[Orgazmo]

I'll let it explain its stupidity itself...

You've just bitten a bullet!

You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?

This assumes that whenever we seek answers, we will definitely find answers...which simply isn't the case. I haven't bitten the bullet, my dear quiz, you have bitten the bullet.

You've just bitten a bullet!

You are consistent in applying the principle that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that terrible things are right. You have agreed that the rapist is justified in believing that he carries out the will of God, and in an earlier answer you indicated that you think that God defines what is good and what is evil. Therefore, to be consistent, you must think the rapist is justified in believing that he acts morally when he acts on his inner conviction. Hence, you bite the bullet and justify the rapist.

Again, Mr. Quiz, you're a dumbass. You assume that, because I think it's plausible that a man can justify rape to himself via religion, I too justify the action. Simply because I can understand that a man would act in such a manner does not mean that I see the action fit.

You've just bitten a bullet!

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

This is wrong on two separate levels. Firstly, the question's first words were If God exists. The answer goes on to explain the circumstances assuming that I believe that God exists, whereas the question took into account either situation. A bifold question can't be addressed with a singular answer. Going further, it doesn't disprove the target which it attempts. To say that, simply because God isn't constrained in our logic, we can't discuss God in any form is ludicrous. I don't understand all of calculus...but if you want to talk about derivitives, I'm your Huckleberry. Simply because something isn't wholly understood doesn't mean that it's completely bogus...

In the end, my views were entirely consistent...but the computer thought they were unpalatable at times...