Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Irrational: not logical or reasonable.

The most important book ever written is "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin.

The 2nd most important book ever written is "Faith Versus Fact, Why Science and Religion are Incompatible" by Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago biologist.

This is a very long quote from Jerry Coyne's book (I wrote some comments at the end of it):

---------------------------------------------

Take the Resurrection of Jesus, for which the only supporting evidence is the contradictory accounts of the Gospels. But suppose we could get evidence against it---say, the discovery of ancient texts that tell of a Jesus who didn't revive? It wouldn't matter. Several prominent believers have proclaimed with finality that nothing---nothing---could shake their belief in this and other fundamental claims of Christianity. Here's the prominent theologian William Lane Craig:

"And therefore, if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I should pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover in fact that the evidence---if I could get the correct picture---would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me."

Justin Thacker, a theologian at Cliff College, agrees:

"Let's take the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. If science somehow, and I can't even imagine how, but if it told me that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was just categorically impossible, could not happen, I would disbelieve that and continue to believe what the Bible teaches about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, because if you take away the resurrection there is no Christian faith, it just doesn't exist."

These statements are, to speak plainly, irrational. Thacker, for instance, deems the Resurrection immune to disproof not because it's supported by strong evidence, but because its absence would undermine his religion. Craig is convinced that with sufficient mental contortions, he'd manage to save his beliefs despite their refutation.

---------------------------------------------

"But suppose we could get evidence against it" I already have that evidence. I stepped on a cockroach and left it there on the floor. Three days later I checked to see if it rose from the dead. My prediction was correct. The cockroach was still dead. Therefore dead creatures (including worthless preachers) stay dead. This is an extremely obvious fact of reality. Dead insects and dead human apes can't do anything because they're dead. Why the fuck is it necessary to explain these things in the 21st century?

Christians are Christians because they're too cowardly to grow up and face facts.