If you ask me, people who don’t like Jim Carrey’s comedy don’t have enough fun. So enjoy (I said ENJOY!!!) this little video of him as a karate instructor (and former world champion).
Tag Archives: Organizations
Nothing exploded
English: A cross close to the church in Grense Jakobselv, Norway. Suomi: Risti kirkon lähellä Vuoremijoella, Norjassa. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Christians have a lot of faith. They stupidly believe in some guy who lives in the sky, definitely Caucasian, definitely with a white beard, probably holding a staff or a lightning bolt or something like that, who created everything, then sneakily hid proof of evolution in it all so that the cleverest humans would be led astray, leaving the stupid ones to get into heaven because of their faith.
Well, judging by the way the new atheists talk I think that’s what they believe anyway. The fact that I’m a Christian and believe none of that paragraph (except maybe the bit about him creating everything) seems to make no difference; why address real-life Christians when imaginary ones are so much easier to get angry and aggro about!
I’m not convinced that Christians have any more faith than atheists do. Let me tell you what I can see at the moment:
- a whole bunch of electronic stuff
- chocolate biscuits
- furniture
- buildings
- statues
- trees
All of those, with the exception of the last one, have a clear creator or creators; humans. But the last one, according to atheists, needs faith to believe in a creator. Odd.
Ok, so the tree grew ‘naturally’ out of a seed, but where did the seed come from? Another tree? But that doesn’t go back forever…atheists would have us believe that everything came into existence out of nothing on its own.
Is it just me, or is that absolutely ridiculous? In what other situation would we see something and conclude that it came into being when there was nothing there before, not even its various parts?
Atheists: you demonstrate more faith than I feel I can muster up I’m afraid!
Related articles
- Christmas in an Anti-Christian Age (flyoverpress.wordpress.com)
- Room for Debate: Is Atheism a Religion? (nytimes.com)
- Cold-Case Christianity (challies.com)
How do I know if my brain is faulty?
The cartoon here, created by the ever-clever xkcd, spots a problem, but misses out on asking the right question. So let’s ask a different question:
Can I trust my brain?
Well, to find out whether or not I can trust my brain I need to perform some sort of test. Hm. Do I think that 2+2=4? Yes I do! Therefore, my brain must work…but the only reason I think that is because I know that…definitely a bit of circular reasoning going on there.
This is by no means an original thought but Christians have no problem with it; God created my brain, and therefore I can trust it. Great.But the atheist can’t think like that; no-one ‘created’ their brain, it adapted over millions of years. We simply assume we can rely on our brain’s reasoning abilities because otherwise there’s no scientific method.
Assume.
Assume basically means blind faith. Both Christians and atheists trust their brains (we have to really, don’t we) but Christians have a genuine, logical reason for doing so based on our beliefs whereas atheists don’t.
Bit of a problem, that.
Related articles
- Philosophy Basics for Atheists (i.e. morons) (conservativenewager.wordpress.com)
Abortion is involuntary euthanasia (i.e. wrong)
Abortion Memorial (Photo credit: DrGBB)
I don’t think it’ll take anyone by surprise when I say that I dislike abortion. Killing unborn children is something which, I think, should be avoided at all costs. Yes, exceptions, blah blah blah, but for 99.9%+ of cases, it’s wrong.
I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Take Peter Kreeft for example, who takes an opening statement (‘we know what an apple is’) and draws it to its logical conclusion (‘abortion is wrong’). Here’s the climax paragraph:
Perhaps pro-choicers perceive that they have no choice but to [deny that murder is morally wrong], for they have no other recourse if they are to argue at all. Scientific facts are just too clear to deny, and it makes no legal sense to deny the legal principle, for if the law is not supposed to defend the right to life, what is it supposed to do? [...] I think most people refuse to think or argue about abortion because they see that the only way to remain pro-choice is to abort their reason first. Or, since many pro-choicers insist that abortion is about sex, not about babies, the only way to justify their scorn of virginity is a scorn of intellectual virginity. The only way to justify their loss of moral innocence is to lose their intellectual innocence.
So there you go. According to this well-constructed argument, pro-choicers willingly stop their brains from working for the sake of abortion. If that offends you (or if you’re just interested in seeing the argument in full), you can read the whole thing here.
HT: Justin Taylor
Pro-abortion protesters protest in protest against protesting…what?
Protest sign: "Scientology Forces Abortions" (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I read a little article the other day. In summary, a bunch of pro-abortion supporters have planned a protest to protest against a protest in protest against abortions.
Maybe read it a couple of times.
Anyway, this made me think.
Firstly, it doesn’t need me to make up a silly sentence to show that the protest seems a bit daft – they’re literally protesting against a protest. That’s like unions striking in protest against the unions who are striking. Pro-life campaigners protest because they disagree that abortions should happen so easily, whereas these guys seem to be protesting because they disagree with the pro-lifers’ opinion…if that’s a sensible course of action we might as well all spend every day protesting!
Secondly, what they’re protesting against seems silly. At the top of the article there’s a picture, and the caption quotes someone they clearly disagree with; MP Nadine Dorris has proposed that 13-16 year-olds should be taught the:
benefits of abstinence from sexual activity.
Now, please feel free to accuse me of being a prood, but what’s wrong with that? At the age of 13-16 sex is illegal, so teaching the benefits of not breaking the law would seem to me to be a sensible idea! It’s like teaching under-18s that not drinking alcohol has benefits. Yes, drinking alcohol can be an enjoyable activity, as can sex, and neither MP Dorris nor me is suggesting that alcohol or sex should be banned from society, but that doesn’t seem to be that controversial to me.
Well, anyway, if you fancy protesting against a protest, or against teaching people that keeping the law can be a good idea, then be my guest.
I won’t be joining you.
