Belief in God is irrational

Unfortunately the theist vs atheist debate is a futile endeavor--but we both knew coming into the debate that neither one of us was going to change our views on the topic. I hope we can both take each other's justifications and arguments in stride and be able to express a greater sense of understanding between the two schools of thought in future debates. I still contend that belief in the Christian God is an irrational thought. As Rbaker had failed to provide any justifications or proofs outside of the Bible in addition to an inability to rebut my previous comments. Rightful so though--there really isn't a rational answer one can give to my questions other than a reliance on faith and arguments from ignorance as expressed via multiple false dichotomies. Without sufficient proof for the existence of God and the lack of validity of the Bible, I find it difficult to envision RBaker or any theist to rationally justify a belief in the Christian God. I would. however, like to express my overall indifference towards a belief in a God--I would not consider myself to be an antitheist as my opponent was alluding to. The vast majority of Christians I know are stand-up, wonderful people that I have the out most respect for. This argument is by no means an attack on the intelligence, or character of theists as a predicate of their beliefs in a supernatural being. RBaker's other justifications also rely heavily on "if" statements ("The irony must not be missed: one can logically argue against God only if God exists"). Yes, a belief in God would be rational IF we knew the ontology of all metaphysical questions. Taking claim to an answer that is unknown to us is what this argument is largely dependent on. The atheists makes no unfalsifiable claims. Atheists don't rely on leaps of faith to justify their beliefs. Atheists do not claim to have answers that do not exist or answers that are not known yet. There is no cognitive dissonance with atheism. The burden of proof, like I emphasized earlier, is on the theist in these debates. And up to this point, not a single polemic or apologetic has yet been able to rationally justify their beliefs without taking claim as arbitrarily "knowing" the truth without any authority. To paraphrase Omar Khayyam (1048-1131):Look not above, there is no answer there;Pray not, for no one listens to your prayer;Near is as near to God as any Far,And Here is just the same deceit as There. And do you think that unto such as you;A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:God gave the secret, and denied it me? --Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too. "Did God set grapes a-growing, do you think,And at the same time make it sin to drink? Give thanks to Him who foreordained it thus--Surely He loves to hear the glasses clink! "Atheism only pressuposes theism IF God in fact exists and is the ultimate creator of the universe and its workings. Until one can prove the existence of God, this argument is rendered moot. No rational human lives a life of 'what ifs' and bases their decisions on "just in case God exists. .. .I'll act and think [this] way". This is one of many reasons why Pascal's Wager is so faulty. "There is abundant evidence in the created order, in the historical record, in the image of God in man. The evidence for God, and therefore the resultant belief in Him, may not seem reasonable (rational) to you to persuade you to believe in God but what I have attempted to show in this limited space is that it is reasonable proof nonetheless for you to believe. "Other than the Bible and faulty pseudological conjecture, RBaker did not provide any evidence for the existence of God. Let all theists/atheists alike consider this: You may live a good life and believe in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite. You may live a good life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite. You may live a good life and believe in a god, but no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a positive legacy to the world; your gain is finite. You may live a good life without believing in a god, and no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a positive legacy to the world; your gain is finite. You may live an evil life and believe in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to hell: your loss is infinite. You may live an evil life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to hell: your loss is infinite. You may live an evil life and believe in a god, but no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a negative legacy to the world; your loss is finite. You may live an evil life without believing in a god, and no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a negative legacy to the world; your loss is finite. Or as Marcus Aurelius wrote: "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. "Belief or non-belief, rational or irrational--God's existence shouldn't have any bearing on how we live our lives. As RBaker has shown throughout the debate:RBaker states that the Christian world-view holds that God exists. RBaker states that this is so because of the Bible. I showed that the Bible's validity is based upon circular reasoningTherefore, God's existence is based upon circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not logically sound. Concluson: God's existence, as RBaker has shown this debate, is not logically sound.