Ezra Miller believes they are a Messiah & Flash Was Jesus bringing forth...

DEBATE: Ana Kasparian vs Dennis Prager

WORLDVIEWS MATTER: THE BUFFALO MANIFESTO #Buffalomassacre #REPLACEMENTT...

Jay Z Rejects Christianity for Belief in….WHAT??

[official] John Lennox - Is Anything Worth Believing In? - The Veritas Forum...

FacePalm of the Day - Who is really Specal Pleading?

John Loftus posted a blog post in which he reiterates his contention that Christians do no more than special pleading when giving evidence and arguments for what what we believe and why we believe it. The article is entitled "Christian Apologetics is Little More Than Special Pleading" and after it showed up in my RSS feed it seems to have been deleted. I'm bringing it back up because he makes no new arguments here but summarizes his mind set. I am responding in red font and his words are in black font. Let's first define what "special pleading" is.

Description of Special Pleading
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

Once again let me say that all attempts to defend Christianity are little more than special pleading to a conclusion based on other grounds, most notably one's culture and private subjective experience. To see this for what it is just look seriously at how Muslims, Mormons and Moonies defend their faiths. Don't just note that their conclusions are different. Look at how they reason. So the only way to defend Christianity is to argue that one's culture and private subjective experience are reliable guides to the truth about the nature and workings of the universe. But anyone who has visited a different culture, or took seriously the fact of religious diversity, should see quite clearly that neither of them are reliable guides to the truth. Christians are therefore in denial.

So let's try to understand what Loftus is arguing. He is saying that Christians are in the same circumstances C as Muslims, Mormons, Moonies, and all other religious people because the standards S by which we reason and accept reality are blinded by our own culture and private subjective experiences. It is true that if Christianity was only based on culture and private subjective experience, Loftus would be right. But this where his reasoning goes off the rails. Biblical Christianity is independent of opinions and culture for its truth claims. The commands given in the  Bible are independent of your culture and what you feel about them. So is Jesus' sacrifice - his death, burial, and resurrection. This also transcends whatever religious diversity arguments anyone might even think of raising. Just because they are rejected by another religion does not make them wrong. True that depending on your own experience or understanding will not lead you to any truth. Christianty is not based on either.

They prefer to live in a childish pretend world where they have an unfounded hope because of the perceived need for hope. Faith is a pathology that keeps Christians from taking responsibility for their own lives, that keeps them from thinking for themselves, that allows them to mindlessly quote-mine from the Bible, that forever keeps them from growing up. I have never been more convinced of this as I am today.

This sure is a lot of accusations being thrown around. Loftus can't substantiate any of it. He has readily admitted in several other posts and books that we can only talk about probabilities because we can't be certain. He even has said that we don't need certainty if we know how likely something is to be true. Yet, he is so certain that the Bible is wrong.  The most he can argue is that he thinks that the Bible is probably not true. His "reasoning" for this conclusion is dubious because he agrees that human reasoning is flawed and yet he is using his own reasoning to come that conclusion. He is asking us to think that his reasoning is worth trusting. Yet, I see no reason to drink that kool-aid. The Bible is reliable and more than likely true - it is true.

Christian, you can show us otherwise and here's how. Just produce a series of arguments, along with the objective evidence that backs them up, that your sect-specific type of Christianity is the one true faith without any special pleading.

Biblical Christianity is more than up for this challenge. I would like to see Loftus first make his arguments without special pleading. 

The pathological nature of faith should be seen in any attempt to do so. The hard part is to show this is exactly what you're doing, since the nature of the pretend game of faith blinds you from seeing the double-standards you use to defend it. You can see the double-standards in people who defend other faiths. You are blind to this same thing when it comes to your own. You think you have the requisite evidence, but this so-called evidence isn't objective evidence that could convince a reasonable outsider at all. You only accept this so-called evidence because of the need to have hope, even if it's an unfounded one.

I find it amazing that Loftus can't see how the above "observations" apply to him as well as it does some religious proponents. He is truly special pleading  because he assumes a standard for evidence for Atheism and pretends that he is using logic and reasoning but Christians are not. All Loftus is using is emotional and based on his own culture and subjective experiences.

Isn't This A Problem?

I saw this little comic strip on Tumblr and it asks the questions that Atheists seem to do their utmost to avoid answering. It's not Theists that have an unsurmountable epidemiological problem but atheists do. Most are more than willing to admit that not only that we do not understand how our brains work or where human intellect and consciousness comes from but wants to believe that we can really trust what we know that we can't really trust. Why? How do they know Some even go as far as asserting that we should assume that our minds are capable of rationality because it is the best option we have. This however is not true. God has given us the better option - trusting Him.

Book review: Jeffrey J. Kripal’s Mutants and Mystic - National Worldview and Science | Examiner.com

Mariano Grinbank has posted a review of a book by Jeffrey J. Kripal called Mutants and Mystics. It's a good article and deals with some interesting issues dealing with worldviews, religions, the occult, and the comic book industry as well as the science-fiction genre.

Book review: Jeffrey J. Kripal’s Mutants and Mystic - National Worldview and Science | Examiner.com

Conan Versus Jesus | True Freethinker

Mariano Grinbank has written an awesome post juxtaposing the worldview of the fictional character Conan from the movies, books, and television with the worldview of Jesus Christ. What is the best thing in life? What is the most important? The difference between the way they answered this question is obvious. I'd rather follow Jesus!

Conan Versus Jesus | True Freethinker

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why I Am Justified in Telling God What To Do?

I've often thought that maybe John Loftus believes that he has the right to hear from God on his own terms. I didn't want to think that he was that deluded but given the following post, this hope has been dashed to pieces because this is what he attempts to assert and defend. Does this make sense? No. It's an utter failure in logic and makes presuppositions that can't withstand rational thinking.

How dare I demand that God gives me what I need to believe? How dare I tell him how he should reveal himself to me? How dare I question the reasonableness of revealing himself in the pre-scientific past such that I must accept what ancient people claimed to have seen in a remote part of the world, or be condemned to hell if I don't? How dare I disbelieve because of the so-called mysteries of an eternal three-in-one God, who became incarnate, and who died for my sins, even though none of these doctrines make any rational sense at all.

It's always funny to me when Loftus makes such accusations against Christianity. He's making Paul's points for him.  

¹⁸ For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹ For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”^[c]

²⁰ Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ²¹ For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. ²² Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, ²³ but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, ²⁴ but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. - 1 Corinthians 1:18-25

God knows that to the untouched mind and heart, it is not possible to believe it. But not because the message is illogical or unreasonable. 

⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

The problem isn't with God. The problem is us. No one can boast. No one was born saved.  

¹⁹ This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰ Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. ²¹ But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. - John 3:19-21

Well I do dare to demand better of God, if he exists. That's the point. How am I to know he exists when his lack of divine forethought led to massive slaughter among Christians themselves over the stupidest of doctrinal trifles that if he had foreseen them and had even average communication skills he could have averted? Or, he could have told us more important things than what to do with our penises and vaginas, by giving us the knowledge to make vaccines and anesthesia for surgeries?

The Bible is clear. There is no passage you can honestly use for killing another person in the context of today because of doctrinal differences. Again the problem is explained throughout scripture  (John 2:19-21 is only one example). Unfortunately, John Loftus has that problem and so does everyone who is not born-again. And God tells us what to do with our penises and vaginas because we are too stupid to know what to do otherwise. Obviously we don't know if we can't see why it would be important to God for us to know. I am amazed at the hubris to suggest that the science and technologies (i.e. vaccines, anesthesia, and ect.) did not come as a direct blessing from God! And don't forget that so-called "pre-scientific" people had anesthesia and did perform surgeries. They just weren't dumb enough to take credit for themselves.

Why do I demand better things? It's simple:

If God created me as a reasonable human being, then I can doubt the reasonableness of a God who fails to give me what I need to believe as a reasonable human being.

Loftus forgets that God created Adam and Eve as reasonable human beings. Because of Sin we are not reasonable. It takes God to make us reasonable. God has given us what we need to believe. 

If God created me as human being who seeks sufficient evidence to believe, then I can demand that he gives me the sufficient evidence I need to believe.

Loftus has admitted on several occasions that people have failed faculties and can't see and understand anything perfectly. We have several blind spots. Given that, why would anyone of us pretend we know what "sufficent evidence" is and what it isn't. The more about science we unlock and discover, the more we (at least the honest people) realize that we know very little. More questions are asked and we end up knowing less than what we knew before we learned the fact we just discovered. That is why science and obtaining more knowledge is so beautiful. Wisdom would lead to humility as knowledge increases.

Connect the dots.

And they make the picture God has said that they make. Without God you don't know what the dots are.

Of course, maybe he doesn't want reasonable people? Who knew? ;-) But then, why am I who I am? Still, if that's the case then he could snap his omnipotent fingers and take away my critical thinking skills so I would believe as others do. I did at one time. Then I grew a brain, just as ex-Mormons, ex-Muslims, ex-Orthodox Jews, ex-Scientologists and others did. ;-)

I don't know John Loftus personally, but I don't think his blog posts lead me to conclude that he is reasonable. Realizing the limitations of your intellect and yet trusting in that intellect to determine the reasonableness of a being so much ahead and so far above of you doesn't seem very rational to me. The best you have is to seek God with all of your being and trust that God will reveal God's self to you on God's own terms in God's own way. The Bible is one of these ways. John Loftus is an apostate. And like all apostates who leave God, it's not that he lost his mind or gained his brain or gained critical thinking skills - he never had it to begin with because he was never born again.  He never knew God.  I only hope that grants him and others mercy and gives Loftus the greatest of all gifts - salvation through Jesus Christ. 

Debunking Christianity: Why I Am Justified in Telling God What To Do?

Christopher Hitchens: 13 April 1949 – 15 Dec 2011 - Apologetics 315

It doesn't seem like the surprises in 2011 are anywhere near over yet. I realize that some people might say that Christopher Hitchens death should come as a surprise to anyone. It was very public how sick he was. Given that everyone is going to die doesn't make the death of anyone easy. I was hoping that maybe God would spare his life and heal him but even better if God turned Christopher Hitchens into an evangelist for God instead of against God. None of us knows what Hitchens spiritual state was when he died and trying to guess what it is pointless. Instead I'd rather just think about the fact that his wit and intelligence and eloquence will be missed despite the fact that I didn't agree with everything he said or wrote. One non debatable fact is that he knows for sure whether he was right or wrong. Is there and afterlife or is there not? I think finding out for sure after you die is the wrong way to find out. Instead, it's better to know by knowing God for yourself. There are several great websites that are covering this. Here are a few links that I think you should see if you don't see any of the others.

Christopher Hitchens: 13 April 1949 – 15 Dec 2011 - Apologetics 315

Douglas Wilson wrote an article reflecting on Christopher Hitchens (link). I think that this particular article is priceless because although the two debated a few times and did not agree on a few fundamental things about life they had a mutual respect and admiration for each other.

A few weeks before Christopher Hitchens was supposed to debate Dr. James White, the debate was cancels because of Hitchens diagnosis and his need to start treatment immediately. The debate never happened. But on his blog posted a video and his web cast from 12/16/2011 in which he discusses Hitchen's death and a wide variety of subjects. Get the link here.




So how should Christians respond to the death of Christopher Hitchens? I think a good example is the one set by his brother Peter. Peter Hitchens is a Christian and he wrote an article about seeing his brother for the last time and how much he meant to him and who Christopher was as a person. It's beautifully written and I can't recommend it enough. Read it here.

Related articles

• Christopher Hitchens, 1949 - 2011 (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Christopher Hitchens (geoffarnold.com)
• Goodbye Christopher Hitchens .... Welcome to Hell. (mackquigley.wordpress.com)
• A reflection on Christopher Hitchens' death (wordsofgrace.wordpress.com)
• Famous atheist Christopher Hitchens dead at 62 (religionnewswilmington.wordpress.com)

FacePalm of th Day #134 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 3

Johnny P continued his response to mine. Even though I waited for a whole day, he still responded to part 1 and left a short one on part 2.  Again my quotes from him will be red italicized and his words will be black and my responses will be red.

I would wait. I haven't finished yet. I am a busy man.

Knock yourself out.  I'm ready.

"As far as we can tell, life as we know it is impossible without plate tectonics. "

So do you admit God in his omnipotence is U#nalbe [assume he meant "unable"] to produce a life-sustaining universe without plate tectonics

No. I'm saying that God in his omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscent chose to create a life-sustaining universe that now has plat tectonics.  When the earth was first formed - there was one land mass. One of two things is true. When God first made earth, there was no earthquakes and  it was not part of the prefect design or earthquakes are a consequence of the fall. I don't know but both of these possibilities fit the Christian worldview and does not not conflict with science.

Dinesh D'Souza used this argument. And was torn apart.

By whom? When? Substantiation? 

This, of course, is a situation more plausibly (through power and scope) explained through naturalism. It is NOT better explained by an all-loving God. The only thing you CAN do is all you ever do, appeal to God's omniscience. The classic 'omniscience escape clause' which offers nothing more than a God of the Gaps style of weak appeal. And that's the sum total of your entire defence.

What's the gap? Naturalism can explain how plate techtonics works, but not why. The Christian worldview offers the why that naturalism can only shrug at. I don't have defend the necessity earthquakes beyond the fact that human life is impossible without it. God knows why they are necessary. and just because we don't know doesn't mean that they are not necessary for what God is achieving.

The question YOU need to ask yourself is 'Is this a plausible explanation?'

You've offered no explanation. The Bible's explanation still stand. 

No, it's not.

Says you.  Just your opinion. No substantiation.

Your next section you need to clarify by telling me whether you are a Calvinist or similar.

I did re-read part 2 of  the response. 

"It's more like having already been born in prison and not being able to raise bail. You are sentenced to death. The only way to be free and live is to let Jesus no just pay the price for your release but take your punishment of death as well."

OK, have it your way. If you think that is free will, then you would have most philosophers who ever existed to argue with on that analogy, starting with Hume!

I don't know what you think "Free Will" is. You never  bothered define it. Waiting.

"Which Johnny P again misses that giving our ignorance we don't know what the perfect world even looks like."

Again, you ignore my criticism that you appeal to the omniscience escape clause. Weak.It also doesn't matter one jot what WE know since it logically follows that this is the most perfect world that could feasibly be. DO YOU DENY THIS?

Yes, I do. THIS IS NOT THE BIBLICAL-BASED WORLDVIEW, as I have been saying from the beginning. This world is not perfect this is why God will erase it and start over. You seem to speak about what you do not know a lot.

Since this is the entire point of my post, and you have summarily ignored talking about the substantive points, building straw men and red herrings. Answer the question.

I did. Several times. You keep misrepresenting the Christian worldview and not giving a single reason why you think the Bible is wrong. 

"This is not saying that every single bad thing that has ever happened to you is because of something you personally did. The book of Job deals with that. This world is fallen - bringing us back to Roams 8. I don't know what kind of answer Johnny P is looking for but God more than answers us."

I might be close to ad homming here. Anyone who believes it is right to be punished for the sins of others is an idiot. The bible condones this time and time again. It is why the bible is a torrid book.

Where do you see the Bible condoning anyone (completely innocent) being punished for the sins of others? Do you even know what you are talking about? There only one case of some good person paying for sins of others - Jesus - and he volunteered. Dr. R.C. Sproul was right. No one else is good. When we suffer we deserve it and it's only God's mercy keeping us from annihilation Hell is our default destination because of our constant and continual rebellion against God.

And of course, you suffer the perennial problem of seeking to verify the truth of the bible from... wait for it... the bible.

That is of course true if you can prove the Bible is wrong. Good luck with that. 

The issues here are, again, too protracted to go into.

Nothing stopping  you. I'd even be happy to publish your attempt here. Evey blog can use some humor. 

If you believe unfalteringly, the disparate words of anonymous writers from thousands of years ago, then go for it. It will involve an unhealthy dollop of cognitive dissonance, some primetime indoctrination, some cultural bias, some social conditioning, and a whole heap of presupposition. Arguing from the bible is far more disingenuous than arguing to the bible.

Well given that the Bible, whether you believe it true or not, is the bed rock of traditional Christianity,  you have to at least correctly present what it say and you have dismally failed to prove that you can - undermining any meaningful criticism you attempt to offer. Your main presupposition is that the Christians believe that this world is perfect as it is because God would have brought a different world in its place had there been a better one.  Where is that in the Bible? It's not. I don't have to accept that premise. It's faulty and without it your argument collapses.

""So Johnny P's reasons for rejecting God has to do with erroneous presuppositions about what good is and what love is and what the nature of God is."

I have said nothing of what good or love is, so stop this naive critiquing of things I haven't even said. Tell me, what do I think goodness and love is, based on my comments here?

You said you think that the premise that this is prefect (ie good) world  because God cannot create imperfection is where you are starting. You are arguing that God cannot have free will because he has to do the most loving things possible. In order to make such arguments you are making assertions about what "good" and "love" are. You''re committed.

You see, this seems to be an exercise, for you, in shifting the burden of proof. It is up to YOU to offer FEASIBLE and PROBABLE reasons why there seems to be an inconsistency in the love espoused by God and Christians and the way the world is.

There goes your concept of "love" again. The current state of the planet does not represent the love of God. It's not God perfect plan of perfection, according to the Bible. I'd say go re-read Romans 8, but I already suggested it. Maybe you didn't understand it. 

Answer this, is all the pain and suffering on the world NECESSARY for a perfect world, and if not, why not?

It's necessary for what God has purposed. 

And if it is because of free will, and God set up these parameters and knew what the outcomes were against all other possible outcomes from all other possible worlds, then this still has to be the best one.

 Nope  the Bible does not  say its about human free will.

Otherwise God has not created the most loving, perfect world. IT DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF THESE WORDS!!!! This is a deductive argument. As long as you agree that God is all-loving and perfect, no matter what that means, then the conclusion validly follows that this is the most loving, perfect world.

That's not what Paul wrote. 

Deal with the argument please, and stop poncing around quoting bible verses, talking about red herrings.

Quoting where the Bible is not irrelevant when it answers your question.  Then again maybe it's over your head. Romans 8 deals with this. Why don't you explain why it's wrong. Your preference not to believe it is not good enough reason to reject it.

"I didn't say Johnny P did. I was saying that Johnny P seems to think that the Christian position is Middle Knowledge by default. I know Johnny P is an atheist and does not accept Middle Knowledge. Neither do all Christians. The straw man is his. "

What? Do I? Did I say this? You are constantly trying to put words in my mouth. Get a grip. It's not a bloody straw man!! I said "and given the possibility of Middle Knowledge or any other mechanism for divine foreknowledge"

POSSIBLITY of MK OR ANY OTHER MECHANISM!!!!!!

Sheesh. This is painful.

So you do accept the possibility of  Middle Knowledge? I don't. The bottom line of that above paragraph is that you have misrepresented and ignored the Christian worldview.

Personally, I have seen a Lennox lecture. My friends and I questioned him. He was left wanting. Appealing to authority like that gets you nowhere.

Was it recorded? Where? What did you ask him? Dr Lennox is a great scholar and I'd put way more stock in what he has said than you. At least I can appeal to Lennox. Who appeals to you and your work?

As for yopur bible quote, are you serious? Does that excuse a tsunami? All the foetuses, children, people who had never heard the Gospel, committed and repenting Christians? Dead? And all the animals and ecosystems? Take a long, hard look at what you are saying.

Committed and repenting Christians die in disasters all the time just like unbelievers. There is nothing we, as a group, go through that is uncommon to humanity. How does this help your argument. Evil exists. God will get rid of it when He gets ready to get rid of it. Don't get wiped out with it.

"If God can’t WANT to do anything else, then what the hell do you define as free will?

I didn't say "can't" I said "doesn't" and watch your language."

You entirely missed the subtlety of that point, then. If he can only want what is within his all-loving nature, then he CAN'T WANT to do otherwise. This is synonymous with CAN'T do otherwise. Please take a breath to actually read my words, cogitate on them, and try to critique them intelligently.

I think the disconnect is with the fact that you can't seem to grasp that God doesn't do anything against his nature. Nothing happens that he does not allow to happen. You don't understand what "all-loving nature is". Don't fee bad. No one understands it unless God shows it to them.  I'm praying that God shows you Love - Himself.

"The Bible does not support your premise: "this is a perfect universe" You should agree. That's the point you are making. God did not create imperfectly. It was perfect until Adam and Eve sinned and our sin perpetuates the problems. Your premises fail. "

Have you been paying any attention? See the logical arguments mentioned before. You are simply not addressing the points. Can a perfect God create imperfectly? Answer me that.

 The World was perfect and good until the fall in Genesis 3.  Now the world is not perfect.

You have offered nothing that approaches a logical refutation of any of my points. You have appealed to the bible a bunch of times, to no effect.

Maybe that's because you failed to understand what the Bible is saying. I'm only left to that conclusion because you have failed to respond. 

"It's not a perfect world (see Romans 8 and the rest of the Bible). Therefore Johnny P's conclusions are flawed because we don't know what the "perfect world" is"

For crying out loud, we don't need to!!!! How many times must I say this. You are being really naive.

How can you claim that the world is perfect without defining what that means? The Bible is not telling us that the World is perfect.  Who's being "naive"?

So, you say it was perfect until the fall.

God has the choice, in his divine foreknowledge, of knowing all the worlds he could create and all their outcomes. He is perfect. He knows the fall will happen. He still chooses this one. Therefore, the fall, evil, suffering, plate tectonics (call it what you will) are necessary for the most perfect world! It's a simple argument that you have failed to grasp.

Not for the perfect world. For the world in which we have now that God is working out for His purpose. It's not about us. The failure to grasp the Christian world-view is yours.

"Johnny P has been consistent in his inability to answer what God has said about the questions he raised. I did address the argument because God has addressed and it was put to rest 2000 years ago. Just read your Bible for a change. Philosophy doesn't cut the mustard. Revelation is need. And you can't argue against Christianity without understanding what the Bible says and Johnny P shows no understanding. Double FacePalm."

What a joke. Really. The best part? 'Philosophy doesn't cut the mustard'. You've been schooled. Philosophy is everything. You cannot even establish epistemology without philosophy. in other words, everything you have said, ever, cannot be established without philosophical investigations into epistemology, aesthetics, moral philosophy and so on.Take the bible. How do you evaluate what it is trying to say? Philosophy.

I didn't say that philosophy should be tossed. I'm saying that it takes more than philosophy. Philosophy is necessary but not sufficient. And for someone who keeps saying that he doesn't need to define terms to now bring up the need to use philosophy  to "establish epistemology" is truly laughable. Hypocrisy much? I agree that philosophy is needed to evaluate what the Bible says but given how badly you have butchered the Christian Worldview, clearly either philosophy is not enough or you have been doing it wrong. [Yes, indeed, I am laughing at you].

I'm not sure it's worth me posting here any more unless you are
1) less naive and better equipped philosophically

I've seen nothing so far in your responses that lead me to think you are equipped with anything beyond erroneous presuppositions. 

2) slightly more humble (I apologise for my tone, but it seems you must fight fire with fire)

I wouldn't call rejecting your assumptions and presuppositions based on you getting Christianity wrong as arrogance. You're just a man like me. I think writing:

Well, for starters, I would be clever enough to create a life-sustaining planet that didn’t have plate tectonics that killed millions of people throughout history. I think that’s fairly obvious. Especially since no theodicy that you could offer says anything about the billions of animals and ecosystems destroyed in the 2004 tsunami.

is far more arrogant than anything I have ever written. LOL

3) Less fallacious

I would like to see you model less fallacious argumentation. 




What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #132 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will?


I don't know if I have the energy for this.

I'm just getting started. 

"If you want a demonstration for why evil exists and that it's not gratuitous. , you have already conceded that evil does indeed exist."

Comments like this show just how naive you are. I do not even need to recognise that evil exists in my worldview, since I am not critiquing my worldview. If evil, or suffering or whatever you want to call it, exists in any form, then it needs explaining in light of god's omnibenevolence. If God can know all future contingent actualisations and has chosen this one, then this must be the most loving, even given the knowledge of all the suffering etc.

You can't meaningfully critique "Evil" from a Christian worldview without defining terms.The Bible tells us why there is no conflict with the reality of evil/suffering and God's goodness! I've given the same answers Christians have been giving since Jesus and you have failed to address them by just ignoring them with no meaningful rebuttal. I was hoping for better.

FacePalm of th Day #133 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 2

Related articles

• On holding a Christian World View or The Christian way to boil an egg (signposts02.wordpress.com)
• Presuppositions that we didn't know we had. (pastorcoleman.wordpress.com)
• Do You Have A Biblical Christian Worldview? (lambatpagasa.wordpress.com)
• More Than a Worldview (christcollegeblog.com)

FacePalm of the Day #128: Debunking Christianity: On Making A Rational Choice About Religion

John Loftus has posted the following meandering. My annotations are  in red. 

Let's say you were shopping for the best car made. Your father brought you up as a die-hard Chevy lover but now you want to seriously find which car is the best one out there. How would you go about doing it? What are the criteria for what is to be considered the best car? There would be objective criteria but there would also be subjective person-related criteria. Are there any similarities here with choosing the best religion? Dissimilarities? Is choosing the best car analogous to how people search for the one true religion? In what ways? Which religions and sects within them would you seriously consider? Why not consider them all?

I agree that it's important to consider them all that you can. You should have  reasons why you are not Baptist, or Catholic or Muslim or Mormon or what have you. That is not enough. You should know why you have embraced the worldview you have embraced. I don't know why Loftus thinks that only Atheists thinks about such things. Grant it considering such issues does not mean that you will come up with correct answers. Loftus is a good example of that. No one can do it on their own. It takes God.

Then consider whether everyone could agree on which car is the best car made. Of course they couldn't, even with some agreed upon objective criteria. But let's say everyone who makes the wrong car choice will be cast into hell for an eternity? ;-) Sound unfair? Sure it does. Then why isn't it unfair when it comes to choosing the best religion? Have fun with this.

There is a big difference to choosing the best car and choosing to serve and follow the right God. The analogy really breaks down here.  A better analogy is choosing a Spouse. The stakes are way higher than choosing a car and it deals with relationship. You can't have a relationship with a car like a person. If the Christianity you experienced was just a relationship and you treated like a car you test drove and kicked the tires, you did it wrong. It's not what you do or what you know, it's about who you know - Jesus Christ.

Debunking Christianity: On Making A Rational Choice About Religion

Captain America and Superhero Worldviews, Part 1 | Reflections

Image via WikipediaKenneth Samples has started a series of post regarding Captain America and what the movie and superhero characters have to say about worldviews. I'm really looking forward to reading the rest of his series!


Captain America and Superhero Worldviews, Part 1 | Reflections

Related articles

• #Captain America: Arguably the longest movie trailer ever made! (polarprisca.com)
• Have You Seen Captain America? (khmx.radio.com)
• Okay, So Like Nazis But Worse. Captain America: The First Avenger (tor.com)
• Captain America from A Butterfly Dreaming (abutterflydreaming.com)

Tawapologetics: Caught in the Matrix: The Power of Worldview

This was an interesting sermon from June 27, 2010. I think that this is an interesting sermon because it uses the Matrix Trilogy to discuss worldview and how the Christian worldview should affect how Christians should live their lives.

Tawapologetics: Caught in the Matrix: The Power of Worldview

More Zombie Stupidity

Okay, done laughing? Good.  There are some people who actually view things this way.  Not only do they have really think that "Christianity" and "Atheism" are like this but it's wrong. Christians don't believe this. Atheists don't describe their beliefs this way either. The picture is important because it does show what some Atheists erroneously think Christians believe and vice versa. I have heard both misrepresent the other this way.  This post is to call for people to honestly represent the beliefs of others, if you are going to critique them, whether you agree with them  or not. Or you should shut up.

4903.jpg (JPEG Image, 883x900 pixels) - Scaled (70%)

Debunking Christianity: How Can We Decide Who Is Wrong?

I've recently commented on a post  by John W. Loftus on his blog. One of the readers of Loftus blog seems to have disagreed with me very much. He responded to my comments by making distinct comments to the points I raised. I've decided to respond in kind. My responses are in red.

Marcus McElhaney, You said, So nothing can be known to exist if it can't be weighed, counted or measured? Is that what you are postulating? Is that what you mean? Personally, I certainly hope that's what John means. What's more, I'll bet that that is how you live your life, too: you demand evidence for everything in your life. Your profile says you're becoming a minister. Does COGIC demand evidence that you are proficient at passing collection plates to pay for miracles?  How dare they demand such proof!  

No. They don't. He obviously knows nothing about Christianity in general or the Church of God in Christ in particular. You cannot pay for miracles. 

Are they suggesting that the Holy Spirit in you must be verified?

No COGIC does not demand verification. Jesus does. 

³⁴"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. ³⁵By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.  - John 13:34-35

If we don't love one another that proves we are not one of  His people. If God did not care for us to know how to verify if we are truly His or not then why is so much information is given in the Bible so that we know what the metrics are?

 ¹⁹The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; ²⁰idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions ²¹and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 ²²But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ²³gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. ²⁴Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. ²⁵Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. ²⁶Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. Galatians 5: 19-26

And there is more. But because I think the reader can read I'll just leave it at these two examples. The point is that God can and does not have a problem with us considering the evidence of our faith...as a matter of fact He told us what to look for.

Compare your profile to that of Harvey Burnett who became a Christian and a COGIC preacherman all at once, no training.  Wow, you don't know anything about the Church of God in Christ. No one becomes a District Superintendant without training. The means Elder Burnett is not just a Pastor! IT means that he is assistant to his bishop and is over several churches.

Marcus you require evidence, verification, and proof as much as anyone else. The primary difference between you and those who take their cues from the real world is your exceedingly poor standard for what constitutes evidence. Whereas you accept things like tradition, revelation and authority as evidence, more reasonable people reject those things as routes to truth since throughout humanity there exist thousands of incompatible traditions, thousands of irreconcilable revelations, and millions of authority figures convinced that none but them know the truth.  

A lot of presuppositions and no evidence. I do not accept tradition, my revelation, or any authority that is not compatible with the Bible. I agree that there thousand of irreconcilable and incompatible worldviews. They can't all be right, but there is one that I have researched that does stand up to objective evidence and not human opinion: the Bible - the Word of the living God..

You say some version of Christian Bible constitutes evidence, though it clearly does not. In other Christianities they say some other version of a Bible is evidence

I know you are referring to the gnostic texts and other early extra-biblical writings. None of them fit the following metric. 

¹⁶All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ¹⁷so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

If anyone disagrees, I really would like to see an explanation of how these texts outside the Bible do fit this criteria. And if  he refers to the textual variants, I'd like him to point out a single variant text that conflicts with historic and orthodox Christian doctrine. .

Then, there is the Koran and numerous other holy books declaring themselves to also be the "truth." Your profile also says that you make a living in the science-based field of software engineering. Your income would not exist if it were not for something far more reliable than tradition, revelation, or authority. Are you also a science-denying YEC? Do you discount or reject the science of radioisotopic dating? Were the YEC's mistaken who claim to have recently found Noah's Ark and also to have determined a 4800 year age of the wood via radiocarbon dating? Are you also correct if you deny it? Then, you contradict your fellow religionists. It's not reliable.

May 7, 2010 2:34 PM

I've written on my blog why I accept the Bible over the Qur'an.  Let me briefly just point out that most credible historian agree that Jesus was crucified. The Bible says that Jesus was crucified.  The Qur'an says that Jesus was not crucified. History conflicts with the Qur'an therefore I've got to throw it out.   I'm not a young earth creationists. Not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists. You can be a Christian believe either way - Old Earth or Young Earth. I personally don't find enough Biblical or Scientific evidence to endorse Old Earth Creationism. Even if you think Genesis is speaking of seven 24 hour days of creation that doesn't make the universe 6000 years old. Not all Christians agree with any of your evidence of what a Christian must believe to be a Christian.  That's like saying all Atheists are cannibals because Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist.  Don't be ignorant and stupid.

Russ said...

You said, Assuming it is I have a two simple lines of questions to ask: How can you prove that your family loves you? Answer: evidence, lots and lots of evidence. In societies like the US where daughters are not bought and sold as chattel, the love of a man or woman must be earned through demonstratable behaviors, some evolutionarily engrained and some societally defined. You provide your love interest with evidence, lots of evidence, and your love interest reciprocates with lots of evidence for you. If the evidence is absent you soon lose interest. Then, too, this evidence exchange is not limited to female-male relationships. Also, parents teach their children to behave in ways consistent with how we feel about them. We see how these things play out at church potlucks, weddings, funerals. How do your children know you do not like someone? Evidence. How do you teach your children to suck up to Grandma? You teach them to provide evidence, tangible behaviors accepted in our society to reflect one's feelings. Also, Marcus, we are so susceptible to accepting behaviors as evidence that we are easily duped with them. This is especially the case when we take the behavior of uttering a litany of unreliable words as evidence. Ted Haggard. Jimmy Swaggart. Jim Baker. Jerry Falwell. George Reker. You? Words are weak evidence by themselves and they are even weaker when, as is the case with all all religions, they are spoken without a reliable standard against which their veracity can be assessed.  

The Bible is a reliable standard when weighing the veracity of anyone speaking on the issues the Bible discusses. Just like there is evidence for loving spouses, parents and children, there is evidence that the Bible is true. MY point was simply that the proof of love cannot be objectively obtained by the scientific method.  All truth cannot be substantiated by naturalism.That is not saying that it's not useful and should be ignored but if you base your entire understand of this reality on it, you will miss a lot!

The Bible is a focal point of Christianity but it is not evidence for much of anything. Some people wrote down the prevailing myths, legends, fables, dreams, and superstitions, then peppered it with a big dollop of wishful thinking. Christians do not agree with each other about it, and, as has been pointed out, there exists no way to resolve the disagreements.  
  
A lot presuppositions. Where is your proof that the Bible is not true and just myth, legends, dreams, superstitions and wishful thinking? Where is the beef?

  How much does their love weigh? How long is it? How wide is it? Dumb. Just dumb. These are not the metrics of love, but the metrics are there. We see how love whithers away when Christians by the millions violate their marriage vows, abandon their children, abuse their children and spouses.

So longevity in a marriage is a proof of love? I disagree. But if it helps my parents have been married 52 years. They credit God for their longevity and love. Atheists are no better at being good spouses or parents than Christians without God.  My point is that you cannot scientifically prove love in a laboratory as Loftus claimed was necessary to know emphatically something is true. He did not qualify the comments but seemed to apply it to everything,. Do you really want to apply such drivel to everything that exists? I don't.

You said, Better question is if there is no transcendence of this life and no one has any ultimate value (as many consistent atheists believe) than what does it matter? Ultimate value is a stupid notion. People do not act as if anyone has "Ultimate Value." Assuming no inbreeding, you have or had eight great grandparents. Can you name all of those people who were of Ultimate Value? How about further back to their sixteen parents? Can you name them? Similarly, your great grand children will have little or not interest in who you were. Imagining Ultimate Value does not make it so. We are all generation-centric. When your children are small they look to you for everything. A few short years later that is no longer the case. A few more years and you become a holiday ornament. Tack on too many more and your Ultimate Value ends up in a nursing home being cared for by strangers.  

Such a bleak outlook. What kind of family are you from? Of course I care about all my foreparents - even if I can't know who all of them are. I owe them. I'm only six generations removed from slavery. All I have and I ever will have to be passed  to my children came through them. I'm here...America is here...because of their sacrifices. I'm not the only one into genealogy and understanding past ancestors. Your arguments are completely unable to be applied to all people.  

How do you prove you matter period? How do we weigh, count, or otherwise measure your worth or anyone else's for that matter? Sure would like to hear answers for these. Of course silence would also be an answer.

Again, evidence, Marcus. Be honest with yourself. You demand it for all things, but what you accept as evidence is horribly flawed.

May 7, 2010 2:34 PM

I wonder if people like Russ really examine what they think or do they just shoot from the hip. I'm a Christian because I do believe the evidence points to the Bible being true. Nothing else makes sense. If these are Russ' best arguments I'm completely unimpressed. I demanded evidence for the Bible and God gave it to me. If you were honest with yourself you would admit the problem isn't with lack of evidence but in you.I know because the failure is in me also and it took the power of God to change me. He can do the same for you.

As for anyone who want to read some good evidences for Christianity being true, you can refer to series of articles from Apologetics 315 which Brian Auten has compiled essays written by several Christians from all walks of life who give their best arguments in a short essay for why Christianity is the only way. 

Apologetics 315 - Essay Series

Debunking Christianity: How Can We Decide Who Is Wrong?