Posts tagged theism
I’ve noticed I’ve gained a fair few theistic followers lately. Seeing as I very much doubt you’re here because you agree with what I say, this is just a reminder that I’m open to any comments you have on anything I’ve posted.
Contents here, send in comments here or here. (Anon enabled if you don’t want to come off).
cynicallyjaded asked: Thanks for the response. No disrespect intended, but it sounds like the beginning of another circular debate, hence my previous post about 'Atheists and me'. I get your point about theists vs. atheists relative to structure and form, but you still at least have those theistic groups that you can engage with. The same does not appear to be true for atheists. So every debate between the two will always result in subjective views from an atheist, and seemingly prescribed views from a theist.
If you’re going to argue against atheism, then you need only give evidence of something that must point to God. (For which I’ve seen nothing). It’s as simple as that: that’s all you have to do. ‘Proving’ the supernatural, or attacking reason, or saying that atheism is based on faith, doesn’t achieve anything like that. I’m not saying you’ve done all that: it’s just a good example.
If you’re targeting specific things correlated with atheism (say, scepticism), then so long as you realize that it’s far from synonymous with atheism, make sure you point it out at the start of the debate.
cynicallyjaded asked: Apologies for the delayed response, but your view of what atheism stands for is not in alignment with the view generally presented by atheists. So once again, due to the 'atheist' inclination not to declare any form or structure to their belief system, who should theists consider to be authoritative about what the atheistic philosophy actually states? Also, I think you're being selective in suggesting that all my arguments refer to agnostic theism only, because I'm quite certain they don't.
“Due to the ‘atheist’ inclination not to declare any form or structure to their belief system”
Atheism has no form or structure, in the same way that ‘theism’ doesn’t. Atheism is ‘doesn’t believe in God’, theism is ‘does believe’. It’s only getting into specific divisions of theism (Islam, Christianity…) that there’s any form or structure.
Also there is no ‘atheistic philosophy’. There are multiple philosophies held by atheists, but none of those are synonymous with atheism. You could be a superstitious homeopath, but so long as you didn’t believe in God, you’d be an atheist.
I’m assuming the end of your message is a typo, as I referenced gnostic rather than agnostic atheism. It’s only gnostic atheists who make any claim to have disproved God: they’re the only ones that make claims of certainty, etc.
I think possibly the longest post I’ve made for this blog, was on the resurrection of Jesus Christ: how, as a historical event, evidence for it was sorely lacking. Still, it’s meant to be the definitive argument for Christianity, so I’ve been making sure to look at any evidence that’s also put forward in support of the resurrection.
Recently, I watched through Lee Strobel’s documentary, The Case for Christ; the story of his conversion from atheism to Christianity, and the justification for it. It’s an interesting documentary, and did bring up a few issues I hadn’t dealt with before. For this reason, I’m revisiting the topic. In this post, I’ll look at:
With a few references to the documentary thrown in, just to demonstrate how the points are made. Still, this and the previous post should successfully show that there is no reason to believe the resurrection occurred.
An attempt to justify atrocities perpetrated or encouraged by a deity in numerous religions. It dwells on part of the definition of God: that it is apparently the pinnacle of goodness, and so when it issues a divine command, that too must be good.
There are two grounds that this can stand up on, that I can think of, the stronger of the two positions making the title of this ‘theory’ rather questionable. Nonetheless, we’ll examine each of these.
The basis of this argument for God is that the founding figures of a religion died for their beliefs: when, if they were the inventors of that religion, they’d know it to be false.
Commonly used in defence of Jesus’ resurrection: but really, only Mormons should use it. Looking at the LDS Church, the founders were killed for creating the Mormon religion: surely they would have recanted had they thought it to be a fiction?
If a non-Mormon uses the argument, then they need to provide a reason why their own argument doesn’t convince them of the truth of the LDS Church.
In any case, the argument falls because of the quantity of assumptions made.
Some claim that, without a God, life is purposeless.
It’s possible to discuss how we can give our own lives meaning: but even beyond that, supposing that our lives are meaningless without a Creator ultimately does nothing for theism.
God has no Creator (for whatever reason), as believers often point out. By their logic, God would be purposeless: so whatever God does must also be. In the same way they say humanity is meaningless without a Creator, then God should also be (by extension, humanity again). All this argument does is shift the level.
When exceptions are made for God, then alarm bells should ring. If God can create a purpose for something as supposedly powerful as itself, then why can humanity not?
Whatever the case, even should humans be unable to make their own meaning, it fails to show God exists.
Not mine, but incredibly well-researched and interesting. If you have a lot of free time and are interested in this kind of thing, I’d wholeheartedly recommend it.
A lot of the time you can hear people blaming atheism as a whole for the actions of some individuals; commonly, there’s the classic ‘Hitler was an atheist!’ (even though that’s questionable), or ‘Stalin was an atheist!’ often leading to some variation on the claims that the atrocities perpetrated by those individuals were somehow tied inextricably to their atheism.
Here’s the thing:
Atheism has no creed, or book of rules. It has no teachings, or instructions beyond: ‘There is no God’ or, more commonly, ‘There is no reason to believe in God.’
Miracles are commonly claimed as, if not proof, then strong evidence for God. Aside from how the supernatural can exist independent of God, and how there are miracles observed and attributed to various different religions, how many of these could realistically be the work of a deity?
Not just relevant to Christianity, but it’s the most popular, and so it’s the one I’ll mention by name. Feel free to insert the names of alternative holy texts.
When people quote the Bible, is it just their own view that they put forwards? Possibly, possibly not. I’ll examine.
Some, though not all, believers state that God tests individuals, by making them experience suffering: it’s one possible resolution to the problem of evil.
I don’t know how widespread this idea is, I always thought it was fairly unpopular, but I’ve just seen a few Christians express the idea, so I thought it merited a mention.
Apparently one reason why evil exists is because God desires to test individuals: and there’s some scriptural evidence for this in several religions: such as the classic tale of Abraham.
Unfortunately, the whole idea raises more questions than it answers.
You will not go to heaven. Even should the religion be true, and you believe in it, it will not be you that lives there: if heaven is to be at all pleasant, your mind would have to be altered beyond all recognition. Ability to suffer/harm? Gone. Goodbye free will; and empathy and compassion? Lost, burnt away. Something as simple as boredom wiped away too; else eternity would make heaven into a hell.
You won’t go to heaven. Your memories, maybe; but not all of them. A fraction of an echo of you is all that can ever go to heaven, if it’s to be anywhere near as good as believers say.
So don’t advertise it as eternal life. It won’t be you that goes there.
