Infidels: Feedback : November (1998)

November 1998

Send Feedback

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

I have a good idea. This is a real-life, empirical test to settle the evolution v. creation-design issue once and for all. (Too bad there won't be much meaningful blather on the issue after this test! A lot of web site material will have to be pulled!) If the random-occurrence principle is at work in the natural system, we should be able to see it clearly after this demonstration. To wit:

1) Let's get a pile of completely unprocessed, raw iron ore.
2) Now, let's find a field in an uninhabited area.
3) Let's make a big pile of raw iron ore in the middle of the field.
4) Let's wait, uh, say - 1,000 millenia - to see if the completely undisturbed pile of iron ore configures itself into a 1999 Porsche, or a Lamborgini, or some other fully-functional sports car.

Who wants to bet on the random-occurrence principle coming through for us? No takers?

Okay -- We'll up the time frame to 100,000 millenia.

Any takers?

So, why don't you remove the evolution-creation stuff from your site? You'd probably get a lot more intellectual respect from surfers, especially from more than a few Nobel-Prize-winning scientists who will no longer defend the evolution model. It's not hard for me to picture that the reason some of them can't defend it any more is that they have a hard time not laughing out loud when they realize the patent absurdity of Mr. Darwin's Fairy Tales!

Tim Whittington < whit_777@hotmail.com>
USA - Monday, November 30, 1998 at 20:43:15 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

First of all, your test addresses the origin of life, not its subsequent evolution. They are two different subjects. See http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/prob.htm for an explanation of the flaws in creationist calculations of the probability of abiogenesis.

Rich Daniel

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

I read your list of inconsistencies. You put a lot of time and work into it. Rather then having compiled a list you would have benefited from studying a few of the "inconsistencies" on a deeper level and perhaps called a priest for an explanation. Your reading is superficial which is why they appear to be inconsistent. I'll respond to just one to give you an idea of what I mean:

These are talking about 2 different things. MT24 is talking about the end of time as we know it when Jesus will return. LK17 is talking about the Reign of God in which God reigns over a person's life. It is easy to confuse these two. When Jesus talked about the "Kingdom of heaven" being like a mustard seed he was talking about the internal life which is what is being refered to in LK17.

You are convinced that there is no God. You will be quickly proven wrong if you say "God if you do exists let me know." He will let you know and soon.

jackie <jackiehas4@juno.com>
NY USA - Monday, November 30, 1998 at 20:10:27 (MST)

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

i am curious as to what findings converted you from a christian to an atheist, what profound revalations converted you. Did the authors you read about really have that good of an argument?

Remo Williams <quazar@san.rr.com >
san diego, ca USA - Monday, November 30, 1998 at 19:35:53 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I was not raised with a dominant religious worldview, but I do know that most who do come from strong Christian homes did not experience a "revelation" that led to deconversion.  You might say that for most former believers, Christianity died the death of a thousand cuts. It started out with simple questions like, "Why would God want to flood the whole world?" or "Why do the four gospels contradict each other's narratives concerning the historical Jesus?" The more inquisitive believers become, the more questions they form.  The more questions they form, the more curious they get, driving them to books (sacred and secular) in search of answers. Eventually, the received truths are peeled away like an onion, revealing nothing at the core that provides a foundation for such grand metaphysical notions. I encourage everyone to read former-evangelical preacher Dan Barker's book Losing Faith in Faith for an excellent insider's view of the deconversion experience.

James Still

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

In his discussion of David Foster, (Science/Religion/Physics) Richard Carrier mentions,

"While randomly typing monkeys would be unlikely, as Foster says, to type even a single line from all the books in the British Museum, even given the life of the universe to type away, nevertheless those same six randomly typing monkeys, when aided by natural selection, would be guaranteed to do it in only nine million years! In fact, we can be even more accurate than that: they would be virtually guaranteed to succeed some time between seven and nine million years, and probably neither sooner nor later."

The ubiquitous references to chance occurrences resulting in life forms throughout scientific literature, with the addendum of natural selection, as Carrier indicates, raises a question in my mind about posing a simple task for monkey typists.

Let them type E = mc².

This should not take very long and be statistically probable with certainty, given natural selection.

What is the implication of this finding? Is it that this equation could be (or was) the result of chance factors operating in Einstein's mind, coupled with 'natural selection'? Or that the results are the same whether typed by monkeys or originated by Einstein?

If "natural selection" is required, what is the criterion for selection and how does it arise? That is, in Einstein's case, was the "selection" among all possible alternatives, e.g., or to what was the selection adapted? In the case of living organisms, Carrier points out that the simplest organisms (amoebas, e.g.) have extraordinarily long survival rates, so what is the "natural" rationale for increasing complexity in the evolution of organisms, which controverts the Thermodynamic Law for entropy?

These and other questions, glossed over in such discussions, appear to require further answers. Are any forthcoming?

W. Roland Cook <wrcook@crcwnet.com >
E. Wenatchee, WA USA - Sunday, November 29, 1998 at 22:27:36 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

E=mc² is not a discovery without context. Each letter is a variable standing for a measurable concept (energy, mass, and the velocity of light, not to mention the concept of 'squared' and 'equals'). But if we change what the variables refer to, the statement becomes meaningless or even false. Thus, Einstein's accomplishment is in pairing the order of symbols with the correct referents and noticing that the result is a true proposition about the observable world.

This has nothing to do with the monkeys example. It was not Huxley's point that monkeys typing would understand what they typed, but that merely typing it was wrongly (he thought) believed impossible because of its improbability. The analogy thus pertains solely to the question of the improbability of complexity given random causes. Huxley forgot to factor in the cumulative processes of natural selection.

> If "natural selection" is required, what is the criterion for selection and how does it arise?

As with genetic selection, Einstein's memetic selection of E=Mc ² is a cumulative product -- of his education (which was the cumulative product of memetic evolution in the minds of preceeding men), his observations, his context, i.e. having the opportunity and motivation to explore a problem, and the application of computation to that problem. The criterion of selection, as with all of science, is concordance with observation, without which ideas tend to die out, and with which they tend to thrive and be reproduced. There are other criteria, which are responsible for the survival of falsehoods, but they were not, to my knowledge, directly operant in the evolution of E=Mc².

It does not controvert the 2nd law. See the addenda on entropy at http://www.richardcarrier.info/entropy.html and the corresponding chapters of the review which discuss this. The "natural" rationale is that increasing complexity secures increased reproductive success (i.e. survival) by harnessing ever greater stores of energy located at higher-level niches of the environment and by securing all the advantages of symbiosis (a human, after all, is actually comprised of multi-trillion single-celled animals working in concert).

Richard C. Carrier

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

In the begining there was nothing, then it exploded. \/\/hatever.

Matt V <mattv@mindspring.com>
Sa, CA USA - Sunday, November 29, 1998 at 20:26:54 (MST)

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

I have to admit that I was quite interested in your article concerning the eternal question, "Has Science Found God?" As a devout Christian, I disagreed deeply on many of the issues and ideas you presented, but I also respect them as your opinion. Your article made me think of a great book I recently purchased, called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder. It concerns the interdependent relationship between the Bible and Science. As a "thinking" person myself, I am often faced with questions from others and questions of myself, but I guess it all just comes down to faith and everything I know to be true. Thanks for letting me respond...

Audra Davis <10086sunset@usa.net >
Grass Valley, CA USA - Saturday, November 28, 1998 at 12:10:19 (MST)

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

If you truely beleive that God does not exist... all I have to say is, "You better be right" Cause if you're not, it's gunna get "Awefully HOT!!!"

Dave Albert <dal_1998@yahoo.com >
Cartersville, GA USA - Saturday, November 28, 1998 at 12:09:04 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Are you suggesting that God is going to torture me just for not believing that he exists? You do not worship a god, but rather a monster. You should read Tabitha's letter below for a more mature and tolerant faith.

James Still

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

I recently read that the atom (an atheist symbol) is one of the 25 accepted symbols that can be placed on government headstones (according to the Arlington Cemetery). It is currently being used by the American Atheists (who also provide necklaces, earrings, pins, etc. with the symbol), and it's acceptance continues to gain wider appeal as suggesting both science and the letter "A" for atheism. It is my hope that more atheists (especially those on the web) will display it as a means to promote atheism.

Junior Benjamin <junnebug@ibm.net>
Jacksonville, FL USA - Friday, November 27, 1998 at 12:06:48 (MST)

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

Just wondering if anyone has seen the "Focus on Family" segment James Dobson is doing on mainstream TV. It shows at 7:40 every morning WTVH-5, the CBS affiliate in Syracuse, N.Y. with no hint of his radical right-wing activities. Just pleasant, Norman Rockwell stuff about family traditions, holiday memories, etc. There's no mention of such a series on his website and I get the impression it's aimed at reinventing (or introducing) him as a sympathetic figure to the general public.

Joel Rinne <PDSyrNY@aol.com>
Syracuse, NY USA - Friday, November 27, 1998 at 09:06:42 (MST)

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

A good article. It was refreshly concise. As a 'subject' of the crown in the UK, I applaud the USA's separation of church and state. Perhaps one day we'll manage to remove the 'yoke of Norman oppression'.

I might also provide a good reference to the subject. A book I recently bought and read (last week in fact) ;

The Godless Constitution
Isaac Kramnick & R. Laurence Moore
Published by W.W.Norton
ISBN : 0-393-31524-x

As the back cover says, 'An urgent and timely reexamination of the roots of the American separation of church and state and a ringing rebuke to the religious right's misguided and inaccurate interpretations of American history and it's vigorous attempts to dismantle the wall erected by the founders.'

I'm astonished with the recent innovations in your currency and the 'pledge'. Almost as much as the flag idolatry.

Alastair Sherringham <alastair@calliope.demon.co.uk>
London, UK - Thursday, November 26, 1998 at 18:53:22 (MST)

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

I find your page very interesting. Please keep an open mind yourselves. I am not accusing you of closed-mindedness, but I feel that far too often non-Christians will jump the gun and assume that all Christian beliefs are wrong, as well as all Christians. I belive that Christianity is living one's life using Christ's for your model, and adhering to the values of love, peace, acceptance, and hope for all. I feel that people who cannot adhere to these most basic principles are not Christian at heart. Instead of criticizing Christianity, criticize those who twist such a loving faith into one of hatred and violence. Again, I am not criticizing your page. Rather, this is simply my message to the world, Christian and non-Christian. Thank you for listening. In case you are wondering, I am a 15 year-old who given the chioce would practice the Quaker faith. (Due to parental conflicts, I currently attend an Episcopalian church.) Thank you again for considering my thoughts.

Tabitha <TabiKatya@hotmail.com >
P-ville, USA - Wednesday, November 25, 1998 at 23:44:45 (MST)

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

Every article on your website concerning the Boy Scouts of America is sublimely rediculous. AMerica is still a free country and everyone has the right to dissent. Activists don't dissent - you whine. Instead of being a real activist and doing something about a problem, you try to impose your will on others. Be a real activist - start your own youth organization. Call them the Atheist Scouts of America, or the Gay Scouts of the USA or whatever. Doing anything less is simply lazy whining.

K.J. Bonner <bandk@sgi.net>
Greenville, PA USA - Wednesday, November 25, 1998 at 22:09:49 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

A Good Idea. We should do away with discimination lawsuits and the like altogether. If employers do not like your ethnicity, you should have to start your own business. If professors do not like your religion, you should start your own college.

Blaine Armsterd

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

Does it alarm you that the "inquisition" on President Clinton by Ken Starr and his minions seems to have been financed by the Christian Coalition? Was Hillary correct when she claimed there was "a vast right-wing conspiracy?"

Mary Britten <dmbritten@stic.net >
San Antonio, Tx USA - Tuesday, November 24, 1998 at 17:52:50 (MST)

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

I have just read A4: Mammoths: Were they quick frozen? I found the entire conversation silly. Sorry. But the battle between cretinism and evilution seems to leave no room for reason and the inductive thought method.
Recently, it has come to my attention that, between the 1100 and 1700 foot deep levels in the Prudhoe Bay oil drilling region, it is common for the drills to hit a layer of downed trees and tropical vegetation. The largest chunk of tree thus recovered measures about eighteen inches. All the wood recovered in the drilling muck is frozen but not mineralized or petrified. This deeply buried forest exists within the 2000 feet profile of frozen muck on the Arctic coast. Muck itself is an unexplained mystery.

Obviously, something of a catastrophic nature occurred in the not-so-distant past. Catastrophe does not, in any case, provide a basis for substantiating the religious aspects of the Christian Bible. Velikovsky, one of the few brilliant scholars of the 20th century (and therefore vilified), did not link catastrophies with a religious message. We live on a very dangerous planet. Millions of cubic miles of water lie adjacent to all land masses. Similar to moving too fast with a full cup of coffee, these immense quatities of water clearly pose a threat realizable with even a slight abrupt change in the rate of rotation of the earth.

Moreover, the scientific data concerning Venus is so clearly altered and modified (the numbers have been professionally "massaged") that present 'official' explanations of the temperature of Venus (predicted by
Velikovsky) are solely for the amusement of the reader. (As a boy I remember being told by scientific orthodoxy that the surface of Venus was a balmy 72 degrees and covered with lush forests.)

Thus I can only conclude that secular orthodoxy is not a bit better than Creationism. Both seem to have ossified into opposing dogmas which, in each case, precludes further objective investigation and more reasonable theory-making.

Henry Ayre <henri@alaska.net>
Soldotna, AK USA - Monday, November 23, 1998 at 00:40:57 (MST)

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

MediaOne is Encouraging Pubescent Spice!

By replacing CourtTV with writhing pubescent spice, MediaOne is really helping this land get to Sodom & Gomorrah all over again . . . Do we really need another channel of undulating young people at the price of those of us who enjoy intellectual stimulation?

We must:

• Write letters and emails to our editors.
• Boycott MediaOne.
• Cancel subscriptions.
• Switch to satellite disks.

Barbara C. Johnson <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
USA - Monday, November 23, 1998 at 00:18:05 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/feedback.html

Aside from the fact that you [Mr. Saladin] call evolution a science (as does Mr. Gish when speaking of creation) becuase it is you who decides the definition when it suits, evolution is not in fact a science at all. Science is something that is observable, testable, and has the ability to be proven wrong. Evolution is non of those things. Since you were not there when the universe was formed, and you cannot prove evolution to be true, why do you insist on declaring it to be fact? Why do you aprove of teaching it to school aged children as fact. Get over yourself Mr. Saladin, you are not evolution's gift to man (nor is Mr. Gish God's gift to the planet). You're views are just that. And they are most likely based on what you've studied and read from other "scientists" on the topic. Don't trick people into believing you becuase you've had an education in the matter. Be honest and tell them you don't know everything. Give them the entire truth as you know it. And realise that you're a bias, average, human just like the rest of us. I welcome your obvious rebuttal to this letter.

Ms. Emily Sherman <Egaffer@aol.com >
Ypsilanti, MI USA - Sunday, November 22, 1998 at 17:17:19 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

We do not need to know everything to let the world know what we DO know. And just because it differs from the Bible, this does not make it wrong.

Blaine Armsterd

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethought.org/library/modern/alex_matulich/why_i_believe/1_bible.html

I was scanning over the first chapter and I noted that you used Jeremiah 22:24-30 as an example of an unfulfilled prophecy. You said that Jehoiachin was cursed to have no children. However, in that passage it says that he was to veiwed as childless and that he nor his offspring would prosper (v. 30). It appears to me that the curse was that he would not enjoy the "prosperity" associated with children, not that he would not have any.

Matthew Myers < jmyers@math.msstate.edu>
Macon, MS USA - Thursday, November 19, 1998 at 11:43:44 (MST)

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

Short on time...luckily I have found this site(s). Unfortunately I have no time to participate in a site of my own...but if anything seems interesting and thought provoking... please forward. I really enjoy lively debate about the current state of the R.C. church. Love to participate...any chat rooms?

william mcdonald < winenot@kingston.net>
Kingston, On Canada - Wednesday, November 18, 1998 at 23:16:23 (MST)

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

In regard to "How do you KNOW there is a God?" The statement made that God doesn't give any evidence that He is real, and He is who He says He is, until we die, is false. If you have faith as small as a mustard seed (or in other words, faith enough to say there is a possibility of the reality of God, no matter how small) you can say to a mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will obey you. (as stated by Jesus Christ, recorded in the gospel of Matthew, chapter 17, verse 20).

Valerie Shannon < iamspying@your-house.com>
Spearfish, SD USA - Wednesday, November 18, 1998 at 01:30:31 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

If your argument had the slightest grain of truth, there would be no such thing as a dead Christian Scientist. Here is a reason for you to move a mountain with your face, you could save all of us unbelievers!

Blaine Armsterd

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

1: I agree - as if that matters - that conspiracies are imaginary, mainly because it is done by people with a same mindset who may but need not know one another. For mindset, use point of view, bias, bigotry, opinion, what you like and more: thet are all social stereotypes

2: Reality is the really real stuff that creates, created, maintain support of the material world, and reality is unobservable with our senses. The major error in western thinking is that because it works it must be true and therefore it must be real. Therefore it should be scrapped or treated with great care. A better label could be: symbol, metaphor, as imagined, as sensed as reported. Just because our western belief system, taking Descartes at his "authoritative word" has it only the material world is real of exists, does not make it so. Eddington, 1927, on Relativity, points out that : henceforth the senses are no longer a reliable guide to reality" Now whom shall, may, must I believe? None of the above or below.

3: Your article is charmingly naive - don't get upset of take that personally, as 'rude' or an insult. You cannot help this, it is endemic to ourt culture and society. I suggest you go assumption or belief hunting, or let someone else do this to your article. It is not the languagwe, or the words but the beliefs poured into words by their user or possessor. Emmanual Kant, 17th Century, points out that words are empty categories, mere noises we, humans, bond or associate with meanings. In sanscrit the word is "Vac" cognate to vaccum and emptiness. Time and space, as Kant has it, are categories of the mind and, therefore have nothing much to do with reality or an out there either.

4: the word 'reality, as espoused, used and applied by many people inevitably will have associable to it a range of meanings, the most common of which is that because it comes by way of the senses or experience, it must be real" Who says, upon what authority, by which kind of proof? It is only school and dictionaries that insist words must have but one meaning, as also do some misguided scientists who, falsely, imagine that their definition of a word is the true, valid and only one. Alice: Hookah smoker, to Alice: When I used a word it means exactly and only what I choose it to mean. Seeing a nice girl if I say: She has nice apples, did I mean apples? Should I be a gay and see a nice guy and say the same, what do I then mean? Alternatively you could try and eat what is written in chalk on a blackboard as an apple, which makes it, on that occasion, an imaginary apple and I could fill up pages upon pages of still different usages. Just because you were taught at school, re-inforced at Varsity, that language uses only literal meanings, don't pray, believe it. Beliefs are of the mono-meaning, often monomaniacal kind where facts, so miscalled too be the same argument just used, tend to the uncertain and ambiguous.

5: It is not the words but the way they are strung together, I do not mean a sentence either, but as done in the mind by associative patterns that make up whether and how they are used. A sausage machine produces sausage shaped things, regardless of what is pushed into it, cardboard will do nicely, thank you. Sausage machine is method, process, data crunching and sausages are products, appearances, forms and more. The process of thinking invlves the selection of words by value judgments. By the way a "fact" = something observed or experienced or imagined, ++++ its interpretation ++++ its name of label, quite what do you mean when you use the word fact, or reality and so for any word.

6: You and me alike, I hope, should be equally entitled to whatever we like or care to make of 'reality' in whatever besotted, misguided and any old way since nobody knows anything about reality at all. There is no such thing as being right or wrong about it either, since word thinking forces us, by its program of use into binary thinking of the yes no, right wrong, on off kind. Binary thinking is not out there either. The most misguided notion about the wordl is that because "I" imagine it inside my head it must be so out there and for everybody else, called parochialism but I like "we all live in a yellow submarine" better, and what do we use for a periscope?

adrian van der Meijden <afme@ihug.co.nz >
New Zealand - Monday, November 16, 1998 at 20:15:41 (MST)

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

I have a question concerning Humanism and weddings. I attended a Catholic wedding this weekend and while that was fine for my cousin, I do not believe I could put myself through that even for my parents. I consider myself an agnostic person and I am wondering if there are people in your religion who are ordained in the respect that they can marry people. I would love to have a Humanist "preacher" perform my wedding. Is there any information you can give me on this subject?

Deborah Hutchinson < deborahh@acusd.edu>
San Diego, CA USA - Monday, November 16, 1998 at 15:24:28 (MST)

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

This is in response to an oct 98 letter by James Parker, who compares a White Anglo Saxon Protestant applying for a United Negro college Fund scholarship, to a Humanist, or Homosexual applying to the Boy Scout of America. That would work if you called it The Young Heterosexual Christian Boy Scout of America. See the difference??? YIKES

Skip Campbell < Sgtpepp38@hotmail.com>
Newburyport, MA USA - Monday, November 16, 1998 at 10:34:46 (MST)

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

Your web-site was very interesting and educational. However, I was wondering one thing about sea-floor spreading. When the sea-floor moves away from the ridges on the ocean floor, are the sediments further away from the ridge older or younger than the sediments closer to the ridge?

Andrew Behrens < behrenscrow@hotmail.com>
Big Rapids, MI USA - Sunday, November 15, 1998 at 23:17:28 (MST)

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

In response to James Still's response to my original correspondence, Oct. 98

To say I am offended is an understatement. My letter was edited poorly and replied to inadequately. One issue that Mr. Still brings up is the question of when, exactly, a fetus is a "person." I gave my answer to that...in the editied portion of my letter. Furthermore, in the editied portion of my letter, I gave reasons against abortion that were not printed.

Of course, you have the right to edit any letter in any way. But my newspaper has the courtesy to put a little "This letter was edited" under the letter. This is something you might consider. Aslo, James Still does not address any of my actual reasons for being pro-life (they were all edited). I am appalled, shocked, and disappointed. You've sure left a bad taste in my mouth.

Chris Stafford <castafford@juno.com >
USA - Sunday, November 15, 1998 at 20:08:26 (MST)

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

Concerning The Death of Matthew Shepard and other hate crimes around the world, and evils created by misguided faith in God, gods, or a god, or misguided translations of religious text. Having been raised a Christian and converted my self to atheism for a period of time I am now a Selfist (cant think of a better name) but here is an explanation, and it will only be a brief introduction as it is continually developing and not very old.
Selfisum is based on the perms that me and the people I love come first. This line of thinking may sound egotistical, but it leaves no godhead to blame for human flaws and promotes self reliance, self accountability, and self respect.

I don’t want to be murdered so I won’t kill,
I don’t want to be stolen from, so I won’t steal.
I don’t want to be lied to, so I won’t lie.
I don’t want to be cheated on, so I won’t cheat.
I don’t want to be taken advantage of, so I won’t take advantage of others.
I don’t want to be [insert bad action her], so I won’t [restate bad action in first person].

Using this moral code, we cannot blame the radical right for the action of individuals, whether or not it is gay bashing, or abortions, or blowing up the clinics that perform the abortions. Or we could not have if the Individuals involved subscribed to this line of thought. The IRA would not be criminals, but if the British followed this way, the IRA would not need to be. If you believe in the teaching of Christ, or of Buddha or any other as the representative of some God, gods, or a god, then this cannot make sense to you. Instead, try to look at the prophets of the work in the same light as you look as Socrates, or Nietzsche. I am not denying the existence of God, only refusing to kneel before any alter.

Ernest Pike < Epike61@mail.caps.maine.edu>
Gorham, Me USA - Saturday, November 14, 1998 at 20:03:48 (MST)

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

Obviously, I do not agree with your religious position, but I do agree with your political position. This is neither a white nation, or a Christian nation; but a multi-faith multi-ethnic nation. Some people make a god of anything, including their own flesh. What no one has the right to do is force their view of reality on others. Anyone is right only for themselves and those who agree with them. Freedom-of-Choice means equal access to the public infrastructure with the unquestioned right to segregated private infrastructure. Swearing, rude behavior, and criminal conduct are all forms of violence which deny equal access.

Alfred O. Johnson < aojohnson@thehomechurch.com>
Kalamazoo, MI USA - Saturday, November 14, 1998 at 17:05:18 (MST)

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

In noting your types of philosophy listed ie: atheism, secular humanism, naturalism et al. why was secular Taoism left out? It probabley could be a part of materialism but as was noted in the book, "Tao te ching" ,
the use of labels is self defeating. Things are the way they are with no help from anyone or anything. One of the best things about true scientific thinking is the ability to change positions when the evidence at hand warrants it. I think there is a book about this called the "Physics of Tao" but I don't know who wrote it or if this is the correct title. Is it in your library?

Ben Lear <benlear@hotmail.com >
Concord, CA USA - Friday, November 13, 1998 at 12:06:47 (MST)

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

This message is specifically for Mr. Berry. I was reading through one of the messages that was sent to you. At the end it stated, "May God NOT have mercy on your souls" or something to that effect.

I've been a born again Christian for about three years now. I'm completely flabbergasted at the idea of Christian hate mail. Christian hate mail? You guys certainly have the (God-given) right to disagree and to challenge people such as myself. I apologize on behalf of that person and any other (immature) believer that has somehow misunderstood his/her purpose as a follower in Christ. As for me, I only offer you the blessings of God in this life, not curses.

John Byrd <Johnkauf@imap3.asu.edu >
Phoenix, AZ USA - Friday, November 13, 1998 at 03:29:24 (MST)

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

An idea struck me recently. What would the universe look like if it was contracting instead of expanding? I believe distant galaxies would still appear to be moving away (redshift) from us. If all the galaxies in the universe were accelerating towards a central point, the ones nearer to that point would be moving more quickly towards it than the ones further from it. So from our stand point, from anywhere we look we would see distant galaxies moving away from us. Just a thought.

Donald Norman < doncnorman@hotmail.com>
Winnipeg, MB Canada - Thursday, November 12, 1998 at 20:48:38 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Take a balloon and draw several dots on it with an ink pen. Each dot represents a cluster of galaxies, and the balloon is the universe. Now blow up the balloon for an expanding universe. Every dot gets further away from every other dot, with the rate of recession being proportional to the distance between them. If you have three dots (A, B, and C) in a row, each one cm apart at the beginning, and if the rate of expansion is such that the distance between A and B increases at one cm/sec, then the distance between A and C will be 2 cm at t=0, 4 cm at t=1, 6 cm at t=2, etc. In other words, A and C are separating at 2 cm/sec, twice the rate at which A and B are separating.

Rich Daniel

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

I have recently noted the large amount of literature claiming that it's healthy to believe in God. I really don't like this because I am perfectly happy and I do not believe in God but the thing that disturbs me is that the happiest people used to believe in God. The message seems to be that you must first sincerly believe in a religion then reject it to be truly happy. I like that you wrote an article about the health benifits of religion but I think it should be further emphisised that you do not have to believe in a God to be happy.

Fred Mark <esquire@bmts.com>
Canada - Thursday, November 12, 1998 at 18:00:30 (MST)

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

I find your web page to be very interesting. I do see that all your arguments can easily be used against you. For example, your arguments against a young earth are the same arguments creationists use against an old earth. I find it rather humorous. You do claim to know an awful lot about the unobserved past. You certainly make bold assertions that cannot be proven, yet you state them as fact. I have yet to have seen or heard of a debate where a secular evolutionist can stand up to a creationist. I'll pray that the Truth will shine it's light in your heart one day soon.

Patrick McGuire, P.E. < Mastrmole@aol.com>
Fort Smith, AR USA - Thursday, November 12, 1998 at 14:45:25 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

The "population growth" argument for a young earth is one of the most absurd, dishonest, incredibly stupid things I've ever heard. Even when I was a young-earth creationist myself, I was ashamed of it.

It is possible to know things about the past without observing it. Juries do so every day when they convict criminals on the basis of fingerprints, for example.

It's true that most (though not all) oral debates about evolution are "won" by the creationists. But the main reason for this is that complex issues cannot be resolved in a couple of hours of oral debate. Why is it that big-name creationists like Gish refuse to engage in written debate? And why does Gish refuse to debate the age of the earth, even orally?

Rich Daniel

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_27.html

I am 49 years old. I've just read the long commentary on Martin Luther, and the "protestant" movement.
I was quite impressed by the historical knowledge and truth recounted in it. I too traveled from a "sinner" to "saint" back to agnostic then to athiest.

In fact, being what I believe to be somewhat better educated and a lifetime student of the truth, be it historical or "spiritual" truth, I never have, nor will I ever take anything on "blind faith." The arguments you present are, I don't doubt factual. I agree with almost all of your historical accounts presented, and consider the Catholic "Religion" to be the Beast mentioned in the Bible. I also believe that organized "Protestant" denominations to be the "Image of the Beast" described in the book of Revelations in that Bible.

I'm not convinced that the gospels as presented are totally inspired. I've read many of the Gnostic "gospels" and writings found in the 1940's. I can certainly understand your summation of "because there is no God."
I do however offer this for what it is worth. The "knowledge" of who Jesus Christ is is in me the same way that it is described in the gospels. When Jesus asked his desciples "Who do people say that I am?" and they gave various answers vis a vis "Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist." etc. Jesus then asked, "Who do you say that I am?" and Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ, the only begotten Son of the Living God." Jesus said. "Blessed art thou, Peter bar Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you, but the Father." You see, as Calvinistic as it may sound, even 49 year old perfectly sane, somewhat intelligent persons such as myself, have been given that "knowledge" of Christ and his wonderful saving grace, by our Father the Creator of all things. That is why, against all odds, and against the thought processes and logic of intelligent persons like yourself, the "Galalean Myth" lives on. In spite of the misuse of his visit to earth to remind us who we are, and the evil done in His name over the millinia, His spirit does live on, and the "Salvation by grace, through the "gift" of faith given by our Creator, lest any man should boast" survives. Great are his mercies, and his love endures forever.
If you "know" then you know....if you don't, you don't.

Dean Browning < cozgrove@brightok.net>
ardmore, ok USA - Thursday, November 12, 1998 at 14:32:13 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://infidel.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html

Having read the article I was intrested in your conclusion: "What's more, any supposed miracle could be the result of a superadvanced technology rather than a supernatural being. Arthur C. Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So the seemingly inexplicable events that many attribute to god could simply be the work of advanced aliens. Erik von Däniken argues as much in his book Chariots of the Gods, where he claims that the wheel that Ezekiel saw in the sky was really a UFO. Explanations that appeal to advanced aliens are actually superior to explanations that appeal to supernatural beings because they are simpler and more conservative -- they do not postulate any nonphysical substances and they do not presuppose the falsity of any natural laws. If astronomers feel the need to join a church, they would do better to join the First Church of Space Aliens than the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.

what I find amazing is you can finish like this. Advanced aliens come on give us a break are we to believe in them and not God? where is the proof, Majic is something you cant explain a supernatural thing, technology I can explain. More conservative to who? you attempt to trash an argument then follow yourself with even BIGGER trash. And as for Ezekiel`s UFO were you there or is this more of an Islamic thing, some one told someone who told someone. come on what sort of a rebuttle can seriously end like this. it is easyier to rebuke this ending that God`s existance by far.

Julian Dobbs <juliandobbs@jesus.freeserve.co.uk>
Bridgend, UK - Thursday, November 12, 1998 at 11:15:16 (MST)

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

William Edelen,

I just wanted to thank you for writing this essay on the internet for everyone to see. What happened to Mathew Shepard should never even have been imagined. A hate crime is a hate crime, regardless of why it occurred. He was a human being long before anyone knew what his sexual preference was. Fred Phelps is going to be in my area this weekend pickiting Falwell's too liberal stance on homosexuality - how scary is that? - and we're organizing a vigil/rally on the other side of town. Thank you for your open-mindedness and your courage in posting your feelings. People are listening.

Hunter McOwen <mcowen01@sbc.edu>
Sweet Briar, VA USA - Thursday, November 12, 1998 at 11:06:56 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_02.html

The contribution of the oldest of the old faith is strongly missed.At least scientific discoveries have not come to an end.I find that Western world is confind only to their narrow zone in the field of religion.

To my surprise I find that the olest of the old faith from India(H...U) fully enjoyes the support of recent scientific theories, like Time dialation. A day in Heaven is equivalent to an year on Earth. In the past when the scientific community was ignorent about Relativity such statements were considred as height of absuredity. There are many many such fidings.

S.K.Mitra <jrc@parlis.nic.in>
New Delhi, INDIA - Wednesday, November 11, 1998 at 04:49:42 (MST)

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

I was reading Against the Moral Argument (1997) by Mark I. Vuletic and wanted to express I do not believe it is possible to prove or disprove something that cannot be detected via one of the five senses. We can talk about metaphysics and whatever else you want. I know some rather famous people have proposed some rather elaborate philisophical meaderings that end up no where. But as with the notion of spin, no one had any inklilng that it even existed until they noted a discrepancy in experimental data. Like many things that we are provided with in the form of theory (like evolution--i.e. we wave our hands over some aspects and say that "it happened" without bing able to explain it.)--remember the Ether?--some things can only be accepted on the basis of faith, because they cannot be verified with empirical data. We cannot collect data for some events and will never live long enough to (some distant stellar events). Which kind of implies we do waste a lot of breath over nothing. The existence of God cannot be proved by reason. Even the Bible says He must be accepted on the basis of Faith. Yet we still have people who claim to know Him come up with all kinds of proofs for His existence. He is well enough able to prove Himself and does not need us lessor beings to do that for Him. The best we can do is say, "Yes, He is real. Do you want to know Him? Ask Him to make Himself real to you."

John Kovach <JPK6362101@aol.com >
Cato, NY USA - Tuesday, November 10, 1998 at 20:13:55 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I find it surprising that for someone with such a low opinion of speculation about the unseen and presumably unknowable, you find it acceptable to make decisions about the unseen and presumably unknowable on the basis of pure faith. If it is acceptable to believe in God for no reason whatsoever, then it certaibly should be acceptable to believe or not believe in God on the basis of some reasons, inconclusive though those reasons may be.

Mark I. Vuletic

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

Does your group maintain a bulliten board or chat room where ongoing discussions can be held? For example, many of the topics addressed in your cover statement are long a part of many science fiction stories. The latest Babylon 5 movie "River of Souls" is a case in point. I would like to find a place in which I can trade ideas and view points that I may presently be unaware of.

Ben Lear <benlear@hotmail.com >
Concord, CA USA - Tuesday, November 10, 1998 at 17:18:27 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I don't know much about Taoism, secular or otherwise, so I can't answer your first question. The Tao of Physics (not The Physics of Tao), by Fritjof Capra can be found at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0877735948/InternetInfidels/. I haven't read it, but I suspect that I would agree with one reviewer that it's "metaphysical babble". I don't have much patience with mysticism; your mileage may vary.

Rich Daniel

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

Great site. If a Christian wants to convince me all he has to do is walk acoss the Mississippi without getting his feet wet or bring me a talking snake [just dont get too close] and Ill immediately convert and bomb abortion clinics and do what a good Christian is supposed to do. I would be content to let them believe that nonsense if they wouldnt try to subvert our constitution and force their religion down the throats of the rest of us. If christianity is the one true religion,why are they constantly seeking government endorsement. tnx

Bob Oliver <nakura@mocom.net>
Nixa, Mo USA - Monday, November 09, 1998 at 19:09:31 (MST)

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

Why can't I find anything on the "Torah Codes" on the Secular Web - something to do with equidistant letters in the Old Testament predicting many events. Apparently proving the Bible is inspired, Jesus is the messiah, proving that fundamentalists have been right along. Are there any arguments that counter these claims. How can accurate predictions be buried in a book with so many absurd myths and inconsistencies? My fundamental Christian relatives believe they finally have all the answers, and now can defeat any arguments.

Ron Hooge <hooge@portal.ca>
Vancouver, BC CANADA - Monday, November 09, 1998 at 18:20:27 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/codes.html.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

I found this from a link from FreeTHought.

The women going to the tomb early on the morning of the Sabbath to anoint Jesus' body. The women reportedly had watched as he was being buried, and knew that a huge stone had been rolled in front of the tomb, (Mark 16:1). It would have been physically impossible for the women to remove the stone from its place; therefore it would be illogical for them to start out to anoint the body knowing they could not enter the tomb. It says in Mark 16:3 the following: and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

So, yes, they knew the rock was there, but expected someone to roll it out of the way for them. People were aloud to visit graves back then as they are today. Someone put the stone there, so someone could obviously move it for them. Thanks for reading what a Christian had to say. Oh, yeah, we're not all bad people like soma atheists like to believe.

Adina Galardi <agalardi@Juno.com >
Charlotte, NC USA - Monday, November 09, 1998 at 15:33:00 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

I am a born again christian. I didn't result due to the bible or to peoples teachings. I didn't see angles or hear voices. I didn't jump on the band wagon.

I am glad to see these pages, because it helps me believe even more. In these writings it constantly mentions the lack of evidence and high amounts of contradictions. But you never once mention how many people in the world have been touched by these teachings, how many lives have been changed.

anonymous <myndal@aol.com>
plantation, fl USA - Monday, November 09, 1998 at 13:42:59 (MST)

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

This is a request and not a comment. My situation is this: I am a freethinker who is fathering a child with a born-again christian. She has three children, ages 10,11,14, who attend a christian school that has a total of 16 students. The curriculum is ludicrous; social studies consists of bible passages and so on. The 14 year old has been in tears to try and get me to accept jesus because she does'nt want my blood on her hands, and so on.
It appears to be a totally unworkable situation and tragically my as yet unborn son will be raised in what I consider a religious cult. The local libraries lack sufficient sources that would enable me to come to an understanding and resolve this mess; all the content concerns mixed faith unions. Does anybody know of humanist sources and/or counselors that could help with what I imagine would be a fairly common problem?

Mario Amodeo Jr. < mario@asu.uswest.net>
Phoenix, AZ USA - Monday, November 09, 1998 at 11:19:26 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Try to get a copy of Leaving the Fold by Marlene Winnell. She's a psychologist who has written an excellent book for understanding the fundamentalist mindset. Hope this helps at least a little.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethought.org/activist/current/rrr/cc/news-cc.html

I want to thank you so very much! I run a Protest Petition against Kenneth Starr's venetta against President Clinton. In doing my research, I've found so many links between Starr, Gingrich, Scaife and the Christian Coalition that it is truly chilling. We must stop them in their tracks! I want to thank you for this great website. I will tell my readers about it. I wish I had known about it sooner! I truly thought that I was the only one who saw through the plastic veneer of the CC.

Carol Levy <shyone8950@aol.com >
USA - Monday, November 09, 1998 at 07:39:31 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethought.org/infidels/feedback/1995/december.html

I believe that the only reason man has a need for religion and a belief in a omniscient being is to explain the unknown. In modern society, we have begun to explain so much about our own universe and much of what we find discredits the underlying facts of so many religions. Take, for example, Greek mythology. All of the ideas presented by this mythology were simply exaplanations of the unkown. To the people of the time, it made complete sense. Since, in today's modern world, we can explain most of the occurences in nature that mystified them with simple science, there religion seems "silly" to us. I believe that it is the same case with most religions of today. Since some of the ideas that discredit God have not been proven to some people's satisfaction, they are not completely fact yet. When they do become a scientific fact, the religion will begin to die out. The same as was done with Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology.

Aaron Smith <Phiber@shtc.net>
Chesterfield, SC USA - Monday, November 09, 1998 at 06:12:52 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/christianity/errancy.html

Any book written by an illiterate fisherman 600 years after the events (supposed) took place must be full of inaccuracies.

Barry Robertson < spsb@netconnect.com.au>
Stawell, Vic Australia - Monday, November 09, 1998 at 03:38:40 (MST)

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

First, I just wanted to say that your pages are great and I am very greatful for that work you do. I would be very grateful if you can tell me if "ACTS" is a book in the old testament or in the new testament and where exactly since I am checking a contradiction in the bible. Unfortunately I don't know the name of "acts" in Hebrew so I cant go and look in the book itself. Thanks in advance. Keep on the good work.

Lior < toot1234@netvision.net.il>
Rehovot, Israel - Sunday, November 08, 1998 at 23:09:29 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

The Acts of the Apostles (or "Acts") is the second half of a book that originally circulated together with its first half, The Gospel of Luke. Today, biblical scholars refer to the two as Luke/Acts. We do not know who wrote Luke/Acts, but later church tradition attributes the book to the name "Luke" who was the beloved physician and companion of Paul in Colossians 4:14. Sometime during the second century, Acts was separated from the Gospel of Luke, probably in order to use the church history outlined in Acts as an introduction to Paul's letters. In order to read Luke/Acts, you'll have to obtain a New Testament.

James Still

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/big_blue_books/book_11.html

This is the most bigoted & partial piece that makes no attempt at truth I've seen in a while. I hope that's enough to the point. I could raise many objections to the material in here but I doubt you would care to consider what I was saying.

Brian Noonan <bgn3j@virginia.edu >
Burke, VAVA USA - Sunday, November 08, 1998 at 22:12:07 (MST)

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

Anyone who knows anything about the Boy Scouts of America should not be at all surprised that they, not only consider themselves to be, but actually are a religious organization. Hence the first line of the oath, On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God... everything else follows this. The argument about admitting athiests, gays and so on is rediculous. Why not engage in an effort to make the Mormon Church baptise atheists? It would be no less absurd. While not particularly religious myself I see no harm in an organization which promotes religious principles. I should think an athiest, knowing what the BSA stands for would wish to avoid rather than join the organization. Why not form a non-religious Boy Scouts? Brainwash 'em the other
direction. On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to my country... Nah that won't work. What about unpatriotic kids? Who are we to force patriotic values on our kids. Ok, lets try, On my honor I will do my
best to do stuff I think is cool... That's getting better, but what about this honor thing? If we don’t expect honor from our president, how can we expect it from our children? Hmmm. How about: If I feel like it I'll do stuff I think is cool. Ya. The Boy Liberals of America. I like it! Boys who have paper routes, work in grocery stores
and the like will have to pay the dues for the boys who... Wait a minute... We’re discriminating against girls, we can't be sexist here. Lets see... now we have boys and girls... cool, we'll teach 'em about sex, pass out condoms and provide free abortions (paid for by the afore mentioned kids who have paper routes ect.) Because we know they'll be breedin' like rabbits. Ya just can't stop 'em. Hmmm. If there are any minorities in the group they will be given preference when leadership opportunities are available (unless the minority person in question is a white male). At the meetings we'll talk about good things, we’ll talk about how we care about everyone, love everyone. We’ll make all kinds of ribbons to wear so everyone can see how much we
care about everything. We’ll accept everyone, well.. except for those pesky conservatives! Oath: If I feel like it I'll do stuff I think is cool. I’ll care about lots of important stuff, and I'll hate conservatives and smokers.There! That's it! The Liberal Youth of America. We'll be rid of all that religious gobbledygook like prayers and commandments and such. Let those religious creeps go form their own group, the Religious Scouts of America... Ya..... Hmmm.... wait a minute, that wouldn't be fair, what about the children who aren't religious.......... Get real!

W. Howard Nivison < bacon@utah.uswest.net>
Cove, UT USA - Sunday, November 08, 1998 at 18:40:43 (MST)

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

I have read many of your articles and would like to suggest we work together on a very simple, non-time-consuming, yet very important project. My greatest interest is the question "Why is Christianity good or bad?" This is also of interest to you and your work, since merely pointing out reasons for believing that the Bible is not the inerrant message from creator to humankind can be a never-ending cycle. Also there are many many people who would take an interest if they saw clearly what Christianity really means in terms of civilization and its future. Your debates rouse the ire of the fundamentalists, but for the vaster population of those who really don't care one way or another... just what will be accomplished by lifting this heavy veil of illusion that much of Western and Western-influenced societies have so willingly accepted for so long? Obviously your work will gain in significance if we can clearly present the downside of Christianity, leaving it for your opponents to do their best as far as the good side.

Much in your articles already points out this down side, but it needs to be systematized and added too. I am suggesting that we begin a very easy email exchange, each time adding just one item to the list, and at times elaborating on the items. With time we can then systematize the content for you or I to write some nice essays about it.

My first contribution:

"Christianity makes people belive that we are children, forever under the authority of a Father. It would be better if humankind considered itself alone, not assuming the control or help of a father in worldly affairs. Our behavior as far as world problems would be more responsible and adult. There is a danger and tendency for Christians to see world problems as somehow in God's plan and thus be more apathetic about changing them."

john norman <time@u-netsys.com.br >
sao paulo, sp brazil - Sunday, November 08, 1998 at 09:52:08 (MST)

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

Christ said, "He who rejects me rejects the one who sent me." If youy reject Jesus, the one who was also prophesied about in the OT, you are calling God a liar. And all the things that happened to Him were also prophesied about. The crucifixion itself is mentioned in Psalm 22. Any one who says that these things were made up, is from Satan and has no understanding of God's word.

Christina Douglas < connections@navnet.net>
Halifax , NS Canada - Friday, November 06, 1998 at 10:25:14 (MST)

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

If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, could religion be the first?

john stauffer <jac51@concentric.net >
Akron , PA USA - Thursday, November 05, 1998 at 18:17:29 (MST)

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

The society is in fluid state as the value system in every religion,segment of humanity is changing.The non believers believe in themselves and are therefore believers. The modern ethos should be " how much i am useful to society and what is my progress to realise my truth" could there be weekly news letter through e mail to all the interested persons?

kanwal ghei <kanwal@nda.vsnl.net.in >
delhi, USA - Thursday, November 05, 1998 at 17:59:04 (MST)

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

I am of the opinion that most religions are founded upon a foundation having these four corner stones: ignorance,fear,pain and desire. Faith is the sister of Hope,both are the daughters of Desire.

John Stauffer <jac51@concentric.net >
Akron, PA USA - Thursday, November 05, 1998 at 17:52:34 (MST)

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

I saw a book about evolution on your page. You expect me to belive that a monkey turned into use? It's like saying if I leave the back door of my house open, I could get a new chair formed for dirt.

David <DSwitzer@Juno.com>
USA - Thursday, November 05, 1998 at 07:23:55 (MST)

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

Don't be a hub. If it is one thing, associations like yours should be shut down. Your just wasting peoples time with this propaganda garbage just because you can't stand to see people succeed. I may not be an amway distributer but I know people who are and they are just ordinary people at least trying to become successful at a business of there own. I am sure this reply is not what your looking for and I am sure this will not be put in with the rest of the trash you print. Bye for now!

dino denofrio < Denofrio@compuserve.com>
orleans, ont canada - Thursday, November 05, 1998 at 00:16:36 (MST)

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

Donald Morgan's comments on Fatal Biblical Flaws are indeed flawed themselves. I can only wish that he had a brain on his shoulders before he begins spouting off about something he obviously knows very little about. He doesn't realize that he's screwing with something that makes skeptics look like a bunch of idiots. Go ahead, but prepare for the consequences...both on this earth and beyond. I'll take an example. The assertion that the Bible is false because believers have handled snakes and have gotten killed is both misguided and warped. It is almost like he's saying that since some men have the ability to slam dunk a basketball, the fact that they do is both unimportant and false because there have been those that have tried to and failed. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Get a clue and read INTO the Word of God. Some believers do not have the gift of taming serpents (even if the wrongfully think they do)...just like some don't have the gift of healing...or the gift of slam dunking a basketball. It is sad that a man can pour over the Word of God and only find a select a few scattered verses that alone may seem strange, (it's called context...look into it) instead of doing an in depth study on principles that run throughout the entire Bible. Poor Mr. Morgan doesn't understand "spiritual gifts", in fact he is saying that he cannot understand difference in people's abilities! I'm sure the more I look into this website I'll find more and more things that Mr. Morgan needs to be "awakened" to. Get ready...But the strangest fact of all is that he puts these ideas on the computer to be shot down. Thank you Mr. Morgan for being a Jimmy Swaggart of athiesm...uninformed...and completely off the deep end. You are doing your cause a real favor. Morgan's ignorance is indeed bliss (bliss for the believer) for I can only laugh at this website because you guys really have no idea how foolish you sound. I can only hope that Mr. Morgan and company will wake up from their fantasy world to the stark reality that God lives, God loves, and God can be found. I hope you ignore me because it would further my point! Put up or please, shut up.

Greg Adaline <gregory.adaline@bubbs.biola.edu>
La Mirada, CA USA - Wednesday, November 04, 1998 at 23:01:44 (MST)

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

Dear Infidels,

I must protest. You have created one of the most interesting sites of this type and I can't afford to spend so much time here. My ISP account is bare bones. Oh sure I could save the pages to my hard drive, but I don't like reading on a screen. Yes, I could print the pages I am interested in but that costs too much. I am a student again and must watch my finances. Choices you say? Just say no? I think not. Reason tells me that when confronted with enough evidence it would be unreasonable for me to ignore it. Clearly you have created one of the best on-line free-thinking resource sites EVER with a lot of "evidence", not to mention all the belly laughs I get from some of the feedback posts. How can I ignore this when I so desperately want to educate myself on the positive aspects of reason. Oh sure there are some negative aspects to the site, but they are just too few to mention. I think the only solution is to shut down the site. You see, I never spent too much time at these kinds of sites because I found that what was offered was more for the young and angry, or the stuffy and academic(not that there is anything wrong with these two groups, I am evolving from one to the other myself, sort of). But noooooo... you have to be different! Now I fear that I will have to keep coming back because there just might be some hope. I can't afford this. I know your used to unreasonable people and their requests, and I have noticed that you treat them with as much respect as they give, so come on give me a break. OK?

In Peace, onehuman.

P.S. Get rid of Dan Barker, he is making me think about how to bridge the gap between believers/freethinkers and he has got me looking for a place to meet like minded people. This means added transportaion costs etc. Will it never end?

Paul Mignot <onehuman@hotmail.com >
Burnaby, B.C. Canada - Wednesday, November 04, 1998 at 18:20:48 (MST)

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

hi. i wrote something before, but after reading a bunch of the feedbacks, i was moved to write again. first of all, i would like to praise you. i am a christian. i guess i think of myself as open and i realize some aren't--really aren't. i am impressed by your openness to admit that you may be wrong. i may be wrong, too. but, i want to write not all christians are fanatical, frightening people who go so far as to hide other views. the sad thing is, obviously, some are like that. there's a wide range of christians. i want to thank you for being open. the idea that while beliefs (or lack of) differ, it is not correct to suppress conflicting views just because they disagre with your own is one that i wish a lot of people would wake up to. and a reply to someone looking at genesis--lot "knocked up" his daughters, yes. but, he didn't really know about it. his daughters thought they were the last three pepole on earth, so they figured not to let the human race die, even if it meant incest. they got their father, lot, drunk and, as the bible says, laid with him. they felt it was ok because they truly believed they were the only ones left--that city was their life and it was gone. also, that's kind of shocking, so i'd like to think they were a little messed up from that. i know i would be. thanks again.

kiefer <sallyk@uwm.edu>
USA - Wednesday, November 04, 1998 at 16:59:51 (MST)

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

i was reading the essay on God, or lack thereof. the author stated that being an atheist is an unbelief. atheists believe in evolution, correct? then, they still have at least one belief. my question is how can the author say he is an unbeliever when he seems to hold the belief in evolution? also, how is evolution so solid? i would like to see an explanation of evolution--describing its solidity through the scientific method--how did it come about, e.g., how did life start? i would sincerely appreciate a reply. thank you.

kiefer <sallyk@uwm.edu>
USA - Wednesday, November 04, 1998 at 16:34:41 (MST)

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

"If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so. Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic. So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition [of theism]." Antony Flew, "The Presumption of Atheism" God, Freedom, and Immortality,(Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1984), p. 22.

In response to this I have merely a quote from Romans 1:18-32: [lengthy quote edited -js]

NOTE: For those who tend to jump to conclusions, the Bible does not teach hate, for anything but sin. We hate the sin, but love the sinner.

Robert Durham <grond@hotmail.com>
Triangle, VA USA - Wednesday, November 04, 1998 at 15:55:52 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

If I understand the passage from Romans you quoted correctly, it is basically saying that the existence of God is obvious to everyone. But it isn't obvious to us and to many other people we know. It looks like Paul was mistaken on this point. Also, the radical religious right mantra "hate the sin, love the sinner" is full of phony self-righteousness. "Sin" is nothing more than undesirable behavior from a certain viewpoint, and  behavior, like other of our actions, cumulatively make us who we are. We are the sum total of our actions. If you hate someone for who he or she is, it is hardly possible to pretend at the same time that you love him or her. What the mantra really means is that you love others for what you wish for them to become--molded in your own image of course--and cannot tolerate who they really are now.

Jeffery Jay Lowder and James Still

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

As I voted tonight at a christian church, I found myself upset that I was "forced" to visit a church to cast my ballot. Isn't it a violation of the separation of church and State to have polls at churches? If it isn't, it should be. I was surprised I didn't find anything on your website pertaining to this issue. Perhaps the next time I vote, I'll wear my Bad Religion jersey and tattoo a pentagram to my forehead (temporary of course).

Mavik <sitemaster@webtv.net>
Eagle, ID USA - Tuesday, November 03, 1998 at 21:56:46 (MST)

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

I am assuming from the bold stance that you take with atheism that you have not investigated the evidence supporting the validity of the scriptures. I am assuming that you are not aware of the facts regarding the reliability of the historical scriptures.

Before you disregarded a document such as the Bible I would hope that you would have investigated it thoroughly and then made your decision. I also am assuming that you are not aware that the Bible is the ONLY piece of religious literature where you will find fulfilled prophecies over hundreds of years in advance. I can only assume that you have not seen the predictions surround the birth of Christ that were made well in advance of His birth.  There is just no possibility that you have seen the archaeological evidence surrounding the Old Testament and disregarded it.

There is so much legitimate evidence that I could not possibly share it all with you here. One fact in particular does seem to come to mind however. Eleven of the twelve disciples all died martyrs death for Jesus Christ. If the ressurection had been a lie or a hoax, would YOU have died for the lie? Even the Jewish historians do not deny that a man named Jesus Christ walked on this planet. They may not have recognized the promised Messiah but they did not argue his existence.

I am praying that you will at least make a legitimate and scientific study of the scriptures before you completely disregard their authenticity. I love you because of Jesus Christ and I care about what happens to you.
Please take the time to read the book, "A Ready Defense" by Josh McDowell. This book was written by a former atheist.

You are obviously a very intelligent and articulate individual who has the power to impact many lives. I just hope that you will devote one-tenth as much energy to investigating the subject to which you obviously reject before completely throwing it out the window.

Debbie P <perkins@internetx.net >
Charleston, SC USA - Tuesday, November 03, 1998 at 16:51:15 (MST)

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

For about the last two years I have been an atheist and have given much thought about what is the best way to live my life. Recently I have been doing a lot of research into buddhism. As far as I can tell buddhism is the most atheistic religion there is and I have become most interested in it. What I want to know is how religious do you consider buddhism, could I practice buddhism and still consider myself an atheist. If there are any major problems in the philosophy of buddhism I would like to know before I get into the whole thing. Thankyou to whomever reads this.

John Bellamy <esquire@bmts.com>
Chesley, ont Canada - Tuesday, November 03, 1998 at 10:58:27 (MST)

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

I am here for Bettie sent me here. She wanted to show me how to find God...

Josiah Hiter---Minnumber < death2life@hotmail.com>
TN USA - Tuesday, November 03, 1998 at 06:37:36 (MST)

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

This morning on the radio I heard that the school district in Mesquite, Texas (which is a suburb of Dallas) was taken to task about refusing to let one of their students wear black clothes with pentagrams on them. The young man's father had a battle with them and actually WON! He stressed that the black clothes and pentagram were a part of his son's religion (the Wicka religion) and could not be denied to him by virtue of his constitutional rights. Since prayer is not allowed in school, how can this happen? I am amazed and ashamed that the school district could back down. The father even stated that he would be keeping watch on surrounding schools to ensure that this sort of constitutional violations did not happen again.

Monette Schneider <Finderz@aol.com >
Plano, TX USA - Monday, November 02, 1998 at 18:55:24 (MST)

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

Thank you for the information concerning the kalam tradition, it will greatly assist my "A" Level philosophy research.

Richard Spencer < philip.spencer@which.net>
Lichfield, England - Monday, November 02, 1998 at 12:52:27 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/stein-bio.html

As a history professor at a college in Oregon I was amused by Gordon Stein's article on Josh McDowell. McDowell is not a leading Christian scholar by any means; he has written a few popular style books for the general public. If I was going to deny the historical existence of Jesus, I would need to reply to someone like E.P. Sanders (author of "The Historical Figure of Jesus"). Sanders (with his doctorate from Oxford and Helsinki) is no fundamentalist, but he (and most credible New Testmanet scholars) does not doubt the historical existence of Jesus.

Stein's attack of McDowell is akin to swatting flies. There are certainly more credible scholars who could give Professor Stein a run for his money. If you would like a list, I'd be glad to forward them to you.

Most of Dr. Stein's points are themselves debatable, but he gives the impression that only idiots like McDowell quotes Josephus or Tacitus. I fear that Stein's use of the evidence is just as dishonest as allegedly is McDowell's; he demonstrates only the usual mantra of dogma from his perspective. Nowhere does he identify HIS scholarly sources or evidence, unless you count a 1910 work by Arthur Drew or something else from 1838, or G.A. Wells (1975). I guess that Dr. Stein hasn't read anything since 1975(?).

Michael Balyo <balm@chemek.cc.or.us >
Salem, OR USA - Monday, November 02, 1998 at 12:19:42 (MST)

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

It seems to me that there is alot of "bashing" of christians on your pages, for the notion that they all ask for money. Well, I noticed that a number of your pages call for a credit card number as well.Whoever the author of these sites is should step out of themselves long enough to realize that this is a way of life for Mr.Larson, and TBN. This is their job, and you get paid @ your job correct?? These people are by far not perfect. But to continually persecute them the way your sites have done?? It seems to be a waste of time to me.

Dana Smith <Dayna Cal@aol.com >
Lubbock, Tx USA - Monday, November 02, 1998 at 00:30:06 (MST)

Last updated: Saturday, 20-Sep-2008 20:17:35 CDT

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

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