Belief in God is irrational

In Short: Resolution: Is the belief in Christian God rational? You: Yes. Why? Because of the Bible. Me: No. The Bible is not sufficient ground to base such an extraordinary claim to. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Why? Because in order to justify the Bible as valid, we have to employ circular reasoning. And circular reasoning is irrational. I then go on to explain why this is so, which you had failed to rebut. (history of the bible, contradictions, horror stories, scientific faults, lack of true prophecies) I’ll ask again: given all of the information put forth by me about the Bible, how is it you take it as God’s word? Faith is not sufficient. This is the exact reason why I posted direct quotes from the Bible. Since all your arguments are based upon it, I took it upon myself to argue on the same grounds as you. I’m not going to talk about the validity of the scientific process and throw some Karl Popper verbatim into the debate. By quoting the Bible I allowed for you and other readers can see how erroneous it really is. These quotes are a direct representation of my description of your God earlier and it also, according to you, describes the actions and character traits of this God (since it is the word of God correct?) It is you who commits the double standard. On one hand you justify your belief in God as this intelligent creator who is all-loving, knowing, powerful but then you fail to realize how this God is actually quite the opposite. Not only fail to realize this, but fail to rebut any of my arguments that have shown this. Your only argument was that I used conjecture to show that the Bible should not be taken seriously. I’m not saying that God does not exist. I’m not saying the Bible is not the word of God. But if it is, then God is not all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing because the very character portrayed in the Bible and our established laws of logic. The Bible shows us that not only is He incredibly inept, but the furthest thing from a loving being we would want a God to be. I feel like I’m beating a dead horse with this, do I need to explain further? I made the assumption the readers would have the intelligence to draw the conclusions based on the evidence I brought forth. I guess I should have been clearer. These quotes are my concrete evidence. (Of what?) That the Bible should not be taken seriously as the word of God. Because if this truly is God’s nature, then WHY do you hold this abomination of a being to such a high standard? These quotes I brought forth are word for word of how God acts, and how God behaves (assuming that the Bible is the word of God). To which one can conclude, how I have already stated a thousand times, would make God: patriarchal, authoritarian, capricious, jealous, homicidal..etc. I’ll ask again since this must not have registered: on what grounds do you claim the Bible to be valid and of the word of God? But only Christianity can supply the explanation for the preconditions of intelligibility. How? This is a blatant false-dichotomy propagated largely by an argument from ignorance. Just because we have not yet been able to explain the ontology of logic, love/compassion (we have a working knowledge of this), life-from non-life, laws of the universe (and this), morality, etc. does not necessarily give theists the right to claim their God is the source of this. This has been the case since the God proposition first came about, like I had already explained earlier. We used to attribute God as the explanation for all unknowns. We have thus far been able to explain the vast majority of these dilemmas, leaving God out of the picture. Yes, in 2012 we are still unsure of many things, but arbitrarily attributing these unknowns to your God is a ridiculous proposition. If we had done that, where would we be today? If it were not for the enlightenment and a secular movement where would we be in terms of intelligence, scientific progress, health—we would ultimately be coming up vastly short of our human potential but subjecting ourselves to such an unintelligent way of thinking given the nature of your God and the lack of evidence. Again, I ask: What makes your God the source of everything in the universe? The answer of all metaphysical questions? How is it the Christian God is the true God? A Muslim can say the EXACT same things as you, and by your standards, he too would be right. What about Hinduism? I can start my own religion tomorrow, write a bible and everything, and make all of these same claims. Would I be right in doing so? This is why I contend that belief in a specific God is irrational. There is no evidence brought forth to this day that suggests that such a being exists. For you to attempt to successfully debate you must have knowledge of (justified true belief) and submit to- rational thinking, which, in your worldview cannot be accounted for. How? This is an incredibly arrogant statement. How is it that atheists are not rational thinkers? It is rationality that leads to atheism. Atheism, as I explained in detail earlier, is not a choice but a result of logical, rational thinking. How is it if rationality precedes the existence of God, that those who believe in this dogma are the most irrational thinkers in our society (with regards to this one facet of life—not all). Only the Christian worldview accounts for the Laws of...[...]... in order for you to live your life you must operate as a schizophrenic. You say one thing and unwittingly operate in opposition to it. How is it that only the Christian worldview accounts for this? What about the other religions? I’ll ask again—with hopes of getting an answer—how is it the Christian God is the true God and all others false? In order for an atheist to live their life they must operate as schizophrenics? Wow. You’re going to have to elaborate on this. Something I’m sure the readers would like to hear—both theists and atheists. You cannot justify what you know by your worldview. You are self-deceived. You know God exists but because you don't like that God who exists you convince yourself [...] My worldview is one that rationally explains the workings of the universe via the scientific process—the only logical way to explain anything. Not through mind-numbing conjecture, quoting the Bible, or by faith. I know God exists? Atheists do not believe in God! This is like saying we’re angry with God for not existing. I feel like you’re grasping at straws here while trying to get me to submit to ad-hominem. …you can count that the air will be available for you to breathe tomorrow because God regulates creation in a consistent manner. Your final authority does not, cannot, know that. You cannot be consistent to your Atheistic worldview In fact, my final authority does know that there will be air for me to breathe tomorrow. What is not consistent, however, is the theistic worldview—especially Christianity. How many Christian sects are there in the world—30,000 and growing? What’s more consistent—the scientific process that has allowed us to reach incredible heights as human beings—or the convoluted Christian worldview wherein one believes God loves you and will protect you when the earth eventually reaches it’s demise sometime in the next billion years. Some creation right? Sufficient evidence for the Christian God is available for all. Romans 1:18-32. Quoting the Bible as evidence is not sufficient evidence for the existence of God. I thought we established this? I hope you can see the irony in the passage. Again, I cannot hate God for not existing. I can a show contempt for a character written in a book over thousands of years by unknown authors, who portray an image on an incredibly unlikable being. IF in fact the Bible is the word of God, and that the God portrayed in the Bible is the true God—then yes, I do in fact dislike him. What rational human being wouldn’t? If God is omniscient--he will understand why I do in fact refute the idea of the belief in him.