The country has recently been one of the most closed off countries in the world to the gospel, and the humanitarian crises there had been escalating as the government continued oppressing its people. In light of the natural disaster, the doors to Myanmar are opening as the level of need is beyond anything we can imagine. Please keep this country and its people in your prayers.
Author Archive for Zachary Moore
"No intelligence allowed," indeed. The message is clear- "Expelled" promotes a creationist message, for the purpose of driving people to Christianity. Hey, at least they're finally being honest about their motives.Dear AiG supporter,
I thought it very important to send you another email this week. You see, the news is so important that I also want you to send this email to your pastor and friends.
As you know, Darwinists have been expelling any hint of creation or intelligent design from public schools and research institutions. Now, many of them are expelling people from their academic posts in a desperate attempt to defend their evolutionary worldview.
The upcoming film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters next week (April 18). Already a highly controversial film, its host Ben Stein (whom I met last month) is on a personal quest to discover more about the topic of origins and to expose the ruthlessness of many evolutionists. Even though Stein is not a creationist and is not a Christian, he presents the evidence of intelligent design we see in the world and exposes the censorship efforts of leading evolutionists.
I encourage you to visit www.GetEXPELLED.com right now and discover more about this excellent, entertaining, and enlightening film. I’ve seen it twice now, including at a special preview screening at our Creation Museum. You need to see how our education system is expelling freedom of speech—and then you should do something about it.
For a theater listing, go to www.expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php
If you don’t see your local theater listed, call the manager and say you want to watch Expelled.
Please be a “creation evangelist.” Let your family and friends know about this film (send them this email with your words of endorsement), and then direct them to our website where they can find out more about the gospel message.
Thank you,
Ken Ham
President, Answers in Genesis


via Debunking Christianity
Although there's usually some ridiculous conversation in progress when the alarm trips, this morning's was especially interesting and ironic. The group was discussing the recent viral video of Tom Cruise blathering on about Scientology, which they had placed on their website. Show member "Kellie Rasberry" [sic] was defending his comments in the video, with the argument that all religious people think that they have the Answer, so she didn't think he should be criticized.
That alone tickled me awake, but then she offered the following case in point, which I'll paraphrase:"Everyone thinks Tom Cruise is crazy for thinking that aliens live inside each of us, but as Christians we believe that the Holy Spirit lives inside us, so is he really so crazy after all?"Oh, the irony, it is so delicious...
Libby Purves recently wrote in the Times:Richard Dawkins, Prophet of Atheism, has said in a BBC interview that he is not against “cultural” Christianity and “Yes, I like singing carols along with everyone else”. Which raises enough tantalising philosophical and ethical questions to keep us going till Christmas Eve. Dawkins sings carols? Does he sing all the words? Does he boom out lines about herald angels, holy nights, the tender Lamb promised from eternal years?Tantalizing, indeed. The veneer of hypocrisy seems to have been too attractive for Ms. Purves to let alone- though I daresay she, being both deist and carol-singer alike, may also be engaging in some cultural self-flagellation. The draw is obvious: the Great Atheist, the man who trumpets religion's flaws the world over, pauses at Christmastime to sing a few bars of "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing." If there's anything that titillates our interest more than hypocrisy, I'm not aware of it (although adding sex to the equation usually tips it past the boiling point, as the Spears family knows all too well).
...
But if you loudly and repeatedly make a career of denying any possibility at all of the reality of God, how honest is it to sing? How easy to reconcile? How insulting to those who mean every word of it?
But as with most outbursts of (false?) shock, this belies both a woeful ignorance of the accused, as well as a pathetically facile view of the cultural context. Dawkins has long voiced his support for the continuation of religion as a cultural curiosity, preserved in museums for edutainment purposes, much as we've done for the ancient Egyptian and Greco-Roman religions. Would Ms. Purves think us ethically and philosophically out-of-bounds for watching "The Mummy Returns," even though we didn't really accept the mystical power of the Book of the Dead? Or does the Disney film "Hercules" promote rampant hypocrisy amongst our youth? It would be another thing entirely if Ms. Purves discovered Dawkins teaching Sunday School in some back-alley or basement, and snapped pictures of him as he desperately tried to hide the felt-board Jesus in his hand. But if she thinks that catching him with a carol in his mouth will shame him or inflame us, Ms. Purves clearly doesn't know Dick.
Nor does she know much about Christmas. At the risk of enraging the Christian Christmas Warriors out there, this season isn't exactly a high-water mark of Christian theology. The well-informed need no instruction on this, but the primary contribution of Christianity to Christmas is the name alone- virtually everything else about the holiday comes from other sources. The foundational, of course, is the winter solstice, celebrated by virtually all northern hemisphere cultures in antiquity (and, not coincidentally, which is occurring today). From that humble (yet important) beginning, we have Brumalia, with its feasting and merry-making; Saturnalia, with its gift-giving and social reversals; Natalis Solis Invicti, which set the date on December 25th and linked it with the birth of a god; Yule, which brought the Christmas tree, holly, mistletoe, and most of Santa Claus. Each of these are thoroughly pagan, and yet without any of them, Christmas just wouldn't be Christmas. In fact, if one wanted to be annoyingly picky about it (and one does, I'm sure), it could be argued that Christmas was stolen by the Christians, and that celebrating the holiday as a non-Christian is simply reclaiming its proper heritage.
But the Christians did write some lovely songs, didn't they? Of course they did- music is a key component to any celebration, and after Christmas was co-opted there were many theologically-oriented songs written. Some songs were co-opted as well, as "Greensleeves" became "What Child is This?" Others have mixed parentage: "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" was written by the proto-Methodist Charles Wesley, but the melody was written by Felix Mendelssohn, a Jew. Ultimately, of course, these songs represent a sampling of the best human musical talents throughout history, which anyone can be proud of, no matter their religious orientation. The music for "Cantique de Noël" (O Holy Night) was written by the 19th century French composer Adolphe Adam, and is my absolute favorite. The lyrics never were much of an interest to me- even as a Christian, one of my favorite versions of the song was as a French horn quartet, performed by the Canadian Brass. And my absolute favorite version (which can sometimes bring me to tears) is sung by Eric Cartman, featured below.
It's a true atheist's Christmas carol. Best wishes to you and yours, and I hope you enjoy whatever holiday you use to mark the winter's solstice.
AVC: Do you have any fond memories of any holiday?
CH: A Christmas one? Only when I spent it far from home, and preferably far from anywhere where the thing was celebrated. Which has become more difficult since I've become a father. When I was younger, I used to shake my girlfriend and go just as far away from where we would normally be as possible. And just try to forget the whole thing. Cuba's a good place for that. I went there also for the New Year for 1999-2000, because it was the only place in the world that did not call that the Millennium. Because Castro ruled, for once, quite rightly, that the Millennium is 2000-2001. This is the wrong year. That's actually quite true. So you could get away from all the incessant crap about Y2K. And also Christmas, they don't make a big deal of Christmas down there. I took the family on that occasion, and we had a great time. I think attitudes toward Christmas don't depend just on attitude to religion, but on what kind of family you had, and my family was one that didn't do very well with compulsory celebrations. Whether they were birthdays or any other kind. It was always a little tense.
I recently returned from a long business trip; the flight wasn't too long, but most of the passengers were grumpy because the flight itself had been delayed several hours. The upshot of this meant that, at least for me, it would have been quicker to drive home than fly... but I digress.
Within theistic worldviews, birth defects present a particularly troubling example of the Problem of Evil- the obvious question being, "if God is so loving, why would he cause children to be born physically deformed or developmentally disabled?"I don't think any parent of a disabled child would like the idea that their child is a curse to them. I'm sure there are difficulties but does that mean the child is useless? Does that mean that the parents can't learn anything from the child? Does the child not love?...This is another one of those arguments that is supposed to defend some people group from the likes of people who think God is loving. If I have a special needs child, the Lord would certainly be showing Grace by teaching me to love and be patient and understanding and allowing my heart to be changed to pour love on a child who, in the arms of some proponent of that argument, would apparently be hated.
The problem is that this is an explicitly Christian label, not one that stems from naturalism. The root of this can be found in Genesis 3, where Yahweh speaks curses into existence after he discovers that Adam and Eve have eaten from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Especially astute readers will note that only two curses are given in this passage: one to the serpent, and one to the soil. Neither Adam nor Eve are specifically 'cursed' by Yahweh, and in fact the only threat of death comes from Yahweh's removal of the two proto-humans from the Tree of Life, which it must be presumed could have sustained them otherwise. Later, as Jewish theology evolved, the concept that any physical disability or deformity was the province of Yahweh became more explicit:Exodus 4: 'Who makes a person dumb or deaf, gives sight or makes blind? Is it not I, Yahweh?'
Leviticus 21: Yahweh spoke to Moses and said: 'Speak to Aaron and say: "None of your descendants, for all time, may come forward to offer the food of his God if he has any infirmity, for non may come forward if he has an infirmity, be he blind or lame, disfigured or deformed, or with an injured foot or arm, a hunchback, someone with rickets or opthalmia or the scab or running sores, or a eunuch. No descendant of the priest Aaron may come forward to offer the food burnt for Yahweh if he has any infirmity; if he has an infirmity, he will not come forward to offer the food of his God. He may eat the food of his God, things especially holy and things holy, but he will not go near the curtain or approach the altar, since he has an infirmity and must not profane my holy things; for I, Yahweh, have sanctified them"'
Job 11: Come, reconsider your attitude, stretch out your hands towards him! If you repudiate the sin which you have doubtless committed and do not allow wickedness to live on in your tents, you will be able to raise an unsullied face, unwavering and free of fear, for you will forget about your misery, thinking of it only as a flood that passed long ago.
By the time of Paul the concept had progressed to the point where not only was the human condition the result of God's curse, and not only were physical hardships divinely mandated, and not only were they deserved as a response to sin, but in fact the continued existence of death and any suffering was directly due to the 'original sin,' which, though not literally supported, was at that point obscured by enough layers of tradition to be a plausible explanation when Paul needed a motivation for his casting of Jesus as the ultimate salvific agent: Romans 5: Therefore, just as sin gained entry into the world through a single individual, with death arriving on sin's coat tails, death permeated all mankind since all sinned.
John 9: And passing by, he noticed a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this poor wretch or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that the mighty works of God might be displayed through him."
And thus we reach the second point that John presents: that of handicapped or disabled children existing explicitly as educational tools, whether to demonstrate the power of God as with the blind man in John 9, or serving to bestow a lesson of Grace as John posits on his blog. While, as I said above, I can't find fault with parents wanting to find purpose in their child's misfortune, at the same time I can't help but see it as the most hollow purpose imaginable.
Following news of an unfortunate health problem with the family of a mutual friend of ours, John Wilson struggles to understand how atheists cope with these situations. I mean this in as sincere a way as I can muster: what does someone who does not believe in God do with pain and death? Having a degree in Philosophy ensures that I have had and continue to get an earful of why evil means that God does not exist but not one time have I heard a good explanation from the other side as to the meaning of it.
...
I can pray for my friend and for his wife. I can pray for them both. I can offer up petitions and beg for her health. And maybe I am painting the ceiling with air. Maybe nothing is listening to me but my distant cousin, the cockroach. Then I am only participating in some art form handed down by some gene. Or my brain uses it to provide some societal function.
Do my prayers work? Are they mine that work or someone else's? I don't know. I don't need to know. A positive answer or a negative one does not change the fact that either way that pain is redeemed. And none of this solves anything.
And yet...I can pray.
Antony Flew is at the center of quite a bit of drama right now- though I daresay he's likely oblivious to it all. 
Date: Monday, November 12, 2007
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: University of Texas at Arlington, University Center, Red River/Concho Rooms
Participants: Dan Barker (Atheist), Kevin Harris (Christian)
Click here for Google Map goodness to help find directions.
ERV seems to have a remarkable talent for putting Michael Behe in his place.One defining characteristics of Creationists is that no matter what their educational background, their highest attained degree is treated as a carte blanche for authority in any topic under the sun. ... Hence no one should be surprised at your arrogance, claiming you know more about HIV-1 evolution than everyone in the HIV research community, even the people whose papers you chose to cite.
Though you, Behe, hump your credentials on the legs of every book you write and presentation you give, you curiously made the decision to exclude all of *my* research experience and chose to refer to me as some ‘woman.’
But your ability to ask questions and use PubMed has atrophied, Behe. Your only recourse to my essay was Creationism. You made the decision to ignore everything I said about Vpu's differential evolution between subtypes and pubjack a review like a Creationist.
Oh, to not be Michael Behe right now...So whats your deal? Is it just for the money? You’ve got a litter of kids, and I admit I would find the $20K you get for selling out rather tempting in todays funding climate. Do you just like how you get treated by your followers? Or do you like how you get treated by your opponents, in a Mel Gibson sort of way?
In the spirit of Halloween, I thought that I'd spark a discussion of something truly horrific... murder most foul, and in the Bible, no less!It wasn't just the howls of dismay, it's the sheer nastiness that accompanies them that's so odd. That an author so popular and so beloved would be told to shut up her big fat mouth since she's just plain wrong is remarkable, to say the least.
Most people are trying to couch their indignation in the language of art and literary theory, claiming that once she had finished the book, her input had ended, and no way is she gonna tell me who is and who isn't gay if I don't like it.
The reality is, of course her input doesn't end the minute she puts down her pen. Even the high-brow literary types have to admit that her opinion counts at least as much as the next reader, and that's all she was really offering anyway: her opinion about one of the characters.
In this age of printed text and copyright, storytellers have much more control over their characters than in ages past. These days, ideas have currency, and all of five minutes spent germinating a character with potentially international appeal could translate into a massive fortune. For those storytellers who have found popular success, special dispensation is given to the stories that they themselves create, even as their characters leave their aegis at first telling. The term 'canon,' more familiarly applied to Biblical stories, is even used to wall-off and separate those truly "authentic" stories from the cheap knock-offs crafted by those who have borrowed the characters, either legitimately or otherwise.
And 'canon' is the right word, to be sure. Imagine a similar situation occurring to a key character in the stories of the Biblical canon... let's say, Jesus. Is it that difficult to predict what might happen if, for example, an old text from a church father were to make the suggestion that Jesus was gay? Oh, right- that happened. It's not likely to be accurate, but I can't think of a single Christian who finds it plausible... because it conflicts with the picture of Jesus interpreted from the 'canon.' Never mind that no mention is made there of Jesus' sexuality one way or another, nor the fact that he's middle-aged and unmarried, hanging out with a bunch of guys all the time.
The fact of the matter is that 'canon' is just opinion, too. It's just the way the story happened to be told by one person, or agreed upon by a group of people. Nobody's confined to it, and it's subject to change. Just think of how the interpretation of the Tanakh changed after the Christians added their scriptures to it. But if those of us who are interested in figuring out the root of the Christian story deviate from 'canon,' what do we hear?
No way are they gonna tell me who is and who isn't myth if I don't like it!
- lee strobel fake atheist
- rush limbaugh anti religion
- does Christianity glorify death?
- religious moral systems
- sexual goosing meth
...interesting, and that seems about right. While I'm at it, I'll check out which phrases list Evolution 101 as the #1 hit:
- do men have milk ducks
- how homosexuality evolved
- time before a woman orgasm
- why men have mammary glands
- do all mammals have nipples
Filthy stuff, that. Clearly, the popularity of the podcast is due to its prurient interest.

I get angry when religious believers make arguments against atheism -- and make accusations against atheists -- without having bothered to talk to any atheists or read any atheist writing. I get angry when they trot out the same old "Atheism is a nihilistic philosophy, with no joy or meaning to life and no basis for morality or ethics"... when if they spent ten minutes in the atheist blogosphere, they would discover countless atheists who experience great joy and meaning in their lives, and are intensely concerned about right and wrong.

This past Sunday, after the NTCOF service, I had planned to meet a new friend at the Jason's Deli fellowship lunch/blood drive, so that I could give him a copy of the William Lane Craig presentation on DVD. When he stopped by, I asked if he had any time to stick around and chat with the friendly Freethinkers, but he said that he wanted to head over to the Islamic Center of Irving for their (regular) Open House event. After spit-taking my chocolate soft-serve/root beer float (it's delicious), I quickly inquired where it was located, since I've been looking for an excuse to interact with some Muslims on thier own turf recently, and this was just about as good as I was going to get.

This group of Muslims has been active in Dallas for well over 15 years, and have somewhat recently built their own masjid, after meeting in private homes, hotels, and rented commercial space. It ranks in size with most of the more moderate Christian megachurches in the area, and is at least as architechurally attractive as the best of them. Having a strictly geometrical aesthetic tradition, it's not too terribly surprising that their architecture is so impressive. Aside from that difference, there wasn't that much about the place that didn't remind me of any other average Christian church- bulletin boards, pamphlets, warm lighting all around. There were plenty of masjid members immediately outside and in the foyer, all with smiling faces and friendly attitudes, happy to welcome any and everyone inside and direct them to the registration table, where we received gift bags containing a (English translation of the) Qur'an, a number of informational pamplets and brochures, and a booklet detailing all the (groan) scientific discoveries that were predicted by the Qur'an.

One of the things that was somewhat disquieting to me personally was the obvious evidence of gender segregation in the place. There's a separate "Sisters' Entrance" and "Sisters' Prayer Room," and all the female members were wearing hijab. Of course, I reminded myself that one really doesn't have to look far from orthodox Christianity to find a lot of the same stuff- Mormonism, especially the fundamentalist variety, gets very close to this same concept, and you probably don't have to try very hard to find similar female roles in hard-core fundamentalist orthodox Christian communities either. Hell, the Shaker movement claimed complete segregation of the genders to be an article of faith, and even built it into their architecture!
After registering at the entrance, guided tours commenced that wound through the masjid, showing us the washing areas (used by the men prior to prayer), the masjid store (sold hard-to-find treats, candies, and Muslim literature), the prayer rooms, some of the schoolrooms (they run a K-12 educational program), and upstairs to a sort of fellowship hall (serving Middle-eastern refreshments), which led into a room set up with lots of chairs ready for a presentation.
My friend was already in the room, and since it was packed (with people from apparently a wide variety of backgrounds), I sidled around the back and took a spot near the front right. I was somewhat surprised to see two white guys sitting at the table in the front while the Imam recited verses from the Qur'an, but I figured they were there as representatives of the community or local government, there to lend their support to the Muslims during a time of inter-cultural and -religious interaction. Imagine my surprise when they were introduced as Khalil (Eric) Meek and Dr. Yaseen (Jason) Black, two Muslim members. In fact, Khalil Meek is active with the Dallas chapter of the Council for American-Islamic Relations, being somewhat uniquely qualified for the role after converting to Islam while studying to become a Southern Baptist preacher.
They took turns talking to the crowd about Islam, with the major points being:
- Islam is a religion of peace
- Muslims love Jesus just as much as (if not more than) Christians
- Muslims don't mistreat women.
Regarding the first point, they stressed that Islam is nothing more than submission of one's will to the One God, which I have to admit, sounds a lot like any of the other two large monotheistic religions, and of course, they claimed all of the Jewish prophets (as well as Jesus) as good Muslims. Regarding the second point, they claimed that as a good Muslim (and second only to Mohammed), respect and reverence for Jesus is important to all Muslims. It's just that the Christians who wrote down his words later added to them (I'm on board with that) either intentionally or inadvertently obscuring the fact that the historical Jesus preached Islam (not so much on board with that). To bolster their third point, they claimed that the hijab is a directive from God, and so Muslim women are showing their respect and worship towards Him when they follow his orders (it just happens to be a coincidence that this also follows sociological patterns of female ownership).
After the presentations, they opened the floor for questions from the audience. I was somewhat expecting the questions to be genuinely curious about Islam, but they ended up being largely confrontational, or at least somewhat accusatory. They amounted to, essentially: "Why don't you believe in Christianity?" There seemed to be a genuine bafflement among those Christ-followers in the audience as to why, if these Muslims worshiped the One True God, respected all the prophets from Adam to Jesus, rejected evolution and equitable gender roles, they wouldn't just go the whole hog (so to speak) and become Christians?
This was perhaps the most entertaining part of the experience for me. Given my perspective, there's very little in terms of fundamental theological differences (just the identity of Jesus, really) between them. It was also interesting to see crossed apologetic swords, as in the video above- my friend asks why they deny the resurrection of Jesus, and the Imam gives the classic Muslim docetic response. It kills me when religious apologists from different faiths use their standard arguments on each other, expecting them to be bulletproof. At any rate, it was bizarre to see Christians walk into a masjid and take Muslims to task for their religious beliefs... it'd be like a Protestant walking into a Catholic church and asking the priest why he believes in the doctrine of transubstutation. Or like an orthodox Christian walking into a Mormon temple and asking why they believe Jesus appeared in America. Apparently Muslims are just different enough that they have to make an extra effort to justify their presence in America... and Austin Cline suggests that the sense of Christian nationalism may have something to do with this.
From where I stand, though, this is just one more sign that religious diversity is on the rise here in the states (even in Texas!), when there almost as many Muslims as Presbyterians. I see this as an even stronger indication that common understanding needs to be sought among all parties, theists and nontheists, as well as every variation on either side. That's the only way we're going to be able to make progress without succumbing to violence and immorality.






