Christianity(pro) vs Atheism(con)
First round is acceptance.
Second round state your points of discussion.
Third round is counter arguments.
I said in R1 that being Atheist is illogical. Here is why.
For starters, consider this: There is no God.
If an Atheist is right about their religious views, nothing happens to them. They die and go into a dreamless sleep and will never wake up. What would you have to gain by being an atheist. Potentially being right after you die, but then again, nobody will know you were right because you would be dead and you would not know you were right because you were dead.
If a Christian is wrong, nothing happens. Simple as that. They will be wrong but no one will know because they are dead and the Christian would not know they were wrong because they were dead. The most a person could argue about this point is the idea that the Christian would be living according to a false philosophy. However, if you look at Christian morals and the morals of many other non-Christians, they are virtually the same. Therefore, one cannot say the Christian lifestyle was flawed because it is similar to Atheist philosophy.
Now, let's consider that there is a God.
If an Atheist is wrong, they go to hell. Eternal Suffering. Burning alive. Constant unquenchable thirst. Darkness. No hope. The Atheist loses EVERYTHING. Yes, I will concede that by living a truly ungodly agenda, you may be happier. Sex and drugs every night. Sure, you may like that. However, that is roughly fifty years of fun. In hell, it will be millions of years. And then more years. See how small the fifty years of fun looks so insignificant and small. However, most atheists do not live a truly ungodly agenda, they live in a lot of ways like Christians. Therefore, by being an atheist and not Christian, the person has no living fun and death is still hell. I do not know which category of Atheist you fall under but you can get the picture.
If a Christian is right, they go to heaven. Eternal paradise. A vacation wherever you want that never ends. Never having to work. Never having to worry. Eternal happiness. Sure, they may live a more strict lifestyle, but not as much as it negates an eternity of heaven. Besides, look around, how many Christians do you see that live a miserable life because of their faith? Not very many. Many Christians live happy lives.
If an Atheist is right, they see no benefits.
If a Christian is wrong, they see no consequence.
If an Atheist is wrong, hell(need I say more).
If a Christian is right, heaven(need I say more).
Yes, Christians live slightly stricter lives but it pays off in the long run.
Yes, Atheists live slightly looser lives(though in many cases still similar to the lives of Christians), but they risk hell.
Thanks, since this round is only for the opening arguments, I will offer some reasons to think Christianity is illogical.
The Christian view of God contradicts reality
The God of Christianity is portrayed as a God of love, power, and wisdom [http://www.lns.cornell.edu...]. However, these characteristics are contrary to reality. The problem of evil states
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
C. Therefore, the God of Christianity doesn't exist.
Evil is defined as pain and suffering.
There are a lot of responses to this. The most common being the free will defense. So, I will answer that one now.
The main assumption behind that defense is that free will can't exist without evil. The Christian faith itself seems to disagree. If such a thing is true, is there free will in heaven? Because there is no pain and suffering in heaven. If there isn't then it would be very contrary to the God of Christianity. When we get to heaven we wouldn't freely enjoy it, we'd be robots forced to enjoy it and forced to praised. However, if there is free will in heaven, then the entire assumption behind the free will defense is destroyed.
Furthermore, we seem to have restrictions, even if we are free. For example, many things can be done to a building.
1. Paint the building
2. Lean on the building
3. Punch the building
However we can't
4. Jump over the building
5. Turn the building into an invisible pink unicorn
6. Lift the building above my head
Does the inability to do 4-6 violate free will? Why couldn't God put evil in the same category as 4-6?
Christianity's Book is wrong
The argument goes like so,
1. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”
2. God is suppose to be perfect
3. His scripture is full of errors making it imperfect
4. A perfect God can't breath an imperfect book
C. Christianity is false
Proof of Premise 3
The bible seems to teach the out dated Geocentric model.
12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Many of tired to get around this by stating Joshua only said it appeared that way. However this is wrong for many reasons. First, Joshua asked God to stop the sun, not the earth. If we were speaking in an appearance manor we don't ask for the said appearance. Second, Habakkuk 3:11 states
"The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear."
Clearly showing the belief that the sun itself stopped rotation.
Some have also tried to get around this by pointing out that the sun does rotate around the milky way. This is true, however it wouldn't have any affect on the earth's day, because if the sun moved or not, it still creates curvature in spacetime. Stating that both the sun and earth stopped would be wishful thinking, speculating with no scriptural support.
Alternatively one could say that Geocentrism is true. However this is shown wrong by many observable effects.
*Stellar parallax [http://abyss.uoregon.edu...]
*Basic Gravity [Curtis Wilson, "The Newtonian achievement in astronomy", pages 233–274]
*Stellar aberration [http://mathpages.com...]
We also know the Earth rotates by the effects it produces. Like,
* Coriolis effect [http://abyss.uoregon.edu...]
* Foucault's pendulum [http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au...]
The Bible contains many historical contradictions. I feel that a powerful one is the contradiction between Christ's birth.
“The Gospel of Luke claims (2.1-2) that Jesus was born during a census that we know from the historian Josephus took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed. But Matthew claims (2.1-3) that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive--possibly two years before he died (2:7-16). Other elements of their stories also contradict each other. Since Josephus precisely dates the census to 6 A.D. and Herod's death to 4 B.C., and the sequence is indisputable, Luke and Matthew contradict each other.” - Historian Richard Carrier [http://www.infidels.org...]
Many have tried to refute this contradiction, yet none have succeed. Richard Carrier has refuted every single apologist answer I've seen. Demonstrating that their answers are full of errors [Ibid].
On a final thought, Pro could claim all of these errors are just figurative. However Occam's Razor would then favor a rejection of the scripture. Believing in a book full of ad hoc figurative language and hidden meanings to get around errors is a lot more complex than simply not believing it at all. For instance, if I were to state that "The moon is made of cheese" someone could state that they believe in that statement, but not in a literal sense. They could state "moon" and "cheese" are just symbolic teachings. However, a simple rejection of that statement would not add as many assumptions.
Cowboy0108 forfeited this round.
I will offer my counter argument to Pascal's wager.
Pro attempts to argue that atheism is illogical, however his entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. That fallacy is called the Argumentum ad baculum, Latin for argument from stick.
...the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.
The ad baculum derives its strength from an appeal to human timidity or fear and is a fallacy when the appeal is not logically related to the claim being made. In other words, the emotion resulting from a threat rather than a pertinent reason is used to cause agreement withthe purported conclusion of the argument.[ http://philosophy.lander.edu...]
The wager also has a distorted view of why people hold beliefs. Consequences are not a reason for belief. For example, you better bow to my DDO profile or you will die a painful death. You only have to bow once. Does anyone really believe the that is true? Is it a good reason to think it's true because of the punishment? No, that's not how beliefs work.
Pro posted his last round in the comments, I'll respond to some of his objections. Since I can't add anything new, I have to ignore some of it.
Pro completely missed my point on free will. He actually conceded that free will can exist with no evil. This was my point. Pro's only objection to the POE is that we don't know. Since it would cause me to add arguments for a response, I won't address it.
Pro claims the contradictions were just errors in translation. No evidence was given to support that assertion. He then claims God breathed the scripture in the sense that he only inspired the humans that wrote the Bible. Pro would have to concede that 2 Timothy 3:16 is false. The bible would not be useful for teaching, rebuking, and correcting. We could either accept a flawed, but still God breathed bible. However, as I stated in my R2, Occam's Razor says it would be better for us to reject Christianity. Thus, my argument here stands.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|