# On Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2006, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144 "2006-08-17T21:52:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Frustrated\_Wonderer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a4c791/32.png) [@Frustrated\_Wonderer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frustrated_Wonderer)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/1 "2006-08-17T21:52:07Z")
This is a paper I wrote to years ago that tackles the subject of Atheism, it is “quite” long, but modesty apart, I think it is an intresting read. Here is the Link: [http://www.thegodmyth.blogspot.com/](http://www.thegodmyth.blogspot.com/) If anybody has the time to read this paper, or parts of it, It would be appreciated. Feel free to post, any comment/criticism/correction, please feel free to do so. ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/2 "2006-08-17T22:00:52Z")
Your thread is better-suited for our Great Debates forum, which is the place for religious debates and witnessing. I’ll move it there for you. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/3 "2006-08-17T22:28:42Z")
I just started to read it and found it to be not very clear. I think you conflate god with religiosity, and sunsequently not make either point well. But like I said, I just read the very beginning, but it didn’t entice me to read more. masybe I’ll try it again later, as the topic interests me. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/4 "2006-08-17T22:45:37Z")
I went back and read more, and I have to say that while I saw a few good points, on whole it is not well written and even less well argued. Just one man’s opinion. I suggest you read some of the threads that exist on the subject, as some very good arguments have beenput forth. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/5 "2006-08-17T23:01:31Z")
Well, for one thing, you’re not really arguing for atheism here, so much as you’re arguing against Christianity. You also seem to be all over the place…setting up strawmen and then knocking them down. Also, your citations are weak. For example, when talking about the Inquisition, you say, " Many people died simply because they where against popular opinion. ([http://www.fordham.edu](http://www.fordham.edu)) " The site is, of course, to Fordham University, which has a lot of pages associated with it, and nowhere on the main page do they talk about the Inquisition at all, it, as you might imagine, being more concerned with news about Fordham and the new school year. Also, in your three sentence description of the Inquisition: > [@](#): > > During the thirteenth century, most of Europe was into inquisition. An Inquisition is a trial in which when a person is found guilty (sometimes on basis of ridiculous arguments such as not believing in God) they could be executed. Many people died simply because they where against popular opinion. I count five errors (The Inquisition started in the 12th century, the Inquisition wasn’t a trial, but an organization…actually a few related organizations of ecclesiastical courts, the Inquisition itself didn’t have the power to execute, not believing in God is not an “argument”, and very few people were executed merely for having unpopular opinions.) ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/6 "2006-08-17T23:57:25Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] I count five errors (The Inquisition started in the 12th century, the Inquisition wasn’t a trial, but an organization…actually a few related organizations of ecclesiastical courts, the Inquisition itself didn’t have the power to execute, not believing in God is not an “argument”, and very few people were executed merely for having unpopular opinions.) [/QUOTE] Tell me if I’m remembering correctly: Being found guilty of heresy was not death sentence. The heretic was given a chance to abjure and be welcomed back into the church. Only if the heretic refused to renounce their erroneous beliefs or if they went back to their old ways after recanting would they be executed. Nor were the executed by the church-- they were turned over to the secular authorities for punishment along with a mostly-symbolic request for leniencey. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/7 "2006-08-18T00:00:36Z")
[QUOTE=Lissa] Tell me if I’m remembering correctly: Being found guilty of heresy was not death sentence. The heretic was given a chance to abjure and be welcomed back into the church. Only if the heretic refused to renounce their erroneous beliefs or if they went back to their old ways after recanting would they be executed. Nor were the executed by the church-- they were turned over to the secular authorities for punishment along with a mostly-symbolic request for leniencey. [/QUOTE] That’s generally right. Of course, the Inquisition differed at different places and at different times. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/8 "2006-08-18T00:12:57Z")
I found some other errors: > [@](#): > > According to the Book of Genesis: > > “1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” > > Although this quote may seem irrelevant at first, look at its implications: God says that he is satisfied with the way he has created the world. This means that He is also happy with the fact the He designed a system that purposefully ensured the suffering and death of all his creatures. No. According to the Creation myth, God made that statement before Adam and Eve committed the original sin of eating from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Everything was “good” until that happened. > [@](#): > > Barker claims that “….There is not contemporary support for the Jesus story outside the gospels, which were anonymously written thirty to eighty years after the supposed crucifixion.” (Barker 128). Perhaps you’re misunderstanding the quote. Cecil wrote a column on this very issue in which the Roman records of the period mention a rabble-rouser they executed named Jesus (they claimed he was the son of a Roman soldier named Panther.) > [@](#): > > Christian Scholars tend to say that the Ten Commandments are God’s absolutes (according to [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) an absolute is not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional) on the way people should behave. You need to define “scholar” here. I don’t know of any serious scholars of the Christian faith who consider the Ten Commandments to be the most important of the laws of the faith. The “Ten Commandments” is accepted to be a mostly symbolic list. It’s a bit fudged to fit neatly within the nice round number of 10. (One commandment is used twice.) > [@](#): > > It is a well known fact that “good people” far out number “bad people”. It is? I’d say the majority of people are “indifferent” with minorities of “good” and “bad”. But, then again, almost _everyone_ thinks that they’re a good person. (Just like almost everyone can justify their own actions–at least to themselves-- and almost everyone thinks that they’re smart.) ---
**Author:** ![Frustrated\_Wonderer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a4c791/32.png) [@Frustrated\_Wonderer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frustrated_Wonderer)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/9 "2006-08-18T00:24:14Z")
Thanks for all the constructive criticism, yeah I realize the paper has some errors, it was for an 11th grade paper I had to turn in. I actully never wanted to post it in the “great debates” section because I know many of you are experts on this subject, and I am not, but thanks for taking the time to read it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/10 "2006-08-18T00:35:59Z")
[QUOTE=TheFury] Thanks for all the constructive criticism, yeah I realize the paper has some errors, it was for an 11th grade paper I had to turn in. I actully never wanted to post it in the “great debates” section because I know many of you are experts on this subject, and I am not, but thanks for taking the time to read it anyway. [/QUOTE] You’re going to get the same experts picking apart your essay no matter where you post it on the boards. The boards are divided up by subject matter, not level of competency, and religious threads go in GD. Anyway, if you wanted feedback on your essay, isn’t it better to get it from people who really know their shit? ---
**Author:** ![Taran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Taran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taran)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/11 "2006-08-18T00:38:15Z")
Quotation marks do not denote emphasis. When you write… > [@](#): > > it is “quite” long …it doesn’t mean “Danger folks, I’m serious, long-ass paper ahead”, it means something more like “Yeah, this is a long paper, and the best word I can come up with to describe it is ‘quite’ even though it’s not a great choice of words”, or “I asked someone how long my paper was, and they said ‘quite’, and I’m repeating that assertion for you now, I take no credit for it”, or possibly “I say that this paper is ‘quite’ long, but I mean something else entirely. It should be possible for you to deduce the details from context”. On preview: and, all grammar Nazi-ing aside, it’s good to have you here. ---
**Author:** ![Frustrated\_Wonderer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a4c791/32.png) [@Frustrated\_Wonderer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frustrated_Wonderer)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/12 "2006-08-18T00:44:21Z")
I wasent emphasisng the word “quite”, I was saying that the “quite” in that sentence is relative. To some members of this board, reading that paper may be a quick read. Thanks for tha adivce anyway, yeah, next time I want to emphasise a word I’ll use italics, or CAPITAL LETTERS. Good advice though… ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/13 "2006-08-18T07:51:13Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] Of course, the Inquisition differed at different places and at different times. [/QUOTE] So you’re saying nobody would know what to expect? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/14 "2006-08-18T14:01:40Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] So you’re saying nobody would know what to expect? [/QUOTE] It’s chief weapon was surprise…surprise and fear. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/15 "2006-08-18T14:03:39Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] So you’re saying nobody would know what to expect? [/QUOTE] C’mon… nobody _expects_ the Spanish Inquisition. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/16 "2006-08-18T14:11:41Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] So you’re saying nobody would know what to expect? [/QUOTE] Well, their chief weapon _is_ surprise. Surprise and fear. Surprise, fear, and ruthless efficiency. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/17 "2006-08-18T14:13:34Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] It’s chief weapon was surprise…surprise and fear. [/QUOTE] DOGAMMIT!!! ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/18 "2006-08-18T14:29:49Z")
[QUOTE=TheFury] Thanks for all the constructive criticism, yeah I realize the paper has some errors, it was for an 11th grade paper I had to turn in. I actully never wanted to post it in the “great debates” section because I know many of you are experts on this subject, and I am not, but thanks for taking the time to read it anyway. [/QUOTE] I see. I wasn’t impressed as I read it but when you explain the context I consider it fairly well done. If you’d been a junior in college I would have expected much more. A couple of points. As a believer I have no problem seeing the Bible as a book written by men, or acknowledging that we don’t know for sure if Jesus even existed. Those facts may help my beliefs evolve but they certainly don’t end them. then there’s this > [@](#): > > 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. > 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. > 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. > 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. > 5. Evil exists. > 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil. > 7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. IMHO this argument needs to be considered when trying to understand the nature of God but does not end in the conclusion, “God doesn’t exist” It may mean that certain concepts of God are illogical and need to be abandoned. That means other concepts of God can still be very viable. I agree that religion has evolved. My own beliefs have evolved quite a bit in my life. I can see that same principle at work in mankind in general as the centuries pass. In the quest for truth and our grasp of reality and how it all fits together we are still evolving. IMHO the first myths of man flying had to be in order to get to Kitty Hawk. God is much the same. As generations pass our concepts of God evolve as we pursue the truth. Mankind is slow to abandon certain myths and traditions but it is happening and will continue to happen. I think the intelligent arguments posed by atheists serve as an aide to this evolution, but that doesn’t mean they are completely correct. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/19 "2006-08-18T14:50:24Z")
[QUOTE=Lissa] Perhaps you’re misunderstanding the quote. Cecil wrote a column on this very issue in which the Roman records of the period mention a rabble-rouser they executed named Jesus (they claimed he was the son of a Roman soldier named Panther.) [/quote] No, the OP was actually right about this. There are no contemporary records of Jesus, Roman or otherwise. The documentation you’re referring to comes from a couple of passing references in Josephus (late 1st century) and Tacticus (2nd Century). You’re also conflating them with something from the Talmud. The Josephus passage is widely believed to have been at least partially interpolated (forged), but both mention that someone named Jesus had acquired a following, was executed by Pilate and that his movement had continued after his death. Tacitus, in particular, was written late enough that he could have just gotten his information from Christians themselves and it’s not a given that he had any independent source for it. The _Ben Panthera_ thing is from the Talmud, was written several centuries after the time of Jesus, and may or may not be a reference to the Jesus of the Gospels. If it is, it’s probably a medieval Jewish response to Christian smears. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144/20 "2006-08-18T16:47:25Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. > 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. > 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. > 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. > 5. Evil exists. > 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil. > 7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. This is a (perhaps even _the_) classic argument against the existence of God, and hence has been discussed quite a bit, both here on the SDMB and pretty much everywhere else people discuss such things. Needless to say, not everyone accepts it. Those who reject the argument generally disagree with premise #1, #2, and/or #4 (though a few people deny #5, claiming that “evil” is an illusion). #1: This argument, even if it’s valid, doesn’t prove that _no_ God could exist, only that a God who has those three properties can’t exist. It still leaves us free to believe in a God who is limited somehow (either in power or in moral perfection). #2: Those who deny this premise point out that omnipotence does not extend to the ability to do things that are logically impossible or contradictory (like God making a burrito so hot even He can’t eat it). As IIRC C. S. Lewis said, nonsense does not cease to be nonsense just because you put the words “God can” in front of it. How do we know that eliminating all evil isn’t a logical impossibility? Or maybe it’s possible to eliminate evil, but not without at the same time eliminating some other desired thing (like human free will). Which leads to premise #4… #4: There are two ways to reject this premise. One is to claim that God, though morally perfect, allows evil to exist (at least temporarily) to bring about a greater good than would otherwise be possible. The other is to claim that our expectations of what a morally perfect God would do are flawed. We may think we know what “good” is, but our perspective is limited and could be flawed or inapplicable to a being like God. Of course, these points could all be explained and discussed at much greater length, and there are plenty of things that can be said both for and against them. This is just to give you an idea of why the argument isn’t universally accepted, and people who know about it go on believing in God. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-atheism/369144.md?page=2)