What had happen' was.....

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Answering Muslims: Who Killed Muhammad?

dangerous idea: Never Ever Bludgeon Babies? You'll Get an Argument from Peter Singer and Michael Tooley

I'm really glad Dr Reppert posted this on his blog. I think the fact that infanticide and genocide are possible logical consequences of atheistic morality, if you are gonna be consistent about it. Take a look.

dangerous idea: Never Ever Bludgeon Babies? You'll Get an Argument from Peter Singer and Michael Tooley

Friday, October 28, 2011

Faithful Thinkers: Video: Adam's Sin On Us Is Not Fair

Thanks to Luke Nix for calling attention to this video in which Dr Norman Geisler answers the question regarding the fairness of us bearing the curse of sin, given that Adam started it.

I think Geisler answered the first part wonderfully. We don't to hell because of what Adam did. We deserve hell because of what we have done, do, and will do. As for the follow-up, I disagree. It makes no sense to talk about God trying to save people and failing. Either Jesus is our propitiation or He is not. Why would we need Christ to be our propitiation if we can lives free of sin?
Video: Adam's Sin On Us Is Not Fair

OmniTouch: How to Turn Any Surface Into a Multi-Touch Screen [Video]

I think that this is so awesome. With such a device as this, one might not need to carry around a phone, tablet, or a lap top! I hope that as time goes on the shoulder mounted peripheral can be miniturized into a device small enough to wear on glasses or on a tie or a headband!

OmniTouch: How to Turn Any Surface Into a Multi-Touch Screen [Video]

FacePalm of the Day #141 - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #12

So it seems Johnny P is unwilling or unable to leave his faceplants well-enough alone. That's fine. At least in his latest round of comments he's managed to redeem himself - a little. It's an upgrade from a faceplant to merely causing a facepalm.Well that is progress. Sorta. I thought that the arguments were much clearer and tighter this time around. Johnny musta had his wish granted and gotten some help. But sense it retains its ad hominems and uncleverness I'll assume it's his words. My annotations are in red.

Let me explain this to you in simple terms so that you can finally understand what I am saying. I will do this in several ways so that you are able to follow the argument in a simple fashion.

I think you keep trying to hide behind a smokescreen in accusing me in not understanding you. I understand you fine...like a children's book. I just disagree with you and I don't think at the end of the day you are saying anything other than Christianity is horrible. (going back to your original post) but you can't substantiate why.

First, let’s use the choice approach.

God is perfect.
God makes perfect choices – he cannot choose imperfectly.
God had a choice between this world with tsunamis/cancer/malaria and this world without tsunamis.
God chose this world with tsunamis/cancer/malaria etc.
Tsunamis etc are a necessary part of God’s perfect choice.

Agreed. The problem is that is not what you originally wrote. You said "Tsunamis etc are a necessary part of God’s perfect world." Biblically, there is a huge difference between "choice" and "world". That is what you are missing.

Ok, that was simple. Every Christian I have met agrees with this. You seem not to grasp it. Let’s try the question approach. I will answer the questions as to how I think you would answer, since it is how all other Christians answer, including Craig and Fernandes.

I do not think any of these people you have met would agree with you that "God's perfect choice" is equivalent to "God's perfect world". If this was God's end goal, why would he allow it to be destroy and tells us that it will be replaced with perfection? I mean think about it a moment.

Why are there tsunamis/cancer/malaria in the world?
“It’s all part of God’s plan” “We don’t know the mind of God” “It must serve a greater good”
These answers are stock omniscience escape clause answers and can be summed up as “It’s all part of God’s plan (for a greater good)”.

In all his ramblings, Johnny P has not shown why this answer is wrong. Only that he doesn't like it. And why should anyone care about what he doesn't like?

Is God perfect?
“Yes”

Yup

Can God plan imperfectly?
“No”

Nope

So tsunamis/cancer/malaria etc are part of God’s perfect plan?
“Yes”

The plan yes, to glorify Himself.

Both of these approaches are what I was putting forward. If God is perfect, then these things, since he chose a world with them rather than one without them are part of his perfect plan. This world is his plan, ergo part of this perfect world.

Off the rails. This is not a perfect world. It's necessary to the plans and choices God has made.

Your main tactic, other than to misunderstand and misrepresent the argument for 8 pages of drivel, was to equivocate on the word ‘world’. For example, you tried to claim it was perfect at creation, but made imperfect by humans. However, you failed to follow your logic through.

"Drivel" is a description that people like Johnny P use for things they can either show is meaningless or that they don't understand. Given that he has failed to show his epistemology for "world",. "good", or "evil", I'm forced to conclude that he doesn't understand the Christian Worldview. Check it. The Bible never claims that this world is perfect, only that it was perfect before human depravity. This is why your argument that there is a problem with the Christian worldview is flawed. The Bible never pretends that such things as natural disasters, human evil, or diseases are not part of God's plan nor not under His control. In fact the only reason we ain't more evil is that God is restraining it.

God chose humans knowing their Fall, rather than choosing for them not to exist, so EVEN THEY must be necessary part of the perfect plan (and all their evil).

But not a perfect world. That plan will result in the perfect world. Re-read Roman 8. Johnny, it might be over your head. If you need help holler.

When philosophers talk about actual and possible worlds, they do so without temporality.

The Bible doesn't. And where is your reference proving that "When philosophers talk about actual and possible worlds, they do so without temporality. "? I wanna see it.

And here is your equivocation. You kept implying and demanding some kind of temporal quality to WHEN the world is perfect. This is silly, because first of all you claim it was perfect at creation and then imperfect after. Yet humans are a perfect choice of God. What is the point of everything after? Why bother? Why ruin perfection with imperfection? A perfect God wouldn’t choose to ruin a perfect creation without a perfect outcome to mitigate it.

Again here is your fail. If God had not allowed the fall, you would not have been born. Y'know the you that exists now. Think about. Would you have been born and ended up exactly where you are and who you are had key events that you had nothing to do with had not occurred. I am a product of a people who were oppressed, enslaved, raped, and who-knows-what. What that evil? You bet. Would I have been born or my parents had it not happened? Nope. Did God have a good reason for allowing it. God tells us He does. I believe Him. I don't believe you.

Secondly, you seem to demand a temporal quality to the world I claim as being perfect. But this equivocation is silly. When I first posted the piece, did I mean a perfect world only at 12.15 on 10/01/2011? How about the next day or the day before? When I talk of perfect worlds, is it only relevant at the exact time I say it? Or now? How about now? This is silly.

Dude, we live and exist inside of time. The world is changing all the time in time. At one time there was one continental land mass and now there are several. And yes when you talk of a perfect world "when" is important and what you mean by "perfect" is of much importance. That is if you are going to be rigorous.

Perfect worlds are judged by the outcome, or the entire process. Either way, the process is integral in reaching the outcome, obviously.

So are you, Johnny, going on record to say that this world in it's present state is worthy to be called complete? That there is nothing coming after this moment that would have an affect of how you judge the quality of the world? If you'd answer "Yes",. that's not just silly that's dumb.

So when philosophers talk about this world being perfect, we don’t mean at 2 o’clock on Tuesday, nor do we mean at the beginning, as you assume

Not me. The Bible says the creation was perfect. And when Jesus come back for His people, it will be perfect again.

Perhaps we mean as an ensemble. When I mean this world in an atemporal sense, I am talking about the world as an ensemble from start to finish.

Then your argument is truly flawed. I'm talking about the world in the very since. At it's conclusion we can call it perfect. Since the fall, until the end, we cannot. God's choices and plan however are perfect.

But, in the sense of judging the world, we mean by outcome. When I talk of a perfect car, I don’t mean during its manufacturing process, but the end result. From a Christian’s point of view, we could still be in the manufacturing process of this world. Which is why I kept mentioning OUTCOME.

As an Atheist, you don't know what the OUTCOME is. You have nothing meaningful you can say about the outcome. Today and all the evils you are whining about are not the final outcome.

These tsunamis and natural evils are ingredients are necessary ingredients for this perfect world (which may yet come to pass) otherwise they are neutral ingredients which serve no purpose and are random.

I don't disagree in that this perfect world we long for is still coming. It's not here.

To arrive at the perfect world, you need the perfect parameters, which is why I called the parameters and outcome effectively synonymous for the purposes of this argument.

Nope. The ingredients are not perfect. That is what makes God so awesome. He can make awesome out of crap. That is why there is hope for us.

God has chose both, and God chooses perfectly. Thus both the parameters and out outcome of this world are perfect choices.

Perfect choices does not equal perfect world.

However, you failed to see how the argument worked, and spent more time demanding my qualifications. More fool you. Well done. You showed yourself to be a consummate philosopher. Sorry, plonker.

Actually, I think I showed that you have no argument at all and you don't know what the Bible says. And by that way what is a "plonker"? You been spending time in the mirror?

Just in case you didn’t realise in my original post that I am talking about the outcome by way of everything throughout history: “This includes every piece of suffering and death experienced by every animal and plant in the history of the world.” I did not say “This is a perfect world NOW based on everything that happens JUST NOW IN THIS INSTANCE!” This is a perfect world based on the choice of this world over any other. How do you compare one world to another? Certainly not by picking arbitrary individual instants of time out, out of their context, and comparing them!!!!

I'm not either. I'm saying God is going to take everything and we will look back on all of it and realize how perfect God is and his choices and plans are. We are going to be praising him forever because of it. Sorry, I mean us not we (ie not you).

There really is, on a good and proper reading of the original text, no need to have drivelled on and on.

You mean that you the Christian Worldview is not wrong. And that God is right? And you have no basis for being an atheist based on this argument? We agree.

What had happen' was.....: Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P

Thursday, October 27, 2011

FacePalm of the Day #140 - Debunking Christianity: I Stand in the Gap

John Loftus always underwhelms but never fails to entertain.

I am set for the express purpose of destroying the influence of evangelical Christianity in America and in the world at large.

Good luck with that. Jesus said that nothing will prevail against his church. Loftus is kicking against the pricks.

Whether I can do this is not the question, since I just want to be a part of what many others are doing.

They fail too.

As a former evangelical intellectual I know what to do.

Intellectual?! LOL Sorry, let him go on.

I know where the weaknesses are felt best. I use liberal Christian scholarship to do what I do, for they make the best arguments against evangelicalism.

So he uses the scholarship of biased misrepresentations of the Bible against Christianity. Gotcha.

When I do this some atheists don't understand. Since I use Christian scholarship to debunk evangelicalism they don't like that.

Maybe that's why Loftus fails so much at doing this.

Since I don't aim at the scholars it makes me look unscholarly.

Nope, just desperate.

Most Christians don't like what I do, as you know. I don't like this but it is what it is. I am vilified and misunderstood.

I like what Loftus does. The more he rails against the truth the more it gets established. Thanks, Mr Loftus.

It's a very tough place to stand. Sometimes I must wallow in the mire with Christian Bible thumpers. Other times I must deal with the Christian scholars. Then some people in the atheist community demand conformity, just like any community does, which reminds me of church all over again.

So there are no Christian Scholars who believe in and trust the Bible. Anyone scholar or not does not treat the Bible as the Word of God, they are not a Christian.

But here I stand. I can do no other. ;-)

Stand where? In the hands of God? Subject to him no matter what you think you are? Yup, you sure are.

Debunking Christianity: I Stand in the Gap

What had happen' was.....: Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P

Johnny P, further shows what a faceplant looks like. This time with added help from Ryan Anderson. Well, at least Anderson is willing to use his whole name. That's more than we can say for Johnny P. Ryan's words will be bolded. Johnny's unbolded, and mine will be in red.

You truly are a dimwit.

Let us see if he can substantiate that

Read the original post. It never claimed to call the Chritian worldview wrong - another one of your terrible straw men. It said on the Christian worldview, tsumanis must be a necessary ingredient to a perfect world (whether by present reality or outcome).

I quote: "If this is where logic takes a Christian, then they can keep their God in all his maximal perfection. And while they’re at it, they can package up all the pain and suffering and send it return post to the pearly gates. Not needed here, thanks."

So is Johnny P saying that the Christian World view is right but he rejects it? Seriously?

That was it. But you have misunderstood the argument and talked absolute shit. I could pick apart every word of your last post as being fallacious. You truly are misguided and have a very poor grasp of logic and what I was actually saying.

Bring it. If you can. Nothing but opportunity. This blog is open. My e-mail is available. What's keeping you?

I concluded "They realise that this judgement by God to actualise this particular world must be supremely wise and must result in the most loving world. This includes every piece of suffering and death experienced by every animal and plant in the history of the world.

i didn't conclude God did not exist or Christians are wrong, so Marcus can take back half the misrepresented SHIT he spewed in half his posts.

First, that kind of language really professional? Well maybe for Johnny P!. If he were not saying that Christianity is wrong, then why is Johnny P an atheist? If Christianity is not wrong than go join a church and serve God as you should be doing anyway.

God knows the outcome of this world and chose it over the outcome of every other possible world. He is perfect / all-loving, therefore that choice is perfect / all-loving. You cannot argue that.

I never said that was not true, I also never said you were completely wrong.

Marcus has agreed it - he chooses perfectly. Therefore, the choice is the one that includes tsunamis and cancer. Therefore, these ingredients are necessarily part of the ensemble that is this world.

Again that is the way God has chosen to do things, given that God could have done anything he wanted. . If Johnny is not arguing that this worldview is wrong than why does he reject it?

Jesus, other Christian philosophers can agree with this, but somehow Marcus is too up his own arse to interact appropriately with the argument.

If you are saying that Christianity is not wrong, you aren't makiing an argument and you are being irrational to say:

"If this is where logic takes a Christian, then they can keep their God in all his maximal perfection. And while they’re at it, they can package up all the pain and suffering and send it return post to the pearly gates. Not needed here, thanks."

Apparently, the argument only works is I prove I am peer-reviewed or that I have university qualifications. I must remember to ask Jesus for his uni qualification next time he gives me a vision in which he puts a syllogism across to me. But Marcus demanded it, Jee! It must be the way!

No, I demanded that you make and support an argument that's rational and coherent and you haven't. You've even backed away from the point you made in the first post. Classic.

And Mariano, I wasn't referring to Loftus, but my own arguments. Not a single person who has read all the posts and seen the argument through (including a Christian theologian friend) thinks that Marcus is in any way correct or well-argued. They are all rather less complimentary.

"a Christian theologian friend" whom remains nameless. Just like the books and credentials you have pretended to have. You do understand the values of references right? Johnny P loves to drop that he's written books and imply he has some professional standing in Philosophy yet won't provide any proof while attacking me and my fitness to discuss such matters. I don't really remember saying that his credentials make his arguments true or false. It came up because he wanted peer-reviewed articles from scientists who agree that there was a historical Adam and Eve and he even insulted anyone who thinks that way if they were peer-reviewed or not. If you are going to call anyone into question, you should be prepared to be called into question.

Please read all the posts Mariano and see if you REALLY agree with Marcus. He couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag without fallacy or misrepresentation.

Johnny P knows a lot about fallacy and misrepresentation.

The fact he still demands me to define perfect, when I am not the person arguing Gods perfection - I neither believe in God or perfection (I don't need to - it's not an argument about MY beliefs - I could not exist and the argument would stand) - shows how he doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Christians, however, so think God is perfect, ergo the rest of the argument.

What argument? I thought you said Christianity wasn't wrong? Again your arguments do not follow God's perfection because the world has been subjected to imperfection by the will of He who is perfect.

The help is for you. I'm sure, deep inside, you CAN be rational. You just need a little help. Try arguing evidence up, not bible down. Try being humble. Try being mature. Try not to hide behind rhetoric from the start. Try to read and comprehend what you are arguing against. Try not to straw man. Be a better man. If there is a God, and if he is going to judge something he has infallibly set in motion, then he will most certainly judge you as a lost cause; a wasted mind.

Humble? Mature? Johnny P, please re-read your posts and comments. It's littered with profanity and bad arguments. Remember you said you could come up with a better design for the universe than the one we have. My, how humble. And again you totally misrepresent God. The Bible does not tell us we are going to be judged for heaven or hell based on our own merits. We have none. We are going to be judged by whether or not we have put our faith in what Jesus has done for us. By your own admission, you would be found wanting.

Oh, and glad to see you are still hiding behind childish videos. *Guffaw guffaw* *facepalm* Nice touch. How old are you? Would a professional philosopher or theologian do that?

How old are you? Where did you go to school? I'm an engineer. I'm not a philosopher. I believe the Bible and if that means you are wrong, then you are wrong. Notice that all the science I can confirm and test does not conflict with the Bible nor contradict any of its truth claims. I cannot say the same thing about the things you have written. Your arguments get facepalms and laughs because that is what they deserve.

Apostle Paul has more than refuted you. I can just sit back and laugh.

He's playing the hip "youth minister" apologist I think. Not well, but that's what he's playing.

Wow, Ryan, Johnny asked for help, and you've added nothing of value.

Back to Johhny P for a moment: Looks like he can't substantiate his claims. It comes down to no argument at all and his opinion.

What had happen' was.....: Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P

Infographic: The World of Megachurches - Culture - GOOD

Follow the link for an interactive infographic for looking at the numbers and statistics regarding Megachurches.

Infographic: The World of Megachurches - Culture - GOOD

Answering Muslims: 12-Year-Old Christian Gang-Raped by Muslims

David Wood posted this video on his blog. The girl tells her story in her own words.

Answering Muslims: 12-Year-Old Christian Gang-Raped by Muslims

Quote of the Week: Kenneth Samples | Reflections

I totally agree!!!

Being a fallen sinner means that in different ways we are all broken people in need of forgiveness, love, and acceptance.
–Kenneth Samples, church lecture entitled “Facing Life’s Challenges and God’s Peace”

Quote of the Week: Kenneth Sample | Reflections

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Dude, You Are Not the 1%

If you (above) had to get student loans, you are not part of the 1%!

Now This guy (below) is part of the 1%

Any questions?

William Lane Craig vs. Michael Tooley: Is God Real? - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten recently posted this debate on Apologetics 315. If you have heard Dr William Lane Craig debating the existence of God, you won't find any new arguments. I found this debate interesting in how bad Dr Tooley's arguments are. Why should Dr. Craig change what he's doing? His arguments work. I also found the interaction between the two interesting. The best Tooley had was the "Problem of Evil" and a misinterpretation of several scriptures and outright lies about Jesus. Tooley did not just loose because Craig is a better debater. Tooley lost because of ~~bad~~ unfortunate arguments.

William Lane Craig vs. Michael Tooley: Is God Real? - Apologetics 315

The 1 Percent Has Nearly Tripled Its Share of America's Income - Politics - GOOD

For years people have been complaining that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. This is what I think the "Occupy" movements are about just like the riots in the UK and France the last couple of years.

For more than a month now, Occupy Wall Street supporters have been camping in lower Manhattan to voice their dissatisfaction with, among other things, America's mind-boggling income inequality. Though they've faced criticism from naysayers all along the way, it turns out that the protesters' grievances aren't just figments of their collective imagination after all: In the past three decades, the richest 1 percent of Americans have seen their share of the U.S. income grow by 275 percent since 1979, according to a new study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In comparison, the poorest 20 percent had only an 18 percent increase. Never again should anyone ever ask, "What is Occupy Wall Street so angry about?"

Read the whole article at the following link

The 1 Percent Has Nearly Tripled Its Share of America's Income - Politics - GOOD

A Guide to Zombie Survival [infographic]

I'm always amazed when Atheists use "zombies" to a mock Christianity because they must be confused. Nothing like these things exist in the Bible.

A Guide to Zombie Survival [infographic]

Fistbump Quote - Occupy the Vatican - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com

I just think Mariano summed up the news that the Vatican is endorsing the Occupy Wallstreet movement so very clearly!

And why do you look at the ill gotten funds in your brother's coffers, and not notice the ill gotten funds which are in your own coffers?
You hypocrite, first take the ill gotten funds out of your own coffer, and then you will see clearly to take the ill gotten funds out of your brother’s coffer.

Read the whole article at the following link:

Occupy the Vatican - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com

Mind Blown: The Mathematical Volume of a Pizza is Pizza [Pic]

Now this is clever!

Mind Blown: The Mathematical Volume of a Pizza is Pizza [Pic]

Photos: At Occupy Oakland, a Night of Protests and Tear Gas - Politics - GOOD

Wow. I grew up in Oakland and I would have expected something like this in Berkeley or San Francisco, not walking distance from my parents home. Shock and Awe.

Photos: At Occupy Oakland, a Night of Protests and Tear Gas - Politics - GOOD

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: It's Possible That Evangelical Christianity is the True Faith

John Loftus has truly found a new level of silly argument to fall into. My comments are in Red and non-italics

Okay, I've said it. It's possible Christians are right after all. But then it's possible the Loch Ness Monster exists and is evading our attempts to detect her too!

Yeah, but ignoring the Loch Ness Monster is not going to damn you to hell - eternally separated from God. Another thing is that God is not hiding.

I have made the argument here and in my books that Christians must be convinced that their faith is nearly impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, and that this is an utterly unreasonable standard.

It does not follow that just because something seems improbable that it's also not possible. There is no shortage of improbable things that also happen to be true. For example: Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics!

There are at least two reasons why they demand such a high standard of disproof. The first is what I call the Omniscience Escape Clause (read all the links in this post!).

You can't call God's omniscience a problem just because the best you ~~whine about~~ argue is how unfalsifiable it is.

The other reason is Pascal's Wager, in that unless the Christian faith is shown to be nearly impossible the threat of hell still holds sway over the minds of believers.

You can't split "hell" from Pascal's Wager or from the Christian faith. If you reject Christian Faith, and you understand what you say you reject then you would reject the reality of hell also. Fail.

I would think however, that if their faith is shown to be improbable that should be good enough. Here then are several ways where believers, especially evangelicals (my target audience), try escaping out from underneath the weight of probabilities:

Again "improbable" doesn't mean not true. If that is what Loftus believes, no wonder he fails more often than he believes he does.

It's possible that...

God is good despite massive and ubiquitous suffering.

If one does not think that it's possible, than it explains how you have no idea who God is.

Jesus resurrected even though the tools and methods of the historian don't lead us to think he did.

Not everyone agrees that history does not leads us to think that Jesus did not. A little honesty please.

That it's reasonable to accept second-hand testimony (at best) of a resurrection found in ancient written sources which cannot be interrogated, but it's not reasonable to accept someone's testimony who claims he levitated without seeing such a thing personally, or without some personal interrogation.

There is nothing in the Bible that tells us levitation is not possible. I would not reject it outright without research or interrogation. The devil can perform signs and wonders too. As for the Bible being "second-hand testimony", there is plenty of evidence for the Bible providing eye-witness testimony and good evidence. Many professional scholars would disagree with Loftus.

That there is divine intervention in the evolutionary process even though there is no room for it.

That's not a rudimentary Christian belief and who says that Darwinian is a more reasonable explanation for how life got to where it is than it is to accept the Bible as eyewitness testimony?

That Christianity is true even though evolution has enormous negative implications for religion.

Not all scientist agree that Darwinian evolution is true.

That faith can be a rational leap over what the probabilities actually lead us to conclude, even though other believers in different mutually exclusive religions accept this rationale too.

Faith is not a leap. Biblical faith is never contrary to truth. No one in the Bible is ever commended for choosing to believe something although it was not true.

That petitionary prayers are efficacious even though scientific studies have shown they work just about as well as chance.

Not all studies have led to that conclusion.

That Evangelicalism is true even though it's a late historical development to Christianity in general.

Rather than just state this, Loftus should define what he means by "Evangelism". Does he mean historic Christianity? Must not be.

That if metaphysical naturalism is shown to be improbable then evangelicalism becomes de facto the only rational alternative. WTF?

Again with the ambiguity. If Loftus does not think that Evangelicalism is Biblical than he's doing a horrible job "debunking" Christianity.

That even though believers in different religious faiths adopt, defend, and believe with near certainty the religion of their culture, the evangelical faith is true and the others are of Satan.

Either one is correct or they are all wrong and Loftus admits that Christianity may be true. If Christianity is true than all other religions are false.

------------

Recently I've proposed a New and Better Pascal's Wager, which asks us to wager on whether or not we would wish to be born on earth knowing there is a hell to pay if we are born in the wrong time and place. One Christian response is to say that it's possible this is exactly what happened, that we all were given such a choice, and we all chose to take the gamble that we would end up in heaven knowing the odds.

That's not Biblical and Loftus' "improved wager" is just another flavor of fail. The Bible clearly tells us that no one has been born in circumstances in which it is impossible for us to find God. No. Instead we are all were born in the best possible circumstances and time in which we can best find God. Re-read Acts 17. God is in control. God isn't just omniscient. God is omnipotent.

I have made an argument based on the concept of retroactive prayer where prayers can change the past by changing what God foreknows, who then intervenes before a tragic event even happened. One Christian response is to ask how we know God doesn't do that regularly, or at least as often as he answers any petitionary prayer.

Again no Biblical Basis.

Basically Christians, and evangelicals in particular, need a Reality Check.

Every time Loftus makes "reality check" arguments, he fails to get right what the Bible actually says. Check out these responses I've made.http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/search/label/Reality%20Check

------------

I have said that I try to overwhelm the believer,

Personally, I've been underwhelmed by Loftus' arguments. The writers of the New Testament handled him 2000 yrs ago.

and I am vilified for it.

Just a sinner who needs Jesus....and that's all of us.

But given the fact that believers must be convinced their faith is nearly impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, this is what their faith forces me to do if I want to convince them they are wrong.

Loftus can't demonstrate that the Bible is impossible. This is why he meets with so much failure.

You see, I know more than I can tell. I know that Christianity is a delusion from all that I know. The only thing left to do at that point is to try to convince Christians they are wrong. And they are.

Loftus has done no more than just continually assert such a silly argument.

What other ways do Christians depend on what is possible to bolster their faith rather than going with the probabilities? Their name is probably Legion! ;-)

So what does "probably right" mean? The same as "probably wrong" - which is the best that Loftus has. He can't show that the Bible is impossible and he knows that. He doesn't know that Jesus was not raised from the dead. And obviously if he had ever known Jesus when he says he was a Christian, he would know that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead. Apparently, Jesus never changed his life.

Debunking Christianity: It's Possible That Evangelical Christianity is the True Faith

Apologist Interview: Nabeel Qureshi - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten recently interviewed Nabeel Qureshi. It was awesome. They not only covered Nabeel's coming to Christ in some detail but Nabeel also gave some great advice on how to talk to Muslims and offered some insights God has shared with him. Just an awesome interview. Here is a video of Nabeel giving his testimony.

Apologist Interview: Nabeel Qureshi - Apologetics 315

Church Of Scientology Investigated South Park’s Creators For A Year After They Made Fun Of It | Crushable

Scientology is truly a cult. It's a dangerous quote and I think the fact that they had South Park's creators investigated for a year after the show poked fun at the religion proves that there is a problem. It's no different than when Muslims threatened the people who work on South Park's lives for what they said and did about Islam. You can't do anything against the truth so I see no reason to kill them. On the other hand, although I disagree with them on somethings does not mean they don't have the right to say it or animate it.

Check out the offending episode here:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s09e12-trapped-in-the-closet

Church Of Scientology Investigated South Park’s Creators For A Year After They Made Fun Of It | Crushable

He Lives: Jerry Coyne, Slug

I've been following David Heddle's blog for a while. He often writes and takes Jerry Coyne (picture on the right) to task for his "arguments" and rhetoric. Dr Heddle is a physicist - a professional scientist ( for those of you who want to hear from someone employed at a university), and he disagrees with Coyne on many things. Take a look at this latest posts to see why Heddle disagrees with him so strongly.

He Lives: Jerry Coyne, Slug