Why atheism works

Hopefully this thread will trigger some pretty thoughtful discussion, or, if DSR comes into the thread, heated arguments.

Atheism, for those who somehow don't know, is the denial of the existence of a God.

The basic arguments for atheism:

1. The Epicurean argument:

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not benevolent.
Is God able and willing to prevent evil? Then whence cometh evil?
Is God neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Christians, in order to counter this argument, say that God didn't want to make puppets out of His creation, so He gave them Free Will and let them do what they would have.

The counterargument: Why didn't God simply manufacture humans to be more peaceful? Given the state of the world today, it's pretty obvious that all humans are imperfect. Couldn't God have made humans to be more peaceful, then left them alone?

The second argument for atheism is the issue of scientific advancements that counter religion. Here is that argument.

During the "Dark Ages," people who did not strictly adhere to Christianity in Europe were burned at the stake. No questioning was allowed. If the Church actually believed what they were feeding the citizens of Europe at the time, would this method really have been necessary? Or did the Church simply want to prevent the flow of new ideas, now proven correct, which would shake people's faith in it?

The truth is, science and truth does destroy religion and falsehood. Evolution - proven by most reliable biologists - counters the old theory of Creationism. Continental drift and fossil records do the same - they prove that the Earth was billions of years old, not the 6,000 years that the Creationists believe. (I am by no means suggesting that all Christians are Creationists or that all Creationists are Christians, but Creationism is the complete immersion into a religion - the type of Christianity that I am attacking in this post.) In the 1960s, radio signals were found in space that were about 13 billion years old - coinciding with the Big Bang.

Creationists are still trying to counter this. In 2005, a Dover, PA trial correctly proved that the new Creationist idea of Intelligent Design was indeed a form of Creationism. The Creationists had created the concept of ID as a smokescreen so that it could be taught in public schools while not violating the seperation between church and state. It was part of a long-term plan to Creationist-ize America, and it was called the Wedge Plan.

The third and final argument for atheism is simple: Creationists of all religions are typically looked down upon by the (much more reasonable) moderates or metaphorical followers of the same religion. Most Christians scoff at Creationism, and with good reason. They believe in a God, but have found a way to do so without being dogmatic. Why are they looked down upon? Is it because everyone knows that they are wrong?

EDIT: Please no flaming, hijacking, etc.

Originally posted by scherzo
Hopefully this thread will trigger some pretty thoughtful discussion, or, if DSR comes into the thread, heated arguments.

Atheism, for those who somehow don't know, is the denial of the existence of a God.

The basic arguments for atheism:

1. The Epicurean argument:

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God ab ...[text shortened]... because everyone knows that they are wrong?

EDIT: Please no flaming, hijacking, etc.

I do not agree with your definition of atheism. I prefer the following:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Originally posted by rwingett
I do not agree with your definition of atheism. I prefer the following:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

That works too. Any comment on the subject matter?

Buddhism is an ateistic religion...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Buddhism is an ateistic religion...

Not really. Buddhism is a polytheistic religion.

Originally posted by scherzo
That works too. Any comment on the subject matter?

I think your argument is misnamed. It should be 'arguments against christianity' and not 'arguments for atheism.' There are are more theists than christians.

Originally posted by rwingett
I think your argument is misnamed. It should be 'arguments against christianity' and not 'arguments for atheism.' There are are more theists than christians.

All right. "Why Creationism is wrong," then. However, most other religions also apply, except perhaps Islam, which is a less fundamentalist religion, on the whole. Sound wrong? Muslims were making scientific, mathematical, and artistic advancements while Christians were being burned at the stake for accidentally saying His name in vain.

Originally posted by scherzo
Hopefully this thread will trigger some pretty thoughtful discussion, or, if DSR comes into the thread, heated arguments.

Atheism, for those who somehow don't know, is the denial of the existence of a God.

The basic arguments for atheism:

1. The Epicurean argument:

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God ab ...[text shortened]... because everyone knows that they are wrong?

EDIT: Please no flaming, hijacking, etc.

The counterargument: Why didn't God simply manufacture humans to be more peaceful? Given the state of the world today, it's pretty obvious that all humans are imperfect. Couldn't God have made humans to be more peaceful, then left them alone? ----scherzo-----

RESPONSE---------
If he did this would all these human beings have a choice as to whether to spend eternity with him or not? Would they have a choice whether to live a life of love or not?

If the answer is no then they are not free , such humans would have no choice but to be with him and love one another. They would be nice and peaceful and cuddly but they would still be sickly puppets. Instead God chose to make real human beings who could chose against him if they so willed. You think this is possible without there being any chance of anyone doing anything bad , I don't think it is possible. God wanted heaven to be populated by people who really wanted to be there.

=====================================

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not benevolent.
Is God able and willing to prevent evil? Then whence cometh evil?
Is God neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

=======================================


These are not strong reasons for the non-existence of God for me. The reason being that a prophetic book, the Bible, which has a track record of foretelling certain things that will happen, at least show that God is working towards the goal of an eternal paradise. This is called His will.



Revelation chapters 21 and 22 reveal a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, absent of death, sin, tears, disease where the God-man Christ reigns and God's enemies are destroyed and punished.

So we have a good deal of confidence that, though we may argue over why God permitted misfortune, He is certainly working out His will for its universal elimination.

The presence of calamity and misfortune must therefore be do to the existence in the past of more than one will. If creatures He created possess a free will it was possible for more than ONE will to come about.

The problems seem to be do to God's will opposed by another will, temporarily, not eternally.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The counterargument: Why didn't God simply manufacture humans to be more peaceful? Given the state of the world today, it's pretty obvious that all humans are imperfect. Couldn't God have made humans to be more peaceful, then left them alone? ----scherzo-----

RESPONSE---------
If he did this would all these human beings have a choice as to whether ...[text shortened]... k it is possible. God wanted heaven to be populated by people who really wanted to be there.

You're getting into the issue of Hell. Here's the argument against Hell.

For the following discussion, I shall assume, for the sake of clarity, that God does exist. I believe he doesn't, but let's assume he does.

Hell is supposed to be a punishment for sin, right? What does a punishment do? What is it supposed to do? It's supposed to prevent a wrong from happening again. Hell does not give anyone a second chance, it does not release. Its purpose is purely cruel. It's not a punishment any more than Aushwitz was. Would God allow it?

Secondly, people go to "hell" only if they don't believe in a God. People go to "heaven" only if they do. Does that mean that Gandhi would go to "Hell"? Would Hitler, who was a devoted Christian, go to "Heaven"? It boggles the mind.

To answer your question, if God wanted people to be able to go to Hell, then He is malevolent.

Thus he does not exist - or at least, not the way you believe he does.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not benevolent.
Is God able and willing to prevent evil? Then whence cometh evil?
Is God neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

====================================== ...[text shortened]... e problems seem to be do to God's will opposed by another will, temporarily, not eternally.[/b]

The Bible is no more prophetic than Nostradamus. In other words, its "Prophecies" are completely ambiguous. If it fortells Judgement Day, it's kind of convenient for the Christians, isn't it, because once "God" descends from "Heaven" to send all the "Dissidents" to "Hell," all of the atheists can't protest, can they?

I believe I've covered that if some "God" exists, He is certaintly not benevolent.

Whose "other will" are we talking about here?

======================================
During the "Dark Ages," people who did not strictly adhere to Christianity in Europe were burned at the stake. No questioning was allowed. If the Church actually believed what they were feeding the citizens of Europe at the time, would this method really have been necessary? Or did the Church simply want to prevent the flow of new ideas, now proven correct, which would shake people's faith in it?
=========================================

The opposition of religion to the living God goes back to the first persecution of Abel by Cain. Christ predicted to the disciples that the day would come when all who killed them would believe that they were offering service to God. So it happened that as the Pharisees and chief priests opposed Christ in the flesh so also the new religious powere persecuted the resurrected Christ Who is the Spirit - "The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45), "Now the Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17)

The first religious group opposed Christ in His earthly ministry. The second new religious power structure opposed Christ in His heavenly ministry infusing the life giving Spirit into the true disciples. This was all foretold by Christ Himself.

The Bible was not in the hands of the common people. The Dark Ages ended simultaneously with the release of the Bible from its clerical prison to be printed and put into the hands of the common people.

Therefore the Age of Enlightenment commenced not with the Bible being put away so few could read, but exactly the opposite.

I firmly believe that the Dark Ages came to and end because the written Word of God was freed from its Catholic prison and people's minds were set free starting with the truth of the Bible.

======================================
The truth is, science and truth does destroy religion and falsehood.
====================================

The truth is that sometimes scientific theories become the new secular religious dogma and its proponents the untouchable clerical highpriests of the new dogmatic orthodoxy which is also "sacred" to them in a secular way and not to be questioned or challenged.

In the Boston Globe Newspaper there was a defense of teachin Evolution in school. The newspaper took out a full page, not for careful arguments but for the photograph of a distinguished bearded old man. The old man was Darwin. It was really a religious picture in its own right, designed to strike awe at this huge picture of the sacred "father" of the new secular religion.

=====================================

Evolution - proven by most reliable biologists - counters the old theory of Creationism.

=========================================

Sure, animals change.

Fruitflies change. Bacteria change. Moths change. Little finches change.

Now the big leap. Humans are apes that changed. Never observed but extrapolated from the fact that we see some moths with wings colored one way give way to those colored another way, gradually.


Therefore, an ape species gradually brought forth a human species.

If in doubt refer to the huge mug shot of Father Darwin in the center of the newspaper.


========================================
Continental drift and fossil records do the same - they prove that the Earth was billions of years old, not the 6,000 years that the Creationists believe. (I am by no means suggesting that all Christians are Creationists or that all Creationists are Christians, but Creationism is the complete immersion into a religion - the type of Christianity that I am attacking in this post.) In the 1960s, radio signals were found in space that were about 13 billion years old - coinciding with the Big Bang.
========================================

Some evolutionists can be equally religiously committed to thier unproven ideas.

It was a Catholic scientist who theorized that if the universe was expanding as the astromer Hubble demonstrated, then it follows that, rolling back in time, it must have exploded from something very very small.

I learn on a thoroghly unbiased secular science TV program that a Catholic thinker first proposed that idea. It was not first suggested by an atheist as far as I have heard.

So do you give credit to "religious" folk for founding the theory based on Hubble's observations?

I think what really needs to be understood is history.

============================================
Creationists are still trying to counter this. In 2005, a Dover, PA trial correctly proved that the new Creationist idea of Intelligent Design was indeed a form of Creationism. The Creationists had created the concept of ID as a smokescreen so that it could be taught in public schools while not violating the seperation between church and state. It was part of a long-term plan to Creationist-ize America, and it was called the Wedge Plan.
============================================


You want to believe that your kidneys, your eyeball, your sexual organs, and your brain are the results of accidents? Go ahead.

I think Intelligence is behind the Design of such biological organs.

===============================
The third and final argument for atheism is simple: Creationists of all religions are typically looked down upon by the (much more reasonable) moderates or metaphorical followers of the same religion. Most Christians scoff at Creationism, and with good reason. They believe in a God, but have found a way to do so without being dogmatic. Why are they looked down upon? Is it because everyone knows that they are wrong?
===========================================

Do not gloat. I don't think Evolution to the exclusion of all other proposed threories will set on the Queen's throne bragging that she's the only show in town forever.

To much common sense out there. Eventually more thinking people will at least be able to say "We detect intelligent causation."

If the science class stops with that sentence, that will one day be deemed legal, fair, and better education.

I don't think "Darwin Only" will have a padlock on people's minds forever.

===============================

The Bible is no more prophetic than Nostradamus. In other words, its "Prophecies" are completely ambiguous. If it fortells Judgement Day, it's kind of convenient for the Christians, isn't it, because once "God" descends from "Heaven" to send all the "Dissidents" to "Hell," all of the atheists can't protest, can they?

=====================================

I bet you'll find 100 times more debates on the web of people trying to discount the Bible's prophecies rather than debunk Nostradomus.

There must be some difference.

Jean Dixon and Nostradamus do not carry the same flavor at all as the Bible.

Don't pretend that they are the same.

Originally posted by jaywill

The first religious group opposed Christ in His earthly ministry. The second new religious power structure opposed Christ in His heavenly ministry infusing the life giving Spirit into the true disciples. This was all foretold by Christ Himself.

The Bible was not in the hands of the common people. The Dark Ages ended simultaneously with the release of t ...[text shortened]...

I don't think "Darwin Only" will have a padlock on people's minds forever.

His heavenly ministry? I believe I settled that Hell and therefore Heaven do not exist. The Dark Ages ended with the Renaissance, when the public began breaking away from the church to embrace more secular values.

People began taking the Bible less strictly during this period, and science and literature were not so shunned. Especially in Italy, freedom from the Church flourished.

Science is not religious dogma, it is provable anti-religious fact.

I take it you support Creationism, which science has proven wrong once and again? Creationism now needs someone either extremely ignorant or extremely dogmatic to believe.

Science is not a religion but it's strange to me why so many Creationists seem to think atheism is a religion. In the words of David Mills, author of "The Atheist Universe," whenever Creationists point that out they seem to be saying, "Look, you atheists are just as irrational as we are."

Congratulations, you accept the idea of natural selection. Progress.

Some evolutionists can be equally religiously committed to thier unproven ideas.

Evolution is proven. Look at the human-monkey similarity. Look at the finches in the Galapagos that were studied by Darwin.

About the Hubble thing, I in NO WAY said that all Christians were unscientific, unbased, treacherous Creationist idiots. Most scientists are religious. Most advances in science were made by either Christians or Muslims.

My body parts are the result of millenia of evolution, not some sort of God.

Science class is giving people "legal, fair" education. When the church and ID starts interfering, it'll be a dark day.

Darwin is correct, as proven dozens of times by Christian scientists. Only a huge amount of dogma can contradict that.

Originally posted by jaywill
I bet you'll find 100 times more debates on the web of people trying to discount the Bible's prophecies rather than debunk Nostradomus.

There must be some difference.

Jean Dixon and Nostradamus do not carry the same flavor at all as the Bible.

Don't pretend that they are the same.

Yes, that's because Nostradamus made FAR less "prophecies" than the Bible.