Atheism is Irrational

Thank-you.Well the rest of this debate just seems a formality.In response to my claim "The assertion that there is no God is fundamentally irrational. It is clearly something which cannot be supported with any evidence or reasoning."You replied "As is the assertion there is a god. I won't act like a persons belief system is irrational, because it's a person belief. They're entitled to it. "Well, if your only reply is that religion is -also- irrational you must concede that Atheism is irrational, which is the contention of the debate. This is not an "Atheism vs religion" debate, its an "Atheism cannot stand on its own two feet", debate.In response to my claim "The problem with these kind of arguments is that Atheism doesn't pertain to religion, only to God."You Replied "atheism is when someone is not thiest."Theist is to believe in God, therefore Atheism is to not believe in God, therefore Atheism pertains to God. You are also suggesting that Atheism is the default or neutral position when I think I have already well contended that it isn't. You haven't debated any of those contentions so I can only assume you agree.You also said "We just have come to terms with the fact that god probably doesn't exist. That hundreds of thousands of years ago, people didn't have science. They didn't a format to undertsand the mysteries of the world, so explained with observable facts and just assumed a powerful higher force was responsible. "But this is to give an example which is localised to substantiate a universal claim. "There is no Ghost in our kitchen therefore Ghosts do not exist". Its silly. Think about the scale of the universe; why should the experiences of an Ant colony called Earth have any implication against the actual existence of God?In response to my comments on implicit Atheism you said: "As for your whole thing about implicit athiesm, we don't try to dress it up as a legit beleif.", "We don't try in any way to act like a religion. That's our whole thing."Well the question is not whether you are trying to dress it up as legitimate, the contention of implicit Atheism is that it is the default position therefore rational. But as I have already argued "not knowing", aka straight Agnosticism would be the default position. To consciously harbour the atheistic belief or assumption "there is not God" requires some kind of rational.To make things worse I could actually well argue that Theism is the default position: Some Oxford scientists recently drew the conclusion that Children have natural proclivity to believe in God. Even separated from society and living on a desert Island. Scientists believe they would assume a God through seeing function and complexity in nature and (I infer) innately realising that function and complexity requires intelligence. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...In response to my comments about Agnostic Atheism you replied: "there are hundreds of forms of christianity alone. There isn't one true christianity, there isn't one true beleif. An athiest is allowed to have his doubts now and then. Just like a christian can be one of many forms but still be a christian. The thing about athiesm is really, it's just as rational as any other religion. "Atheism is a religion, is not a debate I could argue for easily, I am surprised you made such a concession. But back on-point, again you cannot substantiate a universal belief or non-belief because you are not convinced by any local religion. A universal concept needs universal substantiation."it's perfectly rational to beleive god does or doesn't exist."How could this ever defend Atheism?