Advocatus Atheist

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

Monogamous marriage models largely stem from agriculturalization and the need to have sons to inherit land and dowry to obtain wives as a transaction of property to give the man more sons. Because traditionally, land could only be passed down to male heirs, women were viewed as chattel -- basically objects to be bought and sold like property -- which is why in ancient religions like Judaism and Islam, women were essentially married off to men either in arranged marriages or through dowries. China also has a long practice of dowries and equating women to property or at least tying up her worth in the ability to be an incubator to produce male heirs to inherit the land of their fathers. Daughters were traditionally sold off to other families. It's also why, I think you'll find, many world religions emphasize that it should be a man and a woman, or a man and multiple women, who should be allowed to marry and not, for example, homosexuals. Homosexuality doesn't produce offsprin

Dear Jo, You don't know me, but I'm an author. I write science fiction and, as such, must research science on occasion to get all my facts straight. Recently, you doubled down and wrote a freakishly long defense of your transphobia. Needless to say, I was terribly disappointed in you. I can sense you're already terribly devastated over this sudden revelation, so I'll be nice and take it easy on you. As a speculative fiction author, daring to speculate on the potential of human beings is something I take great pride and joy in. One day, I hope we can move beyond things like racism, sexism, homophobia, and, yes, transphobia. But, at the same time, in my stories, I'm doing my best to represent the best of humanity because I want people to open their minds to a better world and give up the closed-minded labels of a worldview corrupted by fear and hate. I think you can probably relate, as you wrote a little known series about good vs. evil yourself. O