Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational

[pe7erpark3r]

@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

Assuming sun is not made yet but light has been made I may sleep at 12.30AM or even 2.00 AM. Thus, their 1 day was not exactly of 24 hours , it could be 22 hours or 26 hours. It will make creation dubious further. Therefore it cannot be definitely said that he completed his work in 7 days. Perhaps more than that or even lesser than that.

1. A wrong interpretation is and stays wrong, no matter how many people believe in it. There have been lots of heresies in the history of the christianity. None of them are correct. No the bible alone is not a reliable source of the true christian doctrine. You need to have the Holy Spirit to interpret the bible correctly and you need to be united to the true apostolic church.
2. I have proven to you that the literal intepretation of Genisis is complete nonsense
3. I don't agree with this literal interpretation

And yet you keep bringing it up. And you think refuting your own nonsensical interpretation of the bible is an argument...

Worse than this, my original line of thought is completely philosophical in nature. Bringing a up the bible is out of context, and cannot be called an argument.

I will answer some of your other points later...

[pe7erpark3r]

@Electrifying-Guy said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational]

I meant perception is the most reliable source of knowledge after inference. You never included we can perceive the five elements but God is so far from our senses. God is not perceived. If perception is the only reliable source of knowledge, we can rationally assert only the reality of perceptible objects. God, heaven, hell and any unperceived law cannot be believed in, because they are all beyond perception.
Material objects are the only objects whose existence can be perceived and whose reality can be asserted. Matter is made of five elements. Not only non-living material objects but also living organisms, like plants, animal bodies, are composed of these five elements, by the combination of which they are produces and to which they are reduced on death

If you call only perceivable things real, then you have got a problem because you shouldn't be using a device that sends non-perceivable signals through the air. Develish device eh?

If you only allow measurable things (the focus of science) and say anything that cannot be measured is not real, then you are an atheist.

If you allow deduction / inference from the perceivable things, then you can deduce, as I did, that the atheistic viewpoint is irrational.

If you remain with the perceivable things and simply say you cannot perceive the origin of the universe and thus you don't know, you are agnostic.

And what about materialistic agnostic atheism ?

There is no such thing as agnoistic atheism. Those two are contradictory, for atheism means believing you know that there is no God while agnosticism is believing you don't know that there is no God.

'Heaven' and 'Hell' are the inventions of the priests whose professional interest lies in coaxing, threatening and making people perform the rituals or prayers. Enlightened men will always refuse to be duped by them. Not only in the old era but also in this one, priests scare everyone away. Religion and God are based mainly upon fear. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand.

You propably don't know, but atheism in the form of communism has brought much more cruelty and fear. In fact communism had many times the number of victims that nazi germany did.

By this historic fact I conclude that fear, cruelty and evil are part of human nature and cannot be layed at the feet of religion.

It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts.

Science was developed in catholic universities. Science is not anti-christian. Also "science" just like IQ is not an argument.

Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

Science cannot help you get over your fears. Fears are human. Religion on the other hand seems to be able to actually make you overcome your fears. This might be a bit counterintuitive but christianity is the only religion that gains followers by conversion in this day and age. This is even more incredible since we have the greatest persecution (and murder) of christians in all of human history today. And in the places where christianity is persecuted the most it grows the fastest. Freaky right?

But of course I concede this has nothing to do with the philosophical argument of wether God is the first cause or not.

[pe7erpark3r]

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

@petrapark3r i'd like to preface with: being atheist does not mean you think god does not it exist, it means you are not convinced of the existence of a god, there is still a possibility that one or many exist. What someone thinks is a "god" is really up to opinion. Saying that a god has to exist for a universe to exist is a bold claim. You can't say that "the universe cant just exist without something making it". How did "god" come to exist then, before the universe? There are some questions we just can't answer, and shouldn't pretend to know the answers to. Atheism is simply admitting that you do not know all the answers, and that you are not sure or unsure that a god does exist.

It might be the case that this is called "atheism" in common parlance, but the real name of what you describe is "agnosticism" and I as a former agnostic acknowledge its validity (it is logically valid, but I no longer believe it is true). However I do believe in God now and you might be interested in why. But that is a topic for another day.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

Why is there a bike? How can it always be borrowed, if there is no original owner?

Bike was borrowed by A to B, B to C. A bought it from a showroom or a shop. This shopkeeper bought the bike form manufacturer. E, F, G, H A.K.A. laborers and some machines manufactured it together. Human created the bike and human created the God. I will explain how human created the God ahead.

Absolutely true, the bike is there because there was a manufacturer. This is exactly my point.

In my analogy the bike stands for existence itself, which you have been given by your parents, which they have been given by their ancestors, which they have been given by the chain of evolution, which has been given its existence by the materials, which have been given their existence when they were formed in a star... anyways, you have a chain of things that have existence. Where does the existence come from?

Now everyone will ask

1. Who made the first humans ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’. ? -If Adam and Eve were the root causes or root cause of all things, they could birth the ants or plants together.
2. Who created universe ? - I would elaborate materialism for it. It is more rational than assuming an invisible, unheard, unseen man in start of the chain.

Materialism gave things existence? You mean the universe itself gave the chain its existence? Whats the reason for the chain to exist?

You have no rational answer. That is the point of the argument I made. Whichever answer you give, may it be God or may it be an eternal chain, the answer is irrational = non understandable to our reason (reason = lat. ratio).

And the answer God is not more irrational than the other irrational answer.

In fact the answer God could actually be said to be more rational because it has the advantage, that if you say "God" is the reason, then the world would be rational in itself. If "the world" was the answer, then this world that you say is the reason for its own existence would be irrational.

[Zack Williamson]

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

You need to have the Holy Spirit to interpret the bible correctly and you need to be united to the true apostolic church.

This is what most theists speak with faith. It is not even close to any logic. Perception is the limited source of knowledge. As you say, those people need to have holy spirit for interpreting, this is nothing more than manipulation and coaxing. Having holy spirit by some few people means only a bunch of people can interpret the bible. Isn’t it much more limited than perception ?

I have proven to you that the literal interpretation of Genesis is complete nonsense

It makes Bible imperfect. Bible is perfect according to those who interpret Bible as it is. You call them nonintellectual persons.
Also, the fourth argument of Aquinas was, that we find various perfections in the world, and that these must have their source in something completely perfect.
Conclusion- Bible is imperfect, it was not created by God.
If he created the imperfect Bible, He will be called imperfect.
I’m pointing out the attributes of Aquinas’ God.
In his own words, ‘’His knowledge is not a habit, and is not discursive or argumentative.’’
While describing God is the good he also described ‘’he is intelligent, and His
act of intelligence is His essence. He understands by His essence, and understands Himself
perfectly.’’
In the 2nd book where he described the perfections of God, that he cannot make any person without soul, or make the sum of the angles of a triangle be not two right angles.
His God is bodiless because bodies have parts. There is no composition in his God.
Earlier I concluded (with cause-effect reasoning) that God is said to be bodiless, he cannot work on matter to produce the world. You said God was irrational there. Haven’t you ever read Aquinas’ cause-effect reasoning ? His reasoning is same as the reasoning of Indian nyayic theism. According to him, this world is product of creator God.
So what is remained in this debate ?

If you call only perceivable things real, then you have got a problem because you shouldn't be using a device that sends non-perceivable signals through the air.

There is no such thing as agnostic atheism.

You seem to be bemused about theism, atheism and agnostic here. I could say there is no such thing as agnostic theism but I wouldn’t say. Sounds like you have not read anything about Aquinas’ God. He was an agnoisitc theist. When you know there is a God but you cannot know any of his characteristics, is agnosticism. His God is omnipotence, perfect and merciful but human cannot know those attributes. The reason behind Aquinas’ agnosticism was -

1. Human is limited but God is unlimited
2. God is past and far from human and universe.
3. Man is created by universe but God is the creator of universe.

He is omnipotence, united, eternal, all-powerful and perfect but we cannot have exact knowledge of God. We can know those attributes with universal things. This theory of Aquinas is not contradictory to theism. Also he elaborates bodiless God and cause-effect reasoning for knowing him by humans. I argument-ed against it earlier and some other posts in same thread.

The argument against his god can be given by an other way too-
An objection on his omnipotence I raised when you asked how relation of houses and God comes into between. God is held to be one on the ground that, if there were many gods they would act with different plans and purposes, and consequently a harmonious world, as we have, wouldn't have been possible. But this argument aint sound, because 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. God again is said to be eternally perfect. But eternal perfection is a meaningless epither. Perfection is only a removal of imperfection and it is meaningless to call a being perfect who was never imperfect.

I elaborate agnostic atheism now.
If you had ever read about this theory on internet, you would not have come up with your opinion’ ‘’there is no such theory as agnostic atheism.’’ I will give you an internet link as well.

Theism is a belief that God exists, it can be best understood something is true or false, as a preposition.
Atheism- a with theism must be understood ‘not god’ instead of ‘without God’
When you ask. ‘’is there God ?’’
Two answered can be given

1. yes there is- theism
2. no there is not- atheism

The above definitions were old ones.
Later some philosophers and non-philosophers claimed that Atheism should not be defined as preposition. It should be defined as psychological state. For more, you can check this Stanford university article -
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

If you call only perceivable things real, then you have got a problem because you shouldn't be using a device that sends non-perceivable signals through the air. Develish device eh?

There is not any instrument made for perception or measuring the God. However a device signals can be measured by an equipment.

If you only allow measurable things (the focus of science) and say anything that cannot be measured is not real, then you are an atheist.
If you allow deduction / inference from the perceivable things, then you can deduce, as I did, that the atheistic viewpoint is irrational.
If you remain with the perceivable things and simply say you cannot perceive the origin of the universe and thus you don't know, you are agnostic.

There will be 7 probabilities not only four
take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities seriously, and place human judgments about the existence of God along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestones along the way.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto
   theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe
   in God and live my life on the assumption that he is
   there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's
   existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic
   but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'IT H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
   7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same
   conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.

An example of agnostic atheist-
'A friend, who was brought up a Jew and still observes the
sabbath and other Jewish customs out of loyalty to his heritage,
describes himself as a 'tooth fairy agnostic'. He regards God as no
more probable than the tooth fairy. You can't disprove either
hypothesis, and both are equally improbable. He is an a-theist to
exactly the same large extent that he is an a-fairyist. And agnostic
about both, to the same small extent.

Materialism gave things existence? You mean the universe itself gave the chain its existence?

You have no rational answer. That is the point of the argument I made. Whichever answer you give, may it be God or may it be an eternal chain, the answer is irrational = non understandable to our reason (reason = lat. Ratio).

And the answer God is not more irrational than the other irrational answer.
. If "the world" was the answer, then this world that you say is the reason for its own existence would be irrational.

You didn’t read between the lines. I elaborated naturalism or materialism theory after my two sentences. I would not reiterate for anyone. Reiterating anything is waste of time. The answer has already be given, when you will reply on that I will reply you ahead. Just saying I have no rational answer or repeating yourself is not a valid and/or strong argument. It could be more logical when you could argument against how theory was logical.

Only the sentence of yours were not repetitive would be able to reply by me

In fact the answer God could actually be said to be more rational because it has the advantage, that if you say "God" is the reason, then the world would be rational in itself

Explain it more. If I say ‘God’ is the reason he cannot be first cause. This is against cosmological argument. Right ?

You propably don't know, but atheism in the form of communism has brought much more cruelty and fear. In fact communism had many times the number of victims that nazi germany did.

You knew affected countries’ population in those both eras. Didn’t you ? Nazism never affected China and India. It affected jew and polish region more than soviet union as well. Whereas bolshevic plague started from Russia that’s population should be taken into consideration. It effected the most populous countries China and India.

In an incident protestants were too much than other protestants. Therefore, no. Of deaths in first incident > no. Of death in second incident

Science was developed in catholic universities. Science is not anti-christian. Also "science" just like IQ is not an argument.

A christian has to follow his religion until 18 because his parents told him to do so. He has not been granted to choose the religion before this age. Some universities might be full of those students.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
Science is not an argument like IQ. IQ was never an argument. When did I ever say IQ was an argument. I brought up IQ because your topic was catchy ‘’why atheism is irrational’’. Instead of that topic name it could be ‘’How atheism is unable to prove the god’’ seems more suitable.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

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

You need to have the Holy Spirit to interpret the bible correctly and you need to be united to the true apostolic church.

This is what most theists speak with faith. It is not even close to any logic.

No, it is not logical, but that is not the point. The point is that lots of interpretations of the bible are wrong.

Perception is the limited source of knowledge. As you say, those people need to have holy spirit for interpreting, this is nothing more than manipulation and coaxing. Having holy spirit by some few people means only a bunch of people can interpret the bible. Isn’t it much more limited than perception ?

Yes, more limited than perception.

I have proven to you that the literal interpretation of Genesis is complete nonsense

It makes Bible imperfect. Bible is perfect according to those who interpret Bible as it is. You call them nonintellectual persons.

That depends on your definition of perfect. In my opinion the Genesis describes God's relation to humanity in a way that is close enough to perfection.

Also, the fourth argument of Aquinas was, that we find various perfections in the world, and that these must have their source in something completely perfect.
Conclusion- Bible is imperfect, it was not created by God.

We also find various imperfections in the world, and yet somehow Aquinas still thought it was created by God. So you definitely are interpreting Aquinas wrongly...

Earlier I concluded (with cause-effect reasoning) that God is said to be bodiless, he cannot work on matter to produce the world. You said God was irrational there. Haven’t you ever read Aquinas’ cause-effect reasoning ? His reasoning is same as the reasoning of Indian nyayic theism. According to him, this world is product of creator God.
So what is remained in this debate ?

I cannot answer how God might have worked on bodies. But I do not have to either. If God (almighty) exists, he can. And I cannot understand Him. Reasoning like this gets you or me nowhere (and neither did it do aqiunas any good :smirk:)...

If you call only perceivable things real, then you have got a problem because you shouldn't be using a device that sends non-perceivable signals through the air.

There is no such thing as agnostic atheism.

You seem to be bemused about theism, atheism and agnostic here. I could say there is no such thing as agnostic theism but I wouldn’t say. Sounds like you have not read anything about Aquinas’ God. He was an agnoisitc theist.

I was simply referring to our modern definition of the term agnosticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism). Everyone and everything is agnostic about lots of things. But that doesn't mean it makes any sense to call everyone and everything agnostic.

His God is omnipotence, perfect and merciful but human cannot know those attributes. The reason behind Aquinas’ agnosticism was -

1. Human is limited but God is unlimited
2. God is past and far from human and universe.
3. Man is created by universe but God is the creator of universe.

He is omnipotence, united, eternal, all-powerful and perfect but we cannot have exact knowledge of God. We can know those attributes with universal things. This theory of Aquinas is not contradictory to theism. Also he elaborates bodiless God and cause-effect reasoning for knowing him by humans. I argument-ed against it earlier and some other posts in same thread.

The argument against his god can be given by an other way too-
An objection on his omnipotence I raised when you asked how relation of houses and God comes into between. God is held to be one on the ground that, if there were many gods they would act with different plans and purposes, and consequently a harmonious world, as we have, wouldn't have been possible. But this argument aint sound, because 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. God again is said to be eternally perfect. But eternal perfection is a meaningless epither. Perfection is only a removal of imperfection and it is meaningless to call a being perfect who was never imperfect.

That's nice. I don't know how it brings anything to the discussion though, since I am not Aquinas and I'm not argueing all these things.

You didn’t read between the lines. I elaborated naturalism or materialism theory after my two sentences. I would not reiterate for anyone. Reiterating anything is waste of time. The answer has already be given, when you will reply on that I will reply you ahead. Just saying I have no rational answer or repeating yourself is not a valid and/or strong argument. It could be more logical when you could argument against how theory was logical.

Then, as I said, I might not have understood your argument.

In fact the answer God could actually be said to be more rational because it has the advantage, that if you say "God" is the reason, then the world would be rational in itself

Explain it more. If I say ‘God’ is the reason he cannot be first cause. This is against cosmological argument. Right ?

Whatever the first cause is it has no further cause or it is its own cause. This does not make any sense. It doesn't matter if the first cause is the world itself or God. In both cases the answer makes no sense and is irrational. Neither does a causal chain without a first cause make any sense to our mind. Thus a causal and eternal world is just as irrational.

But if you assume that God is the first cause / the reason for all of existence, then you have the advantage, that the world makes sense and is completely rational. But that also sounds like I'm now arguing about words. Let's call both options equally irrational instead.

You propably don't know, but atheism in the form of communism has brought much more cruelty and fear. In fact communism had many times the number of victims that nazi germany did.

You knew affected countries’ population in those both eras. Didn’t you ? Nazism never affected China and India. It affected jew and polish region more than soviet union as well. Whereas bolshevic plague started from Russia that’s population should be taken into consideration. It effected the most populous countries China and India.

You mean I have to take into consideration how many people were there to be affected by those ideologies? Alright, then lets do it in percentage. Even by percentage per year communism has a higher number of victims than any of the big religions (even including islam).

In an incident protestants were too much than other protestants. Therefore, no. Of deaths in first incident > no. Of death in second incident

I don't understand the part about protestants.

Science was developed in catholic universities. Science is not anti-christian. Also "science" just like IQ is not an argument.

A christian has to follow his religion until 18 because his parents told him to do so. He has not been granted to choose the religion before this age. Some universities might be full of those students.

No university is "full of those students" because most students begin going to university at 18 or older...

Science is not an argument like IQ. IQ was never an argument. When did I ever say IQ was an argument. I brought up IQ because your topic was catchy ‘’why atheism is irrational’’. Instead of that name topic it could be ‘’How atheism is unable to prove the god’’ seems more suitable.

You said that because atheists are statistically more intelligent than theists, atheism cannot be irrational. This conclusion uses IQ as an argument. And the topic is called "why atheism is irrational" because thinking the point through as I did shows that atheism is irrational. I did not name it "why atheists are irrational".

[Zack Williamson]

Everyone and everything is agnostic about lots of things. But that doesn't mean it makes any sense to call everyone and everything agnostic.

1st and 7th probabilities strong atheism and strong theism are not agnostic
2nd and 6th probabilities De facto atheist and de facto theist are not technically agnostic
I have a source why he is said to be ‘an agnostic theist’
https://www.librarything.com/topic/94045

Whatever the first cause is it has no further cause or it is its own cause. This does not make any sense. It doesn't matter if the first cause is the world itself or God. In both cases the answer makes no sense and is irrational. Neither does a causal chain without a first cause make any sense to our mind. Thus a causal and eternal world is just as irrational.
But if you assume that God is the first cause / the reason for all of existence, then you have the advantage,

Inference will make self-cause God or self-cause World, which is irrational to our mind.
But still we have our senses which is said to be perception
Perception is not as limited as a holy spirit’s interpretation
God is a disadvantage because he is beyond my perception.
He is not measurable by any electronic equipment.
Matter is not beyond my perception
Matter has an advantage here (which you have been avoiding since my 2nd post and/or you didn’t understand)
We cannot have inferences unless we have knowledge of universal connexions. Perception does not give us a universal relation nor it can be due to inference, and so inference is invalid. It is only a subjective association which may be justified, if at all, by accident.
Since we have perception is the source of knowledge (here), thus matter becomes the only reality. It alone is consign-able by the senses, what is material is real. The ultimate principles are five elements. They are eternal and can explain the development of the world from the protozoan to the philosopher.
A god is not necessary to account for the world. Heaven and hell are imposed by religion. Under the dominance of religious prejudice men are accustomed to the idea of another world (heaven and hell) and of God, and when the religious illusion is destroyed, they feel a sense of loss and have an uncomfortable void and perception.
Nature is absolutely dead to all human values. It is indifferent to Good and bad. The sun shines equally on the good and the evil. If nature has any quality, it is that of transcendent immorality. The majority of man, thanks to their weakness believe that there are deities, protectors of innocence and avengers of crime. Who are open to pursuant and flattery. We do not see anywhere in the course of the world interposition of superior beings. We falsely interpret natural phenomena when we traced them to Gods and Demons. It was impossible for those denying spirits to look upon nature as if it were a proof of a God, to interpret history as if it were a revelation of a divined reason, to personal experiences
as if intirnations of the providence. To treat history as God’ witness to justice, or the events of the world as things planned by providence for the salvation of soul, is nothing short of
hypocrisy. Nature does things herself without any meddling by the Gods. The variety of the world is born of itself. Fire is hot and water cold because it is all in the nature of things, ‘’Who colors wonderfully the peacocks, or who makes the cuckoons coo so well ?Thereis in respect of these, no cause other than nature.’’
Plus a simple inference- If things can function only in obedience to the will of God, there is no reason why they should be endowed with distinct attributes. Different substances need not have specific functions which cannot be exchanged. Water can burn and fire cool if that be the will of God.

that the world makes sense and is completely rational. But that also sounds like I'm now arguing about words. Let's call both options equally irrational instead.

Okay I call both options irrational (Only if you say so, otherwise i have not given up yet)

Neither does a causal chain without a first cause make any sense to our mind.

It can be denied by quantum physics. It is not necessary whatever happens should have a cause. Here it makes sense though.

Your main argument was-

God's relation to humanity in a way that is close enough to perfection.

It includes Genesis 1:26–28,  5:1–3, 9:6 and some more
But before coming to these Genesis I have something to say-
(1.) It is doubtful whether Christ existed at all or not- I don’t believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Christ appeared in the Gospels, by taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There were a great many texts that prove that. He said, for instance, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." Then he said, "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom"; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that he believed that his second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of his earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of his moral teaching. When He said, "Take no thought for the morrow," and things of that sort, it was very largely because he thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. Some old followers of christian who did believe that the second coming was imminent. Some new Christians frightened his congregation terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise.

(2.)

1. God was made in the image of God (Gen 1:27)
2. Man is formed dust of the ground (Gen 2:7)
   Seems to be contradictory.

(3.)God doesn’t work through people - Humans decide to do good or evil. Nobody sits on their shoulder and drives them to make something. They decide what to do what with their own education and brain. I could take a break now and drink a glass with water or go to the shop and buy an icecream. All these decisions are mine, I dictate my own life.
Whenever I try to get now is that we always used god as an excuse for our deeds. A doctor does his job right and the patient is saved. Everybody says “glory to god”. But if the patient dies, everyone blames the doctor. Or some say “it was god will to be taken.’’
Source- “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’’

(4.) God is nothing more than a fictional character-  his only proof is a book Bible. SpiderMan has a book too. Does this mean SpiderMan exist? No, is a fictional character, so is God. We can talk about him all day long, but he is as real as SpiderMan and Superman together.

(5.) Bible is not created by God himself- this is the main point. I want to elaborate this one
The bible is contradictory. Apparently I am against your genesis argument this time. Superlative wise man like God will never write contradictory genesis

1. God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen 1:27)
2. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen. 1:28)
3. Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created (Gen. 5:2)
4. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)
5. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; (Gen.2:21)
6. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (Gen. 2:22)
   :The bible is contradictory on whether adam and eve was created together or separately otherwise the creation of adam and eve occurs multiple times  in book: once in Verse 2:7 where adam is created and Verse 2:21-2:22 where eve is created and Verses 1:26 where both are created simultaneously and Verse 5:2 where they are created again. In verse 5:2 the author forgets that the female is called eve and states that both i.e. male and female are called adam.

(6.)- Two Gods in Bible- The portrayal of god is not even consistent throughout the bible itself. The old testament portrays a vindictive, angry, vengeful deity to whom sacrifices and offerings are brought. A god who actually comes down from heaven and walks on earth i.e. he is given further human attributes. The new testament's god is more caring, loving and forgiving. This god cannot be seen and does not accept offerings and sacrifices but sends his son to become one. This presents us with another flaw within the bible since the bible states, as a contradiction to the afore-mentioned, that god is constant and does not change.

(7.) Humans created the God- The fact that man is fallible is proof that god is not all powerful since his assumed limitless ability means that what he created should have been perfect in all aspects.
God displays pleasure, anger, disappointment, regret and other human emotions. God destroys mankind and beast, with exception of the ark’s occupants, with the great flood and was driven by anger. How can an all perfect spiritual being display human characteristics and still be regarded as the enlightened deity it is purported to be?
The assigned human attributes to god serves as the proof that god was created by humans according to how humans perceived themselves and is therefore a figment of man’s imagination. More specifically the male father figure attributes assigned to god clearly demonstrates that god was designed around the male father figure.
Furthermore god is portrayed as having human attributes whilst simultaneously is given non-human attributes. The concept of god is therefore materially flawed since he is described as a supreme deity whilst simultaneously possession human attributes. Such a weak godly design can only be the creation of humans.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Electrifying-Guy I appreciate your far ranging perspective. However I do not have the time to answer to all of this.

So I'll just say this: this was never a discussion about the bible. You made it that, and my main argument was purely philosophical and has nothing to do with the genesis.

Philosophically we have shown that God is irrational (just like any alternative). It makes no sense to try and reason about what he can and can't do, since it is impossible to understand Him. Just as meaningless is reasoning in a philosophical way about what attributes God has or hasn't. There is no basis for argument. This is why much of what Aquinas did in this direction was meaningless, and he called it that too, after he had his vision of God at the end of his life.

[Zack Williamson]

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

@Electrifying-Guy I appreciate your far ranging perspective. However I do not have the time to answer to all of this.

So I'll just say this: this was never a discussion about the bible.

Okay, I forget the whole Bible now

You made it that, and my main argument was purely philosophical and has nothing to do with the genesis.

Your philosophical argument was Cosmological argument or first cause inference

But there is a question for you.
Since I have disproved attributes of both Aquinas' God and Bible's God. This cosmological argument was given by Aquinis' God . So What kind of God you are believing in ?

As I have proved he is imperfect, non-omnipotent, non-united, non-willing, partial.
That type of God is near to human in attributes.

Whereas I have proved nature is impartial, transcendent immoral and eternal. You don't have any argument against it's any attribute.
That type of nature is not near to human in any attribute.

Philosophically we have shown that God is irrational (just like any alternative

You want to say I should forget physics as well.
Okay I forgot Physics as well
Philosophy includes both perception and inference.
You cannot deny perception.
You cannot say philosophy doesn't include perception
Source- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_perception

Five elements are either perceived and/or measurable
An inference assumes something in starting.
An inference is a conclusion drawn from observed or supposed facts. For example, if someone presses a light switch but the light does not turn on, they might infer that the filament has burnt out. However inferences may or may not be correct.
Five probabilities can be concluded from an inference.
In this context, perception is real more than inference.

It makes no sense to try and reason about what he can and can't do, since it is impossible to understand Him. Just as meaningless is reasoning in a philosophical way about what attributes God has or hasn't. There is no basis for argument. This is why much of what Aquinas did in this direction was meaningless, and he called it that too, after he had his vision of God at the end of his life.

A dead philosopher will never come to tell what he has experienced after death

Materialism gave things existence? You mean the universe itself gave the chain its existence?

It gave bexause five elements have their own qualities.
A substance has its own quality
Water flows like water it never flows like air
Nobody can burn water
Hence self-cause nature is possible with this inference.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

Your philosophical argument was Cosmological argument or first cause inference

Yes, it was a combination of the first-cause inference and the question of why there is anything.

Because everything in nature is the way it is for a reason. An apple falls down because of gravity. Quantum particles are generated out of "nothing" all the time for a reason (the nature of quantum mechanics). And all the laws of physics are also there because of how the universe began.

But there is a question for you.
Since I have disproved attributes of both Aquinas' God and Bible's God. This cosmological argument was given by Aquinis' God . So What kind of God you are believing in ?

In contrast to a whole set of philosophers (like Aquinas) I believe it is utterly pointless to figure out God's attributes and reason about them. To me God is simply completely different from what we could ever think about Him. We just cannot rationally think about what He is.

I believe the only thing we can barely touch with our reason is the fact of His existence, which makes sense due to our existence.

As I have proved he is imperfect, non-omnipotent, non-united, non-willing, partial.

I think you haven't proven a thing, because that is completely impossible, since there is no way we could ever understand God. But that's just my opinion.

That type of God is near to human in attributes.

Whereas I have proved nature is impartial, transcendent immoral and eternal. You don't have any argument against it's any attribute.

Nature is not transcendent, since transcendent basically means, that something transcends nature. You have not proven that nature is eternal, because an eternal nature would be irrational and thus not provable (Just like God)

Philosophy includes both perception and inference.
You cannot deny perception.
You cannot say philosophy doesn't include perception
Source- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_perception

Five elements are either perceived and/or measurable

I wish you would forget about those 5 elements, for fire is not an element but a chemical reaction, air is a gas made up from a bunch of molecules, earth is a huge set of molecules and elements, wood (if we are talking chinese) is a carbon based life-form, and water is a combination of two elements: oxygen and hydrogen. Basically this 5 element theory (like any 5 or 4 element theory) is BS. Inference gone wrong, nothing else but a good model for chinese medicin.

An inference assumes something in starting.
An inference is a conclusion drawn from observed or supposed facts. For example, if someone presses a light switch but the light does not turn on, they might infer that the filament has burnt out. However inferences may or may not be correct.
Five probabilities can be concluded from an inference.
In this context, perception is real more than inference.

Perception is more direct than inference, not more real. What's real is objective wether we perceive or infer or don't know about it.

But I like your point about inference and the question wether we know enough about what we infer. This might be the only good argument I have heard so far against the cosmological way to God.

A dead philosopher will never come to tell what he has experienced after death

He had that vision before his death and told people about it...

Materialism gave things existence? You mean the universe itself gave the chain its existence?

It gave bexause five elements have their own qualities.

Five elements are not real...

A substance has its own quality
Water flows like water it never flows like air

All liquids flow like water.

Nobody can burn water
Hence self-cause nature is possible with this inference.

Water doesn't cause itself. Neither does fire. Nothing in nature causes itself. Thus you cannot infere that. You have absolutely no basis to do so.

[bye69]

@Anastasia-Smith wow

[Alina Khan]

This post is deleted!

[Alina Khan]

@petrapark3r if you want to chat with girls join here Click here-->https://yarichat.blogspot.com/

[Alina Khan]

if you want to chat with girls join here Click here-->https://yarichat.blogspot.com/

[bye69]

@petrapark3r atheism is for those who believe that science is a panacea that can answer all the questions in the universe. However, in reality, science has limitations and this is where religion comes in.

[pe7erpark3r]

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

@petrapark3r atheism is for those who believe that science is a panacea that can answer all the question in the universe. However, in reality, science has limitation and this is where religion comes in.

Indeed, but the question is how can you get to truth? In other words: how do you use the religious tools to gain objectivity?

Science drives to find what's objectively true about nature. Religion should drive to find what's objectively true in the transcendent.

But instead they tend to fight against each other, because most of them have no method of validating their claims. What do you think?

[Zack Williamson]

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

@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

Your philosophical argument was Cosmological argument or first cause inference

Yes, it was a combination of the first-cause inference and the question of why there is anything.

Because everything in nature is the way it is for a reason. An apple falls down because of gravity. Quantum particles are generated out of "nothing" all the time for a reason (the nature of quantum mechanics). And all the laws of physics are also there because of how the universe began.

Gravity is natural law
It could all just be the result of "accidents" exploited by the relentless regularities of nature.
Benedict spinoza in the 17th century, identified God and nature, arguing that scientific research was the true path of theology. For this heresy he was persecuted. There is a troubling Janus-faced quality to Spinozas heretical vision of Deus sive Natura: in proposing his scientific simplification, was he personifying nature or depersonalising god ?
Darwins more generative vision provides the structure in which we can see the intelligence of Mother nature (or is it merely apparent intelligence? ) as a non-miraculous and non-mysterious --and hence all more wonderful-- feature of this self-creating thing.

Should Spinoza be counted as an atheist or a pantheist ? He saw the glory of nature and then saw a way of eliminating the middle-man.
I know science has already disproved old 5 elements
Nature is more than those five elements

But there is a question for you.
Since I have disproved attributes of both Aquinas' God and Bible's God. This cosmological argument was given by Aquinis' God . So What kind of God you are believing in ?

In contrast to a whole set of philosophers (like Aquinas) I believe it is utterly pointless to figure out God's attributes and reason about them. To me God is simply completely different from what we could ever think about Him. We just cannot rationally think about what He is.

I believe the only thing we can barely touch with our reason is the fact of His existence, which makes sense due to our existence.

As I have proved he is imperfect, non-omnipotent, non-united, non-willing, partial.

I think you haven't proven a thing, because that is completely impossible, since there is no way we could ever understand God. But that's just my opinion.

That type of God is near to human in attributes.

Whereas I have proved nature is impartial, transcendent immoral and eternal. You don't have any argument against it's any attribute.

Nature is not transcendent, since transcendent basically means, that something transcends nature.

You had misread it. I wrote transcendent immorality. A comma was not between both words
Nature is dead to human values
For an example sun lights on everyone either he is sinful or good

You have not proven that nature is eternal, because an

eternal nature would be irrational and thus not provable (Just like God)

Philosophy includes both perception and inference.
You cannot deny perception.
You cannot say philosophy doesn't include perception
Source- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_perception

Five elements are either perceived and/or measurable

I wish you would forget about those 5 elements, for fire is not an element but a chemical reaction, air is a gas made up from a bunch of molecules, earth is a huge set of molecules and elements, wood (if we are talking chinese) is a carbon based life-form, and water is a combination of two elements: oxygen and hydrogen. Basically this 5 element theory (like any 5 or 4 element theory) is BS. Inference gone wrong, nothing else but a good model for chinese medicin.

An inference assumes something in starting.
An inference is a conclusion drawn from observed or supposed facts. For example, if someone presses a light switch but the light does not turn on, they might infer that the filament has burnt out. However inferences may or may not be correct.
Five probabilities can be concluded from an inference.
In this context, perception is real more than inference.

Perception is more direct than inference, not more real. What's real is objective wether we perceive or infer or don't know about it.

Yes direct, not real

But I like your point about inference and the question wether we know enough about what we infer. This might be the only good argument I have heard so far against the cosmological way to God.

A dead philosopher will never come to tell what he has experienced after death

He had that vision before his death and told people about it...

Personal experiences are vary to each-other. They are not reliable
For an example- an eastern philosopher Gautama Buddha got liberation in the age of 35. He shared his personal experience to people without believing in God and disproving fatalism. He believed in free will and in making our own efforts

Materialism gave things existence? You mean the universe itself gave the chain its existence?

It gave bexause five elements have their own qualities.

Five elements are not real...

A substance has its own quality
Water flows like water it never flows like air

All liquids flow like water.

I was comparing five elements with one-another
Other liquids are not elements
Air is not liquid
Fire is that part of Nature that transforms one state of matter into another. For example, fire transforms the solid state of water (ice) into liquid water and then into its gaseous state (steam)

[pe7erpark3r]

@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

Gravity is natural law
It could all just be the result of "accidents" exploited by the relentless regularities of nature.

The point is the regularities. Everything happens for a reason. Evolution happens because certain traits favor survival. There is a reason to why everything works the way it does. There is a reason for why gravity is as strong as it is (scientists traced this back to the conditions in the big bang). There is a reason for why there is gravity. There is a reason for everything in nature.

Benedict spinoza in the 17th century, identified God and nature, arguing that scientific research was the true path of theology. For this heresy he was persecuted. There is a troubling Janus-faced quality to Spinozas heretical vision of Deus sive Natura: in proposing his scientific simplification, was he personifying nature or depersonalising god ?

I cannot answer this question for I do not know Spinoza well enough. But he clearly was wrong about claiming that scientific research could lead you to God :shrug:

Darwins more generative vision provides the structure in which we can see the intelligence of Mother nature (or is it merely apparent intelligence? ) as a non-miraculous and non-mysterious --and hence all more wonderful-- feature of this self-creating thing.

There is a big difference between developing (which is what nature does) and creating itself (which is nothing that has ever been observed in nature).

Should Spinoza be counted as an atheist or a pantheist ? He saw the glory of nature and then saw a way of eliminating the middle-man.

Since he thought he could arrive at God, he was certainly not an atheist. But again, I don't know him well enough to tell you wether he was a pantheist or believed in a God that was just a part of nature...

I know science has already disproved old 5 elements
Nature is more than those five elements

Good we agree on this.

You had misread it. I wrote transcendent immorality. A comma was not between both words
Nature is dead to human values
For an example sun lights on everyone either he is sinful or good

Oh, okay, yeah, I misread that. I'd still say that the immorality of nature is not transcendent though. Nature is just simply non-moral (I agree with you on this).

Personal experiences are vary to each-other. They are not reliable
For an example- an eastern philosopher Gautama Buddha got liberation in the age of 35. He shared his personal experience to people without believing in God and disproving fatalism. He believed in free will and in making our own efforts

I was just saying that Aquinas did agree in the end with this whole argument about the attributes of God being "like straw" (pointless), because of his experience. I wasn't argueing wether his experience was real or not.

I was comparing five elements with one-another
Other liquids are not elements

Water is not an element either :smirk:

Air is not liquid
Fire is that part of Nature that transforms one state of matter into another. For example, fire transforms the solid state of water (ice) into liquid water and then into its gaseous state (steam)

Agreed.

[bye69]

@petrapark3r I think we can only achieve the truth in time. Science is still in its infancy. We have not yet explored the vast universe.

If Darwin's theory of evolution is true, then we are not alone in this universe.
Actually, we should storm Area 51 on September to know whether aliens exist.

Meanwhile, I believe that while science can not yet answer the profundities of life and its precise origin, we should believe the notion of having a supreme being that created us.

[pe7erpark3r]

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

@petrapark3r I think we can only achieve the truth in time. Science is still in its infancy. We have not yet explored the vast universe.

That's true.

If Darwin's theory of evolution is true, then we are not alone in this universe.
Actually, we should storm Area 51 on September to know whether aliens exist.

That is not so sure, because darwins theory does not explain how life started, only how it developed. For life has always been incredibly complex (DNA is 3 meters long), at least that's as far as science has gotten by now.

Also we have not enough information to conclude how propable life is (assuming it can appear just by itself).

Meanwhile, I believe that while science can not yet answer the profundities of life and its precise origin, we should believe the notion of having a supreme being that created us.

It certainly makes sense to our minds (but God himself is non the less not rationally understandable)... And I do believe.