Infidels: Feedback : June (1998)

June 1998

Send Feedback

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/people/ffp/links.html

I’m flattered that you think my article worthy to be accessed via your web site. I’m delighted that you saw value in my approach to the question of separation of church and state. Thank you.

Francis J. Beckwith <beckwith@tiu.edu >
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Culture, and Law, Trinity Graduate School
Anaheim Hills, CA USA - Tuesday, June 30, 1998 at 23:51:57 (MDT)

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

Congatulations on a wonderful site. Recently stumbled by and have since sent your URL to friends and family.

One of my major concerns with "free thought" organizations is the lack of interest in the fight for free "sexual" speech. As a direct result of Christian influence, sexual speech has been excluded from First Amendment protection. We can openly proclaim our hatred but frank, uncensored sexual expression falls prey to "decency" considerations. This simple exclusion to First Amendment law has effected privacy rights, abortion rights, sexual choice rights, freedom of printed and spoken expression, and our right to pursue happiness.

The worst offender in this problem is the various "adult use" business codes being pushed into law in cities across America. This is true "backdoor" censorship at its worst. I have actually witnessed The American Family Association bring harsh restrictions to a City Council in Jacksonville FL that effectively banned adult entertainment. In this besieged city you can not sell, rent, own, or transport any adult sexually explicit material. This has also happened in New York’s Times Square and a new "code" being considered in California will allow the State to force adult entertainment to move to a "red zoned" area of the States choosing.

I would really like to see more discussion on this important issue. Possibly a review of Nadine Strossen’s "Defending Pornography" or a detailed look at the "Secondary Cause" issue that moralists use to enact these codes.

Greg King <gregk@gte.net>
Tampa, FL USA - Tuesday, June 30, 1998 at 08:29:10 (MDT)

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

I recently read the comments that Pat Robertson made concerning Florida and the Gay Days Parade. I can’t believe that such insanity is allowed to come from the lips of someone who has a TV show. His show the 700 club comes on daily here in Columbia, South Carolina at 2 PM. I just moved here a few weeks ago, so I haven’t a job yet. With all this free time, I like to sit around and watch Robertson’s show. Initially, I thought that this program was supposed to be a show about religion, a show that talked about god, jesus, and the rest of those bible people; but after watching it for about a week it’s very obvious that this show is nothing more than a Democrat-bashing commercial. I’ve never seen such blatant, disgusting propaganda in my life!

Rob Boozer <roshb@gasou.edu>
USA - Monday, June 29, 1998 at 12:56:43 (MDT)

James Still

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

I am impressed with your site. I am a Christian, and disagree with the positions, but there’s always room for intelligent (and, as seems the case with your site, good-natured) debate. I found it as a result of the review by someone in your organization of the book on the Moreland-Nielson debate on Amazon.com. I’m looking forward to reading the articles.

Martin Cothran <clrwb@mis.net>
Danville, KY USA - Friday, June 26, 1998 at 07:01:41 (MDT)

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

I will keep this brief and to the point as you asked. I just wanted to comment that I do not consider myself an infidel, so to speak, but I do agree with many problems you find with fundamentalism, and even religion in general. I am a Christian, but many of the questions you ask are ones I myself ask. It is a time when Christianity is stretched to justify some vile and irresponsible statements and actions, Pat Roberts’ included, though this has happened throughout history. Maybe I’m just chasing theological shadows after all, and maybe not. Regardless, however, I enjoyed your site’s offerings. Nice job.

Douglas N Hagler <haggis7@aol.com >
Akron, OH USA - Wednesday, June 24, 1998 at 23:07:15 (MDT)

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

Thank you for your page. I have searched for many years, through dozens of religions and college to find the way to explain my belief system. Although I must say it has been an enlightening journey, nowhere have I found the concise, to the point explanations included in your pages. Keep up the fine work.

Bob Perrine <pinkflyd@neumedia.net >
Weston, WV USA - Wednesday, June 24, 1998 at 21:32:13 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.secular.org/library/modern/doug_krueger/colossal.html

Doug Krueger’s review of Ravi Zacharias’ A Shattered Visage..., is exactly the sort of nihilistic drivel that dumbs down this world’s thinking. First, his attacts towards Zacharias’ Nietzsche/Hitler comments puts forth a ridiculous arguement that because Nietzsche’s distaste for Germany et al., Hitler could not have been influenced, let alone motivated by HIS beliefs. Since when do teachers’ feelings toward students negate what the pupils retain from their teaching. The same rebutte goes for the Sartre comments.

Another of Krueger’s objections, "The athiest never claims to have infinate knowledge...another straw person, falls apart as he realizes Zacharias’ term for "athiest" evolves (purposefully), into "anti-thiest", a more accurate and revealing nameplate for those involved. Zacharias believes that athiesm, being self-contradictory, is a moot term. Refuting the existence of an omniscient, all-powerful God, requires the knowledge of the in-existence of said God; otherwise, the "athiest", hoping he holds the knowledge, is merely grasping onto their human existence, bitterly kicking and screaming against a being whose very essence embodies the moral standard which the universe MUST then follow.

It is very interesting that Zacharias’ book is written in a way which "states", "queries", and "soberly rebutts", while the Krueger review seems concieved by a scolded child shouting "Are too! Are Too!" in a manner fitting for brat.

BRYAN CHALKER < BRYANKEITHCHALKER@YAHOO.COM>
ORANGE PARK, FL USA - Wednesday, June 24, 1998 at 18:49:58 (MDT)

First, his attacts towards Zacharias' Nietzsche/Hitler comments puts forth a ridiculous arguement that because Nietzsche's distaste for Germany et al., Hitler could not have been influenced, let alone motivated by his beliefs. Since when do teachers' feelings toward students negate what the pupils retain from their teaching. The same rebutte goes for the Sartre comments.

otherwise, the "athiest", hoping he holds the knowledge, is merely grasping onto their human existence, bitterly kicking and screaming against a being whose very essence embodies the moral standard which the universe MUST then follow.

It is very interesting that Zacharias' book is written in a way which "states", "queries", and "soberly rebutts", while the Krueger review seems concieved by a scolded child shouting "Are too! Are Too!" in a manner fitting for brat.

Doug Krueger

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

in response to Pat Robertson’s statement about homosexuals waving their flags in Florida, and the media comeback - that homosexual sin is the same sin as adultery and murder, this is true, but the adulterors and muderors are not flaunting their lifestyle to everyone in the world, that we the world must accept this as natural!! For a man to lay with another man and for a woman to lay with another woman IS a sin, this is a sexual perversion - just like incest or having sex with animals and adultery and fornication. All sinners will suffer the consequence of their sin - sooner or later. So if you WANT to be a sinner - do it but don’t be so proud about it that you have to wave a flag so the world will notice you!

martha patty <klyons7002>
san angelo, tx USA - Wednesday, June 24, 1998 at 14:56:31 (MDT)

Rich Daniel

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

Thanks for your Secular Web Site, it is a welcome breath of fresh CyberAir, and I have bookmarked you for the future. We are living ina dangerous time in our culture, wherein the understanding of church/state seperation is being threatened by religious special interests with formidable resources. Your site helps to preserve our democracy by raising awareness and involvement.

Solomon Matsas < savvywageslave@geocities.com>
Santa Monica, CA USA - Tuesday, June 23, 1998 at 16:35:28 (MDT)

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

This comment regards your feedback process in and of itself. Periodically I’ll check in and see what sort of philosophical fencing has taken place over the last couple of months and am rewarded to see you maintaining a solid foundation in the views you hold and how you present them in such a forum as II. While I am sometimes dissapointed in the inherent lack of promptness in your response to feedback (hey, I know the effort you put into this), the quality of your arguments and the rational tone you bring to an otherwise charged emotional battleground is refreshing. As a result, I can imagine the pressure to get the responses out in a timely fashion. I read this feedback as not only a learning tool, but also as entertainment and am far more dissapointed at your lack of a response to the logical softballs that are lofted your way. My only suggestion for this section is for you to take your time, put together a truckload of responses and links and let us all know what you are thinking. I understand it is tough to do more with less and resources are not always available to put together such a top quality product. Let’s be consistant, however, and let your feedback section fully reflect the quality of the rest of your site. Thanks for your efforts folks...here’s to less ranting and more rationalization.

Jason Goodbody <jgoodbody@yahoo.com >
fayetteville, nc USA - Tuesday, June 23, 1998 at 10:53:17 (MDT)

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

If you are an agnostic, and you believe that there are no absolutes, then I want to know if you are absolutely sure about your beliefs?

Chris <QU101@aol.com>
USA - Monday, June 22, 1998 at 19:05:16 (MDT)

Rob Berry

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

Disbelief in God does not simply make God disappear or become non-existent. You can disassemble christian beliefs and disset any scripture you want, but you will not accomplish any goal you have set out for yourself, save convincing yourself and a few others of the alleged non-existence of God.

james clayton fiddler < giftedpoet@yahoo.com>
ramona, ok USA - Monday, June 22, 1998 at 14:38:40 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

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

From a feminist point of view I can see why you might be upset with or question the "pompous" attitudes of the Christian Church. [See Sandra Feroe’s opinion-editorial above. – Ed.] Being a part of secular society not too long ago these beliefs frustrated me as well. However, since becoming a Christian I have learned the proper context from which your misguided and uninformed responses are generated. You use the Bible as a source of untruth and to prove how backwards the Christian belief is and how it contradicts itself. When you to use it this way there is no attempt to seek truth on how or what Christians believe. It is obvious that the more scriptures you have quoted in your passage the less you know about what we believe. You have no idea from which the context these specific scriptures come from or the history behind them. For starters you reference Genesis 2:18-3:24 and say that this passage promotes male domination of women and that they have a subservient role in the house and in the social genre. This statement is absolutely absurd! It is by no accident that the Lord made man first and the woman second. God recognized that Adam (man in this case) was inadequate and that he needed a HELPER (v.18). That this helper "be comparable to him." Meaning that the two are complimentary in every aspect of life i.e. daily work, procreation, child rearing, domestic duties, and companionship. You tell me where this denotes a woman as less than man? This is the proper context in which this passage should be understood. It will be a sad day when secularists try to prove their points by translating the Bible from an ungodly and unbiblical understanding. It was never intended to used in such a way. It is essential that you understand God’s word in order to understand what he is saying. And it is clear that you do not understand. I’m not going to tell you to stop reading the Bible, but if you are going to quote from it at least know what you are talking about.

Also, you next reference to Genesis 1:27-28 as somehow contradictory to that of the afore mentioned passage is once again invalid. God is not referring to the simultaneous creation of man and woman. What he is referring to here in the word man is "mankind" in general--men and women. That he created both man and woman in his image. This is more of a general account of the creation of man as a whole. Then in the second chapter he gives a more detailed description of his creation. The Bible does not always work in a chronological fashion. Sometimes this can even be confusing to the believer, but all it takes is a little research to find out the big picture.

Then you go on to say in reference to Elizabeth Cady Stanton opinion on the subordination of women...Speaking as an awakened woman, I fervently hope that women... including Southern Baptist women... will prove she was right. You do have one valid point in all of this in that during the 50’s "men were men and women were women" and there was a clear line between the two. There still should be a clear separation between the two, but at that time and still today men do abuse their God ordained role as leader. This needs to be rectified. That is why the Southern Baptists met in Utah and why Promise Keepers meets all over the world. Men need to stand up and accept their role as leader not dictator. And women like yourself need to realize that you are not men and stop trying to blur the lines between the duties of men and women. If there wasn’t supposed to be a difference between men and women there wouldn’t be. God would have created things a lot differently. There are certain things that only men should do and visa versa. Often times they are the same activities, but done from a different perspective. I am not promoting male superiority here. I am just agreeing with God. And if you believed in the God of the Bible (the only God) you would agree as well.

Mike Mladenoff < mjmladenoff@csupomona.edu>
USA - Monday, June 22, 1998 at 14:04:09 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

To put it your way, I can see why you might be upset from a phallocentric point of view when the Bible is criticized. It's saturated with male-supremacy, portraying the slaughter of women and children, not to mention men considered to be the enemies of its authors, and the treatment of women in it is characterized by utter contempt.

Given the zeal of your comments justifying the Bible's content, I wonder what it must be like to have to justify the many horrors the God of the Bible either mandated or approved, such as slavery, rape, and murder, along with ripping up of babies and fetuses. (After all, you did say you agree with him.) These beliefs are the basis for the repressive Taliban in Afghanistan today, removing women from the workplace and girls from schools, and the Christianity of the past, which burned alive thousands of innocent women as witches, and the present, where men, who don't take the risk of childbirth, arrogantly legislate over the bodies of those who do.

Of course, apologists usually say that critics have taken the Bible "out of context", which has been described by ex-minister Dan Barker as the true savior of fundamentalists... a handy, knee-jerk defense against troublesome bible verses. You characterize Genesis 1:27-28 as a general account of creation, and Genesis 2:18-3:24 as a more detailed description, but that's not the interpretation of many scholars. The two are mutually contradictory versions; for example, in the first, man and woman are created after the beasts, and in the second, man preceded all, including the beasts and woman. It is believed that two original and separate stories from ancient civilizations were placed side by side in the beginning of Genesis; the first consistently referred to "God" by the Hebrew term "Elohim", whereas, the second, believed to have been written several centuries earlier, used the term "Yahweh Elohim". Because of archeological discoveries which demonstrate the many striking similarities in the details of the earlier Assyrian, Babylonian, and Sumerian creation, fall of man and great flood mythologies, the biblical accounts can no longer be called unique, and the earlier accounts must be taken into consideration.

When you say "women like yourself need to ... stop trying to blur the lines...", you miss my point or, perhaps, choose to ignore what I said about having lived a traditional role of wife and mother. But the lines you speak of blurring are not black-and-white, and those of either sex with the talent and desire to go outside the arbitrary boundaries set by society ought to be left alone to do so. The assumption that male equals leader, and female equals "helper", a term open to interpretation but generally meaning one who assists a superior, belies our understanding of human needs and attributes, and the biblical support for it is irrelevant because it was written long ago by barbaric, ignorant men with a patriarchal agenda.

What is missing from all this is empathy for people and their lives. In the 50s and before, women were denied the right, due in large measure to religious pressure, to step outside of rigid gender roles. Most lived within the rules, but that made them no more (or less) womanly than those of today. In fact, many women were frustrated even then, especially since men, some of whom were less smart than they, had a wider range of opportunities. Women had to dumb-down to bolster the male ego; that was demeaning to them, and to the men whose egos didn't need it. (It's obvious the Southern Baptists and Promise Keepers aren't in that category.) That, of course, meant that men, too, were confined to rigid gender roles, which has been detrimental to them and to human history, but at least their choices earned them the affirmation that came from being "leader" in the realms that society considered to be important. Despite the revisionist history being preached today, procreation, child rearing, and domestic duties were not accorded the kind of respect that more worldly pursuits were, an attitude that can be traced to much of the writing in the Bible.

So, since I believe it is you who have no idea of the history behind the scriptures, I suggest that you read about the archeological discoveries we now have access to, which should disabuse you of the notion that the world began with the writings of Genesis. As for your comment about my reading the bible, frankly, since for a woman it's an exercise in masochism, I'm happier when I read it as little as possible... however, I highly recommend that every woman read it at least once. It's a real eye-opener.

Sandra Feroe

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

The Southern Baptists' recent vote to include woman's submission to a husband's leadership as an article of their statement of belief should be alarming to all thinking people. Not because of the idea it incorporates--that has been around since men wrote the Hebrew bible--but because it shows the success of the new drive toward patriarchy that will finally prove the undoing of our country.

Your response to Sandra Feroe's article is a case in point. You support everything stated in the Bible, saying that you agree with God. If I disagree, your answer is that I just don't understand because I don't believe. Now how can one argue with logic like this? Therein lies the problem.

Because bible literalists cannot allow reason to shake their faith, they are locked into an ancient way of life and morals. Read the bible (without the blinders of faith) and you will find atrocities by the hundreds--acts and deeds that modern society frowns upon, but the god of the bible never once denounces. Lot, the only one in Sodom considered worth saving from God's determined destruction, would not allow his male guests to be attacked by a mob who wanted to "know" them. Yet in doing so, this "honorable" man offered his two virgin daughters to the mob in their place, saying, "do ye to them as is good in your eyes, only unto these men do nothing." Clearly, females didn't count! All of Mladenoff's assertions that woman holds equal status in the Bible can't justify that tale. Child molestation--especially gang-rape--is a heinous crime in modern society.

Then there is the instruction in Numbers 31:18 with Moses telling his soldiers to kill their captives, "But all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Nowadays, we consider Serbs who have been accused of raping their victims to be war criminals, but the Bible God has yet to be heard from on that score.

The truth is that our ideas of morality evolve as we become more civilized. The Hebrew Bible should be read for what it is--a book of legends of a time long past. To adhere to its primitive thinking, as bible literalists do, is to regress. Only men who enjoy the superiority these outdated tenets preach, and women who have been conditioned to not think for themselves, subscribe to these archaic concepts. While there have always been such people, these attitudes now represent a serious danger since there currently exists a group that has become politically astute and seeks to control these non-thinkers in order to superimpose a theocracy on our country.

Perhaps the most influential of this group is James Dobson, head of Focus on The Family, a child psychologist who developed a radio ministry and publishing empire, and whose broadcasts reach 4,000 stations worldwide. Whether a "true believer" or just an opportunist who sees a potential for political power in such religious naivete, he has been a primary advocate of women's submission, loudly denouncing the women's conference in Beijing as "the most radical, atheistic, and anti-family crusade in the history of the world". He helped start the Promise Keepers which promotes the hierarchical structure of women being subordinate to men. Interestingly, Adrian Rogers, former head of the Southern Baptists, now sits on the Board of Directors at Focus on The Family. Don Hodel, current head of the Christian Coalition, was previously a board member and also an administrative assistant to Dobson.

Dobson now feels sure enough of his power base to issue ultimatums to our U.S. Congress. In a letter dated Feb. 26, 1998, Dobson gave Republican legislators his agenda: anti-woman, anti-homosexual, anti-education, anti-arts and pro-prayer in schools. He threatened extinction of the Republican Party by defecting, along with his followers. Combine the Southern Baptist membership with the followers of Dobson, Robertson and the Christian Coalition, and you have around 25-30 million people. He refers to all these as the "pro-moral" community.

The submission of women, and thereby control of the family, is a necessary goal if these religious political extremists are to accomplish their acquisition of political power. And, as sure as the earth circles the sun (which, of course, bible literalists don't believe), we know that religion divides, so it won't be long before power struggles erupt as each sect in the now united front strives to make their beliefs become dominant.

People like Mike Mladenoff are a necessary part of this takeover since they vote whichever way the leaders dictate. If they ever start to protest, they will simply be told that they don't understand. Once the deed is accomplished, however, they will be oppressed along with the rest of us, because power, political or otherwise, always corrupts.

Janet Brazill

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

I am very greatful for your informative site. In the near future I would like to submit my own writings on the subjects covered on your site. Thanks for being on the web.

RICK CORNELIUS <recall@sgi.net>
Cambridge, PA USA - Saturday, June 20, 1998 at 17:53:21 (MDT)

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

You guys already have your minds made up... why would you want my feedback?

Matthew Workman < mworkman@thelordswork.com
USA - Friday, June 19, 1998 at 22:08:38 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

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

I don’t know if you noticed, but in your May feedback section, the guy babbling about the ten commandments, and how since the authors was unknown it must have been written by god, Robert T Lee, is the guy who runs tencommandments.org, by far the most insane fundamentalist site I am familiar with. This includes white supremacists.

Ian Finnesey <fsiff@aurora.uaf.edu >
North Pole, AK USA - Wednesday, June 17, 1998 at 13:23:56 (MDT)

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

Any man who calls himself a preacher—and has more than two suits—is a hustler. –Lenny Bruce

Jim Myers <myersjl@eckerd.edu>
St Petersburg , FL USA - Wednesday, June 17, 1998 at 06:27:59 (MDT)

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

Just wanted you to know I think this is the best website on the Internet. A special thanks for all the hard work you infidels put into it.

Susan Sims <rozo@flash.net>
Irving, TX USA - Tuesday, June 16, 1998 at 18:45:00 (MDT)

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

Rather than argue because I choose to go by trust and Faith, I will put it to you as a challenge! But first I don’t believe what you’re saying and think most is absurd that I read. Your credentials I didn’t notice and when I saw you choose not to believe I pretty much lost interest in anything you have to say on the subject! Now here’s the challenge: everyone in town pretty much knows me! Come on down let me lay hands on you according to the New Testament, I’ll pray and then you will know that the New Testament is true!

Are you a Christian? That is, have you ever accepted Jesus Christ as your savior? What was McDowell’s response to the attack of his book? The Old and New Testaments interweave too much for scribes to have sat down and changed as the needs arised or as churches wanted! Come on! I’m willing to put my Faith on the Line, are you? If you don’t believe the Bible to be complete, and without error then you probably need to rethink your position because Revelation states: that no man is to take away or add to the Word! Sorry, I did end up arguing a bit!

Murv Fisher <gdrnch@wworld.com>
Grayville, Il USA - Tuesday, June 16, 1998 at 17:31:59 (MDT)

James Still

Rich Daniel

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

What I find objectionable was that the II’s response to Mr. Snyder utterly failed to address his views on the relationship between hypotheses, theories, laws, and principles in science. [See the feedback for May above –Ed.] Mr. Snyder described a theory as merely a promoted hypothesis, and likewise a law is but a promoted theory, a commonly held misconception of how science works.

Someone else can explain much better than I can, being just an armchair philosopher hack, but a scientific law is not a "promoted" theory. A law is almost always simply a statement of a mathematical relationship between phenomena, and is usually very directly observable. A theory or a law can be thought of as a "promoted" hypothesis if in fact the law or theory in question began as such, but such a view is not entirely correct. It is not necessarily true that a theory is "only" a hypothesis with supporting evidence for it, as Mr. Snyder suggested.

Take the law of gravity as an example: it’s just a description of a mathematical relationship. The law did not necessarily start out as the "theory of gravity." The theory of natural selection, OTOH, is a systemitized generalization about nature, and is considered valid because it has predictive power, explanative power, and has withstood rigorous testing. The fact that it is not called the "law of natural selection" does not imply that it is not as valid as it perhaps could or should be. Somebody help me out here!

Nick Bruels <nickb@teleport.com >
USA - Tuesday, June 16, 1998 at 16:24:01 (MDT)

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

After reading many of the comments made, I’d just like to make a quick response to two of the most common theistic objections and misconceptions. Firstly, there is no problem with a morality not based on a god; for example Utilitarianism, Virtue ethics, the Categorical Imperative, Need ethics to name but a few. These do have problems in themselves, but none that a god could cure. Furthermore, there are many problems with gods in morality, the most obvious by Plato; Is good what God says because he says it is, or is it good because it is good and he follows it. If the former, then ‘good’ is what god does eg burn people for eternity in hell. If god subscribes to a higher good then he is limited and not infinite or omnipotent.

Owen Evans <O.R. Evans@dur.ac.uk >
Durham, Britain - Tuesday, June 16, 1998 at 11:11:23 (MDT)

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

If you people don’t believe in a God, that there was a Jesus, that there is no heaven or hell, then what are you worried about. If none of this exists, then why do you try so hard to prove that it doesn’t exist? Strange! Thanks.

Charles D. Craddock <ccraddoc@swva.net >
Stuart, VA USA - Monday, June 15, 1998 at 18:18:13 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Well, there might be several reasons. First of all, many of us are inquisitive people, interested in making up our own minds about the world we live in; not because someone or something says so, but because we trust our reasoning abilities. After all, the question "is there a God or isn't there" is a BIG question. People have always asked themselves these big questions, and I for one believe that is what has led to progress through the centuries. The second reason is more practical. My life is affected by religious people and their beliefs in many ways, every day. I grew up in Europe, where shops closed at 6:00 p.m. and all day Sunday because of pressure from the churches. If I ever get cancer, I cannot be put out of my misery at the end even if I myself, my family and my physician want it, because of a religion-based morality imposed on me. Matters like birth control, abortion, even the books available in my local libraries are decided on the basis of Christian morality and beliefs. I think it is my right to examine these beliefs, and question the truth of the tenets they are based on.

Michael Willems

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

Christianity is the most anti science religion around. It is also very big and has a monopoly position in many places around the world. By helping them you will give them a monopoly position else where. They need some competition from other religions. Or Free Thinkers will become an endangered species in places like Africa. They have already converted a lot of Free Thinkers from around the world and they should not be aloud to take a monopoly position every where. Since the Church has lost its position in the West due to an increase in knowledge the church is now concentrating on the Third World where there is abundant ignorance.

Mark Smith <marksmiths@hotmai.com >
London, UK - Monday, June 15, 1998 at 15:26:52 (MDT)

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

I have a question about atheism in general. I am an explicit atheist who is currently reading the book The Case Against God. I agree with everything that I have read so far and am enjoying the book. My problem is that the author says that we only need to prove that the case against god is invalid, which means that there is no god. I agree to a point. What is said is that if there is no proof of that something does exist then we can not say for sure that it is there. I agree. But if we have no specific proof that the object does not exist, then isn’t it true that the object may or may not exist? If we have no proof for or against, then we simply don’t know, right?

Danielle Scheswohl < dscheswohl@usa.net>
Philadelphia, PA USA - Friday, June 12, 1998 at 17:44:41 (MDT)

Rich Daniel

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

I’ve wrestled with this question for sometime now, and finally ran across the semblance of an answer on your site. In regards to the item by James Still The Absurd Life: Barabbas and Christ, I deduce an effort to avoid the obvious in this attempt to face up to the fact that Jesus Barabbas was released and not crucified. By acknowledging this Scripturally founded fact, the premise for Christianity would not have a leg to stand on. As a result, I found the article very disappointing.

John Harris <linita1@erols.com>
Baltimore, MD USA - Thursday, June 11, 1998 at 19:01:27 (MDT)

Thank you for your interest in the article that I wrote. I have received many e-mail messages from folks over the past year about that essay and they all share one common misconception about what it was I was trying to do. First, the essay is informed by continental philosophy rather than New Testament studies. I am interested in the role that various characters play in the passion narrative from the viewpoint of existentialism. Second, I do not assume a priori (as you do) that the passion narrative is a literal event of history. I approach the story from the point-of-view that its primary purpose is to convey theological meaning rather than facts of history. Thus, the reason you found my essay very disappointing is that it did not presuppose "scripturally founded facts" in its presentation. This is a mistake in my opinion. See my reply to Murv for my reasons for thinking so.

James Still

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

In response to the review written about Ibn Warraq’s "Why I am not a Muslim", I would like to know why secular humanists like Warraq, do you feel the need to defame the religion of Islam unneccesarily. (I could give a list of things wrong with Warraq’s reasoning, but I won’t,due to your request to make feedback brief). I am not looking for a confrontation; all I would like is a response from any humanist as to what is wrong with Islam, and religion in general. Also I would like to know the secular view of freedom of religion.

Saad Khan < saadomarkhan@hotmail.com>
Thornhill, Ontario Canada - Thursday, June 11, 1998 at 16:42:36 (MDT)

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

You can’t PROVE the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns because you haven’t searched all 100% of the entire universe, and even if you did search all 100% percent and didn’t find him, that’s only because you couldn’t see him. So until you PROVE the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns, I don’t have to prove the non existence of god.

Do you see what I am saying? The burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion, i.e., the christian. If I say there is a tooth-fairy, I must offer you evidence, I must prove to you that the tooth-fairy exists. You have no obligation to prove the non-existence of tooth fairies.

Think what kind of world this would be if everyone had to PROVE the non-existence of every alien, UFO, imp, goblin, and demon — we would have to spend every minute of our life-time disproving freak claims of the paranormal. Under your rule, you would have to accept the existence of Apollo, Jupiter, Allah and all the other thousands of gods that mankind has cooked-up — because you cannot PROVE they do not exist.

I say "there is no god," NOT because I am certain that there is no god, but because the probability that there is no god is virtually equal to the probability that the tooth-fairy does not exist.

So as long as you continue NOT believing in the god Apollo, while still not PROVING he does not exist, I don’t have to PROVE the non existence of your blood-thirsty tyrant of an all-loving god.

Robert Hock <DwcNo9@aol.com>
Juterin, AL USA - Wednesday, June 10, 1998 at 23:47:11 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

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

I"ve been an athiest,off and on, (some periods of agnosticism) since about 1946. My best friend’s dad was looking into Dianetics, became a "clear’,decided that it was a load of you know, and moved on to General Semantics. We started reading his copies of the newsletter "etc.". That is where the notion of Questioning Authority began with me. I read Korzybski’s " science and Sanity, and was hooked, although Wendell Johnson’s "People in Quandries" says pretty much the same thing in far less tortured language. one of the basic things in this way of thinking is that, when faced with an assertion, two questions need to be answered: WHAT DO YOU MEAN? and HOW DO YOU KNOW? . I use this all the time, and it is a big help in the beginning of a discussion to make sure we are both using the language in the sama way. Many Christians use the word GRACE. I do not have any notion what they mean by it. Many also use KNOW in a way I consider unacceptable etc.. I have found that some do not like to do it this way, and the conversation either ends, or continues, usually amicably; rarely not.I suggest you look in at the International Society for General Semantics home page for some good stuff all heretics should be interested in.

Jim Myers <myersjl@eckerd.edu>
St Pete , fl USA - Tuesday, June 09, 1998 at 11:58:50 (MDT)

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

Secular Web promotes valueless, slovenly, unmoral behavior and is contributing to the breakdown of society.

Linnea Comstock <rmcx88a@prodigy.com >
WA USA - Monday, June 08, 1998 at 22:56:11 (MDT)

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

I have found your website to be a great resource.

Joe Miller < jmiller@churchconstruction.com>
Tulsa, ok USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 15:27:58 (MDT)

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

1. The interpretation of the passage from Ezekiel ignores the ANE "ABA" pattern of thought; in this case, two older personages flanking a newer.
2. The criticism of Daniel as representing Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar ignores the "loose" (by our standards) use of the term "son" in the ANE.
3. While it is true that many scholars do place Daniel later than 530 B.C. there is also no milieu in which they can place it. There are really only two options: either the book was written in 164/5 B.C. or it was written in ab’t 530 B.C. Given the enormous problems with dating it in 164/5 B.C. it therefore must have been written ab’t 530 B.C..
4. In reference to the Darius the Mede "problem" the author assumes that the Darius Daniel refers to is the Darius to which we are familiar.

David Conklin < djconklin@hotmail.com>
St. Paul, MN USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 09:31:47 (MDT)

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

Some time ago I left a message noting that I enjoyed this site because it always further convinces me of the truth of Christianity. That statement sounded smug and self-righteous to be sure, as noted by the reply. Please accept my apologies for how this statement came across. However,the statement is still true. I thought I would share with you ("you" being the infidels as a group) why.

1. I never see you addressing the hard questions of non-theism directly. Usually I find you picking out some semantic mistake and diverting the arguments in another direction. This is clever debate, but very unsatisfying to someone who understands debate and the material being debated. For example, when somebody discusses the lack of merit in atheism, you will jump all over the fact that there are so many different facets and types of atheism (which there are) ignoring the original objection entirely.
2. Many of your arguments are ad hominem attacks that are completely uncalled for. This again, makes for clever debate before people who don’t understand the difference between destroying an idea and destroying a person. For example, your review of Ravi Zacharias’ book "Shattered Visage" was disgusting. I found this review to be so thoroughly insulting of a brilliant scholar that I quit reading it. You requested that Ravi link to this review from his home page in the name of intellectual integrity. However, having found none (intellectual integrity) in that review, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if he ignored you. I would.
3. You are quite good at redefining terms so as to change the argument. Many times I have read responses to people asking about the idea of "free thinking" from a non-theistic perspective and they usually get the standard, redefined, definition quoted from Russell. Nice quote - but it doesn’t address the original arguments about free will or thought.
4. Usually when you do attempt to address an issue directly it falls far short of being satisfying. The best example of this is probably the moral question. If you really want to make a good argument for non-theism, explain why I shouldn’t rape, kill, and eat your children. Be sure to include evolution and the survival of the fittest, along with the deeply rooted ideal of personal autonomy. For extra credit you can explain our occasionally guilty conscience and our individual need for justice.

I sincerely do appreciate the time and effort you put in on this site because I really do believe it is serving a powerful purpose. I’m guessing that there are many others like me out there who’s faith is being strengthened by it. I want to reiterate that I don’t mean that as sarcastic - yours is a tough job. It’s just that it is amazing to see the power of the light when held up in the dark. The contrast is striking and encouraging.

Steven Sommer <mnsummit@juno.com>
Roseville, MN USA - Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 07:04:55 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

1. You wrote that we never address "the hard questions of non-theism directly." But which hard questions are we avoiding? I sent you a private e-mail asking for a list of specific hard questions you would like us to address, and you have not responded to my message. You also mentioned the alleged "lack of merit in atheism". Again, I'm not sure what this means. Perhaps your claim is that there is no evidence that atheism is true or that there is evidence that atheism is false. Both of those claims have already been addressed on the Secular Web. If you meant something else, you will have to clarify what you had in mind and then we can respond to that.

2. You also accuse us of using ad hominem attacks as a substitute for substantive argumentation. You cite as an example Doug Krueger's review of Ravi Zacharias's Shattered Visage. Yet it is clearly false that Krueger's article attempts to substitute ad hominem attacks for substantive argumentation. Here is a summary of Krueger's main points: (a) Zacharias ignores atheism and attacks atheists; (b) The Real Missing Link; (c) The Wishful Thinking Approach, or "Hey, It's Still Better than Trying to Refute Atheism, Isn't It?"; (d) The Bug-eyed Deity; (e) The Appendix That Does Not Perform Its Function; and (f) Conclusion.

To be sure, there are portions of the essay which are clearly hostile to Zacharias. But even those portions address the important philosophical issues directly. More to the point, even those portions of the review attack the idea and not the person. As Krueger pointed out, the fact still remains that:

a. Zacharias did not attempt to demonstrate the truth of theism and he did not attempt to refute the arguments for atheism.

b. Zacharias's attack on the theory of evolution is irrelevant and false. Moreover, his claim that one would have to know everything in order to know atheism, is false.

c. Zacharias appears to reason that atheism has undesirable consequences; therefore, atheism is false. This is faulty reasoning.

d. Zacharias's presentation of Christianity as a solution to all of the hurdles which atheism supposedly fails to cross, is unsuccessful.

e. The moral argument presented within the appendix fails, and love and goodness are explainable without a god.

3. You accuse us of "redefining terms so as to change the argument." You say that we quote Russell's definition of "freethinking", but that we dodge the original arguments about free will or thought. I guess don't understand what the "original arguments" are in this case.

4. Finally, you say that when we do "attempt to address an issue directly," contradicting your earlier allegation that we dodge tough questions, "it falls far short of being satisfying." Of course, what is "satisfying" is a subjective issue. What is "satisfying" to you may not be "satisfying" to me, and vice versa. As an example, you cite the moral question. You write:

If you really want to make a good argument for non-theism, explain why I shouldnt rape, kill, and eat your children. Be sure to include evolution and the survival of the fittest, along with the deeply rooted ideal of personal autonomy. For extra credit you can explain our occasionally guilty conscience and our individual need for justice.

Let's assume that it is objectively, morally wrong to rape, kill, and eat children. I interpret your question as follows: why should anyone bother or care to follow this or any other "rule" of morality? Very clearly the answer to this question cannot be a moral reason. The "rules" of morality cannot be used to justify the institution of morality. As I see it, there are at least two options. Either rules of morality are intrinsically good and should be followed for their own sake, or the rules of morality should be followed on pragmatic grounds. Again, this is true regardless of whether God exists or evolution is true. So I don't think theism has any advantage over atheism in this sense. And our moral conscience and need for justice can be easily explained without resorting to the God hypothesis. Our moral conscience is a result of biological evolution and socio-cultural conditioning.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

I recently stumbled onto Graham Oppy’s "Weak Agnosticism Defended" and I found it to be both challenging and refreshing, deep yet digestible, sound and exhilirating. I have recommended it to colleages and friends. Is there a way to contact authors to congratulate them on their theses, as well as give helpful criticisms?

Jared Kenworthy < kenworth@rcf.usc.edu>
Montrose, CA USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 19:41:22 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

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

I just wonder how you can find any true happiness in your life thinking the way you do. Since you don’t really believe in anything how can you understand your existence and death, which most people inevitably question. Don’t you want to know what will happen to you when you die? Do you like not knowing why things are the way they are?

Shawnda Gillespie < sgillesp@callware.devpo>
Salt Lake City , Ut USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 10:54:23 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Of course, we want to know what happens after we die. But as far as we can tell, nothing happens. We cease to exist, and that's all.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Internet Infidels Response #2:

If I could paraphrase the early twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, "death is not an event in life. We do not live to experience death."  When I die, my world dies with me. Have you noticed that we do not speak of death in the same way we speak of ordinary events? It is not like saying "after the accident, I got up and moved around" or "after the movie, we talked until midnight."  There are no temporal moments after death and it is a mistake to transplant the word "after" to strange new uses from those established in ordinary language. Thus, your utterance "what will happen to you when you die" does not make much sense.

James Still

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

I love what you do, with one exception: I find the NunZilla GIF (and similar images I’ve seen from time to time) to be in very poor taste. Though I’ve long since left the illusions of institutional religion behind me, I still have respect for people "of the cloth" and for their choice of a not-so-easy lifestyle in commitment to their beliefs. Please accord others the respect you expect from others. Otherwise, keep up the excellent work, friends.

Dick Gray <dick.gray@bull.com,dickola@concentric.net>
Phoenix, AZ USA - Wednesday, June 03, 1998 at 08:05:16 (MDT)

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

If you recall, I volunteered my services to II to translate comments on Ilhan Arsel’s book. Here is one I’ve received after some months of silence. It appears to be from one A.I. Icoglu, aii@software-ag.de. The translation and original follows:

Subject: I. Arsel’s Drivel

Dear Mr. Edis,

The pitiful, extreme irreligious person called Ilhan Arsel is attempting to put forth his untrue opinions and direct insults to the religion of ISLAM. I vigorously protest I. Arsel’s Web-Pages due to his writings opposing ISLAM, and respectfully request that his writings denigrating and offending ISLAM not be broadcast.

ICOGLU


Subject: I. Arselin Sacmalari

Sayin Edis Bey,

Ilhan Arsel denilen zavalli asiri dinsiz ISLAM dinine dogrudan dogruya hakaret ve gercek disi görüslerini ortaya koymaya calisiyor. I. Arselin Web-Sayfalarini ISLAMA karsi olan yazilarindan dolayi siddetle Protesto eder o kisinin bir daha ISLAM i kötüleyecek ve rencide edecek yazilarin yazilmamasini rica edrim.

ICOGLU

Taner Edis <edis@cal-bears.llnl.gov >
Livermore, CA USA - Tuesday, June 02, 1998 at 11:12:09 (MDT)

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

Just thought I would write to congratulate you again on your wonderful site.The new layout is a pleasure to use and the content excellent as ever. Jeffery Lowder replied to my earlier query about why things are so different between the USA with its fundamentalists, phoney preachers, moral majority, creationists and other assorted opponents of rational progress. I wonder if your e-mail correspondence column would like to carry the following:

Need a holiday from the onslaught of unreason? Visit Holland! I thought my own country (UK) had gone about as far as possible down the path of ridding society of medieval anchronisms like religion until I went to the Netherlands. Active religious involvement stands at 1% of the population (compare 2.5% in the UK). The major church in the capital (the Neukirk) is used as an art gallery and only returned to ceremonial function for the occasional coronation or state funeral. A tour guide on a bus related the fable that "God made the rest of the countries but the Dutch made Holland." But he added "Now that we are atheists we can joke about it." Is this country plagued by all the ills threatened by theists if we lose our faith? Far from it. Holland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Street crime is virtually confined to a few areas in the capital where dealing in hard drugs takes place. Dealing in cannabis is not connected with crime since it has been given limited defacto legality. Likewise prostitution is governed by laws. Not a perfect society of course, but not sinking into a morass of corruption and iniquity as predicted by theists and religious prophets of all stripes down the ages.

Keep up the struggle Infidels.

Edward Tuddenham <etuddenha@rpms.ac.uk >
London, III UK - Tuesday, June 02, 1998 at 07:56:25 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Edward, I grew up in Holland and can identify with your remarks. After moving to North America, I am constantly amazed at the way Christian morality is imposed on one here. "Admitting" you are an atheist is definitely not done and can have real social consequences. I believe the Dutch have it right: they are truly practical in most matters and are good examples of how you can be moral without being religious. Why did this happen in Holland? In my opinion: (a) The need to historically live together as catholics and protestants without killing one another, leading to necessary tolerance; (b) familiarity with the world (the Dutch are great travellers); and (c) good education. I believe with a bit of luck, we're all headed that way.

Michael Willems

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 »