(October 8, 2010 at 4:06 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Atheism isn't supposed to account for rationality, atheism is nothing more than disbelief in God.Atheism can be more. Sometimes it is defined as denial of the existence of God, not just disbelief in God. Those atheists amongst us who deny the existence of God must fall back on the same combination of reason and emotion that theists do to arrive at this conclusion.
I'm interested in this idea of "accounting for rationality" and "accounting for truth". If your position is that the lack of evidence for the existence of God means that you cannot believe in God, this means that you require evidence for a thing to be a crucial requirement for believing in it. If that's the case then you need to account for the rationality by which you arrive at that requirement. How do you do that?
If you're the sort of atheist who denies the existence of God - i.e. you say God does not exist, you cannot do this on the basis of any kind of evidence of his non-existence, because there isn't any. Therefore you don't take the position that evidence is a requirement of belief, therefore this kind of atheist has no need to account for rationality.
