Firstly, I would like to further clarify this debate. If you are arguing that Christianity is not irrational, by corollary you are arguing that it is rational. If the entire basis of your argument is that no one can disprove you, then you haven't really come for a debate. Furthermore, you wish to make claims of rationality (or "non-irrationality" if you like) without any real evidence which is basis for them to be rejected outright. Trying to prove a negative is silly.
We can argue on and on about historical/biblical accuracy but it really has little to do with the whole thing. Mistakes and contradictions in the bible and other historical documents don't inherently mean the entire thing is wrong, but it certainly doesn't help the overall credibility and integrity of the thing (at least not to the discerning and skeptical eye.)
It is certainly rational to doubt claims of the divine by default. Critical evaluation of claims is a rational practice. If I have not experienced the divine, and those who claim they have cannot produce any evidence in favor of that claim, it is rational to disbelieve the claim. As Christopher Hitchens once said, "that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
I believe you've misunderstood my final argument. I'm not making any statement about afterlives or the like. I am simply comparing the size of this god's following to the size of the historical populace. It speaks only to the the number of adherents this god has had in proportion to all those other people who did not believe likewise, take from it what you will. I see postulating the methods of how God "revealed himself" differently to various peoples and generations as nothing more than apologetics.
Feel free to limit your responses. I will respond as I see necessary.
We can argue on and on about historical/biblical accuracy but it really has little to do with the whole thing. Mistakes and contradictions in the bible and other historical documents don't inherently mean the entire thing is wrong, but it certainly doesn't help the overall credibility and integrity of the thing (at least not to the discerning and skeptical eye.)
It is certainly rational to doubt claims of the divine by default. Critical evaluation of claims is a rational practice. If I have not experienced the divine, and those who claim they have cannot produce any evidence in favor of that claim, it is rational to disbelieve the claim. As Christopher Hitchens once said, "that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
I believe you've misunderstood my final argument. I'm not making any statement about afterlives or the like. I am simply comparing the size of this god's following to the size of the historical populace. It speaks only to the the number of adherents this god has had in proportion to all those other people who did not believe likewise, take from it what you will. I see postulating the methods of how God "revealed himself" differently to various peoples and generations as nothing more than apologetics.
Feel free to limit your responses. I will respond as I see necessary.
You really believe in a man who has helped to save the world twice, with the power to change his physical appearance? An alien who travels though time and space--in a police box?!? ![[Image: TARDIS.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.smileyvault.com%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F11195%2FTARDIS.gif)
