Responses to E=MC
[ Homepage ] [ Up ]      Set Free Table of Contents          What's New

Table of Contents

Arwyn 2-28-03

Arwyn 2-25-03

Alex Popa 4-6-03

Alex Popa 4-8-03

Alex Popa 4-09-03

Alex Popa 4-22-03

Alex Popa 4-29-03

Larry Gwaltney 4-25-03

Larry Gwaltney 4-26-03

Larry Gwaltney 4-27-03

Larry Gwaltney 5-2-03

N Linus 6-23-03

idontthinkuheard 8-8-03

Chris__7-18-04

Chris_7-27-04

Chris_8-17-04_

Hugo__7-21-04

Hugo_7-28-04

Hugo_8-20-04

Wayne_Rhodes__8-21-04

Wayne_Rhodes_9-9-04

Shane_Reed_9-24-04

Adam_Westland_10-12-04

Ray_Jasinski__10-18-04

Todd__8-18-05

    Todd__9-4-05_

Jeff_Phillips__11-23-05

Ray__12-16-05

 

Arwyn 2-25-03

Subj: Re: E=mc^2 site  Date: 2/25/03 2:06:53 PM Pacific Standard Time From: JCnot4me To:   CC: robertus365@hotmail.com

Mark here} 
Science doesn't hold ALL the answers to astrophysics, but it sure as hell holds more answers than all the religions of the world combined. Remember- pretending to have answers is NOT equal to actually HAVING answers, and religions pretend in the drop of a hat. As for the REAL universe- the ONLY one we know about for sure- there is no room for Biblegod. Now, if you want to bet your life and assume one will eventually be discovered that WILL allow room for that ancient desert deity, that's a gamble I'm not willing to take.

Energy and mass are RELATED, per the equation given by Albert. IF you have X amount of energy, you therefore know how much mass you have as well.  The Christians, by postulating WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR EXPERIMENTAL DATA an infinite energy source, have entered fantasy land.

Arwyn  2-28-03

Subj: Re: E=mc^2 site  Date: 2/28/03 4:25:57 AM Pacific Standard Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mark here}  But seeing how the Christians postulate an INFINITE level of energy for their Biblegod, we should expect to see within our universe such an energy source- in fact, we would more than see it- we would be vaporized and destroyed in it. Be it  infinite energy or mass, our existing disproves it either way.

Thing is this. Coming back to the previous point on the laws of this universe and energy and all that, christians also belive that God exists independently of physical existence and further that God created everything. This kind of makes him the author of physics and not bound to physical laws. Perhaps that's a get out clause. Maybye but it sure as hell sounds similar to some of the concepts of m-theory, like, other universes exist which do not share the same physics as ours.

Mark here}  This is the Christian's "out" anytime they get nailed in THIS, our ONLY known universe. Of course, they want it both ways, though. They want him "in the flesh" with Jesus, in OUR universe, or they want him on Mt. Sinai, or in the Garden of Eden. But when it's pointed out that such a being could NOT exist in the REAL universe, THEN they escape to their make-believe "transcendental universe" where ANYTHING is possible. The FACT that there IS no evidence for THAT universe, nor for a million other make-believe universes, doesn't slow them down. The minute your Biblegod so much as sticks his little toe in OUR universe, he becomes fair game for modern science, including Albert. And if and when Biblegod DID stick his toe into our universe, Biblegod being INFINITE, his little toe would also be infinite, and thus would fill ALL of OUR universe, and we'd just become toe jam to some cosmic freak. Therefore, it's never happened- and I can base that on modern physics. 

This is your choice: you either throw out ALL of modern science, OR you toss out your Biblegod: BOTH can not be right.

Thing is though I think it's impossible to decribe God with physics. Christians try to from time to time but it's pointless. Hell, I'm sure you'd agree with me on this one - If God exists he don't need defending by a bunch of squabbling religious nuts.

Mark here}  Amen to that, BUT, IF he really existed, he would also not be playing "hide and seek" when the penalty for us Atheists not being able to find him is eternal torture.

Arwyn.

Alex Popa 4-6-03

Subj: E=MC2  Date: 4/6/03 2:23:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Alex Popa  4-8-03

Subj: Re: E=MC2  Date: 4/8/03 10:26:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Alex Popa 4-09-03

Subj: POST THIS ONLINE  Date: 4/9/03 9:08:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mark here}     "Peace" my ass!!! This Nameless Christian who claims to worship the "Prince of Peace" hypocritically ends his hateful and emotional rant with the word "peace", yet WITHIN his email he has shown anything BUT "peace". With his email he has said of me that I am}

• Stupid
• Ignorant
• Foolish
• Dumb
• A Dumbass
• Knows nothing of science
• Displays stupidity
• Worse than a hypocritical Christian
• Have nothing between my ears
• And that I'm a dumbass that should have stayed in school

The one about being worse than a Christian is what hurt the most- ouch! Anyway, for the millioneth time we have an example before us of the Christian REALITY (hate, namecalling, bitterness) conflicts with Christian THEORY (love, joy, peace etc). Which only goes to show, once again, that Christianity doesn't work as advertised- it doesn't make people any nicer or better. It only lets them FEEL nicer and better, regardless of how hateful and bitter they are.

My question to Mr. Nameless is this: WHO hurt you so much, as evidenced by your bitterness and hate, that you felt the need to escape reality and join the Christian cult? What caused you so much pain in life???

 

Alex Popa  4-22-03

 

Subj: Re: POST THIS ONLINE  Date: 4/22/03 9:24:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

If you must know I'm Alex Popa

First of all, you still did not address my comments.

Mark here}     Bull SHIT!!! If I didn't address your comments, then just what the HELL is all the red ink in the email right above this one, oh blind one?

 

No Christian claims God to be Infinite Energy. No one claims He has any mass at all. You are the only one who foolishly claims this. And this is a straw man fallacy, trying to prove that such a false interpretation of God does not exist.

Mark here}     So here we go again... I'm having to REPEAT stuff from the web site under discussion because this now NAMED Christian Fundy can't take the time to READ, but he does have the time, LOTS of time, to criticize, the web site under discussion. So, to answer said Fundy, what follows below is from the very beginning of my web site "E=MC² Disproves Biblegod"}

Christians claim, without any evidence whatsoever, that their Biblegod has unlimited power, infinite energy.  Their technical term for this unfounded claim is “omnipotence”. According to several dictionaries, omnipotent means:

 

·        An agency or force of unlimited power.¹

·        Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.²

·        Able in every respect and for every work; unlimited in ability; all-powerful; almighty; as, the Being that can create worlds must be omnipotent.³

·        Omnipotent adj : having unlimited power [syn: almighty, all-powerful]⁴

·        Having virtually unlimited authority or influence.⁵

·        Strictly said of God (or of a deity) or His attributes: Almighty or infinite in power.⁶   

Thus, Christians claim their Biblegod is a source of energy that is all-powerful, a "force of unlimited power", i.e. without limits- and thus an energy source that is without limits; in other words, infinite.

And no, I am NOT going to repeat my bibliography as well- he can look up the damn numbers in the web site HE SHOULD HAVE READ IN THE FIRST PLACE before he mouthed off about it.

 

 

God transcends both Time and Space. He is not bound by Laws of Science. He DID create the whole Universe. He has always existed, and will always exist. He is not energy and has no mass. He is a Spirit.

Mark here}     No no no, dear sir. It is the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn) who transcends both Time and Space, who is not bound by your mere mortal laws of physics and reality, and who created the whole universe, including Atheists like YOU who don't believe in her existence. You MUST believe all this, for I have seen it written in a book that is VERY old (and therefore it MUST be true). And you must NOT ask me for evidence for ANY thing I claim, for I need not present evidence. I need only to SPEAK, and it is so.

 

I'm not asking you to Believe in God. Its okay with me if you think He's just an illusion, a fantasy, or whatever. You don't have to Believe.

 

BUT what does irritate me, is that you think you can prove that such a God does not exist, with your puny little equation.

Listen, NO ONE CAN PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

And thats a fact that Einstein, Hawkins, and Darwin and EVERYONE (including you) HAVE TO ACCEPT.

You can't prove it - ITS IMPOSSIBLE.

Mark here}     Well, I guess what you are saying must be so, for you are saying it, and you don't need to present evidence, for you are a Christian. So it must be true. Gosh! I may as well shut down my whole web site and find another hobby!!!

 

Your "E=mc proves biblegod does not exist" is little more than a public display of stupidity.

 

Yeah, sorry for the namecalling, if you remember your first response to my original email, I was just doing exactly what you did to me? YOu don't like it now, do you?  So Deal with the ISSUES.

Mark here}     Ohhhhh NOW he remembers that he's the CHRISTIAN. How quickly they forget when it suits them- what a disposable morality they operate with. Well, here's another news flash:  HEY, I'M NOT THE FUCKING CHRISTIAN HERE, YOU ARE. I'll cuss all I want to- I'm not the one kissing the ass and groveling to some ancient non-extant temper tantrum throwing desert deity. AND, I might point out, this is the FIRST (and ONLY) of my MANY points from my last email that he responds to. Everything else he ignored. He's got time to mouth off, but not time to actually READ what he's mouthing off about.

And THAT is exactly why I'd prefer to answer Fundies like HIM on my web page rather than privately- to show the whole world how SHALLOW these Christian "scholars" are, how they can't even shut up long enough to actually READ what they mouth off against so much. I obviously can't show HIM, for he won't READ and RESPOND to the items I write, so I show the world instead that these sorry-ass defenses are the BEST that "the Lord God Almighty, omnipotent ruler of the universe" can come up with.

As for your E=mc2 disillusionment, let me tell you simply what it states.

Given a quantity of matter of mass m, an amount of Energy E can be released which is E = mc^2.

Simply put, Given mass, its energy can be calculated.

IT DOES NOT SAY GIVEN ENERGY, MASS CAN BE FOUND.

Mark here}     Oh yes it DOES. It's an EQUATION- it works BOTH WAYS. IF you know you have x amount of energy, then you can calculate how much MASS you'd need to produce that amount of energy. 

 

Another simple example,
A Radiowave propagating through air might be 2 mW of power. In ten seconds thats 20 mJoules of Energy. According to your understanding that means the mass of this radio wave is equal to m = E/c^2 = 2.2 x 10 ^-19 kg!

This is astonishing! Mark Smith discovers Mass of Electromagnetic Waves!

WOW!

Look, I was educated at Stanford University. I hear my physics teachers talking about "Gravity Probe B" all day. It is a 40 year, NASA, Stanford, Lockheed Martin built Spacecraft which will Put Einstein's Theory of Relativity to Test.

GO To http://einstein.stanford.edu 

Learn about it, and then Talk.

Mark here}     Fine. I went to the web site, went to some links, even found some good stuff from Discover  magazine which I just now put up on the E=MC² web site (thanks). However, I also learned that this "Gravity Probe B" project has yet to be launched as of yet (April 27, 2003). Therefore, until if/when this long delayed project literally "gets off the ground", and the results are returned and analyzed, don't discount Albert. This project prove Albert correct (as every other project has in the past 100 years), or it may prove him wrong. We will see.

 

Many professors around here Believe, and initial results have indicated that This theory will not hold. i.e. it will be disproved. 

 

Sorry to burst your Bubble Mark Smith.

 

Don't worry, I'm sure Steve Hawkins is working busily for a New Unified Theory of Science. Which will be disproved subsequently 10 years later.

 

Until then, stop embarrasing yourself on your own website!

 

And thank you for posting my message online!

FYI

I came from a Great Athiest Communist country. I know much more about athiesm than your pathetic website. I recommend you go move to one of these countries and see what the result of Ignoring God does to a nation.

Its easy for you to talk, you live in a country Blessed by the God Almighty, a country where 90% of the poeple believe in God. 

 

ALex Popa

 

 

Alex Popa 4-29-03

Subj: Re: POST THIS ONLINE  Date: 4/29/03 11:37:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Larry Gwaltney 4-25-03

Subj: E=MC 2 Article  Date: 4/25/03 5:30:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCNot4Me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mark here}     Uhhh, by definition the universe IS the "sum total of all there is", so yes, I believe in reality. I don't believe in transcendental la la lands made up by wishful thinking religionists, just to save their out dated theologies. No evidence, no la la lands. 

But since you find Einstein persuasive, as I do, you might be
interested in what else he thought.

My professor of Philosophy here at the Reformed Theological Seminary in
Orlando (Dr. Charles MacKenzie) lived a few doors down from Professor
Einstein when both taught at Princeton in the late 40's and early 50's. They
used to take walks together and discuss matters of religion. I should make
it clear at this point that while Einstein was Theistic, he was not a
Christian. But it's important to note that he was not a rank materialist
either. Here is something he once said to Dr. MacKenzie:

"In my life I have had the opportunity to meet all of the greatest
scientific minds of our day (physicists, presumably) and that every one of
them is spiritually and religiously minded. It is only the "little people"
(he meant low ranking college profs and high school teachers) that have a
problem."

Dr. MacKenzie had many opportunities over the years to meet men such as
Niels Bohr and Heisenberg. Heisenberg (father of the Uncertainty Principle)
would often in his lectures toss out offhand comments about "God's
creation," etc. He certainly was a believer.

Dr. MacKenzie also taught at Cambridge, and has many contacts there today.
You might be interested to know that the faculty at Cambridge has related to
him that Stephen Hawkings is attending a small Baptist church whenever his
health permits, and that the believers on the faculty there continue to pray
for him.

Mark here}     If you are trying to show that religiosity increases as education increases, study after study has shown the opposite.  The most uneducated sections of our country are usually the most religious. Sorry if your limited experience has led you to the wrong conclusions on this.

I would suggest to you that if the greatest minds in physics have no problem
with the compatibility of E=mc2 and the existence of God, maybe you ought to
rethink your position, vis-a-vis that the matter/energy coefficient
disproves the existence of God. There are many qualified people who would
disagree with you.

Mark here}     The E=MC² essay of mine does NOT disprove the existence of gods or goddesses of limited power. It only disproves the existence of  postulated gods of infinite power, such as Biblegod. Limited deities are NOT disproved by this. If the Christians would admit their god has limits on his energy, his power, this essay would not apply- but they can't settle for that. They just gotta have the BIGGEST god on the block.

Larry Gwaltney

Larry Gwaltney 4-26-03

Subj: Re: E=MC 2 Article  Date: 4/26/03 4:15:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mark here}     Well, let's see. The Cambridge Dictionary Online defines the word Universe thusly:

Universe:
1 [S] everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space

So, "everything that exists...". Well, "everything" would also include NON-material items, such as energy, radio waves, TV signals traveling thru the air and such. As for "defining him out of existence", hey, if the shoe fits, wear it! I think it's time the rest of the world stops letting you Fundies re-write the definitions any time you want.

As for the question of evidence, most of what you or anybody believes in
matters of epistemology, science, philosophy, etc. is not based on evidence,
but simply because somebody they considered an authority figure told them
so. That's why you believe Proxima Centauri is 4.3 light years away, for
example, and not because you developed the Parallax Method of Measurement
and made the observations yourself.

Mark here}     Yes... and your point is? What, do YOU pull your own teeth, cut your own hair, and do your own open heart surgery?  Yes, when needed, I do use the services and expertise of others who have better knowledge and skill than I do. I'm not like a Fundy Christian, who thinks they know EVERYTHING and can re-write all of modern science from their living room recliner chair. Sorry.

Incidentally, your whole web page is based on the presupposition that other
minds exist. How do you KNOW that other minds exist, that you are not simply
being delusional? All the evidence in the world can't "prove" the existence
of Other Minds, it is simply a presupposition we all share to make our lives
possible.

Mark here}     Ohhhh... "The Matrix". Very deeeeeeeep. Next Larry will be trying to get me to swim in  that swamp of intellectual bullshit known as "Van Til-ism". No thanks! You can take all your geeky philosophy and put it in the local dump, along with all the other crap that has proven itself basically USELESS to mankind. The only thing a philosophy degree is good for is 1) Training other philosophers and   2) Working at Burger King.

Mark here}     "If you are trying to show that religiosity increases as
education increases, study after study has shown the opposite.  The most
uneducated sections of our country are usually the most religious. Sorry if
your limited experience has led you to the wrong conclusions on this."

(LARRY) No, actually, what I demonstrated is that Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg
and Hawkings, whom you see as authority figures, would find your argument
(vis-a-vis the matter/energy coefficient)to be unpersuasive. Your utilizing
the so-called "straw man" argument (see remarks below).

You didn't really respond to my initial remarks, so let me put it to you
another way: If the men I've listed above didn't/don't believe that E=mc2
implies the non-existence of God, (even and all-powerful one, see my remarks
below) why should I accept YOUR argument? Why is your understanding of
physics and its alleged implications better than theirs?

Mark here}     There may be THOUSANDS of reasons why people, most of whom dead now, did or didn't do something. Unlike the Fundies, I won't PRESUPPOSE myself to be some sort of psychic brain reader / medium / time traveler who can delve into the mind of Albert Einstein and tell you the psychological reasons of why he said or didn't say whatever. Besides, as for me saying something that Albert may have never said himself, you Christians say ALOT of things that Jesus never said. It's called "reasoning". It involves taking the work of others, and based upon that, constructing more. For example, Jesus never told anyone to give even a penny to a damn televangelist, yet every week there they are- begging for money. Nor did Jesus say to pad the pews or air condition the churches- and your POINT was???

Pertaining to your remark about a relationship between education and
religiosity, it would be more accurate to say that an uneducated populace is
more "credulous," not simply more religious. I haven't had too many strictly
materialist professors (in the History and Philosophy Departments of Indiana
University and Purdue University). While most of them had differing
viewpoints on the nature of God that I couldn't agree with, they were not
rank materialists such as you.

Mark here}     The word "credulous" is a nice way of saying "sucker". Yes, people who swallow bullshit easier tend to be less educated, which is why religion thrives the best among people living in the darkest areas (intellectually). Just as mushrooms require bullshit and darkness to thrive, so also religion. That being a FACT, shouldn't little warning bells be going off in your head, telling you that there is something WRONG about ANY religion that thrives in ignorance and shrivels up with intelligence??? You SEEM to be intelligent- come on, get SET FREE like I did from the horseshit called Christianity.

Finally, to address your remark about my alleged "limited experience," I
have to point out that you know virtually nothing about me, how old I am,
where I have lived, who I have met, etc., and simply because I disagree with
you I must therefore have an experience inferior to yours. Talk about
believing without evidence!

Mark here}     Let me elaborate. Your "first hand knowledge" of what people believe is VERY limited, when compared to polling involving MILLIONS of people over DECADES of time. Chances are, you have not even MET a million people in your entire life, nor polled them as to what they believe. Therefore, it would be wiser to go with actual studies and polls of "religion -vs- education" relationships, rather than a well-intentioned but ignorant "Well, I used to know a dude who seemed really smart and he was an Atheist, so therefore ALL Atheists must be smart" type of reasoning. And the polls and census data clearly show that as education goes UP, Fundyism goes DOWN, your little world of personal experience notwithstanding.

Mark here}     "The E=MC2 essay of mine does NOT disprove the existence of
gods or goddesses of limited power. It only disproves the existence of 
postulated gods of infinite power, such as Biblegod. Limited deities are NOT
disproved by this. If the Christians would admit their god has limits on his
energy, his power, this essay would not apply- but they can't settle for
that. They just gotta have the BIGGEST god on the block."

LARRY: Your making a couple of logical errors here, one a "straw man"
argument, the other a logical error of Equivocation.

First of all, none of the creedal statements in Church History have defined
God as having "infinite energy." I'm sure in your "limited experience" that
some would-be apologists have asserted this phrase to you, but it is not one
that historic Christianity would utilize. So your argument here really is
irrelevant to the question at hand, i.e., whether the God of the Bible
exists.

Mark here}     So then, all the dictionaries that I quote from in the beginning of my E=MC²  essay are incorrect? Gee, this sounds like, once again, Christians thinking they have the RIGHT to re-write definitions any time they find them distasteful. WRONG!!! Homey don't play that game.

Secondly, are you saying that YOUR particular version of Biblegod does NOT have "infinite energy"??? Are you saying that Joe Hovah  has LIMITED energy??? Your god has limits to his power??? Is THIS what you are saying???

 

Second, we theologians DO talk about God being "all powerful" to communicate
that God has complete control over His creation. This does NOT mean that God
can do anything (like actualize a contradiction).

"Power" and "energy" are not synonomous. We speak of President Bush as
having great "power" but we don't mean by that that he has great energy.
This is what Logicians call an argumental error of Equivocation, taking a
term and switching its definition in the middle of an argument.

Mark here}     YOU are confusing "power" with the word "authority". A boy scout leader may have "great authority" in his local "I hate Atheists and Gays" boy scout troop, but that does NOT mean he has great "power" such as the power to destroy a world or rise from the dead.

What I said in my web essay is that the POWER and ENERGY Christianity claims for its desert deities are without limits. I already quoted the definition of omnipotence  from SIX world renowned dictionaries to show this. If you disagree with these dictionaries, you are an arrogant idiot- sorry. Go for yourself and look up the word omnipotence if you disagree with me on this. I don't have to argue with you what is already clearly laid out in the major dictionaries of the world.

Why don't YOU, instead, answer the following question- maybe the problem is with your orthodoxy.

God is omnipotent.  (  )True  (  )False

Finally, your whole argument hinges on the assumption that a non-observable
reality has no existence. But in fact, scientists infer the reality of
non-observable entities all the time. Have you ever seen Dimensions 5 thru
11? Yet we infer their existence because of the observable realities of
Gravitation and Quantum Theory (the mathematics to accomodate both truths
require at minimum 11 dimensions to work).

Mark here}     Science does NOT teach things for which there is no EVIDENCE.  Science teaches that radio waves exist because even though they are invisible to the naked eye, they are "visible" thru other means, and thus there is evidence of their existence. Ditto for the stupid Christian "argument" that "well, you can't SEE the wind but you know it exists" routine.

We have external, objective, repeatable verifiable EVIDENCE that LOTS of invisible things exist, things like radio waves, brain thoughts, wind, and might I dare say GLASS!!!!! Glass is invisible (at its best), yet we know it exists NOT because some ancient contradictory book says so, but because of the objective EVIDENCE.

Given that, dear Christian, what is YOUR external, objective, repeatable & verifiable EVIDENCE that your invisible Biblegod exists anywhere outside the dusty covers of a King James Bible????

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!!!

All you have for evidence is what every other Christian geek intellectual has: hot air, and lots of it. Through long convoluted philosophical arguments that would try the patience of even Socrates and Aristotle, you try to brow-beat people into "believing", rather than  presenting EVIDENCE  for convincing.

You present no evidence because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. According to your book, you USED TO have evidence, LOTS of evidence, but I guess all that evidence got sunk on Noah's Ark or something, right??? 

According to your Bible, First Kings 18, Elijah got up on Mount Carmel and tried to talk the 450 priests of Baal into "believing" Biblegod exists using five points of clever intellectual argumentation developed by Dr. William Lane Craig. Oh wait, that is NOW, not back THEN. Back THEN, according to your Bible, the prophet Elijah didn't waste ONE WORD trying to argue the Baalites into "believing"- he called down FIRE FROM HEAVEN.  The lesson?  Fire = End of Argument. Yes, these were the "glory days" of Biblegod, ala Bruce Springsteen, when Biblegod could actually DO something.

Nowadays? All Biblegod's got is eggheads like you running around, trying to talk people into "believing" something they know deep down inside isn't so. I guess Biblegod's celestial Bic lighter just ran out of lighter fluid back around the time of Jesus, eh?? No more fire from heaven, just "five points of argumentation" from Bill Craig. What a sorry state of affairs- the "spirit of God" who used to move across the waters can now only produce hot air. 

Larry Gwaltney

Larry Gwaltney 4-27-03

Subj: Back to You  Date: 4/27/03 3:52:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCNot4Me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mark here}     "Dictionaries are not the place to get... definitions" ??? As I previously implied, Fundies have a problem with dictionaries. The reason for this is because oft times their pretentious arguments can all be answered by just cracking a dictionary open and reading. The first rule- the foundation of ANY debate- and this is drummed into the head of any student who has taken any sort of a rhetoric class, is this:  DEFINE YOUR TERMS.  Larry doesn't like the definition of the word "universe" because it disproves a theological theory that he has, therefore he is being stubborn about defining his terms- he wants to re-write the dictionary to suit his arguments- a common cultic and Fundy tactic, but one that I won't fall for.

Radio waves, X-rays, etc. are not to be classified as part of the
Supernature just because they can't be seen. They CAN be measured and
generated at will, which puts them firmly in the realm of the physical
universe.

Mark here}     So... you are defining "supernatural" as meaning something that can not be detected, something that exists totally without any evidence of its existence at all. This does not differ from a fairy tale or a novel of fiction. It also places it beyond your own criticism, for you just pulled your own rug out from under you for ever saying anything bad about any one else's "supernatural" be they Mormon, Hindu, or Satanic.

 Your argument here, and in fact throughout your web page, is based
on the presupposition that by definition God is part of the physical
universe and subject to its laws. What you haven't done is disprove the
existence of the Supernature. That's what's so problematic about your
agressive, "hard" atheism.

Mark here}     And by your same "logic" YOU have not disproved the existence of any Hindu "supernatural" gods and indeed, by your own admission, CAN NOT even if you WANTED to. You have already fallen into a pandora's box of your own making.

And by the way, another basic axiom of debating is: he who ASSERTS must prove. That means if YOU are the one claiming these supernatural gods of Hinduism exist, the BURDEN OF PROOF lies on YOUR shoulders, not mine.

So far, Mr. Philosopher, you have broken TWO very basic axioms of debate:

• Define your terms.
• He who asserts must prove.

And THIS is how Christian philosophers try to win debates- by cheating. What else is new!!!

 It tries to take on far more than it can possibly
deliver, in that it claims to prove a negative. You would be far better
saying "God cannot be determined" (hard agnosticism) or better still, "I
cannot determine God." (soft agnosticism).

On the matter of accepting authority figures:

Mark here}     Yes... and your point is? What, do YOU pull your own teeth,
cut your own hair, and do your own open heart surgery?  Yes, when needed, I
do use the services and expertise of others who have better knowledge and
skill than I do. I'm not like a Fundy Christian, who thinks they know
EVERYTHING and can re-write all of modern science from their living room
recliner chair. Sorry.

LARRY: My point is that you are no different than the "fighting fundies" you
so disparage. You have just said that you use the services and expertise of
others who have better knowledge and skill than you do. I have to point out
that there are many individuals on the side of belief who know far more
facts, reason more logically, and have a far better grasp of philosophical
and historical matters than you do. So, how come you are not a believer? Why
haven't you changed your mind?

Mark here}     I was using that line of reasoning in response to your "reinvent the wheel" type of argument, to show you that I don't feel obligated to reinvent what's already been done. As for becoming a believer in your religion, there are many just as educated who think your religion is a load of crap. Dr. Paul Kurtz, PhD in philosophy and Dr. Robert M. Price, who holds TWO PhD's come to mind- AND- Dr. Price used to be a good Southern Baptist, so he's been in your religion before.

At this point I will add that the same is true from my side of the
theological fence. So how come I haven't changed MY mind? The best way to
resolve the dilemma is to look at both sets of presuppositions and see whose
philosophy most consistently reflects their presuppositions.

Mark here}     Presup alert!!! Watch out- dead Bahnson, dead ahead!!!

Incidentally, while I am considered Evangelical, I am not considered a
Fundamentalist. You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.

On the Existence of Other Minds:

Mark here}     Ohhhh... "The Matrix". Very deeeeeeeep. Next Larry will be
trying to get me to swim in  that swamp of intellectual bullshit known as
"Van Til-ism". No thanks! You can take all your geeky philosophy and put it
in the local dump, along with all the other crap that has proven itself
basically USELESS to mankind. The only thing a philosophy degree is good for
is 1) Training other philosophers and   2) Working at Burger King.

LARRY: Anti-intellectualism will not suit someone well who runs an atheistic
web page inviting argumentation from theists. But like it or not, we ALL
have to be philosophers sooner or later, and it is especially incumbent on
people who use bandwidth in attacking theological matters. Since atheism is
definitely a philosophy, are you declaring yourself "useless to mankind?"

Mark here}     What I'm doing Larry is the EXACT same thing your Apostle Paul did- throw philosophy out with the rest of the intellectual garbage, but since you are one of those who have become "bored with the book" you probably don't even know what the hell I'm referring to here. You Christian philosophers- you quickly become "bored with the book" and chase after "authority figures" that don't make others snicker when you quote them in public. It's much more respectable to be quoting Aristotle than to be seen as a "Bible Thumper", isn't it??? At least when I WAS a Christian, I wasn't ashamed of it; I didn't try to hide behind the toga's of pagan Greek philosophers. 

Is the Lockean philosophy in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution "useless to mankind?"

I will introduce Van Tillian concepts in this discussion, but based upon
what I have seen here and in other sections of "JCNot4Me" you would be
ill-equipped to discuss it, much less refute it. Someone with such contempt
for philosophy is not able to understand it.

Mark here}     Ha ha ha ha ha... DAMN I am good! I KNEW you were "one of those" from a mile away- and you guys always think you're "sneaking up" on us "dumb Atheists". ha ha ha. Van Til is a J-O-K-E, a hot-air windbag that was incomprehensible NOT because he had such great ideas, but rather because he spoke so much bullshit nonsense that even his own "disciples" couldn't figure out half the time what the hell he said. He was a modern Sibylline oracle that constantly needed a "translator" so as to make (sort-of) sense to the masses. He spoke in tongues more than a wild eyed Charismatic, but never had the brains to even know it. 

AND... he broke a fundamental law of communication: communicate!!! One MUST bring their communications down to the level of one's audience or one is not communicating. If you are talking to a kindergarten, you should have the INTELLIGENCE to speak at their level- and not at some graduate school level. And please don't say that he was just SUCH a genius, that's why he was incomprehensible. I've seen a book at a Christian bookstore, written by a former associate of his, a PhD himself, who pointed out that, even when Til is "translated", it's STILL gobbledygook!!!  My question to his disciple (you) is this:  IF he was so damn smart, then how come he was so STUPID as to not be able to communicate??? Even Albert could be coherent when he wanted to. Your man was not a genius; on the contrary, he was "as sounding brass, as clanging symbol".

Take this link to another page in my web site, check out what Gilbert & Sullivan had to say about this kind of "intellectual" mumbo-jumbo, then come back here.

Geek Speak 101

(At this point I asked why I as a believer should accept Mark's E=mc2
"proof" of God's non-existence, when Einstein himself, Bohr, Heisenberg and
Hawkings would not see such an implication.)

Mark here}     There may be THOUSANDS of reasons why people, most of whom
dead now, did or didn't do something. Unlike the Fundies, I won't PRESUPPOSE
myself to be some sort of psychic brain reader / medium / time traveler who
can delve into the mind of Albert Einstein and tell you the psychological
reasons of why he said or didn't say whatever. Besides, as for me saying
something that Albert may have never said himself, you Christians say ALOT
of things that Jesus never said. It's called "reasoning". It involves taking
the work of others, and based upon that, constructing more. For example,
Jesus never told anyone to give even a penny to a damn televangelist, yet
every week there they are- begging for money. Nor did Jesus say to pad the
pews or air condition the churches- and your POINT was???

LARRY: My point, and my question, which you have gone to great lengths to
avoid in your diatribe above, is why Einstein, in discussion with theists,
never claimed that E=mc2 disproved the existence of God.

Mark here}     Yeah, that's just the thing that would have made Albert (a German Jewish refugee) more welcomed in his host country- "Hey, by the way... I just disproved the existence of God!!! Wait! Why are you tearing up my visa???" Back in Albert's day, Atheists couldn't even hold public office in many states in this CHRISTIAN nation.

And did I avoid your question? No, I already answered it- like I said (and please pay attention this time): I  AM  NOT  A  FRIGGIN  MIND  READER. "Why" somebody did or didn't do whatever is beyond our ability.

 The reason he
didn't, of course, is that God by definition does not contain mass! 

Mark here}     So.... does he have energy then? It's one or the other- no middle ground. AND if he's got energy, he would be detectable, especially being the BIGGEST energy concentration in the Universe: INFINITE energy. Or, as Buzz Lightyear put it, "to infinity and BEYOND!!!"

He has
no extension in space-time. The truth of E=mc2 is irrelevant to the question
of God's existence. If your argument against God's existence is as
self-evident as you believe it to be, how come Einstein, Heisenberg and
Hawkings didn't/don't see it? Maybe because you're wrong? Is that possible?

What you are doing in the case of Einstein is not "reasoning," it is called
"making things up."


Mark here}     The word "credulous" is a nice way of saying "sucker". Yes,
people who swallow bullshit easier tend to be less educated, which is why
religion thrives the best among people living in the darkest areas
(intellectually). Just as mushrooms require bullshit and darkness to thrive,
so also religion. That being a FACT, shouldn't little warning bells be going
off in your head, telling you that there is something WRONG about ANY
religion that thrives in ignorance and shrivels up with intelligence??? You
SEEM to be intelligent- come on, get SET FREE like I did from the horseshit
called Christianity.

LARRY: In argumentation, analogies are not facts. An analogy (like your
mushroom example) illustrates what YOU BELIEVE to be true, but in itself is
not a fact. Incidentally, there are no brute facts, that is, facts in
isolation bereft of interpretation. It's naive for you to believe that you
can stand in some intellectual "neutral zone" and impartially evaluate
facticity. You utilize normative, situational and existential means, whether
you understand what I mean, or not.

Further, I probably should have realized that educated people are just as
prone to some kinds of credulity that would be utterly rejected in a trailer
park. A lecture delivered on the power of healing crystals would probably
get a better hearing at Harvard than at 7-Eleven. The reason you reject
Christ is a matter of personal pride and arrogance, NOT an impartial
evaluation of evidences. Note the tone of your responses in our sequence
here, and compare it to mine.

Mark here}     Oh here we go- Larry the Christian mind-reader!!! Dear reader, why is Larry so presumptuous as to think he can READ MY MIND as to the "why" of what I do??? Larry doesn't know SHIT about me, and what he says here is proof positive that he is not above making shit up when he feels the need. A typical dishonest Christian.

Mark here}     Let me elaborate. Your "first hand knowledge" of what people
believe is VERY limited, when compared to polling involving MILLIONS of
people over DECADES of time. Chances are, you have not even MET a million
people in your entire life, nor polled them as to what they believe.
Therefore, it would be wiser to go with actual studies and polls of
"religion -vs- education" relationships, rather than a well-intentioned but
ignorant "Well, I used to know a dude who seemed really smart and he was an
Atheist, so therefore ALL Atheists must be smart" type of reasoning. And the
polls and census data clearly show that as education goes UP, Fundyism goes
DOWN, your little world of personal experience notwithstanding.

LARRY: In short, Fundamentalism and Christianity are not synonyms.
Fundamentalism is a subset of Christianity. But your attack is not against
Fundamentalism per se; it is against Biblical Christianity, and has to be
evaluated in those terms. Belief in Fundamentalism does have a relationship
to education, but theism, and Christianity, does not.

On the subject of creedal beliefs:

Mark here}     So then, all the dictionaries that I quote from in the
beginning of my E=MC2  essay are incorrect? Gee, this sounds like, once
again, Christians thinking they have the RIGHT to re-write definitions any
time they find them distasteful. WRONG!!! Homey don't play that game.

LARRY: Homey don't think too good, either. If you look up "predestination"
in several dictionaries, for instance, you might get a Lutheran, Calvinist,
Arminian or Catholic definition. Dictionaries don't have that kind of room
to thoroughly discuss the subtleties and implications of the varying
definitions of theological terms. By the way, ANYONE can write a dictionary,
and even put the name "Webster's" on the cover. Since you are talking to me,
you'll have to refute the Westminster Confession of Faith, not the
dictionary.

Mark here}     And the above is ONE example which helps explain why Fundies seldom change their minds, for whenever they run into facts that go AGAINST their preconceived notions, rather than change their preconceived notions, they change the facts!!! In this case, Larry is tossing the FACTS (the dictionaries) out into the intellectual dumpster because they don't say what he wants them to say. Like I said earlier, before a debate even BEGINS, definitions must be established, or else you get what's going on here- these childish games of "well, I don't LIKE what those dictionaries say so I ain't gonna listen to them--- la la la la la la la   I can't hear you   la la la la la." 

These are the same kind of intellectually dishonest games I used to get from Jehovah Witnesses. You could argue with them over the meaning of one simple word in John 1:1 till you're blue in the face, you could quote every dictionary ever made, it didn't matter. They had their minds already cemented in place and even Biblegod himself couldn't shake it loose with a jackhammer between the ears. 

I'd like to see Larry up in front of a judge and try to pull that shit. "Well your honor, I don't happen to like that there book you're using to judge me by..."  Oh yeah, I'm sure the judge would buy THAT one. The only reason Fundies pull that kind of crap in religious discussions is because they can get away with it- but not with me.

MARK: Secondly, are you saying that YOUR particular version of Biblegod does
NOT have "infinite energy"??? Are you saying that Joe Hovah  has LIMITED
energy??? Your god has limits to his power??? Is THIS what you are saying???

LARRY: No. God generates matter and energy from Infinite Substance. There is
no primal matter that God forms in the way of a Demiurge. Your mistake is in
the assumption that energy can only come from matter.

Mark here}     That "assumption" happens to be backed up with over a hundred years of intensive research. What, pray tell, have you to back up your religious nonsense, other than wishful thinking??? And as for "infinite substance", let me roll my pant legs up cause the BULLSHIT is starting to get deep.

Mark here}     YOU are confusing "power" with the word "authority".

LARRY: Look up the word "power" in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and
read the accompanying article. You will see that the confusion is on your
side.

Mark here}     Oh here, let me pull said dictionary out of my ass... yes, there's the page, right there- it says you are a poo poo head. How about that? I guess I win.

MARK: A boy scout leader may have "great authority" in his local "I hate
Atheists and Gays" boy scout troop, but that does NOT mean he has great
"power" such as the power to destroy a world or rise from the dead.

LARRY: I think the Boy Scouts have a right to define themselves without
being accused of hate. Does the existence of your web page prove that you
hate theists? Cut 'em some slack.

Mark here}     At least the Girl Scouts have cookies, AND they don't hate Athiests.

MARK: What I said in my web essay is that the POWER and ENERGY Christianity
claims for its desert deities are without limits. I already quoted the
definition of omnipotence  from SIX world renowned dictionaries to show
this. If you disagree with these dictionaries, you are an arrogant idiot-
sorry. Go for yourself and look up the word omnipotence if you disagree with
me on this. I don't have to argue with you what is already clearly laid out
in the major dictionaries of the world.

LARRY: Your confusing Christianity with Islam. Muslims believe that Allah's
power is so absolute that he can actualize contradictions, and that the
moral law is completely arbitrary simply because God has the power to impose
it. This differs with Christianity, in that God is a law unto Himself.

Mark here}     Larry just doesn't like playing by the rules. He doesn't CARE what the dictionaries say. He doesn't CARE what the FACTS are damn it, he's already got his mind made up!!! I know I won't change your mind, but at least in this forum of a web page others can see the kind of intellectual BULLSHIT you Fundies try to pull, and usually get away with. 

As I've said before, "omnipotence" means the complete authority that God has
over His Creation. Again, your whole argument is based on the assumption
that energy can only come from mass. If you look at your "world renowned
dictionaries," I doubt that any of them will define God as posessing
material Substance, nor has God ever been defined that way by Christians,
NOR the Western Philosophical Tradition. Atheistic philosophers do not use
your E=mc2 argument for what should now be an obvious reason, it attacks a
physical God, not the God of the Bible.

MARK: Why don't YOU, instead, answer the following question- maybe the
problem is with your orthodoxy.

God is omnipotent.  ( X )True  (  )False

LARRY: I think by now the readers realize who knows what he is talking about
regarding orthodoxy. And sure, based on the Christian understanding of God,
he is omnipotent.

Mark here}     Then by dictionary DE-FI-NI-TION Biblegod has INFINITE ENERGY. I've already laid out the evidence, done the documentation, cited my sources. All you've done is say "No, you're wrong- naaaa". 

Mark here}     Science does NOT teach things for which there is no EVIDENCE.
  Science teaches that radio waves exist because even though they are
invisible to the naked eye, they are "visible" thru other means, and thus
there is evidence of their existence. Ditto for the stupid Christian
"argument" that "well, you can't SEE the wind but you know it exists"
routine.

LARRY: Actually, science does this sort of thing all the time. There was no
evidence for "phlogiston" or an "ether wind," but they both were postulated
to accomodate theories. Your understanding of the philosophy of science is
naive, to say the least. Let me recommend Kuhn's "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions". It is a classic in the field and will help you
understand how science REALLY works. Again, the existence of God can't be
likened to radio waves.

MARK: We have external, objective, repeatable verifiable EVIDENCE that LOTS
of invisible things exist, things like radio waves, brain thoughts, wind,
and might I dare say GLASS!!!!! Glass is invisible (at its best), yet we
know it exists NOT because some ancient contradictory book says so, but
because of the objective EVIDENCE.

LARRY: You just can't grasp the concept of Supernature, can you?

Mark here}     And you have trouble with the concept of REALITY, don't you? Realities like dictionaries, realities like facts, realities like science. You have trouble with reality when YOU don't like it, and try to distract people away from evidence that shows you're wrong.

MARK: Given that, dear Christian, what is YOUR external, objective,
repeatable & verifiable EVIDENCE that your invisible Biblegod exists
anywhere outside the dusty covers of a King James Bible????

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!!!

LARRY: Well, let's see about that. Let me ask you some questions, first:

1. Why is the value of pi 3.1416.... and NOT 5.67 or 3 or some other value?

2. Why are there 3 primary colors?

3. Why are the Laws of Logic (Identity, Excluded Middle, etc.) true?

Mark here}   I noticed that for some strange reason, Larry decided to LEAVE OUT the following section of mine. After reading his hot air above, we know why. Larry has no good real evidence, just a bunch of tangled philosophical horseshit- "laws of logic" my ass- read about Elijah below (what Larry left out) and compare Elijah's "proof for the existence of God" with Larry's half-assed "proof" above. Elijah would zap Larry AND his "laws of logic" sorry excuse for evidence.

...What Larry Left Out...

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!!! All you have for evidence is what every other Christian geek intellectual has: hot air, and lots of it. Through long convoluted philosophical arguments that would try the patience of even Socrates and Aristotle, you try to brow-beat people into "believing", rather than  presenting EVIDENCE  for convincing. You present no evidence because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. According to your book, you USED TO have evidence, LOTS of evidence, but I guess all that evidence got sunk on Noah's Ark or something, right???  According to your Bible, First Kings 18, Elijah got up on Mount Carmel and tried to talk the 450 priests of Baal into "believing" Biblegod exists using five points of clever intellectual argumentation developed by Dr. William Lane Craig. Oh wait, that is NOW, not back THEN. Back THEN, according to your Bible, the prophet Elijah didn't waste ONE WORD trying to argue the Baalites into "believing"- he called down FIRE FROM HEAVEN.  The lesson?  Fire = End of Argument. Yes, these were the "glory days" of Biblegod, ala Bruce Springsteen, when Biblegod could actually DO something. Nowadays? All Biblegod's got is eggheads like you running around, trying to talk people into "believing" something they know deep down inside isn't so. I guess Biblegod's celestial Bic lighter just ran out of lighter fluid back around the time of Jesus, eh?? No more fire from heaven, just "five points of argumentation" from Bill Craig. What a sorry state of affairs- the "spirit of God" who used to move across the waters can now only produce hot air.

No, Larry can't call fire down from heaven. All he can do is summon "a mighty wind" of hot air, talk about, speculate on, hope for, and sing and dance and cry about, his Biblegod. Modern Christians can't do SQUAT though, when it comes to actually PROVING their almighty Biblegod exists, and E=MC²  disproves THAT forever.

So Larry, since you refuse to grow out of believing shit you should have already outgrown, you want to PROVE your humbug Easter Bunny of a Biblegod exists? No, I don't mean make up your OWN criteria as to how to prove Biblegod, such as your "Why are the laws of logic true" crap. The "how to prove Biblegod" has already been laid out, in what's called the OLD TESTAMENT. It's that thing gathering dust on your bookshelf. I know, I know, you're bored with the book and would rather read philosophy. Too bad. Turn to 1st Kings 18. See an officially approved method of proving Biblegod. Go and do likewise- call fire down from heaven.

BUT- if you CAN'T do likewise, then shut the hell up.

MARK:All you have for evidence is what every other Christian geek
intellectual has: hot air, and lots of it. Through long convoluted
philosophical arguments that would try the patience of even Socrates and
Aristotle, you try to brow-beat people into "believing", rather than 
presenting EVIDENCE  for convincing.

LARRY: After being dazzled by your badinage, where is your evidence for the
non-existence of the Supernature?

Mark here}   Once again, I need to remind you: he who ASSERTS is the one who must PROVE. If you are the one advocating that little invisible pink unicorns live in your ass, YOU are the one under obligation to PROVE it, since you are the one who ASSERTED it. I am under no obligation whatsoever to DIS-prove. 

This is basic argumentation- something maybe you should take a class in sometime. It's why official debates have an AFFIRMATIVE and a NEGATIVE. One gets up and AFFIRMS via evidence that pink unicorns live in his ass, the other gets up and NEGATES the first man's evidence. He doesn't try to DISprove the proposition, he negates the evidence already presented. If you STILL can't see this PLEASE, go learn. It's not my job to try to teach you Christians basic thinking skills.

MARK: You present no evidence because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. According to
your book, you USED TO have evidence, LOTS of evidence, but I guess all that
evidence got sunk on Noah's Ark or something, right???

LARRY: Actually, I do, but I know how the game works. You bring up a
question. I answer it. Then you ask, "What about this?" I answer it. "Well,
what about this?" And so on. Let's just cut to the chase, shall we?

Your entire noetic structure relies on at least these presuppositions:

1. The material universe is all there is.
2. Sense evidence is generally reliable.
3. The existence of the universe is a brute fact.
4. The existence of Logic is a brute fact.
5. Causality is true.
6. The axioms of Geometry are true.
7. Other minds exist.

As we will see further on (I have no doubt!) you will be unable to give one
iota of evidence for ANY of those presuppositions!

Mark here}   Yes, here is where the Bahnsonian rep-Til-ian horseshit starts. Here is where Larry would like to derail this entire topic over to tracks he's overly familiar with, ruts worn deep in the road from him being stuck on the same little patch for so long. Sorry Larry, this is a "discussion" over my E=MC² essay and I'm not going to allow it to degenerate into a forum for your philosophical nonsense. You might impress your fellow PhD fry cooks at Burger King with such sophistries, but not me. You either call down fire from heaven in an open and public contest like Elijah did on Mt. Carmel, or shut the hell up. Period. Those are your options. 

Elijah didn't argue anyone into believing Biblegod exists, he presented evidence within this "material universe." He presented "sense evidence" that the 450 prophets of Baal found "generally reliable" and  a "brute fact". Unless and until you can "go and do likewise", just stop with the Til crap.

Further, your whole webpage presupposes the existence of God, even as it
tries to deny Him.

MARK: All Biblegod's got is eggheads like you running around, trying to talk
people into "believing" something they know deep down inside isn't so.

LARRY: Hey, I thought you said you WEREN'T a mindreader! But I believed you
the first time. You have no idea of what's coming next.

Larry Gwaltney

Mark here}   "What's coming next" from you better be comments on E=MC² or it's not taking up space on my web site. I refuse to let this degenerate into a forum for unemployed frustrated philosophers who are bored posting to their own geek web sites. 

Larry Gwaltney 5-2-03

Subj: Second Time  Date: 5/2/03 9:23:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mark here}   Nope, no can do. This is not a pulpit that Christians can ramble on and on and on without comment or criticism.  However... I DO have such a section set aside on my web site. It's called "Sound Off" and you can ramble on there just about all you want. You can try to save as many souls as you want, and all for the low cost of $100 a year.    Join SOUND OFF for $100  Of course, saving souls probably isn't worth $100 a year to you, so I doubt you'll sign up.

I suspect he does this to distract the reader so as to diminish the
effectiveness of his opponent’s arguments – it’s much like repeatedly
jumping up and interrupting a speaker as he makes a presentation. 

Mark here}   No, actually it's so the reader doesn't get to the end of the essay only to have totally forgotten whatever point you tried to make several pages ago. Besides, I always put my comments in red and indent them, so it's easy for die hard Fundies to skip over what the evil Atheist has to say, and c