Dozens of small to moderate earthquakes sent shivers through residents of southeastern California on Sunday as buildings and dishes rattled. And the growing tropical storm, Isaac, thrashed the Southeast corner of the US disrupting plans for the Republican National Convention. But, nevertheless, it was a clear and sunny evening in Anaheim Stadium, the central location of the largest US evangelical event in US history. A brief search of mainstream news sources couldn't provide one national mainstream news source that even mentioned the event in passing. The following is a brief review of Harvest Anaheim 2012.
The live event was organized in such a way that people around the country could bring friends and relatives to a local church and watch the event live on a streaming feed. And the video of the presentation has been archived at the Harvest website for free viewing. It began with live worship songs by the Harvest worship band, which I personally appreciated more than the 'Christian music stars' who played. The Harvest worship band offered a certain "rattle and hum" reminiscent of classic U2 before they lost their sense of the "unforgettable fire" that seemed to ignite their earlier music. The interviews of the Christian music stars seemed like infomercials, a bit unnecessary. During secular rock concerts fans will often hold up cigarette lighters to show their support and to feel a sense of unity. At this venue, Christians were encouraged to pick up their cell phones and offer a Tweet of the event on Twitter. Why not?
The main message, "Is it Possible to Change our Lives?" included many philosophical points, such as this one, "I know something about everyone - deep down inside everyone is empty." The deep and serious philosophical points were balanced with Greg Laurie's classic humor that helped to make the message appealing to the masses. Laurie has a tradition of mixing humor with deep philosophical questions. Laurie once described the importance of essential gnawing questions:
"Philosopher Hugh Moorhead wrote to 250 of the world’s best-known philosophers, scientists, writers and intellectuals and asked them the question, what is the meaning of life? Some offered their best guesses. Others admitted they just made up a purpose for life. Others were honest enough to say they were clueless. And many of them wrote back and asked Moorhead if he had discovered the meaning of life."
The Harvest organizers emphasized prayer before and during the event. And all glory was given to God for the masses who dedicated their lives to Jesus Christ on Sunday as a result of God's Holy Spirit working throughout the US. With so much bad news these days, some good news is a breath of fresh air. Too bad mainstream news ignores such events.
"Philosopher Hugh Moorhead wrote to 250 of the world’s best-known philosophers, scientists, writers and intellectuals and asked them the question, what is the meaning of life? Some offered their best guesses. Others admitted they just made up a purpose for life. Others were honest enough to say they were clueless. And many of them wrote back and asked Moorhead if he had discovered the meaning of life."
The Harvest organizers emphasized prayer before and during the event. And all glory was given to God for the masses who dedicated their lives to Jesus Christ on Sunday as a result of God's Holy Spirit working throughout the US. With so much bad news these days, some good news is a breath of fresh air. Too bad mainstream news ignores such events.
Tags: largest evangelical event in US history, largest gospel outreach in US history, biggest one-day crusade in US history, Greg Laurie Anaheim a successful outreach, review of Harvest Anaheim, Christian good news, mainstream news ignores largest evangelical event in US history, Greg laurie philosophy, apologetics, philosophy and humor, positive Christian news today
Dominant religion in expanding population using new technology hosts largest event of its kind ever; film at 11.
ReplyDeleteHardly "news" for anyone who doesn't already believe and care.
- I suppose you are right. Atheists celebrating a "Reason Rally" including keynote speakers who avoid logic like the plague...
Deletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html
... does make for a much more interesting story.
Not to mention top atheist apologists who refuse to debate for "moral reasons"
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html
...when, even if their atheism were true, it has yet to offer any objective basis for morality whatsoever.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html
I would agree, these things make for much more interesting news.
And even though roughly 80% of the US consists of people who profess belief in Chris...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124793/this-christmas-78-americans-identify-christian.aspx
.,.that's no reason to presume that the largest gospel event might be covered by mainstream news when the largest atheist event, the "Reason Rally" garners attention from Fox News, Washington Post, Forbes, etc. A little discrimination never hurt anyone. At least we aren't being fed to the lions just yet. There is always something to be thankful for.
I notice you take the opportunity once again to flag discredited articles. Surprise, surprise.
DeleteYou do realize, Rick, that an event covering a small percentage of a majority population *is* less newsworthy than an event covering a large percentage of a minority, especially one that has reason to feel discriminated against -- unlike Christians, who seem to feel that unless they're allowed to discriminate against others and ignore laws they don't like, they're being oppressed.
I flag "discredited" articles?
ReplyDeleteVery funny.
Let's consider a comment by Reynold:
>Oh? Atheists "avoid logic like the plague"? Wrong, wrong. In regards to your point #4, you should read athiest philosopher Stephen Law's blog sometime.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html?showComment=1332897660260#c115064073036305742
- Notice that Reynold focused on the main theme of the article and, yet, he did not challenge the examples in the actual article, such as Richard Dawkins, who spoke at the "Reason Rally." However, Reynold offered Stephen Law, a less known example of an atheist apologist who supposedly uses logical arguments. But, Reynold was quite wrong. As a follow-up article of mine shows, Stephen Law does NOT use logically organized arguments, as noted:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/stephen-law-helps-reveal-nature-of.html
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/04/stephen-law-austin-cline-and-ukrainian.html
It seems you have taken a turn for the worse, Imnotandrei. Offering patently false claims about "discredited" articles is not good.
Cherry-picking one comment does not mean that the article hasn't been discredited.
DeleteYour "human flourishing" article is in such bad shape you're having to put together another article just to address the problems with the first one.
And, frankly, yes -- Craig causing controversy is much more newsworthy than a bunch of people gathered together sans controversy. Funny how that works.
Offering patently false claims about "discredited" articles is not good.
Don't worry, Rick, I have a long way to sink (if sinking I'm doing) before reaching your level. At least I don't claim to have refuted someone's points by quoting an example I never used before.
>Cherry-picking one comment does not mean that the article hasn't been discredited.
ReplyDelete- Cherry picking?
The entire premise of the article is that top atheist apologists have been unable to offer logical foundations for their arguments.
It is you who is "cherry picking" - and cherry picking points from completely different articles than the ones I noted, .i.e. one on Sam Harris.
If the main premise of the article I noted has supposedly been "discredited" then where are the links to comments offering sound logical arguments by top atheist apologists? Isn't that what it will take to disprove my point?
You can begin by offering the strongest logical argument you have in mind first.
Where is the link, please?
All the comments at this blog are link friendly.
So, where is you evidence to show my point was "discredited"?
- Cherry picking?
DeleteCherry-picking. You pick one comment out of a comment thread -- indeed, the *middle* of a comment thread -- and claim that as an example that your article remained unrefuted.
and cherry picking points from completely different articles than the ones I noted, .i.e. one on Sam Harris.
To quote you:
...when, even if their atheism were true, it has yet to offer any objective basis for morality whatsoever.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html
From the post I replied to about "discredited arguments. That is not from a completely different article than the one you noted -- it's one of the 3 you noted.
are the links to comments offering sound logical arguments by top atheist apologists?
I do not see there, or in your other links, a valid refutation of Stephen Law's challenge. So, until you refute them, they remain sound. ;)
We're back into "is it or isn't it discredited" -- but I do find it highly disingenuous of you to refer to those articles as support, when they themselves are highly contested -- especially when you point to a comment in the *middle* of a thread.
You can begin by offering the strongest logical argument you have in mind first.
Nompe. Not doing any more for you until you start dealing with the 6 points I made before, Rick.
(I also notice that you've dropped any response to my points about this article in particular, and started defending yourself on a separate detail; this is also traditional behavior for you, refusing to accept even the possibility that you might have been wrong, so that acquiring vindication becomes more important than defending your original point.)
Oh, and while we're at it, your article on Top Atheist Apologists Avoiding Logic also restates, as your challenge, a claim you ran away from criticism on in this post:
Deletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/organizing-principle-of-universe.html
This is yet another example of the Warden Gallop -- run away from critique in one post, then come back to cite that post later as evidence in favor of claims in a new post, requiring the reader to dig back a long way to see that your previous post was unsupportable.
No wonder you admire WLC so much -- his debating tactics (toss out as many arguments as possible, then claim victory if any of them are not fully refuted in the short time available) were clearly your inspiration for how to handle a debate in a blog; debate, then declare victory and move on to the next post, leaving all your critiques behind and hope no one does the research.
When I asked Imnotandrei, "So, where is your evidence to show my point was "discredited"? - Where is the link, please?" - He failed to offer any link.
Delete2. Instead, he simply claimed that comments referring to Stephen Law's argument against God, the EGC, are "sound" with no logical support for his claim.
3. According to the rules of logic, an argument is considered "sound" if (and only if) the reasoning in an argument is logically valid and all its premises are true.
4. In order to discern whether or not an argument is both sound and valid, philosophers interested in logical arguments summarize their arguments with distinct premises and a logical conclusion.
Are there any signs that Stephen Law desires to clearly outline his EGC as a sound and valid argument based on true premises? No, none whatsoever. The opposite is true, as I noted in my referenced article:
1. There is a leading apologist for atheism who apparently does not have an outline of his favorite argument for atheism anywhere on his own blog.
2. Not only does he not have an outline or description at his own blog, he apparently cannot provide a link to any version on the entire Internet he considers valid.
3. When I did find a version on the Internet and asked if he considered it a valid one, he did not reply.
4. Instead of providing a simple link, a strange anomaly occurred, the linking feature at his blog became disabled.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/04/stephen-law-austin-cline-and-ukrainian.html
There is no hint whatsoever that Stephen Law desires to offer a sound argument with true premises, according to recognized principles of logical arguments. In fact, he seems more interested in obfuscation and the avoidance of clarity. Therefore, the accusation that my article has been "discredited" is patently false.
A civilized person would offer specific evidence and a specific link to support a claim that someone's article was discredited, or he would apologize for the mistake when corrected. An uncivilized person would pretend that no such distinction need be made.
Where is the link, please?" - He failed to offer any link.
DeleteThat's because I've learned that you don't care about the actual contents of the link -- you only care about the form of the argument, and attempt to shape it to your own ends. When I give you links, you ignore them -- so why should I put myself out further?
I'm not going to turn this into a defense of Stephen Law -- I pointed out that you quoted from the middle of a thread, ignoring the comments and discussions that came after; this is, to put it mildly, dishonest arguing.
Therefore, the accusation that my article has been "discredited" is patently false.
And what about your other article, that you've not deigned to answer questions about -- indeed, *most* of your articles, which end in comments with you running away and posting another article.
A civilized person would offer specific evidence and a specific link to support a claim that someone's article was discredited, or he would apologize for the mistake when corrected.
Given that you go to any lengths to avoid admitting an error, even when you've made blatant ones, I see no reason to extend to you the benefit of the doubt on a case that is well within the grounds of rhetoric.
Anyone not already determined to agree with you, upon reading your articles, and seeing the pointed and relevant questions you leave unanswered, and the dodging you engage in along the way, would find your articles discredited. I stand by this position.
(Indeed, as pointed out -- I did offer a different link, not directly referring to Stephen Law at all, as to why your article on "Atheist apologists" was not valid -- it relied upon an argument that had already been discredited in a previous article. So, that's 2 out of 3 articles you cited in your comment that have massive questions that would invalidate your reasoning left unanswered. I submit that qualifies as "discredited articles", plural. Sorry, Rick, no apology for speaking the truth in my original comment on this matter.)
Wait, so now Warden is asking for links? Didn't he criticize me once for giving links and not giving my own views on something once?
DeleteReynold, I am asking for Imnotandrei's links, or any links he may have in mind. My article, "Why Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague" was supposedly "discredited" by some comment somewhere, according to Imnotandre, but, for some reason, Imnotandrei is having a hard time producing said comment.
DeleteI've addressed all the 6 points Imnotandrei asked me about in his recent flurry of wisdom:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1346470048371#c4890618662130078586
However, he is refusing to address my simple request to provide one valid link in support of his claim. So sad.
but, for some reason, Imnotandrei is having a hard time producing said comment.
DeleteBecause we go down an endless rabbit-hole that way? I pointed out that in the article you cited -- "Why atheist apologists..." you used as part of your reasoning a discredited article here: http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/organizing-principle-of-universe.html
Look at the comments ending in that thread, and realize that you ran away from critique there, as you always do -- and you then come back and claim that your original article is still valid, ignoring the previous critique.
No apologies, Rick; when you go back and cite old articles that have had their underpinnings knocked out, I'm going to call you on it.
Imnotandrei recently claimed my article, 'Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like the Plague" was discredited.
Deletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/harvest-anaheim-success-as-largest.html?showComment=1346212644349#c2270537992909400837
When asked to provide at least one actual cogent comment to support his claim, he stated,
"Nompe. Not doing any more for you until you start dealing with the 6 points I made before, Rick."
In complying with his request, I've addressed Imnotandrei's points here:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1346470048371#c4890618662130078586
However, Imnotandrei still has not complied with my request to
The main point of the article Imnotandrie states has been "discredited" is that top atheist apologists basically do not use logic. Until Imnotandrei can answer the following questions, his deceit is most apparent:
1. Provide one example of a top atheist apologist today who demonstrates the use of logical laws and principles in his arguments.
Offering vague and miscellaneous criticisms of ancillary points in the article does not cut it, that does not discredit an article. I'm not going to address any more of Imnotandrei's points until he either offers evidence that top atheist apologists do in fact use logic or he admits his unjust slander and apologizes.
Go look in the thread on "Objective Morality", since that's where I first found this boilerplate post of yours, and answered it.
DeleteRick...Denial is not a river in Egypt. If you refuse to address criticism and ignore the logical arguments of your opponents, that does not wish away the validity of atheism. And no, I have no intention of providing you a link for a thousand time to points you are just going to drop off after a couple of empty posts, like you have done so far. Unfortunately, I have better things to do than to pester you for months to make you admit your mistakes.
ReplyDelete>Rick...Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Delete- So true...and refusing to answer questions is a good sign of denial:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/harvest-anaheim-success-as-largest.html?showComment=1346334262638#c6253602613935844394
Excuses, excuses....
Hm...Almost every article of Rick ends up with him running away from questions of his opponents. And when Rick s opponents refuse to address his new questions until old debates are settled. Rick accuses them of being in denial...
DeleteMy irony matter is broken...