Chr

responses, page 6

A wide variety of e-mails can be found on this page. Some people took issue with my arguments, one person called me an a**hole, and there were several e-mails from people who actually liked the site.

Send e-mail to Tekministry@aol.com
responses 1
responses 2a
responses 2b
responses 2c
responses 3
responses 4
responses 5
responses 6
responses 7
responses 8
home

Subj: A critique of your page
Date: 8/5/99 2:39:13 PM EST
From: XXXXXX (GRACE COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

I was reading through your page. I wanted to point out some weaknesses in your page, which I hope will be taken constructively.

First, on an aesthetic level while you have a lot of data, that does little to erode one's confidence in Christianity (unless of course you wish to intimidate people into your way of thinking, which is a very anti-freethought notion). I can only assume that that is not your intent.

This does not mean that I do not appreciate the scholarship involved in the innoculation piece you have composed. However, most people will not be willing to wade through all the names, dates, etc. It would serve your purposes better if you provide a precis for the document. If you are realistic, you will admit that even the scholarly minded will not invest the time into critically reading your paper (unless they have either studied, or are currently doing research on the subject).

Second, and most importantly yoiur arguments lack a sense of context. For example, in your section on slavery, you rip Ephesians 6:5-7 out of their context. When one considers that the genre of Ephesians is a letter, context is essential. In this letter we already are hearing only Paul's part of the conversation, and a conversation that took place in a Hellenistic cultural setting 2000 years ago.

One could make the Bible say whatever they want it to say by using your rules of engagement. If you were to look at verses 1-9 the "micro" context makes more sense out of the passage. If you would do this, you would quickly see that Paul is laying rules down for slaves and masters.

The idea being reflected is that even as these indentured servants (a practice which is markedly different from what we think of as slavery) lived under the authority of the master, the master was under the authority of God. Therefore, it was in the best interest of the master to apply the Golden Rule ethic to his slave, for even though he was higher on the social ladder, his status in heaven was equal to that of the slave. Interestingly if you go to www.newadvent.org you will find a link for the letter from Ignatius to the Church at Ephesus. In that letter you can read for yourself that the Bishop of Ephesus was Onesimus. Onesimus was the slave mentioned by Paul in his letter to Philemon. Onesimus ran away from his master (Philemon), but was converted through Paul's ministry and many years later he became the Bishop of Ephesus. This hardly sounds like the repressive picture you paint in your section on slavery.

You unwittingly picked a very tricky "contradiction" because our understanding of the institution of slavery and the denotation of slavery in the Ancient Near East are quite different. Our understanding of slavery is condemned in the Bible as kidnapping. The Biblical denotation of slavery was a means of rescuing someone from financial ruin while keeping them accountable for their actions. Furthermore, a person was not a slave for life according to the Hebrew system of slavery, rather there was a pattern set down for the Year of Jubilee (mentioned in Leviticus 25). This section is capped off in verse 17, where it is proclaimed, "Therefore you shall not oppress one another, but you shall fear your God, for I am YHWH your God."

Thirdly, I am truly sorry that you cannot see the literary genius of the Bible. You are really missing out on some thrilling reading. I don't want to take up too much of your time, but if you want me to explain what I mean, email me XXXXX@XXXX and I'll start with the example of the literary structure of the book of Judges through narrative and its place in the overall theological argument of the author.

Grace and Peace,

Bill XXXXXX

---

Subj: what if you're wrong?
Date: 11/10/99 9:52:23 PM EST
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Dear Sir,

Have you ever considered what the effects would be if you were objectively incorrect in your presupposition of the non-existence of God? Not only would your entire argument, but also your very life would fail if you are mistaken on this issue.

How can you be certain that there is no God? It is no doubt a "leap of faith" in itself to suppose such a thing; am I not mistaken?

Suppose you are held accountable for everything you do, regardless of your opinion concerning the existence of God. What if God requires of you to submit to him based upon your current level of understanding of him and the amount of light you have received? Does not Jesus illustrate this concept in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)? At the end of the parable lies the message that if one is not able to hear [the voice of God] through Moses and the prophets, then he will not be persuaded though one rise from the dead.

Are you not conscious of any wrong or evil in your life? I am acutely aware of much of the evil in my own life. There was a time when I thought myself to be blameless and this arrogance nearly destroyed me.

I just wanted to share a few thoughts with you.

Sincerely,

Reed

Subj: Re: what if you're wrong?
Date: 11/10/99 10:36:38 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Reed,

You are using Pascal's Wager. If you visit my arguments page, you will see what I have to say about Pascal's Wager.

What if you are wrong and the Muslims are right? Then you will go to their hell. Ever think about that?

There is no good evidence and there are no good arguments for Christianity, Christian claims are self contradictory, and the assertions of the Bible are contradicted by the observed facts of reality. That sums up why I don't accept your religion.

If you do actually have a good argument for Christianity, I'd be happy to hear what it is.

Sincerely,

Brooks
Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief

Second e-mail from the same person

Subj: Re: what if you're wrong?
Date: 11/10/99 11:38:44 PM EST
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

--- Tekministry@aol.com wrote:

Reed,

You are using Pascal's Wager. If you visit my arguments page, you will see what I have to say about Pascal's Wager. What if you are wrong and the Muslims are right? Then you will go to their hell. Ever think about that?

I am not discussing the acceptance of the entire Christian faith, merely the existence of God. All of your arguments, including your rejection of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are based upon the presupposition of the non-existence of God. I am not suggesting that you flip a coin to decide, so I am not merely echoing Pascal's Wager. You should make an informed decision, either for against God, and realize that either the acceptance or rejection of belief in God is a leap of faith. How do you justify leaping to the conclusion that there is no God? I would suggest that there is a preponderance of evidence for the existence of God including creation, design, and morality. These are not proofs, however, and must be taken by faith. In a similar manner, there is no scientific method for disproving the existence of God. One must either take it or leave it.

There is no good evidence and there are no good arguments for Christianity, Christian claims are self contradictory, and the assertions of the Bible are contradicted by the observed facts of reality. That sums up why I don't accept your religion.

Many of your proofs offered on your website are fallacious. Many of the questions raised (such as in the section on Tough Questions for the Christian Church) would be easily answered by an understanding of the cultures in which the various books of the Bible were written. For example, when the author asks why the New Testament authors used the Septuagint to quote the Old Testament rather than the original Hebrew, the answer is simply that those authors did not know Hebrew but rather spoke and read Greek. This was because they lived in a Greco-Roman culture where Hebrew was not spoked or learned. Why is this such a limitation to the acceptability of belief? If God could have created the universe, surely he could use people who spoke Greek to write the gospels which quote the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew Bible.

If you do actually have a good argument for Christianity, I'd be happy to hear what it is.

Sincerely,

Brooks

Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief

Reed

---

Date: 10/25/99
11:33:13 AM EST
From: RM
To: BBu84

Brooks!

I love your site! love it, Love it, LOVE IT! You have done a very fine job of presenting the disgusting true nature of christianity. I was raised Unitarian, and am now an atheist (A BIG one). It never ceases to amaze me how christians will grasp at anything to justify belief.

I do have to hand it to some of the christians that have the nerve to write in to you. It seems that there isn't one single thing that any of them could possibly say that you haven't heard already. I'd hate to be on the side of faith here, you are a formidable opponent. You have an excellent page, and an excellent mind. Keep up the good work!

Victoria

Subj: Re: Great Page!
Date: 10/26/99 10:54:43 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Victoria,

I am glad you enjoyed my web page, Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief. As you can see, most of my e-mails are from Christians trying to convince me that I am wrong, so it is nice to get one from someone who shares my thinking.

I put up the site because after years of listening to Christians demonize unbelievers, I had a deep desire to point out all the problems with the religion and show Christians that they might just be wrong.

If Christianity is true, it should be able to stand up to critical examination. I heard that a minister had, a few years ago, decided to run his Sunday sermons a little differently. Instead of just preaching to his congregation, he would allow 20 minutes for them to ask him theological questions. Within a few weeks he had to discontinue this little practice because he was being stumped by his congregation. You can imagine that this would not encourage a great deal of confidence in the minister's later sermons.

If you have not already, I would suggest you visit a collection of e-mails I just found which was put up by a former Christian named James Buckner. In 1998, this guy, who was 37, lost his religion and it caused a slew of problems with his extended family. It also initiated a number of interesting e-mails from his former pastor, who, rather than provide good reasons for Mr. Buckner to return to Christianity, simply ended up spewing a bunch of ugly Christian rhetoric at him. It is very interesting and is located here:

http://home.att.net/~j-buckner/essays.html

Anyway, thanks again for your kind words and have a swell day.

Sincerely,

Brooks T.

---

Subj: proofs
Date: 11/6/99 9:17:37 AM EST
From: XXXXXX
Sender: XXXXXX
Reply-to: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

1/ Something's undeniably exist( e.g. I cannot deny my own existence)

2/ My nonexistence is possible

3/ Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused toexist by another.

4/ There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.

5/ Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.

6/ This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all- powerful,all-knowing, and all perfect.

7/ This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called "God"

8/ Therefore God exists.

9/ This God who exists is identical to God described in the Bible.

10/ Therefore the God of the Bible exists.

Further comment can be made on each of these statements to explain them.

Please reply
apologist@sanspeur.org

Subj: Re: proofs Date: 11/7/99 7:12:25 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Apologist,

Thank you for the e-mail you sent me. I will respond to it soon, I am just too busy at the moment to go through it and point out the problems with it.

Thanks again.

Brooks-------Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief

Subj: proofs
Date: 11/14/99 0:49:48 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Dear Apologist,

I agree with the first two lines of your "proof" for God, but the problems for me start with line number three:

"3/ Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another."

What do you mean by the term "another"? Another what? Define your terms. And doesn't "another" "have the possibility not to exist"? If not, why not?

Line five has problems too. What is an uncaused cause? Have you ever seen such a thing? I have not. All I have ever seen in the universe is the change in already existing matter.

Furthermore, if there was such a thing as an uncaused cause, why in the world would it have to be "infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all perfect."? Why could it not be, say, a quantum vacuum fluctuation, something for which we actually have evidence? There are many problems with the terms you are using as well. How can something apart from the universe be infinite? There would not be room for anything else! To exist as anything is to be defined by limits. To be a dog is to not be a cat, a tree, the letter "n" or anything else. To exist and to be infinite is to not exist in any meaningful sense of the term. And something which is all-knowing and all powerful cannot exist because it is a logical contradiction. Something which knows the future is powerless to change it. It cannot make decisions and change the future. It's power is limited, it is not all-powerful. Something which knows everything must know its own thoughts before it has thoughts. But then it would be caught in an vicious, endless loop of pre-knowing the thoughts of its own infinite mind, which would use up all of its time. Also, something which is perfect cannot create imperfection. But according to your own theology the universe is imperfect, so a perfect creator is impossible.

The basic problem with your so-called argument is that it simply makes assertions without explanations and uses nonsensical words and word combinations. You should be aware that the term "God" has never been coherently defined by Christians or anyone else, so using this term as the conclusion of a logical "proof" renders the whole "proof" meaningless.

Five simple questions for you- What is your god? Where did your god come from? What did your god (whatever that is supposed to be) do before it created the universe? How long did it spend living by itself before it created the universe? And how do you know all this?

Thank you for your interest in my web site.

Brooks
Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief

---

Subj: I'm sorry!
Date: 11/12/99 12:46:20 PM EST
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

I feel sorry for you and whoever else who has read this sight and believed it. There's no way to prove to people of such close-mindedness that the Bible is real. At least I can rest assure you and all other Atheists will find the truth when the end comes (not that it will be good for you). God bless and I hope you will one day find God.

Subj: Re: I'm sorry!
Date: 11/12/99 11:11:09 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

XXXXXX,

Actually, I used to be a Christian. Then I finally realized that Christianity was false. I am glad I figured it out. If you are lucky, you will figure it out too.

Have a nice day.

Brooks
Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief

---

Subj: Hello
Date: 11/14/99 2:12:27 PM EST
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

With all due respect, I am a Christian, and I feel that you've greatly mistaken the truth of the Bible. All of your quotes and "truths" are completly taken out of context. It's unfortunate that your studying habits lack depth, and I will be praying for this site and all of its links. I know you will just delete this without a second thought, but I encourage you to read further and STUDY the BIBLE. These verses you pulled completly lose its meaning when taken out of context. For example: It's like saying a school history book states that the Nazis never existed, but you fail to mention that the source was just quoting a Former Nazi leader. This would be false because you're taking it out of context. The subject matter surrounding the specific quote determines the validity of the statement. Once again I'll say that I know you won't probably even read this from a "Stupid Christian"...I hope you get off your contempt for us, because I love you as a person, and I don't deserve to be treated as such. I hope you'll at least read this mail and maybe even read the bible, instead of pulling verses that suit your needs and not also telling the "internet surfer" what those verses mean in the context they are in. Also, I issue a challenge to you to prove the bible wrong, being that it hasn't in almost 2000 years... Christ rules forever, and He loves you!

With Respect and Love,

Joshua

Subj: Re: Hello
Date: 11/14/99 5:35:29 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Joshua,

Thank you for your interest in the Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief web site.

Regarding the quotes I took from the Bible-people can quickly and easily look at all the passages surrounding the quotes I have on my site to see for themselves what context they should be taken in. I would encourage them to. In fact, it would be my hope that people visiting my web site would start reading the Bible to see what is actually in it. It has been my experience that most Christians never read the Bible. I am an example of a former Christian who has.

Let's take two examples of my referenced biblical passages, both direct quotes from the Christian god.

25. "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your bretheren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness."

Christian god-Leviticus 25:44

26. "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."

Christian god-Exodus 21:20

What context should these quotes be taken in, then? You are implying that I am purposely misrepresenting the Bible. Realize that I am not adding anything, and people have every opportunity to read the entire books from which these quotations are taken. Unless I include the entire Bible, Christians could always claim that quotations taken from the Bible are out of context.

Another point. Nowhere on my web site do I ever write "Stupid Christian." So I am at a loss as to why you enclose that phrase in quotes, as if I wrote it. If I ever talk about stupidity, it is always in reference to the writers of the Bible. I think a review of the quotations I have provided shows that parts of the Bible really are stupid. The people who wrote the Bible simply lived in a superstitious, barbaric and primitive era of human history and their writings reflect that.

Finally, I don't have to disprove the Bible for the very simple reason that it has never been shown to be supernatural or divine or what have you in the first place. It is simply a book written by ancient people. It has false statements in it and many of it claims regarding historical events are contradicted by the facts of reality.

Thanks again.

Brooks
Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief

---

Subj: webpage...
Date: 12/8/99 10:50:02 PM EST
From: XXXXX
To: BBu84

Hello,

I just happened to come across your website while running a search, and I felt that I had to e-mail you. I'm sure that you receive many e-mails regarding your website, as it is obviously a very controversial topic. I can see that you are very set in your way of thinking, and I am not going to spend any time trying to disprove or argue with what you have said. I really respect the fact that you have clearly spent much time researching and pondering your arguments...your thoughts are very well put together and coherant. Most atheists I meet say that they don't beleive in God simply "because." If you're still reading, I'd just like to talk to you a little bit about myself...don't worry, I AM a Christian, but I'm not going to get "teary-eyed" on you. :-) Up until about a year ago, I was pretty much an atheist as well. I was always curious as to why people were so delusional about something that couldn't be proven or seen. You know what? I'm not even going to tell you my testimony. I'm sure you've heard dozens. All I want to say is that even if you don't beleive, and never will beleive for the rest of your life...Jesus would still die for you a million times before he ever gave up on loving you. I know I know. You've heard that, and you think it's just some cuckoo bleeding heart Christian. :-) That's fine. I am proud to say that I am a delusional, bleeding-heart, crazy, closed-minded, off-the-wall believer.

Well I don't want to bore you. I just wanted to get in touch with you. And about your specific arguments, this might sound like a cop-out, but it's really not worth getting technical about. If God is not in your heart, mind, and spirit, then of course His words are meaningless and contridictory! I totally agree with you. But the mistake you are making, is that you are limiting God to your human boundries. A six-year-old will never understand a computer manual, no matter how many times they read it. The truth only becomes evident through your relationship with Him. Do you really have to read a book to decide that you love someone, or that they love you?

Well I'm sorry that I wrote so much. If you choose to write back, I promise I won't be so lengthy with my response.

Jamie

Subj: re: your site
Date: 12/9/99 0:10:01 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Jamie,

Thank you for your interest in my site. I need to comment on a few of the things you wrote in your e-mail:

"I can see that you are very set in your way of thinking, and I am not going to spend any time trying to disprove or argue with what you have said."

I am an open minded person and I would have less of a problem with Christianity if there was actually evidence for it, if it was not internally contradictory, and if it was not contradicted by the facts of reality. If you are confused as to why I would say something as blasphemous as this, take the time to visit my "bible problems" link. By the way, have you ever read the Bible itself?

'Most atheists I meet say that they don't beleive in God simply "because."'

Most Christians I meet say that they believe simply "because." You did not present the reasons why you believe in Christianity in your e-mail, so perhaps you could be included this group.

You don't have to explain why you accept Christianity, but if you do not, then no rational person has any reason to listen to you.

Brooks
Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief

---

Subj: Nicely done
Date: 12/15/99 7:59:44 PM EST
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com (Tekministry@aol.com)

Brooks,

Wanted to tell you that I like your site. It is well done, nicely presented, and I support you all the way. Although your tone is sometimes somewhat acerbic, I share your impatience with the idiocy so often spewed by fundamentalists, creationists and bible thumpers of all types, so I can appreciate where you come from. I was reading through your responses pages, interested to see how you held up under the onslaught of arguments I have endured countless times as well. In particular the letters from "Craig" were amusing, as he came across so intelligently and thoughtfully, with well researched responses that were nonetheless wrong. I did want to point out a spot where you missed a good counter to one of his arguments that has served me well in the past. I excerpt your response to him:

"What other book has survived thousands of years of recopying by human hand and yet has come down to us essentially as it was written?"

(First of all, the Catholic Bible, the original Bible, did not exist until its books were selected and voted on in the fourth century by some Christian leaders. So the Bible has not been around for "thousands" of years, but less than two thousand. The reason a Bible of some sort has existed for hundreds of years is because Christianity has existed for hundreds of years. Secondly, the Bible has not remained unchanged over the years, but has been constantly revised and corrected, and there are several different versions available today. If I am not mistaken, the Catholic version, the "original" version, contains entire books all the other Bibles leave out.)

Good points all, but falls short. First, it does not take into account that the modern Christian bible as assembled by the early Catholic church in Rome does consist, in part, of the Old Testament, which does come from much older documents than those in the New. Although edited by Christians to fit the New Testament in spots, it is much intact. But as a response to the question "What other book...?" a good answer is to note the many volumes of Greek literature, science, philosophy, history and mythology which come down to us completely intact. These volumes (the estimated 10% of the stock of the libraries of Alexandria that survived the various attacks that destroyed so much of the product of one of the greatest civilizations of the ancient world) were what fueled much of the Rennaisance, and dragged us out of the Dark Ages. They provide a huge part of what Western Civilization has been built from ever since. The words of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and the rest of the gang are much less ambiguous than those of Jesus, were definitely written by the individuals to whom they are attributed, people whose historic existence is documented and firmly established. As opposed to the anonymous writers of the biblical gospels, whom no one is entirely sure of. Also the political motivations of the writers are very clear, as opposed to the very murky religio-political purposes of the gospel authors. The writings of numerous other religions continue to exist in the modern world as well, in spite of the failure of the civilizations that gave birth to them. The fact that Christianity has survived into the modern world does not give it validity any more than the survival of Plato's Republic means we should adopt all of his philosophy into our government. In addition, there is one document which has come down to us from a time prior to the era that creationists claim the world was even formed. The Epic Of Gilgamesh even contains a description of a flood which may be the source of the biblical Noachian Flood myth. Also, I don't know if you've followed the accounts of the deep sea explorer, Ballard (same guy who discovered Titanic) who has gone down to the bottom of the Black Sea to look for evidence supporting the theory of geologists Ryan and Pitman (Noah's Flood: New Evidence About the Event That Changed History). I excerpt a review of their book:

"In 1997, geologists Walter Pitman and William Ryan proposed the first truly novel interpretation of the flood in over 150 years. Their studies of sediments in the Black Sea convinced them that the body had been a freshwater lake until about 5600 B.C. When the rising waters of the Mediterranean broke through the Bosporus, "ten cubic miles of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls."

"With great intellectual daring, Pitman and Ryan have moved outside of their academic niche to suggest that this event had enormous consequences for human history. They marshal evidence from archeology, mythology, linguistics, and agriculture to describe a flood-driven diaspora of early farmers. Subsets of these people became (variously) proto-Indo-Europeans, Sumerians, Beaker People, Vincas, Tocharians--the founders of the early cultures of Europe and western Asia."

Now this is science being done for real. Ballard has supposedly now confirmed their findings independently with evidence from the floor of the Black Sea. That the Flood myth had some basis in a historical event has long been supposed, but now there appears to be solid evidence to support it. Handed down in verbal retellings over generations, it finally ended up in the Old Testament as a worldwide deluge. Interesting stuff.

Keep up the good work. When my site is up, I will definitely be linking you.

Thanks.

Andrew

---

Subj: a couple replies
Date: 1/18/00 9:58:38 AM EST
From: XXXXX
To: BBu84

first i would like to say i enjoyed your page, its nice to see some people who are earnest in their beliefs, and even though i think you are wrong, i like the fact that you care and make an effort to tell people what you think is the truth. And I also think I can refute all of your refutations of christian arguments which is good for me, not good for you. But I am not interested in doing that, I am interested in seeing what you would say to a couple of my arguments. The first argument comes from the design one, you say that since we Christians believe our God has always existed, why couldn't the universe have always existed? Well, isn't it alittle risky to say that? I have never heard a claim that the universe had no beginning, no scientist has ever formed a theory to argue such a claim. It seems that claim does more damage to itself than refute Christianity, certainly if you could believe the universe had a beginning then you couldn't use that claim to explain why God didn't have a beginning. I think you should consider that the universe did have a beginning, and scientists have observed entropy in the universe, that is to say the universe is wearing out because as energy is used it becomes less available for more use. This is how we know the universe had a beginning, in order for it to have had no beginning, it could not be wearing out, it must constantly replenish its available energy otherwise it would burn out!

Ok, I think I made a good point on that, but who knows, maybe you will be able to refute it. Second thing I have to say is that you used a quote that said "the universe had no order at the earliest definable instant. If there was a creator, it had nothing to create." Well both of those don't make very good arguments. First, if the universe started with no order, how could it achieve order by exploding and expanding out? How could any life result from a big bang of a universe with no order. Surely you can't say it happened by chance, the odds are past impossible that souls, brains, feelings, ideas came from atoms shooting off into space. I think its much more reasonable that life came from life, and that the universe was created for the life that the creator created. Secondly, if the creator had nothing to create, there could not ever have existed a universe. For if a universe, whether with no beginning or a beginning, ever existed, then the universe would be the cause of creation! The creator did have something to create if the universe existed, and we all know it exists because we are sitting here in the universe talking about it.

Well those are a couple of my thoughts. I think I could provide similar ones for all the arguments on your page, and by no means did you persuade me my beliefs are wrong, i don't see any truth in your arguments, but they are interesting. I encourage you to continue your search for what is true, continue to think on these things, you must admit its important to be absolutely sure that you are right about the existence of God and eternal life. Examine the doubts you have, and don't be too proud to ask questions or try out a church service, see for your self if religion is fake, if there is any proof or logic to anything we believe. I look forward to hearing from you about my argument.

Thanks,

Johnny

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 1/23/00 9:05:58 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Johnny,

Yes, I agree that our universe had a beginning. However, that is not the same thing as saying that it had to be created by some supernatural being. When I wrote "If Christians say that their god has always existed, why couldn't the universe have always existed?," I was thinking of the oscillating universe hypothesis which proposed that the universe continually expands and contracts and that the Big Bang was just one of an infinite series of Big Bangs. I don't think this idea has been supported by the latest observations, however so I should amend that sentence. Nevertheless, my intention was to highlight the contradiction implicit in the first cause argument. What sense does it make to say that an uncaused universe is impossible when you posit an uncaused god as an explanation for the universe? It is hypocritical. Just as it is hypocritical to use thermodynamic principles as evidence for a god, when a god violates thermodynamic principles. For example, where does the Christian god get its energy from? Does it manufacture it out of itself, like the fabled perpetual motion machine? It makes no sense to use scientific laws to argue for a god which violates those same laws.

So where did the universe come from? My understanding of physics is admittedly limited. It is said that it makes no sense to talk of a time before the Big Bang because time itself did not exist prior to the Big Bang, prior to the existence of matter. The physicist Stephen Hawkins has proposed that the universe started out in an area no larger than an atom, in what he describes as a "timeless space." How did it come about? Victor Stenger, who I quote on arguments page, describes the appearance of "virtual particles" in a vacuum. These particles appear out of a vacuum and quickly disappear into the vacuum. This phenomenon has been observed. It is believed by some people that one of these particles inflated into the Big Bang which created the universe. According to Stenger, this scenario violates no laws of physics. There is also an idea floating about that our universe is one universe of many constantly forming and expanding from some form of "timeless space."

As far as the impossibility of life forming from the Big Bang, that is a reducto ad absurdum argument. No one proposes that life arose directly from the Big Bang or from random particles floating around in space. There were a couple of important steps between the Big Bang and the appearance of life. Stars formed, then planets. In both of these structures chemical and nuclear reactions created more complex molecules. It appears that on at least one planet, ours, conditions were such that a replicating molecule formed. This molecule lead to the development of a cell, and, eventually, life as we know it today-that is what is believed. It was a natural process. This is what a study of biology, chemistry, paleontology and geology indicate. There is no evidence of a divine creation. And positing a god as an explanation of life is hypocritical because it doesn't explain the existence of the god, which presumably is a form of life. If life needs to be created, then the Christian god needs to be created.

Yes, the universe as a whole is running down or "wearing out," there is an increase in entropy overall, but that does not prevent a temporary decrease in entropy in specific areas. There is no scientific principle which says that there cannot be a decrease in entropy in an open system, such as the earth. So this fact does not prevent life and evolution. However, the universe will continue to expand for trillions of years, the stars will burn out and eventually there will only be widely spaced, random particles, which may themselves decay.

I appreciate your interest in my web site. I intend to modify that sentence in the first cause section when I get a chance. Please let me know of any other sections of my arguments page or any other area of my site which you object to.

Sincerely,

Brooks T

---

Subj: in response to your website
Date: 1/19/00 5:10:41 PM EST
From: XXXXX
To: BBu84

It's amazing how much people will fight against something they do not believe. It must burn in your heart night and day about the possible reality of Jesus Christ. You only fuel the revelation and the reality of the Saviour with your constant battle against something you aren't even sure of yourself. (one day) "Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord". Not out of condemnation but from true understanding. I'll see you then.

Subj: Re: in response to your website
Date: 1/23/00 11:47:52 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

XXXXX,

Actually, I used to be a Christian. But I no longer was able to accept it as I got older.

I think I make a pretty good case on my web site that Christianity is false. Nothing in your e-mail gives me any reason to change my mind on the subject.

Thank you for your e-mail and have a nice day.

Brooks

---

Subj: christianity-give this letter some thought please
Date: 1/20/00 9:38:38 AM EST
From: XXXXX
To: BBu84

I read your site on the internet. Just read this letter, that's all I want.

Dear sir,

I am 16 years old and have been a Christian for only a year now. In this past year, I have encountered many people such as yourself in trying to prove the Bible wrong. Many of these people used statements like how can you believe in something that is so unjust or something that is wrong to preach about since it is all a lie. In statements like these, they themselves prove the Bible and a living God to be true. How can you use words like unjust and wrong if there is no God. Who would have set the standard for right and wrong? I man that I talk to on the subjects (not a pastor, just a very educated man) used the statement,"The IMPOSSIBILITY of the opposite." I thought it had something to do with the creation or something when in actuallity it had to do with proving the Bible correct outside of it. It goes like this. If there was no biblical God, how can we have something in our mind that tells us right from wrong at birth. Something had to of put it there. It would have to God. For example, I say we have a debate over this topic. The rules are that the last person to say anything wins. So we start off to this debate you give a reason for your belief, I pull out a gun, shoot you, and say I win. Now, you are going to say, that is morally wrong to just shoot somebody. But, if there is no ulimate authority, how can anything be wrong. Please write back. I would like to hear from you.

Sincerely,

Ian

Second e-mail from the same person

Subj: p.s.
Date: 1/20/00 9:47:56 AM EST
From: XXXXX
To: BBu84

If you will listen sometime, I can prove all your statements wrong through the sciencw that you use.

Subj: (no subject)
Date: 1/22/00 2:08:15 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Ian,

Thank you for your interest in my site, Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief.

You apparently believe that moral values can not possibly be natural, that they have to come from some sort of supernatural being. However, I don't share that belief. I think our moral values are shaped by our society, by our families, by our desire to live amicably with others, by self-interest and even by a concern for others.

I do not believe that we know right from wrong from birth. That comes from living and interacting with other people. From that, we learn what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior.

I have a few questions for you. If you discovered that there was no god, would you behave any differently than you do now? Would you treat people any differently than you do now if you found out that Christianity was false? If you found out that there was no god, would feel that there was nothing wrong with shooting people with a gun? Yes or no?

Tell me where the Christian god get its morals from. It seems quite immoral to me.

Feel free to prove all my "statements wrong through the sciencw that you use" at any time you like. If I am wrong anywhere, I would like it pointed out to me.

Thank you for your time.

Brooks

Third e-mail from the same person

Subj: Re: (no subject)
Date: 1/22/00 11:53:30 AM EST
From: XXXXX
To: BBu84

Brooks,

Thank you for your response. You said that our moral values were shaped by our society. Well, where did our society get its moral values? PLus, from the time we are born into this world we do know a since of right from wrong. Infants for example, can't observe our society and its workings but they know better to steal or inflict harm on others. It has been proven. If you would like I will give you the proof. Next, you asked that if God was to be proven false, would Itreat others differently? No, I would not. Simply because since I have became a Christian (I hate that term) it has bettered my life in every way because of the I treat others now and my outlook on life. Before I became a child of God, I had no purpose, everything I did failed, but now that I have found God, everything God wants for me hasn't failed. So, seeing that this change (referring to the way I treat people and everything having meaning)in my life had to of been brought on by a choice I made, I would continue in everthing, including praying, church and speaking on God's behalf because it has bettered my life in every way. Next, you want to know where God gets his morals from. God has a set list of attributes. In these attributes, they contain one of being perfect. This means that in every choice he makes, it is for the better no matter what it is. Now you may ask who it is for the better of, certainly not a person who got the low end of a deal. Of course it wouldn't be for them. It actually is for the bettering of God. Everything he does, he does for his namesake. He does it not that we will get glory, but that he will get the glory. The giver gets the glory.

Next, you ask in your website, who or what created God. Nothing created God. Since nothing created God, he would be the most powerful being ever. He cant create something more powerful than himself. That is reason for his perfection.

Next, please dont call me a Christian, call me a child of God. Christians today follow some standard of religion whether it be baptist presbytarian or whatever. These religions are based on Chirst being son of God but they are branches of Christianity. Now, a branch of something is always less powerful than the main part. So I am not any denomination of Christianity. Simply, a child of God. I get what I believe directly from God, not through a group of fallible people who try and shape God into what they want him to be.

Please write back again, I enjoy conversation like this.

Ian

Subj: response from the CBBB web site
Date: 1/29/00 1:43:17 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Ian,

I did not ask you whether you would change your behavior if your god was shown conclusively not to exist-it appears that even if that happened, you would still be a believer. What I asked you to do was to explain how you would treat other people if YOU yourself accepted the fact that your god did not exist. How would your behavior towards other people change, if at all? And if it would change, WHY would it change?

I believe that morality exists because human beings have to live together. If everyone was a hermit living alone in separate galaxies, there would be no such thing as morality. There would be no need for it. Every animal that lives in a community has some form of morality, some notion of proper and improper behavior. Morality grows out of community living. If you treat others fairly, you will usually, though not always, be treated fairly in return.

I am kind of curious to learn more about how babies know "right from wrong" from birth. How was this studied?

The question-where does God get his morality from?-is a valid question. Simply saying that God is perfect does not answer the question. Is there some concrete standard on which the Christian god bases its morality? If so, then it is not the final authority, and it is not necessary for morality. It is superfluous. If, on the other hand, this god is the source of morality, then is its morality simply its opinion? Because what God thinks is morally right may not be morally right to human beings. This is made abundantly clear by the Bible, filled as it is with God-ordained murder, torture and massacre. In fact, it is this violence and cruelty which permeates the Bible from one end to the other which leads many thoughtful people to conclude that Christianity has absolutely no claim on moral values whatsoever.

You say that "I get what I believe directly from God." Could you explain how, exactly? I am very curious about how God transmits his message to you.

You also say that your god is perfect. How do you know this? Who told you? And if your god is perfect, how could it create imperfection? Something that is perfect cannot create imperfection. Then it would not be perfect.

Brooks

---

Subj: Hometown website
Date: 1/23/00 6:56:55 PM EST
From: XXXXX
To: BBu84

To author:

I must say that you have compiled quite a grand list of arguements filled with allusions to other works. This would appear to validate your point. I noticed your website while browsing. It caught my eye and I love to debate. If you're intersted in a little arguement read on. So here we go.

In your first two arguements "First Cause" and "Design" you argued against the exsistence of God in a strcitly third dimensional way. However since it is unlikely that God exsists in our Dimension at all and probably encompasses all of the fourth dimension, where time would have no meaning, it would be impossible to use the word "first" at all. Cause and effect have no meaning to a being that is unaffected by time. For a universe to be created at all, there would have had to been an influence that was unaffected by the laws of the universe that the being would create. If it was not God that created the universe it was some sort of higher being unaffected by our natural laws so most scientific arguements used to discredit God are useless. This would apply to the paragraph termed "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" as well.

In the paragraph "Prophecy" the attempt is made to discredit the prophecies of the bible claiming they are forgeries, were never fulfilled etc. etc. etc.. This is ludicrous. The point that was made is that no one can prove these events were actually predicted or even occured. If one were to use this familiar impossible arguement then one would have to question all of history. Everything that ever happened before now could be a forgery because the only things we can rely on our human memory, not very reliable, and the written word, which according to the paper in question is no longer viable evidence at all. However many archaelogical findings, in fact all findings that have been reported viably, support and cannot discredit the Bible. Therefore, one can assume that the Bible is an accurate historical record to a certain extent. Since the Bible has never actually been proven wrong, in any way historically, it would be hypocritical to claim some parts were false and some true. This arguemnet would also apply to the sections headed "Historical Confirmation of Jesus"

On to the paragraph entitled "Transcendental Arguement." There is no real way to respond to the paragraph for it was filled with mere opinion.

"Christian Martyrs" attempts to discredit the validity of Christianity by saying that all other religions have had martyrs and there have been many nutcases since that have claimed they were the savior. Essentially, the only reason Jesus would have for showing himself as the savior is a) he really was the savior b)he was insane or c)he wanted power and fame. Since choice a is the one being discredited it must mean that he was either b or c. Since Christ was given the oppurtunity to free himself from crucifixtion if he claimed he wasn't christ, it is unlikely that a man who merely wanted power and fame would have made that sacrifice. If Christ were insane then he managed to find twelve other people just as insane as he was. All of them claimed he was the Christ and all of them knew Jesus intimatley and all of them died horrible deaths because they wouldn't retract their beliefs. These martyrs were differant. They knew Christ and they would have known this was a conspiracy. They would have had no reason for giving up their lives to a conspiracy. It would not make sense. The early Christian martyrs were differant from other religous martyrs. Other religions have not had physical evidence of their beliefs tested in a life or death situation in which there was more than one "co-conspirator".

In "The 500 witnesses" 1 Corinthians 9:20 is used to discredit Paul's ethics. It states "To the Jews I became like a Jew". He was not using a lie, he was merely presenting himself in a way that was appropriate to the specific culture. He stopped eating pork and followed Jewish cleansing cutsoms. This is in no way a lie. In addition, if the list of 500 witnesses wasn't specific enough there were still enough names listed to validate the said event.

One should agree with the arguements in the paragraph "Meaning of Life" God does give meaning to life in every way possible but that does not prove or disprove his exsistence. In response to "Duke" most Christians do not consider this finite period of time meaningless. It is a meaningful time and a gift to be treasured. As for the "former Christian" its clear he never was a christian. If this is what he believes Christianity is then he never understood it. He followed the religion not the belief. The very fact of the matter is that no one can fulfil themselves on the desire for eternal life alone. That is not the reason one should believe in Christianity, it is a reward for that belief. This world isn't meaningless, but those who don't understand God or Jesus live it in a meaningless way, even if they don't want to admit it.

In the paragraph "Morality" it is stated "Theists have not shown that human morality requires a god." The fact is that it does. One example is a child's mind. When young, a child does not need to be told how to be bad. You don't say "Breaking that lamp would be a bad thing to do" you have to instruct the child on what is right. This proves that people are naturally without morality. The only reason the majority of people act in any decent way is because of neccesity not morality. Laws determined to keep order and policemen paid with money patrol the streets just to keep people in line. If people had morality there would not even be a need for government, even though ironically goverment has less morality than most. As for the fact of a contradictary Bible, if sufficent time had been taken and verses had not been pulled out of context, it would have been noted that there is no contradiction in the Bible that has been proven to exsist. Christians do fight amongst themselves but we are only human and one has yet to discover a perfect human other than Christ.

There can be agreement with the author in the paragraphs "Pascal's Wager". The arguement for Christianity against atheists is not a good one. This does not however disprove its truth. As for the inculcation of guilt, bigotry, fear, intolerance, delusional thinking and all manner of psychological problems this a pure sixties arguement. Basically one is saying that no one should feel bad for something they did wrong(guilt), no should have to worry about consequences(fear), and anything goes as long as it makes someone happy, even if it destroying that person's life(intolerance). As for delusional thinking, bigotry and all manner of psychological problems, none of these problems have come directly from Christianity. The problems usually involve people themselves.

As for "Most People Believe in God" an example is made of the idea that the world is flat. This idea was only believed by a small amount of the population of history. The fact is that 98% of the people on earth today believe in a form of Supreme being and that percent increases as we move back in time. The idea that the earth is flat was a miniscule percent of people compared to the belief of Supreme Beings.

"Einstein Believed in God" is a futile arguement. It does not matter whether or not a brilliant man believed in God or not. He was primarily concerned with relativity not philosophy so anything he has to say either way is not very earth-shaking. This also applies to the paragraph "Hitler was an Atheist". He was a world leader not a philosopher. As for the "How could a loving god send people to hell" arguement, it is an old one. The fact is that God does not send people to hell, people choose to go by lack of faith. One must have responibility for one's actions. As for Hitler being a christian, there is no answer for this arguement. It is doubtful he was a true christian at all. Christians aren't perfect but we attempt to become that way.

Finally, the "Faith" arguement which is of a mute point. If you don't have faith then you can't understand it. The psychological arguemnets are of equal uselessness because there are an equal number of psychological arguements against atheisim ranging from an intense fear of the unknown, to being depressed

These are valid arguements. If you would wish to rebut, the email would be enjoyably read and responded to.

Dassadec

Subj: Christian Arguments
Date: 1/27/00 1:48:00 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Dassadec,

Thank you for your interest in my web site-Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief, and for your lengthy response to my Christian Arguments page. I intend to comment more on your response this weekend, but for now would just like to acknowledge your e-mail.

Take care.

Brooks

Subj: re: Hometown website
Date: 1/31/00 1:11:13 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Dassadec,

Your response to my "Christian Arguments" page has several flaws which I will now point out. I also have some questions for you.

Saying that your god exists in some other dimension is simply a way of putting it beyond refutation. If someone explains that your god makes no sense, you say that your god exists in a realm where logic does not apply. What is the fourth dimension anyway?

You rebuttal to the Prophecy section was typical Christian doublespeak. You claimed that it was" ludicrous" of me to say that the prophecies were unfulfilled, were forgeries, etc. However, I pointed out a very specific example of a prophecy which was clearly a forgery. You did not dispute that it was, and you did not offer a single counter-example of a valid prophecy which incontestably came true. You tried to say that if the Bible can not be trusted, then no history can be trusted since all history is human memory or the written word. Try again. It is a little more involved than that. Historians don't simply accept any written account of history, but assemble evidence from several different sources to verify events. And historians assume that the laws of nature are not violated. If historians did not hold to this, then they could not do historical research at all. Any absurd tale would have to be considered as possible. Clearly the Bible contains stories about events which violate natural laws. Because there is no corroborating testimony from other sources or physical evidence to back up stories such as Noah's Ark or The Garden of Eden, and because they clearly violate natural laws, they are not accepted as historical but as the fables of superstitious people.

Perhaps you misunderstand the Transcendental Argument. It claims that without a god, everything in the universe would be random, without order, there could be no logic or reason or science. The argument goes that since these things do in fact exist, then there must be a god. However, this is the exact opposite of the truth. A universe ruled by a supernatural god would be unpredictable and random and ultimately incomprehensible. This is just common sense.

Where is the evidence that any of the 12 disciples of Jesus were martyred in the first place?

There is no "list" of the 500 witnesses. There is just an extremely general reference to 500 witnesses. There is no explanation of who these people were, what they saw, where they saw it, when they saw it, etc. All we have is that one sentence, that's all. It is not very helpful.

You criticize the former Christian as not being a real Christian. However, if you follow the associated link and read his biographical information, you will discover that he was about as serious a Christian as you are likely to find. Regarding meaning-since Christianity has all the hallmarks of being a completely false belief system, it can be strongly argued that devoting one's life to it is meaningless.

There are serious contradictions in the Bible, as well as absurdities and God- ordained atrocities. I would be happy to send you some to explain for me, if you like.

Regarding the "Most People Believe in God" argument: you should understand that the percentage of people who believe in a claim has absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsity of that claim. So saying that 98% of the population believes or believed in a god means nothing. At one time most people did believe that the earth was flat-in fact people did not want Christopher Columbus to sail across the ocean because they thought he would fall off. The belief in a flat earth is clearly demonstrated in the Bible in the story of the devil taking Jesus up to a high mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world. This just isn't possible on a round planet such as ours. But the Bible writers didn't know any better.

Yes-bigotry, delusional thinking and all manner of psychological problems are actually produced by the acceptance of Christianity. Christians are taught that anyone who is not a Christian deserves to be tortured for eternity. This produces bigotry. Christians are taught that they can effect change in their lives by pleading to an imaginary being called God. This is a delusional belief. Christians are brow- beaten to feel guilty for being born in original sin. This causes a host of lifelong psychological problems. I am not even going to discuss the Christian psychological dementia which created the Crusades, the Inquisition and the persecution of Jews.

'"Einstein Believed in God" is a futile arguement. It does not matter whether or not a brilliant man believed in God or not.'

Exactly my point. Yet many of your brethren continue to use the argument from authority.

"The fact is that God does not send people to hell, people choose to go by lack of faith."

Again, another example of Christian doublespeak. It makes no sense at all to speak of people choosing to go to hell. According to Christian theology, the Christian god created hell and has complete control over who goes to hell. If it was somehow against this god's wishes that people go to its hell, if this god thought it was wrong for people to go to its hell to be tortured eternally for their opinions, then all would it have to do is snap its fingers and these people would have their travel itinerary changed. I don't think you are fully comprehending the utter absurdity of the Christian doctrine of eternal hell fire.

You were a bit too quick to dismiss my paragraph on faith. Christian faith is absolute nonsense. It only is there to serve the Church. Think about it. Since there are no good reasons to believe that Christian assertions are true, Christians are constantly urged, by their churches, to maintain their "faith" in Christianity no matter what the facts of the world are. Christian "faith" is a form of mind control. Hopefully you will figure this out.

Brooks
Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief

---

Subj: just wondering....
Date: 1/26/00 11:52:14 PM EST
From: XXXXX
Sender: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

I was just wondering if you would add something to this great website--could you put in a comlete description of your beliefs? If you have dismantled Christianity, what beliefs do you have that are so solid? I know your position on origins, but you should add things like what happens after death? what determines, if not the bible, what is right and wrong? is there anything at all out there? I just think people should know. Also, have you read "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strable? your background in Christian studies is extensive indeed and though i have not read it, i hear it is really interesting. anyway, some food for thought. One last question: what happens if you die....and you're wrong?

Subj: e: just wondering....
Date: 1/27/00 1:33:54 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Wordenn,

I have included a brief description of my departure from Christianity on the first page of my web site. I had no intention, when I began this site, to make it about myself, but instead to focus it on Christianity. I don't think my opinion about other subjects is material to my (lack of belief in) Christianity.

I have thought about death a bit. I have had some close calls with death and these experiences forced me to think about what life is all about. Once I realized that this life is the only one I will ever have, it made me angry to think people would try to make me waste it groveling before the ridiculous myths of ancient barbarians.

If I am wrong and Christianity is true, then at death I will be cast into hell by your God to be tortured for eternity along with most of the rest of the people in the world. This would not improve my opinion of your god or of Christians one iota from where my opinon is right now.

I've got a question for you-what if when you die, it turns out the Muslims are right?

Brooks

Second e-mail from the same person

Subj: opinions
Date: 1/28/00 0:51:44 AM EST
From: XXXXX
Sender: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

i have to apologize for my lack of knowledge on the subject. what do the muslims believe about death? about putting your beliefs on your page....if christianity is so foundationless, what foundation do you have? just as you accept NO evidence from a christian perspective, i don't accept a reliance on human reason alone, as humans have flaws. history has shown that "human reason" is so relative and changes with time. also, as many cultural relativists criticize religion as just a product of evolution, so too it could be argued that the scientific method is a product of it as well. if your beliefs are so great, then you should be trying to persuade us all your way, not just out of the one we have. if you are familiar with thomas kuhn, he says that just as one cannot accept two paradigms at once, one must replace the old one with a new, you can't just ditch old beliefs and remain positionless. if you have a great new ideaology, let's hear it. and if you don't want to put it on this site, as it has a special purpose, then make a new one. i am especially curious as to what you consider right and wrong, and what the source of that opinion is.

Subj: re: opinions
Date: 1/29/00 1:43:15 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Wordenn,

If human thought has flaws, then how can you trust your own judgment about the truth or falsity of Christianity? Perhaps flaws in human understanding and a reliance on superstition are what led people to accept the fables of the Bible for the past several centuries. Perhaps it is what keeps you tethered to Christianity.

Say what you want about science. The scientific method is valid-it works, over and over and over again. Prayer and faith do not. They are a waste of time.

I am not completely knowledgeable about all the beliefs of Muslims, but I have heard that Muslim men believe that when they go to the Islamic heaven they will be waited on hand and foot by beautiful maidens. And Islamic theology apparently includes a version of hell where people like you and I will spend eternity.

I understand your desire to have me create some sort world view for you to attack. I will oblige you by saying that I believe that the world and the universe and life are natural, that there are no invisible supernatural devils or gods behind the scenes pulling strings. This belief could always change based on new evidence, but for now I think it is perfectly reasonable.

As far as right and wrong are concerned, I should be the one asking you how you determine the difference. As a Christian, you apparently don't what the difference is.

Talk to you later.

Brooks

Third e-mail from the same person

Subj: I found you a new target
Date: 2/3/00 9:11:07 PM EST
From: XXXXX
Sender: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I want you to hear a story. I go to a Lutheran affiliated college. Currently, one of our sister college's choir is planning to be touring and was recently told that when they go to Kansas City, a pastor from a "baptist" church is going to picket. He has labelled all other denominations besides his sodomites and believes that we are the epitomy of filth and sin, mostly because of the churches stands on homosexuality. This "pastor" also sponsors a sight which is at www.godhatesfags.com. the other night, I went to this sight to see what was up. As you might imagine, I am against homosexuality, but this sight was an abomination against God and our faith.

I know that you think what I believe is a waste, but consider this. What I promote is love, for those not of my faith and fellow believers. This man does not. Why are you wasting time attacking a faith that strives for world peace and betterment? If it is a fable, and it works for us and keeps people happy, what is your problem? Why not attack people like this proclaimed pastor (he is really of a Calvinist background and not of a true baptist one) who is causing social unrest and undue persecution of humanity?

It is obvious to me that no matter what, you will never change. How can you possibly ask for evidence for Christianity when anything that is brought before you is automatically dismissed? It is correctly said that all observations are theory-laden and you are a great case for this. I want you to know that our dialogue has been inspiring and the more that I listen, the more I doubt what I believe. That is, until I go back and read the bible, pray and meditate and the power that flows from it is something that is beyond human thought and reasoning.

I can pretty well predict what you will respond, but I just ask that you look up the afforsaid sight and attack him, one that needs to be shut down. Quit wasting your time and put your criticisms to good use. I also sent you some interesting notes on your grand theory of evolution. Enjoy.

Later.

(articles from http://www.breakpoint.org)

---

Subj: then tell me this
Date: 1/4/00 8:58:44 PM EST
From: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

if you have actually read the bible then tell me how big was the ark that noah built and if it built on other books from that time frame then why does it state facts that happend well after the bible was written did you know that the ark was 300 by 50 cubits and if you are so iteligent about the bible and its reading then tell me hoe old was noah when he died and how come most humens only live up to 100 years if that if they havent screwed there bodys up in some way because I can and i havent even read all of the holy book yet and I can already tell that you are teaching a false profit of your self and you do not even know what you are talking about and here is something to back me up in the bible its states that the jewish people or hebrews will suffer a great years of torment that was happaning in biblical times and still happends to an extentent like in world war 2 did not the jews suffer the most out of all the countries involed in that horrible war. all I can say to you is that I sugest you read the holy book over again and if you were to ask me WHY! I wold tell you because the holy book is the truth and the light it contains the past present and what is to come it has all the answers that we need in life that is also why we call it our guide to life. god bless you and I hope you think about what I have said and sit back and reflect on it. sincerly Matthew P a.19.

Subj: Re: then tell me this
Date: 1/23/00 11:59:06 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Matthew,

Thanks you for your e-mail to the Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief web site.

If you wanted to convert me to your way of thinking, your e-mail was not very persuasive. There was a lack of specific arguments or evidence backing up your assertions. If what you believe is the truth, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate my misunderstanding of Christianity. Feel free to e-mail me again.

Take care.

Brooks

Second e-mail from the same person

Subj: Re: then tell me this
Date: 2/25/00 2:31:56 PM EST
From: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

dear brooks,

my e-mail was not ment to convert you I was simply expressing my belife in the one and only and to say that some of the statement that your web site had made were false thats all if you want you can write me why it is that you belive so strongly that the bible is all false.

sincerlly,

matthew

---

Subj: Or you could simply be wrong...
Date: 3/4/00 7:49:12 PM EST
From: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Your site suggests that the world could be improved by not spending so much time and money devoted to the worship of God (for now we will dispense with the word "nonexistent" since you can probably not prove the nonexistence of God to me adequately).

Leaving aside personal experience of many people of the existence of God, the Christian Church, and doubtless many other religious groups have, throughout history, given the world a wealth of music, literature, and learning. They have reached out to people less fortunate. They have inspired great leaders and thinkers (Prof. A. Einstein, and Dr. A. Schweizer, for example).

In addition, it is a rather careless assertion on your part to simply rattle on about the nonexistence of God when your site makes plain that you have not spent any time at all actively looking for him. Perhaps he will find you sometime. Don't make unfounded assumptions. It's not good scientific practice.

J.

Subj: re: Or you could simply be wrong...
Date: 3/4/00 10:50:29 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Mr./Ms./Mrs. XXXXX,

Thank you for your interest in my web site-"Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief." I would like to make some comments on your e-mail.

You wrote that "you can probably not prove the nonexistence of God to me adequately." The point you seem to be missing is that the person who makes the positive claim that something exists has the responsibility, if he or she wants to convince others of the reality of this something, to provide evidence and arguments for the claimed something. If no evidence or arguments are forthcoming, then there is no reason to accept the claim. This is the situation with Christianity. What churches offer to their members are not arguments and evidence, but manipulative psychological pressures and outright threats of torture for disbelief. Gee, why is this? Perhaps because there are no good arguments nor evidence for the claims of Christianity.

You wrote about "personal experience" of God. Do you accept the "personal experience" that Muslims have of Allah? Personal experience means nothing to anyone other than the person who has the experience.

What is your point about literature and music and learning? Religion has often been opposed to learning and literature when they conflicted with doctrine. Look at Galileo. Look at medicine. Look at biology. Look at science in general. I don't know what literature Christianity has produced apart from the Bible that seems to so impress you, and I don't (know) exactly what point your are trying to make. Regarding music, I seem to recall from a music class that the Catholic Church banned multi-note music as being ungodly. And let's not forget that wonderful innovation the Catholic Church brought to music, the castration of young boys for its choirs!

As far as Einstein is concerned, what aspect of Christianity "inspired" him? I thought he was originally Jewish, and did not believe in a personal god. Yes, Albert Sweitzer was a fine man. Perhaps Christianity did inspire him in his work. Again, what is your point? This would not make Christianity true. You seem to be making some kind of Argumentum ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority here.

You wrote: "In addition, it is a rather careless assertion on your part to simply rattle on about the nonexistence of God when your site makes plain that you have not spent any time at all actively looking for him." Well, I thought I did make a good effort in this area, but I could be mistaken. Since you seem to be so knowledgable about God, how do you suggest I go about looking for him?

You wrote: "Don't make unfounded assumptions. It's not good scientific practice." Since you make the claim, please explain where I have made an unfounded assumption. I certainly may have-but unless I know where I have, I cannot correct my mistake. Be specific. Thanks.

Brooks

---

Subj:
Date: 3/7/00 9:35:00 PM EST
From: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

With regard to your comment about Design, and how we would compare an ordered universe to an un-ordered universe. Have you ever thrown a handful of beans on the table, aiming to come out in the shape of say a cat? Try it, does it work? No, it doesn't, it is 'un-ordered' however, if you put time and effort, as a 'creator and designer' of the shape of the cat, you have and 'ordered' shape, a shape that is recognizable. We can apply this to the universe. We can see order and complexity in the universe that would not be possible if it had all been just thrown on the table. Use you brain for goodness sakes you stupid asshole.

Jesse

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 3/8/00 9:59:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Jesse,

Thank you for your interest in my web site. You had a comment on a section on my "Christian arguments" page regarding the design argument. You attempted to make an analogy between a handful of beans scattered randomly on a table and the entire universe from the time of the Big Bang. Your analogy was charming but much too simplistic. A handful of beans is not analogous to the entire universe.

I do not see intelligent design in the universe. We do see order and structure arise all around us. But it is natural. Snowflakes are marvels of complexity and order but they are un-designed, their "design" the result of well understood physical processes. The sun is an incredible furnace displaying structure and order and immense power, but its existence is the result of the properties inherent in matter. No intelligence was required to produce it. Supernovas and black holes don't owe their existence to a deity, but are explained by physical laws.

I wrote that we have no way of comparing a designed universe to an un- designed universe since we only know of one universe-our universe. We don't have the luxury of comparing and contrasting it with another universe that is known to be designed or which is known to be un-designed. Our universe is everything we know about and what happens within the universe can be explained by natural laws. Our understanding of natural laws leaves no room for mysterious supernatural beings hiding behind the scenes, pulling strings.

By the way, there is no need to resort to profanity.

Have a nice day.

Brooks

---

Subj:
Date: 3/18/00 4:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hello

Imagine explaining all of the murders, rapes, and at the very least seeming injustices in the Bible not as sanction to do such, but as the flawed history of a truth which evolved over time from creation to the messianic hope to Jesus Himself.

As it seems knowledge and reality are fairly unattainable. In my mind I do not see random benificial mutations (nor any other natural cause that I can concieve) bringing about our current state. Nor do I see that the evidence and phenomena that we observe points to a God that purely loves. As my mind wrestles with coming up with an explaination for both the impossibility of evolution, and the pain and disorder of things I can only conclude that I cannot conclude.

I have thought of two question.. If there is a creator, what if It desired to choose a people who's beings looked for more than they saw (faith in other words)? Or what if It looked for a people who would follow evidence all thier lives.

We seem to be faced with this delima. I am now pursueing faith. I want more out of life than facts (I wish for a loving creator), but I also have a passion for knowledge. I struggle between the two often.

I do think that one should spend a lot more time when developing a belief system in choosing between the two than in looking for evidence for one or the other. (It does seem clear that a creator if drawing a line would look at this more than at the compilation of arguements one has compiled for one's theories (because these are endless and become boring and mostly pointless because one's mind was made up years before evidence arrived))

I am interested in your thoughts on this

Thanx

Ryan

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 3/19/00 9:17:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Ryan,

" Imagine explaining all of the murders, rapes, and at the very least seeming injustices in the Bible not as sanction to do such, but as the flawed history of a truth which evolved over time from creation to the messianic hope to Jesus Himself."

The murders, rapes and injustices of the Bible are committed by the biblical god's chosen people. And by the biblical god as well. That is the problem.

Evolution has been observed directly. It is a fact as well as a theory. It is a fact that is occurs. The theory of evolution explains how it occurs.

A creator who would endow its creations with reason but would then penalize them with eternal torment for using that reason would be an evil creator indeed. I don't see anything wrong with applying reason, relying on facts and using observation in making my way through life. Believing things on faith is simply wishful thinking and is ultimately a dead end. I mean, if we are to use faith to accept claims as fact, then we would have to accept every assertion anyone makes.

Have a nice day.

Brooks

Second e-mail from the same person

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 3/22/00 10:52:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Take for instance ribosomal RNA. It must exist to propogate life as we know or can imagine. The odds of one ribosomal unit falling into place is mathmatically staggering to me.

Then on top of that we have the entire genome of complex organisms randomly falling into sequence. It doesn't matter how long a time a random problem occurs over they still multiply the same way. If we have random benificial mutation A with the odds of 1/100 (thats conservative), and we have random benificial mutation B with the same odds the odds of both happening are 1/10000. If we had 10000 mutations one organism would end up with both. (and any of its offspring if it was a dominate trait) I think of all the random benificial mutations (millions) that must have occured to bring us where we are. We come up with a number that is beyond imagination. I do not think that the number of mutations per reproduction cycle times the number of reproductions in all of history for all organisms comes near that number.

I agree God wants us to use logic, but I think that He wants us to use more than that also. Yes, we were given logic, but we we're given faith also.

My reason or logic informs me that there is more than physics. So I cultivate faith. I'm not saying that God would condemn someone for following what makes sense to that person (I'm probably too liberal for that,) I just don't see how conservative Christian's as well as athiestic evolutionists paint everything black and white as if it makes sense from either view point. I wish everyone could just admit that no one knows. Then there is room for faith in something. be it evolution or Christ or something inbetween.

Thank - you for taking the time to reply

---

Subj: Bogus?
Date: 3/19/00 8:14:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXX
To: BBu84

Hi, Brooks. I must say, I am blown away by the effort you have put into your website. A thought-provoking and insightful piece of work, to say the least. You say that you would like to hear from someone who would not bring up personal experience or faith to demonstrate why Christianity is real, but as I'm sure you've found out by now, that is an impossibility. Without personal experience, there would be no faith in God. If my life was the same after giving my life to Christ as it was before, then Christianity truly would be bogus beyond belief. That's why it's called faith. Concrete evidence? Personally, all I have to do is look around me to see evidence of God's love. I try to keep it simple for myself. Back when I was a Catholic (which is only marginally a Christian religion, in my opinion), I could only see that there was no hope, because the God they serve is one angry dude. Religion, by the way, should never be confused with a relationship with or faith in God. Religion is a business. Good grief, you just have to look at the Catholic church or that gaudy TBN station to see that. However, this is not why I wrote. You've read the Bible; what you do with the information you have is up to you. You raised a question that really got me thinking: What kind of God advocates the death and destruction that He obviously commanded or incited? Some people, I'm sure, have tried to say that He had nothing to do with it; that the people were just told to take the land and they took it upon themselves to do the rest, but that clearly isn't true. So then I realized something. What else could He have done? If every single man, woman, and child was doing "despicable" things, and He was in charge, and He warned them over and over (which He did), and they still didn't listen, is there another option? Is there such a thing as a spiritual slap on the wrist? If you look at society today, it's clear that that simply does not work, anyway. How many times have you heard a parent say, "If you do that one more time...?" Then what? When you know nothing's coming, what's the incentive to change? I think that's why after every warning God gave through the prophets, He said, "Then you will know that I am the Lord." He couldn't very well put them in prison or withhold the mail or something; that's hardly a deterrent now, so I can't imagine that it was then, either. That was probably the only way to get their attention. Then you KNOW He means business, you know what I'm saying?

Well, thank you for the opportunity to share that. Please know there's nothing in the Bible that I know of that backs up what I'm saying; it's just something that made sense to me, and I wanted to share it with you. Of course, I will be praying for you; after all, I am a Christian. :)

-Lynda

---

Subj: (no subject)
Date: 3/24/00 1:14:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXX
To: BBu84

I read through your article and you stated your opinion but you did not debunk Christianity as you said you would. I was curious and looked at it and saw nothing that was proof but merely what you thought and your opinion. Just because you think this way does not mean there is no God. I do not presume to change your mind through these few words but I do tell you this there is proof and obviously you have read the Bible and now you are without excuse. You will not be able to say as you stand before God "but I didn't know." I see by what you write you think you won't. I believe and know that you will. I think you should not take that chance but it is your decision. I do quote the bible by saying "God will not be mocked."

---

Subj: You love to talk about christianity
Date: 3/28/00 1:19:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXX
Reply-to: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Wow! You have really put some serious time into talking about Christianity here. When asked: if you don't believe in God then why do put so much effort into talking about it, you say because you are a moral person who wants to save people from being brainwashed or something. You and I both know that is not true. But lets say it is. What do Christians do that hinder or hurt people? And try not to generalize (although I know you will not be able to). Also, If you are so concerned about people convincing other people of the existence of God why do you not focus on Muslims, Taoists, or Hindus? No, you obviously have something against Christianity. Would you like to know why? Because it's real.

You are very depressed and prideful and have to work 24-7 on this website to divert yourself from your own feeling of hoplessness. Swallow your pride and turn to God. Have you ever read Dr. Faustess? Have you ever read the Bible? I know the answer to the latter.

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 3/29/00 9:50:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Ben,

I have read the Bible and that is a big reason why I put up this site. I was stunned at how utterly ridiculous it was. I also realized that most people never the read the book to see how ludicrous it is. So I thought I would do my small part to remedy this.

Have you yourself ever read the Bible? If you haven't, you might want to give it a try.

Christians hinder and hurt by trying to use an outdated book of mythology to run other people's lives. They support and promote a falsehood. They force it on children. They persecute those who do not accept their mistaken beliefs. They are wrong and they need to be told that they are wrong.

I am depressed and prideful? Thank you for the expert diagnosis. Actually, I feel a lot happier since I let go of my Christian beliefs. As far as hopelessness is concerned, I can't think of anything more hopeless than wasting an entire life clinging to a falsehood. This life is what is important. Christianity is a delusion.

Have a nice day.

Sincerely,

Brooks

---

Subj: Site
Date: 3/28/00 6:55:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXX
To: BBu84

Hello,

Great Site! One of the most informative I have found on the web about atheism. I totally agree with everything you have said. I think religion was founded as a way to keep the masses in check, and if God exists why create a person who will not believe in them? Just some thoughts.

have a great day:)

-Michelle

Subj:
Date: ?
From: Tekministry@aol.com
To: XXXXX

Michelle,

Thank you for your kind words regarding my site. As you can well imagine, most of my e-mail is from friendly Christians telling me, in various ways, that I am going to hell.

Have a good one.

Sincerely,

Brooks

---

Subj: I love your website!!
Date: 3/29/00 4:58:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Your site kicks ass. Here's another rhetorical question... In a perfect Heaven, who taught Satan "evil"?? In a perfect environment, how could he have discovered it all on his own, especially in one fell swoop?

I love the site, man.

Tim

---

Subj: Moral Argument
Date: 4/18/00 11:41:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
CC: XXXXX

Brooks,

You have a great page that is a wonderful resource for atheists and nonbelievers across the globe.

When it comes to web pages, only Adrian Barnett's Wasteland of Wonders page comes nears to yours.

I read your discussion of morality with the Christian web site owner. He states that slavery in the Americans was not equivalent to slavery as defined in the bible.

This is absurd. While he may be right that chattel slavery in the New World was more brutal than it was in "Biblical Times," this in no way condones the institution. (And we don't know for sure how brutal slavery was in Biblical Times. According to the Bible, it wouldn't have been a walk in the park).

You make a good argument about the cruelties of slavery in the bible (and all the other nonsense in the book) so I will not go into that.

I would like to discuss the fact that Mr. William Kilgore uses the arguments of former slaves such as Frederick Douglas and James W.C. Pennington to back his assertion that the bible doesn't support slavery.

As a black person (African American) and atheist, I find this reasoning quite absurd. The slaves had Christianity forced upon them under pain of death. They accepted it because they were forced to.

Also, it is easy to get the poor, wretched and enslaved to believe in god. If you work hard for your master, you'll be rewarded in the afterlife. It's all psychological.

What else did the slaves have but the promise of a good life after they died? With life so bleak, they had pretty much no options but salvation. They didn't want to see the con-game, because life would have been too unbearable (not that it wasn't anyway).

Using Douglas and the others is also an argument from authority, which you have crushed in the past. Just because some famous black abolitionists like Douglas were Christians doesn't make it true.

(Note: I respect Douglas and all the other abolitionists, because without them I may still have been a slave. These were great men and I honor their legacy, but that still doesn't make Christianity right. [Do bad Christians make Christianity wrong?])

The slaves, just like many American Indians, Africans, Aborigines, South American Indians, Polynesians, Hawaiins and a number of other people around the world accepted Christianity under brute force.

This doesn't speak well of your religion, if you have to use brute force to get people to accept it. If this were the case, Islam would be the best religion in the world, since it is probably the most aggressive of them all (accept, maybe, fundamentalist Christians).

In short, African Americans accepted Christianity because their ancestors were forced to. When you are being horsewhipped, it doesn't matter how much baloney is in a religion as long as you can stop the whip from lashing your back.

Considering the brutal history of Christianity and European Colonization around the world (since most of the colonizers where Christian), I don't understand how people still practice a religion that was forced upon their ancestors through torture.

It took one viewing of Alex Haley's epic saga "Roots" to convince me that Christianity wasn't a religion I would adhere to.

And for those blacks who would trot out Islam as an alternative, who do you think sold most of the slaves to white Europeans -- Muslims.

I don't understand why people thank god for delivering them from slavery, but don't curse his name for allowing them to be enslaved in the first place.

Was slavery a means to an end? I don't think so. And if a god has to use slavery to get some point across, he must be some kind of sick sadist with nothing better to do with his time but see people suffer.

You would think all of the slaves would have become nonbelievers, since Jesus didn't come to their rescue. But then again, it was a Christian holding the whip.

cheers,

chaka

Second e-mail from the same person

Subj: God is everywhere/NOT!
Date: 4/18/00 12:20:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
CC: XXXXX

Brooks,

Hi, it's me again.

I just went through another new addition to your page, your e-mail debate with jpholding, the Xian apologist from Tekton Apologetic Ministries.

In his debate about what the Xian hell is, he says it's the absence of god.

<"I imagine the actual nature of hell -- a place where God's presence is absent (2 Thess. 1:9) -- is far worse than the metaphors can capture."> is a quote from him on your web page.

You do a good job showing in vivid bible imagery what hell is, but some Xians say it's just a metaphor, and the torture you feel is the absence of god. That's despite the literal language of Jesus about how hellish Hell is.

Once again, you do a good job exposing this foolishness.

But I haven't seen an atheist, including you, use this argument.

HOW CAN THERE BE AN ABSENCE OF GOD ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE IF GOD IS EVERYWHERE.

This is a contradiction. God is infinite, which means he's everywhere. Hell, if it's a place, has to be somewhere. Even if it's in some different dimension, it's somewhere.

Now, if god can be absent somewhere (Hell), he can't be everywhere and therefore is not omnipresent.

So if jpholding says Hell is an absence of god, then there can't be any hell, or there can't be any god, since the two ideas will be contradictory.

I wonder how jpholding would answer this question.

Saying god can create a place where he is absent is like saying he can create a rock to heavy for him to lift. It's a logical impossibilty.

Just food for thought,

cheers,
chaka

Subj: Re: God is everywhere/NOT
Date: 4/20/00 10:13:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXX

Chaka,

Thank you very much for your e-mails. It is so perfectly clear that the Bible supports slavery that Christians have to find some way to rationalize it away. So they come up with this idea that "slavery in ancient times was not as bad as it was in 19th century America." First of all, how do they know this? Secondly, what kind of slavery would be a "good" slavery? One guy I had a discussion with tried to say that slaves were accorded a great deal of respect and were not really slaves in any contemporary sense of the term. It was all this word wrangling and doublespeak. All you have to do is read the Bible to see that the slavery portrayed in it is wrong, is immoral, is quite bad for the people who were slaves. Something that I was never informed of in Sunday School is that Jesus himself supports the beating of slaves in his little educational homilies. Incredible.

Yes, my good e-mail buddy Bill used the Frederick Douglas and James W.C. Pennington quotations in order to show that Christianity doesn't have anything to do with slavery. It was obviously an attempt to use the argument from authority-how could I possibly dispute these great African Americans, these former slaves?

Thank you for the thoughts on the absurdity of Hell and an infinite god. It used to be that Hell played a much bigger part in Christian sermonizing. Now I guess it just isn't politically correct, so all the blame for people being sent to Hell falls on the unbelievers and on forces beyond God's control. It is all nonsense, goes against biblical teachings, but it makes Christianity seem that much more palatable to people.

I hope to add your e-mail to my web site within a few weeks.

Take care,

Brooks

Send e-mail to Tekministry@aol.com Most recent update: 6/2/01