On September 7th, I addressed several common questions about my views on ethics in my (under-read) post The Contexts, Objective Hierarchies, and Spectra of Goods and Bads (Or “Why Murder Is Bad”).
On September 8th, I complained when I saw Republican Candidates Take A Strong Stand Against Inoculating Girls Against Cancer-Causing Virus. That same day I also answered the common objection to my ethical views that claims you cannot assess better or worse of various activities since there are too many numerous dimensions to those activities. I explored what the ideal teacher would be in particular: Can Good Teaching Be Measured?.
On September 9th, I argued that there is something morally wrong when people argue that undetermined free will is morally necessary for blaming people and on those grounds insist it exists, even when they think there is no other good evidence for believing in free will: The “Moral Argument” For Free Will Is A Morally Troubling, Hypocritical, Faith Position.
On September 10th, I defended my critique of free will from objections by the Blue Collar Atheist in the post Internecine War At Freethought Blogs: Philosopher vs. “Redneck” Edition: Free Will And The Real World Smackdown.
On September 11th, I talked about Islam, 9/11, and “True Religion” (Or “What Could George W. Bush Mean When Talking About True Islam?”). Then I talked about What A “War on Terror” Should Mean vs. What it Has Meant and Why Clergy Rightfully Have No Place At A 9/11 Memorial (Or Any Civic Ceremonies). Finally I mocked remarks from Archbishop Dolan in which he looked for the up side of 9/11—the supposed eradication of atheists: Boy, Theology Is Hard: Archbishop Dolan Says God Used 9/11 To End Atheism In New York.
On September 12th, I talked about my screwed up views on sex as an Evangelical Christian teenager and college student: Love Virginity. That night I posted a letter from a young atheist whom I have mentored in which he described his disillusionment with Christianity caused by his friends’ despicable responses to his disagreements with them: How Religious Bullying Makes Atheists So Angry: One New Atheist’s Story.
On September 13th, I explained What It Means To Me To Be Free even if all our actions are determined. Then I returned to the topic of my views on objective goodness when I explained why things which have greater degrees of order adn complexity are objectively better than things with less in my post: The Objective Value of Ordered Complexity. That same night I premiered my first dialogue: A Debate About The Value of Permanent Promiscuity.
On September 15th, I examined the first third of the Sermon on the Mount to highlight all the problematic teachings in it: The Evils of the Sermon on the Mount (Part 1).
On September 16th, I responded to the notion that belief in objective morality was as much a faith position as belief in God is for many religious people: On Rejecting Faith in Morality.
On September 17th, I reposted one of my favorite pieces from last winter. In it I answered questions about whether it is better to promote belief in God in a world where not everyone can be trusted to do the right thing without fear of consequences: The Religious Conservative’s False Choice: “Big Brother” Or “Heavenly Father”.
On September 18th, I explored Why Getting Away With Wrongdoing Does Not Make It Worth It.
On September 19th, I criticized The Problematic Use of Skeptics in Supernatural Shows. Then I followed up my previous dialogue about promiscuity and monogamy with a dialogue about Moral Perfectionism, Moral Pragmatism, Free Love Ethics, and Adultery.
On September 20th, I wrote about Defining Intrinsic Goodness, Using Marriage As An Example.
On September 20th, I discussed Atheism and Tradition Building.
On September 21st, I pushed back against the idea that straight feminist guys like me have to Be Careful About Loving Women Too Much Lest Other Guys Think We’re Gay. That night I posted another dialogue, On The Ethics of “Sugar Daddies” and “Sugar Babies”, about the morality of college girls selling their companionship and sex to older men with a lot of money to help pay for their schooling.