Sticky Posts: Old Ones Resurrected

“True Islam” and violent extremism – redux

I am reposting this in response to the terror attacks in France last night, resulting in the deaths of over one hundred people. As ever, the internet is awash with right-wing shouts to “kill all Muslims” and refugees, to the left-wing shouts that it is the Imperial West to blame and not Islam or Muslims. Neither of these positions are correct. It is obviously thoroughly complex, indeed involving international politics. However, to deny the Qu’ran, Muhammad and the Hadith causal responsibility in these atrocities is to deny the self-determination of those very terrorists who claim that they are doing these actions in the name of Islam and their god.

“Why I am an atheist” – Guest Post by The Thinker

The Thinker has guested here in the past and has been a frequent visitor to these commenting shores. Check his “Why I am an atheist” post out which comprehensively sets out his reasons for adopting his worldview. Excellent stuff, as ever, from him. Please check out his great blog (Atheism and the City), which I often do (if I could sort out a proper blog roll on this website, he would be on it, but I am struggling). My post in this (so far) short series can be found here.

Vincent Torley replies to Adair and Lindsay, and gets earful

So I posted on John Loftus’ DC the other day in plugging Aaron Adair’s The Star of Bethlehem: A Skeptical View and James A. Lindsay’s Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus god Equals Folly. Vincent Torley, about whom I have written a series of posts, and who writes at Uncommon Descent, looked to critique the two heavily. But it seems he got more than he bargained for. I won’t go through the tos and fros with him and Adair – they are long, though fascinating. Well, well, worth a look at. Here is Vincent on Lindsay’s book, well, his video that we concocted.

The Exposing Pseudoastronomy Podcast takes on the Star of Bethlehem … with Me, Aaron Adair!

As part of the continuing efforts to get the message out about the Star of Bethlehem and the failure to explain it with astronomy, I was interviewed on the Exposing Pseudoastronomy podcast, run by Stuart Robbins, an young planetary scientist and skeptic. In the past, the podcast has tackled lots of material from Coast to Coast AM and some of their top guests, such asRichard Hoagland, in great but comfortable detail. That should be enough reason to subscribe to this skeptical outlet.

Meaning is an Illusion

The “meaning” of life comes purely from emotional experience, which is chemically based. We know that emotion, and even spiritual experiences, are chemical in nature. It is already possible, using current science, to use drugs and/or direct manipulation of the brain in order to induce “spiritual” experiences.

Ugandan MPs pass life in jail anti-homosexual law

From the BBC:

Uganda’s parliament has passed a bill to toughen the punishment for homosexual acts to include life imprisonment in some cases.

The anti-homosexuality bill also makes it a crime punishable by a prison sentence not to report gay people.

The prime minister opposed the vote, saying not enough MPs were present.

The Star of Bethlehem in the News

It’s been a while since I have posted, but I have been super-busy with getting my PhD and other research-related activities. But there has been some great news when it comes to my work on The Star of Bethlehem. Over on Amazon, the reviews have been very positive, with one exception–though that person has proven to not be a charitable reader to put it nicely.

Merry Christmas Everybody – it never happened though, and here’s why (and also why we shouldn’t believe anything else about Jesus)…

Christmas is upon us, the season of joy and merriment, the season, it seems, of massacres reminding us of other massacres. I have a book out called The Nativity: A Critical Examination, which is available from the sidebar over there. As a result of the book’s release this year, I have been doing a number of public talks on the historicity of the Nativity and have even recorded a radio debate with Randal Rauser which should be available any time soon.

Explanatory scope of free will

So I have a question. I will detail the following research. For ‘free will’ to be true, it has to explain the following. Or more accurately, the following has to be fully explicable within the free will hypothesis. How does it do that?

Two Splendid Christmas Gift Ideas!

So, the celebrations are upon us to commemorate good ole Jesus and his rather miraculous (and dare I say imaginary) birth. Well, he may have been born, but not like that. But enough of that. Or maybe not. I have two rather decent suggestions with which to fill your stockings (Christmas, not underwear).

Guest Post by Fiona Cooke – “Left or Right? Questioning the ‘I’.”

The Tippling Philosophers group that I frequent has a collection of very differing viewpoints, from reductionist style physicalism to Christianity; agnosticism to various degrees of spiritualism. Fiona, who is posting here, has had an interesting journey. She has had, and continues to have, experience with Eastern worldviews and practices (including yoga and meditation, and Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism). This comes through in her post. But what is interesting is her acceptance fairly recently of the illusion of free will, and how this has affected her take on, well, herself. The ever illusive “I”.

Loftus has written some cracking books

It’s no secret that I am a big fan of John Loftus’ books. He has written some corkers. In fact, his class Why I Became an Atheist (or WIBA) is exactly that, a classic. It remains one of the best counter-apologetics books out there and was hugely significant in contributing to my movement toward being so interested in the philosophy of religion.

Let me go through them one by one.

Nature trumps nurture in exam success: GCSE results ‘mainly determined by genes,’ says landmark study of twins

Genetics has a more powerful influence on pupils’ GCSE exam results than teachers, schools or family environment, according to a new study published tonight.

Researchers from King’s College London found that genetic differences account for 58 per cent of the differences between pupils’ GCSE exam scores – while environment (home or school) only accounted for 29 per cent. They also found boys’ results were more likely to reflect their genes than girls.