Profile

Cover photo
John Lathouwers
Lives in Bloomington, IL
32,005 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

John Lathouwers

Shared publicly  - 
 
Atheists often get the comment that god's existence is self-evident and should be the null hypothesis, putting the burden of proof on atheists... Having Christianity summed up like this should illustrate why we consider that a dubious position...
 
It all sounds so logical
WHY can't athiests just believe...
1
Ambrose Little's profile photoJohn Lathouwers's profile photo
9 comments
 
Btw: I still don't see how premis A relates to any of the 4 propositions. To me there is still no link. What is the meaning you are deriving from the premise. And how does it relate to each proposal?
Add a comment...
 
Notorious atheist Tim Minchin finds God: http://youtu.be/IZeWPScnolo
1
Add a comment...

John Lathouwers

Shared publicly  - 
 
Interesting. This means that those Afghani that want to stay in the EU have an option to do so by rejecting their religion. I say this ironically, because I don't think one can choose (at least not short term) to believe or not. But it does suggest an interesting dynamic towards an increasingly secular Arab population in the EU. Strategically, this could work.
 
Whilst this is good news in some regards, might it be seen as legitimizing the legal position of apostasy, as well as giving a pretext for asylum by those who would pretend to be atheist?
1
Add a comment...

John Lathouwers

Shared publicly  - 
 
Prayer for the ill is more likely to cause complicatios than to improve recovery: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567
1
Add a comment...

John Lathouwers

Shared publicly  - 
 
Bible versus abortion?

The bible only suggests in one passage that there is life before birth and it only talks of some moment in the womb. It does not talk about conception, it does not specify when in the womb. If anybody tells you it does they are flat out lying. So fine, the bible says life starts in the womb and science tells us it is somewhere between 12 and 24 weeks after the last menstrual cycle. Honestly, I don't even see the conflict here.
1
John Lathouwers's profile photoDavid L. Gray's profile photo
21 comments
 
Not equates, but indicates... or at the very least suggests.
Add a comment...

John Lathouwers

Shared publicly  - 
 
Lets assume for a second that there was a designer... Based on the evidence, was it an intelligent designer or a stupid designer.

Neil Degrasse Tyson - Stupid Design
3
Marcel Douwstra's profile photoJohn Lathouwers's profile photoSargeZeldaProduction Videos!'s profile photoTeófilo de Jesús's profile photo
9 comments
 
+SargeZeldaProduction Videos!, without defending +Teófilo de Jesús's position, I would point out that he did not assert proof. As I understand the position, they only state that it is more likely for something to have been created than to have spontaneously come into being. The fact that this a wildly inaccurate statement in itself does not impress them as such. Which surprises me only a little.

What surprises me a lot more, is the fact that they can not accept the spontaneous origin of the universe, or even the everlasting nature of a universe with no beginning or end, but have no problem accepting that something so complex and perfect as their god can just be, with no creator of his own nor a start or a finish. They don't seem to understand that whatever they object to in their rejection of the origin of the universe can and should equally apply to their assumed god.
Add a comment...
 
 
Show of hands, who's a "bedtime procrastinator"? #Thrive
Researchers in the Netherlands pinpoint a dumb reason you don’t get enough sleep.
1
Add a comment...

John Lathouwers

Shared publicly  - 
 
This Easter, commit to knowing the resurrection story as told in all gospels. Each carrying equal importance; lets combine all gospels into "the resurrection according to everyone"...

It should go something like this:
On the evening after His death, His body is covered by Joseph of Arimathea with a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes and buried (Jn 19, 39-42). Mary Magdalene and the mother of Jozef (Mark 15:47) and other women (Lk 24,10) see that happen, yet they proceed to then buy fragrant spices to embalm Him (Mk 16.1). When the sun had just come up (so it's not dark) (Mk 16,2), Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Mt 28,1) and Salome (Mk 16,1) went to the grave. But wait, no, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone and it was still dark (John 20:1). The three (or two) women see that the stone is displaced and inside the tomb they see a young man sitting in a white robe (Mark 16:5), or not, instead, an angel displaced the stone right in front of them and then sits down outside the tomb (Mt 28,2), or no something else still happens instead, they find the stone displaced, then see that the body of Jesus is missing, and only then they see two men in front of them (Lk 24.2 to 4). etc...
1
John Lathouwers's profile photoJustin Stroh's profile photo
20 comments
 
+Justin Stroh It wasn't on this post, but elsewhere you cordially invited me to offer more input to further a debate. This I would consider good form. Not responding to the material provided after explicitly extending the invite... less so.
Add a comment...

John Lathouwers

Shared publicly  - 
1
Ambrose Little's profile photoJohn Lathouwers's profile photo
41 comments
 
LOL. Nice play on words there. Have a good weekend.
Add a comment...

John Lathouwers

Shared publicly  - 
 
To everybody who ever uses the words "I saw it with my own eyes" and expects me to be impressed, just try this one...

You're ability to see things is constantly impaired by the limitation of your brain to process different types of information at once. Essentially we only see what our brain allows us to see.
 
Stare at the dot in the middle and you'll experience temporary motion blindness of the static yellow dots.
4
1
Crystal Collins's profile photo
Add a comment...

John Lathouwers

Shared publicly  - 
 
When my 5 year old asked me why the sky was blue, I told her it wasn't. Sky is colorless, but the fact that sunlight gets refracted in certain ways makes our eyes pick up light that our brains interpret in a color we have learned to call blue.

When she asked me if her bed covers were green, I changed out her light bulb with an RGB led and set it to violet. And asked her to look again. "Now its black?". No now you see it black, because there is no green light to reflect, the bed cover hasn't changed.

When a boy asked her for the color black in school she responded, black isn't a color, it is the absence of color.

I don't she would ever fall for this crap...
 
A friend sent her kids to brainwashing bible camp. They did a live version of this skit. Essentially the point is: if everyone, especially the educated, disagrees with you, you must be right. Beyond the core point being bunk, there are several other absurdities. Worth a watch (on an empty stomach).
1
Add a comment...

John Lathouwers

Shared publicly  - 
 
In response to a anti abortion comment to one of my posts:

Comment:
"Is it not a baby -- a human life--when the child's heart is beating at 22 days old? "

Response:
Clearly we won't agree on the definition of life. So I'm not going to argue the point. Instead I'll accept it is life and still affirm that it is a morally acceptable thing to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at 22 days.

However, I can argue that you are misusing language. We are not talking about a baby, we are talking about an embryo. You are free to value both the same, but not to use the wrong words to describe it.

Now the heart is first organ to develop. Its sole purpose is to provide the means to transport nutrients and waste throughout the body. At 22 days there are no other organs, so it is basically as useful as a highway with no on ramps. It is not a mystical start of life. The heart does not hold the key to personality, life and definitely not love, contrary to popular belief love is a brain and hormone thing.

At 22 days a beating heart is just that. Much like a transplant heart taken from a dead body and twitching only through electronic stimulation. It carries no mystical value or inherent life.

A beating heart is not the factor that defines life to the extent that it is conscious, feeling life or that it is an imperative to keep it alive. Take the other end of human life and consider a brain dead comatose patient who's heart is still beating in a shell of a body with no brain activity whatsoever. The fact are that we could keep the heart pumping for as long as we like, but it doesn't provide a life worth living. In an extreme case, it is even possible to remove the head and all vital organs and still keep the heart beating, as they do when keeping organs for transplant as long as possible. So in light of that the beating heart of 22 day human cell cluster known as an embryo is just a conditio sine qua non for viable life to develop, but it is not enough in itself.
2
John Lathouwers's profile photoTeófilo de Jesús's profile photo
4 comments
 
I'm going to ignore for a moment that you clearly don't understand Godwin's law, or the concept of a slippery slope argument. In fact I'll even ignore the fact that you also defiled your previous comment with yet another fallacy, know as the strawman argument.

Instead i will only address the component of your comment that will actually progress the debate.

Oops, my mistake, there is no content that furthers the debate.

In that case, let me readdress the post before that, and confirm that there is nothing magical about breathing either. If a body only has a beating heart and a breathing lung, it would not be an example of significant life, and in my opinion euthanasia would be a perfectly viable option. Are you suggesting it wouldn't be?
Add a comment...
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Bloomington, IL
Previously
Talahasī, FL - Boston, MA
Links
Basic Information
Gender
Male