Showing posts from March, 2014

Richard Carrier: Acts as Historical Fiction, or Atheist Fictional History?

An Article by James McGrath about an article by John Loftus ( his blog 3/14/14 ), about a lecture by Carrier. I can't get the original lecture. Of course Carrier spits on the traditional view that Luke was a good historian. He doesn't stop there, he denies that Luke was even trying to be an kind of historian. According to McGrath, Luke was pretending to do historical research in his preface. Moreover, Carrier charges that Luke's method was sub standard. [1] According to McGrath's report of Carrier he argues that Luke's statement about using sources means he was claiming to slavishly follow them but then he did not. Carrier assumes that Luke is a novel. He thinks there was a genre of ancinet novel and that these novels always included travel, miracles and divine revelation. Paul and Lydia are an ancient literary type the chaste couple reunited. This shows the Ignace of modern historians as novels didn't exist utnil early modern times:

Atheist Attempt Truth by Stipulation: You Can't Make The Argument Until You Prove IT

There are two really silly debate ploys that people sometimes use. I don't say they are peculiar to the atheist camp, but since I am more familiar with their arguments, than those of creationists, for example, I will use them. My aim is to raise consciousness about these fallacies in an attempt to get people to stop using them. these two fallacies exist in an interchange, a sublational interplay where one builds upon the other. The two fallacies are: (1) privileging one's own position (2) Truth by Stipulation. As it turns out the kids who offer the $500 to prove Jesus existed employ no. 1 fallacy in spades. They have erased the comments but before they did so they informed one contestant that he could not use Raymond Brown as an authority because Brown was a priest . It's just so obvious that a Priest is not objective, and they said explicitly that no one with a theology degree could be used. What's really odd is that they themselves use religi

Places of "the pump," The Heart in Bibilcal Terms

  On CARM poster "Stiggywiggy" (I didn't make up his name) does battle with a group of atheists who want to eliminate the term "heart" as reference to mind or inner being, but to use it only as reference the biological pump:  Elsewhere in another thread today I saw Mudcat attempting to discuss matters of the heart with some atheistic type guy, who was feigning ignorance as to what Mudcat might mean when he referred to the heart. We all know the verse about how a "man believeth in his heart." "If you believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, you shall be saved." We're all familiar with that biblical sentiment. This atheist thought he'd be real cute and started talking about how the heart is nothing more than a muscle, a mere physiological pump. Once again, I can't help wonder if these guys really believe that. If so, when they hear certain songs, are they translating it this way in their heads:

Christianity: Warts and All

 Posted by Metacrock: Guest editorial. by Mudcat CARM atheist board 3/6/14 Don't do threads much these days.. but I have been reading the forum and watching the back and forth on the general theme. Thought I'd toss in my two bits on the matter... but my ego is just a little to bloated to bother chipping in on another thread and figured I'd just pitch it out here. Seems no one is really keen on the idea that Hitler, Nazis, mass murderers and those sorts could have possibly held their views. Whether such a person be a Christian or an atheist. Can't say as I blame them much on either side. Can't say as I know for sure what Hitler or some particular Nazi in a concentration camp believed they were or weren't. As a Christian, I don't mind admitting that the Crusades, the Inquisition, the 30 Years War, antisemitism, witch burnings and that sort of thing aren't som

Are Natural Scientists Smarter than Religous Beleivers? Richard Lynn at it again!

Dutton There seems to have come to be a lucrative field for passing off atheist propaganda as "scinece." There are numerous studies doing this and most of them are what we might call "inadequate." A new one has been added that claims that scientists who study natural science tend to be more intelligent than those who do social sciences becuase they tend to be atheists, it assumes atheists are smarter based upon flawed discredited studies like the one I took apart a few months ago. This new study is called Intelligence and Religious and Political Differences Among Members of the U.S. Academic Elite Author: Edward Dutton (University of Oulu) and Richard Lynn (University of Ulster) [1] Dutton says of himself: " I read Theology at Durham University (BA 2002) before beginning a PhD in Social Anthropology of Religion at Aberdeen University (PhD 2006) " [2] We have met Lynn before, "Atheism IQ Scam Bad science and Racist Assumption