Why atheism is irrational

[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!