SuitedPair;370642 wrote
so back to the original argument. The case for atheism. this is a well structured question for creating confusion. Atheism doesn't need a case. It's not the position that needs to be proven. It is what is left after you tear apart every religion for their obvious fallacies/fabrications. a basic understanding of psychology, history, science and 5 minutes of thought is enough to bash un-patchable holes in every religion. Calling out to ask for a case to be made for atheism is just one of the many smoke tricks used to prop religion in modern debate. It doesn't need a case.
Kai Nielsen, an Atheist, says in Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), pp. 143-4. the following:
"To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false...All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists. In short, to show that the proofs do not work is not enough by itself. It may still be the case that God exists."
Obviously you have forgotten the original post. I have not tried any kind of trickery or smoke screen with the question. I have merely pointed out that Atheist themselves recognize the need to come up with a valid argument that goes beyond
"tearing down religion".
The great thinkers of Atheism believe that they have to have a valid argument
beyond attacking the Bible. While most have tried based on philosophy during the enlighten period, today's new atheist try's based on science, the achievements of man, as well as continuing the philosophical argument like the existences of evil or why bad things happen to good people.
The atheist asks for proof on the existence of God
yet the Bible doesn't set out to proof the existences of God. Genesis starts out with a
declarative statement, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ..." and then gives a history of the Jewish people and the beginning of the church.
Therefore I believe Kia Knelsen has it right. The atheist
does have a burden to prove that goes beyond
tearing down the Bible. My belief is that which ever way you choose
requires faith. Nik brings up some interesting difficult texts but in no way
disprove the existence of God. They may allow for someone to say "I won't believe in a God that says ... and throw in most of the things Nik is arguing.
These are some of the topics atheist has to answer:
Cosmological Argument
Argument from Reason
Moral Argument
Ontological Argument
Intelligent Design (what we are learning from micro biology)
Trigs has done some nice research and I have read everything he has written
but I can't get by the randomness of everything that the atheist asks us to believe in.
I was watching a documentary on the first landing on the moon. It started with Kennedy’s speech about going to the moon by the end of the decade. They do a great job describing what has to happen in order to pull of this seemingly impossible task. After Armstrong and company land on the moon and Armstrong says "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind", the announcer says “Over 400,000 man hours later man has landed on the moon and only 1.5 miles from the spot they were aiming at”.(proud of that accomplishment) And I think to myself, “How is it that people can believe in Evolution and the “Big Bang”. It took 400,000 man hours of planning, calculating, simulating every little detail and they missed the mark by 1.5 miles. No when you are talking about a trip of 238,855 miles it doesn't seem like to big of a deal. You might even say “I am nit picking.”But consider this:
• A big bang happens and
EVERYTHING in the known and unknown universe goes perfectly into place.
• The earth is exactly where it needs to be in relation to the sun and the moon so that life is sustainable.
• It is spinning at the exact speed and tilted just right in order to make life sustainable.
• That ALL life came from one cell?
• The complex design of a living cell. And all this happened by one Bang?
Frankly, I find it takes more faith to believe that there isn't a God than that there is a God. If it took man 10 years and 400,000 man hours and they still didn't hit the spot they were looking to land, what is the mathematics behind everything is in perfect place by an unguided, blind, random chance theory?
You like Dawkins, read David Berlinski, he is a writer, thinker, and mathematician, who lives in Paris. One of his book is
The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. He wrote the book to answer Dawkins.
Berlinski doesn't even claim to be a Christian. Read Stephen C. Meyer,
Signature in a Cell and
Darwin's Doubt. Think Stephen Hawking has the answers with a
Brief History in Time, try William Lane Craig.
The Kalām Cosmological Argument. London: MacMillan. 1979. These guys are all well educated.
Even Anthony Flew, a world renown atheist, at age 82 admits with the advances in science and our understanding of the cell and micro biology admits there
at least has to be some sort of designer.
I don't mind that the thread has taking a bit of a turn but did feel the need to answer SuitedPair because I don't think the case has been made and I agree Kia Knelsen is right and Atheist have to layout a logical case for atheism.