February 11, 2012

More About the Blatant Dishonesty of the "I Lack Belief" Assertion

Buon giorno. When atheists redefine the established definition of the word "atheist" ("No, we didn't!") into the Dawkinsesque, "I lack belief in God or gods", they are being dishonest. That's right, I said it! The ploy is to say, "You believe in God. I lack belief, so I have nothing to prove. So, you prove it, and I'll just sit here in my lack of belief". Ridiculous. They are making a truth claim that "There is no God". They equivocate God with the Tooth Fairy, but there are no converts to Tooth Fairyism, no philosophers, nobody writing books about how the Tooth Fairy changed their lives. Thinking people should not fall for that insulting, smug nonsense, capice?

So, what about the guy who says, "I lack belief in the September 11 terrorist attacks, and I lack belief that the Holocaust happened"? Do you just say, "Oh, since you lack belief, you have nothing to prove"? Like the atheist, they are making a serious truth claim and need to give evidence for it. (For more on that, click here and go to the 33 minute mark). Another post on this topic can be found here.

Here is more about the ridiculous claims of atheists, their "lack of belief" and their logical fallacies:

Look, if “atheism” is just the lack of belief in God, then “religion” is the lack of non-belief in God. Being “religious” doesn’t mean you are poisonous or against reason or anything else. It simply means that you don’t non-believe in God.
Ridiculous? Of course. But if the New Atheists can lump all “religion” into one blobulous category and treat it all as if it were one thing, why can’t we do that with atheism?
Still ridiculous? Of course. At least partially so. The tu quoque form of argument is fallacious in most circumstances, except when it’s used to show the absurdity of the other’s position. I could use it that way to show how absurd it is to treat “religion” as the same thing in all its manifestations everywhere, but there’s no need for that. It’s idiotic enough on the face of it, without needing arguments in Latin and with italic font.

February 9, 2012

Creation: Science and Theology

Also posted at "A Soldier for Jesus" and at "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman".

Buon giorno. This is a different kind of article for me, because it was a new experience. I pestered Chris Date to let me be on his "Theopologetics" podcast to talk about creation science. He was interested, and said he had someone else in mind so that all three of us could do the podcast. This would be great in the lead-up to "Question Evolution Day".

It was scheduled several weeks away. We got the outline of questions he was going to ask, and shared it online to create our responses. Finally, the evening of February 7, 2012 arrived. This was my first conference call on Skype, and only about the fifth time I've used it at all, so I was a bit awkward with it.

Chris is experienced not only with technological things, but able to develop the interview questions to bring out the strengths of his guests. He is also serious about theology itself, and takes the Bible very seriously (I recall asking him if he tends to over-think some things), so I knew we were in good hands.

After e-mail communications and sharing the outline online, I finally "met" Nathan Schumaker. I quickly learned that he takes his subject and studies seriously as well, and is quite knowledgeable. Some of what he presented, I had known from previous years (pretty sure I was the oldest guy there), but he also taught me a few things.

Chris projected a session time of two hours. Wrong-o! Three and a half hours. It was time well spent, however.

Frankly (mind if I call you Frank?), I wasn't all that thrilled with my part of the discussion. Chris was able to edit out things like connection drop-outs and restarts, but also those annoying times when I was talking and the dry air in this place got to my throat; I had to mute Skype, cough, take a swallow of water and come back. Those kinds of things are to be expected. I think my main problem was that I was trying to do too much, as if I'd never have another podcast experience or something. Since I had time to prepare the extensive notes, I kept going back and adding golden thought nuggets. Some of those were repetitious. Also, since I had so much that I thought was oh-so-vital to say, I did some tangential things. And I got lost in the notes on occasion.

When I gave live talks in churches, I did reasonably well, but this was different. Still, I don't give myself failing grades. This was a learning experience, capice? I expect to do better next time, whenever that is.

Edit: Forgot to mention that I kiddingly wrote to Chris, "Hope you took all my stupid stuff out!" He kidded back, "Nope, I left your stupid stuff in :-)".

"So, what do we have, Cowboy Bob?"

We have a podcast in three parts that was recorded in one evening. It has science for creation, including the age of the Earth and the days of Genesis (Nathan Schumacher will give you quite a bit to ponder). Also, theology and a defense for the days of Genesis. I was able to spend some time discussing logical fallacies, as well as the way people use them outright to lie.

At this writing, only the first part is available for download or listening on the site.

Part 1 is here.
Part 2 is here.
Part 3 is here.

February 6, 2012

Persecution of Christians is Not Always Successful

"Tolerance is a two-way street."

happens when a graduate-level student of counseling is a Christian and does not want to deal with homosexual issues? In accordance with guidelines, she refers to another counselor. How does the college respond to her actions that were "by the book"? Tell her to undergo remediation to see the error of her ways or be dismissed.

Wow, the Gaystapo is intimidating to the weak-willed!

But this time, it looks like justice, truth and even common sense can prevail. Some of us stand up for values.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a trial at the district level for a graduate level counseling student who was dismissed from her program for asking that a client with “gay” issues be referred to another counselor because as a Christian she could not affirm that lifestyle choice.
Officials at Eastern Michigan University took that action against Julea Ward, a student approaching the end of her degree program with a 3.91 grade point average, even though, as the appeals judges noted, the school’s own practices in fact permitted such referrals.
You can read the rest of "University Blasted for Intolerance of Christianity" here.

Subscribe in a reader