Ex-"New Atheist", Now Christian

[Cyberman]

I subscribe to the idea that it is the positive claimant who has the philosophic burden of proof. I do not see a reason why Ockham's Razor should have universal application, and you have inferred that you think it does; therefore, I respectfully shift the burden of proof to you. Please inform me why you believe that it does have universal application.

Nice try, but the burden of proof is still yours, since I am not claiming the belief you ascribe to me. I merely asked you to justify your statement. Apparently you cannot.

I disagree with you that it is loaded language or that I used it pejoratively. Does it come across as negative to you? If so, why? Pure reason appeals to a lot of atheists, so I do not see what is wrong with using the term "atheistic rationalists".

Then why not simply "rationalists"? I don't see the word 'atheistic' as negative, but obviously you must do if you chose to label them as such. Were I to employ the term "theistic irrationalists" as freely as you do yours, would you be happy with letting it pass without comment?

I have never claimed that science knows nothing about the topics we're discussing. My main point is this: I believe some rationalists (not necessarily scientists) often come to a lot of hasty conclusions. Rationalism relies heavily on deductive reasoning, but I feel that a lot of arguments made by staunch rationalists often result in being formal fallacies.

Then please pay us the courtesy of justifying that belief. That's all.

Again, I never claimed that all scientists are dogmatic atheistic rationalists; you're putting words in my mouth here.

Neither did I, so this word-putting-into-mouth thing is contagious. And there we go with the "atheistic rationalists" again, as though all atheists are rationalists and vice versa.