Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational

[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.

[Zack Williamson]

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

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 laziness 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.

I agree on it. I mentioned it because I messed up some paragraphs earlier.

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?

I suppose our and their IQ’s were same but we cannot know the exact time without checking a clock. For an example, it is 09:00 PM in my country. I would like to sleep sleep at 12.00 AM. I will be unable to know the exact time 12.00 PM without having a clock or a PDA. Today I am talking with some virtual friends, the time will be spent up very swiftly. When I was attending the lecture in college, I wanted my time to spend quick. 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.

you didnt refute me you avoided me

I never avoided you. I disproved first argument of god in-apparently. Now I would write apparently.

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.
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.

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 lectures on the psychological significance of the bible.

Bible was interpreted by different people. Their interpretation conflicts themselves so does that mean Bible is not a reliable source of christian theism ?

This in turn means, that also the other days are to be understand symbolically.

Again, interpretation of Bible in different way by anyone doesnt make any sense.

It shows how God ordered everything, not just the things he created but also the time.

That’s what you say but he never created the time. I was reading on Wikipedia today and pressed ctrl+F and typed ‘time’ but surprising thing was I could not find any sentence related to time and relation of God’. I want a reliable source for it. This was the article -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

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.

Then almighty creator is not God he is just a human. A banker or a teacher works for 6 days and rests on 7th day (which is Sunday). An omnipotence, perfect entity like him should never be tired. Also, this reminds me of some ancient Mughal kings. Those kings enjoy in their harem after defeating other kings with audacity. Aren’t those three persons exactly same (1. A Banker, 2. The God, 3. A Medieval King) ?

What do you mean by this?

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

I concede that there is a third choice: Agnosticism.
And what about materialistic agnostic atheism ?
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.
You defined the very correct definition of agnosticism but atheism is also an alternative to theism.

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.

God is the reason and human is its cause. God cannot be his own reason. Moreover I elaborate this point.
 
'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. 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 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.

I verified it with my own perception. I remembered when I used to believe in God just because I was told by my parents. I was just 9 yo in that moment. I wanted to entered the temple but the hindu priest of temple prohibited me to enter in it. People believe in caste-ism here but it was not an issue for me because I come in an upper level caste. He told me to give him some fruits or money. When I argued with him that temple is for everyone either he is miser or poor or rich, he cursed me and said I will go to hell because I didnt make happy my God.

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.

The material elements produce the world, and the supposition of a creator is unnecessary. The objection may be raised: Can the material elements by themselves give rise to this wonderful world ? We find that even the production of an object like an earthen jar requires, in addition to clay which is its material cause, a potter who the efficient cause that shapes the material into the desired form. The five elements supply only the material cause of the world. Do we not require an efficient cause, like God, as the shaper and designer who turns the material elements into this wonderful world • ? In reply, we state that the material elements themselves have got each its fixed nature. It is by the natures and laws inherent in them that they combine together to form this world. There is thus no necessity for God. There is no proof that the objects of the world are the products of any design. They can be explained more reasonably as the fortuitous products of the elements.
This theory tries to explain the world only by nature, it is sometimes called naturalism. It is also called mechanism because it denies the existence of conscious purpose behind the world and explains it as a mere mechanical or fortuitous combination of elements. This theory on the whole may also be called positivism, because it believes only in positive facts or observable phenomena.

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

I assumed by cosmological argument.
Also genesis 1:1 tells us that, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”
While extolling the glory of Jesus, the apostle Paul says this about Him, “And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17 ESV).

[paperbox]

@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.

[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.