Stormbringer's Thunder

This nonsense came at me out of the blue, but helps illustrate the topic. Buon giorno. When discussing science, evolution and faith, people have some very strange ideas about definitions. I have encountered some interesting re-defintions (including the astonishing claim that if someone is not an evolutionary biologist, he or she is not a scientist!), misunderstandings of definitions (deliberate, I suspect, for purposes of personal attacks), equivocation (evolution is science, from people who promote the thing but do not really understand it themselves) and so on. For that matter, the word "evolution" itself has several meanings. Many misunderstandings can be avoided by a couple of things: First, know the correct definition of the word, and second, clarify terms in the first place, such as "What do you mean by...?" Then there are the types who say that if you disagree with the tentative, tampered, tendentious "evidence" for evolution, you are...

Buona sera. Have you ever noticed that the people who make the most noise about "tolerance" are the least tolerant? There are two problems with their views. First, "tolerance" has been redefined. In normal use in the context of viewpoints, we can tolerate other people's opinions and values, respect their right to have them. There is no shooting, shouting, ridicule, browbeating, Internet trolling and so forth. We may discuss our differences, we may not. Now the redefinition of tolerance has the connotation that all views are valid, truthful and right. The second problem with the views of the tolerance crowd is that they will not tolerate the view that someone is right and the others are wrong. You tolerate everyone, but when I say that I am right, my views are not to be tolerated. So, their philosophy is ridiculous. Capice? The Christian viewpoint is the least tolerated, especially if we say that there is a God, there is only one God (Isaiah 45.6), Jesus is th...

I knew it wouldn't take long for atheists to milk and distort the September 11 "anniversary" (for lack of a better word) for their own confused, hateful ends. Sam "Ben Stiller" Harris may have been the first of the atheist popes to hop on the "all religion is evil" express again. He did a piece crying for "intellectual honesty" (a quality that I find sadly lacking in modern Internet atheists, especially since they have the magical ability to discredit articles without even reading them, but I digress). Surprisingly, apologist Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason says that Sam Harris is right, it is  a time for "intellectual honesty". Well, sorta...

Buon giorno.   One of the apologetics podcasts that I listen to is Greg Koukl on " Stand to Reason ". He is yet another former atheist turned apologist for the Christian faith. He  has a radio show , and gives monologues as well as receives calls from Christians, atheists and other people. A caller wanted to know how to discuss the atheists' claim that they "lack belief", and Greg shows how that claim not only misrepresents itself, but is essentially dishonest and irrational. You can hear that discussion below, or the  entire podcast for August 21, 2011 . [Edit: Also go here for a related post .]

Buon giorno. A few months ago, I saw a comment on an atheist's Weblog that astonished me in its arrogance and stupidity: Recent archaeology shows that Palestine was not even inhabited at the time of Jesus. This insipid remark reminded me of similar remarks that archaeology of the past hundred years is disproving the Bible. Ostracon from Qeiyafa. Can you dig it? That is just plain silly. Archaeology is not like other science (that is, not evolutionism) where hypotheses and theories are made, modified to fit data and even discarded when necessary. No, archaeology accumulates evidence. "New" archaeology is unlikely to "disprove" the archaeology that supports the Bible. I've been up to my old tricks, and I called Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason . When I told Melinda the call screener ("The Enforcer") that I was calling about the claim that Palestine was not inhabited at the time of Jesus, she actually laughed! Greg expressed a bit of amazement as w...

Buon giorno. Almost seven months ago, I had an exchange with Zach, an atheist, in the comments of this post . (I also exchanged comments with an obstreperous atheist who only wanted to sneer, and I gave back what I was given. Interesting contrast.) Then, I continued the discussion by giving Zach his own post , so to speak. In essence, he wanted to know when believers stop using science and start inserting God as an explanation for observations. I struggled with my explanation because sometimes it becomes difficult for me to put something that I know into coherent words that other people can understand. But I think I did reasonably well. Since then, I have learned more about the faith of atheists. Yes, faith. There are presuppositions and conditions that many atheists use: There is no God, that is a fact. No, that is a statement of faith. It also violates logic. Everything must be explained through naturalism. This "rule" is essentially based on the above ...

Edit: Tweaked for wording. Buon giorno. Part 2 of this set should be up in a week or two, when the audio becomes available. I had some nice talks on the radio with an apologist... But never mind about that now. One of the apologetics podcasts that I hear is Greg Koukl on " Stand to Reason ". He is yet another former atheist turned apologist for the Christian faith. He has a radio show , and gives monologues as well as receives calls (presumably from people who have not insulted his family online like they have done to other podcasters ). They have materials for defending the faith. Greg and his fellow apologists give lectures, have debates, write articles, are staunch pro-lifers — you know, busy. Here is a section from the podcast for April 3, 2011 . I did not want to have you wait through the fishing stories and other materials; Greg has almost three hours that he does each week, so there are less intense discussions as well. Anyway. This discussion with a caller touche...