Christianity is an Irrational Religion

Rationality: A wiki is fine if used for a broad term, or for a simple definition. I try to use wiki and the sort for my online debates because many users do not have online access to the Oxford English Dictionary, which is what I use at home. I see no problem with the wiki when it is used for simple definitions as I used it here. Con did not dispute the definition, only the source. He must do better than this. I welcome voters to determine if the definition satisfies the role of a good, albeit general, definition. In addition, the definition matched yours closely so I thought it was good as any. I wasn't trying to be sneaky just trying to avoid saying "not irrational" and instead say "rational". Irrational not rational: I do not have a problem with my opponent's definition (I said as much), but I can't see how the term "rational" is irrelevant to a debate concerning an "irrational" doctrine. If one is acting irrational then he is not acting rationally. The definition is relevant since you, the instigator, used the word "irrational" in the resolution. I used "rational" so we could avoid double negatives and such. Here is the Oxford definition: a. Having the faculty of reasoning; endowed with reason. Esp. in rational being, rational creature, rational soul, etc. And b. That uses, or is capable of using, the faculty of reasoning; having sound judgement; (in extended use) sensible, sane, lucid. Also: characterized by reasoning, as opposed to emotion, intuition, etc. Saying that the definition of "rational" is not relevant to a debate concerning irrationality is the equivalent of saying the definition of "guilty" is not relevant to a defendant claiming he is "not guilty". Cute lawyering, but not sensible. Christianity: Con is new to debate. org so I am going to let this slide for the most part, but I will offer some advice. Don't start a debate without offering a definition of a key term "Christianity" and then remove two of your opponent's contentions when he offers a reasonable definition. Such actions are bad form. I avoided some strict denominational beliefs so we could operate under a broad, but fair, definition. I could, in absence of a definition, have simply defined Christianity as "an irrational belief in God" and been done with it. No good deed goes unpunished, it seems. My opponent did not offer a definition of Christianity in the opening round; I had to guess so I used a very broad overview and one that fits with mainstream Christianity and would allow my opponent to use a variety tools if he chose such as specific denominational beliefs. My opponent's theology is certainly interesting, but I recommend offering a full definition in this case since this view of Christianity is far from the prominent one. When you intend to define Christianity in such a way, you need to put that up front so we don't waste each other's time. Because my opponent did not offer his unusual definition of Christianity, I must remove two of my contentions as the non stated definition of Christianity does not include Jesus as the Son of God or the existence of hell, interesting but we will move on. The Trinity: I simply offered this if you wanted to add this, or some other specific adherence like baptism and what not to the definition; you didn't, so we are done with it. Circular reasoning and irrationality: Of the two contentions left, the second is dependent on the first. My opponent wishes to support his case with the "Bible". I am not sure which one he considers authoritative as he never told us, but this bible, whichever one, is evidence that the Christian God exists. And how do we know the bible is accurate? Because God says so in the Bible. Ta-da! Circular reasoning at its finest. This quote says it as well as I can: "The so-called ‘final proof' relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this example! " . http://web.cn.edu... Using circular reasoning to justify the existence of any being, a deity or otherwise, is irrational as this same lack of reasoning can be used to justify the existence of any being we wished to conjure into existence. Using the definition offered for irrationality we find, "Not endowed with reason". Circular reasoning is no reasoning at all. One is forced to go back to the original position, which I stated in the previous round and was not rebutted, that belief in this deity must be established on faith, a faith not based on observation or testability. My opponent will also find that of all the definitions of "rational" necessarily exclude circular reasoning as such reasoning is not based in rational inquiry. Contention one and two still stand as my opponent has only offered a logical fallacy as support. He cannot find that a case, supported only by failed logic, is not irrational. See how ridiculous the last sentence looks? Hence the reason I wanted to use the word "rational" instead. With only this logical fallacy present, I have little left to rebut. Contention 1 and 2 still stand. Very Truly Yours, Sherlockmethod