seem to me that a truly "freethinking" person would be willing to evaluate all facts with an open mind, not just those that support a given theological or philosophical position. I cannot say that you are guilty of this, yet it is the impression I get from your well written but biased essay regarding Free Thinking. If "free" thought is bound to atheism, is it really free? Just an idea. . .

Richard B. Connelly < rbccrc@bellatlantic.net>
Beaver Falls, PA USA - Tuesday, July 07, 1998 at 16:21:30 (MDT)

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

All religions or gods were made by humans for social and culture continuance.

roney mcstotts < rmcstott@bellsouth.net>
kingston , ga USA - Monday, July 06, 1998 at 20:51:38 (MDT)

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

I got rid of the Mormon boys by saying, when they came to my door, "I'd love to stay and chat, but I have to get to the abortion clinic". They haven't been back :)

Rhianwen Rhuddlan < rhianwenr@hotmail.com>
Brisbane, Qld Australia - Sunday, July 05, 1998 at 18:15:45 (MDT)

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

Hey guys. Just wanted to tell you how much I laughed and laughed at your "50 things for non-Christians to do in church!" It was truly a gas (and that from a reformed baptist bible-thumping preteristic Christian). Keep up the funnies, we Christians really enjoy them out here in the land of Virtual Sacrilege. Hopefully, one day God might reach even you... ;-)

P.S. ...otherwise you'll still burn in Hell, eternally. :(

C. Stokes < Veritas101@preterism.com>
Memphis, TN USA - Sunday, July 05, 1998 at 12:49:13 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Thanks for your feedback on our humor piece, "50 Fun Things for Non-Christians to Do in Church". I would be interested in hearing from others, Christian and non-Christian alike, about this piece. Is it funny? Or is it offensive and should be removed from the Secular Web? (We have received numerous complaints about the piece as well.) Please let us know what you think.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

This is in response to a variety of articles about Pat Robertson and his views on God. There was a question raised as to which 'sins' were worthy of the death penalty by God. I began to think about my body. If I touch a hot iron my hand will get burned and I will feel much pain. Is this a benefit to me and anyone else who witnesses it? Yes, if I felt no pain then I would lose my hand. Others can see and take a warning by it. While I am no fan of Pat Robertson I must address the fact that if there is a 'god' then he must punish those people that do destructive things both for their good and for the good of others. Corpal death is not nothing to be feared, but pain, suffering, and death are three of the best things in this world. If we did not feel or experience them we would have a hard time understanding this secular world much less the ultimate reality

Robert C. Smith <foldzan@aol.com>
Kingwood, Tx USA - Saturday, July 04, 1998 at 22:32:00 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Even if we accept the premise that homosexuality is a "sin" disapproved of by God, the fact remains that in Christian theology, all sins -- with the possible exception of "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" -- are equal in the eyes of God. And if one sin deserves the death penalty (e.g., the "sin" of homosexuality), then all sins deserve the death penalty. But does homosexuality really warrant the death penalty? I don't think so, and I suggest that there are only two reasons why anyone would entertain such a notion: they are either incredibly bigoted against homosexuals, or they presuppose Biblical inerrancy. And I'm not convinced that either reason is good justification for executing homosexuals.

Robert C. Smith suggests, however, that God must "must punish those people that do destructive things both for their good and for the good of others." So why is there so much evil in the world? If there is a god, then why did the Holocaust happen? Normally, theists say that their god allows evil to happen in this world because he wants us to have free will; evils are redressed in the afterlife. If, however, you say that your god intervenes in the world to punish evil, then why didn't your god intervene and punish the Nazis before they were able to murder millions of innocent people? If, as you suggest, pain and suffering are actually good, then why should we attempt to reduce any suffering?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

Dan Barker states in his article "What is a freethinker?" that reality is limited by that which is directly perceivable by the senses or indirectly arrived at through proper use of reason. Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here? How can a freethinker be limited? I suppose I can understand the need to break away from organized religion, and that I suppose would be considered 'free', but if one limits one's own world to that perceived through our often malfunctioning senses and our often clouded minds, how is that person free at all?

I know many of you are good people who contribute to this site, but you'll never be good enough to receive salvation as a result of your own actions. Limiting yourselves by refusing to even wonder about God is burying your heads in the sand. If you want to be true "freethinkers", then consider the possibility that God does exist.

Scott A. Johnson <rom83139@juno.com >
Lincoln, NE USA - Saturday, July 04, 1998 at 00:22:28 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Lately, we've received a lot of feedback letters from folks who object to the fact that a "freethinker" is someone who has rejected the dogma of religion. Many letter writers take offense at the word "freethinker" since they feel it implies that Christians are closed-minded. Others letters are, quite frankly, less than civil, suggesting that a lot of our readers feel threatened by the notion that some might engage in critical thinking for themselves. These letters serve to remind me of the power of certain ideas like freethought. Let me set the record straight on what a freethinker is and is not. A freethinker is not someone who has "buried his or her head in the sand" nor is a freethinker someone who refuses even to consider the possibility that God might indeed exist. Ironically, if an atheist on this web site were to accuse all Christians of being narrow-minded, we wouldn't stop hearing about it for weeks. (I've learned over the years that Christians are very thin-skinned, perceiving themselves as being under constant persecution; yet curiously, they rarely miss the opportunity to hurl bolts of invective at atheists and infidels.)

Scott, you make the mistake of confusing the conclusion with the process. You mistakenly think that a freethinker refuses even to consider religious teachings in order to arrive at a desired conclusion. Do you honestly think these folks are wild metaphysical rebels who think it's sexy or cool to reject God? Quite the contrary, many freethinkers in the U.S. and Europe were former Christians who, for various reasons, found that the Christian faith was untenable and unworkable for their lives. Some have lost the support of family and friends. The journey from Christianity to freethought is often a confusing, painful process of discovery and self-reflection. But it is an honest endeavor worthy of our respect. To be a freethinker is to insist on the right to arrive at conclusions that do not necessarily conform to the dogma of religious teaching . When someone identifies himself or herself as a freethinker, that person is attempting to think critically about complex issues. Thinking critically necessarily involves the rejection of "received truths" or ideas which must be believed no matter what evidence might be for or against that idea. God might exist, but it is far from self-evident. The person whose thoughts are truly free is not one who demands adherence to a particular view of religion, but rather one who realizes that each person is free to arrive at his or her own conclusions about the matter.

James Still

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html

I love your non-biased approach to scientific/evolution/creation arguments. The site is comprehensive and has been helpful a number of times.

Mark J. Koebbe, Ph.D. <mkoebbe@pond.com >
Philadelphia, PA USA - Friday, July 03, 1998 at 10:29:59 (MDT)

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

I couldn't agree more with the conclusions of Robert Price in his review of "The Case Against Christinity". After suspecting the truth of the Bible as a young man, I have spent more than 50 years in discovering for myself that the whole of Christianity was plagiarized from the so-called "pagan" texts that preceded it. Such as the Baghavadgita of India and many Buddhist scriptures and perhaps especially the works of the Ancient Egyptians as expounded by Gerald Massey in his "Ancient Egypt, the Light of the World" in two volumes.

The word "Holy" comes from the Greek word "Helios" (The SUN) and "Bible" comes from the Latin word "Biblios" meaning "the book" rendering the Holy Bible in its true meaning as "The Book of the Sun".
"Jesus" is derived from 1+ES+us meaning "the One Essence" or The Sun. Now we can truly understand that "Jesus" IS "The Light of the World" - The SUN! and the "12 Discples" are the 12 signs of the Zodiac, etc., etc..

May the Light of The New Day shine brightly!

Kanya Vashon McGhee <DrKanya@WebTV.Net >
Atlanta, GA USA - Thursday, July 02, 1998 at 12:21:50 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_obrien/gentle/atheism16.html

I greatly enjoyed Paul O'Brien's paper titled "Gentle Godlessness." He was fair, reasonable, kind, and just. This kind of writing is needed if the atheistic community hopes to gain wider acceptance and understanding. I want to emphasize a point he made: sarcasm, disrespect, an attitude of superiority and mockery toward Christians are of no positive use in bridging the differences between theists and atheists. As a hybrid "Buddhist-Catholic" who who believes in a universal and unifying "life principle" but not necessarily a personal God any more, I thank you for singing your song in our world. Please pass this message on to the author. I would enjoy getting an e-mail from him.

Matt Sanders <mattsanders@juno.com >
Sacramento, CA USA - Wednesday, July 01, 1998 at 05:25:03 (MDT)

Last updated: Wednesday, 30-Nov-2005 17:06:10 CST

[ e-mail the URL of this page ] [top of page]

Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved. « disclaimer »