Theism is more rational than Atheism.

I find it interesting that you would specifically state something about the christian god when the debate is on the topic of is THEISM more rational than atheism. (Just something I would like to point out) I do admit, I was getting tired having to rebut the same point over and over again. (Persistent, aren't you?) Firstly, I would like comment on: "Why would anyone make such a gigantic document and be so oddly specific and so descriptive about.. Well, nothing?" I will admit that the Bible is a gigantic document, however it is vague and can be interpreted in different ways. Another point to make is that the Bible was not created by one person, but a bunch of people. The stories in the Bible, may have started as stories or based on events which people at the time couldn't understand, but through mistranslation and orally passing it down, it was interpreted as reality and distorted. Or maybe the original creator wished to deceive others, but it ended up being something big. No one can say for sure. You also seemed to miss: "Same goes to any other holy book or even articles labeled as 'pseudoscience'. Due to the burden of proof, we cannot 'prove' certain things exist (I would name one, but no FSM, right) and therefore, if it was written and we don't know the truth of the mindset of the author/writer, it would be 50% possibility of truth." Pseudoscience is labeled as such because it lacks evidence. Because we don't know the mindset of the writer and the reason (Why would anyone write a whole document on a fake science?) does NOT mean that is 50% possibility of truth. This is mainly because of burden of proof. The Bible does not actually provide evidence, it is just stories (true or not). Just saying that it is illogical to write something that is not true is flawed logic, and instead you should base it on the facts. Secondly, it appears you don't understand the Infinite Possibility Argument (Again). It doesn't matter if it is a 9*10^27/W34; or just 1/W34;, it all equals to the same thing. As I said: "This may seem illogical at first, but this is one of the consequences of infinite possibilities (Which you agreed on in your rebuttal)" And if a historical, nonscientific book can be used to raise the possibility of theism; scientific, historical (In a way) evidence and proven fact can definitely be used to prove the lack of god. I would have brought this up before, but as you stated so clearly: " I'm not claiming what God is based on, I'm claiming the BELIEF in God is more logical than not believing in God" And I'm pretty sure that God is based on the Bible... The final point is also rebutted by my first point as well. Additionally I would like to state that Atheism is not the laughing off of, but the lack of belief. You also seem to forget that although you are a theist of Christianity, you are sort of an Atheist of all other religions, or as you put it: " the laughing off and disbelief of any kind of Deity". I still firmly believe that theism is not more rational (In the BELIEF in God manner) atheism. With that out of the way, people can now debate the other question: The basis of theism (Based on ancient books) and atheism (Based on scientific fact). Nonetheless, I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate and await more to come at DDO.