Infidels: Feedback : October (1998)

October 1998

Send Feedback

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

Paraphrasing horribly: "Prayer is an attempt at coercion"

Micah Goldstein < bodhisattvah@geocities.com>
USA - Saturday, October 31, 1998 at 20:25:41 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.atheism.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html

Yours is a Bastion of Sanity Site! Fortunately I was raised by parents who were both retirees of Organized Religion long before I was born and thus was spared what H.L. Mencken referred to as a form of "mental illness."

A "virgin" who was knocked up by a "holy ghost" or rather "conceived" by one? This isn't just insane, it's also bloody STUPID! There are, as you know, some very scholarly websites such as EARL DOHERTY's "THE JESUS PUZZLE." You folks keep it simple for simpletons such as myself who've NEVER been able to get through reading that those books of utter NONSENSE! [But then, I couldn't get through "War and Peace", either.] The Catholic Church is run by the same type of damned fools who write the IRS tax codes: The longer they're around, the more complicated and confusing [on purpose] the whole tawdry and money-grubbing the entire phony business gets.

There can be NO Second Coming since there never was a First One; besides, Jesus has a very large sales territory and BILLIONS of other beings on other worlds to set up in Deli Franchises. God, he makes the best hot pastrami sandwiches this side of Brooklyn.

Allen Ross Warmington <dd703@aol.com >
south euclid, OH USA - Saturday, October 31, 1998 at 19:26:53 (MST)

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

My letter is in response to Todd Spence's article on Scouting. I am an Eagle Scout, and a Vigil honor member of Scouting's honor society, the Order of the Arrow. I find Mr. Spence's ramblings to be repetitive and boring. Yes, the BSA discriminates. But is it also not discriminatory to remove individuals who do not belong in any organization? If I, as a white anglo-saxon Protestant applied for a scholarship from the United Negro College Fund, would I have any right to complain when one was not forthcoming? I do not meet that group's fundamental requirement for such a scholarship: I am not African American. By a similar note, the BSA requires you to be have a belief in a higher being, and to be faithful in your religious duties. There are countless thousands of successful men who will tell you they are happy and successful in their lives because of the BSA. Yet, I highly doubt you can find any who will say he is successful BECAUSE he is a homosexual or athiest.

Thankfully, we live in free country, where though you may have the right to spout your retoric to your heart's content, I still have the right to ignore it. And fortunately as well, we live in a soceity governed by majority rule. I will GUARANTEE the majority of Americans possess some belief in God, and belive sodomy and its practicioners to be reprehensible.

James Parker < parker40@pilot.msu.edu>
East Lansing, MI USA - Friday, October 30, 1998 at 17:46:59 (MST)

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

Hello ...This is concerning the recent beating death of the gay student...It is murder when you kill someone, regardless of reasons, real or imagined...In a democracy, you have the right to your own opinions, not matter how unsavory or irrational..It's hard to image that we could come up with legislation that could effectively insure the "proper" attitudes without imposing on someones fundimental rights.....This sounds like one of those "it would be nice IF..." conditions that can never be fully fixed or resolved...I'm not so sure that, this being the case, that we should spread the guilt as you suggest with blaming "society" for not being "perfect"...You have a "right" not to like gays, and that negative feeling is certainly understandible and "legal", thought not proper, to most reasonable people...We have laws to protect society from the moronic extremist elements, but up and until the time that they actually cause harm, they get the same legal protection as the rest of us...It's nice to think how near perfect our world would be if we could only somehow outlaw STUPIDITY...

Bill McCarthy < bmccarthy@cegelecasc.com>
West Mifflin, PA USA - Friday, October 30, 1998 at 11:41:35 (MST)

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

John Patrick Michael Murphy <JPMMURPHY@aol.com>
Sunday, October 18, 1998 at 18:58:01 (EDT)

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

"Edison, Thomas Alva, D. Sc., L.L. D., P.H. D. (1847-1931)."

My understanding is that Edison was self educated. Also it's "Ph.D." not "P.H. D." Does anyone know the religious beliefs of past world chess champions or the present one? I told someone that Kasparov was an atheist like myself, but I may be wrong.

James Harper < truth_writer@hotmail.com>
Atlanta, GA USA - Thursday, October 29, 1998 at 23:27:45 (MST)

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

I have just been reading your page on "The Case Against School Prayer". I realize that you have your own beliefs and that you are most assuredly entitled to them. But I must take exception to what you have printed.

Prayer (worship) in school should NOT be mandatory, but there is no reason not to allow those who wish to pray to do so. I fail to see your point about there should just as well be a moment of bedlam instead of prayer. That's what we have in most schools now! That's one of the major reasons our education system is in so much trouble. The lack of discipline in our schools have penalized the children of this nation too much.

I also believe the schools should be neutral. But advocating a Godless society is not neutrality. When a family teaches their children about worshiping a true living God, and then they go to school and the school tells them that anything to do with God is bunk, that's definitely not neutral. The teachings of the evolution theory or other theories about the inception of the universe to dispell a child's faith is totally biased. Science has yet to PROVE anything that it theorizes.

When worship/prayer/ten commandments were OUTLAWED in our schools in the mid-sixties, it was the start of a lot of the problems that are now inherant in our school system. All you have to do is look at the condition of the classroom today. If you won't see it, it's because you have your head stuck in the sand. The government has accomplished absoulutely zero as far as the children's education since that time. It (the government) seems to believe that throwing more money at the problem will make it go away. It hasn't yet, nor will it.

How can prayer be harmful to anyone in school? If a child is praying, they're not thinking up ways to steal from, hurt, maim or kill their fellow students. When we instruct our children in the Biblical ways, they are not the fanatical children that you seem to think they are.

You mention that Japan is not in the trouble that we are because of religion? Check and see how they live. Schools reinforce what the parents teach the children at home whether it be Shintoism, Christianity or whatever. They're not trying to break down the Family unit as they are here. They haven't learned that disrespect for their parents beliefs are the going thing.

I appreciate your consideration to allow me to speak my mind/heart. I realize that your beliefs and mine are quite different, and that you probably will just laugh at what I write, but I feel it is very important to do this.

Thank you.

Louis Dunlap, Asst Pastor
New Salem Baptist Church
Louis Dunlap <newsalem@mail.usmo.com >
Dixon, MO USA - Thursday, October 29, 1998 at 12:08:39 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

1. As things are, if you want to pray, who is going to stop you? No one. When I was in school a few short years ago, there was no shortage of people doing exactly that.

Blaine Armsterd

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

It is too bad you are determined to take yourself on a path of destruction. Incidentally,the founding fathers created the edict of separation of church and state to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.

Jim Wells < jimwells@collegeconcepts.com>
USA - Thursday, October 29, 1998 at 08:51:52 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Your assumption (that the founding fathers intended only for the First Amendment to protect the church from the state and not the state from the church) is flat wrong. Americans United for Separation of Church and State argue:

Jefferson and Madison held an expansive view of the First Amendment, arguing that church-state separation would protect both religion and government. Madison specifically feared that a small group of powerful churches would join together and seek establishment or special favors from the government. To prevent this from happening, Madison spoke of the desirability of a “multiplicity of sects” that would guard against government favoritism.

Jefferson and Madison did not see church-state separation as an “either or” proposition or argue that one institution needed greater protection than the other.

As historian Garry Wills points out in his 1990 book Under God , Jefferson believed that no worthy religion would seek the power of the state to coerce belief. In his notes, he argued that disestablishment would strengthen religion, holding that it would “oblige its ministers to be industrious [and] exemplary.” The state likewise was degraded by an established faith, Jefferson asserted, because establishment made it a partner in a system based on bribery of religion.

Madison also argued that establishment was no friend to religion or the state. He insisted that establishment would hinder civil society, charging that attempts to enforce religious belief by law would weaken government. In his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison stated flatly that “Religion is not helped by establishment, but is hurt by it.”

James Still

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

I agree with you that matter need not the finger of God to (constantly) stir it up to produce galaxies, stars, planets, etc. But what if God designed in the attributes into matter that allows it to 'carry on' in becoming the structures we see in nature; both astronomical and subatomic? That is, the designs are the patterns we see in it? I am not talking about the superficial shape of galaxies, or the size of stars, planets. I am talking about the rules by which matter follows; are these 'rules' not a sign of intelligent design?

Steve Yue <sdyue@yahoo.com>
Mississauga, Ont Canada - Thursday, October 29, 1998 at 01:37:28 (MST)

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

I just came across your site and haven't read all of it, but I have a question for you. Do the encounters that some Christians have with a living Christ today not influence you at all? I am a pentecostal preacher's son and have seen many healings in my life time. I have also seen signs and wonders that without question came from God. One example is: Before my Dad became a minister, my sister was in the hospital at the point of death. The doctor called my Mom and Dad into the hospital room to be with my sister in her last few minutes. My Dad decided to pray for my sister. He laid his hand on her forehead and said "God, if you'll heal my little girl, I'll do anything you ask of me". My Dad heard a voice that said "will you preach my word?" My Dad replied "yes, I'll do anything". At that instant, my sister woke from her coma and said "I want Momma". My Dad preached for 27 years. We cannot discount this and it makes the Bible come alive for us. Jesus said "My people know my voice". We know His voice.

Eddie Robbins <elriii@hotmail.com >
Cumming, GA USA - Wednesday, October 28, 1998 at 08:04:17 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethought.org/library/modern/judith_hayes/happy_heretic/1998/april.html

So as long as people consider the biblical tale of the 'fall of man' in Genesis (nature of mankind as we see today), as a made up story rather than actual revelation from a Supernatural being, and that it was made up by our ancestors just to explain why mankind is in such a predicament, then we would have to explain everything we see and understand without resorting to God.

If the biblical God does not exist, then WE must determine what is 'good' and what is 'bad'; and need not look to the bible/God as a reference point.

Steve Yue <sdyue@yahoo.com>
Mississauga, Ont Canada - Tuesday, October 27, 1998 at 22:57:40 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://freethought.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/

The problem is that Christianity has God pretty well locked up as to what His Essence is. Scientifically we know that their are Trillions of stars, and assuming their is a God it would be a fallacy to think there is not reasonably equivilent life to us throughout. Therefore there is a strong case to push for identifying Yaweh by name, hence making Him a "flavor" of God, clearly to be distinguished from the God of the Universe, by whatever identifiers are used there. Right now not enough people use this practice, in my opinion.

Anonymous
New York, NY USA - Tuesday, October 27, 1998 at 19:28:55 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.secular.org/activist/current/wire/states/archives/stories/anti_abortionist_races.html

Although I am not a woman, I believe that every type of abortion is illegal. I am an anti-abortionist and I hate abortionists, really. I am Catholic and believe in idolizing life. I listen to Heavy Metal, Death Metal, Hard Rock, Soft Rock, Blues and Reggae.

Matt "Creeping Death" Bledsoe <matt@mhiconn.net>
Hammett, ID USA - Tuesday, October 27, 1998 at 19:13:08 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Thanks for writing Matt. I'm having a hard time picturing a "creeping death" metal rocker who idolizes life, however. Also, I have to correct you, abortion is not illegal. (See the response below.)

James Still

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

first of all, i want to say that what happened to matthew shepard is a travesty and a tragic loss of human life. the two perpetrators of this crime need to be severly and swiftly punished to the full extent of the law. they are the ones responsible for this atrocity. no one from the christian coalition, 700 club, focus on the family, or any other christian organization is. let's be honest and objectively unemotional if we are going to intelligently discuss this. in an analogy, and all analogies break down at some point, let's look at what happens when a teenager somewhere in our country is listening to a heavy metal song talking about suicide and this teenager takes his or her own life, someone is going to try and blame the songwriter or singer as being responsible for this death. we know this is true because it has actually happened. the teenager takes his own life and it is a tragedy because it probably could have been prevented with counseling or attentive parenting maybe even an alert teacher or brave friend who would let somebody know that so and so has a problem. we cannot blame ozzy osborn for a teenage suicide just as we cannot blame jerry falwell or pat robertson for matther shepard's death. the two people that are in custody now are to blame. this is just my point of view after reading william edelen's october 16th article on the death of matthew shepard.

jonathan bush < j.m.bush@popmail.csuohio.edu>
cleveland, oh USA - Monday, October 26, 1998 at 15:40:08 (MST)

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

This is in response to the question of who is to blame for Matthew Shepard's death. The answer is all of us are. Christianity didn't kill Matthew Shepard, homophobia did and the sad truth is that homophobia isn't the sole property of theists. Atheists, agnostics and freethinkers can be homophobic as well. Trying to place the blame on theists, even those who are rabidly homophobic, like Rev. Phelphs, doesn't get us any closer to solving the problem. For every homophobic theist, there is a theist who's not homophobic, who accepts homosexuals for who they are or who is him/herself homosexual.

We shouldn't blame all Christians for the actions of a pair of young men who weren't acting out of religious convictions, but rather were acting out of fear, ignorance and stupid hatred of another.

Kathy Pulver < kathepulver@hotmail.com>
Muncie, IN USA - Monday, October 26, 1998 at 00:32:50 (MST)

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

PLEASE get your theology some what accurate when attempting to out-fox the Holy Scriptures... We're begging all of you tollerant 'free thinking' liberals to, FOR ONCE, comment on issues "in context." Its called intellectual honesty ... WOOPS... did we offend a suubscriber? Uh oh (-:

Scott S. DiVincenzo < scottidee@yahoo.com>
Buffalo, NY USA - Sunday, October 25, 1998 at 23:52:48 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/judith_hayes/happy_heretic/1998/easter.html

I was intreagued with the article on Dr. Laura and Ms. Lotz. And I thought I would take this opportunity to provide you with the story of my own conversion to atheism.

For myself, I am the product of child-rearing in a Pentecostal home; that was mostly delivered by my maternal grandfather. I believe that the fundamentalist experience, so early in life, was the sole reason that I abandoned religion completely when I became 17. The whole experience of the church meetings was a source of grand entertainment if not altogether confusing. Through it all, though I was lacking in any sophistication whatever, it was very difficult for me to be completely divorced from my critical mind. Frotunately, even then, I had the capacity to be peripheral to all the shennanigans that were happening at teh services. Sometimes, it was all I could do to keep myself from laughing out loud. Then again, perhaps outward laughing would not be considered such a great sin and probably would be interpreted as a sign of "God's presence" within me.The point is, though I didn't realize it at teh time, I was having great difficulty in taking these services seriously. Just as I was having as difficult a time of taking seriously the absurd debates I was having with my grandfather. Always prefaced with the challenge, "Have you given your heart to the Lord?" I have to admit to enjoying the inane sparring as I found it to berather stimulating; and what was most stimulating, was when he wouldpassionately retort: "That's the Devil speaking! That's the Devil speaking!" following those times when I score some winning points in the debates.

When I finally turned away from Pentecostalism at the age of 17, it was largely due to a particular event from which I could no longer ignore the transparent hyprocasy of this particular expression of Christianity, and the faith in toto.

On each Sunday, in the sparsely populated municipality of Surrey, B.C. where church services were held at least a mile from home, the men of the church would all be involved in a carpool from which they would provide transportation to all members who would benefit from it. On one particular sunday, the ride for me was provided by the minister himself. There was just thetwo of us in the car and at some point along the way, I yawned. "Did you not get enough sleep?", he asked. I admitted to being up late watching an Errol Flynn movie. (Errol Flynn was a real movie idol for me, at the time.) His response, in the iciest statements i had ever heard from him was: "Errol Flynn! There is one devil the world would be better off without!" It was at that precise moment that I knew I had outgrown my need for these people and all their hypocrasy. And that i didn't need religious dogma to make up my mind for me.

Now, being completely removed from any attachment to any form of religious beliefs or kowtowing to any superstitious practises, I believe that my appraisal of all the things that matter is not coloured by doctrinaire brain-washing. Of course, it is a bit more of a challenge to give an opinion on some issues,the nature of which are highly complex, when confronted with with a simple argument solely based on church dogma. How does one deal with the stock answer :"Well, the scripture says this....."? I strongly believe that religious doctrine, whether it is Christian or some other faith, stifles free thought and is the great saboteur of personal integrity.

My greatest complaint with regard religions is that there has been far too much of an emphasis on personal moral behaviour; and the qulality of one's worship to God(s) and the self-discipline around this worship. The whole problem with Christianity is that because we are separate from God,(by virtue of the sinful accident of birth - over which we had no choice) and that sin remains at the base of our humanity, we can't help but fall. The very strict definition of godliness is so unattinable that the only requiremnt for our salvation is that we continue to confirm and reafirm our faith in the redeemer. Regardless of the nature of the sin, this loophole remains in tact- and so long as we keep our affirmations to the redeemer, up to date, we are safe from eternal damnation.

The emphasis on personal morality is one of my greatest problems with religious doctrine as there is very little energy on the part of the churches expended towards the kind of changes this world requires. It is one thing for religious charities to go into those areas ravaged by war, floods, droughts and all the rest of the crises - mostly coming as a result of human activity. What would a lot more meaningful is if these powerful institutions would exert their power and influence upon those who are teh most responsible for the woes of the world. One of the greatest ironies of our times, is that the vast majority of leaders are chosen because they have so-called spiritual credentials. Can someone explain to me where the spiritual nobility is whenthe leadership of this world is complicit in the raping of nature for the exploitation of natural resources and the ghastly dumping of our toxic wastes? Not to mention the abhorrent exploitation of a vast and desperate worldwide workforce-many of which are living beneath subsistence levels so that the affluent can continue to enjoy their high status.

Quite a world we live in. It is so appalling that so many would abandon all effort towards the challenge of digging at the truth on their own; but would opt at the disengenuous practise of hanging on the words of Dr. Laura or Ms. Lotz.

If you have read up to this point, I thank you for your indulgence.

Brock MacLachlan <bmaclach@home.com >
Vancouver, B.C. Canada - Saturday, October 24, 1998 at 14:37:21 (MDT)

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

I stumbled on your website as I was looking for the Promise Keeper's Home Page. I decided to read a few articles to get an understanding of why there seems to be so much resistance to Promise Keepers from Feminist Groups and the Unreligious Left. I have seen so many men including myself move from typical American programmed males, to sincere family centered individuals.

My desire to understand the position of your organization is sincere. And I must say in all truthfulness that I still do not understand the tremendous hatred towards Promise Keepers. I will admit, however, that because of how American men have treated their wives and families for so long that we have brought this skeptism on ourselves. Claiming America to be a Christian centered country at its roots would certainly not instill confidence in Christianity based on the 200 years of performance. Men proclaiming Christianity as their basis for a new found love for family would consequently send alarm to any passive observer. When it might appear that progress is finally being made to bring about dignity and equality for women and minorities to hear that the "traditional" male is organizing would certainly be disheartening. As Patricia Ireland stated in one of the articles in your selection "Men are seeking to take control back". For all these reasons I sympathize with your cause. And while I cannot speak for the heads of the Promise Keepers or their motivations, I can testify to the fruit I have seen in the men I have been involved with and hope that the results of the actions of this organization will prove the opposition wrong and we will see strength in the American family again.

From an observer's standpoint, I have a few suggestions to make in looking at the Men's movement. 1. As a man I have never been attracted to the feminist movement because their seems to be no love directed towards the "Traditional American Man". The goals of wanting to have equality for women and minorities is certainly one that any loving person would embrace, however, this message is made in context of the oppression by the white male (primarily)and have been viewed as the enemy from the beginning. Being referred to as "them" as if we were not part of society will never bring men to the cause. If the primary focus was on a society of love and that was truly the focus, then it might provide appeal to people overall. As a side, let there be no mistake that the Promise Keepers is not an organization that is trying to win the world to its position. We know better than that. Our focus is on the fundamental problem of the American family and that is the neglect of the husband. We will never expect families who are not Christian to understand that or adopt it. Our goal is to restore unity to the American Christian family with Christ as its true center. Non Christian families who are attracted to the results of this focus will be the only ones who will adopt the principles we teach.

2. Promise Keepers as an organization is only representative of men who are interested in coming back to their families as a God centered principle. We don't claim to be an organization that wants to develop a mandate for the American family, only those families who want to have a Christ centered structure consistent with Biblical principles. This is quite different than the feminist movement which sets a standard of behavior which all families should suscribe to. This standard is packaged as being fundamentally fair and consistent with equalityy and dignity. When a family does not want to structure themselves in this manner they are considered to be right winged, oppressive, or backwards. What ever happened to the principle of choice? This mind set is not attractive to people who see this as presumptuous. The Promise Keepers model does not purport to work for all families- only those families that fundamentally want to have a Christian structure. If this were not the case then we would find a disproportionate percentage of men than women who ascribe to the Promise Keepers principles.

Promise Keepers is growing because it is filling a need that the feminist and liberal agendas don't with many families. If it is a farce or a wolf in sheep's clothing, then it will ultimately fail. If it is truly of God, then no organization or ideology will be able to stop it. If your philiosphies are true and worthy then your focus on promoting them to loving intelligent people instead of spending your time trying to undermine and track ever other opposing ideology would prove out. Christianity did not grow to the numbers it enjoys around the world by developing a manipulative strategy to gain political control of any government or social entity. It grew out of the fundamental principle that individuals need to have a relationship with a loving God. Any control that has occured because of this has been the result of either someone misrepresnting the message and furthering their own cause through the guise of Christianity or have genuinely attracted people to a God centered leadership. Only the effects of the latter will have any chance of longevity.

Patrick Hogan <hogansclan@aol.com >
Beaverton, OR USA - Saturday, October 24, 1998 at 10:17:57 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/library/modern/joe_nickell/miracles.html

I am a born again christian and i have a problem with what you wrote about tongues and such. HOW DO YOU KNOW?????? If you never have experienced it how do you know if its real or not. Please dont think im mad or anything but go to church and let GOD speak to your heart and accept JESUS as your personal LORD and SAVIOR!!! "IF YOUR LIVING LIKE THERE IS NO GOD, YOU'D BETTER BE RIGHT!!"

Jeremy Robson <jer11482@mediaone.net >
Jacksonville, Fl USA - Wednesday, October 21, 1998 at 14:12:57 (MDT)

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

Dear Dr. Dobson,

I e-mailed NBC this morning after listening to your program on my way to work. The e-mail address is: today@nbc.com I thought you would appreciate knowing what I wrote. My husband, my friends, and I all appreciate your work and your concern for our families. I am a public school teacher. I just told my principal this morning that approximately 75% of my students are church goers. I believe that accounts for the wonderful class that I am thoroughly enjoying this year.
Also, what a delight my friends and I shared as we attended the Philadelphia "Renewing the Heart." I shared with my 18 year old college freshman that when it's all said and done, his dad and I want him to "Be There!" He has accepted the saving Grace of our Lord, so we know he will be there. But he needs to consider his future as he lives his present!
Thank you for your ministry.

Kathleen Thulin


Good morning,

I am sending this e-mail to you as a concerned Christian. My concern stems from the question that Katie Couric asked of the Governor of Wyoming that related Focus on the Family and two other Christian organizations to the most unfortunate death of the young man in Wyoming. Had this remark been made about Jewish, African-American, Gay Rights Activist, etc. groups, the outcry would have been loud and huge. My faith teaches love, respect, and kindness - not hostility and certainly does not advocate any type of violence, hatred, nor murder. I heard on the radio this morning that callers in to NBC are being told that Ms. Couric and Dr. Dobson have spoken and "worked things out" when in fact, Dr. Dobson stated, that simply has not occured. NBC enjoys much high regard across our country for being a responsible organization. I do realize that your job is to report the news and that sometimes there are groups that are on the "hot plate." In this case, your reporting was unfounded, irresponsible, and highly offensive the Christian population in our country. I sincerely do hope that an apology is planned for linking the Christian organizations to this atrocious murder.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Kathleen Thulin
255 E. Bay Avenue
Manahawkin, NJ 08050
Manahawkin Baptist Church

Kathleen Thulin < kthulin@lehsd.k12.nj.us>
Brant Beach, NJ USA - Wednesday, October 21, 1998 at 09:58:33 (MDT)

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

I'm extremely pleased to find out that people like me are not as rare as I thought. I'm only 18, and many adults (eventhough I'm now classified as one) give me lectures about how I will definitely go to hell because I am an atheist. Any attempts to defend my beliefs is neglected because I'm "too young to fully understand." A million thanks for allowing people like me to show others that we don't have to discard beliefs other than our own. To be close minded is to look at the world through a straw. The picture is clear and bright, you only have to gather the courage to look at it.

Erick Vasquez < efevasquez@mixmail.com>
Los Angeles, CA USA - Tuesday, October 20, 1998 at 21:17:49 (MDT)

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

All I really want to know is; what is Religion?

Suzi <suz909@aol.com>
USA - Tuesday, October 20, 1998 at 19:27:23 (MDT)

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

What is the point of discissing theological topics when the existence of a "creator", God or otherwise, is an impossibility?

Robert Cotton <rac@northcoast.com >
Eureka, CA USA - Tuesday, October 20, 1998 at 18:00:56 (MDT)

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

Everyone has a right to their own personal thoughts and feelings. However, you cite several examples of Christ and point out "so-called" faults using Bible verses. That's great, but you don't bother to include the context of the verse. When reading the verse out of the Bible, including verses before and after those you cite, it takes on a whole new meaning. So perhaps you should include the context of the verse rather than excerpts fitted to suit your beliefs.

Keith Perry <kperry9@juno.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Monday, October 19, 1998 at 17:07:37 (MDT)

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

I've never seen anyone try so hard to go to Hell as you do. Good luck in your endeavors!!

steve <gotago@hotmail.com>
chicago, il USA - Monday, October 19, 1998 at 13:28:42 (MDT)

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

I have read with great deliciousness an article that challenges the belief that Mohammed wrote the Quarn. It appears that there exsists no original copy from the (so called) prophet's day. Not one copy!!!! The earliest copy of the Quran that can be found has been shown to be about 150 years after Mohammed's death. This is interesting, since there exsists today plenty of original works (original books) discovered from his area of the world that were written during and long before his day!!!! One would think that at least one original copy of such an "important work" would have survived. Of course every Muslim knows that the original Quran, the one from which the angel dictated to Muhammed, still exsists; why, its written on a stone and is in heaven!!! What a fake the Muslim religion is!!!!

William J. Herald < microbiology@sprynet.com>
Silver Spring, Md USA - Monday, October 19, 1998 at 01:56:13 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

If you are a Christian, it might be wise to avoid applying your new-found skepticism of the Qur'an to the New Testament texts. The earliest substantial portions of the NT texts have been dated to about 200 CE, or more than 150 years after Jesus' crucifixion. We don't see an entire NT until Codex Sinaiticus in the fourth century.

James Still

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

Contrary to the comments of the reviewer, it is the slight disparities of the New Testament witnesses that vouch for their veracity. Pat and identical testimony from several witnesses is always suspect as contrived. Several people seeing the same accident, for instance, will all relate the account from a different perspective. Yet there is a kernal of truth in each story-- that an accident in fact did happen and usually the basic facts are similar, who, what, when, where and how. It is the why that is always up to question. So the Gospel writers converge in the essentials.

Another essential fact for those who would question the Gospel account is the remarkable propensity of the Jew to transcribe accurately. A study of the scribe and his meticulous methods will prove that the scribe was trained to count letters and words and to guard the sacred writings against error. Those familiar with textual criticism will observe that the Bible possesses greater textual foundations than any other ancient book, codices, scrolls, fragments, ostraca, palimpsests, papyri--whole schools of documents stand behind the basic Greek and Hebrew texts. Many scriptures are repeated in other writings, targums, compendiums and versions. Homer and other ancient works are generally based on only one or two ancient sources. The Bible on hundreds and even thousands.

An internal study of the Scriptures such as that done by Ethelbert W. Bullinger shows a remarkable and inexplicable unity and poetry in the Bible that comes as close to supernatural as any book in human experience. Those who would discount it are attempting to dig away a mountain with a teaspoon.

Wayne Wall, D.Min., D.Th. < waynewall@compuzone.net>
Lexington, SC USA - Sunday, October 18, 1998 at 20:17:51 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

You would think that the "parallax" between different perspectives would be minimized among God's chosen people transcribing His Holy Scripture, no? Your opinions on the accuracy fly dead in the face of the over 200,000 variances in 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament alone! Errors in transcription are the rule not the exception. I would be interested to find out about even any two New Testament manuscripts which did not have any variances, as I currently know of none.

As C. Dennis McKinsey points out in his book The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, "The more variations on a story that are submitted, the less chance one has of reconstructing what really occurred."

Blaine Armsterd

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

Though your web site does an admirable job showing the foolishness of many fundamentalist positions, it fails to address intellectual proponents of the Christian religion. For such people it is a gross inaccuracy to assert the existence of a "problem of evil", or any other such philosophical absurdity that has no place in a rational, consistent view of the Christian religion.

John De Goes <jdegoes@prodigy.net >
Billings, MT USA - Sunday, October 18, 1998 at 17:43:32 (MDT)

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

Raised catholic, feared God because of turning Lot's wife into salt. Tried to get saved - prayed sinner's prayers but was always afraid that I wasn't saved. After 3 years of this a pastor told me all I had to do was accept the blood of Jesus. I did and said that I loved Jesus. I was confused because prior to this I had asked to receive the Holy Spirit and prayed in something other than english. I tried to reason how I could have been saved, but why was I afraid I wasn't. Catholic background I suppose. Put this on the shelf for many years. Just recently started to think about it again and decided if I was going to get back into this then I needed to look up a scripture to confirm that I was saved. At this point something inside me said f---you Jesus. I was devastated. I don't think that I can get back to God at this point. Has anyone found it this hard to have a relationship with God? Maybe that is why your site if so full of people that don't believe he exists. I don't believe it should have been this hard for me. The pastor just kept telling me that I was an unbeliever. I guess that I was. I pretty much feel that I am destined for hell if in fact it does exist. I frequent your site hoping to find someone that has maybe had a similiar negative experience with religion. I am in my early 40's and this as a reality sucks. I am taking prozac and valium to deal with this. Respond if you have any input.

Laura Haffkoss < four7s@citrus.infi.net>
Inverness, FL USA - Sunday, October 18, 1998 at 15:51:10 (MDT)

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

In response to Stephen Morris' article "Abortion:Why the Religious Right is Wrong":

Mr. Morris does an excellent job of discrediting many of the religious arguments against abortion. However, he has neglected to mention the simple, logical arguments against abortion that make no appeal to religion.

The most common pro-abortion argument offered is "A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body." While this sounds good, it doesn't hold under scrutiny. Nobody has the right to do whatever they want to their body: they cannot legally prostitute themselves or administer illegal drugs to themselves, for instance. Now, perhaps the ought to have the right to do these things to their bodies, that is an issue for the Supreme Court to decide someday. But in the meantime, it is inconsistant to have legal abortions without these other issues.

Chris Stafford <castafford@juno.com >
USA - Saturday, October 17, 1998 at 16:36:58 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

You've got some catching up to do Chris. That "someday" was over 25 years ago with Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, in which the Court extended the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause and right to privacy to strike down a Texas law that made it a felony to have an abortion. The Texas law, like those in other states, was based on the Victorian idea that a woman "belonged" to her husband as well as the religious belief that life begins at conception. The former idea was abandoned after the Suffragist and feminist movements of the twentieth century. The latter view is oversimplistic and crumbles upon close inspection. For example, is a one-day old fertilized egg a person? Ought we to consider a one-week old zygote to be a person? When is a person a person? Roe's solution to the problem was the idea of the trimester. Simply put, a woman's nine-month pregnancy is divided into three periods of three months each. The Court ruled that during the first trimester a woman's right to an abortion was protected and cannot be prevented by the state. The pro-life camp seeks to obscure this fact by showing pictures of fully-formed babies in its propaganda literature. Roe guarantees a woman's absolute right to abortion during the first trimester and leaves it up to each state to decide how to treat the matter in later stages of the fetus's development. Currently, there is a debate over whether to ban so-called "partial birth" abortions in those very rare cases when a mother's life is likely to be lost due to complications with the pregancy. But this issue has nothing whatever to do with a woman's right to abortion under Roe. I'd say that the common-sense approach that you are looking for Chris is found within the wisdom of the Roe v. Wade decision.

James Still

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

For anybody still questioning how atheists' lives have meaning, and for any atheist looking for a quick answer to that silly question, I have but one thing to say: because we feel that it has meaning. What else matters?

Anthony Lalli <isthatme@hotmail.com >
Santa Rosa , Ca USA - Saturday, October 17, 1998 at 01:31:40 (MDT)

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

When Evan Madsen says, "I don't believe in the material that your page displays. I believe that there is a God, and he is the one and only God. If you can give me actual proof that there is no God . . . " he commits the fallacy of requesting others to prove a negative.

If I were to claim that I have in my hand a Promissory Note in the amount of $5,326,892.35 signed by Evan Madsen, and demand that you either pay up of prove that I do not have such a note, I would be guilty of the same fallacy.

You would properly expect me to furnish evidence that the note did actually exist and that the signature was actually yours before you woud reach for your checkbook. By the same token, I expect people with claims about supernatural beings to furnish some real evidence of those beings before I join them in facing east five times a day or whatever. This is called the burden of proof, and it falls upon the person making the claim and upon no-one else.

If you do not agree that the burden of proof falls upon the one making the claim, first pay me my $5,326,892.35, and I shall happily perform whatever ritual gyrations as shall best please your fancy regarding your supernatural being.

Don Martin <don@vard.org>
Baltimore, MD USA - Friday, October 16, 1998 at 08:34:57 (MDT)

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

The hearts and minds of our young people are being corrupted by the false doctrines of Theism and Atheism.

The universe and everything in it was not created by Gods or Goddesses, but by the Great Invisible Aliens. Sure, some skeptics claim that there is no evidence for this, but they seem to disregard the fact that the Invisible Aliens are non-physical, disembodied, and live in an undetectable alternate dimension. Sure, nobody actually sees these entities, but only a "radical skeptic" would limit his ontological boundaries to that which can be seen. Look at the astounding complexity of biochemical systems, for example. Some of them are claimed, by Alienist Biochemist Makemego Hehe, to be "irreducibly complex." Obviously, these biochemical systems where designed purposively by the Invisible Aliens. Anyone who claims that evolutionary theory can account for these systems must have some sort of irrational, a priori bias against Alienism.

Consider the origin of the universe. As the noted Alienist philosopher, Dr. Million Drane Keg, points out, the "universe" had a beginning to its existence, and since everything which has a beginning to its existence has a cause for its existence, it follows that the Invisible Aliens caused the universe to exist. Uh, or something like that.

These Invisible Aliens have taken on form and manifested themselves to human beings, so that they might know the way to Dimension X, which, like the theistic "heaven," is only seen after death. Today there are thousands of "true believers" to whom the Aliens have shown themselves by taking on the form of "Grays". Sure, some skeptics claim that Alien Believers are all a bunch of credulous nuts. But, hey, thousands of people have seen them (compare this, for example, with the paltry number of people who Christians claim to have been witness to Jesus' life)! Many have been "swept up" into their bizarre crafts and undergone anal probes or had sperm samples collected by these aliens.

These aliens are cultivating the Earth as a food source. When the time is right, the aliens will harvest the crop of humans. IN that day there will be tribulation such as the world has never seen. Those who believe in the Aliens will be taken to Dimension X, where they will enjoy eternal life, and those who disbelieve will be cast into the fire and roasted until well-done.

As the distinguished Alienistic Philosopher Rascal has pointed out, one has much to gain, and nothing to lose, by believing in the Invisible Aliens. If they exist, and if one believes in them, one will go to Dimension X. If they do exist, and one does not believe in them, them one gets roasted. On the other hand, if the aliens do not exist, and one does believe in them, nothing has been lost. Surely the rational thing to do, then, is to believe in these aliens.

All Hail the Great Invisble Aliens from the undetectable Dimension X,
Believe, for the ALien Harvest is at Hand,
You have been warned,

Brother Xenon-

ps- any similarity of the foregoing arguments to those of theistic apologists is purely intentional. Only the names have been changed to protect the ignorant.

pps- Keep up the great work Infidels!

Patrick S. <ps418@aol.com>
Louisville, Ky USA - Thursday, October 15, 1998 at 19:58:47 (MDT)

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

What's your point ? A segment of scholars have said the bible is infallable.

The book, or books, can be flawed. We know they have gone through translations in language and possibly meaning. What was once considered the writing of Moses is now translated to be the word of God. Sure, I understand the spin. This doesn't necessairily mean God doesn't exist. I may simply mean the people who write of him are flawed.

I find it difficult to believe that we can define matter, electricity, magnetism, and energy, but have run into a wall on life and existance. We can monitor the effects of life in a biological entity in terms of respiration, transpiration, neural activity, and motion, but we can't identify the seemingly non-existant spark that causes these effects. Certainly we can identify where certain reflexes and autonomic activities originate, but where is the source of the will. What is it and where does it reside. How is it measured, analysed, and weighed.

This is a science far beyond our mechanical measuring devices so it is little wonder that flaws are present in your readings. You need to have the vision and desire to see beyond the common meanings and into the realm of the human spirit to understand the more profound meaning.

I am sorry that you cannot see or hear what I see and hear. I believe that God created all things and if men are not articulate enough to convey that to each other in a fashion that everyone can accept, it is not his fault.

Russ < russellwaymire@consumeraccess.com>
houston, tx USA - Thursday, October 15, 1998 at 12:04:35 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

Well, yes, it would be God's fault, because this god is allegedly omniscient and omnipotent, so an omniscient, omnipotent entity could have made "men" articulate enough to convey this "in a fashion that everyone can accept." If not, then this god is not omnipotent and omniscient. Furthermore, this god could give the world an unequivocal demonstration of his existence to settle once and for all the question of his existence. The fact that this obviously hasn't been done has to mean that he either can't do it or won't do it. If he can't do it, then he isn't omniscient and omnipotent. If he won't do it, then he just doesn't give a damn about us, so if he doesn't give a damn about us, I feel entitled not to give a damn about him.

Your posting also expresses an attitude of, "Isn't it too bad that everyone else isn't as insightful as I am?" You are claiming, in effect, that you have the insight to see into the problem of existence and understand what all of the answers are, but others can't. Perhaps you should stop and consider that what you are mistaking for insightfulness is really gullibility.

Farrell Till

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidel.org/library/modern/fred_edwords/not-dead.html

I don't know much about "Creationism" nor "Evolutionism". But I do know something about the Holy Scriptures. It does not favour either. When both sides try to add or subtract to it, there is a red flag that goes up in my head. For example, If one realizes that the Holy Scriptures aligns and does not conflict, one would immediately have problems (unless there is an elaboration - "adding or subtraction"). Try to twist the word "day" and substitute it for "24 hours" and immediately the error of that logic will show itself.

Rey Blanco <rey@internet-ici.com >
Chicago, IL USA - Wednesday, October 14, 1998 at 21:30:00 (MDT)

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

If you want to refute the bible? That is fine. But,dont twist pieces of scripture around to fit your agenda. You people clearly have no clue to what the holy canon can reveal to you if you would only open your stubborn minds. I challenge any of you to read the scriptures as a whole and not by verse alone, and I garauntee that you will be on your knees praying for own salvation. Jesus will return. LOOK BUSY.

D.Smith <Smithpk@prodigy.net>
mcdonough, USA - Tuesday, October 13, 1998 at 18:05:18 (MDT)

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

Creationists have finally slipped one past the goalkeeper. Cambridge University Press has just published William A. Dembski's THE DESIGN INFERENCE. In it Dembski acknowledges such creationists as Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and A. E. Wilder-Smith. The creationist David Berlinski wrote the jacket endorsement (see below).

If you really want to see what Dembski is up to, compare this book to his blatantly theological MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (from the evangelical Christian publisher InterVarsity). This book has also just been published. In it Dembski lays out the theological agenda behind the so-called "intelligent design movement."

This neo-creationism is a lot more sophisticated and slickly packaged than the creationism that lost in the courts back in the 80s. Given that 50% of Americans are creationists, this new-style creationism may not only slip past the academic publishers (as it has here), but also past the courts. The threat to science education is real. I urge you to take this threat seriously and meet it head on.

Marty Rudin < martyrudin@hotmail.com>
Minneapolis, MN USA - Monday, October 12, 1998 at 15:48:17 (MDT)

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

I am commenting on this article:

George Smith: How to Defend Atheism (1976)
[This speech was delivered before the Society of Separationists in 1976. It was transcribed from an audiocassette which had the title, "Atheism: The Case Against God." However, in order to avoid confusion (since Smith has published a book under that same title), I have retitled this speech as "How to Defend Atheism." -- jjl]

Although there is some good stuff here, this article is extremely fast and loose with epistemic terms. It is not only fast and loose, it is largely inaccurate regarding at least the term "true" and the term "false."

For instance, Smith says that, "The atheist, proceeding from the habit of reasonableness, will ultimately reject the claims of religion and the claims of theism as false. And therefore he will reject the belief in God as being unreasonable." The "claims of theism" are not false anymore than they are true. What smith wants to say is that the claims of religion are "unverifiable," not "false." For if they were false, we could come up with an instance of their opposite, truth, which we cannot. Since we cannot not come up with any evidence that would make them true, they cannot be false. For a truth necessarily implies its opposite. In fact, the tenets of religion (the metaphysical tenets) are not even statements, since to qualify, epistemically, as statements, they must be either true or false. That is to say, the metaphysical tenets of religion are not "truth functional," because they are not statements, and are thus "UNVERIFIABLE." We can relegate those metaphysical tenets to the status of poetry, also not truth functional. However, the fact that they are unverifiable cannot, in any way, make them false. For is a statement is unverifiable, how do we verify its falseness? We cannot give evidence for that sentence because, by the sheer nature of the sentence "God exists" (given that we are talking about a being that is other than space or time), the sentence purports to go, literally, beyond our cognitive ability to "know," which is always, by definition, "in" space and time. Cognitive knowledge takes the form "S knows that P." This implies that the subject "S" has knowledge of something, "P." How can we have knowledge of some--"thing" that is technically not a "thing" at all (since "things" take up space and have "duration," which is to say they are "in time and space"). I mean can we even imagine something that is not taking up space or that does not have duration( even ideas have duration, which means a beginning and end)? We can't, so any ejaculation in language that takes an other than space and time form must be unknowable to us, cognitively. So you can see my problem. Smith's premises are unsound based on epistemology (standards of logic, such as P or not P). Hence, his argument is invalid. His argument could be changed and become stronger if only Smith understood epistemology on a deeper level. A better argument would be to say that God is relegated an existence that is other than space and time(recall that we cannot think in terms other than space and time, or if we can, we can't know it cognitively) is to say that God goes beyond language. If God is beyond language, we might want to take Wittgenstein’s advice seriously, which is--"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." And that goes for both atheists and theists!

Doug Dallam <zap@zapweb.net>
Bakersfield, CA USA - Monday, October 12, 1998 at 00:13:29 (MDT)

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

Excellent Work!! I am a frequent visitor to your site.

Daniel Najarro < adynajarro@hotmail.com>
Port Charlotte, FL USA - Sunday, October 11, 1998 at 22:18:25 (MDT)

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

I'd like to ask a question if i may... I am an athiest but in a discussion with an evangelical christian he put forward an argument for the divinity of the bible that i was not able to answer in a satisfactory way. He said that since the bible has many references to the number 'seven' (eg alot of the words have seven letters as well as other references like the seven deadly sins)it must be divinely inspired because there are many references to seven in the natural world (eg 7 days of the week, 7 lunar cycles). I think his argument was along the lines of the number seven being like god's "signature". The Koran and other supposedly divinely inspired books have nowhere near the amount of references to the number seven as the bible does. As i read this letter back to myself the argument sounds ludicrous but he was able to put forth many many examples of the number seven occurring in both the bible and in the natural world. Could these references be just a coincidence? I think you guys have a great site, keep up the good work.

Louis Friend < jeckyllandhyde@hotmail.com>
Seattle, WA USA - Sunday, October 11, 1998 at 07:33:45 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

First of all, a week is a man-made convention, not a natural phenomenon. I have never heard of 7 lunar cycles, but I suspect that it's also a convention. See http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/my_divinity.html for examples of how numerology can be misused.

Rich Daniel

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

Your commentary on "Americanism" is a crock of crap. damn commie-bastards, you make me sick.

Patrick Henry <illmilitia@aol.com >
Fresno, Ca USA - Saturday, October 10, 1998 at 23:24:44 (MDT)

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

I don't know if you can answer this question, but how long did it take Mr. Drange to research and compile this article? It seems to me that he has invested a great amount of time. I don't think most Christians study the Bible as much as he must have studied to gather his information. Just wandering.

Bill Mathis <bfmathis@tnweb.com >
Lewisburg, TN USA - Saturday, October 10, 1998 at 08:25:37 (MDT)

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

I have a slightly large problem with the article by Judith Hayes. Now I believe in freedom of belief and freedom of religion, I consider myself religious to an extent, but I totally disagree with the way she discusses "freedom of religion" It is totally up to the individual if he or she decides to pray, there should be a time made for just that, no matter what religion the individual happens to be. If a person chooses to be an athiest, well that is there decision, and if they choose to be religious, well then so be it. I do not believe that prayer should ever be "inappropriate" anywhere including schools. It happens to be freedom of choice. Freedom of religion I believe is also in the constitution, and for anyone to imply that it is "incorrect, or will cause havoc" is totally wrong. People need something to believe in. Something to have faith in. And I for one believe that lack of the right to practice prayer in the school systems, has affected our children for the worse. I am religious, but I do not condemn others for there opinions or beliefs, unless it is harmful to other people. To say that there is or are no Gods happens to be a false statement. What proof does she have? Then again what proof do I have that there is a God.? I go on my beliefs, but I suppose I could be wrong. But even if I am what difference does it make? It can't hurt me any to believe in God, can it? And if I am right? I will reap the rewards for my loyalty. I am willing to risk prayer and worship, for myself and my children if it means that there will be good things for us in the end. I will have so much if I am correct (and I believe I am.) What will you have?

Autumn Estes <isis@cass.net>
MI USA - Friday, October 09, 1998 at 16:38:27 (MDT)

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

I am writing in regaurds to the USA today article about health. As a firm believer in my personal savior Jesus Christ, I must agree with the doctors that going to church and praising God is the best medicine in the world. Sure, I have had my doubts in God in my life, but I searched from pleasure to pleasure trying to figure out the meaning of life. After failing, I soon came across this church that preached the gospel,which is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, I knew that this was what was missing from my life. Know feeling or high in the world can compare to what God has to offer. It is your choice, you have eternal life,which is pure love and happiness forever, no more pain or suffering forever, on one side. Or you just die and thats it,nothing,life has no meaning. What would you rather have? Life is too short not to believe. Science cannot explain squat. There info is based on theroies and speculations. How can you look at the complex universe and not believe in God? That is why more scientists are turning to God nowadays. Are you truly satisfied with the Atheist life that you are living,if not,then remember one thing:Jesus loves you no matter what. Since this site stresses freedom of religion, I wonder if this will be posted on the site? What are yall afraid of? God bless

jeremy <mcc27@gte.net>
USA - Friday, October 09, 1998 at 03:40:49 (MDT)

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

I am responding to the article "Can Creationism be Scientific?" by Theodore Drange. I would like to say that I thought the article (I admit I did not read the entire article) was reletively fair and I appreciate the fact that it addressed the facts rather than attacking the credibility of Christians as do many other similiar type articles.
however I think it is sad because there are answers to many of the questions that where listed about the credibility of Biblical Creationism. Here are some (and I could spend a good deal of the night listing many more) problems with evolutionism:

1. Evolutionism contradicts the first law of thermodynamics and can not explain how matter got here from nothing.

2. Evolution contradicts the second law because it can not explain how order came from disorder (second law states that disorder increases without intervention). The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, and must be applied to the whole of the system. Too strictly applied, this law implies that you cannot "straighten out your sock drawer". Many scientific, chemical and mechanical processes depend upon order increasing inside of a system. This is what makes it possible, say, for gasses to be separated from one another.

3. There is LESS fossil evidence for evolution today than in the time of Darwin (most so-called "missing links" have been discredited by secular scientists).

4. Evolutionists "forget" that catastrophies such as a Genisis flood could accout for the formation of the Grand Canyon and other geological wonders.

5. Rock dating methods such Carbon 14 dating have been proven VERY unreliable.(fossil ages are detemined by index fossis, who's age is detemined by the geologic column--an example of circular reasoning. They determine the age of the fossil by what layer it is found in, then they determine the age of the rock layer by what fossil it is found in. The underlying assumption here is the theory of evolution, not scientific fact. As I said before, I could go on and on. There ARE answers to your questions if you are willing to hear them. I don't know who will read this response, but please feel free to e-mail me if you would like more information. The Bible does provide a very reasonable explanation for how we got here as well as for many other very important things. I hope to hear from you soon. Thanks for reading this.

Scott Pasterski <Scottp89@aol.com >
Norristown, PA USA - Thursday, October 08, 1998 at 16:49:07 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Rich Daniel and Blaine Armsterd

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidel.org/library/modern/ibn_al-rawandi/review.html

I completely disagree with your moronic statements. Although it is true that we do get pissed off quite easily, does not mean that we are a moronic society. You are walking a fine line, better watch your back, or we'll bust out the Rushdie fatwa on your ass.

Bye now
Amanda Smith
Whitehorse, YU Canada - Thursday, October 08, 1998 at 12:09:31 (MDT)

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

I am a roman catholic, but I AM NOT a holly roller. I understand your movement, but having a faith does not mean you are incapable of what you call free thought. Having studied various courses in biology, genetics, and evolution it is clear to see that some things did not happen EXACTLY as in the bible. But here's a way to think about it: what if the first apes that could "think" we the Adam and the Eve. The bible says the world was created in 7 days, but when the world was cooling from being a ball of molten rock nobody said the world was rotating once every 24 hours. It might have taken a million years for it to turn just once. What you need to differentiate from is the blind followers from the educated followers. Many catholics don't agree with everything the church today stands for, and many of the scientific truths we hold dear today are disproved also. We KNEW 300 years ago the world was flat, and catholics recognised Jesus as our savior. Three hundred years later our church holds the same beliefs. The science bandwagon can't say that about 3/4 of their laws - even over the course of five years. Just try to think of the whole picture before you start trying to bash what people think.

John N <jN@landsedge.com>
Phila, PA USA - Wednesday, October 07, 1998 at 19:43:14 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/jones-parsons-martin/close.html

I really appreciate this particular web site. I have been a student of comparative religious studies for over 17 years, since my adolescence. I have rejected all that Christianity stands for pertaining towards "religion." I believe Christianity is humanities worst criminal. It would pleasent to see more books electronically transposed on this website. There are some rare books which are quite difficult to get in reference. I do not know legality of books online, but it would be relevant to see Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Albert Churchward and Sir James George Frazier online.

Samuel Ibn-Yishach < oboverview@hotmail.com>
Dayton, OH USA - Tuesday, October 06, 1998 at 09:24:36 (MDT)

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

Discovered your site about 2 months ago and it has given me hours of enjoyment since. A valuable nexus to more interesting parts of the internet. Also, articles displaying the greatest intellectual integrity, balance, and fairmindedness I have yet found on the net... not just a rag for angry or self-satisfied atheists. Especially liked articles by Graham Oppy and Richard Dawkins. Have sent a link to friends and foes alike! Keep it up.

John Paul Jaubert <JPJaubert@aol.com >
La Porte, TX USA - Monday, October 05, 1998 at 11:46:21 (MDT)

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

This is a great site and very informative. Under the links to individual states, why is there not one for Oklahoma? Oklahoma just happens to be completely submerged in the RRR [radical religious right].

Sean Goade <seang@ssicards.com >
Edmond, OK USA - Monday, October 05, 1998 at 11:07:12 (MDT)

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

As of 3 months ago, i was an avid Christian. I was confused about where to go, what to believe, even how to live, thinking that there was not much out there for me. i live in a very consevative city, predominately Christian, and live in a Baptist home. I found your web searching Atheism for a sociology paper on Free Thinkers, and although i have found a lot as it is, if anyone can e-mail me with sociological aspects of free-thought i would be extremly greatful.

Jonette Shaffer < Shaffer.Joni@mailexcite.com>
Severna Park, MD USA - Monday, October 05, 1998 at 10:32:47 (MDT)

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

Just a quick note to say how much I love the site and what a relief it is.

Eric Busch <EBusch2048@aol.com >
Inkster, Mi USA - Sunday, October 04, 1998 at 22:13:21 (MDT)

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

In looking through you website, I notice that you stress "reason" as a argument against Jesus Christ and christianity. I think you should do some "serious reasoning" by asking yourself this question: Why do I spend so much useless time and wasted energy trying to prove that something doesn't exist if,in fact,it really does not exist?

Neal Locke <neallocke@yahoo.com >
Rachel, WVv USA - Sunday, October 04, 1998 at 19:02:24 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html

I am the director of Christian Education for a large evangelical Methodist Church in South Georgia. I have been asked to lead a class of deism and I greatly appreciated the fine work which you have done in putting together the subject of George Washington and his (lack of) religious beliefs. However, it would seem that I still have some questions or rather points that I believe that it would be interesting to consider. Would you be open to a dialouge on this subject? Again you have done a fine job in producing this site...congratulations.

George Fisher <paumc@datasys.net>
Valdosta, Ga USA - Sunday, October 04, 1998 at 14:24:27 (MDT)

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

As a non American I am extremely hesitant to comment on your article about Church/State separation but as many people emigrated to our country to escape religious persecution, as did others to yours (such as the passengers in the Mayflower) I believe the provisions of your 1st Amendment should be defended rigorously. Give an inch and they will devour the whole hand.

Look at the situation in Greece for example: Although the constitution of the modern Greek State guarantees freedom of religion, there is as yet no Church/State separation. Their Constitution guarantees the position of the Greek Orthodox Church as the "prevailing religion". This means that this Church permeates all sectors of public life, including the public administration, the judicial system, the police, public education and practically every other aspect of society. The all-encompassing presence of the Church has meant oppression and manifold difficulties for religious minorities. Despite the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, whenever a religious minority attempts to demand its rights it almost always finds itself enmeshed in an impenetrable web of religious bias, prejudice and opposition that this Church/State relationship has woven.

Greek law requires that that the personal identity card of all Greek citizens must indicate the religion to which each citizen belongs. More and more people in Greece are actively seeking a revision of the Constitution - Church leaders, naturally object. Sressing the urgent need for the separation professor of Constitutional Law Dimitris Tsatsos (a member of the European Parliament) stated "The Church must stop ots domineering of social, political and educational life. It is a despot ruling over our educational system and our society. I demand the separation of Church and State". Do you want to unleash this despot in America?

Charles Martin Halle < radcliff@iafrica.com>
Margate, South Africa - Sunday, October 04, 1998 at 13:15:42 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Thank you for your further example of the dangers of joining Religion and Government. Your reply describes the very things that could transpire here if we don’t heed what is happening.

No, I definitely do NOT want to "unleash this despot in America." My piece was intended as a warning—first to those who may not realize that our religious freedom in America is in real jeopardy, and secondly, to those who are abusing this freedom, telling them that further actions, such as a Religious Freedom Amendment, could result in their losing the privileges they already have.

Americans have been ingrained with the idea that you should help religion, but never criticize, and this attitude has allowed religions to gain power. Since they are all exempt from income and property taxes, some churches and religious groups have accumulated vast wealth. They own more than 25 percent of the land in this country, even more than the Federal Government, and it's all untaxed. I live in Colorado Springs where the Focus on the Family organization, a religious empire, recently built a multi-million dollar headquarters. It takes in well over $100 million a year, but because of its religious exemption, pays no property tax, so that taxpayers pay their $575,000 tax bill. The group’s political activities are easily financed by the five percent it is permitted, giving them far more money to lobby with than opposing PAC’s have. The group's leader is now issuing ultimatums to Congress to enforce legislation he favors.

Using their tax advantage, right-wing Christians have organized into a powerful voting bloc which has put their people into Congress, and they are attempting to promote their religious beliefs in government legislation, either as a matter of doctrine, as in banning birth control, or to tap the taxpayers’ treasury.

If we have any hope of stopping all this, I believe we need to threaten their base of support—their tax-exempt status, which many think is illegal. The threat of losing their Golden Goose may persuade them to stop government interference.

However, if we lose further rights—and the danger is very real--then I feel we should threaten to undo the framework that has allowed this theocratic takeover. I would hope it would never come to such a radical move, but they must know that we will not go quietly into that good night….

J. Brazill

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

The Argument from the Bible (1996)
By Theodore M. Drange

If one is going to debate the "truth", one should make sure ones facts are straight. In brevity, I use only one example. Mr. Drange uses the premise "All Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled." It is evident from scripture this is not the case. The Bible states "...seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul." Deuteronomy 4:29.

No matter how many beliefs there may be there can only be one truth. The dilema facing believing Chritians is conveying the fact that they have found the One Truth to others without wanting to sound arrogant. Before debating the truth we should get our priorities in order: Seek God, He will reveal hiself, recieve Him as says and you will know the truth. It's realy very simple, just as the truth should be.

David Harrison <davidharrison@firstvisionav.com>
Toronto, On Canada - Saturday, October 03, 1998 at 14:26:09 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Ted Drange

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

If Christ was ignored throughout history, perhaps I would also ignore Him. As it is, He is the most talked about, sneered at, controversial subject today and forever past. His claims of just this kind of behavior towards Himself are being acted out.

I am not greatly interested in argument. It proves nothing in my life. I am an electronic engineer with such qualities as would make me an intellectual. There is much healing in my life as a result of His work which led me to believe and trust Him. I would receive discussion and share my testimony if one was interested.

Dave Largent <dlargent@coinco.com >
St. Louis, MO USA - Friday, October 02, 1998 at 11:55:48 (MDT)

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

I personally think that the 'Freedom of Religion' should stay that way. There are so many ways to worship one's deity/deities. Or, not to worship at all, as my fiancee' is an atheist. Diversity is a good thing, one united religion would make slaves of us and turn us into something no better than the Borg in Star Trek. People need to be allowed to be who and what they are without anyone else telling them they're right or wrong, since right or wrong is based on one's own perception. One's own truth doesn't mean it is someone else's necessarily.

Lynn Larsen <reunion@netwalk.com >
Columbus, OH USA - Thursday, October 01, 1998 at 08:56:05 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Thank-you for your Feedback. Yes, I would like to see "Freedom of Religion" stay that way. I believe that separation of church and state is one of the finest ideas ever conceived. History proves its value, and even now some of the Scandinavian states are going through a process of "disestablishing" their official churches.

But freedom OF freedom must include FROM religion as well. The only freedom the promoters of the Religious Freedom Amendment want is the freedom to take over the public square to declare (and eventually enforce) their religion. They claim that because our Constitution does not allow this, they do not have religious liberty and need to amend our Constitution. Their proposed legislation would give religion "special rights" over and above what the First Amendment carefully assigns. That would be a tremendous revision in our system, and we would have essentially lost our Freedom of Religion.

In that case, yes, I would prefer the European solution which at least requires religions to support themselves.

J. Brazill

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

Your web site was suggested by a friend of mine and after reviewing it, I wish more people would read and understand the points you so clearly make. As a Christian, and a strong believer in Evolution, it is unfortunate that most "believers" take the Biblical text so literally. It is difficult to express in physical terms the spiritual concepts that make us "Gods". These concepts, many of which are described in Eastern religions as well (or philosophies, if you prefer)I rely on daily. I could write forever on these topics, but time (not eternal at this point) in my schedule is unavailable.

Cindy Bleichner < bleichner@wingnet.net>
Reliance, TN USA - Thursday, October 01, 1998 at 07:14:20 (MDT)

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

Look, I understand the direction you are coming from with you article about the implications of the Freedom of Religion Amendment. You believe that religion and the government should exist in a vacuum, separate from each other. Unfortunately, that is not realistic. Deal with it, there are religious people in this country. These people let their religion influence the way they live and interact with society. This means when they vote, their religious beliefs influence how they vote. The 1st Amendment with regard to religion is quite simple. There can be no official state supported religion and within reason (child sacrifice and the like don't fit the bill)the government cannot interfere with the free exercise of religion.

Now here is where the "wall of separation" breaks down. All children are required to be educated. Now some of us are blessed with the means (some instances we just plain make decide that somethings are less important to make the means) to send a child or children to a private school, religious or what have you, to give that child an education that will compliment what we are trying to teach our children at home. However, there are some that no matter how much they sacrifice and give up just can't afford to pay a private tuition. Therefore, the only options are home-schooling or public school. Now let us say that either this is a very low income family where both parents have to work or say there is only one parent who must support the family. This leaves only public school. Now I'm not saying that all public schools are bad and evil, but many parents, especially those of religion, feel that public education tends to undermine everything from religious teaching to parental authority in the home. What are these folks to do? Just stand by and let their children be swept away or should they stand up and try to change the system? By forcing these parents to send their children to public school doesn't that deny them right to excercise their religion when many religion admonish parents to instill the "faith" in their children. There has to be an alternative?

As for revoking tax-exemption for religious groups, I won't deny that there are some religious groups that are in reality political groups cashing in on tax-exemption status, but what about the genuine organizations that are hurt by changing these laws. Groups that provide services to the faithful and unfaithful alike who often have to restrict or even shut down because in an environment where the government is picking their pocket they just can't balance the books.

The problem is... really that both sides want to use the government to control the other side. To force the other to their point of view. This is where the 1st Amendment comes in. The government can't force you to believe or discriminate because of it any more than it can force me not to believe or discriminate because of it. However, it seems to me that something is not jiving when people feel that the 1st Amendment is not enough to protect them from the government.

Dennis Adkins <dadkins@mtneer.net >
Beckley, WV USA - Thursday, October 01, 1998 at 01:14:22 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Your response to my article indicates that you are a "non-preferentialist,"--you believe that the First Amendment only means that our government cannot prefer one religion over another, i.e., no "official" religion. I am a strong separationist and I think my view is completely realistic. To me, the words that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that our government must separate itself from all religions in its conduct of civil policy and avoid any appearance of favoring religion over non-religion. This tradition has allowed a variety of religions to flourish in our country, and I really cannot understand any religious person being blind to the advantage of a neutral government. Please read "The Establishment Clause," by Leonard W. Levy (Macmillan Publishing).

Of course the ethics your religion may teach you will affect everything you do, even discussions of public affairs. Religious IDEAS, however, should not be legislated, because this infringes on the religious liberty of all those not of the same faith.

Your statement that many parents feel that "public education tends to undermine everything from religious teaching to parental authority in the home," gives away your whole argument. Modern life demands that our children be better educated, and new ideas are what is required in a modern world. If you want to reject the world, be honest like the Amish, and retire to your closed community, but ask no help from the taxpayer.

You mentioned that property tax-exemptions should not be revoked for non-profit groups engaged in true humanitarian work. I agree, and any national program would have to work this out. The proposed Colorado Amendment specifically addressed this issue, listing groups such as schools, programs for orphans, the elderly, and the homeless as a "duty" of society, and it allowed them continued exemption from paying property tax. All other non-profits that owned property -- churches, religious organizations, fraternal lodges, Boy Scout camps -- were termed "charities" and denied further tax support.

I must take issue with your statement that "both sides want to use the government to control the other side." So far, it’s strictly one-sided with conservative legislators attempting to enforce their religious ideas through legislation. The Religious Freedom Amendment was an effort to "use the government" to promote religion. Since you imply that religion needs protection from the government, perhaps you are confusing the enforcement of constitutional laws with persecution and an effort to control.

J. Brazill

Last updated: Tuesday, 12-Feb-2008 11:47:44 CST

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

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