If you want to talk about something other than a supreme being, then you should probably use a different word than "God". Just like when I want to talk about horselike creatures with black and white stripes, I use the word "zebras" instead of "shoes" because that's the best way to communicate.
If 'shoes' was the first word that was used to describe 'zebras', and I decided then to call them 'zebras', then you'd be telling me to stop using 'zebras' when the animals are really called 'shoes'.
It's a circle, and you've chosen some arbitrary point on the circle, and claimed it as the only point on the circle.
Sure, but that's reasonable. It also depends on the claim being made. If the claim is that there are 500,000 atheists/agnostics living in New York City, I'll buy that, at least until I find out differently. That's partly because it doesn't really matter to me, and partly because it's not a very outrageous claim. Now, if someone claimed there were 5 million atheists/agnostics living in New York City, I'd disbelieve them unless they came up with some good evidence.
I didn't say it wasn't reasonable.
But really, the point is, if you're trying to figure out the truth of a claim, the only good way to go is through reason. All you're saying here is that many times we don't even bother trying to figure out the truth of a claim (as in my first example).
If you want to find the rationality of a claim, you should use reason. Again, you are claiming that 'truth' is the same as 'rational'. Therefore, when you find no rationality, you find no truth.
The claim is very limiting, and wrong. It's like saying the only numbers that exist are whole numbers.
If you're using irrational methods to try to reach truth, you're doing the equivalent of throwing darts. It's possible to end up at the truth through irrational means, like faith, but it's unlikely. It really is like trying to hit the bull's-eye. You can use irrational methods like closing your eyes and throwing backwards, or you can use rational methods like looking at the dart board, focusing and throwing straight ahead. Either way, it's possible to hit the bull's-eye, but I think you'd agree that the second way gives you an immensely better chance of achieving that goal than the first.
It narrows your options, effectively blinding you from other possibilities, like the one we've been talking about here, and on other threads. Yes, you are very likely, if your logic is correct, to find a logical answer. And many times, that answer is what really happens. That doesn't mean it happens all the time.
