Most people act rationally and irrationally. So you can hold an irrational belief, i.e. that your religion is the One True Religion, and then take rational actions like going to church based on that irrational belief.

e.g. drugs can make you feel good, but is it rational to keep taking them until you are addicted?

By having personal experience(s) of things that cannot be explained in any other way?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

By employing one's sense of logic?

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...

You are misusing logic in the same way. You are disconnecting it from its value in order to justify a belief in a larger power. This is neither logical or rational.

The entire idea that religion is rational or logical is one that's been pushed since the late enlightenment era upon realizing that you cannot control others through religion unless they believe that you are operating rationally on behalf of a larger power. This is the trick. It's very effective!

I have only met a few "true atheists" -- people who do not deeply believe in some narrative that provides meaning and exists outside of the material world.

Really?! That's definitely by viewpoint. I don't talk religion but in my encounters with other atheists, I haven't gotten the feeling that any believe there to be some narrative.

you mean, people who don't believe there's a god (theism is a belief in a god, not just any belief or even any religion)

that's what an atheist is (which is the same thing as a "true atheist", as long as we're making up phrases)

a good example of an atheistic belief is "you should be excellent to each other, because it sucks when people aren't like that to you" - no god required

Generally atheists claim to be skeptical of all religion and mysticism regardless of whether it claims a "creator god". If you want to be pedantic and say someone who believes in ghosts, but not God is still be an atheist, well ok.

My point is that almost all people hold unexamined beliefs as non-material and unscientific as any religion. Hence they are not inherently more rational.

> be excellent to each other

I think the rule you are describing is not well defined at all. Are you treating them well because it's right, or because it's a benefit to you? If it's just comfort, then it only makes sense when it's convenient for you, or likely to be reciprocated.

Should you do what makes other people feel good? Or what is actually good for them? After all, it "sucks" when people try to make you do things. How would you know when to violate your rule of being "excellent"?

is that true, though? As one myself, I'm not sure it is. Certainly doesn't seem true. But if you want to be pedantic and sophic, you can continue trying to redefine it

in fact, I've found that self-described "theists" and "atheists" are both smart enough to know that theism involves a god, not just any religion or spiritualism or mysticism or belief

> My point is that almost all people hold unexamined beliefs

your point seemed to be to conflate concepts like humanism (essentially, "be excellent to each other", hardly an "unexamined belief"), which don't require magic, to theism, which does - this point didn't work for the reasons described above: both may involve principles of one form or another, but only the latter is magical and supernatural, and thus less rational to believe true

if we're both on the same page there, we can move onto other topics, like:

> I think the rule you are describing is not well defined at all.

That's definitely not what humanism means.

No I don't think this conversation will lead anywhere. Goodbye.

it seems you have no point that isn't based on pedantry, arguing semantics, trying to redefine theism, or falsely and failingly conflating a non-magical concept with a magical belief

I would have liked for you to respond to the subject of my posts instead, but since you couldn't: bye, friend!

What? From where do we derive our knowledge of the natural world and universe? How do we know, for instance, that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa? Are you implying that we don’t know that, or are you implying our knowledge of this fact is a divine gift?

Ok then let’s rephrase the statement to “Absent any sudden shifts in the gravitational field, 5N of force is not enough to bring a 1 kg sphere to escape velocity.” Science can prove that.

And if we can’t prove it, then we return to the question of rationality. When given an unknown, is it rational to assume anything about that unknown without verifiable evidence? I think not.

If there is no evidence either way, then it is only rational to reject any positive assertion. The reason is that negative assertions are infinitely more likely to be correct than positive assertions. As a motivating example, think of a number between 1 and 1,000. Now, which statement seems more likely to be true: “the number you thought of is 32” or “the number you thought of is not 32.” I have evidence of the number you thought of, but the negative assertion is much more likely.

Another way of thinking about it is this: each positive fact yields are near infinite number of negative facts. E.g. if you know a ball is green then you also know it’s not red and it’s not blue, etc. the converse isn’t true. When you know a negative fact, you learn very little. E.g. what else can you say after learning a ball is not blue.

Arguing deep topics with a few lines of text every few hours is no way to be persuaded. But it will all too easily confirm your current ideas simply because you will get tired of it and you will conclude that nobody has any valid arguments against your position. This is why you have to get really serious about it and study under people who have "been there and done that" already. You will have to take the time to go through the entire process it cannot be done online.

It is strange that Atheists immediately discount philophical, theological and other arguments. For example, personal experiences and accepting the testimony and authority of those you trust is perfectly rational. It's not fullproof but it's still rational to do so, because there are many sorts of things that we have to accept as true based on such evidence.