Rabbits have gone carnivorous. I saw it with my own eyes.
I was just minding my own business, going for my daily jog, when I saw these two fluffy bunnies chase down a stray mutt, kick it to death with their hind legs, and then tear into its matted hide. Just about scared me to death. I was so stunned I didn’t even think to try and shoo them away before they did the poor mutt in. I just stood there in the early morning sun, my jaw hanging down to my chest, watching them rip off hunks of dog meat and swallow it down like vultures. It wasn’t until one of the damn things looked up at me with its beady red eyes, buck teeth dripping with blood, that I finally shook off the shock of it all and ran home. It was the most incredible thing I’ve ever seen. So really, take my word for it, keep away from the bunnies.
Anyone out there actually believe that I saw two rabbits kill and eat a stray dog? Hell, anyone out there believe that I went for a morning jog? Probably not.
Continue reading “Carnivorous Rabbits and the Tasty Skeptical Mind”
John Figdor and Dan Fincke tackle subjective verses Objective Morality. John starts us off with why he feels subjective morality is the only way we can understand morals. Dan counters John’s point of view to discuss why Objective #morality true for most situations.
Godless Offerings are condensed clips from shows done on the Atheist Analysis network meant to bring a shortened version of our shows or to highlight important points made during the show.
Please like, share, and subscribe to our channel.
Watch the Original Show Here: http://youtu.be/B519dWROpG4
Continue reading “Godless Offering 16 Free Range Brain Farming: Is Your Morality Caged or Self Defined”
I’ve been seeing the expression “Biblical truth” bandied about on several fundamentalist Christian Facebook groups recently, and I want to address that weird and rather disturbing notion.
There’s a point every semester when I broach the subject of truth in my classes: it happens when we start our survey of African-American music, a unit that begins with a consideration of the Blues. The author of the textbook we use launches into a rather incoherent and saccharine discussion of the Blues as a vehicle for truth-telling. I think he mostly gets it wrong; nevertheless, it is a useful point of departure so we do read the section and discuss it. I always begin by telling my students that, just as the infinitives to hear and to listen don’t mean the same thing, so the nouns “fact” and “truth” are not by any means exact synonyms, although there is clearly a relationship between them (as there is between hearing and listening).
To help them understand my meaning, I have them do this thought experiment: go to the neonatal unit of the local hospital and choose your newborn. Become an omnipresent observer: follow that person all his life; record in your notebooks everything that person ever experiences, says or does. Omit no detail. At the end of that person’s life, you’ll have a mountain of notebooks – and a mountain of facts. Will you have in those notebooks the truth of that person’s life?
Of course not. There’s only one way to discover the truth of that person’s life: ask the person who lived the life. Truth is the synthesis we make of the facts. Facts are objective; truth is subjective.
Continue reading “Do You Swear to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing like the “Biblical Truth””
At the risk of sticking my neck out with a highly unpopular opinion within American politics, I would like to discuss the topic of rights, and how they seem incompatible with an atheistic worldview. This is because rights often seem to be seen as a sort of objective moral standard, while from an atheistic perspective, the world is rather nihilistic, and any morals that exist come from humans, not outside of it.
As we have discussed in my previous post on the argument from morality, objective morality is pretty problematic from an atheistic perspective. Most atheists I have talked to do not believe it exists at all, and while I attempt to argue that it does in the most basic of forms, at the very most all we can establish is an inclination towards certain behaviors and an avoidance of others. The actual morals themselves in practice are largely subjective, and there is a massive amount of latitude that exists in implementation. However, the idea of natural rights is normally seen as a form of objective or deontological morality, and can be justified in one of two ways, or even a combination of the two ways. Some people argue for natural rights by appealing to God, while others just claim they are self evident and can be derived from nature. Both of these justifications are flawed, as I will explain below.
Continue reading “An Atheist’s Problem of Natural Rights”