Hate Mail** from Readers
[** Most of these aren't really Hateful, just Unfavorable]
(See also "Favorable Mail")
.
Note: If your name appears here and you don't want it to,
email me and it will be promptly removed.

Note: We don't really manage these comment pages anymore.
We set up the Ethical Atheist forum which seems to work better
for people commenting and getting a quick response.
So, please visit our Forums here.

Daniel
DAJUHAN@MSN.COM
Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:28 PM

To the Thoughtless in mind:

You have no right to compare people like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson to people like Osama Bin Laden!  Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have not to anyone's knowledge have masterminded or conspired to a 9/11 terrorist plot to date. Both (Falwell and Robertson) have contributed to the WORLD society through humanitarian aid and greatly I might add!  Atheists have done nothing but spread misinformation and hate! Bin Laden has contributed to terrorist actions and acts because he is a coward just like you all(atheists) and your web-site and the people who ignorantly support you!!  Another thing to add is how you use a kernal of truth and turn the topic in hand to a complete lie meaning the your TRUTHLESS LIE. This TRUE LIE you try to use as a means to deter people from the option of possibly believing in a higher power which is narrowmindedness on your part! The only people who even would believe you would be the YOUNG,IGNORANT,NON-SPIRITUAL, AND THE OVERALL STUPID!  Kinda sound like a cigarette executive behind the smokey scenes pushing a product harmful to the spiritual mankind and laughing about it!  You pathetic losers that you really are!  Too bad you have to use the "Jeff Rense" web-site!  <(Another loser is Jeff Rense and the misinformation and a purveyor of HATE with misinformation that he spreads to the gullible like the people who would give in to you LOSERS at anytime!) In the END we will know all the answers and you can't deny that!  The END justifies the MEANS and hopefully on your part you may be right?  But you won't know until you die first and we all have got to die sometime!  There is no escaping death on planet Terra(Earth).

Response from Ethical Atheist: Daniel,  While you attack atheists, you have totally ingored the similarities in our comparisons.  See:

  http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/falwell_bin_laden.html
  http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/sept11_first_anniv.html
  http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/separation_church_state.html

We stand by these analogies.  P.S. If you feel the ENDS justify the MEANS with regards to Falwell and Robertson, we couldn't disagree with you more.

Robertson wants to overthrow the U.S. Supreme Court, stating "termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be". He says it's time for a "godly fumigation." (1986)  He continues, "Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody.... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute.  Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious." (1992)

And, WE'RE the ones spreading hate?!  Take a look in the mirror...  Many define terrorism as the "promotion of violence and hatred against established institutions and governments".  This definition fits Robertson precisely as evidenced by the above quotes.  Just because his hatred is hidden in the veil of spiritual belief doesn't mean it's not terrorism.  Islamic extremism and terrorism is also carried out with religious justification.  If the shoe fits - wear it... even if it hurts.
 

Followup from Daniel

Oh really?  Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell both oppose the possible Iraqi war but yet they promote violence?  They have as much right as anyone else in this country to express their opinions!I'm not impressed try again!  If Atheism is so popular why do all the other World religions dominate in numbers compared to the Atheists?  You can't conquer the Human Spirit with your psuedo-intellectual non-sense. Famous Atheist Bertrand Russell flaunted his religion(Atheism), so  after he died he wouldn't be accountable for his
actions of sexually molesting all the little girls and boys that he did through the years! He chose not to follow a faith that would condemn his bisexual pedophilism!  On an ending note,there are too many intelligent people in this world who hold to a faith having a higher power!  More intelligent faith-based people than all Atheists combined!

Response from Ethical Atheist:  Your email promoted me to write another article specifically focused on Pat Robertson.  You might enjoy reading this because he's worse than Jerry Falwell.

Is Pat Robertson a Terrorist?
  http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/robertson_bin_laden.html


MarnieNo1@aol.com
Monday, January 27, 2003 11:01 AM

Atheist or Religious?  Religious, Catholic

I don't see how anyone does not believe in God, I suffered extemly [sic] over years, becasue [sic] of a disease, and I stil [sic] believe in him, so anyone can.  How could a cute little kitten be born, with such delicatly [sic] painted fur and exspressive [sic] eyes, each one unique, if there wasn't a God. Michael crawford says it all, "And He wil [sic] aise [sic] you up on Eagles wings,.."

Amom
Diamondgirl33853@yahoo.com
Friday, January 24, 2003 9:17 PM

Atheist or Religious?  Religous [sic] for what it matters

Dear Whoeverthehellyouare,

First of all let me express my utter confusion.. Ethical Atheist?? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? To my belief system it is anyway. Let me say that as someone who has lived in this "small town" for more than 20 years I find your little write up insulting. Both of my children went to Spook Hill Elementary as did their aunts, cousins, and I. None of us have ever been embarassed [sic] to admit such. In fact, my son, who attended Spook Hill Elementary, just graduated Suma [sic] Cum Laude from Yale University. At his graduation he gave a speech entitled "Roots, They Bring Us To Fruition" in which he espoused the benefits of his small town upbringing and his appreciation of concentrated attention at such a tender age. See, Mr. or Mrs. Ethical Atheist, we here in this small town enjoy our exclusivity. We do not seek tourism, although it finds us nevertheless. It finds us due to our natural beauties and anomalies, like Spook Hill, Bok Tower, Kissimmee St. Park, Walk In Water,River Ranch and the like.

My message is this: while you are out and about and reporting on your travels, please take time to consider that each community you visit is unique and individual and therefore beautiful. Find some beauty to report to the world. Otherwise,your time is wasted. I have visited Spook Hill many, many times in my time here and while the huge incline directly in front of you is deceiving, everything the accounts claim is true. Did your car not roll backwards uphill? Did you get out and place a ball at the foot of the hill? Did it not defy gravity? I have done just this on many occasions and every time , without fail..it has DEFIED GRAVITY! So, Mr. or Mrs. Ethical Athiest [sic] .. I suggest that your disbelief in diety [sic] has effected all other aspects of your judgement [sic]. Sign Me, Ethical Realist In Lake Wales, FL

Response from Ethical Atheist: Amon, No, "Ethical Atheist" is not a contradiction.  In fact, many atheists would argue that they are synonymous terms.  You say, "To my belief system it is (a contradiction) anyway."  Ethics and "belief" have nothing to do with each other.  Please look these terms up in your dictionary.  Or, read our page "What's an Ethical Atheist?" at http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/ethical_atheist.html.  We've provided the definition of ethics from Webster's Dictionary - it deals with morals, principals, right & wrong... nothing of belief or religion.  I believe your are confusing ethics with "sin" which is also defined on the page.

So, you grew up in Lake Wales, FL and all your family attended "Spook Hill Elementary"? (see: "Gravity Defying Spook Hill" at http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/spook_hill.html).  We're amazed to hear from someone in your community so soon!  We only wrote the article last month.  We didn't mean to imply that someone attending Spook Hill received a poor education.  Only that we believe students of a scientific and skeptical background might be embarrased to explain why the school is named "Spook Hill".  After all, Spook Hill is a complete hoax, don't you agree?  To have an educational institution named after a hoax is outrageous, in our opinion.  Our article did not degrade "small towns" or their benefits.  (Please read it again.)  We too grew up in small towns and loved it.  The only thing we said is that Spook Hill is a hoax and a tourist attraction, and we stand by that completely.  And, we would make similar comments about a "Bent Spoon Elementary" or an "Astrology Elementary".  You state that Lake Wales doesn't seek tourism?  Why, then, is the infamous hoax of Spook Hill in all the tourist information, right next to Disney, Universal and MGM?  Maybe "you" don't seek tourism, but all of the sites in Lake Wales you mentioned are in all the tourist information.  Maybe you should speak with your town leaders about why they promote it.  It seems to me that the fallacy of Spook Hill would have been pushed under the rug by your town a long time ago.

Lake Wales, FL has so much more to offer.  It doesn't need to rely on a scientific hoax to put its name on the map.  We thoroughly enjoyed the rest of our visit in and around your fine town.  By the way, Bok Tower and the gardens were beautiful and we would recommend them to anyone.  (P.S. You will soon find this correspondence at the bottom of our Spook Hill page.)


Kat
jadefairie420@yahoo.com
Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:29 AM

Atheist or Religious?  Neither

I tripped over your web site while surfing the net.  I am not religious, nor am I an atheist.  I do however find your statements offensive against those of faith.  I can totally understand your position on the whole God issue but must you resort to childish insults? The only ones this could possibly effect would be those of faith, if you don't believe so be it. Leave those who rely leavily [sic] upon they're faith to find their own truth. Legally they are barely permitted to speak their side of the topic, yet Non religious people can spout their theories endlessly with no repercussions.  What is the difference. A belief is a belief whether it be acceptance or denial. Grow Up!

Response from Ethical Atheist: We don't ask religious people to visit our site.  If they visit an atheist site, any atheist site, they will surely be offended by the truth.  We are equally offended when we visit many religious/creationist sites like http://www.drdino.com or http://www.ChristianAnswers.net.  It is pure insanity the things many religious people believe and, yes, it impacts us too.  It brainwashes our children, it infiltrates our government, it provides our tax dollars to religious groups, etc, etc.  You ask us to "Grow Up!"  But, we're not the ones believing in fairy tales.
ROBERT DAWKINS
PDAWKINS@AET.COM
Wednesday, January 22, 2003 7:44 AM

Atheist or Religious?  NIETHER  [sic]

You people are such wimps. You are a religion in itself.

Response from Ethical Atheist:  Believe it or not, we enjoy emails like this.  They give us a little chuckle in our otherwise serious day...
Austin Bazil
ccccbazil@hotmail.com
Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:47 AM

Atheist or Religious?  Religious

Here [sic] some food for thought. First of all we have free will. Sin is our fault not Gods. Are you the highest being? Where did we come from? Big band [sic], evolution, are you educated? Phisics [sic] don't lie. Where did the laws of the universe come from? People that call themselves Chrisitian sometimes are not. Thank those that have help [sic] make the world liberal, it has found its way into the church doors. Prove you [sic] science! You can't [sic] fossil records prove a young earth, have you been to a science class latley [sic]. Kent Hovind will debate any 4 or 5 of the people that you know and pay them all $100 dollars to do it in front of a crowd, and then sell the video just to show you what you belive [sic] is not science. I dare you, I challenge you put this on you [sic] website and tell people about drdino.com. I bet you won't. I will never make you belive [sic], but at least you shouldn't be so ignorant. Wow.

Response from Ethical Atheist: Austin,  Thank you for writing.  And, for your previous emails of a religious nature.  However, we have made a conscious decision not to spend our time on issues such as those you have brought up.  We are motivated now by our original commitment to ethics and atheism, evolution included.  Want to waste someone's time?...  Go waste the time of someone else...  We're on to "greener pastures" here.  Good Day!
Followup from Austin Bazil
Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:09 PM

Must be some truth in it. He changed state law with it. By the way you boy [sic] over in england punked out on you and said that evolution is a myth.  I will email you the quote tommorow.  I know science, and you are bluffing. Your site is funny. I would love to know where your education is from. The stuff on your site is dated by 40 years in some aspects.  LOL!  I will set up a public debate with you and Hovind if you want. If you have PHD he will pay you a $100 to do it. No cost to you, but he will tape it and sell the video after he makes you look really bad, and proves you wrong. http://ccccyouthgroups.tripod.com

Response from Ethical Atheist:  Austin, We will no longer be side-tracked by religious nonsense such as you promote.  We are on to "greener pastures" in exploring and documenting the concepts of ethics and atheism.  Good luck in your endeavors as I'm sure you wish us the same.  Believe it or not, we do not fault you for your beliefs.  Just don't try to force them on us and we will co-exists fine.
Followup from Austin Bazil
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:25 AM

Ok what about your own guys?  Are these guys stupid?  Ernst Mayr, the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist, calls evolution "man's world view today". 4  Sir Julian Huxley, probably the outstanding evolutionist of the twentieth century saw "evolution as a universal and all-pervading process"  5 and, in fact, nothing less than "the whole of reality". 6 A leading evolutionary geneticist of the present day, writing an obituary for Theodosius Dobzhansky, who himself was probably the nation's leading evolutionist at
the time of his death in 1975, says that Dobzhansky's view of evolution followed that of the notorious Jesuit priest, de Chardin.

The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: '(Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.’ 7 The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following conclusion.

In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. 8 The man whom Dobzhansky called "France's leading zoologist", although himself an evolutionist, said that scientists should "destroy the myth of evolution" as a simple phenomenon which is "unfolding before us". 9 Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth". 10 In another address he called evolution "story-telling". 11 All of the above-cited authorities are (or were) among the world's foremost authorities on evolutionism. Note again the terms which they use in describing evolution.

Response from Ethical Atheist:  See previous responses...
Followup from Austin Bazil
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:25 AM

I do here is some.  Of the sixty important scientific discoveries and accomplishments which were chosen, only six could be regarded as related in any way to evolutionist thought. These six were as follows:

(1). 1927. Discovery that radiation increases mutation rates in fruit flies.
(2). 1943. Demonstration that nucleic acids carry genetic information.
(3). 1948. Enunciation of the "big bang" cosmology.
(4). 1953. Discovery of the "double helix" structure of DNA.
(5). 1961. First step taken in cracking the genetic code.
(6). 1973. Development of procedures for producing recombinant DNA molecules.
Four of these six "highlights" are related to the structure and function of DNA. Even though evolutionists have supposed that these concepts somehow correlate with evolution, the fact is that the remarkable DNA molecule provides strong evidence of original creation (since it is far too complex to have arisen by chance) and of conservation of that creation (since the genetic code acts to guarantee reproduction of the same kind, not evolution of new kinds). One of the two other highlights showed how to increase
mutations but, since all known true mutations are harmful, this contributed nothing whatever to the understanding of evolution. One (the "big bang" concept) was indeed an evolutionary idea but it is still an idea which has never been proved and today is increasingly being recognized as incompatible with basic physical laws.

Consequently, it is fair to conclude that no truly significant accomplishment of modern science either depends on evolution.

Response from Ethical Atheist:  See previous responses...
Austin Bazil
ccccbazil@hotmail.com
Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:33 AM

Atheist or Religious?  Religious

To be an Atheist is religious it is a belif [sic]. Go to Drdino.com to get some real science. Evolution breaks laws of phisics [sic] and cannot be. I believe in God, Atheist [sic] that belive [sic] in evolution belive [sic] in dirt. Not science. IT is a faith issue. No science has ever backed up evolution. If you think you have some you can get $250,000 from kent hovind. Although he has been debateing [sic] and convicing the smartest people in science for the last 10 years. Besides evolution is full of racisim. Read Darwin's book, I mean come on. I dare you to study it carefully.

Response from Ethical Atheist: You want "real" science?  Go anywhere but Drdino.com.  It's full of garbage science fabricated by creationists.  You say atheists "believe in dirt"???  We must correct you.  Supposedly, God create Adam by breathing life to dirt.  Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe Man was created by an evolutionary process spanning many millions of years all the way back to the "primordial ooze".  Would you rather be created from primordial life or from dirt?  The question is up to you...  P.S. The $250,000 claim from Kent Hovind is a fraud!
Jan
jchestnutt@webtv.net
Monday, December 30, 2002 7:08 PM

Atheist or Religious?  Christian

The great behemoth at the end of Job will not be an animal at all.  It is human, very human, has all of the characteristics of the behemoth, and will know all of the truths of end times, and will be very aware and vocal of the pride that consumes most people, and will preach adamantly against it.  A real person.  It will draw its strength from its tribulations, which have caused injury in his hip, his back, his throat and his belly.  The tail like a cedar is from an accident where the tail bone, (s1) has been fused the the vertebrae (L5) the back of this person has also been fused, and it has broken a hip somewhere along the line.  This person smokes, and has a very loud voice.  This person will be the King over all the children of pride, during end of times.  I know, for I am 'he'.  You complain of translation.  The original translation of the great behemoth changes the gender to a female, with one broken hip and vertebrae that are stuck together, letting no air through.  A fused back.  Real Person.  Trust me.

Response from Ethical Atheist: Hmmm.... Thanks for your email.
Juan U Kuchimpos
kuchimpos@fastmail.fm
Monday, December 23, 2002 7:58 PM

Atheist or Religious?  Religious

I hope you read some of my answers [REGARDING "QUESTIONS FOR GOD"].  I don't claim to have all the answers.  But let me ask you... What is your hope?  Without God, there is no hope left.  Why are you here on earth?  Who brought you?  Why you haven't been born in 1200 or 1800 - why now?  Who command it?  Strange uhhhhh why 2 genders?  Male and female?  Why not more?  Why not 4 or 5 different ones?  Wouldn't be better who decided 2 genders.  Try now to think another gender different from male and female.  Why you been born in America and others in africa?  Who is behind everthing?  If there is no GOD, then let's go out and cheat on our wives and steal from banks and even if we go to jail (some countries you can get away really easy from the law and justice believe me)...  Why we don't do that?  You see, atheist has many questions and no answers.  An atheist is a person all dressed up and nowhere to go.....no hope....why you love your kids?  Where that love comes from?  Explain to me.  Maybe that love comes from GOD.  You are fighing against who????????   Against GOD, then there is a GOD, so there is an intelligence behind everything???  It requires more faith not believing in GOD than believing.  I want you to take me to a laboratory, empty, with no chemicals and I will sit there with you waiting for a explosion to come.  If that happen I will become an atheist and if explosion comes and want to see babies been born, and flowers, and animals and water and air, and stars and the moon and the sun because of that explosion... Sound stupid, not!  Well, that's what atheism is for me stupid, to think everything come from nothing, and perfect so in order.  Hell is real, heaven is real, God is real, even if you don't like it.  How do you explain to a blind how light is when he never saw light.  The same with you guys  Blind leading the blind.  Believe me there is someone out there.  I saw atheists  dying in such a agony, trembling and fearful, and i saw Christians dying with such a peace and joy.  It's your choice.  In hell don't blame God... Blame yourself.  Want to know the truth?  Start talking to God even if you don't believe in him and you see how real he will become to you.  Then, read the bible, not looking for discrepancies.  Search the scriptures like a beggar looks for food, you need salvation.  Read the bible and the bible will point you the way...... GOD BLESS YOU.....

  juan u kuchimpos
  kuchimpos@fastmail.fm

Response from Ethical Atheist: O.K.  Whatever...
Sean Graeme
MIckCollin@aol.com>
Saturday, November 16, 2002 6:05 PM

Atheist or Religious?  Religious

It's called faith...you either have it or don't...it's as simple as that...and it has nothing to do with good or bad things that happen on earth.

Response from Ethical Atheist:  Thanks for you view.  Unfortunately, we don't share it.
Erin Anderson
e_scoop@yahoo.com
Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:59 AM

Atheist or Religious?  Neither

Your comments about the billboards are neither well-researched nor well-documented rebuttals, but merely overly simplistic catty responses. It's a shame you can't come up with a more intelligent response to spur on further discussion.

Response from Ethical Atheist:  That page wasn't intended to be "well-researched" or "well-documented".  It wasn't really intended to solicit serious rebuttals either.  That's why the page is in the humor section.  The billboards are ridiculously silly and, in our opinion, deserve nothing better than 'catty' responses.
Greg
gregoryj34@yahoo.com
Sunday, November 10, 2002 8:53 PM

Atheist or Religious?  Yes

You are going to feel awefully stupid on your judgement day.

Response from Ethical Atheist:  We don't believe in a "judgment day".  You may feel 'awfully stupid' to know you
that you misspelled 2 out of 11 of your words to us...  awefully? (awfully) judgement? (judgment)  You should use your spell checker before you write someone about how "stupid" they are...
Concerned One
lumpy_goose@yahoo.com
Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:35 AM

Atheist or Religious?  does not matter

1.)  To be an atheist one has to believe in deity of self.  The self has to be all-knowing.  You have to know everything to say that God does not exist.  You have to have been throughout every reach of the universe.  this is not possible.  You should change the name to Ethical Agnostic.

2.)  The questions for God are brought from a humanly standpoint.  Finite minds have not right to question One with infinite knowledge.  You guys have seen poor religion at best, and the only religion attacked is Christianity.  Why no attacks on Islam or Buddhism or Hindu?  Why no attack on agnostics?  You guys are just a bunch of people who do not know what they are talking about and need to just cease to exist as an organization.  You are agnostics who claim to be without knowledge.  Peace out.

Response from Ethical Atheist: In our opinion, finite minds do have the right, and the obligation, to question all of the supposed gods that man has believed in over the ages.  Your point that our name should be "Ethical Agnostic" is a good one.  We actually considered this because it probably is more accurate.  However, we went with "Ethical Atheist" because it has more punch. :)
{name & address withheld by request}
Saturday, November 02, 2002 12:42 PM

Atheist or Religious?  Christian Theist

You ask for people to answer your questions. That is the cheap way, or the lazy way, to do it. Go buy some books on the subject and draw your own conclusions rather than asking "people" to challenge your own morality.

I can offer a few books for you to read.

  #1 The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
  #2 Systematic Theology by Norman Geisler
  #3 Get a bible and begin to read it.

I'm not saying this to you in a hateful way, quite the contrary. I used to be an Atheist. I found that I came to my "beliefs" the lazy way. I just kind of went with what felt good without objectively researching both sides.

Do it and you may amaze yourself.

Response from Ethical Atheist: Oh, we've read many books.  Problem is, the answers are there... or at least answers that make any sense to a non-skeptic.  I've personally read #1 & #3 on your list (above).  "The Case for Faith" was beyond belief.  My mother gave me this book trying to convert me and it didn't work.  Does this book really make sense to you?  It's a bunch of irrelevant information with respect to answering any real questions.  We actually plan to do a book review of this book someday, but have not found the time.  Thank you for your comments though.  We do appreciate views from both sides.
Followup from {address withheld by request}
Friday, November 22, 2002 8:12 PM

Ethical,  If you've read the books then, you're searching. As 38 year old ex-money worshipping, former skeptic and atheist I can totally empathize with your position. There seems to be great amounts of data out there that may indicate evolution to be the only explanation.  I found that when I got into the meat of the issue the evolutionist's theory required 100x more faith than creation.

Moreover, when I started investing serious amounts of time researching the subject from a scientific, philosophical and theological research base, my conclusion changed my life. Open your heart, get in a good bible based church and think objectively.

If you would like any data feel free to ask.  Regards, {address withheld by request}

Response from Ethical Atheist:  Uhm... thanks, but no thanks.  We appreciate your concern, but don't agree with you conclusions or direction.
Todd H.
toddabq@yahoo.com
Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:44 PM

Atheist or Religious? Religious ex-Atheist

I've been involved in a lengthy debate with an atheist friend over the religionist/atheist issue.  I came to your website looking for more background material, hoping to understand my friend better.  Mostly what I've learned from your site is that atheists like best of all to make fun of religionists.  It looks like in order to bolster your view, you need to rely on religious people who make fools of themselves.  That kind of bully tactic is too easy, shows a weakness on your part, and I hope your readers don't buy it.  If you want to argue against religion, you should argue not against the Jerry Falwells, the mentally unstable, and the tackiness of much of "popular religion" alone (many religionists do the same as the atheists on these counts)-- you should also argue against the great theologians and religious intellectuals who are capable of defending themselves.  Again, I was hoping for better from your site, especially since you use "ethical" in your title.  One of the atheists who wrote in, whom you praised, referred to believers as "the little people."  That arrogant comment sounds remarkably like Leona Helmsley when she said the same thing about taxpayers.  We all cringed at that, too.

At the bottom of your web page you have a quotation that says:

"In my examination, I've determined that I cannot prove God doesn't exist,
 yet I can question Gods existence due to the many contradictions surrounding
 the teachings of the Bible, my observations of humanity and events that occur around me,
 the contradictions among religions, the laws of science and the
 historical atrocities committed in the name of God.
         - Ethical Atheist (Sept 14, 2001)

Is this what your website is holding up as the "atheist's view"?  Again, I was hoping you could do better.

First, Biblical contradictions and the science argument:
Anybody with a science background knows there are plenty of contradictions in science, and arguments among scientists, even if you remove all "creationists" from the debate and look only at atheist scientists (for the sake of argument).  To disprove an existing scientific theory and replace it with one's own is the dream of many scientists.  That's part of scientific progress and what makes science exciting.  So if you're looking for a system that's free of contradictions, don't go looking to science.  The teachings of the Bible are certainly no more rife with contradictions than science (probably less so).  Science is unconcerned with spiritual matters, or ethics, for that matter.  Remember that scientists are responsible for making bigger and "better" weapons of mass destruction.

Second, the contradictions among religions:
Some atheists I know claim this as a reason for being a non-believer: since various religions tell conflicting stories, the stories can't be trusted, they can't all be "right."  Only a literalist atheist or a religious fundamentalist would think this way.  These atheist friends value diversity in many things (biology, race, linguistics), but not religious diversity.  That seems kind of small and unfair.  Why not have diversity among religions?  I'm sure even atheists have views that conflict with other atheists.  Scientists have arguments with other scientists.  Why should religionists be deprived of their diversity and right to disagree?

Third, the behavior of religious people calls God into question:
How can this connection be made?  How can the existence of God depend on how religionists behave?  The two should have nothing to do with each other.  It's as if atheists who reason this way would be happy to believe in God if all believers were perfect people, or at least never did anything wrong.  That should blow the wind out of any atheist's sail right there, if s/he realized there were conditions under which s/he *would* believe.  It points to some kind of magical (and very unscientific) thinking, that the expectation atheists have from religion is that it should somehow wave a magic wand over the faithful and make perfect people out of them, and if it did then religion would be more palatable.  I hope this sounds as ridiculous to atheists as it does to me.

Anyway, I'm sure there are atheists who can do better than what I've found on your website, and admittedly I haven't read everything on there.  So if you post this please post it in the "unfavorable" category because I think you've done poorly compared to my expectations of atheists.

Response from Ethical Atheist: We appreciate your email, but feel these questions have all been answered on the Ethical Atheist before.  If you're truly interested in our answers, please read on.
Mark Johnson           (Mark is our winner for October with his 4 emails to the Ethical Atheist!)
kingjamesversion@hotmail.com  [An invalid address]
Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:12 AM

Atheist or Religious?  Saved

I decided to read your bit about "Where was God" and although, I do not neccesarily believe that the one who spoke of God's miracles should dogmatically afirm their suppositions, however, they were arguing on grounds that are moot.  It is foolish for either the religious or the non-religious to argue upon those grounds.  It says little about your understanding of what the scriptures teach to maintain your suppositions (of which your site is full) about how God would or would not act in any given situation.  You should not make statements such as "God would or would not do" any given thing.  It is not a wise precept to suggest that an all-powerful God would always, neccesarily prevent any bad thing to happen to people.  God did allow the trade centers to be terrorised.  It is not your place to say what you know he would or would not do.  It is arrogant for either side to do that.  Could it be that sometimes (often even) an all wise God would allow us to see some of the damage caused by the wrongs that we do?  Sometimes (even humans know this) it is wisest to let people learn the hard way when they are stiff-necked.  God knows this.  He does not always bail us out of situations that we or even others have created.  That is an inherently foolish line of argument (for either side ) which rests entirely upon unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Response from Ethical Atheist:  This sounds just like what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said.
Followup from "Mark Johnson":
Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:57 AM

First of all, it does not actually sound like what they are saying.  My statements negate what they are saying, my statements are simply that we cannot assume God's designs.  I, who believe in God  believe that he is too omniscient to question, and you, who does not, cannot make assumptions about what a God who you do not even believe exists would do.  You cannot disbelieve in the existence of something and then describe how it would or would not act.  I said neither side could argue that point, that is not what Robertson and Falwell are saying.  Your reading comprehension is rather poor.

William John Raybold
wraybold@comcast.net   [An invalid address]
Thursday, October 17, 2002 5:39 PM

Atheist or Religious?  Catholic

I have a question. Did God create the Earth in 6 days resting on the seventh, or did he create it in 7 days?

Response from Ethical Atheist: "He" didn't create it.

Note: Our response to William John Raybold was returned with "The following addresses had permanent fatal errors wraybold@comcast.net."  Like many religious people, William didn't actually want an answer to his question.

mysisters_keeper@yahoo.com
Sunday, October 06, 2002 12:56 AM

Atheist or Religious?  Religious

Screw you people. Ann Coulter is absolutely right. Imagine how great this country was before the moslems, blacks, mexicans, and other people invaded us. When was the last time you walked through a white, baptist, republican neighborhood and felt in danger? When was the last time you walked through a black, democrat, paki, catholic, mexican, or moslem neighborhood and felt safe? I think that should prove my point. The biggest mistake the white man made was bringing a black man to America. The second biggest mistake was allowing irish, jewish, and mexicans to come here. Because we made these mistakes, EVERYONE now feels that they have a 'right' to be here. because some dumb ass liberal signed the first amendment, every moslem, jew, hindu and whatever feel that they have a right to 'freedom of religion'. Because of this same amendment, these same people think they have a right to complain and discuss their religions in the press. What they should realize is that there were no moslems, blacks, mexicans, pakistanis, jews or hindus in this country when that amendment was written, so we apparently didn't mean them!!! We didn't even realize that they would be coming here!! This amendment was only written when we thought we would be the only ones here. We do have the right to freedom of religion, but at that time, the religion was Baptist Christianity. I'm sure if there had been even one known hindu or jew in the country at that time, Christianity would have been pointed to as the religion which we have the right to practice. Until we assert the white christian RIGHT to OUR country which WE found, WE erected, and WE write the laws for, we will have more and more colored non-christian people coming here and telling us how they have more right to this land than we do. If Miss Coulter EVER runs for public office, she can be assured that she has my vote and my family's vote.  Another thing, for all your bitching about the rights of other people's religions, I am certain that you would not be found living next to them.

Response from Ethical Atheist:  So, you agree with Ann Coulter's statement "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"?!  Unbelievable!  We always wonder what rock people like you are hiding under.  And, your understanding of history is very flawed.  Let us correct you on a few things: Also, I do live on a street with a Catholic from Peru and a Muslim from Iran and I feel completely safe.
Mark Johnson
kingjamesversion@hotmail.com   [An invalid address]
Friday, September 20, 2002 9:52 AM

Atheist or Religious?  Catholic

You made the statement on the "Picture is worth a thousand words." that the Church is supposed to be dedicated to helping the poor and the needy.  From there you proceeded to show a perceived hypocrisy by the Roman Catholic Church.  I am not, at all defending Roman Catholicism in any way but you must understand that although helping the poor is a good Christian ethic,  the Church is not supposed to be dedicated to the poor.  Remember Jesus's statement that "the poor you will always have with you, but me you have with you but a short time" The mission of the local church as taught by the Bible is not to be a program for the poor although that type of charity is encouraged.  I have spent a lot of time perusing this site, and I must say that it's major weekness is a serious misinterpretation of Scripture.  I am afraid that you would (at present) miserably fail a first level Seminary hermeneutics course.

Another email from Mark Johnson, Tuesday, September 24, 2002 3:22 PM

I am by no means an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church, I did, however, pause in disgust and horror that your website would be so crass and low as to show the "stained glass" picture in your humor section.  How can you imagine that yours is a respectable web site when you display as humour such a horrifying thought.  "Ethical" atheist.  That was lude, uncalled for and hypocritical (which you love to accuse the religious people of).  Get your dirty childish mind out of the gutter.

Response from Ethical Atheist: Based on the emails you keep sending us on our Catholic-related pages, you certainly sound like "an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church".  (You've also contacted us on "Picture worth 1000 words", with the Catholic church image & "Where Was God?".)  Regarding "Stained Glass", one might accuse you of having a "dirty childish mind" for associating the image with the rash of sex abuse cases in the Catholic Church.  Yes, it is rather dark humor.  But a lot worse could be said about the continual sexual tragedies of Catholic priests, don't you think?  You should read "On the religious criticisms by this site".  If you can't stand our humor, stay out of the humor section...

Note:  Our response to Mark Johnson was returned with "The following addresses had permanent fatal errors kingjamesversion@hotmail.com."  Like many religious people, Mark was only concerned with voicing his opinion and does not want to hear any rebuttal...

M.F.
{address withheld by request}
Sunday, September 15, 2002 7:28 PM

Atheist or Religious?  Catholic

It strikes me that among militant non-believers there is a remarkable naivete with regards to their understanding of faith. They generally espouse the pursuit of knowledge, yet present religion in such comic and caricatured terms, as though they have no real understanding of their subject at all. I find your presentation of your views to be completely UNscientific and biased in a rather unsophisticated way. I do not believe that you want anything more than to make fun of people whom you perceive to be less sophisticated and intelligent than yourselves, and this seems to be far from your stated aims (as for example, in your Ten Commandments).

Your commentary and mockery of religion are to me rather irrelevant because they are not aimed at anything like what I would term mature faith, but are aimed at a naive sceptic’s dream of what faith is about. You therefore miss the mark, much as an anti scientist would miss the mark by attacking an eight year old’s version of science.

My suspicion is that you are happy to maintain this state of ignorance, as it makes your work (and in fact your world) very simple indeed!

Please sign me "M.F." (not my full name or address)

Response from Ethical Atheist:  You are right.  We find it difficult to not portray religion in "comic and caricatured terms".   Religious stories are so far from what we believe to be true and logical, based on science.  The stories of the Bible such as Jonah and the whale; Noah's ark; parting of the sea; virgin birth; etc - are very comical indeed.

I was raised in a religious household and had to attend church at least weekly.  I will never be able to claim that I 'understand' religion, but I've been exposed to it for years.  And, what exactly is "mature faith".  Do Roman Catholics represent maturity of religion because they've been around for a long time?...

 1. Long enough to commit mass killings in the old Middle Eastern countries during the Crusades?
 2. Long enough to carry out a decent Inquisition?
 3. Long enough to witness and keep quiet while Hitler massacred the Jews?
 4. Long enough to wipe out the Mayans & Incas of Central and South America if they wouldn't convert to your religion?
 5. Long enough that your priests can rape innocent little boys and destroy their lives?
 6. Long enough to tell us how to live?
 7. Long enough to force your anti-population control views worldwide?

You should look into the mirror before you point your righteous finger at us.  When looking at your religion, I must admit that it is necessary for us to present it in "comic and caricatured terms"... to keep us from crying.  You are incorrect to call us "militant" non-believers.  That implies violence towards those who don't share your views.  That is a trait typical of religion (as described above), not atheism or agnostisism.  We hope to enlighten through education, not sword.  Your religion and the actions of those who follow this false doctrine represent the epitome of sadness in the human race.  A sadness that we hope to escape from given enough time and education.  Good Day.

Followup from "M.F." {name and address withheld on request}
Monday, September 16, 2002 10:12 PM

No, by "mature faith" I don't mean "having been around long enough to..." etc. I think that someone of mature faith has grown to the degree that they can consistently live at least some of what their faith teaches. No change that: can embody the spirit of their faith to some degree - I like this better. Admittedly this does not happen often enough; life is never as simple as we would have it be. I find that you generalize and oversimplify merely for the sake of dramatic impact. Do you, for example, balance your condemnations of my Church against the good it has brought into the world? Can you even see that there has been good? Do you know about Mother Theresa? I know a man in Peru who has lived there for thirty five years and has built homes, dug wells and helped keep families together, he has lived a celibate and exemplary life, is completely unknown, and deserves better than what you would say about him. The things he does are things the Church teaches and tells its followers to embrace. He is only one of millions. I think there have been, and are people who embarrass the Church, but is all this bad behavior brought about because of the Spirit that the Church is trying to reveal? Do you understand my point? It is this: you want all evil to fall neatly into the religious camp so that you can, by eradicating religion, eliminate evil, but this lacks realism, lacks maturity. I think that the truth is that the world is screwed up in so many ways because of human weakness, not because of religion. Do me a favor: BE ACCURATE. Don't characterize human failings as the teachings of a faith. Surely you accept as a given that corruption exists among politicians. Yet you know that your country means much more than the sum of these fools who gain office and then turn their backs on their promises - or do worse than this. The Church is no different than the rest of humanity: it has had some pretty crummy representatives, SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT? Catholics already know this but also know in intimate fashion the Spirit that abides within the faithful. You, with all your supposed intellectual sophistication (or is it sophistry?) cannot even hold on to this distinction long enough to see that to a religious person you are parlaying in factual trivia: we know everyone's fallen, so what? Oh, and just so you know, 'militant' can be used as synonymous with 'combative' or 'aggressive', and not simply in a violent sense.

Response from Ethical Atheist:  Isn't it hypocrisy to pick and choose what parts of religion you will follow.  You say mature faith is to 'consistently live at least some of what their faith teaches' and 'embody the spirit of their faith to some degree'.  It's our view that religion must be evaluated as true or false.  Does religion, or Christianity specifically, teach a history that is 100% truthful and factual?  Or, is it full of fabrications, exaggerations, fanciful stories and extreme violence?  In our view, it is the latter.  Yes, religious people do good things as you mentioned.  However, that is irrelevant.  The truth is that the Church has consistent taught false scientific facts and the Bible is full of these too.  Therefore, we reject religion... period.  Does this mean we reject 'doing good things'?  No, absolutely not.  We applaud the great works of many religious people, but you are confused to think that the good works of these people somehow justify religion and make religious history and false teachings "O.K."  We're consistently confounded by people who pick and choose what parts of religion to follow.  It's either true or false and to pick a middle ground seems to be indicative of an unstable and indecisive mind.  It's as if these people are saying, "I know this part is false and this part is bad, so I'm just going to ignore those and follow the rest of it as the Word of God."  And, "Not only will I follow it, I will condemn those who don't."  Depending on what time you happened to have lived, this condemnation ranged from simple social rejection to death.

So, to justify and defend religion because some religious people do good things is not a logical argument.  What about the many people who are atheist or agnostic that also do good things?  Your defensive of 'your Church' falls flat.  We completely reject religion, yet feel free to do 'good things'.  In fact, we feel compelled to do so.


Pharaoh
Pharaoh@urban.csohio.edu
Saturday, September 07, 2002 1:42 PM

Atheist or Religious?  Their is a GOD

Noah was not White - He was Black. He came from an African counry. What makes you think he was Caucasian?

Response from Ethical Atheist:  Good question.  I guess that is how he's most often portrayed.  But, you're right.  If there even was a Noah, it seems likely to us that he was not white.
Abiah
abiah_1@lycos.com
Friday, September 06, 2002 9:02 AM

Atheist or Religious? I AM

A PRAYER TO RECEIVE JESUS AS YOUR SAVIOR

Dear Heavenly Father...

I come to you in the name of JESUS. Your Word says, "him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37).  So I know you won"t cast me out, but you take me in, And I thank you for it.  Jesus, you said, "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near". (Matthew 4-20). I repent now Lord and I ask you to forgive me of all my sins and to make me a new person.  You said in your Word, "Whosever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved" (Romans 10:13). I am calling on our name, So I know you have saved me now. You also said, "if you will confess with your mouth the LORD JESUS, and will believe in your heart that GOD has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:9-10).

I believe in my heart JESUS CHRIST is the SON of GOD.

I believe that HE was raised from the dead for my justifaction. And I confess HIM now as my LORD, Because your Word
says,... "with the heart man beieveth unto righteousness..." and I do believe with my heart, I have now become the righteousness  of GOD in CHRIST (2 Corinthians 5:21)...And I am saved!

Thank you, LORD JESUS CHRIST.

Response from Ethical Atheist: Uh, Gee thanks.  Maybe you should read "Where Was God?" It discusses forgiveness, redemption and being saved.  If God existed, it doesn't appear that he keeps his 'promise' very often.
Peter Marshall <T.C.B.F.G.@aol.com>
To: Ethical Atheist
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 1:48 PM

Atheist or Religious? A Beleiver  [sic]

It is very evident that you don't have any knowledge about the BIBLE, scripture, or any area of THEISM. Just as some of you call yourselfs  [sic] agnostic, you truely [sic] are IGNORANT. Lets debate in public !

william
williamsmith3@yahoo.com
Friday, August 23, 2002 11:53 AM

I write this not to try and make an argument for religion or any christian stories or myths, but because i believe strongly in truth many non christians-and even many christians-refer to the tree of knowledge-the bible makes no mention of this plant its the tree of knowledge of good and evil-yes its a big difference-if there was a tree of "knowledge"..you wouldn't know it unless you had eaten from it because knowledge of the tree of knowledge would be....knowledge it must be a type of knowledge and in this case it was knowledge of good and evil this doesn't mean god exists or the bible is write or that there even was an adam and eve, but truth is truth i have heard people use this as a base for certain arguments, usually concerning the way the bible views knowledge as evil this argument is easily thwarted by even the dumbest christian and makes atheists look foolish please fellow free thinkers read the bible and know what your talking about otherwise christians will use your mistakes to prove their points.

Response from Ethical Atheist: So, you point is that we should say "Tree of Knowledge" instead of "Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil"?  O.K., fine.  Did God not want Adam & Eve to have knowledge of "good & evil", so he could damn anyone he chose?  Why not let them have this knowledge?  Seems vital to survival and afterlife in "God's World".
Dr. Mankin's Moment of Truth Crusade for Christ
praisejesus@empire.speedstar.net
Wednesday, August 21, 2002 12:25 AM
Subject: Help Win Souls For Jesus

Dr. Mankin's Moment of Truth Crusade for Christ Needs Your Help

Come to Our Web Site To Learn How.

http://www.praise-jesus.tv

Give thanks for this chance to help win souls for the Lord.  Not everyone is chosen to help.  Don't turn your back on Jesus.  He didn't turn his back on you at Calvary!

Response from Ethical Atheist:  Uhm... You've obviously contacted the wrong site.
Randy Willis
willist1@swbell.net
Sunday, August 11, 2002 6:49 AM

Atheist or Religious? Atheist

If you are truly an Atheist, then you must be truly unethical (or you are complete lunatics).  Why?  "Without God,
all is permissible."  You are a complete disgrace to Atheism.

Response from Ethical Atheist:  Well sir, you are completely mistaken...  God, if one existed, wouldn't have a lock on ethical or moral behavior.  In fact, we know more ethical people who are atheist, agnostic, etc. that we do ethical religious people.  With "God" it seems that everything is acceptable according to the Bible - incest, murder, war, adultery, coveting thy neighbor... you name it.  If Noah or Moses were alive today, they would be in prison with a rap sheet extending to the next room.  We do NOT consider their actions (or many others in the Bible) to be ethical.  We, on the other hand, live by the laws of our country and attempt to act in a completely ethical manner at all times.  We make mistakes too, though we have never murdered anyone for not sharing the same beliefs, nor practiced incest, etc., etc.
66Rueben66
byyourside_2@server792.dnslive.net
Monday, July 29, 2002 6:59 PM

Atheist or Religious? Religious

Eternity's a hell of a long time to be kicking yourself!

Response from Ethical Atheist: But, since we don't believe in souls, lives, or anything lasting an eternity - we consider your lifetime to be "a hell of a long time": to be wrong; to get in the way of science; to hate other religions; to hate your fellow (non-believer) man; etc; etc; etc....
Nancy Brown
revnancy@pacbell.net
Sun May 26 22:13:00 2002.

Atheist or Religious? Episcopal priest

I find it quite disappointing that your site seems to categorize people as either religious literalist/fundamentalists or atheists.  There are many, many Christians who understand that the Scriptures are neither scientific nor historical documents.  The Scriptures are the people's account of God's revelation to them.  As such, they are sacred, but not literally factual.  They contain many contradictions concerning details of events, but they also contain the truth of God's love for those whom God created.

The creation stories were never intended to be accurate, factual accounts of the events of creation.  For one thing, Chapter 1 of Genesis tells the 6-day creation story.  That story depicts the power of the transcendent God who can "speak" creation into being.  Chapter 2 of Genesis tells the story of the Garden of Eden in which God walked and talked with Adam and Eve.  That story depicts God's love for the creation and how humankind has rejected much of the good within the creation, resulting in much suffering.  It is not intended to be a literal account of 2 created people who wore fig leaves.

I am convinced of the reality of evolution.  I am also convinced that the evolution that has taken place was neither accidental nor random.  A world in which the fittest survive is the kind of world that God created.  How did God create this world?  Big bang?  Very likely, but I don't know.  Perhaps someday the scientists will find out for sure.

It seems rather telling that you have two categories for comments:  those who agree with you and hate mail.  I am interested to see into which of these categories you might put my comments.

Response from Ethical Atheist:  Dear Nancy, Regarding the "Hate Mail" page, it actually says "[** Most of these aren't really Hateful, just Unfavorable]".  You said you found the site "quite disappointing".  We would regard this as an "unfavorable" comment, so that's where it will be posted.  You're right that all emails don't always fit well into these two categories, but we're not sure we want to get into making a bunch of other categories like (a) "Somewhat favorable, but we're not sure", (b) "Mostly unfavorable, but some negative remarks", (c) "Completely Unfavorable", etc.  We used to have all comments on one page, but that became rather unmanageable.

Regarding the Bible, are you saying that the Bible is not the "Word of God"? You're right, we tend to focus on groups that believe it's the true word of God. The reason for this is that these are the people we run into on a regular basis.  We do realize that there's a broad range of views on the Bible going from (a) "it's a bunch of nonsense and gibberish made up by man" to (z) "it's the absolute word of God and should be taken literally".  There are hundreds of variations in between.  We find it interesting how many groups apply their own interpretation to the Bible.  To us that implies that it is flawed and incorrect and requires people's interpretations to arrive at the truth.  Doesn't that dilute the omnipotence of God?  Why would he convey the nonsense, violence, adultery and scientific fallacies to be used as His book?  Why wouldn't he have conveyed 'what he meant' and ensured it was written down as such?  He supposedly wants us to believe in him, worship him and fear him, right?  Why would he come across as a fool then?  And, then, seeing his mistake, why wouldn't he correct it and make the "Revised and True Word of God Bible"?  To believe parts of it, yet derive your own views on evolution, the Garden of Eden, etc seems very contradictory too. We aren't sure how you can stabilize your mind with such a conflict.  Do you at times have to recategorize what is in the Bible that is true and what is not?  For example, did you at one believe in the Bible's story of creation being a divine act of God, then later see the scientific evidence of evolution and have to move your view of creation into the false section?

You say the Bible is "sacred"?  But, you also say it's full of contradictions, not literally factual, not scientific, nor historical.  That doesn't sound very "sacred".  Any decent library having such a book on its shelves should have it pulled.  If an author wrote a book pretending to be a scientific account of the earth and it was later found incorrect, it would likely be replaced by books promoting newer correct findings.  We're completely against book burning, but if there ever was a book that should be burned, we believe it should be the Bible.

We strongly believe in the right of all people to hold whatever views they desire.  We just find that the view of individuals like you who pick and choose what to hold as true in the Bible are even more confusing to us that the literalists.  But, it's your choice and if you can live with it - more
power to you.  Good Day.  - The Ethical Atheist
 

NOTE TO READERS:  This discussion continues and we made it a seperate page (see seperate page at "Dialogue with an Episcopal Priest").

Believer.com
roseann361@netscape.net
Wednesday, May 22, 2002 11:19 AM

Subject: Christian Books You Might Like!!! by Bullinger

Dedicated to the Distribution of God's Word Concerning the Mystery.  II Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved..."

ALL THESE TITLES ON ONE CD

How to Enjoy the Bible
The Christian's Greatest Need
Number in Scripture
Ten Sermons on the Second Advent
The Apocalypse or "The Day of the Lord"
The Rich Man and Lazarus
Today and "Other" Crucified with the Lord
The Two Natures in the Child of God
The Witness of the Stars
The Companion Bible Appendixes

E.W. Bullinger continues to be recognized as one of the great Bible scholars of the early twentieth century. Bullinger's comprehensive and detailed study of figures of speech in the Bible has never been superseded. His Bible commentaries, Greek lexicon, textual notes, and numerous expositional studies continue to inform students of the Scriptures. Behind his many interesting scholarly works, however, is the engaging life story of a young chorister from Canterbuy Cathedral whose voice would be heard around the world through the printed page.

Each CD is only $14.95 and contains Nine Research works that if purchased separately would cost over $127.00.  The Shipping and Handling for each CD is only $1.50 unless you are a Registered Member of Believer.com then the Shipping and Handling is free. To register just visit www.Believer.com and join our Study group. If you buy ten disks at a time for gifts we will ship free Priority Mail from the USPS.  That's a Total of only $16.45 per CD!  For Registered Members of Believer.com the Total is only $14.95 per CD!

Send Checks or Money Orders to:

Believer.com
P.O. Box 500
Sutherlin, OR 97479

Thank you and God Bless,
The Believers

Visit us at www.Believer.com
 

Response from Ethical Atheist:

From: Ethical Atheist
To: info@believer.com
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 7:51 AM
Subject: Get Your Atheist Books Now! Save yourself from God's followers today!

Dear Believer.com,

While we're not interested in the mythological books you recommended to us, maybe you would be interested in some of these fine works of true scholarship.  Do so now and save yourself from God's followers today.  PLUS, by ordering using the links below, you will be helping to fund the cause of the Ethical Atheist (we get a commission for book referrals from Amazon).

Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine (1984, originally published 1794)  Free thought and logic against religions by one of the intellectual leaders of the American Revolution.  Points out many errors and absurdities in the Bible.

The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin (1979, originally published 1859). The book that started evolution vs. creationism debate.  One of the most important and influential books ever written.

Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, by Bertrand Russell (1957)  A must read!  Russell's logic and reason applied to religion, man's place in the universe, life after death, morality, freedom and education.

2000 Years of Disbelief : Famous People With the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught (June 1996)  Short biographies and quotes from famous philosophers, scientists, inventors, literary figures and politicians.

Have a safe and godless day!

Sincerely,
The Ethical Atheist
www.ethicalatheist.com

"Free Thought, Education and Ethics Shall Prevail."

Letter from Star Jones, Co-host of ABC's show "The View".
{Her response to our letter requesting a public apology for her attacks on Atheists.  Refer to our article STAR JONES SAYS "NO" TO AN ATHEIST PRESIDENT.}

From: Star Jones (star@starjones.com)
To: Ethical Atheist
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 11:14 AM
Subject: Regarding Religion

Dear Ethical,

Thank you so much for writing.  I welcome the opportunity to share my personal testimony with you.

I can honestly say that my relationship with God is the most important relationship in my life.  I believe that Christ is the Son of God and is the risen savior.  I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, which for me is a powerful force that guides my every thought and deed.  I believe that with faith in God, all things are possible.  The book of Hebrews (Chapter 11, verse 1) says that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".  My life is a living testimony to that verse.

When I was 20 years old my life changed.  Doctors told me that I had less than a year to live because of an inoperable tumor... they didn't check with God, because evidently, he had other plans.

God's strength made me go back to school in Washington, DC, made me defy my parents and refuse the radiation treatments which eventually led me to a surgeon who not only removed the tumor, but I was back at school within a week... ready to begin my Senior year of college.  Thank you Father.

Everything that I have ever accomplished has been with God's help.

I often didn't know where to go, how I would get there and what I would do once at the place I desired... but at every turn there was an answer.  There was a sign.  There was direction.  In other words... there was God.  There is no decision that I make, or have made in my life that does not include a talk with God during a time of prayer.  I wake in the morning and I talk to God.  I ask for direction.  I ask for strength.  I ask for patience.  I ask for courage.  And I ask for steadfastness in my faith... even in the time of trouble.

I also talk to God, not just when I want or need something... but also when I want to say thank you for what He has already done in my life. The blessings that I have received and continue to receive sometimes make me fall to my knees in thanksgiving because in my mind, I don't deserve the gifts... but I know that I'm given them because Christ promised me everything my mind could imagine if I would just follow him.  He has been true to his word.

The tragedy of the past week is one of those times that make people doubt God's existence.   Not me... it makes me sure of it.  These terrorists were the personification of evil and just as God has given us free will to do good works, he has also given us free will to choose evil. Don't get it twisted... regardless of what they say and who they bow down to... these people were not of God.  Whenever you hear people invoking God's name in order to justify their actions, ask yourself: Do those actions affirm life?  Do they promote love?  Do they encourage peace?  If they don't, then they are not of God.

I have never been so peaceful in a turbulent time because of my personal relationship with God. With so many people looking for answers where there aren't many, I can sincerely say that the peace I feel comes from knowledge that there is a force bigger than me... and that gives me strength. If I believed that I was the smartest, the bravest the most competent to handle this situation, I would be lost.  I would be panic stricken... because I know that I'm not equipped to handle something like this tragedy.  I know that alone, I would falter.  I would become weak.  I would allow my emotions to overtake my logic... because I am human.  But with God's help, I am made stronger.  I am resolved that this is not what he wants for his people and I am sure that we as a country will become stronger through this.

You see, God knows exactly when we need him to take over.  For me, it's like an eagle and its babies.  God has given me the skill to fly, but he carries me when my own wings can no longer do the job.  This week, a lot of people have needed "carrying" and I believe that unity we have seen is a direct result of his power to unite in a time of trouble.  The Bible says "all things work together for good for those that are called according to His purpose". With God's help, maybe now we will exercise that free will for good.

I don't know what tomorrow brings, but I do know that it is with faith that we will come through this tragedy, and it is only with the Holy Spirit that we will be renewed. God is real in my life and the fact that I live life to the fullest is the greatest example I can be.

Best wishes to you and your family.

Star Jones

Response from Ethical Atheist:  Dear Star Jones, While this story of your Christian beliefs may be entertaining to some, you completely ducked the topic of our letter which was a request for a PUBLIC APOLOGY FOR YOUR ATTACKS AGAINST ATHEISTS.  Sincerely, The Ethical Atheist
Fred Williams
EvolutionFairyTale.com
fredw@usa.com
Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:04 PM

Subject: RE: Flat Earth Myth

Dear “Ethical Atheist”,

I visited your site and had begun a rebuttal that exposed numerous errors and strawman arguments regarding your flat earth claims, but much to my surprise I see you have retracted the bulk of your thesis! For this you are to be commended. Nevertheless, I still have several comments. Your site is rabidly anti-Christian, with little or no mention of other religions (which in itself is a testimony to the truth of Christianity). I don’t think I need to document for the reader your clear hatred toward Christianity, as your web site speaks for itself. My question for you is, why is your focus completely on Christianity, and not other religions? Why do you spend all of your time posting to Christian guestbooks, and not to Islam, Jehovah Witness, Mormon, or other religious web sites? If evolution is so well established, why even bother? I certainly don’t go around posting to “Alien Abduction” or “Elvis is Alive” sites trying to convince them of their silly beliefs.

Finally, your side-by-side comparison of Osama Bin-Laden to Jerry Falwell is ridiculous beyond words, and demonstrates to me why no one should take you seriously on anything you have to say. Even if one disagrees with Falwell, it is sheer lunacy to compare him to a mass murderer.

It’s amazing you speak of Falwell’s, “intolerance”. You should take a close look at your own “intolerance” to those who oppose your views.

Sincerely,
Fred Williams

PS. I have also posted this reply to my guestbook.

Response from Ethical Atheist:  Thank you for writing.  Yes, we were way off base with the original Flat Earth eBook and its analysis.  We misinterpreted some of the historical works, especially on antipodes which led us to much of our previous conclusions.  We have admitted our errors in the new eBook, newsgroups and letters to readers.  As to your questions of why we sent it to Christian sites.... it is because each and every one were using Jeffrey Burton Russell's accusations against secular writers and evolutionists to attack us.  While our view of flat earth thinking has changed considerably following our research, we are still opposed to Russell's attacks on evolutionists for supposedly 'invented' the whole myth.  You received the notification of the eBook, because you have these accusations against humanists on your site.  You state that it is a 'lie perpetrated by several unscrupulous men in the battle of humanism over the Bible".  Also, you have misleading statements like "inaccurate but common belief among many that the ancients on up through the middle ages believed that the earth was flat".  It is indeed an inaccurate belief that MANY thought the earth was flat as some may have been taught in school.  However, there are some cases of flat earth thinking - even among 'learned' individuals, but these are mostly pre-medieval.  So, the idea that medieval sailors might sail of the edge of the earth is mostly nonsense in medieval times.  But, your statement that all 'learned' people have known the earth to be spherical for '2500 years' is misleading.  The most glaring examples in the 2500 year window you mention are: Anaxagoras of Klazomenae (497-428 BCE); Leukippos of Abdera (450-420 BCE); Lucretius (99-55 BCE); the Bible; Lactantius (245-325 CE); St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 CE); St. John Chrysostom (344-408 CE); Severian, Bishop of Gabala (408 CE); Orosius (385-420 CE); Diodorus of Tarsus (394 CE); and Cosmas Indicopleustes (547 CE).   While we agree that this was probably not the most widely held view and it did not prevail in the end, you may want to reword your claim about 'all learned people' for '2500 years'.  You probably could care less about a suggestion from the Ethical Atheist, but maybe you should consider rewording it like 'only a tiny few individuals in the last 2000 years' (not 2500).

You mention that you don't go posting on “Alien Abduction” or “Elvis is Alive” sites.  Well, they probably aren't attacking your beliefs and making accusations against you either.  Are they?  On the other hand, you and many other Christian and creationists sites are attacking us using Russell's work as the weapon, so you got singled out for the email... plain and simple.

Regarding Falwell, you accurately point out a difference between Bin Laden and Falwell in that Falwell is not a mass murderer.  However, if you cannot see all the other similarities, then I submit that you are being affected by some sort of theological blinders.  Many others readily see the similarities.  If you look, you will one day see a Pat Robertson page on our site because, in our view, he is even worse.  Look at all the horrifying remarks he's made on our "Quotes AGAINST Separation of Church & State" page.

Regarding Christianity, 'hatred' as you put it is a strong word.  We don't 'hate' anyone.  We would call it a 'strong disdain' which is a result of all the ridiculous nonsense in Christian teachings (and violent actions) throughout time.  It's also due to the constant intolerance by religious groups and discrimination against those who do not believe in your God, heaven, hell, the devil or divine creation.  We don't like the intolerance on either side, but you should put yourself in our shoes for a day and see the treatment we get before you start pointing the finger.  We are constantly being discriminated against, blamed for the country's problems, called non-citizens (i.e. Bush Sr's comments), isolated and shunned if we mention anything not agreeing with the Bible, etc.

Regarding why our site has many (enlightening and truthful articles) about Christians and not Islam, Jehovah Witness, Mormon, or other religions...  We do actually have the Abraham piece and the question of why three groups, all being descendants of Abraham's vision of God, cannot get along and are in constant violent uprisings against each other.  But, you're right, we do focus mainly on Christianity because it has the largest adverse effect on us in America.

Regarding creationism and evolution - Whether you believe so or not, you or your offspring will one day have to drop these ridiculous creationist theories just like your previous Christian fathers had to drop other scientific fallacies like (1) an earth-centric universe, (2) non-moving bodies in the universe, (3) modern medicine being a violation God's will, (4) the sky being a dome over the earth, (5) the milky way being a highway of lost souls, (6) the firmament, pillars, etc. - shall I go on?!..... Yes?  (7) the moon standing still over the valley of Ajalon, (8) dinosaurs living with Adam and Eve and enjoying a cruise on Noah's love boat during the Great Deluge, (9) the moon generating its own light - Genesis [1:16], (10) being possessed by the devil as a cause of sickness and disease, (11) earthquakes being caused by God, (12) people living for 900 years,  (13) men rising up from the earth's dust, etc, etc.

In the meantime, if you want to get along, please quit trying to force your false creationist views into our schools where REAL learning it going on.  I don't want my child to be contaminated by this and have to  one day hold her head in shame... admitting that she once believed man rose from the dust on God's command and women were derived from our ribs.

As with you, we will post your email and our response to our website.  We'll see if you post this response on your site... I doubt it.

Sincerely, The Ethical Atheist

NOTE TO READERS:  This person does a lot of finger pointing of our 'attacking Christianity', yet he runs the web site by the name of EvolutionFairytale.com (http://www.evolutionfairytale.com).  Is he not attacking those who understand evolution?  Doesn't this make his complaint against us worthless?  Also, you will notice that we post both his letter AND our response.  If you look at their comment page (http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/guestbook.htm#ethical_atheist), you will see that they only post their own letter.  As of today (5/6/02), they did not take us up on our 5/1/02 suggestion that they post our reply.  But, we didn't expect them too!

We actually do believe that everyone has a right to believe what they choose, including creationism.  We obviously don't believe the creationist story, but it's their right to believe what they want.  Though, we do have strong feelings on the matter and post articles critical of creationism, please don't take it personally.  Though we know one day, they'll come around to my way