On being an atheist essay

McCloskey who was an actual atheist. In this article, McCloskey tries to persuade his readers to believe in atheism as he claims that "atheism is a much more comfortable belief". To succeed in his arguments, McCloskey uses condescending bombasts effectively against the faith of theists such as Question on Gods existence, Teleological argument, Cosmological argument, The problem of evil among others. This paper will respond to some of this criticism as it will also try to discredit and counter his claims of the comfortable position in atheism. The conclusion of McCluskey's arguments as proofs for the inexistence of a supreme being is invalid since he approaches them as scientific facts. He, however, claims that he has never met an atheist qualified enough to overcome his belief in the existence of God.

(Foreman)Forman also uses the biblical description of the rich character of God to respond to McCloskey's arguments. In this approach, Foreman concludes that the determination of Gods existence can be best done by looking at the qualities of a supreme being which must be the creator of the universe and include; morally perfect, intelligent, and personal. They are necessary for consideration of the existence of a divine being as the reason for all the effects observed in the universe. According to Dr. To counteract this claims, Evans and Manis wrote in their book ‘Philosophy of Religion' that contingent beings are the things seen in the universe and have proof of their existence but whose existence depends on something else. According to them, necessary beings are beings which need no validation for their existence since they are the source of all contingent beings.

The world is, therefore, the contingent being while God would be the necessary being. Thus, the existence of the world or the universe must prove the existence of God. In response to McCloskey's argument, if there is an existing world around him, then there must be an ultimate creator which is the supreme being (God) as per the cosmological argument. Although the evolution theory of atheists may be true, different cells grouping together to form a cohesive massive living thing like an elephant and be able to reproduce and sustain itself is extremely unconvincing. (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. McCloskey's argument implies that evolution has displaced the need for a designer. If I was to contemplate on evolution theory as valid, I would still ask myself, "Where did it all begin", Where did the nebular cloud come from? What is the source of the passing star? How would the hot materials condense rather than disperse? Evans and Manis respond to the argument by directly challenging the theory in a statement that, "a kind of divine creation from scratch provides a superior explanation" (p.

They also agree with the argument of evolution and neo-Darwinian theory but emphasize that the process must have been steered by an intelligent designer and still seek a definitive explanation for the order of the universe (p. As Evans and Manis conclude, the arguments of free will and soul-making are the possible reasons for an all perfect and loving God to allow the existence of Evil. According to them, holding to the perspective of soul-making is to "believe the world has been designed by God to be, first and foremost, an environment that enables and facilitates each individual's moral and spiritual development" (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 162) while holding to the argument of free will is to point out to humans as making "bad use of their freedom.