5 reasons atheism is irrational

[charlou]

Now I have a handle on the nature of reality, I think, barring some kind of brain malfunction, it's unlikely I would ever go back to delusional thinking.

[JimC]

Now I have a handle on the nature of reality, I think, barring some kind of brain malfunction, it's unlikely I would ever go back to delusional thinking.

Yeah, it's like when you have had chickenpox once, you don't get it again...

I had a brief flirtation with some guru style woo, but it didn't take...

[cursuswalker]

1) Human beings aspire to be happy. The logical consequence of athorism is despair and nihilism. If athorism is true, there is no reason to care about truth, or anything else, so even if Thor doesn't exist, it's more rational to believe and hope Thor exists, to live a happier life.

2) Lightning has a beginning. It is irrational to believe a universe can start to exist without a cause, for ex nihilo nihil fit. Only what we call "Thor" can be the cause for lightning, for the cause of lightnong has to be personal and immaterial. Therefore athorism is irrational.

3) You can only make sense of lightning if it behaves in a predictable way. If athorism is true, there is no rational reason to believe lightning will continue to behave in a predictable way. We cannot make sense of the world we live in if athorism is true. Therefore athorism is irrational.

4) There is no rational explanation for the Edda accounts, unless Thor really will defeat the Midgard Serpent at Ragnarok. Only Thor has the power to raise lightning. Therefore Thor exists, and athorism is irrational.

5) Athorists can't even prove their position, using evidence and logic. Therefore athorism is irrational.

As a fellow Athorist, can I assume you would DISagree with the above the distillers?

[JimC]

I am an azeusist, and all athorists are wussies!

[cursuswalker]

I am an azeusist, and all athorists are wussies!

Our evidence-based position kicks your evidence-based position's ass!

[Chinaski]

"I cannot prove that the earth is not flat.

I cannot prove it is flat."

Yes, you can, with science. Ride the space shuttle, for example.

Underdeterminism. Observed phenomena could possibly be explained by a multitude of conflicting theories. We see that the earth is round- maybe it is in fact round, or maybe it's flat and we're just suffering mass delusion. Or something. Or viewing from space warps our perception some how.

It doesn't mean we should doubt anything, but asking us to prove that god doesn't exist is moronic, because you can never, ever, prove anything 100%. Hume's problem of induction is clear enough.

[Rob]

I don't see the need to bring Hume into this. Being skeptical about induction really accomplishes nothing; for instance, what does the problem of induction do for us besides erase any 100% certainty? We can be sure about something to the point that to doubt it would be foolish. Anyhow, proof of any deity is a foolish thing to ask for. However proof of a Christian god for instance is not foolish. The scripture lays it out very clearly that the Christian god is a god who wants his presence to be known as such it should be evident as to his existence. This brings about the problem of non-belief.

As for proofing that god doesn't exist - well you can't prove a negative(disregarding math). I can't prove that there is no cheese monster lurking over my shoulder waiting to pounce.

[JimC]

Let's cut to the chase.

Deep down, we are all deeply scared by our impending mortality.

Most religions have one pragmatic psychological purpose, to assure us that night will not really fall.

It will, and there's an end, so we need to deal with it.

This is hard, but real.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"I cannot prove that the earth is not flat.

I cannot prove it is flat."

Yes, you can, with science. Ride the space shuttle, for example.

Underdeterminism. Observed phenomena could possibly be explained by a multitude of conflicting theories. We see that the earth is round- maybe it is in fact round, or maybe it's flat and we're just suffering mass delusion. Or something. Or viewing from space warps our perception some how.

Sorry, but the radar confirms it's round. The signature of the return is spherical.

[Feck]

Well how does it have 4 corners then ?and I think that's in the babble so it must be true .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well how does it have 4 corners then ?and I think that's in the babble so it must be true .

The Japanese got it right, they say the world has eight corners.

[colubridae]

No still wrong.
The scientific method can test for god as much as it can test for anything.
And it has. Every scientific experimnet ever undertaken demonstrates the non-existence of god.

Cool - that paper must surely be in Nature or Science?

So what is the design of the experiment to test whether everything depends on God? And how would you run your controls?

I think you misunderstood my statement. Every experiment, every paper.

If you like start with principia and work forward to the present day.

Even newton's gravity, now defunct, demonstrates the lack of evidence for god.

(Why do you harp on about controls and null hypotheses. Are you under the delusion that every experiment operates like a biology statistical survey?
That is not the case.)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think you misunderstood my statement. Every experiment, every paper.

He didn't misunderstand, he's duckin'-and-weavin'. It's a stall.

Theo, do you have any plans to be honest with us or are you going to continue being a playah?

[MrFungus420]

1) I believe that the scriptures can be used as evidence in the way any other old manuscripts can (which doesn't mean you automatically reject them or automatically say everything contained in them must be true). I don't use scriptures to validate themselves,

Since they are the only source for your claims, yes you are.

but I use them as commentaries on the events of the first half of the first century.

No you're not. You are trying to use them as evidence of the claims that they make. You are trying to use them as evidence of the existence of Jesus. You are trying to use them as evidence of the miracles presented in the Bible.

I don't put them forward as "proof" as I'm in the camp that believes that faith is necessary to make that final step to belief.

2) Miracles, if defined as any event that appears to violate known physical laws (which was the definition given to me) do exist, and I would suggests the big bang if accepted as the start of the universe is such an example

And you would be wrong.

We have no knowledge of what happened prior to the smallest fraction of a second after the Big Bang.

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

"Unknown" does not equal "miracle". "Unknown" does not equal "violation of physical laws".

[MrFungus420]

"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.

That is shifting the burden of proof.

You are claiming that a god exists. You are claiming that the Bible is accurate.

It is up to you to support those claims.

If you cannot support them, then there is no reason to accept them as valid.

That is the position that you are in.

YOU are making the claim. I (we) do not accept it because you have not supported it.