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→
I saw a video recently on Cities: Skylines and yes, I do play that game from time to time. It’s a city simulator, like Sim City, only better IMO, but I see a ton of players who desperately want it to be different. They don’t want it to simulate reality, they want it to simulate the liberal wonderland in their heads.
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.
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→
Sorry John but you absolutely got your ass handed to you.
So Godless Engineer put up part of a discussion, the video will be linked below, where he and a Christian were supposed to be debating the question of “all lives matter”. And sorry, in this particular exchange, GE completely lost.
YouTube is a shit show, we all know that, but it’s a shit show with an agenda. Anyone who thinks otherwise is out of their mind. When YouTube recommends videos to you, it’s one part marketing and one part political pandering and personally, I’m kind of sick of it.
So let’s look at one example. Unfortunately, there are others.
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.
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.
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.
This was something that I was considering making a video on for my YouTube channel and then, I decided it would be much better doing it here. This was published on the website for the Houston Baptist University and frankly, it’s just a mess of bald rationalizations for why God is an explanation that isn’t just absurd.
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.
I saw a video recently on Cities: Skylines and yes, I do play that game from time to time. It’s a city simulator, like Sim City, only better IMO, but I see a ton of players who desperately want it to be different. They don’t want it to simulate reality, they want it to simulate the liberal wonderland in their heads.
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.
So I was watching some videos today and I found one where they claimed that the logical absolutes were absolute as a bald assertion.
Sorry John but you absolutely got your ass handed to you.
YouTube is a shit show, we all know that, but it’s a shit show with an agenda. Anyone who thinks otherwise is out of their mind. When YouTube recommends videos to you, it’s one part marketing and one part political pandering and personally, I’m kind of sick of it.
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 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?
This was something that I was considering making a video on for my YouTube channel and then, I decided it would be much better doing it here. This was published on the website for the Houston Baptist University and frankly, it’s just a mess of bald rationalizations for why God is an explanation that isn’t just absurd.