March 29, 2013

"What I have written, I have written"

Pilate also had a sign lettered and put on the cross. The inscription was: JESUS THE NAZARENE THE KING OF THE JEWS. Many of the Jews read this sign, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Don’t write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that He said, ‘I am the King of the Jews.’ ” Pilate replied, “What I have written, I have written.”
John 19:19-22, HCSB

All four Gospel accounts mention the sign on the cross. All four accounts differ a little bit. This seems puzzling when approached on a superficial level. In reality, it is not a difficulty at all.
Why do all four Gospels contain different versions?
Does this indicate error?

By no means. Both Luke and John tell us that the inscription on the Cross of Jesus was written in three languages, Greek, Latin and Hebrew. It is therefore a reasonable assumption that three of the Gospel writers each chose to quote a different language, and that one writer chose to quote the words common to the other three.
You can read "Inscriptions on the Cross", here.

March 27, 2013

Tiny Video: An Evolutionist Easter Dance


Starring Richard Dawkins, Sam "Ben Stiller" Harris, Charles Darwin, and everybody's hero, Piltodown Superman!

March 24, 2013

Disproving Resurrection "Explanations"

Crucifixion Paolo Vernonese 1580

From the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, people have been attempting to make excuses to explain away this greatly attested fact of history. Some have been pathetically desperate to say that he never existed, but they have to find a minority of crackpot "historians" to support this conjecture. Others have come up with silly ideas, such as, "His disciples sole his body while we were sleeping" (Matt. 28.13). So tell me, how do you know what happened while you were sleeping, Buttercup?

Using basic logic, the false explanations of the absence of his body do not withstand scrutiny.
Definitions
Sir Karl Popper, the late philosopher of science, devised a falsification criterion that can be used to disprove theories. It is derived from the modus tollens rule of inference, which is of one of these two forms:

Form 1
1) p⇒q
2) ¬q
∴ p

Form 2
1) p⇒¬q
2) q
∴ p

The falsification criterion devised by Karl Popper is an example of form 2 of the modus tollens. It is as follows:
1) Theory T predicts that O will not be observed.
2) O is observed.
∴ T is false.

Examples
Here are a couple examples that are used by the police to either prove or disprove one's innocence in a crime:

Proving Innocence
1) If suspect S is guilty of a murder, then he will not have an alibi for the time of the murder.
2) S has an alibi for the time of the murder.
∴ S is not guilty of the murder.

Proving Guilt
1) If person P was not involved in a crime, then he will not know any details that were not released to the public.
2) P knows a detail that was not released to the public.
∴ P was involved in the crime.

Disproving Resurrection Alternatives
For the last 2000 years, ever since Christianity began, anti-Christians have been looking for ways to explain away the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus by various means. It is important for us to be able to refute these alternative theories, as Christianity stands completely on the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:14-18). Thankfully, as I will demonstrate, the alternative hypotheses that have been proposed can be disproved easily using the Popperian criterion. If you need a refresher on all the details of the Betrayal, Arrest, Trial, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, they can be found in Matthew 26-28, Mark 14-16, Luke 22-24, and John 18-21.
It is eminently logical for you to continue reading "Using Popper's Falsfication Method to Disprove Resurrection Alternatives".

March 23, 2013

Atheism, Materialism, Relativism and Reason


We have seen in numerous posts that atheism is an incoherent, irrational, unreasonable and self-defeating worldview (as is its confused, timid kid brother, agnosticism). Evolution is a cornerstone of this belief system, since both rely on materialism, a self-affirming and intellectually suffocating idea that starts and ends with the physical universe. Atheism and evolutionism also rely on viciously circular reasoning. To admit that there really is a Creator would destroy atheism instantly, because that would imply that we need to find out what the Creator has to say to us.

Further, atheism relies on relativism, a convenient means of excusing thoughtlessness and convenience-based "morality". Relativism is an absurd philosophy.
"Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration... The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths." -Wikipedia.org
____________________________

Many atheists claim that truth is relative, meaning they reject objective and absolute truth.

And in fact, to hold this position is consistent with the atheistic worldview.

...But is relativism a reasonable worldview?

Absolutely not.

"Here Comes The Storm..."

A worldview without real truth is a house built on the sand!

Observe the mental chaos that ensues when we critically examine atheistic relativism...

1. If relative truth is true, then it is false; to call it true is to appeal to absolute/universal truth.

Note: As we shall see, objective/absolute truth is true, and MUST be true...

2. The person that claims no truth denies the truth of their claim.

Note: A person who claims "there is no truth" is making a truth claim - which can't be true if truth doesn't exist!

3. The person that claims no truth can be certain of nothing.

Note: How can one hold certainty, if nothing is true?

4. The person that is certain of nothing isn't certain of it.

Note: This is an absurdity of a worldview without certainty.

5. The person that claims no truth denies the law of non contradiction, as the law of non contradiction states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time and in the same way.

Note: The human mind is inherently bound by non contradictory thought processes. Have you ever tried to imagine a "square circle"? Your mind will flip from square to circle, but never to both at once. And truth is foundational to this logical thought process.
If you're ready to pursue the rest of this philosophical exercise and see more of why we say that atheism is irrational, you can read the rest of "Atheism: A House Built On Sand".

March 16, 2013

Atheists, Hitler and the No True Scotsman Fallacy

It is truly baffling to me when atheists want to "give" Hitler to Christianity. And they do it with gleeful self-humiliation.

"Why is it self-humiliation, Cowboy Bob?"

Most atheists that I have encountered, especially on the Internet, fallaciously declare themselves to be the intellectual elite, simply by virtue of being atheists. (Ridiculous, I know.) Yet these bastions of enlightenment commit logical fallacies freely and frequently. They also do not know how to correctly identify fallacies. Hitler supposedly claimed to be a Christian (but his "Christianness" is easily refuted). When a Christian says, "Hitler was not a real Christian", the misotheist will scream, "AHA! The 'No True Scotsman Fallacy'". Except that he's dead wrong, and has embarrassed himself by incorrectly attempting to use a logical principle.

Remember, don't fear the atheist. They have a great deal of bravado, but even a cursory knowledge of logical fallacies will show that there is nothing behind their bold talk.


But back to what I was saying before: Atheopaths want to "give" Hitler to us. What do they hope to gain? Just like their constant but pointless attempts to demonize Christians, there is no benefit to a discussion. It does not prove anything. Oh, sure, I know some really nutty atheopaths who are so stupidified by hate and demonic influence, their logic goes like this: "You are a bad Christian, even though I hate all of you. So was Hitler. Therefore, Christianity is false. There is no God!" Yeah, pathetic, innit?

So anyway, I wanted to share this video illustrating the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You, too, can see how people who use it are only embarrassing themselves with their lack of knowledge.

March 3, 2013

Another Liar for Darwin

Took down the last one and reworked it. Sorry for the inconvenience. At least, it's short.

People are so consumed by hate, they're stupidified.

Motto: "Where people mercifully free of the ravages of thought
gather for support and group hugs".

First, I want you to see this annotated bit (click to enlarge) from the creationist-hating group at the British Centre for Scientism and Evolutionism:

Peter Henderson, liar for Darwin


Now, a screen shot of the actual post that was disingenuously, incompletely cited:

The Question Evolution Project screen shot

Once again, I must remind my friends, acquaintances, agents and associates that I don't want to know about this stuff. Even though I did like showing their lack of fact checking and outright dishonesty.

Subscribe in a reader