 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||
Congratulations on the new site layout. I like it!
Ron Dotson Friday, December 31, 1999 at 00:37:01 (MST)
Just a note that your new Web Site appearance is REFRESHING. Have you
dropped the Darwin fish/Santa Claus fish for the quoted motto? I prefer "...in
the CESSpool of confusion" but that's probably too in-your-face and detracts
from the fresher format, n'est pas? Thanks for your voice of sanity and guiding
light to folks like me who are finally being honest to themselves about their
beliefs (or lack of). At age 43, and accomplishing a PhD in Chemistry 15 years
ago, I wasn't applying the sensible standards of my work-life to my personal
one; my tolerance of superstition and discrimination has been duly exorcized.
Glenn Epps Friday, December 31, 1999 at 09:19:31 (MST)
Many thanks for a trule excellent website.
Much appreciated.
David Mitchell
Thursday, December 30, 1999 at 11:39:00 (MST)
I guess you don't imagine how glad I am since I've found your website.
I've spent a lot of time in the US and couldn't not imagine that somewhere,
people were struggling against superstition, bigotry and intolerance. I'm doing
my best to give your URL to my friends and I've put links in different forums
and sites.
Happy
New Year
Emmanuel Renaud
Tuesday, December 28, 1999 at 09:07:53 (MST)
Re: psychics fleecing the flock. Ah, dichotomies. Does one stand up and
propagate rational thought, or live like a Darwinian and feed off the fish?
Jim Tiso Friday, December 31, 1999 at 23:13:58 (MST)
Awesome article. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Clinton Morell Friday, December 31, 1999 at 18:18:05 (MST)
The feature article "Get a life" by Matthew, was extremely interesting
and helpful. It easily ranks in my "Top Five" most interesting and informative
pieces I have ever read on the Secular Web. I was extremely interested in the
evolutionary programming section of the piece. I am surprised that this is not
used
more in evolution debates.
I am going to be in an evolution v. creation debate soon and this wonderful
feature will provide much-needed, new information to the rational side! While I
don't think that the Creationist will concede, I at least hope to confound him
into silence, if only for a little while.
Cheers!
Katherine Martin
Friday, December 31, 1999 at 12:32:19 (MST)
Antievolutionists will simply say computer programs require a designer,
so that your whole exercise simply proves their designer thesis. They're wrong,
but that's what they'll say.
Andrew
O. Lutes Friday, December 31, 1999 at 12:15:01 (MST)
Note from the editor: this essay has been revised, relocated and retitled: see Is "Freethinker" Synonymous with Nontheist? Some of the criticisms below may no longer apply to the new version.
As
usual, Jeffery Jay Lowder has written an insightful and thought-provoking
essay, arguing this time that Theists, as well as nontheists, can be considered
"freethinkers" as long as they have formed their opinions "on the basis of
reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief." Although
I agree with many of his basic points, I think there are several problems with
this view. A few quick arguments:
1.)
There
are no views which can't be said to be "based on reason" since all views have
to be formed, and accepted, through some subjective process. This means that
virtually anything can be said to be "freethought" as long as it has been
decided after some deliberation, and the word either becomes meaningless or you
run into paradoxes. If someone independently decides after much thought and
research that they always ought to align their opinions with the authority of
the Catholic Church and the Pope, are they now a "freethinker?" What about New
Agers, who often seem to arrive at their conclusions based on the epistemic
principle that it is reasonable to believe in whatever fancy seems reasonable
to them at the time ("I think we are all reincarnated from rocks, because some
people are hard, and some people sparkle, and my dad gets a real slow burn like
charcoal when he is angry etc etc")? Are all New Agers considered to be
freethinkers, as long as their views are based on their very own deliberations
and speculations?
2.) It
is not enough that a conclusion be reached that is supported by a great deal of
evidence. Creationists genuinely think they are using hard science because they
have
many of the trappings, but a little investigation shows that their views are
pseudoscientific. If a claim is based at least in part on supernatural
assumptions and leaps of faith, we can't point to the rest of the evidence and
say it's still empirical science. This may apply to Swinburne's argument, as
cogent
as it
is.
3.) Although Mr. Lowder claims that being a freethinker is not about whether a
person holds any given belief, but "the reasons why a person holds a given
belief about anything" the conclusion that one ought to base one's views on the
application of empirical reason would seem by definition to rule out the belief
that "reason is not the only adequate grounds for belief." As Allan Cromer
points out in his book Uncommon Sense, all nonscientific systems of
thought, which include all religions, assert that the most valid sources of
knowledge are private and internal, and are formed on "the egocentric belief
that we can have direct, intuitive knowledge of the external world" because we
are intimately connected to supernatural forces of some type. Mystical
experiences and subjective insight are not open to critical investigation, and
are not in any way falsifiable if one decides in advance that both of these
methods can form correct views about the way the outside world really is,
instead of how our internal thoughts really are. I would argue that a
"freethinker" is committed to the view that claims to knowledge of the external
world
can only come from using methods that are accessible to all, and which are open
to outside criticism and demonstration to others. If one is a freethinker
because of the "way in which one holds beliefs" then one could not make a
decision on empirical fact based on insights that are not open even in
principle to counter arguments or critical scrutiny.
4.) I think the recent essay posted on Secular Web by James Rachels, "God
and
Moral Autonomy" poses a challenge to the argument that a theist can be a
freethinker (wow on that one, by the way! Rachels is a real "gem"). If belief
in God requires belief in an Authority that must be worshipped, and worship
entails that one accept and affirm one's complete and total subjection to God,
including all autonomy with regard to moral conclusions, then it is a little
hard to argue that one is still a "freethinker" in the usual sense of the word.
Someone who is committed to total obedience to a Master cannot assert that they
are free to form their conclusions simply because they have freely decided that
they ought to hand over their ability to form conclusions, moral and otherwise.
5.) If, as many religions believe, we are all part of a mystical plan in the
universe, constantly guided towards a Grand Destiny by the synchronistic
patterns and signs provided by an Ultimate Purpose, we aren't necessarily
forming our thoughts freely. Some world views preclude the very ability to form
our own thoughts. Deciding, through a process of reasoning, that all our
thoughts are really the inner promptings of some outside Mind and not the
result
of our own deliberation has run into a paradox.
The meanings of words are not discovered, but created, and formed through use.
Can a theist be a freethinker? Certainly, if the definition of the word is
taken as literally meaning nothing more than forming your opinions for
yourself. But the "spirit" of the definition seems to imply not only the
independence of your thought, but the commitments that come from the belief
that we ought to form our views in such a way that they are open to revision.
Although I really respect Mr. Lowder's sensitivity towards theists, and agree
with the view that we ought not to insult those who disagree with us, I still
think that the term "freethinker" does indeed entail some conclusions that
can't be held by a Theist.
S. A. Strandberg Tuesday, December 14, 1999 at 10:49:02 (MST)
This feedback is in response to Lowder's very insightful article "Must a
freethinker be a nontheist." I am a Christian who happens to love this site
because of the rational, reasonable discussions that are published here, and
this article is an example. I just want to thank the Infidels and Jeffery Jay
Lowder for there fine examples of truly free thought and open minds. Keep it
up!
John Symonds
Monday, December 06, 1999 at 13:26:41 (MST)
I think that Mr. Lowder is bending over backward trying to be fair to the
believers. I don't think that they would do him the same favor.
It is pretty much agreed at this point in the history of human thought that you
cannot prove the existence of God. Many believers embrace this (see John Updike
in the Nov 29, 1999 New Yorker). If you could prove that God exists, it would
not take any faith to believe in him, and there would be no particular reward
for
doing
so.
Therefore, a person who decides to believe in God is doing so based on
something other than the use of reason, or has based his belief on bad logic
which will surely be rebutted in the normal course of events. So there is no
real problem in atheists and agnostics grabbing the word for themselves. Many
would be willing to share the word with some deists.
"Freethinker" is certainly more accurate than the term "pro-life" when applied
to anti-abortionists, especially the anti-abortionists who murder doctors.
Frances Prevas
Saturday, December 04, 1999 at 01:31:40 (MST)
The article which Mr. Lowder has written is an excellent one. As a man who has
not made up his mind yet as to the existence of God, I am listening to and
pondering arguments on both sides. When I hear a good atheistic argument, I'm
tempted to become an Atheist. When I hear a good theistic/deistic argument, I'm
tempted to believe there is a God. I tend to believe, as does Swinburn, that
there is cumulative evidence for the existence of God, but I'm by no means
fully convinced. I count myself a Freethinker, even though I am not a nontheist
per se.
I appreciate Mr. Lowder's honesty and impartiality and I say: Well done!
G. R. Gaudreau Friday, December 03, 1999 at 19:59:08 (MST)
"I am a deeply religious non-believer... This is a somewhat new kind of
religion." (A. Einstein)
I am writing this discussion to support the basic thesis of Jeffery Lowder
which he presented in his above captioned article. According to Julian Huxley
(1), "T.H.H (T.H. Huxley)...coined the word 'agnostic' to describe his position
as one not prepared to accept orthodox or indeed any dogmatic views on the
origin and destiny of man in the absence of scientific evidence. He preferred
to
remain a free thinker in Hume's sense refusing to accept the existence of an
all powerful and omniscient God, religious miracles or personal immortality
until they were properly validated. He rejected the term 'atheist' for the same
reason; the non-existence of God could not be scientifically proved." In view
of Huxley's assertion, an atheist can be as dogmatic in his views regarding
God, the origin of the universe, and the traditional religions as a dedicated
believer in any religion. If the faith in the existence of God is untenable
from a rational viewpoint, so should be the unbelief of an atheist. On the
other hand, a purely agnostic point of view is in conformance with the notion
of free thought.
God
means different things to different people. Einstein stated over and over again
that he did not believe in a personal God. He (2) also asserted, "Every one who
is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit
is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of
man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a
special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of some one
more naive."
A free thinker need not feel restrained by the dogma of Christianity, Islam, or
any
other religion and at the same time, he does not have to be an atheist. He does
not necessarily have to discard religion totally; he can have a personal faith
with which he feels comfortable. Einstein (3) also believed that "mere unbelief
in a personal God is no philosophy at all."
Historically, several rational arguments were used to prove the existence of
God. Those arguments were flawed. If those arguments do not prove the existence
of God, those arguments can also not be turned around to prove that God does
not exist. Most of the scientists are free thinkers in the sense that their
enquiry into scientific researches is free and not restricted by pre-existing
thoughts, ideologies, and scientific concepts. If a pre-existing scientific
concept needs to be challenged in the light of new evidence, that concept is
challenged. And many of these scientists believed in some form of God, a
concept with which they were comfortable. To wit: Albert Einstein, Abdus Salam,
and many others.
There is a risk that atheism may not become just a fad, a badge of honor simply
to show that the wearer is free of prejudice. Many atheists have their own
reasons, good ones, to believe in what they believe. It is alright even though
they may not be able to prove the non-existence of God by sound reasoning.
Mohammad Gill Thursday, December 02, 1999 at 13:05:02 (MST)
I agree completely that the freethinker category includes both the theist and
the nontheist. I waiver between nontheist and agnostic, quite frequently, and I
attribute this to the constant re-evaluation of my belief system. I only wish
more people would practice the art of self-reflection.
Todd A. Fiedler
Thursday, December 02, 1999 at 11:33:56 (MST)
I agree that freethought, in and of itself, does not exclude theism. Deism,
especially, violates no precept of freethought. However, I know of no religion
that stands up to the light of reason. Indeed, every religion that I have
looked
at is so self-contradictory, so counter to known facts, and so full of items
that
must be taken on faith that I must consider any theist other than, perhaps, a
deist,
to be very young and new to freethought, deluded, or insufficiently curious to
merit
the sobriquet "freethinker".
Isaac Jones Wednesday, December 01, 1999 at 15:36:05 (MST)
Dear Mr.Lowder,
I have read your account for the reliability of the resurrection. I must
commend you for your research and the number of sources that you reviewed. It
was
quite impressive.
I am curious, however, why you so quickly disregarded the "Swoon" theory of the
resurrection without any noticible address to it. Obviously, both advocates and
opponents of the resurrection seem to concur that it was a material event; that
is,
other than Kohl and the other "spiritualists." But I think that there is a
great deal of logic to review the "Swoon" theory.
Jeffery Jay Lowder responds:
My main objection to the Swoon theory is that it presupposes the fundamental reliability of the New Testament accounts of the Resurrection. It assumes the historicity of the empty tomb and of the post-Resurrection appearances. I don't hold either of those assumptions. Moreover, I would respond to your specific points as follows:
1) Yes, something happened that clearly affected Jesus' followers, but there a lot of things that could have been that "something." One need not posit a historical resurrection or the swoon theory to explain this.
2) It is certainly possible that Jesus wasn't really dead when his body was removed from the cross, but there is no reason to believe that event was probable. If we accept that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, it does seem rather odd that they would have botched the job.
3) Again, it is certainly possible that Jesus learned how to change his vital signs, but this is pure speculation. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.
4) My only comment on this point is that you presuppose the fundamental reliability of the appearance accounts. Someone who does not share that presupposition would have no need to explain the appearances by appeal to the Swoon theory, the resurrection, etc.
5) Again, I concede that what you describe is possible. There's no just no evidence to show that it probably happened that way.
Mr. Lowder's essay does an admirable job denouncing the claims of Adler,
Russell, et all and their convictions that it is impossible to disprove the
existence of god. But Mr. Lowder himself claims that there is no a priori
reason why the disproof of a specific god is impossible. The catch here is 'a
priori'. Now for one to believe the arguement, one must believe in the a
priori--knowledge acquired by the mind or reasoning alone, without basis in
experience.
The problem is that there is no a priori. All knowledge comes from experience.
The classic example 2 + 2 = 4 is supposedly a priori knowledge, because there
is nothing inherent in '4' that implies '2'. Wrong. Numbers are symbols created
by man
to represent concepts (things that exist in the mind). The concepts did not
exist prior to experience: experience is what created them and allowed them to
exist in the mind in the first place. If a person takes four cans, he can
easily find two cans within the four. Math is something that is learned, and
can be backed up with examples (take an apple, which we'll represent using the
symbol '1', and a pear, which will also be representd by '1', and put them
together and we have '2').
In
short, nothing can exist without our knowledge of it. And the only way to
obtain knowledge is through the senses. Ascribing traits to objects and saying
those traits are inherent is ridiculous, because we are the ones ascribing the
traits through our knowledge of the object.
Now, the 'concept of god' surely exists, because we are talking about it. But
whereas the concept of math can be proven (to a degree), the concept of god
falls under 'imagination' until it can be proven as fact. So, when a 'concept'
is created, who has the burden of proof?
According to Mr. Lowder, it is possible to prove a concept false, but only in
the a priori. Without a priori, proving a concept false is a ridiculous notion,
because you would be making a claim of non-experience. But one cannot prove a
claim of non-experience, because there is no evidence in the form of the senses
to back up this claim. The burden falls on the one making the claim of
knowledge (in this case, the existence of god, rather than the concept of god),
and
since
all knowledge comes from experience, the person claiming knowledge is claiming
experience. Now experience can be held to the scientific method, and can be
proven true of false.
So it is a moot point whether the non-existence of something can be proven,
because those claiming non-experience do not have the burden of proof... that
falls on the shoulders of the believers. We only know what can be proven, and
we can only prove what we have experienced.
Joe Konrath Monday, December 20, 1999 at 21:18:30 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
There are two kinds of a priori, analytic and synthetic. You have argued here only against the synthetic a priori. But there is still an analytic a priori which remains relevant: the very meaning of a proposition (alone or in combination with other propositions that are already granted or proven) can be self-contradictory or fundamentally meaningless and thus entail, a priori, that it is false (or at least not 'true'), i.e. an analytic a priori argument means: we know something is the case before examining anything in the world apart from the statement itself and its inherent meaning (or its meaning in conjunction with that of other propositions we will not deny). Thus, 2 + 2 = 5 is false a priori because, even before we actually check whether getting two cans and two more cans will leave us with five cans, we already know it won't, because of the internal meaning already assigned to the terms in this equation.
In this sense, knowledge a priori is a creation of human language, just as you describe, and the distinction only exists between this and knowledge a posteriori because we are too limited in intellect to automatically see whether some complex sentences are coherent. Instead, we often have to break them down and analyze the meaning of their elements in their given combination and context. This is just the sort of argument that Mortimer Adler, Hank Hanegraaff, Ron Rhodes, Kenneth Samples, Bertrand Russell, and Dallas Willard have attempted, and which are challenged in this essay.
This is distinctly different from an a posteriori argument which seeks to evaluate what predictions a proposition makes about the world beyond the proposition itself, and then checking to see if they are fulfilled under the appropriate conditions. Since it is possible for the proposition "The nonexistence of God can be proven" to be contradictory or meaningless (again, by itself, or when we acknowledge certain other propositions as undeniable or otherwise 'proven'), we may have to analyze its meaning to make sure. Some philosophers, such as Kai Nielsen, argue that the term "God" is incoherent and therefore "The nonexistence of God can be proven" becomes, on that theory, incoherent and therefore false a priori--that is, before we even try to disprove God's existence we know we can't because even the concept of such a disproof is meaningless--but this argument only applies to incoherent god-concepts, and not all god-concepts are incoherent.
In your rebutal to McDowells "Evidence" it is apparent that very few textual points were made. First your entire argument is based on your bias of what you call "evangelical christians." Of course McDowell has his own bias in that his goal is to defend or show evidence for the Christian faith just as your goal is to show that his book is not all that convincing. Everyone has biases, but to what extent we allow those biases to infiltrate our arguments can determine how valid those arguments are. In these essays "the jury" seems to only attack McDowell as a incompetant person and this faith that he so fanatically tries to prove. McDowell and "evangelical Christians" seem to be under attack here from Lowder rather than a text of a book.
Secondly what proof have you given to refute McDowell's claims? Just as the uniqueness of the Bible does not prove it is the Word of God neither does the fact that other and older people groups had similer beliefs prove it is not the word of God. Similar does not mean the same. For example, Mormons have an "interpratation" of Jesus and the Bible. It sounds like Christianity it looks like Christianity, but it is far from orthodox Christianity. These are subjective arguments just as the ones concerning the testimonies. Testimonies are subjective until they are backed by textual proof. Your arguments against those testimonies are subjective also and therefore hold no ground.
It has been mentioned that your arguments are biased to the point of attack
instead of proof. Just as McDowell presents arguments that will support his
point of few so do you and the textual truths are hidden behind your own
personal biases based upon your subjective deconversion. Before any textual
agrument will be made where do you get your information, concerning your
accounts of Biblical records especially? Did you actually research the material
yourself or is it out of someone's book. Secondly did you research the entire
text you are discussing? Because it seems by reading your essay your
conclusions concerning Bible prophecy and continuity are based upon clearly
what you read staight off the page and not based upon empirical studies in
context. I will write further if you would be so gracious to respond back to
these questions on where you got your material (concerning Biblical accounts).
Justin Capes Thursday, December 23, 1999 at 20:24:04 (MST)
Jeffery Jay Lowder responds:
Of course we made several "textual points" in our rebuttal to McDowell's "Evidence." In my chapter on the historicity of Jesus alone, I show how almost every single one of McDowell's extrabiblical sources do NOT provide independent confirmation of Jesus. Moreover, the other chapters of Jury also make several important "textual points."
Contrary to what Capes asserts, Evangelical Christians are not under attack in Jury. (BTW, the term "Evangelical Christian" is not a term made up by infidels; it is a term used by Evangelicals themselves.) McDowell's arguments are under attack and sometimes his scholarship is questioned, but that's hardly the same thing as attacking Evangelicals in general.
Capes asks, "what proof have you given to refute McDowell's claims?" But this is precisely what Jury is not about. As I write in the Introduction, the purpose of Jury is not to refute Evangelical Christianity. The purpose is simply to point out the flaws in some very bad arguments for Evangelical Christianity.
As for our sources of information, each of our authors list their sources.
I was reading your assessment of the Craig/Jesseph debate and I just want to get your response to a couple of things. Although I haven't listened to the '97 debate, I read the '96 debate, so I assume most of their arguments are similar.
Thanks for you honest, stimulating work. Though I disagree with you (I am a Christian), I enjoy reading the stuff you have on the 'net.
Cheers!!!
Jesse Kushin
Jeffery Jay Lowder responds:
On Craig's part, I think the arguments were identical. On Jesseph's part, I think there were some differences, but I can't remember what they were. Regarding Jesseph's argument from asymmetry of religious explanations, I'm agnostic about Jesseph's argument. Your response to Jesseph's argument strikes me as much better than the response that Craig used. I'm not sure how Jesseph would reply. I do agree with Jesseph that the plurality of world religions poses an evidential problem for theism, though. But I would focus the argument in quite a different way. I would emphasize that while the plurality of religions is strictly logically compatible with theism, it is nonetheless somewhat less antecedently probable on theism than on naturalism.
On the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the naturalistic hypothesis that the universe is a brute fact is not an ad hoc hypothesis. As I argued in my recent debate with Phil Fernandes, no metaphysical theory is capable of explaining everything; in every metaphysical theory there will be at least one brute fact not explained by the theory itself. In theism, this brute fact is God's existence. In naturalism, this brute fact is the existence of the universe. When the naturalist says that the existence of the universe is a brute fact, this is not an ad hoc manuever designed to maintain naturalism no matter what the evidence; rather, the existence of the universe is precisely the sort of fact that would lie beyond explanation if the hypothesis of naturalism is true. (If naturalism is true, there are no supernatural beings; the material universe [and possibly abstract objects] are all that exist.) To paraphrase theistic philosopher George Mavrodes, the existence of the universe is what is "deep" in a naturalistic world.
Compare this with the alleged Resurrection of Jesus. If a naturalist were to say that Jesus's body came back to life, but then denied the supernatural explanation for this event and instead argued that the Resurrection is a brute fact, this would be an utterly ad hoc manuever. Your closing question is an interesting one. At the outset, let me note that I would be willing to accept (or at least consider) theism on the basis of a religious experience. But if God wanted to prove His existence to me through cosmology, I can't think of any reason why, in principle, this could not be accomplished. It does seem to me that God would have had to create the universe using some other method than Big Bang cosmology, though, in order to avoid the problems associated with having time itself 'begin' at the 'moment' of the Big Bang.
Thank you for your mail. I hope this is useful.
On Christmas origins in Mithraism, one can also note the dreadful initiation
ceremony into the highest order of the cult, The Taurobolium. This was
literally being washed in the blood of the Saviour. A phrase that continued
into the Christian faith.
Armand Agpro
Friday, December 31, 1999 at 09:54:40 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
This is a still-repeated historical error begun, I believe, by Cumont. The taurobolium has never really been connected with Mithraism in any ancient evidence, but was a standard annual bull-sacrifice performed in the temple of Magna Mater in Rome, and which developed into a baptism ritual only in the 4th century A.D., well after the prominence of Christianity. The Roman temple of Magna Mater was once mistaken for a Mithraeum and thus the connection was incorrectly made with Mithraism, aided by some imaginative guesswork about the role of stone pits or troughs in various Mithraea and the role of the "Cosmic Bull Slaying" in Mithraic iconography and ideology. But the basins in Mithraea turn out to be water basins and are not large enough to be baptismal baths, and the location and size of Mithraea is such that it would be all but impossible to get a live bull into them. Moreover, the bull-slaying icon was not associated with sacrifice, but was a cosmic metaphor for the victory of Mithras over the forces of evil. All this and more can be learned from the sources I refer to below, and from the leading standard work on all Roman religions: Mary Beard, et al., Religions of Rome, 1998.
I have heard that the word ISRAEL is derived from the 3 gods ISIS RA and
EL, is there any documentation backing this up? Also I hear that the word
GENESIS comes from the Egyptian words: GEN and ISIS, is this true ?
Also you should really check out the PISO THEORY which puts forth that the
ROMAN PISOs concocted the New Testament out of whole cloth. Do you have
anything on this?
Ralph Tinfini
Sunday, December 26, 1999 at 18:40:30 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
This is all bunk. The Piso theory is an impressive work of fiction, but has no evidence in its favor. You need only examine any argument for the theory to see that every crucial link in it has no basis in any sources, while proponents try to impress you with abundant sources for what are otherwise mundane facts--for instance, the regular family and social contacts among all members of the Roman elite was a standard reality for centuries before and after Christianity, and so attempts to point out "coincidences" of contact or acquaintance as proof of a conspiracy are just plain silly.
As for "Genesis" the word form is not Hebrew and does not come from the Hebrew form, which is bere'shith, the first word in the Hebrew Bible meaning "in the beginning." The word "Genesis" comes from the Greek form used to translate the Hebrew in the Septuagint: genesiV, meaning "a coming into being," from gignomai, "to become." So obviously there is no way the word is related to Isis or any Egyptian concept. Israel is the Hebrew word Yisra'el for "struggles with God" or "God has power" or something of the sort (cf. Genesis 32:28; the verb sarah = contend, have power, contend with, persist, exert oneself, persevere + the noun el = God). This becomes the eponymous name of the Hebrew nation and their founding hero figure Jacob, on the grounds that he physically, and the Hebrews figuratively, struggle with God, and God and His people always prevail or persevere. Many Biblical names are eponymous in this way. There is thus no rationale for a derivation from the two Egyptian gods and one Hebrew god--the word doesn't make sense that way.
Got any links for Mithraism or does it remain an intellectual curiosity?
Bobbi Robertson Friday, December 31, 1999 at 09:40:22 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Answer: See below.
I don't have a comment, but a question/request. I've tried finding books
that speak to the mythology of Christmas, but have not found any. Can you or
the author direct me? It would be wonderful to have such a guide during the
holidays. Also, any books that discuss non-Christian traditions, like Christmas
trees, holly, etc., would be appreciated.
Oscar Gonzalez Wednesday, December 29, 1999 at 05:33:24 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Perhaps John Golby's The Making of the Modern Christmas (1986) is the book to get, though it is out of print. Sue Samuelson's Christmas: An Annotated Bibliography (1982) will list some titles to investigate, and though it is also out of print your local library may be able to borrow a copy for you to consult.
In 'Christmas Mytholgy', by William Edelen, it is stated that
"Mithras was born of a virgin, with only shepherds present."
What is the source of this? According to a web site that I found, Mithras was
born
from a rock.
Kim
Palmo
USA - Sunday, December 26, 1999 at 23:17:28 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
The attribution of a virgin birth from his mother Anahita is found in pre-Roman Asian inscriptions and is thus well-attested (see David Fingrut's "Mithraism: The Legacy of the Roman Empire's Final Pagan State Religion"), but so is the rock-birth from surviving idols, but I suspect the rock-birth was either a late development particular to Roman Mithraism (the virgin-birth inscriptions are found in Parthia, not the Roman Empire, but Palestine sits on the borders of both), or else a metaphor employed to depict the virgin-birth (Anahita being the type of Mother Earth, hence she is the rock). Print sources are listed in my next response below.
This is fascinating. My only criticism is that there are no references.
Could
you
point me to some reliable sources about Mithras.
Thanks
James Vijay Sunday, December 26, 1999 at 19:14:00 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
None of the good sources are easy to get ahold of, but they are: Michael Speidel, Mithras-Orion: Greek Hero and Roman Army God (1980); Marvin Meyer, The "Mithras Liturgy" (1976); Leroy Campbell, Mithraic Iconography and Ideology (1968); Samuel Laeuchli, Mithraism in Ostia: Mystery Religion and Christianity in the Ancient Port of Rome (1967); and the classic but somewhat outdated work by Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (1956). Ulansey has an excellent and accessible book on Mithras ( The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World , see author's summary ), but it unfortunately does not delve into issues apart from his astronomical thesis. His bibliographical notes list the above mentioned books and of course many other even-less-accessible resources--there was, for instance, a journal dedicated to Mithraism terminated in 1980, and there have been several conferences whose proceedings were published, but a great deal of work is not in English. See my previous response above for an online source.
Hi, I just want information about the coincidences of Christianity with
Zoroastrianism. What books do I buy or where do I look for info? Thanks.
German Aguirre Gonzalez
Wednesday, December 29, 1999 at 21:06:37 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
See references in the above two replies, though none deal directly with the issue of parallels. Unfortunately, almost all the really good scholarship on direct parallels between Mithraism and Christianity is to be found in academic journals and conference proceedings, and even those are mostly in German and French.
Ref. Christmas Mythology Article - Excellent information, but the author
should
be a little more accurate. He states that in the 6th century BC, celebrations
were
held "from December 25 to the Spring Equinox." Of course, there was no December
25 in
the 6th century BC, the author probably ment that celebrations were held from
the winter solstice to spring equinox. Theists would pick up on a misstatement
like
this to bolster their arguments. Free thinkers have to be as accurate as
possible when relating factual information.
Ted Nieves Friday, December 31, 1999 at 07:24:26 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
It is not inappropriate to use the anachronism of modern dates when referring to ancient practices or events. For instance, you would not object to translators of Livy giving his dates in modern terms rather than in the incredibly confusing kalends-ides-nones system of ancient Rome. If it really is true that the celebrations began on the fourth day after the Winter Solstice (25 December), then saying "December 25" is still a correct translation, and more useful to laymen.
This brief article raises a question for me. The notion that the
Christian incarnation resurrection story was derived from Greek mystery
religions (e.g. Mithraism) was popular in the evolution of religions school
(e.g.
The Golden Bough) in the early part of this century, but has since been widely
rejected. There are many reasons for this, but chief among them is that it was
decided there is insufficient evidence to show any awareness of the Greek
mystery cults within first century Palestine where Christianity arose. Where
are the "hundreds of eminent scholars" who contradict this? I can certainly
attest that the vast amount of eminent scholars of biblical origins from the
more conservative (e.g. Tom Wright, Richard Hayes, Luke Timothy Johnson) to the
more "middle of the road" (e.g. Raymond Brown, John Meier) to the most notable
"pariahs" of the Jesus Seminar (e.g. John Dominic Crossan) would disagree with
the argument put forth here. From the perspective of historical research of
Christian origins there is simply no leading scholar who holds to this obsolete
thesis, tantalizing though it may seem on first reading.
Randal Reder Friday, December 31, 1999 at 04:38:21 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
The central reason that a Mithraism-to-Christianity influence is not much defended anymore is the inability to conclusively demonstrate priority. It is possible that various Mithraic traits precede Christianity and thus could have had an influence, but it is also possible that Mithraism was instead influenced by Christianity. The field is much in need of new research on this matter. However, the reason you allege ("insufficient evidence to show any awareness of the Greek mystery cults within first century Palestine") is not a significant rationale anymore--the Roman Empire has been demonstrated to be incredibly cosmopolitan, and Palestine was no exception.
Paul, for example, came from Asia Minor, not Palestine, and it was in Asia Minor that the greatest amount of East-West religious syncretism had ever occurred. Paul's home town of Tarsus had been the Western capital of Mithraism at least a century before Paul was born (see Ulansey, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries , pp. 40-5). Thus, the mere fact that Paul is central in the proliferation of Christianity provides a ready possible link with Mithraism and any other influences, from Zoroastrianism to Stoicism to the Bacchic mysteries, and Paul is not a freak--the diaspora Jewish communities dotted the entire Empire, creating travel and contacts with every corner of the Roman world well before Rome had even conquered Palestine in the 1st century B.C.E.
In fact, since the Alexandrian conquest of Judaea centuries before Christ, Greek colonists flocked to Palestine and brought their religious mysteries with them, as they did to Egypt, spawning the mysteries of Isis, a syncretism of Greek and Egyptian religion. We have evidence of influence from Hellenistic mystery-traditions about the afterlife in pre-Christian Jewish texts (e.g. the Book of Enoch), and we know the Isis cult was prominent in Egypt where, we are told, Jesus spent some of his early life and possibly received some of his education or contacts. In addition, the Persian Zoroastrianism from which Mithraism derives was well-rooted in Babylon even when the Jews were in exile there, and contacts had remained ever since. The Samaritans practiced a hybrid religion uniting Persian beliefs with traditional Judaism, and the very doctrine of a flaming hell, which we are told was taught by Jesus, is from the very same Zoroastrian origin as the entire Mithras cult. Thus, there is no telling what Peter or, one might even imagine, Jesus had learned in their lifetimes which could have affected the development of Christianity.
Likewise, the mere fact that all early Christian literature (and the Septuagint centuries before) was written in Greek proves that its originators were familiar with Greek education and thus with Greek literature, which would have included Herodotus, who recounts the first known divine-man resurrection religion (the Thracian Zalmoxis, Histories 4.90-95), and Plato who often remarks on Orphic and other dualistic religious philosophies. There is also the curiosity of the crucified-and-resurrected goddess Inanna, texts about whom are known from the location of Ur, Abraham's homeland and Palestine's back-yard, and although they date to Sumerian times, there are many tantalizing clues that some similar beliefs survived in various religious myths throughout the Middle East. Then there is the fact that most of what we know about Christianity comes from sources written after it had already spread across Asia and Greece and all the way to Rome and possibly beyond, and any new influences could have taken effect in the post-Pauline period. This is not to prove any such connections, but only to show that the story is not so simple, and any current scholarly rejection of the theory is based mainly on ignorance, not on any careful examination of the case.
[At first I wanted to say that] only with treasures and freethinkers like
William Edelen (and myself) will the world begin to see the horrors and
atrocities committed in the bible and the world. Thank you for great articles
as the "Christmas Mythology.". [But] after rereading your article titled
"Christmas Mythology" it becomes clear to me that you are hovering above a
Christian disguise. Under the constitution, religion is not allowed in public
schools, whether all religions are discussed or not. Religion is religion and
fantasy is fantasy. Religion in today's society is fact and not fantasy, as you
assume. Goddesses and multiple gods are fantasy in today's society; religion is
a male dominated cult evolved around one god. This god-fearing society in which
we live is a threat to freethinkers, peace, and love. It belongs nowhere in
public schools.
Doreen Adams Monday, December 27, 1999 at 08:52:41 (MST)
Not just religion but life itself is rendered flavorless when the
possibiltity of anything "magic" or unexplainable occurs, especially when you
are too "smart" and I do use the term loosely, to believe that magic can exist.
That covers overly cynical religion bashers and anyone else that lets
hopelesness and over-logic ruin their way of thinking. Put bluntly, religion
does sound like a load of horsesh*t, but then again, so does everything else in
this world, when put bluntly. I guess I pity those with no imagination.
Michael Rich
USA - Saturday, December 25, 1999 at 00:21:58 (MST)
In response to Lee Salisbury's Answer to Prayer, I am a Protestant and I am
not suffering or in pain. I do pray and I do read the Bible. I do think for
myself and I do follow the rules set forth in the Bible. I am a woman of very
strong nature, I am very independent and I do NOT depend on anyone else to feed
or
clothe
me or my family. I have a husband and he is the head of the house, but that
does not mean that I am not equal. We, in our church, believe that the wife is
equal
and is a helper. No entity can have two rulers. My husband loves me as himself,
read
Eph. 5:25. I don't sit around waithing on God to fix all of my problems, I am
responsible for my own actions.
If I do something wrong, I don't wait on God to fix it. I must find a way to
fix it.
I do
pray for knowledge and wisdom so I won't do wrong again. If I am sick I pray
for healing. If I am depressed, I pray because I find comfort knowing that God
is with me. If I have a problem I pray that God will show me how to handle
it,(not fix it for me). If I have financial problems, I work harder.
Being a Christian is a wonderful thing and I am glad I am one. Just because I
am a Christian does not mean that I am oppressed and can not think of "wordly"
things.
I have seen so many prayers come true, that I must believe in prayer.
By the way, Darwin changed his mind about how man became. I hope anyone who
reads your article will realize how silly it is and THINK FOR THEMSELVES and
realize it is all a bunch of hogwash.
In Christ,
Christian Woman
Tina Nolen Friday, December 31, 1999 at 08:50:38 (MST)
This email is in response to Lee Salisbury's Answers to Prayer. I am
atheist in a Catholic town, and I am one of few. When reading Answers to
Prayer, it reconfirmed my belief that Christianity is oppressive and fascist.
Everyday I see many god-children, and I see them suffer from confusion and
despair. They are incapable of any intelligent and rational thought whatsoever.
When I try to give them advice how I would solve the problem, their religion,
their morals, their ethics, and their parents come into play preventing them
from making any logical move to solve one of their many problems. It saddens me
to see people commit masochism in the name of faith. After seeing this horror
occur, I say "Could that happen to me?" and then I realize that the thing
making
me different and invulnerable to their problems is my belief in atheism. This
only strengthens my belief that there is no god. In summation, I agree with Mr.
Salisbury in every aspect of his article, it demonstrates how fascist
Christianity really is.
David Grisostolo
Wednesday, December 29, 1999 at 14:15:21 (MST)
Hello. I keep getting NetMind notices and occasionally take a look at
your pages. There is one very misguided policy here in place, which is the
apparent alliances with and links to anti-Scientology outfits. This is
completely debasing the atheist morality standards so to speak, if we take
ethics based on reason for such a thing. Anti-Scientology crowd are in
possession of stolen materials which they seem to take pride in trying to
publish broadly; what distortions may have been entered to those materials no
one can tell. I any case, those materials are known to have rendered unprepared
readers unstable, and should not be thrown at a casual reader even if laws were
not broken on that occasion. That whole crowd are gone berserk. This is being
pretended as defending freedom of speech and much posturing is being done. Let
such pipsqueaks show some other talents than malice. If you want to know how
freedom of expression does get busted indeed you may experiment by writing
anything positive about Scientology to those arses discussion boards--even if
you do not mean it. Frankly, it is a shame to see the tradition of Paine,
Shelly, Huxley, in such company.
W Paul Tabaka Friday, December 31, 1999 at 02:51:24 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Since you do not mention even a single example of exactly what "apparent alliances with and links to anti-Scientology outfits" disturb you, I cannot help you. We have a scientology section in our bookstore, where we list books critical of scientology, and there is certainly nothing "debasing" about that. Our purpose as a secular website is to direct people to the most important criticisms of religion, and to let readers think for themselves, something Thomas Paine would have been very proud to see.
Also, what an author has done in their lives has little to do with whether their arguments are sound or their facts straight, and we know our intelligent readers can sort the wheat from the chaff. And in the one place I know where we link to websites critical of Scientology (our Young Freethinkers page) we also link to a major Scientology website as well. When will Scientologists do anything like this?
Finally, your claim that Scientology's "secret" proprietary texts will "render" us "unstable" is the very same Big Brother argument "knowledge is bad for you so it is our duty to bless you with ignorance." This is not only arrogant, but it is quite pathetic. Indeed, yours is the very superstitious thinking that all rational people ought to avoid. And as to whether distortions have been added into any supposedly unauthorized texts--well, we welcome the Church of Scientology's specific denials of these very corruptions. When will they be forthcoming?
Where are the arrogant atheists? Is it arrogant to ask for evidence from
those
who make assertions? Or is it arrogant for those who make the assertions to
believe themselves correct and then further believe that they are being
persecuted when asked for evidence?
Personally, I have met few atheists I would consider arrogant. Most atheists,
having studied and learned and probed and questioned, are humble people. But
they
also question the validity of beliefs held without evidence. Does this make
them fundamentalist atheists or does it make them reasonable people? You
decide.
Steve Sommers
Tuesday, December 28, 1999 at 15:59:04 (MST)
James Still responds:
Rather than respond to the many messages individually, I'll just respond to Steve's message because it is typical of the chief complaint about my essay. Many took me to task for defending Gore, claiming that it is far from arrogant "to ask for evidence from those who make assertions." I completely agree, of course. It is the duty of citizens of modern democracies everywhere to engage critically with political leaders about matters of public policy. We must always ask questions and probe into the arguments behind decisions.
However, Steve's complaint is against a straw man rather than candidate Gore. In his interview for 60 Minutes, Gore complained about those atheists who seem to go out of their way to ridicule believers. We all know the type. Mr. Militant is a wiseass who rolls his eyes, smirks, and makes a crack about the believer's brain being damaged by religion. Get him online with mouse and modem, and Mr. Militant becomes a snarling beast, howling his indignation in any Christian chat room he can find. Steve is quite correct, however, in that most atheists are humble people who have moved beyond superstition. It is a shame that a vocal minority who are not as mature have made things difficult for the rest of us. We all know what it's like to be at a social gathering in which the dreaded "A" subject comes up and people say "wow, but you're such a nice person."
For my part, I'm working toward changing that perception one person at a time. The day will come when atheism will be as respected a worldview as Zen or Christianity. But we're not there yet and each of us has to work hard to erase the prevailing perception shared by Al Gore and millions of others like him.
As a practicing Buddhist for 27 years here in America, I feel I need to make
myself understood when discussing the topic of God with anyone unfamiliar with
me
first.
As a Buddhist, I am not required to believe or disbelieve in the Christian God,
this is apparently a paradox for most Christians who need to determine weather
I am friend or foe. As a Buddhist, and as an individual, I am not aware of any
experiences I may have had with God or Jesus, but I am acutely aware of the
experiences I have had with Christians, born again and otherwise. These
experiences are the only things that I have to judge what the Christian God is,
and it has helped me to put the Buddhist gods in perspective; so I have no
arguement with the way Christians speak or conduct themselves because my
experiences with them have been a valuable tool for me in forging my own faith
as a Buddhist. The only comment I can end with is that their faith appears to
be an outer-oriented one whereas, mine is inner-oriented. Thank you,
Chuck Henry
Wednesday, December 22, 1999 at 12:49:51 (MST)
Mr. Still's opinions about many of us atheists being rightly denounced for
their "single-minded attempt to engage in spiritual cleansing" seems to lack a
sense of both history and current events. The idea that Gore doesn't like it
when his religious beliefs are challenged by those who disagree with him paints
him as a political child who lacks any kind of backbone. 'Shadow theocracy'
paranoia aside, I think it is ludicrous for a politician to talk about atheists
and non-believers being "arrogant" for exercising a freedom that has been hard
won in this century. The atheist minority has been actively persecuted and
demonized in both the media and in political circles, and thus far no one seems
to care. Arrogant? How about angry? How about frustrated? How about fed-up with
the fact that the Christian viewpoint is consistently favored, even in the face
of massive injustice? Anti-gay sentiment, hate-crime waffling, near-constant
suppression of free speech, unwarranted personal attacks on atheists and
agnostics, form-letter deluges to the FCC, abortion clinic violence,
creationism as worthwhile scientific study... how much more of this are we as
free-thinkers and non-believers supposed to swallow without voicing our
dissent?
The fact that Gore and other 'born-again's' like him consider atheists who
speak their minds and point out the illogic and injustice fostered by the
Christian belief system to be "arrogant" is a clear sign to me that atheists
and free-thinkers need to be even more public and adamant in our demand for
equal treatment. I personally don't know of any atheist that just attacks
believers without provocation. What a waste of time. As far as I know, it only
comes up when a religious point of view is used as leverage in a political,
law-making forum or debate. But the Christian/religious viewpoint is so
prevalent that few are able to step away to see how arrogant they themselves
are being. If one were to call a black man "uppity" because he voiced his anger
at violations of his civil rights, they would be considered racist and ignorant
and rightly so.
So why
is it that when people like Gore, Buchanan, and others of their zealous ilk are
called regressive and dangerous by all us non-believers directly affected by
their political agendas, we are shouted down for our "arrogance"? Injustices
past and present, and dangerous anti-/science and anti-secular knowledge
campaigns that persist to this day demand our attention. Why do the zealots
constantly side-step the issue and resort to vilifying their challengers? Why
don't they instead simply respond to our challenges with proof and evidence?
Why not debate their position with us atheists in a public forum? As we
non-believers already know, they can't. It's how we ourselves arrived where we
are. Their frustration with a deep-seated and powerful, but nonetheless
dead-end, fruitless, and increasingly harmful belief system manifests itself in
displays of displacement that, pardon the expression, defy belief.
As soon as atheists are given the same respect in the public forum that is
afforded our religious leaders, I'll have no reason to continue my 'arrogant'
defiance of those faithful who want so badly to take away the freedoms we all
have fought so hard for.
Keep the Reason!
Ken Gust Tuesday, December 21, 1999 at 17:00:01 (MST)
I like the non-combative attitude taken in the response to the Gore
speech.
I have a problem with the use of the word "athiest" for it simply means "no
God."
Now if you cannot prove that there is a God, then how can you prove there is no
God!? That is what makes the word "agnostic" more to the point.
It has taken me most of my 84 years to come to the state of mind, e.g.
humanist, agnostic so one can't expect others to reach the same mental
condition without a lot of shedding of mininformation from the past. So don't
you
think that most people are about where they ought to be until they come to free
thinking conclusions on their own?
Theo G. Truitt Sunday, December 19, 1999 at 19:07:54 (MST)
I would like to express my disagreement and disappointment with James
Still's commentary, "Al Gore on Arrogant Atheists." Let me began by stating
that I
am a Democrat, who is planning to vote for Gore; his remarks about atheists
notwithstanding. But I do think these remarks were both insulting and
inappropriate for a candidate who claims to be reaching out to all Americans.
Further, I find Still's apologia for Gore's comments inaccurate and rather
naive.
Still claims that "many of us nonbelievers are arrogant, incredibly
arrogant..." I challenge him to back up this claim. Estimate what percentage of
all freethinkers you've come in contact with would qualify as arrogant, Mr.
Still. I'm pleased to be a member of both a local freethought group and two
national organizations (FFRF and Council for Secular Humanism) and I've
attended several national conventions for freethinkers. Further, I founded my
own atheistic student group at my university, which has swollen to about 40
members. Granted, my experiences with freethinkers are probably much less than
Still's, but I have yet to encounter the many arrogant atheists that Still
speaks of.
Of
course I've met arrogant atheists, just as I have met arrogant Christians,
Jews, Muslims, etc. But proportionately, I've encountered no noticeable
difference in the amount of arrogant, obnoxious or self-righteous atheists.
These
are
human traits that transcend all religious beliefs. To single out non-believers
as Gore did, is, I think, both unwarrented and prejudicial.
Still then assails "fundamentalist atheists", who are closed-minded or
absolutely certain they have the truth. Who is he talking about? Keep in mind
that
most atheists grew up at least nominally religious. Therefore, most of us had
to develop an open, tolerant mind, to slowly gravitate towards freethought.
Certainly some us may have become intolerant and self-righteous about our
beliefs afterwards, but it is far less likely than a fundamentalist religionist
who
often
has
never even considered or encountered a non-religious worldview.
Still's charge of "intellectual elitism" is particularly inappropriate. If we
nonbelievers (or anyone for that matter) strive to explain why we think our
view is right using logic, reason and evidence, does that make us intellectual
elitists? If so, I proudly plead guilty to that. However, arguing against
religious belief, explaining why you consider it incorrect and/or absurd does
not entail making ad hominem attacks against the believer. Christians often
blur
this distinction, assuming atheists who criticize their beliefs are denigrating
them as people. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If Still means that atheists look down upon Christians as intellectually
inferior, that is true at times. But Christians are just as guilty of this
vice. Nothing is more intellectually elitist than Thomistic metaphysics, whose
proponents often smugly muse few people can ever understand. Buttressing
Christian intellectual elitism against atheists is the often quoted passage of
Psalms 14:1 ("The fool hath said in his heart, 'there is no god'")
I don't think the Vice President was deliberately trying to be insulting in his
remarks. Rather, I think he was revealing his fundamentalist background, which
often considers anyone who dares profess non-belief arrogant (for placing
themselves at the same level as the divine). This view is buttressed by a few
stereotypical atheists (angry, arrogant, obnoxious, etc.) such as Madalyn
O'Hair, being the most outspoken, while the plethora of decent, kind-hearted,
tolerant and friendly nonbelievers remain silent. Instead of defending
prejudicial remarks like Gore's, Still should continue to work to shatter the
myths deeply ingrained in our theistic (and Christian dominated) society.
Tim Kidd Saturday, December 18, 1999 at 10:18:22 (MST)
If he's such a devout christian, Gore should have read the passage about the
hypocrite--you know, the guy who proclaimed his faith loudly in the middle of
the street so that everyone could be impressed with his display of 'piety'.
Once again, a politician uses the cloak of religion to disguise a lack of
principles befitting a Clinton apologist. He attacks law-abiding, tax-paying
atheists from the religious angle, and as a liberal his disregard for the
result-oriented aspects of science and reason [leads him to] attack us from the
socialist angle. Remember his so-called book on the environment, Earth in
the Balance? Any sap unlucky enough to read this poor excuse for literature
can realise that any connection between reliable science and that waste of
cellulose is purely accidental. For one who is supposedly an ardent
environmentalist, this is a lousy use of dead trees.
Chris Smith Friday, December 17, 1999 at 21:50:09 (MST)
About Gore's 5 DEC 99 remarks; let us remember that religious Jimmy Carter was
better for church-state separation than less religious Ronald Reagan. Let's not
hold Gore's diplomatic remarks for religious voters against him. He'll be
better for church state separation than any of the GOPers.
Mr. Andrew O. Lutes Friday, December 10, 1999 at 17:59:57 (MST)
On Vice President Gore's comment that he will continue to be "personally guided
by religion in his professional life." Hey, I am a passenger on this ship of
state that he proposes to guide and I would much prefer a leader who is guided
by scientific reason in making the decisions that affect my life. Maybe, based
on his religious beliefs, he might decide that nonbelievers are not qualified
to be citizens, a belief held by former president Bush and defended by Bush
only on the grounds that his religion is strongly held.
Once one abandons reason for faith it is difficult for them or us to tell where
they might go; and maybe that explains Gore's apparent confusion about who he
is or what he stands for.
Ted Radamaker Friday, December 10, 1999 at 13:36:04 (MST)
I'd like to respond to the article concerning Al Gore's "60 Minutes" interview.
The author seems like a skilled and compassionate writer, but I'm not sure that
the subject matter was one worthy of his talents. I wouldn't have written
anything about any of Al Gore's views which is probably why I found something
more interesting to do rather than watch the interview. Like most politicians,
he's aware that he won't win any votes among the god-fearing majority if he
defends those who he calls "anti-religious." I've met people who could be
called anti-religious inasmuch as they do not participate in organized
religion, won't attend religious services, won't financially support religious
institutions, but freely quote holy texts, believe in gods, devils, heaven,
hell, miracles, and prayers. Furthermore, people often use the term "arrogant"
to describe others who do not believe as they do as well as those who they fail
to win
as converts to their point of view. Rather than accept the fact that their
religious views may not make sense to others, the faithful will often quote the
bible as saying that the fool has said in his heart that there is no god. But,
if one wants to experience arrogance, just spend a few minutes listening to the
messages on some of the faith-based radio programs or the 700 Club.
I've
been called arrogant. Sometimes it was justified. But sometimes people resented
the fact that I would not agree with them just because they claimed to be
speaking the words of a higher power. In many communities, there are daily
assaults on the public with respect to different religious groups insisting
that their point of view be heard as well as believed. There are individuals
riding
on buses and subways who think nothing of endlessly shouting their beliefs at
the top of their lungs. If you are trying to hold a conversation, read, sleep,
study,
or EVEN PRAY, what they believe becomes paramount. Singing hymns, passing out
tracts, rattling tambourines, shouting through megaphones and microphones,
soliciting donations, accosting people and insisting that they stop and listen
to what they have to say are but a few of the attention-grabbing methods used.
While walking along the street, I've had people block my path to shove me a
tract or offer to read to me from the bible. I'll always politely say, "No
thank you, I'm a non-believer, but you have a good day anyway." I'm sure
they're thinking, "Now there goes one arrogant Black woman!"
Try reasoning with someone who believes in virgin births, an earth created in 7
days, transubstantiation, past lives, speaking in tongues, faith healing,
resurrections, and so forth. No matter how gently you say that you'd like to
have PROOF before you can believe, no matter how quietly and plainly you point
out contradictions in what they are saying, it just doesn't matter. What the
believer sees in the non-believer is an arrogant know-it-all who doesn't
recognize the word of god when they hear it. I avoid raising religion during
discussions because I know they will be frustrating discussions that go no
where.
If you try to get the converter to expand on a statement that they've made they
often tell you that they just have faith. If they ask you a question and you
try to document your answer with facts, you're generally told in an
unflattering way that you always have an answer for everything. My response to
that ought to be that since they are the one trying to convert me to their
point of view, they should also have an answer for everything as well. However,
the more intelligent, decent, caring, and tolerant a non-believer you are,
frankly, the more contemptuously you're viewed. In fact, they will point out
that the bible says you're good behavior and good deeds are meaningless because
you
don't believe. Now, a murderer, a serial rapist, a child molester, etc., who
repents and finds god is a saint!
It makes no difference to me whether someone is arrogant or humble if they are
committed to the separation of church and state, work to end oppression in all
forms, and have no interest in persecuting people [whether it's in the name of
god or the state] who don't share their values.
Finally, no one, especially Mr. Gore, would dispute the fact that the US is the
number one world power on the planet. I think it takes a very arrogant person
to conclude that they have what it takes to be the president.
Naima X Friday, December 10, 1999 at 12:01:12 (MST)
Your defense of Al Gore is indefensible. Gore's views on religion first
disturbed me last spring. Addressing the Salvation Army, Gore indicated he
would fork over tax dollars to support "faith-based" charities. Gore's early
voting record was anti-choice on abortion. He is not our friend. He may be more
likely than Bush to push a moral agenda. He believes one of his kids was saved
by an angel. The man is irrational.
It is
not arrogant to ridicule irrational beliefs. As George Orwell said, "it is our
continuing duty to restate the obvious." In this age of pervasive advertising
and virtual reality, that is more important than ever. I respect Al Gore's
right to believe in God, but he can also respect my right to laugh.
John M Davis
Thursday, December 09, 1999 at 22:37:24 (MST)
This comment is in response to Mr. Still's essay titled: Al Gore on Arrogant
Atheists. My only question is this, had the person who called nonbelievers been
GOP frontrunner George Bush, would you have given Mr. Bush an equal defense?
Frank Kimel Thursday, December 09, 1999 at 21:32:32 (MST)
In the article "Al Gore on Arrogant Atheists," James Still says, "our atheism
is not challenged by the coexistence of religious belief" as a reaction to the
more excitable and intolerant words of some atheists. It made me think about
the word "atheist" in a new way. "Atheist" is a word from within the religious
language game. After all, without religion there would be no need for the word
at all. Since atheism is a reaction to theism, then if one rejects theism, one
also is rejecting the label "atheist." It is up to others to call me an
"atheist," but the burden of proof for theism is theirs, not mine, so I do not
need to label myself.
Stephen Wright Thursday, December 09, 1999 at 02:57:13 (MST)
My only qualm with the article on Al Gore's feeling that nonbelievers can be so
arrogant is; How can he fail to mention how incredibly arrogant and intolerant
many believers can be as well?Will probably still support his canidacy,but only
because there is no chance at this point of anyone who would even admit doubt
about "belief".
Rex Edgmon Wednesday, December 08, 1999 at 09:13:48 (MST)
Hello,
I
suspect it is improbable, if not impossible, to understand or appreciate the
attraction of religion, without an understanding of the role played by pain,
fear, ignorance and desire. "Faith is the sister of Hope, both are the
daughters of Desire".
Also, if one ever makes an attempt at actually thinking, one soon discovers it
is one
of the most difficult activities undertaken. Humans, being what they are,
generally do not engage in activities in which they are not skilled or that
make
them
feel uncomfortable. "There is no extreme to which a woman [people] won't go to
avoid
the pain of thought", by Oscar Wilde. My former wife told some dinner guests,
"Thinking[her thinking] gives me[her]a headache", and she seldom complained of
having headaches!
Pain, fear, ignorance and desire all have their origins, but these are subjects
of a
much
more lenghty letter. Food for thought.
Sincerely,
John Stauffer
Akron,
PA USA - Tuesday, December 07, 1999 at 18:39:44 (MST)
Theism
is so firmly entrenched in our culture ("You've got to believe in something")
that any refutation of it is inevitably denounced as "arrogant." The accusation
is made by those who can think of nothing better to say. It is a diversionary
tactic, designed to put atheists on the defensive. James Still has fallen right
into the trap. Let us not follow his bad example.
David Rand Tuesday, December 07, 1999 at 10:52:34 (MST)
In rushing in to the defense of Al Gore after his repeated statements about his
religious beliefs, Mr. Still seems to forget there is an alternative. Bill
Bradley has voiced religious beliefs not far from the Vice President's, but has
also clearly stated that, for him, religion and politics do not mix.
Freethinkers who pride themselves on making rational decisions should not let
partisan political considerations interfere with their personal political
choices, whether for the Presidency of the United States or their own local
government offices and issues.
Douglas A. Gray
Tuesday, December 07, 1999 at 10:04:05 (MST)
I agree whole-heartedly with Still's comments; nontheists who arrogantly and
belligerently criticize the views of theists are no better than religious
fundamentalists who routinely proclaim that unless one is "saved," he or she
shall be damned to the "fiery pits of hell." Constructive debate is one thing;
needlessly, fruitlessly badgering those whose belief systems differ from one's
own is indeed as inexcusable an act of intolerance as Still maintains, and (in
this case) reflects negatively on nontheists of all ilks. It is refreshing to
encounter a nontheist with the courage to defend as a matter of principle a
perfectly fair and accurate remark made by a theist, in this case our
"born-again" (ostensibly with no more charisma than he had the first time) vice
president. It is my hope that nontheists who have displayed the sort of
intolerance to which Still refers will entertain his comments with an open mind
and
alter their conduct accordingly.
Steven
J. Conifer Tuesday, December 07, 1999 at 05:07:04 (MST)
So we're arrogant aye? I suppose there are arrogant people in every population
or
group. Personally, I think it's arrogant for Christians to think they know the
one and only true god out of all the thousands of versions of deity constructs
that
have
ever existed...while never thinking for a second that perhaps their viral
construct of god might be as false as every other god construct. I think it's
arrogant that they believe that all morality stems from believing in their god.
Many believe that. Overall, I'm offended by their collossal arrogance and
ignorance of the ferocious history that has resulted from the perversion of
Christianity. They dominate the market of arrogance. They suffer no more
discrimination than any other group. They simply suffer from persecution
complex. They should get over it.
Don't
get me wrong. I'm not suggesting the development of a "We vs. Them" attitude.
My
intent
is not
to sound hostile. I'm simply pointing out that while atheists by definition
lack a belief in god. Christians think they know the one and only god out of
all the deities that have ever been constructed. The arrogance is built right
into their belief system! In the arena of arrogance we can't compete with them.
If they get upset because I point out their lack of critical thinking, so be
it. Perhaps they should stop being so blatantly oblivious to the world around
them. Don't mistake that as arrogance. At least I, like many atheists, have the
courage to honestly scrutinize my beliefs or lack thereof. If a Christian does
that,
the Christian doesn't stay a Christian for long. That's why religion doesn't
tolerate questioning very well. I dare the Christians to let their imagination
go wild. I dare them to ask every little question that an atheist dares ask.
Let them ask their pastors the questions we ask. In less than fifteen minutes
they'll see a very angry pastor indeed! That's not arrogance. That's freedom of
thought. But if that's what's construed as arrogance then color me arrogant!
Good day and Thanks
Kevin R. Twitchell Monday, December 06, 1999 at 19:42:43 (MST)
The more I read James Still's reasoned articles, the more I like him.
Keep up the good work.
Jerome O'Neil
Monday, December 06, 1999 at 13:51:18 (MST)
I agree with you completely. My personal rule is not to believe in anything
more
than 95% (at the very, very most). But I'll admit I have fallen into that
superiority trap. If you're debating a fundamentalist with a superiorty
complex, it's hard not to do it yourself. You know, an "eye for eye", or was it
"turn
the
other cheek"?
Atheist Messiah
Monday, December 06, 1999 at 10:03:29 (MST)
I just went through your 'Science and Faith'
section, especially taking care to read Richard Dawkins' arguments, and I have
come to the conclusion that his papers only give atheists a bad name. He is
very arrogant: he seems to imply that 'education' is necessary to be free from
belief
in God. He also does not adequately define the terms he uses in his arguments,
especially terms such as 'science,' 'religion,' and 'faith.' He also expects
the reader to accept evolution's validity based on his reading of the evidence
without presenting any evidence for it so that the reader may evaluate it. More
specifically, in his article on 'faith vs. science' ["Is Science a
Religion?"], he defines faith (the one article where he takes any care to
define his terms) in a completely different way from the way most religious
people would define it (specifically, in arguing that there is no evidence for
the object of their faith, where most religions do provide some degree, however
small,
of evidence for their faiths); this makes his argument moot. In summary, anyone
who is looking for a philosophical reason to avoid belief in God is better off
avoiding Dawkins' writings, as they are philosophically lacking.
Thank you.
David DeVore
USA - Monday, December 27, 1999 at 01:57:45 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Please read with more care for context. Dawkins' writes "I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, 'Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?'" [I have encountered just the same sort of critic and respond in my article "A Fish Did Not Write This Essay"] It is thus against this definition of faith, advanced by just such critics, that Dawkins is arguing against in that article. Certainly all words have various definitions, but Dawkins sees as pernicious that particular kind of faith which does not base itself in evidence, and he gives a paradigm case in point: "Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them." In fact, the Gospel of John uses this very parable to praise especially those who believe without evidence ("blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" John 20:29, KJV).
Although many religionists supplement their Faith with evidence, many do not, and Dawkins finds much to fault in those "who have a belief that is based solely on faith," and his most poignant example is the Muslim Fundamentalist belief that suicide bombers get a special place in heaven with 72 virgin brides, and who refuse to even consider the possibility that they have no good reason to believe this is true. I do not see this as arrogant. There is no arrogance in saying that all people should seek as much education as possible and would be more cautious and critical in deciding what to believe if they did so, or that all people would benefit from a greater understanding of science and its methods, or that those who believe without evidence tend most often to be poorly educated and even hostile to any kind of critical education. Nor is it arrogant to tell readers that he believes in evolution "with passionate conviction" because he has found the evidence for it "overwhelmingly strong," since that is just a confession of his own beliefs. Nor is it arrogant to tell his readers that all this evidence "is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it." It is not his job to educate you or anyone about evolution in a speech about the dangers of faith--he does that adequately enough in several books on the subject that you can very easily find and read. And failing to define terms is not arrogant, even if it is sloppy--though the one essay you refer to is not a philosophical paper but the transcript of a speech, and thus should not be expected to be academically rigorous. If his failure to define terms undermines any of his other articles or any of his arguments, we would be delighted to learn exactly where and how, but a general and vague criticism is not useful to us or anyone.
Though you mention many excellent points pertaining to fanaticism in all
faiths, you neglect to mention any atrocities done to muslims. You mention Jews
are killed in the crusades, but not muslims. You also neglect to mention the
4.2 million muslims tortured, raped, murdered or expelled by Greeks, Serbs,
Bulgarians, Russians, Cossaks, and Amenians between 1821 and 1922.
Though you profess to be secular, you seem to have a bias towards muslims.
Ad
Noctum Saturday, December 25, 1999 at 19:24:30 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Thank you for adding another example to Haught's list. Contrary to your claim, Haught mentions numerous atrocities against Muslims. He mentions the First Crusade as "a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land," the Second Crusade in which "Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared...'The Christian glories in the death of a pagan," and only Muslims were called 'pagans', "because thereby Christ himself is glorified'," the Third Crusade, where the (obviously Muslim) inhabitants of Acre "many of them women and children [were] taken outside the city and slaughtered," the Inquisition, "where many Jews and Moors," and Moors are Muslims, "had converted to escape persecution...[yet]...backsliders were burned," and then "splintering sects [of Muslims who] branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them," as well as "Christian Greeks and Balkans [who] warred against the Islamic Ottoman Empire," and Haught mentions that Hindus were killing Muslims and Gandhi tried to stop this, but "Even Gandhi was killed by a Hindu who thought him too pro-Muslim," he then mentions the Muslims killed in mid-20th century religious war in Sudan, and "A moderate Muslim leader, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, [who] was hanged for heresy in 1985 because he opposed" inhumane amputations, and massacres of Muslims out of Hindu reaction to an insult in 1984, and anti-Muslim violence in Lebanon. Haught acknowledges that the Muslims were also causers of violence in many of these cases, but that is the truth, and I see no bias against Muslims over any other religion in Haught's article.
Ever heard of Satin, Lucifer or the devil?? Jesus' brother that turned
evil and that is why we have evil? If you are so smart, did you ever think
about
the reason people are on this Earth? Here we are tested, and evil is a way of
testing us. Clearly, you must be another one of those people who stay up all
night with diahrrea thinking up ideas of web sites, and your own theories of
the world.
Nick Enson Thursday, December 23, 1999 at 14:14:52 (MST)
I wish to give my heartful thanks for your timely and informative magazine. The Skeptical Review is certainly a enlightening instrument for inquiring minds. Being raised with the Bible and cornFLAKES gave me an interesting viewpoint of life, the future and the world. After so many years of being inculcated (indoctrinated) with bible knowledge and interpetation of a particular belief it has taken many years of objective study and reflection to actually acknowledge just what I do belive to be the facts.
I am especially interested in your article about Bible morality (?) or the lack
of it. One scripture that I have come across that I have never seen commented
on is in Duet. 25: 11,12. This is just another "interesting" example of the
higher morality that the God of the Isrealites revealed to his people. Perhaps
some day one of your readers could help me understand the purpose and need for
such a Law.
Michael Andrews Thursday, December 23, 1999 at 13:32:12 (MST)
Farrel Till often writes about biblical errancy and how biblical contradictions
are
often "explained" by ridiculous, far-out scenarios. However, he has not
mentioned that this tactic could be used to classify ANY book as "inerrant."
Every book contains errors, and most errors can be "explained" by ridiculous,
far-out scenarios. Instead of proving the "uniqueness" of the Bible, this
tactic proves that it shares its errancy record with every book ever written.
Rebecca Lamey Monday, December 06, 1999 at 14:00:50 (MST)
Farrell Till responds:
Actually, I have made this observation before. Most recently, I made it in an article that will be in the March/April 2000 issue, which just went to press. I wouldn't have any way of estimating the number of times that I have posted this observation on my internet list. The methods that biblical inerrantists use to explain discrepancies could be used to make any document inerrant.
I recently read this interesting article while browsing through your site. I
have a few questions concerning the article, and am hoping that whoever answers
this may be able to supply them. Concerning the use of the Masoretic Text in
modern English Christian bibles, I was under the impression that the Old
Testament was translated from Hebrew texts which differed from the Masoretic.
Is this false information? Also, I am interested in knowing how the Qumran
scrolls differ from the Septuagint itself. If you can give me the answers to
these,
or point me to a source of information that could, I would be most grateful.
Jim Gilles
James R. Gilles Saturday, December 18, 1999 at 15:29:13 (MST)
In your article about the flood of Noah you state:
Sir or Ma'am:
I am responding in relation to the review of Dr Foster's latest book, "The
Philosophical Scientists", by Richard Carrier. I find his review to lack
credibility due to his obviously subjective approach and even constitutes
direct insult of Dr. Foster as a person.
I also find his conclusions to be irrelevent. He says himself that Dr. Foster's
conclusions regarding hemoglobin specificity have merit. But he goes no further
in this direction (for fear of opening more holes in his argument).
Carrier also states there is no evidence proving that the universe has a
'will'. This is quite an easy way out of this simplistic statement. There is
much
more evidence proving the existence a divine Creator than there is disproving
it. What are the chances of anything at all existing? Why would the Big Bang
occur at the correct speed to eventually support a self-conscious human being
in this particular galaxy...by chance? Practically zero. In fact, I would go so
far as
to say ZERO. Lastly, I can't wait to read Dr. Foster's new book.
Jonathan Griner Tuesday, December 21, 1999 at 17:27:28 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Thank you for your feedback. I have been planning to rewrite this review for several months now but haven't found the time. I agree that on a few occasions in that review I used overly incendiary vocabulary, and although that should not detract from the objective points that are made, I agree the review needed revision, and I have just revised it.
However, I do not know what you mean by my saying that "Mr. Foster's conclusions regarding hemoglobin specificity have merit." I say the exact opposite: in a clearly-linked addendum I point out a possible flaw in Foster's estimation of hemoglobin specificity, but more importantly I state that "Darwinism specifically entail[s] that" hemoglobin molecules "were not created by random chance -- so that calculating the random chance of their creation is moot." I also point out that Foster uses entirely the wrong math for deriving probability in this case. Far from "not going further" on this point, this is in fact dealt with at great length in Chapter 9 of my review.
Whether the cosmological probability of an intelligent-life-causing Big Bang is really as low as you claim depends on our knowing things about the universe that we do not in fact know--and yet of all the best guesses so far, there seems to be no basis for an assumption of improbability (see my critique of Becks' Argument for God and soon to be available Ten Things Wrong with Cosmological Creationism). Foster makes no arguments about the improbability of any sort of Big Bang universe. For more on the whole issue, see our following selections of papers: Physics and Religion; Atheistic Cosmological Argument; Cosmological Arguments; and Argument to Design.
For Richard Carrier re: his article on why he does not believe the account of
the resurrection. A small detail that always bugged me was that the disciples
of Jesus who saw him after he "rose" DID NOT RECOGNIZE him! What?! They didn't
recognize him? Why not?? A small point, but I did not see it in your article.
Thx,
Matthew Weiner Thursday, December 02, 1999 at 18:55:45 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
It's there. See: Appearances in Luke and Appearances in John.
Exodus 12:38 states that a vast mixed company left Egypt with Moses and
the Hebrews. The vast mixed company was some of the Egyptian citizens. These
Egyptians took up the worship of the Hebrews and even had intermarriages and
offspring. Therefore, the Hebrews became a mixed race of people and that's why
god told Ambraham that all nations would be blessed through him.
Joan Tee Tuesday, December 21, 1999 at 06:26:34 (MST)
I have just finished reading Margaret Downey's recounting of her
experience surrounding the death of her neighbor's child. It touched me. I
sometimes seem to be surrounded by difficult emotions. Pets die. Friends lose
loved ones. Illness strikes those you care about.
In the midst of the tragic events described by Ms. Downey, however, her
dealings with the priests and "well wishers" vis-a-vis her own atheism, moved
me most deeply and subtly. I myself am the sole committed non-theist in my
circle
of
family and friends. Even my partner is a Christian with an ever deepening
thirst for "spirituality." When Stacey related to Margaret her new-found
interest in angels, etc., I was brought face to face with the loneliness and
frustration of the encounters I have everyday here in the heart of the bible
belt. I am not as "out" as I should be but I am growing in my maturity. Our
newly adopted daughter will no doubt challenge me further.
I want
to thank Ms. Downey and the Secular Web for posting this piece where I could
read it. All great literature, whether fact or fiction, has the power to reach
out to
us and even center our spirits as we foray once again into the world where we
must
live our appointed time and leave what legacy we may.
Thank you.
Scott Ferguson
Friday, December 17, 1999 at 11:12:16 (MST)
For the listing of biblical innacuracies: In Leviticus, it states that the bat
is a bird. It is a mammal.
Hal
Stein Friday, December 17, 1999 at 10:05:12 (MST)
Hello Mr. Donald Morgan,
I have a few things to tell you. First you must believe in evolution, you do
right? Next you evolved from a monkey right. OK why did your cousins quit
evolving then?
Now you say in your bible absurdities that plants grow before sunlight the
reason this is, is because God is the sunlight. Next you say that God gave us
things
to eat that are poisonous. Well if you know anything about the bible you would
know
that before Adam and Eve sinned everything was good and after sin this thing
happened.
Ona Rett
Wednesday, December 29, 1999 at 06:19:09 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
First, our cousins didn't quit evolving. The Chimpanzee is almost as new a species as we are, yet they, like us, are among the few surviving descendants of a species of ape-like creatures that no longer exists. Between 8 and 1 million years ago there was an explosion of primate species, and our species is but one survivor from that day (only a few managed to make it into this era). Second, once a species perfects its ability to exploit and survive in an ecological niche, mutations become less likely to be favorable and evolution thus slows down for that creature--in effect, there are too few better arrangements of genes in that situation, and those few improvements that are possible are more and more improbable. But when a creature's environment changes, or when there are new niches it can exploit, mutations become more likely to favor or improve survival, and as improvement becomes more probable, evolution accelerates.
As to your solutions to various Bible absurdities, reread the introductory paragraph of Mr. Morgan's essay. You can certainly "import" your unstated assumptions in reading the text, but no one else is obliged to. Since the Bible does not say God was the sunlight (God is composed of energetic photons which strike and activate chlorophyll? I thought God was immaterial?), this is admittedly ad hoc. Of course, God could have just made this a miracle, too, although one wonders what the point is of making plants before making sunlight. Or the Hebrews could have simply been wrong about any part or even all of this story. As to whether God changed us so that we could no longer eat certain plants: sure, why not? The Bible doesn't say it, but again you can import anything you want to--though inventing things out of your own imagination doesn't have anything to do with knowing what actually happened.
In regards to Biblical Absurdities. There are several things he has listed
here
that are explainable. For example faith can move mountains, anything is
possible if you have the faith of a mustard seed. People can accomplish great
things. With or with out the religous aspect people can do great things even
for themselves if they just believe in themselves. If we criticize faith in
anything then what have we left?
Also all who take the sword will perish by it. Is this not true? Isn't this
something we see everyday? Another is Jesus assigns all of his disciples a
thrown
in
heaven even his betrayer Judas. Was Jesus not said to be the man who came from
God to forgive us of our sins? If Judas does not deserve an eternity with the
Lord
then
none of us do! Is the root of all evil not money? Is that what every person in
this
life strives to attain each day? As for all the miricles and unexplainable
phenomenoms, the bible is the basis of the belief of God and Jesus , Jesus did
preform miricles and God is the creator. That is what the bible is about.
Would
you
laugh at the dictonary for giving definitions and get angry at it for not
having some of the words you are looking for? The bible may have a few erors as
does every thing. Every day we find new things to replace our original beliefs
when
they are proven wrong, but you must remember the bible was written by man and
no man
is without fault. God should be in your heart where it is most important. His
teachings and commandments as well as the teachings of jesus were honorable and
just and we should live by thoes teachings even if a few things that man
testified about were inacurate. They taught about love, respect, kindness,
life, family, truth, honesty, and justice. So maybe we should not be
criticizing things that need to be spread in to the world. Knowing that if
there is noone out there in this world that loves you, there is 1 man, Jesus,
and he died for you and all of us no matter if the bible is not 100% accurate.
Followers and lovers of Jesus are peaceful harmonious happy people, so maybe we
should look at that very carefully and take example.
Tiffany
Gary,
IN, USA
- Tuesday, December 14, 1999 at 01:36:02 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
If we criticize faith in anything then what have we left? Reason. See A
Fish Did Not Write This Essay and Do
Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other?. Do all who take the
sword perish by it? Certainly not. Not only do many get away with violence
without ever meeting it in turn, but many are praised and bettered for it--just
consider war heroes and policemen. But yes, of course, one can see a useful
moral lesson about probability and risk in this saying--and so long as one
refuses to take the Bible literally and infallibly, Don Morgan's criticism of
such things is largely irrelevant, as is clearly stated in his first paragraph,
which also renders moot the rest of your criticisms--but this should be taken
as a compliment: for it shows that you are far more enlightened than the
fundamentalists to whom Morgan's essays are addressed.
Finally, on miracles in the Bible, see my Review
of In Defense of Miracles for starters. If honorable and just teachings are
grounds for living by what a man teaches, then you have more reason to follow
Musonius Rufus than Jesus, especially considering what appear to be the
sometimes questionable ethics
of Jesus. And although those who genuinely follow the nonviolence
principles of Jesus are indeed peaceful and largely harmonious, so are
Buddhists and Hindus and atheists and others who follow the same principles.
There is more to one's outlook than this--superstition and other misdirected
principles can turn an otherwise peaceful and harmonious people into the wrong,
sometimes even dangerous path. It is against all such risk of error that we
atheists here are committed to opposing.
I too
was a former fundamentalist, actually a minister for about 8 years. I also had
a deep fascination and love of the Bible. My nickname was the walking, talking
Bible. And I would definately agree that it's impossible to know the Bible well
and stay a fundamentalist. I have often been asked, why turn all the way over
to atheism, and not become a more liberal type of christian. But to be honest
with
you, I just don't understand liberal Christianity. To me they seem insincere
and half-hearted. Once you conceed to an omnipotent God, who is all powerful
and the embodiment of love, you are drawn into absurdities.
What
many Christians cannot understand is that former xtians have years of emotional
effort and energy invested in our former Christian beleifs. Its impossible to
drop it and walk away cold-turkey. So I have been trying to use my
extraordinary knowledge of scripture to research and discover the true roots of
the
early church and Christianity. I think its fascinating. It is a bizarre
polymorph of Judism, Zoroastrianism and pagan religions all rolled up together.
Truly fascinating.
Sorry to say so much, but I just have to praise you guys and your website. Keep
up the good work!
Dennis Davis Saturday, December 11, 1999 at 23:13:08 (MST)
Another biased uninformed article by an obnoxious agnostic. Simply because we
cannot understand an infinite God with our finite minds are we to disbelieve?
Hmm, maybe. But in order to truly understand whether the Bible and Christianity
are real we must examine a few things...
1. We're here so where did we come from? Big bang, creationism, evolution?
Although an agnostic would have you believe that we have evolved from the slime
over billions of years, the support for this theory is minimal at the very
best. If you've ever studied the complexity of a DNA molecule, or the organs of
the body or the human brain then you would know how very difficult it would be
for a pool of slime to evolve into what we now know as the human body....even
over billions of years. And no atom has ever been proven to regenerate into
something more complex and diverse than the first, much less evolve into
millions of atoms spread out over the human body.
Well
what about fossils? This is actually the record most evolutionists would not
have you bring up. No "ape man" fossils have ever been found and proven to be
some
sort of "pre-human" set of bones. NONE. Peking man? Disproved Oklahoma man?
Disproved The list goes on and on. And if we have evolved from apes...why are
there still apes? They like staying apes? If evolution is true, why haven't we
evolved into something more complex? Are we as complex as it gets?
What about dinosaur fossils? No carbon test used on dinosaur fossils has ever
been proven accurate. Dinosaurs are also mentioned in the Bible that you detest
so much. The facts disproving the fossil sector of evolution are numerous and
would take up several pages. Email me and I'll send them to you.
Nothing about the creationism theory has been disproven. In fact nothing has
EVER
been found that would prove one word of the Bible to be false. And if you know
of one...let me know about it. The only things that have been found relating to
the
Bible have contributed to its authenticity.
2. Well how do we know the Bible is reliable?
Glad you asked. Why should I believe a book that has been copied over and over
again? Perhaps you should study the way that we obtained the Bible that we read
today. The Jewish scribes that copied the Bible were so meticulous about what
they wrote that they were required to duplicate the style of letters,
punctuation marks, number of words on a page, etc. Whenever the Scribe would
come to the holy name of God (Yahweh), they would stand up, put the pen down,
leave
the
room, bathe, put on new clothes and finish where they left off....every time.
If they made one mistake on a page, that page was destroyed.
The
Bible is also FULL of fulfilled prophecy about the coming of Christ, present
tragedies, state of our world today....read the entire book of Daniel if you
dare (It's the most prophetic book in the Bible.)
Well why weren't biblical events mentioned in other books of that time?
The Sumerian King List: Kings were listed who reigned for long periods of time.
Then a flood came, then kings ruled for much shorter times. This pattern is
found exactly in the Bible.
The 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic: Speaks of an ark with animals, birds
sent out during the flood, etc.
Recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt: Campaign into
Israel
by Pharoah (1Kings 14:25-26)
Recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles: Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylon (2Kings 24:15-16)
Recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, the
Lucian, and the Koran....the existence of Jesus Christ.
This probably won't be enough to convince you, as you have probably already
hardened your heart to the thought of an eternal Creator. But I urge you to
email me if you have any arguments, questions, or if you just want to debate.
Childish, uninformed emails with no backup for their belief will go to their
proper place...my recycling bin.
Think about it.
Love in CHRIST
Tommy Conley Thursday, December 02, 1999 at 16:58:09 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Where to begin! On the issue of complexity and evolution, see my essay Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? and part 9 of my review of David Foster. And you seem to be confusing atoms with molecules. Evolution of a genome is a chemical, not an atomic process, and thus it operates on the level of molecules, not atoms. And we have indeed proven that molecules can naturally multiply and increase in complexity over succeeding generations (see The First Life). As for the absurd statement that no transitional hominid fossils have ever been found, see A Tour of the Hominid Fossil Record. The "proof" of this indicating a connection is manifold. See Introduction to Evolution just to begin (though I strongly recommend that you also read a basic introductory college textbook on physical anthropolgy). On "if we have evolved from apes...why are there still apes?" see above.
If you had done your homework, you would have known that dinosaur bones can't be carbon dated, so your claim that such dating has been "inaccurate" is a plain falsehood. Carbon dating only works within 50,000-100,000 years from the present--beyond that time frame, all the carbon-14 is gone, and it is no longer possible to calculate a ratio between that isotope and carbon-12. Dinosaur bones are dated by dating the earth in which they are found, e.g. if bones are found buried under a lavaflow which dates, via various atomic dating techniques, to 100 million years ago, then it follows that those bones are older than 100 million years. On your supposed list of things wrong with the fossil record, go to the Talk.Origins newsgroup and discuss it there--though I urge you to avoid looking like an idiot by actually reading the FAQ's first.
On the authenticity of the Bible, take a good look around in our Errancy Site , but in particular see my essay on The Date of the Nativity in Luke and part 2 of my essay Two Examples of Faulty Bible Scholarship. On your claims about how the Jews transmitted texts, you had better check your sources: how do they claim to know this? And how do they address the fact that we have thousands of unresolvable variants and spelling mistakes in the surviving manuscripts? On prophecy, see my Newman on Prophecy as Miracle and especially the footnote on Daniel. On the Bible as history, I have no doubt that there are historical details preserved in these texts--the question is simply which details are historical, which ones are legendary, which ones are inventions or distortions or exaggerations, and so on. On testimonies outside the Bible regarding the historicity of Jesus, see Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus: Is It Reliable?. I myself have shown how unreliable the Thallus reference is in particular.
Yet another feeble attempt to discredit the one and only pure truth it is that
we have left...for those of us that have ears WILL hear. If the efforts that
you have put into trying to discredit these documents were not preconceived you
would find that all of the teachings were to the individuals that Jesus was
speaking to and were to be taken in context and not out of. You would find that
he was not a hypocrite but what he claimed to be and is today, The Alpha, The
Omego, The beginnig and the end. Which truly involves everything in between.
Please I plead with those of you involved to take a step back and reseach the
material that you have discredited and search out the truth. With the things
that I have personally experienced in my short life I have come to the
undisputable conclusion through prayer, studies and taking the promises of the
Word of God and testing them in my life. If you would perhaps do the same you
would be sure to find the same for yourselves.
Sincerly,
William A. Gibb Sunday, December 05, 1999 at 20:32:51 (MST)
Man you really have no Idea what you are talking about. All these are taken
completely wrong and out of context. You should try to find out the background
of the cultures in which these people lived in before you write this stuff.
Find out that stuff and I guarantee you will realize your wrongs.
Jason L. Aldous
El
Cajon,
CA USA - Thursday, December 02, 1999 at 15:46:03 (MST)
Under
the logic section
of Atheism Web, you point
out fallacies of logical arguments. One of these is called Argumentum ad
ignorantiam which you state "occurs when it's argued that something must be
true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is
argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true."
I do not wish to sound beligerent, but isn't this the argument most people
submit for not believing in the existance of God/gods (i.e.-Atheism), i.e.
"there
is no
God because there is no proof," that sort of thing. In philosophy of religion,
we discussed atheism and agnosticism. As stands, it seems agnosticism is the
only purely scientific stance, as it is unscientific to deny something's
existence due to lack of proof.
Just curious as to your thoughts on the matter.
sincerely,
Milton
G. Compton III
Wednesday, December 15, 1999 at 21:29:51 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
If you had kept reading, you would have discovered that "In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however," and that in science the Burden of Proof is on the positive. You should also not mistake proof with justification--there is a difference between having a justified belief and having a belief that has been proved true. See my essay Proving a Negative. You might also benefit from reading the introduction to the logic section where it states it is only about deductive proofs. Science most generally employs inductive proofs, not the deductive variety (the latter are used in deducing predictions from hypotheses, not in demonstrating the truth of an hypothesis--that requires inferences, not deductions, from observations of whether the deduced predictions bear out). Finally, many atheists are agnostics as well--they do not believe in God because they are agnostic. Although atheists and agnostics love to argue about the definition of their names, the simple fact is that unbelief is a common and acceptable meaning of atheism, and agnostics generally do not "believe" in God (unless, for instance, like some agnostics, they believe on faith).
This is in response to James Rachels' article, "God and Moral Autonomy."
Rachels' argument is that no being worthy of worship, such as God, could even
possibly exist because such a being would conflict with our moral autonomy.
I think this is a non sequitor. From the fact that something might be
unsettling or even unbearable for us, such as the demand that we scrap our
consciences and follow someone else's orders no matter what, it doesn't follow
that
this unbearable thing "can't possibly exist." Rachels concludes not just that
the existence of God would destroy our moral life, but that his existence is
impossible. God's impossibility doesn't follow from the overturning of our
consciences or the destruction of our freedom.
Rachels' argument, though, does raise an interesting point, which is the
mystery of why God, who by definition would have to be worshipped by his
children, would create free children who in turn would have to find it
impossible to acknowledge him in worship without annihilating their own nature,
that is, their freedom. Why wouldn't God make his children mere robots if their
only purpose is to obey him totally?
Is our autonomy part of Satan's temptation of us, a tantalizing view of
something the ideal life of the child of God couldn't possibly exercise? But
freedom figures prominently in the theologian's defense against the argument
from evil, and is frequently treated by the Christian as a divine gift so
valuable that God would never want to undermine it, such as by forcing us to
worship him by virtue of our mere recognition of his existence.
In theology the contradictions are never-ending.
Philip Kuchar
Monday, December 13, 1999 at 14:14:19 (MST)
This article would have been more helpful to me in my attempts to convince
Christians that their baby-killing god isn't loving, merciful and just if
Michael Martin had spent more time discussing non-theistic objective morality
and theistic attempts to show how they fail and less time discussing John
Mackie's unpersuasive and unrepresentative arguments.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the Secular Web and I'm grateful
for the volunteers who keep it running. I will keep browsing until I hopefully
find an article that is more helpful.
Dale Proctor Sunday, December 12, 1999 at 19:26:14 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
See the many essays we have on the Moral Argument and Divine Command Theory and on Morality and Atheism.
I just read the article written by Marshall Gauvin, "Did Jesus Christ Really
Live." I must say that if I were a non-Christian, uneducated person then it
might have been pretty convincing. Sadly, if any educated person takes the time
to actually do research in the area that he was researching, he will find that
not only were many of the facts that Mr. Gauvin included incomplete, but also
false. For anyone who wonders about this I suggest reading "More Than A
Carpenter" by Josh McDowell or "A Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. Tell me that
you read either of those books and still place the slightest shred of
credibility in Mr. Gauvin's assertments. Christ lived, and He was who the Bible
says He was. He lived, died on the cross for all of our sins, and rose from the
grave 3 days later. I do not have a "blind faith," there is overwhelming
evidence for the crediblity of Christ. I pray that you guys will open your
hearts
to the Truth, for it is real. There is one Almighty God, and He did send his
Son to die on the Cross for our sins. Christ bridges the gap between us, sinful
people, and the Almighty, Righteous God. He seeks a relationship with each of
us, and offers us eternal salvation if we turn to Him (Romans 10:9-10).
In His Name,
Andy Tap Sunday, December 12, 1999 at 19:22:57 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Please pay attention to what is stated at the front of the historical library. Don't waste your time complaining about what we already tell our readers is outdated research. Examine our modern research on historicity instead. Indeed, if your position is based primarily on McDowell or Strobel, I strongly suggest you examine the other side of the story: we have several critiques of McDowell and one so far of Strobel to peruse and consider.
First off, the title you have given yourselves--though I understand it--makes
me chuckle. It is not a matter of ridicule that I chuckle. No offense meant.
Rather
it is respectfully said. You are people of faith. Perhaps not of a certain
type.
But it
is assumed you are people with beliefs and convictions. No doubt, also people
of principle. With that in mind, I respond to the article of our nation not
being a Christian nation.
Thank you. Let me say again, Thank you! Our nation was not a Christian nation
in its inception. God-fearing at best, perhaps. But not Christian. It should be
said for clarity's sake, I am a Christian. I say it because I am not ashamed of
it. More importantly, I say it in order to admit I have biases. My biases, both
productive and unproductive types.
I do not see anywhere in the Scriptures that it is Christians', or any other
groups' job, to set up a theocracy in this country. It is a Christian's job to
live a life of integrity before those of like-mind and others who are not. Part
of that living needs to be in presenting one's beliefs in a manner that is
culturally relevant and always respectful of one's fellowman. (After all, that
other person is created in the image of one's creator, is that not true?) It
should never enter the mind of a Christian to force another individual to
believe as they do.
Thomas Jefferson saw those in the early days of Aamerica who were unwilling to
bend to religious persecution, and was compelled in his heart and mind to
"champion" for soul liberty. That is where the separation of Church and State
meet faith. Christian and non-Christian faith. It says that a person is free to
worship (or not worship!) God as they are convinced in their mind and heart to
worship (or not worship!) so long as doing so does not bring harm to self or to
another individual. The anabaptist and Baptist groups would call that--I would
call that--the soul-liberty principle. Others call it whatever they will.
Respect for the individual should be present in a Christian's demeanor when
discoursing with another who believes differently. The same should be true when
a non-Christian interacts with a Christian. That is one thing that has made our
country as great a nation as it is. We as a nation have not always lived up to
our principles. May God have mercy on us as a nation to give us wisdom in
leading our country into the future so that not only will we prosper, but that
our children and grandchildren can prosper.
May it
be that the "bashing" will cease from all sides. May it be that the
"revisionist history" writing (regardless who writes it!) will cease. May it
also be that truth (no matter who it makes uncomfortable!), and not relativism,
would prevail within our hearts and the borders of this our country.
Sincerely,
Ed Studtmann, B.S., M.A.P.S.
Saturday, December 11, 1999 at 01:17:32 (MST)
This is
a
comment to Ghassan about his article....I just want to say one thing, that is:
You have nothing to prove what you have said in your article against
Islam....The people and no country represent Islam....There might be problems
in the people but Never in Quran.....Really poor and ignorant!!!! The creator
of Al-Quran has challanged the human race to produce the like of it and has
challenged all those who disbelieve to find any discrepencies in the text of
Quran!!!! If you all stay intellectually honest and put your zeal and your
hatred aside, you will NEVER AND NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND ERORS IN KORAN!!!!...
Niazi Five Thursday, December 09, 1999 at 21:35:22 (MST)
I didn't read all of what you wrote, but what you wrote about Daniel's seventy
sevens caught my eye. You're mistaken a little bit there. I'll explain. You
were right about 483 years: 483 Babylonian years of 360 days, that is, since
that was the calendar used at the time. Thus, Messiah would come 173,880 days
after
the
order to restore and build Jerusalem (not just the temple) went forth. That
order went forth in Nehemiah 2:6 on March 14, 445 BC. Calculate, now. 173,880
days later was April 6, 32 AD. If you'll recall, when Jesus entered Jerusalem
on that exact day, there were a lot of Jews who threw their coats on the ground
to make way for their King. So yeah, you should consider revising that section
at
least. Shalom.
With
love in Yeshua the Meshiah,
Nathan Proud Wednesday, December 08, 1999 at 19:40:01 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Jim Lippard discusses this very calculation. You exhibit a treasure trove of errors. First, 173,880 days makes over 476 solar years and twenty days, since a solar year is 365.25 days. The 365-day year is an invention of Julius Caesar, which we compensate for with an elaborate system of leap years, and you account for neither the true length of a year nor the Julian-Gregorian leap year system. When it is done correctly, your own calculation presents the crucifixion not on April 6, 32 AD, but April 3. So by that reckoning Jesus was killed three days before he rode into Jerusalem! Of course, whether March 14 or April 6 can really be genuinely ascertained as the actual dates in either case is in serious question. But even this is moot, since you are also wrong about one other key fact: the Babylonians did not use a 360-day year. The Sumerians used such a year prior to 2000 B.C. (long before the day of Daniel), but after the dominance of Babylonian culture this was abandoned and the lunar calendar was adopted, which had a standard 12-months of 354 days, not 360, and this is also the calendar adopted by the Hebrews. And yet this was still brought up to 365 days by adding intercalations every year. Even ancient authors knew this. See my discussion of prophecy in my Review of In Defense of Miracles: Newman on Prophecy as Miracle, especially the introduction, and then on the Seventy Sevens.
Hello again!!! I just have two questions if any of you would like to take the
time to respond to them. The first is an argument form and I'm just curious how
you
would respond to it...
1) If X (one does not first have the holy spirit guiding them), then Y (they
cannot truly understand the bible.)
2) X
3) Therfore, Y
I can't imagine you haven't heard this one before, but I'm curious what you
think of it. In other words, if one says: "there aren't really contradictions
in the bible. What it is actually is that your puny, limited mind cannot
understand the great work of g-d unless you are already led by his spirit."
I've
seen
some refutations of this idea but I'm just curious what you may think of it
personally.
Second,
I wonder if any of you have any thoughts on the book entitled "faith of the
fatherless" which deals with the psychology of atheism by professor Vitz. While
I acknowledge it doesn't really matter in terms of what is "truth" the way one
is brought up and their relationship with their fathers, I'm curious if it hit
a nerve with any of you, assuming you read it. Perhaps this is too personal of
a question, but I would appreciate any response concerning the book and what
you think, or thought, of it.
Christopher Peck Tuesday, December 07, 1999 at 12:57:18 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
This does not refer to any specific document on our site, but I think it worthwhile to answer. On the first matter, I have encountered it but rarely, perhaps because it is an attitude which ends rather than begins dialogue. If your argument begins with "you can never understand X until you agree to believe X" then you will never get anywhere with reasonable people, who need reasons to believe what they do besides "I said so." It is the very defining ideology of a cult: only the chosen deserve knowledge ("only we are blessed with a special power of perception"), so you, being unchosen, have to trust them against your own reason, knowledge, and common sense. This is not a very compelling reason to believe something--it attracts only the lost and confused.
In the bigger picture, if we need X to understand Y, and we need to understand Y to have what is best for us, then if God wants what is best for us then he is obligated by his own interests to grant us X. So to use this argument is to say something about God that I really think Christians do not want to say--and what amounts to giving us an even greater reason to be disgusted with God even if we could be convinced he existed! At the very least I expect a God worth my attention to be as moral and honest as I am, if not more so, which renders your X->Y argument irrelevant to me. The only God it is consistent with is the very God I would not want anything to do with. Of course, I have no reason to believe even such an immoral god exists.
On the second matter, this is nothing new (see the essay linked above). And much can be said in criticism of the theory, not the least of which being the fact that his theory is entirely based on Freudian Psychology which is almost universally acknowledged today as pseudoscientific quackery. But when the book came out we did a straw poll among all our colleagues and found Vitz's thesis disconfirmed: our relationships with our fathers were not by and large bad, even though this was surprising even without Vitz's thesis. Since atheism is a hated and opprobrious lifestyle to the general population who have been socialized as Christians, we should expect atheists to end up with bad relationships with their fathers, even more so in earlier centuries, after converting to atheism. But Vitz never addresses the possibility that he has the causes backwards--atheism certainly causes father conflict, but not the other way around. Moreover, since only atheists who are genuine and driven radicals are likely to have become "famous" (especially in earlier centuries), Vitz fails to control for radicalism in his evidence: did Marx have a bad relationship with his father because he was an atheist, or because he was a driven radical who attacked many of the norms and traditions that his father held dear? Likewise, if Christians have better relationships with their father, then Vitz must control for the fact that by agreeing with their fathers' social outlook, their relationships are likely to be good even if shallow. Since he does engage such scientific controls, this destroys the value of his conclusions.
Indeed, Vitz is guilty of employing selection bias: rather than using a random sample of "famous atheists" or even atheists in the general population (something which would require Vitz to actually do work, which is anathema to the inferior apologist), he simply picks confirming cases and ignores disconfirming ones (consider Robert Ingersoll, Charles Darwin and Dan Barker, for example). He does the exact opposite with the Christian evidence--yet even I know personally several Christians who have very bad relationships with their father, while in history I am reminded of St. Augustine as a classic case of this. Indeed, his own argument reverts against him: if a bad relationship with our fathers leads us to the freedom to question the social presuppositions our fathers inculcated in us, then it may be the case that such conflict is necessary to actually come to an objective conclusion about theism, while in turn it is an excessive respect for fathers and thus patriarchal tradition which leads Christians to be believers, rather than the employment of reason and an objective examination of evidence. This is just as supported by Vitz's own evidence and arguments as his own conclusion. It is fortunate for the Christian, then, that his evidence and arguments are unworthy of merit.
The author of the Dec. 6th infidels web.scan (A pre-post apocalyptic nightmare)
made the following remark:
"The question I always find myself asking is why people carry on believing, in
spite of repeated failed prophecies. Just how far past January 2000 will we
have to go before people get a clue?"
Well,
for all the truly free thinking and open minded people out there, let's open up
a Bible and check out MATTHEW 24:36-39 (yes, that means atheists and Christians
alike). Jesus makes it very very clear here that NO ONE knows the day or hour
when the end will come. If you read all of Chapter 24, you will see that he not
only tells us that no one knows, but he warns against those who say they know!
He says that He will come when you do not expect him to.
I just wanted to clarify so that people (especially non-believers) aren't
misled
by this article into thinking that the Bible teaches that the world will end at
a specific time. Any group, cult or sect that uses the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ
or Christianity, and claims to know the date of the end (or tries to bring on
the end) is clearly following the word and teaching of man, rather than the
word of God.
This is an important point, because people like the author of this article seem
to like pointing out failed predictions of the apocalypse as evidence that
Christians are clueless, and Christianity a myth. These finger-pointers are
either unaware of Christian doctrine, or don't want you to know all the facts.
Well,
now YOU know, because you have looked in the Bible for yourself (I hope), that
failed apocalyptic predictions literally mean nothing. Pointing them out is
useless, because they have nothing to do with true Christianity, as we saw in
Matthew 24. This only goes to show that, unfortunately, there are many misled
people out there.
Joseph Silva
USA - Monday, December 06, 1999 at 15:52:27 (MST)
Concerning the Ten Commandments:
It seems to me if the Ten Commandment had been written by Plato, or Aristotle,
or Karl Marx people would have no problem with posting them in schools. Maybe
if we called them the "Ten Rules" or "Ten things you might want to think about
doing" people would have no problem. Why is it that this has become such an
issue? Are the ideas of "thou shalt not kill," and "thou shalt not steal" so
offensive that they must be banned from the eyes of children? The Ten
Commandments is a four thousand year old historical document. It is the
cornerstone for American law. We have laws for everything in the Ten
Commandments. Why can't we post them in their origional form?
The simple fact is that people who oppose the posting of the ten commandments
are really bigots. They are anti-Christian, anti-morality, and anti-American.
If the Ten Commandments had come from any other religion there would be
attempts to make children memorize them, instead of banning them. They oppress
and discriminate against thousands of people in the name of tolerance. When
will people read the rest of Thomas Jefferson's famous "separation of church
and state.." letter, when he states that the "wall" is "one-sided," and it is
in place to protect the church from interference by the government not the
other
way around. I will conclude with a quote by James Madison who said "We have
staked the whole future of American Civilization not upon the power of
government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political
institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves
according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Joshua Davis
Thursday, December 02, 1999 at 22:13:55 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Why not check your sources? This quote from James Madison is bogus. You have been duped by David Barton (see "David Barton Falsifies American History" (Church & State Magazine, July-August, 1996)). See also our response to your argument in our June feedback.
People like you are a very sad bunch indeed. I am here to tell you the the Book
of
Mormon
is true!!!!! Just as the bible is true!!! Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of
God, and there is a Living Prophet on the earth today!!! The Church of Jesus
Christ
of
Latter Day Saints is indeed the restored Church of Christ on the earth. The
Book of Mormon was translated by divine inspiration by Joseph Smith, not
created by him, as you claimm. If you would spend half as much time researching
this
with really intent to find out for yourself if it is true, instead of bashing
the church, you would be much better off. You too would know it is true. I hope
you will do so instead of spending so much time trying prove it wrong--because
it won't happen.
Kenneth Lowther
Wednesday, December 01, 1999 at 02:21:19 (MST)
Curt van den Heuvel responds:
Unfortunately, truth or falsity is not decided by opinion, but by evidence. The article that you referenced adduced specific and detailed evidence in support of its thesis: that the Book of Mormon relies internally upon the King James Version of the New Testament, and thus cannot predate it. You are quite entitled to dispute this conclusion, but your argument should be accompanied by evidence in this regard, not simply allegation and assertion.
Jeff
I really feel sorry for you, I am praying for you tonight(11/30/99). If
Christians are wrong we have wasted a few years of our time, if we're correct,
watch
out
Jeff, it's a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living GOD.
GH
George Hager
Wednesday, December 01, 1999 at 00:22:06 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
I do not intend to publish these pointless, undirected, uncritical, quasi-sympathetic prayer attacks any more, but I thought I'd end this month with a classic example, just to remind our readers that we still get this kind of rehashed, threats-of-hell, amateur-night proselytizing. Indeed, this one is personal: George is praying for Jeffery Jay Lowder especially!
Last updated: Thursday, 14-May-2009 04:33:52 CDT
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
