Tuesday, March 6, 2012

The Daily WTF: Academic Papers Accept Twitter Citations Now

Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...
Image via CrunchBase
Here is a shock! Tweets can be used for citations in some academic papers! I mean...wow. Just wow.

They’re good about adapting to the times. A few days ago, The Atlantic posted a fascinating tidbit informing us that the MLA had drawn up rules for citing tweets. That’s right, they actually approved the use of Twitter in academic papers. And it’s pretty simple:



The Daily WTF: Academic Papers Accept Twitter Citations Now
Enhanced by Zemanta

DARPA's Cheetah Robot Breaks Speed Record - G4tv.com

English: This was the most up-to-date DARPA lo...
Image via Wikipedia
Boston Dynamics's "Cheetah" robot can run up to 18 mph.




DARPA's Cheetah Robot Breaks Speed Record - G4tv.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Susan Cain: The power of introverts - YouTube




Susan Cain: The power of introverts - YouTube

Monday, March 5, 2012

Android: How to communicate with .NET application via TCP - CodeProject®

Simple example showing how to communicate between Android and .NET application.


Android: How to communicate with .NET application via TCP - CodeProject®
Enhanced by Zemanta

Eat Ramen Without Guilt!

We Love Ramen Infographic
Created by: Hack College


Eat Ramen Without Guilt!

Concluding Segment of Response to Sam Gipp (Part 5)

Here is the is fifth part of Dr James White's response to Sam Gipp




Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Concluding Segment of Response to Sam Gipp (Part 5)

Dinesh D'Souza on the Existence of Jesus - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted a great quotation from Dr Dinesh D'Souza.

“Do you believe in the existence of Socrates? Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? If historicity is established by written records in multiple copies that date originally from near contemporaneous sources, there is far more proof for Christ’s existence than for any of theirs.”

- Dinesh D’Souza
What’s So Great About Christianity, p. 296.


Dinesh D'Souza on the Existence of Jesus - Apologetics 315

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by articulett

Today, John Loftus has posted another quote from articulett about how improbable Christianity is. I'm still convinced that neither of them know what Christians believe.

The bible is history? So a snake really talked? And god turned a woman into a pillar of salt? And appeared as a burning bush? And carved commandments on breakable stones? And sent "she-bears" to maul 42 kids for calling a guy bald? (defying the laws of the physical universe)

Which Part defies the laws of the physical universe and where did these laws come from?

And this god magically impregnated a virgin to become his own son?

No. What does magic have to do with it? And why is sex implied? There was no sex.. If Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, there was no sex. Why is that hard to believe if you accept that God called all space and time - the very fabric of reality - out of nothing. Even if you find this hard to believe that doesn't mean it did not happen.

And temporarily died? And then became a sort of zombie?

Oh great....the "zombie" charge. I wrote about this already. Zombies and the Bible According to Askeg

And then whisked off to heaven? And now sits in judgement of everyone in trinity fashion (whatever that means)? Really? Who knew? Or is just some of that historical? How do you know which magic is the "true woo"? If you don't believe that the bible is history does the god of the bible punish you for all eternity?

I don't know what "trinity fashion" means because no where does the Bible use such language. There is no magic in the Bible, so the question is meaningless. Supernatural miracles are not the same as magic. And people don't go to hell because they reject the Bible as history. People go to hell because of their sin. Hell is your default ultimate destination without Jesus' intervention.

Do you consider the Greek Myths historically accurate? The Book of Mormon? The miracle claims in the Quran? Mother Goose?

You have to consider a miracle claim on its own merits. You can't just dismiss something because you don't think it makes sense. As a Christian you can't rule out the miracle claims of another just because they are not a Christian. No where in the Bible are we told that only Christian believers experience miracles.


1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. - Deuteronomy 13:1-4


How do you decided which far fetched or supernatural claims really happened? Inner knowingness? I hear that if you read the Book of Mormon and pray to know if it's true, god will give you a personal "testimony"!

No. You look at evidence and consider the sources. For example Mormon theology assumes an eternal universe and God just rearranged stuff that already existed. We know from science that isn't true - thereby falsifying Mormon theology. See how easy that is?

If someone told you they saw a chupacabra... do you believe they actually saw one... or do you assume they saw something that THEY thought must be a chupacabra because they believe in chupacabras?

Unless you can show that the person is prone to lying or that chupacabra do not exist, then I would say that you don't know if the person is wrong or not. New animal species are constantly being discovered. Maybe some get missed. But the analogy is flawed because a chupacabra's existence does not have much of a bearing on your eternal destination or how you will choose to live your life. It's also disingenuous because it pretends that the evidences for the existence of God and the validity of the Bible are just as good as evidence for the chupacabra.

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by articulett

Avengers Movie Trailer (1960′s Marvel Animation)

This is pretty cool. Someone re-created the Avengers Movie Trailer by editing together clips from Vintage Marvel Animation. Here is the mashup







Here is the Movie Trailer



Avengers Movie Trailer (1960′s Marvel Animation)

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Supervillain Secrets [Comic]

Yes! This is hilarious!

Supervillain Secrets [Comic]

Fistbump of the Day - The OTF and Mocking Christ

Does John Loftus' Outsider Test For Faith (OTF) mocks Christ? No, not directory. But I want to point out that Mariano Grinbank has managed to point out a discontinuity between how the OTF is premised as a fact and how some Atheists actually function. Recently John Loftus posted "very well-written comment EricRC, a Ph.D. student in philosophy,:" in which the OTF's fundamental premise is stated and endorsed by Loftus himself:

(1) Rational people in distinct geographical locations around the globe overwhelmingly adopt and defend a wide diversity of religious faiths due to their upbringing and shared cultural heritage. This is the religious diversity thesis (RDVT).

Source

And then I saw a post by Mariano that explores why in Western Culture it is okay to denigrate and mock Jesus but not okay to mock and denigrate Muhammad.  Mariano observed:

Wait a moment, just when the New celebrity Atheists are attempting to get us to believe that Christianity is promulgated via nationality/ethnicity along comes Thompson claiming that Christianity has fewer ties to ethnicity. Suppose that one will let them fight it out.

That flies completely in the opposite direction and biases any directions or conclusions you might draw from the OTF. EricRC said himself and Loftus agree that the rest of the OTF follows from this disputed premise.  Mariano further observed:

Secularists understand very, very well what blasphemy feels like to someone who is a realist in their religious belief. That is the very reason that they besmirch, condemn, manipulate the media as the BBC does, and blaspheme. In fact, many secularists (atheists by any other name) have made a living by exploiting this knowledge and encouraging their adherents to do likewise.
Mariano makes a lot of valid points!

Marijuana and your Brain [infographic]



http://dailyinfographic.com/marijuana-and-your-brain-infographic

Response to Sam Gipp: Part 4

Here is Dr James White's fourth video responding to Sam Gipp's Video.






Response to Sam Gipp: Part 4

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Friday, March 2, 2012

FacePalm of the Day: Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by gooddogbaddog01

John Loftus has posted a quote he sees fond of on his blog.  Look at it below.

Christians think they are being rational and logical. But when they try to rationalize their faith based on evidence, they tend to resort to what is "possible", and then claim that they have won the argument because something is merely "posslble". Short of providing real evidence for the existence of the Christian God, they dive into philosophy, in order to somehow logically prove the necessity of the existence of god. To me, however this is no different than mental gymnastics, resulting in endless rabbit trails around epistemology, metaphysics and ontology. It is, simply, making stuff up.
John Loftus immediately commented:

johnwloftus
Boy, this sounds a lot like me. ;-)

I don't think this person really understand what Christianity is. I mean if you switch out his words and use opposite words, you get the following:

[Atheists] think they are being rational and logical. But when they try to rationalize their [doubts] based on evidence, they tend to resort to what is ["probable"], and then claim that they have won the argument because something is merely ["probable"]. Short of providing real evidence for the [non]existence of the Christian God, they dive into philosophy, in order to somehow logically prove the unnecessity of the existence of god. To me, however this is no different than mental gymnastics, resulting in endless rabbit trails around epistemology, metaphysics and ontology. It is, simply, making stuff up.

 Yes, indeed it does sound a lot like John Loftus. The fact that the same thing can be said, invalidates the statement against Christianity.

Should Batman Kill the Joker? Perspectives from Five Famous Philosophers

Comics Alliance has posted a great article discussing a deeply philosophical question: Should Batman Kill the Joker? It's based on a post by Tauriq Moosa, an ethicist writing for the site Big Think. In it, he argued against Batman's famed "no killing" policy. He says that Batman has a moral obligation to rid the world of the Joker. I totally disagree. Batman is a man. He has not obligation to choose who deserves to die. The article in Comics Alliance does not bring this up but I've got to wonder why is Batman obligated to do anything? But setting that aside, the Comics Alliance article does take the question Moosa asks and answers and imagines how 5 of the greatest Western philosophers might answer the same question.

1. Immanuel Kant
2. John Stuart Mill
3. Thomas Hobbes
4. John Rawls
5. Friedrich Nietzsche

This is a fun thought experiment. I think one of the defining things about Batman, one of the things that makes him a hero, is that he will not take a human life.  He refuses to cross the line that would make him not better than the evil that he fights. The article is well worth your time if you like discussing and thinking of morality.

Read More: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/03/02/batman-kill-joker-philosophy/#ixzz1nzjX2T5
Enhanced by Zemanta

Old Errors in New Garb: Response Part 3

Here is Dr James White's third response to a video by Sam Gipp which advanced the "King James Only" ideology.




Old Errors in New Garb: Response PartThree