A Presentation On Being An Atheist Mccloskey

Having a Worldview is essential when it comes to how a person lives from day to day. A worldview is an initial set of expectations to which one pledges, this serves as a basis for accepting and understanding reality and will also deeply shapes how one will act (Waddell, 2015). There are different worldviews and they each have different beliefs. Atheism is a worldview that does not believe in God or any spiritual realm and leans more towards scientific theories. Pantheism worldview is quite the opposite, they are very spiritual and believe all is God. Even though they are so spiritual their God doesn’t have a relationship with humanity. Theism is a worldview that has three different religions that consist of Judaism, Christianity, and

God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist The existence or otherwise of God has attracted a seeming countless debates from all classes of people mainly academics, comprising theologians, scientists and philosophers, not to mention laypersons. Consequently, this singular topic has generated many publications and reviews. Of particular interest are the two opposing views brilliantly presented by William Lane Craig, a popular Christian philosopher and apologist who is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. There had been intense rounds of debate on the subject, prominent among which were the one at Dartmouth in 1999 and another at Wooddale Church in 2000. William Lane Craig believes, and firmly too, that God exists while Walter Sinnott-Armstrong would always want to convince his listeners that He does not. These opposing views and more are taken up in the 2003 popular and unique book, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. The uniqueness of the book, and in fact, its greatest strength can be found in the fact that it was co-authored by opponents, a christian and an atheist. What makes the book more interesting is that it represents the results of an actual debate, where each side not only presents its succinct and polite views but has the chance to actively respond to its opponent with some succinct theological and philosophical sophistication. While they arrive

In the argument with McCloskey about using “proofs” to establish a case for Gods existence I would first agree with McCloskey that we should not use “proofs” for Gods existence since “proofs” cannot be a 100% proof of Gods existence. But there are two arguments that can help explain the existence of God. The first is the best explanation approach which is the best explanation for the things we witness. Another classical argument is cumulative case approach, in this approach we use more than one argument to make a case for Gods existence. Both of these approaches to the existence of God is easier to understand than just the “proof” argument. We must also understand the defeaters of the arguments and also that the God of the Bible is

In some ways, it is refreshing to read H.J. McCloskey's article, "On Being an Atheist". Most people assume atheists are simple nihilists who do not subscribe to any sort of convictions or beliefs. The author's text, however, refutes this conventional viewpoint by producing several reasons for embracing atheism, many of which are studied and labored counterarguments to typical claims of theists. The most important part of this essay is found in its opening paragraphs, in which the author makes a very prudent point in explaining the fact that most theists do not require elaborate proofs or empirical evidence to substantiate their beliefs in a divinity. Those who do have not completely subscribed to faith, but to testaments of man's deductive prowess, which should not be confused with faith. However, the author makes a number of points that he believes alludes to fallacies in theism that those well versed in theism can handily refute.

Having completed the unit of philosophy of religion, you are now ready to respond to an article written by an actual atheist.  This article, titled “On Being an Atheist,” was written by H. J. McCloskey in 1968 for the journal Question.  McCloskey is an Australian philosopher who wrote a number of atheistic works in the 1960s and 70s including the book God and Evil (Nijhoff, 1974). In this article, McCloskey is both critical of the classical arguments for God’s existence and offers the problem of evil as a reason why one should not believe in God.

Furthermore, if there were a necessary being, the fact that this being is immediately labeled God based solely on the fact that such beings are classified as eternal, self-explanatory and self-sufficient doesn't mean these attributes can be applied to that of God under all religions. In addition, even if this necessary being was God, these attributes aren't the only important traits that apply to God. It is widely known across religions that God is much more than just a self-sufficient, and eternal being. In fact, I don't think that a necessary being exists at all especially when we have no experience or evidence of something eternal or self-sufficient to prove it. Thus, stating that not only is there a necessary being but also that this necessary being is God seems like a far stretch. The idea of basing something like why the world exists off the experiences known from objects and beings in the world and applying that knowledge to something completely off that scale, such as the universe, seems rather illogical. It seems to me that a necessary being is something that seems like a good explanation for the cause of the totality of the world we live in; however, in my opinion, it is only a good idea and nothing more. It's something that leaves one with a good impression, but under closer inspection, it's seen that we actually

The argument discussed is one that has an unending list of contingent beings, all of which need a cause for existence. According to the article, McCloskey assumes that the argument calls for an uncaused cause to start an infinite number of contingent beings. McCloskey believes that each contingent being simply exists with an infinite number of causes that eventually lead back to a case of chance. In “Philosophy of Religion” by Stephen Evans, Evans refers to this way of thinking as a “brute fact.” According to Evans, by claiming this stance would turn the partial argument into a whole argument and concurrently, “this will require the defender of the argument to claim that the contingency of the whole of the universe can validly be inferred from the contingency of all its parts.” Where McCloskey’s ignorance further takes a violent curve against acquiring knowledge about the beginning of the universe connects to his argument is when he said “This means that the first cause must be explained as being a necessarily existing being, one who cannot exist.” What he is alluding to, and is also the focal point of his disapproval of theism, is that humans do not have the right to claim that a being created the universe. If an atheist can claim that there is no such existence of God, then why is it that a theist cannot claim the existence of a God?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument presented by Dr. William Lane Craig states that everything that beings to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; therefore: the universe has a cause. The Cosmological argument argues that the universe that we live in has a cause and purpose. There must be a creator (God) of the universe because the universe cannot have a cause without something or someone feeling the need to create. In the Craig-Dacey debate Dr. Dacey opening argument or rebuttal was aimed to disprove God’s existence. Dr. Dacey begin to show that the concept of God is self- contradictory.

In his article “On Being an Atheist,” McCloskey argues against the claims of a God, and addresses many of the Christian ideals in his writings. He refutes what Christians believe as truths, and gives many reasons as to why these truths are false, and why he believes Christians are blind to their real existence. He gives examples of the beliefs that Christians follow, and seeks to discredit those ideas. He mentions the general idea of a Creator, but specifically focuses on the Christian ideal of a God.

McCloskey refers to the arguments for God’s existence as “proofs” and often implies that they can’t definitively establish the case for God, so therefore they should be abandoned. However, the biggest problem with viewing the arguments for God’s existence as “proofs” is that they are not proofs like the proofs in Mathematics which are one-hundred percent certain. (Foreman) These are arguments, not “proofs”, as there is no way to come to a one-hundred percent certain conclusion with such arguments. Therefore, McCloskey is viewing and trying to use the arguments for God’s existence in a wrong way and in a way that they were not meant to be used.

His first Ontological Argument for God’s Existence starts by defining God based on Christian belief as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.” It is on the foundation of this definition that he builds his argument.

In the article McCloskey, chooses to use the word “proof” instead of the word “theory”. By doing this he is making his argument sound more fact driven and reasonable. He is also in turn making Christianity and the belief that God exists sound more fictitious. However, though his argument sounds appealing we must remember that what he argues is based on facts and concepts

In the article, “On Being an Atheist”, H.J. McCloskey discusses the reasons of why he believes being an atheist is a more acceptable than Christianity. McCloskey believes that atheism is a more rational belief versus having a God who allows people to suffer so he can have the glory. He believes to live in this world, you must be comfortable. The introduction of his article, he implements an overview of arguments given by the theist, which he introduces as proofs. He claims that the proofs do not create a rationalization to believe that God exists. He provides 3 theist proofs, which are Cosmological argument, teleological argument, and the argument of design. He also mentions the presence of evil in the world. He focuses on the existence

I recently did an interview with Seth Andrews, The Thinking Atheist (link below). We covered everything from race, religion, and other things in the year of the Trump. Nothing too controversial, except for the community that claims Seth's Moniker in entirety. It took less than 24 hours for the comment section to show me why so many Atheists of Color don't feel welcomed in "this" community. I've spent 5 years of my life traveling the country giving talks addressing the recurring question "How can we make the Atheist community more diverse?"

The question of God's existence has been debated in philosophy to great lengths. E.K. Daniel has listed all common philosophical arguments for the existence of God in his essay "A Defense of Theism", consisting of The Ontological Argument, The First-Cause Argument, The Argument of Contingency, The Design Argument, The Moral Argument, The Argument from Religious Experience, and The Natural Law Argument (p. 260). These arguments are familiar to any basic student of philosophy, along with the critiques that have been raised by philosophers such as Ernest Nagel in his essay "The Case for Atheism" (p. 274-283). These arguments have almost reached a virtual impasse, since there seems to be as much rational proof against the existence of God as there is fervor to believe in God. K.D. Ellis states this by saying "They may offer some support for the plausibility of the belief in a god, but they are not sufficiently strong enough to compel our assent to the conclusion that a god exists" (p. 297). This difference of perspective results in theism, atheism and agnosticism.