Why atheism is irrational

[Foxaèr]

then tell me I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

That was simple.

[Rahul]

False. Read the thread, disprove the argument, then tell me I'm wrong.

You're shifting the burden of proof.

[Bad Wolf]

TGAC showed us how disgusting and despicable a human being Vinny is, intellectually dishonest and lazy, and he uses dishonest tactics and tons of logical fallacies. Also he is just the most arrogant dick i have ever seen on here. I have had enough of him, he should have been banned permanently, please someone answer my prayers, banish this abomination of a human being

[Bad Writer]

He'll just slip a sock on his hand if it comes to that.

[Captain Colostomy]

He'll just slip a sock on his hand if it comes to that.

I believe you. Reformed sockoholics have an insider's understanding. :p

[Jackalope]

TGAC showed us how disgusting and despicable a human being Vinny is, intellectually dishonest and lazy, and he uses dishonest tactics and tons of logical fallacies. Also he is just the most arrogant dick i have ever seen on here. I have had enough of him, he should have been banned permanently, please someone answer my prayers, banish this abomination of a human being

I'll tell you what, if he treats anyone the way he treated Stimbo the last time he was around, I'll kick his fucking troll ass to the curb myself, and fuck the consequences.

[Cyberman]

Thank you for that, I appreciate the support. Some of us have long memories and access to some very interesting mod controls. Judiciously wielded, of course.

Since striking me down, I have become more powerful than he could possibly imagine.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

You wrote:
Cumulatively, all these points just raise the probabilities higher and higher. Combined with the lack of any good arguments or scientific evidence in support of atheism, one can conclude with a high degree of confidence that most atheism is irrational.

I wrote:
Atheism doesn't need any arguments, seriously? Do you understand the burden of proof? And you are just lying when you say there is no scientific evidence to support atheism. There is certainly plenty that discredits the christian god. The earth is billions of years old for one, the bible says otherwise. It also says humans came from adam and eve. But there is no evidence of this in our DNA, if it were true, we would see a genetic bottle neck. But there is none. I could literally write for hours about all the scientific evidence that discredits and contradicts god and supports atheism.

You wrote:
I hope you're kidding. Children at a young age are not skeptical at all? Can you think about that statement for a second and tell me how you can make such a sweeping, total universal claim? Ugh.

I wrote:
Please explain why children believe in santa, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny etc. Oh please lets hear your hypothesis on this.

You wrote:
I mean, we could take your same argument and make it show atheism to be nonsensical.

a) Kids believe all kinds of nonsense.
b) Most atheists became atheists when they were kids

I wrote:
Unsupported assertion, please provide the peer reviewed study that confirms this.

Rationalman, I'm assuming these are the points you want me to answer, right?

-I don't believe in burden of proof. If you want me to believe in your "burden of proof", bring me peer reviewed evidence in support of burden of proof, used either in epistemology or in some peer-reviewed academic resource for me to review.
-You claimed "Children at a young age are not skeptical at all". Since you are such a fan of invoking peer-reviewed studies, I invite you to bring me scientific studies that show the same. On the off chance that you've pulled your head out your ass and realized that every claim does not need to be supported by a peer-reviewed study, you can do the more modest effort of demonstrating how you conclude that children are not skeptical at all.
-If you have managed the previous point, you know that peer-review is unnecessary. Just ask around about the age people became atheists. In my experience most were below 18. Only one person in this thread said he only called himself an atheist age 40. Certainly an exception to the rule.

---

False. Read the thread, disprove the argument, then tell me I'm wrong.

You're shifting the burden of proof.

There is no burden of proof. If you believe something, explain why, simple as that.

---

TGAC showed us how disgusting and despicable a human being Vinny is, intellectually dishonest and lazy, and he uses dishonest tactics and tons of logical fallacies. Also he is just the most arrogant dick i have ever seen on here. I have had enough of him, he should have been banned permanently, please someone answer my prayers, banish this abomination of a human being

I'll tell you what, if he treats anyone the way he treated Stimbo the last time he was around, I'll kick his fucking troll ass to the curb myself, and fuck the consequences.

You're such a badass on the internet, CD.

[Rahul]

There is no burden of proof. If you believe something, explain why, simple as that.

Hrm.

Didn't you say this:

So if you are an atheist, you must affirm (a) and (b), and since they are positive beliefs, they entail a burden of proof.

Here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-21066.html

I must say, you aren't very consistent with your statements.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

There is no burden of proof. If you believe something, explain why, simple as that.

Hrm.

Didn't you say this:

So if you are an atheist, you must affirm (a) and (b), and since they are positive beliefs, they entail a burden of proof.

Here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-21066.html

I must say, you aren't very consistent with your statements.

Rahul Rahul Rahul!

I'm finding a consistent pattern of reading and comprehension difficulties among you guys here. Is that normal? Because in the same thread, I said

-In the academic literature nobody moans about burden of proof. This is pretty much an internet thing.
-Proofs only exist in mathematics and alcohol. In the context of theism and atheism, we go by reason and evidence.
-Nevertheless, this is a burden of proof argument, so far as "burden of proof" means "You can't just make baseless assertions".

Granted, it takes a little bit of reasoning to go from "I don't believe in BoP. But since you do, I'm willing to use it, insofar as I define it this way." But I think you guys are smart enough to make this reasoning.