You keep saying it's a fact, but have yet to provide any evidence. If you wish to convince people of your rationality you must needs provide such. As such we come to this. What tiger?

Your logic isn't based in evidence. And phrenology did have evidence. The evidence was extrapolated fear beyond what could be considered meaningful, but for those who ascribed to it could rationalize their conclusions from the evidence they could gather.

You are literally stigmatizing all Christians as being harmful by virtue of being in a group that follows a doctorine you have determined to be harmful.

By your own logic, rationality is inherently meritless. If you wish for evidence, look to how phrenology developed to rationalize racism as being inherent to nature.

It might be an open forum, but walking into a conversation and requiring the people you talk to defend themselves is rude at best.

Also, the beginning of this entire thread is "despite how loud some people that claim kinship with us may be, our doctorine is not one of hate" so how can you in good conscience maintain your stance while also claiming rationality?

Christianity was never the focus of my purpose in being here, I am trying to provide rational explanations to you that stigmatizing a group of people based on how a portion of the members of that group act is the basis for logic based bigotry.

You say that, when the very first thing you did here was cut into a conversation you otherwise weren't involved in to try and say their premise for discussion required they prove to you that their faith has merit. Do you see how you stepped on the Lego here?

Show me where it was that Christianity, *all* of Christianity, harmed people. I contend that nowhere in history has Christianity monolithically acted in ways that harmed. Anything less than the entirety of Christianity acting to harm others will show that your statement is untrue.

That would require that religion is the point of harm here. My statement was about how you are stigmatizing someone for living their own life by their own rules and *that* is actively harmful. Preaching is a form of stigmatization and one is able to preach about any topic, including rationality.

Different people feel different things. If someone lives their life under the perception that a tiger might attack them, and they have rituals that keep that tiger at bay for themselves, and don't hurt people in the process of living with that perception, why do you need to force them to change?

And yet you proselytize about how your rationality is clearly superior to the faith of those not sharing in it. You show clear faith that your own perception is more clear than those that fall outside of it. You might not have a religion, but you act as a missionary all the same.

1. Your analogy assumes that someone is perceiving an active threat to life.
2. You clarified that the character claiming a tiger doesn't see it either, only *believed* in it; which means an assumption that the people who warn against tigers see things exactly the same as those who don't.

Just because you require rationality to base your own religion on doesn't mean everyone in the world does. Would you be so insistent on this point if instead of being about individual peoples religion but instead on the flavor of bread they find delicious?