The Evolution Debate from :redux on Vimeo.
Is there astronomical or astrophysical evidence for evolution? from :redux on Vimeo.
Is evolution a fact? from :redux on Vimeo.
Peregrinations: Evidence from Astronomy
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Peregrinations: Evidence from Astronomy
The Evolution Debate from :redux on Vimeo.
Is there astronomical or astrophysical evidence for evolution? from :redux on Vimeo.
Is evolution a fact? from :redux on Vimeo.
Peregrinations: Evidence from Astronomy
the a-atheism blog: Richard Dawkins Attacks John Lennox in Latest Craig-Bitter Hissy Fit!
But who could predict that Dawkins would lose all sense of coherence and discernment while throwing his latest tantrum? In a recent forum post on his "clear-thinking oasis" website (Pretentiousness Police! Pull over!) Dawkins actually attacked Prof John Lennox, for being just as unworthy of engaging with as Dr Craig! His reason? That Lennox "masquerades as a scientist while believing Jesus turned water into wine"!
As the video above shows, this excuse did not stop Dawkins debating Lennox three times in the past! Indeed, John Lennox gave an actual argument as to why such a belief is not incompatible with science (briefly: 1. if God exists then he can feed new events into the system he's already created, 2. turning water into wine is such a new event, 3. therefore if God exists then he could do it)!
Dawkins' response? The fallacy of personal incredulity.
And now, behold the abject desperation and emotionalism! Evidently, while still fuming at Dr Craig being endorsed even by fellow Oxford atheists, as worthy of civilised discussion and debate, Dawkins feels the need to lash out even less discriminately than ever before. The important thing to remember is, apparently, that if you're not an atheist.... YOU'RE NOT WORTHY!
I've seen the recording of Dawkins debates with John Lennox and the real issue is that Dawkins lost those encounters and he knows it. Lennox is more than a worthy scholar and scientist. Yes, mathematicians are also just as much scientists as biologists. Richard Dawkins behavior and attitude towards people who disagree with him would be extremely adorable....if he were 2 years-old. Read the rest of the article at the following link.
the a-atheism blog: Richard Dawkins Attacks John Lennox in Latest Craig-Bitter Hissy Fit!
You can see the debates of Dawkins versus Lennox and make up your own mind. .
Has Science Buried God.
Existence of God
FacePalm of the Day #144 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: "Kick Em When Their Down" James White attacks Robert Morey.
Well, thegrandverbalizer has been missing from the blogosphere for a while. I have not seen many posts in a few months. But he's back to bringing facepalms with him, God bless him. Not only is James White a narcissist it is clear as day to me that the man is an opportunist as well.
hmmm...must be thegrandverbalizer. I have never gotten that vibe from Dr James White at all. Sure would like to hear thegrandverbalizer call the Dividing Line and demonstrate his claims. But he won't. Even if he did call, he couldn't do it.
Is it not interesting that back when I started to post the video debates between Robert Morey and Jamal Badawi (whom both Christian and Muslim) were with-holding from the general public that Mr. White suddenly goes on a tirade against Robert Morey.
Oh yes, I'm sure there is a connection....right.
So finally it dawns on James White that the ministry of Robert Morey is through. When White was doing the rounds with Oneness Pentecostals, Catholics and Mormons it was Robert Morey who was stepping up to the plate to debate with the Muslims.
So let's get this straight: Thegrandverbalizer agrees with James White that Robert Morey is wrong about the things he has said about Islam, but he is angry that James White did not say something sooner? I think thegrandverbalizer is just fishing for something to complain about.
So after I release the debates on my blog site here I can tell you what happened.
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/05/dr-robert-morey-fleeing-legal.html (In fact look at the month of May and you will see many entries concerning Robert Morey).
And what does that have to do with the truth of Christianity? Nothing. The integrity of James White's ministry? Nada.
The man who absolutely dotes on White (Sam Shamoun) got on the horn (called up White) and said hey look thegrandverbalizer19 has the debates up at his blog! So notice that White's remarks come up in June. (A little late to the party eh White?)
I wonder if thegrandverbalizer can prove that? I doubt it.
White didn't pay it any attention at first. However, he was curious what Morey was up to. After realizing that it is true that Robert Morey's ministry is finished and he is wanted by the State of California for questioning by authorities White (being the opportunist that he is) jumped all over the opportunity.
I wonder why thegrandverbalizer thinks that Morey's legal issues mean the end of Morey's ministry? He doesn't explain why he thinks that. And just because he hadn't commented on Morey does not mean that James White was not aware of him. Seriously?
I mean after all isn't White a whistle blower of sorts against Ergun Caner? Wrong!
I have never heard James White ever take credit for that.
It was Muslims who that Ergun Caner's story didn't hold up. The Christians started to catch on and the SBC when it to cover up mode.
I agree, but James White has never said anything contrary to that.
After all wasn't it White who took Walid Shoebat to task for saying 666 = Allah? (an absurd claim to rest assure). [You mean like thegrandverbalizer claiming "Jesus" means "earth pig" link (surprise the original link is missing]
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3664 <="">
Which is why he was holding Ergun Caner to the same standard.
So in order to look relevant and to look as if he is the no.1 Christian apologist debating Muslims White just couldn't help him self.
When ever has James White said that was his goal? He hasn't.
After smacking his chops in the most unsavory manner Mr. White went after the scraps of Robert Morey that were left.
I bet that made Mr. White feel really tall.
So here is the source: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2011-06&catid=12
Under the title:
Yesterday on the Dividing Line: The Dumbest Thing Ever Said about Islam, and Calls
06/24/2011 - James White
I had not intended, at all, to discuss it, but I got into the following quotation:First, as I wrote in my book, How to Win the War Against Radical Islam, the war against the Muslim Jihadists will be long and costly and will not be won until we bomb the Kabah in Mecca. Islam is based on a brick and mortar building that can be destroyed. They pray to that building five times a day, make a pilgrimage to it, run around it, kiss a black rock on the wall, then run between two hills and finally throw rocks at a pillar. What if that building, the Kabah, was destroyed? They could not pray to it or make a pilgrimage to it. The old pagan temple of the moon-god, al-ilah, is the Achilles' heel of Islam. Destroy it and you destroy Islam's soul. [ Reference ]
I discussed how I had been twice asked about this viewpoint while traveling and speaking, and how it had struck me as the single stupidest suggestion I had ever heard. I had shown it no mercy when asked, and honestly in the five minutes before the program started I happened across an article in my RSS feeds that identified its source: Robert Morey. Well, as little as I want conflict with Bob Morey, I could not help but point out the quote and express my ardent feelings about it. At least I'm consistent. So I gave a little background on the reasons why I have never read a Bob Morey book on Islam (I read his much older book on death and the afterlife, and parts of his book on atheism as well) and why I have never used him as a source. I discussed the "Moon God" theory a bit as well, and then took calls, the first of which was on what "moderate Islam" is, the second on Shai Linne's song on particular redemption:
Atleast Mr. White 'is consistent'!
Yes, he is consistent. Thegrandverbalizer disagree that James White is consistent, but he doesn't seem to be able to demonstrate that Dr White is not consistent.
Is that the same Mr. White who argued during a debate that 'Allah repents'?
I think it was his argument that the Qur'an says Allah repents. Where is thegrandverbalizer's rebuttal proving Dr White wrong? Just because you don't like it or him, doesn't make him wrong.
Yes, he is consistent. Thegrandverbalizer disagree that James White is consistent, but he doesn't seem to be able to demonstrate that Dr White is not consistent.
Is that the same Mr. White who argued during a debate that 'Allah repents'?
I think it was his argument that the Qur'an says Allah repents. Where is thegrandverbalizer's rebuttal proving Dr White wrong? Just because you don't like it or him, doesn't make him wrong.
The same Mr. White who is cohort Sam Shamoun grossly misrepresents Islam on a daily basis while White does little to nothing to take him to task?
Proof? Evidence? Hear that? Nothing.
Ladies and Gentleman this is simply a case of 'Kick Em When There Down!'. White will do anything and exploit any opportunity (even fellow Christians) to try and prop his own ministry and image up.
I don't think the grandverbalizer has proven his case at all. The only thing that has been proven is that he doesn't like James White.
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: "Kick Em When Their Down" James White attacks Robert Morey.
The "Debunking Christianity" anti-Christian support group cries out for help | True Freethinker
The "Debunking Christianity" anti-Christian support group cries out for help | True Freethinker
Answering Muslims: Islam and Slavery
Answering Muslims: Islam and Slavery
Friday, November 4, 2011
FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Ten Ways How To Resist Preaching to the Choir
I have extensively read both atheist and Christian literature, their blogs, journals and books, along with listening to their videos and podcasts.
I'm glad. I keep hoping that something will finally click.
What I have discovered is that most people are preaching to the choir. They do not step inside each others shoes to understand where they are coming from. They do not meet on common ground, assume common assumptions, and common understandings. They are talking past one another like ships that proverbially pass each other in the night. Instead, they are speaking to people on their own side more than anything else, who seek to confirm what they have already come to accept. There is a time and a place for this, I admit. But I see it almost everywhere I look. More often than not each side speaks from a position without trying to really understand the position of the people they are trying to reach. I’ve thought a lot about this, so in the interest of starting up this conversation let me offer ten ways how to resist preaching to the choir, with specific reference to how skeptics/atheists can do this.
I agree, but the faceplant is that Loftus himself and many of the frequent commenters and contributors to Debunking Christianity do the exact same things.
1) Understand science, theology, and philosophy better than believers do. This is a tough one if you do not have the requisite knowledge. The more knowledgeable you are then the better your efforts will be, and that’s all I can say about it. You must want to learn about these subjects. You must read the requisite literature, lots of it. If you’re not willing to put the time and effort into this then I understand, but the more you do the more effective you will be.
The problem here is that I don't see how Loftus' or any of the other people on Debunking Christianity are better equipped than the Apologists, Theologians, Scientists, and Scholars who disagree with them. William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, Mary Jo Sharp, James White, RC Sproul, David Heddle, and many many others are very capable (not even counting the multitude of people who's work we still have access to although they are dead.
2) Grant as much as you possibility can allow for the sake of argument. Don’t major on the minors or engage every little objection you can think of if the objections are not to the heart of the issue. Say something like, "Okay, I’ll grant for the sake of argument that there was a historical figure behind the Jesus cult and that the early disciples believed he had bodily raised from the dead” if you can. It doesn’t hurt to allow this, for even then there are still plenty of reasons for not believing Jesus was bodily raised up from the dead. Do what I have done:
Did Paul Conceive of a Resurrected body?
The Jesus in the Gospels Never Existed.
Does he mean loose every moderated public debate he's been in? There is not plenty of reason to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and one should not grant that Jesus existed and his followers believed he was raised from the dead for the sake of argument because these are historical facts. Why grant something that is not true? Interesting Loftus would say this because people like Dr Robert Price would not even admit this much. Oh and check out his links, laughter is good for the soul.
3) Adopt the principle of charity when dealing with a believer’s argument. Assume the argument in it’s best form even if stated badly. No strawman caricatures.
If only Loftus would practice that.
If you are unclear what the argument is, then ask the believer to clarify it. Use the Socratic dialogue where you ask the believer something like this: “Are you saying that because science has not discovered the answer to this question that therefore you can insert the god of your choice?” Then if the answer is yes, you can go on to ask, “What justifies you inserting your god at this point when there are so many conceptions of god to insert?”
I don't think a Bible believing Christian would have to answer "Yes" because I would want to know why would science being able to answer how something takes place would erase the need for God? Science can't tell you the purpose or meaning. Dawkins instinctively realizes this but hides and instead asserted once that "WHY?" was a silly question. Inserting anything that isn't true makes no sense. Theory and hypothesis is fine, but somethings you should want to be certain about.
4) Use the Bible against the believer. For most Christians the Bible forms the basis, or part of the basis, for what they believe. Therefore inform them of what it says. It debunks itself if properly understood.
I still have yet to see this done on Debunking Christianity. I've seen great straw man and butchering of the text however.
In doing this you should properly understand what it says.
Loftus doesn't.
The better you understand the Christian responses to their own Bible passages then the better you can press home your points. You just cannot quote the Bible when believers have been thinking about the Bible for nearly two millennia. We don't accept quote mining from Christians. So why should educated Christians accept quote mining from us?
I find great Biblical illiteracy on Debunking Christianity in general and from John Loftus in particular. When you correct them in what they are saying about the Bible, instead of disagreeing with you about what it says, they say, "You can't prove the Bible with the Bible." They should realize that you can't disprove the Bible with the Bible, especially if you are going to misquote and misrepresent it.
5) Use other Christianities against each other, something I do quite frequently. That way it's not an atheist argument, so-called, at all. The arguments are coming from other believers. See this here:
When Christians Criticize Each Other They Are All Right.
How To Debunk Christianity.
Another point that I've never seen John Loftus consistently model. Besides on essentials, born-again Christians don't disagree and on those other things, they aren't worth Christians fighting over and hating one another.. No one is going to go to hell over them. Anyone disagrees, name an essential doctrine that Christians fight over that really matter about what it means to be a Christian?
6) Don’t claim more than what an argument leads us to conclude. The problem of evil, for instance, does not lead a believer to atheism.
I agree, but this means that some current atheists and agnostics must disagree because they claimed that they were true Christians but "the problem of evil" caused them to reason that their faith was in vain. Nice to see that wasn't John Loftus' case. However the statement supports the theist's position more than it does Loftus' view. It refutes people like Dr Bart Ehrman. Great Job, Mr Loftus.
If successful it only shows that one or more of the attributes normally thought to apply to western monotheistic gods is false.
I have never seen it successfully used and certainly not be John Loftus.
Such a god may exist who is less than good, less than omniscient, or less than all-powerful.
Then that god is not the God of the Bible. John Loftus keeps asserting this but never manages to give good evidence for it beyond his flawed premises and presuppositions.
7) Whenever possible admit when you hadn’t considered something before.
I wonder if Loftus ever has done that?
If you learn from believers something you hadn’t considered before then be a human being towards them and admit it. Be nice. It has a way of softening tensions. It allows believers to see us as real flesh and blood people. It makes them a bit at ease to discuss things with us. None of us know it all. So admit it if possible. It will go a long way toward reaching out to them.
I think that should go both ways. However, I really would like to see how Loftus has ever done that.
8) Treat the views of believers with a modicum of respect. Why not? I realize this is very hard to do.
Must be why I've never seen Loftus do that.
I also recognize we cannot always do this, nor is it always the best policy, nor have I always done it myself.
Or ever.
But when you are engaged in an argument with a believer if you wish to try, really try, to meet him or her on common ground then you must do this if your goal is to help change their minds.
Then I guess its not really Loftus' goal and he enjoys "preaching to the choir".
9) Treat believers as persons with a modicum of dignity. After all, they are people, just as you are. I like to treat people I meet on the net as if we were having a discussion over coffee or a beer. That’s the goal.
Again, I've never seen Loftus model that. Sure would like to, however.
I know none of us do that all the time. Sometimes people have a history of dealings with each other where this is probably impossible. But it’s still something to aim at.
Because none of us ever manages to do it completely, although the Bible tells us we should do so (and stipulation is made regarding the subject matter) we are all sinners in need of a savior because we are unable to live lives free of sin. When we don't esteem others higher than ourselves, we sin. That doesn't mean we don't point out error or never disagree or not stand up for what is right, but it does mean to treat others with dignity. I think some people think that saying someone's argument is a failure, or wrong, or is a "faceplant" or induces a "facepalm" is disrespectful but I don't think so. I think it is disrespectful to insult another person's intelligence, misrepresent them (refusing correction), or using profanity. If it's truly John Loftus' goal to be respectful and kind he truly misses the mark. Recall that in Hebrew, the word for "sin" literally means "missing the mark".
10) Go to where believers are found. I don’t personally do this much myself.
I think it's because Loftus knows his arguments really don't carry any weight. It's okay to be honest.
Sometimes they come to me here at DC.
And it really is filled with people who really don't want a dialogue but instead want to just rail and rant about what the only think Christianity is and not what it truly is.
But if you want to reach out to believers then you need to meet them on their ground.
Which means we have to agree about what the Bible says and then we can get to whether it was true or not. But I have yet to interact with anyone from Debunking Christianity who is willing to do that. It's a waste of time commenting there.
If you’re preaching to the choir inside your own conclave then you’re in the wrong place if you want to reach out to them.
There you have it. John Loftus says he wants to reach out to evangelical Christians and convince them that Christianity is wrong, yet he safely preaches to the Choir and does not practice what he says are the ways to avoid just preaching to the Choir.
Debunking Christianity: Ten Ways How To Resist Preaching to the Choir
Herman Cain Supporters Find Their Inner Clarence Thomas (Video) - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
I always thought that when Clarence Thomas made the "High-tech Lynching" comment it was disingenuous because Sexual Harassment has nothing to do with race. I don't care what your skin color is, women should be respected just as much as men. If Herman Cain did sexual harass anyone in the past he should just come clean and admit it. Herman Cain Supporters Find Their Inner Clarence Thomas (Video) - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
Thursday, November 3, 2011
J.P. Moreland on the Christian Worldview - Apologetics 315
Image via WikipediaBrian Auten has posted this great video of JP Moreland. I enjoyed the interview. I agree most of what he says. The one thing I disagree with is that the fires of hell are metaphorical because there is no reason to assume that the fire described in the Bible must all give light. The important point he made must be true - the torment of being in hell comes form being separated from God. I would also say that the working and testimony of the Holy Spirit is the best proof for Christianity. I also loved the way Dr Moreland explained why he believes that the human soul and body are distinct. He really seems to live what he says he believes. J.P. Moreland on the Christian Worldview - Apologetics 315
It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones
It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones
Can You Count All The Herman Cain Crises? The Snob's Got The List! - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
Can You Count All The Herman Cain Crises? The Snob's Got The List! - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
Infographic: Marijuana Goes Mainstream - Health - GOOD
Infographic: Marijuana Goes Mainstream - Health - GOOD
The Higher Education Bubble [infographic]
Here is a very telling infographic - given that many people now owe more in student loans than credit cards! And the cost of going to a university keeps growing!
The Higher Education Bubble [infographic]
The Higher Education Bubble [infographic]
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Answering Muslims: James White: Islam A to Z
Recently Dr James White gave a two-session presentation on Islam. Here is a good way to get up to speed: watch these!
Islam A to Z: Session 1 and Q&A from Lakeview Christian Center on Vimeo.
Islam A to Z: Session 2 and Q&A from Lakeview Christian Center on Vimeo.
Answering Muslims: James White: Islam A to Z
Islam A to Z: Session 1 and Q&A from Lakeview Christian Center on Vimeo.
Islam A to Z: Session 2 and Q&A from Lakeview Christian Center on Vimeo.
Answering Muslims: James White: Islam A to Z
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Fistbump of the day - Answering Muslims: Muslim Debate Tricks
In the comments section, Yohannes posted ten rules of Muslim debate. Since we see these tricks being implemented again and again, they deserve special attention.
WINNING DEBATES FOR DUMMIES: A Guide for Muslims to Win Debates with Ten Easy Tricks
1. Always keep your CAPS Lock on. This way your post will be difficult to read and no one will be able to answer.
Most Atheists I have tried to reason with tend to use all caps when shouting as most people.
2. Whenever someone comes up with a verse from the Quran that you are unable to defend, say that it is taken out of CONTEXT.
When you raise a verse from the Bible that the Atheist has butchered or just plain wrong about, the Atheists I've talked to tell you that it's wrong to use the Bible to prove the Bible. Smoke screen. Funny how some Muslims do the same thing when they fail to represent what the Bible says accurately.
3. Whenever someone comes up with a Hadith that you are unable to answer, say that Hadiths are not reliable.
Atheists do the same thing with scientists and scholars who disagree with them. Classic.
4. When someone comes to you with both the Quran and the Hadith, say that the Quran and the Hadith can only be understood in Arabic.
Here atheists claim that the Bible and Christian theology is so fragmented it's impossible to tell what interpretation is correct...except theirs.
5. When someone comes to you with the Quran and the Hadith and also proves that he/she understands Arabic, say that these verses are for a specific time period and could not be applied today.
Atheists ignore all the history and time Christianity has been around as if the arguments they trot out have never been answered or thought about. It's been 2000 years and longer for Judaism. They like to pretend the Bible is antiquated. I'm willing to accept that verses in the Qur'an can be for a specific time period and not applied today, because the same it true for the Bible. But there is a major difference. When the Bible contains commands for killing the Amalekites it was for the Jews at the time in the context of war and can't be followed today. When was the last time you met an Amalekite? Amorite? Exactly. There are not any. But when the Qur'an calls the killing for non-Muslims where does it stop? When either they convert or die.
6. When you cannot answer any questions, say that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and soon the entire world will believe.
I guess they mean the whole world will be Muslim after they kill everyone else who doesn't convert. Atheists are under the delusion that eventually they will be able to prove that there is no God and people will "grow" out of being religious. What they fail to understand is that a born-again Christian doesn't believe the Bible and in God because it makes them feel good. We believe because we know it's true.
7. When someone comes up with proofs that Islam is not the fastest growing religion, say that these figures are biased and compiled by Christians.
I've heard atheist say the same thing when they aren't complaining about being too few.
8. Paste some YouTube videos about the Quran's scientific miracles. When someone proves that these videos are stupid, shout that they are biased.
Atheists do the same thing only opposite. They try to debunk and disprove Christianity - failing miserably - but what else can they do.
9. Keep on pasting random verses from the Qur'an to divert attention.
Atheists accuse Christians of doing the same thing, only they think a single word from the Bible is irrelevant because they don't think it's probably true (although they can't prove that it's not true).
10. Finally, when you are totally on the run, curse and threaten people with Hell fire and say that they are not worthy of Islam.
This one Atheists and Muslims definitely have in common - profanity included.
Answering Muslims: Muslim Debate Tricks
FacePlant - Debunking Christianity: When Christians Criticize Each Other I Think They're All Right
One way to tell whether a theory is in crisis to to observe how many versions of that theory have been proposed. When it comes to how the death of Jesus supposedly atones for sins there have been a lot of versions proposed by Christians who, for good reasons, have disputed the others.
Loftus is suggesting that Christians have varied and different viewpoints on how Jesus atones for those who put their faith in Him.
So let's recap. The earliest proposals were The Ransom Theory and the The Recapitulation Theory. Then came a host of them afterward, like Anslem's Satisfaction Theory, The Penal Substitutionary Theory, The Governmental Theory, The Moral Influence Theory, and recently The Relationship Theory. There are others: The Acceptance Theory. The Declaratory Theory. The Mystical Theory. The Guaranty Theory. The Vicarious Repentance Theory. The Christus Victor Theory. The Healing Theory. The Penal Non-Substitution Theory. The Kaleidoscope Theory. The Participatory Model. The Scapegoating Theory.
Loftus posts a laundry list of theologies regarding the atonement. The faceplant is that many of them are not contradictory of mutually exclusive at all. For example there is no conflict between Penal Substitution and the Scapgoating theory. Hear that? That is the sound of a face slamming concrete - our propitiation. If you wanna know how Jesus atones for our sin and what does it mean for Him to be our sin offering, read Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament.
Check some of them out! See also this book of four views, and watch as Christians trash the other views! You see, there is nothing left for me to do. Christians do it to themselves. All I need to do is point it out.
So not all Christians agree with each other. So what? Not all atheists agree with John Loftus, does not mean Atheism is wrong? Atheism is wrong, but not for the reason that Loftus is wrong or that other Atheists disagree with him.
Given nearly two millennia I’d venture to say with good reason that there will never be a cogent, well-argued version that can ever pass muster in the future either.
Oh, I get it: In his mind there are no cogent or well-argued understanding of how the Atonement works. .
I think the whole idea of Jesus dying for my sins to restore me to God is built upon the beliefs of a superstitious ancient world, where gods and goddesses were pleased with sacrifices, whether they were human or animal ones.
John Loftus is entitled to his opinion no matter how wrong it is. Loftus doesn't offer any evidence for that conclusion in this post, but that's what a faceplant looks like.
This ancient world is long gone now, so it’s time to give up believing in an incarnate God who offered a sacrifice for us on the cross to atone for our sins.
Here is the problem: what are you going to do about your sins? If Jesus is not your propitiation then who is? Yourself? Problem is no one can pay for their own sin. Loftus is one of those who decry the existence of evil and suffering. He believes that if there really was a God, He would get rid of such things if God was good. But I'm shocked that people don't stop to think "What happens to me, if God did exist and decided to get rid of all the evil in existence?" To most of us "evil" is the person over there doing things to other people that I would never do. That's not it. We have all sinned. None of us live up to the standards we set for ourselves about what is moral - right and wrong - completely and consistently every day. Why would anyone think that we should get away with that. We all agree that the one who rapes and murders a little child should be punished. Some even think they should be put to death - especially if it's their child. But what about when we lie on someone. Or steal an idea from someone as if it's our own? Bootleg a movie or a song? Cheat on taxes? Lust on a person who is not your spouse? Speeding when you aren't supposed to? These are wrong too and demand punishment. And some of these don't even seem like they should be an offense to us. That is why we have the Bible, it reveals sin to us that we don't already know about through our consciences. How do you pay what you owe to God because of your inability to live up to the standard of which he has set? News Flash: you can't.
When you stand before God to give an account for your life, how are you going to explain - given your obvious wretchedness - why God should not send you to the hell you have chosen to go? Waiting. Take your time.
Debunking Christianity: When Christians Criticize Each Other I Think They're All Right
Monday, October 31, 2011
FacePalm of the Day #143 - Misrepresenting Adam and Eve Again
Before eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve either knew that disobeying God was evil or they didn’t. If they didn’t, then they can’t be blamed for disobeying him. If they did, then they already possessed the knowledge that God had forbidden. Either way, God could not justly banish them from Eden. (Adduced by Richard R. La Croix.) Link.
Adam knew that disobeying God was wrong. He knew shouldn't do it. You don't need to understand a command to obey it. Would you take that excuse from a child? Why would anyone think that it would fly ever? No way would my parents buy that. No parent would. Go back and read Genesis 3. The knowledge was not forbidden - eating the fruit was.
Debunking Christianity: Adam and Eve Again
Faceplant - Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig On Whether the Witness of the Spirit is Question-Begging
Christians repeatedly are forced into claiming that their faith is possible and demand that we show their faith is nearly impossible before they will consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable epistemological standard.
I'm not forced at all into that. Considering the consequences of being wrong about Christianity are much heavier for the atheist than for the born-again believer. Instead of whining that you can't prove that Christianity is impossible, perhaps Loftus should re-evaluate why his soul and eternal destiny mean so little to him that just a possibility that Christianity is not true is good enough for him to reject Christianity. He admits he can't prove it's true only that he doesn't like it. That's it. That's all he's got.
Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig On Whether the Witness of the Spirit is Question-Begging
American Atheists claim that “True Christians” commit murder | True Freethinker
American Atheists claim that “True Christians” commit murder | True Freethinker
Answering Muslims: Dude, Who Killed My Prophet?
Answering Muslims: Dude, Who Killed My Prophet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)