LINKS: Dishonesty and Possible Craig-Lowder Debate

I just posted the following on my personal blog."How to Argue that Someone Lied""Craig-Lowder Debate?" … [Read more...]

(ex-apologist) A Euthyphro to Craig’s Argument Against Atheist Significance, Meaning, and Purpose

LINKI noticed this argument and found it worth sharing: 1. Either (a) the purposes God sets for our lives are significant because God wills them, or (b) God wills them because they're significant.2. If (a), then what counts as a significant life is arbitrary.3. If (b), then what counts as a significant life is independent of God---------------4. Therefore, what counts as a significant life is either arbitrary or independent of God. … [Read more...]

ex-apologist: A Quick Euthyphro Dilemma Reply to Craig’s Argument Against Atheistic Meaning and Purpose

LINK … [Read more...]

ex-apologist: Schellenberg’s New Paper on the Logical Problem of Evil

ex-apologist: Schellenberg's New Paper on the Logical Problem of Evil:Schellenberg, J.L.  "A New Logical Problem of Evil", in McBrayer, Justin & Daniel Howard-Snyder (eds.), Companion to the Problem of Evil (Blackwell, forthcoming). … [Read more...]

Arizona Atheist “Infiltrates” the Christian Cadre Yahoo Group

An old post from 2009 I just discovered.LINK … [Read more...]

LINK: Aikin and Talisse’s Atheistic Argument from Ugliness

LINK (HT: Ex-Apologist)Since the authors note that the argument from beauty is one type of teleological argument and the argument from ugliness is the atheistic twin of the argument from beauty, perhaps I will need write a post on this argument for my series about atheistic teleological arguments. … [Read more...]

LINK: Existence of Atheists Offends Christians

LINKI find it difficult to find fault with the logic in the second paragraph at that link: "Since there is absolutely nothing even remotely offensive about this billboard, the inevitable conclusion is that many Christians are offended by the fact that there are atheists. If that isn't bigotry and hatred, I'm not sure what would be." … [Read more...]

In Defense of Moral Non-Cognitivism, a Response to Neil Shenvi

I found Neil Shenvi’s interesting article entitled “Do Objective Moral Values Exist?” while reading Dangerous Idea. In his article, Shenvi argues for the position that objective moral values exist, which he defines as “moral values that are true independent of the beliefs of human beings”. This piece started out as a comment on the blog, but I quickly realized that in order to properly address it, I would need quite a bit more space. In arguing for this position, Shenvi puts forth five pieces of … [Read more...]