Infidels: Feedback: 1999: March

Secular Web Feedback

March 1999

Note from Guest Editor: I regret to report that Mike Earl, who was going to take over as editor of the feedback pages, had to resign from the position. I won't go into details, but some very negative things happened to Earl and right now he needs to focus on other things than the Secular Web feedback pages. Therefore, like last month, I will be acting as the guest editor for March's feedback. And since I received mainly positive feedback on the new "look and feel" for the feedback section, I am going to stick with that format.

Once again, the majority of the feedback messages violated our feedback policy, and I had to delete them. Those messages were redundant with messages posted in previous feedback columns, they were sent with a bogus or nonexistent e-mail address, or they were addressed to one of the dead authors in the Historical Library. But I also had to delete other messages--messages which met the criteria in our policy and which were quite good--in the interest of posting an already very late feedback column.

One final note: I need to correct a statement in last month's feedback column. In last month's feedback column, I stated that I did not meet a single Christian at Seattle Pacific University who owned any books criticizing Christianity. Since writing that statement, I have remembered that I did meet one professor who owned a copy of J.L. Mackie's Miracle of Theism. I felt it was important to make this correction.

Jeffery Jay Lowder
President
Internet Infidels, Inc.

Hitler's Religion...

This is to comment on the article I read at your sight claiming "Christian" status for Hitler. While I am not a devoted believer of any kind, your reasoning is so totally unlogical that I simply had to make comment on it. While it may be true that Hitler was not an atheist in the true meaning of the term, it is quite obvious that he certainly was not "Christian" in any sense of the word.

Your articles quite often illogically confuse "labels" with "actions". A person is not a "Christian" simply because they declare themselves to be so any more than I would be President of the United States if I declared myself to be so. If I walked in to the White House I don't think that would make me a member of the Secret Service. Actions speak far louder than words. As a matter of fact it seems you make this mistake continually whenever you talk about religion in general. This is not logical. Nowhere in the Bible,that I am aware of, do I observe support of torture, murder, or oppression.

Your objections to religion on the grounds that it is supposedly responsible for so much strife in the world, past and present, is ridiculous. It is not religion that is a fault. It is the people - pure and simple. People fail. Peoply are jealous. People are fanatics. People are selfish. People are power hungry. You find the same failings in any organization - governments, societies, the military, etc.

As I said, I can profess no particular religious belief, but having read the Bible somewhat, I can attest that its teachings are totally pure and violence free. "Love your neighbor as yourself". "Thou shalt not kill". "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Where is the great evil you seek to portray? I think in your zealousness to promote your humunistic ideals you have been blinded by your own propaganda. You have not even made the easy distinction between religion in and of itself and the failings of what people do with it. Your humanistic ideals may be neat for you but you need to be a least be logical when you criticize religion in general.

Max Hebert <madmax2976@aol.com>
Edmond, OK USA

Editor's Note: I'm not the author of the article in question, and I feel the full force of your point. However, Christianity also teaches that all human beings have a sinful nature. On the hypothesis that all human beings are sinful, why is it so unthinkable that a Christian could sin, even sin heinously? As soon as we recognize that even Christians can sin, it doesn't seem impossible to believe that in very rare cases--for example, once every 2000 years--a Christian could do something incredibly evil, even as evil as the Holocaust. Of course, just because something is possible doesn't mean it mean it actually happened. Personally, I don't claim to know that Hitler was a Christian--I haven't done the historical research to know the truth on that issue--but I think it's pretty clear that Hitler was not an atheist.

Circulate the Truth about Hitler

[This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.html]

Freethinkers and rationalistss must make every effort to circulate the truth about Hitler and his relationship to religious belief. We cannot rely on passive discovery and preaching to the choir.

Ed Unger <e.unger@worldnet.att.net>
USA

Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project"

I just read your featured "Wedge Project" article by James Still. I was very impressed with the thoroughness of his comments about the Intelligent Design movement. He is, however, wrong about one very important point: the proponents of Intelligent Design do NOT want to replace science with theism (a philosophy). We want to replace darwinistic materialism (a philosophy) with science.

The point is that science should not limit its conclusions to only those compatible with a naturalistic philosophy; it should follow the evidence to wherever it leads. If we can all agree on this point, we have come a long way.

I was glad to see Mr. Still highlight the contributions of Christians to the field of science by refering to the work of Galileo and Pasteur, and even quoting from Blaise Pascal. All three of these Christian men understood that the predictibility and intelligibility of the universe --the basis for science itself-- presupposes the existence of a Divine Creator.

However, the basis for science and the methodology of science are separate issues. Even atheists can "do" science without understanding its presuppositional basis. And in "doing" science, they can reasonably conclude "design". It happens all the time in the sciences of Archeology and Forensics.

Again, no one wants to replace science with "gods and devils", as Mr. Still has suggested. This is just political spin. We only want to be free to do science without the philosophical baggage of philosophies like darwinism. Let's follow the evidence in a logical way and not reject any scientific conclusion just because it doesn't fit our philosophical world view.

Is that too much to ask?

Rick Kiper <rkiper@kipertek.com>
Melbourne, FL USA

Editor's Note: I know that Jim Still will appreciate your compliment concerning the thoroughness of his article; he put a lot of time into researching that article. I do, however, have several objections to your message.

First, you are simply mistaken if you assume that biological evolution entails (or implies) materialism. Remember that materialism may be defined as the belief that whatever exists is material; anything which is taken to be immaterial either does not exist or is really identical with something material. With this definition in mind, I think it's pretty clear that biological evolution says nothing about materialism. In fact, even atheism does not imply materialism. (I am a case in point: I am an atheist who believes there are abstract objects.) To be sure, there are evolutionists who are also materialists, but there are many, many more evolutionists who are not.

Second, the methodology of science precludes supernatural explanations. Remember that science relies upon empirical testing to confirm or to disconfirm hypotheses. Empirical testing of hypotheses in turn relies upon the regularities of nature. Without such regularities, we could not trust our observations as evidence. But if the methodology of science presupposes lawful regularities of nature, then it follows that science cannot confirm or disconfirm the supernatural. Yes, archaeology and forensics provide examples where science can conclude design, but they do not provide examples of supernatural design. In both fields the explanations are always naturalistic in nature. If the evidence were to warrant such a conclusion, science could similarly conclude naturalistic design in biology. But I'm afraid that supernatural claims lie outside the scope of empirically testable hypotheses.

Third, I see no reason to believe that the "predictibility and intelligibility of the universe ... presupposes the existence of a Divine Creator." If a presuppositionalist would care to give an argument for that claim, I'm all ears. Until such an argument is forthcoming, however, I'm afraid that claim will be nothing more than a mere assertion.

Interested readers in the recent attempts by creationists to challenge the naturalistic methodology of science should read the March 1999 II Book of the Month: Robert T. Pennock's Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.

Missing Day Meme

Regarding the missing day meme in the March newsletter, a few more obvious problems were not mentioned (perhaps due to brevity):

One of the first things to trigger the 'hogwash detector', even to someone knowing nothing of the story is the reference allegedly from 'eyewitness' Hill to "The computer stopped and put up a red signal". Only old Hollywood movie computers do that, any knowlegeable person who was seriously describing an actual event would not be using that language. Discrepancies (especiall unexpected ones) only appear once the run is completed and the data analyzed.

Secondly, this story must be apocryphal because, without a firm historical date with precise and unambiguous astronomical observations on the other side of the Joshua incident (there are none), it would be impossible to say whether the earth stopped for one day, zero days, or 100 days. Even if the earth did stop in Joshua's day, there is no way a NASA computer could detect it.

Thirdly, the Hezekiah incident would have increased the discrepancy (assuming for the momemnt 40 minutes error) not decreased it, so the time should have been 24:40 not 23:20. But even that's wrong because the Kings account says the shadow reversed, not stood still so the error introduced by a 10 deg back track would be 80 minutes, not 40. But that's still wrong. Most translations claim that the shadow regressed 10 STEPS, which would be totally unknowable in angle without the original structure to measure. There is no evidence whatsoever that the ancient Jews used the modern 360 degree circle measurement.

These stories are just too easy.

Jay Holovacs <holovacs@idt.net>
S. Bound Brook, NJ USA

Did time have a beginning?

After reading Jan Narveson's retort to the Washington/Craig "Godexist" thing, I am confused about, among a host of others not-to-be-mentioned-here, his point about infinities. He questioned why there would have to be a god that has existed forever into the past, according to the theistic view, when the very infinite thing could be the cosmos itself, and not the aforementioned 'god'. I do not understand the reasoning behind this, and question his semantics about 'infinity' and 'forever'. In short, does Jan think that time had a beginning? This, I think, is an important bite to chew. It just seems like time itself was left as an unchanging axiom. (pardon my messiness of wordage, but it's late, eh?)

Nickolas Chura <nickolaschura@hotmail.com >
Klamath Falls, OR USA

Editor's Note: I have just a minor nit to pick. Jan Narveson's essay was NOT a commentary on, or "retort" to, the Craig-Washington Debate. It is an independent article and I believe it was Narveson's opening statement in his own debate with Craig.

Note from the author, Jan Narveson: It is unclear what Mr. Chura is puzzled about. Either it makes sense to say that something is infinite, or it does not. If it does not, there cannot be an infinite god, obviously, and on most accounts of god, that means, no god. But if it does, then it is not obvious why, for example, time cannot be infinite. An infinite series is one with no last member, recall. To say that time is infinite (into the past) is to say that there is no first moment. And those who want to say that there is too a first moment will be puzzled when they try to conceive this: what, after all, is prior to the "first moment"? It does not seem to make sense to think that there was one, since our concept of time, as Immanuel Kant noted, is such that if you think of a moment, then you think there is one before it. When Mr. Chura remarks that "time itself was left as an unchanging axiom", I am unclear what that's supposed to mean. The point is that time is always changing - that's the sort of thing it is. If being axiomatic means it's just there, well - it would seem that that's exactly right!

The habit of attributing explanatory power for the inexplicable to gods is one the careful inquirer must get over. Those who invoke god do so in order to "explain" - but what kind of "explanation" is it to say that x, which we don't understand very well, was caused by y, which we don't understand at all??

God, Captain Scott O'Grady, and the Atlanta Braves

As a future Episcopal priest (I'm entering seminary in the fall), I want to stand up and cheer for the article "God, Capt. Scott O'Grady, and the Atlanta Braves" by Farrel Till. Americans tend to have this completely displaced belief that God loves our country more than every other one on the face of this planet, or that God loves white men more than gay drag queens. A not-so-deep reading of any Biblical text supports neither idea, and in fact most likely supports the idea that since the Jews are God's chosen people, they have the favor of the most high. A glance back at the centuries of Jewish persecution would certainly make one wonder if the Almighty's favor offers any protection. The hard and cold truth is this: that we are humans who live in a completely imperfect world where very good and decent people die and not so good and decent people are plucked daily from the jaws of death. Although I do believe that God performs miracles - Mother Theresa's existence on earth is enough of a miracle for me - I also believes God watches us screw up our lives and suffer the consequences. So, no, God didn't love Scott O'Grady more. Scott O'Grady just happened to be in a very well-funded military who could afford to pluck him out. And unfortunately he lives in a country that has far too much money to spend on books and movies about these instances.

Keep up the good work.

Laurie Brock <lmbrock@hotmail.com>
Mobile, AL USA

What About the Harmful Pyschological Effects of Christianity?

I've perused quite a lot of the material on your site, and found much of interest. One thing I haven't found, however, is a discussion of the harmful psychological effects of Christanity. I decided a long time ago that there wasn't any point in militant atheism (whatever anyone wants to believe that helps them live their life is fine with me, as long as they stay out of my face with it), but I am sorely tempted to make an exception for militant achristianity (if I may coin a term). I consider it nothing more or less than a spiritual protection racket, to a far greater degree than any other major religious doctrine. Recently I got into a discussion of this with a friend of mine, and he was of the opinion that I was just overreacting due to my  childhood experience, that ALL religions are based on the theme of "if you don't buy into this particular religion, something real bad is going to happen to you." Can you point me towards any discussions of this?

Great web site, from both a technical and content standpoint.

D. W. Emerson <d.w.emerson@ieee.org>
Dallas, TX USA

Editor's Note: I too am not bothered by theists who believe and go on their merry way. I am, however, deeply troubled by the Radical Religious Right and their activities, and I think that all freethinkers (including liberal Christian theists) should be troubled by that also. And your point is well-taken that our site does not have much material on the harmful effects of religion. Our EX-TIAN Stories page, however, does contain some discussion of it.

God believes in you

How fortunate that God believes in you.

David H. Millson <copyman@togeth.net>
New Haven, VT USA

Twas the 'Lutheran's'

In the modern library there is an article by Jennifer Drouin on ' Xianity in the Opression of Women'. About half way through she mentions Martin Luther as the founder of the 'Baptist Faith'. Great leaping infant baptism....Twas the 'Lutheran's' Jenn. Sorry if you've heard this before, but correction needed.

Roberta Kirberger <quigums@earthlink.net>
Blanchard, OK USA

This web site is futility

Why do you resist the conviction of the Holy Spirit?  This whole web site is futility.

Anthony Ray Smith <arsmith@uncc>
Charlotte, NC USA

Who really is the most closed-minded?

After reading most comments by the atheists who habituate your site. I wonder who really is the most close minded. The christians or atheists who are puffed up with pride in their openess. Maranatha

charles jackson <cphilrun@aol.com>
gurnee, il USA

Is Atheism Logical?

I must contest with Mr. Vuletic's conclusions as to the problems with Mr. Hanegraaf's arguments. To itemize my objections according to his conclusions:

Conclusion 1(a) is totally unsupported, and 1(b)'s supporting arguments are so riddled with logical problems of their own that anyone should be able to see them.

As for conclusion 2(b), the author takes for granted that their is no evidence in favor of the existence of a divine entity, while in fact there are several logical lines of theory that point rather strongly to such a conclusion. I will not restate these here, especially as they have all been talked over before by people who write much better than I.

Chibboleth Chodaboy <chibb@nospam-purdue.edu>
W. Lafayette, IN USA

Note from the author, Mark Vuletic: I appreciate Chodaboy's rebuttal, but I believe he misconstrues the purpose of my article. My intent was not to prove that the concept of God is incoherent or logically inconsistent with known facts about the world. Nor was it my intent to demonstrate that there is a knockdown evidential case for atheism. I am in fact aware that there is evidence supporting certain types of theism (although I would not characterize any of it as "strong"). To try to demonstrate the truth or probable truth of atheism in a article as brief as mine would be as foolish as attempting to refute atheism in a few paragraphs (as Hanegraaff in fact attempted).

My article was, in actuality, merely a defense of atheism against the charge of incoherence Hanegraaff raised. Hanegraaff claimed that the only way one could know that God does not exist is if one were omniscient and omnipresent (which presumably would entail that this knower is God). But clearly, this is not the case if the concept of God is incoherent, so those who subscribe to atheism on the basis of type-(1) objections are not being illogical. They may ultimately be mistaken, but they are not contradicting themselves.

Likewise, even someone who rejects type-(1) objections need not be illogical if he does not believe. One can (and we all frequently do) consistently draw conclusions about the nonexistence of entities based upon a finite amount of evidence. Once again, those conclusions may be mistaken, but they are not self-contradictory.

And that was the extent to which I made any substantive claims in my article.

I did, of course, let me own opinions about the weight of the evidence on the type-(2) claims show through, and if Mr. Chodaboy wants to express his disagreement with that, I won't object, since I haven't tried to offer a substantive defense of that in this article. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

The Catholic Church is not Christianity

Although I do not agree with your views, the only comment I have to make is of your historical reference to the atrosities of the crusades and the mass murders by what you call christians. The fact is that all of these things were indeed commited by the Cathoic chrch,and Catholisism is not christianity and never has been nor is it now and never will be. So I would encourage you to know your facts before you publish an ignorant and uneducated opinion.

Fred Osborne <Ozman125@webtv.net>
Evansville, IN USA

Editor's Note: Mr. Osborne is referring to Emmett Field's debate on whether the Bible is the Word of God. If the claim that the Catholic Church--which was the Christian church for the first approximately 1600 years of the Church's history--is an "ignorant and uneducated opinion," then I guess I, too, am "ignorant and uneducated." I am also an atheist who has absolutely no desire to debate the subject with someone like Mr. Osborne; I trust that Catholic readers of this column will gladly do so for me.

A Site I Can Relate To

I'm seventeen years old and since I've been conscious of religion I have been against it, thank you for making a site I can relate to.

Russ Clark <rclarsr@wans.net>
Roselle, IL USA

Buddhism is a Nontheistic Religion

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

Let it be known that Buddhism is the few non-thiest religions. In fact many denominations like Jodo Shin Shu, are absolute logicians.  Although even athiests believe there is no god and maybe a afterlife, not all Buddhists beleive the same and we detest new agers defineing us.  We beleive in opium free religion. Buddhist mysticism is not like western, it is more of a conversion of thought then miracle. Akcnowledg this.

Tino Rozzo <teak@mailcity.com>
nyc, ny USA

Lee Strobel's Case for Christ

Has anyone read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ"? I've been looking for it but can't locate it. I'll order it if you tell me there's something new in it. Mostly what I've heard is that it's a rehash of old stuff presented in a new format.

James Sutton <Agkistrodon@mindspring.com >
Durham, NC USA

Editor's Note: Not only is the book a rehash of old material presented in a new format, but it is totally one-sided. This would be understandable except that the book is promoted as being an objective survey of the evidence written by a former journalist.

I have written a review of The Case for Christ which will be published in the next issue of Philo: The Journal of the Society of Humanist Philosophers. If you are interested in reading my review, please visit the Philo web site for subscription information.

J.P. Holding

I visited the J.P. Holding site and read some of his refutations to your arguments. He certainly has an attitude about you folks! I have corresponded with Dennis McKinsey and have read his Biblical Errancy articles. While he does seem a stickler for detail and likes to point out any error, he is always good-mannered and makes a sincere effort to debate using reason and logic. He has also been very responsive to my questions and helpful as well. J.P. Holdings' Rogues gallery is pretty shrill to say the least. He also claims Jephthah (Judges 11) did not actually sacrifice his daughter! He says he did not go through with it. Clearly Judges 11:39 says he did. I found that error in his commentary on Wayne Harrington. Basically he asserts that all Godly outrages are simply giving the victems what they want and deserve. He had no answer to the Jesus (offspring of David) problem but refers that "old tired" problem as being answered before by others. My question is: What did you and other skeptics do to get this guy so worked up? He has a level of smugness that doesn't do much to win converts that I can see.

brad <brad@arkmola.net>
ar USA

Internet Infidels' Response:

The web is an enormous and thriving marketplace of ideas. Sometimes a newcomer feels that the only way he or she can get noticed is to titillate potential readers with outrageous insults and rhetoric designed for its shock value rather than its content. Given the already caustic environment between believers and nonbelievers, it is tragic when a writer decides to poison the well rather than to reach out with civility and understanding. That is why we work very hard to ensure that our content steers clear of distracting ad hominen to focus on the argument itself.

James Still

Are There Any Atheistic Philosophers who Affirm the Existence of Objective Moral Values?

Just out of curiosity, are there any atheistic philosophers at this site or elsewhere that affirm the existence of objective moral values, independently of God?

Curious and delighted with this site as always,

Greg Scorzo <Cortex3959@aol.com>
Downey, CA USA

Editor's Response: Yes, there are atheist philosophers who accept the existence of objective moral values, including Quentin Smith , Michael Martin, Theodore Schick, Jr., and Evan Fales. In fact, Martin tells me that he plans to write an entire book on atheistic metaethics! I'll be looking forward to reading that when it is available.

Factual Errors and the Argument from the Bible

In his work “The Argument form the Bible”, Theodore M. Drange makes several errors which I believe undercut his otherwise excellent argument against accepting the authority of the Bible. They all appear in the “Factual Errors” section and are:

“(22) According to Joshua 10:12-13, the sun stood still in the sky. The author probably thought of the sun as going around the earth, but even if we take it to mean that the earth suddenly stopped rotating on its axis, objects would have been hurled off by the centrifugal force, which didn't happen. Hence, the account is erroneous. “

“(5)The Bible (Ge 1:11-19) has fruit trees and other plants created one day before the sun, but that is impossible. The earth without the sun would have been an inhospitable place for such plants as fruit trees. They could not have survived under such conditions for one minute, let alone a whole day.

I’m not sure what he means by that, since clearly plants routinely survive twelve hours of darkness. If he’s referring to the heat that the sun generates, there are other ways of generating heat. If God created the plants with enough carbohydrates to last a whole day, and created the earth already at the proper temperature, I see no difficulty in plants surviving for a day (of course, there is the problem of what’s meant by a “day”, but that’s a different matter).

(12) Genesis describes magical things and events, such as magical trees (2:9, 3:24), a woman being created from a man's rib (2:21-23), a talking snake (3:1-5), etc. But we know that there never were such things or events. “

Simply stating that a disputed statement is false is hardly an argument, and shows the same closemindedness and circular reasoning that we disparage in Christian fundamentalists. Similar statements appear in points (13), (14), (19), and (21).

Point (21) has the additional problem of stating that “Le 11:13,19 (and Dt 14:11,18) claim that the bat is a bird, which we know is false. And according to Le 11:20-23, there are four-footed birds and four-footed flying insects, but we all know that birds have two legs and insects have six legs. “
This is statement about words, and therefore depends on the translation. Remember, the words “bird” and “insect” and “bat” never appear in the original Bible. Instead, there are words that are translated as being these words. Saying that the Bible calls bats “birds” just means that Hebrews found it expedient to use the same word to refer to both birds and bats. We have decided to make a distinction between the two, which is useful for scientific reasons. But we should not be so egotistical as to presume that the fact that another culture disagreed with us about arbitrary nomenclature to mean that they’re wrong and we’re right. Of course, the fact that we have trouble recovering the original meaning through a translation argues against the Bible actually being the word of God. If humans can’t even come to an accurate interpretation of the intent of other people, then how could they come to an accurate interpretation of the intent of God?

I believe that points (5), (12), (13), (14), (19), (21), and (22) should be removed, as their high vulnerability to rebuttal dilutes the force of the rest of the article.

Ryan Flarity <rflarity@ucsd.edu>
San Diego, CA USA

Josh McDowell's "Scholarship"

Several years ago, I idly picked up a copy of Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Even upon casual reading, I found McDowell's scholarship inane to the point of nausea. It seems obvious to me that Biblical Inerrancy is an obvious fraud, and those who attempt to demonstrate it are not attempting to convince rational people of its truth. This view is shared by seriously Christian members of my family.

Those who believe in Biblical Inerrancy do so not because it is objective truth, rather, they select the evidence to make it so to support their belief.  It seems a waste of time to debate the objective truth or falsity of the Bible. Those who believe in its inerrancy will never be swayed by evidence against their belief. Likewise, those who value true objective rationality (Christians and non-Christians alike) will never be swayed by the lame arguments and specious rationalizations supporting Biblical Inerrancy.

Larry Hamelin <lhamelin@iname.com>
Denver, CO USA

Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box

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

I am a Christian who has taken the time to pursue the scientific truths concerning the young earth vs. old earth debate. My science background is radiological health physics - a MS from a very reputable school. I understand the logic behind radiometric dating - and agree that the earth is very likely the billions of years old as currently estimated.

I have also performed much study of the theory of evolution - from what's taught in schools, to current revelations on the subject. The old earth definitely is a major help to this theory - but certainly does not prove it true. I have come to the conclusion that evolution in the sense that inorganic raw materials came together, and over much time, formed primitive life, that with more time formed amphibians, and so forth takes as much faith as believing in an Almighty God. I strongly recommend M. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" as an indication of the miracles necessary for evolution to be true.

There are many scientists in this country who are Christians, and who hold the pursuit of truth dear to their hearts. While those who propose a young earth may be mislead, equally so are those who profess evolution as fact. The only way evolution occurred is through supernatural guidance.

Regards

Eric Abelquist <abelquie@orau.gov>
Oak Ridge, TN USA

Editor's Note: Mr. Abelquist is absolutely right that the old age of the earth does not prove evolution. (Moreover, I am not aware of any evolutionary scientist who claims that the old age of the earth proves evolution!) But the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, such that Behe and others have been unable to overcome that evidence. Of course, as Mr. Abelquist points out, scientists are still researching the origin of life, but that is not part of the theory of evolution. Moreover, contrary to Abelquist's opinion, it is not absurd to believe that life arose from nonlife naturalistically, especially if our background information includes independent reasons for believing that metaphysical naturalism is true. Nonetheless, I might be willing to accept the origin of life as some evidence for theism if creationists could 1) provide me with criteria for separating bad God-of-the-gaps explanations from good ones, and 2) provide me with some sort of reason for believing that no plausible naturalistic explanation for the emergence of life from nonlife will ever be forthcoming. Whereas I can imagine creationists satisfying the first part of my challenge, it is unclear what creationists could cite in order to meet the second part of my challenge.

Atheist Ministries?!?

My vehement feelings have been tearing me apart, when I see the Christian Ministries on television and know that there are so many uneducated people, ones incapable of defending their position, being taken into the churches as so much cattle. I have found a solution, and I hope you feel as strongly as I do about its practicality. An Atheist Ministries. A way to at the least help to defend the position of Atheism in places where the commoner is bombarded day after day by Ministers with food and free bibles. A way to give these people a choice, which is the founding word of this: choice. Places like Russia, the former Soviet States, Venuzuela, Guatemala, China, and many others would be high priority. This feels so good, to be able to feel this good, to feel I know I am doing something for humanity. I know it is possible, and I know it is feasable. What I am wanting to know is, how does it sound to you?

Timothy A. Koehler <timbo486@ldd.net>
Benton, KY USA

Editor's Note: Well, I certainly think that defending atheism is worthwhile, but I don't care much for the label, "Atheist Ministries." A "ministry" has the negative connotation of a door-to-door religious proselytizer.

Religious Discrimination by the Hagerstown Suns

As a christian reading an article on an web site for athiest, I hope there will be no problem with folks being open to what a person of an opposing view might have to say about the situation with the Hagerstown Suns who were taken to task by the ACLU for religious discrimination.

Discrimination is a hot-button word. Without a thought, the mention of this word brings feelings of something evil--the KKK, Nazi's, biggotry. Yet, all of us who are honest thinking people have to admit that there is good discrimination and bad discrimination. I wouldn't knowingly send my child to a child molester for babysitting. That's discrimination.

There is also religious discrimination which is bad, and there is religious discrimination which is natural and must be allowed if we are to live free. You must have freedom to choose to give to athiestic organizations without having to donate to churches, mosques, etc. equally. If you own an organization outright, you should have the right to choose to support Jewish schools, Christian relief funds, whatever.

The way I see it, the Hagerstown Suns exercised their freedom of religion to encourage what they wanted to encourage spending their money the way they wanted to. The fact that they rent a public center or walk on a public street or read under a public streetlight or take public transportation is irrelevent.

When people take a stand for rights or equality, it is important to think first and not jump onto the bandwagon because things sound good.

Daniel James Dick <ddick@yahoo.com>
Pleasanton, CA USA

Editor's Note: I don't always agree with everything American Atheists, Inc. does, but on this particular issue I'm inclined to take their side. According to a report by American Atheists, the Hagerstown Suns play in a stadium built with taxpayer money. Moreover, the team is "even trying to obtain state and local funding for a new facilitiy." If this is true, then the Hagerstown Suns are indeed practicing illegal discrimination. The team either needs to stop the discrimination or play in a stadium built entirely from private funds.

Refutation of "The Uniqueness of the Bible" Seemed Rather Weak

If someone would like to get back with me regarding the section on the refutation of Josh McDowell's book, especially the portion on "The uniqueness o the Bible." The refutation of McDowell's material seemed rather weak. In one paragraph the reviewer stated that because there were different prophets that contradicted Jeremiah, that constituted somewhat of a contradiction within the Bible since prophecy was some sort of a national "event" practiced by many so called prophets. this by no means proves or even allows for a discrepancy within the Bible, no more than when some atheists use bad arguments that then follows that atheism isn't true. Yes there were many "professional" prophets in Jeremiahs day, but even a scant history lesson of palastine during he period would show that some prophesied strictly for money alone, much like modern day fortune tellers. To imagine that this somehow implicates the Bible because they used the title of prophet is hardly a rational conclusion. I must say, this was the first section I looked at on your site and it was not very convincing. I am interested in further discussion on the topic. I am a Christian and I believe that the search for truth is the most important one there is, as I'm sure you all do to. Anyway, I welcome conversation. Thanks for hearing me out.

Sincerely,

Matthew Tague <Matt@3c.org>
Carlsbad, CA USA

TAG vs. TANG

Dear Sirs,

I wanted to thank you for having your ahteistic worldview posted on the Internet so I could get some information on how to confront the opposition. I am a Christian and I adhere to the inerrancy of the Bible, and yes, I do like the T.A.G. argument. I must say that, in my opinion, you're T.A.N.G. argument [besides reminding me of a great orange drink :) ] is rather intellectual by man's standards but is inconclusive in that it tries to bring an Almighty Creator down to the standards of that which it created which is illogical. Here's my interesting analogy: If I was God and I created a whole race of "whatever", then it is my right to do with that race how I see fit. I mean, how can that race (in this case: humans) say to me (who supposedly created it) "Why did you make me this way?". Quite frankly, it can't expect to get an answer because that race is far below the Being who created it.

In His Service,

David Timothy Young <Reepmouse@juno.com>
Marietta, Ga USA

Editor's Note: Part of the standard definition of God--one which I believe even proponents of the TAG argument would accept--is that God is a moral being. Just because God may be an all-powerful Creator does not mean it is moral for him "to do with that race how [He] see[s] fit."

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

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

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