Why atheism is irrational

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

So properly speaking you are not an atheist. You're more of an anti-theist. Or maybe more specifically, more of an anti-theocracist?

I am an atheist because I've never seen a reason to believe. I am without god-belief. I am not anti-theist- I think people should believe whatever helps them get through the day. Telling people what to believe or not believe doesn't work out very well, as we all know from these threads. I am definitely anti-theocratist. Religious law has no place in a diverse society. In addition to all these things, I also don't care if you do come up with some evidence of some god- it won't change my moral code or behavior.

Of course, what you consider hurtful dogma is an open-ended question.

Well, only open-ended to people who mutilate little girls' genitals and think their god wants them to. It takes some pretty twisty justification to say that that's just a cultural/religious thing that we can't judge. Of course we can judge it- it's objectively bad from every moral standpoint you take. If a god wants it, he's evil.

There can be firmer disagreement on things like sex ed in schools- how much, when, do we trust who's doing it, etc. But there are better reasons to discuss this than because there might be a pervert in the sky judging us for our sexual behavior.

What would you call someone who saw no evidence for the hypothesis that "Everything in the world can be explained without appealing to the supernatural?"

What taxonomic bracket would you put them into?