Atheism is irrational.

[comet]

Whatever is rational utilizes either the senses, the intellect or both.

--I love this, because in my monkey brain I'm feeling all of these things.......but as a daddy I have to know rationality beyond our senses.

Our rational sux, but it's THIS irrationality that drives my monkey urge to do right by my son. No fucking God to corrupt my purity.

(Atheist that vows the right things by my son and information theory)

---

Atheists have primal feelings that scientists haven't divulged on yet....

[Neo-Scholastic]

When you group people together based on a label that label has to describe THE ENTIRE GROUP.  You cannot assign meaning to that label based on what a few, some, half or even most of them are like because IT MUST DESCRIBE ALL of them.

It depends of whether the proposition in question is a definition, broad generalization, normative description, or a statement about the average. A broad generalization can be accurate even if it is not true in every instance. You must also take into account whether the noun is used in a way that refers to a category or in a way that refers to a type.

[comet]

the science data points to us being part of a larger more complex system.  We can't argue that, well we can but it just tells us what state of mind the person is in so I just stay out of their way.

The next question is how can we describe this system.   The word alive come to mind for me.  It describes and predicts the events we see around us.  But even more importantly it gives us a mechanism for those explanations and predictions.  For example, the connections people feel, the connections are real and can be not only explained using chemistry and physics but also can explain the connection to something bigger that may be alive.  Again, that claim is more reasonable than saying we are alive and the system we are in is not ... Thats just stupid.

However.  A person dieing, waking up, and flying away?  
A finger pointing old guy going "poof there it is"?
Thats like santa at the south pole ...
A lost clause.

[Asmodee]

When you group people together based on a label that label has to describe THE ENTIRE GROUP.  You cannot assign meaning to that label based on what a few, some, half or even most of them are like because IT MUST DESCRIBE ALL of them.

It depends of whether the proposition in question is a definition, broad generalization, normative description, or a statement about the average. A broad generalization can be accurate even if it is not true in every instance. You must also take into account whether the noun is used in a way that refers to a category or in a way that refers to a type.

You're arguing semantics, and not very well.  "Atheist" is not a broad generalization, normative description or statement about the average when you label someone an "atheist".  That's like saying that when you say, "black people" you aren't necessarily talking about people of color, or when you say "Muslim" you aren't necessarily talking about people who are Muslims.  The discussion was about what it means to be "atheist", what the definition of "atheist" is.  As a definition, that definition must be such that it includes every person defined as an "atheist".  If you change the definition you change what it means to be an atheist, you change who is and who is not an "atheist".