 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html
You did a very good job. Can't wait to read what you have to say about Koran.
Mounir Kaddoura <
MounirKaddoura@hotmail.com>
Concord, Ca USA - Tuesday, March 31, 1998 at 22:22:32 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
Let me congratulate you an an entertaining site, first. However, I must make one point. Preamble: I am Jewish and agnostic/apathetic. No, the two are not mutually exclusive, but that's another story. My comment just has to do with the sixth commandment, which states not "Thou shalt not kill," as most people think it does, but rather "Thou shalt not murder," which has a completely different meaning. Sure, look it up. I translated it directly from the original Hebrew, so I would know. Actually, my Grandpa, who would know even more, pointed it out to me. I just thought that I would clear that misconception up.
Guy Somberg <adiss@earthling.net
>
Colorado Springs, CO USA - Tuesday, March 31, 1998 at 20:33:17 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/
The great french philosopher Joseph Joubert proclaimed, "it is better to debate a question unsettled than to settle a question undebated." I believe this comment is adequate for much of the inimical discourse by both atheists and theists. But what I do respect is that each polarity attempts to persuade the other of their ideologies i.e., that theirs is the epitomy of truth or pragmatic application.
I don't belief most rational atheists want to purport such a fatalist attitude anyway. No one wishes to accept that life as we know it is an ultimate end in itself. I'm sure the atheists isn't envigorated or even jovial when he concludes that there is no supreme intellect governing the affairs of men. Only a neurotic despondent would rejoice in this proposition. I am glad to see the discourse that flourishes among the opponents. But as Bertrand Russell so aptly asserted, "that no man reads an author for the purpose of refuting that author, he reads so that he might understand." I believe it imperative that atheists as well as theists recognizes the intricacies pertaining to each pedagogues. Atheists who attempt to deconstruct the Bible or in colloqiual terms, go for the jugular, need to allot more attention to issues such as phenomenology and the various inexplicable miracles (documented) that have transpired over the duration of human existence. Men such as Wigglesworth, Scalion, and Casey fulfill this catagory. Even Kant submitted, that "I have had to limit reason to make room for faith." Kant, although not a theist, understood that their could be a reality outside of that which we perceive. An alternative set of applications might well dictate the course of human existence as well. Rather than dismiss miracles and healings as altered states of consciences or indicative of mental perturbed individuals, we must recognize that inference is as much a part of an atheist argument as it is for theism. Recognizing the limitations on neural analysis is prudent and conjecture will not suffice.
Likewise, Christians must recognize the inherent problems in propagated the Bible as an inerrant, God inspired work, understanding the social implications involved in the compilation of this work. The discrepancies or errors must not necessarily indite its authority, however christians must understand the Bible as a progressive anthology of work rather then a cohesive entity par excellence. The pertinent question, I believe, is: Is our rational capable of subverting the the truth of an issue. Is ambiguity ever present? If these questions are inexplicable than ultimately, "I must find the truth that is truth for me." - Kierkegaard. Thank you for your time.
Frank S. Palmisano III <
fpalmi1@tiger.towson.edu>
Baltimore, MD USA - Tuesday, March 31, 1998 at 14:21:22 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/
I suggest that you read a book entitled After the Empire by Mark Hitchcock so as to explain the nature of the Islamic nations prophecy. If you would like to see the regathering of Israel prophecy you may use any complete concordance to find any of the words in the "cup of trembling" phrase I included in my April 1997 e-mail which you published. I figure that if you have a web site on Bible critisizm that you have a Bible concordance on hand. Your local library should have numerous books on Bible prophecy, I suggest that you study them as well. The New Testament says that if you seek the truth you shall find it.
Jay Schloemer <MaxRudolph@aol.com
>
Evanston, Il USA - Monday, March 30, 1998 at 22:04:59 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/index.html
I was delighted to find the web site on Robert Green Ingersoll. I am doing a dramatic reading this Sunday in church with excerpts from his writings and speeches, and wanted to get at least a photo of R.G. Ingersoll. To my my amazement there was an entire site, including photos! I am working with our interim minister, Robert Kaufmann, at the First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis, who has prepared this half-hour-long program on Ingersoll, a true American treasure and genius. Your site has been a real help. Thanks to all who made it possible.
Phil Carlson <pjcdsu@aol.com>
Minneapolis, MN USA - Monday, March 30, 1998 at 14:41:29 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/february.html
On February 17th, 1998 Brent H. Weir wrote that "...the Constitution of
the United
States...does contain references to the fact that this country was founded by
Christians
who believe in God."
It appalls me that "Christians" are repeatedly allowed to get away
with
this
falsity time and time again. Either they are grossly ignorant of the contents
of the
United States Constitution or they are deliberately trying to mislead people;
hardly a
tactic that "Christians" ought to employ, which occasions my quote
marks.
In
fact,
the Constitution does not even contain the words, "god", or
"creator", or "christian". In one place, a "religious
test"
for holding office is forbidden, and in the 1st Amendment we find the familiar
prohibition
of "an establishment of religion". And that's all! There is NO other
mention of
God, or Christ, or Christianity, or religion, or religious belief. They may be
thinking of
the Declaration of Independence, but that is NOT our frame of government, and
the
Declaration's religious references were left out of the Constitution for very
good reasons
familiar to any casual student of the history of the times.
John C. Searight <
jcsearight@juno.com>
Anaheim, CA USA - Monday, March 30, 1998 at 14:30:57 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/word_of_god_debate.html
If there is no God, is not the concept of injustice a mere illusion? On what do we base "justice"? Personal opinion? We toss God aside because we feel that he does not attain to our moral requirements - only to realize that those requirements have no real meaning without his existence. Is there any reason, other than traditional cultural values, that random arrangements of atoms like ourselves should worry about concepts like injustice, immorality, unkindness? If we will leave behind us the so-called spiritual explanations, anyone can see that those ideas cannot possibly have meaning. And yet those very concerns form the foundation of our doubt about God's existence. Because God has not met our interpretation of his own requirements, we throw him out.
Scott Hargrove <shargrove@yahoo.com
>
Chelan, WA USA - Saturday, March 28, 1998 at 23:28:20 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
The main problem with this viewpoint is that even if we assume that
God exists,
it still does not provide a foundation for morality. Could God have given us
any
rules at
all, and they would have been moral? If he had commanded that murder and rape
were
sacrements, while making compassion a sin, would that have been OK? No, even if
there is a
God, he cannot be the source of morality.
Cordially yours,
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
Excuse the expression but, Thank god I found ya'll!
Mike carmichael <mcar@surfsouth.com
>
Donalsonville, Ga USA - Saturday, March 28, 1998 at 14:15:56 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethinkers.org/library/modern/delos_mckown/bibliolaters.html
I just read Professor McKown's speech on "How to handle Bibliolaters". I found it to be insightful and thoroughly amusing. Excellent stuff.
Brook Benton Tu <deborah@is-1.net.au
>
Sydney, NSW Australia - Friday, March 27, 1998 at 22:41:36 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/john_context.html
Jesus of the synoptics in opposition to the Jesus of John? I'm sure you are not the first to suggest it, but you obviously don't know the Jesus of either one. Jesus did not advocate strict adherence to the law in the synoptics, as you suggest. If you notice, in the passage in Luke, the commandments that the laywer gave, loving God and loving your neighbor, these are things upon which ALL other commands stem from. If you love God and your neighbor, you won't worship idols, dishonor your parents, sleep with your neighbor's spouse, or any other such evil thing. This is NOT rigid law-keeping, but a response to God's love for mankind through His saving actions. Love begets love. Christians are "saved to serve," as it has been said, and this brings John's gospel of salvation (through Christ) together with the synoptics. You will also note that the discussion with the lawyer leads to Jesus' stating of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Scott Robnett <
robnetts@telepath.com>
Oklahoma City, OK USA - Thursday, March 26, 1998 at 22:42:26 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Reponse:
The reason that the portrait of Jesus changes from gospel to gospel is because Jesus (as a literary character) is shaped in the gospel writer's own image. We must remember that, unlike the Synoptics, the Gospel of John was influenced by Alexandrian Christianity. At the same time Jesus was preaching in Palestine, the Hellenistic Jew Philo was in Alexandria writing and exploring Jewish mysticism. In his De Muatione Nominum, Philo allegorizes that the Logos is "the heavenly incorruptible food of the soul" and that Moses was a "divine man" who acted as a mediator between God and human beings. Elsewhere, Philo considers Moses to be a "living Torah," which is best understood from the Targum Neofiti on Exodus 16:15, which Geza Vermes translates as: "the children of Israel saw and said to one another, 'What is he?' for they did not know Moses. And Moses said, I am the bread which the Lord has given you to eat." (A commentator's midrash in the margin reads, "he is the bread given to you by the word of the Lord for food.") Probably influenced by the pagan mystery cults, Jewish mysticism in Alexandria had personified manna in the person of Moses and considered Moses to be a living Torah and the pre-existent Logos. This mystic teaching was so strong that it became necessary for the writer of John's gospel to have Jesus strongly deny the identification of manna with Moses and to declare instead that "I am the bread of life" (6:35).
With respect to your reinterpretation of the Law, I can only say that in Jesus' day his listeners would not have understood the keeping of Law as something done "in response to God's love for mankind." This is your own theology being retrojected back onto the story. Nothing wrong with that of course, since the gospel writers do this all of the time with the Hebrew Scriptures, but around here we like to separate faith from historical criticism.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html
I just wanted to quickly respond to your argument, "why didn't God create a world so perfect that no evil could exist?" God created a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forms of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection. From the greatest evil ever committed, the rejection and murder of God's only son, caused by the sins of all men, brought the greatest of good: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all that, evil never becomes good. I know this wasn't exactly an answer to your question, but it's tough to try to explain something that is based on faith.
Cindy Thompson <clt137@psu.edu>
University Park, PA USA - Thursday, March 26, 1998 at 21:09:59 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Your argument looks like a synthesis of Hegel's speculative metaphysics of the early nineteenth century and medieval Jewish Kaballah mysticism. In any case, it is perhaps wise not to attempt to recast propositions of faith into rational discourse. Unless someone shares your faith, they are not likely to understand a single word you say. Additionally, Hegel's system advocated pantheism not Christianity so I would not embrace his thought too closely if I were you.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html
Where are the missing links for man? There are none. There has been proof that the earth can only be approximately 7-10,000 years old by scientists that "in essence reconnected the earth to find continental shelves to piece together and mineral deposits matching that would be impossible to be if the seperation of the continents were that old. There are countless other "proofs" that show evolution is down the tubes but it takes one to dismiss their arrogance to see it. Wish I had more time to write but have other imbortant things to do than deal with this...
brian <bodine00@aol.com>
blue bell, pa USA - Thursday, March 26, 1998 at 19:27:40 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
Why is it that these countless other Creationist "proofs" must be qualified by placing them in scare quotes? Are they not really proofs but rather explanations? I urge you to point your browser to http://www.talkorigins.org for some straight talk on the matter.
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
1. With respect to your question about the whereabouts of transitional hominids, please point your browser at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
2. With respect to your claim about the continental shelves, I am prepared to "dismiss my arrogance" (evil, horrible, and closed-minded evolutionist though I am) enough to give your claim a fair hearing. Please write another letter to us, describing (or quoting) in detail the exact data that you believe demonstrates that some aspect of the continental shelves proves that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old. If you do not deliver, it is only fair of us to assume that you have no idea what you are talking about.
3. With respect to your vague reference to "countless other 'proofs'," please feel free to e-mail us any time with a detailed exposition of any such alleged proof. If you never tell us about them, you can't justly complain that "arrogance" causes us to ignore them.
This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/infidels/
I recently read your essay on the "fiction" figure of Jesus Christ. I was very disturbed at your attempt to show Jesus as a fictional character. I speak from experience when I say Jesus is real! If Jesus is not real, why do I hear him call me when I am walking down the street or driving down the road? I do not pray in vain, for I know that he listens. He knows everything about me and still loves me.
Tina k. Robinson <tkrob@hotmail.com
>
WAXAHACHIE, TX USA - Thursday, March 26, 1998 at 18:12:12 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Do you really think that yours is the only religion in which mystics
feel
that
they are in communication with God? If I heard voices in my head, I might
believe too, but
there
are too many problems with the Bible for me to ever go back to anything like
fundamentalist Christianity. See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/
and http://www.talkorigins.org.
Cordially yours,
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/mfound.html
I enjoy the high-quality of your defense of atheism. I understand you and I believe you when you say that you are moral and an atheist. In response to Christians that say that morality has no foundation without God, you say (1) "I'm an atheist," and (2) "I'm moral." QED.
You are, however, avoiding a more powerful argument against your position. I'll state it very simply: isn't your morality just leftover from Christianity? In essessence you are saying, "I'm an atheist, but my morality is the same as (or better than) a Christian's." My question to you is: why?
scott linden <
scott@baker.ds.boeing.com>
seattle, wa USA - Thursday, March 26, 1998 at 09:20:22 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
First of all, thank you for the cordial tone of your letter. It is nice to receive mail from someone who doesn't feel compelled to be rude just because he disagrees with me.
1. I believe you have partially misrepresented my response. In fact, my response, far from being an assertion of your (1) and (2), depends crucially upon the fact that most Christians would continue to have plenty of motivation to behave in the manner we (theists and nontheists alike) generally believe to be moral, even if there were conclusive proof that God did not exist. My paper points out an inconsistency within the beliefs of most theists who use that type of moral argument (see Objection 3 in the Postscript to my article).
2. I do claim that the atheist's moral foundations are stronger than that of a person who actually would cease to take care of her children if she became convinced that God did not exist, but one must note a few things about this claim:
(i) It is not the same thing is claiming that an atheist's morality is better than a Christian's, because in fact most Christians would continue to love their children even if they became convinced that God did not exist.
(ii) It is not the same thing as definitively claiming that an atheist's morality is better than even someone who would cease to love her children if she became convinced that God did not exist - it is just the claim that the foundation of the atheist's morality is stronger. And stronger it surely is, since the atheist's moral behavior is based upon strong internal motivations (like one's love for one's children) rather than arbitrary states of affairs in the universe (like the presence of some supernatural entity that dictates a command).
3. Finally, I do not hesitate to claim, independently of the points I argue for, that the morality of the atheists I describe is in fact superior to that of a person who arbitrarily takes care of or abandons her children based upon the commands of an external entity. And that is the point I think you will want to press me on. There are two responses I would make to such a move: (i) point out that surely you believe the same thing, and would continue to believe the same thing even if you found out that God did not exist, so it is your problem too (of course, there is nothing necessary about this - psychopaths and hard-core presuppositionalists could consistently base their moral behavior on arbitrary commands, so this just goes to show that my argument is not of universal scope); and (ii) refer you to my paper Against the Moral Argument, which deals more directly with the objection that there could be no absolute morals or knowledge of them in a universe with no God (note, once again, that that objection has nothing to do with whether or not anyone has any reason to behave in the way we generally believe morality dictates).
I hope you will write again after taking a look at that article, and let me know what you think.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/
Regarding the torturous prose masquerading as an argument Reppert's essay [above] we witness the bizarre lengths to which theists will go in their increasingly feeble attempts to validate their god (whom they call Jehovah, but I happen to know his real name is Figment!). Discrediting reason itself while at the same time attempting to score points with your own "reasoning" is a tactic that can appeal only to the religious mind.
As far as I'm concerned, Michael Martin's demonstration of the impossibility of a being having both omniscience and omnipotence is all one needs to know. It's not that Figment DOESN'T exist as much as he CAN'T exist! Michael wrote it, I believe it, and th at settles it, to borrow one from the thumpers.
But surely this minor obstacle of impossibility won't stop theists from trying to prove their "square circle." So why not just kick back and have some fun with it? Let's see if we can predict what their next wave of "proofs" will be like. First, their cos mological and teleological arguments proved nothing, except for their own irrationality. Then, displaying true religious logic, they went after this demon called Reason that was spoiling all the fun. But in denying the validity of Reason, their arguments now all lead to absurdities. Wait a minute, I think I've just found another demon! Let's give him a capital "A", then - and sit back and amuse ourselves as theists prepare to declare war on Absurdity. I can hear it already: "How can we even BEGIN to fath om the real essence of Absurdity without GOD …" And on and on they will go. But the circle won't get any pointier.
George Tipton <GeorgeT@nsius.com>
Vienna, VA USA - Wednesday, March 25, 1998 at 15:56:01 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap5.html
I found it refreshing that the conclusion of this article is so reasonable.
As you say,
it is rational to believe, or disbelieve in the Resurrection -- even I, a
Christian
theist, will readily admit that things like the Resurrection are not always
easy to
believe in. But doesn't this emphasize the importance of faith? Can't we now
see
that,
with two equally acceptable alternatives, our PERSONAL DECISION is what it
comes down to?
I would extend your conclusion to this article and argue that it applies to the
question
of Christianity as a whole: many apologists at several levels of discourse
(people like
Craig, Swinburne, and Plantinga at a scholarly level; Sproul, McDowell, and
Zacharias at a
more popular level) have argued in ways that make belief in Christianity very
reasonable
and, I think, compulsory -- but at the same time, atheists like Martin, Mackie,
and others
offer critiques of this conclusion that make acceptance of atheism at least a
little more
understandable than, say, acceptance of a flat earth. So in the end, the
individual must
choose for herself . . . and accept the consequences of this choice. I think it
is clear
why the gospel works on faith -- it implies uncertainty. Not "blind
faith," but
acceptance of truths that, though there is plenty of reason to accept them,
could turn out
to be no truths at all. It is at this point that Pascal's Wager (you're
familiar with
this, so I won't run through it completely) comes in: given this state of
affairs -- that
one
could accept either atheism or Christianity --
the rational person will accept Christianity. And there's no need to marshal
the classic
response that God might more readily reward sincere atheists -- according to
the Christian
presupposition, He won't (see Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, for a full
response to
this objection to the wager).
Mr. Lowder, if I may speak candidly, I feel a kinship with you, though I don't
know you --
our ages are almost exactly the same; you have attended a Christian college, I
intend
to
do my graduate studies at one; both of us are passionate about what we believe.
I just
want to tell you that I know where you are . . I struggle with the same doubts,
the same
questions. As numerous other people have in the past, I would urge you to think
very
closely about what you are doing -- Christianity can be
justified as a belief system and, I think you'll have to agree, you wouldn't
want to miss
out on
it if it happened to be true. I have made my choice, the choice to TRUST what
the
Bible says about God, myself, this world, everything . . . and I have good
reasons for
doing
so, but I still must trust. God knows trust is hard, but it is a decision
He
asks us to make. In fact, I would argue that the entirety of the gospel boils
down to an
invitation and an answer: Jesus said, "Come unto me . . . and I will give
you
rest." We either say "yes, I will come" or "no, I choose
not to
come." You're aware of Craig and the others, you admit that it is rational
to believe
in the Resurrection (which validates the rest), think carefully about your
answer
-- there
may just be a God of Love that you'd miss out on if you're wrong.
M. Hill <mhill@svsu.edu>
Saginaw, MMI USA - Monday, March 23, 1998 at 11:48:46 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/madalyn_ohair/agnostic.html
Atheists like O'Hair sound all too similar to the most obnoxious religious zealots. Like those who condemn sinners and infidels to "burning hell," O'Hair parades around with all the smug self-righteousness of those who profess to hold the ultimate truth. If the agnostic position is "gutless," then the atheist position is brainless. Blind faith, whether devoted to science or God, is the refusal to question. O'Hair's atheism is not the triumph of reason -- true reason would preclude us from reaching her premature conclusions based on humankind's imperfect knowledge. O'Hair's accusation that agnostics have "one foot in the God camp" to be on the safe side suggests that we are still contained by the fear of what God might do to us if he truly exists. Not true! Christian theology, for example, illustrates a God with no more tolerance for agnostics than atheists. What could the agnostic have to gain personally for doubting, rather than rejecting, the existence of God? Agnosticism is not "gutless"; rather, it is an acknowledgement of the mystery that pervades our existence. In that sense, it is a bolder and more honest meditation on this issue than either religion or atheism. Go to Hades, O'Hair!
Walter Hearne <hearneww@jmu.edu>
Harrisonburg, VA USA - Friday, March 20, 1998 at 12:36:34 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
I absolutely agree. Although I personally think that I'm justified in believing that there are no gods, I have nothing but respect for the agnostic position. Some of the Internet Infidels, including our Vice President Bill Schultz, are agnostics. We're currently debating whether to delete this article. Or maybe it would be more effective to add a disclaimer to the top saying that we disagree profoundly with it and are only keeping it for historical reasons. What do you think?
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidel.org/library/modern/dan_barker/barker-books.html
Perhaps You may be interested to know, that two of the books You mentioned on the page have been published in Polish. Moze tak, moze nie (Maybe yes, maybe no) and Moze dobrze, moze zle (Maybe right, maybe wrong).
Marek Kirejczyk <
mkir@zfjavs.fuw.edu.pl>
Warszawa (Warsaw), Poland - Friday, March 20, 1998 at 01:07:17 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/humor/church_fun.html
You know not being a chrisian is all fine and good. I definitely do not think that the christian way is right for everyone. I do think though that there needs to be a little more respect for other people when writing things. I am sure that there is a topic that you feel very strongly about like your freedom of speech. I sure that you would be a little offended if one were to completely laugh in the face of everything that you believe in. Freedom of Speech is not a right of humans, but a privilege of free countries. You should remember that when our ancestors came to this country they were being murdered for what they said. I am just asking that you try to be a little more HUMAN about what you are writing. You may not have to be a christian, but you do have to be a human. You could try to be a little more respecful as a human.
Krista Hinman <kmhinman@olemiss.edu
>
University, MS USA - Thursday, March 19, 1998 at 17:00:38 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels. org/activist/current/rrr/
I would like to express to you the extent to which your Web site insulted my intelligence, but the degree is beyond comprehension. I am a Christian, but not above criticizing those whom I believe to be totally out of line, including those of my own faith, even national organization leaders. I do not totally agree with everything said by James Dobson, Chuck Swindoll, or others, but for the most part I agree with them on the fact that even Christians need to strongly stand for what we believe in. Seclular humanists and left wing liberals stand and yell "Intoerance, Intolerance!" when Christians so much as look crosseyed at a liberal and yet you think that you can just walk all over those of us who dare to call ourselves Christians. I look to the Bible as my source of information (I can read!) and I can also investigate quotes to make sure they are correct. I must say that I have caught more secular humanists misquoting the Bible and Christan leaders than I will ever find the Christian leaders I know misquoting or taking out of context the media, the Bible, or other types of literature. I have found your Web page full of the intolerance you are so quick to "preach" against. In my heart I feel sorry for the ignorance displayed because ignorance produces ignorance.
Lucretia Inmon <
inmonlmi@hotmail.com>
Fallon, NV USA - Wednesday, March 18, 1998 at 15:43:52 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/humor/atheistic_evangelism.html
Promoting evolution is not doing good for the universe, it is bad. Why do you fiind it amusing to make fun of Christians? & what evolution were you promoting? Darwinian? Hopeful Monster? Or one of the many others? None of which are true. I'll be praying for you.
Nick James Poling <
18680@shelton.wednet.edu>
Shelton, WA USA - Wednesday, March 18, 1998 at 11:58:45 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
I have been checking out your site lately, and happened to come across Mr. Lowder's article on proving the impossibility of a particular god. While reading it I found the same problem that seems to exist in much of the so-called "free thought" literature I've been reading: the use of logic in an attempt to explain, disprove, or debunk the illogical, namely a god. Mr. Lowder brings in several interesting attempts to prove his hypothesis, and as a student of logic I can see how the principle of non-contradiction might be used as a human argument against the existence of a particular god. However, what many of you forget is that human logic and philosophy may not and most likely cannot apply to beings which exist outside the known dimensions of the universe which we can sense! How can you use logic to disprove what you can't see in the first place? Or hear? Or touch? Gods aren't human, they can't be quantified by measurements or theories or physics, they just ARE! The ancient Greeks knew better than to try to understand, prove, or disprove the gods' existence: they simply knew that for the most part gods were and are unfathomable, because they aren't human.
Any Christian who knows his or her God will tell you we don't "know" that there is a god: we "believe" that God exists, that He has sacrificed His Son for us, and that our puny minds cannot fathom or understand His nature. God exists outside of time, He exists where we cannot see Him, or touch Him, except in His creation, which of course lies all around us. In fact, there are so many facets in God that I find the very idea of an atheist being a "free thinker" to be illogical: your way of thinking seems by definition very limited to me.
I enjoy seeing that you have a forum which can be open to discussion from both sides of the fence, and while I'm not expecting to convert anyone (nor would I try to convert someone over the Internet, that's not how I work), I would hope that you'll think about Mr. Lowder's incorrect use of logic in his article.
Scott Johnson <rom83139@juno.com
>
Lincoln, NE USA - Tuesday, March 17, 1998 at 21:40:06 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Even Possible?", contains an "incorrect use of logic" because I attempt to apply "human logic and philosophy" to a being "which exists outside the known dimensions of the universe which we can sense." He does not deny my claim that negative existentials *can* be proven; instead, he argues that logical arguments do not apply to such a being. His reasoning seems to be that if a being's attributes include an existence "outside the known dimensions of the universe which we can sense" then that being is not bound by the laws of logic. Yet he offers no evidence that this is entailed by theism. Moreover, this is simply unintelligible. What would it mean if there were a god that was not bound by the laws of logic? For one thing, God make contradictory statements true, simultaneously. God could make rocks so big he could not lift them. God could give people free will (thereby allowing the possibility of evil) and at the same time program people to believe in Him. God could both exist and not exist.
Perhaps Mr. Johnson did not mean to make such an assertion. Perhaps he only intended to assert that there are logically possible gods whose existence is unfalsifiable. In other words, nothing would ever count as evidence for the non-existence of such beings. I would be the first person to admit that. But I also claim that there are other gods whose existence *is* falsifiable, and Mr. Johnson never denied that. In order to disprove my thesis, Mr. Johnson would have to provide conceptual analysis demonstrating that all logically possible gods have the attribute of being unfalsifiable, and he hasn't done that.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethinkers.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite. html
I just finished reading your web site which says "Jesus was a Hypocrite." To be sure you probably receive quite a few hostile E mails. This will not be one of them. I admire people who have a desire to know the truth and express their views despite current and popular opinion. However, having read and studied the life of Christ for some years now, I believe your rule of measure for Jesus is based on 20th century standards of conduct. Your work lacks reference to the original language and custom of Jesus' day. I believe you lack study.
Deron Spoo <dpspoo@mindspring.com
>
Montgomery, AL USA - Tuesday, March 17, 1998 at 14:50:50 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/1/1front91. html
i would just like to comment on your article about Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8. i am inclined to agree with you in many of your views on the bible not being devinely inspired, but for the last four years i have read the bible and each time it has proved itself to be true. for some reason i seem to be able to retain most of the old testement in my mind especially the family lines, names ect. my point here is i was very skeptical about the bible and i have gone to great lengths to prove it wrong, but like i said i have not been able to do so yet. how do you know that the new testement isnt devinely inspired? do you believe the old testement was? i am reading the book of isaiah right now and there is no way isaiah could have known what things were going to happen in the future except by gods intervention to his pen.
Melissa Wilson <
nov2782@mail.icongrp.com>
Cedar Lake , IN USA - Tuesday, March 17, 1998 at 14:10:57 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
See http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/examine_prophecies.html , http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html, and chapters 9 and 11 of http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/february.html
The whole point of Darwinian Evolution is that it is 'ordinary' (i.e., natural ); it is the supernatural that is, by definition, extraordinary. Furthermore, to say that "atheism requires as much faith as a belief in God." is to display a total lack of comprehension of the meaning of the words (which, frankly, seems to be the under lying problem in much of what I read in the comments from 'outside').
Robert
G. Faulkner <
bob-faulkner@worldnet.att.net>
Gulf Breeze, FL USA - Monday, March 16, 1998 at 14:13:54 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_isotopes.html
I've enjoyed reading your pages on Young Earth, the Flood, and the other related ones. I personally believe in creation and that Genesis is generally correct, though not necessarily complete. Your disproofs of the religio-scientific (new word!) theories are quite valid in my opinion. I don't believe either view can ever be proven or disproven, however. Both creationists and pure scientists rely on way too many assumptions and linear extrapolations into the earth's past. You might as well apply 8th grade physics to subatomic particles. I belive this goes for the shrinking sun theory, radioactive dating, the theory that the speed of light is winding down, or even that the universe is expanding (or shrinking). The expanding universe theory is a classic case of circular logic, if you ever want to research it. It begins with the assumption that the universe is expanding, runs through some proofs, and ends up showing that the universe is expanding(hmm...). As for any isotope related proofs, they ignore the constant bombardment of both the Earth and Moon by asteroids and whatnot. They also assume the ozone layer, solar wind, and gravo-magnetic (2nd new word) forces have always been around and have been more or less constant. I am wondering why you have put so much time and effort into these subjects. I haven't really given much thought to such things til I came across your site today. What is your view of the meaning and validity of the New Testament books?
Matthew Godsey <
heteroman@mindspring.com>
Acworth, GA USA - Sunday, March 15, 1998 at 22:11:47 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
See http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cmb_intro.html for non-circular evidence of the Big Bang. As for unjustified extrapolations into the past, perhaps you didn't know that there are many independent methods of geological dating that all confirm each other. See http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html.
Cordially yours,
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/corey_washington/craig-washington/question.html
G-d, God and the universe, getting bigger or smaller or? Did God do it all? Most issues where God is the topic must stop at some point because we attempt to define God and the issue with the words and meanings we understand.the God question goes unanswered "Not because the answer does not exist" the answer is " and the words that define the answer do not exist" we create words to define expirences or projection based on expirences.. If a expirence is beyond our understanding we can not define it , no references, people who Know GOD, can talk with confidence and those who do not , can not.
I to go to the truth and remember the answer is always in the question... ie.. If you ask the question Did GOD create all life on earth. The answer is the question..If you look for what is not the answer, the answer appears. What can cause confusion is starting with the Big Bang and saying life started then, with out asking the question: who made the big to go bang,... would I open a book to the middle and read to the end, then write the begining of the book...
When I need answers about a topic I do not know I seek out the best source available to give me the answer... If you need a GOG [sic] answer, ask GOD.
Larry Eisman <larrye@gte.net>
w. covina, ca USA - Saturday, March 14, 1998 at 04:34:56 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html
Great job guys! I think your lists of biblical contradictions should make it clear that the Bible is the word of man, to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that is. However, I certainly hope that you do not encourage a disbelief in God altogether. Edwin Hubble gave us a lot of evidence that there was indeed a moment of creation. I would also like to suggest to you that St. Paul is the anti-christ that Christians are busily searching for. His anti-sex rhetoric labels him as the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place". Paul undoubtedly influenced many gospel writers also, which suggests to me that the historical Jesus has been greatly misrepresented by the Bible.Don't lose faith yet! Remember, emotion is spirit.
Timothy Green <TGreen142@aol.com
>
Battle Creek, MI USA - Tuesday, March 10, 1998 at 14:41:53 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www. infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/
Hello. I have been perusing the contents of your extensive web site for a couple of months now. I was a Christian for a considerably amount of time, but now I'm in a state of perplexity. I was involved with a ministry called Calvary Temple of Sterling,Virginia, with the presiding elder Pastor Star R. Scott. These people are the largest manipulat ors of religious propaganda I've ever encountered. They don't disseminate a message of love and peace. They displace love with intolerable and uncontested judgment! They were responsible for ultimately destroying my life until I finally resolved to leave. There preaching is one of total and uncompromised adherence to the Bible. Although they will claim that "God is true and all men are liars,"yet they themselves, in some enigmatic way, are the only true interpreters of God's Words. If you have the opportunity, I would love for you to engage any of them in debate. Their web site is located at www.swordofthespirit.org They are a totalitarian faction of Christianity. Compliance is demanded in accordance with their subjective authority, because "God promoted them to their positions, as they claim." These people restricted me when I was a member at one of their satelite organizations from reading Biblical commentary. I was told I must learn the doctrine of my pastors! I would not allow myself to be subjugated to such demeaning position of acquiescense. I hope you have the opportunity to look over the page. They are aggressive promoters of the faith but haven't even the adequate historical knowledge as to why they believe so. Thanks.
Frank Palmisano <
fpalmi1@tiger.towson.edu>
Baltimore, MD USA - Tuesday, March 10, 1998 at 14:20:47 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/january.html
I am writing in response to Christopher Blanche, he wrote that it is not important whether or not Jesus was born on the 25th of December. He states that it is more important, where Jesus was born, the virgin birth and his Davidic Lineage. I couldn't agree more!!
Only two of the four gospels even mention the nativity myth (i.e. Matthew and Luke). Mark and John make no mention of Jesus' childhood. The "Davidic" lineage is given in both Matthew and Luke. The problem is they contradict each other. In Matthew Joseph i s the son of Jacob, son of Matthan, son of Eleazar. Luke tells us that Joseph was the son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi. The two genealogies in fact diverge after David (c. 1000 BC) and do not again converge until Joseph !!! (remarkable isn't it?) . Worse still, according to Luke's genealogy (3:23-31) there are forty-one generations from David to Jesus, whereas according to Matthew's there are but twenty-seven. Why are Christians so concerned about the Davidic lineage of Joseph when according to Christian theology Joseph was not even the biological father of Jesus anyway? (the holy spirit was supposed to have inpregnated Mary, hence the immaculate conception and the virgin birth). Mary was a levite so there was definitely no royal heritage there!
The myth that Jesus was supposed to have been born in Bethlehem stems from a prophecy in Micah 5:2. This passage has been taken out of context and was adapted by the early Jewish Christians as a prophecy concerning the Messiah's birthplace. Micah (or more accurately a sixth-century BC interpolator, whose words were included in an eighth-century BC prophet) wrote prophesying, that a new dynasty having the same roots as David of Bethlehem, would be restored during the Babylonian exile. The Judaean monarchy was destroyed in 586 BC. It is clear that this was a prophecy was taken out of context and had nothing to do with the coming Messiah.
Based on the above and many other contradictions found in the Gospels, it appears that Matthew and Luke created the entire nativity myth in order to satisfy Old Testament prophesies that were generally regarded by early Christians as messianic.
Grant Talbot <
gktalbot@mindspring.com>
Littleton, CO USA - Monday, March 09, 1998 at 23:08:21 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels. org/electronic/ring/
3 important questions - How can you deny the existence of God when you cannot prove that He does not exist? How do you support our universe ex nihilo? Aren't there really only agnostics? An individual can say God does not exist - that is an opinion without proof, right?
trexler scott gordon <sgordon@gcc.edu
>
grove city, pa USA - Monday, March 09, 1998 at 13:13:23 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Before we can say anything about God, we must define which God we're
talking
about. It's easy to disprove certain kinds of Gods; e.g., an omnipotent,
omniscient,
omnibenevolent God can be disproved merely by showing that there is
unjustifiable
suffering in the world. Or a God that created the universe 6,000 years ago can
be
disproved by presenting evidence that the earth and the universe is much older.
More
subtle versions of God might be impossible to disprove outright, but with a
little help
from Ockham's Razor I can argue that they are unlikely.
Are you agnostic about the existance of leprechauns? If not, why not? Do you
think their
existence or non-existence is equally likely?
As for the universe coming into existence out of nothing, I don't know whether
it did
or
not. There is a lot of speculation about what, if anything, caused the Big
Bang,
but so
far there's no evidence either way. Nor is there likely to be any real progress
on the
question until someone comes up with a theory that reconciles the
contradictions between
relativity and quantum mechanics.
Cordially yours,
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www. infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/
I can identify with Robert M. Price's essay entitled "From Fundamentalism to Humanist". Unlike Robert, I wasn't "saved" at an early age. I was a student at U. Mass - Lowell (Lowell Technological Institute, in those days) in the early 70s, studying math and relativity physics, and was a pursuer of "Truth" through such various mediums as Science, Religion, Philosophy, Zen, Taoism, hallucinogenic drugs, etc. As a student, I became disenchanted with religion and other abstract methodical approaches to "ULTIMATE" understanding and became more open to experiential means.
At that time there was a great counter-cultural swing toward strict Biblical Christianity (vs. religiosity) that evidenced itself in such movements as "the Jesus People" and the various cults and isms of the time. These were a sort of counter-counter-cultural phenomena. Anyway, I was addicted to drugs and a confusing array of eastern dogmas and longed for a return to some form of purity and simplicity and freedom. Biblical Christianity promised me the freedom ("the Truth shall make you free") that I long sought. I came to view this new , Biblically literal, Christianity as a contra-distinction from the apostocized Christianity that was taught by my parants and evidenced by all the steeples and magnamonous edifaces about the world. It was the True Faith of the apostles - passed down through the ages but severely mangled in the process by organized religion. So, I gave my life to Christ in this True Apostolic manner and by all usual Christian definitions of the phrase, "was saved". I, like many others at that time, desirous to please God and share this new found EXPERIENCE and freedom, witnessed to all my friends and soon saw many converted. I was a campus evangelist! This went on for a long time. I found a new identity in Doug as the guy saved from horrendous sins and sinning, and an sc ientific intellectual to boot! Yep - here I was - Doug, can go into all the detals of Einsten's hyperspace physics - and a Christian! Well now - that must something, right? Umm, well... maybe...
But, after many years of experiencing the reality of what Christianity is
all about, I
became more and more skeptical. My scientific bent was many times at odds with
my
faith.
In spite of becoming an ardent supporter of such orgs as the "Institute
for Creation
Research", I always harbored my own set of secret objections and
theoretical problems
but couldn't really share these objections for fear of being labeled a HERETIC.
After all,
I was
one of the chief defenders of the Bible vs Science. How could I give any
evidence to
the contrary? I was always the one out there teaching people how to defend
their faith
from a scientific point of view (though I never let on as to my own personal
objections).
Furthermore, as a result of my own Biblical studies, I began to become aware of
the fact
that the Bible is full of inconsistencies, errors, and outright contradictions.
When I'd
voice these objections to friends (under the guise of "playing the devil's
advocate") I'd only get an arousal of personal defense mechanisms from
those that I'd
hoped were open to Truth. I became more and more irritated by these "head
in the
sand" defenses and finally began to undertake an ernest inquiry into the
Bible
and
what it really says. This was eye-opening!!! The internet abounds with specific
criticisms
and blatant contradictions so the facts are available to all. The bottom line
is this: as
I searched and studied on my own from every concievable resource, I began to
become very
much aware that these "problems" were well documented and shared by
others;
I
wasn't alone in these questionings. Soon, I came to a point where a very
difficult
decision must be made. The decision hinged on this: in light of all that I saw,
studied,
and witnessed, was Biblical Christianity and the Bible ( as God's inspired
Word) valid? My
conclusion was in the negative and an honest response to that conclusion became
obligatory. This wasn't as easy as some might think. I have not only faced
being alienated
from those that I have accounted as my closest fri ends, but my very family and
closest
confidants view me as a "wolf in sheep's clothing". My rational and
sometimes
scientific criticisms are seen as just another proof that I've fallen sway to
Satan's
rationalistic deceptions. Faith is far superior to rea son, they say. But I
can't have
faith in something so unreasonable! I fully understand their concerns, given
their
essential mental assumptions. But I have gone back to the root and analyzed
those
assumptions and found them lacking.
So here
I am - a heretic! But, at least, a heretic that has remained true to the notion
of
honest pursuance of Truth, having once again returned to the never-never land
of reason.
But at least I feel confident that I've shaken off one more human contrivance,
though it's
cost me about 20 years. Oh well - onward!
Doug harp <dharp@cvn.net>
Greencastle, PA USA - Sunday, March 08, 1998 at 12:12:33 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gary_posner/godccu. html
I want to briefly respond to the issue "control of prayer" raised in this commentary. It is stated that a siginficant flaw in this study on prayer is that prayer itself is not controlled for. I do not find this to be a flaw because since both groups were randomly assigned, and since there is a large enough sample size, whether or not prayer outside of the study was or was not controlled for should have not statisically significant impact. If prayers given outside of the control of this study had a positive impact, then both groups would have benefitted, if prayer did not have an impact, neither group would have been impacted. Thus, the point that not controlling for prayer would in any way nullify this study, is inaccurate.
Lynn Munson <lmunson@earthlink.net
>
Irvine, ca USA - Saturday, March 07, 1998 at 20:45:41 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http: //www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/january.html
Great Site! I especially enjoy Farrell Till's TSR. I also get a good chuckle from the Feedback area.
J Schramm <
jeschramm@earthlink.net>
St.
Paul, MN USA - Friday, March 06, 1998 at 13:04:23 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/scientific_case.html
Alright, let me get this straight. People go to church and such just to pass the time until they die, because technically, what you're saying is that the reality is existentialistic. Meaning that we just wink out like a candle. So why have the death penalty for someone who commits an immoral act? The only lesson that they have to learn is "omigod!! I'm gonna be a crispy critter" for the last five minutes of their life. There's no eternal damnation awaiting them, no final judgement. OK, another example- do you enjoy Christmas? Why? Why are we celebrating a dead guy's (pardon me, God) birthday 2000 years after his death? The Bible, the Koran, the Veda(?), and the Necronomicon are all just a bunch of bedtime stories, right? I guess the Puritans wasted their life away, while the Hedonists had the right idea. Boy, have I got news for you, friend. See you in the Afterlife.
lisa armstrong <
larmstrong@bigred.att.net>
balttimore, md USA - Friday, March 06, 1998 at 10:43:30 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Actually, most of the Christmas traditions come from pagans who were celebrating the days getting longer. I wouldn't recommend reading Numbers 31, for example, as a bedtime story. But we give all supposedly holy scriptures the same respect that you do, except for the Bible. Why do you think the Bible is right and all the others are wrong? Would those Puritans be the same ones that executed Quaker missionaries for their beliefs in early Boston? (See any encyclopedia under "Quakers" or "Friends, Society of".)
And while I have nothing against hedonists, materialistic atheism does not imply hedonism. As Hume would say, one cannot make logical deductions about what ought to be, based solely on factual statements about what is. Finally, let me add that an emotional distaste for a belief does nothing whatever toward proving it false, nor does the attractiveness of a belief do anything toward proving it true.
Cordially yours,
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity. html
It's pathetic how you label certain parts of the most Holy Bible " atrocities." You fail to mention, when you talk about the death of Hamor (sons and peoples), how his son Schmecken defiled Jacob's daughter Dinah.
John Starks <smm@mail.icongrp.com
>
Gary, IN USA - Thursday, March 05, 1998 at 22:05:28 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
And how does that justify killing every man in the city? You fail to address what I regard as the most serious atrocity in the Old Testament: Numbers 31. Why did God command that all men, women, and boys be killed, but the girls taken as slaves?
Sincerely,
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www. infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/
Thank you for your site. The world is moving toward rationalism thanks to resources like this.
Donald W Latch <rationalst@aol.com
>
USA - Thursday, March 05, 1998 at 00:09:24 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/humor/lioaca.html
I've really enjoyed reading the humour section, and I've just had a silly idea. If atheists are sick of seeing Christian fish stickers, then - get one! Draw little legs on it (like a fish evolving) and put it on your car.
Naomi Hatchman <naomi@al.com.au>
Sydney, NSW Australia - Wednesday, March 04, 1998 at 22:56:17 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/protect/fgm/
I notice that your site has articles against female genital mutilation (often called female circumcision) Since male circumcisions performed for no other reason than warped aethetics and archaic tradition are also mutilations (and have a strong religious grounding) I hope that you will condemn these also. An organization NoCirc has a web site co ntaining much useful information regarding the barbaric practice of mutilating the genitals of male infants.
Shannon Cream <bak2zero@aol.com>
Los Angeles, CA USA - Wednesday, March 04, 1998 at 22:15:33 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/
You must be a slow learner, because you don't seem to get the point. Religion is nobody's logical or rational conclusion. It is an emotional attachment that is formed before they have the ability to question it. Nobody has ever been converted by logic.
Andrew Klager <aklager@rice.edu>
Houston, TX USA - Wednesday, March 04, 1998 at 09:40:47 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html
I have just read a 1994 document by Mark I. Vuletic, "In Defense of Evolution." In this document, I found a section about the errors found in the Bible. There are supposedly 2 creation stories that conflict. I do not believe so. The "second creation" is referring to the creation of the Garden of Eden. Also, the people who believed in the Bible's saying the sun revolves around the earth were wrong. But the Bible does not suggest that in any way. It even has scientific proofs of its valididty.
Jonathan Lankford <
jlankford.2000@juno.com>
Madison, TN USA - Tuesday, March 03, 1998 at 21:25:52 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
The second creation story does indeed include the creation of the Garden of Eden, but the standard interpretation since Augustine on is that, on a natural reading, the account starting at Genesis 2:4 indicates that man was created before any plants or animals existed, not just those in the Garden of Eden. Notice, for instance, that Genesis 2:5 denies that there any "herb of the field" had yet grown at the time that man was created, while Genesis 1:12 indicates that the earth had already brought forth "herb yielding seed after his kind."
I don't want to be taken as asserting that there is definitely no way within reason to interpret the two stories so that they are reconcilable (which is an alteration of my position way back when I wrote the article - live and learn), but given the long history of the difficulty the Church has had in reconciling the two accounts, and given the way a natural reading seems to present contradictions between the two accounts, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that a tension exists between the two accounts that should worry anyone who wants to take all of Genesis literally. This conclusion is strengthened by the historical scholarship that suggests that the two accounts have separate origins.
As for your assertions that (i) the Bible does not claim or imply that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that (ii) there are many scientific proofs of the Bible's correctness, it would be nice to see some evidence for those claims instead of mere assertion.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/
Just thought I would pop in and read some of your 'in depth' research and writings. Well done on a well laid out board, plenty to read and certainly challange those with a weak faith or those who haven't a good grasp on science!. Unfortunately the liberal scolarship in many of the writings in your library have already been replied to, why don't you publish those refutations as well if you want to give both sides of the picture? Are you a little biased? Anyway, I too used to be where you were at one time, but the Lord opened my eyes. I studied astrophysics in order to prove the big bang. Some hope! I read all the 'great' guys books (Hawking et.al.) and came away feeling sad for the guys, they only had ' theories' and suppositions, all based on probabilities and improbibilities which could hardly be proven under scientific conditions. I pray that you too will take off the blinkers and open your minds to Christ. I'm not talking about a 14th century religion or anything like that, but a living relationship with your Lord and Saviour. Jesus is real, admit it, He's more provable than any 'evolved' skeleton!. Turn to Him and trust Him, I did and I have never looked back. He died for you too. . . . Don't end up looking like fools guys, get real and get serious!
Pastor Shaun Aisbitt <
shaun@planetinternet.be>
Antwerp, Belgium - Tuesday, March 03, 1998 at 14:13:38 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
In fact we do publish or link to several articles on the other side. See http://www.infidels.org/infidels/faq.html#one-sided. If you'll submit links to the refutations you're referring to, we'll be happy to consider them.
In what way does the Big Bang theory contradict theism? Many theists are happy to use it as evidence for creation. And why do you think the evidence for the Big Bang is insufficient? The vast majority of galaxies have red- shifts that seem roughly proportional to their distance. The cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered with exactly the properties predicted by the theory.
Jesus is "proven" more than a skeleton? See http://www.talkorigins.org. Have you ever given a fair hearing to the arguments against "scientific" creationism? Before 1982 most scientists simply ignored creationists, thinking them beneath their notice, but after the Little Rock "Scopes II" trial, several books came out rebutting them point by point.
Sincerely,
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www. infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite. html
Your comments and 'proofs" even your assertions are so wimpy---Yes there are some sharp agnostics, humanists etc out there----but none here! How much time do you put into this? Get a life! Better yet find the real Christ.
Ralph Honig <FoodMag@aol.com>
Laguna Beach, CA USA - Tuesday, March 03, 1998 at 09:03:18 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
There are no "proofs," per se, in my material, rather there is an abundance of biblical evidence that my comments and "wimpy" assertions are correct. Finding "the real Christ" would be a good trick. The fact that we now have 20,000+ "Christian" denominations--many of them in disagreement on biblical interpretation and on major doctrinal issues--means that finding "the real Christ" is impossible. When I was a born-again, Bible-believing Christian, I thought, of course, that I had found "the real Christ"--until, that is, that I began to notice serious problems with the Bible and Christian dogma.
As John E. Remsburg (1848-1919), historian and author, put it: "It may be conceded as possible, and even probable, that a religious enthusiast..., named Jesus, was a germ of this mythical Jesus Christ. But this is an assumption rather than a demonstrated fact." I would comment that "the real Christ," the historical Jesus, is unknown; the Christ that we know is the Christ of religious fiction, the "Christ of faith."
And those who are most apt to chide us to "Get a life!"
are
often
those
who are most in need of heeding their own advice.
Donald Morgan
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/ex-tian/stories.html
Hello. I am a christian evangelist for ten years. I have heard from an atheist who has shared things to me about my fundamentalist view that the bible is the word of God. Although I have had experiences in the Holy Spirit, I no longer believe like I used to. I am concerned as I have married a lovely Christian lady, and my influence could undermine over a hundred people, many of which were "saved" through me. How can I know if Christianity is as true as it claims to be?
I thought I had all the answers. Now I have more questions. I felt conversion and a change in my life. I believed that the bible was true, but now I am unable to argue things about it. Does anyone have a list of flaws, and an answer about how you can live in a Christian family though you may not believe? How do you go back to being an Atheist? I have read too much and witnessed occultic practices such as backmasking. Surely there is a truth out there which dosen't embrace the evil New Age? Or is this even more propoganda? Surely we are created beings?
Brett <Brettwin@Hotmail.com>
USA - Monday, March 02, 1998 at 17:55:28 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
You're in a tough position. I can certainly understand that you
might want to
wait until the doubts are resolved one way or the other before telling your
wife and your
congregation about them. Meanwhile (just in case), you might start thinking
about a
different career. See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/
for some arguments against Christianity or
http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/xfalse.html
for a short summary. With respect to backward masking in music,
see http://www.theroc.org/roc-mag/textarch/roc-08/roc08-06.htm.
See http://www.talkorigins.org for
information on
the evolution/creationism issue. Best of luck!
Rich Daniel
I am a believer in what the Bible says. You have a few valid questions. But many of your points have very simple answers. For example the rainbow, it had not rained on earth until the flood of Noah, Thus there was never a rainbow before that. Something you will never understand is that we will not understand everything. Faith is key in this religion.
Suppose the Bible is not true, what do I lose by believeing it. After all there is alot of wisdom in it. But suppose the Bible is true, there is much to lose. Common sense alone would allow you to get that one right. Use some faith, test God, ask him to reveal himself to you. Try a simple prayer and put faith in him. If you really want to prove it wrong, first try to prove it right, if that fails, you are right in believeing as you do. [ The idea of choosing God because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain is known as "Pascal's Wager" -Ed.]
Jeff <METHU969@HOTMAIL.COM>
Tucson, AZ USA - Monday, March 02, 1998 at 07:40:07 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
See http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html for lots of reasons why Noah's Flood could not have happened. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pascal for several fatal flaws in Pascal's Wager.
Cordially yours,
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil.html
Western religion has perpetrated itself on the natural human fear of death. By compounding that fear at every turn (with threats of judgement, for example) organized religion has gained and been corrupted by great power and will never let that power go. . . . Have you considered that Jesus may be the antichrist? Consider the elements of the Christian Mass that are done in remembrance of the last supper, communion representing some cannibalistic custom, drinking the blood and eating the body of christ, the ancient cult has barbarian roots. . . . A woman told me that if all there was, was this life, than it would be very disappointing because she was looking forward to going to heaven when she died." (the basic antichrist premiss asserts death is some form of existence; we should have a more concrete understanding of reality--non existence has no substance.) Antichrist represents death itself. Death is a lie. I believe in God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.
The spirit world is an imaginary complication to the equation of monotheism, under the idea of one spirit, the belief of many spirits is a polytheistic contradiction and an impossibility for a true monotheist. I however find there to be a unifying concept between pantheism, deism and monotheism. So this whole mumbojumbo of exorcizing demons and casting out evil spirits is part of the whichdoctor voodoo show. . . . Antichrist is personified in the image of death, symbol of the crucified man, or the number 666 from ancient numerology (ancient hebrew science of kabala) of symmetrical relationships, the similar shape of the five fingers and the nailed hand comprise a unit of six, for both hands on the image of crucified christ, this accounts for hands representing the number six, in Aramaic scripture, the number of anti-christ was originally six one six, obviously an extension of the symmetry that attributed the number one to the remainder of the body, being a relatively similar shape to that of a finger or a nail. When the Greek translation changed the number to 666 it was probably referring to the nailed feet as being similar to the hands. This is circumstantial evidence that the church has known (ash wednesday) what they were doing all along.
Mann <mrmusic@@datastar.net
>
Picayune, Ms USA - Sunday, March 01, 1998 at 21:45:25 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
What evidence do you have that death is a lie? Even if there were a
creator
god,
that
does not imply an afterlife for humans. To what orderly harmony are you
referring? The laws of physics? But why would you think the non-existence of
God
would
imply that the universe should behave in a non-orderly way? What exactly is a
spirit? Does
it have memory, emotions, will (and other attributes of our physical brains)?
Why do you
(apparently) think that the whole universe partakes of this mysterious spirit?
Best regards,
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html
I was wondering about evolution and had some questions. If the time line of evolution was incorect, would that mean that the theory would also be incorect? About carbon dating, Given the industrial revolution which as upset the C12 levals, how accurate can C14 dating be if you no longer have a stable ratio of C12 to C14? Exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field would (I belive) also have an effect on the C14 dating method. A stronger magnetic field would hinder the formation of C14, by not letting as many cosmic rays into the atmosphere, thus giving artificially old dates. If you go back in time to when the field was stronger, (If what I just said holds true) you would find that the farther you go back in time the less carbon things absorbed, giving really old dates. This method doesn't seem to hold true to testing either. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated at 1300 years old, and living mollusk shells were dated at up to 2300 years old. I'm looking forward to a response.
Chris Cox <CbcBirds@aol.com>
Eugene, OR USA - Sunday, March 01, 1998 at 13:05:41 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response #1:
1. If there were too little time for evolution to have occurred (I take it that is what you mean by the "time line of evolution" being incorrect), then of course evolution could not have occurrred.
2. The adjustment in 14C levels by changes in the magnetic field is calculable, and was taken into account by scientists using radiocarbon dating before creationists made an objection out of it. As Matson notes (see the link below):
Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon-14 can vary somewhat. The dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, the Suess effect, possible nearby supernova explosions, and even ocean absorption can have some effect on the carbon-14 concentration. However, these factors don't affect the radiocarbon dates by more than about 10-15 percent, judging from the above studies [discussed in Matson's text - see the link below]. Of course, when we reach the upper limit of the method, around 40,000 years for the standard techniques, we should allow for much greater uncertainty as the small amounts of C-14 remaining are much harder to measure.
3. I haven't heard of the seals, but I looked up the original paper that reported on the mollusks (Keith, M.L., Anderson, G.M. 1963. "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells." Science 141:636.). The error arises because of the unusual environment in which the mollusks live, and does not apply to organisms in normal environments. Furthermore, even for the mollusks, the maximum error is a few thousand years. Since the experimental limit on 14C is 50,000 years, the error at its worst still does not leave room for a young earth. I imagine that if you look up the original report on the seals, you will once again find that they had been effected by unusual environmental factors that can be independently verified.
4. Since a number of independent dating methods tend to yield the same results as 14C dating, it stands to reason that 14C is accurate - it would be quite a coincidence if numerous unreliable methods yielded the same results by pure chance. See Dave Matson's piece below for some cross checks.
5. It is also worth noting that a complete failure of 14C dating would not demonstrate that the Earth is young. There are many more radioisotope tests that have a much larger range than 14C dating, and yield the billions of years conventionally attributed to the Earth. See Chris Stassen's Age of the Earth FAQ for a list.
Link to Dave Matson's 14C info.
Internet Infidels' Response #2:
If you could prove that life on earth was less than, say, 100 million years old, it would present serious problems for evolution. If you could prove that life was less than one million years old, it would be a fatal blow to evolution.
But attacking C14 dating is the wrong way to go. Carbon 14 decays to unmeasurably small levels in about 100,000 years, far too short a time for substantial evolution to occur. Nevertheless, I'll answer some of your objections. Radiocarbon dating has been tested and calibrated by measuring the C14/C12 ratio in tree rings going back for a few thousand years. There are indeed errors caused by fluctuation in the amount of C14 in the atmosphere (oscillating over time, not one-directional change as would be caused by a constantly decaying magnetic field), but as I recall, the errors are at most on the order of 5 or 10% (+/- 200 or 400 years out of 4000). If a living mollusk shell was dated at 2300 years old, the only thing that proves is that you can't apply the method to shells; there is obviously some isotope separation in the shell-growing process. This however, in no way invalidates the use of C14 dating for wood or any other substance on which dates have been checked and found accurate.
See http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
for lots of info on other, more relevant dating methods.
Cordially yours,
Rich Daniel
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.
|
