Advocatus Atheist

Although I've left blogging to pursue a full-time career as an author and publisher, that doesn't mean my past work still doesn't draw attention and get noticed once in a while. If people write me who seem genuine and not just trying to stir the pot and pick fights with atheists just to say they faced off with one, then I'm happy to answer. Here is the conversation with one such person who left comments elsewhere on this site. I figured the questions were tame enough but still insightful enough to share here. You asked: “First of all I understand you, your arguments are not uncommon. Out of curiosity, is your work stimulated by the desire to know the truth, existentially speaking?” Yes, in part. It’s partially an innate desire to know the truth of things, but it’s also more about using reason pragmatically. I don’t think we can be given a gift as special as the ability to have consciousness and reason and then not use it. And when I strive toward a more logical, more

The Economist published a piece on Dave Chappelle's "gender realism." The article is behind a paywall, so, of course, I couldn't read it. But the term "gender realism" stoked my ire. Look, if you think biological sex is purely binary -- man and woman, male and female, you're simply uninformed and, most likely, scientifically illiterate. That's on you. Not me. Not anybody else. Look, I get it. You were raised not questioning how the world works and you never cared to learn. That's fine. But, when it comes to biological issues -- don't get up on a pedestal and pontificate ignorance. Nobody wants that. Go out--read the up-to-date research--then get back to me. Gender is, for the most part, a social construct. There are tons of anthropology studies done on it as well as gender identity and gender representation in different cultures/countries across various time periods. Not hard to find. Lots of peer-reviewed papers are published all the time o

  1. What are your pronouns? (If you don't mind sharing them) He is fine for me, personally. But personally, I don't believe in pronoun usage for gender identification as it creates a binary system where it pits the Personal Identity of the individual against imagined Other Identity of the external world by creating external boundaries that make it more difficult to traverse in one's own journey of growth and personal enlightenment. Logically, you can't say I prefer to be called an apple and not orange, thereby place yourself in opposition to another term, and still be considered non-binary. You've basically locked yourself into a binary box by adhering to an 'either this or that' naming system (a language game that would roil even Wittgenstein -- I say somewhat facetiously). The semantic game being: If you're not one thing -- you're something else. An 'either or' proposition which I think is setting up a false proposition -- in terms of the

I don't talk about religion much these days. Every once in a while, though, I'll get in the mood to look something up. After decades of religious research, I still hold a fascination for the subject matter. It just became too difficult to talk about with people of faith because -- at a certain point -- it's not about discovering new truths anymore but maintain old predispositions. Even so, I recently had a bit of a curfuffle over on a friend's post because a Christian apologist seemed to take offense regarding a quote that cited God as a She -- yes, as female. Although the quote was about a general theistic deity and not the Christian God, per se, he still went on a rant about using the proper pronouns when discussing God. I found this oddly amusing. Why would someone get so bent out of shape regarding the possibility of God being a She -- or possibly Alanis Morissette? As such, I mentioned Jesus may have used "She" when talking about himself as modern homosex

The moment the AP called it and Trump lost to Biden, my conservative friends erupted into a cacophony of conspiracy theories and senseless bellyaching. If you criticized them, they're quick to point out how it's no different than how Dems acted four years ago when Hillary lost to Trump. But, no. No, it's not. Not even a little bit. So, when a conservative post popped up on my feed asking: "So does this mean I can use the #notmypresident hashtag now? Oh! And the - #resist one too Just curious." Well, I felt I could answer the question sincerely. It's a fair question. But the short answer is no. The answer is no because those hashtags don't make sense in this context. Hillary won the popular vote by approximately 3 million votes, so there were a lot of pissed off people because the clear winner -- by the numbers -- and in their estimation -- was stripped of what many saw as a momentous victory due to how the electoral college works. Hence #notmypresident b

Look, I bit my tongue during the entire election. I avoided all political talk, but I feel there's something that needs to be said about some of the dangerous rhetoric that's been floating around the Interwebs for the past 48 hours. So, the thing is, making a cogent point is something, you might say, that I know how to do really, really well. In fact, I did it for over a decade on my religion of philosophy blog. Indeed, I managed to keep an active dialectic going on my religion of philosophy blog The Advocatus Atheist for over a decade (totaling over 20 million words of philosophical content).  Not only this, but my humble blog racked up over one million-page reads, received numerous accolades, and was voted one of the top 30 atheist blogs on the Internet (even if I do pat myself on the back here for a moment). Don't get me wrong though -- I'm not trying to gloat or brag here. That's not what this post is about. I'm merely laying down these credentials as a matt