 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
Secular Web Feedback
May 1999
Reading and 'Riting and Revenge
Judith Haye's article on the Columbine High School shooting, while excellent in discarding the ridiculout premise that a a lack of religious background was a contributing factor to the killing, sadly resorts to the level of the Mass Media in blaming Music, Videogames, and Movies for these teens. It's another in a long line of articles that fails to address the more pressing issue of America's lax gun control laws to any serious extent, and the parents of the boys, who didn't even realise they were manafactuing 30 PipeBombs and assorted explosives in their garage. I have a prediction. Schoolyard shootings will be as unremarkable, newswise, as your average inner-city shooting in 20 years time. While Massacres such as this one will still be big, the average two-or-three kid dead shooting will recieve 15 minutes air-time, tops. It's already happened. Howmuch did we hear about the Copycat killing in Alberta that killed one? Point proven. Until America starts trying to understand it's children, instead of judging their culture as 'wrong', 'violent' and 'immoral'. Until you do that, you're creating a legion of pissed off teens, who know were the handguns are. That's not a pleasant thought, I think you'll agree.
Daragh McDowell <kane18@hotmail.com >
Dublin, Ireland - Tuesday, May 11, 1999 at 16:23:24 (MDT)
Ever since the Littleton, Colorado incident people have been openly discussing of bringing prayer back into our public schools. They claim that the value of our schools have since deteriorated due to the separation of church and state, yet there really isn't any proof that can back-up these accusations. They believe that prayer will keep the schools free from violence and will change all the students into "good little children." What I find ironic is that bringing religion into public schools only opens the door for all religions to be taught in the classrooms, not just Christianity. Only teaching Christianity would prohibit the students right to freedom of religious choice. It's only practical to say that if religion is brought back into schools then all religions should brought back in(even though I wholely support secularism), not just Christianity. And that paves the way for philosophy to be taught in schools also since philosophy is a very large part of religious faith, atheism, and agnosticism. And if all this were the case, the schools would then have to hire more teachers that are qualified to teach religion and that means a higher payroll, but today's schools can't afford to hire more teachers(atleast in my part of the U.S.--Iowa) due to harsh budget cuts and lack of government assistance. As a matter of fact a school district near me is laying off 31 teachers because of budget cuts.
I think Christians are only fooling themselves when they support non-secular schools. First of all, there is no guarntee that it will cease all the violence in our schools. Secondly, it's most likely that school districts won't even be able to financialy afford to bring religion into the classroom. Thirdly, religion seems to cause more problems than it solves...and who knows, there could be an inner-school conflict between students with differing beliefs, possibly something along the same line as the Christian and Muslim battle, which would totally contradict the very reason for non-secular schools.
I always ask myself why Christians never take a look at the whole picture or go beyond their christian bubble to rationally think things through before deciding what is right for America. If all of the United States were controlled by this lack of rational thinking then I think the "land of opportunity" will turn into the "land of tyranny."
That's my view of non-secular schools, and obviously it's not a very wholesome view. That is why our public schools shall remain secular, it only makes more sense. By the way...Excellent web site!!!!Marshall Beitelspacher < zoinks19@hotmail.com>
LeMars, IA USA - Sunday, May 02, 1999 at 19:49:37 (MDT)
I never fails to amaze me how close one fanaticism is to another even when they lie on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and how easy it is to become a zealot no matter where one's convictions might happen to lie. Now that the forces of religion are working overtime to turn the Littleton massacre into proof positive that unbelief leads to murder, perhaps you would care to reevaluate your assessment some time back that the Matthew Shepherd incident proved all who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle were complicit in the young man's death. Both reactions are irresponsible, ill-informed attempts to use a terrible tragedy to demonize those who hold views different from one's own.
I have been an atheist since my early adolescense, and there was a point when I was strongly attracted by the kind of anti-religion front that the Internet Infidels represent. My religious beliefs have not changed, but I have grown very wary of the shrillness of this discourse and also of the degree to which some atheists and agnostics let their lives be absorbed by what they reject. It's really not a very far cry from the zealotry and hatred that guides the religious right. It's just the politics that are different.
[Name withheld]
Cambridge, MA USA - Saturday, May 15, 1999 at 17:46:51 (MDT)
I found your essay interesting, yet somewhat disjointed. The one thing you missed, and it plays a fairly major role, is mental illness. These kids were unstable. There have been cases of depraved acts of violece throughout history, even before Doom and hallucenogenic drugs.
Statistically speaking, there is no correlation between TV/Game violence and real violence. It is fun to find a different bogey man besides "decaying morals", but video games aren't it. Neither are Drugs, "Bad Music (No one ever mentions the pure evil that is Backstreet Boys)", drugs, nor violent movies. If that was the case, then the 70's would have seen numerous killings along the lines of Littleton (especially when Alice Cooper was on top).
A little research might show that it the main problem is a lack of parental supervision and a complete lack of discipline may be bigger causes than anything else. The one thing I know from my own experience is this: If I were running around in a black trench coat and building bombs in my garage 10 years ago, my parents would have had my hide. If the children are that weird, look to the parents.
The one point I agree with is the easy access to guns. The problem is that unstable folks can get their hands on guns, plain and simple. Heck, that stuff happens in the Great White North, and we have strict gun laws.
Simply put, there are a lot of effed up people out there and sometimes they get a gun and go nuts. This has been the way of things for some time now. Kids, well all ages really, were going nuts before Marylin Manson and Doom, and they will be going nuts even if we banned violent images (does that include TV newscasts?).
Paul MacDonald < paulmacdonald1@netscape.net>
Regina, Sk Canada - Sunday, May 16, 1999 at 14:49:37 (MDT)
I have heard that the Freedom from Religion Foundation has asked that the crosses erected in memorial for the Columbine killings be taken down. As an atheist, I can only say this is absurd. No culture that would forbid such a simple form of expression could ever be called "free". I see on your web site here that you are against flag burning legislation of the grounds of the first amendment; practice what you preach. The simple fact that there are people who take comfort from such symbology gives them the right to these expressions, whether on public land or private. I will admit that the memorial attended by a number of clergy and the Vice President seemed at times in poor taste, extolling the virtues of following Christ. Poor taste has never been a crime nor a reason to take offense. Such memorials and monuments, secular or Christian are a source of comfort for many people. Will you next tear the head off of a child's teddy bear? I myself consider all acts of "spirituality" foolish... but fools are still people with rights. You have no decency.
Steve <wraven@milehigh.net>
Lakewood, CO USA - Saturday, May 08, 1999 at 16:26:10 (MDT)
Once again, an incisive and articulate analysis of the all-too-current events in Littleton. You made mention of drugs as a possible component of these events insofar as they might permit the apparently endless hours of obsessive video "game" playing. I don't claim any original insight here, but having intentionally watched children at video "play", it appears to me the "games" themselves are the drug. There seems to be a quality about video gaming - perhaps distilled by the speed and ease of repetition itself - that allows the player to disengage the "conscious" brain, with its attendant messy complications we tend to call reality, in favor of some simpler, more primitive mode of existence where reward, though smaller, is more easily and rapidly achieved. Think electode-implanted lab rats receiving sexual gratification by actuating a treadle.
The nearest analog that suggests itself is a contemporary casino. Real gamblers and adrenaline junkies play the traditional casino table games, i.e. craps, blackjack, etc. On average, they appear to be acutely attentive and in touch with the emtional roller coaster they apparently want to ride. Contrast these players with slot machine zombies, many of whom will employ several machines simultaneously, rolling blank-faced and glazed-eyed back and forth feeding coins, pulling levers, receiving the "rewards" of ringing bells, flashing lights, clattering "pay outs" until they finally exhaust themselves or their supply of coins. Then add to this the growing prevalence of video devices. For the casino, video games are wonderful. They cost less than mechanical devices, and they are faster. One machine can completely occupy one player. No need for a whole group of old-fashioned slot machines to serve one player.
In any event, keep up the good work! I always look forward to your columns.Bruce Travers <sonoguy@earthlink.net >
Anaheim, CA USA - Monday, May 03, 1999 at 11:14:57 (MDT)
I found Judith Hayes' article, "The Happy Heretic," to be brilliant as her others are. However I have a suggestion to add to the six ingredients she listed.
I've talked extensively with many adolescents about the Littleton disaster (by the way my friend and her husband live 15 minutes from Columbine high school). Some are my 18 year old classmates, the youngest are 8th graders in a literature class I teach for community service. The general consensus is that there was no single cause for the massacre. No one seems to think lack of religion was a cause. These people had a lack of morals, but as Hayes wrote, religion does not equal morality. My friend caused me to realize something important while we were talking about Littleton. No one has said anything about motive.
For murder committed by essentially sane individuals, there must be a motive. The ability to carry out a mass murder, facilitated by handgun access, is not motive. The belief that one can carry out the murder, i.e. the blurring of reality and fantasy, is not motive. I have heard plenty of people ask why they did it, but no one has asked why they wanted to do it. They hated their classmates, most likely. Only my fellow teenagers seem able to realize this.
If I were to state publicly that the dead students caused their attackers to kill them through years of taunting, I would be barraged by people claiming I had said, "They asked for it." By no means is this what I am saying. Adults apparently don't realize how mean kids can be to each other. Pre-adolescents seem to be the worst at this. At my little brother's Catholic school, sixth grade girls and a few boys purposely drove a fellow student out of school through constant taunting, harrassment, getting him in trouble with the teacher, etc. He finally asked his mother to put him in a different school. He had done nothing to aggravate his tormentors, they apparently decided arbitrarily to pick on him.
Teenagers can be almost as bad. In a relatively small school, four years surrounded by people who know and hate you because you're weird and different would be hell. Combine this seventh ingredient with the others and you have something just waiting to explode.
Adults need to realize this disaster happened because HUMANS TREAT EACH OTHER BADLY. Had the two perpetrators realized this fact of life, they would have put up with the other students, and if they had had any morals, they would have decided not to take an eye for an eye.
The bottom line is that getting rid of violent entertainment or "putting the fear of God" into people won't solve our problems. If we treat each other better this kind of thing doesn't have to happen again. People are generally nice to me, but when they're not, I have no desire to ventilate them with bullet holes. I might occasionally wish to punch them in the face, but even this is too much. I realize that I wouldn't want anyone to do that to me just because I made fun of them, so I forget about it. Fortunatley, most people in society have this same mindset.Scott Eschenbrenner <rdoodle@home.com >
richardson, tx USA - Thursday, May 13, 1999 at 00:23:43 (MDT)Author's Response:
At the risk of sounding condescending, all adults, by definition, were once kids! And pre-adolescents! And teenagers! Of course we know how mean kids can be to each other. We are battle-scarred veterans. "On Killing," by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, 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. Making it worse is the horrific violence in movies, which has become so grisly and graphic (nothing like that was ever available in the '50s and '60s) that Hollywood struggles for more and more violence in competing for audiences. The common reaction of teens when seeing these scenes of murder is to whoop and cheer. And worse, the violence is associated with "entertainment," a pleasurable experience, with munchies and friends to share it with. Today's heroes are Dirty Harry and the Beverly Hills Cop, who go outside the law and are excessively violent. (By contrast we had the rather drab Joe Friday of "Dragnet" fame.)
This is systematic desensitizing on a cosmic scale. If you apply it 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.
I have just read the latest Judith Hayes article on the Columbine massacre, and the rush to blame lack of religious values for the American plague of violence. In my opinion religious values not only do not protect against this sort of violence but contribute to it. I don't think it's a coincidence that America is probably the the most "god-fearing" Western country and is undoubtedly the most violent. It must be very comforting to violent hate-filled people to have religion to fall back on and provide them with certainty that they are absolutely correct in their hatred, and that any violent acts that their hate leads them to are justified, or even sanctified. If "God Hates Fags" then it can't be wrong to beat one senseless, can it ? If "abortion is murder" then blowing away an abortionist is saving all those poor little unborn children, isn't it ? If teaching evolution is an anti-Christian plot then it's a god-fearing boy's duty to blow that science teacher away, isn't it ?
It should be kept in mind that it is not just extreme theists that believe in God-ordained violence. My own personal journey away from religion got a really big kick-along when my Baptist youth group were studying the book of Joshua. The violence of the Israelites as they claimed their "promised land" sickenened me, particularly the instances where God would punish them for not being thorough enough in their genocide, daring to leave some babies alive. Not being a shrinking violet I challenged the group leader to explain how this could be seen as anything other than evil, and was given wishy-washy answers about how the children of Israel could be led away from God if heathens were allowed to live among them, and lots of subject-changing when I didn't shut up and persisted in asking awkward questions about the morality of mass murder or "ethic cleansing" as it would now be called. Ordinary Christians have to be able to master a kind of double-think to reconcile this sort of thing with a "loving" God. I couldn't do it - I chose rationality. But people who persist in religious belief have mastered the ability to accept such explanations for appalling behaviour. It mostly boils down to - don't think about it; if God did it it's good by definition; us poor dumb mortals can't comprehend the wondrous mind of God; accept on faith whatever your priest/minister/rabbi/mullah says; most importantly - DON"T THINK about it. This type of (non)-thinking allows any type of disgusting behaviour to be considered right or proper, as long as someone with some sort of religious authority says so.
I recently read a review of a new computer game that I think is relevant to this article. It is called Requieim and is a very violent Quake style shoot everything that moves game, where the protaganist is an avenging angel blowing away humans possessed by demons, and demons. The message that I think this game is sending is that sometimes extreme violence is justifiable - even necessary - and that killing for God is a good thing to do. I felt physically ill after reading the review, as I think it will inevitably lead to more people, probably American boys, taking out their guns and shooting down some "unworthy" people, "knowing" that God is on their side. And Judith is right. When it happens more religion will be presented as the "solution" and not seen as the cause.Merryn Smith < sandm@netspace.net.au>
Hobart, Tas Australia - Tuesday, May 11, 1999 at 22:03:36 (MDT)
My comments are in response to Judith Hayes' article "Reading and 'Riting and Revenge" from May 1999. In her article she attacks the idea set forth by "pundits" after the Littleton tragedy, that the massacre was a result of the boys' lack of religious values in which to anchor their morality.
The first point of hers that I disagree with is her assumption that Judeo-Christian and Islamic morality are rooted in a fear of God's wrath or punishment. I don't doubt that she has seen evidence of that way of thinking in the lives of Christians, Jews, Muslims, or whoever she may heap into that group. But I don't believe that the lives of people who do good only for their fear of God's wrath should speak universally for all people of religious faiths. I myself "do good" because I hope that it will bring God glory, and people will see that there is a God who empowers people to look beyond themselves and help others. (I say this only as a personal example, and not to build myself up.) In her article, Judith leaves no room for religious people who do good unselfishly, without fear of "frying in hell." My point is that the power of God working in a person can make that person into a selfless, charitable human being (among other good things). The proof of my statement may often be hard to find among the people with whom we normally interact, but that does not mean that they do not exist.
Refuting that argument and reading her article leads me to believe that she was working off of a common stereotype of Christians or other religious groups. It seems that we are seen as condemning, superficial, self-righteous, closed-minded, etc. In fact, this next sentence of hers screams stereotypes: "And the rhetoric has such a powerful ring to it -- solid, religious values; morality based on solid creeds; obeying God's laws; heeding the Divine Commandments, and so on." In context, this statement of hers reveals her own prejudices against religious people, as she tries to show the frame of mind of those who "pass the buck" to God when they cannot defend their arguments. Refuting her argument in this particular paragraph is difficult because she begins with the example of a religious person who invalidates a teenage murderer's faith (who has claimed religious ties) and shifts her focus to those who appeal to a higher power as a safety net in arguments because their reasoning has proved faulty.
It seems to me that Ms. Hayes, in the whole first part of her article, takes the time to attack people of religious nature under the guise of responding to their explanation of the cause of the Littleton massacre. The rest of the article presents her view of the merging of fantasy and reality as being a primary factor of the Littleton tragedy (and I think there is truth to it), but she gets to it after bashing religious people for a while. While reading some of the other feedback that ya'll have received, it seems that other people have noticed a tendency of this organization to rail on religious people. I cannot help thinking that the reason lies with us -- in our own inability to reflect the true nature of God in our lives. (Simply put, it's easy to attack a hypocrite.) Speaking as a Christian, I openly admit my own humanity, and pray that you will not always meet Christians who are condemning, superficial, close-minded, and self-righteous. That, in itself, will not cease the battle between religious types and atheists, but I hope that it has been somewhat enlightening to hear from a Christian who does not feel that he fits into the image society has of Christianity.Joseph Peebles <badoutjoe@aol.com >
Pasadena, TX USA - Thursday, May 13, 1999 at 03:29:17 (MDT)
Having recently read Judith Hayes' article on the Littleon shooting, I have a few things to say. The first section of her article was right on the mark. Trying to blame religion, or the lack thereof, is a cop-out of grand proportion. But she continues onward in her editorial to suggest that drugs had to be involved. I have been sickened by the media deluge we have suffered because of this incident, and have cut back reading about it, but I seem to recall that the coroner found no traces of drugs or alcohol in either of the boys involved in the shooting. By trying to blame this violence on drug use, you are perpetuating a myth that is turning this country into a police state. Using recreational drugs would not cause such premeditated acts. The durg problem in our country is, to a lrage degree, a product of the hysteria about this issue which the media perpetuates. Ms. Hayes is, like all the pundits she disregards, trying to pass the buck. Drugs, music, violence on TV, these are things we are all faced with. It is only certain abberants that choose to take out their anger and frustration with life in such a violent manner. If we actually talked openly about the point, or pointlessness, of life, we wouldn't have teenagers with guns lashing out at the world when they come to the realization that there life is one of little significance to the history of the earth and the trillions that have walked it.
-Tim Hendricks, a 19 year old student who has never walked into a school and blown people away, and would never try to blame any of my own actions on testosterone, Marilyn Manson, Ramstein, Doom, et al.Tim Hendricks < tshendricks@mail.utexas.edu>
Austin, TX USA - Tuesday, May 11, 1999 at 21:59:12 (MDT)
I just finished reading Judith Hayes' essay on Columbine. I just wanted to say I totally agree. Religion is not something that keeps people from hurting others. It isnt now nor was it ever. I think priests and rabbi's and such need to take a long hard look at the bloody history that the world has experienced because there are religious fanatics. Keep up the good work Judith.
Manny Quisenberry <yolora@usa.net>
Bremerton, Wa USA - Saturday, May 08, 1999 at 11:31:20 (MDT)
I would just like to let you know that your website has been a source of endless enjoyment for me. I find it to be by far the best site on the internet. Being an 18 year old athiest of conscious choice, living in a world of theists, I take pride in the fact that on certain matters regarding religion I can be considered knowledgeable. Your site has helped me do that and I am forever grateful. I would like to mention that I find the debates to be the most interesting of all documents. I would specifically like to praise Richard Dawkins and would further add that his essay "Is Science a Religion" to reflect my own feelings very well. Although on the surface he seems quite militant, he uses merely reflects a sense of frustration towards those who refuse to use elementary reason. I think his article is a very good summary on the topic and in my opinion it stands out above most other essays. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Adem Kendir <ajk74@hotmail.com >
Montreal, Que Canada - Wednesday, May 05, 1999 at 13:01:21 (MDT)
Although I agree with many of the things that Judith Hayes said in her article "Reading, Riting, and Revenge" there are many things that I, as an avid video game player, must take issue with.
"Nor do I think the lurid, violent, sadistic, depraved computer games, now available, caused the murders, although these are a new factor helping to fuel today's teen rage. But such horrid "games" will appeal only to minds that are already leaning in that direction."
While I agree that certain games can have an attributing factor on people that are already psychologically disturbed, I think her last sentence makes an extremely unfair generalization. She whines about people of religon (of which I am not one) that stereotype atheists. She then (or after) stereotyped and generalized people that play video games. Games like Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem, Half-Life, and other first person shooters (the genre she is most likely referring to) are played by literally millions of people all over the world. Most of these people are emotionally stable, and playing these games does not make them more violent. All of the people that I know that play these games are some of the sweetest, most intelligent people you will ever find. They are all psychologically stable."Nor do I think the lurid, violent, sadistic, depraved lyrics in some of today's "music" could cause teens to imitate such "art."
Depraved, Lurid, Sadistic, Violent. I've heard preachers use the same words to describe the same music she is most likely referring to. The preacher's claims are based on bland generalizations and sterotypes, so are hers.
She has made the same claims that many of the religious people she was talking about in the top half of her article. I do not understand why a reasonable atheist like herself is looking for an external reason like music, tv, and games for an explanation. She is parrotting what alot of the pop psychologists she lambasts in the article say.
If I have misunderstood any of what Mrs (or Miss) Hayes was saying, then I apologize to her and you nice folks at infidels.org. Keep up the good work!
Richard Jarboe < lioncourte@hotmail.com, richardj@nex.net>
Walnut Ridge, AR USA - Tuesday, May 04, 1999 at 15:43:32 (MDT)
Lighten up on poor "Lutheran minister, Rev. Donner". I could easily interpret his insistence on Michael Carneal's christianity as a tactic to make his congregation accept your prescription; a good, hard look in a mirror. After all, the whole circle-the-wagons approach to conformist morality demands you first define all wrong-doing as the work of outsiders. You rail against it in your article. Perhaps Rev. Donner shared the same motivation when he refused to ostracize the wrongdoer. Maybe, perhaps, he's a good-ol Jew baitin' redneck atheist-basher from Kentucky, but I didn't see enough evidence in your commentary to support that. Make a better case or cut him some slack. It is, after all, as unfair to condemn a person because they belong to a religion as it is to condemn them for not joining one.
Secondly, there is one dynamic I see here that you may have overlooked, or just not thought worth discussing. Our world changes very slowly in some ways. For all of the amazing whiz-bang gewgaws we buttress our modernity with, the beliefs of twelfth century peasants probably don't differ much from those of today's working class. The sense of fair play which made Robin Hood a hero remains. Only the spelling makes the Canterbury Tales seem quaint. The language and characters are racy and vulgar enough for a Hollywood blockbuster. Madonna as the Prioress, Leo DiCapria as the Friar, Roseanne Barr as the Wife from Bath: can't you just see it?
But the gun overturned the expectations for appropriate behaviour between nations and classes. And now society's glacial rate of adaptation is revealing that the traditional balance of power between the popular kids and the unpopular ones is no longer appropriate either. Sneers, fists, insults, and ostracism all the most traditional tools of our tradition-bound upbringing are trumped by a sawed-off shotgun. "Kids will be kids" we intone, until it's time to identify the bad ones. Then we spit on their pictures, tear down their crosses, bring in the professionals to call them names. It's charmingly medieval.
Perhaps it'll take us less time to adapt our handling of children than it took to change our assumptions about power and government. But listening to the Governor of Colorado vomit bile for the TV news... perhaps not.Glenn Gill < archimedia@webspinners.ca>
Winnipeg, MB Canada - Wednesday, May 12, 1999 at 18:49:30 (MDT)
Judith Hayes' essay started off on the right track but quickly derailed. She succumbed to the same fallacies that she pointed out in others - jumping to conclusions and looking for simple answers. If it's wrong for theists to blame a lack of faith, especially when many indicators show that the killers in Littleton may well have been brought up to be faithful, it is equally wrong to lay the blame on drugs and violence in the media simply because it makes Ms Hayes feel better to do so. I'm baffled at what she may have read that would have led her to the conclusion that either the Littleton massacre or long sessions at computer games requires any sort of drug usage, unless it has been the peripheral remarks concerning one of the boys use of tobacco.
I'm also disturbed at the wide and indiscriminate net she threw. I'm not a listener of Dr. Laura, and she may very well be a bigot who slams nonbelievers, but that does not justify dragging her name into the discussion unless Ms Hayes was prepared to quote some statement that directly reflected on the Littleton tragedy.
Ms Hayes made some admirably lucid points concerning religion, morality and relativity. She then proceeded to destroy her own credibility by doing that which she criticized.Gilker Kimmel <gilker@aol.com>
USA - Monday, May 03, 1999 at 18:42:39 (MDT)
Although not specifically levelling blame for the Columbine shootings, Judith does seem to be implying that school violence is getting worse. Based on the statistics that I have seen, this is far from the truth. For example, the April 28 e-mail edition of USA Today states the following:
Data: Deadly violence at schools declining Despite last week's killings in Colorado, deadly violence in U.S. schools has decreased in recent years, and 1998-99 is on track to be one of the safest school years this decade. Data from the Department of Justice and the National School Safety Center reveal that schools remain among the safest places for children. Chances are roughly 1 in a million that someone will die violently at school. There have been 24 violent deaths on American school grounds this school year, including the 15 fatalities at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. By contrast, there were 53 deaths during the 1992-93 school year.
Although I normally enjoy Judith Hayes' columns, in this column, I believe that Judith is guilty of the same fuzzy thinking that she accuses religionists of.
Vernon Van Steenkist <vernon@gate.net >
Fort Lauderdale, Fl USA - Monday, May 03, 1999 at 12:24:00 (MDT)
Gore Supports Federal Aid to Faith-Based Organizations
I'm disappointed in Gore.....looks like a clearly unconstitutional policy. But if it came down to Gore versus a Gary Bauer....well looks like we're back to the lesser (much "lesser") of two evils and Gore would get my vote without question.
dave butterwick < butterwick@netscape.net>
west chester, pa USA - Monday, May 31, 1999 at 14:11:46 (MDT)
I am appalled that VP Gore has chosen to support the concept of "Charitable Choice." This is an issue dear to the hearts of Radical Religious Extremists! Reading that Gore spoke at the Salvation Army’s Center reminded me of that organization’s policy in the late 80’s. A meeting of our League of Women Voter’s group in El Paso, TX had guests from several organizations involved in sheltering and feeding the homeless. Knowing that the S.A. was receiving funds from the government, I asked about rules for recipients. Major Saunders acknowledged that the S.A. did not allow any drinking and related how one young women in his shelter had asked a friend to look after her two children while she went out to a New Year’s party. He proudly announced that by the time she returned, the County had removed her children and she never saw them again!
Janet Brazill <JB4Choice@aol.com>
Colorado Springs, CO USA - Monday, May 31, 1999 at 08:55:19 (MDT)
The two greatest impediments to civilization's advance are organized superstition (with which you obviously concur) and government (a view that I suspect you may not agree with wholeheartedly). In any case, freethinking demands an open minded investigation into all things, so please coninue look where you will. Thanks for an interesting source of information.
Jack Ford <jackoford@msn.com>
Solon, OH USA - Saturday, May 29, 1999 at 17:22:12 (MDT)
The unabashed kowtowing of our political leaders to the religious community seems to me to be more motivated by their recognition that these communities represent blocks of voters than any real beilief on their part toward the goals many of these groups ostensibly represent. The secular community has to get its act together and make politicians understand that we count just as much as the blocks of religious voters. When politicians understand that they have to appeal to both believers and non-believers there may begin to be some kind of recognition of the fundamental importance of the separation of church and state. If there were more non-religious organisations engaged in such activities as charities, secular private schools, etc. perhaps our image would be better and we might be able to influence more of the public toward understanding our point of view so that the kind of pandering we see almost all of our politicians engaging in will be less effective.
I'm very glad the Internet Infidels is out there working on the issue. Thanks.Scott E. Bowen <hastur@execpc.com>
Milwaukee, WI USA - Thursday, May 27, 1999 at 08:22:50 (MDT)
Excuse my english. The librarian J. Holding says he reads 30 books a week. I thought, how much time for this? Well good college students reads a novel about 300 words a minute. So if we give him the benefit of doubt lets say he reads technical matters at 300 words a minute. A small book is 50,000 words (180 pgs) so it would take [((50,000 * 30) / 300) / 60] hours to read all of those books. That comes out to about 83 hours but there are 168 hours in a week. Even if he sleeps 7 hours a night (49 week), eat, shower, bathroom, going to job, and stuff (2 day/14 week), and job part time (20 week) that leaves him only 2 hours a week to take break, going to church, praying quickly. When does he go write his web page?
P. Labbe < petrelabbe@netscape.net>
Los Angeles, CA USA - Friday, May 28, 1999 at 14:47:36 (MDT)
Fine, brief. You used the Bible out of context in response to Josh McDowell, Reliability and Belief. You also didn't rightly understand The Uniqueness of the Bible. Therefore contridicting or rather adding more evidence to the statement in the Intro that some are not inteligent enough (I am making this brief so you may have to go back and reread some to understand my references). The Bible is unique solely compared to religious books. D&D is unique yet based on whim. Consider this, how many religious books say that you are not here "created" for yourself. The Bible solely rejects self and promotes complete humility. Even books proclaiming help to others, give the reason as that you may reach the next level or step to enlightenment. The Bible clearly states that man was created for the sole reason to praise God. Consider deeply how it suggests that even the slightest. action should be done in his glory. Yetj, also consider how other humbling religions, blatently state that self indulgence is the final prize. Whereas Heaven is described as serving! in the presence of God. This is a major uniqueness. Infact, it thus defines Christianity, not for self, but for the greatness of Christ.
Wade Morris < garylisa@conc.tds.net>
USA - Tuesday, May 18, 1999 at 19:55:10 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
I wish I had a dollar for every Christian who told me that I took the Bible "out of context." And if I had two dollars for every Christian who said that but couldn't provide a single example and didn't know what they themselves meant by it, I'd be a very wealthy man! To set the record straight, nowhere do I ever state that those who read the Bible are not intelligent. Mr. Morris had confused me with someone else. He argues that the Bible is unique compared to other religious books, but nowhere does he hint at the criteria he uses to make this assertion. I'll just let it pass as a frustrated aside. (I do not know what religion he refers to as "D&D" or why it should be whimsical.) Also, Mr. Morris has obviously never acquainted himself with Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or certain offshoots of those beliefs. All assert that humans were not created for themselves and that the self must be rejected (or that the will must be subjugated). In fact, I can't think of one doctrine that is unique to Christianity. Love of others before self is a very common paradigm. Sacrifice of a man-god for the sins of others predates Jesus by hundreds of years among the pagans and others. Heaven and hell were borrowed from Persian myths. The idea of God as Creator of everything was taken over from the Jews. Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists gave Christians the philosophy of God: Prime Mover and First Cause. Am I missing a doctrine or a belief unique to Christianity that is not also found in other religions? If so, write to us and let us know! We'll publish it in next month's feedback.
Please tell me with all due respect, are you a christian? [In response to " Reliability and Belief" -Ed.] I suspect so but I wonder. You really go after these people. I couldn't read everything. I find some of your observations very interesting. This work that you are doing is important. As I search to know truth myself I tend to find that I do not agree with even a few, on many things. I do believe we must respect and honor one another, and I hope my note to you will be encouraging. Inevitably I find that it is when I look honestly for answers to the hard questions Gods' signature is on it somewhere. For me the greatest manifestation of God comes through the fellowship with (hanging out with) honest caring people no matter what they believe.
Edward G. Eichinger < xyzedgex@gateway.net>
Arlington, TX USA - Sunday, May 30, 1999 at 19:37:06 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
You have a very interesting viewpoint Edward when you say that God is manifested within each of us who are honest and caring with each other. I think there is a lot going for this outlook. It reminds me of the beliefs that thrived before Christianity took over the pagan world. You see, Christians have it all backwards. They first postulate a transcendent principle and then go about figuring out what kind of attributes this principle must possess. This sort of abstract game might amuse professional philosophers but it is pretty hollow when it comes to real meaning and value for our lives. The Greeks knew better. While Christians tried to say "God is x" or "God is y" the Greeks said, "love is a god" or "beauty is a god." We experience love and beauty, and we consider them enormously valuable in our lives, so it makes sense to elevate them to the level of divinity. We can understand why love and beauty are things worthy of our reverence but who can understand why a transcendent first principle is worthy of worship? It is strange to worship a principle and impossible to care about a thing that has no relevance to our lives. That is why God is dead to us moderns. Where God still lives it is because believers have anthropomorphized the principle into a father-figure and have made the confused transition to "God is love", harkening back to the Greek formula but failing to realize that God drops out of the equation altogether.
Josh McDowell's Charade? Okay I agree with you on you little bibliographical test. But I kind of did a little test with the Constitution. I for some reason couldn't find the original. Not the one in the museum. That could have been tampered with, probably was. I mean the first rough draft. I didn't see it anywhere. And, how many of these original manuscripts do we have. Oh well, it failed two tests. So we need to discount its reliability as to the laws of the land. Hmm...As I recall the original meant for me to be sole ruler of the states. I'm not sure, and I would go back and check it but, I'm sure you all will believe me. Honestly, consider what you say before you put it down.
Wade Morris < garylisa@conc.tds.net>
USA - Tuesday, May 18, 1999 at 20:14:16 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
I'm not sure whether to take you seriously or not. If you can't tell the different between the Constitution of the United States, which I and millions of others have seen in its archive in D.C., and the various copies of the New Testament manuscripts, then you have lost touch with reality. In any case, suppose the parchment in D.C. were not the autograph of the Constitution after all. So what? Are its principles of liberty and freedom no longer applicable as the law of our land because it might be a copy? Further, you misunderstand McDowell's claim. His reliability doctrine is not that the words have been uncorrupted from their originals--a quick comparison of the tens of thousands of scribal errors between the thousands of manuscript copies refutes such a claim--but rather, McDowell argues that the broad historical claims within the NT are empirical truths.
This comment is for Robert Price in regards to the Jesus-God's Son article. Mr. Price states that he sees zero evidence that Jesus claims himself to be divine. Doesn't John 8:58 and 10:30 say as much? Doesn't Jesus make that claim in these verses, especially 10:30 "I and the father are one". If thats not claiming divinity I don't know what is. What am I overlooking here?
brad becker <brad@arkmola.net>
bella vista, ar USA - Monday, May 17, 1999 at 17:24:11 (MDT)
I thought to omit the information which you require in order to have this printed as I didn't really expect it to be printed, but I included it anyway. You are free to respond, although I have no greater confidence in that than in the printing of it.
Your rebuttals of "Evidence" are not only silly but miss the point completely. You ramble on with the same remark and the same point as if it were the sole string on an old violin. Nothing you say is new, and I am in wonder at why you think your assertions would be held in any higher esteem than those of other opponents who have tried and failed to extinguish Christianity. Though you may not reveal that this is your objective, it is the only rational one you could have.
You begin by trying (without success) to denounce McDowell's book based on comments made about the book rather than the book itself; it is your fatal flaw. For when you finally get to the book, you again miss the point that that book is not the heart of Christianity. Finally you get around to trying to ruin the Bible and Christ. But in that attempt, your final failure is complete, and all your efforts are a useless waste of time, and thoroughly unconvincing. It is not a surprise that you must try to beat around the main point before heading to it; you are attempting to bolster strength by whacking at the bushes before you attack the tree, thinking that you may convince someone based on the ancillary points of conjecture. The result is utter failure throughout. You are reporting on a trial that took place in your absence. You have rejected all the material witnesses, the exhibits and the courtroom documents, then you draw your own conclusions of what you think took place. Your opinion is of absolutely no importance; whatever made you think otherwise?
Further, your use of the Darwin fish puts you in the camp with those who still believe in the fantasy story of evolution. Amazing. The pages upon pages of your writings may require some readers a considerable amount of time to discover your predisposition to ignore evidence and hold to silly stories without merit, but that little graphic symbol exposes you in a moment. This is a serious blunder on your part, for it notes your total lack of objectivity. You make all sorts of claims against Christianity despite its reasonable evidence, but you obviously do not even begin to hold to the same apparent level any logical and evidential demands on evolution. Talk about a theory full of holes! Coming from one who announces logic and evidence and being of such prime importance, it is a disappointing surprise. Evolution has been debunked at every turn and every premise, yet you continue to hold to that foolishness. You have proven your opponents true. You would rather believe something absolutely idiotic rather than to accept the truth of Christianity. To you, even believing something without ANY credible evidence is better than believing the Gospel, for as the evidence demands a verdict, the verdict requires a response. You are unwilling to render that response, so you are constrained to blast away with your water pistol, to try to assuage your conscience against your responsibility. It is that responsibility that you cannot abide. You are fortunate that there is no requirement for consistency, logic and honesty to get a page on the internet. If there were, you'd be gone.
William Samuels <wills5@hotmail.com >
Seattle, WA USA - Saturday, May 01, 1999 at 17:10:37 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
Forgive me for being the sole defender of the Jury Project in these feedback pages, but I'm filling in as editor until Richard Carrier takes over as permanent feedback editor next month. First, you write that The Jury Is In misses the point, rambles on, is nothing new, and tries (but fails) to "extinguish" Christianity. It is you who have missed the point of the Jury Project. McDowell fans have claimed for years that McDowell's book is some kind of proof that Christianity is the One True Religion. We have merely pointed out that this claim is farfetched since McDowell's book contains many questionable assertions. This does not mean that we seek to erase Christianity, but merely that we seek to question the initial assertion that Evidence is some kind of second Bible. You go on to assert that our "final failure" is our attempt "to ruin the Bible and Christ." But nowhere do you give even one example of what this failure consists in! I cannot take much of your raving seriously, but I will tell you that the theory of evolution is alive and well and dinosaurs such as yourself will be extinct a few generations from now!
Your intelligence cann not be questioned. After reading through a few of your articles I freely admit that you guys could slaughter me in a debate. But that doesn't bother me much. I have no intention of debating you. I am impressed with your desire to know the truth. You argue very effectively using your mind and intellect but you don't seem to get it. Believing in God has little to do with the intellect. Any time God does something to prove or illustrate his involvement in something, He does it in a way that is impossible to believe. No intelligent person can believe that Moses was able to part the Red Sea when he extended the rod before it, but someone like me can believe that God was able to do it simply because it was His will. He does His will in impossible ways so that there can be no question that He did it, and not merely someone He created. You come to God through the heart and not through the mind. God cannot be proven, but He can be believed. You can find him on your knees when you admit that you have no real control or power, these belong to the Almighty. I fear you may think that people who believe in God are weak and unintelligent and child like. Well, we are not weak or stupid, but we are childlike. We can put aside trying to over think every thing and just believe. And I feel the ability to do that doesn't come from us, but the desire to believe comes from God. When you look down at you sleeping children at night and your heart is so full of love you think it's going to burst, do you or can you explain that feeling using scientific arguments. Of course not. There's no need to anyway.
One thing I just cannot understand is how an atheist can look at a simple blade of grass, or ponder the way an eyeball focuses and sends signals to the brain, or how cells differenciate during the development of all living organisms and not believe in God. To think that this all happened in some accidental fluke is something my intellect simply can't accept. Please write me back and tell me why these simple every day things are not enough proof to you that God exists. Do you not want Him to exist? Is there simply no room for Him in your intellect? What do you think about Christians?
I kind of chuckled when, in your instructions you ask that people not use foul language. I think anyone who would write to you in that way would not be a true Christian, or at least they would not be following the ways of our Lord. Jesus' message was one of true, pure love. If we Christians do anything that is not motivated by love, then we are a stumbling block to Christianity.
I truly hope that some day God will reveal Himself to you. He will when you start crying out to Him. Life is so much more joyful and satisfying for me having a relationship with a living Jesus who sits on the right hand of the Father, than it was when I was sifting through the teachings of a man who died 2,000 years ago.
Yancey Robertson < gldc2@greenwood.net>
Greenwood, SC USA - Sunday, May 30, 1999 at 12:36:43 (MDT)
In reference to Josh McDowell's "Evidence for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?" by Jeffery Jay Lowder, simply put -- If you are right (Jesus never existed, there is no God, etc.) you have gained nothing, as this life and your words, are meaningless. If you are wrong, you are alive and lost for eternity, and in the darkness of hell you will forever remember, and forever regret, your decision. I wish you well in your quest for truth, if that is what you seek.
Robert Shackelford < rshack@calbaptist.edu>
USA - Monday, May 24, 1999 at 23:50:53 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
The above pathological letter is one more in a long line of those from Christians motivated by fear rather than love. I'll merely repeat what I wrote last month: Pascal's Wager has been beaten to death online over the years. The usual atheistic response is to point out to the wagerer that he or she might not be backing the right horse. The wagerers speak of a simple bet (go with God, nothing to lose, everything to gain) as if only one horse were in the race. In fact, they put everything they have on that one horse, forgetting that there are dozens of horses and the winner might be Tibetan Buddhism, Islam, or Rastafarianism. Care to place a bet on them all just in case? But then this reveals the metaphysical poverty of the wagerer's position: he does not choose God out of love, but rather because he doesn't want to "burn forever". Pascalian wagerers explicitly refer to hell as a reason for choosing Christianity; thus, betraying that their god is a small god, a petty beast who hides from us and yet would torture billions of people for untold eons for the simple mistake of backing the wrong horse. I think this tells us a lot more about the mental instability of the wagerers than it does Christian faith.
I have just finished reading More than a carpenter, and have also found much about Josh McDowell's conclusions that leaves me suspect of his abilities to reason... His apparent method of operating is to approach the issues from a legalistic point of view, and then offers proof of his findings based upon the jurisprudences of law... He expects us to then believe in his conclusions it seems, simply because we should believe the law is always right...
He also seemed to avoid the obvious fact that through the centuries of christianity, the Bible and its distribution has been controlled, modified, and utilized by certain religious institutions to take and maintain a stranglehold on people...
He uses mathmatical probabilities to prove Jesus was Messiah, claiming that it is improbable for anyone to fulfill the 333 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus... Has it never occured to him that the church would have written the story of Jesus in such a way that he would appear to fulfill the prophecies?
And further, the prophecies of Virgin birth and descendency from the Line of David are apocraphyl... If Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, then Jesus did not descend from David, or if Joseph was Jesus' bilogical father, then Jesus was not born of virgin birth... 333, 332, 331 and counting
tmvg <Kwonum@aol.com>
Mesa, AZ USA - Saturday, May 22, 1999 at 16:06:03 (MDT)
Karl Barth said it best: "The best theology would need no advocates, it would prove itself."
Mikail Bukanin <Bukani@webtv.net >
Bend, or USA - Monday, May 31, 1999 at 12:53:37 (MDT)
Amazon.com's removal of A Piece of Blue Sky
Delighted to see that in response to the II E-mail campaign Amazon has rescinded its uncharacteristic self censoring decision to withdraw the anti-sciontology book. As a UK freethinker I was shamed to note that the original decision was based on a UK court ruling.
The UK is practically speaking totally secular (i.e. less than 1% of the population attend the state church on an average Sunday) however we do still have a lot of anomalous archaic laws and customs such as blasphemy and libel. The latter is possible to claim and defend successfully in completely bizarre cases, such as this one, if you have enough money to frighten off the opposition. The National Secular Society (UK) might seem to have won the battle but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance . Speaking personally as a UK secularist I should like to thank II for orchestrating an effective campaign against an infringement of free speech, however minor it might seem. When they start banning ( or burning ) books pretty soon they start banning (or burning) people.
Ted Tuddenham < ted@amanita.freeserve.co.uk>
London, Uh? UK. This proforma is statist1 - Saturday, May 22, 1999 at 15:51:24 (MDT)
I haven't yet looked deeply into the facts surrounding Amazon.com's removal of "A Piece of Blue Sky" from its sales list, so I don't have an opinion to express concerning that action. I do have an opinion concerning the II story urging people to respond to Amazon.com. I applaud the wording overall - requesting that people look into it and then respond - but I find the use of the dollar sign in place of the capital 'S' whenever the word 'Scientology' is printed in the story to be downright puerile. Such slimy tactics are counterproductive. II is a site best known for pointing out such illogical methods when others use them. I can only hope that the writer and/or the editors will realize that they have done unnecessary damage to their own credibility and correct the matter.
Gilker Kimmel <gilker@aol.com>
Austin, Tx USA - Thursday, May 20, 1999 at 14:08:44 (MDT)
The Good
Beloved Infidels, Thanks for providing a very worthwhile site.
Fred Heiner <fheiner@pacbell.net >
San Francisco, CA USA - Sunday, May 30, 1999 at 16:13:26 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
All of you have been great. I want to thank everyone here and over the years who have written in to support us. It takes a lot of work and money to keep a website of this caliber going and we are all unpaid volunteers who contribute our time when we can. Our payment comes from knowing that our hard work is appreciated. Thanks again!
You are doing a great job. Your website is my home page. I enjoyed reading your essay on " Professional Debater". Wouldn't Dr. Dawkings eat William Lane Craig for breakfast?
Dan Ponce, Chemistry Faculty at CSULB <jponce@csulb.edu>
Long Beach, CA USA - Saturday, May 29, 1999 at 01:11:47 (MDT)
Whilst I fully appreciate that the position of the Infidels is to educate rather than retaliate, I would point out (as I'm sure you've noticed) that the hysteria of the coming of the antichrist at the turn of the millenium is reaching an entertaining fever pitch amongst the more doggedly confused of the internet bible thumping sites. So much investment has been made in this pivotal event in the prophecised history of Christianity,that when it abjectly fails to appear in any shape or form, would it for once be allowable to point this out and ask for some sort of explanation ? In other words, do we let 'em off the hook ?
Andy Collin < andycollin@freeserve.co.uk>
Norwich, Norfolk England - Wednesday, May 12, 1999 at 09:45:51 (MDT)
I have really enjoyed your site and find it very informative. Thanks!
Linda <faiths@livingston.net>
USA - Friday, May 28, 1999 at 21:07:19 (MDT)
I feel that these articles are really wonderful. As a high school senior and atheist I feel that I have experienced firsthand the blurred line separating church and state.
I personally have sat through a humanities english course which was in actuality little more than bible study. A science class I managed to switch out of began with the words "When god created the universe.....". Furthermore, a fellow student reported that according to his teacher "communism and atheism go hand in hand."
On another occasion, a youth group I attended was back-handedly sponsored by a church. The minister who attended made all the children rise and admit that they had sinned. I was very embaressed and very upset because, in my eyes, I had committed no sin, at least not according to my non-christian morals.
I am sick of having to defend my morals. My morals are my business whether christian, buddhist, or any other belief. I am also sick of offending people just because I believe in reality.Courtney
Andover, MA USA - Friday, May 28, 1999 at 14:34:34 (MDT)
I'm 18, and I've been an atheist for as long as I can remember. I've read your feedback section, and I'm saddened by the people who believe you are corrupting today's youth. It is religion that corrupts youth. Religion traps young children in Sunday school and brainwashes them there. The point of religious schools is to squash independent thought. Public schools do the opposite (or at least they're supposed to!).
I'm not the poster child for moral virtue, but compared to my religious friends I'm quite virtuous. I don't smoke or drink (they do); I don't have reckless sex (they have); I've never shoplifted (they have). Now tell me, who is the more corrupted?Bryan Katzenmeyer < twineology@hotmail.com>
Albert Lea, MN USA - Saturday, May 22, 1999 at 23:27:35 (MDT)
I am a student at a Christian college and I am a devout believer in the almighty presence of God and that he is the creator of this world. I read your website to keep myself informed of the thoughts and beliefs of the rest of the world. I don't find it conducive to intellectual growth to limit myself to one viewpoint all the time. I am currently responding to the numerous amount of Christians that seem to be responding to the articles found on this website. If you are an idiot please don't send anything. This is the first response I have submitted because I feel that I am not educated enough in the different viewpoints of the website to contribute something worthwhile. I find it appaling to be associated with the stupid, unintelligent, unresearched responses that seem to be finding their way to the feedback forum. So if you are a stupid Christian please stop trying to speak for the rest of us. If you would like to submit something and are not sure of the intelligence level, you can send it to me and I will be more than happy to help you keep yourself from looking like a fool. No wonder Christianity gets ridiculed so much, the biggest morons are the ones trying to speak for our viewpoint. Thank you.
Greg Davis < S1195118@cedarville.edu>
Cedarville, OH USA - Tuesday, May 18, 1999 at 23:08:05 (MDT)
I read your site and was appalled at the hopeless situation of your atheists.
I knew religion was important in America... but I could have never guessed the situation was this bad -- atheists even don't tell their friends about their views. I'd like to tell you that there are still places in the World where atheism is considered normal - e.g. in my class all but 1 of the boys were atheists, and the Christian (a mad cultist, by the way) was constantly picked on. Our country has been reported as the one with the highest percentage of atheists. Alas, after the collapse of the USSR, things went a bit more religious here -- but the proposed daily prayer in our Parliament was ridiculed by our "Royalist" party (political pranksters... we've never had a king).I also would like to comment on your basic principles. I don't think promoting atheism on the grounds of physics/biology (e.g. "God does not exist") would be useful... I think that atheism should be promoted by sociology/psychology (e.g. "Religion is harmful"). Well, these are my personal views -- I do not rule out the possibility of the existence of God, but I wouldn't worship it even if I knew it existed... even if I saw a vision/miracle. Nothing/nobody is worth worshiping, and visions/miracles can tell lies.
With respect to fellow infidels, Sander.
P.S. I write from an underdeveloped post-communist East European country. The name in my e-mail address is my mother's.Sander Adamson <raina@uninet.ee>
Tallinn, N/A Estonia - Saturday, May 08, 1999 at 20:07:26 (MDT)
My first visit was a real eye-opener. You folks must be the target of a whole slew of hate mail and Satan mongering.
Loved the format, reveled in the information, enjoyed the non-combative tone and came away glad that there is some rationality still around. Toured around the suggested links on geocentrism, conspiracy, etc. and just can't get enough. Wonderful ammunition though. Living in Japan has islated me from some of the more blatant evangelical rantings, but they are here and in my life somewhat. Can't find them on the tube (kind of sad in a way, but I fill up on trips back home), but they have a hell of a time with all the variety of spiritual beliefs here. What they term ancestor worship is particularly galling.
Have to run, but I will seriously consider supporting your work in some way. Give me a little time.James D. Hughes <jdhughes@iac.co.jp >
Tokyo, Japan - Monday, May 17, 1999 at 22:56:13 (MDT)
Hi Guys, I love your site and visit it often. Just today my 3 children ages 5,11,and 12, were sitting in the backseat of our car having a discussion about, of all things, the nature of god. My wife and I are both Freethinkers and were listening intently. The discussion got pretty heated and then all of a sudden out of nowhere and with no coaching, our 5 year old daughter yelled out "Oh, god is just pretend !!". I thought you people might appreciate that. Keep up the good work. Tom Brookman
Tom Brookman < tntbrookman@jellico.com>
Jellico, TN USA - Sunday, May 16, 1999 at 19:41:48 (MDT)
Just a short comment to tell you that I have found "the Secular Web" to be a very valuable resource. Since I first found it several months ago I have been coming back regulary to continue my reading through your vast collection of articles. Keep up the good work, there are many people who appreciate what you are doing.
James Pycroft < j.pycroft@student.unsw.edu.au>
Australia, NSW Australia - Monday, May 10, 1999 at 04:41:57 (MDT)
I've enjoyed your website for many months.
Ralph Lanwood <lanwood@hotmail.com >
Northridge, Ca USA - Saturday, May 15, 1999 at 16:23:06 (MDT)
The Bad
If there is no God, no Heaven, no Faith. Then why do you waste your time in putting up a web page and writing and fighting for something that does not exist? I don't undertand you! There must be some "unknown force" that's compeling you to do this? I suggest that before you chanllange God, you should look within you and find yourself first.
Too bad that I can't even pray for you because you don't belive in prayers, so what are you hanging on to? You must be a very lonely person. I'm sure you are a "superman" no feelings, no crying, just a mean man? That's all "B.S." Because all men are created equal my friend, and if you look anything like me, you have a heart and red blood running in you. So give it up, and support the one who created you. He loves you, and you probably hate to hear that too, right? I've been there, done that, you name it. I have found God and I talk to him every day and you know what? He answers me back every time, you should try it some time. Nobody believes in God at first...until you truly need a miracle!
Is sad to know that from my point of view I see a loving God watching over you, even after you have fought him all this years, he still loves you. And you don't even know Him. Stop fighting it and just open your heart, take a vacation with God, go fishing or something... and He will reveal himself to you like never before. It's that simple.
Norton <nortfilm@icanect.net >
Miami, FL USA - Friday, May 28, 1999 at 13:08:00 (MDT)
I was disappointed in the material in the section on Theism as it is rather 'dated'. The author's whose work appears were busy trying to make a case from a position that well informed people wouldn't consider relevant any more. The level of writing that impresses me is that of people such as Profs. Karen Armstrong and Uta Ranke-Heinammn who have written respectively A History of God and Putting Away Childish things.
J. Stanley Wilkinson < jbsw@bc.sympatico.ca>
Chilliwack,, BC Canada - Monday, May 03, 1999 at 17:05:41 (MDT)
I visited your site after a co-worker pointed it out to me. I must admit that you seem pretty convinced of your beliefs. I write this letter not to flame you but to offer you something to ponder. Who do you turn to in your time of need or trouble? The day that your mother or father, your sister or brother, your husband or wife, or even your own child lay dying, who will you turn to? Will you be on your knees praying "Oh God, if You are there please hear my prayers."? Personally, I don't believe in athiest. I have yet to see one who didn't become a believer real quick when it became a very personal issue. When they faced something so much bigger than they and much worse than their nightmares. Whether you believe or not, is not even the issue. The Lord said "every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess to God". Even the devils believe and tremble at His name.
So, the questions that I pose are these. You are convinced that you are right, correct? Are you equally convinced that if you are wrong, that you are in for one hell of an eternal nightmare? Is it an acceptable risk? Don't die in your own intelligence.David Gloria <dgloria@sco-unix.com >
Dallas, Tx USA - Thursday, May 06, 1999 at 14:25:16 (MDT)
The Ugly
I am so dissappointed tn the flavor of Folgers Coffee. I have been a coffee drinker for more years than I care to remember and have always drank Folgers. I have noticed that even shen I open a fresh can, there isn't the sizzle of the air coming out and the aroma is not there. Could you please explain any reason for this. I will have to try and find a different brand and I really like my Folgers
Mrs. Hofstetter <ShirlHof@aol.com >
Waukesha, wi USA - Tuesday, May 18, 1999 at 05:34:30 (MDT)
MY CAPS ARE MALFUNCTIONING DO NOT DISCARD YOUR SOUL IS AT STAKE. MY DEARLY BELOVED IT IS TRULY A SHAME TO FOR ALL OF THE ATHEIST TO FLATTER THEMSELVES INTO THE MISCONCEPTION THAT THERE IS NO GOD....WE HERE AT THE MONASTERY HAVE MUCH TO SAY CONCERNING YOUR FALSE ASSERTIONS ... DARWIN? CHUCKLE CHUCKLE TRY {JESUS} YOUR SCIENTIFIC THEORIES AND FALSE PROPAGANDA WILL BE OF NO AVAIL!!!I PROMISE
EMILIO MANZO <EMILIO4GOD@AOL.COM >
SUNRISE, FL U.S.A - Wednesday, May 12, 1999 at 23:40:36 (MDT)
Thanks for reminding we infidels of the amount of supernaturalist manure is still being spread out to try to inseminate our most valuable minds with their garbage. I am referring to the Christian symposium/debate at the college. Our minds are the most valuable asset we human beings have. We can do without a leg, arm, an ear, be deaf or blind, we are adaptable, most of us, but without a good we are just so much blood, guts and bones, and ready for the garbage heap of history. It is frustrating to know that the supernaturalist religions are aided by our governments to criminally interfere with a child and growups growing minds. I think laws should be created to prevent this kind of non-thinking indoctrination of we human beings. Actually, I think that all supernaturalist clergy practice behavioral psyhchology without being licensed to do so, and is an illegal and damaging profession to people indoctrinated by them.
Thanks to the speakers that opposed these fraudulant S.O.B's of speakers/clergy hopefully will do some good , I admire for investing their time in opposition.Andrew Kovaly <Drew@ap.net>
Cotati, Ca USA - Monday, May 03, 1999 at 21:05:10 (MDT)
New Secularism in the Arab World
Thank you for Mr. Abdullah's wrtting and your organization's publishing of this article. It is comforting to see that not all contemporary debate and questioning concerning secularism vs. religion are relegated to Christianity and Judaism. Drawing from Mr. Abdullah comment as to the religious beliefs of Arabs (fundamentalist, observant, or secular), it would be interesting to see what differences in attidutes prevail in the spectrum of Arab regions, from anarchic Afghanistan to civil war Algeria to quasi-democratic Palestine. Apart from the calls for a renewed Islam taken up by fundamentalists in the post-war Moslem world, the voices of those advocating a sort of "Islamic Reformation" and the ones calling for a greater secularisation of governance and culture within the Arab regions are sorely underreported. Once again, thank you for this heartening and fascinating article.
Stephen Morin < smorin@synergie1.com>
Montreal, QC Canada - Wednesday, May 26, 1999 at 12:23:27 (MDT)
I find the idea one could be prosecuted for the destruction of a symbol, particularily one I own, reprehensible. It's ludicrious to think these simpletons in congress and their supporters cannot tell the difference between a symbol and the thing it represents. The 'desecration' of the flag is a political statement and as such falls into the heart of the necessity for the 1st Amendment. The implications of the flag being protected as a 'sacred' synmbol are also very scary, what other 'sacred' symbol are they going to try and protect next? The sycophantic efforts of our politicians to curry favor with the masses of ignorant fools in America has lead to a constant effort to degrade our overall rights. I can only hope some kind of concerted effort in the states can lead to the downfall of this sickening attempt to nullify our rights. Thank you.
Scott E. Bowen <hastur@execpc.com>
Milwaukee, WI USA - Monday, May 03, 1999 at 09:37:59 (MDT)
I have read your piece on the flag burning and noticed the cross in place of the stars on the graphic.
I really don't know your beliefs about the Lord, whether he dosent exist or he may or you all may hold yourselves as God. However, I want to let you knwo that the Lord is making a strong push for America. And it may be the last one.
After the Littleton, CO incident, many are finding answers in Jesus. Churches are packing and people are changing their lives. Many teens in my area are starting to lead bible studies and witnessing to all. I see little to none running to secular non-theologians.
Cause Jesus has the answers to the problems mankind has brought to themselves. Burning flags and speaking hate, how has that made people free? Are you really free? Free to sin, maybe, but you are surely not free from the consequences of sin. Like your "separation of church and state" has taken away moral absolutes and made people able to justify all kinds of evil, like homosexuality, pedophilia, abortion....murder is not too far away being seen as not evil.Devin Garcia < faithfultrue@prodigy.net>
IL USA - Tuesday, May 04, 1999 at 09:10:11 (MDT)
Miscellany
Regarding "Christ a Fiction", Robert Price is undeniably and indisputably correct in his assessment of that regulated rubbish as pure myth and if there were a "time machine" as he said, there would be no Jesus there whatsoever; not by accident did the three most brutalitarian bogus theocratic drivel came out of the Middle East: Writing was well developed; the Jews made Prime Time Monotheism far more believeable than wood sprites and Greece's somewhat hilarious Snappy Stories Atop Mount Olympus and then, to wrap it up for all time, Muhammad who had definitely heard the tale of woe woven out of ignorant hysteria when, as of 25 December, 1 A.D., the entire Cosmos and 15,000,000 light years' worth of what is now commonly referred as well you as "The Big Bang" SUDDENLY TURNED UNIVERSALLY KOSHER. As H.L. Mencken snidely put to the effect that anyone who believes in such ghastly fairy tales is "actually mentally ill."
The Author mentions King Arthur vis a vis He who was "born of the Virgin Mary and CONCEIVED BY THE HOLY GHOST." How convenient that ghost was for knocking up
the God's Mom since penetration, however slight, is IMPOSSIBLE for a Poltergeist. Yep, that's why as you know this sick but slick need for a Trinity.
"King Arthur" was probably a composite of the collective legends requisite to give the native Kelts and Brithonics some reason for hope against the arrival of the Anglo-Saxonic Teutonic Hordes. Jesus? TOTAL MYTH unlike a "legend."
No Query; merely a thank you for publishing the works of a NON MAD MAN unlike that vile old butcher, JP the Deuce. How ANYONE can believe any part of this RACKET is not beyond me but I sure in goddamn hell wish it were.allen ross warmington <dd703@aol.com>
south euclid, oh USA - Monday, May 24, 1999 at 22:16:10 (MDT)
Whether or not there are atheists, it seems to me, would hinge on the proven existence of God, or even a god. What Christians believe, or better, have faith in, should not be the basis for any argument regarding the validity of "atheism" as a belief system.
Where the debate should go is whether atheism (which actually takes more faith than believing in God) is logical or not. It seems the more intelligent, or at least less petulant term would be "agnostic," wherein, following a set of questions, the professed atheist would naturally arrive, e.g.:
1. Does your mind embody all knowledge? No.2. Is it possible that God inhabits that part you don't yet know? Yes.
Therefore, you are now termed an "agnostic".
Charles Glendinning <cglendin@aft.org >
Washington, DC USA - Thursday, May 20, 1999 at 12:37:41 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
I disagree. Atheism is the propositional belief that there is no God. (Or to some, that nonbelief is justified given the lack of evidence for God's existence. See Professor Drange's excellent paper on definitions.) If you were right and atheism hinged "on the proven existence of God" then there would be no atheists! If something were proven to be true then it is insane to doubt it. But precisely because God's existence is not known to be true or false it is possible to be a theist who believes that God exists or an atheist who believes that God does not exist. What is at issue is whether atheism and theism are justified true beliefs. To judge this, we bring evidence for and against our beliefs. As for your argument, it is fallacious since your conclusion does not follow from your premises. I agree that I am not omniscient. Further, I agree that it is possible for God to be hiding 53 miles west of Venus. However, it does not follow from this that I am an agnostic. Agnosticism is the claim that we have insufficient evidence for belief in God's existence. To say that it is possible for God to exist is not bringing forward any evidence, it is merely framing the logic of the debate (i.e., God's existence is not logically impossible). All your argument demonstrates is that I do not know whether God exists. And I could have told you that from the outset. I do not know whether God exists but I believe that God does not. I could tell you the reasons for my nonbelief but this is not the appropriate forum.
Wow. After reading William Floyd's article, written in 1925, I can see where the roots of so many of our current social ills have arisen. Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or He was who He claimed to be (C.S. Lewis, a great mind, scholar, and theologian). Evolution is not conclusive, even Darwin recanted his belief in that theory. Many scientists around the globe are commited born again Christians... who know that the creation of the earth as described in Genesis follows the same chemical process taught in basic Biology 101. But what did Moses know? Poor dumb guy. These are just my random thoughts on the article! Have a great day!
Beth Boring < Clinbeth@visuallink.com>
USA - Wednesday, May 19, 1999 at 19:43:00 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
I have corrected numerous misspellings in this letter to improve readability. Normally, letters like this one never make it past the first editorial pass, especially ones that are riddled with misspellings. But I made an exception in this case in order to give all of our Christian readers a bit of advice. Before you write to us with a load of nonsense, make sure you know what you're talking about. Your fellow Christians who are embarrassed by your ignorance will thank you. You may be able to bluff your next door neighbor's 12-year old son, but we've been doing this for awhile and can see you coming from a mile away. For the record, Darwin did not experience a death-bed conversion nor did he recant his theory of evolution. Also, theists are a minority in the scientific community (never mind those of the born-again variety). Regarding our alleged "social ills", for as long as human beings have lived together in communities there have been complaints and rumblings about social problems. I have absolutely no idea from where the Christian myth that things are worse "now" than "back then" came, but I can assure you that cultures rise and fall on criteria that have nothing to do with born-again Christianity. Cultures have risen, flourished for centures, and fallen, regardless of whether God or Jesus was a factor in that culture. That is just the cycle of things. Last, Genesis is a metaphorical work that communicates the ancient Jewish worldview of mythological origins. It is a mistake to impose scientific criteria upon an ancient text like Genesis.
I am a Christian, and just wish to say I am sorry for you, the sceptics who have written the essays trying to debunk christianity. I will be praying that God will reveal His Truth to you. In 2000 years nobody has been able to do away with the truths copntained in the Bible.
In closing, I would draw your attention to Acts chapter 5, where Gamaliel addresses the Sanhedrin. He points out that if this faith is of God then "..you will not be able to stop or overthrow or destroy them; you might even be found fighting against God." (v.39)
Relax guys. If we are wrong, then Paul (that's the apostle you say never met Jesus) says himself that we are to be pitied above all other people.
In short, if there is a God, and I am right and you are wrong, then when he judges us how do you intend to defend yourself? If this life is all, and you are right and I am wrong, then who gives you the right to try to debunk the beliefs of one third of the people on the face of the planet? Think about it.David Beddow < david@eaglewing.freeserve.co.uk>
buckfastleigh, uk - Wednesday, May 19, 1999 at 18:34:33 (MDT)
I was very disgusted by your website. The Bible was "spiritually written" and must be "spiritually discerned." For that reason I can understand why you don't understand it. I can't believe you have put so much time and effort into trying to prove the Bible to be false. I pray that you will find that you were all wrong before it everlasting too late.
Paula Jones <Bromley813@aol.com>
Conyers, Ga USA - Tuesday, May 18, 1999 at 18:30:37 (MDT)
Hello. I am a mother of three children, all of which I have been bringing up to be critical thinkers. My oldest (son), Anthony, questions the existence of a higher deity. He has not ever concealed this at his school and has often debated with students his age. (16) The fact that he does this openly and (usually) without aggression or maliciousness. He does like to suggest ideas that might make his friends think about their orientation.
The problem is that one day months back, my son was carrying his drawings of various situations and people and his skepticism of a god. He was walking alone to the cafeteria with a paper he had just folded up. The assistant principal, who happens to be very "christian", told him to give her the paper. Anthony gave her the paper that had a symbol of a band who writes songs that question the existence of a god. They are not "cultish", nor do they worship a satan. Well, the assistant principal, principal and dean RPC'd my son for what they termed "amoral behavior". In the interview the dean had with my son, she wmade notes regarding his atheism. He told her that he did not believe in a god and that occasionally he reads from the Atheism Web Page. (I have seen this information which is not extreme in format at all.) Anyway, when I went into the meeting required to get my son back in school, the three of them were there, and referred to him as "anti-christ", "vulgar", and "amoral", and offensive. The assistant principal said he offended her religious beliefs! So, I guess what I would like to see are court cases that have been won that have upheld the "other side", or actually, another view-questioning a traditional, christianity stance. I have requested that this RPC be stricken from Anthony's file with a negative response. This dean and assistant principal have perpetuated a negative relationship with my son all year long because of it. Several conflicts and a few RPCs. What is the correct legal path to take-I have little money-I am a single mom and a student myself.Carolyn Hoeger (Hager) < carolyn199@go.com>
Boulder City, NV USA - Sunday, May 16, 1999 at 15:50:08 (MDT)Editor's Note:
As soon as this letter arrived, we responded to Ms. Hoeger and suggested that she contact her local chapter of the ACLU for additional help.
Hi, I'm a Jesus Freak. I just got one and only one question... Why do you think that Knowledge precedes faith??? I used to be like all of you, thinking that science was God, and I wondered why couldn't God just be a symbolic force for everyone so that we could all get along.
Guess what.
In my own pursuit of knowledge, I found it!
I found out that I couldn't get to heaven on my own.
I found out that absolute truth existed, even though I couldn't see it.
I found out that darkness and light were not just night and day.
The problem was, I thought I could figure it all out.
I was driven insane for a quite some time.
Until I gave up and said...
"Jesus help me".
And God revealed (Him/Her) Self to me. I took the leap of faith that we see in Indian Jones and the Last Crusade, and God gave me sure footing. I experienced eternity and experienced a Love that only could come from OTHER.
Is the Bible inerrant? no.
Is the Bible the Word of God? no.
The Bible points to the Word. (John 1:1; 1:12)
Jesus.
I can't prove this to you. I can't make you believe it. I can't force you to believe it. You can only find out about it yourself. Each person has to take the leap of faith on their own. And believe me, God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are definately not boring!!!! In fact, it's the adventure of a lifetime!Ed Jeffcoat <ed@esa-online.org >
Master of Divinity student at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Philadelphia, PA USA - Thursday, May 13, 1999 at 17:24:49 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
I do thank you Ed for an honest message that doesn't try to demonize us for our views. I do want to point out, however, that things are not as easy as you make them out to be. You see, many of us who run the shop here, as well as hundreds of our readers, were born-again Christians who had taken the leap of faith and lived active lives as evangelical, dynamic believers. You have succumbed to the romantic evangelical myth that the "lost" are spiritually hungry and can be brought around to Jesus with a gentle nudge. However, some of us were active evangelical preachers for many decades before deconverting. Others of us grew up as devout Catholics and Jews. Of course, many never believed in God in the first place. But what we all have in common is that we realize that faith is not for us. It may work for you but there are as many ways of living and of viewing the world as there are people in it. Now there are some very arrogant folks out there who try to dismiss those of us who were former believers, saying we were not "really" Christians or not "really" born-again. (As if they knew the psychological state and life-path of someone whom they've never even met!) But the truth is there are thousands of us who were Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and any other number of faiths, who for various reasons have abandoned those faiths in order to travel down a different path. The sooner we all realize that there is no one way to live, the better off we will be as a people. Religious intolerance breeds contempt.
Just a couple of days ago after almost a year of doubting, I decided to leave the Christian faith, in particular the whole "fundamentalist-evangelical" movement. I am very happy about my decision and I feel that I have done the right thing. My problem is that much of the reason I don't believe anymore is because I simply can't accept the "Truth" of the Christian faith anymore. I have done some reading here on site, but mostly, I don't believe because it doesn't make sense to me anymore -- I've thought about it quite a bit.
Should I continue to try and keep an open mind about things and entertain the posiblity that it might be true? If so, how do you do that? I know that my Christian friends are going to be asking me a million questions about why I don't believe anymore and I'm sure they're going to accuse me of making a decision without reseaching it enough and looking at concrete evidence. When do you guys think it's "too soon" to make a decsion, or is there ever a bad time? And what kind of evidence is valid enough to leave a certain faith?Amie Ford <amiern@megsinet.net >
Ferguson, MO USA - Tuesday, May 04, 1999 at 07:10:05 (MDT)
The Jehovah's Witness's interpretation of the Bible is the most sensible I have ever heard. [See Mark Vuletic's essay. -Ed.] Who cares if they changed some of them, they can change just like other people. They are the nicest religious group I have ever known as far as trying to live their lives the right way. No, I am not a Witness, I don't have the self dicipline to become one, but I have read lots of their literature and I agree with the New Earth theory, because it does say that in the bible. What I really like about JWs is the fact they don't go around telling people they are all going to heaven like so many other relgious groups. Any idiot who reads the bible can see how many people are to be in heaven. Therefore, eternal life will be on the new earth for many.
lynn <lgranger@webtv.net>
Memphis, TNn USA - Wednesday, May 12, 1999 at 15:18:51 (MDT)
I just wanted to make a comment about Theodore Drange's premises in the ANB argument. The entire thing makes sense if you first are assuming that for all people to believe in set P is the most important thing for God. I don't think that is the case. I believe the actual struggle for answers and the eventual realization of set P is more important to God than simply believing set P. Obviously if God wanted to only have people believe set P he could plant the ideas of that set into people's brains using any of the ways you mentioned. But it is not only that we believe set P that God wants. All the pain and frustration of searching contributes to the feeling of triumph when you discover any truth.
Also, the experience of personally sharing set P with someone else is something I enjoy! It would be a dull existence if we simply knew everything and so did everyone else. the fun is gaining and sharing truths that we find in our lives. I think we've been given an incredible gift in the fact that we must have faith and doubts and struggle to know the truth.
Think about it like this: the people that create the SAT's would love for everyone that takes it to get a 1600. but to automatically give them all the 1600 would provide no pleasure at all! it is in the fact that the students try and fail and suceed and experience the test that the victories actually bring pleasure.
John Symonds < seeker_70@hotmail.com>
USA - Tuesday, May 11, 1999 at 00:45:58 (MDT)Author's Response:
No, ANB definitely does not assume that all that God wants is to bring about situation S. Its very wording, bringing in A3 as a separate premise beyond A2, shows that. As for people hitting upon the truth of the gospel message on their own, without any evidence for it whatever, that really makes no sense. I haven't a clue what you might be suggesting there. The world's population is about 2/3 non-Christian. My explanation for that fact is that the Christian God does not exist. What's yours? If the Christian God exists, why does he permit it?
The "Why should god be intelligent?" essay main thesis seemed to be irrelevant - wouldn't a deity using brute force method by analyzing all possible responses (and then responses to that etc etc etc) and finally deciding on the best action be exerting some sort of intelligence? I mean I consider learning from mistakes intelligence and this hypothetical God could merely choose whatever does not make mistakes in her/his/its mind. Also if a God had those attributes what would be the point of creating anything (as it would know everything that would happen instantaneously). I just realized I'm arguing atheistic arguments to fellow nontheists so I'll stop now.
james ledoux < mutual_aid@earthling.net>
nh USA - Monday, May 10, 1999 at 15:51:18 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
Oh I don't know, I found Ricardo's thesis to be quite clever actually. If I understand your objection, you want to say that an omniscient being could run every conceivable act in its mind, to include all of the mistakes, and merely choose to actualize only those propositions which fit its goals and are not mistaken. But I think the point of Ricardo's piece is that even the most sophisticated supercomputer that could handle an infinite number of tasks, would still not be intelligent. One important criterion of intelligence is that mistakes must be made in order to judge the consequences of those mistakes and, more importantly, to learn from them. To compute an infinite number of tasks by brute force is not to learn anything. Intelligence entails an evolved (and evolving) brain that has adapted to its environment.
I love you guys. You are so adamant about there not being God that you are forced to speak about Him all of the time. This is why I love atheists. What you purport not to believe you are consumed with. But that is ok because God has placed in us a hunger for communion with Him.
Yes, we must have open minds but please also remember to have an open heart. God is very real. I would hate for you to understand that after your deaths and then see all that you missed out on during your short, temporal existence. It is not only the everlasting life that Jesus spoke about when he said, "I have come to give you life that you might live it more abundantly." He was referring also to this earthly life, as short as it is and with all the problems it passes our way. True peace is found in his embrace. Accept Him as not only Saviour but as Lord of your lives and you will begin a tranformation that you would never have dreamed possible. Life will not magically become great in the earthly sense, but you will discover His plan for your life. The great thing is that it has everlasting implications. We are not here by accident. The universe speaks to too much creativity and order for that.
Look at the majesty of the earth the heavens and the human being him/herself. EVRYTHING is in such order. Was it an accident? Why is earth so incredibly unique compared to everything else we have observed thus far in the universe? What is the one unique characteistic of humans over the other plants and animals? I would argue CREATIVITY. It is creativity because we have a creative God. Animals can communicate, feel, breed, and do most of what we can but they cannot create. This is what sets us apart and this is why God created us in His image. each one of us has the "Imago Dei" in us. That is, the stamp or image of God is in us. We are not gods, but His likeness is in us and that makes us so very special.
So, I see all of this chatter about keeping up with Falwell and the "religious right". Well, they are just feeling under assault by types like you so give them some room to be citizens of this great nation and exercise their rights as citizens just as you are doing on this website.
I believe that we Christians have nothing to fear since He has told us: "I have not given you a spirit of fear but one of boldness" A good debate is always healthy. Just respect others very deep-seated faith and we will respect yours.
Karl Dalstad <kdalstad@cisco.com >
Clayton, NC USA - Monday, May 10, 1999 at 12:31:00 (MDT)
On your list of non-theistic choices no where does it list Existentialisim. Is that because you consider it philosophy more than a life style?
Charles R. Walsmith < CRWalsmith@aol.com>
Bellevue, Wa. USA - Sunday, May 09, 1999 at 19:52:47 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
We have not yet acquired good papers on existentialism to place in the library. As someone who considers himself an existentialist, I think it is a valid philosophical system. I would use the word "lifestyle" to refer to anything having to do with the direct living of life--the actions in which one is engaged, the choices made, aesthetics, tastes, and so on. Philosophy, especially ethics, is a sort of "meta-lifestyle" since it contains the guiding principles on how to live a good life.
I can only say that i do not support laws that would protect gays from discrimination. I think they have the right to be immoral if they want, this is a free country. I've served 16 years in the military to keep it that way. However just as it is ok for gays to do what they do it must also be ok if a business owner doesn't want to serve gays they should have that right.
Tom Lowe <tomsusan@simflex.com >
Elizabeth city , nc USA - Saturday, May 08, 1999 at 14:07:25 (MDT)
I am writing in response to an editorial printed in the Dallas Morning News on 5/8/99 by Tim Gorski. Mr. Gorski objects to the National Day of Prayer on the basis of its violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" in the First Amendment. While I have no intention of arguing technicallities of the law, I would, however, like to state that it is my opinion that this declaration of a National Day of Prayer in no way ordains that any person is required to observe any particular religion. No one is required to pray. No one is required to do anything by the declaration and, in fact, no one is even given any extra liberties to observe this day of prayer. I don't think that violates the First Amendment according to the letter of the law and certainly not in the spirit. Your objection to the declaration rests on your interpretation of the Constitution and people have been interpretting and misinterpretting that doccument for centruies.
Let me close by saying that I do believe in the God of the Bible and in the Lord Jesus Christ. I am also glad that I live in a country that allows you to publicly state that you do not. However, the same right that allows you to state those beliefs allows me to publicly state mine. The big difference is that if I am wrong about my beliefs, I have lost nothing and gained a life that was dramatically changed from hopelessness and despair to one that had purpose and direction. If you are wrong about your beliefs . . . may the Lord have mercy on your soul.
Richard Mitchell
USA - Saturday, May 08, 1999 at 07:55:16 (MDT)
Recently a National Day of Prayer was celebrated by some, including mayors, police officers, firefighters, and others. It was first declared in 1775 and was resurrected in 1988 to be observed on the first Thursday in May.
Has there or has anyone instigated a National Day of Thinking? It would be nice to remind everyone the power of thinking and acting on one's ideas (and ideals). It would be nice if people were more critical and questioned cultural (religion, laws, institutions...)dogmas and practices. It would be nice to think about ways to prevent atrocities (rape, murder, and mayhem) and to perpetuate a culture that values thinking, diversity, and equity.
Sharon Hushka < sharynh@earthlink.net>
USA - Friday, May 07, 1999 at 16:03:35 (MDT)
I was looking over your past updates, having just found the site, and stumbled upon the pro-life/pro-choice debate. [See the January 1999 issue of ii. -Ed.] The problem with this as with most por-life/pro-choice debates is that they are arguing about the wrong thing. I read a paper written by a woman named Thompsom(maybe, it has been almost a year and I don't have it in front of me), that made some excellent points about the whole abortion debate. What I got out of it, and if I am wrong I apologize to her, is that even if everyone agreed that at the time of conception a new human being was formed, it would still not be wrong to have an abortion. Pro-life advocates are saying that one human being(the child) has a right to use the body of another human being(the mother) for the sole purpose of staying alive. Surely thay cannot believe that. If that were the case, then anyone that needed a life saving transplant of some kind would be entirely within their rights to force another person to give up whatever organ they needed. Whether that person wanted to or not. Obviously in the case of a heart transplant no one would say that a person had a right to another's heart. But what about a kidney or bone marrow, both of with can be given up with minimal risk. Do pro-life advocates think the state should make law requiring people to register as bone marrow donors, and then to require that they undergo the operation if a match is found. I think we all know the answer to that.
Anyway, great site by the way.
Christopher K Smith < smithck@mindspring.com>
Auburn, AL USA - Tuesday, May 04, 1999 at 12:31:31 (MDT)
In his article challenging the idea that God is intelligent, Ricardo Aler Mur refers to God as "she". Is this intended as a neuter pronoun, or does Mur believe God to be female?
Kenji <budgiefan1@aol.com>
USA - Sunday, May 02, 1999 at 23:00:55 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
When I edit the newsletter I usually make sure that the author remains consistent in his or her use of pronouns when referring to a god, a group of gods, or a particular god. Aler used only one pronoun so I left it alone. To use the English third-person "it" seems awkward when referring to a god or God, but ironically it might be the most accurate way to speak of a being whom believers consider sexless, transcendent, and wholly other. In fact, for precisely this reason Jews never use pronouns to avoid the blasphemy of bringing God down to the human level. But since God is personified as a father-figure to many Christians, most prefer to anthropomorphize God by using masculine pronouns (he and him) or the respectful (He and Him). Feminists have pointed out that Christians do not believe God to be male and so use the pronoun "she" as a tongue-in-cheek reminder of that fact. (I find it fascinating that many theists howl at the use of "she", suggesting that they consider God to be some sort of superman.) I do object to the nonbeliever's childish use of "god" rather than "God" when the word is used as a proper name. All proper names like "Mary", "Joseph", and "God" should be title capitalized. Once, an atheist told me that since "god" did not exist it was wrong to use a title capital. Oh really? And should I say "excalibur" rather than "Excalibur" since the sword is legendary? Let's not politicize grammar, please. Believer and nonbeliever alike should capitalize all proper names and leave all general nouns in lower case.
I'm doing research on the Edison Ingersoll recording. At one time the web offered a site where you could hear this recording. I don't believe it is on the web anymore. I would like to bring it back, or have someone put it on their site. At one time a now defunct NYC record company made 45 records of Ingersoll's voice which was believe to have come from the cylinder that Edison made. If anybody has one, please e-mail me. RCA was proclaiming back in the fifties that this Ingersoll cylinder, believed to be made by Edison was the oldest recording in their vault which was kept in Camden, N.J. What happened to it remains a mystery. Can anyone help?
John Lile <johnlile@prodigy.net >
tx USA - Sunday, May 02, 1999 at 09:36:35 (MDT)
The replies that I have read seem to be for the most part written by highly educated well-read people. They hold many historical facts (or at least they try for accuracy) but, you seem to be missing the point. The fact is that whatever we believe, is just that, a belief. To argue or debate some obscure point is much like Bruce Lee's finger in Enter The Dragon. We watch the finger and miss what it points at. While I am not naive enough to think we should "all just get along", to try to place one line of thought over another or say that the only way to "salvation" is the "truth" is much like saying since apples are good for you you should eat only them. Believe what you will but, understand that your belief is true only for you. This is called perspective and without it there would be only one of us.
John Gerard <seasea720@AOL.com >
Phoenix, AZ USA - Saturday, May 01, 1999 at 22:51:11 (MDT)Internet Infidels' Response:
I share an affinity with your views John. However, philosophers have loved to debate things that seem totally irrelevant to the uninitiated since Thales and the Presocratics. We will no doubt argue for another 2,500 years!
Last updated: Tuesday, 13-Nov-2007 10:05:19 CST
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
