Comments for Head-to-Head:

[TXatheist]

If you are following the Head-to-Head: "Rational Thinking Leads to the Conclusion that Christianity is False", your comments are welcome here.

[McCulloch]

Nice start, but you are missing the question. The question is, Does rational thinking lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false? You have answered the related question about whether rational thinking would lead to the conclusion that Christianity is true, in the negative. It is a good starting point, but it is not quite up to the burden of proof you have set for yourself.

[Btv3PXkR]

Actually, in logic, when trying to prove if A, then B, it is just as valid to prove if NOT B, then NOT A. In this case, if you are trying to prove that rational thinking implies christianity is wrong, it is just as valid to prove "if chrisitanity is right, then the thinking is NOT rational", which is what religulous has done. He has stated the christian premises as if they were true, then showed how irrational the thinking is. There is nothing wrong, logically, with the argument.

[McCulloch]

I did say that it was a good start. However, Religulous has left open the logical hole of, "what if rational thinking can only lead as far as the truth of Christianity being undetermined?" If Goose can argue that rational thinking cannot determine whether Christianity is true, then Goose will have won the debate according to the way I read the OP.

[Btv3PXkR]

To begin with, Religulous needs only to prove the contrapositive, if chrisitanity is right, then the thinking is irrational. The problem here is that not everyone will accept what determines "irrational" thinking. For example, we accept that Noah took millions of animals on his arc, then we show the irrationality of building an arc which would house millions of animals, two by two, for 40 days. That's one that "most" rational thinking humans can accept as totally irrational. What did they eat? Where did they crap? No animal ate the other animals? None of the mates died? What about animals that weren't indigenous to that part of the world? Just taking pairs of each type of elephant would be an enormous task. However, since christian thinking is by nature, irrational, they will simply invoke the, "God can do anything" rule, and the only way to argue with that, is that such a statement, in itself, is irrational.

Religion is the only premise in the world that has to be accepted as true, unless proven not to be true. If I told you that ghosts really exist, would I have to prove their existence, or would you have to prove to me that they don't exist?

Besides, Goose cannot show that rational thinking leads to christianity being true, because christianity does not rely on "thinking" at all. It relies totally on blind faith, and, if you don't have blind faith, you are chastised by the christians.

[Goose]

To begin with, Religulous needs only to prove the contrapositive, if chrisitanity is right, then the thinking is irrational.

Ever heard of circular reasoning?

[Btv3PXkR]

This was merely a restating of the facts, since it didn't seem to soak in the first time. Call it what you want.

[Goose]

This was merely a restating of the facts, since it didn't seem to soak in the first time. Call it what you want.

I'm not calling your statement what I want to call it. I'm calling your statement what it is.

[McCulloch]

To begin with, Religulous needs only to prove the contrapositive, if chrisitanity is right, then the thinking is irrational.

Ever heard of circular reasoning?

Of course we've heard of circular reasoning. Were debating religion, aren't we?


Anyway, Religulous needs to prove that rational thinking leads to the conclusion that Christianity is false. If rational thinking does not lead to that conclusion, for example, if rational thinking cannot properly conclude whether Christianity is true or false, Goose has won.

[Btv3PXkR]

Testy aren't we? Christians tend to be that way...all pent-up. We'll call it whatever you want. I'm easy.