There doesn't need to be rationale. In America, as with many nations, people practice religious freedom. If an atheist chooses to not believe, it is his/her right. There is no need for the rest of us to dissect that right, belief, decision, etc.
Chimera, when you say, "Since they have yet to provide a sufficient amount of empirical evidence to show that their claim is true, then atheism is the rational solution.", you fail to realize that it works the other way around. Since atheists have yet of provide a sufficient amount of empirical evidence to show that their claim is true, then religion is the rational solution. Both sides of the argument are invalid. You've kind of disappointed the great philosophers' contributions to the branch of logic. Though I do not doubt that we will some day unravel the mystery of existence, especially at the rate of progress scientists are making, it would not yet be reasonable at this point to label yourself an "atheist". Nor do I think that it is reasonable to have faith in a god. Both propositions are silly. However, I may tend to lean towards the atheist side of the argument rather than the theory of god. I see religion in this world as something very destructive and is slowly deteriorating the human race. There is no room for such bigotry.
'you fail to realize that it works the other way around. Since atheists have yet of provide a sufficient amount of empirical evidence to show that their claim is true, then religion is the rational solution.'
The burden of proof lies with the one who made a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. Theists and 'prophets' in ancient times made the claim that god(s) exist.
Just because nobody else can disprove this claim does not make it a valid claim. It is upon the theists to prove their claim, not upon the atheist. I could claim that there is a teapot flying around Saturn at 5,000 mph, but as soon as you look at it, it turns invisible. So, by your logic, my claim is perfectly valid just because nobody else can disprove me.
Therefore, being the default philosophy (meaning the philosophy that was dominant before the claim was made), atheism is the rational solution.
If theists can provide some sort of empirical evidence that satisfies their BoP, then their claim is valid. However, they have yet to do so.
Chimera, that theory could be exceptional to some, but that theory cannot disprove my claim. I feel like you may be unwilling to open up to my claim or we are just complete polar opposites. I remain confident in my stance.
The claim you put forth is that one cannot claim that their decision to call themselves an 'atheist' isn't one based in rational thinking. However, my point disproves that by showing that the instigator of this atheist/theist argument (theism) has yet to fulfill their burden of proof as to show how one can empirically prove the existence of a deity. Therefore, it is rational (rational meaning having reason or understanding) to call oneself an 'atheist' , due to insufficient proof on the opposing side. Thus, your claim is false.
Tannerhenley17 The claim that "atheism is true" is utterly nonsensical since atheism is the REJECTION OF A CLAIM (i.E. God exists), not the claim that God doesn't exist. As such, atheism has absolutely NO burden of proof and is therefore a rational position, considering that theists have never met their burden of proof. The fact that so many people are unable to grasp this amazingly simple fact is quite annoying.