Monthly Archives: December 2014

Induction and Deduction, and the Induction problem.

Before I go into the post proper I’d also like to recommend a book Hessian came across and that I’ve been flipping through while writing these posts. “Logic A Graphical Guide” by Dan Cryan, Sharron Shatil and Bill Mayblin. It’s a comic book about Logic and is an excellent use of the media. Using pictures, font and careful placement to make many difficult logical concept easily apparent and readily readable. It introduces many key concepts and great thinkers in a quick and useful way. For those who want to get a general over view of Logic quickly I haven’t found a better source. Though I’m not getting paid for this plug so best be moving on. 😉

Deduction and Induction. These two concepts a pivotal to understanding much of what we talk about in logic. Particularly logic in relation to fields outside philosophy. While induction and deduction certainty don’t end the conversation you really can’t escape them. Especially not induction. Now what is Induction and what is deduction?

Deduction is in many ways an extension of the syllogism, but is no longer limited to three sentences and having full command of logical connectives and assumptions. The conclusion (also know in this cases as the deduction, or what is deduced) is drawn directly by the premises, and when done correctly is guaranteed by those those same premises. Like with syllogism.

Induction on the other hand is less certain the premises do not guarantee the conclusion, but rather They support the conclusion.

To explain the difference I’ll build on an example from Logic A graphical Guide.

To inductively prove that ravens are Black you would formulate your argument like this.

P1. This raven is black.

P2. This other raven is black.

P3. All of the other 318 ravens I have seen have been black.

P4. I have never encountered an instance, be it personal written, or otherwise, of a raven that was not black that was also substantiated.

C. Therefore all ravens are black.


A Deductive argument on the other hand would look like this.

P1. (Assumption) All Ravens are black.

P2. That is a raven

C. Then that raven must therefore be black.


In the inductive argument we have a certain probability that the conclusion is true. We haven’t guaranteed the truth of the conclusion. Because of that Inductive arguments don’t fit under the valid/soundness categories I talked about in my first post. They simply can’t, and deductive arguments can because they, when done properly guarantee the conclusion. This is the problem of induction, inductive arguments can not be valid in the same way deductive arguments can, but this doesn’t mean induction is worse then deduction.

In my first post on the subject of logic I said it is best to ensure that your argument follows from your premises. Ideally that means your conclusion is guaranteed, but as I’ll show you this can’t always be done. When induction and deduction where being discussed in detail by David Hume (1711-1776) but where also discussed by other philosophers of the time is that the use of induction posed a real problem for the still fledgling sciences since induction can not guarantee truth, so  by that metric could not be justified. So science according to hume and similar thinkers should be limited to deduction.

Though fortunately there several answers to this problem I will discuss two. Induction being unavoidable, and the induction bypass. First is the ultimate problem is that all knowledge is ultimately based on some level of induction and assumption. We can not for example guarantee that we exist, and that the reality we perceive exists. We can not, at least not currently, deduce reality and ourselves from anything that actually guarantees its truth. We can make assumptions, and we can make deductions from assumptions about reality. We cannot, however, deductively prove that those assumptions are correct. But we can inductively show those assumption to be highly likely. I talk about that in a bit more detail here, but I may devote a post to this in the future as there is a lot to talk about which does not directly relate to this post.

Which brings me to the induction bypass which I believe was coined by John Stewart Mill but don’t quote me on that It may have been Karl Popper. The Bypass is the notion that induction can be carefully set up so that you make what amount to generalization, which over time, experimentation, and repetition can become more and more precise. That is, over time time and repetition of experiments you become more certain of the truth of your argument and you close off other possibilities as improbable or impossible. What is amount to is that while you can’t 100%  guarantee truth with induction you can, with time and effort, effectively guarantee your conclusion to near by not quite 100%. This is actually a large and necessary competent of what we do in science, and basically all science is founded on the principles of induction, which is in turn pretty damn good evidence for the inductive argument ;).

What this means for induction is that it can compete with deduction, and quite effectively because it allow us to have some uncertainty in our claims and still be justified in making those claims. That doesn’t mean we ought forget about deduction. Deduction is still extremely useful if arguments and when you have sets of facts you think are related like in an investigation, or when looking for consistency is another persons worlds or claims. While science as a whole is probably the best example of induction, deduction is best exemplified by is use in structured arguments. When you formulate a good deductive argument then the conclusion must follow from the premises so you need not worry that your argument itself will come under attack. Rather now you and your opponent must tackle your arguments premises and assumption not it general struture (with out making a fool of themselves that it). And closing off one line of attack always makes arguments much easier to handle. Though more on refuting and defending arguments later.


Next time I’ll be doing a video review on a logical argument I quite like, pointing out why I like it what I agree with and how you could hypothetically attack it if you disagree with it. It will function as a practical exercise.



15 Questions for Theists

There are a lot of blog posts and articles out there with questions for atheists. However, there don’t seem to be very many posts with atheists asking questions of theists. So I decided I’d write up some questions for the theists out there.
1)How many gods are there? What are their names?
2)How do you know these gods (or this god) exists? Why do you believe they exist?
3)How do you think the universe began?
4)When do you think the universe began?
5)How do you think life began?
6)When do you think life began?
7)Is morality objective or subjective? How do you know, or why do you believe, this?
8)What do you think this god, or these gods, want from humans? Why?
9)What do humans mean to gods? What is our importance or significance?
10)Could they get whatever it is they want from humans without humans? Do they need whatever it is they created humans for? Why?
11)Could you conceive of a world where humans exist without need of a god? What would that world look like? Why would it look like that?
12)What do you believe to be the consequences of a world without god(s)?
13)Where does evil come from? What is the god(s) role in the existence of evil?
14)What makes one thing good and another thing bad? Do good and bad have the same source (ie. The same creator)? Or do they have different sources? What is the source of bad things (if it’s different from the source of good things)?
15)Why do you think your god(s) exists, but the other possible gods don’t? Why do you think I should believe in your god(s)?

More Questions for Atheists

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
Am I absolutely sure? Of course not. If I’m not absolutely sure, then of course there is the possibility that there is a god. I just highly doubt that there are any. I have looked at the evidence. If you can provide evidence that actually suggests that there is a god, I’d be happy to look at it. The evidence that I have seen so far suggests otherwise.
2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?
Define intelligently designed. If your definition of intelligently designed is something made by an intelligent designer, then you’ve just offered me a tautology. The idea of evidence for intelligent design is silly. This so called evidence always happens to be “I couldn’t create this, man can’t create this, therefore it must be intelligent design.” Just because something looks complex doesn’t mean it was made by someone. And the fact that humans can’t replicate something doesn’t mean god must’ve done it. Now, if you could provide actual evidence of a creator then I would be willing to accept that a creator existed.
3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?
This is a complicated issue. You see, I’m not a physicist, so I’m no expert in physics. However, there are physicists who would say that something can come from nothing, in fact, something comes from nothing on a fairly regular basis. But this is best discussed with a physicist. But, going with the assumption that something can’t come from nothing, evidence of a cause is not evidence of a causer (ie. God). If something can’t come from nothing, then there must be a cause of the Big Bang, but, being as the Big Bang started our universe as we know it, there is no way (as of yet) to know what that cause is. As such, all you could then say is that the universe must have a cause. You can say nothing of what that cause is.
4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?
Of course, but I’d also say that, if we cannot test for it, it is unlikely that it exists. We can test for gravity and magnetism. We can feel the wind. What do you mean by mind, though. I suspect that what you’d define as the mind doesn’t actually exist. My definition of the mind is simply the functioning of our brains. Again, we can test for that. With the help of a computer, we can actually see it. There was evidence to suggest that the Higgs Boson existed long before it was actually discovered. Where is the evidence that God exists? What tests can we run?
5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
I’ve already said that there is a possibility that a god exists. Which god, however, is a trickier question. Again, where is your evidence? What tests can we run? Otherwise, why should I believe?
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?
You’re assuming that there was nothing before the Big Bang. We don’t know if there was something or nothing. But, if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then there was nothing before the Big Bang. Ergo it’s more likely that nothing caused the Big Bang. But again, making assumptions about something we have no way of knowing about is pointless.
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?
Yes, something presently exists. I’m not going to bother saying more than that because I’ve already given you the answer.
8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)
You do understand that that’s a metaphor, right? The type of information found inside of a cell isn’t the type of information found inside a book. There is no reason to think these two things are equivalent.
9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
No…I…just, what? Do you think brains just suddenly appeared? Out of matter that wasn’t already there? Do you understand how long it took for life to form? And then for that life to become simple organisms without minds? Do you understand how long it took from the time life formed to the time when the first creature with a brain was formed? We’re talking billions of years just for life to get a brain.
10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
Define wrong. You mean objectively wrong? As in something that’s always wrong to do? Is it always wrong to kill others? If so, then the military is built on doing wrong. So no, there is no objective wrong. We can have moral law, as in laws based on moral, without requiring objective morality. We do this at a societal level. Thus why laws and moral codes change over time and between cultures.
11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
No. We create laws as a society. Laws aren’t created and enforced by one person. Even in the feudal era this wasn’t the case. It’s silly to say that law needs a lawgiver as if that assumes one person creates and passes, then enforces, a law. Moral law isn’t really a useful idea. It isn’t defined. But we don’t need a higher power to have morals.
12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
For one, it took intelligence I the science lab because the scientists happen to have intelligence and they were trying to create a model universe. For another, did the scientists have 14 billion years? Seriously?
13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?
Sure. It could take lightning striking sand in such a way that the glass hardens somewhat ball-like. The universe is not a ball. It is a universe. Possibly one of many.
14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
How do you know the universe is finite? I made pancakes yesterday. They were finite. Am I necessarily infinite because my pancakes were finite?
15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?
Prove that the universe was fine-tuned for life. And while your at it, figure out why, if the universe is so fine-tuned, we haven’t found more life in the universe. One planet with life on it in a universe as big as ours doesn’t sound very fine-tuned to me.


Strong Atheism Vs Weak Atheism

new atheists

It isn’t uncommon to hear the terms strong atheism and weak atheism. Generally, they are used by the religious, namely conservative Christians, to refer to “militant” atheists and agnostics. In many cases, the “strong” atheists are considered the not-good atheists and the “weak” atheists are considered the good atheists. This is a problem. For one, it suggests that the only good atheists are weak ones. Basically, atheists are best when we allow ourselves to be shoved in a corner and ignored. Another problem is that it ignores all the atheists in the middle.
So where did the idea of strong and weak atheism come from? As far as I can tell, it came from the idea of New Atheism. New Atheists are those atheists that are most open to speak out against religion. It is called New Atheism based on the belief that no atheists, or skeptics, have ever been so brash and out spoken about religion before. This is a false belief. While it was more dangerous to speak out against religion in the past, it was done. And it was done as, or more, harshly as it is today. However, throughout much of history, atheism was used differently than we use it today. It was generally used to refer to anyone who didn’t believe in your god. And later on it was used to refer to anyone who was critical of certain accepted beliefs and those who accepted heresies. It wasn’t until the 19th Century when we begin to see atheism used as we use it today. As such, it can be difficult to determine whether or not many of those who were critical of religion in the past were truly atheists. But we do know that the arguments used by the New Atheists are anything but new.

lord byron

I wouldn’t say that Lord Byron was an atheist. However, this quote is very much critical of religion. It is the type of quote you’d hear from a New Atheist. Think “Religion poisons everything.”


We know for a fact that Benjamin Franklin was a deist. He again is being critical of religion, in this case Christianity, to the same degree that you would hear a modern day New Atheist being critical.


Thomas Huxley was referred to as Darwin’s Bulldog in his day. He’s actually the man who coined the term “agnostic.” He considered himself an agnostic as opposed to an atheist. And yet, he was as critical of religion as any New Atheist today.


Huxley’s grandson, Aldous, was also quite critical of religion. In many ways, he was more critical than his grandfather.
New Atheists are often seen as dogmatic. They are seen as holding the position that there are no gods. They are the strong atheists. However, this is often an issue of tone. Many New Atheists believe that it is important for atheists to make ourselves known. They want atheists to label ourselves as such. David Silverman is one such New Atheist. Silverman has said that atheists need to call ourselves atheists because of the discrimination against atheists. His arguments come across very much as “atheism is the only way,” but that doesn’t mean that he believes there is no possibility for a god to exist. He is more interested in how society views atheists than he is with arguing that there are no gods.


Richard Dawkins is another New Atheist that comes across as very hard-lined where atheism is concerned. But Dawkins has openly said that he accepts that there is a possibility that there is a god, he just believes that it is unlikely.


These types of atheists are often talked about by religious people as bad atheists. They are called dogmatic, angry, and harmful. But they are, to my mind, activists like any other. They have a cause to fight for and they will fight for it in the way that they think is best. I do not believe that everything they do is useful or good, but I do believe that they fill a necessary role. These atheists are not bad atheists, they are atheist activists.
The opposite of the New atheists, generally agnostics, are considered weak atheists. They are thought to be more the “free to be you and me” types. Chris Stedman is one such weak atheist. He has a different approach to religion from the New Atheists. He works with the religious. But he is also an atheist activist. He is also concerned with how atheists are viewed in society. But he is viewed more positively by the religious. Personally, I like Stedman. I like his approach. But I don’t like how he is viewed as a pushover by both sides. Stedman’s approach is different from the New Atheist’s approach, which means that he reaches a different audience. But it also means that he is viewed as a tool of the religious by atheists and he is viewed as usable by the religious.


Weak atheists are not weak in their atheism. They are as convicted to their atheism as the rest of us are. They also aren’t weak in the sense that they are pushovers. They can be as loud and boisterous as any New Atheist. They just see a different way of achieving the same goal.
But then there are the rest of us. We are neither weak atheists nor strong atheists. We are just as likely to be atheists activists. Honestly, I don’t see how we are all that different from the weak or the strong atheists, nor do I see how the weak and strong atheists are all that different from each other. Except, of course, for the fact that many so called weak atheists don’t actually call themselves atheists.

Logical Arguments. Syllogisms, and Logical Connectives.

As in the previous post, this will once again be an overview. There are many different methodologies and factors to keep in mind and I cannot be conclusive here. I suggest looking into all of these matters further should you be interested in strengthening your skills at argumentation.

There is my process in which a logical argument can be formed. Some are better then others, and some can only be used in specific circumstances. I will state it again: I won’t be covering all of them, instead I’ll be focusing on a few important logical processes: the Syllogism, and logical connectives.

A Syllogism formally is three lines where first you make a universal claim followed by a particular claim which is predicated (based on, directly related too) on the first universal claim. The third sentence is then composed from those first two sentence. As an example, I will use the most famous form of Syllogism posed by Aristotle:

1. All men are mortal.

2. Socrates is a man.

3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

I hope everyone can see how the third sentence here follows logically from the first two. We know from the first line (for the sake of this argument) that all men are mortal, so when we are also told that Socrates is a man, we know that Socrates must then be mortal.

Going back to my previous post it would be easy to rewrite the format of this argument in premises and conclusions, which I will do below:

P1. All men are mortal.

P2. Socrates is a man.

C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This is one of the most basic forms of a logical argument and is based around the definitions of those terms it uses. It’s useful because, when we try to misuse Syllogism, it tends to be quite obvious. This is because the concluding line will not be predicated from the first two lines. For example:

P1. Some Greeks are mortal.

P2. Socrates is a Greek.

C. Therefore, Socrates is immortal.

Again I hope it’s clear why this doesn’t work. In the first premise we see there is room for some Greeks to to be not moral, so for the sake of this argument we could say that it is the case that any given Greek could be mortal or not moral (perhaps immortal perhaps something else, since it is not specified). So when we are told Socrates is a Greek we know there is some possibility he is not mortal, but that’s all we know. We cannot say he is moral or otherwise based on this argument. All we could say is C. Socrates is possibly moral. Nothing more.

These simple syllogisms can be extended into more complex forms, but the take away here is that you should be making sure that your conclusions are predicated on your premises. Otherwise you’ll at best end up making mistakes and at worst end up speaking nothing but gibberish as your conclusions end up lack any cohesion with your premises. It’s best to avoid that if you can.

Next are logical connectives which do not serve a propose in this post more than to lay the ground work for other posts.

I’ll briefly list them going into a bit more detail below. If you want to know a bit more about how they work I’d either Google logical connectives, or go play with red stone logic circus in Minecraft (make a locking door but make sure you look up the wiki: you need at least an and, and or gate, but I like to use xor gate for mine 😉 ).

As to what logical connectives are, they function basically the same way we use them in language: by connecting different statements together, and trying the truth of both statements in a particular way. Technically you can create a system which contains all of the following connectives with only “and” and “or” connectors, but it’s far easier to talk about these logical relationships without trying to tie them altogether:

… and… (&)

The whole statement is only true if both sides of the and connective are true.

… or…

The whole statement is true when at least  one side of the statement is true.

if… then…

“If…then” statements works such that if the “if” statement is true, then the “then” statement must be true for the whole connected statement. If the “if” is false, then the “then” can be true or false to no effect. If x happens, then y happens. The statement remains true even if y happens with out x. The statement is only falsified when x is true, but y doesn’t occur as well.

… if and only if…(iff)

This is like the “If…then” statement, but instead x can only occur if y occurs and vise versa. The statement is false only if one occurs without the other. Iff can also, in some cases, indicated equivalency, but this is not necessarily the case.

… Elusive or… (xor, either)

Opposite to iff, this statement is only true when only one side of the statement is true. You can either have pudding or cake, but not both.

negation… (-, not)

Negation is reversing the meaning of the statement. Where (n) is a cat (-n) is not a cat.

… Equivalency… (=)

When two or more things are the same. They are equivalent. 2+3 = 5 = 1+ 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

I’ve included formal logic terms, short hand, and math symbols above many of which double as grammar. Each of the above can and are regularly used in English. I’m certain if you’re unsure of how to figure any of this out, you can manage it with a Google search or two. The biggest reason to include this early on is to clarify some of the common terminology and expose those reading this to some common ways people talk about these connectives. Besides, all of these connective are used in language and argument, so it is important to understand how we ought to use them within our arguments so that others will understand what we mean.

Hopeful I haven’t bored you all out of your minds. Next time I’ll get to induction and deduction. Which I feel is far more interesting.


What is Morality?


What is morality? This is a question I have been pondering lately. Not in the sense that I am confused as to what morality is, but in the sense that it seems the word is used differently depending on ones circle. As a philosophy major, I use a philosophical definition of morality. This definition tends to be quite open. But non-philosophers use a far stricter definition. Or rather, far stricter definitions, since there are more than one. The definition used by Conservative Christians, a definition that I have come across many times here, is by far the strictest. It is also the most troubling to me, because it puts a belief in a deity above actions.
So what is morality? The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry defines morality as “Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. It is the determination of what should be done and what should not be done. Morals deal with behaviours as well as motives. There is a great deal of discussion on what is the source of morals and whether or not they are objective. Biblically, morals are derived from God’s character and revealed to us through the Scriptures” This is to say that morality is defined by actions. Certain actions are right and certain actions are wrong. But this definition puts God before those actions. Many Christians will say that God must come before everything. But here is where my issue comes in: if you put belief ahead of actions, then you can create a system of morality where actions don’t matter so long as you believe. I think this has been done in many cases. I think this has been done when atheists are trusted as much as rapists. The atheist needs not do anything but be an atheist to be considered immoral. This means that a person can build orphanages, donate blood, volunteer at their local soup kitchen, and donate half their income to charity, but they will continue to be seen as immoral simply by virtue of being an atheist. This is also seen when Christians tell people that it doesn’t matter what they’ve done, all they need to do is come to Christ and they will be forgiven. Think about that: it doesn’t matter what they’ve done, all they need to do is come to Christ. All they need to do is come to Christ. That Serial Killer who raped and murdered 6 women? He doesn’t need to be punished by the legal system, he doesn’t need to ask forgiveness of the families he tore apart, he doesn’t need to do anything for humanity, he just needs to come to Jesus. But his crimes weren’t against Jesus. His crimes were against those 6 women. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that that Serial Killer deserves to be tortured for eternity for his crimes. I believe that the punishment should fit the crime. I believe he should spend the rest of his life in jail. I believe that it is up to him to reach out to the families of his victims if he wishes to be forgiven, and I believe that it is up to the families to forgive him. I don’t think Jesus gets to forgive him for something he did to someone else. My problem with this definition is that the born-again Serial Killer is viewed as more moral than the atheist who has worked so hard to help others simply based on the fact that the Serial Killer believes in God and the atheist doesn’t.

But, like I said, this isn’t the only definition of morality. A philosophical definition would be “Morality speaks of a system of behaviour in regards to standards of right or wrong behaviour. The word carries the concepts of: (1) moral standards, with regard to behaviour; (2) moral responsibility, referring to our conscience; and (3) a moral identity, or one who is capable of right or wrong action” This definition is not so strict, because it says nothing of needing a deity to be moral. In fact, it says nothing more than morality refers to behaviours that are considered right or wrong. But what are these behaviours? Neither the Christian nor the philosophical definition actually speak to what actions are right or wrong. The Christian can turn to the Bible and say “this is what the Bible says,” however, different Christians get different moral codes from the Bible. But the philosopher cannot simply turn to the Bible and say “this is right and this is wrong.” The philosopher must first discuss whether or not morality is objective. If the philosopher says yes, then they must determine where morals come from. If they say no, then they must determine how we can know what is right and what is wrong. The Objectivist must go on to determine how they know that their moral authority is in fact the moral authority. They must determine what the moral authority has determined to be moral and immoral, and they must justify how they know as much. And then they speak on how we should act. The Subjectivist must show how they know morality is subjective. Then they must justify how we can create laws and social based on morality. Finally, they must justify why it is not acceptable to just do as one pleases. It isn’t until all that is done that the Subjectivist can speak on how we should behave.
Many people don’t like the philosophical definition because it is not black and white. It does not tell people “this list of behaviours is okay, and this list of behaviours is not.” Many people like being told what is right and what is wrong. But I prefer the philosophical definition precisely because it doesn’t try to tell anyone what is right and what is wrong. It makes people think. Morality is not a black and white issue, so why should our moral codes be black and white? Morality is very much shades of grey. If it wasn’t then things like abortion, the death penalty, and the legalization of drugs wouldn’t be so controversial. And we’d never find ourselves confused as to whether or not we are doing the right thing. Morality is something that needs to be thought about critically. And it’s something that needs to be discussed. The philosophical definition makes that critical thought and those discussions necessary. It means that you don’t just get to believe that something is right or wrong based on authority. And it means that it is your actions that matter more than your beliefs (though that isn’t to say that your beliefs don’t matter at all).

It’s Our One Year Anniversary!

On WordPress that is. We’ve been on WordPress for one whole year. We have 3182 followers, we’ve made 273 posts, we’ve had 29,950 views on our blog, and there have been 3255 comments made on our posts.

Thank you all for the supports, and the comments, and we look forward to another awesome year on WordPress.

%d bloggers like this: