That makes no difference to your post. They believe primordial goo evolved into us. Your post suggested that is not a part of Christianity when it is. Regardless if God has a hand. Some even believe in full blown evolution anyway. So its a part too.

You also did your normal straw manning of atheists since none of that is required affirmative belief in atheism. At least you straw man Christians too i guess.

If Christianity were the rational conclusion from evidence, faith wouldn't be so important.

Can you translate this babble into English? It's pretty clear you don't
even know what a straw-man is, the way you misuse the term.

Never mind, don' even reply, as I know I'm just going to get more
inane babble.

Tell me more about what i and others believe as atheists and Christians that caused you logical choice. Your insights are not drooling babble.

I dont think you know what "rational" or "conclusion" means.

So you reject that the universe was created from nothing( which is misleading anyway, "created" and "nothing" can mean different things, and I would guess that most atheists answer would be "I dont know how the universe came to be"), throw in a few more "somehows" to make your strawman even more strawy.

But you accept ( with no evidence) that there is an ever existing god, who created the universe from nothing( how did god make the universe? Where did the stuff come from?)

Even if we do accept that god made the universe, that still doesnt get you to the christian god, or any more information about god.

But go on spewing your strawman on every thread that brings up evolution.

I'm quite confident you are lying.

I think you dont know what they mean, because you talk about theism being a rational conclusion.
In order for it to be a rational conclusion you would need to have a number of premises, all which were valid
from wiki

Lay out your premises, and your conclusion, and we can see whether they are rational or not.

good job dodging the rest of his post

also good job dodging my question earlier wrt being born in a majority muslim/hindu country

He gave deists a shot though and really its a thin line form that to an i dont know atheist.

I didn't dodge anything. Your question about me being born in Yemen
is nonsensical. Since I wasn't born there, I can't answer your question.
How about you ask a question that actually makes sense?

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-n...uments-for-god

That's yet another dishonest post by you.

I said, given the hypothetical situation given that someone was able
to prove that Jesus was a fraud (which isn't going to happen), would I
look into another religion? And I replied that I would consider Deism
or Judaism (given a hypothetical that would never occur).

Stop the dishonesty, and twisting my words, it's a really bad look for you.

Right thats what i meant by gave deists a shot. Did not mean to say your ever were one or giving it a shot.

Ye, theres various problems with all of WLCs arguments. But i wasnt asking about him, I was asking about you.

You said "theism is the rational conclusion given the evidence at hand." so lay out your premises and a conclusion, please

Isn't it troubling that the arguments from apologists are commonly not the reasons they came to their own personal beliefs? WLC has spent a great deal of time on the Kalam, but it isn't how he came to Christianity (I don't even think it's possible to get to Christianity through any of the arguments in that link).

Assuming you've noticed it, what do you think about this discrepancy, honestly?

Here's an even better place to continue

How about this: How do you go from "I don't know the origin of the universe" to "The universe was created by the god of the bible" without making a leap of faith and without recourse to circular reasoning?

Notice how we stopped talking about God's morality wrt incest a long time ago. This happens ALL THE TIME with religion. It doesn't take long for theists to start redefining well-known words and throwing everything we know out the window.

Oh come on you know what he meant. The argument is that because people usually follow the religion they happened to be born into, their faith is based on upbringing, not rational choice or personal revelation. You knew to dodge the question because when you admit that if born in Yemen you'd be Muslim, you admit that Christianity is parochial, not universal.

You claim your Christianity is rational, rather than taking the sensible position that it is based on non-verifiable faith. But this undermines the basic argument you made. Maybe it is rational to conclude something could not be created from nothing. But there is no reason to believe that the divine-like force behind creation has any resemblance to an anthropomorphic God, much less the God of Abraham.

Rational proof of a religion is a fool's errand. That's why it's called "faith," not "proof."

OP, I thought from thread title this was going to be about naturalistic sources of morality as opposed to received, which is a more interesting question, and yes, incest is a moral value that can easily be connected to biological evolution.

Maybe nobody is talking about it because it's a rather dull topic.

Oh come on Bill, His question was worded stupidly.

"On a similar note, if you were born in Yemen or India would you be a Muslim/Hindu? "

I can't answer this nonsensical question, because it makes no sense to me.
If he said, "In general are people born in India Hindu?" Well then, we
both know the answer.

My contention is that there is a rational aspect to the Christian faith, it is
not a blind faith.

It's called a hypothetical question which you dodged for the 4th time.
I have a feeling you have answered hypothetical questions earlier in your life. Your continued unwillingness to answer this one is sufficient though.

You may also feel free to reply to my question in response for your request for another question. You strawmanned atheist views and jumped right to Christianity. I'm interested in how you manage to do this in a rational manner as you claim to do. Please don't namedrop WLC in the process of doing so.

And I rephrased it and you still dodged it. It's a very common challenge to theists, you have sufficient clarity to engage.

Once more: the fact that Christianity arises among certain people, places, and times suggests that it derives from the contingencies of history, not divinity. Right?

You've now narrowed your claim to there being an undescribed "rational aspect" to Christianity. Is there any body of thought that does not have at least some rational component?

Kindly describe the "rational aspect" of Christianity sufficiently for people to respond to.

My next sentence properly addressed this point. It's ALL topics on God's morality, not only incest. Some conversations just take longer to regress than others.

Be honest and tell us why you just happened to chop off my quote at precisely the part that diminished your next statement. (We'll accept "deception" as a legitimate answer if you want.)

What? You mean like this:

Does that make you happy? Because *obviously* the unreferenced "this" in that sentence refers to "ALL topics on God's morality."

Here's how I read it: "Notice that nobody wants to talk about my boring OP. This happens ALL THE TIME with religion." Maybe you just suck at making meaningful posts about religion.

Besides, I already gave two separate answers to your inquiry. It's not that complicated.