Believing in a religion is illogical

I'd like to note that it'd be entirely fair to knock me down in the conduct section. (Check comments for Pro's statement)>>> Doubt and agonisticismI'd like to note that Pro still believes that doubt AFTER acceptance of a religion is still agonsticism. So my original point still stands. Also, he changed his definition! He went from a credible dictionary to wikipedia. You can't flip flop in definitions. Either way however, the definition does not support Pro. You are not an agonstic if you doubt a religion 1%, you are an agonstic if overall you don't believe in a religion and think the question is unknown and impossible to know. The point is, you don't need to completely 100% accept a religion in order to believe in it. >>> People have a logical reason to choose a religion. Pro seems to want something more than the apologetic argument I provided. But I have repeated many many times that the point of the debate isn't to prove that a certain religion is true, but rather to show people can logically choose to believe a religion. For example, the roman historican Tacitus made mention of Christ in his writings. (. http://www.probe.org...)The question is not whether this evidence is TRUE or not, but rather whether people could believe in a religion as a result of this evidence, and the answer is yes. So they are behaving logically. >>> Brushing aside evidenceThis is not the same type of brushing aside. Pro is directly contradicting my evidence, I'm simply sidestepping his. His evidence held that his position is true for faith. But he has not proved that belief = faith, and I've proved the contrary with my definition of belief. We also see that the resolution is not about faith, but rather belief. So let's not argue about irrelevant words. I didn't "just throw away" the agonstic argument, I argued that Pro's definition did not support what he stated. Once again, I am not brushing aside Pro's evidence, I am merely turning it against him. Meanwhile I've provided more credible sources, more sources in total, and sources that actually agree with what I'm saying. Pro has mostly brought up definitions only. >>> "Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. "Belief that ISN'T based on evidence. This implies there is a type of belief that does involve evidence and is not the same as faith. Since the resolution contains the word Belief, and Pro has not proven Faith = Belief, I win this point. In fact, this quote only serves to strengthen my argument. >>> Probability and contradictionsOnce again Pro seems to be saying that the only way to be fully logical is to do math to reach your conclusion. He has provided no evidence that supports this, and I've provided two quotes from credible people that logic can be incorrect and still be logical. Math is not the only logic that exists, and it certainly can not solve the problem of origin of life. Don't take this as a jab at Pro, but I feel like he is a math major who wants to apply math to everything in life. >>> Mathematical inductionPro said I don't know what induction is and provided a link to wikipedia explaining mathematical induction. Unfortunately for him, this article explicitly rules out his argument. In the FIRST THREE paragraphs it says:"Mathematical induction should not be misconstrued as a form of inductive reasoning, which is considered non-rigorous in mathematics (see Problem of induction for more information). In fact, mathematical induction is a form of rigorous deductive reasoning. " (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)So my argument still stands: If Pro believes inductive reasoning is logical, then he believes in reasoning that can be incorrect and improbable, but still logical. >>> Infinite number of casesPro basically conceded to my point. My point was that his idea of logic is completely unreasonable because no decision can be logical unless it involves math, under his viewpoint. As for an infinite amount of religions, Pro has ignored my argument from the second and third rounds: There is evidence to support certain religions over others. Thus that narrows the field down, and there aren't infinite plausible religions. Refer back to the historical evidence I provided earlier in this post. Do you want to agree with Pro when he says that as you vote, you're being illogical? That every decision you make is illogical? That if you believe in anything, you're acting illogically? That's what Pro conceded to under this argument. >>> 99.9% standardI was referring back to my earlier argument that because Pro believes inductive reasoning can be logical (even though he's tried to wiggle out of it conveniently), that disproves the idea that something has to be 99.9% probable to be logical. Thus Christians are not being illogical by choosing a religion that is less than 99.9% probable. As a side note, Pro seems to believe in a form of logic called "Probabolistic logic". Basically logic that takes into account as many things as possible. However, if you look at the wikipedia article on the subject, it lists several applications for this logic. None of them include religion or anything of the sort. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) (I am using wikipedia because Pro has used them numerous times now. ) This form of logic is neither the only kind that exists, nor is it appropriate for this topic. >>> If you use logic correctly with the facts you know to create ideas, you're behaving logically. Pro said my belief is irrelevant then went back to his math calculations which he so loves. Once again, I've refuted this point so many times. Not only with evolution, but more importantly by showing some religions are more likely than others because of historical evidence for them. "Evolution is likely because it happened". I simply respond: "Christianity is likely because it's true". >>> Example of incorrect premises but good logicMath is not the same as other forms of logic. Math has to be correct, other types of logic don't. "No PHD philosopher would agree that it is logical to say that bears can fly. "Well, apparently this one did. Go read my last post. I quoted a portion of the article, and it said it's logical because it follows the process of logic. Important: I don't argue you can change premises and be logical. If you know better, changing premises is "cheating on" logic. But for a religious person who has seen certain evidence, this logical form works just fine. Changing premises purposefully is not logical, but if that is all you know you are still behaving logically, just incorrectly. Once again, trust the word of Pro, or a Ph. D in philosophy and another credible website who both support me? >>> It's impossible to be illogical with what con is saying. If you purposefully change premises that you know about, or you defy the rules of logic, then you're illogical. It's quite possible to be illogical under my standard, and impossible to be logical under Pro's. >>> Evidence and apologeticsI already provided an apologetic argument and historical evidence. >>> Inductive reasoningOnce again being correct or incorrect does not matter, as I have PROVEN. SummaryI'd ask that voters remove personal bias when voting, as I know religion can be a heated topic. I thank my opponent for letting me post round 4 in this round, but a conduct point loss from me would only be fair. Vote Pro if you think that:1. It's impossible to be logical unless you use math2. You're agonstic if you at that moment doubt, even slightly, your religion. 3. Something must be 99.9% probable to be logical.