Jake joins me to discuss a topic very near and dear to him. Jake lost his grandfather some years back in a slow and undignified process. His grandfather had been a vocal supporter of the right to die with dignity so his being denied that right was particularly difficult for Jake.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 45:33 — 52.2MB)
Subscribe: RSS
We have a very special guest on today’s show! Lydia joins me to start on a long journey through the history of Christianity. We’ll be working through the book A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years which I heard Christopher Hitchens recommend in a debate video. Lydia brings the research and I’m sure I bring something or other to the discussion!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 49:27 — 56.7MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Lots to talk about this episode! Catching up on listener comments and reexamining some of the major stories of recent times. It has been quite the depressing month of news.
Cool new segment coming up on Thursday, and an exclusive interview with Tracey Moody coming up on Bonus Content! Better sign up at http://patreon.com/atheist !
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 48:40 — 55.8MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Part 2 of my discussion with author CJ Werleman. His new book is Atheists Can’t Be Republicans, If Facts and Evidence Matter. http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Cant-Be-Republicans-Evidence/dp/1908675276
Atheistically Speaking ventures into rare political territory! This discussion is sure to spur opinions, make sure to leave them on the facebook page or on the website!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:00:19 — 55.3MB)
Subscribe: RSS
PZ Myers has really lost me. I had no previous reason to dislike him until he wrote the following two posts:
Robin Williams brings joy to the hearts of journalists and politicians once again
Plus, we welcome back the great CJ Werleman! He has a recent book about why atheists cannot be Republicans. http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Cant-Be-Republicans-Evidence/dp/1908675276
Find out why!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 51:30 — 59.1MB)
Subscribe: RSS
I’m doing something new here on Atheistically Speaking! I’m summarizing and reading selections from the first reading of The Portable Atheist. I really enjoyed doing this and I think it could be a great chance for us all to learn some new stuff together and be exposed to more brilliant writing. Please let me know if this is a segment you like and would like me to continue!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 48:00 — 55.1MB)
Subscribe: RSS
What in the world is Richard Dawkins Twitter up to? As you likely will have read/heard by now, Dawkins tweeted several tweets that had people in uproar. Essentially, he said that asserting x is bad but y is worse is not an endorsement of x. Why was this such a problem? Well he plugged in the example “date rape is bad, stranger rape at knifepoint is worse.” And then proceeded to say that this is not an endorsement of date rape. However, many people apparently saw this as some sort of endorsement of date rape. Or, more precisely, they worry that Dawkins is expressing a dangerous attitude that legitimizes the idea that women are sometimes to blame for rape. Are these critics right? I explore this idea in the podcast. There is a lot going on here and plenty of criticism for all sides.
Here are several of the links I referenced in the show:
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/response-to-a-bizarre-twitter-storm/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/08/10/richard-dawkins-still-doesnt-get-it/
Richard Dawkins Twitter account has had many problems in the past. Even if he were completely right in this recent debacle, which is definitely not a given, shouldn’t he just quit while he’s behind? Why couldn’t he just preserve his great science legacy and maybe use Twitter for some occasional promotion or science tweeting. There’s no reason Richard Dawkins Twitter should be pissing a large number of people off every 6 months or so. That said, I think critics are once again being a little bit uncharitable in their interpretations of his motives. Do people really think Richard Dawkins is a rape apologist? I really don’t think so, but I also think he’s quite oblivious to how much goodwill he has lost over the last few years.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 56:32 — 51.9MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Scathing Atheist Noah joins me to help wade through the incredibly polarized world of Israel-Palestine commentary. It’s likely you already have a staunch opinion on this conflict, if you’re anything like mine and Noah’s Facebook/Twitter friends. The focus of this show is to do my best to take an unbiased approach to the conflict and look at as many sources of evidence as I can. Here are several of the many references I used to research this show:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/9-israel-palestine-facts_b_5643077.html
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/defends-silence-slaughter.html
And of course, extensive Wikipedia study… Though Noah might be a Scathing Atheist, when he sits down on Atheistically Speaking, he’s always calm, rational, and very well spoken. This episode is a must listen if you’ve been disappointed or turned off by the vitriolic anger of both sides. Noah comes into this with a bit more of a well-defined point of view than I. I came into it not knowing really what I thought, so I’ll be curious if the listeners will come out of the episodes with a similar outlook, assuming they were undecided.
The difference in opinion on this issue, even just among atheists is overwhelming. Many who I follow on Twitter declare Israel a criminal, genocidal state and the US complicit in mass murder. Others think that Israel is not to blame, they are doing their best to minimize casualties, and that the state of Israel needs to exist because of rampant anti-semitism in the area. Conditions in the Gaza Strip are terrible. Does that excuse anti-semitism? Hamas launches rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas of Israel. Does that excuse civilian casualties in Gaza? Or, are none of these things ever excusable? What are we to do with such varied opinion?
Why, consult the Scathing Atheist of course!
Thank you to my Patrons!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:02:35 — 57.4MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Scathing Atheist Noah joins me to help wade through the incredibly polarized world of Israel-Palestine commentary. It’s likely you already have a staunch opinion on this conflict, if you’re anything like mine and Noah’s Facebook/Twitter friends. The focus of this show is to do my best to take an unbiased approach to the conflict and look at as many sources of evidence as I can. Here are several of the many references I used to research this show:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/9-israel-palestine-facts_b_5643077.html
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/defends-silence-slaughter.html
And of course, extensive Wikipedia study… Though Noah might be a Scathing Atheist, when he sits down on Atheistically Speaking, he’s always calm, rational, and very well spoken. This episode is a must listen if you’ve been disappointed or turned off by the vitriolic anger of both sides. Noah comes into this with a bit more of a well-defined point of view than I. I came into it not knowing really what I thought, so I’ll be curious if the listeners will come out of the episodes with a similar outlook, assuming they were undecided.
The difference in opinion on this issue, even just among atheists is overwhelming. Many who I follow on Twitter declare Israel a criminal, genocidal state and the US complicit in mass murder. Others think that Israel is not to blame, they are doing their best to minimize casualties, and that the state of Israel needs to exist because of rampant anti-semitism in the area. Conditions in the Gaza Strip are terrible. Does that excuse anti-semitism? Hamas launches rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas of Israel. Does that excuse civilian casualties in Gaza? Or, are none of these things ever excusable? What are we to do with such varied opinion?
Why, consult the Scathing Atheist of course!
Thank you to my Patrons!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 39:56 — 45.8MB)
Subscribe: RSS
This week we’ve got Ryan Born, who you may remember as the winner of the Sam Harris essay contest. Ryan is a philosopher who runs the blog http://pointofcontroversy.com. Last time we spoke, Ryan had a ton to teach us about Moral Philosophy. This time though, we’re here to discuss a very different topic, but one he is well versed in. Ryan Born has worked with the philosopher Eddy Nahmias. Nahmias wrote a very interesting review of Harris’s book, which can be found here: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=5208. Nahmias has done some unique work on determining just what normal people actually think free will is. As you will find out, this may be very relevant to the debate between Harris and Dennett.
In this discussion, we explore the definition of free will. Ryan is very concerned with the question of what most people believe the definition to be. The disagreement between Harris and Dennett may simply amount to a difference in opinion as to what most people believe free will ought to be. Are most people naturally compatibilist? Or would most people say that determinism makes free will impossible? Or, is this information really relevant? Should we just be discussing what the definition of free will ought to be? As we found out in previous episodes, Harris has accused Dennett of a bait and switch, where Dennett is taking the old, damaged definition of free will and switching it out with a new better version that is compatible with Determinism. Ryan Born sees this as a totally justified move, but Harris sees the concept as far too damaged to simply substitute out. Harris alleges that the classical conception of free will is so wrong and so prevalent that Dennett cannot simply reinvent it because he will no longer be referring to the same experience everyone believes they have.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 58:36 — 53.8MB)
Subscribe: RSS
