Letters From the Christian Un-Dead Something Wicked This Way Comes
A small collection of internet induced correspondence on Christianity, the Bible, Propaganda, and the Inerrant Word of God
By Robert Reames
Letter 1, Letter 2, Letters 3-6, Letters 7-8,Letters 9-11, Letters 12-14
Note: This collection represents several months of emails from right wing Fundamentalists and borderline Christians all attempting to argue their myths as facts. Some of them came from my association with Dennis McKinsey (from Biblical Errancy) and some from my late night hours harassing born again xtians in AOL chat rooms. Unfortunately, in most instances, I did not retain their original emails, even though most of what they wrote to me is broken up within my responses. Their names have been changed or removed to protect me from them. Some may be a little difficult to follow at times, but then, so is their religious indoctrination into the worst cult mankind has ever witnessed, so, it all evens out in the end. Enjoy, but be careful not to hit the "print" button. Until I can figure out html better, this is one LONG document (about 110 pages). Letter 1: A young woman who went to http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html (Dennis McKinsey’s Biblical Errancy website) and just had to comment. Hi Darla. My name is Robb and I’ll be helping Dennis with some of the many emails he receives. I have separated your points with quotation marks and then included my responses directly after each section. "Hi there. I stumbled across your website and noticed your arguments-very good questions, but I just wanted to let you know what I think about Adam's sinning (and Eve's). I believe that we are not paying for their sins." Then why aren't we automatically born into paradise? "Jesus Christ died on the cross to cover all sin." How? Although a magnanimous gesture, how does the death of someone's flesh (even if that someone is supposedly God or God's son) "cover" all sin? Remember that a "sacrifice" is nothing more than a man-made symbolic action and has no actual relevance to anything. You can sacrifice a goat to make it rain, but that does not mean that it rained because you sacrificed a goat. It’s pure poetry, but you are taking it to mean literal fact. So please explain exactly how this works and not merely the poetic imagery. What is the mechanism of salvation that happens because someone’s flesh died? Not to mention the idea that Jesus is supposed to also be God, so if you persist in misunderstanding the word "sacrifice," the next question would be, to whom was the sacrifice offered? This is a major aspect of your beliefs so please don't assume that the statement is it's own fact. We're discussing the supposed ultimate salvation of your Soul, here, and not ritual symbolism for the sake of pageantry and fable. How does the death of flesh "cover" us from sin? "I believe that by doing that he cleansed the original sin." Again, I ask, if that is the case, then why aren't we born directly into paradise? According to the only authority on this subject, the Bible, the only reason Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise was because of sin. The only reason we are therefore precluded from paradise is a result of Adam and Eve sinning (hence original sin). If we, as you say, were cleansed of the original sin from birth by Jesus' death on the cross, then why wouldn't we be birthed directly into paradise? We did nothing wrong; Adam and Eve did and as you've just stated, Jesus cleansed us of original sin two thousand years ago. Why should we be punished today by automatic exclusion from paradise when we have done nothing wrong? Or are you saying that we somehow sinned in the womb or before the womb, thereby precluding us from paradise automatically? "We are not paying for what Adam and Eve did, we are sinning because we want to." Again, this does not explain why we have been denied direct access to paradise (see above answer). "Therefore, when we accept Jesus as our savior he is then, and only then-cleansing us of our sin. " Oh, I see. So Jesus did not die for us, as you claimed earlier, cleansing us of our sin. It is only when we "accept Jesus as our savior" that the death provides salvation. So you're saying that Jesus put limitations on his gift. We must accept him to be our savior or we can't be saved. For what possible reason would a savior require anything of us in order to save us? Isn't that the purpose of a gift that it is given freely without any consideration for anything at all on the part of the gift recipient? I'll give you my love and protection but only if you believe that I am God? Doesn't that sound a bit egomaniacal to you? As objectively as you can, don't you see what an incredibly non-messianic condition that is, beyond the fact that it makes no basic sense? "This doesn't mean we won't sin again (we will), it just means that we are forgiven and we aim to live like Jesus did." I understand that you have a very strong and warm belief structure here and I appreciate it very much. Believe me, I'm not trying to do anything here but enlighten. I am trying to respect you as you seem a very sensitive and good-hearted person, but you also don't seem to really know who Jesus was. Turning to the accounts of his own life in the books of the New Testament—just for a few brief examples—Jesus was not here to bring peace ("I came not to send peace but a sword" Matt 10:34, and "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" Luke 22:36 spring to mind), nor did he preach the kind of family values I would look for in a child of God ("I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" Matt. 10:35-36, and "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" Luke 14:26). That last one sends shivers down my spine every time I read it and yet those are the words supposedly out of his own mouth. Do you hate all those closest to you, including your own life? Because according to his own decree, you can't be his disciple unless you do. Not to mention the chilling (paranoid) threat, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30). Yes, there are many other statements he made about love and peace and harmony and I find those words to be just as poetically beautiful as you no doubt do, but how do you possibly reconcile them with just the handful of other things he said that I outlined above? Context? Is there any context where a savior of all mankind would/could ever justify stating that you have to hate your entire family (including yourself) in order to be his disciple? Or threaten? Does that sound like a loving savior to you? There are many other examples on Dennis' website (all taken directly from the Bible) and I highly recommend you look at them for your own sake, but I think you see my point. I know it's fashionable these days to simply discard anything bad and have faith and all that other brainwashing propaganda, but if you actually read what Jesus said, then "living like him" or according to his decrees is not a desirable thing to do. "God knows we will sin since we are human, but when we are saved it means we are going to try as best we can to emulate Christ." See above response and add here: If God knows that we will sin "since we are human," then God also knows that we aren't to blame for our actions since he created us human. If you build a Ford truck and then expect it to be a Cadillac that's your problem, not the truck's. If you build a Ford truck and somehow grant it the ability to choose to become a Cadillac and it does not, again, what possible blame could you apply to the truck? It's a truck, not a Cadillac. And, finally, if you build a truck with the ability to choose to be a Cadillac and then demand that it become a Cadillac or be junked in the junkyard for all eternity never to be anything but junk in the junkyard with all of the other discarded junk in the junkyard, then why didn't you just build a Cadillac to begin with and leave the poor truck alone? That's your psychosis acting out and has nothing to do with the truck. It's not its fault for being created a truck; it's your fault for creating it as a truck when what you wanted the whole time was a Cadillac. If you now claim (as so many do) that what you REALLY wanted was for the truck to see how beautiful it could be if only it would CHOOSE to be a Cadillac and that all you ever wanted was for the truck to CHOOSE to be a Cadillac instead of what you created it to be (a truck), then you are more in need of therapy than anything else and should seek serious help, even if you are (and especially if you are) claiming to be God. "Also, your other statement about God being perfect-the Bible says he created Adam in his own image, but it doesn't say he made him exactly like himself. He was a pattern." If the pattern is based upon a perfect being, then the pattern would also be perfect. How can the duplicate, being created by a perfect being based on a perfect pattern, be anything but perfect? Are you saying that God screwed up? "Adam had free-will, and ate from the forbidden tree with Eve. God told him not to, but he did it anyway. He was not perfect." Setting aside the fact that a perfect pattern is still perfect and that this fact you point out about the Adam and Eve story should be your first clue that the Bible is not God's truth, but man's fiction, you're forgetting that Adam and Eve were seduced into eating the fruit by Satan (well, technically, by a snake, so we're really out there now). So what this means is that God's "perfect pattern" could be easily persuaded by Satan to do something expressly forbidden by God—their creator and benefactor and source of pure love—which is difficult to understand at the very least. This would mean that God can be persuaded by Satan to be less than perfect, too. If within the pattern God used (himself) is the ability to be persuaded to not be perfect, then God must also have within him the ability to be persuaded to not be perfect, for it was his "pattern" he followed to create Adam and Eve. Which, in turn, means that God is not perfect. That's a sticky situation, don't you think? As for the"free-will" concept you threw in there, well, all right, let's get to this. I'm not sure if you know, but the concept of "free-will" is not Biblical. It was created by an Ecumenical conference in Rome in order to attempt to explain the inherent contradiction of a perfect God somehow creating imperfect beings. In other words, it is a rationalization; in Webster's words, "to devise plausible explanations for one's beliefs, usually in self-deception." You are told to somehow except the idea that God—the Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator of All Existence—created you with the ability to do something that God did not know you would do; with the ability to create something that God did not create (sin, according to fundamentalists). The argument is, "God did not create sin, Man did." This is where it gets really slippery. When confronted with such a contradiction (Man created something that God did not), the argument gets changed to, "No, God created man with the capacity for sin and Man chooses to sin," somehow erroneously putting the blame on us, even though our "pattern" was God. It's a valiant word play, but it doesn't work, because something had to create sin and the concept of non-perfection within perfection as well as "the capacity to sin." All of those conditions MUST be created before they can exist no matter how you wish to dance around that irrefutable fact. So again, the argument turns back to Man being able to create something (sin) that God did not create, a fundamental impossibility since God created everything and is perfect. Perfect, by the way, is an absolute. There are no "shades" of perfection. You are either perfect or you are not. So then the rationalization slips even more into evasive tactics to keep you from arguing this central flaw. Usually the "God doesn't want robots" statement is dusted off, which makes even less sense, because, by definition, we ARE robots to God. God is supposedly eternal as well as all-knowing, so there is literally nothing you could ever do at any point in your lifetime that wasn't already created by God, including, sin or the "capacity" to sin. So we're back to God creating sin and imperfection within a perfect pattern based upon himself. Doesn't sound right, does it? That's why the Church went to great lengths and came up with the rationalization of "free will," but never truly explained what it is or how it works. And, of course, when anyone asks about it, they are told to believe it through faith; believe the fantasy and not the facts that created the fantasy to begin with. Does that sound right to you, or more like irrational dictatorial decree? "Only Jesus was [perfect]. " Not according to his actions. Have you ever actually read the Bible? You don't need Dennis' website to illustrate this fact since everything Dennis talks about comes directly from the Bible, but it may help you to actually find out the things your supposed savior did. "Oh, and the thing about Jesus asking on the cross about being forsaken-that wasn't a sin. It was an honest question. It is not a sin to question." I'll get to the "sin" part in a minute, because that wasn't the only point Dennis was making here. Among the many points this brings up, when Jesus asks "why hast thou forsaken me" Dennis was illustrating that it proves that Jesus was not God. Beyond the obvious (that Jesus is speaking to God and not as God), God is omniscient, so no question would need to be asked. It also shows that Jesus was not exactly a willing participant, as Christians like yourself always claim he was. But, most importantly, this bizarre and tragic question asked by Jesus/God of God states that Jesus actually believed that God forsook him, while at the same time implying that God could actually forsake someone. The "sin" quality of this is that Jesus doubted God so directly as to accuse Him of abandoning him. Regardless of whether or not God actually abandoned Jesus, Jesus, the perfect being (and God) believed so strongly that this was the case as to commit a form of blasphemy and disbelief in God/Himself at the very moment of his death. If we are to "emulate Christ," then, are we also to ask at our deaths, "why hast thou forsaken me?" Do you see now why this is so cconvoluted and contradictory? Do you also understand now why you are commanded to believe through faith and not ask these kinds of questions? Quite simply because, if you weren't commanded to believe through faith, you would not believe it. If you weren't indoctrinated to accept such a dictatorial decree, you would not believe that the Bible is anything other than a quaint collection of ancient fables and myths (or, as your own savior supposedly put it, "parables"). So I ask, if you would not normally believe it, then why on earth would you believe it "just because?" Again, we're discussing the salvation of your eternal soul and you're told to believe "just because?" Is that acceptable to you? What if I told you to believe in Buddhism "just because." Would you? Why not? Or Islam or Judaism? If the only requirement for your belief is "just because" then what exactly is it that you believe in? Jesus? Why? Just because? Oh, that's right, there's also the threat. I always forget the threat, because I just can't believe that anyone would follow any religion that used fear as an indoctrination technique. It isn't "just because" is it? It's, "believe through faith or you will be punished for not doing so." Now do you see how wrong that is? And please don't drudge out that old analogy of a Father or Mother telling a child to do something they don't want to do simply because they know best and the child knows nothing. We're not discussing whether or not to touch a lighted stove, here, we're discussing whether or not Jesus was in fact the Messiah. If the evidence presented to us shows that he is NOT the Messiah, then he is NOT the Messiah. Period. Faith has nothing to do with it and would ONLY be used in order to force you to believe in something that you would not otherwise believe in. Forced belief is not what I would call a "free will" doctrine. I would call it Fascism. After all, Hitler promised and prophesied a new nation for all those who believed in him and look what happened. He delivered it. Then it fell once the facts of his actions destroyed the fantasy. If you think that is too harsh a comparison, just pick up any book on the Holy Inquisition and then we'll talk. Let me also ask you this, if faith is the only reason to believe in Jesus, then why did God "inspire" the Bible to begin with? If at the end of the day we say, "wait, these books are filled with contradictions and are clearly fraudulent," and the Church elders say, "believe it anyway or you'll burn in hell," then doesn't that send up even the tiniest red flag in your mind? Using fear to induce you to follow a supposedly loving God? What would be the point of the Bible—the supposed Inerrant Word of God and All That Is—if at the end of the day the answer to any question about it is, "you must believe anyway, regardless of the facts?" If Jesus really was the Messiah, then why did the Church torture and murder countless thousands in order to convert them to Christianity? Why would they need to? To drive out Satan? Torture and burning at the stake (which comes from the Bible, mind you) is a Father making sure his son does not burn his hand on the stove? Does that sound like religious freedom to you or the doctrine of an all loving all knowing creator, or more the dictatorial actions of an evil power structure intent on stopping at nothing—not even murder—to impose it's beliefs on others in order to control them? Just as you are controlled now. You don't think you are and your Church (whatever it may be), but you are. You believe in a fantasy which the facts do not support simply because you are told to do so and indirectly threatened to do so, or spend eternity in the fires of hell. That is not freedom. "If I were hanging on a cross with nails in my body, I'd be wondering if there were a better way to go about things, wouldn't you?" Yes. Now ask yourself, if I were God (or even the son of God and a perfect being) wouldn't I KNOW a better way to go about things? I certainly do and I'm no where near a perfect being. Don't punish us for something we didn't create in the first place. Or, even simpler, know that we are fallible and forgive us. No torture on the cross, no threats of eternal damnation, just divine love from a heavenly "father." Even simpler still, don't create us with "the ability" to sin in the first place. Don't forget, we ARE robots to God, no matter how we are created, so whether or not we "choose" anything is irrelevant to God. If the premise is, "I don't want my creation to sin," as seems to be the case you are presenting, then don't create either sin or the ability for us to sin. Once again, you can't blame the truck for being a truck if that's what you created in the first place. If, on the other hand, the premise is, "I want my creation to choose not to sin," then ask yourself why you would require something you know they won't do long before even they do, since you are Omniscient, and then punish them for doing it? It's not like you can fool God. God supposedly knows everything you will do throughout your entire life. An eternal, omniscient being is not in "linear time" the way we are. Supposedly, God knows what you are going to do when you're ninety just as easily as he knows what you are doing right now. It isn't a mystery to him, nor is it a "surprise." So why would he punish you or allow you to punish yourself for things you don't even know you are going to do? Remember, from God's perspective, you are simultaneously three years old, eighteen years old, forty years old, in heaven or in hell. That's what it means to be an eternal, omniscient being. You know all things that happen at all times simultaneously. That is the definition of Omniscient. It's not like an eternal, all knowing being can just push you into the water and not know before hand whether or not you are going to drown, nor is there anything you can do to prevent whether or not you are going to drown, because you are not omniscient and free from linear time the way he is. Even the best swimmers drown and if that is your fate, no amount of swim practice will alter that fact; a fact that God already knows has occurred, will occur, and was meant to occur, if indeed he is the supposed God of Creation. So where does punishment enter into it, either directly or indirectly? Are you going to punish your computer for not choosing to be an IBM? Are you going to allow your computer to punish itself for not being an IBM? "That's a whole lot of suffering for a bunch of people you don't even know." Well, let's get into this too. Just exactly what suffering are you referring to, beyond the poetic? If Jesus was/is God, then the only thing that happened was his flesh died the way all flesh dies. Perhaps a bit more uncomfortable, sure, but no more uncomfortable than all of the others dying on crosses along with him and throughout history. Believe me, there have been countless millions who suffered much worse than what Jesus went through. Just view any tape of Vietnam or read about the victims of Dahlmer or Gayce. You are the one who proclaim that his suffering is somehow greater than any other simply because you were told this was the case by those who indoctrinated you into their cult. Beyond the poetry there is only one simple fact: a man named Jesus was crucified by the Roman state for sedition against Rome. Everything else is mere myth and man-made aggrandizement. "I think Jesus rocks!!!!!!!! I know I wouldn't do that." Do what? He didn't do anything. If you accept he was a man, then the only thing he did was a symbolic gesture that is completely irrelevant but nice symbolism and if you believe he was God, God can not die nor could he "sacrifice" anything to himself. What would be the point? I can proclaim that I will die for you so that you will escape jail or punishment or death or whatever and even actually die protecting you so that you don't go to jail or are punished or killed or whatever, but beyond the word play, I haven't actually died for anything at all. I've just died. The poetry may be added later, but that's all it is, poetry. I would have done a magnanimous thing, yes, and you would indeed still be alive if it weren't for my gesture on your behalf. You would thank the memory of me, but I certainly would hope you wouldn't suddenly proclaim that I am God and the One True Savior of Mankind simply because I died "for you." It would be kind of you, but it wouldn't make it so. You can believe it, but it wouldn't make it so. "Anyway, thanks for having your site out there. I'm one who thinks that others opinions are just as important as mine." That's a remarkably open-minded statement, if not indirectly self-serving. I just wish you'd actually read what Dennis has illustrated so that you will eventually wake up from the cult in which you are indoctrinated and open your mind up even further. "Oh, one more thing. Babies, mentally handicapped people, those who are incapable of understanding the concept of accepting Christ as their savior, are taken to heaven. " I am incapable of understanding the concept of accepting Christ as my savior so am I taken directly to heaven, too? Why aren't the individuals you just mentioned sent directly to paradise, then, to begin with? Why are they birthed into a sinful world and not paradise? Did they do something wrong to exclude them from going directly to paradise? Yes, I've presented you with a lot of questions, I know, because these are serious questions that you are told over and over again NOT to ask. If nothing else, that fact alone should send every warning sign you have waving strongly in the wind. "God does not condemn those incapable of understanding, people condemn themselves by understanding and choosing to ignore his word. " That's another modern age evasion tactic and also falls when actually discussed. If God does not condemn those incapable of understanding, then you're saying that God created hell in order to condemn those who "choose to ignore his word." You've tried to slip around it by implying that we are the ones who actually condemn ourselves and that, therefore, it is we who created hell, but that doesn't wash. If hell exists then God had to have created it (unless we're right back to us being able to create something that God did not create, which, again, is by Biblical definition, impossible). God created hell for a purpose—to eternally punish those who "condemn themselves" in your words. So, we're back to God knowing we will not choose him and he creating Hell in order to punish us for not choosing him. Sound like the actions of a loving creator? Regardless of the semantics, we are told through the Bible and through the "servants" of that Bible that God created Hell for one purpose and one purpose only, to punish us for "ignoring" his word, and, more specifically to Christianity, for not accepting Jesus as savior. Once again, your supposed "free will" doctrine of love and spirituality is forced upon you through the indirect threat of eternal punishment in hell for "ignoring" his word. Don't you feel that's an unjust punishment—eternal damnation—for an all loving, all knowing God to create? You're trying valiantly to get around it by attempting to imply that we created it, but again, that's not possible. We can't create something that God did not create. Even granting your attempt (that he created the "capacity" to sin), that still means that he created both the "capacity" to sin as well as sin. You can't create the "capacity" to do something without creating that "something" as well, or else there is no "capacity" to do anything. Further, do you actually believe that God needs to threaten people (whether directly, like in the Bible, or indirectly, like in your reformed opinion) in order for us to believe in him? If so, then that's a very disturbed God you believe in. And, more to your original point, what happens when you read "his word" and see that understanding is not possible due to all of the contradictions and blatant impossibilities? I have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the Trinity concept, for example, because it is not possible to understand it. It isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of cold hard fact. It is not possible to believe in a black white horse, because of the simple fact that a white horse can not be a black horse at the same time it's a white horse. Faith doesn't enter into it. Or, if it does, fine, but that just means that you are choosing to believe in fantasy and not reality. If God is not reality, then you certainly can believe all you want, but that won't change the fact that it isn't a reality. You believed in Santa Clause until you discovered that the reality of your existence is that there is no Santa Clause, why then have you not continued this understanding with all other myths? "Hell is a choice, just like voting. Sounds too simple, doesn't it? " Beyond the fact that you’ve left out the most important point (that someone had to first create the voting booth), no, it doesn't sound simple at all, because you have not described a choice. You have described a threat; it's just an indirect threat hidden in the misleading language of a "choice." Let me illustrate: If I say to you, "You have a choice, I will either punch you or hug you," then that is a lie, for you don't actually have any choice at all in that scenario. It sounds like you do, but you do not. I will do something to you. You have no choice in the matter; you only have acquiescence to my authority over you and are not free at all. You think you’re free; after all, you certainly wouldn’t want a punch when you could "choose" to have a hug, but that isn’t what’s actually happening here. You are thinking the way a slave (or sheep) thinks; the way a victim thinks, which is how your religion indoctrinated you to think since birth. You have no choice because the situation is rigged from the beginning to fool you into thinking that you have some sort of freedom when you actually do not. In both situations, the hug or the punch, you are being subjected to something that you have no control over and therefore no choice. The choice in that scenario—for it truly to be a choice—would be, "I will either punch you or hug you" OR "You will either punch me or hug me." THAT and ONLY that is a choice wherein you are a free agent. A choice is between chicken for dinner or steak. A choice is going to see a comedy or going to see a drama. A choice is chocolate ice cream or vanilla. Do you see the distinction here? A choice—an actual free will choice—is only between things that don't result indirectly in your punishment. What you are describing is a veiled threat in the guise of a "choice" but it isn't actually a choice. It is a threat and I would/could never believe in any savior or God that threatened me, whether directly or indirectly. Why do you? "That's what I believe,Darla" I hope you seriously examine those beliefs by actually reading the book your beliefs come from. If it helps, try replacing the name Jesus with Bill or Tom and you will see immediately how false it is. Sorry to be so direct, but cults are very hard to break out of. The only way to do it is to wake up and see for yourself the lies that are continuously told to you and the truths that are always hidden or rationalized away so that you don't think about them. After all, "you must have faith" is the equivalent of saying, "don't think, believe." Would you ever accept such a ridiculous proclamation about anything else in your life? We're talking about your supposed salvation here and you're not even allowed to think, let alone instructed and encouraged to think? What does that sound like to you? What does that say about what you believe in? What do you think? Letter 2: Also from http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html Hello. I’ve broken up your letter in order to address as many of the issues you brought up in as much detail as time and space permits. Your parts are sectioned off by quotation marks. "You rail against the Bible and Jesus and that's your right. There are some things you mention that don't have a bearing on the doctrine of Christianity." The "doctrine" of Christianity is not the issue here, though it becomes the issue indirectly. What is at issue and is of the highest importance is whether or not the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God and therefore a means toward the "salvation" of the soul, or simply another book of myths and stories no more significant (or insignificant) than Grimm’s Fairy Tales. "Obviously we don't have any of the original manuscripts of the texts of the Bible." Well, good, I’m glad you are capable of dealing with some facts directly, but you shouldn’t sluff this off so casually. Without (allegedly) original manuscripts you are admitting that we do not have an actual Bible to base a doctrine upon, so I’m very curious to discover where this doctrine you speak of comes from. "What we do have is a wealth of ancient manuscripts from all over Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia that do not contradict each other in matters of doctrine." Beside my above observation, once again you’re missing the most important point while indirectly conceding it. I don’t know from which ancient manuscripts you are generalizing to make such a blanket statement (no ancient Asian manuscripts I’ve ever seen, for example, mention Jesus), however, the fact that you took pains to state they do not contradict each other "in matters of doctrine" betrays your knowledge that they DO contradict each other in terms of historical and anecdotal accounts. In other words, the facts do not correspond; they cancel each other out; they contradict each other. If the historical and anecdotal facts contradict one another, then you have no basis upon which to build a doctrine. You can’t claim the fantasy is the real issue and not the facts that support that fantasy, or else all you have is a belief structure based entirely upon personal whim. "Whether Ahaziah was 22 or 42 is insignificant to your or my relationship with our creator." Absolutely, categorically incorrect. You can not have a relationship with a non-existent creator, yes? So in order to have a relationship there must actually exist somewhere this alleged Creator. And not just any Creator figure. You believe in a very specific Creator figure, namely the Christian God, unless I missed your references to Buddha and Allah. The only evidence that points to the actual existence of such a Christian God is the Christian Bible and the only basis upon which you could possibly believe it truly is the work of the Christian God would be if it were a flawless work inspired entirely throughout its existence by The One True God to be God’s True Word and The One True Source of Salvation, no matter what variation or copy thereof. I’m assuming your God has no statute of limitations. His inspiration does not have a half-life. It stands to reason that if the "original manuscripts" were inspired by God and therefore Inerrant, then no version could be without this inspiration or Inerrancy and still remain THE Bible. The very second you admit Errancy is the very second you admit that what you’ve got in your hands is NOT The Bible, but simply a non-God inspired copy, full of errors and contradictions that leave you without a true Bible to base any doctrine upon. Without the "originals" for comparison and correction, no doctrine can be created that is not inherently flawed or at the very least, seriously in question. Take the "thou shalt not kill" vs. "though shalt not murder" conundrum. Without the original manuscripts to clear up this problem, Christians do not have consensus as to what one of the Ten Commandments God supposedly gave us tells us to do. Are we not to kill, meaning animal, vegetable and enemies of the state, or are we not to murder, meaning wars are justifiable, manslaughter is not a condemnation to Hell, and we are free to consume all animal and plant life that we desire? You can argue until you’re blue in the face that one version is the "correct" version, but your arguments are entirely without merit unless you have the alleged original manuscripts to definitively prove your claim. This isn’t whether or not someone was 22 or 42, these are the Ten Commandments we’re talking about here. You don’t get bigger than that, except, perhaps from your viewpoint, the death and resurrection of Jesus, as I will attend to later in your response. Without an Inerrant Bible, we are left without a Bible for which to base any doctrine upon, unless you just want to start making things up on your own according to your own whim, though I believe you would have to label that "blasphemy." You cannot have a relationship with something that does not exist and until you can verify that it does exist, then you have no relationship to begin with, merely the childish desires of a desperate, yet clearly creative mind. "We also are not punished for Adam's sin. We are held accountable for our own sin. Because Adam sinned we have inherited a sin nature." Ahh, the slippery slope. Just exactly what does this mean, we "inherited a sin nature?" Are you saying that "sinning" is a genetic trait found somewhere within our DNA? Or are you claiming that we "inherited" this nature the way we inherit money from a dead relative; that it is passed on to us as a gift? Are you saying that because your father lies, for example, that you have inherited his lying nature? How is it possible to inherit an abstract concept? Please clarify this point because currently it has no meaning beyond the original intent of this blatantly unfair construct, namely that innocent beings are being precluded from paradise because of the crimes of another individual—an individual not a single one of us has ever met or known. Don’t forget the trap of this construct is that we are BORN into this "sinning nature" and therefore precluded from paradise right from the start as innocent babies (or do you feel that you sinned the second you emerged from the womb and if so, how?) You’re attempting rationalization and it won’t work. As your own book states, The sins of the father SHALL NOT be passed on. No matter how you wish to dance around the semantics pole, this construct is inherently unfair and unjust and clearly negates the claim of the Judeo/Christian God as being a just and loving creator. In this instance, in fact, humans are evidently more just than is your God, for we would NEVER imprison the son because the father committed a crime, nor would we place any kind of limit or "inherited nature" whatsoever on the son’s ability to achieve happiness because the father failed to. No matter how you slice it, it is unjust. "I'm sure you admit that you are not sinless. I know that I'm not." Yes, more of the dance. Whether you are currently sinless or not is irrelevant and a childish evasion tactic and you should be ashamed of attempting it. The questions are (as you very well know), were you innocent at birth or had you committed some form of sin that would preclude you from entering paradise right away? At what point did you begin to sin, or were you simply a rotten apple gestating in the womb, waiting for your punishment to begin? If so, what could your sin possibly have been and isn’t your God then at fault for birthing an innocent being into a sinful nature? And, finally on this point, whether or not you personally have sinned, how does that justify the unfair proclamation that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve are to be punished for Adam and Eve’s actions? They screwed up and got thrown out of paradise, but we did not. In fact, we were not even offered the choice. You want to keep discussing doctrine? Ok. Let’s discuss that one. Explain to me how "inheriting a sinful nature" is not an unjust punishment precluding us from Eden on the basis of what our ancestors did thousands of years ago. Do not, however, attempt to claim that we can get back into Eden through the belief in Jesus Christ because that is not the issue at hand. The issue is, why are we automatically precluded from going directly to Eden simply because an ancestor of ours thousands of years ago sinned? Why should we "inherit a sinful nature" when we did absolutely nothing to deserve it? "I also assume that you do believe in God or you wouldn't have such a great interest in trying to tear the Bible down." Like all Christians, you assume far too much and base every assumption on a false premise. There is no "interest" in "trying to tear the Bible down." A fourth grader could illuminate the contradictions in the book and clearly demonstrate what narrow-minded individuals like yourself are incapable of realizing: it is nothing more than a book of fairy tales, fables and myths. At best, it’s a collection of interesting social stories told to ancient tribes in order to restore some semblance of hope in otherwise wretched, oppressed lives. They are no more remarkable or true than the stories prisoners of war tell each other in order to maintain their morale, or the lies we tell children about Santa Clause. Unfortunately, though, for you and your kind, no one let you in on the secret, most likely because the real creators of these myths probably thought any intelligent individual would come to that conclusion on their own, just like you did with the Santa Clause myth. Once you saw the facts of existence did not coincide with the fantasy of the story, your belief in Santa dissolved. Why have you not continued this lesson with all other myths? You’re identical to a person who finds a comic book in the desert and proclaims that it MUST be divine simply because there’s a statement in it claiming divinity. "If God is not real what does it matter what a book or a group of people records or believes about Him?" Yes, the "what does it matter/what does it harm" approach to rationalizing away a malevolent organization. In effect you are saying, Who cares what we believe in? What’s it to you? Well, you’d be right if those believers kept their beliefs entirely to themselves, never telling another individual about them accept in the form of fantasy or story telling and never translating those beliefs into every day social existence. But, as you well know, Christians do not do such things. Quite the contrary. Christians have done everything in their power to force their private "what does it matter" beliefs on millions of otherwise blissful individuals who never considered a fear based dogma until it was literally shoved down their throats. Make absolutely NO mistake about this central and irrefutable fact: Christians force their religion on to others, starting with their own children. It is NEVER offered as a free will choice where children are concerned and rarely is it offered as a free will choice where preaching is concerned, because every time any Christian mentions their beliefs, they always threaten their listeners with their fear based indoctrination. In fact, Christians have murdered and tortured hundreds of millions of innocent people over the centuries in order to force their supposed "free will" doctrine of spiritual freedom on those who did not want it—under penalty of death. The only reason this stopped was because it was successful and certainly NOT because the Bible or God or their Christian upbringing told them to stop! Today, Christians do not have to murder and torture to force their beliefs on innocent people because the original crusades worked so well. Today, Christians force women to give birth to unwanted children, even if that child was a result of rape or incest. Today, Christians force legislatures to employ the death penalty and deny assisted suicide and all manner of censorship as a direct result of the teachings found in their Christian Bibles. Today, Christians indoctrinate their children into their members-only clubs through tales of Hell and damnation; in other words, through fear, thereby removing any freedom of religion those children had. Today, Christians fight wars against factions of their own religion (does Belfast ring a bell?) Today, Christians fight tooth and nail with our Government to force prayer in school, thereby costing taxpayers millions of dollars, even though their own religion commands them to pray in secret and do not do as the hypocrites do (Matt. 6:6). Today, Christians use their fear based dogma to bilk millions of innocent and honest individuals out of their hard earned money with promises of greater salvation in Heaven, whatever that may be. Today, Christians influence and shape almost every major political issue on the books from the perspective of their warped and malevolent Christian upbringing. Today, Christians lock their churches so the homeless have no place to sleep. Today, Christians shave their heads and torture gays, blacks, jews and just about any other group that isn’t a part of their select club. This country is almost entirely a Christian nation and as a direct result of Christian doctrines we have raped, stolen, destroyed, and plundered the land, natural resources, and indigenous peoples, while dropping TWO God Fearing atomic bombs, justifying all of it through the Christian beliefs as written in the Christian Bible. Slavery, the denigration of women, and the destruction of the Native American Indians can all be directly traced to your so-called Christian doctrines. And while Christian leaders are busy with their "manifest destiny," the less fortunate Christian children are taught to become the perfect mindless citizens; subservient to authority, turning the other cheek when attacked. They are taught to suffer now and be rewarded later, because, hey, the world needs ditch diggers, right? In other words, they are indoctrinated to be complacent slaves, though I believe the word used is "sheep." You wish this weren’t so, as do I, and you rationalize all of this away by erroneously stating ridiculous platitudes such as, "Those people who did those things were not TRUE Christians," as if that changes anything or removes culpability for your group’s actions, or "Christianity has also done a lot of good," though what you really mean is that a handful of individuals did some good in spite of their indoctrination, not because of it. The truth of your Christian doctrine is NOT peaceful co-existence and loving your brother and salvation into paradise. No other belief structure has caused such prolonged suffering and divisiveness (how many factions of Christianity are there now?) This is an indisputable fact and the direct result of the Judeo/Christian Bible and the doctrines taught therein. This fact can not be denied You may wish to say that that is not what Jesus intended, but you will have very little Biblical support for such a personal whim. After all, it was He who came with a sword, yes? "Your understanding of scripture is lacking or you intentionally take it out of context intentionally to build a straw man argument against." You state this because, once again, you proceed from a false assumption, namely the Bible and God exist and are nothing but love and goodness and salvation and therefore nothing in the Bible could possibly be interpreted or seen as malevolent, even though the majority clearly is. It’s called "cognitive dissonance." It’s a state of mind that occurs when a belief structure is challenged fundamentally and the individual challenged simply refuses to believe the truth, preferring fiction. An example would be coming home from work on a lovely spring day to police officers at your house detailing the murder your ten-year-old son just committed against your five-year-old daughter. Understandably, your mind would simply refuse to admit the situation and you could easily slip into cognitive dissonance and simply choose not believe such heinous truths. It does not, however, change the heinous truths. So, since I’m speaking on Dennis’ behalf, I can assure you that his grasp of scripture is most likely more extensive than your own. Have you read ALL of the issues of Biblical Errancy or his Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, or are you the one attempting a straw man argument? As for the "taken out of context" evasion, as with so many other evasive tactics, you’re going to have to show how any quotes were taken out of context and not (as you do in a moment) simply imply that your interpretation of a biblical story is THE correct context and anyone else’s is just wrong. You cannot state that the context of the Bible is that God exists, because that is NOT the context of the Bible. That is what the Bible is attempting to prove and if it does not, then nothing detailing errancy is taken out of context. If it can be shown (as Dennis does so extensively that the mind boggles) that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of quaint folk lore, then the context of that Bible is one of myth, not fact. Dance lightly on this context thing, because you are clearly not understanding what the word means. Indeed, as I illustrate more in a moment, a very good argument can be made that anyone assuming the context of the Bible to be anything other than fable and myth is the one "taking things out of context." Do not proceed from false assumptions. "If you notice when Jesus responded to the young ruler that he must follow the commandments to be saved the man told Him that He had kept them since his youth. Obviously he was still lacking something." This is pure speculation on your part based on the fact, once again, that you inherently believe the Bible to be The Truth regardless of the facts that prove it is not. This illustrates my point. In this instance it is you who are taking things out of context because you are merely assuming that the Bible is a book of divine Truth based solely upon your own personal desire that it be so and not upon any kind of substantive evidence whatsoever. You are assuming the Man was somehow at fault in this story simply because Jesus proclaimed that he was. Since you believe Jesus is God/Messiah, you also then assumed that Jesus was correct and the Man was wrong. Since there is no evidence that the Bible is "right" and therefore Jesus is God/Messiah, there is also no evidence that the Man was wrong in his statement nor that he was lacking anything at all. In fact, the Man is much more like a spectator standing before a snake oil salesman pointing out the fact that he drank what he was supposed to drink and was not healed as a result, so what gives? Well, of course the snake oil salesman will not admit that his concoction doesn’t work. He will instead put the blame on the Man for not being able to be healed in the first place. "Jesus then told him to sell all that he had and give it to the poor and follow Him. The man's great riches were too important to him for him to give his life to Christ." Again, this is merely your own speculation based upon a fable from a book of myths and fairy tales. You condemn the man for not following a charlatan attempting to trick him out of his honest living so that Jesus appears the savior and the Man the confused sinner who "just doesn’t get it." It’s the cheapest and oldest form of con: "I can heal you if you believe, but if I don’t heal you, then you just aren’t believing hard enough." In other words, it couldn’t possibly be Jesus’ fault the Man did not achieve salvation by following God's Ten Commandments, it must be the Man’s fault. God is never to blame, Man is always at fault. Convenient con game, don’t you think? Let me ask you a question that I’m sure no one ever has. Why would Jesus—our Savior—require ANYTHING from us in order to grant us salvation? Surely God’s grace is grand enough to save us without our having to "believe" in him, yes? "What is it that stands in your way? Salvation is only achieved through faith in Jesus." What is the evidence you offer for this profound declaration? That is a serious statement you are making and yet you have nothing to back it up with. If your claim is the Bible, then why is it any more definitive than the same kind of evidence offered by Buddhists or Muslims or the Jews? Because you say it is so? Because a character in a fable says it is so? Ask yourself, just once in your life, why wouldn’t God/Jesus tell you exactly why and how "belief" in Jesus is required for salvation? What would be the harm in doing so? Your Bible supposedly details every other aspect of God’s existence so why not an explanation as to the specific requirements of "believing" in Jesus to achieve salvation? It not only makes no basic, childhood level sense, it also betrays the desperation of a Man/Organization, rather than the all knowing, all understanding, all forgiving One True God. If your God requires anything at all in order to grant salvation for His own creation, then you’ve got a very disturbed God more in need of psychoanalysis than prayer offerings. "You and I can't save ourselves." Again, where is your evidence to support this claim? These are VERY serious issues you raise, so you MUST provide the evidence to support them if they are to be trusted. If your only evidence is, "It’s true because the Bible says its true," then you have no evidence whatsoever and your statements have no basis in truth. "There is a holy and righteous God who put us here for a purpose and that is to have a relationship with Him." See above observations and include this: why couldn’t we have a relationship with Him in Eden avoiding this "inherited" sinful life? We didn’t do anything wrong, Adam and Eve did. Why are innocent children being denied paradise because of what total strangers did thousands of years ago? Your platitudes and statements have no basis to support them. " But He is perfect and for us to be with Him after this life we must also be perfect." More grandiose statements that have no basis in fact nor anecdotal substance. If you’ll actually read your own Bible you’ll see very clearly that the God described in those two Testaments is anything BUT perfect. You didn’t really read any of Dennis’ newsletters did you? You’ll find literally hundreds of specific examples detailing beyond a shadow of a doubt through the very words God allegedly inspired that the Judeo/Christian God is nowhere near perfect. Here are just a few examples so that you will see with your own eyes the lies your book has been indoctrinating you with without your knowledge (from Biblical Errancy newsletter): God, the Perfect Being, did all of folowing in what is supposedly His book. He created evil (Lam. 3:38, Jer. 26:3, 36:3, Ezek. 20.:25-26, Judges 9:3, 1 Sam. 16:23, 18:10); He decieved (Jer. 4:10, 15:18, 20:7, 2 Chron. 18:22, Ezek. 14:9, 2 Thess. 2:9-12); He told people to lie(Ex. 3:18, 1 Sam. 16:2); He lied (Gen 2:17, 2 Sam. 7:13); He rewarded liars (Ex. 1:15-20); He ordered men to become drunken (Jer. 25:27); He rewarded the fool and the transgressor (Prov.26:10); He delivered a man, Job, into Satan's hands (Job 2:6); He mingled a perverse spirit (Isa. 19:14); He spread dung on people's faces (Mal. 2:3)); He ordered stealing (Ezek. 39:10, Ex. 3:22); He made false prophecies (Jonah 3:4. Gen. 5:10); He changed his mind (Jonah 3:10); He caused adultery (2 Sam. 12:11-12); He ordered the taking of a harlot (Hosea 1:2, 3:1-2); He killed (Num. 16:35, 21:6, Deut. 32:39, 1 Sam. 2:26, Psalm 135:10); He ordered killing (Lev. 26:7-8, Num. 25:4-5); He had a temper (Deut. 13:17, Judges 3:8); He was often jealous (Deut. 5:9, 6:15); He wasn't omnipresent (Gen4:16, 11:5, 1 Kings 19:11-12); He wasn't omniscient (Deut. 8:2, 13:3, 2 Chron. 32:31); He often repented (Ex. 32:14, 1 Sam. 15:35); He practiced injustice (Ex. 4:22-23, Joshua 22:20, Rom. 5:12); He played favorites (Deut. 7:6, 14:2, 1 Sam. 12:22); He sanctioned slavery (Ex. 21:20-21, Deut. 15:17); He degraded deformed people (Lev. 21:16-23); He punished a bastard for being illegitimate (Deut. 23:2); He punished many for the acts of one (Gen. 3:16, 20:18); He punished children for the sins of their fathers (Ex. 12:29, 20:5, Deut. 5:9); He prevented people from hearing his word (Isa. 6:10, John 12:39-40); He supported human sacrifice (Ex. 22:29-30, Ezek. 20:26); He ordered cannibalism (Lev. 26: 29, Jer. 19:9); He demanded virgins as a part of war plunder (Num. 31:31-36); He ordered gambling (Joshua 14. 2, Num. 26:52, 55-56); He ordered horses to be hamstrung (Joshua 11:6); He sanctioned violation of the enemy's women (Deut. 21:10-14); He excused the beating of slaves to death (Ex. 21:20-21); He required a woman to marry her rapist (Deut. 22:28:29); He taught war (Psalm 144:1); He ordered the burning of human feces to cook food (Ezek. 21:3-5); He intentionally issued bad laws (Ezek. 20:25); He excused the sins of prostitutes and adulterers (Hosea 4:14); He excused a murderer and promised his protection (Gen. 4:8-15); He killed a man who refused to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law (Gen. 38:9-10); and He is indecisive (Gen. 18:17). "I 'm fairly confident that you, like me, have failed at that. Only Jesus' righteousness being given to us can reconcile us to God." Well, setting aside all of the above examples of why I would not want to be reconciled to your confused God, let’s get into this directly. If Jesus is giving something to us, then we need to do nothing whatsoever in order to receive it, correct? Otherwise, it’s not a gift, right? That includes, by the way as some other fundamentalist attempted to state, "picking it up." If this is truly a gift from Jesus then it is given freely to us, regardless of what our actions are, otherwise, it is NOT a gift. If we are required to do ANYTHING at all in order to receive this gift (including simply "picking it up") then it is NOT a gift. I don’t care if all that you need to do is love Jesus or believe in Jesus or simply blink three times, it is not a gift if I am required to do anything in order to receive it. And don’t attempt childish analogies here like the fundie above with the "picking it up" crap, because this is supposedly divine salvation we’re discussing. If divine salvation is a gift from God, then NOTHING we do can be a condition of that gift, or else it is not a gift. It would be a reward and that would mean your God plays favorites; that we can somehow "win" our way into Heaven. If that is your contention, then your belief structure is even more childish than I first thought and in serious need of examining beyond this missive. "He loves you and wants the same thing for you that I received from Him this past year." Well, since I’ve never met the man and don’t believe in the deity and he’s been dead for a few thousand years, then that puts things into an awkward light. I wonder what a psychologist that hadn’t been born on this planet would do the minute he entered any kind of Church. If he were I, he had every one of them committed. "It is good that you question things. No one should allow themselves to be duped." Well, finally another statement of yours I whole-heartedly agree with. The other was about how there are no original manuscripts. "In all the time you spend searching the scriptures in the attempt to destroy them truly see what it says." Ah, and here’s where we diverge. There is no "attempt" nor is there a destruction going on. The words speak for themselves, which is why Dennis never speculates in his analysis, he simply illustrates the obvious contradictions that exist. Once again, you proceed from a false assumption. You assume that we are all just Satan’s little helpers, hell bent on destroying what in your eyes cannot be destroyed. Nothing could be further from the truth. We’re just awake trying to help you and your kind discern truth from indoctrinated trance states. We are cult deprogrammers, and the tool we use is the book you’ve read, but never seen. You have been duped by a snake oil salesman and we’re just here to mop your brow while your sweat out the toxins of your indoctrination. Believe it or not, we’re not your enemies. "If it is truly of God then there is power and hope for eternal life. If its not what do we have?" Yes, Pascal’s pathetic wager. You know what? You’re right. We’re wrong. Go back to sleep. The Bible is completely true and the universe was magically willed into existence by a fairy God King who just wants us all to love him and sing his praises, which is why he created us with the ability to do whatever we wanted, hoping against hope on his throne in the clouds that we would all just do the right thing, because that makes the most sense; that version of events is clearly the easiest to understand and believe in because absolutely nothing about it is childish in any way shape or form. God never does anything bad, it’s all Mankind’s fault for not loving God, and dinosaurs were just God’s little way of saying, "Oh ye of little faith." It will never cease to amaze me that intelligent men and women will immediately revert back to frightened little children whenever their myths and fables are shown to be what they are. It always reminds me of how even the fiercest of cats will instantly ball up into a harmless kitten the second you grab them by the scruff. " No other man ever made the claims Jesus made." Actually, many thousands of men have made the same claims long before anybody named Jesus allegedly walked the planet (a few examples of Jesus lack of miracles is detailed below). What claims are you referring to? " No one else ever sacrificed himself for my sins so if it is true then it is the most important thing we will ever make a decision about." Ok, then let’s get into this one, too. Enough of my flippancy, you are a passionate believer in this doctrine so let’s actually discuss this. I have heard this many, many times, the "he sacrificed himself for my sins" guilt based propaganda and I’m wondering just exactly what it means? I don’t mean in a poetic sense since the poetry has no bearing on our supposed salvation, I mean in a specific, literal translation of that statement, "He sacrificed himself for my sins." Would you care to enlighten me as to how this is physically possible, or even meta-physically possible? How does the death of one person, even if that "person" was God, wipe out our sins? It was, at best, a magnanimous gesture, but utterly worthless when you actually examine the details. Christians are supposed to somehow accept that God came down in flesh in order to "die" for their sins, when supposedly God can not die (setting aside, of course, that God would not have to do such elaborate theatrics to save us to begin with). So what died? God’s flesh? What possible difference would that make? Then was it God’s spirit? Can God’s spirit die? Not according to any dogma I’ve ever had the misfortune to read. So, we’re back to the flesh dying and again I’ll ask, what is the specific mechanism of the death of God’s flesh that results in our salvation? This is a primary tenet of your religion so you should have a definitive answer. Again, I’m not asking you for the poetry here, I’m sincerely asking you to deconstruct this concept for me and detail how the death of anyone’s flesh has to do with wiping out our sins? And please do not simply use the word "sacrifice" as if it has any kind of magical, spiritual meaning, because it does not since we’re discussing God. There is nothing to sacrifice to, setting aside the fact that a sacrifice is a man-made concept that is purely symbolic and has no actual substantive results. You can sacrifice an animal to make it rain, but that does not mean it rained because you sacrificed an animal. It is pure symbolism, yet you are taking it to be some kind of literal fact. If so, then detail that fact and do not go into analogy or pointless generalities. "That is why His resurrection is the very foundation of Christianity. Jesus' resurrection and ascension shows that God accepted His sacrifice." Again, how could God accept a sacrifice to himself? What is sacrificing and what is accepting? "If you want to tear down Christianity I would suggest you start there. If you disprove that one event in history then all the rest falls with it." Very clever of you to attempt to slip in the assumption that the resurrection was a proven historical event. Since it has never been proven, however, I do not, as you claim, have to disprove it. It is on your shoulders to prove such an event occurred and that the event carries any kind of significance. I can, however, show you the insignificance of the event as related by your own book, as well as the mass of contradictions surrounding this erroneous claim of Jesus’ divinity in order to illustrate that not only has it not been proven, but worse, the accounts themselves clearly show no proof exists. Let’s examine the aspects of the "event" according to your own accounts. Once again I’ll turn to Dennis’ own illustration so that you will have no questions as to the conclusions drawn (from Biblical Errancy newsletter): >>Why should the Resurrection be of such significance? Elijah raised a child from the dead (1Kings 17:17, 21-22); Samuel said to Saul, "Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me" (1Sam. 28.7, 11, 15); Elisha raised the dead son of a Shunammite (2 Kings 4:32, 34-35); a dead man being lowered into a grave revived when he touched the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21); Moses and Elijah revived at the time of the Transfiguration (Luke 9:28, 3 );the saints arose at the time of Jesus' death (Matt. 27:52-53); Jairus' daughter rose from the dead (Matt. 9:18, 23-25 ); the widow at Nain's son rose from the dead (Luke 7:11-15); and Lazarus rose from the dead (John 11:43-44). All of these people ascended from death, and all did so before Jesus. So why attribute so much importance to the event? By the time Christ rose from the dead, this was a rather common occurrence. Moreover, people arose not only before Jesus, but after as well. Peter raised Tabitha and Paul raised Eutychus. While participating in a radio call-in program several years ago, the author was told by a caller that, except for Jesus, all of the above-mentioned people eventually died again. But Paul clearly asserted it's the Resurrection, per se, that matters, not the fact Jesus never died again. The caller was asked to cite a passage that justified his contention. There was no reply. A second major difficulty associated with the Resurrection lies in the contradictory accounts in the four gospels of what occurred. The following represent some of the major disagreements surrounding the events connected with the Resurrection: A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb? At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1). B. Who came? Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary, the mother of James, and other women (Luke 24:10) C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 8:1-2) D. Whom did they see at the tomb? The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12) E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12). F. Were they standing or sitting? Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12). G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her? Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14). If the stories were consistent, one could write one long, continuous narrative, incorporating all four versions without fear of divergences. Yet, this has never been done without adding, altering or omitting key verses. Apologists often submit the witness-at-an-auto-accident argument, which is quite irrelevant, since two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event cannot be simultaneously accurate. One or the other is false. Moreover, witnesses at an accident, unlike gospel writers, are not claiming Innerrancy. A third major problem connected with the Resurrection lies in the fact that even if Jesus had risen, nobody is going to follow his example: Eccle. 3:19-21 (RSV) "For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same: as one dies, so dies the other. ...man has no advantage (pre-eminence-KJV) over beasts;... All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth." Job 7:9-10, 1 Tim. 6:15-16, Isaiah 26:14 say as much. Robert Ingersoll, one of the greatest Biblical commentators in American history, spoke wisely when he said: "The Old Testament tells us how we lost immortality and it does not say a word about another world, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last curse in Malachi. No man in the Old Testament stands by the dead and says, "We shall meet again." From the top of Sinai came no hope of another world." (Orthodoxy, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2, page 424.) In fact, what did Jesus ever do that had not already been accomplished? He rose from the dead, but only after others. He performed miracles, but so had others. He raised people from the dead, but so had Old Testament prophets. He healed, but so had others. What, then, did Jesus do that was different, that had not already been done? Plainly stated, "What makes him stand out from the crowd?" Thousands have claimed to be the savior; so what are the acts that substantiate his credentials? Assertions alone prove nothing. Anyone can claim to be the Messiah, and thousands have.<< Thank you Dennis. Now back to your closing. "As you said you "seek to prove all things" (1 Thes. 5:21)." Well, I didn’t say it, but I’m speaking on Dennis’ behalf, so, yes, we do seek to prove all things. As should you since your own book demands that you do. "I pray that as you search God will reveal Himself to you as you read His Word." Well, unfortunately, God did "reveal" himself to me as I read "his word." The revalation was that the Jedeo/Christian God does not exist and is merely a creation of Mankind’s need to control and subjugate individuals of low intelligence. I reached that conclusion, by the way, when I was eight years old. My subsequent study has only confirmed this fact and I am now thirty-four. "I know that you must get a lot of hate mail from "Christians" and I apologize for that. There is obviously a lot of hostility toward Christianity in your heart. I used to feel the same way." Again, speaking on behalf of Dennis, I can personally attest to the fact that he has no hostility toward Christianity, because that would be like having hostility toward the Brother’s Grimm or Mother Goose. Christians always attempt this sidetrack whenever any legitimate questions about their faith arise. They always attempt to claim that the one questioning is somehow filled with anger and bitterness and hatred at their purity, when the simple truth of the matter is that we aren’t at all. The only thing I am ever hostile toward is rampant stupidity that results in the harm of others and there has been no greater example of that malevolence than Christianity. Letters 3-6: These are from my personal correspondence with a particularly annoying individual who felt it his personal mission to force a debate over the Anthropic Principle (AP). As you’ll see from the progression of my responses, at first I had never heard of the AP and had no interest in arguing it, but got into it just to shut this jackass down. Again, the correspondence is not complete, but you’ll be able to follow the gist of it and see just how truly evil propaganda indoctrination is. In a nutshell, the AP (or, as it is commonly referred to, the Argument from Fine Tuning) is the "scientific" circuitous proof that God created the universe. You should also know that his original argument to me was a hypothetical regarding the impossibility of picking up a red grain of sand in the Sahara desert while blindfolded. It was supposed to be his lead in argument illustrating how impossible it is that the universe was created naturally. Students of propaganda should note throughout his consistent use of accusing his detractors (me) with his own offenses (the use of circular logic). Letter 3: Tom attempts to refute my statement that his argument (since the odds of natural occurrence are beyond 10 raised to the 50th power, it is therefore impossible for the universe to have occurred naturally) is erroneous at best and, at worst, mathematically incorrect. Tom— Once again, I have sectioned off your response with quotation marks. This time, however, I have not corrected your overwhelming spelling mistakes. "Let me try to put your "reasoning" into a faulty syllogism. Let X equal our universe and its physical laws. The odds of X of occuring naturally are zero (sense they are beyond 10 to the 50th power)" Once again, you have illustrated your ignorance. The odds of X occurring naturally are NOT zero. You have erroneously concluded that an odd of occurrence being beyond a certain mathematical limit is EQUIVALENT to zero, simply because they are so small and because you have learned that in mathematical computations, mathematicians routinely equate a miniscule number with zero in order to carry out their computations. It is NOT equivalent to zero, however, when you are discussing an event THAT HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED, no matter how many scientists you misinterpret to state that it is, so you are the one proceeding from a false construct. But let's continue, I come back to this in direct refutation of your "points" in the body of the letter... "X did occur. Therefore, X is not impossible to occur naturally.Is this close enough?" No, it isn't even in the same ballpark. My "syllogism" would be, The odds of X occurring are very small. X did occur. Therefore, calculating the odds of X occurring (though entertaining mental masturbation) is irrelevant. Note the difference here. You have decided that since you read someone claiming that .999999999999 EQUALS 1, then it MUST be that .9999999999 EQUALS 1. This is true only in mathematical computations and has no bearing on the fact of whether or not something "beat the odds." Again, I get into this more later... "Now, the problem is with the third part. The key word here is "naturally." It is still impossible for X to have occurred naturally, whether it has occurred in reality or not. Hence, to say that sense it occurred it THEREFORE occurred NATURALLY is a non sequiter." The only non-sequitur here is your above statement. You have not shown that it is "impossible for X to have occurred naturally," you have only demonstrated an irrelevant point, namely, that the odds of X occurring "naturally" are extremely small. This proves only one thing, that the odds of X occurring "naturally" are extremely small. That's it. No other inference can be made. And since it did occur naturally, this renders your already irrelevant point even more ridiculous. Unless, of course you are going to offer some form of proof that X occurred "supernaturally," which I would love to read. Is that where this is going? Do you have ANY PROOF AT ALL that X occurred "supernaturally" or are you the one using circular logic? Where is your valid syllogism? Where is your proof that X occurred "supernaturally?" Because, absent such proof, we are left with what we have, nature. Nature exists, this can not be refuted or denied. Therefore, the burden of proof to the contrary--that a "supernatural" event created the universe--is on he who alleges. Surely you learned that much in your logic course. "It is just like your circular reasoning re: the process of entropy. You seem to think that this was manufactured in some conspiracy by some creationist scientists who were out to prove the existence of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. Stephen Weinberg is one of the top 50 or so physicists in the world. He has worked with such renowned people as John Archibald Wheeler & Richard Feynman. Oh, and by the way - he is also a devout atheist. However, he has labelled entropy as creating the "problem of genesis." (See Stephen Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, 1979). John Archibald Wheeler himself has promoted himself as a defender of oscillating universe theory, even though he has described the evidence as "weak" (see John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam, 1998)." Great. I will read this and get back to you on it, but it doesn't change the central fact that you are proceeding from a false assumption. In fact, I am well versed in Feynman, so I can see right off the bat that you have done what so many Christians who try desperately to bend science to their rationalizations do on a painfully regular basis, namely, misinterpreted the scientists' points. But, since I have not read what you have asked me to read, I will hold my analysis until I do. This does not, however, preclude me from addressing your conclusions or the central flaws of your argument. As for the entropy stuff, I address that in a minute... "Now, you seem to think that the role of science is to disprove the existence of God." No, I don't think that, nor did I ever give any inference or implication that I did feel that. It just so happens that science has served very nicely to prove that most of the ridiculous claims in the Bible are clearly not possible (such as an Ark of the dimensions given carrying selections of every single animal, insect, bacterium, and Dinosaur; and the age of the universe according to the genealogies in Genesis). "It is not. Nor is it to prove the existence of God. The role of science is to find out the way things are, WHATEVER THAT MAY END UP BEING." Great, we're in agreement. And the very second science proves the existence of a fairy God-King that mystically "willed" the Universe into existence, I'll dance and sing and eat pounds of chocolate. One thing is definite, however, science has already disproved most of the claims of the Bible, so no matter what is discovered in the future, the Bible CAN NOT be the inerrant word of God. That is already proved through science, so I'm not going to hold my breath, but you certainly can. I recommend you begin right now. "Now, you rejected my argument for a first cause from the implications of entropy (one of the most esablished laws of nature that is accepted by every credible physicist on the planet) because it interefered with your fantasy world paradigm." What fantasy world paradigm are you talking about? Nature? Because that's the only paradigm I live in. "In other words, the argument from entropy is wrong because there is no God. This is a classic, texbook case of circular reasoning. Never mind what I say - go to any logician at any university & THEY WILL TELL YOU THE EXACT SAME THING!" I haven't a clue as to what your contention here is. I never stated that "entropy is wrong because there is no God." I'm a firm believer in entropy theory. What you were trying to assume is that entropy within an infinite universe would imply somehow in a finite regression, and that also shows your misunderstanding of both infinity and entropy. If the universe is an infinite system, then entropy will continue infinitely. There will NEVER be a point of infinity "stopping" no matter what current theories state; that is the definition of infinity. It has no beginning, no middle, and no end. Are we clear on that point now? You asked if I believed the universe was infinite, and I said yes. To then attempt a forced acceptance of a theory that would contradict this supposition only shows that the theory is not a complete theory and one I don't agree with, regardless of Stephen Hawking sitting in his chair telling me that it isn't the case. If the universe is indeed infinite, then there will never be a "time" when it ceases (or begins) to be infinite. And while we're at it, let's dispense right now with the "go to experts and they will tell you" bullshit, shall we? I can list hundreds of thousands of experts and you can list hundreds of thousands (well, probably only a handful) and none of it will make the slightest bit of difference. These are THEORIES we are discussing, NOT absolutes. This means that they are open to debate; conjecture; further proofs; disproof’s; all kinds of thought provoking analysis. Nor did I reject your argument based upon entropy or upon any "circular reasoning." As I stated before and in this response, I rejected your argument based solely upon the erroneous assumption that a slim chance of "natural" existence is EQUIVALENT to no chance of "natural" existence. This is the basis of your contention and it is not a supportable one. You are the one who consistently avoids this point, attempting to force an invalid construct upon my valid rejection of it. I don't give a flying neutrino whether or not the odds of a "natural" existence are smaller than Planck's constant; it is entirely irrelevant how small the odds are that it occurred. This is not "circular reasoning" this is direct refutation of your invalid construct. Nature exists. Absent any proof that it was created "supernaturally," the odds of its existence are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. Until you can offer proof of a "supernatural" creation of the Universe, then what we have is nature, no matter how slim the chances are that it was "naturally" constructed. "Now, about this business about your being able to find a red grain of sand blindfolded on the first try in the Sahara desert." Again, you're missing my point and misinterpreting what I wrote. I NEVER claimed that I COULD find the grain of sand. The question was and still remains, What happens to your argument if I DID find it on the very first try, regardless of how small the odds are of doing so? The fact that it IS possible to find a red grain of sand on the first try in the Sahara desert while blindfolded--NO MATTER HOW UNLIKELY--is completely disregarded by you, without any justification whatsoever. Once again, you are proceeding from a false assumption, namely, .9999999999999 EQUALS 1. It does not (except as a convenience of mathematics for the express purpose of mathematical computations) and so long as it does not, there will always be a hole in your argument that you could drive a universe through. "Well, let us suppose for a moment that you have a realistic chance of getting it (just for the sake of argument). Would you bet everything you own, including your very life, that you would be able to accomplish this task? Remember, the Sahara desert is far far bigger than the United States & you only get ONE SHOT to pick up ONE GRAIN OF SAND and that grain of sand had better be the red one, OR ELSE YOU LOSE EVERYTHING." I have no idea why you've decided to add all of this pointless crap about having "one shot" and "I lose everything." Not only was this not a condition of your argument, it is just as irrelevant. This betrays your cult indoctrination and illustrates to me one thing: You are almost entirely blind and can only see through religious glasses. Why would I only get "one shot?" How would I "lose everything?" Are you attempting to infuse Christian concepts into your argument? Please explain how the small chance of finding a specific grain of sand in the Sahara has anything to do with "betting my life on it." But let's continue... "Now, you will most likely say yes to this question just to spite me." No, I didn't. I simply illustrated how irrelevant your argument is. "If you do, you are either a liar or a fool (or both). If you say no, you are unwilling to risk everything on it, I win by default. If you say that it does not matter, oh yes it does." Why, because you say it does? What the hell are you talking about? Or is that what you're trying to allude to, "hell?" Is that it? And when did "risking everything on it" and "winning by default" come into this? Were you attempting to make a theological argument out of this or ask me about the odds of something occurring? Clarify this please, because I was responding to the odds issue and not childish, fear-based dogma. "YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE "FACT" THAT YOU CAN GRAB THAT RED GRAIN OF SAND ON THE FIRST TRY!" WRONG! LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND IN BIG E-Z-2 READ FUNDAMENTALIST-APPROVED TYPE: YOUR ARGUMENT IS BASED UPON AN INVALID ASSUMPTION AND THEREFORE FALLS. THE FACT THAT THE ODDS OF SOMETHING OCCURRING ARE SMALL PROVES ONLY ONE THING: THE ODDS OF SOMETHING OCCURRING ARE SMALL. PERIOD. Is that clear now? Further, as I asked before and I’ll ask again, what happens to your argument if (note the word "if") I can grab the grain on the first try? It is not an impossibility, it is highly improbable. They are not equivalent. It is entirely possible for me to grab the red grain of sand on the very first try, however unlikely it may be. So stick to the point and answer the question. What happens to your argument if I do grab the red grain on the first try? "Just as out of all of the possible universes (in accordance with the Penrose number (10 to the 10th raised to the 123rd)) this one just happened to be the one that was formed. NOBODY IS THAT LUCKY!" Well, again, you are simply speculating based upon your desperation. This is your own false conclusion and is both logically invalid and mathematically invalid. "Luck" has nothing to do with science or math, but using your own terminology, obviously WE are "that lucky" since it occurred. If your Penrose is correct in his calculation of the odds, then the ONLY conclusion to be made from such odds is that we are "lucky" that it did occur because it did occur, AND CERTAINLY NOT that a fairy God-King created us into existence. Nature exists. The fact that Penrose shows the odds of it existing are incredibly small--even to the point of giving the "appearance" of being zero--DOES NOT change the fact that nature exists and no proof of a "supernatural" existence is in evidence. Again, until you can present proof and not circuitous reasoning that the universe was created "supernaturally," the fact remains that it IS natural. The burden of proof lies on he who alleges, and pointing out how small the chances are of something occurring does not negate the fact that it occurred that way. It is only mental masturbation, a feat you are obviously an expert at. Beside all that, is your argument that "NOBODY IS THAT LUCKY" your "proof" that the universe must therefore have been created by a fairy God-King? If so, then you have defined circular reasoning. "If you point to the fact that the universe does indeed exist & that therefore we beat all of the impossible odds "by chance", you are once again retreating into circular reasoning. (See the syllogysm above)." Again, wrong. They are not impossible odds. That is your erroneous conclusion. THEY ARE VERY SLIM ODDS. MINISCULE ODDS. REALLY, REALLY, TINY ODDS. AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. The odds that you will be hit by a bus driven by an albino African on his way to a spelunking excursion on December 8th at exactly 5:01 p.m. are so small that you might as well say "it is impossible," but this does not mean it CAN NOT occur, nor does it mean it is impossible! That is a false conclusion not supported either by mathematics or by experience. If it DID occur, then where does that place your odds argument? In the trash. Now do you see why you are proceeding from a false assumption? Is it clear now? All this theory of yours states is that the odds of our existence occurring "naturally" are incredibly small, NOT that the odds of our existence occurring "naturally" are impossible. Since you have provided NO EVIDENCE that we exist "supernaturally" then your theory is irrelevant and proves nothing. I think the odds on my winning the lottery are so small as to be considered zero, but that does not mean that I am right, nor does it mean that they are zero. You can raise ten to the millionth power and it would not alter the fact that ten to the millionth power is still more than enough chance in an infinite universe that our existence would occur. Hell, raise ten to the googol plex power and it will still be a literal "drop in the bucket" as far as infinity is concerned. "Once again, according to all credible mathmaticians on earth, anything beyond one chance in 10 to the 50th power is the same as zero." Wrong! Only for Homocentric mathematical computations is the number "the same" as zero. I repeat, only for homocentric mathematical computations is the number "the same" as zero. For everything else, however, the fact that an odd of occurrence is small does not mean it can not be. You've completely misunderstood what mathematics is for. They are a man-made construct used as a tool for understanding our homocentric view of life, yet they are nowhere near "complete" and total absolutes. Again, I would refer you to any quantum physics 101 course for you to understand that "experts" are not only consistently wrong about their calculations, but not a single one worth a damn would ever make such stupendously stupid conclusions that you are making, and I could give a shit if they have a hundred PhD's after their name, they would still be arrogant fools too in love with their own faulty proofs to see that they have reached an untenable conclusion. When compared to an infinite universe, no odd is small enough to be considered zero. Got it? Is it clear now? Your argument is that, because the odds of natural occurrence are VERY small, so small as to be ASSUMED to be zero, that they are, IN FACT zero. This is an invalid conclusion and destroys your argument completely. "Forget about dueling with the theists - you are saying that you are right and that every mathmatician on the planet is wrong!!!!! And you say that I am childish? Whoa! Now I have heard everything!" Again, no mathematician worth a damn would ever say that it is impossible for natural occurrence. This is your erroneous conclusion. At best, at the very best, a statistician would state, "It is highly unlikely to the effective point of being improbable, but by no means is it impossible." If you are reading anyone--and I don't give a rat's ass if it were Einstein himself--that claimed anything other then they are just as wrong as you are. "One further point. You have a false
notion of t Wow, you just read what you want to and disregard the point, don't you? I did not say I thought I could grab the red grain of sand blindfolded on the first try, I asked you what would happen to your argument if I DID grab the grain on the first try? And I'm asking it again and will continue to ask it until you answer. Since it is not impossible for me to grab the grain on the first try, but merely highly improbable, what happens to your argument if I DO grab it on the first try? That is the only question to which you need to answer. "Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the greatest atheistic minds on the planet have adopted what is known as the multiple universe theory. You have probably not heard of it," I tell you what, you stop with your childish condescension and I'll stop calling you stupid. How's that? "They (unlike you) realize that the odds of this universe being the way it is (if it is in fact the only universe) are zero." Total and utter bullshit! They think only that the odds of this universe being the way it is are highly improbable. Stop making invalid conclusions. "As the famous astronomer Fred Hoyle (another atheist) once said, "The universe looks like a put-up job. It seems as though someone has been monkeying around with the laws of physics." Anyway, all of these gentlemen (and many more besides) find it necessary to invoke multitudes of imaginary universes IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THIS ONE!!!!! " You know, it's remarkable how you can have such an imaginative mind and understand so much, but consistently miss the true point. They do not find it "necessary" to invoke multiple universe theory "in order to justify this one." They, like all of science, are on a quest to understand and discover what our universe is; what our existence is based upon and what paradigms there are. One theory is that there are multiple universes (indeed, string theory states that we must live in a 26 or 10 dimensional universe), but it is not "to justify" anything. It is to discover what our universe is through possible theories. You seem to think that any new theory or new discovery is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH and somehow negates something else when the fact is that we are fleas trying to understand what the dog is. ALL thought on the matter--including religious myths--both past and present and future are part of the attempt to discover where we are and what it is made of. It is not an attempt to "justify" anything. It is an ever growing and ever changing discovery process of what our existence is constructed of, and just like mathematics, it changes and grows with each new theory; each new possibility; each new discovery. What current scientists theorize about only serves to broaden our understanding not set it down in stone tablets handed to Moses. If you have misinterpreted this, I'm sorry, but that is your own cross to bear. Indeed, only Christianity seeks to "justify" and rationalize what science would never do; proclaim an Absolute Understanding Of Existence. Every one of those "experts" you quote would be the first to state that what they are discussing are theories; possible answers to huge questions, questions that we are just beginning to ask on any fact based level. Unlike the closed-minded Christian, science heralds new discoveries and new constructs; it revels in new theories that may (or may not) answer age-old questions. It is not nor ever will be an absolute proclamation. And any scientist who claims it is absolute will simply suffer shame and humiliation (such as those working on GUT) when their theory is shown to be incomplete or just plain wrong. And unlike Christians, when a scientist is shown that their theory is wrong--that their belief structure crumbles under the light of scrutiny--they admit it and move on to the new theory. You should try it sometime, instead of attempting to find every rationalization no matter how ridiculous to continue your misguided belief that a fairy God-King created existence. "It also seems to me a bit of a desparate move, but that's of no consequence here. Once again, forget about squabbling with the creationists for a moment - THESE ARE YOUR OWN FELLOW ATHEISTS WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Um, beside the fact that a single exclamation point is sufficient for me to understand your emphasis, I have no "fellow atheists." Atheism is not a religion; there are no club meetings, and there certainly are no guidelines or rules. It simply means that I do not believe a mythical creature created all of existence. And, not a single "fellow atheist" or scientist worth his or her salt would ever disagree with the fact that miniscule odds are not equivalent to no odds at all. At best they would agree that it is highly improbable and, irrelevant. "And yet you are going to sit there and tell me that all of the finest materialist & scientific minds on the planet are wrong, BUT YOU ARE RIGHT?!?!?!?!!" Stop leaping to erroneous conclusions! You quoted Penrose, not "all of the finest materialist and scientific minds on the planet." Your hyperbole is just as childish as your unnecessary repetitions of question marks and exclamation points. And, yes, the "finest materialist and scientific minds on the planet" would agree with my assessment; a small chance of occurrence is not equivalent to no chance of occurrence, especially when the event has already occurred. Again, if you are attempting to prove that there is a "supernatural" explanation of the universe, then state your proof, because without it, we have only one fact: Nature exists. "And then you accuse ME of meglomania? !?!?!?! Oh, plllllease..." I don't "accuse" you of it; I point it out to you as a matter of supportable fact. Your letters are filled with your childish and unwarranted self-aggrandizement, as I have and will illustrate to you from now on. "Anyway, there is one small, itsy bitsy problem with multiple universe theory: there is not a SHRED of evidence that so much as ONE universe besides our own exists - much less an infinite number of them." Well, guess what? There is not a SHRED of evidence that this universe was mythically created by a God, nor have you offered ANY evidence that our universe did not naturally occur. You erroneously conclude that since there is such a small chance of our existence, it MUST mean that a fairy God-King magically willed us into being. This is not only unsupportable, but also the very height of circuitous reasoning. You believe in a fairy God-King, and I believe in intelligence. The difference being that intelligence is an open system, capable of growth and fuller understanding, whereas your beliefs were closed two thousand years ago. "Therefore, if the atheist would like to believe in them, that is all fine and well. However, IT WOULD BE A LEAP OF FAITH TO DO SO!!! Surprise, surprise! Is this not delightful? This puts us all in the same metaphysical boat, so to speak. The only difference is in our destinations. So, if you are keeping score at home, being an atheist entails a leap of faith of its own. Surprised? Hmmmmmmm." In case you were looking for examples of your childishness, just read how silly your "hmmmmmmm" crap is. But more to the point, you've finally illustrated the fatal flaw in your position. "Atheists" do not "believe" in anything. It is not a "leap of faith" to believe in multiple universes, it can clearly be shown to be a logical probability through the very mathematics that you so incorrectly leap upon. NOTE THE WORD "PROBABILITY." You see, unlike frightened children, intelligent people such as myself are not afraid of the universe. We do not require something to "believe in" to "justify" our existence. We read current theories and are amazed at all of the new discoveries, but "belief" never enters into the picture. I make no "leap of faith" at all, I simply live and am in no "metaphysical boat." As for your "destinations" bullshit, you have offered absolutely no proof whatsoever that you "go someplace" so this is just as irrelevant. Once again, if you are attempting a theological discussion then get to it, because this circular bullshit is growing incredibly thin. The burden of proof lies with he who alleges so where's your proof that the universe did not naturally occur? "This is the bottom line: if Penrose is remotely correct (and if he is incorrect YOU must PROVE him as such and not merely CONJECTURE THAT HE IS INCORRECT)" Already done, if you have quoted Penrose faithfully. I suspect there is more to what he is writing and I'll find out, but we are clearly not debating Penrose, we are debating your erroneous conclusions based upon Penrose's theory. And that was unbelievably easy to prove incorrect, so I'll get to Penrose later. "then there are only three possibilities. EITHER there is a God (or gods, if you please) OR there are multiple universes." Once again you have leaped to the wrong conclusion. It is not an either or proposition. We don't know what the universe is made of, we only have theories about it's construction; theories that continue to grow and change as new concepts are investigated. Perhaps there are multiple universes. Perhaps there aren't. Do you have any idea what a theory is, by the way? "It could even be that there is both a God (or gods) AND multiple universes, BUT IT CAN'T BE THAT THERE ARE NEITHER!!!!!!! Period." There are all those exclamation points again. Here are some of mine: THEORIES ARE NOT ABSOLUTE PROOFS!!!!!!!!! WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE UNIVERSE IS CONSTRUCTED OF!!!!!! WE HAVE MANY THEORIES ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE UNIVERSE IS CONSTRUCTED OF!!!!!! YOU HAVE OFFERED NO PROOF THAT A GOD EXISTS, YOU HAVE ONLY ATTEMPTED CIRCUITOUS REASONING TO IMPLY THAT NATURAL OCCURRENCE COULD NOT HAVE EXPLAINED OUR EXISTENCE, SO, THEREFORE, GOD CREATED US!!!!!!! YOU ARE WRONG IN YOUR SUPPOSITION, SYLLOGISM, AND CONCLUSION!!!!!!!! "If you wish to challenge this premise, don't waste my time -(I have wasted too much of my time on your little mind as it is)." More evidence of your childish insults and megalomania. Your premise is so clearly baseless it hurts. "Instead, consult ANY physicist who is educated on the issue (whether they be atheist, agnostic, skeptic or creationist does not matter) and THEY WILL TELL YOU THE EXACT SAME THING THAT I AM TELLING YOU NOW!!!!!!" NO THEY WON'T!!!!!!!! THEY WILL ONLY SAY AT BEST THAT IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT LIFE EXISTS--NOTE THE WORD "IMPROBABLE"!!!!!!!! "If you would like further reading on the Anthropic Principle, I would suggest Universes by John Leslie. I make this suggestion because it is THE definitive study of the Anthropic Principle. It is quite exhaustive & is also endorsed by BOTH atheists & theists alike. Of course, I am probably foolish to even attempt to recommend anything to you - the way you talk, you seem to have a monopoly on knowledge & don't need to consider anything that anyone else has to say - whether they be atheists, theists or whatever." I will read it with pleasure. Unlike you, I am open to anything that is thought provoking. However, if the conclusion is that "it is impossible for life to have been created without a fairy god-king willing it into creation" then I'll laugh my ass off at such a worthless rationalization and consider you more of an idiot than I already do. Sorry, I had promised not to call you any more names, but your childish attempts at insulting my intelligence beg for a statement of fact, namely, "if you believe this, you are an idiot." Not so much an insult as an observation. "In any case, I don't see why I am even trying to reason with you. Arguing with you is like trying to argue with a wall - you don't listen to anything anyone else has to say. You just like to talk." Perhaps that's because you have nothing to say except invalid conclusions based on faulty rationalizations. Perhaps it's because I see through you the way I do a window. If you are attempting to prove that a God exists, then do so. Your circuitous argument is not supportable, as I have conclusively proved. So, how's this: Would you care to go over the points I brought up to refute your argument before you accuse me of just "liking to talk?" You are the one who proposed an invalid argument, I merely illustrated all of the glaring flaws within it; flaws that you have yet to address directly. So, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!! (there, see how childish and annoying that is?) "I think you would be a good candidate to debate yourself - perhaps then you will learn how to listen? Probably not. Anyway, I would suggest that you take to heart a phrase by the great philsopher Walter Kaufmann of Princeton university (Kaufmann was an atheist, in case you are wondering): "He who rejects reason is like the man who gouges out his eyes because he can't see everything." Your continual rejection of reason is perhaps the most baffling aspect of someone who considers himself educated & at least semi-intelligent. I would urge you to reconsider your position in the light of reason - not in the interest of preserving your fantasy-world paradigm of the universe. That is all I have to say." I see. So you are stating what? That you believe a fairy God-King is NOT a fantasy? What fantasy of mine would you be referring to? I have no preconceived or indoctrinated fantasies about the universe. And, as this entire response proves conclusively, it is I who use reason; you use false conclusions based on misinterpretation and way too many "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!’s." Try, if it is possible, to answer my direct refutations of your argument with direct refutations of your own. It’s called intelligence. Try it some time. And a detailed analysis of just exactly what my "fantasy-world paradigm" might be would be most appreciated. I had no idea that being open to new theories and discoveries about the Universe without prejudice was a fantasy. And, before you jump up and down on your exclamation point button, the theory you have described--if indeed it is as you have described--is not worth reviewing, but just to shut you up, I will read it. I'm sure I will find all of the mistakes you made when reading it and will be able to take you through them so that you can understand something instead of leaping to erroneous conclusions. One last thing, just so that you begin your letter with the ONLY answer I was seeking to begin with. If I DID find the grain of sand on the first try--no matter how small a chance that ultimately is--if I DID find it blindfolded in the Sahara desert on the first try, what would that do to your argument? Not holding my breath,Robb Letter 4: Tom had finally discarded most of his hyperbole and presented a somewhat intelligent response contained within my next response Unfortunately, this is where he branches out into his Anthropic Principle debacle, relying entirely upon carefully selected quotes from various physicists he thinks support his position (or, at the very least, from a pamphlet he read containing the carefully selected quotes). This is a common theme among wannabe demagogues; they present strong arguments backed up by weak or misinterpreted statements that they simply discard once presented, thinking their arguments do not actually require the support of the evidence to justify their positions. If any of you have ever "debated" a Christian, you'll know what I mean. They think that the only rule is quote somebody regardless of what they say. After all, that's what the other grown ups do, even though I never listen to what they're saying, because those are the words of the Devil. I'm fairly certain it's because they live their lives without the burdensome worry of proof. Tom-- Well, I appreciate the fact that you have offered--at last--a cogent response instead of childish attempts at belittling my intelligence, but there are still many flaws. Not to mention the fact that you have yet to address the central refutation I offered, but merely decided to quote other people discussing their metaphysical musings. Again, you seem to be under the belief that a theory is immutable, absolute fact--though I noticed you at least admitted the experts "could" be wrong. Unfortunately, the tone and structure of your response betrays a curious lack of sincerity in that remark, but that of course, is mere conjecture on my part. What is not conjecture on my part, however, is the fact that you have evaded my entirely logical deconstruction and refutation of your argument by presenting loosely connected opinions and "musings" from others, instead of directly addressing my points with counter arguments of your own design. You presented your argument, I refuted it, and you turn to other people's opinions to attempt to show that I am wrong, without refuting my arguments. So be it. Here's a "counter" opinion for you: "The anthropic principle is something that people do if they can't think of anything better to do." (The great physicist Alan Guth quoted in Lightman and Brawer's Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists, p. 479). Does that quote in any way refute your points? You tell me. So I must reiterate my original question to you: What happens to your argument if I DO grab the red grain of sand blindfolded in the Sahara on the very first try? That was, after all, what we were discussing, not other people's casual musings about various theories. The other issue you did not address is what evidence do you offer for "supernatural" creation? You have used circuitous logic (while attempting to accuse me of it to begin with) and have not supported your contention, merely stated, "Well, since the odds are so small (a fallacy I'll come back to) that we 'naturally' occurred, it MUST THEREFORE mean that a mystical being willed us into existence." I'll restate the ironclad syllogism for you so that it remains clear and present: Nature "occurred." Nature is not "super" natural. There is no evidence of a "super" natural occurrence of Nature. Therefore, Nature "occurred" naturally. There? Specific enough? Until there is evidence of a "super" natural occurrence, no other evidence is relevant. What you are doing is looking at "something" that exists, thinking (erroneously) about what an incredibly small chance that "something" had of existing (as far as our limited minds can comprehend), then concluding that it could not have existed without a "super-something" creator. This is where the problem lies. You have assumed an invalid conclusion. Simply because something has a small chance of occurring from a homocentric perspective does not in any way mean that it did not in fact occur in just that way. The only reason it seems incredible to you ("you" in the general as well as specific sense) is because it is too difficult for our limited and underdeveloped minds to yet accept the enormity of Nature; the concept of infinity. It just doesn't "sit well" because your mind can not fathom it (an argument often enlisted when theists discuss God, by the way). However, simply because your mind is not developed enough to understand such a vast concept as infinity, does not mean that infinity must therefore have been a "manufactured" construct, derived from a homocentric view of existence. It's equivalent to stating, "I don't know why something is the way it is, so I'll just make up my own version of the events to explain it to my limited mind." Now, that may be fine and dandy if that's what you want to do in the privacy of your own thoughts, but by no means should such a glaring fallacy be taught, preached, supported, or acted upon in any way outside of your own mind; especially not through vicious and deliberate fear-based oppression, or genocidal rage, for not accepting such a fallacy, which is the history of the Christian religion. Make no mistake, I could care less what you think in your own mind, but I care greatly when those misconceptions and misunderstandings result in the transference of such fallacies to friends, family, and the world at large. All you do in that case is continue to pass on detrimental and poorly understood ideas that serve only to stifle intelligence and harm humanity. You are arguing that intelligence and the search for truth be forfeited in favor of a concept that has only served to divide and destroy humanity ever since Gods were called upon in the first place. That is not only unsupportable but irresponsible and has resulted in the painful, unnecessary deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent people throughout the centuries and it can not be tolerated anymore if our society is to truly find its own salvation. Now, about this "small number" misconception. While ten times fifty raised to the one hundred and twenty fifth power appears to humans as an incredibly small number, it is nothing compared to infinity and only an example of the fact that our abilities to deal with such a number are not developed. In an infinite universe, as I stated before, ten times ten to the millionth power does not even begin to dent the enormity of infinity. Yes, to humans, a one in ten times fifty to the hundred and twenty fifth power chance seems unbelievably small, but compared to the enormity of infinity, it doesn't even warrant a blink of the third eye, if you will. In other words, if you turned to me one day and said, "You know, your chance of winning the lottery in your lifetime is 1 in 10 times 50 raised to the 125th power" I would indeed conclude that it would be "impossible" for all intents and purposes for me to win the lottery. I would be wrong, of course, but that is the false conclusion I would arrive at upon hearing such incredible odds against me. If, however, "Mr. Infinity" were given those same odds, he'd dance and sing and start contemplating how many galaxies he could buy with all that money, because in "his" lifetime--infinity--those odds would be more equivalent to, well, even, actually. Mr. Infinity would clearly win the lottery at some "point" because at some "point" infinity encompasses the number10 times 50 raised to the 125th power. In fact, infinity encompasses that number an infinite amount of "times," so it is more than likely that there are an "infinite" amount of worlds like ours (or, indeed, an infinite amount of universes like ours, if you want to get technical), but the key to ALL of this is the phrase "more than likely." It is not a known absolute, it is a theory base |
he dichotomy here in polemics. You seem to think that
all of your fellow atheists would agree with your silly idea that
you could grab the red grain of sand blindfolded the first
try."