@pe7erpark3r said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational](/post/252836):
> @Electrifying-Guy said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational](/post/252573):
> > @pe7erpark3r said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational](/post/252470):
> > > @Electrifying-Guy said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational](/post/252331):
> > > > Atheism has two definitions
> > > >
> > > > There is no god, this definition is not based on faith. Will you call Bertrand Russell's atheism was based on his faith ? Apparently his all counterarguments for five proofs for god's existence were logical and valid.
> > >
> > > The following are his arguments. (https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/why-bertrand-russell-was-not-a-christian.)
> > >
> > > The first cause argument
> > >
> > > > This argument is simple; it maintains that since everything must have a cause, there must be a first cause to start everything else. This first cause is God and is exempted from needing a cause itself. Russell points out that if we can decide that one thing doesn’t need a cause, we have no reason not to say the world itself wasn’t the thing without a cause.
> > >
> > > This one is true. But it does not disprove God. It just states that the world could also be without reason. As I tried to show however this gives the world some irrational properties. Still Russels argument holds true.
> > You misinterpreted him about disproving the God or you did not read about this argument.
> > In his own words, ''My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.''
> > He clearly wrote the fallacy of first cause. As I have said, God II will make God I and God III will make God II and so on. God too should have a cause So, fallacy is itself in this argument
> I find the part of the argument I copied from that website is less flawed.
> Why should God _need_ a cause, when nature does _not need_ a cause?
> In other words: you _have to_ excempt _something_ from having a cause, wether that is God or nature.
I agree but we have seen how matter is self-cause whereas God is not
> > > > The natural law argument:
> > > > This one centers on the idea that the laws of physics needed to be set. It then assumes that the being who determined them was God. Russell finds this one to be outdated given advances in physics since the days of Newton, particularly in quantum mechanics. Since atomic physics is more statistical than classical, Russell contends that it seems odd to claim that an intelligence is involved in physics. Saying:
> > > > “There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design.”
> > > > As with dice rolls, so with reality, he argues.
> > >
> > > This can be countered by the fact, that even though things happen without a cause they don't happen without a reason. It's the same kind of thing that happens over and over again: quantum particles appear out of nothing, with an opposite charge / opposite spin. It is a zero-sum game, but it is a regular one.
> > >
> > In his own words, ''natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws
> > and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have.
> > He was talking about probability of double sixes for designer which is 1/36.
> > As we have seen an inference is not direct like perception and natural laws are self-caused
> Natural laws are not self-caused (gravity does not cause gravity, it causes things to fall down) and thus you cannot have shown that they are self-caused.
Did you just forget first law of thermodynamics ?
Do you really think an imagining entity will cause apple to fall on ground ?
E.g. I throw a stone and apple falls on ground
Explain me what causes apple to fall on ground ?
Also explain me how an imaging entity can create energy ?
For first (law of gravity) he should have limbs to do that
For second which is already self cause makes him already irrational
> Asking yourself why God has put certain laws in place is nonsense, since (if He exists) you cannot possibly understand God's reasoning.
'You cannot know' is not an argument to believe in something who is beyond our perception
> The version of the argument I copied from the website is thus less flawed, since it simply states that the fact that physics itself could be random, one does not need God. That would would be true, if physics was truly random. But the scientific truth is: we don't know if it is. (By this I mean, we simply don't know [yet] if the laws of physics are the way the are in our universe because of chance).
A kind of agree
> > > > The argument from design:
> > > >
> > > > This perennial favorite argues that lifeforms are so well suited to their environments that a designer must have been involved. Russell dismisses this as absurd. He not only notes that Darwin explains the observed facts better through evolutionary theory but also points out how terrible some of the design choices are if they were, in fact, choices. He asks the audience:
> > > >
> > > > “Do you think that, if you were given millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”
> > >
> > > He shouldn't have used people for his argument there, since theists claim that people have free choice, and that therefore evil cannot be blamed on God.
> > >
> > And free will is against man is made in the image of god verse. Do not forget that
> Why would free will be against the idea of humans being made in the image of God? God – if He exists – has ultimate freedom, He just simply is the definition of Good Himself. We obviously don't have ultimate freedom, like an image could never be the same as the original, but free will, to decide between doing good and doing bad, could indeed be called an image of the ultimate freedom.
I was reading interpretion of bible from some website, Your interpretation is very different to that one so it is not my mistake :(
Also, he will send me in hell if I do some sins. I will not do those sins because I'm afraid of going to hell. Isn't it against free will ?
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able ?
Then he is not omnipotent
Is he able, but not willing ?
Then he is malevolent
Is he both able and willing ?
Then whence cometh evil ?
Is he neither able nor willing ?
Then why call him God ?
> > > But he is right about the physical world not being perfect. This is a good argument. But you still have the choice of finding it truly convincing, since you cannot claim to know why God might have made the world in this way.
> > >
> > > > After looking at a few others, he concludes that the arguments for the existence of a God are all lacking in rigor. Since Russell, famously, held that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, the failure of these proofs leaves him with no reason to assume God’s existence.
> > >
> > > This one is the actual crux, and its not even a bad one: "Since you claim that there is God and you cannot prove his existence, I have no reason to believe you." Thus it is not unfair to call not believing an God a rational choice.
> > In his own words, ''Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one.''
> > He was talking about the faith of theism. How they consider God as a justice of the world without even any weak argument.
> This is a "new" argument, that wasn't on my list. The argument makes sense. However it requires you again to reason about God's reasoning, which – in case He exists – is not something that we could possibly do and arrive at the truth...
> > > > However it is also true, that God is not disprovable,
> > God is disprovable because first cause argument is defective
> As shown above, you have to exempt something from the first-cause argument, whether that is God or nature. And since you _have to do this_ you cannot say that the argument is flawed "because God must be caused".
> And even if you had shown that the problem with the first-cause argument was in fact conclusive: proving an argument wrong, does not prove its result wrong.
When cause aka god itself is doubtful its effect will also be doubtful
its result will also be doubtful
Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?
Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?
Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?
If you answered YES for any of the above, give details
> > > and that there are questions that must forever remain unanswered about the origin of the universe (and other things). So it is not unfair either to call not believing in God a form of faith.
> > I gave you some links for agnosticism atheism. Check the link again. You cannot say former definition is based on faith
> > Also whatever source are you reading from, is not reliable and it consists of some uncomprehending arguments
> Russels notion is, that since there is no proof of God, it is rational to assume that God is not. This argument is indeed rational.
> Since assuming that God does not exist requires you to excempt nature from the first-cause argument (it puts nature in the place of God, it does not solve the problem) you are presented with a question that you cannot solve. Thus assuming that God does not exist requires you to be at least a bit irrational about how you think of nature, as I have shown in the topic.
If i did put nature in the first cause it would be the the most rational argument for disproving the God. Because energy or matter is not created or destroyed by anyone. Nobody could cause it. It would be itself cause .
> It is also true, that since there is no disproof of God, and quite a bit of evidence of things He does (however inconclusive), it is also rational to assume that God is.
> So I would say it is fair to call atheism a belief, just as it is fair to call not believing in God rational.
> These are the arguments in their entirety (including the first post = the topic itself). No further source needed.
Whatever you would say will be not a fact. Facts are always different from opinions
You don't want to read source because you are either lazy or you have just a mindset
Read both definitions from here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
> These are the arguments in their entirety (including the first post = the topic itself). No further source needed.
> > http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Russell,Bertrand/Religion/Bertrand%20Russell%20-%20Why%20I%20am%20not%20a%20Christian.pdf
> > Check this out. It is pdf of his essay 'why I'm not a Christian'
> This is a genius lecture about Russels reasons for being an atheist no doubt. However a lot of things are a bit dated. For example he calls it very doubtful wether christ was a historic figure. This was written in a time, when a lot of arguments had been presented that made christs historicity doubtful. But we have progressed a lot since then, and many of the arguments have been successfully refuted.
> I can see now, where you have your arguments from. Very interesting read. Don't take these things as facts though. Natural science and science of history have progressed quite a bit since it was written.
My one source was his essay actually. The first cause counterargument in my first post and christ's historical fact were taken from it. Some other sources were my own knowledge and books issued from my city's library. More sources were taken from an Indian materialism school. That materialism school had theory of five elements which was a bit outdated.
> > > All kinds of convictions have a psychological aspect.
> > A coin is tossed
> > 2 results may come out - head or tail
> > Elaborate how it is a psychological aspect.
> "All kinds of" is an idiom. It does not have to mean "all", it usually means "many". This was just a side note of little importance, please forget about it.
In the end I'd describe how atheism is rational and theism is irrational
Assume you are sitting in a library and it is restricted to go its terrace. You go to that library daily. Once a ceiling fan falls.
There might be two probabilities behind this accident-
1. Law of motion
Until here theism is somehow rational but not more than atheism because if someone caused the accident, he could born with body. Whereas law of motion was apparently perceived and only some irrational people would think god A.K.A. an imagining entity is beyond this accident (It is ofc ludicrous for us :joy:)
You would ask who is there ? But nobody replies you. You got a habit of asking daily but still anyone from terrace does not reply. Here you imagine an unseen entity. You pray to your god daily but he never replies you. But you still think he is there. How theism is rational :joy: ?
Avoiding sensual perceptions and living in imagination is humorous. Just imagine you travel spain to russia after closing your eyes but truth is you are sitting on a chair and typing on a keyboard
This world or nature is eternal because energy or matter is reserved
This world or nature is immoral
You cannot prove any of god's attribute as we saw in debate earlier because you would say knowing him is impossible.
I have my own arguments to disproving the God and calling theism irrational. An answer will be appreciable from you.
1. Religion runs in the family- It is 99% probable that you are follow the religion in your family because that’s what you have been taught right from your birth. You didn’t decide for yourself which is right or which is rational, at least. We all derive the knowledge from our ancestors which has been through the generations but did you know a new born baby has no believe in any religion
2. Common consent- One of the most common facts of people believing in God is that most people believe in HIM, because when a phenomenon is accepted by majority, it must be true, right ? Let’s compare it to slavery now, which was believed to be acceptable back in the times of Lincoln but now is accepted as a faulty practice
3. No growth in religion - When we look at the technological advancements, we realize a decade ago, we had no idea of the existence of the things that we are experiencing right now, for eg even the smartphone I’m typing this answer. Talking of the scientific evolution, can we apply the same thing to God ? No. We are stuck in believing facts that have been in circulation for centuries. If God exists, why are we so vague about His presence ?
4. Morality needs no religion - Most people believe that absence of God and religion would lead to utter chaos leading to immoral acts. But there are enough incidents to prove that Religious people commit immoral acts in the name of God to make their religion look superior. Hypocrisy, eh ?
5. Existence of evil - If theists say that God is noble and good, why do they ignore the existence of evil in the world ? If God loves us so dearly, why should He allow evils to exist ? Why should God allow wars and riots that destroy its own creations ?
6. Inconsistency of religions : Think for yourself. If God exists and He created all men and women equal, why do religions exist which forces people to perceive the same thing so differently? If God existed, wouldn’t He have been bigger ? with more powerful effects on the universe ? You are actually praying to things that we ourselves have built up.
7. The point where science fails : Gods existence is proved by pointing out phenomenon that science can’t explain and hence they are facilitated by God. And why not ? In ancient Greek, Poseidon was believed to be behind earthquakes but is now a scientific activity. It’s not a very convincing fact that our lack of knowledge about the cosmos be a substitute for the existence of a supernatural force.
Your bike could be an example of child marriage as well. For an example my dad married in the age of 15. My grandfather married in the age of 12. They would insist me to do the child marriage because it is a practice in past and they ancestors did so. I'm against of any faulty social practice so i would deny and I will break the chain. The same logic goes with God and bike.
God was created with humans' imagination for earning the money. But that doesn't mean a logical man wouldn't break the chain