Wednesday, June 3, 2015

It Sure Would Help Atheists To READ The Bible First....


....BEFORE making fools of themselves on the internet. Exhibit A:


This delightful bit of snark comes from a website called Godless Engineering. I guess this was supposed to make some kind of point about science vs. the Bible.

Unfortunately, the creator of this little graphic not only ignored the context, but the actual wording of this story from the Genesis.

If you look at the entire passage beginning at verse 25, you get the whole story. In a nutshell, Jacob made a deal with his brother Laban to take his spotty, speckly, and black colored sheep and goats and leave behind the white, "perfect" sheep and goats, which were more valuable. These were a payment to Jacob for tending and increasing Laban's flocks, which helped Laban become wealthy.

But Laban tried to shaft his brother by taking all the "imperfect" animals and sending them off with his sons.

Jacob said nothing. He took Laban's animals and cared for them. The story goes that Jacob cut hardwood sticks and peeled the bark off of them. He then set the sticks in front of the animals at the watering holes and the animals bred as they drank. The animals produced stripey, spotty and black offspring, which Jacob kept as his part of the deal. The sheep that bred next to the sticks were more robust. Laban's herds were then bred without the sticks being planted, and they were fewer and weaker as a result.

That's quite a bit different than the cute little picture above, which claims that Jacob carved stripes and spots into a tree and that explains color change in animals.

First of all, it was already established that stripes and spots existed in the sheep and goats. There is also nothing in the story that suggests this was any kind of adaptation which spontaneously emerged from white animals.

This is just another silly straw-man attempt to ridicule the Bible by cherry-picking a couple of verses. The attempt is made even funnier by the misquote from Genesis, leading me to wonder if the author bothered to read it at all. It also shows that most atheists, despite their claims, probably never read the Bible either, so this glaring error wouldn't be obvious to the ignorant. 

How can one be expected to understand Genesis when they can't even spell it right? Just look at the bottom right corner of the graphic.

'Nuff said.


Monday, June 1, 2015

More Oxymoronic Atheist "Humor"

Did some Atheist admit to hearing things from "imaginary persons"?

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Some Interesting Arguments On The Existence Of God

I got this via email a while back from a believer named Perry Marshall. From a pure logical standpoint, I'm not sure Mr. Marshall has proven God exists (as his argument does leave open the possibility that extraterrestrial aliens could be involved), but he brings up a lot of points that Atheists dogmatically refuse to discuss, let alone refute.

I'll excerpt the email and post the key points. Perry Marshall wrote:

"In June 2005 I delivered my lecture "If you can read this I can prove God exists" and posted it on my website."

"A few months after I posted my talk, a gentleman named Rob sent me an email that said, "I see right through your sophistry and pseudoscience..." and an intense discussion began."


Marshall's argument is this:

1. The pattern in DNA is a code (by definition)

2. All codes we know the origin of are designed (by observation)

Therefore we can explore five possible conclusions:

a) Humans designed DNA
b) Aliens designed DNA
c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.


Marshall then elaborates:

(a) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans.
(b)could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. 
(c) may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck.
(d) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is:
(e) a theological one.

Therefore:

3. To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer.


While Marshall's conclusion is debatable, it does present certain irrefutable points.

Technically, DNA is not jut a code, but it contains a combination of coding genes and proteins. Recently, scientists have discovered new coding sequences within DNA that only increase the complexity of how it works.While Marshall may not be able to prove that it's impossible to generate DNA code naturally, the newest findings suggest that the mathematical odds against DNA occurring naturally increase as newer complexities are discovered, or in a more raw sense, as we learn more about DNA.

The more we learn, the harder Naturalism becomes to justify. At least, to those who attempt to keep an open mind. Unfortunately, Atheism's proponents continue to pull these shenanigans, as Marshall pointed out:

"If you spend any time on Infidels, you'll see - it's not like those guys are real big on manners. The anger and hostility is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The Infidels website is 6,000 pages of rage and vitriol."

Perry Marshall's commentaries can be found at:

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/
 

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Jesus-Never-Existed Dot Com: Still Out There...

...and still a steaming pile of pseudo intellectual dung.

The Webmasters of this site are still roping the ignorant into believing the site's spurious outdated claims.

This is not surprising, considering the comical condescending commentary that drips from every article on this site. The site founder, Kenneth Humphries, clearly has a hatred for Judeo-Christianity and he seems bent on belittling these faiths every chance he gets.

Even sadder still: it appears that while archaeological discoveries going on TO THIS DAY are shedding new light on the history contained within the Bible, the people behind jesusneverexisted still continue to make claims that have been debunked by scholars who actually know what they're talking about. On top of that, not all these scholars are believers in God.

For example:

The Humpreys site still claims that there were no enslaved Canaanite peoples in Egypt, despite the evidence from a massive archaeological dig in the area of Egypt that the Bible referred to as Goshen, or the Land of Rameses. These digs have been going on for 30 years. Update, guys, update!

Here's a sample of the content right from the header page of jesusneverexisted.

Jesus threatens torture to his unforgiving slaves


"The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves … The lord released a slave and forgave his debt.
But that same slave threw his fellow slave into prison. In anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt.
So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart."
– Matthew 18.23-35


So, from a simple story, we're supposed to assume Jesus endorses torture. Let's recap:

A king freed a BOND-SLAVE and released him from a huge debt.

We're supposed to ignore that fact the slave shafted one of his fellows for a fraction of what he was forgiven. So the King gave this ungrateful jerk what he was asking for. Outrageous.

On top that, it's a PARABLE. Google "parable", guys.

I could go on for hours.

The only thing sadder is that I still get links to this site dropped in my comments box as if I've never seen it and somehow it will torch my faith.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight........


Monday, April 20, 2015

Every Dumb Village Atheist Argument in 1 Vlog Post

Check this kid out. It brings a new meaning to LULZ:



This pretty much sums up every dumb, cartoonish argument Village Atheism has to offer against Christianity.

Are Atheists really this dumb?

I'd love to see this guy try to have a serious argument about why this has any bearing on the existence of God.

That would be hilarious.



Sunday, April 19, 2015

Atheism IS A Belief, Simply Explained

Atheists are insistent that Atheism is non-belief or non-faith. Philosophically, this is illogical.

For the statement "God exists" (GE) to be true, "God doesn't exist" (GE-not) would be the opposite and untrue.

For GE to be not true, GE-not would have to be true. That makes GE-not a positive assertion, subject to the same burden of proof as GE.

Atheists counter with "You can't prove a negative. That's illogical." DING! That's the very atheistic definition of "faith"... believing in things you can't prove.

The Atheist will counter, "but belief in non-existence is the 'default position'".

Wrong.

Agnosticism or ignorance is. Atheism is a stand which claims the polar opposite, theism, is false.

Atheism is a positive truth claim, and not an end in itself.

It is all explained quite simply in four essays by a philosopher. Check it out:

http://philosophyotb.com/w/why-atheism-is-illogical-part-one-atheism-is-a-belief-and-a-truth-claim

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Revelations From A "Rationalist"

I was reading a hit piece against Bill O'Reilly and Christianity on the Salon.com blog. It was the typical smear piece bashing O'Reilly, with a bit of Ann Coulter thrown in, and which took a moment to link a tired old study from 2012  to paint all Fox News viewers as ignorant.

But there closing paragraphs from the author, Jeffrey Tayler, are worth noting as they exemplify the snark and condescension of the Atheist Left:

"The one thing both O’Reilly and Coulter do get right is that there is a war going on, but it’s not between hapless Christians and “vicious” atheists. It is between rationalists who seek to live in ways they reason to be best, and the faithful cleaving to fatuous fables and Paleolithic preachments inscribed in ancient books that should be pulped, or at best preserved as exhibits for future students majoring in anthropology, with minors in mental derangement."

So now we have Atheist relabeling themselves as "rationalists", suggesting that believers are irrationalists.

Ironically, the philosophical definition of a "rationalist" is one who believes that truth is a priori as well as empirically understood. Rationalists often argue in favor of the existence of God.

Sadly this self-proclaimed "rationalist" suggests "pulping" religious books, after his criticism of Christians for similar acts in the past:

"Few need reminding that the Vatican formalized the suppression of free speech with its infamous Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books), which included the works of the Enlightenment’s key luminaries and many other intellectual giants, and which was abolished only in 1966."

The difference here is that the Vatican finally recanted its position. If there were to be a public burning of Bibles, I get the feeling Mr. Rationalist would show up, roast marshmallows, and pass out s'mores.

He finished with this:

"O’Reilly and Coulter, we who care about doing all we can to make this life better for humanity will continue to speak up against the unreason you propagate.

The gloves are now off."

Mr. Tayler, if you care about making your world a better place for humanity, might I suggest you get off your bottom, go to a 3rd World country, and help dig a well so that the locals can have clean, infection-free water. There you will be joined by individuals who were motivated by "fatuous fables and Paleolithic preachments inscribed in ancient books that should be pulped". I'm sure those missionaries will be more than happy to talk with a "rationalist" like you about the "mental derangement" that convinced them to give up a normal life and sacrifice themselves to a worthy cause.

The gloves are off? Big deal. Jesus showed us how to deal with people that slap your face.

Slap away.
.