March 17, 2012

Societal Devolution Accelerates

"Nope, birth is also arbitrary, and it has not been even a cultural universal that newborns are regarded as fully human. I’ve had a few. They weren’t."
—P.Z. Myers
Buona sera. I have known for quite a while that people want more and more. More money, more mattress dancing, more booze, more drugs, more power, more prestige, more food — more pleasure in general. Further, I believe that the physical desires have emotional and spiritual attachments that also interact with the spiritual realm. Take a look at this familiar passage:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,  (Romans 1:18-22, RSV)
"Well, sure, Uncle Bob, we know that. Evidence for creation is all around, so the atheist is lying to himself when he says that he "lacks belief" or "lacks evidence" for the existence of God. You keep telling us."
There is something more that I want you to see. Keep going:
Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. (Romans 1:22-25, RSV)
Notice that "God gave them up".

Albert Barnes said this:
He abandoned them, or he ceased to restrain them, and suffered them to act out their sentiments, and to manifest them in their life. This does not imply, that he exerted any positive influence in inducing them to sin, any more than it would if we should seek, by argument and entreaty, to restrain a headstrong youth, and when neither would prevail, should leave him to act out his propensities. and to go as he chose to ruin. It is implied in this,
(1)    That the tendency of man was to these sins;
(2)    That the tendency of idolatry was to promote them; and,
(3)    That all that was needful, in order that people should commit them, was for God to leave him to follow the devices and desires of his own heart; compare Psalm 81:12; 2 Thess 2:10, 2 Thess 2:12.
So, in effect, God says, "Have it your way, let your own nature come to the fore", capice?
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. (Romans 1:26-32, RSV)
Lusts become consuming and are the masters instead of the objects of desire. More than that, I believe that the ability to think is worn away. Some people call this the "noetic effect of sin". I have seen it in action. Atheists who hate God and his people so much will be so consumed by their hatred and rage that they cannot follow basic logic (documented elsewhere on this Weblog). Further, misotheists do not "police their own", but rather, applaud angry misuses of logic:

"...they not only do them but approve those who practice them".
By the way, Skippy, compare the incomes of Dawkins, Myers, Harris and the like to the creationists.
Oh, and you spelled your hero's name wrong.

One place that the devolution of the misotheistic evolutionist mind is readily apparent is in the area of abortion. Social Darwinism becomes utilitarian. God's Word brings light (Psalm 119.130). God's people are standing in the way of depravity running even more rampant than it does now.
We have often provided evidence for the full humanity of the unborn child right from conception (i.e. fertilization of egg by sperm). And while still in the womb, children develop the ability to feel pain and even to plan their future, and are considered to be patients. Individual life is a continuum from conception to natural death. Birth changes nothing intrinsically about the nature of that life, just location and mode of respiration (from placenta to lungs).
This is one vital matter on which to decide the abortion issue, because murder applies only to human victims, not to the removal of a tumor or wart. The evidence for the humanity of the unborn has thus convinced many that abortion is wrong, since they disapprove of murder. For the same reason, most pro-abortion politicians don’t even dare to admit that the baby is human; they lie about it being a ‘blob of cells’, or obfuscate about it with feigned ignorance about the nature of the unborn, and quips that the question of where life begins is ‘above my pay grade.’ Never mind that the onus of proof is on the pro-abortionists to show that it’s not human life. If we didn’t know whether a body was live or dead, we would never bury it—we would give the benefit of the doubt to life.
Read the rest of the devolved mindset of Myers and others in the rest of "Abortion ‘after birth’? Medical ‘ethicists’ promote infanticide", here.


March 14, 2012

Making Stuff Readable

Buon giorno. It's time for Uncle Bob to dazzle you with his profound wisdom and intellect.

Instead, I want to keep things light but still edjamakate you on something useful.

There is a site called "Readability" (who does not know that I exist, let alone that I am writing about them). Either they became ambitious over the past couple of years, or I just plain missed what they were doing. Originally, I knew about their bookmarklet where you could convert a Web page (especially a Weblog page) into something less cluttered and more, well, readable, on your browser.

But they do much more than that, even when you click on the bookmarklet. Not only can you adjust the colors to make the thing easier on your eyes, but there are options to "Send to Kindle" as well as "Read Later", among others.

Readability will let you sign up for free or paid accounts, and you can keep track of your reading material in one place using the e-mail feature or "Read Later" button. Naturally, I like the "Send to Kindle" button. Unfortunately, it failed occasionally by cutting off part of the requested article, and it did not render some items as well as some of the "Send this thing to the Kindle" add-ons that I discussed in this article. (To be fair, none of them render everything perfectly. "SendtoReader" is the most consistent, but "Kindle It" does very well, too, except for certain sites. But the other two never cut off articles on me.) In the screen shot below (which did not capture my pointer), you can see that your saved articles can be shared to the big social media outlets as well, and you can e-mail articles from right there, using the e-mail address that you used when you signed up.

 
I don't see the need for all of the ways they provide for you to send an article to your list. But so what? You might find something that I don't need to be indispensable, capice? So, tinker with it and find out what you like. Even though I don't feel that I can rely on Readability's "Send to my Kindle" function, this service does have several things going for it and is worth checking out.

March 12, 2012

Atheist Misrepresentation

Buon giorno. Recently, I had yet another encounter with a non-thinking atheist who defended illogic with more illogic ("It's not a genetic fallacy if it's true", which was not only laughable, but begs the question). Further, he portrayed atheists as noble people who just happen to believe differently and do not bother anyone. I've got some bad news for you, Sunshine, that's a lie. If it was simply a matter of intellect, they would most likely be confident in their worldview and not feel the need to troll, attack and misrepresent Christianity, capice? Are they just excited about their upcoming atheist holiday (April 1?) I doubt it. This nonsense is ongoing.

New Scientist left the science behind and went on an anti-Christian and anti-creationist jihad. The following article is part of a series of refutations of their attacks. This is typical of people who rely on quote mining, taking out of context (including historical, cultural and linguistic), relying on misotheist sites like "I hate God and I'll do anything to justify it and you can copy-n-paste my bad thinking instead of thinking for yourself dot com", and doing basic misrepresentation of the Bible.
Creationist myths
Evolution must be wrong because the Bible is inerrant
This argument is undermined by the hundreds of errors and inaccuracies and contradictions found in Bible. It is anything but ‘inerrant’.
A few creationists are honest enough to admit that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is irrelevant as far as they are concerned: as it contradicts the ‘Word of God’, it simply has to be wrong. Some Christians regard the text of the Bible as literally true or, to use their term, as ‘inerrant’. If people reject evolution on this basis, it is only fair to ask whether this belief stands up.
The New Scientist article opens with a poorly-supported summary, two generalised statements (few? some?—How many? Which ones?), and a broad-brushed stroke which disparages the ‘remaining’ creationists, implying by extension a majority of creationists are dishonest.
It continues in apparent confusion, where the author appears to be unable to differentiate between inerrancy of Scripture and ‘literal truth’, a subject we covered extensively in Should Genesis be taken literally? (1993) and Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?
Whichever translation of the Bible you look at it is not hard to find errors. The texts are full of internal contradictions as well as historical and scientific inaccuracies.
With this next statement, we receive our first clues, indicating why the author is confused regarding Biblical accuracy. Firstly, the statement regarding ‘translation of the Bible’ ignores the fact that the most prevalent understanding of inerrancy relates not to English translations, but to the original, inspired manuscripts—see, for example, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with exposition. Secondly, the author is using and supporting Wikipedia as respectable and factual source material; certainly New Scientist must realise synthesis is only as good as the source material it uses.
You can read the rest of this discussion of their transparent, simplistic attacks at "Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions, Mangling misotheists’ ignorant attacks on the Bible" here.

Subscribe in a reader