The Instigator
Tacklethedog
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
daley
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Atheism vs Christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,229 times Debate No: 43113
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (2)

 

Tacklethedog

Pro

I will be arguing for atheism. Atheism is a far more logical choice than being a Christian or any type of theist. Although I will admit that science does not hold all the answers since it is based on facts and evidence, while religion of any kind is based on faith and belief in something that can't be proven or disproven. Although many theists will argue that since we can't disprove God we should believe. I can't disprove that there aren't invisible unicorns prancing around my room, but I don't believe in that. Also the theory of Evolution disproves the Biblical Story of Adam and Eve. Also just because Evolution is only a theory that doesn't mean that it doesn't have evidence and it is accepted as fact by a majority of scientists. Gravity is also a theory but people accept that as a fact. There are many contradictions in the bible, and they don't follow many old biblical values such as stonings, but they still believe in the same god. Also where did God come from? He had to have come from something. Does god have a god? Also if everyone who isn't Christian will go to hell hlow could you handle living in heaven forever knowing that a majority of people are burning below you? Also there is no evidence for many events that happen in the bible such as the great flood. There is no historical evidence of that and talking snakes, along with many of these miracles are a lot harder to believe than modern science. Also many religions prior to Christianity had gods that followed the same basis as Jesus. Such a Mitras and Horus. They were born on December 25th, had 12 disciples, were there to save humanity, died for 3 days and were born again, were baptaised at age 30. Christianity is basically a recycled from previous religions. Also try have found a roman scroll that says they made up Jesus. The Big Bang theory has a lot of evidence supporting it which I will state later while Christianity's only support is the bible. The bible is not sufficent evidence for Christianity. Also the Bible supports slavery, and requires a rapist to marry the person they raped. Those seem like pretty screwed up morals. God kills millions throughout the bible, while Satan only killed 10. Why would our loving God kill more than the devil? That doesn't make sense. Also God has the power to stop natural disasters, but doesn't. If he was real he doesn't seem all loving to me.
daley

Con

My opponent says that "Atheism is a far more logical choice than being a Christian," so he is trying to prove Christianity is false by appealing to what is more logical. But first of all, what is logical isn"t always right. It would be logical to pull the plug off all the elderly and infirm in the hospitals so society won"t be burdened by taking care of folks who aren"t contributing, but this wouldn"t be right.

Pro has created an erroneous correlation between logic and truth, because logic only exists in the eye of the beholder. What seems rational to one person often seems like nonsense to another, so truth cannot be decided on the basis of rationality alone. It may be rational in an atheist world-view for the needs of the many to outweigh the needs of the few. If raping a 9-year-old girl, video taping it, selling this tape to make millions of dollars, then using this money to feed the hungry, shelter and clothe the homeless, and boost the economy, ending with the murder of this girl in such a way that no-one will discover who did it, would help many for the sacrifice of a few (this girl and her parents), then this would be right on an atheistic world-view. If there is no God to serve as a transcendent standard of morality, above and beyond mere human opinion, then morality become relative, nihilism becomes true. For the atheist, what is moral doesn"t always line up with what is prudent, and at times they will be at odds. So if one can get away with forcing this 9-year-old child into pornography, its right, because the ends justify the means, and her sacrifice will profit the majority. Minority rights go out the window. I ask my opponent to tell us why doing this to that little girl would be wrong if there is no God. I ask him if doing this to her would not be rational in view of the benefits to the majority. If there is no reward for the righteous or punishment for the wicked after death, then it wouldn"t be prudent for my opponent to return someone"s wallet he found full of money, or share his food or money with a homeless person who can"t return the favor and isn"t contributing to society. If one can do evil acts and get away with them, then why not rape and steal? I thinks its extremely irrational of atheists to tout their opinion of what is right and wrong as if it were absolute truth, when in the absence of God it merely one human opinion versus another.

If there is no God, then all our morals are illusions developed through socio-biological evolution. But in the animal kingdom, such actions like rape and murder go on all the time but have no moral dimension to them. When a male white shark forcibly copulates with a female shark, we don"t call it rape. And when one animal eats her own young, we don"t accuse her of murder, do we? So how does morality all of a sudden enter into the animal kingdom as these primates evolve? This makes far less sense than Christianity; for atheism has no fixed standard against which to measure moral values. If my opponent doesn"t believe in objective moral values, then he is the one living in an irrational illusion that love has any deeper meaning than a biological aid procreation and survival.

Pro says science is based on evidence, it is, but not atheism. Christianity is also based on evidence. All evidence isn"t scientific, is it? What"s the scientific evidence that you love someone? What"s the scientific evidence that lying is wrong? Its simply crazy to think that all evidence need be subject to scientific enquiry. Much of the eyewitness testimony we have from Thucidides, Josephus, Tacitus, Herodotus and other historians isn"t scientific. Christianity has written, historical, eyewitness evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples belief in his resurrection. When all attempts at a naturalist explanation of these three facts fail, we are justified in accepting the explanation the eyewitnesses gave: that God raised Jesus from the dead, but that would be evidence that God exists. Here is a link showing that the conspiracy, swoon, myth, and other theories used to explain these facts are wholly inadequate http://search.tb.ask.com...; Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig presents a plethora of evidence behind the facts of Jesus resurrection: http://search.tb.ask.com...; And no atheists has ever been able to refute him: Craig vs Bart Erman on the resurrection https://www.youtube.com... Craig vs Christopher Hitchings on the existence of God http://search.tb.ask.com...;

Evolution doesn"t disprove Adam and Eve because the Bible never says all mankind came from Adam and Eve; that"s just one way to interpret it. And further, evolution has never been proven. If we did evolve from animals, then our languages would develop from the simple to the complex, but instead language studies show that the more ancient the language the more complex it is in terms of syntax, tense, gender, mood, case, verb forms, and inflection. This is true of Old Latin 200 B.C.; Greek 800 B.C. and the Sanskrit of the Vedas 1500 B.C. (David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery, 1976, pp. 83"89)

"Yet it is incredible that the first language could have been the most complex." (George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969, p. 116)

"The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification." Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, 2nd edition, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957, p. 10)

For example, words in the Hebrew mental lexicon have are organized by morphology, by their root families rather than by simple letter sequences as with modern English. (Frost, 2009; Frost et al., 1997).

Case is the function of a word within a sentence. Latin nouns, pronouns and adjectives are marked for case which allows varied word orders without changing the meaning of the sentence. English has very little case and relies on word order to indicate meaning or function of a word within a sentence:

Here the boy is seeing, and the goat is the object being seen by the boy.
Here the goat is seeing, and the boy is the object being seen by the goat.

The spelling and grammar is exactly the same, yet the word order changes the meaning of the sentence. Because the nouns are marked for case in Latin, this change in word order doesn"t change the meaning of the sentence. These case marking seem hard to learn to a non-Latin speaker, but they guard against ambiguity. English is restrictive in terms of how we can reword a sentence. Latin is more flexible. Latin has both natural and grammatical gender while English only has natural gender.

Until Pro shows us the contradictions in the Bible this is a mere empty claim. He also says we Christians don"t hold to Biblical values like stoning, but he"s reading the Bible out of context. The law of Moses commanding stoning was only given to the nation of Israel before Christianity emerged (Ps 147:19-20), and Christians are not under that law. (Rom 6:14; Acts 13:39) But Christian still believe in the death penalty, I sure do, and if a government decided to do this by stoning as opposed to lethal injection or hanging, I"m all for it, so Pro is just mistaken.

Pro claims God had to come from somewhere; why is that? If everyone who isn't Christian will go to hell, how could you handle living in heaven forever knowing that a majority of people are burning below you? Well, how do we cope with life knowing about the vast suffering on the earth right now? At least in heaven there will be incomprehensible joy, and a God who is better at healing broken hearts than any psychologist.

Pro is incorrect when he says there is no evidence for Noah"s flood. It was remembered and recorded by many cultures all over the planet. The Mexicans, Indians, Chineese, Egyptians and so on all have their flood legends. These were a simultaneous set of local floods which wouldn't leave much evidence after 4000 years.

Finally, Pro spout some parallels between Jesus and pagan gods that do not exist. Jesus wasn't born Dec 25th because shepherds in Israel didn't have their sheep pastured outside in the wintry month of December, and wise men couldn't see a star in the snow. (Luke 2:8-16; Matt 2:1-2) Horus wasn't crucified, he died of a scorpion bite, so the parallels simply DO NOT EXIT! (The Narrative of Isis; The History of Isis and Osiris; E.A. Wallis Budge; pp. 166-167, 180-181, 184-187) Egyptologists say: "Horus was stung by a scorpion and died." (Legends of the Gods, VIII, E.A. Wallis Budge, p. lxxvi) Atheist like Pro invent parallels to refute Christianity. These are the lengths the atheist must go to to refute Christianity. I'm out of space.
Debate Round No. 1
Tacklethedog

Pro

Tacklethedog forfeited this round.
daley

Con

Since my opponent forfeited, I'll just give him his last chance to respond without adding any new arguments, just to be fair. Lets see what he's made of.
Debate Round No. 2
Tacklethedog

Pro

Tacklethedog forfeited this round.
daley

Con

Just as I suspected, all bark but no bite.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
@atryeublaze then your not an atheist. Your an agnostic.
Posted by atreyusblaze 2 years ago
atreyusblaze
The fact that believers debate each other to prove which God is real makes as much sense as two people who speak different languages argue to prove which is the correct way to say a word!!!!! It's absurd. ARE YOU UNDERSTANDING ME????
Posted by atreyusblaze 2 years ago
atreyusblaze
The fact the same people who claim to witness the resurrection of Jesus are akin to people of today who still believe and claim to have seen tupac alive and Elvis too. That they have seen Bigfoot and regularly investigates spirits of deceased humans only if the light switch is off on TV. The same people who claim to be alien abducted, etc. I can go on and on
Posted by atreyusblaze 2 years ago
atreyusblaze
The justification for my last comment comes from religion itself, topics and ultimately it's message.
The fact that our mammalian species dominance come from the extinction of the dinosaurs, the fact that we too can end up extinct and be replaced by another race. The fact that we can die anytime no matter who the person is. The fact that most believers comes from indoctrination at an age where there are few too questions and lot of being told what is absolute. The fact that me an atheist can live a much more accomplished, happy life than a believer without punishment from your deity. I hope your getting the point by now
Posted by atreyusblaze 2 years ago
atreyusblaze
You don't get it, perhaps you never will. I'll entertain your misunderstandings but not for long. I never said God did not exist. How can I claim to know what can't possibility be known?
There are no God(s) at least not in the way you and most believers think they exist. God(s) exists as an existentially subjective fabrications of reality. Man invented god(s) to give reason to an existence innately incomprehensible and In doing so, took away the fear and uncertainty of living in a world indifferent.
Religion is but a passe of intellectual primitivism. It stems from our own ancestral existential curiosity, fears, and dread. It seeks balance in a world unweighted. The Gods are for those who still refuse and deny the self evident absurdity of life! Leaving no room for integrity nor an evolving sense of human dignity while it weaponizes egotism by way of self grandeur. Therefore God(s) is just the fictional existential security blanket humans have created giving them a superficial but ultimately self defeating purpose.
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
@atreyusblaze It's really not an absurd question. Either God exits or God does not exist. If you say that God does not exist, then I would like to see some justification for that claim.
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
@atreyusblaze So you can't answer the question?
Posted by atreyusblaze 2 years ago
atreyusblaze
I will never fall prey to religion's argumentum ad ignorantiam, ironically such arguments are ridiculously absurd. May you find the courage to live a life of your own making and meaning.
Posted by atreyusblaze 2 years ago
atreyusblaze
@janetsanders733
Brother, if I can reason with you, you'll hold no such beliefs. For If you fear the absurdity of the world so much to adhere to the ridiculous belief that you existence is the subjugation from an empirically unproven deity to glorify it all or risk eternal examination than no amount of evidence can prove otherwise. It's not a matter polemics under the guise of logic but of intellect, integrity, and dignity!
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
@atreyusblaze It's a simple question quite frankly. If what you belive is true that there is no God, then you need to give some positive Justification as to why you think that is true.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
TacklethedogdaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and arguments for forfeit.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 2 years ago
johnlubba
TacklethedogdaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF