If you'd like to add comments about your beliefs or about this site, email them to me and I will add them here.  My person comments are at my blog at backyardskeptics.com/blog

From George L.  5-10-08

 Watching Natl Geographics last night, it was about the Jews escape from Egypt; the plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, etc.  It was an attempt by modern-day scholars to find evidence and explanations for the burning bush, the plagues, the exodus of the Jews, the inundation of Pharoah's army in the Red Sea.  It was theorized that a translation error was made in that "Red Sea" was actually "Reed Sea", a swampland area in the Nile Delta; that the separation of water could have been the moving out of the water, prior to a tsunami that was caused by a distant specific volcanic eruption; that the burning bush was a gas leak in the ground that caused the bush to become charcoal, but retain its shape, and various other explanations for the miracles. The conclusion was that there such things, although possible, were highly improbable and that "not a shred of historical evidence" existed, of any of those things actually happening, except in the bible, and that the scientists' conclusion was, in all cases, that the miracles never occured, but were simply the agrandizing of old myths, carried forward by tribal elders and made into more interesting stories by changing and inventing facts to enhance the story-telling. There were books kept by the Egyptians of their history and not one mentions the plagues, the release of the Jews, and the subsequent loss of the entire Egyption army, as claimed by the bible. It would have been detailed somewhere other than the bible, if such disasters had occurred.  An American scientist explored the area in the Nile delta, where he thought the army might have fallen and actually found old bronze artifacts, but of every small piece of bronze found, not one single piece was ever found that was large enough or uncorroded enough to be identified and linked to anything. The conclusion of the scientists on the NatGeo program was that there was no proof that any of the stories related to the Jews in Egypt were true. The only facts that were verified by Egyptian writings were that some Jews lived in Egypt 1500 years before Christ and that there were many Jews living in Israel in 400 AD. Everything in between is more than likely, pure, unsupported myth.    
 

5/7/08

From Joe the Christian

This is my first response to each of the platforms presented on the website, Backyard Skeptics. 

Arguments for Atheism

Some Christians think us atheists are wrong and maybe a bit crazy.  [atheists have flawed reasoning/biased worldview, but not crazy].  But I would argue that they also think that other religions such as Scientology or Wican are way off base from their truth [flawed reasoning, "their truth"  Their truth is an irrational statement.  Truth: a statement that corresponds to fact or reality.  Something true is true even if humans don't know its true, it is true by fact and reality.  The truth may have yet to be discovered by the scientific method or other means.   Therefore, it is illogical to believe that there is more than one true religion because all religions of the world construct "gods,'" yet there cannot be more than one God because by being a God is all powerful, unlimited in ability, without any limitation except that which God imposes on himself. It is illogical to state or in reality be two gods. ] Christians think the other religions are just as ridiculous the same way which atheists think Christianity is ridiculous.  [It does not matter what Christians think of religions or atheists or any other person.  It only matters what one true God believes.  So the rational person would search for the truth, not start with an assumption that God does or does not exist, rather with the question, Is there a God?   I am speaking without connection to any religion, simply by evaluating the Universe, the systems that make it up and the systemic interdependence of the Cosmos, energy, matter, and life from single cell organism to intelligent life.  

Only a fool would oppose all scientific evidence and state: matter has always existed; order comes out of randomness; over extremely long periods of time matter becomes more complex and increases energy; that natural laws developed; etc.  But these are the exact positions everyone who says there is no God takes.  So it is not a matter of religion that a God exists; God is a reality because: all matter had to have a beginning (out of nothing); Universe is not only designed but designed to such an infinitesimal degree that the slightest permutations from the design causes major problems (sicknesses/environmental damage/spiritual darkness/etc); natural laws are just that, they always produce the desired effect and do not change with time (gravity is still gravity, not developing into supergravity, etc); entropy, the entire Universe is decaying (going from a highly ordered and level of existence to a lower and dead state of existence); over long periods of time everything decays and dies; etc.  So the next rational questions is, Who is God?  Next time...
 

5/1/08  from Niki

Being a recovering Mormon (LDS) and not a FLDS(ed. the FLDS is the mormon-like polygomous cult in Texas recently in the news) , I don't know much about FLDS except what I gleaned from reading Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven:  A Story of Violent Faith".   I can tell you that every one of those women from the ranch (and the children who are old enough to understand) knows … not believes – knows … that their eternal salvation is at stake.  Polygamy is a celestial law and they won't be going to heaven without it.  While the practice of polygamy is outlawed nowadays by the LDS church here on earth, it is still very much an eternal law.   You may go through this life with one husband (at a time), but when you get to heaven you'll have sister wives to share him with.  Depending on how much of an ass your husband is on this earth, this may be a joyful prospect.  Btw - if you happen to be unlucky enough to be born female, you will not be entering the highest degree of glory (the celestial kingdom) without a man to take you there.  That alone should be enough to make any and all females run screaming from those nice young men riding in pairs on bicycles in white shirts and ties.  I'm surprised the ranch women aren't wearing burqas … which may actually be a bit more attractive than the prairie dresses.  And the burqas have the addition benefit of covering the face and hair.  Those poor women . . .

Of course more pitiful than their appearance was the vapidity of the answers to any question they were asked – at least the ones I heard.  I do give them credit for having the temerity to appear on camera.  They have no idea how robot like their manor of speech and the content of it is.  

As Andrew said, it will be difficult to resolve - and his quote was extremely apropos.   The legal wrangling is one thing, the humanity of it quite another.  On the sheer human aspect of having the children taken away, my heart breaks for the women and the children, and to some degree even the men.  The children know nothing of life outside the ranch.  Foster homes will be completely foreign and extremely frightening to them.  As a mother, it hurts to think of how they lost and afraid they must feel, especially if they do not have a sibling or 96 to huddle with in a strange environment.  Depending on what age their mothers were when commencing ranch life, they – the mothers - don't have much, or any, knowledge of the outside world either.  Therein lies one of the problems … the mothers don't know any better.  They think they are raising their children according to God's commandments.   If marrying a daughter off at 14 to a 60 year old man with 7 other wives is what they are told to do, they are happy for their daughter – she's entering into her eternal salvation.   How can they see it any differently if that's all they know?  It's like describing the color blue to someone who's been blind since birth. 

I personally have no problem with polygamy … as long as it works both ways … and as long as the participants have the ability to think for themselves.  Those women and especially those children do not have that ability.  Most of the men don't either for that matter.  Seems to me ignorance is a key component of any religion.  You don't know that you don't know – and you've got a solid belief system in place, something that answers all your questions, even if the answer is just to "have faith".  In the LDS and FLDS church eternity is the goal.  It's a whole lot longer than this earth life – and all will be revealed there.  You'll be sitting on the right hand of God, and able to become a God (well, at least the men) and have your own world. So sit down and shut up.  Especially you women.

There's not, as usual, an easy answer . . . 

4-22-08  George L.

3-26-08

Compliments on your showdown with Ray Comfort. I'm very impressed. If only there were high profile evangelists in my area (Midwest) as there are in yours. You're sitting on a goldmine of counterevangelism. Mind you, not necessarily to "de-convert" others but simply to stop the spread of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity in our nation. Keep up the fantastic work.

Sincerely,
Former Follier   http://www.wotmwatchdog.org   Founder/Writer 

3-19-08   by Jason - referring to the question - did religion come from astrology?

While the point is up for contention I do not believe that Christianity was directly formed in an astrologic context. However, I think you will find that there are large portions of the text that do reflect that view. I readily expect that this is likely due to the fact that Christianity is based on the “tasty bits” of earlier religions which were indeed formed with astrology in mind. For instance, when looking at Christian buildings we do not see the consistent astrological layout that would be premised by a religion of such founding. While we do indeed see examples of this sort of construction, upon closer examination you will find that most of the structures exhibiting a star alignment were built over, or from, the remains of earlier temples that also featured such an alignment. Though it is not of sound scientific value I also speculate that the “holy star” would be readily identifiable and deified in an astrological religion, instead of being a “here and gone” proposition.

As far as the conversion question; (what would it take to convert you to a religion? ed.)   I spoke with you about this at OC skeptics and upon further reflection I find it nearly impossible to identify a situation where some form of high tech trickery can be fully ruled out. Perhaps if God had continued his interaction with man as reported in the bible I would accept that. However, that time has long passed and it does not really escape the problem noted above. I think that the lack of gods influence over the centuries is the religions’ “key stone” and it has been pulled. Without this interaction and consistent record, God’s existence is improbable enough to make it a null. Either way, what can be said to be 100% certain is that the Christian God or for that matter any of the Gods of men are undoubtedly fictional, as can be clearly reasoned by the inconsistency between their supposed qualities and “documented” behavior. I suppose that at this point the only thing that will make me believe is life after death. Of course, once I cross over I will have to do some serious investigations of the other side! Though I would love to be surprised, I find it much more likely that I will cease to exist. Rather unfortunate that I will not be able to ponder this fact after my passing.

3/3/07  Devin

If God is omnipotent, then what does that imply concerning morality? What is morality based off of?

If God is omnipotent, then he can't be limited by anything, so that means his rules have to be based off of his own subjective whim. However, if there is an absolute morality, then God is subject to that morality, which implies that he's subjected to something more powerful and all knowing than God."

2-27-08  - by Goerge L. - a review of a book reviewer

Did you see that awful article by Paul Campos in the Register a couple of days ago, where he makes fun of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al? What a bunch of religious double-talk. He said that If an angel of the Lord would appear in front of Dawkins,  that Dawkins would not believe that he even saw him because atheists do not believe in angels. So his eyesight would fail? He wouldn't believe what he saw with his own eyes? So all those angels that are walking around the streets are invisible to atheists? I think Campos is telling us that atheists would never believe in the truth, even if it was lie. I guess angels do that stufff all the time.  I just wasn't aware that it ever happened recently, or in the last few years, or actually at any time in the entire recorded history of mankind, but what do I know. That just proves to me how ignorant I must be; you know, the last to know, and all that. I guess Campos reads a different newspaper, like Angel Watch or something.  I just don't happen to suscribe. Can you imagine anything more crazy?  Campos must think angels are here all the time, just like vampires, like Santa Claus and like the tooth fairy. Everyone knows that, don't they? Except if you're over seven or eight years of age. Gosh. I'm convinced. Campos sure makes a point. I hope he sits on it.  That naughty Dawkins. Angels just don't get no respect.  Those bad old atheists. They don't believe nuthin.