Is Atheism irrational?

Atheism is a universal negative. Everyone who has studied logic knows that you cannot prove a universal negative. If you say that that there is no such thing in the universe as little green men, for instance, there is no way to prove it. You'd have to travel through every planet and every star and inside every star and through every galaxy in the entire universe and come back and tell me that you didn't see one. When you did, I could just answer, "Well, you missed him. While you were going that way he, he was zigging this way." To prove that little green men don't exist you'd have to examine every single part of the universe at the same time. So it's impossible to to prove that there is no such thing as little green men or angles or God. Therefore atheism is a logical contradiction, and to affirm to a logical contradiction is irrational. So also is the concept of a world without a Creator, and a human heart that does not yearn for God to fill it.

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 place our trust in Him-in His atoning death for our salvation. If not, we shall face Him as our angry Judge in that great day. I believe in Him, and I know He is alive. He lives in my heart, and he has granted me the assurance that I shall live with Him forever. It is my earnest desire that that assurance may be yours, if it is not already.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Atheism is a universal negative. Everyone who has studied logic knows that you cannot prove a universal negative. If you say that that there is no such thing in the universe as little green men, for instance, there is no way to prove it. You'd have to travel through every planet and every star and inside every star and through every galaxy in the entire u ...[text shortened]... ith Him forever. It is my earnest desire that that assurance may be yours, if it is not already.

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.

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.

Why do you need to try and prove Gods existance is there is no way that you can disprove it? How else do you explain the begining of the universe?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Why do you need to try and prove Gods existance is there is no way that you can disprove it? How else do you explain the begining of the universe?

The universe just happenned - things do. The mechanism for this is fairly well understood, it just looks as if it couldn't have because it's big.
The human brain is "designed" to spot patterns so you see shapes in clouds and think that because something is apparently unlikely there must have been a concious agency to cause it. The obvious problem with your point though is that it passes the creation problem from the universe to your divine entity after which the best you can do is say: "Oh well God can do that."
Agnostics are generally tolerant, if occasionally dismissive of others' beliefs; so if you want to believe in ghosts then do so, but don't call me irrational for finding it all unlikely.

Here's a question: God is omnipotent, can he abdicate?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Why do you need to try and prove Gods existance is there is no way that you can disprove it? How else do you explain the begining of the universe?

Why would I explain the begining of something I know exists , by deciding it was created by something that only might exists and then say the thing that only might exist needs no begining?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Atheism is a universal negative. .

What is a 'universal' negative? I know what 'universal' means and I know what 'negative' means. But a universal negative? Is this a big negative? As big as the universe perhaps? I wish you would write a little more clearly.

Originally posted by frogstomp

Why would I explain the begining of something I know exists , by deciding it was created by something that only might exists and then say the thing that only might exist needs no begining?

You need to explain the begining of the universe because it has been proven to have a beginnig. It needs a cause. The only possible cause is something that has no begining. Thus it makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by Maustrauser

What is a 'universal' negative? I know what 'universal' means and I know what 'negative' means. But a universal negative? Is this a big negative? As big as the universe perhaps? I wish you would write a little more clearly.

Is the opposite of a universal negative a universal positive or a non-universal positive?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Is the opposite of a universal negative a universal positive or a non-universal positive?

Collide a universal negative with a universal positive and you get a big-bang. Hmm Maybe dj2becker is onto something!

Originally posted by dj2becker
Atheism is a universal negative. Everyone who has studied logic knows that you cannot prove a universal negative. If you say that that there is no such thing in the universe as little green men, for instance, there is no way to prove it. You'd have to travel through every planet and every star and inside every star and through every galaxy in the entire u ...[text shortened]... ith Him forever. It is my earnest desire that that assurance may be yours, if it is not already.

Atheists do not need to prove that god does not exist, nor do they even try to do so. It is up to the theist to prove that his god exists. The burden of proof rests solely upon the theist's shoulders. If he can't come up with any good evidence for the existence of his god, then the concept cannot be believed. That does not prove that its false. It simply means that the theist's concept of god cannot be believed.

As for little green men, that theory is much more plausible than the theory of god. We know there is life on this planet. We know that there are other planets. Therefore it is entirely plausible that there is life upon other planets. Whether that life were to take the form of little green men, however, is entirely open to debate.

Do you see how that works? In the case of your little green men, we have started from two known quantities (life on earth, and the existence of other planets) and have made the reasonable extrapolation of "life on other planets?" The theory is consistent with our knowledge of the universe.

But the case for god comes from nothing. The concept of god is completely alien to our experience. God does not build from other known quantities and is completely incompatible with our knowledge of the universe. Therefore, while the case for little green men cannot be "believed", it can be entertained as a reasonable hypothesis. God, on the other hand, certainly cannot be believed and is not a reasonable hypothesis in any sense of the word.

Atheists do not need to prove that god does not exist, nor do they even try to do so.

It's a free country. You're free to hold whatever irrational beliefs you'd like. Just don't pretend like you're being the rational one.

It is up to the theist to prove that his god exists. The burden of proof rests solely upon the theist's shoulders.

Not solely. It is required of the atheist to be reasonable. You guys suck at doing that. Short of a Kodak picture of God at a barbeque, you won't believe anything we show you because you have a vested interest in Him not being real. You'd probably call the Kodak a fake, anyway.

If he can't come up with any good evidence for the existence of his god, then the concept cannot be believed. That does not prove that its false. It simply means that the theist's concept of god cannot be believed.

If we had no good evidence, no one would be a theist. Who wants to believe they could go to Hell? Certainly not atheists.

As for little green men, that theory is much more plausible than the theory of god. We know there is life on this planet. We know that there are other planets. Therefore it is entirely plausible that there is life upon other planets. Whether that life were to take the form of little green men, however, is entirely open to debate.

I would say it's less plausible. We live on a ridiculously privileged planet. And since carbon-based life can only be found in a place very similar to ours, it's highly unlikely there's life elsewhere. Almost impossible.

Do you see how that works? In the case of your little green men, we have started from two known quantities (life on earth, and the existence of other planets) and have made the reasonable extrapolation of "life on other planets?" The theory is consistent with our knowledge of the universe.

Well theists start off with more than two known qualities and you still reject us. That makes you a hypocrite.

1. Universe began
2. Life on earth began
3. We have non-physical minds

According to your logic, our theory that a transcendant Mind is responsible for all of that is quite valid.

Here's where you back out.

But the case for god comes from nothing. The concept of god is completely alien to our experience.

That's a complete and baseless lie. Every civilization in the history of life on earth has believed in a god. In fact, if you say you never believed in a god-concept before you felt "intellectually fulfilled" as an atheist, you'd be a liar. When we are kids, we know there's a god.

does not build from other known quantities and is completely incompatible with our knowledge of the universe. Therefore, while the case for little green men cannot be "believed", it can be entertained as a reasonable hypothesis. God, on the other hand, certainly cannot be believed and is not a reasonable hypothesis in any sense of the word.

I've shown He does. How is He incompatible?
Well, He is believed, and by reasonable people, so that claim is false.
And a reasonable hypothesis? Give me a break. Atheists don't even have a hypothesis they AGREE on for origin of universe or origin of life. Let's not talk about reasonable anything.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Atheism is a universal negative.

Atheism is simply the disbelief in God or any deity. That's it. It has not other doctrines or tenants. It is not a system or a philosophy.

I believe that God can not be absolutely proven by deductive reason or experience. Although there is much evidence, and good logical arguments, they will always fail at some point, no matter how small. And this is why the Christan belief (saving faith) is a gift from God. Man can not - in the end - prove God exists - so man can not believe in God apart from the Holy Spirit instilling that belief. The Christian has much evidence for God - but it will never be enough in itself to covert a non-believer.

Now atheism is in a similar situation. They can not prove God does not exist (nor do the atheist feel they need to prove it). And no amount of evidence can change their minds - there will always be an alternative explanation for the data. But having no other doctrine, it is hard to call it irrational. They don't believe, Christians do believe - both are perfectly reasonable beliefs because both are unprovable.

The Christian system is a rational world-view. Atheism has no "word-view" per say. Christianity can explain evil - but atheism can not. Christianity can explain existence - atheism can not. Atheism can not answer any question in itself. It is not a system.

So some atheist you will find are the most rational people around. And some Christians can be as irrational as possible. But either belief is reasonable. The main problem with atheism then is that is can offer no further help in understanding the world or man.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Atheism is a universal negative. Everyone who has studied logic knows that you cannot prove a universal negative. If you say that that there is no such thing in the universe as little green men, for instance, there is no way to prove it. ...[text shortened]... est desire that that assurance may be yours, if it is not already.

Do you believe in the fairies at the bottom of my garden? They inform all my moral behaviour. I can't see them and I've never met them but I believe with all my heart that they are the only truth.

Whats that I hear you say?

I'm talking rubbish?

No, its the only truth, I know its true and so does everyone else who believes in fairies. Humph. You're sooooo negative.

Originally posted by Coletti
Christianity can explain evil - but atheism can not.

Non-theists can resolve the question of evil as well, so it's nature is not restricted to the explanations of theistic traditions exclusively. I know you mentioned only atheism, but I thought it important to make the point.

Originally posted by eagles54
Non-theists can resolve the question of evil as well, so it's nature is not restricted to the explanations of theistic traditions exclusively. I know you mentioned only atheism, but I thought it important to make the point.

I agree. Atheism itself can not. It has no foundations to build any knowledge on. Any knowledge an atheist has - would have nothing to do with being an atheist. Maybe he is also a rationalist, or an empiricist.