Hi, I'm a biology student who often uses biology as a framework for understanding thought. I've come to a really tough crossroads of thought. What differentiates cognitive biases from logical fallacies?

As a believer, I think that theism is more reasonable than atheism although I think that atheists can have good reasons to believe that their worldview is true. Is this position rational? Put in another way, is it possible for me to claim that my worldview is the correct one while granting that the opposite worldview can be as reasonable as the one I hold to be true?

Recently, I noticed about sorites problem. I thought that problem is serious to all of philosophical endeavor, but my friend told me that is problematic when you assume some kind of platonism. Is he right? Or is it equally problematic when we assume nominalism?

Is it always better to have more choices?

When faced with a lack of any conclusive argument one way or the other, how does one avoid total scepticism?

The age of consent seems to arise because people under a certain age threshold are not capable of making informed, prudent decisions. Because of Neurology or Wisdom or otherwise. However what is to say that they are capable when past this age threshold? Consider an alien species similar to us however they live to the age of 1000 rather than 80-100 as in humans. This alien species might give the age of consent to 200 years because anyone younger is deemed not having enough knowledge to make an informed decision. When this alien species looks at us they will probably pity us for making choices below the age of 200, because we have not the wisdom nor the neurology that is required to make an informed decision. Is the age one has to make an informed decision thus meaningless?

Is it an ad-hominem when I get called "a pessimist who won't be happy with positive changes in situation X, so further debate is pointless", even though I've presented my arguments for why I'm skeptical of any positive changes in situation X? I feel like it's a dismissive tactic, but would like some clarification.

I came across a webpage which makes this claim."Skeptics of homeopathy insist that homeopathic medicines do not work, but have difficulty explaining how so many people use and rely upon this system of medicine to treat themselves for so many acute and chronic diseases." Is there a name for the kind of fallacy this person is making or particular way to describe it? I feel like that even if I couldn't explain why so many people "rely" on Homeopathy that doesn't mean that it is a valid form of medicine.

I was always wondering, is it possible to deliberately chose to be irrational ?

Do philosophers always embrace rationalism? Why not irrationalism? What's so bad about my voting for a political candidate based on how attractive his wife is?