Whereas most of the remainder probably consists of delusional people.
An annoying corollary of news sites that are actually propaganda outlets is that the polls they feature very rarely offer sensible set-ups. This can actually be a tricky thing to accomplish even when the poll source isn’t intent on driving respondents toward a single choice among answers, but when bias is built-in and obligatory, real problems ensue.
This OneNewsNow.com poll asks, “Can one believe the biblical account of creation and still believe in evolution?” Realistically this is a non-starter. Regardless of whether a respondent is a creationist, it is logically impossible to treat either of the Genesis accounts as factual while also accepting evolution. I should not have to explain why this is the case. “Theistic evolutionists” are a sketchy lot in any event, but not treating the Bible as literally true does allow for significant compromises, even if some of these involve risible transmogrifications of scripture en route to some semblance of reconciliation. So anyone who answers “yes” to this question is completely lost.
For what it’s worth, I don’t personally believe that any one religious account meshes with evolution. I can allow for the logical possibility of a creator-deity setting evolution in motion and standing back to watch the chaos unfold, but the failure of individual creation stories tends to give the lie to the idea of any of them being true.
Anyway, had I answered this poll, I would have answered “no,” but not for the reason the vast majority of OneNewsNow.com readers surely did. I would have set up the poll like this:
What are your beliefs about creation and evolution?
A) Creation is true, making evolution a lie
B) Creation is true and the best explanation, but evolution could still be true as well
C) Evolution is true and the best explanation, but creation could still be true as well
C) Evolution is true, making creation false
Even that is unsatisfactory, but beats what the OneNewsNow.com twists came up with,

I stumbled across this “debate handbook” written by a Christian apologist of the “presuppositionalist” stripe. In a nutshell, these people are far more concerned with winning arguments than they are with entertaining what their opponents have to say, or even with merit. The “presupposition” is simply that the Christian, having God is his side, is right, and all strategy and attitudes appear to flow from this unyielding idea.
Because this is an especially aggressive brand of debating people, and appears to rely even more strongly than usual on intentional obfuscation, those who are fans of it can produce some interesting stuff. For example, here’s the beginning of Part 2 of the manual in question (page 13):

Some of our opponents are outwardly hostile. They might insult us, mock us, and call us names. They regard us as fools, fanatics, and the scum of the earth, and they are not afraid to tell us. Others appear more normal, and they will talk to you about religion seemingly with the same attention and respect that they will show when speaking about serious matters with non-Christians. Then, some appear so polite that they sound patronizing and obnoxious.
However, as long as they are all unbelievers, these are all superficial differences. Many Christians wish to consider their religious discussions with non-Christians as friendly
dialogues between fellow human beings who are both interested in discovering truth
through rational investigations. But this is unbiblical and unrealistic. It is true that many unbelievers appear sincere and courteous, but God looks at the thoughts and intentions of men, and not just their appearance and demeanor.
You might protest that, unlike God, we cannot directly perceive people’s hearts; however, it does not follow that we must therefore judge people according to their appearance. In another context, Jesus said, “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment” (John 7:24). Indeed, we cannot directly perceive people’s hearts, but we do not need to, because Scripture tells us what is in their hearts. Scripture tells us what God perceives when he looks pass their appearance. When God looks at them, he does not see a group of civilized and educated gentlemen, but he sees a generation of vipers, lewd beasts, stubborn mules, and vicious dogs. He sees a group of morons, idolaters, and Godhaters.
All humans are born sinful and rebellious, and because all unbelievers have never been converted by God, they remain sinful and rebellious, no matter how sincere and
courteous they appear to you. As Christians, we are indeed intellectually and morally
superior, but we are superior only because God has changed us and made us superior by his sovereign grace, and not by our own will or work. We freely admit that we were just
as stupid and evil as our non-Christian opponents, but this does not change the fact that
they are indeed stupid and evil, that their friendly appearance is superficial, and that their gentle speech is insincere.

This is an interesting collection of ideas: non-Christians are shit, Christians are basically shit without God’s help, God hates everyone, and God is cool. It certainly can’t be faulted for false optimism.
The writer, Vincent Cheung, goes on to emphasize the raw grudge-driven nature of his approach:

Read the rest of this entry »

This video is essentially a contest to see who can appear more absurd. Norm Geisler is ludicrously unsophisticated, while Brannon Howse is simply a liar (“atheism has been responsible for the deaths of nearly 200 million people”) who, in an amusing if pitiful turn, tries to paint his interlocutor, who can barely speak in complete or coherent sentences, as an expert in both logic and cosmology.

Listen to Geisler’s strategy for turning skeptics’ words against them. He claims that skepticism is a form of certainty in itself and that skeptics therefore make self-defeating arguments. Seriously–that’s the beginning and the end of it; no mention of the value of evidence in arguments and no admitting to, or awareness of, the rank hypocrisy of stipulating “(The Christian) God exists” as a default condition
Every common canard is in there, albeit in tabular form–Second Law of Thermodynamics, “moral law giver,” the fact that the universe exists is evidence for an intelligent designer. Geisler has apparently written 70 books (most likely the same one 70 times) yet both these guys seem unaware that they are supposed to keep mum about the fact that ID creationism is, well, creationism. And I find it very hard to believe that someone capable of this really holds a doctorate degree in philosophy.
This kind of yammering would be an embarrassment to a couple of high-school freshmen giving a class presentation, to say nothing of a couple of adults.

This video is essentially a contest to see who can appear more absurd. Norm Geisler is ludicrously unsophisticated, while Brannon Howse is simply a liar (“atheism has been responsible for the deaths of nearly 200 million people”) who, in an amusing if pitiful turn, tries to paint his interlocutor, who can barely speak in complete or coherent sentences, as an expert in both logic and cosmology.

Listen to Geisler’s strategy for turning skeptics’ words against them. He claims that skepticism is a form of certainty in itself and that skeptics therefore make self-defeating arguments. Seriously–that’s the beginning and the end of it; no mention of the value of evidence in arguments and no admitting to, or awareness of, the rank hypocrisy of stipulating “(The Christian) God exists” as a default condition
Every common canard is in there, albeit in tabular form–Second Law of Thermodynamics, “moral law giver,” the fact that the universe exists is evidence for an intelligent designer. Geisler has apparently written 70 books (most likely the same one 70 times) yet both these guys seem unaware that they are supposed to keep mum about the fact that ID creationism is, well, creationism. And I find it very hard to believe that someone capable of this really holds a doctorate degree in philosophy.
This kind of yammering would be an embarrassment to a couple of high-school freshmen giving a class presentation, to say nothing of a couple of adults.

One of the most disturbing aspects of religious indoctrination is the manner in which is clears the way for large numbers of people to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own judgments, however persistently ignorant. Victims of this kind of programming really do believe that certain forms of raw contempt are not merely advisable but compulsory.
There are certainly plenty of people with fixed ideas that would be considered sexist, racist, or just plain unruly by any impartial adjudicator who would maintain these ideas in the absence of faith. But when you see decent people caught up in the genuine conviction that there’s some great Being out there that just plain loathes the gays it created–and see how at odds with themselves they often are as a result–it puts on full display the power of indoctrination to effect what might, charitably in some cases, be called nonsurgical lobotomies.
Then, of course, there are the gasbags who would be ludicrous and possibly paranoid under the best of circumstances, and when slathered in religion they take on an especially ugly shade of silly. A blogger for OneNewsNow.com complaining about gay-marriage advocate Sean Penn’s comments writes:

[Penn], like the Gay Rights Movement as a whole, totally misunderstands the Message of Christianity. We are not here to condemn anyone of the LGBT lifestyle. For there is no condemnation for those who have repented of sin and are in Christ (See Romans 8:1) … true, Biblical Christianity calls for a stand against evil and sin in a culture that applauds “anything goes.” … Even a loose interpretation of Scripture would support the idea that God had a better plan for us than a LGBT lifestyle. A more honest interpretation would call it an abomination (See Romans 1).

He also mixes in the “it’s okay to rip on Christians” and claims Hollywood on general has robbed the country of Christ.
When I read something as astoundingly self-contradictory as the above passage, I’m tempted to think that the author is lying. He’d have to be, right? I mean, how gullible does he think people are? Does he now know his own very lightly paraphrased claim is that he doesn’t condemn the LGBT “lifestyle” but that it’s an abomination, evil, and a sin and needs to stop? Does he honestly think a gay person would do anything but take umbrage at such crap, even one who knows there’s no hell waiting for him? Normal people do not just approach others and say stuff like “Don’t take this the wrong way but you’re ugly and stupid and need to save yourself from those things” unless they mean offense.
Apparently they do, and it’s hard to imagine anything that could enforce such craziness in an otherwise intact mind other than belief in imaginary authority figures. Never mind that you can never pin these idiots down and evoke any sort of explanation for what damage homosexuality actually does–it’s all about sin, case closed.
They really don’t get why people think they’re morons.

One of the most disturbing aspects of religious indoctrination is the manner in which is clears the way for large numbers of people to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own judgments, however persistently ignorant. Victims of this kind of programming really do believe that certain forms of raw contempt are not merely advisable but compulsory.
There are certainly plenty of people with fixed ideas that would be considered sexist, racist, or just plain unruly by any impartial adjudicator who would maintain these ideas in the absence of faith. But when you see decent people caught up in the genuine conviction that there’s some great Being out there that just plain loathes the gays it created–and see how at odds with themselves they often are as a result–it puts on full display the power of indoctrination to effect what might, charitably in some cases, be called nonsurgical lobotomies.
Then, of course, there are the gasbags who would be ludicrous and possibly paranoid under the best of circumstances, and when slathered in religion they take on an especially ugly shade of silly. A blogger for OneNewsNow.com complaining about gay-marriage advocate Sean Penn’s comments writes:

[Penn], like the Gay Rights Movement as a whole, totally misunderstands the Message of Christianity. We are not here to condemn anyone of the LGBT lifestyle. For there is no condemnation for those who have repented of sin and are in Christ (See Romans 8:1) … true, Biblical Christianity calls for a stand against evil and sin in a culture that applauds “anything goes.” … Even a loose interpretation of Scripture would support the idea that God had a better plan for us than a LGBT lifestyle. A more honest interpretation would call it an abomination (See Romans 1).

He also mixes in the “it’s okay to rip on Christians” and claims Hollywood on general has robbed the country of Christ.
When I read something as astoundingly self-contradictory as the above passage, I’m tempted to think that the author is lying. He’d have to be, right? I mean, how gullible does he think people are? Does he now know his own very lightly paraphrased claim is that he doesn’t condemn the LGBT “lifestyle” but that it’s an abomination, evil, and a sin and needs to stop? Does he honestly think a gay person would do anything but take umbrage at such crap, even one who knows there’s no hell waiting for him? Normal people do not just approach others and say stuff like “Don’t take this the wrong way but you’re ugly and stupid and need to save yourself from those things” unless they mean offense.
Apparently they do, and it’s hard to imagine anything that could enforce such craziness in an otherwise intact mind other than belief in imaginary authority figures. Never mind that you can never pin these idiots down and evoke any sort of explanation for what damage homosexuality actually does–it’s all about sin, case closed.
They really don’t get why people think they’re morons.

My Illinois homeboy, Philip Jose Farmer, died on Wednesday Feb 25. Please find linkage here: the obit in the New York Times and the announcement at his website. From the NYT:

Philip José Farmer, a prolific and popular science fiction writer who shocked readers in the 1950s by depicting sex with aliens and challenged conventional pieties of the genre with caustic fables set on bizarre worlds of his own devising, died Wednesday. He was 91 and lived in Peoria, Ill.

As a pre-adolescent sprout, I’d sneak out copies of my older brother’s PJF paperbacks and devour them. The Riverworld series was my favorite, but New Riders of the Purple Wage made an impact, too. So passes a muscular imagination.

Click on the image to see a larger version.
Discuss, or don’t.

(Source)