Also, many people do not believe in God. Jung himself countered this argument by stating that atheism itself is a religion. It seems that he will not allow anything to counter his ideas. If his theory is not open to falsification, some would argue that it is meaningless. • Jung’s idea of religious experience – Martin Buber argues that an experience which takes place in the mind, rather than externally to the individual, is not a religious experience.
He basically degrades the entire Bible by saying that there is no fact in the world and everything is an interpretation. He claims the truth is unnecessary to be spoken because it is only necessary to speak the truth when the untruth is so false that it can be detected. Nietzsche shares his belief that a human’s life is 100% controlled by the individual and all success should be credited to that individual. Then he disrespects all Christians by claiming they are a species of weak failures looking for pity that shall parish to the strong-willed all-powerful being. I strongly disagree with almost everything Fredrick Nietzsche writes about in this section of the reading.
The Falsification Principle is a similar principle to the verification principle as both states that statements are only meaningful if it can be proven true or false, verified or falsified. The falsification principle however if more focused on the idea of falsifying statements, as the name would suggest, and says that religious statements are meaningless because people(believers) will let nothing count against them no matter what the evidence. For example believers may have the belief that 'God is loving' and no matter how strong or how much evidence I could provide to show the opposite the believers would still have reasons why, in spite of everything, God continues to be loving. This was the point Anthony Flew was trying to make when he applied the falsification principle to religious statements and concluded that they were meaningless as he deemed it they died a 'death by a thousand qualifications'. There will never be anything believers will accept that could challenge what they believe because they will always come up with other ways of qualifying it.
On one hand you have the philosophers who believe you can speak and write about God, because God is reality. On the other hand, are the Logical Positivists who claim that statements about God have no meaning because they don’t relate to anything that is real. There are a number of philosophers who claimed to have proven conclusively that religious language is meaningful, for example Aquinas’ theory of analogy. An analogy is an attempt to explain the meaning of something which is difficult to understand and forming relations through attributes or relations that are similar. Aquinas rejected univocal and equivocal language when talking about God.
I suppose I couldn’t live without him... I know what to do! We should break our boredom by hanging ourselves! What is the point of my life...? I am a body without intellect; I have no impact on the world.
Response to Being an Atheist Christina Yarbrough PHIL 210 Liberty University H.J McCloskey wrote an article entitled “On Being an Atheist” which dealt with the atheist approach to the cosmological and teleological approaches and the problem of evil. He calls his view of the arguments proofs, as he feels that the arguments offer no proof for the existence of God. He believes that atheism is a more comfortable way to believe than that of theism and that those who believe in theism should be upset just because they believe in God. I believe that McCloskey has a fallacy in his arguments and that the existence of God can not be proven through any one argument, and that all we can do is defend our beliefs within the realm of our own understanding. McCloskey is reminding atheists the ways theists argue for their belief in God.
This argument is very important for religious believers, but has come under criticism from those who do not believe, who say that it is flawed. Gaunilo, and Immanuel Kant, feel that we will never have the answer to this question due to our human limitations, and reason. . St. Anselm’s first form of the argument is that God is “that than which none greater can be conceived”. This means that no one can think of anything that is greater than God.
He meant that humans had advanced their understanding of the natural world enough to realize that the literal teachings of the religions that espoused God were not true. Religious doctrine surrounding the existence of an omnipotent god could no longer be taken literally. This left a huge problem for mankind, in terms of the source of their values. Although he did recognise that some of the greatest cultures of the world had been based on strong religion he simply felt that these now belonged in the past. The ‘death’ of God meant that people had to find a whole new way of understanding the world and a whole new base for ethics.
He said atheism" is the ideology of 'the death of man.' Just because one does not believe in God why would you want to remove what they believe in? Atheistic are not trying to remove God from people they just feel there is not enough evidence to show God exists. The second alternative to
Every living thing on this earth must have a cause, God is said to be an uncaused cause (which means nothing caused God, but God caused everything), but many say that God is existing and if this is possibly valid he must have to exist. However, if he does have a cause he can’t be God. So in reality God cannot possibly exist, He may not attribute both divine and human like traits. Hume’s argument mentioned above, relates to his