I did not reject the premise. I accept the premise that gods are unproveable and unfalsifiable, just as the author did. So it's in what follows where we part. I say that the only reasonable way to proceed is to hold a lack of belief. She says beliefs based on "experiences" are rational. That's irrational to me.
I understand it's subjective, so I'm just saying what my preferences are. Namely, she is advocating gullibility in my opinion, or faith. Faith is irrational.
I understand why she is advocating gullibility. It is the only way to not be hypocrites for believers. After all, the believer that claim their god is the real god based on no evidence, but then that turns around and rejects all other gods because there is no evidence for them is engaging in cognitive dissonance at least, if not intellectual dishonesty. Or claiming that other gods require proof where their god does not.
Or, as is more often the case, claiming that there is more and better "evidence" for their god than others, though I find the "evidence" to be very poor or not evidence at all (like "experiences"
. Indeed, if that's the claim, then it's a rejection of the original premise that gods are unproveable and unfalsifiable to a degree.
So, she is in the supremely silly position of accepting all supernatural claims from experience as equally true, whether it be about experiences with Batman or Alice in Wonderland.
As for mental disorders, I certainly don't need to be an expert to make that claim. It's common knowledge in most first world nations due to there being plenty of evidence both contemporary and historical on the internet, produced by experts, that show how different mental defects are or were interpreted as something supernatural.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
