<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">

<channel>

<title>What&apos;s New on the Secular Web?</title>
<link>http://www.infidels.org/new.html</link>
<description>The latest updates and additions to the Secular Web</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<atom:link href="http://www.infidels.org/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />



<item>
    <title>The Euthyphro Dilemma as it Applies to the Doctrine of Atonement</title>
    <link>http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article869.html</link>
    <description>New in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/&quot;&gt;Kiosk&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article869.html&quot;&gt;The Euthyphro Dilemma as it Applies to the Doctrine of Atonement&lt;/a&gt; (2013) by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/author845.html&quot;&gt;Brian Vroman&lt;/a&gt;

	&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	Is something good because it is pleasing to God, or is something pleasing to God because it is good? Is something good because God commands it, or is what is good inherently good regardless of what God or anyone else happens to think about it? If &quot;the wages of sin is death,&quot; how does the death of an innocent satisfy such an obligation? How one answers these questions has profound implications.
	
	<!-- Begin see other -->
	&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;	
	&lt;center&gt;&lt;b&gt; &#8658; For more of What's New, see also: &#124; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/wire/&quot;&gt;The News Wire&lt;/a&gt; &#124; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/best.html&quot;&gt;Best of the Library&lt;/a&gt; &#124; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/featuredbooks.html&quot;&gt;Featured Books&lt;/a&gt; &#124; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/featuredarticles.html&quot;&gt;Kiosk Editor&apos;s Choice&lt;/a&gt; &#124; &#8656; &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/center&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	<!-- End see other -->
	
	</description>
	
    <guid>http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article869.html</guid>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
    <title>Evidence for Atheism</title>
    <link>http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article868.html</link>
    <description>New in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/&quot;&gt;Kiosk&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article868.html&quot;&gt;Evidence for Atheism&lt;/a&gt; (2013) by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/author872.html&quot;&gt;David Neff&lt;/a&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	A challenge often presented to Atheists by fundamentalist Christians and various Theists is that Atheists have no proof there is no God, therefore Atheism is just another faith. Although Atheists do not have the Burden of Proof, there are two main categories of evidence that can be used to provide philosophical justification for an atheistic worldview: &lt;i&gt;evidential arguments&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;logical evidence&lt;/i&gt; against God&apos;s existence. I conclude that the mainstream concept of God is logically impossible; the problem of evil is proof positive for the nonexistence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God; the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism; and Theism does not have a good explanation for the problems of suffering and the arguments for Atheism.</description>
	
    <guid>http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article868.html</guid>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 19:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
    <title>The Existential Jesus</title>
    <link>http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/book1066.html</link>
    <description>New in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/featuredbooks.html&quot;&gt;Bookstore&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/book1066.html&quot;&gt;The Existential Jesus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt; (2013) by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/author871.html&quot;&gt;John Carroll&lt;/a&gt;.
	&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	Upending Christianity&apos;s popular notion of Jesus the comforter, the good shepherd, the Lord, and the Savior, this completely new exploration of Mark&apos;s Life of Jesus reexamines the image presented in this earliest of the New Testament gospels--the mysterious stranger, the singular, abandoned, and solitary figure--and rethinks the current role of Western culture through a radically altered view of Christianity. The existential Jesus has no interest in sin, and his focus is not on an afterlife. He is anti-church, anti-establishment, anti-family, and anti-community; a teacher, with himself his only student, he gestures enigmatically from within his own torturous experience, inviting the reader to walk in his shoes and ask the question, &quot;Who am I?&quot;</description>
	
	
    <guid>http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/book1066.html</guid>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
    <title>The Faulty Logic Behind the Defense of Divinely Inspired Biblical Massacres</title>
    <link>http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article866.html</link>
    <description>New in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/&quot;&gt;Kiosk&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article866.html&quot;&gt;The Faulty Logic Behind the Defense of Divinely Inspired Biblical Massacres&lt;/a&gt; (2013) by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/author870.html&quot;&gt;Dave E. Matson&lt;/a&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	Bible-believers obstinately argue that the divinely sanctioned massacres in the Bible were morally justified--even an example of God&apos;s goodness and mercy! If, however, we begin with the assumption that God did, in fact, order those biblical massacres, then let us ask if God is truly good. If this is to be a reasoned inquiry, then we must begin with the possibility that God may or may not be morally perfect. All possibilities must be on the table at the start of an objective inquiry; the evidence must decide, not preconceived doctrine. Are these massacres more likely the work of a morally perfect god or are they more likely the work of a morally defective god?</description>
	
	<guid>http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article866.html</guid>
    <pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2013 16:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
    <title>The Argument from the Existence of Nondeities</title>	<link>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/horia_plugaru/aend.html</link>
    <description>Added &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/horia_plugaru/aend.html&quot;&gt;The Argument from the Existence of Nondeities&lt;/a&gt; (2013) by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/horia_plugaru/&quot;&gt;Horia Plugaru&lt;/a&gt; to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/logical.html&quot;&gt;Logical Arguments for Atheism&lt;/a&gt; page under &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/arguments.html&quot;&gt;Arguments for Atheism&lt;/a&gt; in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/&quot;&gt;Modern Documents&lt;/a&gt; section of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/library/&quot;&gt;Secular Web Library&lt;/a&gt;.
	&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	In this paper Horia Plugaru argues that if the traditional theistic God were to exist, then there are strong reasons to think that there would exist only deities. If the argument succeeds, then God would have no rational grounds for creating our present world, which contains nondeities. But since the present world clearly exists, it follows that God does not exist. After offering a formal presentation of the argument, Plugaru defends its crucial first premise before responding to five potential objections to the argument.</description>
	<guid>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/horia_plugaru/aend.html</guid>
    <pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 2013 08:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
    <title>Easter Quiz</title>
    <link>http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article282.html</link>
    <description>Resurrected from the past (not new, but appropriate for the season): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article282.html&quot;&gt;Easter Quiz&lt;/a&gt; (2008) by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/&quot;&gt;Donald Morgan&lt;/a&gt;.
	&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	Think you know the details regarding the New Testament &lt;i&gt;Empty Tomb&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;Resurrection&lt;/i&gt; stories? Check your knowledge with this short, twenty-two question quiz. The answers may surprise you! You will likely find that the details are so inconsistent from one biblical source to the next that the picture that we are typically given of the events surrounding the alleged Resurrection is necessarily a composite of carefully selected verses which exclude other verses where the details differ.</description>
    <guid>http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article282.html</guid>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
    <title>Baseball and the Fine Tuning Argument</title>
    <link>http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article865.html</link>
    <description>New in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/&quot;&gt;Kiosk&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article865.html&quot;&gt;Baseball and the Fine Tuning Argument&lt;/a&gt; (2013) by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/author858.html&quot;&gt;James R. Henderson&lt;/a&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	Robin Collins argues for the existence of god based on the alleged fine tuning of the universe for life. To do so, he invokes the &quot;Prime Principle of Confirmation.&quot; This principle is necessarily broad so that Collins may smuggle in supernatural agency as an explanation of the organized complexity of the universe, but it is so broad that all manner of completely implausible theories are deemed &quot;supported by evidence.&quot; Further, the principle may be used to undercut parts of Collins&apos; own argument.</description>
	
    <guid>http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article865.html</guid>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:00:00 PST</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>

</rss>