So, another theist showed up on the channel and offered to debate, except over the course of a couple of responses, I backed him into a corner and, at least at the moment, it appears that he’s fled.
That’s not exactly a surprise, is it? Therefore, let’s look at exactly what he did wrong and why, I figure, he knew that he couldn’t actually achieve his goals. Continue reading Back to Square One Once Again→
Caught a clip over on Atheist Experience and figured I’d comment on it. I have no problem with the way that they handled it, but it was obvious from the beginning that it was a lost case and they still wasted 25 minutes talking to this idiot. This is exactly why the religious are so bone-headed.
We’ve been having a long, long discussion in a thread titled “Does today’s generation “see/understand” TV and movies differently?” and it’s not going well for the young. It started off simply enough, as I’ll explain below the fold and then it devolved into dumb kids without the basic understanding of reality that anyone pretending to be an adult ought to have.
Let’s knock this out with a bang. This time we’re going to look at the section regarding “Semantics” on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for moral realism. I can’t say that I have high hopes that they’ll manage to turn it all around, but I’m willing to give them the chance.
So, will they ever actually try to defend moral realism or will they just continue to whine about how mean the moral anti-realists are? Let’s find out. Continue reading Evaluating Moral Realism Part 5→
Today, we’re going to take a look at section 1 of the article on Moral Realism, posted over at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This time out, we’re evaluating a section that they call “Moral Disagreement.” Will it make any sense? Only time will tell.
I was listening to a couple of videos and the idea of morality came up. To their credit, they admitted that morality is entirely subjective, but they said that, if you start off with the idea that well-being is your goal, then you can make objective decisions from that point forward.
Let’s piss some more people off. That tends to happen a lot whenever I open my mouth on certain subjects so let’s do some more of that.
This is a multi-faceted post that’s going to wander and it comes from a number of different sources, mostly YouTube videos that I’ve seen in recent days. I’ll link to all of those below so you can go and see what I’m talking about.
I don’t know why we have to keep having these conversations but apparently we do. A post popped up over on Reddit in which the OP wanted to know the views of atheist moral realists and I pointed out that they’d have a really hard time coming up with any of those because the overwhelming majority were moral anti-realists.
I know that I’ve been doing this a lot lately, but the Atheist Experience has been giving me a lot to think about and, as should be clear by now, disagree with. Now I’ve gone on record disagreeing with Matt Dillahunty’s pronouncements on secular morality and I’m sure I’ll get into that again, but the simple problem is that morality isn’t simple and far too many people seem interested in spitting out a simplistic, easy-to-digest, easy-to-impose moral solution.
I caught a video from Talk Heathen today, where a caller had some problems understanding the concept of evil from a religious context. I see this kind of thing all the time, especially from the religious and I think it’s time we talked about it.