We’re getting close to the end of our look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism and agnosticism. This time, we’re on the last part of the supposed arguments for “local atheism“.
So far, I haven’t been remotely impressed but let’s continue on and see if it improves. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism Part 6c
Now we’re into supposed arguments for local atheism and I don’t really expect to be excited by what they come up with, but you never know. We’re getting close to the end of the look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism and agnosticism. Is this going to go anywhere? Let’s plunge in and see. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism Part 6b
Fair warning, this part is going to be long because it’s an extended look at “local atheism” and that will take up the next three parts of this look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s article on atheism and agnosticism.
So let’s get to it. This time, I’ll look at the introduction and first part. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism Part 6a
After really finding nothing impressive in the argument for agnosticism, it’s time to turn our gaze to global atheism and I can already tell you that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy won’t be doing well here. Of course, the kind of people who would take any of this seriously, they won’t care what I have to say, will they?
Granted, that’s just more evidence that a lot of people operate as if they were religious. “You don’t take the Bible seriously because you lack faith!” No, I don’t take it seriously because there’s no evidence that it’s true. The same seems to be the case for these entries in the SEP.
Let’s take a look anyhow. See you below. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism Part 5
Three parts down, on to the fourth. This time, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism and agnosticism tries to make an argument for agnosticism. Is it going to be any more impressive than the last couple? I wouldn’t be holding my breath. So far, this has all been “we like this definition” and it’s never been about what the words actually mean, because they aren’t actually handling language the way it at it realistically functions.
However, we’ll see where this goes and evaluate it as it comes. See you on the other side. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism Part 4
Just fair warning, but because this is going to be a very long series, I’m going to try to break it up instead of just going straight through. Therefore, you can expect to see one or two parts per week, with at least one intermission, just so nobody gets bored.
Therefore, let’s take a look at part three of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism and agnosticism. This one is titled “Global Atheism Versus Local Atheisms” and that might be interesting to see. So… let’s get started. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism Part 3
Today, we’re back with part 2 of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosopy’s entry on atheism and agnosticism. I will admit that, so far at least, it has been better than the entry on moral realism. At least the author differentiates the usage as one that is useful within philosophical discussions, something that I wish a lot more armchair philosophers would figure out. Mostly, they insist that everyone uses the SEP definition when discussing the subject outside of philosophical circles.
Yeah, that’s not going to go well for you. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism Part 2
This was recommended by Randolf Richardson over on YouTube during the recent moral realism pooch screw and I thought it would be a fine topic to take on here. Therefore, we’re going to return to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to check out their entry on atheism and agnosticism.
I’d say this ought to be fun but it won’t be. Continue reading Let’s Look at Philosophical Atheism
This was something that I was considering making a video on for my YouTube channel and then, I decided it would be much better doing it here. This was published on the website for the Houston Baptist University and frankly, it’s just a mess of bald rationalizations for why God is an explanation that isn’t just absurd.
But we like that kind of thing, so let’s go take a look. Continue reading Excuses for God
I don’t know why we have to keep having these conversations but apparently we do. A post popped up over on Reddit in which the OP wanted to know the views of atheist moral realists and I pointed out that they’d have a really hard time coming up with any of those because the overwhelming majority were moral anti-realists.
That’s when all of the doo-doo hit the fan. Continue reading Lots of Atheists are Clueless Too!