Why atheism is irrational

[Rahul]

I'm finding a consistent pattern of reading and comprehension difficulties among you guys here. Is that normal? Because in the same thread, I said

-In the academic literature nobody moans about burden of proof. This is pretty much an internet thing.
-Proofs only exist in mathematics and alcohol. In the context of theism and atheism, we go by reason and evidence.
-Nevertheless, this is a burden of proof argument, so far as "burden of proof" means "You can't just make baseless assertions".

Granted, it takes a little bit of reasoning to go from "I don't believe in BoP. But since you do, I'm willing to use it, insofar as I define it this way."

I've been tested on reading comprehension ability before in the higher education institutions I attended. I've always tested perfect on them. It's not my ability to discern your writing that is the problem. It's your ideas that aren't making a lot of sense.

Academic literature may not frequently use the term "burden of proof" but all scientific theories have nothing but eternal requirements for it.

Anything that makes a claim has a burden of proof.

When I say that I don't believe in a deity, the only burden of proof I am making is that I don't believe something. There is no other claim there.

If you ask me why I don't believe in a deity I only ask, "Why should I?".

No one has provided me with any evidence to believe in such a thing.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I'm finding a consistent pattern of reading and comprehension difficulties among you guys here. Is that normal? Because in the same thread, I said

Granted, it takes a little bit of reasoning to go from "I don't believe in BoP. But since you do, I'm willing to use it, insofar as I define it this way."

I've been tested on reading comprehension ability before in the higher education institutions I attended. I've always tested perfect on them. It's not my ability to discern your writing that is the problem. It's your ideas that aren't making a lot of sense.

Academic literature may not frequently use the term "burden of proof" but all scientific theories have nothing but eternal requirements for it.

Anything that makes a claim has a burden of proof.

When I say that I don't believe in a deity, the only burden of proof I am making is that I believe something. There is no other claim there.

If you ask me why I don't believe in a deity I only ask, "Why should I?".

No one has provided me with any evidence to believe in such a thing.

That's funny because the word "proof" doesn't come up in science. In fact, very little in science is known with certainty, and all theories supported by evidence are liable to be overturned as further discoveries are made. Rather, proofs are only discussed in the context of mathematics (and law).

What scientific theories actually require is not proof, but evidence.

I take it, since you said you've been tested at higher institutions, you've been to college. If you don't mind me asking, what did you do in college?

[Creed of Heresy]

Actually it's your claim that is illogical. There is no such thing as a default stance, and I can go into depth explaining why but this will derail the discussion. Suffice to say, the whole notion is nonsensical. Even if there is a position, it would have to start from zero evidence for any position, and thus be essentially agnosticism.

No it's your claim that's illogical. Seriously are we about to devolve into "NO U" territory here? Because this right here already shows that we're about to.

Once you reject the faulty "default position" argument, you rationally arrive at the position that all positions bear their respective burden to defend their claims rationally.

Faulty by whose definition? Yours? On what basis? And why should I just blindly believe it? I'm not like you; I don't just take things people say at face value just because they say it. A foreign concept for you to consider, I'm sure. I have no need to bear any burden, because again, I am not making a claim. People. Are. Not. Born. With. Theistic. Beliefs. Ergo, the default stance is atheism. Seriously, I wasn't a Christian until I turned 9, when I was introduced to the subject, and I became an atheist again at the age of 18 when I finally read the bible and realized it was basically Santa Claus for adults.

Aside from that, my position on burden of proofs are clear. As far as an obligation to explain or defend a position, everybody has an obligation to defend theirs, be they theist, atheist, agnostic, whatever. I've developed my view in this thread. Feel free to refute at your leisure.

I've already refuted it by the simple fact that the burden of proof does not fall on someone who LACKS A CLAIM. That's like saying that the burden of proof falls on someone to prove that fairies don't exist. Are you retarded or something?? Because that's the view you're essentially espousing, that it falls upon others to PROVE THAT AN UNPROVABLE IS DISPROVEN.

Do you understand what an absolute atrocity that is to the idea of logic that you claim that this stance is logical? Your reasoning is utterly absurd! I can't even fathom what depths of depravity you've sunk to to believe this tripe! hock: I'd almost be in hysterics were it not for how horrifying it is that someone can get this far into an outright critical logic failure of this magnitude.

Here: Use an example where it is possible to prove that an unprovable is disproven. Or that it is possible to disprove that an unprovable is proven. Because this is what you are espousing, and if it's really so logical, then you'll be able to come up with a valid, tangible answer that utterly devastates me and everyone else with such revealed wisdom of absolute logic.

---

That's funny because the word "proof" doesn't come up in science. In fact, very little in science is known with certainty, and all theories supported by evidence are liable to be overturned as further discoveries are made. Rather, proofs are only discussed in the context of mathematics (and law).

Scientific theories do not get overturned, they adapt and change according to new data, but once a hypothesis has reached a theory it is essentially at the point where it is a solid fact, the details of which are added onto and changed to better describe why it is a fact. There is a reason why the theory of gravity, and evolution, and relativity, and all the other theories are simply facts of the universe. We don't know EVERYTHING FOR CERTAIN about those facts...but we ARE certain that they are factual in their end result.

What scientific theories actually require is not proof, but evidence.

*rubs his temples* Proof is little more than conclusive evidence. Science is rife with proof. It's this little thing called testing, observing, and having confirmation of the tests and observations through peer review. If you try the same thing between five different people and it comes up the same for everyone, it's a proof that it works in the way being tested and observed. And since this is also documented and recorded, the witness bias and failure does not take effect because it is not subject to merely being retold by others without confirmation through any other solid means. Evidence is when you have something that points to another something being potentially correct, and what ends up happening is lots of evidence that piles up to point to it being corrected, which leads to the point where it's guaranteed it did indeed happen, but the details are sketchy, and as more evidence is found, it becomes less sketchy.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Actually it's your claim that is illogical. There is no such thing as a default stance, and I can go into depth explaining why but this will derail the discussion. Suffice to say, the whole notion is nonsensical. Even if there is a position, it would have to start from zero evidence for any position, and thus be essentially agnosticism.

No it's your claim that's illogical. Seriously are we about to devolve into "NO U" territory here? Because this right here already shows that we're about to.

Once you reject the faulty "default position" argument, you rationally arrive at the position that all positions bear their respective burden to defend their claims rationally.

Faulty by whose definition? Yours? On what basis? And why should I just blindly believe it? I'm not like you; I don't just take things people say at face value just because they say it. A foreign concept for you to consider, I'm sure. I have no need to bear any burden, because again, I am not making a claim. People. Are. Not. Born. With. Theistic. Beliefs. Ergo, the default stance is atheism. Seriously, I wasn't a Christian until I turned 9, when I was introduced to the subject, and I became an atheist again at the age of 18 when I finally read the bible and realized it was basically Santa Claus for adults.

Aside from that, my position on burden of proofs are clear. As far as an obligation to explain or defend a position, everybody has an obligation to defend theirs, be they theist, atheist, agnostic, whatever. I've developed my view in this thread. Feel free to refute at your leisure.

I've already refuted it by the simple fact that the burden of proof does not fall on someone who LACKS A CLAIM. That's like saying that the burden of proof falls on someone to prove that fairies don't exist. Are you retarded or something?? Because that's the view you're essentially espousing, that it falls upon others to PROVE THAT AN UNPROVABLE IS DISPROVEN.

Do you understand what an absolute atrocity that is to the idea of logic that you claim that this stance is logical? Your reasoning is utterly absurd! I can't even fathom what depths of depravity you've sunk to to believe this tripe! hock: I'd almost be in hysterics were it not for how horrifying it is that someone can get this far into an outright critical logic failure of this magnitude.

Here: Use an example where it is possible to prove that an unprovable is disproven. Or that it is possible to disprove that an unprovable is proven. Because this is what you are espousing, and if it's really so logical, then you'll be able to come up with a valid, tangible answer that utterly devastates me and everyone else with such revealed wisdom of absolute logic.

---

That's funny because the word "proof" doesn't come up in science. In fact, very little in science is known with certainty, and all theories supported by evidence are liable to be overturned as further discoveries are made. Rather, proofs are only discussed in the context of mathematics (and law).

Scientific theories do not get overturned, they adapt and change according to new data, but once a hypothesis has reached a theory it is essentially at the point where it is a solid fact, the details of which are added onto and changed to better describe why it is a fact. There is a reason why the theory of gravity, and evolution, and relativity, and all the other theories are simply facts of the universe. We don't know EVERYTHING FOR CERTAIN about those facts...but we ARE certain that they are factual in their end result.

What scientific theories actually require is not proof, but evidence.

*rubs his temples* Proof is little more than conclusive evidence. Science is rife with proof. It's this little thing called testing, observing, and having confirmation of the tests and observations through peer review. If you try the same thing between five different people and it comes up the same for everyone, it's a proof that it works in the way being tested and observed. And since this is also documented and recorded, the witness bias and failure does not take effect because it is not subject to merely being retold by others without confirmation through any other solid means. Evidence is when you have something that points to another something being potentially correct, and what ends up happening is lots of evidence that piles up to point to it being corrected, which leads to the point where it's guaranteed it did indeed happen, but the details are sketchy, and as more evidence is found, it becomes less sketchy.

Is you serious?

I have no need to bear any burden, because again, I am not making a claim. People. Are. Not. Born. With. Theistic. Beliefs. Ergo, the default stance is atheism.

again, I am not making a claim.

People. Are. Not. Born. With. Theistic. Beliefs. Ergo, the default stance is atheism.

Is you even serious homey B?

You're claiming there is a default stance. You're telling me the default stance is atheism. That people are not born with theistic beliefs.

Shoulder dem burdenz yo!

Or, you know, you can drop the whole internet game of burden of proof hot potato and just be a grown up where we can discuss our beliefs without constantly trying to foist burden of proof on each other.

I mean, if you really are that desperately committed to your burden of proof, get to work.

1) Your claim that there is a default stance
2) That the default stance is atheism
3) That people are not born with theistic beliefs.

Burden up!

[pocaracas]

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.

Ah, Vinny.... so much to learn, you have...

"Indifferent to the matter of god's existence" sounds a lot like it is contained in "lacking the belief that a god exists", hence, it is a form of atheism.

Yes, muslims claim everyone is born a muslim, but then get sidetracked...
Go figure, huh?

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 wouldn't call it a conversion... more like a realization.
At those ages, people do not usually belong to a given religion.. they just go along with their parents, caregivers, or other influential person(s).
If you ask a 9 year old if he believes that god exists, they may reply "yes"... but if you keep drilling, you'll find that they believe what has been told to them... which is somewhat different.

Can you spot the difference?
- I believe that my wife is not having an affair.
- I believe my wife's claim that she's not having an affair.


If you have no belief system to begin with, you can't be converted into anything else.
My realization moment came at the ripe age of 10... it came for a silly reason, yes, but it was enough to entice that "maybe" I mentioned earlier... and everything went downhill from there.
It was a silly reason, but a reason nonetheless... not irrational, just easily counterable by any apologist... had I spoken out at the time, someone would probably have put something in my mind that would have quenched this "maybe"... instead, I kept quiet... heck, I thought I was the only person in the world onto this godlessness thing!
Anyway, it was rational... within my perception of the world...
It wasn't worthy of a peer-reviewed paper, no...

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!

Yeah... silly willy... the definition of atheist pertains to people, only.
And, last I checked, babies are people.

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.

That is a bit of faulty reasoning by your part, it seems to me.

1- I never decided to become an atheist, nor have I come across any account of any atheist having decided that. Everything after that sentence is wrong, but let's indulge ourselves, just because of your acceptance of the possibility that people are born atheists and may remain so for the entirety of their lives.

2- "you believe that atheism is a good position to hold." no, just no... there's so much wrong here... let's see if I can convey it all.
Let's define "atheism" as the state of a lack of belief in the existence of any god. This is what I (and others) perceive atheism to mean. What in this definition requires a belief that this is a good position?
I hold the position of atheism because I lack a belief in the existence of a god.[period]
If it's good or bad is irrelevant.

3- My atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief, as I'm sure others have pointed out to you...

I don't have much faith that you'll acknowledge what I'm telling you... It is my impression that you'll continue to trump your skewed definition of atheism, instead of actually accepting the definitions espoused by those who actually identify themselves with that label.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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 have never once had a positive belief in a god or gods. As far as I'm concerned, I was born an atheist, and have remained so my entire life to this very point that I click the post button.

I understand what you are trying to say regarding atheist = positive belief, correct me if I'm wrong.

You say we are born agnostic, lacking any sort of knowledge on the notion of a deity (however defined, another debate entirely no doubt). I would say this is true, although I would propose further that the scope of knowledge when we are born is limited entirely to base instincts, and so the realm of knowledge is difficult to define.

Would it not also be true however that, knowing the above, we also lack belief in deities too? If we are born without the knowedlge of a god or gods, how can we be born not-atheist? That would infer belief but no knowledge, which my personal experience seems to contradict (I am not the only one on here that has never been a theist, or believed in anything regarding a supernatural 'higher' power).

You claim that atheism = a belief, and I believe this claim is made under the following assumptions (again, correction if wrong). We reach a point in time when god x is proposed. We either accept or reject that claim based on the claim itself and, further, the avaliable evidence to support it.

Rejecting said claim leads to the notion (in your example) of a belief in not-god. i.e. we use the proponents claim as given, but chose to actively not believe in it based on our said standards for whatever reason (evidence, generally, or lack thereof).

I accept this as true, but I don't believe it thus follows it negates atheism as a lack of belief being true.

Consider how many deities there are out there. It's impossible to know, and always will be. There could be an infiite number of deities, with an infinite number of attributes, and all could be proposed from now until the end of time, whenever that could be.

For atheism to be a universal belief in not-gods, one would have to reject every claim ever made, or to be made, in the entirety of god-propositions. I feel this is unreasonable, as I have no active belief (neither do I have any knowledge or understanding) of these gods, becuase they are yet to be proposed.

One can easily still reject, say, the normative Christian god (which, is still, completely impossible to define as the deitiy changes depending on the proponent), but active disbelief in this respect does not thus negate the inherent lack of belief. I still lack a belief in it, I also disbelieve in it (or, rather, the claims of the proponents). There is not a black and white perspective of 'belief and non-belief' as there is clearly a position of no active belief either way (my example is all the infinite gods you and I have no knowledge of).

I also think it is unreasonable to equate atheism in humans (the only beings that we know of that are able to form coherent beliefs about the 'self' and propose beings such as gods) to atheism in, say, a rock. I think it fudges the debate, because could extend this to attribute all manner of things to inanimate objects or animals that have no comprehension of the ideas being discussed.

As always, Qualiasoup puts my viewes forward much more succinctly than I can:

[Bad Wolf]

-I don't believe in burden of proof. If you want me to believe in your "burden of proof", bring me peer reviewed evidence in support of burden of proof, used either in epistemology or in some peer-reviewed academic resource for me to review.

Did you even read my thing about the unicorn? Fine, i'll say it again. Please answer the following questions: I have a living unicorn in my pocket, do you believe me? Who's claim is it? Whos responsibility is it to prove the claim?
Or I could go with god instead: You say a god exists, I don't believe you, unless you show me evidence, i'm still not going to believe you.

-You claimed "Children at a young age are not skeptical at all". Since you are such a fan of invoking peer-reviewed studies, I invite you to bring me scientific studies that show the same.

What? Did you get angry when I matched your bare assertion with another bare assertion? Oh no! But its self evident isn't it? lol. Anyway, you claimed first, defend your claim with evidence, then it will be my turn.

On the off chance that you've pulled your head out your ass and realized that every claim does not need to be supported by a peer-reviewed study, you can do the more modest effort of demonstrating how you conclude that children are not skeptical at all.

I convinced my 4 year old cousin that aliens were hiding in the clouds. I provided no evidence at all. I also studied psychology at college. There is an evolutionary theory as to why children believe almost anything. Particularly what a parent or role model tells them, without question. If a parent tells their child not to pick up snakes, it will help the child survive because snakes are dangerous. If the child did not believe its parents and picked up snakes, it is likely to die. Therefore it is beneficial for children to believe things easily. This can be applied to all sorts of dangers, snakes, spiders, heights ect. Unfortunately this evolutionary adaptation can be abused, that is why religion is so wide spread. That is why you get them while they are young.

-If you have managed the previous point, you know that peer-review is unnecessary.

How am I, or anyone else supposed to know if you didn't just make it up, if it isn't peer reviewed?

Just ask around about the age people became atheists. In my experience most were below 18. Only one person in this thread said he only called himself an atheist age 40. Certainly an exception to the rule.

I wonder what age most people become theists? Hmmmm

There is no burden of proof. If you believe something, explain why, simple as that.

Now you are contradicting yourself

[Rahul]

I take it, since you said you've been tested at higher institutions, you've been to college. If you don't mind me asking, what did you do in college?

In the military I took the Advanced Electronics field. After I left I obtained a Bachelor of Science in Information Technology.

---

That's funny because the word "proof" doesn't come up in science. In fact, very little in science is known with certainty, and all theories supported by evidence are liable to be overturned as further discoveries are made. Rather, proofs are only discussed in the context of mathematics (and law).

Don't get hung up on a single word. We can call it a burden of independently proven supporting facts if it will get you over the mental hump you are hung up on.

[little_monkey]

Most of the responses here just go to prove my hypothesis.

And the funniest thing about it is that in making all these irrational posts, they are trying to deny my conclusion, ie trying to convince us their atheism is rational.

I love it!

Let's do a summary of the responses
Maelstrom: Irrational.
pineapplebunnybounce: Confused. Kinda sorta was trying to make a point...but no. When atheists talk about religion, they're almost always hating or whining. Even if they're not hating and whining when talking about movies or anime. Overall, just confused.
artistriley: Surprisingly rational. Have to actually agree with her, it was unfair of me to generalize all atheists as being that way. But I'd say the vast majority of atheists are.
Captain Colostomy: Meh. Claims I don't understand atheism but commits a "No True Scotsman" while trying to show atheism is rational. Lawl.
Minimalist: Does not even manage a minimally rational response.
Walking Void: At first I thought to myself "Hey, look a rational atheist, I need an autograph." But then I looked at what he was quoting and laughed. He missed the point totally, obsessing about the numbers when the numbers are not even the point. I think honest reflection on his part will make it clear to him. I mean, just looking at his own forum will prove it. Let's see if he's capable.
Dragonetti: His avatar was cute. And he's right that my statements were too general.

--What is that, two rational responses out of seven so far? About 29% of atheists are capable of being rational when asked to be? All the data isn't in yet, however. That number could shift dramatically lower.

Ryantology: Ooh, good point! Rational response #3! It doesn't prove atheism is itself rational, you're right. But I think it shows that for the vast majority of atheists, their atheism is irrational.
The Germans are coming: LOL. Nice to see you too, Fritz. Another hateful, sad post. And as predictable as the sun rising, zero rationality.
whateverist: Makes an interesting comparison to religious people. But the comparison fails, because with most atheists, their atheism is a shift from theism to atheism, which assumes they have good rational reasons to be atheists. Being raised atheist, or even being raised religious does not need rational justification. It's just a matter of circumstance. But for making such a valiant effort, rational response #4. He's also wrong about people in general whining on forums. I've been on a number of them, and it's not the case. Also what's with all the crying about me trying to intimidate people on here? That's a laugh. I can't really call your response rational #4 given the heaping helping of ridiculous claims you're making on the side. That and he thinks Anthony Flew is John Searle. LOL all going downhill for you buddy.
Kayenneh: Doesn't seem to have learned to use words yet, let alone use them well. Remedial, but made me laugh. Thanks for entertaining.
pocaras: No, it doesn't. Think about other possible explanations whose mere possibility rules out your conclusion. Good try though.
Stimbo: Actually one might lead to the other. Hating religious people so much just might lead to learning more about them, with the goal of attacking them. But kudos on trying to think rationally.
gall: Just outright nonsense. If you've been to Christian forums, you will see so little whining about atheists it's almost embarrassing how it makes atheists look. Guess my intelligence is the limiting factor in my acceptance of your belief, gall? lul I guess it does swing both ways. But the nail in his coffin is the claim that people on both sides would be offended. Tell them to stop being so butthurt. We have no problem calling Christianity irrational, do we?
Faith No More: Bwah, nice!

3/15 so far, more or less. That's 20% of atheists who can be rational when asked to be.

[LastPoet]

QFT, QED.