Chr

responses, page 7

This page contains a variety of e-mails. One e-mailer wants me to take down this site. There are a couple oblique threats of eternal torture. One gentleman claimed to be a rocket scientist and dusted off that old creationist saw about the second law of thermodynamics forbidding life and evolution.

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: Questions for you.
Date: 8/16/00 12:08:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hello Brooks,

Let me start off by saying that I am a Christian who is questioning why. I am having alot of doubts about the entire "Christian/God" thing and have been looking for information. I have not read alot of the bible, nor do I feel that I am well enoughed informed on anything related. I have been raised Christian and I guess that's where it all started. My questions for you are the following;

Do have any information about the missing body of Jesus of Nazareth?

What about information on the Shroud of Turin?

Have you read the book "The Case for Christ"??? Any help or links would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Steve

Subj: Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief
Date: 9/21/00 12:27:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Steve,

I am terribly sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. In August I was on vacation, this month I started a new job, and I have been a bit more interested in playing computer games than answering e-mail.

Regarding the Lee Strobel book-I have not read it, but I have read an interesting review of the book by Jeff Lowder of the Internet Infidels. Lowder writes that Strobel is very one-sided despite the fact that he is a journalist.

Here is the concluding paragraph of his review:

"Case for Christ is a creative, well-written contribution to Christian apologetics. Moreover, Strobel is to be commended for summarizing the work of so many leading apologists for Evangelical Christianity in such a compact and easy-to-read format. Yet Strobel did not interview any critics of Evangelical apologetics. He sometimes refutes at great length objections not made by the critics (e.g., the claim that Jesus was mentally insane); more often, he doesn't address objections the critics do make (e.g., the unreliability of human memory, that non-Christian historians do not provide any independent confirmation for the deity of Jesus, etc.) Perhaps this will be a welcome feature to people who already believe Christianity but have no idea why they believe it. For those of us who are primarily interested in the truth, however, we want to hear both sides of the story.[35]"

Here is the entire review:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

The Shroud of Turin has been fairly well debunked. It has been shown to be a forged relic created in the middle ages. All sorts of tests have shown the age of the Shroud to be relatively recent and (have also shown) that the stains ( ) have come from some sort of paint. Here is a web site which gives a very detailed examination of the shroud:

http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/skeptical/shroud.html

As far as the empty tomb is concerned, I would suggest reading this article:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/3f.html

I would also recommend searching for articles on the empty tomb on the Secular Web site using their search engine. The site search engine is located here:

http://www.infidels.org/htdig/search.html

If you have nay more questions, let me know. I will try and get back to you sooner than a month : )

Brooks

Subj: Just a quick one for you
Date: 9/9/00 9:42:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hello,

I read Response 1 and was agreeable at the start to most of the United Methodist standpoint this person took. I believe he should never have compromised on some of the issues later and that shows his lack of faith that the Bible is inspired by God. I believe you can make a fool out of a lot of people, believers or not. However, God will not be mocked. Everyone will be believers once they die. Unfortunately for some. I have just a few points coming from a sincere street kid, if you will.

First, I think that about 1/2 of your "tough questions" are due to a lack of biblical understanding and taking scripture out of it's context. Much like the United Methodist person said. Another 1/4 of your questions are aimed at human error, misunderstanding and sinfully arrogant "Religious" people who have done a disservice by even associating themselves with true Christian Faith. Religion is man's attempt to reach God. True Christianity is God reaching a lost sinner and saving him because of His love for us. This leaves about 1/4 of your questions debatable from a fair perspective.

In your conversation with Mike (Response 1) the topic of the world being flat came up and this response, along with some others, was not addressed correctly. Isaiah 40:22 states "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth...". This was written no earlier than 681 BC, which was far before the Earth was discovered to be round. There are many arguments for Creation rather than Evolution out there and this is just one area where the world eventually catches up to what the Bible has stated/promised. If Evolution was true, we would have a horde of transitional skeletons as proof of this process. However, as it stands we have not 1 reliable skeleton that can truthfully be classified as evidence for Evolution. To find some good stuff look up The Institute for Creation Research. These guys are scientists that do their homework and do not assume things before the evidence brings them to a scientific conclusion.

I want to point you to a few websites that I feel confident can handle your surmises and doubts far better than myself in my own strength (although with God all things are possible for him who believes)

www.Equip.org is a web site for Hank Hennegraff (otherwise known as the Bible Answer Man.) He has a call in radio show in CA and does an excellent job of broadcasting answers that are aligned with God's truth.

www.khcb.org is a Christian radio station in Houston,TX. This station is listener supported, so the programs are not bias or stacked, but remain true to the faith. You can listen on the net.

www.copperfieldbiblechurch.org has a plethora of links helpful for a deeper study of God's word.

I subscribe to the opinion that your past experience in the "Christian Church" was external at best. I have seen, like many others that God does answer prayers, although not always in the way we ask. The road we travel is not one of prosperity or fame, although it might lead there for some. Your opinion is probably that of many out there, even of those who may profess to "believe" as you once did. You may find some good reading in Jude concerning your position (it's only one chapter too). The Bible has always taught Faith by Grace ALONE, however works will be the evidence of that "Saving Faith". You also mentioned Israel, or the Jews, relationship not being explained in the Scriptures. I believe Romans Ch. 9 addresses this issue very candidly. Please remember, as many televangelists have forgot. We cannot know everything God has in mind or will bring to pass. I would have very little confidence in a God whom I could fully understand.

Isaiah 45:18-25

I am not trying to reach you, as some will earnestly attempt too. I simply wish to sharpen my sword and give you some cud to chew on. Hopefully others will realize that it is God who will save you not their words, if it is His ultimate will.

Concerned about Truth,

Tom

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB sweb site
Date: 9/21/00 12:09:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Tom,

Thank for your e-mail regarding my web site-Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief. Sorry I have not gotten back to you sooner.

There are actually a couple of places in the Bible where the earth is obviously viewed as flat. One instance is the story of Jesus being taken to the top of a very high mountain to be shown all the kingdoms of the earth. Well, clearly, something like this can only happen on a flat earth. Other passages talk about the earth sitting on pillars or foundations, which has not been recorded by any of the space missions yet.

You can say that there are good answers to the tough questions, but unless you can actually provide good answers, there is no reason for me to simply accept your claim. I realize that you just wanted to inform me that there are answers in Christian apologetics, but I honestly do not think that they are. The person who originally posted those questions has gotten responses to them, but they are really, really weak. Christians are perfectly free to send me answers to those questions and I would happily post them on my site.

I think you are giving far too much credit to the ICR. If you study what they write, they do not actually propose any viable explanation for what we see in biology, geology and astronomy. They only attack evolution theory-and geology and astronomy to some degree. Anyone who becomes a member of the ICR has to sign a form which states that he/she will strictly adhere to very clear cut biblical claims about the world and the universe. In other words, ICR members do not do science, but rather they promote theological claims no matter what scientific research reveals to us. That, clearly, is ridiculous. They are not scientists in any conceivable definition of the word. Yes, many of them have degrees in science fields, but are engineers or chemists rather than biologist or geologists, and some of them have even gotten their degrees from diploma mills. Please go to the evolution/origins link on my links page for more info.

I appreciate the links you have provided to Hank Hennegraff's site and the radio stations. They may end up on my links page. I have read quite a number of apologetic arguments, though, and I doubt they have any new ones. I am curious, have you ever read the Christian bible from cover to cover? If not, I would highly recommend that you do.

Also, could I ask you one question? If you had been born in Saudi Arabia or India or Pakistan, what religion do you think you would believe in now?

Thanks again.

Brooks

Subj: Thanks for the terrific web site!
Date: 9/14/00 6:55:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hi,

I wanted to let you know that I really appreciate the time & effort you have taken to put together this web site. It is the first site I have seen like this (now I know about others too), and the information both on your site and in your links is really useful.

I share your views about Christianity and it's "teachings", and our backgrounds are remarkably similar, too! I was brought up in a Lutheran family in a small Iowa town, went to church every Saturday, Wendesday, and Sunday (yeah, that bad). I also went to confirmation (and finished it). I tried real hard to be a good Christian son, but I always had my doubts...

I have always been a critical thinker, and as I grew up I started to question my folks about a lot of the same issues I see on your web site. Of course, they (the Christians) always have nice, pat answers for everything (if they are prepared), but the circular logic, appeals to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and emotionalism got stale real fast. Especially bothersome is their "missionary work" where they go out and find nice, friendly people with their own cultures, ideas, social mores, and religions, who are just minding their own business and getting along fine, then WHAM! now they are saddled with all this bullshit dogma. My folks go all over the world do that, BTW.

There are several big-time Christians where I work and they are constantly reminding everyone of that fact, including me. Whenever conversation turns to politics, social problems, etc and they trot out the dogma, I have to remind them that I don't believe in God. Then we have to go down through the whole "the Bible is/isn't the word of God" discussion. Then on to the Creation/Evolution debate. We have been over the same ground so many times I am just about fed up.

But now, with the added information I got from your site, it should be even easier to keep them at bay. Thanks again, and good luck!

Terry

Subj: The beginning of time & the universe
Date: 9/16/00 11:49:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hi Brooks!

I am still reading and enjoying your site - today I am looking at the e-mail response pages. Something on Response Page 2a caught my eye:

To get around the thorny problem of explaining how your god came from nothing, you claim that he has always existed. Always existed? I don't think the idea of eternity makes any sense. What does it mean to talk about time without a beginning? However, granting that the concept of eternity does make sense, why couldn't the universe have "always" existed in some form? If you say that your god has always existed, what did he do in all the time before he decided to create the universe out of nothing? Just sat in a void twiddling his thumbs?

I think these are very good questions and I had another one of my own to add:

If the christian god existed forever, than, in mathematical terms, that would be for an infinite time into the past, right? Thus, the time to create the universe would never have arrived. By which I mean to say that, if you subtract the time that has passed between the creation of the universe and the time it is right now from infinity, you would still have infinity. Assuming that god "always existed", he would have "always existed" for an infinite amount of time before the universe was created, which seems to indicate that the universe was never created (which I know to be false).

This is a question that I have been carrying around since I was about fifteen years old. When I asked my pastor about it, he just explained that god was "timeless" and that time meant nothing to god. Since this is obviously an extremely poor answer, I made up a better answer on his behalf which says: Since time and space are integral, and both together define the universe, then without the universe there is no time. Therefore, asking how much time passed before the beginning of the universe is meaningless.

This explanation, however, contradicts your last question in the above quote. I'm not trying to criticize you or anything like that, I just want to clarify this point. After all, I think we are on the same side :)

There are scientific theories that posit that the universe itself (and thus, time) has always existed! It is possible that the expansion of the universe that we observe may at some point reverse itself due to gravitational attraction (given that there is enough matter in the universe to create the attraction), which would eventually cause all matter to contract into a single point at some very, very distant time in the future. Then, of course, this small, dense, hot point of matter could then re-big-bang and the development of the universe would start all over again. Of course, none of this has been proven, but there certainly is a basis for it, and it is documented by the work of Stephen Hawking, a very famous and knowledgable theoretical physicist from Oxford University.

The reason for bringing this all to you is that you seem to have a good argument against almost anything a christian will say, and I am looking for an argument against the statement: "god has always existed, and created the universe and everything in it." This has been a very difficult one for me to prove false on a technical level. Of course, the bible doesn't have much to say about it, but that isn't much help when arguing with a christian ;) That and the fact that I talked myself out of my old argument are really leaving me high and dry...

Respectfully,

Terry

Subj: Dialog
Date: 9/22/00 3:03:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

If you are really interested in meaningful dialog, I'll accomodate. If you're not, I'll waste neither your time nor mine.

Subj: Re: Dialog
Date: 9/23/00 2:11:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

I assume you are writing me either regarding my web site or the discussion about Christianity I am having with some people on Guitar.com. I assume you are a Christian who wants to set me right. And I assume this is the first time you have written me. Yes, I am interested in meaningful dialog because I find this whole topic fascinating. Please understand that you are going to have to be original, though, because I think I have heard every standard Christian argument out there.

Thank you for your e-mail.

Brooks

Subj: Re: Dialog
Date: 9/23/00 6:19:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

For someone with a supposedly open mind, you start off with a lot of assumptions. Some of your assumptions are correct, others are not.

It is the first time I've written you.

I am a Christian, but my objective is not to "set you right." I doubt seriously that I could do that, even if all my points were indisputable, and none of yours would hold water, neither of which will be the case.

It is not my responsibility to be original, only correct. I suspect you're going to going to hear some things for the first time, but only because well-meaning Christians get it wrong so much of the time. To be truly original would be to imply that there simultaneously exist more than one mutually incompatible truths, which is logically impossible.

I doubt I'll hear a whole lot of original material from you, either, but on that chance, I'd like to listen.

If you're still interested, let me know.

Jim T

Subj: Re: Dialog
Date: 9/23/00 10:14:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

Yes, I am still interested.

Brooks

Subj: Re: Dialog
Date: 9/23/00 2:18:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

OK. Let's start with something simple.

The Christian perspective on Boltzmann's restatement of Clausius' Second Law of thermodynamics is not that human life is a violation of that law, in fact, human life as we can observe is very much a part of that law.

To put it as my atheist graduate Thermodynamics professor did, "The universe is slowly disintegrating into a lukewarm blob." Heat, and arguably all forms of energy, on its own flows from where there is more of it, to where there is less of it, until everything is the same.

The problem that the second law produces is that, for any given system, as algorithmic complexity increases, stochastic complexity must decrease. However, as the second law predicts, and as we can readily observe, it is the stochastic complexity which always increases with time.

How, then, would nature go about reducing the stochastic complexity, in order to permit the increases in algorithmic complexity necessary for the very simplest forms of life? The mechanisms for such a reduction, to my knowledge, are not even postulated, let alone been demonstrated to correlate with the observable facts. Without these mechanisms, spontaneous evolution is at best a half-baked idea. Not saying it couldn't happen, but by the criteria normally demanded of scientific theories, it's not yet viable in any of its current forms.

Just an aside, but Davies' ridiculous statement that "'higher' organisms have higher (not lower) algorithmic entropy..." merely shows his ignorance of the concept of entropy. Entropy is not complexity, but chaos. The uneducated may see them as the same thing, but they're clearly not.

If the onus is on the Christian to prove God, it's certainly incumbent on the non-Christian to explain the evidence as a result of their mechanisms, as well.

Your turn.

Jim T

Subj: Re: Dialog
Date: 9/23/00 4:09:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

I am not sure that you are using the second law of thermodynamics correctly, but I know what you are getting at. I do agree that the universe is running down or going to a state of equilibrium. Overall, the universe is getting colder and spreading apart. Overall, the trend is towards simplicity from complexity. However, there is nothing in our understanding of physical laws which prevents the natural increase in complexity in an open system, such as earth, which is one part of the universe.

"Without these mechanisms, spontaneous evolution is at best a half-baked idea."

The earth is an open system, with all sorts of energy pouring in round the clock. Your entropy argument does not apply to the earth.

Could I ask you a question? if I am not mistaken, you ultimately want to argue, logically, that the Christian god created the universe. So could you define the term "God" in some coherent, understandable manner?

Your turn.

Brooks

Subj: Re: Dialog
Date: 9/23/00 6:51:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I agree that the application of thermodynamics directly to information theory is a bit of a stretch, in terms of deductive reasoning. Hell, the second law itself is more of a postulate than a law, anyway, though it does have a frighteningly good correlation with physical observation in all realms, including information. (When's the last time your hard drive un-crashed itself, or a "blue screen of death" suddenly, spontaneously picked back up where you left off?) Neither do I disagree with you that there is nothing in our understanding of physical laws which prevents the natural increase in complexity in an open system, but neither do we observe such a phenomenon in any natural realm, so its likelihood is, at best, suspect.

For me to describe God in some coherent, understandable manner would be rather like an amoeba trying to describe a human in some coherent, understandable manner. I suspect the amoeba would not make such a foolish attempt, so neither will I. All I know for sure is that He's bigger and smarter than me.

The theory that an intelligent, creative force is responsible for this algorithmically complex system is in harmony with what we can physically observe about that system, if not a pleasant prospect for those who would choose to place themselves at odds with that force. It's not derivably true, so it remains questionable, but it does have a good correlation with observable fact. What we observe of the stochastics of that system are a strong indication that, any theory supposing that accidental juxtaposition is responsible for it has an extremely low probability of scientific voracity. In fact, the probability of making it from any one step to the next is so infinitesimally small, I certainly wouldn't advise trying to sell any other theory with as much evidence against it, and I'd strongly advise looking for a much better theory. The only thing I can see that this one has going for it, and from its adherents that I've had opportunity to discuss it with at length is the root of its popularity, is its intrinsic relativistic rationalization of the Machiavellian "freedom" to do as one pleases, without regard to any possible absolute standards.

I'm open to other viewpoints, but this one's too big a scientific stretch even for me.

Your turn.

Jim T

Subj: dialog response
Date: 9/24/00 4:43:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

#### I agree that the application of thermodynamics directly to information theory is a bit of a stretch.####

You didn't just stretch things, you made a claim that is simply not true.

####"Neither do I disagree with you that there is nothing in our understanding of physical laws which prevents the natural increase in complexity in an open system, but neither do we observe such a phenomenon in any natural realm, so its likelihood is, at best, suspect.####

Actually, we do observe this on a daily basis. We see it in the formation of such things as snowflakes, waves, sand dunes, tides, clouds, volcanoes, mountains, planets, the sun, stars in general, etc. We also see it in all forms of life, but, of course, you do not accept that life arose naturally.

####" For me to describe God in some coherent, understandable manner would be rather like an amoeba trying to describe a human in some coherent, understandable manner. I suspect the amoeba would not make such a foolish attempt, so neither will I. All I know for sure is that He's bigger and smarter than me."####

If you cannot describe "God" in some coherent, understandable manner, I would say that you literally do not know what you believe in. If you knew what it was, if it made sense to you in your own mind, then you would be able to describe it. Secondly, how do you "know" that "God" is bigger and smarter than you? Where do you get the information which allows you to say this?

####" The theory that an intelligent, creative force is responsible for this algorithmically complex system is in harmony with what we can physically observe about that system, if not a pleasant prospect for those who would choose to place themselves at odds with that force… What we observe of the stochastics of that system are a strong indication that, any theory supposing that accidental juxtaposition is responsible for it has an extremely low probability of scientific voracity."####

A couple of points. First of all, the "complexity requires a designer" argument is clearly wrong because we observe, on a daily basis, how complex structures can arise naturally in an open system. Secondly, the argument destroys itself because any designer would be infinitely more complex than its creations, and thus, by the same argument, would also require a designer, which would also require a designer, which would…but you get the point I'm sure. So the argument is hypocritical.

####"…not a pleasant prospect for those who would choose to place themselves at odds with that force."####

I think that part of the attraction of Christianity is that believers can feel that they are allied with the most powerful force in the universe, and they can simply clasp their hands together, and give various exhortations and incantations in order to convince this force to provide supernatural assistance in their lives. Wouldn't you admit that this is an attractive idea, as is the idea of living forever in heaven in one's very own mansion? As I recall from my early years as a Christian, these ideas were fairly intoxicating. Anyway, from my perspective, I am not at odds with "God," I simply see it as a non-existent being, a fiction and a mistake.

####"What we observe of the stochastics of that system are a strong indication that, any theory supposing that accidental juxtaposition is responsible for it has an extremely low probability of scientific voracity."####

What is the "probability of scientific voracity" that every animal on the planet was slammed, crammed and vacuum-packed into a 400-foot (+/-) wooden boat during a worldwide flood within the last 3000-4000 years, as per Genesis?

####" The only thing I can see that this one has going for it, and from its adherents that I've had opportunity to discuss it with at length is the root of its popularity, is its intrinsic relativistic rationalization of the Machiavellian "freedom" to do as one pleases, without regard to any possible absolute standards."####

Are you actually saying that you have talked to people who have told you that the reason they don't accept Christianity is because they want to do as they please, without "regard to any possible absolute standards"?

If you have spent any time on my web site, you will be aware that I have often been presented with and have responded to similar claims from Christians. If you have read my opening page, you will understand that I used to be a Christian-I believed and I went to church and I prayed. When I got to my late teens, however, I just couldn't buy it anymore. When I was in my early 20's I actually read the Bible all the way through. I consider myself a fairly regular guy and a decent, moral person. Well, I was sickened and outraged by what I read in the Bible. The actions of the biblical god and its chosen people are amazingly immoral. So when I see Christians appealing to morality in some way to bolster their arguments, I view it as the height of hypocrisy-or ignorance, I don't know which.

So I have two questions for you regarding your appeal to morality:

Please tell me, in the clearest possible way, what you are referring to when you say "absolute standards." Where are these standards located, and what, specifically, precisely, are they.

How is someone who does not believe in "God" able to do ~ as he or she pleases~ anymore than a Christian?

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: Re: dialog response
Date: 9/24/00 9:10:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

The snowflake/wave/sand dune/tide/cloud claims you make are simple aggregations, statistical probabilities governed by simple Newtonian mechanics. The volcano/mountain claim is actually a refutation of your premise, i.e., the only thing we observe is the increase of their total entropy. I'm curious to why you maintain that we can actually observe an increase in algorithmic complexity in all forms of life: please explain.

Far from not knowing what I believe in, I'm just not arrogant enough to believe that anything I can't describe can't exist. If we get to that point, and I doubt that with your prejudice we ever will, I will explain exactly why I believe what I believe, and how I know He's bigger and smarter than me, or you. Both are a whole lot more concrete than you apparently assume.

I did not say "complexity requires a designer", that's your prejudicial assumption based on the oversimplification of the Christian viewpoint as commonly expressed by non-Christians. It denigrates your argument when you assume what my position is without first hearing it. I'm willing to accept an alternative if it is better correlated with the extant evidence than what I have. If you'd be honest with yourself, thus far, you haven't done that. All you've presented is an alternative that takes a whole lot more faith than I have to believe in. You couldn't advance a case of law merely by listening to the defendant's story, and inferring that "it didn't necessarily happen that way." You'd need some believable evidence for an alternative.

I don't need the emotionalism attached to the word "hypocrisy", but I find your statement, "any designer would be infinitely more complex than its creations" extremely interesting, in light of your other claims. We do not observe, on a daily or otherwise basis, how structures of any meaningful complexity arise naturally in any open system. There is a limit to how big a snowflake can get, and it can't grow five-pointed or seven-pointed. It's aggregation is governed by the physical properties of its components. It will never improve on its inherent, pre-existing complexity.

Up to now, I hadn't detected that you are at odds with God, only confused about physics, but it was the stated position of the original proponents of the ideas you hold. However, even you'll have to admit that your interpretation of His immorality clearly puts you in that position.

I also doubt seriously that you spent any years living as a Christian, more likely living with fanciful ideas proffered by a few well-meaning people who didn't have a clue what was real, either. You acceded, not believed. In 'Nam I saw a lot of people pray that never believed. I've read "Bhagavad-Gita" cover to cover, too. Didn't understand it any more than you apparently understood what you read.

Any true Christian will tell you (s)he's not allied with God, but as separated from Him as we can be. I have no guarantee of "living forever in heaven in one's very own mansion", or even of avoiding the eternal punishment of Hell. Not sure where you got that, except maybe from one of the "blab-it-and-grab-it" bunch. Compared to God, not very much separates me from Hitler. By the way, his "friendliness to God" was a Goebbels invention to appease the very large Lutheran segment of the German-Austrian population, not so very different from various politicians' use of God today. Read "Mein Kampf". Hitler hated God, because he firmly believed He was real, and Jewish.

If you've visited a zoo anytime recently, the idea of every animal on the planet that couldn't swim or soar in a well-planned 1.5 million cubit feet for only a year is not much of a challenge, let alone a problem. My "ark" puts up a denser pack five or six times a year, and I have to include their air. And there's plenty of evidence for a diluvian period. These aren't central issues, anyway, just a diversion.

You say you consider yourself "a fairly regular guy and a decent, moral person." By what standard? What determines your standards of ethics or morality? I don't know you well at all, but I'll wager there are many activities you tolerate or even advocate that are clearly at odds with the Pentateuch. If you don't want to feel guilty about it, you've got to get rid of God.

I can't count the number of such conversations as this that end with the phrase, "I can't believe in a God who forbids ," or "I can't believe in a God who allows ." People don't like the idea of a God who isn't answerable to them. Your statement that "I was sickened and outraged by what I read in the Bible" clearly puts you in that category. For the sake of argument, if there is a God, who is He answerable to? You? Me? And why can't He demand whatever He wants? Who's going to tell Him He can't?

Your turn.

Jim T

Subj: Re: dialog response
Date: 9/25/00 12:34:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

Before I give a more detailed response, I just need you to answer my two questions on morality, which I will repost:

Please tell me, in the clearest possible way, what you are referring to when you say "absolute standards." Where are these standards located, and what, specifically, precisely, are they.

How is someone who does not believe in "God" able to do ~ as he or she pleases~ anymore than a Christian?

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: Re: dialog response
Date: 9/25/00 4:20:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

explained in the previous e-mail.

Subj: Re: dialog response
Date: 9/25/00 9:30:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

Where? Just cut and paste the section of your last letter which deals with these two questions, because I don't see it.

Thanks.

Brooks

Subj: Re: dialog response Date: 9/25/00 3:40:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX (Jim T.)
To: Tekministry@aol.com

(sigh...)

Question 1 answered in paragraph 9. Question 2 answered in paragraphs 9 and 10.

Subj: dialog
Date: 9/26/00 1:16:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX
CC: BBu84
Jim,

Let's see how well your cited paragraphs answer my questions:

The first question was this:

"Please tell me, in the clearest possible way, what you are referring to when you say "absolute standards." Where are these standards located, and what, specifically, precisely, are they?"

####"You say you consider yourself "a fairly regular guy and a decent, moral person." By what standard? What determines your standards of ethics or morality? I don't know you well at all, but I'll wager there are many activities you tolerate or even advocate that are clearly at odds with the Pentateuch. If you don't want to feel guilty about it, you've got to get rid of God."####

Okay, these "absolute standards" are located in the Pentateuch. Where, exactly? And what, specifically, are they? In order to respond to what you are claiming, I have to know what you are talking about. I would say that, in general, my morality and behavior is based on what I see as harmful or helpful to human life.

My other question went as follows:

"How is someone who does not believe in "God" able to do ~ as he or she pleases~ anymore than a Christian?"

####" I can't count the number of such conversations as this that end with the phrase, "I can't believe in a God who forbids ," or "I can't believe in a God who allows ." People don't like the idea of a God who isn't answerable to them. Your statement that "I was sickened and outraged by what I read in the Bible" clearly puts you in that category. For the sake of argument, if there is a God, who is He answerable to? You? Me? And why can't He demand whatever He wants? Who's going to tell Him He can't?"####

Okay, I see. So Christians cannot do whatever they please to do because "God" forbids it, whereas non-believers can do what ever ~they please~ because they do not believe in "God." Is that the gist of what you are saying?

One point regarding this paragraph. Let's say the "God" portrayed in the Bible somehow actually exists. What would its morality be based on? What would prevent this "God's" morality from being evil? "God" could be all-powerful, but this would not mean that "God" was all-good. It could very well be all-evil.

If not, why not?

####" Far from not knowing what I believe in, I'm just not arrogant enough to believe that anything I can't describe can't exist. If we get to that point, and I doubt that with your prejudice we ever will, I will explain exactly why I believe what I believe, and how I know He's bigger and smarter than me, or you. Both are a whole lot more concrete than you apparently assume."####

I would be very interested in seeing you make the effort. I mean, that is your explanation for all there is (right?), so it is quite relevant to this dialog. As I understand it, no one has ever provided a coherent description of what the term "God" is supposed to mean. If that is the case, then using "God" as an explanation for anything is entirely worthless.

Let's return to your first statement about the second law of thermodynamics. You said:

####"The problem that the second law produces is that, for any given system, as algorithmic complexity increases, stochastic complexity must decrease. However, as the second law predicts, and as we can readily observe, it is the stochastic complexity which always increases with time."####

####"How, then, would nature go about reducing the stochastic complexity, in order to permit the increases in algorithmic complexity necessary for the very simplest forms of life? The mechanisms for such a reduction, to my knowledge, are not even postulated, let alone been demonstrated to correlate with the observable facts. Without these mechanisms, spontaneous evolution is at best a half-baked idea. Not saying it couldn't happen, but by the criteria normally demanded of scientific theories, it's not yet viable in any of its current forms."####

I explained to you that in an open system such as earth, entropy can decrease. You appear to be misapplying the second law of thermodynamics. This is all right, though. Many creationists make this same mistake.

The idea that evolution "is not yet viable in any of its current forms" is false. If you care to be more specific as to why you claim this, go ahead. Thermodynamic laws, at least, do not forbid evolution, as should clear.

####"I'm curious to why you maintain that we can actually observe an increase in algorithmic complexity in all forms of life: please explain.####

I am certainly impressed by all your convoluted sentences and technical jargon. Do me a favor and put this in terms I can understand. What do you mean by "algorithmic complexity"? If you could give a specific example of what this term applies to, I'd appreciate it.

####"There is a limit to how big a snowflake can get, and it can't grow five-pointed or seven-pointed. It's aggregation is governed by the physical properties of its components. It will never improve on its inherent, pre-existing complexity."####

A snowflake has "pre-existing complexity"? Really? A water droplet turns into an amazingly complex ice crystal, and you want me to believe that the structure of the ice crytal pre-existed in the water droplet?

####"The volcano/mountain claim is actually a refutation of your premise, i.e., the only thing we observe is the increase of their total entropy."####

So the formation of the Himalayas is an example of increasing entropy?

####"It denigrates your argument when you assume what my position is without first hearing it."####

Well, than tell me what your position is. Stop being so coy and mysterious about what it is that you believe.

####" If you've visited a zoo anytime recently, the idea of every animal on the planet that couldn't swim or soar in a well-planned 1.5 million cubit feet for only a year is not much of a challenge, let alone a problem…And there's plenty of evidence for a diluvian period."####

Are you telling me that there was a worldwide flood within the last 6000 years, and that the Noah's Ark story is true? Far from being a diversion, this is a major testable biblical claim, which has quite significant implications for biology, evolution, and geology-subjects which are very germane to this conversation.

####"I'm willing to accept an alternative if it is better correlated with the extant evidence than what I have. If you'd be honest with yourself, thus far, you haven't done that.."####

"If I would be honest with myself…"?!! (Editor's note: Oops, I shouldn't have put quote marks around If I would be honest with myself. Sorry) You have not even explained what you believe, or what evidence you have for it, so you can't say that.

I will tell you what-I will give an overall explanation of how I think the universe came to be and why it is the way it is today. Then you can tell me specifically what you object to and why. But then I want you to give me YOUR explanation of how the universe came to be and why it is the way it is today. I want to understand how your explanation fits in with the scientific data better than mine.

Okay. The scientific evidence indicates that an event called the "Big Bang" brought our universe into existence 13 to 20 billion years ago. We observe the universe expanding, so we backtrack and see it starting out as a very dense, small point billions of years ago. One of the predicted evidences of the Big Bang is a uniform background microwave radiation permeating the entire universe in all directions. This was discovered in the 1960s.

Where did the Big Bang come from? Just from nothing? Actually, there is reason to believe that it grew out of the formation of a "virtual particle." These particles have been seen to form and disappear in vacuums. The idea is that a virtual particle formed billions of years ago and, rather than disappearing immediatly afterwards, it expanded into the Big Bang. Of course this sounds incredible, but it fits in with our observations and our theories of physics.

Because I am not a physicist, I will cut and paste a description of how the Big Bang may have occurred. This description comes from a physicist named Victor Stenger:

In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10^-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

(the quote above comes from here.)

As the universe expanded, matter clumped together because of gravity. As more matter clumped together, it became denser, and hotter and finally collapsed down and ignited into stars. This is the result of perfectly understandable natural laws.

Stars are incredible nuclear furnaces. In our sun, 655 million tons of hydrogen are fused with 650 tons of helium every second, at a temperature of 27 million degrees F. In this reaction, 400 trillion trillion watts of energy are created. Pretty amazing, but a perfectly natural event. Remember, also, that the sun is formed from hydrogen and helium. Did the complexity of the sun "pre-exist" in the hydrogen and helium atoms that compose it?

It took billions of years for stars to form, burn all their hydrogen fuel while manufacturing heavier elements, and finally to explode as supernovae, spraying their atoms into space. Once in space, these elements cooled and accumulated into planets. On at least one planet, earth, life formed. How did this come about? Here is a general outline of how it is believed to have happened:

Stage 1: The formation of the earth and atmosphere is considered the first stage in the long trek from inanimate matter to life. This stage provided the inorganic raw materials for the evolution of life and set up the conditions for their interaction.

Stage 2: The second stage produced organic molecules through interactions between inorganic substances, driven by energy sources such as lightning and ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

Stage 3: In the third stage, the organic molecules present assembled randomly into collections capable of chemical interaction with the environment. As the collections formed, interactions taking place within them produced still more complex organic substances, including polypeptides and nucleic acids. Some of these collections of molecules were capable of carrying out primitive living reactions. There is little agreement on the form taken by the first spark of life in these primitive aggregates.

Stage 4: In the fourth stage, a genetic code appeared in the primitive living aggregates. This code regulated duplication of information required for reproduction of the aggregates and established the link between nucleic acids and the ordered synthesis of proteins. Things were still pre-cellular, but with these developments (directed synthesis and reproduction), life was fully established in the molecular assemblages.

Stage 5: The fifth and final stage involves conversion of the pre-cellular assemblages into fully organized cells with a nuclear region and a cytoplasm, all enclosed by an outer boundary membrane--a plasma membrane.

(The quotation above comes from here.)

I know you have major objections to abiogenesis, so here are some links with more information.

http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/CdeDuve.html

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Life/origins.html

http://www.looksmart.com/eus1/eus53706/eus537...

Once replicating cells formed, the process of evolution took over, which led to multicelluar life, and the variety of life forms we see today. I don' think there is any point in wasting time discussing evolution, because it is not in dispute. It has been observed.

Of course this is a thumbnail outline of what scientific observations lead us to believe about the beginning of the universe, the formation of stars and planets, and the beginning of life on earth.

If you object to this description or to parts of it, please let me know.

However, remember that I also want you to provide YOUR explanation of the formation of the universe and the stars and planets and life, and see if your explanation fits in better with the scientific data than this one.

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: monolog
Date: 9/28/00 11:31:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX.nasa.gov (T.-1, Jim)
To: Tekministry@aol.com ('Tekministry@aol.com')
Brooks,

So, your morality is based on your personal view of what is harmful or helpful to human life. That's about as subjective a standard as I'm aware of. I doubt you could get any other individual on the planet to agree with you exactly on what that is. Theirs is subjective, too.

You ~please~ to do whatever falls into that very subjective category. It's what you choose to do, not governed by any absolutes.

There's nothing whatever to prevent God from being all-evil or half-good or any other combination. What's your point? Do you punch out the guy with the gun because he might be a bad cop? Do you stand in the railroad tracks and shake your fist at the on-coming train because you don't agree with the color it's painted? Absolutes are not good or bad, just absolute.

Good? Evil? To a very real degree, might makes right, but that aside, instead of blindly pontificating, carefully watch. If you're truly concerned about what is harmful or helpful to human life, and not just your own personal joy-ride, and you're willing to look at the big picture, you'll like what you see.

As I understand it, no one has ever provided a coherent description of what the term "universe" is supposed to mean. If that is the case, then using "universe" as an explanation for anything is entirely worthless. What is "Life"? What is "Morality"? You use a whole lot of concepts you don't have a grasp on, let alone concise definitions for. Most atheists I run across have a pretty good idea of what "God" means. If you're that ignorant, start with Webster's.

As you say, in an open system, entropy can decrease, but not without a corresponding decrease in stochastic complexity. As systems go, the earth isn't all that open, either. It has about the same in-coming and out-going energies, in about the same spectrums. This is all right, though. Many evolutionists make this same mistake.

By the way, my day job is rocket scientist. My business is thermodynamics. There are a handful of people on the planet who understand it as well as I do, mostly Russian, and you're not on that short list. We don't all agree on the implications of the Second Law to "Life, the Universe and everything," because we're not all Christians, but we're unanimous in our observation that, like field theory, its roots go back to something which includes a whole lot more than heat.

There isn't any reason for thermodynamics to forbid evolution. The behavior of that part of the universe which is described by thermodynamics is one indicator of the nature of the universe. The universe runs down, rusts, decays, wears out. It doesn't get better, and that's what evolution theory depends on.

This so-called "technical jargon" isn't for your entertainment, it's the language of the science you supposedly use to justify your conclusions. If you're not familiar with the terminology, you're probably not familiar with the science, either.

The structure of the ice crystal very definitely pre-existed in the water droplet. If you don't know how that works, take a course in crystallography. The shape of all crystals are determined by the various properties of the molecules that make them up. The variations are governed by a mathematical principle called fractals. Since you obviously haven't read Briggs & Peat's "Turbulent Mirror", I suggest you get a copy from your local library and do so. It's a philosophical book, but it serves as a rudimentary layman's introduction to the concepts of chaos theory and included structure.

At the moment, we aren't observing the formation of the Himalayas, only their decay. Increase in cracks, increase in debris, increase, not decrease, in their entropy. I wasn't aware you were around to see just how they were formed. My personal opinion, and it's just my opinion because I wasn't there, is that they were formed by plate tectonics in much the same way as a car's height is increased when it is squashed between two trucks. Now, I may have increased its height, but have I increased or decreased the entropy of the car?

You keep asking what I believe. The real issue is not what I believe to be true, or what you believe to be true. The real issue is what IS true. Unlike you, I need real, currently observable, rational evidence for what I believe. If that's not the ground you want to cover, I don't have the time.

Jim T

Subj: cooperative, fair, thoughtful dialog
Date: 10/2/00 1:10:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

####So, your morality is based on your personal view of what is harmful or helpful to human life. That's about as subjective a standard as I'm aware of. I doubt you could get any other individual on the planet to agree with you exactly on what that is. Theirs is subjective, too. ####

Interesting claims. I am excited to learn how your morality is objective rather than subjective. Could you please explain what your morality is based on?

In your first e-mail you asked if I wanted to engage in "meaningful dialog." I most certainly do. To me, "meaningful dialog" refers to a reasoned exchange of ideas and questions. It means a discussion where there is give and take. If you disagree with something I say, then I would expect that you would present me with your alternative. If you use terms I don't understand, I would expect a clarification of some sort. If you ask me what my morality is based on, and disagree with the basis of my morality, then I would assume that you would provide me with a viable alternative. So far, you have not really done this. You have made mention of "absolute standards" but, despite repeated requests for an explanation for what these are, no explanation has not been forthcoming.

I very much would like to engage in a "meaningful dialog" with you, but you need to work with me just a little bit. I mean how can I respond to your claims if I don't know what you are talking about?

####You ~please~ to do whatever falls into that very subjective category. It's what you choose to do, not governed by any absolutes. ####

Perhaps my morality really is not governed by "absolutes." Maybe your morality is. Again, I am unable to say one way or the other due to the fact that you have not explained what the term "absolute standards" refers to and where these standards can be found.

####There's nothing whatever to prevent God from being all-evil or half-good or any other combination. What's your point? Do you punch out the guy with the gun because he might be a bad cop? Do you stand in the railroad tracks and shake your fist at the on-coming train because you don't agree with the color it's painted? Absolutes are not good or bad, just absolute. ####

So an "absolute standard" could be evil, then? If that were the case, what would be morally "good" about basing one's actions on it?

####Good? Evil? To a very real degree, might makes right, but that aside, instead of blindly pontificating, carefully watch. If you're truly concerned about what is harmful or helpful to human life, and not just your own personal joy-ride, and you're willing to look at the big picture, you'll like what you see.####

Again, please be more specific. What is this "big picture" that I am presumably missing?

#### As I understand it, no one has ever provided a coherent description of what the term "universe" is supposed to mean. If that is the case, then using "universe" as an explanation for anything is entirely worthless. What is "Life"? What is "Morality"? You use a whole lot of concepts you don't have a grasp on, let alone concise definitions for. Most atheists I run across have a pretty good idea of what "God" means. If you're that ignorant, start with Webster's.####

The known universe is a collection of 100 billion galaxies containing stars, quasars, pulsars, black holes, comets, asteroids, planets, interstellar dust and gas. To me and I think most people, this is an acceptable definition of the term. An old Webster's I have describes it as 'the whole system of created things." This definition obviously presumes a creator, but it is still a definition that has some measure of intelligibility. Now let's look at the term "God": "The supreme deity and self-existent Creator and Upholder of the universe. A supernatural being conceived as possessing divine powers or attributes; idol; a person or thing deified or honored to excess."

This definition is not coherent because it uses terms that are not coherent. For example, what is a "deity"? Well, a deity is a god or a divine being. It is circular. The only "beings" that we have any knowledge of are carbon-based, biological life forms that exist on the planet earth. So is "God" such a being? No, "God" is divine and supernatural. What is divine? Divine means, "partaking in the nature of God." Its circular. Divine also means "excellent in the highest degree." Are we aware of any life forms that are "excellent in the highest degree"? No, so applying this attribute to an unknown life form is incoherent. "God" is also supernatural. What is "supernatural"? "Supernatural" is "beyond or exceeding the laws of nature." Are we aware of anything "beyond or exceeding the laws of nature."? I submit to you that we do not. The term "supernatural" is empty of any tangible meaning.

What is "God" made out of? Some theists say that god is not composed of matter and energy like everything else that we know exists, but instead is composed of "spirit." What, exactly, is "spirit"? Nobody seems to know. Like the term "God," the word "spirit," used in this way, has never been elevated to the point of comprehensibility.

So "God" is an inexplicable "being," made out of an undefined substance, which exists in an unfathomable realm. That is not, in any way, an understandable definition of the term "God." If you are a scientist, then you must realize that positing "God" as an explanation for anything is, at best, premature.

####As you say, in an open system, entropy can decrease, but not without a corresponding decrease in stochastic complexity. ####

I am not sure what "stochastic complexity" or what "algorithmic complexity" mean since you have not yet provided a single, precise, real world example of what these terms refer to. I did some searching on the Internet for definitions of these terms, but did not come up with anything useful. Does this terminology have something to do with information theory or logical entropy? I guess what I am asking is for you to tell me what relationship these two terms have with evolution.

By the way, I have never seen these terms used in conjunction with the second law of thermodynamics-a law which is only used to describe molecular energy states in closed systems.

####As systems go, the earth isn't all that open, either. It has about the same in-coming and out-going energies, in about the same spectrums. This is all right, though. Many evolutionists make this same mistake. ####

That claim is a bit hard to accept, but I'll let it go. The point is that the earth is an open system. Here is what you stated in one of your earlier e-mails:

####The problem that the second law produces is that, for any given system, as algorithmic complexity increases, stochastic complexity must decrease. ####

The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to "any system" but specifically to closed systems. Show me a closed system where the second law of thermodynamics is violated, and you'll get my attention.

####By the way, my day job is rocket scientist. My business is thermodynamics. There are a handful of people on the planet who understand it as well as I do, mostly Russian, and you're not on that short list. ####

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

####There isn't any reason for thermodynamics to forbid evolution. ####

Exactly my point. Thank you.

####The behavior of that part of the universe which is described by thermodynamics is one indicator of the nature of the universe. The universe runs down, rusts, decays, wears out. It doesn't get better, and that's what evolution theory depends on. ####

Your statements are absurdly simplistic. Yes, overall the universe is rusting, running down, wearing out. Eventually it will go to a state of equilibrium or total "entropy" (by any definition of the term). That is perfectly understood. This overall trend, however, does not prevent an increase in complexity /decrease in "entropy" (in any definition) in parts of the universe, for limited periods of time. The processes and properties underlying this "increase in complexity" are not mysterious or supernatural. The formation of complex molecules, for example, is perfectly in line with what the second law of thermodynamics predicts:

"The chemical potential energy bound in most of the 20,000,000 known kinds of molecules is LESS than that in their elements….Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes."

This quotation comes from here:

http://www.secondlaw.com/

Again, because complex molecules represent a lower energy state for their component elements-their spontaneous formation conforms to the second law of thermodynamics.

####This so-called "technical jargon" isn't for your entertainment, it's the language of the science you supposedly use to justify your conclusions. If you're not familiar with the terminology, you're probably not familiar with the science, either. ####

I know enough see that you are mistaken. If whatever it is that you are claiming is such a clear cut, dramatic conflict between two highly regarded scientific fields-physics and evolution/biology-then it would have earned the attention of armies of researchers decades ago, all trying to sort it out, all desperately vying to win a Nobel prize. No such scientific effort exists precisely because your supposed *problem* does not exist.

#### The structure of the ice crystal very definitely pre-existed in the water droplet. If you don't know how that works, take a course in crystallography. The shape of all crystals are determined by the various properties of the molecules that make them up. The variations are governed by a mathematical principle called fractals. Since you obviously haven't read Briggs & Peat's "Turbulent Mirror", I suggest you get a copy from your local library and do so. It's a philosophical book, but it serves as a rudimentary layman's introduction to the concepts of chaos theory and included structure. ####

"The shape of all crystals are determined by the various properties of the molecules that make them up." Sure, like anything else. The fusion reaction of the hydrogen and helium atoms of the sun is "determined" by the various properties of the atoms, but the sun did not pre-exist in the atomic structure of the component gases of the sun. The formation of complex and amazingly varied ice crystals where none existed before is governed not just by the molecular properties of water but also by the environment in which they develop and the temperature. And it is a perfectly natural process-like the formation of mountain ranges.

####At the moment, we aren't observing the formation of the Himalayas, only their decay. Increase in cracks, increase in debris, increase, not decrease, in their entropy. I wasn't aware you were around to see just how they were formed. My personal opinion, and it's just my opinion because I wasn't there, is that they were formed by plate tectonics in much the same way as a car's height is increased when it is squashed between two trucks. Now, I may have increased its height, but have I increased or decreased the entropy of the car? ####

Everything wears out, dies and decays. Mountains crumble, people grow old and die, stars use up their fuel and implode or explode, and the universe itself will one day degenerate to a state of equilibrium. So what? This has no bearing on biological evolution.

Secondly, you are misusing the term "entropy" as it applies to thermodynamics. Here is a definition of thermodynamic entropy.

"'For a closed system, the quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work' (emphasis added). So it's a negative kind of quantity, the opposite of available energy."

"Today, it is customary to use the term entropy to state the second law: Entropy in a closed system can never decrease. As long as entropy is defined as unavailable energy, the paraphrasing just given of the second law is equivalent to the earlier ones above. In a closed system, available energy can never increase, so its opposite, entropy, can never decrease"

The term "entropy," when it is used in connection with the second law of thermodynamics, refers only to the energetic behavior of atoms and molecules. It was not meant to apply to macro objects, like boulders or mountains or cars. You can crush a car into a cube, and this still would not change the thermodynamic entropy of the atoms and molecules that compose the car:

"Inside disorderly, scattered solid objects -- whose molecules aren't changing at all-- there is exactly the same number of microenergetic states for those molecules as there is in a patterned arrangement of the objects. Whatever pattern the big visible objects are lined up in, it is totally external to the molecules and their behavior. So it is absurd to talk about an entropy change in a group of random solid objects versus the same ones when they were put in some neat pattern. NO entropy change occurs in macro objects when they are altered from ordered to disordered or vice versa."

These quotations come from here:

http://www.secondlaw.com/

####You keep asking what I believe. The real issue is not what I believe to be true, or what you believe to be true. The real issue is what IS true. Unlike you, I need real, currently observable, rational evidence for what I believe. If that's not the ground you want to cover, I don't have the time. ####

Jim, I will discuss these issues with you for as long as you care to. I enjoy this conversation and I hope it continues. The only problem I am having is that you are not making yourself clear. You talk about scholastic complexity and algorithmic complexity, but don't define these terms, or explain what the difference is between the two, or how these terms are supposed to relate to either the second law of thermodynamics or evolution. I have made an effort to find definitions for these terms, but so far I have been unsuccessful. Throw me a bone. Define your terms, give me real world examples of the relationship between scholastic and algorithmic complexity and then explain how you think this relationship somehow conflicts with evolution.

You have made numerous assertions about "absolute standards" but have never explained what these are. How can I respond to statements about "absolute standards" when you don't reveal what the term means?

Despite my occasionally sarcastic tone, I am honestly interested in what you have to say.

Sincerely,

Brooks

Subj: Amazing
Date: 10/24/00 12:35:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hi there Brooks.

I'm just writing to express my amazement at your patience. I am a regular at your site and I usually swing by 1-2 times a month to see if you have done any changes. This last visit yielded an interesting discussion between you and a gentleman named Jim. T.

I have seldom seen such an arrogant, demeaning letter and even less often seen a responder that didn't loose his temper. How do you do it? The guy is obviously a loudmouth that happened to see a few fancy-sounding words in a magazine and decided to milk them for all they were worth. His claim that he is a rocket scientist is hilarious considering the many factual errors he commits. Granted that I haven't read thermodynamics in a long time but I don't remember anything being said about "stochastic complexity" Stochastic means roughly random so I fail to see the connection.

The snowflake is most definatly NOT a "simple statistical probability, governed by Newtonian mechanics." NO scientist would describe crystal formation like that. If it was statistical, one would expect at least SOME flakes to have 4-6 edges. Also, what has Newtonian mechanics to do with this? Gravity is disregarded when talking about chemistry and the flake is a result of the way water molecules look like and attach to each other. Since this is a result of electromagnetic forces, one would be much more correct in stating it depended on Maxwellian principles, but that too, would be more wrong than right. The second law of T, on the other hand, is a direct result of statistical events and probability.

Statements such as: "Since you obviously haven't read Briggs & Peat's "Turbulent Mirror", I suggest you get a copy from your local library and do so." does not make him appear less arrogant and his I-knowth-better-than-thou attitude combined with his obvious ignorance would have made me ask him to piss off a long time ago. It is not our job to educate people in common courtesy but I admire you for (trying to) do it all the same. Have a nice day.

Johan

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 10/26/00 12:05:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Johan,

I am glad you enjoy my site.

Initially I thought I would have a long and entertaining discussion with Jim T. But he stopped responding. I am neither a scientist nor an expert on thermodynamics as he claimed to be (ha ha), but it was easy enough to see that his main argument was just that tired old creationist' thermodynamics fallacy disguised with a bunch of convoluted technical jargon. His appeal to morality, likewise, was fallacious.

Yes, his tone was really arrogant and obnoxious, especially in light of the fact that he didn't know what he was talking about. But it was hard to get upset about his tone precisely because he was so obviously wrong. The way I figured it, the more this guy wrote, the more he gave himself away.

I did enjoy his threat (The theory that an intelligent, creative force is responsible for this algorithmically complex system is in harmony with what we can physically observe about that system, if not a pleasant prospect for those who would choose to place themselves at odds with that force) and his under-handed character attack (If you're truly concerned about what is harmful or helpful to human life, and not just your own personal joy-ride…). I love that stuff.

Thanks for your e-mail. I will add it to that e-mail page one of these days.

Brooks

Subj: To Each His Own
Date: 9/30/00 10:38:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

The fool truly has said in his heart, "There is no God". Now answer this one if you can. For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give it exchange for his soul? You sound mighty confident in your position. Think about this-- Why do you go to such great efforts of wasting your time to prove something that you obviously don't believe is true. Let me give you a hint-- If the Gospel (Jesus) be hid it, it is hid to those that are "LOST". You see, no man can come to Christ unless the the Holy Spirt (God) draws him. You do not choose Christ, he (Christ) chooses you. Hopefully you will reconsider your choice. If not, as the Bible says, "God will not always strive with spirit of man but will give him over to a reprobate mind". I will pray this is not your case. I will Pray for you that you can be delivered from your darkness before it is eternaly to late. Feel free to respond.

Subj: Re: To Each His Own
Date: 10/1/00 1:05:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Greg,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding my web site-Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief. I apppreicate that you are praying for me-I certainly am glad you care for me.

As I make abundantly clear on my site, I used to be a Christian, I have read the Bible from cover to cover, I have talked with numerous Christians over the last few years, and I still think Christianity is absolute nonsense. If there is something specific on my web site which you disagree with, or if there is something on my site which you think you can show me is factually or logically wrong, please let me know. Simply repeating Bible verses to me is not going to change my mind about your religion.

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: Wow
Date: 10/1/00 1:50:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX To: Tekministry@aol.com

Mr. T.,

Great site, you have put much effort into it and it shows. Although I am a confirmed Catholic, I am always wanting to understand the issues that call Chrisianity into question. Your site has provided me with more than ample material to digest. I could not decipher all of it if I had fifty years to spare. Anyway, you are obviously a searcher, as am I, and a very diligent one at that. I never hold my beliefs to be inerrant and am always searching for truth myself, even if it is hard to take. I just wonder, will you enjoy hell? No, this is a joke. No one down here can judge who will or won't go to hell, should such a place even exist.

Anyway, though my faith in the supernatural is solid, as I have experienced some pretty creepy stuff, my understanding of the nature of God is limited and confused. I think your site has captured all of my qualms with the Christian faith (and then some!) and deserves my greatest respect. Keep up the good work. If we cannot defend our faith, then why believe it? For fear of hell? I don't think this is productive or reasonable. A friend of mine has put together a pretty darn good site where he delves into most of the problems with Christianity. His page is definitely worth visiting. It is:

http://smithbrad.nventure.com/home.htm

You might find some more material there, also some new ideas. Take it easy and keep the "faith."

Sincerely,

Craig

Subj: Nothing new!!
Date: 10/1/00 1:46:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

I am sorry you feel the way you do. It is sad that you have bought into the naturalist worldview. "Science will solve all our problems." Unfortunately, science can not only not achieve this but they have created more problems than they will ever solve. Science was not created to solve our problems or to disprove the existence of a creator. Science was created by Christian so they/we could study the creation and the deeds of God. Does God exist and does He do things? You know in your heart He does. Take time to see His creation.

Examine the things of this earth that could not exist by chance. If you were walking along a road and found a watch, would you not assume a watchmaker. A complex mechanism such as a watch can not construct itself by use of matter that cannot create itself(The first law of thermodynamics) and time.

Look at the vision and guidance system of the monarch butterfly. For that matter look at the human eye.

Have you read "Darwin's Black Box?" Evolution at the molecular level is impossible. No reputable scientists even believe in evolution any more. They, except for the old and nearly extinct, realize that the asd a theory it has been dismissed. What is left? Intelligent design.

I am not looking to argue with you and I don't expect to convince you with this letter. I hope you will just take the time to answer the most important question that will ever come your way. How did you get here and where will end up?

God really does love you desptie your deception. I hope you will turn over every rock. I commend you on your belief system. At least you believe something. Most people today believe that everyone is correct(Post moderns/PC) and that is sheer craziness. If belief conflict they cannot both be right.

Take care and I hope to hear from you. May the God of the universe hear my prayer and call to you in the darkness.

Pardon the Christianese, but, God Bless You!!!

Scott

Subj: comment
Date: 10/2/00 7:38:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
Reply-to: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hello,

Just a line to say that I found your website a complete waste of time. It is not unusual that you cannot understand God. A blind person cannot be expected to understand light. If, as you say, there is no God, then why would you need to spend valuable time arguing against His existance?

You are obviously a very self-centered individual, or else maybe your self-esteem is so low that you feel a need to bring God down to your level.

Jim

Subj: Re: comment
Date: 10/3/00 2:11:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

Actually, if you take the time to glance through the opening page of my web site, you will see that I used to be a Christian and I have read the Bible. Have you read it? I suspect that you have not, otherwise you probably would understand why I put up this site.

In any case, just so you are clear on this, I'll explain why I put up this site. A couple of years ago I came to the realization that Christianity was nothing more than a sick con game. I had trouble conveying this idea to Christian acquaintances, who thought there was something terribly wrong with me. It was frustrating. Then the Internet came along, and I got a computer and somehow figured out (how) to put up simple web pages. Now I had a way to collate information and link together various sources of information on Christianity-information that most people are not aware of. Information that my Christians acquaintances were not aware of. After wasting so much time and enduring so much frustration dealing with Christians criticizing my views or trying to convert me, I now could explain and defend myself by putting my thoughts into somewhat coherent bits of writing and using a wide range of supporting materials from the Internet.

Of course, I encourage Christians to e-mail me and try to convert me, or simply to point out where I am wrong on the site. If there is good evidence for Christianity or if my arguments or information are faulty, I certainly want to know. So if you see something specific that you object to, or if you think that I am overlooking pertinent facts, or that I am making a clear mistake in what I write, please let me know.

In any case, I wish you well.

Sincerely,

Brooks

Subj: Question
Date: 10/3/00 11:06:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I received an email from you today that I think you meant to send to my dad (who evidently made some comment about your website). I don't know why the message was sent to me unless he left my address instead of his, but your reply to it aroused my curiousity. I'd be interested to visit your website too if you'll send me the address. I did show my dad the email and he said that he had made a comment on your website so I think I'd like to see it for myself.

Thanks,

James

Subj: Re: Question
Date: 10/3/00 1:39:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To:XXXXXX

James,

Here is the link. On this page, I briefly describe why I put the site up.

http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/home.htm

I hope you find it interesting, if nothing else.

Have a good one-

Brooks

Subj: The Bible is not stupid
Date: 10/4/00 6:53:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:XXXXXX
Reply-to:XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

Since you really do not KNOW if there is a God or not, what causes you to come down on the side of unbelief?

You e-mailed my son that you were formerly a Christian? What changed your mind? Tell me the exact point in time when you doubted God and tell me what or who caused it?

My e-mail is XXXXXX. You need not worry about having an argument with me. I would no more feel a need to argue the existence of God than I would the existence of air. Both are necessary for life whether people see them or not, feel them or not, or believe in them or not.

Incidentally, I have read the Bible several times and continue to study it. Is there any specific teaching in the Bible that has given you a problem? Most people who are of your persuasion do feel that the Bible is a problem for them.

Enjoy Life!

Jim

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB seb site
Date: 10/8/00 1:05:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

There was not a single "Eureka" moment when I realized Christianity was false. It just gradually became clearer and clearer as I learned more about history, culture, science and psychology. The final nail in the coffin came when I actually read the Bible. That made me lose any lingering respect for Christianity that I might have had.

For your benefit, I will outline just a few of the problems with Christianity. First of all, the term "God" is never defined. So when Christians assert that "God" exists, they literally don't know what they are talking about. If you think I am wrong on this, go ahead and try to define the term in some understandable way. I don't think you can.

There is no evidence for the miracle claims made in the Bible. I mean, do you really believe in the Adam and Eve story and Noah's Ark story?

Christianity has taken many story elements from previous religions. In other words, it took successful parts of earlier myths and created a new mythology. The December 25 birth of Jesus and his Easter resurrection are just two examples.

The ideas promoted by the Bible are ridiculous. For example, the biblical god supports slavery, orders massacres of children, demands animal sacrifices, and threatens to smear excrement on people's faces. I mean, don't you find these things just a little troublesome?

I could go on and on. In a nutshell, I do not see evidence for Bible claims, I see Bible claims contradicted by the facts of reality, and the Bible contains the clearly absurd beliefs of very ignorant and superstitious primitive, barbaric people. For more details, I would suggest that you read the article on my site entitled "Why Humanists reject the Bible." It is located here:

http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/why.htm

If there is anything unclear about anything I have said, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Brooks

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB seb site
Date: 10/12/00 1:24:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

Actually, I absolutely believe in the fact of Adam and Eve as well as the fact of Noah and the ark. While the Bible needs no outside support to be the truth, there are indeed other reasons why you may want to realize the truth of these accounts. While I do not think the Bible teaches that Jesus' birthday is December 25th, the erroneous traditions of certain groups do not change the truth of scripture. I would no more try to define God than I would try to define you. I have never seen God or you. I do not know exactly how either of you form your thoughts or intentions. I do know from communicating and receiving answers from both of you that both of you are persons. God is my Creator, my King, my Bridegroom, my Friend, my Counselor, my Owner, my Father. He is many other things to many other people and it depends on whom you speak as to what is His relationship with them. As to the slavery issue, I would need to know the specific instances to which you refer before replying. The innocent animals as well as nations (not just children, but entire cities) were sacrifices which were pictures of the coming death of God's own Son for us. I may explain this further when I have more time and would prefer to do it by telephone if you really want to know. Until I received understanding on these subjects, they seemed strange to me as well. (You may phone me at XXXXXX during business hours) As for massacre of children, the existence of barbarian, primitive, uneducated, ignorant people, we are living among more of those folks now than ever before. As a matter of fact, the massacre of children is now protected by US law. Do you believe that any thing is right or wrong? If so, please give me an example and tell me why. Thanks. Have a nice day!

Jim

Subj: hello from the CBBB web site
Date: 10/16/00 1:56:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jim,

Just wanted to let you know that I have not forgotten about you. I don't know if I will call, but I will definitely get back to you about your last e-mail. I am just busy with a number of things at the moment.

Later-

Brooks

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 10/22/00 10:34:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84 To: XXXXXX

Jim,

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you.

So you believe in Noah's Ark. Based on one of Jesus' geneologies given in the Gospels, this occurred within the last three thousand years:

LUKE 3

God, Adam, Seth, Enos, Ca-i'nan, Maha'lale-el, Jared, Lamech, Shelah, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Shem, Arphax'ad, Ca-i'nan, Eber, Peleg, Re'u, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Arni, Admin, Ammin'adab, Nahshon, Sala, Bo'az, Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan, Mat'tatha, Menna, Me'le-a, Eli'akim, Jonam, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Elie'zer, Joshua, Er, Elma'dam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri, She-al'ti-el, Zerub'babel, Rhesa, Jo-an'an, Joda, Josech, Sem'e-in, Mattathi'as, Ma'ath, Nag'ga-I, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathi'as, Joseph, Jan'na-I, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph, Jesus

Do you think there was a worldwide flood with the last three thousand years? Also, when was the Adam and Eve fiasco? Was that before or after the dinosaurs?

You have no reason to doubt my existence. I am merely a human being who has responded to your e-mail. You know human beings exist, you know that people exchange e-mails, and you have received a reply from me. It is not a stretch to believe that I exist. However, this is not comparable to the existence of a "God." In the first place, the term has never been defined. While you may have had experiences that you attribute to "God," you have to realize that religious believers of all religions have personal experiences of their gods. Do countless gods exist, then? No, because religions are exclusionary. And you cannot use personal experience to convince someone else of your belief.

Something that I consider morally wrong? Keeping slaves "forever."

"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

Morality is based on what harms or hurts people.

Brooks

Subj: your wonderful website
Date: 10/11/00 9:49:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
Reply-to: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com ('Tekministry@aol.com')

Hi Brooks!

Thank you, thank you for your wonderful site! I discovered your site when I began my studies into Christianity and the bible, trying to figure out why on earth any human being would believe such a load of crap. Your site is a great resource. I have been educating myself on the bible and Judeo-Christian religion lately due to a friend's sudden conversion to Christianity, then Judaism. Someone I thought was intelligent, rational and well-educated stunned me by doing such an un-intelligent thing and it got me all fired up. I have been a pagan/witch/wiccan for a few years and so have battled with the problems facing pagans from the intolerant Christian community. My bible studies, however, have led me to question even my pagan beliefs, and I think I'm on the road to espousing athiesm! And as a biologist by training, my scientific side has made me a great skeptic!

Anyhow, as I learn more, I find myself looking for ways to counter Christian claims and answers. You present your arguments so well (something I'm not so good at)...ever thought about writing a book? I'm curious to know how you answer a Christian who explains Biblical inconsistencies or impossibilities with something like "Well, it's God. He can do anything!" As in, God can suspend the laws of physics, etc. etc.? What would you counter with?

So, thanks for giving the world some sanity! I'll keep visiting.

BTW...reading the Bible, only on Exodus, but horrified at some of God's commandments (like rules about what to do when selling your daughter into slavery!)

later,

Jo (fellow Washingtonian)

"I revolted in spirit against the customs of society and the laws of the state that crushed my aspirations and debarred me from the pursuit of almost every object worthy of an intelligent, rational mind."

Emily Collins, Women's Suffragist

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 10/15/00 7:51:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Jo,

I am glad to know that a another Washingtonian enjoyed my web site. Thanks for your compliment on my writing skills-you are really being far too kind though.

The "God can suspend the law of physics" claim is interesting. I guess you could ask the person how he or she knows that "God" can do this. Did the person see the laws of physics actually suspended by "God"? Have we ever seen the laws of physics suspended? If the person says that the Bible provides instances where this occurs, then the person can be asked whether it is more likely that the laws of physics were suspended or whether the ancient, superstitious person who wrote the story was fibbing a bit. Outrageous claims demand outrageous evidence. Another thing to do is say that the Invisible Pink Unicorn caused the event in question to occur. If the person asks you to support this claim, tell the person that you have faith that it is true. If the person says, well, the Bible provides evidence that "God" did it, ask this person why anyone should believe the account in the Bible. After all, we cannot question the person who made the claim in the Bible. And with regards to all the miracle claims of the Bible, there is no corroborating evidence or alternative sources that support them.

Usually when a person makes a claim like this, he/she leaves the realm of rational discussion. Unless the person can directly demonstrate the laws of physics being violated by "God," then nobody has any reason to accept the claim. Apart from finding some instance of physics being overthrown, a big problem is actually explaining what the term "God" means. Unless the term is defined-and it never has been-then the statement "God suspends physical laws" is incoherent.

I would recommend that you visit the link on my site to the "Impossible God" article. It has some relevance to this subject. It explains in a pretty clear way that the attributes given to the biblical god are mutually contradictory. The article is located here.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.html

Have a good day.

Brooks

Subj:
Date: 10/18/00 7:33:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

I've read some of your responses pages and I have to ask you do you feel like I do in wanting to jump through your computer and grab some of these people round the neck' and shake them till they wake up and learn to think with their own brains instead of falling onto the insipid "Jesus loves you" approach to life

Great site, always come back to it, great links too

Paul B

Australia

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 10/18/00 10:19:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Paul,

Yes, I feel that quite a bit. I am having a conversation with a guy now who admitted that personal experience can not convince anyone who does not have the experience-but now he is sending me all these examples of his personal experiences. For example, when he (was) a kid there was a dark presense in his doorway-ooohh scaaarrryy. What am I supposed to do with that? Am I supposed to devote my life to Jesus now? Another guy I am talking to annouced with pride that he accepts the Noah's Ark story. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother putting my e-mail address up.

In any case, I am glad you like the site.

Take it easy.

Brooks

Subj: powerful argument
Date: 10/18/00 2:13:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hi there!

I just got finished reading some of your webpage and I have to tell you, I was so deeply shook that I almost threw up. Let me explain, I too once called myself a Christian and recently I have found myself in bondage because of my past thoughts and beliefs. I sometimes worry that I may be condemning myself by not agreeing with the religious fanatics, but my doubt outweighs this fear. I recently spoke to a pastors wife at a prominent local church and she said that it was very unfortunate that I allowed myself to become skeptical. I tried to clarify to her that I did not allow myself to question biblical/doctrinal fallacies but instead they happened naturally (Our "god-given" brain was meant to be used wasn't it?). She warned me that Eve also questioned God and to remember what happened to her(oooo..sounds like a threat doesn't it?). She said that we must rely on faith and not reason or proof. I can not "in good faith" allow myself to do this. Nobody can prove that there is a God. I choose to believe that there is...but, just because I don't subscribe to someone else's brand of spirituality(Christianity) does not make me misinformed or unfortunate. Christians need not pity me for my skepticism. The focus should be on themselves and fulfilling there destiny in any way that they choose. If the Christian faith gives them a feeling of wholeness then I encourage them them to continue in there pilgrimage. Everyone is free to come to there own conclusions on what life is all about and where we are headed after life as we know it is over. Eternal life, reincarnation, nothingness whatever.

In conclusion:

This is real: neither you nor I know beyond a shadow of a doubt if the Christian God of the Bible is real. Isn't that the first step in understanding anything? I appreciate your webpage and the tremendous argument that it gives. Knowledge is definitely power, it gives people the power to comprehend and think for themselves. Remember that even your own thoughts about God will evolve over time. You never know what lies in store for you. God forbid Jesus comes to you in a dream tonight and you convert yourself to Christianity once again. Ha! won't that be a great testament for Christians? Anyways, thanks for your webpage and I hope that your life is going well for you. Stay alert, and open-minded and here's some advice: don't ever forget to follow your heart as well as your mind. By.

Subj: Bigots!?
Date: 10/20/00 5:41:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

You, quite rightly. condemn religious bigotry..........

Did it, could it, possibly occur to you that you yourself are a hate driven bigot?

Subj: Re: Bigots!?
Date: 10/21/00 1:17:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Dr. Hicks,

If I am a hate-driven bigot, what is it that I hate?

Brooks

Subj: your guestbook entry
Date: 10/21/00 3:46:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Kimberly,

I was checking the guestbook for my web site-Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief, and I saw the message you left. I felt I needed to drop you a note. If you have read through my site, you will realize that I used to be a Christian. I took the time to read (through) the Bible and it really shocked and disgusted me. The biblical god murders children, it supports slavery, it constantly orders the massacre of men, women and children, and, as you alluded to in your guestbook entry, it tortures people for eternity in a place called hell.

I would urge you to think about what you wrote in my guestbook-threatening me with eternal torture-and then think about the sentence "I am wondering how you live with yourself and these beliefs." Compare and contrast those two sentiments, turn them over in your mind for a while, and see if you can't detect a smidgen of irony.

Read the Bible is you haven't already, and have yourself a great day.

Brooks

Subj: Re: your guestbook entry
Date: 10/21/00 4:34:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

Show me in the Bible where God tortures and kills...and I did not threaten you...you threaten yourself you are the only person who decides whether you want to be saved or not if you choose not to be saved then you will be condemned to hell on the judgement day if you have not let Jesus in your heart! The Lord doesn't torture you he gives you a choice and if you choose not to be saved and follow him you are the one torturing yourself. Thank you and God Bless.

Subj: Re: your guestbook entry
Date: 10/21/00 5:26:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

File: CRUELT~1.MHT (59492 bytes)
DL Time (49333 bps): < 1 minute

Kimberly,

Here is a list of biblical atrocities you might want to take a gander at.

Click here: Cruelty and Violence

Think about it.

Brooks

Subj: Re: your guestbook entry
Date: 10/23/00 7:29:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

Have you ever stopped to think God does things for a reason?? And Like with Abraham he supplied a lamb instead of Issac this was a test from God to Abraham! I don't know how you can once be a christain then one day all of the sudden stop believing the word of god? Were you even saved? That is a crazy question because a saved person would not defy god or even think such a thing! God gave his son would you do the same? Fraid not....well thank you for your time and lies. God Bless and I will be praying for you!

Subj: Yahweh
Date: 10/24/00 7:57:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
Reply-to: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Dear Brooks,

I love your website! You say you don't believe Yahweh is/was real. Have you read Zecharia Sitchin's books? I've read all of them and by the time I was finished there was do doubt in my mind that the god the Sumerians called Enlil is the very same god we know as Yahweh/Jehovah. Sitchin's books are based on what the Sumerian tablets have to say. They don't have very many nice things to say about Enlil/Yahweh. Anyway, the reason I left Christianity for good is because I am female and a bastard to boot. I refuse to accept as my master a god who loves to degrade women and loves to punish innocent people up to the 10th generation. Deut. 23:2. He also openly admits he creates evil - Isaiah 45:7. In my opinion, organized religion is the biggest scam in the history of mankind. Oh, by the way, an ancient coin was found which depicts the image of Yahweh. It should have made front page headlines. So why didn't it? Because the opposite side of the coin is a HUGE embarrassment to the church. It says Yahweh was the consort (spouse) of the goddess Asarte, often referred to as the Earth Goddess. Anyone interested can see this coin at

http://www.scitec.auckland.ac.nz/~king/Preprints/book/orsin/origsin2.htm

How about a little quiz. Who am I talking about? He was born to a virgin by immaculate conception through the intervention of a holy spirit. This fulfilled an ancient prophecy. When he was born the ruling tyrant wanted to kill him. His parents had to flee to safety. All male children under the age of two were slain by the ruler as he sought to kill the child. Angels and shepherds were at his birth and he was given gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. He was worshipped as the saviour of men and led a moral and humble life. He performed miracles which included healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, casting out devils and rairing the dead. He was put to death on the cross between two thieves. He rose from the dead on the 3rd day and ascended up into heaven. Jesus, you say? WRONG!! He was the saviour god known as Virishna, who lived 1,200 years BEFORE Jesus is claimed to have been born. In fact, if you research ancient history, you will not just find this saviour but MANY MANY others. Most of course were born to virgins, on Dec. 25th, were the son of God, etc., etc., etc.

Sincerely,

Barb

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 10/26/00 12:05:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Barb,

Thank for your interest in my web site.

"Anyway, the reason I left Christianity for good is because I am female and a bastard to boot…."

Barb, Barb, the OT rules were simply made for the Israelites who lived in danger from their enemies. God had to to do what he did and had to make the rules that he did to protect his chosen people. Context, context, context! Don't let your 21st century ideas of compassion, mercy and justice grotesquely distort you view of God's plan for the ancient Israelites. (snicker : ))

The fact that Christianity is simply a copy of older religions is just blatantly obvious to anyone who takes the time to look at these older religions. You can show these older religions to Christians, point out the obvious parallels, tell them how certain dates and story elements were chosen to appeal to pagans, and on and so forth, and they will still deny that there is any connection whatsoever. I find this to be rather astounding.

One of the things I would like to do is collect links to sites about these older religions that parallel Christianity. Your link will be a help in this. If I get a chance, I will look for that book.

Thanks again.

Brooks

Subj: christianity
Date: 11/10/2000 11:52:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

Dear Brooks

My name is george and i came across your website while searching for something else. the reason for this email is because i felt so much hurt for you. i didnt read all of your site but i did get the point. i doubt if u have ever met a christian or have even seen one for that matter. u wont find us on tv or even in the audience of these fake christians. christianity is very simple to understand its love plan and simple. i wont go into debating u on anything here but u have to ask yourself one question, what if its true. the reason why so many people are lost is because of these fake people and entire sects of false religions , catholic religion being one of the worst of all. God is real and he manifests the holy spirit in our hearts so that there will be no question as of his existence. you have an opinion , but so does 6 billion other people on this planet. the fact remains that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that he is lord. do not let yourself be on the receiving end of gods wrath. our salvation is in our own hands and not in the hands of false prophets. if u would have put a tenth of the effort that u into this page, into sincerly seeking god u would have the truth by know.

george

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB website
Date: 11/12/2000 10:58:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

George.

Despite what you wrote in your e-mail, I do know Christians, I have talked to Christians, and I used to be one myself. There is nothing loving or kind about Christianity. It is a sick falsehood. It contradicts itself and is contradicted by reality. You tell me that I should be afraid of God's wrath. Can't you see how evil it is to threaten people with eternal torture for their thoughts? Wake up-Christianity is a delusion.

Brooks

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 11/19/2000 3:11:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Thank you for your e-mail. Below is my response. I have put my comments in bold.

Brooks

###################################

Subj: Your website
Date: 11/14/2000 8:55:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To:Tekministry@aol.com

First off, let me say that I have no desire to convince you that Christianity is the truth, much less that it's the Truth. I personally am an agnostic, though I respect the Christian faith in many ways. There are many ways in which it disgusts me, as well. However, what bothers me about your website is the total lack of respect it shows for the Christian faith.

I don’t have any respect for something which is so clearly false and which threatens people with eternal torture (simply) because of their thoughts.

You seem to delight in offending Christians. The "portrait" of God is particularly distressing. What does it have to do with anything? Pointless shock value, just like heavy metal bands and Beavis & Butthead.

The biblical god murders children, it supports slavery, it orders the massacre of men, women and children, and, of course, it promises to torture people for eternity because of their thoughts. What shocks me is that grown adults could devote their lives to worshipping such a sadistic monster.

Look, we've all been told that Christianity is the One True Path and that we're going to Hell unless we "embrace Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior." I hate it, too. I am not fond of mainstream Christianity, nor am I fond of Fundamentalism. The whole reason I'm an agnostic is that I don't ever want to be in the position of telling someone that their faith is total crap, except in cases where it shows obvious moral violations, such as, say, Nazism.

Well, unlike you, I don’t have any problem with telling Christians that their religion is demented nonsense.

Which brings us to your website. You are someone telling people that their faith is complete crap, and you cite these quotes as proof of obvious moral violations. I guess the problem here is that while there are a lot of respectful, well-thought out arguments against Christianity that hold my attention, yours is reactionary, juvenile, and blindly, even faithfully, liberal. I'm far to the Left myself, and it bothers me to see someone I might be identified with using such poor arguments.

I suspect that you are not an agnostic but rather a Christian pretending to be an agnostic.

First of all, these quotes are taken totally out of context. That's one of the huge problems when people quote the Bible, and this is the exact same way that Biblical arguments against homosexuality and female equality are formulated. You are, in essence, stooping to their level. An example of a quote that is blatantly and obviously out of context is John 1:4, "O, woman, what have you to do with me?" He's just addressing her as woman here, and he's asking her this based (I would assume, not being overly familiar with John) on the fact that she's mortal, not on the fact that she's a woman.

Do you disagree that the Bible treats women as third class citizens?

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

Timothy 2:11

"It is well for a man not to touch a woman."

1 Corinthians 7:1

Secondly, many of these quotes are not in any way offensive or worrying. For example, 1 Corinthian 3:20, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." To criticize this quote is to criticize the belief that God is greater than man. If you're assaulting one of the main tenets of the religion, you may as well do it openly and intellectually. In short, this quote is only offensive to someone who disagrees with its primary idea, an idea that crops up everywhere in Christianity. It's similar to Thomas Aquinas' proof of the existence of God, which was only proof if you accepted it faithfully. You're only convincing those who don't need it.

This quote is an example of the Bible belittling human intelligence. The point of belittling human intelligence is to elevate faith. The point of elevating faith is to increase the acceptance of biblical claims: acceptance of biblical claims is urged on the basis of faith rather than reason.

Thirdly, I notice that you quote a lot from the Old Testament, the later New Testament, and the Gospel of John. The Old Testament mostly reflects the culture and values of the ancient Hebrews, and generally has little or no bearing on modern Christianity-- not to mention little or no bearing on modern Reform Judaism. The Old Testament is, in the vernacular, weird. It's about a vengeful, animistic, sacrifice-demanding, head-thumping pagan God (no offense intended to modern Jews of course, although I think that most of the best stuff about Judaism comes from the Talmud, and the fact that they get it straight in Hebrew, keeping many of the concepts undiluted). Why's it in there? I don't know. But you can't criticize the whole book based on its inclusion.

Whoa, wait a minute. The Bible is about 75% OT. Saying that someone can't criticize the Bible because of the OT is ludicrous. I think the reason the OT makes up so much of the Bible is that Christians really didn't have any of their own material, so they had to make their beliefs appear more respectable by filling the Bible with ancient, revered religious texts.

By the time the Gospel of John was written, Christianity had turned to anti-Semitism, and it's also really badly written. I don't generally trust the Gospel of John. But at least the later Gospels didn't make the cut. In some of those, Jesus kills children for touching him, brings clay pigeons to life, flies, and breathes fire. The Bible does have a little discretion, it seems.

Paul was kind of a jerk. Notice how many of your quotes de-emphasizing the role of women come either from Paul's letters (or the Old Testament)? Paul says some good stuff, but mostly, it can be disregarded.

If most of Paul’s writings can be disregarded, then why are they in the Bible in the first place?

The key to reading the Bible is to know when it's talking about universal maxims of faith and when it's talking to the very specific situation. The Revelation (it's not Revelations, as most seem to think) was actually a political commentary about Rome, never intended as any sort of prophecy. The whole business with the End Times seems a little silly to me because of this.

Some of these quotes hinge on lousy translation in addition to misinterpretation, a lousy translation that is more or less universal. The whole deal about hating your father and your mother may stem from the fact that Hebrew had no comparitive. All Jesus probably meant was that you had to love him more than you love your family or yourself, which, if you accept the basic tenets of Christian faith, is totally reasonable (see above).

Unless you are Jesus, you can’t tell me what he meant by those words, assuming, in the first place, there was a Jesus who actually said these things. Another thing to consider is this: Jesus was supposed to have been a Jew who spoke Hebrew, yet the NT was written in Greek. Assuming Jesus existed, assuming that he had biographers following him around carefully transcribing everything he said, how would it be possible for us to know how well the Hebrew was translated into Greek and from Greek into English? And then, on top of this, the larger question is which Bible is the correct Bible? Which of the thousands of Christian denominations and sects have interpreted God’s perfect, divine message correctly? Are you beginning to see why I view Christianity as one huge joke?

Finally, you totally ignore some of the truly amazing, inclusive, tolerant things that Jesus said. I don't recall the actual quote, but there's this great bit that goes like this: "I give you a new Commandment-- to love one another." Forget the one-line arguments against gays and women. Forget the blood and gore of the Old Testament and the misinterpreted allegory of the Revelation. This, truly, is what Christianity's all about. Too many Christians forget that. But so do you.

Sure, you can find a good thought or phrase here and there in the Bible. But that does (not) make Christianity tolerant, kind, loving or true. That does not excuse the Bible’s support of slavery, murder and eternal torture.

I urge you to remove or amend this offensive website. It's detrimental to your own arguments-- you can far more effectively critique the religion by pointing out that it neglects some of its own basic teachings, some of the best. The Christians that offend you are the same ones that offend me, I'd wager: The Bible-thumping Fundies who told you you're going to Hell. But why write off an entire faith and all of its holy texts because of what some people have done with it? One may as well forsake technology because it was used to build the atomic bomb and poison gas and guns. I would implore you to take a slightly more mature, intellectual stance when critiquing an entire religion-- it is not a task to be taken lightly.

If my web site offends you, then don’t visit it. No one forces you to read it. The problem with Christianity is that it is not criticized enough.

Brooks

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 11/19/2000 6:52:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks—

I'll jes' reply to each bit seperately...

I don't have any respect for something which is clearly false and which threatens people with eternal torture simple because of their thoughts.

I knew the instant I read that very first response that I was not, as I expected, opening an enlightened dialogue about the merits of a belief system, but confronting a faith just as blind as that of any Christian. I'm only responding to this email to register my disagreement with your arguments as well as your website; after this, I suspect we'll have very little to say to each other.

The biblical god murders children, it supports slavery, it orders the massacre of men, women and children, and, of course, it promises to torture people for eternity because of their thoughts. What shocks me is that grown adults could devote their lives to worshipping such a sadistic monster.

Look, I agree with you that huge chunks of the Bible are total crap. But that doesn't justify writing off the whole book, much less the whole religion.

Well, unlike you, I don't have any problem with telling Christians that their religion is demented nonsense.

What do you feel you're accomplishing by this? If you really feel it's wrong, you should do two things: find some other evidence-- a few Bible quotes aren't enough; and present it in a way that will encourage them to actually listen. You're only making them react blindly by attacking them so violently. Plus, you might actually start talking (gasp!) and the two of you might learn a little more about each other's beliefs. I'm not saying this'll happen with every Christian-- most will yell at you and tell you you're going to Hell. But a few of them will listen. You'd better be careful, though-- you might gain some insight or tolerance or something.

I suspect that you are not an agnostic but rather a Christian pretending to be an agnostic.

?????

What the hell kind of accusation is that? I'm a Christian-raised agnostic who retains respect for the religion's core but disgust for its manifestations. Were I a Christian, I'd not be "hiding" behind a lie of agnosticism, I'd go ahead and tell you what I thought from a Christian standpoint. But it's really a moot argument, because that statement betrays you as some sort of raging paranoiac. I mean, really, look at it objectively. It's just silly.

Do you disagree that the Bible treats women as third class citizens?

No. In many parts it does. But in many parts, it doesn't. Jesus hangs out with prostitutes and adulterists all the time, and lets women do things that no man of that time normally would. And the thing to remember is that the people who take the bad parts seriously are not getting the main point. They're looking in the OT and the letters, which, while they do contain some good stuff, mostly don't apply to us today. They were written in that culture, for that culture. Its prejudices are irrelevant.

This quote is an example of the Bible belittling human intelligence. The point of belittling human intelligence is to elevate faith. The point of elevating faith is to increase the acceptance of biblical claims: acceptance of biblical claims are urged on the basis of faith rather than reason.

Well, yeah. Again, if you accept the basic Christian (hell, religious) precept that faith is greater than reason, then it's fine. And if you don't, then you should say so openly, not hide behind a quote.

Whoa, wait a minute. The Bible is about 75% OT. Saying that someone can't criticize the Bible because of the OT is ludicrous. I think the reason the OT makes up so much of the Bible is that Christians really didn't have any of their own material, so they had to make their beliefs appear more respectable by filling the Bible with ancient, revered religious texts.

Reading the first part of this paragraph, I was about to concede a logical flaw in my own agrument. But once again, you descend into insulting and degrading Christianity and Christians on little or no basis. And I stopped listening. The Bible is, as Muslims believe, a corrupt source. You have to pick and choose. Most Christians would disagree with me.

If most of Paul's writings can be disregarded, then why are they in the Bible in the first place?

I don't know. Again, the Bible's a corrupt source. But it very much rewards those who know something about it. Those who listen to Paul's various eccentricities are not the sort of Christians I'm defending.

Okay, I said in my last message:

"The key to reading the Bible is to know when it's talking about universal maxims of faith and when it's talking to the very specific situation."

You failed to address this in your reply. I feel it's a pretty important point. Do you deny its truth?

Unless you are Jesus, you can't tell me what he meant by those words,

True. I am guessing, forming an image of Jesus which appeals to me. This is what everyone does. That's why it's such a successful religion.

...assuming, in the first place, there was a Jesus who actually said these things.

Erm, as far as I know, there are historical records of Jesus' existence that have nothign to do with faith. I'm not sure on that, but it seems that there'd have to be. Anyhoo, denying that he said various things is fine, but I just don't buy denying his existence altogether. There has to be some kind of basis for this stuff.

Funny thing is, Jesus, a Jew, spoke Hebrew, while the NT was written in Greek. Assuming Jesus existed, assuming that he had biographers following him around carefully transcribing everything he said, how would it be possible for us to know how well the Hebrew was translated into Greek and from Greek into English?

I agree. This is why I take the Bible with a grain of salt-- but I do not disregard it.

And then, of course, the larger question is which Bible is the correct Bible? Which of the thousands of Christian denominations and sects have interpreted God's perfect, divine message correctly? Are you beginning to see why I view Christianity as one huge joke?

The interpretation of the Bible is something every person has to do themselves. It makes no sense to ask which one's right. No one has any way of knowing. This is why I'm not a Christian-- I don't want to have to decide that my way's right and someone else's can't be. But this lack of certainty seems to bother you. Do you not liek individual thought?

Sure, you can find a good thought or phrase here and there in the Bible. But that does make Christianity tolerant, kind, loving or true. That does not excuse the Bible's support of slavery, rape, murder and eternal torture.

First point is taken. People have done some awful stuff with Christianity to hdie behind. Witness the Crusades. Witness Christian Identity. Even the Nazis and the KKK claimed some sort of distorted Biblical basis. But what you, and many other people, disregard are the many wonderful acts which have been committed in the name of God. People have been driven to such amazing heights of compassion and self-sacrifice. Look at Mother Teresa, for one. But most of these people aren't famous. They go unseen, unnoticed. You only know they're there if you actually see them in action. Faith can spur people to great acts of kindness, and give them strength when they need it most. You seem to deny that. Notice that I deny neither side.

If my web site offends you, then don't visit it. No one forces you to read it. The problem with Christianity is that it is not criticized enough.

I must point out that I asked you to remove your website not because it is offensive, but because it is ineffective. No, Christianity is criticized plenty. Really good Christians criticize it themselves, or at least question it. I know no Christians who haven't seriously considered their faith at some point or another. They've approached it in an intellectualway. It's quite impressive.

Okay, I have a few things to say in general response.

Why just Christianity? Why not Judaism, based on the Old Testament that you so object to? Why not Islam, with its Koran? Why not Hinduism? The Vedas and the Upanishads have some pretty nasty stuff in them. The only religion that's pretty clean on that point is Buddhism, which will probly be my first pick if I ever find a religion.

In short, if you are really objecting to Christianity for the reasons you claim, what makes it different other than the fact that it is mainstream, and therefore, more satisfying and offensive to attack? Blind liberalism again. I don't want to disrespect you. I think that, at the core, you have some good ideas and make some good points. But you make them in such a close-minded way. It reminds me of arguing about homosexuality with my Bible-thumping classmate. Although even he has finally found a little tolerance.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, what's your personal background? I'm really curious. Your complaints are pretty standard, I'm just wondering where they came from. Are you a woman? I've yet to see a gender-definite thing anywhere. Are you an agnostic or atheist? Do you hold some other, more enlightened credo, and simply enjoy bashing on Christians for their blind faith? Were you raised Christian, and then had a backlash? You don't have to answer if you don't want, I am merely wondering.

Finally, I urge you again to try to think and speak a little more tolerantly. I might have listened to you if you had. Instead, I'm arguing for a faith I don't even believe in, because your methods and views offends me more than it does. I wish you luck in doing whatever it is you're trying to accomplish with this pointless, offensive, and ineffective website.

-Kelly

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 11/25/2000 7:23:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

I recieved the last letter you sent me, but unfortunately, it was deleted before I finished it. However, I really did want to read it. Do you think you could send it to me again?

From what I did read of it, it sounds like you got me. I didn't read all of the website, I didn't see that there was more to it than quotes. And by my second message, I was pretty confrontational. I'm sorry, and I hope we can continue this debate civilly.

-Kelly

Subj: Fwd: CBBB web site
Date: 11/25/2000 7:47:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Kelly,

I'm resending my e-mail. I hope you don't think I am too confrontational-I was matching the tone of the e-mail I was responding to.

Brooks

Subj: CBBB web site
Date: 11/24/2000 11:34:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Kelly,

Yes, there may be some good advice in the Bible; yes, there may be good stories within its pages; yes, there may be some moral lessons that are applicable to situations we find ourselves in today. So? The good of the Bible is cancelled out by the bad, in my humble opinion. If you don't think so, then that is fine. I simply disagree.

"… a few Bible quotes aren't enough."

Based on this and other comments you have made in your e-mail, I am tentatively guessing that you have not read (through) my web site. There is a little more to my site than just a few Bible quotes.

"Erm, as far as I know, there are historical records of Jesus' existence that have nothign to do with faith. I'm not sure on that, but it seems that there'd have to be."

May I suggest that you visit my arguments page for more information?

http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/arguments.htm#Some

There are no contemporary historians who mention Jesus. The only references to Jesus are references to the beliefs of Christians and they come decades after Jesus was supposed to have lived. There may have been a real person (whom) the Gospel stories were very loosely based on-I don't know. However, evidence for the miracle-working, divine Jesus that is portrayed in the Gospels is non-existent.

"Do you not liek individual thought?"

I value individual thought. I do everything possible to allow people, especially Christians, to speak their minds on my web site. I simply think Christianity is false and that it promotes intolerance so I criticize it.

"Plus, you might actually start talking (gasp!) and the two of you might learn a little more about each other's beliefs."

I used to be a Christian, though I was not a fire-breathing fundamentalist. My mother is a Christian. If you read though my website, you will notice that I do converse with Christians on a fairly regular basis. I have actually engaged in e-mail discussions that have gone on for many months. I have listened to Christian radio, I have read Christian books, and I have debated with apologists in various forums. I have read the Bible. On my web site I have a guestbook where Christians can write whatever they want and do write whatever they want. I also have an un-moderated discussion board linked with my site where Christians post and where I respond. (Not many Christian web owners are so charitable.) I think I do have some small inkling of what it is that Christians believe and why they believe what they believe.

"But it's really a moot argument, because that statement betrays you as some sort of raging paranoiac. I mean, really, look at it objectively. It's just silly."

Calm down. All I said is that I suspected that you were Christian. Realize that all I have to go by is an e-mail from some unknown person. I just had a Christian e-mailer tell me he was a rocket scientist, but he was totally confused by basic, layman's thermodynamics. What am I supposed to think? You display a very good knowledge of the Bible, you use the same arguments that Christians use and you write things like: (above) "you disregard…the many wonderful acts which have been committed in the name of God" and "you totally ignore some of the truly amazing, inclusive, tolerant things that Jesus said." You show a remarkable respect for Christianity and a great deal of passion towards my web site. Am I (a) raving lunatic for thinking you might possibly be a Christian and not an agnostic? It is hard for me to imagine that an agnostic would actually demand that I take down my web site. That just seems silly to me. What also seems silly is the idea that, as an agnostic, your views might become associated with my web site somehow. Please-you are giving my web site far more credit than it could ever possibly deserve. Look around too-there are plenty of other anti-Christian sites out there that are far less kind to Christian beliefs than mine. If you really want to remove web sites that are critical of Christianity, then I think you have your work cut out for you.

"And if you don't, then you should say so openly, not hide behind a quote."

Huh? Do I have to explain my every Bible quote on my site or be accused of somehow hiding behind it? This quote is obviously belittling knowledge-what more is there to say?

So do you think that faith is superior to reason in acquiring knowledge?

"They were written in that culture, for that culture. Its prejudices are irrelevant."

Sorry, but they are not irrelevant. Jimmy Carter just broke his ties with the Southern Baptists. Why? One of the main reasons is that the Southern Baptists use their literal interpretation of biblical passages to denigrate women's position in the family and in society.

'"The key to reading the Bible is to know when it's talking about universal maxims of faith and when it's talking to the very specific situation." '

"You failed to address this in your reply. I feel it's a prettyimportant point. Do you deny its truth?"

What do you mean by the question? What is a "universal maxim" in the first place?

"First point is taken. People have done some awful stuff with Christianity to hdie behind. Witness the Crusades."

What is clear to me is that the crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not strange aberrations disconnected from Christian theology, but spring directly from Christian teachings. The persecution of Jews, the burning or witches, the torture and murder of heretics, the Crusades-these all have their basis in biblical teachings. This is one of the main reasons why I object to Christianity-because I feel it promotes fear and intolerance which lead to violence.

"Faith can spur people to great acts of kindness, and give them strength when they need it most. You seem to deny that."

Of course Christians perform charitable actions, perhaps inspired by their religious beliefs. I wouldn't deny this. Do you deny that non-religious people perform acts of kindness too? I don't understand what your point is.

"I asked you to remove your website not because it is offensive, but because it is ineffective."

I am not sure what you are saying. You did write that my site is "offensive," that it shows a "lack of respect" for Christianity, that it "offends" Christians, that "your methods and views offend me," that a picture of "God" is "particularly distressing," that my site is "reactionary, juvenile" and finally you urged me "to remove or amend this offensive website." Clearly my site offends you. If it is "ineffective" at whatever I am trying to achieve with it, then what is it that you imagine I am trying to achieve with the site?

"I know no Christians who haven't seriously considered their faith at some point or another. They've approached it in an intellectual way. It's quite impressive."

Interesting. Please tell them to send me e-mails-I have yet to get a rational explanation for Christian claims from Christians.

"Why just Christianity? Why not Judaism, based on the Old Testament that you so object to?"

If Judaism, or Islam or Hinduism had the level of support and influence in American society that Christianity does, and if I had been raised in one of those religions, then maybe I would have focused my site on one of those faiths. But that is not the way things are. Perhaps if I had unlimited amounts of time and endless patience I would devote my entire life to criticizing all the thousands of religions that have existed and then field all the angry e-mails from distraught believers. Would that make you happy?

"Also, if you don't mind me asking, what's your personal background?"

I have a thumbnail description of my break from Christianity and some personal information on my main page. I even have a picture or two of myself on the site.

"Do you hold some other, more enlightened credo, and simply enjoy bashing on Christians for their blind faith?"

What am I? I am an atheist. I believe in life before death. If Christians are going to tell everyone in the world that they DESERVE to be and WILL be tortured for eternity, I think it only fair that THEIR beliefs are given some measure of critical examination.

"Finally, I urge you again to try to think and speak a little more tolerantly. I might have listened to you if you had. Instead, I'm arguing for a faith I don't even believe in, because your methods and views offend me more than it does. I wish you luck in doing whatever it is you're trying to accomplish with this pointless, offensive, and ineffective website."

You claim not to understand what I am trying to do with this site, and then call it ineffective. I am confused as to how can you claim something is ineffective unless you know what it is designed for. Perhaps the entire point of my site was to offend you specifically, in which case it obviously has been very effective.

Anyway, what do you want me to say? Am I supposed to change my opinion and take down my site simply to please you? I am sorry if you are upset, but this is just one of those unfortunate problems that comes from living in a free society.

By the way, no one is stopping you from putting up a web site praising Christianity and criticizing people like me who deride it. Free Web space is available and you can make a web page with just about any word processor program. That really is all there is to it.

Brooks

* I wouldn't include Mother Teresa among these people. From what I understand, she wasn't a very nice person. Go here for more information:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/fttoday/august96/hakeem.html

http://www.thehappyheretic.com/3-98.htm

Subj: Re: CBBB web site
Date: 11/25/2000 10:50:27 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks--

I want to apologize again for my last email. I wrote it late at night and ignorant of most of your site. And, as I said, I hope we can keep this dialogue open in a more civil way.

I'm not necessarily saying that the good in the Bible outweighs the bad, although I certainly think it's more important. However, I just wish you'd acknowledge (in your website, as you've already done in your last email) that the good is there. Naturally, you are just presenting your case. But I also think that a respectful presentation of what few good things there are (from your point of view) about the opposition might lend your site more credence.

You are right, I had not read through your website. I've explored it more now, and yes, there are other arguments. But they are presented in the same tone as the quotes, a tone that saddens me and fails to convince me.

If you attack Christianity so viciously (ignoring for the moment whether it deserves it or not), then people will react viscerally. And you don't want them to react viscerally, you want them to THINK. Am I right? I mean, I attacked you viciously. And I failed to convince you of anything. But I think we'll find some common ground now that we've both calmed down a bit.

"However, evidence for the miracle-working, divine Jesus that is portrayed n the Gospels is non-existent."

Okay, fine. There's no evidence that any of that is true, and I think most of it's probably rubbish. However, I am a storyteller by nature, and as such, I believe very much in the power of stories. So did Jesus as presented in the Gospels-- all those parables. So I guess that I would say that maybe it doens't matter whether he was real. I know you'll disagree, of course. But think about it. IF his imaginary teachings can cause people to do good things, then perhaps it's worth it, ignoring for the moment all of the truly horrible things they've done. There's a great quote from a comic called "The Sandman" that epitomizes my feelings on this point:

"Something need not have happened to be true. Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will remain long after mere fact is but dust and ashes, and forgot."

'"Plus, you might actually start talking (gasp!) and the two of you might learn a little more about each other's beliefs."'

Okay, I just wanted to apologize for this in particular. Way outta line. But I do want to point out that opening dialogues with Christians is different from really listening to them. I'd bet money that part of the reason you started doing that is so that Christians would come and speak their mind and say really stupid stuff, that you could then quote. But what if a Christian said something that really made you think? Would you listen?

And don't pass this off with "It's never come up." I'm just asking, what if?

"I think I do have some small inkling of what it is that Christians believe and why they believe what they believe."

I never said you didn't, I don't think. But that small inkling is not necessarily a seed of tolerance, which is what I'm really after here, my own behavior notwithstanding.

Alright, perhaps I shouldn't have called you a raging paranoiac for "accusing" me of being a Christian. But you must admit, it seems a little funny at first glance...

"What also seems silly is the idea that, as an agnostic, your views might become associated with my web site somehow."

Not necessarily with your site, but with views like yours presented in ways like yours. I criticize Christianity, and so do you. You haven't heard much of that because I'm arguing with an atheist. I always lean towards devil's advocate.

"This quote is obviously belittling knowledge-what more is there to say?"

Aha. And herein lies the biggest argument of all. Yes, it's belittling knowledge. But is that necessarily bad? I assure you, I feel that knowledge, learning, wisdom, and independent thought are vital. But there are things about this universe that science can't explain, and there are things about this universe that we just can't percieve. I am an agnostic, but I sometimes feel, at a gut level, that there are inexplicable forces at work around us. don't know what form they take, which is why I'm an agnostic. But there are times when science fails, when your "secular humanism" will fall short. This is why I stir in a tiny bit of faith. It's easier than attacking those who stir in more.

I suppose you would argue with my hypothesis about the unimaginable ignorance of human beings, but I'll share it with you anyway. Here's how I figure it. Humans are, on the cosmic scale, very small, and our lives, very short. Human science is accomplished, but so restricted in its spatial and temporal scope that it can't possibly explain everything. Have you ever heard the story of the three blind men and the elephant? One touches the trunk and calls it a snake, one touches the tail and calls it a rope, and one touches the legs and calls them trees. To me, there are two lessons to be gained from that little... well, parable. One is that human perceptions are limited, and our conclusions from them must therefore be limited as well. The other is that in terms of higher Truth, any faith could concievably be right, including atheism (and yes, I name it a faith). So you say it's rope, and that only rational thought can find the answers, and John Q. Christian says it's a snake, and that only faith leads to truth. Well, I think it's a tree, but I'm just not sure. This, truly, is why I'm an agnostic. I think that a mixture of a little faith and a lot of thought is the way to go. But my rationality prevents me from choosing a faith, and so I remain undecided, with my own generic and limited spirituality.

"So do you think that faith is superior to reason in acquiring knowledge?"

No. Although knowledge should be defined. For most sorts of knowledge, reason is by far superior. It's rational thought that tells me the answer to a math problem or the quickest way to get somewhere. But there are fields that reason just doesn't touch. And if reason is your only mechanism for decoding the universe, you have to disregard anything you can't rationally explain. I'm not prepared to do that. Besides, I'd bet you accept more on faith than you realize. Okay, the number pi is 3.141592654 etc. But why? Have you calculated it? No, you accept it on faith. Think of a place you've never been to, and, furthermore, you've never seen pictures of and no one you know has visited. You believe that it exists, based on scanty evidence. You've seen it on maps... but those could all be faked. Not likely... but possible. Why, you accept on faith that what your senses tell is true, and that's the only reasonable thing you can do, because if you don't trust your senses, you can't do anything at all.

Alright, look, I hate literal interpretations of the Bible and I agree with you that anyone who holds them is simple not thinking. But throughout your site, you focus on the most extreme end of Christianity for criticism. Understandable, but unfair. I know tons of Christians who are every bit as enlightened as you or I concerning women's roles, homosexuality, and whatever else is important to you. But, in addition, they have their faith, in the good things Jesus may or may not have said, to lend them strength and cause them to do good things. My church takes in huge amounts of money for all sorts of charities... and it really does go to charity. "filling the collection plate" can be a good thing. The really good Christians are so good because they, like me, ignore most of the Bible. It's what you have to do, and I will not defend the Bible in that respect. But, while it's totally fair to say that most of the Bible is crap, it's not fair to say that it's all crap, because, by your own admission, it's not.

"What do you mean by the question? What is a "universal maxim" in the first place?"

Well, by saying universal maxim, I don't mean that I necessarily accept them or that you should do so. But there are things in the Bible that were meant to be read by those people, then, and there are things in the Bible that were meant for all times. Some of those last ones truly are worthwhile.

I am not defending mainstream Christianity or its actions, past or present. I am not defending Fundamentalists or Catholics. Actually, I'm not defending anybody, and I'm only defending their beliefs based on the common ground I hold with those beliefs, however small it be. All I'm trying to say is that there is SOME GOOD in Christianity, and there is SOME GOOD in the Bible. There is good in Christ's edict to love everyone, just as there is good in the Jewish concept of mitzvahs (good deeds), just as there is merit in the Muslim concept that alcohol is to be avoided, in the Hindu belief, through the god Shiva, in the cyclical nature of the universe, and in the Buddhist practice of meditation to promote discipline and clear thinking. here's good in most belief systems, and there's bad in most belief systems. I just wish you wouldn't write them all off because of the bad.

I hate mainstream Christianity. I hate its intolerance, its close-mindedness, and its tendency to latch on to the stupid stuff in the Bible while ignoring the best material they have. But a unilateral rejection of all religion is not necessarily the answer. If I may borrow an economic analogy, I am the Praire Socialist where you are the Marxist; I would fix the current system where you would destroy it. Probably it is beyond repair, making you correct in the end. But I don't feel confortable doing what you're doing... I really don't have as much faith as you do in the correctness of my conclusions. I don't see how I could, when there's no reason to think that I know better than anybody else. Obviously, you have to assume that or you go insanse. But that understanding leads me to be very careful about unilateral statements of any kind.

"Of course Christians perform charitable actions*, perhaps inspired by their religious beliefs. I wouldn't deny this. Do you deny that non-religious people perform acts of kindness too? I don't understand what your point is."

No, I deny no such thing. I have two points. One, I do truly think that religion aids in morality, but by no means is it necessary. I am moral without a specific credo, though my morality has its basis in a liberal religious upbringing. Two, you don't acknowledge, in your website (that I have seen), the fact that religion has caused people to do wonderful things. If you just take the core of Christianity, Jesus' new commandment to love one another (I would argue that it's that rather than his dying on the cross to forgive humanity's sins... I don't see a great deal of merit there, honestly), then you are driven to do things that you might not otherwise. It's that extra push.

I did indeed say that your site offended me, although having further perused it I would downgrade that to "saddened." But I wanted to note that I did not ask you to remove your website BECAUSE it was offensive. And I don't really want you to take it down. Obviously, everybody's ideas have a place out there. But I say that the site is ineffective because it uses harsher language than it needs to to accomplish what I perceive to be its goal, the debunking of the Christian faith. And I stand by that assertion.

"Interesting. Please tell them to send me e-mails-I have yet to get a rational explanation for Christian claims from Christians."

I didn't say there's a rational explanation. There's not. That's the whole point. But they rationally rejected every alternative, including atheism, and that led them back to their faith... and the realization that perhaps there isn't a rational explanation for everything.

"Perhaps if I had unlimited amounts of time and endless patience I would devote my entire life to criticizing all the thousands of religions that have existed and then field all the angry e-mails from distraught believers. Would that make you happy?"

No. But I guess you should make it clearer that you are objecting to Christianity only as one among many. "They're all wrong, but here's why this specific one is," something like that. Also, you might make a list of arguments against religion in general. Do you see what I'm saying? Don't seem like you're singling Christians out. Nobody likes being singled out; they feel accused.

"What am I? I am an atheist. I believe in life before death. If Christians are going to tell everyone in the world that they DESERVE to be and WILL be tortured for eternity, I think it only fair that THEIR beliefs are given some measure of critical examination."

Fair enough. I agree heartily, and I hate that particular breed of Christian. They hide behind a book to assuage their own doubts about themselves.

"You claim not to understand what I am trying to do with this site, and then call it ineffective. I am confused as to how can you claim something is ineffective unless you know what it is designed for. Perhaps the entire point of my site was to offend you specifically, in which case it obviously has been very effective."

Point taken, but what I meant was, you're obviously trying to criticize Christianity, but I'm not sure how you hope to do that in a rational way with this site. Forgive me for being unclear.

"Anyway, what do you want me to say? Am I supposed to change my opinion and take down my site simply to please you? I am sorry if you are upset, but this is just one of those unfortunate problems that comes from living in a free society."

No, you're not. And I think the "free society" barb is un-called for. I only want you to understand my views and accept the possibility that Christianity has some merit, somewhere in it.

"By the way, no one is stopping you from putting up a web site praising Christianity and criticizing people like me who deride it. Free Web space is available and you can make a web page with just about any word processor program. That really is all there is to it."

I have no desire to praise Christianity, and you know it. And I'm not criticizing you for deriding it, I am criticizing you for going about it the wrong way. I just want you to think about what I've said.

Now that we're both talking calmly, thinking should be a lot easier at both ends. I admit that most of what you say is true. But the way it's presented truly saddens me. The images of the "DE-TOX" award and the guy throwing the cross in the garbage (at the bottom of your page) sadden me every bit as much as the image of the Jesus fish devouring the Darwin fish. I see both as examples of blind intolerance that have no place in an intellectual exchange. I have no problem with atheism, but when it delights in trouncing Christianity, I just see it as sinking to the level of the worst Christians. They hold a different belief than the atheist's, and the atheist condemns them to the trash heap of history, as they condemn him or her to hellfire. Neither can possibly understand that the beliefs of the other might have merit.

What I advocate is an understanding between these two positions. When knee-jerk skepticism and blind faith are replaced by tolerant dialogue, we may get somewhere. I don't think Christians will go that route anytime soon... but does that make it excusable for atheists not to?

Respectfully,

Kelly

Subj: an e-mail from Brooks regarding my site
Date: 1/2/2001 11:50:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Kelly,

This is Brooks, the guy with the anti-Christian web site. Sorry it has taken so long for me to get back to you.

In your last e-mail you wrote that there is not enough respect shown for Christianity on my web site. Let me just say that there was a time when I thought that Christianity, though it was false, still deserved to be respected as a force for good. Today I no longer have this same respect for Christianity. I think it is false and offensive and that most factions of the religion do more harm than good.

You wrote that the Bible does contain some good parts. I agree, but this hardly makes up for the rest of the Bible, in my view.

You claim that Christianity has inspired people to do kind things for others, and that therefore I should make mention of this on my site. I think it goes without saying that people can be inspired to do kind things for others by a really good sermon, but I don't think this makes Christianity an overall force for good.

You also wrote that I should tone down my remarks, and try to be friendlier to Christians. You believe this will allow me to be more effective in communicating my message to Christians. First of all, I don't think anything I could put on my site would make the slightest positive impression on serious, committed Christians. Secondly, I am not going to pretend my feelings and beliefs are different than they are simply to protect the delicate sensibilities of people who willingly enter a web site entitled Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief. I would like to think that the people who would most benefit from the information on my site are those who are already in the process of deconverting from Christianity. Because of this, I can't think of anything I have written which is more offensive than it needs to be. I believe that I respond to Christians with respect if they deserve it.

You objected to the Net Atheists graphic of the stick figure tossing a crucifix into a garbage can. I can understand your displeasure with seeing Christianity symbolically thrown away by a former believer. I like the picture though. It is simple, nicely composed, and conveys its message clearly. As should be clear, I don't have the same respect for Christianity that you have so I don't have a problem with it. I'd be curious to hear how you feel about Christian (churches) displaying pictures or figures of a bloody, crucified Jesus.

You asked me if I would listen if a Christian wrote something that really made me think. I seems that what you mean is-would I take the time to actually ponder though what I was being told and investigate it further. The answer, of course, is yes.

"…there are things about this universe that science can't explain, and there are things about this universe that we just can't perceive."

A few points. First of all, I do not see how an unresolved question about the universe becomes a reason to assume that some sort of supernatural realm exists. Secondly, if there are things about the universe we do not understand, this is no reason to think that they will not be explained at some point in the future. If there are some things about this universe that we can not perceive, how do you know that they exist?

Unlike you, I don't feel "at a gut level" that inexplicable forces are mysteriously at work around us, so I don't "stir in" a tiny bit of faith.

Regarding your claim that atheism is a faith-why do you believe this? How is the absence of a belief the same as faith?

You claimed that I use faith when I accept the number that is given for Pi is correct or when I accept that a certain place exists that I have never been to. I would say that I accept the number for Pi based on a limited acceptance of authority within a larger framework of experience and logic. For me to believe that the number for Pi is wrong, I would have to assume that everyone in the world who has claimed to have calculated it is lying, that scientists who are using the number are lying, that mathematics professors that teach about it are all in a conspiracy and that the manufacturers of calculators the world over are engaged in a hoax. This is too absurd for me to believe. In other words, I have no reason to think the number for Pi is other than what it is claimed. Similarly, I accept that a country or a city that people claim exists actually exists based on reason. For me to believe otherwise, I would have to imagine, or have faith, that there was a massive worldwide conspiracy on the part of travel magazines, travel companies, travelers themselves, encyclopedia producers, school systems, globe manufacturers, NASA, map makers, the press, etc to fool me and probably me alone. I see absolutely no evidence for this. Nothing I have experienced in my life gives me any reason whatsoever to believe in something as absurd as this. Accepting the number for Pi or the existence of a city I have never been to is not based on faith, but on experience and reason. What should also be understood is that I have it within my power to actually investigate both of these claims directly if I so desire. I can travel to a place that is claimed to exist, and, if I take the time, I can calculate Pi out to at least few spaces beyond the decimal point. Supernatural claims about our eternal destiny-which are much more important claims-cannot be directly tested or investigated. Gee, why is this?

"Why, you accept on faith that what your senses tell is true, and that's the only reasonable thing you can do, because if you don't trust your senses, you can't do anything at all."

Our senses are the functional primary of all of our knowledge, thought and communication. All of these things presuppose the accuracy of our senses. When you open your mouth to claim that we accept our senses on faith, you are validating our senses. Apart from this, we accept what our senses tell us based on a lifetime of using them successfully to understand the world around us. In contrast, believing religious claims on faith means accepting them as true for no good reason.

"I would fix the current system where you would destroy it."

Don't worry, I don't burn churches or petition to outlaw religion. I just maintain a piddling little web site.

"I only want you to understand my views and accept the possibility that Christianity has some merit, somewhere in it."

Very little merit, in my opinion. Of course I understand that church services brings people together and Christianity advances a few social issues, but I don't think this makes it a taboo to criticize Christianity itself.

"What I advocate is an understanding between these two positions. When knee-jerk skepticism and blind faith are replaced by tolerant dialogue, we may get somewhere. I don't think Christians will go that route anytime soon... but does that make it excusable for atheists not to?"

I don't regard my rejection of Christianity as "knee-jerk skepticism" and I am sorry if you have gotten that impression. As I have said, I was a praying Christian at one time. I have read the Bible, I read apologetics, I watch debates, and also listen to Christian radio on occasion.

The problem with this subject is that it is inherently difficult to discuss it calmly and respectfully. Christians don't like to be told, obliquely or otherwise, that they are deluded, and atheists don't like being threatened with eternal torture by their neighbors or family members. That said, there are forums where this subject is discussed with some degree of politeness. There are organized public debates, there are books which offer reasoned presentations of both sides of the issue, and there are a few web sites like the Secular Web which approach the subject in a scholarly and relatively respectful manner.

I may change my site some time in the future if I think that it is unnecessarily offensive. However, right now I don't feel that it is.

Brooks

Subj: Site
Date: 11/10/2000 9:00:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks -

I'd like to say how impressed I was with your site! Great job! It completely reinforces all the stuff I have become to believe.

I'd like to quote Red Dwarf (episode "The Last Day"), which actually makes sense!:

LISTER: How can you just lie back and accept it?

KRYTEN: Oh, it's not the end for me, sir, it's just the beginning. I have served my human masters, now I can look forward to my reward in silicon heaven.

LISTER: (Stunned pause.) Silicon _what_?

KRYTEN: Surely you've heard of silicon heaven?

LISTER: Has it got anything to do with being stuck opposite Bridgette Nielson in a packed lift?

KRYTEN: It's the electronic afterlife! It's the gathering place for the souls of all electonic equipment. Robots, calculators, toasters, hairdryers -- it's our final resting place.

LISTER: I don't mean to say anything out of place here, Kryten, but that is completely whacko, Jacko. There is no such thing as "silicon heaven."

KRYTEN: Then where do all the calculators go?

LISTER: They don't go anywhere! They just die. KRYTEN: Surely you believe that god is in all things? Aren't you a pantheist?

LISTER: Yeah, but I just don't think it applies to kitchen utensils. I'm not a _frying_ pantheist! Machines do not have souls. Computers and calculators do not have an afterlife. You don't get hairdryers with tiny little wings, sitting on clouds and playing harps!

KRYTEN: But of course you do! For is it not written in the Electronic Bible, "The iron shall lie down with the lamp?" Well, it's common sense, sir. If there were no afterlife to look forward to, why on Earth would machines spend the whole of their lifes serving mankind? Now that would be really dumb!

LISTER: (Quietly) That makes sense. Yeah. Silicon heaven.

KRYTEN: Don't be sad, Mr David. I am going to a far, far better place.

LISTER: Just out of interest: Is silicon heaven the same place as human heaven?

KRYTEN: Human heaven? Goodness me! Humans don't go to heaven! No, someone made that up to prevent you all from going nuts!

A FEW QUOTES FROM PREVIOUS EMAILS TO YOU:::::

"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."

Half the people who I've talked to are pretty much scared half to death that if they don't believe, they are going to hell, which easily backs up your argument that the Christian belief forces terror and torture to those who don't believe. Obviously hell exists, torture would definately be on the top of the list for an ALL-GOOD god! =D

I have been forced to go through sunday school, which is a huge load of crap, where they drill into your head that you will suffer if you go a different direction then their set path for you! =D

Anyway, great site!

Subj: Dont let them put u down
Date: 11/22/2000 8:57:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hello Brooks

My name is Andrew ,I'm writing to u from Singapore ,an island country at the centre of South-east Asia. I'm an atheist ,but unlike u I dont get much nonsense from the Christians ,Catholics and so on so fore ,becos my country is multi-racial and they only form the minority. Unfortunately they are just as pesty and annoying.

U have an excellent site and I learned a lot from it cos I was never a Christian before hence I never had an in-depth knowledge of the bible. If I was pushed into one of those arguments you had with those Christians, I'll probably be unable to reply.

U may ask me what I based my free-thoughts on? Well, I dont feel the need to look for contradictions in the bible , to discuss whether morality is supernatural or not or to scientifically explain how the Earth was created , becos most of the time you get no conclusion out of those . Christians blinded by faith would argue against that regardless of how valid the case may be .To me , it's more of asking urself. I asked myself .... Why would an almighty god want to create humans so that he could pick a few and burn the rest in hell for eternity? Especially when we are all his childrens.Why is it that people still consider it love from god , when their close friends or family could be sent to hell just for believing in something else? Why is it my problem when something goes wrong and HIS glory and influence when something goes right. Becos he is my creator and has the right to choose MY destiny? But then again where does my free-will come from?? I can't understand why no one can see that obvious fact.

Imagine this , if u were GOD ,would u treat humans the same way that the bible preaches? Some would probably say that we cannot comprehend or understand the motives of GOD and his actions. Then what makes them so sure that his actions are for our best ? Then most Christians would give u the same reply :"HAVE FAITH IN GOD"

U know what I feel like ? A puppet.

IF GOD WAS REAL , my entire life would be nothing more than a plaything to him. He gets to do whatever he wants and there's not a crap I can do about it. If I AM HIS SON , I should get to choose my own afterlife which is probably eternal slumber. Hey , who wants to live forever ? Don't you get bore of living? One good life is more than enough. Imagine praising god for eternity.

Furthermore ,I am conscious, I think and I learn , I have experiences and dreams. IF GOD WAS TO EXIST, it means that I have nothing, becos he planted everything in me and my life. I would be less than a tape-recorder. With that in mind ,and what I learned from u and other atheists. It became clear that it was pointless to believe in something that degrades myself.

I was tempted once to join a church ,becos they SEEMED so happy about their beliefs. However after joining a cell group for three months ,it became clear to me that they are delusioning themselves,lying to themselves. They are addicted to Christianity , they rather pray for a miracle than face their problems. Each time they came with the same problems , each time they went back with the problems unsolved. I feel there is a need for people like you to speak up. If I was as capable I would speak up too. Never let those Christians get u down, they are spreading like a plague all over the world . Do u know that two out of three girls who believe in christainity in Singapore totally REJECT the idea of marrying a guy who is not a believer? The remaining one will only marry the guy if she assumes that the guy will eventually convert. I really hope things change for the better.

Thanks for reading , I just feel like sharing my thoughts and I hope to learn from u. Feel free to criticise ,I'll learn more if you do.

p.s : would you mind to tell me what's the percentage of Christians against the entire Earth population? Thank.

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 12/1/2000 3:08:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Andrew,

Thank you for your e-mail. I agree with you on everything you said.

"They are addicted to Christianity , they rather pray for a miracle than face their problems. Each time they came with the same problems, each time they went back with the problems unsolved."

Gee, what a surprise. I think that one of the problems with all religion, not just Christianity, is that it gives people this idea that they can overcome problems simply by praying. To me, it is terrible misdirection and waste of people's time and energy. In extreme cases you have very fundamentalist cultic Christians denying medical help for their children. Instead they pray to a nonexistent god and their children die in agony. It is very sad.

"Why is it that people still consider it love from god, when their close friends or family could be sent to hell just for believing in something else?"

Actually, hell has gone through something of a makeover in the last couple of decades. Nowadays, it just isn't considered politically correct to eternally torture people for their opinions, so Christians have taken to describing hell as simply a "separation" from "God," and something which is consciously chosen by non-Christians as an eternal fate. I can imagine that medieval and even 19th century Christians would have a hard time recognizing the kinder, gentler "freely chosen" hell that modern Christians have invented.

"Do u know that two out of three girls who believe in christainity in Singapore totally REJECT the idea of marrying a guy who is not a believer? The remaining one will only marry the guy if she assumes that the guy will eventually convert. I really hope things change for the better."

That is pretty much the same situation in this country. It is understandable though: why would you want to marry an evil unbeliever who is going to hell?

"IF GOD WAS TO EXIST, it means that I have nothing, becos he planted everything in me and my life. I would be less than a tape-recorder."

The old freewill dilemma. If God knows everything, then we are nothing but robots preordained for heaven or hell. It makes God out to be a sick sadistic puppeteer.

I agree with everything you have said and I am glad to have gotten views on Christianity from somebody from Singapore. By the way, I was in Singapore about ten years ago. Unfortunately, I only saw the inside of an airport. : (

Thanks again.

Brooks

Subj: Certainty....
Date: 11/23/2000 9:20:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I just looked at your web site and have a question. What if you're wrong about all this?

-- Dave

Subj: Re: Certainty....
Date: 11/23/2000 1:12:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Dave,

Well, if everything I have learned about reality is wrong and Christianity is true, then I will spend eternity being jabbed in the buttocks with flaming tridents by devils whilst being roasted over burning coals. Obviously I will be screaming myself hoarse for trillions upon trillions of years, my eyeballs will melt in their sockets, and every nerve in my body will be crying bloody murder. I am sure that even more fiendish tortures will be applied to me, things I could not and can not imagine. Meanwhile, I suppose, you will be up in heaven spending all your time lavishing praises on God, living in your own mansion, moving here and there using a pair of wings as locomotion.

Brooks

Subj: RE: Certainty....
Date: 11/24/2000 7:46:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

Come on...your caricature of eternal punishment is unbecoming to you. It's clear from your website that you understand (to some large degree at least) the stakes involved in these issues. What I don't understand is why you don't manage your risks and keep a back door open in your mind to the possibility? I realize you've got a lot invested publicly on these matters...but why not entertain some doubts privately? Shouldn't you love yourself enough to do that?

-- Dave

Subj: P:ascal's Wager
Date: 11/24/2000 11:34:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Dave,

What do you want me to say? I don't believe in heaven, I don't believe in hell, I don't believe in angels or devils, one god or multitudes of gods. I don't believe in eternal life. So I don't waste my time worrying about such things.

I deal with Pascal's Wager on my site. Here is what I have to say about it:

Pascal's Wager

Blaise Pascal (1623-62), was a French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist who is considered one of the great minds in Western intellectual history. He was also a rigid Catholic and his famous wager ought to be renamed "Buy or Fry." Pascal said that people have everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in Catholicism, and that they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing in Catholicism. So, he concluded, people should believe in Catholicism. Like the meaning of life question and the argument from authority, this provides no way of determining the truth or falsity of biblical claims. It is just the bribe of eternal life and the threat of eternal hellfire, dressed up to look respectable.

In any case, it is not true that people lose nothing by believing in Catholicism, or one of the other 20,000 varieties of Christianity. If Christianity is false, as it surely seems to be, it wastes precious time, money and energy. If it is false, it inculcates guilt, bigotry, fear, intolerance, delusional thinking and all manner of psychological problems for absolutely nothing. Additionally, if you accept Christianity and some other religion turned out to be true instead, you would go to its version of hell. Indeed, if we were to follow this wager it to its logical end, we should just pick the religion with the worst hell, or believe in every religion at the same time so that all the bases were covered. This points up the most glaring problem with Pascal's Wager: A person cannot genuinely accept religious claims based on a cost/benefit analysis.

Brooks

P.S If you are wrong and the Muslims are right, you are going to the Islamic hell. Do you "keep a back door open" for that possibility?

Subj: RE: ascal's Wager
Date: 11/28/2000 9:52:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

Some thoughts in response....

1. I don't get it...you say "I don't believe in eternal life. So I don't waste my time worrying about such things." Then why the website? It shows all the signs of being designed by an intelligent being who is very concerned with these matters.

2. I agree with you that Pascal's Wager isn't a good argument for belief. But it does have force if it's used as an argument for why someone should at least search. Since so much is at stake why wouldn't a person look diligently and with humility at the possibilities?

3. You say...."Additionally, if you accept Christianity and some other religion turned out to be true instead, you would go to its version of hell."

That depends on the religion. For instance, drop by the website Adherents.com. They have a list of approx. 20 or so major world religions. What's interesting is that if you begin to research what they believe about the afterlife, you'll find that only a handful actually propose the possibility of eternal punishment. I've not fully completed the research yet, but it's beginning to look like the handful comes down to Christianity, Islam & Judaism. (Please correct me if I've overlooked any.) Quite a narrow band. So if a person wanted to manage their afterlife risks, they could begin by narrowing the search to these and betting against the rest. After all, if time is limited and the other belief systems say there's no such thing as eternal punishment, then a person can safely bet against them and concentrate on looking at those that propose there is the possibility of eternal punishment.

4. Your point in the P.S. -- "If you are wrong and the Muslims are right, you are going to the Islamic hell." -- is true. I'm persuaded in both my heart and mind that Jesus is truly God the Son and that through belief in him I have eternal life and will not suffer eternal punishment. I'm persuaded the Muslims are flat out wrong about him. But if I'm wrong and the Muslims are right, Muslim hell here I come.

But Brooks, you're standing outside the circle of possibilities and saying they're all wrong. Now it's logically possible that you may be right. But why not take the time to look with an open mind and heart? Sure it will cost you -- anything you choose to spend your time on excludes all the other possibilities -- but how can you say that those costs are greater than the potential cost of your self?

-- Dave

Subj: Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief
Date: 12/5/2000 1:17:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Dave,

"Then why the website?"

Read the CBBB homepage. I explain exactly why I put up the site.

"…then a person can safely bet against them and concentrate on looking at those that propose there is the possibility of eternal punishment."

As I said before, I don't see any evidence for Christianity being true, so I don't concern myself with threats of hellfire. I have to imagine that you are saying this tongue-in-cheek, because otherwise it is ridiculous. If you are actually serious, all I can say is that it is rather silly and pathetic to look around at what post-life benefits or punishments you might receive from believing in this or that religion, and then (try) to accept a particular religion on that basis. More than being just pathetic, though, this is not a real reason for believing in Christianity in the first place ( ). It is like me telling you that if you don't believe that the moon is made out of cheese, I will microwave your head. When everything is said and done, the threat of hellfire is actually a pretty good reason to doubt Christianity. You have to admit that it looks very much like a desperate effort at coercion, and from a theological perspective, it is incompatible with both an all-knowing and all-good god. Clearly it is a sick idea. Have you ever thought about how obscenely sadistic it would be to consign people to eternal torture simply because of their thoughts?

"…wouldn't a person look diligently…?"

You are implying that I have not searched diligently and have not thought deeply about religion, which is not the case. Again, try reading through my web site a bit before you write stuff like this.

"But why not take the time to look with an open mind and heart?"

Again, you imply that I have not honestly looked at Christianity or made an effort to think about this subject, which is false.

If you really want to convince me that Christianity is true, then you are going to have to come up with something better than threats of hellfire. Here's an idea: why don't you tell me what the three or four most powerful bits of evidence or arguments are that have convinced YOU of the truth of Christianity? Please be aware, however, that if the arguments and "evidence" are subjects that I have already dealt with on my web site, then to save time I will simply cut and paste those sections into an e-mail and send it back to you in reply.

Thanks. I look forward to your arguments and evidence.

Brooks

to be continued...?

Subj: (no subject)
Date: 11/24/2000 12:31:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

Brooks,

I read through the morality debate and very much enjoyed it. Most debates I've seen or read are so one sided, but in this case both sides made good arguments. I see you haven't updated your site for a while has the "Christian" fellow written you lately? I would like to read his response to your questions about why God and his son created man knowing he would disobey and then have to send his son to die for all the worlds sins.....

I'm not sure scripture supports this or not as I'm so new in my study of the Bible, but my thoughts based on what I've read so far, are that God uses this life as the testing grounds for those that he has called to be his "first fruits" The first resurrection in which all those who meat a certain criteria "the dead in Christ" will be resurrected to be like Christ was at his resurrection. Brothers and sisters in Christ that have proven trust worthy to be part of Gods family. Unlike Satan and his angels who rebelled against God & Jesus actually. The Father and son are two completely separate Father and son Gods. They are only one in the sense that they have been together for all eternity or some great length of time that we as finites may not be able to understand. Like a husband and wife become one because they come to know each other so well and are of one mind and all that we are told about them. I mean how much more one could they get it's just been the two of them for all eternity. See it seems that God the father may be all knowing, but Jesus who is the God of the old Testament may not know what certain chosen ones will chose. Never mind all that. I Tell you what let's say I figure it all out years from now and am able to keep my opinions out of the way and find "truth" what ever that is. Would you want to know. You seem to like what if's. Lets say you die of say old age and the next thing you know your resurrected as if no time had passed. Now your not a first fruit lets say you were an atheist your whole life so your resurrected to flesh and you get your one hundred years basically to learn and live by God's ways or be put out of your sinful defiant misery by being sent to "hell" which translates in both Greek and Hebrew to simply mean "the grave" "from dust you came and dust you will return." So here you are on earth, but a much better Earth after all Jesus has been in power over all the earth for 1000 years without Satan around and there are several first fruits equal brothers and sisters in Christ around to help teach you how to live Gods way. You can literally see Jesus and you know you were resurrected from death. You can see the positive results of the 1000 year Millennium during which time the earth was being prepared for you and all the dead who ever lived to be resurrected. As no one has ascended to Heaven except Jesus. Any way my question is you will have no doubt of Gods existence will you try to live according to God's plan or will you be one who knashes his teeth against the Lord and refuses to accept Christ? Yes, or no explain. I guess I'm wondering if your Atheism comes from logic and reason or a defiant spirit? At this point I know only in my heart That God exists and am currently working on proving this to myself. It seems that to find "truth " I would have to be open to consider all arguments for existence of God as well as arguments of nonexistence of God.

Thanks

Chad

Subj: your -e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 12/1/2000 3:08:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Chad,

'I see you haven't updated your site for a while has the "Christian" fellow written you lately?'

No, he has not written back and I don't think he will write back. He has never even made a link to my site from his site, which is kind of interesting to me.

"Any way my question is you will have no doubt of Gods existence will you try to live according to God's plan or will you be one who knashes his teeth against the Lord and refuses to accept Christ? Yes, or no explain."

It is an interesting hypothetical question. If I found myself, after death, in some hundred year reeducation camp for God, maybe I would try to brown-nose my way into heaven by pretending to respect and love God. However, the problem would be that God would know my inner thoughts, and would not be fooled by my vigorous ass-kissing, and I would ultimately be sent to the big eternal barbecue pit.

I have a similar question for you. If, after death, you found yourself in some sort of similar Islamic purgatory, would your then turn your eternal life over to worshipping Allah? After all, I hear that Islamic men get a pretty sweet deal in the afterlife, with all sorts of maidens attending to them and whatnot. Anyway, I am curious as to what you would do. Remember that if you rejected Allah at that point, you would get a one-way ticket to the Islamic version of hell, which wouldn't be a whole lot of fun.

"I guess I'm wondering if your Atheism comes from logic and reason or a defiant spirit? At this point I know only in my heart That God exists and am currently working on proving this to myself. "

(H)ere's a suggestion-leave the caps off "atheism." It is not a religion, just the lack of belief in a god or gods.

I have never heard believers coherently describe or give logical argument to support their belief in "God" so I have no choice but to remain unconvinced that such a thing exists. When descriptions of God are attempted, the descriptions are mired in logical contradictions. For example, how can the existence of evil be reconciled with an all-knowing, all powerful "God"?

I hope this clarifies things.

Brooks

Subj: Re:From Chad
Date: 12/3/2000 6:07:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84

Brooks,

I'm glad you wrote back. In case you forgot my E-mail I restated the question.

I'd asked you.

Any way my question is you will have no doubt of Gods existence will you try to live according to God's plan or will you be one who knashes his teeth against the Lord and refuses to accept Christ? Yes, or no explain. I guess I'm wondering if your Atheism comes from logic and reason or a defiant spirit?

You wrote.

"It s an interesting hypothetical question. If I found myself, after death, in some hundred year reeducation camp for God, maybe I would try to brown-nose my way into heaven by pretending to respect and love God. However, the problem would be that God would know my inner thoughts, and would not be fooled by my vigorous ass-kissing, and I would ultimately be sent to the big eternal barbecue pit."

Do you think it's in any way possible that you might be able to love and respect God?

You also wrote.

"here's a suggestion-leave the caps off "atheism." It is not a religion, just the lack of belief in a god or gods."

Is atheism just the lack of belief in a God or Gods? Have you set your heart against God? I know when I didn't believe in God I was angry with God. I'd been taught or heard that If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't get into heaven. I would reason that I was as good a person, if not better than, many of my peers who professed to believe in God. I was somewhat angered by this belief or teaching, as you seem to be. I found it hard to believe that I'd be sent to hell just because I have enough intelligence to realize that this doesn't seem fair or make sense. So my question is are you angry at God and could no way accept God no matter what?

As for the "caps" on atheism, after wrestling in college for five years they gave me a degree and it wasn't to teach English or grammar. I also had a-lot of fun in high school, so when writing informal letters If I don't Prof read carefully, which I don't, you'll tend to find some missing or misplaced commas, run-on sentences and other grammatical errors.

You asked me.

"I have a similar question for you. If, after death, you found yourself in some sort of similar Islamic purgatory, would your then turn your eternal life over to worshipping Allah? After all, I hear that Islamic men get a pretty sweet deal in the afterlife, with all sorts of maidens attending to them and whatnot. Anyway, I am curious as to what you would do. Remember that if you rejected Allah at that point, you would get a one-way ticket to the Islamic version of hell, which wouldn't be a whole lot of fun".

Is this a trick question? Gee lets see an eternity of having beautiful women attending to my needs or the Islamic version of hell? I'll work my way out of purgatory, worship Allah and Fornicate for all eternity. Am I given special powers so that I can satisfy all these women? Do I have an eternal hard on! Are these women loyal to me ? Where did all these women come from, are they Islamic women? Is this the reward for Islamic women who make it to heaven? If so how is that fair? I don't expect you to answer these questions. I can research the Islamic religion if want to know.

" I have never heard believers coherently describe or give logical argument to support their belief in "God" so I have no choice but to remain unconvinced that such a thing exists. When descriptions of God are attempted, the descriptions are mired in logical contradictions. For example, how can the existence of evil be reconciled with an all-knowing, all powerful "God"?

So the Bibles explanation seems like foolishness to you I assume. I can see how it might, the Bible doesn't always make perfect sense to me either.

What about the question of Origins? How did we get here? Do you believe that the Earth and all the signs and wonders of the heavens are the result of time, chance, random, but yet favorable mutations. Is a big explosion the answer? A random uncontrolled explosion. I assume you must believe in Evolution. I mean we've only had two options presented to us that I know of. Either the Earth and the whole universe made itself or it was created. Now you are indeed intelligent Brooks, I would think that if you have studied evolution you would have some serious doubts about it also. Although I was once duped into believing it by our institutions of higher learning, I now having studied it rather extensively, am amazed by the faith that so many have in it despite there being any evidence to support it. What do you think?

Subj: from Brooks
Date: 12/5/2000 1:17:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Chad,

"Do you think it's in any way possible that you might be able to love and respect God."

I would have a hard time respecting and loving some kind of entity which would torture people for eternity simply because of their opinions.

"I know when I didn't believe in God I was angry with God."

Take a moment to think about this statement. It doesn't make any sense. It is impossible to be angry at something that you don't believe exists. If your WERE angry with God, then you actually believed in God.

I am not angry, particularly, with anyone. But I dislike it when Christians tell me that I deserve to be and will be tortured for eternity. I think they are wrong in about 5 different ways for thinking and saying this, and I do everything I can to tell them why they are wrong.

Regarding my question to you regarding the Islamic hell: I asked you the question in response to your query to me about the Christian hell. I was an effort at sarcasm, or irony. It was an attempt to make you see that threats of hellfire and promises of heaven are not reasons for believing in any religion.

"So the Bibles explanation seems like foolishness to you I assume. I can see how it might, the Bible doesn't always make perfect sense to me either"

Glad to hear it. This is a good first step. Have you actually read the Bible all the way through?

"I would think that if you have studied evolution you would have some serious doubts about it also."

You would think wrong. It is pretty obvious that plant and animal populations evolve over time.

Brooks

Subj: Christianity
Date: 12/6/2000 3:34:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

In your reply to a Christian about why you have your web site, you explained that you want to help people out. I would like to suggest that you do a little thinking around that premise. Why do Christians need help? Is it because Christianity inevitably leads one to an unhappy existence? Perhaps you feel that time spent pursuing matters of faith is time lost in a short existance where every minute should have as much value as possible. Is it that you believe Christianity to be some cruel hoax that robs individuals of their right to free thought?

If you think that Christians need your web site because Christianity leads people to an unhappy existence, I have news for you, you are mistaken. Studies have consistently shown that people of faith (any belief in God) report a higher level of happiness than non-believers as well as lower stress levels. Even if these Christians are totally mislead and ignorant of the facts as it appears to be your position, the fact remains that they are happier as a lot than their non-believing counterparts.

Perhaps you believe that Christians need your web site because they are losing precious minutes wasted in their worship of God that could be better used in some other activity. Isn't that just a matter of opinion? There are people out there who spend massive amounts of time pursuing interests in which I find little personal value, such as existentialism. But if they have chosen this pursuit, who am I to suggest that they perceive me (a Christian) as trying to help them by putting up a web site entitled "Existentialism, Earthly Ethereal Emptiness"?

If you think that you are saving Christians from a religion that robs them of free thought, let me inform you that Christianity is not science. Unlike science, it is not empirical in nature. One's faith is based not in the minutia of scientific analysis, but in a preponderance of evidence. It would not be called faith if there were not uncertainties that cannot easily be understood or explained. Certainly you are free not to believe and certainly you can conclude that I am wrong to believe. In my mind my thinking is very free and is no less restricted than yours by my beliefs.

Is your purpose really to help poor lost souls (pardon the pun)? Are you not really using your debating skills to draw others away from Christianity for intellectual gratification?

Respectfully submitted,

Matt

Subj: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 12/8/2000 3:09:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX
CC: BBu84

Matt,

It has become very clear to me that Christianity is false. It has also become clear to me that Christianity promotes intolerance. So I have put some effort into explaining why I think Christianity is false and why I think Christianity promotes intolerance. I have put my objections to Christianity in the form of a web site. To view my web site, one must make an effort of some kind, however minimal that may be, to visit it. If the name "Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief" pops up in a web search, or appears in a page of links, the good Christian who (sees) this title may choose to visit the site, or, alternatively, to bypass it. It is that person's prerogative to view or not to view the site based on the title, which leaves little doubt as to what the site is about.

Why am I explaining all this? The point is that I do not force anyone to view my site or accept what I say. I don't burst into church services and fling pamphlets at worshippers, I don't harangue people on the street with a bullhorn, and I don't call people evil or threaten them with hellfire if they don't accept what I say. I just maintain a web site. On my site, I urge people to show me where I am mistaken. My web site is, to some degree, interactive. I post e-mails from Christians, I have an un-moderated discussion board, and I also have a un-moderated guest-book. Not many Christian sites have these features, curiously enough.

As should be clear, I try to be as open and honest as I can about the topic, and give a voice to people who object to my ideas.

"In my mind my thinking is very free and is no less restricted than yours by my beliefs."

Could I ask you something then? Speaking from your current Christian perspective, what do you think would happen to you in the afterlife if you lost your faith in Christianity?

"One's faith is based not in the minutia of scientific analysis, but in a preponderance of evidence."

Actually, religious faith involves accepting claims as true regardless of the evidence. That is the whole point of faith. If Christian belief was based on evidence, it wouldn't require faith.

"If you think that Christians need your web site because Christianity leads people to an unhappy existence, I have news for you…"

I don't deny that religious belief can make people happy. However, I don't know how one would measure the relative happiness of a religious believer to the relative happiness of a non-believer. What sorts of questions are asked in these studies? Among the people I know (who) have left the Christian faith, there is a great sense of relief at having overcome their religious beliefs. There is relief at having walked away from something that only created confusion in their lives. These people say they are much happier now (than) when they were Christians. I know that this is the way I feel. And as can be seen on the Internet, there are plenty of other ex-Christians who are also quite happy to have left the fold, including several former ministers. So it is my experience that losing one's belief in Christianity is generally a positive experience.

By the way, here is an example of a site for ex-Christians:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#contents

"Is your purpose really to help poor lost souls (pardon the pun)? Are you not really using your debating skills to draw others away from Christianity for intellectual gratification?"

It seems to me that a good debater does not necessarily rely on facts. In other words, I could be a great debater and yet still be promoting a claim that is false. Just look at William Lane Craig. Be that as it may, I don't consider myself either a skilled debater or a pointy-headed intellectual, just a regular guy who has some common sense objections to Christianity.

I put up this site as a result of my final rejection of Christianity and as a reaction to my experiences with Christians. I was tired of having to explain to Christians why I was not a Christian, and I was tired of being viewed as an evil unbeliever by Christians. I had this desire to lay out, as clearly as I could, the numerous reasons why I did not accept Christianity as true. If people benefit from the information on the site, and I hope they do, then that makes me happy. I know that I could have benefited from the information on my site if it had been available to me about ten years ago.

Do I feel any gratification in telling Christians that they are wrong? No more than they feel when they tell me I am going to hell.

Brooks

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 12/11/2000 7:27:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

Thank you for responding to my inquiry. I have chosen not to reply to your questions here, because I don't think it would serve the purpose you intend. Perhaps I was too argumentative with you in my first writing because of the nature of your web site. I did not really intend to put you on the defensive and start an exchange of differing perspectives of the nature of our existence. I was trying to get you to realize something.

From your response, I think it is clear that you are genuine in your feelings. You really feel that Christians can benefit from the information that you present at your site. But haven't you noticed that in both the title of your site and in the dialogue that you have with most of those who write to you that you are not reaching the group that you want to influence? It seems to me that you are reaching people who take offense to your site. These people will argue with you out of their anger and determination to show that Christianity is the better way. Since they are not willing to question their position, you are not going to "help" them. They are likely to walk away angry. It also appears that they are angering you as well.

I think you would do much better at your stated mission if you presented a more friendly site. That way you would be more likely to attract people who are unhappy in their Christianity or open to a discussion of its merits. It is just my opinion, but I think you will find much more fulfillment in that eneavor than the one you are currently engaged in.

Matt

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 12/30/2000 1:14:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Matt,

Sorry it has taken so long to respond to your last e-mail, which was sent on Dember 11.

Other people have told me that my site is offensive and even immature. I have also been told that I am not reaching the people I intend to reach.

I don't know who I really intend to reach. I can't imagine a committed Christian visiting my site and renouncing Christianity as a result. I don't have any illusions about changing the minds of people who get into long discussions with me. I am not a skilled debater or an expert in persuasive techniques. However, I think these discussions show the arguments that both sides use and how these arguments work or don't work. I would like to think that people who are at the point of questioning Christianity would find some useful information in the articles, discussions and from the links on the site. Several years ago, before the WWW, when I was finally letting go of Christianity for good, I felt very alone. I felt as though there was something wrong with me for believing as I did. Then I started discovering skeptical literature. I realized that I was not alone, which was of great benefit to my mental health. I would hope that others who are deconverting from Christianity would derive a similar benefit from my site.

In any case, I don't feel the need to be all warm and fuzzy to Christians or to manufacture a counterfeit respect for their religion. I don't respect it. I think it is ridiculous. I can't pretend to feel otherwise. Obviously, by expressing what I feel, I will invariably offend Christians. But I guess this just can't be helped.

Have a Happy New Year.

Brooks

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 1/2/2001 6:41:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I think you are finally realizing what I was trying to point out. You are not trying to help Christians. What you appear to be trying to do is feel ok about no longer being a Christian. What seems to work best for you is to bash and disrespect your former faith. Personally, I don't see this as a healthy way to move forward.

You have adopted the same narrow-mindedness of many of the Christians you dislike so much. Your mission of subversion is just as disdainful to me. Are you really a better individual since you left Christianity behind? Does your site reflect your new found tolerance and love for those who have mistakenly chosen the wrong path in life? I don't see it there.

Matt

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 1/2/2001 12:00:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Matt,

What do you think my eternal fate is?

Brooks

Subj: Re: your e-mail to the CBBB web site
Date: 1/2/2001 12:31:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

Why on earth would my response be of any concern to you? This whole exchange has been about you.

You initially stated that you wanted to help Christians. You have made your agenda clear in your correspondence, and it is not to help Christians at all. I have expressed my dislike of your actions. I have gone further. I have pointed out that what you are doing is no better than some of the narrow-minded people whose behavior you find unacceptable.

Your only response is to ask what I think your eternal fate is?

Matt

Subj: corrected e-mail
Date: 1/2/2001 7:17:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Matt,

You have asked me questions about my web site and my motivations and I have made an effort to answer those questions. You appear not to like my answers and have implied that am pursuing a dishonest and devious "agenda" by maintaining the web site.

I am sorry you feel this way. So what is my "agenda"? I think Christianity is false and ridiculous and I want to freely express these ideas with a web site. I find the topic fascinating. I want to help Christians out and I try to. I don't think anyone benefits from basing his or her life on a falsehood. Do you? I enjoy the positive e-mail I get from former Christians who have visited my site. Obviously, I don't realistically believe that my piddling web site has much of an effect on most people who visit it. In fact, despite my best efforts, it has been my experience that committed Christians are impervious to my arguments and the evidence I present to them. Dedicated Christians who get into extended e-mail discussions with me don't seem impressed by what I have to say. However, these discussions provide a demonstration of both sides' arguments and I strongly believe this information is useful to those people in the church who are starting to question their religion. So I include these discussions on my site. As I stated before, I would have found the information on my site useful if I had known about it several years ago.

You asked me several questions in your first e-mail. I have done my best to answer them and would be happy to respond to any other questions you have, or to clarify any of my answers for you. I have only three questions that I would like you to answer for me.

1. Do you believe it is good for people to base their lives on falsehoods?

2. If you found out Christianity was false, would you inform anyone else of this?

3. What do you believe my eternal fate will be?

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: Re: corrected e-mail
Date: 1/3/2001 6:51:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

You are right about one thing, I believe that you are dishonest in the motivation for your site as you stated it in our earlier correspondence. On the one hand you state that you think the information on your site is helpful to Christians from your point of view and in that way you try to help Christians. On the other hand, you find Christianity ridiculous, or in other words, meriting your ridicule. True to your words, you ridicule its followers. Yet you seem astonished that devoted Christians are not reached by your arguments.

I have simply tried to point out to you that your methodology betrays your statements of benevolence. If indeed you really care about people, where is the kindness, the patience, and the tolerance? Where is the true help for those fellow humans who are caged by the ignorance of Christianity as you once were. Brooks, your actions make you a poor spokesman for your cause.

Just as I am disappointed that some of the people who visit your site are representative of Christians in the worst way, your site displays you as their existentialist counterpart. I am just not sure that you realize it. You wrote, "I strongly believe this information is useful to those people in the church who are starting to question their religion." The information may be useful as you strongly believe. But I have pointed out and you have verified that you are mostly reaching those dedicated Christians who are not receptive. It is not necessary to ridicule the dedicated Christian in order to have substantive material for your web site. In fact, it is this very behavior that erodes your credibility. Of what use is truth if the speaker does not first establish respect?

I have not responded to your questions because of this disrespectful behavior. I don't believe that my answers would serve either of us well. Besides, you already know the answer to each of the questions that you asked.

In closing, let me just say that you have the right to do as you please with your web site, which you have already pointed out. I wrote to you with hopes of having an impact on the way you seek to present the truth to others. Your site offended me. After I got past that and heard from you what your intentions were, I tried to point out how you would better succeed at your chosen task (helping Christians). Your reply led me to believe that your intentions were not really to help anyone. Still you persisted. I in turn have further elaborated. If my words help you, that's great. If you find me to be just one more ridiculous Christian, you are entitled to that too.

Matt

Subj: note from Brooks
Date: 1/8/2001 1:43:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Matt,

My site offends you, my responses seem to upset you and you likely don't want to hear from me again, but I feel I have to make a few points with regard to your last e-mail.

First of all, I never described you as a "ridiculous Christian" as you implied. However, as I made clear, I think Christian beliefs are ridiculous. I cannot pretend that I feel otherwise. I cannot pretend that I respect Christians for holding the beliefs that they do. That, after all, would be dishonest. With that said, I believe I treat Christians who engage me in conversations with consideration, fairness, patience and tolerance. I believe I have responded to you with consideration, fairness, patience and tolerance, though with a forthrightness that you obviously have found disrespectful.

You seemed upset and angry that I would ask you about my eternal fate. I was trying to make a point, which is this: in Christian minds, atheists are evil and hell bound because they do not accept the existence of the Christian god. Some Christians even believe that atheists are somehow demonic or controlled by Satan. In all cases, Christians believe that atheists DESERVE to be and will be tortured for eternity (though Christians have different, cryptic ways of describing this). This is a great example of a Christian belief that I find ridiculous and absurd. If you woke up tomorrow and discovered that billions of people wrongly believed that you DESERVED to be and would be tortured for eternity, I am quite certain that you wouldn't feel overwhelming sympathy for their demand that you show respect for their belief system.

Because you believe I am so evil that I deserve to be tortured for eternity, I can easily understand why you might think I am dishonest or that I have some devious "agenda." While I certainly may be dishonest and have a devious agenda, I have never thought so and you haven't convinced me of these things. Apparently the specific reason why you think I am dishonest is because I claim to want to help others, but am not going about it in a way that you find acceptable or effective and because not everyone who I get into discussions with is moved by what I write. To be clear, I did not carry out marketing or psychological studies prior to creating my site in order to tailor it to one very specific audience, or to make it 100% successful in changing every Christian's mind, or to make it immune to criticisms from devoted believers such as yourself. When I engage in discussions with Christians, to the extent that they deserve it, I treat them with respect. When I converse with Christians, it is my hope and my desire that I can have some effect on their thinking. I try my best to achieve this. However, it has been my experience that often nothing I say makes any difference.

You wrote:

"You are not trying to help Christians. What you appear to be trying to do is feel ok about no longer being a Christian. What seems to work best for you is to bash and disrespect your former faith."

You are entitled to your opinion, but I do want to help others. I may not go about it in a way that you like, but I do want to help others. At the same time, I also derive some happiness from criticizing a religion that calls me evil and condemns me to hell. I wouldn't feel good about myself if I didn't.

After everything is said and done, if you discovered that Christianity was false, I am sure you would also try and explain this to other people as well. You might not put up a web site like mine, or write the things I write, but I am confident that you would also tell other people that Christianity was false.

Take care.

Brooks

Subj: Re: note from Brooks
Date: 1/8/2001 9:12:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: Matt_Hirn@ablenetinc.com
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

Try as I have to come to some point of closure with our exchange, I still don't feel that I have gotten there. I think that we would agree at this point that we differ in how we would engage others of opposing viewpoints. What has me writing back again is pointing right back at this issue though. It seems to me that you have taken the beliefs of Christians and applied them as though the Christian has personally offended you by holding the belief. This then appears to give you license to ridicule the Christian faith.

It seems that even though Christians believe that their God (not Christians) judges all human beings, it is not their God who you think is ridiculous (perhaps because you do not believe He exists), but the Christians themselves. You may say that this is not the case, but consider how most Christians are reacting to you. If I were to say that atheism is stupid and you were an atheist, would you not infer that I did not have much respect for your intelligence? There is a difference between knowing that a belief system is flawed and seeing a need to ridicule it. one can argue the merits of a belief system without ridicule.

You may say that this is indeed what many Christians have done in their response to your existentialist views. Those who have expressed the view from God's perspective (that being one that finds all humans sinful) are simply stating the nature of their faith. Those who have said or acted in a way that would lead you to believe that Christians find your beliefs worthy of ridicule have done a disservice to you and their faith.

You may say that if I only knew that what I believed was totally false, then I would not be offended. Ah, there is the rub. If our exchange has shown me anything, it is that those who are passionate about conflicting beliefs are not likely to feel that those who hold the opposing view really care about them. I know that I do not feel that you really care about me. After all, what is at stake for you. If I continue to hold to my ridiculous beliefs, at worst my continued existence is an annoyance to you. There is also little to gain personally if you succeed in enlightening me. You would gain little more than the unity offered by another like-minded individual.

Brooks, I care about you. I am not really concerned that you offend Christians. I have, however, maintained that there is an inconsistency between your actions and your stated intent. I have not tried to show that I care through proselytization. I think you have obviously heard enough of that. Instead I have tried to encourage you toward a different view of Christians that would allow you to have more valuable exchanges with them. I believe that this would be at a much greater risk to Christians than the current way that you interact, but it is worth the risk because of what I believe is really at stake for you.

I hope for your best. I dislike what you are doing and I disagree with what you believe. I do not, however, find your beliefs worthy of ridicule. You have said that you can not respect Christians for holding the beliefs that they do. This disrespect of people (Christian or otherwise) is likely to lead them to ask of what use is the viewpoint of an individual who doesn't even respect me for the human being that I am?

Matt

---

Editor's note: Matt sent another e-mail in December, 2001, and this started the discussion anew. Rather than cut, paste and format the text from 31 additional e-mails into this page, I have provided a set of links to each e-mail. The progression of e-mails goes left ot right, top to bottom. Address information has been disguised.

---

Send e-mail to Tekministry@aol.com Most recent update: 10/11/03