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?"

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.