On Being an Atheist, by H.J. McCloskey Essay

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

What is atheism? Why would someone be an atheist? Why do people fear and dislike atheism? Simply stated, atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Granted, atheists are each individuals and undoubtedly each of them prescribe [to] many different philosophies on life, politics and morality as do Christians. However, though atheists may choose to gather collectively for whatever purpose, unlike Christianity, atheism is not a belief system. An individual who identifies himself as an atheist is merely stating that he does not believe in [the existence of] god or gods. Atheism, as indicated by its name, is the opposite of theism which is belief in at least one god; to include polytheism (belief in many or more than one god) and monotheism

The Problem of Evil is one of the most influential and common arguments in modern philosophy against the existence of a Greater Being, God (Trakakis, 2006). Both Theist, those who believe in the existence of God, and Atheist, those who don’t believe in the existence of God, argue that evil exists in the world. The Problem of Evil explores whether the existence of evil and suffering constitutes significance evidence for atheism. When looking at the definition of the greater being, most refer to the Omni-god in which is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent, meaning God is all powerful, all knowing and all good. Atheist Philosophers therefore argue that no Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent greater being would allow evil and

Throughout many centuries philosophers have argued over the existence of God. In today’s society many people tend to hesitate in believing in a God because of the new scientific discoveries. For example, in the mid 1990s scientists built the Hubble telescope which revealed that there were billions of galaxies in our universe, this discovery led some people to question how can one divine being create so much and yet have a personal connection with everyone in the world. Which, in result, may take some scientific explanation to strengthen one’s belief in God, but for those who believe there is a benevolent God they do not need science to show proof that he exists because of their morals and beliefs they have been raised to follow. In this paper I will prove that God does exist by explaining the ontological, cosmological, and design argument.

In this paper, I will argue against the problem of evil, and I will give an adequate amount of information to prove why I believe Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument is not cogent, because although it is strong, all the premises are not true. This paper will also include me explaining, discussing, and evaluating Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument. In the argument, he discusses logical reasonings about why there is a strong argument for why atheism is true.

The theist, therefore, appears to be faced with a choice between a view which implies a kind of moral chaos and a life of moral immaturity, and one which belittles an Almighty God. One attempt to resolve this dilemma turns on the distinction

Brown, Neil. "The New Atheism and The Existence of God.” Compass, 46, no. 3, 2-5. Kensington, Australia: Compass, Spring 2012.

In William L. Rowe 's paper "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism" he sets out to accomplish two main goals. The first goal is directed toward theists, while the second attempts to reach the very wellspring of an atheist 's heart. Foremost, Rowe sets out to show that there is "an argument for atheism based on the existence of evil that may rationally justify someone in being an atheist" (335). After he has effectively addressed this first issue he moves on to try and convince the atheist that in light of all the evidence that theists are rationally justified (just as much as the atheist) and therefore that atheists should subscribe to what Rowe calls "friendly atheism."

Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, they reject religion as apart of not only a rejection of ignorance, but also a rejection of their religious family and association of religion itself, says Catherine L. and Caldwell-Harris who are published in the Department of Psychology for Boston University, Lesley College,University of Haifa, and Trinity College. This is a stark contrast to theism, which is the belief in god and is the case for many Americans. This demographic is about 83% of America’s population, according to the most recent census. About 16% of the population, or about 34,169,000 people are of an unaffiliated position, which would include Atheists,

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.

1. The first objection to the existence of God is the proponent of the Cosmological Argument makes the mistake of the collection of dependent beings as it itself one big depended

One of the main topic in the philosophy of religion is the discussion between theists and skeptics on the existence of God. Atheists say that there is a logical inconsistency between the existence of evil and the existence of God. However, theists believe that the mere existence of evil is not sufficient enough to completely dismiss the possibility of a morally perfect being existing This paper will discuss the logical inconsistencies between God and the “problem of evil” as well as the theist 's response to this argument through the free-will defense. In response, the atheist will address the problems evil that the free-will defense did not address, like natural evils. an argument that the thiests will attempt to dismiss using the “expanded free-will defense” which touches on humans primordial estrangement from God. Nonetheless, I feel the theist 's response fails to defend the existence of God because it does not fully address gratuitous evils or suffering from nonhuman beings.

Even though this one argument only talks about or shows us existence of the universe and necessary being we must not forget about so many other important ones. If someone were to accept this as a conclusion to accepting God, they would only want to know more. This is only a tiny piece that allows us just a glimpse of God's knowledge. Let’s take a look at the McCloskey’s second argument, the teleological argument.

The identity of human kind seems intrinsically linked with a search for the divine. Since the beginning of time, we have contemplated and proposed many different interpretations of the supernatural and existence of a divine being(s). In Karen Armstrong’s book, The Case for God, she assembles an exhaustive and detailed account of the history of all major religions and their historical significance and similarities. She concludes with an admonition of a modern atheist attitude towards religion based on the idea that we, as a democratic society, have lost sight of the overall intention and nature of belief and religion. Her perspective is unique and she adds an interesting new alternative to complete atheism and traditional religion.

McCloskey states in his article “On being an Atheist” that he finds much more comfort in being an atheist than believing in an all-powerful and all-knowing God because of the presence of evil in the world. He goes on to use this evil in the world as his “proof” that there is no God that exists. He then uses arguments such as the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument to go further into his reasoning. He states that these classical arguments cannot prove that God exists. He argues that if there were an all-powerful being in the world then would he not rid the world of evil? This is why he believes there to be more comfort in atheism. Yes there is evil in our world unfortunately so how should a theist, A Christian, respond to McCloskey and his arguments?