Is atheism irrational?

Don't worry, you'll all grow out of your edgy teenager phase and realize God does exist, or at the minimum, understand the massive impact religion has had on the world today.

Nice strawman

>understand the massive impact religion has had on the world today.
No one's denying that, lad.

[U]

>pretending to believe in God to be "mature" or for political reasons

Stop kidding yourself man. You've got nothing to prove.

You can not believe in God and still appreciate the impact religion has had on the world you fucking idiot.

Its absolutely necessary for a God to exist. Aristotle's idea of God as the unmoved mover is a perfect example of this.

Atheists on suicide watch

>>edgy teenager
Fuck off, you little shit. I'm 31 goddamn years old and I still think Lewis is retarded.

>I think so God must be real

actually what

>>it's absolutely necessary for a god to exist
No it isn't, and the only reason you think so is that you don't like having to say or hear the words "I don't know" in response to certain questions.

>God must exist because some dude made a shitty word game up

Everyone is aware of God, it is naturally built inside us.

Atheists simply suppress that knowledge because of their
>Will
>Desire
They don't /want/ there to be a God. They don't want accountability or consequences for their actions. It threatens their immoral lifestyle so that is why atheists have such an irrational hatred against the Creator.

>projecting

This is the height of religious argument when they have nothing left.

yes. atheism is a mental illness

Firstly, that has nothing to do with pointing out that Lewis' argument is fallacious.

Secondly, pointing out said flaw doesn't make one an edgy atheist that hates religion. That too is a fallacy.

>theory of evolution
You mean something which has been proven wrong and debunked years ago?

The more scientific discoveries are made, the more creation is proven correct. The "intelligent design" movement is growing inside the scientific community.

The faith in Darwinism is dead.

>& Humanities

This board single-handedly reminded me just how contrived and pseudo-intellectual most humanities are. It's actually pathetic that millions of people seriously study it.

[Citation Needed]

Argument from Cause: This argument considers God the "First Cause." In other words, everything that exists must come from something else and that something else is what we call God. Philosophically, this argument is presented as:

- Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
- The universe had a beginning.
- Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first aspect, that everything that had a beginning had a cause, is based on the principle of causality. Nothing cannot produce something. The second part, that the universe had a beginning, is supported by many lines of modern scientific evidence. These include the second law of thermodynamics (that the universe is running out of usable energy toward disorder), the expansion of the universe, the radiation echo of the initial explosion of the universe (often called the Big Bang), among others. The conclusion is that the universe had a cause.

Argument from Design: This argument proposes the following: Every design has a designer; the universe reveals complex design; therefore, the universe has a Designer. This design includes both natural and supernatural causes. Both the macro level (design found in the universe based on astronomy) and the micro level (design found at the cellular level) support the argument of highly designed and complicated forms of life that find no adequate explanation apart from an outside, powerful force capable of intelligent design. This Intelligent Designer opens the door for the existence of God.

Argument for Morality: This argument follows a more internal logic that suggests that:

- Every law has a lawgiver.
- There is an absolute moral law.
- Therefore, there must be an absolute Lawgiver.

Some question whether there is an absolute moral law. Yet as C.S. Lewis notes in Mere Christianity, "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something-some Real Morality-for them to be true about."

While postmodern philosophy attempts to deconstruct this argument by suggesting all absolutes of right and wrong regarding morality are relative, the existence of absolutes in the universe is undeniable. For example, two plus two cannot equal four and two plus two equal five at the same time under the same conditions. Likewise, many areas of morality suggest a universal sense of injustice regarding the wrongs of the world. Individuals may differ regarding exactly what is labeled justice and injustice, but every person has an innate sense of there being right and wrong. This morality has an origin and it is argued this original Lawgiver is God.

t. Ken Ham

Fuck off hovind, nobody is buying your shit.

In examining the existence of God, the first question that should be asked is: "Why does anything exist?" Subsequent questions are: Why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? In considering the question of God's existence, there are three popularly proposed answers as to why there is something rather than nothing: (1) The universe is all an illusion, nothing actually exists, (2) The universe has always existed, is self-existent (3) The universe was brought into existence by something/someone that is self-existent. Which is the most plausible solution?

The idea that reality is an illusion is primarily a tenet among Eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. The "reality is an illusion" option was disproved by the philosopher Rene Descartes who argued that if he is thinking, then he must "be," "I think, therefore I am." In other words, "I think, therefore I cannot be an illusion." Illusions require something that is experiencing the illusion. If nothing exists, neither does the illusion. Philosophically, doubting your existence actually proves your existence. "Reality is an illusion" is a self-defeating argument.

There are then only two choices—an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. Something exists. Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, something has always existed. If the existence of God is denied, an eternal universe is the only other option. To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points to the universe having had a beginning. Whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning and is not eternal is demonstrated by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang, the fact that the universe is expanding, and Einstein's theory of relativity.

Further, how could an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe result in beings who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Only mind can create mind. Non-life cannot produce life. Unconsciousness cannot produce consciousness. The only logical and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for the creation of the universe. The concept of an eternal universe has been philosophically and scientifically disproven. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

With the clear evidence for the existence of God in mind, why are there so many atheists, and are there any grounds for atheism? No, there are not. The essential claim of atheism, "there is no god," is an invalid philosophical statement. Denying the existence of something cannot be proven. In order for it to be proven that God does not exist, someone would have to be in every location in the universe at the same time. In other words, to disprove the existence of God, one would have to be God. The need for an eternal and self-existent Creator can be proven. Atheism cannot be proven.

Another crucial issue to consider is the fact that the acceptance or rejection of the existence of God has more implications for life, action, and morality than any other issue. If atheism is wrong, it will result in unpleasant (to say the least) consequences. With this in view, atheists should produce conclusive and undeniable evidence for the non-existence of God. Atheism cannot accomplish this, and therefore, all atheists can do is hope that they are correct. Eternity is a very long time to be wrong.

So he's basically ripped off Aquinas' ideas and offered nothing to the table but provide another fallacy based off a shitty word game.

Bravo! Stick to fiction, Lewis.

So, does belief in the existence of God have intellectual warrant? Absolutely. While atheists claim that belief in the existence of God is a psychological crutch, it is in fact atheism that abandons reality in order to fulfill a psychological need. If there is no God, there is no morality, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. If God does not exist, we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want, with no eternal consequences. That is the true motivation behind atheism.

>but every person has an innate sense of there being right and wrong. This morality has an origin and it is argued this original Lawgiver is God.

How does that compare to the field of evolutionary psychology?

t. bill nye the clown guy

It's funny to see atheists reject science when it confirms God exists.

>or at the minimum, understand the massive impact religion has had on the world today.

One only needs to take a look at Middle-east to realize the impact that religion has had on the world.

You first have to prove that "evolutionary psychology" is real.

Fun fact: CSL got completely btfo whenever he had to defend his arguments in person, and refused to do so for the majority of his life

Because God is perfect and therefore his reasoning is perfect and therefore his creation is perfect but he allows imperfections so that we might learn perfection so that we can't be like God but that we can know God, who is perfect, exists, which is a perfectly normal thing for the creator of all the universe to want.

You can't just co-opt the word science to your batshit crazy ideas and act all smug about it. But I guess you've been doing it for a year on this board now haven't you?

>Hitler was a politician
>therefore politics is bad!

why are atheists so retarded?

>make unsubstantiated claim that the only way for morality to exist is for it to be gifted
>demand others provide proof when they question it

christcuck intellectual """integrity""

>How can I trust my thinking to be true
You can't. But "truth" is a dodgy concept anyway. The best you can do is accept what your sensory perception tells you and work from there.

>of course I can't trust the arguments for atheism
And why not? If that's what's most consistent with what your senses depict the universe to be like then why not be an atheist?

>Posts the same memes

Inb4 the same links. How many times have you been banned, Hovind?

You dont have to be a teenager to still be in the edgy teenager phase ;)

>batshit crazy ideas

I'm not the one believing my grandparents were monkeys that crawled out of a slime pit, without any shred of evidence.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_fallacious_creationist_quotes#Bounoure.2C_Louis

lol

>rationalwiki
LOL

A website dedicated to ad hominem attacks, no real arguments.

Except the Nazis thought they were morally right and C.S Lewis was morally wrong.

If that's the case then clearly morality isn't objective
>but the Nazis actually are wrong
And they think the exact same about you. Congrats, that's subjectivity for you.

>be a subhuman animal that wants to run around raping, murdering, and eating other people
>only reason why you behave halfway decently is because you're afraid that your imaginary friend punishes you if you're a bad boy
>still unironically claim that you're a moral person

I SAY BOY, I DO SAY. I DONT SEE MUH GRANDPAPPY CRAWLIN' UP IN ONE OF DEM HERE TRESS YA HEAR?? THAT WOULD JUST BE RIDICULOUS! HOOOOOO WEEEEE! HYUK HYUK!

newgeology.us/presentation32.html

evolution is an unscientific myth, it isnt real.

atheists have alot of faith in their darwinian cult

Except not being religious does not mean being an edgy teenager.

just keep reminding yourself the quality of this board is so fucking low it's not even in the same league as any serious academic institution at undergrad level

>he thinks morality derives from fear of eternal torture.

ITT: Evolutionists getting triggered and butthurt

Science proves Creation.
Philosophy proves God.
Theology proves Christianity.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

As opposed to random pics with fake quotes?

>They don't want accountability or consequences for their actions
Except atheists do accept earthly accountability and consequences for their actions. They couldn't possibly not on the count that they're exclusively focused on this life.

But by focus on other-worldliness you implicitly give up accountability to a higher power and assuage the knowledge of earthly consequences with the idea that after death no matter what you will be rewarded.

That's just pure projection.

>he thinks we are moral because of fear of eternal torture

way to discredit yourself, retard

it's funny too because Christians are supposed to believe that they are born with an intrinsic sense of right and wrong, which is Darwinian Pragmatism. People can live a good life without Christianity by Christianity's own teaching because Christians believe that the virtuous people before Christ were in limbo and taken to heaven by Jesus. They must believe that people have an internal moral code hardwired into them to be Christian, and so the argument that "atheists have no morals", or "you cannot be moral without religion", is nonsense by their own reckoning.

Yes, something cannot come from nothing.

Why not?

You are so deluded that it genuinely worries me.

>quotes neocon talking point

ahh yes this must be the """bible belt""" i've read so much about

Lewis already debunked moral relativism

youtube.com/user/CSLewisDoodle/videos

or pick up a book

>nothing exists
>then randomly a fully develop omnipotent sapience just pops in because of reasons

Seems pretty farfetched to me desu.

You're the one who claims morality derives from fear of a supposed god.

You have be severely deluded to believe in the religion of evolution.

lets be honest here, gravity too is an evolutionist spook.

why are atheists so retarded?

When you can't prove evolution, shitposting is all they can do.

You know claiming he did an spamming youtube videos isn't an argument.

And dare I say, you purposefully use this tactic because you don't really understand the arguments of C.S Lewis so this way you don't have to articulate them nor can anyone properly respond to them.

Childhood is C.S Lewis posting.
Adulthood is Nietzschean edgeposting

>I already suppose there is a god
>I presuppose that without my thoughts being driven by a divine plan, those thoughts are not "true", whatever that means.
>It's either God or blublrfrubfrddth cause I know there is a God and lalala
Reminder that being a theist only needs a presumption and confirmation bias while being an agnostic non believer needs a look at the observable facts, and an openness to new evidence.

atheists getting destroyed ITT

>Evolutionists
T. Cleetus
Nice bait. What's next? Gonna pull out a jar of peanut butter or something?

Evolutionism is the most retarded religion in the world.

Sometimes atheism is rational, when a slayer want believe in non-existence of the god and in an immunity from jurisdiction of heaven

ITT: youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

Best thing in evolutionism that it is, even you don't believe in it.

Why do atheists have so much faith in evolution?

It borders on irrationality when you cling to a dead unscientific theory.

It can be, but most often it's not.

Yes.

>Darwinian theory of evolution
>Cosmogenic theory

Jesus, what kind of idiot is this?

Many theists have faith in evolution too, or you think milk from a cow on you table is work of some god-creator of the cow? Also modern theory of evolution is different from Darwin's theory, because evolved.

Evolution is a fairy tale.

>If I'll repeat it long enough it'll be true

Welcome to a world without absolutes

>/Rel/ - religion & larping when?

>ITT: atheists who don't get a simple argument
He's not saying this proves God. He's just saying perfect obedience and unfaltering belief in atheism is silly.

>expecting atheists to be rational and use their brain

He's saying atheism in general is logically unsound. With the implicit alternative of theism.

>you have to be over 18 to post on this website

Mooooooods mods mods

He's absolutely correct.

Without God, there can be no certainty, as all propositions can be derived from other ones.

Very smart man.

Nah, his reasoning is ebola tier. Even fucking descartes knew that thoughts are to be trusted even though his retarded ass gave god as his reasoning too.

I mean, he is using complexity as his selling point. Complexity. Can you fucking believe that shit? Motherfucking plato is spinning so god damn hard in his grave that his grave is becoming a gyroscope.

>it is complex so it must be an act of god!

Darwin proved how that shit worked way before his sorry ass was around. Don't let fucking sperglord plebs anywhere near Philosophy.

Plato would have ridiculed atheists