Atheism is irrational.

[Excited Penguin]

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.

First, I see you've made 77 posts at this time and started one thread. That helps me take you more seriously. You're not a  hit-and-run, and you're not spamming the forum. Thanks for that, and welcome to the forum.

I can't be fucked to search for that post you replied to but it makes me think that this is indeed a problem of temperament , not one of education. Look at gym basically telling you no possible reason will convince him because he doesn't give rationality its due here, but rather his emotions , one might surmise, albeit simplistically . Sure, there's the fact that if he hadn't ever heard of the idea of God he wouldn't have believed it, but it seems to me like he would've simply believed in something else just as irrational instead. That's his way of being and I believe , by extension , many other religious people's too. 

But then is it meaningful to talk about what would've been, for is it not that had things been different , they would've been different on more than one point ? I don't know . . .  Food for thought .


P. S. Yes, I noticed the gym typo. I think that's going to be my pet name for some theists from now on. Who am I to question technology?

[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?

Is theism not under critical thinking too?

Correct. It is, or should be. Problem is, though, that such claims that are examined critically cannot stand up to it; while others are never given up for examination at all and indeed guarded against it. Mostly the claims are designed to be untestable.

If atheists don't deny God, what does atheist does?

Nothing - we aren't required to. It's up to the theist to make a case and stump up evidence to support it. We simply do not hold the beliefs you do, that's all. As a male I am unable to carry and birth a baby - I simply do not have the necessary equipment; but that doesn't mean I spend all my time denying the existence of children.

[Astreja]

Not good enough.  Philosophy is useless if you can't demonstrate the actual entity, here in the real world.

I wouldn't go so far. Philosophy is a bit more complicated than that. Its value can't always be as apparent as one would like, but you can be sure everything from the way we do politics and science is based on it.

That's a fair point.  I probably should have qualified that as "Philosophy is useless as evidence for a god..."

[Primordial Bisque]

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.

Ah, St. Aquinas and his 5 ways of special pleading god into our imagination. How....13th century....or earlier. Didn't he base those arguments on Aristotelian philosophy?

[Cyberman]

That's bleeding edge for these guys.

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah, Christians on this forum there is a way to prove your god is real. In Mark 16:15–18 resurrected Jesus says that all those who will believe in him will be able to heal the sick, cast out demons, speak in new tongues, handle deadly snakes and drink poison without suffering any harm.
So there you go what the fuck are you waiting for?!! Go and drink pint of Arsenic and then jump into pile of black mambas and if you survive Jesus was right and you have proved he is god.

You can do it on a big stadium, just before the game so that whole world can see you. So what are you waiting for? Are you not real Christians? Or did your Jesus lie?

[robvalue]

That's why we get all this abstract drivel about a faceless deistic God, because the stuff written in these books is so obviously contrary to reality.

[The Joker]

Since you are a fan of science, logic and common sense that I recommend you read this book.  

New proofs for the existence of God by Robert Spitzer, eerdmans publishing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

Ah, St. Aquinas and his 5 ways of special pleading god into our imagination. How....13th century....or earlier. Didn't he base those arguments on Aristotelian philosophy?

Pretty much Aristotle because his philosophy has stood the test of time. Which of the 5 ways do you consider special pleading and why?

[Ravenshire]

I'm still holding out to see even one pelt.

Hell, I'd settle for some scat as evidence.

Isn't that a good definition of the original post? Gawd shit?