PreviousNext	FAVORABLE COMMENT PAGES
Current - Nov 2002	Oct 2002 - May 2002	Apr 2002 - Dec 2001

Just to keep you honest here... I think you're misreading the text. After reading your thirty sixth "Question for God" I found a bible and read the flood narrative. The language seems pretty clearly to indicate forty days of rain and rising floodwaters. Then the rain stops and the waters slowly begin to recede, but the world remains flooded--just as we would say a town with four feet of water standing in the streets was flooded, though the rain might have stopped and the level might no longer be rising. The text then says that after 150 days the water level had receded enough that the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. So the contradiction that you purport between the "40 day" and "150 day" flood figures seems to quickly evaporate upon a more scholarly reading of the passage. You might want to weed out this question so as not to lose credibility.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Thanks for writing and providing your viewpoints.  I'm not sure I agree with your reading though.  In fact, after re-reading the verses in question it seems even more contradictory as to when the floods were on the earth and at what time they receded.  [The remainder of this response turned out to be a new Ethical Atheist article.  See "How Long was Noah's Flood? (Examination of Biblical Accounts of the Great Deluge)".]

Followup from Douglas McKelvey, February 24, 2003 10:08 AM

Wow! Thanks for the extensive and thorough reply. I'll take a closer look at all of this with your notes in hand. --Douglas

Okay, armed with your notes I went back to the Genesis flood narrative to see what could be sorted out. There are several things I noticed this time through, though it required some of the tedious sort of research that I don’t usually willingly indulge in. :)

Douglas' response was very lengthy and we added a new page with its contents at "Response to Duration of Noah's Flood". - E.A.

Atheist or Religious?  Atheist

{Following comment refers our article "Federal Housing Aid to Religious Groups"}

Thanks a bunch for posting the web site on acting against Bush's HUD proposals! :-)  I know we can turn the tide against him and save the Constitution!
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: Kevin,  Your welcome.  And we too hope we can slow or stop Bush's religious rampage.  Come on 2004... come on 2004...

I've recently been surfing through a raft of atheist web sites based in the USA. They nearly all have at least one page similar to your 'Elephant in sheeps clothing'. They all warn about the advances made by the religious, and the agenda to turn America in to a country ruled by Christianity.

As a European two thoughts occur to me:

1) Few European countries have any formal separation of church and state. Italy is one of the exceptions, having a formal 'concordat' defining the relationship between the Pope and the Italian government. On the other hand I was reading the other day that Britain is second only to Iran in its integration of church and state. Yet religious influence on government is minimal and patchy throughout Europe. This is reflected by Italy which, although it has the highest church attendance in western Europe, is lower than the USA. Meanwhile, Britain has one of the lowest church attendance figures in Europe. Is your constitutional separation of church and state a good idea?

2) With the rise of the religious party, how long will it be before we start to get Americans fleeing to Europe complaining of religious persecution? (And will they sail on the Mayflower?)

Martin Bond
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Martin,  Very good observations and questions!  We often wonder ourselves what went wrong in America.  How could a country, whose original citizens were fleeing religious persecution, be so damn religious.  However, the original immigrants included many Protestants trying to get away from Catholicism.  Yet, many of the original founding documents laid a foundation of church and state being separate.  If only America’s fathers could see what the country has become.  They would be disgusted!  You ask, “Is your constitutional separation of church and state a good idea?”  We would have to answer YES.  Think of how bad things would be without the supposed separation.  On the other hand, maybe it would be good to break the wall of separation.  Most people believe politicians are dishonest, misguided and full of lies.  If religion was “married” with politics, maybe more of the general public would see religion in the same way?

It is very interesting and enlightening to ponder the low church attendance in western Europe.  Can you point us to any websites with statistics on this?  And, yes, if the religious environment gets worse and God’s followers continue in their attempt to control us and make us live by their beliefs, we may resurrect the Mayflower and sail back across “the pond” to Europe.  No kidding!

Atheist or Religious?  Rationalist

I have a submission of approx. 5000 words. A two-part dissertation entitled: "On Being - A Rationalist's Dissertation on Religion and Reason" How best may I convey it to you for your consideration? Thank you. Harvey Freilich
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: Harvey, You can send it in whatever format is easiest... pasting the text into an email, MS Word, etc.  We really like to provide the thoughts of others to our readers so we welcome your submissions.  Thank you.

Atheist or Religious?  Recently Atheist

Please keep my email address anonymous.

I wanted to say thank you for such a great site. I have recently come out from under the cloud of religion and the light bulbs are coming on. I can't believe I wasted so much of my time and energy believing such nonsense. Who wrote "religion is the opiate of the masses"? or something like that. So true. I feel I have been brain washed all these years. And I especially agree that religion is mostly a controlling device.

If it could be used simply to comfort and support people who need it, great. But it is frightening to see the negative effects and to see how pervasive it has become...especially in the U.S.

I love this site....:)  I would like permission to record an audio version of the 10 Commandments to be Webcasted on Freethought Radio.  All credits of course will be given as well as the web site address for follow up reading.

Don Souza
Owner/operator
FreeThoughtRadio.com
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: Dear Don, Permission granted - we would be honored to be on Freethought Radio.  If you can, please send us a note to let us know when it will be broadcast or a link if it will be a regularly available feature.  Keep up the great work!

Followup from Donald Souza at FreeThoughtRadio.com

Well done...:) ...and thank you. I'll let you know when it is finished. BTW it will be in the lineup and will air about once every hour.  - Don

Atheist or Religious?  Atheist

Thank you so much for your poem I found....I was sent a religious poem by a former sister-in-law and responded with your poem...thanks again...they never stop trying to convert people....
 

Note: The above comment is on our poem "I WILL NOT GO AWAY" at: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/poem.html.

Dear Friend,

Thank you for writing. Your nice thoughts are definitely appreciated and we are very pleased to hear of your support. Your comments have been forwarded to the correct office.

If you are not already a member of the ACLU, we would encourage you to become one at http://forms.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm  By becoming a member, you can support our aggressive work on the issues you care about.

Thank you again for your continued support.

Best,
D. Barber
ACLU Correspondence Manager
 

Above in response to our letter to the ACLU shown below:
Please keep up the fight against  the proposals for Federal Housing Aid to Religious Groups by the Bush Administration and HUD.  Thank you for your efforts!  We have added a page with our concerns and listed methods for the public to voice their opposition at http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/building_aid_religious.html

Sincerely, Ethical Atheist

Atheist or Religious?  Atheist

Well, I get used to send you articles about Poland.  As you may know, one or two months ago a documentary (a film) was released on Polish public TV which has created an uproar about Radio Maryja.  There is some rather serious suspicion concerning its money. (Father Rydzyk is going to also create a Catholic TV station).  There were some articles as well about what the church can do about this radio, and that the church is somehow divided in two, because of radio Maryja.
I could write further about this if you are interested.  For me, it's really dubious that anyone will read it.  Poland is not an important country. Many regards Anonymous, Poland
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: Anonymous, Thank you for writing and keeping us up to date on Radio Maryja and the new TV station.  I'm sure some of our readers are interested.  I will add your update to the Poland page at: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/Poland/poland_update.html.  I'm curious what the general opinion is in Poland regarding the confrontation looming between America & Iraq.  Are people for it or against it?  Or do they not really care?

Follow is regarding Bush's proposal to give Federal Housing Aid to Religious Groups, see http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/building_aid_religious.html.

Even if you don't believe the founding fathers wanted separation of church and state, the constitution still states the government shall not make a law respecting an establishment of religion.  To me this is a major violation. When does the "First Evangelical Church of Later Day Aints for Marine Invertebrates" get some money?
 

{Above refers to our mythical church founded to expose the flaws in of Bush's faith-based funding.  See: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/church_marine.html.}

Atheist or Religious?  Agnostic

I have a little problem with the Catholic Church and was wondering what you guys thought.  When you become a Catholic Priest you take a vow of poverty.  Now, can someone explain to me how it isn't hypocrticial for the Pope to wear all this priceless jewelry, fly around in his own private jet, and have paintings by Michelangelo, Raphael, and Leonardo on his walls?  Does this bother you guys at all, because it bothers me?
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: Chris, It baffles us too.  You might appreciate our article "A PICTURE WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS..." at http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/picture_worth_1000_words.html.  Then, there's the vow of celibacy - only to rape women and children and use the Church to cover it up.   Lots of hypocrisy isn't there.

Atheist or Religious?  Atheist

Thank you for the information on what religion Hitler was. {see: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/war.html - E.A.} My boyfriend is Christian and has been arguing with me for days over this issue. To find out that in his book he (Hitler) states he is killing Jews in the name of Christ and God gives me proof for my argument. I wonder what he'll say when I show it to him!! Thank you again.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: Sarah, You're quite welcome.

Atheist or Religious?  Atheist

I have a question that I would like to see posted on the "Questions For God" page. Why is Juan U. Kuchimpos "God's spokesman"? Also, if god is too busy to answer his own questions, what is he "too busy" doing?  Obviously, I don't believe god exists. I think belief in god is little more than a security blanket for the masses. Have these "true believers" lost the ability of rational thought?
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: We wonder why God doesn't respond either.  If he wants us to believe in him so much, one would think he would come down and have a personal conversation with everyone on earth... and maybe correct all the errors in his Bible while he's at it.

Atheist or Religious? Atheist

Thank you for having this site. I've been an atheist for about six years and have never laughed so hard at the stupid crap that religions do and now I have found a place where there are other people who feel the same way. I am glad that I found this site, I was actually looking for the flat earth society because someone told me it was funny, and I stumbled here and I am just happy that I did. Thanks so much and keep up the good work.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: Thank you for your kind comments on our site.  Emails like yours keep us motivated in our work which, at times, can otherwise be very frustrating and time-consuming.

Atheist or Religious?  Undetermined

Hey, I was just thinking, it is about Noah's ArK.  I know that it is a complete impossibility, but lots of christians won't be convinced.  Here is a new point besides the other oh so obvious ones: there were a lot of carnivores on board right. For the sake of argument let's say that Noah kept these animals fed for the duration of the voyage.  Afterwards though, what are the lions and tigers and polar bears going eat?  Sheep?  Well since there is only two of them this creates a problem doesn't it? Come on.  Isn't this too ludicrous for anyone, no matter how faithful, to except.

Atheist or Religious?  Not really either

Hello, I thought that your article on the Raelians made a lot of good points especially about the double standard. I mean I have an easier time believing in E.T. than I do in the stories of the bible.  Just wanted to say keep up the good work.  P.S. I would like to get my hands on some good sources that support what I have heard that all or most of the bible was written after the fact or was passed on word of mouth for a # of years.  If you could send me a source or two I would be really grateful.  Thanks.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Keenan,  Thanks for the kind comments on our site.  Regarding the history of the Bible and it being written after the fact, we are currently working on an article detailing all of this.  Until that time, I highly recommend the following books (not just for the history of the Bible, but for their entire content).  See our Recommended Reading page for details at: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/recommended_books.html.
 
• Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine (1984, originally published 1794)
• Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, by Bertrand Russell (1957) - See the later half of the book.
• Religions of America, by Leo Rosten (1975 and later?), see Part II, Chapter 6 - "The Bible".


Really, these are fantastic books.  Every American (and European) owes it to themselves to read Paine's "Age of Reason" from 1794.  The story of his life and his role in founding America is very interesting.

Atheist or Religious?  Nondenomanational [sic]

Hello my name is Joseph Strickland. I am a Rev. however I believe we all have the right to make our own desitions [sic]  in life. I am putting togather [sic]a resource center in Panama City, Florida and would like to make atheist infromation [sic]readly[sic]availible[sic]for poeple [sic]to view if you can help me please do email me at revjoehcc@yahoo.com.  Thanks for your help. Joseph.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Joseph, You are free to copy and redistribute anything on our site as long as it is not altered.  It must be complete and give recognition to the Ethical Atheist and our copyright.  Hope this helps.

Dear Ethical:  Forward Command Post (see: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/toy_forward_command_post.html) is a complete insult when you consider that Christian families were offended by "pregnant Barbie", a doll WITH A HUSBAND, WEDDING RING AND A SMALL CHILD because it "sends the wrong message" and will encourage "out of wedlock behavior".  Excuse me, but since when is the nuclear family a bad thing?  Wal Mart withdrew the Barbie doll over the protest because it didn't want to offend its customers.  HAH HAH HAH.....
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Klaus, I guess J.C. Penney receive a huge backlash on this toy because it’s gone from their website.

Here are a few more questions for God (god):
(see: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/questions_for_god.html)

QUESTION: Dear god... I was watching a football game today and two of your ardent believers were fighting over a pig-skin ovoid called a football and one of them caught it and then said he gave thanks to you for doing it.  What I want to know, god, is why aren't there enough footballs for all your believers?  How do you decide which one deserves to catch the ball and why did the other guy fail in his attempt to stop him?  Isn't he a good enough (pick your own word here god, since only you know which one is the right one) =Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Krishna, Shinto, Buddhist, Bahai, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist.... sigh .... the list is too long god so why don't you just fill in the blanks _______.  If this is all about "goodness" then why do so many stupid and evil people like OJ Simpson do well with the football and yet make such lousy people?  Why did you let him succeed in football when you knew he would become a murderer and an adulterer.  You knew he would break so many of your commandments (at least we think they're your commandments.  That's what that guy Moses said they were but who really knows)?and yet he was allowed to live a wonderful life and have fame, money and acclaim? The rest of us decent human beings think that really sucks god, so why do you do it?  Hell, even Atheists catch footballs from time to time.  Why do you allow that?

QUESTION: Dear god... Since the only people who ask stupid questions, like the first fifty or so you just heard, are Atheists, then why don't you solve your problem of making sure everyone believes in you by vaporizing a few of the non-believers in plain sight.  Make an example of the mothers.... that would settle the matter!  You see god, we're confused about why Atheists are allowed to live fulfilling, decent and happy lives, and all the while you go around tormenting, torturing, killing and persecuting those who believe in you.  Isn't that kind of sick and perverted god?  If the whole point of living is to die and get to heaven, why are you letting the Atheists have such a good time on earth?  Why do most of your believers get their butts kicked and spend all their time killing those whose flavor of belief in god is different from the other guy? Huh god?  Can you answer that one god?

I DIDN'T THINK SO....   Klaus
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Klaus,  Good questions for our page!  I’ve added them and they’ll be uploaded shortly.  “God” must have some kind of great plan for OJ, huh?  Maybe there’s a football league in heaven and god’s the coach of the “Divine Slaughterers”?  Like with college football recruiting, I’m sure even god overlooks some of the shortcomings in personality and character when he’s building a team.  But, alas, he’s god and he could make his team win even if it was made up of 2 year old girls, right? (ha)  Thanks for writing.

Atheist or Religious?  Both.  My argument is with the church.

I'm interested in some of the things that the church has said and done in God's name that turned out to be absolutely wrong.  Galileo is the quintessential example, but I'm sure there are more that, if they were followed, would have avoided such things as penicillin, the number zero, and suchlike.  Any thoughts?

I'm amazed at the poor grammar the "Hate Mailers" send you, besides being totally illogical.

Atheist or Religious?  Atheist.

Hi Ethical,

First let me tell you how much I enjoy your web site.  It provides a good laugh when you need one, as well as
many interesting facts.

I did a lot of thinking before I labeled myself an atheist. I started off really wanting to believe, even trying out prayers and attending mass. None of these activities appealed to me though, and I decided not to care. Several years later I revised this decision, as you cannot ignore religion in today's world. Now I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter whether or not God exists. Why would an all-powerful creature like that care if we mere humans believe in him or not? What is the point of practising a religion?

There certainly is no point in quarreling over how to worship a god, killing another human being if he does not share your exact view of the universe. I would like to see the day when astronomers formed war-bands and started killing off other astronomers just because they didn't like their last paper on nebulae.

Religious people have a tendency to claim that religion built the 'civilized' world. I would argue that the contrary is more accurate. People built the world we have today, and religious people have gone out of their way to try to destroy it.

On the question of who or what created the universe, I would have to answer - like a computer - Insufficient Data. Personally I find it quite impossible to believe that a God-like being created everything - let alone exclusively for human beings - let alone a God as the Christians or Jews or Muslems, Hindus, Norse, Romans or Greeks pictured it. Why do people feel the need to instantly understand exactly how and why we are here? If people must look for an answer, why not trust the only power that has ever given us truthful answers: Science? I stumbled on people and web sites that deny the theory (fact) of evolution, and I just can't understand why they are so unwilling to accept scientific proof.

To sum up: God or no God - To practise religion is a complete waste of time, as well as a destabilizing force in the world.

I would like to end with a book-tip. Contact by Carl Sagan.  A very good book that in it's story line debates the issues of Science vis a vis Religion, and to me demonstrates the folly of religious practise.

Keep up the good work!

Respectfully,
Fredrik Hansson
=====
The greatest mistake humanity ever produced was to believe it's own divinity.

Atheist or Religious?  Neither (sceptical [sic] of both....)

I would just like to say that I respect your defense of your own point of view. You refer to your rights of belief and I strongly agree with you. I am currently a student at university, in Canada. I would consider myself a scientific person who takes a close look at anything. Although I do agree with you on most articles in this web site, I believe that the lack of definitive proof in either respect(god or not) leads me to stay firmly entrenched in neutrality on the issue of god. I do like Einstein's theory that there is a "Cosmic" force that has eluded philosophers and scientists alike. This being said, there is no proof again. After reading your articles, I must say I would like to see a serious discussion between firmly religious people and yourselves. I hope you remain strong in your beliefs and do not bend to external pressure. All the best.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: David, Sorry for the delay in responding.  Thanks for the kind words on our site.  You mention that you are "firmly entrenched in neutrality on the issue of god."  Neutrality is a good place to be - it's that of an agnostic.  The following was previous response (see: Favorable Comments, response to Phil Hall, January 05, 2003 11:42 AM, below):
 
In reality, we would classify ourselves as agnostics too.   The reason for this is that we cannot PROVE that God doesn't exist.  However, we stand by our statement on our home page as follows:

   "In my examination, I've determined that I cannot prove God doesn't exist, yet I can question God's 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)

So, in reality, we are agnostics.  Yet, we prefer the term "Atheist" because it magnifies our adamant belief that no God exists, even though we cannot prove otherwise.


The nice part about not being religious is that the burden of proof is not on us.  We don't believe in religious teachings, therefore we don't have to prove that they are NOT true.  The burden of proof rests on the believers.  Thanks for writing.

Atheist or Religious?  Christian

Found an interesting site, http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellSiteIntro.htm, which details a concern (more like a gripping fear) that has occupied the minds of many people - be they theist or atheist.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: Thanks for the link.  We'll check it out.

Atheist or Religious?  A struggling atheist (thinking seriously about religion)

I am not here to bash the views of this website, simply to challenge it  from a very rudimentiary [sic] reasoning position.  Coming from a thinking man's position, all thoughts must add up, right? Ok.  Coming from an evolutionary perpective [sic], essentially, the complex physical world that we live in came from nothing(even in the big bang theory, the dust had to come from SOMEWHERE).  This theory absolutely defies any scientific law available today.  Coming from a creationist position, the universe was created from an all- knowing, perfect, and omnipotent being, thus explaning [sic] the complexities of the natural world.  Please explain to me why the religious argument is a ridiculuos [sic] argument when it simply makes more sense basically than that of evolution.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Phil,  Sorry for the delay in responding.  The Big Bang is a theory in that we cannot truly know if that's how things happened.  Many notable scientists belief in this theory, as do we.  The nice thing about science as compared to religious beliefs is that science is adaptable to change.  Throughout history, as new facts are discovered, theories are revised.  I'm not sure I would agree with your statement presumption that the Big Bang came from nothing.  As some scientists have stated, what happened before the Big Bang is beyond our scientific understanding at this time.  It could be that the Big Bang was the result of a previous Universe collapsing.  It may have collapsed on itself, only to explode again.  The science behind the Big Bang measures movement in the Universe and has determined that it is expanding.  By using equations of motion, scientists have backtracked to determine an estimate for the "birth" of our Universe "as we know it".  That point is the Big Bang.  We simply do not have any evidence to help us understand what happened before that. Picture 20 people surrounding a pool table.  They all roll their balls towards the center.  Assume they all hit at the same time and bounce off one another in all directions.  We could measure the speed and direction of each ball to determine where it came from and how long ago.  That would be the "Big Bang" on a small scale of a pool table.  However, we it we be very difficult to know what happened before that point.  From which direction did the balls come from before the collision?  At what speed?  Who knows?  The Big Bang of the Universe was infinitely more complex than this example.  We would have to disagree with your statement that the Big Bang "absolutely defies any scientific law available today."  There are ample physical/scientific laws to explain what happened after the event.  The only question is what happened before the event.  We would rather hold onto our knowledge of science and its ability to explain the Universe as we know it today, rather than belief in religion which cannot explain any of it.  Thanks for writing though and we hope this helps.

Could you please tell me the new way of writing B.C. and A.D. for a person who does not believe? I think one of them is B.N.E. (Before New Era), but  i'm not certain of the other one. I sincerely hope you can help me in this matter.

Kind Regards, Neil Robertson
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Notes on time references:

1. CE stands for "Common Era."  New term expected to replace AD, which stands for "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English, referring to the approximate birth year of Christ.

2. BCE stands for "Before the Common Era." Expected to replace BC, which means "Before Christ."

3. Common simply refers to the most frequently used calendar system: the Gregorian Calendar.  This removes the misnomer of the calendar being based on Christ's birth.  Historians currently believe his birth was anywhere between 12-4 BC.

(from THE FLAT EARTH, Chap 5, by the Ethical Atheist, http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch5.html)

Atheist or Religious?  Athiest

Hello,

My associates and I are networking with other atheists and agnostics. We have an eZine called veritas odium parit or The Truth Offends. Please add it to your links. http://www.truthoffends.com/  We have alot of information on religion, society, human nature that you wont find anywhere else.

Thank you for your time,
Terrance Harris

http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/prod.aspx?p=011creationi.1408001&zoom=yes#zoom

Atheist or Religious?  Christian

Why do you let your followers murder and rape us?  Why do you let your Catholic priests sodomize our precious children?  I think it's safe to say that we really don't like this.  Isn't your Catholic hierarchy hand chosen by you from the top down?  Are you afraid to admit to making a mistake in your choices?  Can you please admit the mistake and let our children grow up in a normal, ethical and safe environment?

Well In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, in the beginning it was good, but Adam and Eve, disobeyed God, and the world changed from good 2 bad...the people who rape, murder, steal, cheat..etc..will recieve [sic] their consequence for what they do..God doesn't not let them [sic]..its [sic] a world of free will and choice..Why God made us suffer for what Adam and eve did?,I don't know...but we all sin and come short of the glory of God, no one is perfect...but for all that we have done we will receive judgment one day..for beliefs and everything...
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Thanks for your answers.

Atheist or Religious?  Agnostic

Hello,  I occasionally read your website and find it very interesting. On the subject of Poland (where I happen to live at the moment), at the bottom of the page http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/Poland/poland_update.html you suggest that the website http://www.maryja.org is the official site of the fundamentalist-fascist Radio Maryja. In fact, this is apparently intentionally misleading, this website is a Lutheran one, and it seems to belong to some very brave Lutheran protestants whose aim is to enlighten Polish Catholics as to the true face of their church by explaining why Roman Catholicism is far from the original teaching of Jesus. The correct address for Radio Maryja is http://www.radiomaryja.pl.

Regards, Radek
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Thanks for writing.  I will make the corrections on the Poland page.

Atheist or Religious?  Christian

To whom it may concern:

I noticed on your website that you asked questions about Adam and Eve.  Well, I have answers for you:

You asked: Why did God create the Tree of Knowledge?  If it was wrong for Adam & Eve to eat the fruit of this tree, why create the tree in the first place?

The answer is simple.  God wanted to see what they would do.  Since man was a new creation, God wanted to see if they would obey his word or if they would fall into sin.  At the time, man was pure and sinless.  God wanted to test them and their innocence.  Naturally, God wanted them to remain innocent, but he wished to see if they loved him enough to obey him.

Next, you asked: Who created the serpent who tempted Eve to pick the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge?  God?  Why would he create the Tree from which they should not eat, then send a serpent to tempt them to do just that?

God did, in a way, create the serpent.  However, Satan himself was, at one time, one of God's angels.  In fact, he was favored among the angels.  Sadly, however, Satan (at that time known as Lucifer) became hungry for the same power that God had.  Because of his greed, God cast him out of heaven.  Satan then decided that the best way to get back at God for what he did to him would be to cause his beautiful creation of man to fall away from holiness.  What better revenge than that?  So, he took on the appearance of a serpent to tempt Eve into eating the fruit of the tree.

And lastly, you asked: First, there's Adam & Eve.  They have sons Cain, Abel & Seth.  So, there's 4 men and 1 woman, right?  What happened next to propagate the species?  Adam & Eve had other children, so brothers and sisters; or sons and Eve were having sex.  Isn't incest bad?  Wouldn't we all be retarded genetic mistakes?

If you have read the Bible, it only seems to talk about those 3 sons.  However, as it was in those times, most women were not deemed important enough to mention.  Usually, it says, "So-and-so begat So-and-so, and he had other sons and daughters."  Therefore, I believe that Adam and Eve did have daughters, but the writer of Genesis, having written the book much later in a time when women were not considered as important as men, did not mention other daughters that were born along with Cain and Abel because of their way of thinking during that time.  If you read Genesis 5:4, though, it does mention that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters.  True, in our way of thinking today, they are marrying sisters, but in that time, that was not uncommon.  God allowed brother and sister to wed and have children without genetic problems in order to increase the earth's population.

I hope this answers some questions at least three of your questions.

Sincerely, Amanda V.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Thanks for writing and providing youranswers.  These will be added to our Answers page at: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/questions_for_god_answers.html  (though we don't agree with them).

Atheist or Religious?  I consider myself an atheist/humanist

Here's a question for your Questions for God page:  #55 - God, ought not the atheists be treated with more compassion and understanding rather than to treated with defense mechanisms by the religious ? After all it is the godly who feel they have a supernatural connection where as the atheist does not.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Richard,  Thank you.  It will be added as #55.

Atheist or Religious?  Atheist

Hi, I would like to use your page as a reference for a paper, and for the bibliography we must site our resources and in order to do that the teachers would like the name of the author of the web page. If you could send me any name, first, last, or both, I would be very greatful. Thank you
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: K.C., Sorry, but due to discrimination, relatives and the sad fate of people like Planned Parenthood workers, we are anonymous.  You can use "Ethical Atheist" {names withheld due to religious discrimination} if you wish.  I'm sure your teacher will understand and appreciate our dilemma.

Dear Ethical Atheist:

Enjoyed your site.  Thought the following copyrighted article we wrote might be of interest to you as well.  (see link for "THE BAFFLING MYTH OF BELIEF", below)

Take care, Ron
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Ron, Thank you very much for sending us your article.  Sorry it took so long to reply (vacation).  Your article is great and we’re sure our readers will enjoy it!  We added it to our site at the following link.  We reproduced it without alteration (except for font and colors) and also included all your copyright and contact information.  Thanks again!
 
THE BAFFLING MYTH OF BELIEF
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/baffling_myth_of_belief.html

Atheist or Religious?  Agnostic/Atheist

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/index.shtml

The last 2 articles at this section of infidels.org I think are worthy of a critiquing because they are demonstrative of faulty argument for belief in the Bible. It is curious that nobody at infidels.org has critiqued those articles, maybe because the 1st 2 are right on scientifically. Maybe this would be more fodder for Ethical Atheist? Let me know if not, then why not because I think this is the type of thinking/methodology of putting religion into the science classroom that needs to be exposed for what it is, steps to faith in one of many Christian belief systems.I think this is the "Methodist" brand of harmonizing Biblical belief with modern thinking so they can maintain and add members[there has been a spate of ads on TV showing how open minded Methodists are, in one a women says "I can't believe a church that thinks this way." or something similar]
Here's a partial section of a recent posting I did at the infidels.org website, perhaps I'm not too good at establishing a debate but the whole argument of maintaining such fantasist thinking alongside scientific strikes me as muddle-headed and way off base.

Here's the link to the complete discussion.
  http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001426
Plebe

Atheist or Religious?  Agnostic/Atheist

Looks like somebody is peddling a new belief system, even proposing that the earth might explode! I think this would be a good one for review at EthicalAtheist. Enjoy!
 

http://www.thiaoouba.com/

http://bioresonant.com/cgi-bin/start.cgi/tp/ulog.html

Oh, no! For several years now, I have been planning my own atheist organization, which I planned to call the Ethical Atheist. I even had a magazine planned, articles written, tenets of Ethical Atheism, and plans for a website. Then, I just happened to look on the web under Ethical Atheist, only to see that you already had my name!

Oh, well, I was not quick enough. I am glad to see that someone else was thinking on the same lines that I was. I can't believe the number of people that I talk to who think that if you don't believe in God, you don't believe there is right or a wrong in the universe!

I still can't understand how anyone can associate a "god" who demanded animal sacrifice and the torture death of his own son with goodness! And the religions that came BEFORE Christianity were even worse!

I think that part of the problem is that humans don't value other humans enough. They seem to think that they have to be GIVEN their worth by god.

I have heard so many believers say that if there is no god, there is no such thing as right and wrong!

If you start out with an assumption that humans do have worth, (and therefore have a right to be treated with common decency,) there is no need for the existance of God to justify an ethical system. However, if one thinks that humans don't have any worth, there is no reason to be good unless there is a god.

By the way, there is something that has been scaring me. I believe that since the Christians, the Jews, and the Muslims all believe in the war of Armageddon, the last great war, it could be a self fulfilling prophecy.

What do you think?
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Wow!  Did I ever respond to this?  Yes, I had to start this site after hearing so many times that atheists cannot be ethical and moral without religion.  It has exploded from there.  If you have any articles on ethical atheism you would like to contribute to our site, we would love to have them.  Yes, I think Armageddon could be self-fulfilling… sad, but true.

Atheist or Religious?  Atheist

So you were raised "Southern Baptist" eh?  What part of the country are you in?
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Thankfully, I don't live there anymore.  But, I was raised a "Southern Baptist" in Central/South Texas.  If there is a Bible Belt in the U.S., I like to refer to Texas as the "Bible Crotch".  This may seem a harsh term, but you wouldn't believe the things I've seen and experienced there.

Atheist or Religious?  Ethical Atheist

Hello, I seem to be having a major crises with the Ebon Musing's webpage. In reading much of his material, I find what I think to be a massive flaw. His essays are very insightful and make much sense. Nevertheless, what boggles me the most is how he would allow people to subject themselves to narcotics, marijuana, and all kinds of drugs that can impair the thinking of people of all kinds. I think this is completely wrong and yes I am about freethinking, but when it puts lives at risk, I am against it. Pot leads to memory problems that can impact businesses, alcohol leads to high blood pressure and temper, drugs like heroin, cocaine, extacy, etc, these lead to crime, rape, death, and much more. Am I wrong in thinking this way? I care for people and I do not want to live in a world where I see people die, suffer, and restrict themselves from aquiring knowledge efficiently. I have not fully read your site, and I do hope I do not encounter what I did in the Ebon Musing's page. I am certain that drug use is the very germ that determines human evolutionary success and failure.

Thank you, Daniel.  P.S- Great site so far by the way.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Daniel,  I'm not familiar with the Ebon Musing's site, but will check it out when I have time.  The issues you bring up are difficult ones and it is not easy for me to take a stand one way or another.  Here's my thinking...  Everyone should be free to do whatever they want with their lives - good or bad.  However, that comes with the caveat that what an individual does should not have negative impacts on others.  If one drinks, fine.  If one drinks to excess, fine.  If one drinks to excess and drives an automobile, NOT fine.  That is endangering others and should not be permitted.  Many people believe that pot is less harmful than alcohol.  Both lead to memory loss, apathy, underachieving, etc. when taken in excess.  Yet, pot probably is better than alcohol in its adverse effects on the body.  Regarding other harder drugs, some people can use these and not be led to crime, rape and death as you mention.  However, many people do go down these dark paths when under the influence of the harder drugs over a long period.  At a minimum, their health is usually affected as well as their finances.  In my opinion, the primary issue in this discussion is "what is legal and what is illegal".  As an "Ethical Atheist", I do not believe in sin & evil as something that should govern behavior.  I must rely on the laws of the land and ethical actions.  Alcohol is legal and the drugs you mention are not.  So, in my opinion, one should not partake in illegal drugs.  If a person is strongly in favor of pot, they should work towards changing laws to make it legal.  If they choose to use pot regardless of American laws, maybe they should move to another country...  Amsterdam comes to mind.  That would be the ethical thing to do because if one is not governed by religion nor law, what are they governed by?  If one chooses to be governed by some laws and not others, it reminds me of many religious people who pick and choose what they want to believe and what they are willing to do with their beliefs.  However, some would argue that even though they don't live by religious beliefs, they live by "most" laws.  They would argue that laws against pot are wrong and their use of pot hurts nobody.  They live decent, ethical lives and their use of pot doesn't affect society.  This is where the issue becomes very difficult because we can sympathize with both sides: pot is illegal, yet they are not hurting anyone by their actions.  However, in the end, we would lean towards the rule of law.  For us, it is the same as our view on many other issues, such as abortion.  The fact is that abortion is legal.  Many don't like it, but the fact is that it is still legal.  If they are against it, they should lobby for making it illegal... They should not bomb abortion clinics nor assassinate doctors.  In the end, "ethical" behavior is largely influenced by the rule of law and views of the majority of the population.  I realize that my answer to your email is vague and two-sided, but that is the nature of ethics isn't it?  Thank you for writing.

Followup from DDeCastro63@aol.com
DDeCastro63@aol.com
Sunday, January 12, 2003 9:00 PM

Thank you for your honest reply. it is one of the most sensitive issues to discuss amongst atheists. In terms of pot being better than alchohol, that can be debatable. But I am not surprised about that idea as it is also true that the "Many" do not always know what is good for themselves as is evident in Plato's "The Apology". If you drink wine after you eat a bowl of spaghetti, it can be very good for your blood and can be very healthy. Of course, if it is over done, alcohol is dangerous. I don't like it too much though, but I definitely don't think it is worse than pot.

       In knowing that the "many" may not always be right, it should be taken into consideration, for the good of humanity and it's evolution, that one must avoid tampering with the sensitive state of the brain. There can be birth defects to take into consideration as well and it is unethical to allow people to be born mentally retarded. It must not be a good feeling to be that way, and we must avoid bringing a consciousness into this world in such a way. We can begin by not using drugs. Also, I don't see many geniuses using drugs either. That shows me something positive. Also know that there are too few geniuses in this world to compare to the many "Average" IQ individuals out there that do drugs. that is another factor to take into consideration.

       I compose classical music as a profession, and I have written complex and beautiful symphonic scores that are to be published soon in tribute of the World Trade center. My creativity was in no way contributed to drug use. I do not like the Beetles. In studying music, it is too simplistic and relates only to the masses of people who have done drugs and are of "Average" IQ. This is my opinion and experience. If I need to be corrected, I will gladly accept it, but I see nothing wrong with thinking this because I am not a tyrant, and I do not wish anything but good for my family, friends, and those around me.  From one atheist to another, thank you. I am confident you will take my view into consideration.

Daniel DeCastro
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Thank you for writing again.  You mention that “one must avoid tampering with the sensitive state of the brain”.  I agree with you from an “ethical” standpoint, yet from an evolutionary standpoint, my opinion differs.  Let’s assume this scenario: Someone uses hard drugs to the point of ruining their mind and affecting the health of their offspring.  Let’s assume for a minute that their offspring do not survive.  In this scenario, evolution worked.  The more fragile offspring, affected by the drug use of their parents, did not live to procreate and contribute to the next generation.  What concerns us is that modern medicine often “helps” those with little chance for survival in today’s world.  You will see articles in the future on the Ethical Atheist on this topic.  We have “progressed” in such a way that we can help those survive that are affected by brain defects, organ defects, immune deficiencies, etc.  In our opinion, we are messing with evolution and it will ultimately lead to major problems with the human race.  Let’s take another scenario: there is no “modern medicine”.  Only the strong survive.  In the coming years, a plague spreads globally.  However, most humans have a strong immune system and survive.  Compare that with the conditions that exist today where there is an attempt to keep everyone alive.  There is a higher percentage of people with weaker immune systems and weaker bodies.  So what happens?  A plague spreads to more of the global population.  It affects the weak, as it would in any scenario, yet it has a devastating impact on those kept alive by “modern medicine” whose fighting capacity is reduced.  This impact sustains the plague conditions which further impact the healthy.  We, at the Ethical Atheist, must say that we cannot knock “modern medicine” for saving the lives that it has.  Yet, we also see severe consequences in the long run for its results.

Regarding music, I must admit that I love classical music and thank you for your part in contributing your creativity.  I also love the Beatles.  It may be simplistic as you mentioned.  But, in fact, their music is much more complex than most contemporary musicians in their time or today.  I, too, am a musician and appreciate what the Beatles have offered to music in the 60’s.  Of course, I would never compare the Beatles’ work to Beethoven’s Symphony, No.9 in d Minor – yet, they had much to offer to a generation raised on nonsense (adolescent) music.

Followup from DDeCastro63@aol.com
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:49 AM

Yes, the Beatles are not worth Beethoven's fart. However, I agree that their talents were the best at the time (Then, of course, there is Samuel Barber, George Gershwin, Leroy Anderson... Hmm)  Anyways, I don't disagree with the use of "Medical Drugs" as they do have more benefit than consequences overall.  I am referring to narcotics like cocaine, pot, heroin, and maybe even alcohol as I see more problems with that each day.  I wonder about the evolutionary standpoint because if we have modern medicine doing all the healing work for us, we won't naturally build defences for certain ailments will we?  I doubt it.  If this is the case, we would have to be dependant on it, and how will we know that there will be an infinite supply of these medicines?  Just a thought, I could be wrong though.

Daniel

Your site is excellent.  Keep up the good work.

Check the site out below.  It's new.  When you get to the opening page, click on the image of Falwell and observe what happens.

  http://www.wackedup.com

The Falwell click goes to your site because (a) I really like your site and want more people to be exposed to it and (b) I believe that Falwell is indeed a terrorist, someone worthy of flushing down the toilet.

Keep up the good work.

Atheist or Religious?  Pagan

I'm looking for a three volume book I read several years ago, author is de Montoya. Presents a scholarly approach to history of religion, changes in the bible, koran, torah, etc.  Would appreciate any information you have, including correct title.  At one time books were offered through Madelyne Murray O'Hare's organization.  Thank you for any help you can offer.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Sorry, I cannot help you with this.  I'll research some and see if I can find some answers for you when time permits.

Atheist or Religious?  Neither

I have never been comfortable with the term "Atheist". By it's very definition (someone who believes there is no God) it is a "universal negative". A universal negative, according to science is not only impossible to prove, it would also establish that anyone who pursues to prove a universal negative is a fool.  I much prefer the honesty of the agnostic (someone who admits they don't know if there is a God or not).  I have found true agnostics to be more open to ideas on both sides of this important issue and less inflexible. I believe if there is a God, it will appreciate the honesty and open-heartedness of the true agnostic and if there is no God then the agnostic has lost nothing.

Phil (still searching) Hall
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: Thank you for writing.  In reality, we would classify ourselves as agnostics too.   The reason for this is that we cannot PROVE that God doesn't exist.  However, we stand by our statement on our home page as follows:

   "In my examination, I've determined that I cannot prove God doesn't exist, yet I can question God's 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)

So, in reality, we are agnostics.  Yet, we prefer the term "Atheist" because it magnifies our adamant belief that no God exists, even though we cannot prove otherwise.

Atheist or Religious? Agnostic

The problem with your questions for God is that you use the concept of the Christian God and don't allow for God being a supernatural being or perhaps group that created the universe, and might or might not have any further interaction, it's just simplistic polemics.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  O.K.  Do you have any evidence of another God we can evaluate?

Followup from Alex
a.agranov@verizon.net
Tuesday, January 14, 2003 6:02 PM

I have no evidence other then nothing exists without being created, so the fact that the universe exists implies a creator.  However, that does not mean I believe in the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem version of how they define that. You people have to be more open to other ideas besides your own!
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Alex, I guess I have a conceptual problem with your statement that "the universe exists implies a creator".  Just because something exists doesn't mean a person or deity created it, does it?

Atheist or Religious?  Scientific Materialist

Like your site thinking of adding a link to it.  Mine is scholarly, and I have developed other topics.
jeromekahn123.tripod.com/webrings.  Most people want to chat, not be taught.  Yours is chattie and thorough.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: Thanks for the link.

Atheist or Religious? Atheist

Dear E.A.

I read with interest your "debate" with Jordan Red, and while I agree with what you say, I have to point out one small error:

Antibiotics are used against bacterial infections, not against viruses, which are unaffected by antibiotics.  It's bacteria that have evolved resistance, much of it because people have insisted on using antibiotics when they have a cold!

I feel that our facts must be absolutely correct when debating with Bible-literalists, as they will often turn misstatements into their advantage. It takes 15 pages of refutations for one of their "facts" as it is!

Sincerely,

Nancy E. Craig
Tulsa, OK
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: Nancy, Thank you for writing.  Yes, we were wrong in saying viruses and we thank you, and all the other people who have written, in correcting our error.  The fix will be made immediately.

Atheist or Religious? Religious

I was looking for a Jesus Bobbin' Head doll when I found your web site.  I'm still not entirely sure sure what I think about your comments as listed on your web site.  I just ask one thing of you...do you respect anyone who believes in God and attempts to follow him? I'm not looking to argue.  I'm hoping to understand you.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Jay,  Thanks for writing.  I completely respect everyone's belief in God and whatever religion they may follow.  My only problem is when the try to force it on me... or when they discriminate against me because I don't share the same beliefs.  In my opinion, religion is the cause of most conflicts on Earth as evidenced by the Middle East with Islam & Jewish beliefs, the former Soviet Republic, and even within America.  However, America was founded on the premise that everyone is free to believe and worship any religion... a freedom of religion.  Therefore, I respect, but don't agree, with anyone who believes in God.  Just don't force it on me, or others in this country, and we'll be fine.

Followup from Jay Helms
jay@mtsylvan.org
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:22 PM

EA, That was cool of you to write me back.  For the record, I just asked if you respected anyone who believes in God and attempts to follow Him.  I didn't ask about all the other stuff.  I'm not trying to be a smart aleck.  Really, I'm not.  But you forced all of the rest of that stuff on me.  Interesting, isn't it.  Do you see my point?  The line between sharing and forcing gets blurry. This is where my comments even, out of respect for not forcing anything on anyone. Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my email. Jay Helms

Greetings,  Thought you may find this new site http://www.luciferslexicon.com of interest.

Yours infernally,  David Madison
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Thanks for the reference.  I’ll check out the website you mentioned.

Atheist or Religious? Atheist full through

I am about to launch a boycott against JC Penney's in regards to that Forward Command Post.  I just began the research to do this yesterday. if you'd like to join me, please contact me asap as I believe they need to be hit before xmas.
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist: Brite,  Sorry I missed your launch of a boycott regarding the "Forward Command Post".  I was on vacation for over 3 weeks and missed your email.  I hope it was a success. Please let us know of your actions and responses, if any.  And, thanks for writing!

Atheist or Religious? Atheist

Your site is very, very, very cool!

Atheist or Religious? Christian

Hi there,

I have read your "Questions for God" with interest, yet - though being a Christian, a follower of God - I will not try to answer them. Other believers will most certainly have tried already, some probably for the worse and hopefully at least a few for the better. Yet having read the "About Us" page and other parts of your site as well, I think it will not have been easy for them.

Before I elaborate, let me point out that I, too, would have considered myself a fellow of yours - an "Ethical Atheist" - not so long ago. My parents had already decided to follow that path about the time I was born - them having been brought up in a strongly Catholic environment and, probably just about like you, having experienced more religious pressure than they were willing to endure any longer - and consequently taught this path to me as well, with much success. As far as I can think back, I had always been an Ethical Atheist myself: I didn't - and later simply couldn't - believe in the Divine, thinking that in the first place it had all been made up by people to explain a world they couldn't understand; I had a set of ethical rules that I tried quite successfully to stick to; and I thought that the world would be a much better place if everyone would quit believing in the Divine and start following similar rules. I also believed - and took much interest - in science, maths and logic; I found that the bible was inconsistent with both science and itself, and concluded that the bible must be wrong; of course I had no respect for religions, and at times would turn to make fun of it.

I was an Ethical Atheist from head to toe; there was no thing nor thought nor person - nothing on earth - that could have convinced me to believe in the Divine. There were even times when I wished nothing more dearly than to believe - for the sole purpose of closing my eyes from what I was convinced to be the truth about what to expect after death, and which at times would upset me to the point of sheer panic: void, the absence of being - but even then I couldn't.

"Thou SHALT be open-minded and keep questioning your very own beliefs" - this used to be one of my own personal "Ethical Atheist's ten commandments", and I'd like to encourage every Ethical Atheist to adopt this one. I think it's self-evident from an Ethical Atheist's view: It follows directly from "Thou SHALT do what you expect from others" -  in this case to open their eyes and be ready to abandon their own ideas and accept yours instead.

Based on this "commandment", over a timespan of half a dozen of years from the age of about 20 on, through examining my own life, I gradually came to the conclusion that there MIGHT be SOME "positive principle" at work. Still I was an Ethical Atheist: I liked the idea, I even believed it to a certain extent, but it wasn't enough to base my life on it. I simply had no faith.

Yet faith I have now. Not because I believe but because I KNOW. I know now that there's a God. I know that He's something that science will never be able to describe, because He's not a natural force that is subject to certain predictable rules, but He Who Has A Plan, who is subject only to this very plan itself. A plan for the world, a plan for my life, a plan that I had been ignoring all my life. I know also that His plan for my life goes far beyond me being an ethical person. It's not rules but His plan that He wants me to follow.

I know it because it has been revealed to me on Sunday, July 29 2001, at about 11:30 central european daylight savings time. Not by flesh and blood, but by Him Who Has A Plan - that I know as well, otherwise I couldn't be so sure about the other facts. Together with another revelation a few days later - that this God has chosen a certain Christian community here in Cologne to be my "spiritual home" - it has become the foundation of my whole life ever since.

Everything else I have come to know since then has been built upon this rock. Part of it are merely conclusions I have drawn from those revelations, including that God wants me to believe in the teachings of that Christian community, and that therefore I can safely assume that He is the God of the Christian Bible, and that His son Jesus Christ - a part of Him - has paid the price for our sins through His death at the cross of Golgatha. I can also safely assume that the Bible is true.

Yes, I know that the bible contradicts science. I also know that it even seems to contradict itself. I cannot solve these mysteries. I can only make assumptions. I cannot even know for sure whether the Bible is actually true - yet I DO know for sure that I can safely assume it to be. I can build my whole life on it, and it shall not be moved.

Many Christians tend to claim - both to themselves and others - that their beliefs are true. I am certainly no exception: When I read your "Science, Truth and the Church" page, I thought of how to fight your arguments, being convinced that the Bible must be right and that I had to defend my faith against your claims. It is only while I am writing these lines that I rediscover what the basis of my faith really is: The issue is not whether the Bible has flaws or even errors. The issue is whether I can trust God to prevent me from falling to such errors. I know I can for sure.

At this point I think it's time to go a bit more into detail about my faith:

As mentioned before, I believe in God, and in Jesus Christ the son of God, who by his death at the cross of Golgatha has paid the price for our sins.

This concept is probably not new to you. It has been taught by countless Christian communities, and yet they all seem to differ. The Catholics teach it, the Protestants teach it, and the Baptists teach it, to name only a few, and they all disagree on doctrines and rituals. Yet many of them have one more thing in common: They hold up laws, and teach that by following those laws you gain God's love. Believe them not. They're the Scribes and Pharisees of our times. Their teachings are dead religion.

The truth is totally different. God loves you in any event, regardless of what you've done or are currently doing. God loves you even when you defame His name. Not because you do, but even though you do. There's nothing we can ever do to increase or decrease His love for us.

What we can, however, is do God a favour by following the plan He has for our life. There is also a reward to us for this, but it's not because of an increase in God's love - it's because God cannot reward us unless we walk on the path that leads us to those treasures. Giving us all the good things God has is part of His plan. Live by it, and you'll gain the gifts of God. Walk astray, and they'll still be there, but you'll not be there to pick them up.

It is also not by rules and other people that we'll find out God's plan for our life, but in a close personal relationship with God himself. Speak to Him and listen to Him, that's the key. God will probably ask of you to obey certain people and rules, yet there's always an "unless stated otherwise" to it.

I'll say it again: It's the close personal relationship with the only living God that counts. Everything else is just dead religion.

I think I've said enough for now. I didn't make the point that I originally intended to make, but I think God has made His point.

Be blessed. Christoph
 

Response from the Ethical Atheist:  Thank you for writing.  Sorry for the delay in responding.  I've been on vacation for over 3 weeks.  I'm curious that you mention the time and date of "Sunday, July 29 2001, at about 11:30 central european daylight savings time" as the moment you switched from an Ethical Atheist to a Christian.  But, you don't provide any details as to what happened then.  What was it that made you change in your beliefs?  What was it that made you disregard your knowledge of math, science and errors in the Bible?  How can you throw out your knowledge regarding science and errors in the Bible and just blindly accept Jesus and "God's Plan"?  We certainly thank you for writing, yet have many unanswered questions in what you write.  We look forward to hearing from you.

Hi there,

First of all, please forgive me my late response. On one hand, talking or writing about God is too important to waste a single second, but on the other hand it is also too important to be too hasty. And I wasn't sure what to answer to your question. You ask, "What was it that made you disregard your knowledge of math, science and errors in the Bible? How can you throw out your knowledge regarding science and errors in the Bible and just blindly accept Jesus and "God's Plan"?"

My first idea was to simply contradict you: I didn't "throw out" my scientific knowledge. It just doesn't rank as high in my life anymore. And I didn't "blindly" accept Jesus and God's Plan. My eyes were fully open and clearer than ever before when I accepted God's Plan for my life and asked Jesus to be the Master of my life.

But I guess this approaches wouldn't help you much, and at any rate it wouldn't answer your question.

My second idea was to somehow address what I read between the lines: "You must have gone mad; how could you throw away everything we both should be fighting for?!" But I can't even figure out for sure whether it was the writer or the reader who added this connotation, let alone what I should write in response that would be fair and wise to write.

So it's probably best to just answer the question what h