Believing in a religion is illogical

One more time! "He thinks that in order to be a religious person, you must believe 100%, and never doubt." No, this analysis is entirely faulty, I never said "and never doubt." The moment you 100% accept a religion with faith, you believe in a religion, but if you doubted before it doesn't mean you can't be religious now. According to my definition of agnostic and definition of religion, if you doubt the existence of the supernatural to some level, then you are agnostic at that time. It doesn't say how much you need to doubt in order to be agnostic, only that you need to doubt, which con rambled pointlessly about and missed my point. Ill will quote the definition exactly this time: "More specifically, agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims"especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims"are unknown" http://en.wikipedia.org... In other words, if you give a percent chance to believing your religion, then you are essentially saying that the existence or non-existence of a deity is uncertain, which means that it's unknown for sure whether or not the religion is actually correct. That makes you an agnostic by definition, and thus you haven't specifically chosen a religion. "This debate isn't about bringing up that evidence, but people do have reason to pick a certain religion logically and evidentially. " No, people don't have a logical reason to pick a certain religion. Evidence is relevant to many of the points we discuss. Con doesn't say how people pick a certain religion logically, and so I can just deny it until he provides some evidence or logic I haven't refuted. That's what this debate is about; whether it's logical or not . "He brushed aside my evidence as if he is somehow smarter." Con has a history of brushing aside my evidence and definitions, which makes this claim highly hypocritical. For example: "The resolution is whether belief in a religion is illogical, not whether faith in a religion is illogical. My opponent is arguing against faith, not belief. " Con just throws away my argument that if you do not believe in religion, which is the same as not having faith, then you're an agnostic. Con thinks you don't need faith to believe in a religion. Faith and belief are in the same domain, and con just disregards that. According to the best seller Richard Dawkins, "Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. " www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.htmlR06; Would you agree with a best seller and definitions, or con? "My opponent, by answering this way, is contradicting himself. On one hand he's saying that something has to be 99.9% probable to be logical, and yet he believes Sherlock Holmes is sometimes logical." This does not prove I made a contradiction. Sherlock Holmes used correct math at some point in the novels, and so he was being 100% logical sometimes. If he assumed something with absolute certainty based on a probable guess, then he was being illogical. "This doesn't make sense. Inductive reasoning provides no way to be certain you are correct" This is a horrible mis characterization of mathematical induction, which is the same thing as conversational induction, but more formalized; correct mathematical induction from discrete math proves absolutely, through laws of logic, that a case will inductively follow from a base case and a logical connection. Let me provide you a definition since you don't know what induction is: "Mathematical induction is a method of mathematical proof typically used to establish that a given statement is true" https://en.wikipedia.org... "This is literally impossible. There could be infinite cases in your choice. " Some things do have infinite cases, such as the amount of numbers on the number line, or the length of irrational numbers. The number PI, for example, goes on forever and has infinite cases. The irrational number PI, for your reference, is the ratio of the circumference of the circle to it's diameter. But yes, exactly, this is what makes religion so illogical. You realize you could potentially choose an infinite number of religions. Religious faith, and hence belief, needs the same rigorous logic, which is also impossible as con points out. Therefore, believing in a religion is illogical "And Christians assume logically that there probably is a God. Once again my opponent is contradicting his 99% standard." Con doesn't say how this is contradicting. Christians cannot prove through scientific evidence that Christianity in fact meets the 99.9% standard. The 99.9% standard is the reason why evolution is not a fact, but is a theory and always will be. Con is saying that the entire scientific community is wrong. Again there is an equal chance that the true deity could be Thor, or Zeus, or Mars, so it is impossible for Christians to meet the 99.9% Standard, or even say that the Christian God probably exists. "I believe if you are using logic correctly with the facts you know to create ideas, you are behaving logically. " Your belief is irrelevant, but everyone has access to basic axioms of math, such as series calculations, which show that the limit of 1/(the number of religions), is a 0% chance. This means that mathematically, the chance of picking the correct is religion is 0%. It is not logical to believe something with a 0% chance of being correct. My opponent refuses to respond to my point, except to vaguely complain about ignoring his point about evolution, which I will now address, but is also largely irrelevant. I will argue that evolution is likely because it happened. Only likely things occur OVER THE COURSE OF TIME. Even if something has a low percent chance in one second, it might have a high chance in the 13.7 billion year history of our universe. Con makes a claim that evolution is unlikely without providing any evidence for how it is unlikely. There might be billions of other planets with life and evolution to make it very likely. "I'm glad he likes math, but that's not the only type of logic that exists. " This is absurb. All logical laws are the same, whether it be from math, or from conversation. Mathematics is one way of expressing the same logic formally and with variables. That's the entire point of math. 1. Bears can fly 2. Lassie is a bear 3. Lassie can fly Well, bears can't fly, but this is still logical: Just incorrect. Con's example really highlights the flaw in his argument: he claims it would be logical to argue that bears can fly. By similar reasoning he claims it is logical to believe in religion. No PHD philosopher would agree that it is logical to say that bears can fly. It is not logical or reasonable to ignore valid premises, such as the fact that bears can't fly. Again, con can simply make any statement logical by changing the premise to whatever he desires. It's impossible to be illogical with what con is saying. He is saying that it doesn't matter that the premises make no sense, and are illogical, his claim is that it only matters whether your logic with those faulty premises is good. That is not logical or reasonable, and the audience should note that he is simply arguing from a semantics viewpoint, and not a reasonable one. "my opponent is ignoring that there is evidence and apologetics to support certain religions" There is no evidence or valid apologetics to support religions until con provides such a case. "Pro never directly responded to this argument in his last speech." I did respond. I said that correct inductive reasoning is valid, but incorrect inductive reasoning is not. I was not arguing this fact, and you missed my point. "I believe if you are using logic correctly with the facts you know to create ideas, you are behaving logically. " Con ignores that people know multiple religions exist, and everyone has access to series math