Which is most reasonable....belief or doubt?

[Flail]

The question for debate is :

Of the polar extremes of Atheism vs Theism, which is most reasonable and rational?

For purpose of this debate we define Atheism as: "Having no evidence of God, I do not believe in any God"....and we define Theism as: "I believe in a particular God based upon an existing faith or belief system which I have accepted to be absolutely and infallibly true."

Atheists as well as agnostics typically leave the 'door open' to a greater or lesser extent,by accepting the possibility,however remote,of a Supreme Creative force or God....but they await proofs...evidence...some rational or logical verification beyond simply adopting the dogma or belief system of their particular tribe......

Theists,on the other hand, permit no other possibility but the one they have chosen to adopt....if they are Christian,then the God and dogma of Christianity is the only possible truth....it they are Muslim,then the God and dogma of Islam is the only possible truth....Theists offer no option for human error in making a 'God choice.'...whereas Atheists and Agnostics are open to all possibilities as they reason,debate,doubt and await evidence.

IMO, the atheistic or agnostic positon is more reasonable,honest and rational....and if there is a 'God of reason'....would be most pleasing to Him....if there is a 'God of Dogma'...many are doomed by the mere happenstance of birth and a bad guess...to some eternal damnation....

[JoeyKnothead]

Where one's personal experience leads them to a god belief, I would contend it is perfectly reasonable for them to hold such belief. (Even while I argue to death that their belief is incorrect)

I would contend, generally, that one's beliefs are reasonable, if they believe these to be true, and not whether they actually are or not.

I would contend, near universally, that one who holds beliefs they know to be untrue, well that's just about as unreasonable a thing as I can imagine.

[Vanguard]

Of the polar extremes of Atheism vs Theism, which is most reasonable and rational?

I agree with j-knuc on this one. A theistic belief based on personal experience is reasonable. I would add that a theistic belief based on no personal experience would be considered quite unreasonable.

Which is more reasonable? Apples and oranges...

Theists,on the other hand, permit no other possibility but the one they have chosen to adopt....if they are Christian,then the God and dogma of Christianity is the only possible truth....it they are Muslim,then the God and dogma of Islam is the only possible truth....Theists offer no option for human error in making a 'God choice.'...whereas Atheists and Agnostics are open to all possibilities as they reason,debate,doubt and await evidence.

You use too broad a brush. For starters, the question is whether it be reasonable to hold a belief in a god. The folly that virtually all religions enter into involves the claim that their god is the right one and that worship of any other is to be considered heretical.

[Nilloc James]

I can't disprove the flying pasta monster but that does notjustify worshipping it. So it seems some skeptism is rational.

[Flail]

The mentally ill...alzheimers patients...schizophrenics....paranoids...delusionals...all have visions of what is real ...what is true....for them....God bless them.

[Nilloc James]

The mentally ill...alzheimers patients...schizophrenics....paranoids...delusionals...all have visions of what is real ...what is true....for them....God bless them.

one person seeing an invisible man is a lunatic, a thousand seeing an invisible man are a church.

[blipverts45]

The question for debate is :

Of the polar extremes of Atheism vs Theism, which is most reasonable and rational?

For purpose of this debate we define Atheism as: "Having no evidence of God, I do not believe in any God"....and we define Theism as: "I believe in a particular God based upon an existing faith or belief system which I have accepted to be absolutely and infallibly true."

Atheists as well as agnostics typically leave the 'door open' to a greater or lesser extent,by accepting the possibility,however remote,of a Supreme Creative force or God....but they await proofs...evidence...some rational or logical verification beyond simply adopting the dogma or belief system of their particular tribe......

Theists,on the other hand, permit no other possibility but the one they have chosen to adopt....if they are Christian,then the God and dogma of Christianity is the only possible truth....it they are Muslim,then the God and dogma of Islam is the only possible truth....Theists offer no option for human error in making a 'God choice.'...whereas Atheists and Agnostics are open to all possibilities as they reason,debate,doubt and await evidence.

IMO, the atheistic or agnostic positon is more reasonable,honest and rational....and if there is a 'God of reason'....would be most pleasing to Him....if there is a 'God of Dogma'...many are doomed by the mere happenstance of birth and a bad guess...to some eternal damnation....

Since you answered your own question there isn't much to debate.

[FinalEnigma]

The question for debate is :

Of the polar extremes of Atheism vs Theism, which is most reasonable and rational?

For purpose of this debate we define Atheism as: "Having no evidence of God, I do not believe in any God"....and we define Theism as: "I believe in a particular God based upon an existing faith or belief system which I have accepted to be absolutely and infallibly true."

Atheists as well as agnostics typically leave the 'door open' to a greater or lesser extent,by accepting the possibility,however remote,of a Supreme Creative force or God....but they await proofs...evidence...some rational or logical verification beyond simply adopting the dogma or belief system of their particular tribe......

Theists,on the other hand, permit no other possibility but the one they have chosen to adopt....if they are Christian,then the God and dogma of Christianity is the only possible truth....it they are Muslim,then the God and dogma of Islam is the only possible truth....Theists offer no option for human error in making a 'God choice.'...whereas Atheists and Agnostics are open to all possibilities as they reason,debate,doubt and await evidence.

IMO, the atheistic or agnostic positon is more reasonable,honest and rational....and if there is a 'God of reason'....would be most pleasing to Him....if there is a 'God of Dogma'...many are doomed by the mere happenstance of birth and a bad guess...to some eternal damnation....

Since you answered your own question there isn't much to debate.

Not unless you disagree with him, no.

[Cephus]

I don't agree that people's personal beliefs are necessarily reasonable, the resonableness or non-reasonableness of a belief is based purely on following rational, reasonable procedures to determine how likely a belief might actually be. Otherwise, the crazy guy who holds a personal belief that he's Napoleon should be considered entirely as reasonable as someone who believes in a god, neither of them have any support for it, neither of them can support any objective evidence to support it, and both of them are internally convinced that the proposition is true.

But are we going to argue that its reasonable to think you're Napoleon?

[Vanguard]

I don't agree that people's personal beliefs are necessarily reasonable, the resonableness or non-reasonableness of a belief is based purely on following rational, reasonable procedures to determine how likely a belief might actually be. Otherwise, the crazy guy who holds a personal belief that he's Napoleon should be considered entirely as reasonable as someone who believes in a god, neither of them have any support for it, neither of them can support any objective evidence to support it, and both of them are internally convinced that the proposition is true.

But are we going to argue that its reasonable to think you're Napoleon?

But that's just it, the gentleman who believes he is Napoleon is not an otherwise rational individual. A believer in a god most of the time is. It is a comparison of apples to oranges. Please show me an entriely functional individual who considers himself Napoleon?