Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[Voltron]

Vinnie, you listed a lot of improbabilities there, but no probabilities that a designer did it.

[Angrboda]

I think you've blown your cover for good, Vinny. Nobody but a theist would senselessly repeat Hoyle's argument about assembling a 747 in a junkyard.

What I did not know before this time, however, beyond how badly you suck at disguises, was that this argument is so wrong that it has a fallacy named in its honor, namely Hoyle's fallacy. You, sir, are a class(less) act. I may have some degree of distaste for a Drich or a Daniel, but at least they have enough dignity to not try to pass themselves off as atheists in order to con atheists into belief with tired and worn out arguments, fallacies, and bad jokes.

And if other theists want to know why theists have a bad reputation with atheists, I'll just point to you.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

From my understanding of bayes theorem, if there are only two possible explanations, the plausibility of the one is the inverse of the other.

So if 2 explanations make up 100% of the pool of live options and e1=40%, e2 will have to be 60%.

Obviously, the objection can be "God has no scientific measure, therefore he isn't real". But this objection fails, because we (at least I) don't consider science the exclusive source of knowledge. I can't measure thoughts and feelings or the number three, but I think these things, nonscientific as their explanations may be- they actually exist.

So the question is, do you believe non-naturalistic, non-scientifically-measurable things really exist? Numbers, ideas, thoughts, feelings? You will have to say that they don't exist.

I'm reticent to advocate for naturalism, however. It will be rejected within the next 30-40 years.

[Angrboda]

I think Persephone herself could enjoy some of this low hanging fruit....

[DeistPaladin]

But emotions? Anger? Hate? Tons of it.

[pocaracas]

Simple question.

This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.

What is the alternative to atheism?
Must I assume that religions already exist and then proceed to reject them (based in science and reason) in order to become an atheist?

Can't I be an atheist just by not being taught about religion at an early age?

Considering that I'm an atheist from birth, are you asking that I would very likely change my mind if this position wouldn't be supported by science and reason? Are you claiming that the alternative (religiousness) would be supported by something?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Simple question.

This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.

What is the alternative to atheism?
Must I assume that religions already exist and then proceed to reject them (based in science and reason) in order to become an atheist?

Can't I be an atheist just by not being taught about religion at an early age?

Considering that I'm an atheist from birth, are you asking that I would very likely change my mind if this position wouldn't be supported by science and reason? Are you claiming that the alternative (religiousness) would be supported by something?

The alternative seems to be theism.

Strictly defined as "believing vs not believing in the existence of a God", if not believing becomes irrational and unscientific, the alternative is believing.

I'm not sure what one must do to become an atheist. I assume it's personal reflection and a decision not to be interested in theistic claims as being true.

[pocaracas]

What is the alternative to atheism?
Must I assume that religions already exist and then proceed to reject them (based in science and reason) in order to become an atheist?

Can't I be an atheist just by not being taught about religion at an early age?

Considering that I'm an atheist from birth, are you asking that I would very likely change my mind if this position wouldn't be supported by science and reason? Are you claiming that the alternative (religiousness) would be supported by something?

The alternative seems to be theism.

Strictly defined as "believing vs not believing in the existence of a God", if not believing becomes irrational and unscientific, the alternative is believing.

I'm not sure what one must do to become an atheist. I assume it's personal reflection and a decision not to be interested in theistic claims as being true.

If reason wouldn't support atheism, would it support theism?
Or would it support nothing about god(s), in which case, I guess it would end up supporting atheism.

And what happens if you're not presented with theistic claims throughout your lifetime? Do you become atheist only at some age or are you born atheist? If science and reason don't support atheism, Would then this atheist be led to reason that theism is true and proceed to develop a mythology/religion/cult?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

But in situations where it can only be either one or the other.

Such as "She is either pregnant or not pregnant", the two options are mutually exclusive and exhaust all possibilities.

But it depends on the definitions of the words you are using. The concept under consideration depends on it.

I started a thread on a related question a long time ago called "Can a potato be an atheist?" It was quite a hit here.

I think the consensus was no.

[Faith No More]

Yes, but if you could not prove she is pregnant, does that automatically mean she isn't pregnant?