Posts

Showing posts from October, 2014

Why you will never win an argument with a Christian apologist

Image
Somewhat randomly (by way of a Facebook conversation) I stumbled across an old post on Common Sense Atheism , the archives of which still make for great Sunday reading, in which Luke Muehlhauser took famed theologian (well... among people who know about theologians) William Lane Craig on his bizarre rationale for believing in Christianity: the "self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit". I've always found it absurd, because simply believing that one can have a "self-authenticating" experience of the Holy Spirit requires that you already believe the propositions of Christianity to be true. Because obviously, if you are in the camp that believes the Holy Spirit to be imaginary, you can't well sincerely pray to and experience something that you don't think actually exists. This makes the foundation for Craig's faith the most atrocious example of circular reasoning since... well, since his rationale for believing in the Kalam, but that's a

Podcast: David Fitzgerald response to William Lane Craig on the historicity of Jesus

A fine exposé on the myriad of problems with Christianity as a historical enterprise: http://unbelieversradio.com/2014/10/david-fitzgerald-responds-to-william-lane-craigs-false-claims-in-popular-press/

Does Santa Claus exist?

I remember once when I was in a fairly heated debate with a Christian apologist, and when I made some comment regarding evidence, he retorted that I needed justify my belief in "evidentialism". It was one of those moments where my first thought was "are you f**king kidding me", even though I knew my response needed to be somewhat more measured. You'd never walk into a courtroom and declare that evidence need not be taken seriously until the prosecution establishes the validity of evidentialism or some kind of verificationism. And, as someone once said, if you told a Christian their spouse was having an affair, they'd certainly expect you to present some evidence; but tell them that God became his own father through a virgin birth and sacrificed himself to himself to save humans from his own punishment, and they seem to require no evidence at all. Looking back on my debates with various apologists, a persistent source of frustration was that any conversatio

I'm blogging again, but...

My comrade in blog, Bud Uzoras, has closed the door on his fabulous blog Dead Logic . I highly recommended keeping it bookmarked and just perusing the archives from time to time. Bud hits on a note that resonates with me, though, when he says, I've reached the point in which Dead-Logic is no longer what it once was for me. Like I said, I haven't figured out everything or answered all the questions, but I've laid the foundation upon which I now stand. This blog was my means of building that foundation. When I started The A-Unicornist , it was just a way for me to organize my thoughts and work through difficult issues. Writing has always helped me in that way. It's grown to have its own little audience, and after five years, over 1000 posts and close to a million hits, I'm proud of how far it's come. But it's just not as important to me as it once was. I almost got the urge to write recently when I read a piece by William Lane Craig in which he clai

Gay marriage expands to 30 states, conservative religious assholes react with indignant anger

This isn't a news blog, so I'll just celebrate the Supreme Court's dismissal of gay marriage bans and the first same-sex marriage license in my hometown of Tulsa, OK , with this beautiful ad from Cheerios: And you know you've won a big victory when conservatives who masquerade their bigotry as religious piety make statements like this one, issued by Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin: "The people of Oklahoma have the right to determine how marriage is defined.  In 2004, Oklahomans exercised that right, voting by a margin of 3-1 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. "The will of the people has now been overridden by unelected federal justices, accountable to no one.  That is both undemocratic and a violation of states' rights.  Rather than allowing states to make their own policies that reflect the values and views of their residents, federal judges have inserted themselves into a state issue to pursue their own agendas.

I have these Facebook friends...

Image
Honestly, I can't think of anything to add.