On Being an Atheist

Theology is an intentionally reflective endeavor. Every day we reflect upon the real, vital, and true experience of the benevolent God that exists. We as humans tend to be social beings, and being so we communicate our beliefs with one another in order to validate ourselves. Furthermore atheism has many forms, three of the most popular atheistic beliefs include: scientific atheism, humanistic atheism and the most popular one being protest atheism. Scientific atheism is the idea that science is the answer for everything and god is not existent. The humanistic approach states that society 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.

As regards the cosmological argument itself, McCloskey states that "all we entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause." (p.63) This is indeed true, there is no reason to necessarily infer a God person, however; the inference is of the nature that suggests (hence the term infer) a cause of such magnitude that it is practically God-like. Moreover, his words do not disprove the rational of a God. Entitlement not to call this cause "God" is neither entitlement to deny calling this cause or considering this cause to be "God."

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?

c. McCloskey implies that evolution has displaced the need for a designer. Assuming evolution is true, for argument’s sake, how would you respond to McCloskey (see Evans and Manis pp. 82–83)?

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.

Specific Purpose: To inform my audience about Atheism, why it important as well as the fundamental elements of being a part of it. I will discuss what Atheism is, how it originated, and the number of people who practice this religion.

The strength of this argument is how it uses god to explain the unexplainable since, we can never know for certain the beginning of time []. This argument however has a few flaws. The argument states that odd are initial cause and self-creating but, the premises stated nothing is self-creating; therefore god must have a cause. Rationally we should conclude if nothing is the cause of its own existence, god itself cannot just come into existence creating a finite four-dimension universe. This created some controversy and lead debates.

In reading McCloskey’s article it’s obvious he is searching for definitive proof that God exists. He is unable to find proof and therefore comes to the conclusion that God must not exist. He believes that the existence of evil discredits arguments made in support of believing in God. There is not one single thing in this world that we can know definitively without looking at the evidence. You have to look at the whole picture. Just like in a criminal investigation, the crime scene investigators gather evidence they are not looking for just the bullets or just the body. They look and gather all the data before coming to any conclusions. We will discuss

God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of

The author also supports his beliefs with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He states, “Whatever began to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist therefore, the universe has a cause.” (Copan & Meister) In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, “shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect.” In support of the cosmological argument, the author states, to suggest that things just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and resort to magic.” In reading the material, the author highlights how God in all of his wisdom and power set the earth in perfect motion in such a way that the laws are perfectly balanced not only for human life but for coexistence of plants and animals and all living organisms. Furthermore, if not for the right combination of laws then life as we know it would be

The question of God’s existence has been challenged by many philosophers and non-philosophers alike over the years. Arguments that have been used to support the existence of a divine being includes; the cosmological argument and the theological argument. However, there are some who oppose these arguments and philosopher H.J. McCloskey is among this group. In the article “On Being an Atheist” written by H.J. McCloskey, he argues that both these arguments are false and insufficient as it relates to “proof” of God’s existence. McCloskey believes that without proper proof, we must completely dismiss the idea of God’s existence. In his well-written article, he offers a few reasons why he believes that atheism is a much more comfortable belief versus, a belief in a God who allows the suffering of his people. He suggested that the problem of evil and the fact that evil exists meant that God could not exist. McCloskey urges that people should just help each other rather than, placing their faith in a God that is clearly imperfect due to the imperfect world that he has created. Credible as McCloskey may be, I saw many errors in his theory. It is my opinion that his attempt to define God is completely unsound, and his philosophy is at best debatable. In this response paper, I will be carefully examining each argument and also presenting a counter argument. I will be taking the stance from the perspective of a minimal theism who

A last point about the issue of abhorrence; on what grounds is McCloskey asserting an activity is malicious? How is he deciding his ethical qualities? Without a doubt he doesn't trust good values are relative, for he is avowing the affliction of blameless individuals as a goal standard. Yet on agnosticism one can't do this. On the off chance that the agnostic is correct and there is no God then Dostoyevsky remark that everything is allowed is approved. Be that as it may, then insidious and great would stop to exist. How then might you be able to lead a good, or for this situation more agreeable life? Profound quality is aimless in a relativistic world, so how does McCloskey accuse malicious for God? For the skeptic to be genuinely glad he must live reliably, however in the event that the agnostic did live reliably he couldn't in any way, shape or form be upbeat considering a definitive esteem, reason and importance of their live without the presence of God. Accordingly it can be seen that belief in a higher power

The question of God’s existence has been challenged by many philosophers and non-philosophers alike. Arguments that have been used to support the existence of a divine being includes the cosmological argument and the theological argument. However there are some who oppose these arguments and philosopher H.J. McCloskey is among this group. In the article “On Being an Atheist” written by H.J. McCloskey, he argues that both these arguments are false and insufficient as it relates to “proof” of God’s existence. McCloskey believes that without proper proof, we must completely dismiss the idea of God’s existence. In his well-written article he offers a few reasons why he believes that atheism is a much more comfortable belief verses a belief in a God who allows the suffering of his people. He suggested that the problem of evil and the fact that evil exist, means that God could not exist. McCloskey urges that people should just help each other rather than placing their faith in a God that is clearly imperfect due to the imperfect world that he has created. Credible as McCloskey may be, I saw many errors in his theory. It is my opinion that his attempt to define God is completely unsound and his philosophy is at best debatable. In this response paper I will be carefully examining each argument and also presenting a counter argument. I will be taking the stance from the perspective of a minimal theism who believes in the existence of God.

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