Atheism is irrational.

[robvalue]

You didn't tell me why I should care.

You have a lot to say but you can't answer that question.

[theologian]

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.

Why? But, if there needn't be, then we shouldn't be here. But, we are here. Therefore, there must be God.

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.

Religious answers would be truly unconvincing without philosophical backbone. Scientific progress, even we give infinite more time, it cannot know whether thre is God or not, so science is not a good basis for knowing the whole reality. After all, science is just basing itself from the laws of nature, and just as how the rules of a chess game will not tell you whether there is a chess rules maker or not, science is not the good tool to know what is beyond laws of nature.

Before I promote the God of the Bible, I should convince you first through the use of reason why there is God, for after all, Bible presuppose God, because the authority of the Bible is derived from the authority of the Church, whose authority can be derived from God made-man, and that all presuppose the existence of God. So, it is a big mistake to know God directly from the Bible without the aid of the Catholic Church.

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.

Check the Neo-scholastics like Dr. Edward Feser. He has a blog and with the use of human reason, it can be seen that the error of atheism stems from scientism which is a self-defeating philosophy, or they just got classical philosophy wrong.

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.

On the contrary, the greeks prepared the way for founding natural theology. Hence, new atheists are so wrong in using the Greeks for promoting atheism. What Greeks are against are the mythology, and not the conclusion of Metaphysics which can reasonably and surely show that there must be God.

---

You didn't tell me why I should care.

You have a lot to say but you can't answer that question.

You should care because you are a man.

[Foxaèr]

But, we are here. Therefore, there must be God.

That makes no logical sense. Theists are very prone to not thinking logically, and you are no exception.

Our existence is not a giant magical leap toward god's existence, as you would so falsely like to believe.

On the contrary, the greeks prepared the way for founding natural theology. Hence, new atheists are so wrong in using the Greeks for promoting atheism. What Greeks are against are the mythology, and not the conclusion of Metaphysics which can reasonably and surely show that there must be God.

Your thinking of anything theological is so skewed that it is no wonder you cannot provide a proper logical argument.

[robvalue]

I should care because I'm a man? That doesn't even make sense. Is that it? I'm wholly unconvinced and still don't care one bit.

[Ravenshire]

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?

Because they want us believing in something that we then have to deny. Gives them (in their mind at least) a nice fat crack to get the point of their wedge into.

[Jesster]

Belief without evidence is irrational. My beliefs follow the evidence provided to me. Throw me some of that and then we can talk.

[Ravenshire]

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.

Why do you loons keep trotting out Aquinas as if he has anything relevant to say in the 21st century?!?

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

Ah step one has already been done for us. The biggest obstacle to there being a god is that it can't be defined.

If something exists then it can be defined.

You say God is boundless but a thing is defined by its limits. For example a table does not extend to become the room it is in as well.

If God is no one thing then God is nothing.

[Bob Kelso]

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.

... about your argument. Come back when you have actual proof for your god.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

The problem with this argument of yours is actually two-fold:

1) Reasoning is not evidence. It is abstract; evidence is concrete.

2) One cannot reason a fact into existence. Facts have a primacy all their own, and do not submit to reasoning.

When you have evidence, not reasoning alone, feel free to present it. Until then, replying to this post of mine is probably not very useful.