Examples?
Supposedly they have different ‘evidence’. This, combined with the belief that one set of evidence is more rational, is what could turn an unbiased viewer into a believer.
/logic failure
Proof that humans are irrational: …(proof’s everywhere)
No.
Suppose
Unbiased, logical view: NONE
were true.
Based on this premise
All you’ve shown here is that people who choose one over the other aren’t unbiased. Well, no kidding- that’s what ‘unbiased’ means. Unless you’ve got some argument for
biased = irrational,
you haven’t demonstrated that religion is irrational, you’ve demonstrated that choosing one religion over another isn’t unbiased Re: religion. Not exactly earth-shattering.
EDIT: The only way you could salvage this (I’m anticipating) would be for you to define ‘bias’ in some way that necessitates irrationality. If you do that, your argument will be circular, since you’d be taking belief in any one religion being irrational as one of your premises, specifically in how you define what the unbiased person would see. In other words, you’d be saying “Since belief in any one religion is irrational, religious belief is irrational”. Obviously the first clause of that statement is utterly useless - no religious person will give that too you as a premise.
Alright, I’ll be less of a smartalick and give a real answer.
You can’t have an unbiased and logical view.
Unbiased means you have no opinion or inclination to believe one thing or the other.
Unbiased view: I don’t know anything about either religion and therefore am not qualified to make any decision.
Once you have enough information to start using logic, you become biased. Logic itself is a form of bias…just a form that is generally accepted as rational.
You also pose a false dilemma.
Logical view: One, none, or some.
As religions present themselves, one must either take all of the doctrine or none of it, this is true. However, certain aspects of one religion or multiple religions may be correct.
PROOF that religion is irrational…
Well you can no doubt prove that the written script is irrational…but then is that really the word of god or the word of men trying to tell others ABOUT God?
Does the artist reveal himself through his work or is he revealed in someone’s critique column in the local paper.
Now if you can say that the artist reveals the depth of himself through his work…then to study the creation in which we live would be the best way to understand the creator…no?
This creator we love to argue about is so real and so near and so simple we fail to see him… like Sir Launsal in his search for the holy grail we fail to see the holy grail was actually in the beggar by the roadside all along…
Forget the text and learn the mystery of an acorn.
It cannot be a question of something being irrational, but if the definition of “rationality” includes correspondence with the world and a method which can be used universally to acquire the truth. If it does, science then determines what is or is not rational. Religion is not something that can be rational if whatever makes sense must correspond with results gathered after using such a method. Since, if any of it did correspond with such a method, it wouldn’t be religious.
This circularity is permissible.
Tortoise
If you draw a hard line between biases and rationally justified beliefs, then your argument is completely circular- you’re taking it as a premise that having any religious belief is irrational when you assert what the unbiased position is, then trying to use that premise to argue to the same! There’s no argument here at all, in that case.
Dan~ has actually covered this, but I am not sure exactly what the objection to irrationality is here, or even if there is one.
Reason is employed (best) to formulate and prove true (or valid, at minimum) an argument.
No argument, no need for reason.
We live our lives through induction - that is, survival depends upon reliable induction, not upon “reason”.
The apotheosis of reason is a relic of the past. We were once in love with science - we have learned to hate it as well, at this point. Or we should have.
We rely upon prediction. Reason gives us a method for prediction. But prediction remains guesswork. Better guesswork is just better guesswork.
I think if you probed, you’d find that ‘reason’ is being used here in a much broader way than that, faust. I’m assuming it’s a catch-all for ‘every acceptable way a person could come to believe something’, where ‘acceptable’ is whatever the claimant’s ‘epistemology’ will permit.
Hmmm. Could be, Ucci.
Could be.
Literacy precedes philosophy.
While we have no idea what God said because we have no idea whether God exists, it’s pretty clear that the Koran and the Bible contradict each other on some fundamental points. For example:
Sura 5:75 – “The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him.”
Sura 18:3,4 – “And that it [the Book] may warn those who say, ‘God hath begotten a Son.’ No knowledge of this have either they or their fathers! A grievous saying to come out of their mouths! They speak no other than a lie!”
Thus, the Koran teaches that Jesus is not either God or God’s son. The Christian Bible teaches, somewhat confusedly, that Jesus is both God and his son.
What is taught in the Koran and in the Bible about this crucial point cannot both be true – except in Kriswest’s world.
[Sorry, Kris, but I couldn’t resist. 
]
Hinduism says that all religions have a part of the picture, but none have the whole, a good safeguard against any mistakes that may be made, it also provides a safeguard against your argument. Not all religions propose to hold a monopoly on the truth
Werd.
Who asserted that reason is necessary, integral, or even relevant to (well-placed) faith in the first place?
Haha! Well, there, that’s your argument!
If you have reason, you can’t have faith, religious people claim to have faith, therefore they are unreasonable!
Who could dispute it?
It’s at least as unassailable as the argument you started the thread with.
I thought I assailed it pretty well 
No one who understands the terms of the proposition and their relationship to each other.
If one has a reason to believe that a proposition is true then for one to have faith that the same proposition is true becomes absolutely superfluous.
For example, you don’t say that you believe that the resurrection is true because you have faith that it is true. You say that you believe that it is true because you believe that it is a rational belief. What is believed rationally cannot be believed simultaneously as an article of faith.
deleted