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