JCnot4me.com
“Am I therefore become your enemy for telling you the truth?”
The Apostle Paul Galatians 4:16
Responses to Contra Craig
Fran Nevue 2-
Subj:
the time machine question
Date:
2/24/03 8:44:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:
To:
JCnot4me
Hello Mark..
How are you? I hope everything is going well.
I found your website interesting because I'm a big fan of Dr. Craig. Naturally, i disagree with many of the things you have written, but I hope that doesn't make us enemies. You had said that you "welcome all to submit their best arguments and articles or links to such, in this endeavor", and so I wanted to take this opportunity to give my opinion of how some of the things you've raised are erroneous or mistaken.
I could literally go thru your entire website and point out what I see as many errors, but I don't have the time to do that in one sitting and so I thought I would start off with your "time machine" question to Dr. Craig.
You wrote:
"Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection-
I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.
He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-
At first I thought your "time machine" question was interesting and it made me think (which I thoroughly enjoy doing), but upon reflection it became obvious what the problem was with your "time machine" question.
To show you the mistake (in my opinion), let me give you the same kind of question, but it will be designed with you in mind... using your objective experience.
Let's suppose you and I go back to the moment and place you were born. And we would know this by your parents testimony and also by your birth certificate. Now, let's be real safe and arrive at this place a week or two before you were born. Now let's suppose we wait, and wait, and wait, but we never see you being born. In fact, we see that your mom is not even pregnant. Now, after a few months of waiting... if we don't see that you were born, then what are we to conclude? Well, since we KNOW you were born, then obviously in this case we CAN'T rely on our senses and objective experience because something screwy is obviously going on. Because we know that you were born, you would HAVE to make the same conclusion that Dr. Craig made in his answer to you.
Mark here} If this were to happen, I would assume that my parents had lied about giving birth to me. I would assume that I had actually been adopted, and that my parents had wanted to hide that fact from me-
"You would have to tell me, face to face, that you would STILL believe that you were born, you would STILL believe in your existence, and you would STILL remain convinced that your parents conceived you. And when asked, in light of you being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no birth of you, you would have to reply that due to the inner confidence and assurance you have because you do in fact exist and therefore had to have been born, you would naturally have to assume a trick of some sort had been played on you while watching at the moment and place of your own suppossed birth."
If you responded in the above way, would it then be fair for me to then turn around and say that "you self-
We can do this "time machine example" with ANY historical event. JFK's assasination... The signing of the Declaration of Independence... the 3 championship wins by the Lakers, World War II, etc, etc, etc. Just because our minds are agile and creative enough to think of interesting thought experiments which can be logical, it does NOT follow that it will always reveal any truth or insight about reality.
Mark here} So.... eyewitnesses to actual events are worthless, is what I hear you saying. I hate to say this, but if what you're saying is true, you just shot down Craig and every other Christian apologist, because THAT is one of their major arguments!!!
Now, the ONLY way your "time machine" question works, is if we FIRST assume that a particular experience MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED. But that would be "begging the question", would it not? IF the resurrection of Jesus DID HAPPEN (like your birth, JFK's assasination, etc), then you can plainly see how your "time machine question" doesn't make sense IN THE SAME WAY that it doesn't make sense with the above examples, UNLESS there is indeed a trick being played on you (like a Twilight Zone episode). Does Dr. Craig... or Should Dr. Craig have that much confidence in the Resurrection of Jesus as you naturally would have about your own birth or in the fact that JFK was assasinated? You may not think so, but Dr. Craig does think so... and that is the debate... which then returns us to the proper discussion of what evidence Dr. Craig has which would give him that kind of confidence.
You wrote:
"Some ancient Christian monks took a vow of not talking-
With all due respect, such language and opinions are really silly and childish (which is why i suspect Dr. Craig does not wish to debate you). Let me give you some examples in the real world which shows how intellectually unfair you are being in your characterization of Dr. Craig and Christians.
1) There is NO way you can prove that "logic" is logical or reasonable or rational without engaging in circular reasoning... and yet we all accept that logic is logical and reasonable. We think this not thru any "thinking' or "rational" deduction, but because we realize that logic is self-
2) Here's another... we also CAN'T mathematically prove that 1+1=2, and yet we "know" it to be true... not thru any proofs (because it's impossible), but because it's self-
These are only two of many, many "First principles" and "self-
Mark here} So what exactly is Fran proposing here-
In the same way, NO Christian accepts the teachings of Christ or the Bible based on some kind of "burning of the bosom"... NOT EVEN Dr. Craig. No where does the term "burning of the bosom" even occur in the Bible or in the teachings of Christ or in Dr. Craig's literature or from ANY OTHER Christian apologist. Obviously (to me anyway), it is YOU who is assuming that the Mormon "burning in the bosom" is equal and/or the same as Dr. Craig's confidence in the truth of the resurrection of Jesus apart from evidences. But that simply does not logically follow... you are making a straw man argument based on a misunderstanding of what Christians are taught and teach.
Mormon's believe in Jospeh smith's teachings EVEN if they are contradicted by facts and evidences, which is WHY they fall back on this "burning of the bosom". But this is clearly NOT the case with Christianity.
Mark here} Uhhh, sorry, but this is EXACTLY what Craig is doing, and most people who read my "Contra Craig" web page acknowledge this-
Even when we read Dr. Craig's opinion about magesterial and ministrial uses of reason, NO WHERE does he claim that there is ANY evidence which can be found that would contradict Christianity. And THAT is the difference between Mormonism and Christianity. If you disagree, then ALL you need to do is give a piece of evidence or fact that DOES contradict Christianity, and then, AND ONLY THEN can we then say that Christianity is doing the same thing as Mormons in this "burning of the bosom" thing. Dr. Craig can make his statements about reason precisely BECAUSE he knows that there are NO evidences or facts that do contradict Christianity or the teaching's of Christ.
Mark here} Which is WHY I gave him the Time Machine scenario-
Anyway, i apologize for rambling on. Please accept this letter in the spirit intended. I'm not your enemy and i hold no animosity toward you. It's just that I simply disagree with some of your stated viewpoints, and i wanted to give what I think is a reasonend response to you. I thank you for allowing me to write to you and for this discussion with.
Take care, and have a wonderful day.
Fran Nevue
Fran Nevue 3-
Subj:
Re: the time machine question
Date:
3/4/03 12:35:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:
To:
JCnot4me
Hello Mark..
How are you? I hope everything is going well for you and your family.
Thank you so much for responding to my first email to you in such a timely manner. You demonstrated much intelligence and i appreciated that you reprinted my entire email (with no editing) to ensure that nothing would be taken out of context. The following is my answer to your responses. I wasnt' sure how much of the last post you would want to include, so i basically kept everything intact, and just typed my answers in blue, to your responses which were in red.
*************************
My Original Email:
(In your web page you wrote...)
"Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection-
I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.
He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-
At first I thought your "time machine" question was interesting and it made me think (which I thoroughly enjoy doing), but upon reflection it became obvious what the problem was with your "time machine" question.
To show you the mistake (in my opinion), let me give you the same kind of question, but it will be designed with you in mind... using your objective experience.
Let's suppose you and I go back to the moment and place you were born. And we would know this by your parents testimony and also by your birth certificate. Now, let's be real safe and arrive at this place a week or two before you were born. Now let's suppose we wait, and wait, and wait, but we never see you being born. In fact, we see that your mom is not even pregnant. Now, after a few months of waiting... if we don't see that you were born, then what are we to conclude? Well, since we KNOW you were born, then obviously in this case we CAN'T rely on our senses and objective experience because something screwy is obviously going on. Because we know that you were born, you would HAVE to make the same conclusion that Dr. Craig made in his answer to you.
Mark here-
Fran's response here-
So then... let's suppose that you had considered the possibility that you were adopted BEFORE you and i left in your time machine to arrive at the moment of your birth. With this in mind, we therefore wisely decide to have you and your parents take a DNA test (more than one if needed for assurance) to see if you are INDEED the biological son of your mom and dad. Let's assume that the findings show that you are. We've now closed the possibility that there was any adoption.
However, knowing that you are a skeptical and a very bright person, let's endeavor to refine the scenario even more so as to close a few more possible loopholes. Let's say we have the best forsensic specialists go over your birth certificate and they have determined that it is genuine and not a forgery. We also had other well respected specialists track down the doctors and nurses who vouched that you were indeed born to your mom at the place and location stated on the birth certificate. We also confirm their accounts thru billings and charges that were incurred during your birth at the hospital. And guess what? We happen to be in luck because your parents had the fortunate foresight to have videotaped your birth... and also had the doctors and nurses and your relatives all interviewed on the tape to vouch for the truthfullness of everything you see on the tape concerning your birth. Can you think of any other loopholes? If so, let me know, and i'll plug them as well.
If necessary, we could go and on like this for every "loophole" you may find... but the POINT here is the SAME point i was trying to make with my other examples of historical experiences and facts like the JFK assasination, WW II and the 3 championship wins by the lakers... (we can also add the WTC tragedy to that list). If we take an historical event that we know actually happened, and if we apply your "time machine question" to it and we go back to the time that these events occured... and we then encounter a situation that shows it DIDN'T occur, then OUR ONLY LOGICAL explanation is the EXACT one that Dr. Craig gave you when you asked him about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We KNOW that the WTC was destroyed when two hijacked planes crashed into them. And we KNOW when it happened and we also know that many people lost their lives. So HOW ELSE could we explain what we see and objectively experience if we were to go back in time and DON'T see the WTC EVER being destroyed? Obviously, something screwy is going on... and in this situation we COULDN'T rely on our objective experience because we KNOW the WTC was destroyed. So we would be FORCED to make the same conclusion that Dr. Craig did... and that there must be some kind of trick going on to fool us. That's why your "time machine question" is a false dilemma. There IS a 3rd possible rational explanation... and that is we could be encountering a deception or a trick being played on us.
Mark here-
This is the inherent flaw and weakness of your "time machine" question. It doesn't make sense for historical events. Now... the only question left is if the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an historical event that actually happened... see? If we don't know, then your "time machine question" makes some sense... but if we DO know, then your "time machine question" DOESN'T make sense (just as it doesn't make sense in the WTC example and the others listed above). But untill we look at the evidence and the facts, your "time machine question" doesn't help us to find out what the real truth is. By asking the question before examining the evidence, you are basically "putting the cart before the horse".
Mark here-
And to claim that the four gospels, written BY Christians FOR Christians ABOUT Christians, constitute reliable accurate history-
Now... Dr. Craig feels that there are MORE than enough facts and evidence for a reasonable person to conclude rationally and logically and reliably that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually did occur. If you disagree with Dr. Craig, then you NEED to counter or argue the FACTS that Dr. Craig presents...NOT engage in a thought experiment which does not shed any light on whether something ACTUALLY occured or not. If Dr.Craig is convinced BECAUSE of evidences and facts which he feels are very strong for the logical conlcusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ actually occured, then his answer to your "time machine question" was the ONLY logical one for him to give. Your "time machine" question commits the false dilemma fallacy because you won't take into account the possibility that a trick is INDEED being played on you.
Mark here-
Look at it this way: substitute the current living Mormon prophet for Craig. Bring this prophet back in the same time machine to that day in the woods of Palmyra, New York, where Joseph said the angels appeared to him. Let him see that NOTHING HAPPENED-
The core issue here is to whom you pledge your allegiance: insanity (internal "still small voices") -
I'm sorry for this long explanation, but i thought all of this was evident in my original post, but obviously i was not clear enough. I honestly apologize for my lack of preciseness. Obviously (to me anyway) the "time machine question" is important to you, and so i wanted to take the necessary time and care (in this subsequent post) to explain this in more detail so that you and others could hopefully better understand my objections to your "time machine question".
Mark here-
Fran's response here-
1) Dr. Craig's response was the ONLY logical explanation when confronted with an experience which contradicted an historical fact. If you disagree that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was an historical fact, then you NEED to attack the reasons and evidences that Dr. Craig brings to the discussion.
Mark here-
2) Jesus DOES NOT qualify as being a zombie according to the dictionary or by common sense. According to Meriam-
Mark here-
3) Your use of the word "JeJuice" instead of Jesus also shows incredible immaturity. How can you be taken seriously when you use language like this? If you don't accept that Jesus was the Son of God and that He died and rose again for Your sins... fine... but why use juvenile language and expressions? Above, you claimed that Dr. Craig was "rather emotional ". Well, your use of terms like "JeJuice" seems to indicate (to me anyway), that it is YOU who is rather emotional AND objectively blind to the question of Jesus Christ. Even confirmed atheists like Bertrand Russell never expressed himself with juvenile language like you do. I know you are bright, so why do you do it?
Mark here-
About noon time, Elijah began mocking them. "You'll have to shout louder than that," he scoffed, "to catch the attention of your god! Perhaps he is talking to someone, or is out sitting on the toilet, or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be awakened!" (1 Kings 18:27, TLB).
Based upon this, will you be CONSISTENT and condemn the "prophet" Elijah for showing "incredible immaturity"? Will you question HIM as you did me with "How can you be taken seriously when you use language like this?"? Will you ask this "prophet" of Biblegod "why use juvenile language and expressions?"??? Will you face off with Elijah and say "it is YOU who is rather emotional AND objectively blind" to the question of the existence of Baal??? Will you insult Elijah as you insulted me with your "Even confirmed atheists like Bertrand Russell never expressed himself with juvenile language like you do. I know you are bright, so why do you do it?"??? If you are condemning "toilet humor" than you've GOT TO condemn your own Elijah-
"You would have to tell me, face to face, that you would STILL believe that you were born, you would STILL believe in your existence, and you would STILL remain convinced that your parents conceived you. And when asked, in light of you being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no birth of you, you would have to reply that due to the inner confidence and assurance you have because you do in fact exist and therefore had to have been born, you would naturally have to assume a trick of some sort had been played on you while watching at the moment and place of your own suppossed birth."
If you responded in the above way, would it then be fair for me to then turn around and say that "you self-
We can do this "time machine example" with ANY historical event. JFK's assasination... The signing of the Declaration of Independence... the 3 championship wins by the Lakers, World War II, etc, etc, etc. Just because our minds are agile and creative enough to think of interesting thought experiments which can be logical, it does NOT follow that it will always reveal any truth or insight about reality.
Mark here-
Fran's response here-
Mark here-
Again, if we go back in time and had the fortunate luck to encounter Mr. Zapruder (famous for the Zapruder film which showed JFK being assasinated) on the grassy knoll... and we happened to notice that he doesn't have a camera with him, this would understandably perplex us. If we were then to go and talk to him and asked where his camera is, and if he then replied saying he doesnt have a camera, was never lent a camera, and that he wouldn't know how to use one even if he had one, this would perplex us even more. And if we then waited and saw that the president wasn't assasinated when the presidential limousine passed by the grassy knoll (or in subsequent days), that would also perplex us greatly. And if upon further investigation we were to discover that John F. Kennedy was in fact not in that limousine (passing by the grassy knoll away from the Book Depository), but that it was John Wayne (or mickey mouse) in the limousine, we would be even MORE perplexed than ever. We would have no other rational choice but to objectively conclude that something screwy was obviously going on. See? We can do this all day if you like, but the point is very simple. If we know something occured and we have the evidence of reliable eyewitness accounts to verify that historical events occured, then your "time machine question" would make no sense if we hypothetically were to go back in time and find that such things did not happen when we know in fact they did. We would HAVE to conclude as Dr. Craig did... that a trick was being played on us.
Mark here-
Therefore... far from saying that eyewitnesses to actual events are worthless... i'm saying EXACTLY the opposite... instead, i'm saying that those eyewitnesses only underscore the inherent weakness of your "time machine question".
Mark here-
Now, the ONLY way your "time machine" question works, is if we FIRST assume that a particular experience MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED. But that would be "begging the question", would it not? IF the resurrection of Jesus DID HAPPEN (like your birth, JFK's assasination, etc), then you can plainly see how your "time machine question" doesn't make sense IN THE SAME WAY that it doesn't make sense with the above examples, UNLESS there is indeed a trick being played on you (like a Twilight Zone episode). Does Dr. Craig... or Should Dr. Craig have that much confidence in the Resurrection of Jesus as you naturally would have about your own birth or in the fact that JFK was assasinated? You may not think so, but Dr. Craig does think so... and that is the debate... which then returns us to the proper discussion of what evidence Dr. Craig has which would give him that kind of confidence.
You wrote:
"Some ancient Christian monks took a vow of not talking-
With all due respect, such language and opinions are really silly and childish (which is why i suspect Dr. Craig does not wish to debate you). Let me give you some examples in the real world which shows how intellectually unfair you are being in your characterization of Dr. Craig and Christians.
1) There is NO way you can prove that "logic" is logical or reasonable or rational without engaging in circular reasoning... and yet we all accept that logic is logical and reasonable. We think this not thru any "thinking' or "rational" deduction, but because we realize that logic is self-
2) Here's another... we also CAN'T mathematically prove that 1+1=2, and yet we "know" it to be true... not thru any proofs (because it's impossible), but because it's self-
These are only two of many, many "First principles" and "self-
Mark here-
Fran's response here-
1) According to evolution (as i understand it), man never was decended from apes, and never originally 'swung from trees" (as far as i know), so i'm not sure why you typed this, unless it is another indication of you being blind and emotional.
Mark here-
2) I'm USING and APPLYING logic in trying to show how i thought you were being intellectually unfair and hypocritical (a logical term) in your characterization of Dr. Craig and christians... so HOW on earth can i be proposing to throw logic and science in the dumpster when i'm USING logic? In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to even type meaningful words that you (or others) can understand if i DID NOT use logic... so once again, how can you deduce that i propose throwing logic into a dumpster when in the very ACT of typing this email i'm using logic? How can i EVEN ASK these questions WITHOUT using logic in the first place? To type this email, i'm APPLYING the "law of identity" and the law of "non contradiction" (the bedrock and foundation of logic)... so how can you ask if i propose to throw out logic? I'm also attempting to point out your mistakes by applying the rule of logic and calling your mistakes (in my opinion) by the names of the logical fallacy that logicians use (non sequiturs, strawman, question begging, etc). You may DISAGREE with my characterization of some of your opinions as being logically fallacious, but as we discuss why you disagree with my viewpoints, we are in fact engaging in and applying logic in that VERY process... and so once again, how does this suggest i'm in favor of throwing out logic?
My ONLY reason for giving the two examples i gave in my original email was to show that it is NOT always unreasonable or irrational or illogical to accept some things that you can't prove. Logicians and scientists and mathematicians ALL do this, and there is a name for that... it's called "first principles" or "properly basic beliefs" or "self-
I hope that is clear enough.
3) I have no doubt that there are religions in this world which would like to throw logic and science in the dumpster.. but Christianity is NOT one of them. Christians believe that logic ultimately comes from God and is embodied in God. Christians also believe that science confirms and demonstrates and reveals God's creativity and magnificance in this universe. It's because of this, that Christianity does NOT, and would NOT, and would NEVER entertain the idea of throwing logic and science in the dumpster. Throwing logic in the dumpster would be akin to rejecting one of God's attributres... and throwing science in the dumpster would only hinder our ability to discover how God created this incredible universe.
4) Science and logic DOES NOT tend to disprove Christianity... although i do agree that science and logic do tend to disprove other religions. If i'm in error, i would love for you to show me how science and logic tends to disprove Christianity.
In the same way, NO Christian accepts the teachings of Christ or the Bible based on some kind of "burning in the bosom"... NOT EVEN Dr. Craig. No where does the term "burning in the bosom" even occur in the Bible or in the teachings of Christ or in Dr. Craig's literature or from ANY OTHER Christian apologist. Obviously (to me anyway), it is YOU who is assuming that the Mormon "burning in the bosom" is equal and/or the same as Dr. Craig's confidence in the truth of the resurrection of Jesus apart from evidences. But that simply does not logically follow... you are making a straw man argument based on a misunderstanding of what Christians are taught and teach.
Mormon's believe in Jospeh smith's teachings EVEN if they are contradicted by facts and evidences, which is WHY they fall back on this "burning in the bosom". But this is clearly NOT the case with Christianity.
Mark here-
Fran's response here-
Mark here-
Even when we read Dr. Craig's opinion about magesterial and ministrial uses of reason, NO WHERE does he claim that there is ANY evidence which can be found that would contradict Christianity. And THAT is the difference between Mormonism and Christianity. If you disagree, then ALL you need to do is give a piece of evidence or fact that DOES contradict Christianity, and then, AND ONLY THEN can we then say that Christianity is doing the same thing as Mormons in this "burning of the bosom" thing. Dr. Craig can make his statements about reason precisely BECAUSE he knows that there are NO evidences or facts that do contradict Christianity or the teaching's of Christ.
Mark here-
Mark here-
Fran's response here-
Mark here-
If Dr. Craig uses evidence (even if it is only when it suits him like you contend), then attack him on the pieces of evidence he presents. Don't you see the mistake your are making here? EVEN IF Dr. Craig were using evidence when it suited him (which i disagree that he is), then WHY can't you attack him on the evidence? Are the evidences he presents weak or strong? Yes or no? If they are weak, then attack them and show us how they are weak.... what BETTER way to undermine Dr. Craig's case then by showing that his evidence is weak? But if they are strong, then why not accept them or acknowledge it and deal with it?
Mark here-
CRAIG DOESN'T CARE ABOUT EVIDENCE AND FACTS.
IF AND WHEN EVIDENCE AND FACTS CONTRADICT HIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, HE WILL SIDE WITH HIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AND IGNORE THE EVIDENCE AND FACTS.
THEREFORE, CRAIG DOESN'T CARE ABOUT EVIDENCE AND FACTS- IT'S JUST A SHAM SHOW FOR THE PUBLIC THAT HE PRETENDS TO.
i may be incorrect, but it sure seems to me that you are trying to use the "time machine" scenario to skirt or dodge Dr. Craig's position instead of dealing with the evidences that Dr. Craig presents. Any evidence that Dr. Craig presents either stands or falls ON THEIR own merit REGARDLESS of Dr. Craig motives for using evidence and logic. Can't you see this? It seems to me that you are committing the genetic fallacy by trying to question Dr. Craig's motives for using evidence and logic. Dr. Craig's motives are logically IRRELEVANT to the question of whether those evidences he presents are good or bad evidences to begin with. Even if we were to grant your provocate assertion that Dr. Craig's motive were somehow suspect, how on earth does that effect the evidences and reasons Dr. Craig presents in his case? If the evidence is weak, show us.
Mark here-
Thank you once again for allowing me to write to you and for this discussion with you. I eagerly await your response with great interest and curiousity.
Take care, and may you and your loved ones have a wonderful day.
Fran Nevue
Samuel Meyer 9-
Subj:
Response to your website
Date:
9/3/03 3:54:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
To:
JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Mark,
I am writing for two reasons. First, I am disappointed with your
representation of Dr. Craig's views. Second, honest, logical people looking
for truth would like to consider the things you have to say as you appear to
be intelligent, but I find it nearly impossible with the muddied water you
stir up through scoffing and emotionally-
beginning of any fight the person officiating the match says to keep it
clean. I suggest this for you, for your sake and for the sake of
"free-
Sam
Mark Smith here} Well, once again it's "gleaming generalities" that are attacked, rather than specifics. Are ALL Christians allergic to specifics??? If I had a SPECIFIC thing that Sam was disappointed with, MAYBE I could make a response, but this "everything you say is wrong" mentality is mental-
As for my getting emotional about things I care about, who are you Sam, a robotic "Mr. Spock" who lost his emotion chip when you were built at the factory??? No, I will NOT apologize for getting PISSED OFF at people like Craig who are trying their hardest to get good people to commit intellectual suicide, and I think YOU should be ashamed for not caring about this.
Sam Meyer 9-
Subj:
In response
Date:
9/10/03 8:21:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
To:
JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Dear Mark,
I have responded to you below.
"Mark Smith here} Well, once again it's "gleaming generalities" that are
attacked, rather than specifics. Are ALL Christians allergic to specifics???
If I had a SPECIFIC thing that Sam was disappointed with, MAYBE I could
make a response, but this "everything you say is wrong" mentality is mental-
sorry."
First, I am not interested in a mudslinging contest. Second, I did not say
"everything you say is wrong" either, so please do not misrepresent me or
transfer onto me your leftover frustrations from others. What you did with
my email is an example of the type of thing with which I am disappointed .
I said I was disappointed with your representation of Dr. Craig.
Mark Smith here} Yes, I really "misrepresented" Dr. Craig, didn't I??? I put his entire TWO pages up on my web site as a JPEG-
I did not
say everything you say is wrong. It is a misrepresentation to take the
statement that I am disappointed with how you represent Dr. Craig and
stretch it to say everything you say is wrong and then label me as mental.
It was not my intention to go into specifics about why I disagree with your
representation of Dr. Craig. I think many of your arguments are founded in
philosophical error, which are the real issue that paints the lens through
which you see Dr. Craig's views incorrectly. I do not plan to go into
specifics because, as I said, I am not interested in a mudslinging contest,
which you appear to be anxious to participate in, except to use two as
examples of what I mean.
Mark Smith here} Oh here we go with philosophy!!! What's wrong, plain English not good enough for you? I asked Craig if he went back in a time machine and saw that THERE WAS NO RESURRECTION, would he deconvert, and he said NO. Why does one need to have one's brain muddled by philosophy to understand what Craig said??? It is only you philosophy geeks that have a hard time with simple ideas. I'm sure with a room full of 100 philosophers all typing away 24/7 that eventually at least one coherent thought would emerge after a few centuries, but I'm not going to wait around for that remote possibility to happen. If YOU have a problem with clear thinking, you need to have it looked at.
Again, I am using these as examples of why I said
I was disappointed in your misrepresentation of Dr. Craig, not to get into a
lengthy debate about the specifics. Also, note that these are based on the
assumption that I understand what you are saying. If this is not the case,
please let me know.
1. "Craig's brand of Fundy Christianity" -
expressions Christian faith can take, Dr. Craig is not considered a
fundamentalist. He is considered an evangelical that has kept to the
orthodox faith passed down from the Apostles, not a fundamentalist.
Mark Smith here} Oh god, here we go with definitions of minutia! Oh please EXXXXCUUSSSS ME if I didn't recognize the "OFFICIAL International Association of Geek Philosophers Dictionary" definition of Fundy. I just use Fundy to mean anybody that has Jesus shoved up their ass to the point where they can't walk without an intellectual limp. Is that definition wrong??? Sorry!
2. Because he takes the classical Western view that rationalism fails (that
is, we cannot know everything through pure evidential empirics, but that
some things are known inuitively), you stretch that to mean that there is no
use for reason and evidence-
not the case. Why does he spend so much time working with evidences and
debating and writing about reasonable arguments?
Mark Smith here} Craig uses arguments and evidence the same way that a crooked lawyer uses "evidence" and "arguments"; anything that it takes to make his client win, regardless of the truth, and THAT is a totally DISHONEST way to approach ideas. Sorry you're so far out of touch with the rest of us not to see anything wrong with someone admitting they place FEELINGS over FACTS. Maybe you should try to get OUT OF TOUCH with your feminine side-
Because they are
meaningful and build a case for what is-
existence, pieces of truth, beyond reason. Because we can only know a small
percentage of what exists through reasoning, it is not the end-
Since Craig does hold this view, you make him into a straw man. Instead of
representing him as consistent with the classical Western philosophy of
knowledge, you make him appear to be dogmatically opposed to any outside
evidence. This is not the case. He considers evidence, but holds the view
that empirical evidence and reason are not all that exist.
Mark Smith here} Yes, he "considers" evidence, but if it dares to go against his religion, he chucks it out. You see nothing wrong with this? That disgusts me.
"As for my getting emotional about things I care about, who are you Sam, a
robotic "Mr. Spock" who lost his emotion chip when you were built at the
factory??? No, I will NOT apologize for getting PISSED OFF at people like
Craig who are trying their hardest to get good people to commit intellectual
suicide, and I think YOU should be ashamed for not caring about this."
First, Mark, again, you assume way too much. You assume that I do not care
about truth. I do, this is the reason I am attempting to read through your
site. Second, he is attempting to keep people from spiritual suicide, which
includes intellectual suicide. Reason in its proper place seems to be his
goal-
Mark Smith here} Yaas sir, bossman! We'uns gwoin keep dat dar reason in its good and proper place-
He is not anti-
see #2 above). Third, on what basis do you make the moral judgment that I
should be ashamed for not caring? Fourth, do you know anything of the
character of Dr. Craig? Have you seen him in his daily life? Although this
is merely one aspect of evaluating credibility, I think you should not paint
the picture that Dr. Craig is an anti-
persuade "good" people (again, what basis are you using to make this
judgment?) to hurt themselves.
Mark Smith here} Sorry, but how else can I paint a man who has already admitted both in writing and in person that he places more credence in his subjective girly gut feelings than in FACTS, EVIDENCE AND REASON??? If that is NOT being "anti-
It is a complete misrepresentation. He is
not malicious nor is he intending to make your life so emotionally
uncomfortable (as you admit you are feeling). His intention is to find
ultimate truth. That's it.
Mark Smith here} Wrong!!! His intention is too convert people, whatever the intellectual cost. Craig doesn't give a rats ass about truth-
Respectfully yours,
Sam
Sam Meyer 9-
Subj:
RE: In response
Date:
9/22/03 5:48:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
To:
JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Dear Mark,
Apparently I am not communicating (or you are not understanding) clearly. Let's attempt to find some common ground to begin communicating. Generally it is agreed upon that there are three degrees of reason. First we understand, second we judge, and third we reason. Can we agree on this?
"Mark Smith here} Well, once again it's "gleaming generalities" that are
attacked, rather than specifics. Are ALL Christians allergic to specifics???
If I had a SPECIFIC thing that Sam was disappointed with, MAYBE I could
make a response, but this "everything you say is wrong" mentality is mental-
sorry."
First, I am not interested in a mudslinging contest. Second, I did not say
"everything you say is wrong" either, so please do not misrepresent me or
transfer onto me your leftover frustrations from others. What you did with
my email is an example of the type of thing with which I am disappointed .
I said I was disappointed with your representation of Dr. Craig.
Mark Smith here} Yes, I really "misrepresented" Dr. Craig, didn't I??? I put his entire TWO pages up on my web site as a JPEG-
While you did show the pages on your site, there are so many other issues that go into using evidence. You must look at the context of the chapter, the book, and all his other work as well as the presuppositions from which he begins. It is your interpretation of what Dr. Craig is saying that lacks understanding. Without understanding, you begin judging. And then you reason to conclusions that misrepresent because your understanding is lacking. Without proper understanding, conclusions are going to look preposterous.
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Oh Jesus H. Christ, will you please come off your cloud into the REAL world??? I bend over BACKWARDS when it comes to fully documenting my arguments, and now you are suggesting that for me to dare criticize your god Craig putting up a photograph of the two pages in question is not enough-
I did not
say everything you say is wrong. It is a misrepresentation to take the
statement that I am disappointed with how you represent Dr. Craig and
stretch it to say everything you say is wrong and then label me as mental.
It was not my intention to go into specifics about why I disagree with your
representation of Dr. Craig. I think many of your arguments are founded in
philosophical error, which are the real issue that paints the lens through
which you see Dr. Craig's views incorrectly. I do not plan to go into
specifics because, as I said, I am not interested in a mudslinging contest,
which you appear to be anxious to participate in, except to use two as
examples of what I mean.
Mark Smith here} Oh here we go with philosophy!!! What's wrong, plain English not good enough for you? I asked Craig if he went back in a time machine and saw that THERE WAS NO RESURRECTION, would he deconvert, and he said NO. Why does one need to have one's brain muddled by philosophy to understand what Craig said??? It is only you philosophy geeks that have a hard time with simple ideas. I'm sure with a room full of 100 philosophers all typing away 24/7 that eventually at least one coherent thought would emerge after a few centuries, but I'm not going to wait around for that remote possibility to happen. If YOU have a problem with clear thinking, you need to have it looked at.
Mark, I understand English. But, there are so many questions that must be answered first before your words even mean anything. Philosophy is not about muddling, but about thinking clearly. Only when you get the ultimate questions about reality right (the questions of first things) can you then go on to make accurate judgments and then conclusions. If you are not willing to do the work on the first things, your conclusions have much less significance.
You also did not say "If there was no resurrection". He was taking you much more seriously than you seem to think. Based on what you asked him, it appears he was making his decision based on what he has concluded as real -
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Yes, and if you philosophers ran the world, we'd all still be living in caves, as you guys would still be arguing over the "caveness" of a cave, rather than actually DOING anything with your lives. I don't know why it takes you so much work to figure out something so simple, other than you want to obfuscate it to the point where NOBODY has a chance to understand it-
As for your comment that "You also did not say 'if there was no resurrection'", I think that when people see what I have on my Contra Craig web site, they will also see you are wrong. This is, below, EXACTLY what's on that site:
Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection-
Golly Gee! There it is: "There is no resurrection". Of course, you haven't read EVERY single essay I've every written, or examined every single presupposition that I've ever had, so maybe you somehow missed this. Or maybe, you're just too busy spouting philosophical horseshit to really read something thru.
Again, I am using these as examples of why I said
I was disappointed in your misrepresentation of Dr. Craig, not to get into a
lengthy debate about the specifics. Also, note that these are based on the
assumption that I understand what you are saying. If this is not the case,
please let me know.
1. "Craig's brand of Fundy Christianity" -
expressions Christian faith can take, Dr. Craig is not considered a
fundamentalist. He is considered an evangelical that has kept to the
orthodox faith passed down from the Apostles, not a fundamentalist.
Mark Smith here} Oh god, here we go with definitions of minutia! Oh please EXXXXCUUSSSS ME if I didn't recognize the "OFFICIAL International Association of Geek Philosophers Dictionary" definition of Fundy. I just use Fundy to mean anybody that has Jesus shoved up their ass to the point where they can't walk without an intellectual limp. Is that definition wrong??? Sorry!
Defining terms is a very important issue in any communication.
2. Because he takes the classical Western view that rationalism fails (that
is, we cannot know everything through pure evidential empirics, but that
some things are known inuitively), you stretch that to mean that there is no
use for reason and evidence-
not the case. Why does he spend so much time working with evidences and
debating and writing about reasonable arguments?
Mark Smith here} Craig uses arguments and evidence the same way that a crooked lawyer uses "evidence" and "arguments"; anything that it takes to make his client win, regardless of the truth, and THAT is a totally DISHONEST way to approach ideas. Sorry you're so far out of touch with the rest of us not to see anything wrong with someone admitting they place FEELINGS over FACTS. Maybe you should try to get OUT OF TOUCH with your feminine side-
Okay, this is where it is obvious we are not understanding each other. What you have described is a totally dishonest way to approach ideas, but I do not see Dr. Craig doing this. Within the writings of CS Lewis he has described the difference between looking at a beam of light and looking along it. Only in looking along it can it then be understood. In what I have seen of Dr. Craig's debates and in his writings, it appears he is attempting to understand opposing viewpoints without rejecting them on face. If he is not, he is not being intellectually honest. This is something we should all be able to do in order to come to conclusions of truth.
Also, it seems as though you do not understand what Dr. Craig is describing. I will not speak for him, but what I understand him to be saying is not that subjective feelings should be trusted. Instead it is the level of understanding that he has come to that should be trusted first, which takes into account facts, nonrational evidence, and philosophical proofs. Without presuming too much, I would argue that you have denied the non-
Can truth exist without knowledge?
Can knowledge without the scientific method?
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Sorry, but I understand EXACTLY what Craig wrote on pages 36 and 37 of his book "Reasonable Faith", and so do alot of other Atheists and Christians and ex-
As to your questions, this is not a philosophy web site, and isn't going to become one. Please stick to the topic. Craig said that regardless of what he saw on Easter morning 33 AD, he would still believe in Jesus. Please deal with that. It's not complicated.
Because they are
meaningful and build a case for what is-
existence, pieces of truth, beyond reason. Because we can only know a small
percentage of what exists through reasoning, it is not the end-
Since Craig does hold this view, you make him into a straw man. Instead of
representing him as consistent with the classical Western philosophy of
knowledge, you make him appear to be dogmatically opposed to any outside
evidence. This is not the case. He considers evidence, but holds the view
that empirical evidence and reason are not all that exist.
Mark Smith here} Yes, he "considers" evidence, but if it dares to go against his religion, he chucks it out. You see nothing wrong with this? That disgusts me.
You never answered my question about a basis for your morality. On what basis do you attempt to make a moral statement regarding Dr. Craig's methodology? I would say one thing about this. If what you said is actually the truth, then I would see something wrong with this (and have a moral basis for saying so). However, you do not appear to get it. What you say just begs the question -
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Why do you need to have a PhD to tell when someone is being a bullshit artist? Are you REALLY that out of touch with reality??? How Craig treats evidence IS disgusting, and I don't need to spend the next ten years trying to convince you why if you can't see it. Of course, I think you see it as clearly as I do, but you're just pretending not to, to be argumentative.
"As for my getting emotional about things I care about, who are you Sam, a
robotic "Mr. Spock" who lost his emotion chip when you were built at the
factory??? No, I will NOT apologize for getting PISSED OFF at people like
Craig who are trying their hardest to get good people to commit intellectual
suicide, and I think YOU should be ashamed for not caring about this."
First, Mark, again, you assume way too much. You assume that I do not care
about truth. I do, this is the reason I am attempting to read through your
site. Second, he is attempting to keep people from spiritual suicide, which
includes intellectual suicide. Reason in its proper place seems to be his
goal-
Mark Smith here} Yaas sir, bossman! We'uns gwoin keep dat dar reason in its good and proper place-
I am attempting to take you seriously. I would appreciate the same.
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} The fact that you see nothing humorous in your phrase "reason in its proper place" tells me you have problems already. You see nothing funny in that? Putting reason in its place-
He is not anti-
see #2 above). Third, on what basis do you make the moral judgment that I
should be ashamed for not caring? Fourth, do you know anything of the
character of Dr. Craig? Have you seen him in his daily life? Although this
is merely one aspect of evaluating credibility, I think you should not paint
the picture that Dr. Craig is an anti-
persuade "good" people (again, what basis are you using to make this
judgment?) to hurt themselves.
Mark Smith here} Sorry, but how else can I paint a man who has already admitted both in writing and in person that he places more credence in his subjective girly gut feelings than in FACTS, EVIDENCE AND REASON??? If that is NOT being "anti-
It is not anti-
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Huh? Are we splitting hairs again? How many NORMAL people out of a hundred would recognize your claimed differences??? Are you REALLY from Earth, or are you from another planet???
It is a complete misrepresentation. He is
not malicious nor is he intending to make your life so emotionally
uncomfortable (as you admit you are feeling). His intention is to find
ultimate truth. That's it.
Mark Smith here} Wrong!!! His intention is too convert people, whatever the intellectual cost. Craig doesn't give a rats ass about truth-
What if his intention is to find the truth because he has concluded what he believes to be the truth and, furthermore, he sees that it demands a response? Have you considered the possibility that the Truth and that Jesus is the Christ are one and the same?
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} No, they are not the same. You are confusing a person with a concept. Jesus is no more "truth" than George Bush is a cucumber, regardless of how many republicans say otherwise.
Respectfully yours,
Sam
Sam Meyer 10-
NOTE FROM MARK SMITH, Saturday October 4, 2003}
This will be the final email from Sam that I will waste web space putting up. I am going to also not waste my time responding to anything he says. His own words should be enough to hang him in the court of public opinion. It is quite clear the goal a man like Sam has in mind. His goal is to muddy the waters, to obfuscate the issues to the point where us "commoners" realize we can't understand what the hell the issues are anymore, and thus give up, and let the theologians have their way.
Contrast HIS writing style of trying to dazzle people with bullshit to mine: crystal clarity. Which do you really think respects the truth more? Which is more concerned with actually communicating, rather than confusing? Also note for yourself that if Christian intellectuals have to resort to such weaseling around to defend their positions, maybe that's a sign their positions really aren't worth defending. After all, any Christian that has to come off sounding like Bill Clinton during his infamous "is-
Subj:
Final response
Date:
10/3/03 2:11:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
To:
JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Mark,
See below.
Dear Mark,
Apparently I am not communicating (or you are not understanding) clearly.
Let's attempt to find some common ground to begin communicating. Generally
it is agreed upon that there are three degrees of reason. First we
understand, second we judge, and third we reason. Can we agree on this?
"Mark Smith here} Well, once again it's "gleaming generalities" that are
attacked, rather than specifics. Are ALL Christians allergic to specifics???
If I had a SPECIFIC thing that Sam was disappointed with, MAYBE I could
make a response, but this "everything you say is wrong" mentality is mental-
sorry."
First, I am not interested in a mudslinging contest. Second, I did not say
"everything you say is wrong" either, so please do not misrepresent me or
transfer onto me your leftover frustrations from others. What you did with
my email is an example of the type of thing with which I am disappointed .
I said I was disappointed with your representation of Dr. Craig.
Mark Smith here} Yes, I really "misrepresented" Dr. Craig, didn't I??? I put
his entire TWO pages up on my web site as a JPEG-
but an actual photograph, and not only that, HAD DR. CRAIG SIGN THE DAMN
PAGES TOO!!!! If that is STILL "misrepresenting" Dr. Craig, I'd like to know
just how BETTER I could have represented Dr. Craig!!! I'd like to see any
Christian scholar go to those lengths to avoid misrepresentation of an
author.
While you did show the pages on your site, there are so many other
issues that go into using evidence. You must look at the context of the
chapter, the book, and all his other work as well as the presuppositions
from which he begins. It is your interpretation of what Dr. Craig is saying
that lacks understanding. Without understanding, you begin judging. And
then you reason to conclusions that misrepresent because your understanding
is lacking. Without proper understanding, conclusions are going to look
preposterous.
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Oh Jesus H.
Christ, will you please come off your cloud into the REAL world??? I bend
over BACKWARDS when it comes to fully documenting my arguments, and now you
are suggesting that for me to dare criticize your god Craig putting up a
photograph of the two pages in question is not enough-
"look at" his whole BOOK, and not only that, you demand I "look at" every
single book he's ever published, and not only that, you demand that I "look
at" every single presupposition that he may have had. And when I have
finished doing all that-
what I said in the first place. Right. And let me ask you-
Witness comes to your door and says the world is going to be destroyed next
year, do you withhold comment until you've read every single book, every
single magazine, and every single lecture they've put out in the last
hundred years or so??? I can answer for you-
someone starts pointing out stupidities in Craig's teachings, now you want
to put up all these intellectual speed bumps. Sorry, but most of us don't
need to take ten years to tell when a man is bullshitting us. I don't know
what YOUR problem is. Craig said some VERY stupid things-
problem with that??? Can YOU really NOT see that??? And YOU are the one to
dare question MY sight!!!
First, what is "real" in your opinion? That is what I am trying to get at.
And, because I consider the possibility that what you see as real is in fact
not reality, you respond by calling me mental or rejecting what I say. That
is not very helpful or reasonable in a dialogue about what is true.
Second, Mark, I am not questioning your sight, but rather your
presuppositions that determine your understanding of what you see. Although
you make the search for truth seem so exagerated that it is impossible;
nevertheless, it is hard work to really get at the truth and requires
committed humility. I'm sorry if you are frustrated that it takes work to
make consideration while witholding judgment. That does not change the fact
that it is a long, hard process. You won't find truth with snap judgments.
Third, you must inquire from where a person is coming in order to understand
the truest meaning of what he or she may say. Understanding
presuppositions, and allowing for the possibility that they may be true, is
the necessary part of the question you pose about the Jehovah's Witness. If
I have already considered the presuppositions and know that I disagree, then
it is not necessary to go through the whole process you describe. However,
someone better consider the whole context to be sure the conclusion is true.
And if I trust that someone's ability to be intellectually honest and
rigorous, then I can trust the conclusion that person made.
Fourth, I thought I would take a chance and try to reason with you about
your view of what Dr. Craig said, not because I worship him, although I,
with much of academia, respect him as an academic and I, along with much of
Christendom, respect him as a disciple of Christ. You made him appear to
have drawn the conclusion that his "religion" is true based on
irrationalities, regardless of what actually is true. That is
close-
true, you must allow for the possibility that other, opposing views, might
be right. What if he had already done this and he is attempting to live
according to what (namely a Judeo-
said He was) he actually has concluded as true? Do you see how this is
different from holding onto a religion as a safety blanket that serves as a
guard from truth? I argue he does the former, not the latter, which is what
you depict him as. That is the main issue here.
I did not
say everything you say is wrong. It is a misrepresentation to take the
statement that I am disappointed with how you represent Dr. Craig and
stretch it to say everything you say is wrong and then label me as mental.
It was not my intention to go into specifics about why I disagree with your
representation of Dr. Craig. I think many of your arguments are founded in
philosophical error, which are the real issue that paints the lens through
which you see Dr. Craig's views incorrectly. I do not plan to go into
specifics because, as I said, I am not interested in a mudslinging contest,
which you appear to be anxious to participate in, except to use two as
examples of what I mean.
Mark Smith here} Oh here we go with philosophy!!! What's wrong, plain
English not good enough for you? I asked Craig if he went back in a time
machine and saw that THERE WAS NO RESURRECTION, would he deconvert, and he
said NO. Why does one need to have one's brain muddled by philosophy to
understand what Craig said??? It is only you philosophy geeks that have a
hard time with simple ideas. I'm sure with a room full of 100 philosophers
all typing away 24/7 that eventually at least one coherent thought would
emerge after a few centuries, but I'm not going to wait around for that
remote possibility to happen. If YOU have a problem with clear thinking, you
need to have it looked at.
Mark, I understand English. But, there are so many questions that
must be answered first before your words even mean anything. Philosophy is
not about muddling, but about thinking clearly. Only when you get the
ultimate questions about reality right (the questions of first things) can
you then go on to make accurate judgments and then conclusions. If you are
not willing to do the work on the first things, your conclusions have much
less significance.
You also did not say "If there was no resurrection". He was taking
you much more seriously than you seem to think. Based on what you asked
him, it appears he was making his decision based on what he has concluded as
real -
and it indicated something contrary to what he has concluded as real, then
it should be doubted first before tossing out all his other reasoned
conclusions of truth.
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Yes, and if you
philosophers ran the world, we'd all still be living in caves, as you guys
would still be arguing over the "caveness" of a cave, rather than actually
DOING anything with your lives. I don't know why it takes you so much work
to figure out something so simple, other than you want to obfuscate it to
the point where NOBODY has a chance to understand it-
your ultimate goal, so people like Craig are free to go about spouting their
horseshit unquestioned.
Oh, but it is not that simple. First, don't let the second-
philosophy, the existential angst we see today that is a result of the mind
separated from the heart, frustrate you and cause you to discount all
philosophy. Sure, many people babble on in the academic philosophical
world, but don't let this get in the way of seeing the good in philosophy.
And, sorry to disappoint you, but I am not a philosopher. I am merely a
person trying to find my way in a messed-
way to go, I have to answer the simple questions -
here? Where am I going? What is my purpose? How can I know? Without a
best approximation of answers to these questions, everything I do is
ultimately in vain -
that I am traveling in the direction I want to be going.
By the way -
As for your comment that "You also did not say 'if there was no
resurrection'", I think that when people see what I have on my Contra Craig
web site, they will also see you are wrong. This is, below, EXACTLY what's
on that site:
Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets
built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD.
We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around,
and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting,
still nothing happens. There is no resurrection-
away in the tomb.
Golly Gee! There it is: "There is no resurrection". Of course, you haven't
read EVERY single essay I've every written, or examined every single
presupposition that I've ever had, so maybe you somehow missed this. Or
maybe, you're just too busy spouting philosophical horseshit to really read
something thru.
You said that statement in the context of the hypothetical, though, which is
inside the presuppositions Dr. Craig had to view the hypothetical. It is
impossible to separate the statement made from the presuppositions. That is
my whole point here. In context (within Dr. Craig's worldview) it means
something very different from what you make it mean pulled out of context.
But in your worldview, his statement seems like absolute absurdity because
you cannot suspend judgment long enough to consider his perspective in order
to see if what he is saying is indeed reasonable.
Again, I am using these as examples of why I said
I was disappointed in your misrepresentation of Dr. Craig, not to get into a
lengthy debate about the specifics. Also, note that these are based on the
assumption that I understand what you are saying. If this is not the case,
please let me know.
1. "Craig's brand of Fundy Christianity" -
expressions Christian faith can take, Dr. Craig is not considered a
fundamentalist. He is considered an evangelical that has kept to the
orthodox faith passed down from the Apostles, not a fundamentalist.
Mark Smith here} Oh god, here we go with definitions of minutia! Oh please
EXXXXCUUSSSS ME if I didn't recognize the "OFFICIAL International
Association of Geek Philosophers Dictionary" definition of Fundy. I just use
Fundy to mean anybody that has Jesus shoved up their ass to the point where
they can't walk without an intellectual limp. Is that definition wrong???
Sorry!
Defining terms is a very important issue in any communication.
2. Because he takes the classical Western view that rationalism fails (that
is, we cannot know everything through pure evidential empirics, but that
some things are known inuitively), you stretch that to mean that there is no
use for reason and evidence-
not the case. Why does he spend so much time working with evidences and
debating and writing about reasonable arguments?
Mark Smith here} Craig uses arguments and evidence the same way that a
crooked lawyer uses "evidence" and "arguments"; anything that it takes to
make his client win, regardless of the truth, and THAT is a totally
DISHONEST way to approach ideas. Sorry you're so far out of touch with the
rest of us not to see anything wrong with someone admitting they place
FEELINGS over FACTS. Maybe you should try to get OUT OF TOUCH with your
feminine side-
Okay, this is where it is obvious we are not understanding each
other. What you have described is a totally dishonest way to approach
ideas, but I do not see Dr. Craig doing this. Within the writings of CS
Lewis he has described the difference between looking at a beam of light and
looking along it. Only in looking along it can it then be understood. In
what I have seen of Dr. Craig's debates and in his writings, it appears he
is attempting to understand opposing viewpoints without rejecting them on
face. If he is not, he is not being intellectually honest. This is
something we should all be able to do in order to come to conclusions of
truth.
Also, it seems as though you do not understand what Dr. Craig is
describing. I will not speak for him, but what I understand him to be
saying is not that subjective feelings should be trusted. Instead it is the
level of understanding that he has come to that should be trusted first,
which takes into account facts, nonrational evidence, and philosophical
proofs. Without presuming too much, I would argue that you have denied the
non-
evidence. Please attempt to answer these questions so we can better
understand each other.
Can truth exist without knowledge?
Can knowledge without the scientific method?
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Sorry, but I
understand EXACTLY what Craig wrote on pages 36 and 37 of his book
"Reasonable Faith", and so do alot of other Atheists and Christians and
ex-
unless you have a mental problem OR you are just being argumentative, you
understand it too. And if I didn't understand exactly what Craig meant,
THAT was why I asked him about the Time Machine scenario, which ANYbody-
even you-
big issues.
As to your questions, this is not a philosophy web site, and isn't going to
become one. Please stick to the topic. that regardless of what he saw on
Easter morning 33 AD, he would still believe in Jesus. Please deal with
that. It's not complicated.
Regarding philosophy -
whether you are aware of it or not. I hope you take the time to be sure you
are living with reasonable conclusions. It appears you are afraid to really
consider this.
"Craig said regardless of what he saw on Easter morning 33 AD, he would
still believe in Jesus" No, this is not what he said. He said if you "took"
him there in a "time machine," that he would trust what he has already
concluded as true rather than that what he was seeing was true. It is the
interpretation that is in question due to the complexity of the
hypothetical.
Because they are
meaningful and build a case for what is-
existence, pieces of truth, beyond reason. Because we can only know a small
percentage of what exists through reasoning, it is not the end-
Since Craig does hold this view, you make him into a straw man. Instead of
representing him as consistent with the classical Western philosophy of
knowledge, you make him appear to be dogmatically opposed to any outside
evidence. This is not the case. He considers evidence, but holds the view
that empirical evidence and reason are not all that exist.
Mark Smith here} Yes, he "considers" evidence, but if it dares to go against
his religion, he chucks it out. You see nothing wrong with this? That
disgusts me.
You never answered my question about a basis for your morality. On
what basis do you attempt to make a moral statement regarding Dr. Craig's
methodology? I would say one thing about this. If what you said is
actually the truth, then I would see something wrong with this (and have a
moral basis for saying so). However, you do not appear to get it. What you
say just begs the question -
has seen the evidence you want him to look at and already concluded that it
is false through proper reasoning and logic and can, therefore, quickly
answer? His conclusions are not based on just "blind faith" that requires
him to reject on face anything else. That is the whole point of his book
Reasonable Faith. It is reasonable, and in the classical view the
conclusion that Jesus Christ is God incarnate and the messiah for the human
race is come to based on all aspects of human existence and the vast history
of the world.
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Why do you need
to have a PhD to tell when someone is being a bullshit artist? Are you
REALLY that out of touch with reality??? How Craig treats evidence IS
disgusting, and I don't need to spend the next ten years trying to convince
you why if you can't see it. Of course, I think you see it as clearly as I
do, but you're just pretending not to, to be argumentative.
No, not being argumentative. Just wanting you to live consistent with your
worldview. No PhD needed for what you are considering, but it does require
more intellectual honesty than you appear willing to give. Mark, it is not
about keeping out things that would shake the foundations of his religion
because they might be true. It is about sticking to what is true unless the
majority of the evidence (including non-
is false. But that is not what he is doing. Sure there are people like
that, and if they live like that, it is disgusting without a doubt. It is
not intellectually honest.
If you are indeed an atheist or even an agnostic, I argue you have no basis
for making moral claims. Any such claim you make is merely borrowed from
the Judeo-
about how we should live our life. And that is really the issue here, isn't
it, Mark.
"As for my getting emotional about things I care about, who are you Sam, a
robotic "Mr. Spock" who lost his emotion chip when you were built at the
factory??? No, I will NOT apologize for getting PISSED OFF at people like
Craig who are trying their hardest to get good people to commit intellectual
suicide, and I think YOU should be ashamed for not caring about this."
First, Mark, again, you assume way too much. You assume that I do not care
about truth. I do, this is the reason I am attempting to read through your
site. Second, he is attempting to keep people from spiritual suicide, which
includes intellectual suicide. Reason in its proper place seems to be his
goal-
Mark Smith here} Yaas sir, bossman! We'uns gwoin keep dat dar reason in its
good and proper place-
gwoin gives it a good beating-
a fraud!!!
I am attempting to take you seriously. I would appreciate the same.
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} The fact that you
see nothing humorous in your phrase "reason in its proper place" tells me
you have problems already. You see nothing funny in that? Putting reason in
its place-
the restaurant? Listen, if you were born without a humor gene, that's your
cross to bear, not mine.
Again, from your perspective it appears funny because you see the
possibility that there is something beyond reason as preposterous (your
philosophy leaking out -
within an orthodox Christian faith does not say, "The Bible says it, I
believe it, case closed." That is not at all what Dr. Craig is saying, nor
is it what I am saying.
Here's its proper place: reason leads to truth, it is not truth itself. It
is one piece of the puzzle.
He is not anti-
see #2 above). Third, on what basis do you make the moral judgment that I
should be ashamed for not caring? Fourth, do you know anything of the
character of Dr. Craig? Have you seen him in his daily life? Although this
is merely one aspect of evaluating credibility, I think you should not paint
the picture that Dr. Craig is an anti-
persuade "good" people (again, what basis are you using to make this
judgment?) to hurt themselves.
Mark Smith here} Sorry, but how else can I paint a man who has already
admitted both in writing and in person that he places more credence in his
subjective girly gut feelings than in FACTS, EVIDENCE AND REASON??? If that
is NOT being "anti-
boy for irrational Christians.
It is not anti-
difference between irrational and non-
this?
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Huh? Are we
splitting hairs again? How many NORMAL people out of a hundred would
recognize your claimed differences??? Are you REALLY from Earth, or are you
from another planet???
You did not answer my question. At any rate, I argue that most "normal" (we
haven't agreed on a definition of this, so whatever that means) people have
a basic understanding that things such as love (non-
different from 2+2=5 (irrational) although they have not been able to
verbalize such a thing.
It is a complete misrepresentation. He is
not malicious nor is he intending to make your life so emotionally
uncomfortable (as you admit you are feeling). His intention is to find
ultimate truth. That's it.
Mark Smith here} Wrong!!! His intention is too convert people, whatever the
intellectual cost. Craig doesn't give a rats ass about truth-
making his religion look good. Craig already admitted that truth and facts
and evidence matter less to him than his believing in Jesus.
What if his intention is to find the truth because he has concluded
what he believes to be the truth and, furthermore, he sees that it demands a
response? Have you considered the possibility that the Truth and that Jesus
is the Christ are one and the same?
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} No, they are not
the same. You are confusing a person with a concept. Jesus is no more the
"truth" than George Bush is a cucumber.
Oh, my friend. Although this is not the point; truth is what is. It is
about being. The concept of "President of the USA" and George Bush
intersect. Truth is beyond reason. Reason leads you to understand what is,
but is not the only way to truth. Until you see that, you will not see
truth.
Well, Mark, we've had a good run. I will not be responding again. I am
sorry that we could not find common ground on which to dialogue. I pray you
find the truth.
Sincerely,
Sam
Mike 12-
Subject:
craig site
Date:
12/23/03 4:26:43 AM !!!First Boot!!!
From:
To:
JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hey, i just wanted to write and say two things:
First, i think your site is very interesting. I really enjoyed your main page, the article/rant was great to read and i think had some interesting points, however, i think you do not exactly portray Craig's opponents well. you say they are basically "lightweights". wel i agree with that. but clearly Smith, Taylor, Tooley, and Pigliucci are not no-
Mark here} I'm glad you found interesting items on the site. If it were too boring, you would have fallen asleep and banged your head into the computer keyboard-
As for my criticisms of those Craig has debated, I never said they didn't know the in's and out's of Atheism. They may be world experts in that topic, and good for them for that. What I DID say is that they didn't know DEBATING. Debating is a skill, just like plumbing, and regardless of how skilled one is in Atheistic arguments, that does not qualify him to fix toilets. Almost every single debate I've seen or heard or read, Craig has kicked their asses because THEY DIDN'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT HOW TO DEBATE. Period.
I don't think you grant the atheist opponents enough credit. though to be fair, perhaps you honestly do not know much about these guys.
second, while i think the idea of your site is great, it's plagued with so many fallacies it's just plain ridiculous. In fact, it's hard for any serious philosopher, who's had ANY training in formal logic to actually read through some of the stuff written about.
Mark here} And THIS criticism is coming from a guy who's email is so plagued with bad grammar and punctuation as to be laughable, and I'm to take you serious? For example, sentences are normally started with a CAPITAL letter, and the word you misspell as "i" should also be capitalized. Before you criticize the writings of another, how about you learning to write at something more than a 2nd grade level, ok???
I'm not referring to all the stuff you've read, i'm refferrign to stuff throughout the site, written by others. you name the fallacy it's there, name calling, argumentum ad hominem (actually the entire site pretty much commits this), circularity, straw men attacks (ALL OVER THE PLACE), poisoning the well, etc... Again, i like the idea of the site, but come on, none of this is persuasive AT ALL, it lacks any philosophical integrity what's so ever.
Mark here} Like most Christians, you're good at "drive by criticisms" but bad at giving details. A few examples might have been helpful. For example, I could say "The Bible is fucked up", but a few examples might make it easier to get a handle on the charge.
And as for the charges, your own beloved Jesus, as well as his Apostles, are also likewise guilty of everything you charge me with. Why are you not criticizing them as well? Oh, I remember why-
it's frustrating to sort through the site to come across a carefully contructed article. The atheist does not need to resort to this kind of sloppy-
Mark here} So why don't you just take my "sloppy" *article on why preachers shouldn't be paid, and with your superior mastery of logic and reason, show me line by line how I screwed up so bad. Why don't you do it? I'll tell you why-
*Fire The Clergy
http://jcnot4me.com/Items/theology/ftc/FTC.htm
anyway, i just wanted to say, i like your site, but it could be soooo much better if you'd lose many of the links and articles that are clearly written by people who just don't understand the arguments presented by Craig. Is there a way to get that debate between craig and tabash for free. i'd love to see the debate because similar to what you said, i get the sense some of these atheist just don 't know what the heck they are doing. well ya, anyway bye
Mike
Mark here} I can't help but notice you totally ignored all the criticisms I made of Craig. This must mean you disagree with them. Which must mean you see nothing wrong with going back in time, seeing there was no resurrection, and then continuing with your religion as is. Amazing. You Christian geeks get so bored with the book and fascinated by philosophy you totally loose sight of common sense.
Mike 1-
Subject:
craig site
Date:
1/19/04 8:13:39 PM !!!First Boot!!!
From:
To:
JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hey, thanks for replying. I'm sorry, i don't think i really was all that clear. First, about my "bad grammar" and all that. I'm e-
Mark here} The bad grammar is relevant because you were criticizing me for HOW I communicate with people. If you're going to give, be prepared to take. And yes, bad grammar IS important if you get to the point where people can't understand or won't take the time to try to translate what you wrote.
As for "name calling", again, you resort to making accusations without one shred of evidence or example-
I want to clarify some points. First, i never said i was a theist, and i never argued with the criticism you made of Craig because that was not the purpose of my e-
Mark here} How the hell is a picture of a man in a chicken suit a fallacy?? Huh??? As for the other items listed, they are all perfectly valid. The mock quotes are a quick and humorous way to translate his gobbledegook into plain English. The Mormon comparison is right-
Second, my e-
Your response said, "I am right, you are wrong, and all you can do is insult my style while IGNORING MY SUBSTANCE."
Well this is just an emotional reaction to what i wrote, i never insulted your "style" of writing. On the contrary, that's all YOU did. YOur letter clearly shows that.
You also wrote "I can't help but notice you totally ignored all the criticisms I made of Craig. This must mean you disagree with them. Which must mean you see nothing wrong with going back in time, seeing there was no resurrection, and then continuing with your religion as is. Amazing. You Christian geeks get so bored with the book and fascinated by philosophy you totally loose sight of common sense."
My e-
Mark here} My point still stands. You haven't said one word about Craig's self-
You wrote: And THIS criticism is coming from a guy who's email is so plagued with bad grammar and punctuation as to be laughable, and I'm to take you serious? For example, sentences are normally started with a CAPITAL letter, and the word you misspell as "i" should also be capitalized. Before you criticize the writings of another, how about you learning to write at something more than a 2nd grade level, ok???"
Again, a self refuting response since you use capital not only at the beginning but throughout the actual word, THIS, CAPITAL. In any case, you resorted to name calling and committed a non-
Mark here} Where the hell did YOU go to school at-
As for the "name calling" accusation again, I STILL notice you didn't say squat about when your hero Jesus was calling men names, as I pointed out in my previous email. Why is that-
Concerning the debaters. i have no doubt at all that debating is a skill. But debating skills are not all there is to say concerning philosophical argument. Smith is a very respected atheist (and for good reason). He's very qualified in both debating and philosophical argumentation and yet you give him no credit. My point was ONLY that you do not give enough credit to these atheists and that you put way too much weight on 'debating skill'.
Mark here} And for good reason, because it's been their lack of debating skills, and not their academic qualifications, that has been responsible for them getting their butts kicked. Craig had anywhere from four to eight years of debating PRACTICE before he even started with debating Atheists. You seem to be arrogantly assuming that just because some geek philosopher can correctly label all the fallacies in a mid-
I hope i have clarified some things, though i suspect i have not since i thought my first e-
Mark here} Thanks for the niceties, but also remember: this site was written by, and for, the common man. It was not written for the men who've had rich parents to send them to school to get PhD's in topics they'll never be able to get a job in. Anybody who gets a PhD in philosophy obviously has too much time on their hands-
thanks,
MIke
Mark 12-
Subject:
The Anti-
Date:
12/28/03 9:00:39 AM !!!First Boot!!!
From:
To:
JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Mark,
My side was hurting from your anti-
Unfortunately, my friend I'd have to give odds on
Craig in a Craig-
the business a long time and your probably commited to
a day job.
Mark here} I agree with you. I have the reality to know that right now, he could easily beat me. However, let me off my day job for a year, let me have 3 debates a week for practice, and I guarantee he'd lose. I could beat him right now just on content, but debating in public is a skill and skills need practice to perfect.
I've heard Craig on the radio a few times
and he appears to be an upstanding articulate
ambassador of Christianity. Please don't think TBN
represents us anymore than Urkel represents the black
community.
Mark here} I agree with you, which is why I don't waste a lot of effort on the Christian equivalents of Hurkel. However, more Christians agree with TBN than with Craig, and this fact should not be downplayed. Both ends of the Christian movement need to be dealt with.
After reading your cankerous rebuttals
O.K. I'm with you concerning the time machine trip.
Ostensibly, your stating that Craig is being
disingenuous by not reacting to your "time-
analogy. O.K. so if Craig just admitted, yes, this
would be disturbing to my worldview but wouldn't
topple it because of convictions regarding a host of
other evidences. Would you have been satisfied then?
Mark here} Nope. Craig needs to publicly admit he'll follow either the EVIDENCE or the CHRIST, should a contradiction arise between the two.
That was quite a long rant.
-
S R 1-
Hello Mr. Smith
I hope you will read this whole response, it will not be long, but so that you know I am a Christian. There is only one observation/question (if time does permit you) that I made while reading your site and some of those who have contributed to your site. The observation deals with truth. It seems to be implied and sometimes explicitly said that Dr. Craig holds truth subjectively. Specifically I am referring to the very legit scenario you gave to Dr. Craig when he signed your copy of his book "Reasonable Faith," your scenario said "Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection-
My observation was if you and I built a time machine and we went to that day before Easter 33 A.D. We were parked outside the tomb of Jesus and we waited and then something did happen. If we saw the tomb open and we saw Jesus walk out of that tomb and walk past our time machine. And solely for our argument's purpose, Jesus asked you "What now will you do with me?" How would you respond? It seems that you try to be a fair person, reading through your website I notice that when an atheists has been wrong you are honest in your judgments; however, I think that most atheist (especially those who are educated) might first make the observation "there is a reasonable explanation for what has just happened," and the word reasonable does not include the concept of a god, especially a god who can act in time and space.
Mark here} What would I do? I would run up to Jesus, apologize, and rejoin his religion. Evidence and truth is where my loyalties lay. It was these that got me out of Christianity, and it would be the same that would get me back in.
You are correct-
I am not a dumb person nor do I consider myself an overly intelligent person. I do think that for most people atheist or theist, faith is not contingent on reason though it is within reason. Please permit me to explain what I mean by this statement from my point of view. I am a Christian. I believe in a personal God who can act in time and space. My faith in this personal-
Mark here} You, who think you are not an "overly intelligent person" have just proven yourself to be more intelligent than a man with two PhD's: Craig. Please don't ever let a preacher take away your common sense.
Thank you for taking the time to read a response from a nobody. I would like to close my response with a story I heard about the trial of Larry Flint. During the jury selection process one of the first questions the Flint team of lawyers would ask was "Do you have any church affiliation?" If the response were "Yes," the person would be dismissed as "having a bias against pornography." What I do not completely understand is why if the person responded "No" we could not dismiss them as having a bias for pornography.
Mark here} I can explain this... you're dealing with lawyers here, and the job of a lawyer is to get his client off the hook, NOT uncover the truth.
Why does belonging to a church, and not so much any church, but rather the Christian Church give anyone the right to quickly dismiss those people as biased and often bigoted, as if those who do not go to a church are completely unbiased and just? Ravi Zacharias, a Christian apologist and philosopher, said in a lecture "for most people the problem with Christianity is not intellectual, the problem for most people with Christianity is moral." G.K. Chesterton said "It is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult and left untried."
Mark here} If by moral he means that Christianity tends to corrupt good morals, I agree. Any religion that gives it members a blank check of unlimited forgiveness for sins is inviting people to sin. And every study ever done confirms that, as a group, Atheists are a HELL of a lot more moral than Christians. In fact, if everyone in America would become an Atheist the crime rate would almost vanish. For more details on Atheist vs Christian crime rates, see:
Atheists in America:
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%20Topics/atheists_in_america.htm
I really do look forward to hearing your comments if time permits you.
I do pray that my God would reveal himself to you in a way that you will understand.
Thank you for your time Mr. Smith.
God Bless,
S. R.
James 1-
Subject:
My Friend Bill
Date:
1/15/04 3:15:04 AM !!!First Boot!!!
From:
To:
JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Mark,
Marvelous work to get your site to be the second link that shows up under a
search on William Lane Craig.
Mark here} It's quite a shocker to me too-
My guess is that there's alot of Christians who are shocked and disappointed to see Craig's REAL feelings towards objective facts -
After all, Craig's "logic" is something they'd expect from a couple of Mormon kid missionaries, not a double PhD defender of the faith like Craig.
I think Craig is unaware of the damage he is doing to his own core of supporters, and is in grave danger of biting the hand that feeds him.
I couldn't agree more with your comments on
Craig debating turkeys, although I have seen him debate a non-
Zindler from Ohio at Willow Creek Community Church in the suburbs of
Chicago). Now that was in the early 90s, so perhaps after destroying
Zindler and his self-
PH.D-
intellectual light-
Mark here} It would help sort out alot of nutcases right off the bat-
On page 37 of Reasonable Faith, when Craig says "...as long as reason is a
minister of the Christian faith, Christians should employ it", he's not
suggesting that good reason would ever conflict with the Christian faith -
and that we should ignore reason when that happens. Not at all. (<-
a Craig line)
Mark here} Uhhh, I hate it when a Christian feels he has to tell me what someone REALLY meant when he said this or that. I know how to read, and I know how to think-
Craig's idea here is that he believes that reason is always
valid -
faith (because obviously reason can be applied in realms of truth in the
universe -
with Christian theology), it will be a 'minister' of the good news of Jesus
Christ and should be used as such -
Mark here} And, to paraphrase Craig: what happens should REASON and RELIGION ever conflict??? You don't mention THAT reality. I could take your exact same logic and apply it just as well to Atheism:
reason is always valid -
As they say, that which proves too much proves too little. Your logic, as I've demonstrated, can be applied to any system of thought-
It seems clear that Craig's respect for reason shines through in his book
and debates -
remarks the way you do and build some big attack around it.
Mark here} Hey, it's right from the horse's mouth-
This reminds me
of what Zindler did -
Christianity was supposedly all about and then he turned around and tore
apart some belief system that had nothing to do with Christianity. Trouble
is, most of the audience had a basic Sunday School background and new that
Frankie baby was nuts.
I was also interested in your confusion of two concepts -
feelings and the witness of the Holy Spirit.
Mark here} Bingo! Here's your problem-
I hope to see Bill in March and will tell him you said hi.
-
Robert Hitchcock 1-
Subject:
fAITH IS 'MORE THAN A FEELING?"
Date:
1/23/04 10:37:35 PM !!!First Boot!!!
From:
robertus365@hotmail.com
To:
JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
IS FAITH MORE THAN A FEELING?
I have followed the controversy over whether or not William Lane Craig is a closet Irrrationalist with the hope that some Christian Intellectual somewhere would answer one simple question. Namely:
What is the nature of this thing called the "objective witness of the holy spirit?"
From the vagueness of the replies offered by various Christians to this simple question, I am led to conclude that Mr. Smith is correct in his assessment of Dr. Craig's epistemic system and view of Reality as essentially being one of "blind faith" and irrationalistic at its core. The whole thrust of Craig's book-
Mr. Smith is to be applauded for offering far more than Craig's vaunted "five good reasons,' as to why the Dapper Don is a blind faither who struggles to explain in cogent and rational terms, his existentialist "leap of faith."
Craig insists that his "faith in Jesus" is based upon an "objective" historical event called the Resurrection, yet when pressed for objective, verifiable evidences of this so-
Dr. Craig's various trance chanellers [i.e. apologists} also refuse to admit the obvious subjectivity of their own salvation experience. For they know that their so-
Mark Smith here} What can I say, but that Robert has made some excellent points here. Christian Geeks can hem and haw and use all the intellectual IQ points they have-
For Craig, FACTS are outranked by FAITH, and FAITH by FEELINGS. For Craig, his inner feelings are #1. Why is it so hard for Christian Geeks to see this? Must they defend EVERYthing one of "their own" writes, just because he's one of their own??? Have they no mind OF their own??? Hell, I've blasted fellow Atheists when they fucked up-
Craig was asked that night, by me, to provide details other than mushy feel-
Robert WAS THERE by my side when I was trying (trying as hard as someone "pulling teeth") to get Craig to give ANY objective backing to his mushy inner feelings he labels as "holy spirit". HE DIDN'T. And he can't. And ANY person who, in the final analysis, grounds their belief in a feeling RATHER THAN FACT-
Jeff Lowder Kris Key A Running Dialog 2-
Mark Smith here} This was sent to me in several emails, with pasting and re-
Subj: Fwd: why craig wont debate you
Date: 2/27/2004 4:24:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
From:
To:
Doug writes:
At least someone in their little clique may be honest. Craig knows I don't pull punches. He knows I'd roast the crap out of him if his testicles were ever to descend and he actually agreed to debate me.
writes:
Dear Doug
I just read your email on Mark Smiths website. I am
kinda in a funny position as I am friends with Paul
Copan and other apologetics even though I am a more
then a bit irreligious, however not atheistic ( Sorry
but I choose to understand the behavior of atheist in
religious terms, they make more sense that way.
Christians do Young Earth Creationism and Atheist do
the Christ Mything thing, both are rather silly to me)
I do enjoy an occasional debate on this subject
however.
So let me tell you why you haven't got your debate. I
am trying to find a way to say this as kindly as
possible, and please don't quote me on this, Copan and
Craig ( and others) consider you to be a bit of a
blowhard prick and I have read your replies to Copan
and I think you went over the top myself. You seem to
suffer from Robert Price's problem, he doesn't play
nicely and it seems you don't either .
Mark Smith here} Nice or not nice has nothing to do with finding the truth. As for arrogance, the entire Christian religion in my opinion is a GIANT "blowhard prick". It is arrogant by its very nature, and breeds arrogance like a garbage dump breeds flies. Telling its followers they are "King's kids" and that the entire universe revolves around their petty needs and wants, telling them constantly how SMART they are to have become Christians and how DUMB those dumb-
And by the way, I've heard Robert Price speak and debate-
Craig won't debate certain people because he might get his ass kicked. He knows that, and his "handlers" know that. It has nothing to do with who's nice or not nice. Since when do we only fight against people who are "nice" anyway? What kind of lunacy is that? Should Churchill have refused to fight against Hitler because Herr Hitler wasn't "nice"???
Secondly Craig's policy is not an absolute policy.
He makes exceptions for certain people, mainly if they
will be a notable crowd draw. However he tends to use
that rule because for the simple reality a day only
has 24 hours and he simply cannot debate every would
be challenger.
Paul has told me Craig said you can debate him when
you get your PH.D. I am going to hang out with Paul
some on Thursday ( we got to exchange books and we love
comparing civil war antiques) and I will nudge him on
Craig debating you.
Best of wishes
Kris
-
DOUG
Atheism is best understood as an extension of the scientific mindset. Atheists do the "Christ Mything thing" for the same reason they might do the "Leprechaun Mything thing" if they meet believers in leprechauns. But it's not clear what you mean by "mything." Few atheists hold that Jesus as a religious leader never existed. But they do hold that the miracle-
You wrote:
So let me tell you why you haven't got your debate. I
am trying to find a way to say this as kindly as
possible, and please don't quote me on this, Copan and
Craig( and others) consider you to be a bit of a
blowhard prick and I have read your replies to Copan
and I think you went over the top myself. You seem to
suffer from Robert Price's problem, he doesn't play
nicely and it seems you don't either .
DOUG
So calling me a "blowhard prick" is as kind as you can put it, eh? You must have all the kindheartedness of a fundie. Of course, the fact that Craig holds that nonbelievers deserve eternal torture doesn't make him a prick, does it? By the way, I see no reason to refrain from quoting you, as you never got this agreement from me ahead of time. A contract cannot be unilateral. Besides, if Craig doesn't want to debate me on the grounds that he thinks I am an aggressive debater, this is: (a) exactly what I suspected of him all along, and (b) something he should state when he denies me the opportunity to debate him instead of lying about it.
Also, I didn't "go over the top" in replying to Copan's absurd pretense at refutation. Copan pulled this "Hitler is an atheist" canard out of his ass and I just told the truth about it, lubed it up, and left it to him to put it back where he got it from. He should know better! He is not some hack apologist like Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind, hacks that deserve no respect from anyone. Copan has a background in philosophy, so he should know better than to refer to a photograph of Hitler in front of a bust of Nietzsche and pretend that this is evidence that Hitler is an atheist. That was so bad I felt embarassed for him. If Copan doesn't already feel ashamed, he should. How anyone in philosophy can have anything to do with the writings of Zacharias is beyond me. At least Copan didn't have the face to try to salvage Zacharias's silly critique of evolution that I fried in my review of _A Shattered Visage_.
And the fact that Craig and Copan-
No conscientious person in the 21st century has any business defending the conduct of the god of the bible, especially that displayed in the Old Testament. Humanity must move beyond that, and for the most part we have. Our legal system is head and shoulders above anything found in the bible.
I make no apologies for standing up for moral decency.
You wrote:
Secondly Craig's policy is not an absolute policy.
He makes exceptions for certain people, mainly if they
will be a notable crowd draw. However he tends to use
that rule because for the simple reality a day only
has 24 hours and he simply cannot debate every would
be challenger.
DOUG
I am not just any challenger. Craig makes exceptions for people he thinks he can best. He debated Ron Barrier, who has no college degrees at all, and the whole time he lied to everyone, according to you, when he said that the reason he has declined to debate me (multiple times) is that I don't have a Ph.D. yet, and a Ph.D., he claimed, is a necessary condition to be considered a debate opponent. I have lectured on atheism around the country, debated it, written a book on it, and xian groups on several occasions thought that I was a worthy opponent for Craig. It is not clear to me why Ron Barrier, has no book on atheism, would be a bigger draw than I would be. I don't think that's the reason Craig ducks me at all.
You wrote:
Paul has told me Craig said you can debate him when
you get your PH.D. I am going to hang out with Paul
some on thursday( we got to exchange books and we love
comparing civil war antiques) and I will nudge him on
Craig debating you.
Thanks for putting in a good word for me. By the way, while you're comparing Civil War antiques, see if you can get some of those pro-
Subj: Re: why craig wont debate you 2
Date: 2/28/2004 6:45:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
From:
To:
Bcc: JCnot4me
Doug had written:
And Craig knows
>this. That's why he runs
>away. And part of his fear in this regard is that
>he knows that I know the bible
>well enough to feel comfortable using it in a debate
>context. If there's one
>thing fundies really fear, it's their own bible.
>I've seen that time and
>time again. Once they see that they can't get away
>with lying about what it
>says, or its origins, or other standard
>misrepresentations, they get
>uncomfortable and try to change the subject.
Kris wrote:
Well according to Paul, Craig says, get a Ph.D you get
your debate. I have a hard time thinking of Craif
running, I would say Smith, Ludemann and Crossan
aren't exactly ringer debates. Nor would debating
Robert Price fall into that category. It just might
fall into the category they do not like the way you
act. Its one thing to be a strong debater, another
thing to be a rude one.
DOUG
I challenge anyone to find any case in which I was rude in one of my debates. I have had eight or nine debates now. I have never been out of line in any of my debates. In my debates I have never been insulting or rude, and I have never resorted to attacking any of my opponents personally. I know that acting that way could turn the audience against me quickly and feed into "angry atheist" stereotypes, so I make sure to be cordial and funny during my debates. In fact, I have on many occasions had xians come up to speak to me after the debate and tell me that I have done a good job and that they can understand my position-
It is the organization that hosts the debate that ought to decide who the opponents should be, and in four cases now, at least, they have decided that it was appropriate to have me debate Craig. If they think I am suited to debate him, and Craig disagrees, he should come clean and explain why this is so. Falsely accusing me of being rude in debates is not going to cut it.
Kris
Read your reply to Paul on Z, it dripped with Sarcasm.
A little is ok, to much is in bad taste. However I
have not seen you debate before, so I am telling it as
I recall hearing Paul say it ( I will mention your
name this thursday)
DOUG
I meant in onstage debates. However, recall that even before I replied to Copan, he had written of me: "Krueger is, unfortunately, quite uninformed about historical issues surrounding the life of Jesus," "His examples concerning omniscience and omnipotence are an attack on a straw man and appear to reveal a lack of awareness of the literature on these issues," "So it is not that the concept of God is incoherent, but that Krueger simply has not done his homework," "A brief perusal through the book by those somewhat familiar with philosophy of religion or biblical interpretation reveals Krueger’s ignoring or failing to grasp certain key issues." And you say _I'm_ not nice?
What about Frank Zindler, a biologist who has no Ph.d. and no background in philosophy, and Eddie Tabash, who is an attorney without a philosophy background, and Ron Barrier, who has no college degrees, and Peter Atkins, a chemist? Why should these nonphilosophers be selected when this is a job for a philosophically trained person?
Posting found on a Web Discussion Thread March 2004
Subj: Regarding your William Lane Craig page
Date: 3/15/2004 6:04:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: "Lee Pendarvis"
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
RE: Posting from a web discussion thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79249
What do you say in response to this?? By the way I didn't participate in that thread. I am "SkepticBoyLee" on the
infidels site.I was just interested in what you thought about that.
Best
Lee Pendarvis
wow. That's the most pathetic web site I've ever seen. Not that it's that
bad of a website per se, but it speaks to the abundance of free time of the
website designer.
And I hate to call someone a liar to their face, but I'm fairly certain that
site contains quite a few lies. Craig has gone on record in public several
times in saying it is irrational to believe in the Christian faith if the
Ressurection never happened. He's also on record on this point in print, see
for example his book Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up, a debate he
participated in with John Dominic Crossan. He stresses this point in nearly
ever book or article on the Ressurection he's ever written. I don't know how
anyone could have ever read a single book Craig's written on the
Ressurection and come away with that opinion.
From what I can see, that page is almost entirely full of lies and slander."
Mark Smith here} Where do I begin?
"liar" comment} Let me start with the "liar" accusation first. I am sort of glad that these kind of accusations are made, as they indicate the difficulty of the average Christian to really believe what Craig said to me. The nameless poster seems to be short circuiting because what Craig SAID seems to contradict alot of what Craig WROTE. I guess the poster assumes infallibility for Craig then, as he can't ponder the possibility of someone contradicting themself. In fact, this astonishment, this "I can't believe Craig believes that" is the EXACT reason I got Craig to sign the page in his book for me, indicating he really DID believe what he wrote there, as well as why I asked him about the Time Machine scenario. I wanted to give him every opportunity to explain what he REALLY meant. And he did. And that's what's got the poster confused. As for making up this stuff, it's in Craig own book-
Irrational comment} So??? That's my whole POINT!!! Craig IS irrational!!! Anyone who would give more credence to a little voice in his head than to cold hard facts is, by definition, irrational. And as for Craig saying things that contradict what he said or wrote earlier, welcome to the real world! We are not infallible, we ALL say some things that contradict things said earlier. So what??? Is the poster implying that Craig CAN NOT contradict himself and therefore Mark Smith must by lying???
Book comment} The poster asked: HOW could anyone read a single book Craig wrote and come away with that opinion??? I'll tell you how: IT'S IN CRAIG'S OWN DAMN BOOK "Reasonable Faith" AS PLAIN AS DAY (see photograph below), which is why to make it even MORE plainer I asked him the Time Machine question, and to remove ALL doubt, I asked Craig to put his John Hancock on the page in question. But in spite of all of these, this numbskull Christian STILL can't see it! The extent of Christian BLINDNESS never ceases to amaze me.
At the bottom of the 3rd paragraph Craig writes: "The fact is that we can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not". That statement, indeed, this whole page, clearly shows that Craig is against rationality if and when rationality turns against his religion of choice. Craig doesn't need any facts to "back up" the resurrection-
Manny Erickson 3-
Subj: Contra Craig...
Date: 3/27/2004 10:37:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: "D.E.M."
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Mark,
First off let me say that I was more than impressed by your essay on Craig. You attacked with an agile mind, quick wit, and a great sense of humor. I was doubly impressed by what seems to be your tenacious pursuit of the truth...it is a wonder to me that you are an atheist! Not to say that I would expect someone who exhibits those types of qualities to be a Christian, in fact I think Christians are often some of the most ignorant people on earth. My wonder is not in the fact that a free thinker would not be convinced of Christianity but in that fact that a free thinker would be thoroughly convinced of athiesm. Tell me this is all a gag! That you are just trying to get a laugh! Surely you must grow weary of trying to prove everyone wrong without having a chance in hell to prove your own position. If there ever was an example of a "greasy" postion it is that of the athiest. As an agile debater you must be well aware of this...or have you forgotten? It seems to me that in all your talk of free thought and reason you have adopted a postion for which not a reason can be given. Not one! And I challenge you to do so. In fact I challenge you to present one positive reason for the non-
Mark Smith here} Since you yourself admit it is impossible to prove your god does not exist (and by the way, it is impossible to disprove the existence of ANY god), why are you asking me to do what you and I both know can't be done? And why are you pretending ignorance of the most fundamental rule of debate: "he who asserts must prove"??? You must be aware that whoever claims a pink invisible unicorn god exists somewhere in the universe is the one under obligation to prove it. It is NOT the obligation of everyone else to DIS-
Is it not a coincidence that your page is entitled "Contra Craig" as if you were to debunk the arguements of one man you would somehow prove the non-
Mark Smith here} Uhhh, the page is called "Contra Craig" because it is a page contrary to what Craig teaches. It is NOT a page trying to disprove or prove a god or gods. Doesn't the title "Contra Craig" make that clear? If I had written a page called "Ford Trucks Rule" would you be mocking me for not trying to disprove your god's existence on said page? Or are you so used to being unable to stay on topic you can't understand even the concept of a single page devoted to one topic???
Or maybe you aren't interested in proving atheism maybe you just want to piss off Christians and show them how deluded they are, demonstrate to the world that Christians in general and their beloved hero William Lane Craig in particular are about as sane as Michael Jackson at a slumber party. So you spend all this time building a website, writing lenghty articles, finding quality links, and responding to e-
Mark Smith here} That's right-
(I would find some article from an indisputable source like Newsweek to defend that statement but I don't have time just yet). You know what though Mark I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I am going to say that you are trying to prove atheism in some sort of round about way. Yes sir, I am going to say that for some reason, unbeknownst to the rest of us, it actually matters what people believe in a world with no God, and that you know what that reason is, and have embarked on a quest to release us all from our ignorance. What is your motivation for such an act? The pursuit of the truth. And what makes the pursuit of truth so important in a universe without God? Uh...well..uh. Where did you receive this noble call to enlighten others? From yourself? So what makes you think that some subjective sense of importance crafted by none other than yourself(this means that you have deluded yourself) is more or less valid then another man's subjective sense of importance(namely William Lane Craig's) created by himself? Let me guess you say so. I don't think that is gonna stand up in the court of reason Mark.
When are you poor atheist's going to learn that there is no meaning or purpose or worth in a world for which there is no God?
Mark Smith here} Oh yeah, as if you guys got something better to offer! At least the Muslims offer 70 virgins, and the Mormon's offer you can become a god. What do you guys plan on doing with you supposed eternity? I can tell you, right from the book of Revelation: sitting around the throne of Biblegod 24/7 singing the SAME damn song for ALLLLLLLLLLLL eternity. Wow! Now THERE is "meaning and purpose"!!!! You poor schmucks don't even have a clue as to how to have fun with the few years you have here on earth, and your religion is planning THAT for the encore??? Ha ha ha ha ha. Dude-
You materialists believe you can prove that there is a tree but you can not prove that the statement there is a tree is meaningful. There are only objects. There is only matter and things concrete. Ideas and thoughts and interpretations are not concrete and therefore do not exist. Yet if ideas and thoughts and interpretations do not exist or are at the most illusions produced as the by-
Mark Smith here} Blah blah blah blah blah. Just unable to stay on topic, aren't you? Just gotta drift into your own little pet topic where you're comfortable. Well, go drift somewhere else. My page "Contra Craig" deals ONLY WITH things pertaining to Craig. You want to ramble on about the price of tea in China, go somewhere else. I'm not going to waste my time being pulled off topic by yet another undisciplined Christian. When discussing a topic, learn how to stay ON topic. The rest of your email is lined out for being off topic.
Lets pretend that you were born isolated in another world and that the only interaction with other people you had was with some guy named Dave. Now Dave had been around at least as long as you and Dave taught you everything you knew. He taught you that you were a human being, and that the you lived on the planet earth, and that the earth was part of the solar system, and so on and so forth. He taught you this way your whole life until your 41st birthday were he proceeds to tell you calmly that he is not real. At first you are skeptical but he insists. Dave doesn't disappear...no he stays. In fact he is still your teacher only now he is teaching you the many reasons why he doesn't exist. One by one he piles them up until you become a staunch advocate of the fact that Dave doesn't exist. What is your reasoning? Dave said so. Now the question comes...if Dave is an illusion then what reason have you for believing anything Dave says is actually true. A man wandering in the desert may see a mirage that signals help is on the way, but if he knows it to be a mirage does he believe what it says? What sense does it make to believe a hallucination...it'd kind of be like believing Casper the Ghost.
"Dave" is reason itself. The atheist version of Casper, the atheist version of the Holy Spirit. Only the Christian actually believes that the Holy Spirit is a real enitity. The atheist admits that "Dave" is an illusion. The Christian admits that much of what they believe they believe by faith. The atheist mocks the faith of the Christian and pretends that all they do is based on reason. What is reason based on Mark? What is the anchor? Because if you can not provide a basis for reason, all reason goes out the window, including the reason for atheism. And if you believe in reason by faith then you are no better then Craig.
You may be a thinker Mark but you have not thought deep enough. Even if every arguement given for the existence of God were to be proved wrong it would not make God go away if he were there. If he is real he is real no matter what we say about it. Can you prove otherwise? Can you really give a compelling reason to the contrary? Can you make some modifications to your time machine and take it through the clouds into the courts of heaven and bring us back pictures of an empty throne? Are you really able to settle it once and for all? Mark, my advice to you is, if you want to be a "thinker" let alone a "free thinker" that you find another worldview. Atheism kicks everyone in the ass including the atheist. Why do you think agnosticism is so popular? Truth is everyone exercises faith. Hopefully their faith is based off of reason. And hopefully their reason is based off of something valid.
-
RE ContraSmith Website
Table o' Contents for ContraSmith Website Responses
Shirley__7-
Frank_Walton__7-
Shirley 7-
Shirley 7-
Dear Mark Smith,
What were some of the factual errors Contra Smith made about you and your website? Please, be
specific.
-
Mark Smith 7-
Hey Shirely (if that's who you really are); I intend to go thru and do a comprehensive reply some time in the future, so I'm not going to detail
every single one just for your entertainment.
However, since you asked, I will name at least one: the Shermer-
That is all for now. In general, the author(s) of ContraSmith did a good job, and I enjoyed reading it.
-
Shirley 7-
Mark,
First off, yes, I'm Shirley. Secondly, then technically that debate between Gish and Shermer wasn't an Atheist-
-
Mark Smith 7-
Hello Again;
What part of what I wrote did you not understand? Let me try to make it as clear as possible. EVERYone who entered the doors that night entered with the understanding that this was a debate between an ATHEIST and a CHRISTIAN. I went to see a debate between an ATHEIST and a CHRISTIAN. Everybody else did likewise. What the web page said was, and I quote,
I have also attended several Christian-
What I ATTENDED was a debate between an Atheist and a Christian. Shermer was STILL an Atheist more than half way into the debate. What I LEFT that night was a debate between a confused stressed out ex-
If you want to nit-
-
Shirley 7-
Mark,
This is my problem, son. You KNEW that AFTER the debate Shermer was NOT an atheist yet you decided to put up the fact that this WAS an ATHEIST-
-
Mark Smith 7-
Dear Shirley;
I don't intend to waste any more time on trying to get you to see the obvious. You are either playing Christian word games with me, or you are dumber than dumb. If it isn't clear to you by now that there is confusion as to just what the hell Shermer REALLY is, I sure can't help you.
As to the confusion over Shermer's REAL beliefs (which is the REAL issue here), here are some FACTS. Any confusion that may be out there seems to originate in Shermer himself. My gut feeling is that Shermer found out that being a Skeptic in our religious culture is easier than being an Atheist. At least being a Skeptic offers hope to the Christians that one day he may fall on THEIR side of the fence rather than the other side.
Mark Smith 7-
In summation, "Shirley" (aka Frank Walton) doesn't seem to get it, and I don't feel like beating it to death. If it's too much for Frank to comprehend, so be it. It just seems strange that he doesn't understand that it's what a person IS (or is thought to be) before the debate begins that determines what to label the debate. It's the label the debate is given BEFORE the debate even begins, that goes down in the history books. For example, if a Mormon debated a Baptist, it'd be called a "Mormon-
I'm Confused: Is or Is Not Shermer an Atheist???
Is An Atheist: “I’ve heard Shermer say, 'I’m an Atheist I don’t believe in God'” (1)
Is An Atheist: Shermer said he had once been a born-
Is An Atheist: On the website "CelebrityAtheists.com" we find the name: Michael Shermer. (4)
Is An Atheist: Shermer... would appear to be a closet atheist... Shermer, like Vidal's Confucius, knows that many traditions are absurd, but is afraid to say so frankly. ...Is it because he still has one foot stuck in his Christian past? (5)
Is An Atheist: Michael Shermer: As a statement about my personal beliefs and habits, I am a nontheist. I assume and act as if there is no God.
(D)
-
Is Not: I knew Gish had a lengthy section in his presentation on the evils of atheism as a technique to destroy his opponents (who typically are atheists), so I made a point of stating in my introduction, loud and clear, that I am not an atheist. (A)
Is Not: Shermer said he had once been a born-
Is Not: "Gish said during the debate that since I [Michael Shermer] am an "atheist-
In my book, How We Believe, I defined myself as an agnostic instead of atheist. (C)
Is Not: In his book Why People Believe Weird Things he [Shermer] states, "Gish refused to retract his characterization of me as an atheist. As Darwin said, 'An Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind'"
Is Not: In How We Believe, Shermer states, "As for my part, I used to be a theist, believing that God's existence was soluble. Then I became an atheist, believing that God's nonexistence was soluble. I am now an agnostic, believing that the issue is insoluble"
Is Not: To resolve the question I asked Shermer directly. He responded: As a statement about the universe I am agnostic, in the sense that God's existence or nonexistence is neither provable nor disprovable.
Is Not: However, he doesn't consider himself as an atheist, but simply as a
non-
1) Krista Bontrager speaking in response to a question by "Ed" on the Hugh Ross radio show "REASONS TO BELIEVE", 2/17/04. This section may be listened to online via: How can Michael Shermer promote both atheism and religious pluralism?
2) March 19, 2002 Debate between Hugh Ross & Michael Shermer, http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/shermer.htm
3) Michael Shermer, describing the debate between himself and Gish
Thursday, June 7, 2001 Phoenix, AZ as reported in the
North Texas Skeptics newsletter for June 16, 2001.
http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2001-
4) http://www.celebatheists.com/
5) Shermer: Closet Atheist. by David Rand http://atheisme.ca/livres/ms/hwb_en.html#closet
A) Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, WH Freeman and Company. NY, 1997. p.136
B) March 19, 2002 Debate between Hugh Ross & Michael Shermer, http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/shermer.htm
C) Michael Shermer in: http://www.skeptic.com/brightBrouhaha.html
D) Celebrity Atheists webpage, http://www.celebatheists.com/entries/atheist_33.html#3
E) Report on the debate between Geiveet & Shermer at The Church at Rocky Peak, Chatsworth, CA, Nov. 15, 1998 http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-
Frank Walton 7-
In a message dated 7/6/2004 3:57:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Frank Walton writes:
>Hey Marky,
>
>Thanks for being a sport by putting a link to our website. We were hoping you would respond. But, oh well... Anyway, we hope you didn't take any personal insults personally (like calling you a "moron" or that you're blind to objective reality). It was just a satiritcal jab at ya is all.
>
>Anyway, since you've decided to not respond to our charges against your website -
>
>You said, "I've changed things in this site before due to what some have pointed out to me, and I can change them again." For our sake, Marky, please don't change anything. We like the way the website is. Especially, the part where you "criticize" Dr. Craig's book. We want you stay as your arrogant self :)
>
>You asked, "Where's the beef?" We have it for you, Marky. Do you want it well done? Because we pretty much cooked your arguments.
>
>Anyway, now you're asking for miracles. Personally, we don't think that's the subject of Chapter 1 in Dr. Craig's book.
>
>Thanks for enjoying our website. Personally, we find yours more amusing.
>
>Yours in Christ,
>
>Frank Walton and Friends
>
Mark Smith 7-
Dear "Frank"
Let's just cut thru the crap. As I've said on my website, I'm willing to bet my life that your Biblegod doesn't exist. Are YOU willing to bet yours that he does??? We'll see.
-
Frank Walton 7-
Dear "Mark"
Am I willing to bet that He does? Of course! What do you think?! I'm a Christian! Anyway, I'm waiting for a response on contrasmith... will there be a challenge?
Frank
Mark Smith here: So Frank, you're willing to take the bet, or are you just blowing more hot air??? In case you forgot, THIS is the bet:
The Challenge to Lukewarm Christians
In front of hundreds of Atheists and Christians, I challenge ANY modern prophet or preacher to reproduce what Elijah did, and I am willing to bet my life that he can't: I offer MYSELF as the target of Biblegod's "fire from heaven". IF Biblegod zaps me with fire and turns me into a crispy critter, THEN all the Atheists, per pre-
However, IF after one hour of prayers and preaching Biblegod has NOT zapped me with fire, all of the Christians present will have to publicly BURN ALL THEIR BIBLES, denounce God and Jesus (verbally and in writing), AND to prove their sincerity, they will have to step up to the mic and "blaspheme the Holy Spirit" since they no longer believe it exists anyway.
I happen to KNOW that I am right, and I am willing to bet my life on it. Are there any Christians out there willing to bet THEIR life? How about just their faith in a make-
If you are game to do the above, let's start setting up the details, and schedule it for Sunday, October 10, 2004 in Hollywood California. I'm sure that CFI-
Note to Readers-
David Davis 8-
Subject: note on webpage
Date: 8/2/2004 10:52:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Mr. Smith,
Thank you. Your webpages were quite an interesting read. Not to mention scathingly brutal and at times childish (but I suppose we must have fun with our work). I have often wondered if there was anyone out there who would spend the time to 'contra' William Lane Craig.
However, I must ask: how much time did you spend on this? I mean, were you bored one day, and thought, perhaps I should bash some Christian apologists? I don't mean to dabble in one of the oldest arguments in the book, but if Craig's arguments are so irrational, what is the point of spending so much time contradicting them?
Mark Smith here: If Mormon or Jehovah Witness arguments are "so irrational" what is the point of an entire cottage industry within mainline xtianity having developed just to "contradict them"????
Although, I was quite amazed at Craig's response to your time-
Mark Smith here: THANK YOU!!!! At least there's ONE thinking Christian left in the world! And were I still a Christian, I'd be saying the same thing. Craig needs to be brought back in from cloud 9 by the fold.
Nevertheless, while I shall continue to read your webpages further, I wondered: if faith is not to be trusted, then what should humanity put its trust in? Reason? Our five senses? What?
Mark Smith here: Trust reason? Better that than wishful thinking. And much better than trusting a documented and confirmed liar like Jesus. Why do YOU trust a man who openly LIED about a "second coming"???
False Prophet-
I truly would like to know your thoughts on this. Most atheists and "freethinkers" that I have met seem content on brushing God aside but few seem willing to embrace the dark abyss, the void that human reason tumbles down (as Nietzsche warned), once God is gone. So, what do you think we can hold on to?
Mark Smith here: Not onto a liar, that's for sure. And assuming you're an adult, why do you feel the need to "hold onto" anything??? You're a big boy-
Sincerely,
David Davis
Chad Wiebe 9-
Subject: Schaeffer
Date: 9/6/2004 8:12:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
I just wanted to make a few comments about Christianity. Faith and reason are not opposed to each other. They fit perfectly and there are perfect answers to all your objections to Jesus. It's funny that you would spend so much time attacking a christian who doesn't need proof or believe in objective truth in order to prove your stance. It doesn't seem like you are interested in finding out the truth by the way you mock christianity so I won't go into great detail here although I believe I could win a debate between you and I. If ever you are interested in learning about the Truth, i suggest you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy. The God Who is There, Escape from Reason, and He is There and He is Not Silent. I think your objections would be answered, that is , if you still believe in objective truth and reason. There is no leap of faith, there is Reason.
sincerely,
Chad Wiebe
Mark Smith here: So, IF there really are "perfect answers to ALL" of my objections to Jesus, maybe next time you write you could at least show me ONE answer??? (I'm not holding my breath, for I know you are lying, and are merely using inflated rhetoric because you're too lazy to do the work.)
As for the books you mentioned, I've already read Schaeffer's books, back when I was a Christian, and what stands out even to this day is Schaeffer's contention that way too many Christians just don't THINK when it comes to religious matters. He said they can think logically about everything else, but when it comes to their religion they sort of put the whole thing into an "upper story" where the rules and logic of real life don't apply. If Schaeffer thought Christians were being unreasonable back when he wrote these books, he'd be turning in his grave to see the way his religion of choice has de-
Chad Wiebe 9-
Subject: Schaeffer
Date: 9/10/2004 3:30:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Hello Mark
Schaeffer said that christians put their religion in the upper story and that was exactly the problem. The rest of his book tells you why you don't have to do this. Maybe read it again and see what he says.
Mark Smith here: I don't need to read it again-
If there is no God and we came from nothing, then ultimately, in reality humans ARE nothing. Even if you say we came from some cosmic dust or particles(and you would have to explain how they came to be)we would in essence be dust with no soul. Water cannot rise above its' source and we cannot have personality with an impersonal beginning. Therefore as communication is impossible between rocks, so would it be impossible for us. Obviously you don't believe that or you wouldn't spend so much time communicating. If we are ultimately from nothing, then both life and death become meaningless because Nothing has no desires or hopes or life and if that is what we are, why are you concerned about the death of children in the bible for example?
Mark Smith here: And what "big meaning", pray tell, does being a Christian offer? Only the promise of spending all of eternity sitting around Biblegod's throne singing the same song over and over and over and over and after every repetition of the song the 24 elders fall down and grovel like a bunch of fanatical Muslims.
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come." 9Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, 10the twenty-
Oh yeah, now THAT really has meaning! Wow! THAT makes me want to run out, find the nearest priest, pry him off of the choirboy's wang, and confess my sins to him. Yeah, THAT eternity REALLY has meaning.
They cannot have meaning if they are in reality nothing or souless dust. No man can live as if there is no meaning, even you find meaning in life or you wouldn't bother living. However if there is a God, then suddenly life has meaning and morals exist. Then the life of children have meaning and communication is possible. You cannot have a sense of right and wrong if you are just dirt.
Mark Smith here: Oh yeah, I forgot: morals didn't exist before you Christians came around and invented them. Of course, your HOT AIR unfounded claims here fly in the face of the cold objective evidence that us Atheists KICK YOUR CHRISTIAN ASSES when it comes to morality. It's not the Atheists that fill up our prisons-
It is not immoral to hurt dirt. I have not yet said that the God of the bible is the true God, but the first step is to see that you cannot communicate or even tell someone that they are wrong if we are in reality just dirt.
Mark Smith here: Oh oh, now it comes thru: I'm dealing with a Bahsonite! Arrrghhhhh!!!! How did I get suckered into wasting my time on yet another of you incoherent numbskulls???
If you speak to me and tell me that you and I came from nothing or from some primordial soup then I can do nothing but laugh at your attempt at communication. Soup does not communicate. On what basis do you speak to me? How can I know that what you say has meaning. My language has meaning because I know where I come from and what gives me meaning. In the atheist world, there is no basis for meaning. An atheist has no answer for epistomology.
Mark Smith here: This is SUCH a crock of shit, I leave it to my readers to see it for themselves. And YOU, you arrogant PRICK, how dare you assume that only people of your own little wacky beliefs are the only human beings of worth. YOU have no "basis of meaning". Hey, I hear your Biblegod calling-
Here is a classic argument for the existence of God. I think it holds some value. Everything is either dependant or self-
Mark Smith here: Hey, here's one for you: your Jesus was a FALSE PROPHET. How about you deal with that first, eh???
Subject: william craig question...
Date: 9/27/2004 7:41:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Hello Mark-
Instead of whining about Bill Craig's PhD only
policy, why don't you get one yourself and debate
him? I'm really not trying to throw rocks at
you, but come on...! I think we both know the
reason Michael Martin stepped down at the last
minute.
Nathan
Mark Smith here: Nathan, I have more important things going on in my life than to jump thru whatever hoops Bill Craig happens to have up at the moment. I am not obsessed with the man where I would restructure my life for the next several years to get a PhD just to spend an hour debating the man in public.
I am more than able to debate Craig without getting a PhD in whatever, and if and when he wants to debate, he knows about this web site of mine.
Andrew 4-
Subject: Nice web page
Date: 4/28/2005 5:39:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
You must really be tired of getting your butts kicked by Ol' Craig eh?
Eventually, you'll get the picture: It's not Craig that you are unable to
defeat, but truth which you are unable to defeat. I'm sure it makes you
frustrated but, besides Craig, you also have Alvin Plantiga, Norman Geisler,
and many others. All of which simply state philosophical truths that cannot
be torn down by unfounded absurdities. I have to laugh at the idea that you
think its Craig that is kicking every atheist's butt though...thats great.
Andrew
Mark Smith here: You find it humorous that I am honest about Atheists losing to Craig? You find honesty humorous? Oh, that's right-
As for your comment on "truth", you need to direct that towards Craig, who has already disavowed any need for it in reaching his religious conclusions.