A Critique of Pure Atheism

[Philosophy Now]

Andrew Likoudis questions the basis of some popular atheist arguments.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/165/A_Critique_of_Pure_Atheism

[LuckyR]

OMG. This guy uses his own particular definition of what (or who) a "god" might be. Ignoring the other 9,999 gods.

To give you a feel of how incredibly narrow his view is, read this quote: "Fast-forward to the Medieval period and you have figures such as Saint Thomas Aquinas with his Summa Theologica (1274), which was as much a philosophical as a theological treatise (or rather, collection of treatises). He was probably the most influential in conceiving arguments for God’s existence. How atheism could have surfaced in such a major way after such a towering figure as Aquinas is one of the world’s great mysteries to me!"

[Impenitent]

pure atheism? does that mean that usual atheism is un-pure and lets a little god sneak in?

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

OMG. This guy uses his own particular definition of what (or who) a "god" might be. Ignoring the other 9,999 gods.

Well, only one view is going to be right. Truth works that way.

I can't really understand the worry. That is, unless you're hoping to worship Thor, or Zeus, or Set, or Shiva, or Ahura Mazda, or Allah, and think they're fragile. But if you're worried about them, don't be too concerned: if they're real, they can stand on their own merits; and if not, they won't care anyway.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe non-theists would give a damn with theism if theists especially the Abrahamic do not infringe on the human rights and well-being of others as evident throughout the history and even at their present existence.
We have Christians dictating about the individual's rights to abortion, the creationism as a counter to empirical cosmology and the resistance to evolution and abiogenesis.
Some Abrahamic theists will insist they can kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to their religion, e.g. drawing of cartoons, because their 'true and real' god commands it.

The author proposed the God's argument should be based solely based on rationalism [reason] and ignoring the empirical basis.
Kant wrote in his Critique of Pure Reason that is impossible to prove logically and philosophical that God exists as real, thus God is false and illusory.

What the author is ignorant is reason comes in degrees from primitive crude pure reason of the lower cortex to the higher continual evolved reasoning ability within the prefrontal cortex.
It is just like IQ and the difference if one think with an IQ of 80 as compared to the average at say 107 worldwide.

If the current average reasoning power is 100, the level of reason [crude, pure and barbaric] used to argue God exists is based on 50.
If theists were to redirect their idea of God to their normal rational reasoning power, they will understand God cannot be real so, it is false.

It is because theists are driven by cognitive dissonance and the existential angst [pains] that they must shift gears to the lower reasoning level to argue that God exists as real where to soothe the pains.

It is Impossible for God to be Real [God is a falsehood and unreal]
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Why the Scientific FS [Empirical] is the Most Credible & Objective
viewtopic.php?t=43171

The empirical approach to Science to counter against God is not Empiricism [that is scientism] but it is reinforced with reasoning, rationality, and critical thinking plus wisdom.

[LuckyR]

OMG. This guy uses his own particular definition of what (or who) a "god" might be. Ignoring the other 9,999 gods.

Well, only one view is going to be right. Truth works that way.

I can't really understand the worry. That is, unless you're hoping to worship Thor, or Zeus, or Set, or Shiva, or Ahura Mazda, or Allah, and think they're fragile. But if you're worried about them, don't be too concerned: if they're real, they can stand on their own merits; and if not, they won't care anyway.

"Worry"? What worry? I'm just disappointed that a guy with so little on the (philosophical) ball warranted an article.

[Skepdick]

Andrew Likoudis questions the basis of some popular atheist arguments.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/165/A_ ... re_Atheism

Atheist arguments? What are those?

I know atheists have various arguments, strong and weak, against theism.
I know of no atheist argument for atheism.

It's just a knee-jerk position that only stands in opposition to theism without any merrit on its own.
It's not even a philosophical position - it's an ellaborate social movement by philosophical ignoramuses.

[Nils X. Nihilo]

Not sure if I maybe missed posting in the right forum or maybe my post is being quarantined, but please have a look:

viewtopic.php?p=753012#p753012

[Immanuel Can]

OMG. This guy uses his own particular definition of what (or who) a "god" might be. Ignoring the other 9,999 gods.

Well, only one view is going to be right. Truth works that way.

I can't really understand the worry. That is, unless you're hoping to worship Thor, or Zeus, or Set, or Shiva, or Ahura Mazda, or Allah, and think they're fragile. But if you're worried about them, don't be too concerned: if they're real, they can stand on their own merits; and if not, they won't care anyway.

"Worry"? What worry? I'm just disappointed that a guy with so little on the (philosophical) ball warranted an article.

Why be disappointed? The fault is inherent to Atheism itself.

Atheism doesn't say which "god" it doesn't believe in. It refused to believe in ANY of them, as if every conception of God were the same, and all were false anyway. So be disappointed with Atheism, I guess.

[Flannel Jesus]

This article is just one bizarre assumption after another. If that works for him, great. I don't think it's very compelling to others though.

[LuckyR]

Well, only one view is going to be right. Truth works that way.

I can't really understand the worry. That is, unless you're hoping to worship Thor, or Zeus, or Set, or Shiva, or Ahura Mazda, or Allah, and think they're fragile. But if you're worried about them, don't be too concerned: if they're real, they can stand on their own merits; and if not, they won't care anyway.

"Worry"? What worry? I'm just disappointed that a guy with so little on the (philosophical) ball warranted an article.

Why be disappointed? The fault is inherent to Atheism itself.

Atheism doesn't say which "god" it doesn't believe in. It refused to believe in ANY of them, as if every conception of God were the same, and all were false anyway. So be disappointed with Atheism, I guess.

Huh? Atheism's "fault" is that it doesn't believe in 10,000 gods but theism escapes the same fault because it doesn't believe in 9,999? Illogical.

[Immanuel Can]

"Worry"? What worry? I'm just disappointed that a guy with so little on the (philosophical) ball warranted an article.

Why be disappointed? The fault is inherent to Atheism itself.

Atheism doesn't say which "god" it doesn't believe in. It refused to believe in ANY of them, as if every conception of God were the same, and all were false anyway. So be disappointed with Atheism, I guess.

Huh? Atheism's "fault" is that it doesn't believe in 10,000 gods but theism escapes the same fault because it doesn't believe in 9,999? Illogical.

I don't believe the "fault" you claim is any "fault" at all, actually. It's not wrong to deny the validity of other people's "gods." In fact, how can a person be said to "believe in a god" at all, if he or she doesn't also think contradictory views of that god must therefore logically be mistaken?

So I think your original objection isn't at all valid. But I am pointing out that if it were, then Atheism would not escape your own condemnation. For it denies the existence of ALL gods.

If it's bad for one Theist to insult another god-belief, then it's bad for Atheist to insult ALL god-beliefs. Simple fairness covers that.

[Alexiev]

I can't really understand the worry. That is, unless you're hoping to worship Thor, or Zeus, or Set, or Shiva, or Ahura Mazda, or Allah, and think they're fragile. But if you're worried about them, don't be too concerned: if they're real, they can stand on their own merits; and if not, they won't care anyway.

Allah is not a proper noun like Thor or Zeus. It simply means "God" in Arabic, and is capitalized out of respect, just as we capitalize "God".

"There is no God but God" is the correct translation of the oft misquoted "There is no God but Allah."

[Immanuel Can]

I can't really understand the worry. That is, unless you're hoping to worship Thor, or Zeus, or Set, or Shiva, or Ahura Mazda, or Allah, and think they're fragile. But if you're worried about them, don't be too concerned: if they're real, they can stand on their own merits; and if not, they won't care anyway.

Allah is not a proper noun like Thor or Zeus. It simply means "God" in Arabic, and is capitalized out of respect, just as we capitalize "God".

That's only half accurate. The other half is that "Allah" refers to a very particular conception of God. For instance, no polytheistic gods are allowed at all, in the basic confession of Islam, the Shahada, to which you allude in your message. So Thor and Zeus are out, from the get-go.

But additionally, this "god" has specific other characteristics, such as having made women inferior to men, being imperiously distant from humanity, having a particular set of (im-)moral prohibitions and commands, having his revelation in the Koran, and so on. This makes "Allah" NOT the God of Jews or Christians, as well.

It's all possible to imagine "gods" are the same when one doesn't look at any characteristics of any of them. But the minute one considers anything specific, that misunderstanding evaporates.

[Alexiev]

That's only half accurate. The other half is that "Allah" refers to a very particular conception of God.

Oh. Do you mean just like "God" does when you use the word?