CHRISTIANITY vs ATHEISM
Debate Rounds (3)
I will be taking the stance for Christianity. My opponent will have to argue for atheism. They must prove that atheism is a better option than religion-- in this case, Christianity. I must prove that Christianity is the better option.
FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE
NEXT TWO ROUNDS ARE CASES/REBUTTALS
No foul language, feel free to message me with questions/possible topics.
I would like to thank my opponent for the challenge. Before I begin, I would like to first define atheism: atheists' are ones who argue against religion. However, they themselves have intrinsic beliefs, dogmas, and tenets. Newsweek magazine agrees, calling the atheism a 'belief'. (Christianity In Crisis, Newsweek, Apr. 2, 2012)
"When a man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes in anything"
- G. K. Chesterton
So atheists, claim to believe in nothing. They claim to be non-religious. However, this evidence disproves that theory. Also, many atheist groups have been building churches, in which to worship nothing! (http://www.theguardian.com...) Is it just me, or are you confused?
Many people don't believe in God because they dislike God's rules. But what is a world without laws? If we had no laws, anything would be moral. Morality standards are found in the 10 Commandments, Proverbs, and Romans. The Bible says we must not murder. The Bible says we must not steal, we must not commit adultery, etc. However, what atheists see is the "we must not". They carefully ignore the parts that say "love your neighbor"; how Jesus heals the sick; how he associates with the 'unclean', the people that no one wants to touch. Another reason people disbelieve in God is they wonder where God came from.
"Who designed the Designer?"
Let's say you're walking through the woods. You see a turtle sitting on the top of a tall fence post. Logically, you assume someone put it there, even though you don't have an explanation as to who put it there. Moral: there doesn't have to be an explanation for every explanation. In the same way, Darwinists believe the world was created from the Big Bang. Next, hundreds of millions of single-celled organisms then evolved into humans and animals today. When asked how the organisms got here, they had no explanation. Why is it that Christians have to have an explanation as to the existance of God, but atheists don't have to have an explanation for evolution? God is both spiritually revitalizing and intellectually satisfying. Atheism doesn't satisfy a man's heart or mind.
If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all those religions, even the queerest one, contain at least some hint of truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most.
- S. C. Lewis
I look forward to seeing my opponents' arguement.
Most atheists would offer some of the following arguments as their reason for deciding that God doesn't exist.
Many people are atheists because of the way they were brought up or educated, or because they have simply adopted the beliefs of the culture in which they grew up. So someone raised in Communist China is likely to have no belief in God because the education system and culture make being an atheist the natural thing to do.
Other people are atheists because they just feel that atheism is right.
With your augment about the churches I got nothing I'm confused .
Okay before I go ahead let me just say I'm an athirst who was born from intellect I was born a Catholic but as I grew older I had a hard time keeping my religion so I gave it up to only believing what I see and what has evidence to prove it if there was hardcore evidence for god I would easily believe in him
First, I would like to point out my opponents misspellings: "My opponent claims that many atheist became atheist becouse they don't like gods rule . Nut that is simply " I would also like to point out you are an athiest, not an athirst. "I'm an athirst"
My opponenet also brought up the point "I gave it up to only believing what I see"
You mean to tell me you don't believe in gravity? You can't see that. You can't feel, taste, touch, or smell it. Yet, we believe that it's there. So, if you believe in only the things you see, you don't believe in gravity, oxygen, or other galexies? You don't believe that I'm an actual person because you can't see me?
My opponent wrote this: "if there was hardcore evidence for god I would easily believe in him" My answer: Theos is the Greek word for God, therefore a theist believes in God and sees God as the creator. A- is the Greek prefix meaning absence, therefore an atheist believes in the absence of God. To them, everything can be explained by natural causes and effects. This worldview elimiates the possibility of God, therefore no evidence will ever be satisfying or convincing. The only option is for them to start seeking God themselves.
Also, in the acceptance round, you stated that you would prove that your religion was "easier"... I fail to see how atheism is easier. Is it easier because you have nothing to live for? Is it easier because you don't have any moral standereds? Please, explain.
If there is an anthem of non-belief, it is no doubt the song Imagine by John Lenon: "Imagine there's no heaven..." Is that true? Would the world be a better place if there were no God? Let us imagine.
If there is no heaven, then there is no God. If there is no God or heaven, then this life is all there is: when you're dead, you're dead. What Lenon imagined, Vladimir Lenin had already built in communist Russia. The godless world of that Lenin was filled with tortue, genocide, and darkness. The twentith century was the bloodiest century in history, thanks to the atheistic views of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong. However, there is a God. And if there is a God, there is a heaven. And if there is a heaven, there is life after death to those who accept it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mhykiel 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: I know this is only a win/lose vote. I award it to Pro because I did not see rebuttals from Con about the churches of atheism, Moral Relativism with Atheism. I think there are many arguments to these points but Con brought none up. Con eventually did respond to the hateful acts of Lenin and Hitler but this was in the last round and unconvincing. Given though Pro could have made a more solid argument of such a point. So I really counted this as a tie on this point. Con's grammar and spelling was abundant. I would encourage Con to address the points given and present solid ones for their position. I would encourage Pro to establish all points and establish reasonable inference between specific cases to general cases.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.