One can be divorced from rational thought on certain issues, and be the most rational person on others. All it takes is a little flawed foundational logic, and you've got some potential "iffy" spots. That is only because they are more mainstream, so you seem that as perhaps more acceptable. All religions requiring faith commit the same intellectual sin. It doesn't matter if it's the most ridiculous cult in the world, or if it's Christianity. Once you chuck your intelligence at the door and embrace faith, it doesn't really matter what the religion is saying (since you don't need it to make any sense anymore). Yes (just like I can call a famous and smart scientist an idiot if he/she says the sky is always pink). All of them (by definition of faith). Atheists (which includes agnostics) are the least trusted persons in the United States. An atheist won't have a shot at the white house for many decades... Slight. You believe that not adopting the mainstream opinion on how to save your eternal soul, regardless of your own personal discoveries, is to be condemned and not elected. Mind elaborating on how this makes sense? I disagree. Do something not intelligent: That's just the realization of the faith through action. Before this action, the person would still have the irrational belief that led to all this. The action itself is actually logical, given that their faith is correct. The crux of the problem lies with the actual foundation: their faith. Believe something not intelligent: Again, this is the realization of the faith. If I believe mathematical addition is what I want a random number to be: 2+2=5, 5+7=10, 3+4=7, I would still be grossly wrong despite the fact that I got 3+4=7 correct randomly. Agreed. I can't blame the Christian for finding it unthinkable to elect a non-Christian that doesn't serve the will of his god. I can blame the Christian for being a Christian. Unfortunately, for any person to have even a remote chance at the white house, they need to claim and preach Christianity. This belief can definitely challenge their grasp on reality: if you believe there's an invisible person in the sky that's affecting things on Earth, I shudder to think about the decisions you'd make with America. Maybe you'll send soldiers to death missions, because you have faith that this invisible friend of yours will actually miraculously save them, to give a simple example. It is illogical to assert one's beliefs with the lack of evidence against these beliefs. Suppose I say that the universe came to be by a unicorn stabbing itself in the eye. There isn't any evidence against this, since none of us were there at that time (and other reasons). Now we have two perfectly reasonable (in your opinion) conclusions: your god and my unicorn. Yet, by your method of belief (evidence against is required), they are equally plausible. Soon, we can add to those 2 conclusions an infinite number of equally plausible conclusions. The logical result is that when dealing with an unknown subject (such as creation), anyone can believe whatever the hell they want (regardless of existent theories and evidence leading to these theories), and it is equally valid. If that makes sense to you, then there's not much more I can discuss with you. How do we know that Jesus was the Son of God? The Bible says so, showing us all the miracles and giving us all the evidence we need. But the Bible is directly tied in with Jesus. If one is correct, the other is correct, and vice-versa. So the question remains: How do we know that the Bible is correct? These eyewitness accounts are directly from a book that asserts his being the Son of God! A book's claim "Jesus is the Son of God" cannot be backed up by the same book's content. Then I could create a book that says that I am the son of God, and back it up with the book's content in a similar way. So the question remains: How do we know that the Bible is correct? You are committing the logical fallacy before your own eyes! You demand anti-evidence for Christ, but evidence for the other poster. Logically, using the scientific method, you make no assumptions. In this case, the two subject are on equal footing, and Christ only seems a more reasonable conclusion because you had already assumed it. In fact, we can even do the opposite: Assume the poster is correct. Do we have any evidence against the poster being the son of God? No (since it's usually impossible to prove a negative). Do we have evidence for Christ? Yes, but is it enough (evidence exists of everything everywhere, and it's up to us to evaluate it)? Probably not. With the same kind of data, we can obtain contradicting conclusions. That must mean that the method is incorrect. I believe that the best method (as an alternative method for you) that we have right now is the Scientific Method.