The Instigator
pestoroll
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Christianity vs 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 4 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,081 times Debate No: 25319
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

pestoroll

Pro

From what I know, I have a belief that beyond a reasonable doubt God exists. I am open to an interesting, polite conversation lacking in ad hominems. Though to begin with, I would like to hear my opponent speak. Why do you believe there is no god?
16kadams

Con


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence



I am devils advocating this debate, and actually found this argument a compelling case for atheism. This argument takes advantage of a basic and accepted principle: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It basically looks like this:



1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.


2. The claim that a god exists is an extraordinary claim.


3. Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false.


4. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that a god exists.


5. Therefore, the claim that a god exists may be considered false [1].



The claim of god is an extraordinary one indeed. It argues a supreme being which most of us wont come into physical contact until we die exist, and it argues his intellect is beyond our comprehension and his abilities make him the most powerful thing ever. This is extraordinary indeed. It should also be held to the highest standard of evidence. And this evidence simply doesn’t exist. In the absence of such evidence, it is just to reject the theory of theism (in this case, Christianity).



This attitude is related to all religions. Before debate of whether god existed (it was universal belief or forced belief) in deities that prevented much debate. Christians, for example, do not believe in the greek gods, Aztec gods, they are atheists to every god except one—their “god”—and does he get a name (I have always wondered what his name is, lol). But really, none of those former gods was disproven. Then why are they rejected? Because no evidence for extraordinary gods exists. As Kruger notes, “No one has ever been able to prove that these gods do not exist, yet no xian believes that such gods exist now or that they have existed in the past. Thus, it seems that most believers in the Judeo-xian god disbelieve in claims about other gods even though the nonexistence of such beings has not been shown. They disbelieve in such gods because there is absolutely no evidence that such beings exist. They use a presumption of atheism.”[1]



Presumption of atheism is extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence if you where wondering.



Due to the fact Christians reject those gods due to lacking evidence, why do they believe in a god at all? Unless my opponent can provide evidence—which seems difficult—he cannot win this debate. So the question to my opponent: do you have any extraordinary evidence?



Argument from evil



We are talking about the Christian god in this debate. Meaning god has a few powers: he knows all, he is all-powerful, is all loving, and wants the best for everyone. However, we see if these attributes exist here is a question: why does evil exist at all? Even if I lose all points in this debate but prove this one—I obtain victory as it disproves a Christian god—and if I win the former point (extraordinary) I disprove all gods and still win the debate. Now, here is how the argument goes:




1.There is needless suffering in the world.


2.If god were to exist, then there would be no needless suffering in the world.


3.Therefore, god does not exist.



In defending the first premise, the point nearly impossible to beat. Everyone agrees this occurs. For example, the tragedy in 9/11 was horrible, children born deformed or mentally deficient is also very tragic, child abuse still occurs and slavery is still very common. In reality, my opponent will agree this occurred rather he will argue with premise two.



As Kruger notes, “So why wasn't the needless suffering of the holocaust prevented? If god is unwilling to prevent it, then god is not all-good. If god is unable to prevent evil, then god is either not all-powerful (he was unable to prevent it even though he may have wanted to do so and knew that this evil would occur), or he is not omniscient (he did not know that this evil was about to occur), or he is both not all-powerful and not omniscient. Any of these concessions would spell defeat for the theist. If any of these attributes are denied, then this is an admission that the god of theism, as we have defined it, does not exist. Thus, the fact of the existence of evil, or suffering, makes the traditional concept of god untenable because the theist cannot maintain the traditional theistic concept of god and plausibly allow that needless suffering exists.”[1]



As we can see, it either means the Christian god is powerless (meaning I win the debate—he is no longer the “Christian” god—or it means he does not exist at all. The point is fairly clear and straightforward.



Conclusion:



I am not good at religion debates so I shall be brief. I have done two things:



1. Shown god cannot exist unless evidence is given


2. A Christian god—an all powerful, good, all knowing god—cannot exist and is incompatible with evil. Meaning Christianity is refuted.



Vote CON





[1] http://www.infidels.org...
Debate Round No. 1
pestoroll

Pro

pestoroll forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
pestoroll

Pro

pestoroll forfeited this round.
16kadams

Con

Pro gave good arguments, but con won. Vote CON
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
@ The Argument from Evil - I hope pestoroll isn't a proponent of predestination. xD Even if he counters it with the free will defense, Con can easily bring up the enumerable amounts of verses that either suggest or flat out support predestination. This debate is going to be fascinating, I just know it! ^^
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I don't know what I am to be honest
Posted by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
I would of sworn you were Catholic, 16kadams. o_O
Posted by pestoroll 5 years ago
pestoroll
Good deal.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I shall respond tommorow
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by KuriouserNKuriouser 5 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
pestoroll16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
pestoroll16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by famer 5 years ago
famer
pestoroll16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
pestoroll16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by pro