Destroyed With Facts and Logic
The popular atheist case against religion was already shallow, and the same habits carried straight over to feminism.
The popular atheist case against religion was already shallow, and the same habits carried straight over to feminism.
The reason it kept checking out isn’t that it’s true. It’s that nothing you could have found would have counted against it.
You set an alarm for tomorrow morning. That small act contains an assumption nobody has ever managed to justify. The first post in a new series on open questions in philosophy.
There is a move in a conversation that doesn’t win the argument but ends it. In American constitutional debate, it has become the default. This is an essay about what that costs — not about guns.
Merging three sites meant rereading seventeen years of my own writing and deciding what I’d still defend. Most of it came across. Some of it didn’t.
The problem is not questions. It is the question with a cause already inside it — a post hoc inference the speaker never performs, so it can never be pinned on them.
The charge that agnostics are fence-sitters is older than the internet. What’s new is that half of it now comes from people whose own position is the same withholding.