Infidels: Feedback : 2000 : April

From the Editor: Greetings humans!  You may have noticed that in mid-June of this year we radically changed the way feedback gets done.  Instead of a laborious editing process, we now use a live-action message board, with fewer rules and quicker response time (see the new feedback).  However, this left a backlog of three and a half months.  To catch up to speed and retire the old system, only very basic editing was done of these intervening months.

Dr. Smith's argument for atheism is, in a nutshell, that in creating the universe God's willing the universe to exist would have to be both a cause and a logically sufficient condition of the universe, which is impossible. My objection to this argument is, briefly, that causal relations are relations between "real world" entities, whereas logical relations are relations between propositions. By "real world" I mean to distinguish between a realm of existing material and/or spiritual entities (objects, events, states)--the "real world"--and the "ideal world," where ideas are located, including propositions.

A material event or state of affairs A exists in the real world. If A causes another material event or state of affairs B, this causation occurs wholly within the real world. This would hold also for spiritual beings, and their interactions with one another or the physical world: thus if God (a spiritual being) causes the universe to come into existence, this occurs completely within the real world.

Logical relations are relations between propositions. Propositions are not sentences expressed in the real world; they are ideas, inhabiting the ideal world. "p entails q" expresses a relation between two propositions; these propositions can be either true or false. Events in (or proper to) the real world, on the other hand, not being propositions, cannot have truth values. They merely exist or don't exist.

The fact that real world entities cannot logically entail other real world entities, or otherwise be in logical relation to them, may be obscured by our use of expressions such as "The fact that a body is in motion logically entails that it occupies space." The possibility of confusion here comes about because the word "fact" seems sometimes to refer to a real world entity and at other times to a true proposition. When "facts" are said to logically entail other "facts," we must understand "fact" to mean a true proposition, since logical relations occur between propositions, not physical entities.

When we say, "The divine volition that the big bang occurs causes the big bang to occur," we are saying that an event in the real world--a mental movement of the spiritual being known as God (somehow analogous to a willing movement of a physical brain)--causes the big bang to occur. This cause and effect scenario occurs wholly within the real world: God's willing and the big bang are both "real world" events.

However, when we say, "The divine volition that the big bang occurs logically entails that the big bang occurs," we are really saying that the proposition that God willed the big bang logically entails the proposition that the big bang occurs. The statement asserting a logical entailment is asserting a relation between two propositions.

Let V be the real world divine volition that the big bang occurs, P be the proposition that this volition occurs, B be the real world event of the big bang occurring, and O be the proposition that the big bang occurs. Then V causes B, and P (reputedly) logically entails O. But V does not logically entail B, nor does P cause O.

Thus the logical entailment and the causation are distinct, and there is no problem of either the proposition P or the real world event V being both a cause and a logically sufficient condition.

Michael Moore <mikem2u@yahoo.com>
IN USA - Sunday, April 30, 2000 at 22:50:40 (MDT)

Quentin Smith responds:

Thanks for taking the time to read my article and to give me your interesting feedback. The point of my argument is that the sentence, "the proposition P logically entails the proposition O", expresses a.proposition that is a negation of a theorem of extensional propositional logic. Thus, I do not understand how your remarks are relevant to my argument.

Best wishes,
Quentin.Smith

Joe Donaldson <jdonaldson@secc.org>
Louisville, KY USA - Sunday, April 30, 2000 at 11:52:01 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

The article in question was produced by Salon magazine, and the author has no affiliation with us.  You should direct your criticism to the Salon website.

Jan Van Newkirk < tritom@msn.com>
Port Orange, FL USA - Sunday, April 30, 2000 at 10:22:57 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

The article in question was produced by Salon magazine, and the author has no affiliation with us.  You should direct your criticism to the Salon website.

Being an atheist is taking a pretty self presumtious stand on reality. Here try this logical test. Do you know everything there is to possibly know in the universe? no? Do you know half of everything? Probably not, well lets assume that you know half of everything. Is it possible for God to be in that other half you don't know about? Logically, the answer is yes. You might think I'm presuming to much by appealing to you logic, I don't know.

Another thing you say in your article is how Christians are the reason and to blame for higher crime rate, drug use, murder rate and all the rest. I believe people who don't believe in God are responsible for the majority of this because if they don't have God to answer to then they can do as they please. As I have already stated earlier, every person has the tendency to do evil, that is part of who we are. When people refuse to believe there is a God, each individual becomes the god of their own universe. This, along with our already given evil nature causes such things as the Columbine shootings, the D.C. shootings, in fact all the shootings. If they knew and believed in God and that He will judge everyone (even you!) for their actions there might have been a different outcome. The world is a real messed up place with terrible stuff going on everyday. They are missing something.

Are they simple missing you philosophy of Atheism. That philosophy won't change how they behave because it is based with a reality that just accepts things as they are and moves on. The people are missing God, the only one that can bring order to a persons' soul. Christ is what is missing from people. Do you ever feel lonely, depressed, hopeless, directionless, ever feel like there is something more or something missing to your life? Or have you rationalized and refused any more things that can make sense out of life for you? Are you ready to deny that what millions upon millions of Christians have felt through the Holy Spirit working in their lives is a sham? Is everything that exists in this world and enormous uncomprehendable probability of some random occurance? How can you honestly deny that all these people who have peace, security, direction, purpose of life, reason for living, joy, and love are just wrong. Has the devil blinded your eyes so much to the truth that all you can do is rationalize and come up with something that lets you put away and accepts reality without examining why reality is like it is.

The Lord accepts people as they are and will change them but only if that is what the people want. I pray you would read this through again and examine through and through before reaching any conclusions. Your philosophy gives no future hope of any kind to a hopeless and lost world. Unfortunately, all to many people accept this world for how it is without seeking an alternative by which Christ died that we might be rid of that which weights us down and give the hope of reigning eternally with Him in heaven. For the one with a hardened heart to God's truth, however, eternal damnation in hell. You were told while you were alive, but refused to listen. I conclude with something written by Pascal

If....you gamble on Christ
Right-gain everything
Wrong-lose nothing

If....you gamble on no Christ
Right-gain nothing
Wrong-lose everthing

You are an intellegent and logical man, you decide how the odds look. Thanks for taking the time to read this. God Bless.

Josh Manier  < manjoss@bethel.edu>
St. Paul, MN USA - Saturday, April 29, 2000 at 22:54:53 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

See our sections on Pascal's Wager and our basic essays on the epistemic status of atheism.

Jeff Kindle <kindlefamily@yahoo.com>
Hamilton, NJ USA - Saturday, April 29, 2000 at 11:15:41 (MDT)

To make a point. I don't this to throw in a ceretain religious bent to my feedback. I have been a scholar of the Bible for at least 25 years now. In my research I came across a passage that floored me. I had been seeking the Authors (the ultimate author of the Bible, my observation, not meant to insult anyones' inteligence) opinion on abortion for years. I had not told nayone that I was doing this. I did not seek an outside influence. I did not go to preachers, pastors and theological teachers to find my answer. One day while reclining at a truck stop I came across a scripture in the old testament that stated the following (remember it was at least ten years ago that I came across this so I can't exactly remember the passage, it was in the old testament, in one of the major prophets) " I hate ethat practice that you have of pulling the unborn infant from the womb before its' time". Now I didn't say that to insult anyone or influence anyone. Just think about it for a minute. Not in a religious sense, not in a Biblical sense, not in a secular sense. Just think about it in the sense of an individual telling us what their opinion was of what was taking place.

Lets say that that person was the supreme being or God as some people call Him. If that is His opinion on what was going on, then I believe that ms. Roth was right on the money regarding going beyond resorting to violence to resolve our problems. As she said, abortion is from a time long ago. It is uncivilized, not enlightened, not mature, not grown up, not responsible behavior. Abortion is the quick way out of a touchy situation. It is the microwave solution to a tremendous impending burden. If it is to be considered a burden in the first place to love and care for a child. Abortion. Does "throw in the towel" come to mind when you hear the word abortion.

Mankind has been on the planet now for at least 50,000 years, give or take a million years. 50,000 years and our solution to a pregnancy that may or may not be in the best interest of the child bearing being is an act of violence, an act of cowardice, an act of running away. 50,000 years! And all we can do is reach inside the mother, rip the other person apart and say we are civilized. Say we are advanced and that we live in modern times. Modern times implies advanced, mature, responsible, enlightened, intelligent and experienced.

Abortion is it moral? Is it right or wrong? I don't think it has to do with any of those issues. I think it has to do with mankinds overall maturity on a gargantuan scale. Abortion, the ongoing practice of it in mankind proves one thing, we have yet to figure out how to solve our problems in such a way that all parties involved win and none of those parties have to sacrifice itself for the other parties good and well being. That is what abortion is about. One life having to give up itself so that another one can have what that life sacrificed for it. Mature, advanced, modern? I think not. Selfish, lazy, selfish, lazy, selfish, lazy. Abortion is a perfect picture of just how advanced and mature mankind is after 50,000 years or more. How long will our children continue to have to give their lives in order for humanity to figure out how to grow up once and for all!

Respectfully,

R. Howard Cameron  <rhcameron@hotmail.com >
Gresham, Or. USA - Friday, April 28, 2000 at 22:46:14 (MDT)

Richard Carrier responds:

First, though I do not doubt that abortion has long been practiced for thousands of years, I am unaware of where that Bible Verse you cite is to be found.  Please give me a citation.  Second, abortion is no more immature, selfish, or lazy than contraception, innoculation, and, indeed, microwave ovens.  By your reasoning, an appendectomy is "an act of violence, an act of cowardice, an act of running away" from pain and possible death, and a hysterectomy is "an act of violence, an act of cowardice, an act of running away" from one's ability to bear children.  Don't even get me started on circumcision.  As one patron rightly notes below, an embryo before organ-formation is no different than a tumor: it is comprised of unique human cells, is undifferentiated, growing, and feeding on the body.  Is cutting a tumor cowardly?  Lazy?  It is really "violent" in any real sense commonly used?  Are you being ridiculous?  I think so.

Elizabeth Benjamin  <Lizabertg@yahoo.com >
Johnson City, TN USA - Thursday, April 27, 2000 at 22:06:18 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

Death is not frightening.  We live because we love life, not because we fear death--for there is no sense in fearing the end of fear itself.  As Epicurus wrote, "Where we are, death is not.  Where death is, we are not."  There is nothing more comforting.  In contrast, you must fear that some trivial transgression, some minor error in your choice of sect or religion, some whim of God, will condemn you eternally to Hell.  For you can never know for certain that you will receive Heaven.  You have much more to fear than the atheist.

My thoughts on this: I am a graduate student of fine art. Spent 4 years working with a master painter in a formal atelier. People who commissioned me to paint protraits for them or who bought landscapes from me used to always act so astonished by what I had done - and 9 out of 10 times would make some sort of comment like "where does the inspiration for a painting like that come from" or "you are so gifted"...yada yada yada. Before I make this feedback sound like I am stroking myself here:-), what I found so silly about the over praise I got from "drawing challenged" individuals:-) - was that I just didn't see what I was doing as something incredible. Sure I had talent to paint a pretty picture, but that talent came from my interest in wanting to do so. I worked hard at learning how to produce creditable work - at observing - what it took to make a good piece of art. I studied the masters. I drew all the time. I looked at my fellow contemporaries work. The combination of all of those things is what - when I did sit down to paint - is what gave me a more sofisticated approach to painting - as well as increased my ability to paint inspring work or have an inspring idea about what to paint.

Like you mentioned in your article about coming up with an answer to a complicated physics problem - when you weren't even thinking about it, I too have come up with ideas about how to solve an issue at work etc while lying half asleep in bed. I honestly think that a lot of problem solving is done when we stop trying so hard to solve it and let our minds go on auto pilot. I think it is really true to that our brains know a lot more then we know it knows (did I say that right?:-). How many times has any of you reading this found yourselves 5 minutes down a busy city street before you realize that you haven't been paying attention to your driving? Some of my best driving is done while in this state:-). Auto pilot again, built on my driving experinces that are stored away in the old brain is my guess. This data gets pulled out when the signal to do so is presented (luckily for me and any passengers I may have in the car).

People who are the best problem solvers are usual well read people - as well as good listeners. Open mindedness is key to having an inspirational thought. My guess is that, if I, when I was a young art sutdent, had been more pig headed and chose only to study the art of the artist and people who drew just like me (which actually a lot of the other students at the atelier chose to do), then my art would lack the quality that it apprently had (by the way, I am no longer a practicing artist. I got inspired by reading tech magazines and am now a web app developer). I think the same is true for anyone in any field of work. One needs to listen, to observe, to really understand so much in order to be bestowed with a true moment of inspiration. It is not a spontaneous thing as much as it is an aquired gift as the result of being open minded.

Han <eee@eee.eee>
NA, USA - Thursday, April 27, 2000 at 12:17:29 (MDT)

Thanks for your time

John <snowent@bellsouth.net >
Nashville, TN USA - Thursday, April 27, 2000 at 08:35:00 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

If God wants to be believed, he knows just how to get what he wants.  See The Problem with Miracles.  God is not impotent, presumably, nor stupid or ignorant, and you say he wants X.  What, then, is stopping Him from getting X?  Not me.  Not only am I incapable of stopping a god, but God has always been and always will be welcome to show up at any time.  So far he is a no-show.  You would ask, instead, that I believe without evidence, that I trust "just because," in some guy who is too lazy or stubborn to talk to me himself.  That is neither wise, nor healthy, nor admirable.  See Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other?

I would like to point out a nit that I like to pick. From time to time, you have spoken of "lower" life forms, for example that humans have evolved from lower creatures. This terminology is generally avoided by evolutionary biologists, as we do not see ants, earthworms, or snails as being "lower" than humans. All species alive today have been evolving for the same amount of time, and are apparently well-adapted to their environment. Certainly, some species are more complex than others, and some are more similar to ancestral species, but "lower" implies a heirarchy that modern evolutionary biologists do not use.

I hope that this is useful to you. Keep up the good work!

Ian Ferguson <ian@vax2.concordia.ca>
Montreal, PQ Canada - Wednesday, April 26, 2000 at 14:59:00 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

This is indeed a nitpick, since the phrase is commonly understood and, when used in context, should not cause any more confusion than "sundown."  Does the latter make people suddenly think you are a geocentrist?  Should astronomers be irate about the use of terminology they themselves would never deign to employ?  Beware.  I think you will have no trouble catching biologists talking about "lower life forms" in casual conversation, even non-technical writings, just as astronomers no doubt talk about the sun going down without batting an eye.

I also want to note that there are many objections to God's commands. If God is all that he says to be, then who are we to judge the actions of God? If God is indeed God, then we are nothing compared to him, and we have no right or place to say whether his actions are just. One must remember that it is God who makes things just. He is the one who made the absolute truth, the absolute righteousness, and the absolute justice. We cannot deny him his place, or his title as omniscient and omnipotent(on the assumption that God embodies all of his qualities mentioned in the Bible).

I want to thank you for making this website. We need more people who are willing to stand up for what they believe in and accept criticism like this. Although I stand against any biblical contradictions, I thank you for not disrespecting the Bible, as I've seen so many others do.

Jason Excalibur <kjexxmbc@hotmail.com>
Grand Rapids, MI USA - Wednesday, April 26, 2000 at 12:58:34 (MDT)

Picture an early embryo -- an undifferentiated mass of rapidly growing, infiltrative cells that anywhere else in the body would be called a tumor. It has no organs, no brain, no senses, no feelings. What makes this tiny blob of cells a person? Religious types argue that it is a person because god has given it a soul. I would like to ask, what is Roth’s scientifically justified rationale for the same conclusion? I hope that she will address the philosophical issues in the coming rebuttals.

Leslie Muldoon <muldoonent1@home.com>
Portland, Oregon Health Sciences University USA - Wednesday, April 26, 2000 at 12:19:10 (MDT)

I have an addition to Donald Morgans absurdities:

If you follow the Biblical timeline for the life of Noah's grandfather Methusala (famous for being the longest living person in the Bible), you find that he and his son (Noah's father) would have been killed by the flood before their documented age at the [time] of their deaths. They are not documented as having been "saved" on the ark.

BRUCE BARON <BRUCE_BARON@HOTMAIL.COM>
DETROIT, MI USA - Wednesday, April 26, 2000 at 07:46:37 (MDT)

James Delaney <james.delaney2@sympatico.ca>
Oshawa , Canada - Monday, April 24, 2000 at 14:51:10 (MDT)

The earlier the better. Abortions should be done as soon as possible except where circumstances demand a decision later in gestation. Zygotes and blastulae, even though destined to develop into humans are not yet complete. Where is RU486? Its insane that morning after solutions are not pushed. That only forces later abortions--thank you religionists for delaying the abortion until the fetus is more developed and decisions are harder to make.  I do not like abortions, no one does that I know. So the earlier the abortion is done, the less chance of pain.

Michael Guilford <tchb@aol.com>
Fayetteville, NY USA - Monday, April 24, 2000 at 13:18:51 (MDT)

Gary Bonney <gbonney@mweb.co.za>
Cape Town, South Africa - Monday, April 24, 2000 at 11:43:31 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

Taoism had the same effect on me.  Does that, then, prove Taoism true?  Hardly.  Belief is powerful.  But the problem is that there is no necessary connection between belief and truth.  We can learn tools and arts for striving to bring beliefs more in line with truth, but if we do not learn these things, and if after learning we do not apply them, what our beliefs do to us will have little to do with reality outside of ourselves.  See Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other?

Abigail Urioste < Sweet-buttercup@usa.net>
Clovis , NM USA - Monday, April 24, 2000 at 11:17:26 (MDT)

Sincerely,
Tekkabehr  < tekkabehr@yahoo.com>
deep gap, nc USA - Monday, April 24, 2000 at 07:30:58 (MDT)

Don Morgan responds:

1.) I have listed Biblical "inconsistencies," not "contradictions."

2.) It is in the context of the Bible as a whole that its many inconsistencies become readily apparent.

3.) JN 1:1-3 states that the Word (Jesus) was with God, that the Word (Jesus) was God, that the same (Jesus) was with God, that all things were made by or through him. That Jesus is the Word of JN 1:3-3 is made clear in JN 1:14. (Study of almost any Christian commentary or study Bible will confirm this.)

Jack Webb <macjazz@bigfoot.com>
Springfield, Va USA - Sunday, April 23, 2000 at 20:47:45 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

You should pick a more appropriate analogy.  Take farming.  There is a best way and a worst way to farm potatoes.  The rules for farming have nothing to do with God, but everything to do with the way the universe just happens to be.  So it is with ethics.  On what morality means to me, and thus all related terms, see my discussion at the opening of the Abortion Debate, and then also examine Does the Christian Theism Advocated by J.P. Moreland Provide a Better Reason to be Moral than Secular Humanism?  While you are at it, re-read the very essay of mine you are replying to: especially the last section "The Ethics of Ethics."  You should also consult the variety of problems your own argument faces, as detailed in our section on the Moral Argument and Divine Command Theory.

Jesus still loves you folks. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jeff Buckner
P.S.- He is risen indeed.
<spotsie@shtc.net>
cheraw, sc USA - Sunday, April 23, 2000 at 18:44:17 (MDT)

Chris Stafford <castafford@juno.com >
USA - Sunday, April 23, 2000 at 18:26:43 (MDT)

Jesus Christ is real. He loves you. You, like me and everyone else, have done wrong things in life. Things that the Lord disapproves of, and you know that. Sin has entered the lives of everyone, including you. Please consider that when you die, the God who created you, who loves you and seeks your communion with him, will see that sin and be unable to accept you, because his holy nature demands perfection.

Jesus, the Son of God, died as a sacrificial payment for your sin. By accepting his payment, your sin is removed, and your soul is clean. In this way you can gain the ability to present yourself blameless to God after you pass from this earth. Only then can the Lord welcome you with open arms as he so wishes to do.

I know, I know. You don't worry these things because you don't think that the God I am talking about even exists. I will tell you a secret. I didn't know he existed until I had faith that he did. Now, his presence fills my life. Please do not turn away his gift. Please share in the joy of Christ. I hope I see you in heaven.

Joseph Styons <styons@isaac.net>
Wilmington, NC USA - Saturday, April 22, 2000 at 02:00:30 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

Jesus Christ is not alive, so he can't do much loving of anyone, sadly.  The solution for sin is self-understanding and understanding of the world and others.  When we die all our problems end without a hitch, but life remains glorious and worthy of our love.  You attribute to your God a profound impotence, a feebleness not even possessed by ordinary humans.   Why then should we admire a being who is incapable of speaking plainly, incapable of teaching his children competently and successfully and safely, incapable of accepting the very imperfections he put in us?  You're religion makes no sense, my friend.  I'm sorry for it, but that's the way it is.

God Cannot Be Tempted

James 1:13 says, "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." Looking at the context, we see that the statement is not merely "God cannot be tempted," but "God cannot be tempted by evil." In other words, God cannot be enticed to sin (Greek apeir sts). James 1:13 affirms that God cannot sin, but is completely holy and good.

God Can Be Tempted

When Deuteronomy 6:16 warns us against "tempting God," the context refers on the one hand to testing the Israelites'faithfulness and, on the other hand, to testing God's righteous judgment. Paraphrased, the passage means, "Don't test
God's righteous judgment by worship-ping idols unless you are willing to be wiped off the face of the earth" (v. 15).

The reconciliation of the two statements? God cannot be enticed to sin; he is holy and good. God's consistent, holy, good reaction to idolatry is righteous judgment. One should not "test" God's character by sinning, since God will "pass the test" of righteousness and punish the sinner (see also Jeremiah 18:7-10).

Can Jesus Be God and Be Tempted?

Jesus is God and so he cannot be tempted in the sense that he cannot be enticed to sin, but he can be tempted in the sense that he can be tested, even with the evil lures of Satan (Matthew 4), and found to be true to his character. This is
the context of Hebrews 4:15, which says, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted (peiraz ) in all things as we are, yet without sin."

Jesus was tested by Satan's enticements concerning his obedience to the Father and his commitment to his messianic mission, yet he did not succumb to the temptation. (A related issue concerns the dynamics between Christ's human and
divine natures, under the subjection of his one divine person. See The Impeccable Christ by W. E. Best, Zondervan, 1971).

Walt Wooden <cwwooden@mindspirng.com>
USA - Saturday, April 22, 2000 at 00:03:05 (MDT)

Very interesting site -- well thought out.

I was wondering -- do you folks every spend time on any of the other so-called "religious" writings of the world? Do you ever spend any effort on examining the claims of, for example, the Koran, the Bhagvad-Gita, or the Taoist writings?

My impression from your site is that to be "atheist," you really have to be anti-Judeo-Christian.

Is this true, or not?

Tim Whittington < whit@workmail.com>
USA - Friday, April 21, 2000 at 15:56:24 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

Have to be?  No.  By definition, an atheist doesn't believe in any of it.  But we don't have any Hindus banging on our doors or writing books about how evil we are.  And many arguments against the existence of God are universal--they are not specific to Judaic-Christian conceptions.

All of the time spent arguing against religion, christianity, catholicism, right to life, etc.....

....would it not be so less noble or idleiatic to simply live and perform in the service of mankind? Are we so self-centered and focused upon our own desire to "win the ulimate argument" (which we probably will never sumize a decent answer until we are dead!) that we must strive to dash the beliefs (or for those who prefer: superstitions) of a people who are merely attempting to follow some basic guidelines in life that are not at all intended to harm their fellow man?

Simply love one another!

art breaux <breaux@silverlink.net>
Poulsbo, WA USA - Friday, April 21, 2000 at 00:00:39 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

Harmless?  Not last I checked.  Religion is sadly all too often a cause of harm.  Besides the fact that education and enlightenment is a service to mankind, why do you arrogantly assume we are not involved in other, greater services to mankind?  This isn't my day job, you know.

Matt <reotwo@gvi.net>
kansas city, mo USA - Thursday, April 20, 2000 at 14:02:48 (MDT)

Matt <reotwo@gvi.net>
Kansas City, MO USA - Thursday, April 20, 2000 at 13:28:15 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

"Religion has always saught after peace"?  Read up on history, please.

Don Murphy < murphy@myavista.com>
Billings, MT USA - Thursday, April 20, 2000 at 13:15:46 (MDT)

Don Morgan responds:

It is precisely because I am open-minded that I was able to eventually see the inconsistencies and absurdities in both the Bible and in Christian doctrine while I was still a Christian. It is the Christian who cannot see the absurdities and inconsistencies in the Bible and/or in Christian doctrine who needs to be open-minded and who needs to be willing to be teachable.

Dan Lewandowski <mostly.harmless@wf.net>
wichita Falls, tx USA - Thursday, April 20, 2000 at 12:50:44 (MDT)

Love through Christ,
Jessica Phelps < Curlysuejmp@juno.com>
Paris, KY USA - Wednesday, April 19, 2000 at 11:20:32 (MDT)

John Dunlap < fartherfromgod@aol.com>
Des Moines, IA USA - Wednesday, April 19, 2000 at 10:48:14 (MDT)

Think about it...
Maxine Shannon <maxine@apexdesign.com>
The Woodlands, TX USA - Wednesday, April 19, 2000 at 00:14:41 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

Don't be so droll.  See our section on Pascal's Wager.

Stephen Wright <swright243@rcn.com>
Worcester, MA USA - Monday, April 17, 2000 at 10:24:08 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

I don't know of any.  But some secularist readers have recommended it.  See our Bookstore Listing.  You can go from there to see what customers at Amazon have said, if anything.

I am no physicist; I am a musician with a good general science background. It is my understanding that many physicists view the experience of the passage of time as an inherently psychological, rather than physical phenomenon. If this is so, then all temporal experience is contained within the personality (whatever THAT is), rather than the other way around. This would of course imply survival. Certainly, the fact that positrons can be viewed either as positively charged electrons moving forward in time, or as negatively charged electrons moving backward in time, keeps the door for survival open at least a crack.

Mr. Augustine maintains that there is no good evidence for psi phenomena, as studied in the parapsychological labs. He should consult the web page of Jessica Utts. (I don't have the Url handy, and frankly I think if you're interested you can find it yourself.) Jessica Utts is the head of the Statistics department at UCAL Davis. She was the statistician who analyzed the Remote Viewing experiments at SRI for the CIA's Project Stargate. Professor Utts went on record as saying that the psi effect was real and statistically significant. Her colleague psychology professor Ray Hyman of the University of Oregon disagreed with her analysis. (He told me personally that the study suffered from a "GIGO" problem.) When the story broke nationally, most media emphasized Hyman's take on the issue. NPR did not even mention Utts by name, but they did interview Hyman. Now, as I metnioned, I am not a scientist, but since the significance of the SRI data ultimately comes down to statistical analysis, I am inclined to go with Utts' take on it. I do not deny that this is in keeping with my own personal inclinations, but then, don't we all?

Sincerely,

Gordon Kaswell < samantha@efn.org>
Eugene, OR USA - Monday, April 17, 2000 at 02:03:34 (MDT)

Perhaps Pfalzner is suggesting that the money spent on SETI would be better spent elsewhere, in light of its remote chance of success. Maybe this is true, and it may be that SETI has an almost religious role in the lives of its proponents (Cf. Michael Shermer, "The Measure of a Life: Carl Sagan and the Science of Biography", Skeptic Vol. 7 No. 4). Nonetheless, I think SETI can have some benefitial effects even if it is ultimately unsuccessful: people are lead to contemplate our place in the universe and perhaps influenced in a small way to give up the all-to-human conceit that we are somehow of special importance, that it all in some sense revolves around us. Moreover, SETI is a scientific enterprise, and a hopeful one, and perhaps its presence encourages more rational solutions to our problems. I, for one, do find something sublime in the mission of SETI, and I am prone to think it a quest worthy of funding, although I admit this does not add up to a water-tight argument in its favor.

Lastly, Pfalzner seems to suggest that proponents of SETI have looked outside humanity for solutions to our problems, or that SETI encourages such a view. I wish he had been more specific; I do not know of any evidence to back this up. Certainly Carl Sagan, the most visible supporter of SETI, thought no such thing, and it was an integral part of his vision that humankind must face up to and solve its own problems.

Shawn Dawson < sl.dawson@sk.sympatico.ca>
Regina, SK Canada - Monday, April 17, 2000 at 01:18:04 (MDT)

This author's trust in formal logic shows the faith of an evangelical! Assumes that symbolic logic is either applicable to or expressive of the world in an ojective manner. Define 'God' - the definition of omnipotence is muddled and, anyhow, what is the relation ( attribution, participation etc. etc.) of 'omnipotence' to 'God' - the only theologians who held such a view of God were, if I remember correctly, the Ash'arite school and, later, Al-Ghazali ( arguments arising out of the unified idea of God which Kalam philosophers in general held to) ; Aquinas, Scotus et al never held the identity of the attribute with God. Define 'cause' - have you read Hume? Cavalier play with the principal of non-contradiction: p has a disputable definition, ergo.

Two Basic errors: the conclusion, which only goes to 'prove' a form of non-immanentist concept of God somewhat reminiscent of Lucretius and, in a different manner, Newton; and a muddled ( and quite out of date) idea of causality.

Keep on it!!

ColinGHughes <cgh21@hermes.ac.cam.uk>
Cambridge, UK - Sunday, April 16, 2000 at 21:47:01 (MDT)

Robin Artisson < nathor@spacemoose.com>
Dallas, TX USA - Sunday, April 16, 2000 at 15:51:23 (MDT)

Aaron <mxpxman1098@aol.com>
Dayton, OH USA - Sunday, April 16, 2000 at 15:24:11 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

We are.  See Is "Freethinker" Synonymous with Nontheist? and Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other?.  I myself have dedicated fifteen years of my life exploring and examining the merits of numerous world religions.  I found all to be ultimately false, though each had some contact with a secular truth.

My letter has to do with J.J. Lowder's essay "McDowell's Evidence for Jesus - Is It Reliable?" The subject of my interest is Lucian and his references to Jesus. From a Christian apologetics' website, which seems to be a rebuttal to this essay, I learnt the following:

that he valued historical accuracy and disparaged making any up;
was well-educated, well-traveled, and a major literary figure of his time;
therefore, he would have researched and known whether or not Jesus was a fiction;
and therefore, would have definitely lampooned the Christians' belief in him.

To support the above-mentioned conclusions, the apologists claim that Lucian acknowledged the existence of Jesus in Lucian's play "The Passing of Peregrinus", and would have ridiculed the belief in Jesus if he had thought that Jesus was a fiction. According to the play, Peregrinus was a Cynic philosopher who became a Christian and reverted back to Cynicism. There are two references to Jesus: (1) "next after that other, to be sure, whom they (the Christians) still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult to the world." (2) "Then, too, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers...after they have thrown over and denied the gods of Greece and have done reverence to that crucified sophist himself and live according to his laws."

The whole story (if I got it right) is a satire on how Peregrinus became a Christian and ended up becoming one of their leaders and was revered as a god, lawgiver, and protector next to Jesus. Now, obviously the Christians never took anyone else other than Christ to be their god, and it is obvious that Lucian is lampooning the Christians for their simplicity and gullibility. I do not see for what reason other than for making Peregrinus into a god. What was the point of Lucian telling this kind of a story? I think it may be because that Lucian is lampooning the Christians for having made Jesus into a god.

Frankly, I do not understand the apologists' claim that, since Lucian believed Jesus to have existed, this is good indication that Jesus actually existed. Here are my questions:

(1) Did Lucian actually research the story of Jesus and found it to be true? If he did, why is it only mentioned in a satire? Did he take it seriously enough to confirm it? Did he live up to his own standards in reporting accurate history?

(2) If Lucian did not rely solely on Christian sources for Jesus, then what other sources did he rely on? Was the story of Jesus also transmitted by other than Christians? Which non-Christian actually believed the story of Jesus, the crucifixion and resurrection to be true and still remained a non-Christian to have corroborated the Gospel story?

(3) Regarding that many Jews and their leaders had been crucified by the Romans, (and assuming this was a well-known fact in Lucian's time), could not Lucian have simply assumed that Jesus must have been one of these Jews? Since the Christians definitely believed that this who Jesus was, could not the Romans of Lucian's time simply accepted this the Christian belief as a reasonable explanation for the origin of the Christian faith without being sceptical enough to check it out?

(4) Why is it that in none of the non-Christian sources purported to be evidence for Jesus - Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion - do we find a mention of the Resurrection? Some of them mention death, and even death by crucifixion, why is there no reference to the Resurrection or the Christian belief in it? Only in the Talmud do we find a reference, but the Resurrection is explained away as theft. It is obviously a response to the Christian claims. Why do not we find any such response in the other historians?

I would appreciate any help in answering these questions. Yours sincerely,

K. Ertuna <kertuna@hotmail.com>
Bangkok, Thailand - Sunday, April 16, 2000 at 08:41:42 (MDT)

Jeffery Jay Lowder responds:

Here are my answers to your questions:

• (1) There is no evidence that Lucian ever conducted much research on the historicity of Jesus. For all we know, Lucian may have relied upon Christian sources, common knowledge, or even an earlier pagan writer like Tacitus. Since Lucian never identifies his source(s), we'll never know!
• (2) There is no evidence of any person from antiquity believing that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead, and yet remaining a non-Christian. Indeed, it seems to me that anyone who believes Jesus was resurrected from the dead is *by definition* a Christian. There is no extra-Biblical confirmation of the Resurrection.
• (3) Exactly.
• (4) Good question. I suspect it is because most non-Christians were not at all that interested in the Resurrection.

Brian Lenney < Dakrls@aol.com>
Perris, ca USA - Sunday, April 16, 2000 at 03:56:14 (MDT)

The Internet Infidels respond:

See our section on Pascal's Wager .

Is this avialable in print? As in a book? if so please let me know how to get this.

Thank you,

Khal Sweis <khaldoun@juno.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Saturday, April 15, 2000 at 23:52:14 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

We are considering a print version, and will advertise it at our site if we ever finish the Jury Project and secure the reprint copyrights, and also have the capital to run off a few thousand.

I've encountered you via an Alta Vista search using keywords "creator," "big bang," "god," "nature," "science". The letter titled "The "Big Bang" Argument for the Existence of God" was very well written and extremely well disciplined with regard to its persistant logical progression. The title of the paper however, when compared to the thesis, seems untruthfull. The thesis was more along the lines of "The Defensability of Aetheistic Scientific Logic with Respect to Modern Theroectical Cosmology. I think that it is important that scientists be absolutely dedicated to the truth. As old Al said "God does not play dice with men".

I believe(choose to think that is)that as humans we can't really think that well at all. Chimps with nukes is all we are. Well we certainly can't be free thinkers when the basis of our thought processes is absolutely reptillian. Observed truth is critical, but many simple, highly observable, properties in the universe of our lives, ie, love & altruism, are not explainable by scientific methodology. We can know very little about the sum total. We as a species are so guilty of believing we know so much. The great ocean (see Hubble Deep Field or human psychology) of truth still lays before us. It sure seems to me that an intellegent being wrote the math. By the way, atheism is a major factor in teenage suicide.

Roy King
Andrews, TX USA - Saturday, April 15, 2000 at 22:57:52 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

Your readiness to believe one myth ("atheism is a major factor in teenage suicide") only proves your inability to see through the myths of your religion.  The truth does not always consist of the way things seem to be.

In reading your site, it is clear that you are not a man of literature. Almost every thing you said about the Bible discriminating Christ on His own character and on your page about errors in the Bibel would be shown as not errors if you would apply simple literary rules. For instance, take the part you wrote about with Biblical inconsistencies. Your wrote that between EX 20:4 where you said that God prohibits the making of any graven images whatsoever and then EX 25:18 where God enjoins the making of two graven images.  Jewish culture, a graven image is a physical image that is given a level of being a god, or to stand in for God, (like when Aaron made the golden calf). The crafting of two angels to rest on the ark was not the making of graven images.

You alos have to take into account not only Jewish culture (the Bible is written almost completely by Jews to Jews), but you also have to take in to account that the English Bible is a translation and Hebrew/Greek words don't translate 100%. I would like to know why you are so much against God, or Biblical Christianity? Evolution puts man in the same category as animals, and when man is made to be nothing more than an animal, than all morals, all ethics, all standards of right and wrong goes out the window. Placing man as an animal opens the way for one man to kill another man without penalty. If man was truly an animal, and not created in the image of God, then why do we have punishment for right and wrong? Animals don't have that. I have asked many experts in their field (creationist and evolutionist alike) and they agree...animals do not have punishments like that.

I would like to have a reply. I am not trying to be rude, close-minded, nor a bigot but I am curious how man would willingly lower himself that way?

Thank you.
Earl Nida <griz4tanz@juno.com>
Lexington, NC USA - Saturday, April 15, 2000 at 22:34:47 (MDT)

Don Morgan responds:

It seems likely to me that one who was able to accurately discern who is and is not a "man of literature" would likely catch spelling errors such as "alos" and "Bibel." Be that as it may, I have made no claim to being a "man of literature." Nevertheless, it is precisely when one does apply simple literary rules to the Bible that one discovers some of the Bible's most glaring problems. One book which makes this clear--a book which I have read and highly recommend--is "The Historical Approach to the Bible," by Howard M. Teeple, Ph.D., former chair of the Dept. of Religion at West Virginia Wesleyan College.

With regard to the verses in question, EX 20:4 states: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." EX 25:18 states: "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat." Cherumbims of gold, "of beaten work," are a likeness of something which is allegedly in heaven. Regardless of Hebrew tradition as to what is and is not a graven image, there is an obvious inconsistency here in what the Bible itself says with regard to "likeness." It should also be kept in mind that, in antiquity, cherubim were often used as adornments for a king's throne; it is surprising, therefore, that they would be appropriate for the "mercy seat," the cover of the Ark of the Covenant itself, given the injunction against "any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or ... in the earth beneath." Further, that the Hebrew of these verses may not lend itself to exact translation is overshadowed by the consideration that were YHVH both omnipotent and omniscient (as is usually claimed), and were the Bible inspired by him (as is usually claimed)--he could have, should have, and would have seen to it that the authors and translators of those verses did a better job of it.

The subject of evolution has little or nothing to do with whether there is or is not an inconsistency between the two verses in question. Neither does belief or disbelief in creation nor belief or disbelief in evolution necessarily have anything to do with the ethicality of one's personal behavior. (For your information, I see problems with both belief systems.)

Finally, the so-called experts with whom you spoke are uninformed. Some animals other than man do have ethical standards and punishments for infractions. As an example, I read some time ago about the ethical system that common crows employ. Infractions involve a kind of trial where the offender is isolated in one tree by him/herself. The outcome of the "trial" is that the birds, including the offender, either fly off together--or the offender is killed by the other birds.

Don't ever attack someone's worthy cause without first talking with that person first. I know Josh will consider what you have to say. I hope for your sake and for the sake of those people who have read your page, you will go this route .... I think you will be the better for it.

Thankyou for taking the time to read my response. Peace.

Nicole <TisColee@aol.com>
Saturday, April 15, 2000 at 21:53:55 (MDT)

Jeffery Jay Lowder responds:

Josh McDowell claims that there is "evidence that demands a verdict" for Christianity. McDowell challenges skeptics to investigate his evidence. In fact, McDowell challenges skeptics to try to *refute* the resurrection! I once heard him say that he wished more people would try to refute the resurrection because he thought there would be more Christians! Given McDowell's bravado, I don't think McDowell or his fans have any basis for complaining when skeptics accept his challenge. We *have* investigated McDowell's evidence and found it lacking. Besides, we *have* tried contacting McDowell; our letters have gone unanswered.

"Even when we can agree on what we like or despise, it is extraordinarily difficult to decide whether religion or atheism has been a force for good or evil. With all the historical contingencies involved, it might not even be all that meaningful a question. It is no surprise this debate so often degenerates into comparing one side's Torquemadas with the other's Stalins. This gets nowhere; if we reply that humanists would never set up death camps, well, then Quakers never go on jihads."

Isaac Jones <isaac42@aol.com>
Corvallis, OR USA - Saturday, April 15, 2000 at 11:57:19 (MDT)

God knew your name before you entered your mothers' womb
He named every star that you see
He can give an accurate count at any time of the hairs on your head
You have been created, you do not belong to yourself

summary, i tell you the truth you will die just as i will die. in your existence and time on this planet you have neither the wisdom or the power to stop the course. half of your days on the earth are already spent. seek truth, gain wisdom, don't let it elude you. seek no advice from a man. you want the truth? read the holy scriptures matthew to revelation then genesis to malachi. if you can prove any of it false i will join your cause. you see 25% of the scriptures were prophetic, to continually give proof to men that they are true. in your study therafter read about everyother religion, philosophy, idea, etc. all can be proved false. your friend and servant of The Most High God mark

mark moore <lukemoore@aol/com>
buford, ga USA - Saturday, April 15, 2000 at 09:38:36 (MDT)

Yvonne Lemons <lemonsym@bp.com >
chicago, il USA - Thursday, April 13, 2000 at 13:00:57 (MDT)

Don Morgan responds:

1.) I am uncertain as to what it is that Ms. Lemons has in mind when she contends that my perception of Jesus' reaction to his parents is ridiculous, but I believe that almost any person could have been more careful about what he said and did so that what he said would be less likely to be perceived as inconsistent with what he did.

2.) MT 5:22 (ASV) states, "... every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire." Note that there is no "without cause" qualification in the ASV, RSV, NIV, DNT and most other versions as there is in the KJV. Why this difference? Because those words do not appear in the most reliable manuscripts and the consensus opinion is that those words do not likely appear in the original. But regardless, the clear inconsistency between what Jesus' words and his behavior can be seen in the inconsistency between his injunction against calling someone a fool and his subsequent behavior (MT 23:17 "You blind fools!).

3.) It matters not to my argument why it might have been that Jesus went to the Feast in secret after saying that he was not going. What matters is the inconsistency between his words and his actions. He allegedly said, "Let what you say be simply 'yes' or 'no'" (MT 5:37) yet he allegedly told his own brothers that he would not be going to the Feast--and then went secretly (JN 7:2-10).

4.) If Ms. Lemons contends that Jesus was perfect, that he was not a hypocrite, then she needs to address every point that I mentioned in my treatise (rather than a selective two or three).

Ryan <rjeivins77>
cedar rapids, ia USA - Wednesday, April 12, 2000 at 23:44:58 (MDT)

Also, I was talking with Dr. Hovind at one of his Creation Seminars. I am not a creationist. I think he is awful. I am a seventeen year old boy and am not a Christian. He said that one of the reasons that I fell away from God was because of PORNOGRAPHY. I am furious but cannot seem to make my points. His best point on me was this: Where did the genetic material that humans have come from? What is the process through evolution for gaining genetic material? We have more than bacteria. How did this happen? He says it hasn't. He's got to be wrong. Somebody please, please help me. Thanks.

Kevin Vallier <KVallier@aol.com>
Fairhope, AL USA - Wednesday, April 12, 2000 at 22:50:51 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

Get a good introductory book on Evolution.  I recommend Evolution by Ridley.  Almost all that genes do is reproduce and chain.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that something that naturally reproduces and chains is going to end up chaining to the things it reproduces and thereby grow in size.  Then add the frequent errors that occur in reproduction, and the impact of nature by killing and preserving, and you have the evolution of greater complexity in a nutshell.

But I was most taken with Edis' reminder that nonbelievers come of many stripes. Just as any two people of a particular religion may not automatically become friends, to be an atheist does not mean automatic compatibility with all other atheists. I share Edis' "vague hope for democratic socialism" for instance, and I could easily be more at odds with a righteous capitalist atheist than with a commonsense Methodist---or even an empathetic Catholic!

Now, if only I could train myself to be more understanding of people when I am actually confronted with blatant illogic or pious irrationalism. The truth of the matter is that this does tend to get me riled, especially when I see it negatively impact on the pursuit of real facts in the real world.

Also, since belief in religion of some kind is so prevalent, many people simply assume that ordinary figures of speech with some religious component are effectively 'neutral fillers' in our daily discourse. I disagree, and I usually find myself feeling compelled to distract an otherwise ordinary conversation with a comment such as (for example), "no, I don't believe that 'God only knows.'" This irritates a lot of people, but there it is.

Maybe the next time that I feel compelled in this way, I'll remember the essay by Edis. We are all in the same boat (for now, anyway), though it may be perceived as a “spaceship” by some or a “Noah’s Ark” by others.

Sincerely,

Jon Alexandr <JonAlexandr@aol.com >
Mill Valley, CA USA - Wednesday, April 12, 2000 at 18:30:06 (MDT)

larry malone <lmalone@ctonline.it>
pedara, it italy - Wednesday, April 12, 2000 at 11:33:37 (MDT)

Omikrom Seti <omikrom_seti@gnt.net>
Ft Walton Beach, Fl USA - Wednesday, April 12, 2000 at 06:20:12 (MDT)

Patrick Hickey <hickey.66@osu.edu>
USA - Wednesday, April 12, 2000 at 03:26:33 (MDT)

Internet Infidels Response:

We could not find the broken link you are asking about.  Try searching the words "boy scouts" using our site search engine.

Pedro Sans <PipeDream@poopooplatter >
USA - Tuesday, April 11, 2000 at 23:41:18 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

You need luck?  You must be a pretty bad shot.

Chad Gray <RavensClaw3@aol.com>
Cullman, AL USA - Monday, April 10, 2000 at 10:12:33 (MDT)

Mike <preachermike@hotmail.com>
Portland, OR USA - Monday, April 10, 2000 at 02:45:14 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

Yes.  The Jury is Indeed In.

This is your problem. Read Mark 4:11-12.You will not perceive or understand until you are converted (born again) & forgiven. Then you will see the light & relize what darkness you dwell in. May God help you find the truth you seek.

Thanks,

Ted Blanton <TCBNCEC@aol.com>
Rockwell, NC USA - Monday, April 10, 2000 at 01:38:34 (MDT)

Don Morgan responds:

I am always amused by the unwarranted assumptions that believers are willing to make in attempting to reinforce their faith, but the fact is that I have read MK 4:11-12 many times--both as a Christian and as a non-Christian--and it has always surprised me that anyone could read this verse and not see the exclusivity in this teaching which is attributed to Jesus.

If one is outside of the Kingdom of God, is not a Christian, and therefore cannot understand what he/she hears about it, then there is no good reason to choose to believe in the first place.

In my opinion, this verse is a disgrace to Christianity.

Of course, there are also idiots on both sides as well. There are believers who have never really pondered the question & there have been atheists who have refrained from engaging the topic as well. There are people who believe in God for psychological reasons (i.e.: fear of the grave) and their are atheists who disbelieve for psychological reasons (i.e.: fear that they will be accountable for the kind of life they lead).

So, the rest of us, those of us who are not reality impaired, should merely concede that there are, have been, and probably always will be impressive minds on both sides of the fence. And, morons abound on both sides as well. Perhaps what is lost in all this is that, whether there be an afterlife or not, we are all still human. We are all made of what Hamlet referred to as the same "mortal coils that bind us." And perhaps neither side should let its intellectual hatred go too far because of this. If there were an atheist trapped in a burning house, a theist with even an ounce of nobility would most surely make the attempt to rescue him. And, the same would be true if the theist were the one trapped. Some thoughts to ponder...

David Roberts <DRob608994@AOL.com>
Battle Creek, , MI USA - Sunday, April 09, 2000 at 19:34:34 (MDT)

As Americans, we will always have atleast one good opinion about anything. One opinion I would add is this. It wasn't until my curiosity led me to prove God existed, that I was forced to take a serious look at Genesis, Creationism, the great flood, etc. While it may or may not affect one's beliefs in God, having two sides instead of one forces an individual to choose which one they will embrace. Rather that embrace that which Mom, Dad, and Preacher Bill said to.

The biggest threat to creationism, will be the day that it is taught side by side with evolution. As it is, we are not taught about red shifts, black body curve, etc. Why bother? There is no opponent. And so a Christian is led to believe it's a matter of choice, old earth or new earth. I agree, don't decide the issue with polls. Decide it with science.

Michael <thwheeze@swbell.net>
Edmond, OK USA - Sunday, April 09, 2000 at 17:30:49 (MDT)

I've never been a Catholic so I don't know their doctrine all that well. However I'm sure that along with contraception is a belief in waiting until your married to have sex, having one partner, having opposite sex partner, not abusing drugs, etc. All of which, when added to your theory of the popes impact on suffering babies, AIDS, world population, etc. would no doubt change the scales. If people's lack of knowledge, training, etc. in third world countries, causes them to build a house on the side of a possible mudslide, that can be blamed on a multitude of things. But not using condoms would be way down the list.
Come on guys, don't water down an informative, intellectual, web-site with emotional outbursts. You can blame Christian dogma for a lot of things, but in this case you've missed the target.

Michael < thwheeze@swbell.net>
Edmond, OK USA - Sunday, April 09, 2000 at 16:53:37 (MDT)

Craig Young <lavendarmenace@yahoo.com>
Palmerston North, NA New Zealand - Sunday, April 09, 2000 at 16:30:50 (MDT)

Richard Carrier responds:

Feel free to submit it to infidel@infidels.org.

I read your article about Josh McDowells book "Evidence that demands a verdict." Also I read your disclaimer about your believe there is no God at all. Since to believe in Jesus redemption is vital in what happens with a man or woman after he or she dies, it means that to be a christian is a matter of life and death, but also to be in your position is a matter of life and death.
The key point is : what does a person believe to be true.

Now there is a statement saying : "A fool says in his heart here is no God" Since I believe this is true, I wander what all people on your side think. Actually nobody wants to think of himelf to be a fool, so it is likely that above statement is likely to be rejected by atheistis people. According to some statements in the Bible the existence of God can be known by looking at the earth, the sun, the moon and the stars, and to think how this all came into existence.

Now there is a problem in dealing with this matter. There is a quick answer available which stimulates people to immediately
stop looking at the earth, the sun, the moon and the stars, and to leave this in the hands of scientists. This answer is evolution. But a matter of life and death is : are evolution's concepts true? Because if they are not true, (which I believe) then God's
existence will become known, and then will be raised the question of life and death : what is my position in God's eyes, and will I have a life after death through the redemption of Jesus?.

Now Charles Darwin, who before he started his wanderings was of the evolution-doctrine, discovered how one sort of birds managed to change into a whole group of birds with "evolved" (I call it altered) diffrences in physical traits, in habitual traits. From this he concluded that evolution was true. But a big argument has been overseen, his bird-sort did not evoluate in a different species, the birds "evoluated" (changed is the better word) into still birds. Meaning it was a very big conclusion based on unsufficient evidence.

Dear Charles at a later age denounced his theories, a fact that is tragically erased by the ones preaching the evolution-theory. And I say tragically, because since I speak about a matter of life and death, and it has caused death and will cause death if you do follow something that is leading not to redemption but to a living and dying without God.  Even the millions (?) of phossiles which have been found are a testimony and a proof against evolution. If evolution was true, maybe 10 to 50% of all this phossiles should have been the phossiles of the inbetween stadiums between the different argues "steps" in the evolution. WHERE ARE THEY?

I agree with any sceptic about christians whose lifes are in contradiction with the teachings of Jesus, but did not Jesus say: Many are called, but few are chosen? allthough God wants all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. But the problem is that many people wanted to forcefully make other people converts, while to come to the Saviour Jesus Christ is a matter of invitation and of free will. How sad I can find it that so many people are nowadays believing the (I believe untrue) concepts of evolution, I am happy that still all are invited, to believe in God and his creation, and to believe in His offer to forgive you your sins, So in short this is my comment to your position, you see , God is not giving up, and the invitation is still there, you know , many christians have been invited to the big party, but are very busy.Jesus said that many who will be found
on the streets, maybe not christians by upbringing, and maybe here on the internet also people will hear the invitation in this comment.

In the end the people ( according to the bible ) will see God finally pooring his judgement, and they will be angry with Him.
But before that time God is still inviting his creation to answer to His calling to get saved from their sinful life and nature, and be made ready.

Hopefully this comment will be on your message-board. Because it is a matter of life and death.
All the best, and my sincere wishes for your well being

Eric Versteege < h.m.versteege.1111sc@hetnet.nl>
Diemen, Holland, USA - Sunday, April 09, 2000 at 13:57:02 (MDT)

Amelia Hazard <amelia2000@mytalk.com>
Tuscon, AZ USA - Saturday, April 08, 2000 at 20:50:05 (MDT)

I fell asleep and had a dream about a place of brilliant light where there were many people proceeding forward in orderly fashion. I looked around and everyone knew where they were going. I finally reached the destination and stared at a man with long dark brown hair and a glorified body, wearing white robes and sitting on a white throne. He looked sad at what he was doing: judging people who didn't accept him during their life. I then thought "I know you!"

Then i woke up and couldn't believe I was back here-on earth. I had a second chance to make a difference. I surrendered my life to Jesus Christ. I don't mean to push my belief on you-but after what I've been through I pray that you receive Jesus before you die, before you stand in that place remembering about the stranger who warned you. God will never force His will on you-you must choose this day whom you serve. In Jesus,

ps-please reply with your thoughts, be honest. thank you

Aaron <akloss7@hotmail.com>
duluth, MN USA - Saturday, April 08, 2000 at 18:31:02 (MDT)
 

Richard Carrier responds:

Read Dying to Live by Susan Blackmore, and At the Hour of Death by Karlis Osis and Erlendur Haraldsson.

In other words, perhaps it's time to add up the sum of all the parts and see if we can sift through the hyperbole and myth to find the "true nature" of our existence? After all, if one side claims an absolute and the other claims it's seeming opposite, then the answer will always be in the middle for those intelligent enough to accept our innate complexity. Nothing is black and white except the written word, so isn't it finally time to sit back a little and reflect on what all those written words add up to instead of merely offering more into the fray? When we do, I believe we will find the simple fact that we created ourselves; that thought creates matter. Examining a spark plug will never tell you why the driver turned left, but asking the driver where he or she is headed might lead us to an understanding of how the vehicle facilitates the action required. Regardless, the philosophical/theological questions Quantum Physics raises demands we put down the Bibles and update our opinions of science through the shared conclusions both reason and emotion provide. Yelling at each other only serves to make both sides hoarse. Yet another example of the physical and metaphyscal reacting to one another, don't you think? Now if we could just figure out "how" without leaping to extremes, we'd have something.
 

Robert Reames <Nullenfoid@aol.com>
New York, NY USA - Saturday, April 08, 2000 at 15:29:58 (MDT)

Me <Leatherank@aol.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Saturday, April 08, 2000 at 12:28:27 (MDT)

Dear Sir,

I have downloaded several of your articles about biblical inconsistencies, biblical flaws, atrocities, & etc. I am currently going through your list of 300+ biblical inconsistencies. I have several questions for you. I have not gotten too far into the list as yet.

Did you compile this list by your own original work or have you compiled this list from other people's lists? I ask this because at times throughout your list you will include a comment or note that implies that you have researched the bible and biblical languages. However, with a great number of other contradictions you list, even a cursory reading of a verse or 2 before or after would have negated the claim of "contradiction". One "contradiction" you listed would have been negated if you had just finished the verse you listed. In several of your "contradictions" you make false statements as to what the scripture listed even says.

What I question is your motive. Are you attempting to bring the truth out? Or are you merely throwing out a huge list of "contradictions" as an attempt to overwhelm and/or prejudice? In the first paragraph to your article you speak of "the reader's obligation". What about your obligation as the author? My husband and I both work in the field of law enforcement. If an author would publish such a list of accusations without proof in a newspaper or magazine while claiming that it is up to the reader to determine the truth/falsity thereof, that author could be sued for libel, slander, and defamation of character.

Magazines, newspapers, and authors have been sued and have paid out huge sums of money for this. In my opinion this is what you have done. You have put on the appearance of research, but you have not researched anything unless you thought that it would prove your claim. You have done no research that would disprove your claim, not even when it involved merely finishing the verse you were quoting. One of my hobbies is reading "free-thought" material and then researching that material to see if its claims hold up to the evidence religious and biblical research has shown.

One recurring theme that I persistently see crop up in the "free-thought" circles is that of wanting to show the truth about the falsity of religion (Christianity, the majority of the time) in order to end religious based bias and prejudice. Most authors also state that they want people to be free to believe what they want to believe. Here is their catch-22. In reality, they want people to be free to believe what they want with the exception of religious belief, and especially Christianity. Now I will be the first to admit that there have been terrible things done under the auspices of religion and, yes, Christianity, but this does not refute Christianity. These are the actions of those who will use any means to gain money, power, and control. Claiming to be Christian is not the same as being Christian.

My final question to you is this, assuming that you are still reading this, if you are interested in the truth behind your "contradictions", I will gladly show you the refutation of them. You then must make a decision, based on your own moral convictions, to either remove the contradictions from your published list or include my refutation with your published list. If you are not willing to do either of these 2 things then you need to quit claiming the desire to expound truth and admit your blatant prejudice.Feel free to e-mail me. Thank you for your time.

Rhonda Dodson <dodson@adams.net>
liberty, il USA - Saturday, April 08, 2000 at 12:16:15 (MDT)

Don Morgan responds:

To answer the first question, I compiled my material using both my own research and that of others before me. Regardless of the source, I checked each and every item for accuracy given the context. While I am not infallible, the fact is that many of those items are beyond refutation. Readers are not compelled to agree, however, and the proof of those inconsistencies, absurdities, etc. is left to the reader using the verse references provided.

As to the claims made by Ms. Dodson, she undermines her own claims first by using the words "contradiction" and "contradictions" in quotes as if they were words that I had used when I have not used those words, and second, by making incorrect assumptions about me and what I have allegedly claimed but have not claimed.

Further, given that I was once a Christian myself, a very well-versed Christian at that, I am familiar with the so-called refutations that are offered by Christians. In most cases they are rather simplistic ad hoc "arguments," how-it-might-have-been scenarios, which would satisfy only those who truly wanted to continue to believe. It must be kept in mind, too, that each and every inconsistency, absurdity, etc., will have to be refuted in order to negate that there are none at all in the Bible.

Finally, although I have, in fact, made corrections to my material from time to time, I am not obliged to remove from my lists those items which Ms. Dodson believes she has refuted unless I also agree that they have been refuted, nor am I obliged to agree to post her so-called refutations. On the other hand, I might be nevertheless be willing to do so if the various Christian websites would post my refutations of their material and link to the Internet Infidels website.

I just wanted to send in a brief letter regarding Taner Edis' essay "The Rationality of an Illusion". I thought the essay pretty much covered the issues that we freethinkers have to face, particularly when debating those of another religion. I do get tired of the atheists in the chat rooms (where I debate most frequently) who make the same mistakes as the Christians that they are debating. Simply saying that "our" way is better does not help "de-convert" them anymore than their quoting John 3:16 helps to convert us. Indeed, all freethinkers should constantly look for the ways to make life better for all, so that we can offer a reasonable alternative to their beliefs. Again, Taner did a wonderful job with this writing.

On a side note, I just wanted to give my thanks for the wonderful job II is doing. You guys (and girls?) are contributing more than you realize. Keep up the great work! By the way, my e-address is just left over from my Wiccan days; I have since become an atheist.

Dave Brandt < blessed_be@hotmail.com>
Coeur d'Alene, ID USA - Saturday, April 08, 2000 at 12:14:57 (MDT)

Irwin E. Brussel-Smith <iebsmith@libertybay.com>
Briarcliff Manor, NY USA - Friday, April 07, 2000 at 12:34:58 (MDT)

I enjoyed the balanced tone of this article from a self professed screaming atheist. Edis wonders what his society would be like if more followed his path of 'the elect', the enlightened ones who expect no reward or punishment beyond this life. Would loss of the social glue provided by religion harm more than it helps? Well from this side of the pond (returning to a theme I have aired in your columns before) its just fine. The good old Church of England continues its relentless decline having dipped below a million Sunday worshippers for the first time in 1998 out of a population of about 60,000,000. 800 churches a year are closed and only 200 built. Things are bottoming out pretty nicely. Even the catholics have seen a massive drop in mass attendance (pun was unintentional, but let it stand). The churches are increasingly more like Japanese state shinto in practice with a purely ceremonial role, baptisms, weddings, funerals, and Christmas carols. There is some hand wringing about the frequency of divorce and crime rates but these are so clearly related to other factors than religious adherence that the religious leaders don't get much air time out of it. A strange contrast to this near total secularism is presented by our present prime minister who is a crypto catholic control freak. He went on National media to express moral outrage at the latest newspaper sensation involving an eleven year old mother from a deprived area. But although our teen pregnancy rates are the highest in Europe the answer is clearly more and better education at a younger age and again the religious leaders pretty much lost the argument.

So my message to Edis is that the common folk as well as the academics and professionals can get along fine without religion in a society that shows no signs of general decay into anarchy. We have plenty of newagers and minor sects but the majority just couldn't care less