# Christianity is irrational, but is being a Christian? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628 "2013-01-18T17:04:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![April\_R](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@April\_R](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/April_R)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/141 "2013-01-20T05:02:39Z")
[http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20\_arguments-gods-existence.htm#9](http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#9) /end first 10 ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/142 "2013-01-20T05:24:45Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It makes it less likely that the bible is divinely inspired. > > Jefferson already thought that there was no immaterial world. Tell him where people could have come from, it might have pushed him farther from deism. > And I can’t prove God doesn’t exist. But I also can’t prove vampires don’t exist. Neither has real evidence to speak for them, so I assume both don’t exist. There are lots of questions about the details of Jefferson’s religious thinking, but no doubt at all that he believed in an afterlife, and expected to see people he loved after death. I’d say that is belief in an immaterial world. As to lack of proof, I suppose I do tend to accept Pascal’s wager, perhaps tempered a little with James’s “will to believe.” There are some things about which there will never be proof or disproof, and we can then choose (or maybe our genes choose for us) to believe or not, and live with the consequences. To me, the consequences of believing in God are mostly good–I know I’m a little better person for it, less likely to dismiss other people’s needs and more likely to try to improve my own behavior. It gives me hope for the future personally and for humankind. And if I’m wrong, what have I lost? But I do often think that this is a constitutional thing to some extent. I don’t mean that one is born to be a believer or a skeptic, but that different people have different tolerances for illogic, mystery and ambiguity. Sorry if I’m not debating strenuously enough. I think it’s more interesting to discuss than debate, but will withdraw if I’m breaking the rules here. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/143 "2013-01-20T05:31:20Z")
**Huck** For me - and it is sometimes very obvious in posts on this board - the more you believe in “GOD” or a particular religious interpretation - the worse of a person you tend to become - we have several posters on this board that exemplify that. This is also demonstrated quite often in the media. I know back when I was a ‘true believer’ - I was a nasty little snot pushing all my ‘knowledge’ and ’ you need saving!’ crap onto others - once the wool was pulled off my eyes - its much easier to be ‘good for goods sake’ then in the ‘good because GOD will punish me if I don’t sake’. Believing in a GOD is not required to do ‘good’ things - nor is being an ‘athiest’ required to do EVIL things. I’m willing to bet if you threw off the shackles of ‘GOD’ - you would still be a good person overall\*. \*I don’t know you - you could be a crazed serial killer for all I know - ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/144 "2013-01-20T05:43:09Z")
> [@huck](#): > > There are lots of questions about the details of Jefferson’s religious thinking, but no doubt at all that he believed in an afterlife, and expected to see people he loved after death. I’d say that is belief in an immaterial world. Well specifically he thought the soul and whatnot were forms of matter. > [@TJ](#): > > Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need. I can concieve thought to be an action of a particular organisation of matter, formed for that purpose by it’s creator, as well as that attraction in an action of matter, or magnetism of loadstone. When he who denies to the Creator the power of endowing matter with the mode of action called thinking shall shew how he could endow the Sun with the mode of action called attraction, which reins the planets in the tract of their orbits, or how an absence of matter can have a will, and, by that will, put matter into motion, then the materialist may be lawfully required to explain the process by which matter exercises the faculty of thinking. When once we quit the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. > > At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. He told us indeed that `God is a spirit,’ but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. I think that sort of materialist world view would be the sort of thing that latches well into evolution and cosmology. > [@](#): > > As to lack of proof, I suppose I do tend to accept Pascal’s wager, perhaps tempered a little with James’s “will to believe.” There are some things about which there will never be proof or disproof, and we can then choose (or maybe our genes choose for us) to believe or not, and live with the consequences. To me, the consequences of believing in God are mostly good–I know I’m a little better person for it, less likely to dismiss other people’s needs and more likely to try to improve my own behavior. It gives me hope for the future personally and for humankind. And if I’m wrong, what have I lost? It depends on what that belief makes you do. If you’re gay and deny it all your life you’ve lost quite a bit. I don’t doubt for an instant that belief is comforting. I wish I could see the dead that I’ve loved again. But wishes aren’t what make reality. I would say that the most common thing about Pascal’s wager that is missed, is the idea that it is just as likely that God wants you to be rational and not believe in him without evidence. > [@](#): > > But I do often think that this is a constitutional thing to some extent. I don’t mean that one is born to be a believer or a skeptic, but that different people have different tolerances for illogic, mystery and ambiguity. That is very true. > [@](#): > > Sorry if I’m not debating strenuously enough. I think it’s more interesting to discuss than debate, but will withdraw if I’m breaking the rules here. If anyone is breaking the rules, it’s April R copying that entire website. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/145 "2013-01-20T05:49:44Z")
> [@April\_R](#): > > ok, because Lobohan admitted he is to lazy to look this up himself and refuses to read the one page I cited because it is too hard for him to do so: Please don’t inaccurately describe my actions. What happened is I asked for rational arguments for God’s existence. You then posted something you hadn’t bothered to read. One of 20 arguments. The argument was nonsense. And I told you as much. Then you said, I should read the rest of the list, because that might contain a rational argument for God’s existence. So you literally picked a list at random, didn’t bother to read it, and are demanding that I read it and prove to you that it doesn’t contain a rational argument for God’s existence. That isn’t what reasonable persons do. Read your list and tell me what you want refuted. I’m not going to spend hours refuting something you’re not engaged enough to read for yourself. Especially when the sample you initially provided was stupid. ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/146 "2013-01-20T05:50:07Z")
> [@simster](#): > > **Huck** > For me - and it is sometimes very obvious in posts on this board - the more you believe in “GOD” or a particular religious interpretation - the worse of a person you tend to become - we have several posters on this board that exemplify that. This is also demonstrated quite often in the media. > > I know back when I was a ‘true believer’ - I was a nasty little snot pushing all my ‘knowledge’ and ’ you need saving!’ crap onto others - once the wool was pulled off my eyes - its much easier to be ‘good for goods sake’ then in the ‘good because GOD will punish me if I don’t sake’. > > Believing in a GOD is not required to do ‘good’ things - nor is being an ‘athiest’ required to do EVIL things. > > I’m willing to bet if you threw off the shackles of ‘GOD’ - you would still be a good person overall\*. > > \*I don’t know you - you could be a crazed serial killer for all I know - I certainly don’t think that believers are good and atheists are evil. And I know I wouldn’t be a crazed serial killer if I didn’t believe. But while I’ve known lots of folks who say they believe in Christ, yet not only fail to follow His teachings but actually use them to justify evil, I’ve known more who really do try to do everything charitably. Obviously we don’t always or even usually succeed, but striving to think and behave generously is not a shackle, it’s a way to become a better person and maybe even improve things a little for a few others. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/147 "2013-01-20T05:58:02Z")
> [@huck](#): > > I certainly don’t think that believers are good and atheists are evil. And I know I wouldn’t be a crazed serial killer if I didn’t believe. > > But while I’ve known lots of folks who say they believe in Christ, yet not only fail to follow His teachings but actually use them to justify evil, I’ve known more who really do try to do everything charitably. Obviously we don’t always or even usually succeed, **but striving to think and behave generously is not a shackle** , it’s a way to become a better person and maybe even improve things a little for a few others. \ - No - that’s not the shackle - thinking/believing you \*\*need \*\* religion to achieve that is. When Christ was on the earth - was he creating ‘Christianity’ or freeing the locals from the ‘religious oppression’\* of the pharisees? Was his parables about needing to go to ‘church’ or simply doing the ‘right thing’'? It was after Christ ‘left’ that all the rules and requirements for being a ‘Christian’ started to creep back in. Where does ‘Jesus’ say that going to ‘church’ is required ? If it helps you - thats great - been there, done that, know lots of people still doing that - It isn’t for me. \*probably not the right term for it - more so that they had become so invested in proving that they were ‘rightous’ before god to other men - that they had forgotten basic principles, and treated everyone accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/148 "2013-01-20T06:07:32Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > As time progresses our understanding of our world increases, and as our objective knowledge increases, that bridge is shorter. I have no doubt that the average atheist is sure that one day—even if it’s 500 years from now—science will reveal the delusion of religion. (in the meantime they’ll witness to us through books) Theists, I’m sure, are convinced that God—in whatever form—will show up and reveal the presumptuousness of atheism. (and in the meantime will preach to us) I suspect you’d be wrong, since atheists are well aware that religion is happy to change many of its supposedly divinely inspired beliefs when they run into reality. Some do, some don’t but I’m sure that whatever we find the Catholic Church (and others) will be claiming that this supports their religion all along. > [@](#): > > Christianity------and all religion-----is an attempt to answer the most fundamental of questions: How did we get here? The debate of Evolution is not germane to finding that answer apparently, because evolution only discusses the _method_ as to how we got here. > > I think “it’s well established” that many (most?) Christians accept that evolution and Christianity are compatible; and that [their] God likely used evolution to get us here. So evolution is _downstream_ of that question; so _abiogenesis_ and other theories seeks to answer it. However _that_ bridge-----the bridge of subjectivity between what we know, and what we would like to know about how we got here------is very long indeed. I suspect not - that is before science demonstrated the evolution happened, of course. Do you think that if they found Christ’s bones Christianity would vanish? I don’t. They’d say it was spiritual. Hell, they found the hieroglyphics that Joseph Smith supposedly translated it, translated them, found that it was nothing like what he said, and it didn’t even slow the Mormons down. He was clever enough to say the silver plates vanished, so no chance of finding that they were an ancient grocery list. > [@](#): > > Now since there is so very little objective scientific \*\*proof \*\* as how we got here (like, _ **none** _) is it reasonable that a person could infer that an intelligent being _ **could** _ have been the source of the events that culminated with human life? Could an intelligent person use _ **reason** _ to conclude that there is a God? In other words, must it be the case that a belief in God be without reason as it’s foundation? Could have happened does not equal rationally believe it did happen - unless you believe your kids when they say a strange man snuck in and broke the lamp. That intelligence can direct evolution is not at issue - Darwin used animal husbandry as an example in the Origin. That intelligence did is another matter entirely, given the lack of evidence for it. > [@](#): > > They too conflate “evidence” and “proof”, and cannot see how a person could use **reason** to come to atheism; reason being the _foundation_ of rationality. Actually theists tend to prattle on about proving this and proving that. Very few atheists, around here at least, make that mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/149 "2013-01-20T06:33:41Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I made an error in my post above - Jefferson did not write ‘common sense’, that was Thomas Paine - we’ll call it a senior moment - the rest of my post stands as does the request for a cite for Jefferson calling Jesus the ‘redeemer’. And you actually probably meant “The Age of Reason,”, Paine’s attack on Christianity. In that book Paine says that he is not an atheist (but rather a deist) because he does not see how the order of the Solar System could happen without a designer. We now know exactly how this happens. I suspect he’d be an atheist today, but there is no way of knowing for sure, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/150 "2013-01-20T06:45:26Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > No matter how severe the contrasts between two opposing beliefs it will always get back to the quality of the evidence. > > And making that contrast as severe as possible in an effort to undermine one through apparent absurdity, doesn’t invalidate the legitimacy of the one you seek to belittle. It’s the only apparent debating tactic **Czarcasm** knows. > > The existence-----or non existence------ of God will stand, or fall on it’s merits, and comparing that argument to the Loch Ness Monster or a Pink Unicorn is either a juvenile debating tactic or ignorance. You have at various times talked about atheists claiming to prove there is no god. I’d like to see an example. I’ve been discussing this online for almost 40 years, and I’ve seen exactly one atheist make this claim - and he was an idiot. Given the diversity of possible gods, I’d love to see someone prove none exist. Of course it is possible to prove certain varieties of gods don’t exist, but that is a different matter. Second, I was posting in alt.atheism when the IPU was introduced. It was invented for one reason - to show the absurdity of special pleading when defending the existence of God. I wouldn’t include Nessie in this - there is a picture of it. (Maybe faked, but still evidence, right?) Third, it is rather snotty and arrogant to say that a bunch of intelligent atheists don’t know what atheism means because you, who aren’t one, disagrees on the concept. Agnosticism is about knowledge, atheism is about belief. And finally, Aristotle and many early Greeks and Romans logically “proved” all sorts of stuff. At the time it was rational. Today, would you consider someone accepting Aristotle’s conclusions in the face of contradictory evidence rational? Belief in the Prime Mover might have been rational - up to Heisenberg, that is. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/151 "2013-01-20T12:29:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The Council of Nicea? That time – after sun-worshiper Constantine’s false conversion – was when the **real** Christians went underground! They did not re-emerge until the time of Martin Luther! Haven’t you ever read Jack Chick?! See [Baptist Successionism.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_successionism) Poor Jack Chick, His Idea of Christianity seems to be, is not love your Neighbor( as the Bible quotes Jesus as saying, but he seem to translate it as hate anyone who doesn’t believe as he does! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/152 "2013-01-20T12:39:00Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I’m pretty sure Luther didn’t use the word “Reason” but rather a German word. I’d be interested in an authoritative explanation of the precise meaning and connotation of the word Luther actually used, but without such an explanation, I’m not going to assume I know exactly what old Marty was talking about. > > Luther has also been quoted as saying “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures **or by clear reason** (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything,” which doesn’t sound like the words of someone who has no use for reason. Yet one has to realize that Scripture was decided by other humans several centuries before him, and his beliefs were based on humans not any God, and that is a proven fact, so Luther’s faith was not based on the word of a God but humans! He apparently didn’t think of that (as many people do today). ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/153 "2013-01-20T12:49:29Z")
> [@April\_R](#): > > I am admittedly not a very rational person, so any argument for the rational existence of God just goes over my head, I don’t really care. > > But if any of you are interested and have the time and inclination to read these, this guy claims to have devised several rational arguments for the existence of (a) God. > > [Twenty Arguments God's Existence by Peter Kreeft (& Ronald K. Tacelli)](http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#1) > Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God > > Rationality is confusing, LOL If God is a being, there would first have to be a place for God (or anything) to exist. Any thing not in existence doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/154 "2013-01-20T15:24:29Z")
> [@April\_R](#): > > I just picked an example at random, I didn’t read it either, like I said I don’t care to debate this or anything else based on rationality, it’s boring and dull. Then your participation in this thread appears to be inappropriate. > [@April\_R](#): > > ok, because Lobohan admitted he is **to lazy to look this up himself** and refuses to read the one page I cited **because it is too hard for him to do so** : > [@April\_R](#): > > You either really don’t want to hear what others have to say, or you are scared it might make sense and upend all you stand for. **You really are kinda dense aren’t you** , when you don’t see how pigheaded your stance is, making you just like those you criticize?:dubious: Personal insults are not permitted in Great Debates and this text, particularly the bolded portions, violates that rule. If you do not care for the discussion, stay out of it, but if you are going to participate, then follow the rules of the forum. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/155 "2013-01-20T15:43:53Z")
April R, your copy-and-paste of lengthy sections of another person’s work is inappropriate on two counts: [ul] [li]First, you are relying on the words of another person to substitute for your own ideas and logic, so you really have no business tossing it into this thread[/li][li]Second, you have “borrowed” a very lengthy section of copyrighted material, which is not permitted under the SDMB guidelines for Fair Use.[/li][/ul] Do not do this again. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/156 "2013-01-20T20:45:03Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Ok, so you tell me, how can the question be resolved? You say it will be resovled on it’s merits, but what are those merits? What sort of logic or evidence would convince you of God’s non-existence? What would you offer me to convince me of God’s existence? I’m sorry I missed this post! For most people the question _has_ been resolved. It’s been resolved because most people have examined the evidence and the world around us and laid down their 2 bucks; they’ve made their wager. They’re living their life in accordance with what they believe. For most, the question _is_ resolved. And because I cannot offer you proof of God’s existence, or non-existence, _ **anything** _ I offer you would be \*subjective. \* Either I can prove either position, or I can’t. And if I can’t, I can only witness to you for my _beliefs._ And that’s simply my point. Either I can prove it or I can’t. If I can’t, it’s subjective. I am not taking any position either way, and have _zero_ interest in witnessing. > [@](#): > > I really sincerely was not trying to belittle anyone with the Nessie analogy. It’s just that the arguments for God–a vast being of infinite power who is deeply intertwined with our world and yet leaves no objective trace of its existence–don’t seem any more complelling than arguments for Nessie. See now, I can see your point, and appreciate this comment. I can see how someone could come to a reasoned, rational conclusion that the evidence for God is no more compelling than Nessie. I don’t have to agree (and I don’t) to see that you _may_ have a reasoned argument. (which would only become evident to me by examining the “merits” together; essentially witnessing to each other.) In any event, it’s perfectly reasonable to say Christianity is much less then compelling, or even silly. When a persons says, however, that someone can’t come to Christianity using reason (rationally), they’re being ignorant or displaying the greatest of _subjective certainty._ > [@](#): > > You accuse me of being insulting, but it is you who have insulted me. To claim that I only believe what I do on this issue because of some sort of faith like moral certainty is deeply insulting and wrong. I believe that God doesn’t exist because there is no compelling reason to believe that he she or it does. But if you present some I will consider it. The duck billed platypus is an absurd creature, but I am fairly certain it exists. First, I wasn’t offended, and didn’t perceive you were trying to offend me. And, I apologize if I offended you. And, I’m sensitive that using “faith” is occasionally infuriating. (which hasn’t been compelling enough to stop me from using it…;)) My use of it, however, is a response to the _constant_ misuse of science, and what atheism really means, by directly, or indirectly stating that there is an objective, proven component to the question (actually, answer) of God’s non-existence. Maybe one day science will objectively answer the question, but in the meantime we’re all essentially witnessing to each other; we’re making a case _for what we believe._ So when you say—and I quote—_“I believe that God doesn’t exist because there is no compelling reason to believe that he she or it does.”_, I not only find that an infinitely reasonable statement, I’m aware that you _might_ be able to make a powerful argument for the merits of atheism, and the lunacy of Christianity. But if you make one of the many, many downright silly statements that seem to roll of the keyboards of the more radical parts of this board, or we get into the circular silly Abbott & Costello routine that is so popular, I gotta tell you, it looks really ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/157 "2013-01-20T20:53:15Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > For most people the question _has_ been resolved. It’s been resolved because most people have examined the evidence and the world around us and laid down their 2 bucks; they’ve made their wager. They’re living their life in accordance with what they believe. For most, the question _is_ resolved. > > And because I cannot offer you proof of God’s existence, or non-existence, _ **anything** _ I offer you would be \*subjective. \* Either I can prove either position, or I can’t. And if I can’t, I can only witness to you for my _beliefs._ What _evidence_ can you provide? NOT PROOF-EVIDENCE. _One again, for clarity: what evidence do you have? It need not be enough to prove it, it must simply be evidence._ **Show Us The _Evidence_**. Clear enough? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/158 "2013-01-20T21:39:29Z")
**Czarcasm** Why in the world did you quote one part of my post and omit the last sentence? I mean, I usually put in _“…snip…”_ But here is the sentence you omitted: > [@](#): > > And that’s simply my point. Either I can prove it or I can’t. If I can’t, it’s subjective. I am not taking any position either way, and have _zero_ interest in witnessing. _Sheeeeshhhhh dude!_ You have an extraordinary focus on giving your one answer to everything at all religious. This one trick, rabid, “Let me witness to you about my atheism” is tiring, man. The question was, “Is there rationality in a subjective belief in God.” For the purpose of this conversation of this thread, I would gladly post as an atheist. For the exact reasons Pascal could see how _reason_ could produce an atheistic _belief_, I can see how reason can produce a theist _belief._ (and can you see how Pascal could see how a person could use _reason_ in their atheism and how Pascal could still find it less than _compelling?_ Do you see that _rational_ and _compelling_ are not synonyms?) If you’ve lived this long, and find the arguments for God to be so much less than compelling that they’re _irrational_, then either you spend too much time on internet MBs or you have the greatest of faiths. But I have _zero_ interest in you attacking _my_ faith with _your_ faith. Now, is \*that \*clear enough? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/159 "2013-01-20T21:43:30Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > **Czarcasm** > Why in the world did you quote one part of my post and omit the last sentence? I mean, I usually put in _“…snip…”_ > > But here is the sentence you omitted: > > _Sheeeeshhhhh dude!_ You have an extraordinary focus on giving your one answer to everything at all religious. This one trick, rabid, “Let me witness to you about my atheism” is tiring, man. > > The question was, “Is there rationality in a subjective belief in God.” For the purpose of this conversation of this thread, I would gladly post as an atheist. For the exact reasons Pascal could see how _reason_ could produce an atheistic _belief_, I can see how reason can produce a theist _belief._ > > (and can you see how Pascal could see how a person could use _reason_ in their atheism and how Pascal could still find it less than _compelling?_ Do you see that _rational_ and _compelling_ are not synonyms?) > > If you’ve lived this long, and find the arguments for God to be so much less than compelling that they’re _irrational_, then either you spend too much time on internet MBs or you have the greatest of faiths. > > But I have _zero_ interest in you attacking _my_ faith with _your_ faith. > > Now, is \*that \*clear enough? You don’t understand what faith is. And your mistake is driving you to post nonsense like that. Again, there is no evidence of any substance for the existence of God, and no rational arguments for believing in Him. You may pretend there are, but your complete inability to present some suggests that you have none. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/160 "2013-01-20T21:43:41Z")
**Raindog** , It is clear you have absolutely nothing but bluster and diversionary tactics that Joe McCarthy would be proud of. Your response is such a non-sequitur that it looks like it belongs in another entirely unrelated thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628.md?page=9)