Diogenes' Dog said:
I think 'non-rational' is a more accurate expression Sarkus. Theism doesn't contradict reason, it is just not derived from reason alone.
I think I see where you're coming from, but I think "irrational" is accurate enough. It goes
against reason to believe in something without evidence. Hence irrational.
Without evidence, the only rational course is not to believe in it's existence - which is NOT the same as to believe in the non-existence.
To claim theism is "non-rational" is more to say that one reaches it through instinct - without applying reason at all.
While this is certainly plausible, as soon as you do apply reason to it, theism becomes irrational when faced with the lack of evidence.
Diogenes' Dog said:
The atheist worldview limits our birthright to genetics and circumstance, and our purpose to whatever we make meaningful before we die.
No - the atheist worldview is purely to do with theism.
You are confusing atheism with the more general evidentialism. An evidentialist does not limit one's birthright or purpose, but would certainly not have a "belief" in any without evidence of such. Therefore their "purpose" would be entirely self-defined - which is as limiting or as limitless as one chooses for oneself.
Diogenes' Dog said:
The theist worldview of a loving God, holds that our birthright is to be unconditionally loved and our purpose is to love unconditionally. These are inherent in the worldview.
That's all well and good - and if it works for them then good luck to them. But there is still zero evidence.
Diogenes' Dog said:
The 'evidence' for this worldview is not objective facts, but subjective experience, and based on trust. As we progress and that trust is not betrayed, so the evidence from experience accumulates.
This is just bizarre!
Are you suggesting that you are relying on continuing negative-confirmation as evidence?
"I have accumulated evidence that the FSM exists through the fact that he has not contacted me in any way, or given me any sign of his existence other than an old manuscript written some 1000s of years ago, but I trust him, and he has not broken that trust!"
If he does exist, how is he possibly going to break that trust? - by coming down and saying "Sorry guys, I don't actually exist!"
What exactly would constitute, for you, a breaking of that trust to a theist?
Diogenes' Dog said:
Religion isn't science!!!
So it should be exempt from interrogation and scrutiny?
Why?