Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:25 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:49 pm
unless you wish to add "irrational" to the list of Atheism's failures
Why do you say that atheism is irrational and what do you think atheism attempts to achieve that it has failed at?
Well, look at it this way.
- P1: A "rational" belief, by definition, is one for which "reasons" can be adduced.
There is no such thing as a rational belief. If you believe some thing is true that may not actual be true, then that is very irrational. If, however, you believe some thing is true that you know with certainty is actually true, then just provide the evidence for it so that every one else will also know this truth. However, if some thing is true, then that is just a fact, so there is no need for belief at all.
Therefore, having a belief either way is irrational.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pm- P2: And, as per Leibniz, these "reasons" have got to be "sufficient" to the effects they purport to explain. (for example, any explanation that says something too small and weak created something too large and substantive would not be a good explanation).
- P3: Atheism is the denial that any kind of God or gods exist.
Theism is the belief some kind of God exists. And, having a belief is irrational.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pmSo far, we have three completely undebatable premises, I think. Any reasonable person would believe all three. Let's continue:
Have you noticed the way you try to argue? You have already come to a conclusion and if any person does not agree with you, then, to you, they are an unreasonable person. Now, obviously, we all know that there is no reason to have a logical discussion with a person who is un-able to reason. So, to you, any person who tries to debate with you or tries to have a logical discussion with you, who has an opposing view than you do, is to you an unreasonable person. You can not reason with an un-reason-able person.
The truth is, from My perspective,
P1 is untrue, for reasons given.
P2's example needs further investigation. There is to much relativity in it. For example is sperm small and weak? Sperm created human beings and human beings it might be argued are too large and substantive. Also, in your example you might have been thinking of some thing else, like the Universe for example, but is there any proof that it was at all created, by some thing else?
P3 is just the exact opposite of theism. The belief in either atheism and theism are both irrational and illogical. Unless of course proven otherwise.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pm- P4: Atheism (if it is a "rational" system) owes us sufficient reasons for saying that no God or gods exist.
P4 Theism (if it is a rational system) owes every one sufficient reason for saying that God exists.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pmAnd here's the problem: Atheism cannot fulfill P4. There are no sufficient reasons for saying it's rationally assertable that God does not exist.
That is just a part of the problem: Theism, as far as I am aware, can not fulfill P4 either. If there are sufficient reasons for saying it is rationally answerable that God exists, then let us all see those sufficient reasons.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pmNow, Atheists themselves admit this; you can see them do it all over this forum, for example. But then they try a dodge. They say, "Well, we're not saying 'God doesn't exist,' we're saying, 'We don't believe in gods.'"
And what is it that you use to dodge?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pmBut there's a problem with this: you can ask them, "Are you offering that as a personal belief statement, or as a rational claim that others ought to believe too?"
I will also ask you the same.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pmAnd if they say it's just a personal belief statement, they're saying that they have no sufficient reasons for believing it. But if they offer it as a rational claim that others ought to believe too, then they're back on the hook for sufficient reasons...which they do not wish to be.
I am waiting for your sufficient reasons also, or is your personal belief, just that?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pmThe upshot, then, is that Atheism has to be irrational. Either it's irrational because it is merely a gratuitous belief statement that requires no proof but has
no reasons, or it's irrational because it depends on a universal claim that (it admits) lacks
sufficient reasons.
That is funny, as the exact same thing could be said about theism.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pmEither way, it fails to be rational. Nobody has the rational means or data to assert, "God does not exist." It can only ever be offered as a wish, not as a rational affirmation.
And what is the supposed rational affirmation that God exists?