On Being An Atheist Mccloskey

The next three chapters, Chapters Seven, Eight, and Nine, cover the atheist and what manners of atheist there are and how Christians should interact with them. Chapter Seven apprises the reader on the different flavors of atheists. There are three different kinds of atheist people will come across. There are those who are angry at a God they don’t believe exist, so they tend to be more hostile towards religion. There are atheists who are not necessarily neutral, but don’t have an aggressive insolence towards religion. The last group are those who identify as an atheist because they are simply unaware of the evidence of God. Chapter Eight is about how science is not actually against theology, but instead it actually needs theology and is against atheism. It also shows the historical evidence of Jesus, a little bit on the gnostic gospels and what they really are, and miracles and the circular logic of atheist trying to shoot miracles down. The author in Chapter Nine informs the reader on how to interact with our atheist friends. Like in the earlier chapters, Cawley gives micro practices and meso practices. The micro practice in this chapter is question flipping. This is basically the practice of turning fractious questions into delightful answers, and instead of answering straight forward, its beating around the bush.

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.

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

The purpose of the article is to persuade the readers that atheism can be considered as a source of morality and spirituality. Since the Nation Framework of Religious Education (RE) has approved to include atheism in the curriculum of primary and secondary school levels, Watson argues that “children and young people can learn from atheistic beliefs and values for their spiritual and moral development.” Watson begins her (article) with refuting religious objections of the Association of Christian Teachers (ACT) in introducing atheism to the curriculum of RE. One of the main objections of ACT was the threat atheism can impose on religion. On the other hand, Watson points out that the ACT would not feel threatened or worried, if they were confident

These arguments both refer to a creator of some sort- whether that is God or another outside force. The teleological argument, however, suggests that there is purpose within the order of the universe. McCloskey believes that both arguments, the cosmological and teleological arguments, cannot prove that God is the ultimate designer. He also claims that there is not enough, if any, proof of a designer. To counter his argument, I would argue that there is not enough proof to prove that there is not a creator- however, not one side can be absolutely sure that they are completely

I think that it is an over-generalization to say that the biggest mass murderers of history were atheists. (BTW, saying mass-murderers, savages, or the like implies that those people were defeated; however, people who killed millions of people and were winners of conflict often implies that they were heroes and victorious, etc. Point of reference, the genocide of Native Americans during the 1800s in the U.S., the killing of 40% of Ireland’s chiefly Catholic population by Oliver Cromwell’s Puritan conquest of Ireland in the 1600s, etc.) To say that atheists have a proclivity for destroying others would infer that atheists would have a unifying belief; by definition, this is not atheism.

I have a cold and he’s injured, so we are sitting on the wall in the room.

Recently, I've noticed that some of my friends have become concerned about me because I'm an atheist. This is odd, because I've never made any secret of that fact, although I don't go around preaching it to anyone who will listen. Ever since I realized that I no longer agreed with any of the religious viewpoints which I was brought up with, I have explained my opinions, as clearly as I can, to those who were interested, curious, or who challenged by beliefs.

In addition, theist could respond to the problem of evil and the atheist argument by pointing out what they think of premises (1) which atheist use in their argument. They could point out that one has the sensible grounds for trusting in the presence of the theistic God. Also not-3 consents premise (2) as true, and see that (not-1) monitors from (not-3) and (2). Then, concluded that one has sensible grounds for refusing (1). Therefore, having sensible grounds for declining (1), the theist can settle that the basic argument for atheism is

The Argument from design or also known as the Teleological argument (Telos: Purpose, Teleology: Study of something’s purpose or design) is endowed on the assumption of a God or creator which has intelligently and elegantly designed the universe to such intricate and fine detail. In which argues that something so immaculately designed for example the structural complexity and delegacy of the eye, can only be as a direct result of an intelligent designer or (God). The argument from design is a collection of empirical and inductive arguments that identify characteristics found in natural objects and infer God as the cause.

Religion is one of the touchiest subjects in America. It is something that is rarely on the forefront of many people’s minds but as soon as someone brings it up, everyone has an opinion. Similarly, the idea of no religion, of atheism, is equally opinionated. While Americans of “faith” often have conflicting opinions with each other, they often stand united on the stance of atheism. For them, atheism is bad and atheists are bad. However, what really is an atheist? At its most basic, an atheist is merely an individual who rejects the idea of god and religion. It is nothing more, nothing less. Nevertheless, many people of faith attach secondary implications to this definition. They unify atheists under a series of assumptions concerning

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.

McCloskey’s claim of atheism being more comforting that theism seems to be incorrect based on the article by William Lane Craig called Absurdity of Life without God (2008). Craig explains that a life without God is meaningless and humans are no better off than animals and insects. Life has no value or purpose for humans. All we do to make this world a better place is pointless (Craig). Without God, there is no immortality, no life after death or possibility of seeing loved ones who have passed away already. Once you said good-bye to them, that was it. How can that be a comforting thought?

Disbelief in the existence of God is an enduring, worldwide phenomenon that is quite possibly also one of the most misunderstood belief systems in the world. For many, the term “atheism” immediately spurs negative imagery inspired by years of indoctrination – churches proclaiming the sins of the infidels, and how questioning God’s infinite love will result in instant damnation. Atheists are perceived as dark, nihilistic, immoral, amoral, pessimistic, and even evil, because without God, clearly they are also without morality and goodness. But if this disbelief is so negative, why would nearly 1 billion people globally, and more than 16 percent of the American population identify themselves as “nonbelievers”? In fact, a survey published in

Throughout the course of this essay we shall examine two of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The arguments that we are going to focus on shall be the Design argument and the Ontological argument. We shall compare, evaluate and discuss both the Design (or teleological) argument for the existence of God and the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, as well as highlighting philosophical criticisms of both theories too. By doing so, we shall attempt to draw a satisfactory conclusion and aim gain a greater understanding of the respective theories and their criticisms of each theory.