16 Jun '08 15:27>1 edit
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.
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.