[Jason Vines]

Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith came out in 1979, but it remains the most concise and potent book against theism. In 326 pages, it annihilates all grounds for religious belief.

At the start of the book, Smith undertakes the important task of delineating what atheism is and what it is not. It is not a positive assertion about anything; it makes no claims about anything beyond the scope of human experience. Since atheism doesn't claim anything, it has no need to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the theist, the religious person, who is making the positive assertion. The theist must show the locus of his devotion exists.

In order to start proving the existence of something, one must have a clear idea of what that something is. Regarding Christians, Smith points out they don't even know what the object of their belief is. Many of the adjectives by which they describe God--immaterial, incorporeal, etc.--identify only what God is not. And, in any case, those traits don't distinguish God from nothingness itself.

Some Christians, aware of this problem, assign God omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. But those descriptions contradict each other. If God were omniscient, that would contradict free will, even for himself, so he couldn't be omnipotent. If God were omnibenevolent, he wouldn't have created evil; and if God had no choice in whether evil arose, he couldn't be omnipotent. If God were omnipotent, that would rule out omniscience and omnibenevolence. Also, he could desire nothing, since what he wants would instantaneously happen. Such is not the God of the Bible, whose desires often have difficulty becoming reality.

Another problem with the Christian God is the contention he is ineffable, incomprehensible, unknowable, etc. If that is so, then how could we be talking about God? Claiming God exists and presuming to describe God, while saying God is unknowable, is self-contradictory.

Since the concept of God is inconsistent and irrational, according to Smith, we can safely conclude God does not exist. (Notice, Smith doesn't say nothing exists beyond the scope of our universe. He simply points out the Christian concept of God is too nonsensical to be valid.)

From there, Smith moves on to faith in general. Faith, Smith contends, is no foundation on which to believe anything. Because faith eschews evidence, it can't distinguish truth from falsity. Therefore, one can't claim it's a path to knowledge. Believing something on faith is simply believing something because one wants to do so. Some people might be okay with that, but that doesn't change faith's opposition to reason.

Smith expands upon these arguments, as well as makes many additional ones, in The Case Against God. I'm not going to summarize the whole book; I'm just giving you a taste of it.

Everyone should read Atheism: The Case Against God because of its strong argumentation and its unique (to most of the world) perspective.

Grade: A

[Yoda]

If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing. But if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be a atheist.

[Jason Vines]

Yoda, on Oct 8 2005, 07:56 PM, said:

If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing. But if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be a atheist.

That's known as Pascal's Wager, and it's unreasonable for three reasons:

• It commits the fallacy Appeal to Force. If something is true, then threats of harm shouldn't be necessary to make people believe it. Evidence and logic ought to be enough to accomplish that.
  
• Pascal's Wager doesn't take into account other religions that have just as much validity as Christianity. If any religion is true, it need not be Christianity. Perhaps Zeus is looking down on us from an extradimensional Mount Olympus, and maybe he hates all this Jesus-worship, so he damns Christians to the worst realms of Hades?
  
• Saying believing in something without evidence costs you nothing is incorrect. It strips you of intellectual integrity.

[Yoda]

There has to be a explanation for why we are here and where we came from. That will not be answered in this century with any more than 50 percent probability of being right. People believe in whatever they believe. No one can prove anything for sure. If I knew the real truth, it would not alter my behavior at all.

[Jason Vines]

Yoda, on Oct 10 2005, 09:55 PM, said:

There has to be a explanation for why we are here and where we came from.

What makes you think God is that explanation? You can't tell me what God is, and you can't tell me how God works, so saying "God caused the universe" provides no understanding whatsoever. All you're saying is an unknowable thing did something in an unknowable way. Instead of explaining the universe, you are placing it beyond explanation.

In any case, why must we explain existence? Accepting existence itself, which we know, as a casual primary makes more sense than positing a cause further back about which we know nothing and that doesn't make sense, anyway.

[Yoda]

Why is similarity of species touted as strong evidence of evolution? Similarity comes about by design as well. Why is it that when people push intelligent design, the press assumes those people are religious fundamentalist? Anthony Flew, one of the world's leading atheist, began to rethink his position based on arguments made in the intelligent design movement. Is Mr. Flew a 'fundamentalist? According to the strictest definitions, intelligent design is not science. It is not religion either. Intelligent design uses reason and logic. When a billion lines of code are are put in motion, an amazing thing happens. If that code is a computer program, a programmer is assumed to exist. But if thar code is DNA, then the assumption is that the code came to exist by random chance. We must ask tough questions of science, religion and whatever is in between.

[Rush]

Yoda, on Oct 8 2005, 07:56 PM, said:

If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing. But if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be a atheist.

So basically, one believes in something not because he or she truly believes it, but because they are afraid not to believe it? All this coming from a god who gives you free will and is kind and all that jazz? right...ok...

[Jason Vines]

Yoda, on Oct 15 2005, 01:49 PM, said:

Why is similarity of species touted as strong evidence of evolution?

• It proves linkages between the world's various species do exist, even at the genetic level.
  
  
  
• We not only see similarity, but increasing complexity through time. That supports evolution.

Quote

Why is it that when people push intelligent design, the press assumes those people are religious fundamentalist?

I'd guess because intelligent design is an idea with minimal support in the scientific community. Its primary backers are loud religious groups trumpeting a few scientists who have no credibility.

Quote

Anthony Flew, one of the world's leading atheist, began to rethink his position based on arguments made in the intelligent design movement.

Mr. Flew himself says that's a misinterpretation, and since he's an old man who admittedly hasn't kept up with science and theology in recent years, he's hardly a credible source, anyway. (Link.)

Quote

According to the strictest definitions, intelligent design is not science.

Then it doesn't belong in science class, but philosophy class.

Quote

When a billion lines of code are are put in motion, an amazing thing happens. If that code is a computer program, a programmer is assumed to exist. But if thar code is DNA, then the assumption is that the code came to exist by random chance.

Even though DNA is more complex than anything we've devised, it is also replete with more bugs and anomalies than anything we've designed; it's more sloppy and insecure than Microsoft Windows. That's what leads to mutations, as well as some birth defects and horrific diseases. Evidence of intelligent design, DNA is not.

This post has been edited by Jason Vines: 19 December 2005 - 10:55 AM

[Yoda]

Anti-Christian bias. The Media and Hollywood are at the head of the line in the war on Christianity, frequently ridiculing and disparaging christians in ways they would never dream of employing against any other group of american's. Why are they so afraid of christians? What have christians done to them to cause so much hate?

[Jason Vines]

Yoda, on Oct 24 2005, 04:30 PM, said:

The Media and Hollywood are at the head of the line in the war on Christianity, frequently ridiculing and disparaging christians in ways they would never dream of employing against any other group of american's.

Um... Where? When?

Related to this, I must say, this concept of oppressed, victimized Christians is a fiction. The large majority of people in this nation continue to identify themselves as Christian, even though sizeable religious minorities do exist. No politician could get elected if he didn't profess himself to be Christian. The executive and the legislature are dominated by the Religious Right, and the judiciary probably will fall under its sway soon, too. Our money announces to the world, "In God We Trust." Intelligent design (a.k.a. creationism) is under serious consideration by school boards for inclusion in science classes.

Meanwhile, homosexuals in most states can't get married. Atheists and religious minorities get Christianity crammed down their throats everywhere they go, even by the government.

Christians are still usually the oppressors instead of the oppressed. They're repressed as much as the straight, white male.

Yoda said:

Why are they so afraid of christians? What have christians done to them to cause so much hate?

The history of Christianity is one of oppression, imprisonment, torture, and bloodshed against nonbelievers and even Christians who wouldn't toe the line of some church or another. In recent years, as the West has advanced and secularized, we've taken religion less and less seriously, so Christian denominations don't kill people anymore. (Christian fanatics today, though, have engaged in terrorist attacks against abortion clinics and savage beatings of homosexuals.)

But modern Christian fundamentalists still work to deny state marriages to homosexuals, to ban homosexuals from the military, to retard the progress of science (e.g., stem cell research), to use government for advancement of their religion (e.g., advocacy of school prayer, "under God" in the Pledge, official nativity scenes), to impose their moral standards on society (e.g., in entertainment), etc.

[-Oz-]

Yoda, on Oct 8 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing. But if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be a atheist.

If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrent, then you have lived your entire life in pursuit of something that isn't real, and you have wasted all of the time you have trying to get into heaven; rather than just enjoying the time you have on Earth.

That sounds like losing something to me.

Yoda said:

Why are they so afraid of christians? What have christians done to them to cause so much hate?

http://www.reference...ish_Inquisition One big example

and

http://darklyrics.co...hhearts.html#14 And one for the sake of augmenting Danny Filth.

This post has been edited by -Oz-: 02 December 2005 - 04:04 PM