Howdy all. I just wanted to take a moment to apologize for the lack of new posts around here lately. I’ve been quite busy with “real life” and don’t foresee things slowing down until the new year. That said, I want to invite anybody to leave ideas for new posts, holiday wishes, questions about old posts… anything. I miss the conversation with the few regulars that still read here, and I hope everyone is well.
I stumbled across this blog while searching for information on Orthodoxy and Universalism, which the author posts here. I remembered the look-and-feel as a blog I’d seen before, but this time, I got sucked in. He’s got a diversity of interesting articles across all sorts of subjects related to faith.
The more haters hate, the more they prove the truth of God’s Word:
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5: 11,12)
Enter hater extraordinaire, Stephen R. Diamond:
People who eschew party lines in favor of critical thought always win my respect, and on that note Jeff Lowder is awesome. Over at Secular Outpost, he’s taken Chris Hallquist to task over Hallquist’s smearing and libeling of William Lane Craig as a “liar.” As one who’s suffered through such libel first hand, I’m sympathetic to Lowder’s case. Hallquist has responded, and today I’d like to focus on a snippet that perfectly illustrates the danger of letting emotion lead the brain. Before we start, I’d like to point out that Hallquist has this much going for him: he concedes the difficulty of knowing intent, which is precisely what is required to establish claims of lying. He writes,
Furthermore, Jeff is right to ask how I know Craig is being intentionally deceptive, as opposed to honestly mistaken, in particular cases. This is hard to know.
Unfortunately, Hallquist doesn’t heed his own advice.
UPDATE: it appears John Loftus has also stepped forward to condemn Hallquist. I never thought I’d being saying this, but I must also salute John Loftus in this regard! Good on you, Loftus!
So PZ Myers has responded to Thunderf00t via video!
I stumbled across an antinatalist blogger named Karl who hosts Say No To Life. Despite our obvious ideological differences, I seem to jive with most of what I’ve read. In particular, I recommend,
Incidentally, in the wake of the various paedophile scandals in the Catholic world, there has been lately a popular call for the Church to revoke the rule of celibacy for its clergy, which I personally believe would be a disaster. The Church is what it is because it rejects the whimsies and fickle demands of the masses; that’s why it’s survived for two thousand years and still commands respect, even amongst its most bitter enemies. Contrast this with the Protestant churches of Ireland and England, utterly ineffectual echo chambers of the secular societies they inhabit.
By way of a conclusion, for me the genuine religious person is someone who does not feel at home in this world. He or she dreams of something better, and attempts to embody in their own life what they think the world should be with the hope perhaps that others may follow their example. To mount that tired old nag of a cliché for one last trot, if you want to change the world, change yourself. (Real Christianity)
…a number of astronomers were asked what they hoped for in terms of the future of Astronomy and the study of space. My stomach turned at their answers: all of them were eager for bases and colonies on the moon, missions to Mars and, of course, the prospect of humanity colonising the solar system seemed to have them creaming their trousers with anticipation. (Leave Space Alone!)
Refreshing, spending legitimate time on a mostly non-(a)theist blog.
I am requesting your help here, people. I suspect twimfanboy will never let the light of reason shine on this issue unless other people get involved. If you care at all about truth, or me, or twimfanboy, or web technology… or if you’re just bored and enjoy puzzles, please get involved here. The question presumes one has at least a basic understanding of web technology, without which a meaningful answer can’t be supplied. As addressed here and here, twimfanboy has accused me of “blatant dishonesty” because, in a thread three years ago, I said both that I comment using different IP addresses, and that I’ve never commented by proxy in my life. From those statements, twimfanboy concluded that I was lying. I submit that twimfanboy’s conclusion does not follow from his premises, and I grant that the premises are sound (IOW it is true that I often comment using different IP’s, and that I’ve never commented by proxy).
The question: does a concession to using different IP addresses falsify a claim that one has never commented via proxy? Is twimfanboy’s logic tight? Why or why not?
If and when you can ever be ‘legitimately engaged’, cl, I’ll be there with bells on.
Of course, twimfanboy arbitrarily declared that the topic in question didn’t “cut the mustard,” so this thread is dedicated to any topic of twimfanboy’s choice. You, dear readers, can decide whether the engagement is legitimate or not (provided twimfanboy accepts the gauntlet he threw out).
Many of us already know that “Freethought” blogs is just a front for groupthink. That should be evident by the way “freethought” bloggers like JT Eberhard, PZ Myers and Greta Christina arbitrarily censor intelligent dissent. While skimming through the “freethought” blogs I couldn’t help but notice they’ve given “Cristina Rad” a forum now. Anybody else sense the irony? To me, the subtext reads:
“We’re sophisticated rational atheists and women should not be objectified!”
“Hey, let’s give this hot, popular blonde a forum!”
Yep. Somebody actually made this. I’m kinda flattered. I wonder who it was?