atheism is irrational

Yes I think it's hysterical for an atheist to tell anybody in any religion how they should freaking practice that religion. And if you could care less don't freaking address it

Things that do not exist cannot be asserted as the cause for other things.

Does this mean God and/or the supernatural doesn’t exist? No, it means that they cannot be asserted even as a candidate explanation until you can first demonstrate that they exist.

it looks like you're getting close to merely asserting that God doesn't exist. i dont have to prove conclusively that God exists if all i need to do is show that God existing is a good theory.

plus NDEs are studied extensively, and when researchers (who report their findings in journals) ask people to explain what they experienced out of their body, they are very highly accurate with even doctors and such to verify the stories. i realize that it's not determined to the degree either of us would like (leaving no doubt about the accuracy), but it's still strong evidence that you just choose to ignore

you've given no good reason to assume things that look supernatural happen to atheists.

Ramshutu 17 :

Explanation of is not evidence for.

With NDEs, God is one of a class of explanations for which God is an explanation. They are not evidence for God because they do not indicate one explanation above another.

EtrnlVw 24 :

Perhaps you're missing the point entirely. Whether or not NDE's prove any particular relationship with any religious source is not the point. NDE's are evidence that the soul exists independent of the physical body which certainly indicates that what religious and spiritual sources have been proposing is true, or at the least there is plenty of evidence which supports the claim that a soul exists.[8] And if a soul exists then it certainly indicates that God exists, since of course.... a soul falls into the category of Theism.[9]

Ramshutu 17 :

Specifically because;

- they can occur without life threatening conditions.

EtrnlVw 24 :

NDE's by definition are when a person has been declared medically, clinically dead.[10] Brain death occurs within minutes after the hearts stops beating, after the heart stops beating and there is NO brain activity is when an NDE can take place.[11]

The documentary called "I Survived Beyond and Back" introduces NDE occurrences who have been hospitalized and presents the corresponding medical facts with each case. If you are not sure, clinically dead are those who have "flatlined". These NDE's are recorded after the heart stops beating and there are no signs the person is alive. This is when the soul detaches from the physical body and freely moves outside the confines of the brain and body.[12]

Ramshutu 17 :

- they are culturally and personally specific to each person, rather than a single consistent deity.

EtrnlVw 24 :

I'm going to assume you have no clue why you are saying this, did you hear it from somebody else? However, when a person leaves the physical body they may have many variations of experiences, including extensions of their cultures and this doesn't work against NDE's.[13]

Variations of experience is not a negative it is what makes creation beautiful....It would be like sending ten people across the globe in various directions and assuming they should all come back with the same experience of persons, places and things.[14] Rather, the afterlife is as vast as the physical universe and perhaps much more so. Many societies that we experience here extend outside of the physical world so it is likely when a soul will exit here they will continue their relations they had with their religious affiliations and cultures. In other words souls who have certain religious backgrounds will not be forced to be in the company of other strange and unfamiliar beliefs.[15] No one would force you to leave your family and friends to go live with strangers and places you are not welcome [16] why would you think that should happen when a soul leaves the body?

When you leave the physical body you will be present in a parallel universe, you could be located in any number of places and where you go from there could be virtually any numbers of other places. A soul is not bound to anything really except for Karma, and many times it's a persons desire that dictates where they will go next.[17]

Ramshutu 17 :

- There’s no verified example of any of these extra-corporeal experiences revealing extra corporeal information.

EtrnlVw 24 :

Lol, what is this supposed to mean? what it verifies is the proposition of the souls existence as being distinct from the brain and body. That's what we're looking for here.

Ramshutu 17 :

If the NDEs all showed the same God, or showed external information that would only be accessible to people if the vision were real - it would be evidence.

EtrnlVw 24 :

Typically, NDE's don't "show" God, again...I think you're missing the point besides the fact you appear to be very ignorant of such cases. [ . . . ]

TheUnderdog 14 :

People are reading the bible and are alienated by it.

ethang5 25 :

Untrue. This is your opinion. Most people who say they are "alienated" by the Bible held that opinion before they read the Bible.

Reading the Bible is a very dangerous thing for an atheist to do. What most do instead is read snippets online beside atheist interpretations on atheist websites. My experience has been that very few atheists actually know the Bible. They know movies and TV shows, and ignorant views from idiots like DeeDee or Stephen.

ethang5 to TheUnderdog :

But as I suspected, atheists will not want to talk about the thread's topic, but will instead tell us how they personally don't believe the Bible.[6]

Amoranemix 22 :

[6] Your prediction turns out to be wrong.

ethang5 26 :

Unless you carry the plural of majesty, my prediction is still right.

ethang5 26 :

Just their responses here aptly demonstrate the irrationality of atheism.[7]

Amoranemix 22 :

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

ethang5 26 :

It would be amazing if my personal opinion was being posted by atheists. The OP claimed atheism was irrational. Not a single atheist poster, including you, has spoken about atheism. Instead, you all   either attacked Christianity, or merely requested clarification of his argument.[8]

If any of you actually tried to defend atheism, he would quickly see that something irrational cannot be logically defended.[9] And that is why the responses here aptly demonstrate the irrationality of atheism.

n8nrgmi 27 :

the central issue, is that what i presented in the opening post, is plain evidence. and atheists demand more evidence, and remain skeptics for the sake of being skeptics.

Amoranemix 22 :

What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

n8nrgmi :

[no respone]

Amoranemix 22 :

[1] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

n8nrgmi :

[no respone]

Amoranemix 22 :

What is the idea there ? We don't understand it, therefore God must be doing it ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 22 :

If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. We don't understand the behaviour of energy in the universe.

P2. God is the explanation for everything we don't understand.

P3. In order to be the explanation for something, God must exist.

C. Therefore God exists.

Is that indeed your argument ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 22 :

Correction : apparent design.

Are you suggesting it be irrational to not be convinced by weak evidence ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 22 :

[3] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

You also seem to be missing that the total energy of the universe appears to be increasing as the amount of dark energy appears to be increasing.

[4] How so ?

[5] If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. We don't understand how something with an infinite ending can come from a finite beginning.

P2. God is the explanation for everything we don't understand.

P3. In order to be the explanation for something, God must exist.

C. Therefore God exists.

Is that indeed your argument ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

it's stupid to the point of irrationality to claim that it's common to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when we die. do you even hear yourselves? all you guys do is assert that to you it looks like a hallucination, or a drug trip. simply asserting it's a hallucination isn't an argument. (that's mostly what ya'll do, but i also suppose i just dont buy your theories for why people just happen to hallucinate a bunch of elaborate afterlife stories... they're weak theories) comparing it to drug trips is irrational when i've shown that drug trips are completely different... those are scattershot experiences, and random imagery, not elaborate afterlife experiences. plus NDEs are studied extensively, and when researchers (who report their findings in journals) ask people to explain what they experienced out of their body, they are very highly accurate with even doctors and such to verify the stories. i realize that it's not determined to the degree either of us would like (leaving no doubt about the accuracy), but it's still strong evidence that you just choose to ignore. people who just guess what happened out of their body are way off.  plus the AWARE study showed two examples of out of body information being verified, it just isn't strong enough evidence to convince skeptics. 

I believe that I am the only subject that objectively exists. In other words, I am the world, I am God.

Don't bring out the "But that is blasphemy!" no matter what. I can just think as if your religion doesn't exist.

You are mistaken. None of them have explained how they personally don't believe the Bible.

I came here to see theists try to support the irrationality of atheism and show them wrong and I suspect other atheists did too.

Alas, they won't even bother. In stead they lured atheists into debating NDE's and the popularity of Christianity.

[8] You are assuming that an unsubstantiated claim is an attack worthy enough to require a defense. That may be your personal opinion, but it is not mine.

My personal opinion is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. For some reason the OP has been unable to deliver.

Furthermore, you are mistaken. If you read the first page of this thread, you will notice several people have spoken about atheism.

[9] If theists really believed that, you would expect them to present a pertinent case against atheism to enjoy the spectacle of atheists showing their irrationality when they clumsily try to defend atheism.

The problem is, for that theists would need something resembling a defensible case. Most Christians aren't the ignorant fools they pretend to be. They know presenting the best case they have would show the opposite of what they desire.

So, thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.

Double_R 12 :

Things that do not exist cannot be asserted as the cause for other things.

Does this mean God and/or the supernatural doesn’t exist? No, it means that they cannot be asserted even as a  candidate  explanation until you can first demonstrate that they exist.

n8nrgmi 34 :

it looks like you're getting close to merely asserting that God doesn't exist. i dont have to prove conclusively that God exists if all i need to do is show that God existing is a good theory.[10] it's stupid to the point of irrationality to claim that it's common to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when we die. do you even hear yourselves? all you guys do is assert that to you it looks like a hallucination, or a drug trip. simply asserting it's a hallucination isn't an argument.[11] [ . . . ]

you've given no good reason to assume things that look supernatural happen to atheists. like a blind person's retina being healed. if something happens to one group, praying theists, but we have no reason to assume it happens to another group, atheists.... then i'm gonna take that as plain evidence that something is special with the theists.[12]

i could go on and on. it really does boil down to skeptics being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical, to the point of irrationality.[13]

n8nrgmi 34 :

plus NDEs are studied extensively, and when researchers (who report their findings in journals) ask people to explain what they experienced out of their body, they are very highly accurate with even doctors and such to verify the stories. i realize that it's not determined to the degree either of us would like (leaving no doubt about the accuracy), but it's still strong evidence that you just choose to ignore

Double_R 37 :

So here we have Phenomenon X. What are our candidate explanations?

n8nrgmi 41 :

the evidence is plain, you just choose to ignore it.[14]

look at the totality of the evidence to concluded God.[15] yes the design of the universe is weak evidence for God, and that alone shouldn't cause someone to believe in God. yes we can say it looks like something caused the universe but i agree it doesn't have to be called God. but if you look at all the evidences together, these arguments are icing on the cake.[16]

you may be right that energy is increasing in the universe. i dont know, all i know is what we see, non dark energy, where energy is decreasing.[17] if you are correct i would have to amend my argument. it doesn't make sense that there would be a definite beginning in time and an eternal end.[18] it doesn't and shouldn't make sense to the human mind that a one time event just happens and that's all there is too it.[19]

n8nrgmi 41 :

the evidence for NDEs is strong. [ . . . ]

n8nrgmi 41 :

i can show you an example of someone who is blind having their retina healed after they pray. there are lots of examples like this.   that level of inexplicable healing hasn't been demonstrated in atheists, and no one has given a good reason to assume those sorts of things happen to atheists. so we have one group of people, theists, experiences inexplicable healings while another group, atheists, do not have those things happen. you do the math. i'm gonna assume there's something special about theists... it's basic observation;   it's basic science.

n8nrgmi 41 :

even if i can't say God is proven, if you look at all the theories together... it's a good theory that God exists. certainly enough evidence to not obliviously and irrationally argue "God doesn't exist".

Amoranemix 39 :

[8] How is that supposed to follow ? I follow as far as the conclusion that there is evidence for an immaterial soul, but your conclusion is stronger than that. How can you justify it ?

[9] You are committing a non-sequitur fallacy. That theism includes a soul does not imply that a soul implies God.

EtrnlVw :

[no response]

Amoranemix 39 :

[10] Clinically dead does not mean dead : www.britannica.com/topic/near-death-experience

[11] You claim that an NDE can take place when there is no brain activity. How is that ? You appear to assume the existence of an independent soul, which is begging the question.

[12] How are they recorded ? What evidence can you present that the soul detaches from the body ?

EtrnlVw :

[no response]

Amoranemix 39 :

[13] It works against atheism being irrational, which happens to be this thread's topic.

[14] There is also an important difference, namely that there is no justification for making that assumption.

[15] If I understand correctly, you believe the following : If one is close to death one of the deities of one's religion comes to collect one's soul and shows one what one expects. So that is your hypothesis (which seems incompatible with most religions, including Christianity). What evidence can you present to support it ?

[16] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

Besides, if I am Hindu, that would not require me to witness a Hindu afterlife. I could meet my acquaintances in Christian Hell.

[17] Can you present any science behind that, like scientific articles about the soul, these parallel worlds and how the soul navigates there ?

EtrnlVw :

[no response]

Amoranemix 39 :

You are mistaken. None of them have explained how they personally don't believe the Bible.[a] I came here to see theists try to support the irrationality of atheism and show them wrong and I suspect other atheists did too.[b] Alas, they won't even bother. In stead they lured atheists into debating NDE's and the popularity of Christianity.[c]

ethang5 45 :

[a] As I think any unbiased person reading this thread will see you are wrong, I can leave this point as is.

[b] Yet other than ask questions about claims, you haven't once defended atheism or attacked the claim that it is irrational.

[c] Both of those tangential topics were brought up by atheists. Atheism is irrational because it is self-contradictory.[18]

Amoranemix 39 :

[8] You are assuming that an unsubstantiated claim is an attack worthy enough to require a defense. That may be your personal opinion, but it is not mine. My personal opinion is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.[d] For some reason the OP has been unable to deliver.

Furthermore, you are mistaken. If you read the first page of this thread, you will notice several people have spoken about atheism.

[9] If theists really believed that, you would expect them to present a pertinent case against atheism to enjoy the spectacle of atheists showing their irrationality when they clumsily try to defend atheism. The problem is, for that theists would need something resembling a defensible case.[e] Most Christians aren't the ignorant fools they pretend to be. They know presenting the best case they have would show the opposite of what they desire.[f]

ethang5 45 :

[8] Then your responding here is quizzical.

[d] That is because atheists think delivering on the BoP means "convincing" them.[19] My personal opinion is that no one needs an atheist's validation. They only need to present a valid argument.[20]

Mentioning the word "atheism" is not the same as defending atheism as rational or debunking the claim that atheism is irrational.[21]

[e] Lol!! Our perceptions of the religion board certainly are different!

"...atheists showing their irrationality when they clumsily try to defend atheism." Is a succinct discription of what atheists do on the religion board.[22] For those few atheists that actually try at least.

[f] Ah, yes, the old atheist nugget of pretending to know the inner mind and intentions of the theist. I bet you think that is logic, hmm?[23]

Amoranemix 39 :

So, thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.

ethang5 45 :

Reality is never irrational. Though skeptics are free to be irrational.[24] But that discrepancy will become obvious when said skeptics enter the religion board of debate site.

Your comment,

"...atheists showing their irrationality when they clumsily try to defend atheism."

Is amazingly close to my comment,

"If any of you actually tried to defend atheism, he would quickly see that something irrational cannot be logically defended. And that is why the responses here aptly demonstrate the irrationality of atheism."[25]

[a] Fortunately reality is independent of your thoughts.

[b] So? That atheism requires defending is your opinion, not mine.

[c] I agree an atheist brought up a diffent topic, which you chose to engage in in stead of ignoring it or steering the conversation back the the alleged irrationality of atheism.

[18] How so ?

[20] No. A sound, on topic argument is required. Don't worry. I won't hold my breath.

 Contrary to what you claimed, some atheists have spoken about atheism.

No, I don't think that is logic.

[24] That is kind and tolerant of you, but I'll pass. You too may feel free to be irrational.

[25] Do you expect people to believe you find that amazing ?

No, you don't.

"i conclude God doesn't exist, because when i look at evidence for God, my assumptions are that God doesn't exist"   = literally the circular way ya'll think 

there isn't enough evidence to be an atheist 

You either don’t understand what evidence is or don’t understand what atheism is.

The problem is of course that you understand both of these, so this comment demonstrates your ultimate flaw - this isn’t about reason and logic. The quote made you feel good, so you put it out there. That speaks volumes about your approach and why you ultimately believe the way you do.