Atheism

Atheism Plus, What’s all the Fuss?

(This is a collaborative post between Robert and me)

A light rain sprinkles onto the pavement as two men enter Plato’s Gourmet Coffee and take a seat. Light jazz, perhaps a bit too uplifting for both the genre and the topic at hand, drifts through the air as the conversation begins. 

Robert: So, I hear you wanted to discuss this new internet sensation they’re calling “atheism+”. I suppose that as an atheist myself, some sort of comment should be required. But I’ll let you have the first word. What are your thoughts on it?

Gil: Yeah I planned to make some comments but never got around to it. To be honest, I just don’t see anything remarkable about it. There are already causes like humanism that fight against racism, homophobia, etc. If the atheist is interested in such causes, they’re free to participate in them. The only difference here is that this seems to be nothing more than a marketing gimmick to tie atheism to a set code of living. Anyone who disagrees, according to Richard Carrier, is immediately not “one of them” and must be “disowned or discarded”. Not to mention cussed out as despicable, immoral, and un-godless. Christianity is said to be “fundamentally f***** because…it fails a most fundamental moral test”. Any non-religious person that disagrees with them is no better than any christian. It’s patently obvious that their goal is to market atheists as intellectually and morally superior to christians at the expense of excluding others. Atheism+ is remarkably similar to a religion, if you ask me. But I know I’m biased and I’ll be written off as such… So I’m interested in what you think of this, Robert.

Robert: I agree that it does seem like a marketing gimmick, especially for ultra-liberalism and radical feminism. I also agree that it does at times seem like a religion, although I might even go so far as to label it a cult. It certainly has some elements of a cult, such as silencing dissent – they often do something they call “shaming”, which is essentially publicly calling out people who act in a way they’ve determined is socially unjust in order to embarrass them.

I think comparing it to humanism is interesting, because it is similar in many ways; but in others it’s quite different. I mentioned ultra-liberalism before, but perhaps that’s not even strong enough of a term. Their views go far beyond even the most liberal politician I’ve seen. For example, we both think racial and other slurs are a social ill which should be fought against, but they take practically everything as a slur. I was checking out their forums the other day, and there was a post claiming that even the word “stupid” should not be used in a derogatory manner, because it’s “ableist language”. Of course, hurt feelings don’t seem to apply when they’re shaming someone they don’t like. I have a lot more to say, but for now I’ll pass the metaphorical microphone back to you.

Gil: Wow, a cult? And I thought I was harsh! You’re going to get it now, dude. Honestly though, I think you’re right on. If atheism+ ever had a brother, he’d be Stalin. That might be a little bit of a stretch, but this sort of activism has some extreme properties. Anyway, how would you handle an a+ atheist like Richard Carrier that publicly disowns you in front of everyone online? Would you strike back with a vengeance? I cannot believe they complain about the word “stupid” but are quite pleased to use it against their enemies. Talk about double standards!

Robert: Haha, well Carrier doesn’t seem to be such a big part of atheism+; it’s become more of a collective on their forum in the past month. But if one of them did try to “call me out”, I’d probably just roll my eyes, because the worst thing about the movement is that it seems to be all style and no substance. I’m all for social justice, but the way they go about it is so radical that it actually ends up becoming unjust.

I mean, the whole tone of it is just really strange. They’ve got their shaming, their trigger warnings, and their safe spaces, but they’re attempting to create all this in a public forum. Those things don’t exist publicly. You don’t get to have a “safe space” while you’re standing on a soapbox. You don’t get to expect that others provide a warning that what they say might “trigger” a victim. It’s fine in your living room, but when you parade the metaphorical streets, all bets are off.

Robert takes a deep breath, clearly struggling not to embark on a long rant. The sun starts to settle behind the horizon as the coffee shop’s lighting and music both fade into something kind of blue. 

Aaaaaaanyway, there’s some problems with atheism+ that seem pretty obvious, at least to us. But the bigger question is what we should do about it. Should we fight back, so to speak, against it? Or should we just ignore it?

Gil: I think it’s good to be watchful and prepared, but at this point I don’t consider it a threat. They’re outspoken brats that have no prominent influence on society except for their own little online bubble. That’s not to say that it does not have the potential to become a powerful force (as new atheism has become), it’s just that I don’t think it’ll succeed for several reasons. First, it has produced division within the atheist camp by deriding those that oppose them. As such this is an internal affair between atheists and I have no intention of getting involved at this point. In fact, I think it is more strategically beneficial if we let them attack each other and hope that atheists such as yourself can tear this agenda down to the ground. If that fails then the least we can hope for is a split within atheism that would weaken their power.

Second, I think new atheism succeeded precisely because it was united in their deification of science, disgust for religion, and their love for thinking themselves to be “free thinkers” in comparison to those blind religious believers. Having a sense of superiority, a sense of common purpose, and sharing the same worldview really makes the difference here. Atheism+ on the other hand, creates division because not all atheists share that same vision, or if they do, they just don’t think it should define atheism. So without that universal unity, atheists like yourself can team up with christians to tear them down, which is something that you would’ve never seen in new atheism. They will hate and shun you for associating with evil christians, but that will only further reveal the hate-filed nature of their agenda.

You and me are proof that this is possible! We agree that atheism+ is a joke, even if we disagree on the existence of God. You were never a new atheist to begin with, but I have a feeling that even some new atheists would open up to the idea of uniting with an enemy against an enemy that they feel is destroying their unity. Third, I think atheism+ will really need to distinguish itself against other social groups that already do what they want to do. There’s a lot of talk among these atheists+ but not much action as far as I am aware. So for now, I will only choose to watch them until I have good reason to retaliate. We just need to be careful not to add gasoline to the fire.

Robert: I can certainly agree with that, although I don’t think most of them are hate-filled; they’re just jumping on a bandwagon. I guess the cool new trend on the internet is to be ultra-liberal and touchy-feely about everything. I could jump into their forums and try to critique them, but to be honest it probably wouldn’t do any good. So I suppose I’ll just sit back and wait for the whole thing to fizzle out.

Suddenly a young woman, with skin rendered pasty from a lifelong vegan diet and time spent in rather affluent dwellings, and bedazzled with hipster swag, approaches the table.

Woman: Hey! I just listened to your conversation, and you’ve got it all wrong. This is deeply offensive!

Robert: And?

Woman: And?! And you can’t offend other people! Check your privilege!

Robert: Look, we’re having a conversation here. If you have some actual critiques of what we’ve said, then feel free to tell us about them. But if you’re just going to scream about how offensive it is, get out of here.

Woman: Stop ‘tone trolling’! I’m a woman, and I have a right to be angry about these issues! If you don’t let me talk, you’re sexist and reinforcing the patriarchy!

Robert: I don’t care what you are. And I really don’t care how angry it makes you, because we weren’t talking to you in the first place. If you’re angry it’s your own fault.

Woman: Oh no you didn’t! Now you’re blaming the victim!

Robert: What victim?

Woman: Me! I’m offended, shocked, and hurt!

Robert: Welcome to life. It sucks, then you die. Why don’t you go do something productive instead of taking offense at everything anyone says?

The woman walks off in a frustrated huff, tripping over her own ego as she does so.

Robert: Jim Morisson was right. People are strange.

Making the Switch

My name is Michael, and I am new here – greetings to all!  I suppose I should add that I am not only new to Walking Christian, but new to Christianity as a whole.  The story of my coming to Christ can really be summed up in one of my favourite Bible verses, Matthew 7:7: “Ask and you shall receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you”.  It’s a favourite of mine for its deceptive simplicity; it puts the destination and answers in such an accessible place, and in that sense is so reassuring.  And yet hidden within it are riddles which you have to unravel for yourself; how should you ask?  Where, and for what should you be seeking?

I was born and raised by two atheist parents, both of whom sit squarely on the liberal side of both social and political views.  My father is about as atheistic as a person can be, and is a big fan of Marxism.  His interests lie more in political philosophy than the philosophy of religion however (as the Marx interest may indicate).  It was in sociology and political philosophy that he earned his degree many years back.  My mother is also an atheist, albeit not such a strong atheist as my father.  She has a profound love of education, not just her own but in that which she can provide for others (a graduate of Cambridge, she has now been a teacher for many years).  Ironically in hindsight this was perhaps the best situation I could possibly have been born into from the perspective of finding God, and I have no doubt that this was a part of His plan for me.  You see, while both of my parents consider themselves atheists, they also believe PROFOUNDLY in freedom of choice and religion.  As such, they raised me to always make up my own mind about things.  They are both lovers of philosophy, education and travel and tried to raise me and my brother in a very well rounded way.  They believed in providing us with the tools and ability to reason and form our own ideas and beliefs, rather than providing us with the ideas and beliefs themselves.  This meant that when I began my search, it was always MY search.  I was never simply reciting beliefs or ideas that were foisted onto me, and right at the outset I wish to say that I am very grateful for being fortunate enough to have the freedom to come to God myself in my own time.

Up until about the age of 16, I would say that I was an atheist but I was more the apathetic atheist than the genuine “there is definitely no God” atheist.  That is, I had simply never really cared about religion.  As my parents were atheists religious ceremonies or practices had never played any big part in my life, and as a child I had not acquired that capacity for real thinking yet – so it had never been an issue for me.  At 16 I had only just really come to an age of genuine, independent critical thinking so this was the first time I took notice of such things.  It began more with an interest in philosophy than in religion specifically.  I started to read the philosophy of ancient Greece which fascinated me (I couldn’t put down Plato’s Republic once I had started it).  Over some time I read more and more philosophy and was amazed at how sometimes I would happen upon an idea that I myself might have toyed with – and would be yet more amazed if I discovered an idea that I had never thought of in my wildest dreams (this is the arrogance of the teen philosopher – usually last into the early 20′s, but some manage to retain it for their entire lives!).  Through this read I found myself taking more of an interest in the philosophy of religion.  By this time I would have been about 18, and was spending greater portions of the day in pure thought.  It was a glorious time because I was on that cusp between the obligations of school and the responsibilities of adult life, which afford me great freedom to just sit for great lengths of time either thinking or writing.  This was the first time I would say that I called myself a genuine atheist.  I firmly believed that there was no God, and spent great amounts of time debating the matter over the next 4 years (debating not only

with others, but with myself).  The yearning for me at this point was to find truth; something inside me was telling me that there was truth of some kind beneath the surface of the everyday world and the fire that kept me searching was the desire to find that truth.

During that 4 year period, I remember I came close to conversion once.  I felt a force pressing on me, and felt like I was close to a massive turning point in my life.  It was an incredible experience that I had only had a handful of time prior to my conversion; this overwhelming sensation that I was on the verge of something enormous.  I felt I was about to realise something massive and that spurred me on (like getting your second wind towards the end of a race).  I was reading more Catholic material, and had also become fascinated (almost to the point of obsession) with Gandhi – a man who I felt had found that truth that I was after.   The man had a remarkable philosophy on life which depended on an interesting mix of his own Hindu beliefs, but also those of Christianity – he remains one of my greatest heroes to this day.  I felt that if I could learn from him, that I could tap into what he had found.  Tolstoy was a big influence on me at this time as well.  The whole thing was a religious experience for me, and an eye opening experience.  But I know I was not ready at that time.  I had seen a glimpse but my heart was not ready to open to it yet.  I lapsed into a confused agnosticism which caused great spiritual frustration for me at that time.

One of the biggest turning points at this stage was that I met my girlfriend (of now 4 years!).  She herself is a Baptist Christian, and always tried to encourage me in my own search without pushing anything on me.  She was always willing to answer questions that I had relating to her religious beliefs (as much as it probably drove her insane, she knew I was a very curious person and tended to ask lots of questions).

She was with me through the darkest time in my life; the point where the search seemed futile.  I began reading some existentialist writings, and I found that most of the classical existentialist thinkers had evinced this MASSIVE problem…….and yet none seemed to offer a solution (or rather, none offered a solution that satisfied me personally).  This dragged me down and down into very dark and hopeless places, where everything seemed utterly pointless.  I was diagnosed with clinical depression at that time, and at rock bottom I spent much of my time crying.  I had suicidal thoughts on a couple of occasions; not emotional thoughts but coldly logical thoughts.  Camus had asked the question if suicide was the only logical conclusion to life’s apparent pointlessness – and I was toying with “yes” as an answer to that question.  My girlfriend was my support at that time, and she was with me always to help me through.  I realise in hindsight that God was with me also, even at my lowest point.

There was one existentialist thinker who fascinated me and seemed not to sink into the despair that many of the others did, and that was Kierkegaard.  He was a man who valued faith above all else, and was responsible for an idea that impacted me in a big way: subjectivity is truth (and vice versa).  That opened a door to me, and I began to realize the importance of the fact that the world as we experience it is completely subjective.  Not relative (in this sense anyway) but subjective.  That is, two people could view the same event and could be affected in two completely different ways by it.  This was a big turning point, as it pushed “free will” to the foreground, in terms of importance.  I had always liked the Stoic idea of happiness being derived from distinguishing between the things we can control, and the things we can’t – and ceasing to worry so much about the latter.  Now here I was, beginning to realise that a large part of the cause of my depression…..was myself.  Or rather the patterns of thinking that I had adopted.  This led to the conclusion that I could choose to break those patters, even create new ones.

This put the control back in my hands, so to speak.  I began to tell myself that if I was going to break the cycle of negative thinking that I was in, I would have to FORCE myself to see certain things from a different perspective.   I thought back to the last time I experienced the closest thing to peace, during the time of my obsession with Gandhi.  I tried to pin down what I had done differently, and realised that it was exactly that: I had always chosen to try and see something positive in everyone and everything.  The key point being that I had CHOSEN to.  I had made these choices, and as a result it became habitual: I started to see things positively without effort.  It’s comforting now to think that through all that time that things seemed completely open ended to me – God’s hand was on me.  He knew all along where it was leading, and He was allowing my choices to unfold and for me to gradually understand them.  Exactly like a parent raising a child!

By this time my passion was thoroughly renewed and massive things were changing for me, the biggest relating to the verse I began with.  “Ask and you shall receive”.  You see, I came to the realisation that up until this point, I had been asking with my head.  I had been trying to find God in books, debates and reasoning.  I thought that there must be some way for me to reach this hidden truth I was seeking by simply thinking about it, and proving it one way or another.  Now I found the obstacle: myself.  Well, more specifically my heart.  I had been asking for some time now, but only with my head and never my heart.  My realisation was that you cannot find God while your head is open but your heart is closed.  Your head (or rather your mind) is capable of incredible things, but it doesn’t drive you.  It does the work, but it doesn’t provide you the FIRE that drives the work.  Your heart is in fact where the “real” you lies, and your mind is a brilliant tool that “you” can utilise (so long as you remember who’s in charge!).  This was it, now I was really knocking at the door, and I could feel I was back on that cusp that I had been before.  I could feel God pressing on my heart, and I was going to listen  this time.

He knew that this time I was ready, and He told me exactly what I needed to do in no uncertain terms: so I typed into Google the words “New Zealand Monastery”, and clicked on the first link that came up.  I was acting now on pure faith, I had no idea what to expect or what I even expected to get from this, I only knew that God wanted me to do it.  So I contacted the monastery and arranged to stay for one week beginning the day after my 26th birthday.

The apparent insanity of what I was doing was brought home to me when I stepped off the bus after a 12 hour bus journey.  It was pitch black, and I was in the middle of nowhere in a forest.  A few meters in front of the bus was a single car with an old man stood by it – Father Niko had arranged to meet me to drive me the rest of the way to the monastery.  As I got into his car, the thought raced through my mind “I am getting into a complete strangers car in the middle of a forest at night – and I have no idea where he is going to take me”.  Suffice it to say I was a little apprehensive.

The week I spent at the monastery could not be put into words even if I tried my best.  I stayed in a small hermitage a little way away from the main monastery; it was a tiny (and I mean tiny) little building in the middle of the forest.  It had the essentials: electricity, hot water, a fridge containing milk, bread, margarine, and a cupboard with a couple of varieties of cereal and some tea and coffee.  And that was it!  In the mornings and at several interludes throughout the day you could attend worship in the monastery, singing in Gregorian chant with the monks.  There were two meals a day prepared by the monks themselves which everybody attended.  And the rest of the time I spent in the forest studying, meditating and praying.  I met many wonderful people, some of whom I am sure I will remain friends with – and I gained the wisdom of a spiritual director, in Brother John.  Our conversations in the garden house come rain and shine will be with me forever.  The experiences I had at the monastery were like nothing before and nothing since – and I shan’t detail them here as I intend to keep them entirely personal for the rest of my life.  Suffice it to say that they were profoundly spiritual, religious experiences which left me in absolutely no doubt as to where my path lay.  I had knocked, and at that monastery God well and truly opened the door (and funnily enough, I can see him opening that door and saying to me “you’re right on time!”).

Coming back from the monastery was a huge challenge, because I now had to carry those experiences back with me into the hectic confusion that is day to day life.  But I had direction now, and had asked Christ into my heart – with Jesus I knew what to do, and began my search for a church.  I wanted to be baptized into the church of Christ.  The beauty of this time was that I did not even need to think.  At every point here I knew what the next step was and what I was supposed to do, and I knew this only because He told me and I listened.

The finding of my church was another blessing from God; I catch the bus to and from work every day, and this one particular day I turn the corner to the bus stop and look up.  Somehow I had never seen this before, but on the side of this building (I don’t even know what it was, it certainly wasn’t a church) was written in big blue letters “Jesus is Lord”.  I turned around, and right behind me stood St Peters Anglican Church.  I must have passed this church a thousand times on my way to work and never paid attention to it.  But on this day I knew that I saw these two things for a reason, and said to myself “Lord, I hear you loud and clear!”.  And so I began attending church there every Sunday, regularly meeting with the Vicar (a wonderful lady by the name of Anne Priestley – couldn’t be a more appropriate name for a Vicar!).  And I am pleased to say that last weekend I was baptized into the church of Christ, in front of my parents, my sponsors (Godparents for adults), and my new family at the Church of St Peters.

 

 

Almighty God, I thank you from the deepest part of my heart and soul for your unending love.  I thank you for my journey which You knew I had to make, and I thank you for always pressing on my heart and coming to me – whether it be directly, or through the people in my life.  Most of all I thank you that by your infinite grace and mercy, and through the sacrifice of your perfect and only son Jesus Christ, I have been saved.   Amen.

Purpose Without God?

This is a post I did about a year and a half ago when Gil and I were blogging at Rational Thoughts/Rational Theism. Figured I’d publish it in the mean time since I don’t have any posts in the making. 

“There’s no escaping reason, no evading purpose, because we both know, that without purpose there is no reason to exist. It is purpose that created us, purpose that connects us, purpose that pulls us, that guides us, that drives us, that binds us, it is purpose that defines. We are here because of you, Mr. Anderson. We’re here to take from you what you tried to take from us. Purpose.”

Agent Smith, alongside his army of clones, expresses what I felt was one of the most memorable quotes from the Matrix trilogy. This statement encapsulates the answer to the most profound question pondered by humanity, what is the purpose of our existence? This question all depends on whether we are the product of a random, cosmic accident or from a creator God. However, the goal of this post is not on proving the existence of God but rather taking the former idea and asking the following question: can there be purpose in a Godless universe?

Purpose, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is “the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists”. Keeping this definition in mind, purpose could be placed into two categories: subjective and objective. It is this matter that brings division between theist’s and atheists. While theism affirms objective purpose, atheism rejects it on the account that we are the product of a random, purposeless, cosmic accident (assuming the atheist is also a naturalist). As a result, there is no objective purpose and one is left to fabricate a subjective purpose and meaning in life in the midst of an absurd world.

This philosophical train of thought mirrors absurdism, an idea Albert Camus held. Camus observed the apparent disharmony between attempting to find meaning and purpose in a meaningless world. Consequently, he proposed three solutions to the issue: suicide, religious belief (constructing a religion or god), or accepting the absurdity and constructing meaning in the process of struggling with it. Living life devoid of purpose, whether it be subjective or objective, is impossible; one must have a purpose or reason to continue, otherwise living without a reason is absurd.

Nevertheless, the issue arises when one believes that purpose, particularly subjective purpose, can be constructed or formed out of purposelessness. That is not to say that one cannot create subjective purpose (since this is evident in our lives), but rather purpose doesn’t exist in a purposeless universe. Keep in mind the following presuppositions: If this is a purposeless universe, purpose does not exist; if this universe has a purpose, then purpose exists. On the first presupposition, many (if not all) naturalists hold that one can create subjective purpose but objective purpose does not exist. However, the issue with this finds its way back to my first point: purpose cannot be constructed or formed out of purposelessness.  At best, purpose would be an illusion, a fabrication constructed from inner desires, which also are not real.

Although, one may argue that the brain constructs purpose. As a result, purpose is the product of the brain, which is simply a meaningless structure carrying out its meaningless process. This idea poses a problem, which could be demonstrated by our understanding of human logic and reason. Consider the notion that human logic and reason is simply a human fabrication that arose out of the functions in our brains through the evolutionary process. Reason and logic would be nothing more than subjective tools molded and shaped by each human being and their own brain function given to them, at random, by evolution. Geneticist J. B. S. Haldan commented on this concern saying, “If all my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to choose that my beliefs are true and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” The idea that purpose is a product of our brain cannot hold for the reason that this idea must also be attributed to our capacity for human logic and reason. Hence, one cannot be blamed or held accountable for being fallacious or for posing a sound argument, for both would be nothing more than a subjective product of one’s brain.

Furthermore, C.S. Lewis argued that “if the whole universe [had] no meaning, we should never have found out that it [had] no meaning.” If we were the product of a cosmic accident, the remnants of aged stardust, there would be no question about our lives and human meaning. Such a question would never arise and we would never know such an immaterial concept never existed. We would live life as zombies, dictated by the atoms that structure us, while being oblivious to the state of our pointless being. Absurdity wouldn’t be a dilemma that we had to face. The silly “why question”, as Richard Dawkins put it, wouldn’t have to be asked–it wouldn’t exist.

Why does it matter?

Consider once more the context and story of The Matrix and how the protagonist Neo was entirely oblivious to the fact that reality was an illusion–an artificial program created by machines in the real world. Neo’s situation mirrors Lewis’ argument for the reason that Neo similarly would have never known that his world was an illusion. It was only when Morpheus unplugged Neo and revealed the world to him that he understood that his former life was all an artificial program known as the Matrix.

Richard Dawkins, during a debate in Mexico on the purpose of the universe, remarked that “we humans are obsessed with purpose.” Although Dawkins was using this to illustrate that humans are naturally inclined to think there is purpose, his statement perfectly highlights my very point: purpose, as Agent Smith put it, is inescapable and imperative to human life. The price tag is high considering that to deny purpose is to accept that one is living a lie and that everything in life is simply an illusion and a fabrication of one’s brain. If atheism were true, however, it would not matter if one were living an illusion or not. Yet, the issue of purpose remains and tugs at every human being as Camus observed. Agent smith recognized this truth and he concluded that “there’s no escaping reason” and “no evading purpose”.

On the other hand, theism (more specifically belief in the Judaeo-Christian God) offers a more plausible and reasonable explanation of purpose and human meaning. The Westminster Catechism states “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.”[1] Whether this is through music, artwork, philosophy, love, assisting others, or some other subjective duty, man’s subjective purpose best reflects and makes sense under an objective purpose.  Camus dilemma is done away with entirely and one could find purpose in life that reflects the fact that purpose is not an illusion, but an inevitable reality.

Sources

[1] http://www.reformed.org/documents/WSC.html

Read Along: God, Freedom, and Evil

I guess I’ll be starting a mini-series where I’ll just blog my thoughts and/or any quotes from books that I’m currently reading. I hesitated to say this would be a series because then I’d feel obligated to really follow through with this, but I guess it’s not a bad idea to obligate myself because then I’ll have something to post!

After following Plantinga’s lectures, reading his papers, and hearing so much about his work, I finally dished out the money to purchase a couple of his books. I decided I wanted to start with his simpler work God, Freedom, and Evil.

So far I’ve read about 20 pages into the book. Plantinga starts off with a discussion of Natural Atheology (where philosophers present arguments against the existence of God) and the problem of evil. The first issue Plantinga tackles is the question “Why does God permit evil?” He cites Hume criticism that if God were benevolent, omnipotent, and almighty, then God would not allow evil to occur. This is the typical question that atheists will raise against the theist. Plantinga, however, asks an interesting question; one that I’ve never really thought of. If God has a good reason to allow evil, as many theists would claim, why should the theist know the answer to why God permits the evil? A lot of times when the theist replies, “Well, I don’t know why God allows evil, but I’m sure He has a good reason to do so,” the atheist will count this as a point against the theist (though I admit the answer might not be as satisfactory as the atheist [or anyone else] would like). But why should this answer somehow be a point against the theist? Plantinga observes, “The theist observes that God has a reason for permitting evil; he doesn’t know what that reason is. But why should that mean that his belief is improper or irrational?” (11).

The next question that Plantinga deals with is “Does the Theist contradict himself?” Here Plantinga presents John Mackie’s claim that the doctrines the theist would hold to are inconsistent. In response, Plantinga explores Mackie’s claim and explains the different types of contradictions there can be. In doing so, he breaks down Mackie’s claim to see in what ways he believes the doctrines are inconsistent, that is, does Mackie believe there is an explicit contradiction in what the theist holds to? Is there a formal contradiction? Platinga does a great job of explaining these differences, and it’s helped in giving me a primer on logic (need to get back into gear for my logic class!).

The set of propositions that Mackie claims theists hold to, explains Plantinga, is:

  1. God is omnipotent (O).
  2. God is wholly good (G).
  3. evil exists (E). [13]

Plantinga shows there is no explicit contradiction contained within this set of propositions. When we take the contradictories of each proposition, we see that none of the contradictories are in the set. The contradictories are:

  1. God is not omnipotent (~O).
  2. God is not wholly good (~G).
  3. evil does not exist (~E). [13]

Next, a formally contradictory set “is one from whose members an explicit contradiction can be deduced by the laws of logic” (14). Plantinga then tries to see if the first set of propositions deduce a contradiction. In order to show if a given set is formally contradictory, more propositions or statements must be added to the given one to see if a contradiction can be deduced. Plantinga shows that Mackie provides these propositions and they are:

  1. A good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can.
  2. there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. [17]

Immediately, point number 2 is blown out of the water. Plantinga notes that many theologians and theistic philosophers believe that there are limits to what God can do, namely, that God can only do that which is logically possible and not logical impossibilities like bringing about the existence of square circles or meat-eating vegetarians (17-18).

And this is as far as I’ve gotten. Plantinga is about to get into explaining his reasons against the proposition “A good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can”. I’m really enjoying this book so far. Plantinga is very straightforward and it’s not so difficult to follow this book. I can’t promise that my other read alongs will be as detailed as this one. There was just a lot of interesting stuff to chew on. If you don’t own the book, check it out on amazon and get yourself a copy. There’s only 112 pages, and if I devoted myself, I’d probably finish this book up in one day. I just have a lot of other reading commitments and reading assignments for my political philosophy and deductive logic class (woohoo!). Hope you enjoyed!

How To Win An Argument With A Theist

Hello!

If you are the typical village atheist, then this post is just for you! I’m going to give you the best tips and tricks for winning any argument with a theist!

If you find yourself cornered in a rational discussion and you have no idea how to respond, or you have no idea what you’re even talking about, then follow these tips closely (in any order).

  1. Refer to their God as a magical sky being or “sky daddy”. This is sure to tick them off and show them how retarded their views are. I mean, come on. How can they believe there is some dude sitting on the clouds just shooting Harry Potter spells at us?
  2. Accuse your opponent of endorsing a) slavery, b) child sacrifice, and/or c) genocide.
  3. Accuse your opponent of endorsing an old book that is filled with contradictions. God forbid they ask you to show them where the contradictions are at and to explain them. If so, refer them to infidels.org
  4. If asked to defend your atheism, say there is no need to. The burden of proof is on them since you only have a “lack of belief in God”.
  5. Throw lots and lots of red herrings at the theist. Use this in conjunction with #2 and #3 for maximum effect. They will not know how to respond and they will just give up because they cannot handle the heat.
  6. Don’t you feel lost, stupid, and fearful when you are accused of begging-the-question? No one likes to be accused of begging-the-question because it puts the person on the defensive and forces them to either a) cower away from their claim or b) actually give more reasons. So, when you feel bombarded with tough looking logical arguments, accuse their argument of begging-the-question. If a), you win. If b), just repeat the process of accusing them of begging-the-question, and you’ll just end up scaring them off. Using this tactic is a sure argument stopper. So save it until you actually need it. It makes you look smart too!
  7. If they seem to be bombarding you too hard with logical arguments, use #6 and just leave the conversation before you look like you lost. If you throw them the death card of #6 and just leave, you will look victorious.
  8. Try and make your opponents beliefs look as stupid, implausible, and as ridiculous as possible. #1-3 does a good job of this. But just make it a point to really nail it in. For example, tell theists, specifically Christians, that they are guilty of cannibalism since they eat Jesus’ body during the Eucharist.
  9. Ask the million dollar question: Who made God? No one in the history of my existence has ever given me a satisfying answer to this question. It’s because it really shows the weakness of theistic arguments and the theistic worldview. This tactic in conjunction with #6 and #7 is the ultimate tactic. The theist will definitely NOT win the argument.
  10. In conjunction with #9, ask the second million dollar question: Can God make a stone so heavy he cannot lift?

Note: If you come across a theist who is trained in critical thinking or philosophy, most, if not all, of these will not really work. So you’ll have to resort to these added tips

  1. Make sure to quote experts in the field like Richard Dawkins and John Loftus to back up your claims. It makes you look smart and well-read. Also, use the articles found at infidels.org to make your claims look academically and intellectually tenable.
  2. If the educated theist asks you for a source, just give them a random page number from the quoted authors’ book. Chances are they won’t waste the time to go and get the book and actually look it up.

So, any of these tips work just great to win an argument with a theist! If you have any more tips, go ahead and feel free to post them in the comments! Let’s show these theists how absurd their views really are!

The new atheism? In short, 4 people who decided the rising dissaproval of religious fanatics was a good excuse to write books and to cash in on naive people who after reading the books would get the false impression that they are smart. Thus causing them to spend 100s of dollars on fallacious books to make greedy atheists rich.

-Falcondick69

Don’t you just love Youtube comments?

— The New Atheism In A Nutshell

 Scroll to top