So, Matt put out a video, I’ll include it below the fold, where he talks about what atheists are supposedly fighting for. In theory, that’s not a bad topic and he does say some decent things about it that I’m perfectly fine with.
Then, he gets into things that are a bit problematic, as much as I personally detest that word. So let’s talk about it. Continue reading Disagreeing With Matt Dillahunty… Again!
So there was a call on Talk Heathen recently, where some lunatic theist spent a half-hour trying to justify their beliefs and, at the same time, hide from all of the credible questions that the hosts were trying to ask. I said something in the comments about this guy being an imbecile, mostly because he is.
So here’s why I think we need to stop pussyfooting around and treating these people like special snowflakes. It’s time to call a spade a spade because it’s the only way these morons are going to learn anything. Continue reading Why Am I Mean? Here’s Why!
I was thinking about this over the last couple of days, but maybe you can relate to this. Have you ever watched two theists debate? It doesn’t matter what kind of theist they are, they can share the same faith or they can be completely different, but it’s really not very impressive if you approach it from the outside.
Why is that? Here’s my explanation and why I think playing those games is ultimately pointless. Continue reading It’s Hard to be Impressed
Three parts down, on to the fourth. This time, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism and agnosticism tries to make an argument for agnosticism. Is it going to be any more impressive than the last couple? I wouldn’t be holding my breath. So far, this has all been “we like this definition” and it’s never been about what the words actually mean, because they aren’t actually handling language the way it at it realistically functions.
However, we’ll see where this goes and evaluate it as it comes. See you on the other side. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism Part 4
Just fair warning, but because this is going to be a very long series, I’m going to try to break it up instead of just going straight through. Therefore, you can expect to see one or two parts per week, with at least one intermission, just so nobody gets bored.
Therefore, let’s take a look at part three of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism and agnosticism. This one is titled “Global Atheism Versus Local Atheisms” and that might be interesting to see. So… let’s get started. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism Part 3
Today, we’re back with part 2 of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosopy’s entry on atheism and agnosticism. I will admit that, so far at least, it has been better than the entry on moral realism. At least the author differentiates the usage as one that is useful within philosophical discussions, something that I wish a lot more armchair philosophers would figure out. Mostly, they insist that everyone uses the SEP definition when discussing the subject outside of philosophical circles.
Yeah, that’s not going to go well for you. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism Part 2
This was recommended by Randolf Richardson over on YouTube during the recent moral realism pooch screw and I thought it would be a fine topic to take on here. Therefore, we’re going to return to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to check out their entry on atheism and agnosticism.
I’d say this ought to be fun but it won’t be. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism
So I was watching some videos today and I found one where they claimed that the logical absolutes were absolute as a bald assertion.
I entirely disagree. The logical absolutes exist because we’ve never had a single observation where they didn’t hold true. In fact, we can’t even imagine a situation where A isn’t A. We don’t even know what that might look like.
Therefore, the laws of logic, like everything else in rational human thought, they aren’t absolute but they certainly hold up based on every single observation that we’ve ever made. And there are a lot of people who just don’t like that. Continue reading Logic isn’t an Assumption
This is going to be a short one because there isn’t really a lot that needs to be said, but please, can we stop shilling for Bart Ehrman’s various and sundry “classes”? Please?
Because truth be told, he’s starting to look a whole lot like the religious apologist scammers that run around in the incestuous social media sphere, trying to sell books, lectures and all manner of nonsense to gullible sycophants.
Enough is enough! Continue reading Can We Please Stop Shilling?
So, as is no surprise, Matt Dillahunty is wrong once again. He claimed, on a recent video from The Line, that anecdotal evidence is, in fact, evidence. It’s not. It’s a claim. In and of itself, it doesn’t actually demonstrate anything.
I’ll explain why that’s the case below. Continue reading Anecdotal Evidence Isn’t Sufficient