Atheism is irrational.

[Tonus]

I don't know about "made up." Growing up I heard all kinds of ghost stories from my mother. Some were so over-the-top I can only assume she was passing along old urban legends she'd been told. Others were more sublime. As a Jehovah's Witness, I can recall hearing of a few different 'miracles' but those were usually third/fourth-hand and sometimes sounded like more urban legends. But I can also recall another such event where people explained how one JW --upon partaking of the wine and bread at the annual observance of Christ's sacrifice*-- seemed to radiate with a visible glow. Several people claimed to have witnessed it. How to take such a story?

The skeptic will be... skeptical, of course. And without names and corroboration (the name of the person was given the time that I heard of it, but I do not recall it) there's only people's word for it. To a JW it is difficult to resist the temptation to note that it is a sign that they are indeed God's people, as they have a long list of such miracles that confirm for them that Jehovah is watching over them. To a non-JW? I suppose many theists who are not JWs may share the view of the skeptic or may consider it an example of Satan finding ways to deceive the faithful, or even a legit miracle that happened to someone in the wrong denomination. For me, that's where the problem is-- that a person who is certain that event A must be a miracle are likely to dismiss event B because it doesn't square with their worldview, even if those events are just as difficult to prove or disprove.

*- JWs only have one religious observance, and that is an annual mass where only "the anointed" are to eat of the bread and drink of the wine that symbolize Christ's flesh/blood.

[Whateverist]

I just read that garbage OP for the first time.  Why is it that theists think that they can "prove" their deity exists if they can simply devise a clever enough argument?  

I agree.  There is no argument no matter how clever that would suffice for me.  Since "God exists" is an empirical claim I think we should be able to detect it, measure its effects.  But so long as the alleged effects are indistinguishable from natural occurrences we have nothing to go on.

But proofs?  These are never more than rationalizations which at best only justify a belief that is already present.  No clear thinking person is ever going to be moved to adopt a god belief unless he is gullible to begin with.

[chimp3]

After thousands of years asking "What is mind?" no philosopher ever detected a synapse or the frontal lobe as a possible answer. Aristotle thought the brain was a radiator cooling the blood. Not much chance philosophers will prove gods existence if they can not detect the source of their own questions.

[AceBoogie]

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

/thread

[dyresand]

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.

1. Rational thought requires some intelligence minor or otherwise. 
2. No one is denying god.
3. There is no proof of your god or any god(s) for that matter outside of their book(s), scroll(s), tablet(s).
4. Believe it or not there is a high probably chance of life in the universe besides our own it can be as simple or complex as bacteria. 
5. Um... yes it can because god of the bible is a paradox. 
6. You are using your intellect now to say atheism is irrational when in fact it's clearly not and you're wrong. You are simply wrong about atheism. 
7. You are using god as a definition of Yaweh use gods named Yaweh dammit. 
8. That is the weakest...argument i have ever seen....ever..... to say through effects like what effects. Also if god exist there would be no atheists.
9. you poor little guy... your brain is the one that gives you the feeling that god is there and god loves you it's all in you're head...

[Asmodee]

With all due respect, I think it is most atheists who are unwittingly playing with semantics.
...
Well, I personally think that gnostic visions fall into a different category: theophany.

Do you see the irony there?

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

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

I "Deny God" period. I can't for the life of me conceive of a universe created by some mystical being. No arguments by "religious" people can convince me that that life is not "an accident". I believe that in this universe at least, the laws of physics actually require the combination of particals that eventually result in "life" i.e. the ability to reproduce itself

To me accepting a "God or Gods" is stupid. Other than "belief" there is no proof that a god or gods exist, period. Just because man has for centuries insisted that some supreme being "caused" the universe doesn't mean some sort of "prime mover" actually invented/created the universe and us. I find nothing wrong nor inconsistent with the idea that life is anything other than the combination of the resources found in the universe.

Does that mean there is other "life" in the universe? Probably no but in all likelyhood yes since the constituents in the universe are common. That doesn't rule out the possibility that other life could be based on other atoms such as silicoas I have read in the past (or even other atom combinations).

Well enough of this I've had too much Christmas Cheer tonight to be too clear or consistent. Eggnog and Rum [as much as I have had tonight has been more that enough] I'll be upset with this post tomorrow.

I don't know why I post here since I find the belief in some sort of divine fiat to be absurdly ridiculous.
Of course haven't been personally challenged by a theist.

.

[Cyberman]

I never said that atheists can't "deny God" if that's an honest reflection of their position. I said that atheism isn't that.

[Neo-Scholastic]

With all due respect, I think it is most atheists who are unwittingly playing with semantics.
...
Well, I personally think that gnostic visions fall into a different category: theophany.

Do you see the irony there?

Your post verges on deceptive editing since each phrase refers to completely different issues.

Be that as it may, the key distinction is that miracles affect the external environment. Theophany falls into the same category as dreams, visions, epiphanies, and even peak experiences, all of which are subjective internal experiences.

[Mister Agenda]

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

I "Deny God" period.

That's an interesting tidbit about yourself, but you're not atheism. No one said there are no atheists who deny God. The claim was that atheism is not a synonym for 'denying God/s'.