The transcript of our e-mail responses to each other has been broken up into sections, each of which center around topics that developed from the very first e-mail of the exchange.

Those sections are:

It is my hope that the continuity of the proceeding is clear and easy to follow.

Section 1: To Answer or Not to Answer

I first told you that I would answer your "Questions for Christians" that you had posted on your web page.

Yes, indeed you did think you could answer them at the time. But?

Yes, I can still answer them. I have not read all of them, but I have had no problem answering the questions.

Hmmmm... Before, you said that you found them confusing, but now you have suddenly discovered some renewed confidence. A bit changeable here. Regardless, answer away as you please.

I started answering all of your questions one at a time, but found many of your questions confusing in the sense that you don't really appear to really understand Christianity.

That's interesting: you are not going to address the questions, but you are blaming my understanding (or lack of) for halting your progress on meeting the challenge? To be honest, I did not expect you to be able to answer many of the questions I have on my website. As to whose understanding is in question, that is debatable. You charge that I don't "appear to really understand Christianity." Okay, fair enough. Which version of Christianity are you suggesting I don't understand? You do realize that there are literally hundreds of denominations within the cult of Christianity, each claiming to base its particular view on the statements in the Bible. But this is to be expected if the Bible is riddled with internal conflict. And the Bible is so riddled with conflict. Many Christians argue that the Bible answers itself by comparison between the books collected in it. However, I, just as many scholars likewise, have found that the repetitions in the Bible actually work against its alleged inerrancy and internal harmony.

I'm not blaming you for anything. I would compare my answers to explaining the Calculus to someone who did not understand Algebra. Therefore, I felt that I should stop with my answers and explain Christianity. In the process, I would answer most, if not all, of those questions indicated.

Good luck.

Section 2: Regarding Bible Contradictions

As for the contradictions in the Bible...Blah, Blah, Blah...I have heard lots of atheists types say that the Bible is full of contradictions, but every time, when I have pressed them on the verses, I have proved them wrong. Most of the time, the cause of their failure was in making claims that did not exist. No one has EVER shown me ANY contradiction in the Bible.

So you boast. However, I must ask, how certain can your refutations be if they are not objective? You have already admitted that you do not achieve objectivity in your cognitive efforts (see Section 7), therefore, it is difficult to see how any argumentation you put forth can be of any use at all. But nonetheless, your boast is clear, but I have seen no substance to back it up. Apologists for Christianity are famous for tweaking the meaning of statements in the Bible in order to safeguard their religion from the inevitable exposure of internal error. Dennis McKinsey, for example, demonstrates this desperation among apologists quite sufficiently by reviewing their "answers" to charges of internal biblical error and contradiction. The grand (and sometimes pretentious) somersaults in reasoning in which they engage is quite amusing actually, but again such displays of ineptitude only confirm the unalterable fact that salvaging truth from the whole of biblical doctrine is a doomed and hopeless endeavor. I have found that apologists for religious philosophies would better serve their religion if they took a vow of silence and said nothing. But, since they do not shut themselves up, I have no qualms about using their words against them. This goes for you as well, Kevin.

Some recommended sources on this matter include:

You may also want to take the opportunity to review the following, which I recommend:

I would also recommend anything by Ayn Rand to help you better acquaint yourself with a rational approach to philosophy. (Keep in mind: Religion is a primitive form of philosophy.)

Of course, a standard dismissal is always ready: "They simply don't understand what they're talking about." That's fine. It's not true, but you may think it relieves you from answering objections.

Entropic03 writes:

Yes, it does not relieve me nor anyone of answering objections.

I'm glad you see this.

Therefore, I decided to put away my answers for now and write a summation of who God is, what Christianity is, God's purpose and His purpose for humanity (just to name a few things).

Thorn replies:

That's fine. I'm sure it will be interesting. But I don't know what good it will do. I've read many such theological summaries before and they all entail the same fundamental errors that all god-beliefs commit. Of course, that probably doesn't matter very much to most Christians.

Entropic03 writes:

Okay, so I'll answer your questions instead. Give me a few days.

I'm holding my breath.

Section 3: The Hasty Presumption of Having a Convincing Argument

I am writing this summation not necessarily to convert you (although that has crossed my mind, although I have spoken with enough atheists to know that task is exceptionally difficult), but to inform you of these things.

Why would you want to convert me? This is an important question, and really it is better phrased: "Why do you want to convince me?" Of course, no one's going to be able to convince me of something that he cannot show me to be true. And I already know that Christianity is not true, so it comes as no surprise to me that you find it difficult to convince some non-believers of the alleged truth of Christian claims. But then again, we all start out as atheists (we are not born with god-beliefs) as all god-beliefs (in their many, many varieties) are learned, quite often in one's youth. Those beliefs usually go unquestioned, at least on a fundamental level, for most people, and often the only serious attention they are given is to their defense. I suppose misery does love company after all.

I did not say that I had problems convincing others of Christianity. In fact, I have never failed at convincing any atheists with whom I have ever spoken that at least God is real. I have even convinced Muslims about the Truth of Jesus.

More boastings, Kevin? So, when your evangelism is successful, you take the credit? When I was a Christian, all glory was supposed to be given to 'god'... I suppose there are more and more versions of Christianity sprouting up all the time. But I'm not certain which version you follow.

As for convincing atheists, that certainly may not be very difficult in some cases given the educational poverty we have in our culture today. As I mentioned in my last correspondence, we all begin as atheists (we are born tabula rasa, i.e., we are born without any content in our consciousness whatsoever, including god-beliefs). All such beliefs are learned. Furthermore, most people today, including many non-religious people, lack any stable philosophical basis whatsoever, and are therefore ignorant of the logical and philosophical errors of primitive god-beliefs. This ignorance makes them susceptible to brainwashing and mind-control techniques if they accept just a few of the necessary premises (for instance, the primacy of consciousness view of reality). A faulty view of epistemology will also help tilt the scale in favor of the more skilled evangelists as most apologetic approaches to arguing for god-belief claims capitalize on one's ignorance of a proper view of concepts and knowledge (Objectivism). Thus, your chest-beating here, Kevin, is about as impressive as a Mussolini speech. Brainwashing the ignorant and gullible with your primitive religious views is no better than a dictator's brainwashing of an entire nation. In the latter, the vice is merely multiplied on grand scale. The tactics, however, are identical.

By the way, a question: Do you get more points for the number of kills you score when proselytizing converts?

But again, in order to establish the alleged 'truth' of Christianity, there are a lot of objections that would have to be addressed. So far as I've been able to determine (and I've studied a lot of apologetic material), Christianity has no hope whatsoever of accomplishing this. You might want to familiarize yourself with some of the material above.

[Editor's note: In spite of Kevin's boasting here, he has so far been unsuccessful in converting me to his god-belief. And from the fact that our correspondence has not continued, it appears that he has given up this goal. Was it something I said? AT]

Section 4: Slavery and Equivocating of the Concept 'Threat'

Entropic03 writes:

I am not writing this summation to accuse you, tell you you're going to Hell, to say that your stupid or any of those sorts of things.

Then why all the fuss? What is so pressing that you must attempt to convince me to believe what you believe? Obviously you believe that you are in possession of some truth or knowledge that I lack. Isn't that the case?

Entropic03 writes:

Yes. I am of the habit to freely give any information that I have to anyone who asks or I feel requires it. That statement does sound egotistical, but I am only offering help to those whom I feel need it. You can reject if you want, It's your life. [sic]

Your last statement, "It's your life," is an interesting comment and hints on an issue addressed in my questionnaire. That issue is man's right to exist for his own sake (see questions 1-6). As an Objectivist, I advocate that each individual - that includes you and me and everyone else - has the fundamental right to exist for his own sake. This political doctrine is developed extensively in the Objectivist literature. Here, in your statement, you imply that you also subscribe to this view, that man has the right to exist for his own sake. Am I interpreting your comments accurately?

If you do subscribe to the view that man has the right to exist for his own sake, on what do you base that view? Can you offer a biblical basis for this view? If so, please start with identifying how the Bible defines the concept 'right', explain how the authors who incorporate the concept formed it, identify what its referents are, and, while you're at it, please explain why some author(s) might advocate a doctrine of individual rights (which you must establish - if you believe they do), while other biblical authors clearly failed to denounce the practice of slave-ownership and slave-trade, which are antithetical to an objective view of rights (as elucidated by Objectivism)?

My suspicion is that you will not find any development of the doctrine of man's individual rights in the biblical canon, but that you will find a grotesque and glaring silence from its authors on this matter and on the matter of the immorality of slavery, too. Jesus had plenty of opportunity, for instance, to address the people in his audience about slavery, since he lived in a time, as did Moses and his forebears, of tremendous slave-trading. Roman society was heavily dependent on slavery, but Jesus said nothing about it. Paul even admonishes slaves to obey their masters!!

Dennis McKinsey, in his book The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Prometheus Books, 1995) exposes this most egregious flaw in biblical doctrine. He writes:

So much for America being a "Christian nation." Slavery is outlawed in the United States, no thanks to biblical doctrine, but with thanks to those who recognized the rationality of the doctrine of man's right to exist for his own sake. This doctrine is completely antithetical to the position of the Bible.

What's up with this, Kevin? What do you think about slavery????

But back to your comment above, you wrote: "I am not writing this summation to accuse you, tell you you're going to Hell," I have this to ask:

Ultimately, assuming you want to "convert" me, is there any way around pulling out the hell card to threaten belief and obedience, just like the Bible's authors did? It is a fact that faith always requires the threat of force in order to compel belief in its claims. If the Bible's god-belief were so true, why the need for threats? Plato and Aristotle did not threaten their audiences if they did not believe their testimonies. Rather, they employed argument without having to resort to threats of any kind. Objectivism is a philosophy whose truths are not backed up by threats, but by reality.

The Bible doesn't threaten. There are verses which describe Hell and rather bluntly say that Hell is the consequence of not believing, but that is not a threat. It is a statement of fact, just like "Walk on the side-walk, because if you don't you'll get hit by a car." Is that a threat or a warning?

Obviously, if someone says to me that I will be hit by a car if I walk into traffic, I can certainly disbelieve him. But disbelief is not sufficient for me to get hit by an automobile in traffic. I only get hit if I walk into the traffic. Diffrunt thang. But with your god-belief, the threat deals, not with action, but with belief. You may call it a warning, but the facts of the case will bear it out to be a threat. Besides, the threat is not said to sprout teeth until after one is dead, so the whole thing is moot anyway - we're already dead. (This is where you will pipe in with the mind-body dualism of your primitive worldview.)

What if an enemy nation said that they would launch air strikes against the US if we signed a certain treaty with a neighbor of that enemy nation? Would that be a threat, or a warning? Our political advisors and consulates would most likely characterize it as a threat. But according to your line of reasoning, it would be a warning (i.e., rationally justifiable). But this is disingenuous as it is attempting to legitimize the egregious behavior of those promising the retaliation for entering into a consensual treaty between two partners. This is precisely what your line of reasoning does: It attempts to sanction a moral vice. Obviously, the leaders of the enemy nation have a choice in whether to launch air strikes against the US or not, regardless of any treaty-signing. So, in your analogy above, we find that you have dropped another important context of the matter, the element of volition, which clearly belongs to the matter of threatening non-believers with hell.

Section 5: Kevin's Hypothetical Summary

I should be finished by the end of the weekend (hopefully) and will e-mail you the summation.

That's fine. But while you're at it, can you please offer a definition of the word 'god'? Is 'god' a concept or proper name? If it is a concept, what are its referents? If it is a proper name, what is it naming? By what process do you form the idea of 'god'? This would be just the beginning of many more questions you would have to address for your summary even to have any meaning whatsoever. Most Christians with whom I've corresponded usually respond that "god is incomprehensible." To which I say: Case closed. I do not enshrine the incomprehensible. Perhaps you do.

I'm sure that definition will be in there. Wouldn't it be difficult to talk about a subject without knowledge of its definition?

You may not care to hear the things I have to say, and you may just consider my response as the trivial ramblings of a primative mind. [sic]

I may. I usually do now that I know better.

Nonetheless, I am a type of person prone to offer proof of myself and actions in every aspect of life and to encourage debate (even confruntational). You may read my summation upon receipt of it or delete the email as you see fit. [sic]

Yes, I do have this choice.

[Editor's note: Then again, this is all moot, as this summary has never been received. AT]

Section 6: The Notion of Miracles

But you speak of 'proof' here, so here's another challenge. Proof, they say, is in the pudding (or is that putting?). The Bible makes some grandiose claims about what Jesus' followers can do. Mark chapter 16 says a few astounding things along these lines. Can you drink a poison and it not harm you? I'd like to see that.

Entropic03 writes:

I have known people who could.

I've known people that could heal and perform miracles. Can I perform these "magical" feats? I've never drank poison, but I have healed people and witnessed several miracles.

Kevin, do you have faith as a mustard seed (Jesus incorrectly calls it the least of seeds [see Matt. 13:31-32], even though seeds from the poppy and orchid families are much smaller)? If you have faith as a mustard seed, Jesus said you could move a mountain (see Matt. 17:20; 21:21; Mark 11:23; Luke 17:6 - this verse replaces "mountain" with "sycamine tree"- still, I'd like to see it done!).

But I won't ask you to move a mountain, that would disrupt far too many lives (even though it might put a lot of questions to rest). I'll make it much easier for you. If faith as a mustard seed is enough to move an entire mountain, how sufficient should such faith be to move a small stone? I have a small stone on my window sill (I like it because it's so smooth and round). It weighs much less than any mountain that I know of, and moving it will not disrupt anyone's livelihood. So, to demonstrate the alleged "power" of your faith, please have the stone remove itself from my window sill and suspend it in the middle of my apartment for no less than 24 hours. Certainly if it is true that "all things are possible to him that believeth" (Mark 9:23) and you have faith as a mustard seed (or poppy seed or orchid seed), this task should be no sweat for you and your god; you have no reason not to demonstrate this alleged power of faith. That is, unless, it's all BS. But if your 'god' is omnipotent, and if your faith is sufficient to move mountains, this should be a cinch!

Standard evasions that "mountain" is metaphorical and refers to a "problem" do not work. The problems in my life do not go away if I deny their existence (i.e., by relying on 'faith'); nor do solutions to my problems magically appear by wishing them into existence (i.e., by relying on 'faith'). Only by applying rational effort to those problems do they get solved. So the equivocation of 'mountain' to mean 'problem' is moot.

Also, Jesus is recorded to have made the same statement about a tree removing itself and casting itself into the sea as a result of faith (Luke 17:6). This claim reinforces the supposition that Jesus meant a real mountain (like Pike's Peak or Everest) when he said that faith could move mountains. Besides, Matthew 17:20 says, "and nothing [that's right - NOTHING] shall be impossible to you."

However, so far, no Christian has been able to demonstrate this alleged power. That's not surprising. Of course, you could just say "you don't understand Christianity" and leave it at that. But that will only confirm the fact that your faith and your religion are impotent, primitive beliefs that are better suited for jungle tribesmen.

But I imagine there will be some reason why you won't be able to meet such a challenge...

[Editor's note: To date, the small rock on my window sill has not budged an inch from its location. My challenge to Kevin proceeds to go unmet. AT]

Section 7: The Blatant Rejection of Objectivity

I will say, first of all, that I have real problems with the notion of Objectivism. Not in the belief, but with the phrase. If you have performed any experimentation at all, whether scientific, engineering, medical or similar, you should know that humans are incapable of being objective. Who we are, where we've been, our understanding of the world around us and most of all our egos do not permit us to be objective. Our brains translate everything we observe or know into icons to which we can relate. Humans are emotional beings first and foremost, and unlike Vulcans, we do not have the capacity to review anything objectively (though we would like to believe that we can).

Thorn replies:

I have a couple questions regarding your assessment of man as being unable to be objective:

First: Is this assessment itself objective?

Entropic03 writes:

Not to be too insulting, but isn't this a rather foolish question? I make the statement that humans can not be objective and you ask is my assessment objective. OF COURSE IT IS NOT.

If so, then it defeats itself internally. If not, then why should one accept it?

Entropic03 writes:

Exactly my point. Objectivity defeats itself internally.

Kevin, you really should learn to read things a little more attentively. From the foregoing, one cannot conclude, as you do, that objectivity "defeats itself" (a very naive statement); rather, it is your assessment, which you admit is not objective, which defeats itself. This is rather humorous, actually. Perhaps you'd like to read it over again, and this time try to get the correspondence between pronouns and their antecedents right. The word "it" in the sentence "If so, then it defeats itself internally" does not refer to "objectivity"; on the contrary, the word "it" in that sentence refers to your assessment (namely, that man is incapable of achieving objectivity).

I suppose I'll have to hold your hand through this, so to eliminate any potential confusion, I will rephrase my points by making the antecedent-pronoun correspondence explicit, so that you are not so easily confused:

[At this point, you might want to turn your attention to defending epistemological subjectivism, to which all god-beliefs - including Christianity - must necessarily resort, since all god-beliefs are founded on a subjective view of reality (i.e., the primacy of consciousness). You can find some elaboration on these facts in the Objectivist literature, but since your rejection of objectivity is shamelessly naked, I think you get my point.]

Consider the following internally self-defeating example, which is comparable to the last dilemma you have put yourself into by rejecting objectivity. Have you ever heard someone say, "There are no absolutes"? Think about the statement: "There are no absolutes." Now, does the person asserting this statement believe it is absolutely true that there are no absolutes? Think about it.

Basically, Kevin, you checkmate yourself. That is inevitable with primitive worldviews precisely because they reject objectivity.

Also: What is the alternative to objectivity if not subjectivism?

I see you never did attempt to answer this question....

I recommend you spend a little more time learning about Objectivism before you rashly dismiss it as some hotbed of materialist anti-religious hype. Your statements in the paragraph above reveal the poor teaching you have received on the matter of objectivity. It reveals a tired, outworn and false view of man which attempts to contradict the facts of reality. This error is dealt with extensively in the Objectivist literature. I hasten you to educate yourself on it.

Besides, if objectivity is not possible to man, then what would be the point of scientific research? Blank out.

I don't really care about the principles of your religion. In the previous paragraphs, I was simply making the statement that no human can be objective.

No, I don't suppose you would like to expose your god-beliefs to the merciless scrutiny of rational philosophy. That just means you don't want to learn, which, again, is your choice. Just as misery loves company (that explains your psychological motivation to find new recruits to your religion), many people actually believe that ignorance is bliss as well.

As for your statement that "no human can be objective," see above. Obviously you have no understanding of what objectivity entails. This is a broad yet erroneous current in modern philosophy, but finds its roots in primitive worldviews. The only antidote is Objectivism. Ignore it at your peril.

You explicitly acknowledge your tendency to treat feelings as epistemological primaries, which commits the fallacies of the stolen concept and of the frozen abstraction.

Entropic03 writes:

When did I say that?

Read your own words above. You wrote: " Humans are emotional beings first and foremost." And you were saying earlier that you felt you were corresponding with someone who does not understand his subject matter. Kevin, I think you're in way over your own head on these matters. But stick around, you just may learn something.

Section 8: Literature Fit for Reading

Entropic03 writes:

I found most of that boring and representing no conclusion other than revealing the size of your ego.

Ad hominems such as this are plainly rude and do nothing but undermine any hope of credibility you may be pretending here. Besides, if you're trying to insult me, you'll have to find another way. Objectivism rejects the notion that one should accept guilt for having an ego.

But I suppose you would prefer to read about the profanity, perversions and disgusting episodes recorded in the Bible instead of learning how to govern your mind through objective principles (which you have already dismissed out of hand).

For instance, on pages 288-289 of his book The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, Dennis McKinsey notes how the Bible is unfit for literary consumption in a civilized household with children:

Thank you, Mr. McKinsey. Here here!!

May you get what you deserve,

Anton Thorn

Likewise.

I intend to, and I am counting on it.

_________________________________________________________