The Mobile Photo Explosion [Infographic]
Monday, December 10, 2012
FacePalm of Day - Debunking Christianity: How do Believers Distinguish between Fact and Fiction?
Here are Four (among many) Christian miracles:
1. There was a talking snake in Eden that talked (in Hebrew) to Eve.
Um...where does the Bible say the serpent spoke Hebrew? Before the Tower of Babel, no mention is made of what language was spoken. It could have been "Elvish" for all we know.
2. Joshua made the sun stand still.
3. Jesus arose from the dead.
4. St. Raymond of Penyafort had a Sailing Cloak.
Here is the account of St. Raymond and the sinful prince and king:
Um...how can a monarch be a prince and a king at the same time?
This prince was an accomplished soldier and statesman, and a sincere lover of religion, but his great qualities were sullied by a base passion for women. He received the admonitions of the saint with respect, and promised amendment of life, and a faithful compliance with the saint's injunctions in every particular; but without effect.
St. Raymond, upon discovering that he [I'm assuming it's this prince doing the entertaining] entertained a lady at his court with whom he was suspected to have criminal conversation [read "illicit sex"], made the strongest instances to have her dismissed, which the king [is that the prince or his father promising but not exexuting?] promised should be done, but postponed the execution.
The saint, dissatisfied with the delay, begged leave to retire to his convent at Barcelona. The king not only refused him leave, but threatened to punish with death any person that should undertake to convey him out of the island.
The saint, full of confidence in God, said to his companion, "A king of the earth endeavors to deprive us of the means of retiring; but the King of Heaven will supply them."
He then walked boldly to the waters, spread his cloak upon them, tied up one corner of it to a staff for a sail, and having made the sign of the cross, stepped upon it without fear, while his timorous companion stood trembling and wondering on the shore.
On this new kind of vessel the saint was wafted with such rapidity, that in six hours he reached the harbor of Barcelona, sixty leagues distant from Majorca. Those who saw him arrive in this manner met him with acclamations.
But he - gathering up his cloak dry - put it on, stole through the crowd, and entered his monastery. A chapel and a tower, built on the place where he landed, have transmitted the memory of this miracle to posterity.
This relation is taken from the bull of his canonization, and the earliest historians of his life. The king [what about the prince?] became a sincere convert, and governed his conscience, and even his kingdoms, by the advice of St. Raymond from that time till the death of the saint.
Questions:
All four miracles are venerated by honest sincere Christian faith as having factually happened.
A. Form the view of an outsider; how does a non-Christian tell which of the above miracles (if any) are factually true?
My question is why would you think any of them is not factually true? Can God do anything or not? By definition, I would not consider a "talking snake" a miracle of God. I mean God would not perform a miracle to purposely mislead someone to disobey Him. There is a lot that would have to be taken into account to see if there is any reason to conclude that a miracle factually happened. Given that this isn't the purpose of McCall's post, I see no reason to recount them all here.
B. How does one Christian faith (Catholicism) know historical truth by faith; while another Christian faith (Protestantism) knows the same historical truth to be a pious religious fraud?
I would not discount the story of St Raymond as a fraud. Why should I? Can God do what the story says happened? Yes! Why not? God made an axe head float in the Old Testament. Jesus walked on water in the New Testament. Why would this be such a stretch? And according to the story, people turned form their wickedness and obey God because of the testimony of this Miracle. It's a win-win. I see no reason to discount it.
C. How can Protestants attack miracles (which Catholics believe to be true) as pious lies (St. Raymond), but immediately reverse themselves and claim to know real historical Biblical truth with the very same level of faith (Jesus’ Resurrection)?
Here is where McCall falls flat. As a Bible-believing Christian, I can't discount any miracle claim without studying it and looking to see if it's true no matter what religion is claiming the miracle. By the same token just because a miracle is true doesn't make a religion's claim true. God can and does allow the devil to perform miracles. And sometimes God has mercy on people who are not Christians and sovereignty does miracles for them as well. Miracles are not a sufficient proof for find truth. Look at what the Bible says about matters such as these:
[a]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
This argument being made by McCall is what a failed arguments looks like, folks .
Debunking Christianity: How do Believers Distinguish between Fact and Fiction?
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Debunking Christianity: Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life
Part 2:
Part 3:
Debunking Christianity: Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Dr. Doug Geivett Strongly Recommends Against My Book Proposal.
Previously I made a book proposal:
Let's have a four -five -six views book with this as a question: "Why are there so many ways to interpret the Bible?" A proposed title might be this: "Five Views on Why Christians Disagree," or something like that. Then invite me as a contributor. I've written on this issue, calling it The Problem of Divine Miscommunication. See here.Doug Geivett, a Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology strongly recommends against it. Now isn't that interesting? Why would he do so? He doesn't explain. He refuses to explain.
On the face of it, one might wonder with Loftus why would Christian think that such a proposal is a bad idea. But in light of Loftus' attitude in response and what the Bible says about unbeliever's abilities to understand the Bible, Dr Geivett's response makes sense. Maybe the reason that he does not answer Loftus in the way Loftus wants is because Geivett recognizes that it's a waste of his time.
Here's the story:
I messaged him on Facebook with a link to my proposal asking if he or anyone else he knows might be interested in editing such a book. His response:
Hi, John. To be honest, I really would not be interested. And if I were advising Christian publishers of the sort you have in mind, I'd strongly recommend against it. This isn't a personal thing. But I don't think it serves the cause. My recommendation is that you continue to pursue secular avenues. Maybe they would be interested in your proposal.Feeling a bit slighted and testy I responded:
So why did Loftus feel "slighted and testy"? Dr Geivett was not rude or dismissive and suggested a different take. Loftus' ego was bruised in my opinion.
So, you don't think my arguments can be answered or what? It would be an apologetics work. Someone must answer them. Or, is it your view that it's best to ignore arguments whenever needed? I'm puzzled. I do have a few bites though. One Greek Orthodox scholar can argue it's because of Romanism and sola Scriptura. A liberal wants to argue that there are simply different voices in Scripture. An evangelical wants to argue it's because as human beings we lack understanding. In any case, thanks for the response. I'm certainly happy I'm not an apologist in this day and age, that's for sure.Oh wow. Nice way to stay civil, Mr Loftus. Loftus gets meaner as the thing goes on.
Geivett:
John, this is just the sort of response that leaves me cold, this tendency to jump to certain conclusions without adequate evidence, and to psychoanalyze those you disagree with. Take your two questions and ask yourself, "What is the most likely thing Geivett believes about these things, given his record?"Notice the condescending tone?
Geivett was condescending? So how is saying I'm certainly happy I'm not an apologist in this day and age, that's for sure. or saying that he can't answer his arguments is not condescending? It is. Pointing out that Loftus psychoanalyze people he disagrees with and jumping to conclusions is not condescension or insulting because it's true.
Loftus:
I don't know your record enough to know what you believe. I do know you're into guessing games. You could have told me why you think it doesn't serve the cause, but you didn't. No, I don't think a deluded person such as yourself thinks he cannot answer my arguments. I was giving you an opportunity to answer them. Now why does this project not serve the cause?Hmmm...an admission that Loftus does not know Geivett's record so that the rest of the comment is pointless. Oh...and I guess referring to a person as deluded whom you don't know enough to know what they believe or that they can't answer your arguments is never insulting or condescending? I see! I sure hope Loftus does not really think that because that is stupid.
Geivett:
John, I got your message, which is why I replied. Think what you will about "guessing games," but understand that this kind of rhetoric is bound to alienate people you seem to want to talk to.More condescension. I want to talk to him and so I must be more humble since, after all, I'm talking to the great and mighty Geivett. If you want to get my ire think or say that. Sooo...
Looks like Loftus has some kind of inferiority complex. Why else would he take Geivett's comments so negatively and offensively? He said, "No, I don't want to work with you on this." So what? Is Loftus so immature that he cannot take a "No"? Looks that way.
Loftus:
Ahhh, you fail to understand me then. I can't convince you that you're wrong. I intend to marginalize you. Play guessing games if you want to. I am dead serious. I think I understand full well what you mean when you say this book project will hurt the cause. You are afraid.I sent that yesterday morning. His response? Click on the red button in the upper right. ;-)
I suppose you think Randal Rauser hurt the cause by co-writing a book with me too, eh? Tell me straight up what you mean, that's all, no more guessing games.
Crickets? LOL. Like threatening to marginalize him and calling him a coward fosters good will and open dialogue? Nope.
So I was wondering aloud. Why would he say my book proposal doesn't serve the cause? I'm supposed to figure this out on my own. Any suggestions?
Yup. Let's look at the Bible's answer. It answers the question in more than one place, but here is two of my favorite.
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 8:6-8
It's pretty clear that a person who is an unbeliever cannot understand God's Law - the Bible. Therefore an Atheist like John Loftus is ill-equipped to critique interpretations of the Bible. They cannot understand it let alone submit to it.
13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[a] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, - 1 Corinthians 2:13-15
Bottom line is that John Loftus, or any Atheist, is not equipped to discuss why people who claim to be Christian interpret the Bible differently or who is right or who is wrong. I think a book about how different people interpret the Bible and why is a good idea. I would like to see the contributing author breakdown be the following scholars:
a. A Jew
b. A Mormorn
c. A Jehovah Witness
d. A Reformed Baptist
e. An Anglican
f. A Lutheran
g. A Methodist
h. A Roman Catholic
i. A Liberal
j. A Greek Orthodox
k. A Baptist
l. A Calvary Chapel
It would be good if each scholar discussed what makes their denomination distinctive and define what the Gospel is. They could even include a brief historical of each church and discussions of core theology and why they look at the Bible the way they do. Focus on how they view Sola Scriptura and Biblical inerrancy. Can you have Bible inerrancy without Sola Scriptura? The core idea is a good idea but I don't think that Atheism has anything to add to the conversation.
Debunking Christianity: Dr. Doug Geivett Strongly Recommends Against My Book Proposal.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Peter Singer on Human Dignity and Infanticide: Part One | MandM
 |
| English: Peter Albert David Singer at The College of New Jersey (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Christian theism has traditionally taught that human beings have equal dignity and worth, a moral status that separates them from non-human animals. Peter Singer has famously rejected this teaching, holding that human beings are not any more special than animals and doctrines of human dignity are indefensible. He contends that killing a new-born infant is, in and of itself, no more problematic than killing a non-human animal such as a cow or a pig and defends the permissibly of infanticide under certain conditionsPeter Singer is the poster child of an atheist who advocates terrible moral values that come from an abandonment of Godly moral principles. Answering minds like Singer's is very important.
Peter Singer on Human Dignity and Infanticide: Part One | MandM
Thursday, December 6, 2012
The Argument from Reason - YouTube
The Argument from Reason - YouTube
Answering Muslims: Ravi Zacharias Speaks with a Founder of Hamas
Answering Muslims: Ravi Zacharias Speaks with a Founder of Hamas
Apologist Interview: Douglas Jacoby - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: Douglas Jacoby - Apologetics 315
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Answering Muslims: Killing Babies For Allah
Answering Muslims: Killing Babies For Allah
Breathingearth - CO2, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time
Follow the link to see the map
Breathingearth - CO2, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Truthbomb Apologetics: Counterpoints: Antony Flew and Francis Crick
Chad sometimes runs posts on his blog where he posts two quotes from two scholars that contradict one another. You can read the quotes from Francis Crick and Anthony Flew at the following link: Truthbomb Apologetics: Counterpoints: Antony Flew and Francis Crick
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Is MuslimByChoice Actually Trying to Make the Muslims Look Bad?
Is MuslimByChoice Actually Trying to Make the Muslims Look Bad?
Thursday, November 29, 2012
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Weird and Illogical World of Being a Bible Believing Christian
So I presented Paul with another hypothetical scenario:
If I were in a member of an Organized Crime group (such has the Mafia) and I demanded his church pay for protection or else I would have my men burn it to the ground and I gave Mount Calvary Baptist Church three months to decide: Pay for my protection or loose the church in a fire! What would your obedient Bible believing, God fearing church then do:
A. Over the three months given to decide; would they pray 24 / 7 that God would honor their Biblical obedience by divine protection from my attempted extortion via arson?
B. Or, would they call the police?
Like any good Bible believer, Paul (via his obedient faith and trust in God) really proved my point (as an atheist; yes, I’m envious of his faith and trust to this day). His answer: “We would pray after we had called the police!” Bam! Faith meets reality . . . thank you!
While Howard Mazzaferro is not Paul and the Kingdom Hall is not Mount Calvary Baptist Church, their illogical minds work the same. God (and the Bible) MUST be validated at all cost
Here is why McCall is "off the reservation": Why does he think that calling the police means that they would not be following the Bible? There is nothing in the Bible that says that calling the Police would be the sinful thing to do. Get real. Our civil laws mean that we should call the police in such a situation. The Bible tells us to obey the law.
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. - Romans 13:1-7
Debunking Christianity: The Weird and Illogical World of Being a Bible Believing Christian
Top Scientists and Theologians Weigh In: Does the Universe Have a Purpose?
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lawrence M. Krauss, Jane Goodall, David Gelernter, Paul Davies, Peter William Atkins, Nancey Murphy, Owen Gingerich, Bruno Guiderdoni, Christian de Duve, John F. Haught, and Elie Wiesel — all well-respected leaders in their respective fields — sought to answer the question to the best of their abilities. It may surprise you that half said “yes,” the universe operates with intent or exists to achieve something.
Of course, nothing would stop science from uncovering positive evidence of divine
guidance and purpose if it were attainable. For example, tomorrow night if we look up at the stars and they have been rearranged into a pattern that reads, “I am here,” I think even the most hard-nosed scientific skeptic would suspect something was up. - Dr Lawrence M Krauss
The issue here is the statement that science is capable of uncovering positive evidence of God's purpose. I think that is akin to a hammer and a nail trying to figure out what they are being used to build. Or trying to figure out what an artist is creating and you can only see part of the work. Unless the artist tells you what it is, you haven't clue until either you can see more or the work is finished. Krauss also wrote:
Thus, organized religions, which put humanity at the center of some divine plan, seem to assault our dignity and intelligence. A universe without purpose should neither depress us nor suggest that our lives are purposeless. Through an awe-inspiring cosmic history we find ourselves on this remote planet in a remote corner of the universe, endowed with intelligence and self-awareness. We should not despair, but should humbly rejoice in making the most of these gifts, and celebrate our brief moment in the sun. - Dr Lawrence M Krauss
I would agree that there is no need to despair and we should humbly rejoice in the gifts we have. But having gifts mean that there must have been a gift giver. We lack the ability to talk about such things without talking about God even if we try to deny God's existence. Krauss' seems to answer thus: I don't know if the Universe has a purpose but even if it does, there is no God. This is a very unsatisfactory answer but without God, it's the only answer possible.
Consider this question: Do the Earth and mankind have a purpose? If so, then the universe does too, ipso facto. If not, the universe might still have (some other) purpose; but I don’t have to face that contingency, because I believe we do have one…
Namely, to defeat and rise above our animal natures; to create goodness, beauty, and holiness where only physics and animal life once existed; to create what might be (if we succeed) the only tiny pinprick of goodness in the universe—which is otherwise (so far as we know) morally null and void. If no other such project exists anywhere in the cosmos, our victory would change the nature of the universe. If there are similar projects elsewhere, more power to them; but our own task remains unchanged. - Dr David Gelernter
Although Dr Gelernter believes there is a purpose, I do not fully agree with the purpose he seems to think it is. He pointed out that people do create things - and some of these things are good. Given human propensity to selfishness and self-fulfillment, we act against ourselves when we do good and generous things too. It isn't default behavior and sometimes it isn't easy to choose the right thing especially when it is uncomfortable. Almost as if we are constantly at war with urges and feelings that will destroy us but that we can't fully control. Kind of like described in Romans 7. So while we should be working to better the world and help others (begging the question who gave us that purpose), it can't be the purpose of the universe. Gelernter says the universe has a purpose but he conflates it with the purpose of the universe.
Science is a voyage of discovery, and as with all such voyages, you have to believe there is something meaningful out there to discover before you embark on it. And with every new scientific discovery made, that belief is confirmed. If the universe is pointless and reasonless, reality is ultimately absurd. We should then be obliged to conclude that the physical world of experience is a fiendishly clever piece of trickery: absurdity masquerading as rational order. Weinberg’s aphorism can thus be inverted. If the universe is truly pointless, then it is also incomprehensible, and the rational basis of science collapses. - Dr Paul Davies
Dr Davies makes the provocative point that if the universe is pointless than so is trying to understand it. Goodbye, Science. I agree. If science is meaningful than the object it is focused on must also be meaningful - purposeful. I don't think Davies spends much time explaining what that purpose is, but that isn't the question. Davies instead discusses why he thinks we cannot say that the Universe has no purpose.
Similarly, the universe has evolved over its 14 14 14 billion years of current existence by the directionless, unguided processes that are manifestations of the working out of physical laws: it has not been made for the purpose of providing platforms to enable cheetahs to stalk their prey or humans to generate great art or to entertain delusions. That we do not yet understand anything about the inception of the universe should not mean that we need to ascribe to its inception a supernatural cause, a creator, and therefore to associate with that creator’s inscrutable mind a purpose, whether it be divine, malign, or even whimsically capricious. - Dr Peter Williams Atkins
I must admit every time I read or hear something from Dr Atkins I am amazed at his close-mindedness. I see nothing wrong with the ideas that cheetahs and humans beings can have purposes for existence. He seems to find the who discussion distasteful because he has already made up his mind. The problem with agreeing that the universe has a purpose is that one has to then wonder what that/those purpose(s) is/are and who decreed it?
In the deep mystery of God’s vast creative experiment there may be many facets that we, in human terms, would relate to as purposes of the universe. I believe that, incredibly, this includes the creator’s self-revelation though human intelligence and personalities. With God’s experiment comes the freedom of choice, and I choose to believe in a purposeful universe.
My thoughtful atheistic friends who deny that the universe has any ultimate meaning are also men and women of faith. Perhaps intimidated by intimations of design, they seek to understand the universe in other ways. Ironically, they themselves may well be part of the purpose of the universe. - Dr Owen Gingerich
Amen.
Remember, our observable universe is just a tiny region among a large variety of regions, each with different properties. And many of these regions in the universe are sterile and inhospitable and thus lifeless (which makes it especially difficult for them to be observed!). Thus, say some scientists, there is no fine-tuning. And likewise, there is no purpose.
But I don’t agree. The fundamental scientific theories that support the multiverse require complex mathematics. The fact that these fundamental theories are even accessible to our brains, which, in a purposeless universe would be nothing but a by-product of our ability to find prey (and avoid being prey), in the millennia of Homo sapiens’ evolution is something I find quite . . . puzzling.
The reality is that we are able to contemplate such questions. And the bigger the questions our brains can ponder, the more unlikely that the cosmic drama we are all participating in is simply a cosmic lottery.
This is why, at the end of the day, I can’t refrain from thinking that there actually is
purpose in the universe. - Dr Bruno Guiderdoni
Dr Guideroni's comments definitely intrigue me. When I read his essay, I think he is saying unequivocally that the universe has purpose. But at the beginning of the e-book, the first page is a tally of all 12 scholars in the e-book on what their conclusions are. Guiderdoni is marked as "very likely" but in place in his discussion does he describe his conclusion as just very likely. I think he makes a very compelling case for the Universe having purpose.
Science has given us a glimpse of this reality, by revealing the strange objects and concepts, almost irreducible to our familiar world, that lie behind entities such as the cosmos, matter, life, and mind. Through music, art, and literature, we have been allowed to approach another facet of this reality, emotional and esthetic, rather than intelligible. With philosophy and religion, we have become aware of its ethical and mystical aspects. Encompassing all in a single manifestation, love has introduced us into its very heart.
It will be noted that there is no logical need for a creator in this view. By definition, a creator must himself be uncreated, unless he is part of an endless, Russian-doll succession of creators within creators. But then, why start the succession at all? Why not have the universe itself uncreated, an actual manifestation of Ultimate Reality, rather than the work of an uncreated creator? The question is worth asking. - Dr Christian De Duve
Dr De Duve argues against a God that is not in the Bible. The God of the Bible is indeed uncreated. And the Universe is not eternal. The question has been asked and answered.
The fact that we can ask such a question at all suggests an affirmative answer. The
impassioned search for meaning, perhaps our species’ most distinctive trait, is not a
longing that lifts us out of the universe, or that takes place outside of nature. We are, after all, as much a part of nature as roaches and rivers. So too is our thirst for meaning.
If we accept evolution, as indeed we must, our longing for meaning is nature—in the same sense that birdsong and the howling of wolves are nature.
Purpose, after all, means quite simply the bringing about of something undeniably and permanently good. Is that what is going on in the cosmos?
As long as you are drawn toward truth, so also is the natural world that gave birth to your mind.
The two, after all, are inseparable. As long as the search for truth persists, not only can you trust your mind, you can also trust the universe that has germinated such an exquisite means of opening itself to
what is timelessly worth treasuring. - Dr John F. Haught
Dr Haught is right that we have an inborn desire and curiosity to know - everything. I agree that asking such questions as to what is the universe's nature and purpose is itself part of humanity's purpose. So this is a start to understand what the purpose of the universe is.
So in the absence of human hubris, and after we filter out the delusional assessments it promotes within us, the universe looks more and more random. Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as other events that would just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible, to assert. So while I cannot claim to know for sure whether or not the universe has a purpose, the case against it is strong, and visible to anyone who sees the universe as it is rather than as they wish it to be. - Neil deGrasse Tyson
Last but not least. Dr Tyson said that he was not sure if the universe has a purpose but he is sure that people who believe God are wrong. One problem with his reasoning is that none of the reasons he gives in his essay means that there is no God giving the universe purpose. The thing is that according to the Bible, humanity arose and everyone has been born and raised and lived and died in the times and places God has desired. If it literally took 99% of cosmic history what of it? That's not inefficiency, that's what the Creator decided "after the counsel of His own will" (Ephesians 1:11). You can view Dr Tyson essay in an illustrated video.
Top Scientists and Theologians Weigh In: Does the Universe Have a Purpose?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)