atheism is irrational

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 618
#481
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
It's rational to think god wants us meeting up and singing songs to him. 

Its common sense for  10 ,30, 40 year old single,  married,  familys from around your neighborhood to sing songs together. 
Rash nil. 
I mean rational  

Hold.

Why it couldn't  be NO more then  (Two lines ) into singing songs to the good lord jesus 
Ya rational kicks in .
Thats your rationality.
Or is it. 
We haven't a rationality,   
Thats a different post. 

If atheism is irrational,  theists ,   theism is ummmm,  more irrational. 
And that's just for starters.   


#482
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
A. Is there a floaty about bloke that does magic?

B. Is the universe purposeful or not?

C. Can we be sure of anything?

Questions Questions Questions Deb.
#483
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
And i shouod never stop asking them hey ?
It's  rational. 
#484
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Amoranemix
[a'] You can at least try and it can at least be reduced.
Bias is not quantifiable, and therefore cannot be "reduced." Whether it's a little biased or heavily biased, bias is still bias.

#485
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
I agree that processes are seemingly one and the same. Call them thoughts, call them electro-chemical data processing.

So we can detect the process, can we project the image externally? 

I don't see why not
How does one make the distinction between the "internal image" and the "external projection"?

Well, the argument that "atheism is irrational", is basically just a theistic dig at atheists.
Not just, but it can be.  If one premises one's belief on an irrational premise, then at the very least one could argue that atheism can be based on the irrational.

Nonetheless, if we break the processes down to a base level of electro-chemical function, we can therefore question the rationality of all such processes, labelled  theistic or atheistic or anything I suppose.

Labelling outcomes wont alter the base reality of the argument. Which is, GODS are not actually known to be anything other than an internal electro-chemical process.
And what would be external? How is this external's independence controlled for independent of the "internal electro-chemical process"?

As of course, are NO GODS.
This is irrational.

So one processes and produces outcomes relative to acquired and stored data. So management/control of such processes is therefore a facet of one and the same process and it's acquired parameters......Self control or not, as might be judged.
So, I ask again: how does one make the distinction between the "internal image" and the "external projection"?
#486
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Remembering what you did yesterday is a conscious hulucination.  
#487
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
One assumes, as I'm not sure that the process is yet possible, that internally the electro-chemical sequences that produces internal imagery will be able to be replicated externally, or down loaded from the brain to device. Sounds like science fiction, but probably not far away.

In essence no different to technological data transfer systems conversion of a digital sequence into a perceivable image. So the distinction would be the same as the distinction between digital processes and what is projected onto a monitor.

And one might also assume that the process will be reversible. Uploading data from device to brain, as both storable data and internally perceivable imagery.

If and when we do manage to achieve these processes, the mystery that is the human mind will have been unravelled.

But for now we can continue to wonder or not about a GOD.

#488
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Celebrities Who Identify as Atheists:
#489
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
One assumes, as I'm not sure that the process is yet possible, that internally the electro-chemical sequences that produces internal imagery will be able to be replicated externally, or down loaded from the brain to device. Sounds like science fiction, but probably not far away.

In essence no different to technological data transfer systems conversion of a digital sequence into a perceivable image. So the distinction would be the same as the distinction between digital processes and what is projected onto a monitor.
Exactly: you assume. So what is your objection to, for example, a theist's claiming and presuming "God is responsible for all of this"?

If and when we do manage to achieve these processes, the mystery that is the human mind will have been unravelled.
And what can this mystery reveal if it's still within domain of the mind?
#490
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
I personally don't believe that any of those celebrities are actually "atheists." Their proclamations of Atheism serves the purpose of undermining Christianity through their influence. Hollywood is a witch-coven, littered with Luciferians, Saturnians, Witches, Kabbalists, etc.

#491
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
I've never had any objections to theist presumptions.

I simply just disagree with theist presumptions.


What can this mystery reveal?
More assumptions I suppose.
#492
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias

During his younger years, Putin was an atheist. He says he turned to the church after two major accidents in the 1990s—his wife’s car accident and a house fire. He now considers himself to be a devout member of the Russian Orthodox Church.
I guess God loves people that kill people. Oh, that's right, he killed his only son.
#493
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
I've never had any objections to theist presumptions.

I simply just disagree with theist presumptions.
Fair enough.

#494
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
During his younger years, Putin was an atheist. He says he turned to the church after two major accidents in the 1990s—his wife’s car accident and a house fire. He now considers himself to be a devout member of the Russian Orthodox Church.
I guess God loves people that kill people. Oh, that's right, he killed his only son.
"God loves people that kills people"? How do you figure? Second, how did God kill Jesus?

#495
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias

Sorry, I should have said that he let him be killed.
#496
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
Sorry, I should have said that he let him be killed.
And why did God let Jesus be killed?

#497
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias

Because Maury said, " God, you are not the FATHER"?
#498
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
If jesus didn't die we wouldn't have hot cross buns.  So god let jesus be killed for hot cross buns. 
Well hot cross buns is the only thing jesus gave all of us. 
Can i get a AMEN.  
#499
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull

      AMEN,brother!
#500
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
 So god let jesus be killed for hot cross buns. 

Indeed. And very annoyed buns they must have been at being dragged into the nonsense  spouted about the cruci-fiction
#501
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen


         AMEN,  Brother Stephen!
#502
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Oh And maybe them body of christ waffers they give out. 
mmmmmmm   jesus body flavored waffers.  

#503
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I think this explains theism.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” — George Carlin...


#504
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
Because Maury said, " God, you are not the FATHER"?
I appreciate the humor.

#505
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
there's good evidence for God.
DEISM ≠ THEISM

which god(s) do you have evidence for ?
#506
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
And what would be external? How is this external's independence
two things that are truly "independent" are unable to detect and or interact with each other in any way
#507
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
How does one make the distinction between the "internal image" and the "external projection"?
the apophatic phaneron
#508
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
P1: If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived.
P2: Perception of nonexistence is irrational.
P3: An irrational premise and its extensions are irrational.
C: Therefore, the claim, "God does not exist," is irrational.
missing info

(before you can claim that "god(s)" and or "glipglorp" and or "nanabozho" either DOES (or) DOES NOT "exist", you must rigorously define "god(s)" and or "glipglorp" and or "nanabozho")
#509
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
.." two things that are truly "independent" are unable to detect and or interact with each other in any way "..

3RU is correct{ thank you }, and no such occupied space independence exists, because, all is interrelated by Gravity{ mass-attraction } at a minimum.

There exists no occupied space independent for our finite, occupied space Universe.

What does exists is irrational humans who may, or may not, be completely independent from mature, rational thought processes.

Occupied space God = occupied space Universe

Meta-space God { mind/intellect/concept } is just that  alone.  A concept and nothing more or nothing less.


#510
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
..." missing info "..

Either that or their missing brain cells ;--)

Three primary kinds of existence:

1} Meta-space { mind/intellect/concepts } aka Spirit-1, ex concept of God, Universe Space, Time etc,

-------conceptual line of demarcation-----------------------------------

2}  Metaphysical-2 { eternally existent } as the  truly macro-infinite, non-occupied space, ---lack of integrity---  that, exists outside of the following,

3} Eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe aka occupied space God

This above is the cosmic trinity at top of the cosmic hierarchy. Each of the above three have a subcatagorical trinary set.

....1} absolute truth, relative truth and falsehoods,
 
....2} non-shape-able { no boundary } outer set, the shape-able inner boundary perimeter set, and the ...?.....

....3} physical set of fermions { matter phenomena }  and bosons { force phenomena } ---and new hybrid set of those two---, Gravity (  ), Dark Energy )(.