Nothing Unusual to Report


I've been busy doing cover design and publishing my books, which is why there has been a lull in blog posts recently.

That said, if you're interested, my anthology on blasphemy, Reason Against Blasphemy, is now available in a second edition (paperback) with a gorgeous matte finish cover. It's a lovely book collecting the freethinkers G.W. Foote and Robert G. Ingersoll's writings on the subject of blasphemy, and it's very enlightening. I highly recommend you get a copy (available on Amazon.com).


Of course, unrelated to religion, I have just finished writing a new novella (222 pages to be exact) entitled The Scarecrow & Lady Kingston Rough Justice. It's only been out a week and already has a 5 star review on Amazon.com! Which is great for me, especially considering I haven't promoted it yet.

Also, the deconverstion anthology Beyond an Absence of Faith will be out in the next month or two. I promise updates as it comes along!


That's all for now.

As always, live well and be wise.

--Advocatus Atheist

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more