Hate Mail

Michael Rennie

[Editor's note: Most of my E-mail relates to creationism, since that is the primary focus on this website. But I do get a substantial volume of E-mail about the idea that America was founded as a secular nation rather than a Christian one. Here is an example of such an exchange]

[Feb 8, 2006 (his opening salvo)]:

You said "America was founded as a secular humanist state, not a Christian state."

If they wanted to create a humanist state, they would have enacted laws to prevent the expression of religion, like they are doing in France today. The fact is they openly encouraged the expression of religious thought, for example every bill says "In God we trust", and the Ten Commandments are displayed in government buildings. America is a Christian country, and it always has been that way.

You also make the point on your site that great ancient civilizations such as Greece and Egypt created a highly developed culture & society without any help from Jesus & his God. The fact is ancient Greece was a highly religious society. Read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/features/greek_gods/intro.shtml. Egypt too was grounded in faith. In fact, every great ancient civilization has had religion as its foundation.


[My response]:

You said "America was founded as a secular humanist state, not a Christian state."

If they wanted to create a humanist state, they would have enacted laws to prevent the expression of religion, like they are doing in France today.

Obviously, you don't realize that humanism does not prohibit the expression of religion, and France does not prohibit the expression of religion either; they only have strict school dress codes.

The fact is they openly encouraged the expression of religious thought, for example every bill says "In God we trust", and the Ten Commandments are displayed in government buildings.

Actually, the original currency said "E Pluribus Unum", not "In God We Trust". That was added later. And the Ten Commandments displays have been repeatedly ruled to be unconstitutional.

America is a Christian country, and it always has been that way.

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Care to explain why neither God or Jesus are mentioned even once in the Constitution? Care to explain why most of the Ten Commandments are not found anywhere in law? Commandments #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, and #10 are not found in law. In fact, the only commandments which ARE found in law are also found in pre-Christian societies such as that of ancient Rome.

You also make the point on your site that great ancient civilizations such as Greece and Egypt created a highly developed culture & society without any help from Jesus & his God. The fact is ancient Greece was a highly religious society.

Religious but not Christian. All Christians today agree that the Greek gods were a silly superstition, and someday people will agree that the Christian God was a silly superstition too.

Read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/features/greek_gods/intro.shtml. Egypt too was grounded in faith. In fact, every great ancient civilization has had religion as its foundation.

The fact that they had religion does not mean they were founded on religion. And every failed ancient civilization had religion too. That's because none of them were enlightened enough to have science instead.


[His next message]:

What makes you think that religious Greece didn't have Science? The fact is that all civilizations that have produced historic scientific breakthroughs have been deeply influenced by religion. Greece, Rome, Egypt etc. They crumbled when sodomy & free sex reached a certain point. Having religious faith does not diminish one's ability for rational thinking.

Everyone has a tendency to believe what they want to believe, because it makes them comfortable. You find the idea of a divine creator uncomfortable, so you deny the value of religion and refute it as superstition; and that is your prerogative. However I'd like to say that to start with the pretext that there is no God because you believe so is highly unscientific. The notion that the world came about through random selective mutation has been proved a mathematical impossibility - I did it myself. You know this is the case, you just don't like religion.

Bye the way, no one ever said that the constitution is perfect. But whether you want to admit it or not, America is deeply influenced by Christianity, all the way back to the founding fathers.


[My response]:

What makes you think that religious Greece didn't have Science? The fact is that all civilizations that have produced historic scientific breakthroughs have been deeply influenced by religion. Greece, Rome, Egypt etc. They crumbled when sodomy & free sex reached a certain point. Having religious faith does not diminish one's ability for rational thinking.

The ancient Greeks did not have the scientific method. They wanted scientific understanding, but they had no logical methodology for getting it. The Aristotelian method of science has in fact been demonstrated to be the antithesis of the modern scientific method, which has only been in use for a few centuries (and look at how fast we have progressed in those few centuries).

Everyone has a tendency to believe what they want to believe, because it makes them comfortable. You find the idea of a divine creator uncomfortable, so you deny the value of religion and refute it as superstition; and that is your prerogative.

No, I find it IRRATIONAL, not uncomfortable. I'd love to have an immortal soul which lives on after the death of the body, but unlike you, I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that this actually makes sense. Do you really think anybody out there actually relishes the idea of disappearing into oblivion upon death? It says a lot about the lack of intellectual rigour behind your arguments that you have somehow convinced yourself that atheists actually ENJOY the idea of having such a short time to exist.

However I'd like to say that to start with the pretext that there is no God because you believe so is highly unscientific.

Wrong. The scientific method is to employ only those terms which are necessitated by objective data. God does not fall into that category.

The notion that the world came about through random selective mutation has been proved a mathematical impossibility - I did it myself. You know this is the case, you just don't like religion.

Wrong again; the mathematical calculations used for these kinds of arguments invariably assume that organic chemistry is random rather than deterministic, even though we have centuries worth of evidence that organic chemistry follows deterministic rules.

Bye the way, no one ever said that the constitution is perfect. But whether you want to admit it or not, America is deeply influenced by Christianity, all the way back to the founding fathers.

Why don't you answer the points I made in my previous E-mail regarding this subject?


[His bizarre next message]:

What do you mean by organic chemistry following 'deterministic' rules? Does that apply to the solar system too?


[My response]:

What do you mean by organic chemistry following 'deterministic' rules? Does that apply to the solar system too?

Yes of course, the solar system follows rules rather than all events occurring randomly. But what does the solar system have to do with the probability of biological evolution?

And when do you plan to answer my points specifically, one by one, as I have done with yours?


[Feb 9, 2006 (his next message, where he inadvertently admits the problem with his thinking; see last paragraph)]:

I'm sorry for not answering all your points - I will try to do better. But I must say that most of the points you make are just your own stubborn opinion, for example I could show that God has been working throughout history, but you would just dismiss it as superstition. Do you accept that you are stubborn, and that being so is most unscientific?

My point about the solar system is that for you to maintain your atheistic beliefs, you have to come up with a plausible explanation for the origin of the solar system too. There is just as much divine design in the organization of the planets as there is in the natural world.

I just noted you have that section on your site about deterministic probability. I will read that later and get back to you on that.

Anyway, I think we can agree that people will believe what they want to believe, because it does make them comfortable. I myself am comfortable with the idea of religion because if it were false, it would mean that my whole upbringing was a farce.


[My response]:

I'm sorry for not answering all your points - I will try to do better. But I must say that most of the points you make are just your own stubborn opinion,

Then why can't you show what's logically wrong with them?

for example I could show that God has been working throughout history, but you would just dismiss it as superstition.

Fine. Try to show this, then.

Do you accept that you are stubborn, and that being so is most unscientific?

Stubbornly logical, perhaps. You obviously don't even know what "unscientific" means.

My point about the solar system is that for you to maintain your atheistic beliefs, you have to come up with a plausible explanation for the origin of the solar system too. There is just as much divine design in the organization of the planets as there is in the natural world.

Please show how you derive the number of planets and their orbital characteristics from the Bible, or from the idea of God. I would be particularly interested in seeing the mathematical portion of this derivation.

I just noted you have that section on your site about deterministic probability. I will read that later and get back to you on that.

Yeah, sure you will. So far you have not directly answered a single point; every time I deconstruct one of your arguments you simply move on to a new one.

Anyway, I think we can agree that people will believe what they want to believe, because it does make them comfortable. I myself am comfortable with the idea of religion because if it were false, it would mean that my whole upbringing was a farce.

Thanks for admitting that YOUR position is based upon wishful thinking. Now ask yourself why you had to try and convince yourself that mine is the same, when in fact I would actually like to be proven wrong about the limited span of my own existence.


[Feb 15, 2006 (his next response, in which he predictably tries to change the subject away from the American Constitution)]:

Actually, France is very intolerant of Religion. I live in Europe, so I would know. There was recently riots all around France, and part of it came from the Arab/Muslim population being persecuted by heavy handed policing. I saw a video of a young Muslim rioter in the street complaining that the French police had violated his mosque. So yes, the French are *very* intolerant.

Yeah so what if the Ten Commandments have been ruled to be unconstitutional? You said that your website is for your children's sake - do you really think that they would be harmed by having a sign that says "Though shall not commit adultery" ?

Ancient Egypt's belief in God was not superstition, it was their personal search for internal truth. Religion since then has advanced because we have received numerous prophets such as Jesus who came to show the way.

Whether America is constitutionally secular or not, it is still fundamentally Christian, with a mission from God.

You make many claims on your site that people of faith are unreasonable imbeciles who know nothing about science, and want to discredit science with their holy scripture. This is simply a lie. I myself study science, and I haven't seen one piece of evidence on your site that disproves the existence of God. Thats just a lie that you propogate time and again. The only thing that your site does is repeat a theory for the origin of life that Darwin himself didn't believe in. By the way, you still haven't provided me with a theory for the origin of the solar system that doesn't involve God.

You also completely mix up the issue of religious morality with science. Ill be the first one to admit that religion has been used in the past for unspeakably evil acts. But you misuse that argument to disprove the existence of God. God exists/does not exist regardless of who is in the moral right. You can't use the morality argument to disprove the existance of God.

While we are on the subject of morality, it is interesting to note what effect the the sexual revolution has had on America. If you look at history since the 1960s and see how divorce has rocketed, people are having sex at younger ages, there's promiscuity; it does seem that pornography & free sex has had a very devastating effect on America & the rest of the world. If the sexual revolution has really had such a great effect for freedom, then why isn't Hugh Hefner heralded as a role model? Do you think he is a good role model for your children?


[My response]:

Actually, France is very intolerant of Religion. I live in Europe, so I would know. There was recently riots all around France, and part of it came from the Arab/Muslim population being persecuted by heavy handed policing. I saw a video of a young Muslim rioter in the street complaining that the French police had violated his mosque. So yes, the French are *very* intolerant.

Nonsense; no one is imprisoned for being Muslim. And in fact, the real problem in France is racial.

Yeah so what if the Ten Commandments have been ruled to be unconstitutional? You said that your website is for your children's sake - do you really think that they would be harmed by having a sign that says "Though shall not commit adultery" ?

The point is that you were clearly wrong about US law being based on the Bible. And it's not that particular commandment I have a problem with; it's all of the bogus ones instructing them to worship your God.

Ancient Egypt's belief in God was not superstition, it was their personal search for internal truth. Religion since then has advanced because we have received numerous prophets such as Jesus who came to show the way.

Wrong. Ancient Egypt's religious beliefs were total superstition, just like those of ancient Greece and modern Christianity. Or perhaps you think it is NOT mere mythology that the Sun is Apollo's chariot?

Whether America is constitutionally secular or not, it is still fundamentally Christian, with a mission from God.

I love the way you keep saying you're right even though you can't produce any evidence to back it up.

You make many claims on your site that people of faith are unreasonable imbeciles who know nothing about science, and want to discredit science with their holy scripture. This is simply a lie. I myself study science, and I haven't seen one piece of evidence on your site that disproves the existence of God. Thats just a lie that you propogate time and again.

I don't have to "disprove" the existence of God any more than I have to "disprove" the existence of Santa Claus. I need only point out that there is not a shred of evidence for it.

The only thing that your site does is repeat a theory for the origin of life that Darwin himself didn't believe in.

I see you have resorted to simply repeating lies about what Darwin did or didn't believe.

By the way, you still haven't provided me with a theory for the origin of the solar system that doesn't involve God.

If you don't understand how gravity works, that's not my problem.

You also completely mix up the issue of religious morality with science. Ill be the first one to admit that religion has been used in the past for unspeakably evil acts. But you misuse that argument to disprove the existence of God. God exists/does not exist regardless of who is in the moral right. You can't use the morality argument to disprove the existance of God.

Good, since I never did use the morality argument to disprove the existence of God. Thanks for demonstrating that you either can't read or won't bother.

While we are on the subject of morality, it is interesting to note what effect the the sexual revolution has had on America. If you look at history since the 1960s and see how divorce has rocketed, people are having sex at younger ages, there's promiscuity; it does seem that pornography & free sex has had a very devastating effect on America & the rest of the world.

Oh yeah, we were SO much more moral in the 1950s when Jews were afraid to use their real names and black people were beaten and segregated, and an Asian man like myself could have been killed for dating a white woman.

If the sexual revolution has really had such a great effect for freedom, then why isn't Hugh Hefner heralded as a role model? Do you think he is a good role model for your children?

LOL, nice logic. Let's show how absurd this reasoning is by applying it to other situations. If it's so great to let people play football instead of outlawing it, then why isn't OJ Simpson heralded as a role model? Do you think he is a good role model for your children?

Once again, you refuse to answer any of my points individually. I grow weary of your refusal to do me the courtesy of answering my points as I have been doing with yours. Answer my points in your next reply or this conversation is over. I do enjoy a good debate, but I don't particularly enjoy talking to a brick wall.


[His next message]:

Ok ill make sure I answer every point.

Nonsense; no one is imprisoned for being Muslim. And in fact, the real problem in France is racial.

Who lives near France, me or You? I think I, as a European, have a much better right to say what France is really like than you. Everyone knows the French are intollerant of religion.

The point is that you were clearly wrong about US law being based on the Bible. And it's not that particular commandment I have a problem with; it's all of the bogus ones instructing them to worship your God.

I never exactly said it was based on the Bible. What I said was that every great civilization from Egypt to Ancient Greece to the Roman Empire to the USA has been firmly grounded in faith. And overall, they have been better off with it. Its not Jesus that is telling your president to go bomb Iraqis.

Wrong. Ancient Egypt's religious beliefs were total superstition, just like those of ancient Greece and modern Christianity. Or perhaps you think it is NOT mere mythology that the Sun is Apollo's chariot?

Thats really cheap. You can take ancient mythologies and redicule them, but thats just what they believed at the time. Like I said, religion has advanced since then, and so has science.

I love the way you keep saying you're right even though you can't produce any evidence to back it up.

I dont have to prove that America is a Christian country - just turn on your TV and watch those televangelists. Anyway this is not really the issue.

I don't have to "disprove" the existence of God any more than I have to "disprove" the existence of Santa Claus. I need only point out that there is not a shred of evidence for it.

What about the art in the natural world? What about the abundance of different types of fruits such as bananas, kiwis, oranges, apples, pears, pineapples, grapefruit, strawberries? There is the evidence. You cant create a plausible theory of how natural selection can explain how all those different pieces of fruit came about. All the beauty in those fruits could not have come purely from natural selection. The only plausible theory is that they were designed by someone with love.

I see you have resorted to simply repeating lies about what Darwin did or didn't believe.

What I meant was, Darwin himself never denied the existence of God.

If you don't understand how gravity works, that's not my problem.

That's an irrelevant answer. Ill give you another chance. Come up with a plausible theory of how the orientation of the solar system came about. We both agree that the big bang occurred first, but then all those planets got into place through natural selection? How did it happen? I really want to know.

Good, since I never did use the morality argument to disprove the existence of God. Thanks for demonstrating that you either can't read or won't bother.

You have a website called www.creationtheory.org. It is meant to dispute creationism, apparently through science. So why do you mention morality on that site at all? Why do you compare Moses to Bin Laden? That's really scientific. And yes, I can read.

Oh yeah, we were SO much more moral in the 1950s when Jews were afraid to use their real names and black people were beaten and segregated, and an Asian man like myself could have been killed for dating a white woman.

Certain things in the 1950s were better, certain things were not. One thing is for sure: families, the bedrock of society, were a lot stronger back then.

LOL, nice logic. Let's show how absurd this reasoning is by applying it to other situations. If it's so great to let people play football instead of outlawing it, then why isn't OJ Simpson heralded as a role model? Do you think he is a good role model for your children?

Stop dodging the question: Is Hugh Hefner, the icon of the sexual revolution, a good role model for your children or not? There seems to be a trend that people with no faith have no objection to indulging in carnal lust. Religious people do it too, but at least they try to stand against it.

Once again, you refuse to answer any of my points individually. I grow weary of your refusal to do me the courtesy of answering my points as I have been doing with yours. Answer my points in your next reply or this conversation is over. I do enjoy a good debate, but I don't particularly enjoy talking to a brick wall.

There you go. I'm sorry for not being as thorough before.

You know, I dint actually disagree with evolution. I agree that all life evolved through various states No modern Christian would say that the universe was created in six days - that's just symbolic. The theory of evolution just cant explain how life came about without a designer, that's all.

Lets assume there are 1,000,000,000 traits/beneficial characteristics in the body (conservative estimate). Lets also assume that each one takes 5 generations or 100 years to develop by natural selection (again, a conservative estimate). That means that human evolution would need to take at least 100 billion years (assuming European billion) to get to where we are right now.


[My response]:

Who lives near France, me or You? I think I, as a European, have a much better right to say what France is really like than you. Everyone knows the French are intollerant of religion.

Ah yes, the "everyone knows" argument. The same one you've been using to "prove" that America is a Christian nation rather than a secular one, right? Sorry but that's not much of an argument. If the problem is primarily religious, why is it centred around poor black youths? Sheer coincidence?

I never exactly said it was based on the Bible. What I said was that every great civilization from Egypt to Ancient Greece to the Roman Empire to the USA has been firmly grounded in faith. And overall, they have been better off with it. Its not Jesus that is telling your president to go bomb Iraqis.

You claimed that America was founded on Christianity. It is not. Its founding documents show no evidence of Christianity whatsoever. In fact, the most backward nations in the world today are those which are MOST religious, not the ones that are least religious. Take a good look at Africa and the Middle East.

Thats really cheap. You can take ancient mythologies and redicule them, but thats just what they believed at the time. Like I said, religion has advanced since then, and so has science.

How is it "cheap"? The fact is that science has figured out more about the universe in the last few centuries than religion did in the last ten thousand years.

I dont have to prove that America is a Christian country - just turn on your TV and watch those televangelists. Anyway this is not really the issue.

TV shows prove that America was founded on Christianity? Nice evidence. And it IS the issue, since you opened this exchange by claiming that America was founded on Christian principles. It was not. It was founded as a secular nation which happens to contain a majority of Christians, but whose laws are decidedly secular.

What about the art in the natural world? What about the abundance of different types of fruits such as bananas, kiwis, oranges, apples, pears, pineapples, grapefruit, strawberries? There is the evidence.

That's not evidence of creation. That is evidence of evolution.

You cant create a plausible theory of how natural selection can explain how all those different pieces of fruit came about.

Strange how biologists have done exactly that.

All the beauty in those fruits could not have come purely from natural selection. The only plausible theory is that they were designed by someone with love.

Do you honestly believe this tripe? What about all the ugliness in the natural world? Was that designed by someone with hate?

What I meant was, Darwin himself never denied the existence of God.

Totally irrelevant to evolution theory or anything else on my website for that matter.

That's an irrelevant answer. Ill give you another chance. Come up with a plausible theory of how the orientation of the solar system came about. We both agree that the big bang occurred first, but then all those planets got into place through natural selection? How did it happen? I really want to know.

It is not an irrelevant answer; conservation of momentum and gravity are all you need. The fact that you don't personally understand how this works is not evidence that there is a flaw in the logic. If you think there is something wrong with current cosmological theory, research it yourself and then show me where the flaw in their reasoning is. The idea that I must somehow teach you basic physics or you will declare that it doesn't work is an absurdly obvious Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. If you couldn't understand it in science class, with the full benefits of textbooks and a teacher, what makes you think I can explain it to you via E-mail?

Once again: if you think you can show what's wrong with current cosmological theory, EXPLAIN THE FLAW. Don't simply assume it doesn't work because you don't understand it, and then challenge people to MAKE you understand it.

You have a website called www.creationtheory.org It is meant to dispute creationism, apparently through science. So why do you mention morality on that site at all? Why do you compare Moses to Bin Laden? That's really scientific. And yes, I can read.

No you can't, since my argument against creationism is not predicated upon the moral argument. I simply raise the moral argument because it is so often used by Christians against evolution and atheism.

Certain things in the 1950s were better, certain things were not.

So much for your lie that society has been getting worse since then.

One thing is for sure: families, the bedrock of society, were a lot stronger back then.

Prove it. By the way, abused women cowering in fear of their husbands are not examples of strong families, and back then, abused women were afraid to even report it because nothing would be done about it. Unity through fear is not real unity.

Stop dodging the question: Is Hugh Hefner, the icon of the sexual revolution, a good role model for your children or not?

No he's not, any more than OJ Simpson is a good role model for my children. It doesn't mean that the sexual revolution or the freedom to play football are bad things. If anyone is avoiding the point here, it is you.

There seems to be a trend that people with no faith have no objection to indulging in carnal lust. Religious people do it too, but at least they try to stand against it.

Correct. Carnal lust is good. I fucked my wife up the ass last night and she enjoyed it. Why should that be a problem?

There you go. I'm sorry for not being as thorough before.

Fair enough.

You know, I dint actually disagree with evolution. I agree that all life evolved through various states No modern Christian would say that the universe was created in six days - that's just symbolic. The theory of evolution just cant explain how life came about without a designer, that's all.

And you say this after extensive study of the theory of evolution? It takes rather considerable knowledge of a field in order to [be] knowledgeable enough to credibly declare that thousands of highly qualified scientists in that field are all wrong; just how much scientific education do you have?

Lets assume there are 1,000,000,000 traits/beneficial characteristics in the body (conservative estimate). Lets also assume that each one takes 5 generations or 100 years to develop by natural selection (again, a conservative estimate). That means that human evolution would need to take at least 100 billion years (assuming European billion) to get to where we are right now.

You seriously think you can disprove evolution by pulling arbitrary numbers out of thin air?


[His next message]:

Ah yes, the "everyone knows" argument. The same one you've been using to "prove" that America is a Christian nation rather than a secular one, right? Sorry but that's not much of an argument. If the problem is primarily religious, why is it centred around poor black youths? Sheer coincidence?

Anyway France is besides the issue. All I was saying is that you cant persecute religion and expect people to take it forever.

You claimed that America was founded on Christianity. It is not. Its founding documents show no evidence of Christianity whatsoever. In fact, the most backward nations in the world today are those which are MOST religious, not the ones that are least religious. Take a good look at Africa and the Middle East.

I agree, Africa and the Middle East are pretty backward. Thats because Islam is a pretty backward, Old Testament style religion.

How is it "cheap"? The fact is that science has figured out more about the universe in the last few centuries than religion did in the last ten thousand years.

So whats your point? Science is about figuring out the external world. Religion is about figuring out the internal.

TV shows prove that America was founded on Christianity? Nice evidence. And it IS the issue, since you opened this exchange by claiming that America was founded on Christian principles. It was not. It was founded as a secular nation which happens to contain a majority of Christians, but whose laws are decidedly secular.

As for America being founded on Christianity, we both have different ideas of what that means. Im saying that because the forefathers were predominantly Christian. Had they been atheists then America wouldn't enjoy the religious freedom it does now.

That's not evidence of creation. That is evidence of evolution.

How? You just use the "its just evolution" argument every time. Explain to me exactly how natural selection could account for a strawberry? The fact that a strawberry is so delicious, beautiful and scented means that according to natural selection it should die out by being eaten too much by hungry animals. If natural selection really was the answer then the strawberry would be an ugly thing that no one wanted to eat.

Strange how biologists have done exactly that.

No they haven't. Darwin created a vague theory for the origin of certain species, and then people assumed that it could apply to everything. Explain to how it could be applied to the strawberry.

Do you honestly believe this tripe? What about all the ugliness in the natural world? Was that designed by someone with hate?

Have you read the Divine Principle by Rev. Moon? It explains the origin of evil very clearly there. Go here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/derk.dorsten/index.html and click on "Fall of Man"

Totally irrelevant to evolution theory or anything else on my website for that matter.

Yeah you're right there.

It is not an irrelevant answer; conservation of momentum and gravity are all you need. The fact that you don't personally understand how this works is not evidence that there is a flaw in the logic.

There you go again assuming that religious people are stupid. For your information I'm just about to graduate from university with a science degree; and I did study Alevel physics. You're just dodging the question again. The fact is that conservation of momentum and gravity doesn't not account for how such order came from the chaos of the big bang.

If you think there is something wrong with current cosmological theory, research it yourself and then show me where the flaw in their reasoning is. The idea that I must somehow teach you basic physics or you will declare that it doesn't work is an absurdly obvious Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. If you couldn't understand it in science class, with the full benefits of textbooks and a teacher, what makes you think I can explain it to you via E-mail?

Now there you go being rude again. Cosmological theory says that the universe started with the big bang, and from that came the solar systems and galaxies that we see. How does that deny God? It seems to support the idea of God because the Bible says that God caused the universe. You shouldn't assume that the big bang was without cause just because it suits you.

Once again: if you think you can show what's wrong with current cosmological theory, EXPLAIN THE FLAW. Don't simply assume it doesn't work because you don't understand it, and then challenge people to MAKE you understand it.

There's no flaw in cosmological theory, not that I am aware of anyway. I agree with you there. But cosmological theory supports the idea of God, not the other way round.

No you can't, since my argument against creationism is not predicated upon the moral argument. I simply raise the moral argument because it is so often used by Christians against evolution and atheism.

OK, fair game then.

So much for your lie that society has been getting worse since then.

Why do you always describe my differences of opinion as lies? While the divorce rate increases, society is certainly not getting better.

Prove it. By the way, abused women cowering in fear of their husbands are not examples of strong families, and back then, abused women were afraid to even report it because nothing would be done about it. Unity through fear is not real unity.

...

No he's not, any more than OJ Simpson is a good role model for my children. It doesn't mean that the sexual revolution or the freedom to play football are bad things. If anyone is avoiding the point here, it is you.

I'm not avoiding the point. The existence of God leads on to the issue here of whether religion in general is a good thing. I hold the position that it is, and that the sexual revolution was an affront against what religion stands for. If the sexual revolution was good as you say, then why isn't Hugh Hefner a good role model for your children?

Correct. Carnal lust is good. I fucked my wife up the ass last night and she enjoyed it. Why should that be a problem?

I should clarify better. I think everyone agrees that freedom comes with responsibility. It is right that you engage in carnal lust within the context of marriage; but being irresponsible with your body is reckless. I am very happy that you and your wife are having a great time.

And you say this after extensive study of the theory of evolution? It takes rather considerable knowledge of a field in order to knowledgeable enough to credibly declare that thousands of highly qualified scientists in that field are all wrong; just how much scientific education do you have?

The reason that natural selection was so widely accepted in the scientific community is that they were looking for an explanation that didn't involve God, and they found one in natural selection. To me it just doesn't seem realistic, as I will demonstrate below. It also doesn't require extensive study, its quite a simple idea.

You seriously think you can disprove evolution by pulling arbitrary numbers out of thin air?

There you go skillfully dodging my point again. What is wrong with those numbers? Are they not realistic / conservative estimates? Would you like to adjust them? Have I got the math all wrong? Where is the flaw in that calculation?

Also, stop calling me stupid or accusing me of lying. It doesn't help your case, its just a crafty way of deflecting questions.


[Feb 17, 2006 (my response)]:

Anyway France is besides the issue. All I was saying is that you cant persecute religion and expect people to take it forever.

It is hardly beside the issue to point out that you are wrong about secularism persecuting religion. It keeps religion out of public life, but not private life.

I agree, Africa and the Middle East are pretty backward. Thats because Islam is a pretty backward, Old Testament style religion.

And the Old Testament is no longer part of the Bible? Sorry but every time someone quotes the Ten Commandments, he is upholding the Old Testament.

So whats your point? Science is about figuring out the external world. Religion is about figuring out the internal.

Nonsense; religion doesn't "figure out" anything. It offers "explanations" without reasoning.

As for America being founded on Christianity, we both have different ideas of what that means. Im saying that because the forefathers were predominantly Christian.

Which probably explains why the original version of the Constitution had NO HUMAN RIGHTS in it. It was Jefferson, horrified by this omission, who pushed for the Bill of Rights and resulting Constitutional amendments. And Jefferson was no Christian.

Had they been atheists then America wouldn't enjoy the religious freedom it does now.

Care to back up this claim?

How? You just use the "its just evolution" argument every time. Explain to me exactly how natural selection could account for a strawberry? The fact that a strawberry is so delicious, beautiful and scented means that according to natural selection it should die out by being eaten too much by hungry animals. If natural selection really was the answer then the strawberry would be an ugly thing that no one wanted to eat.

Your ignorance of the natural world astounds me. A fruit has to be delicious so that animals will grab it, eat it, and then spread its seed that way. A lot of plant seeds are actually capable of surviving passage through an animal's digestive tract, if they aren't spit out by the animal as a result of being too hard to chew. The tasty fruit is actually a delivery vehicle for plant seeds; something you would know if you had even a passing high school-level understanding of the subject. How old are you?

No they haven't. Darwin created a vague theory for the origin of certain species, and then people assumed that it could apply to everything. Explain to how it could be applied to the strawberry.

See above.

Have you read the Divine Principle by Rev. Moon? It explains the origin of evil very clearly there. Go here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/derk.dorsten/index.html and click on "Fall of Man"

How does this back up the fundamental problem with your logic, which is your ridiculous assignment of conscious intent to the product of evolutionary pressures?

There you go again assuming that religious people are stupid. For your information I'm just about to graduate from university with a science degree; and I did study Alevel physics.

Quite frankly, I would bet good money that you are lying. You have not demonstrated even the slightest scientific knowledge so far in our correspondence, and when I challenged you to show what was wrong with cosmological theories of solar system formation you ran away and made excuses for not answering my challenge.

You're just dodging the question again. The fact is that conservation of momentum and gravity doesn't not account for how such order came from the chaos of the big bang.

Changing the subject, eh? First you talk about solar system formation, then you suddenly try to switch to uncertainties about what happened in the first few moments following the Big Bang. The fact that you don't even differentiate between the two only proves my point; you are either lying about being scientifically qualified or you are going to a very poor school.

More to the point, the fact that science does not yet know everything does not mean it knows nothing. We DO know more than enough about the biosystem to conclude that it evolved; your argument is akin to saying that a prosecuting attorney's case must be wrong because he doesn't know the words to the Australian national anthem.

Now there you go being rude again. Cosmological theory says that the universe started with the big bang, and from that came the solar systems and galaxies that we see. How does that deny God? It seems to support the idea of God because the Bible says that God caused the universe. You shouldn't assume that the big bang was without cause just because it suits you.

I don't need to. General Relativity shows us that time slows down in regions of immense density, so time would have been stopped at the moment of the Big Bang. It is literally impossible for something to happen before the Big Bang in order to cause it.

There's no flaw in cosmological theory, not that I am aware of anyway. I agree with you there. But cosmological theory supports the idea of God, not the other way round.

Then why don't you submit a paper describing how cosmological theory requires a "God" term?

Why do you always describe my differences of opinion as lies? While the divorce rate increases, society is certainly not getting better.

That's because they ARE lies. You are saying that the modern world is less moral than the racist, sexist, intolerant world of the 1950s, when an Asian man like me would have been literally beaten and/or killed for dating my white wife. To back this up, you quote divorce rates and totally ignore the point I made about how abused women were forced to stay in abusive relationships back then. Are you seriously suggesting that a lower divorce rate (no matter how you achieve it) is so important that it outweighs massive institutional and social racism and bigotry?

I'm not avoiding the point. The existence of God leads on to the issue here of whether religion in general is a good thing. I hold the position that it is, and that the sexual revolution was an affront against what religion stands for. If the sexual revolution was good as you say, then why isn't Hugh Hefner a good role model for your children?

Because Hugh Hefner is not the sexual revolution. He is an example of someone who is taking advantage of it, and he's not really harmful to society (certainly not as harmful as someone like the Pope), but I would prefer my kids to have normal family lives. This is like arguing that freedom of speech is bad because people who are rude in public are not good role models for your children. Yet again you demonstrate a refusal to use simple rules of logic when discussing the topic of religion. The sexual revolution has been a GOOD thing, and the fact that religion opposes it is an indictment of religion, not an indictment of the sexual revolution.

I should clarify better. I think everyone agrees that freedom comes with responsibility. It is right that you engage in carnal lust within the context of marriage; but being irresponsible with your body is reckless. I am very happy that you and your wife are having a great time.

Fair enough, but why is it immoral if we were having sex before we got married?

The reason that natural selection was so widely accepted in the scientific community is that they were looking for an explanation that didn't involve God, and they found one in natural selection. To me it just doesn't seem realistic, as I will demonstrate below. It also doesn't require extensive study, its quite a simple idea.

It is quite a simple idea but you are refusing to make any attempt to apply it properly. Your ridiculous argument about fruit (using an example of an obviously advantageous trait as an example of a disadvantage) indicates the kind of intellectual sloth and dishonesty that I have come to expect from creationists. You have never seriously tried to see if natural selection works; you don't try to make it work at all and then you ask others to explain why you failed.

There you go skillfully dodging my point again. What is wrong with those numbers? Are they not realistic / conservative estimates? Would you like to adjust them? Have I got the math all wrong? Where is the flaw in that calculation?

You simply made up those numbers out of thin air. Anyone who was REALLY taking university science would know better than to make up numbers out of thin air and then wonder why people don't accept them. Calculations based on arbitrary numbers are just as arbitrary as the numbers themselves, and if you tried to pull that nonsense on a university assignment you would have gotten an F.

Also, stop calling me stupid or accusing me of lying. It doesn't help your case, its just a crafty way of deflecting questions.

No. I will continue to call you a liar because you obviously ARE lying. Shielding your dishonesty by accusing the other party of rudeness is an incredibly weak rebuttal.


[Interestingly enough, he never responded on this exchange which had drifted into actual issues of science where he was obviously weak, but instead, E-mailed me back several weeks later with a completely new argument based on the "family values" angle which he probably felt was a stronger point for him]


Continue to Michael Rennie #2

Jump to: