Flatland Apologetics: Get real
Monday, March 14, 2011
Flatland Apologetics: Get real
Flatland Apologetics: Get real
7 Films That Got Stuck In The Uncanny Valley - Topless Robot
The concept of "The Uncanny Valley" -- the theory that as artificial humans get closer and closer to looking real, they get creepier and more unsettling -- gets a lot of debate amongst movie and robot fans alike.
I think that there is merit to this. The article goes on to list seven films that illustrate the point. I found all of these creepy except for Jolie in Beowulf and the Hulk
7 Films That Got Stuck In The Uncanny Valley - Topless Robot
Lessons in Logic and Argumentation: The Fallacy of Equivocation
Lessons in Logic and Argumentation: The Fallacy of Equivocation
Video: “I Have Sex” « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.
Everyone sins and falls short of the ideal standard God has given us - in multiple ways. This is why forgiveness is given to us. God knows that the standards for how we exercise our sexuality is steep and God does not expect us to view sexual desire as sin - in and of itself. Desiring sex is not an evil thing. The problem is what people do to fulfill those desires. We can fall into sinful action to satisfy those feelings. Thank God, for giving us all the tools and things we need to live the lives He has purposed for us.
Video: “I Have Sex” « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Calvinistic Cartoons: Random Comic Panel
Is your doctrine a "SUPER" one?
Soul in Depravity
Unconditional Election
Particular Redemption
Eternally Secure
Resistance Transformed into Insistence
Want to know the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism? Look at one of the comments:
- W - Will is free! I - I elect myself! M - My decision! P - Power to choose! Y - You might not make it! And don't nobody call it "man-centered"
Calvinistic Cartoons: Random Comic Panel
Patrick Boivin - Interview
Patrick Boivin
Fallacy Friday: The Ubiquitous Ad Hominem | MandM
Fallacy Friday: The Ubiquitous Ad Hominem | MandM
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Debate: Thabiti vs Zawadi "Who is God and how are we saved?"
Debate on Islamic and Christian ideas of God and his Character as well as how both view Salvation. Well worth looking at.
What is God like?I'm glad to see that such debates do take place in the Middle East!!!
What is the difference in Salvation between Christianity and Islam?
Does Islam guarantee Salvation?
Is Jesus Christ the only way to Salvation?
Which faith leads to eternal salvation, Islam or Christianity?
Representing the Muslim perspective was Bassam Zawadi: Brother Bassam has written hundreds of articles on Islam and Christianity.
He has a Bachelors Degree in Management and Marketing and a Masters Degree in Strategic Marketing.
He runs the website www.call-to-monotheism.com
He is currently working on his first publication, " Who is Muhammad? a Muslim and Christian Perspectives. "
Representing the Christian side was Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile: Thabiti M. Anyabwile is senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman in the Cayman Islands.
He was previously an assistant pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Washington, DC) and served as an elder at Church on the Rock (Raleigh, NC).
Thabiti has a strong professional and academic background in community psychology, with special interest in the history and development of the African American church.
He holds B.A. and M.S. degrees in psychology from North Carolina State University. He and his wife, Kristie, have two daughters.
The Topic: Who is God and How are We Saved?
An Interfaith dialogue between Brother Bassam Zawadi and Pastor Thabiti M. Anyabwile (from the First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman)
(the University of Wollongong, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 2nd March 2009)
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Debate: Thabiti vs Zawadi "Who is God and how are we saved?"
My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne
Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about he details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect, supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that only benefit a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth. - Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is TrueFor more see the DC Evolution Smackdown.
I was just thinking "I wonder why people don't also consider the other ways of viewing the same data that does not support their conclusions and the data that goes against their conclusions - especially concerning evolution." I find that that Christian scientists are often belittled and ridiculed and accused of making data stretch to support the conclusions they hold but then we have scientists who support "common ancestry" doing the same thing. Here a portion of the antidote written by Luke Nix:
Now, the whole idea that I am demonstrating is not possible here, is common ancestry. There is much evidence that suggests a common ancestor (including similar genetic code). However, we are looking for an explanation that can make sense of the evidence for common ancestry AND all the evidence against common ancestry (surface scratched above).What is suggested by the similar genetic code is a "commonality". But what else could be "common" among the organisms that would explain all the evidence? A common designer. A common designer would explain everything. Many human designers use many things from previous designs in new designs (no sense in re-inventing the wheel). That would explain the common genetic code. A common designer is not limited by mutational and environmental pathways that are limited by the age of the universe and further limited by the age of whatever celestial body they formed on. The idea of a common designer explains more of the data, without inconsistency, than does common ancestry (macroevolution).
Nix's article is very good and offers some evidence that Loftus did not include in his quotation of Jerry Coyne's book. He even provides links to even more resource. I highly suggest looking at both sides and see that there is plenty enough evidence that you can just blindly accept the notion of the Universe coming into being uncaused and without direction or purpose (now that sounds like a delusion because there is verifiable evidence to the contrary).
So Remember:
Poison:
Debunking Christianity: Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne
Antidote:
Can Evolution Repeat?
Christ Victorious (Resurrection Day) - apologetics - blip.tv
Cover via AmazonHere is a short motion comic based on a chapter from a book by Pastor Mark Driscoll
In the first chapter of Mark Driscoll's book "Death By Love", he explains to a girl named "Katie" how Christ has conquered the enemies of her soul on her behalf. Now she is free, safe, alive, and protected in Him. Video made by Ryan Johnson.
Christ Victorious (Resurrection Day) - apologetics - blip.tv
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Muslims in American History: A Forgotten Legacy
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Muslims in American History: A Forgotten Legacy
Calvinistic Cartoons: A Video Worth Watching
Here is a promo for a book Eddie Eddings Illustrated poking fun at anti-Calvinism. I think I will have to read this one.
Calvinistic Cartoons: A Video Worth Watching
Calvinistic Cartoons: A Video Worth Watching
Friday, March 11, 2011
When to End a Conversation With A Four Year-Old
Image via WikipediaLast Sunday I took my family to Olive Garden and during dinner I was telling my wife, Suki, that I looked up the character Black Manta and found a picture of him without a helmet and that he is a black man because I had never seen him outside of costume. I was amazed. I never knew that.Suki wasn't really impressed, but she humors me anyway. She said, "How could you not know? All black characters have 'Black' in their name."
I replied, "No, that's not true." I already had a couple of characters in mind.
"Name one," my wife challenged.
Before I could respond, our four-year-old daughter, Makayla, who was obviously paying closer attention to the conversation and watching me during her life, said "Black Widow!" We busted out laughing. Makayla said it with the look on her face of knowing that she was undeniably correct.
At this point, I was through. I mean Makayla has a point. Black Widow is a white fictional character with "black" in her codename. Let's just say I backed away slowly! I've learned that when your toddler's got you like that it's better to not press it and just remember that they are paying attention to everything you say and do. .
Debunking Christianity: How Do We Know Christians are Delusional?
Debunking Christianity: How Do We Know Christians are Delusional?
Calvinistic Cartoons: Don't Drink That
Calvinistic Cartoons: Don't Drink That
Video: Someone Made A Real-Life ‘Star Wars’ Laser Blaster « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.
Image via WikipediaMy friends,we live in interesting times!!!! Of course, I realize that this could be a hoax, but if it is, it is a cool hoax!
Video: Someone Made A Real-Life ‘Star Wars’ Laser Blaster « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.
FacePalm of the Day #67 - Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall on the Lies of God
Does God lie? He most certainly does according to the Bible. If so, how can we trust anything in it? Maybe God's plan is to send skeptics to heaven and gullible believers to hell? ;-) Ya just can't know.
At least Loftus is correct about the stakes. If God has lied in the Bible, we have no reason to think that He has told us the truth about our own salvation. There are two scriptures that come to mind where God explicitly tells us He does not lie.
19 God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill? - Numbers 23:19
He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.” - 1 Samuel 15:29
McCall seems to think that he has found contradictions in the scripture itself. Let's see if he is right.
The Hebrew Bible on the Lies of God: by Harry McCall.
In 1 Kings, Yahweh has his 400 prophets lie to Ahab:
6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, “Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle or shall I refrain?” And they said, “Go up, for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.” (1 Kings 22: 6)
Jehoshaphat feels God has His prophets lying to Ahab and tells him to send for the prophet Micaiah who again confirms that God is a lair[sic]:
19 Micaiah said, “Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left. 20 “The LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. 21 “Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 “The LORD said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.’ 23 “Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you.”
(1 Kings 22: 19 – 23)
McCall makes a few mistakes:
1. The lying prophets were not God's prophets. Look at verse 23 carefully. The spirit says that he would lie through Ahab's prophets.
2. Jehoshaphat was a good king who followed God
3. Ahab rejected God.
4. Micaiah was not one of Ahab's prophets and Ahab did not like Micaiah because he never told Ahab what he wanted to hear.
5. God did not lie to Ahab but used Micaiah to let him know that his 400 prophets lied about their victory. God had proclaimed disaster again Ahab.
6. Ahab and Jehoshaphat chose to ignore the warning and went into battle anyway leading to Ahab's death.
7. Moral: Don't be like Ahab.
Fail #1
The Prophet Jeremiah accuses God of lying. In Jeremiah 4: 10 he accused God as being a deceiver and a liar:
10 Then I said, “Ah, Lord GOD! Surely You have utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, ‘You will have peace’; whereas a sword touches the throat.”
And again repeats it later:
7 O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived; You have overcome me and prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all day long; Everyone mocks me. (Jeremiah 20:7)
Jeremiah was frightened and frustrated. Things didn't happen the way he thought they should. Like us, he thought that if he was really called of God than he would not be going through the suffering he was experiencing. God didn't promise him respect or ease or peace or a good time. What you can see in this instance is that following God will cause people to mock and hate you. You will face opposition. Fail 2.
In Ezekiel 14: 1-11, God will lie to anyone He fails to like:
…the LORD will answer him by myself: 8And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. 9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. 10And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him; 11That the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, neither be polluted any more with all their transgressions; but that they may be my people, and I may be their God, saith the Lord GOD. (Jeremiah 7b - 10)
The reason that God is pronouncing punishment. McCall left this little fact out. Idolatry isn't just about God not liking you. IT is about turning your back on Him. Israel was supposed to be his chosen people. One reason why "marriage" is often used as the analogy for the relationship between Israel and God is because it was supposed to be that close. Idolatry is tantamount to adultery. Same thing today. When you turn your back on God you are "turning tricks". Why should you surprised when disaster comes? One can deny that the reality of what the Bible is talking about all they want, but at least get what the scripture is saying correct. Fail #3.
In Genesis 2: 17, God lies when He tells Adam and Eve that the very day they eat of it, they shall surly die and they don’t (notice the NISV “dynamic equivalent” avoided the word יום “day”).
The text reads: אכלך ביום which matches closely to the LXX: δ' ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε.
The lie of God is the fact that יום and ἡμέρᾳ are both used in a literal sense just as it is in the six days of creation.
Christians apparently have better morals and ethics then the God they love and worship!
What is the one of the certainties of human life? The one thing that all humans have in common identically - no matter where/when you live, how much money you have, or what you know? The common denominator is that one day we will all die! Genesis 2:17 is correct. The day Adam chose to reject and disobey God, we all fell in him. He died. He became a prisoner of sin and death. All the signs point to that death was not in his future before he disobeyed God. It took 930 years for Adam to experience physically what happened to him spiritually, psychologically and in his relationship and connection to his creator. McCall is trying to make the argument that God implied that Adam would drop dead as soon as ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. However the truth is way more profound than that. IT was far worse than dropping dead. Loftus, McCall, and others like to ask why is it they can't experience and interact with God just like we do with each other? Thank Adam for that one. Fail #4. Additionally, McCall ignores the evidence that the six days of creation was not six literal 24 hour days but six unspecified long periods of time. Taking that in consideration it could have been 930 years in the case of when Adam would die and a few billion years for each day in the creation breakdown in Genesis 1. Fail #5
Has Harry McCall proved his point. Alas, no. Not even close. God is not a liar. People however are. Instead of saying McCall lied, I'd prefer to refer to his being misinformed.
Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall on the Lies of God
My Common Sense is Tingling: Debunking Christianity: The Danger of Belief is Thinking You Believe What God Does
And yet that's exactly what believers think according to new studies:
[P]eople's own beliefs on important social and ethical issues were consistently correlated more strongly with estimates of God's beliefs than with estimates of other people's beliefs...reasoning about God's beliefs activated areas associated with self-referential thinking more so than did reasoning about another person's beliefs. Believers commonly use inferences about God's beliefs as a moral compass, but that compass appears especially dependent on one's own existing beliefs. Link
The studies seem to ignore some very fundamental facts about what the Bible actually says about what God thinks and how people think. You cannot simultaneously believe that you know what God thinks and believe the Bible is true. If you believe the Bible than you know that God isn't even on the same level as we are on. We are not thinking his thoughts. We don't know God because of what is in us, but because of what has been revealed to us by God himself. There are no scriptures that should lead us to think we believe what God believes. The information flows from him, not back and forth.
Debunking Christianity: The Danger of Belief is Thinking You Believe What God Does
6 Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake their ways
and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. - Isaiah 55:6-11
12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. - 1 Corinthians 13:12
2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But whoever loves God is known by God. - 1 Corinthians 8:2-3
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Answering Muslims: Did Jesus die for the sins of the world? DEBATE
A debate between Mustafa Arja and Samuel Green.Wiley Park, NSW, Australia. 11th of December 2010.
http://www.engaging-with-islam.info/debates.htm
Answering Muslims: Did Jesus die for the sins of the world?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
FacePalm of the Day #66 - Debunking Christianity: The Ten Marks of a Deluded Person
Below in no particular order are what I consider the ten marks (or characteristics) of a deluded person. I think even educated Christians will agree with most of them. You might want to consider from this checklist how many of them apply to you. To the degree that more of them apply then the more likely you are deluded by your faith. Now it's quite possible that Christians can be deluded and yet their faith is true, in the same sense that a person might be brainwashed or indoctrinated into believing the truth. But the point is that if you're deluded then you have no reason to believe.
The thing is I think that many of these can apply to atheists. Let's see if his list makes sense.
A deluded person is more likely than not one who...
1) Was born and raised into his or her religious faith. Just taking the odds at face value this is non-controversial and undeniable given the number of religions propagated around the globe and adhered to with utter and complete confidence as the one true faith.
Not all Christians accepts odds at face value nor deny that there are things we don't know. The things all of the various religions Loftus refers cannot, in no way or shape or form, can be true simultaneously. Christianity is either true or it isn't. If any of the other religions are true then Christianity cannot be true. This is the bottom line. The other possibility is that none of them is wrong. I don't think that there is enough evidence pointing to Christianity being wrong. Better minds than John Loftus have tried to prove the Bible wrong and failed.
2) As an adult never adopts nor cultivates the adult attitude of doubt. All adults must revisit the religious faith taught to them by their parents since #1 above is undeniably true. That means they must doubt. Doubt is the adult attitude.
#1 is not true. Loftus cannot prove it to be true either. I'd like to know why he does not apply the "adult attitude" to his conclusions in #1? The Bible invites us to test our faith - to check it out. If you don't examine your presuppositions and your beliefs than you are disobeying the commands given by God through the Bible. If you don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, I sure would like to see you prove it.
3) Never reads widely or is exposed to other points of view in the media. I'm talking about non-fiction works about the sciences, different cultures, different faiths, and those written by skeptics or non-believers. To escape from being deluded, believers should read books that are written by people within different cultures and faith communities, and watch programs on the History Channel, National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, PBS, 60 Minutes, Dateline, and yes, YouTube.
I'd like to know why Loftus thinks that if one exposes themselves to other viewpoints, cultures, and religions they will come to the same conclusions they do. I have spent considerable amount of time looking at other viewpoints throughout my life but I don't see things the same way he does.
4) Does not travel widely including travel into different cultures. A deluded person only experiences a small slice of the pie. One must experience the world to see how others live. The more the better. Such a person basically stays within the social confines of like-minded religious people. The Amish are the extreme examples of this. Many believers only have believing friends. Even if believers cannot travel the world they can still step outside their social grouping to meet other people who think differently. Most believers do not trust people of different faiths or non-believers. Seek them out. Attend a freethinker's group meeting. Get to know them. Become friends with them.
I have been blessed to grow up in and continue to live in one of the most diverse places on earth at any given time - varying beliefs, lifestyle, culture, and viewpoints. I have had peers and classmates from all over the world and learned how to get along with all of them. I learned that just because they think differently doesn't make them more evil than people who agree with me. I do see the allure of compromise. It may seem unfair to think of people one knows who are nice, kind, and trustworthy (according to your standard) will go to hell because they reject Jesus. I keep coming back to the fact that if the Bible is right than that mean anyone who disagrees is wrong. The Bible does not give us the leeway to conclude anything else. This is why people like John Loftus must reject it if they are going to to continue what they are doing.
5) Never studies deeply into the nature of his or her adopted faith. The more you know the less you believe, the less confident you become, and the more you doubt.
I'd like to know what "deeply" means here. It usually seems to mean, rejecting traditions understanding, and assuming that the Bible is wrong and then try to find evidence for why it's wrong. I have studied math, science, and engineering for my whole life and the more I learn the more I see God the way Isaac Newton and Kepler saw God. The more I live and seek after God, the more I get to know God and the more my confidence in him grow and my confidence in me lessens because I see me more clearly. My faith grows.
6) Lies in order to defend one's faith. There are plenty of examples of this, from faking stories about finding Noah's Ark, to fudging the truth when there is no reasonable response, to making up personal healing stories, to claiming a conversion from a position of intellectual atheism (versus a practical atheism) to Evangelical Christianity like Lee Strobel and David Wood, to personal and unjustified attacks on anyone who questions one's faith in order to poison the well against them, to debate tactics like the ones used by Bill Craig and Dinesh D'Souza who as debaters, just like boxers in a ring, are out to win the debate no matter what must be said in order to win it. These are liars for Jesus to various degrees. If you have to lie to defend your faith then you need help.
I think here, Loftus protests too much. He likes to believe that all Christians are Christians because they were raised up as Christians. Although I was raised in a church under believing parents who fully committed themselves to God, my story is not the norm in my generation. Fewer and fewer people are being raised the way I was. It is for his pet theory for the origin of religious faith being a function of where and when you grew up that he has to accuse people like Lee Strobel and David Wood of not being real atheists. It's okay for him to discount their testimony but not not okay for his testimony to have been a born-again Christian at one point to be questioned? Sounds fishy to me. His complaining about William Lane Craig's and Dinesh D'Souza's debate tactics seems real self-serving. I have not seen any evidence that they lied to win debates at any time. Loftus offers no proof to these stupid allegations. I think it's self-serving on John Loftus' part because he lost his debates against David Wood and Dinesh D'Souza and it wasn't just because they are better debaters - they're arguments were better - and he feels the need to explain the lost. Additionally, he's below William Lane Craig's notice so he won't debate Loftus. That's not a bad thing but it really must wound his pride, being he was once his student and didn't finish his education.
7) Preaches to people who think differently rather than rationally engaging them. I am constantly amazed, bewildered, frustrated, and bored with the kind of responses I see from believers who comment here at DC. They come here preaching. They pontificate. They quote mine from the Bible. They even say we're going to hell with glee. Many of them merely mouth the words of the creeds and affirm what they believe, rather than actually engaging us with a rational discussion about the basis for believing in the first place. They come here preaching to us from an ancient superstitious set of texts rather than showing us why we should believe them in the first place.
I don't think anyone who is born again and loves God wants to see anyone go to hell. We want what God wants. It doesn't make me glad that people are going to go to hell because they opposed God. Why should quoting the Bible be offensive? Why should it be a problem? It's been said many times that you should first prove the Bible is worthy to be believed before using it. I think it's good to discuss why we should believe it, but I find that people have already made up their minds to reject it. If you truly have an attitude of doubt and skepticism you should be equally open to either viewpoint. Otherwise, you are biased and might as well admit it and be prepared to prove why you have come to that conclusion. I have studied the issues and looked at evidence and I have come to the conclusion that God not only exists but has revealed himself through scripture. Therefore anything or anyone that contradicts it can't be taken as authority.
8) Claims he or she does not need evidence to believe. Take notice Alvin Plantinga and Bill Craig! This is utterly delusional thinking especially when we consider all of the things they must take as properly basic beliefs coming from the witness of the Holy Spirit. As someone said, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Anyone who claims his or her faith does not need evidence, even if true, ought to take a reality check.
I disagree that we should take the attitude that we don't need evidence to believe. Every Christian I know who is born-again had some evidence that lead them to accept Jesus - they know what God did for them. There is plenty evidence, but people do deny and ignore what God has graciously given to us.
9) Must be convinced that his or her faith is impossible before seeing it as improbable. Time after time believers will claim I have not proved that their faith is impossible, and so lacking this kind of proof they still claim to have a reason to believe. However, we're always talking about probabilities. So even if it's still possible to believe in light of a number of problems for faith, it's still an improbable faith and that should be good enough.
Improbability is not enough. There are too many things that we know are both improbable and true. I would agree if we knew that all things that true is also probable. Since we know that does not work something improbable does not by definition can be tossed out. This point is often used to deny miracles. If something is probable it cannot be a miracle. For example - not all cancers probably go into remission. Impossibility is a lot stronger. If you argue that there is no such thing as impossibility then you have to allow for miracles. Sounds like a dilemma.
10) Must denigrate the sciences in order to have faith. This is what I see time after time. Believers denigrate the sciences in a number of ways in order to believe. That's because faith demands it. Some believers don't even know what I'm talking about. Since science tells us prayer doesn't work then it doesn't work. It tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old. It tells us we evolved. It tells us there was no Israelite Exodus from Egypt. It tells us the Nativity stories in the Gospels could not be true. It tells us virgins do not have babies. It tells us that dead people do not bodily rise from the grave. Christians must denigrate science in order to believe. Science or Faith? Science has a track record. Faith flies planes into buildings. Science all the way, hands down. End of story.
Far from the end of the story. Faith is always misdefined by people like John Loftus. And there is no reason to think believers must denigrate science any more than science needs to denigrate religion. It doesn't take science or faith to understand reality. We need science and faith. They are not mutually exclusive but can help flesh out what is real. Loftus makes all kinds of assertions that prayer does not work, people evolved from one-celled organism, and no Israelite exodus, but seems to neglect that there very intelligent and educated people (who actually finished their PH.D.'s in a wide range of disciplines) who would disagree with him and come to opposite conclusions. He also asserts that the miracles of the incarnation and Resurrection could not have happened because...? They are impossible? You can't come to that conclusion and still claim to be objective and open-minded. You can say that we don't have any scientific data for them. You can say that you don't find any evidence that you would accept. But you can't deny them and write them off as impossible because you can't prove that they are impossible. The best you, as a skeptic, can truly and honestly conclude is that they are improbable and rare - maybe occurring once. Isn't that the definition of a miracle? Yes, it is, which is what Christianity has claimed for 2000 years.
Debunking Christianity: The Ten Marks of a Deluded Person
My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Jon Jeremy
There is a fairly simple diagnostic test for delusion: before starting any debate, just ask: "What kind of evidence would cause you to change your mind?" If the answer is 'none' then you've caught one of the deluded. Go on with the debate by all means, but treat it as a spectator sport rather than an attempt to convince your opponent.
I think that this a fair test that everyone should take before asking anyone else to change their mind on any subject. It seems like to me Jeremy does not think that the point of the debate is not to attempt to convince the opposes person(s) to change their minds and agree with them. If I understand what he said, then I must ask what is the purpose of debate and discussion between people who hold opposing opinions if not to convince the opposition to change their mind? I would actually say that convincing others to change their minds is only part of the goal of a debate. The other part is improving your own argument by seeing where it's weak or abandoning them altogether if they are not up to snuff. Grant it, this only works if both sides consider the question Jeremy asks. I find it amazing that many atheists seem to think that no one can consider and scrutinize their religion and honestly come up with the opposite answer they do. And when I follow their logic and thought processes I find so many ways that their arguments fail I am amazed that they can't see it. Truth is it should not be a surprise, the Bible clearly explains why.
Additionally, John Loftus has been very clear in his purpose: To discredit Christianity and inspire Evangelicals to leave their religions and become atheists like himself. How can he argue that he is open-minded and willing to argue as a "spectator"?
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Jon Jeremy
Monday, March 7, 2011
Apologist Interview: John Dickson - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: John Dickson - Apologetics 315
Tongues Debate: James White vs. David Bernard
Image via WikipediaJames Swan comes through again posting a great mp3 audio from a radio discussion between James White vs David Bernard - Reformed Baptist vs Oneness. I've always wondered how Dr. White would deal with this particular issues on Tongues. I have heard him debate oneness Pentecostals on the Trinity but not on tongues and the place such a gift from God as Tongues hold in how we get saved and live. Tongues Debate: James White vs. David Bernard
Memory Lane: White vs. Hunt, the "Almost" Debate
Image via WikipediaJames Swan has posted an article discussing interactions James White had with Dave Hunt on Christian Radio show Viewpoint with attorney Chuck Crismier regarding Calvinism back in 2004-2005. The post contains links to the discussion they had centered around the book White and Hunt wrote, the one-one-interview White later had on the same show, and links to the Dividing Line episodes where Dr. White commented on what happened. Crismier was definitely not on White's side and didn't seem to listen to what was said. He made many of the same objections in both programs and never explained what was wrong with the answers Dr. White gave.
Memory Lane: White vs. Hunt, the "Almost" Debate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)