Atheism is more rational than Christianity

The correct definition of atheism (according to the dictionary cited below) is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." If you do not affirm this belief, it seems to me you are not an atheist at all, but rather an agnostic. In that case, it appears we can both agree that atheism is not more rational than Christianity. If this is agreed, we can then turn to agnosticism, which is what you have defined.I'll try to answer your arguments piece by piece before moving on to my own arguments."In short, God in general is an unfalsifiable entity. We've no means of measuring or testing for god. We dont even know where to begin with going about testing the question of a gods existence. And this goes for all religions really. Based on this how can anyone claim to know that a god exists? or even simply believe one exists?"You are correct in saying that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. However, we are able to give evidence either in favor or against the existence of God. In a civil court trial, we cannot prove to an absolute certainty that either side is right, but we can listen to the evidence and follow it where it leads. In the same way, I expect that though the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven to an absolute certainty, we can both follow the evidence where it leads and come to a conclusion on which side is more probable in being right (or, in the case of this debate, whether Christianity is even rational at all.)Faith by definition is unreasonable. It is unreasonable to claim knowledge about the unknowable.I am interested in hearing your justification for believing that the past is real, the external world exists, etc. I think you will find that there are several things we believe on the basis of faith that we would not consider unreasonable. There are a number of things unaccounted for by the scientific method that each of us, theist and atheist alike, believe without controversy. It seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God exists.Extending this farther god is claimed to be beyond space and time by many. In reality we dont even know if having something beyond space and time is even possible or coherent. God is also attributed with the quality of omnipotence which is in itself paradoxical as illustrated through the question "can god create a rock so heavy even he cant lift it?".I think the incoherence would lie in a belief that God is within space and time, rather than outside of space and time. I see nothing incoherent about the idea of a God that transcends both space and time. What is incoherent, however, is the question you pose: Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? I think the answer to this question is a fairly obvious one. A "rock so heavy that even God cannot lift it" is an incoherence in itself. It is similar to asking if God can create a square triangle. No, God cannot create a square triangle and God cannot create a rock so heavy that even he cannot life it. Does this pose a problem to his omnipotence? I think not. Square triangles, or rocks that God cannot lift, are not "things" at all. They are merely words of a language placed next to each other that are individually coherent, but together incoherent. When you ask the question, "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? It is as if asking "Can God create nothing?" Hopefully the incoherence is clear. If not, I can delve deeper into this issue in the next round.It is for these reasons that on the very fundamental level all gods, including the christian god of course, are illogical and why the default stance should be that such things are not real until proven real.I do not think we have been provided any good reason to think that the Christian God is illogical. The suggested incoherence of a transcendent God has not been supplemented with any sort of argument, and the question of God creating a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it is has been addressed as an incoherent question of itself. I think it is fair to say that we have been given no good reason to think Christianity is less rational than atheism or agnosticism, as Pro affirms. Let us turn then to arguments in favor of the rationality of belief in God.I. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.i. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.ii. The universe began to exist.iii. Therefore, the universe has a cause.II. God is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of our universe for intelligent life.i. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design. ii. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.iii. Therefore, it is due to design.III. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.i. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.ii. Objective moral values and duties do exist.iii. Therefore, God exists.Due to space constraints, I'm going to wait to see if Pro has any objections to these arguments before delving further into them. If Pro wants to deny the conclusion of the arguments, Pro must pick out a premise to take issue with in each argument and knock it down. If Pro fails to do so, then the conclusion holds sound. If additional arguments are needed, I will be happy to provide them.I invite you to keep in mind that I am not arguing that Christian belief is more rational than atheism or agnosticism. I am merely objecting to the assertion made by Pro that atheism or agnosticism is more rational than Christian belief. I think that we have not been given any good reason thus far to think that this assertion is true.Sources:http://dictionary.reference.com...