atheism is irrational

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

10.08.2021 09:56PM

if ya'll want a start in researching out of body experiences, 'evidence for the afterlife' by doctor jeffrey long does a short literature review of some highlights. there's lots of studies that look at the accuracy of those experiences and they're always shown to be accurate. there's whole scientific journals out there dedicated to this stuff, the evidence is basically too overwhelming to just ignore. that's why atheism is irrational.

#93

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

10.08.2021 10:07PM

-->

@Amoranemix

n8nrgmi 50 :
there isn't enough evidence to be an atheist

Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

Lol, he apologizes....there isn't ANY evidence to be an atheist. There is no evidence that God does not exist so to be an atheist one has to make presumptions.

FLWR :
Extremely well stated.

Thank you very much FLWR, indeed it was.

#94

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

10.08.2021 10:24PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

These are people who don't understand how evidence is defined, yet they think they are justified in claiming there is no evidence. We have a proposition, knowledge and a claim about a soul and then we have clear EVIDENCE that supports our claim. All they can do to run from the facts is speculate and pretend they have some superior understanding of evidence lol. We have fulfilled our burden of proof, it's on them to play the speculation game. Don't let them try and sweep you under the rug with all their fluff and misconceptions about evidence. If they want to play dumb just define it for them...

Evidence-

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

be or show evidence of.

an outward sign : INDICATION

something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY

one who bears witness

A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:

Something indicative; an indication or set of indications:
The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.

ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

a mark or sign that makes evident; indication:

your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief

Evidence is anything that can be used to prove something"

Atheism is irrational because there is no evidence to justify such an ideology, their belief hinges on their uneducated idea of what evidence means and consists of. They have to rest their whole belief system on presumptions that aren't even justified.

Topic's author

#95

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

10.08.2021 10:46PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

the one dude said he considers it evidence if it's more likely than not true. that's not how evidence works in the legal system. the key word the legal system asks is whether something is 'probative'. does it make something more likely to be true or not? if only evidence that was more likely to be true was allowed, only cases that are usually winners would be tried. if something is 25 percent likely to be true, it's good evidence. even low probability situations are evidence. i want to say there is objectively good evidence for God and the afterlife, but i try to respect others and at least try to get them to understand there's at least evidence to begin with. they can't even pass that hurdle... that there's enough to look at to call it evidence. i think they have issues with respecting truth, and they have issues with black hearts. of course, they also have issues with basic logic, but their personality flaws are what drives it i suspect.

#96

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

10.09.2021 01:52PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

"Atheism is irrational" is a nonstarter. Atheism is not a claim it is the rejection of one. Atheism in and of itself makes no positive posits.

#97

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,138

10.09.2021 02:35PM

Genuinely bad things have happened to me in my life: One of my brothers was murdered; another committed suicide. I've experienced addiction and mental illness. And I, like you, have watched horrors unfold all over the globe. I don't—I can't—believe this to be best of all possible worlds. I think there is genuinely unredeemed, pointless pain. Some of it is mine.
By not believing in God, I keep faith with the world's indifference. I love its beauty. I hate its suffering. I think both are perfectly real, because I experience them both, all the time. I do not see any reason to suspend judgment: I'm here, and I commit. I'm perfectly sincere and definite in my belief that there is no God. I can see that there could be comfort in believing otherwise, believing that all the suffering and death makes sense, that everyone gets what they deserve, and that existence works out in the end.
But to believe that would be to betray my actual experiences, and even without the aid of reasoned arguments, that’s reason enough not to believe.

Crispin Sartwell

Topic's author

#98

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

10.09.2021 02:43PM

-->

@secularmerlin

on a semantic point, the everyday idea of an atheist does make a positive claim, 'there is no god'. also, there are on the internet as opposed to the real world, a lot more folks who just claim to be without theism, neutral on actual believes. the problem, though, is that in practice i've never seen an atheist who doesn't make judgments about evidence and claims about their opinions of it. so as a practical point, all atheist make claims and pass judgments. i suppose in trying to give the benefit of the doubt as best i can, a-theist, those neutral ones, might plausibly be rational. but anyone who makes the claim that there is no god and considers all the evidence, is irrational. at the very least, those who consider all the evidence and says there is no evidence... is blatantly hands down irrational.

Topic's author

#99

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

10.09.2021 05:12PM

the minimum threshold for what is rational is "god might exist because there is evidence for that proposition". "god might exist in the same way magic fairies might exist" is a rational statement, but it ignores that there is actual evidence for God while there isn't for magic fairies so there are irrational undertones in that statement. "i dont know if God exists" is rational only if they acknowledge that there's evidence for God even though they find it inadequate. "God deosn't exist" is irrational. "no evidence exists for God or the afterlife" is the most irrational statement of all

#100

Polytheist-Witch

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

Polytheist-Witch

10.09.2021 05:23PM

No one is required to prove or provide evidence for person thoughts or beliefs.

#101

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,138

10.09.2021 06:18PM

Sheldon encourages Missy to question the Bible on YOUNG SHELDON, Thursday, Oct. 14 (8:00-8:31 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network, and available to stream live and on demand on Paramount+.

#102

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

10.09.2021 09:51PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

There is folk lore involving faeries and some people have claimed to have seen or even photographed them. That is evidence on the order of the evidence of any god ever proposed to me.

#103

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

10.09.2021 09:56PM

I once believed sincerely in fairies. My beliefs were as genuine then as your belief in some god(s) are now. One wonders how you would respond to a younger and more naive me when asked if you could prove that there were no fairies. I might have pointed out the incontrovertible evidence of faeries hiding my keys or sending me subtle messages and signs.

Or in other words a-fairyism is equally irrational to atheism.

Topic's author

#104

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

10.09.2021 11:28PM

-->

@secularmerlin

That is evidence on the order of the evidence of any god ever proposed to me.

so do you also have evidence of people praying to fairies and then having inexplicable healing occur to them? do you have evidence of people who didn't believe in fairies then dying and experiencing fairies and then mostly becoming believers in fairies when they are brought back to life?

that's right, i knew you didn't have that evidence.

do you also reject the afterlife, given there's ample evidence of it, but it becomes un palatable to you given the afterlife is associated with fairies?

Topic's author

#105

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

10.09.2021 11:33PM

i dont think i can spell it out any clearer. there's only two fair conclusions that can be drawn here 1. god and the afterlife probably exist 2. atheists lack critical thinking

#106

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

10.09.2021 11:34PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

so do you also have evidence of people praying to fairies and then having inexplicable healing occur to them?

Do you have evidence of people praying to mosquitoes and then having inexplicable healing experiences? No? Then clearly that is not the high mark for proof of existence.

Also inexplicable things are by definition beyond explanation and applying any explanation would then be fallacious.

Also also when did believe in fae I also believed in their fairy magic including the magic to heal and could point put instances when they had "healed" me of some malady or other.

In no cases when something "inexplicable" that was attributed to the supernatural was finally investigated was the cause shown to be supernatural. Your god of the gaps argument is therefore less than compelling to me.

#107

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,274

10.11.2021 04:07AM

ockam's razer is that if people die and tell us of the afterlife, the most simple explanation is that they died and experienced the afterlife.

No, it isn’t.

Occam’s razor is the principal that the explanation with the fewest assumptions is the most reasonable to accept.

The explanation that the person hallucinated or that their mind created a vision requires almost no assumptions. We know the human brain can do this.

The idea that the person’s consciousness left their body and left our universe to visit some plain of existence where our next life will take place… that’s just batshit crazy. We have no evidence that it’s even possible for our consciousness to leave our body, we have no evidence that it nor anything else could leave our universe, and we have no access to anything beyond this universe to even guess where it might have went. The assumptions here are astounding.

These two things are not even close.

we have lots of science on the pro authentic side, and mere hunches with scant science attached to it on the anti authentic side

If you believe that then you don’t know what science is.

Science requires verifiability and repeatability. There is no verifiable and certainly no repeatable way to demonstrate that there is such a place where our next life could even take place let alone a demonstration of our consciousness going there.

plus, it ignores that almost everyone who has the experience believes in the afterlife afterwards, even if they didn't before the experience. and the large majority of atheists who have the experience end up believing in God. (those who dont change just didn't get any insight into the matter.... it's pretty much never the case that a theist becomes an atheist or that an atheist gains knowledge that there is in fact no God)

All of this is completely irrelevant. I can show you a thousand pastors who no longer believe in God and you will make excuses for all of them. The fact that people believe simmering doesn’t make it true.

i've said it many times, but the idea that we hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when we die, is as stupid an idea as it comes.

And you can keep saying it, that’s not the same thing as providing a valid argument against it.

Topic's author

#108

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

10.11.2021 04:21AM

-->

@Double_R

well i just gave u a big long list of stuff from the book 'evidence for the afterlife'. what do you think of all those things? such as blind people seeing for the first time, or out of body experiences being shown as accurate. all those things i just listed recently. that's lots of science there. all you have is a bunch of hunches, at best. i have lots of science on my side, u have just a hunch. it's not really even worth talkin to ya, if u can't even comprehend that there's a book full of evidence for the afterlife, but you wont even acknowledge it. u dont understand evidence, science, basic logic, or even common sense.

#109

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,274

10.11.2021 04:31AM

-->

@n8nrgmi

Like I said, you don’t seem to have the first clue what science is.

I just explained to you two of it’s primary elements; verifiability and repeatability. Do you have any thoughts on that?

I can see why you ignored it though, because that’s exactly what your examples are not. None of them are verifiable, none of them are repeatable. Your book is just a list of anecdotes, that’s the opposite of science.

If it were science then it would be subject to peer review. Where has that process taken place? No where of course.

18 days later

Topic's author

#110

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/can-science-explain-near-death-experiences?utm_source=dscfb&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dscfb&fbclid=IwAR2dVholWQ0z8W42aCs6GwHniJa6aSSAJHr0XIPiIUUxVH7X9-iGEJZMXy4

10.29.2021 02:22PM

that link has a good description of NDEs. it tries to give skeptics too much credit though, but i guess the article is just trying to be fair. there are two examples of out of body experiences describing things out of the body, one was from the AWARE study and another was a personal anecdote from a doctor. (there are enough of these anecdotes to show a theme, though, it's repeatable and highly accurate, and there's no way to explain how these people know what happens out of their body when they are dead)

again, if it's commonplace for people to die and tell us they experienced the afterlife, the simplest solution is that that's what happened. if it was just a single person or maybe a few, we could say it's probably a hallucination. but that it's so widespread, philosphically it's just stupid to say people are consistently dying and hallucinating elaborate afterlife stories. even if a person doesn't think actual afterlife stories are being told as the simplest solution to what's happening, you'd have to ignore all the evidence, too, from 'evidence of the afterlife' to continue thinking hallucinations explain it all. everything studied here is repeatable... it's basic science.

Topic's author

#111

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

10.29.2021 03:44PM

-->

@Double_R

check out my last post. all the evidence i posted is verifiable and repeatable. it might not be sufficient evidence to change minds, but what evidence does exist is still repeatable. also i'm pretty sure dr. longs evidence in his book was published in a peer reviewed journal. i know there's a journal article about it.

it's irrational and idiotic to say there's no evidence for the afterlife.

#112

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

10.29.2021 06:02PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

Well I see you passed on my post.

Topic's author

#113

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

10.31.2021 06:21PM

-->

@secularmerlin

it looked like a bunch of non sequiters and so i thought you weren't really trying, but ok i'll respond.

"Do you have evidence of people praying to mosquitoes and then having inexplicable healing experiences? No? Then clearly that is not the high mark for proof of existence."

there's no evidence praying to mosquitoes does anything. there is evidence praying to God changes things, because there's inexplicable healing of theists when they pray, and we see no such evidence for atheists.. they only have explicable examples. your mosquito point is is a non sequitor and irrelevant

"Also inexplicable things are by definition beyond explanation and applying any explanation would then be fallacious. "

if inexplicable things happen to one group, but we dont see it happening to another... it's fair to speculate that the things that distinguish the group from the other group might be responsible. theists v atheists. you are trying to play with semantics. there's no natural explanation but that doesn't means there's no explanation

"Also also when did believe in fae I also believed in their fairy magic including the magic to heal and could point put instances when they had "healed" me of some malady or other."

you have some typos here but i think you're saying if people prayed to fairies, we'd see inexplicable healing of them. that remains to be seen. there's no evidence for it, so i wouldn't speculate that that's true. if you could prove that, you would have a point.

"In no cases when something "inexplicable" that was attributed to the supernatural was finally investigated was the cause shown to be supernatural. Your god of the gaps argument is therefore less than compelling to me."

there's plenty of evidence pointing to the supernatural. it's not the case that natural explanations always explain the inexplicable. sometimes supernatural explanations are better. see my threads on inexplicable healing and afterlife science.

Topic's author

#114

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799144/m2/1/high_res_d/vol21-no1-5.pdf

11.02.2021 12:29AM

this pdf article discusses what it means to say there's evidence for the afterlife, and the irrationality of those who hold only a materialist world view

#115

Reece101

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,915

Reece101

11.02.2021 10:00AM

-->

@n8nrgmi

Does it discuss the 9/11 hijackers?

#116

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,138

11.02.2021 06:13PM

Here is a review of Neil Grossman by one of his students at University of Illinois.

This class was a joke. Basically all about religion and these stories of the afterlife "proving" it exists. I got in an argument with one of the guest speakers because she came in telling us she had died and seen god and his kingdom and he is real. Eventually, got graded on something I thought was strictly opinions. Lowest grade I received at UIC.

#117

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

Athias

11.02.2021 06:51PM

The statement, "God does not exist," is irrational. (If one wants to know the reason, I'm willing to oblige.) So if one premises one's belief on an irrational statement, then I suppose one could argue that the belief itself is irrational. With that said, one's beliefs don't have to be rational.

#118