LINK: Matt McCormick’s Atheism Blog

His blog isn’t new, but I just discovered it and wanted to mention it here.LINKFor those of you who do not know who Matt McCormick is, he is an atheist philosopher of religion at California State University at Sacramento. Read more

Some (Very Incomplete) Thoughts on Luke Muehlhauser’s “How to Debate William Lane Craig”

After writing a post about William Lane Craig and John Loftus debating, I remembered that Luke Muehlhauser (Common Sense Atheism) posted an article in April 2009 about debating William Lane Craig. (LINK) Here are some very incomplete thoughts about Luke’s article.I agree with Luke that many of Craig’s debate opponents were unqualified, in the sense that they did not have both (a) the relevant knowledge (e.g., of philosophy of religion, metaethics, etc.); and (b) suitable debating experience. I strongly disagree… Read more

LINK: Two Sites Related to Darwinian Ethics

While web browsing, I stumbled across two sites related to nontheistic and/or Darwinian ethics. Pretty much anyone interested in The Secular Outpost will probably be interested in both of these sites and for the same reasons.1. The website for the late James Rachels. For those of you who do not know who James Rachels was, he was an important moral philosopher. Among his many publications were an interesting argument for atheism (republished on the Secular Web) and his book, Created… Read more

Why Won’t William Lane Craig Debate John Loftus?

On the Debunking Christianity website, John Loftus has recently posted an article, “Let’s Recap Why William Lane Craig Refuses to Debate Me.” The article even includes a picture of Craig’s face digitally edited into the picture of a chicken, with the caption, “Is William Lane Craig Chicken to Debate John Loftus?” According to Loftus, in 1985 Craig apparently told a class at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, “the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine.” Loftus… Read more

Public Reason

There’s a popular (I’m tempted to say “standard”) secular liberal argument in support of a secular public sphere. Appeals to faith, the argument goes, might have purchase on the faithful, but not on those outside a particular sect. The Bible interpretation of a certain denomination or the pronouncements of popes and rebbes may legitimately persuade or motivate those who accept such authorities. But we live in a pluralistic society where no single overarching view of the good life is dominant…. Read more

Adam Lee: Conservatives Want America to be a “Christian Nation” — Here’s What That Would Actually Look Like

Adam Lee compares “Rick Perry’s version of ‘Christian values’ to what the Bible really dictates.”LINK Read more

LINK: Frank Turek Asks, “Why Are Atheists so Angry?”

In an audio file uploaded to YouTube by “DrCraigVideos,” Turek reviews the YouTube comments on the Craig-Hitchens Debate and describes the apparent name-calling used by atheists against Dr. Craig. He then asks the question, “Why are atheists so angry?”LINK Read more

Reppert on Harris on Killing People for What They Believe

On his Dangerous Idea blog, Victor Reppert takes Sam Harris to task for his statement that ““Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them.”I haven’t read Harris’s book. With that said, based solely on the quotation provided by Reppert, I find Harris’s (apparent?) statement appalling. If it’s true, Harris had better hope his opponents don’t adopt his ethical principle and then decide his beliefs are “too dangerous.” LINK Read more

LINK: Confessions of an Ex-Moralist

The New York Times recently published an essay by philosopher Joel Marks, entitled, “Confessions of an Ex-Moralist,” in which he describes his decision to eliminate “all moral concepts and language from [his] thinking, feeling and actions.” If you haven’t already seen this, it’s an enjoyable read.LINK Read more

Alexander Pruss’s Simple Argument against Divine Command Theories

Here is Pruss’s argument:1.Even if God didn’t forbid it, torturing the innocent would be wrong. 2.(Premise) Necessarily, torturing the innocent is wrong. 3.(Premise) Possibly, God does not forbid torturing the innocent.4.(Premise) If divine command theory is true, then it is the case that: necessarily, something is wrong if and only if it is forbidden by God. 5.Therefore, divine command theory is not true.LINK Read more

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious