Cheaper than Solar: Gravity-Powered Lights for the Developing World | Technology on GOOD

Wow. Electric Lights powered by Gravity?!!! I wonder why can't it be used all over the world? But of course it should be used in places where conventional technology is not practical, but I can't think of a  place on earth that this would not work. I'm going to research this more to see if its true, but I sure hope it is. Maybe this tech can even be used to power other devices.


Cheaper than Solar: Gravity-Powered Lights for the Developing World | Technology on GOOD

2012 in Review: 20 of the Year’s Best Nonfiction Books for Geeks

There are several  nonfiction books published every year. Here is a list of books from 2012 that seem interesting. I think I'll check these out.


2012 in Review: 20 of the Year’s Best Nonfiction Books for Geeks

One of the Best Spider-Man Scenes....Ever.

The Mobile Photo Explosion [Infographic]

The Mobile Photo Explosion [Infographic]

FacePalm of Day - Debunking Christianity: How do Believers Distinguish between Fact and Fiction?

Well quite a few facepalm worthy posts have come out of Debunking Christianity today. Where to start? Well, I decided to focus on Harry McCall's post about miracles because, in all honesty, it's really easy and I don't have a lot of time. He tries to show a contradiction in what miracles Christian accept and what we don't. He make a few bad arguments and missteps and while pointing them out won't change him or his views it's worth the exercise to correct error.

Here are Four (among many) Christian miracles:

1. There was a talking snake in Eden that talked (in Hebrew) to Eve.



Um...where does the Bible say the serpent spoke Hebrew? Before the Tower of Babel, no mention is made of what language was spoken. It could have been "Elvish" for all we know. 

2. Joshua made the sun stand still.
3. Jesus arose from the dead.
4. St. Raymond of Penyafort had a Sailing Cloak.

Here is the account of St. Raymond and the sinful prince and king:


Um...how can a monarch be a prince and a king at the same time?

This prince was an accomplished soldier and statesman, and a sincere lover of religion, but his great qualities were sullied by a base passion for women. He received the admonitions of the saint with respect, and promised amendment of life, and a faithful compliance with the saint's injunctions in every particular; but without effect.

St. Raymond, upon discovering that he [I'm assuming it's this prince doing the entertaining] entertained a lady at his court with whom he was suspected to have criminal conversation [read "illicit sex"], made the strongest instances to have her dismissed, which the king [is that the prince or his father promising but not exexuting?] promised should be done, but postponed the execution.

The saint, dissatisfied with the delay, begged leave to retire to his convent at Barcelona. The king not only refused him leave, but threatened to punish with death any person that should undertake to convey him out of the island.

The saint, full of confidence in God, said to his companion, "A king of the earth endeavors to deprive us of the means of retiring; but the King of Heaven will supply them."

He then walked boldly to the waters, spread his cloak upon them, tied up one corner of it to a staff for a sail, and having made the sign of the cross, stepped upon it without fear, while his timorous companion stood trembling and wondering on the shore.

On this new kind of vessel the saint was wafted with such rapidity, that in six hours he reached the harbor of Barcelona, sixty leagues distant from Majorca. Those who saw him arrive in this manner met him with acclamations.

But he - gathering up his cloak dry - put it on, stole through the crowd, and entered his monastery. A chapel and a tower, built on the place where he landed, have transmitted the memory of this miracle to posterity.

This relation is taken from the bull of his canonization, and the earliest historians of his life. The king [what about the prince?] became a sincere convert, and governed his conscience, and even his kingdoms, by the advice of St. Raymond from that time till the death of the saint.

Questions:

All four miracles are venerated by honest sincere Christian faith as having factually happened.

A. Form the view of an outsider; how does a non-Christian tell which of the above miracles (if any) are factually true?



My question is why would you think any of them is not factually true? Can God do anything or not? By definition, I would not consider a "talking snake" a miracle of God. I mean God would not perform a miracle to purposely mislead someone to disobey Him. There is a lot that would have to be taken into account to see if there is any reason to conclude that a miracle factually happened. Given that this isn't the purpose of McCall's post, I see no reason to recount them all here. 

B. How does one Christian faith (Catholicism) know historical truth by faith; while another Christian faith (Protestantism) knows the same historical truth to be a pious religious fraud?



I would not discount the story of St Raymond as a fraud. Why should I? Can God do what the story says happened? Yes! Why not? God made an axe head float in the Old Testament. Jesus walked on water in the New Testament. Why would this be such a stretch? And according to the story, people turned form their wickedness and obey God because of the testimony of this Miracle. It's a win-win.  I see no reason to discount it.

C. How can Protestants attack miracles (which Catholics believe to be true) as pious lies (St. Raymond), but immediately reverse themselves and claim to know real historical Biblical truth with the very same level of faith (Jesus’ Resurrection)? 

Here is where McCall falls flat. As a Bible-believing Christian, I can't discount any miracle claim without studying it and looking to see if it's true no matter what religion is claiming the miracle. By the same token just because a miracle is true doesn't make a religion's claim true. God can and does allow the devil to perform miracles. And sometimes God has mercy on people who are not Christians and sovereignty does miracles for them as well.  Miracles are not a sufficient proof for find truth. Look at what the Bible says about matters such as these:

^[a]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, ² and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” ³ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. ⁴ It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. - Deuteronomy 13:1-4

This argument being made by McCall is what a failed arguments looks like, folks .

Debunking Christianity: How do Believers Distinguish between Fact and Fiction?

Debunking Christianity: Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life

John Loftus posted the three-part documentary in which Dr Richard Dawkins hosts and explores a very provocative question: Can I have morality and meaning in my life without God? I don't think he answered the question. There was a lot of handwaving but nothing that I found worthy of accepting. These are big questions. It's sad to see an intelligent man struggling to answer it and coming up short.

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:

Debunking Christianity: Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Dr. Doug Geivett Strongly Recommends Against My Book Proposal.

John Loftus has posted a recent conversation he had with Dr Doug Geivett on Facebook regarding an idea he had regarding a book written by Christians and Atheist about Biblical interpretation. When Dr Geivett politely declined, John Loftus took it badly and personally. I think it's worth looking at what was said.

Previously I made a book proposal:

Let's have a four -five -six views book with this as a question: "Why are there so many ways to interpret the Bible?" A proposed title might be this: "Five Views on Why Christians Disagree," or something like that. Then invite me as a contributor. I've written on this issue, calling it The Problem of Divine Miscommunication. See here.

Doug Geivett, a Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology strongly recommends against it. Now isn't that interesting? Why would he do so? He doesn't explain. He refuses to explain.

On the face of it, one might wonder with Loftus why would Christian think that such a proposal is a bad idea. But in light of Loftus' attitude in response and what the Bible says about unbeliever's abilities to understand the Bible, Dr Geivett's response makes sense. Maybe the reason that he does not answer Loftus in the way Loftus wants is because Geivett recognizes that it's a waste of his time. 

Here's the story:



I messaged him on Facebook with a link to my proposal asking if he or anyone else he knows might be interested in editing such a book. His response:

Hi, John. To be honest, I really would not be interested. And if I were advising Christian publishers of the sort you have in mind, I'd strongly recommend against it. This isn't a personal thing. But I don't think it serves the cause. My recommendation is that you continue to pursue secular avenues. Maybe they would be interested in your proposal.

Feeling a bit slighted and testy I responded:

So why did Loftus feel "slighted and testy"? Dr Geivett was not rude or dismissive and suggested a different take. Loftus' ego was bruised in my opinion. 

So, you don't think my arguments can be answered or what? It would be an apologetics work. Someone must answer them. Or, is it your view that it's best to ignore arguments whenever needed? I'm puzzled. I do have a few bites though. One Greek Orthodox scholar can argue it's because of Romanism and sola Scriptura. A liberal wants to argue that there are simply different voices in Scripture. An evangelical wants to argue it's because as human beings we lack understanding. In any case, thanks for the response. I'm certainly happy I'm not an apologist in this day and age, that's for sure.

Oh wow. Nice way to stay civil, Mr Loftus. Loftus gets meaner as the thing goes on. 

Geivett:

John, this is just the sort of response that leaves me cold, this tendency to jump to certain conclusions without adequate evidence, and to psychoanalyze those you disagree with. Take your two questions and ask yourself, "What is the most likely thing Geivett believes about these things, given his record?"

Notice the condescending tone?

Geivett was condescending?  So how is saying I'm certainly happy I'm not an apologist in this day and age, that's for sure. or saying that he can't answer his arguments is not condescending? It is. Pointing out that Loftus psychoanalyze people he disagrees with and jumping to conclusions is not condescension or insulting because it's true.


Loftus:

I don't know your record enough to know what you believe. I do know you're into guessing games. You could have told me why you think it doesn't serve the cause, but you didn't. No, I don't think a deluded person such as yourself thinks he cannot answer my arguments. I was giving you an opportunity to answer them. Now why does this project not serve the cause?

Hmmm...an admission that Loftus does not know Geivett's record so that the rest of the comment is pointless. Oh...and I guess referring to a person as deluded whom you don't know enough to know what they believe or that they can't answer your arguments is never insulting or condescending? I see! I sure hope Loftus does not really think that because that is stupid.

Geivett:

John, I got your message, which is why I replied. Think what you will about "guessing games," but understand that this kind of rhetoric is bound to alienate people you seem to want to talk to.

More condescension. I want to talk to him and so I must be more humble since, after all, I'm talking to the great and mighty Geivett. If you want to get my ire think or say that. Sooo...

Looks like Loftus has some kind of inferiority complex. Why else would he take Geivett's comments so negatively and offensively? He said, "No, I don't want to work with you on this." So what? Is Loftus so immature that he cannot take a "No"? Looks that way.

Loftus:

Ahhh, you fail to understand me then. I can't convince you that you're wrong. I intend to marginalize you. Play guessing games if you want to. I am dead serious. I think I understand full well what you mean when you say this book project will hurt the cause. You are afraid.

I suppose you think Randal Rauser hurt the cause by co-writing a book with me too, eh? Tell me straight up what you mean, that's all, no more guessing games.

I sent that yesterday morning. His response? Click on the red button in the upper right. ;-)

Crickets? LOL. Like threatening to marginalize him and calling him a coward fosters good will and open dialogue? Nope. 

So I was wondering aloud. Why would he say my book proposal doesn't serve the cause? I'm supposed to figure this out on my own. Any suggestions?

Yup. Let's look at the Bible's  answer. It answers the question in more than one place, but here is two of my favorite.

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 8:6-8

It's pretty clear that a person who is an unbeliever cannot understand God's Law - the Bible. Therefore an Atheist like John Loftus is ill-equipped to critique interpretations of the Bible. They cannot understand it let alone submit to it.

¹³ This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.^{[a] 14} The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. ¹⁵ The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, - 1 Corinthians 2:13-15

Bottom line is that John Loftus, or any Atheist, is not equipped to discuss why people who claim to be Christian interpret the Bible differently or who is right or who is wrong. I think a book about how different people interpret the Bible and why is a good idea. I would like to see the contributing author breakdown be the following scholars:

a. A Jew
b. A Mormorn
c. A Jehovah Witness
d. A  Reformed Baptist
e. An Anglican
f. A Lutheran
g. A Methodist
h. A Roman Catholic
i. A Liberal
j. A Greek Orthodox
k. A Baptist
l. A Calvary Chapel

It would be good if each scholar discussed what makes their denomination distinctive and define what the Gospel is.  They could even include a brief historical of each church and discussions of core theology and why they look at the Bible the way they do. Focus on how they view Sola Scriptura and Biblical inerrancy. Can you have Bible inerrancy without Sola Scriptura? The core idea is a good idea but I don't think that Atheism has anything to add to the conversation.
 
Debunking Christianity: Dr. Doug Geivett Strongly Recommends Against My Book Proposal.

Peter Singer on Human Dignity and Infanticide: Part One | MandM

English: Peter Albert David Singer at The College of New Jersey (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dr Matthew Flannagan has posted the first part of an paper critiquing the philosophy of Dr Peter Singer.

Christian theism has traditionally taught that human beings have equal dignity and worth, a moral status that separates them from non-human animals. Peter Singer has famously rejected this teaching, holding that human beings are not any more special than animals and doctrines of human dignity are indefensible.  He contends that killing a new-born infant is, in and of itself, no more problematic than killing a non-human animal such as a cow or a pig and defends the permissibly of infanticide under certain conditions

Peter Singer is the poster child of an atheist who advocates terrible moral values that come from an abandonment of Godly moral principles. Answering minds like Singer's is very important. 

Peter Singer on Human Dignity and Infanticide: Part One | MandM

History of Nintendo (2012) + 10 Awesome Facts About Nintendo [Video]

English: (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  History of Nintendo 2012 from Anthony Veloso on Vimeo.





 History of Nintendo (2012) + 10 Awesome Facts About Nintendo [Video]

The Argument from Reason - YouTube

David Wood has posted the following video in which he skewered Naturalism. You have to see this. He makes really great points and on top of that David Wood asks a good question: If there is no after-life, what happens when you commit intellectual suicide? And why would you expect reliable reason if human rationality is a product of random mutation which is also responsible for monochromatic monkey butts? The video is not just informative but also humorous. Go ahead and watch it!

The Argument from Reason - YouTube

Answering Muslims: Ravi Zacharias Speaks with a Founder of Hamas

Dr Zacharias recounts the opportunity he had in which he spoke to one of the leaders of Hamas. I am amazed that he was able to shortly and completely describe the only way we will only have peace in the Middle East. Listen to this...it's like the light shining Jesus referred to in his ministry. God has raised up people to specifically speak to specific people. This is a good example.

Answering Muslims: Ravi Zacharias Speaks with a Founder of Hamas

10 Geeks You Should Know

10 Geeks You Should Know

Theory vs Hypothesis: The Rap

Theory vs Hypothesis: The Rap

Apologist Interview: Douglas Jacoby - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten recently posted an interview with Douglas Jacoby. You can check it out on Apologetics 315.

Apologist Interview: Douglas Jacoby - Apologetics 315

Answering Muslims: Killing Babies For Allah

So Muslims and Atheist charge Christians and Jews in believing a God who commits Genocide. That's not true, but what does the Quran say about genocide? Here is such a discussion.


Answering Muslims: Killing Babies For Allah

Answering Muslims: Interview with Jay Smith on Confronting Islam

Answering Muslims: Interview with Jay Smith on Confronting Islam

Breathingearth - CO2, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time

This is a great little website that statistically predicts birth and deaths plotted on a map in real-time. Real Interesting! Here is the video of the site in action.


Follow the link to see the map

Breathingearth - CO2, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time

Truthbomb Apologetics: Counterpoints: Antony Flew and Francis Crick

Chad sometimes runs posts on his blog where he posts two quotes from two scholars that contradict one another. You can read the quotes from Francis Crick and Anthony Flew at the following link:


Truthbomb Apologetics: Counterpoints: Antony Flew and Francis Crick

Is MuslimByChoice Actually Trying to Make the Muslims Look Bad?

James White has posted a couple of videos to respond to MuslimByChoice's videos. You can see the video response at the following link

Is MuslimByChoice Actually Trying to Make the Muslims Look Bad?

Answering Muslims: Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood: The Message of Jesus and Muhammad

Answering Muslims: Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood: The Message of Jesus and Muhammad