Hell

[OnlyNatural]

The point is that we should be rational, not that everyone is. The same as how everyone should be moral, but not everyone is. How is it possible to make claims about rationality if there is no universal normative standard of rationality? If you think theists (for example) are irrational for believing as they do, then on what basis (i.e. based on what standard) do you say that they are irrational?

I don't think either morality or rationality has a universal standard that we can compare it to. Theists often insist that there are absolute standards of perfection, defined by God, but these concepts can only really be defined by their important elements. A core element of morality would be compassion and the desire to limit suffering, whereas a core element of rationality is that rational beliefs correspond most closely to the actual structure of reality, and are grounded in as much evidence as possible.

In order to reason, you must reason from something. You cannot have a premise-less argument, and there is no neutral ground from which we can assess rationality. In order to argue that it is irrational to believe X, we must base that argument on Y. But then what about Y? Is Y rational? And so it continues (this is called the problem of "regress"). The question is which beliefs we should reason from (if it is possible to reason at all).

I think DvF responded well to the regress question, so I won't go into it.

The point is that the basic belief of 'there is a God' is not necessary. Without this belief, you'd just be reasoning 'from' something else, if you say we must reason from something. Atheists can use their skills of reason just fine without an unnecessary and unsupported first assumption about reality. It's like, I could go around believing that the galaxy is being carried through space on the back of a giant tortoise, but without the evidence for it, what's the point in reasoning from this assumption?

How exactly do you go about measuring a law of logic?

I would be interested to hear your account of what exactly laws of logic and why they have the properties they do according to your worldview.

Well theoretically you could go out and interview a huge sample, and test how people use logic and reasoning to come to conclusions. Logic could also be used to make consistent predictions about things.

However, I see all this from a scientific perspective, because science is concerned with what actually exists (and unless God actually, objectively exists, not just in the minds of believers, then I see no point in worshiping him). I don't think I can go into any more detail about the laws of logic, though, I'll have to leave that up to those who are well-versed in philosophy. An atheist's definition would most likely be the same as mine.