(Already posted, but it glitched.  If I double post, sorry.)

He's telling you this is going to be a hard A to get.  I think he's telling you that he's a theist, too.  You're going to have to write your paper better than the rest of the class to get the same grade.

I think you're exactly right.  However, you should consider the extra work this is going to be, and the possibility that you're going to make a lower grade than if you take something less controversial.

Are you really familiar with all the arguments you're going to make?  You have to close as many doors as possible by addressing common counter-arguments.  Are you capable of writing a technically perfect, or near-perfect paper?  It's likely you'll be counted off harshly and not given any benefit of the doubt.

Oh no.. you don't want to beating up on poor religion.   WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?

Maybe you could narrow it down a bit tho.  Find something very specific to critique, because there are obviously tomes on this topic. 

I actually agree with your teacher that just beating up on religion is no way to make your very good point. Your point, as I see it, is that atheism is better than theism because atheism represents an accurate view of the universe. To back this up, of course, you will have to show why there is no justification for belief in a god or gods. This is simple: there is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods. You will then need to discuss why the following things do not constitute evidence:

- faith-based claims (faith is not a valid way to form beliefs)

- the existence of religion itself, including documents like the Bible (there's no reason why these things cannot be man made)

- the existence of unexplained things such as life or the universe (not knowing does not mean goddidit)

- people's wishes and feelings (people can imagine and hallucinate all kinds of false and fantastic things)

- the existence of a basic human moral intuition (we have a shared ancestry as social animals so it makes sense that we share certain attitudes about appropriate behaviour in society)

- miracles and other supernatural phenomena (no reliable evidence for these has ever been presented and "supernatural" is an incoherent concept)

That should be more than enough to fill up whatever word count you need.

There's a few big problems with this topic:

1. In order to successfully argue your stance you're going to have to disprove religion or at least make one hell of a good case. Unless this is an upper-division college level paper that spans over 20 pages I would suggest choosing a different subject because a shorter paper just won't be long enough to sufficiently argue your case.

2. Your paper sounds like its going to be very biased. While its impossible to avoid bias in an argumentative paper you should always try to reduce your bias as much as possible. Otherwise your argument will not only be relatively weak but will also be a case of preaching to the choir. In other words (and this is partly what your instructor was pointing out) the only people who will read through your argument with any modicum of seriousness are those who share your same views. A good argumentative paper is aimed at a critical audience, especially one that holds a view opposite to the one being argued for. The entire purpose of an argumentative paper is to persuade and if you turn off your audience then you pretty much failed to do that. If you really want to do this topic then you'll need to throw in arguments for theism and then explain why these arguments aren't adequate to oppose the ones you're making (be careful to avoid the strawman fallacy). This is what your instructor was saying in his last response to you.

3. He was also implying that a better approach to your paper would be to take a defensive rather than offensive tone. It's easier to champion atheism with positive points than to argue that atheism is the better choice because all the other options suck. The reason is that by going on the offensive its not only easier to commit fallacies and inject large amounts of bias into your paper but its also a lot easier to turn off your audience (which is going to get you a bad grade). By taking a more non-confrontational approach you still get to argue that atheism is a better choice than theism but at the same time you avoid pissing off your readers.

4. Your paper gets off topic. Your thesis is that "atheism is more logical than theism" yet you start attacking Christianity later on. Going after Christianity doesn't lend credence to your larger, more general argument that theism is illogical. While you can use Christianity as an example of theism's inherent problems you'll also have to use other religions as an example as well (not only to avoid bias but most importantly to show that the problems you're pointing out are widespread in theism and not just limited to one or two religions). If you do decide to go this route you'll need to ensure that you don't pick similar religions. So don't, for example, use Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as your examples, but rather, say, Christianity, Hinduism, Norse mythology, and Scientology (I picked these since they cover different forms of theism. Christianity is a large western religion, Hinduism is a large eastern religion, Norse mythology is a defunct religion, and Scientology is an example of a cult). If you don't want to go through all this trouble then I'd suggest chopping out your Christian arguments and instead focusing on theism in general.

Those are just the major issues that I saw. There's some other issues I'm seeing as well but since your outline doesn't look like its complete I'll hold my breath. Point being, I don't think your instructor is being unfair, biased, or otherwise implying that he doesn't like your topic because it promotes atheism. He's just warning you that, as it stands now, your topic and approach need serious refining if you want a good grade. Personally I always avoided topics like religion in my writing courses since they were just too large and complex to argue for the assignments I was given. If the assignment you're writing for requires a lengthy paper then I'd say go ahead since you can easily get 25+ pages out of this topic. However, if all you need to write is something less than 10 pages I'd choose another topic.

Thank you all for your input. You are right to those who stated that being overly bias in a paper, especially direct attacks, will only hinder my point. Therefore I will try and stay on the topic of atheism and use much more diverse religions as examples then Christianity. It was my point to get into the broader scope of theism and not into any one particular belief system. My outline dictates otherwise but I will revise it and make it work.

This is supposed to be a 12 page paper in APA format (So it'll be winding down to 9 for actual meaningful content) although it can be as long as it needs to be.

Yes, your outline up there was quite broad, narrowing it down seems like a good idea. If I were you, I'd go after the very idea of faith, and show it to be irrational. Then you wouldn't have to go into specific religions, but you will still offend people who are brought up thinking faith is a virtue

If your paper was about Christianity your outline would fit. But |"theism" refers to any belief in a deity.

I wouldn't single out Christianity in your paper. You could draw on it but draw from other religions as well. Try to keep your arguments generic since the title of your paper is about "theism" and not "Christianity".

I would focus on things like where science starts vs where religion starts when it comes to answering a question? Science is based on prior data. Deity belief is rooted in ancient myth written by unscientific people.

FOR EXAMPLE

"How is the sex of a baby determined?

Scientific method has laid the groundwork for the discovery of DNA and chromosomes|(sp). We know that XY chromosomes  determine the sex of the baby.

The solution the theist gives is "god did it" which semantically is not an explination, but a claim. 

"Allah did it, Yahwey did it, Vishnu did it" are all offered as explinations to how things happen, but are not evidence, merely claims. There is no emperical way to falsify such claims. What the theist has failed to demonstrate in that claim is the PROCESS of how it happened, and "who" they claim "did it" does not offer up an observable process.

(then you could go into why such claims should not default to automatically being true(Bentrand Russell's "TEAPOT ORBITING JUPITER&quot 

Definitely bring up the problems with the omni- attributes like:

"All powerful" can an omnipotent god give up its power forever? Can an omnipotent god murder innocent people? If he can, he cannot be called all loving. If he cant he cannot be called all powerful. From a semantic standpoint.

This lowercase "god" approach allows you to speak to claims of many religions without singling out one.

You could give examples like. If one rightfully rejects Thor making lighting, and can rightfully put it in the same boat as claims of Tarot cards or Big Foot and one can see the absurdity of flying around on a broom. Then one should see the absurdity of plants "poof" suddenly existing without photosynthesis.

STRICTLY SPEAKING, this is only advice. I cant tell you what to write or how to write it, just giving you some ideas.

I think the teacher is just as concerned with you following your outline as they are the substance.

A paper is simple to write, HARD TO GET STARTED, but simple to write.

1. Say what you are going to say

2. Say it.

3. Say what you said.

Follow your outline

I don't feel like being drawn into a debate, sorry.

Better. I'd suggest moving points 2 and 3 from your intro though into your "arguments for theism" section. Reason being that by dealing with morality you've started into part of your argument already in your intro which is something you don't want to do. Those two points fit much better in your second section as arguments for theism that you can then argue against (since religion as a necessary moral guide for society tends to be a common argument from theists). In their place in the intro put theistic views on the matter. This should also give you a smoother transition into your first argument.

Also be careful with your holy word topic. Not all religions/religious stances have a holy book. You can probably still use the point but just make sure to point out that your argument is only a counter to those religions who claim to have extra evidence in the form of holy scripture.

Finally I'd probably leave the "majority of scientists are atheist" argument out of your paper if I were you since the logic is a bit fallacious. You're pretty much saying "person X has stance Y therefore stance Y is the correct one". Though I suppose as long as you propose that the reason scientists are largely atheist is because of highly developed critical thinking skills as a result of their profession as opposed to intellectual factors then it would be a valid argument for your paper.

Oh, and just to help out with your debunking of the religious experience here's an article you may find helpful: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neurotheology/index.html

The relevant part of the article is that any kind of rhythmic/repetitive action combined with a belief that it actually does something will elicit a religious experience. So the Muslim form of praying (don't know what to call it but its where they go through various motions/positions several times during prayer), the Jews' habit of rocking back and forth while praying, chants...the intense feelings associated with those actions can be scientifically explained.

Anyway, the outline looks good. As long as you flesh it out with a healthy amount of cited facts and strong arguments you should be fine.

May I submit, for your perusal and consideration, the following proposals from a theistic perspective:

       With respect to point 2(a), although thinking theists would never attempt to advance a proposition that immorality is a corollary of atheism, I think individuals who hold to an atheistic world-view are vulnerable on at least two points:

1. Epistemic

2. Metaphysical

The epistemic point admits of two taxonomies:

1. Knowledge in general

2. Knowledge of values both epistemic and non-epistemic

With respect to epistemic point one, the criticism arises as a result of the atheistic espousal of a naturalized epistemology, more specifically the view that knowledge can only be obtained through, and is exhausted by, the methods of the hard sciences, to wit: physics and chemistry. Thus according to this view all knowledge entails physical facts. Although Epistemology has been, for all practical purposes - note the qualifier - the exclusive domain of Philosophy, this view has given rise to - despite the fact that it is no longer the predominate view in Philosophy - the fact/value dichotomy.

As a conspicuous entailment of epistemic point one, epistemic point two clearly follows. This particular view is wholly the logical outworking of a naturalized epistemology whereas values, both ethical and of course even epistemic for example, cannot be statements of fact, or in the limpid language of David Hume matters of fact, chiefly because they cannot be explained in physical language. Moreover, because knowledge of values cannot be obtained through a process of induction whereby information is gleaned through discreet and iterative experimentation, values then are reduced, on the naturalist view, to mere subjective and quite aptly, idealistic contrivances.

The difficulties resulting therefrom are indeed insuperable. Take for example the logical positivist positing coherence as a necessary condition underscoring the predictive value of a given theory. Yet the condition of coherence, as noted by the eminent Philosopher Hilary Putnam in his book "The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays" is an epistemic value judgment. Moreover, the Platonic Virtues, Eudemonia, or other values as most notably expressed in the classic formulation: the good, the true and the beautiful, have been, in point of fact, proposed as a criterion in science under certain circumstances yet they suffer, on the naturalist view, from the same defect, to wit: they cannot be described in physical language and accordingly cannot be statements of fact.

Additionally, as it pertains to knowledge of ethics, the atheistic vulnerability arises again as wholly the result of a naturalized epistemology extrapolated existentially. Here the criticism, as I noted previously, should not be that immorality is a corollary of atheism, but that because value judgments are not matters of fact, good as well as evil can in fact be logically supported within the atheist world-view. Praise or condemnation of a given act is entirely subjective. Thus adherence to an atheistic world-view can lead to the logical outworking of either a Mother Theresa or a Pol Pot because in the final analysis values are not factual.

With respect to metaphysical point two the vulnerabilities here are in fact legion, yet for the purposes of brevity allow me to quote one of the most prolific defenders of atheism in the twentieth century, the great Philosopher Albert J Mackey, in his book "The Miracle of Theism," wherein he quite astutely advanced the following proposition, "Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful god to create them." Mackey's point is that in God's most conspicuous absence, the atheist would be hard pressed to submit to anything other than "felicitous congeries about nature" (Buckley, W.F., Jr.), and as physical facts cannot adequately explain metaphysical postulates, this entails that metaphysical postulates themselves cannot admit of cognitive meaning.

With respect to point B(1), perspective is somewhat ambiguous, your assertion contained within point B(2) is arguable at best, your point B(3) should be couched within the context of the first law of propositional logic. Point C(3) is of particular interest. You have mis-stated the general principle of causality, that is all things that begin to exist must have a cause. That cause can either be necessary as a result of its nature or contingent and thus dependent on an external cause. Framing the point as you have renders you vulnerable to the infinite regress criticism. It appears as though you are also raising the fedes' et ratio argument. Be very careful insofar as this is generally viewed by philosophers, even those who hold to a naturalist position, as an exceedingly superficial distinction.

          I wish you well in your endeavor sir........

         Augustine

Dear sir, thank you for taking the time to offer a most thoughtful series of comments. Although it was not my intention to inaugurate a debate, I think it is incumbent upon me to sketch a somewhat concise response. At the outset your introductory comments are of interest to me. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that according to my view values are physical entities. I am led to this position chiefly because you allude to venue, that is values being somewhere in addition to values occupying space. I do not think I ever suggested that values are physical entities. I do not think values have for example the necessary physical properties of hardness and/or solidity, or extension so as to enable them to occupy space (see Kantian Metaphysics), nor do I think they have accidental properties such as color. My point was chiefly epistemic, or because of the fact that values are non-physical entities, that is they do not admit of an explanation that falls within the ambit of physics or chemistry, according to the naturalist view they cannot be known.

What I also find interesting is that it appears as though your attempted resolution of the matter in effect affirms my point. By way of further explanation, within the context of your rejoinder you have indicated that values "exist as thoughts in human brains." Now thoughts are a certain mental content. They are the direct result of episodes of thinkings and as such only exist when your having them. Now despite the fact that I am not my brain and central nervous system, the fact that I am a substance or substantial self, I know my mental states through a process of first person introspection. Distinguishing thoughts from beliefs which a person holds whether or not they are the subject of an immediate mental state, I would grant that you are partially correct, values are non-physical entities. This of course has no bearing upon my comments which were chiefly epistemic in character. Yet because you have indicated that values are implicitly non-physical, the subject vulnerability continues to obtain.

With respect to your comments:

"Not true. It can be observed that things which lack logical coherence do not exist and statements which lack logical coherence are never true. Logic can be validated naturalistically."

My point to which your foregoing comments pertain illustrates the gratuitous presuppositions of the naturalist. The questions resulting therefrom is:

How does one simply presume that with which his world-view does not provide adequate grounds for knowing? In other words, how does one know that which is unknowable? Nevertheless, regarding your response I do grasp your point at all. Why would you draw into the discourse statements of modal necessity such as existence as used when the manifest gravamen of the complaint is chiefly epistemological?

Regarding you comment:

"Is it your position that theistic values cannot be "logically outworked"?"

I would never entertain such a view. The logical outworking of theism in general, and Christian theism in particular is embodied in the life of Christ.

Regarding your comments:

"Down through history, how many evil positions have been defended using the Bible?"

Granted most emphatically, yet this represents the illogical outworking of a theistic or more specifically Christian World-view. Nevertheless, the great Augustinian maxim continues to obtain, that is, "one should never judge a philosophy by its abuse." With atheism though, because values do not inform insofar as they cannot be known through the methods of the hard sciences and accordingly are non-factual, as I alluded in my initial commentary either a Mother Theresa or a Pol Pot can in fact result from its logical outworking........

Regarding your final comment:

I don't think so..... Mackey here is exceedingly intellectually honest. The proposition he clearly enough advances is that physical properties do not entail moral properties. To attempt to reduce moral properties to physical facts is tantamount to trying to get something from nothing. Your position here is untenable.

One last comment that I find ultimately shocking, to wit: "I see very little in our moral code that is very different from that of our primate ancestors." Are you seriously suggesting that primates are moral agents? That they have the capacity to apprehend moral postulates and are concerned with moral matters, attitudes and behaviors. Please,in all seriousness please clarify this point.........

Thank you so much..............

Augustine

That was excellent, Corporeal. This had been yet another thread featuring the obligatory theist trying to toe the party line in new and interesting ways and completely, utterly failing to so much as pique my interest, but you just improved the whole thing! NOW I'm gonna have to go read the whole thing and laugh at Agustine (what, you don't believe in gusts? a-gustine - can we expect an a-gustine creed, inciting all good xians to refrain from fanning motions in favor of hurricane winds or no wind at all?).

Either that, or I'll give Corp the much deserved attention he has very rightfully earned in his future posts and get on with ignoring agustine as a windy wanna-be. Cheers!

To my friend Mazid the Raider

I think you have hit the nail on the proverbial head. I would under any circumstance aspire to be counted amongst the intellectual giants such as Aurelius Agustine or even yourself. Alas, I am left with myself. If you would excuse me, I concede the point that I am not terribly bright, as is quite evident. Although I suspect that I should feel privileged that you would condescend to take an interest in my comments, if only for your own amusement. I can only hope that someday I would again find myself worthy of your attention. Humbly Augustine

Dear humble anxiously awaiting Augustine,

Though I am not the individual you were discussing the aforementioned subject of morality and social behaviour within our primate ancestors I do wish to contribute to said conversation in the form of links to sites of the WWW (World Wide Web.)

http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/

Said link leads to a site of the webs which is dedicated to and upheld by the Jane Goodall Institute. I take it for granted that a person of your higher education and upbringing is well aware of Dame Jane Goodall's work with chimpanzees.

I will of course let you be the judge of her work, for any further words from me is not necessary, of course of you don't find Jane's work appropriate enough there are the next few pages which also depict animal social behaviour and etiquette (Author's note: some of these articles are also about the social behaviour of OTHER animals, which just goes to show you how such manners and behaviour aren't exclusive to homo sapiens)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_animals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlGZthogIdY trailer for Wolfman: Leader of the Pack - A must watch documentary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals - Altruism in animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology - A wide subject but I'm sure there are good examples in this article.

If you hear a loud clap, that will be the sound of your teachers mind shutting.

Seriously, I hope you win a few de-converts out of this.  I would have done the same thing in my little town of Texas.. but I always had the fear of becomming an Atheist's version of Mathew Shepard.  I think many people just need the fact persented to them, I don't know how many people I have met in my life and thought to myself "It's like they are afraid of thinking" any subject no deeper than base ball or American Idol and they become very sheepish about speaking.

*sighs*

Why do you people keep letting theists post in the no-theist section of the forums?  He's posted too much by now to not completely screw up the thread. 

Just remind them that they are not allowed to post in here and to please move the discussion to the General Convo section.

Unless any other mods can see a reason why I should not do so, I'm going to delete/erase anything said by a theist in this thread from now on.

 "Atheism is a more rational choice than theism" (since "astronomy" is a more rational choice than "astrology", "chemistry" is a more rational choice than "alchemy", etc.) is actually a pretty easy essay to write. You don't even need to reference religion. Honestly, why would you have to reference anything imaginary? Make sure to check Santa and the Tooth Fairy off, too, then. Maybe leprechans, Apollo and Amon Ra. I'm sure Poseidon would be upset if you left him out of it. And Zeus.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that the specifics of religion aren't really that important to the argument. The names of the gods are incidental to their existence. Not believing in supernatural all-powerful somethings is rational, and believing that they're there isn't.

Well since you insist on debating him I can't in good conscience stop him from replying.  Agustine, feel free to respond.

What your teacher oh so wonderfully forgets:

You can't "champion" A that is a lack of B without addressing the cons of B. Someone needs to brush up on their Logic.

Oh, he's obviously a theist. Or just easily peeved by strong opinions. He may be trying to help, but I say go for it! Tough essays make you a better writer.

Narrow it down, though. Focus your thesis. Too many subtheses will become too much information. Don't worry about your teacher's opinion or feelings...argue away! GOD BLESS AMERICA

My thread, tis derailed!

Nah it's been interesting.

Anyways, I was wondering about some things of which I mentioned in my paper.  Here is an excerpt from one paragraph-"However, because logic can't be proven by logic as argued by some apologetics, the various other problems with believing will be brought up."

As well I have another statement that I'm not sure about. "Some would also remark on the notable odds it would take for life to come into existence as an argument for theism. However, they can't equate to how much time could have passed before this existence came to be."

By the way, my teacher and I had a nice discussion about the topic when I went into school last. It was refreshing and enlightening to know that he knows where I'm coming from, despite him being a theist. His response made it sound like he didn't care for atheism or didn't know much on the topic but I was surprised. He doesn't think ill of me at all and actually says he doesn't like the fundies that would try to control everything in government.