A second try at the impossible...
I am in receipt of your September/ October copy of The Skeptical Review, with your response to my letter of July 1, 1999, on the existence of God. With all due respect, it seems there was a serious misinterpretation of my commentary on the existence of God. First, let me say that I do not intend to impose my beliefs on anyone; we are all free to think and express our views as we understand them, thanks to our constitution. All I intended was to offer you a choice, which I feel is proper in making a decision, objectively, on any issue.
I am well aware of communism as a political ideology, but unfortunately it incorporates an aversion to Christianity and its founder, Jesus Christ. It is a fact, and I do agree, that Christians from the inception of Christianity to the present lived and do live within communal systems in our monastic orders and maintain Christ as its center, whereas communism strives to become the center of life.
You further stated, as examples, that to attempt to convince a Mormon that the angel Moroni doesn't exist would prove the opposite, or to tell a Hindu that Vishnu doesn't exist is to imply the opposite. Wrong! It isn't the denial of the existence of a deity that (I claim) is the proof of the opposite to be true, but the obsession to the extent that the individual denying its existence becomes paranoid to the point that he seeks to expunge all vestiges and references to the being whose existence he denies, recognizing the threat it is to his position of power. In paragraph one, page 14, of your response, you alluded to my analogy when you stated, "People don't try to prove that Superman doesn't exist, because there is no need to. Everyone realizes that Superman is a fictitious character." By this statement, you established precisely what I am saying, that if someone is convinced beyond all doubt that a deity doesn't exist, why be perturbed about it? Why not just ignore it?
Keeping all this in mind, I direct you to your subsequent statement that your brain tells you that there is no real evidence for the existence of gods, demons, angels, souls, and such like. This is fine; I am glad at the confident approach in your beliefs, but as for me, there is far more than the evidence I have expounded that convinces me of the existence of God. When one considers the natural order of things in the universe, we can't help but marvel at the Supreme Being who controls everything; how else would planets, for example, maintain their orbits while moving at incredible speeds around other heavenly bodies? Or how can anyone explain the infinity of our universe where lights of giant stars 100 to 40 [light] years away, which have become extinct centuries ago, just reach us down here, when one considers that light travels at the rate of 186,000 miles per second?
It makes us wonder what intelligent being it is that maintains, by his hand, the superb order in our universe: certainly not the stars, planets, and other celestial bodies. They are inanimate and incapable of charting their own destinies in the heavens. Certainly we are not responsible for the remarkable order with our own finite and extremely limited minds; we are as helpless as a baby in its mother's womb. As intelligent and brilliant as we profess to be, we vainly pride ourselves in our scientific accomplishments and brilliant minds, but all this is nothing because all we have is the discoveries of what a great God created eons and eons ago.
We as humans aren't self-sufficient. Here we are the highest form of intelligence and still unable to conquer the simple cold, eradicate illnesses, stop aging, or prevent death. We can only prolong life. Or which of us is able to create a utopia at will, define the elements (fire, water, wind) and suppress the violent upheavals of these elements? We don't see them, because they are invisible to our eyes and incomprehensible to us, but we are witness to their destructive power, so we don't doubt they exist.
Yes, Mr. Till, it is these and hundreds of more examples I can give you corroborating God's existence, but it's fine if you are comfortable in your beliefs. No one takes that away from you.
May the God you repudiate bless you and help you.
(Frank P. Calderon, 4010 Josephine Street, Lynwood, CA 90262)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I almost published Mr. Calderon's letter exactly as he submitted it so that everyone could judge from the spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors the probable level of education that produced it, but I decided that it wouldn't be necessary to do this. The appalling logic in the letter will be sufficient to establish Calderon's inability to think logically. He said that he didn't intend to impose his beliefs on anyone, yet he was the one who wrote the letter in which he presumptuously said that he wanted to "allay [my] disquietude and bring a measure of peace to [my] life," as if my life were devoid of peace and filled with disquietudes simply because I have no belief in this ghost in the sky that Calderon feels the need to posit as the explanation for mysteries that have not yet been unraveled. I get a bit impatient with letter writers who assure me that they have all the answers to the origin of existence, even though they have difficulty writing grammatically coherent sentences. I find it hard to believe that someone like this has been able to discover answers that have eluded our best thinkers.
I find it especially hard to believe that Calderon, who has a very primitive understanding of science, could have unraveled the mysteries of existence. That fire, water, and wind are "elements" is an ancient belief that all physical matter consisted of just four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. We now know that these are not elements but combinations of elements and that physical matter actually consists of more than 100 elements, so how likely is it that Calderon, whose mind seems to be lost somewhere in the distant scientific past, has solved the vast mystery of origins?
He doesn't even understand elementary principles of modern science. He asked how anyone could explain the infinity of a universe in which the light of "giant stars" 100 years away is just reaching us down here, even though these stars became extinct centuries ago. I had to assume that Calderon meant giant stars that were 100 light years away, because he wasn't at all clear in stating the problem that he thinks needs explaining. If this is what he meant, then I would like for him to explain to us how the light of extinct giant stars that were 100 light years away from us could still be reaching us if those stars ceased to exist "centuries ago." He apparently doesn't understand that if stars that were just 100 light years away became extinct "centuries ago," no light from them would now be reaching us, because the last light from such stars would have reached us a century after their demise.
Is this the kind of mentality that we could reasonably expect to have figured out the mysteries of existence sufficiently to know, with the certitude Calderon claims, that God exists?
Calderon told us that he is aware of communism "as a political ideology" but went on to say that "unfortunately it incorporates an aversion to Christianity and its founder, Jesus Christ," so right away, Calderon tried to beg the very questions he is obligated to prove. Would he feel the same way about communism if it had an aversion to Hinduism and its "founder" Krishna? What if communism had an aversion to Confucius and the philosophical system he founded? Calderon assumes that Christianity and "its founder" are deserving of special considerations, so he begins with that assumption and without even critically testing the assumption concludes that any political system should be condemned if it has an "aversion" to what he assumes is true. If this is an example of the way Mr. Calderon thinks, I seriously doubt that he has made any earthshaking discoveries about the origin of existence.
Calderon "explained" that he didn't mean that "denial of the existence of a deity" proves that the deity exists but that it is opposition "to the extent that the individual denying its existence becomes paranoid to the point that he seeks to expunge all vestiges and references to the being whose existence he denies" that proves the existence of the deity. In that case, Calderon must not have had me in mind, because I am neither paranoid about the "god concept" that permeates human thinking nor in any way eager to expunge "all vestiges and references" to the god concept. To the contrary, if society should ever succeed in ridding itself of religious superstition, I would oppose any revisionist attempts to rewrite history to remove references to humanity's enslavement to religion, because I would want people living in more enlightened times to be aware of this dark side of our history so that they would know the dangers that come with reliance on superstition rather than rationality.
That aside, let's look at the absurdity of what Calderon is apparently arguing. If Joe Doe simply denies the existence of a deity, that alone would not prove the existence of the deity, but if Doe should ever put any concerted effort into trying to convince others that this deity doesn't exist, then at that point his mere efforts to dissuade would somehow become evidence that the deity is real. In my reply to Calderon's first letter, I used Mormon belief in the angel Moroni and Hindu belief in the god Vishnu as examples to show the stupidity of his argument, and this was what sent Calderon back to the drawing board to come up with his obsessive-denial version of his argument. It is not the denial, Calderon now contends, but the obsessive denial that proves the existence of "God." In the small world that Calderon apparently lives in, he must have little contact with what is going on in the larger world; otherwise, he would know that there are former Mormons, former Muslims, and former Hindus who try to educate adherents of these religions to the reality that they are only systems of religious superstition, just like any other religion. People working on behalf of these reeducation movements publish their papers and maintain their internet sites just as I do on behalf of Skepticism, Inc., so if my "obsessive" efforts to educate people to the truth about the Bible prove that the god of the Bible exists, then like efforts of ex-Mormons, ex-Muslims, and ex-Hindus would prove the existence of whatever gods and angels are opposed in those reeducation endeavors.
Of all the "arguments" for the existence of god that I have ever heard, this one that Calderon is trumpeting ranks high among the silliest. No one wastes time arguing that Superman doesn't exist, because no one believes that Superman is real. However, if a cult should develop that believed in the reality of Superman and began to amass followers who worked energetically to force belief in Superman upon the general population and evangelically went about trying to convince politicians and civil officials that our laws should be based on a belief in Superman and that public meetings should be opened with obsequious tributes to Superman, there would undoubtedly develop a dedicated opposition to this idea. In that event, Calderon would presumably argue that the existence of an "obsessive" opposition to Superman is evidence that Superman is real. Talk about obsessive compulsion, how ridiculous can one get in his obsession to prove the existence of his god?
I'm reluctant to devote so much space to a subject that only indirectly relates to biblical inerrancy, but having gone this far, I may as well go all the way. As if he thought that I had never heard the classical arguments of theism, Mr. Calderon trotted out the "order" in the universe as another proof that his god exists. Why, without God we have no way to explain how the planets "maintain their orbits while moving at incredible speeds around other heavenly bodies." Such originality! I hardly know how to respond to it. Well, let's see, how about this, Mr. Calderon? If the planets cannot maintain their orbits at their incredible speeds without some master puppeteer on around-the-clock duty to pull all the strings necessary to keep the planets in orbit, then how does Calderon explain the existence of the deity pulling all of the strings? Like all simplistic thinking theists, Calderon sees apparent order in the universe and postulates a god to explain that order. He sees apparent design in the universe and postulates a god to explain that design. In so doing, he creates a much bigger mystery than the one he seeks to solve, because if a complex, orderly, designed universe requires a creator to explain it, then why does this deity who would have to be far more complex than his creation not require a creator to explain him? Oh, well, he doesn't require an explanation because he has just always existed. He is the "first cause uncaused." We have all heard this kind of theistic mumbo jumbo, but it does nothing at all to answer a simple question: if something has always existed, then why does that something have to be a complex deity? Why couldn't that eternal something just be the simple particles of matter that over time coalesce to form the various complex existents in the universe?
Calderon has probably never even considered this option to his god that he postulates to explain the mystery of existence, and he has probably never given even a passing thought to the fact that even if his "arguments" were compelling enough to require belief in a creator, there is nothing in those "arguments" that would even remotely suggest that this god is the biblical Yahweh whom Calderon seems to follow with a blind, irrational allegiance.
Christian Intellectualism...
Vol 10 No 6 Nov-Dec 99 page 2- King David.
No sir it is you who don't read correctly - or well. It is a mental and spiritual adjustment. You have no fear of God before you. The Lake of Fire is not nice this time of year or any other.
David was anointed king by Samuel 1 Sam 16:13. Saul was no longer king in the eyes of God.
Now flip over you die-hard atheist to chapter 21-Sam. This is no lie David is king-the king is himself K.J.V.- "and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place"
Of course you are blind as a bat and you are a hater of God and full of pride - to set your own reason over God's wisdom.
So Jesus is correct in Mark 2 as far as Abiathar being the hight Priest - he certainly was my experience is that the word of God is TRUE. and that the people that attack the word have no idea of Truth. However most so called Christians also are unaware of Truth. The Truth is Jesus - who came to earth to destroy the works of the Devil and to allow his Elect to be with Him - Jesus in Eternity of course you are not included and have nothing to do with this. So for the few years you have left - you knit [sic] Pick at the Stone made without hands. Everything in the Bible is coordinated consistent to lead the Elect by the Right Way. You've got the wrong way. Wrong Way Corrigan
Jesus born in south lives in North - Evil to be destroyed is destroyed. God lives in South Eternally David gets up by the Rock - South - Ezek. Now what a coincidence - that some wacked out scribe got this right over 2000 years. Zeehahial [sic] - 14:5 - Azel - no place - but the disappearance from the ends of the earth - Eilath - Ezian Saber - Selah That is why Paul went to Arabia after his conversion - As a type-way shuder It is a spiritual kingdom - not on this earth. You must believe otherwise the dark shutteth. But the wicked remain. Outside the heavenly Jeruslem [sic] Revelation never correctly deduced. A prophecy that already is passed. Asia 7 - churches - 2 timothy 1:15 - all connected. But you'll never get it - Just like the Philistines could not live with the Ark.
The Bible is complete - God finished his work But Faith in the Heart - not the head appropriates same - Jesus Christ - no other real way Now you would have been worse off to look more circumspectly at the Scriptures
Faith is the missing link - but in this case you have chosen a bad (for yourself) illustration. you have a stumbling stone - you have elevated Reason to an unreasonable height - Of course you are already - dead in the spirit - when you do pass on the brain is no longer and your Soul will have nothing to taste but bitterness you fool
(Jeffrey Wolfe, 5785 Cote des Neiges, Montreal, QB, Canada H3S 1X8)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I published Mr. Wolfe's letter just as he wrote it so that readers could see a type of letter that I receive as regularly as TSR and my letters to local papers are published. Most of the letters like Mr. Wolfe's are anonymously written, but since his had a name and address on it, I decided to publish it just as he had written it to let readers see that my work entails more than just writing and editing articles. I do occasionally experience the comic relief of getting letters like Mr. Wolfe's.
I suspect that letter writers like Mr. Wolfe think that their incoherent rantings put me in my place and score resounding victories for truth, so I'm going to reply to the only two points I was able to decipher in the letter. Wolfe was apparently arguing that David didn't lie when he said that he was on a secret mission for the king, because David was the king. Wolfe cited 1 Samuel 16:13 as proof of this, but this verse tells only that the prophet Samuel anointed David on this occasion. This anointing was apparently only symbolic of Yahweh's selection of David to replace Saul as king, because David clearly wasn't recognized as king of Israel until after Saul's death, when all the elders of Israel came to Hebron and "anointed David king over Israel" (2 Sam. 5:3). Why did they anoint him to be king over Israel if David was already the king? That this was indeed the moment when David became king is shown in the next verse, which says that "David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years." Between Samuel's symbolic anointing and the anointing by the elders of Israel, David had lived the life of a guerrilla marauder, who survived by raiding and pillaging villages while he was fleeing from Saul, who was still king of Israel (1 Sam. 21-31). Not until Saul was killed did David's flight for his life end (2 Sam. 1), so Wolfe's claim that David was actually the king when he had the encounter with Ahimelech is completely without merit.
I assume that readers have already noticed how Wolfe flagrantly contradicted himself. He said midway in his letter, "Everything in the Bible is coordinated, consistent to lead the Elect by the Right Way," but in concluding the letter, he said, "Yes, there are contradictions in Scriptures but not here," and then he went on to say that "(t)he contradictions are to trip up people like you." (I have taken the liberty to correct his punctuation.) So I'll have to ask Mr. Wolfe to explain to us how everything in the Bible could be coordinated and consistent but at the same time be intentionally contradictory so that it can "trip up" people like me. How could it be both?
Such nonsense as this is typical of the predicaments that biblicists get themselves into when they try to defend the inerrancy of a book that is obviously riddled with inconsistencies and discrepancies. Wolfe's incoherent ramblings explained nothing and didn't even address the central issue of my article, which was that Jesus claimed that David had given some of the showbread to the men who were with him, whereas the Old Testament story clearly shows that David was traveling alone at the time. This is an obvious inconsistency, and certainly Mr. Wolfe's incoherent ramblings did nothing to show that it is not an inconsistency.
Who sent this crap?
Who sent us this crap?? Please remove my name from your mailing list, immediately!!
(William Iacoe, 730 Amber Drive, Shoreview, MN 55126)
EDITOR'S NOTE: This letter can serve as a reminder of something I have told subscribers before. If you ask me to send a free trial subscription to someone you know, I will honor the request, but when you do this, you should notify your friend or relative or whomever that you have made the request. Otherwise, the reaction could be the same as Iacoe's.
I don't remember who asked me to send this free subscription, but whoever did may want to consider writing to the Iacoes to inform them that it was sent at his/her request. If the Iacoes should be the kind of people who think they are entitled to talk freely and distribute literature about their religious beliefs, this would provide an opportunity to tell them that if they are unwilling even to consider other views, then you aren't willing to listen to theirs anymore.
Love and hate in the Bible...
Often in your correspondence with Mr. Hutchinson, you will point out that fundamentalists are trying to have it both ways by stating that the Bible is responsible for the love that comes as a result of the passages of love in the Bible, but when hate comes from passages of hate, they all of a sudden disassociate with the passages. Fundamentalists are not fazed by an argument like this because they would argue that the Holy Spirit inspires people to be influenced by the passages that promote love, and one's own selfish desires influence someone to take verses about hate "out of context." To someone like you or me, who does not even believe in the Holy Spirit, an argument like this is obviously explaining away troubling issues through superstitious beliefs, and the hypocrisy of claiming responsibility for "love" passages while disassociating with "hate" passages is dishonest. I would suggest that in a future issue you address this argument that the Holy Spirit would cause people to be influenced to hold on to the "love" verses and not the "hate" verses, because that is what a lot of fundamentalists who read this journal are probably thinking.
(Brian Rainey, 313 Tudor Place, Chesapeake, VA 23325; BRAINEY@norfacad.pvt.k12.van.us)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Rainey is probably thinking about such passages as 2 Corinthians 2:14, which says, "Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God's Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." Christians do actually argue that unbelievers cannot understand the "word of God" because they are "unsaved" and therefore don't have the Holy Spirit to guide them to understand what the Bible means. In so arguing, they apparently don't even realize that they are arguing from a catch-22 position. Unbelievers can't understand the Bible because they are unsaved and don't have the spirit to guide them, and they are unsaved and don't have the spirit to guide them because they don't understand the Bible. The logical end of this "argument" would be that no one could ever be saved, because one has to understand the "word of God" in order to be saved, at which time he will receive within him the Holy Spirit to guide him to understand the "word of God," but until one understands the "word of God" and receives the "spirit," he won't be able to understand the "word of God." This is typical of the gibberish that Christians resort to in their never-ending quest to make sense of the nonsensical.
Oops...
I noticed that my letter was in the "Mailbag" of the September/October 1999 issue of TSR. I am sorry that my name is causing so much confusion, because I see that I have now undergone a sex-change. I realize that I'm probably causing the confusion myself by not putting "Mrs." in front of my name. I should have known that Lidy is not a very common name here (I'm Dutch). Anyway, no offense taken, but I am a female.
(Mrs. Lidy Mohr, Box 1598, Revelstoke, BC, Canada V0E 2S0)
EDITOR'S NOTE: A thousand apologies for this mistake, Mrs. Mohr. You are right about the name. I had never encountered it before. I suppose I assumed that you are male, because there is a disproportionate majority of males on the subscription list. For years, I had only a handful of female subscribers, but I am glad to say that this is steadily changing as more and more females subscribe to the paper.
Separation from God is bad?
Enclosed is a check for a two-year subscription. I have been receiving a free subscription and thank you very much for your valuable service. Here in Arkansas your publication is an uncommon breath of fresh air in a society trying to smother everyone with their self-righteous, arrogant, very uninformed, anti-reasoning sense of egotistical superstition. It's hard to understand how "separation from God" could be anything but a welcome relief and great reward.
(Hugh R. Harris, 330 Swallow Circle, Fayetteville, AR 72704)
EDITOR'S NOTE: There isn't much I can add to Mr. Harris's comments. I have often said the same thing. When Bible believers, probably with good intentions, warn me of the horrors of spending eternity in hell "separated from God," I ask them what could be so bad about not being with a barbaric, brutal, vindictive, petty god like the one depicted in the Bible. Bible believers seem to have heaven and hell switched around.
A book recommendation...
Like you, I too was once a devoted Christian fundamentalist. My Christian conversion in 1970 led me to forsake a very successful business career, become an ordained minister, found and pastor a prosperous evangelical, Pentecostal church, plus preaching at pastor seminars in Africa, and ministering in churches in Yugoslavia, England, Sweden, Canada, and the U.S.
When I resigned from the pastoral duties of my church in 1986, I had no intention of ever leaving the faith. However, in about 1990 I came across a book that got me thinking. This book was called Bible of Bibles by Kelsey Graves. This book challenged my confidence in the so-called infallibility of the Bible. Later I read Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker. This book by a former Pentecostal minister mirrored my personal experiences and made me confront myself with the fact that I was no longer a believer. Then somehow I became a subscriber to The Skeptical Review. Little by little over the years, the light has broken through and the shackles of religion have finally fallen off. I want to thank you for your contribution to my deliverance as well as, I'm sure, to many others'.
If I may, I'd like to recommend a book to you and your readers that I discovered in late 1997. This book is The True Origins of Christianity and the Bible by Andrew Benson. This book is not specifically about atheism nor does it tell the reader what to believe. The author very tactfully lays out the facts for the reader to judge. This book is so thorough that when completed the reader is faced with the fact that there is no rational basis for believing in the god of Judaism/Christianity. It is refreshingly "reader friendly" and is the perfect book to recommend to our Jewish/Christian friends.
Here is the comment of the Rev. Dr. Culver H. Nelson, Senior Editor of The Fourth R, publication of the Westar Institute and the Jesus Seminar: "Mr. Benson has produced a wide-ranging and exciting search into what he calls The True Origins of Christianity and the Bible. It is historically honest, astonishingly thorough, and gives evidence of the towering gifts of a non-academic in a field usually enthralled to the credentialed. Benson is devoted to the truth. This book deserves wide distribution."
This book we have found amongst the Minnesota Atheists is equipping the atheist community with a book that enables us to do more then just "preach to the choir." It presents the historical facts assimilated from the research of some 200+ scholars (mostly Christian) referenced with 1,000+ footnotes. I strongly urge you to advertise it. This book is one of a kind! It dramatically impacted my life, as well as other atheists here in Minnesota. Benson's website is http://www.prudentialpublishing.com.
If you would like, I can contact the author, and he will be glad to mail you a copy for your review and comment.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
(Lee Salisbury, 2690 Northridge Lane, Stillwater, MN 55082-1500; e-mail, lee@mtn.org)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Needless to say, I'm happy to hear that I may have had something to do with Mr. Salisbury's abandonment of religious superstition. I am now reading the book he recommended but haven't had time to read enough to form an opinion. If the book is as good as Mr. Salisbury claims, I'll say more about it later.
Where Is Satan?
Stephen Van Eck's article "The Pentateuch: Not Wholly Moses or Even Partially" was very thought provoking and hard to disprove. As Van Eck pointed out so well, it is remarkable how suddenly when the Jews returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity, they had Moses and the ten commandments and a style of worship not evident in the pre-Babylonian life of these people.
In the days of King David and King Solomon, there is no mention of any "ten commandments" or other laws and customs so important after the captivity. Even the name of Moses, so prominent later in the life of the Jewish people, was hardly mentioned. I find it hard to believe that the Bible scholars have not previously dealt with this question. If Van Eck's theory is correct, and if the Pentateuch was indeed conceived and written during the captivity, then we have come upon a gigantic revolution in Bible history.
There is for me another nagging question about the idea of the Pentateuch's having been written in Babylon. There is no Satan in the Pentateuch. Unnoticed by fundamentalists, who are so fond of Satan, the concept of Satan is totally absent from the first five books of the Bible. The Jews seemed to have appropriated the concept of the devil and Satan from the Babylonians.
I find it hard to believe that the Pentateuch was a product of the Babylonian captivity without any of the pervasive influence of Babylonian religion, which seemed so prominent in the postexile days.
(Clarence A. Sears, 11067 Scott Mill Road, Jacksonville, FL 32241-7112; e-mail, pennyuno@aol.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Satan did make a late appearance in the Old Testament, but he almost made no appearance at all. He was mentioned in 1 Chronicles 21:1; Psalm 109:6; Zechariah 3:1-2; and the first two chapters of Job. All of these with the exception of the book of Job are usually dated after the exile, and "critical scholars generally place the final editing [of Job] in exilic or postexilic times, primarily the fourth century" (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, 1987, p. 584). The postexilic editing of Job could account for the references to Satan in this book.
Van Eck may wish to comment on this matter. If so, I will publish what he has to add, but I see the absence or sparsity of references to Satan in biblical books that otherwise appear postexilic in origin to be no more telling than the absence or sparsity of references to eternal life and final judgment in the same books, for these too were religious concepts that the Jews acquired from their exilic experiences.
Preening Peacocks of Ignorance...
I don't want to miss a single issue of The Skeptical Review. No way! Enclosed is my renewal check.
Although I abandoned belief 25 years ago (studying astronomy did it), I knew very little about the Bible prior to encountering your journal, because I was raised an Irish Catholic. Still I wondered just what it was those fundamentalist preachers were ranting about. Now I know. They are preening peacocks of ignorance. Quite a sight!
(Mike O'Brien, 1017 Chevney Way, Shady Cove, OR 97539)
An atheist in a foxhole?
I never could understand the "Holy" Bible. I recall attempting to get comfort the other GI's seemed to be afforded by those scriptures during WWII.
Now reading, studying The Skeptical Review, I can realize that the entire concept of mysterious magic is all an illusion.
God is What?
(F. T. Yablon, 3422 Knox Place, Apt 4H, Bronx, NY 10467-2018)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Is Mr. Yablon suggesting that he was an atheist in a
foxhole? I've always heard that there is no such thing.
