Category Archives: Humor
Dumb Things I’ve Read Recently on the Internet
Online forums are a clearinghouse for absolute stupidity. It’s sad, but true.
Also sad but true is the fact that I don’t get to read blogs or write on this blog as much as I would like to due to the new addition to my family. So, although each of these three things warrants a post of its own describing the utter stupidity of it, I don’t have the time. So I will post a brief blub for each here and now, and that’s all I’m going to be able to do for now.
First, over at Debunking Christianity, John Loftus very often distinguishes himself as a moron. But in this post, he leaves the category of moron in the dirt and enters a category by himself.
So, Mr. Loftus contends that we should only believe what science tells us is true. Okay. Right. Well, science once taught that the atom was the smallest possible particle. Science once believed that the female was the passive receptacle for the male semen, which was comprised of fully formed embryos ready for implantation. Agent K said it the best: “1500 years ago, everyone knew the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everyone knew the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”
Science can be confident in its conclusions, but it can never have epistemical certainty. That’s the nature of the beast. Science is constantly shifting its theories to accomodate for new facts.
As a final bone of contention, Loftus says that science teaches that a virgin birth is impossible. Really? Really? Is he that dumb? Virgin births are not only possible, they happen often enough to warrant a term: Parthenogenesis.
I really meant to ignore the Rational Response Squad for the rest of my natural life, as they contribute nothing to the atheist-theist debate and really aren’t even that active anymore. But one of my nemeses from the boards, Darth Josh, posted this about me (see comment #2). Ironic, considering that most of my web hits come from Christian forums (like Theology Web) or from random Google searches. The RRS hardly sends me any traffic whatsoever. I think that was a desperate bid for attention. Sadly, I bit. Oh well.
Speaking of irony, atheist bloggers often score high on the irony meter, but in this post, Vjack blew the meter up. It’s funny to me that atheists take simple observations like speciation (which no creationist denies, despite what science bloggers might have you believe) and extrapolate it far beyond what it implies to get things like the theory of evolution while calling it “science,” but refuse to let creationists take a simple observation like creation and draw the warranted conclusion of a creator from it. To them, that’s fantasy. The universe is only evidence for the universe, but speciation is evidence for the wholly different process of biological evolution. Can’t have it both ways, guys! By your definition, speciation is only evidence for speciation. Sorry.
Because of Vjack’s commitment to naturalism, the sense of wonder that he feels for nature is centered on nature itself and he has no special feelings for God, who created nature. He is essentially worshipping the creation instead of the Creator. Fulfillment of Romans 1? I think so! What makes it ironic is that Vjack doesn’t even realize that he’s doing it. He’d deny it, of course! Because we all know that the Bible has no bearing on anyone’s life. No, no, no. No fulfilled prophecy there. Just a contrived explanation for atheists. In Vjack’s mind, it’s probably the apostle Paul demonstrating “anti-atheist bigotry,” a catch-all term that Vjack uses for any opposition to his philosophies.
Theology FAIL!
Commercialization of Easter and Christmas sicken me. But this made me laugh out loud.
The RRS is Back!
Yes, the Rational Response Squad is back in business! I just got a newsletter informing me of this, and inviting me back to their forums. And here is their first action: a Divine Denial of Service Attack!
In retaliation for the Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on the Atheist Foundation of Australia and the Global Atheist Community, Brian Sapient is calling all atheists to inundate God with all kinds of useless prayers repeatedly and for one minute beginning Sunday, November 8 at 8p.m. EST. The goal is to knock God’s divinity offline.
This may be the dumbest thing attempted by the RRS yet. They don’t even believe in the power of prayer, so why call for something like this? Not only that, but they are still selling the concept of God as a fininte creature rather than as the infinite Creator. I’m sure that, being omnipotent and omnicient, God can simultaneously listen to all the prayers he wants, sustain the universe, rub his tummy and pat his head.
I’ve taken the time to visit the forums, and sadly, it is still the same arguments sold by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris. The arguments that never got me motivated or interested enough to finish their books let alone challenge my faith enough to make me an atheist. And, as usual, the arguments haven’t been modified one iota to reflect the interaction our side had with them.
The RRS is sad. Why do I even bother?
Atheist Double Standard
My laugh for today is this comment, from a reader who identifies himself as Steve:
How in God’s name are you going to publish a book? You work in fast food and don’t have the credentials or credibility to even think about a book. It’s almost insulting to the people who have spent much time and money in their education and relevent [sic] work experience. You can’t just say “I’m going to write a book” There are prerequisites.
I have to wonder if this guy would have said the same thing to a fashion editor publishing on the history of religion (Christopher Hitchens), an evolutionary biologist publishing on philosophy (Richard Dawkins), or someone with a high school education becoming a fellow of an academic think-tank (Tom Verenna, aka Rook Hawkins).
Atheists, when they publish, are granted free license to write about any topic they so choose. As long as it serves the name of atheism or anti-theism, they are granted credibility by their audience of admirers whether they have it or not.
The site that I’m answering in my proposed book, God is Imaginary, is allegedly written by Marshall Brain, founder of HowStuffWorks.com. According to Wikipedia, Brain has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a master’s in computer science. This qualifies a person to maintain websites debunking religion? Yet, that site is often referred to as a resource for debunking Christianity by many atheists online. The site has a credibility that it should not have.
As academic layman in the category of religion, Brain and I are equals. No one would take on these sites from the academic community because they aren’t argued from an academic perspective. Having an academic, such as William Lane Craig, I take on these sites would be overkill. Therefore, I’m the perfect candidate to write a rebuttal, since I am an academic layman also.
What happens if the credibility factor does become a problem, and agents and publishers reject the proposal based on that? No problem, I have other writing projects that I am working on at the moment where credibility isn’t a problem. I can always try again with this proposal in a few years, when I will have the academic credibility.
That said, I would like to welcome long-time reader John C back! I hope that you find this blog more to your liking. I promise not to focus so much on Rey’s replies, as I should be taking on the best arguments from the other side, not the worst arguments from our own.
Laugh of the Day
My laugh of the day happened as I was scanning what searches generated traffic for me:
Of course I can see how my blog would pop up for most of those, but two made me laugh out loud. The first was “‘air force 1 plane’ remote control.” Where have I ever mentioned Air Force One? Maybe I referenced the movie once?
The second laugh was “calvinism’s evil heresy, 2009.” I can see how my blog would come up with a search on calvinism, but as part of an evil heresy? Mabye I should re-think Calvinism again?
Where are You on this Handy Scale?
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins promotes the idea that beliefs are predicated on a continuum, with seven checkpoints along the way. For convenience, I condensed them into five:
- I know there is a God with absolute certainty.
- I think there is a God. I believe that the evidence points to a God, and I live my life as if there is one.
- I don’t know if there is a God.
- I don’t think that there is a god. I believe that the evidence for one is lacking, and I live my life accordingly.
- I know that there is no god with absolute certainty.
Dawkins would be at #4, heading into #5. My wife, my grandpa, and several others I know would proudly count themselves into category #1. Dawkins and I agree that category #5 would be almost empty, while category #1 is very full.
Most people who call themselves theists believe without the benefit of philosophical or natural evidence. Most people who call themselves atheists leave the possibility of God open until they see more evidence.
Believe it or not, I fall into category #2. I believe that the intricacies of creation require a creator. I believe the philosophical arguments offer an excellent cumulative case for God. I believe the historicity of the New Testament, which means that the fantastic claims of Jesus must be dealt with. I believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb–which means that Jesus died and rose again. All of this, to me, makes a great case for God, and an even better case for the God of the Bible.
Where are you, readers?
Can You Sue God?
Ernie Chambers attempted to sue God in 2007. The Nebraska Court of Appeals has recently thrown it out on the grounds that courts don’t decide “abstract, hypothetical, or ficticious” issues.
Can a person sue God? I would say that the answer lies in Scripture:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. (Rom 13:1, emphasis added)
What that means is that, no matter what anyone may say, our courts exist because God instituted them, and they have only the authority that he has given them. All authority derives first from God.
That means that God isn’t subject to the rule of any court, since they derive their authority from him in the first place. How quickly we sinful humans forget our place before the Lord. And what hubris to say that this is an “abstract, hypothetical, or ficticious” issue! This is an issue of authority, and who is subject to whom.
Back Rome Again 