Atheism is irrational.

[robvalue]

Yeah, that's a good use of my time. Seek out other people's imaginary characters just in case they're real. Where shall I look next? Oh, I can't go very far, some fucker glued me to this rock and surrounded me with a toxic vacuum.

[Minimalist]

Atheism doesn't "deny god".

Oh, I do.  Mainly because these morons can't provide any evidence for their silly beliefs.  Produce evidence and I will evaluate it.  Continue with you mental masturbation and I will continue to regard you as just another lunatic.

[Primordial Bisque]

Yeah, that's a good use of my time. Seek out other people's imaginary characters just in case they're real. Where shall I look next? Oh, I can't go very far, some fucker glued me to this rock and surrounded me with a toxic vacuum.

That's because the universe is fine tuned....yeah, that's the ticket. It's right up there with 'the dog ate my homework.'

[Edwardo Piet]

"Atheism is irrational."

No it isn't.

* Edwardo Piet wins via the Hitchens' Razor.

[robvalue]

Yeah, that's a good use of my time. Seek out other people's imaginary characters just in case they're real. Where shall I look next? Oh, I can't go very far, some fucker glued me to this rock and surrounded me with a toxic vacuum.

That's because the universe is fine tuned....yeah, that's the ticket. It's right up there with 'the dog ate my homework.'

Lol yeah, fine tuned. Perfectly tweaked so it's not quite a total disaster, and we eke out an existence in a tiny pocket in the middle of nowhere.

[theologian]

Whatever is rational utilizes either the senses, the intellect or both.

Atheism cannot deny God by using senses. For, to deny something by the use of senses is to search the whole physical reality, just as ruling out that there's no alien is to search all that is searchable which is impossible for us humans. But God, by demonstration of His effects, shows that He is beyond physical reality. Hence, it is the more that God can't be denied by the senses.

Atheism cannot deny God by the intellect. For, whatever we can deny by the use of our intellect, must be defined, just as we deny circle things as square, for the definition of circle is different from the definition of square. But, God can't be define, because if He has definition, He can't be God, because by demonstration of His existence through His effects, He is necessarily Boundless. Hence, God can't be denied by the intellect.

Therefore, if to be rational is able to use senses and our intellect, and that God can't be denied both by the senses and intellect, then atheism is necessarily irrational.

Except, most atheists don't "deny" god(s), they simply lack both faith and evidence. The former lies inside them, but the paucity of evidence lies squarely on the shoulders of believers, of whatever stripe.

That's right. That's why I agree that before sharing the faith, theist must be able to demonstrate God's existence via human reason. And indeed theist can by using St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 ways. Hence, by way demonstration of by examining atheism per se, it follows that atheism is irrational.

You're categorising us all as strong atheists. By default, an atheist is simply unconvinced that gods exist yet.

Why does it bother you anyway? It sounds like you feel atheists need to justify their position. Maybe you could tell me why I should care about this God character.

Just as atheism looks for reasonable account from theist for God's existence which is fair, for to reason is to be human, it is also fair to ask that kind of account from atheists, right?

Atheism doesn't "deny god". It is a specialised subset of scepticism and critical thinking; the position of not automatically accepting theistic claims. Why do so many theists have trouble with such a simple concept?

Is theism not under critical thinking too? If atheists don't deny God, what does atheist does?

Whatever is rational utilizes either the senses, the intellect or both.

Atheism cannot deny God by using senses. For, to deny something by the use of senses is to search the whole physical reality, just as ruling out that there's no alien is to search all that is searchable which is impossible for us humans. But God, by demonstration of His effects, shows that He is beyond physical reality. Hence, it is the more that God can't be denied by the senses.

Agreed.

But, God can't be define, because if He has definition, He can't be God, because by demonstration of His existence through His effects, He is necessarily Boundless.

P1. God cannot be defined.
P2. If he could, he wouldn't be God.

C1. God is necessarily boundless.

P3. God can be defined as being boundless.

C2. God cannot be God

But, P3 and P1 are contradictions. Therefore, if P1 is true, then P3 cannot be true. Further, C1 is not a definition, for every definition has a genus and specific difference.

I don't need to deny your god, Theologian.  I merely have to look around, see no particularly convincing evidence, and then carry on with life as usual.  Even if your god does exist, it is currently irrelevant and not worth worrying about.

We don't stop at seeing. We continue by looking for the cause of things. Why is there something, instead of nothing? And, if it is true that we all want to be happy and that is really the case, and if to be happy is to possess the good, and if God is Goodness Himself, then it follows that God is so relevant for us.

Whatever is rational utilizes either the senses, the intellect or both.

Atheism cannot deny God by using senses. For, to deny something by the use of senses is to search the whole physical reality, just as ruling out that there's no alien is to search all that is searchable which is impossible for us humans. But God, by demonstration of His effects, shows that He is beyond physical reality. Hence, it is the more that God can't be denied by the senses.

Atheism cannot deny God by the intellect. For, whatever we can deny by the use of our intellect, must be defined, just as we deny circle things as square, for the definition of circle is different from the definition of square. But, God can't be define, because if He has definition, He can't be God, because by demonstration of His existence through His effects, He is necessarily Boundless. Hence, God can't be denied by the intellect.

Therefore, if to be rational is able to use senses and our intellect, and that God can't be denied both by the senses and intellect, then atheism is necessarily irrational.

If god does not have any direct definition, or exist within physical reality, then it does not have any real identity and is equivalent to absolutely nothing. It is a vague concept, contingent upon natural reality in order for you to imagine it exists. It's a null-entity, unnecessary, and grows increasingly useless as we discover, learn, and understand our universe.

The next time you want to preach about rationality, try to ease up on the mumbo-jumbo. It hurts your case.

You may be right regarding liking God with nothing. However, if there's no God, then there cannot be something which is absurd. Because, upon analyzing the world, there must be a Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Uncaused Necessary Cause, Perfect Being, and Supremely Intelligent Being, which people call God.

[Foxaèr]

there must be a Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Uncaused Necessary Cause, Perfect Being, and Supremely Intelligent Being, which people call God.

No, there needn't be.

[Astreja]

I don't need to deny your god, Theologian.  I merely have to look around, see no particularly convincing evidence, and then carry on with life as usual.  Even if your god does exist, it is currently irrelevant and not worth worrying about.

We don't stop at seeing. We continue by looking for the cause of things. Why is there something, instead of nothing? And, if it is true that we all want to be happy and that is really the case, and if to be happy is to possess the good, and if God is Goodness Himself, then it follows that God is so relevant for us.

Speaking for Myself, I don't generally waste time "looking for the cause of things."  I don't actually care that much about the question "why is there something, instead of nothing?" because religious answers are unconvincing and scientific answers are a work in progress, and neither is particularly relevant to My life.

If you are specifically promoting the god described in the Bible, I reject even the whiff of a possibility that such a being could be "Goodness Himself."  I've read the Bible, you see, and found it grievously wanting.   Rarely have I read such an unspeakably awful dog's breakfast of silly mythology, divine bad behaviour and ludicrous rationalizations of unconscionable morality.  I could sit down with a word processor, a six-pack of beer and a long weekend and come up with a better "holy book" than that Myself.

[Whateverist]

The world is full of human beings making claims, not all of them believable and some not even coherent. Not every claim can be given extensive investigation. It is therefore necessary to do some quick triage to determine which claims warrant further study. No god claim has ever made it past triage in my experience.

[Foxaèr]

The Greeks learned quickly, because they relied upon logic rather than irrationality. They realized that their gods were just mythology. Christianity seems to be slow in understanding that.