Infidels: Feedback : September 1998

September 1998

Send Feedback

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

I like the web site, it's thought provoking. I also heard one of you guys on Art Bell a few weeks ago, which I enjoyed.

Kristian Wray <bible@cyberdude.com >
CEDAR CITY, UT USA - Wednesday, September 30, 1998 at 20:07:04 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html#31

Hyam Maccoby, who is cited in the discussion on Judaism, recently claimed in The Times Literary Supplement (London, 1998.09.11):

As to homosexuality, what Leviticus forbids is not homosexuality as understood today (in other words, a permanent orientation), but homosexual acts performed by heterosexuals (for example the molestation described in Genesis 19:4-5). That certain human beings might be radically homosexual was a conception not envisaged by Leviticus, but later Judaism came near to it by its doctrine of androgynous and doubtful sexual constitutions (see Mishnah, Bikkurim, 4).

So vague a defense of 2500 years of homophobic persecution is surely a slippery slope to self-justification and discredits any and all citations from this scholar (presently at the Centre for Jewish Studies at the University of Leeds). Is it not the habit of the revealed religions to reveal ever more formerly veiled threats rather than to simply apologize? What is they cover up but snobbery.

Stephen Weinstein <ihi@tiac.net>
Natick, MA USA - Wednesday, September 30, 1998 at 14:00:35 (MDT)

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

I am sorry to hear that you think my God is something you don't have to answer to but by the way when you see him face to face remember that your knee will bow and you will call him Lord. Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected for you also. So if you get to see him before me tell him that you have no excuse for not believing him because Mike Summers told you about him.

r.m.summers <rmike@WIREFIRE.COM >
PARKERSBURG, WV USA - Tuesday, September 29, 1998 at 17:53:08 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

We will be sure to work your name into the conversation.

Blaine Armsterd

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

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 and everything wasn't created by him and is not controlled by him, then i will believe everything you say. Otherwise, I don't think you should be displaying unproven material as though it was true. That is all i have to say. If you would like to write back you may. Thank you for your time.

Evan Madsen <Letterhunk@aol.com >
Allentown, PA USA - Tuesday, September 29, 1998 at 17:48:32 (MDT)

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

Thank you for your fascinating web site.

David Baboulene <david.baboulene@kavanagh.co.uk>
Brighton, UK - Tuesday, September 29, 1998 at 05:19:38 (MDT)

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

Re: "Science and Miracles" by Theodore M. Drange (1998), "Centuries ago it was regarded a law of nature that matter cannot be destroyed." Is it not still accepted in physics that matter/energy can niether be destroyed nor created?

Temy R. Beal <temyb@gte.net>
Ariton, AL USA - Monday, September 28, 1998 at 14:51:50 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

It depends on what you mean by "destroyed". In my college physics classes, I remember reading that anti-matter/matter interactions have been observed in a labratory, and as expected, the mixture resulted in the destruction of both, and the creation of energy. Likewise, nuclear fission and fusion do not follow the laws of conservation of mass. As for truly "destroying" matter, as in making it vanish without turning it into energy, no, there's no evidence that this can happen.

Blaine Armsterd

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

Just a quick salute to your webpage. This is the first time I've landed here and I'll definitely be back. Excellent site for those interested in and committed to the promotion of secular humanism!!

Thanks,

M.Victor Lemas, Ph.D.
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes
jhmi.edu <mvlemas@jhmi.edu>
Baltimore , MD USA - Monday, September 28, 1998 at 11:11:54 (MDT)

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

As a Canadian, I'm afraid of some of the consequences of the Religious Freedom Amendment (RFA). Religious zealots, such as the Christian Coalition, are not restricted to the USA; we also have those in Canada. If they win something this big in your country, Canada will eventually follow in this folly. We are usually just a few steps behind when it comes to such things, and I, for one, would hate to see this happen here. In the province of Quebec, we have just now started to get rid of the distinction between public and religious schools. A win for the Religious Right on such a major issue would surely damage the advances we have made in this area, because of the renewed strength this would give the Religious Right, here in Canada. I hope this never happens. Good luck in your fight.

G. R. Gaudreau <grgaud@sprint.ca >
Hull, Qc CAN - Sunday, September 27, 1998 at 06:07:14 (MDT)

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

I enjoyed The Secular Web tremendously. I will most certainly be a regular reader of the page.

Alejandro Pareja < apareja@cca.servicom.es>
Valdecabras (Cuenca), Spain - Saturday, September 26, 1998 at 09:45:23 (MDT)

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

I agree with your stand that the Liberal Christian interpretation of the bible is completely incompatible with science.

Has anyone made the calculation to demonstrate that our Sun is in fact the 'centre' of the universe? Perhaps more centred than our earth? I know that the normal line of reasoning is focussed on what really is the centre of mass of our solar system. If our reference point is really about 'mass' with respect to strictly the bodies in our solar system ONLY, then of course our SUN is it! But, you miss the 'ultimate' question about centeredness, haven't you? If it is about 'mass' only with respects to the entire universe, then who has actually made the calculations. Did you? I can't name a single scientist, nor an organisation that can answer this. If the question is not mass, but perhaps just spatial arrangement, has centredness, then been determined as a matter of scientific fact? If then, the question is not a matter of 'spatial arrangement' nor of distribution of 'mass', then what about the naturally intuitive 'centeredness' of simple observed phenomena; that the entire universe rotates around the earth? That is, earth as reference point; because the observer is on it. Is this not only natural, and not necessarily egocentric intentionally?

The bible is correct in this point. The church was correct as well. And yes, Copernicus was correct with respect only to 'mass' applying strictly to the bodies in our solar system alone, not to the universe in any confirmable way: neither spatial nor mass!
It appears by your list of published articles that you are reasonably new to the biblical view of the world. I would encourage you to take a open look at two of the more conservative-fundamental viewpoints of the group of scientists that say that the facts of science are much more compatible than they are with the 'evolutionist's' or 'uniformitarianist's' view predominant in 'secularly' taught viewpoints taught as 'facts' in our universities today. Namely, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Research Society.

Steve Yue <sdyue@yahoo.com>
Mississauga, Ont Canada - Saturday, September 26, 1998 at 03:38:01 (MDT)

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

I would like to tell you athiests out there that are hard core and "open minded." This argument of God existance is not about science, open-mindedness, or all the other garbage that clouds the real deal. This is real simple. When you die, you will find out if the Bible is true. If the "closed minded" Christains are correct,and the Bible is true, you spent eternity (think about eternity for a second) in torment and misery beyond words. If the Bible is not true, then the Christians had a life of trying to live by a "rigid" lifestyle and they were closed minded. Which side do you want to be on? It is not about fear, a closed mind, or upbringing. If you are right nothing happens, If you are wrong and you die, the results will be beyond your most vivid, horrific nightmare. The best part of all this, is some of you will find the truth and get saved before you die. No matter how much you do not believe, you will be saved.

Mike Jones <jonmicha@mscd.edu>
USA - Friday, September 25, 1998 at 00:35:03 (MDT)

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

I just wanted to say that you are doing a good job.

Daniel Ponce <danielponce@loop.com >
Long Beach, CA USA - Thursday, September 24, 1998 at 20:09:15 (MDT)

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

I am really glad this site exists! It has helped me SO much in understanding my own beliefs as a humanist, and combating the theistic manner of thought. I really enjoy the articles and links. It is wonderful to know there are people who think as does oneself does, out there. I haven't finished exploring the whole site yet, but what I have seen thus far is wonderful!

Rhianwen Rhuddlan < rhianwenr@hotmail.com>
Brisbane, QLD Australia - Sunday, September 20, 1998 at 05:23:48 (MDT)

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

Mr. Jeffrey Lay Lowder, you wrote, "If there is a god, then why did the Holocaust happen? If God intervenes in the world to punish evil, then why didn't [God] intervene and punish the Nazis before they were able to murder millions of innocent people?"

ANSWER: Your question had a similarity with Einstein. Why do you punish your children? If life has no meaning to live on, why do you correct your cute children? You can answer this question alone. Israelites were chosen to live according to God's laws. But they refused. When you say of innocent people, what do you mean? Are all Jews not innocent of rejecting God? Their experiences were one example of how a loving God correct His unbelieving people. And how a loving God can be a Judge. How much more those who did not believe in God?

Edgar Postrado < ed-chin@ma2.justnet.ne.jp>
Maebashi City, Gunma Pref Japan - Saturday, September 19, 1998 at 08:54:51 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Many atheists claim that evil provides evidence for the nonexistence of the Judeo-Christian god. Call this claim the Argument from Evil (AE). One of the most common Christian rebuttals to AE is that God allows evil to happen because He wants us to have the freedom to choose good or evil. My comment, "If God intervenes in the world to punish evil, then why didn't [God] intervene and punish the Nazis before they were able to murder millions of innocent people?" was made in the context of the AE and directed at Christians like Pat Robertson who predicted that God would intervene to stop the "Gay Days" celebration in Orlando, Florida. If God considers homosexuality evil and would intervene to stop a public celebration of homosexuality in Florida, then why wouldn't God intervene to stop the Holocaust or any other evil? In other words, if you are a theist and believe that God will intervene in the world to stop evils, then you cannot appeal to the Free Will Defense as an answer to the AE. You would have to give some other defense to the AE and I know of no defense which does the job.

I would also like to point out that you assume that Jews have refused to live according to God's law and that Jews are therefore guilty of rejecting God. I think what you really mean to say is that Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Jews have never rejected God. You assume wrongly that a rejection of Jesus is also a rejection of God. This assumption is nothing more than a careless imposition of your own theology upon the beliefs of others.

As for your suggestion that the Jews deserved the Holocaust, I can think of several other ways that God (if there is one) could have achieved his goals without resorting to Hitler's "Final Solution".  If God really existed, there wouldn't have been a Holocaust.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

Mr. James Still, please accept my correction to you on your response to Curious sender when he asked you about morality. You responded an example based on Japan. In Tokyo, almost all bicycles were locked due to fear of overcrowdedness. As many people pass one sidewalk, many people had more chance to pick an unlock bicycles. Take not: I've lost three bicycles here in Maebashi City alone for I did not lock them and one of my Christian friend here who worked as an AET (Assistant English Teacher) in Tokyo had told us in our English Bible study that her bicycle was stolen. The reason why the Japanese people did not permit to spread bad news was for business purpose. If they will be called good people, they will have a chance to sell their products. Are you using their products right? but will they use yours? There are many uncounted and unpublished crimes in Japan. Japan society follows the law of the jungle, as written in this Kanji that reads "gjyaku niku kyoushokuu" or literally "strong meat eats weak meat" (of evolution) in their businesses and their relationship to others. Ask your Japanese friend about it. That is why IIJIME (or bullying) is very popular. You are right that the Japanese did not believe in God of the Bible, but they mostly believe in their own gods. Because their lives were based on material purpose, many Japanese now had lost (especially the younger generation) the meaning of why they needed to work or fight. I can tell you more for I live here in Japan and married a Japanese girl. It is true that if man uses man as a standard of morality, then man will lose it. James, please be true to yourself.

Edgar Postrado < ed-chin@ma2.justnet.ne.jp>
Maebashi City, Gunma Prefecture, japan - Saturday, September 19, 1998 at 08:18:54 (MDT)

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

I have just finished reading the article entitled Friendly Atheism. I consider myself a nonconfrontational atheist in so far as my dealings with other individuals (excluding lawmakers and the leaders of the christian right). In my view as long as my rights to my beliefs are not being infringed by someone elses views then their beliefs are subject to the same rights that I expect. I will not try to change their beliefs concerning their god. Having said that, I will go to the wall in defense of my rights,i.e. on the separation of church and state issues or the constitutional checks and balances that are under such vigorous attack at present by the christian right. However, I list among my friends a ordained minister who I came into contact with through our mutual interest in geology. We have discussed what in my view are his bending of the obvious facts that are embedded in this science. It is not my duty or responsibility to attempt to force my beliefs concerning religion on him. We do discuss politics at length,primarily I try to show the obvious dangers of any one religion becoming state sanctioned. This is what I would call friendly atheism and of demonstrable benefit to protecting my freedom to believe (or not believe!) as I see fit. It is easier to get a non-adversary to listen to a differing viewpoint and perhaps alter views or at very least give them food for thought. Those who yell the loudest are often understood the least.

Tom Kennedy <tkennedy@sky1.net>
Shelbyville, Ky USA - Friday, September 18, 1998 at 04:10:10 (MDT)

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

Love the site everyone!

Jeremy Keller < jeremykeller@sprynet.com>
Littleton, CO USA - Friday, September 18, 1998 at 02:41:50 (MDT)

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

All I gotta say is, keep up the good work! This web site has been a candle in the dark for me, and it helps me through those times when I think I'm all alone.

Josh Michaud <wankomishu@aol.com >
Lincoln, NE USA - Thursday, September 17, 1998 at 15:01:05 (MDT)

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

Is the earth very young? or Is the Earth very old? A one word answer is sufficient!!

Gordon Winder <cwinder@julian.uwo.ca >
London, ON Canada - Thursday, September 17, 1998 at 10:05:46 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Old.

James Still

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

I just read your Atheism and Intraorganizational Free Speech (1996), which I found to be very well argued. I enjoyed On Liberty, one of my favorite book. However, I think another arguement is worth considering;

neil Lucock <neil@lucock.u-net.com >
Northwich, ch England - Thursday, September 17, 1998 at 09:08:19 (MDT)

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

Great site you have! Anyway there is a missing point (at least I did not find it), considering how to deal with the bad things from religion. My wife forgot most of the things of life and now only prays, and I can see no way out for her. All what happens have a divine reason behind it, and it is getting hard for me to tolerate it. As we actually live in Brasil, I almost went to the church to place a written complain. She was not like that some years ago and I really do not know if there is some kind of help in these cases. Any information would be welcome!

Otto Triebe de Mello <era.eratrie@mesmtpse.ericsson.se>
Stockholm, Sweden - Thursday, September 17, 1998 at 08:29:11 (MDT)

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

I've noticed some feedback has response and some doesn't. Does non-response mean not worth a response, can't be refuted, what? How is it decided which feedbacks will be responded to?

Jack Runnels < jack_runnels@mindspring.com>
Atlanta, GA USA - Wednesday, September 16, 1998 at 21:05:14 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Well Jack, the first thing we do is to weed out the crazies, God-will-get-you threats, profanity, and other letters that do not meet our feedback acceptance policy. However, we do not have a strict editorial policy for responses to specific letters. The reason you see so many letters with no Infidel response is that we are not in the propaganda business of manufacturing consent nor do we find it necessary to respond to everyone who disagrees with us. We respond to letters that personally interest us or that we think might interest the reader, nothing more and nothing less. We do not believe in printing only those letters that can be easily refuted. Also, we do not go through and just pick out the glowing encomiums that make us look good while deleting everything else.

We do believe in free, unfettered speech within the scope of our acceptance policy. Often, this involves printing letters that are critical of humanism, atheism, agnosticism, and freethought. This attitude runs throughout the Secular Web. We frequently provide links to sites with opposing views. Unlike many Christian web sites ( Leadership U, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, and Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe, just to name a few) our readers are free to see viewpoints that do not necessarily place us or our ideas in the best light. We believe that it is crucial in the marketplace of ideas for you, the reader, to find a wide variety of opinions so that you are able to carefully consider all aspects of an issue and to have the necessary tools for making up your own mind. What disturbs us most is the tendency among Christian websites to refuse to link to any material that is critical of something published on their own page. This, even though they claim to be open to all ideas. For example, Leadership U states that they only link "to other sites that have a similar commitment to the best information available." Despite this vacuous claim, Leadership U routinely censors material by refusing to link to high-quality work written by professional scholars readily available on the Secular Web. To grow intellectually, one must be exposed to a healthy diet of clashing viewpoints rather than just the thin gruel of narrow evangelical dogma. Since sites like Leadership U feel that they must protect their readers from the Secular Web, we can only surmise that they know something the average Christian web surfer does not: the truth is dangerous and must be suppressed.

James Still

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

I may have missed it, but I particularly like Genesis 19:36, where they find the most righteous guy in Sodom and Gomorrah, named Lot, and get him and his family out of there before it blows up. On the way out, Lot knocks up both of his daughters. If this is the MOST RIGHTEOUS guy in the land, what in hell were the others doing?

Chris Franks <cfranks@sc.hp.com >
Santa Clara, CA USA - Wednesday, September 16, 1998 at 09:37:41 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/bias/military/chapel/tolerance.html

I recently went to Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, and was shocked to find out they have protestant church services every sunday, and it was even in their newspaper. What can I do to stop these services? Having church services in a national park is a violation of every American's first amendment rights as you probably know. Hope this info helps. . .

Dustin Young <izxiixzi@aol.com>
Deer Park, Tx USA - Tuesday, September 15, 1998 at 20:24:15 (MDT)

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

Okay-first a good web-site, second, please do not condemn all religions and more especially Christians into one pious group. I would call myself a Christian although I disapprove of organised religion, I think that Churches are totally off track and losing the point and try to judge myself before I judge anyone else. Basically we're all in the same boat guys-whether you're a buddhist, agnostic or Christian, I don't know why I wrote this maybe to prove to you that there are members of 'organised' religion who aren't so tight-arsed they can't see other peoples points of view-Oh yeah and Jesus does love you guys-desperately

Alicia Dakota-Mari <jeholt@farmline.com >
chichester, uk - Tuesday, September 15, 1998 at 13:05:14 (MDT)

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

The majority (although I've yet to look intensively) of the articles posted are in some way a rebuffing of Christian views. What specifically do atheists believe "in" as opposed to what they don't believe, which seems to be the theme? In particular, what happens when man draws his last breath? What is postmortem?

Chris <Chuck_Hickey@MSN.com>
Marlborough, MA USA - Monday, September 14, 1998 at 16:43:30 (MDT)

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

I am so sorry that those of you at the Secular Web have been hurt and abused by the church. There is no explanation or excuse for their behavior. Please accept my apology. I am a Christian and just want to let you know that Jesus loves you.

jamie stump <jstump7@hotmail.com >
USA - Monday, September 14, 1998 at 09:21:46 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Why do you assume we have been hurt or abused by the church?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

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

This is in response to James Still's response to Phil Reutz question on justice. Reutz asked, roughly, 'where does one [if an atheist] anchor themselves in terms of justice?' Still's response, I felt, was inadequate, and even evasive. I was very interested in a response, which referred to something outside Judaic Law/Christian principles, yet he answered with the 'weaknesses' of the opposition rather than with the positives of his own philosophy. I was hoping for a better response from Still. Thanks.

Mark Snyder <jbs@continet.com>
Eugene, OR USA - Sunday, September 13, 1998 at 14:17:44 (MDT)

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

I think your right about religion and the lies we are taught. I am not as intelligent nor have the ability to write like you. My God is an awesome God. I can assure you there is a God. I think one of mans greatest down falls is intelligence, because the smarter we are the less we believe in God. I love it when scientist say this all happen because of a big bang. 0 + 0 = 0 so if at first there was nothing then something had to be introduced in order for something to explode. 0 + 1 = 1 1 is the answer to the formula of the begin of life. Who introduced 1 ? No Brainer GOD. Now the question is who is God ? God is everthing and nothing. We as humans are not capable of understanding the power of our creator, at least not yet. I believe we will someday. Where are we, does anybody really know ? We are somewhere and nowhere. We are born and then we die. The answer is in our death. Death is the ultimate experience of life. I think when we die we go back to our creator. We are caught up with trying to live and be better then everybody else that we forget in the end we die and lose everything we worked so hard to obtain. So why live ? Because our experience here on earth is education for our souls not our minds. Let go of your mind and listen to your soul. The answers lie deep within your soul. Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and all shall be given unto the. In other words seek your soul (Kingdom of Heaven) and all your questions will be answered. I do not have the ability to express my thoughts on paper like you; however, I have experienced Heaven, I mean the feelin of being one with the creator. It is an awesome feeling of no worries or fears. God is good and have faith and know that he exist. Thats the key you must have faith and know that God has a purpose for all things. Including those who do not believe. This is also part of your purpose.
I have so much to say and I know that God is with me always. I just can not put it on paper. I do not know how I stumble on to you web site but I believe it was no coincidence.

E.R. < Sageinfo@bellatlantic.net>
NJ USA - Saturday, September 12, 1998 at 22:39:17 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Even if it did take an external force to create the universe, you would have to still know that this external force was, indeed the God you believe in, versus the literal pantheons of Gods men have believed in. I do not believe any of us have been made privy to such information. Your knowledge of death seems to be mostly illusionary. I say this because you obviously have not died, and since it is not possible to gather information from the dead, you could not possibly know if what you say is true. How careful have you been to believe things because they are probably true, versus things that make you feel good?

Blaine Armsterd

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

Just a brief thank you for being there. This is far and away THE best site on the web.

Temy Beal <temyb@gte.net>
Ariton, AL USA - Friday, September 11, 1998 at 17:21:38 (MDT)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1990/2/2front90.html

i think the entire matter of religion is ludicrous. look at the past history of it..christians slaughtering christians, christians slaughtering moslems, moslems slaughtering christians and all in the name of religion. its a sorry mess.. and the irony of it is that all these people were really thhe victims of charlatans of long ago peddled this religous garbage. what do es anyone reallyknow about religion that was not put into their feeble little minds by these charlatans?

wally forsland <forsland@jps.net >
clearlake, ca USA - Friday, September 11, 1998 at 10:14:46 (MDT)

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

This theory sidesteps the problem of origins. The real issue (zero mass = the universe) is not addressed while failing to explain anything with a model which equates the universe with a condensed version of itself. In the seventy years since Lemaitre first proposed this theory no progress has been made in eliciting what followed the event, nor is any progress possible. If we are to interpret that the universe opened up like a flower with all of its components intact, including gravitational energy, then what is being described is the mother of all black holes. If the energy was not present at the beginning, when and how did it appear? If it was present, how did the universe manage to expand?

The assertion that time and space began with the Bang is irrational: without prior time and space the assembly of the singularity would have had to be instantaneous with a spatial occupancy of zero (this is not claimed, even by its supporters), and in the improbable event that the universe is cyclical, time and space would remain omnipresent.The explanation for the red shift of the spectrum - cited as proof of the theory - is questionable. An expanding space carrying matter with it is a metaphysical concept that satisfies only equations (which, in turn, although mathematically accurate, are no better than the concepts they serve). In the real world space has never been known to carry anything, and it has yet to reveal a growth principle.

According to one apologist, science doesn't really mean that space is expanding, it is only its way of saying that the initial matter flew outwards as a result of the explosion. This revisionism brings with it its own difficulties. all matter should have an outward velocity approximately the same, yet some Galaxies have been found receding at half the speed of light. Without a known mechanism, this acceleration against the force of gravitation requires the invention of a new form of energy reserved only for those bodies, and so on.

When a vessel leaks from all its seams, and when applied patches reveal only more leaks, it is past time that it was discarded. What is needed is a theory that explains everything, not one that needs constant explaining.

Glen Loan <loanfam@uniserve.com>
Quesnel, B.C, Canada - Friday, September 11, 1998 at 00:11:20 (MDT)

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

I am delighted to have found this site on the web. I have read some good material on this site. However, none of it is anything I haven't read before and none of it is capable of convincing believers in the Biblical god that their beliefs are actually groundless. These people have been convinced on the basis of contrived evidence that supports their prejudices. I know because I was one of them for many years and spent a great amount of effort trying to defend authentic Christianity. Ironically, in my search for proof for the existence of the Biblical god I discovered absolute proof that such a god only exists in the minds of those who choose to believe the misinterpretations of those who defend that notion. After more than thirty years I have decided to present the doctrine of the second coming of Jesus as Jesus and the New Testament writers actually present it. It can be clearly established from the Biblical contexts and varifiable historical events that Jesus was supposed to have returned well before the end of the first century. This has been indirectly admitted by most present day scholars and Bible teachers who do not realize that they have done so. The irony of this is astounding and it is hard to believe that no one seems to have noticed. My book titled IT IS FINISHED which presents, in context, the actual words of Jesus and the New Testament writers as we have them in current versions of the Bible showing that Jesus was supposed to have returned at the destruciton of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The implications of this, for Christianity and the existence of the Biblical god, are more devistating, in my estimation, than any of the "classical" arguments. However, I do not expect even this to change the mind of anyone who is determined to believe in Jesus in complete and blind disregard of mountains of clear and solid evidence to the contrary. The only reason I try is a protest against the lies that keep so many chained, ironically, in the darkness that they believe to be "the light."

David McClellan <sisemenpub@juno.com >
Norman, Ok USA - Thursday, September 10, 1998 at 19:00:41 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

I disagree David. Every month, I get e-mail from former Christians who read our web site and, after much reflection, deconvert. Farrell Till edits a publication called The Skeptical Review and he gets many letters from readers who deconverted from Christianity as a result of reading his publication. Ed Babinski's book, Leaving the Fold , contains a collection of stories from several ex-fundamentalist Christians who deconverted either to Liberal Christianity or atheism or agnosticism.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/june.html

I'm glad to see things like this on the net. After many years of being a Christan with a degree in Bible and special studies in history, Bible doctrines, hermeneutics, apologetics, and evidences, I finally discovered how to know if God exists. I also ceased being a Christian when I found absolute proof from the Bible itself that Jesus was not who or what he claimed to be. I have written a book titled IT IS FINISHED that presents the case.

L.D.McClellan <nemesis911@juno.com >
Norman, OK USA - Thursday, September 10, 1998 at 13:15:52 (MDT)

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

Did the English (and other Indo-European) languages develope from Judeo-Xtian paradigms? Such as the 'Is of Identity'. 'This is That' [example: He is a criminal (sinner etc.)].A logical fallacy. 2 things can't occupy the same space at the same time. Correct statement is: the person was convicted of breaking a law. How to eliminate "To Be" from the English language. To talk in E-Prime (no "to be" usage)is difficult but correct. To learn English as a child is to be programmed into Xtian paradigms. Atheism has a tough opponent even though Xtian paradigms are pure bunk.

REIFY- to use words to define things into existence that don't exist. The source of circular reasoning. 2 enlightening books : a) The Tyrrany of Words by Stuart Chaseb) The Myth of Self Worth (www.amazon.com - to order) by Richard Franklin. I personally have concluded religions and all belief systems are a government sanctioned form of mass compartmentalized psychosis. Compartments of the cognitive processes locked into these circular spheres of verbal thinking without tangible references.(ex. like Napoleon complexes religions are Divinity Complexes).We all know how much War, conflict, oppression, irrational thinking, and ecological destruction the Bible has produced. The Christ character of the generally mythical
Bible never existed. Read "Jews and the Mystery of the Dead Sea Scrolls".

Arthur Lueders <ALue167442@webtv.net >
Ormond Bch. , FL USA - Thursday, September 10, 1998 at 11:44:09 (MDT)

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

I'm a follower of Christ, and I am appalled at your library article "50 Fun Things For Non-Christians To Do In Church". It seems by the posting of this article that you are admitting 1) You are close-minded; 2) You are bigotted; and 3) You have the utmost disdain for people who do not see things the way you do. You are acting the way you describe Christians in other articles. I fully expect you will not care about my feedback because I'm an "idiot Christian" who can't think straight and has "obviously thrown rational thought out the window." It submit it is you who have thrown rational thought out the window, when not only can you not enter into unbiased dialogue with people who don't have the same belief system as you, but you denegrade, disrespect, insult, scoff at, and throw comments that show you as an organization are religiously-bigotted.

How about we change the subject of your comments? Let's rename it, "50 Fun Things A Ku-Klux Klan Members To Do At A Black Gospel Picnic", shall we? Would you stand for that? NO! You'd be screaming for a lawsuit! Your article is pure religious bigotry. As KKK members are RACIST, you folks are apparently RELIGIST.

I have entered into dialogue with a lot of atheists, secular-humanists, and people of other faiths. I treat them with respect and understand that we are responsible for our own lives and that I cannot and will not force them into someting or tell them they MUST believe something. But never have I experienced or propogated such bigotted, spiteful, bitter, tasteless, and mindless insults. Such atrocities show that it is you, not teh Christians, the so-called "Religious Right" (in a very pejorative sense by you and those like you), who are bigotted, close-minded, and hateful.

If you expect anyone to listen, take some time to listen! Would that your organization (a non-profit?) who is supposedly about to circulate free thought would be more open-minded and able to listen to others.

Timothy Drew Johnson < Mawnstroe@aol.com>
Bloomington, MN USA - Wednesday, September 09, 1998 at 13:12:25 (MDT)

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

I found your comments on the Syllabus of Condemned Opiniosn quite interesting. I never knew such a thing existed, but then again, I was raised Southern Baptist, so I doubt I would ever receive it there. On the other hand, the idea of a church "interpreting" gospel to suit its own needs is hardly new (e.g. the reason we have a Southern Baptist Convention to begin with). The actual condemned opinions were quite interesting.

That stated, I do have a question. As many of those various same condemnations could be applied not only to other religions, but equally to many government systems generally, why did you signal out the Catholics for such harsh treatment? And I believe "harsh" is a supported observation by the fact that you were quite "liberal" with your use of terms such as "stupid", "foul", "ignorant" et.al. It is one thing to write something designed to inform and educate - indeed, to criticize; it is quite another to fill a tome with what appears to be vindivctive, self-absorbed, and visceral ranting.

It is not enough to simply offer conclusory statements that even though the fiber of our society is not threatened, there is a motive deleterious to our society simply because those who belong to a particular religion have not to your satisfaction explained an almost century-old document. Indeed, you seem to demonstrate the same intolerance (and therefore disrespect for our First Amendment - they don't HAVE to explain their beliefs to you) of which you accuse others. Until you can show something more than conclusory statements, based on nothing more than a disagreement with a religious document, and - to you - an "unsatisfactory" explanation or acknowlegement, then you are doing nothing more than promoting the same ignorance based fear which you take issue. Hardly something I would describe as "enlightened", "reasoned", or even "intelligent."

James Wheeler <JimZDP@aol.com>
Sacramento, CA USA - Tuesday, September 08, 1998 at 17:32:09 (MDT)

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

I really hate that you (atheist) have been offended by the fact that we as believers have been commissioned by God to help bring the lost from darkness into light. It's sad but true, those who do not choose light choose darkness, and in this case Hell. It is real! If you are so dead set on there not being a Hell, I challenge you to research the place. Do a indepth research. What
do you have to loose. Whether atheist or not, as a human I would want to know. If you find there to be no hell, what have you lost, nothing, but you receive confirmation, But if you find it to be true, then you must address the information at hand. There can be no heaven without hell. I encourage you to seek the truth. When you find the truth you find yourself entering in the the light.

Tina Lipscomb < lipscomb@mail.rfweston.com>
Norcross, Ga USA - Tuesday, September 08, 1998 at 09:06:25 (MDT)

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

I just wanted to drop you a note and say how glad I am to finally see that some athesist org. admit that it is a religion (IE, Your placement on the "world 1000 page).

Jeff Burden <Jeff922@aol.com>
Westland, MI USA - Tuesday, September 08, 1998 at 02:53:12 (MDT)

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

I have just stumbled upon "infidels.org" and find Robert Price's articles very interesting. As I read a few of them, I was reminded of what it must be like to read the frustrated whines of a pained teenager. Mr. Price invariably mentions his past Christian affiliation and how he has sense become disillusioned due to too many questions that his finite mind could not find the answer for. God created logic and is Himself a logical being. But we as humans can only use that logic imperfectly and inevitably leave many questions unanswered by our own means. This is evident in Mr. Price's attempted debunking of Christianity. His arguments very seldom follow a calm, rational path. Rather, they appear as mere rantings against the faith that so disappointed his expectations or left too many things that he in his great wisdom could not understand. The key, my friend, is to surrender yourself as the supreme authority on all matters and acknowledge that the only proof for God or his son Jesus can be found in God Himself and His Word; to elevate anything or anyone over that is to unseat Him as THE supreme Being.

Emily Dixon <dixone@wlu.edu>
Lexington, VA USA - Monday, September 07, 1998 at 21:16:25 (MDT)

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

In the July of 98 feedback Phil Ruetz made the following objection to an infidels article:

"Any universal negative proposition requires COMPLETE knowledge of its predicate by the author."

The Infidels response by Jim Lippard was sifficient, but, since the mistaken objection to universal negatives is so annoyingly common, I thought that I would further point out:

The statement: "Any universal negative proposition requires COMPLETE knowledge of its predicate by the author" is the logical equivalent to: "No univeral negative proposition can be justifiably answered without complete knowledge of its predicate." *

That itself IS a univeral negative proposition, thus if Ruetz is right he must be wrong.

Everything Jim said in response was correct, but what I presented above is, it seems to me, is the quickest death blow to the misunderstanding as it immediately underscores the contradiction in logic it contains.

*[Logically if P = Q then P can be treaded as Q. (this is the identity principle).]

Fredrick Curry <fc012072@student.fullerton.edu>
Buena Park, CA USA - Monday, September 07, 1998 at 15:22:03 (MDT)

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

First off, I'd like to commend you folks for putting up such a tremendously articulate and eclectic website for nontheists. I don't know how many times I've read a particularly technical piece of apologetics pertaining to abstract objects or the anthropic principle and just when I thought I couldn't muster my own rational refutations I turned to your delightful pages and simply typed in a keyword and pressed and enter.

I enjoy your articles, commentary, and humor concerning the ludicrousness of organized religion and many of it's fascist undertones. I particularly like the contributions from philosophers like Micheal Martin, Quentin Smith, Theodore Drange, John Mackie, and Graham Oppy. I also enjoy the resources you provide concerning apologists like William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Richard Swinburne, and Alvin Plantiga, whose works provide a wonderful challenge to the ideas of nontheists. It' only when we test our arguments against those who disagree with us can find reassurance in the truth.

And finally, I'd like to mention how much I thoroughly enjoy the debates between apologists and atheists. However, it's a bit disconcerning that in most of these debates the Christian winds up making a better case for his world view than the atheist(with the exception of the Fernandes/Martin debate). I'm also a bit surprised at the fact that it's the debates where the atheists did rather poorly that are so readily available. The debates where I'm sure the nontheist would present a viable case for his belief system(Craig/Smith, Craig/Flew, Craig/Jesseph 2,ect..) are extremely difficult to locate not only on this site but on the WWWeb in general. Is this because the Christians have made a conscientious attempt at removing the debates where they fair poorly from public access? But in any case I'd be very interested in finding out when future debates will be available and would love getting a chance to perhaps read the infamous Jesseph/Craig 2 or Craig/Smith debates. Best wishes and keep up the good work.

Greg Scorzo <Cortex3959@aol.com >
Downey, CA USA - Monday, September 07, 1998 at 14:17:44 (MDT)

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

Today (9/7/98) @ 6:00 a.m. on Channel 40, I laughed me bum off when I discovered to me wondering eyes a Preacher who reminds me of Leonardio DiCrappio's role in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" who was asking why he was made fun of in school. Now, lemme get this straight. A preacher (already wasted airtime), wasting his time bitching about how bad of a childhood he had. Hello, doofus!!! Are you thinking in there, or are you just dead?!?!?! From them on, I decided that Televangelists are a good substitute to comediens.

P. S.: If you'd like to send hate mail &/or scrutiny, please do!!! I'd really like to know if I submitted the right e-mail address.

Travis Andrew Froggatt <B. Froggatt@hotmail.com>
Panorama, CA USA - Monday, September 07, 1998 at 08:29:34 (MDT)

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

As regards, Nonbelief, and Evil, as two proofs of the non-existence [of God]. Evil cannot be conceived except as there is already accepted to be a knowldege of "good". This is evident from the fact that "evil" requires a prior application of value of "good". This does not require that "good" itself is absolute - to infidels such a term may have only a relative worth - but it still denies other than a comparative status to the term "evil". Similarly the fact of non-belief cannot be an absolute proof, for, evidently, we know that "belief" exists. Only if belief did not exist could non-belief be in itself an absolute.

Ray Skinner <rayomnd.skinner@health.wa.gov.au>
Armadale, WA, Australia - Monday, September 07, 1998 at 08:19:20 (MDT)

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

I write this in response to Dan Barker's chapter on Biblical Contradicions. Let me ask you a question: How many times have you known a creationist to take a quote from an evolutionist out of its context, use it as a pretext, and arrive at a conclusion that is anti-thetical to the author's meaning behind the words? Probably a lot. Not only does it show great disrespect to the author, but it exposes the agenda and lack of understanding on the creationist's part. If you understand how this principle works, then you should be embarased to include that chapter of Barker's on your website.

In post-war disallusionment, in many ways the world was seen as meaningless, and artists expressed it as such. Marcel Duchamp is well known for his work of recontextualization. The absurdity of taking a toilet bowl out its bathroom context and putting into art gallery spoke volumes. Despite the view that it expressed, it did not "prove" that the world was meaningless, nor art as meaningless. Rather, it "imposed" a new and different meaning onto, or challengenged what had previously been established.

If only Barker were as creative as Duchamp, his list of Biblical contradictions could be much longer. I am an artist and think I have a bit of creativity. I challenge any of you infedels to the application of "Barkerian" hermeneutics on any book (including the Bible). I will "discover" more contradictions than you will.

If you actually want to understand the Bible and its passages that seem to conflict, you can start by reading the first chapter in John Haley's book "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" (Gospel Advocate Co., Nashville TN, 1974). There he discribes the many ways different passages come up looking as if they conflict. You will find the principles he gives to be very reasonable and applicable to all types of literature. Keeping this information in mind will allow you to see the Bible in a much clearer way and help you unfold its rich meaning. However, if you insist on creating confusion by publishing mismatched Bible quotes, no one can stop you. But please understand its superficiality.

I am well aware that you people are totally commited to aborting any and all meaning from the Scritpures that do not easily conform to your logical positivism. I wish you would apply Barkerian hermeneutics to something other than the Bible and see how rediculous you seem.

Hans Redpath <blueside@hotmail.com >
Chattanooga, TN USA - Saturday, September 05, 1998 at 15:39:50 (MDT)

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

I recently received a copy of Josh McDowells' book More Than a Carpenter from someone who thought I would be interested. I am fascinated by religion and spirituality, particuarly Jesus Christ(altough i am by no means a Christian,it is merely an area of great inerest to me). I read MTAC,and upon finishing it was very angry at McDowells' reasoning and supossed "evidence" (if one can even call it evidence). I felt so intellectually cheated by his obvious attempt to hook a vulnerable/gulible non-beleiver with his rationale. I can easily see how his words would sound good to someone incappable of criticly challenging his theory. Needless to say, I am disgusted with him. He is preying on the weak-minded and the weak willed. I was very pleased to find your collection of intelligently written articles that point out his flaws,lack of scholarship, and most importantly his lack of reliability. I just wanted to commend and thank the writers who did such a great job at exsposing Josh McDowell for what he is.

David Skorepa <Dskorepa@aol.com>
Savannah, GA USA - Saturday, September 05, 1998 at 14:39:19 (MDT)

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

Excellent suggestion, well put. But, why not slam religion in a debate where the opponent slams atheism? If it works for them...

Set up our own debates, reverse the sucker punch. Select our own opponents and moderator. Refuse to debate their hired gun.

Bruce Gowens <bgowens@home.com>
Crockett, CA USA - Wednesday, September 02, 1998 at 22:54:41 (MDT)

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

I have read portions of both 'Jury' and Holding's rebuttal. I have read much of the Mr. Still's discussion. What jumps out at me is Still's assertion that the apostle Paul taught something completely different from what Christ taught. This is wrong. Paul was entirely faithful to what Christ taught. He experienced what Christ taught and spoke not just in terms of academics but from the personal experiences of he and his coworkers. I suspect that a statement like this will only further fuel your cynicism. Anyway Still's attempt to drive a wedge between Christ and His apostle is wrong. The real problem is the lack of understanding of both Christ's word's and Paul's on Still's part.

Jack Wilmore <jwilmore@erols.com >
Burke, VA USA - Wednesday, September 02, 1998 at 16:49:45 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

You argue that I was wrong to suggest that "the apostle Paul taught something completely different from what Christ taught." Since Paul told the Corinthians that everything he taught to them was given to him by Christ through divine revelation, I completely agree with you. However, if you go back to my essay, you'll notice that I treat the teachings of the post-Easter Christ in Paul's revelation as a separate issue from the teachings of the pre-Easter historical Jesus who taught in Galilee and Judaea. Although some conflate the historical Jesus with the post-Easter Christ of Pauline cross theology, I think that it is a mistake to do so. Remember that Paul never knew the historical Jesus, and only converted to the movement a few years after Jesus' crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. Further, in only a handful of instances does Paul call upon the authority of the historical Jesus to resolve disputes or to teach (1 Thess. 4:15; 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 7:25 , 9:14 , 14:37, and 11:23-26).

After Jesus was crucified, his brother James took over leadership of the movement ( Gal. 1:19 ; Acts 21:17-18). Luke's version of the story in Acts conflicts with Paul's story so we cannot be sure of the truth, but Paul tells us that he did not immediately go to Jerusalem after his conversion, instead spending the next three years in Arabia ( Gal. 1:17). Then Paul finally does visit Cephas (Peter) in Jerusalem but for only a brief fifteen days (Gal. 1:18-19)--a visit that he will not repeat for another 14 years! ( Gal. 2:1). Paul's letter to his community in the region of Galatia hints at a conflict between he and the surviving disciples in Jerusalem. The central reason for this conflict was a disagreement concerning how one attains salvation, the role of Jesus, and the observance of the Law. Paul argued that the Law was a regression and that faith in Christ was the only means of salvation (Gal. 3:10-13). Paul struggles against those Jewish-Christians who insist that circumcision and adherence to the Law is necessary for salvation. Paul argues forcefully that the cross makes circumcision and the Law obsolete ( Gal. 5:1-12). The Jewish-Christians counter that failure to observe the Law is morally dangerous and not in keeping with the true gospel. This Jewish attitude finds its fullest expression in James’s epistle where he argues that one must be a "doer of the word" (observer of the Law) for justification is by works and not by faith alone ( James 1:22-25; 2:24).

Paul is convinced, however, that his appointment is directly from the Risen Christ "not from men nor through man," thus, to preach the gospel he needs no permission from the "Pillars" in Jerusalem ( Gal. 1:1). Paul considers his converts to be a "letter from Christ" who supersede the human authority of the disciples in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 3:1-3 ). In his letter to the Galatians we see that Paul contrasts his own revealed-gospel to that of "man’s gospel," that is, the teachings of Jesus’s brother and the other surviving disciples in the Jerusalem Church (Gal. 1:11-12; cf. 1 Cor. 7:19). Robert Eisenman, in James the Brother of Jesus (Viking 1996), captures this early struggle very well:

It is little wonder then that Paul’s theology comes into fierce conflict with the theology of James and the Jerusalem Church. James and Jesus' surviving disciples in Jerusalem emphasize Torah, the dietary laws, other laws of purity, and the laws of tithing as means to salvation (Acts 2:42-47), while Paul teaches a dying and rising Christ savior motif as the sole means to salvation.

The real issue, of course, is whom should we believe best carried on the teachings of the historical Jesus? The evidence seems to suggest that Jesus' brother James is closer to the teachings of the historical Jesus than the Apostle Paul. This does not discredit Paul's efforts entirely, however. As I mentioned earlier, Paul rarely discusses the historical Jesus anyway, preferring to concentrate instead on the teachings of the Risen Christ he received in his visions. At this point we leave history and enter faith. When Paul advanced his cross theology, he provided a theological interpretation that attached meaning to Jesus' death. As with any interpretation, there can be no "wrong" or "right" but only one of many ways to view a particular matter. In this sense, neither Paul nor James were wrong, but rather each sought to make sense of the death of someone very important in his life.

James Still

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

Please stop trying to dig yourself in a whole so deep that you become as close minded as this webpage potrays you. You know God exsists if he did'nt what reason would you have for your pathetic exsistence. Just think for a minute so your not one day looking at God as best you can and crying,"Just give me one more chance ." Hell is very real, and if you continue in this pathetic way of thinking you will go there. There is no deep philosophical way to get away from truth.

Ps. There is no way to hide from what you know is inside. You can't tell me your not feeling like your life is a tad bit meaningless.

Mike <mackster20@hotmail.com >
columbus , oh USA - Wednesday, September 02, 1998 at 15:45:47 (MDT)

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

I understand your words of freedom, but I think you as a group are being a bit extreme when you denounce the Lord and Saviour of mankind. Mr. Silverman knew the requirements to become a Public Official, and still yet he boldly rejected God. When you Tell God, Im not going to do it your way, you'll see the result.

All Silverman had to do was not vandalize the name of the creator and he would have already had a commision as Notary Public regardless of his faith or nonfaith. So I am speaking for all Notary Publics as well as all those in authority, when I say God is in the house and He rules forever. Also , God Bless the United States of America and to the Repulic for which WE Stand, as well as its common morality of the Supreme Being.

PS stop taking the laws for religion and the christian faith out of context if you want to understand them. Your freethought is a religion and Christianity is not, It Is FAITH.

Thomas Bailey Holladay,III < tbholladay3@yahoo.com>
Manning, SC USA - Tuesday, September 01, 1998 at 20:59:28 (MDT)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Yes, Silverman knew the requirements, and he knew they were wrong. In the 1960s, blacks in the United States knew the "requirement" of riding in the back of the bus and knew it was wrong. Appeals to authority are evil if they take priority over morality.

Blaine Armsterd

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_15.html

I believe everything you say and yet I still believe. I don't care what distortions humans within the Catholic Faith have made and I'm glad your website is here to give us a different perspective. I believe that Jesus was a perfect human and the rest of us are not. We will never be perfect, but we must always work toward perfection by doing good deeds, and making this world a better place to live in. Exaclty what defines good is hard to figure, you must learn to listen to your heart and pray. I often wonder what propells people who do not believe in God to do any good for the world at all. I also believe those people are incapable of falling in love with someone. God is love. To know God, is to know love.

Michele Boniscavage < cheerful87@hotmail.com>
Collingswood, NJ USA - Tuesday, September 01, 1998 at 18:51:15 (MDT)

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

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

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