Why do you think that your irrational beliefs make more sense than what you consider the irrational beliefs of a theist?
Some opinions can be well founded compared to other opinions, and yet still be subject to serious scrutiny. I'm sure many of my irrational beliefs are not much different than other people's irrational beliefs, whether Theist or non-Theist, whatever.
I have heard multiple people talk about the lack of evidence for theism, and Christianity in particular
I'd rather put it this way: I don't see any REASON to feel compelled to sign onto some set of relgious or metaphysical beliefs, but when I do feel inclined one way or another, there may very well be so many subjective factors involved that this would probably make for no real solid argument sufficient to compel me not to change my view or compel others to believe as I do. I don't think religious believers feelings/opinions on such subjects are superior to my own. So where's the reason for me to convert, if I just don't feel like it? Nothing substantial.
They claim that believing something on faith makes that something invalid.
Technically, yes, faith is not a valid argument, it does not prove any position, yes, logically, any argument from faith is NOT VALID.
However, that's just a technical matter of logic.
Someone may believe something about the world that is verified by evidence, and yet WHY they believe it, personally, is subjective, and argued invalidly.
The reason that Neil, and everyone else, believes that a million dollars exists is that they believe what people tell them. Neither you nor I have been to Africa; however, we all believe it exists because we trust those who tell us that it does in fact exist. What makes theism any different?
So you are willing to argue that Theism is basically equivalent to believing in Santa Clause? Many atheists will agree with you, here.
I may never experience something like faith-healing or glossolalia; however, I do believe the people who tell me that it is possible for that to happen, and I trust them.
I have experienced some of both. There are people who would argue for psychic or other wierd phenomena, some use the language of a religion to deal with such things, others try to be para-psychological about it, others are rigidly skeptical about such things, etc. I would not argue that my experience proves my interpretation of my experience. I would just say "weird stuff may happen/have happened/seems to happen, and this is how I sometimes think/feel about it" ... I think that's a pretty transparent way to deal with such phenomena. It doesn't prove some pet para-psychological theory or metaphysical system or religion, nor do I particularly wish to convince someone else of my interpretation at some particular point in time.
There are things in this world that science is unable to explain. Miraculous healing, certain death recoveries, natural phenomenons, etc...
There are things that are weird, I'll agree up to a point. I don't think rare weird stuff has been studied all that well, that sort of thing is hard to study well, so it's premature to be too opinionated about such things, it's hard to tell how well we might understand rare and weird things. Many weird events really haven't been observed all that well/consistently. There's many who claim milk miraculously poured out of idols in India, it's associated with Ganesha, for example. These sorts of weird things are claimed from time to time, in various cultures/religions/contexts. If someone tries to research it, maybe they record some weird/interesting stuff, maybe some questions are raise, maybe some things seem unexplained/unexplainable, but then the phenomenon stops, how do you scrutinize it to understand now? So people weave together intuitions and visions and just-so speculations, and go on about things. What about the various interpretations is compelling? Not much. Sometimes some out and out fraud is discovered, and it's pretty clear. Other times stage magicians or scientists, etc., demonstrate how such things might happen naturally through either trickery or weird science. Other times the phenomenon has just past the point where it can be scrutinized so it's just a big weird question mark.
So, basically, don't tell me that theists have superstitious beliefs that are completely irrational. Everyone has irrational beliefs;
Yes. But if you are so skeptical about science and its ability to understand and sufficiently explain enough of the weird stuff, why would you be NON-SKEPTICAL about the boatload of assertions made by any metaphysical or religious system? In that sense a skeptic, agnostic, or atheist, may be very much more consistent, i.e., they may be critically rational.
Scientists and non-theists make as many leaps of faith as theists do; one bases their faith in fallible humanity, while the other places their faith in an infallible God. Which one makes more sense to you?
No. When they speculate and opinionate within their fields they are VERY well informed and engaged in severe self-criticism and peer review, and this makes for a great difference.
I think it's reasonable to use imagination, creativity, fantasy, to build up morale, to perhaps boost the immune system, to perhaps get a placebo effect or release some latent resources we may have access to, but some people have a MUCH better grasp of how to deal with an infection, let's say, gangrene, they are called doctors. Medicine has aspects of art and science. In any case, it's very disciplined and practical oriented. There's probably little or no harm in using positive visualization, prayer, meditation, self-hypnosis, etc., and there may be a benefit, but sometimes you do need to go to someone who has access to the results of well done, disciplined research in a practical field. By comparison, other alternatives are very speculative and unreliable.
