William Tychonievich wrote:
On your "Cult of Christ" page
(http://mwillett.org/atheism/Christ-Cult.htm), you mention John Smith
as the founder of the Mormon religion. Actually, his name was Joseph
Smith.
Wm Jas |
 |
Thanks. I knew that. I can't think why I made that mistake...
http://www.johnsmiths.co.uk/
--
Martin Willett
|
Are u a qualified Historian? |
Do you have to have a licence? I have a degree, will that do?
You are indeed knowledgable and well read.... But smart? I don’t
know how accurate that is. Man, I wish I had your wealth of knowledge.
Have a little bit of fun for a moment, answer this question. If
you could be any of the more popular comic book/super powered characters,
who would you pick?
matt |
God.
I cut down a tree today just because I could! It screamed!
michael.a.hladik@lmco.com |
If that was fun why not go and buy a pig?
Na I like Pig's, I want a pot belly pig. Tree's tend to make messes
all
over so the best thing to do is cut them down and throw them away. I
will have to send you a t-shirt that I designed for tree huggers. |
Your illiteracy shines through along with your arrogance and lack of
human decency.
You're American aren't you?
You got that right!!!! |
 |
Daniel Barulich wrote:
Why blame the Isle
of Man for having pro-business standards? Shouldnt
you be placing the blame with the individuals and corporations who
decide to re-located and not with the state itself. Are you against
the concept of individual freedom? |
I spent my honeymoon there and got sunburn.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org
Sharon Emrick wrote:
I do not wish to impair your right to believe what you choose
to believe but I respond on the chance you really are seeking the
truth. But really I have never yet found one honest atheist. All
I ever have found is individuals that are really angry that God?Jesus
did not operate as some magic wand to fulfill their desire and
prayers.
Should you really be desiring the truth regarding God and Jesus
please regard that Jesus is not dead. I personally know he lived
because I met him in 1976. I am neither deranged nor On drugs.
I am the daughter of a rocket scientist so I assume you can imagine
I was raised on evidence and yet i require no evidence that either
of my parents exist and have never felt need to examine their birth
certificates because they knew them. Now due to the fact that Jesus
/God are not finite and human their thinking tends to be a bit
different so I have had days I told him I didn't know him. But
rather I hve known him more than most people I have known with
the noticeable exemption of a man Moses Vegh who first introduced
me to the concept of a truly personal two way relationship. He
was matter a factly stating what Jesus had said that morning and
I nearly laughed out loud (re: my scientific upbringing)thinking
of Bill cosby and his routine on Noah when I looked at him and
suddenly knew that if any person had ever heard God he had and
I started listening. I was baptised and instantly lost all the
crippling of my legs from a car accident along with a metabolic
problem. My doctor told me he never wanted to see me again when
he saw it.Several months after that I survived a fire in my bedroom
that burned over and under me without burning me. I have seen new
skin grow in minutes erradicating a half inch deep wound. I have
seen scoliosis confirmed by x-ray and then totally unfindable even
by repeated x-ray. I have seen a child drowned and unrevivable
when her body floated up get up and run around when Jesus was prayed.
Now the problem for the logical is these things don't always happen
but we are not dealing with an inanimate force but a living being
who can and does do as he choose and not being finite doesn't see
things as you do. He makes choices based on future results you
don't know and for purposes you are not aware of. Usually he is
not in the habit of explaining himself anymore than you do to the
ant on your sidewalk.
Now none of this is proof to you and possibly makes you doubt
my sanity but on the chance you are interested he is available
to know, just not to fit in your boxes and probably not to fully
understand. Actually how many human beings do you fully understand???
Now as relationships go it is a relationship where you can rely
on never being lied to but where you aren't going to know everything
and you are definately not going to be in control. Generally that
has been my experience that is the main problem for most atheists
but then every once in a while there could be someone who really
would be willing to know the God who is and all that you need to
do is start by addressing him ,"If you are really out there
I really would like to know you. and if you are I'm sorry i haven't
believed in you. Please show me the truth." Then you will
have your own set of evidence and all these arguments will be irrelevant.
Anyway, not looking for response. My questions are not for you
to answer me but yourself what are your real motivations. If you
so choose you may answer especially if you enter this adventure.
I always enjoys these stories but if you are trying to convince
mne to become an atheist save us both time. All arguments of nonexistance
are irrelevant to those who have met someone and had a relationship
for some time(in my case 31 years)and I have no concern regarding
the opinions of others and if there was a death penalty for saying
it I would gladly still say it rather than lose this relationship.
May God bless you with the courage to see things that even when
you see them are hard to believe.
|
People throughout history have had personal relationships with their own
gods inside their heads. Do not for one moment imagine that the priests
of Baal, Jupiter, Odin, Zeus, Kali or Thoth were any more deliberate knowing
liars than Christian priests and pastors. Sincerity is no guarantee of
verity.
If you really have Jesus' voice living in your head you can prove it to
me conclusively by asking him to teach you Aramaic, real Aramaic, the language
he must have spoken when he was alive.
Join me on a live webcam event in which you can demonstrate to the world
the accuracy of your claims to be in direct contact with Jesus. I will
telephone you and ask you some questions to which Jesus will be able to
answer easily based on his experiences of life as a carpenter and wandering
preacher. Are you up for it?
If you really are sincere in your beliefs, in your claims of contact with
Jesus and in your desire to show the world the reality of Jesus you should
leap at this opportunity. I will do what I can to ensure there are plenty
of atheists watching and listening.
My own experience of being an atheist is that atheists do not believe
in gods and therefore do not pray to Jesus or any other deity or spirit.
The act of asking Jesus into your heart is simply a form of self-hypnosis.
Everybody knows what is supposed to happen when Jesus comes into your life
and this is what happens. Nobody becomes capable of speaking Aramaic, or
any other language they do not know. If you really are in contact with
a man who lived two thousand years ago, who spoke Aramaic and made his
living by carpentry and begging you will be able to demonstrate this to
us clearly. If you are making it all up you will wriggle out of the challenge
and call me a fool or impious or make some other meaningless taunt for
making such a suggestion.
I have absolutely no intention of trying to hypnotize myself into becoming
a Christian because I appreciate the freedom to think for myself and make
up my own mind. I do not want to have my decisions made for me by my own
subconscious prejudices telling me how to play the part of a Christian.
Why would I want to become a Christian? I know plenty of them. They don't
impress me very much.
Evidence first then belief. That is the scientific way. If it was good
enough for the disciples why is it not appropriate for me? If Jesus doesn't
go in for proof and values unquestioning gullible faith why did he offer
so much proof to his disciples? They didn't have to take anything on faith,
the power of Jesus was demonstrated to them directly, they didn't have
to take anybody's word for it, they saw miracles performed in front of
them. Of course a cynic would say that miracles are much easier to arrange
thirty years or more later when the time comes to have something in writing.
The Christian approach of denying doubt first is anathema to Enlightenment
thinking.
Faith is not a virtue, it is a weakness of mind, a crippling of the intellect.
Nothing that is worth believing in requires that people rule out the possibility
of questioning. Science and liberalism are not afraid to not only allow
but positively welcome doubt, checking, verification and most importantly
of all falsification.
Have you tried asking other gods into your heart (kidney, spleen, brain,
soul, mind or whatever)? Why not? Why should you assume the god of the
people who last beat up your ancestors has to be the only legitimate god?
If there is only one true god how can Muslims who are smarter than you
pray five times per day and be prepared to kill and die for the wrong one
true god? By that I mean the ones that simply are smarter than you, there's
more than a billion of them, not that all of them are smarter than you!
Why don't Buddhists and Hindus sat meditating about the truth of the universe
suddenly start hearing the voice of Jesus? What else have they got to listen
out for?
Why don't Baptists see visions of the Virgin Mary?
Why don't Catholic priests or New Age goddess worshipers start speaking
in tongues?
When you are hypnotizing yourself to believe in Jesus why don't you regress
to a past life, recall being anally probed in a flying saucer or remember
that your father sexually abused you for ten years? The answer is simple,
people behave under any form of hypnosis the way they are expected to behave.
If you ask a Muslim goat herder from Burkina Faso to let Jesus into his
life he wouldn't be able to do a very good job of it because he has no
idea how to play the role. Somebody from Alabama would have a much better
chance of doing it convincingly. Children have a natural affinity for learning
languages, but nobody encourages children to speak in tongues because they
won't have picked up enough clues how to do it right. Of course nobody
spoke in tongues for eighteen centuries then the craze spread in much the
same way as crazes for kite flying or stilt walking.
How do you explain the fact (I presume you do regard it as a fact) that
Jesus preached only to Jews, only had Jews as disciples (and only men too
come to that) and made no efforts at all to preach to any gentiles? Why
only care about gentiles when he's dead?
If your answers to any of these questions involve Jesus being a slippery
character or smarter than any human being could ever hope to understand
how can you know that this spirit is Jesus and not, say, Satan? Would Satan
be incapable of making you feel good inside? Why? And how do you know?
Once somebody has postulated a slippery liar lording it up over the Earth
trying to deceive people for his own murky not-to-be-probed reasons how
can anybody ever feel confident of anything, internal or external?
No doubt when you think about Jesus you get a feeling inside that tells
you that you are right. How does this feeling compare to that which gamblers
have before they lay a large bet they know will win and doesn't? What evidence
have you got that human beings are capable of directly feeling the truth
of ideas through concentrating on sensations within their internal organs?
Doesn't the existence of a profitable gambling industry give the lie to
the idea that the human body is equipped with a functioning direct truth
evaluator?
Can you explain why God and Jesus value credulity so highly? Why is believing
in a god who seems almost perversely shy so important? Why is belief more
important than good behaviour?
What is eternal life for? Isn't it meaningless without an after-eternal
life to aim for? But that would be silly, wouldn't it?
Who is God jealous of? And why?
Did Jesus die for your sins or so that you would believe in him?
What does he get out of being believed in? Go on, ask him. This is the
biggie: what do you give the being who made everything and why would he
want it?
Why has the creator of the universe got a character that resembles that
of an evolved ape? OK, it seems he's unknowable only when the impious ask
to know him but fully knowable when the faithful ask things of him. Why?
If Jesus is God and his "death" was a sacrifice to atone for
sin who was he sacrificed to?
How can going through the motions of "killing" an immortal achieve
anything? It's ridiculous mythological nonsense. Immortals can't die, it's
in the job description.
If Jesus died for the sins of humanity committed and yet to be committed,
paying off our debts, what happens if we stop sinning? Do we then go into
credit?
Has he ever told you something you didn't already know? Has he ever told
you why Christians are a minority?
Why not ask him for directions for how to demonstrate or disprove the
existence of the Higgs Boson?
What has God got against homosexuality? Why is he now OK about eating
shrimp? Do sabbath breakers still deserve to be put to death? What was
the big thing about foreskins about? Why does an unchanging Alpha and Omega
yet somehow still manage to change?
Why not ask him for an explanation for why he let so many good Christians
die in the fruitless search for the North West Passage? How hard would
it have been to tell them that it was a waste of time looking?
If Jesus can appear as a vision so artists can paint him why couldn't
he send a vision of the Earth seen from space, or of the dark side of the
Moon, to an artist with the skill to paint it? Wouldn't a Leonardo da Vinci
of the dark side of the Moon that subsequently matches up almost precisely
(allowing for more recent cratering) be the sort of evidence that would
turn the whole world into believers? Far better than some lame effort at
nude photography.
Why does the explanation you have been forming have the ring of the explanations
offered for why glove puppets don't tap dance or speak when their masters
are asleep?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org
www.drdino.com
dont stop untill you find out |
Have you deliberately decided to ignore my clear instructions
or are you too busy to read them?
I am well aware of the clown known as Dr Dino, his message, his methods
and his scientific credibility.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
no i just randomly came accross your website, i dont know how i got
there or why i wrote you. but just wanted to tell you that Jesus loves
you and wants to enter your heart if only you will open the door and
let him in. my life was change dramatically 180degrees once i got to
know him better. your life will never be the same again. |
I have had my fill of comedy thanks.
does it hurt to check it out? |
This suggestion has been made before, many times.
Is it stupidity, arrogance, colossal insensitivity or simple thoughtlessness
that causes you to think you can make me change my mind with such a flaccid
effort?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
I just thought that if it was so random, maybe there was a reason
why I did it? I think God is trying to talk to you though other people
including me. |
I regard that as blasphemous. If there is a god I'd hope he could do better
than use you.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
well ok? but tell me this what do you belive in? were will you go
after you die? were did you come from? |
Read the site. That's what it is for.
I find it interesting that you dont seem to want to be held accountable
for the work that you didn't write, but are publishing on your website.
Why wont you stand behind the gavel that you are slamming Christians
with by answering to the material that you choose to publish?
Honestly, I could be wrong, but it just seems like its an admission
to the weakness of the arguments posited.
Maybe you should consider simply quoting the segments of the original
authors work that you can, or are willing to defend, and leave the
rest out.
Of coarse, if you are a devoted naturalist, then you probably don't
believe in any kind of ultimate arbitration of social conduct. In
that case, you are not likely to be concerned about being fair to
the individuals (Christians) that you are slamming. You simply compile
a force of agrument, slam people with it, and then only answer to
a portion of it.
Well, thats ok. I thought you would be like most intelligent athiests
i have known, in that they were ardently devoted to an open forum
for discussion but i guess not.
Note to Christians: The above review was written By Kush K. He read
the book. I have no intention of debating this book or reading it
so stop sending me emails about it. OK? |
Why should I debate as if I wrote it a review of a book I have no intention
of reading?
The vast majority of the material on my site is written by me, I will
discuss that.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
ok. fair enough i guess.
i was just reading the news about how they finally discovered a planet
that they think may be able to support life. Reading the article made
me realize how ridiculous it would be to state conclusively that by
no stretch of the imagination or science, could there ever be life
anywhere else in the universe, except for on earth.
This caused me to reminisce about the "no absolute negative" argument
made by many theists.
I'm sure that you already know what i'm talking about, but for the
sake of the slight possibility that you might not know what i'm referring
to, it is usually stated somewhat like this:
The basic laws of logic inhibit the possibility of an absolute negative.
The classic case of this kind of logically impossible claim is typified
in the position of the Athiest. That in the wide expanse of factors
in the universe, and in all of the possible configurations of cosmogenisis
- that there is conclusively and absolutely no possibility for the
existence of a Creator or Ultimate Being (God). Here an absolute negative
is posited by a finite being - and the laws of Logic refute its mathematical
validity.
" It is affirming the non-existence of God. It affirms a negative.
Anyone with an introductory course in philosophy recognizes that it
is a logical contradiction. It would be like me saying to you, "There
is no such thing as a white stone with black dots anywhere in all of
the galaxies of this universe." The only way I can affirm that
is if I have unlimited knowledge of this universe.
So to affirm an absolute negative is self-defeating, because what
you are saying is, "I have infinite knowledge in order to say to you,
'There is nobody within finite knowledge.'" Atheism, as a system,
is self-defeating. "
You probably want me to start a new thread on your forum or read an
article before you are willing to discuss it via e-mail right? If so,
are there any articles on your website that you could direct me to
concerning your response to this argument? |
http://mwillett.org/atheism/strength.htm
http://mwillett.org/atheism/atheist-God.htm
http://mwillett.org/atheism/agnostic.htm
thanks, i'll have to roll these around in my mind when i have time.
Actually I appreciate the Strong/Weak atheist article, not because
it gives ascent to Theism or anything, but because of the honesty
of the statement. Philosophy isn't a sport, and only in competitive
sports do we honor the pigheaded and "strong" - and even
that is kind of lame.
I guess I also appreciate it because, even though I am a Christian,
I have similar views which correspond to Biblical philosophy. Not that
i have a partial faith in God, or a partial devotion to the fundamental
tennants of Christianity, but that i have to admit that it is possible
that there may be weak areas in my own philisophical constructs and
in my own ability to intellectually discern and assemble truth. Fortunately
my belief in God does not rest solely upon one single argument but
on the collaborative mass of evidence as a whole which outweighs the
opposition.
Also, Intellectual arguments are important, but only supplemental
( albeit integral ) to the pre-emminent staple of personal spiritual
revelation. If there is a God and if He is "fair", then
He is just as accesable to the mentally handicapped as he is to the
intellectual Genius. But thats not to say that intellectual reason
and rationality is not critical for Christendom as a Whole - it is
and i dont expect you to dialoge with us on the level of our individual
experiences in the Spirit.
At the same time, i do not believe that any of the pillars which hold
up the essential tennents of Christianity ( including the existance
and supremacy of God) are weak or fallible.
for what its worth, Aaron. |
Hi Martin,
I just came across your web site. You mention on your site that
there are precisely zero famously atheist people who are now famously
Christian. I am curious about the matter myself. If I understand
the question correctly they had to be specifically an atheist (not
an agnostic, Buddhist, Taoist, pantheist, monist, etc.) and already
famous before conversion. Correct? What are some names of people
that have been submitted to you that you have rejected? One challenge
is finding people who were specifically an atheist. Alice Cooper
was famous for his rejection of Christianity for many years only
to later become one. But I haven't seen anything that specifically
states he was an atheist, so I don't know if he meets the established
criteria or not.
That seems like a key to this challenge with perhaps 1-2% of Western
society identify themselves as strictly an atheist. Then they have
to be famous. Then they have to convert to Christianity and still
be alive. There are many famous "prodigals" but fitting
to this criteria is a bit more challenging. Has anyone suggested
Anne Rice the author? She is listed as an atheist turned Christian
on wikipedia, that bastion of (cough) scholarly online reference
material . Does she fit the criteria? Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
J.R. |
The criteria for fame is that I have heard of them. Anne Rice
barely qualifies there. The criteria for being a famous atheist is that
people strongly identify that person with atheism. I certainly have never
been aware that the Vampire Chronicles were written by a famous atheist.
I didn't regard Alice Cooper or Ozzy Osbourne seriously as atheists for
their manipulations of Christian imagery, it was as clear as day that they
were using religious imagery to further their careers via cheap shock tactics
not out of any sincerely held philosophy. If I hear that Lemmy went to
Mass last week I won't feel betrayed either.
Merely labelling yourself as an atheist isn't really enough to qualify
as famously atheist rather than just a person who is famous and also known
to be an atheist. People have to go on record about their atheism and make
a case for it. C S Lewis therefore counts under this clause, but when he
was on record as being an atheist he wasn't famous or influential in any
way. His fame came after his conversion.
Anybody who has been a Catholic until the age of 18 is clearly a suspect
for being a reactive convert. You really can never stop being a Catholic,
even if you do become an atheist, especially if you were an Irish Catholic
taught by nuns! In a civilized world sending a child to be taught by nuns
would be considered conspiracy to abuse a child and punished accordingly.
Teaching a child about about Hell is far more evil and damaging than getting
them to touch your todger.
The Anne Rice story is not uplifting, it is deeply sad.
Search Google for "Anne Rice atheist writings" and you don't
find any, just reviews of her Christian novel. That tells the tale. Instead
replace Anne Rice with Philip Pullman and you find a genuine famous atheist
writer.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
A combination of compelling research, personal interest, and a good
deal of excitement generated by the idea, has inspired me to seek to
publish an anthology that will offer the personal accounts of gays
and lesbians from around the world and from a variety of religious
backgrounds.
I welcome and encourage you to visit the project's blog where you can
post ideas, comments, criticism, etc.: http://gaysoffaith.blogspot.com/.
Please, please, please pass this link along to anyone and everyone
you know that may be interested in the project. So far, a lot of interest,
both financial and content-based has been generated, but I'm looking
to this blog and your responses as a way to truly get the ball rolling.
Thank you!
Michael |
Faith is the greatest curse humanity has ever inflicted on itself.
And just because homosexuality is not illegal why should people have to
pretend they're perfectly cool with it? I am not cool about bagpipes, violins,
miniature poodles or morris dancing either. Can't we have some grey area
between criminal oppression and compulsory public celebration?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
Hey there Martin,
Following the link to the Lottery
page from Smitecam V, I wanted
to point out one thing that you’re sort of wrong about when
it comes to the lottery. Not about the utter folly of thinking one
might dream of the winning numbers – with that, you’re
right on – but rather in the calculation of never matching
more than three balls in playing for fifty years.
I just used your numbers – 1 in 1033 odds of getting four
balls matching. If you calculate the odds of never getting at least
four balls over fifty years of playing, it comes to only about 9
percent chance. Okay, so that’s not entirely unremarkable to
play every week for 50 years and never win (at least 4 matching),
but it would at least be improbable.
Since you’re buying a lottery ticket this month before Smitecam
V, I hope for your sakes that you’re wrong about the no gods
thing, and you’ll be luckily rewarded with a large sum of cash.
Unfortunately, I strongly suspect you’re right.
Yours,
Ruquay K Calloway |
It would be not that remarkable I think is what I wrote, which I stand
by. The English language does not represent chances precisely, that is
why we developed percentages and odds. I think not
that remarkable would
work down to about 2%.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
Mr Willett-
Throughout many of your essays and commentaries, you adamantly
state that you have much disdain for liars and such. You seem to
have a deep hunger for the "truth" in the various issues
on your website, and you employ "logic" and "reason" to
come to what you see as some kind of "truth." Your arguments
- which are confounding to many who are not staunch ideologues
or well-versed on the particualr subject matter - may seem "concrete" to
many. Using basic principles from the era of "modernity" to
establish and declare what is "true and logical" make
a strong case for your athiestic and secular-humanistic views.
However, in this era of "post modernism", how do you
explain and reconcile your views to a generation who question the
existence of "absoluteness" in truth? How do you refute
the adage of "Your perception is your reality"?
Semper Fidelis!
Joel Bowling
Garner NC |
Simple, post-modernists are deluded wankers. You can't get more modern
than modern. It stands to reason. Post-modernism doesn't.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
um hi
im not too cool with givingf my name out so il just say im "Riot"
i have been looking at the website and its AWESOME
i have been looking for something like this for a long time
i hope you can answer 2 questions:
1. You say children cannot be members - how old would you consider
an adult to be? i am a uk citizen and i think we have different rules
on adult age
2. bit embarresed but......where do i sign up? :P i cant see a "join" button
or anything
thanks very much - keep up the good work :) |
How dare you assume I'm a foreigner?
http://mwillett.org/who1.htm
There is no formal age limit, but we don't slow down, pull our punches
or make allowances. It is up to you to decide whether you are up to it.
I would be surprised if many people under the age of 13 could keep up.
The average IQ of a forum member is also well above the average for the
rest of humanity so lots of adults will never be able to thrive with us
either.
If you are under the age of 16 I think it would be sensible for you to
check with a "responsible adult" or failing that a parent to
see if they approve of you going on a site which is designed for adult
conversation. I can guarantee you will be involved in conversations with
strange people, you will come across people who are sexually attracted
to children, you will meet people who regularly take drugs but there is
very little chance that anybody will attempt to meet up with you, it isn't
that sort of a site. So on the whole it's probably less dangerous than
sending you out to buy some milk at Tesco Express.
Just go to http://mwillett.org/Debate/ and click on "Register"
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
