Why atheism is irrational

[Silver]

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "If there is no evidence to support the existence of something, the logical step would be to adhere to the atheistic position in regards to its existence."?

Yes, it is called reality and logic. Look into it some time.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "If there is no evidence to support the existence of something, the logical step would be to adhere to the atheistic position in regards to its existence."?

Yes, it is called reality and logic. Look into it some time.

I can see you really believe that.

But I don't think you see just how dubious a logical conclusion it really is.

I mean, unless you have redefined atheism to mean agnosticism, in which case it would make sense, as given the absence of evidence for something, it seems most prudent to be neutral to the question or whether or not it exists.

But being an atheist is certainly not the same as being neutral.

[Silver]

But being an atheist is certainly not the same as being neutral.

I am no more going to be neutral in relation to the nonexistence of god than I would be neutral toward the nonexistence of unicorns. No one is logically agnostic in relation to fairy tales. Rather they take the atheistic approach. In fact, they even take the atheistic approach toward every deity except the one in which the profess unreasonable faith.

[pocaracas]

Is it too hard to understand that, if you do not believe in the existence of a god, then.... you do not believe in the existence of a god!?
An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god.
Hence, even that neutral position is an atheist one.

If you're not even aware of the possibility of the existence of a god, then you do not believe in the existence of a god.

You can then superimpose several degrees of certainty that a person has on either positions. With that, you can construct a scale of belief.
One famous is the Dawkins scale... but there may be others:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
   
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
   
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
   
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
   
5. Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
   
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
   
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
   
   

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Is it too hard to understand that, if you do not believe in the existence of a god, then.... you do not believe in the existence of a god!?
An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god.
Hence, even that neutral position is an atheist one.

If you're not even aware of the possibility of the existence of a god, then you do not believe in the existence of a god.

You can then superimpose several degrees of certainty that a person has on either positions. With that, you can construct a scale of belief.
One famous is the Dawkins scale... but there may be others:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
   
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
   
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
   
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
   
5. Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
   
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
   
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
   
   

I'm really not interested in debating the definition of atheism.

But while Dawkins' scale looks completely arbitrary, there's something interesting about it. Most people, I imagine would be 6/7. Ie, a "De Facto" atheist.

[pocaracas]

I'm really not interested in debating the definition of atheism.

Good, because it's not up for debate. It is what it is.

But while Dawkins' scale looks completely arbitrary, there's something interesting about it. Most people, I imagine would be 6/7. Ie, a "De Facto" atheist.

Most would be around 6... some of those would say they go all the way to 6.99... whatever that means!

[gall]

I'm really not interested in debating the definition of atheism.

Good, because it's not up for debate. It is what it is.

But while Dawkins' scale looks completely arbitrary, there's something interesting about it. Most people, I imagine would be 6/7. Ie, a "De Facto" atheist.

Most would be around 6... some of those would say they go all the way to 6.99... whatever that means!

Not that this scale has any real meaning.

Does anyone care about this scale?

Why is it relevant to me?

I could care less what some other guy thinks of my personal beliefs. That is sort of what makes them personal.

This scale seems like one of those personality tests that employers give you that can easily be faked to say anything you want if you are not mostly a moron.

Why should I listen to Dawkins?

[downbeatplumb]

A theist claims there is a god.

I don't think they're right.

Therefore I am an an atheist.

End of.

I imagine that would entail

"I have good reasons to think they aren't right."

In my case yes. But it is not essential.
I can have opinions without having to justify them.
I would also guess that most Christians are knee jerk Christians who really haven't thought about it.
I mean have you read the bible!

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I imagine that would entail

"I have good reasons to think they aren't right."

In my case yes. But it is not essential.
I can have opinions without having to justify them.
I would also guess that most Christians are knee jerk Christians who really haven't thought about it.
I mean have you read the bible!

I actually have read the bible.

I'll grant you might not need external justification. But I imagine if you are rational you would need internal justification.

In other words, you don't have to prove that your beliefs are rational to me. But you must believe they are rational at minimum. And believing they are rational requires a reason to believe that they are.

If you have no justification whatsoever, you are worse off than kneejerk Christians who have weak justifications.

[Zazzy]

But being an atheist is certainly not the same as being neutral.

I certainly don't speak for anyone else, but for me- this is kind of true (except when it comes to attempts to legislate faith). I couldn't care less whether your particular god (which no doubt is the true one) or any other exists.

I consider myself a warrior against legislation of hurtful dogma- like teaching creationism and abstinence-only education in public schools. If a god proved itself (how? I don't know) and said he was offended by unmarried sex- I'd be fighting that asshole. It a god showed up and said "all that genomics and fossil stuff was just misdirection," I'd be fighting that asshole. If a god showed up and said he wanted little girls' clitorises removed and their vaginas sewed up... well. 'Nuff said.

Keep your hurtful dogma to yourself, and then I just don't care. Most gods out there are so repugnant that learning of their existence would turn me in to a freedom fighter, not a worshiper.