What had happen' was.....

Sunday, July 24, 2011

FacePalm of the Day #112 - Debunking Christianity: A glimpse into the deranged mind of mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik

John Loftus has posted a link to a post by PZ Myers regarding the background information on the man who has been arrested for mass murder, Anders Behring Breivik in Norway. It's interesting to me how Meyers, Loftus, and others are so willing to throw all Christians under the bus as if Christianity is to blame for Breivik's actions. It's amazing how Christianity is to blame for everything horrific if the person who did it claimed to be a Christian, but these same people will not do the same regarding evils perpetrated by people who claimed to be atheist.

Tell y'all what: We'll accept responsibility for Breivik if you take Stalin. No? I've seen people avoid this by trying to say blame Stalin's religious upbringing and not his atheism. So what about Breivik's atheism?

I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person as that would be a lie. I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the past, I remember I used to think;
"Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic."
Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I'll say directly that this is my agenda as well.

If you will not accept Breivik's atheism, how can you accept Stalin's Christianity? Anyone who claims to follow Christ and murders other people is just as hypocritical as one who would think that Biblical Christianity is anything prescriptive about what Breivik did. Truly pathetic on both counts.

Debunking Christianity: A glimpse into the deranged mind of mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik

“Are there Good Reasons for Abortion?” Wendy Savage and Madeleine Flannagan Debate on Unbelievable? | MandM

Here is a great debate on abortion by two women: Wendy Savage and Madeleine Flannagan on the Unbelievable? broadcast. Well worth listening to!!!

“Are there Good Reasons for Abortion?” Wendy Savage and Madeleine Flannagan Debate on Unbelievable? | MandM

Christopher Hitchens on Good Samaritan and god-free morality | True Freethinker

Mariano has posted a two-part article rebutting Christopher Hitchen's argument that Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan was not about a religious man. Brilliant as always. Follow the link to read it.

Christopher Hitchens on Good Samaritan and god-free morality | True Freethinker

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Debunking Christianity: "Anders Behring Breivik Doesn't Represent True Christianity"

John Loftus posted this following ~~stream of consciousness~~ observation:

So say various Christians about right-wing fundamentalist Anders Behring Breivik, suspected of the bombings in Norway that killed more than 90 people. Naw, of course not. Your Christianity is the true one. You have evidence for your faith. He does not. And surely everyone knows there is no precedent for this in the Bible or in the history of the church. So Christians one and all, come here and tell us which Christianity is the true one. We're all ears. But you can't come to a consensus because you have no better evidence than he does for his type of Christianity. Faith is the problem, which can and does lead to fanaticism. Admit it you schmucks, or stay in denial. ;-)

The thing is "Faith" as John Loftus defines it is not how the Bible defines it and Loftus is complaining (rightly so) about how Christianity is lived out. What we have is precedents in the Bible and church history that match up with what Anders Behring Brejvik did. However it doesn't match up with the Bible. The Bible defines what true religion is.

²⁶ Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. ²⁷ Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:26-27

It's not about your denomination or traditions. Anders Behring Breivik seems to have not been religiously motivated but politically motivated and I can't find anything showing him to be a Christian or how that has anything to do with what he did,

Debunking Christianity: "Anders Behring Breivik Doesn't Represent True Christianity"

Breaking: Name Of Utoya Shooter Released… Anders Behring Breivik… Photos

High Five of the Day: Faithful Thinkers: Multiverse and Rationality

Here is a quote from an article recently published by Luke Nix. I think he summarizes quite well the problem with the concept of multiple universes...besides the part of there being no conclusive proof nor consenus.

The less and less probable something is to happen, the fact that it did happen points more and more towards its happening being the product of a mind, not chance. Since we do not have evidence that necessarily demands the existence of these multiverses, the only consistent and rational explanation is still a Designer. If that conclusion is actually false, then that is a continued reason why we should still not trust our own minds to ever discover the truth of naturalism, and the multiverse provides exponentially less hope that we ever will. Ironically, if naturalism is true, God is still the best explanation for all the facts we have.

Faithful Thinkers: Multiverse and Rationality

My Common Sense is Tingling: Debunking Christianity: Once Again, Atheism is Not a Belief Nor a Religion

John Lofuts posted the following article attempting to define atheism as not being a belief. I think his line of reasoning has some problems.

There are a myriad number of dead religions that we don't bother with because they are dead. We simply say we don't believe them, and yet somehow that is supposed to be a belief? How can the statement, "I don't believe you," be considered a belief? In what sense?

Just because you don't believe a proposition doesn't mean the propositions is not true. A dead religion is not unworthy of belief just because no one practices it anymore. The reason why people don't follow dead religions is because they no long believe in it.

If I say I levitated and you do not believe me because I cannot produce the evidence, then what you are saying is that the evidence does not support my claim. You don't have a belief. You have evidence. And the evidence is against that belief. That's the reasoning process. Reason tells you to reject my claim. You have knowledge. You would be saying that it's probable I did not levitate.

The problem with that is just because I don't think the evidence supports such a claim does not mean that the claim is false. You don't have complete knowledge. Here is why this a silly example: what is the consequence of coming to the wrong conclusion about Loftus' claim to levitate? Nothing. What about the claims of Christianity? The state of your soul is at stake. One should be sure - very sure - which ever decision you come to.

That's why atheists are non-believers in the same sense as Christians who do not believe in Zeus. So is not believing in Zeus or Odin or Thor or Baal or Marduk a religion? If so then everyone is religious by default since these religions are basically dead ones. At that point the word "religion" has lost its meaning. Meaningless words cannot refer to anything.

I think what Loftus is missing is that an atheist does not have a nonbelief. An atheist has come to conclusion and lives his/her life in light of that decision. That is a belief about the nature of reality. It is either true or false. What one cannot do is pretend that one is not making a decision as to what to believe behind the decision to reject other people's beliefs. Be honest.

A religion by definition must be about supernatural beings and/or forces. Atheism therefore is not a belief nor a religion. I really don't know how much plainer I can get.

"Religion" is not just about supernatural beings and/or forces. It is a set of beliefs about how reality works. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. The atheist is wrong about that conclusion but it is a conclusion nonetheless. Let's look at something really important: How does a person become a Christian? A person does not become a Christian by being born into a Christian household. The Bible says that everyone is a sinner and unable to come God on our own. See John 6. Hell is default. If God does nothing to regenerate us, hell is where we will end up. Since no one is born a Christian it is silly to think that Christianity rises and falls based on the number of adherents it has. Even if every Christian became apostates, Christianity will still be true.

Debunking Christianity: Once Again, Atheism is Not a Belief Nor a Religion

Friday, July 22, 2011

FacePalm of the Day #111 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Christian apologist admits New Testament contains fabrications and weak chains of narration!

I don't know exactly what thegrandverbalizer has against James White but I have rarely seen worse characterization and twisting done of someone else's words. Reading this left me wondering if we heard the same podcast!

People this is why I do what I do! Every year more and more conservative Christians are letting the cat out of the bag in subtle and profound ways! I knew it was a matter of time. I have been saying it for a long time now. Mash'Allah James White brings Christianity closer to Islam in subtle yet profound ways!

I don't understand. How does thegrandverbalizer's work relate to the conservative Christians bringing Christianity closer to Islam (which I don't see happening either)?

Read on...

Not that he answered my question.

Recently on an internet basement pod cast Christian apologist James White admitted that the New Testament contains the following:

1) That which we know is said about Jesus without doubt.

2) That which we know is said about Jesus but there is some doubt.

3) That which is attributed to Jesus but is extremely weak.

4) That which is attributed to Jesus but is an outright fabrication.

Praise be to Allah! Thank you James for your honesty at last!

Listen for yourself! I have saved this program as well in case James White has it removed.

http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4721

I listened to that broadcast myself when it was done live and Dr James White did not say that the New Testament was errant. He was referring to textual variants. He was in now way saying that we don't know what text says.

Christian Apologist James White Admits New Testament contains fabrications and weak chains of narration!

No He didn't.

At 43:25 minutes into the dividing line program he says,

"as soon as you start taking for example the various stories of the companions of things that happened in Muhammad's life outside of the Qur'an you immediately see what you actually have with the New Testament!"

I wonder if thegrandverbalizer listened to the 43:25 minutes that went before? Because if he had he would have realized that Dr White was referring to the fact that there would be textual variants of the Qur'an.

That is a most fascinating claim on behalf of James White! It deserves considerable attention!

If you ask any Sunni Muslim about 'the various stories of the companions of things that happened in Muhammad's life outside of the Qur'an' or simply called the Hadith you will find out the following:

What about Muslims that aren't Sunnis would they agree?

Hadith means story. Hadith in Islam mean a written body of literature that is a record of statements, contracts and actions of the Prophet Muhammad otherwise called 'Sunnah'.

Now what you will also find out is that this body of literature 'the hadith' contains the following.

1) That which we know that Muhammad said without a doubt.

2) That which we know that Muhammad said with some doubt.

3) That which is attributed to the Prophet Muhammad but it is weak.

4) That which is attributed to the Prophet Muhammad but it is in outright fabrication.

This was very good of James White to admit this. I have to say that my level of respect for him has honestly not been very high at all. However, after James White has said this I can now take this quote of his to his peers and colleges whom admire him and say, "Look even James White whom you say has more knowledge than you do and whom you look up to said this!"

He said that about the Hadith containing fabrication not the New Testament.

Now since James has said that 'what you actually have with the New Testament' is the same as the Hadith literature I would like for James to now explain to his listeners how this effects the doctrine of inspiration.

thegrabdverablizer clearly did not understand what Dr. White said.

For example since now the New Testament is simply just a collection of oral traditions that are attributed to Prophet Jesus (Esau) than does this clash with the doctrine that the 'writers' of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit to pen down revelation?

He never said that the New Testament "is simply just a collection of oral traditions that are attributed to Prophet Jesus (Esau)". It's statements like this that make me wonder if thegrandverbalizer ever read the New Testament because only four of the 27 books of the New Testament narrate the life of Jesus.

In fact is it even appropriate to speak of 'writers' of the New Testament now?

Huh?

On what basis does James determine what statements attributed to Jesus, Peter, Paul and others are true, sound, weak and fabricated?

He never said he had to. thegrandverbalixer is making the assertion that one has to.

This I tell you friends is fascinating! We are living in fascinating times! James White if your findings take you to the logical conclusion you are always welcome as a brother in Islam! :)

thegrandverbalizer's post is not the best example of logic.

Now you will understand how we use as presupposition the basis of the Qur'an to determine what anyone who came prior to Muhammad said. After all Allah keeps perfect record of what his prophets did or did not say. You will also now understand more fully why Muslims may incline towards some statements in the New Testament and stir clear of others.

Translation: Only the parts of the New Testament that agrees with thegrandverbalizer's misunderstanding of the Bible and his understanding of Islam are correct.That mean you have to be really sure you can know if the Bible, Qur'an, or the Hadith are right or wrong. And thegrandverbalizer often gets things wrong in the Old and New Testaments.

Very very good James!

Dr James White did a really good podcast that day for sure. As for thegrandverbalizer's post - not so much.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Christian apologist admits New Testament contains fabrications and weak chains of narration!

Answering Muslims: Raymond Ibrahim: New Saudi Fatwa Defends Pedophilia as 'Marriage'

I wonder why, thegrandverbalizer never makes a post about issues such as these. Follow the link to see what I am referring to:

Answering Muslims: Raymond Ibrahim: New Saudi Fatwa Defends Pedophilia as 'Marriage'

Reformed Apologist: The Necessity of the Divine Will (by way of a polemic against man's free will)

Here is an interesting article arguing that the Divine Will supersedes man's free will. I agree.

Reformed Apologist: The Necessity of the Divine Will (by way of a polemic against man's free will)

Atheism Exposed: Truth Wins Once Again via Presuppositional Apologetics

Jamin Hubner posted links to a recent debate between presuppositional apologist Sye TenBruggencate and skeptic atheist Justin Scheiber on the Yahweh or Myweh podcasts. They discussed the existence of God. Jamin posted a link to the audio and Sye' s unedited transcript with the parts highlighted in red that Justin has originally edited out when the exchange was first published. Jamin and Sye believe that Justin edited out the parts where his arguments fell apart. Everyone should listen to the podcast and read the transcript to see what you think.

Atheism Exposed: Truth Wins Once Again via Presuppositional Apologetics

Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo, and Donatello - G4tv.com

So, that's why Splinter chose those names!!!!

Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo, and Donatello - G4tv.com

Comic-Con '11 Live on G4! - G4tv.com

The Nerdy Way To Return A Broken Phone - G4tv.com

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Earth Guide for Aliens [Video]

In 1977, a gold plated copper disk containing information, images, and sounds from earth was loaded into one of the voyager probes and shot into space. In a recent post, a video containing some of the information was posted.
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan's Earth Guide For Aliens from NPR on Vimeo.

Earth Guide for Aliens [Video]

Quote of the Week: Blaise Pascal | Reflections

Image via Wikipedia
Thank you, Dr Kenneth Samples

Not only do we only know God through Jesus Christ, but we only know ourselves through Jesus Christ; we only know life and death through Jesus Christ. Apart from Jesus Christ we cannot know the meaning of our life or our death, of God or of ourselves.
—Blaise Pascal, Pensees, trans. A.J. Krailsheimer, rev. ed. (New York: Penguin, 1995), no. 417/548.

Quote of the Week: Blaise Pascal | Reflections

Kids: Then vs Now [Cartoon]

On the left is me on the left. My daughter is represented on the right.

Kids: Then vs Now [Cartoon]

So-Called "Failed" Biblical Prophecies - Part 1

Mariano has pointed out to me these four points int which someone thinks that it illustrates 4 instances in which the prophets in the Bible were wrong. The four points are:

1. Ezekiel incorrectly predicted that Babylon would conquer Egypt.
2. Ezekiel incorrectly predicted King Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city of Tyre (or Tyrus).
3. Micah incorrectly predicted the destruction of Jerusalem.
4. Jeremiah incorrectly predicted that the Babylonians would be exiled for 70 years, but it apparently only lasted 59 years.
My friend e-mailed me those four points, as well as his "source":
http://www.goatstar.org/failed-prophecies/#Ezekiel%20predicts%20Babylon%20would%20conquer%20Egypt (it's a semi-article that has very little actual info, so it's difficult to understand).

I decided to split this into 4 posts.This first post will be about Ezekiel and a prophecy given that Egypt would be conquered by Babylon. Ezekiel 29: 10-12 and 30:10-11 are quoted using the NRSV translation. In the NIV the passages read:

⁸ “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will bring a sword against you and kill both man and beast. ⁹ Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the LORD.
“‘Because you said, “The Nile is mine; I made it,” ¹⁰ therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. ¹¹ The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. ¹² I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries.- Ezekiel 29:8-12

¹⁰ “‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says:    “‘I will put an end to the hordes of Egypt
   by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.
¹¹ He and his army—the most ruthless of nations—
   will be brought in to destroy the land.
They will draw their swords against Egypt
   and fill the land with the slain. Ezekiel 30:10-11

What does history say? Did Nebuchadnezzar conquer Egypt? The link given above says "No" but it makes no mentions of cuneiform inscriptions that support the Bible. I actually found somel links that help flesh out those early years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.I don't want to just spit out what the links already say. So here they are.

Did Nebuchadnezzar conquer Egypt?

Ezekiel Timeline

What does it mean to be "Regenerate"? Part 2

Well, if you saw part one, you might expect that Ryan Anderson might have something to say to say in response. Let's look at what he chose to respond to. The bolded black text represents the text that he quoted and the plain text is his response. My response will be in red.

...atheist-about-Christianity-but-agnostic-about-all-other-religions...

Why must you be wrong about everything? Atheism is a statement of belief, and agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, so as far as I know, I'm atheist about all religions and their supernatural claims.

Interesting ways of defining "agnosticism" and it does not seem that everyone agrees with you: "an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge." It can't be a statement of knowledge because uncertainty is not knowledge. It's good that Ryan has made up his mind because he did not say that before. Once he said that he was not sure about other religions but he was sure that Christianity was wrong. It's not really progress, but it is something.

now he thinks the Bible has mistakes in it.

And outright falsehoods!

So Ryan always thought that the Bible has had mistakes in it? He certainly thinks they are now. What was the falsehoods?

Consider this: Anderson is arguing that rest and relaxation and connecting with one's family is the same thing as what ~~th (we [sic?] Bible~~ [the Bible] says about being regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

I did no such thing, I am aware that the bible makes wild, unsubstantiated supernatural claims. I asked you to demonstrate that what you perceived to be regeneration in your life, that you (mis)identify as biblical/supernatural regeneration, is any different than the regeneration in my life. What I would argue though is that doing things you love can produce the same results that christians get when they think they are being regenerated by the holy spirit. Since you can't demonstrate that the holy Spirit exists, you'll need to demonstrate that what you actually get from your regeneration is different at all, in any way, from what I get when I'm regenerated by doing things I love. (spoiler alert, you don't do that!)

Here is the problems in communicating with Ryan. Arguing that doing the things you love is no different than the same feelings one has from Biblical regeneration is no different from how I summed up Ryan's argument. He just restated what I said. The reason why Ryan is confused is that he has not realized that comparing his definition of regeneration and what the Bible says about it is like trying to compare a potato chip to a microchip.

...notice that Ryan didn't bother to explain how his idea of regeneration is back up by this scripture.

Um... why would I explain why my idea of regeneration is backed up by your scripture? I'm an atheist, remember? I just don't think your "scripturally backed up" version is any different than my version in practice. That's the key, in practice.

Um, my point was for Ryan back up his understanding of regeneration of what the Bible says about regeneration with scripture. How can we even begin to discuss these issues if we can't agree on what the Bible says, I discussed how this worked out in practice. Remember the discussion about Galatians 5? That's what the Bible's regeneration is in practice!

In order to get the happy feelings he got from enjoying what he owes God for any he has to keep doing it

[In order to get the happy feelings he gets from enjoying the things God gave him, Ryan has to keep doing those things.]

What a messy sentence. But I think I get the gist. You realize I have a memory, right? But either way, I'll keep doing these things or other things until I die and I will have as full a life as I possibly can.

For which you owe God. Everything you have.

But that's really besides the point, except that it demonstrates (twice) that you are not a clear thinker. But let me ask, don't you have to keep going to church and/or keep trying to "not sin" to "get the happy feelings"?

Nope. Going to church and fighting your flesh are consequences of regeneration. It's a gift of God. You don't kick it off. You can't continue it. You can't finish it. You can do nothing without Jesus. I thought that you knew what the Bible says, Ryan?

Now come'on [sic] be honest: you can find yourself some where [sic] in verses 19-21. If you are still in those verses and not in verses 22-26 you need to get saved because you are [sic] regenerate yet.

So we're back to Martin Luther being biblically unregenerate?

Who said Martin Luther's life wasn't in verse 22-26? Can Ryan prove that verses 19-21 apply to Martin Luther? Sure would like to see that.

I don't know about you but I think that I have more than shown how the Bible describes regeneration.

Yes, nice job, and good for you, but I that's not what I asked for. What I asked was that you demonstrate how what you, Marcus McElhaney, perceives to be regeneration in your life is any different than what I perceive to be regeneration in my life. You do see the difference, right? I've never met a Christian who could demonstrate this, so don't beat yourself up too badly about it.

I thought showing how Biblical regeneration is more than just enjoying the life God blessed you with would be enough. But if Ryan wants a more personal example how about this one: The Holy Spirit keeps me from cursing out Ryan and keeps me praying for him and having patience with him no matter what ignorant argument he puts forth. He keeps me from using profanity and outright unfounded rudeness. Being regenerate causes me to treat Ryan better than he treats me. How about that? God is truly good.

What had happen' was.....: What does it mean to be "Regenerate"?

New Atheism, Science & Morality by Glenn Peoples - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a great audio regarding the new Atheism, Science, and Morality. Take a listen to his lecture.

New Atheism, Science & Morality by Glenn Peoples - Apologetics 315

What? Debunking Christianity: It's Ignorant to Say "There is No Evidence for a Historical Jesus"

Wow! We are having a revival at my church all week...and I've seen the hand of God moving for the past several days. Wonders truly never cease. John Loftus has actually posted something I partially agree with!!! Miracles do happen.

Okay, having watched James McGrath and Tommy Baker duke it out with the fanatical mythicists (not all are fanatical), I want to put to rest the ignorant claim that “There is no evidence for a historical Jesus.” There most definitely is. It's called "confirming evidence" or evidence of things we would expect to find if there was a historical Jesus, and it is Legion.

Amen. Hallelujah! John Loftus does seem to see something the same way I do.

Let's have done with such an ignorant claim.

Yes, Please. This we can agree on.

The debate is whether there is sufficient evidence.

Here is where we part company. I do think that there is more than sufficient evidence for Jesus' physical existence in time.

My claim in chapter 12 of The Christian Delusion is that at best the Jesus movement that stemmed from John the Baptist and later reflected in Paul's genuine letters was an apocalyptic doomsday cult, and that this apocalyptic message of theirs can be found in every Jewish religious group or movement from the time of the Maccabees to the Bar Kokhba revolt.

And here also is where there is several points of contention. There is far from a consensus on Loftus' theory but at least he doesn't claim Jesus never existed.

I find that the fanatical mythicists are not taking this evidence seriously. This is what is called disconfirming evidence, which is the strongest type of evidence, and it disconfirms the mythicist position.

I agree again. But I doubt John Loftus is going to make a habit of this - following the truth where ever it leads.

These mythicists are not true skeptics for they are making a claim about the historical evidence, that there was no historical Jesus. At best the historical evidence is patchy. At best they should stop behaving like believers, who, when their pet theory is criticized insult and berate the person who says otherwise. If they were really interested in the truth they would assess it dispassionately. The skeptical mythicist, at best, should simply be interested in the discussion and learn from all sides, not claiming more than what the evidence shows, and say "I don't know if there was or if there wasn't a historical Jesus," like my friend Hector Avalos. There is no reason for all of this emotional bluster. That's a mark of fanaticism which is born of faith, like the religionists they reject.

I'd agree with this also although I disagree with Loftus as to how much of the Bible is credible. He agrees with the Bible that Jesus existed, but denies the most important things the Bible says about Jesus. Still it's better than outright denying the historical evidence blindly. It's not fanaticism to accept a position for which you have evidence for. And there is too much evidence to deny Jesus did in fact exist.

Debunking Christianity: It's Ignorant to Say "There is No Evidence for a Historical Jesus"

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Related articles

Related articles

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Related articles

Friday, July 22, 2011

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Related articles