Atheism is irrational.

[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.

[Foxaèr]

We have five functional senses, none of which can provide substance for your fictional god.

[Angrboda]

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.

This sounds like Berry's paradox.

Consider the expression:

       "The smallest positive integer not definable in under sixty letters."

Since there are only twenty-six letters, there are finitely many phrases of under sixty letters, and hence finitely many positive integers that are defined by phrases of under sixty letters. Since there are infinitely many positive integers, this means that there are positive integers that cannot be defined by phrases of under sixty letters. If there are positive integers that satisfy a given property, then there is a smallest positive integer that satisfies that property; therefore, there is a smallest positive integer satisfying the property "not definable in under sixty letters". This is the integer to which the above expression refers. The above expression is only fifty-seven letters long, therefore it is definable in under sixty letters, and is not the smallest positive integer not definable in under sixty letters, and is not defined by this expression. This is a paradox: there must be an integer defined by this expression, but since the expression is self-contradictory (any integer it defines is definable in under sixty letters), there cannot be any integer defined by it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_paradox

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[robvalue]

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.

[Cyberman]

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?

[FallentoReason]

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

[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.

[Primordial Bisque]

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.

[Alex K]

Ainvisibleleprachaunism is irrational. Ainvisibleleprachaunists cannot deny the invisible Leprachaun using their senses.

And so on and so forth...