atheism is irrational

When someone claims probability then I ask how they determine the odds they are using.

Athias 469 :

[1.] Your question was already addressed in post #440.

[2.] You've corrected nothing; once again, I was not confirming your statement.

[3.] Because of the meaning of "value."

[4.'] The two aren't mutually exclusive.[98] And that's my point. You questioned the definitions I've submitted,[99] and when pressed to expand on your scrutiny, you provide rather than substantiation, more questions.[100]

"Within reason"? What would be an unreasonable choice?[101]

[4.''] Substantiate your assertion that my position is false.

Amoranemix 567 :

[1.] 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.

Athias 577 :

For clarity, this is what you stated:

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

And then I responded:

“1. No, I didn't.”

You then asked:

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

And then I responded:

“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.”

You state I haven't answered your questions, but I've responded to your questions in this very long time that we've had this exchange.[113] Perhaps if you ceased quoting me out of sequence, you would've been able to find them easier.[114] But here's what I said in context of its application (here's the part that you left out):

“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.”[115]

This creates a distinction between "belief" and "argument." That is the application.[116]

Amoranemix 567 :

[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.

[4.'] Definitions weren't discussed in this subdiscussion.

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

[99] 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.

Athias 577 :

[2.] I don't have to demonstrate that my disagreement expresses anything other than a contradiction to your claim, "everyone agrees..." I have no intention of contradicting or undermining atheism in the context of "belief." As an "argument" however, well... WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING THESE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS? If you don't know at the very least my argument against the rationality of the argument "God does not exist," then WE HAVE WASTED OUR TIME.

[3.] Because the two are virtually synonymous.

[4.] No idea what you're talking about, here.

[98] Excuses? I'm not the self-admitted "sloth," here. I establish definitions; I establish arguments; your preference as to the sequence of these submissions are inconsequential.

[99] Made no such request. I had asked you if you had objections, and to substantiate them in the event that you did.

[100] Your incapacity to substantiate an unnecessary element in the definition I provided for the term exist.

[101] That is neither deceptive nor confusing; stringent definitions make for better arguments, but here I am just making "excuses."

[4.''] Forget it.

Athias 469 :

[78] This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You claimed "knowing something about X requiring information from X" is an assumption. I rejected your characterizing it as an assumption, and then subsequently demanded that you "substantiate this assumptive characteristic."

[a] Because, "Spino" is an identifier, i.e. a name which provides information. Once you've identified "Spino," acknowledged information of its existence.

[b] No matter how many times you attempt to reciprocate in this tit for tat, "seem" is not now nor has it ever been an argument. And when you employ it in your discussions with me, I will without fail point that out.

[c'] I already did and submitted them.

[c''] Are you being facetious?

[c'''] No need.

Amoranemix 567 :

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

In post 440 you said : “Because the nonexistent does not exist. The nonexistent provides no information.” I assumed you were trying to answer the question you were addressing, namely how Spino's nonexistence prevents one from knowing he does not exist. I tried to figure out how your response attempted to do that, which led me to believe you relied on the assumption that knowing something about X, requires information from X.

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.

I am assuming you were trying to support this claim from post 317 : “That is, if something does not exist, you don't know it does not exist, because it does not exist.” If not, please demonstrate that 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.

You forgot to answer my question.

[c''] No.

Athias 577 :

[78] Yes, I'm the one sowing confusion.

[*] My demonstration is no longer of any consequence at this point.

[a] Same as directly above.

[b] Whatever.

Athias 469 :

[*] Yes, you most certainly have.

[**] I'm the only person in our discussion providing information to his argument. You see, I am not lazy.

Amoranemix 567 :

[*] 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.

Athias 577 :

[*] It's of no consequence.

[**] Inconsequential.

PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD

IMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GOD

Atheism is irrational

I don't get why people even want to be atheists.

 I don't get why people even want to be atheists, I mean there is no morality,  no wonder, no magic, no nothing.

Atheists argue/believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. That makes them as a irrational as fundamentalist Christians.

there's good evidence for God. atheism is irrational because they pretend there's no evidence or at least there's enough evidence to be at least agnostic. 

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 good and inexplicable evidence for demonic possession. 

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. 

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