Is being an atheist irrational?

[Hosanna]

Bc ultimately God loves us and created us in HIS image to be friends. We alone of all the creatures mentioned in the Scriptures were made this way.

Indeed. Hence the age-old enigma: why does the atheist refuse to befriend God?
After all, since the beginning of creation, God has been good for the soul and has unselfish love for whosoever is friends with Jesus.

[Hosanna]

As being an atheist I don't feel like being irrational.

In all respect to your persona and by way of understanding your mind,
a) What does Jesus Christ mean to you?
b) Do you reason that Jesus Christ is rational or irrational in what He taught and did at the cross?
c) What's your reason for your perception of Jesus?

[Justhuman]

... unresting from my case...

Do you have a say in any of your beliefs or actions, or are you merely experiencing sensations?

I think you want from me one single yes/no answer if in my material world I only 'experience' action/reaction sensations, but I cannot answer that. If I choose yes I'm not responsible for anything I do, I'm just a slave of the material universe, cannot realy control anything I do. But that would deny me any intelligence too, for that would also be just action/reaction processes.

So, for now I tend to think both. Seen individually there is only action/reaction between neurons and we do not have control over those individual neurons, but can that be extrapolated to the whole brain, to the whole human body, to the world we live in?
On the basic physical level I only experience sensations, but as a whole being I can choose my own actions and can choose what I believe.

[Justhuman]

There is no 'true evidence', for any humans point of view regarding our origin (existence?) (And many other things too). Only assumptions and opinions (and fuzzy feelings). What is deemed rational seems to depend on what one believes. Both can be rational whithin their own boundaries.

I didn't write that rational thought is an illusion, on the contrary. In a materialist universe there is no illusion, for everything is 'real'.

With the exception of the first act of creation...
-
-
-

Now, do you mean that "With the exception of the first act of creation..." the act of creation is (also) not real in the materialist universe? I.e. not happened?

[Justhuman]

In a materialist universe there is no illusion, for everything is 'real'.

And every real physical thing had a cause or is derived from something which previously existed. And the Cause of the universe had to be supremely intelligent and unfathomably powerful. No universe, no physical thing existed, and a moment later, it did - with unimaginable power, immediately obeying laws, with just the right element showing up, individually and interactively showing marvelous design and functions - all of these show great intelligence and could not evolve (they showed up immediately)...

"And every real physical thing had a cause or is derived from something which previously existed." Yes.
"And the Cause of the universe had to be supremely intelligent and unfathomably powerful." Don't understand that. Is that meant pro or con?
"No universe, no physical thing existed, and a moment later, it did - with unimaginable power, immediately obeying laws, with just the right element showing up, individually and interactively showing marvelous design and functions - all of these show great intelligence and could not evolve (they showed up immediately)." Hmmm... more or less yes.

...The level of coincidences that would be necessary for these many things to be unguided is not a rational thing to believe.

"... is not a rational thing to believe...".

"... I don't believe in "Pop Metaphysics" - that an incredible physical universe just happened to instantly "pop" into existence all by itself. And wild theories about how that is possible is not science, but, well, wild, unproven theories. Plus, science doesn't measure metaphysical things, but physical ones. So, rewind the tape back to the moment in which there was no physical thing - not even space - and your beyond what science can tell us.

Less likely to believe than a God that was always there or 'popped' into existence?

...One should be asking themself, how is it possible that I'm even here to begin with - much less whether thinking is rooted in the merely physical. Now I can see why some want to believe that reality is all merely an illusion - because they can convince themselves there's no ultimate accountability that exists, or that things are ultimately not discernible / that nothing truly matters beyond the moment - certainly beyond the moment of purely physical.

Why shouldn't I think about the roots of the physical? Remember, for me (as an atheist) the reason why I'm here is less important.

Ultimate accountability? I have accountability towards my family, friends, colleagues, work, neighborhood, environment, the world, etc... That's accountablity enough.
You do too(?).

[Justhuman]

Jesus asked, "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?"

Why do you suppose the most famous carpenter in the history of mankind, from the dusty village of Nazareth, located in an insignificant corner of a mighty fine Earth, who most assuredly changed the course of history with His existence, would be so very concerned about a person's soul, including the soul of the atheist?

Did Jesus say that? Who recorded that? When was it written down? 'How' was it written down?
Was he really a carpenter? Is there any proof for that? It seems not everyone believes that.
Did Jesus change the course of our history? Or did God?

[Justhuman]

There is no 'true evidence', for any humans point of view regarding our origin (existence?) (And many other things too). Only assumptions and opinions (and fuzzy feelings). What is deemed rational seems to depend on what one believes. Both can be rational whithin their own boundaries.
I didn't write that rational thought is an illusion, on the contrary. In a materialist universe there is no illusion, for everything is 'real'.

This is a prime example of what atheism is. It is a state of limbo a person remains in their whole life until they die,never knowing if they are right or wrong until they die.They don't want to know,don't ask questions as to how we got here,they apply dumb atheist philosophy to their world view and it causes a state of limbo.

It goes back to what I explained before atheists have no evidence athesm is true and they even explain to you why they are excluded and don't have to have any evidence to know they are right. So that they do not care if something is true or not,they go on what sounds good to them personally just like atheism. This prevents a person from getting to the truth about anything,it is a state of limbo they remain in. You cannot apply a world view you have no way of knowing is true and apply it to our world,theories,etc and get to the truth about it.It just causes you to be in a state of limbo never knowing you are right or not and accepting ideas that sound good to you.

Evidence, evidence... Neither one of us have the evidence.

[Justhuman]

As being an atheist I don't feel like being irrational.

In all respect to your persona and by way of understanding your mind,
a) What does Jesus Christ mean to you?
b) Do you reason that Jesus Christ is rational or irrational in what He taught and did at the cross?
c) What's your reason for your perception of Jesus?

a) he was a man with a believe.
b) I don't know what he taught and did at the cross, since I wasn't there. Jesus is rational in the sense he existed as a human being. But 'irrational' as a devine being.
c) Reason for my perception? For me as an atheist Jesus could only have been a human.

[Justhuman]

Bc ultimately God loves us and created us in HIS image to be friends. We alone of all the creatures mentioned in the Scriptures were made this way.

Indeed. Hence the age-old enigma: why does the atheist refuse to befriend God?
After all, since the beginning of creation, God has been good for the soul and has unselfish love for whosoever is friends with Jesus.

Tell me, Hosanna, does God in his omnipotent omniscience know the future?
Did Jesus, as the son of God, 'know' his future?

[Hortator]

Tell me, Hortator, does God in his omnipotent omniscience know the future?
Did Jesus, as the son of God, 'know' his future?

Yep.

[B. W.]

There is no 'true evidence', for any humans point of view regarding our origin (existence?) (And many other things too). Only assumptions and opinions (and fuzzy feelings). What is deemed rational seems to depend on what one believes. Both can be rational whithin their own boundaries.

I didn't write that rational thought is an illusion, on the contrary. In a materialist universe there is no illusion, for everything is 'real'.

With the exception of the first act of creation...

Now, do you mean that "With the exception of the first act of creation..." the act of creation is (also) not real in the materialist universe? I.e. not happened?

Where did the material come from that made all the entire universe?
-
-
-

[Justhuman]

Tell me, Hortator, does God in his omnipotent omniscience know the future?
Did Jesus, as the son of God, 'know' his future?

Yep.

Hortator? I asked Hosanna...

[Justhuman]

There is no 'true evidence', for any humans point of view regarding our origin (existence?) (And many other things too). Only assumptions and opinions (and fuzzy feelings). What is deemed rational seems to depend on what one believes. Both can be rational whithin their own boundaries.

I didn't write that rational thought is an illusion, on the contrary. In a materialist universe there is no illusion, for everything is 'real'.

With the exception of the first act of creation...

Now, do you mean that "With the exception of the first act of creation..." the act of creation is (also) not real in the materialist universe? I.e. not happened?

Where did the material come from that made all the entire universe?
-
-
-

I don't know. How do you expect me to explain it? Do I expect you to explain where God got it from?

[Philip]

Philip: "... I don't believe in "Pop Metaphysics" - that an incredible physical universe just happened to instantly "pop" into existence all by itself. And wild theories about how that is possible is not science, but, well, wild, unproven theories. Plus, science doesn't measure metaphysical things, but physical ones. So, rewind the tape back to the moment in which there was no physical thing - not even space - and your beyond what science can tell us.

Just Human: Less likely to believe than a God that was always there or 'popped' into existence?

You are correct! A God could not just pop into existence. Such would imply that He created Himself - a logical impossibility. And what that means is that the Creator had to be Eternal. Certainly, on a very simple level - WHATEVER is the source of the universe, unquestionably it HAD to be: Eternal, unfathomably powerful and intelligent. No physical thing isn't derivative of some previously existing thing or process. And so, the first things that came into physical existence had a cause found in the non-physical realm. And what came into existence weren't just random, non-essential things - but the very precise and necessary things from which our universe, space, and huge number of complex processes, designs - and all of it - necessarily, interactively so, for life to exist and thrive. The parameters of the things individually are massively complex. Interactively, far more so. So, we see intelligence behind design all over our universe and world - any one of which is massively complex: http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tu ... -june-2004

To believe these things instantly developed themselves is a massive leap of faith - and I would say an illogical one. Again, at the beginning of our universe, there was a moment when nothing physically existed, and then, in the very next one, with untold power, a universe and space came into existence, with JUST the right things crucial to what now exists - what are the odds of that? And these amazing things were instantly obeying complex physical laws, instantly interacting, not in total chaos, but with trajectories and functions per their governing and highly precise laws. Are we to believe all of that can happen without an Intelligence behind it all? That's simply not logical.

[Justhuman]

Philip: "... I don't believe in "Pop Metaphysics" - that an incredible physical universe just happened to instantly "pop" into existence all by itself. And wild theories about how that is possible is not science, but, well, wild, unproven theories. Plus, science doesn't measure metaphysical things, but physical ones. So, rewind the tape back to the moment in which there was no physical thing - not even space - and your beyond what science can tell us.

Just Human: Less likely to believe than a God that was always there or 'popped' into existence?

You are correct! A God could not just pop into existence. Such would imply that He created Himself - a logical impossibility. And what that means is that the Creator had to be Eternal. Certainly, on a very simple level - WHATEVER is the source of the universe, unquestionably it HAD to be: Eternal, unfathomably powerful and intelligent. No physical thing isn't derivative of some previously existing thing or process. And so, the first things that came into physical existence had a cause found in the non-physical realm. And what came into existence weren't just random, non-essential things - but the very precise and necessary things from which our universe, space, and huge number of complex processes, designs - and all of it - necessarily, interactively so, for life to exist and thrive. The parameters of the things individually are massively complex. Interactively, far more so. So, we see intelligence behind design all over our universe and world - any one of which is massively complex: http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tu ... -june-2004

To believe these things instantly developed themselves is a massive leap of faith - and I would say an illogical one. Again, at the beginning of our universe, there was a moment when nothing physically existed, and then, in the very next one, with untold power, a universe and space came into existence, with JUST the right things crucial to what now exists - what are the odds of that? And these amazing things were instantly obeying complex physical laws, instantly interacting, not in total chaos, but with trajectories and functions per their governing and highly precise laws. Are we to believe all of that can happen without an Intelligence behind it all? That's simply not logical.

I really do not understand how you can state that God is and was eternal, besides the fact that it is the only option for you to have an omnipotent and omniscient God. For about every other option would make God less, and thus not a god.
And so you write things like:

Such would imply that He created Himself

I'm sorry for the word, but that is utter bs. It's a circular reasoning, a dead end argumentation.