Feedback

E-MAIL AND FEEDBACK RECEIVED (Page 1)

This page is intended to handle reader comments and make the page better. Debate and discussion are encouraged. Feedback is displayed below, along with my responses, exactly as I replied.

WARNING!! Any mail you send me is unsolicited, so I therefore reserve the right to post it on this site.

The following conditions apply:

If your letter is posted, I will make every effort to print the entire letter, but space concerns or other unforeseen circumstances may prevent that.
If your letter is hostile or unnecessarily condescending, I will print it without changing spelling and/or grammatical errors.
If your letter is edited and posted in a way you feel distorts the original meaning, let me know and I will change it. I will only add content from the original letter. I will not remove or reword content originally sent.

My email address is estle46224@yahoo.com

Red indicates feedback writing.
Blue indicates my writing; editorial comments are in italics.

Quick Links to Letters on this Page

My first letter, from my best friend.
Letter about my "Fallacy of Prayer" writing.
A friendly deconversion story.
Concerned letter from my cousin, a Mormon.
Quick, friendly thoughts from a fake agnostic.
Reader who takes umbrage with a Flat-Earth analogy.

Special Pages:

This is a long conversation with a Christian named Jesse Perry.
This is a long conversation (on his part) with a Catholic in the Philippines named Francis Thomas D Ocoma.

This general page, continued:
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4

Received 11-20-00
From John Razumich, jackrazz@hotmail.com
Subject: The site

Feedback from by best friend...

Nathan,

I realize that it's been almost a month since you were last in the city, but I've just now been able to find the time to visit your site. I have only two words for you, old friend: well done.

You've clearly put a great deal of thought and effort into your arguments, and they all come across as clear, concise, and, most importantly, thought-provoking. I am, however, disappointed that you've not yet recieved (or if you have, not yet posted) any feedback from the site. If your numbers for the ratios of the Christian to Atheist sites are accurate (and I fully believe that they are), you'd have expected someone from one of those many sites to visit yours, if for no other reason than to attempt to "speak reason" with you. By the time I had finished your last essay, I was looking forward to some exchanges between you and, well, anyone. Oh, well.

An interesting side note about your "open letter." In one of the lines, you're asking theists if they extend the courtesy of tolerance to those of other belief systems, including your own. In my speech class (when next you're in the city, I'll give you a more proper rant about how far below me I view those ants to be), one of the girls said something about how you should never speak in public about politics or religion, because even the best of friends become the worst of enemies when these subjects were brought up. Naturally, I couldn't keep silent, and stated that I was a Catholic, and that my oldest friend was an Atheist, and that we invariably take jabs at each other at least temporarily whenever we meet. Not only did I come under attack for accepting your beliefs, I came under attack for even associating with you! Some things never change, I suppose.

One other item of note. A biblical historian (he's a monk from the Order of Saint Francis) stopped by at St. Gabriel's for a while, and while he was there, he and I had several discussions about the history of mankind vs. the history of the Church vs. the history of the Bible. I'll have some interesting stuff for you next time you're in town.

Later,
John

My Response:

John:

Thanks for checking out the site. Actually, the reason why I don't have much feedback at all right now is because no one can accidentally stumble upon it.

I submitted the site to Yahoo! and several other search engines, but it takes some time to get them on there, because of the small staff and large number of requests.

The only place my site can be found on the Internet, other than by direct address, is on an atheism/humanism site based in Sweden, owned by Mr. Fredrik Bendz. Here's the address of his links page.

I am under the section titled "Atheist people's atheism pages." I am also on some webrings, but I have no idea how much traffic that will get me (I'll know that come the end of November when I can see the stat sheet).

All that said, about half of the feedback (on other sites) is fire and brimstone garbage. It's a ritual dance that we engage in:

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no god" (Psalm 14:1), says the crazy protestant.

"...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matt 5:22), says I.

Oh, if I only had a nickel....

I'm going to post your feedback here as the first letter (perhaps with some personal chatter deleted). That way, people all over the world can tell you whom you should associate with, and not just classmates. (snip-NE)

Nathan

Received 11-23-00
From Twisty Girl, AHARTSFLD@aol.com
Subject: Fallacy of Prayer

Nathan,

i am anti-religion, particularly anti-christian. as far as prayer, if some one (a christian) asks for something and gets it then "god answers prayer."

If they don't get what they asked for then, "It was not god's will, and of course god knows best."

the above is, of course, ludicrous. however, i do believe in some kind of energetic power which we possess not only in our subconscious, but as part of the universe. if a prayer IS answered, i believe that is the result of the power of faith in harnessing that energy towards a certain outcome. i do not know this to be fact, but it is something that i have contemplated. so that if a large number of christians pray for something, and get results, it is not that god is answering prayer.... it is the concentration of energy by these people towards a certain outcome.

i believe there is tremendous power in the universe (everything is energy, even mass, which has been proven). i believe that within our subconscious, there is a tremendous store of the energy at our disposal and it is up to us to learn how to use it productively. i can no more prove this than a christian can prove there is a god. it is something that believe is highly probable and i attempt to use the power for my good and for the good of others. maybe this is something akin to prayer but i am not asking a deity to solve my problems. i am looking within myself.

i would like to thank you for your articles which i find both educational and entertaining. stay free, man.

peace, twisty girl

My Response:

Dear twisty girl,

I appreciate the response. While I tend to be a skeptic on a great many issues, I do not dispute that prayer has some beneficial effects.

As you may have guessed, I take issue with any Christian contention that some supernatural deity demands, wants, and then acts in response to prayer.

Consider the following about people engaged in prayer:

-They want something to happen very much.<
-They focus a great deal of attention on ssaid something.
-They have no doubt that this something wiill occur (because of the omnipotence of their particular deity).

Prayer is an exercise in mind over matter. It is no different than telling yourself that you are successful in order to make it so, or telling yourself you are going to breeze through a difficult test to boost your confidence (something I do).

Regular church-goers live longer on average, but this is most likely due to the restrained lifestyle. People engaged in serious prayer do, though, recover more quickly from serious injuries and/or surgeries. I hypothesize that the same kind of mental exercises mentioned above would get the same results.

Your notion of a transcendental energy has always struck me as a bit hokey, but that's just me. A vast source of energy in the human body or the universe would presumably have some noticeable, measurable effects. Unless we are talking about a mystical "energy" of some kind, which would introduce a whole other set of problems.

I would suggest you look into Buddhism, neopaganism, or pantheism. These systems might be more in line with your thinking. Your beliefs are not that uncommon, and are not unlike some of the more liberal Christians, who simply apply their beliefs to the system they were raised in.

Hey, don't take my word for it: find your own path.

Warmest Regards,

Nathan

2nd Letter:

hi nathan,

thanks for your reply. your suggestion that i seek out ancient religions is not the kind of belief system i was talking about. i was simply saying that everything, including ourselves is energy. also, there is an enourmous part of our brain that we do not use, our self-conscious. i believe programming, training, and using our sub-conscious is a way to reach our higher selves.

i can see that we do not agree on many things. i do, however, agree with you that religion is created by humans in search of answers to what we are or to escape responsibility.

peace, twisty

Received 11-24-00
From 'Eddie the 'Ed', jonesgej@yahoo.com
Subject: Feedback

Dear Nathan,

Your site brings up many good points, and has been very helpful in helping to define my own beliefs.

About me (Oh - oh, fundy testimony time...)

I was going out with a girl who is a christian, and holds some very strong beliefs. I somehow got together with her, after I had thought it would be easy to prove her wrong. Let me explain, I had a discussion about religion with her, and the way she argued against my vague objections seemed very compelling at the time. This made me think about all the 'big' questions. (You know, the sort where the real answer is 42....)

Anyway, we started dating, and she asked me to come along to a couple of meetings with her. Well, love is blind, and I ended up at a few 'Convert the Heathen' nights. Needless to say, it worked. I suppose the major way I saw it was a Pascal's wagor type scenario. There didn't at the time seem to be a very good reason not to believe. In March, I pledged to follow Jesus Christ.

Then things really got going. I recieved a large number of books to 'Help me out' as I started on this new 'Journey'. This did seem a bit weird to me - they were all in the 'Josh McDowell' vein, and I also received a few by an evangelist called Nicky Gumbel. These books seemed to propose yet more reasoned(!) argument as to Christ's divinity, the existence of God etc.

Even though the amount of books I recieved was amazing, I assumed that they were just nice people, trying to help me out with my new - found commitment. They still are, just terribly misguided. (Ooh, that nearly sounds biblical...)

Try as I might though, I couldn't quite get into the swing of it all. I went to Christian Union meetings with her, Church and bible study groups followed soon after. There was one problem. I began to notice that all the people I met were essentially the same person. They are all perfectly nice, but that's about as far as it goes. All seemed to have been given the same basic engine, just a different finish - manifested in certain 'mad' traits (eg a prediliction to lie down in the middle of the road - no joke!)

What makes these clones? I asked myself. The way that all their views on anything vaguely controversial mirrored the Bible was a pretty big giveaway.

I decided to trust my instincts, and start to have a closer look at the whole thing, even though I was pretty scared that a whole lot of burning was going to be the result!

Instead, I found weird mirrors in my story to that of people who had been taken in by cults. In no way am I saying that Christianity is a cult, it is too big for that!

I had to ask myself, is anything that feels so weird actually good? Does God want me to be a drone? IF the answer to the last one is no, how come everything I think has to go along the same lines as in His book? After subtley bringing the subject up with my new buddies, the answer that came back was along the lines of "Yes, we are all individuals" (copyright Monty Python!) So no then, even though everyone was saying it in the same way.

So, if the christians were saying 'no', but God himself wanted me to through the impression I was getting through reading His word, then something was wrong somewhere. Obviously it couldn't be God, 'cos he's perfect. Therefore, I decided to read the Bible for myself.

To cut a long story short, I found a few bits that most christians weren't keen on, found a few more contradictions and was appalled at the cruelty of this God of Love. When I realised that the christian God certainly wasn't what the christians said he was, I guess I had to just give it all up.

Thanks for reading

'Eddie The 'Ed'

My Response:

Dear 'Eddie The 'Ed',

Thank you for taking the time to read my site. I have made it a point to respond to everyone who takes the time to read some of my site and write to me.

Quote:"Your site brings up many good points, and has been very helpful in helping to define my own beliefs."

This means quite a lot to me. Personally, I was relieved to see such a rich tapestry of atheistic thought online, and more than anything the Internet validated (and perhaps solidified) the serious problems I had with theism.

I made mention of it somewhere on my site, I think in my "Spreading the 'Good News'" article, that the difference between a cult and a religion is the difference between 2000 followers and 2 billion followers. How would the world view Islam, if it had only scattered followers? They would be the idiots who think a dirty old camel herder from the year 700 talked with angels, and the ones who annoy the hell out of the people of Mecca every year with their foolish pilgrimages. (Insert your own summation for the "cult" of Christianity.)

I should also mention that I have never seen a good book of apologetics, a different but similar genre to the one you mentioned. Christian writers address theological problems in Christian terms, for Christian readers. This goes to support my contention that no one who is an atheist (and a strong, well-read one) could be convinced to change to theism, much less Christianity. Deism, perhaps. Islam, maybe under some circumstances, but very unlikely.

There are no strong atheists (that I have ever heard of) who have converted to Christianity who then turned around and explained how they got past the inherent problems. Their conversions always involve emotional baggage, like a traumatic experience or some kind of mortal fear, which is the effectiveness of Pascal's Wager, in my opinion.

Not to get too personal, but I suggest you steer clear of Fundamentalist Christian chicks. That is, unless you're looking for a lifetime of Missionary Position Saturday Nights. :)

Warmest Regards,

Nathan

Received 03-08-01
From Matthew C. Pangrel, mpangerl@juno.com
Subject: athiesm

Feedback from my cousin, a current member of the LDS church.

Nathan-

What's up? I read through your web site and found it very interesting. I didn't know you were so knowledgeable about religion.You have done the right thing in your search about Deities. Instead of picking the first religion others told you about, you took the initiative and went on your own to find what fit you. As you have probably guessed, I do not agree with many of your observations about religion. We all have our own opinions. Every church I've come into contact with says their church is the true church. Of course I say the same thing about my religion. Religion is tricky because most of it is based on ideas and beings that we cannot see. We must have faith in them. How do we know if they exist? About five years ago after I got married, I had to make a decision about my religion. Mainly my testimony of my church was built around my parent's testimony. When I left home, I had to make a decision spiritually what I was going to do with my life. Through much prayer, my wife and I knew the path we were to take. I have made the decision to stay in the Mormon faith, not because of my parents or my friends in the church, but because I knew it was the right thing to do. I believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. I have a firm testimony of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I know that these things are true through the power of prayer. The answer I have received has not come in the form of a visitation of angels or fantastic miracles but from a feeling of inner peace within me. I can admit that I do not know the Bible as much as I should and the same can be said about the Book of Mormon. The feelings I receive when reading these books are unmistakable. I know they are the truth. I know your stance on prayer, but let me give you a challenge. Block everything you have learned about religion and get down on your knees and pray. Pray to God for knowledge about religion. Don't throw up a haphazard prayer while watching something on Cinemax at 2 am in the morning. Ponder it in your heart and see what happens. It's just a thought. Anyway, I've got to go. Hope I hear from you.

Love,

Matt Pangerl

My Response:

Dear Matt,

Please forgive the lateness of my reply, but I have been grappling with the dilemma of how exactly to respond. I have in my mind a general idea of what to say to a letter like yours, but since you're family, things get complicated. I'll just focus on two points.

You said,"Religion is tricky because most of it is based on ideas and beings that we cannot see. We must have faith in them." (All apologies if this is taken completely out of its original context.) I agree with the first statement, but I cannot logically arrive at the second. For me to have faith, as it's called, in some celestial being, I would need a good reason to do so.

Now if it were simply a matter of there not being sufficient proof for me, I would consider myself an agnostic, subscribe to no particular religion, and say that we could never know for sure. I would still technically be an atheist (lit. without theism), but the term would not adequately classify my thoughts on the subject.

That would be my position, but in my mind there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. When I look at the textual, historical, and theological evidence as a whole, I cannot honestly say that the deities in question could or even might exist. In most cases, the attributes ascribed to these beings are contradictory, yet also the essence of said beings. I can say with bold certainty that no all-powerful and all-knowing entity exists. A god wouldn't be much of a god without these things, yet these things cannot coexist in one being.

I would also like to mention your prayer challenge. I am no stranger to such a challenge, and have taken it up many times before. I am not strongly compelled to do it again now. Familiarity breeds contempt, even with regard to such exercises, and were you a stranger, you would have probably received quite a saucy response indeed.

Perhaps an illustration would help. If you were in a geographical or work-related situation that put your theology in the minority (Christianity in general, not your particular offshoot), you might then understand where I am coming from and how I would react. If you set about to make you beliefs known, and why you hold them, you would quickly grow tired of others challenging you to face Mecca and prostrate yourself before the one true god. You would, in fact, get sick of comments that the Almighty Allah is not three, but one perfect person. You would come to despise comments that you will burn in the fire for worshipping Allah's prophet, Isa (Jesus), instead of worshipping Allah himself, as Isa clearly instructed. Eventually, even little things, like the motto "Praise be to Allah" on your currency, would start to annoy you after a while.

I am in that situation. My geographical, familial, educational, and work situation is one of complete contempt and often hatred. Having given so much time and thought and second-guessing to my conclusions, you can understand why a challenge to pray to a god (your specific god, I would presume) is interpreted by me as the intellectual equivalent of patting me on the head and giving me a cookie, with the implication that I will grow up someday. Even if patronization was not the conscious intent, I am guessing that on some level it was.

Religion in the end should be about the search for truth. If there were some magical old man in the sky, and I had good reason to think so, I would have no problem accepting it. I just find it hard to believe that this old man would reward people for their geography and birth, while cruelly torturing someone who honestly searches for truth to the best of their abilities. I hope, for both of our sakes, that such a deity does not exist.

Love,

Nathan

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts

Received 04-20-01
From David Landon, dlandon@u.washington.edu
Subject: None

I have been in futile debates with many zeolots and I couldn't agree with you more. I have used many of the arguements that you posted with nothing but rhetoric as reply.

As for the prayer point, I had someone reply that it was god's plan that they pray so it wasn't changing his plan. Naturally I responded by asking why the prayer was necassary if it was in the plan to begin with?? "please god could you do what you were going to anyway?"

I have found that these religious people are actually depended on their belief as a crutch. They are usually unable to accept the fact that not everything has a purpose and there is no Master Plan. So instead of destroying their world with our logical and very solid arguements, I have gone onto forums as an agnostic and asked the theists questions as if I didn't know and want to believe. Then hopefully when they attempt to answer and can't they will begin to questions why they believe.

Keep up the good work, It's a great site!!

My Response:

Dear David,

I thank you very much for your kind words. I would like to expand on something you mentioned.

I think it is a spectacular idea to masquerade as an agnostic, as it surely opens minds. I should mention that all of my arguments came about either while I was a Christian or by exploring the possibilities within the religious framework.

The best arguments against Christianity come about by accepting it as true (temporarily) and seeing where that leads your mind. Imagine guiding a Christian down a path of inconsistencies from the inside. I have found this style to be quite productive in debates.

As an example, let's believe for a moment that the entire earth was covered by a great flood. That means that A, B, and C must have also happened. Or, my personal favorite: What if Ceasar Augustus really did order everyone in the massive Roman Empire to return to their ancestral villages for a census, like Mary and Joseph were supposedly doing? What would have had to happen? Why is there no record of this massive undertaking? Also, what if the king really did order the slaughter of all Jewish children under the age of 3? Wouldn't someone (else) have cared enough to write that down?

Just some thoughts. Thanks for looking over the site.

Nathan

Received 06-30-01
From Ponzi44@aol.com, Ponzi44@aol.com
Subject: Wrong!

IF YOU DOUBT THIS, read Stephen Jay Gould's book 'Rocks of Ages' (the same Gould, the agnostic & evolutionist) in which he details the catholic flat earth bullshit.

"Inventing the Flat Earth...is a jewel of a book that provides important new insights into the way historians have interpreted Columbus's achievement." The New York Times Book Review

Neither Christopher Columbus, nor his contemporaries, believed the earth was flat. Yet this curious illusion persists today, firmly established with the help of the media, textbooks, teachers--even noted historians.

Inventing the Flat Earth is Jeffrey Burton Russell's attempt to set the record straight. He begins with a discussion of geographical knowledge in the Middle Ages, examining what Columbus and his contemporaries actually did believe, and then moves to a look at how the error was first propagated in the 1820s and 1830s--including how noted writers Washington Irving and Antoinne-Jean Letronne were among those responsible. He shows how later day historians followed these original mistakes, and how this "snowball effect" grew to outrageous proportions in the late nineteenth century, when Christians opposed to Darwinism were labelled as similar to Medieval Christians who (allegedly) thought the earth was flat. But perhaps the most intriguing focus of the book is the reason why we allow this error to persist. Do we prefer to languish in a comfortable and familiar error rather than exert the effort necessary to discover the truth? This uncomfortable question is engagingly answered, and includes a discussion about the implications of this for historical knowledge and scholarly honesty.

"Russell conclusively shows how the 'flat earth' myth was concocted and popularized by Washington Irving and a French erudit and how the 'flat error' was declared by Darwininst historians, who compared the denial of Darwin's theory to Columbus's struggle for acceptance by his scholastic religious contemporaries. The book is a delightful, provocative, and persuasive interpretation about a myth that has flitted in and out of popular history." Colonial Latin American Historical Review

My Response:

Dear Ponzi44,

You seem to have a problem with something I wrote about the Flat Earth Theory. What I said was:

"The goal of Creation 'Science' (and this goal is sometimes stated) is to find all scientific evidence that supports the biblical account of creation, and to seek 'alternative' explanations for evidence to the contrary. In other words, they start with the conclusion and find the slivers of data that can be construed to support it, rejecting everything else. Under that same method, one could 'scientifically' support the notion that the Earth is flat. Don't believe me? Check out the Flat Earth Society. It took me a little while to finally recognize that these people were joking. Very well done."

The only things contained here are facts and my personal opinion. I made no historical claims. I fully recognize that Columbus (whose unbastardized name was Cristoforo Colombo) was a greedy lecher and petty thief who died in prison.

My contention is that while the educated elite and people in applied sciences professions (e.g. Ship's Captain) knew of the globular earth, most did not. Many simpletons today still think the earth is flat, and "scientific" analysis was offered as late as 128 years ago. (See: Rowbotham, Samuel Birley, 1873. Earth Not a Globe. London: John B. Day. 2nd edition.)

I do not understand your response. I personally never mentioned Columbus, and the Church connection was only to state that somewhere along the line, the Church had to recognize that the earth was not flat, as the Bible indicates. One might say that the medieval church espoused no such doctrine, but it was unquestionably the the understanding of the Bible's authors:

Daniel 4:7-8, "I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth."

Matthew 4:8, "The devil took [Jesus] to a very high mountain and displayed before him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence...."

There are many more relating to the "tent"-like dome of water above us and the "firmaments" that keep earth still, plus other mentionings of the "four corners of the earth." Somewhere along the line, divine fact became allegory and symbolism. The Church changed.

One final thing. You sent me three letters, with the same cut-and-paste book review appearing twice in each one. Do you have nothing intelligent to add? I am supposed to be impressed by a message containing text from a book review of a book that has nothing to do with my assertions? Third hand refutations to claims I did not make? Come now!

Please send me nothing else unless you write it yourself.

Sincerely,

Nathan

All Biblical Citations from NIV.

2nd Letter:

Sorry about the duplicate messages--the damn thing froze up & I pressed ENTER again.(& Again)

My point was that Flat-Earth belief by any educated person, since 300 BC, is a myth fostered by Draper & others. The Catholic church never had to dump this baggage because it never had it to begin with.

I am a card-carrying Evolutionist--I am also aware that there are PhD geologists & biologists who are Creationists, plus millions of others who have the excuse of ignorance. This does not mean that there is genuine dispute, any more than there was, or is, any authoritative flat-earth argument by catholics.

My Response:

Dear Ponzi44,

Fair enough. I always had the impression that the early church kept silent on such matters, and did not assert itself until the theory of Heliocentricity came about, which had obvious symbolic importance (humans as center of God's universe).

My writing was about Creationism, and the flat-earth example served to illustrate two points:

--The "scientific" method of Creationism ccan be used to support the most ludicrous of views, i.e. using their exclusionary methods one could "prove" the moon is made of cheese.

--Silly and foolish things in the Bible, llike how the earth is shaped, are proven impossible, whereupon they are treated as fables, parables, etc. That has not happened with the fringe Creationism.

As to the official Church doctrine on the shape of the earth, I made no claims. You are preaching to the converted. My point is that the text, which calls for a flat earth, a worldwide flood, parting of a sea, six day creation, ad infinitum, has been "reinterpreted" as symbolic in many areas. Yet Creationism persists.

If the earth is not flat, the Bible can be wrong about some basics--like creation itself. The two doctrines have similar histories and will face similar deaths.

Creationism is scarcely held and an unteneble position to any outside observer. I say Flat Earth ideas once were the same.

Sincerely,

Nathan

Go to my second Feedback page.
Go to my third Feedback page.
Go to my fourth Feedback page.
Back