Contact the author

If anybody has any suggestions, comments or feedback they can reach me through one of these contact details:-

Email: theskepticalteenager@gmail.com
OR
Twitter:  https://twitter.com/#!/teenageskeptic OR https://twitter.com/#!/jackneubecker
OR
skype username: theskepticalteenager
OR
Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Skeptical-teenager/164279820356708
OR
Tumblr: theskepticalteenager.wordpress.com
and for Australian readers:-
phone or fax (who uses fax these days?) me (07) 4156 1638.

29 thoughts on “Contact the author

  1. Hi

    I Am doing research on conspiracy theorists and theories, what their role and function is in society and was wondering if you could answer any of these questions for my assignment as it would be very beneficial.

    Thank you
    Genevieve Gorin

    1. Why do you think conspiracy theories are made up?

    2. What do you think their function is in society?

    3. Why do you think people are so quick to dismiss theories?

    4. What is the process of creating a theory?

    5. Do you believe in an absolute truth? And why?

  2. Dawkins is a fraud ,he refuses to debate any well known Christian philosophers.William Lane Craig has endlessly challenged him time and time again without success.What is he afraid of if he is so correct in his assumptions. The skeptical teenager could learn a great deal by purchasing the book Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith by Douglas Groothuis ,study it and then if you have answers that can back Dawkins up I mean real answers then you can start sprouting off about your opinions on a public site.At this moment your just another ignorant laymen with no real knowledge about the subject your discussing.

    • You know what, If I am a so called layman, I’m sure you would be rather eager to debate me, I would be glad to have you tell me your arguments and then me destroy them. Give me your best piece of evidence for god or creation, and I will be happy to hear it.

      • okay fine ,The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way.What do you believe?Do laws of logic exist or not?

        • Yes, they exist, except in the quantum mechanics world, where things can exist and not exist at the same time, but that’s beside the point. I do believe in laws of logic and evidence, I also believe that one should not use logical fallacies in their arguments.

      • Thats one reason Dawkins has never debated Lane Craig. Dawkins is not a debater, and Craig is extremely skilled at hiding the logical fallacies in his reasoning. However, whenever a skilled debater like Hitchens, Kenith Miller or Sam Harris has gone up against him, Craig has been humiliated as these people understand his arguments well, speak well, and are able to tease out all of Craigs fallacies, and articulate it to the audience well. Dawkins just isnt trained in debating like Hitchens or Harris is.

        • i would never take away from Craigs skill as a debater. He is very articulate, knowledgable, and very skilled in the craft of debating. But the one debate, where his craft did not do him justice, was his debate with Dr. Bart Ehrman. It was definitely evident at the end of the debate, that craig was stuttering to find words and was sweating bullets from the rebuttals of ehrman that he could not answer.

          That was probably the most humilating debate I’ve seen.

          • Craig is an excellent debater, I’m not arguing that, but occassionally he gets trumped up. It has to happen occassionally if somebody teases out the illogic in his reasoning.

  3. Answer my first post ,do you believe in the laws of logic?As I`m traveling my responses may be over afew days but I will do my best God bless Karl(P.S I really mean that)

  4. Okay good .The laws of mathmatics now.The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well) . For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.
    What do you believe? Laws of mathmatics,do they exist or not?

  5. Great.Laws of science now.Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation.Do the laws of science exist ?

    • Well, actually, gravity is just a theory, but yes, I agree with the laws of physics and biology and chemistry, quantum mechanics, astrology etc.
      The laws of science also need NATURAL explanations, not supernatural explanations.
      Could you please just get to your point, its getting tiring.

  6. The next question is whether you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4 only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law?IF You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, , that they are not made of matter, and that they are universal. The next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging.Tiring you write on a number of subjects that are tiring ,answer my questions first before I make my point.

    • Yes, I believe that the laws of physics are constant, and that maths and logic is an intrinsic part of the universe, because of the stability of the laws of physics. I don’t think it is changing.
      If you find some of my blog topics tiring, you don’t have to read them, but I have to hear you out on these questions.

  7. you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science,. Next we will examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they ‘abstract’ entities? – are they physical or non-physical things?By the way you pushed me for the discussion,so have here me out.
    In your matter only world then how can the immaterial be in existense?you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science,. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.

    The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God’s existence and those who suppress the truth of God’s existence. The options of ‘seeking’ God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

    Romans 1 vs. 18 – 21 says:

    The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

    The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore…God exists

    • The laws of physics and math are abstract representations of physical things, what they represent are real things, like the law of conservation of mass, that’s just the rules.

      When you give me an argumnet from the bible, it sounds like somebody arguing for the existence of ogres from Shrek.

      On your point that god is neccassary to explain the laws of physics, I will direct you to my blog bost https://theskepticalteenager.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/my-superturtle/, in which I disect this argument and say how it is an illogical and non-occams razor following argument.
      I will also ask you to continue our discussion by email, at the above address, if you wish to continue this argument.

  8. Just wanted to let you know I used some of your post from “Can God be all powerful and all-knowing” in a theology paper I had to write for school- it helped prove my point… (which was in fact, opposite of yours) Oh, and I made sure I named my source, so your welcome for getting your name out there.

  9. Just heard you on a program called Unbelievable? Going on about the contradictions in the gospels accounts of Judas death, you said something about the blood money Judas got from the Romans, Judas didn’t get anything from the Romans, according to the gospels, he got the money from the Jews.
    In my opinion he didn’t get any money at all, because like Jesus, he never existed.
    Dean Taylor

      • I just heard your portion on Unbelievable and enjoyed it. I would like to try a different way of highlighting how some seeming and true contradictions do not truly mean as much as you might think – or that we can’t garner good information and come to a conclusion about an event even with actual contradictions.

        Almost a year ago, I was in an auto accident. Thankfully the car was all that was damaged, I slightly bumped my head and so far no one has told me that I have suffered any ill effects (take that for what it’s worth).

        Here is my account of the accident:

        After filling up and a gas station, I pulled out of the gas station onto the road and saw that my light was green and went through the intersection. I was half way through the intersection when I saw a black Lexus SUV come barreling into the intersection. I slammed on my brakes, but the SUV still hit my car in the driver side front quarter panel. Despite a bent wheel, I was able to get my car out of the intersection and pull up behind the SUV that hit me along the side of the road.

        I was going west to east, she was going north to south.

        Now right after the accident, two witnesses came and said they saw her run the red light and one gave me her number, if I needed it.

        That’s my account.

        When the police came they took both our statements. She told them she thought the light was yellow. (which would have meant that I was the one that ran the red light).

        The police gave her the ticket, however, believing my story that she ran the red light.

        When I got the final police report, there were mistakes in the report. For one, while my car was labeled number 1 and hers was number 2, these were used interchangeably and if one just read the report (without the accident diagram) one would have read that car number 1 ran a red light and hit car number 1. And car number two also ran a red light. No where in this report did it say that I was coming from the corner gas station, only that I was traveling on the road.

        Obviously I can’t hit my own car that I am driving.

        Now, if we look at the diagram of the accident – it’s tells my story. My car being hit when the lady runs the right light, but nothing either about my leaving the gas station.

        So when we look at the two together – the report AND the diagram, guess what?

        They contradict each other! And that’s in the SAME report that was filed by the police and given to my insurance company.

        So, as you probably know, insurance companies take a look at all the information and make a determination of fault.

        So the insurance company now has three accounts of the accident.

        1) my story – the lady ran the red light. With a witness if needed.
        2) Her story – she thought her light was yellow, which would have made MY light red.
        3) The police story – my car hit my car when it went through the red light. With the diagram and report contradicting each other.

        Now, I will tell you, the witness was not called by either the police, nor the insurance company, so despite my saying I had a witness, we have no idea what the witness would have said on the record, only what I reported that she said. Nor can I even provide you with her name and number any longer since I didn’t keep the information after the claims were closed, so I cannot show that this witness truly existed.

        So, I will ask you this.

        Based on the above – what do you believe happened? What do you believe the insurance company thought happened?

Tell me what I did wrong or what a great job I did (comment)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s