PUBLIC RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Sometimes I receive critical comments on my site; particularly from religious zealots (this includes those who treat atheism as a religion). When the comments are private, I treat my responses as such; but when they are public, I am entitled to respond in kind.
Saturday 12/09/2000 7:23:46am
Name: an anonomous Christian...who can't spell
Homepage Title: JESUS IS THE LAMB OF GOD!!!
Location: At Home...what do u care?
Comments: ha ha you are so stupid man!!! what are you even talking about? Jesus died and rose again!!! How can you doubt that? Ya know how you know Christianity is the only way?? Jesus said that He was the way...all other religions say they know the way!!! Jesus is the only way to eternal life. all other religions are a bunch of @#%$!!!! I don't know where you got all this, but I think you need to see a counselor. I seriously hope that you are kiddin! where do u get off callin' urself God? and saying that man created God in his own image? It's the other way around ding-dong! God created man in HIS image!!! I hope you get help buddy! If some1 out there wants more info on Jesus, e-mail me!
Why is it that fundamentalist Christians always sign themselves as anonymous? Please, it is nothing to be ashamed of; you will feel much better about yourself and your faith if you learn to live openly with it. Modern society is very tolerant, and there is no need for embarrassment over one’s choice of lifestyles.
We know that Christianity is the only way because Jesus said so? But Mormonism is the only way because Joseph Smith Jr. said so, and Islam is the true faith because Muhammad said so, and the Baha’i Faith is the religion of choice because Mirza Nuri said so. Surely you have another reason for your conclusion. How am I to determine the “correct” religion using your criteria?
If you review the text, you will find that I do not call myself God. Concerning creating God in man’s image, you should try a little thought experiment. You have an image in your mind of what your god “is”. Do you think that your perception of god is identical to that of anyone else? You have created your image of God from your own unique perspective.
I know that intolerance of other religions has been a hallmark of the Abrahamic beliefs, but it is fascinating that this prejudice has usually been directed at other denominations of the same faith. The god of Abraham commanded hatred of others, whereas Yeshua ben Joseph (Jesus) preached love. It is an interesting paradox: the many Abrahamic sects trying to follow two opposing doctrines, while each convinced that they are the one true faith.
HOME | SITEMAP
Name: W. Mark Wilson
Referred by: Just Surfed On In
Time: 2000-08-24 11:26:11
Comments: I find it rather selfconflicting that you say you're teaching people a new form of spirituality, showing them how to look at life differently but it is *not* a religion. Religion by definition is a way and view of life and the world in which we *live.* No one is without it, even those who claim so. Your credo is faulty from it's inception. Perhaps you should reconsider the premise. perhaps you thinki this conflict is your strength. Especially since you subscribe to quotes such as this one from page 1 of your website today: "Speak what you think now in hard words and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” This quote reminds me of our current presidents way of life.
W. Mark Wilson:
Thank you for visiting; I hope you later went beyond the opening page.
I do not say that I am teaching a “new” form of spirituality; in fact, what I write is the result of combining the works of numerous philosophers: Socrates, Spinoza, Gautama, K’ung Chung-ni, Meng Tzu, D’Holbach, Kant, and many more. This is far from new; the core knowledge has existed for thousands of years.
Because religion is a way of looking at and defining life, does not mean that it is THE way. A psychopathic killer defines life from the perspective of his/her mental disorder, yet I would question whether this is religion.
To be spiritual is to consider the spirit or mind separately from the body or material things; it is the inductive, rather than just the deductive, aspect of reasoning. Spirituality is a way of defining life that is separate from the blind faith of religion. Philosophy is “the love of wisdom” (Greek: “philo sophia”), and is based on reason. Although there is common ground shared between the three, one is not all inclusive of the other.
The quotes are displayed because they are interesting, and thought-provoking; I do not necessarily agree with any particular passage. The “quotes” I fully subscribe to will be the ones I have written myself.
- W. M. Wilson did not reply.
HOME | SITEMAP
Name: Albertus Vorkt
Referred by: Yahoo!
Time: 2000-08-20 13:56:20
Comments: Yes, I found a part of my unholy paradise in your site. I am an antixtian and mysanthrope of course. Expect one of my texts very soon. This is for the spreading of the Satanic Enlightment for those worthy of IT. Hail Satanas.
In general, I do not believe in Satanists. On the surface, they appear to be part of the Abrahamic religions, following the personification of evil created by the Hebrews just prior to 500 BCE. The vast majority of Satanists follow the Christian belief system, and use biblical references as their foundation for doctrine. In other words, to believe in Satan one must believe in the god of Abraham; and to trust in the scriptures pertaining to the former, one must also accept the dogma concerning the latter. Since a Satanist must believe in the Bible (for Satan only exists in the prose of Western religion), he/she must therefore feel that their destiny is one of eternal suffering. If this is what they desire, they are afflicted with a mental disorder (i.e. masochistic), and their “faith” is a manifestation of an illness, rather than a form of religious belief.
If a Satanist determines that the bulk of Western doctrine is incorrect, and evil does ultimately triumph, one must question how they justify believing in a book which they consider to be fundamentally false; if most of it is untrue, how could you conclude that Satan even exists?
An enigma arises when one considers the concept of being rewarded for servitude to a diabolical entity. If Satan is the representation of pure evil, how do you decide that there will be some sort of reward for obedience? You must feel that “he” is a “man of his word”, and trustworthy. Unfortunately this would be contrary to the very concept. A purely evil entity must betray its followers, otherwise it possesses the attributes it is supposed to revoke.
Because Satanism is completely contrary to any form of logic, we must conclude that people claim to be members for abstract reasons. Aside from common mental disorders, a few seriously disturbed individuals, the sociopaths, use Satanism to validate their behaviour. It is not used as a belief, but rather as an instrument for ritualizing their actions.
Almost all Satanists are simply people looking for attention. They are insecure, and have difficulty relating to others. The shock value of claiming to be a worshipper of evil makes them notable; people pay attention to them. It does not matter that others have a negative perception of a Satanist, it matters only that people notice that they, as an individual, “exist”. People who lack self-confidence often attempt to be nonconformist, but like many other such actions (bizarre body piercing, etc.), they do so by conforming to the behaviour of other such individuals.
Overall, most Satan worshippers are harmless, and although their intent is often to disturb the mental well-being of religious persons, one should treat them with a level of compassion. They are deeply unhappy people, with emotional problems which they are unable to deal with. Many are short-sighted and materialistic, yet feel their lives are insignificant; so short-term gain will never lead to fulfillment. If they can find something on this website which interests them, I can only feel happy that I am making a positive contribution to their lives, and shall not discourage them from visiting.
HOME | SITEMAP
Referred by: Just Surfed On In
Time: 1999-08-27 18:17:54
Comments: Any web site proclaiming God as a message and stating another person is an idiot is not Godly. Anyone can take a collection of everything someone says and find stupid things. I imagine your a Clinton fan which means you are the biggest idiot of all. He said I did not inhale or have sexual relations with that woman. Who's the bigger idiot? The one who says the Stupid Thing or the one who follows the idiot. You Moron
When queried for a little more clarity, Scott explained:
There is a possibility of error in my criticism, but a link to your website is proclaiming that Dan Quayle is an idiot. It has your website at the bottom. I just find it hard that a website that is out there talking about God can call people names. If this is an error my apologies are in order.
I have explained links to Scott.
HOME | SITEMAP
Website: The Monkey Speaks His Mind
Referred by: Viewing another Guestbook
Time: 1998-12-30 12:01:00
Comments: Thanks for the comments. You suggest that I should try and "stay above" the ranting of fanatics. You may have missed the point. Atheists don't wish to be ABOVE anyone else. This is exactly the behavior by religionists that atheists object to. My real reason for writing, however, is to comment on your website, which I started to peruse. I didn't get past the first paragraph describing your icon, though, because I found at least three errors therein: 1. Neutrons do not circle nuclei of atoms. Neutrons, along with protons, CONSTITUTE nuclei. ELECTRONS orbit nuclei. 2. The earth does not circle the sun; rather it travels around the sun in an elliptical orbit. While all circles are ellipses, the converse is false. 3. The solar system does not rotate around the center of the galaxy; rather it REVOLVES around that "center". "Rotation" refers to circular motion about one's own axis; "Revolution" describes elliptical translation around an external focus. Additionally, except for circles, elliptical foci are not centers. If my comments sound like nit-picking, I offer the following: 1. That's perfectly fine with me. I rather enjoy nit-picking (in the figurative sense, that is; I've never actually picked louse ova), and I don't see why so many find it objectionable. 2. I expose these errors because you place such importance in the cosmic symbolism of your geometrically inspired icon. Despite this, however, you appear to be largely (or at least basically) ignorant of both physics and geometry.
1. You have erroneously generalized my comment, stating that you should be above the ranting of fanatics; it does not say atheists should strive to be above theists. One must attempt to rise above the actions of particular types of people; I personally wish to be above the actions of racists, sociopaths, muggers, fanatics, and anyone else who exhibits behaviour that has a negative impact upon society.
2. You are absolutely correct; electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom. The reference is correct in the text of the website, but I obviously experienced a mental lapse when writing the Icon description. I am very grateful for having my error pointed out. Thank you.
3. You have erred in interpreting the English language by such narrow definitions:
“circle: -n (7) Astronomy. a. the orbit of a heavenly body. b. the period of revolution of a heavenly body. -v (1) go around in a circle; revolve around: the moon circles the earth.” “rotate: -v (1) move around a centre or axis; turn in a circle; revolve.” “rotation: -n (1) the act or process of moving around a center or axis; turning in a circle; revolving.” © 1983 Gage Publishing Limited
“circle: 2 : the orbit of a celestial body. 4 : an area of action or influence : realm. 5 a : cycle, round <the wheel has come full ~> 2 circle vb 1 : to enclose in or as if in a circle. 2 : to move or revolve around ~ vi” © 1993-94 Merriam-Webster Incorporated. *[underlines are mine]
You are not nit-picking; you are simply in error.
4. Granted, I do not hold a degree in Physics: my field is in the Social Sciences; although, now that your deficiency in linguistics has been corrected, I do not see your point.