It said, roughly, that credulity is not limited to theists, and that not all atheist positions are thought through. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that's correct ─ what would it tell us about the correctness of either view? About whether the concept of a real god is incoherent, for example?
Atheists are not nearly as rational at some think they are. So says the article..... I have been saying that here on RF since i started.
Then please give us an example that demonstrates that gods have objective existence, or don't. Let's keep to what's relevant to the question, and not worry about what can be misunderstood or asserted on no other ground than like or dislike.
After all if you are in "religUS forums" reading this article and an atheist, it certainly is not for scientific rational reasons.
I like rational discussions. I enjoy both the trading of information, and the occasions of debate. That doesn't necessarily involve science, but it certainly can.
I can only imagine for some its a sense of superior reasoning over religion.
What if it's a quest for the right concepts to make accurate statements about reality? Truth, in other words?
Then again thats a bit like picking on the disabled so its only for gratification of the ego and that specifically is Not rational but rationalizing. .lots of that goes on here to say the least.
That sounds like a cheap self-congratulatory shot to me. Perhaps you'd like to present it as an evidence-based reasoned argument instead? Then we could have an intelligent discussion about it, no?
