My Common Sense is tingling again. John Loftus recently posted the following:
Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many distortions in the human mind that are difficult to eliminate and that lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. Link
Why do I keep writing about this? Because we know humans are prone to these biases. We know this. So we should all become skeptics. We should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true. We should adopt a science-based reasoning rather than a faith-based reasoning. Dr. James Alcock defined faith-based reasoning as "belief in search of data." Given the cognitive biases this is simply a wrong-headed approach if we want to know the truth.
Unless John Loftus is not human (I'm assuming he is and I hope that is not a cognitive bias), isn't he also prone to cognitive bias? How does he know he has eliminated his biases against the Bible and God? I'm skeptical that he can or has. I don't even think he can see his perceptual distortions, inaccurate judgments, or illogical interpretations. Why shouldn't science-based reasoning also have the same level of skepticism as faith? There are things about reality that we all agree are true yet can't be substantiated or examined using the scientific method. They can't be weighed, counted, or measured. John Loftus seems to draw the line to stop his skepticism, entrenching his own biases, at the points he is capable and not just unwilling to change but also unable to change.
I am so going to buy a copy of this DVD. I do want more episodes made. In this article there is a short interview with Reginald Hudlin. He answered some questions about the production that I had wanted to know. He even revealed that the show was made in the United States and not animated in Taiwan, China, or Japan like most animated series these days. If you missed the series you have the chance to go get a copy and do your part to get more episodes of this series made.
Image via Wikipedia
Aren't you glad that not all Muslims think like them. Unfortunately those who do think this way are more than will to carry out such things.
Imagine using this thing to make a phone call! I don't think it looks that bad. To think it uses current technology shows how close we really are in using 3D holograms for communication.
I have not seen a better example of ad hominem attack on a person than I saw on this article from thegrandverbalizer against David Wood. I'm not surprised. When you can't refute a man's theology or arguments, attacking his character and personal likes and dislikes is the tactic of next resort. For example, thegrandverbalizer tries to use mistakes David Wood made as a young person before he was saved as proof that he should not be trusted. I notice a great deal of the story is not described that David Wood has been on record referencing. Thegrandverbalizer really does not like David Wood. I thought that his misplaced indignation was only directed to Dr James White. I was wrong about the scope of his dislike. Thegrandverbalizer wrote:
Than there comes the mentally unstable Christian with very erratic behavior. It is not just simply having an issue with Islam, but it's finding cause to join with anyone or anything that is simply Anti-Islamic just for the sake of being Anti-Islamic .....even if it is crude, sinister and down right dark.... So this brings me to David Wood. A man who was arrested for attempted murder for bludgeoning his own father with a ball penn hammer!
Now later, it is stated that Wood later became a Christian, but the critique leaves out an important point. David Wood explains (the time I'm thinking of is when he debated John Loftus) that he was a raised an atheist and that his father used to tell David that he was God. He didn't give very much detail then and it has little bearing on how reliable the man is now. We all have sinned...especially before we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. In addition thegrandverbalizer tries insinuate that David Wood is a homosexual. Why? Simple, he can't really refute him. He can't win in a debate so he tries to throw David's character under the bus. Thegrandverbalizer even goes as far as trying to cast David Wood as being immoral and untrustworthy because of the movies and books he likes. These are really pathetic arguments that I think are being made to try to get other Muslims to ignore the arguments and work David Wood does.
I find this video both racist and Islamophobic. Everyone knows that if Muslims are preparing to wage Jihad in your country, the "tolerant" thing to do is ignore it. Then, once they have carried out the terrorist attack, the "tolerant" thing to do is to deny that it had anything to do with Muhammad's clear commands to wage Jihad.
His comments are insightful and uses sarcasm and humor to make his point about how stupid our policies are towards people (not all Muslims) who because of how they read their scriptures are mandated to kill us. To make it worse, David Wood and his partners in ministry are really good in showing that those Muslims we label as extreme are really the ones correctly following the Historical Islam and those who are preaching tolerance and love are re-interpreting their scriptures out of their context. Is it any wonder that David Wood, James White, and the others ministering to Muslims are hated by some people? Hatred is the only response they have.
David Wood posted a response to a person called WomanForTruth1o1. I think David Wood responded very well and it's worth reading and comparing how he consistently treats the Qur'an and the gymnastics Muslims must go through to get around what the Qur'an clearly says to reconcile the Qur'an to what they know is reality - especially when it comes to how one should live today. I think what Wood wrote at the end of the article is worth quoting:
On a different note, if WomenForTruth101 is correct, I don't see how she can call people to Islam. If the Qur'an frequently means the exact opposite of what it says, then perhaps when it commands people to reject the Deity of Christ, it actually means that they should accept the Deity of Christ. Maybe when the Qur'an says that Jesus didn't die, it actually means that he did die. When the Qur'an denies the Trinity, it could be affirming the Trinity. Once Muslims have destroyed the clear meaning of the Qur'an, aren't all interpretations equal?
