atheism is irrational

An internal electrochemical response to an external stimulus.

Often incorrectly defined with ritual-speak.

Arguably the best pudding in the World.

Or arguably not.

Depending upon one's internal electrochemical response to the pudding.

In my opinion, some puddings are spiritual and some are just nice.

would you consider "spiritual" = "brain-states"

or do you quantify "spiritual" by some other metric ?

For clarity, here is the question from post 453 : “How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?”

For clarity, here is what the question is about ('what you said'), from post 440 : “I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis.”

First, you are missing the point, for the issue is not whether you addressed the question, but whether you answered it. You haven't.

Second, I cannot find where in post 440 you addressed the question. Please show where you have done so.

You say that with that disagreement you merely shared your internal gnosis

1. No, I didn't.

How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?

I never stated that my disagreement with your claim was an expression of private gnosis. I stated that private gnosis on its own needs not be rationally defensible.

I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis. As an argument, however, the proposition of a claim needs to be rationally defensible because argumentation is intended to resolve disputes between conflicting private gnoses using a consistent (not objective) standard as its measure. So, "I don't believe in God" needs not be rationally defensible; however, "God does not exist"--an argument--needs to be.

[2.] Please demonstrate that your disagreement with the claim “In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.” is rationally defensible.

[3.] You are being evasive. How does the meaning of value explain why stating that a belief is based on value is redundant.

Definitions weren't discussed in this subdiscussion.

That did not stop you from using the former as an excuse to abstain from doing that latter.

I did so on your request.

[100] If I have inappropriately failed to provide substantion to my questions about your definitions, please point out the pertinent cases.

101] Typically confusing or deceptive definitions. For example, calling your dog God and then claiming that God exists.

[4.''] You forgot the magic word.

[78] Right. Let's jump passed the confusion you mangaged to sow.

Apparently I read you wrong. You again successfully confused me.

In post 445 you said : “In order to aquire and maintain knowledge, one needs information. One can either conceive information or receive information, which ultimately is still conceived (i.e. information sustained by one's mind is irrevocably subjected to the bias of one's mind and subsequent conceptual attachments.) Your defining Spino--conceiving or "receiving" information notwithstanding--informs its existence.”

Please demonstrate the last claim.

[a] So, defining Spino implies conceiving Spino and conceiving Spino provides information about Spino. Yet you claimed that the nonexistent provides no information. Please demonstrate that.

[b] It would seem then that I can make you commit a red herring fallacy on demand.

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

[**] Providing information to this argument ≠ honouring your burden of proof.

Most people are lazy. Few people are honest enough to admit it.

[a] You missed the point. Adress a question ≠ answer a question

[b] The claim I have asked you to prove is that everything that is perceptible exists. (I am assuming that Everything = everything.) Since then we have a definition for everything, namely all things that exist. That makes the claim elementary. However, you also claimed that God is perceptible and that the nonexistent cannot be perceived. Please demonstrate those claims.

[c] Your impoliteness is not contested.

[f] I thought you had not answered the question and strictly speaking, I was correct. Then, in post 465, I noticed that an answer could be derived fom it, which I provided in post 465. Now you refuse to acknowledge that that candidate answer is indeed according to you the answer to my question. You refuse to provide clarity.

[g] I don't state I measure “impossibility” and I don't know what applying abstracts means.

As this is not going anywhere, I would assume the answer is 'no' for logical impossibility and 'it depends' for physical impossibility. However, since making assumptions about what you believe or stand by tends to be counteproductive, I won't.

[81] You claim that it is false that it is impossible to imagine something that does not exist prior. Therefore it is possible to imagine something that does not exist prior or it is neither possible nor impossible to imagine something that does not exist prior.

Thus we have :

P1. It is impossible to imagine something that does not exist. (from post 454)

P2. Imagining something that does not yet exist does not always cause it to exist.

P3. It is possible or (not possible and not impossible) to imagine something that does not exist prior.

P3 implies (using P2) that it is possible  or  (possible nor impossible) to imagine something that does not exist.

That appears to contradict P1. How do you reconcile these premises ?

Internal processes are meaning, but if you seek some secondary meaning, then internal processes can provide meaning....So refer to it as spiritual.

Internal processes are qualia, or provide qualia..

Qualia was your choice of word.....

A bit of data output derived of human processes and function.......In the same way that  meaning and spiritual are derived.

Qualia has a very simple definition which aptly exemplifies the process of data acquisition and management.

And for sure, quite an amazing process, but that's just the way things have evolved.

In my opinion.

You will have your opinion.....Which in my opinion is also no more  than the same process.

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.”

Evolved from what?

"Testing" if you like.

And Qualia and ritual speak are derived  from internal data management.....And internal data management is a seemingly remarkable, electrochemical process.

Evolved from what?

The same as everything else.......You might feel the need to include a GOD in this process.....And I just see the need for a GOD, as being an inevitable part of this process.

So we acquire, create and transfer data relative to experience.....A. Creates an internal need for a GOD, and also creates an associated database......Z.  Doesn't create an internal need for a GOD, and creates an associated database.....Same electrochemical processing, slightly different conclusions reached. Output will obviously contrast, though neither is irrational in terms of process.....Both are Qualia.

Though neither proves or disproves the existence of an actual GOD.

And spirituality cannot be demonstrated to be more than an internal electro-chemical response to an external stimulus.

Athias 469 :

[a'] Bias is not quantifiable, and therefore cannot be "reduced." Whether it's a little biased or heavily biased, bias is still bias.

Amoranemix 513 :

[j] Everything that exists, the universe.

[k] Both abstract and physical objects can exist.

[80] Your reasoning is erroneous. Whether you have a burden of proof does not depend on your obligation to (in)validate my impression.

Athias 514 :

You're late. zedvictor4 and I had already discussed this.

Athias 445 :

Perhaps you might rethink this. I don't indulge laziness.[96] If you're going to engage one in debate then you are obligated to provide your arguments the rigor they demand.[97] Otherwise, have a nice day, sir.[98]

Amoranemix 513 :

[96] You hide it well.

[97] So are you.

[98] Are you looking for a way out ?

Athias 514 :

[96] Hilarious.

[97] Redundant.

[98] Out of this regressive and vacuous dynamic you've captained?[98'] Indeed. But I don't know you, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in that you have more to contribute.

Athias 460 :

[a] "Seem" is not an argument; "seem" is a projection of one's impression via some ghost proxy which avoids assuming responsibility for one's own statements.[99] I did not "straw man" you;[100] I'm calling you out for your not taking responsibility for that which you "think."[101]

Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it.[102] You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.[103]

Amoranemix 513 :

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

[100] The concept of straw man eludes you. Read about it here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You keep arguing about “seem”, as if I have claimed otherwise. That way you are arguing against an argument or claim I haven't made, a straw man.

[101] What is “thinking” ? How does it differ from thinking ? What responsibility does “thinking” give ?

[102] So what ? I have neither claimed you argue from ignorance, nor that my claim has been validated by you not invalidating it.

[103] We are already arguing about my support for God's inconsistency elsewhere in this thread.

You again failed to honour your burden of proof. You claimed to have presented an argument for God's consistency, but I can't find where and you are unable to show where you have done so. Maybe you have just imagined it.

Athias 514 :

[99] Have I suggested either?

[100] No, it doesn't.

I'm not arguing against your employment of the term, "seem," because I believe you've claimed "seem" is an argument; I'm arguing against your employment of the term, "seem" in argument—period.

[101] There's a difference between stating, "I think," and "you seem." The former takes responsibility for your private gnosis, the latter does not.

[102] I'll put an end to this nonsense right now:

Athias 421 :

“Seem" is not an argument. You are welcome to demonstrate the inconsistency of these alleged claims.

[Amoranemix] I haven't claimed “seem” is an argument.

- Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.

- God is a person. Love is not a person. Therefore, God cannot be love.

- Being perfectly loving and perfectly just appear inconsistent.

- God apparently, despite unparalleled abilities, fails to distribute perfect love and perfect justice.

- Any experimental physicist can testify that violating the laws of physics is impossible.

Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.

- [b] "Appears" is synonymous with "seem," and neither is an argument.

-- [b] Nothing, i.e. what you presented, is not an argument either. Appearances beat nothing.

--- [b] I did present an argument; your impression of that argument is irrelevant. If you have a contention, rebuttal, counterargument, or objection, then the floor is yours.

---- [b] Where did you present an argument supporting that God is consistent ?

----- Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it. You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.

It's here where you either got confused or misinterpreted what was going on.[108] When I stated, "I did present an argument," I was not AT ALL referring to your proposal that I refute your affirmation.[109] In fact, I responded with this:

If you think you can make the case that all the claims I listed can apply to a single being, then go ahead. [#444]

Why would "I" make the case? Is it not your onus to substantiate your contention of inconsistency? [#445]

[g*] Because you could. Although you haven't (as far as I remember) actually claimed God is consistent, you have challenged the mere possibility that God be inconsistent.

I could but I won't, because it's not my onus. You introduced the notion of God's inconsistency into our discussion whether you've claimed it directly or by proxy. If you have no intention of substantiating this inconsistency, then why mention it?

I've had enough of this nonsense. Either explain your support, or I'm considering it a dropped point.

[103] No, I didn't. That notion is a product of your own confusion. I extend my demand above.

Athias 450 :

Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?

Amoranemix 459 :

No.

Athias 460 :

Then why did you submit it?

Amoranemix 513 :

Because it substantiates that God is a person, which is what you asked for.

Sometimes opinions qualify as evidence. How would you establish the colour of Hulk ?[a]

When skeptics claim God does not exist, they are unlikely to be referring to a real god.[b] They are probably referring to the god the Bible or/and the one Christians are trying to sell them.[c]

Athias 514 :

If that's the case, then why did you initially state that your understanding of substantiation excluded providing someone else's opinion:

Athias 450 :

[a] Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?

Amoranemix 459 :

No.

[b] Define "real god."

[c] Explain the relevance of this allusion. Do you support the claims of these skeptics? And if so, explain.

Amoranemix 513 :

[e] For example, you believe in Zeus.

[a] I was asking for your view. Do you doubt that with my understanding of perfect love and perfect justice, that is not what God has achieved ?

[g*] Double_R was not irrelevant when you were arguing with him and that is when he introduced the notion of God's inconsistency. If Double_R is irrelevant, then so is why I introduced the notion of God's inconsistency.

I am not aware that inconsistency requires a base.

My own measure.[h]

[81] What does that mean, informing support ?

I have the right to expect a minimal comprehension from you. If you don't understand English, then debate in a language that you do understand.[i]

Athias 514 :

[e] I do not "believe in" Zeus. I acknowledge Zeus's existence:

[quoting FLRW] Zeus  is the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who rules as king of the gods of Mount Olympus. Do you think he exists?

[quoting Athias] Yes, Zeus exists. Your objection?

Do you object?

[a] I am in no position to "doubt" if I don't know how you've defined "perfect love" and "perfect justice." So once again: define "perfect love"; define "perfect justice."

[g*] Non sequitur. My exchange with Double_R was my exchange with Double_R. My exchange with you is my exchange with you. Double_R is irrelevant to my exchange with you.[110] If you're going to make reference to Double_R's argument, and support it, then it's your responsibility to assume stewardship of that argument.

[h] What measure is that?

[81] Provide information to your support, or Explain your support.

[i] Haha, my lap is bruising from all this laughter. Are you done derailing?

Though neither proves or disproves the existence of an actual GOD.

So what should I look for in Spinoza?

Amoranemix 540 to Tarik :

I didn't say no one understands morality.

This thread is not about morality. Go argue about that where that is on topic.

Tarik 541 :

You did in the link you referred me to.

Amoranemix 540 :

[104] Given that your support for an example case, i.e. claiming that God does not exist is irrational, was ambiguous,[a] I assumed your support was an application of the more general principle that claiming Y (for any Y) does not exist is irrational. The reason is that you appeared to attempt to support the general case i.s.o. the example case.[b] But apparently, you don't stand by the general case. You have yet to honour your burden to prove the example case.[c]

[105] Where have I stated that ?

[106] I already gave a description of existence in post 445. More than one may apply as we are discussing more than one subtopic.

Possibility is a requirement for existence.[d] 'X is possible' means 'It is possible for X to be true or to exist.'[e]

[107] You are mistaken again. A premise is not an argument and an argument is not a premise.

[108] No. I never made that argument.

Apparently you don't stand by the argument that I concocted (and you quoted) either, even though P1 is a rephrasal of a claim you made. So, I'll drop it. You still have to prove that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist, but I think we are already debating that elsewhere.[f]

[a2] I don't know. How much disbelief I hold depends on what is meant with impossible. Even with lax impossibility I still disbelieve it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist.

Athias 547 :

[a] No, it wasn't.

[b] And your assumption was correct, but it doesn't apply to the "example case" because you included the premise "X is impossible." My dispute isn't whether I support the claim Y (for any Y) does not exist is irrational as long the definitions I provided are being used; my dispute has been with your failure, unwillingness, or incapacity to provide description to the terms "impossible" and "exist."

[c] I do not have to honor the burden of an argument I did not make. The example case while attempting to extrapolate my reasoning is still presented through your argument.

[105] Where have you stated what? If you're referring to my statement you highlighted with "104," then here is where you stated it:

Athias #460 : “[104] You stated that skeptics would scrutinize the soundness of my first premise,”

Amoranemix #444 : “Under assumption A, since you stand by P1, for you that is a sound argument.

Skeptics, understandably, dispute P1.”

[106] False. I posted Post #445.

[d] Demonstrate this. (Hint: you would have to provide a description to "Possibility.")

[e] Same as directly above.

[107] No, I am not. I'm not arguing that a premise is an argument. I'm implicitly stating that a premise is an essential part of an argument, i.e. when a premise changes, the argument changes. Thus, your changing the premise changes the argument from mine to yours.

[108] Explicitly stating that argument is not required.

[f] I've already done it.

[a2] Yes, it depends on what is meant with impossible. So what do you mean by "impossible?"

Athias 469 :

Pardon. What "overlap" is that?

Amoranemix 540 :

The overlap consists of those people who fall into both categories, namely not questioning their own beliefs and always being certain of themselves.

Athias 547 :

And this was intended to inform Bertrand Russell's statement about wisdom, correct? But you haven't really demonstrated how this applies.

Amoranemix 540 :

[91] What definition is that ? If you wanted clarity you would have repeated that definition i.s.o. having me and anyone following along looking it up.

I assume you are referring to your definition from post 445 : “the absence of existence; the negation of being; nothingness; unreality, etc.”. You also provided 4 more definitions in post 440 :

exist: To have real being whether material or spiritual.

real: true or actual.

material: denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.

spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

What does spiritual existence of God mean ? Does that mean that God exists in people's minds ?[a]

I suspect that when people claiming God doesn't exist, they are referring to physical nonexistence.[b]

[92] So, we have (with capitals) :

Everything: all things that exist

Nothing: all things that do not exist

Hence, if square circles dont' exist, then they are part of Nothing.

[93] We are not discussing the use of   'God does not exist' as a presupposition.

[94] Assuming the author is being honest, (s)he may not know and merely believe.

[95] Please demonstrate that. [Athias #469: And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known.]

[96] Please explain how that is supposed to follow.

[97] Not yet.

Athias 547 :

[91] I'm interested in clarity;[109] I'm just not interested in repeating myself frequently.[110] Quote me in sequence and we can easily resolve this issue.

[a] To exemplify one's being through spiritual aspects, I suppose. As for whether God exists in people's minds, well, everything one experiences exists in one's mind.

[b] Do you "suspect" or is this what you're arguing? I'm very well aware that atheists are maintain a materialist position. Of course, the irony in this is that their materialism is substantiated by the immaterial.

[92] Square Circles by definition are illogical. That however does not speak to their "existence." You would have to demonstrate how logic and existence are necessary bi-conditions.

[93] We're not; we're speaking directly to a claimant with respect to his/her claim, which is necessary for any claim.

[94] What is the difference between "believing" God does not exist, and "knowing" God does not exist?

[95] Because the claim itself necessarily demonstrates knowledge; claims do not create themselves; claims reflect what the claimant knows or presumes to know or what is to be known (presumably by everyone.)

[96] It follows from what I stated in "[95.]"

[97] I have. Whether it has satisfied your metrics, only you know.

Polytheist-Witch 553 to Conservallectual :

The thing that really bugs atheist more than anything is service. If what they're doing doesn't somehow benefit them they want no part of it. Since religion is about service especially service to something they can't see or feel without any actual reward for them they're not interested.[111] And they believe whatever they think is right is moral whether it is or not.[112] I don't believe there's any sort of line you can cross that makes something bad even though we all know there are certainly things that happened to people that are bad and they've been done to people with the intent of being bad.

Prove it!

What's your particular favourite?

we see things that look supernatural happen to praying theists but there's no reason to assume those things happen to atheists. supernatural healings. 

the large majority of people who have NDEs who are atheists end up believing in God (almost everyone who has those experiences, even skeptics, end up believing in the afterlife, but that's just a related point). there's lots of good evidence for NDEs so we should take them seriously. such as out of body experiences being verified under scientific study.   it's stupid to argue that it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die and then give no good reason why that happens, when drugs dont cause that to happen either. dr longs book 'evidence for the afterlife' is full of good evidence. 

there's the point that the universe is going from high energy to low energy as if it's a clock that got set (how does something happen once within all eternity and never happen again, what does that even mean?)... there's no good alternative hypothesis that has good evidence for it, just speculation. 

it's stupid to argue that humans are just elaborate living robots. it should be intuitive that we are more than that, and it's forced and artificial to think that way. 

there's good and inexplicable evidence for demonic possession. 

the design of the universe is weak evidence but it's evidence