Near Death Experiences As Evidence for the Transcendance of the Human Mind

Recently the controversy of the human mind versus the human brain has become very important. The question: Is the human mind just an extension of the human brain or is the mind distinct and transcends death? The question has many implications. The issue is many atheists desire to define the mind as indistinguishable of the brain because then they can argue that there can't be any mind without a brain and no soul  - casting serious doubt on the existence of God. They desire to think of a human as being composed of nothing more than a physical body. They reject the Biblical descriptions of humans having having souls. They even try to say that there is no evidence to the contrary that supports that the mind transcends death and continues to exist or that the mind is not the same as the brain. They say that the fact that brain injury can cause changes in personality and behavior that the mind and the brain are the same thing. Is this true? Does it make sense?

What we have is a false parallel. The argument is designed to making you choose between the prospect that the mind and the brain are so tied together that they are the same thing or that they are so separate that the what happens to the brain doesn't affect the mind. The thing is that there is no reason to conclude that if  the mind is affected by what happens to the brain that the mind/soul do not live on after the physical body (brain) dies. There is no evidence that the relationship should be so. I have yet to read or hear anyone successfully argue why we should make that assumption. It seems that there is no reason why they both can't be true - that the mind is affected by what happens to the brain  and that the mind/soul survives physical death - brain death in other words.

A lot of people admit that if near-death experiences (NDE) are proof that the mind/soul survives death, then it's proof that the mind and the brain are not the same thing. This is why many atheists argue very hard against NDE's. They recognize that if accept the possibility that our minds survive the death of our bodies it puts their atheism in a precarious condition because we can't really know anything about what happens after we die using our own natural ways of observing the material world. Worse than that.  It means that all truth cannot be determined using the natural methods many of them have pinned their faith on. It means you have to truly consider if the Bible is true. You have to admit that it matters if the Bible is true or not.

Is there proof that NDEs are true experiences? I think they are  and not because I need them to be true to validate the Bible. I think that a good place to start looking at these issues is to look at the work of Gary Habermas. Here is an audio lecture on the subject of NDEs.

Dr. Gary Habermas gives a talk about data reported in peer-reviewed medical journals involving near-death experiences.

Listen to the talk at the following link: Near-Death Experiences: Evidence for an Afterlife? - Gary Habermas MP3 Audio

Also he has a FAQ section on NDEs on his website. Read it at http://www.garyhabermas.com/qa/qa_index.htm#nea

Related articles

• Near Death Experience (NDE) and 'Embraced By The Light' by Betty Eadie (photographess.wordpress.com)
• Near-Death Experiences (alpup.blogspot.com)
• Scientists probe brief brushes with the afterlife. Jan 12, 2011 by G. Jeffrey MacDonald (RNS) (juanfilpo.com)
• What Happens When You (Almost) Die? (huffingtonpost.com)

Debunking Christianity: Scientists to Theologians: Put Up Or Shut Up!

John Loftus has posted the following thoughts and I thought it would be worth responding by annotating his brief comments with my own in bold.

Christian theists love to point out the limits of science, and it does have some.

Alright! We have a consensus!!!!

But to focus on them to the exclusion of the massive amount of information we have acquired from science is being extremely ungrateful for what it has achieved. To me that is one aspect of the denigration of science.

Agreed some fundamental Christians do so, but I think to claim that all theists exclude evidence because it does not support what they think is true is highly unfair and is not correct.

The limits of science are based in 1) the limits of human imagination, and 2) the limits of that which we can detect. That which is undetectable does not fall within the realm of science, although, with further advances in our scientific instruments we can detect things that were previously thought undetectable.

Interesting. Another consensus. The Bible says the same thing.

¹⁶ I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, ¹⁷ so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, ¹⁸ may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, ¹⁹ and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
 ²⁰ Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, ²¹ to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.- Ephesians 3:16-21

The Bible is real clear. It states that to know reality we need to know God. Our limited and fallible imaginations are not an issue because God is greater than our imagination and we can have his power at work within us. We don't need to depend on our own abilities or solely on our own intellect. God levels he playing field.

If science does reach its limits in the future, there won't be any cause for theistic celebration because scientists may not know they have reached its limits, and because there are probably some things they might never know.

I agree with this statement too. Scary. The one thing I would add that theist (rational ones anyway) are not praying for the failure of science or scientists. Science is a worthy endeavor that God raises up people to do and even though atheist and agnostics don't see it, Science helps us understand God better because it is through the created reality God has chosen as one of the ways he has revealed Himself to us.

Why should that conclusion, if they reach it, be preferred to an evolving God concept in a sea of god-concepts without any means to settle which one is to be preferred as the best explanation of the same data? What is the theistic alternative method for squeezing the truth out of the universe? What is it? Until theists can propose a better method than science to learn about the universe, then they should just shut up!

And here is where John Loftus goes off the rails. The Bible does not present an "evolving god concept in a sea of god-concepts without any mean to settle which one to be preferred." True enough God has revealed Himself to us - in His own way and under His own terms. Only a moron would say that science is not a viable way of discovering truth in the universe. It's also equally stupid to think that science is the only way in discovering truth given the acknowledged limitations of science. Does theism propose a better method to learn about the universe and your place in it? Christianity gives you the best option: relationship with the creator. We didn't come with an exhaustive instruction manual. If you want to know the proper purpose and use of a thing, you ask the one who made it because the one who made it knows what the design specs are and what the purpose of the design was. Science is one of the things that God gave us an aid in that search but not as a replacement for knowing Him, reconciled through Jesus Christ. Notice that John Loftus and many atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins say: "I will not serve a God like that. Such a God could not reasonably exist." They say that while at the same time admitting that their reason is flawed and can't possibly be complete yet they refuse the help of God to correct it. It's like watching a man drowning but instead of clutching at the life preserver - the only flotation device available for rescue -he chucks it away because he wants a different preserver, preferring to clutch the anvil tied to chained around his neck that's dragging him down towards death to having the anvil's chain's broken. No one figures out the difference between the anvil and life preserver on their own. Some one has to point it out to us and some people who refuse to listen. It's not a perfect analogy but it's close. We must pray for them and thank God for the life preserver He gave us - Jesus.

Debunking Christianity: Scientists to Theologians: Put Up Or Shut Up!

Related articles

• The Post that Makes Me Want to Ask Lofus, "Are You Stupid?" (josiahconcept.org)

My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Can You Not See What It Takes to Believe? You Must Bash Science!

John Loftus has posted another mind bending affront to common sense...correction he quotes some mind bending affront to common sense and agrees to it.

Yep, that what Vic Reppert and gang must do, and Vic is supposedly an intellectual whom Christians say stands head over heels above me! lol Is this not completely and utterly ignorant? This is why I cannot believe. To do so you must be ignorant! I need not even respond since someone named Doctor Logic already did. See below:

This letter smacks of "scorched earth", postmodernist anti-intellectualism.

What disgusts me about the sort of rhetoric here is the suggestion that science doesn't advance, or that science is a form of pop cultural entertainment that doesn't deserve our trust.

99% of our knowledge about the world comes from science. The most reliable knowledge we have is scientific. Did a modicum of trust get us to the Moon or eliminate smallpox?!

Science has vastly improved our lives. The Bible never taught us a damn thing.

Christian apologists are more than happy to throw science under the bus if it will save their religion by making scientific inquiry look as arbitrary as the spiritual prejudice that lies at the core of their worldview.

Oh, if only science could be reduced to mere recordkeeping and endless data gathering like in the good old days of the scholastics. Then, there would indeed be no conflict between science and religion. This is what Bob really meant when he said there was no conflict, but, Bob, data collecting isn't science! There is a real conflict between real science and religion.

Science is about control and the elimination of bias, so we can see the world as it really is. Religion is the opposite: it's about the maximization of bias and amplification of prejudiuce and preconception. Science and religion are mortal enemies.

I've read Dr. Victor Reppert's post I can find no "science bashing" in it. Atheists like John Loftus are so quick to label theists as people who hate science - as if there are no scientists who are also theists. Really, really, an affront to common sense. They also will cry foul. All I see that Reppert do in his post is describe the limits of science and why it's not a smart thing to put all of your eggs into its basket if you want to know what reality is. What is wrong with that? Loftus sounds like a religious person who just had his idol spit on. Loftus basically attempts to respond to Reppert's post by quoting a comment by "Dr. Logic". I think to anyone who read this thread should go and see the original post and comments. I think that Bob Prokop's comments bear reading.

"Dr. Logic",

I still fail to understand how you can employ that moniker with a straight face. Everything you wrote in your comment does nothing more than provide yet more evidence for my thesis. You obviously read the posting, but brought along with you your own prejudices and blinders, and saw only what you wanted (or perhaps expected) to see.

Of course science does not "deserve" our trust, any more than our government or my church does. We are dealing with human beings here, who have the same weaknesses and failings that I can so easily see in myself.

(Warning: I'm going to ramble a bit here, but I want to get a lot of points in with my morning coffee.)

As a professional analyst of the Soviet Union for some decades, I learned extensively about the history of scientific research in that country, to include the infamous Lysenko period, where no conclusions were allowed to be drawn in genetics that might conflict with the party line. And you don't have to look to totalitarian societies to see the same dynamics at work. In our own country, the Bush administration routinely manipulated, suppressed, and spun data to push its own line on (i.e., against) global climate change. Corporations such as oil companies brazenly distort data to hide the ecological damage their activities are causing. And don't get me started on the food industry, which does everything in its power to selectively use data to promote its "health" messages.

So no, even the data itself does not exist in some idealistic values-free Zone of Objectivity. Quite often, we have to consider the source.

But when it comes to big-picture conclusions drawn from that data, now we are entirely within the realm of the greater environment (spanning everything from the small scale of the interpersonal dynamics withing the individual research unit to contemporary culture as a whole). There's just no escaping it. This is neither a bad nor a good thing - it just is!

Now my own expertise happens to be in astronomy, so forgive me for using a lot of examples from that field. Might I suggest reading the (short) book "How I killed Pluto, and Why it had it Coming" by Mike Brown, a quite readable and frankly hilarious account of the politics, personalities, shenanigans, skullduggery, and at times even borderline criminality that surrounded the decision to demote Pluto from the status of "planet". This is a perfect example of how, even when absolutely no one contests the actual data involved, the issues of "World View" that might be affected by such information are the furthest thing possible from objectivity.

I could go on, but this post is getting too long as it is. My point is in no way to denigrate science. (I love my healthy teeth, thanks to the science of dentistry!) But let's not endow it with properties (such as objectivity) which it does not deserve.

Debunking Christianity: Can You Not See What It Takes to Believe? You Must Bash Science!

God's Knowledge/Man's Knowledge

Jeff Downs has posted an audio of a discussion of the controversy between God's Foreknowledge and Man's Knowledge

Some of you are familiar with what has become known (inappropriately) as the Van Til/Clark controversy; dealing with what constitutes God's knowledge and man's knowledge. Recently the crew from the Reformed Forum spent some time with Dr. Scott Oliphint (who sat under Van Til and now teaches Apologetics at WTS) and addressed this controversy. Click here to listen.

If you are not familiar with Dr. Oliphint, he is the author of The Battle Belongs to the Lord and Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology, both books dealing with apologetics. He is also one of the editors of Christian Apologetics Past and Present: A Primary Source Reader. Dr. Oliphint is certainly one of my favorites when it comes to contemporary apologetic thought.

God's Knowledge/Man's Knowledge

FacePalm of the Day #66 - Debunking Christianity: Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable.

John Loftus wrote  a fairly lengthy post but I will not be responding to the entire post. Instead I will cover the worse part of it.

Science has closed the gaps in our knowledge of the workings of the world. With each gap that is closed believers move the goal posts, claiming that their God is still active in the world. In effect, until science can close every single gap they will have reason to believe. That is, either science must show it's impossible for God to exist or they can believe despite the massive onslaught of science. Because of this science some of the more reasonable believers will say God is not to be found in the gaps, but instead he is the sustained of the world. Yet look at what they've done. Either they argue from the gaps of they don't. If they do, then they must continually move the goal posts, which means they were wrong in the past. Thus arguing from the gaps is an argument from ignorance. If they don't do this, then this universe looks indistinguishable from a universe without God in it at all.

To be honest I don't think Loftus realizes that the more questions Science answers the more questions get asked. There is not a single thing that we can completely exhaustively claim to have fully explained.

Unless we can prove we do not live in a Matrix, or are not dreaming right now, or are not some brains in a vat, then believers will opine we all have faith. And if they can get us to admit this then they drive a whole truckload of Christian assumptions through that small crevice. Can we prove any of these things are not the case? Then they have every bit of a right to believe the wildly improbable things they do about a triune god, an incarnation, transfiguration, resurrection, ascension, and final judgment. This is a huge non-sequitur. There is no parity here at all, even if we grant these things, which I've written on before.

The bottom line is, we assume a whole lot - things we can't prove. For example, how do we know the light has the same speed all over the universe in all inertial reference frames? We don't really know that but its seems probably true. Loftus' whole argument seems to hinge on him thinking that "a triune god, an incarnation, transfiguration, resurrection, ascension, and final judgment" are all improbable. However he has not proven that they are improbable.  No one can. If something is designed and put into place -  probability is a stupid thing to consider because probability has nothing to do with it. If Jesus' Resurrection was an predetermined and deliberate act than there is no possibility that it would not happen. Science is full of finding out that the improbable is not only just possible but necessarily true.

There are other things to say but I'll stop for now. Others can chime in with more examples. But just think if a banker told someone that he would probably bring financial ruin upon himself if he invested all his money in one particular stock. What would you think if this guy invested his money anyway because his banker could not prove he would bring financial ruin on himself? Think on this and you see exactly what believers continually do.

I think the investment analogy is flawed. The Christian message is not that if you accept Christ you will bring ruin on yourself. A better analogy is of a person being bankrupt and hopelessly in debt and deserving to spend the rest of their lives in jail given the amount they owe and can never pay back. Then that person gets the news that all they have to do is believe and trust the one they owe and they can get the debt washed away and lavished with untold wealth - more than they can imagine. That is the Gospel. The biggest facepalm of all is that Loftus does not understand what he rejects.


Debunking Christianity: Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable.

The Dunamis Word: The Most Dangerous Place

Elder Harvey Burnett has written a very interesting blog posting pointing out a backlash of criticism of the picture on the left. Given the following paragraph:

In response to a high abortion rate in New York city which touts over the 17,000 black babies murdered at the hands of abortion providers in 2010. That's almost 50 abortions per day by black women in New York City alone. Then there's the statistic that although Blacks only comprise 13% of the US population, they are over 36% of abortions annually. Pointing out that dismal statistic is an antiabortionist group called Thatsabortion.com. Building on solid statistical data they have undertaken to place another add bringing attention to what can only be considered to be a genocide occurring within the black community.

I find it amazing that pro-Abortion organizations and Planned Parenthood would be crying foul. They don't deny the fact that in America Black people make up a small part of the population but make up more the 1/3 of abortions. I highly recommend, Elder Burnett's post because he traces the fact the genocide against Black people and poor people has always been the aim of the Planned Parenthood. No, y'all, getting rid of Hitler did not get rid of Eugenics. Am I offended by the poster? Nope. But I am offended by people pretending they ain't trying to kill us while pretending to do us a favor - advocating disobeying God all for the sake of convenience. No one can tell me that even 90% of those abortions was because of rape.

The Dunamis Word: The Most Dangerous Place

Fistbump Quote of the Day - Confident Christianity: Distorted View Of Reality?

Mary Jo Sharp posted the following statement:

My last post on the Christian university and worldview had a similar line of thinking. Are we, as Christians, learning doctrines as somewhat intangible, lofty ideals or are we taking into consideration what each doctrine entails for our individual lives and our lives within the human community? Are we working through how these doctrines effect our daily lives? Let me state it one more way: If Christianity is true, what effect does its truthfulness have on our lives? I believe that if Christianity is true then a lack of understanding of the doctrines and themes of the Christian faith would leave us with a distorted view of reality. What do you think?

I agree withe her 100%! Amen and Amen!!!!

Confident Christianity: Distorted View Of Reality?

In Memory of Dwayne McDuffie: A Look Back at the Man Comics Needed - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Image by CoolB047 via Flickr
At Comics Alliance, David Brothers has written a great article on the work of Dwayne McDuffie. I'm going to miss McDuffie's genius. I have always enjoyed his work and it's always great to see someone who share a similar cultural background to mine being successful in industries that people of color don't usually have opportunities to thrive in. I echo, Brothers' words where he wrote about Dwayne McDuffie:

The man was a visionary, and I'm extraordinarily thankful for the work he gave us before he died.

Read More: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/24/dwayne-mcduffie-career/#ixzz1Evc0aSES

One of the things that Brothers describes is McDuffie's ability to really craft character-driven stories that were just plain fun and action packed. He included a page from a Fantastic Four issue he wrote. It's very poignantly illustrates how well he understood the characters he wrote. It was true regardless of if it were Batman, Superman, Thor, Captain America, Static, Black Panther, Storm, or Ben 10!

In Memory of Dwayne McDuffie: A Look Back at the Man Comics Needed - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Related articles

• "Dwayne McDuffie (1962-2011)." and related posts (progressiveruin.com)
• Dwayne McDuffie (slog.thestranger.com)
• Comic and TV writer Dwayne McDuffie dies, age 49 (omg.yahoo.com)
• Comic Book and Animation Writer Dwayne McDuffie Dies (cinquez.wordpress.com)
• Comic and TV writer Dwayne McDuffie dies, age 49 (reuters.com)
• Dwayne McDuffie, comic and animation writer, dies (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Comic Book and Animation Writer Dwayne McDuffie Dies (narmer.wordpress.com)

John Lennox & Peter Atkins in Dialogue Video/Audio - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a debate between John Lennox and Peter Atkins on science and the existence of God. You can get to the audio at the following link and I have embedded the video below. They discuss just what science can and cannot tell us about God.


Duelling Professors from Grenville Kent on Vimeo.

John Lennox & Peter Atkins in Dialogue Video/Audio - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• Me vs Peter Atkins on The Limits of Science (stephenlaw.blogspot.com)
• Debate between Richard Dawkins & John Lennox (releasingreligion.blogspot.com)
• Christian Responses: Faith and Science (Part 1) (irreligion.org)

Debunking Christianity: New Zealand Quake Kills 65 And Traps Hundreds! Isn't God Good?

This is exactly one of those arguments that shouldn't make sense to the person making it but it seems that John Loftus actually thinks that either no Christian has ever given a good answer to this objection or that this argument is actually a huge problem.

I consider the evidential case against a good God from naturally caused suffering to be the most significant problem for believers.

Can anyone tell me why God did not do a perpetual miracle by averting that earthquake? If God was concerned about remaining hidden then no one would suspect he did anything if he averted it, because it would not have taken place. Anyone? Anyone?

No one can say why God did not miraculously stop the earthquake. I live on and near several fault lines in California. I can't explain why God allowed a huge earthquake in New Zealand but thus far today has spared me, my family, friends, and neighbors the same fate or worse. Jesus dealt with this question. And he dealt with it by pointing out that in asking the question we are looking in the wrong spot and asking the wrong question.

¹ Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. ² Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? ³ I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ⁴ Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? ⁵ I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” - Luke 13:1-5

His disciples were wondering why did God allow Pilate to abuse Jewish people in such a horrible way. Jesus takes their question and gets them to think in a way that we don't typically think. We usually wonder, what did a person do to deserve such horror when they suffer. Jesus points out that just because you are spared it doesn't make you better or more righteous than the ones who suffer. This isn't just regarding evil we perpetrate on each other but natural disasters and accidents - like the earthquake in New Zealand and the fall of the tower of Siloam.

So why do bad things happen to people who don't seem to deserve it? Wrong question. Why do good things happen to us? Answer: God's mercy. As for how to deal with the problems of life, I have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the promises of God on which to stand.

²⁸ And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. ²⁹ For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. - Romans 8:28-29

What have you got when the rubber meets the road and your life seems to fall apart and things happen that you could not have possibly foreseen. Without Jesus, what is the point? None.

Is God good? All the time!!!! Even in the midst of a deadly Earthquake. It could have been far worse. God continued to provide mercy for the people living there. Best take Jesus' words to heart and repent because our time of suffering is coming if not here already. 

Debunking Christianity: New Zealand Quake Kills 65 And Traps Hundreds! Isn't God Good?

Related articles

• Quake in New Zealand kills at least 65, traps more (charlotte.news14.com)
• Woman's rescue a rare ray of hope in quake-ravaged New Zealand city (cnn.com)
• New Zealand earthquake preparedness: Authorities battled complacency - Christian Science Monitor (news.google.com)
• New Zealand quake kills 65 (sasrai.wordpress.com)
• Woman's rescue a rare ray of hope in quake-ravaged New Zealand city - CNN (news.google.com)

Reginald Hudlin on the Black Panther

Here are a couple of Reginald Hudlin discussing being a black writer in the Entertainment Industries

Dwayne McDuffie on the realities of the Black writer in the comic book i...

Here is a video of Dwayne McDuffie on the realities of being a comic book/Hollywood writer who happens to be black.

FistBump of the Day to "Thinking God's Thoughts"

I really enjoy reading Brennon's blog and his Facebook quote. I really wanted to call attention to a couple of things he posted today.

On the origin of morality

Many atheists, when trying to ground moral values, appeal to something like human well being as a guide for morality. This seems to be patently insufficient of a ground for morals, because it itself is simply a moral judgment. It is good to promote human well being and bad to stifle it is a moral value itself, and therefore can't be the ground of moral values. As I said to one commenter on Sam Harris' attempt to use this as a ground, "Saying that well-being of some sort is good is simply another moral claim, so it hasn't reached any sort of ontological base at all. If this is Harris' base, then he seems to have stopped short of a true ground for morality and settled for a branch. [In other words] you can't say that a moral value is itself the ground of moral value."

This is why most attempts at ethics today are silly little exercises in futility.

On Science and Teleology

So I'm picking on my ethics teacher again, which may turn into quite a habit for the next 12 weeks or so. This statement (the title of this post) was one of the supposed problems with Thomas Aquinas' natural law theory. My teacher really didn't argue for this assertion. How has Science done this?

Is it because it can now explain how things work? What does that have to do with whether they have an end they were designed for?

It seems to me that this is just an assumption that flows from, at least, methodological naturalism. But even if you accept that science can't access the reason for which something was created, but can only tell us how it was created/works, it certainly doesn't follow that it wasn't created for some reason.

Not to mention that this seems to be patently untrue anyway. Certain fields of science seem to make their living on detecting teleology. Archaeologists do this often.

I admit that I don't agree with everything he writes but I really like these posts. Thanks, Brennon! All I can say is "Amen and amen."

Thinking God's Thoughts: Settling for a Branch
Thinking God's Thoughts: Modern Science Rejects Teleology

Obama Critics, Out of Ideas, Call First Lady "Fat" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

When you can't demolish an opponent for his/her ideas or actions what do you do? You go after his/her spouse. What if you can't deal any dirt about the spouse what do you? Make fun of them. Danielle Belton has posted an article about how people have been calling Michelle Obama fat, although she isn't fat and it seems because they can't find anything mean or nasty to say without tipping off how racist they are. I liked how Ms Belton phrased the end of her post

It doesn't matter what she does. It'll be wrong because she'll still be doing it while black, the most wrongest thing in the history of America. After all, as the quote my mother likes to repeat says, "We were brought here to work and entertain." Every day upon which Michelle Obama adorns herself in finery and does whatever the hell she wants is a giant "screw you" to the slavery industrial complex. She was supposed to be poppin' out babies and pickin' cotton. Not having State Dinners and wearing couture and trying to help our fat-ass kids shed some pounds. The nerve!
BACK OF THE BUS, First Lady! BACK OF THE BUS!

I agree with her. The sad thing is that many of the Obama's detractors don't even understand what they are doing.

Obama Critics, Out of Ideas, Call First Lady "Fat" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

Related articles

• Diane von Furstenberg 'So Embarrassed' By Michelle Obama State Dinner Dress Flap (huffingtonpost.com)
• "Rush Limbaugh has mocked Michelle Obama over her weight" and related posts (celebritymound.com)
• Rush Limbaugh doesn't think Michelle Obama is fit to fight obesity. Seriously. (popwatch.ew.com)

My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: The Top Ten Misconceptions About Atheists

John Loftus posted a list of 10 things that are misconceptions of atheists. I think he's right that many people think this way about atheists and most of these ideas are wrong. His comments are in bold.

Let me correct some of the most egregious misconceptions believers have about us, in reverse order:

10) We don’t eat or molest babies. Nor do we agree with what allegedly atheist dictators did in the past century. Over-all we are good people. All you need to do is personally know one of us to see this. I have no doubt but that you probably already know an atheist. It’s just that you don’t give that person the freedom to tell you in this Christian dominated culture. I wish more atheists would “come out of the closet” because of this.

It's really unfortunate that people think this way. An atheist is no more evil than any other believers.

9) We do not worship the devil. We do not think he exists.

With one hand Loftus gives, and takes away with the other.

8) We do not fear threats of hell. So why make them? Christians don’t fear any threats of hell coming from Muslims. So why threaten us? The fact that you do shows us you’d rather see us burn in hell. That’s some Christian compassion in action!

Who says that Christians want to see anyone burn in hell? I don't. I can't send you or anyone to hell - that is a given. Only Jesus can save you from hell.. Nor do any Christians I know. How can you be threatened by something that you believe is not true?

7) We don’t claim to know more than God. We don’t think he exists. We do think that if God existed he could have done a much better job with this world though.

So the fact that I thought that some atheists like John Loftus are arrogant are true.

6) We don’t claim to be better than God. We don’t think he exists. We do think that if God existed he doesn’t appear to be good.

Again more hubris.

5) We don’t hate God nor are we angry with he/she/it. Again, we don’t think he exists. We can be angry with what believers do in the name of God though.

So the thought of hell shouldn't bother you either. The thing is what you believe doesn't make it true.

4) We do not agree with each other about a host of other ideas. But we all agree that a god probably doesn’t exist.

Right! I'm sure that not all atheist are as close-minded as others.

3) We don’t claim to know with certainty that a god of some kind doesn’t exist. Not even Richard Dawkins or Victor Stenger thinks it’s impossible that a god of some kind exists (I heard them both say as much in debates). We do think the God hypothesis is unnecessary and irrelevant to life though.

I know that not all atheists see things this way. If God is unnecessary and irrelevant then why does it matter if He does or does not exist? The very question makes God relevant and necessary. Is a father unnecessary and irrelevant for the help of his children? If you can say "Yes" then the society has slipped closer to hell than I thought.

2) We don’t have faith nor a religion. We base our conclusions on the available evidence. We do not take a leap of faith beyond those probabilities. And since to have a religion one must believe in supernatural beings and forces, we cannot be labeled as religious in any meaningful sense.

Interesting definition of "faith" and "religion". Not Biblical. Religion does not mean you must believe in supernatural forces and beings. Religion is something you believe and informs your behavior and the way you look at the world. If someone can tell me that their atheism has nothing to do with what they think and how they look at the world, they are truly deluded.

1) We are not a minority. In one sense, depending on how you categorize people, we are all minorities in some group or another. But we are the second largest denomination in America. Depending on how we define an atheist (if we include agnostics who are skeptics with regard to all "revealed" religions) we may even be upwards to 24% of the population. So says this poll. Worldwide we represent third place among the world religions, even though we're not religious.

Minority? Sounds like a lemming mentality. The desire to not be alone and stand for what you think. Atheism has historically mean belief in no God. Trying to massage it so you can include other people in your numbers is really sad. It is exactly what religious people do who desire to fill their church rolls and don't really care if the people are born-again or not.

Debunking Christianity: The Top Ten Misconceptions About Atheists

Watson Kills All Humans - Sessler's Soapbox - G4tv.com

Image via WikipediaAdam Sessler has offers his comments regarding the recent win of Watson on Jeopardy and what artificial intelligence means for the human race. Makes me laugh!

Video Game - E3 2011

Watson Kills All Humans - Sessler's Soapbox - G4tv.com

Related articles

• How Adam Sessler Got Into Video Games - Sessler's Soapbox (g4tv.com)

Dwayne McDuffie - R.I.P

R.I.P., Dwayne McDuffieI'm amazed about how news comes out. I left work and found out that Dwayne McDuffie died of complications from surgery.This was sudden. The man was a genius and so very talented. He understood the characters he wrote and he also was responsible for some of the greatest fictional characters ever in print, television, and movies. McDuffie co-created Static. He was heavily responsible for the Justice League show and on top of that Ben 10 and Generator Rex. Not to mention the several DC animated movies and the whole Milestone line of comics. I was always amazed how well he could write the new characters he created and the mainstays like Wolverine, Batman, and Superman. Ironically, his latest project, All-Star Superman animated movie dropped today. I'm going to miss him very much. I remember one piece of work of his I really liked back in the day was the Marvel comic Damage Control.

I want to join blogger Cheryl Lynn who writes:

You need to do right by this man, DC.

McDuffie omnibus. Very soon. And when you include Milestone Forever, you use his original, unaltered scripts--with the quotes he selected included.

Cheryl Lynn @ 06:13 PM EST Link

There have been some great things written in his honor today. Check them out.

R.I.P., Dwayne McDuffie
Dwayne McDuffie, R.I.P. [UPDATED]
Digital Femm
Why I’ll miss Dwayne McDuffie

Related articles

• Dwayne McDuffie R.I.P. (briankeene.com)
• Dwayne McDuffie (slog.thestranger.com)
• R.I.P. Dwayne McDuffie, Celebrated Comic Book And Animation Writer (splashpage.mtv.com)
• Comic and TV writer Dwayne McDuffie dies, age 49 (omg.yahoo.com)
• Dwayne McDuffie, comic and animation writer, dies (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Today on a Radio Free Geneva: Questions About Calvinism

James White talked about six common questions on Calvinism. Follow the link to hear the program

Today on a Radio Free Geneva: Questions About Calvinism

Turretin and Compatibilism: Man's Freedom and God's Decree

Jamin Hubner posted the following quote from Turretin.

Although men’s actions may be free (because done spontaneously and by a previous judgment of reason), they do not cease to be necessary with respect to the divine decree and foreknowledge. Now the foreknowledge of God implies indeed the infallibility of futurition and of the event and the necessity of consequence, and yet does not imply coaction or violence, nor take away from the will its intrinsic liberty. - Institutes, third topic, question 12 (p. 211, english trans.)

I like it! Read Hubner's comments at the following link.

Turretin and Compatibilism: Man's Freedom and God's Decree

“The Fatima Crusader” and False Prophecy | True Freethinker

Mariano wrote a great article regarding really looking at the vision of the Virgin Mary at Fatima.

There appears to be a deceiving spirit, a fallen angel disguised as an angel of light, who is passing itself off as Jesus’ mother, Mary. This creature has been spreading false doctrine wrapped in a veneer of Christian obeisance as well as false prophecies.
It was a study into some of these false prophecies that lead me to write to Fr. Nicholas Gruner of The Fatima Crusader in order to pose some questions regarding these prophecies and those making them. The chronology of what follows is that Fr. Nicholas Gruner wrote an article in the year 1998 AD that made certain claims about prophecies that were to be fulfilled in 1999 AD and or 2000 AD. Once the year 2001 had come around, I wrote the following e-mail dated June 30th, 2001 AD (the usual pleasantries have been edited out)

Read the rest of the article at the following link.


“The Fatima Crusader” and False Prophecy | True Freethinker

Answering Muslims: Congressman Allen West vs. CAIR: "Don't Try and Blow Sunshine Up My Butt"

David Wood posted a response to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Their argument is as follows.

The latest argument from the Council on American-Islamic Relations? "You can't show us a single verse where the Qur'an explicitly commands Muslims to attack America! Since the Qur'an nowhere commands Muslims to attack America, you can't say that Muslim attacks against America have anything to do with Islam!"

Of course David Wood isn't the only one who disagrees. He also posted Congressman Allen West response.




Go ahead and follow the link to see David Wood's well-reasoned Response.

Answering Muslims: Congressman Allen West vs. CAIR: "Don't Try and Blow Sunshine Up My Butt"

Related articles

• Video: Allen West To Koran-Wielding CAIR Scold, "Don't Blow Sunshine Up My Butt" (nicedeb.wordpress.com)
• Rep. Allen West to CAIR: 'Don't blow sunshine up my butt' (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Allen West To Muslim Questioner: 'Don't Try To Blow Sunshine Up My Butt' (huffingtonpost.com)
• CAIR Representative: You're Attacking IslamRep. Allen West: In Fairness, Islam Attacked Us First (minx.cc)

Iron Sharpens Iron: David Wood: Muslim Terrorizes Other Muslims: Dearborn Case Update

David Wood recently explained the most recent situation of the case in Dearborn, MI where he, Nabeel Quireshi  and a couple other people were arresting during an Islam festival without cause. Follow the link to listen to the interview.

Iron Sharpens Iron: David Wood: Muslim Terrorizes Other Muslims: Dearborn Case Update

Related articles

• Dearborn mayor rebuts Angle (politico.com)