Paulo Seabra

You don't need to discuss atheism for a long time before you find yourself presenting, or being presented with, the claim that atheism is just a lack of belief in God. In that sense atheism isn't so much a preposition but more so the rejection of one, it's not defined by the presence of one thing, it's defined by the absence of that thing. Atheism would then be, not so much a thing in and of itself, but more a rejection of God and by extension religion, which means that atheism only has any meaning insofar as religion is itself a meaningful presence in the world. I myself used to present this kind of claim when I was seventeen or eighteen, but I have since stopped, keeping in line with this recurring theme of mine that in recent times I've been critical of many aspects of the atheist movement. This lack-of-belief talking point is one of them, and though I may have addressed it here and there, I figured that a slightly more in-depth approach made sense... So is athe...

A long while back I made myself a Reddit account, mostly to try and hopefully get Jordan Peterson's attention over some stuff I wrote. It was a total long shot though, there was always a slim chance he wouldn't read it, and so that's exactly what happened. Who'd have thought, hey?... But anyway, I then decided to write a new post defending what I perceived to be, to my knowledge, his worst point as it relates to religious belief and morality. I got some interaction out of it, but enough to kinda sour my appreciation for the site. One person made the typical edgy comments on religion, as well as some wild claims that apparently didn't require any evidence whereas I couldn't say two plus two equals four without an entire university of science backing me, another person brought up a ton of random stuff I ain't never heard of and also a little beside the point, and a third person thought Jordan's worst point would have been something else to begin with. No ...

The speech in question was arguably one of the biggest viral sensations of new atheism. It was certainly one of the clips that gave me a big nudge or two towards my proposition that atheism was a more reasonable position than any form of theism, perhaps it made me believe that atheism was even true, which would denote a positive statement and therefore a stronger claim. And with good reason because this was a damn good speech, it's Richard Dawkins at the height of his powers and with some impressive rhetorical flare to boot. But now that so many years have passed, does this speech still hold up? And now that I've criticized ten arguments in favor of atheism here, and another ten here, do I still hold to the argument that Dawkins presents in this brief speech? I'm not so sure I do, at least not quite in the same way. In a nutshell, I believe that what is being defended here is something somewhat similar to Pascal's wager, an argument that, though kinda weak in philosop...

In sequence with two other essays I've written, both of them surrounding the issue of individual responsibility within secular morality, one alluding to ideas such as atheists being delusional about morality, and the other being one in which I vented about the problems of secular humanism, I began to realize why the Joker is considered one of the best characters ever created, and one that immediately appeals to all of us, even across various mediums and interpretations. I have also previously written about Joaquin Phoenix's Joker, which I could use to make my point, but Heath Ledger's version fits a bit better here, and even still, I could instead mention the countless individuals in history who have taken on the Joker's philosophy, whether they realized it or not. But just what is that philosophy? It's simply to find your own meaning in life and to enjoy it to the fullest before you inevitably succumb to death, after which you will cease to exist. In other words...

This is something new I've been noticing... It might not be something that is likely to apply to a modern atheist with a fairly solid philosophical background, that is to say, it's not likely to apply to any kind of influential person who just so happens to not believe in God and to therefore build his or her work on that claim, or lack thereof if you will, although I'd have to put a little pin on that because I'm inclined to believe that some influential atheists were and are indeed delusional about morality, perhaps Christopher Hitchens being number one and maybe Ricky Gervais being number two. However, and trying to sort of avoid that confrontation, at least for now, I'm at this present time more interested in talking a little bit about the logic and general argumentation deployed by the everyday atheists who will more or less claim that they don't need a god telling them what's right and wrong, and that whoever does need it is stupid or even evil at hea...

I wasn't really planning on writing this one now, but I figured hey, why not... The idea has been on my mind a lot lately, though it never really leaves it. And when that's the case, as with most ideas, the best is to just write them down and get it over with. I don't think you have to be a big fan of video games to understand my point with this argument, which I actually believe to be quite simple... What is a video game? A video game is essentially a closed system that contains an alternate reality governed by its own rules and values, which make perfect sense within the system itself but lack any meaning outside of it. If you know quite a bit about coding you might consider that definition to be atrocious, I dunno, but as far as I can tell, it's an accurate and simple definition for our purposes here. Let's take Fallout: New Vegas for example. It's a massive sprawling game with a vast map to explore, various ways to develop your character, countless characte...

In recent days, somewhat less recent lately though, Crime and Punishment has been resurfaced due to the lectures of a man who at this point needs no introduction – Jordan Peterson. Now, while I had already read some of Dostoyevsky's books before discovering Peterson's lectures, I decided to give the mad russian a second chance because I realized some of the finer philosophical points of his stories had escaped me. So I dusted off Crime and Punishment as well as The Brothers Karamazov from my bookshelf and I read them with new eyes. And though my enjoyment of both books greatly improved compared to the first time around, I still can't quite grasp the point of the former, or if I do, I can't quite say I agree with it. And that is because, to surmise my argument before I even attempt to explain it, I think the only thing Dostoyevsky managed to prove was that Raskolnikov was, all things considered, a good guy all along. “The Student” by Nikolai Yaroshenko As far as Jord...