Fair warning, this part is going to be long because it’s an extended look at “local atheism” and that will take up the next three parts of this look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s article on atheism and agnosticism.
After really finding nothing impressive in the argument for agnosticism, it’s time to turn our gaze to global atheism and I can already tell you that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy won’t be doing well here. Of course, the kind of people who would take any of this seriously, they won’t care what I have to say, will they?
Granted, that’s just more evidence that a lot of people operate as if they were religious. “You don’t take the Bible seriously because you lack faith!” No, I don’t take it seriously because there’s no evidence that it’s true. The same seems to be the case for these entries in the SEP.
So there was another call on the Atheist Experience that, once again, shows just how bizarre the conversation is becoming these days.
Honestly, why are they pushing a political agenda on the show? Because, I suspect, Matt needs to in order to keep his girlfriend happy. There’s a political agenda written all over it and that’s just dumb. Continue reading Hypocrisy Once Again→
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.
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.
I watched a couple of videos lately on old TV shows and cartoons from the 30s and 40s mostly, and how some episodes are not readily available today because they offend people’s fee-fees. I find that absurd and pathetic, but I find most people these days, especially young people, to be absurd and pathetic.
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.
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.
Let’s say something that a lot of people just don’t like. You are a ball of meat. You owe your very existence to a 3-pound lump of flesh in your head. Your body is just a life support system for the meat sack that makes you who you are. If that meat gets damaged or dies, so do you.
Welcome to reality. Yet the fact remains that a lot of people get really upset when you point this very simple fact out. Why is that? Continue reading You are a Ball of Meat→
I came across this on a philosophy discussion board, where someone asked for evidence, any evidence at all, for moral realism and I think it’s very telling that there was none.