apologetics

Parsons is Mean

Someone named Randal Rauser thinks I am being mean to fundamentalists: http://randalrauser.com/2013/06/laughing-at-fundamentalists-lessons-from-john-loftus-and-keith-parsons/ I am. I ain’t a Christian. I don’t turn the other cheek or love my enemies or pray for those that say mean things about atheists. What justifies ridicule? The ridiculous deserves to be ridiculed. Well, we should spare the innocent ridiculousness of Parsons is Mean

Did Jesus Exit? – Part 3

If Jesus did not EXIST, then Jesus did not EXIT this life by dying on a cross in Jerusalem. If Jesus did not die on a cross in Jerusalem, then Jesus did not rise from the dead. So, this question of whether Jesus existed has a direct logical connection to the question of whether Jesus Did Jesus Exit? – Part 3

Did Jesus Exit? – Part 2

Author: Bart D. Ehrman Publisher: HarperCollins Copyright: 2012. Full Title: Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth Contents: Introduction (p.1-7) Part I: Evidence for the Historical Jesus (p.11-174) Chapters 1-5 Part II: The Mythicists’ Claims (p.177-264) Chapters 6 & 7 Part III: Who Was the Historical Jesus? (p.267-339) Chapters 8 & 9, Did Jesus Exit? – Part 2

Christian Apologists vs. the Kalam Cosmological Argument

In the last couple of days, two Christian apologists have published critiques of the Kalam cosmological argument. #1: Calum Miller Calum Miller provides an extremely thorough, open-minded critique. #2: Danny Faulkner Over at Answers in Genesis, Danny Faulkner has written an interesting article entitled, “Universe by Design: Misconceptions about General Relativity, Cosmology, and the Big Christian Apologists vs. the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Did Jesus Exit? – Part 1

Let me lay my prejudices out on the table, before I get into the pros and cons about Bart Ehrman’s case for Jesus being an actual historical person. My current opinion is that it is very likely that Jesus existed, but I don’t think that anything about Jesus is certain, so I would allow for Did Jesus Exit? – Part 1

Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 11

If I understand William Craig’s third objection to AMR, then he is basically offering an inductive  teleological argument for the existence of God (similar to how Richard Swinburne argues for God)  based on the assumption that there are objective moral values plus the claim that humans and the circumstances in which humans find themselves are Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 11

Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 8

I am not impressed by Richard Taylor’s appeal to etymology as an argument for the claim that all duties and all obligations are ‘owed’ to some person or persons (see part 7 for my objections to that line of reasoning). However, to be fair to Craig, Taylor’s appeal to etymology is not specifically and explicitly Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 8