[Hank Kerchief]

This assertion implies that faith-based religion is irrational.

I do not understand this kind of objection. For those who hold faith as something one believes "without rational evidence", why would it be objectional to call it irrational. It is exactly what it is. Irrational does not mean stupid or dumb, it means without a rational (reasoned from evidence) basis for one's convictions. (Of course all superstitions, stupid ideas, and dumb notions are irrational as well.)

(Note, we do not call what one believes based on rational evidence, "faith," we call it knowledge. It is only called faith when what is believed is not based on reason from evidence.)

Hank

[Cboldt]

Cboldt: This assertion implies that faith-based religion is irrational.

Hank: I do not understand this kind of objection.

That's why I rephrased the assertion in the next sentence. Y'all are a bit wordy. My simple point was that faith-based religion doesn't lend itself to scientific analysis. Therefore, the non-falsifiability test isn't useful to debunk a faith-based religion.

[tame]

For those who hold faith as something one believes "without rational evidence", why would it be objectional to call it irrational.

Most people of faith that I know would no doubt see that statement as a "straw man". Many would say they believe with rational evidence or warrant.