What had happen' was.....

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

I'm Sexy And I Know It

I think You may have noticed a meme going around" Parodies of the song "I'm Sexy, And I Know it" Some of the are hilarious. Here are a couple that just are real funny! Fill in the Blank

I'm Pregnant, And I know It

I'm Nerdy and I know It

Racism Is Still Here In 2012

I find it amazing that there still so much racism in 2012. In the past week it's like a blanket has been pulled back and we can see how ugly some people's hearts truly are.

1. This past weekend I heard about the murder of Trayvon Martin. The young man was only seventeen years-old and he was ~~murdered for wearing a hoodie~~ killed because he was dressed in a way that made him seem suspicious to George Zimmerman. To make it worse there are people trying to excuse Zimmerman by finding something Trayvon did that lead to him being shot.

2. I also heard about a black man and a black woman killed in Chicago by cop and there does not seem to be any good reason for this. 3. I admit I have not yet seen "Hunger Games" or read the books, but apparently some people who were fans of the series have made shocking and racist remarks against a young black kids that was cast as one of their beloved characters. I guess these people have really bad reading comprehension skill because the characters were described as black in the books. These idiots claim that this revelation has detracted from their enjoyment of the franchise. Here is a picture of one of the young people being insulted for no other reason than the color of her skin.

'Hunger Games' Cast Subjected to Racist Attacks in Shocking Tweets

This Elephant Works A Smartphone Better than Most of Us

The Daily WTF: This Elephant Is Scarily Good At Using A Smartphone

Monday, March 26, 2012

Supervillain Primary Debate 2012 – G4tv.com

G4TV has recently imagined what it might look like if fictional supervillains were involved in our American political process.

Video Games - E3 2012 - Comedy

Supervillain Primary Debate 2012 Discuss Social Issues in High Definition – G4tv.com

Video Game - E3 2012 - Comedy

Supervillain Primary Debate 2012 Discuss Health Care Reform

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Answering Muslims: Islamic Bookstore Sells out of Violently Misogynistic "A Gift for the Muslim Couple"

David Wood posted an article about a book describing how Muslim marriages should run. He not on;y points out a passage from the Qur'an many Muslims use to tell them that they should beat their wives and wives should allow themselves to be beaten. I realize some people might read this and not follow the link so here is the Qur'anic passage:

Qur'an 4:34—Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

The book the article that David writes about attempts to explain how would someone live this out:

Page 45 contains the rights of the husband, which include his wife’s inability to leave “his house without his permission,” and that his wife must “fulfil his desires” and “not allow herself to be untidy ... but should beautify herself for him ... ”

In terms of physical punishment, the book advises that a husband may scold her, “beat by hand or stick,” withhold money from her or “pull (her) by the ears,” but should “refrain from beating her excessively.”

Yup, Marital bliss alright. The truth is that not all Muslims would agree with that. But like David Wood observeed:

I hate to break this to everyone, but if Tarek Fatah rejects what this book says about beating women, he's not a "moderate" Muslim. He's not a Muslim at all, because he accepts Western values as a higher source of morality than the Qur'an.

Answering Muslims: Islamic Bookstore Sells out of Violently Misogynistic "A Gift for the Muslim Couple"

ID.Plus: Insight into Fundamentalist Atheism

Dr Peter S Williams posted the following video on his blog and I agree that it does show one of the ugly sides of fundamentalism: refusal of discussion. Religious people are not the only ones guilty of doing this. It is unfortunate that people can be so busy throwing accusation at people that they don't see their own blindness. I also found it interesting that many the atheist running the so-called "Reason Rally" only want to interact with the caricature of Christianity embodied by the Westboro Baptist Church. It's like they don't want to reason - just pontificate.

ID.Plus: Insight into Fundamentalist Atheism

Common Runner Injuries [infographic] | Daily Infographic

[via]

Common Runner Injuries [infographic] | Daily Infographic

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Why do some Bibles omit portions of Daniel and Esther? Akin Says: Luther

James Swan has posted a really great response to Jimmy Akin who was answering the question of why most Protestant Bibles don't have the longer versions of Daniel and Esther. Swan also explodes the myth that Martin Luther tried to get rid of those parts of Daniel and Esther. This is a great article. The video being responded to is below.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Why do some Bibles omit portions of Daniel and Esther? Akin Says: Luther

Friday, March 23, 2012

Internal Evidence for the Gospels by Timothy McGrew Audio and Video - Apologetics 315

Here is the third part in Dr Timothy McGrew's series of lectures in which he explains some of the evidence we have for accepting the validity of the Gospels. In this lecture, he focuses on "undesigned coincidences". They are times when the one Gospel gives details that another Gospel omits. There are several examples and none of them can be explained by one author copying another. The series just keeps getting better and better. Can't wait for part 4.

Internal Evidence for the Gospels by Timothy McGrew Audio and Video - Apologetics 315

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Doomsday Predictions Debunked [infographic]

Personally, I believe the Bible tells us the right way it will all end.

Doomsday Predictions Debunked [infographic]

External Evidence for the Gospels by Timothy McGrew Audio and Video - Apologetics 315

Here is a really good lecture that Dr Timothy McGrew gave last month relying on historical evidences from non Christian witnesses and culture and history to show consistently accurate the Biblical Gospels and Acts are. Of course, it does not prove that they are true by themselves but it is good evidence that they are true. If the Bible authors had gotten so many easily checked things wrong, it would be enough to throw them out as true. I'be got to ask why doesn't the fact that they get these things right not evidence that the books are true? It truly is a sad, double-minded, and inconsistent methodology for determining if something is true.

External Evidence for the Gospels by Timothy McGrew Audio and Video - Apologetics 315

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Game Of Thrones: House Stark Gets An Avenger - G4tv.com

One of the few ways Game of Thrones could be improved!!!

Game Of Thrones: House Stark Gets An Avenger - G4tv.com

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

How Many Devices Can You Replace With An iPad?

[

]

No More Shuffling

Kirk Cameron Claims He Loves Everyone, Even If They're Going To Hell

Recently, Kirk Cameron has been heavily condemned for sticking to Biblical Christianity. I was amazed but not surprised about this article. It never fails. The minute you stand on what the Bible says, while speaking English, all of a sudden you are like speaking an entirely different language. For example this article says that Kirk said:

So today Kirk Cameron went on The Today Show to explain what he really meant by what he said. And all he really explained was that he’s still a homophobic asshole who can’t understand why people are mad that he thinks gay people are the worst.

He never said that. It's like what he said went through a filter and out comes something unrecognizable. I think that some people will hear what a Christian says and then run it through a filter and their minds twist it into something else. For example Kirk is quoted in the article:

“Absolutely not, of course not. I love all people, I hate no one and, you know, when you take a subject and you reduce it to something like a four-second sound bite and a check mark on a ballot, I think that that’s inappropriate and insensitive…Nobody should mistreat anybody—homosexuals should not be mistreated, heterosexuals should not be mistreated, bisexuals should not be mistreated. All of us who really think deeply about social issues like gay marriage and abortion and homosexuality have convictions on issues, and and we all have our convictions formed by different things, and mine are formed by my faith, they’re informed by the word of God, and I found that to be an anchor for me, a compass and a guide for me."

The article's author seems to be fine and understands exactly what was said. But then Cameron is quoted:

“I was surprised, frankly, that people were surprised by the things I said. I have been consistent for 15 years as a Christian. I’m a Bible-believing Christian. What I would have thought was more newsworthy is if I had said something that contradicted the word of God, if I had contradicted my faith.”

I see nothing wrong with this statement. It is consistent and clear. But the author of the article feels the need to re-contextualize and re-state the comment in their own words. Not surprisingly, it's completely different than what Kirk Cameron said and wrote:

Let’s translate that real fast to non-PR lingo:
“Guys, remember that time God called me and told me being gay was unnatural and sinful and dirty? Yeah that was years ago and I told ya’ll years ago. So I don’t get why you’re all acting surprised that I still think they’re ‘unnatural’ and gross. Wouldn’t it be weirder if I came on this show and said ‘Gays are awesome, rainbow flags for everyone!’ I’m not saying you should like stone them, but I am saying you should stay away so you don’t get dragged to hell with them. Okay?”
So yeah, Kirk Cameron still sucks. It’s a shame, you know? The Seavers seemed like such good parents!

This is completely not what he said. And I think that it should be remembered that as a Christian, Kirk Cameron believes, and as he has stated in the past, that all people are sinners and without Jesus' sacrifice and Resurrection we would all be going to hell no matter if your gay or not.

View the Video

Kirk Cameron Claims He Loves Everyone, Even If They're Going To Hell

Monday, March 19, 2012

One Device to Rule Them All

Gadgets in 2000 vs. Gadgets in 2012 [Pic]

Threat Morphosis: Evolution of the Computer Virus [infographic] | Daily Infographic

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

40 Arabic Words

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Major Reason Why I Am a Skeptic

John Loftus has posted some thought about his interaction with David Marshall and the difference about which they view the world

David Marshall continually says I must read up on world religions and the history of religions. But why? It's because he thinks it will help me to believe. So David, I'll grant that you have read more world literature than I have and that you have the benefit of world travel. But I think the brain is such that if I had your experiences and read only the works you have, I would agree with you and think like you. Our brains are like that. So in order to think like you I must be more like you (which also includes IQ, gender, race, sexuality, place and time of birth, and so forth--do you know that sociologists can identify different ideas held by people born in America during the 20's vs the 30's vs the 40's vs the 50's and so on?). BUT I AM NOT YOU! Nor can I ever be. The same thing goes in reverse for you. If you had my experiences and read only the works I have, you would agree with me and think like me. That is probably the major reason why I am a skeptic, because of this propensity of ours to believe and defend a host of ideas just because we were exposed to them, which is as obvious of an empirical fact as we can get. It's overwhelming that our respective cultures influence us, since that's what we're talking about. Just take four babies and raise one in China the other in Saudi Arabia the third in Kentucky and the fourth in Russia and you will see clearly how cultures influence us all. And it’s never more pronounced than when it comes to religion. Knowing this I must reject faith based reasoning of any kind. Knowing this I am skeptical of ideas that do not have sufficient evidence for them. Knowing this I try as best as I possibly can to only accept science based reasoning. Science is the only hope out of this epistemological morass. How can you possibly counter this? How can any believer counter this? Believers can only do so out of ignorance, pure ignorance, willful ignorance, a head-in-the-sand type of fear based ignorance.

Loftus admits the following:

So David, I'll grant that you have read more world literature than I have and that you have the benefit of world travel.

But he also asserts:

Believers can only do so out of ignorance, pure ignorance, willful ignorance, a head-in-the-sand type of fear based ignorance.

Rather inconsistent. Loftus admits that in reference to Marshall, he is ignorant about a lot of things that Marshall is knowledgeable about. Given that Marshall is a Believer, it would mean that many, if not all, of Loftus' assumptions and premises are flawed, leading to his flawed conclusion.

Debunking Christianity: The Major Reason Why I Am a Skeptic

Answering Muslims: More Hypocrisy/Sharia Compliance from the New York Times

David Wood asks and answers a really great question in a recent post: Why is it okay for the New York Times to publish the following ad:

But not okay to publish this one:

David writes:

Not surprisingly, the New York Times refused to publish the ad (at the moment, anyway), claiming that “the fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.”

In other words, the New York Times will run an ad against Catholicism because Catholics won't go on a killing spree. But the Times won't run an ad critical of Islam because Muslims will go on a killing spree.