Some of my most frequently visited sites on the Internet are Google and Wikipedia. But I’m going to assume that if you don’t know those you probably shouldn’t be reading my blog. Here are a few I consult that are less known and perhaps more relevant to the general reader.
Much more focused than my blog, this blog gives a thoughtful analysis of various Christadelphian arguments. Even when I disagree with the arguments they are harder than most to dismiss out of hand.
Patheos nonreligious blogs cover many different perspectives, and I usually learn something from both the posts and the comment threads.
The first blog on the site I discovered was Bob Seidensticker’s Cross Examined. I came upon it shortly after leaving Christianity, and found that he made some of the same arguments as me, but fleshed them out much better than I had. He has also written a couple of interesting novels about apologetics: Cross Examined and A Modern Christmas Carol.
Nowadays you’re more likely to find me hanging out in the comments section of Roll to Disbelieve. I also follow Godless in Dixie, and, while there are plenty of other interesting blogs there, there’s just not enough time in the day…
Many apologists make claims about the Bible’s accuracy as a historical record, and how a historian would approach the Biblical texts. Celsus is run by a historian, and I think the most valuable parts are his demonstrations of the historical sources and techniques that apologists have missed (for an overview, see the History & Philosophy FAQ).
Oh, and history is fascinating, full stop.
Language Log contains many fascinating posts on language usage, by linguists with considerably more expertise than I have. I particularly use it whenever I want to ignore a language rule that appears arbitrary (in Language Log parlance, “prescriptivist poppycock”). For example, not to end a sentence with a preposition. Or that “their” cannot be singular. Or that you should never split an infinitive.
Not only do they tell me I don’t need to worry about the rule, but they often tell me that the rule was made up, has never had any basis, and has not been observed by great writers throughout history (sometimes with long lists of examples going back to Shakespeare or even Chaucer).
Like fiction, comics show that entertaining and communicating truth are not incompatible. A few that I follow: