September 28, 2009

Answering A Commenter on Motivations

Posted in Atheism, Personal tagged , , at 12:13 pm by Andrew

A commenter asks:

You might consider one more argument (thought) to tackle. Why have you dedicated so much time and effort to destroying “pixies in space?”

Well, I think maybe you’ve misinterpreted the mission of this site. As it says right up there on the top of the screen, I write this blog to evaluate apologetic arguments for Christianity. If you have some personal faith in Jesus that makes you happy, and you’ve got a live-and-let-live mentality, then we’re not going to have much to discuss. Most of my family members are Christians; most of the people I interact with on a daily basis are religious. My favorite baseball player is a Christian. And so on. Believe what you believe and be happy with it!

On the other hand, if you think you have a good argument why I should believe in Jesus, then I’d like to hear it. So far, I’ve found those arguments pretty unavailing, but who knows — maybe you’ll come up with a good one. Until then, all I can do is evaluate and answer the arguments that people make to me.
Read the rest of this entry »

EC is back from the grave!

Posted in Atheism, Personal tagged , at 10:03 am by Andrew

I want to apologize for disappearing on everyone over the past few months — I had two major cases prepare for and go to trial at the same time, and I was pretty much unable to devote the time that this blog sometimes requires.

The good news is that those cases are over, and Evaluating Christianity is back! Thanks to all the well-wishers who contacted me either via email (evaluatingchristianity@gmail.com) or in the comments — I appreciate them all.

May 5, 2009

Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame (my answer to Reppert; no atheism content)

Posted in Personal tagged , , , at 11:08 am by Andrew

Friend of EC Victor Reppert asks:

Should someone who commits a baseball-related criminal offense be allowed in the Hall of Fame? If so, then shouldn’t baseball rethink Pete Rose, a player who, in his own right, earned his major baseball achievements honestly, whatever else he might have done to besmirch the game.

Can anyone think of a good reason to suppose that Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame, while Rose should remain out?

One answer, from a student of mine, said that Bonds should be in because he did not break a rule in place at the time.

Okay, this requires a little bit to unpack, because on the surface you might think there is an equivalency to be drawn between Barry Bonds and Pete Rose, in that they both broke the law.

But Pete Rose is not out of the Hall of Fame because he’s a lawbreaker (or because he’s “immoral” or a “bad person,” as the folks who like to bring up Ty Cobb as a counterexample often suggest). Lawbreakers, jerks, racists, drunks, and other associated bad guys do (and should) get elected to the Hall of Fame.

No, the reason Pete Rose isn’t in the Hall of Fame is much more simple: Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from the game of baseball (including the Hall of Fame) in exchange for former Commissioner Bart Giamatti dropping baseball’s investigation against him. More specifically, Rose voluntarily entered a written plea bargain in which he agreed to permanent placement on baseball’s ineligible list so as to avoid uncovering facts that almost certainly would have led to criminal prosecution.

Required reading: the Dowd Report.

April 23, 2009

Welcome, Pharyngulites!

Posted in Atheism, Personal tagged , , , at 10:35 am by Andrew

In addition to my evaluation of the ICR’s recent lawsuit to which PZ linked, hopefully you’ll stick around and find some other posts of interest. Here’s a sample to get you started.

In addition to being a lawyer, I’m a former debate coach, and I wrote a three-part series on advice for atheists who want to debate William Lane Craig: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

I’ve also weighed in on the Matt Dillahunty-Matt Slick pseudo-debate over the Transcendental Argument for God and presuppositionalism generally: Part 1; Part 2; and Part 3.

I think I give a pretty unique atheist’s take on the argument from morality here.

I evaluate the so-called “minimal facts” model for the Resurrection here.

My personal story of “Why I Am Not A Christian” (to borrow a phrase) begins here.

Enjoy!

April 20, 2009

The 100 Best Restaurants in the World (No Atheism Content)

Posted in Personal tagged , , at 4:21 pm by Andrew

Here’s the 2009 version of the 100 Best Restaurants in the World as chosen by Restaurant Magazine’s S.Pellegrino Academy. As far as lists go, it runs circles around the 50 Smartest Atheist Heavy Metal Bands (or whatever that list was).

April 17, 2009

I’m Sure I Just Missed….

Posted in Atheism, Personal tagged , , , at 3:54 pm by Andrew

The website “brainz.org” has posted their list of The 50 Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time.

(It’s okay; I didn’t make the list of the 100 Greatest Metal Bands of All Time, either. And I wouldn’t have put either Ayn Rand or Korn on either list.)

HT: Pharyngula.

April 13, 2009

More Fun With Pareidolia

Posted in Personal tagged , at 2:00 pm by Andrew

Jesus in a Kit Kat bar!

March 17, 2009

Open March Madness Thread

Posted in Personal tagged , , at 11:33 am by Andrew

If you don’t care about college basketball, feel free to skip this post. If you want to see my picks, top resources for filling out your brackets, and generally talk hoops, click on the more link. :)
Read the rest of this entry »

March 11, 2009

Wait, What About Atheist Salt??!?

Posted in Personal tagged , at 11:16 am by Andrew

The intersection of food and atheism strikes again; this time, it’s a Christian fellow who says he’s sick and tired of all those recipes that call for Kosher salt. “What the heck’s the matter with Christian salt?” What, indeed.

Regardless of your theological beliefs, if you love to cook, then you definitely owe it to yourself to read what Michael Ruhlman — in my opinion, the best food writer in America — has to say about salt.

February 23, 2009

An Irrational Meal

Posted in Personal tagged , , at 1:27 pm by Andrew

What would you do if you were asked to serve a predictably irrational meal?

For me, what comes to mind immediately are things like Michel Richard’s “breakfast for dessert” at Citronelle (which I have had, and is incredibly yummy) or Homaru Cantu’s impromptu “road kill” entree — which, sadly, I have not tasted (but would in a heartbeat). In general, I’m a big fan of the molecular gastronomy school of “hey-this-looks-like-something-but-tastes-like-something-else” to begin with, and in particular chefs who haven’t forgotten how much fun it is to play with your food.

And with respect to Predictable Irrationality: hey, what’s more irrational than cognitive dissonance??

Next page

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers