Rationalism over faith

 Rationalism removes mountains of  ignorance whilst faith rests on the argument from ignorance. Reason removes the tyrants of prejudice and hate whilst faith enthrones the tyrants  of woo and false hope. Reason builds our conservation of knowledge whilst faith attempts to throw it away.
 Faith, that begged question, is the we just say so of credulity. Science is acquired knowledge whilst faith begs the question of being knowledge as Sydney Hook affirms.
 Whilst faith answer no prayers nor produces miracles, reason produces better and better medicines and life-support systems. Whilst faith-healing without medical means brings death to children, reason gives us hope for  that more abundant life!
 Whilst faith cannot instantiate results of prayers, reason can instantiate real medical advancements.
The faith in answered prayer means post hoc faith- coincidence and people so rationalize unanswered prayers as paranormalists rationalize failed tests as as due to skeptic intrusion.
 John Haught and Alister Earl McGrath  claim that the Bible from start to finish is all about hope rather than about morality. Ah, what are those hopes found in the Deluge and the genocides? Why the hope through the human blood sacrifice of the Atonement? When will we see the fulfilled hope of the greater good of the Shoa and the Arab-Jew conflict ?
  That hope revels in the blasphemy of faith to reason!
 When we skeptics query where is the  beef for the understanding of God and the Bible, people cry out, have faith1 That belies McGrath's indictment of Clifton Richard Dawkins's use of faith as idiosyncratic. McGrath maintains that faith -trust- takes hold of the whole person to affect her. Should the person wills her life better , then that faith is no more than the placebo of inspiration for her to use her own  inner resources. Faith takes credit where reason is the cause as in the answered prayers and miracles!
 Reason helped the Allies defeat the faith of the Axis powers in their woo of  ignorance and prejudices!
Reason uses the presumption of empiricism- real facts whilst faith ever revels in its unfounded intuitons.
 Reason underscores the failure of Alvin Plantinga's dogmatism!

Ontological Naturalism

How do we gain knowledge? Are there supernatural or paranormal methods of gaining knowledge? Can faith make for knowledge?

As a skeptic, I find that some matters are probably false like creationism, others provisional knowledge until something better comes along and still others like the origin of language are up for grabs.

As a naturalist, I find that the paranormal and the supernatural probably don't exist as no evidence comes forth for them.

As a rationalist, I find reason to be the arbiter of knowledge.

As an empiricist, I find that revelations, unfounded intuitions and faith can never lead to knowledge.

And as a humanist, I find no need for divine grounding of morality.

What do you maintain, ma'am or sir?

Do you find solace in God? Do you feel there are guardian angels? Is there the Devil? Why is there evil when Heaven could be on Earth?

Is there a true holy book, and how can that be?

Do you rely on religious experience, faith and / or arguments for knowing Him? Are you in a relationship with Him. Is Yeshua God? Is Isa just a prophet? Is he just another rabbi?

Are you a fundamentalist or some other kind of believer?

Will all be saved or just some?

Is there a future state or reincarnation?

And are there any grounds to believe in the paranormal?

These matters just might intrigue you to post here!

Whilst my style is tough, I 'm nevertheless faillibilistic: I just might err!