Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
The Nullifidian Volume 2 Number 10
From ai815@freenet.carleton.caSat Oct 14 12:38:40 1995
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 06:37:17 -0400
From: Greg Erwin <ai815@freenet.carleton.ca>
To: apabel@prairienet.org, ap818@freenet.buffalo.edu
Subject: October 1995 Nullifidian
############################################################
############################################################
______
/ / / /
/ /__ __
/ / ) (__
/ / (__(__
__
|\ ( ) ) / /
| \ | / / . _/_ . __ / . __ __
| \ | / / / / ) / ) / / ) __ ) / )
) \| (__(__(___(__(__(___(__(__(__(__(__(__/ (__
===========================================================
*The*E-Zine*of*Atheistic*Secular*Humanism*and*Freethought**
===========================================================
############################################################
###### Volume II, Number 10 ***A Collector's Item!***#####
################### ISSN 1201-0111 #######################
####################### OCT 1995 ###########################
nullifidian, n. & a. (Person) having no religious faith or
belief. [f. med. L _nullifidius_ f. L _nullus_ none +
_fides_ faith; see -IAN] Concise Oxford Dictionary
The purpose of this magazine is to provide a source of
articles dealing with many aspects of humanism.
We are ATHEISTIC as we do not believe in the actual
existence of any supernatural beings or any transcendental
reality.
We are SECULAR because the evidence of history and the daily
horrors in the news show the pernicious and destructive
consequences of allowing religions to be involved with
politics or government.
We are HUMANISTS and we focus on what is good for humanity,
in the real world. We will not be put off with offers of
pie in the sky, bye and bye.
Re: navigation.
Search for BEG to find the beginning of the next article.
Search for the first few words of the title as given in the
table of contents to find a specific article. I try to
remember to copy the title from the text and then paste it
into the ToC, so it should be exact. Search for "crass
commercialism:" to see what's for sale. Subscription
information, etc is at the end of the magazine, search for
END OF TEXTS.
############################################################
############################################################
============================================================
/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. A FEW REASONS FOR DOUBTING THE INSPIRATION OF THE
BIBLE. (Part II, reasons forty-first through sixty
-first)--R.G. Ingersoll.
2. A Plea to Conservatives by Walter Laffer
3. Foundation documents of the First Church of Zen
Orthodox Nullifidianism.
4. Religion and Science by Albert Einstein
===========================================================
|| BEGINNING OF ARTICLE ||
===========================================================
A FEW REASONS FOR DOUBTING THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE.
(Part II, reasons forty-first through sixty-first)
--R.G. Ingersoll.
Forty-first. Why should a man, because he has done a
bad action, go and kill a sheep? How can man make friends
with God by cutting the throats of bullocks and goats? Why
should God delight in the shedding of blood? Why should he
want his altar sprinkled with blood, and the horns of his
altar tipped with blood, and his priests covered with blood?
Why should burning flesh be a sweet savor in the nostrils of
God? Why did he compel his priests to be butchers, cutters
and stabbers? Why should the same God kill a man for eating
the fat of an ox, a sheep, or a goat?
Forty-second. Could it be a consolation to a man when
dying to think that he had always believed that God told
Aaron to take two goats and draw cuts to see which goat
should be killed and which should be a scapegoat? [Lev. xvi,
8.] And that upon the head of the scapegoat Aaron should lay
both his hands and confess over him all the iniquities of
the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, and
put them all on the head of the goat, and send him away by
the hand of a fit man into the wilderness; and that the goat
should bear upon him all the iniquities of the people into a
land not inhabited? [Lev. xvi, 21, 22.] How could a goat
carry away a load of iniquities and transgressions? Why
should he carry them to a land uninhabited? Were these sins
contagious? About how many sins could an average goat carry?
Could a man meet such a goat now without laughing?
Forty-third. Why should God object to a man wearing a
garment made of woolen and linen? Why should he care whether
a man rounded the corners of his beard? [Lev. xix, 19, 27.]
Why should God prevent a man from offering the sacred bread
merely because he had a flat nose, or was lame, or had five
fingers on one hand, or had a broken foot, or was a dwarf?
If he objected to such people, why did he make them? [Lev.
xxi, 18-20.]
Forty-fourth. Why should we believe that God insisted
upon the sacrifice of human beings? Is it a sin to deny
this, and to deny the inspiration of a book that teaches it?
Read the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth verses of the last
chapter of Leviticus, a book in which there is more folly
and cruelty, more stupidity and tyranny, than in any other
book in this world except some others in the same Bible.
Read the thirty-second chapter of Exodus and you will see
how by the most infamous of crimes man becomes reconciled to
this God. You will see that he demands of fathers the blood
of their sons. Read the twelfth and thirteenth verses of the
third chapter of Numbers, "And I, behold, I have taken the
Levites from among the children of Israel," etc.
How, in the desert of Sinai, did the Jews obtain
curtains of fine linen? How did these absconding slaves make
cherubs of gold? Where did they get the skins of badgers,
and how did they dye them red? How did they make wreathed
chains and spoons, basins and tongs? Where did they get the
blue cloth and their purple? Where did they get the sockets
of brass? How did they coin the shekel of the sanctuary? How
did they overlay boards with gold? Where did they get the
numberless instruments and tools necessary to accomplish all
these things? Where did they get the fine flour and the oil?
Were all these found in the desert of Sinai? Is it a sin to
ask these questions? Are all these doubts born of a
malignant and depraved heart? Why should God in this desert
prohibit priests from drinking wine, and from eating moist
grapes? How could these priests get wine?
Do not these passages show that these laws were made
long after the Jews had left the desert, and that they were
not given from Sinai? Can you imagine a God silly enough to
tell a horde of wandering savages upon a desert that they
must not eat any fruit of the trees they planted until the
fourth year?
Forty-fifth. Ought a man to be despised and persecuted
for denying that God ordered the priests to make women drink
dirt and water to test their virtue? [Num. v, 12-31.] Or for
denying that over the tabernacle there was a cloud during
the day and fire by night, and that the cloud lifted up
when God wished the Jews to travel, And that until it was
lifted they remained in their tents? [Num. ix, 16-18.] Can
it be possible that the "ark of the covenant "traveled on
its own account," and that "when the ark set forward" the
people followed, as is related in the tenth chapter of the
holy book of Numbers?
Forty-sixth. Was it reasonable for God to give the Jews
manna, and nothing else, year after year? He had infinite
power, and could just as easily have given them something
good, in reasonable variety, as to have fed them on manna
until they loathed the sight of it, and longingly remembered
the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic of
Egypt. And yet when the poor people complained of the diet
and asked for a little meat, this loving and merciful God
became enraged, sent them millions of quails in his wrath,
and while they were eating, while the flesh was yet between
their teeth, before it was chewed, this amiable God smote
the people with a plague and killed all those that lusted
after meat. In a few days after, he made up his mind to kill
the rest, but was dissuaded when Moses told him that the
Canaanites would laugh at him. [Num. xiv, 15, 16.] No wonder
the poor Jews wished they were back in Egypt. No wonder they
had rather be the slaves of Pharaoh than the chosen people
of God, No wonder they preferred the wrath of Egypt to the
love of heaven. In my judgment, the Jews would have fared
far better if Jehovah had let them alone, or had he even
taken the side of the Egyptians.
When the poor Jews were told by their spies that the
Canaanites were giants, they, seized with fear, said, "Let
us go back to Egypt." For this, their God doomed all except
Joshua and Caleb to a wandering death. Hear the words of
this most merciful God: "But as for you, your carcasses they
shall fall in this wilderness, and your children shall
wander in the wilderness forty years and bear your" sins
"until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness." [Num.
xiv, 32-33.] And yet this same God promised to give unto all
these people a land flowing with milk and honey.
Forty-seventh. And while the children of Israel were in
the wilderness they found a man that gathered sticks upon
the Sabbath day.
"And they that found him gathering sticks brought him
unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
"And they put him in ward, because it was not declared
what should be done to him.
"And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely
put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with
stones without the camp.
"And all the congregation brought him without the camp,
and stoned him with stones, and he died." [Num. xv, 32-36.]
When the last stone was thrown, and he that was a man was
but a mangled, bruised, and broken mass, this God turned,
and, touched with pity, said: "Speak unto the children of
Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the
borders of their garments throughout their generations, and
that they put upon the fringe of the borders a riband of
blue." [Num. xv, 38.]
In the next chapter, this Jehovah, whose loving
kindness is over all his works, because Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram objected to being starved to death in the wilderness,
made the earth open and swallow not only them, but their
wives and their little ones. Not yet satisfied, he sent a
plague and killed fourteen thousand seven hundred more.
There never was in the history of the world such a cruel,
revengeful, bloody, jealous, fickle, unreasonable, and
fiendish ruler, emperor, or king as Jehovah. No wonder the
children of Israel cried out, "Behold we die, we perish, we
all perish."
Forty-eighth. I cannot believe that a dry stick budded,
blossomed, and bore almonds; that the ashes of a red heifer
are a purification for sin; [Num. xix, 2-10.] that God gave
the cities into the hands of the Jews because they solemnly
agreed to murder all the inhabitants; that God became
enraged and induced snakes to bite his chosen people; that
God told Balaam to go with the Princess of Moab, and then
got angry because he did go; that an animal ever saw an
angel and conversed with a man. I cannot believe that
thrusting a spear through the body of a woman ever stayed a
plague; [Num. xxv, 8.] that any good man ever ordered his
soldiers to slay the men and keep the maidens alive for
themselves; that God commanded men not to show mercy to each
other; that he induced men to obey his commandments by
promising them that he would assist them in murdering the
wives and children of their neighbors; or that he ever
commanded a man to kill his wife because she differed with
him about religion; [Deut. xiii, 6-10.] or that God was
mistaken about hares chewing the cud; [Deut. xiv, 7.] or
that he objected to the people raising horses; [Deut. xvii,
16.] or that God wanted a camp kept clean because he walked
through it at night; [Deut. xxiii, 13, 14.] or that he
commanded widows to spit in the faces of their
brothers-in-law; [Deut. xxv, 9.] or that he ever threatened
to give anybody the itch; [Deut. xxviii, 27.] or that he
ever secretly buried a man and allowed the corpse to write
an account of the funeral.
Forty-ninth. Does it necessarily follow that a man
wishes to commit some crime if he refuses to admit that the
river Jordan cut itself in two and allowed the lower end to
run away? [Josh. iii, 16.] Or that seven priests could blow
seven ram's horns loud enough to throw down the walls of a
city; [Josh. vi, 20.] or that God, after Achan had confessed
that he had secreted a garment and a wedge of gold, became
good natured as soon as Achan and his sons and daughters had
been stoned to death and their bodies burned? [Josh. vii,
24, 25.] Is it not a virtue to abhor such a God?
Must we believe that God sanctioned and commanded all
the cruelties and horrors described in the Old Testament;
that he waged the most relentless and heartless wars; that
he declared mercy a crime; that to spare life was to excite
his wrath; that he smiled when maidens were violated,
laughed when mothers were ripped open with a sword, and
shouted with joy when babes were butchered in their mothers'
arms? Read the infamous book of Joshua, and then worship the
God who inspired it if you can.
Fiftieth. Can any sane man believe that the sun stood
still in the midst of heaven and hasted not to go down about
a whole day, and that the moon stayed? [Josh. x, 13.] That
these miracles were performed in the interest of massacre
and bloodshed; that the Jews destroyed men, women, and
children by the million, and practiced every cruelty that
the ingenuity of their God could suggest? Is it possible
that these things really happened? Is it possible that God
commanded them to be done? Again I ask you to read the book
of Joshua. After reading all its horrors you will feel a
grim satisfaction in the dying words of Joshua to the
children of Israel: "Know for a certainty that the Lord your
God will no more drive out any of these nations from before
you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and
scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye
perish from off this good land." [Josh. xiii, 13.]
Think of a God who boasted that he gave the Jews a land
for which they did not labor, cities which they did not
build, and allowed them to eat of olive-yards and vineyards
which they did not plant. [Josh. xxiv, 13.] Think of a God
who murders some of his children for the benefit of the
rest, and then kills the rest because they are not thankful
enough. Think of a God who had the power to stop the sun and
moon, but could not defeat an army that had iron chariots.
[Judges 1, 19.]
Fifty-first. Can we blame the Hebrews for getting tired
of their God? Never was a people so murdered, starved,
stoned, burned, deceived, humiliated, robbed, and outraged.
Never was there so little liberty among men. Never did the
meanest king so meddle, eavesdrop, spy out, harass, torment,
and persecute his people. Never was ruler so jealous,
unreasonable, contemptible, exacting, and ignorant as this
God of the Jews. Never was such ceremony, such mummery, such
staff about bullocks, goats, doves, red heifers, lambs, and
unleavened dough -- never was such directions about kidneys
and blood, ashes and fat, about curtains, tongs, fringes,
ribands, and, brass pins -- never such details for killing
of animals and men and the sprinkling of blood and the
cutting of clothes. Never were such unjust laws, such
punishments, such damned ignorance and infamy!
Fifty-second. Is it not wonderful that the creator of
all worlds, infinite in power and wisdom, could not hold his
own against the gods of wood and stone? Is it not strange
that after he had appeared to his chosen people, delivered
them from slavery, fed them by miracles, opened the sea for
a path, led them by cloud and fire, and overthrown their
pursuers, they still preferred a calf of their own making?
Is it not beyond belief that this God, by statutes and
commandments, by punishments and penalties, by rewards and
promises, by wonders and plagues, by earthquakes and
pestilence, could not in the least civilize the Jews --
could not get them beyond a point where they deserved
killing? What shall we think of a God who gave his entire
time for forty years to the work of converting three
millions of people, and succeeded in getting only two men,
and not a single woman, decent enough to enter the promised
land? Was there ever in the history of man so detestable an
administration of public affairs? Is it possible that God
sold his children to the king of Mesopotamia; that he sold
them to Jabin, king of Canaan, to the Philistines, and to
the children of Ammon? Is it possible that an angel of the
Lord devoured unleavened cakes and broth with fire that came
out of the end of a stick as he sat under an oak-tree?
Judges vi, 21.] Can it be true that God made known his will
by making dew fall on wool without wetting the ground around
it? [Judges vi, 37.] Do you really believe that men who lap
water like a dog make the best soldiers? [Judges vii, 5.] Do
you think that a man could hold a lamp in his left hand, a
trumpet in his right hand, blow his trumpet, shout "the
sword of the Lord and of Gideon," and break pitchers at the
same time? [Judges vii, 5.]
Fifty-third. Read the story of Jephthah and his
daughter, and then tell me what you think of a father who
would sacrifice his daughter to God, and what you think of a
God who would receive such a sacrifice. This one story
should be enough to make every tender and loving father hold
this book in utter abhorrence. Is it necessary, in order to
be saved, that one must believe that an angel of God
appeared unto Manoah in the absence of her husband; that
this angel afterward went up in a flame of fire; that as a
result of this visit a child was born whose strength was in
his hair? a child that made beehives of lions, incendiaries
of foxes, and had a wife that wept seven days to get the
answer to his riddle? Will the wrath of God abide forever
upon a man for doubting the story that Samson killed a
thousand men with a new jawbone? Is there enough in the
Bible to save a soul with this story left out? Is hell
hungry for those who deny that water gashed from a "hollow
place" in a dry bone? Is it evidence of a new heart to
believe that one man turned over a house so large that over
three thousand people were on the roof? For my part, I
cannot believe these things, and if my salvation depends
upon my credulity I am as good as damned already. I cannot
believe that the Philistines took back the ark with a
present of five gold mice, and that thereupon God relented.
[1 Sam. vi, 4.] I cannot believe that God killed fifty
thousand men for looking into a box. [1 Sam. vi, 19.] It
seems incredible, after all the Jews had done, after all
their wars and victories, even when Saul was king, that
there was not among them one smith who could make a sword or
spear, and that they were compelled to go to the Philistines
to sharpen every plowshare, coulter, and mattock. [1
Sam.xiii, 19, 20.] Can you believe that God said to Saul,
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they
have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman,
infant and suckling"? Can you believe that because Saul took
the king alive after killing every other man, woman, and
child, the ogre called Jehovah was displeased and made up
his mind to hurl Saul from the throne and give his place to
another? [1 Sam. xv.] I cannot believe that the Philistines
all ran away because one of their number was killed with a
stone. I cannot justify the conduct of Abigail, the wife of
Nabal, who took presents to David. David hardly did right
when he said to this woman, "I have hearkened to thy voice,
and have accepted thy person." It could hardly have been
chance that made Nabal so deathly sick next morning and
killed him in ten days. All this looks wrong, especially as
David married his widow before poor Nabal was fairly cold."
Fifty-fourth. Notwithstanding all I have heard of Katie
King, I cannot believe that a witch at Endor materialized
the ghost of Samuel and caused it to appear with a cloak on.
[1 Sam. xxviii.] I cannot believe that God tempted David to
take the census, and then gave him his choice of three
punishments: First, Seven years of famine; Second, Flying
three months before their enemies; Third, A pestilence of
three days; that David chose the pestilence, and that God
destroyed seventy thousand men. [2 Sam. xxiv.] Why should
God kill the people for what David did? Is it a sin to be
counted? Can anything more brutally hellish be conceived?
Why should man waste prayers upon such a God?
Fifty-fifth. Must we admit that Elijah was fed by
ravens; that they brought him bread and flesh every morning
and evening? Must we believe that this same prophet could
create meal and oil, and induce a departed soul to come back
and take up its residence once more in the body? That he
could get rain by praying for it; that he could cause fire
to burn up a sacrifice and altar, together with twelve
barrels of water? [1 Kings xviii.] Can we believe that an
angel of the Lord turned cook and prepared two suppers in
one night for Elijah, and that the prophet ate enough to
last him forty days and forty nights? [1 kings xix.] Is it
true that when a captain with fifty men went after Elijah,
this prophet caused fire to come down from heaven and
consume them all? Should God allow such wretches to manage
his fire? Is it true that Elijah consumed another captain
with fifty men in the same way? [2 kings i.] Is it a fact
that a river divided because the water was struck with a
cloak? Did a man actually go to heaven in a chariot of fire
drawn by horses of fire, or was he carried to Paradise by a
whirlwind? Must we believe, in order to be good and tender
fathers and mothers, that because some "little children"
mocked at an old man with a bald head, God -- the same God
who said, "Suffer little children to come unto me" -- sent
two she-bears out of the wood and tare forty-two of these
babes? Think of the mothers that watched and waited for
their children. Think of the wailing when these mangled ones
were found, when they were brought back and pressed to the
breasts of weeping women. What an amiable gentleman Mr.
Elisha must have been. [2 Kings ii.]
Fifty-sixth. It is hard to believe that a prophet by
lying on a dead body could make it sneeze seven times; [2
Kings iv.] or that being dipped seven times in the Jordan
could cure the leprosy. [2 Kings v.] Would a merciful God
curse children; and children's children yet unborn, with
leprosy for a father's fault? [2 Kings v. 27.] Is it
possible to make iron float in water? [2 Kings vi, 6.] Is it
reasonable to say that when a corpse touched another corpse
it came to life? [2 Kings xiii, 21.] Is it a sign that a man
wants to commit a crime because he refuses to believe that a
king had a boil and that God caused the sun to go backward
in heaven so that the shadow on a sun-dial went back ten
degrees as a sign that the aforesaid would get well? [2
Kings xx, 1-2.] Is it true that this globe turned backward,
that its motion was reversed as a sign to a Jewish king? If
it did not, this story is false, and that part of the Bible
is not true even if it is inspired.
Fifty-seventh. How did the Bible get lost? [2 Kings
xxii, 8.] Where was the precious Pentateuch from Moses to
Josiah? How was it possible for the Jews to get along
without the directions as to fat and caul and kidney
contained in Leviticus? Without that sacred book in his
possession a priest might take up ashes and carry them out
without changing his pantaloons. Such mistakes kindled the
wrath of God.
As soon as the Pentateuch was found Josiah began
killing wizards and such as had familiar spirits.
Fifty-eighth, I cannot believe that God talked to
Solomon, that he visited him in the night and asked him what
he should give him; I cannot believe that he told ban, "I
will give thee riches and wealth and honor, such as none of
the kings have had before thee, neither shall there any
after thee have the like." [2 Kings i, 7, 12.] If Jehovah
said this he was mistaken. It is not true that Solomon had
fourteen hundred chariots of war in a country without roads.
It is not true that he made gold and silver at Jerusalem as
plenteous as stones. There were several kings in his day,
and thousands since, that could have thrown away the value
of Palestine without missing the amount. The Holy Land was
and is a wretched country. There are no monuments, no ruins
attesting former wealth and greatness. The Jews had no
commerce, knew nothing of other nations, had no luxuries,
never produced a painter, a sculptor, architect, scientist,
or statesman until after the destruction of Jerusalem. As
long as Jehovah attended to their affairs they had nothing
but civil war, plague, pestilence, and famine. After he
abandoned, and the Christians ceased to persecute them, they
became the most prosperous of people. Since Jehovah, in
anger and disgust, cast them away they have produced
painters, sculptors, scientists, statesmen, composers, and
philosophers.
Fifty-ninth. I cannot admit that Hiram, the King of
Tyre, wrote a letter to Solomon in which he admitted that
the "God of Israel made heaven and earth." [2 Chron. ii,
12.] This King was not a Jew. It seems incredible that
Solomon had eighty thousand men hewing timber for the
temple, with seventy thousand bearers of burdens, and
thirty-six hundred over-seers." [2 Chron. ii, 18.]
Sixtieth. I cannot believe that God shuts up heaven and
prevents rain, or that he sends locusts to devour a land, or
pestilence to destroy the people. [2 Chron. vii, 13.] I
cannot believe that God told Solomon that his eyes and heart
should perpetually be in the house that Solomon had built.
[2 Chron. vii, 16.]
Sixty-first. I cannot believe that Solomon passed all
the kings of the earth in riches; that all the kings of the
earth sought his presence and brought presents of silver and
gold, raiment, harness, spices, and mules -- a rate year by
year. [2 Chron. ix, 22-24.] Is it possible that Shishak, a
King of Egypt, invaded Palestine with seventy thousand
horsemen and twelve hundred chariots of war? [2 Chron. xii,
2, 3.] I cannot believe that in a battle between Jeroboam
and Abijah, the army of Abijah actually slew in one day five
hundred thousand chosen men. [2 Chron. xiv, 17.] Does anyone
believe that Zerah, the Ethiopian, invaded Palestine with a
million men? [2 Chron. xiv, 9.] I cannot believe that
Jehoshaphat had a standing army of nine hundred and sixty
thousand men. [2 Chron. xvii, 14-19.] I cannot believe that
God advertised for a liar to act as his messenger. [2 Chron.
xviii, 19- 22.] I cannot believe that King Amaziah did right
in the sight of the Lord, and that he broke in pieces ten
thousand men by casting them from a precipice. [2 Chron.
xxv, 12.] I cannot think that God smote a king with leprosy
because he tried to burn incense. [2 Chron. xxvi, 19.] I
cannot think that Pekah slew one hundred and twenty thousand
men in one day. [2 Chron. xxviii, 6.]
NOTE: This article was printed from manuscript notes found
among Colonel Ingersoll's papers, evidently written in the
early 1880's. While much of the argument and criticism will
be found embodied in his various lectures, magazine articles
and contributions to the press. it was thought to be too
valuable In its present form to be left out of a complete
edition of his writings.
**** ****
Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
The Bank of Wisdom Inc. is a collection of the most
thoughtful, scholarly and factual books. These computer
books are reprints of suppressed books and will cover
American and world history; the Biographies and writings of
famous persons, and especially of our nations Founding
Fathers. They will include philosophy and religion. all
these subjects, and more, will be made available to the
public in electronic form, easily copied and distributed, so
that America can again become what its Founders intended --
The Free Market-Place of Ideas.
The Bank of Wisdom is always looking for more of these
old, hidden, suppressed and forgotten books that contain
needed facts and information for today. If you have such
books please contact us, we need to give them back to
America.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
29
=========================================================
|| END OF ARTICLE ||
=========================================================
"The time appears to me to have come when it is the duty of
all to make their dissent from religion known."
[John Stuart Mill]
===========================================================
|| BEGINNING OF ARTICLE ||
===========================================================
A Plea to Conservatives by Walter Laffer
We spend a great deal of our energies on this list deploring
the radical religious right's attempts at trying to control
our lives and that of society in general. This is as it
should be and is of very grave concern to all of us. But, I
have a greater premonition of things to come or maybe are
already here. This has to do with what I call the moral and
intellectual bankruptcy of the conservative movement in
America today. To me, as a humanist, this is far more
threatening in the long run than the inconsistencies in the
unalterable inerrancy of the religious fanatics.
One of the strengths of our society has always been the
debate on political and social policy. But, it seems that
today we are debating the efficacy of the scientific method;
the right of humans to assemble and organize; the right of
children to have a healthy and safe upbringing; the right of
over half the population of the world to have political,
economic, sexual, equality and self control over their own
bodies; and the right of future generations to have a
humanly habitable environment.
Conservatives seem to take the position that all the
scientific research regarding the addictive and carcinogenic
effects of tobacco, supported by thirty years of surgeons
general from liberal and conservative bases, should be
ignored and the drug should be tax payer subsidized.
Advertising to the most emotionally and physically
vulnerable, the teenager, should be allowed as a First
Amendment protected right. This anti-scientific morally
bankrupt position is very distressing when one considers it
from a humanistic viewpoint. AIDS research is not treated
as a serious medical problem, but rather as problem of
"improper, disgusting" behavior. Environmental research is
being cut back in the Bureau of Mines, the Energy Department
and the Environmental Protection Agency (which was started
by conservative Richard Nixon).
The other day a New Republican congressman from Alabama
requested that the research by the EPA and the NCI regarding
the insecticides, chlordane and Mirax be disregarded, even
though the insecticides were found in human mothers' milk.
Both the EPA and the NCI seem to think these insecticides
are potential carcinogens based on their scientific
research. The attempt to not use modern scientific methods
for testing the contamination levels of foods such as meat,
poultry, and fish is again very ant-scientific. This kind
of anti-scientific approach to serious human problems is
very frightening. These ant-intellectual, anti-scientific
anecdotal arguments are used as testimony to support the
passage of deregulation. laws.
I think there have been many studies to show that children
learn better when thy are healthy and well fed. Yet, we
have the conservative position of cutting off school lunches
for poor kids. We know the they do not want universal
health care. We still have TB in Chicago. Will the private
market solve this problem? We need active programs not some
misguided 19th century rhetoric about "survival of the
fittest"
This denigration of science has to reinforce the Religious
Right's anti-scientific argument for creationism over
evolution. A not so long ago conservative president of the
United States said that "Trees cause pollution," and that
"evolution was probably not true". Well, the hole in the
ozone layer gets bigger while Congress and the President
fiddle.
I would have hoped that the modern conservatives would be
objective and pro the scientific approach. What a tragedy
for all of us who are humanists that they are not.
As regards the basic political liberties that most of us on
this list subscribe to, unfortunately we have the following
rhetoric.
"He called the delegates at the conference in Beijing
'elitists, Socialists, hard-leftists, and radicals.'" -
from a column by Maureen Dowd quoting GOP Presidential
candidate Pat Buchanan. Who incidentally has become the
darling of the Populist Party. You know, the party of "Bo"
Gritz and David Duke. Wasn't William Jennings Bryan, a
Democrat, also a Populist? Creationism is coming, we had
better duck.
George Bush sympathized with the tyrants who run China in
their having to host an outspoken American feminist and
politician. The same man who has said that atheists are not
really American citizens. Why would an American
conservative sympathize with a tyranny that opposes the
right of its citizens to peaceably assemble, speak out
against their government, a government where women are
routinely forced into abortion, economic and sexual
servitude and political conformity? I think that this is a
sign of the moral and political bankruptcy of the American
conservatives.
Consider the following contrasting quotes. Which are/is
more in tune with basic humanism?
"this misguided conference and its left-wing ideological
agenda" of abortion rights and militant feminism, United
States Senator and declared Republican candidate for the
presidency of the United States of America, Robert Dole
attacking the spending of taxpayers' money on the attendance
of the United Nations Fourth Women's Conference in Beijing,
China.
"The only proper American response to the release of Harry
Wu is, 'It's about time,' not 'Take my wife - please'"
United States Senator and declared candidate for the
presidency of the United States of America, Phil Gramm
referring to the attendance of First Lady Hillary Rodham
Clinton at the Fourth United Nations Conference on Women in
Beijing, China.
"What unites this group and thousands of others traveling to
Beijing is a desire to focus world attention on issues that
matter most to women, children and families: access to
health care, education, jobs and credit, and the chance to
enjoy basic legal and human rights and participate fully in
the political of one's country." excerpt from a column by
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I as a humanist must side with the last one. i do not see
how opposing forced body mutilation, sexual servitude,
enforced illiteracy, denial of health care, and demands for
political and economic equality can be even remotely
considered as " misguided left-wing ideology" , let alone,
"elitist, Socialist, hard-leftist, or radical". When I was
growing up the conservatives would have supported these
basic human rights. At least they have been considered
basic in the America in which I live. How has the modern
American conservative ended up sympathizing with the
Zhironofsky's (keep the immigrants out of our homeland), the
Vatican, the Iranian fundamentalist government, the Chinese
tyranny, the Sudanese fundamentalists, et al? Not too long
ago these tyrants were referred to as "the evil empire".
Now our conservatives feel sorry for them. What happened?
Why did the conservatives accept the moral depravity of such
regimes?
This moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the American
conservative philosophy and policies is a matter of very
great concern to our society. They now control the
legislative and judicial arms of our government. This is
not to say that the liberals are any better off. They seem
to be adrift, almost afraid to have any principles at all.
But right at the moment, I would hope that the conservative
policy makers and philosophers would shed the yoke of the
Catholic Church's no-nothing (Bill Buckley, Father John
McLaughlin, Bill Simon, The Coors, The Heritage Foundation,
Antonin Scalia,Clarence Thomas, etc., etc., etc.) control of
them. This is a plea for the conservatives to come back to
the scientific approach to societal problems, come back to
the basic political and human rights as expressed in our
Constitution and wonderful democratic and liberty loving
heritage. Come back and support an intellectual and moral
approach to our society.
Walter Laffer LafferWBII@aol.com
=========================================================
|| END OF ARTICLE ||
=========================================================
"Trying to find God is a good deal like looking for money
one has lost in a dream." [Lemuel K. Washburn, _Is The Bible
Worth Reading And Other Essays_]
===========================================================
|| BEGINNING OF ARTICLE ||
===========================================================
Foundation documents of the First Church of Zen Orthodox
Nullifidianism.
"First" in the sense that this is the first one.
"Church" solely in the sense of a community of like-minded
people, voluntarily organized to promote their vision of
life, and to work for the common good.
"Zen" in the sense that you should be philosophical about
common sense and commonsensical about philosophy, and
humorous about both.
"Orthodox" in the sense that we're pretty sure we're right.
"Nullifidian" in that we have no religious faith, as faith
is, by definition, about things which cannot be verified,
whereas ours can.
Yes, we don't mind if you say that we have faith in having
no faith. >Sigh<
This grew out of a discussion on the secular humanist email
discussion group. A challenge was issued by Richard Russell
to come up with basic ethics that were required by nature
and universally accepted.
Of course, nothing is ethically required by nature [if you
think so, let me know and we can shoot your proposals down
one by one] and nothing is universally accepted.
I attempted to come up with ethical "laws" that seem to be
hard wired into the human mind. Of course, our intellectual
capacity also allows us to evaluate the likely costs and
benefits of violating this hypothetical built-in
programming, just like we can override our built in
requirements and desires to eat (by fasting) breathe (by
swimming underwater) or to have sex (commitment to marriage;
intellectual appreciation of the likely consequences of sex
in certain circumstances).
The Nine Strong Recommendations, agreeing with which is
mandatory:
I. Causing other people and sentient beings unnecessary
pain is bad. As a general principle we should attempt
to avoid doing this.
II Insofar as it is compatible with our own well-being and
happiness it is a good idea to "be nice" to others.
III Do not lightly undertake obligations. Attempt to
fulfil completely those obligations which you
undertake.
IV Live by the rules.
V We should create conditions of maximum freedom for the
maximum number of people.
VI All people in a society should be considered legally
equal.
VII Unnecessary waste and destruction are bad and should be
avoided.
VIII Examine the consequences of actions, and adjust future
actions accordingly.
IX Make sure that your assumptions about the world are
true.
NB: Commentary on I and II:
However, it works better to prohibit "bad" actions than to
try to force people to be nice. That is, as a guiding
principle for society, we should not try to force people
into doing good, but merely encourage it, while actively
discouraging "bad" behaviour.
Re: VII:
Simply by living in a society, the citizen assumes certain
obligations, which can mainly be summed up by the phrase
"agrees to live by the rules," or maybe "plays well with
others."
About VII and III:
Fortunately, a "good" society contains a rule that allows
its citizens to get together and change the rules. As
conditions constantly change, we should maximize the
possibilities for free discussion and debate to make
necessary change possible. If a citizen wishes to change a
rule, he or she must make use of these legal procedures.
About IV:
There will be a requirement for dealing with the immature
judgment of children, for the protection of those
permanently or temporarily incapacitated, and provisions for
penalizing through due process those who show that they will
misuse such equality. That is, for example, one year olds
will not vote, other people may have to make decisions for
those in a coma, and violent offenders may be prohibited
from future weapons ownership, repeatedly negligent drivers
may be prohibited from driving, and repeat paedophiliac
offenders may be prohibited from frequenting schoolyards.
Re IV, VIII and X: I think that these demand that we not
whine about injustice, and what victims we all are. The
real world is imperfect. Point out its imperfections, work
to ameliorate their effects, learn from your mistakes. Do
better next time.
Let me summarize, to be really basic, we have come down to:
4 recommendations for individuals:
1) avoid causing harm;
2) be nice;
3) let your yea be yea.
4) obey the laws;
2 for society:
5) maximize freedom;
6) treat everybody the same.
3 more which apply to both:
7) don't be wasteful.
8) learn from your mistakes.
9) live in the real world.
General commentary about ethical procedures.
I used to get heartily sick at hearing the word "process" in
the 80s. It was very big in Unitarian Universalist circles,
and elsewhere, for all I know. However, I don't know any
other way to express the futility of trying to set up
ethical laws graven in stone except to say that solving
moral problems is a process.
The best analogy I can think of (or that I can steal from
others who thought of it first) is that of medical
diagnosis. All analogies are suspect but diagnosis shares
many characteristics that make it worth examining in this
context.
1) Often you don't have all the information.
2) You may still be required to make a decision.
3) Taking no action may be worse than taking no action.
4) It is necessary to monitor the results of actions taken.
5) Subsequent actions are based on previous results.
6) Totally new and unexpected things may pop up and change
everything.
1-3) A doctor cannot always wait for a "perfect" diagnosis.
There is a tension between being right, and waiting too
long. So you do the best you can, and monitor the results.
In the practical application of ethics, we may not have all
the information, yet still have to decide what to do, right
at that moment. Fortunately, we rarely have to make life
and death decisions. If we decide to vote one way this
election, further information can change our minds for the
next. However, we still make the decision whether to vote
and how to vote.
4-5) Likewise, if you don't have all the information, it may
be wise to not rush headlong into big changes. Make small
changes and observe the results, then do more. If what you
tried previously didn't work, try something else.
6) In medicine it may be a new drug or a new tool, either of
which can make all previous methods obsolete. In ethics, it
is usually new information, but it may be external
circumstances that change. When things change it is not
right to ignore them.
We cannot worry about the claim that we don't have a perfect
ethical system. Such a thing cannot exist. Every such
attempt will bog down in internal contradictions and failure
to deal with changes in the real world.
It is impossible not to make mistakes. We must expect to be
imperfect and arrange to deal with it. Being human is not a
fault in humanistic ethics, nor should imperfection be
considered a sin.
Ideologues refuse to admit mistakes or imperfections. This
will take either of two forms. Some keep on applying the
same techniques despite their obvious failure to produce the
desired result: advocates of capital punishment, and harsh
punishment in general, fall in this category. Religion is
probably the outstanding example of ossified, and obsolete
ethical decisions. While christianity's holy books are
recommending that we treat slaves kindly and that slaves owe
their bodies and work to their masters, the world has
somewhat progressed.
Other ideologues will change what they are doing without
admitting that their has been any change, and without
admitting that what they did before was wrong. The
Japanese, for whatever cultural reason, have a big problem
admitting that their previous imperialist policies were bad
and caused a lot of harm. All religions now pretend that
they have always held the humanistic values they now preach,
never admitting that burning heretics, keeping slaves,
killing apostates and non-believers were directly inspired
by the same texts that the still consider "holy" and were,
in fact, evil.
So, if anyone has a moral or ethical problem, that they wish
to test out, hypothetical or real, go ahead and send it in,
and we'll try to thrash it out.
=========================================================
|| END OF ARTICLE ||
=========================================================
They were allowed to stay there on one condition, and that
is that they didn't eat of the tree of knowledge. That has
been the condition of the Christian church from then until
now. They haven't eaten as yet, as a rule they do not. --
Clarence Darrow
===========================================================
|| BEGINNING OF ARTICLE ||
===========================================================
Religion and Science
by Albert Einstein
Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned
with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of
pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to
understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling
and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and
human creation, in however exalted a guise the the latter may
present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs
that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest
sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show
us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of
religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above
all fear that evokes religious notions--fear of hunger, wild
beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence
understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed,
the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to
itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings
depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of those beings by
carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to
the traditions handed down from generation to generation,
propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In
this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not
created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of
a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator
between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a
hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a
privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines
priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make
the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly
caste make common cause in their own interests.
The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of
religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human
communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance,
love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral
conception of God. This the God of Providence, who protects,
disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the
limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of
the tribe of of the human race, or even life itself; the
comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the
souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of
God.
The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from
the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued
in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples,
especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral
religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral
religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that
primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions
of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against
which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions
are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation:
that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality
predominates.
Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of
their conception of God. In general, only individuals of
exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded
communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level.
But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs
to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I
shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to
elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it,
especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God
corresponding to it.
The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and
the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in
nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence
impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the
universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic
religious feeling already appear at an early stage of
development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of
the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the
wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger
element of this.
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by
this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God
conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose
central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among
the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with
this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases
regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as
saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of
Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person
to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God
and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function
of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in
those who are receptive to it.
We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to
religion very different from the usual one. When one views the
matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and
religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious
reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal
operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain
the idea of a being who interferes in the course of
events--provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of
causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of
fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who
rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple
reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external
and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any
more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it
undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining
morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior
should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought
science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I
maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and
noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize
the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which
pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able
to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such
work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can
issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe
and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble
reflection of the mind revealed in the world, Kepler and Newton
must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in
disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose
acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its
practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the
mentality of men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown
the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and
the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends
can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and
given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite
of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives
a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that
in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers
are the only profoundly religious people. [<New York Times
Magazine>, November 9, 1930.]
IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM;
: : Another Text File From: : :
: : The Shrine of the Cybernetic Madonna : :
: :(213) 766-1356 : :
: :24 Hours per day 2400-14.4K, v.32/v.42 bis : :
: :"The BBS for the information addict! Over 4000 : :
: : text files online." : :
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
=========================================================
|| END OF ARTICLE ||
=========================================================
"Everywhere in the world there are ignorance and prejudice,
but the greatest complex of these, with the most extensive
prestige and the most intimate entanglement with traditional
institutions, is the Roman Catholic Church.." [H.G. Wells]
===========================================================
'...the Bible as we have it contains elements that are
scientifically incorrect or even morally repugnant. No
amount of "explaining away" can convince us that such
passages are the product of Divine Wisdom.'
-- Bernard J. Bamberger, _The Story of Judaism_
==========================================================
|| END OF TEXTS ||
==========================================================
Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is
freedom, Atheism is human concern, and intellectual honesty
to a degree that the religious mind cannot begin to
understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact
it is not, and never has been, a religion at all. The
definition of Atheism is magnificent in its simplicity:
Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness.
ATHEISM: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields
=><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><==
|| Begging portion of the Zine ||
==><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><==
There is no charge for receiving this, and there is no
charge for distributing copies to any electronic medium.
Nor is there a restriction on printing a copy for use in
discussion. You may not charge to do so, and you may not do
so without attributing it to the proper author and source.
If you would like to support our efforts, and help us
acquire better equipment to bring you more and better
articles, you may send money to Greg Erwin at: 100,
Terrasse Eardley / Aylmer, Qc / J9H 6B5 / CANADA. Or buy
our atheist quote address labels, and other fine products,
see "Shameless advertising and crass commercialism" below.
=><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><=
|| End of Begging portion of the Zine ||
=><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><=
Articles will be welcomed and very likely used IF:
(
they are emailed to:
((ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA; or,
godfree@magi.com), or
sent on diskette to me at the above Aylmer address in
any format that an IBM copy of WordPerfect can read;
) and
they don't require huge amounts of editing; and
I like them.
I will gladly reprint articles from your magazine, local
group's newsletter, or original material. There are
currently about 140 subscribers, plus each issue is posted
in some newsgroups and is archived as noted elsewhere.
If you wish to receive a subscription, email a simple
request to either address, with a clear request
for a subscription. It will be assumed that the "Reply
to:" address is where it is to be sent.
We will automate this process as soon as we know how.
Yes, please DO make copies! (*)
Please DO send copies of The Nullifidian to anyone who might
be interested.
The only limitations are:
At least clearly indicate the source, and how to subscribe.
You do NOT have permission to copy this document for
commercial purposes.
The contents of this document are copyright (c) 1995, Greg
Erwin (insofar as possible) and are on deposit at the
National Library of Canada
You may find back issues in any place that archives
alt.atheism. Currently, all back issues are posted at
the Humanist Association of Ottawa's area on the National
Capital Freenet. telnet to 134.117.1.22, and enter <go
humanism> at the "Your choice==>" prompt.
ARCHIVES
Arrangements have been made with etext at umich. ftp to
etext.umich.edu directory Nullifidian or lucifers-echo.
For America On-Line subscribers:
To access the Freethought Forum on America Online enter
keyword "Capital", scroll down until you find Freethought
Forum, double click and you're there. Double click "Files &
Truth Seeker Articles" and scroll until you find Nullifidian
files. Double click the file name and a window will open
giving you the opportunity to display a description of the
file or download the file.
And thanks to the people at the _Truth Seeker_, who edited,
formatted and uploaded the articles to the aol area.
/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\
Shameless advertising and crass commercialism:
\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/
Atheistic self-stick Avery(tm) address labels. Consisting
of 210 different quotes, 30 per page, each label 2 5/8" x
1". This leaves three 49 character lines available for your
own address, phone number, email, fax or whatever. Each
sheet is US$2, the entire set of 7 for US$13; 2 sets for
US$20. Indicate quantity desired. Print address clearly,
exactly as desired. Order from address in examples below.
Laser printed, 8 pt Arial, with occasional flourishes.
[NOT ACTUAL SIZE]
<-------------------2 5/8"---------------------->
_________________________________________________
|"Reality is that which, when you stop believing |/\
|in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick] | |
|Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley | 1"
|Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada | |
| email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA | |
|________________________________________________|\/
_________________________________________________
|"...and when you tell me that your deity made |
|you in his own image, I reply that he must be |
|very ugly." [Victor Hugo, writing to clergy] |
|Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley |
|Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada Ph: (613) 954-6128 |
| email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA |
|________________________________________________|
Other quote in between the articles are usually part of the
label quote file. Occasionally I throw in one that is too
long for a label, but which should be shared.
Other stuff for sale:
Certificate of Baptism Removal and Renunciation of Religion.
Have your baptism removed, renounce religion, and have a
neat 8" x 11" fancy certificate, on luxury paper, suitable
for framing, to commemorate the event! Instant eligibility
for excommunication! For the already baptism-free:
Certificate of Freedom from Religion. An official atheistic
secular humanist stamp of approval for only $10! Pamphlet on
"how to get excommunicated" included FREE with purchase.
Poster 8x11: WARNING! This is a religion free zone!
All religious vows, codes, and commitments are null & void
herein. Please refrain from contaminating the ideosphere
with harmful memes through prayer, reverence, holy books,
proselytizing, prophesying, faith, speaking in tongues or
spirituality. Fight the menace of second-hand faith!
Humanity sincerely thanks you!
Tastefully arranged in large point Stencil on luxury paper.
Order from the same address as above.
/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\
============================================================
Neat books available from H.H. Waldo, Bookseller! Books by
Ingersoll! Heston's 19th Century Freethought Cartoons!
Holy Horrors, An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and
Madness, by James A. Haught..........................$21.95
Christian Science, by Mark Twain.....................$15.95
(reprint of original attack)
Deadly Doctrine, by Wendell W. Watters, MD...........$27.50
(Psychological damage caused by Christianity)
Leaving the Fold, Testimonies of Former
Fundamentalists, by Edward Babinski..................$32.50
and many, many more. Ever changing inventory. Frie
ndly
letters and news from Robb Marks, Proprietor.
add $2 postage/handling for first book & 0.50 for each
additional book. (All prices US$)
Send 2 first class stamps for H.H. Waldo's current catalog.
(Use international reply coupon, or get hold of US Stamps)
TO:
H.H Waldo, Bookseller
P.O. Box 350
Rockton, IL 61072
or phone 1-800-66WALDO !!!
tell 'im: "that nullifidian guy sent me!"
Once again: ISSN: 1201-0111 The Nullifidian Volume Two,
Number 10: OCTOBER 1995.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The problem with religions that have all the answers is that
they don't let you ask the questions.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(*) There is no footnote, and certainly not an endnote.
--
Autumn afternoon Greg Erwin ai815@freenet.Carleton.ca
Alone walk on fallen gold VP, Humanist Association of Canada
Sun shines, warmth fading
Man created God, not God, man ---Garibaldi
