Hate Mail/NormalBobSmith.com

Hi, Bob. This is actually a response to Ed. His smug and ignorant little web page annoyed me. Ignorance always annoys me. What a fucking loser that guy is. Has he ever read anything that wasn't a fundamentalist tract? I strongly suspect not.

To Ed:
First issue: There is no way to prove that anything - however silly it might be - doesn't exist. Are you familiar with logical thinking at all, Ed? I can't prove that green elephants, Santa Claus, leprechauns, or Whos from Whoville don't exist. Neither can you. If we naturally assumed that any assertion that can't be disproven must be necessarily true, then there would be no limits to the "truth" of the imaginary things that people make up. That is why the person making the assertion of the truth of any thing (in this case, God) bears the burden of proof. No one has been able to offer the extraordinary evidence necessary to prove this extraordinary claim, which is why people who are familiar with logic have such a difficult time buying it.

Argument #1 - First, the more accurate term for "evolutionists" would be "scientists," since all actual physical scientists today believe in evolution. As for space - I'd like to point out that we are in space. This entire planet and everything on it is from space. It may be difficult for an Aristotelian to believe, but ask any astronomer and she will back me up on this. Also - things in outer space aren't actually beyond our reach for inquiry. Nothing that actually exists in physical reality is beyond our reach for inquiry - we are only limited by current technology.

Argument #2 - Actually, I believe that physicists used mathematical modeling based upon observed astronomical data to posit the big bang theory. There is actual real live evidence to support it, and although it isn't a 100% certainty, no one has a better explanation for the observed natural behaviors of the stars in question. Do a little research on these things before you make ignorant assertions. If you had actually studied science before making your decisions as thoroughly as most atheists study your silly religious beliefs (and believe me, we do) before we find that they are nonsense, you'd be in a much better position to debate these issues.

As for "everything comes from something," if so, then where does your deity originate? You would go back as far as your god, then stop. The difference between us in that respect is that I am not prepared to go that far, for lack of evidence. Something existed before the Big Bang, of course, but we have no way of knowing what it was. To not know the answer to a question is not an admission that some magical deity must explain it. A natural explanation exists for most everything that people once attributed to a god, and this is no different. Every unanswered question is just that - only the intellectually lazy are so desperate for immediate answers to everything and so averse to acquiring the actual knowledge required to search in reality that they must attribute unkowns to superstitious "causes." Superstition is superstition, book or no book, Ed. Motion really doesn't suggest a prime mover, either, unless you are trying to posit the existence of a prime mover to begin with. Movement is a natural state, like any other natural state.

Again, if we presuppose a deity to kick things off, it begs the question - what made the deity move or even exist? It's funny that you say that people will believe anything "to get away from the big G." That certainly hasn't been my experience. Almost everyone unquestioningly believes in a god. That doesn't make it true, but most people seem to have a need to believe that they are better than the other animals, and that they aren't subject to the finality of death. Ed, do you really think that values are a "drag"? How sad for you. Some of us have values because we think that it is important to treat other people with respect and behave well and conscientiously because we are all human beings and must live together as happily and pleasantly as possible. Of course, if you need a punishing god, without which you'd be a mass murderer or something, then by all means, continue to believe! I'd hate to take your only restraint from you. The rest of us are constrained by our common humanity.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that no one would suggest that people had made up the universe. The bible, yes, but not the universe. One is highly likely, and the other is laughable. I'm still not seeing any "evidence"...

Argument #3 - I'm sorry - you base your information about the scientific establishment on the movie "Contact"? May I suggest that you rethink that? I suppose your knowledge has been supplemented by Discovery Channel specials about SETI and its search for alien life. Would it dissappoint you terribly if you were to discover that SETI isn't really considered by anyone in the scientific (or even educated) communities to be representative of scientific thought? Once again, you find the lone kooks on the periphery of pseudo-science and hold them up as representatives of actual science. For information about the difference between science and pseudo-science, I refer you to the Amazing Randi's website, and Skeptical Enquirer magazine. In fact, I'd like to refer you to any real science professor, who should be able to update you on a little concept we call "the scientific theory". Hardly anyone has heard of it, of course, but if you actually use it, you can learn how scientific theories are actually formed, and the difference between what constitutes scientific evidence and what does not. They covered it in school, of course, but I suppose you must have been reading a bible in that class.

There is really no "anything but god" idea, any more than there is an "anything but pink monkeys riding leprechauns" idea. There is only the idea that to believe something without compelling evidence (commensurate with the fantastic nature of the claim) to support that belief is not scientific, and even silly. You do this every day. Do you believe in the literal existence of the Honey Nut Cheerios bee? Why not? You've seen him on TV, haven't you? He even interacts with children in those commercials, and picks up real spoons... And when you go to the supermarket, there are Cheerios there, aren't there? That proves that he is out there somewhere making them. No one can deny the existence of cheerios. Oh, "scientists" may claim that there are factories where those cheerios are made, but I've never seen one, and I have seen those commercials a hundred times. Besides, a prominent scientist I know, "B.U. L.L. shit" has stated that no one can really explain what makes Honey Nut Cheerios so great, so the bee must be responsible. See? Proof postitive! Are you beginning to understand how your arguments sound to us?

Argument #4 - I'm not sure what you are arguing here... Even supposing that the bible was compiled and that 400 copies were made of the text as it was compiled (by the early Catholic/Xtian church, of course, who admits to having left some things out, after all - this was a compilation and not a storybook), that doesn't prove that anything in the bible happened any more than my saying "Martians attacked my pet dog and removed his tail" and then copying it 400 times and distributing it to everyone I know makes that true. As for your historians, it's good that you put "non-christian" in quotation marks when talking about them, because their status as affiliated in some way or unaffiliated with interested parties in the early christian church is questionable, to say the least. "Between 20 and 150 years after the death of christ," the christian church was gaining a whole lot of power in Rome, and it would be in anyone's interest to affiliate themselves with those in power. The existence of christ is not considered to be a definite fact because, once again, the evidence is questionable. No one really knows whether anyone by that name existed, when, or what he may or may not have really done if he did exist (although common sense would indicate that the "miracles" attributed to him and many of the stories of things he was said to have done were cribbed, often word for word, from the stories of previous deities from other religions and in some cases from ancient Jewish texts. Maybe if your grandchildren who never met you write about you 100 years from now, they will write about the amazing miracles you performed that Nostradamus predicted (and which have a suspicious resemblance to christ's miracles), and then if they make 400 copies of that book then you'll be considered a deity in 1000 years, especially if your children go on to become the next emperors of the US, and are in a position to impose their theory on the rest of the population for hundreds of years, until their power is consolidated and enough generations have passed so that no one even questions the truth of it anymore. I don't think that anyone would argue that some stuff described in the bible was common during Roman times. Crucifixions happened, Roman emperors ruled, and young girls had sex out of wedlock... Any good work of fiction includes details from the time period in which it happens. Once again, the existence of courthouses and the United States of America being an actual country is not proof that any of Tom Clancy's characters really exist. Posters about Tom Clancy's novels and characters, and movies portraying them do not make their existence any more likely, nor do they constitute "proof", no matter how popular he is nor how many people would like for it to be so, and no matter how many copies of his books are found in 1000 years.

Once again, no one has to "disprove the accuracy" of the New Testament. The burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion. There are many, many websites about logic, and you'd be well advised, Ed, to read up on it.

"Tangible evidence" and logic"? Finally! Just what we've all been waiting for!

Okay - intelligibility... If, by that, you mean that it is understandable by human beings, then yes, it is astounding. No less astounding that the number of scientists who have worked so hard for hundreds of years to make the universe increasingly understandable. Too bad more people don't appreciate all that work on their behalf. I guess it's easier to give credit to imaginary entities than to credit people who studied their asses off and learned about the amazing qualities of the real world around them, then increased our knowledge incrementally through careful examination of data and dogged perseverance. Shit - who wouldn't rather believe someone who "hears voices" and believes in the truth of a 2000 year old book that explains the history of the earth without mentioning dinosaurs? As for chance and "purposeless cosmic forces," once again, I'm going to have to suggest that until you've actaully studied the theory of evolution in all its' complexity (as explained quite thoroughly by the greater scientific establishment), you should refrain from displaying your ignorance. Cosmic forces just exist, and purpose is an emotion, not a tangible thing. Evolution is not about chance, which you'd know if you had any grasp of evolution whatsoever.

I've read the bible over and over. I've studied every christian sect's belief systems - how they are similar and how they differ, both historically and currently. I've read tons of your religious texts with an open mind over the years (before I became and atheist, and then again afterwards), and if I'm going to condescend to debate with someone, they should at least have gone to that much trouble to understand basic science, of not atheism. How many years did you spend studying science before you came to believe in a deity? How many classes did you attend? How many texts by actual respected scientists have you read and understood? Gould? Hawking? Einstein? They all wrote very simple books that are the very minimum that any educated person should read and learn enough to thoroughly understand. When you have read hundreds like them - when you have read five times as many books about science written by actual scientists (and not xtian apologetics experts or pseudo-science "experts"), then you will know enough about science to match what I've already heard about your religious beliefs. Go educate yourself for 15 years about something new - science - and then come back and debate a while. By then you will have had as much information about science as I've had about religion, upon which you can base your beliefs, or lack thereof.

We only have evidence for evolution, (which is, as I have already stated, not "chance" as such,) so that's what I'm going with. "Intelligent design" is a logical quagmire that makes no real sense at all and for which there is no evidence.

Once again, evolution is not "disorder" "chance" or anything of the sort. "The informed and the credible" refrain from making blanket statements or holding ridiculous false beliefs about something they've never bothered to study at all.

Design comes only from a designer. That is true in the case of a painting. The universe, however, is not "designed" it "happened" and we "evolved". Point 4 presupposes some acceptance of design "theory", which no reasonable person does.

The burden of proof is not something we have arbitrarily laid at your door. Scientists, reasonable people, and everyone who isn't a total moron, understands that the person making an assertion is responsible for proving that assertion. The assertion that a deity exists has not been proven. Period. Something like 98% of scientists who hold PhD's are atheists because of this. It's not stubbornness or lack of "knowledge" about theism. It's that the more a person knows and actually studies about the natural world, the more that person comes to understand the difference between the validity of what can be proven and what cannot be proven. Furthermore, science (contrary to fundamentalist belief) demands the exact same burden of proof and extends the same rigorous criticism and standards of proof to every single assertion that any scientist makes. That is what scientific journals are for - so that people can make assertions (based upon actual evidence, and supported by strictly regimented proof) so that all of their peers in the scientific community can criticise those assertions, disprove them, and even shoot them down entirely. All scientific knowledge is only as good as its evidence, and all of it is subject to immediate revocation as soon as anyone can offer a better, more scientifically sound explanation for the evidence presented, or as soon as someone can repeat the experiment with different results. Science is about percentages of likelihood, and about asking hard, hard questions and being able to take it when your pet project or theory turns out to be incorrect. Most atheists are this way because after a very serious, thorough, and difficult examination of the evidence, they found that religious belief has no valid supporting evidence whatsoever. It's not an easy realization for most people (no one likes to lose that childhood dream, any more than they like to doubt Santa) but it is a very conscientious one. Once again, I refer you to the earlier passage in this letter for an explanation of why "burden of proof" must be on the person making the assertion. I doubt you'll understand it, since you seem to have trouble with the most basic scientific or logical concepts (most kids "get" these things at 10 or 11 at the latest, but I guess some folks are slower than others), but we can only try.

Super Chic Denise
InsolentBitch.com