Skip to main content

CFI UK's Conspiracy Theory Day - the videos


Ian R Crane (an actual conspiracy theorist) - "Conspiracy Theory vs Deep Geopolitics"
Chris French and Robert Brotherton "Conspiracy Minded"
Jamie Bartlett and Carl Miller (from DEMOS think tank) "Truth and The Net"
Karen Douglas on Conspiracy Theories

Comments

Anonymous said…
Dear Friend,

I am Iqbal Selvan. I am started a site to aggregate best blogs of atheist, agnostic, free thinkers. I have added your blog to the list. Please have a look at it. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.

Regards,

Iqbal Selvan

http://freethinkersblogs.blogspot.com/
July 18, 2012 at 11:11 PM
Anonymous said…
I did find it amusing to read the comments on the Jamie/Carl video that were posted by people, who clearly had not watched much more than a couple of minutes of it, stating how horrible the video was, when they (J&C) in a later part of the video mentioned how people had done exactly the same thing to their paper...

Sorry for my bad English by the way. I'm a seventeen year old from Sweden so don't judge me too hard...
July 19, 2012 at 6:08 PM
promissory estoppel said…
hey.

im saban baquvan. i'm writing about law in my blog.infact about promissory estoppel.i'm a student and i spend of my time writing and reading.

thanks a lot.
July 23, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
August 13, 2012 at 6:08 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o...
151 comments
Read more