Is Atheism irrational?

Originally posted by Coletti
I have to give you credit here because it was my debates with you the informed my understanding the atheism.

As far as being equally rational, I didn't mean to imply that. (Or I did at the and I recant.)

I think Christianity is th ...[text shortened]... leeping pill.

Thanks rwingett, you're alright for an atheist.

Thanks for your kind words.

Unfortunately, the arguments presented in these forums tend to have a polarizing effect. People tend to overstate their position when confronted with opposite views. So to christians, atheists may come across as being anti-christian, or may be seen to be engaged in christian bashing. This type of extreme position, I think, is almost an inevitable outcome of having one's more moderate position dismissed out of hand. You tend to ratchet up the rhetoric another notch. Of course it works both ways.

Originally posted by rwingett
Huh?

In short, I don't see the atheist's position as irrational, as it seems to view the world in terms of natural processes rather than the whim of some god.

Originally posted by Coletti
There are only three possible answers to the question - does God exist: yes, no, and dunno. How you answer does not make your position irrational, although 2 out of 3 require faith.

If faith were irrational, then any unproven belief y ...[text shortened]... be we are all mostly irrational beings. That would explain a lot.

Only 3? Where does 'quite frankly I don't give a damn' fit in?

Yes, unproven beliefs are irrational. Yes, we are mostlt irrational beings which is waht makes us the fun people we all truly are.

I'll make an exception for George W who is an irrational being with control of the worlds largest military machine who I find scary.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Something you can't seem to grasp is, the reason you can't disprove god's existence is the exact same reason you can't prove he does exist : there is no provable data to base any conclusion on.

I thought dj made a good distinction between proving a negative and a positive.

One can prove a positive. The fact that my watch exists proves that there was a watchmaker, for example.

Now (if you're on the ball), you'll say that if there is a God, then there must be a Godmaker, but that falls apart under any given definition of God. Any god that had to be made is a small g god and is not what we are talking about. But God, capital G, is preexistent and eternal.

Originally posted by chinking58
I thought dj made a good distinction between proving a negative and a positive.

One can prove a positive. The fact that my watch exists proves that there was a watchmaker, for example.

Now (if you're on the ball), you'll say that if there is a God, then there must be a Godmaker, but that falls apart under any given definition of God. Any god tha ...[text shortened]... all g god and is not what we are talking about. But God, capital G, is preexistent and eternal.

Because some positive assertions can be proven true doesn't mean they all can.

Originally posted by rwingett
Because some positive assertions can be proven true doesn't mean they all can.

Of course not, but a positive assertion can be tested and found true or untrue

Originally posted by dj2becker
....Therefore atheism is a logical contradiction, and to affirm to a logical contradiction is irrational. ..

I disagree. You are saying to believe that to assert there is no God is irrational because you can not prove God does not exist. But it is also true that you can not prove that God does exist. Both side take a degree of faith since neither side can be proven deductively.

Further, to show that atheism is a logical contradiction - you have to show that the contradictory of atheism is true - in other words, you'd have to prove that God exists. If you can prove God exists - then you have proven that atheism is a belief in a contradiction - and that would be irrational.

It is impossible to prove God exists. To prove God exists, you'd need to make something axiomatically prior to God from which to deduce his existence. But the only valid proof of God presumes God exists. And to prove the contradiction you need to presume he does not exist. In fact, both are circular positions. Now you will hear that circular logic is invalid. That is not the case. One law of logic is A implies A. In other words, it is always the case that the existence of A implies the existence of A.

In the end, the existence of God is a question of metaphysics, and can not be answered directly by logic. It must be answered (no matter the answer) by faith. If we could prove God exists, then Christ's death on the cross was for naught, for then any man could come to God by his own reasoning (not by the blood of the lamb), and the grace of God would not be needed for salvation.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Something you can't seem to grasp is, the reason you can't disprove god's existence is the exact same reason you can't prove he does exist : there is no provable data to base any conclusion on.

There is no need to prove God existence, when he already has through his son Jesus.

Originally posted by rwingett
Because some positive assertions can be proven true doesn't mean they all can.

Question for you rwingett. How do you differentiate between Agnosticism and Atheism?

Originally posted by dj2becker


I believe in God. However, to believe in Him is not enough, for even the devil believes in God and trembles. It is necessary not only that we believe He exists but also that we believe He became incarnate in Jesus Christ and that he died for our sins. It is necessary that we believe and that we repent of our sins and cast ourselves at His feet and plac ...[text shortened]... ith Him forever. It is my earnest desire that that assurance may be yours, if it is not already.

The best evidence of a creator is our testamony of what Jesus has done in our live besides saving us.

Originally posted by RBHILL
There is no need to prove God existence, when he already has through his son Jesus.

That's right.

I would say there is no reason to prove God's existence because the God's grace is made know to us by Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and minds.

Originally posted by RBHILL
The best evidence of a creator is our testamony of what Jesus has done in our live besides saving us.

I agree. The best evidence of the creator is seen in the changes that are wrought in the believer, the proof of faith that is in the works of the true believer as James tell us.

Originally posted by Coletti
Question for you rwingett. How do you differentiate between Agnosticism and Atheism?

An agnostic is not someone who thinks god is just as likely to exist as to not. An agnostic says that the very concept of god is unknowable and the question of whether he exists is meaningless. It's not that he doesn't know whether god exists, but that the concept of god is simply unknowable.

An atheist thinks it is illogical give credence to any belief for which there is no justification. The theist has defined his god's characteristics and has made a positive claim about his factual existence. If his argument is unpersuasive then it must be doubted.

Or something like that. I could probably flesh this out a little more if you really want.

Originally posted by Coletti
I agree. The best evidence of the creator is seen in the changes that are wrought in the believer, the proof of faith that is in the works of the true believer as James tell us.

There are alternative explanations that could account for this. This undermines the usefulness of your evidence.

Originally posted by rwingett
There are alternative explanations that could account for this. This undermines the usefulness of your evidence.

That's true. I see it more as evidence within the framework of the individual believer and the church. James (the book of) uses the idea as a way of telling when someone has real faith. A mere profession of faith is not good evidence. In this sense, saving faith is proven by works. But it is not good evidence in an apologetical sense. It does not do much to convince an unbeliever.