We often get this accusation thrown at us, and seldom can we defend ourselves without losing temper and staying polite. The latest episode of that nature happened today, and I simply have to clarify some things in order to be straightforward and as clear as possible.
A whole group of good students got classified as intolerant because of their Christian convictions. I am not sure whether 16-year old people are able to defend Christian faith well enough to make themselves perfectly understood. I hope they can. But I think it is necessary to point out some aspects of our beliefs that may be perceived in a certain way and that should not be perceived as hate, despise, bullying.
Let me be blunt: we believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, is God-breathed, "theopneustos", and completely infallible in the matters of faith. This Bible teaches us that people are sinners, and therefore commit sins. We all do, without exception, and the only Man who was sinless was Lord Jesus, God incarnate. Every sin is a law breaker and separates us from God. Sin of theft, sin of lying, sin of covetousness, sin of adultery, sin of idolatry, sin of homosexuality. Every sin has to be paid for, and the only payment is death. By no means do we treat homosexuality as somehow special in the register of sins. For every sin there is a punishment. Every sinner will pay. Unless...
Unless a sinner trusts in Jesus and His forensic payment for our sins, unless the sinner repents from his ways and becomes the follower of Jesus, it will be the sinner who is going to pay. A thief, a liar, an adulterer, a homosexual. What we, Christians, want more than anything, is for the sinners to repent and run to the cross. We are compelled to loving all people, because of the love God showed us while we were yet lost sinners.
We love sinners, we are sinners too, but we are the forgiven ones, and desire all people to beg God for forgiveness. But love does not mean shutting our eyes to sin and calling it good. Sin is evil, and it has to be said. Therefore we do say it. We say it out of love, though, and NOT out of hate. This is the huge difference.
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Same-sex Marriage: How It Will Affect You
Today the Swedish parliament ratified the same-sex marriage as legal. As a Christian I am deeply saddened and horrified by this decision, and recommend this article in consideration of what is about to come:
http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/AS_news_0808.pdf?docID=3301
It says among other things:
"The legalization of same-sex marriage will usher in a new era where religious liberties will increasingly become restricted. There’s one word that explains why this will happen: Consistency.
In order for California to be consistent with its new legislation on same-sex marriage, it must restrict the religious liberties of Christians, Jews, and any other group that upholds a one-man-one-woman view of marriage. These groups enjoy privileges and protections given by the state, which now also endorses same-sex marriage. Since the law supports both same-sex marriage and groups who oppose the new
legislation, it’s only a matter of time before pro-gay lawyers exploit the inconsistency.
Soon, some churches may lose their tax exemption status. If they refuse to perform same-sex weddings, it can be argued that the state subsidizes discrimination."
http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/AS_news_0808.pdf?docID=3301
It says among other things:
"The legalization of same-sex marriage will usher in a new era where religious liberties will increasingly become restricted. There’s one word that explains why this will happen: Consistency.
In order for California to be consistent with its new legislation on same-sex marriage, it must restrict the religious liberties of Christians, Jews, and any other group that upholds a one-man-one-woman view of marriage. These groups enjoy privileges and protections given by the state, which now also endorses same-sex marriage. Since the law supports both same-sex marriage and groups who oppose the new
legislation, it’s only a matter of time before pro-gay lawyers exploit the inconsistency.
Soon, some churches may lose their tax exemption status. If they refuse to perform same-sex weddings, it can be argued that the state subsidizes discrimination."
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Pro-marriage speech garners professor's profane wrath
After being called a "fascist" by his professor, a Christian California student has filed suit against his college for violations of his free-speech rights.
"Jonathan talked about his faith -- and one of the things he talked about in context of his faith was...marriage," says French. "He read from the dictionary definition of marriage. The professor stopped the class, called him a 'fascist b_____d' -- [he] used the expletive -- [and] told the class that anyone who wanted to could leave if they were offended...."
Read on...
"Jonathan talked about his faith -- and one of the things he talked about in context of his faith was...marriage," says French. "He read from the dictionary definition of marriage. The professor stopped the class, called him a 'fascist b_____d' -- [he] used the expletive -- [and] told the class that anyone who wanted to could leave if they were offended...."
Read on...
Monday, February 09, 2009
Interesting article
Charles Darwin zealots have made science a substitute religion
Christopher Booker is troubled by the fervour surrounding the 200-year anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth.
As councils ran out of the grit they had failed to stockpile because they fell for the Government line that climate change made it unnecessary, Britain was last week doubly-carpeted, partly by snow, partly by a blizzard of tributes to Charles Darwin. What did these have in common? In contrast to the centenary of Darwin’s death 26 years ago, what has been noticeable about this homage, not least on the BBC, is how relentlessly reverential it has been.
One would never have guessed from the adulation heaped on the great man by the likes of Sir David Attenborough that there is something very odd about Darwin’s theory. He did not, of course, originate the idea that life on earth had evolved. This notion went back to the ancient Greeks, and was accepted by many of Darwin’s predecessors, including his own grandfather Erasmus. The novelty of Darwin’s thesis was his claim that evolution could be explained solely by the process of natural selection, whereby an infinite series of minute variations gradually turned one form of life into another.
One great stumbling block to his argument is that evolution has repeatedly taken place in leaps forward so sudden and so complex that they could not possibly have been accounted for by the gradual process he suggested - “the Cambrian explosion" of new life forms, the complexities of the eye, the post-Cretaceous explosion of mammals. Again and again some new development emerged which required a whole mass of interdependent changes to take place simultaneously, such as the transformation of reptiles into feathered, hollow-boned and warm-blooded birds.
Years ago, a good illustration of this was Attenborough himself claiming to 'prove’ Darwin’s theory by showing us a mouse and a bat, explaining how one evolved into the other. He seemed oblivious to the obvious point that, as the mouse’s forelegs evolved by minute variations to wings, there must have been a long period when the creature, no longer with properly functioning legs but as yet unable to fly, was much less 'adapted to survive’ than it had been before.
As even Darwin himself acknowledged, these jumps in the story might have seemed to render his thesis â absurd’. He might therefore have recognised that some other critically important but unknown factor seemed to be at work, an â organising power’ which had allowed these otherwise inexplicable leaps to take place. But so possessed was he by the simplicity of his theory that, brushing such difficulties aside, he made a leap of faith that it must be right, regardless of the evidence. In this he has been followed by generations of 'Darwinians’ who have found his theory so beguiling that, like him, they have refused to recognise how much it cannot explain.
What is fascinating about the Darwinians is their inability to accept just how much they do not know. Armoured in their certainty that they have all the answers when they so obviously don’t, neo-Darwinians such as Richard Dawkins rest their beliefs just as much on an unscientific leap of faith as the â Creationists’ they so fanatically affect to despise. It is revealing how they dismissively try to equate all those scientists who argue for 'intelligent design' with Biblical fundamentalists, as their only way to cope with questions they cannot answer.
Something strikingly similar has been taking place over the belief that the world is dangerously warming, due to the rise in man-made CO2. For a time the believers in this theory seemed to have the evidence on their side, as CO2 levels and temperatures rose in apparent harmony. But lately all sorts of evidence has been put forward by serious scientists to suggest that this theory is seriously flawed, not least the fact that recently falling temperatures were not predicted by any of those computer models on which the advocates of global warming rest their beliefs.
It becomes increasingly obvious that, like the Darwinians, the warming supporters are so convinced by the simplicity of their theory that they are unable to recognise how much they do not know - and like the Darwinians their response has been to become ever more fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares question their dogma. This might not matter so much if they hadn’t, on the basis of their faith, persuaded so many of the world’s politicians to propose measures which threaten to inflict a real economic disaster on the world.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Religion: The Evolution of Self-Control
Jan 1, 2009 — A psychologist came up with a new theory of how religion evolved. It evolved to give people more self-control.
Science Daily reported the ideas of Miami psychologist Michael McCullough. Basically, “Religion May Have Evolved Because Of Its Ability To Help People Exercise Self-control,” the article states, with a picture of a rural church to boot. Self-control is a nice thing to have. Apparently, it produces fitness. “This, in turn, might help explain why religious people tend to have lower rates of substance abuse, better school achievement, less delinquency, better health behaviors, less depression, and longer lives.”
McCullough was non-sectarian with his view. The article said “explained” how “the same social force that motivates acts of charity and generosity can also motivate people to strap bomb belts around their waists and then blow themselves up in crowded city buses.” It’s a little more challenging to see why that would improve fitness, but to him, evolution teaches that “religion can motivate people to do just about anything.”
Maybe one thing evolution could do to help scientists is help them get their origin of speciesScience Daily announced, “Longstanding Theory Of Origin Of Species In Oceans Challenged.” According to our 01/15/2003 entry, this has been a religious war of sorts within the Darwinist camp. Sympatric speciation is struggling against allopatric speciation for survival of the fittest theory. In the oceans, the heretics are winning. Maybe they have a better navy.
doctrine right. Another article on Let’s get this straight. Religious people have self-control, therefore religious people are more fit. The question becomes, is it a lack of self-control that is causing Darwinists to say stupid things?
Brace yourself; we’re going to hear a lot more nonsense in the month leading up the King Charles’ 200th Birthday Re-Coronation Ceremony. You see what they do, don’t you? They gloss over the real issues by asking how religion evolved, not whether religion evolved.
This tactic is just the bully asserting his turf. What you do to stand down a bully is face off with him and turn his energy against him. Don’t accept his premise; fling it right back at him. Ask him if he is just saying this just because he is a sinner looking to rationalize his evil ways. What evil ways? he will sputter. Why, the evil of contradicting yourself. What? Right, you continue, pointing out that he said religious people tend to have longer lives. “How does a young boy blowing up a school bus have a longer life? How could that evolve?” you ask, diverging temporarily into a discussion of why a theory that explains opposite things explains nothing at all. “And come to think of it,” you continue gently but relentlessly, “if religion is a positive thing, what religion are you?” He mumbles that he is an atheist. “Then according to your own theory, you are less fit. In fact, you look kind of depressed and delinquent. Better get on a fitness program. Why not make a resolution to get some self-control and righteousness in your life instead of making up stories out of your own imagination? Come on, I’ll take you to church where we can learn about Truth that doesn’t evolve.”
The evolution-of-everything crowd can’t even get their basic core ideas on the origin of species right 150 years after Darwin supposedly figured it out, and they want us to think they can explain religion. Well if religion evolved, it evolved downward from a true knowledge of God to all kinds of deceptions and lies, including evolution. Time for an update of Darwin’s title: On the origin of specious ideas by natural man’s rejection, or the degradation of evident truths in the struggle for existentialism. But then he would just be plagiarizing Paul.
Published without permission, but with greatest respect.
Science Daily reported the ideas of Miami psychologist Michael McCullough. Basically, “Religion May Have Evolved Because Of Its Ability To Help People Exercise Self-control,” the article states, with a picture of a rural church to boot. Self-control is a nice thing to have. Apparently, it produces fitness. “This, in turn, might help explain why religious people tend to have lower rates of substance abuse, better school achievement, less delinquency, better health behaviors, less depression, and longer lives.”
McCullough was non-sectarian with his view. The article said “explained” how “the same social force that motivates acts of charity and generosity can also motivate people to strap bomb belts around their waists and then blow themselves up in crowded city buses.” It’s a little more challenging to see why that would improve fitness, but to him, evolution teaches that “religion can motivate people to do just about anything.”
Maybe one thing evolution could do to help scientists is help them get their origin of speciesScience Daily announced, “Longstanding Theory Of Origin Of Species In Oceans Challenged.” According to our 01/15/2003 entry, this has been a religious war of sorts within the Darwinist camp. Sympatric speciation is struggling against allopatric speciation for survival of the fittest theory. In the oceans, the heretics are winning. Maybe they have a better navy.
doctrine right. Another article on Let’s get this straight. Religious people have self-control, therefore religious people are more fit. The question becomes, is it a lack of self-control that is causing Darwinists to say stupid things?
Brace yourself; we’re going to hear a lot more nonsense in the month leading up the King Charles’ 200th Birthday Re-Coronation Ceremony. You see what they do, don’t you? They gloss over the real issues by asking how religion evolved, not whether religion evolved.
This tactic is just the bully asserting his turf. What you do to stand down a bully is face off with him and turn his energy against him. Don’t accept his premise; fling it right back at him. Ask him if he is just saying this just because he is a sinner looking to rationalize his evil ways. What evil ways? he will sputter. Why, the evil of contradicting yourself. What? Right, you continue, pointing out that he said religious people tend to have longer lives. “How does a young boy blowing up a school bus have a longer life? How could that evolve?” you ask, diverging temporarily into a discussion of why a theory that explains opposite things explains nothing at all. “And come to think of it,” you continue gently but relentlessly, “if religion is a positive thing, what religion are you?” He mumbles that he is an atheist. “Then according to your own theory, you are less fit. In fact, you look kind of depressed and delinquent. Better get on a fitness program. Why not make a resolution to get some self-control and righteousness in your life instead of making up stories out of your own imagination? Come on, I’ll take you to church where we can learn about Truth that doesn’t evolve.”
The evolution-of-everything crowd can’t even get their basic core ideas on the origin of species right 150 years after Darwin supposedly figured it out, and they want us to think they can explain religion. Well if religion evolved, it evolved downward from a true knowledge of God to all kinds of deceptions and lies, including evolution. Time for an update of Darwin’s title: On the origin of specious ideas by natural man’s rejection, or the degradation of evident truths in the struggle for existentialism. But then he would just be plagiarizing Paul.
Published without permission, but with greatest respect.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Total Depravity scientifically proven
People 'still willing to torture'
 Subjects were apparently given electric shocks |
Decades after a notorious experiment, scientists have found test subjects are still willing to inflict pain on others - if told to by an authority figure.
US researchers repeated the famous "Milgram test", with volunteers told to deliver electrical shocks to another volunteer - played by an actor.
Even after faked screams of pain, 70% were prepared to increase the voltage, the American Psychology study found.
Both may help explain why apparently ordinary people can commit atrocities.Continue reading...
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Admissions of Ignorance in Evolutionary Theory
August 11, 2008 — For a scientific idea some have proclaimed as a fact no longer in need of proof, and as well-established as gravity, Darwin’s theory of evolution still reveals surprising weaknesses when its defenders speak about the details. Detecting these weaknesses requires tuning out the media hype, and tuning into scientific papers and pro-evolution journals where evolutionary theory is debated. Elisabeth Pennisi wrote one such account in Science last week.1 It revealed that the public is getting a very misleading view of evolution – both its operation and the strength of the evidence for it.
It would seem obvious that evolution needs a genetic basis. Darwin attempted to explain it in his day, unsuccessfully. The neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s was supposed to explain it. Serious questions about how evolution works at the genetic level remain, however, to this day. This was evident in Pennisi’s use of war metaphors to describe two groups of evolutionists that are “locking horns” over a current issue: whether genes or regulatory elements (in particular, cis regulatory factors) are key to evolutionary change. The latter, a “fashionable idea,” has been growing in popularity among those in the evo-devo subculture: i.e., evolutionary biologists who focus more on developmental than genetic influences. When Jerry Coyne and Hopi Hoekstra wrote a pointed critique of the regulatory-element hypothesis in the journal Evolution last year, “Egos were bruised. Tempers flared. Journal clubs, coffee breaks at meetings, and blogs are still all abuzz,” she wrote.
None of the combatants doubt Darwin’s theory in the slightest, of course. Still, some statements in Pennisi’s account could give a Darwin-doubter cause for gloating. Consider this paragraph:
Continue reading...
It would seem obvious that evolution needs a genetic basis. Darwin attempted to explain it in his day, unsuccessfully. The neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s was supposed to explain it. Serious questions about how evolution works at the genetic level remain, however, to this day. This was evident in Pennisi’s use of war metaphors to describe two groups of evolutionists that are “locking horns” over a current issue: whether genes or regulatory elements (in particular, cis regulatory factors) are key to evolutionary change. The latter, a “fashionable idea,” has been growing in popularity among those in the evo-devo subculture: i.e., evolutionary biologists who focus more on developmental than genetic influences. When Jerry Coyne and Hopi Hoekstra wrote a pointed critique of the regulatory-element hypothesis in the journal Evolution last year, “Egos were bruised. Tempers flared. Journal clubs, coffee breaks at meetings, and blogs are still all abuzz,” she wrote.
None of the combatants doubt Darwin’s theory in the slightest, of course. Still, some statements in Pennisi’s account could give a Darwin-doubter cause for gloating. Consider this paragraph:
[Sean] Carroll [U of Wisconsin] argued that mutations in cis regions were a way to soft-pedal evolutionary change. Genes involved in establishing body plans and patterns have such a broad reach--affecting a variety of tissues at multiple stages of development--that mutations in their coding regions can be catastrophic. In contrast, changes in cis elements, several of which typically work in concert to control a particular gene’s activity, are likely to have a much more limited effect. Each element serves as a docking site for a particular transcription factor, some of which stimulate gene expression and others inhibit it. This modularity makes possible an infinite number of cis-element combinations that finely tune gene activity in time, space, and degree, and any one sequence change is unlikely to be broadly disruptive.This sounds like damage control. Is the standard explanation too risky? Yet critics of the evo-devo alternative argue that every such “fine-tuning” change must be adaptive to persist through natural selection. Precious few examples, they say, can be found to illustrate a regulatory change related to a morphological change. One regulatory change in a mouse, for instance, can make its digits grow slightly longer (see 01/18/2008), but the mutant mouse is hardly ready to take off flying like a bat.
Continue reading...
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Philosophy of Science - Fred Butler
I know this message is not in its entirety, but I find it very relevant and hence I publish it anyway.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
A conversation with an atheist
This took place on Wednesday, in #apologetics. I removed lines that described some channel activities, not connected with the conversation. It would be funny, if... Well, see for yourself, how sily atheism really is.
03[18:47] * mikew has joined #apologetics
[18:50] [mikew]why do you believe in a fully debunked myth?
[18:51] [Wiser]lol...deep in thought
[18:51] [Wiser]me too.
[18:51] [BK__]mikew, why do you ask leading questions?
[18:51] [MrPeabody]debunked myth?
[18:51] [BK__]mikew has just committed the fallacy of the complex question
[18:51] [BK__]sort of like saying "do you still beat your wife?
[18:52] [Wiser]is wondering what the discussion..is...or was...
[18:52] [mikew]well your religion is exactly the same as other pagan religions that we both agree as myths.
[18:52] [BK__]Mike must first demonstrate that said "myth" has been debunked prior to asking the question
[18:52] [BK__]"exactly the same" ... well, it cannot be *exactly* the same, now can it?
[18:53] [Wiser]mikew if i might offer a point here...you're assuming someone thinks something is a myth..when in fact they may not.
[18:53] [blueDL]mikew: you an atheist?
[18:53] [mikew]http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ shows how your religion was stolen from pagan mythology.
[18:53] [mikew]yes
[18:53] [BK__]what is my religion, Mike?
[18:53] [blueDL]why do you hold to a belief system that has been completely debunked?
[18:53] [mikew]xianity
[18:53] [BK__]specifically, what kind?
[18:53] [mikew]atheism is a lack of a belif in a sky daddy so it cant be debunked
[18:53] [BK__]in other words, I have a specific set of beliefs ... do you know what they are, Mike?
[18:54] [MrPeabody]Psalm 10:4 The wicked, in the pride of his countenance, saith, He will not require it. All his thoughts are, There is no God.
[18:55] [blueDL]mikew: sure it can. All you have to do is show that the presuppositional bases of your belief system is stealing from the very belief system you claim to be debunking.
[18:55] [mikew]im guessing you are an xian so you believe a sky daddy made the world in 7 days (despite evidence to the contrary) and then turned into a person to die on a cosss
[18:55] [Wiser]just wondering here..how someone with "no belief" feels they can teach someone...a new belief?....from what?
[18:55] [blueDL]btw, 'sky daddy' is offensive. Please desist.
[18:55] [BK__]blue, are Van Tillian? :)
[18:55] [Wiser]if you havent got it in the first place..how can you share?
[18:55] [mikew]atheism is based on evidence and so we dont have beliefs, just facts
[18:55] [blueDL]mikew: do you believe that?
[18:56] [Bilbofett]hey mikew, I have a lack of belief in you, so I guess no one can debunk that. I guess you don't exist :)
[18:56] [mikew]I know
[18:56] [BK__]mikew, I have a lot of beliefs and you haven't answered the question
[18:56] [blueDL]mikew: how do you know?
[18:56] [mikew](i dont have beliefs)
[18:56] [Bilbofett]do you believe that?
[18:56] [Wiser]lol...evidence of what..?
[18:56] [Wiser]creative force?
[18:56] [mikew]well i dont know exaclt becos christians argue about what they believe
[18:56] [Wiser]universal power?
[18:56] [BK__]as do non-Christians, mike
[18:57] [MrPeabody]Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good.
[18:57] [BK__]so my point is this - how could you point me to a link that debunks my belief system, when you don't even know the details of that belief system
[18:57] [mikew]but we argue because were freethinkers and think for ourselves whereas you argue because you were brainwashed differently
[18:57] [BK__]demonstrate that to be the case, mike
[18:57] [Wiser]lol....somehow mike, your arguments lack conviction
[18:58] [mikew]i dont have to demonstarte anything. have you heard of russels teapot?
[18:58] [BK__]you made an assertion, mile
[18:58] [BK__]mike
[18:58] [Bilbofett]mikew I grew up as a non-christian and was one longer than I've been a christian. I changed my mind. You haven't. Which one of us has a closed mind?
[18:58] [BK__]you have burden of proof
[18:58] [Wiser]you call yourself free, yet you assume beliefs of others..
[18:58] [Wiser]when in fact you have no clue what they believe or don't believe...
[18:58] [mikew]john loftus grew up as a christian and he changed his mind
[18:58] [Wiser]how is that fact, but rather assertions..
[18:58] [mikew]and bart erhman did
[18:58] [blueDL]mikew: CS Lewis grew up as an atheist and changed his mind. What's your point?
[18:59] [Bilbofett]mikew the bible teaches that true christians never leave and are christians for life. Bart and John were not real christians.
[18:59] [Wiser]what of Saul/Paul
[18:59] [mikew]but atheists change their mind becos os evidence
[19:00] [BK__]which ones, Mike?
[19:00] [mikew]did paul exist or was he made up by the early church?
[19:00] [BK__]which atheists change their mind because of evidence?
[19:00] [Wiser]why would anyone "make up" a persecutor ?
06[19:00] * blueDL is waiting for an original thought/argument.
[19:00] [mikew]john loftus. he realised that the universe was to big for a god and bart erhman becuase he found that the bible is not the same as the origional
[19:01] [blueDL]mikew: how does Ehrman know that? He doesn't have the original.
[19:01] [BK__]*ding* !
[19:01] [mikew]that bart erhmans point
[19:02] [blueDL]so, to make a claim about something unseen... isn't that faith?
[19:02] [BK__]mike, which atheists change their minds because of evidence? All of them? Some of them? One of them?
[19:02] [mikew]most of them. it is a proven fact that atheists are more intelligent than those who believe in god
03[19:03] * Tur8inFan has joined #apologetics
[19:03] [BK__]how do you know "most of them" change their mind based on evidence? (and the IQ of atheists on the whole is irrelevant to the truth of Christianity)
[19:03] [mikew]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-%27less-likely-to-believe-in-God%27.html
[19:03] [BK__]irrelevant, mike
[19:04] [blueDL]mikew: that doesn't say that atheists are more intelligent.
[19:04] [mikew]when you go on an xian site it is all about the holy spirit however when you go on an atheist one it is all about science, logic and reason
[19:05] [BK__]demonstrably false, Mike
[19:05] [mikew]rubbish
[19:05] [BK__]just visit aomin.org (among many others)
[19:05] [Dominus]Eh not all atheists are scientists.
[19:05] [BK__]"rubbish" is not a rebuttal
[19:05] [mikew]no but most scientists are atheists. have you read the god delusion?
[19:05] [Dominus]There are plenty of irrational atheists :)
[19:06] [BK__]again, irrelevant, mike
[19:06] [blueDL]mikew: yes. It's tripe and easily refutable. What's your point? That Dawkins, a scientist, is an atheist? We know that.
[19:06] [mikew]irrelevant = i dont like it because it is true and inconvienient for you
[19:06] [BK__]no, irrelevant = not relevant to whether Christianity is true
[19:07] [BK__]look up "appeal to authority" on one of your atheist web sites, mike
[19:08] [mikew]i bet if is said the world was flat youd all appeal to authority then.
[19:08] [BK__]try me
[19:08] [BK__]and the point remains, your argument thus far has been largely an appeal to authority
[19:09] [BK__]thus it has been fallacious in nature
[19:09] [mikew]the world is flat (i know it isnt but lets pretend for arguments sake, youd then say 'oh, no scientists says that')
[19:09] [BK__]I don't agree that the world is flat
[19:09] [BK__]what makes you say it is flat (for the sake of argument)?
[19:09] [mikew]that appealinhg to your own authority
[19:09] [BK__]no, it isn't appealing to anything yet
[19:10] [BK__]it is a simply statement of belief
[19:10] [mikew]no. a belief is something in the face of evidence. the world is round is a fact
[19:10] [@bluewurx]mikew: BK's point is that so far you haven't given us any facts, but rather used bad argumentation to try to make your point.
[19:10] [mikew]o.k what about the fact that the bible is full of contradictions.
[19:11] [BK__]beliefs aren't "in the face" of evidence necessarily - you can believe something that is true, or believe something that is not true
[19:11] [BK__]so is the earth still flat, Mike?
[19:11] [mikew]richard dawkins says christian belif is blinf faith
[19:11] [BK__]CS Lewis says it isn't
[19:11] [@bluewurx]mikew: what about the fact that every contradiction you can bring up has been well refuted?
[19:12] [mikew]no, because in the real world you can appeal to authority
[19:12] [@bluewurx]Dawkins says a lot of things. Again, appeal to authority.
[19:12] [@bluewurx]mikew: is your whole argument then that you are an atheist because Dawkins told you to be one?
[19:12] [BK__]sure, you *can* appeal, but it is fallacious to do so
[19:12] [MrPeabody]Psalm 19:1-3 The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night showeth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language; Their voice is not heard.
[19:12] [mikew]you appeal to the bible, isnt that an appeal to authority?
[19:12] [Dominus]mikew: why do you see Dawinks as your God?
[19:12] [Dominus]Dawkins, even.
[19:13] [Dominus]You seem to be very religious about it,.
[19:13] [BK__]no, mike ... not in the same sense as you are appealing to Dawkins
06[19:13] * @bluewurx nods at BK__
[19:13] [mikew]he is intelligent, one of the top scientists in the world and shreds your belifs to bits
[19:13] [Dominus]But you're not... so how can you tell he's not deceiving you?
[19:13] [BK__]mike, is Dawkins ever wrong?
[19:14] [mikew]he did once write an article saying adultery is ok which i disagreed with but these are rare events
02[19:14] * @Micah has quit IRC (Ping timeout for Micah[12.53.234.66])
[19:14] [BK__]so it is possible that an appeal to Dawkins would be a bad idea, right?
[19:14] [BK__]'cause he can be wrong
[19:14] [Dominus]If we have to believe Dawkins, humans are nothing but hungry sex machines.
[19:15] [mikew]well your god can be wrong (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) but you appeal to him/her
[19:15] [@bluewurx]mikew: perhaps you can give us some supportable facts for your atheism? So far, all you've done is give us ad hominemns and appeals to authority. Any 1st-year debate student could see that you are losing the argument.
[19:15] [BK__]again, is it possible that an appeal to Dawkins is a bad idea, since he can be wrong?
[19:16] [mikew]but then where do you get your information from as nobody is perfect
[19:16] [BK__]how do you know that nobody is perfect?
[19:16] [mikew]tell mr someone who is prefect
[19:17] [BK__]so is it possible that someone is perfect, 'cause you just said that nobody is perfect
[19:17] [mikew]well if there is then ive never met them. you certainly arent perfect
[19:18] [BK__]That's correct ... I am not perfect, nor are you, nor is Dawkins. So once again, an appeal to Dawkins isn't really the way to go, is it?
[19:19] [mikew]well dawkins has good argumets. when you think about it were all atheists when it comes to allah, buddah, the bogie under the sea. ive just gone one god further
[19:19] [BK__]but Dawkins could make a mistake in his arguments, no?
[19:19] [BK__]so an appeal to Dawkins isn't really a good idea if one wants to be *certain* of something, right?
[19:19] [Dominus]BK__: well, to be fair, what you're doing is an ad hominem.
[19:19] [mikew]so couldd you and dawkins has a better track record for being right
[19:20] [BK__]I am trying to get mike to see that an appeal to authority is fallacious, Dominus
[19:20] [Dominus]This discussion is going nowhere unless someone starts citing Dawkins, either proving or disproving his statements.
[19:20] [Dominus]BK__: yes, using another fallacy :)
[19:20] [BK__]I am not cutting down Dawkins - just stating that he is not perfect, and therefore not a source of inerrancy
[19:21] [mikew]neither is the bibe. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ shows thousands of errors in it
[19:21] [BK__]and no, we actually don't need to cite Dawkins at all
[19:21] [Dominus]If you don't mind running around in circles for a while, I guess you don't :)
[19:21] [BK__]Mike, there has to be something above and beyond appealing to scientists or websites, would you not agree? In other words, the truth or falsity of a claim must be evaluated on its own
[19:22] [mikew]thats what i do as i think for myself
[19:22] [BK__]yet you referred to Dawkins a lot, mike ;)
[19:23] [mikew]because he is a great source of information and vey intelligent and scientific
[19:23] [BK__]so, with that said, do you have anything you want to argue yourself, without referring to websites or scientists?
[19:23] [BK__]since you think for yourself, and all that ;)
02[19:24] * Algoberry has quit IRC (Ping timeout for Algoberry[m235e36d0.tmodns.net])
[19:24] [mikew]all my information comes from websites. why are there so many errors in the bible. If the bible was the word of god then websites like http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ wouldnt exist.
[19:25] [@bluewurx]mikew: the fool says in his heart there is no God. There will *always* be sites like that one.
[19:25] [BK__]but we aren't arguing against a website - we are arguing with *you*, Mike. And your conclusion about this website not existing if the Bible is the word of God does not logically follow.
[19:27] [mikew]O.K would you believe a book with zombies, dionosaurs, dragons, sea monsters and extra-terrestrails in?
[19:27] [BK__]that depends on specifically what the book said - whether it gave me a reason to believe in these things, etc.
[19:27] [BK__]how about you?
[19:28] [mikew]i wouldnt but all of them can be found in the bible http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Monsters_in_the_Bible
[19:28] [BK__]why wouldn't you?
[19:28] [mikew]because those things are silly
07[19:28] [@annafk]mikew, how old are you?
[19:28] [BK__]is that a statement of fact, or just an opinion?
[19:28] [mikew]none of your busuiness
[19:29] [mikew]it is a fact that all of those things are in the bible, that website i linked to cites chapter and verse for each one
07[19:29] [@annafk]could you please answer, anyway?
[19:30] [mikew]why?
07[19:30] [@annafk]because I would like to know
[19:30] [BK__]I am even looking at the website, mike, so I couldn't tell whether or not what it says is correct - I just want to know why *you* wouldn't believe a book that said they are real, if that book happened to present reasons to believe they were? In other words, what is it that leads you to believe something is either true or not?
[19:31] [BK__]sorry ... I am *not* looking at the website, is what I meant to say :)
[19:31] [mikew]bury your head in the sand and not look at my sources
[19:31] [Dominus]mikew: do you believe in the dodo?
07[19:31] [@annafk]we know your sources
[19:32] [BK__]I don't have the time to read all your sources, mike. That's why I want you to present your own argument, rather than pointing to someone else's.
07[19:32] [@annafk]do you really think that you are coming here with anything new?
[19:32] [Dominus]Here's your chance, mikew. Just cite something from that website.
[19:32] [Dominus]Then back it up reasonably.
[19:32] [mikew]yes
03[19:32] * Looking up mikew user info...
[19:33] [@bluewurx]mikew: how do you know those Web sites are correct?
[19:33] [mikew] Beast With Seven Heads Take all the horror scripts from hollywood, put them in a blender and you have the Book of Revelation. It contains some pretty radical monsters such as this 10-horned, 7-headed beast: - Revelation 17:3: So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. Extra-Terrestrials 1 Peter 2:11:"Dear friend
[19:35] [BK__]what is the point, mike?
07[19:35] [@annafk]so... ?
[19:35] [Dominus]"The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird endemic to the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius. Related to pigeons and doves, it stood about a metre tall, weighing about 20 kilograms, living on fruit and nesting on the ground."
[19:35] [mikew]if there were 7 headed monsters and extra terrestrails wandering around when the bible was written why arent there today?
[19:35] [BK__]hey, it's a quote war! :)
[19:36] [Dominus]mikew: if there were dodos wandering around in the 16th century, why aren't there today?
[19:36] [@bluewurx]mikew: your quote cut off. YOu can only have so many characters per line. You cut off at 'Dear friend'
[19:36] [mikew]it said "I urge you, as aliens and strangers to this world."
[19:36] [@bluewurx]oh, brother.
[19:37] [BK__]what do you think the word "alien" means there, mike?
[19:37] [mikew]well freethoughtpedia says extraterretrial
03[19:37] * DrOakafk has joined #apologetics
03[19:37] * CStar sets mode: +o DrOakafk
[19:37] [BK__]so that's what you think it means?
[19:37] [@bluewurx]mikew: what do you think it is?
[19:37] [@bluewurx]did the author think it meant extraterrestrial?
[19:37] [mikew]freethoughtpedias explanation sounds good to me
[19:38] [BK__]because it is freethoughtpedia's explanation, or for some other reason?
07[19:38] [@annafk]there we have the depth of atheism as presented by teens
[19:38] [@bluewurx]mikew: my wife has an resident alien card. Is she an extraterrestrial?
[19:38] [mikew]well it makes sense, alien is often used to mean extraterrestrial
[19:39] [BK__]it *can* mean that, but why do you think it *must* mean that in this context?
[19:39] [mikew]and it appears that pile wrote the artcile by looking at the history and he is the guy incharge of freethoughtpedia
[19:39] [@bluewurx]mikew: answer my question please.
07[19:40] [@annafk]mikew, you no longer need to tell me your age
[19:40] [mikew]you seem to go along the lines of 'if it might be true the we will assume the bible is true'
07[19:40] [@annafk]it shows
[19:40] [@bluewurx]mikew: answer my question please.
[19:41] [BK__]mike, why do you think it *must* mean that?
[19:41] [mikew]99% of the time alien is sued to mean extraterrestrial. I am not alone in thinking this as freethoughtpedia backs me up
[19:42] [@bluewurx]99% of the time? Is that a fact?
07[19:42] -]Ops #apologetics: this is fun 4,1[Ops Only[
[19:42] [mikew]sort of
[19:42] [BK__]have you considered looking at what the word means in the original language?
[19:42] [@bluewurx] 1. gen. Belonging to another person, place, or family; strange, foreign, not of one's own.
[19:42] [BK__]there are resources to help you do that
[19:42] [@bluewurx] 2. a. esp. Of a foreign nation and allegiance.
[19:42] [mikew]im sure the person who wrote the article on freethoughtpedia did that
[19:42] [@bluewurx]mikew: stop me when we get to the right definition for you....
[19:42] [BK__]thanks, blue
[19:43] [@bluewurx] 3. a. Foreign in nature or character; belonging to something else; of foreign or other origin.
[19:43] [BK__]I don't think he did, Mike
[19:43] [@bluewurx] 4. Of a nature or character differing from (of obs.), far removed from, inconsistent with.
[19:43] [BK__]But there is one way to find out, right?
[19:43] [@bluewurx] 5. Of a nature repugnant, adverse or opposed to.
[19:43] [mikew]what a cop out...o well, some people use the word to mean this.
[19:43] [@bluewurx]btw, I'm quoting the OED, which is considered *the* pre-eminent dictionary of the English language.
[19:43] [BK__]Mike, the original Greek word is "pä'-roi-kos"
03[19:44] * annLittle has joined #apologetics
[19:44] [BK__]http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3941&t=kjv
[19:44] [BK__]this is the actual word used in 1 Pet 2:11
[19:45] [mikew]this is just a typical christian response. lets put it like this, freethoughtpedia is written by atheists whereas you are biased and trying to fudge it so that it fits your beliefs
[19:45] [@bluewurx]mikew: I think we have just shown you how fallacious that 'extraterrestrial' argument is. When you first encountered it, did you ask what the opposing view was?
[19:45] [BK__]I wish this were a "typical" Christian response, actually. But no, this is a response that includes looking at the original language the verse was written in.
07[19:46] [@annafk]obviously Peter meant StarTrek characters :)
[19:46] [@bluewurx]we're all just Klingons!
[19:46] [mikew]You obviously dont know what yo are talking about and i have wiped the floor with you
[19:46] [mikew]bye
02[19:47] * mikew has quit IRC (CGI:IRC)
03[18:47] * mikew has joined #apologetics
[18:50] [mikew]why do you believe in a fully debunked myth?
[18:51] [Wiser]lol...deep in thought
[18:51] [Wiser]me too.
[18:51] [BK__]mikew, why do you ask leading questions?
[18:51] [MrPeabody]debunked myth?
[18:51] [BK__]mikew has just committed the fallacy of the complex question
[18:51] [BK__]sort of like saying "do you still beat your wife?
[18:52] [Wiser]is wondering what the discussion..is...or was...
[18:52] [mikew]well your religion is exactly the same as other pagan religions that we both agree as myths.
[18:52] [BK__]Mike must first demonstrate that said "myth" has been debunked prior to asking the question
[18:52] [BK__]"exactly the same" ... well, it cannot be *exactly* the same, now can it?
[18:53] [Wiser]mikew if i might offer a point here...you're assuming someone thinks something is a myth..when in fact they may not.
[18:53] [blueDL]mikew: you an atheist?
[18:53] [mikew]http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ shows how your religion was stolen from pagan mythology.
[18:53] [mikew]yes
[18:53] [BK__]what is my religion, Mike?
[18:53] [blueDL]why do you hold to a belief system that has been completely debunked?
[18:53] [mikew]xianity
[18:53] [BK__]specifically, what kind?
[18:53] [mikew]atheism is a lack of a belif in a sky daddy so it cant be debunked
[18:53] [BK__]in other words, I have a specific set of beliefs ... do you know what they are, Mike?
[18:54] [MrPeabody]Psalm 10:4 The wicked, in the pride of his countenance, saith, He will not require it. All his thoughts are, There is no God.
[18:55] [blueDL]mikew: sure it can. All you have to do is show that the presuppositional bases of your belief system is stealing from the very belief system you claim to be debunking.
[18:55] [mikew]im guessing you are an xian so you believe a sky daddy made the world in 7 days (despite evidence to the contrary) and then turned into a person to die on a cosss
[18:55] [Wiser]just wondering here..how someone with "no belief" feels they can teach someone...a new belief?....from what?
[18:55] [blueDL]btw, 'sky daddy' is offensive. Please desist.
[18:55] [BK__]blue, are Van Tillian? :)
[18:55] [Wiser]if you havent got it in the first place..how can you share?
[18:55] [mikew]atheism is based on evidence and so we dont have beliefs, just facts
[18:55] [blueDL]mikew: do you believe that?
[18:56] [Bilbofett]hey mikew, I have a lack of belief in you, so I guess no one can debunk that. I guess you don't exist :)
[18:56] [mikew]I know
[18:56] [BK__]mikew, I have a lot of beliefs and you haven't answered the question
[18:56] [blueDL]mikew: how do you know?
[18:56] [mikew](i dont have beliefs)
[18:56] [Bilbofett]do you believe that?
[18:56] [Wiser]lol...evidence of what..?
[18:56] [Wiser]creative force?
[18:56] [mikew]well i dont know exaclt becos christians argue about what they believe
[18:56] [Wiser]universal power?
[18:56] [BK__]as do non-Christians, mike
[18:57] [MrPeabody]Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good.
[18:57] [BK__]so my point is this - how could you point me to a link that debunks my belief system, when you don't even know the details of that belief system
[18:57] [mikew]but we argue because were freethinkers and think for ourselves whereas you argue because you were brainwashed differently
[18:57] [BK__]demonstrate that to be the case, mike
[18:57] [Wiser]lol....somehow mike, your arguments lack conviction
[18:58] [mikew]i dont have to demonstarte anything. have you heard of russels teapot?
[18:58] [BK__]you made an assertion, mile
[18:58] [BK__]mike
[18:58] [Bilbofett]mikew I grew up as a non-christian and was one longer than I've been a christian. I changed my mind. You haven't. Which one of us has a closed mind?
[18:58] [BK__]you have burden of proof
[18:58] [Wiser]you call yourself free, yet you assume beliefs of others..
[18:58] [Wiser]when in fact you have no clue what they believe or don't believe...
[18:58] [mikew]john loftus grew up as a christian and he changed his mind
[18:58] [Wiser]how is that fact, but rather assertions..
[18:58] [mikew]and bart erhman did
[18:58] [blueDL]mikew: CS Lewis grew up as an atheist and changed his mind. What's your point?
[18:59] [Bilbofett]mikew the bible teaches that true christians never leave and are christians for life. Bart and John were not real christians.
[18:59] [Wiser]what of Saul/Paul
[18:59] [mikew]but atheists change their mind becos os evidence
[19:00] [BK__]which ones, Mike?
[19:00] [mikew]did paul exist or was he made up by the early church?
[19:00] [BK__]which atheists change their mind because of evidence?
[19:00] [Wiser]why would anyone "make up" a persecutor ?
06[19:00] * blueDL is waiting for an original thought/argument.
[19:00] [mikew]john loftus. he realised that the universe was to big for a god and bart erhman becuase he found that the bible is not the same as the origional
[19:01] [blueDL]mikew: how does Ehrman know that? He doesn't have the original.
[19:01] [BK__]*ding* !
[19:01] [mikew]that bart erhmans point
[19:02] [blueDL]so, to make a claim about something unseen... isn't that faith?
[19:02] [BK__]mike, which atheists change their minds because of evidence? All of them? Some of them? One of them?
[19:02] [mikew]most of them. it is a proven fact that atheists are more intelligent than those who believe in god
03[19:03] * Tur8inFan has joined #apologetics
[19:03] [BK__]how do you know "most of them" change their mind based on evidence? (and the IQ of atheists on the whole is irrelevant to the truth of Christianity)
[19:03] [mikew]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-%27less-likely-to-believe-in-God%27.html
[19:03] [BK__]irrelevant, mike
[19:04] [blueDL]mikew: that doesn't say that atheists are more intelligent.
[19:04] [mikew]when you go on an xian site it is all about the holy spirit however when you go on an atheist one it is all about science, logic and reason
[19:05] [BK__]demonstrably false, Mike
[19:05] [mikew]rubbish
[19:05] [BK__]just visit aomin.org (among many others)
[19:05] [Dominus]Eh not all atheists are scientists.
[19:05] [BK__]"rubbish" is not a rebuttal
[19:05] [mikew]no but most scientists are atheists. have you read the god delusion?
[19:05] [Dominus]There are plenty of irrational atheists :)
[19:06] [BK__]again, irrelevant, mike
[19:06] [blueDL]mikew: yes. It's tripe and easily refutable. What's your point? That Dawkins, a scientist, is an atheist? We know that.
[19:06] [mikew]irrelevant = i dont like it because it is true and inconvienient for you
[19:06] [BK__]no, irrelevant = not relevant to whether Christianity is true
[19:07] [BK__]look up "appeal to authority" on one of your atheist web sites, mike
[19:08] [mikew]i bet if is said the world was flat youd all appeal to authority then.
[19:08] [BK__]try me
[19:08] [BK__]and the point remains, your argument thus far has been largely an appeal to authority
[19:09] [BK__]thus it has been fallacious in nature
[19:09] [mikew]the world is flat (i know it isnt but lets pretend for arguments sake, youd then say 'oh, no scientists says that')
[19:09] [BK__]I don't agree that the world is flat
[19:09] [BK__]what makes you say it is flat (for the sake of argument)?
[19:09] [mikew]that appealinhg to your own authority
[19:09] [BK__]no, it isn't appealing to anything yet
[19:10] [BK__]it is a simply statement of belief
[19:10] [mikew]no. a belief is something in the face of evidence. the world is round is a fact
[19:10] [@bluewurx]mikew: BK's point is that so far you haven't given us any facts, but rather used bad argumentation to try to make your point.
[19:10] [mikew]o.k what about the fact that the bible is full of contradictions.
[19:11] [BK__]beliefs aren't "in the face" of evidence necessarily - you can believe something that is true, or believe something that is not true
[19:11] [BK__]so is the earth still flat, Mike?
[19:11] [mikew]richard dawkins says christian belif is blinf faith
[19:11] [BK__]CS Lewis says it isn't
[19:11] [@bluewurx]mikew: what about the fact that every contradiction you can bring up has been well refuted?
[19:12] [mikew]no, because in the real world you can appeal to authority
[19:12] [@bluewurx]Dawkins says a lot of things. Again, appeal to authority.
[19:12] [@bluewurx]mikew: is your whole argument then that you are an atheist because Dawkins told you to be one?
[19:12] [BK__]sure, you *can* appeal, but it is fallacious to do so
[19:12] [MrPeabody]Psalm 19:1-3 The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night showeth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language; Their voice is not heard.
[19:12] [mikew]you appeal to the bible, isnt that an appeal to authority?
[19:12] [Dominus]mikew: why do you see Dawinks as your God?
[19:12] [Dominus]Dawkins, even.
[19:13] [Dominus]You seem to be very religious about it,.
[19:13] [BK__]no, mike ... not in the same sense as you are appealing to Dawkins
06[19:13] * @bluewurx nods at BK__
[19:13] [mikew]he is intelligent, one of the top scientists in the world and shreds your belifs to bits
[19:13] [Dominus]But you're not... so how can you tell he's not deceiving you?
[19:13] [BK__]mike, is Dawkins ever wrong?
[19:14] [mikew]he did once write an article saying adultery is ok which i disagreed with but these are rare events
02[19:14] * @Micah has quit IRC (Ping timeout for Micah[12.53.234.66])
[19:14] [BK__]so it is possible that an appeal to Dawkins would be a bad idea, right?
[19:14] [BK__]'cause he can be wrong
[19:14] [Dominus]If we have to believe Dawkins, humans are nothing but hungry sex machines.
[19:15] [mikew]well your god can be wrong (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) but you appeal to him/her
[19:15] [@bluewurx]mikew: perhaps you can give us some supportable facts for your atheism? So far, all you've done is give us ad hominemns and appeals to authority. Any 1st-year debate student could see that you are losing the argument.
[19:15] [BK__]again, is it possible that an appeal to Dawkins is a bad idea, since he can be wrong?
[19:16] [mikew]but then where do you get your information from as nobody is perfect
[19:16] [BK__]how do you know that nobody is perfect?
[19:16] [mikew]tell mr someone who is prefect
[19:17] [BK__]so is it possible that someone is perfect, 'cause you just said that nobody is perfect
[19:17] [mikew]well if there is then ive never met them. you certainly arent perfect
[19:18] [BK__]That's correct ... I am not perfect, nor are you, nor is Dawkins. So once again, an appeal to Dawkins isn't really the way to go, is it?
[19:19] [mikew]well dawkins has good argumets. when you think about it were all atheists when it comes to allah, buddah, the bogie under the sea. ive just gone one god further
[19:19] [BK__]but Dawkins could make a mistake in his arguments, no?
[19:19] [BK__]so an appeal to Dawkins isn't really a good idea if one wants to be *certain* of something, right?
[19:19] [Dominus]BK__: well, to be fair, what you're doing is an ad hominem.
[19:19] [mikew]so couldd you and dawkins has a better track record for being right
[19:20] [BK__]I am trying to get mike to see that an appeal to authority is fallacious, Dominus
[19:20] [Dominus]This discussion is going nowhere unless someone starts citing Dawkins, either proving or disproving his statements.
[19:20] [Dominus]BK__: yes, using another fallacy :)
[19:20] [BK__]I am not cutting down Dawkins - just stating that he is not perfect, and therefore not a source of inerrancy
[19:21] [mikew]neither is the bibe. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ shows thousands of errors in it
[19:21] [BK__]and no, we actually don't need to cite Dawkins at all
[19:21] [Dominus]If you don't mind running around in circles for a while, I guess you don't :)
[19:21] [BK__]Mike, there has to be something above and beyond appealing to scientists or websites, would you not agree? In other words, the truth or falsity of a claim must be evaluated on its own
[19:22] [mikew]thats what i do as i think for myself
[19:22] [BK__]yet you referred to Dawkins a lot, mike ;)
[19:23] [mikew]because he is a great source of information and vey intelligent and scientific
[19:23] [BK__]so, with that said, do you have anything you want to argue yourself, without referring to websites or scientists?
[19:23] [BK__]since you think for yourself, and all that ;)
02[19:24] * Algoberry has quit IRC (Ping timeout for Algoberry[m235e36d0.tmodns.net])
[19:24] [mikew]all my information comes from websites. why are there so many errors in the bible. If the bible was the word of god then websites like http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ wouldnt exist.
[19:25] [@bluewurx]mikew: the fool says in his heart there is no God. There will *always* be sites like that one.
[19:25] [BK__]but we aren't arguing against a website - we are arguing with *you*, Mike. And your conclusion about this website not existing if the Bible is the word of God does not logically follow.
[19:27] [mikew]O.K would you believe a book with zombies, dionosaurs, dragons, sea monsters and extra-terrestrails in?
[19:27] [BK__]that depends on specifically what the book said - whether it gave me a reason to believe in these things, etc.
[19:27] [BK__]how about you?
[19:28] [mikew]i wouldnt but all of them can be found in the bible http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Monsters_in_the_Bible
[19:28] [BK__]why wouldn't you?
[19:28] [mikew]because those things are silly
07[19:28] [@annafk]mikew, how old are you?
[19:28] [BK__]is that a statement of fact, or just an opinion?
[19:28] [mikew]none of your busuiness
[19:29] [mikew]it is a fact that all of those things are in the bible, that website i linked to cites chapter and verse for each one
07[19:29] [@annafk]could you please answer, anyway?
[19:30] [mikew]why?
07[19:30] [@annafk]because I would like to know
[19:30] [BK__]I am even looking at the website, mike, so I couldn't tell whether or not what it says is correct - I just want to know why *you* wouldn't believe a book that said they are real, if that book happened to present reasons to believe they were? In other words, what is it that leads you to believe something is either true or not?
[19:31] [BK__]sorry ... I am *not* looking at the website, is what I meant to say :)
[19:31] [mikew]bury your head in the sand and not look at my sources
[19:31] [Dominus]mikew: do you believe in the dodo?
07[19:31] [@annafk]we know your sources
[19:32] [BK__]I don't have the time to read all your sources, mike. That's why I want you to present your own argument, rather than pointing to someone else's.
07[19:32] [@annafk]do you really think that you are coming here with anything new?
[19:32] [Dominus]Here's your chance, mikew. Just cite something from that website.
[19:32] [Dominus]Then back it up reasonably.
[19:32] [mikew]yes
03[19:32] * Looking up mikew user info...
[19:33] [@bluewurx]mikew: how do you know those Web sites are correct?
[19:33] [mikew] Beast With Seven Heads Take all the horror scripts from hollywood, put them in a blender and you have the Book of Revelation. It contains some pretty radical monsters such as this 10-horned, 7-headed beast: - Revelation 17:3: So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. Extra-Terrestrials 1 Peter 2:11:"Dear friend
[19:35] [BK__]what is the point, mike?
07[19:35] [@annafk]so... ?
[19:35] [Dominus]"The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird endemic to the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius. Related to pigeons and doves, it stood about a metre tall, weighing about 20 kilograms, living on fruit and nesting on the ground."
[19:35] [mikew]if there were 7 headed monsters and extra terrestrails wandering around when the bible was written why arent there today?
[19:35] [BK__]hey, it's a quote war! :)
[19:36] [Dominus]mikew: if there were dodos wandering around in the 16th century, why aren't there today?
[19:36] [@bluewurx]mikew: your quote cut off. YOu can only have so many characters per line. You cut off at 'Dear friend'
[19:36] [mikew]it said "I urge you, as aliens and strangers to this world."
[19:36] [@bluewurx]oh, brother.
[19:37] [BK__]what do you think the word "alien" means there, mike?
[19:37] [mikew]well freethoughtpedia says extraterretrial
03[19:37] * DrOakafk has joined #apologetics
03[19:37] * CStar sets mode: +o DrOakafk
[19:37] [BK__]so that's what you think it means?
[19:37] [@bluewurx]mikew: what do you think it is?
[19:37] [@bluewurx]did the author think it meant extraterrestrial?
[19:37] [mikew]freethoughtpedias explanation sounds good to me
[19:38] [BK__]because it is freethoughtpedia's explanation, or for some other reason?
07[19:38] [@annafk]there we have the depth of atheism as presented by teens
[19:38] [@bluewurx]mikew: my wife has an resident alien card. Is she an extraterrestrial?
[19:38] [mikew]well it makes sense, alien is often used to mean extraterrestrial
[19:39] [BK__]it *can* mean that, but why do you think it *must* mean that in this context?
[19:39] [mikew]and it appears that pile wrote the artcile by looking at the history and he is the guy incharge of freethoughtpedia
[19:39] [@bluewurx]mikew: answer my question please.
07[19:40] [@annafk]mikew, you no longer need to tell me your age
[19:40] [mikew]you seem to go along the lines of 'if it might be true the we will assume the bible is true'
07[19:40] [@annafk]it shows
[19:40] [@bluewurx]mikew: answer my question please.
[19:41] [BK__]mike, why do you think it *must* mean that?
[19:41] [mikew]99% of the time alien is sued to mean extraterrestrial. I am not alone in thinking this as freethoughtpedia backs me up
[19:42] [@bluewurx]99% of the time? Is that a fact?
07[19:42] -]Ops #apologetics: this is fun 4,1[Ops Only[
[19:42] [mikew]sort of
[19:42] [BK__]have you considered looking at what the word means in the original language?
[19:42] [@bluewurx] 1. gen. Belonging to another person, place, or family; strange, foreign, not of one's own.
[19:42] [BK__]there are resources to help you do that
[19:42] [@bluewurx] 2. a. esp. Of a foreign nation and allegiance.
[19:42] [mikew]im sure the person who wrote the article on freethoughtpedia did that
[19:42] [@bluewurx]mikew: stop me when we get to the right definition for you....
[19:42] [BK__]thanks, blue
[19:43] [@bluewurx] 3. a. Foreign in nature or character; belonging to something else; of foreign or other origin.
[19:43] [BK__]I don't think he did, Mike
[19:43] [@bluewurx] 4. Of a nature or character differing from (of obs.), far removed from, inconsistent with.
[19:43] [BK__]But there is one way to find out, right?
[19:43] [@bluewurx] 5. Of a nature repugnant, adverse or opposed to.
[19:43] [mikew]what a cop out...o well, some people use the word to mean this.
[19:43] [@bluewurx]btw, I'm quoting the OED, which is considered *the* pre-eminent dictionary of the English language.
[19:43] [BK__]Mike, the original Greek word is "pä'-roi-kos"
03[19:44] * annLittle has joined #apologetics
[19:44] [BK__]http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3941&t=kjv
[19:44] [BK__]this is the actual word used in 1 Pet 2:11
[19:45] [mikew]this is just a typical christian response. lets put it like this, freethoughtpedia is written by atheists whereas you are biased and trying to fudge it so that it fits your beliefs
[19:45] [@bluewurx]mikew: I think we have just shown you how fallacious that 'extraterrestrial' argument is. When you first encountered it, did you ask what the opposing view was?
[19:45] [BK__]I wish this were a "typical" Christian response, actually. But no, this is a response that includes looking at the original language the verse was written in.
07[19:46] [@annafk]obviously Peter meant StarTrek characters :)
[19:46] [@bluewurx]we're all just Klingons!
[19:46] [mikew]You obviously dont know what yo are talking about and i have wiped the floor with you
[19:46] [mikew]bye
02[19:47] * mikew has quit IRC (CGI:IRC)
Monday, June 02, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
The Search for Absolutes in a Pluralistic Society
The Search for Absolutes in a Pluralistic Society (1 of 4) - Listen Now
You’ve probably heard people say “Well, that’s true for you but not for me” when referring to some opinion or religious belief on which they disagree. Are there any “truths” that can be considered universal or absolute?
The Search for Absolutes in a Pluralistic Society (2 of 4) - Listen Now
Absolute truth is under attack – and the search to find it has become more and more difficult. Join us today as Ravi shares part two of his message and looks at the rise of secularism and its negative effect on absolutes.
The Search for Absolutes in a Pluralistic Society (3 of 4) - Listen Now
For the last few days Ravi has looked at the progress of secularization against the concept of absolute truth. Today he’ll begin a look at the second enemy Truth has in our culture.
The Search for Absolutes in a Pluralistic Society (4 of 4) - Listen Now
Ravi Zacharias concludes his powerful message, “The Search for Absolutes in a Pluralistic Society,” with a look at the final philosophy opposing the very concept of truth.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Futile efforts of arrogant men
In light of the latest developments in Californian legislature the words from the Bible describing human futile efforts and God's laughter at these become even more significant.
Our wonderfully independent societies of the West have rejected His authority. People who take pride in calling themselves enlightened, spiritual, tolerant and multicultural, erased their Creator from their lives. They usurped the complete sovereignty over their lives and embraced the fake freedom of will. Blindness is ruling the world. Blindness and amnesia, historical ignorance, humanistic arrogance, deafness to the loud and clear Word of God. Christ, when on Earth, was healing the blind and the deaf. opening their eyes and ears to the truth of God. Today's society chose to close their eyes and ears to this truth, deeming their own wisdom higher and better.
The gate to hell stands wide open. In fact, it is invisible and well-hidden under the pretences of tolerance, beauty of feelings, human rights to performing every possible immorality in the name of self-fullfillment, and the hell's inside is painted in nice shiny colors, with pink hallway these days. The prettier it is made, the more dangerous it gets. The more lure it presents, the less substance it contains. The sweeter smell, the more bitter aftertaste.
We stand and watch this, and the only hope we have is God's Providence. We know He is using it for good, though the people are using it for evil. This does not let us off the hook, so we have to stand and preach the Biblical truths and the Gospel, believing that even among those thousands of happy sinners celebrating in California there are a few who will repent and believe, and who will serve Christ.
Many good things have come out of the bad circumstances. Many wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ used to be horrible sinners before God stretched His Grace over them and softened their hearts. This is not going to be a different outcome. Everything is pointing to a great shift, probably initiated by a total depravation and sin, but out of these horrors a revival will come, when people realize that their own efforts proved futile, stupid and contradictory to their goals.
No society thrives and develops in a moral decline. No society grows when anything goes. No society likes zero boundaries in community law. We are not better, wiser and richer than the societies of old, the ones that perished when degradation took over their good intentions. In fact, we are worse, because in spite of their examples we still make their mistakes and are proud of them.
The awakening will hurt. It will probably be the awakening into Islam, into physical and spiritual enslavement of the liberal, post-modern man, who will go into it blind and deaf, proud of his steps, not aware of the consequences. He will wake up. Pain does it to you.
Dear Lord, Our Saviour, keep us safe in our trusting You and following You. Make our days fruitful, open the hearts of many, wipe the tears of many, give them Your Salvation and show them the beauty of Your Cross. In Your precious Name I pray, Amen.
Our wonderfully independent societies of the West have rejected His authority. People who take pride in calling themselves enlightened, spiritual, tolerant and multicultural, erased their Creator from their lives. They usurped the complete sovereignty over their lives and embraced the fake freedom of will. Blindness is ruling the world. Blindness and amnesia, historical ignorance, humanistic arrogance, deafness to the loud and clear Word of God. Christ, when on Earth, was healing the blind and the deaf. opening their eyes and ears to the truth of God. Today's society chose to close their eyes and ears to this truth, deeming their own wisdom higher and better.
The gate to hell stands wide open. In fact, it is invisible and well-hidden under the pretences of tolerance, beauty of feelings, human rights to performing every possible immorality in the name of self-fullfillment, and the hell's inside is painted in nice shiny colors, with pink hallway these days. The prettier it is made, the more dangerous it gets. The more lure it presents, the less substance it contains. The sweeter smell, the more bitter aftertaste.
We stand and watch this, and the only hope we have is God's Providence. We know He is using it for good, though the people are using it for evil. This does not let us off the hook, so we have to stand and preach the Biblical truths and the Gospel, believing that even among those thousands of happy sinners celebrating in California there are a few who will repent and believe, and who will serve Christ.
Many good things have come out of the bad circumstances. Many wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ used to be horrible sinners before God stretched His Grace over them and softened their hearts. This is not going to be a different outcome. Everything is pointing to a great shift, probably initiated by a total depravation and sin, but out of these horrors a revival will come, when people realize that their own efforts proved futile, stupid and contradictory to their goals.
No society thrives and develops in a moral decline. No society grows when anything goes. No society likes zero boundaries in community law. We are not better, wiser and richer than the societies of old, the ones that perished when degradation took over their good intentions. In fact, we are worse, because in spite of their examples we still make their mistakes and are proud of them.
The awakening will hurt. It will probably be the awakening into Islam, into physical and spiritual enslavement of the liberal, post-modern man, who will go into it blind and deaf, proud of his steps, not aware of the consequences. He will wake up. Pain does it to you.
Dear Lord, Our Saviour, keep us safe in our trusting You and following You. Make our days fruitful, open the hearts of many, wipe the tears of many, give them Your Salvation and show them the beauty of Your Cross. In Your precious Name I pray, Amen.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Silencing Christians
SilencingChristians.com will webcast and The Inspiration Networks will broadcast Speechless...Silencing the Christians. Sign up to be reminded to watch each episode and take action. Americans are at greater risk of losing their basic freedoms today than ever before in the history of this nation. Political correctness and the voice of the liberal minority are undermining the morals and values of mainstream America.
Renowned author and commentator Janet Parshall takes you on a journey across the country to meet citizens who have been arrested for speaking out at a public rally, students who are being forced to attend classes that require them to recite verses from the Koran and to stage their own jihad and activists pushing social tolerance to such an extreme that the Bible itself is being labeled “hate speech.”
Follow these cases and learn how you can take action to stop the erosion of your personal freedoms on this episode of Speechless ... Silencing the Christians.
Renowned author and commentator Janet Parshall takes you on a journey across the country to meet citizens who have been arrested for speaking out at a public rally, students who are being forced to attend classes that require them to recite verses from the Koran and to stage their own jihad and activists pushing social tolerance to such an extreme that the Bible itself is being labeled “hate speech.”
Follow these cases and learn how you can take action to stop the erosion of your personal freedoms on this episode of Speechless ... Silencing the Christians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)