So let’s finish this up. It’s been a long road but we’re finally at the last section in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism and agnosticism. This time is an argument against agnosticism and it will come as no surprise that they still don’t understand what the word means.
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!→
We’re getting close to the end of our look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism and agnosticism. This time, we’re on the last part of the supposed arguments for “local atheism“.
Now we’re into supposed arguments for local atheism and I don’t really expect to be excited by what they come up with, but you never know. We’re getting close to the end of the look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism and agnosticism. Is this going to go anywhere? Let’s plunge in and see. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism Part 6b→
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.
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.