Monday, February 13, 2012

Debunking Christianity: The OTF for Mormonism

John Loftus posted the following few paragraphs on his blog. It's obvious that it's directed against mainstream Christians who reject Mormonism.  I  don't have a problem with OTF as a concept. I think its a good idea. I just haven't seen it demonstrated that mainstream Christianity fails it. Look at what what Loftus posted before comment is made:

Mormons assume other religions have the burden of proof. They assume human not divine authors to their holy book(s). They assume a human not a divine origin to their faiths. They critically evaluate all other religions by reason and science.

They do this when rejecting other faiths. So the OTF (Outsider Test for Faith) simply asks them to do unto their own faith what they do unto other faiths. All it asks of them is to be consistent.

The OTF asks why Mormons operate on a double standard. If that's how they reject other faiths then they should apply that same standard to their own. Let reason and science rather than faith be their guide. Assume their own faith has the burden of proof. Assume human rather than divine authors to their holy book(s) and see what they get. If there is a divine author behind the texts it should be known even with that initial skeptical assumption.

So the OTF uses the exact same standard that Mormons use when rejecting other religions. If there is any inconsistency at all it is not with the OTF. It is how Mormons assess truth claims. For it should only take a moment’s thought to realize that if Mormonism is true then their God wants people born into different religious cultures to believe, and since that's the case their own religious faith SHOULD pass the OTF.

If Mormons want to reject the OTF then either they must admit they have a double standard for examining religious faiths--one for their own faith and a different one for others--or their faith was not made to pass the OTF in the first place. In either case, all of their arguments against the OTF are based on red herrings, special pleading, begging the question, the denigrating science, and an ignorance that I can only attribute to delusional blindness.

This is the argument that Thomas Riskas offers in his book "Deconstructing Mormonism."

Non-Mormonist believers, do see anything to object to here? ;-)

There is much to object - but let's keep it three objections.  John Loftus doesn't explain how he knows Mormonism fails the OTF. I agree that it does and it's quite easy to demonstrate that it does. However he insinuates that if Mormonism fails then all religions fail - yet he doesn't explain why.  

Second  these three objections: Loftus wrote -

For it should only take a moment’s thought to realize that if Mormonism is true then their God wants people born into different religious cultures to believe, and since that's the case their own religious faith SHOULD pass the OTF.

The Bible says that God puts everyone in the best possible place for them to best find Him - but like a person groping around in the darkness. He call us out of where we are - all of us if we are going to be with Him. Loftus appears to think that that it doesn't make sense for people to be born in other cultures if God wants everyone to be saved.

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
 29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” - 
Acts 17:24-31

And lastly, Lofus doesn't understand what Biblical faith is.


Debunking Christianity: The OTF for Mormonism
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: David Marshall "Knows" God is Not Silent!


pics on Sodahead
I always find the argument that God does not exist because he's hidden to be such a failure, I'm surprised unbelievers can raise it with a straight face. It seems to take try to make two points: 1. God is hidden because Atheists don't detect him. or 2. Too many people have different ideas of who God is so they can't possibly experiencing anything real.  Let's examine one of John Loftus' recent posts to see just how bad this fails.

One of the arguments why Richard Carrier is not a Christian is that God is silent. David Marshall, author of several Christian apologetic books, says instead that he knows God is not silent. He said of Carrier and me that our claim is one we "cannot possibly know to be true. " Really?

Is it that God is silent or is it that Loftus and others are not listening?  I'd like to know why the fault has to lie either in God or in everyone else and not themselves? Why are we deluded and he isn't?

John:
Marshall, do you mean that we cannot PROVE God is silent? Is that the standard here? Such a standard is utterly unreasonable. That Which Disconfirms UFOs From Mars Also Disconfirms God’s Existence.

Oh okay, John Lofus admits that he can't prove that God is silent. 

David:
John: It's not a matter of proving it, it's a matter of knowing it. You can't even know it. And given that the language of nature is "read" similiarly by so many billions, and given the other ways that God speaks, you should be more skeptical of your own, perhaps unduly biased, intuitions.
David Marshall makes a point that seems obvious. He's not saying that he knows God is not silent he is saying that Loftus and Carrier can't demonstrate that God have never spoken to anyone. Again we find Loftus skeptical of everything and everyone but himself -- that is what being truly deluded is. 

John:
David, seriously, what are you talking about? Are you saying there is objective evidence coming from the subjective experiences of people around the world that all point to YOUR particular God concept or theology? If so, then tell us what all of them agree about after having these experiences. The lowest common denominator is that there is a supernatural force out there. But even then you must explain the numbers of people who have not had any such experiences, such as atheists and agnostics. To see some atheist demographics check this out.

So an Atheist or Agnostics lack of experiencing a relationship with God is not a subjective experience? Hint: Yes it is. 


Do atheists count? If so, there is no common denominator at all.
Yes, they do. The fact that they do not experience God is explained in the Bible itself. Ever read:

You also have to explain why you thin4k a majority of people in any given time period are correct. Popular opinions of one time period have given way to the advances of science. Just think the geocentric universe as but one of many examples. You would probably be the first person on some issues to say the majority opinion is not necessarily correct.

Geocentricism is a horrible example because the Bible does not tell us that the earth the center of the Universe. That was something people did. It did not come from God. 

And you also need to explain why religious people disagree about the content of said experiences. Your theory must be able to explain any disagreements. My theory is that religious experiences are subjective and therefore all in the brain, and that religious people interpret their experiences through the lens of their religious culture. Religious people have experiences and the brain interprets them within the confines of what categories they have been taught in their respective religious cultures.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.- Romans 1:28-32

There is no need to posit a God who provides these experiences, especially the one you believe in, since your concept of God is a very specific one unlike other concepts. Your God is sending mixed messages to religious people around the world, some of which are misogynist, warlike, extremely ascetic, hateful, homophobic, racist, and so forth.
I extremely disagree. The Bible is no where near that convoluted or unclear that we can't know what God is like or what He expects from us. The reason why people come to different conclusions is because we don't always just obey the Bible. We try to tack on our own spins. When we do that of course there is going to be disagreement and confusion. We need to get self out of the way and just listen to God. Jesus tells us how to answer the question for why people seem to be getting mixed messages.

1 “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.
 7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.[a] They will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
   11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
   14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
 19 The Jews who heard these words were again divided. 20 Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”
 21 But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” - John 10:1-21

If you are getting mixed messages - you are not one of His Sheep.

Think he'll have more to say? ;-)





I think so. I mean it's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's been answered 2000 years ago!



Debunking Christianity: David Marshall "Knows" God is Not Silent!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: First Trailer Hits - G4tv.com


Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a 2012 American 3D supernatural horror film based on the 2010 mashup novel Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. The film is directed by Timur Bekmambetov and is produced by Bekmambetov and Tim Burton. The novel’s author, Seth Grahame-Smith, wrote the adapted screenplay. The real-life figure Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States (1861–1865), is fictionally portrayed in the novel and the film as having a secret identity as a vampire hunter. Benjamin Walker stars as Lincoln. Filming began in Louisiana in March 2011, and the film is being produced in 3D. It is scheduled to be released on June 22, 2012.
I have no words. I'm probably going to see this one.





Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: First Trailer Hits - G4tv.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Why God Allows Himself To Lose | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament

Dr Mariottini has posted the 3rd part of his series about Jacob's theophany when he wrestled God. Check out the link to read the article!

Why God Allows Himself To Lose | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Read a Real Book! [Pic]



Read a Real Book! [Pic]

Nightwitches

And I thought the RedTails had gotten a raw deal in WWII, but the fact that I have never heard of these ladies until now is truly criminal!!!!!! I'm gonna have to do more research!

For those not in the know, night witches were Russian lady bombers who bombed the German lines in WW2. Thing is though, they had the oldest, noisiest, crappest planes in the entire world. The engines used to conk out halfway through their missions, so they had to climb out on the wings mid flight to restart the props. the planes were also so noisy that to stop germans from hearing them combing and starting up their anti aircraft guns, they’d climb up to a certain height, coast down to German positions, drop their bombs, restart their engines in midair, and get out of dodge.
Their leader flew over 200 missions and was never captured.



Nightwitches
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Truthbomb Apologetics: 59 Confirmed or Historically Probable Facts in the Gospel of John

Chad has posted a good list to consider: 59 things that the Gospel of John gets right.

Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel examines John's Gospel verse by verse and identifies an abundance of historical details and facts.

Check out the list at the following link

Truthbomb Apologetics: 59 Confirmed or Historically Probable Facts in the Gospel of John
Enhanced by Zemanta

Desposyni: C.H. Spurgeon-The People's Preacher




Desposyni: C.H. Spurgeon-The People's Preacher

Just A Quick Note to Atheists (From an Atheist) | Machine Gun Bras

I originally came across this particular post on Tumblr. I think it is really insightful, but NSFW language is contained. I think the author makes good points and I wonder what do other atheists think of what she has to say. I've got my own opinions. First here is what the author wrote:
  1. Being an atheist does not erase privilege.
    1. This includes white privilege.
    2. This also includes cis privilege, CNDP privilege, and het privilege.
    3. Seriously, being an atheist does not erase your white privilege.
  2. Criticizing exclusively (majority) non-white religions is racist.
    1. This includes Islam.
    2. The existence of white Muslims does not invalidate this point.
  3. Black Christianity is not always hetereosexist.
    1. Black people are not the most heterosexist heterosexists that ever heterosexisted.
    2. Black queer/gay/lesbian/non-straight/pansexual/asexual people exist too.
  4. Mestiz@s are not the root cause of sexism.
    1. Neither is Latin American Christianity.
    2. You do realize Christianity was imported, right?
  5. Atheists are not the only oppressed religious group.
    1. Muslims are oppressed too.
    2. Often by white atheists.
  6. Islam is not evil.
    1. Neither are hijabs or niqabs.
    2. Neither is Vodun/voodoo/hoodoo.
    3. Neither is any other religion…
    4. …unless it’s World Church of the Creator / The Creativity Movement
      1. Which is white supremacist.
    5. …or the Westboro Baptist Church.
      1. Who even the KKK hates.
  7. Evolutionary psychology is sexist, racist, cissexist, ableist, and heterosexist.
    1. This includes evolutionary psychology that (supposedly) supports atheism.
    2. Supporting evo-psych means
      1. You have not done your homework, or
      2. You are prejudiced.
  8. Other people’s clothing is not your business.
    1. Including religious articles of clothing.
    2. Including hijabs, headwraps, niqabs, burkas, crosses, crucifixes, pentacles, and other symbols.
    3. Even if you really don’t like it.
    4. Even if it’s really religious.
  9. Acknowledge other people’s identities.
    1. Even if you’re uncomfortable with them.
      1. Especially if you’re uncomfortable,
        • Because they have racial, sexual, cultural, or disabled identity
  10. Paganism is not ‘atheism-lite’.
    1. Neither is agnosticism.
    2. Neither are indigenous religions.
  11. There is no such thing as ‘ironic’ bigotry.
    1. Unless it’s atheists whining about Christmas.
      1. Seriously, I thought only evangelicals did that.
  12. Trans people are not your special little puzzles.
    1. Neither are autistic / disabled people.
      1. I don’t care if you’re a scientist. We’re still not your Rubik’s Cubes.
  13. Not everything should be about science.
    1. There. I said it.
  14. PoC are not the reason why a lot of people are wary of atheists.
    1. It’s because of white/het/cis/CND atheists.
      1. Yes, including you.
  15. Demanding people educate you is oppressive.
    1. Even if you’re ‘being really nice about it’.
      1. Nice =/= good.
  16. Religions are not inherently oppressive.
    1. Did you know that hijabs and niqabs are cultural?
      1. And that many women find them liberating?
  17. Using emotion in writing, reasoning, the internet, or decision-making does not mean one is stupid/dumb/monkey-like/less-evolved/other ableist, racist, eugenicist terms.
    1. It means one is a fucking human being.
  18. Disability is not a flaw in evolution.
    1. Disabled people will not die out with evolution.
    2. Fuck you.
  19. Being atheist does not mean you are automatically not allistic.
    1. If you don’t know what that means, look it up.
      1. You can use Google.
  20. Being a queer atheist does not make you white.
    1. Seriously, enough with this racist bullshit.
  21. Cultural appropriation is also done by atheists.
    1. Deal with it.
  22. There are no purple people.
    1. You should know this.
  23. Making fun of ‘them crazy darkies doin’ their ridick voodoo’ is racist, ableist, and the reason why a LOT of black atheists will not have anything to do with you.
    1. Satire is a tool that works when aimed upwards, at the most powerful people.
      1. Black people are not the most powerful people.
        • Especially black people practicing voodoo.
  24. No religion is more ridiculous than any other.
    1. Including Mormonism.
    2. …but some have more power, and are therefore better to make fun of.
      1. Like Mormonism.
  25. Being colorblind is only okay if you literally cannot see or distinguish colors.
    1. Otherwise, it’s racist.
  26. Religions derive strength and power from the social power of their followers.
    1. Which is why evangelical Christianity is a better target than Black Christianity.
  27. Being an agnostic (or bisexual) is not ‘taking the easy way out’.
    1. Really, now?
  28. Monosexism is real.
    1. How do I know?
      1. You’re doing it right now.
    2. And yes, queer can be a term for polysexual.
  29. If you think black people are mean to you,
    1. You’re probably white,
      1. And won’t say you are
        • Because white people never say they’re white.
  30. The terms ‘hermophradite’ ‘third sex’ and ‘biological gender’ are
    1. Essentialist,
    2. Bigoted,
    3. Cissexist,
    4. Anti-intersex
    5. And not up for debate.
  31. If you refuse to identify your privileged identities,
    1. I’m going to assume you just think you’re ‘normal’
      1. And moderate you.
  32. Refusing to acknowledge the power of environment and social structure
    1. Is bigoted
    2. And means you’re a biological essentialist.
  33. Intersex people exist.
    1. Deal with it.
    2. And no, they are not ‘miracles of evolution’.
      1. I thought you didn’t believe in miracles.
  34. Freedom does not just mean ‘freedom to be an atheist and make the choices I would make’. It means freedom to make even choices I don’t like.
    1. Including religious choices.
  35. Social justice / social uprooting / anti-oppression is not about you and your feelings.
    1. Nobody cares about white guilt.
    2. Making everything about your feelings is oppressive.
  36. If you’re offended,
    1. Get over it.
    2. Realize that being offended is much better than being oppressed.

Find the original post here:
Just A Quick Note to Atheists (From an Atheist) | Machine Gun Bras

Here is my take (if I don't say otherwise, I'd have to agree).. 
2.      I think that it's short sighted to say white people can't criticize non-white religions because if a religion 
         is true, race does not matter.
7.      Amen!!!
17.1   I agree with the sentiment, but I wouldn't write it like that.
18.2   I agree with the sentiment, but I wouldn't write it like that. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ultimate Diva Whitney Houston Dies At 48

Whitney Houston
Whitney Houston (Image via RottenTomatoes.com)
Wow...just...wow. She was so young. I was really rooting for her to get her life together and stage a comeback. Not everyone gets multiple chances or even one.

Ultimate Diva Whitney Houston Dies At 48
Enhanced by Zemanta

Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?

Dr Daniel Wallace has posted news of his debate with Dr Bart Ehrman that was held February 1st....but that's not the best part:

On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000 people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.
These manuscripts now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts (all fragmentary, more or less) from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 40% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.


Now this is exciting news, but like Dr James White said about it on last Thursday's Dividing Line, I do think that we should wait for the more information before we hang arguments and debates on it. However, Dr Wallace seems pretty excited but he is also cautious. Wallace explained why this is important:

But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the original followers of Jesus! Not only this, but this manuscript would have been written before the New Testament was completed. 

My favorite things about this is that if it pans out that the fragment is from the mid first century, it takes away one more excuse people raise to accepting that the Gospel of Mark is historical and written by one who would have had first-hand knowledge.

Wallace even gives a link for purchase of the debate with Ehrman from February 1st:
Purchase U.S. DVDs of the second debate or international DVDs


Home Page - Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?
Enhanced by Zemanta

The History of Thomas Edison [Video]

Today is Thomas Edison's birthday!




The History of Thomas Edison [Video]
Enhanced by Zemanta

What Happens to a Fire in Space?




What Happens to a Fire in Space?

Friday, February 10, 2012

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, With Examples

John Loftus posted posted the following stream of consciousness thoughts on his blog today. I'm kind of amazed how he keeps trotting out these objections when they have been answered time-and-time-again with no acknowledgment of their existence or rebuttal.
If the same kind of reasoning produces support for two different conclusions then the reasoning is delusional. By your host here, John W. Loftus ;-)
Let's ask ourselves: Is this true? On the surface it reminds me of the definition of insanity that doing the same thing but expecting a different result. It seems like Loftus' whole argument hinges on the idea that all religious people reason the same way in establishing the existence of a god - leading to different god. He offers "examples" supposedly pointing to evidence of the correctness of this statement. He's asserting that the examples show that these different religions utilize the same reasoning to different conclusions. Let's see if he can deliver. 

--Example 1) Ontological argumentation for God's existence equally supports the Oriental conception of God, or a trickster god.

--Example 2) The same kind of arguments exonerating God from being evil also work in reverse to exonerate an evil God from being good.

Both of these :"examples" are based on the same idea. Stephen Law tried this line of reasoning. I think he failed to make it stick and Loftus doesn't even try to demonstrate it's true. I've posted some links to this particular subject, check them out  and see for yourself if this is persuasive. This failure counts twice.

--Example 3) Arguments deflecting the problem of divine hiddenness for the Christian God also work to deflect the problem of divine hiddenness for Zeus, Odin, Thor, Re, Hathor, Apollo, and Artemis.

 I realize in philosophy, :"hiddenness" of God is an idea that has much traction. The problem is that in my experience, God is far from hidden. I think coming to redeem humanity from sin and death in the person of Jesus Christ, is the tantamount rebuttal to example 3, but there is other Biblical evidence. The entire Bible is about how God has created humanity and redeems His chosen people - glorifying Himself and declaring His Character to all of us. The Bible is a record of how God has  been building a relationship with humanity. If you look at the stories about Zeus, Odin, Thor, Re, Hathor, Apollo,  Artemis, or anyone else you can name you won't find the same example of the love and relationship building we get from YHWH - from Genesis to Revelation. Paul had words regarding the "hiddenness:" of God.


 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:19-24
Failure number 3. When people complain that God has not made Himself plain to them, what they are really whining about is that God will not allow them to come to Him on their own terms. We must relate to God on God's terms.

--Example 4) Pascal's beneficial argument to support belief in the Christian God also works to support the evil Egyptian god Set (Seth), and the Greek gods Minos, Styx, Tartaros and Thanatos.

More elaboration here would help (but not much), but I'm sure any attempt would lead to more failure.  If I remember Egyptian mythology, Set was only seen as Satan's counterpart after being mixed with Christianity. Also the Greek Gods  don't really fit as an example. How did believing and trusting in these deities promise improve their adherent's prospects in life and in the after-life? It did not. In order for Pascal's wager to be analagous for them, you would have to be able to show how believing in Greco-Roman or Egyptian deities would be better (in their system) than eing an atheist or believing in other deities. Since Loftus did not explain this, this is another failure.

--Example 5) Arguments supporting the proper basically of belief in the Christian God also work to support the proper basically of belief in Allah. Somebody stop me!

When most Christians and other theists use such basic arguments they don't assume that it's enough to prove the existence of any particular deity only establishes that there must be such a real things as a god. If you want to know who that God is it takes that God revealing God to you. Paul used this very same reasoning in the first and chapter of Romans. If you want to find the God of Christianity you have go deeper than the Cosmological, Ontological, and Moral arguments. These indeed don't distinguish between Islam and Christianity, but I think it says a lot about atheism in that these basic arguments are really only necessary to prove that atheism - the belief in no God - is nonsensical.  I also have to say that the charge that without knowing who that God is merely accepting that a god exists is not enough is true.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.- James 2:19

However, today, people are so out of touch...deceived...lost.....corrupt....that you have to start there before you can move on to who God is and what He has commanded.  Fail all around.  "Somebody stop you", Loftus?. Already done, before you were even born.

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, With Examples

What Happens to Your Digital Life When You Die? [Video Infographic]

The world has surely changed. Ever thought about what happens to your social media presence or blog or YouTube Channel after if you died?
Imagine if one of your best friends kept a trunk of of their personality… Their likes, dislikes, photos, home videos, conversations, feelings and secrets. Then out of no-where, when your friend is hit by an airplane, Google comes knocking at your door with the legal right to take, use, and recreate whatever they’d like using what’s in your friend’s trunk. Seems wrong doesn’t it? This is already happening. The biggest culprit has to be facebook. I know I’ve uploaded years worth of data and personality traits to my facebook account that even if I was dead, a stranger could get a sense of who I was and I’m not even a good facebooker.
It brings up some very important issues. Added to that, this week I have found out about the trend to doing infographics as videos instead of just an image.




What Happens to Your Digital Life When You Die? [Video Infographic]
Enhanced by Zemanta

George Lucas Is Now Officially Lying to Himself - Topless Robot

I don't know if you have heard this before but there is a controversy among fans of the Star Wars movies. Do you remember that scene after Luke and Ben meet Han Solo for the first time and a bounty hunter, Greedo, confronts Solo and only one of them walks away? The controversy: who shot first? The controversy started after the 1997 re-release in which Lucas makes it plain that Greedo shot first. I tend to go with 1977 version in which Solo shot first. George Lucas has apparently commented, finally!

The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn't. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.


I don't buy it. Here is the original cut in 1977:




Now this is what it was after 1997 compared to 1977:




Sorry, Folks. Greedo shot first!

George Lucas Is Now Officially Lying to Himself - Topless Robot

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Answering Muslims: Sheikh Nasser al-Omar Calls for Execution of Hamza Kashgari for "Shameful" Comments about Muhammad on Twitter


Religious people should not seek the death of  those who disagree with them or look to silence them. If you have the truth, what do you have to be concerned with just because someone thinks you are wrong? I think its a lack of confidence in your own position that leads to the desire to silence others.


Answering Muslims: Sheikh Nasser al-Omar Calls for Execution of Hamza Kashgari for "Shameful" Comments about Muhammad on Twitter
Enhanced by Zemanta

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Utter Nonsense of the Clarity of Scripture?

James Swan has written a post which applies not to Roman Catholics who reject "Sola Scriptura" but anyone who claims that the Bible is not clear enough to be a standard upon which we will be judged by what we be believe and act accordingly. He quotes Matthew 22:23-32 and then writes:

The Lord Jesus clearly held these men responsible for knowing and understanding the Scriptures. Were the Sadducees supposed to respond, "How could we? We did not think the Bible was clear and we all disagree about what it says!"

Who should one trust? Those who attack the Bible in the name of Rome or Jesus? This person says the Bible isn't clear and to think it is is "utter nonsense." Jesus says "have you not read what God said to you" and holds those hearing him responsible for what they read. Think about it.
I agree. So the question becomes why don't we all agree on what Scripture says? Because we don't all want to do what it says.


Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Utter Nonsense of the Clarity of Scripture?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Answering Muslims: UK Muslims Challenge Law against Marrying Child Brides

David Wood posted the following video regarding protests in Britain to allow grown men marry children! He wrote:


Muhammad had sex with Aisha before she reached puberty, when she was only nine years old. The Qur'an allows men to have sex with prepubescent girls. Not surprisingly, many Muslims are dissatisfied with Western laws that protect young girls.


I know what you are thinking: Surly not any breathing and sane person would think it's okay to marry prepubescent girls! well watch the video David points to:





And then read the video description:

Muslim men cannot even kiss their own wives in public without invoking hostility from the law. That is, if they are even allowed to bring their own wives with them into the country, and the UK government recognises their marriage. The British government would have us believe that a child's consent doesn't matter, and presumes to intervene in private acts within marriages rightfully bestowed on couples by Allah himself.


So why not define "marriage" the way these particular Muslims think it should be defined, while we are at redefining "marriage" anyway? Deep down we all know why we should not.

Answering Muslims: UK Muslims Challenge Law against Marrying Child Brides
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Debunking Christianity: An Interview With Richard Carrier About His Book, "Proving History"

Dr Richard Carrier has a new book coming out, "Proving History". Apparently Bayes Theorem plays a major role in his arguments. John Loftus posted an interview with Dr Carrier in which he posed some questions about the book. There were a couple of things in the interview that caught my attention, but I will only bring up one now. .

At one point, Dr Carrier said:


That Matthew is deliberately contradicting Mark because he is arguing against Mark is vastly more probable than that Matthew and Mark are correctly describing exactly the same events.


I've got to ask "Why is it more probable that Matthew deliberately contradicts Mark?" Carrier accuses Christians of the mistake


...in fundamentalist “harmonizations” of Gospel contradictions: they think they have “rebutted” the conclusion that the Gospels are contradicting each other if they can think of “any” possible way to harmonize the accounts, developing a fanciful “just so” story that makes everything fit, by assuming a hundred things not in evidence. But that ignores the fact that that account is actually extremely improbable.


Yet Carrier does the exactly this if he can't explain why Matthew deliberately contradicting Mark is more plausible than other Christian interpretations. Biases can go both ways. Read the whole interview at the following link.

Debunking Christianity: An Interview With Richard Carrier About His Book, "Proving History"