Come see what has to be the most dishonest, stupid, idiotic, hypocritical atheist on the internet.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=133943
Keep it locked. Whenever his entertainment value wears thin I'll be sure to make a post that contains all of his idiocy.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
For the last time, it's not racist!
The NY Times makes the comment about transformers and star wars.
Neither transformers nor Star wars are racist. Bays and Lucas' portrayal of black people is simply not racist. The 2 robots in transformers along with Jar Jar in the star wars movie accurately depict plenty of black people today and if they were the only portrayal of black people in those movies I would most definitely agree they were racist. However, in the Transformers movie, Tyerese plays an articulate, competent, literate, intelligent black person who attained the highest enlisted rank (E-9 Chief Master Sargent) in the USAF, and in star wars Samuel L Jackson played a wise JEDI MASTER. If you're going to accuse the movies as being racist based upon the negative portrayals of blacks in the movie, then are they at the same time not racist based upon the positive portrayals of blacks in the movie? the truth is there are black people that act like that and blacks that are not, just like they're ignorant whites, asians and mexicans, plain and simple, but those movies cannot reasonably accused of engaging in minstrelsy or racism since they are neither saying nor insinuating that all blacks act like mudflap and jar jar binks. One is engaging in a huge logical error by hurling accusations of racism based upon the movies negative portrayals of black people while at the same time ignoring positive portrayals of black people in the very same movies.
There’s a serious disconnect in the movie between the image of power that those GM brands are meant to convey and the bankrupt car industry they now signify. That disconnect only deepens with the introduction of two new Autobot characters, the illiterate, bickering twins Skids (Tom Kenny) and Mudflap (Reno Wilson), both of which take the shape of Chevrolet concept cars. The characters have been given conspicuously cartoonish, so-called black voices that indicate that minstrelsy remains as much in fashion in Hollywood as when, well, Jar Jar Binks was set loose by George Lucas.
Neither transformers nor Star wars are racist. Bays and Lucas' portrayal of black people is simply not racist. The 2 robots in transformers along with Jar Jar in the star wars movie accurately depict plenty of black people today and if they were the only portrayal of black people in those movies I would most definitely agree they were racist. However, in the Transformers movie, Tyerese plays an articulate, competent, literate, intelligent black person who attained the highest enlisted rank (E-9 Chief Master Sargent) in the USAF, and in star wars Samuel L Jackson played a wise JEDI MASTER. If you're going to accuse the movies as being racist based upon the negative portrayals of blacks in the movie, then are they at the same time not racist based upon the positive portrayals of blacks in the movie? the truth is there are black people that act like that and blacks that are not, just like they're ignorant whites, asians and mexicans, plain and simple, but those movies cannot reasonably accused of engaging in minstrelsy or racism since they are neither saying nor insinuating that all blacks act like mudflap and jar jar binks. One is engaging in a huge logical error by hurling accusations of racism based upon the movies negative portrayals of black people while at the same time ignoring positive portrayals of black people in the very same movies.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Selective Supernaturalism another argument that doesn't apply to Christianity.
Another gem of ignorance from Loftus which can also be found in his book.
First off, I'd like to know on what basis are Loftus and Hector asserting that Christians are skeptical of miracles of other religions? because I have never seen nor read nor even heard of any Christian stating that a miracle or supernatural event from another religion never happened. The reason I ask this is because the bible acknowledges the existence of miracles or supernatural events from other religions, whether it being the pharaohs magicians battling Moses and Aaron matching Gods supernatural events with their own or the anti-christ own signs and wonders calling fire down from the sky and leading people astray with his own supernatural events. There should be no reason why Christians are skeptical of the existence of miracles and supernatural events from other religions since the bible directly acknowledges the existence of them. If we assume for the sake of argument that there are Christians that are skeptical of the existence of such miracles and supernatural events, then they are clearly as clueless about Christian theology as Loftus and Hector and reveals the logical error they are both engaging in by arguing against what Christians are doing instead of providing evidence against Christianity, which is as good as arguing against atheism by focusing on what atheists do.
Today's Christians operate by what Harvard-trained biblical scholar Hector Avalos describes as "selective supernaturalism."[11] They believe the biblical miracles because they accept the Christian faith, but they are skeptical of the miracles of other religions. Why the double standard? At least general skepticism of all miracle claims lacking compelling evidence is consistent, and I have yet to see any evidence that requires a supernatural explanation for any such reports.
First off, I'd like to know on what basis are Loftus and Hector asserting that Christians are skeptical of miracles of other religions? because I have never seen nor read nor even heard of any Christian stating that a miracle or supernatural event from another religion never happened. The reason I ask this is because the bible acknowledges the existence of miracles or supernatural events from other religions, whether it being the pharaohs magicians battling Moses and Aaron matching Gods supernatural events with their own or the anti-christ own signs and wonders calling fire down from the sky and leading people astray with his own supernatural events. There should be no reason why Christians are skeptical of the existence of miracles and supernatural events from other religions since the bible directly acknowledges the existence of them. If we assume for the sake of argument that there are Christians that are skeptical of the existence of such miracles and supernatural events, then they are clearly as clueless about Christian theology as Loftus and Hector and reveals the logical error they are both engaging in by arguing against what Christians are doing instead of providing evidence against Christianity, which is as good as arguing against atheism by focusing on what atheists do.
Just how can anyone take this guy seriously?
This was taken from an exchange between him and a Christian scholar.
His first error is ignoring, either deliberately or implicitly(evidence suggest deliberate since he said there is only negative evidence), both the quantity and quality of personal experience(anecdotal) and documentary evidence for Christianity, both of those types of evidence along with historical evidence qualify as good positive evidence for Christianity, since both personal experience and documentary evidence are both good enough in court. His second error is the following assertion:
(historical evidence is poor evidence and your God should have known this). There is only negative evidence, known as the god of the gaps. I am so sure I'm willing to risk Pascal's Wager on it. I'm sure in what I deny, that's for sure.
This is obtuse on many levels. Exactly how is historical evidence poor? especially in the face of the fact that virtually every military weapon and vehicle got its origins from some point in ancient history, moreover the intelligent and applicable quotes by people like Santayana "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," and several excellent reasons why we should and why we do study history in the first place.
Perhaps Loftus meant historical evidence is poor in comparison to scientific/empirical evidence, in which I agree, but of course, when we lack scientific/empirical evidence then the other forms of evidence become our only forms of evidence. So in both cases Loftus is being obtuse. Historical evidence is definitely not poor evidence and the comparison of historical evidence to scientific/empirical evidence cannot even be reasonably applied to the subject of God because of the perfectly plausible and expected absence of the latter.
This shows that his self proclaimed 'certainty' of what he denies is (in this particular case but there are many others) based upon ignorance in the concept of evidence(only God of the gaps? seriously?) and Christian theology.
You asked me how sure I am right. There is no good positive evidence for Chrstianity, of that I'm sure (historical evidence is poor evidence and your God should have known this). There is only negative evidence, known as the god of the gaps. I am so sure I'm willing to risk Pascal's Wager on it. I'm sure in what I deny, that's for sure. I'm not all that sure about what I affirm.
His first error is ignoring, either deliberately or implicitly(evidence suggest deliberate since he said there is only negative evidence), both the quantity and quality of personal experience(anecdotal) and documentary evidence for Christianity, both of those types of evidence along with historical evidence qualify as good positive evidence for Christianity, since both personal experience and documentary evidence are both good enough in court. His second error is the following assertion:
(historical evidence is poor evidence and your God should have known this). There is only negative evidence, known as the god of the gaps. I am so sure I'm willing to risk Pascal's Wager on it. I'm sure in what I deny, that's for sure.
This is obtuse on many levels. Exactly how is historical evidence poor? especially in the face of the fact that virtually every military weapon and vehicle got its origins from some point in ancient history, moreover the intelligent and applicable quotes by people like Santayana "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," and several excellent reasons why we should and why we do study history in the first place.
Perhaps Loftus meant historical evidence is poor in comparison to scientific/empirical evidence, in which I agree, but of course, when we lack scientific/empirical evidence then the other forms of evidence become our only forms of evidence. So in both cases Loftus is being obtuse. Historical evidence is definitely not poor evidence and the comparison of historical evidence to scientific/empirical evidence cannot even be reasonably applied to the subject of God because of the perfectly plausible and expected absence of the latter.
This shows that his self proclaimed 'certainty' of what he denies is (in this particular case but there are many others) based upon ignorance in the concept of evidence(only God of the gaps? seriously?) and Christian theology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)