5 reasons atheism is irrational

[FBM]

EDIT: Did you spot it too?

Got it.

[FBM]

...Or Bacon into cheese.

Ewww! Sick!!

[Tigger]

...Or Bacon into cheese.

Ewww! Sick!!

Sorry. My bad:

[FBM]

...Or Bacon into cheese.

Ewww! Sick!!

Sorry. My bad:

At least you capitalized 'Bacon', so you appear to recognize it as divine. Go and sin no more, my son.

[Feck]

...Or Bacon into cheese.

Ewww! Sick!!

You can't trust anyone who chases other peoples pigs over cliffs anyway !

Why do Xians eat Bacon again ...oh I know the "holy word of god" got changed WTF

This Paulism makes no sense .

[FBM]

...Or Bacon into cheese.

Ewww! Sick!!

You can't trust anyone who chases other peoples pigs over cliffs anyway !

Why do Xians eat Bacon again ...oh I know the "holy word of god" got changed WTF

This Paulism makes no sense .

That just reminded me. One of my brothers died a long time ago (not a joke) and I'm supposed to marry his widow! Oh, shit! She's one seriously hideous wench with a personality to match. Fuggit, I'll take hell anyday.

[Theophilus]

Also, if science progresses far enough, and it shows every indication of so doing, all we need to do is to await the march of progress and your God will be driven asymptotically to non-existence. God is now so much smaller than “He” used to be because of the rationality of atheism, it only takes a small inductive step for even you to abandon your desperate clinging to a futile belief system.

I don't see it that way at all - that's like saying God is only God of the unexplained. That to me makes no sense, either he is creator of all (all that we understand and all that we don't understand) or he's not the creator God. Understanding the physical and temporal relationships that exist within creation does not preclude the creator - there is no necessary mutual exclusivity, and so it is a false dichotomy. No, I don't think the "God of the gaps" leads anyone (thesis or atheists) into any useful philosophical territory.

[Theophilus]

You mean like the graves in Jerusalem opening and the dad walking amongst the living at the time Christ died? You think we'll come up with a mundane explanation for that?

Ah, well that one I am inclined to consider a prophetic and eschatological passage, rather than literal (it is pointing towards the end days), though I don't totally rule out the literal possibility.

The whole point of Christianity is that you believe in the miracle of the Resurrection. If it turns out it was something mundane, like say he took a substance to make his heart slow down so much it gave the appearance of death, then it is no longer a miracle, it is but a trick, Jesus is a con-man and the whole of Christianity is in ruins.

Agreed - if the resurrection (not resuscitation) was a trick then Christianity looses its foundation. I don't believe the apostles would have given their lives if Christ was not resurrected, which is of course consistent with scripture. But I am not suggesting it was a trick, only that perhaps there are things we do not yet understand?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You've left a lot of questions hanging here.

[MrFungus420]

I think I can sum this up.

God just is, and he is what I say he is because I say he is that way.

Have I got that right?

I think you've got it!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think I can sum this up.

God just is, and he is what I say he is because I say he is that way.

Have I got that right?

I think you've got it!

Praise God, we have a break-through!

[MrFungus420]

Uhm. The Bible can't be used as its own evidence.

Well, I simply used the manuscripts in the Bible as evidence for a person called Jesus who did miraculous, so I think you may be getting a little ahead of where we are at just at the moment.

Actually, you are ahead of the matter. First prove Jesus existed by independent sources, several of them, and then we can talk about what it says in the Bible.

Well, we may be at stale-mate because I see no reason for rejecting all of the different Christian scriptures which were indeed largely independent until they were canonised together at a later date (the Bible of course was not produced as a single book).

Which is part of the problem.

It was composed out of HUNDREDS of books and gospels, many (if not most) of which were not included.

There are many different sources in the new testament and there are other historical writings of Christians of the time (such as the letters of Ignatious of Antioch,

Anything from him would be, of necessity, hearsay.

He was born after Jesus died (about 50 CE according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia).

and the didache).

Apparently even later than Ignatious. Concensus seems to place it around 100 CE.

I see no logical reason for saying they cannot be used as evidence;

You don't think the fact that they were apparently written decades after the fact calls into doubt their veracity?

that seems like saying "I won't accept any evidence that has been used before".

More like, "I don't accept them since it can't be ascertained that they are not based entirely on earlier writings."

[MrFungus420]

A miracle is a supernatural event that violates the known physical laws of the universe.

O.K. just a couple of thoughts on this to kick us off.....

1) I think the adverb "known" is important. If we keep that adverb there (and as I say I'm happy to go by any definition you wish to pick) then miracles definitely exist. One key example I would pick is the creation of the universe, which would appear on face value to violate what we know about thermodynamics.

Strike one.

No. It doesn't. It appears to violate a very simplistic (to the point of non-existent) understanding of thermodynamics.

There are no known physical laws of the universe that describe ex nihilo creation (assuming we accept the scientific "big bang" hypothesis).

Strike two.

The Big Bang theory goes back to within the smallest fraction of a second after the Big Bang. There are numerous hypotheses about what may have been "before" the BB, virtually none of them are ex nihilo.

We can't say in what circumstances ex nihilo creation occurs, we can't say how it occurs and we can't predict when it will next occur or even if it will occur again. According to our current set of laws "something out of nothing" should not happen.

Again, that is not being said (except by those trying to argue against science).

Unknown--->Big Bang--->Expansion--->Current Universe

"Unknown" is not the same as "out of nothing".

Our knowledge of physical laws simply does not extend to how creation began, or what caused the big bang if you prefer.

Fixed...

Some things happen which we just don't understand and appear to violate our existing laws, though that simply drives scientists to explore what is missing in our current laws which could explain these unexplained events.

And a good thing, too. That is how we discover and learn things. Not by just throwing up our hands and saying, "God did it".

If they are miracles (and one may call ex nihilo creation a miracle I think) then miracles exist and I have hopefully given you an acceptable example.

Not even close.

Maybe though what appears miraculous today will later be explained.

Fine, start with people rising from the dead and walking around (and, possibly an even bigger "miracle": how that occurred and nobody outside the writer of that story in the Bible even appeared to have thought it worth mentioning).

Then you can try to explain how the Earth could stop rotating (so that the Sun would appear to be stationary in the sky).

2) The verb "violates" is also important. If one were to say that a miracle is something that must violate natural/physical laws (now assuming we have a complete set of natural/physical laws) then I think this could be a short discussion, as I will agree with you and say "I don't think they happen". If God is creator of the universe, then that includes creator of how the universe works and I can't see it as an acceptable position to say that God would violate his own natural/physical laws of the universe. For me anything that appears as a miracle must essentially work in harmony with creation and not against it. We may not understand "how" (e.g. how Christ was resurrected) but I would not want to say Christ was resurrected and it violated the physical laws of the universe.

Strike three.

Coming back to life without any medical intervention (while lying undisturbed in a cave-tomb) is contrary to physical laws.

[MrFungus420]

No specific replies to my post on miracles yet either I notice, apart from a couple saying can I demonstrate a miracle which kinda shows they didn't actually read my post, as I did name a specific one that I believe meets Gawdzilla's definition of a miracle.

How can we answer specifically to something so vague?

Maybe though what appears miraculous today will later be explained.

You mean like the graves in Jerusalem opening and the dad walking amongst the living at the time Christ died? You think we'll come up with a mundane explanation for that?
You do realise that there is a serious flaw here? The whole point of Christianity is that you believe in the miracle of the Resurrection. If it turns out it was something mundane, like say he took a substance to make his heart slow down so much it gave the appearance of death, then it is no longer a miracle, it is but a trick, Jesus is a con-man and the whole of Christianity is in ruins.

EDIT: Did you spot it too?

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Why was dad walking around?

[FBM]

You guys are having all the fun. Now he's going to ignore my questions.