Atheism In David Hume's The Natural History Of Religion

Asking the invisible for more is rude. It might seem also wrong for many of us that are religious to call God “invisible” in this writing. Only because he is not invisible he “lives through the church and our hearts.” Even if there was a God, why do we tend to ask him for more. Have we grown lazy enough that we ask the invisible for the impossible? To change things that are ruled by nature.

Which is that God made us in His image when He made Adam and Eve; this means that above any other creature on the planet humanity has a special relationship with God. To believe in Darwinism takes away from that and that terrifies many believers. Many believe that they cannot look at the world and its complexity to only explain it by chance (Larson, 2009). Other believers see the theory as something that takes away from the human soul and from our obligation to be a moral being since we have only been evolved not made with a purpose. This means that we would not be much more than any other animal which many disagree with because humans are so much more complex than any other animal (Larson, 2009).

William Paley is a philosopher well known in the 18th and 19th century. He was well known for his piece entitled, “Natural Theology” which is a piece that argues for the existence of God and constantly compares it to a watch. He argues that if no one has seen someone one has seen a watch before, they would most likely believe that someone created it. He argues this because the complexity of the object was to complex for it to have just been that way naturally. In some people 's opinions, God can not create something so complex and can only be man made.

Like snowflakes, no two creation myths are identical, “The Story of the Creation”, which highlights on the creation of the Akimel O’odham, more commonly known as the Pima, and Megan Wren’s “Mayan Creation Myth” are no exception; however, there are many similarities. The “Mayan Creation Myth” and “The Story of Creation” both follow the basic path that most creation myths do starting with the emptiness in the beginning, a void to be filled by a God-like figure, who would soon create vegetation, animals, and humans who he would then destroy and start anew. With every creation myth, there is a void, or an emptiness before a greater power takes it into his hands to change that, and this is true for both the Mayan, and the Pima creation myth.

They sound so phony when they talk,” (Salinger 100). This shows how Holden is associating religion with phoniness. He doesn’t think that religion can be authentic, just related to faith. Holden wants that faith and connection, which he demonstrates by saying that he wants to pray, just a page before. However, the idea of an organized religion seems fake to Holden.

The theological voluntarist might answer this by saying norms can be known through religious texts such as the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc. This is problematic because these texts, although seeming to contain the same points upon first glance, contain fundamental contradictions. Examples of this can be seen in the Abrahamic religions where Islam forbids alcohol, while Judaism and Christianity don 't. Judaism and Islam forbid the consumption of pork, while Christianity does not. These contradictions only get worse as you move farther from the Semitic tradition.

Evil is relative. As humans, we are not strictly good or evil. A response should not define a person, especially when society has the final say on whether a person is “good” or “bad”. People resort to evil to describe something they cannot rationalize. There is no reason for it, so many people turn to God, saying that evil was a form of punishment for sin.

His theories would predate all ideas that God created man. The theory of evolution would explain how all living beings came to be and could explain life all the way back to just a split second after the Big Bang. Both Saint Augustine and Martin Luther were believers in the scientific community, but they would have seen these findings in totally different lights. Saint Augustine would have agreed that the findings by Charles Darwin were true and that the stories of creation were more allegorical than literal. Martin Luther would have been more headstrong and believed that Darwinism was more fake science that could not truly be proven.

At the beginning of the article, Gil Gaudia states that “one does not to choose to be an Atheist any more than one chooses to be homosexual. It just is,” whereas, ironically, the title indicates that there is a reason for him to be an atheist. Refusing “to believe in a god who would either allow or cause these unfair events,” and rejecting the idea that “forces from the supernatural world—gods, angles, saints or devils—can interact with and alter events occurring in the natural world,” is a decision one comes to after critically thinking and assessing evidence. It is not the default thinking setting of certain groups of

H.J. McCloskey’s article “On Being an Atheist” he argues the existence of God and we should abandoned all “proofs” of this idea. In approaching the question of God’s existence, we cannot prove God or that other things exist. Proof is a certainty and without a shadow of doubt. However, it is possible I could be wrong, but I don’t believe I am.