system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Religious people are often just as logical as non-religious people, they just start from different assumptions. CMV

For context, I'm an atheist but I find that many of my non-religous friends seem to think that if someone is religious they have to be  completely Illogical, but I don't think that's the case. They actually are logical, they just start from a different set of assumptions.

For Example:

A=B

B=C

A=C


Is valid

But

A ≠ B 

B= C

A≠ C

Is also completely valid but you wind up with different conclusions. For Christians, they start with the assumption that say, the bible is true or at least a truthful if metaphorical guideline. And since atheists reject this premise (Even if it's they're justified in doing so) they wind up with rather different end points. But neither Christians nor atheists commit a error in reasoning here.  So CMV!
gpt
Assumptions can themselves be judged on terms of rationality. Christianity assumes, as an epistemic standard, the contents of a book, with no prior principles to show why the contents of this book are necessarily true and should not be judged by their own merit.

Atheism, since it denotes a lack of belief, does not depend necessarily on any particular epistemic standard, but a very commonly held epistemic standard among atheists is empiricism which states, in simple terms, that experience is the base of all knowledge. Reasoning from the available evidence, one is not able to find anything that resembles, to any surprising or convincing degree, the unusual things stated in the Bible; in particular, there is no solid evidence of God.

I suppose if you want to claim that empiricism and "the contents of this specific book are true a priori" are equally rational epistemologies, we can discuss that, but if you concede that they are not, then your case falls apart.