Being published in the philosophy of religion should disqualify one from sitting at the adult table.
— Peter Boghossian (@peterboghossian) June 15, 2014
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.