Are Christians Superior to Atheists? (via Twitter)
This discussion started with a simple tweet from about.com writer Austin Cline, and quickly spiraled out of control from there into a shouting match of personal insult. I’m happy to say, that none of that was from me; I really tried to keep to the issues this time (though as commenter Doc can attest, I don’t always):
https://twitter.com/#!/AustinCline/status/84365427945381888
So, I replied:
https://twitter.com/#!/tucholskic/status/84369235840741376
This is in keeping with a controversial YouTube video by Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O’Connor where he said that atheists are less than human, but I thought perhaps he might have meant atheists haven’t embraced the fullness of their humanity. Read the rest of this entry
Obsessing Over a Cool Feature
WordPress has added the ability to reprint tweets in a really cool way. Some readers have probably noted that I have done that with Monica’s tweets when I wish to highlight something that was said on Twitter.
Since I absolutely love this feature, and I said two things on Twitter that I would like to reiterate here, I will now use this feature shamelessly:
http://twitter.com/tucholskic/statuses/84154570019831808
And:
http://twitter.com/tucholskic/statuses/84159934605967360
Bask in my pithy wisdom. And, follow me on Twitter. I’ll follow you back, and I’ll love you forever. Well, at least I’ll follow you back!
Comment Round-up! (part 2)
The second part where I reply to Doc’s comments is much shorter. Only two comments remain, and they aren’t as long as the previous.
Context: Doc echoes some sentiments from Alex in my much-derided post on methodological naturalism vs. metaphysical naturalism. Alex had previously stated:
the implications for just how loud and clear your god’s message in the bible really is, needing an army of theologians to explain and ponder and postulate and theorize and channel and project and often just make up stuff in order to make sense of the bible
Now, to Doc’s comment:
Exactly this. What kind of God would rely on an ancient text that he knows (if he is truly omniscient) will be doubted, misinterpreted, and only followed properly by a fraction of believers (since only one religion, or none, would be right; whichever one follows his exact message exactly as he intended) and argued for centuries by people who clai to know the truth and disagree among each other on the message’s details?
This would either be a sadistic god (sending to hell all those who innocently believe in a different interpretation of his message) or an incompetent god (relying on an unsuccessful game plan if he wants to keep believers).
Of course, the easy answer is that it’s all BS.
Nope. It’s not BS. But I hardly think that disagreement on exact interpretations qualifies all of Christianity as BS. Scientists often disagree and debate, sometimes for decades. Does that mean science is BS?
Nope, and neither is theology. At the end of the day, God’s grace alone saves you, which is actuated by your faith. The denomination of Christianity matters little, I think. Knowledge of the person of Jesus may not even be necessary, so long as you make that step in faith with enough knowledge of God (and that is easier to come by then you guys like to think; see Rom 1:19-20, 10:5-21).
C. Michael Patton has some thoughts on that topic as well.
A few comments down, he makes the following statement:
You make a charge and then back off from it when I call you out on it.
You KNOW I was focusing on how you said, ” Evolutionists, the honest ones, admit that evolution only explains what happens to life when it’s already here. ”
You are implying here that Evolution is used as a way to cover up the question of the origin of life, and the *honest* ones will “admit” that it doesn’t.
This is loaded language, and by backing off of it and saying, “Oh I was just saying that evolution does not explain the origin of life, that’s all!” Is being purposely dishonest.
I used the “gravity” example to illustrate that it’s not “admitting” something. It’s not claiming it to begin with. Nobody “admits” that evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life in the same way nobody “admits” that evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life; they don’t need to, because that’s not what evolution is about. You plainly did not see the analogy I was making and replied with the snarky, “Um, good for them?” Because it went right over your head.
And during this retreat from the loaded statement you made, you actually have the nerve to try to play it off like *I’m* the one who lacked understanding of what you were saying.
No wonder you people are less respected every day.
One potential explanation for the origin of life is that it was gradually assembled from single molecules, then diatoms, then … etc. Eventually, an entire cell (a bacterium, most likely) was the result. These cells eventually began to specialize, and thus formed more complex organisms. This gradual assembly of life from molecule up to a cell, and then diversifying from there is an extrapolation of evolutionary theory.
Now, this explanation for the origin of life probably isn’t a very good one. But, the fact remains that some scientists regard evolution as capable of explaining the origin of life. However, most do not. So I will admit my use of “admit” wasn’t the best choice, since that particular theory isn’t in wide acceptance among evolutionary scientists. However, I was not wrong to imply that evolutionary theory could attempt to explain the origin of life.
That concludes us for now. I have some great posts in the draft stage, so don’t go too far!
Comment Round-up! (part 1)
I’ve decided to respond to all comments from the user styled “Doc” in this post because I’ve taken so long to get to answering them that my 30 day window is drastically narrow. With this, Doc has another 30 days to reply (should he choose to do that).
First up, my post on fallacious arguments for homosexuality, here’s Doc’s reply to my previous comment:
“Since we’re on this topic, let me ask you a question that I promised myself I would ask the next idiot that said homosexuality is okay because animals do it: ”
I didn’t say that. I asked you if “done in nature” is your definition of “natural.” If it is, then “It’s unnatural” doesn’t hold up, since it is done in nature. Of course, like a typical theist, you twist that into, “If animals do X, it’s okay for humans to do X,” because you’re a theist, and logic is hard.
So, no answer forthcoming.
“There’s no broad definition of natural that’s going to work for everything.
No, you can’t run away from your own charge. You say homosexuality is wrong because it’s unnatural. In order to make this claim, you must define what you mean by unnatural.
It’s true, though: there isn’t a broad definition that’s going to work for everything. As I apply below, common sense is going to have to apply. Unfortunately, I gave an answer that a utilitarian would be proud of, and I think that school of thought is totally bogus. Which means that we’re going to have to refine things a bit. Read the rest of this entry
Comment Backlog – And Some News
So, I have a HUGE comment backlog. It appears as though my post on naturalism got a bunch of atheists’ panties in a bunch, and they crawled out of the woodwork to reply on my ignorance of science. I expected to be called ignorant of science; whenever a Christian criticizes science he’s called ignorant (even Christians with relevant PhDs in the fields of evolutionary biology, organic chemistry, and philosophy of science). Obviously, I have no relevant science degrees; I just used to get good grades in science-related classes in high school and I read a bunch of extra books back in those days when I actually had “free time.” So I knew if those other Christians are “ignorant,” then I was going to get it 10 times worse.
What I didn’t expect was the sheer amount of commenting that was done. While I expect most of it will be typical comment-and-run tactics since Twitter was what generated all the traffic (give atheists on Twitter more than 140 characers in reply and they usually run scared), I’m still going to address the comments. Either I will learn something about science, or school my commenters on philosophy.
Ideally, since I like dialogue on this site, both will happen. However, I would like to point out that, per the title of the post, the primary focus of that post was philosophy. The comments I’ve scanned are talking all about science. Which indicates that, likely, at least some of the commenters noticed that I was Christian and my writing touched briefly on science, so they automatically decided to comment that I was ignorant. Because Christians are always ignorant of science, don’t you know?
Now, where would atheists get the impression that Christians are ignorant? I have no idea. All of the Christians in the media limelight are always top-notch, with an encyclopedic knowledge of American history. None of us ever say anything stupid. So, c’mon, atheists! Give us our due, here!
Anyway, I will get to the comment backlog starting tomorrow. I will reply on here, but not Twitter. Sorry, Twitterheads.
Additionally, I’ve noticed that no one ever visits my Articles page. So, as a result, I’ve pulled it down and will redistribute revised versions to other websites that offer free articles for e-zines. At least maybe then they will get read.
All right, on to bed with me.
Question from a Christian About Law and Grace
A member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance recently asked:
Question: In the old testament God outlines an entire list of dos and do nots for the Jews to follow. Among them is dietary regulation (Kosher food=♥).
In the New Testament Christ says,”until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
Does that include dietary restrictions? Paul suggests in 1 Corintians 8, “But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. ” And Christ Himself says, “What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’
So my question is thus, if Christ said that not a letter of the law would be removed until heaven and earth disappear and everything is accomplished but says also that what we eat doesn’t necessarily matter because it can’t make us unclean, is he contradicting Himself since in Leviticus 11 God dictates what Israelites were and weren’t suppose to eat?
I’ve heard this objection from 1000 different atheists, worded exactly the way this girl just framed it. What most people fail to take away from Matthew 5:17-20 is one little snippet in v. 18, which qualifies the otherwise sweeping statement of nothing in the Law will pass away “until all is fulfilled.” So, what is the fulfillment of the Law? Christ himself.
Christ fulfilled the righteous requirement of the Law, so that means that we don’t have to. We now live by faith, not by works of Law. Which means the short answer to this inquiry is, “No, we’re not held to dietary restrictions.”
The long answer is a matter of context. Read the rest of this entry
Out of the “Office” this Week: Vacation to Gatlinburg, TN
My family and I are going on a vacation to beautiful Gatlinburg, TN this week. We have three graduations in the family to celebrate–Aimee graduating with her master of fine arts, Rob with his bachelor’s degree, and Emily with a high school diploma. I’m happy for all three!
Also, today is my sixth anniversary of being married to the best woman in the entire world, my wife–Jody Lynn Tucholski! God has supplied the perfect mate for me to love, honor, and cherish for the rest of my life. I’m very happy to share this crazy little life with her!
I don’t know if I’ll have Internet access while I’m down there. So, it may be a while before I respond to comments or e-mail. But I’ll get there, I promise.
Happy trails all, and congratulations to all members of the class of 2011, especially my amazing in-laws, Aimee, Rob, and Emily!
On Harold Camping and the Rapture (May 21, 2011)
Harold Camping predicted that the Rapture will occur, with certainty, on May 21, 2011. Well, it’s May 22, 2011, and we’re all still here. Why? Because Mr. Camping ignored Scripture to get where he did.
Chief among texts ignored by Mr. Camping was Matthew 24:36-44:
But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.
In other words, we simply don’t know when the Judgment is coming. But, we can be assured in the words of Jesus that he will return. Therefore, we should stay vigilant and live as though it could happen at any time.
But this gets better and better. Mr. Camping arrived at the date using numerology, which means he ignored the texts condemning sorcery, and Deuteronomy 4:19:
And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.
Since Mr. Camping has ignored or rationalized so many Scriptures, then one more shouldn’t be a problem for him. This next one is a doozy. He now has to explain to us why, in light of Deuteronomy 18:20-22, that anyone should remain his follower:
“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, orwho speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.” And if you say in your heart, “How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?”— when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
Camping predicted the date of the Rapture, said it was a certainty, and it didn’t come to pass. Therefore, he has met the biblical definition of a false prophet, and we need not pay him any mind. Why should anyone continue listening to him? I await his reply.
Did Anybody Do Anything Wrong? (User Poll)
I’m going to present two scenarios to you, and I would like to put to a vote which of the two scenarios should cost the counselor his job. After I get some discussion, I’ll give you my take on the matter (in a future blog post): Read the rest of this entry
Back Rome Again 