Some observations from Matt Flannagan over at M and M reminded me of the existence of the atheist campaign to evangelise the world through billboards. In honour of that campaign, I suggest launching another, much more important campaign:

Any lifeguard who tells me this is sure to put my mind at ease.

(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

I spotted Richard Dawkins’ DVD for sale at richarddawkins.net yesterday. I can’t believe they let such a whopping typo make it all the way through the production process.

I fixed it.

(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Alexander Pruss recently presented this “fun argument for dualism” at his blog:

(Premise) Our embodiment is universally seen as funny.

(Premise, justified inductively by 1) Our embodiment is objectively funny.

(Premise) The essence of the funny is incongruity.

(Premise) If materialism is true, there is no incongruity in our embodiment.

(Premise) If materialism is false, then dualism is true.

There is incongruity in our embodiment. (2 and 3)

Materialism is false. (4 and 6)

Dualism is true. (5 and 7)

My reply: Don’t ever do that again, or anything like it.

(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Two men met at a Christian conference. Man A eyed man B suspiciously before striking up a conversation. The following back and forth ensued:

Man A: What’s that Bible you have there?

Man B: Hello to you too. It’s an ESV.

Man A: Oh, well that’s pretty good I guess…. Luther or Calvin?

Man B: I’m sorry?

Man A: Luther or Calvin?

Man B: Ah, well, Calvin I supp-

Man A: Yes! Yes, good, Calvin!

Man B: Ah, OK, good. Look, my name’s Greg. It’s nice to meet you.

Man A: Greg you say. Well Greg, Trinitarian and all that?

Man B: Yes, of course.

Man A: Of course, of course. Now, think fast: Pre, Post, or A?

Man B: I’m sorry, what?

Man A: The millennium! Pre, Post or A?

Man B: Um, well, I don’t- I mean I’m not really decided. Maybe Amillennial, but Postmillennialism could be right, I’ve never really thought hard about tha-

Man A: Ah, well, at least you’re not the other one. Westminster confession?

Man B: Yes, it’s pretty good. Not infallible, mind you, but it’s good.

Man A: Mmmm, sounding a bit liberal there… we’ll work on it. Sola Scriptura?

Man B: Yes, actually. Yes, as long as it’s properly understood.

Man A: Properly understood? That better not be a cop out!

Man B: No, not at all. I just mean that I accept that idea as it was historically understood by the Reformers.

Man A: … alright then. Justification by faith?

Man B: Yes.

Man A: Abortion is wrong right?

Man B: Yes, definitely. It’s like killing anyone else.

Man A: Yes, Amen! Good, good. Same sex marriage. Yes or no?

Man B: No.

Man A: Well said.

Man B: Why are you doin-

Man A: Oh nothing. Nothing, don’t worry. Sounds like you’ll be alright.

Man B: I’m relieved!

Man A: Yes, yes, don’t worry, you’re not like those liberal punks. They’ll be sorry when they end up roasting in hell forever.

Man B: Well you know I’m not really sure that the Bible teaches that that’s what will happ-

Man A: Liberal! Postmodern! You’ve given up a biblical worldview! Heck, you’ve just thrown evangelical Christianity away! You’re so emotional!

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Looking over recent census based statitstics on religion, I note that there are some deniers out there. Those deniers at statistics new Zealand claim that affiliation with Christian demoninations is on the decline, and there is a rise in numbers of those willing to change their identification from “other” to “no religion.” What a pack of deniers. Clearly they are anti-science.

But my say-so isn’t going to cut it I fear. I need… a graph! People believe graphs. But there’s one problem… all this pesky data lying around. What if people find it? They might become diners too, and we can’t have that. Then I struck on a brilliant idea. I gathered up all this data and emailed it off to East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre. I hear they’re great at making stuff up number crunching.

Before the final result was produced, there were a number of emails sent around between collaborators who were to produce the final version of the graph. I liked what I heard. Mick Kelly said:

Hmmm, I’m concerned by the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable numbers beyond what you might expect from temporary backsliding as people go through University etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent “heathen-esqe” years.

Smooth move! I was hoping that some of the others might come to the party to massage the data and make sure that it gives the result that I want people to believe right result. I was not disappointed. Phil Jones had just the thing, right before the final diagram was produced:

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that off to Glenn either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s trick of adding in the real number of Christians to each series for the last 10 years (ie from 2000 onwards) to hide the decline. We wouldn’t want anyone to notice the decline. That would be bad.

Bad indeed! Now instead of a decline in the Christian percentage, we have scientific proof that we’re heading for a revival! Oh, I suppose you’ll want to see the graph. After all, there’s no proof without a graph. So here it is:

Where are the deniers now?

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Anselm and his just dessert

Let us understand the term Super Freeze to refer to the creamiest, most delicious ice cream that can be conceived of (regardless of whether any other ice cream exists or not). The fool says in his heart that Super Freeze does not exist. Yet this very fool, in order to say this, must have Super Freeze in mind when he denies its existence. So even this fool will admit that Super Freeze exists in his understanding, although he does not understand it to exist in reality.

Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding: the creamiest, most delicious ice cream that can be conceived of. But surely the creamiest, most delicious ice cream that can be conceived of cannot exist in the understanding alone. For if it did, we could then go further and conceive of it existing in reality as well, which would make it creamier and more delicious – for real ice cream is surely creamier and more delicious than imaginary ice cream (as any fool can tell you). This is clearly impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists an ice cream than which no creamier or more deliciosu can be conceived, and that it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

So truly do you exist, O Super Freeze my ice cream, that you can not be conceived not to exist.

Thanks a million, Anselm!

[EDIT: OK, this was going to be an inside joke, but for those completely in the dark: This is a parody of Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. It's a bad argument. Click the above link to read the original argument. The primary purpose of the parody is to invoke the art of humour.]

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

It’s a little known fact that between his stints at Calvin College and the University of Notre Dame, Alvin Plantinga had a brief cameo in a monster movie where he terrorised tourists at the Taj Mahal.

See here for an explanation of what possessed me to do this.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

OK, just one more comic, this time from XKCD:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

I couldn’t resist. I saw this today and involuntarily nodded.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

And now for something completely different. This may be my favourite ever TV advertisement:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...