Why atheism is irrational

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

In the context of atheism, in particular my argument,

I believe atheism as a position to be rational if it is arrived at through sound reasoning.

In light of that, we ask "What is the probability that children prize sound reasoning over other forms of arriving at knowledge/truth?" "What is the probability that children USE sound reasoning as opposed to adults?" "What is the probability that people who are so preoccupied with hate and anger base their philosophical views on hate and anger as opposed to reason?"

That's my methodology here.

Now I've granted before and I'll grant again that this doesn't let me conclude that ALL atheists are irrational. But I think we can assign some meaningful probability estimates such that the probabilities are significantly low given the factors I've mentioned.


Actually, being an atheist logically entails the belief that atheism is true.

You seem to be working under the assumption that people are born as believers and then proceed to reason out of such belief.
I grant that some people are made to believe at a very early age, and then realize that that belief doesn't make sense... even if they don't have all the analytical skills off an adult...they have some and that's enough. Not all people use their skills in the same way, that's why you may see very intelligent people who never managed to remove the religion parasite of their minds.

So, if a person is not born a believer in their parents' religion, then the default position is no belief at all... no reasoning required.

Otoh, what the heck dies this mean? "belief that atheism is true"

Actually, I think people are born agnostic. Indifferent to the matter of God's existence, although at least one academic claims children are born believing in God (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...laims.html). I haven't had the time to look into it, however.

One thing I'm sure about is that people almost always claim to "convert" to atheism. They cite an age, a moment in time, a turning point for their atheism. This suggests that there is a conscious shift, and people are not born atheists.

I think what's happening here is that you're going off of the faulty "Lack of belief" definition, which naturally compels you to assume babies lack belief, therefore babies are atheists. But this reasoning leads to absurdity, as likewise snips, snails and puppy dog tails "lack belief" and thus thus deserve to count as atheists. Silly, right? Yeah, I thought so too!

Now what I mean by "belief that atheism is true" is the simple position arrived at by reasoning. If you decide to become an atheist, or even to stay an atheist (if we believe people are born that way), you do so because you believe that atheism is a good position to hold. That it is rational, supported by evidence and most likely true.

This amounts to a belief. So atheism cannot escape having any positive beliefs.

[Silver]

Children at a young age are not skeptical at all?

Not when it comes to the trust they develop with their parents. A child does not expect a parent to lie, and thus a child is susceptible to a parent informing him that god exists.

[Bad Wolf]

Vinny, seeing as you haven't answered me, i am going to assume that you can't and that infact you don't know what you are talking about

[Silver]

Actually, I think people are born agnostic. Indifferent to the matter of God's existence,

False, everyone is born atheist. Religion is taught.

[Bad Writer]

Children do begin to ask "why" at an early age, and they take those answers received to heart. If they're born believing in anything, it would be the words of their parents.

Disbelief is by definition not a belief. It's a default position taken until sufficient evidence has surfaced to support a claim.

[Bad Wolf]

One thing I'm sure about is that people almost always claim to "convert" to atheism. They cite an age, a moment in time, a turning point for their atheism. This suggests that there is a conscious shift, and people are not born atheists.

Its not that humans are born atheists. Its that atheism is the default position. Please tell me why you don't believe in the existence of the loch ness monster? If your reasons are: that the claim has been investigated and hasn't turned up any valid evidence, just apply that to god. That kind of reasoning is what theists use on every other claim in the world, except god

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

In the context of atheism, in particular my argument,

I believe atheism as a position to be rational if it is arrived at through sound reasoning.

In light of that, we ask "What is the probability that children prize sound reasoning over other forms of arriving at knowledge/truth?" "What is the probability that children USE sound reasoning as opposed to adults?" "What is the probability that people who are so preoccupied with hate and anger base their philosophical views on hate and anger as opposed to reason?"

First of all, please post studies or stats that show that atheists, even those that became atheists at a young age, are 'preoccupied with hate and anger'.

You seem to think that people that are atheists from a young age, as adults, are not able to justify their disbelief using sound reasoning.

That's my methodology here.

Well, it's faulty. Time to rethink it.

Now I've granted before and I'll grant again that this doesn't let me conclude that ALL atheists are irrational. But I think we can assign some meaningful probability estimates such that the probabilities are significantly low given the factors I've mentioned.

Without data, this is nothing more than unsupported crap.

Provide evidence, not your conjecture, that people that grew up atheists are not able to justify their position with rational and sound reasoning.

Actually, being an atheist logically entails the belief that atheism is true. This is the case EVEN IF atheism is a lack of a belief. Which I think is a nonsensical definition anyway. We can discuss that some other time.

No it doesn't. All atheism entails is that the burden of proof for the existence of a god has not been met.

Don't be silly. You don't need studies to show something that's confirmed by everyday experience. Atheists are even trying to make money off of the stereotype. I think the least amount of intellectual integrity among atheists would compel you to admit that there is a lot of anti-religious or anti-Christian hatred and anger in the community. Even if it's entirely justified, it's there. To even try and deny it suggests to me that there's a lack of integrity on the part of the questioner.

Now if you, Simon Moon, can justify your atheism with reason I will be surprised. I don't even think you're up to the challenge. I'm willing to be proved wrong, but I almost never am.

edit: If atheism entails that "the burden of proof for the existence of a god has not been met", then being an atheist entails affirming the belief that "the burden of proof for the existence of a god has not been met". I just made this point earlier, but it looks like this faulty idea is widespread in the community.

---

Why do you post if you have not read the full scope of my claim? Read it again. If you're interested in a serious discussion, we can do that provided you know what you're talking about.

I've concluded nothing solely on the fact that people call me names. In fact their name-calling strokes my ego a little.

Oh ok, you can't refute my points, i get it

Is this guy serious?

Your name is rationalman, and you cannot deduce that people are uninterested in reasoning based off of false premises?

You got a ways to live up to your username, buddy.

[Bad Writer]

Shifting the Burden of Proof halts discourse. If you don't know who bears the burden when it comes to claims about god, then you yourself are a burden that must be let down.

[Bad Wolf]

Is this guy serious?

Your name is rationalman, and you cannot deduce that people are uninterested in reasoning based off of false premises?

You got a ways to live up to your username, buddy.

So I am right. What other reason could there be that you refuse to answer my points. If you were uninterested, you wouldn't be on this forum. Please explain the false premises I am basing my reason off

[Creed of Heresy]

I'm surprised I need to spell it out for so many of you.

All the points I raise suggest atheism is more about irrationality and/or emotion than reason. Cumulatively, all these points just raise the probabilities higher and higher. Combined with the lack of any good arguments or scientific evidence in support of atheism, one can conclude with a high degree of confidence that most atheism is irrational.

There's a reason for that: Your conclusions are illogical.

You are stating that, essentially, the default stance must actually be theism; that to NOT believe is irrational, because the burden of proof must rest on the atheists, and not the people making the claim that god exists.

Except this is not the case. Atheists are a wide and diverse breed but I think it's fairly safe to generalize that the main point of atheism is "not having belief in a god." As in, lacking the belief.

Children, it should be worth pointing out, are not born into this world as believers, and funny thing, children raised without any sort of religious or theistic influences tend to never believe in the theistic claims.

Theism is the stance making the claim. Not atheism. You claim god. I ask for proof of this god. I am given nothing. Ergo I have no reason to believe in god.

What's so difficult about this to understand? I mean, shit, you then go on to state that because other people claim to experience experiences of the godly, that therefore it's true. RIGHT, because, you know, people who are already believers wouldn't have a bias for that, of course.

Eyewitness testimony is the absolute worst form of trying to provide a basis for a case. There is a reason eye-witness testimony is far from enough to actually convict someone in a court of law; because peoples' stories change all the time. Two people see the same thing and yet remember it differently.

Ditto with people claiming these experiences. Pressed for details, they suddenly come up hilariously short.

I mean if you're really that gullible that you instantly believe people just because they make the same claims when, previously, they already shared the same beliefs, then man, you're just lost to the deep, dark realms of non-logic, and there's not a single thing any of us can do to pull you out of it, no matter how many lights we shine down into that hole.