I’ve mentioned this a couple of times, but people who are stuck in their current mindset really have problems. I ran across this video from Atheist Experience and, just the very beginning of the call, spells out exactly why the whole thing is so dumb.
So let’s look at it.
Part 4 brings us to the section in the article on moral realism on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy labeled “Epistemology”. Hopefully this is better than what we’ve seen so far but I’m not going to be holding my breath.
So let’s jump right into it, shall we? Continue reading Evaluating Moral Realism Part 4
Today, we get on to part 3 of the entry on moral realism, found on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy site and I very much hope that they can do better this time out than they have in the past.
The problem, for those who have been reading along, is that the entire “argument” for moral realism has been pointing out all of its detractors and then whining about it because it doesn’t make advocates happy.
Screw your happiness! Produce evidence that you’re right! So here we go again. I don’t know that it can get any worse. Continue reading Evaluating Moral Realism Part 3
Next, we move on to part two of this article on moral realism, provided on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website. This one is on metaphysics and I hope it isn’t as defensive as the last one. Will they provide any actual evidence for their position? I don’t know.
Let’s go find out. Continue reading Evaluating Moral Realism Part 2
I’ve been doing a lot of reading on moral realism of late, for obvious reasons, and I’m still not remotely convinced that it holds any water. Therefore, I wanted to grab something from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and at least start to talk about the article in passing. It just doesn’t demonstrate anything objectively real.
This time, we’ll just go over the introduction, otherwise this is going to be a very, very long post. I’ll come back and look at the rest as time allows, working one section at a time. Continue reading Evaluating Moral Realism Part 0
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