tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58027930224233884202024-03-05T07:56:21.763-07:00ARIZONA ATHEISTUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-30425983825715276772015-08-04T11:18:00.001-07:002015-08-12T17:54:52.268-07:00I Am Finished Blogging...
I have been blogging for just over ten years. Other than my long solo blogging career, within that time I have also had the privilege to write with the many great writers and scholars at Skeptic Ink for the last few years.
I remember when I first began blogging sometime in 2005-2006. I had a dinky little blog at a yahoo.com domain where I mostly wrote about the very little I knew the Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-66647215369036707732015-07-08T14:00:00.000-07:002015-07-22T17:41:13.680-07:00On Islam: Combating Misunderstanding, Bigotry, and Ignorance
Introduction
Ever since the September 11, 2001 attacks against the World Trade Center in New York there has been an enormous backlash against the religion of Islam in general and against the Muslim population in particular. This is unfortunate because the vast majority of Muslims are not extremists who desire to utilize violence to carry out political and/or religiously motivated attacks. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-7512284183149833162014-12-19T13:43:00.001-07:002015-02-21T10:07:00.128-07:00Curiosity Got the Better of Me....
Not long ago I decided to purchase the updated book True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism (Kregel, 2013). Readers might remember that just a few months ago I had written an in-depth response to an earlier version of this book, titled, True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism (Patheos Press, 2012). I shot so many holes through that book it looks like Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-38181258925415037712014-08-08T07:00:00.000-07:002014-08-08T08:28:58.056-07:00Clearing Up the Shenanigans: Tom Gilson and True Reason
It seems that Tom Gilson would like to continue to play the typical Christian apologist “you don't get my arguments” card, rather than explain in clear terms what exactly his chapter was about, if he was in fact not making the argument I attributed to him (which seems wildly off the mark, since I quote him directly several times). In my last post I restated my argument and quoted Gilson Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-90737937328246531692014-08-07T08:00:00.000-07:002014-08-08T08:19:12.466-07:00Tom Gilson Replies to My Response to Chapter 12 of True Reason
Tom Gilson has responded to my latest installment of my review of True Reason. In my response to Chapter 12, titled “God and Science Do Mix” Tom Gilson quotes Lawrence M. Krauss, who in turn quotes J.B.S. Haldane, from a 2009 Wall Street Journal article:
My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-73607559090797779822014-08-06T07:00:00.000-07:002014-08-08T08:18:07.339-07:00True Reason: My Final (?) Reply to Tom Gilson
Tom Gilson has replied several times more in the comment section of my latest response. His comments themselves can be found here, here and here. He has also summarized his comments in a separate blog post at his blog.
As has been the custom throughout my replies, I shall place the entirety Mr. Gilson's comments in blockquotes and I will respond after each quotation.
I have a lot to sort Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-60028390073115576402014-08-05T06:30:00.000-07:002014-08-05T12:51:27.520-07:00True Reason: A Further Response to Tom Gilson
A few weeks ago I began posting my responses to each chapter of the book True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism (Patheos Press, 2012) and one of the authors, Tom Gilson, has responded to my critique of the first chapter, which he authored.
While we had a brief exchange in the comments of my critique of the first chapter, Tom has more fully responded on his blog. I Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-75403563175705158212014-08-04T08:00:00.000-07:002014-08-04T08:35:39.591-07:00True Reason: Tom Gilson Replies & My Response
My review of True Reason was posted to Skeptic Ink several weeks ago and one of the authors and editors replied to one of the chapters written by him. Tom Gilson is the author of the Thinking Christian website and he authored three of the chapters in the book. The chapter he responded to was the first one where he made a number of errors, one of which was failing to respond effectively to Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-72199987886835008552014-08-03T05:30:00.000-07:002015-02-21T10:06:47.560-07:00True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism: A Refutation
Preface
When writing this review originally I was unaware that an updated book had been published a year after the initial publication. I had read how this book was much better than the first and that it responded to a number of critics of the first edition. I thought perhaps many of the arguments had been revised and improved and that this alone might make it worthy to purchase and re-read. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-33498062301304974022013-11-28T05:30:00.000-07:002013-11-28T05:30:02.467-07:00What is the Role of Religion vs. US Foreign Policy Around the World?
My former Skeptic Ink colleague, The Prussian, has asked me to peruse his posts titled “Friday Jihad-Round-up” and find out once and for all how many are truly due to foreign policy and how many are because of religion. I will go through most of posts in his series and briefly discuss a number of the examples of the violent acts done by Muslims.
The Prussian and I have disagreed over the Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-70475955833353217322013-11-25T21:00:00.000-07:002013-11-25T21:05:21.302-07:00Diplomacy, Not Imperialism: The Key to a More Peaceful Future
Introduction
The title of this post is the message I have been trying to get across to many proponents of US intervention in Middle Eastern countries. This post is a response to a fellow Skeptic Ink blogger, The Prussian, about how to best solve the conflicts raging in the Middle East. His post is a response to an earlier post of mine about how to achieve that. His most recent piece is a Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-849006988589827102013-11-20T06:30:00.000-07:002013-11-20T10:23:32.792-07:00Commentary on the Richard Carrier vs. David Marshall Debate
Earlier this year Christian apologist David Marshall debated Richard Carrier over the question, "Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?" After watching the debate I and most other commentators thought that it was about as decisive of a win as Carrier could have gotten, and Marshall has been continuously ridiculed about this debate ever since. For quite some time I considered the idea of givingUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-48841199134130580242013-11-14T18:30:00.000-07:002013-11-16T10:34:37.548-07:00How to Really Stop Terrorism: A Response to Criticism
Over the last few months I've had a handful of back and forth exchanges with a few Skeptic Ink colleagues over a disagreement about the effectiveness and morality of the United States' drone war, the causes of the attacks upon the US homeland and its citizens abroad, and how to best solve this dilemma. After looking at the evidence and examining the reasons the terrorists have given for Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-29698772733142892692013-11-13T17:42:00.001-07:002015-06-13T09:20:35.600-07:00Drone War Debates: Two Atheists Lock Horns
In May of 2013 I responded to a Skeptic Ink blogger named No Cross No Crescent about his blatant use of government propaganda in his support for the drone wars and for the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki. In the comments he replied to my first post, (this post can also be viewed locally) but his counter-arguments were not much better than his original ones. What follows is the discussion with Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-31963454310921966512013-09-22T18:00:00.000-07:002013-09-22T18:00:02.012-07:00How to Really Stop Terrorism
There seems to be a lot of confusion about how to go about stopping terrorism. Many people foolishly advocate a “Kill 'Em All, Let God Sort 'Em Out” attitude towards the Middle East and believe that violence is the answer. There is a large problem with the so-called solution of these war mongers, however. They do not understand the history of the region and their views are horribly Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-24374887182519548882013-09-16T19:01:00.000-07:002013-09-16T19:01:10.690-07:00The Cause of the 20th Century Atrocities Was Not Atheism
In today's post I'm going to tackle a very common tactic by Christian apologists. Nearly every Christian interested in apologetics nowadays brings up this alleged trump card against atheists. Rather than attempt to defend or deflect the common atheist complaint about the numerous atrocities committed in the name of religion, Christians instead take a different approach. While it is admitted Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-8059906030775146652013-08-04T21:18:00.000-07:002013-08-05T10:56:22.978-07:00My Thoughts About a Drone Debate
On February 27, 2013 a debate took place titled America's Drone Campaign is Both Moral and Effective. Arguing the affirmative case were David Aaronovitch and Douglas Murray. Arguing against the premise were Professor Noel Sharkey and Clive Stafford-Smith.
The panel of experts (I dispute calling some of these individuals “experts”) who joined the debate through the platform Google+ were Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-58486011492291445052013-07-24T09:49:00.000-07:002013-07-27T09:16:24.024-07:00The Drone War Redux: Why No Cross No Crescent is Wrong, Part 3
I have written some about the drone wars a few months back when I responded to a series of posts by a fellow SIN blogger who believes the drone wars are both necessary and effective. I later followed up with a third post, an extensive expose about why the drone wars are not effective, legal, or moral. No Cross No Crescent never responded to this post, or the others in any meaningful way.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-87568384934226898682013-06-07T20:00:00.000-07:002013-08-04T20:39:50.928-07:00Why I Do Not Support the Drone Wars: Why Drone Strikes Should Be Considered a Legal and Moral Outrage
Introduction
Drones have been used for surveillance since the Vietnam era. However, after September 11th, 2001 their use greatly expanded and their function shifted from purely for surveillance to becoming unmanned killing machines, armed with various munitions. “In 2003, US Air Force Chief of Staff General T. Michael Moseley said, 'We've moved from using UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicle] Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-68788141766664613242013-06-01T08:00:00.000-07:002013-06-01T17:14:04.802-07:00Why I Do Not Support the Drone Wars: Why No Cross No Crescent is Wrong, Part 2
In the first post in this series I looked at No Cross No Crescent's rationale for supporting the murder of the American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his claim that the drone wars are an effective strategy against terrorism. In that post I explored the alleged evidence against him and found the evidence was lacking for his alleged ties to terrorist-related activities, and I Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-69290478414077847152013-05-26T21:21:00.000-07:002013-05-26T21:21:15.421-07:00Why I Do Not Support the Drone Wars: Why No Cross No Crescent is Wrong, Part 1
As skeptics I believe open and honest debate is necessary to get as close to the truth as possible. This pertains not only to the truth claims of religion, but also foreign policy and the role (if any) of government in our daily lives. A fellow SkepticInk blogger, who blogs at No Cross No Crescent, has written a series about why he believes the on-going drone wars are a “necessary evil.” I Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-64120345426642620252013-02-09T09:41:00.000-07:002013-02-09T10:44:22.098-07:00The Torturing of Reality by the Television Series 24
Introduction
The famous television series 24 was one of the most popular shows on television during its time on the air from 2001 to 2010. During that time the show aroused much controversy, mostly having to do with its numerous scenes depicting the torturing of various suspects in order to elicit information about terrorist plots.
I first became aware of the series while in the hospitalUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-20545803546665670272012-09-29T17:30:00.000-07:002012-09-29T17:30:00.624-07:00A Post Update: George W. Bush's Religious Beliefs Inspired Him to Attack Iraq
Every once in a while I learn new information which causes me to go back and revise an older post. This just recently happened with my post titled David Marshall's 144 Instances of Ignorance, Stupidity, Hypocrisy, and Lack of Comprehension in Critiquing The God Delusion.
In Marshall's post (#57) he claims that Richard Dawkins made use of a disputed story about former U.S. president George Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-14550392684603574982012-08-19T10:00:00.000-07:002012-09-29T08:52:21.073-07:00Dazed and Confused: David Marshall's Irrational Take on Faith and Reason
Introduction
The word faith has always been a word in popular culture that has been defined as a “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence,” the complete opposite of reason. In Richard Dawkins' classic book, The Selfish Gene, he writes, “[Faith is] blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence.” [1] David Marshall disagrees with this and insists Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5802793022423388420.post-1391427134705830832011-12-29T11:55:00.021-07:002012-05-06T16:24:42.991-07:00Dumb and Dumber Fail Again
Introduction
I had responded to a ridiculous post at a website called Real Men Have Spoken. The moronic author of that post responded and this is my response to him. Of course, there isn't much at all to respond to. 99% of his comments are personal attacks. The rest of it he's simply stating (with not a shred of evidence, mind you) that I don't actually know what I'm talking about because all IUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0