The Instigator
Thayer
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheDebater_101
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Christianity is Reasonable- Atheism is Not.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 791 times Debate No: 79599
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Thayer

Pro

My challenge is for an atheist to attempt to tell me why their position is a more reasonable option.
TheDebater_101

Con

I accept, and as the instigator didnt create definitions i will
Atheism:
one who is not a theist, one who does not believe in any gods [1]
Christianity:
the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies [2]
Reasonable:
being in accordance with reason [3]
Reason:
a statement offered in explanation or justification [4]

I hope for a good debate
[1]:http://atheism.about.com...
[2]:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4]:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Thayer

Pro

Thank you for the acceptance to my challenge, and let me start by apologizing for not posting definitions. I agree with all the definitions above, although, I would want to rephrase the definition of reason;

reason- ability to reach logical conclusions via cognitive faculties.

Premise One- Without God you cant know anything.

Premise Two- God is the pre-condition for reason.

Conclusion- because without God, knowledge is unattainable, the atheist can't know that his reasoning is sound. Without knowledge of valid reasoning, Con has conceded the debate by accepting it.

Furthermore, the atheist shows that he actually lives like he believes in God, because he must borrow standards in which his worldview cannot account for, standards such as; laws of logic, induction, and morality. He must borrow these from my worldview in order to raise any objection to my worldview.

Since Con is unwilling to admit the Triune of God Scripture lives, he has given up any justification for valid reasoning, and he likewise has given up any right to make any knowledge claims- including atheism is a reasonable option.

Considering all this, it logically (a Christian concept) follows that Atheism isn't just an unreasonable option, it is a blatantly absurd one, and Christianity isn't just a more reasonable option- it is the only viable one.
TheDebater_101

Con

First of all, thanks for a first argument.
As I first selected the definitions, my definition of reason stands.
For christianity to be real, the bible must be reasonable and proven. However lots of key parts were proven false by science, while reason is being proven by science. For example the bible states that the god created the universe, however eventhough science didn't yet prove the big bang happened, there's a big chance it did. Also the bible says, earth was created in 7 days, which is disproven, by how new planets are formed, and the bible tells us, the world is 6'000 years old, but the fossil record proved, we even existed longer than 6'00 years. [1] Thereby, the bible isn't reasonable from the definition and as it's the sacred scripture of christianity, thent follows that a: god is a liar or b: god doesn't exist. Since it can't be the former due to the bible, it has to be the lattter in which case it follows that christianity isn't reasonable as their god doesn't exist and their religion is based on lies.

Now for the rebuttals:
The instigator, as he didn't state the BOP, typically the BOP is with the investigator, so I he has to prove without a doubt his case. Second of alll his premises aren't fully explained, why ca;t you know anything without god, especcialy as that is not true. So he is saying if you're atheist you can't know what 1+1 is as that is something to know. That's just deregotary. Then he doesn't explain why is god the pre-condition for reason, especcialy when science is the pre-condition for reason according to the definiton of logic and justification. Also how can't an atheist have sound reasoning and why is knowledge unattainable without god. The definition of logic is "the science that investigates the principles governing correct orreliable inference."[2]. A science, is not linked to religion in any way, so why can't atheists know science. Also the definition of induction is " formal installation in an office, benefice, or the like."[3]. So why can't an atheist have a formal installation. Morality isn't borrowed as we still have punishments, like the death penalty and prison, which we get, so they already teach us punishments. Also why do I need to borrow from your world view. How have I given up any justification for valid reasons. How is logic linked to religion. In conclusion I wrote my views and rebuked my opponents arrogant insultive views. Also he didn't give any justifications and somehow misleadingly linked logic to religion, when if anything it's the opposite, without giving any proof or examples. Also pro says i don't have knowledge of valid reasoning without explaining his statement. I ask con to explain his view
[1]: Bible, Genesis 1
[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Thayer

Pro

I can ignore pretty much everything you just wrote out of the gate as you have failed to give justification for valid reasoning. Hopefully you can do that for me this time? We'll see I guess.

My beliefs are provided in the definition of Christianity that you provided. Somehow your definition for reason will suffice, but not the definition of Christianity I agreed to? I find that more than a bit curious.

Perhaps challenging you in the form of some questions might move this sloughful horse along:

1. Can you give an account for absolute truth, provided you believe such a thing exist?

2. Principles of induction assume uniformity in nature, that is the idea that the future will be as the past. The most revered atheistic philosophers such as Bertrand Russell and David Hume were at least humble enough to admit that justifying assuming these principles was a hurdle they could never clear, given the atheistic premise that we are just highly evolved meat machines, that we are just time and chance reacting on matter.

3. Can you explain to me where we get our morals? Are they objective or relative and subjective?

4. How do you know you have valid reasoning? What do you appeal to to justify the idea the claim that you do?

As a Christian, I can justify absolute truth, induction, objective morality, and valid reasoning. The proof that God exists, is that without Him you can prove anything.

You may not agree with my justification, but as it stands, I have justification, and you have yet to provide one.
TheDebater_101

Con

I have to give justification for valid reasoning, first of all, I don't need to as as long as I make atheism reasonable I win, you really don't understand BOP and who has it.
1.Science is the absolute truth, as science is a subject of study, not a being and so can only tell the truth
2. I can rebuke this just by you ignoring the definition, I gave last round since you didn't give one before which is a " formal installation in an office, benefice, or the like."
3. Morals are objective, as they're written by the laws and so are objective, because laws are objective
5. I appeal to science.
Since you're tying your beliefs into this, I will as well. Since god doesn't exist, where do you take your valid reasoning from, you can't justify anything, because god doesn't exist. So explain to me where your justification comes from if god doesn't exist? You keep claiming god exists, but the whole point of atheism is he doesn't exist. Especcialy when i said earlier that lots of key parts were proven false by science, while reason is being proven by science. For example the bible states that the god created the universe, however eventhough science didn't yet prove the big bang happened, there's a big chance it did. Also the bible says, earth was created in 7 days, which is disproven, by how new planets are formed, and the bible tells us, the world is 6'000 years old, but the fossil record proved, we even existed longer than 6'00 years. [1] Thereby, the bible isn't reasonable from the definition and as it's the sacred scripture of christianity, thent follows that a: god is a liar or b: god doesn't exist. Since it can't be the former due to the bible, it has to be the lattter in which case it follows that christianity isn't reasonable as their god doesn't exist and their religion is based on lies. So answer me, why do you think the world is 6'000 years old and created in seven days, when science disproved both of them?
Debate Round No. 3
Thayer

Pro

//first of all I don't need to (give justification for valid reasoning)//

Well, considering the catalyzing theme of this debate focuses squarely on reason. So it seems appropriate to justify the validity of your reason.

//You really don't understand the BOP and who has it//

You really dont understand that in dismantling your ostensible right for knowledge claims because of lack of justification for valid reasoning has served precisely as my BOP that atheism is unreasonable. Furthermore, I have given you justification why my position is reasonable, you just dont like the answer. I start with God as my necessary pre-condition for reason. I do not reason my way to God. As soon as I appeal to an outside source to authenticate the existence of the God of Scripture, that outside source has necessarily become y ultimate authority. I'm a Christian, and I wont blaspheme God like that.

1. //Science is the absolute truth//

This ranks up at the list of the most absurd statements ever made by atheists. I have never heard any atheist ever at any time say something so nonsensical.

2. //I can rebuke this just by you ignoring the definition I gave last round since you didn't give one//

How convenient. Had I known I was going to need to define every word in order to prevent you from avoiding questions that make you uncomfortable, I would have. What is the definition of definition? I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is...

3. //morals are objective as their written by laws and so are objective, because laws are objective//

As it is always proper to give credit where its due, so should I here: you are excellent in the art of not proving a point whatsoever.

What this sounds like, is that morals are objective because societal conventions have made laws that say so. Problem is, we have no right for moral indignation for the rape of little girls of a society passes a law that makes it "morally" acceptable.
All you have done is moved the goal post. What is the moral standard in which we judge if a law is moral/immoral.

5. //I appeal to science//

When you appeal to science to use utilize your reasoning to ascertain the methods of study? Stop obfuscating the question and admit you use your reasoning to justify your reasoning- we're running out of town.

//Why do you think the world is 6,000 yrs old//

Our debate is not about facts. Facts are facts by virtue of them being facts. Our debate is on how we interpret those facts, and the vehicle that will drive us to those interpretations are our presuppositions. This is why if a fossil is put in front of us I can say "a flood" and you can say "millions of years". Perhaps your faith relies too heavily on the Priestly Scientists.

In short, Im not interested in mowing over weeds all day. If we dont get to the root, they'll grow right back. I believe we should learn to crawl before we walk. Until you can provide justification for valid reasoning on objective principles, we will remain on all fours.
TheDebater_101

Con

1. You still haven't given validity that god exists. For your argument to be logical, you must find evidence that god exists.
2. Exactly by not wanting to blaspheme god, you can't show where you get your logic from if god doesn't exist. Face the truth, i don't need to unless you fully justify your reasoning by proving god exists with concrete scientific evidence
3. Science can't lie
4. It's called semantics
5. The moral standard is made up by a majority of people in a nation
6. I am obfuscating it the same amount as you
7. Our debate is about the fact that god doesn't exist and to prove a fact you must give a fact. As you told me stop obfuscating the answer and answer "why do you think the world is 6,000 years old ", because byy not answering you are proving my point that you can't prove god exists and that the world is 6'000 years old. So try to prove this and stop avoiding the questions
Debate Round No. 4
Thayer

Pro

I apologize to the audience for such a disingenuous Con. There is much I could say, but I must answer a fool according to his folly, and since he has to appeal to his reason to justify his reason, the only appropriate response at this point can be:

Clamor runs yellow sushi under the east thereof implode the more.
TheDebater_101

Con

As my opponent avoided my question once again and didn't justify god exists and instead wrote a useless statement, i have nothing to rebute and am sorry to the audience for such a illogical debate. I wish Pro will use logic in his future debates, but wish him a good time. VOTE PRO
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: V5RED// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Both sides used terrible arguments, but it was especially shocking to me that con could not point out the obvious holes in pro's arguments, so I voted pro in terms of arguments. I deduct points for saying "vote pro" or "vote con" because it looks stupid. Basically, pro wins on technicalities, not because pro demonstrated his claims in any way.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) There's no actual analysis of any of the points in this debate, just vague generalities. The voter does need to do more than provide feedback that could apply to any debate it's posted on. (2) Much as the voter may find that saying we should vote Pro or Con is "stupid", it's not sufficient justification for a conduct vote. It doesn't showcase any clear misconduct, just annoyance. (3) The S&G point allocation is completely unsupported in this RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
TheDebater_101
Correction: I meant vote con
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
There is no "resonable". There are humans, And we are not resonable.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
Trainwreck on both sides so far, though Pro is winning even though pro is wrong.
Posted by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
TheDebater_101
Thayer, explain your beliefs next time to make a challenge actually for me to rebuke you
Posted by Thayer 1 year ago
Thayer
And I am anxious in equal measures for a response.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
I also wish i was con after reading pro's argument.
Posted by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
TheDebater_101
the definition of reasonable is supported by science, so that already gives me a slight advantage
Posted by Stensson 1 year ago
Stensson
Oh man I would've loved to be the Con in this one.
Posted by Hawlucha 1 year ago
Hawlucha
Rational though > moral objection.
No votes have been placed for this debate.