Belief in God is irrational

I will start my saying I'm rather disappointed in my opponent's renouncement of this debate. Although a self-proclaimed anti-theist, I still feel there is a strong case for the rationality of theism, regardless of the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. We can all agree that hypocrisy is an arduous undertaking, especially in debates of this domain. Nonetheless I will conclude with some further arguments, and close on a lighter note to allow for some much needed excogitation on these contentious grounds. Although this debate is on the rationality of belief, it has more or less moved towards the existence of God, which I feel is justifiable. Debating the rationality of spirituality would indeed be a futile pursuit. What the debate is grounded on is whether or not we should believe in a God, given our knowledge today. Whether or not a rational human being can look past the arguments set forth, or better yet, provides logical explanations for their beliefs whilst rebutting those set forth by atheists is the overarching question. That was the goal of the debate anyway, which has unfortunately proven inept thus far. Foundation of this debate: •For one to rationally believe in God, one must believe in His existence. •If we can argue that the Christian God does not exist, belief in something that doesn't exist would be deemed irrational. The majority of these last comments I'll make will ultimately allow for the theists reading to at least ponder the arguments set forth. For it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it (Aristotle), which I believe most theists fail to do by not questioning their beliefs, or by blindly appealing to the authority of their church. I'll start with the dysteleological argument. This modus tollens is fairly simple to grasp: an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator would not create organisms, the earth, and the universe in such a poor, unintelligent way. The contention is that either God does not exist, or that he does not possess these traits. Which begs the question: why would a perfect God, create such an imperfect world? Physical flaws of intelligently designed humans: •In females, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother. •Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death •The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking. •Humans are terribly inefficient at taking in and utilizing oxygen. The vast majority of O2 is expelled when we exhalate, except in those individuals of superior fitness. •Susceptible to so many diseases and illness •Warm bloodedness-> constantly eating •CO, CH4, CO2-> can't see, taste, or smell. If we breathe these in, we're dead. •Entertainment complex right in the middle of a sewage system, who would intelligently design this? Physical flaws of the intelligently designed Earth: •Most of its surface not fit for human life •Mostly covered by water which we cannot drink ~70% •High presence of natural disasters in the few areas that are habitable •Presence of thousands of diseases, parasites and bacteria which have led to the majority of all deaths in a painful, resentful manner •99% of all organisms are now extinct Physical flaws of the universe: •most planet orbits are unstable •most places kills life immediately (heat, radiation, cold) •one-way universe expanding at a rate that eventually it will turn into oblivion •essentially on a crash course for destruction Intelligently designed? I think not. Burden of Proof: This tends to be a debate in and of itself; who claims the burden of proof? I would argue to say we both do equally. However, as Bertrand Russell once stated: "the burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others." Atheist claims are backed by scientific evidence and by rationally opposing the philosophical arguments to the contrary. Whereas the argument for the existence of God is largely philosophical, or proved via conjecture by not what they do know, but by what we atheists have yet to explain/prove. We all have existential questions, to which we do not have all the answers to yet. I contend that it is prudent to say that the Christian God does not exist, as all the evidence so far points to this. The most rational time to believe in God would have been in a time when He was first proposed many centuries ago. At that time, the burden of proof was on the skeptic. And after much bloodshed, hangings, beheadings, and exiles for questioning the word and power of God throughout our history, we have finally come to a generation of enlightenment and exponential scientific and social progress. All to which could not have occurred under the iron fist of theism. Religion was our first attempt at philosophy, science, math…explaining how this seemingly incongruous world of ours works. It, at the time, was rational to believe in a higher power. But in 2012, there are fewer and fewer rational arguments for such a belief. The strongest now being, the ontology of humans, the earth and the universe. As the micro-gaps all close with our ability to know and prove all the things that were once attributes to God (rising sun, tides, planets, laws of physics, natural disasters, health, etc.), the macro-gap reaches it's highest yet (that God provided the grounds for all we know scientifically, and that it was he was the ultimate creator and catalyst to this world). Again I ask, which God is THE correct God, the true God if you will? Are the Zoroastrians right? Dravidiasm? Islam? Judaism/Christianity? Scientology? Wiccans? Jainists? Which religious group is right? This is why I contend that the belief in the CHRISTIAN God is irrational. There is no proof or reason to believe that this God is the one, other than bogus claims in a book written on multiple continents, in multiple languages, from multiple authors, all of whom (except John?) weren't alive during Jesus' time. I'll close with the Atheist Wager: You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him. (M.Aurelius) I was going to get into the depths of Occam's Razor and Russell's Teapot to further argue that the belief in the Christian God is irrational but let's leave it at this. I ask all theists: Why do believe in your God and why does it affect your life so much? And why is it of so much concern how others lead their live? By this I am referring the blatant theocratic encroachment on the non-Christian sect of our society that faces social and political discrimination on a daily basis. SO, until a time comes where one can rationally justify their belief in God (as my opponent unfortunately did not), and answer the many problems facing the belief I put forth here, I and many others will continue to argue that the belief in the Christian God is irrational. Hope you enjoyed the read, God Bless Thomas Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...