Summary Of Julian Baggini's Atheism

The question of God’s existence has been pondered by humans for centuries. There are an infinite number of different opinions, arguments, and ideas favoring for or against the idea of God. Personally, I strongly believe in God not only due to my religious affiliation, but also because of my own opinions, ideas, and experience. To begin with, the complexity of Earth and the life that has formed upon it cannot be based just on luck or chance. I believe that ultimately God, as a power, rather than a mystical being is the one created and controls the universe. Although the God and his authority are not entirely comprehensible by humans, it’s our faith as worshiper that eventually lead us to a greater understanding.

In Kelly James Clark’s Article “Without Evidence or Argument”, Clark argues that belief in God, does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. Clark’s argument is against W.K. Clifford’s article “The Ethics of Belief”, in which Clifford claims that everything must be believed only on the basis of sufficient evidence (139). Throughout Kelly Clark’s article he states many things that support his conclusion of belief without evidence or argument, however, my paper will only discuss what Clark says on p.139 starting with the paragraph “The first problem with Clifford’s…” and the following paragraph, ending with the words “...to see why.”

With the passage of time, there also have been scriptures appearing that support the existence of God. Stories, events and many supernatural occurrences that is beyond human’s intellect. The Myths of Fire, Water, Earth and Air were famous for their supernatural existence in the Roman Era. Before the Ancient Greek religion turned into mythology, existence of God was well practiced by the Greek people. Homer, a famous Greek writer, writes in the ‘Odyssey’ about how if man does not follow the God and believe in them, then man will fall and be doomed. The Greeks were a very religious civilization. They showed that one could believe in the gods without having solid, concrete proof. Looking at this religion we can see that God does exist.

The issue that is unjustifiable in McCloskey’s argument as proofs is he dismisses the favor of God’s existence when the standard of “one hundred percent certainty is not reached” (Forman,2012). Instead of centering one focus on proving God’s existence, you must seek an accumulative case approach to explain the best case to God’s existence, which is streams of evidence to develop a strong case (Forman,2012). Proof and certainty are not always a reliable possibility, especially when it comes to our senses or scientific beliefs (Forman,2012). According to Evans and Manis “the failure to produce a proof of God’s existence does not necessarily mean that no one has any justified beliefs about God” (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 61). The cosmological and teleological argument provides substantial amount of expositions for God existence meanwhile McCloskey’s arguments contradict themselves on the standard of proof that he

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.

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."

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.

In his article “The Ethics of Belief (Clifford, 1877) W.K. Clifford sought to argue that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (as cited on p190). The aim of this essay is to establish whether indeed this view offered by Clifford, when considering religious faith, is convincing. In order to do this I will consider the arguments that Clifford put forward, including that which to believe anything based upon insufficient evidence always does harm and so is wrong. Such a statement is in direct opposition to those religious believers who regard their blind faith as a virtue and for whom evidence is something that is

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

However, to the point of God actually existing I am skeptical. Many people turn to the Bible to bring proof to the table of any doubters like myself. While the bible brings forth some interesting facts that we all would like to believe, it does not necessarily make them true. The bible is not evidence itself because it cannot be confirmed as it is thousands of years old. Who knows, it could have been mistaken to be a bible when it was really just a compilation of short stories over a long period of time. Another claim that tries to prove god is real, is Decartes 3rd Meditation which states; If we have a clear and distinct idea of god, than a cause must be as great as its effect this idea cannot come from an imperfect thing like myself. Therefore, God must exist.(Pojman128) This would be true if the first two points could not be challenged. I can simply deny ever having the idea of god, and no evidence is provided for the second idea it is just an assertion that we, apparently an imperfect thing can ever think of something that we are not, which is simply not true. Perfection is based on the eye of the beholder, we all have different ideas of perfection, whether it is great being of pureness, greatness or whatever the case may be. I also choose bring about Bertrand Russell’s argument that since God is all-loving, all-knowing, and

The existence of God is a question that has troubled and plagued mankind since it began to consider logic. Is there a God? How can we be sure that God exists? Can you prove to me that He is real? Does His existence, or lack thereof, make a significant difference? These loaded questions strike at the heart of human existence. But the real question is, can we answer any of them? These questions are answered in the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal and St. Anselm of Canterbury. For thousands of years, theologians, philosophers and scientists have been trying to prove or disprove God’s existence. Many, including the three mentioned above, have strong proofs and theories that attempt to confirm God’s existence. Although, without any scientific evidence, how can they be entirely sure? “Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs,” (Kreeft). Gravity similar to God’s existence ; it cannot be seen nor explained, yet it still exists. With faith, reason, understanding and even some math, God’s existence can be verified rationally.

The existence of God is something that most people take for granted. In your upbringing you are taught that God is the most supreme being, the creator of all, infinite and eternal. Taking into account the type of society in which we live in and the fact that it is usually our parents who teach us about God, most people do not even question his existence. Many philosophers who believe in God have tried to prove his existence using many different types of argument. One of these arguments is the ontological argument. It was made famous by the 11th century philosopher Anselm. The ontological argument has three properties: 1. It is an a priori argument. 2. It treats existence as a property. 3. It is

The question is that is it possible to prove the existence of God in a strictly scientific? Answer is incredibly straightforward that there is no individual in the world who could come back with a solid proof whether God exists or not. One of the primary difficulties is the lack of a general characterization of the existence or nonexistence of which is required to be proved. First of all, for the benefit of further narrative, I would like to give the most general definition of "God" as far as possible including all possible variations. Consider our world as a great computer stylish game or a social network. For such a system may well be the one who designed it, created, wrote and performs systemic organization (Everitt N.p.). If you doubt the presence of Facebook creator and administrator of this network, it will look at least strange.

Proof Of The Exsistence of God Either God exists or He doesn't. There is no middle ground. Any attempt to remain neutral in relation to God's existence is automatically synonymous with unbelief. The question for God's existence is really important. Does God exist? Theology, cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments are all have ways to prove the existence of God. With all of these great arguments how can one deny that there is a God. There is a God and with these reasons I will prove that.

People in our society today who have the atheist point of view on religion, which is the belief that there is no god, are going against the so-called norms of society, and therefor are seen as deviant. Deviance is just an idea. Society determines what is deviant by the ideas they hold of what should be the norm. Atheism is seen as a negative deviance, or below the norm. They have a status that is placed on them in society. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they believe in evil, although that is how it is sometimes viewed from people in society who have a specific religion or faith. Atheism, which is not a new idea, has been evolving in our society, and is the reason for problems leading to debate and court cases, and for