Isn't atheism as irrational as theism?

I agree with you. I'm a very critical agnostic, who on the balance of facts doesn't believe in God, and who definately doesn't believe in organised religion, which I view as merely humanities attempt to make sense of that beyond their comprehension at the time. However, I am open to be proven wrong.

Militant atheists who declare with an absolute that a god/gods/higher power doesn't exist, miss the whole cornerstone of what gives our 'side' its high ground in the argument, that is that we base our thoughts and knowledge upon evidence and from that evidence then models are formulated that are derived from that evidence. If new evidence emerges that doesn't match these models, we then have to either reform or abandon the model and come up with a new one that accounts for all the evidence.

Religious fundamentalists do the opposite, they begin with their 'model' their 'truth' and then seek evidence to prove that model. Where the evidence contradicts the model, it is the evidence that is either altered or abandoned, as the 'truth' of the model can never be questioned.

So with the two epistemologies explained, the only correct position for anyone to take is a philophical skeptical one. One that demands proof to support a model. These models must always be open to the challenge of new evidence. This is how our understanding of our world has come about. Without this approach the likes of the theory of relativity or quantum physics would never have occurred. It as once thought that the atom was the fundamental indivisible foundation of all matter, this fit in entirely with the model and explanation of the universe based upon the evidence available to us at the time. Thankfully (or perhaps not considering nuclear weapnons) this 'fundamental' and very strongly held belief was open to challenge as new evidence emerged.

Much like if you went to Newton, and told him that the world was made up of 'vibrating strings' of energy, based on the evidence that he had at his disposal at the time, he would have dismissed it outright. But now there is much evidence that is leading to possibly confirming this model.

So how does this related to 'god/s' or the supernatural? While as it stands now the evidence of science on the balance of things doesn't have any need for 'god' in the equation and science definatively proves that literal biblical creationism is wrong. However, to then conclude as an absolute that their is NO possibility that a god/s may exist, is not the right epistemological position, rather it should be, 'that as it stands now, I see no evidence for the existence of God/s'

As I see it now, I don't believe in God and have been provided with no evidence to refute that. But I am always open to EVIDENCE that challenges my view of the world, and until such point that science discovers the total sum of knowledge that explains totally the creation and nature of the universe, I won't in absolute terms rule out the possibility however slim in my mind that there is the role of a greater intelligence at play.

EDIT:

Don't fully understand your first criticism. However on the point of the second, as per our understanding of the universe now, there is interchangeable matter and energy, there is no evidence of any other form of existence. Once again, I don't rule out this possibility that our inquiries into the world won't discover this in the future. For example, the nature of free will hasn't be resolved adequately by science to my liking. (or it has and is too bleak for my thinking. ie that free will is illusiory)

let me help you on the definition of an atheist

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

i just reject the belief of gods when every country has some kind of god and there all different who's right

im not an atheist because lack of evidence but because all nations have different religions and thousand of other gods through out time.for me i see them as man made for control nothing more.

Atheism is the disbelief in deities. Your question is no different than saying people who don't believe in leprechauns are as irrational as those that hold a positive belief in leprechauns. Atheists could always alter their position should positive evidence arise. In the meanwhile the other side holds tight to a belief based on faith regardless of evidence.

You can absolutely not know something but logically lack belief. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I think you don't fully understand the usage of the terms. Look them up. I can't know for example that the Lochness monster is not real. I don't however, believe it does. Without better basis than we have it's a reasonable position. I see in your additional details that while you refuse to acknowledge your faulty argument you recognize it and try switching tactics with the ol' but god can't be shown to exist with objective evidence nonsense. Then what basis is there really to hold belief in it and what point?

No.

There are so many places where I disagree with your reasoning and at points I think you are contradicting yourself, but I do not intend to set it all out. Not to be rude - it is just too late at night.

You haven't thought about what you have written.

One example:

"So while there may be a general acceptance of a lacking phenomenon itself, this is in fact an irrational point of view in the absence of evidence to refute the existence of such a phenomenon."

Nonsense. Do you believe that unicorns exist? Of course you don't. Yet by your reasoning, to say that they don't "...is in fact an irrational point of view in the absence of evidence to refute the existence of such a phenomenon."

I could make any ridiculous claim and yet you would say it is irrational to reject it unless there is evidence to refute it. Surely you cannot stand by your claim?

The issue being a reason for faith, as opposed to a reason for no faith, whereas if there is "no proof" either way, the obvious choice for want of the reward benefit of having faith, would be to choose faith by default.

This might be considered a weigh off from the choice of having a God to which you will be accountable, or having full autonomy, which considers nothing as a valid entity of accountability. Willingly restricting yourself from pleasure is a mature response to the ill effects of pleasure not obvious to the young, and sometimes not obvious to the less mature elder either.

Again the argument returns to the issue of what the individual believes, not what is provable, but what the heart of the believer believes in.

If the witness of 2 billion Christians is insufficient to suggest that God is, and Jesus is His Son, that the Spirit of God affects our lives in ways the non believer cannot understand without first hand experience, how does one encourage the experience? If the prophetic schema of miraculous fulfillment is insufficient to sway their ideology; and the witness of the saints past and present is discarded; if the boundless reams of philosophy and reason that have been developed and displayed by their originators to pages upon books of pages of philosophy, counting the variables of the intelligence of faith... is it then any wonder why God has said,

"... My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (Gen 6:3)

....and again He shortens us,

and David observes... 70 years and maybe 80 if we can stand it.

The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. (Psa 90:10)

Sorry, a little bias there.

I like the philosophy aspect of Des Cartes: "I think, therefore I am"

If your thought comes into my mind it then proves by its uniqueness that you are also, and are tangible.If God's thought were to become a part of my thinking, then I have proof of God being tangible as well, and that does not show bias, just logic.

If I can talk to God, and he can talk to me, then He is real.

What then is an atheist, but someone who's intelligence is based on what he alone has experienced, and not on what others have repeatedly witnessed.

If science were indeed the proof of the non existence of God, one would have to ask what of the witness of the scientist who becomes a Christian through his study of science?

Of course, they will claim no knowledge of any such thing, and reaffirm my point.

You are trying to approach the heart through the head, and that is touchy and difficult surgery. I have to admit you're fairly good at it though.

Being an atheist doesn't mean that one believes absolutely that there is no god. It makes no claim to absolute knowledge. One merely acknowledges that the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that there isn't a god, or that a god was not necessary to the existence of the universe or to the rise of life. Knowledge continues to come in, and if there was some true evidence of a god's existence, we would be remiss to ignore it.

Atheism is a philosophical position taken in response to the proposition that God exists. If one isn't satisfied that the proposition is supported by valid evidence then disbelief would be the logical default ergo atheism is perfectly rational. Positive atheism requires evidence to support it but positive atheism is different from straightforward disbelief although you don't seem to recognise any distinction between the two.

Edit- I should point out that my answer nails it so the thumbs down are irrelevant - the issue isn't really as complex as the questioner is making out. He asks for other people to show as little bias as possible while reserving the right for himself to exhibit bias.

You said, "I'm noticing a lot of people defining atheism as agnostic." You have it right, those who call themselves atheists are not atheists, they are agnostics who are of the religion of atheism (or the 'atheistic faith').

The true agnostic says, I know there is no evidence for God's existence nor any evidence against God's existence, so I refuse to take either position."

But he DOES take a position! He assumes omniscience in claiming there is no evidence for or against God, even though there IS evidence of God's existence His position, then, is based on his faith in a lack of evidence, or actually an ignorance of the evidence for God.

You completely misunderstand atheism. Atheism does not make a pronouncement that God does not exist, merely that there is no evidence that He/She/It does.

If you don't think it's rational to not believe in your god, you should ask yourself if it's rational that you don't believe in any OTHER gods. Because to atheists, it's all the same thing. They just believe in one less god than you do.

For myself, I'm perfectly willing to say God exists, if I see evidence of it. I simply haven't seen any compelling evidence. In the meantime, all the evidence I have seen points to the opposite conclusion, that God does not exist, at least not in the way people have claimed; omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the universe and the source of all goodness. And some of that evidence includes the fact that we are having this conversation. If God really existed, and if He/She/It wanted us to believe in Him/Her/It, there would be no doubt.

Another point. Atheists do not have a problem with God, if He/She/It exists. They have a problem with people who claim to speak for Him, but who obviously don't. To say God is all-powerful, to say He performs miracles to save people requires we ask why He doesn't save EVERYONE, if He truly loves them. Why do some people survive cancer and ascribe their good fortune to God, while others die and their families don't blame God? This inconsistency is completely illogical; if God has the power to help you, then he also has the power to NOT help you.

And people claim we have free will to believe in Him or not. I say, not without evidence we don't! Show me He exists, and then I will have free will to follow Him or not. But until He shows Himself, He's just hiding from me, denying me the information I need to exercise my free will. In the meantime, with so many different religions clamoring for my attention, so many of them completely opposed to each other, and none of them having one shred of evidence beyond hearsay, how can you blame me for saying I'm unconvinced?

If God really existed, we wouldn't have to BELIEVE it. We'd KNOW it.

In order to make a positive statement that there is NO God, one would have to be the very thing one is denying can exist.

You cannot even say its "unlikely" ... given the size of the universe and what may or may not be beyond it, that is like two goldfish in a bowl speculating on the "likelihood" of the existence of whales saying "It's "unlikely" because there isn't one in this bowl".

All an atheist can say is I BELIEVE there is no God.

A faith statement if ever there was one.