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

Christianity(pro) vs Atheism(con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,711 times Debate No: 38895
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




In this debate, I will argue that being atheist is irrational. For the purposes of this debate, we will assume that Christianity is the only religion and no other religions will be mentioned for the purpose of this debate. In other words, we will assume that the only religious views is no religion at all or Christianity.
First round is acceptance.
Second round state your points of discussion.
Third round is counter arguments.


I accept, but I have a question about the format. Will we be able to defend our arguments from round 2? Or will we preemptively answer common rebuttals?
Debate Round No. 1


To answer your question: round three is fair game. You can do whatever you want be it rebuttals or counter arguments, no new items though, I would not have the opportunity to counter.

My argument:
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.

In conclusion.
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 []. 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.

We can

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.

Joshua 10:12-13

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 []

*Basic Gravity [Curtis Wilson, "The Newtonian achievement in astronomy", pages 233–274]

*Stellar aberration []

We also know the Earth rotates by the effects it produces. Like,

* Coriolis effect []

* Foucault's pendulum []

Historical contradiction

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 []

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.


Debate Round No. 2


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.[]

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.

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Cowboy0108 4 years ago
Sorry, I missed the deadline for a few minutes, I didn't think I would be so late... here is my argument if you choose to use it.
Consider Forest Gump questioning Einstein's theory of relativity. That is what you are doing. You are trying to question the reasoning of an omnipotent all-knowing God. Your knowledge is limited. You, nor myself, can question God's plan because it is simply out of the realm of our knowledge.
If I had to guess though, I would agree that free will has a lot involved in God's plan. Furthermore, you stated that "free will cannot exist without evil." This is not true. Adam and Eve, the first two people in the world, had free will. They were not evil for a long time. However, when they ate the fruit, it was like opening Pandora's box, it allowed significant amounts of evil in the world. Heaven, I would guess, would involve a lot of praise, however, we would have free will, a lot like Adam and Eve but without the fruit.
Also, you stated that we would be robots in heaven. I disagree. God wants us to be tempted but have the values to avoid falling into that temptation. He wants people to worship and love him because they want to, not because they have to.
To respond to your claim about the Bible's contradiction, I would like to point out that the errors were actually just change in specific words for the most part and could simply be translation. Remember, the translators thought the earth was the center of the universe so it makes sense for them to include that. Also, "the words were breathed by God", this does not mean that God wrote it, people wrote it, God offered the message that they were writing about. Also, to the observer, it may have seemed that the moon froze in the sky so that is what they wrote.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
So, cowboy. Can I rebut your argument in round 2? Points of discussion can be interpreted in a variety of ways
Posted by Projectid 4 years ago
The Pro is creating a false dichotomy, as if Christians live better lives than Atheists. Truly the only thing separating us is our cognitive conceptions of what is real and unreal.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
@ATCKyle, I also saw the reason why he wanted to assume no other religions are in existence when I saw his argument. Luckily, there's more than that objection to his argument. I do feel that objection is one of the strongest.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Points of discussion can be interpreted in a variety of ways. I don't want to do it wrong.
Posted by ATCKyle 4 years ago
This is Pascal's wager. It's a very common argument amongst many religious people, and it is the very notion of why he forbid anyone from mentioning any other religion. Because once you accept that there are other religious, the argument falls to pieces. This is because you can simply apply the same "logic" to every other religion, and state that you should be serving Zeus as well, otherwise you risk his eternal punishment. You have to agree that it is better to serve ALL the gods and not risk upsetting them, than it would be to envision that only your way is correct.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Do I attempt to refute your argument in round 2? Or is that just for my arguments?
Posted by davidleejohn 4 years ago
How can you argue for rational credulity? There is no evidence, and if you are to be rational, there is only one option. As well, what in the Bible is actual, and what is just a metaphor. Make sure you get this out front (i.e. What parts are literal? What parts are metaphorical? What do you use to tell the difference?). Are we talking about Protestant or Catholicism? One gives you vast resources with a many skeletons and the other has only the well known Bible.

Maybe this guy just wants to show how he can take a crazy proposition and still win. In that case, should be fun.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
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