Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational

[A Former User]

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.

[A Former User]

@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?

[A Former User]

@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.

[A Former User]

@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

@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.

Where is cause there is effect
Where is not cause there is not effect
This is an inference and it is not as direct as perception which I brought up earlier.
An inference may be true or not. Even though it can have more probabilities

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.

Good one
Law of gravity was in Bigbang
You cannot create or destroy matter or energy in a lab like those 5 old elements, this is what first law of thermodynamics says
My perception is clearly agree with this physical or natural law
Some scientists still believe Law of thermodynamics would not come in bigbang theory and just because it addresses the evolution of Universe, not creation.
Source- https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html

Thus this debate ends here
World is clearly rational but God is irrational

[pe7erpark3r]

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

@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

@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.

Where is cause there is effect
Where is not cause there is not effect
This is an inference and it is not as direct as perception which I brought up earlier.
An inference may be true or not. Even though it can have more probabilities

True. And in the quantum world there seems to effect without cause. However we don't understand the quantum world yet. But even if there were effects without causes, the effects are regular. Not just anything happens. Something specific happens all the time. There is a reason to why it happens, even if there might be no cause.

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.

Good one
Law of gravity was in Bigbang
You cannot create or destroy matter or energy in a lab like those 5 old elements, this is what first law of thermodynamics says
My perception is clearly agree with this physical or natural law

Agreed.

Some scientists still believe Law of thermodynamics would not come in bigbang theory and just because it address the evolution of Universe, not creation.
Source- https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html

Interesting article!

[A Former User]

@LeoWeirdo 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 questions in the universe. However, in reality, science has limitations and this is where religion comes in.

Do you really think God will create or destroy matter/energy ?
Religion was made by some smart people for controlling the population. Watch Zeitgeist
Bible was made by a human not by a deist entity. Do you even know how much Bible is contradictory to Science ?

1. Bible says the sky is blue when in actual fact the colour of the sky is a reflection of the ocean. The sky itself has no colour.
2. The bible does not even mention that the sun has a limited lifespan and that it too will eventually die out as it runs out of fuel.
3. Much through biblical times it was though that the sun rotates around the earth, when in actual fact the solar system is helio-centric: i.e. the earth rotates around the sun
4. The existence of microscopic organisms including bacteria and viruses. Note the bibles only mentions beasts and fowls that god created.
   These were some examples. I could write more contradictory things but It will take my time

@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.

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.

Myths will always be myths
There is not a UFO
It is actually the semi-secret contract commuter airline which is using the call-sign "Janet" that transports workers from Las Vegas's McCarran Airport to the base.

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 meant you will believe in an unseen and unheard notion.
By the way the guy who wrote this thread had an argument of first cause. If God I created this world then the God II will create him, God III will create God II and so on. Which God is real and which is not ?
Whereas energy is real and self-caused. You or your god cannot create it. (First law of thermodynamics )

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

One scientist was asked a question:
- Is science and faith are linked with each other?
- Yes of course! - the scientist answered.
- Do you believe in God?
- No..
- But how?! You just said that science and faith are linked?

- Many scientist of different epochs were religious. This single fact is enough to prove that faith and science are linked.

Many theists are raised from their instincts
No. of atheist scientists > no. of theist scientists
Check both links very well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

Atheism is also some kind of faith, in my point of view. To prove the God's existence or not existence, we need to visit each corner of the universe in different dimensions (and even this wouldn't be enough). So the only thing we have to do in this case - is to choose by ourselves to believe or not.

Atheism has two definitions

1. There is no god, this definition is not based on faith. Will you call Bertrand Russell's atheism was based on his faith ? Apparently his all counterarguments for five proofs for god's existence were logical and valid.
2. Lack of belief in god. Yes it is based on faith. This definition is psychological state of mind

[pe7erpark3r]

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

Atheism has two definitions

There is no god, this definition is not based on faith. Will you call Bertrand Russell's atheism was based on his faith ? Apparently his all counterarguments for five proofs for god's existence were logical and valid.

The following are his arguments. (https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/why-bertrand-russell-was-not-a-christian.)

The first cause argument

This argument is simple; it maintains that since everything must have a cause, there must be a first cause to start everything else. This first cause is God and is exempted from needing a cause itself. Russell points out that if we can decide that one thing doesn’t need a cause, we have no reason not to say the world itself wasn’t the thing without a cause.

This one is true. But it does not disprove God. It just states that the world could also be without reason. As I tried to show however this gives the world some irrational properties. Still Russels argument holds true.

The natural law argument:
This one centers on the idea that the laws of physics needed to be set. It then assumes that the being who determined them was God. Russell finds this one to be outdated given advances in physics since the days of Newton, particularly in quantum mechanics. Since atomic physics is more statistical than classical, Russell contends that it seems odd to claim that an intelligence is involved in physics. Saying:
“There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design.”
As with dice rolls, so with reality, he argues.

This can be countered by the fact, that even though things happen without a cause they don't happen without a reason. It's the same kind of thing that happens over and over again: quantum particles appear out of nothing, with an opposite charge / opposite spin. It is a zero-sum game, but it is a regular one.

The argument from design:

This perennial favorite argues that lifeforms are so well suited to their environments that a designer must have been involved. Russell dismisses this as absurd. He not only notes that Darwin explains the observed facts better through evolutionary theory but also points out how terrible some of the design choices are if they were, in fact, choices. He asks the audience:

“Do you think that, if you were given millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”

He shouldn't have used people for his argument there, since theists claim that people have free choice, and that therefore evil cannot be blamed on God.

But he is right about the physical world not being perfect. This is a good argument. But you still have the choice of finding it truly convincing, since you cannot claim to know why God might have made the world in this way.

After looking at a few others, he concludes that the arguments for the existence of a God are all lacking in rigor. Since Russell, famously, held that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, the failure of these proofs leaves him with no reason to assume God’s existence.

This one is the actual crux, and its not even a bad one: "Since you claim that there is God and you cannot prove his existence, I have no reason to believe you." Thus it is not unfair to call not believing an God a rational choice.

However it is also true, that God is not disprovable, and that there are questions that must forever remain unanswered about the origin of the universe (and other things). So it is not unfair either to call not believing in God a form of faith.

Lack of belief in god. Yes it is based on faith. This definition is psychological state of mind

All kinds of convictions have a psychological aspect. Logic itself is based on improvable axioms. So I'd say you are both right.

[davitchen]

@pe7erpark3r

Atheism assumes that God is not real, and claims to be entirely rational. But that second part about, being entirely rational, can be proven to be wrong

I think the the way we humans try to explain the god's existance or absence is purely rational. Altough it doesn't mean the way we feel about It (faith) is rational or can even be explained. As an excuse, i'd say it is part of a complex algorithmic system (genome, culture, education...)

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

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

Of course nothing popps out of the void, that's why some scientists have been, for years, trying to find new particles amongst this void, whose been told there were absolutely no matter in. New fundamental particles were discovered here, in CERN and other particles accelarators.

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

Agree.

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

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

Well said "in our rational mind", but to any other mind, the existence of this bike, in the first place, can have a purpose to exist and its appearance can be justified, not only by our little minds. Finally, adding your whole argument with the classic complex algorithmic system, which I referred at the beggining, it fits as a glove to prove atheism is indeed irrational.

[A Former User]

@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:

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

Atheism has two definitions

There is no god, this definition is not based on faith. Will you call Bertrand Russell's atheism was based on his faith ? Apparently his all counterarguments for five proofs for god's existence were logical and valid.

The following are his arguments. (https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/why-bertrand-russell-was-not-a-christian.)

The first cause argument

This argument is simple; it maintains that since everything must have a cause, there must be a first cause to start everything else. This first cause is God and is exempted from needing a cause itself. Russell points out that if we can decide that one thing doesn’t need a cause, we have no reason not to say the world itself wasn’t the thing without a cause.

This one is true. But it does not disprove God. It just states that the world could also be without reason. As I tried to show however this gives the world some irrational properties. Still Russels argument holds true.

You misinterpreted him about disproving the God or you did not read about this argument.
In his own words, ''My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.''

He clearly wrote the fallacy of first cause. As I have said, God II will make God I and God III will make God II and so on. God too should have a cause So, fallacy is itself in this argument

The natural law argument:
This one centers on the idea that the laws of physics needed to be set. It then assumes that the being who determined them was God. Russell finds this one to be outdated given advances in physics since the days of Newton, particularly in quantum mechanics. Since atomic physics is more statistical than classical, Russell contends that it seems odd to claim that an intelligence is involved in physics. Saying:
“There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design.”
As with dice rolls, so with reality, he argues.

This can be countered by the fact, that even though things happen without a cause they don't happen without a reason. It's the same kind of thing that happens over and over again: quantum particles appear out of nothing, with an opposite charge / opposite spin. It is a zero-sum game, but it is a regular one.

In his own words, ''natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws
and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have.

He was talking about probability of double sixes for designer which is 1/36.

As we have seen an inference is not direct like perception and natural laws are self-caused

The argument from design:

This perennial favorite argues that lifeforms are so well suited to their environments that a designer must have been involved. Russell dismisses this as absurd. He not only notes that Darwin explains the observed facts better through evolutionary theory but also points out how terrible some of the design choices are if they were, in fact, choices. He asks the audience:

“Do you think that, if you were given millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”

He shouldn't have used people for his argument there, since theists claim that people have free choice, and that therefore evil cannot be blamed on God.

And free will is against man is made in the image of god verse. Do not forget that

But he is right about the physical world not being perfect. This is a good argument. But you still have the choice of finding it truly convincing, since you cannot claim to know why God might have made the world in this way.

After looking at a few others, he concludes that the arguments for the existence of a God are all lacking in rigor. Since Russell, famously, held that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, the failure of these proofs leaves him with no reason to assume God’s existence.

This one is the actual crux, and its not even a bad one: "Since you claim that there is God and you cannot prove his existence, I have no reason to believe you." Thus it is not unfair to call not believing an God a rational choice.

In his own words, ''Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one.''
He was talking about the faith of theism. How they consider God as a justice of the world without even any weak argument.

However it is also true, that God is not disprovable,

God is disprovable because first cause argument is defective

and that there are questions that must forever remain unanswered about the origin of the universe (and other things). So it is not unfair either to call not believing in God a form of faith.

I gave you some links for agnosticism atheism. Check the link again. You cannot say former definition is based on faith
Also whatever source are you reading from, is not reliable and it consists of some uncomprehending arguments
http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Russell,Bertrand/Religion/Bertrand Russell - Why I am not a Christian.pdf
Check this out. It is pdf of his essay 'why I'm not a Christian'

Lack of belief in god. Yes it is based on faith. This definition is based on psychological state of mind

All kinds of convictions have a psychological aspect.

A coin is tossed
2 results may come out - head or tail
Elaborate how it is a psychological aspect.

Logic itself is based on improvable axioms. So I'd say you are both right.