atheism is irrational

Nope it's 100% atheist and proud of it. Like I always say you all want us dead and gone. He just has the balls to say it. Must be that because you're so close to monotheism you carry that same mindset. 

 I mean Stephen's up there posting I have a shaman and I never said I did

. 

Based on talking to shaman I do not believe Midgard is Earth #233

 just his way of making me look stupid or what he thinks makes me look stupid

The yes was in regards to God’s capability to issue commands not what that command should be classified as, hence why I added the caveat after saying yes.

I want all of you dead and gone just as I want all of us dead and gone. Atheism shouldn’t even need to exist.  - Reece101, #272, atheism is irrational (debateart.com)

If the answer is moral, then morality is subject to gods will (aka subjective).

Out of curiosity,

Are you an Antinatalist?

Something even 'more than that?

Or do I misread, your post?

Problem with the Christian God is he has too much time on his hands.The polytheist religions the gods all have jobs..............

controlling the oceans,

controlling the winds,

controlling thunder.

Maybe if he had a job he'd be less interested in what everybody on Earth was doing.

Anyone who understands logic understands that, so when you attack my point because it’s hypothetical that says way more about you than it does about me.

The hypothetical exposes the source

If the answer is moral, then morality is subject to gods will (aka subjective).

n8nrgmi 59 to Double_R :

per your counter points. you say it's too subjective to be authentic... that's just a weak theory, a hunch. plus, it ignores that almost everyone who has the experience believes in the afterlife afterwards, even if they didn't before the experience. and the large majority of atheists who have the experience end up believing in God.[41] (those who dont change just didn't get any insight into the matter.... it's pretty much never the case that a theist becomes an atheist or that an atheist gains knowledge that there is in fact no God)[42] plus experiencing God is common (along with Jesus experiences, i might add)[43], experiencing a wide array of religions is so rare that i doubt you can even provide hardly any examples of it.[44] so it's not as subjective as you claim it is, is what i'm getting at. but even if the experience is subjective, it all revolves around an afterlife experience, which nothing we know of drugs dreams hallucinations etc, doesn't replicate.[45] i've said it many times, but the idea that we hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when we die, is as stupid an idea as it comes.[46]

n8nrgmi 50 :

there isn't enough evidence to be an atheist

Amoranemix 80 :

Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 80 :

[27] Good evidence is irrelevant. Good on topic evidence would be relevant, but alas, no one can provide that for some reason.

[28] On what grounds do you classify the evidence provided by theists as good and the evidence provided by atheists as bad ? Your bias, perhaps ?

[29] The problem is that you are unable to demonstrate a correspondence between your sayings and reality.

[30] We see a Christian presenting a red herring to distract from the fact that he doesn't have a case. What else is new ?

That atheists ought to be able to explain NDEs is an ASSUMPTION of yours. Assumptions must be demonstrated. Go ahead !

What is your explicit theory for NDEs ?

[31] OK. You admitted that you know of no studies that demonstrate that God is responsible for miraculous healings. What studies can you show then ? How about ones that show that miraculous healings happen more often to theists than to atheists ?

[32] Is this thread about NDEs ? No. Is this thread about miraculous healings ? No. Again, read this thread's title to discover what it is about.

[33] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

n8nrgmi 59 :

the evidence theists provide indicates something.[34] they indicate that there's an afterlife and that miracles happen to theists.[35] i can understand if someone wanted to remain a skeptic, as if they needed more evidence to embrace the conclusions fully. but to pretend there's no evidence for the supernatural or God or any of that, is objectively wrong. that's why atheism is irrational.[36]

Amoranemix 80 :

[34] Indeed. It indicates they don't have a case.

[35] The problem is that the existence of an afterlife or miracles are extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not indicative evidence.

In 1950ies there were in the USA many reports of flying saucers with hammer and sickle symbols. That indicates that already back then the Soviets mastered flying saucer technology.

[36] How is that supposed to follow ?

n8nrgmi 82 :

indicative evidence is still evidence. i can respect not being a theist, but declaring that there's no evidence for God is irrational.

n8nrgmi 59 :

"people die and tell us of their afterlife experience" this is a fact.[37] i realize ya'll like to poke holes in it, but it's still a fact. a stubborn fact. i think ya'll can't deal with it, cause it's so blatantly clear evidence that contradicts your worldview.

Amoranemix 80 :

[37] Is that so ? Then please demonstrate that fact.

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 80 :

[38] Of the thausands of UFO observations that were investigated, how many do you think turned out the have the simple explanation, the one perfectly in line with Ockham's Razor, that those were alien craft flown by aliens ?

[39] You are mistaken. Others have also presented counter-evidence, that you have skillfully ignored.

[40] Great. Please present that science.

Is that science limited to reports of afterlife experiences or is there independent scientific evidence ?

n8nrgmi 82 :

[38] [no response]

[39] what evidence am i ignoring?[41] i think the most specific anyone has gotten is to argue that all humans are similar in design, and that there's a survival gene, therefore they claim that it's to be expect that we hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when we die. talk about jumping to conclusions. and this argument lacks specificity in science....[42] they dont show an afterlife gene or something in our brain, all they do is say it's possible to draw on science to explain NDEs. all this stuff boils down to, is a hunch. it lacks science. whereas, 'evidence of the afterlife' is great evidence,[43] as well as all the studies published in journals about out of body experiences being accurate.[44] it's also just common sense, which ya'll lack...[45] to not think that it's common to hallucinate a bunch of elaborate afterlife experiences when we die, if there's no good evidence to justify that argument.[46]

[40] [no response]

n8nrgmi 87 :

another piece of evidence is that experiencers almost always see relatives when dead, and almost never see someone who is still living. it's possible people just have a strong connection to their families and automatically think of the dead when dying... but if this was just a brain going hay wire, we'd expect lots of random people in the experience, both living and not living. the consistency of this is good evidence.

n8nrgmi 88 :

another good piece of evidence is that when experiencers are surveyed, they say their 'life reviews' are always accurate, 100% of the time. if this was just a brain going hay wire, we'd expect lots of false memories.[47]

i think this also goes along with the idea that if this was a brain going hay wire, people would experience lots of random images, like a hallucination or dream. instead,[48] they see lucid clear after life experiences that they have no doubt about and that are more real to them than their earthly lives.

also, people often see images in their life review, that they've long forgotten. it's not as likely just a brain going hay wire if it's showing the whole life even the forgotten stuff.[49]

n8nrgmi 88 :

it's also good evidence that the same sorts of NDEs happen to people who have never heard of these experiences, and to children who are too young to know about it either.[50]

it's also good evidence, that across all cultures, the themes in the experiences happen the same. that is, tunnels, light being, life   reviews and such... all these things happen at the same rate regardless of country or culture. i realize humans are similar, so the argument that we just have similar experiences is possible. but if this just a brain going hay wire, it wouldn't be so consistent and would be a lot more like random images or random experiences.[51]

In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.

The statement, "God does not exist," is irrational. (If one wants to know the reason, I'm willing to oblige.) So if one premises one's belief on an irrational statement, then I suppose one could argue that the belief itself is irrational. With that said, one's beliefs don't have to be rational.

People have to die all the time just ask Bill Gates.

Everything is real within a context.

Even morality, which is predicated on human data assessment and variously opinionated output.

And GODS too.

As I said.

Real within a context.

Whether or not the Bible accurately relates to real events.....I have no idea, and know way of knowing.