After this initial set of emails to the left were posted Ed send me a series of lengthy emails that "proved" everything.

They were so long that I couldn't even fathom having the time to retort.

His frustration with me ignoring him led Ed to post these two pages on his site (in place of the pages I linked him with-top right). He has since removed these pages from his site, so these are from Google archives: Page 1 includes all of the letters he sent me. Page 2 is just blatant hurtful wishes and mockery that made me cry.

And below are reactions from fans.

Subject: I'm trying to figure out if I'm confused...

This is regarding a man named Edward Britz.

I went through the effort to read all of Ed's "evidence" he posted on his retorts page. And after all of that, I'm not sure if he actually made a point. The only thing I got out of it is that he's one arrogant mother fucker. First thing he needs to realize is that if he's gonna try to argue valid points, it's not a good idea to use the arguments of a saint (Thomas Aquinas), I mean saints are people that were near psychotic in their beliefs. And he actually for me managed to further discredit the Bible by saying that it hasn't changed over time. Afterall if nothing has significantly changed, then it's quite obvious that the original authors were eating the wrong mushrooms. Nothing makes sense. Read the gospels. Four people giving accounts of the same events. But in several cases their accounts were drastically different. I still love his 6 points.

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility.
2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
3. Not chance.
4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.

3 and 4 are what get me. True if 3 were true, then 4 would be true. But at what point does he make any argument for why 3 is true. He pulls completely unrelated arguments to try to prove his point. It's like he's saying grass is green and it is alive, trees are green and they are alive, traffic lights can be green, HOLY SHIT TRAFFIC LIGHTS MUST BE ALIVE. It seems to me that he says 3 is true because he says it is. And therefore he loses credibility by going with the I say so argument. Of course life occured by random chaos, why do you think it took 3 billion years for life to begin to develop on this planet.

Oh well. My mind hurts now after reading several pages of what in the end amounted to nothing. If you were able to get anything substantial or intelligent out of his drivel, please tell me as I can't figure out what he was trying to prove other than he can make long, boring, empty arguments to try to make himself sound bright.

Awe crap, at this point I'm so brain dead I don't know if I made a point. Well fuck it I'm not changing anything.

Steven Thrasher


I have been quite a regular viewer of Mr. Smith's site, and to tell you the truth have been very impressed by the things I've read and seen. I have also read your rebuttals and even gone to your site. You have put together some very nice things; however, talent is not the issue. You are in a flame war with an obviously intelligent man who is asking you to provide the impossible. Every bit of evidence you put forth can be contradicted and really has no stance to support it other than somebody said so, or "it is written."

Well, I don't know if I necessarily consider myself an atheist, but by your standards I am no Christian. You see that you have a completely biased opinion and outlook on what is to be the "truth". Well unfortunately for all of us we are biased. Everything in our lives and our surroundings has some sort of a beginning and an end including lives themselves. Well we are always leaning towards the trend that this universe we live in must follow that same order. It also seems that we are a bit of an oddity just by being on this little blue marble. Conditions were just right molecules formed into chains in the correct amounts and Voila! Life.

Now look at it like this, what if the universe and everything in it just is, was, and always will be. What need is there for a creator? We who havee such a microscopic time of existence in the quantum web of space and time, seem to think that we are so important. Well I got bad news for sunshine. We're not. We are self-absorbed, self-important, beings who need to belong, because we are so small and here for such a short time, we feel a need to belong to the big picture. Well, in my opinion that's fine. But understand that its only a need pressed upon us by our culture and environment for the past 2000+ years.

The grand failure to all of this Christian or whatever belief, is that you never really had the choice. You know if my folks had me going to church since I was two and that was done every Sunday and religious holiday, it would be normal. So why quit now, or ever? Well my parent salso could have told me that the sky was made of lentil soup. Well as long as that was enforced why shouldn't I believe it's true. We human beings try to rationalize things. We try to bring order to chaos. Try watching TV with the sound off, and turn on some music, pretty soon the TV is in sync with the tunes. Is this some strange phenomenon? No, it's are brains trying to bring order. So now we are faced with a solid dilemma of being in this vast infinite area of lots of nothing spruced up with gas, dust, fusion combustion, and various other debris. We think, "It's so big!" "We are so small!" So now we give ourselves purpose, a reason for being. God must've put us here. Well go ahead and believe it I could care less.

There is nothing that decides what, where, and how you live your life except you. Basic human behavior is the deciding factor on this. Believe what you wish. All I ask is you think about it. Bob has asked these questions as have I to many people, and they shovel back the same BS, some of it just has more perfume.

Mr. Dana Mikkelsen

Whoo-pee, Eddie. Here's your "evidence" for a supernatural sky-fairy :

1. How did life come on Earth ?
Answer : A question is not evidence ! Research in abiogenesis is progressing all the time, something which you obviously know nothing about. Start by reading about the Urey/Miller experiment and work your way from there.

2. Nothing comes from nothing !
Answer : Then where did God come from ? Either the universe is the First Cause, or God is, and we know the universe exists already. Circular reasoning makes baby Jesus cry.

3. DNA is complex, so God must have made it !
Answer : Man, that's one clever argument. Did you think that one out yourself ? Some natural processes also create complexity. Biological evolution is one such process. Go back to high school.

4. The New Testament is historically accurate !
Answer : How much logic-leaping can you make in one post ? Because Pilate was a real man, that means Jesus existed (let alone resurrected from the dead) ? There are real historical details in most Hollywood movies, does that mean they are all true?

5. The universe is intelligible, therefore God exists !
Answer : No, you idiot. The universe is intelligible because our brain and sense organs evolved to the environment we are in. Yes, EVOLVED (does that word scare you ? It sure scares a lot of sky-fairy-believers, mostly because they refuse to evolve). Sense organs which do not make the universe intelligible would not have persisted, since they would be useless.

Please read a book. George Smith's (no relation with Normal Bob Smith, I'm sure, but he's a great guy) "The Case Against God" would be a good start.

Yours in Reason,
Francois Tremblay

Edward Britz has an extremely dull on-line portfolio that no one goes to... so he decided to write to me again in an attempt to drum up business from my readers. He emailed me once before back in February (page 65) to critique my web page design and my sense of humor. Ed designed this picture of the squirrel eating a corn cob. His sense of humor is very similar to it. He also designs a lot of Christian theme logos and often substitutes the letter "T" with a cross.That's a good example of his cleverness.

Ed put this quote on every page of his site to explain why most people don't care about his stuff:
"Ninety percent of a design's beauty is seen only by the designer and those who can empathize. It is in the creation of the work; the symphonic trio of time, talent and production, a silent form of genius that lingers, but is not heard by those who have not created."
I think it's neat to read that while looking at his squirrel drawing.

His emails are in blue & mine are in black and white.
“I mean, hey, if you want to be more than just heard,
you gotta be respected, right?

Hey Bob! Me again. I just wanted to send you a few juicy morsels to clear up a little evident confusion that might discredit your views to the informed. I mean, hey, if you want to be more than just heard, you gotta be respected, right?

"Every Pope is / was Catholic! Unfortunately Catholics all go to hell." Maybe yes, maybe no. The fact is, denomination is irrelevent, and to categorize like this is evidence of a rather hefty judgement call that may give those angry, little Christians a reason to yell, "hypocrite," since it is their judgementalism that you target. Just a thought.

"Yes it's true, Walt Disney was not a Christian, he was an atheist. That means he's strung up-side-down with his head in a bucket of dung beetles forever." If Walt Disney was not a Christian then yes, this is true ... more or less. Christ refers to the bucket as being full of eternal "worms" as opposed to the alleged "dung beetle." We must give credit where credit is due. (Mark 9:48)

"Another Catholic, Mother Teresa is boiling with the rest in the devil's dinner." Bob, if Mother Teresa's motives were to get closer to God through her self-sacrifice, then yes, she is eating out at the previously mentioned establishment. Scary for some but nonetheless true, the finite cannot impress the infinite.

"Sorry folks, John Merrick the Elephant Man was not a Christian and he had to go to hell. God can be such a pisser sometimes." RIght on Bob! Non-christians go to hell. You've really got that one down. As far as God being a "pisser," well, your blame is in the wrong place. Let me illustrate with a parable (no pun intended):Jumping off of a cliff does not make gravity a "pisser." It makes the jumper mentally-challenged since all nature around this individual screams that the laws of nature are in perfect working order. And 9 out of 10 reletively intelligent people agree that breaking laws produce inevitable and negative consequences. All that to say, God doesn't send you anywhere. You know your options. You send yourself by your own choice.

"No, it can't be! Yes it's true. Gandhi was not a Christian, he was a Hindu. God doesn't care, and now he must pay!" Ah ... your sentence structure is a little muddled here, but I am assuming that "God doesn't care" refers to the man Ghandhi, the fact that he was not a Christian, and that fact that he was Hindu. The "he" refers to Ghandhi, I suppose. WIth that being established, it is all untrue ... except for the "he must pay" part. It is clear in scripture, that God cares about everyone and would love the whole world to join Him at His place upon going through death's inevitable porthole. This includes our peaceful friend. But as cuddly as Ghandhi was, he is found wanting. As stated above with Mother Teresa, the finite cannot impress the infinite. Hence the reason for the God-man.

"No, not Screamin Jay Hawkins! Sorry folks, Screamin' Jay had no religious beliefs, thus another burning cinder in hell's oven." Clever word pictures and very true, Bob. I have nothing to add, except that "religious beliefs" are irrelevant. God dislikes religion as much as the next guy. (Matthew 9:13 & 12:7 among many, many others) This mistake is common for those on the outside looking in. Don't worry about it.

"And did you know that everyone who died before Christ died went to hell? (This is all merely speculation on my part.) This includes Mary's parents and their parents and so on! This goes all the way back to Adam and Eve and their kids! It's all really astounding if you think about it. I'm guessing that anyone who died while Jesus lived went to hell as well. If there is any Christian out there who can explain to me what happens in this scenario I am keen for answers." Boy have I got answers! This "speculation" is another common error, but who's counting? Jesus Christ always existed. John 1:1 is quite clear on this matter. "In the beginning was the Word ..." But it gets better. The book of Hebrews establishes God-man's eternal existence in verse 2 of chapter 1 refering to the Christ as someone "...through whom [God] made the universe." Oh so clever how the author just tucks that little morsel in there, hey? It's so easily missed by those narrow-minded, self-proclaimed, enlightened ones who like using the Bible to back up what they already want to believe. Anyhoo, an entire chapter (11) is devoted to clearing up any last remnants of this common misconception. Like I said, "don't worry about it." Moses is safe. As is Beltashazar and Zaphenath-Paneah.

"Now there is one loophole for anyone who dies after Jesus. What is that you ask? Well, if you accept Christ into your heart while you lay on your death bed, no matter how bad you've been, God has to let you into heaven! It's a fact. You can spend your whole life raping babies and pissen' in collection plates, then if you confess your sins and accept Jesus as your savior, he has to let you into heaven!" Hey Bob, colorfully said and very true ... except for the "God has to let you into heaven" part. Let there be no mistake. God wants to let you in, and He's just going nuts waiting for you to embrace the magic Word. (The capital "W" is no typo. There is only one.)

"Jeffery Dahmer accepted Jesus into his heart before he died. God must hate that rule." Actually, no. God LOVES that rule.

"This is the route that you take if you have any brains at all. Of course there is the risk that you might die unexpectedly. That's the chance you take. Like Tony Mangan says, you only go around once then you're worm food. You'd better enjoy yourself 'cause you ain't commin' back and that's all part of God's great plan. Make sense?" Boy you're right there, Bob. You could die anytime. No guarantees. That's what life is all about ... suprises. Yep.

Whoops, I almost forgot one more tidbit of info to put in your pipe. That "route" you refer to works only for religions. But that's not what were talking about, is it, Bob? Absolutely not. Nope. We're talking about a relationship here.

You know, that little thing that we depend on for self-worth and purpose? For some it's money, or stuff, or sex. For others, like us extroverts, Bob, it is how much attention and respect we can bring to ourselves and our ideas. But whatever we fill that little void with will eventually let us down when we run out of money, or words, or viagra. Because, Bob, here's the thing. It only stands to reason that the created will not be at rest until he/she finds the Creator. (Hebrews 4 if you really are interested)Those who truly understand the purpose of the Christ will find Him quite irresistible to avoid until one's death bed. In fact, the one who can and does, won't, because they've missed the whole point. And that is sad, and maddening, especially when all the evidence is there. Ask Mark Twain.

Hey Bob, I gotta run. Look, if you still have questions or if we God-man followers still have your head spinning, ask, ask away. That's what I'm here for, Bob. Take care of yourself. Hope to hear from you!

In His service,
Edward Britz

“So ... don't give up on me man”

Hey Bob,
So, how have you been? Havent heard from you in awhile. You too busy or what? Just wondering if you've given any thought to my last email. So ... don't give up on me man. Our conversation was just getting interesting.

In His service,
Edward Britz

The biggest mistake that Christians make when attempting to convince others what they say is true is assuming belief. You assume that the person believes God exists. It's an annoying personality trait (assuming belief, then correcting) and unfortunately this trait ruins many lines of communication you hope to establish leaving you responsible for yet another perishing ghost in the devil's caldron of pain.

What every Christian (or any God believer) should do before approaching the lost is assume that he/she doesn't give His Holy Majesty credit for even being. Start off with that evidence you spoke of and establish that God exists. Now keep in mind this tool of Satan you're approaching doesn't even consider the possibility that Satan forges prehistoric evidence to throw us off Creation, sin equals bad weather or that somewhere out there the Elephant Man is weeping eternal regret in another dimension. You must assume that your listener believes the physical evidence that the devil has fabricated to deceive.

Now holding up a book isn't the evidence I'm talking about. Every God has His own book. It's going to take more than that. Pointing at rainbows, sunsets or a piece of Noah's Ark isn't going to do it either. A non believer is the way he is because he needs more than just a savvy salesman.

This evidence you mentioned is key. I'm not sure exactly what you've got (God's fingerprints, surveillance footage, notarized documents?) but you need to lead with that. You saved it 'til the very end with me and then it turned out to only be a teaser! You should be starting right off with that info Ed, because then the rest will be a piece of cake!

Everything else you corrected in my comedy bit were answers I already knew were there. I wrote that to be funny because I don't even believe that God exists, not because I think that God is unfair.

Finally someone with evidence. You're gonna save a lot of souls with this Edward.
Let's have it.


“Thank you for your timely response...”

Thank you for your timely response ... and I appreciate that as I do your thought process. You seem like quite an intelligent person, interested and introspective enough to have thought through not only why you believe what you believe, but why others believe as well.

And you are right in pointing out that I started at the end and ended with the beginning. If more people understood what you have just shown me you do, we wouldn't have such an empty, goody-two-shoes, refined, spiritual culture with all these good morals and no reason for them. There is a cause and there is an effect. If you lead with the effect, you teach only proper behaviors based on do's and don't's, and what you have created is another religious person. Yadda, yadda, yadda. I'm preaching to the choir, here.

The redemptive work of Christ crucified is the cause of what brings an individual significance, acceptance, the change of habits, attitude, overall sense of well-being and ofcourse, absolute truth.

My interest is not in selling Christianity, but in loving Christ more today than I did yesterday. Now, the results of that will lead the curious to ask questions. It is my belief that you cannot sell Christianity and keep it Christianity. Selling denotes talk and we all know that there is too much of that. And if all it is is talk, you've got the wrong religion.

So, Bob, my thoughts. Thanks for your response. I have a new-found respect for you ... not for what you believe, but for the way you think. Behind all the humor, there is serious thought. Ask yourself these questions. There is nothing better than having a peace in what you believe and a certainty in it.

Do I have any kind of spiritual belief?
To me, who is the man Jesus Christ?
Do I believe in a heaven or a hell?
If I were to die right now, where would I go?
If what I believe is not true, would I want to know?

Edward Britz

What? No evidence? God dammit.
OK, here are the answers to your questions anyhow.

Do I have any kind of spiritual belief? No. It's absolute silliness, completely and totally.

To me, who is the man Jesus Christ? A man who had a message of peace and morals who was elevated to the position of "God" by hopeless, frightened people.

Do I believe in a heaven or a hell? God no. I'm not a mental patient yelling at invisible enemies on the street corner. There is little difference.

If I were to die right now, where would I go? The same place that the dinosaur, tadpole, polar bear and milkweed go when they die. Nowhere. The end is the end. No coddling. No hurt feelings. No final battle. No everlasting hug. That is absolute truth if I ever heard it.

If what I believe is not true, would I want to know? Yes. I only want truth, and I won't be suckered into fantasy again. It almost drove me insane the last time.

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

Edward Britz files part 2
Christ, get me out of this! I need new hate mailers!
Past Hate Mail