A new human fossil has been discovered which is transitional between later Australopithicenes and early Homonids. Very cool find, but I can't help but be disappointed because we all know that finding this transitional fossil creates two more gaps in the fossil record. Now there's a gap between earlier Australo's and this fossil, and between later Homo's and this fossil. Here's the link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100408105147.htm
; )
Friday, April 9, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
William Lane Craig Q & A
A questioner wrote to Christian Apologist William Lane Craig and asked:
“[Some Atheists] say that the only reason you really have an upper-hand in a majority of the debates is not because your facts are right, but because you are such a great speaker and debater.”
And Craig replied:
“Boo hoo! Poor atheists! Big, bad Bill Craig has debate training, and that’s why they can’t even mount a decent response to the same five arguments I’ve been putting out there for 20 years!
“Seriously, Cris, while debate training (especially knowing how to manage the clock) is undoubtedly a great help in winning a debate, that’s just not a sufficient explanation for the impotence of atheists to offer refutations of these arguments - or to present a case of their own for atheism. Keep in mind that my oral debates are actually a relatively minor part of my work. Most of my work is published by scholarly presses and in peer-reviewed professional journals, where I have been very forthcoming in responding to critics such as Mackie, Grünbaum, Smith, Oppy, Sobel, Morriston, et al.”
Craig’s attitude is half-right. First, he writes as if he has won every debate he’s had in the last ten or fifteen years. That is plainly not true. Although he has won most of his debates, Craig had his clock cleaned by Paul Draper, Arif Ahmed, Shelley Kagan and Antony Flew, to name a few of the debates I have heard in which he has fared poorly.
Secondly, Craig does employ a lot of rhetorical tricks that he surely ought to know better than to use. An example: he’ll claim that even if all the arguments for God fail, one is left with agnosticism unless positive arguments are presented against God. While this is (technically) true, as a trained philosopher Craig ought to know that Occam’s razor implies that we must conclude there is probably not a God if we have no reason to postulate one.
Thirdly, Craig has been adequately responded to on all five of his main arguments in debates, philosophical literature, and books responding specifically to certain arguments (i.e. Kris Komarnitsky’s book Doubting Jesus' Resurrection
exhaustively rebuts the case for the resurrection of Jesus). His arguments are bad and the problems with them could be summed up pretty briefly I think, it’s simply that few of his opponents have done so.
“[Some Atheists] say that the only reason you really have an upper-hand in a majority of the debates is not because your facts are right, but because you are such a great speaker and debater.”
And Craig replied:
“Boo hoo! Poor atheists! Big, bad Bill Craig has debate training, and that’s why they can’t even mount a decent response to the same five arguments I’ve been putting out there for 20 years!
“Seriously, Cris, while debate training (especially knowing how to manage the clock) is undoubtedly a great help in winning a debate, that’s just not a sufficient explanation for the impotence of atheists to offer refutations of these arguments - or to present a case of their own for atheism. Keep in mind that my oral debates are actually a relatively minor part of my work. Most of my work is published by scholarly presses and in peer-reviewed professional journals, where I have been very forthcoming in responding to critics such as Mackie, Grünbaum, Smith, Oppy, Sobel, Morriston, et al.”
Craig’s attitude is half-right. First, he writes as if he has won every debate he’s had in the last ten or fifteen years. That is plainly not true. Although he has won most of his debates, Craig had his clock cleaned by Paul Draper, Arif Ahmed, Shelley Kagan and Antony Flew, to name a few of the debates I have heard in which he has fared poorly.
Secondly, Craig does employ a lot of rhetorical tricks that he surely ought to know better than to use. An example: he’ll claim that even if all the arguments for God fail, one is left with agnosticism unless positive arguments are presented against God. While this is (technically) true, as a trained philosopher Craig ought to know that Occam’s razor implies that we must conclude there is probably not a God if we have no reason to postulate one.
Thirdly, Craig has been adequately responded to on all five of his main arguments in debates, philosophical literature, and books responding specifically to certain arguments (i.e. Kris Komarnitsky’s book Doubting Jesus' Resurrection
exhaustively rebuts the case for the resurrection of Jesus). His arguments are bad and the problems with them could be summed up pretty briefly I think, it’s simply that few of his opponents have done so.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Atheism and Naturalism is Back and Better than Ever
I know that some thought it would never get done, but... Today I finally finished up revising my book: Atheism and Naturalism. If you downloaded the book recently, you may be able to go to lulu and download it again to get the revised version. I checked on my sales, and no one has bought the print version this year, so I don't think anyone who bought the print version will feel like they wasted their money after the new edition came out. However, if you did buy the older edition in print and you desperately want to see what has changed in the new edition, you should just purchase the download edition and reread, perhaps skipping over the sections that haven't changed much or at all (hint: the bulk of the modification is in chapter one).
And by the way, Richard Carrier read my book, and he liked it. He's even thinking about reviewing it on his blog.
Last but not least, the book will eventually make it to amazon (in several weeks).
And by the way, Richard Carrier read my book, and he liked it. He's even thinking about reviewing it on his blog.
Last but not least, the book will eventually make it to amazon (in several weeks).
Friday, April 2, 2010
Magazines
I mostly post on books, but this time I thought I'd let loose and post about my favorite magazines:
Discover
- My favorite science mag. I love it even more than Scientific American
. $19.95/year through Amazon.
Skeptic
- Michael Shermer's skeptical magazine which addresses everything from intelligent design to bigfoot and beyond. A very excellent magazine. $30/year.
Skeptical Inquirer
- General debunking magazine, features everything from the shroud of turin to popular medical myths and ghosts. $35/year.
Free Inquiry
- Excellent Freethought mag. $35/year.
And signing up for swagbucks is a good way to get the money for these mags. On swagbucks you just use the search engine a few times a day and you earn "swagbucks" which can be traded in for an amazon gift certificate, as well as a number of other prizes. I use it all the time and it has really helped out as far as allowing me to save up enough and then use the prizes to order books. Word. (lol).
Discover
- My favorite science mag. I love it even more than Scientific American. $19.95/year through Amazon.Skeptic
- Michael Shermer's skeptical magazine which addresses everything from intelligent design to bigfoot and beyond. A very excellent magazine. $30/year.Skeptical Inquirer
- General debunking magazine, features everything from the shroud of turin to popular medical myths and ghosts. $35/year.Free Inquiry
- Excellent Freethought mag. $35/year.And signing up for swagbucks is a good way to get the money for these mags. On swagbucks you just use the search engine a few times a day and you earn "swagbucks" which can be traded in for an amazon gift certificate, as well as a number of other prizes. I use it all the time and it has really helped out as far as allowing me to save up enough and then use the prizes to order books. Word. (lol).
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Debate's Up
The debate I was having ended. Please have a look and VOTE for whomever you felt performed best:
http://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-unlikely-that-God-exists/1/
Peace.
http://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-unlikely-that-God-exists/1/
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)