Just fair warning, but because this is going to be a very long series, I’m going to try to break it up instead of just going straight through. Therefore, you can expect to see one or two parts per week, with at least one intermission, just so nobody gets bored.
Therefore, let’s take a look at part three of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism and agnosticism. This one is titled “Global Atheism Versus Local Atheisms” and that might be interesting to see. So… let’s get started. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism Part 3
Today, we’re back with part 2 of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosopy’s 
This was recommended by Randolf Richardson over on YouTube during the recent moral realism pooch screw and I thought it would be a fine topic to take on here. Therefore, we’re going to return to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to check out their 
So I was watching some videos today and I found one where they claimed that the logical absolutes were absolute as a bald assertion.
This is going to be a short one because there isn’t really a lot that needs to be said, but please, can we stop shilling for Bart Ehrman’s various and sundry “classes”? Please?
This was something that I was considering making a video on for my YouTube channel and then, I decided it would be much better doing it here. This was published on the website for the Houston Baptist University and frankly, it’s just a mess of bald rationalizations for why God is an explanation that isn’t just absurd.
This comes up a lot and I went and answered a question posed over on the MythVision YouTube channel today that asked if I believed that Jesus was real.
I don’t know why we have to keep having these conversations but apparently we do. A post popped up over on Reddit in which the OP wanted to know the views of atheist moral realists and I pointed out that they’d have a really hard time coming up with any of those because the overwhelming majority were moral anti-realists.
I recently had someone mention an essay, written by Peter van Inwagen, which purports to be an interesting, perhaps even persuasive look at reasons to be a Christian. So, why not, says I? Let’s go take a look at it and see if it stands up to critical scrutiny.