From the Mailbag

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

-- On Wed, 6/23/10, Geraldo... wrote:

From: Geraldo
Subject: RE: June Freethinker Meeting Saturday
To: fayfreethinkers@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 4:37 AM
I gave it one shot. That was enough. My definition of a free thinker is a person who exhibits tolerance and a non-judgmental willingness to hear all points of view and then, employing Aristotelian logic, arrive at what appears to be the most rational conclusion.
DAR
Well, we did that during the first few meetings in 1998. Now we like to have a little fun. Examining all points of view with Aristotelian logic has it's merits indeed, but it tends to bore a captive audience of non-philosophers to tears after a very short while (we had two meetings devoted to "freewill" just last year). I do encourage you to start your own group of "Aristotelian Logicians" and see how it goes. I'd come, at least for a few minutes.

GERALDO: I came away with two impressions from the last meeting:
1. "I love my smelly, little goats so much that I'm going to bore my captive audience to tears gloating about my goats.
DAR
Nothing was said about goats being "little," or "smelly." This is clearly judgmental and intolerant anti-goat baggage you brought with you.

GERALDO: Oh, and by the way, you people are all goats, too."
DAR
Discerning listeners noticed that the goat/sheep reference is used metaphorically and in fact is borrowed entirely from the Christian Bible.

GERALDO: 2. "Ha, them there Christians are sure stupid. Let's make fun of them every chance we get."
DAR
Actually, we went pretty easy on them at that meeting. We really do try to treat all supernatural claims with equal suspicion. I'll judge that we are being too hard on the claims of Christianity and the stupidity of some of it's adherents (examples provided upon request) when some of our founding members (Church attending Cristians) stop coming.

GERALDO: Not worth my time.
DAR
Agreed. If you don't like goats, you aren't going to like freethinkers. And one doesn't need to be an expert in "Aristotelian logic" to figure that out.

Goodbye Geraldo.

Darrel.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

A nice letter from a person who bought my book a few years ago. Posted here with permission (name withheld):

***
Hi Darrel,

I just thought I'd drop you a line. I was looking at old, archived e-mail and ran across a previous dialog we had just before I purchased a copy of your book.

So, it's been nearly four years since I've read your book. A lot has changed, but probably only in ways you would probably expect if you recall anything I've shared with you.

I'm a solid atheist now. My wife could be described as 'agnostic'. But both terms are loaded. Perhaps easier to just say we've become non-religious freethinkers.

My son turned out to be a lot sharper than I was at his age. He started reading his Bible because his Grandmother started trying to indoctrinate him. But her attempts have backfired and my son gave up on religion before he ever had a chance to get started.

He just turned nine at the end of July.

He said that his comic books were far more entertaining than reading the Bible. He told me that about six months ago.

Any how, I'm grateful for your effort in writing that book. It played a role in opening my eyes to something I was starting to suspect, but didn't want to admit.

I also wanted to share with you that I found a meet-up group of atheists in my area. So, I don't feel so isolated any more. Now I see that many people are in the closet about not believing in the Bible. And many move here from other states and gawk at how literal most people are about the Bible and need a support group to deal with the culture shock of the Bible Belt!

Anyhow, just thought I'd share that with you. Hope this message finds you well.

***
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

Our friend Linda Farrell had the following letter published in the paper. Posted here with permission:

***
A while ago I was privy to a conversation between a younger, working professional woman and an older retired lady. The younger woman spoke about attending a mandatory administrative meeting at a state university where she worked. At this meeting, where food was served, the supervisor /manager led everyone in prayer which included a blessing over the food. The younger woman was concerned over the “forced prayer” which made her and quite a few others uncomfortable. The older lady, a former management professional, was quick to make a number of excellent points.

Forcing a prayer/blessing at a tax-payer-funded institution defies both state and federal laws mandating freedom of religion.

The practice is horrifically intimidating to employees – a captive audience. (That’s key.) People have been denied positions or promotions because of their “minority” religious belief status.

Forcing someone to pray and exhibit a piety they do not genuinely feel forces him/her into a position of being a hypocrite – which people of many faith traditions find morally abhorrent.

It is unprofessional and inappropriate in the workplace. Devout, private prayer is fine anywhere.

Anyone in a position of authority who forces these displays puts the institution at severe legal risk of litigation based on religious intolerance in the workplace.

Forcing your religious beliefs on others shows total disrespect for theirs.

If the above scenario is policy at any public college/university in Arkansas, I suggest it be reviewed and changed now.
***
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

We get a couple of these a week:
Hi - I'd like to be on your email list. I just moved to NWA and am
freaked out by the religious (read: so-called Christian) nutcases
around here.

Thanks!
[name withheld]
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

Feedback for the Fayetteville Freethinkers. Be nice.

***
"I have some questions about the Freethinkers organization. The organization is very good about promoting scientific as well as biblical information but, it seems that instead of showing and open free thinking on both sides, science and biblical religion, that you all are geared more toward science. I would think to be a free thinker would be to show pro's and cons of both sides, keeping the thinking as open as possible for people to draw conclusions. Not to denounce one side over the other. Also, I have noticed that a lot of the arguments against the Bible are based out of Old Testament scripture. Taking pieces and parts out of context without showing the corresponding side in the New Testament. The OT and the NT are not, this didn't work so here is God's second plan, they are, Here is what had to happen, so that This could happen. In the studies I have read on the page, I have found you all have very good knowledge of the Bible, but seem to still are missing the piece of how it all links together. It seems that so much time and effort is spent trying to denounce the Bible that you miss some parts, and are lose the open mind side of science and biblical studies. Many great scientist in fact have come to the conclusion that the Big Bang theory just cannot be possible, that some outside force had to cause such things, and that evolution is not plausible with so many errors in itself and errors with Darwin's studies and cases. I am not trying to attack or denounce what you all are doing in any way but, expressing concern and question of the actual motives of the Freethinker community.

I thank you for your time to read this.

[name redacted]"
***
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Doug »

Darrel wrote:I have found you all have very good knowledge of the Bible, but seem to still are missing the piece of how it all links together. It seems that so much time and effort is spent trying to denounce the Bible that you miss some parts, and are lose the open mind side of science and biblical studies. Many great scientist in fact have come to the conclusion that the Big Bang theory just cannot be possible, that some outside force had to cause such things, and that evolution is not plausible with so many errors in itself and errors with Darwin's studies and cases. I am not trying to attack or denounce what you all are doing in any way but, expressing concern and question of the actual motives of the Freethinker community.
I will try to be nice: the notion that the Bible "links together" is a fantasy. If you think otherwise, you are bucking the majority of Biblical scholarship.
If you think otherwise, the freethinkers on this forum are open to seeing evidence in favor of your view. We've seen many such attempts. Good luck.

If you think that the Bible is supported by science, you are feeding a fantasy. If you think otherwise, you are bucking the majority of Biblical scholarship.
If you think otherwise, the freethinkers on this forum are open to seeing evidence in favor of your view. We've seen many such attempts. Good luck.

If you think that the Big Bang is not scientifically possible, you are a laughing stock bucking the majority of scientific scholarship.
If you think otherwise, the freethinkers on this forum are open to seeing evidence in favor of your view. We've seen many such attempts. Good luck.

If you think that evolution is not scientifically possible, you are a laughing stock bucking the majority of scientific scholarship.
If you think otherwise, the freethinkers on this forum are open to seeing evidence in favor of your view. We've seen many such attempts. Good luck.

Our motives are the pursuit of the truth. Thank you for your concern, but if you think that we have any other motive, you show yourself to be quite ignorant of the secular movement in the United States.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

I'll respond to this feedback too:
it seems that instead of showing and open free thinking on both sides, science and biblical religion, that you all are geared more toward science.
I think your observation is right on. Freethinkers are definitely biased toward the methods of skeptical scrutiny and the scientific method. No doubt about it. However, if you can make a case for a method that is better at providing results and separating "deep truths from deep nonsense" (as Sagan put it), do let us know.
I would think to be a free thinker would be to show pro's and cons of both sides, keeping the thinking as open as possible for people to draw conclusions.
Well, isn't it the case that some questions don't quite rise having a case? After having studied some of these questions for hundreds of years, isn't it the case that we can come to some common conclusions about the reality we observe? But I get ahead of myself...
Not to denounce one side over the other.
No. I think some ideas are so demonstrably false, bankrupt and devoid of merit that we can use our discernment and separate them that which has a great deal of evidence going for it. Not everyone will agree of course. But we don't want to be as wishy washy as Charlie Brown. For instance at a recent meeting we had an astrophysicist give a presentation on how geo-centricism (earth as center of universe) is wrong. Should we spend equal time covering the arguments (mostly assertions from the Bible) arguing that the earth doesn't go around the sun? Really? (actually, we certainly would let someone speak on that if they wanted to).
Also, I have noticed that a lot of the arguments against the Bible are based out of Old Testament scripture.
Many Christians try to dismiss biblical criticism because... "oh, that's just the OLD Testament." Well, is it the word of "God" right? Does it have mistakes? If you believe in the trinity then you believe Jesus is God, the very same timeless, unchanging, infallible, all knowing God of the Old Testament. Jesus is God right? Well Hebrew Scriptures are very clear, there is only one God and there is no other. Christianity and the Hebrew scriptures are intimately wrapped up with each (so says Christianity anyway), so until you cut out that part (80% of your Bible) and toss it, you are going to have to defend it from the problems inherent from it being written by bronze age goat herders who didn't get their story straight. Also, there are no end of problems, contradictions and errors even if one just looks at the New Testament. See my book and Doug's book on the main website.
Taking pieces and parts out of context without showing the corresponding side in the New Testament.
Please give a specific example. I wrote a book about this and was careful to include lots of context when outlining problems. If you think you can correct a criticism by providing more context, lets see it.
The OT and the NT are not, this didn't work so here is God's second plan, they are, Here is what had to happen, so that This could happen.
So says you. The are lots of examples of God getting it wrong and trying a second plan. Humans do this so it shouldn't be too surprising to see them ascribe a similar attribute to their God. Happens all the time.
It seems that so much time and effort is spent trying to denounce the Bible that you miss some parts, and are lose the open mind side of science and biblical studies.
Do you have an example?
Many great scientist in fact have come to the conclusion that the Big Bang theory just cannot be possible, that some outside force had to cause such things,
Actually, last I checked, physicists had consistently the highest ratio of atheists. Almost all of them. It seems the more one studies and understands how our universe works, the more one tends to think a God isn't required. And of course, the odd physicist that for some reasons comes to think that there may have been "some outside force" is usually careful enough to admit that they believe it by faith. No one has ever shown, or even made a plausible case for "some outside force." Those that assert this are making a statement of faith.

Are you aware of any current scientific theory that competes with the Big Bang? I am unaware of any. If you know of one, do let us know.
and that evolution is not plausible with so many errors in itself and errors with Darwin's studies and cases.
Oh really... Well, you may not know this but the case for and against evolution was pretty much put to rest among the scientific crowd about 140 years ago. The uninformed public and chatter about this and that mostly for religious reasons but that has nothing to do with the science. Those who today do not believe in evolution do it for one or both of the following reasons:

a) They don't understand it
b) They won't allow themselves to believe it for religious reasons.

Almost always both. I haven't yet found an argument against evolution that isn't carefully addressed at this one, very simple, FAQ:

http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

If you know of one that isn't answered there, post it here and we'll help you out. We have experts standing by.

The scientific theory of evolution is the only scientific theory (and has been the only theory for a 160 years) that provides an explanation for the diversity of species we observe. There is no other scientific theory. It's the only game in town. There is no other. So it's not like we are ignoring other options. If you know of any other scientific theory, please tell us and we will promptly arrange for a proponent to give a presentation on it at a meeting.
I am not trying to attack or denounce what you all are doing in any way but, expressing concern and question of the actual motives of the Freethinker community.
Of course. And thanks again for the feedback. Our motives are to discover what is true and separate it from what is false. As far as we know, there is no more powerful tool for doing this than skeptical scrutiny and the scientific method of peer review, observation, replication etc. If you know of a method that gives better results at revealing what is true PLEASE LET US KNOW, and as soon as possible.

kind regards,

Darrel
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
lance1234
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:57 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by lance1234 »

I'm not sure if you all have ever read or watched Lee Strobel's CASE FOR CHRIST but, it is actually very intriguing itself. Lee Strobel was an atheist at one time, and set out to find the truth as everyone on this site is, and he came to very interesting conclusions. I would challenge you all to either read the book CASE FOR CHRIST or watch the series. Thank You all for time. I will post a link on here of just a part I found, it does not seem to be the full Case for Christ video I have seen, but gives a good idea what they will talk about. Lee Strobel worked on this for a few years, gaining evidence for and against Christ. Like I said, I just challenge you all to watch it, not pushing any beliefs on you all. Maybe, this is help gain conclusions of your own.

Thank You

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAxt6m0icuo
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

lance1234 wrote:...Lee Strobel's CASE FOR CHRIST but, it is actually very intriguing itself.
We are very familiar with his material, and very unimpressed.
Lee Strobel was an atheist at one time,
I doubt it. Josh McDowell likes to make this claim also. Sometimes these guys confuse bouncing around in college and not going to church or being religious with "being an atheist." It's a rhetorical flourish, and after all you were impressed enough to mention it (even though it doesn't matter either way).
he came to very interesting conclusions.
I would call them very poorly supported, faith based, assumptions. Strobel's feigned skepticism is very very weak tea indeed.
I would challenge you all to either read the book CASE FOR CHRIST or watch the series.
Better yet, why don't you pick one of his better evidences, something you find impressive that he shows, that can actually be backed up (not just mere rhetoric that he claims) and we'll see how well it holds up. Strobel's material is very warmed over standard fundie apologetic and this is very easy to show.
Lee Strobel worked on this for a few years, gaining evidence for and against Christ.
Strobel is a journalist with no training in scholarship and no expertise in critical thinking for sure. He writes pop evangelical books that tickle the ears of fundamentalists and give them the illusion that there is substance underneath their faith based beliefs. There isn't.

Give an example of some of Strobel's "evidence for Christ" that impresses you. We'll give it a look see.

There have been several careful and exhaustive examinations of Strobel's material. Here is one:

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/

This fellow wrote a book rebutting Strobel specifically:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm

Actually, I think I have a signed copy of that book (a gift). Never did get around to reading it. Can't get that interested in a light weight like Strobel.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Doug »

lance1234 wrote:Lee Strobel worked on this for a few years, gaining evidence for and against Christ.
Against? I have a copy of that book. I challenge you to find a chapter in it where he interviews an atheist, or even an agnostic. No, he only interviews fundamentalist apologists who parrot standard lies about what's in the Bible, what their alleged evidence is, and so on. Where is the alleged balance in his investigation? He's like Fox News: he claims to give both sides, but he really only gives one side plus a straw man to knock around.

And his evangelical, fundamentalist "experts" just spout the same stuff skeptics have refuted time and time again--and which is rejected by mainstream, Christian Bible scholars.

Try this for size:

The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel, by Robert M Price, Frank R. Zindler (Editor).
American Atheist Press (February 15, 2010)
Find it here.

You've heard just one side that pretends to give you both sides of the issue. Now read the counter-evidence that dismantles Strobel and his ilk.

You challenged us to watch a video. We've seen all those arguments before. I've seen a video of Strobel summarizing his book.

I challenge you to read Robert M. Price's book rebutting Strobel. Read it, and you will be angry that Strobel was so dishonest with you.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

Excerpt of John Lotus' book review of the above book:

***
"This book incinerates Lee Strobel's book along with the evangelical apologists he interviews, including Craig L. Blomberg, Gregory Boyd, Ben Witherington III, D.A. Carson, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, J.P. Moreland, and others. However, I doubt many of the people who read Strobel's book will read Price's book, not the least of which because understanding Price might demand a better understanding of the issues than the cream puff book Strobel wrote for the average person in the pew, but also because Price seems so disgusted with evangelical apologists at this point in his career he can't hide it.

...He's made all of these arguments before ad nauseam and yet these apologists keep on down the road just like the Emperor who had no clothes on, willingly ignorant that they are naked. So why bother trying again? They haven't listened, really listened, to what he's repeatedly said before anyway....

Too bad these apologists can only make us laugh--at themselves. Price makes the case against Strobel's case in such a convincing manner that these apologists must be willfully ignorant. Bob repeatedly makes the distinction between historians and apologists. A historian wants to know what happened. The apologist doesn't care what happened. He only wants to defend the Holy Book at all costs, even if it means he must sacrifice his intellect to do so.

That's exactly what readers of Strobel's book must do to accept it, for while Strobel acts like he's setting out to test the "claims of Christ," he does no such thing. Strobel is being disingenuous, Price tells us, because "his true intention becomes clear by the choice of people he interviewed: every one of them a conservative apologist!" So Strobel is not uncovering facts as a reporter would do. No, he's "soliciting opinions he already wants to promote."
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
kwlyon
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by kwlyon »

I am actually slowly writing a book addressing the Case for a Creator (among other works). I have managed to put together a couple chapters at this point however there is always more pressing matters at hand it seems. You two have successfully authored a book (Darrel & Doug). I might seek out your input at some point if I ever get back into it. The idea is primarily to expose the blatant dishonesty within the book and the the creationist movement as a whole. A good deal of the second chapter is addressing exactly the point you made above...he NEVER interviews a single scientist with actual qualifications in the field of evolutionary biology or astro-physics when discussing these fields. The "science" he presents in his book is utter babble. He misrepresents the history of the sciences he addresses. He, clearly intentionally, distorts information and seeks out only the opinions of those who tow his line. As a professional journalist this is not just an honest mistake of an inept amateur author. The man is a liar and a con artist...everything his flock claims to despise....and he is not alone.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

Perhaps of interest:

***
To my fellow Atheists, Agnostics and Non-believers,

I have just launched my new Obsolete Vision of God website, VisionOfGod.web.officelive.com. I moved it from Verizon to Microsoft servers where I have much more web space to add multimedia pages. In addition to providing information about my book, “Is Our Vision of God Obsolete? Often What We Believe Is Not What We Observe,” I have added web pages which include my Essays and Letters. They can be read online or downloaded and printed as they are in PDF format. My recent talk at the Michigan Atheists State Convention is based on my essay, God is Dead...and Carl Sagan killed him! The Principle of QED. It provides many examples of how the “god” concept defies the reality provided by modern science. I hope you will take the time to look it over.

I added a News Stories page which includes Relevant News Articles for Non-Believers. Articles include the 50 Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time, Can Animals Be Gay?, Former Dominican priest and evolutionary biologist says, “God is the greatest abortionist of them all,” and Fifty percent of professors of psychology at US universities and colleges do not believe in any god, and another 11% are agnostic. These stories are a must read for non believers.

My website is dedicated to the principles of rational thought and secularism. I don’t see the irrational belief in god as an isolated situation. I hope to stomp out ignorance not only about beliefs in personal gods, but also beliefs in UFOs, alien contact, alien abductions, psychics, ghosts, afterlife, déjà vu, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. They are all equally not believable. In my book I tried to show how silly some things people believe really are. I related about how Western believers will look down on the Mofu tribe in the Cameroon which spread goat’s blood over sacred rocks to get rain for their harvests. Otherwise without good rains the Mofu will starve. So they do a rain dance (or ceremony). But somehow Westerners believe a Catholic priest can convert bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Is that any less silly? This is the type of ignorance I wish to address without aggressively asserting that there is no god. Believers don’t listen to Richard Hawkins or Christopher Hitchens because they tune out Hawkins and Hitchens. You can’t communicate with people who are not listening. Hawkins once said that he was now the second most hated atheist. He relinquished the role to Hitchens. So I wrote a book and developed a website to promote truth as best as science can explain it. As the Nobel Prize winning physicist Stephen Weinberg said, “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible to not believe in God.” I believe that science can explain everything in the universe, even though scientists cannot, at least not yet.

I have set up both Facebook and Twitter accounts to spread my views to as wide an audience as possible. Please check out my new Vision Of God website and add me as a friend to your Facebook account and follow me on Twitter. I hope you will also add your name to the Contact Me page on my site so that we may keep in touch and you can receive my latest essays. And don’t forget to tell all of your friends about my new site.

All the best,

G.R. Pafumi
Author
***

Is Our Vision of God Obsolete? Often What We Believe Is Not What We Observe
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

An inquiry from someone on Facebook calling themselves "He's Alive."

***
He's Alive February 17 at 7:01pm Report
hello,
May I ask you a Question.

What do you understand about the man Jesus Christ?

Response:

Fayetteville Freethinkers February 21 at 12:56am
My beliefs about Jesus (and probably most freethinkers) are in line with standard mainstream scholarship. Or as one minister summarized:

1. The entire bible is saturated with common mythological themes, from the creation and flood myth to virgin birth and resurrected hero mythology.

2. The stories of the patriarchs in the Old Testament are known as 'temple legends' to enhance the history of the Hebrew people and are mostly fictional.

3. The gospels were not written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.

4. The 'Christ' myths and formulas are direct copies of Zoroastrian myths adopted by the Jesus sect.

5. These facts, with others, have been known for years, and taught by internationally respected scholars from major universities world wide.

Religiously educated clergy, through the sin of omission and silence, continue to promote superstition."

-- William Edelen. An active ordained Presbyterian and Congregational minister for 30 years. Adjunct professor of Religious Studies and Anthropology, University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article723.html

See also our web page here:

fayfreethinkers.com

I hope this answers your question.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Savonarola »

What do you understand about the man Jesus Christ?
Darrel wrote:Response:
[snip]
I would have thought that this would be sufficient:

Image
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

In the area of religion, the more ridiculous, fantastic and untenable the foundational claims, the greater reward from the deity dispensing the sky candy. Or as Ingersoll once put it:

"The justification of a sinner by faith alone," without works just faith. Believing something that you do not understand. Of course God can not afford to reward a man for believing anything that is reasonable. God rewards only for believing something that is unreasonable. If you believe something that is improbable and unreasonable, you are a Christian; but if you believe something that you know is not so, then you are a saint."
-Ingersoll, What Must We Do To Be Saved?
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

"He's Alive" has another question:

***
I appreciate your response.

Let me ask what do you Believe about Heaven and Hell?
DAR
Notice, no one dies and goes to heaven in the Hebrew scriptures. The notion of a heaven and hell where individuals would go after death was borrowed from other religions and added later.

I am all for there being an afterlife and if we get to vote, I vote yes. But reality and truth aren't decided by vote. All of the evidence leads to the conclusion that consciousness and existence end with death. Just as we observe with all life around us. And this is exactly what the Hebrew scriptures tell us. One is hard pressed to think of a clearer way of stating that death is a complete cessation of existence or consciousness than this:

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun... Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."
Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10.

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

So, I think the Bible gets this right.

As my Bible scholar friend Ralph puts it:

"The truth is that when we die our bodies return to the dust from
which they were made, and the breath of life returns to the air
around us (Genesis 3:19, 22-24; Ecclesiastes 3:16-22; etc.). Any honest physician or veterinarian will tell you the same thing. This is what God promised to Adam and all his descendants (Genesis 2:7;
3:19). God made it clear that he does not want us to have eternal
life (Genesis 3:22-24). That explains why in the entire Hebrew Bible
(OT) not a single person dies and goes to heaven. –Ralph Nielsen

Now, what does God say about eternal life in the Bible?

Gen. 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you
return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and
to dust you shall return."

Gen. 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-

Gen. 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

Gen. 3:24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of
Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.

When God saw that the man might eat from the tree of life and live
forever like God, God kicked him, and the woman, out of the garden of Eden and made sure they would never eat of that fruit. That is why when we die we return to the dust from which we were made." -Ralph

Some standard Bible scholarship on this:

"Much later, biblical religion postulated that the ultimate destiny of the individual does not end with death. There is not a hint of this suggestion in the Torah [the first 5 books of the Bible], however, or in most of the Bible. There, human death is final. Whatever ideal state an individual Israelite can hope to achieve is restricted to one's lifetime and is conditional on heeding God's commands; material prosperity, good health, length of days, self-determination, posterity, and peace (Deuteronomy 28:1-14). With the possible exception of Elijah and Enoch, all biblical personalities die and their death is final."
(Etz Hayim, Torah and Commentary. The Rabbinical Assembly, The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Produced by the Jewish Publication Society, c2001). Article on Eschatology, p. 1436.

"Life after death. It is generally held by scholars that no hope of
individual survival after death is expressed in the Old Testament
before some of its latest passages, which were probably written in the 2d century BC." (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown [et al.]. Prentice Hall, c1990). Article on Eschatology and the Afterlife, p. 1313.

"In the preexilic period, there was no notion of a judgment of the dead based on their actions during life, nor is there any evidence for a belief that the righteous dead go to live in God's presence. The two persons in the Hebrew Bible who are taken to heaven to live with God, Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), do not die. All who die, righteous or wicked, go to Sheol (see Gen. 42:38; Num. 16:30-33)."
(The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D. Coogan. Oxford University Press, c1993). Article on Afterlife and Immortality, p. 15.)

I am cross posting these answers on our freethinker forum, feel free to join in there:

viewtopic.php?p=23362#p23362
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Dardedar »

From the mailbag:

-- On Fri, 4/29/11, [...]> wrote:
> From: [...]
> Subject: Re: Freethinker Springfest booth, no meeting on Saturday
> Date: Friday, April 29, 2011, 11:58 AM
>
> > I see that the churches and christians have been
> helping the poor and needy, and people that have had floods,
> what has the freethinkers done to help in these
> problems..and I notice coming to the meetings that people
> are not friendly,and don't even talk to me..at least
> christians are helping to some degree.?????Thanks [.....]


DAR
Hello [...], thanks for the feed back. We've never talked about the issue of friendliness at our meetings so, how people are acting, is I suppose, how people will act. Perhaps we should recommend/advise people to be more friendly? Might be an idea.

If you would like to spearhead a freethinker drive to assist some charity, perhaps mention it during the announcement portion of the meeting and we'll see if there may be some interest. Our loose knit group, centered only around skepticism and freethought, may be enough to coalesce some charity work around, or it may not be. I have two jobs and many responsibilities with regard to designing and coordinating each of our meetings. Starting another avenue of responsibility is not an additional project I am able to take on right now.

I've posted your comments (anonymously) in our forum here:

viewtopic.php?p=23826#p23826

Perhaps others will join in with their opinions. And thanks again for the feedback.

regards,

Darrel
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Doug »

Darrel wrote:From the mailbag:

> Hello freethinkers,
> I see that the churches and christians have been helping the poor and needy, and people that have had floods, what has the freethinkers done to help in these problems..and I notice coming to the meetings that people are not friendly,and don't even talk to me..at least christians are helping to some degree.????? Thanks [...]
DOUG
Organizations with a secular purpose are doing the majority of the helping with floods, tornados, hurricanes, etc. Federal programs do not have religious motives, and they contribute more than any other single organization in cases of large-scale disasters. Small organizations such as the Fayetteville Freethinkers have little or nothing in terms of resources, so we leave it up to larger secular organizations, such as the federal government, to help the needy.

As for people in the Fayetteville Freethinkers not being friendly, feel free to start up a conversation with folks and I think you will find that they are very friendly. We typically ask for newcomers to volunteer their names so we can get to know them, and we ask people to wear name badges to help break the ice. Did you wear a name badge? Did you try to talk to anyone? Don't be a stick-in-the-mud. Be friendly and people will be friendly to you also. Introduce yourself at the next meeting and be part of the group.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: From the Mailbag

Post by Savonarola »

An unnamed emailer wrote:> ..and I notice coming to the meetings that people
> are not friendly,and don't even talk to me..at least
Doug wrote:Be friendly and people will be friendly to you also. Introduce yourself at the next meeting and be part of the group.
Doug's right. I'm just not a talkative person. (In fact, I dislike most people, but mostly for reasons that also prevent them from attending freethinker meetings in the first place.) I don't typically strike up conversations. Does this mean I'm not friendly? Er, well, bad example...

But seriously now, I'll jump right into a conversation about some topic I'd love to discuss. The meeting time itself, however, is typically not for conversing. That, I think, is a major draw of the after-meeting dinner: there are no presentations or videos, but there's lots of talking (and getting to know people, if that's your thing). As Darrel said, we all are busy, and even I -- a huge fan of the freethinkers and the dinner conversation -- can't make all meetings and can't even make all dinners for the meetings I can make. But, if you can, try going to a dinner, introducing yourself, and maybe sharing why you're a freethinker or talking about your favorite topic to get the ball rolling.
Post Reply