 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
Feedback Page Format
You have a very interesting site. I have one major problem with it - the feedback section. Many interesting points are made by both the religious and the non-religious, but way too many of them are drastically ignorant. There is more crap in the feedback section than anything closely resembling informed points. Although I enjoy the gems, it's far too tedious to slog through all the garbage to find them. A chat room on the topic would be ideal - at least ignorance could be refuted. If you have a chat room, please let me know the info. Thanks.
Philip Freivald <fil@freivald.org>
Rochester, NY USA - Friday, April 09, 1999 at 23:47:48 (MDT)§
About the new feedback format: You used to include the URL of the article to which each correspondent was replying. I hope you bring that feature back, since I have often found that reading a letter would make me curious about the original article, and the URL made it easy to go read it. Keep up the good work!
Jen Roth <j-roth@uiuc.edu>
Urbana, IL USA - Saturday, April 03, 1999 at 23:50:57 (MST)Editor's Note: We're going through some personnel changes here at the Secular Web so James Still is filling in as editor this month. As soon as we find a permanent feedback editor, the feedback page should return to normal. To accomodate Jen's suggestion, we've linked the section title to the original article in question. This might change next month, however. Please have patience with us while we make this transition and keep those feedback letters coming! We read each and every one.
§
Hi, I'm a long time fan of your site, but this is the first time I've written you. I especially enjoy the debate transcripts and the new essays by John Patrick Peter Michael Murphy. But my question is about your feedback. Having read through countless letters posted on your site, I noticed that not a few of them ask a fairly worthwhile question or ask implicitly for your advice. When you respond to these people, do you mail them a response or just expect them to be reading through all your future feedback in hopes that you printed their letter? Also, if you do not post a reply in your feedback forum, is there ever a case in which you reply to them privately? Just two little questions that I've been wondering about for some time. You guys do awesome work here, keep hope alive.
David Berryhill <Cxzander@hotmail.com>
Charlotte , NC USA - Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 19:17:03 (MDT)Editor's Note: As you can imagine David, we get so much feedback that we can't possibly reply to everyone. But we do read everything and try to respond to those letters that are important or interesting here on the feedback page. Sometimes one of us will reply to someone directly via e-mail but more often than not we reply only on the feedback page. Thank you for your kind words. We're happy to be here providing this important service to the freethought community.
No Room for God In a Universe Teeming with Life
I find your website to be of no significance whatsoever. Your musings are based upon conjecture and speculation not, as many claim, logic or science. One cannot disprove an etheral being nor can one prove the existence of the same. Furthermore, a resort to science and logic niether prove nor disprove anything. Science and logic are feeble human devices implemented by narrowminded social misfits in a pathetic attempt to qualify and quantify their etheral and non-etheral surroundings by use of mathmatical formulas and a misplaced reliance upon presupposed "unchanged" metaphysical rules which, as we continue to find out, do indeed change as soon as our puny minds evolve enough to grasp the heretofore unseen and misunderstood concepts we often feel free to name the elements of reality. None of these so-called universal rules or (I'm trying not to laugh) "truths " explain the genesis of anything as we understand it. We are "aware of" ends and beginnings and nothing else. Even Einstein, a man who's intellect was clearly superior to the combined consciousness of every computer slave who has, like a lemming on its way to the sea, visited this site, wnated "... to know what's in God's mind; The rest is just details". And, as Willie Wanka put it: "One should never doubt what no one can really be sure of." So take what's left of your lead paint softened skulls and pathetic pocket protecting prognostications and piss-off. Those of us who actually use our heads for something other than hat racks could use your opinions to wipe our asses if they were put to paper - but not much else.
Chris W. Caldwell <chriswcaldwell@email.msn.com>
Stamford, CT USA§
The problem is is that we are preaching to the choir: I don't need to be convinced, neither do the other readers of the Secular Web. The "heathen" WON'T be convinced, by ANYTHING.
Religeon seems to be a MENTAL DISORDER: an absolute NEED to have FAITH. (Definition of HAVING FAITH: believing in something withhout ANY evidence and almost always in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary.)
The best we can hope for is to distribute, as widely as possible, CONVINCING arguments for keeping the teaching of Religeon out of the schools. Among these arguments would be devastating evidence of the COMPLETE lack of valid background of the sponsors of the "Creation Research" establishment, etc.
One argument I have used, with some success, against the "neutral" bio texts, is that next we will teach geography from texts written by the Flat Earth Society.Edward Holger Rainsford Oleen <eoleen@earthlink.net>
Bronx, NY USA - Friday, April 16, 1999 at 20:53:11 (MDT)§
I enjoyed reading your short argument "No room for god in a universe teeming with life" by James Still against God and Christ. I do agree with you, however I feel that your argument is left unfinished.
There are those whom go further than biblical teaching concerning genesis, Chist's salvation...etc. It has been suggested that there must be a God because the universe exist at all. The theory is that the universe we live in exist because of parameters and physical laws. It has been suggested that if any little change happened in the universe, life wouldn't exist. For example, the percentage of chemicals existing in the universe. The arguement is that a divine being, God, must have had been the creator and intelligence to set up these parameters for life. So basically, it has been said that the big bang is because of god. There are some arguments against this train of thought. We now know that physics changes and things don't always have to go a certain way. We now have the ability to alter life, cloning, tissue culturing, etc.
On a separate note, The existence of one universe is a selfish thought, in math we know there is an infinite # of #'s, why not universe's? Does each universe have to have the same parameters? Does Christ hop planet to planet here and then go to the next infinite # of universes?Religon is silly and used to control the mass population. It gives simple answers to those who want to believe in faith and not to seek fact. Religon and science to have their limits, for now, they both can not answer " What was before the big bang? " "What's beyond our universe?". Maybe we should look to some logical thought...Spinoza?
Robert Zannelli <Left_winger@anti-social.com>
Washington, DC USA - Wednesday, April 21, 1999 at 08:11:49 (MDT)§
Does a big universe teeming with life either make God's existence more or less likely? I'm not so sure. I'm an atheist, but I think CS Lewis said it best when he complained that the atheists want it both ways. If it turns out there's only life on earth, atheists say "Well, there, you see? Life's just an accident. How could it be that God would create a huge universe to only populate one planet?" On the other hand, if life is everywhere, atheists say, "Well, there, you see? Life is everywhere, so there's nothing special about life on earth that leads to belief in God."
I think Lewis was right when he said you can't argue from the existence, or lack, of life on other planets to disbelief in God. Otherwise, very nifty essay by James Still in April's e-zine.Rob Tarzwell <exhilerate@hotmail.com>
Winnipeg, MB Canada - Saturday, April 24, 1999 at 20:29:33 (MDT)§
I read the "No room for God in a universe teeming with life" article with some interest. A few weeks ago, an astronomy professor talked about extra-solar planets. He tried to make the arguement that our solar system was special, and implied that this could be the only place that life could exist. It sounded to me like he was a christian.
Anyway, he based his arguement on the fact that only two kinds of solar systems have been observed: The jupiter-type planets close to the star, and plants with highly excentric orbits. Neither one, he says could support an earthlike planet. The excentric ones would have tempatures too extreme to support life. Plus their orbits would wreck havoc on inner planets.
According to this professor, solar systems with jupiter-like planets near their star can't have earth-like planets either. He believes that these planets can only form in the outer parts of the solar system, and then they migrate towards their sun. Therefore, any planets in an earth-like orbit would be destroyed.
I really have a problem with this argument. It could very well be that jupter-like planets can form close to a star. Our current planetary models could be wrong, which wouldn't be a first. Therefore an earthlike planet could exist in such a system.
Also, both of his arguments assume that life can only exist as we know it. Which is bit premature to say. Even today, we're finding life in places once thought inhabital. Besides out of all the trillions of stars in the galaxy, is it really so unlikely that a solar such as ours could exist? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that the theists will take the news of new solar systems lying down.William Brinkman <wbrink@xnet.com>
Bolingbrook, IL USA - Sunday, April 18, 1999 at 17:16:27 (MDT)§
I have been convinced for years that I have logically proven that we exist again(become self aware) in some form after death whether or not the soul exists. I'm assuming that everyone who believes in the soul also believes in an afterlife. Therefore, I will cater to those who don't believe in the soul.
Our cosmos is estimated to be 12 to 15 billion years old. Since there is no evidence of a slowdown of the expansion of the cosmos,the cosmos may still be in it's infancy.In fact,the latest finding speculates that the cosmos may still be accelerating. With 150 billion stars in each of the 50 billion galaxies estimated to be within view,the mathematical probability that life is spread throughout the cosmos is extremely high. Our life span of 75 years is just a blip in the expected life of our cosmos.Yet, we exist in our "time" now.Taking our cosmos into account,to not exist for 12 billion years,exist for 75 years,then never exist again for the rest of the life of the cosmos seems almost impossible to me.When you consider eternity, in which a quadrillion years to the quadrillionth power is just a speck, you can see how infinitesimal our present existence really is.
After getting a foothold on how short our lives really are, I developed a logical question and answer that applies to the worst case scenario...a totally chaotic cosmos. The question: If we can exist now,what can prevent us from existing again? The answer: Nothing can...If there was no soul right before we came to be and there still is no soul right after we die,what has changed? No soul equals nothing equals no influence.You have proof of your ability to exist.There is a cosmos probably capable of creating life bearing planets for another hundred billion years or so.That is plenty of time to exist again in at least the only form we know we can exist in...a physical body.I see the cosmos as the producer of vast real estate for our future existences. Personally, I can think of no better reason for the cosmos to exist than for the production of life bearing planets.It looks more like a plan to me than total chaos even though chaos evidently played an important role in the expansion of the cosmos from a singularity.(Big Bang Theory) If the cosmos is truly as chaotic as most atheists suggest,what can prevent the existence of something that has proven it can exist as long as there is ample supply of that which is needed to sustain that existence? I suggest there will be plenty of bodies produced in all the remaining time of our cosmos. A longtime Philosophy 101 favorite needs updating. I think...Therefore, I am. I am...Therefore, I shall be.
Alan Dell'Arciprete <a.dell@erols.com>
Lynn, Ma USA - Sunday, April 25, 1999 at 20:15:32 (MDT)§
Finally a web site that gets it so right. It was such a good feeling when I first came across your web pages I had to express myself. I believe astronomy and Information Technology will be key aspects of the move to a more secular society. Great work people.
Scott Mackinney <scominney@yahoo.com>
Brisbane, Australia - Wednesday, April 21, 1999 at 22:32:03 (MDT)§
I am writing in response to the article "No Room For God in a Universe Teeming with Life." Now i dont consider myself to be an expert or anything, but i do think you are being completely ridiculous. But i do love you guys with all my heart because you are just fulfilling the prophecy that men will not come to God on their own. Science will not be able to measure everthing. I have two examples. The first is Carbon 14 dating. It can only date back 5,000 years. You obviously cannot measure further back than that with any other dating method (potassium - argon, etc.). My other example is the wind. The wind is not visible, but we see the effects of it everwhere. If you believe there is no wind, then the effects of it will seem as if trees have a mind of their own or that many houses sometimes will just decide to blow over. Youre probably saying right now, "Ridiculous! What in the world..." But what i am talking of is not of the world, you see! That is the perfect analogy of God! If you perceive that there is no God then every effect of His mighty hand will look like the universe has no purpose in anything. Hence the people who claim that living, breathing, caring, totally conscious creatures just popped out of a 1 in a catrillion-chance-of-it-happening cloud are just doing what the Bible prophecies by trying to avoid it! So, in conclusion, claiming you disagree with the Bible but yet obeying it is hypocritical and a form of Circular Reasoning!
Meghan Coates <LovliFeet@aol.com>
Lynchburg, Va USA - Saturday, April 17, 1999 at 07:20:45 (MDT)§
I am having trouble keeping up with atheist arguments. Atheists once commonly argued that the lack of life in the universe was strong evidence against the existence of God. Theists should weep that the universe is so barren of life. Woolsey Teller (1938, from your admirably complete historical library) states this argument well:
"Obviously, these striking mal-arrangements cannot be reconciled with the idea that the universe was "made" for life; life is a mere incidental and trifling occurrence: an occurrence which has not been prearranged or led up to by intelligent means, but which has been introduced only at one point among billions of barren orbs. Planets are rare exceptions in the life of the stars; an inhabited planet is a rare exception in the life of the planets, and our earth is a solitary exception among trillions of lifeless orbs. The universe, as a totality, is almost a lifeless affair. What life it has borders on zero. There is nothing here that reflects a means to an end...
How the God-believer would rejoice if he could point to 300,000 million inhabited worlds! How he would argue that life on them showed the "wisdom" and forethought of the Creator, in thus populating the universe! Instead, the facts are all against him: he is left with a universe composed largely of 300,000 million lifeless orbs. What "purpose" can he assign to these dead worlds?"
And the theist is helpless to respond. Teller delivers an eloquent and telling blow against theism. Or so I thought until James Still told me that the facts are still all against theism, although the facts are the opposite of what Teller thought they were. From Still's "No Room for God in a Universe Teeming With Life":
"The worldview of metaphysical naturalism is a far better explanation than theism for the fact that the universe contains billions of planets, hundreds of thousands or even millions of which probably support intelligent life. When the conditions are right, given enough warmth, nutrition, and water, life arises quite easily on its own. As we learn more about the existence of other planets, and possibly life on those planets, our quaint notions of Creation along with our hubris of thinking of ourselves as being the center of the universe, will become abandoned to the history of superstition. As Sagan remarked, 'what room then for a Creator?'"
Still says the universe has no room for God, Teller says it has too much room. God is dead in any case, I suppose. But I wonder how many funerals God can have and for how many opposite reasons. Were the atheists of yesteryear wrong that God is dead because the universe is so lifeless? Or has God only recently died because the universe is full of life? And since the existence of extraterrestial life is pure speculation at this point, is God really only provisionally dead until we discover such life? Suppose we never discover such life in centuries of searching - does God become a possibility again?
David Tye <tye@datacube.com>
Danvers, MA USA - Tuesday, April 20, 1999 at 11:48:06 (MDT)§
Response by James Still:
For a website with "no significance whatsoever" as Chris Caldwell put it above, we received an awful lot of feedback on this feature article. I am grateful for all of your comments, publicly posted here as well as those sent to me privately. I suspect that the article struck a chord. Of all the great stories in science, perhaps the most intriguing is the story of our origins. Are we truly alone in the cosmos? Or are there millions of planets spread throughout the universe each teeming with intelligent life? I think that there are. I wonder what these beings must be like and what philosophy they have developed for themselves. With each new planet we discover, we realize that the universe is far grander than any mythical cosmology could have imagined. In a recent appearance, Richard Dawkins quoted Carl Sagan on this point:
"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."
Sagan was right to point out that the awesome reality of our universe has exceeded all of our religious expectations and awakens us to possibilities that holy men never even imagined. The possibilities are endless and (just maybe) our grandchildren's children will one day travel to these other planets. It will be one more in a long line of examples of human beings achieving great things without the need for the little gods who hold us back.
Was There No Historical Jesus?
I found the feature article "Was There No Historical Jesus?" by Earl Doherty informative. The inclusion of references to support the article would have been helpful.
Jeffrey Kraus-Yao <krausj@mailbag.com>
Madison, WI USA - Sunday, April 25, 1999 at 10:33:01 (MDT)§
Interesting stuff. I don't put much stock in the resurrecton, or even the miracles, believing instead that a bunch of unusual things happened to a guy that spoke about some very rebellious and radical issues, and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about it, and in collusion, according to the author. Hmm. Sounds like National Enquire Journalism to me, relegating the Bible to a spot on the shelf in the supermarket, right next to the other tabloids. Can you picture it?
Anyway, supposing there was no Jesus. How does that affect the rest of the goings-on that allegedly take place in the Bible? If proof of a lack of Jesus invalidates the New Testament, does that serve to automatically invalidate the Old Testament?
How does one prove that something did not exist, when a large part of our local society (America) is driven to belief through, essentially, blind faith in the tabloid mentioned above? If I say there is an invisible moon rotating around the earth, and my proof is a 2000 year old document that says it is so, how can you or anyone else prove there is not?Steve Fife <steve_fife@hotmail.com>
Colorado Springs, CO USA - Wednesday, April 28, 1999 at 15:00:38 (MDT)§
I found Earl Doherty's article extremely interesting, a very able summary of the relevant facts and arguments. Nice of you to put in on the web.
Lars Adelskogh <lars.adelskogh@skovde.mail.telia.com>
Skovde, Sweden - Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 15:07:11 (MDT)§
Why would anybody believe anything or understand what's in the Bible [its a book], in regards to Jesus? I think Freud, hit right on, in his writing about Jesus, " the tragic guilt" in Moses and monothism. Man's psychic lives of savages and neurosis, the killing of the father etc. Therefore why a religion? Until man has awareness of his psyche there will be no peace and freedom for mankind.
Richard L. Thomas <RThoma8356@aol.com>
ST.Louis, MO USA - Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 10:11:42 (MDT)§
I must say I'm more than a little disappointed. I only started reading the story about the historical Jesus, thinking I would see an objective, unbiased essay, when I shortly came across your first quote from Josephus. After I double-checked from the Antiquities of the Jews I was appalled to see you took the liberty of omitting several key phrases at your own discretion. Josephus did NOT say that Jesus was a teacher of wisdom, he said Jesus was the Christ! You can disagree with what he said, but to CENSOR what you disagree with reveals your true lack of objectivity and leaves me with no choice but to consider this a source without credibility.
Larry Craddock <larry@tanet.net>
Anadarko, OK USA - Friday, April 16, 1999 at 13:40:13 (MDT)Editor's Note: The Josephus quotation occurs in our introduction to Earl Doherty's article and not in Doherty's article itself. As for the Josephus quote, breaks in the flow of the text were clearly denoted by ellipses and it was prefaced with the sentence: "In a much-contested passage of the Antiquities, the following passage (without the Christian interpolations) is what scholars generally agree Josephus writes about Jesus". Mr. Craddock would also benefit from a "double" double-check of his text since Josephus does indeed state that Jesus was both a wise man and a teacher.
§
Jesus Loves you anyway.......
Glen Williamson <glenwilliamson@hotmail.com>
Santa Clarita Valley, CA USA - Thursday, April 15, 1999 at 07:28:43 (MDT)§
The Gospels tell us, others like Paul don't have to waste their time. I'll tell you: Jesus lived in Bethlehem, Egypt, Nazareth, Jerusalem and other cites in Israel. His step dad was Joseph, His human mother was Mary, His conception was supernatural as Mary had the seed that became Jesus placed in her womb by the Holy Spirit. I'll skip His life and ministry for you can read them for yourself, but He was crucified just before one of the Passover celebrations in Jerusalem at Golgotha (Place of the Skull) where He died for the sins of you and me. The agents of His death were the Romans put up to it by the Jewish leaders. But make no mistake about it, your sins and my sins put Him there, not the Romans or the Jews. When you write a letter, I presume you have a purpose and you stick to it. The other New Testament writers did not go over info of the gospels but had other matters to deal with. This is easy to understand. So easy even I can grasp it. Why do so many of you "free thinkers" have such a hard time with the simple truth. Jesus was and is and will be God!!!
Also, Lazarus died a second time, so what was the big deal. You've missed the importance of miracles. Paul's mission was not to make know the miracles but the Miracle Worker. It is the Person of Jesus that matters. What He did here on earth had and has its place, but without God doing them and dying and being raised they are useless.
Duncan Washburn <dwgwjwgw@hotmail.com>
MA USA - Thursday, April 08, 1999 at 16:47:08 (MDT)§
As far as I can tell, the main observation about the Bible and Jesus that Mr. Doherty makes is that the details of Jesus' life are mostly in the gospels. There is very little non-Biblical record of Jesus, and the books of the Bible outside of the gospels don't have much detail about Jesus' life.
I have two potential explanations for these facts. One, Jesus was not a famous, rich, or powerful person during his life on Earth and so he is not recorded in non-Biblical sources because he was not considered important.
Two, the gospels are about Jesus' time on earth. The rest of the New Testament is about the church after Jesus' ascension into heaven. The books of the Bible about his life on earth describe his life on earth.
I think my explanation is more plausible than Doherty's. It is simple and makes sense.Bobby Durrett <bdurrett@ccci.org>
Orlando, FL USA - Wednesday, April 07, 1999 at 11:10:36 (MDT)§
Go to hell in your sin.
Tim Yocom <natives@pcez.com>
Portland, OR USA - Wednesday, April 07, 1999 at 06:27:21 (MDT)§
Thank you for your short article. I found it very instructive, although perhaps not for the reasons you intended. Your article contained such poor reasoning, lacked qualifying references to your source materials, and indeed had such a tone of off-hand dismissal, that it defused my fear of participating in Christian Apologetics. It crossed my mind that I might pick apart your atricle within this reply... but that might force you to improve it. Why would I do that? For encouraging a Sceptical Christian to rededicate thier life to God: It's perfect!
Michael Roy Ames <michaelroyames>
Ottawa, ON CANADA - Tuesday, April 06, 1999 at 06:35:25 (MDT)§
No historical Jesus? What drivel! Think man! The war on the historicity of Jesus is because of the threat He poses to those who want no authority over them. It's as plain as day.
Glenn Layne <laynes@ptw.com>
Lancaster, CA USA - Saturday, April 03, 1999 at 09:46:25 (MST)§
I don't usually take the time to respond to articles, but I hoped this would be of some use. I'm here responding to Earl Doherty's summary of his work, "Was There No Historical Jesus?" in ii. I will here present what I believe to be one significant problem with Doherty's hypothesis. (Not that I have only one reservation--if anyone wishes me to address other concerns [but not all at once], drop a line.)
I think that one of the weakest explanations that those who continue to promote the Jesus-myth give is that of "James, the brother of the Lord," in Gal 1:19. I am not claiming that those claiming that Jesus did not exist do not have a claimed explanation of the passage, but that it is historically weak. I have read Doherty's attempt to tackle this passage (in his feedback section), but I find it very weak.
Basically, Doherty's response is that since the word adelphos (brother) appears in other parts of the NT with different meanings, we should use those meanings to hypothesize the meaning of the word in Gal 1:19. He then cites irrelevant passages such as 1Cor 1:1 ("our brother Sosthenes"), to prove that adelphos could mean something besides blood brother. But this is no more significant than, say, a Protestant pastor being known as "Brother Smith" in the contemporary United States.
Also cited in 1Cor 15:6, the passage about the appearance to the 500+ brothers. Again, obviously, "brothers" means pretty well what it would mean among many modern Christians used in this sense: fellow believers. "Brothers in the Lord" (ton adelphon en kyrio--Phl 1:14) is also referenced, but "brothers in the Lord" (ton adelphon en kyrio) is still obviously different from "James, the brother of the Lord" (Iakobon ton adelphon tou kyrio) in Gal 1:19.
Doherty goes on to speculate that James was the leader of a Jerusalem-based formal cult calling themselves "The Brothers of the Lord." Where is the evidence for the existence of such a distinct group? In extrapolation from such passages as 1Cor 15:6! The lack of hard evidence for such an earthly 'group' (which would be contemporary to Paul) in Paul's epistles (much less elsewhere!) should be apparent enough to make Doherty cringe.
Doherty must multiply this with another layer of speculation about 1Cor 9:5, which refers to "the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas." While all three of these groups are primarily Jerusalem-based (see Gal 1-2), Doherty attempts to explain away why they are mentioned distinctly.
This is only the beginning of the problem. Even if Doherty's explanation of James in Josephus succeeds, it must be historically accounted for why someone would get the idea to turn a specific cult leader into a physical brother of Jesus, as in the Gospel tradition, as in Mark 6:3, which would clearly imply that James was regarded to have been a brother of Jesus (much less, that they lived at the same time).
The most natural inference to make from these passages is rather simple: Paul knew a man (James) who was the brother of Jesus. In any event, I believe that if Jesus mythicists are to gain any sort of credibility, issues such as these should be more satisfactorily addressed. BTW, believing that Jesus existed and had a brother named James is usually not enough to excite an evangelist (esp. not a Catholic one!), so I hope this is not confused with some sort of full-blown 'apologetics.'Ryan C. Renn <Ragu1997@aol.com>
Sellersburg, IN USA - Thursday, April 01, 1999 at 18:36:34 (MST)§
I read and enjoyed the article about the possibility that there was no historical Jesus in your April edition. I just have one question. As was mentioned in that article, and the one prior to that article, there are a couple references to the historical Jesus outside of the gospels. Some people maintain that they are legitimate proof of an historical Jesus, others claim that they aren't trustworthy documents and were likely faked by early Christians to buttess their position (there may be a third or fourth view of these documents I'm not mentioning). My question is this: How does the opinions over these documents break down? Does it break down purely on a theist/non-theist basis, or are there scholarly believers who suspect these as false documents, or scholarly unbelievers who suspect them to be legitimate for the historical Jesus.
As always, kudos to an enjoyable site and many an enjoyable read.
jim <jammybrice@yahoo.com>
USA - Thursday, April 01, 1999 at 14:17:34 (MST)
Clouding the Minds of Today's Youth
It has been said that a person that views his opinion, but hides after he gives it is a coward. If infidels.org is an organization that you feel should be taken seriously, I would suggest that you make time in your busy day of writing papers, and bashing the Lord and the so-called untrustworthy Bible to do some one on ones.
Otherwise your time spent writing all of these papers is useless. For the mear fact you put a "limit" on what the responder can use in their feedback. You arent given the option of censorship so why should we?
Groups like yours thrive on the ability to view your opinions, and to cloud the minds of todays youth, while censoring the thoughts of the christian responders. Im disapointed in you. Not only in the fact the our government gives you the right to harm our youth, but that you are so cowardly that you hide behind your words and won't face an oponent in the open.
James Cullen <Bazelhoff1@hotmail.com>
Internet Infidels' Response:
Carthage, NC USA - Wednesday, April 07, 1999 at 19:07:05 (MDT)We "censor the thought of the Christian responders"?!? What? If Mr. Cullen had taken the time to look around our site a bit more, he would have found that (1) we publish rebuttals to our essays on our web site, and (2) we have an entire page dedicated to linking to Christian apologetics web sites.
Mr. Cullen seems to be taking exception to our feedback policy in which all messages "must be brief and to the point." This so-called "limit" censors Christians, so his argument goes. First, Mr. Cullen grossly misunderstands the word "censor". A censor is a political authority figure who has the sole authority to permit or prevent the dissemination of information, and for ideological reasons disallows certain ideas from being published. However, we do not prevent Mr. Cullen from posting a feedback message, starting up his own web site, a printing press, or a national daily newspaper if he so desires. We want information to be free and that is why we encourage diverse opinions on the Secular Web. We limit feedback messages for space concerns and also so that everyone gets a chance to speak. (See our submission guidelines for submitting papers to us; the feedback forum is not the place to post article-length messages.) Ironically, it is Mr. Cullen himself who embraces the fascist tendendency to quash opposing viewpoints. He is outraged that the government allows us the "right to harm our youth", harkening back to the trial of Socrates, another thinker who was put to death for allegedly corrupting the youth. Well, we're not going anywhere Mr. Cullen and we also know the real sordid truth: it is you and not we who are the real censors. For if you and the radical religious right were to control mass media, our web site would be the first to be removed (in the name of Christ, no doubt) to "protect" the youth, which is to say, to control them and their thoughts. The youth don't need your protection Mr. Cullen, they need the critical tools to go into the world thinking for themselves.
Jeffery Jay Lowder and James Still
Kudos
I truly admire and appreciate the work you have done in providing access to Robert Ingersoll's Works. My great great grandfather Herman Bringman was a disciple of his and thru a geneology search I found your site. This site has provided myself with the most intelligent yet decipherable information on "religion". Thank you.
June Bringman-Shortall <jshortall@hotmail.com>
Easton, MD USA - Friday, April 30, 1999 at 14:17:27 (MDT)§
I loved the 50 fun things to do in church, I almost fell on the floor reading it. Thanks for posting something so funny.
Jenna <Trance102@aol.com>
Wesley Hills, NY USA - Sunday, April 25, 1999 at 19:36:52 (MDT)§
GARBAGE YOU NUTS
david <ploos@sprynet.com>
waleska, ga USA - Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 20:12:01 (MDT)§
For starters, just let me say that the Secular Web is far and away the best web site I have ever encountered, that I visit it regularly (almost daily!) and that I am immensely encouraged and entertained by your efforts. Please keep up your wonderful work. I remain a "faithful" reader.
Steve Collington <ellecoll@idirect.com>
Hamilton, ON Canada - Friday, April 16, 1999 at 13:12:43 (MDT)
With regard to the comment "One must accept the gospel message with the innocence of a child"--that is true. But Christians, like children, react to what they see. The eye witness accounts of Jesus Christ help make that faith. A problem with a lot of people is accepting that reality.
Terms like the "historical Socrates" do not exist, for people accept the eye-witness accounts of his life via Plato. But, when it comes to the life of Jesus via Marks, Luke, etc., often people scratch their head and say, yes, but where is the "historical" Jesus--as though the Bible was not history.
James Horsley <mhcare@ndseniors.org>
Moorhead, MA USA - Tuesday, April 27, 1999 at 12:48:48 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
In my paper I argued that the gospel message is not something empirical but faith-based. You do not seem to agree, suggesting instead that Christians "react to what they see" thus introducing an empirical element. My point, however, was that even if we accept your suggestion and suppose that all four gospels were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus' deeds (although they were not) this does not solve the problem. Suppose someone who is very close to you tells you tomorrow that you must drop everything, sell your possessions, and follow a new direction that God has for your life. Will being an eyewitness to this person's testimony help you with your faith in God? I don't think so. Your next step will be one based on faith, not empirical testimony or some reaction to what you see. Kierkegaard said that Jesus was deo incognito (God concealed) because even if you were one of his disciples you would not have received any more verification for your faith. To want evidence for the gospel message reveals a deep-seated skepticism about that message's truth. Thus Kierkegaard felt that faith could never be based on evidence or proof.
The reason a distinction is made between the historical Jesus and the Risen Christ (unlike other persons) is because Christianity claims that Jesus was both human and divine. The human (historical) Jesus is the one about whom the Evangelists wrote their gospels, while the divine Christ is the one whom Paul and the later Church Fathers write about. If Plato claimed that Socrates rose from the dead and revealed further teachings to him, I am quite sure we would have similar distinctions in our discussions about Platonic philosophy.
§
Your Josh MacDowell critique is thorough and right on target. However, you seemed to have skimmed over or just barely alluded to my own sarcastic, favorite criticism of his/Lewis' "trilemma." Since we only know what others said about Jesus, it would be more correct to pose it:
Either Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were liars or Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were lunatics (or possibly both) or--God forbid!--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were God--oops, they never claimed that, did they? (And besides, that would be heretical, wouldn't it?) We thus completely remove the third of the three possibilities from consideration; and thus we may quickly conclude that they were liars and/or lunatics.I guess MacDowell might argue that Jesus could be a liar only if Matthew et al. had Jesus claiming to be a liar, i.e. "I, Jesus the messiah, proclaim to all the world that all self-proclaimed messiahs named Jesus are liars"; similarly with the lunacy bit; kind of reminds me of the that Epimenides paradox in the NT ("All Cretans are liars") which Paul laughs at while simultaneously missing the point.
I was going to conclude by saying that I find it so comforting to know that each and every man who has every lived must be either a liar or a lunatic or a god, but then I realized that I have never claimed to be a god, so, according to MacDowell, I guess I must be a liar or a lunatic--aren't we all? :)
Keep up the good work.
Jeff Klurfield <jeffmute@hotmail.com>
USA - Wednesday, April 14, 1999 at 15:01:36 (MDT)§
Bravo, you have certainly done your homework! You are sincere in your efforts of this much I am sure. You are of course sincerely wrong, yet you are sincere. My only question is this, why in the world have you spent so much time doing this? If Christ did not exist and all Christians are deluded, why not let them be? Are you going to save us from ourselves? Better yet, are you going to save us into your nothingness? It seems to me that you have spent an inordinate amount of time to disprove something that doesn't exist in the first place. You should really move on to something that will build your up your mind and life on this earth, don't you think? Let all of us Christians who freely drink the opiate of the masses just drink it, and let us choose to be blind and misinformed. Thank you.
Kraig Gessaman <kgess1@fgi.net>
Sherman, IL USA - Sunday, April 18, 1999 at 14:34:09 (MDT)§
As a former Baha'i who has since left the Faith (for much the same reason that you appear to have ceased being an evangelical Christian), I should point out that the two figures -- the Bab and Baha'u'llah -- never directly claimed to be God in a direct, embodied, "Trinity" sense of the word.
Rather, it is assumed in Baha'i scripture that these two, as with the other seven "acknowledged" prophets, were imbued with divine essence and spoke as the mouthpieces of God, acting with divine will but never being the complete form of God. Interestingly, this is how Baha'is also interpret Christ, believing him to have been a spokesman for God who, in trying to draw an extended metaphor for his close and loving relationship with God (as a "son"), inadvertently attracted direct worship.
Tom Davidson <tomdavidson@earthlink.net>
Champaign, IL USA - Thursday, April 08, 1999 at 10:41:53 (MDT)§
Hi. I want to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for being able to read Robert Ingersoll's speeches. Especially, the ones on god and religion and christianity. I can't tell you how much I love Robert Ingersoll's works. It's finally freeing me, completely, from the hellish grasp of religious and christian insanity and fear. Religion and christianity destroyed my 13 year marriage to my lover, friend and companion (She now hates me because I had the audacity to defend myself in court). And, almost succeeded in destroying my life and brain, too. I was in and out of psychiatric wards a few times, diagnosed with extreme depression and anxiety. And all because of the horrible influence of this christian cult's insane teachings and crazy beliefs. All I can say to you is THANK YOU for carrying on the great work of this great man, Mr. Robert Ingersoll. I have a good friend who I met at my divorce group I used to attend a couple of years ago. He deals with auctions of historical pieces, etc. I asked him to find an excellent, authentic photograph and signature of Robert Ingersoll. A few weeks later he called me and said he found what I was looking for. I bought these two items and had my friend professionally mount and frame them. And now I am the proud owner of a beautiful signature and photo of Robert Ingersoll. I proudly display this framed masterpiece on the wall above my bed. No christian cross for me. I am so proud to be associated with the great minds of history. They have finally given me the sane answers to the questions that religion and christianity could not give me. Even the honest, sane answer of, "I don't know", is acceptable to me. That's honest enough. I always knew, deep in my heart, that there was something terribly wrong with christianity, and even religion in general. And, I finally found those answers with the boldness of Robert Ingersoll's writings, and especially, his wonderfull, liberating speeches. I hate what christianity did to my life and my marriage. I hate even more what christianity has done to mankind in the past, and even the present, and unfortunately, the future. Someone said it best, when I read somewhere, that christianity and religious teachings are, "molesters of the mind". I never knew that there was such a great man as Robert Ingersoll. He speaks so plainly, yet so powerfully. No religious organization has a chance against such, plain and convincing truth and honesty, expressed. Unless, its teachings are based on sane and sound reasoning. But, what religion has such a foundation. As long as the savage bible has an influence on the brain and society of a church or organization, it doen't have a chance on being sane. Robert Ingersoll's works needs to be greatly promoted. And, I thank you, again, for your dedicated work.
Sincerely,
Michael T. DeMarco
P.S. I would love to hear back from you. But, you probably receive so much
e-mail. So, I'll understand, if you can't write back.Michael T. DeMarco <HZLEYES39@AOL.COM>
Woodstock, IL USA - Sunday, April 04, 1999 at 19:27:07 (MDT)
If Mr Price is correct, what have I lost in believing in Christ? If Mr Price is wrong, I stand to spend eternity in Hell. Not much of a choice if you ask me. Be polite, loving, and understanding to everyone. These are good traits for everyone to emulate. The Bible gives us guidelines to live by - God's rules if you will.
Richard Strelec <northernoriole@evangelical.com>
Highland, IN USA - Monday, April 26, 1999 at 15:41:53 (MDT)§
I was reading FAQ's and came across the one on you people in your so called "secular" whatever the thing is. I came across a Q that said "Why does the secular world focus so much on Christianity?" and I split my sides with laughter. I know that answer!!! YOU are afraid of the CHRISTIANS of this world because they are standing up for what they know is true. And it goes AGAINST what you are saying is true!!! I would be afraid too if I were you. Look at LUCIFER. He defied God and now he burns forever. So tell me do you like heat???? Hope so!!!!! Fear US. We will win!! WE are the children of the almighty and he reigns forever!!! Read the back of the book, you know that thing we call a BIBLE, it is your instruction manual for life. Maybe that is what is wrong with all of you, you can't build anything without instructions and get it right!! Get right or get Left!!!
madison <a1970babygirl@hotmail.com>
USA - Thursday, April 01, 1999 at 07:52:05 (MST)Internet Infidels' Response:
Pascal's Wager has been beaten to death online over the years. The usual atheistic response is to point out to the wagerer that he or she might not be backing the right horse. The wagerers speak of a simple bet (go with God, nothing to lose, everything to gain) as if only one horse were in the race. In fact, they put everything they have on that one horse, forgetting that there are dozens of horses and the winner might be Tibetan Buddhism, Islam, or Rastafarianism. Care to place a bet on them all just in case? But then this reveals the metaphysical poverty of the wagerer's position: he does not choose God out of love, but rather because he doesn't want to "burn forever". Both wagerers above explicitly refer to hell as reasons for choosing Christianity; thus, betraying that their god is a small god, a petty beast who would torture billions of people for untold eons for the simple mistake of backing the wrong horse. I think this tells us a lot more about the pathology of the wagerers than it does Christian faith.
I find it amazing that Mr. Wilson so bluntly admits to the circularity of his logic, and then expects this to be dismissed as just an essential "premise" of his argument. If, as he says, his central arguments rely upon the existence of God, and cannot be valid if God does not exist, then his arguments are immediately useless for the purpose he has set: which is, of course, to prove that God exists.
A presupposition of the existence of God cannot be used to help prove the existence of God in logical debate. To put this in "layman's" terms, Wilson's argument looks like this:
Wilson: I shall now endeavor to prove that God exists.
Us: Okay. Go ahead.
Wilson: Taking it as a given that God exists....
Us: Um. Wait. Start over.
Wilson: Since God exists....
Us: Try again.
Wilson: We're thinking right now, right?
Us: I don't know about you, but....Sure.
Wilson: Therefore God exists.
Us: Why?
Wilson: Because we couldn't think if there were no God.
Us: Why?
Wilson: Because God exists, you dummy, which is why we can think!
Tom Davidson <tomdavidson@earthlink.net>
Champaign, IL USA - Thursday, April 08, 1999 at 11:53:01 (MDT)
How do you know that the creators of these "teletubbies" aren't trying to promote the "Gay" culture by ever so slighly putting little things into the characters of this show to in fact show the gay society that they are in fact being promoted?
I for one did not like the show only on the fact that having had a child with speech impairments I do not think it is wise to promote "baby-talk". I have 4 children and I am a christian. I raise my children to be believers in God. Therefore I am very selective about what they watch on television. We do not watch prime time television any more because it promotes "Adultery", "Gays and Lesbians" it even promotes "violence". But that is the way I run my household. I can't save the world, so if you, whomever you are, that is reading this, if you are not a christian, well that is your choice. However I do pitty you. I know that people like Mr. Falwell, make the christians of today seem nutty. But you can't judge us all by a few fanatics.
I have my beliefs. I would love to see the whole world wake up and realize that without Christ you wouldn't even exist, to make your choice. But as I said I can't save the world. If in my search I do find out that Teletubbies is promoting the Gay society I will do my best to have it taken off of PBS. If people want to promote that sort of thing it should be on a subscription channel, not PBS. Children are innocent. I do not believe you are 'born' gay. It is a choice you make as an adult. It is the world that makes children think that a big purple character is "Gay". But nonetheless, I will not let my children view the program since I do not know if it does in fact promote the Gay society, as I , in my faith, believe it is wrong and that those who practice it will indeed suffer in the last days for it. I do pray for them and hope that one day, the world, especially the United States of America, will wake up before my Lord has to destroy them, along with, this earth in a great fire.
Maze <maze@livingston.net>
Livingston, Tx USA - Thursday, April 01, 1999 at 07:39:56 (MST)
Peter Atkins' Review of Darwin's Black Box
I never ceased to be amazed at the silliness that passes for intellectual analyses in the minds of the intellectual uppercrust of many major universities. Instead of attempting to deal with the issues scientifically, I noticed that your webpage begins with an obvious "anti-Christian" graphic showing Darwin as the implied bearer of Christ's cross. Somehow, I don't find this as a particularly scientific, professional approach for providing scholarly reviews of intellectually interesting/significant topics. While the theory that Darwin proposed to try and explain the variation of species, it did little to help us understand life's origins. It merely added one more area of investigation that to date has so many loose ends that only the fear of losing "Darwinism" as the foundation of their scientific lives keeps many of the so-called scientists who steadfastly hang onto this timeworn "evolution" argument.
After 7 college degrees and 25+ years of college level teaching, I have seen little new from the evolutionist camp that leads me to believe that they are any closer to moving their "theory" to "law." And its not Christians and Christianity that is keeping this from happening. It's the many major holes in the evolutionary theory that simply have no logical scientific explanation that continues to undermine this timeworn and slowly dying theory.
The idea that all the variety of life is merely a happenstance of time and chance is so ludicrous as to make me wonder how anyone can possibly buy-in to a theory whose foundation is that man came about by a transition of "goo to you by way of the zoo." The basic question of how it all started to begin with is simply not addressed with any real answers by evolutionists. Big Bang or no big bang, there had to be something to "bang" to begin with. What I hear evolutionists saying is that instead of God being the "I Am," that in fact his creation was the "I Am." It was the universe that "always was." And through happenstance and chance and a bunch of basic disorganized physical laws, the universe on its own, created itself and evolved itself. I see nothing logical or scientific in this silliness. While it may seem too simple to merely attribute the creation of the universe to a single creator, I find it nearly impossible to give much credence to a theory that postulates a universe created in a single grand moment from matter that either never existed or had always existed in some highly compressed manner (that had no beginning or no end). Show me anything in the natural/physical world that even remotely matches this evolutionary silliness.
In your review you call Mr. Behe's findings as "misrepresentation of facts." Shall we discuss the misrepresentation of evolution as a law for much of the past 50 years when in fact it is still nothing but an unproven theory by a not particularly bright scientist that wasn't satisfied with truth, but decided that he needed to develop his own version of truth so that he and his fellow scientists could find an easier way to study the physical universe. And yes, evolution is a very simple theory that fails miserably in trying to explain both the creation of life/universe and the complexity of life. Contrary to evolution's teaching, life/matter is not merely the combination of a few simple components in increasingly complex ways. Every time we break the atom into smaller pieces, we find even more smaller pieces. Life is both extremely simple in its makeup and incredibly complicated at the same time, yet evolution fails to account for this dichotomy.
I was particularly amused by Mr. Atkin's aversion to dealing directly with the existence of God. You can say God doesn't exist all you want. Man has done so for many thousands of years, but it doesn't change the facts that an intelligent designer and creator built the universe and that He will get the last laugh in the end. Denying that God exists doesn't make evolution any more acceptable. I would hope that non-believing scientists would be able to find something more rigorous than evolution to show how the universe was created, why it was created, and where it is headed. Entropy, causality, and chaos theory all give us much more interesting avenues of coming up with silly theories for the universe's creation and life's existence than a theory whose symbol is a "Christian" fish symbol with legs, carrying the cross that Jesus died on for the sins of this world.
I also disagree completely with your belief that there is a tremendous amount of research on cell chemistry that is in direct contradiction to Dr. Behe's conclusions. What I have seen over the past few years is that the more we learn, the more we scientists can't explain. We are no closer to proving many of our evolutionary theories than we were when Darwin came up with this silliness to begin with. Everytime we find another "fact" that doesn't match the evolutionary model, we merely ship it to a "hold" tank where it ultimately gets forgotten or we resurrect it once we find a way to explain it. To me this isn't science. Even Mr. Einstein didn't throw away or ignore things that his theory couldn't explain. He felt that these areas were the ones that would provide the most beneficial areas of further research.
I was particularly amussed at your criticism of Dr. Behe's lack of imagination in trying to explain complex processes and structures in evolutionary terms. Dr. Behe was applying the scientific method to his observations. Stretching your imagination and your theory to make it fit evidence, is not in my opinion very scientific.
The thing that I find the most disappointing in all of this is that many find bright scientists are dedicating their lives to finding ways to support a theory that simply is not defensible. All that education, work, and energy only to find out that one's life work was spent in a "dry vein." I don't think that I could personally handle finding out that everything that I had studied and dedicated my life to was bad science. And proving that evolution is fact is just that kind of a "dry hole." If you want to spend some time on something useful, study one of the major "holes" in evolution and try to figure out why the scientific evidence simply doesn't fit the model. Me thinks the evolutionists spend too much time trying to fit non-matching findings into a bankrupt theoretical model by imagining processes/explanations that merely figments of their imagination rather than solidly grounded in the scientific method.
I am pleased that the reviewer learned a lot from the book, but I would caution him from trusting his "wary eye" too much. When he views a scientist as "deeply misguided" who has the conviction of faith to publish a work that basically tells every evolutionist in the world that their life's work (and reason to be) is bankrupt, I think that the reviewer fails to recognize Behe's great personal innner strength and "literary courage."
The reviewer is very condescending, arrogant, and pompous about a fellow scientist who is willing to put his scientific position in the public forum for discussion. I feel that the reviewer spends more time attacking Dr. Behe's Christian faith, the "so-called literature" of creationists, and the inability of the "general reader" (I assume that this is the rest of us who are too stupid to recognize the need to worship at the "holy grail of evolution") to see the limit of Behe's arguments.
Believing in God (I believe that the reviewer's "God" is called "Nature") does not cause one to "avoid a lot of intellectual effort" (and we all know that intellectual effort is the only real reason for anyone to want to live and have a productive life). Believing in God puts a scientist at a more effective starting point in trying to figure out how and why God put it all together. You "mine" for data in mine fields that are more likely to give you accurate results. I find this much more productive than trying to come up with a theory that is simply enough for us scientists to understand and then we each can add our "small insignificant" bell and whistle to this theory, until the time that these useless "bells and whistles" by their sheer weight, bring the whole theory crashing to its knees. I just don't like wasting my time, my research, or my life's work on theories that don't get me started in the right scientific framework for serious research.
I will close with the following bit of "dross of the general run of creationists" that the reviewer obviously respects so little. Until the reviewer looks at the creationist point of view with the same intellectual vigorousness that he expects the creationists to view the evolutionary point of view, I don't believe that he will be able to embody the behavior that is consistent with the scientific method. Dr. Behe has shown a tremendous understanding of both the creationist point of view and the evolutionist point of view. He shows evidence that cannot be easily assimilated into the evolutionary point of view. In reading the researcher's review, "me thinks he protests too much." I suggest that the reviewer spend a little less time criticizing Dr. Behe's faith, his knowledge and use of the scientific method, his willingness to accept facts that may lead to invoking "that first resort of the intellectually challenged (that is God), etc.
I get the distinct impression that the reviewer doesn't like the idea that Dr. Behe's work may well have identified some real problems with the so-called scientific foundation of the theory of evolution. Maybe if he merely criticizes Dr. Behe's faith or reliance on a higher being, that maybe no one will listen to Dr. Behe's work. Well, it's too late for that. The work is out and now students will have an option to listen to both sides of the creationist/evolutionary debate. How different this is from the last 20-30 years where the evolutionary dribble was expounded as fact to a bunch of naive young college kids who believed every type of silliness that their college instructors taught. Scientifically, we should look at all evidence, not just what the evolutionists are trying to cram down our throats.Robert L. Cummings <bcummings@olywa.net>
Olympia, WA USA - Sunday, April 25, 1999 at 13:12:46 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
I am a biomedical scientist working on blood coagulation (for my credentials you might like to search PubMed under tuddenham-eg ) with the small claim to fame of working on the cloning factor VIII (visit our website at http://europium.mrc.rpms.ac.uk/).
Now Behe's argument is that some systems of cellular and extracellular biochemistry are irreducibly complex, such that one cannot imagine any feasible way of building the system from simpler components without having the end design in view. Ergo there was a designer and (paraphrasing St. Anselm) all men call the designer god.
There are numerous difficulties with this argument. For one thing it appeals to what Dawkins (presumably one of your bete noir) has called the argument from pesonal incredulity. "I can't think of a way that could have happened through chance and natural selection, therefore it can't have so happened". This I hope you would agree is certainly a false argument as it stands. For another Behe's choice of the coagulation cascade as an irreducibly complex system could not have been more unfortunate from his point of view. No system in physiology bears the hallmarks of progressive development from a simpler system more clearly than does blood coagulation. Although the present system studied in mammals (by the way identical in all extant mammals- but somewhat simpler in fish and birds--and completely different in invertebrates--odd no?) is indeed complex and such that removing one component can cause haemophilia, those components are all related to each other in ways that 'scream' identity by descent to anyone who is listening.
For example factors X, IX, VII and Protein C share domain structure, gene organisation, mechanism of activity and activation, means of binding to phospholipid surfaces to name only some of their common characteristics. Factors VII and X are actually linked right next to each other on chromosome 13 in men and the synteny is retained in mice (and as my lab. has recently discovered also in birds). Looking at the scheme of the 'clotting cascade' one can instantly see a way to simplify it, cut out some of the middle men. In the limit all that is require is an activator (tissue factor), a zymogen ( say factor X) and a substrate coagulogen ( fibrinogen). Each of those components has affinities to other proteins and their genes, specifically cytokine receptors, digestive enzymes and cellular matrix components respectively. Why? On a designer/special creation hypothesis there seems no need to build things up progressively using altered copies of genes with other original functions.
On a Neo-Darwinian hypothesis all is clear, it is due to the biochemical/genetic counterpart of descent with modification. This just scratches the surface of the work on the evolution of blood coagulation. Search PubMed under doolittle-rf for an introduction to the fascinating intellectual world of the study of biochemical evolution. Personally I do not know any working biomedical scientists who do not accept the theory of evolution as the central unifying concept of the whole of biology. As Theodor Dobjansky put it "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".
Are we all part of a conspiracy to teach worn out theories? Hardly, evolutionary studies are growing faster and more diversely than at any time since 1859. The molecular genetic revolution has supported the central ideas of Darwin and Wallace to the hilt and probably far beyond even their imagining. I urge you to read more widely in biology than Behe's book. It is a fascinating field which can induce a sense of wonder at Nature's complexity deeper than religious awe. Daniel Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' would be a good tho' challenging place to start.
Edward Tuddenham
Professor of Haemostais,
Imperial College Medical School,
London, UK
Chewbacca the Wookie is the Messiah
After almost a half hour of careful research and dedicated study, it has become obvious to me that the lovable Chewie from the Star Wars trilogy, is none other than the Messiah prophesised by the Old Testament. Consider the Messanic prophesies that he fulfilled:
He was hairy (Gen 25:25).
He was a strong warrior (Ps 89:19).
He roared like a lion (Isa 5:29).
He spoke in a language that noone understood (Ps 81:5).
He had the teeth of a lion (Joel 1:6).
He supported the Rebellion (Dan 8:12).
He was rescued from the Death Star's trash compactor (Ps 40:2).
He was betrayed by his close friend, Lando Calrisian (Ps 41:9).
He mourned when Han Solo was frozen in carbonite (Ps 35:14).
He was imprisoned with Han and Leia by Jabba the Hutt (Isa 24:22).
He was bound with cords by the Ewoks (Eze 3:25).
He helped destroy the Empire (Dan 11:4).
Sure, you could accuse me of blantantly taking the above verses out of context in order to prove my point. In context many of them don't even seem to allude to a Messiah let alone everyone's favourite Wookie, Chewbacca. However, I'm sure you are well aware that OT prophesies often contain a double meaning and can therefore be applied to a fictional 20th century Star Wars character.Preach the Good News people! Forget "In the beginning..." realise the truthfulness of "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."!
Yours born again in the light of a certain Wookie I like to call my Saviour,
Judas Calway (yes, that is my real name)PS The above was the result of only about a half hour playing with a Bible search engine. I was able to come up with twelve 'messanic prophesies' before i got bored. Maybe Rob Berry could write a companion piece to 'Scientific Proof of my Divinity' going through the various prophesies that he fulfils? Thanks for having a great site guys.
Judas Calway <vlas_n_enik@hotmail.com>
Boston, Mass. USA - Friday, April 02, 1999 at 10:40:38 (MST)
Ok I would like to take the time to say 1) Every man, and woman is given the right to their own oppinion. 2) Oppinions differ from person to person which is the reason for this letter.
I myself do believe in the Lord. I also believe that the Bible to date is the closest thing that we have to follow. It might have a few places in it that dont follow other spots but, is that a fair basis for saying that it is untrustworthy?
I say no it isnt, but that is my oppinion. In all the years that the Bible has been decinded, and all of the different translations that have taken place on the Bible, I believe that it is as close to being correct as possible. To take two seperate passages from the Bible and show that they do not match totaly is wrong. Two people seeing the same exact thing might have two different ways of telling the story. If you dont believe me just ask two people to watch a football game or anything you want, then at the end of it ask them to write a breif or detailed (perferably detailed) acount of the action that they watched, and see what the differences are. Thank you for your time, and I will keep reading and writing myself.
James Cullen <Bazelhoff1@hotmail.com>
Carthage, NC USA - Sunday, April 04, 1999 at 21:06:13 (MDT)§
You must remember that the reason that the authenticity if the Gospels was not disputed untill the late 1700's is not be cause the enlightenment showed people the truth. It is because the early church fathers of the first century knew the writers of the Gospels and passed that tradition on. they knew the Gospels were authentic. Plus, modern day archeology is prooving the New Testament true with each new uncovering. Do your research.
Jeff <jeff@bearvalley.org>
Hurst, Tx USA - Thursday, April 08, 1999 at 08:53:57 (MDT)§
You know there probably isnt any proof that christ ever lived or was who the bible made him out to be, but there isnt proof that he did not exist as the creation of a higher being. But either way, Its a hope for poeple, something to believe in. By your "christ a fiction" you destroy all of that. A close parallel would be music. How do you define music, not in words. Maby music doesnt really exist, but either way we still listen. Enjoy your life, and enjoy your freedom of thought, but dont destroy someone elses.
Dan Salo <d.salo@mailexcite.com>
columbus, IN USA - Sunday, April 18, 1999 at 20:37:48 (MDT)
Postscripts
I just enjoy the fact that, while c-14 dating is "useless" to date fossils, it was perfectly fine to use it to date the Dead Sea scrolls, which allegedly contain manuscripts of new testament texts.
Brett Hill <slim_whiskers@yahoo.com>
moscow, id USA - Monday, April 05, 1999 at 02:20:13 (MDT)§
Advocates of religion are suggesting that music and movies should be curbed to to them exposing children to violence... The only problem is that isn't the bible a massive collection of violence, bloodshed, hatred, demonic forces and vile acts of humanity? Even the central figure to the story, "god" is an aggresive entity (at least in the Old Testament) who orders death, sends angels to kill, causes plagues, etc. Sounds like hypocracy to me... Some of the nastiest movies/shows are made are made from the Christian pantheon of diety/demons, look at 'Fallen', 'omen 1-5', 'exorcist 1-5' etc etc etc.
If the answer is the bible has a moral reason behind its violence, I reply; so does doom... What people fail to mention is that doom is a game where a person must SAVE humanity from demons, not destroy humanity. If anything doom is inspired by the bible and other religious mythos, the only places demons exist. And just one last little rant,
"If humans are only moral because of fear of 'higher powers' we are a sorry lot indeed." - a paraphrase of a comment made by Mark TwainDuane Peery <trebor@richpoor.com>
USA - Friday, April 30, 1999 at 10:46:42 (MDT)§
I have no belief in any of man's religions. I suppose there are some truths in any of the religious writings, figments of the imagination inspired almost all of it. Of course, insanity, superstition, and connivance have to be considered. Something good and true would not generate the murderous hatred that has come from man's religeons. Intelligent people know in their hearts that their religious teachings are contrived and far fetched, but fear, instilled early in their lives, anchors them to it.
I get so sick of those holier-than-thou types who will button-hole you every chance they get to convert you. If people want to believe, that's their business. If I don't believe, thats my business. I had a friend who is very carried away in constantly letting you know how much God and Jesus loves you. One day I said to him, " If God, who created something as complex and marvelous as the human brain loved us soo much, why did he set it upon, and connect it to a living sewer "? I wouldn't call that love. I told him. I was just kidding around with him, but zealots do not like it if you pun their idols. As I said, I had a friend. He doesn't talk to me anymore. Forgive this long harrangue.
James J. Ellis <jimell@webtv.net>
Utica, NY USA - Sunday, April 25, 1999 at 04:11:55 (MDT)§
What is the point of all this, anyway? I don't pretend to know all the answers...I don't even pretend to know any, really. What I want to know is, why do you expend so much effort on disproving or refusing to accept something that, by your philosopy, won't matter anyway?
I have struggled with my faith for many years. There are indeed a lot of contradictions and ambiguous statements in the Bible. Hard-nosed fundamentalists refuse to believe anything beyond what is written. Dinosaurs perished in the "great flood" and Darwin was a hell spawn...that kind of stuff.
Hard-nosed agnostics and atheists refuse to believe anbything beyond what they can see or measure. It seems that both groups are of the same mind, just on different sides of the fence. There is nothing a fundamentalist can say that will change the mind of another fundamentalist.
My struggle with my faith is just that...MY struggle. I'm not going to pin God down to physical laws that we've discovered. I'm not going to pin God down to a book that is at least 1000 years old. I'm not going to pin God down as being a Christian or a Jew or Muslim or whatever. I'm also not going to pin myself down to the belief that I must be right and everyone else on Earth is wrong (I was raised hell-fire and brimstone Southern Baptist...quite a leap for a appalachian boy!).
Expend your energy on what you wish. Regardless of your future road and whether you find an answer for your difficulties, just know this: I will be praying for you and all your bretheren. You may not want me to, but you'll just have to accept that there are those of us out here that feel it is an important thing.
Besides...what if you're wrong? If I'm wrong, no harm done. We just turn into worm dirt and that is it. But if you're wrong, heaven help you. That, sir, is faith.William Butler <phaedrus20@hotmail.com>
Huntington, WV USA - Friday, April 09, 1999 at 15:08:00 (MDT)§
Thanks for a great site! The far best resource for secular material, not only on the net, but on earth (at least as far as I know).
In the latest Web Scan, there is a text about Stanley Kubrick. Some questions are raised about the religious meaning of the movie "2001". Since it wasn't Kubrick, but Arthur C Clarke, an outspoken atheist, who wrote the script, I sincerely doubt that it was in favour of theism, or indeed any supernatural religion at all.
The way I interprete the black vortex block it is what Julian Huxley called "divinity without god" or "religion without revelation". It is the religious feelings which we all have now and then, feelings of awe and aspiration that have nothing to do with supernaturalism. The first part of the movie is called "the dawn of man" and what we see is how ape-like creatures develop tools, weapons and then, one day, religion.
The end of the movie is a little bit harder, if at all possible, to understand. Perhaps Clarke meant that civilization will somehow make god out of man? As Julian Huxley put it, we are the result of an evolutionary process in which nature has become aware of itself: The universe can live and work and plan at last made God, within the mind of man
Fredrik Bendz <humanist@home.se>
Lund, Sweden - Wednesday, April 07, 1999 at 17:23:43 (MDT)§
So may things we can do w/ our lives. To account b/4 the Lord for a life spent denying Him and encouraging others to do so is as sad an image as any I know of. There are so many ways to go wrong in this life. I know of one no worse than yours. What hope do you offer in place of that which it is your apparent mission to destroy? We all need more faith. Not less. I know I need more. Every time I encounter ememies of the truth such as this site I am reminded of just how much the world needs Jesus Christ's saving grace! Your views are a cry for salvation. God hears you and weeps for you. Negativity and nihilsm anihilate the spirit. Like entropy in the physical world. Unless one believes one has no basis for hope in this world or the next.
Isn't it better to have hope at all odds? What is the downside? Yes you will be sure to tell me misplaced hope has been the source of all war, etc...wars in the name of God. God is to blame for no war. Only people. No...that's right...I don't believe guns kill. Only people. And I'm against abortion. But I'm not too sure about the death penalty. But I'm rambling now and it is late. A tribute to the life of Roscoe Conkling brought me to you. The eulogy I read was as bogus as your mission. Conkling was a bastard. I expect Ingersoll may well have been as well! As in the world at large...bull hockey thrives and threatens to choke out the truth. How precious is the truth. Lies like yours are good for one thing if nothing else. They glorify the truth. As all evil does good! Always!!
Lee Crumrine <crumrine@dreamscape.com>
Utica, NY USA - Tuesday, April 06, 1999 at 23:37:34 (MDT)
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
