I agree with that definition, and I would like to point out that various religions certainly have many things that we can evidentially show to be not true.
Various religions containing many things that supposedly can be shown to be not true isn't the same as referring to religion in general, or any religious idea like that, and including in the concept of god for example. In other words, i of course agree that some religious ideas can be shown to not be true as proposed, however the question is which are those.
When you refer to an idea that can not be falsified for example, an idea which has no evidence to counter for another example, you can't say the same things, which is why again i think and hope thats why Dawkins said "i think" in regards to that specific part from what he was talking about in that video.
Which is why using the "truth supersedes" argument, and talking about rational and irrational in that part as if you can know that was not accurate in my view. That was all i was trying to point out.
Other religions have concepts that are completely unfounded and unsupported by any evidence at all, for instance the notion of a soul, and if allowed to be considered true, then what stops the infinite number of other things for which we have no evidence to be considered true?
I didn't say we should consider them true at all, or in the same sense or level we consider evidenced and/or proved things to be true. However when someone considers them true, calling him irrational or deluded based on supposed knowledge of the real truth is what i disagree with.
While I agree that 'truth' is a tentative concept, through the scientific method we have been able to discern a lot more about how reality works than we have ever been able to before.
Hence, those things that we have evidence for must logically be considered to be more 'true' than those for which we have none.
I do agree in a sense with what you're saying, like i tried to explain this isn't something i was trying to challenge. I wasn't saying we shouldn't differentiate between evidenced things and things that have no evidence to support them.
The Oxford Dictionary defines rationalism as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic", which means that concepts that defy logic cannot justifiably be considered rational.
There are plenty of such concepts to be found in various religions.
And again various religions supposedly containing plenty of such ideas isn't the same as talking about religion in general, or the same as using it in a specified case where in fact it doesn't apply, or claiming superiority in general to a position based on generalizing that.
Well, given that none of us are, in fact, Dawkins, nor have any easily available way to determine his intentions, I'll be happy to agree to disagree on this particular point.
Cool
If we consider nothing to be true, where does that leave us?
I hope you can see what i'm saying now.
And if we are to consider some things to be true, what should be our criteria?
Like i indicated above, generally and normally, evidenced things should be considered on a higher level than those which are not.
Which for many, it seems, is an emotional response, and therefore not rational.
I didn't say that nobody dismisses him or dislike him based on that. On the other hand, most atheists in this thread seem to be unable to imagine any different possibility. Thankfully not all though.
Arguments, like ideas, stand or fall on their own merit, and the messenger should not matter.
I don't think the messenger should not matter, but i agree at least that his/her ideas, concepts, or proposals of whatever kind shouldn't be dismissed based on that alone.