Wednesday, September 28, 2011

DC Comics On Starfire Controversy: 'Pay Attention To The Ratings' - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews


Comics Alliance posted the following. It deals with how DC Comics is dealing with the negative publicity for how the Character Starfire is being handled in Red Hood and the Outlaws #1.

Prompted by the resoundingly negative critical response to Red Hood And The Outlaws #1's dubious, oversexualized depiction of the superheroine Starfire -- in particular, the disgusted reaction of a 7-year-old fan of Cartoon Network's Teen Titans, a popular animated series in which a version of Starfire appeared -- DC Comics released a terse statement via Twitter (here and here) that advised unhappy readers to "pay attention to the ratings." The full statement is as follows:
We've heard what's being said about Starfire today and we appreciate the dialogue on this topic. We encourage people to pay attention to the ratings when picking out any books to read themselves or for their children.


Red Hood And The Outlaws #1 is rated "T -Teen", which DC Comics defines as "Appropriate for readers age 12 and older. May contain mild violence, language and/or suggestive themes." Fair enough, then. By that guideline, the book is obviously inappropriate for a 7-year-old. But the 7-year-old girl's question, and that of Shortpacked's David Willis and our own Laura Hudson remains valid. Should a Starfire comic book be targeted so narrowly? As part of the bold and massive publishing initiative and mainstream outreach that is DC's New 52, does using characters best-known from all-ages cartoons in books like Red Hood And The Outlaws make sense?

I don't buy DC's explanation because they say they relaunched these books to bring in new readers. Why alienate children who love Starfire? This is the only book she is in now. Where is her kid-friendly book and now the character is almost unrecognizable.

DC Comics On Starfire Controversy: 'Pay Attention To The Ratings' - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Enhanced by Zemanta

7 Allergens in Your Home [infographic]

7 Household Allergens Infographic


7 Allergens in Your Home [infographic]

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: An Omniscient God Solves All Problems and Makes Faith Unfalsifiable

John Loftus has again posted a blog article that makes me wonder if he understands anything about what Christians believe.

It doesn't matter what the particular problem is for a person's faith. Having an omniscient God concept solves it. It could be the intractable and unanswerable problem of ubiquitous suffering; or how a man could be 100% God and 100% man without anything leftover, or left out; or how the death of a man on a cross saves us from sins; or why God's failure to better communicate led to massive bloodshed between Christians themselves. It just doesn't matter. God is omniscient. He knows why. He knows best. Therefore punting to God's omniscience makes faith pretty much unfalsifiable, which allows believers to disregard what reason tells them by ignoring the probabilities.

Most of what Loftus raises as problems are answered and have been answered for centuries. Theodicies answers the question of ubiquious suffering.  The death of one man on a cross saves us  from sin  because one man's disobedience puts us in need of saving. Also it helps to understand how Jesus pulled this off because He is not just a man but God.  And as for why there has been much dispute and bloodshed, it's not God's fault or failure but our inabilities and rebellion against God. I find it difficult to understand this. Loftus claims he used to be Christian.

I call this the Omniscience Escape Clause (read the link). There is only one way to convince believers in an omniscient God that their faith is false. They must be convinced their faith is impossible before they will consider it to be improbable, and that's an utterly unreasonable standard since the arguments to the contrary cannot hope to overcome the Omniscience Escape Clause. So think on this: Given that there are so many different faiths with the same escape clause let believers seriously entertain that their own God might equally be false. Sure, an omniscient God might exist (granted for the sake of argument), but how we judge whether or not he exists cannot rely over and over on his omniscience since that's exactly how other believers defend their own culturally inherited faith. Reasonable people must not have an unfalsifiable faith, and yet an omniscient concept of God makes one's faith pretty much unfalsifiable. But this is not all...

SO because Christianity is unfalsifiable it can't be true? The reason why I believe, isn't because of God's omniscience. You don't need to "punt to God's omniscience" to answer the questions Loftus says he has that makes Christianity contrary to reason. Loftus' logic dies under its own weight.




The concept of God's omniscience is not the only thing that makes a faith pretty much unfalsifiable. So also does the concept of hell, since believers must be certain there is no hell before they will abandon their faith, thus overcoming the force of Pascal's Wager. With an omniscient God concept and the threat of hell it is nearly impossible for believers to doubt their faith and then walk away from it.

Loftus does not explain why hell must be abandoned. He offers no reason to explain why anyone should believe that there is no hell other than that he doesn't like it and that he thinks its unfair. 

Believers must be forced to acknowledge that other believers in different religions (or sects within their own) who have the same concepts have the same exact problems when it comes to reasonably evaluating their own faith. And they too must be convinced their faith is impossible before they will consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard of proof, making their faith pretty much unfalsifiable as well. This is something believers reject when it comes to evaluating the probability of other faiths. Why is it they don't reject this when it comes to their own?

Well, when it comes to Christianity, Loftus fails to show that Biblical Faith and that the God of the Bible are impossibilities. Other religions however fail those tests..

My goal is to force believers to see this. They must approach their faith with open eyes given the nature of religious faith concepts. You must have a Gestalt Shift in the way you see your faith (read the link). Nothing less than that will do the trick. You must try seeing it differently. Try it. What are you afraid of? Do you really want to know the truth? Why wouldn't you?

I can't look at Christianity the way Loftus does because he doesn't look at the Bible correctly. He makes presuppositions and assumptions that can't hold up when you compare it to what the Bible says.

Debunking Christianity: An Omniscient God Solves All Problems and Makes Faith Unfalsifiable
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of the Day #128 - Debunking Christianity: Christians are morally compromised

John Loftus posted a video clip from a debate in which Dan Barker debated Dinish D'Souza. Loftus seems to think that Barker was able to show that Christians are inconsistent because we would condemn evil acts committed by people but don't condemn God in the Bible. I'm amazed that Loftus would post this considering that he and Barker both lost their debated to D'Souza.




Barker makes some serious mistakes in his reasoning. First let's just agree that it's wrong to break into a person's home and destroy all they have and kill their children and then blame the devil for his actions. However, Barker goes off the rails when he tries to argue that God is just like such a person because of all that happened to Job and then God said:

3 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.” Job 2:3

I am familiar with Dan Barker, and have never been particularly impressed with his exegetical skills. This is a great case in point.God is not saying that He didn't have a reason to put Job through all Job went through. God is not saying "Devil, I'm only allowing this because you told me to do it."   God is in control of these scenarios. Yes, the Devil is given as the agent for all of these catastrophes the befell Job but he isn't the one in charge. For example:

 4 “Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life. 5 But now stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
 6 The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.”- John 2:4-6

Look the devil clearly says that God is in control and God then tells him that Job is in his hands but that he's limited. The Devil may be like "a roaring lion roaming to and fro seeking whom he may devour" but he  is on God's leash!. I know that the next question this bring up troubles some. Why would a good God allow a perfect and upright man to go through so much disaster and heartbreak. The story challenges the presuppositions on which the very question rests. Recall that throughout the book, Job was accused of sin by his three friends because they don't think for a second that God would allow Job to suffer like that unless it was a punishment for sin. God chastised the men.

7 After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job’s prayer.- Job 42:7-9

What we learn is that bad and terrible things can happen to you, through no fault of your own, but God has something good in mind for you even if He sends the calamities.  Like Job can hold on to our faith in God:

14 Why do I put myself in jeopardy
   and take my life in my hands?
15 Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him;
   I will surely[a] defend my ways to his face.
16 Indeed, this will turn out for my deliverance,
   for no godless person would dare come before him! - Job 13:14-16

 And I love this scripture:

25 I know that my redeemer lives,
   and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
   yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
   with my own eyes—I, and not another.
   How my heart yearns within me!  - Job 19:25-27

Who says that there is no resurrection in the Old Testament? It's right there - plain as day - before Moses! The suffering that Job lived through helped him to see the world a lot differently than most people.

In our suffering we get to know God better. We learn more about Him and ourselves. Although the devil might mean it to destroy you, God will turn it for our deliverance. 

And what did Job get out of all of this:

 1 Then Job replied to the LORD:
 2 “I know that you can do all things;
   no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
   Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
   things too wonderful for me to know.
 4 “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
   I will question you,
   and you shall answer me.’
5 My ears had heard of you
   but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
   and repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:1-6

Job understood God better. It wasn't God saying "I'm bigger. I'm boss". God wasn't bragging. God wasn't pushing him Job into the ground and grounding him into powder. God was explaining who He and who Job is. - who and what we are.  It's not bragging if it's true....and it is.


Debunking Christianity: Christians are morally compromised
Enhanced by Zemanta

Parting Shot: A 7-Year-Old Girl Who Loves 'Teen Titans' Reacts Sadly to the New Starfire - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

A few of my favorite blogs have been in uproar lately regarding general drift DC Comics' female characters have been portrayed in their re-launched titles. To say it's been several steps taken backwards for how women have been portrayed in comics is an understatement especially in Catwoman #1 and Red Hood and the Outlaws #1. I think that it this article in Comics Alliance shows a major problem: how these things affect young girls. I have a young daughter who loves superheroes and I don't want her to read these. She loved Teen Titans that animated series and she like Catwoman. This article says in part:

This response comic from Shortpacked really hit the nail on the head about how nu-Starfire is in particular a betrayal of all the (mainstream!) fans of the Teen Titans cartoon. I got into comics by watching the X-Men cartoon on Fox as a little kid, so I know how great animated shows can be for bringing in new readers and especially girls, which is why this piece at io9 talking to a 7-year-old Teen Titans fan about how Starfire was no longer a hero to her was so heartbreaking:
Mom: "Is this new Starfire someone you'd want to be when you grow up?"
Daughter: *she gets uncomfortable again*"Not really. I mean, grown ups can wear what they want, but...she's not doing anything but wearing a tiny bikini to get attention."
Mom: "So, you know I'm going to put this on my blog right? (she nods) Is there anything else you want to say?"
Daughter: "I want her to be a hero, fighting things and be strong and helping people."
Mom: "Why's that?"
Daughter: "Because she's what inspires me to be good."

I agree with the little girl!!!

Parting Shot: A 7-Year-Old Girl Who Loves 'Teen Titans' Reacts Sadly to the New Starfire - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Dead Sea Scrolls Online | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Dr Mariotttini has brought up that the Dead Sea Scrolls are being digitized! Real cool! Read more on his blog!




The Dead Sea Scrolls Online | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
Enhanced by Zemanta

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Preterism?

James Swan posted the following:

Here's another mp3 lecture attempting to pull preterism apart.

Kim Riddlebarger: A Problem for Preterists

Go to his blog to get the link.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Preterism?
Enhanced by Zemanta

One-Minute Physics: Schrödinger’s Cat [Video]

Okay, here is a great explanation of this well-known but ill-understood concept from Quantum Mechanics. Of course when we did this in my Physics classes we used poison instead of explosives - but the concept is the same. take a look. I sure hope no one's actually tried this in real life.




One-Minute Physics: Schrödinger’s Cat [Video]
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, September 26, 2011

The Associated Press: Roll over Einstein: Law of physics challenged

I don't know what to think about this. I mean it's been drilled into me that nothing can go faster than the speed of light and I've even seen the equations in physics blow up and go "gaga" if light is ever faster than 3.0 times 10 to the 8 meters per second. It's in all the textbooks I've ever read. So what's happening? End of the world?

Drew Baden, chairman of the physics department at the University of Maryland, said it is far more likely that there are measurement errors or some kind of fluke. Tracking neutrinos is very difficult, he said.
"This is ridiculous what they're putting out," Baden said, calling it the equivalent of claiming that a flying carpet is invented only to find out later that there was an error in the experiment somewhere. "Until this is verified by another group, it's flying carpets. It's cool, but ..."


Nope. I think that is a good idea to just wait this out and see if the findings from CERN are verified. Even if it is, I see no reason to totally rewrite all of Physics.

The Associated Press: Roll over Einstein: Law of physics challenged
Enhanced by Zemanta

Infographic: Visualizing the Republican Debate - Politics - GOOD

I admit that I haven't been closely following the Republican Primaries, but Google has compiled info from the debate and the data has been converted into an Infographic.

You can look at the video on YouTube using the following link.

Infographic: Visualizing the Republican Debate - Politics - GOOD
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Evolution of the Big Dog Robotic Mule [Video]

I've just heard about this robot for the first time today on Television. Ironically, I found this post today on the Geeks Are Sexy blog. Robotics has come a long way!




Here is another video:



You can read more at this link.

The Evolution of the Big Dog Robotic Mule [Video]
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Iron Man 2: A-Rusted Development? | Psychology Today

Psychologist Dr Robin S. Rosenberg wrote a really cool article analyzing Iron Man 2 from a psychological point of view. Check it out!


Iron Man 2: A-Rusted Development? | Psychology Today

The 2010 Social Networking Map / Flowtown (@flowtown)

What if the major Social Networks were continents on a planet? It might look like this!

Social-Network-MapCS3



The 2010 Social Networking Map / Flowtown (@flowtown)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Must Watch: Welcome to the Genomic Revolution [Video]



In this accessible talk from TEDxBoston, Richard Resnick shows how cheap and fast genome sequencing is about to turn health care (and insurance, and politics) upside down.




Must Watch: Welcome to the Genomic Revolution [Video]
Enhanced by Zemanta

How to Create Your Own Twitter Infographic Quickly | Tech the Plunge

Okay, I admit that I am getting more and more enamored with infographics! Turns out that there is a site that will generate an infographic of your Twitter tweets telling you how much paper and ink would be consumed if you tried to print your timeline! Here is mine as of 10:30 PM PST September 24, 2011.


Created by Cartridge Save, suppliers of HP LaserJet cartridges


How to Create Your Own Twitter Infographic Quickly | Tech the Plunge
Enhanced by Zemanta

How the World Uses Social Networks [INFOGRAPHIC]




How the World Uses Social Networks [INFOGRAPHIC]

Faithful Thinkers: Video: Misuse of Free Will

Luke Nix has posted a great video clip of Norman Geisler answering a question about Free Will.






I don't fully agree with him because I don't think we can fully explain where evil comes from or even really understand what having free will is like because we are born enslaved to sin and unable to make proper choices fully aligned with God's will - and we all start off that way.

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

Faithful Thinkers: Video: Misuse of Free Will
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Top Programming Languages in 2011 Infographic | Infographic Generator - Daily Infographics, Online Infographic Maker and Creator

top programming languages 2011 infographic Top Programming Languages in 2011




Top Programming Languages in 2011 Infographic | Infographic Generator - Daily Infographics, Online Infographic Maker and Creator
Enhanced by Zemanta

Top 10 Countries on the Internet and Their Top Searches | Infographic Generator - Daily Infographics, Online Infographic Maker and Creator

top 10 countries on the internet and their top searches Top 10 Countries on the Internet and Their Top Searches



Top 10 Countries on the Internet and Their Top Searches | Infographic Generator - Daily Infographics, Online Infographic Maker and Creator
Enhanced by Zemanta

Pattie Maes and Pranav Mistry demo SixthSense | Video on TED.com

I love the idea of the Heads-Up Display (HUD) as seen in the Iron Man comics, cartoons, and movies! Turns out that such technology is not that far away. Such tech was also imagined in the Minority Report. It's a brave new world, people.







There does exist an iPhone App that mimics the effect but I can't find any version of it for Android devices but I wish I could!



Pattie Maes and Pranav Mistry demo SixthSense | Video on TED.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Get the New Facebook Profile Right Now!

Image representing Facebook as depicted in Cru...Image via CrunchBaseJust when I thought that Facebook was becoming irrelevant they add a feature, I really wanted: a way to look at all of your activites on Facebook by month, in a timeline. If you want to try it now, look at the following video.






Get the New Facebook Profile Right Now!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Fistbump of the Day - Faithful Thinkers: Evolution, Morality, and Transformers

Luke has written a great post inspired by Transformer: Dark of the Moon. I liked everything about the post just like I liked the movie. I think anyone interested in morality and it's underpinnings should read it. I would like to point out that although the movie is fictional it includes many important things about "about worldviews, philosophy, or apologetics." Luke Nix wrote the following:

Near the end of the movie a specific line caught my ear. Sentinal Prime and Optimus Prime were in a battle over Sential's betrayal of the Autobots to the Decepticons, that put the survival of the human species in jeopardy. Sential informed Optimus that "All I wanted was the survival of our species- that's why I had to betray you." If the survival of a specific species is the determining factor of objective morality, then we have the survival of two species in direct odds with one another, which means that we have two "objective" moralities in direct conflict with on another. On a naturalistic worldview, there is no factor to break such a tie. Which means ultimately, morality is relative to the species. Any morality that is based on a species' survival, is ultimately relative; it is not objective.

On what grounds is Optimus Prime mad at Sential Prime? There are two possibilities: Survival of a species makes right or betrayal is always wrong.

I agree that the questions brought up are important and as Luke points out a Naturalistic worldview cannot answer them. However I think that there is third possibility. Optimus Prime has an objective moral standard. I can't remember if it was in this movie or one of the previous movies, but Optimus Prime quotes his famous saying to explain why he protect humans even it means his life: "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings". I've been a Transformers fan since I was eight years-old - 28 years and one consistent thing about Optimus Prime's character - no matter the media or series - is that Optimus Prime values all life. He doesn't fight and kill Decepticons because he likes it. He fights because he has taken it upon himself to protect everyone - humans, Autobots, and other lifeforms. At times I have to admit that he almost portrayed in messianic terms.

Luke further writes:

Many wish to say that objective morality can exist in a naturalistic universe. But, on which of the three grounds presented here is objective morality established? Is it even possible to establish objective morality in a world without God?

Optimus Prime is a fictional character that embodies all the heroic attributes that we know we instinctively admire but fall short: power, self-sacrifice, wisdom, and kindness. Optimus Prime and Transformers are just as popular in Japan, China, and Europe as it is in the Americas. I see no way we can explain these objective values without God.

Faithful Thinkers: Evolution, Morality, and Transformers
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, September 23, 2011

Answering Muslims: Muslim Convert Janice Brown Cries "Religious Discrimination" after Hospital Refuses to Engage in Gender Discrimination

I think that David Wood is in general correct that Muslims sometimes ask for "uber-rights" and claim rights that would not be afforded to others. In Janice Brown's example, I don't think that fits. I see no problem why a person could not request a doctor of a certain gender for any reason. I don't think that its about discrimination. Some women prefer female doctors for all kinds of reason. I don't think it matters why Janice Brown asked for female doctor. It doesn't matter that she was Muslim or not. What does matter that she asked for a female doctor. My sister is a registered nurse and one day she had a patient that refused to him help her because he didn't want to be touched by a black woman and he was in urgent need. What did she do? She just got a white Doctor and didn't touch him? Was that hard? Did it hurt her sensibilities? Yup. But she did her job anyway. The medical care professionals, Janice Brown went to should have done the same.




Answering Muslims: Muslim Convert Janice Brown Cries "Religious Discrimination" after Hospital Refuses to Engage in Gender Discrimination

Here is the Fox News article:
Muslim Woman: Hospital Mocked Her Faith
Enhanced by Zemanta

How Long It Took Facebook, Twitter & Google+ To Reach 10 Million Users

Geesh! And I thought that Facebook grew rapidly!

How Long It Took Facebook, Twitter & Google+ To Reach 10 Million Users
Enhanced by Zemanta

Is (as per Richard Dawkins) belief in God a betrayal of science? | True Freethinker

Richard DawkinsCover of Richard DawkinsMariano has written a great article about Richard Dawkins contention that scientists who are religious betray science by turning the argument on its head and taking a good look at it. Follow the link below!

Is (as per Richard Dawkins) belief in God a betrayal of science? | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Euthyphro Dilemma (William Lane Craig) - YouTube

Here is Dr William Lane Craig giving his answer to the Euthypro Dilemma. I think He;s right about this.



The Euthyphro Dilemma (William Lane Craig) - YouTube

Richard Dawkins stumped by Creationist question - YouTube

Here is a video uploaded to YouTube by ShockofGod. I've seen the video before but I like the annotations so much that I think it bears watching again.




Alright, let's try to be fair to Dr Dawkins. To this date, I have seen no evolutionist give an answer this question. If anyone has seen an answer, please feel free to leave a comment. Richard Dawkins stumped by Creationist question - YouTube

Facepalm of the Day #127 - Debunking Christianity: My Brief Response to "God's Word Never Changes"

swift facepalmJohn Loftus has posted an article on his blog where he responds to a Ken Blinco on what he wrote on the infallibility and sufficiency of the Bible. My comments are in Red.

A letter to the editor appeared in my local newspaper written by Ken Blinco, whoever he is. Since he expressed what a lot of Christians think I responded:
Ken Blinco recently opined, using sexist language, that “Man has always made gods to suit himself.”
"Sexist Language"? Is Loftus seriously suggesting that women are excluded in Blinco's statement? Let that sink in for a minute. 
Of course, he doesn’t think this applies to his own view of God or morality, since along with Ocie Spriggs he knows the truth and claims others don’t. But a recent study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago says otherwise, and I quote from Discover Magazine’s “Creating God in One’s Own Image” (Nov. 30, 2009):
So is Loftus claiming that he doesn't know the Bible is wrong? Christians are often accused of arrogance, but someone like John Loftus shows the same arrogance they say theists have. They believe they are right and all Christians, whom have ever lived are wrong. I don't see what makes the Atheists any more humble or kinder than the one who stands on the street corner condemning all to hell.
Epley asked different groups of volunteers to rate their own beliefs about important issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, the death penalty, the Iraq War, and the legalization of marijuana. The volunteers also had to speculate about God’s take on these issues, as well as the stances of an “average American”, Bill Gates (a celebrity with relatively unknown beliefs) and George Bush (a celebrity whose positions are well-known).
I've posted on the when Loftus pointed this on his blog earlier this month. I still think the study is flawed because it's asking the wrong questions. A better test is to ask about those issues and problems in the participants lives that they have to struggle with or gave up because of what they believe God commands.  I don't think aligning your political and social beliefs that don't necessarily have anything to do with being a Christian as being all that difficult.
For many religious people, the popular question “What would Jesus do?” is essentially the same as “What would I do?” Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.
Here is the FacePalm. "Loving your enemies" is what Jesus does, the rest of us have to work at it. It doesn't stop there. The Bible tells us that God expects us to "Esteem others higher than ourselves." (Philippians 2:3-5) In our culture today, default is to respect others as long as they respect you. It doesn't seem that the study looked at issues like this.

Epley surveyed commuters at a Boston train station, university undergraduates, and 1,000 adults from a nationally representative database. In every case, he found that people’s own attitudes and beliefs matched those they suggested for God more precisely than those they suggested for the other humans.
Peoples thoughts and ideas are never going to completely align with God. We are constantly  trying to align ourselves with God. It's not a given. It's not always easy. It's something we have to work towards constantly.
Now this study doesn’t show that Blinco and Spriggs’s views are wrong, but it should make them less certain of what they pontificate about. People who are certain they are right and who claim divine knowledge do cause the rest of us harm. Just think 9/11, or Manifest Destiny, the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, or even the modern witch hunts and the killing of homosexuals taking place by evangelicals in Africa right now. For some reason it escapes them that the Bible did not fall from the sky into their laps. It has a history. It was written by human beings in the language of its day. It has a context. And the art of interpretation is complex given the number of different views of the Bible by different Christianities, who all claim the other Christianities are not true ones.
pon·tif·i·cate

to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner: Did he pontificate about the responsibilities of a good citizen?
 
So what is it when Loftus writes Of course, he doesn’t think this applies to his own view of God or morality, since along with Ocie Spriggs he knows the truth and claims others don’t.
although he says the study does not invalidate the views of Christians. Of course the whole paragraph above actually is a great example of pontification. Manifest Destiny, 9/11, the Crusades, and every other example Loftus gave us are example of people disobeying the Bible and commands that have been given to Christians.  The perpetrators ignore its history and  the context just as Loftus does to condemn Christianity.
There was a day when the sin of heresy was considered the worst crime of them all, because heretics could lead others astray into hell. So the church didn’t think twice about having heretics killed over things most Christians think are mere trifles. Then too, there was a day when American Slavery was easily justifiable by texts like Leviticus 24:44-45.
See? You can't justify American Slavery using the Bible. More pontification.. The church is responsible for a lot of sins, but that's not God's fault and the Bible is not the problem. People are the problem. Here is a list of resources on the blog regarding slavery.
This is why in a political democracy we must insist that public policy is to be based not on historically conditioned Biblical interpretations of authoritarian texts, but on sound secular reasoning using such tools as the harm principle, first articulated by John Stuart Mill, where he argued that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
The "harm principle"? Funny. The fact that we have people who need to have there behaviors restrained by society because they don't care about harming others tells me that we need something more than just a "harm" principle because we can't trust ourselves or each others to "to think higher of  others than ourselves.". If we could follow the Bible, then we wouldn't need an external law.

 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.- Romans 2:12-16

Debunking Christianity: My Brief Response to "God's Word Never Changes"