weltschmerz

Is there, in your opinion, a presumption of atheism? If so, what reason(s) are there for maintaining that there is such a presumption, i.e. what rational grounds are there for holding to this position?

Thanks,

~ Alexander

GolfVixen

Individually, IMO, some atheists presume certain things (i.e. - that there is no god, etc.) On the whole, I think most atheists are atheists because there is no evidence to support the idea that there is a god. I don't presume to know whether there is or isn't a god, I just know that there isn't any evidence to support the existence of a god. Is that an adequate answer?

Koyaanisqatsi

A "presumption?" Not sure what you mean. If you're asking whether or not humans are born atheist, absolutely. Theism is a worldview that must be indoctrinated. It is typically done by using fear and threats of dire consequences for disbelief (as well as a number of other "brainwashing," operant conditioning technigues) at the formative stages of pre-adolescence.

"Suffer the children unto me..." ring any klaxons?

Well, the "rational" ground for atheism is that pretending magical sky-Daddies know when you've been bad or good is highly irrational, so, again by default, atheism is the more rational position.

Some argue agnosticism is, but how can one be agnostic as to whether or not a fictional character from ancient cult mythologies is in fact non-fictional, just because some make that claim without backing it up in any way with compelling evidence?

GolfVixen

Along the same lines... aren't theists the ones who presume to know something? (i.e. - that there is a god). Doesn't that then make atheists less presumptuous?

whichphilosophy

I think you are actually making some common presumptions held by many but not all.

The claim that atheism is more rational than theism is fundamentally flawed and some Atheists I have asked have not looked at a simple question and likewise it seems many theists haven't either.

The question (again) is: -

Whether the cause of the whole sequence of events leading up to now was conscious or was not.

To further expand, we know for whatever reason we are alive, conscious etc and matter is not. We can therefore conceive or not the following points: -

Was life was created by something alive or not alive?
Was matter created by something live and was life created by matter.

There is no proof either way, thus one can only come to their own conclusions based on their subjective reality.

The answer either way is just as rational and religious practices and rites are irrelevant to this question. Talking about mythology, Christianity etc doesn’t address the question

Lowly Idiot

I presume that there will be daylight tomorrow. I base this on experience and the evidence formulated from studying said experience.

GolfVixen

I don't believe that the argument that atheism is more rational than theism is flawed. Although, you will have to be more of an agnostic atheist than an adamant atheist for this to apply. IMO, theists presume to know (or believe) that there was a conscious actor (god) in building, and perhaps maintaining, the universe. I think it is more rational (see previous posts in this thread) to say that we don't have any evidence to prove that to be true, therefore we cannot definitively say it is true. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Lowly Idiot

Aye, but that's bollocks fence sitting, isn't it?

I mean, any numpty can wring their hands and decide to be undecided.

For instance...

Take the plunge.

My cider is cold and of the canned variety. This much I know. The same goes for my lack of belief in Gods.

cyris8400

I'm confused as to what the OP is asking, but maybe he's referring to a collection of essays by Antony Flew.

figuer

I don't think atheism makes any "presumption".

There is a scientific-rationalist presumption about the necessity of evidence as a requisite for opinion formation.

In the absence of evidence supporting the veracity of the standard conception of 'god', a person forms an atheistic opinion.