Atheists should not respect religious beliefs

Christology This is essentially a rationalization for an irrational argument. We see this frequently in pseudoscience. For example, ufology is the study of ufo reports, and it is synonymous with alien visitation. In order to secure credibility, these individuals attach their work with scientific nomenclatures. Christology strives to do the same with Christ; it is a pseudoscience. My opponents attack is inaccurate for a number of reasons, firstly in an scientific or philosophical premise one has to make some sort of assumption to begin. In pure logical terms everything should be doubted, which would ultimately make any experiment or concept in invalid. In Christology it may be that the assumption is made that Jesus is divine, however as I have explored the fact that this is not in of itself an irrational premise, it is not an invalid assumption upon which to base a discipline. The charge of pseudo-science is also false, Christology does not proclaim itself as a science, so is therefore immune from the charge of pseudo-science. Christology is theology, theology is in essence philosophy. Philosophy is not psuedo-science but a separate area of study. In reference to Pat Robertson my opponent states, "My opponent is appealing to authority to prove his argument." My opponent has incorrectly identified the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. This fallacy is explained here. http://en.wikipedia.org... If I said, Pat Roberton argues that Christianity is rational, and he is clever, therefore Christianity is rational, that would be an appeal to authority. However, what I have shown is that Pat Roberston holds to his theism due to rational reasons, of logic, science and personal experience. Not that he is an authority, not that he is clever, not that his conclusions are correct. Merely that he is a example of rational faith. " Demonstrating one case of rational, logical, and critical belief in Christianity is not enough because there are still far more Christians who have never critically examined Christianity." I predicted, pre-emptied and refuted this counterargument in my reply in round 1. My opponents position is that Atheists should not respect Christian beliefs, all Christian beliefs, because all Christian beliefs are irrational. He has defined the debate, and he is arguing for a carpet judgement against all Christianity. If the resolution was, "Atheism generally deserves more respect than Religion because religion tends to be irrational". My citation of Pat Robertson would be invalid. However as my opponent is arguing for all encompassing absolute, one exception to the rule is sufficient to negate his resolution. With regards the historical record I can not argue this point any further, the historical record is incomplete. There is no true historical proof of the resurrection. My only counter-response can be that rational Christian faith (as I have demonstrated) is based on a number of sources, some historical, some logical, some from personal experience. If the only basis for Christian belief were the historical record my opponent would have a point here. I will also accept that the survival of Christianity does not in of itself prove providence, or singularly provide a rational basis for Christian belief. However it is not irrational to pursue the idea that the unlikely survival of such an unfortunate little sect was anomalous and extraordinary in some way. Just in the same way that unexpected test result in the laboratory may cause a scientist to consider and pursue a bizarre line of thought. "the accounts of the Resurrection varies in who was present and how it occurred. This should cause readers to question the validity of the story. " In actual fact I believe the opposite is true, if the story was fabricated we would expect all versions of the Resurrection to tie closely into each other. As if all accounts were written by the same person, or the writers were akin to a group of criminals attempting to get their stories straight. Realistically human perceptions and memories are flawed, and eyewitness accounts from any 'exciting' event are more than likely to differ. As proof of this, http://www.rense.com... With regards my counter-arguments on the value of belief my opponent cuts right to the chase where he says, "Many irrational beliefs give people comfort, but this does not warrant our respect." Why not? An old woman may believe that her cat loves her, a normal person would respect that, understanding that the belief is dearly held and is of much value. No one will normally care that cats are very selfish creatures, or that love is merely a chemical reaction without any deep meaning. The simple act of respecting something that is held in high esteem, because of the fact it is held in high esteem is valid in order to preserve individual happiness and the quality of social interaction. Christian belief therefore warrants respect due to its the tremedous body of academic inquiry within it, the value and esteem it is held in, and the societal benefits (which my opponent has not really challenged) it brings.