Wednesday, August 25, 2021

On Medium: The Feebleness of “Backyard Church’s” Ten Arguments for Theism

Explore what happens when a hapless Christian runs the gauntlet of reason.


  1. ''Thus, Foster reasons, “The only rational answer is that there is, at the beginning of all things, an uncaused Cause capable of causing all things. Something had to create that point of infinite energy. Therefore the presence of a creator is required — someone or something outside of space and time.''

    Why not a creation??

    Of course, this creator has to be male, white, straight...hahaha
    Must have had a son named Jesus and another named Satan.

    Why the idea that everything came from nothing is supposedly impossible??

    ''Ultimately to prove that there is no God, one must know everything. Or rather, to sustain the belief that there is no possibility of the existence of a God, one has to demonstrate that they have infinite knowledge.''


    The same or especially for those who claim that god exists??

    ''There is indeed a problem with morality in a godless universe, as Fyodor Dostoevsky and Friedrich Nietzsche showed.''

    I've already commented with you that I don't believe that there is a paradox of morality from an atheistic scenario.

    Because the very likely truth of the non-existence of gods is directly related to the truth of the non-existence of eternity and therefore with the existential equality of all human beings and living beings.

    Knowing the inexistence of god and eternity, in a deep or permanent way, makes us aware of our existential brotherhood, of being equal in essence.
    This makes us look for behaviors like mutual respect, treating the other as if he were you, because in fact he is..too.

    From these truths, you do not need God to practice altruism, solidarity or kindness.

    ''But practically, you’re not free to do so because your parents likely instilled their values in you when they raised you, so that by now you’re obliged to follow the dictates of your conscience.''

    Every mutual influence process must have correspondence or reciprocity on the part of the person who is under the influence of others.

    This means that it doesn't matter how strong the parent's doctrination was if the child was born with different psychological dispositions.

    My parents are moderate Catholic but my older brother and I have made us atheists...

    This happened because I have enough different psychological and cognitive dispositions to lead me to atheism.

    For example, I have a disposition for literal thinking. Something quite natural in me that makes me more suspicious of excessively metaphorical thoughts treated as concrete truths.

    I already tested god when I was a child and got no answers.It was the beginning of the end of my believe. What most motivated me to try to remain an agnostic, before I had finally adhered to atheism, was the belief in eternity.The strong feeling of believing that I will meet all the dead beings I loved.

    Belief in eternity seems to be much stronger than in god.
    God is seen by the great majority of people as the one who protects them in life and will lead them to paradise after life.
    a crosswalker.
    People do not pray for God but for what he is supposed to offer them.

    1. I agree that the problem about atheistic morality can be overcome, but that doesn't mean there's no problem there to solve. Sure, humanists solve it by saying we can commiserate and form a brotherhood based on camaraderie and empathy. But there's still a temptation to be a free-loader if there's no omnipotent power watching and judging everything we do. There's still the threat that all things are permitted if God is dead, as Dostoevsky lays out.

    2. While there are psychopaths and sociopaths even this very idea will continue to exist.

      Interestingly people who often commit atrocities are those who believe in god. I like "Strong sentences" like that made by Dostoyevsky but oftentimes It's just a Strong sentence or an aphorism, not something more substantial, belong to what really happens in the world.

      I understand that some or many humans without any external refference of self control can degenerate to overly impulsive short termist hedonistic creatures.

      Well, capitalism is a good example of an ideology that promotes irresponsible behaviors as acceptable.

      But the main question here is the emphasis. Many atheists emphasise their disbelief in god and point. These atheists are in highest risk to believe in another alienation beyond "religion: like capitalism or fascism. There are atheists who enphasise their disbelief in eternity not in god. They are more correct than the first group because what's matter most is not the stalker who supposedly will send us to heaven but the heaven itself, the eternity. Don't believe in eternity make me more open to accept the fact we are essentially the same. One thing tend to push for another. If we are all finite, fragile and senseless creatures, all equal because this, so we need see and treat each other in such essential way. If i Just don't believe in the stalker or god existence so I can feel free to believe in another alienations for example the wrong concept of freedom, without responsibility charge.

      But many of these existentialist atheists end up becoming woke leftist or something similar, like buddhist.

  2. ''The argument of experience simply says that many people of different eras and widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the “divine.” Therefore, it is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.''

    Primary level of argumentation.

    People from completely different cultures have also suffered from schizophrenia.
    What's up