Person 1 (Playing the Game of Science): my rulebook says that's not allowed! Person 2 (Playing the Game of Religion): my rulebook says it is allowed!
Funny thing is, it really doesn't have to be that way. We understand what we say to one another by use of reason. That is the common denominator between the groups. We understand the world by use of reason. The ability to read is a function of reason. But at some point, there is a suspension of reason because a theist is not content to simply believe. They wish to thrust their belief into the world of reason while demanding that reason be suspended. If a theist comes out honestly and says, "I see what you are saying but I believe God is responsible. I can't prove it. It's just what I believe. Maybe one day the proof will come out. At least I believe it will. Then science will see." The atheist can stew over it but can't do anything about it. In fact, the theist takes the high ground because if an atheist attempts to dress a person down for merely their belief, the atheist appears the villain. And rightfully so. But when the theist transcends mere belief into something they think is on equal footing with testable, falsifiable, reasonable or even derivative of the aforementioned, that is where the trouble starts. They invite scrutiny to their assertion. Can atheists be a little nicer? Sure. Depends on the venue. When we're talking about theists asserting their beliefs into government and civics, no. It requires a vigorous debate. And many of the talking points you see bandied about often come from vigorous debates. They sometimes look out of place in a forum because they are not used properly or in full context.
No, we understand each other because of our mutual understanding of a language. Which is why you can understand someone who is nevertheless making an "unreasonable" statement.
You're ability to learn and understand language is a function of reason. Else, how could you even determine when someone is making an unreasonable statement? Your cognitive faculties allow you to recognize the symbols known as letters as distinct from one another. When grouped to together, they represent words. But the meaning of words requires the ability to reason. Words simply convey identity, thoughts and concepts. So if I write "There are 6 horses for every 9 horses" how is it that you know what I wrote means? We have a mutual understanding of the language. But all that helps you with is knowing the words and numbers used. A function of your cognitive ability. You will need reason to decipher what I may be talking about. In fact, reason would dictate that you ask for clarification in order to determine the meaning of the entire sentence. Or reason would determine the sentence as nonsensical and perhaps invite ridicule. Or you may reason it to be a riddle.
The understanding is a result of mutually agreed upon rules, which do not need to be reasonable. English is a good example.
This is pure logic... nothing to do with separate play books. Keep the religion book out of it.... 1. Is it irrational to assert that one knows there is no God. Answer - yes it is. 2. Are some scientists saying they are having trouble explaining the fine tunings.... which fine tunings appear to indicate design. Answer Yes. 3. Have I ever said those fine tunings mean you have to conclude there is a God. Answer No. Summary... I am not making a play from the believers playbook... I am pointing out that some et atheists lose out in the science and logic playbook. Yet they foolishly think they are superior thinkers. it is pretty funny don't you think?
Really? Did you understand what I said then? Of course not. You will reason it to be incomplete or insufficient to draw a viable conclusion from. I followed all the agreed upon rules of language and grammar for English. Correct spelling, punctuation, subject, verb, and predicate. So what does my collection of words actually mean?
It is not reasonable, or unreasonable, that the word "dog" represents a certain four-legged, mammalian entity. It's arbitrary, ie. it's merely agreed upon.
Indeed, it is irrational to assert that no one knows there is a God. I agree completely. Here's the rub; Those who assert there is a God or that they know that there is a God appear helpless when it comes to supporting their assertion. Therefore, the only viable conclusion is that no one who asserts there is a God can prove there is a God. Therefore, there must not be a God. Should one be able to do so, guess what the atheist must conclude? Gasp! Say it ain't so. They must conclude there is indeed a God. No faith involved.