The Instigator
huky21
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
beatmaster2012
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Christianity should be valued over Atheism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
beatmaster2012
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 940 times Debate No: 22513
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

huky21

Pro

I will put this first, can anyone look into space and see every square mile of it and know if there is or isn't a God or more powerful beings out there.
beatmaster2012

Con

So you're asking atheists to disprove God, which would be illogical since Christians imagined him and should have the burden of proof. So I'm asking you to prove God.

Also if God would be in our universe it would have to live under the rules of this universe (gravity and stuff) and therefore it would be impossible for him to do what he does.
Debate Round No. 1
huky21

Pro

If there is a God then he has the power to defy the law of gravity and stuff.
beatmaster2012

Con

Okay I'll admit that my previous argument was a bit sloppy. But let's see where we're standing.

You've started this debate to convince the audience that Christianity should be valued over Atheism, but instead of posting arguments you asked a lousy rethorical question. So I suggest you hurry and convince everybody WHY christianity is better than atheism, for I will post mine.

God has been made up to explain things we can't and to control great masses of people. So far religion has been used mainly to put false hope into ourselves and to manipulate people to do what the church wants (medieval times would be a great example). There has been no shred of evidence supporting christianity and many contradicting theories like gravity and evolution do have supporting plausible evidence. Therefore atheism is closer to the truth than christianity. And since I think we can both agree that deluding people is not a good thing, atheism would be a better perspective than christianity.

Unless you have countered my argument and posted yours, you'll be losing this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
huky21

Pro

huky21 forfeited this round.
beatmaster2012

Con

Pro forfeited, well this was a short debate.
Debate Round No. 3
huky21

Pro

huky21 forfeited this round.
beatmaster2012

Con

beatmaster2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
huky21

Pro

huky21 forfeited this round.
beatmaster2012

Con

beatmaster2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
DragonX
There is recent proof that we did,,t evolve from the monkey & that humans were around the same time as dinosaurs. Both can be proved in this documentary Dragons or Dinosaurs. The bible does explain about dinosaurs. You can search up www.cloudtenpicture.com if you don't believe me. In Genesis 3:21 Genisis 1:29-30 Romans 5:12,14 & 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. You might not think so because the word dinosaur didn't exist until 1841. But the hebrew word was Tanniyn which's sometimes mean serpent Sea monster but mostly dragon. If you read those verses it'll tell ou the exact description of the dinosaurs. If you check th documentary Dragons or dinosaurs they'll show you in different countries that in ancient times that people have made numerous pictures of dinosaurs. Once again you can search up www.cloudtenpicture.com/Dragon or Dinosaurs
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I guess we can define value any number of ways...
Posted by Sapiens 4 years ago
Sapiens
It is just an opinion if you base it on someones likes and dislikes. It is not an opinion if you define value as the relevance it takes to actuality. This is one of the only ways one can objectivity argue something based on value, and it seems that the participants of this have taken this route.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
No, it really has nothing to do with what pertains to reality. What is 'valued' really is just opinion. I don't understand how one could argue either way, actually.
Posted by Sapiens 4 years ago
Sapiens
"This IS just a conceptual game!"

What you are doing, yes. I was referring to the debate. What is 'valued' seems to be rather a question of what pertains to reality more congruently.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
If you want to argue further just challenge me to a debate
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
This IS just a conceptual game! I'm just arguing based on the attributes assigned to God in the Bible.
You are saying that the definition of God would have to be restricted to the laws of the Universe because we know nothing about properties outside of it. I understand that, and I understand your argument. I'm not going to repeat myself because you are obviously annoyed. Simply because we don't understand laws outside of our Universe, the definition of a god is restrained to the ones we do. This is an erroneous argument because it based around what we "know" and "reality," when in fact, neither of those concepts matter: we are talking conceptually, about a god that is omnipotent and created the laws you seem to think we understand.
Posted by Sapiens 4 years ago
Sapiens
You keep repeating the definition of omnipotent, I can assure you that this is not necessary. My objection lies not with that definition and its purported abilities that arise out of it, but my objection lies strictly with the definition of a god. It is impossible to assign such a state of omnipotence while still talking about reality, therefore one cannot rationally assert that this being holds more properties than we can detect or measure in our universe.

"I have actually said nothing about "properties outside of our universe." "

You have said the following:

"But that does not mean he necessarily operates under the laws of our Universe." In other words, when he does operate under the laws of our Universe, he would be in our universe, and if he does not, he wouldn't be.

You objected what Con said because of the definition of a god you hold could encompass one that does not follow the rules of the universe. What I stated was, that if the are talking about reality and not just some conceptual game, then the definition of god cannot encompass more that is in our universe. Which would mean that what you stated as a criticism was unreasonable.

Just to stress this point one more time: This whole spiel of mine is of course based on the assumption that they are talking about reality. Which in my view is a safe one to make.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I'm not even saying that we will ever know if God is omnipotent, if he exists. I am just saying that if he IS omnipotent, there can be no limit to his properties or powers...
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I have actually said nothing about "properties outside of our universe." I am merely saying that a deity as the one described in the Bible, if omnipotent, is not bound by the laws of our own Universe. God's omnipotence actually negates everything you are saying. If a God truly is omnipotent, it does not matter if we do not understand properties "outside our universe," then he can make himself detectable within our Universe while not necessarily be defined in terms of these laws. This deity, if omnipotent, could also describe this ability (i.e. omnipotence) even if we don't understand it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mecap 4 years ago
mecap
huky21beatmaster2012Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited... Con wins.