@Aluneth believes in magic, arguing that magic does not reflect objective facts / reality is fine, but he came touting a flase dichotomy:
- Someone believes in a deity that is assumed to not exist.
- Does that assumption make the belief irrational?
Clearly this is a false dichotomy, as this is not how we assess whether a belief is rational or not, and need assume nothing about the truth of the belief. The rationality of a belief is determined by:
the quality of the supporting evidence, its logical coherence with other (rational) beliefs, and how well it conforms to probability and reason.
- He has offered no supporting evidence, none.
- His arguments have been consistently irrational, often using known logical fallacies.
- He cannot demonstrate any deity is objectively or nomologically possible, so has no way to calculate probability, and his reasoning (see above) has been consistently poor.
The answer to his thread question was, and remains no, his belief (based on his posts) is not rational. The evidence for this assessment is in this, and other threads. All one need do is read it. @Aluneth has refused to even acknowledge let alone address the rational objections to his claims, and all objections are either waved away, or result in more unevidenced claims, so circular reasoning again.