The On Being An Atheist

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

In 1968, H.J. McCloskey, an Australian Philosopher wrote an article titled “On Being an Atheist” which is an attempt for his personal reasons to reject the belief in God. In the article McCloskey criticizes against the theistic proofs, which are cosmological argument and the teleological argument. Majority of the article is focused on the evil issues and catastrophic events to innocent people in a world that is supposedly designed by an omnipotent and loving God, which McCloskey believes is a valid case in his arguments against cosmological and teleological arguments as well as his assertions that evil is proof against God’s existence. But, it still remains that the most reasonable explanation for the creator of the universe

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.

The most fundamental law of all thought is the law of non-contradiction. As with the other laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction is self-evident–you can’t prove it, you just know it. In fact, the laws of logic are the tools of thought that allow you to learn everything else:

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?

McCloskey in his article, "On Being An Atheist" claims that proofs or arguments which theists provide to support their belief “have no weight”. He speaks of this primarily in relation to the ontological argument, the argument which attempts to show that the very concept of God implies his reality. McCloskey believes that there is no point in debating on this particular proof because it has no bearing but the ontological argument serves as the very foundation for other arguments which supports and defends God’s existence. If not for the purpose of proving His existence, the ontological argument is still necessary because it distinguishes the characteristics of God whom we are defending. The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity

Sadly, while I am usually kind and caring, I was being snarky in your case. The point is to wake you up.

Upon reading H.J. McCloskey’s article “On Being an Atheist” it appears that McCloskey has quite the interesting yet sometimes understandable outlook on theism. In regards to “proofs”, McCloskey notes that there are three main arguments that defend God’s existence, which he calls “proofs.” These three arguments are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the argument from design. (McCloskey, 1968) He tells of his beliefs in regards to these “proofs” and theism in general is seemingly ignorant and “miserable.” On several occasions McCloskey refers to these “proofs” as they unable to be established without a doubt as a proof should be; therefore, he believes that they should in turn be abandoned as false information. (McCloskey, 1968) Within Foreman’s presentation “Approaching the Question of

It is interesting that McCloskey refers to his grounds for evidence as proofs for according to Mark Foreman, who is Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Liberty University, proof carries with it connotations of certainty that actually originate from the field of mathematics and is not meant to be used regarding philosophical arguments pertaining to the existence of God. Theists cannot prove the existence of God 100%; ergo, the naturalists and atheists cannot provide 100% proof that God does not exist.

H. J. McCloskey, an atheist author, wrote an article titled “On Being an Atheist” which explains why he is an atheist, his views on God, and why He believes that being an atheist is more comfortable and reasonable than believing in Christianity. While arguing against the proofs within the cosmological argument and teleological argument, McCloskey does not acknowledge the ontological argument. He then goes on to say how belief in God is not necessary and “living by faith” is irrational. My goal of this paper is to examine his article, point out the flaws, and prove that his arguments do not prove atheism to be true.

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.

Sometimes it feels like I just don't belong. I can talk to colleagues that are Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, etc., and except for that whole atheist thing, they understand me. Controversy free. We're often separated by language, but on issues of equality, they usually understand. They may not agree, but on occasion they get it. However, that whole atheist thing can be a problem. Its a big hurdle for many of them to overcome, so I'm usually dismissed, then dammed on issues on morality, even though we seek similar strides in freedoms. That one controversial thing, oblongs me into the clichéd peg that just won't fit.

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

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