In the article, On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey seeks to disprove theistic beliefs by debating arguments for God. However, before even beginning to examine the arguments, McCloskey is on the defense; defining theism as uncomfortable and assuming that theists should be miserable in their beliefs. After making these statements, McCloskey begins his debate by calling the theistic arguments “proofs”; specifically, McCloskey aims to argue against the proofs of cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, and the argument from design. But, through McCloskey’s repeated use of the term “proof”, he unknowingly provides a theist with their first rebuttal: that a theist would not use the term “proof”, as these arguments are not proof, but rather …show more content…
From the theist perspective, the argument from design supports evolution, specifically microevolution. The theist can argue that microevolution certainly exists and speaks to a creator, who allows for like organisms to adapt and change within their kind. Evidence of macroevolution, which likely would have been McCloskey’s argument had he expounded upon it, is something science can only speculate upon, something that has not been witnessed or verified. Nonetheless, even if evolution could be verified, this does not disprove the existence of God, and McCloskey doesn’t make it a point to prove …show more content…
At the beginning of the article, and then again at the end, McCloskey speaks to the idea that atheism is comforting and that a belief in a God who allows suffering is more or less wrought with anguish. In this atheistic view, McCloskey not only points to the evil in the world, but in a way that almost contradicts his disbelief in any deity, McCloskey seems to be accusing God as being the source of evil in the world. However, for the sake of consistency, it would be better to simply view McCloskey as acknowledging evil as rampant, resulting as chance. And so, in viewing evil in this way, it would be easy to understand where McCloskey would find a world that has no God as comforting – because, as an atheist, it would be easier to accept suffering, pain, starvation, disease, danger and crime as a matter of chance and not as something that could have possible been treated, conditioned, or altered by a deity. But for the theist, there is great comfort in believing that there is a God who is greater than all of the hurts of this world. And if the theist is wrong, if there is no God, if their hope is false, who did it hurt? The theist had comfort in their trial, even if it wasn’t true, and felt immense comfort in what they believed. And in that way, both the theist and the atheist find peace in what they believe – even if, as Craig says, without God “both man and the universe are inevitably doomed to death.” (2008, pg. 71). But,
Shlomo Yitzchaki is one of the most influential rabbis in Jewish history. Born in Troyes, France in 1040, Shlomo Yitzchaki grew up Jewish and learned from his father. When his father died in 1046, Shlomo Yitzchaki lived with his mother until 1057 when he married his wife and joined the Yeshiva of Yaakov Ben-Yakar. Since then he has become a staple in Jewish learning and Jewish history. Today we know him as Rashi. Rashi was and is very influential to Jewish scholars because of the way his commentary spread, the simplicity and variation of his commentary, and the controversy of his method that is still discussed in modern times.
An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, contexts, and consequences of those facts. This description may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing ones in relation to any objects, or phenomena examined. The first piece Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution written by Elizabeth Bumiller, is an explanation. Bumiller addresses her points using facts rather than opinions, she also says, “Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, “I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.”(2), this signifies that this is an explanation and not an argument since he sees both sides instead of choosing one. For
McCloskey dives right into the meat of his article by addressing what he refers to as “proofs” he claims were put forth by theists. I think that it is imperative to know the difference between a “proof” and an argument. A proof contains a note of certainty. It suggests that something can be known to be 100% truth. In one of the recent PointCast presentations, Dr. Foreman insists that we cannot know any with a complete certainty that we have absolute truth about the existence of God. Therefore these ideas should be put forth as arguments and not as proofs. In fact, if looking at it the other way, he cannot know for certain that his ideas are correct. If he uses his rebuttals to the theist’s arguments, they seem contradictory several times. As we have no absolute certainty for either side, we are left then to find the best possible explanation. This is widely used in cases where things simply cannot be known for certain such as the example of the black hole that Dr. Foreman used. Science can’t fully expl...
In his article, "On Being an Atheist" Mccloskey gives a few contentions that look to support the non-presence of God, Atheism. This he does utilizing a few cases made by theists on a general level and in addition centering all the more on the Christian God. The cases are isolated into a few segments whereupon he lays his countering contentions. At the presentation, he gives a concise review of the contentions exhibited by theists, who he alludes to as "confirmations," guaranteeing that none of the evidences make enough avocation to accept that God does exist. Despite the fact that one of the verifications may not indicate the presence of God, all the evidences together give a solid confirmation to the presence of God acknowledging their accord or absence of disagreement. In any case, if the presence of God is focused around such demonstrates, his verifications or complaints that God does not exist are questionable, too.
Brandi Gates, IBCL Lactation Consultant and Breastfeeding Coordinator, is best known for her groundbreaking work with The Breast Friends Mommy Group. Her work has resulted in a dramatic increase in breastfeeding rates among vulnerable populations in West Oakland. She will be sharing her experiences as well as her unique insights into working with different populations.
“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”( Douglass). This famous quote epitomizes the philosophies of Frederick Douglass, in which he wanted everyone to be treated with dignity; if everyone was not treated with equality, no one person or property would be safe harm. His experience as a house slave, field slave and ship builder gave him the knowledge to develop into a persuasive speaker and abolitionist. In his narrative, he makes key arguments to white abolitionist and Christians on why slavery should be abolished. The key arguments that Frederick Douglass tries to vindicate are that slavery denies slaves of their identity, slavery is also detrimental for the slave owner, and slavery is ungodly.
H.J. McCloskey claims that “proofs” are not valid and do not provide enough evidence that God exists. In the article, he claims that these “proofs” should be abandoned but he also claims that theist do not come to God or religion solely based on these “proofs”. In the article on page 62, McCloskey quotes a colleague saying, “most theist do not come to believe in God as a result of reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion based on other reasons and factors.” Theists believe in God and His Word over any “theory” that scientist can come up with. The Bible outweighs any other “theory” to theists. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Atheists may make a good argument that God does not exist but there is no documented evidence proving evolution like the documented writings in the Bible telling the story of how God created the heavens and the earth. McCloskey is correct that “proofs” do not prove God’s existence but they do help see the viewpoint of theists. It is ultimately up to each person to believe in what they want to believe in. God gave us free will to be able to choose for ourselves. McCloskey talks about free will negatively and also brings up the point that since evil exists, God cannot. This is not true by any means and we will dispute McCloskey’s points throughout this essay.
On September 2, 2014, after three decades of waiting for their death row, Henry Lee McCollum, 50, and his half-brother, Leon Brown, 46, were declared innocent and ordered released with $750,000 in compensation from the state (Brothers Henry McCollum). After thirty years of isolation, the brothers are both mentally and physically affected. McCollum and Brown, who are now middle-aged men, have no education, job, or family, have to reorganize their lives in which they could have done 30 years ago. The two brothers, who were only scared, mentally challenged teenagers, while under pressure, confessed to committing a capital murder. Moreover, the question, whether race played a role in the two brothers’ sentence remain unjustified.
...arguments to be understood. He, again, displayed an illogical characteristic of theism by pointing out God’s special attention towards our planet. Also, Russell highlighted the fact that religious people believe blindly in their faith and ignore logical arguments that question their beliefs. Furthermore, he showed how theists ineffectively linked happiness with religion and then refuted their irrational ideology by providing logical reasoning. However, at some instances, Russell’s article showed signs of bias towards theism and ignorance of certain theistic beliefs which made some parts of his arguments somewhat ineffective. To conclude, Russell provided the reader with strong rational arguments that possibly made the reader doubtful about God’s existence or, at least, think about the degree of God’s credibility.
H.J. McCloskey wrote a journal article in 1968 called “On Being an Atheist” which denounced the existence of the Intelligent Designer. He uses different tactics to try and prove that there could not be a God. McCloskey shows that his argument for atheism is not sound as the evidence he proves in his article can be combatted with well-thought responses provided by philosophers and Christians in order to show there is the possibility God exists.
The existence of God has been a topic of controversy for centuries. In 1968, the article “On being an Atheist”, was written by H.J. McCloskey discussing his personal views and reasons, as an atheist, for not believing in the existence of God. McCloskey attempts to discredit the arguments for the existence of God. In doing so, he critiques the cosmological and teleological arguments as well as discusses the presence of evil and suffering in order to show sufficient evidence to reject the belief in God.
There are several forms of the design argument. The general form of the design argument starts with the basic idea that certain parts of the universe are such that they indicate that they have been designed and have a purpose. The argument uses this fact to prove the existence of an ultimate designer, in particular, God.
Hunting may have been a crucial part of survival a 100,000 years ago, but in 2015 we have no need to hunt. Today hunting is just a cruel leisure activity.
In H. J. McCloskey’s On Being an Atheist article, he argues against two philological design arguments: the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. He also discusses his views on theists’ faith, the existence of evil, and free will. McCloskey states in his article that theists’ views on atheists are wrong. This statement I found out was true after reading his entire article.
McCloskey argued that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being”. Evans and Manis (2009) argues the existence of God due to the objects of the universe (p.69). It is expressed that there is no natural reason that objects exist. The ultimate argument is that “a necessary being is the only kind of being whose existence requires no further explanation of a contingent being” (Evan, 2009, p.69). All objects or things come from something, therefore, the cause of the universe is imperative to argue against McCloskey. McCloskey (1968) also claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause”. Evans (2009, p.77) enlighten his standpoints of the cosmological arguments in response to McCloskey. We can argue that the cosmological argument does not include all important aspects; however it is relevant to the conclusion that there is a God. Furthermore, everything is caused by something which we cannot deny the theist belief that God is the creator of the universe and everything in