Reppert's "A Portrait of the North Carolina Killer"

This is my response to Victor Reppert's post linking the Craig Hicks murders with a supposed hateful atheist ideology.  He says:

Just put "a new dark age" in for "hell" and you can see why someone might use force on behalf of atheism.  The more atheists insist that they are immune from the kind of temptation that leads to religious violence, the more concern I have. If you really think atheism leaves you with "nothing to kill or die for," then all I can give you is the Strait answer.

The Epistemology of the Religious Experience

I was recently involved in an interesting discussion that focused on how we can make claims about what exists.  One of the things theists claim is that they have a certain cognitive facility apart from perception of sensory information that gives them knowledge about God.  This facility manifests itself as "religious experience", and is supposedly on a par with sensory experience as an epistemological mechanism.

An Awesome Sight: the Red Sunset

I was in a discussion once where a theist said that the beauty of the sunset was reason to believe in God.  I certainly don't deny that a sunset can be beautiful, and I feel the same sense of awe that he does when I see it.  But that sense of awe does not translate to "God made all this".  I marvel at nature.  Nature holds many wonders and secrets to be discovered.  And that's beautiful.

Nagel: The Darling of Theists

I can't tell you how many times I have been discussing some issue with theists and they counter my point with something like "Well Thomas Nagel disagrees with you, and he's an atheist."  The implication seems to be that if some particular belief is acceptable to another atheist, it should be acceptable to me.  It is a blatant appeal to authority (since Nagel is a prominent philosopher).

Sensational Headlines: "Darwin Was Wrong"

Creationists are reveling at the news, absolutely giddy about sensational publications in recent years that feed their confirmation bias.  One of these is What Darwin Got Wrong, by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini.  Here are two secular scientists saying all the things the creationist wants to hear, stroking their contempt for Charles Darwin, the man who laid the foundations of evolution science and did so much to cast doubt on their precious religious beliefs.

I am Charlie

Theistic Arguments Series:  Anselm's Ontological Argument

The following is an outline of Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God:

    1. We conceive of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
    2. This being than which no greater can be conceived either exists in the mind alone or both in the mind and in reality.
    3. Assume that this being than which no greater can be conceived exists in the mind alone.
        a. Existing both in the mind and in reality is greater than existing solely in the mind.
        b. This being, existing in the mind alone, can also be conceived to exist in reality.
        c. This being existing in the mind alone is not therefore the being than which no greater can be conceived.
    4. Therefore, this being than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality as well as exists in the mind.

Biblical Modifications Series: The Reversal of Paul

Paul established much of the teachings and dogma of the early church.  His epistles are the oldest texts that form part of the New Testament.  One of those early teachings, found in Galatians 3:23-28, is that Christianity establishes of a new order, where many of the ways of the past are set aside.

Before this faith came, we were confined under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith was revealed.  The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith.  But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,  for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ like a garment.  There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Dawkins:  "Who made God?"

In response to my previous post, Victor Reppert criticizes Dawkins' answer to the Cosmological Argument this way:

Now, I think there is further discussion which might develop the "Who made God" response to more sophisticated version of the Cosmological Arguments, but a popular kind of response to arguments like Aquinas's and Craig's, sometimes given in intro philosophy classes, makes it seem as if they somehow didn't think to ask the question "Who made God," a question asked by most grade school children.

Now one thing I should point out right away is the fact that Dawkins is not a philosopher, but more importantly, his target audience was not philosophers.  He was addressing real people who may have been brought up in a religious environment, hearing the common arguments for God's existence.

Loftus, Reppert, and the Courtier's Reply

Victor Reppert made a remark about the Courtier's Reply that puzzled me:

One saving grace for John is that he has criticized the overuse of the Courtier's Reply, which essentially says "Your position is so stupid that we don't even have to bother to understand it to attack it."

I was puzzled because this definition of the Courtier's Reply is not what I understand it to be.  The Courtier's Reply is actually what theists use to attack atheists who reject belief in God without necessarily understanding all the details of every theistic argument or every particular religion they are rejecting.