Otherwise, nothing could be moral or immoral. The Absurdity of Life without God. Retrieved March 31,from http: However, considering that being atheist does not mean one stops suffering, what then is the need of living without God.
He still must explain how these moral terms mean anything if there is not a standard from which to judge. The answer is intended to be rhetorical, but the picture is clear.
In the article, it claims that a perfect God would never create a world with any suffering in it, which I will address in a moment, but what the writer fails to give attention to is that a perfect God would never allow himself to be outwitted by his own creation.
Therefore, the subject of what is essentially a first-order question cannot jump categories and answer the second-order question for itself.
He opens with his stated goal: If instead we manage to live happily, it is only by giving the lie to our worldview. The evolutionary process appeals to the laws of nature to work in a certain way, which implies a goal or an end.
On Being an Atheist. If we try to live consistently within the framework of the atheistic worldview, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy.
McCloskey pretty much says this to be true himself in the article but then goes on to say that God cannot exist, but without giving a reason as to why not.
The reason this is pertinent in an argument for the existence of God is because in order for the multi-verse to exist at all there had to be an initial cause that started the beginning of existence that ultimately transformed into the multi-verse, our universe and our world.
Even McCloskey cannot resist the urge to find some sort of explanation or perspective through suffering. Bantam Books,48  Liberty University.
Free will as mentioned is found in all human beings, which dictates their actions, including the choice to believe in God or not to believe. There is absolutely nothing one could comment while being defensive that is going to convince the person on the other side of the argument to stop and suddenly decide to come and humble themselves before God.
That too can be answered in that, the fallacy of composition, though technically can be applied to certain premises in the argument, the entire argument does not hinge on whether everything is contingent or if the universe itself is contingent.Response Paper Phil A Response to the Article: "On Being An Atheist" by H.
J. McCloskey Joshua Cottrell PHIL D32 Professor Pensgard August 12, The belief in a Creator and a literal God has been a subject of. Response Paper to McCloskey Article “On Being an Atheist” H.J.
McCloskey, claims that “proofs” offered by theists for the existence of God simply do not provide evidence that there is one omnipotent, omniscient being.
Response to “On Being an Atheist” By: Casandra Privette In his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey tried to show that atheism is a more reasonable and comfortable belief than that of Christianity. Refuting McCloskey: “On Being an Atheist” Posted on June 24, by shannonclaussen — 3 Comments This essay will discuss and refute the atheistic views of H.
J. McCloskey as mentioned in his article “On Being an Atheist.”. Phil Response Paper Mccloskey Article Response Paper Mccloskey Article Clark Hernanser PHIL February 24, Ramon Graces Response Paper Mccloskey Article In his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J.
McCloskey tried to show that atheism is a more. In Response McCloskey’s Paper, “On Being an Atheist” In his article, “ On Being an Atheist ” McCloskey provides several arguments that seek to justify the non-existence of God, Atheism. This he does using several claims made by theists on a general level as well as focusing more on the Christian God.Download