July (1999)
Correction
In the Internet Infidels feedback [in June], you have posted as an editorial comment "Australia now reports double our rate of teen violence (and yet they have both prayer and religious instruction in their schools)". Could you please supply me with some kind of factual basis for these claims. I am Australian, and this statement does not fit with my experience of my own country, and my images of yours (which I admit are based on the media, and therefore biased.)
Merryn Smith <Merryn.Smith@hydro.com.au>
Hobart, Australia - Friday, July 30, 1999 at 12:12:43 (MDT)
The editor responds:
I'm glad to know someone actually reads this stuff! Thank you for getting me to double check myself. I checked my sources (the New South Wales Crime Statistics Website and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports) and found that I made a serious error: I treated stats for all crimes as if they were for violent crimes.
When I corrected this error, my results came out exactly the opposite: the U.S. has twice the rate of teen crime (105 per 10,000, vs. 59 per 10,000), and so probably has twice the rate of teen violent crime (in the U.S. it is 28 per 10,000, which I mistakenly compared to the Australian 59 per 10,000). Of course, we simply have twice the crime for all ages of offender.
No other countries publish any kind of statistics on this matter, so I can't say how the U.S. compares with anyone else--this is why I tried comparing the U.S. to Australia in the first place. I apologize for my error! As for prayer and religious instruction, I am referring to the experiences of Kim Walker (related in our June feedback).
Christian Apologies? Responses to J. E. Hill
As a Christian I apologize for the crude acts and murder that have been committed in our past. However you can not blame the Christians today of what happened hundreds of years ago. I am a member of the U.S. army. I think our military should apologize for the slaughter of Native Americans, the slaughter of thousands of innocent Japanese Civilians, people of all wars.
We tend to think that if we murder in revenge it's o.k. when it's not. However murder has always been on earth and it always will be. It's hard to explain when it is morally o.k. except self-defense. I think people who murder the unborn should apologize for the millions they have slaughtered in the name of self-right. You will go to jail if you destroy a California Condor egg. The gov't recently fined a company in California when a heavy equipment operator disturbed a rare mosquito's nest. But we say it's o.k. to murder the unborn human children. Although I don't like abortion, it is the mothers' and hopefully fathers' choice--they will be judged for their actions just as I will be for mine.
But when you accept Christ in your heart, your past sins are wiped away. We all sin, but a true Christian will be sad when they sin, for they know it is wrong and will repent. And God assures Christians that any sin can be forgiven. If you aren't a Christian the wages of sin without the cleansing blood of Jesus is eternity in hell.
We all do things we shouldn't and we should all apologize for our behavior when we try to take freedom from somebody else. All of us should have the right to express our religion or atheism. We have to be tolerant and accept that all have different views. No one can force someone to believe something that they don't understand. All of us will someday know what the truth is. No human born of human parents has the perfect answer. In the end I believe no one will be totally right, and no-one will be totally wrong. But I believe that Jesus told the total truth when he said that no one will go to the Father except through him (excluding the people in the Old Testament.
I am aware that most of you are smart and educated people so please forgive my grammar, punctuation, and lack of structured paragraphs. You won't believe it but I got an "A" in advanced grammar. But I'm not trying to be perfect or look smart for other imperfect people. I would like to say thank you for allowing both sides to present their cases on your site. That way all sides can learn about each other. Thanks for helping me strengthen my faith in God.
I'll pray for you.
Terry Owens <albany@ccp.com>
Albany, MO USA - Saturday, July 31, 1999 at 21:58:19 (MDT)
J.E. Hill responds:
Terry, thank you for your thoughtful letter and taking the time to read my article. While I agree with some of your points I will take exception to several comments in your response.
- First, my article did not place blame on today's Christians for past acts but criticized Christians for not being sincere and forthwith in their attempts to deal with these past atrocities.
- Second, as someone who firmly believes he is responsible for his actions here and now, I cannot accept the dogma of having sin just wiped away by affirming my allegiance to a prophet of antiquity only to be able to sin again if I just repent again. I believe this philosophy is flawed and has caused immeasurable misery for humankind.
- Third, you say that Jesus said no one will go to the Father except through Him. Yet the Bible also says that one must repent in order to be saved (Luke 13:3). Other verses state you will be rewarded according to your works (Mat 16:27, 2 Cor 11:15); and still another has Jesus saying the greatest thing you can do is to love God (Mat 22:37, Mk 12:29 cf. John 6:44, 15:10 ) to reap your reward. This 'cafeteria' style of redemption plan is confusing and makes for loopholes to be exploited by true and not true Christians alike.
Ideally, when considering this issue, I would like to see every denominational convention pass a unanimous, unilateral resolution officially recognizing, then condemning these past atrocities. Then, in the same resolution establish core tenets that reflect the future role of the church in the affairs of humankind that have to do with compassion, forgiveness, generosity, respect, and tolerance rather than just the opposite that we see today from mainstream Christianity. I won't hold my breath.
One of the flaws of historical reasoning is the "whiggish" interpretation of past events; i.e., judging the past in terms of the present. Why denounce the Inquisition by modern standards when it was alright by the standards of its times?
Mr. Andrew O. Lutes <KHHL59@aol.com>
Mansfield, OH USA - Friday, July 30, 1999 at 01:00:20 (MDT)
J.E. Hill responds:
Was it alright by the standards of its times? Just because these atrocities were sanctioned by an over zealous, corrupt, paranoid religious structure by no means implies this was a standard of civilization. Indeed, these specific acts were exceptions to the standards and standout in history as such.
I know that absolutely NOBODY will agree with what I am going to say here, but I wish some people would give it a thought. The "true" Christians are those who committed the historical (and not-so-historical) atrocities. They are rigid, intolerant, defensive, and greedy. Today (in America, at least), the Christian Church has grown with its members to become much more open, tolerant and candid than was its forbear. Why? Because the members simply coerced the change. The churches have no legal authority to punish people, and so they must court them instead. The churches do not lead their flock--their flocks lead them. We have changed and become much more liberal and accepting as a people generally. The churches had to follow.
The average person today does go to church and does have a fairly reasonable mindset and does appropriate some degree of "freedom" in his/her basic beliefs; BUT, that person is not a Christian. Christianity belongs to those who instituted it, established it, and acted out its precepts (which allowed for shameless disregard for natives and non-Christians worldwide). Why don't we realize that those of us who are fairly reasonable must belong to another religion? We keep wanting to call ourselves "Christians" because, I guess, we were, most often at a sub-conscious level, taught that the ethical principles and standards of decency by which we must live as a people are synonymous with the Christian religion. I do not believe that is true. The basic "Christian" message is neither original nor exclusive, although it is a wonderful message. The basic Christian behavior, also not original or exclusive, is not anything to be proud of.
No "god" who permits atrocities can be the same one who spreads love and charity. If you are worshiping the first, then you are a Christian. If you are serving the second, you are something else--I have not named the alternative, but I know that it is different. I guess I am trying to say that "Christianity" and human decency are not one and the same. It is not necessary to be a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim in order to live in an upstanding manner.
Thank you.
Merilyn Brunner <miladymib@aol.com>
Concord, CA USA - Thursday, July 29, 1999 at 00:31:40 (MDT)
The editor responds:
J.E. Hill agrees with almost everything you have said. The way I regard the matter, in all fairness, anyone is a Christian, in both a literal and practical sense, who believes that faith in Christ is the best path to salvation. All the disagreements about the particulars of this fact simply mark off different sects and branches and kinds of Christianity from one another. So there is nothing wrong with calling oneself a Christian and at the same time rejecting the whole history of the Catholic church as barbaric and mistaken. Indeed, if we really want to get technical, the Catholic church is not the oldest or the original Christian church.
The first to institute Christianity, establish it, and act out its precepts was the Church of Jerusalem, which was essentially destroyed in the Jewish War, but which was in-place and developed even before Paul came along. The second to institute, establish, and act out the precepts of Christianity, suitably altered, was the Eastern church, now called the Eastern Orthodox church, since Paul had established flourishing churches in the East (Greece and Syria) well before he had anything set up in Rome, although the Egyptian (later, the Coptic) church may have been in place before then.
The Orthodox church, which used Greek texts rather than Latin, became part of the Catholic church when Rome was the strongpoint of authority, but went its own way when the Empire was divided into two in the 4th and 5th centuries, and officially cut itself off in 1054 AD, and has been separate ever since. A similar thing happened to the Coptic church, which to this day uses a different New Testament (originally in the Graeco-Egyptian Coptic language, but now in Arabic). The Coptics split off from both Rome and the Orthodox church in the 7th century, accepting Islamic rule as a way to escape persecution from Rome and Constantinople. So Catholicism was not the only Christianity around when the crusades and inquisition were brought about.
Does it Really Matter Whether Hitler was a Believer or an Atheist? Responses to Mark Vuletic
I found the article "Was Hitler an Atheist or a Theist? More importantly, Who Cares?" interesting to read. The reason anyone cares is because the argument is constantly (mis)used, especially by critics of Christianity who constantly want to refer to the Crusades or the Inquisition. This allows them to think they have a one-shot "knockdown" argument against considering Christianity without the bother of actually taking the trouble of trying to consider and refute the evidence.
Of course I have to admit I've also heard lazy preachers use the same sort of tactics to try to show that atheists are supposedly inherentently immoral and Not To Be Trusted. This allow allows the avoidance of using any rational arguments to support their beliefs. I agree we should stop using these sorts of arguments and get down to the brass tacks of looking at evidence and using logic to make our case. Surely atheists and others skeptics can disagree with Christianity without implying that all members of the local Religious Right/Christian Coalition will use the State to force everyone to be baptized or be burned at the stake if they are allowed any political influence. I'm also tired of hearing that the local skeptics/Secular Humanists are in some insidious plot to send all believers to some new Gulag as soon as they get the power.
Perhaps a little bit of "Political Correctness" in our discussions can be a good thing? Racism in politics is now forbidden in polite company. Let's hope the same can become true in religion and philosophy also.
Robert S. Jackson <rjac332730@aol.com>
Cartesrville, GA USA - Sunday, July 25, 1999 at 17:55:04 (MDT)
Mark Vuletic responds:
I am in complete agreement with Robert Jackson. Naturally, I recognize that many people try to attack theism or atheism by referring to theists or atheists who did evil things (and that they, therefore, care about who's who among torturers and murderers). I simply wanted to point out that, as Mr. Jackson recognizes, those arguments are, in reality, completely irrelevant to both the truth and the moral status of theism and atheism as a whole.
Mark Vuletic,
You say "so what," they're not a normal theist or atheist. I wanted to know why mass murderers did such horrid thing. After over 20 years of studying every article I found in news papers I started to see a trend for Mass Murderers. I found religious training does have a profound effect on the mind, making people who are not normal. They're religious freaks. Why Do They Murder? What Kind Of Moral Training Did They Receive?
I made a survey starting in 1980 and ending in 1981. It was an attempt to find why mass murderers killed people. For eighteen months I cut every article from the Flint Journal telling about a mass murderer. There were 12 of them. I put the articles in a large envelope. I then spent many hours reading the articles trying to find some common link between each murderer.
I found 11 of them either had a very religious upbringing, or they carried a Christian Bible with them at all times, or they believed in demons and devils. I didn't find any who were Atheist.
[Note from the editor: O'Brien provided three pages detailing all twelve examples, laced with rhetorical questions and asides, and this was forwarded to Vuletic in its entirety. I only provide excerpts here. I have not checked any of O'Brien's claims.]
Bruce Lee murdered 26 people. the article says "Bible reading was his only consolation" ... He read the bible not porno. Would more religious training and bible study have kept him from being a mass murderer? ... The article in the Flint Journal quotes [Berwid, another mass murderer,] "I was searching the bible and soul-searching and I decided God wanted me to do that." ... Would Prayer in public schools have kept him from murdering? Berkowitz, called the Son of Sam, murdered many women. The news paper said "He called himself a born again Christian." If he hadn't been a born again Christian would he have murdered? Would Bible study have helped him? Did his training and the Preaching in the Baptist Church he attended help produce this brainless scum bag?
...
Bonny Joe Maxwell, who killed 11 people to get souls for Satan, the news paper reported, was raised in a very Christian family. ... The Yorkshire Raper "was on a divine mission and felt he had been chosen to hear the word of GOD (JESUS)." ... He murdered 11 girls. ... He was not involved with pornographic material. Christians often blame all our problems on liberals and porno. ... Patricia Dueweke had lots of religious training. She even went to a Catholic convent. She murdered her three children by tossing them from a hotel balcony.
...
Watch the news papers, you'll find almost all mass murderers are Bible-toters who read the Bible often. Tiller...was a Bible-toter. He murdered. I don't feel safe near people who sit around, where I work, reading the Bible. I've read too many articles telling of them murdering people. I see people who read the bible often as mentally sick individuals. ... Miller [is] another murderer [who] had that thing called faith, believed in Jesus. The article says he carried the Christian Bible. He didn't carry round porno or Playboy with pictures of naked smiling girls. People like Miller who carry bibles around, hate porno. ... Sampson Kanderayi, a mass murderer called The Axe Killer killed more than 30 people. The news paper reported "he did it to appease evil spirits." He was a Christian. ... Why didn't god stop him from killing good people?
Watts, the Sunday Morning Slasher, killed 11 women. This article says he did it "to eliminate evil spirits". He believed in spirits so we can guess that he was a Christian and very religious. ... David Kellers, a young boy, "was active in church affairs, working at vacation Bible school this summer, was involved in the church youth group and a regular in the teenage pews on Sunday morning" this article says. With a shot gun he murdered his father and mother. The Flint Journal article said "David's whole life revolved around church and religion." ... Douglas "frequently read the bible, He said a message came from God (you've got to do it! You've got to do it!)" quotes the news paper. He went from door to door and knocked until he found a woman at home alone and stabbed her to death. ... The BBC ... made a major study and concluded that convinced Humanists who have been taught Humanist ethics are the most law-abiding group in the population. They quote The Criminal written in 1895 with these remarks "it seems extremely rare to find intelligently irreligious men in prison."
These studies prove Christian Religious Training affects the mind and produces immorality! If you can find studies proving early religious training improves morality, [then] do it. "So what," you ask? They are not normal because religion makes them mass murderers.
Paul O'Brien <obrie@ibm.net>
flint, mi USA - Sunday, July 25, 1999 at 08:00:06 (MDT)
Mark Vuletic responds:
I am willing to conceed to Paul O'Brien that religion does sometimes produce mass murderers, or people amenable to mass murder (look, for instance, at the quote from Glenn Miller in my article). However, I hope Mr. O'Brien will be willing to conceed that (1) Stalin, for instance, was as bad as any mass murderer, (2) that even if all religious people were mass murderers, that would say nothing about the truth or falisty of theism, (3) that most (modern) religious upbringing is antithetical to mass murder, (4) the mostly religious composition of mass murderers (assuming Mr. O'Brien's sample is representative) may well be an artifact of the mostly religious composition of the US population, and (5) that most of the religious mass murderers he cites were inherently unstable, and may well have killed just as easily in the absence of religious influences (although they would not have offered the same reasons for their actions).
The reason it matters whether Hitler was an atheist or a god-believer is because god-believers have a bible verse that says "by their fruits you shall know them" so that whenever a non-believer does something bad they can say "see!"
To promote intellectual freedom, it is essential to show that Hitler believed in god to show that god-belief doesn't ensure good behavior. For reasons of public opinion, it does make a difference. Hitler's god-belief must be documented (it already has been) and given the widest possible publicity! Free Inquiry has done the right thing in exposing Hitler's belief in god. Doing this will check the god-believers and give them pause to think. Stalin is often touted as an "atheist" but please remember that he had a Russian Orthodox seminary background! That should be the answer if "Stalin the atheist" charge is brought up. If anyone hurls "atheist Communism" at you, hurl "Christian Nazism" back at them and have the historic facts about Hitler's god-belief [at hand] to tell them! It helps take the wind out of god-believers' sails, helps to de-starch their shirts!
Hitler was not an atheist!
Hitler believed in God!
God-believers performed the holocaust!
God, if she exists, did nothing to stop it!
Mr. Andrew O. Lutes
USA - Friday, July 23, 1999 at 19:25:29 (MDT)
Mark Vuletic responds:
While being uncertain about the claim that Hitler and Stalin were both theists, I agree with Andrew O. Lutes that it is important to have examples of believers who do evil things (such as Glenn Miller), so one can, as Mr. Lutes says, give believers "pause to think" when they trot out alleged examples of the "fruits of atheism." I wish to emphasize, though, that at least on a popular level, many atheists use the same kind of poor reasoning (judging all religion, or the truth of religion, by the evil actions of a few) as the above theists do, and I really wish they would cut that out.
Was Hitler an Atheist? Great article in the ways that an article can be great. It got me thinking. I must admit to playing that game with people myself. "You know that so and so was a Christian..." Every now and then it's important for a person to revise their outlook. They may not need to radically change their view either. Sometimes they just need to soften it so they can see people as people a little more clearly. Thanks for a very though provoking read.
By the way... Hitler was a vegetarian.
Jim Brice <jammybrice@yahoo.com>
USA - Thursday, July 22, 1999 at 13:15:02 (MDT)
Mark Vuletic responds:
To Jim Brice, "You're welcome." And I think your last line ("Hitler was a vegetarian") pretty much says it all.
Regarding the "Hitler: atheist or theist" debate; your overall argument is sound but one "minor" point blows it out of the water. That is, theism, at least in the form of Christianity, is based on a book that can be used by casual followers OR fundamentalists. There is much in the bible that advocates and promotes violence, intolerance and prejudice. If a said leader is a Christian theist, he/she is in effect condoning all that is written in the bible to SOME people who then in turn act on the bible LITERALLY. This is the problem we have in the USA today. Theists do not agree on how to interpret their "good book." However, there is no such book that can be misinterpreted if said leader is an atheist. Although an atheist leader could still turn out to be cruel or inhuman, it will not be because they were inspired to do so by written dogma and thereby inspiring others to follow suit. This is why the bible and god-belief must be debunked at all possible opportunities.
In the end, it really doesn't matter what Hitler WAS but it DID matter what he acted like--a theist who believed in the bible.
Randall Reiss <randalljr@netscape.net>
Seymour, CT USA - Thursday, July 22, 1999 at 10:39:14 (MDT)
Mark Vuletic responds:
I want to stress to Randall Reiss that atheists, too, can have their written dogmas. Those dogmas may not be religious in nature, but they can still command fanaticism (take the Communist Manifesto, for instance). Even if religion were to die out entirely, I'm sure we would still find plenty of dogmatists in society who are all too eager to discriminate, harrass, or kill in the name of nonreligious ideals. So rather than target religion for its potential to do harm, I think it would be more appropriate (and effective) to try to instill critical thinking and an attitude of tolerance throughout both the theistic and atheistic communities.
I Liked and agreed with the article, but it was difficult me to take it too seriously when quotes were used w/o reference or dates. I think that the facts about Hitler could have been backed up with proof (even though it is pretty obvious what Hitler believed). Again, just reference.
Georgia Reid <goddessgeorgia@yahoo.com>
USA - Thursday, July 15, 1999 at 12:50:36 (MDT)
Mark Vuletic responds:
I would like to point out to Georgia Reid that since I didn't take a stance on what Hitler believed, no supporting material was appropriate. The point of my article, in fact, was entirely antithetical to taking a stance on what Hitler believed. As for quotes, there were only two quotes in my article, and both were fully cited.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. "Was Hitler an atheist?" A better question might be, "Were the Hebrew patriarchs genocidal tyrants?" While crimes against humanity might not be an inevitable consequence of theism, they are a likely consequence of any religion which takes the tribal atrocities of the Old Testament to be divine revelation containing instructions for contemporary behavior. The Bible as a whole supports slavery, sexism, racism, and genocide as divinely-instituted functions of human society. If there are contemporary atheists who claim to follow Hitler's ideals, they are certainly marginal in our society. The contemporary theists who embrace gory and inhumane Biblical doctrines are countless and influential.
Love is the law, love under will.
Dionysos Thriambos <dionysos@texas.net>
Austin, TX USA - Tuesday, July 27, 1999 at 13:58:38 (MDT)
Mark Vuletic responds:
I certainly agree with Dionysos Thriambos about the moral status of the Old Testament and anyone who takes the OT to be a guide for behavior, and I also agree that (in the US) there are many people who do take the OT to be such a guide, and they are becoming increasingly influential, mostly because they are very well organized. However, I would contend that these people still constitute a minority. Most Christians I have encountered take the Bible to be a living document, and they see within it morals which are not all that far off from those of secular humanists.
The main problem with working in unison with this group is that there is a strong prejudice against secular humanists and atheists in general, born of misinformation and misunderstanding. I want to contend that freethinkers exacerbate this problem, and do themselves and the rest of the world more harm than good, when they demonize all of religion (or all of Christianity, or Islam, or what have you) because of the destructive actions or mentality of a comparative few. I don't, of course, want to deny that there are destructive religious elements, or even that they pose a real danger right now. However, I would also suggest that if religion vanished, destructive (but comparatively small) atheistic elements would probably pose the same threat to liberty as the religious far right does today.
Mark Vuletic on God and Evolution
Dear Infidels:
Mark Vuletic says God could've easily enough created proof that evolution did not happen. The fact is He has. No matter how you twist a vine around your evolutionary tree, you'll never come up with a duck-billed platypus.
You requested proof. You have proof. Still you deny the truth. What's up with that?
The only thing left is to ask God to force you to believe; but then what's the point? If God wanted preprogrammed robots that's what He would've made. Instead he gave us the capacity to think on our own. Because you have the option to make bad choices does not mean you should exercise that option.
End of Note
Dan Stewart <dstew8@hotmail.com>
Osceola, MO - Wednesday, July 28, 1999 at 00:41:12 (MDT)
Mark Vuletic responds:
Dan Stewart may believe his claim about the platypus is obvious, but I disagree, as do the vast majority of scientists today. Perhaps Mr. Stewart is more intelligent than all of these people, but if that's the case, then God should help us overcome the idiocy that we (but not Mr. Stewart) have been blighted with, instead of punishing us for our lack of comprehension. Some of the ways God could have done this are described in
my paper (none of which consitute "forcing" anyone to believe -- they simply constitute giving everyone the opportunity to make a fully informed choice). If God had done any of those things, then nearly everyone would be a creationist today, instead of just the privileged few like Mr. Stewart.
Bill Edelen on Violence and Religion
Brilliant essay. However, people have memories so short, and the scope of their knowledge is so narrow that the comparison between the loony religious right and Hitlerian bigots will never stick. It's a message nobody wants to hear. No matter how much factual/documental evidence you rub their noses in. They've got their blindfolds on, they're feeding off their self-driven righteousness and their appetite for a purity that is nothing if not legendary and unattainable. Every Christian right-winger should be forced to read this text. (no, wait, actually that would be dictatorial)
Jorge Machado <babylon9000@excite.com>
Braga, 00 PT - Friday, July 23, 1999 at 04:08:02 (MDT)
The religion and violence article, however short, is excellent. Is there any way of expounding on this article somewhat and adding commentary from psychology experts? This could become a great video which in turn could possibly be used for educational purposes and aired on TV. Left unmentioned in the article were Northern Ireland's Protestants vs. Catholics, Islamic fundamentalism, the subjugation of women by patriarchal religions, male and female genital mutilation, and on and on.
Keep up the good work!
Randall Reiss <randalljr@netscape.net>
Seymour, Ct USA - Thursday, July 22, 1999 at 09:51:56 (MDT)
I would like to respond to the article "Religion is the Cause of Violence." I should first point out that I am in full agreement with the gist of the article and the conclusions reached. I am very well versed on Hitler and the literature about him. Regarding the points about Adolf Hitler, I believe there are certain misinterpretations. It is completely true that for many reasons the Church never excommunicated Hitler and were completely silent when it came to crimes against humanity, and one of, if not the worst slaughters in human history. Hitler, however, was merely using the Catholic and Protestant churches for his own ends. At that time the churches held too much power and influence for him to simply get rid of them. He did plan to do it eventually however.
Hitler had disdain and contempt for the Protestant church and the Catholic church. He did respect the "great position" of the latter. It is evident from his success, that Hitler had tremendous understanding of propaganda and the masses. Some of this he learned from the Catholic church. He admired the way the Church remained influential and powerful for hundreds of years, while at the same time was based on the "biggest lie in history." Hitler realized that he could use techniques of the church to sway the masses. This was the only point upon which Hitler was not passionately hateful towards the Church.
An important point I would like to make is that most people these days tend to draw a sharp line between themselves and those who followed Adolf Hitler, as well as between our own Western culture and that of Nazi Germany. Upon closer examination, one discovers that while the consequences are vastly different, the causes tend to blur. The irrationality of Nazism, in terms of the doctrines followed by the masses, is exactly the same as the irrationality inherent in our own culture. This fact is not only shocking, but terrifying.
Allow me to explain. The religious justify their beliefs in two ways. They either attempt to logically sort out their beliefs, or they use fallacious justifications. The same ones used by Germans to justify their support for Hitler AND the criminality of his regime. Let me give a short list of comparisons which most (rational and relatively intelligent) people should be able to identify with. First a common defense of Hitler followed by a defense of Western monotheism.
- a)One must have faith in the Fuehrer
- b)One must have faith in Jesus/God
- a)Even if you see things on the street which you don't like or understand (usually beatings, shootings or torture of innocent people), remember that the Fuehrer wants a better world and a clean Germany (so close your eyes and go along with it)
- b)We might not understand everything in the Bible, some of it might SEEM contradictory, but remember God is smarter than we are, so have faith (close your eyes and your brain) and everything will be okay
- a)You don't know why people love Hitler despite everything (extreme brutality) because you're not German and you've never met him so you're not supposed to get it. You just don't understand!
- b)You should have faith in Jesus. The reason you don't believe is because your mind is closed and you don't seek him. If you don't seek him you'll never find him. (In other words, if you don't believe in him, you're not believing in him... It's not supposed to make sense)
- a)You don't know what it's like to go to a rally and feel charged and exhilarated. It's just like a religious experience. (The vast majority of those who were "converted" to Nazism used the exact words 'religious experience')
- b)God and Jesus have filled my soul and fed my hunger, got me off drugs and alcohol and made me a strong and joyful person (who said religion is not a crutch). How could that happen if there were no 'Power of Jesus'. (If going to a Nazi rally made people feel the exact same way, it obviously makes no difference whether what they believe in makes sense or not)
There is something wrong if all it takes is a bad economy and a charismatic crank like Hitler to lead to the most destructive period in human history.
I would like to conclude that I find it difficult to face the fact that in reality, I have the utmost respect for Hitler's religious beliefs.
1) There is a god who created all natural laws, but now plays no part in human affairs (I don't agree with it but I understand it)
2) Christianity is one of the most destructive forces in human history
3) A belief in [an] afterlife is a fallacious and nonsensical way for the "little man" to get through the day because life is so difficult
4) religion is for the stupid and old women.
5) Western religions cannot compare to the Eastern, Islamic, Buddhist and Confucian traditions
6) Christianity is offensive to the intellect and only those with the intelligence of an ape (not to insult apes) believe in it
7) One should only accept a religion if it makes sense and [does not] create problems or life denying attitudes
8) One cannot hope to rule the next life, which is supposedly all one should live for, and rule this one as well.
It is ironic that someone as narrow minded (while still intelligent) as Hitler, who promoted the crudest, nonsensical and destructive belief system in history, could believe things in the matter of religion which demonstrate a higher form of thinking of which only the strongest-willed persons are capable.
Thank you for your time and keep up the good work.
A like-minded intellectual,
Adem Kendir <ajk74@hotmail.com>
Montreal, Qc. Canada - Saturday, July 17, 1999 at 13:24:27 (MDT)
In a time less than a year ago I was a Christian and I was by all standards a good Christian, I went to church and I said my Prayers until one day Reality hit me like a ton of bricks and I got a Clue. To this day I am now an Antagonist and am very much opposed to much of what Christianity is. A proud Supporter of the Gay Lifestyle and Pro-Choice.
I have taken much hurt from Christians and my own family who seem to believe I have lost my way but I am not hindered and I hold no doubt of my decision and how it will help me to realize who I truly am and to believe in myself and know what I was taught to believe.
Your Article on Religion and Violence was well written and I admire it. It's eye opening to realize that Hitler was Anti-Gay and Anti-Abortion and that Countries with no religion have the least crime. I've often posed the argument that if none of us believed in God the World would be a better place and I was always quickly disagreed with. Now I know I was right.
Mike Face <anglface@bitstorm.net>
Fl USA - Saturday, July 17, 1999 at 09:57:09 (MDT)
This is in response to the Religion is the Root of Violence article. It was a bit melodramatic, but I think it had some valid points. Religion has been the root of many violent acts, and the source of many atrocities. I also agree that religious belief does not prevent someone from committing crimes, or make them more tolerant.
My concern about the article is that it seems to be suggesting that religion is the root of all evil. That's an exaggeration. There are religious people who have worked for peace. As well as religious people who have worked for equality and tolerance. Just as it's wrong to paint all atheists as evil, it's also wrong to paint all theists as evil.
I have no problem criticizing religion, and I've done that on my site. But let's keep an eye on the sweeping generalizations. We do have to share this world after all.
William Brinkman <wbrink@xnet.com>
Bolingbrook, IL USA - Wednesday, July 14, 1999 at 20:02:23 (MDT)
I have just read you section on religion being an actual agent of violence. I couldn't agree more, the evidence speaks for a strong correlation at least. But there is something specific about your column that I wanted to speak about. On the topic of Japan, I am a student of Japanese Language and Literature and have had a chance to live for a year and a half in Japan. Buddhism is not terribly influential, but this doesn't hurt your argument and in fact strengthens it.
I'll tell you why. Buddhism has been losing ground for many years and many of its traditions in Japan have become a part of the culture, losing their religious nature almost altogether. The reason why Japan speaks so powerfully to me about the power of lacking faith is that the younger generation is functionally agnostic, they claim no organized religion for the most part, although many cling to some traditions but are pretty much non-practicing.
But even this generation has shown so little criminal activity it is amazing sometimes. The most interesting example of how society is different there was when I told my girlfriend's parents that I would pick my girlfriend up from the train station late at night. They laughed at me because the idea seemed stupid, but there are some places in the United States that I would like someone to pick me up from! To them there wasn't a thought of danger, but they are godless heathens right? Hard things for the religious right to answer.
Aaron Cowdin <cowdin@falcon.cc.ukans.edu>
Ottawa, KS USA - Wednesday, July 14, 1999 at 08:55:14 (MDT)
Great article. It really ticks me off how often "Hitler the atheist" gets trotted out by theists when they want an example of how morally bankrupt us atheists are.
Merryn Sand <sandm@netspace.net.au>
Australia - Wednesday, July 14, 1999 at 01:24:30 (MDT)
I think that William Edelen was close to the mark in his essay concerning the correlation of religion and violence, "Religion is the Cause of Violence," but I don't think he quite hit a bullseye. While it's true, historically, that a great deal of violence has been done in the name of religion, there has also been violence done where religion does not seem to be a factor at all.
I think the real culprit is moral certainty. A person who is absolutely certain that they are morally justified in their actions are capable of any atrocity--always in the name of the greater good. Whether that certainty is generated by religion or by philosophy or by dementia really makes no matter at all. And violence is not the only harm done by moral certainty. How many freedoms have been lost in the United States simply because so many Americans have been certain that specific ideas and substances were morally wrong?
As Judge Learned Hand once said, "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right."
Gilker Kimmel <Gilker@aol.com>
Austin, Tx USA - Tuesday, July 13, 1999 at 16:25:35 (MDT)
Atheists are Nice? Imagine That!
I was an atheist for most of my life because that's how my parents raised me. They had no clue the damage they were doing at the time either! I have found true happiness and fulfillment in God's love. That part of your soul that feels so empty is filled. Trust me I know that you feel a[n] emptiness inside of you because I once felt that way and I've talked to many others who once felt that way before too.
If you only knew that you are destroying your children then maybe you would reconsider your beliefs! I know for a fact that church[e]s do not teach us that Atheist[s] are evil! We are only taught to help them see their faults and to help them find God. Jesus died so that you may have salvation. I haven't been a Christian very long and I may not know as much as others but I do know that. I hope for your sake that you will understand that Jesus is the only way out of eternal damnation. Now you may say, ok, if there is a God, prove it. Well I'll ask you this in return: prove to me there isn't. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it's not there. You can say that the grass is red but that doesn't change the fact that it's green. I challenge you to pick a Bible and just begin reading about the work that Jesus did here on Earth.
Godbless!
Ellen Reeves <lelonmelon@aol.com>
Athens, Ga USA - Friday, July 16, 1999 at 02:19:30 (MDT)
The editor responds:
You have found true happiness and fulfillment in God's love, but we have found true happiness and fulfillment in the love of life, reason, wisdom, knowledge, the universe, and humanity, as well as of friends and family. That part of our soul that felt so empty was filled by this love of all, and so we are living proof that there is no need to put a god into the "love" slot. Trust me. I know that we feel a constant wholeness and joy inside of us, because I live that life first-hand, and I've talked to many others who have, too.
I know for a fact that some churches do teach that atheists are evil. I've sat in on their sermons. I've read their literature and pamphlets. I've argued with the pastors. Of course, many instead teach you to "help" us see our "faults" and to "help" us find God, on the unproven presumption that it is we who are in error. But in carrying out this mission, did you notice that you threatened us, like virtually every Christian does? This only betrays the moral bankruptcy of your belief. I don't believe things on threats. I believe them on evidence and reason. Why do you adopt the opposite policy? Do you regard cowardice a virtue?
Now let's examine your axiom that "just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it's not there." So there is an invisible cat made of green cheese floating around behind your chair? Well, it's your axiom--you can't prove that this cat isn't there, so I guess you had better believe it is! Needless to say, this is simply a stupid argument. But I think I see why you missed the mistake: your example doesn't even relate to this axiom. "You can say that the grass is red but that doesn't change the fact that it's green" refers to an observable fact: that the grass is green. This does not apply to disbelief in a god. I say there are no gods--but, unlike the green grass, you have no facts to point to in order to show I'm wrong. As for the proof that there is no god, well, read a little of what we say on that--our online library covers every angle, believe me. Last but not least, please don't challenge us to pick up a Bible--we've all read it, ad nausium, and most of us have read far more of it than most Christians ever will.
RE:Atheist neighbor children are nice . . . Imagine that!
First off I'll say this site is very interesting. [But] Mr. Lucas seems to be as confused as his neighbors appear to be. When he refers to what "branch" they may belong to does he mean branch of religion? The term "Christian" referred to in the Bible means follower of Christ. I for example follow the teachings of Christ. If I choose to join an assembly to assist my learning or for fellowship with like people then maybe you could argue that there are branches. Christians do not have branches.
Next Mr. Lucas says he has raised his kids without religion except maybe bumper stickers?? What do they say? "I'm not religious"? I'm guessing here so cut me some slack. Are the stickers the little Darwin fish? Are the stickers pro-evolution? Then you have made a religious choice. And your conversation with your kids means you have pushed your views on them like your Christian neighbors. Last of all I would love to have an atheist neighbor or any other religion. My Lord commands me to go make disciples of all nations and if I can start next door..GREAT
Thanks,
br>John 3:16
Andrew Adamson <eagle1@pe.net>
Montclair, Ca USA - Tuesday, July 13, 1999 at 07:44:34 (MDT)
The editor responds:
Mr. Lucas was unable to respond in time for this publication. I will simply say that "branch" is an acceptable synonym for "sect" and if you wish to deny the existence of Christian sects, I have some land in Florida to sell you. On the other point, conversing with children and telling them what you think is not "pushing" your views on them. I cannot speak for Mr. Lucas on this, but I have several friends who are secular parents, and none of them push their beliefs on their children, but they do not shun the subject either.
I will bet that most Christian parents would never dare tell their children that they can believe what they want, they would never dare give them Buddhist and Secular Humanist literature so they can make an informed decision, and would never deign to say "Well, your mom and dad believe this, but some people believe that, and you will have to decide for yourself some day, when you know enough. Just know that we will support your choice, so long as you remain a nice person and are kind to all people." Yet these very words and deeds, or something like them, I have experienced in every secular family I have personally known. This is one of the reasons I have come to feel even more certain that secular humanism is the greatest of creeds. Secular humanists, in my experience at least, have shown themselves to be better people than a great many Christians I've known when it comes to this, for they actually understand the meaning and value of "liberty of conscience."
I've been told I was very nice, nicer than most, but they are shocked to find out I'm Wiccan, and a Native American shaman
Edward l Anderson <procyon1`@prodigy.net>
orlando, fl USA - Friday, July 09, 1999 at 11:50:53 (MDT)
Nice enough to be Christian. Huh. Says a lot about how those children are being raised. I spent 16 years as a professed born-again, evangelical Christian. During that time I heard over and over from many a pulpit that it was only through Christ that one could become morally upright. The blunt statements and the insinuations were that, without Christ, a person could not be moral for very long before sliding down the slippery slope of immorality. And I bought into that before I allowed skepticism to show me that non-theism is a much more rational and healthy way to live life and that it is possible to create a system of ethics that is livable and makes sense.
I recall a conversation I had with a former church mate about a year after my apostasy. We sat down over lunch and the first thing he said to me was, "Pete, you look so sad and down." Mind you, this was after we had joked around on the way to lunch. I challenged him by saying, truthfully, that I had never felt better or more free. I told him that I had never felt or thought so clearly and without guilt. I also told him that I thought he was assuming I must be feeling "sad and down" because, obviously, no one without Christ could possibly be happy. To his credit he took the rebuff but it spoke to me, as this story did, of how brainwashed so many are in the more fundamental, evangelical world.
Here's to hoping that your children grow up to continue having positive, eye-opening impacts on theists throughout their lives.
Peter Perreault <pippip2@hotmail.com>
Gilbert, AZ USA - Tuesday, July 06, 1999 at 16:16:50 (MDT)
Hello. In response to the page I read, I do agree with the statement that it's possible the boy learned somehow that atheists are somehow mean or bad, although don't you think his comment could have been a pure spur-of the moment type of deal? He might have made the assumption that, because all the people he knows are nice and Christians at the same time, that outsiders were not to be considered nice. He could have made the comment not thinking about it, he's after all only 12. I don't think one child's comment should be taken seriously.
Thanks for your time.
Miles Sutherland <barney@bluedragon.net>
Hampton, TX USA - Tuesday, July 06, 1999 at 15:07:12 (MDT)
The editor responds:
Mr. Lucas's story was not unique. It was recorded because it was a startling example and Lucas had the time and talent to tell it. The fact is that every atheist I know, myself included, has had several almost identical experiences. This cannot simply be due to the untutored, flawed reasoning of 12-year-olds. It is a ubiquitous misunderstanding among Christians, and it hardly matters whether it is taught to them or deduced from their teachings on their own--since if this is what is to be deduced from their religious experiences and education, even with the limited experience and acumen of a 12-year-old, there is still something very wrong with the way these people are being raised and educated. Imagine if you used the same argument to defend this same reaction if it was a black neighbor, rather than an atheist. If a child, on his own, thought that black people were immoral, this would not vindicate his parents--it would, as it does here, suggest some failing in their instruction on matters of respect and tolerance.
I loved the story "Atheist neighbor children are nice . . . Imagine that!" Having founded an atheist club here in South Carolina, I have experienced the hostility towards nonbelievers firsthand. Our goal was to show people that atheists were good, moral people. I can't remember how many times I've heard, "You're an atheist? But you're such a nice person," after I told a close friend of my atheism. The image of atheism will be changed by our actions. Let's show them that a few bad apples doesn't ruin the whole bunch.
Katherine Martin <elmartin@bellsouth.net>
Goose Creek, SC USA - Monday, July 05, 1999 at 09:00:27 (MDT)
Amazon.com, Scientology and Atack
Re: Scientology and its attackers. I am as disbelieving an infidel as could ever be found. As such, I happen to be in a minuscule minority among the Scientologists, of whom I count myself one, and who are mainly members of the Judeo-Christian ("Semitic") religions, many of them actually practicing those religions outside their work within the Church of Scientology. The position of this Church on God could be described, who has no wish to believe on the subject may do as he wish (that in my own words and in no way is an official position. That has to be underscored, for the Church of Scientology's detractors could compete in the discipline of malicious distortion only with those of Thomas Paine it seems).
The simple fact about the book by one "Atack" on Scientology is that it contains distortions to an extent that amounts to slander. That fact has been certified by an English court. Amazon.com, by withdrawing the book from circulation (now limited to England) has simply complied with a court order. We might observe that defending somebody's right to indiscriminate slander does not serve the issues of free-speech well. Amazon.com is not to be lauded or upbraided for such and such policies; the presumption is that an English court's decision on the quality of the contents of "Atack"s book has been done with more deliberation of actual facts than any of us could afford in our spare time.
That generally speaking; I know Scientology from inside and I would have complaints against this or that individual I have met there. Still, I testify that the "Atack" book, of which I have seen parts, is untrue in the main, as to the facts, "facts" and interpretations. I have read Ingersoll's "Vindication of Thomas Paine" but five minutes ago, from a site that lead me to this one. Would we defend Paine's detractors in the name of free speech?
Very Sincerely,
Paul Tabaka <TABAKA@webtv.net>
Glendale, CA USA - Sunday, July 11, 1999 at 06:03:48 (MDT)
Jim Lippard responds:
The full details of the libel claim regarding Atack's book may be found at
There was never any injunction against the book's distribution anywhere outside of England. The libel claim applied to a single paragraph of the book on p. 336. Attempts by Scientologists to block the publication of the book with litigation in the U.S. failed. The book in its entirety is on the web at
I've yet to see Scientologists question the factual accuracy of the book apart from the one paragraph, that's really a pretty innocuous one compared to most of the rest of the book.
Flag Protection: Idolatry Under Pain of Law
With a flag amendment, you displace respect in favor of fear (of incarceration), and we cannot respect a symbol that has been manipulated in this way. William F. Buckley, Jr., after about 2 minutes of an attempted argument for a flag amendment, admitted that there is NO possible logic he could muster to defend such a ludicrous position. An amendment would destroy the very nature of the flag. Our Flag burns before TV viewers with quite a bit of regularity--in Somalia, Serbia, China. How do suggest we stop that? If you're really into idolatry, buy yourself a plastic Jesus.
Our attention should turn to preserving the first, second, fourth and ninth amendments.
Bob Krejci <robert.krejci@wcom.com>
Elbert, CO USA - Tuesday, July 20, 1999 at 10:11:18 (MDT)
Jeffery Jay Lowder, Ravi Zacharias, and Atheism as a Worldview
In Lowder's review of Ravi Zacharias's book he claims that atheism is not a world view. Why then do you list atheism as a world view in your FAQ? Just curious.
Kerry Colling <shamrock@adnc.com>
USA - Monday, July 26, 1999 at 00:48:16 (MDT)
Jeffery Jay Lowder responds:
Since I wrote the bulk of the FAQ, this would be a good question for me to answer. In a nutshell, I've revised my position as a result of the reading I've done on the concept of a worldview (by the way, most of the authors I've read on this topic are Christian authors, if it makes any difference). All of the various authors I've read list various criteria for a worldview, criteria which atheism doesn't meet. I discuss these criteria in my review of Zacharias's book. What would be accurate to say is this: "There is no THE atheistic worldview, but there are many atheistic worldviewS." For example, secular humanism is an atheistic worldview.
Thanks for catching this discrepancy between the II FAQ and my review of Zacharias's book and pointing it out. I will update the II FAQ when I get a chance.
Just to note, and refute the statement of one of your writers/reviewers, there are many avid, self titled, anti-theists, and I am one of them. just wanted to drop a line on that subject
Gabriel Mattoon <siouxsie6000@yahoo.com>
San jose, CA USA - Thursday, July 29, 1999 at 21:21:16 (MDT)
The Arguments From Evil and Nonbelief
Theodore Drange assumes the truth of theism in his attempt to refute it. Here's how: Drange cites the problem of evil as proof of God's non-existence. But this assumes that evil is a real thing. And if evil is real, then objective morals must also be real. To deny, for example, that morals are objective (as opposed to relative) means that Hitler was not evil for killing Jews, he just had different preferences then, say, a Mother Theresa. But if that is the case, the problem of evil vanishes and Drange's objection collapses in on itself.
If, on the other hand, evil is a real thing, then morals must also be real and objective. But to say that morals are objective assumes the existence of a moral law giver. Hence, we are back to theism. Admittedly, this does not prove the existence of the Christian God, but the objection to theism based on evil clearly does not prove God cannot exist. It actually proves just the opposite.
Scott Klusendorf <110121.244@compuserve.com>
San Pedro, CA USA - Friday, July 30, 1999 at 00:00:44 (MDT)
Theodore Drange responds:
Mr. Klusendorf errs in at least two ways. First, he assumes that if evil is real, then objective morals must also be real. That is not so, since"evil" need not be defined in moral terms. In fact, in all of my writings on the subject, I define "evil" simply as suffering and premature death,which are not in themselves moral concepts.
Second, Mr. Klusendorf errs in his assumption that the objectivity of morals assumes the existence of a moral law giver. That, too, is a mistake, since objective morality could be based on reason and/or moral intuition rather than divine commands. Philosophy is full of ethical theories (from consequentialism to deontology) which show how morality could still be objective even if theism were false. It is also full of clear refutations of the divine-command theory of ethics. I recommend that Mr. Klusendorf study a little philosophy in this area to come to see how wrong he has been. The notion that the existence of evil somehow supports God's existence is totally misguided.
Ted Drange on the Fine-Tuning Argument
Mr.Drange has seemingly taken a most UNSCIENTIFIC approach to the "finely tuned universe" argument. We need to look for the truth no matter where it leads us, not sacrifice the truth if it happens to disagree with our personal view of the universe. It is also curious that he would use dice (things that are the product of design with numbers on them that have also been designed) to try and refute the premise OF design. More to the point, he uses the law of probability to make some of his points. The fact that I disagree with his arguments viz a viz the dice is irrelevant. I simply want to point out that the SCIENCE of statistical probability clearly supports an argument for design.
SCIENCE (not theology) has identified almost 40 parameters required for life of any kind to exist (and the number is growing). The odds of any one of these just popping into existence (incredibly, evolutionists seem to believe that there is an awful lot of this popping into existence happening) let alone ALL of them combining together to produce life is so small that it requires that we concede the point to creationists. This is not a matter of personal bias. It is simply where SCIENCE leads us. We accept this kind of empirical evidence in ANY other discipline, yet when it comes to our origins we want to throw our methodology out the window because we don't LIKE where it leads us. This is a dishonest approach to trying to get to the truth of the matter and I would ask again that we follow the SCIENTIFIC evidence wherever it leads. No better explanation than creationism has been offered that fits with the science we now have.
Warrick Walker
Calgary, Canada - Thursday, July 08, 1999 at 12:29:31 (MDT)
Theodore Drange responds:
Mr. Walker seems to think that the existence of life in our universe is both: (1) very unlikely and (2) very special, which calls for some sort of explanation in terms of intelligent design. However, he has given no reason whatever for either claim (1) or claim (2). In order for his "fine-tuning argument" for an intelligent designer to have any merit, he needs to supply those reasons.
The existence of life in our universe would be shown not to be improbable at all if physicists were to come up with a plausible theory of origins that would explain why the various uniformities and physical constants that we observe in our universe (what Mr. Walker calls "parameters") had to be what they are, given the occurrence of the so-called "big bang." Physicists are presently attempting to construct such a theory and Mr. Walker has provided no reason to think they will fail.
The existence of life in our universe would also not be very unlikely if there were a very large number of universes apart from our own, with all different sorts and combinations of uniformities and physical constants. Then it would become exceedingly likely that our particular combination of those factors (the combination that makes life possible) would occur somewhere or other in at least one of them. For Mr. Walker's "fine-tuning argument" to go through, he needs to provide some reason to reject the possible existence of a large number of universes other than our own, and that he has not done.
Mr. Walker's argument also assumes that a universe in which life (i.e.,the kind of life with which we are familiar) exists is a very special sort of universe, sufficiently special to warrant an appeal to intelligent design. But to say that it is special is to assume that the various other kinds of universe that might have existed instead of ours (ones with different combinations of uniformities and physical constants and devoid of the kind of life with which we are familiar) are not special. In other words, they would all be humdrum sorts of world with nothing as remarkable as life happening within them. Some reason is needed to believe that, and Mr. Walker has not supplied any reason for it whatever. That is still another objection to his argument. In general, the argument is a failure because it appeals to assumptions which are not self-evident and for which no justification whatever has been supplied.
Keith Augustine's "The Case Against Immortality"
I read parts of your article on immortality [and] the many arguments against the idea that consciousness can survive the death of the body. The article is too long to answer. The main contention against it is that the author is only familiar with Western thought, and does not realize that in the East people have been distinguishing between Mind and Consciousness, and between Personality and Individuality. The discussion of this subject is too big for this note, but one thing I do want to say:
In my opinion the most important aspect of theism that needs to be refuted is it's authoritarianism. The most poisonous thing about religions is that they take away human freedom in the name of some "god" by imposing moral values. Whether someone believes in immortality, or could only bother me if he or she imposes his or her recipe for heaven to it.
The most important reason why Atheism has not yet succeeded, and unfortunately will never succeed, thus leaving humanity in the hands of authoritarian moralists is exactly this: the denial of immortality. If we can propagate atheism which is not against immortality, there will be no psychological barriers against it.
Vivarto <vivarto@iname.com>
Seattle, WA USA - Monday, July 26, 1999 at 10:41:45 (MDT)
Keith Augustine responds:
Perhaps you could tell me what the basic differences between these concepts are? Do you think different definitions will really allow for personal immortality? If your definitions assume some kind of impersonal immortality, such as being absorbed into a cosmic Absolute Mind, since individuality is not retained here I don't see how impersonal survival differs in any substantial way from the total annihilation of the person. If the individual does not survive, what does?
A similar objection applies to a concept of reincarnation where in successive lives one's memory and personality are totally destroyed 'between lives'. If the memory and personality do not survive and the newborn infant has to learn information about life all over again from scratch since his past life memories do not 'carry over', what is the difference between saying Mr. Jones died and was reincarnated as someone else and saying Mr. Jones died and a new, different person was born shortly after Mr. Jones' death?If one does not accept any particular religious belief system and wants to be rational or scientific in forming the beliefs that they have, they will look at the evidence and arguments about various issues and follow these to their logical conclusion. The philosophical literature reveals many problems with the concept of survival of the person after the body has died. The scientific literature reveals that there is no evidence that the dead continue to exist in some other state and, additionally, that our minds cannot continue to exist once the brain has ceased functioning.
The denial of immortality follows from a realistic look at the evidence and thus we should deny immortality. Even if we didn't deny immortality, an atheist certainly couldn't guarantee it--at best he could say there may or may not be life after death. And this is not something believers will find appealing--since death is inevitable and many can't stand the thought that they might cease to exist, they will want a guarantee that death is not the end. And that is something that atheism will never be able to provide as long as there is no good evidence that people continue to exist after death. Yet you argue that "if we can propagate atheism which is not against immortality, there will be no psychological barriers against it." So we should give up our intellectual integrity in order to be more popular?
Robert Price on Born-Agains
I'm a "born again" Christian, an Adult Sunday School teacher at an evangelical church, and a strong believer in the veracity of Scripture. You might think I would disagree with much of what you said, but you have many valid points. I seem to spend most of my "war time" fighting with other Christians about this doctrine or that idea, which, of course, they claim God Himself agrees with them upon, but I hold that Truth is useful no matter the source, and so long as it does not clearly contradict Scripture, I see no reason to make it an issue.
There really is too much "God-will-take-away-all-your-problems" preaching. In the Four Spiritual Laws, a little diagram shows self on throne and life in chaos, and Christ on throne and life in order. It doesn't happen that way. God is the answer for the Ultimate Questions, those beyond the here and now, the eternal issues, but that doesn't mean he's going to tell me where to eat dinner tonight. That answer isn't in there, and last I checked, the Bible won't help me with an Algebra course, either.
I think a great deal of difficulty in Christianity as a whole is Christians unwilling to consider that they might be wrong. There are many churches with many different views of things, and it is impossible for them to all be right, so that means we need some logical, honest method of evaluating what is true and what is not true, and what we cannot yet determine. We have to put our doctrines, our pet philosophies and our longstanding mindsets on the table and be willing to look at them all in light of the Bible and see if what we believe is true. Jesus might be the only way to the Father, but does that mean that He provides us with each and every answer to everything? I don't think so, but I know others disagree.
Thank you for your articles and your thoughts.
Scot Conway <SokeScot@aol.com>
San Diego, CA USA - Friday, July 30, 1999 at 16:55:21 (MDT)
Judith Hayes on Columbine (May '99)
Having just finished reading Judith Hayes' commentary, "Reading and 'Riting and Revenge", I must say I haven't been so simultaneously amused and offended in quite some time. What she attempts to pass off as journalistic commentary is in reality nothing but an emotional rant against things she personally finds offensive. While I share her distaste for religion and Dr. Laura, as for the rest of her opinions, let's just say that if she was that far off base in the Majors, she'd be an easy pickoff play.
Citing video games as a contributing factor? Please! I've played Doom since it came out. Before Doom, I played Wolfenstein and Blake Stone. After, there was Quake, Quake II, Unreal, Turok, Turok 2 and a host of others all pretty much patterned on Doom/Wolfenstein. I've played them all, I still do, and never once have I felt the urge to take the "action" from my monitor to the real world. Neither has anyone I know.
The "inexcusable" availability of guns? Again, please! Since not all states require registration, the figure can't be exact, but the estimates on the number of gun owners in this country range from 50 to 80 million. Statistically, less than one in ten thousand will ever commit a violent crime. Movies and TV? I'll concede Ms. Hayes may have a valid point here, but I submit that anyone who can be driven to violence by the fictional portrayal of violence already has a problem. Unfortunately, it's often difficult to tell that someone is mentally unbalanced until something like Columbine happens. Then, of course, the pundits come out of the woodwork.
No, I honestly don't think the root of the problem lies in any of these "causes". Let's put the blame where it belongs. On parents who don't give a damn, and brain-dead legislators who shackle the hands of parents who do.
John Baker <mbaker5@neo.rr.com>
USA - Tuesday, July 06, 1999 at 10:14:06 (MDT)
Judith Hayes responds:
First, though you accuse me of trying to pass off my writings as "journalistic commentary," nothing could be further from the truth. I am not a journalist. I am an essayist. And by definition, essays reflect personal opinions. Of course my essays will contain "rants" if such a mood strikes me!
Critics of my May Columbine piece miss entirely my main point. I offered six possible contributing factors, which, if combined, might explain such tragedies. Every critic thus far misses that important point.
The "I played Doom and never killed anybody!" and "I watch violent movies and never killed anybody!" observations are the height of naivete. Not everyone who drinks and drives has accidents either, but that doesn't make it a good idea. I received a chilling message from someone like Baker. That young man was an avid Quake/Doom/etc. player, and he challenged my position on violent games. He demanded that I 'fess up and admit that, when angered, I often had fantasies about watching my antagonist being . Decapitated?! What a horrible thought! And no, I never in my life had such fantasies. He, you see, felt such fantasies were normal, healthy and universal. Gee. Wonder why. But I have news for him. They are none of the above.
Highly germane to this issue is the book On Killing by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. It was first published in 1995--repeat: 1995--and predicted the schoolyard massacres we have witnessed since. It is an eerily prophetic account of how we have had to desensitize our soldiers to the act of human killing. The number of World War II soldiers who could not bring themselves to shoot their rifles at a visible human target was a whopping 80%. By the Korean War it was 50%. By Vietnam it was 5%. (The staggering death tolls in WW II were predominately caused by bombs from planes or distant artillery fire or naval artillery fire---all very "impersonal" killing.) Training methods changed precisely to desensitize these soldiers to "personal" killing. They no longer practiced by shooting at bull's-eye targets. They shot at life-sized, realistic, human shapes, often filled with red paint. It was systematic desensitization. And it worked. All modern armies, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies now use such training tactics.
Our society is desensitizing our youth in the same way, only without the somewhat stabilizing influence in the military, where you fire only under orders. Children who play the truly violent video games (not the solely strategic ones, but the kill, kill, kill ones that feature realistic human targets) have no stabilizing influence. No orders to start or stop.
If you apply such desensitizing to already unstable adolescents (Eric Harris had already been so diagnosed) and then throw in inattentive parents, the inexcusable availability of guns, and the easy access to drugs, you have a prescription for disaster. And by the way, I don't care what the statistics are regarding how many gun-owners do not commit violent crimes. We have the highest homicide rate and the highest gun-owning rate in the industrialized world. Other countries think we're nuts. So do I.
Baker wants to put the blame solely on parents who don't give a damn. But there have always been parents who don't give a damn. Children massacring children is something new. I can't recommend strongly enough On Killing. Read it. It is truly enlightening.
Judith Hayes on Defining Humanism
Thank you for your excellent article on defining humanism. Having personally been obsessed with finding the Truth, and evolving or devolving through the disillusionment of Marxism, Communism and a Buddhist cult, I am beginning to wonder, not what is the absolute truth, the real horse to back so that I am not punished forever by the Lord of the Universe, but why I want to know. Why do I want to be moral and ethical and why do I need to have a meaning to my life? After all, most people seem to think that life is about shopping and getting the maximum enjoyment out of the experience. I still think the Buddha's views on the unsatisfactoriness of much of the life-process has to be faced but of course we are alone and we make our destiny without the help of supernatural forces, I think. Actually I do not know what it is all about. Why have I apparently wasted so much time trying to figure it out? I suppose I am a 'Buddhistic Religious Humanist' in the sense that although I agree with the basics of humanism I am still 'contaminated' with religion. I still cannot see that humanism is the right horse to back. Maybe religion is a personal affair, like having an imaginary friend which gives me comfort.
I feel that if there were historical figures like the Buddha and Jesus then they were human thinkers who got deified by people who looked up to them. But the religious traditions which were built up around them have very little to do with those men who died a long time ago. People do like repetition and ceremony. "Sleep tight and don't let the bed-bugs bite!"
Roger Julien Nadon <roger@bbh.in2home.co.uk>
Horsham, Sussex UK - Sunday, July 25, 1999 at 07:34:41 (MDT)
Judith Hayes responds:
The sheer number of religions in human history attest to the fact that you are not alone in your quest! I also wonder what life is all about. Damned if I can figure it out. But since we may never understand it, the least we can do is make the best of it; and humanism, in my view, is the only way to make the best of what we have. Whatever it is!
Peter Atkins on Michael Behe
Peter W. Atkins' review of Michael Behe's book must have been quite emotionally satisfying for him to write. I too am a believer in evolution but after reading Darwin's Black Box I must admit that there are definite questions that need to be dealt with by evolution scientists. Atkins and others like him may find it easy to sweep any unanswered evolutionary questions under the rug by writing slated, fluff-but-no-substance reviews on books that dare question evolution, but I for one would like to see some answers. Every review on Darwin's Black Box I've read so far has not said anything specific about how complex systems can evolve. The writer merely pushes it aside as nonsense or starts talking about how things like cities, bridges or economies can be compared to biological complex systems.
The worst part is when the writers start attacking Behe's character flaws. Look, I don't give a flip whether Behe is the reincarnated soul of Genghis Khan: just tell me why his arguments aren't justified. Yes I don't agree with everything Michael Behe has to say but that doesn't give people like Atkins the right to publish flaming, emotionally charged reviews that make up for their lack of depth by employing the kind of ranting and raving that makes a normal person wonder... if Behe is eliciting such blind wrath from evolutionists, maybe, just maybe, he does have a valid point or two.
Aaron Smith
Phillipsburg, KS USA - Saturday, July 24, 1999 at 00:19:19 (MDT)
The editor responds:
Atkins could not be reached for comment, but I went back and read the review which Aaron Smith criticises here. Although the review is indeed excessively vitrioloc and brief, (1) it links to much fuller and more detailed criticisms by others and Atkins specifically states that he does not intend to duplicate their work, (2) it makes at least three very valid points that any reader of Behe's book should be aware of, and (3) I could find no mention of Behe's "character flaws." Smith must have some other review in mind. Atkins does infer that Behe is deceptive or unimaginative, but only based on Behe's arguments in the book, not on any aspect of Behe's life, apart from something that should always be disclosed in such contexts: the fact that Behe is a Roman Catholic.
Contrary to what Smith seems to think, the purpose of a review of a biology book is not to teach readers biology, nor to make a philosophical argument, but to point up the virtues and failings of the book, and Atkins does both, giving a fair tip of the hat to Behe's authorial skill and other good points. If Smith wants to learn more about how complex systems can evolve, he should not be reading book reviews. He should be reading books. I recommend reading some of the more detailed counter-creationist literature, such as that listed in our Creation/Evolution bookstore. The Blind Watchmaker is still the best layman's book on the evolution of biological complexity, and if someone has already read that and wants to go further, all one has to do is look through Dawkins' bibliography and endnotes and start reading his sources, starting with the ones that look the most relevant and interesting.
Ibn Al-Rawandi on Islam
I agree with you completely about the falsehood of the Muslim religion. On the other hand, I am a Christian, and disagree with your assertions against any religion whatsoever. I believe that the Bible is 100% true in every form and fashion--scientifically, historically, and otherwise. How do you believe that we got here? Did life just appear? The order of creation in the Bible coincides exactly with what scientists believe.
Still, even Darwin, the scientist who originally formulated the theory of evolution/natural selection, questioned how the eyeball could have evolved. Both the lens and the retina must work together for the slightest functionality. The eye can't work without the brain, the nervous system, circulatory [system], etc. All of these work in perfect synchrony--by chance? If we came from apes, where did apes come from? And what before that? Do you believe that we came from a paramecium, which came from nothing somehow? And wouldn't that defy the principle of a food chain?
I know you are probably scanning over this saying to yourself, "what a brainwashed idiot." I'm not brainwashed--I'm blessed to know the truth. No matter what you believe, you have to put your faith in something. God or man. I find it much more plausible to put my faith in a higher being. It's much less far-fetched. Whatever you place your faith in--Theology or Science-- there will be many unanswered questions. Do you think scientists or historians don't have questions? Yes. I know that you have, do, or will wonder what happens after death. What will happen when you die? Will there be blackness as before you were born? Is there any hope behind the mystery of life?
Hear this--I am 100% sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is life after death. I place my faith in God, not man. We obviously don't have all the answers, but someday we will--not in this life, though. Life is about unsolved mysteries and questions, but for me it's also about hope. I know you wonder what happens after death. You're not quite sure, but I am. Muslims aren't sure either. Christianity is the only religion that answers that question. I know I'm going to Heaven through the grace of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and I pray that I'll see you there. Please E-mail me. Thanks.
Michael Rowntree <mikerowntree@hotmail.com>
Bedford, TX USA - Friday, July 23, 1999 at 12:10:46 (MDT)
The editor responds:
Al-Rawandi could not be reached for comment, but Mr. Rowntree's questions are hardly specialized to Islam and can be adequately addressed by me.
- Regarding the Bible being 100% true, that is hardly possible when the Bible isn't even consistent with itself, much less with reality. Mr. Rowntree will have to respond to some of the work in our Biblical Errancy department before barking up that tree.
- On origins, if Mr. Rowntree really wants to know what we think, he is obligated to read the relevant essays in our Science and Religion department before mucking in on that issue.
- The order of creation in the Bible coincides exactly with what scientists believe? Read "Fitting the Bible to the Data," "The Inspiration of the Bible Compared with discoveries of modern astronomy," and section "6. Factual Errors" of "The Argument from the Bible."
- What "Darwin" questioned is hardly relevant to what we know now, 140 years later. Mr. Rountree needs to read some of the books recommended to Smith in my response to his feedback just above, to gain some of the most basic familiarity with how complex systems evolve from simpler units which start to act together in symbiosis.
The human visual system, for instance, can be traced back in stages to the simplest organs in the simplest species. Once you have cells, you can have cells clumping together and dividing up the chores, and once you have cells clumping and dividing up the chores, you can develop cells that specialize for circulating food and air, and once you have that you have a circulatory system, and once you have a circulatory system you can develop nerves, and once you have nerves you can develop a nervous center, and once you have a nervous center, your nerves can specialize, becoming sensitive to specific things like light, and with a nervous center these signals can be organized, and once you have nerves sensitive to light, you can have the protective layer of skin over those nerves develop in ways that improve the acumen of those nerves, for instance by becoming clear, and that protect the nerve, such as by becoming softer by filling with clear fluid, and once that starts happening the curved liquid-filled pocket can become shaped and specialized further so as to focus light. The rest is just more simple steps of improvement from there, which only appear complex in sum. And so it is with every complex system in every organism. And so it is with the whole tree of life, how all species derive from others before them. I ask all people like Mr. Rowntree to actually study some science and tax their imagination a little, before bothering us with their unthought-out, unimaginative, unstudied ideas of what supposedly isn't possible.
- Do we believe that we came from a paramecium? Well, only in the sense that my newspaper comes from a tree. A lot did happen inbetween. And we do not think that a paramecium came from nothing--there were simpler creatures still, long since devoured by time and their much more vicious ancestors. Indeed, we do not even think life began with DNA, but with simpler coding systems which only developed into the DNA code through symbiosis. We reckon the same origin for cell nuclei and mitochondria and multicellular organisms. No, it wouldn't defy the principle of a food chain. I ask Mr. Rowntree to think about that question with a little more knowledge and imagination before asking it again.
- Speaking as someone who once lost blood from his brain, I know for a fact that a person cannot be conscious without a brain that has blood in it. Trust me, I know, first hand. I think I can say that I have much better evidence, and much better reasons, to believe that my consciousness will cease for good when all the blood leaves my brain for good, than Mr. Rowntree has to believe otherwise. It is one thing to "hope" you can defy the laws of biology and physics, but to say that this hope entitles you to be "100% sure beyond a shadow of a doubt" is, quite simply, asinine.
- The notion that trusting in a god to save you rather than your fellow man is "much less far-fetched" is also a really bizarre thing. I can just see Mr. Rowntree suffering a heart attack and calling God instead of 911. Mr. Rowntree, I sincerely recommend that you call 911 instead. It is much more reliable. That a paramedic with a defibrillator should save you from death is "much more plausible" than that god should save you sans human intervention. How you come to the opposite conclusion is quite beyond me.
Frank Zindler on God
[Note from the editor: this was originally a 3000-word treatise. I have cut it down to the smallest size needed to get accross both Ms. Patterson's and my own point. Frank Zindler could not be reached for comment.]
This is in response to the title of your page, There Is No God?
Although it does take faith to please God (Hebrews 11:6), you do not have to "check your brain at the door" to be a Christian. Unfortunately, a lot of people are just "too smart" for the truth of God. The facts below are from different sources. However, another very good source which deals with the accuracy of the Bible and the record of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, is the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol. 1 (by Josh McDowell).
The distance between the earth and the sun is about 93 million miles. If this distance were changed by only 2% in either direction, life on earth would be impossible. The moon is right where it needs to be to both stabilize the tilt of the earth and to cleanse and nourish the sea through tides. If the moon were too close, then the tides would completely submerge the continents, twice a day.
What hand made a thousand-billion stars, and what power keeps them on their steady course? Why does the earth spin itself to keep the oceans from falling off toward the sun? Who tilted the earth so that we get seasons? Where did the magnetic poles come from?
Gravity has been set up perfectly. If the gravitational pull were increased only a few percent, then some of the most dangerous gases in our atmosphere would accumulate and make life impossible. Reducing the gravitational pull would result in the loss of too much water.
If the ratio of oxygen in the air you are breathing right now were to rise even slightly, our atmosphere would become highly flammable. If it were to fall, you would simply suffocate.
Isaiah 40:22 says that God "sits enthroned above the circle of the earth". This was written long before man discovered that the earth was not flat.
...[Etc.]...
Lillian Patterson <malakijr@yahoo.com>
Big Rapids, MI USA - Tuesday, July 20, 1999 at 19:40:36 (MDT)
The editor responds:
Ms. Patterson, your message was simply too long to publish in its entirety, and Zindler could not be reached for comment. I have reproduced above, and replied to below, the beginning of your message, since the rest is just more material in the same vein, and the extent of the flaws in the first third are much the same in the rest. I wish to sincerely convey that you need to study a great deal more about history and science. I highly encourage you to explore our entire libary, which covers almost every single topic you brought up. For example, start by searching for the word "Josephus" in our search engine and read the real facts of that case, then look under our library headings for "bible prophecy" to see what is written on that topic, etc. But even these items assume you have a more detailed science and history background than you apparently have. You should get a good background under your belt by studying popular, introductory, nonsectarian works on science and history. It is as essential as learning to speak English--just as you cannot enter into a dialogue with us if you don't speak English, so you cannot do so if you don't have a basic and proper understanding of science and history.
I agree with you that you do not have to "check your brain at the door" to be a Christian. Many atheists simply do not buy into the vitriolic rhetoric of American Atheists and their members, like Zindler. Many Christians are indeed thoughtful and intellectual. Of course, not all of them are, but that is not the problem. The real problem is that these thoughtful people simply do not explore the world's knowledge, even when they are adults and have the spare time to take up the blessings of a free and prosperous society and study the arts and sciences. Ignorance is a much more ubiquitous villain than irrationality. And it is to this end that you should not simply read the books that support your views, like McDowell's ETDV, but investigate the other side of the story: see, for starters, our critique of that book. I will now take the time to give some examples of why I believe you need to get out and read and learn more about science, history, and the world in general:
- The distance between the earth and the sun: scientists actually believe life was possible on Mars (and they may already have evidence that life did in fact exist there) and may still be possible on some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, so clearly they do not believe in this 2% distance limitation, which is essentially an unsupportable thesis. There is no reason to believe it is true, nor anything unusual about billions of planets residing in just such a location in their solar systems throughout the universe.
- The moon is right where it needs to be: it is the other way around--life on this planet has adapted to where the moon happens to be. If the moon were anywhere else, or nowhere at all, life would not have been impossible--it would simply have been different. Indeed, we have signs of possible life on Mars already, which, if confirmed, would thoroughly refute the notion that we need just such a moon in just such a place.
- If the moon were too close, then the tides would completely submerge the continents: I can guess that if the moon were half as far away as it is, then tides would rise four times as high as they do now. That is not enough to "completely submerge the continents" so clearly there is a lot of leeway as to where the moon can be and still to have land animals on earth. But even if there were no continents at all, there would still be life--it would just be a different life. Even in our history, the first life did not live on land.
- What hand made a thousand-billion stars, and what power keeps them on their steady course? I ask why it has to be a hand that made them in the first place. I recommend reading The Whole Shebang by Timothy Ferris.
- Why does the earth spin itself to keep the oceans from falling off toward the sun? You are displaying tremendous scientific illiteracy with this remark. If the earth stopped spinning, the oceans would actually fall closer to the earth, not fly off. Gravity is produced by the earth's mass, not its spin. Its spin actually counteracts the pull of gravity. For instance, it is a known fact that things weigh slightly more (a few pounds) at the north pole than they do at the equator.
- Who tilted the earth so that we get seasons? Almost all the planets are tilted. It just happens that way--it would actually be more bizarre if they weren't tilted.
- Magnetic fields: planetary magnetic fields are also a common phenomenon--any hot, unevenly distributed metallic core will produce one. Since almost any planet can begin with a hot, unevenly distributed metallic core, it is hardly suprising to find a planet that has a magnetic field.
- If the gravitational pull were increased only a few percent, then some of the most dangerous gases in our atmosphere would accumulate and make life impossible: But there is life at the opening to deep-sea volcanic vents, one of the most toxic and inhospitable environs immaginable, so I doubt a heavy gravitation would have ever prevented life from evolving. Life would simply adapt to the situation. And likewise in the other direction: Mars very probably once had a flourishing water ecology, yet has only a third earth's gravity. But all this is moot--for if a 1G gravity field were necessary for life, there are, by all reason, billions of planets in the universe with just such a field, and it would then be no coincidence to find ourselves on one of them. In such a case, it would instead be a miracle if we found ourselves somewhere other than such a planet, not the other way around.
- If the ratio of oxygen in the air you are breathing right now were to rise even slightly, our atmosphere would become highly flammable: This is fictitious nonsense. The oxygen level on this planet has been much higher in our past history, up to 30% greater in the precambrian period, yet life flourished (that age marked the dawn of the animal kingdom). You need some lessons in basic chemistry: oxygen does not burn. Fuel burns, by binding to oxygen. Thus the atmosphere would not become flammable if it had more oxygen in it--rather, more flammable things on the earth would burn. But then these fires would consume this excess oxygen, so that eventually we would end up right back where we are, with a low level of oxygen. Thus, an excess of oxygen would not prevent the development of life.
- If the oxygen level were to fall, you would simply suffocate: Of course! Because we have adapted to this oxygen level, and would have adapted to any other oxygen level. Remember, if fish are brought up on land, they suffocate--because they have adapted to a very different atmosphere. If the oxygen level in the air were lower, life would still have been just as possible. Indeed, life began when there was virtually no oxygen at all--plants came before animals, and plants do not breathe oxygen. You need to realize that we have adapted perfectly to the way things are, not the other way around.
- Isaiah 40:22 says that God "sits enthroned above the circle of the earth." You say this was written long before man discovered that the earth was not flat, but you seem to be missing the point: a circle is not a sphere. The scene described by Isaiah is still a flat earth: as flat as any circle is flat. The Hebrew word is khoog which means to encircle, to encompass, or to draw a circle (as in with a compass), and in noun form it means simply a circle, as in an "encompassed area" (like a pig pen or a lake). It has nothing to do with spheres. Rather, it very vividly paints the Hebrew vision of a flat earth with a circular shape.
A common theme exists in these and other points that you made, which I think can be helped with a little flexing of the imagination. Imagine that somewhere in this universe is a race of beings who look like jellyfish, but who breathe CO2, have evolved human intelligence, develop a complex underwater civilization, and undergo thousands of years of intellectual development, on a moon roughly a quarter the size of the earth, orbiting a hot gas giant in the outer reaches of a star system much like ours. If you were to trade places with one of these jellyfish people, you would no doubt believe that life could only evolve on a purely ocean moon orbiting a gas giant, very distant from the sun, with just the right concentrations of CO2, since you know that a slight rise or fall in CO2 levels can poison or suffocate your people. But then you meet human travellers from Earth and are surprised to see that not only do they have toxic levels of CO2 on their planet, live far too close to the sun, on a planet far too large with crushing gravity, but they don't even breathe the same gases that you do, and they have these weird things called bones that help them survive in the seemingly-fatal gravity.
Do you see the mistake you have made? The jellyfish people evolved on their planet, not ours, and thus adapted to exactly the way things are on that planet, while we adapted to exactly the way things are on our planet. There is thus nothing amazing about how perfectly balanced the CO2 levels are on the jellyfish planet, or how perfectly arranged anything is on our planet--that is just an accidental fact of where life is born, an accidental fact which life grows up to be perfectly suited for, whatever that arrangement of factors (gravity, atomosphere, etc.) happens to be. I hope you can use this example to inspire your own imagination and inquiry into what science has learned about our universe, for it truly is a wonderful world, exciting and awe-inspiring to explore and understand. Let your quest begin!
Saladin v. Gish
Just wanted to comment on the Gish Debates. I am not a scientist, but have always felt like I had a firm grasp on what evolutionists were trying to get across, having been a product of public education and community college, and being fairly capable of grasping ideas and concepts. I've been following this thing for quite some time, about 11 years to be exact. The more I read and the more "scientists" and educators I talk to, the more convinced I am that so-called naturalistic evolution is a hokey psuedo-scientific MYTH.
You can't escape molecular genetics and biology, and 125 years of very fruitful digging with very consistent results. Federally-funded brainwashing, and a clear violation of the establishment clause is what it amounts too. Your rebuttals and annotations are shallow and weak, and parrot long refuted assumptions (even for a 1988 debate) I think when Carl Sagan said (regarding the mathematical improbability of naturalistic evolution) "there must be something special about the earth" he didn't know just how right he really was!!.
I implore you to abandon the religion of evolution immediately in spite of your philosophical contempt for people like Gish and Morris. I have never been very religious, but its obvious that evolution (full blown macro) is a nonexistent pipe-dream. Which, by the way, has left a blood trail from the fields of Flanders to WWII, to all of atheistic communism (that made Hitler look like a silly schoolboy) to over 30 million slain "fetus's" in 26 years, to the babies simply dumped in the trash can, in this land of plenty, by girls who have been taught in science class (and cleverly reinforced in others) that we are nothing more than lucky animals in an essentially meaningless existence with no real lasting consequences.
The forced, surgical extraction of Creation and prayer from public schools, made possible in large part by so-called evolutionary (myth) and skewed, revisionist history and "intent" context interpretations is also in large part the foundation for the "culture of death" amongst America's school children, where school murders and shootings of other kids in the states of Mississippi, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Oregon, Idaho, Louisianna, Texas, Florida, and yes, Colorado, should have gotten your attention by now, if the plethora of other alarming social indicators haven't already.
Sleep well with your religion, but don't call it science!
Nota Chance <Majordwell@netscape.net>
VaBeach, Va USA - Tuesday, July 13, 1999 at 21:35:16 (MDT)
The editor responds:
I am always charmed by the idiotic rhetoric of creationists who pretend to be scientific experts simply because they now know science has far more respect than their own silly beliefs. Normally, I am cordial, but when people like this dump a load of insulting crap all over us and don't even have the balls to sign their own name, the gloves are off. To call the teaching of evolution "federally-funded brainwashing" is so hyperbolic it simply begs for a laugh: schools do not tell people what to believe, they tell them what they need to know. You don't have to believe in evolution, but if you want to claim you have learned biology, you have to have actually learned what biologists talk about--and they talk about evolution. Thus, to say "a fundamental theory in biology is natural selection" is not brainwashing. Nor is it "a clear violation of the establishment clause" to tell people what biologists talk about.
It is also a classic "insert-foot-here" remark to claim that teaching evolution "has left a blood trail from the fields of Flanders to WWII," considering that Christianity has the Inquisition and the Crusades to its name, and the fact that the Civil War was one of the worst conflicts in history and yet no one was being taught evolution in public schools then. Likewise, you need to brush up on history: Karl Marx began the "atheist" communist movement with the Communist Manifesto in 1848, eleven years before Origin of the Species had even introduced the concept of evolution to the world. Likewise, abortion has been practiced throughout all of history, and so cannot be blamed on "girls who have been taught in science class...that we are nothing more than lucky animals." Quite frankly, your lack of compassion for women in this remark is galling. I seriously doubt it is ever "evolution" that is on a woman's mind when she walks into an abortion clinic. More often than not, it is "paying the rent" that concerns her. It is also a ridiculous lie to say that schools teach students that they live "an essentially meaningless existence with no real lasting consequences." Maybe you have such a piss-poor imagination that you cannot help but draw such a feeble conclusion from the concept of "evolution," but please try to give the children of this country more credit. You certainly don't speak for them. They are decades ahead of your Medieval brain.
Martin v. Fernandes
The debate between Dr. Fernandes and Dr. Martin is very interesting. Although I have not read every line, I have studied bits and pieces and intend to review the rest. I must admit though, some of their terminology is above my head and both of them would do good to speak on the common level if they wish to convince others.
My comment regards the part of the debate that deals with the heathen in distant lands who do not hear the gospel. I am myself a Christian and I do not completely agree with Dr. Fernandes' assessment. I believe that Dr. Martin has a very valid point but only if you look at it from a free-will point of view. Many of us Christians believe that God elects those who are to be saved and leaves the others unto themselves. See John 6:63-65, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-33, Romans 9 (entire chapter), Romans 11:1-10, Ephesians 1:4-5. There are of course many other verses. In Christian circles this is known as Calvinism. I do not wish to debate on the issue, but was just writing to inform you that there are some of us who hold a different position on what happens to the heathen.
Thank-you
Darin Gregg
USA - Thursday, July 22, 1999 at 19:10:02 (MDT)
Jerry Borchandt on Skepticism
I enjoyed your article on "Skepticism and McDowell's 'Proof'" by Jerry Wayne Borchardt. I also like your last paragraph and statement:"...Belief in Christianity rests where it has always rested--on faith." And I think you're right to a certain degree that Christianity is based on faith. But I think its more than just faith.
I mean, you "seem" to be a pretty smart bloke to be able to critique well McDowell's work. But I was just wondering where you get all your knowledge from? Did you learn it all by your very self?.... Man, you got a good brain...very intelligent you are.... Man, you could almost argue any point of view you like with your brain...
I must say, I'm no where near as intelligent as you, but I know that there is a God, and the funny thing about it is, is that my proof comes from seeing how your brain works.... and how well you can write and analytically criticize other people's work..... man, that really spins me out... I mean in your unbelief... I am actually believing and seeing the hand of God... You know what I mean.... In your attempt to be smart, you are in actual fact showing me how blind you really are...
I'm sure God made you and your 'big' brain (and this should be a BIG compliment to you), but you've decided to show the world how much you really don't know....and how small you really are in comparison to God...
All the best and God Bless
Hedley Fihaki <hedlogos@powerup.com.au>
Australia - Friday, July 30, 1999 at 08:41:37 (MDT)
The editor responds:
Jerry Borchandt could not be reached for comment. I will only say that Mr. Fihaki clearly has gotten ahold of some really good weed, and I recommend that he smoke a lot of it, because a doped-up Jesus freak will surely be too mellow to hurt a fly, and I'm, like, totally for Peace, man, y'know?
Todd Pence and the Boy Scouts
While reading about the Atlanta mass murderer Mark O. Barton on the net, I took note of the fact that he was a adult Boy Scout leader. It seems we can be certain he was not an atheist, then...
Knut Berg <berg@human.no>
Oslo, Norway - Friday, July 30, 1999 at 04:24:08 (MDT)
Don Morgan on Bible Absurdities: Is Genesis 8:20 Absurd?
Note from the editor:
In our June feedback I promissed to give Don Morgan a chance to make his case that there may have been only two of every clean animal on Noah's Arc in the Bible's story of the "flood." The result is an interesting dialogue on whether Genesis 8:20 is absurd (28 K). Those interested in the issue should take a look.
Don Morgan on Christianity
As a Christian and reading your stuff....I'm just feeling sorry for you and hoping you'll find the way....
Glenda Merkley <gmerkley@hotmail.com>
Tahlequah, OK USA - Sunday, July 18, 1999 at 12:46:37 (MDT)
Donald Morgan responds:
Glenda, I was once a born-again, Bible-believing Christian. At that time, I used to feel sorry for non-Christians in the same way that you do. When I looked at the other side of the story, I rejected Christianity as untrue. Now my heart goes out to those who still believe the teachings of Christianity. I have some suggested reading for you: The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin, Is Christianity True?by Michael Arnheim, and Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker.
Don Morgan on Bible Inconsistencies
How do you decide what is right and what is wrong? What is your "higher authority"? For example-- is abortion right or wrong--how do you justify your stand?
Karl Kindt <kkindt@icon-stl.net>
Webster Groves, MO USA - Thursday, July 15, 1999 at 19:24:41 (MDT)
Donald Morgan responds:
Karl, your question is one that has been answered by a number of philosophers, and they do a better job of it than I possibly could. I would like to comment, however, that putting into the mouth of a god what people have decided is right and wrong doesn't make it so. To answer your question, here is some suggested reading: Living Without Religion and The Fullness of Life by Paul Kurtz, Ethics Without God by Kai Nielsen, and The Ethics of Abortion edited by Robert M. Baird & Stuart Rosenbaum.
Is America a Christian Nation?
Is America a Christian Nation? I'm not exactly sure why you say that America was not founded on Christianity, I do however believe that our Great Nation was founded on the religious beliefs of Christianity. The Pilgrims came here due to religious persecution by the Church of England. The same holds true for the puritans, they came here because they felt that the established church of England needed purification. They also disapproved of the established church of England because the church forced them to pay taxes to support the established church.
The church of England was a Christian church, supposedly, however the Christian Faith is not based on forcefulness. The Judeo-Christian faith is based on one true fact, "That Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior came that all peoples might come to Him and accept His eternal gift of Salvation." I believe that when they spoke of separation of church and state they did this so that the church could not force people to support the church. That does not mean however a total alienation of God. God is not religion and Jesus Christ is not religion, Jesus Christ is my personal Savior with whom I have a personal relationship.
Anyone can enjoy this same personal relationship, all they need do is ask. If you think about it right after World War II America was greatly blessed by our Creator...If you read in the Good Book in the book of Psalm chapter 33 verse 12 the Good Book reads this: Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, and the people whom He has chosen as His own inheritance. He was our God and to this day He is still our God the only problem is that many peoples in the land will not give Him the praises that He deserves...but you are right in one regard...Religion does give way to war, but on the other hand a personal relationship with Jesus Christ gives way to everlasting life...and if I must fight and die to preserve that right then so be it. I would think you would feel the same way after all the years of military service you have. My husband just retired and I myself am a veteran. May God Bless the USA and you, too, my fellow veteran...Yours in Christ Jesus
Cheryl Neyers <curiosity@enid.com>
enid, Ok USA - Sunday, July 04, 1999 at 16:50:37 (MDT)
The editor responds:
Thanks for knocking. But we're not buying.
Bill Edelen on the Ten Commandments
Please, please, please. If it isn't one extreme by one group it is another extreme from another group. I am a gay man, and have been aware of it all of my life. I am also a religious man and do not see the need to downgrade religious faith because of the religious right. I agree with little they say, they are out for power and money. Pat Robertson owns business ventures most people are not aware of, he tried to become President for economic reasons.
It does not help our cause to try to discredit organized religion. Some of our best friends are priests, rabbis, and ministers. Our problems arise from puritanical attitudes within the American society, and the religious right. Visit foreign countries and you will see what I mean. While the rest of the world does necessarily approve of gay sex, it is considered a personal matter between one's self and another person. Laws in Europe for example have been changed to decriminalize it.
The 10 Commandments speak mostly of how one person should treat another person for peace and harmony to reside in a community. If everyone followed them the gay community would not have many of the problems we do now.
John Dilts <tongk23@hotmail.com>
Asheville, NC USA - Thursday, July 01, 1999 at 04:36:11 (MDT)
More on the Ten Commandments
O.K. People lets be logical about this. Here we have the religious freaks of t
