RE   ContraSmith Website

 

Table o' Contents  for  ContraSmith Website  Responses

Shirley__7-6-04

Frank_Walton__7-6-04

 


Shirley 7-6-04
Dear Mark Smith,
What were some of the factual errors Contra Smith made about you and your website? Please, be
specific.
    --Shirely Rose
 

 

 

Mark Smith  7-7-04
Hey Shirely (if that's who you really are); I intend to go thru and do a comprehensive reply some time in the future, so I'm not going to detail
every single one just for your entertainment.

However, since you asked, I will name at least one: the Shermer-Gish debate at UCLA. ContraSmith says that I was wrong as labeling that as a debate between an Atheist and a Christian. The fact is, the members of Atheists United that were there that night, as well as many others, were quite surprised to hear Shermer, in the middle of the debate, say he wasn't an Atheist after all! He had sure made himself out to appear to be one up till then, and all the Atheist groups had been behind him based on that assumption. We were as caught off guard as I'm sure Gish was. On top of that, we had all come to see (as advertised) a DEBATE. Shermer nixed that idea too in his speech by basically surrendering- saying that he didn't WANT a debate. So he called it a "meta-debate".

That is all for now. In general, the author(s) of ContraSmith did a good job, and I enjoyed reading it.

--Mark
 

 

 

Shirley  7-8-04
Mark,
First off, yes, I'm Shirley. Secondly, then technically that debate between Gish and Shermer wasn't an Atheist-vs-Christian debate. Why didn't you explain that on your website?
--Shirley

 



Mark Smith 7-8-04
Hello Again;
What part of what I wrote did you not understand? Let me try to make it as  clear as possible. EVERYone who entered the doors that night entered with the  understanding that this was a debate between an ATHEIST and a CHRISTIAN. I  went to see a debate between an ATHEIST and a CHRISTIAN. Everybody else did likewise. What the web page said was, and I quote,
 

I have also attended several Christian-vs-Atheist debates.
 

What I ATTENDED was a debate between an Atheist and a Christian. Shermer was  STILL an Atheist more than half way into the debate. What I LEFT that night  was a debate between a confused stressed out ex-Atheist and a Christian. It's  not my fault if he changed horses that night and came out of the closet as a quasi-religious whatever. All I know is that EVERYbody- HUNDREDS of people  that attended, attended what was a debate between an Atheist and a Christian.
 
If you want to nit-pick that, go ahead. I've got more important things to do  with my life.
   ---Mark Smith
 

 
 

 

Shirley  7-8-04
Mark,
This is my problem, son. You KNEW that AFTER the debate Shermer was NOT an atheist yet you decided to put up the fact that this WAS an ATHEIST-vs Christian debate on your website. Now, you have the convoluted idea that he SUDDENLY changed into an agnostic during the debate! You have serious issues. I've listened to Shermer before and he always made it clear that he was an agnostic.
   ---Shirley

 

Mark Smith  7-8-04
Dear Shirley;
I don't intend to waste any more time on trying to get you to see the obvious. You are either playing Christian word games with me, or you are dumber than dumb. If it isn't clear to you by now that there is confusion as to just what the hell Shermer REALLY is, I sure can't help you.

As to the confusion over Shermer's REAL beliefs (which is the REAL issue here), here are some FACTS. Any confusion that may be out there seems to originate in Shermer himself. My gut feeling is that Shermer found out that  being a Skeptic in our religious culture is easier than being an Atheist. At least being a Skeptic offers hope to the Christians that one day he may fall on THEIR side of the fence rather than the other side.

 

Mark Smith  7-16-04
In summation, "Shirley" (aka Frank Walton) doesn't seem to get it, and I don't feel like beating it to death. If it's too much for Frank to comprehend, so be it. It just seems strange that he doesn't understand that it's what a person IS (or is thought to be) before the debate begins that determines what to label the debate. It's the label the debate is given BEFORE the debate even begins, that goes down in the history books.  For example, if a Mormon debated a Baptist, it'd be called a "Mormon-Baptist" debate and go down in the history books as such, EVEN IF half way thru the debate the Baptist converted to become a Mormon. Of course, if you'd ask Frank, he'd want to then call it a "Mormon-Mormon" debate. A week later, if another debate was held between the same two men, then yes, Frank could call it a "Mormon-Mormon" debate, even if one of the men converted to Islam half way thru the debate.

 

I'm Confused: Is or Is Not Shermer an Atheist???

Shermer IS an Atheist Shermer is NOT an Atheist
“I’ve heard Shermer say, 'I’m an Atheist I don’t believe in God'” (1) I knew Gish had a lengthy section in his presentation on the evils of atheism as a technique to destroy his opponents (who typically are atheists), so I made a point of stating in my introduction, loud and clear, that I am not an atheist. (A)
Shermer said he had once been a born-again Christian and that he went door-to-door with the Christian message. He said he had been a sort of Amway salesman with Bibles. Shermer said after much thought and study he became a born-again atheist but he said he is now probably more of a born-again agnostic. (2) Shermer said he had once been a born-again Christian and that he went door-to-door with the Christian message. He said he had been a sort of Amway salesman with Bibles. Shermer said after much thought and study he became a born-again atheist but he said he is now probably more of a born-again agnostic.  (B)
"Gish said during the debate that since I  [Michael Shermer] am an "atheist-evolutionist" (his favorite term) I was NEVER a born-again Christian"  (3) In my book, How We Believe, I defined myself as an agnostic instead of atheist. (C)
On the website "CelebrityAtheists.com" we find the name: Michael Shermer.  (4)  

In his book Why People Believe Weird Things he [Shermer] states, "Gish refused to retract his characterization of me as an atheist. As Darwin said, 'An Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind'"

In How We Believe, Shermer states, "As for my part, I used to be a theist, believing that God's existence was soluble. Then I became an atheist, believing that God's nonexistence was soluble. I am now an agnostic, believing that the issue is insoluble"

To resolve the question I asked Shermer directly. He responded: As a statement about the universe I am agnostic, in the sense that God's existence or nonexistence is neither provable nor disprovable.

Michael Shermer:  As a statement about my personal beliefs and habits, I am a nontheist. I assume and act as if there is no God.
(D)

Shermer... would appear to be a closet atheist... Shermer, like Vidal's Confucius, knows that many traditions are absurd, but is afraid to say so frankly.   ...Is it because he still has one foot stuck in his Christian past?  (5) However, he doesn't consider himself as an atheist, but simply as a
non-theist. (E)
   
1)  Krista Bontrager  speaking in response to a question by "Ed" on the Hugh Ross radio show "REASONS TO BELIEVE", 2/17/04. This section may be listened to online via: How can Michael Shermer  promote both atheism and religious pluralism?

2)  March 19, 2002  Debate between Hugh Ross & Michael Shermer, http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/shermer.htm 

3) Michael Shermer, describing the debate between himself and Gish
Thursday, June 7, 2001 Phoenix, AZ as reported in the
North Texas Skeptics newsletter for June 16, 2001.
http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2001-06-16.htm 

4)  http://www.celebatheists.com/

5)  Shermer: Closet Atheist.  by David Rand http://atheisme.ca/livres/ms/hwb_en.html#closet

 

A) Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, WH Freeman and Company. NY, 1997. p.136

B) March 19, 2002  Debate between Hugh Ross & Michael Shermer, http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/shermer.htm

C)  Michael Shermer in:  http://www.skeptic.com/brightBrouhaha.html

D)  Celebrity Atheists webpage, http://www.celebatheists.com/entries/atheist_33.html#3

E)  Report on the debate between Geiveet & Shermer at The Church at Rocky Peak, Chatsworth, CA, Nov. 15, 1998 http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/archive-Nov-1998/msg00022.html

 


Mark Smith Never Put This Response on His Website...

Fri, 9 Jul 2004 12:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Mark,

If you're so confused as to whether Shermer was an atheist or agnostic why did you even bother calling his debate with Gish an "ATHEIST-vs-Christian" debate *? If anything YOU'RE the confused one.

Shirley Rose

*- animation used with permission from Mrs. Rose


 

Frank Walton  7-6-04

 


In a message dated 7/6/2004 3:57:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Frank Walton writes:

>Hey Marky,
>
>Thanks for being a sport by putting a link to our website. We were hoping you would respond. But, oh well... Anyway, we hope you didn't take any personal insults personally (like calling you a "moron" or that you're blind to objective reality). It was just a satiritcal jab at ya is all.
>
>Anyway, since you've decided to not respond to our charges against your website - and instead you tried to "condescend" us with "why is Mark linking to a site that hopes to prove Mark is full of crap. Good question. I do so so that all may see the weakness of the Christian arguments. I do so so that all may realize that 'Hey, if THIS is the best they can come up with to refute what Mark has written, maybe what Mark has written is true after all.'" {this is question begging really - we're only to deduce that you have no real reply. Ah, but you had this to say, which isn't much: "Unfortunately, the college students that put up ContraSmith do NOT have any strong arguments, just more philosophical hot air that basically says that if Craig CLAIMS to have had a religious experience, that's all the evidence these college boys need, yessireebob."
>
>You said, "I've changed things in this site before due to what some have pointed out to me, and I can change them again." For our sake, Marky, please don't change anything. We like the way the website is. Especially, the part where you "criticize" Dr. Craig's book. We want you stay as your arrogant self :)
>
>You asked, "Where's the beef?" We have it for you, Marky. Do you want it well done? Because we pretty much cooked your arguments.
>
>Anyway, now you're asking for miracles. Personally, we don't think that's the subject of Chapter 1 in Dr. Craig's book.
>
>Thanks for enjoying our website. Personally, we find yours more amusing.
>
>Yours in Christ,
>
>Frank Walton and Friends
>

 

 



Mark Smith  7-15-04
Dear "Frank"
Let's just cut thru the crap. As I've said on my website, I'm willing to bet my life that your Biblegod doesn't exist. Are YOU willing to bet yours that he does??? We'll see.
--Mark
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/evidence/How%20To%20Prove%20The%20Existence%20of%20God.htm  


Note: The link right above was never included in the e-mail Mark Smith sent me. I would have responded sooner had he told me sooner.

Frank Walton  7-16-04
Dear "Mark"
Am I willing to bet that He does? Of course! What do you think?! I'm a Christian! Anyway, I'm waiting for a response on contrasmith... will there be a challenge?

Frank

 

Mark Smith here:     So Frank, you're willing to take the bet, or are you just blowing more hot air??? In case you forgot, THIS is the bet:

 

The Challenge to Chicken-Sh*t Christians

In front of hundreds of Atheists and Christians, I challenge ANY modern prophet or preacher to reproduce what Elijah did, and I am willing to bet my life that he can't: I offer MYSELF as the target of Biblegod's "fire from heaven".  IF Biblegod zaps me with fire and turns me into a crispy critter, THEN all the Atheists, per pre-signed agreements, will convert on the spot to Christians and burn their Atheistic books. 

However, IF after one hour of prayers and preaching Biblegod has NOT zapped me with fire, all of the Christians present will have to publicly BURN ALL THEIR BIBLES, denounce God and Jesus (verbally and in writing),  AND to prove their sincerity, they will have to step up to the mic and "blaspheme the Holy Spirit" since they no longer believe it exists anyway. 

I happen to KNOW that I am right, and I am willing to bet my life on it. Are there any Christians out there willing to bet THEIR life? How about just their faith in a make-believe god? We'll see.

 

If you are game to do the above, let's start setting up the details, and schedule it for Sunday, October 10, 2004  in Hollywood California. I'm sure that CFI-West  (the Center for Inquiry, West)  would be more than happy to sponsor this event. I'll have my lawyer draw up the contract for all the Christians to sign, and we can have our first organizational meeting Sunday, August 15, 2004 at the CFI building to hash out the details. Let the whole world see the do-nothing flimsy cardboard cutout gods you Christians worship. I'm betting my LIFE on this; all you're betting is your religion.

Note to Readers- August 3, 2004}  I'm still waiting for this Xtian to put his money where his mouth is. Lest anybody be holding their breath in anticipation, you can exhale.


Challenge met...

October 8, 2004

Hey Blondie,

First off, this bet flies in the face of logic (and I'm willing to bet you don't see that... if you don't then I win the bet... if you do, then why make this "miracle" bet in the first place... either way I win). This is like saying "give me $5,000,000 to show me that you exist. What, you don't have $5,000,000? Well, then you don't exist." Or it's just as lame as asking God to give you no-sign as a sign that He exists - "Welp, He exists then."

Second off, Elijah knew that God existed even before God sent fire down.

Third off, it doesn't matter if God zaps you with fire; that will not necessarily convert you. There were many times in the Bible where non-Christians were exposed to miracles (even more astounding than being zapped with fire) still they did not convert (look up Exodus). Besides, what's to stop an atheist by describing the event as pure coincidence? On the other hand, I'm willing to bet you that you will eventually be zapped with fire... in hell (well, unless you convert before then). Would you like to take me up on that bet? Personally, I hope I lose because I do pray for your conversion and release from the fideism of atheistic philosophy you exhibit. How about it?

Yours,
Frank

PS It would be very very helpful if you tell me about these bets or when you respond because you never seem to give me a personal reply. And seeing how you think I'm Shirley you could have at least sent her a reply where she could then forward it to me. You could have told Corey too. I never knew about this bet.
PPS As I'm writing Contra Smith will be up and running soon. Don't worry, unlike you, I will tell you when I have it up :o)


Mark is at it again, he posted the following below without me knowing or e-mailing me:

Mark response in red
Mine in bold as of 3/20/05

Hey Blondie,

First off, this bet flies in the face of logic (and
I'm willing to bet you don't see that... if you don't
then I win the bet... if you do, then why make this
"miracle" bet in the first place... either way I win).
This is like saying "give me $5,000,000 to show me
that you exist. What, you don't have $5,000,000? Well,
then you don't exist." Or it's just as lame as asking
God to give you no-sign as a sign that He exists -
"Welp, He exists then."

 

Mark here}     Huh??? If I had a clue as to what this babble was trying to communicate, maybe I could respond. As it is, he needs to sober up and re-email me in the future.

Frank here} Yup, I won the bet (read the parenthesis in my previous e-mail)! Thanks again, Blondie



Second off, Elijah knew that God existed even before
God sent fire down.
 

Mark here}     The skeptics didn't.

Frank here} That's probably the most intelligent thing you said in weeks! Congrats! Anyway, yes, but remember the Bible mentions plenty of other times where non-Christians were faced with miracles but still didn’t convert. You haven’t even tried to rebut that.


Third off, it doesn't matter if God zaps you with
fire; that will not necessarily convert you.

Mark here}     It wouldn't be to convert ME. Maybe you should read the article before mouthing off, you little republican. I would be DEAD- something I'm willing to risk (and you're not) to disprove your illusions.

Mark here} It wouldn't be to convert ME.

Frank here} Really? You said you were willing to bet your life on it. Here’s what you wrote:

In front of hundreds of Atheists and Christians, I challenge ANY modern prophet or preacher to reproduce what Elijah did, and I am willing to bet my life that he can't: I offer MYSELF as the target of Biblegod's "fire from heaven". IF Biblegod zaps me with fire and turns me into a crispy critter, THEN all the Atheists, per pre-signed agreements, will convert on the spot to Christians and burn their Atheistic books.

In case you forgot, airhead, you’re an atheist!

Maybe you should read the article before mouthing off, you little republican.

Frank here} Wow, you’re getting pissed off here aren’t you? LOL, Maybe you should read your own articles better. PS I’m not a little Republican, you big blondie.

I would be DEAD- something I'm willing to risk (and you're not) to disprove your illusions.

Frank here} Huh? I just met your challenge, you nincompoop! Don’t have to be a poor sport.

 There
were many times in the Bible where non-Christians were
exposed to miracles (even more astounding than being
zapped with fire) still they did not convert (look up
Exodus).

Mark here}     That's why we would have signed CONTRACTS drawn up beforehand, and lawyers to enforce them. Gotta keep the Christians honest, you know.

Frank here} *Sigh* Mark... Mark... Mark. Your inability to find the flaw and fallacies in your dumb bet is staggering. Please just read my e-mail again (try to look for the word "coincidence"). You need some help with your attention deficit disorder, pal. Anyway, you’re the one with the honesty problem dude.

 

Besides, what's to stop an atheist by
describing the event as pure coincidence?
On the other hand, I'm willing to bet you that you
will eventually be zapped with fire... in hell (well,
unless you convert before then). Would you like to
take me up on that bet? Personally, I hope I lose
because I do pray for your conversion and release from
the fideism of atheistic philosophy you exhibit. How
about it?

Yours,
Frank

PS It would be very very helpful if you tell me about
these bets or when you respond because you never seem
to give me a personal reply. And seeing how you think
I'm Shirley you could have at least sent her a reply
where she could then forward it to me. You could have
told Corey too. I never knew about this bet.
PPS As I'm writing Contra Smith will be up and running
soon. Don't worry, unlike you, I will tell you when I
have it up :o)
 

Mark here}     Please, let all notice: When "Frank" is all said and done, he STILL hasn't said YES to my bet! Why, if he's soooo sure he's right??? It's because deep in his heart he knows his religion is all BS. I am willing to BET MY LIFE, he won't even bet his religion.

Frank here} You’ve all just noticed that Blondie has had a complete mental breakdown. Aside from thinking that his own bet was to not convert him he thinks that this bet is actually sane. And as you can see I won the bet that Blondie was not able to see this. Furthermore notice he hasn’t touched on other parts of my e-mail nor offered a rebuttal. That’s because deep down he knows his atheistic worldview takes waaaay more faith than any religion in the world. How about this bet: I’ll bet my religion that God won’t make a miraculous sign as a sign. I’ll bet my life Blondie won’t even bet his atheistic worldview.


Back