Atheism is Irrational

Thankyou.In response to my claim "Well, if your only reply is that religion is -also- irrational you must concede that Atheism is irrational"You replied "Religion is rational, that's not my argument. I'm saying they're on the same level. Calling athiesm irrational is the same thing as calling religion irrational."I really think this is confused. First, you aren't defending atheism, you are just comparing it relatively to Earthly religions. Atheism doesn't even refer to religion, it refers to God. Secondly, you seem to be making the assumption that atheism and religion are equally rational but provide nothing to support the case. (for the benefit of discussion I am going to assume you meant 'theism', rather than 'religion'.) There is nothing which would invoke the idea that there is no God. No child has ever looked at nature or the stars at night and had the original independent thought "there can't be a God". But quite the opposite is true for every civilisation in history. Its true that neither atheism nor theism can prove their position, but a lack of proof for both sides of an argument gives no reason to assume they are equally rational. Proof is different from evidence. There is universal evidence for the existence of God, such as the amazing fine tuning of the universe or the inexplicable intelligence of the genetic code. There is no such evidence to support the notion there isn't a God.In response to my claim that atheism pertains to God, you said "athiesm cannot pertain to a god. It's not a religion".Well again sadly this just seems confused. Atheism is denial of the existence of God, therefore Atheism pertains to God. It just seems elementary.RE "Atheism is a religion" clearly I misunderstood what you meant to say but really whether it is or isn't is entirely off topic.Summary:- I think in this discussion we have seen plenty of examples which show why each popular view of atheism is irrational, unsubstantiated or simply a pitiful effort to retain intellectual "go faster" stripes.We have seen very little in the way of defense of each of these atheistic positions. Much of my opponents argument could never rationalise atheism, as his argument was always relative to Earthly religion. Vitally he was able to provide no reasons as to why it would be rational to look at nature and the universe and assume "no God".I feel that my opponent would have done well to critically examine the atheistic proposition independent of the context of human religion, an idea he never seemed to fully grasp.We have seen him confess that atheism is irrational.... as long as religion is irrational too. And likewise religion is rational... as long as atheism is rational too. But he never provided anything to support this absurd relativism. He accepts that atheism is not the 'default' position but fails to describe a legitimate cause which would invoke the atheistic assumption. In contrast the Theist can look at natural law, the fine tuning of the universe, the reasonable assumption that life, function and complexity only come from something living and intelligent. There is no comparitive universal reason to assume atheism. We have also seen from an international study conducted by scientists from Oxford university that children are inclined towards theism. Indeed according to them "Belief in God is part of human nature". This would suggest that even more positive cause would be required for a person to be warranted in assuming atheism, but worryingly atheists don't seem to have any.I think this supports the idea that atheism has become an intellectually less-than-honest position. It is hard to see much rationale behind the explosion of atheism we observe in society today. I think peer pressure, scientism and fashion are the most likely culprits, sadly not an explosion of "reason".The contentions of this debate was that Atheism is irrational in all its forms. I feel I have shown this statement true and the contender has provided nothing to show otherwise. If you would agree, please vote for me.Thank my opponent for participating in the debate, and the audience who I respect for taking the time and having the interest to read it all. Thank-you.