The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Christianity or Atheism?

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: 3/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,005 times Debate No: 31184
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




If you could only pick one way of life, would you pick Christianity or Atheism? A belief that you may not agree with, or not a belief at all. State your argument.

I choose Atheism because I believe in facts and once again, there are no facts to prove that God/Jesus/Christ exists.

Pro Atheist in this case.


Thank you, mscn101, for this delightful topic to argue about in my first debate.

First off, I will prove why it is better to believe in God, and secondly, I will prove why it is better to believe in Christianity than everything else.

To begin with, I present Pascal's wager- It is better to believe in God and be wrong than to be an atheist and suffer in God's displeasure after one's death. Of course, the benefits of believing in God (and thus following his commandments) are salvation if He exists. If he doesn't, and you spend your life zealously, you won't care about his nonexistence because you'll be dead. While Voltaire famously argued that this is not, in fact, an argument for God's existence, it IS an argument for the rationality of faith- thus a reason to pick Christianity over Atheism.

As for the benefits of Christianity over other world religions, we first must narrow down our definition of "Christianity" to mean "the Roman Catholic Church," as it is the largest branch of Christianity and is the most "original," dating back to the time of Christ himself.

First, Christianity offers a sense of community, if nothing else. Having 1.2 billion other Christians scattered across the globe who believe the same thing as you means that you'll be able to worship anywhere in the world with a group of like-minded individuals.

Second, Christianity offers a sustainable way of life- pure altruism, as explained in the Gospels by Christ himself, is the best way to ensure the nonexistence of war, crime, and selfish economic and social behavior, thus leading to a higher quality of life.

Third, Christianity offers comfort in death- the crux of human existence, the fact that we are aware of our impending death, and the stress that it brings, is solved in Christianity by the assurance of a blissful afterlife.

Fourth, Christianity is completely compatible with science- the Church has affirmed and supported the necessary connection between reason in any of its forms and faith. For example, the Church has supported the right of the Faithful to trust in the theory of evolution since 1950.

While these are just a few of the innumerable reasons why Christianity is the best choice, it is obvious that faith and Christianity are far better choices over Atheism.

Atheism is not based in facts. Atheism is based on a disregard for the numerous evidences for the existence of a higher power that are plentiful everywhere.

I patiently await your rebuttal. (:
Debate Round No. 1


For round two, I would just like to skip down to your fourth reason to choose Christianity over Atheism, where you stated the following, "Fourth, Christianity is completely compatible with science- the Church has affirmed and supported the necessary connection between reason in any of its forms and faith. For example, the Church has supported the right of the Faithful to trust in the theory of evolution since 1950."

I do like to point out that yes, church may support the theory of evolution since 1950, but when Charles Darwin first published the On the Origin of Species, in 1859, (which is a work of scientific literature that is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. It presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution. Darwin included evidence that he had gathered on the Beagle expedition in the 1830s and his subsequent findings from research, correspondence, and experimentation) the church's immediate reaction caused a HUGE controversy in the very world that they thought was created by this big and powerful, all might God. People started to second guess their selfs. They started to think about other possibilities, that maybe, just maybe, we didn't know the truth about what we thought we did. I mean, yes, the religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting AGAINST the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin's natural selection as an instrument of God's design. Religious controversy was soon diverted by the publication of Essays and Reviews and debate over the higher criticism. And I would also like to include the most famous confrontation of the book that took place at the public 1860 Oxford evolution debate during a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, when the Bishop of Oxford Samuel Wilberforce argued against Darwin's explanation. In the ensuing debate Joseph Hooker argued strongly for Darwin and Thomas Huxley established himself as "Darwin's bulldog", the fiercest defender of evolutionary theory on the Victorian stage. Both sides came away feeling victorious, but Huxley went on to depict the debate as pivotal in a struggle between religion and science and used Darwinism to campaign against the authority of the clergy in education, as well as daringly advocating the "Ape Origin of Man". Another note, Samuel Wilberforce was a "high churchman" and a "strong Christian and believer". He along with many, many other put down the book and basically called BS on it, if you may. The people that disagreed with the book just didnt like the possibility that they may be wrong. Lets face it, people do not like to be proved wrong and it really has been that way for many, many years. Im not saying everyone is this way, just the majority of the people.

Basically church did not except the theory evolution until the 1950's, even though the theory has been around since the 1850's. That's nearly 100 years. Did it really take church that long to open their eyes and consider the facts?

Now I would like to point out Church vs. State
The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. Although the concept of separation has been adopted in a number of countries, there are varying degrees of separation depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. While a country's policy may be to have a definite distinction in church and state, there may be an "arm's length distance" relationship in which the two entities interact as independent organizations. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism. Whitman observes that in many European countries, the state has, over the centuries, taken over the social roles of the church, leading to a generally secularized public sphere. Separation of church and state is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams,who had written in 1644 of "A hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world", Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an on going subject of impassioned debate.

So maybe also just consider that there is a reason for the separation of church and state? I mean, I personally believe that there is a reason for everything and that everything deserves a chance.

Thank you for this wonderful, mind stimulating debate. May the best man/woman win. Good luck.


First off, my opponent has failed to rebut any of my arguments- her argument against the Church by using the colorful history behind On the Origin of Species fails to recognize the fact that in the present day, right now, Christianity supports evolution, so her long paragraph about the controversy the book met when it was first published is inconsequential, considering that was 150 years ago, before we had the wealth of evidence for evolution that we have now- so my argument still stands.

Secondly, her even longer paragraph about the history of the separation of church and state in the United States is almost completely irrelevant- the idea of the separation of church and state exists to protect people of different faiths from government discrimination, either positive or negative. By no means is the separation of church and state evidence for the non-existence of God.

Because my opponent has failed to rebut any of my arguments to this point, I urge you to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2


Mscn101 forfeited this round.


Since Pro has forfeited her last round, and therefore been unable to refute any of my arguments or support her own, I urge you to vote Con.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.