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

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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

No, of course not.

That would leave us agnostic about both claims.

For the record, I think most here wouldn't care if atheism was irrational, they would still be atheists.

Firstly, the irony of irrationally claiming irrationality of a site-population renowned for it's rationality is not lost on me.

Secondly, if the existence of a god were demonstrated, I would accept it therefore cease to be an agnostic atheist. However my reaction to this fact would depend on the personality of the god; if it were the biblical, Abrahamic God, I'd become an active anti-theist.

No citations and making an extraordinary claim.

Yeah, thank you. You make me wanna speak in my gabagool Italian accent again.

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

If science and reason support a religious worldview, this religion/myth/etc. wouldn't be a what we know them to be... they would be something else.... hence I agree, some redefinitions would be in order.

Good thing that in our real world religion and science clash so often!
Let words keep their dictionary definitions... and my sanity to stay intact.

Hey, I prefer the dictionary definitions.

But I've been hearing a lot of equivocation on what atheism means, from other atheists.

"It's a lack of belief in God" "It's the claim that God does not exist"

All this means you get 30 minutes into an argument to find out the two of you agree with each other, but the definitions are different!

That gets my goat. That really gets my goat. Really really, and I don't mind admitting this to you.

Ugh. People using words with crazy definitions.

It boils down to comparing probabilities. What's the probability the universe, the earth- the world we live in came about due to unguided naturalistic processes, versus with the existence of God.

Fuck probability! It's demonstrable that 'the earth- the world we live in came about due to unguided naturalistic processes' whereas there is no factual evidence anywhere, at all, to demonstrate the existence of any god let alone the abrahamic God.

What this argument does is show that considering only unguided processes (evolution, natural selection, etc), universes that support life are just mindbogglingly unlikely to come out in such a way as to actually be sustainable for any long period of time, LET ALONE long enough to sustain life of any kind, LET ALONE life as complex as human life.

Irrelevant and here's an analogy to explain why. Imagine flipping a coin 10billion times and charting the sequence of results each time you flip. When you've finished, calculate the probability of the coin-flips happening exactly the way they did. The odd's will be ridiculously astronomical. But that doesn't matter because they did occur in the manner that you charted; one at a time, flip by flip.

---

I'm not sure what one must do to become an atheist.

Not believe in god/s. It's that simple.

I assume it's personal reflection and a decision not to be interested in theistic claims as being true.

There's no 'route map' to atheism. There are many reasons that people have for not believing. If you're claiming that 'disinterest' in the truth claims of theism is the main one, you clearly don't understand why this site exists in the first place.

Fuck probability?

Your credibility just shot down faster than that thing that shoots down real fast.

How about let's not fuck probability because we live in the real world where certainty ain't easy to come by eh?

---

@The question posed in the OP. Nope. This is akin to asking whether or not a person would be an atheist if atheism meant "doesn't believe in oxygen". Now let's take a look at your two little categories.

a) Motivations that contain a lot of emotion.

b) Motivations that contain reason. Rationale. Thinking. Arguments.


I see almost no discussion of (b) on this forum.

But emotions? Anger? Hate? Tons of it. I do my fair share of trollerskating and mock the anger and hate with even more anger and hate.

But let's face facts. Most atheists here are driven by anger and hatred, not rationality and critical thinking.

JUS SAIYAN.

No, Vinny, I'm not angry at god, no matter what your shaman may have told you.

That said, you're bound to see alot of discussions about emotion, and relatively few about, reason, rationale, thinking....we have plenty of arguments though... The reason for this is blisteringly simple. Since there isn't any evidence that there are gods floating around, and there isn't any proof that there are gods floating around......that particular discussion would be a short one. On the other hand, if somebody greatly dislikes this or that part of a narrative - there's plenty to talk about.

Nah, I seen the stupid irrationality that pops out of peoples' mouths when the religious contingent come up here every few weeks to try and debate.

It's all emotion bro. Smart conversation cannot be had because people are huffing this stuff.