Subscribe Register Login

Thursday, October 08, 2015, 10:13 p.m.
Top Picks - Arkansas Daily Deal

Public profile for JakeTidmore

Comment history

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Little Rock news anchor among Arkansans in 'God's Not Dead II' October 8, 2015 at 8:37 p.m.

Believe nothing on the faith of traditions,
even though they have been held in honor
for many generations and in diverse places.
Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it.
Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past.
Do not believe what you yourself have imagined,
persuading yourself that a God inspires you.
Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests.

After examination, believe what you yourself have tested
and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.

Gautama Buddha

( | suggest removal )

Little Rock news anchor among Arkansans in 'God's Not Dead II' October 8, 2015 at 7:18 p.m.

God Is Dead -- a select set of reviews
A.V. Club Review:
“Even the usual Christian stakes of going to hell aren’t really an issue here. Instead, the film finds its stakes in the suggestion that the greatest persecution of all isn’t dying for your beliefs, but being forced to accept that other people might believe something different. “

Herb Silverman:
“This anti-atheist movie would be more effective if it didn’t portray every atheist as smug, angry, selfish, obnoxious, and unhappy. In contrast, nearly every Christian is kind, happy, generous . . . well, you get the idea. “

USA Today:
“Despite the campus setting, little about the story is intelligently designed. “

“The Almighty deserves better advocacy than he gets in this typically ham-fisted Christian campus melodrama. “

“A sloppily written, badly argued, unevenly acted film about a first-year college student who tries to prove the existence of God within weeks of setting foot on campus. “

“Religious propaganda
This is one movie to certainly avoid. The film is filled with biased views and portrays those with differing views in a very unflattering light. Unlike other reviewers, I would suggest skipping this one."

( | suggest removal )

Little Rock news anchor among Arkansans in 'God's Not Dead II' October 8, 2015 at 7:17 p.m.

"awful end for non-believers" says everything about where you are coming from. That's a threat, mister. And there's no gracefulness about it. Maybe I prefer to avoid superstition and mumbo-jumbo. It's definitely not my cup of poison. Allen, don't be blind to how you are denigrating me for believing different from you. It is the most exasperating and insulting action any true believer of any faith can take toward another human being.
I'm glad you're happy with your choice but it's none of your damn business to lecture me about mine and threaten me with your religious beliefs. And that's exactly what you have done in every post so far. (If I don't agree with some parts of Christian faith, then you call me "hard-hearted." The list goes on. Every one a deliberate insult to put my belief down.
I try not to put your faith down....what I dislike and distrust is the proselytizing. Nor the manner in which it is done. It is not your business to force your religion upon me or any other human being. Such tyranny is what makes Christians who act in such a manner so wretched. Hard-headed is probably the best description.

( | suggest removal )

Little Rock news anchor among Arkansans in 'God's Not Dead II' October 8, 2015 at 6:16 p.m.

Allen take your after-life threats and stuff them. I do not have a sign on me that says "Sinner." My sign says "Human." If you believe that I'm the former, then I believe that you're not treating me like the latter as I should be. That is entirely the point Fitch is making. It is NOT your business to impose your religion or its scare tactics upon me or anyone else. And I certainly can't respect a religion that has a concentration camp worse than anything designed by the Nazis as part of the afterlife.
Stix - don't be so simplistic and condescending. Yes, I will avoid the movie and you didn't need to question my intelligence in the process. And worst of all you finish your final thought with a lie. Fitch never suggested banning this movie. Maybe your intelligence should be the one that's in question here. When you step into an argument, try not to put your foot in your mouth in the process.
The movie denigrates non-Christians and actually presents an image that some people call The Ugly Christian. It is shame that any religion stoops to teaching bigotry. This movie promotes such bigotry and prejudice. I find such actions un-American and disrespectful toward humankind.
By the way, the author wrote an essay offering 10 tips on how Christians should evangelize. (Pay attention Allen!!) Here they are:
Top Ten Tips For Evangelizing (From An Atheist).
1. Be Like Jesus: Hang With The Sinners and Judge The Judgers
2. Form Genuine Relationships With People, Don’t Treat Them As Projects.
3. Actions Speak Louder Than Words.
4. When Talking About Religious and Philosophical Matters, Ask More Questions And Do Less Preaching.
5. Don’t Give Unsolicited Advice or Judgments. Support People and Wait For Them To Ask For Your Input If They Want It.
6. Appreciate That Nominal Christians Are Still Christians.
7. Don’t Try To Force Others Into Christian Participation.
8. Understand Atheists and Embrace The Opportunity Confrontational Atheists Afford You.
9. Respect Other Religions Even As You Evangelize Their Members.
10. Love Your Enemies, Not Just Your Tribe.

( | suggest removal )

Little Rock news anchor among Arkansans in 'God's Not Dead II' October 8, 2015 at 4:47 p.m.

Beware of this film series. It is nothing but Dominion philosophy writ large. Here are some comments from Dr. Daniel Fitch, a Doctor of Philosophy & Religion:
In one of my reviews of the movie God’s Not Dead I severely criticized the end of the film, in which a pair of Christian pastors act like EMTs of the Gospel–trying to administer salvation to a dying non-Christian with all the seriousness and urgency with which real EMTs would try to keep someone physically alive. I complained about the exploitative ways in which opportunistic evangelical Christians will try to use any physical, emotional, spiritual, or intellectual weakness they can find in someone as an opening to convert them. I railed against the way Christian ministers prowl hospitals looking for vulnerable people to prey upon.
But, nonetheless, I have defiant responses from evangelical Christians who say, “I don’t care if you don’t like it, but if we can save people’s souls from damnation, we’re going to do it. It’s more important than the feelings of atheists.” Similarly, on Facebook, I complained that evangelical Christians’ idea of loving their enemies is so thoughtless and selfish as to be reminiscent of the time Homer Simpson gave his wife Marge a bowling ball for her birthday even though she wasn’t a bowler (even being so audacious as to put his own name on the bowling ball–purportedly “so she would remember it was from him”). My point was that Evangelical Christians routinely love people merely as a means of converting them. The gift they want to give you is what they want (your conversion), not necessarily what you want.
They turn people into projects. They listen to your troubles, they give you charity, they slobberingly “love on you”, but all only with one fundamental end goal in mind: making you one of them. What they really love is not you but Christianity (or, as they would put it, Jesus). They love their tribe. They love the idea of you belonging to it.
They are not interested in respecting people on their own terms, they are not interested in people figuring out how they themselves as individuals might flourish best even if that means living outside the one size fits all models for life provided by Evangelical Christianity, and they are not interested in mutually learning from those they are trying to evangelize. They hate the “worldliness” and the “sin” of those they see as salvation projects. They categorically reject all life paths that deviate from their Evangelical Christian one as fundamentally the path of destruction.

( | suggest removal )

Fixated on false choices October 7, 2015 at 4:48 p.m.

As for your comments PO - WOMBAT.

( | suggest removal )

Fixated on false choices October 7, 2015 at 4:38 p.m.

John Lott is simply posing as a champ. You'd get more reliable results from a chimp than this chump. There are far better defenders of the gun-rights position than this charlatan.

( | suggest removal )

Fixated on false choices October 7, 2015 at 4:26 p.m.

Aren't you just the sweetest person, Packie.
John Lott?? You gotta be kidding us. Today the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis has been thoroughly repudiated. On closer inspection his impressive credentials reveal an academic nomad, never able to secure a place in academia. His ethical transgressions range from accusations of fabricating an entire survey, to presenting faulty regressions, to creating elaborate online personas to defend his work and bash critics, to trying to revise his online history to deflect arguments. And this doesn’t even begin to cover the whole host of false claims and statistics he has peddled repeatedly in articles and TV appearances.
David Hemenway from the Harvard School of Public Health, writes a similarly devastating review of “More Guns, Less Crime” in his book, Private Guns, Public Health. He argues that there are five main ways to determine the appropriateness of a statistical model: “(1) Does it pass the statistical tests designed to determine its accuracy? (2) Are the results robust (or do small changes in the modeling lead to very different results)? (3) Do the disaggregate results make sense? (4) Do results for the control variables make sense? and (5) Does the model make accurate predictions about the future?” John Lott’s model appears to fail every one of these tests.
Perhaps the most glaring weakness with Lott’s paper is its lack of predictive power. It simply does not matter how complex a model is, if it lacks predictive power, it’s simply useless. Any model that is fully capable of expressing the true impact of concealed carry laws on crime, all things equal, will also have predictive potential outside of the scope of a single study. Fortunately, Lott’s data set ended in 1992, permitting researchers to test Lott’s own model with new data. Researchers Ian Ayres, from Yale Law School, and John Donohue, from Stanford Law School, did just this, and examined 14 additional jurisdictions between 1992 and 1996 that adopted concealed carry laws. Using Lott’s own model, they found that these jurisdictions were associated with more crime in all crime categories.
For a complete and exacting repudiation of the shoddy work done and presented by Lott and his embarrassing attempts to hide his errors and deliberate falsifications, see this link:
ht tp://ww m/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/
Lott qualifies as an expert liar with or without statistics. He deserves the Pack of Lies Award!!

( | suggest removal )

Fixated on false choices October 7, 2015 at 1:50 p.m.

Pack of Lies contributes the Useless Idiot side of the story for us. Dare we ask for any research or evidence to back his assertions?!

( | suggest removal )

Fixated on false choices October 7, 2015 at 11:35 a.m.

You're more than welcome. Must admit that there was so much information that it was somewhat difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. And, of course, statistics can be spun or graphically misrepresented. Despite a good background in statistics and research, I found the task daunting and sometimes confusing.
Let me throw one rather juicy bone in your direction, DDDKA, that you might wish to gnaw on for further nourishment: the question is not whether the gun control laws of Australia succeeded; the evidence is strong enough to show that there is success. The argument for the USA is whether those same laws will be accepted here and whether they will work here. One of the key points is the availability of guns here versus what exists in Australia's system/market.
Many commentators I read felt that the "situation" in America was such that the laws which Australia had would (1) not be popular enough here to be adopted & (2) would meet with considerable resistance if adopted & (3) that the production of guns and the gun market could easily replace any guns confiscated.
The one stat that does stand out which makes me think there is some rationale to pursuing gun control is the high number of mass shootings the US has compared to the rest of the world. The one thing Australia's law seems to have been successful at for sure is reducing mass shootings since 1996 in Australia to zero. Almost 20 years without a single mass shooting. I wish we could say the same.

( | suggest removal )



Top Picks - Arkansas Daily Deal
Arkansas Online