Tweety Pete Says Even More Strange Things

Boghossian tweets:

Given that Boghossian has tried to reframe the debate between atheists and theists as one of Epistemic Knights Vs. Faith Monsters, he is not in any position to send anyone else to the kids table.

But being published in the philosophy of religion should disqualify one from sitting at the adult table?

Published in the philosophy of religion? You mean like A Manual for Creating Atheists?

I would consider that a philosophy of religion book.

A philosopher wrote a book about religion where, according to his own philosophy of religion, describes religion as being the result of a dangerous brain virus and offers ways to combat the virus and those who are infected.

Why wouldn’t this be an example of philosophy of religion? Granted, it’s a bad and cheesy philosophy of religion, but it is a philosophy of religion.

Peter Boghossian – the man who insults others because they publish in the philosophy of religion after his most famous and widely read publication is in the philosophy of religion.

Once again, we have further evidence that being infected with the Gnu virus disables the brain’s ability to match its words with its actions.

About these ads
This entry was posted in atheism, Hypocrisy, New Atheism, Peter Boghossian and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Tweety Pete Says Even More Strange Things

  1. TFBW says:

    I’m pretty sure he means “published” in the academic, peer-reviewed sense, so his pop-philosophy book doesn’t count. I wouldn’t accuse Dawkins of being “published in the philosophy of religion” on the basis of The God Delusion either. They write about the subject solely to disparage it, not to engage in it.

  2. Linuxgal says:

    There’s nothing to engage with. Since there is no tangible evidence of a supreme being, and there cannot be such evidence even in principle (otherwise faith, a prerequisite to sanctifying grace, would be negated overnight), religion lies entirely within the field of metaphysics. So theology consists not of analyzing the actual properties of this god but of analyzing statements made in scripture about the properties of this god.

  3. TFBW says:

    … otherwise faith, a prerequisite to sanctifying grace, would be negated overnight …

    You’ve been getting your information about theism from anti-theists. Check.

    So theology consists not of analyzing the actual properties of this god …

    Grammatically Incorrect as a Matter of Principle. Check.

    … but of analyzing statements made in scripture about the properties of this god.

    It seems to me that it’s a little more involved in that, but suppose we grant this for the sake of argument. What’s your point? Theology consists of scriptural analysis, and is thus devoid of subject matter?

  4. Kevin says:

    Go figure out what Christians say faith is (and I’m talking about top theologians and not some guy on the street who couldn’t name three Bible verses) and then come back to us. We can have a conversation then. As long as you allow the ideological opponents to define our positions for us and then use that false definition to engage us, then I will claim that philosophical naturalism is the belief that matter and energy magically existed for all eternity in the past, or that it magically poofed into existence from absolutely nothing.

    Oh wait. It is.

  5. Bilbo says:

    Episcopius reply was all that was needed: @peterboghossian Michael Tooley, Quentin Smith, Michael Martin, Nicholas Everitt, Graham Oppy, Paul Draper? All on the kid’s table? Really?
    9:16pm – 14 Jun 14

    Those are all atheists who have been published in the philosophy of religion.

  6. Kevin says:

    I think Sam Harris has possibly been supplanted as the most idiotic atheist going. Boghossian is just…wow.

  7. Bilbo says:

    Maybe Pete is envious because he wasn’t able to get published in the philosophy of religion.

  8. Niophe says:

    Episcopius reply was all that was needed..

    Unfortunately, the lunacy on display is far worse than Episcopius lets on.

    (1) Two names for now:

    David Hume (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)
    Immanuel Kant (Religion Within the Limits of Reason, Critique of Pure Reason)

    (2) He willingly debated Tim McGrew on a radio program *less than two months ago*, which shows that he has no actual aversion to “sitting at the table” with a philosopher of religion.

    http://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2014/05/mcgrew-boghossian-debate-live-blog/

    It should come as no surprise that McGrew absolutely dismantled him, because McGrew is a real philosopher who has extensive publications in epistemology, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, and probability theory.

    Boghossian is a category 5 moron.

    (btw, although he is an “Instructor of Philosophy” at Portland State, does he even have a degree in philosophy? All I’m seeing under his name is a doctorate in education)

  9. Tom Gilson says:

    Linuxgal:

    There’s nothing to engage with. Since there is no tangible evidence of a supreme being, and there cannot be such evidence even in principle (otherwise faith, a prerequisite to sanctifying grace, would be negated overnight)

    You’re relying on Boghossian’s definition of faith there, which is not only controversial, it’s demonstrably wrong. But suppose it were true. Then there would indeed be nothing to engage with. So if Boghossian is right, then Boghossian is right because Boghossian is right.

    (Speaking of “nothing there to engage with” … )

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s