Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%)."[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
I came across this today, and as I was not aware of it, and it was too funny, I am sharing it with you.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Try being a religious for a month
http://zionica.com/2011/07/04/can-you-try-a-religion-for-a-month/#comments
This story suggested trying to be religious for a month.
Try what exactly? Could a Christian “try” to be a Muslim or a Hindu for a month? What exactly would they be trying to do? Pretend to believe in something they do not believe in? One either believes or they do not. You could parrot the prayers and attend worship, but if you do not believe what is being said, it will not accomplsih anything.
Could you try believing that Martians rule the world for a month?
Just more absurdites.
This story suggested trying to be religious for a month.
Try what exactly? Could a Christian “try” to be a Muslim or a Hindu for a month? What exactly would they be trying to do? Pretend to believe in something they do not believe in? One either believes or they do not. You could parrot the prayers and attend worship, but if you do not believe what is being said, it will not accomplsih anything.
Could you try believing that Martians rule the world for a month?
Just more absurdites.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Justice Clarence Thomas
The following link is to an article on Justice Clarence Thomas. While I imagine every Justice has made rulings that could be considered controversial, there are several items in the story that are bizarre.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/SCOTUS-THOMAS_5498840/SCOTUS-THOMAS_5498840/
“He strictly avoids the give-and-take among justices during oral arguments; he has not asked a question or made a comment in more than five years.”
For five years, there has not been one question he has had regarding the cases he sat on? That does not say much about his curiosity, let alone his desire to find out all relevant information.
“he has declared that the Constitution gives states a right to establish an official religion. Prisoners, he wrote, have no constitutional right to be protected from beatings by guards. Teenagers and students have no free-speech rights at all, he said in an opinion Monday, because in the 18th century when the Constitution was written, parents had "absolute authority" over their children.”
I am hard pressed to understand how anyone could say that a prisoner cannot be protected from getting beat up by guards. There are no limits to a guard hitting a prisoner for any reason? Shades of “The Shawshank Redemption” movie.
If parents have absolute control over their children, then they should be allowed to refuse them medical care that causes their death. Does anyone seriously believe a parent has that authority? If they do not, then they do not have absolute control, and his opinion is flawed.
“But this year, under current Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., he has spoken for the court's conservative majority in significant decisions that limited the rights of prisoners, which has become his signature issue. In March, he announced a 5-4 decision that threw out a $14-million jury verdict in favor of a black Louisiana man who had been convicted of murder and nearly executed because prosecutors hid evidence that could have proven his innocence.”
If the state can hide evidence that proves a man innocent, then no one is safe in this country.
“A month later, Thomas said a state's "sovereign immunity" barred inmates from suing for damages when their freedom of religion had been violated.”
I would have thought that Christians would be outraged by this idea. If your freedom of religion is violated by the state, then there is no freedom to worship as you please. This should scare anyone.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/SCOTUS-THOMAS_5498840/SCOTUS-THOMAS_5498840/
“He strictly avoids the give-and-take among justices during oral arguments; he has not asked a question or made a comment in more than five years.”
For five years, there has not been one question he has had regarding the cases he sat on? That does not say much about his curiosity, let alone his desire to find out all relevant information.
“he has declared that the Constitution gives states a right to establish an official religion. Prisoners, he wrote, have no constitutional right to be protected from beatings by guards. Teenagers and students have no free-speech rights at all, he said in an opinion Monday, because in the 18th century when the Constitution was written, parents had "absolute authority" over their children.”
I am hard pressed to understand how anyone could say that a prisoner cannot be protected from getting beat up by guards. There are no limits to a guard hitting a prisoner for any reason? Shades of “The Shawshank Redemption” movie.
If parents have absolute control over their children, then they should be allowed to refuse them medical care that causes their death. Does anyone seriously believe a parent has that authority? If they do not, then they do not have absolute control, and his opinion is flawed.
“But this year, under current Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., he has spoken for the court's conservative majority in significant decisions that limited the rights of prisoners, which has become his signature issue. In March, he announced a 5-4 decision that threw out a $14-million jury verdict in favor of a black Louisiana man who had been convicted of murder and nearly executed because prosecutors hid evidence that could have proven his innocence.”
If the state can hide evidence that proves a man innocent, then no one is safe in this country.
“A month later, Thomas said a state's "sovereign immunity" barred inmates from suing for damages when their freedom of religion had been violated.”
I would have thought that Christians would be outraged by this idea. If your freedom of religion is violated by the state, then there is no freedom to worship as you please. This should scare anyone.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Can one be a wise fool?
“The fool says in his heart there is no God”. (Psalm 14:1-3 )
How many times does this verse get quoted to atheists? It supposedly lets us know that not believing in god makes a person a fool.
However, there is also this verse:
“Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.” (Proverbs 17:28)
So, if an atheist does not talk about his disbelief, does that make him intelligent? Not necessarily, it only says he is deemed intelligent. That does not mean he actually is intelligent.
But, we also have this gem:
“In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, But he who restrains his lips is wise.” (Proverbs 10:19)
According to this, if someone restrains their lips they are wise. Now when the fool said in his heart there is no god, he did restrain his lips. Therefore, the same fool the bible criticizes for his disbelief is also called wise for not talking about it. Therefore, we have a wise fool. Can a fool be wise? Since the words have a contrary meaning, it is not possible.
So, since the bible says an atheist can be both a fool and a wise person, it obviously does not understand what it is talking about. Just more absurdity in the bible.
And to top it off, let us not forget this verse:
(Matthew 5:22) - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."
It says that calling someone a fool is reason enough to send someone to hell. So, to summarize, the bible indicates that if you do not believe in god, you are a fool. But if someone actually calls you a fool, they will go to hell. That seems completely reasonable.
How many times does this verse get quoted to atheists? It supposedly lets us know that not believing in god makes a person a fool.
However, there is also this verse:
“Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.” (Proverbs 17:28)
So, if an atheist does not talk about his disbelief, does that make him intelligent? Not necessarily, it only says he is deemed intelligent. That does not mean he actually is intelligent.
But, we also have this gem:
“In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, But he who restrains his lips is wise.” (Proverbs 10:19)
According to this, if someone restrains their lips they are wise. Now when the fool said in his heart there is no god, he did restrain his lips. Therefore, the same fool the bible criticizes for his disbelief is also called wise for not talking about it. Therefore, we have a wise fool. Can a fool be wise? Since the words have a contrary meaning, it is not possible.
So, since the bible says an atheist can be both a fool and a wise person, it obviously does not understand what it is talking about. Just more absurdity in the bible.
And to top it off, let us not forget this verse:
(Matthew 5:22) - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."
It says that calling someone a fool is reason enough to send someone to hell. So, to summarize, the bible indicates that if you do not believe in god, you are a fool. But if someone actually calls you a fool, they will go to hell. That seems completely reasonable.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Immortality
If Adam and Eve were truly immortal when they lived in the Garden there would have no reason for there to be the tree of eternal life.
It would have been redundant.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Is Atheism a religion
Atheism is not a religion. Religions have dogma, tenants and a shared common worldview. Outside of the fact that atheists do not believe a god exists, there is not other single concept that atheists all accept. There are liberal atheists and conservatives atheists. There are atheists who believe in socialism and those who believe in free enterprise.
When theists try to claim that atheists are a religion, they show they do not begin to understand their own belief system, let alone try to understand why someone might disagree with them.
When theists try to claim that atheists are a religion, they show they do not begin to understand their own belief system, let alone try to understand why someone might disagree with them.
Philo
As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD).
Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that “Jesus of Nazareth” supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.
Philo was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. A Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem (On Providence) where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the “alabarch” (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander’s great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205). Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I (Antiquities 18).
One of Alexander’s sons, and Philo’s nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas – villain of the Jesus saga – he ruled as King of the Jews, 41-44 AD. Another nephew was the “apostate” Julius Alexander Tiberius, Prefect of Egypt and also Procurator of Judaea itself (46-48 AD).
Much as Josephus would, a half century later, Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words are extant. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times.
Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary “Jesus Christ”, the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death.
With Philo’s close connection to the house of Herod, one might reasonably expect that the miraculous escape from a royal prison of a gang of apostles (Acts 5.18,40), or the second, angel-assisted, flight of Peter, even though chained between soldiers and guarded by four squads of troops (Acts 12.2,7) might have occasioned the odd footnote. But not a murmur. Nothing of Agrippa “vexing certain of the church” or killing “James brother of John” with the sword (Acts 12.1,2).
Strange, but only if we believe Jesus and his merry men existed and that they established the church. If we recognize that the Christian fable was still at an early stage of development when Philo was pondering the relationship of god and man, there is nothing strange here at all.
What is very significant, however, is that Philo’s theological speculations helped the Christians fabricate their own notions of a godman.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html
Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that “Jesus of Nazareth” supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.
Philo was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. A Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem (On Providence) where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the “alabarch” (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander’s great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205). Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I (Antiquities 18).
One of Alexander’s sons, and Philo’s nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas – villain of the Jesus saga – he ruled as King of the Jews, 41-44 AD. Another nephew was the “apostate” Julius Alexander Tiberius, Prefect of Egypt and also Procurator of Judaea itself (46-48 AD).
Much as Josephus would, a half century later, Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words are extant. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times.
Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary “Jesus Christ”, the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death.
With Philo’s close connection to the house of Herod, one might reasonably expect that the miraculous escape from a royal prison of a gang of apostles (Acts 5.18,40), or the second, angel-assisted, flight of Peter, even though chained between soldiers and guarded by four squads of troops (Acts 12.2,7) might have occasioned the odd footnote. But not a murmur. Nothing of Agrippa “vexing certain of the church” or killing “James brother of John” with the sword (Acts 12.1,2).
Strange, but only if we believe Jesus and his merry men existed and that they established the church. If we recognize that the Christian fable was still at an early stage of development when Philo was pondering the relationship of god and man, there is nothing strange here at all.
What is very significant, however, is that Philo’s theological speculations helped the Christians fabricate their own notions of a godman.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)