Feedback

E-MAIL AND FEEDBACK RECEIVED (Page 3)

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

The standard.
Another response to my misunderstood "Dear Theist" letter.
An offer to "review" my site.
The first response to my article about the convoluted Easter story.
The Amateur Atheologian (from feedback page 2) returns.
Someone sends me a link. Why do people do that?
How is accepting Christianity any different than the other illogical things we accept?
Quick random thoughts.
A young teen's encounters with Christians.
A question about a reply to my cousin.
Some reading is suggested for me.
The Easter Challenge still stands.

Received 10-29-01
From Bill S., wjsarver@mid-mo.net
Subject: Website

I came across your website while searching for scripture. I have only been a Christian for 2 1/2 years. I don't have all the answers to the points that you make about Christianity. You said that you have been a Christian. I have also lived on both sides of the fence. Christian and Non Christian. I can tell you what I have seen and heard in my short time as a Christian. I have seen some awsome healing miracles. Deaf people healed, arms, legs, backs healed, a paralyzed person gain use of muscles that they could not use before. I have seen little babies healed of problems. A lot of these could not be explained away as being all in the peoples minds as some have said. God is still strong in the earth today and He still heals, delivers, and baptizes in the Holy Spirit. Many even in the Church today seem to think that healing does not happen today but I have seen it. I will even give you an invitation to our next healing service so you can see the miracles for your self right in front of your eyes. God has spoken to me from time to time, not in an audible voice, but more like thoughts. He has told me things about people and events that I could have no other way of knowing. I did not write to debate or argue with you everyone has their own beliefs but to share some of the things that I have experienced. The Bible says to draw near to God and he will draw near to you. I think a lot of the problem with people today is they do not draw near to God. They claim to be saved but they are not living right. There are some things that can not be explained either way a person believes. I do believe that Jesus is coming back REAL soon. All the prophecy that has been foretold in the Bible is coming to pass. Chapter 18 in Revelation seems like it is talking about the World trade center bombing. Its interesting. For me, I am convinced that there is a God and he is the creator and sustainer of all things and that one day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If people would draw near, not just with their mouth, to God he will draw near to them and then they will know the truth and the truth will set them free.

Editorial Note: I neglected to respond to this letter right away. Given that some two months have passed, I believe it would be bad form to do so now. I will just let it stand as is, unanswered.

Received 12-12-01
From ZenmasterDe, ZenmasterDe@aol.com
Subject: Open Letter To Theists!

Editorial Note: Whenever you see a weird group of characters, insert a single or double apostrophe (as appropriate). This is how I get letters that people compose in Microsoft Word (I believe that's the one). Anyway, I always edit and post the letters of Jesse Perry that I get like this, but I'm sick of it. You can get the point I bet.

Nathan,

I want to respond to your questions about religion in your Open Letter toTheists.┬ (I also have some thoughts of my own).┬ IтА(tm)ll try to respond to your objections the best I can, though I am no expert, theologian, priest or minister.┬

Let us say that I am a neutral observer here, how am I to know that you are right-- absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt that тАЬbelief in a deity is unfounded and foolish?тАЭ┬ If it is foolish, then how am I supposed to decide whether I am a strong or weak atheist, or if I am an agnostic?┬ What proof do I have that you are right? тАЬMost religions have a"holy" book, and I am guessing that your religion is no different.Have you read the entire thing? Have you seen and looked into criticism of yourbook from an outside source? Is your book absolutely 100% true, or are theresome errors or discrepancies or ambiguities? How do you know which parts aretrue, and which are questionable? Have you examined historically the claimsabout your book? Are you sure it was written the way it says it was?тАЭ

Have you ever read the TaoTe Ching?┬ YouтА(tm)ll find that many of itsтА(tm)concepts depend upon a clear contradictions or absurd statements.┬ So therefore I can conclude, as you have withThe Bible, that the Tao religion is somehow wrong or false.

тАЬIf your god rewards hisfollowers, then why weren't the world's problems solved a long time ago,especially in areas dominated by your religion?тАЭ

тАЬHow do you explain thenumerous wars and atrocities committed in the name of your god? Were these people confused? How so?

How do you explain 66.7 million Soviets murdered by Lenin and Stalin during the 20th century as well as 26.3 million Chinese citizens slain under Mao Tse Tung?┬ ┬ According the Walker Report, 63.7 million Chinese were put to death over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. You can add it up, thatтА(tm)s over 150 million murders underan atheistic government.┬ ┬ Again, the former USSR and modern day China are/were dominated and defined by atheism, soI ask you--How come the atheist didnтА(tm)t solve the worldтА(tm)s problems ruled USSR and China when in fact the experiment was shown to be an utter failure?

тАЬMany theists don't believethat their creation story is literal truth. Where do you draw the line? How doyou know when any of your stories are literal or metaphorical? Do you believethese things until they are proven impossible?тАЭ

And how am I to know that the atheist creation story is accurate when science only can speculate on the beginnings of life and the universe?┬ Science once told us that the world was flat and Columbus would fall off the face of the earth.┬ So now are we going to call everything that science has ever given us into question?┬ Indeed, where do you draw the line?

I used to be an atheist, but have come to realize that I just really wanted to disbelieve.┬ And I would also as you what real action or benefit does atheism give me?

тАЬIt has, in the past andpresent, caused unnecessary wars and impeded significant scientific andcultural progress. I consider your religion an obstacle, not an aid, on the roadto true liberty and enlightenment.тАЭ

Most of modern day scientific thought got itsтА(tm) start andflourished under such individuals as Descartes, Aristotle, Newton, Mendel and LinnaeusтА"all theists. They laid the foundation of todayтА(tm)s sophisticated levelof science and mathematics.┬ Even today many of our brilliant scientific minds belong to the theistic persuasion.

тАЬI think that your religionhas done more harm than good.тАЭ

Here again I would disagree with you.┬ LetтА(tm)s look at themurders above in the case of Russia and China; IтА(tm)d say your atheism has donemuch more harm than Christianity.┬ ┬ Yousay that the world would be a better place without religion.┬ Ok, but if you were walking down a darkalley late at night and ten teenagers were walking towards you, wouldnтА(tm)t you feel safer knowing that they were carrying there bibles and just came back froma prayer meeting?

You say you only seek knowledge but say I asked you do you love your mother, no doubt you would say yes.┬ Ok then, prove itтАж ┬

My Response:

Dear "Zenmaster":

Please do not equate atheism and communism. The former is a result of the latter, but the converse is not the case.

Science, unlike religion, has mechanisms for self-correction. A bad theory will be proven wrong and discarded. Christianity cannot even reconcile it's all-important Ressurection story.

And I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that you were never an atheist. Never.

And if I were walking down an alley late at night, no matter what the teenagers were carrying, I would feel safe and secure with the semi-automatic peacemaker in my waistband. You pray for help, and I'll do something useful.

All right--all that fun aside, I would ask that you respond to some specific point I made, rather than my conclusionary letter. I went ahead and added a note to the top of that page saying that it was never intended as some grand argument. This is the second time I have received a point by point answer to it (yawn), which means that my meaning was unclear (for at least 2 people).

If you ever had a point to make, then feel free. If you just wanted to vent, well that's fine too.

Nathan

Received 12-24-01
From V. (Name removed by request), E-mail removed by request
Subject: Your site

Hi Nathan,

I stumbled on your web site, and to my great fortune, I have spent some time reading it. It's actually 2:30 am in the morning and I have to wake up in 5 hours time for work, but I'm still reading it (or rather typing this email).

First of all, I'd like to say I'm happy to see there is someone who is more intellectually pursuing than myself in probing for the truth. I share many similar views with you.

Secondly, I have always wanted to organise my material properly, and distribute it on a web site or a similar medium. Funnily enough, all the 'material' exists because I had a girlfriend who was religious (my mistake for going out with a religious person...) and so we had many discussions about this topic.

Finally, there is something I'd like to do - if you approve of course. I'd like to shove all your content onto a word document, so that I can edit it and make comments. I'm not sure whether you will want this, after all it's your web site. However, I feel that I can be of some value. Also, I'm not sure how much work I can put into this, but I will try my best at least to review all your material.

Please tell me what you think.

Regards,

V.

My Response:

Dear V.:

Well, I get the impression that we are talking about constructive criticism here, which would be a new experience for me with this site.

I don't have any objection. I am always looking for ways to make the page better.

Sincerely,

Nathan Estle

2nd Letter:

Hi Nathan,

I've had a chance to read (at least superficially) all of your site. The immediate addition that I think would be great for your site, is the sphex problem (Dennett, 1983 [I think]). This so called 'problem' relates to free will versus determinism. I believe it will enhance your section relating to free will versus omniscience.

I hope you haven't thought about this before, otherwise I'm probably just wasting your time. But anyway, the sphex as you may know, is some kind of wasp. The sphex is genetically programmed (presumably) to do a sequence of events when laying eggs. As I remember, the normal sequence of events is as follows:

The sphex thinks, "Hm, I need to find food for my young." So off it goes and it kills (or paralyses? Not exactly sure) something. After it does so, it'll think, "Hm, I need to find a suitable place for me to a dig a hole to put the food in where I can also lay my eggs". So it leaves the prey nearby and wanders off (in close proximity) to start digging a hole. When it finishes the hole, it'll go back to where the prey was and drag it into the hole.

As yet, there is no problem. However, the interesting thing is (as demonstrated scientifically), if the experimenter interrupts one of the steps by manipulating certain things, the sphex will go off and do the same thing again.

So for example, if after it kills a prey and when it goes off to dig a hole, we simply move the food somewhere else, the sphex will re-do the steps. It will go back to where it thought the food was, and think, "hey, where's my food? Oh, I need food for my young." So it goes off to find some food. It will stumble on the same prey it paralysed (or whatever) and it'll think, "Ok, I need a hole now." So it'll go off and dig a hole - or it will find the same hole and go back to the food.

This can be repeated infinitely, and the sphex never seems to know it's the same food or hole.

This raises the very interesting aspect when we apply this similar process to humans. Of course, humans will not repeatedly do something this simple forever. But what about something beyond our intellect? Is this why 'history repeats itself'? Because humans are unable to perceive, just like the sphex, the real truth - because of our insufficient intellect? Are we biologically programmed to react in a certain way to certain things?

This raises the fundamental philosophical question - is there really free will, or is everything deterministic already, but we simply do not have the intelligence to understand this? (If we did, there might in fact be free will).

In fact, this is highly relevant when considering the omnipotence and omniscience of God and his alleged creation of humans. If God was superior as the Bible says it is, it should know (just like your argument) that humans will react in a certain way - because God made us so. It is simply like humans observing animals, and because of our high intellect, we can successfully estimate how animals will behave. Therefore, if God was all powerful - with higher intelligence than us (as suggested by the bible), then God should see the inevitability of human 'progress'. So why bind us all to an eternity of hell?

Now think about the only explanation for this scenario - that God in fact, is not of higher intellect. The immediate problem for that this is against what the Bible says. The Bible tells us not to judge because the Lord will judge us all, because he knows all and implicitly is the one who has the intellect to be fair and just. The Bible also deems the Lord to be correct all the time - as such, all measurements of morality, good and evil are based on the Lord. So how can the Lord be of similar intellect as us? If he is, then why are our standards of good and evil not as justified as the Lord's?

------------

On another topic, I've noticed that lots of religious people like to put out the argument that the Bible is not meant to be literal in interpretation. For example, I was telling some female friends of mine not to speak at church, and they all came up with this same defence.

The obvious way to destroy their explanation is to identify their selective application of principles and point out their inconsistent approach to interpreting the Bible. It is easy to observe that people will believe what they want to believe, and therefore believe in bits of the Bible that serves their purpose - to perhaps support their weak mental and spiritual state.

------------

I'm not sure whether this point is relevant to your set of arguments, but I believe the theory that suggests that Christianity was used to control the masses is an extremely appealling one. The Bible tells people to respect the authority of those in power and at the same time, constantly tells them that suffering is 'deserved'.

------------

Anyway, these are points which I think would be of great addition to your site. Perhaps you'd like to include them somewhere.

In any case, this is a long enough email and I hope I haven't wasted your time on something you've considered before.

Kind regards,

V.

My Response:

Dear V.:

Please forgive the lateness of my reply. I will post your last letter on my feedback page.

I do not know if I will use any of your suggestions at this time. I think my next project (after switching to a different host and location) will be to write another article. Maybe something about the "soul".

But I thank you for your time.

Nathan

Received 02-27-02
From Darvan Shovas, darvan@flashmail.com
Subject: Contradicting resurrection stories

Hello estle,

Regarding the Easter Challenge. I agree the stories contradict(although not in all the places). The most glaring are the meeting in a mountain in Galilee and whether it was one angel, two angels or whatnot at the tomb.

However, I think this all is besides the point viewed in the context of the books and thoughts they were written in.

This will put it clearer than I can: http://www.lotc.org/lounge/sermon/prov_resurect.html

--
Best regards,
Darvan

My Response:

Dear Darvan:

The link you gave me contained a very unconvincing set of arguments. First, while the author admits that Mary Magdalene's testimony is unreliable, this is considered proof of its validity. Whuh?

Second, Mary would not be the one on the stand in our fictional trial. The author of John, whoever that was, would be on the stand. And as soon as he attempted to relate what happened, he would be dismissed. Hearsay would not be allowed. Nowhere, in any of the four Gospels, does an author say, "I saw this. I was there." Nor do any of them say things like: "Mary Magdalene told me she saw...." We have no idea how many people these stories passed through before they were written down, nor do we know which parts were simply made up. (Except for, of course, the obvious concoctions like the Augustan census.)

Third, the author must resort to special pleading. They are meant as encouragement, we are told. Isn't it also important if the supposed resurrection actually happened? Isn't it important to know if Jesus really was a divine messenger who came back from the dead or just a crazy like most people at the time (including his family) thought?

In the end, one of the standard old Christian catch-22's is employed. For proof of the resurrection, we must first believe. Once we believe, it becomes perfectly obvious how it all happened. With unflinching, unequivocal faith, all those pesky questions will just fade away. At least this I can agree with.

But for me, the contradictions remain.

Nathan Estle

Received 03-19-02
From Sam Jr., Sammorjr@aol.com
Subject: Return of the amateur atheologian

Hey Nathan,

I was glad to see you're still around.(I linked to you from another young man's atheist site) I'm the amateur atheologian on your 2nd feedback page. (Using different screen name now). I loved "Site Caveat" and "Credophilia"; hated "Hoplophobia". I sure hope that episode didn't get you into too much trouble or hurt your career. (At my workplace --local government-- I would be fired and given a _very_ bad reference no appeal no second chance no feel-goodsy meetings with HR women) And you don't need an AK with a 30-round banana magazine for home defense.But I digress. . .

I really liked "Caveat" and "Credophilia". I tend to believe that "atheists"-turned-religious were never really atheists-- merely people with emotional baggage angry at luck, the world, and at their god(s). Gods really annoy me, because they only bless some people sometimes when they're lucky, and often do nothing about evil and suffering. As for astrology, I agree with you 100%. A little off-subject, when I was a teenager and young man, "what's your sign?" was a very explicit sexual come-on -- it was almost the equivalent of "let's f---". So for that and other reasons I won't ask what's your astrological sign! Enough for now.

SAM Jr

My Response:

Dear Sam:

I put "Hoplophobia" on my site because I just couldn't keep it inside. I had to write about it that day or I was going to go mad. Then, I wanted to get it out there. I'll be the first to admit that it doesn't really fit with the rest of my site, but I never expected a response of hatred. You hated it? Sam, you wouldn't happen to be hoplophobic, would you? They say the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem... :)

No, no. I'd better digress. I could write a book on this issue, and once I get started I just can't stop. By the way, I wouldn't worry too much about my career, etc. If you noticed, I was very careful to not use the company name. Someone could find out the name if they really wanted to, but I am not directly cursing my employer to the whole world.

If asking for someone's sign had the same meaning today, perhaps I wouldn't be so offended by it--at least it would also have a practical use.

Nathan

Post Scriptum: You said that an AK w/ 30-rd. mag. is not necessary for home defense. Do you have another suggestion (I am legitimately interested)?

2nd Letter:

Hey Nathan,

Maybe "hated" was a poor choice of words-- but I really didn't like your piece on hoplophobia.And no, I am not a hoplophobe-- I have 3 firearms: one is an antique single-shot 12 gauge shotgun.The others are a small-caliber pistol (.32) and a short pistol-grip pump shotgun.I recommend a short shotgun for home defense, and so do police in North Carolina.A high-powered rifle is likely to cause collateral casualties so say police. (High-powered rifle projectiles travel for miles and are still deadly at long ranges) Keep the AK if you want to target practice on a closed range, but it's not what you need for home defense. *** I certainly don't hate you-- I love young adults who are atheist-deist-freethinker-skeptic.I live near NC State University and have befriended many young adults over the years. I used to go down to Hillsborough Street and debate the street preachers but they don't show up any more when they think I'm coming. I wonder why. If you really want some excitement, find a 45-55-year-old woman and ask "what's your sign?" I'll call it a night for now-- I have to get up unusually early to let in a serviceman. I'll be back.

SAM Jr

My Response:

Sam:

I don't know about a shotgun for home defense. I won't deny the close-range power, but the pump action seems to me like an unecessary delay. The ideal gun for self/home defense, according to almost everyone, is the traditional revolver. It's light weight, easy to handle and take care of, and can fire as fast as your trigger finger. Plus, if a round is a dud, you just pull the trigger again--a distinct advantage over semi-auto pistols.

The explanation would be long and boring, so let's just say that the senario of the marauding rifle round is not a concern. I have thought about it, but it simply does not apply in my present circumstance. And at home my magazine is full of hollow points, not the full metal jacket rounds I use at the range. That pretty much eliminated any lingering hesitations on my part. (The mind can come up with some truly ridiculous scenarios involving flying bullets.)

It may be a little overkill (pun intended) to have an Ak/30 rd mag. for home defense. But in a desperate situation, I would rather have too much. No one would want to come up short.

Take care,

Nathan

3rd Letter:

Hey Nathan,

Well said. If a crook is busting in, and the first thing I could get my hands on was a high-powered rifle I would do it.(I had my late father's 30-30 deer hunting rifle for a while but sold it to a deer hunter. I myself am not a hunter). Right now my pump shotgun and my .32 revolver are equally handy. I'd draw the pistol first.Be safe and don't get yourself mistaken for a bad guy-- when the cops arrive, they don't just walk up to people with guns and ask if you're the good guy or the bad guy.When they arrive, they don't know.

The quality and content of your atheism site is obviously that of a nice and smart young man. I hope I can correspond with you some more about atheism and skepticism. Again, I love atheist/agnostic/skeptical young adults. I still think "sweet little old ladies" and some others such as poor common laborers still need their gods, but I don't need them. I've never found gods to be very reliable. Right now I'm taking counsel with 2 wannabe ex-Baptists and trying to help them with the "what-if willies". (Many,if not most people are superstitious about critically examining religion). May I refer them to your site?

SAM Jr

My Response:

Sam:

Please refer anyone you like. And don't be a stranger yourself.

Nathan

4th Letter:

Hey Nathan,

Doesn't it feel good to be off the subject of hoplophobia? It sure does for me. I'm making some good progress with one of my would-be ex-Baptists-- but do you realize how hard it is to get the baptist out of a Southern Baptist? The more progressive one can now comfortably critically examine religion and admit that Adam and Eve are not real historical persons. The other is unchurched but uncomfortable and changes the subject a lot.Do you ever challenge religious people? I'm sure you have a very busy life as a student coop.I'm a utility operator and I really annoy the mechanics by not producing anything a mechanic can see and touch. I'm also very outspoken about all the god-talk in the news since September 11. Strangely, I'm rather well-thought-of in the workplace. Maybe it's because I've convinced the right people that atheists don't hate God . I had better call it a night for now.

SAM Jr

Received 03-24-02
From Alan Waggoner, srvafool@flash.net
Subject: Did God create evil?

I have only had time to go over your article about God creating evil. I'll check the others later.

I think you'll find this site most informative if you're really looking for an answer to this question.

http://bible-truths.com/

Best regards,

Alan Waggoner

My Response:

Dear Alan:

Normally I hate when people send me links, because usually it is referencing loads and loads of weak arguments that they themselves have never read. The same is true here, except that the arguments are not bad (within the context of Christianity, which is assumed to be true).

The wonderfully ironic thing is that I do not disagree with anything on the good/evil page (http://bible-truths.com/part4.htm). The author here shows how God intended for evil and Satan to exist, as part of some plan. He even mocks free will, a different but related subject. Other than the implied truth of Christianity, I agree with everything on this page. What, exactly, were you trying to do here?

I am left to wonder if you ever read my article or this one. I fail to see how a person could reference one as a counter to the other.

Sincerely,

Nathan Estle

2nd Letter:

I referenced it because it did agree with you. When I read your article (I found it when I did a Yahoo search on "God create evil") I had to send you a Christian link that agreed with you. God uses evil for good. There is no denying that God created evil. You seem to reject salvation and Christ because of the contradictions in classic Christendom. ie Why would God create evil only to stand by and watch most of humanity embrace it and then send them to burn. The Bible says that ALL will be saved. Not just a select few. All. (I Corinthians 3:15)There are no exceptions. Some(the chosen) will be saved before the first death. The rest, after the first death.

Anyway, Have a great week Nathan.

When I get a chance, I'll go read some more.

Alan Waggoner

My Response:

Dear Alan:

All that is well and good, but if you check back to my "Evil" writing you will see that I do not use it as some atheistic "proof" or anything similar. I only wanted to show that logically, necessarily, the Judeo-Christian and Islamic god is quite different than most followers think. It would appear, as I expected, that there are more than a few Christians out there capable of drawing such simple, linear conclusions. After all, I was one of them for a brief time.

As far as the writing went, that was it. I also whined a little bit about how such a deity is less than appealing, but that was a side note.

I do not reject this supposed "salvation" and the person whom you call "Christ". Rejection would imply some acknowledgment of their existence, which has never been satisfactorily proven to me.

My disbelief is for a variety of reasons, not just the rampant textual and theological contradictions. You can explore some of those reasons on my site at your leisure.

Nathan

Received 05-22-02
From Edward Blazer, eblazer@u.washington.edu
Subject: More Atheism Chew

If the Christian faith states that you have to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, then what about all the Eskimos, Asians, etc. who have never even heard his name? Are they going to be damned to hell? How could a merciful and loving God do that to His children?

I am a Christian. Unfortunately my Faith is tested every day with 'devils advocate' thoughts such as these. I say 'unfortunately' because the intelligence i've been blessed with is what creates this inner dilema. To be rid of these thoughts, I could abandon my intelligence and go by blind faith as other Christians do (you refer to this as a 'cop-out'), but to abandon my intelligence is to abandon all that is logical and furthermore abandon something that some would debate has been given to me. But something within me prevents me from even trying to abandon my faith. Trying to get a grasp on this 'something' is what I find hard. It's this something that tells me there is an order to this universe and that all the beauty in this world had to have been designed. My intelligence and logic can't grapple this something.

So how does a Christian like me deal with this? I've come to one simple conclusion. Call it a 'cop-out' if you will, but I think you'll agree with me: Religion isn't logical.

Now if Religion isn't logical, then we should give it up.

But wait. There's tons of other crap in the world that doesn't make ANY logical sense at all either. Love isn't logical, yet people feel it. Some can try to boil love down to something as simple as a chemical reaction in the brain. But doing so makes it sound dull, unimportant, and boring. And who can deny the feelings within that we have for other people in our lives? I certainly can't.

So, some people in this world have feelings inside (much like love) that provide them with their faith. Maybe it's a chemical reaction, maybe it's something more... we (you and I) just don't know. But we do know that it isn't logical. Does the absence of a logical explanation provide a good enough reason to give up on something? Not many people give up on love. A lot more people don't give up on relgion.

Eddie B.

P.S. Liked your website. I stumbled upon it looking for a definition to 'hoplophobia' and liked the story I found :)

My Response:

Dear Eddie:

Well, I can only say I wish more of the letters I receive from Christians were as concise and thought-provoking as yours. You must indeed be a gun rights man.

I'll agree with the premise that Christianity is illogical if we mean senseless and contradictory, and that emotions are illogical in the sense of being without a strictly logical source, but I think you are reaching a bit after that.

People feel emotions, and they "feel" God, and I don't doubt it. I've felt both, although I now question the true source of the latter. Emotions are reactions to stimuli, and to the surprises of life. (Another reason why it would be impossible for an all-knowing god to get "angry"--nothing could shock or surprise him.) It may be unfair to reduce them to chemistry, but they are strictly internal nonetheless.

I see a big difference between emotions and theism, primarily because one claims a foreign source, and asserts an objective reality. You'll never hear someone say that Lord Anger took hold of him, or that he felt the presence of Count Embarrassment, who lives in the Humility Clouds. Young lovers don't believe that something outside themselves drew them to each other--both would surely acknowledge that they each had a strong, favorable internal reaction to the other. Indeed, love sometimes goes one way.

Plus, how does one "give up" on emotions? Stop feeling them? Saying that the god of my parents doesn't exist and never could, because of countless impossibilities, is something all together different.

In short, we're talking apples and oranges, and analogies seldom hold up when taken further than the original argument (even mine!). An analysis of emotions with respect to religion can have merit in some form, or be applied to other topics. For example, I would bet that highly emotional people are very likely to be religious, buy into New Age silliness, be vegetarians, or favor gun control.

Nathan

P.S. If you're still looking for an in-depth definition of "hoplophobia", I would go to the source--Jeff Cooper--who came up with it in the early 70's. He writes about it here: http://www.brassroots.org/library/hoplopho.htm

2nd Letter:

Nathan,

I completely agree that my analogous use of emotions was definately a stretch. But I think you understood my point: Faith is a feeling. I constantly criticise other Christians who don't excercise their feelings of faith. Because if you don't 'feel' God, then under what premise could one ever believe in Him? Surely not logic!! Maybe creationism? Not likely. There's ample scientific information in this world that disputes creationism (i'm not saying i'm an evolutionist).

I also agree that Christianity can be very contradictory; the opening thoughts on my last e-mail made that clearly evident. But feelings (oh no, the 'feelings analogy' again) too, can be contradictory. i.e. love/hate relationships, confusion, etc.

Anyway, this is something I'm always thinking about. Perhaps I'll keep you updated on my progress through this puzzle. Feel free to write me if you have any revelations or other discoveries you wish to share.

Off Subject

Yea, I'm a gun rights guy. I don't own any yet, mainly because of monetary reasons. I plan on buying a Benelli Shotgun as my first, because of defense reasons (camping). With as little practice as I get shooting a gun, a shotgun will be highly more effective and more forgiving of my poor aim when I need it most. I'm also wanting a Beretta .40. You have any experience with either of these? Any recomendations or thoughts that would provide advice to a first time gun buyer?

Eddie

My Response:

Dear Eddie:

I agree completely that the key to believing in Christianity is that God-feeling. No moderately intelligent person thinks the theology is consistent or logical. I suppose the only real question is about trust. When it comes to understanding the universe around you, do you place your trust in your feelings or your God-given reasoning?

About guns, I own that AK, as you already know, and I recently bought a Glock 23C, the medium-size .40 carried by the local police force (and many others around the country). I chose it for that reason. There is a presumption of reliability and stopping power when a gun has been approved by people who must trust their lives to it. This will be my carry gun, just as soon as my carry permit arrives in the mail.

It might be a bit expensive for you, though. I think the gun alone (no ammo, holster) cost about $610--on sale. Being a bit of a novice myself, I can only say what I have done, not what others should do in their circumstances. One of the websites I visit daily, www.keepandbeararms.com, has a great article about buying a first handgun (near top of page). I wound up not doing what the article said, but I was better informed.

Nathan

Received 07-21-02
From Matt, Tvlampboy@aol.com
Subject: Atheism Page

Nathan:

Great page! It's nice to know (especially here in the heart of the Bible Belt, Oklahoma City) that there are other thoughtful infidels out there who share my disdain for the ghosts and goblins that plague our species. Keep up the good work!

Regards,
Matt

No response given.

Received 07-22-02
From Paleyame@aol.com
Subject: what an old-earth creationist happened to tell me

hello!
this email has two purposes, one of which is to thank you for the wonderful website and tell you how i happened to agree, AND understand every point you made.
when i first became an atheist i was actually a little ... uhh... disappointed on myself i guess. i'd always think "i'd rather be happy and blind than see things as they really are, but be unhappy because of that". i thought so because i felt i was the only one, but i've seemed to find a lot of people who share opinions with me, and now i'm very happy with who i am, and what i know, and desire to learn more. so thank you.
the other thing i wanted to say in this email, is...
well first of all, you need to know i usually go on christian chat rooms to discuss their religion and try to get them to notice their charlatan god and UNholy bible... but it never seems to work. well, i don't care, i will still do this, because i get some positive income out of it. this being what I learn about their opinions, and to what point they will defend their stupid ideas.
and it's just like you said and i was just thinking about that before even visiting your website, people first decide the bible is right, and then they find the evidence. well, if one works this way, it's not very hard to find evidence, because things can be changed in order to fit in, and other things can simply be thrown away.
so, well, this is what happened when i was talking to one rather patient christian. the only one in the chat room who didn't start ignoring me after noticing i wouldn't stop questioning their UNholy bible.
he happened to be a theology graduate (it amazes me how people who study history, theology, psychology, geology, and things like that, can STILL believe in the bible... some of them, STRONGLY... actually it amazes me ANYONE can believe in the bible now-a-days)...
well, i'll stop writing so much and just get to the point.
he believed in the creation as the bible states, BUT since it's a little obvious the earth IS NOT six, OR seven, OR eight, OR nine, OR ten thousand years old, a few people, including him, believe the creation days were a little longer... and that before the section of the genesis in which god created man and animals and bla bla bla, that there was a looooong period of time uncovered by the bible.
funny, right? god created the earth, light, and bla bla bla... then he goes take a rest, and a few millions of years later he wakes up and decides "you know what? let's create some animals down there!"
actually, everything about the bible- mostly genesis and apocalypse- is a joke... a very, very funny joke.
i, myself, could find countless and unexplainable contradictions there, countless imoralities, and countless jokes... and i'm only 15 years old, and don't know much about the bible...
i don't know if you already knew about this explanation of the creation (you probably did!), but well, just so you know how those people are improving their excuses to make the bible SOUND right...
thanks for the time, and excuse me now, i'm going to finish reading the website
:o)

No response given.

Received 07-24-02
From Justin Guyett, justin@soze.net
Subject: religion/firearms

Interesting page. FYI it's the first hit on google for "hoplophobia" [:)]

It's too bad about that ak. I hope you never get rid of it. I'm not sure what website you were referring to, but if you're not already a member, might I suggest www.thefiringline.com ?

I just have one complaint about your response to Nathan. Editorial Note: I am Nathan, the response was to my cousin Matt. Honest mistake.

"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."

I don't think that's logical. You can't define religion as a search for truth when that truth may be that religion (in any form, even including religion defined as a search for truth) is destructive and antisocial. You also ignore that there may in fact be a deity who is evil, and is therefore misleading those who are religious, making them fight each other and generally causing catastrophic social rifts. Why would a god have to be well-meaning?

justin

My Response:

Dear Justin:

Please forgive the lateness of my reply. The end of the university's summer semester is nearing, and I have been swamped.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you offered. But the quote you referenced must be taken in context. It was in a reply to my cousin Matt, a lifelong member of the LDS Church (Mormons). That quote, and most of my reply, was very passive and measured, because we are talking about family. Were someone else to offer me the "get on your knees" challenge (for the 56,347th time), I probably would have been less than cordial.

The intended purpose was to point out that part of the reason he holds his particular beliefs is that he thinks they offer him some insight into reality, or some knowledge that others don't have. That is, it is not a belief to him; it is how things really are. The point of the paragraph was: Maybe you are right, and things are exactly as you say they are. 1. I'll not deny "reality" if there is some actual evidence of it. 2. Even if you're right, it still doesn't sound like a good proposition to me.

Hope this answers any questions.

Nathan

P.S. The AK will be passed down to my future children or be pulled out from under my corpse by the storm troopers (foreign or domestic) that take me out. :)

Received 10-16-02
From Johanna Wolf, johanna@wwdb.org
Subject: feedback to atheism article

Hi,
I did accidentally stumble upon your site and I see that you make a lot of great points and have a lot of really good questions. It sounds like you've never had any satisfactory answers and that your objections stem from a lack of understanding the nature of God. I would suggest you take on the heavier hitters. Os Guinness is an excellent source as is Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith". Chat-room Christians are just like any other chat-room geeks. If you're honestly looking for answers, they are out there but it may involve changing some basic presuppositions.

regards,

J. W.

My Response:

Dear Johanna:

I have held as a tenet for some time that I will not read books suggested to me, and I never suggest them to others. And it is not out of some "you can't tell me what to do" reaction. I find it to be a lazy form of argument that presumes the opponent's ignorance, e.g. "What? You haven't read all forty-seven of my pet books? Then how can you possibly know what you're talking about? Go read those books, then we can chat."

I have also said in an e-mail exchange with Frankie T. (Francis Thomas D Ocoma, whom I had a looooong conversation with on the site) the following: "No, no. I am not doing the work for you. Either you can make a case for your faith or not. I will not sift through volumes of agonizing text to be told that I must have read it wrong because I still consider it garbage." I love that line. It is also possible that I would be called upon to counter everything in this theoretical book, point by point.

Naw, that's too much trouble. If someone has an argument to make, borrowed or not, they can make it.

But this doesn't mean I don't do any Christian reading. I have been trying for months to get through C.S.Lewis's vaunted Mere Christianity, only to throw it down in disgust, time and again, for its outrageous howlers and logical fallacies. So you see, I can't handle any more Christian books right now anyway.

Nathan

Received 10-23-02
From Michael Pudney, pudneymj@senet.com.au
Subject: reconciling the 4 gospels

hello,
I don't think it is necessry to reconcil the different accounts written in each of the gospels.I do not think that they were meant to be compared that way.They are each a self contained account of the story and teachings of Jesus.There are 4 there to choose from...my favourite is John.If they were meant to agree totally with each other then somebody would have "doctored "them to do so a long time ago...what we have in these books are books that belonged to separate Christian communities,for example the gospel of john was used by the Johannine community as their sacred text.In fact I would be suspicious if they did all agree with each other.Not agreeing with each other does not in my view diminish the 'truths' contained in each of them.
michael

My Response:

Michael:

I don't know that I would agree with the assertion that these books would have been doctored to agree with each other. Some doctoring has occurred, like the addition of a 21st chapter to your favorite gospel, but the vast and fundamental changes that would have needed to take place for agreement was never feasible--the stories were spread too far to be controlled in that way.

So instead, the Church has asserted, and its sheep have repeated, the fanciful nonsense that they all offer a different perspective, or they don't really contradict, or some variation on the "4 witnesses to a car accident" analogy. None of that changes the fact that they do contradict. Some contain details that not only cast doubt on another version, but make it downright impossible. For example, Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away. Was the stone rolled away before or after the women arrived? Mark and Luke say before. Matthew says after. They can't all be right.

What truths am I to find? Certainly not factual, historical truths. Metaphorical truths? Perhaps, but Dr. Seuss is a far better medium for conveying those, and it's not boring to read.

Nathan

Go to fourth Feedback page.
Return to first Feedback page.
Return to second Feedback page.
Return to main page.