Infidels: Feedback : 1998: May

May 1998 Feedback

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

I just browsed through your article by Farrell Till called Common Sense and Noah's Flood.
I am not sure if Mr. Till is truly looking for spiritual truth but I thought he might consider looking at the Genesis account of the flood from a different perspective. Without knowing what the earth was like at the beginning the Genesis Flood seems something easily dismissed. I would like to offer just a short description of the earth at the beginning. From the evolutionary view the earth was a hot molten ball cooling down over millions of years, however the Biblical account describes the earth as designed right from the inner core to the surface with most of the water we now have in our oceans semi-sealed within the earth. There was no molten material of anykind within the earth. In addition there was a solid clear crystalline canopy around the earth approx 11 miles up held in place by a much stronger magnetic field . All the radioactive elements we now find extruded into the sediments were at the beginning sealed within the earth in a designed manner. The beginning conditions did not have any rainfall cycles as we now know them. From pole to pole we had temperate climate with no storms, rain etc. The solid clear canopy protected the enviroment from harmful solar radiation. This beginning conditions for the earth account for the longevity of life and the gigantism of the fossil record. The creation model cites a tremendous internal meltdown of the earth and subsequent destruction of life entombed in the sediments.

I would like to say that I am against bad religion that seeks to bring people into fear and bondage thru a priesthood, church or trying to follow a set of rules.

Allan Ask <aska@cadvision.com>
Calgary, AB Canada - Friday, May 29, 1998 at 22:41:17 (MDT)

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

You are making a really good work. I've linked your site on my home page.

Antonio Fanelli <afanel@tin.it>
Bari, BA Italy - Friday, May 29, 1998 at 04:02:25 (MDT)

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

This is not a response to an article, rather it is in response to Jeffrey Jay Lowder's reply to feedback regarding evolution. Mr Lowder said evolution could be proved. He is incorrect, however. In science, they have particular ways of classifying explanations. The rules for these classifications are definite, and any explanation that meets them will be classified as such. If evidence is found that makes the explanation more accurate, then it will change classifications. The lowest classification is hypothesis, which implies there is insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation. The next step is the theory, which implies more evidence for the explanation and a greater liklihood of truth. However, it is only when the explanation is classified as a law that it is accepted as an unchanging truth. (By the way, principle is a law that explains a wide area of fundamental nature). If I propose an explanation, it will first be called a hypothesis, something like the dogs have five legs hypothesis. When I, or someone else, present a lot more evidence tha dogs really do have five legs, then it will be "promoted" to a theory (The Five-Legged Dog Theory). But only when I prove that all dogs do, in fact, have five legs will it be called the Law of Pentaped Canines. As of now, it is still the Theory of Evolution, otherwise it would not change as much as it does.
One last note, scientists often say that you can never prove anything, only disprove it. That is why they came up with a null-hypothesis (a statement of no difference). You hypothesize that if you change a variable, then there will be no difference. When you observe a difference, then you have proved that changing the variable does not result in the results, but you have not proved that the variable causes the change.

Kenny Snyder <sooner1@ionet.net >
Oklahoma City, Ok USA - Wednesday, May 27, 1998 at 20:36:55 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

You may have read this in a textbook somewhere, but in real life you can't deduce anything about the epistomological status of a proposition from its name. I know of no case in which the name given to a theory, hypothesis, law, or principle changed over time, regardless of the amount of evidence for it. Newton's laws of physics are still called that, even though we know they are inaccurate in realms of high gravity or speed. (They were replaced by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which is also known to be imperfect because it conflicts with quantum mechanics.) The Ideal Gas Law is still used, even though there's no such thing as an ideal gas. Dalton's Atomic Theory hasn't been renamed to "Law", though it's hard to imagine any theory with more evidence for it.

And then we have the "Central Dogma" of biology (that DNA makes RNA makes proteins), so named because Watson and Crick were confused about the meaning of "dogma". But the name stuck.

I don't really understand why you brought up the second point (that you can never prove anything), since it seems to conflict with your first paragraph. If you could never prove anything, then there would never be any such thing as a "law". In any case, such a stringent definition of proof is not useful. In real life we weigh the evidence and use different standards of proof in different circumstanes.

Besides, if you can disprove a theory, that's the same thing as proving its negation, so the statement, "You can never really prove theories, only disprove them" is self-contradictory.

But back to the main point: evolution, in its meaning of "common descent" (the idea that all organisms on Earth are descended from one or a small number of common ancestors), has such a massive amount of supporting evidence that there is no reasonable doubt of its truth. (See http://www.talkorigins.org.) I'd be happy to debate the details.

Rich Daniel

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

You have a very interesting site. I have enjoyed reading Gerald A Larue's dissertation "Old Testament Life and Literature."

William C Miller < Milcon@bellsouth.net>
Jackson, MS USA - Monday, May 25, 1998 at 17:42:37 (MDT)

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

In the Secular web the is a lot of discussion on morality and its effects on culture, but often I feel much of it is a one sided perspective.

I guess one could label "Morality" as any beliefs, ideas or actions that perserve and promote HUMAN life. If we take a look common cultural beliefs, we would find that the beliefs that survived over millions of years did so because they worked better then the competing ideas at the same time. A rapidly changing and sometimes harsh environment would favor a certain type of behavior.

Drugs are often considered an immoral or evil act if they are not used to help preserve or promote HUMAN life. This seems like common sense, but many feel that when the topic of morality is brought up it has some type of fundamentalist connection. The last time I checked, Fundamentalists do not have a monopoly, but many point and blame radical fundimentalists to justify their own and self sabotaging ways of behaving..

"Survival of the fittest" in my opinion is very much interconnected to moral behavior. Those who survive longer are able to promote their ideas, beliefs and philosophies without the strain of competition. Religion is so connected to morality that few people can view these two ideas as seperate. Crazy mythological beliefs of the past were spread and distributed because those who believed them survived to pass them on. People can choose to believe what ever they like, but few could argue that there are just better, more efficient, and more fullfilling ways to behave.

If passing and distributing my own DNA is one of the most important and moral things I could do, then it would seem clear that I should a life style in which I can properly do this.

"Time" is often the greatest judge of what ideas really work in the long run. In todays "information age" we are flooded with many contradicting and untested beliefs and many in time will be weeded out.

Thank you for allowing me to use this platform to share my opinion.

John Schoettler <schoettler@msn.com >
Huntington beach, ca USA - Monday, May 25, 1998 at 16:49:36 (MDT)

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

This is not a response to any particular posting. As an atheist with a life, I must express my thanks to you for setting up this site. Until I bought this machine I was pretty sure that I was in a very small and mainly silent minority, but you have disabused me of this notion. Many effusive thanks again. You give me a great deal of ammunition that I need to defend my choices when speaking to my religious friends. (Yes, I have many xian friends.) While still a minority, at least I know we are not silent. Our problems cannot be left to some imaginary spirit to solve. History has demonstrated this on innumerable occasions. God is on the side with the biggest guns. Keep up the good work, and don't let the bastards grind you down.

R. E. Fulmer <quarlo@olympus.net >
Chimacum, Wa USA - Sunday, May 24, 1998 at 21:30:02 (MDT)

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

You devote a lot of space to refutations of God, but what do you have to say about Satan/satan? Specifically, I'd like to read your view/response to 1) M. Scott Peck's description of encountering satan in his best-selling book People of the Lie (esp. chapter 5, but read the whole book) and 2) the cases of "possession" in Malachi Martin's book Hostage of the Devil. If you haven't read these books, I think they'd be worthy fare for your review and comment.

Eric Weiss <eweiss@gte.net>
Dallas, TX USA - Thursday, May 21, 1998 at 21:55:23 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/5/5front97.html

In reply to your article, "Keep Them Barefoot and Pregnant" maybe you should take into consideration the fact that, surprisingly enough women do bear the children and for men to do so would be...er... unnatural! THe Bible does cite verses and books of the Bible saying that women are as good and sometimes better at some things than men, e.g., the book of Genesis makes it clear that women AND men are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Jesus did not share the poor view of women that was held at the time, he was friends with women and told Mary Magdelene that she was better listening to him than carrying on with the stereotypical occupation of housekeeping. Even if Jesus did have female disciples he would have had to have the majority of them under 14 years of age because the rest would have been married off by then.
In the Old Testament there are influential women e.g. Esther, Ruth. Thank you for taking the time to read and take into consideration our views. Much appreciated!

Philippa Macon < macph94@jcgjersey.demon.co.uk>
United Kingdom - Thursday, May 21, 1998 at 04:16:33 (MDT)

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

I did not completely search your site, but the scepticism is healthy up to a point. As an individual with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I can see how your mistrust for religion could be reached. By its very definition religion is man made. And anything that comes out of man is subject to change according to situation and feelings. Ergo, the absolute truth must be attached to an unmoveable entity outside of the realm of man. The longer I study the Bible the more it fits that discription. I also realize that this debate can go on until time ceases to exist. I'm not trying to change your minds, I only would state this: if you are right, a believer has only a moral life to show. I face the same trials and temptations that any unbeliever faces in life. But if what scripture says is true (and really the evidence is overwhelming) then the unbeliever faces an eternity of torment. It's his choice. God never forces anyone to believe.

Nick Reda <nickreda@juno.com>
Rochester, NY USA - Tuesday, May 19, 1998 at 13:06:34 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

As the professor in Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors remarks, the Old Testament reveals that the ancient Hebrews had not yet succeeded in creating a God that was better than us, for in the God of Abraham we find a projection of our own anger and violence writ large.

James Still

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

I must say that your site is really lame. Get a life. I mean, what the hell is the message? Being Athiest is funny? I don't get it. If you are really athiest, then you have nothing to live for. You can never love because
everone knows God is love. So why go on? So one day you'll die, the end? Why wait. I say, get a hobbie or somthing....

Frank Zappa <zapp2862@hotmail.com >
NY USA - Tuesday, May 19, 1998 at 11:16:54 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

A hobby eh? Perhaps like you, I should assume the pseudonym of a famous atheist musician and point my browser to lame atheist web sites in order to preach at them with misspelled words?

James Still

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

This is response to an April feedback letter by Rick Drehmer. In your April post to Infidels, you stated:
"Here's my challenge: answer this: Why is the only morality that which doesn't hurt another person? Who made this up? If there is no God, why is this a rule? If there is truly no God, then you are "free" to do as you please. The truth is that you deify Man by stating that one should not hurt another person, so you actually do worship a god. Thus since you accept the concept of God, you are not atheists."

Though I'm not a theist, I am in sympathetic agreement with your major concern. If there is no existent absolute moral authority then there is no such thing as morality except as it exists by human definition. In that case there is nothing inherently right or wrong in even the most beneficent (or heinous) of human behavior. Such activity would only be moral or immoral as it relates to various pragmatic concerns for the individual and conscious beings in general. Morality then boils down to behaving toward others as we would prefer that, for fairly selfish reasons, they should behave toward us. We "should" treat others with kindness and understanding with the hope that they will follow suit. That scenario seems too arbitrary and selfish and harsh to actually be so. But then again, that may very well be the case! Again, the existence of a moral God stands or falls on the actuality of the situation. It doesn't depend on our psychological or sociological desire to give "absolute" status to our conventions of right and wrong.

The lack of an absolute foundation for morality entails some horrific and repugnant implications, for sure. And all the more when we consider extreme examples of heinous behavior; for example, torturing children. Our minds demand that there really is something absolutely wrong with these behaviors beyond the "mere" violation of human convention. The fact that our minds demand this doesn't make God exist if there is none. Furthermore, even if God doesn't exist, we must still act in a manner that's dignifies the human experience even if failure to do so won't land us in some everlasting state of torture such as being burned alive forever. However, if such a God does exist and ends up torturing the majority of the human race forever as a fit punishment for crimes committed, I would have some severe reservations about that being's morality and justice!

D. Harp <dharp@cvn.net>
Greencastle, PA USA - Sunday, May 17, 1998 at 07:07:42 (MDT)

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

I read a few of the postings concerning the lives of some "ex-Christians" and was disappointed, though not surprised. It seems a number of people ran into disagreements with local churches, movements, families, etc., and that is why they left Christianity. I must say that no church is perfect and I feel that some (not all) of these who left put their trust in a local church or something else instead of the One who loved them. I'd be interested in hearing from those who went through a time of deep disappointment. I did, and my faith is stronger for it.

Matt Keegan < matthew_keegan@mailbox.nj.com>
USA - Wednesday, May 13, 1998 at 11:33:23 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Rich Daniel

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

Merely a kudos from north of the border. This is a refreshingly interesting site; both well set up and deep in content. The quotations section alone has kept me interested for several hours, visiting and revisiting great comments. I look forward to more fully exploring your site and its offerings. Again, well done.

Stephen John Gardner < sgardner@shaw.wave.ca>
Calgary, AB Canada - Wednesday, May 13, 1998 at 06:20:02 (MDT)

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

Why have the religions been life-negative in the past? In the name of religion man has been exploited -- exploited by the priest and by the politician. And the priest and the politician have been in deep conspiracy against man. The only way to exploit man is to make him afraid. Once a man is full of fear he is ready to submit. Once a man is trembling inside, he loses trust in himself. Then he is ready to believe in any stupid nonsense. You cannot make a man believe in nonsense if he has self trust.

Remember, that's how man has been exploited down the ages. This is the very trade secret of the so-called religions: make man afraid, make man feel unworthy, make man feel guilty, make man feel that he is just on the verge of hell.

How to make man so afraid? The only way is: condemn life, condemn whatsoever is natural. Condemn sex because it is the fundamental of life; condemn food because that is the second fundamental of life; condemn relationship, family, friendship, because that is the third fundamental of life -- and go on condemning. Whatsoever is natural to man, condemn it, say it is wrong: "If you do it you will suffer for it. If you don't do it you will be rewarded. Hell is going to descend on you if you go on living naturally" -- that is the message of the whole past -- "and heaven will be given to you if you go against life."

That means if you are suicidal, only then will God accept you. If you slowly, slowly commit suicide in the senses, in the body, in the mind, in the heart, and you go on destroying yourself, the more you succeed in destroying yourself, the more you will become beloved to God. This has been the whole teaching of the religions in the past. This has contaminated man's being, poisoned man. These poisoners have exploited man tremendously out of it. These religions of the past were death-oriented, not life-oriented.

Jonathan Grant < audiobomb@dyadem.com>
Toronto, Canada - Tuesday, May 12, 1998 at 13:02:15 (MDT)

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

To all you heathen atheists, and non believers in God, particularly the so-called "educated." I hereby present a challenge to you. The challenge is this: There is no denying that the TEN COMMANDMENTS exist. Right? Since they exist, they had to have had an origin. Right? Therefore, tell me, what human authored the TEN COMMANDMENTS? What is his name? What year did he author them? If a human authored the TEN COMMANDMENTS, why is it that there has never been anyone who has known who did so? You know the names of the heathens who authored the heathen american constitution - you now the year in which it was authored. Other nations know the same about their charters. But there is no one on earth who can rightly name a human as the author of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. You know why don't you? Because no human authored them!

I challenge you to intelligently dispute that fact. As you grope to do so, you will find that you cannot intelligently do so. Any disagreement with this fact, and any effort to try to disprove it will reveal that you are fools. And you will prove to yourselves that God does indeed exist. Try to disprove it and see.

Robert T. Lee <legislator@mailcity.com >
Conyers, GA USA - Sunday, May 10, 1998 at 15:37:54 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

One thing I've noticed in my interactions with Fundamentalist Christians over the years is that they have a certain bizarre phobia of anything intellectual, learned, or "educated". It is no coincidence that book burning, censorship, ignorance, televangelism, and library- and bookstore-boycotting all snuggle cozily together within Fundamentalist circles. Under the guise of "apologetics" some have managed to hide the anti-intellectualism at the root of conservative theism for the mask of bipartisan truth-seeking, but you do not seem clever enough to have managed that task. Your letter conjures up images of Mr. Haney on the old Green Acres show, popping up in front of Zsa Zsa Gabor to yell "git yer fancy pants evolutionary theory outta my schools!"  Perhaps I am being unfair to Mr. Haney since his "local yokel" schtick now seems surprisingly quaint in light of the utter backwardness of today's religious right anti-intellectual. In any case, I suppose we must now look at your argument or else you will not be satisfied. You claim that it is not known who authored the Ten Commandments; yet, we do know who authored the U.S. Constitution. Since we do not know who authored the Ten Commandments, God must have authored them. Needless to say, your non sequitur conclusion does not even remotely follow from your argument. You have an unstated assumption that any text whose author is unknown must have been written by God--an assumption that even the most fiery Fundamentalist will certainly balk at supporting. For example, do you really want to say that the Evangelists did not write the gospels since no one left their name on the manuscripts that we now possess? Consider also that we do not know who authored the Book of Mormon. Under your criterion, since we cannot identify a human author we must admit that God handed down the Book of Mormon through the angel Moroni. Why not? Is that somehow different? I am always amazed at how skeptical Fundamentalists can suddenly become when speaking about other religious texts. However, as soon as the conversation turns back to the Bible, their newfound skepticism rapidly evaporates into thin air.

James Still

This feedback was in reply to Judith Hayes Easter article. She writes, "But finally my eyes drifted to the bottom of the last page of this inane "interview." And prominently displayed there was a large, bold-lettered, black and red-double book ad. Aha! Mystery solved. Inane interview explained. This article, with the misleading title, "Are There Really Angels?" had nothing at all to do with angels. Or spirituality for that matter. It was all superficial, shallow fluff. Lotz was peddling her new book about the Bible's book of Genesis, and Dr. Laura was hawking her book on the Ten Commandments. Magazine benefits from celebrities, celebrities sell books."

If you look at the bottom of the article there is a link to buy one of Judith's books. I doubt she knew that was going to be there when she wrote it, but some would say she is guilty of what she was complaining about.

Phillip Labry < Phillip.Labry@cwi.cablew.com>
vienna, va USA - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 11:38:13 (MDT)

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

I've been reading some of the response to the Wall Street Journal editorial on the Campus Freethought Alliance. Please, no whining: "We're a poor little minority group being bullied by the bigoted WSJ." This is the same crap the Xtian's try to pull. The WSJ can have any opinion they want, don't like it don't buy it. The better response: "We're right, you're wrong and here's why". Whining about minority status gets you nowhere fast. Xtians who can't support their beliefs (and how can they!) resort to this position. Being confidant you're on the right track is good for the head and attracts those sitting on the fence (or wall).

Mark Rutter <MHRutter@aol.com>
Raleigh, NC USA - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 10:16:17 (MDT)

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

I found the Realaudio debate "A Case For/Against God" (Debate on KKLA between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and George Smith - in RealAudio format) fascinating.

Bret Palm <palmb@televar.com>
Ellensburg, WA USA - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 05:22:56 (MDT)

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

Thank you for all the fine articles, both historical and current. I don't have that much college education--so far--and put a high value on the historical facts I have learned. Such as the real reason for the Catholic-Protestant problem in Ireland. I guess my Irish ancestors were not amused at the Cromwell slaughter. Again, keep up the good work-even us old ladies can learn a lot here with a sane exchange of rational ideas. As a former fundamentalist I'm proud to say -because of what I have learned in my studies - "Hate doesn't live here anymore" and "The Destroying Monster in the Sky' is dead!

Roberta Kirberger <LRabian@aol.com >
Blanchard, OK USA - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 12:09:50 (MDT)

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

Why is the free thought movement mostly men, and so few women are atheist agnostic types? Women seem to be more spirital-minded than men, perhaps. Do your members or friends have any thoughts on this?

Mark M. <marlopal@yahoo.com>
River Forest, il USA - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 11:06:37 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

As far as the freethought movement was concerned, prior to the 1960s it was usually the case that men were in leadership positions. But keep in mind that it has only been very recently (in Europe and the U.S. at least) that women have begun to rise above the gender politics that have prevented them from realizing their full potential. A friend once told me that during the anti-war rallies of the late sixties, he and the other male students considered it their job to organize the rally while it was the womens' job to stay at home and prepare the tofu sandwiches. With the exception of Southern Baptist wives who must continue to submit to their husbands, this notion seems very bizarre today.   We have come very far since that time and in the past thirty years atheist and freethinking women have become leaders in their own right. You'll find brilliant atheists like Naomi Scheman teaching philosophy at the University of Minnesota. She is only one of dozens of women in higher education who have rejected normative Christianity. Other freethinkers, like Molly Ivins, are respected journalists and social commentators who command a tremendous influence on their reading public. Dr. Eugenie C. Scott heads up the National Center for Science Education, a not-for-profit educational clearinghouse that promotes the understanding of evolutionary science. Annie Laurie Gaylor, editor of Freethought Today, points out in her book Women Without Superstition that women have been deeply involved for quite some time in removing the yoke of oppression that has been institutionalized and legitimized by Christian religious practice. I think the argument can be made that women are at the forefront of the freethought movement today; indeed, they are part of the reason the movement is gaining in diversity and strength.

James Still

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

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

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