5 reasons atheism is irrational

[JimC]

Yes we know that ...but "There is a god, he is the christian god, the bible is true (even the bits that are not ) is not a null hypothesis is it ? Honestly do not apply terms like null hypothesis to a faith Null hypothesis is used as a way to statistically prove a theory ! Even without experimentation your theory is not tenable ...and has no evidence other than hearsay that wouldn't stand up in a court room never mind a scientific journal .

Now never use those words again eh or I will demand your raw data = nothing zip nada .

Yep, scientific method just can't really get hold of this subject. And yet, people talk as if science has disproved God. But you and I both know it can't test the God hypothesis - we can't frame it in an way that science can distinguish between "god" and "no god". Which is why even very good scientists have to fall back on rhetoric, polemic and bombast (having to rely on rejecting hypotheses instead of refuting them).

Oh well, life would be boring if everything could be tested I guess.

Surely you have not read the many posts here that clearly state that we are not about constructing scientific proofs of the non-existence of god? Here, you have attacked a staw man.

The existence of an all-powerful supernatural being is not a rational default position. It is an extraordinary claim, which demands extraordinary, repeatable and clear evidence if it were to be accepted. None of the "evidence" that you (or any other theist) has produced falls into this category. Ultimately, and I think that you know it from other posts you have made, your conviction of the existence of god derives from your deeply felt personal conviction. It may be bolstered (in your own mind, at least) by a series of ancient writings, but so are the convictions of muslims and hindus.

[Theophilus]

Congratulations. You just demonstrated that God is unproven and unprovable. SO, why should we believe in such?

Yes, but if you go over my posts that is my consistent stance - that God cannot be proved empirically but there is evidence that supports a presuppositional belief in God. I always maintain that belief in God requires faith (though I would also say that belief in God is reasonable and is an internally consistent world view).

So why should you believe? Well, if you go over my posts you'll notice I have never said you should believe. For me there are two reasons to believe: (1) you sincerely wish to search for God, or (2) God wishes to draw you to himself. People don't approach God through philosophy or science or debates (they are just for fun), but they approach God through prayer and stillness. But that's getting us completely off-topic (just in case we weren't anyway).

[Theophilus]

Ultimately, and I think that you know it from other posts you have made, your conviction of the existence of god derives from your deeply felt personal conviction.

I wouldn't argue with that.

[Tigger]

I find it really, really sad to the point of being depressing that someone can invest so much time, effort and apparent intelligence into a collection of nonsensical, conflicting, irrelevant, ancient, and unsubstantiated fairytales. What an utter waste of a life when someone spends much of it futilely anticipating an impossible alternative to their inevitable oblivion. What damage to their friends and relatives - particularly their children - have they done in this egocentric search to perpetuate themselves for all time? How dare they?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Congratulations. You just demonstrated that God is unproven and unprovable. SO, why should we believe in such?

Yes, but if you go over my posts that is my consistent stance - that God cannot be proved empirically but there is evidence that supports a presuppositional belief in God. I always maintain that belief in God requires faith (though I would also say that belief in God is reasonable and is an internally consistent world view).

So why should you believe? Well, if you go over my posts you'll notice I have never said you should believe. For me there are two reasons to believe: (1) you sincerely wish to search for God, or (2) God wishes to draw you to himself. People don't approach God through philosophy or science or debates (they are just for fun), but they approach God through prayer and stillness. But that's getting us completely off-topic (just in case we weren't anyway).

Theo, you really have to say that without evidence you only have "faith", and faith is just wishful thinking without support.

[Feck]

No science does not apply to god does it ? ........ why should we believe in him then ?

No, you and I agree it is a question outside of science. So why do so many people believe? Well I suspect you and I will have different answers. I think it is because God draws people to himself (but either not all people are drawn, or not all people respond, depending on whether one takes a Calvinist or Arminianist viewpoint and I vacillate between those extremes much to the chagrin of both my Calvinist and my Arminian friends. I think I'm more in a Calvinist phase at the moment).

So jesus really doesn't want me for a sunbeam ...funny the Mormons told me that too and lots of other cults .. What a good thing all these poor benighted atheists took pity on me .

[charlou]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative, not being able to do something doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

Theo, do you consider the obvious inability to disprove the existence of something for which there is no evidence, to be good reason to assume the existence of that something?

[Feck]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative, not being able to do something doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

Theo, do you consider the obvious inability to disprove the existence of something for which there is no evidence, to be good reason to assume the existence of that something?

Herds of unicorns being chased by vampires

[colubridae]

Congratulations. You just demonstrated that The pink unicorn is unproven and unprovable. SO, why should we believe in such?

Yes, but if you go over my posts that is my consistent stance - that The pink unicorn cannot be proved empirically but there is evidence that supports a presuppositional belief in The pink unicorn. I always maintain that belief in The pink unicorn requires faith (though I would also say that belief in The pink unicorn is reasonable and is an internally consistent world view).

So why should you believe? Well, if you go over my posts you'll notice I have never said you should believe. For me there are two reasons to believe: (1) you sincerely wish to search for The pink unicorn, or (2) The pink unicorn wishes to draw you to himself. People don't approach The pink unicorn through philosophy or science or debates (they are just for fun), but they approach The pink unicorn through prayer and stillness. But that's getting us completely off-topic (just in case we weren't anyway).

QED. no null hypo. No bullshit. the pink unicorn exists - all hail The pink unicorn.


(Emphasis by anyone not taken in by irrational garbage)

[charlou]

[youtubeuk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPONTneuaF4[/youtubeuk]

[charlou]

[youtubeuk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaCCkfjP ... re=related[/youtubeuk]

[Feck]

Ah typical lose the argument tell me god doesn't love me FAIL really if that was going to be your final stunning piece of logic why fucking bother

I don't understand and agree with your gobshite because god doesn't want me to .......Why didn't you just start that way if that is your real opinion or did you think the force of your arguments could save a wretched sinner ? You are the one groping about in the dark terrified of the pixies and the elves !

[charlou]

Ultimately, and I think that you know it from other posts you have made, your conviction of the existence of god derives from your deeply felt personal conviction.

I wouldn't argue with that.

Theo, the foundation of these kinds of self perpetuating beliefs boils down to superstition and gullibility, and how susceptible we humans are to that kind of thinking.

[FBM]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative, not being able to do something doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

You're the one stating that bullshit is true. It's up to you to prove it.

Nope. Still nuthin'.

[JimC]

Theo, the foundation of these kinds of self perpetuating beliefs boils down to superstition and gullibility, and how susceptible we humans are to that kind of thinking.

And we are at least partly susceptible, for reasons which are beginning to be teased out by studies in evolutionary psychology...

It is possible to develop the cognitive equivalent of an immune system against this particular mind virus. Perhaps, Theo, joining Rationalia may be the equivalent of the first jab in a series of vaccinations...