Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic? [Video]
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic? [Video]
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic? [Video]
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: There Isn't Anything I Haven't Considered Before
John Loftus has posted a blog article about how he has truly heard every argument and apologetic for Christianity and it's pointless to try to convince him otherwise. The facepalm comes from the arguments he uses to try to substantiate this.
I have talked to many believers face to face and online for about six years. Not one of them believes me when I say there isn't anything important they can tell me that I haven't considered before. Almost to a person they speak and write as if they can share something new that would cause me to change my mind. It's pathetic to me, and frustrating. I have to start all over with each new believer to convince them of this. Even now some believer just may comment below with what is perceived as something new, or a new approach to reaching me. Many have tried arguing with me. Others have ridiculed me--remember, it's supposed to have an effect when we do it to believers!? Some have tried being kind to me. A few have asked me to come "experience God" at their worship service.
All God would have to do is snap his omnipotent fingers and take away my critical thinking skills so I could believe.
I would say that it would take God's omnipotence to quicken and improve Loftus' critical thinking skills so that he can believe.
Or, he could come to me in a burning bush, a visitation by the "angel of the Lord," a golden fleece, or a Damascus Road experience. If he did that with others without abrogating their free will then he could do that with me without abrogating mine.
Who said that God didn't change Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Paul, or anyone else for that matter so that they can come to them. Scripture tells us that is exactly what must happen. Not an abrogation of free will but freeing of our will enslaved to sin. The real lie is when we think we are free without God when we are really in servile bondage.
Believers will retort that I'm not that important to God. Really?
No where in the Bible does it say that God does not care about anyone.
Don't we read in the Gospels where Jesus says God cares for us like the lilies of the field and even numbers the hairs on our heads? Oh, that's right. He only cares for people who believe, they say. Well, I DID believe!
Loftus is right. Jesus did not say that it was only believers God cares about. And now that Loftus doesn't believe anymore doesn't mean that God doesn't care about him. Consider how much God loves atheists although they hate Him. He allows them to go about their lives, and immensely blesses some of them although they neither love him nor recogize him. No one is born a believer. That is why we must be born again. Truth is default position of everyone is to reject God.
Then why did he let me slip through his fingers? Oh, I rebelled, they say. I did no such thing. The excuses keep mounting. I used to parrot them without actually thinking about what I was saying, just like a deluded cult member. In the meantime God does nothing. If he's really a king then he doesn't care that his subjects are being led to the dark side. If he's actually a shepherd then he doesn't care that his sheep are going astray. If he actually loves his bride like a husband then he would do everything he could to keep us close to him. If he's like a mother hen then he would not let his chicks out from under his wings. No king, no shepherd, no husband, and no mother hen would allow this. Such a God would take proactive measures against it.
God does take proactive measures. We love Him because He first loved us. Jesus died for us why we were yet sinners. What more should God do? He's already done more than any of us deserve. No one slips through his fingers. I don't know who will accept God and who will reject Him. All I know is that God's actions is why any of us believe and are saved. I pray that people like John Loftus will hear God and that He will take out their heart of stone and replace it so that they can see and relate to God.
Many believers will say I was never a believer in the first place, or that I will come back to the fold. Again, I DID believe! If God saves people who believe then I was saved, otherwise he did not keep his promise. But that doesn't concern believers. So if I die outside of Christ believers will say I never believed in the first place. If I believe again it will justify their faith. They cannot lose. A well-built fortress like this is impenetrable to reason, although little more than post hoc justifications. And yet here I am trying to reason with them. Trust me on this though. Given that I have not heard anything important to change my mind this won't happen so long as I die in my right mind.
The reason it's impenetrable is because of reason. I'd argue that if you haven't born again you have never been in your right mind. Loftus just traded the delusion of his salvation for another. It's a constant belief. You can't become unborn again. So either he was born again and will return to God or he was never born again in the first place. We have too many scriptures about people who do miracles and works for God and yet won't make it in and those who are not willing to submit to God.
So while God doesn't do anything to help, believers are doing all the evangelistic/apologetic work.
Without God's action no one gets saved.
Believers have just gotten used to making excuses for God's inactivity. They say "God (or Christ) has no hands but our hands to do his work today." They say "God has already provided all the evidence people need to believe." But it totally escapes them that God could do more, just like they wish there was more they could do to reach non-believers. They fail to connect the dots. He's not doing anything discernible, and we can only detect that which is discernible.
God is not inactive. You can't conclude that because God does not choose to act the way you think he should. Real shoddy logic there.
Believers therefore care more than God does. How is that possible, really, think about it. How is it possible that believers who are not perfected in love can outmatch the love of a perfectly loving God?
We can't and we don't.
Oh, that's right, God is also omniscient and wise in his dealings with us. Although we cannot fathom his omniscient ways his ways are good, they say. It escapes the mind of the believer that for us to know God's ways are good we must know enough of his ways to know that they are good.
Such a statement shows that Loftus has never really had a relationship with God. He doesn't know Him. In that way you know His ways and who God is and not just know of Him,.
They say God sent his son to die for our sins thus showing us he's good. But the atonement is a doctrine which is completely and utterly inexplicable. All that believers have is a holy book written by ancient people that says God is good (even while having to explain away the barbaric side of God within in its pages). When they look around the world there is no present day objective evidence that he is good. There is no evidence that there is a good creator either (unintelligent design abounds).
The thought "unintelligent design abounds" is truly unintelligent. To state so mean you know what the design criteria is and none of know that. The atonement is not inexplicable in all its facets. It's what the whole Bible is about - God reconciling humanity to Himself. Seeing how badly and completely John Loftus misses the point makes me think he never understood the point.
I must stop for now. The interested reader should seriously consider how An Omniscient God Solves All Problems and Makes Faith Unfalsifiable. It really does.
Loftus keeps making this faceplant. How does unfalsifiable equal untrue? It doesn't. God has chosen to deal with us on His terms not ours. If one continues to seek God on any terms outside of what God has chosen to do you can't complain about missing Him.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. - 1 Corinthians 1:18
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. - John 6:43-50
Debunking Christianity: There Isn't Anything I Haven't Considered Before
Friday, May 4, 2012
Come and Get it: Temptation in the Bible.
At the blog post, linked to at the end of this post, a discussion on whether or not has again broken out if the Bible has contradictions or not. I again challenged Ryan Anderson to provide a single example. He responded with:Just for fun (not that witnessing you debase yourself is fun...)
How about James 1:13 vs. Genesis 22:1
Obviously the authors are talking about different gods, but I'd "love" to hear your desecration of language and common sense.
Yes, let us indeed have some fun. First, let's look at what the text (KJV) says,
1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said , Behold, here I am.- Genesis 22:1
Versus
13 Let no man say when he is tempted * , I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted * with evil, neither tempteth he * any man: - James 1:13
So Anderson is saying that both passages seem to be referring to two different gods one who tempts humans and one who doesn't. I think that he is mistaken because he is assuming that both passages are talking about the same kind of "tempting:". This assumption cannot stand. Compare this with the NIV:
22 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied. - Genesis 22:1Versus
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; - James 1:13
Hmmm...The NIV translators use :"Testing" not "tempting:" in Genesis22:1. Which is correct? Well let's look at the Hebrew word used in Genesis 22:1
The word is
and it means:to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or testSo both translations are correct but given the context the text is referring to testing Abraham, not to do evil or to find out what Abraham would do but improve him like the way burning silver ore purifies it. When God tests us its for us to succeed ultimately, not fail. In James, the context is definitely concerning temptation as in temptation to do evil in the context of the passage. Look at verses 13 and 14.
- (Piel)
- to test, try
- to attempt, assay, try
- to test, try, prove, tempt
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. - James 1:13-14
The shortest and most complete definition of evil is: That which transgresses and contradicts God. In obeying God you can't do evil. Which is why it is silly when people try to argue that God's laws are whimsical or that He can change His mind. As if what's evil today, would please Him tomorrow. Therefore the words here the KJV translates with the English Word tempt can't be the same concept. IF Ryan had bothered to read further maybe he would have realized what "tempt" means in James 1:13-14.
So for completeness let's look at the Greek of James 1:13-14. The word translated "tempted": is
.It means:
- to try whether a thing can be done
- to attempt, endeavour
- to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself
- in a good sense
- in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments
- to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin
- to solicit to sin, to tempt 1c
- of the temptations of the devil
- after the OT usage
- of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith
- men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted
- by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.
We can see how the word is used in the Old and New Testaments. James 1:13 is definitely referring to how God does not get people to sin. And in Abraham's case it's about demonstrating and increasing his character. Today we don't use the word "prove" the way the definition above does but we must still see that is what God does even today for His people.
So, Mr Anderson, your mistake is that you don't understand what the authors of the Bible were talking about and not that they contradict each other.
What had happen' was.....: Mia Love: The GOP's Next Rising Black Political Star
Check out the following link for a really great Bible search engine in various translation:
http://www.academic-bible.com/en/home/
FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: A New Meme, The Oblivious Christian Apologist
I immediately had an issue with this but not for just the reasons that some people made in the comments.
They point out "rejection" and "criticism" cannot be conflated and still make sense, but I think that there is another issue. What does the fact that some Christians think it's okay to reject and criticize Islam but never read anything of the Qur'an have anything to do with Atheists being ignorant about the Bible? It doesn't. You should not reject other people's beliefs and tell them to change those beliefs if you don't know what those beliefs are.
As for the other meme:
And here is another Loftus linked to.
Epic failure.
Debunking Christianity: A New Meme, The Oblivious Christian Apologist
Thursday, May 3, 2012
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Apologists Are Made to be Stupid Because of Their Delusion
Do I even need to comment further? Let me just highlight what Christian apologist Matthew Flannagan wrote in response to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). Some people simply cannot be helped. Sophisticated theology is bankrupt if he is one of it's defenders, and I mean it. All I have to do is link to the discussion, let him have the last word and laugh at his ignorant, utterly ignorant, responses. Join with me folks, in laughing. Like most apologists he is impervious to reason. Like most of them I must prove their faith is nearly impossible before they will see it as improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard. Take note of how Matt doesn't need to provide a better method than science, which forms the basis for the OTF. Come on Matt, are you stupid or what? I no longer care what Christian apologists think if this is how they reason. If this is the best they can do then the good ship "Christian" will certainly sink eventually. They are on the wrong side of history. Of that I am certain.
Notice that Loftus does not argue that Dr Flannagan is deluded, he's arguing that anyone who would defend Christianity is deluded.
These particular comments started a very interesting conversation.
Debunking Christianity: Apologists Are Made to be Stupid Because of Their Delusion
Why Your Girlfriend Won't Like The Avengers - G4tv.com
Why Your Girlfriend Won't Like The Avengers - G4tv.com
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Moore’s Law Could Be No More
In other versions, including later tweaking by Moore himself, the general theme is that computing power will double roughly every two years, based on the idea of being able to fit twice as many transistors on a same-sized circuit. Intel has tweaked that further to an 18-month period based on the transistors getting further.The article further points out:
Now Kaku says that as things stand, Moore’s law will “flatten out completely” over the next 10 years. That’s based on the idea that we are beginning to hit the physical limits of silicon. Specifically, if transistors get any smaller, the inherent problems of overheating and leakage will eventually outweigh any gains.
Back in 1999, I had a professor who stated that there was no way we'd get computers faster than one gigahertz because of the space between the atoms of silicon. Today, we have smart phones that operate at higher than one gigahertz to say nothing about full computers - and they are still getting faster! To be fair, engineers figured out how to push silicon atoms further apart to increase better microchips. Dr Kaku goes on to explain alternatives to overcome the limitations of silicon.
Moore’s Law Could Be No More
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Say Hello to my Little Friend » Blog Archiv » Does Richard Carrier Exist?
Say Hello to my Little Friend » Blog Archiv » Does Richard Carrier Exist?
Answering Muslims: Where Did Jesus Say, "I Am God, Worship Me"? #2
What is it that ultimately gets him crucified? It is his claim to be the divine man of Daniel 7 who is to be worshipped. The Jewish leaders again understand exactly what he is saying and call it blasphemy. So Jesus actually does say, "I am God worship me"; he just uses the language of the prophets to say it.
Read the whole post at the following link.
If we want to understand Jesus we must learn his language. I am not saying we must learn Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, though that is an excellent thing to do. Instead I am saying that we must know the titles, the concepts and expectations of the prophets who were before Jesus, because it is with these words that Jesus speaks and invites us to understand him.
Answering Muslims: Where Did Jesus Say, "I Am God, Worship Me"? #2
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Walmart Unveils Super Hero Augmented Reality App | Avengers | News | Marvel.com
With more than 100 million augmented reality-capable smartphones in operation today, Walmart is putting the devices to good use. Customers can use “Super Hero AR” in two modes, Game Mode and Photo Capture Mode. Here is how it works:My family and I had a great time playing with this. Keep in mind that you have to use an internet connection before you start to use it. After the initial set up, you don't need the internet unless you want to Facebook your pictures right away. My kids took pictures with Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and the Hulk. It was almost as if they were right there.
Game Mode: Collect All Six Super Powers and Save the World
-Download the “Super Hero AR” App from the iTunes App Store or Android Market that also includes instant access to Hawkeye and his super powers
-Visit a local Walmart with your enabled smart device
-Seek out specific images on "Marvel's The Avengers" signage located in various departments around the store including apparel, grocery, toys and wireless
-Aim your smart devices at the target image to unlock each super hero’s power
-Collect the powers of the five remaining Avengers and get a chance to defeat Loki and win the game
Photo Capture Mode (available for iOS and Android): Take a Photo with Your Favorite Avenger
-Activate “photo capture mode” from a "Marvel’s The Avengers" DVD pallet in-store; a 3-D model of the super hero depicted on the DVD pallet will become visible on your phone
-Take a photo with your favorite Avenger
-Share it with friends on Facebook or via email
.PNG)
.PNG)
.PNG)
.PNG)
.PNG)
.PNG)
.PNG)
The game is actually really fun too, but I have to go back to unlock all the characters. It's all free. You use their powers in an augmented reality environment to shoot down enemy spacecraft.
Walmart Unveils Super Hero Augmented Reality App | Avengers | News | Marvel.com
Friday, April 27, 2012
The Avengers Facebook Timeline [Image]
What if the Avengers were on Facebook?
Follow the link to see the whole image!
The Avengers Facebook Timeline [Image]
Follow the link to see the whole image!
The Avengers Facebook Timeline [Image]
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Debunking Christianity: The Christian Reaction to Jesus Mythicism
For the record, Carrier is no fool. He's brilliant and a much better informed scholar than Marshall is, or ever will be.
It's amazing that Loftus would write such a thing because there are many, many more scholars with better credentials than Loftus' who disagree with Loftus. Is Loftus saying that the man/woman's conclusions and scholarship with the better credentials should be accepted and anyone else with less degrees and books and journal articles should be rejected? If so, then why should anyone listen to Loftus at all? And how do you judge credentials? Brilliance? How does he know that Marshall is less informed? He doesn't. As for whether or not Carrier is a fool or not, the Bible says:
2 The Lord looks down from heaven1 The fool[a] says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Psalm 14:1-3
Debunking Christianity: The Christian Reaction to Jesus Mythicism
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Mia Love: The GOP's Next Rising Black Political Star
Mia Love: The GOP's Next Rising Black Political Star
Debunking Christianity: Did Jesus Exist? An All Out War Is Going On
John Loftus wrote a blog post about the war being waged over Jesus' existence. He agrees that Jesus was a living person but does not believe what the Bible says about Him. He points out that he thinks that the argument is pointless because Jesus' historical existence being true does not mean that what the Bible says about Him is true. I agree with that. However I see why some Atheists/Agnostics like Dr Richard Carrier and Robert Price desire to deny Jesus' existence because that means the Bible has to be wrong - all of what we call the "New Testament". No Resurrection. No point to Christianity.But the myth that Jesus did not exist is a minority opinion. We have evidence for Jesus. Plenty of evidence. People deny this evidence because it keeps them from having to deal with who Jesus is and our accountability to Him. Also asserting that we know that what the Bible says about Jesus is not something that neither Loftus or anyone could possibly prove. They keep trying, but failing that, they punt to denying Jesus' very existence. Rather sad.
Debunking Christianity: Did Jesus Exist? An All Out War Is Going On
Monday, April 23, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: *Sigh* There are Just Too Many Ways to Be Christian
John Loftus is at it again. He attempts to make an argument against Christianity based on the fact that Christians don't agree. Let's look closely at his spectacular and continued failure. Christians cannot agree with themselves. So why should I take any of them seriously? Believers have no method to settle their own disputes because faith has no method. Can you at least try to understand this?
If Loftus is correct then the following is also true:
Atheists cannot agree with themselves. So why should I take any of
them seriously? NonBelievers have no method to settle their own disputes
because atheism has no method.
Here is an example. Evangelical Christians will bristle when they read what a liberal wrote about the resurrection, which I'll quote below. But this is the same type of reasoning skeptics see when we read of your own defenses of the resurrection.
There are some Christian scholars, though, who maintain that the historical method can indeed be used to determine whether Jesus was resurrected from the dead (e.g. N.T. Wright, Mike Licona). There are others who suggest that we can determine the likelihood of Jesus’ resurrection probabilistically via Bayes’ theorem (e.g. Richard Swinburne). I have even seen one guy, Frank Tipler, attempt to utilize quantum physics in order to assert that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.As John Loftus later states in this very post I'm responding to that even if you don't think Jesus' Resurrection can be supported by historical evidence, that still doesn't mean that it did not happen. I disagree that there is no historical evidence supporting the Resurrection but I'm not going to throw another Christian under the bus because he/she disagrees with me. You can believe the Resurrection happened even if you can't prove it historically. Accepting the Resurrection is one of those things that signifies that you are a Christian, so I have no real problem with the above quote to the point that I would say the writer of the quote is not a Christian 0 based solely on these two paragraphs.
Another perspective on this issue, which is what I myself agree with, is that the resurrection of Jesus is a historiographically inaccessible event, due to the fact that the very nature of the resurrection is inherently contradictory towards physical reality, thus making the historical- and scientific-methods inadequate and ineffective in determining whether it really occurred. This type of perspective is held by various contemporary theologians...[Jesus's] resurrection is an act accomplished by the finger of God and is an apocalyptic event which transcends what the historical method can access, meaning that it cannot be confirmed as history and thus has to be seen in other terms. This view is not due to an imperialist epistemological view of history, but is the result of viewing Christ’s resurrection for what it really is – an apocalyptic happening that breaks through into the linearity of history and is itself a history-making event. Link
Evangelicals are right to argue that if the resurrection cannot be known using the historical method then they ought to give up their faith.
I disagree. I would more clearly state: If you reject the reality of a Resurrection you ought to give up calling yourself a "Christian" because you are not.
Come on now, get real, really, I agree with the evangelicals on this score.
That perspective is not what makes you an "evangelical".
What kind of event is an "apocalyptic" one that cannot be accessed by the historical method? That method is the only one available for know what happened in the past. The resurrection of Jesus might have occurred, but there are a lot of events that have happened in the past that reasonable people should not accept. The reason is simple. Jesus might have flown into the sky, just as Mohammed might have done so (on a horse). But without sufficient evidence we should not believe either of them did. Aliens might have abducted some guy too. But again, without sufficient evidence to accept his testimony--since none of us were there when the alleged event took place--we should not think it happened. When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, he might have been raised from the dead but since we were not there we need sufficient evidence, historical evidence, to accept, at best, the second, third, and fourth hand testimony of the early church.
That's not true. We have first century evidence as well, even if you reject the Gospels as being from the first century (although they are). Forgotten the epistles, he has.
Still, liberals are absolutely correct to admit the historical method cannot lead reasonable people to conclude Jesus was raised from the dead. So I agree with the liberals too. The historian's tools are inadequate for the task of detecting the miraculous claim of the resurrection.
So? Even if you accept hogwash like that, it does not mean Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.
This is why I say that when believers criticize each other I think they are right! All I need to do is listen in and agree. They do the work for me. It's easy. We don't really even need to debunk Christianity. They are doing it to themselves, all of the time. To see this when it comes to atonement theories read this.
So what's really going on here? What we see is that Christians will do or say anything in order to maintain their culturally inherited faith.
What about people who become believers who were not raised as Christians? Sorry, but just because some people are raised as Christians and never research or consider what they have been raised to believe does not mean no one does and makes an informed profession of faith!
When faith is the basis for what a person concludes, anything can be believed. Evangelicals either ignore or are ignorant of what the historical method is all about, and liberals ignore or are ignorant of what we should conclude using that method. Faith causes believers to ignore facts. Faith causes believers to be ignorant about the historical method. The historical method is inadequate for detecting miracles like the resurrection of Jesus, so the reasonable conclusion is to doubt it. That method is the only one reasonable people have for knowing what happened in the past. And that method cannot detect miracles.
Considering that there are historians who agree that Jesus was raised from the dead based on historical evidence shows that Loftus is not a historian and not really honest. Also added to the fact that Loftus does not know what Faith is in the first place only further adds to the failure of his argument. And again regardless to whether or not history can be used to detect miracles, there is no reason to conclude that miracles never happen.
In both cases faith has shown itself to be inadequate. It leads liberals and evangelicals to believe against the evidence. That's because faith has no method.
Um no.
To see why the resurrection miracle should not be believed even if it happened simply read this one post.
So basically even if it happened you should no believe it happened? Right. Real smart.
Debunking Christianity: *Sigh* There are Just Too Many Ways to Be Christian
Inspirational Words of Wisdom from Neil deGrasse Tyson [Pic]
I agree with a lot that Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson says and teaches about science and society but not so much as for his philosophy.
I have to ask how do you know how to lessen the suffering of others? I agree that we should always strive to know more about the world than we did yesterday, but how does it apply. I'd say that we apply it the best we can to lessen the suffering of others. But again how do we do that? That points out the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Without Wisdom we don't know how to lessen the suffering of others. And where does wisdom come from?
Inspirational Words of Wisdom from Neil deGrasse Tyson [Pic]
I have to ask how do you know how to lessen the suffering of others? I agree that we should always strive to know more about the world than we did yesterday, but how does it apply. I'd say that we apply it the best we can to lessen the suffering of others. But again how do we do that? That points out the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Without Wisdom we don't know how to lessen the suffering of others. And where does wisdom come from?
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. Proverbs 9:10
Inspirational Words of Wisdom from Neil deGrasse Tyson [Pic]
Safe Gaming
For more information and statistics about gamers and their rising positive reputation, refer to the following infographic hosted by DeviantArt. [Via]
Safe Gaming
Safe Gaming
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I've seen very little from Loftus than name slinging and insults against Christians. He's not really interested in dialogue - especially when he has no rebuttal.
I admit that this is one of the most gracious comments that I have ever read from a person who rejects Christianity. I just have to ask: How do atheists know that they are not being irrational and wrong when it comes to their rejection of God?