Essay IndexEssay Index
Custom WritingCustom Writing
Admission Essay HelpAdmissions Help
Submit an EssaySubmit an Essay
FAQ / HelpFAQ / Help
Question and Answer forumsQ & A Forums
Essay LinksEssay Links
Link to PlanetPapersLink to us
Contact UsContact Us
 
 
 
What's New | Top10 Essays | Login or Signup 

Enter Your Paper Topic Here:
        
     

CLICK HERE FOR MORE THAN 50,000 PAPERS

  • Read User Comments
  • Rate/Comment on this essay
  • Cite this essay: MLA, APA
  • Print this essay
  • Athiesm - Persuasive Essay

    Written by: fonduelover

    I am an atheist, but only just as I was an agnostic for a long time. An agnostic likes the idea of a god, however feels that it can’t be proved. but an atheist just doesn’t believe, whilst a theist does. I am supposedly catholic, but I have never really been religious, as my parents never took me to church or forced me to pray. However I did go to a catholic school as my primary school where there was a mass every week and I even got my 1st holy communion done. It was only when I was asked about doing my confirmation that I questioned it all. Why? Why do we have to be accepted to god…again? Surely baptism was enough? But no, then you have Holy Communion. Even that’s not enough you need to be confirmed. The cycle never ends.

    When I was little I used to read the bible especially the Old Testament as it was very story like. Again I realised that it was a story. Noah’s ark? Adam and eve? You have got to be kidding. The Old Testament is the Jewish holy book, in the bible and a large part of the Qu’ran. Yet it is just fairytales made up by the Hebrews to explain things they couldn’t understand. For example Noah’s ark. There was an ice age in the very early days of man. Most places where frozen over. The Hebrews could not understand how animals could survive the ice, so made up a story about Noah and his ark. Bringing two of each animal on the boat. However there are over 50 million types of animal, and if he was to create such an ark it would have to be the size of England.

    After extensive research I found there are loads of contradictions in the bible, Qu’ran and Hindu scriptures “the Vedas”. In the bible the classic example is Jesus saying in Matthew 5:22 “Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire” but then in Matthew 23:17, he says “Ye fools and blind”. In the Qu’ran and Vedas they both contradict themselves on matters such as who was the first believer, how humans where made, the correct way of worship and the like.

    There are two reasons why the ancient people needed to have a god. Firstly because they couldn’t explain things. Why did the sun come up? Where did it come from? Ancient Egyptians believed a huge scarab beetle pushed the sun into place each day, so they had to worship scarabs in case the beetle forgot to do his job. Why were we created, well because god wanted to create some people in the form of him. The second reason was for law and order. There were no police in the ancient times. Only high priests. People were warned not to do things wrong otherwise they would go to hell, or be reborn as a slug.

    But we don’t need either of these reasons anymore. Firstly we know why the sun comes up. We know how most things work. And we also have police to keep order. The only thing we don’t know, or don’t know that much on, is where we came from. The big bang. What caused it? Religion says that god made it, but I’m sure in the future we will be able to explain it scientifically.

    What happens when we die? There are three theories. Firstly that we have Judgement, and we go either to heaven or hell. Secondly we reincarnate to a higher or lower form depending on our Karma. And finally that nothing happens. We just die. The first and second theories have major flaws. Where is heaven and hell? Supposedly above the sky but astronauts have been up there and there is nothing much but stars, planets and radiation. Reincarnation is slightly more feasible. You die, but your soul gets reborn, and again and again, until you have a perfect life and then you end up as one with your God. However there has been no scientific proof of a “soul” and if it did exist how can it suddenly transfer from one being to the next? Many people are scared about death, and religion comes up with nice easy solutions unless you have been bad – then you get eternal hell. Fun.

    It seems that God isn’t so nice after all! I mean according to the bible he helped King Solomon and David smite thousands of non-believers and anyone who isn’t sorry for a mistake will go to hell. Surely he’s rather vain and egotistical? “If you don’t believe in me then you will go to hell because I created you.” I mean everyone has done a little trick on someone they hate and laughed. Why are there still disasters? Flooding, starvation etc? A kind god would not let this happen.

    How do we know God is a he? Women give birth surely? I wonder if instead of Adam and Eve, it was Eve and Adam and so Eve created Adam instead of the other way round – would women be the superior race? That is purely based on religion.

    Surely if there was one God, there would be only one religion. However there are three main types and all very different. You have the Jewish religions – where Christianity and Islam sprung that believe in one god. You have Hinduism, where Sikhism and Jainism didn’t really come from, but they share very similar views in that there is one god, but there are lots of types of the one god or prophet in the case of Sikhism. Then finally you have the pagan religions consisting of Wicca etc that believe in more than one God – usually two a man and a woman.

    Religion causes so many problems that it aimed to prevent, such as peace. At the moment there is so much strife between Islam and Christianity. Why? They believe in the same thing. Racism and sexism all spring from religion. Without religion people might think we are all the same. Even a religion gets separated. There are over 10 different Christian sects all worshipping slightly differently. Surely God would get annoyed if they were all supposed to be worshipping one way.

    Finally I want to give an example that even if God did exist, he can’t do everything. If you asked God to create a boulder so large he himself could not lift it, then he can’t do everything. If he can create the boulder then he can’t lift it, and if he can’t create it, then again he can’t be almighty.

    end note: it might be rubbish but ut's just my view (written for GSCE coursework)


    CLICK HERE FOR HUNDREDS OF ADDITIONAL RELIGION ESSAYS



    User Comments

    Sarah B 2688
    2002-03-30 08:00AM
    3 out of 5
    i could answer yur question about why you the Church recommends that you be confirmed even tho u've been Baptised. At Baptism yur parents speak for you. At. Confirmation, you speak for yurself. it's all part of growing up. I respect yur views and i can sort of see where you coming from. However, i do not agree with you at all. yur essay was very well written. you have a great use of language.
     
    batoutofhell79
    2002-03-31 09:00AM
    No Rating
    Nice attempt at tackling a tough subject, you have a rather rhetorical approach which can, at times, be useful, however the slang language causes problems gramatically. It may hve been useful to look into the definitions of religion, faith and belief and pin them down then work at the problem from a scientific point of view. I am an atheist so it is nice to see you having a go at writing about it but you could do with using some more research.
     
    wendydwitch
    2002-04-02 09:00AM
    3 out of 5
    i agree , but u should have given a more detailed explanation on y he isnt all mighty
    sorry but i liked :0)
     
    Thunder
    2002-05-20 10:00AM
    3 out of 5
    I agree with you on the subject that religions worldwide have created differences among people bt as a strong believer in my faith, I have to disagree with you questioning God's ability.smile I don't beleieve in religion but belong to a non-denominational church that follows Christ. I am not one to judge since it is not our place to judge anyway. Well, that little game with the boulder doesn't make any sense. For one, God is a God who doesn't play games and will not be tested. He is all-powerful but won't play games. Secondly, any contradictions that you find in the Bible are not contradictions. If you knew what the focus of the matter was you would see the differences. God is just that, God. He is not a man so the laws hegae for man do not apply for him. I beleive in the Big as being the most possible explanation for our existence but if you take a closer look, the big bang could be linked to the Bible or any other holy book. In the genesis it says,The world was void and God said let there be light. That could be a big bang. Light, bursting out from vast nothingness. You may not beleive there is a God but I believe. It doesn't matter if you beleive in Him or not. He's still there. He is not going to disappear just because some people doon't believe in him. My sister-in-law was about to die and the doctors told her there was no way possible that she could live. We prayed over her and she had faith and awed the doctors because she was completely healthed the next day. Do you think she just magically got better? My life is a testimony of the power of my God. smileI have always been open to hear other's points of view and am glad I got to hear yours. You paper was well written and expressed your feeling in great detail. And another thing, I am thankful that I have my God to be there for me. I don't always hava a friend near when I need them or a helping hand when I feel low but God is always there to comgfort me and I thank him every day.
     
    hyperskate
    2002-11-06 08:00AM
    4 out of 5
    This was a very well written essay, and it pulls you into the emotion! I parry your thoughts though, because I think it takes more faith to believe there is no God than to know that there is one. It's been revealed to us in our hearts... we just supress it (romans 1:18-21+). Maybe I'll write a paper about this... very good job on the essay.
     
    emmy
    2002-11-09 08:00AM
    No Rating
    i am very soory that u feel this way but i totally disagree with your humanistic and worldly view of life.

    and btw, there is no such thing as a boulder which is too large 4 God 2 carry, therefore your argument is totally invalid.
     
    smirnofflenins
    2002-12-06 08:00AM
    4 out of 5
    well written. i agree with much of this, but i thought that atheism was a religion itself. isnt the name for having no belief in religion called agnosticity? i wasnt sure but verify that for me. thanks.
     
    atheist-GR
    2003-09-28 08:09AM
    5 out of 5
    it was very well written and i totally agree. i live in greece and i think that christianism has destroyed that country. being an atheist is not very simle here because religion is a part of our history . but fortunately the new generations have started realizing the truth.

    ---------------------
    cd_hakis
     
    atheist-GR
    2003-09-28 08:13AM
    No Rating
    it was very well written and i totally agree. i live in greece and i think that christianism has destroyed that country. being an atheist is not very simle here because religion is a part of our history . but fortunately the new generations have started realizing the truth.

    ---------------------
    cd_hakis
     
    atheist-GR
    2003-09-28 08:14AM
    No Rating
    it was very well written and i totally agree. i live in greece and i think that christianism has destroyed that country. being an atheist is not very simle here because religion is a part of our history . but fortunately the new generations have started realizing the truth.
     
    tequila_sunrise
    2006-01-03 05:24AM
    No Rating
    the remains of Noah's ark has been found already...around the 60's.
     
    PennieS
    2006-04-23 10:57AM
    No Rating
    umm? everything you said
    i can see how it makes sense to you
    but everything i mean everything
    all the 'facts' show that you are mis*informed
    i know SO many catholic atheists and i believe it is because they get Religion confused with Christianity
    I went to Catholic School and i think many of them look at Catholicism as their other GOD
    yes, you are right many religious rituals contradict the Bible
    does that mean to turn away from Christianity as a whole?
    It is real.
    You will just have to experience it for yourself and stop trying to justify your bitterness for the Catholic Church by disowning Christians as a whole.
     
    RyanPeakesGirl
    2006-05-14 12:49PM
    5 out of 5
    I found your essay amazing, and I can see your point, as I do live in a country that is very religious (greece) and I did grow up in a religious family. Yet now that I'm old enough I can see for myself the differences, and simply turn away from something I was brought up with.
     
    Svejk
    2006-07-03 12:47PM
    4 out of 5
    Wouldn't it be funny if, a couple of thousand years back, a couple of mates, got together over a pint and said "How about we write a book about some almighty person and flog it around the world" Because, when I read sections from the bible, for R.E. or the like, I cannot help myself from chuckling. Religious nutters crack me up as they are arguing over something so trivial.

    Quite a good essay though - Good quotes
    Got another one - Matthew ?:? "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Matthew later says - "If someone slaps your left cheek, turn and let them slap your right."
     
    Pac_man
    2007-01-15 06:37PM
    5 out of 5
    mate-- u do not have to worry. Because Religion is running out of the generation as education is increasing. So, just wait it out and soon people would be more kind to each other using educational values instead of "Religious" values, which is really more like "I-am-Different-From-You" Value.
     
    Athiestjc
    2007-02-24 10:21AM
    No Rating
    to answer smirnofflenins's question, athiesm isn't a religion, it's not beliving in any God or Gods. Being abnostic means either not being sure, or thinking that it can't possibly be proved.
     
    Athiestjc
    2007-02-24 10:22AM
    No Rating
    ...either way.
     
    Athiestjc
    2007-02-24 10:27AM
    No Rating
    oh and by the way, those people who are blind enough (when the evidence is right before thier eyes) not to have been convinced that religion is complete rubbish, read a book called the GOD DELUSION by Richard Dawkins (he's the guy who did the documentary THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL?).
     
    Unregistered
    2007-08-05 08:15PM
    2 out of 5
    I will approach you paper as a fellow scholar just as Doctorate and Master's candidates will see criticism.

    Many of your arguments have way too many holes and lack premise to support your conclusions and subconclusions. Remember that in a persuasive essay that you have to anticipate possible arguments against your claims and refute them before they are presented. Most people would find that the arguments with seemingly supportive archetypes are actually in fact false or misled. Let's take a look at the paper.

    Paragraph One - Good intro. Personal and straight to the point.

    Paragraph Two - The author concludes that the Old Testament was just stories. The author has not proved that they were JUST stories. In order to help the author's argument, he should try refuting these arguments to make your paper more persuasive: 1)Remember that there are only two types of humans (man and woman) but many races. Same situation with animals: The main types were on the ark. More species formed as they bred. 2) Marine animals didn't have to board the ark. 3) Baby dinosaurs boarded the ark, not full grown. 4)Carbon 14 dating has been PROVEN to be innaccurate. Most people assume carbon dating is accurate because our scientists are supposed to be objective. As we know this is not true. That is why Carbon dating scientists never post the innaccuracies of their results. Science has also proven that we live on a young earth that is thousands of years old; not billions of years old.

    Paragraph Three - Woah!!! The author takes two passages out of the Bible way out of context to fit his argument. In fact it was so blatantly done that the reader would question the author's authority as a researcher. To summarize the verse in Matthew 5:22, Jesus says that not only is murder bad, but having thoughts of murder is also subject to judgement. Therefore cursing someone "could" (not "will") subject you punishment. In Matthew 23:17 He is telling the Pharisees that it is the spirit of the law to follow God not the letter of the law. Jesus was accusing them of being actors not actual followers. Those two versus are not related!!! You took the literal phrase, "Say you fool" and found another passage with Jesus saying the word "Fool" to try to find a contradiction (Just as the Pharisees and Saduccees tried to trap Jesus by trying to find a contradiction - but couldn't). Jesus also said a few graphic things you should do to yourself if you commit adultury (Matthew 5:27-30), but if you read it you know he wasn't being literal. There is no contradiction here, but a misplacement of context by the author.

    Paragraph 4 - Very rhetorical paragraph. It does some convincing for the lay audience. Just remember to back it up with facts. How do you know that a god was created to 1) make up an explanation for life and 2)for law and order? How far back are you going back in time for the two above conclusions? According to the evolutionist viewpoint, we started out as cellular organisms. When did the high priests come in? Science has been unable to explain a large evolutionary gap in between monkeys and the sudden rise of cities and civilizations.

    Paragraph 5 - There are many things that science may never explain. Can science teach moral values?

    Paragraph 6 - The author says the first two theories were flawed because you didn't know where heaven and hell was. The author's reasoning is flawed because you can't say that a theory is flawed because he didn't know or do the research. Please tell us why it's flawed. This paragraph seems to be saying, "If you don't like what you hear, then you can turn to athiesm to avoid it." I'm not sure what this paragraph is trying to say. Of course we have a soul! Having a soul is to be "self aware", to feel emotion, to know the difference between wrong or right. If we didn't, we'd be pieces of organic flesh. You are right in the fact that we don't know what happens. Except what religions have taught, we don't have the experience to know what happens to the soul after death.

    Paragraph 7 - Let's put this into perspective. As children, our biological parents deserve respect, honor, and our service (At least I hope we think that). Imagine you are a parent who has a child who is disrespectful, vulgar, and contemptuous. You're not always going to be kind to the child but you still want the best for her/him. God is the same way on a larger scale. Yes, God is not always going to do that you'll agree with discipline-wise. We don't always do good. Does that mean we don't exist?

    Paragraph 8 - Irrelevant. God's gender or species is irrelevant to whether He exists. But if we must pursue it, Man and Woman is just a label. Man is in the image of God. If man is a "he" then most likely, God is too. Author states in the second sentence whether Eve created Adam instead of the other way around. The Bible never claimed that Adam created Eve. It was God who created Eve. Regardless, this argument is just as trivial as whether Adam had a belly button or not.

    Paragraph 9 - Another invalid assumption of religions. If there is one president of the United States there surely must be only one political party. We know that that is not true. The author should have stated that "if there is one God then there should be one truth". The author is correct in that there are many religions. There is only one truth so it is true that possibly one is right and the rest are almost right or wrong. With many religions sharing some of the same views, Athiesm is more likely to being wrong since it has nothing but itself to compare.

    Paragraph 10 - I agree that religion can create conflict. However, absolutes are impossible to prove since the author states that "Racism and sexism all spring from religion." That is like saying "All white people don't know how to rap." It in fact shows that the author is prejudice. Because he is grouping "ALL" religions. I would find it hard to prove that ALL Athiests have no history of racism or sexism among them. I am interested in the source of the author's information or is it just opinion stated as fact?

    Paragraph 11 - The boulder reasoning is based on earthly physics. There are many things that we don't understand about God's limits, if any. But to satisfy the author's logic, it has already been proven. Jesus could barely carry a cross on his shoulders let a lone a large boulder. Yet He is still almighty and can carry the universe on His shoulders. In fact, He is capable of being mortal, capable of being murdered, capable of being resurrected, and capable of forgiving.

    Conclusion: All in all I believe the paper would be a seemingly logical argument to the lay person. I would say that it would be persuasive to the person who has no knowledge of the arguments presented or has no desire to do any further reading. As a scholarly paper there are too many fallacies in reasoning with very little evidence to support it. Ironically, the author only uses religious examples to support atheism. No scientific proof has been given.


    My personal thoughts on the matter:

    Athiesm seems to exist on the premise of man's short sightedness; limited to what he is only able to touch and feel. Science is a means to provide explanations. Unfortunately, science is man's explanation. Doesn't the author state that the religion is an explanation of what cannot be explained? Doesn't science do the same thing? Does that make Athiesm a religion according to the author's reasoning? Just like the wind: we feel it, we hear it, but we don't see it. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps in the future, science will be advanced enough to where we can actually see God. smile
     
    Unregistered
    2007-08-06 03:22AM
    No Rating
    I will approach you paper as a fellow scholar just as Doctorate and Master's candidates will see criticism.

    Many of your arguments have way too many holes and lack premise to support your conclusions and subconclusions. Remember that in a persuasive essay that you have to anticipate possible arguments against your claims and refute them before they are presented. Most people would find that the arguments with seemingly supportive archetypes are actually in fact false or misled. Let's take a look at the paper.

    Paragraph One - Good intro. Personal and straight to the point.

    Paragraph Two - The author concludes that the Old Testament was just stories. The author has not proved that they were JUST stories. In order to help the author's argument, he should try refuting these arguments to make your paper more persuasive: 1)Remember that there are only two types of humans (man and woman) but many races. Same situation with animals: The main types were on the ark. More species formed as they bred. 2) Marine animals didn't have to board the ark. 3) Baby dinosaurs boarded the ark, not full grown. 4)Carbon 14 dating has been PROVEN to be innaccurate. Most people assume carbon dating is accurate because our scientists are supposed to be objective. As we know this is not true. That is why Carbon dating scientists never post the innaccuracies of their results. Science has also proven that we live on a young earth that is thousands of years old; not billions of years old.

    Paragraph Three - Woah!!! The author takes two passages out of the Bible way out of context to fit his argument. In fact it was so blatantly done that the reader would question the author's authority as a researcher. To summarize the verse in Matthew 5:22, Jesus says that not only is murder bad, but having thoughts of murder is also subject to judgement. Therefore cursing someone "could" (not "will") subject you punishment. In Matthew 23:17 He is telling the Pharisees that it is the spirit of the law to follow God not the letter of the law. Jesus was accusing them of being actors not actual followers. Those two versus are not related!!! The author took the literal phrase, "Say you fool" and found another passage with Jesus saying the word "Fool" to try to find a contradiction (Just as the Pharisees and Saduccees tried to trap Jesus by trying to find a contradiction - but couldn't). Jesus also said a few graphic things people should do to do to themselves if you commit adultury (Matthew 5:27-30), but if you read it you know he wasn't being literal. There is no contradiction here, but a misplacement of context by the author.

    Paragraph 4 - It does some convincing for the lay audience. Just remember to back it up with facts. How do we know that a god was created to 1) make up an explanation for life and 2)for law and order? How far back are we going back in time for the two above conclusions? According to the evolutionist viewpoint, we started out as cellular organisms. When did the high priests come in? Science has been unable to explain a large evolutionary gap in between monkeys and the sudden rise of cities and civilizations.

    Paragraph 5 - There are many things that science may never explain. Can science teach moral values?

    Paragraph 6 - The author says the first two theories were flawed because you didn't know where heaven and hell was. The author's reasoning is flawed because you can't say that a theory is flawed because he didn't know or do the research. Please tell us why it's flawed. This paragraph seems to be saying, "If you don't like what you hear, then you can turn to athiesm to avoid it." I'm not sure what this paragraph is trying to say. Of course we have a soul! Having a soul is to be "self aware", to feel emotion, to know the difference between wrong or right. If we didn't, we'd be pieces of organic flesh. You are right in the fact that we don't know what happens. Except what religions have taught, we don't have the experience to know what happens to the soul after death.

    Paragraph 7 - Let's put this into perspective. As children, our biological parents deserve respect, honor, and our service (At least I hope we think that). Imagine you are a parent who has a child who is disrespectful, vulgar, and contemptuous. You're not always going to be kind to the child but you still want the best for her/him. God is the same way on a larger scale. God is not always going to do that you'll agree with discipline-wise.

    Paragraph 8 - Irrelevant. God's gender or species is irrelevant to whether He exists. But if we must pursue it, Man and Woman is just a label. Man is in the image of God. If man is a "he" then most likely, God is too. Author states in the second sentence whether Eve created Adam instead of the other way around. The Bible never claimed that Adam created Eve. It was God who created Eve. Regardless, this argument is just as trivial as whether Adam had a belly button or not.

    Paragraph 9 - Another invalid assumption of religions. If there is one president of the United States there surely must be only one political party. We know that that is not true. The author should have stated that "if there is one God then there should be one truth". The author is correct in that there are many religions. There is only one truth so it is true that possibly one is right and the rest are almost right or wrong. With many religions sharing some of the same views, Athiesm is more likely to being wrong since it has nothing but itself to compare.

    Paragraph 10 - I agree that religion can create conflict. However, absolutes are impossible to prove since the author states that "Racism and sexism all spring from religion." That is like saying "All white people don't know how to rap." It in fact shows that the author is prejudice. Because he is grouping "ALL" religions. I would find it hard to prove that ALL Athiests have no history of racism or sexism among them. I am interested in the source of the author's information or is it just opinion stated as fact?

    Paragraph 11 - The boulder reasoning is based on earthly physics. There are many things that we don't understand about God's limits, if any. But to satisfy the author's logic, it has already been proven. Jesus could barely carry a cross on his shoulders let a lone a large boulder. Yet He is still almighty and can carry the universe on His shoulders. In fact, He is capable of being mortal, capable of being murdered, capable of being resurrected, and capable of forgiving.

    Conclusion: All in all I believe the paper would be a seemingly logical argument to the lay person. I would say that it would be persuasive to the person who has no knowledge of the arguments presented or has no desire to do any further reading. As a scholarly paper there are too many fallacies in reasoning with very little evidence to support it. Ironically, the author only uses religious examples to support atheism. No scientific proof has been given.


    My personal thoughts on the matter:

    Athiesm seems to exist on the premise of man's short sightedness; limited to what he is only able to touch and feel. Science is a means to provide explanations. Unfortunately, science is man's explanation. Doesn't the author state that the religion is an explanation of what cannot be explained? Doesn't science do the same thing? Does that make Athiesm a religion according to the author's reasoning? Just like the wind: we feel it, we hear it, but we don't see it. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps in the future, science will be advanced enough to where we can actually see God. smile
     
    trichaser
    2007-08-06 09:50AM
    2 out of 5
    I will approach you paper as a fellow scholar just as Doctorate and Master's candidates will see criticism.

    Many of your arguments have way too many holes and lack premise to support your conclusions and subconclusions. Remember that in a persuasive essay that you have to anticipate possible arguments against your claims and refute them before they are presented. Most people would find that the arguments with seemingly supportive archetypes are actually in fact false or misled. Let's take a look at the paper.

    Paragraph One - Good intro. Personal and straight to the point.

    Paragraph Two - The author concludes that the Old Testament was just stories. The author has not proved that they were JUST stories. In order to help the author's argument, he should try refuting these arguments to make your paper more persuasive: 1)Remember that there are only two types of humans (man and woman) but many races. Same situation with animals: The main types were on the ark. More species formed as they bred. 2) Marine animals didn't have to board the ark. 3) Baby dinosaurs boarded the ark, not full grown. 4)Carbon 14 dating has been PROVEN to be innaccurate. Most people assume carbon dating is accurate because our scientists are supposed to be objective. As we know this is not true. That is why Carbon dating scientists never post the innaccuracies of their results. Science has also proven that we live on a young earth that is thousands of years old; not billions of years old.

    Paragraph Three - Woah!!! The author takes two passages out of the Bible way out of context to fit his argument. In fact it was so blatantly done that the reader would question the author's authority as a researcher. To summarize the verse in Matthew 5:22, Jesus says that not only is murder bad, but having thoughts of murder is also subject to judgement. Therefore cursing someone "could" (not "will") subject you punishment. In Matthew 23:17 He is telling the Pharisees that it is the spirit of the law to follow God not the letter of the law. Jesus was accusing them of being actors not actual followers. Those two versus are not related!!! The author took the literal phrase, "Say you fool" and found another passage with Jesus saying the word "Fool" to try to find a contradiction (Just as the Pharisees and Saduccees tried to trap Jesus by trying to find a contradiction - but couldn't). Jesus also said a few graphic things people should do to do to themselves if you commit adultury (Matthew 5:27-30), but if you read it you know he wasn't being literal. There is no contradiction here, but a misplacement of context by the author.

    Paragraph 4 - It does some convincing for the lay audience. Just remember to back it up with facts. How do we know that a god was created to 1) make up an explanation for life and 2)for law and order? How far back are we going back in time for the two above conclusions? According to the evolutionist viewpoint, we started out as cellular organisms. When did the high priests come in? Science has been unable to explain a large evolutionary gap in between monkeys and the sudden rise of cities and civilizations.

    Paragraph 5 - There are many things that science may never explain. Can science teach moral values?

    Paragraph 6 - The author says the first two theories were flawed because you didn't know where heaven and hell was. The author's reasoning is flawed because you can't say that a theory is flawed because he didn't know or do the research. Please tell us why it's flawed. This paragraph seems to be saying, "If you don't like what you hear, then you can turn to athiesm to avoid it." I'm not sure what this paragraph is trying to say. Of course we have a soul! Having a soul is to be "self aware", to feel emotion, to know the difference between wrong or right. If we didn't, we'd be pieces of organic flesh. You are right in the fact that we don't know what happens. Except what religions have taught, we don't have the experience to know what happens to the soul after death.

    Paragraph 7 - Let's put this into perspective. As children, our biological parents deserve respect, honor, and our service (At least I hope we think that). Imagine you are a parent who has a child who is disrespectful, vulgar, and contemptuous. You're not always going to be kind to the child but you still want the best for her/him. God is the same way on a larger scale. God is not always going to do that you'll agree with discipline-wise.

    Paragraph 8 - Irrelevant. God's gender or species is irrelevant to whether He exists. But if we must pursue it, Man and Woman is just a label. Man is in the image of God. If man is a "he" then most likely, God is too. Author states in the second sentence whether Eve created Adam instead of the other way around. The Bible never claimed that Adam created Eve. It was God who created Eve. Regardless, this argument is just as trivial as whether Adam had a belly button or not.

    Paragraph 9 - Another invalid assumption of religions. If there is one president of the United States there surely must be only one political party. We know that that is not true. The author should have stated that "if there is one God then there should be one truth". The author is correct in that there are many religions. There is only one truth so it is true that possibly one is right and the rest are almost right or wrong. With many religions sharing some of the same views, Athiesm is more likely to being wrong since it has nothing but itself to compare.

    Paragraph 10 - I agree that religion can create conflict. However, absolutes are impossible to prove since the author states that "Racism and sexism all spring from religion." That is like saying "All white people don't know how to rap." It in fact shows that the author is prejudice. Because he is grouping "ALL" religions. I would find it hard to prove that ALL Athiests have no history of racism or sexism among them. I am interested in the source of the author's information or is it just opinion stated as fact?

    Paragraph 11 - The boulder reasoning is based on earthly physics. There are many things that we don't understand about God's limits, if any. But to satisfy the author's logic, it has already been proven. Jesus could barely carry a cross on his shoulders let a lone a large boulder. Yet He is still almighty and can carry the universe on His shoulders. In fact, He is capable of being mortal, capable of being murdered, capable of being resurrected, and capable of forgiving.

    Conclusion: All in all I believe the paper would be a seemingly logical argument to the lay person. I would say that it would be persuasive to the person who has no knowledge of the arguments presented or has no desire to do any further reading. As a scholarly paper there are too many fallacies in reasoning with very little evidence to support it. Ironically, the author only uses religious examples to support atheism. No scientific proof has been given.


    My personal thoughts on the matter:

    Athiesm seems to exist on the premise of man's short sightedness; limited to what he is only able to touch and feel. Science is a means to provide explanations. Unfortunately, science is man's explanation. Doesn't the author state that the religion is an explanation of what cannot be explained? Doesn't science do the same thing? Does that make Athiesm a religion according to the author's reasoning? Just like the wind: we feel it, we hear it, but we don't see it. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps in the future, science will be advanced enough to where we can actually see God. smile
     

    You must log in or signup to post comments

    FRIENDS
    Term Paper Masters
    Essay.org
    TheEssayStore
    MostPopular-term-Papers.com
    1MillionPapers
    FastPapers.com
    EssayWorld
    EssayWriters
    eCheat.com
    NetEssays
    ChuckIII.com
    CollegeTermPapers
    Reportfinders.com
    Term Paper Sites
    EssayFinder.com
    termpapers-on-file.com
    15000papers.com


    Tell a friend about this siteCLICK HERE
    Tell a friend
    about this site.