April 2012 Screwballs

[Chrs]

Version 2.

[One Bad Pig]

[JB]

[rogue06]

[GK Kirbyton]

Edit: Wait.....Version 2? What happened to version 1?

[Manwë Súlimo]

Screwball to 404 errors everywhere.

[MWM958]

wut

[One Bad Pig]

I got a screen once that said,

OHHI

.

[fm93]

Hey, the site's back up. Good Friday just got even better.

[Raphael]

[rogue06]

Screwball to an article I read called "On Visions and Hallucinations: Can Hallucination Account for the Post-Crucifixion Appearance of Jesus?" the final paragraph from which I wrote down:

"The hallucination hypothesis was applied here to only one alleged post-crucifixion appearance of Jesus summarized in three Gospel stories. It may or may not apply to the other five appearance stories. Secular or naturalistic hypotheses must be, or have already been, developed to account for them. For the most part, attacks on hallucination hypotheses by Christian apologists have been ill conceived and uninformed by modern psychology. Based on careful examination of the Gospels and our current knowledge of the human mind, it appears that a hallucination hypothesis is far superior to a resurrection hypothesis in accounting for the "facts" of post-crucifixion story. Secular or naturalistic hypotheses easily account for the data we have, the resurrection hypothesis is "superimprobable,"¹⁹ and thus at this state of our knowledge we should be skeptical of it."

Why am I not surprised that someone who says "Secular or naturalistic hypotheses must be ... developed to account for" the resurrection accounts would therefore conclude that "a hallucination hypothesis is far superior to a resurrection hypothesis"?

And the footnote cite at the end links to a work by the author of this piece (so he's quoting himself here): Whittenberger, Gary J. 2010. God Wants You to be an Atheist: The Startling Conclusion from a Rational Analysis. Denver: Outskirts Press, 98.

FWIW, Outskirt Press is a self-publishing service

And as a last added bit the author does cite William Lane Craig extensively -- as well as Michael Licona.

The article is in Vol. 17 No. 1 issue of "Skeptic" pp 40-45 for those who want to track it down.


I looked before posting and it looks like the article can be found Here

[Benson Shays]

You know that feeling you get when you're swimming and stay under the water just a few seconds too long? I just had that feeling again when reading Ed Babinski's blog.

[Manwë Súlimo]

This isn't even an insult, but a mere statement of fact. Ed Babinski is sick and needs help.

[Teluog]

Anti-screwball to Patrick Greene, former atheist: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...xpires_in=6666

[moreta]