(September 26, 2013 at 8:12 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: 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.
Quote:That's my methodology here.
Well, it's faulty. Time to rethink it.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.