Christianity is Dumb

Well, I am delighted to say that Pro and I agree on a number of things right out of the gate. Namely that saying "you can't prove X doesn't exist" is not a justifiable reason to believe that it does, as per Russell's Teapot, and that "feels" are not admissible as evidence.However, I see a number of problems with Pro's arguments, so I will first submit my rebuttals:1. Gods Are Pre-Scientific Explanations of Natural PhenomenaWhile I have no doubt that this applies to many gods, it does not apply very well to Yahweh/Elohim/Jesus whatever term you'd like to use for the God of Christianity. The God of Christianity is used as a source for specific, isolated, miraculous events, but not everyday ones. God may have caused the flood in Genesis 6, but God does not cause floods in general. God may have caused the drought in 1 Kings, but he does not cause droughts in general, etc. The Hebrews seemed to accept weather as a natural phenomenon just fine.2. Faith Is Required Because Logic and Reason FailCorrection: Faith is required when logic and reason can go no further. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who immediately jumps to faith as their first line of defense is not a rational person. "Unicorns exist, you just gotta have faith." I don't think so. However, "we're not sure if King Arthur was real, but we have faith that he was because these sources suggest so"? That's much better. Ultimately, to continue with the example, unless we received further evidence that King Arthur was real/not real, we could not go further with logic or reason to determine the truth. Faith bridges that gap. We do not know, but we have reason to believe, and thus we do. I argue that this is the basis of the Christian faith (although, sadly, I cannot deny the existence of Christians who believe blindly).3. You Cannot Compare Natural Things To Manmade ThingsI agree that one does not have to appeal to a creator to explain waves and mountains. I don't believe I've ever met a Christian or theist who would argue with you on that one. The issue is not that mountains are GOD instead of plate tectonics or that plate tectonics are GOD rather than thermal convection. The issue is that there is a certain point where we can no longer rationally appeal to nature to explain nature. If we have never seen an example in nature of something appearing spontaneously out of nothing, it is irrational to assume that that's what happened for the universe. "Oh well the Big Bang singularity..." came from where? Nature does not allow for something to be its own creator, therefore there must be a creator who is outside of nature. Whether or not that assumption is true, it is most certainly reasonable.----------------------------------------------------------------------------Now, to clarify once more, I am not arguing for the existence of the divine, as that is an entirely different debate. I am arguing only that Christianity is a reasonable belief. Therefore, I am operating under the assumption that my opponent is open to at least the possibility of a god's existence, whether or not they actually believe one to exist.I have already touched on a few reasons why I believe Christianity to be reasonable in my rebuttals, but here are a couple I haven't yet:1. The BiblePro claims that theistic religion (and therefore Christianity) is a collection of fairy tales. This is an interesting claim, as practically no historian I am aware of, atheistic or otherwise, would dismiss the bible as such. The bible has significant value as a historical document, and has been used not only to help construct a chronology of the Ancient Near East, but also to discover places and peoples that would otherwise have been left to history (for instance, we have the bible to thank for our discovery of the Hittites, as no other document mentioned their existence. Nonetheless, there they were). Where the bible's reliability wavers in the eyes of skeptics is in the miraculous. And understandably so. After all, isn't it ridiculous to think that some guy's donkey talked? Isn't it insane to believe that people can come back from the dead? Well... only if you're an atheist. Let me elaborate: we all know that it is unreasonable for me to say "God exists because the bible says so, and the bible's true because God says so." This is a textbook example of begging the question. However, saying "the bible describes miracles, and miracles are impossible, therefore the bible isn't true, God isn't real, and that's why miracles are impossible" is also begging the question, albeit in a slightly more complex fashion. If God exists, I cannot think of a single reason why he would be unable to make a donkey talk or raise the dead or perform any other biblical miracle if that's what he willed. Therefore, dismissing the truth of the bible solely on the basis of the miraculous is unreasonable.2. The Endurance of ChristianityRight off the bat, I want to make it clear that I fully understand that the truth of a belief is not dependent on how many people believe it. But if billions of people believe the same thing, I would certainly argue that it is a reasonable thing to believe in.Christianity has existed (and persisted) for over two thousand years. It has endured persecution from day one, and continues to suffer it to this day. Science has flourished and become cosmopolitan, and yet there are still Christians. In fact, there are scientists who are Christians. There are philosophers who are Christians. There are historians who are Christians. According to the 2010 Pew Research study, Christians make up nearly a third of earth's total population. Now, I suppose one could conclude that 2.18 billion people are just stupid or brainwashed or incapable of thinking logically. And some of them would have to be. But all? Tremendously unlikely. If Christianity has the gaping, fatal flaws that atheists claim it does, it raises the question of why it continues to endure so strongly, even among reasonable people.I think that's enough to be getting on with.