Macroscopic Invisibility Cloak - YouTube

Macroscopic Invisibility Cloak - YouTube

Leap Motion Gets Us Closer to Tony Stark-Style Holographic Interface - Topless Robot - Nerd news, humor and self-loathing.

Wanted: holographic computer interface I can manipulate with my fingers:

Imagination


Reality

Leap Motion Gets Us Closer to Tony Stark-Style Holographic Interface - Topless Robot - Nerd news, humor and self-loathing.

Related articles

• Leap Motion used to control 3D projected scene floating in mid air
• Leap Motion + Hologram = The Future of Awesomeness
• An Iron Man Like 3D Hologram Controlled by Leap Motion and Three.js

Faithful Thinkers: Morality, Knowledge, and X-Men

Luke Nix posted a great article about how Morality is portrayed in the movie X-Men: First Class.  I agree with his observations and conclusion. One the things he wrote that I especially liked was this paragraph.

The atheist is claiming that anything that ends in survival of a sentient creature or its species is "good". While the theist is claiming that "good" is independent of survival of sentient creatures (though the two often run parallel). The atheist is making a claim that is teleological (purpose-based) while the theist is making a claim that is metaphysical (morally-based). When the two make the claim that their worldviews can support "objective" morality, understand that they do mean two totally different things. A consequence of this is that when a theist shows that atheism does not allow for a metaphysically moral good, the atheist is not really disagreeing with them, because atheism, by definition does not have a standard to base a metaphysically moral "good" on. However the atheist will still maintain that they can accommodate "objective good" because they maintain that certain actions are objectively good and bad for reaching a certain goal (survival, in this case), but again, they are talking about a different kind of "good".

I hope everyone read Luke's article!


Faithful Thinkers: Morality, Knowledge, and X-Men

Debunking Christianity: Christians Do YOU Have Real Faith or Not?

Loftus recently posted the following video about parents who refuse to get their sick and dying children medical intervention because they think that it's medicine is unbiblical.


I agree with Loftus on the point that it's wrong to not give your children medical attention however he is wrong about faith. Parents who do such are not doing such out of faith. It's not real faith. God does not hate doctors nor does God require us to avoid medical attention. It's not an all or nothing. God can use doctors and medicine to heal us. Luke wrote two books  in our Bible and never gave up his profession. Remember when Jesus said

¹¹ When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
¹² On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. ¹³ But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’^[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” - Matthew 9:11-13

If Jesus was against Medicine than why didn't he denounce the medical field? Instead Jesus says sick people need doctors. John Loftus faceplants again.




 Debunking Christianity: Christians Do YOU Have Real Faith or Not?

the a-atheism blog: Richard Dawkins makes an oxyMORON of himself!

Everyone sometimes says things that are embarrassingly unfortunate.  Even Richard Dawkins.  Case in point!

Follow the link for more.

the a-atheism blog: Richard Dawkins makes an oxyMORON of himself!

Coding: You Should Learn It | Geeks are Sexy Technology News

Things have totally changed. We live in a world now that all people who work in scientific fields need to have at least a rudimentary understanding about how to code computer programs or apps. There isn't much of that in my children's education at their school. Looks like I'll have to make up the difference at home.


Coding: You Should Learn It | Geeks are Sexy Technology News

Debunking Christianity: The Catholic Church Is Lying to This Day: Was Peter the First Pope?

There is truly a God! How else can you explain John Loftus actually posts an article that I have to mostly agree with. Wonders never cease.

In the wake of Pope Benedict resigning and the desire for a new one to replace him, we need to consider the evidence that Peter was the first Pope. But as Austin Cline argues there isn't any. Given that the early Catholic Church lied with forged documents like the Donation of Constantine and the Testimonium Flavianum (inserted text into Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews concerning Jesus), any claim of theirs, including the one that the earliest disciples were martyrs for Jesus, must have evidence for it.

Loftus over reaches his claim that the Catholic Church forged that text in Josephus. I mean the whole passage is not a proven forgery nor can any prove that there was malicious intent involved or what the motivation involved at all. His point that the Catholic Church did lie about a few things is well taken is true. The thing is all the evidence of forgeries has squat to do with the Bible or whether or not the claims of Christianity are true.

In fact, I'll betcha in the Vatican records themselves the priests who have access to them already know Peter was not the first Pope, that there was no such office. So the Catholic Church is lying to us this very day.

I don't know what is in the Vatican records. but what I do know is that no one in the Bible would agree that there is such an office as a "Pope" and that Peter did not think of himself that way according to the Bible.

It's just another case of liars for Jesus, something that both Richard Carrier and I have documented before. It's never seen more clearly than in the Catholic Church cover-up of pedophile priests. All they can do is stonewall, obfuscate and lie in defense of the indefensible, whatever it takes. They have lost all credibility when it comes to their faith. None is left, none.

 Hold on there. It's irrational to think that covering up pedophile priests is the same a saying that Peter was the first Pope without being able to prove that.  Both arte bad but have nothing to do with one another.

 But then that's what we see when it comes to faith in general, no matter what the religion. With faith, almost anything can be believed. With faith, people can believe without any evidence at all. With faith, people can even believe against the overwhelming evidence. In fact, with faith, people can even justify lying to defend what they need to believe. It's pathetic. Yes, it's THAT bad.

Again, Loftus demonstrates that he does not know what "Faith" is. And if this is the kind of faith he had when he thought he was a Christian, he was doing it wrong and has traded one delusion for another. Yes, it truly is pathetic.

I dare say that if Christians went back in time to the start-up of the early church they would almost all blast its rise as nothing more than a number of harmful pious cultic frauds, by leaders who sought power over others.

Judging the early Christians by the kind of clergy that Loftus himself was? Not good, Mr Loftus, not good. I don't think that Loftus' accusations apply to the writers of the Bible, nor can Loftus show that it does. Before Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire there was precious little power to be had. I mean for about 300 hundred years from the beginning becoming a Christian leader would not gain you power or wealth but suffering and  death. 

Let's take a step back and look at Loftus' argument. Let's say he's right. The Catholic Church lied about Josephus writing about Jesus. It lied about Peter being the first Pope. Transubstantiation is wrong. So what? Even if Loftus is right about faith, and he is not, it matters nothing about whether or not the claims in the Bible are true or not. Loftus being right would not make the Bible right however it does make the Catholic Church wrong.

Debunking Christianity: The Catholic Church Is Lying to This Day: Was Peter the First Pope?

The 50 Smartest People of Faith | Reflections

Dr Kenneth Samples has posted an interesting link to an article listing 50 people who are intelligent beyond any reasonable question. Check out the link. My one question to those who reject God for what they think are intellectual grounds: Do you think you are more intelligent or more well-informed than they? I don't think you are.

The 50 Smartest People of Faith | Reflections

Parting Shot: 'SpiderSense' Suit Allows Wearer To Do At Least One Thing A Spider Can - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Now this is cool.

Built by Victor Mateevitsi, the SpiderSense suit has small robotic arms packaged in modules with microphones that send out and receive ultrasonic reflections from objects. When the ultrasound detects an object moving closer to one of the microphones, the arms exert a growing pressure on the body, alerting the suit's wearer.

Read More: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2013/02/25/spidersense-suit-spider-man-university-of-illinois-victor-mateevitsi/#ixzz2LxCePYZc

 

Such a suit could be awesome for blind people and for cyclist and for many other uses. I think that it could even be used by law enforcement and the military. I want one. 

Parting Shot: 'SpiderSense' Suit Allows Wearer To Do At Least One Thing A Spider Can - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Debunking Christianity: Does God Really Show That He Loves Us?

Recently, John Loftus posted an article recently in which he makes an attempts to argue that Jesus' sacrifice does not show that God loves us. He says that if God really loved us he would make himself easier to find scientifically because the Bible is not good  enough evidence and would not allow "so much intensive ubiquitous gratuitous suffering in the world". As usual Loftus makes a great many bad assumptions demonstrating that he has no idea what he is talking about. Jesus did not just die for us. He died for his enemies. All of us at one time were his enemies - hostile and hated God. Unfortunately, John Loftus is still like that and despite what he thinks - always was. Despite our evil, Jesus died to redeem us - we were so encumbered and enslaved that we didn't even know we needed a savior. Loftus wrote this granting that Jesus died for us, but what he has missed is that he can't quantify nor demonstrate what "gratuitous" suffering is. Just how much is too much? He doesn't see the point that God does not just allow evil things to happen. God also restricts and contains evil. Evil is on a leach in Jesus' hand. Jesus not only saves us from sin, but without his sacrifice and changing hearts and minds throughout history, He has prevented much evil.  Go ahead and a laugh. Read Loftus' comment below. The real interesting thing is that it is those who reject Christ are the ones who are drowning and they do not want rescue.

This is how God shows that he loves us. We're supposed to believe God expressed his love by sending his son to die for us based on 2nd, 3rd, 4th handed testimony found in manuscripts dated to the 4th century AD from a pre- scientific superstitious people in a remote part of the ancient world, who included forged texts in their holy book that reinforced their hindsight conclusions, who destroyed other texts that disagreed, and who subsequently killed off anyone who didn't accept those beliefs, despite the fact that this same God allows so much intensive ubiquitous gratuitous suffering in the world? Nope, not a chance. Not even close. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Debunking Christianity: Does God Really Show That He Loves Us?

Why is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? Video by Guillermo Gonzales - Apologetics 315

Here is an awesome lecture by Dr Guillermo Gonzales answering the question about what the fine tuning argument for the existence of God is and why it deserves careful consideration!


Why is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? <br/>Video by Guillermo Gonzales - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• Guillermo Gonzalez lectures at UC Davis on the requirements for life

High Five of the Day - God and the Applicability of Mathematics | Reasonable Faith

In his recent debate with Dr Rosenberg,  William Lane Craig touched an argument for God's existence using the applicability of mathematics to the natural world. On the his website, Dr Craig was asked the questions:

Isn't it the case that mathematics could, and in my opinion does seem to be, just a useful fiction as you mentioned in your debate? You say something along the lines of "this wouldn't explain how nature seems to be written in the language of mathematics". Isn't it also the case that if mathematical concepts are useful fictions, then they would describe (accurately if well thought out) the universe as apprehended by our perceptions? Shouldn't we expect that our useful fictions would be useful precisely because they accurately describe our observations?
I have thought that perhaps I am missing the point of the argument though. Perhaps it is the case that you aren't saying God must exist because our useful fictions, particularly those of mathematics describing reality, would just be happy coincidence. Indeed, what kind of coincidence would it be that our tools were designed for the purpose they serve? Perhaps you are making the point that without God the universe wouldn't necessarily exhibit these extremely logical properties.
Maybe I'm just completely wrong headed on this. Could you please set me straight?

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-applicability-of-mathematics#ixzz2Ll8hldKh

Here is a quote from Dr William Lane Craig's Answer:

Your question is about the argument from the applicability of mathematics to the physical world. Question of the Week #277 is about the only place where I have reflected on this question, and I refer you there. Again, it was reading Rosenberg’s own book that prompted me to put this into the form of the theistic argument. For mathematics lies at the foundation of physics, at whose altar Rosenberg bows. Given his scientism (epistemological naturalism), he cannot dismiss applied mathematics as illusory. Rosenberg also emphasizes that naturalism simply cannot tolerate cosmic coincidences. But then what explanation can the naturalist offer for why mathematics is applicable to the physical world, that is to say, for why the physical world is imbued with the complex mathematical structure that physics discovers. Naturalism founders in this regard, whereas theism has an easy answer: God created the universe on the mathematical structure that He had in mind.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-applicability-of-mathematics#ixzz2Ll4vYMXw

I think reading the full response is  a good idea. I have to say that I have often thought that the fact that we can use mathematics to model the universe is good evidence that there is a rational mind that not only brought the universe into being but holds it together. I've been fascinated by the fact that so many physical constants contain numbers and multiples of  Pi, 2, and 3. It seems beyond rationality to concluded this is just a coincidence not a fingerprint or a signature.

God and the Applicability of Mathematics | Reasonable Faith

Answering Muslims: James White: Why Muslims Reject the Gospel

David Wood posted this lecture by James White. Dr White discusses the reasons why Muslims reject the Gospel


Answering Muslims: James White: Why Muslims Reject the Gospel

Ink Cost’s More Than Human [Infographic] | Daily Infographic

Ink Cost’s More Than Human [Infographic] | Daily Infographic

One of My Favorite Scenes From The Simpsons

explore-blog: A female soldier in a combat zone... | .mattfraction

I found the following trailer and verbage on Tumblr. Very important stuff!

A female soldier in a combat zone is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire. By official estimates from The Department of Defense, 19,000 violent sexual crimes occurred in the military in 2011 alone. Sexual assault is grossly under-reported in the military. In 2011, 3,191 assaults were reported when its likely that somewhere between 19,000 and 22,000 assaults occurred.

Silent No More – women in the military speak out against rape in a groundbreaking investigative documentary, all the more stirring and important as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of The Feminine Mystique.

explore-blog: A female soldier in a combat zone... | .mattfraction

Related articles

• Allen West slams female soldiers: Why aren't women in the NHL?
• Local Female Soldier Reacts to Lifted Combat Ban - WSIL TV
• Poll shows 17 percent of Marines would leave service if women moved to combat roles
• The Invisible War
• Letter: Men protect women from danger in the Army

Nicolaus Copernicus - Heliocentric Model [HQ] - YouTube

Nicolaus Copernicus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today, Google released a Doodle in honor of Nicolaus Copernicus' 540th birthday. Here is a video of that Doodle. It's an illustration of Copernicus' Heliocentric model of what he thought was the universe. Really amazing.


Nicolaus Copernicus - Heliocentric Model [HQ] - YouTube

Mark Waid Announces Free 'Gender Through Comics' Online Course - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

A great opportunity to take a college level class online has come up. The course covers the ways gender identity and roles have been depicted throughout American culture explored through comic books! I think I will definitely be signing up for this.


Mark Waid Announces Free 'Gender Through Comics' Online Course - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Don't think that comic books can be used to explore complex issues like this? Check out this article by  Andrew Wheeler who traces how depictions of women in X-Men changed during the many years Chris Claremont wrote the books. 

Mutant Women of Earth: How Chris Claremont Reinvented the Female Superhero

Read More: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2013/02/19/chris-claremont-x-men-strong-female-characters-storm-rogue-jean-grey/#ixzz2LQ8TuIfh

Debunking Christianity: What Will Christians Do In Heaven For All Eternity?

There is something I just don't get about the mind of an apostate: Why do they think they only started thinking when they left God?  I mean did Loftus ever stop to ask the question he is is considering in this post? I know some people like apostates claim that when they asked other Christians questions like this they were shamed and told that it was disrespectful to question God. I know there are some people who don't really think and that is wrong but even if you are one of the laity this is no excuse. Church leaders even have less excuse. Loftus claims to be a former pastor and claims to be education in theology and philosophy. What was his excuse when people in his flock came to him questions like this? How did he answer this question for himself? Obviously he would not have answered it the same way he does now. Some of his "scenarios" he outlines in this post tells us he has no idea what he is talking about. Did he ever know?

Christians concoct many different scenarios about what they'll do in heaven for all eternity. None of them make good sense. Will they eternally play golf? Baseball? How about hockey, football, or even rugby? Boxing anyone? What about bear hunting? Hey, guys, how about having everlasting sex with a harem of 70 virgins? Oh, sorry, wrong religion. Regardless, what if YOU were part of a harem of 70 guys for some nymphomaniac in heaven who is just as ugly as YOU are? More seriously, what about being in a prostate position eternally worshiping God? This just seems boring to most Christians, that's all. I can hear some of the saints in heaven now:

Hey, God, can I get up and do something productive? Do you sincerely not want me to do anything now that I'm here? Doing productive activities is self-fulfilling and makes me happy. Let me do something, please, anything. Can I at least get up and stretch, or go catch up with the "few" family and friends I have that made it here? If nothing else, your wonderfulness, can I go to the bathroom? ;-)

So most Christians envision they'll be given other worlds to rule over by God when they die depending on how well they behaved here on earth, even though I can hear murmurs of dissatisfaction: "Hey God, you said you forgave all of our sins so why does that guy get a bigger world to rule over than me?" However, if believers are given their own worlds to rule over, just who do they think they'll rule over? Will these creatures have free will and will they also rebel? Will the ruler of each of these worlds have to be crucified as Jesus was in order to save them from the wrath of God? I can't imagine believers signing up for a future excruciating crucifixion when they signed up to be in heaven. But if the creatures to be ruled over don't rebel then Jesus was a failure as a ruler over his world. I know I know, "ours is not to question why, ours is but to do and die."

If Loftus wasn't leading so many people astray by letting them think their doubts and skepticism actually have weight his lack of biblical knowledge would be laughable. He paid lip service to the fact that various people would answer the question differences, and then pretended that Christians don't really know anything although the Bible give us firm facts about things we can know for sure about heaven. Also I'd like to know how bear hunting is "productive".  

1. We will be like the angels - so no marriage according to Jesus (Matthew ). Sorry, Muslims and Mormons.

²⁹ Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. ³⁰ At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. ³¹ But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, - Matthew 22:29-31

2. No suffering. No pain. No sin.

3. No way is it going to be boring, exploring the new created order. For example, will there be entropy? What will be the limitations to our new bodies be?

4. We won't be gods of our own planets. Sorry, Mormons.

5, Even if we spend all of our time prostrate before the throne of God, in worship and adoration - it won't be boring because everytime we look at the throne we will see something different.

6. If we spend an eternity in worship of God, it won't be enough, God is worthy of more. 

7. Whatever we do in heaven it will be be better to what apostates and people who reject Jesus is going to be doing. 

Debunking Christianity: What Will Christians Do In Heaven For All Eternity?

“Seed” the TV series | True Freethinker

I love science fiction and Mariano has pointed out  a new series that will be coming out soon. It looks right up my alley.

..SEED is a brand new science fiction series unlike anything you have ever seen before. It has the mystery and intrigue of Lost combined with the political commentary and sci-fi appeal of shows like Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica, mixed with the paranormal/alien themes explored in The X-Files....

“Seed” the TV series | True Freethinker