I think I have to go back and rename these posts so the topic title is more appropriate and no longer a question, but that would ruin all of the outside links to these posts (snerk!) so for now, we’ll just continue blithely onward even though we can no longer phrase things in the form of a question. Today we’ll talk about how the disturbingly huge number of horrendous and outright
Intermission? Does this mean there’s, like, 25 more on the way? Actually, I have two potential topics in the category on my list of suggested posts, but this is more of overall observations that I was making the other morning, kind of a anti-‘But How?’ post. It will become clear in a moment.
I had observed some time after I started the Ask an Atheist page that very few people feel
I made it a point, throughout most (if not all) of the ‘But how?’ series, not to attack religion in and of itself, but to defend/explain the secular standpoint. This is not due to any kind of altruism – I have attacked religions just a few times in the past here – but instead to stay true to the subtopic itself, which is answering the questions posed so often from
This is another one that I’ve broached a few times before, mostly superficially, so I figured it was time to provide the full treatment, especially since it’s one of the arguments that’s been directed at me personally. So while it does nothing to explain a world with no god, it is an argument that’s been used thousands of times to bolster belief, despite the fact that it
I’ve kind of covered this in portions of several different posts, but expanding on it seems warranted, as I change perspective a little just to highlight something. So let’s look at the question that religious folk often like to ask of atheists, “But what would it take for you to believe in god?”
I imagine that half of the time, it’s asked out of frustration, as the
There is an extremely common debating/arguing tactic wherein, instead of defending a position when challenged, one goes on the counteroffensive, attacking an opponent’s position rather than explaining or justifying their own. I have made it a point to try and avoid such a stance in this topical series, because the whole premise is defending and defining a secular position. This one, however,
So, I started this category many moons ago with the idea that it would be used to answer (mostly unasked) questions that religious folk like to pose towards atheists, essentially showing how a secular standpoint covers more bases than it’s usually given credit for. At times since, the structure of posing an initial question hasn’t really worked, yet I still felt that the topic fit in
This episode of ‘But how?’ is going to deal more with observations than answering any specific questions through a secular outlook as such, the title question itself doesn’t really fit, but there still may be a lot of things that become clearer nonetheless. So let’s take a look at consistency in regards to religion.
From time to time, I hear the argument that ‘science’
I was working on another post that dealt with clarifying some details about atheism, and the initial premise of this was one of those points. As I started to address it, I realized that it wasn’t going to be covered in a paragraph or two, and so it has become the latest installment in the But How? lineup, to wit: But how does atheism or secularity defend against evil?
What I was originally
I would be remiss if I did not talk about this particular aspect of religion, the belief in a vague, indeterminate source of creation – and, honestly, I have, numerous times in the past, but always while dealing with something more specific. It deserves its own dedicated post, which will be many times more specific and detailed than the topic itself has ever been, so let’s delve into