Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational

[Mike_Hawk]

@petrapark3r I've read the bible several times over. It's no generalization.

When Moses slaughtered the Midians, he was told by god to "Keep the little women". (Numbers 31:9)

That's pedophilia.

The old testament clearly sanctions slavery, and the new testament only says "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything." (Colossians 3:22)

Next time provide evidence rather than opinion before insulting a complete stranger's intellegence like an asshole.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Mike_Hawk said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

@petrapark3r I've read the bible several times over. It's no generalization.

When Moses slaughtered the Midians, he was told by god to "Keep the little women". (Numbers 31:9)

That's pedophilia.

I did not insult your intelligence, I said you were not educated correctly. And you have just proven me right, for in Numbers 31:9 God does not speak to moses. God only speaks in Numbers 31:2. In numbers 31:9 the bible recounts that the israelites captured the women and the children of the Midians (they spared their lives). Slavery was indeed a common thing in the times of the bible and we can assume that these became slaves. But there is absolutely nothing in this verse that says anything about pedophilia. That is your interpretation only. Here is the link to the New American Standard Bible and especially to the hebrew word for word translation, where you can see clearly that the word for "children" or "little ones" and the word for "women" do not even stand together (it doesn't say "little women" in the original text).

The old testament clearly sanctions slavery, and the new testament only says "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything." (Colossians 3:22)

Yes the old testament does allow slavery (not sex slavery though, in fact it is rather prude about sex outside of marriage). But the old testament is not equal to the christian faith. As you said correctly, the new testament does not sanction slavery. There is no evidence to assume Jesus would have agreed with slavery. In fact he did rectify a few things that were common in the days of the old testament, for example that men could just release women from marriage (which did put them in a situation where they were economically ruined).

Next time provide evidence rather than opinion before insulting a complete stranger's intellegence like an asshole.

The christian faith however is not just the contents of the bible!

So here is the evidence you claim does not exist. The catechism of the catholic church says: "Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design." (PART THREE • LIFE IN CHRIST • SECTION ONE MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT • CHAPTER TWO THE HUMAN COMMUNION • Article 3 SOCIAL JUSTICE • II. Equality and Differences Among Men (link))

Of course I do know that many of the 20.000 christian protestant denominations say that the christian faith is pretty much equal to the contents of the bible. (However 99% of them do not sanction slavery either!). So maybe I have to add, that the true christian teaching is only to be found in the one apostolic church, the oldest institution in human history (1.4 billion members and counting) as well as the orthodox church (300 million members).

This is propably the greatest sin of christianity to have broken the unity that had existed for 1000 years. The confusion among us is what gives others the chance to claim such things as you did, no matter how untrue, because there was someone in history who interpreted the bible in the way you say (and thus apostasized against the true doctrine of the church!). But then again: 1 person in 100 people is (this is pure statistics) completely out of his mind. Of course you'll have those, and this is exactly why the church always did its best to fight heresy you know?

[pe7erpark3r]

@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

Don't spout generalizations like that... Or, if you really believe that, then get a better education.

@Mike_Hawk said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

insulting a complete stranger's intellegence like an asshole.

I did not insult your intelligence as explained above. However I do apologize for having worded it in this aggressive kind of way. This was very unchristian of me. I am sorry.

[Mike_Hawk]

Nothing in the new testament supports slavery???

"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.(1 Peter 2:18-19)"

That's new testament bruh.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Mike_Hawk said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

Nothing in the new testament supports slavery???

"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.(1 Peter 2:18-19)"

Nothing in this verse supports slavery, it only tells you how you should act if you are one: with love (respect) even to the unjust. This is completely in accordance with Jesus' statement to love your enemies.

You might even say, that St. Peter called any kind of slavery "suffering unjustly" here, but this isn't entirely clear from the context.

Here, have a laugh:

[Indrid Cold]

The bike ref made me think of the video for Supergrass Alright, and because Gaz Coombs looks like a monkey, that in turn made me think of the infinite monkeys eventually writing Hamlet. Isn't this a better allegory?

Personally, I've never had a philosophical problem with the conventional scientific model of super-condensed energy in a big bang / big crunch scenario, and see no need to give the thing a religious overview. It's worth noting that nothingy non-existence per se is no more daring a proposition than arch-dialectical, conceptual wrangling. I once read all one gazzillion pages of Being and Nothingness by Sartre, and briefly understood it (in between destroying my brain cells with whiskey), and this was before today's reliance on quantum jiggery-pokery as a get-out-of-jail card.

Which makes me sound like an atheist, which is not the case. I say: all things being equal, when ruminating God or religion, don't be afraid to totally dismiss science in favour of discussing personal experiences.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Indrid-Cold as always a very clever reply my friend. I like the monkeys singing in that music video, they seem to be very happy :joy:

You are very right, and I must admit, I never read Sartre. And indeed, my endeavor here is rather philosophical than religious, for the God of the philosophers has little to do with the God of religion.

But it still seems like a good starting point for a conversation doesn't it?

[Indrid Cold]

@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

But it still seems like a good starting point for a conversation doesn't it?

I always love the way you bring these religious ideas to site that's 90% a rat-up-a-drainpipe hook-up zone.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Indrid-Cold said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

But it still seems like a good starting point for a conversation doesn't it?

I always love the way you bring these religious ideas to site that's 90% a rat-up-a-drainpipe hook-up zone.

:grin: Gutter philosophy, I like it! Thank you :heart:

[Zack Williamson]

@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

Atheism assumes that God is not real, and claims to be entirely rational. But that second part about, being entirely rational, can be proven to be wrong, simply by thinking it through just once:

@petrapark3r As far as I know Atheists are more intelligent and smart than theists. I'm not saying this without any reliable source. I have included those sources for you. A new paper published in frontiers in psychology which describes belief in god is associated with lower scores on IQ test
Source 1
Source2
If atheism was irrational, their followers should have lower IQ than that of theists

So lets assume there is no God. Then the universe at some point just popped into existence right? Of course not. That wouldn't make any sense now would it?

There are so many theories other than bigbang one. Nobody exactly knows how universe came into existence.

Some scientest might throw in, that the universe itself might be a fluctuation of a quantum field, or simply one of many universes popping out of whatever they pop out.

And of course they could be right, and of course my question to them remains the same: Then did this something that the universe popped out of just suddenly pop into existence? Of course not, that wouldn't make any sense either.

Lets assume god created the universe according to bible's genesis, God needed 6 days to create the universe but he did rest on 7th day though. What kind of almighty creator needs rest ? One more thing, a day is the time needed for Earth to complete one rotation on its axis. So how days passed if Earth and Sun were not created yet? How did he measured this time?

Then this must mean, that this nature (or space or quantum field or whatever unfathomable thing the universe popped out of) has always been there, has always existed, eternally. Existence itself must be eternal then, if it wasn't created by an eternal God. Think it through well. There is no third option, so much is for sure...

Now lets construct an example, that is able to make us see the problem here properly: Imagine you borrowed a bike from your friend. And this friend had borrowed it from another friend. And this guy again borrowed it. And so on and so forth. The bike was given from one person to the next. Reaching back through history, through time.

If everything must have a cause, then God
must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said,
"Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other
hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning
is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

Let's not complicate things by assuming there was a big bang for the sake of the example though. Let's just assume that this universe itself is eternal and not the quantum field it popped out of.

So since the universe is eternal (and the bike symbolizes existence itself), this chain stretches into the past, without end... It is equally eternal. Now, answer this question: Why is there a bike? How can it always be borrowed, if there is no original owner?

This can be answered with cause-effect reasoning. A cause-effect relationship is a relationship in which one event (the cause) makes another event happen (the effect). One cause can have several effects. Assuming again god created this universe, universe is the product of him. Every product like a house, is the work of an agent therefore the world which is a product, must have an agent or creator who is called god. But we know this inference is inconclusive, because the one of the premise 'the world is a product' is doubtful. How is it proved that the world is a product? It can't be said that the world is a product because it has parts. Wherever we perceive anything being produced, the producer or the agent is found to work on the material with his limbs. God is said to be bodiless. How can he then work on matter to produce the world?

[pe7erpark3r]

@Urfi said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

@petrapark3r As far as I know Atheists are more intelligent and smart than theists. I'm not saying this without any reliable source. I have included those sources for you. A new paper published in frontiers in psychology which describes belief in god is associated with lower scores on IQ test
Source 1
Source2
If atheism was irrational, their followers should have lower IQ than that of theists

I too always assumed that in this day and age there would be more intelligent people on the side of the atheists than of the theists. Thank you for giving me some data :smile: . However in all the millenia before us, this was not the case, and there is no reason to assume, that it must be in the future. Also, most people have not thought this one here through properly, most people haven't really understood it. Heck most people haven't even heard of it. (It is the cosmological way to God according to Thomas of Aquinus). I wonder if those numbers would still be the same if everyone had understood these things... But yeah, it is no proof.

There are so many theories other than bigbang one. Nobody exactly knows how universe came into existence.

And as you should have seen, I was not assuming that they know. But let me add, that there is a consensus about the big bang. There is almost no scientist who doesn't agree with this theory. The question they are not sure about is what was before (and what before even means, since time seems to have begun with the big bang).

Lets assume god created the universe according to bible's genesis, God needed 6 days to create the universe but he did rest on 7th day though. What kind of almighty creator needs rest ? One more thing, a day is the time needed for Earth to complete one rotation on its axis. So how days passed if Earth and Sun were not created yet? How did he measured this time?

Why would you even assume, that I'd take the bible literally? That indeed would be a lack of intelligence (sorry to everyone who does) for the following reason: Genesis actually contains two accounts of how the earth was created (see my post for further info).

If everything must have a cause, then God
must have a cause.

Reason has to conclude that there must be one thing that has no cause...

If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God

...which is either God or the world.

, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said,
"Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that.

Yes it is. Because what can be its own cause? What in the world could be its own reason? Can the world really be its own reason? Wouldn't this make the world godly?

Even if you would disagree with what those questions imply, this is still a bit more than just an elephant on a turtoise.

There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause;

There is absolutely any reason to assume that there should be nothing and no reason at all to assume that the world could have come into being without a cause or without even the possibility of coming into being. Things don't just happen. That idea is more than just irrational...

nor, on the other
hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning
is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

You are right, you can assume that the world is eternal. And yes, it is due to our inability to understand the nature of this one first reason. It will forever remain non-understandable to us, for this is how reason works. And this is the definition of the word irrational: it makes no sense to our reason (latin: ratio).

Which is exactly the point of the argument I am making.

And it is not a question of who is more intelligent. Every atheist will agree that this conundrum is indeed irrational, once she understands what I am talking about. It's just like with mathematics: you have to agree that 1+2 = 2. Before you understood it, you might not have agreed, but once you understand it, you have no choice.

And I mean what should they do about it? They have two irrational choices, believe in God or an eternal irrational world. Of course they'd chose what their peers chose: atheism...

This can be answered with cause-effect reasoning. A cause-effect relationship is a relationship in which one event (the cause) makes another event happen (the effect). One cause can have several effects. Assuming again god created this universe, universe is the product of him. Every product like a house, is the work of an agent therefore the world which is a product, must have an agent or creator who is called god. But we know this inference is inconclusive, because the one of the premise 'the world is a product' is doubtful. How is it proved that the world is a product? It can't be said that the world is a product because it has parts. Wherever we perceive anything being produced, the producer or the agent is found to work on the material with his limbs.

We don't have to bring the idea of product into this. The world is a causal thing. Look out the window. Everything happens for a reason. Trees grow, because a seed once fell into the gorund and the sun gives its energy. The argument has nothing to do with wether the world is a product or not. Causality is enough, and causality is real.

God is said to be bodiless. How can he then work on matter to produce the world?

Yeah, God is also irrational. We cannot understand how he could work on matter. Just as we cannot understand a world that created itself or has no reason.

[WtfJudith]

@petrapark3r hi, I only came here to point out that “Pet” in French means fart.

G’dday (:

[pe7erpark3r]

@WtfJudith said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

@petrapark3r hi, I only came here to point out that “Pet” in French means fart.

G’dday (:

This must be one long brain fart of mine then :joy:

[What is this]

@petrapark3r What you just tried to do is "prove" that atheism is irrational by using irrational claims yourself though.. Difference between science and religion is that science actually does something regarding to that question while religion stayed the same ever since, not moving at all in any direction.
I would rather use and follow logical arguments and be called atheist instead of believing in words and book that human wrote back in the days when the level of knowledge and evidence was at its lowest and rational ignorance was at the highest.
To me, it seems that you're questioning science as a whole and trying to prove that there is God. There are different types of scientists today, they have different hypothesis and they work hard to either conclude if they are true or false, on the other hand, what do religious people do? On every "who, what, when, where, why" they will say: "it was God and it shouldn't be questioned" and that's it. - complete ignorance and disrespect to science, the same science that made this world a better place with all the innovations and changes.
Science works with things that look irrational at first and through different actions it finds explanations and evidence for it, while religion is built on irrationality and follows it fully while neglecting every counterevidence that can be tested in space and time. If God exists, who created him? I guess another God. I respect religious people and their opinions, as long as they don't try to neglect science and use theories that science works with just to claim that scientists don't know anything and that they are irrational.

[pe7erpark3r]

@What-is-this said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

@petrapark3r What you just tried to do is "prove" that atheism is irrational by using irrational claims yourself though..

Well no, I used rational claims.

Difference between science and religion is that science actually does something regarding to that question while religion stayed the same ever since, not moving at all in any direction.
I would rather use and follow logical arguments and be called atheist instead of believing in words and book that human wrote back in the days when the level of knowledge and evidence was at its lowest and rational ignorance was at the highest.

I too very much prefer to follow logical arguments than simply believing words in a book – or a science journal for that matter. I mean even the most well known scientific journals tend to tell you these days that your sexual identity is completely unrelated to your biology. And that is just nonsense.

To me, it seems that you're questioning science as a whole and trying to prove that there is God. There are different types of scientists today, they have different hypothesis and they work hard to either conclude if they are true or false, on the other hand, what do religious people do? On every "who, what, when, where, why" they will say: "it was God and it shouldn't be questioned" and that's it. - complete ignorance and disrespect to science, the same science that made this world a better place with all the innovations and changes.

You know I'm glad that you have brought this up. The scientific method in its essence as experiment, deduction and its reliance on reason was developed in its beginning in catholic (and anglican) universities. This is no wonder since the catholic church has always always argumented, that faith must go along with reason, and that you can indeed reason about the world and reason about faith.

Science does neither prove nor disprove that there is a God. This question is simply outside of its domain. You on the other hand are contradicting rationality by conflating science with atheism. You don't know its boundaries and its focus on the natural world.

Science works with things that look irrational at first and through different actions it finds explanations and evidence for it, while religion is built on irrationality and follows it fully while neglecting every counterevidence that can be tested in space and time.

As I said before the teaching of the catholic church was always built on rationality. Of course science is a process, which means you'll need to get closer and closer to the truth, step by step, so you cannot expect people from 2000 years ago to have known what we know today. And of course many catholics failed to think rationally, as do many atheists (and of course religious people) today. Thinking rationally is quite the demanding task and not everybody is capable of it sadly. But the scientific process is entirely rational and that is why I love science!

If God exists, who created him? I guess another God.

It is funny, because that is kind of my argument, but turned around. If the world exists, who created it? The world itself? Is the world its own cause?

I respect religious people and their opinions, as long as they don't try to neglect science and use theories that science works with just to claim that scientists don't know anything and that they are irrational.

I did not claim that scientists are irrational, I claimed that atheism is irrational. Please stop conflating science with atheism, those are 2 different things.

Actually I do claim that many scientists are irrational. But the really good ones are in fact not, be they atheists or not... Einstein for example did believe in God. You might know one of his famous quotes:

"God doesn't throw dice"

(meaning there is no such thing as chance)

[Zack Williamson]

@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

@Urfi said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

@petrapark3r As far as I know Atheists are more intelligent and smart than theists. I'm not saying this without any reliable source. I have included those sources for you. A new paper published in frontiers in psychology which describes belief in god is associated with lower scores on IQ test
Source 1
Source2
If atheism was irrational, their followers should have lower IQ than that of theists

I too always assumed that in this day and age there would be more intelligent people on the side of the atheists than of the theists.

Thank you for giving me some data :smile: .

No problem at all :)

However in all the millenia before us, this was not the case, and there is no reason to assume, that it must be in the future. Also, most people have not thought this one here through properly, most people haven't really understood it. Heck most people haven't even heard of it. (It is the cosmological way to God according to Thomas of Aquinus).

Many of theists assume atheists have never read bible or any philosopher's argument. But they are wrong 100%. Unlike theism, atheism is never based on instincts. They have risen above it. Coming to your question, I can even write an essay on St. Thomas Aquinus. I studied western and Indian philosophy 3 years ago. I'm recalling it :). Summa Theologica was work of Aquinus. He elaborated five proofs for the existence of God in his work. Also, writing St. before his name would be more respectful

I wonder if those numbers would still be the same if everyone had understood these things... But yeah, it is no proof.

It does not make any sense because you have just a mindset.

There are so many theories other than bigbang one. Nobody exactly knows how universe came into existence.

And as you should have seen, I was not assuming that they know. But let me add, that there is a consensus about the big bang. There is almost no scientist who doesn't agree with this theory. The question they are not sure about is what was before (and what before even means, since time seems to have begun with the big bang).

Lets assume god created the universe according to bible's genesis, God needed 6 days to create the universe but he did rest on 7th day though. What kind of almighty creator needs rest ? One more thing, a day is the time needed for Earth to complete one rotation on its axis. So how days passed if Earth and Sun were not created yet? How did he measured this time?

Why would you even assume, that I'd take the bible literally? That indeed would be a lack of intelligence (sorry to everyone who does)

Here you are being hypocrite. Why should we assume universe without god's existence ? An assumption is called supposition or Guess. An intelligent man would always write both guesses.

1. Assuming God didn't create the universe - You assumed this one
2. Assuming God created the universe - I assumed this one.

for the following reason: Genesis actually contains two accounts of how the earth was created (see my post for further info).

I saw your post about genesis but it couldn't answer my questions. He completed his work in 7 days and did rest for one day. What kind of rest did the almighty creator want ? Your genesis was unable to elaborate anything about planets. How did he count 7 days without knowing anything about day and night ?

If everything must have a cause, then God
must have a cause.

Reason has to conclude that there must be one thing that has no cause...

This chain will never end up because one thing too should have a cause

If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God

...which is either God or the world.

, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said,
"Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that.

Yes it is. Because what can be its own cause?

What in the world could be its own reason?
Can the world really be its own reason?

Surely it cannot be the reason of itself.

Wouldn't this make the world godly?

If he was the root cause of all things, we couldn't perceive daily that many objects like houses, pots etc ain't produced by God. We observe that many human beings like masons and even lower animals like ants and bees act together harmoniously to build objects like palaces, ant-hills and hives. This doesn't make world godly

Even if you would disagree with what those questions imply, this is still a bit more than just an elephant on a turtoise.

Again, this chain will never end up.

There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause;

There is absolutely any reason to assume that there should be nothing and no reason at all to assume that the world could have come into being without a cause or without even the possibility of coming into being. Things don't just happen. That idea is more than just irrational...

nor, on the other
hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning
is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

You are right, you can assume that the world is eternal. And yes, it is due to our inability to understand the nature of this one first reason. It will forever remain non-understandable to us, for this is how reason works. And this is the definition of the word irrational: it makes no sense to our reason (latin: ratio).

Which is exactly the point of the argument I am making.

And it is not a question of who is more intelligent. Every atheist will agree that this conundrum is indeed irrational, once she understands what I am talking about. It's just like with mathematics: you have to agree that 1+2 = 2. Before you understood it, you might not have agreed, but once you understand it, you have no choice.

And I mean what should they do about it? They have two irrational choices, believe in God or an eternal irrational world. Of course they'd chose what their peers chose: atheism...

They have choice of perception which you never included

This can be answered with cause-effect reasoning. A cause-effect relationship is a relationship in which one event (the cause) makes another event happen (the effect). One cause can have several effects. Assuming again god created this universe, universe is the product of him. Every product like a house, is the work of an agent therefore the world which is a product, must have an agent or creator who is called god. But we know this inference is inconclusive, because the one of the premise 'the world is a product' is doubtful. How is it proved that the world is a product? It can't be said that the world is a product because it has parts. Wherever we perceive anything being produced, the producer or the agent is found to work on the material with his limbs.

We don't have to bring the idea of product into this. The world is a causal thing. Look out the window. Everything happens for a reason. Trees grow, because a seed once fell into the gorund and the sun gives its energy. The argument has nothing to do with wether the world is a product or not. Causality is enough, and causality is real.

Whether*
We have to bring this one as well. An Indian theist branch 'Nyaya' holds this argument of cause-effect reasoning for proving the existence of God.

God is said to be bodiless. How can he then work on matter to produce the world?

Yeah, God is also irrational. We cannot understand how he could work on matter. Just as we cannot understand a world that created itself or has no reason.

At least we can trust on our perception because it is the only reliable source remained. It can elaborate who created this universe.

My logic allows me to write some prepositions-

1. Everyhting has a creator
2. God is that creator
   Illogical conclusion- God does not have a creator (it fails because it violates its own premise here )

[pe7erpark3r]

@Urfi said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

Many of theists assume atheists have never read bible or any philosopher's argument. But they are wrong 100%. Unlike theism, atheism is never based on instincts. They have risen above it. Coming to your question, I can even write an essay on St. Thomas Aquinus. I studied western and Indian philosophy 3 years ago. I'm recalling it :). Summa Theologica was work of Aquinus. He elaborated five proofs for the existence of God in his work. Also, writing St. before his name would be more respectful

Indeed it would have been, thank you for reminding me :smile:

Actually most atheists at least in the west have no philosophical education, they are normal people just like those who go to church often don't really understand theology. But I assume it is different in india (assuming that is where you are from).

I wonder if those numbers would still be the same if everyone had understood these things... But yeah, it is no proof.
It does not make any sense because you have just a mindset.

I'm just wondering if it would be different, that's all. I mean education does influence opinion :shrug:

Lets assume god created the universe according to bible's genesis, God needed 6 days to create the universe but he did rest on 7th day though. What kind of almighty creator needs rest ? One more thing, a day is the time needed for Earth to complete one rotation on its axis. So how days passed if Earth and Sun were not created yet? How did he measured this time?

Why would you even assume, that I'd take the bible literally? That indeed would be a lack of intelligence (sorry to everyone who does)

Here you are being hypocrite. Why should we assume universe without god's existence ? An assumption is called supposition or Guess. An intelligent man would always write both guesses.

1. Assuming God didn't create the universe - You assumed this one
2. Assuming God created the universe - I assumed this one.

I don't understand why you mention this here. I was saying that taking the bible literally in this sense (assuming God created the world in 7 earth days) would be a lack of intelligence, or maybe a lazyness of thinking, on my part, since taking it literally in this sense is already contradictory because of the existence of two contradicting generation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

for the following reason: Genesis actually contains two accounts of how the earth was created (see my post for further info).

I saw your post about genesis but it couldn't answer my questions. He completed his work in 7 days and did rest for one day. What kind of rest did the almighty creator want ? Your genesis was unable to elaborate anything about planets. How did he count 7 days without knowing anything about day and night ?

What I meant by not reading Genesis literally is that I don't take the 7 days to be literal days of any kind. I take these as symbolic. For example the fact, that the first thing that God creates is light. This doesn't make any sense from a scientific viewpoint, and the people who lived back then had the same IQ level as us (if we believe the scientific consensus on human development). It must have been obvious even to them, that the sun is in fact the origin of light. Actually there are enough ancient texts that show that people did in fact understand this. So why in the world would God create light before the sun or the stars?

The answer is, that this is the light of reason, of understanding, of truth. If you want to understand where I'm coming from I recommend Dr. Jordan Peterson's lecturs on the psychological significance of the bible.

This in turn means, that also the other days are to be understand symbolically. It shows how God ordered everything, not just the things he created but also the time. All of Genesis speaks about God's relation to His creation and specifically His relation to us and our relation to Him and our relation to creation. God orders our life according to the order of days. This is what it is about.

The sabbath is the holy day, it is the day of service to the Lord. It is on this day, that we pray most, and that we rest. And God does enjoy this love we bring Him on the seventh day. And if you enjoy something you can really relax.

So as you can see, all of Genesis is really about the relationship between God and us. Not about how the earth was created in a literal sense.

If everything must have a cause, then God
must have a cause.

Reason has to conclude that there must be one thing that has no cause...

This chain will never end up because one thing too should have a cause

This is the central question. Every element in the chain has the one element before it as cause, as reason for being there. But what reason does the whole chain have? There is no rational answer to this question. This is the point of the whole argument.

If God is not the root cause of the chain, then the chain is endless. But saying that the chain is endless does not absolve it from needing a cause to exist in the first place. Human reason demands this, we cannot think any other way. So if the chain was indeed endless (which is the only alternative to God being the root cause) then it would not make sense to reason, it would be irrational.

What in the world could be its own reason?
Can the world really be its own reason?

Surely it cannot be the reason of itself.

Wouldn't this make the world godly?

If he was the root cause of all things, we couldn't perceive daily that many objects like houses, pots etc ain't produced by God.

By what argument do you assume, that if God was the root cause, there could not be any houses?

We observe that many human beings like masons and even lower animals like ants and bees act together harmoniously to build objects like palaces, ant-hills and hives. This doesn't make world godly

Ants are not their own reason, they are there because of evolution (assuming evolution theory is correct). The harmony has developed. But everything in nature has a reason that is before it. Everything is caused. If the world however is not caused it must be its own reason. This is what could give it a godly nature.

Even if you would disagree with what those questions imply, this is still a bit more than just an elephant on a turtoise.

Again, this chain will never end up.

The point is that God is his own reason and his own cause and since this is not understandable to our mind, He is irrational.

However to say this about the world (being its own reason and being its own cause), which is the only alternative, sounds quite strange. And it means the world would be non-understandable, irrational.

There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause;

There is absolutely any reason to assume that there should be nothing and no reason at all to assume that the world could have come into being without a cause or without even the possibility of coming into being. Things don't just happen. That idea is more than just irrational...

nor, on the other
hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning
is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

You are right, you can assume that the world is eternal. And yes, it is due to our inability to understand the nature of this one first reason. It will forever remain non-understandable to us, for this is how reason works. And this is the definition of the word irrational: it makes no sense to our reason (latin: ratio).

Which is exactly the point of the argument I am making.

And it is not a question of who is more intelligent. Every atheist will agree that this conundrum is indeed irrational, once she understands what I am talking about. It's just like with mathematics: you have to agree that 1+2 = 2. Before you understood it, you might not have agreed, but once you understand it, you have no choice.

And I mean what should they do about it? They have two irrational choices, believe in God or an eternal irrational world. Of course they'd chose what their peers chose: atheism...

They have choice of perception which you never included

What do you mean by this?

I concede that there is a third choice: Agnosticism. Which means not believing that there is a God but saying you cannot know. In my opinion this is actually the only real alternative to believing that God exists.

This can be answered with cause-effect reasoning. A cause-effect relationship is a relationship in which one event (the cause) makes another event happen (the effect). One cause can have several effects. Assuming again god created this universe, universe is the product of him. Every product like a house, is the work of an agent therefore the world which is a product, must have an agent or creator who is called god. But we know this inference is inconclusive, because the one of the premise 'the world is a product' is doubtful. How is it proved that the world is a product? It can't be said that the world is a product because it has parts. Wherever we perceive anything being produced, the producer or the agent is found to work on the material with his limbs.

We don't have to bring the idea of product into this. The world is a causal thing. Look out the window. Everything happens for a reason. Trees grow, because a seed once fell into the gorund and the sun gives its energy. The argument has nothing to do with wether the world is a product or not. Causality is enough, and causality is real.

We have to bring this one as well. An Indian theist branch 'Nyaya' holds this argument of cause-effect reasoning for proving the existence of God.

I do agree it is worth considering. But I do not understand why it is necessary to consider it in the context of above argument. Please elaborate.

God is said to be bodiless. How can he then work on matter to produce the world?

Yeah, God is also irrational. We cannot understand how he could work on matter. Just as we cannot understand a world that created itself or has no reason.

At least we can trust on our perception because it is the only reliable source remained. It can elaborate who created this universe.

Perception is a funny thing and there could be said a lot about wether it is trustworthy or not. But lets assume we can rely on it. As you can see causality is an observable thing. It is the basis for my argument. Thus from this basis I concluded toward the reason for existence.

My logic allows me to write some prepositions-

1. Everyhting has a creator
2. God is that creator
   Illogical conclusion- God does not have a creator (it fails because it violates its own premise here )

Yes, the fact that God is His own reason, is not understandable by our rational minds. And neither is a causal chain without any reason for existing. There simply is no rational answer to the question of why there is anything.

[offender woman mj]

@petrapark3r hey

[pe7erpark3r]

@offender-woman-mj hey

[pe7erpark3r]

@Urfi said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

@petrapark3r As far as I know Atheists are more intelligent and smart than theists. I'm not saying this without any reliable source. I have included those sources for you. A new paper published in frontiers in psychology which describes belief in god is associated with lower scores on IQ test
Source 1
Source2
If atheism was irrational, their followers should have lower IQ than that of theists

@Urfi said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

Here you are being hypocrite. Why should we assume universe without god's existence ? An assumption is called supposition or Guess. An intelligent man would always write both guesses.

1. Assuming God didn't create the universe - You assumed this one
2. Assuming God created the universe - I assumed this one.

I did not write both assumptions, because the goal of my article was to show that the atheistic viewpoint (not the atheistic person) was irrational. Why do I have to include the other possibility in my article to be intelligent?

I have been thinking about what you wrote and realized something I thought I had to tell you. A truly intelligent man, would only heed arguments in a rational discussion. And you have now for the second time brought up intelligence or IQ. IQ is not an argument. And neither is a degree in philosophy. They both are ways of showcasing some form of authority. Please refrain from doing so, because it brings the danger that (truly intelligent) people might assume, you have no real arguments. However you clearly do have real arguments.

I don't see as of yet one that was able to prove my argument or my assumptions wrong (assuming I did understand them properly), but you clearly have interesting arguments to consider.