McCloskey is reminding atheists the ways theists argue for their belief in God. He is reminding atheists the reasons they believe that there is no God. He feels atheism is superior to theism; however; I find that his opinions only strengthen my belief that there is a God. Proof, as he states, carries no weight for a theist. He is half correct in his statement as a theist does not believe in the proofs individually, but finds enough evidence in them to form the belief that God does exist; He is the creator of the universe, and He is morally perfect.
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.
“God must be Evil” The question “is God evil?” is asked very often with both sides of the question offering different answers to this question with no definitive answer coming about but in both cases people coming out with very convincing arguments for both sides of the story. Some people argue that God is indeed evil because he is omniscient and because of his omniscience he knows that from the moment he decided to create us maybe even before then he knew which of us would reject him thus securing a place in hell for them or would sin again securing them a place in hell and yet does nothing about this. This is a major contradiction to his supposedly being omnibenevolent and some people even go so far as to use examples of murder and rape which are horrific events which they then use to say “how can a loving God allow such a thing to happen?” They then go further into it saying how as God is omnipresent and can see everything that has happened, will happen and is happening he must take some sort of sick pleasure in watching these events occur and so is evil. Or at the very least by allowing such a horrific event to happen without some form of justice or stopping them then he has to be evil as only an evil person would let evil acts go unpunished. Sam Harris uses this idea in one of his quotes saying that “Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes or he doesn’t care to or he doesn’t exist.
Liberty univerity online | A Disagreement to McCloskey’s Theist View and Why Atheism is Better | A look at why McCloskey’s proof and evidence of God’s non-existence is false from a theist view. | | Troy Shepherd | 3/1/2015 | Phil 201 McCloskey reminds atheist why theism is wrong and why atheists are correct to believe in no God or any supreme being is argued from a theist approach and understanding. | INTRODUCTION In 1968, McCloskey wrote an article which he stated was to “remind fellow atheist (McCloskey, 1968)” why atheist believe in no God and why God doesn’t exist. Did McCloskey find the need to remind other atheist why they don’t believe in a higher being such as God, was he losing other fellow atheist to the “other side” or was he simply reminding himself of why he didn’t believe? Only McCloskey knows why he wrote this article with his reasons for not believing as he did write this piece as if he had been appointed to provide why and what their foundational arguments are against theists’ beliefs in God.
Christians took incarnation, Jesus resurrection, and trinity with a lot of seriousness, but Muslim’s did not believe in any of them. Christians do not believe in 3 gods, but a union of three persons God being the head, this trinity concept was normally rejected by the Islam. Christians were perceived as idol worshipers. Christians too worshiping of Jesus and the attributing God’s partners is perceived as idolatry. They differed too in the way they viewed Abraham.
Recognising this reaffirms that God is more than we can ever imagine – he is ineffable, can never be described so we cannot say what they are not. Strengths of via negativa are that it allows things to be said about God without implying that the finite (humans) can grasp the infinite (God), it also asserts the claims of revelation, that God is good and then recognises goodness to be a human word and so must be negated by saying too that God is not good to
But theology is not his field of expertise and this is demonstrated a little too clearly in his severely polemical atheistic writing (it should be noted however, in his opinion, theological experts might not even exist, writing ‘the notion that religion is a proper field in which one might claim to be an expert is one that should not go unquestioned.’ ) In The God Delusion, Dawkins systematically goes through the main areas of apparent contention between science and religion, seeming to undermine nearly every aspect of religion, rejecting its claims and pre-emptively answering his critics. In this critique, I will focus particularly on his arguments
The word Atheism is actually a Greek term meaning “without Gods”. Most Atheists believe there is not enough empirical evidence to constitute an existence of God. There are many atheists who live ethical lives and have high moral principles, but because they reject the idea of there being a God they are looked at as being bad people. There are some who actually believe that atheists are incapable of having a coherent system of morality because they don’t possess religion. There’s even a term coined “moralistic atheists”.
Using these different types of language demonstrates a difficulty; assuming that when we speak of God, we are speaking cognitively- assuming that our statement is something that is either true or false and that it is able to describe an extinct being, God. Philosophers have always had a debate between this. Some say that a statement of God is non-cognitive, statements not subject to true of falsity. This led to a strong trial and tribulation to religious faith and its believers. Some such as Mortiz Schlick claim that religious belief is literally meaningless; religious statements are nonsense and should not be the basis of philosophical discussion.