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

How can you be an athiest? (friendly discusion)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 11/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 648 times Debate No: 82008
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)




I am a Christian and just dont understand how athiests can do it. Please accept if you believe there is no God.


I am an atheist.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, what do you believe (please note I have no intention of this being a proper debate)? Big bang, evolution, what? How can you look at the world around you and not see that there is something there other than a advanced ecosystem? They're has to be a God out there that made this amazing world, right? How would we be able to tell right from wrong? Please don't tell me a bunch a of moss, a monkey, or an explosion could have caused that. I'm curious, if you have questions about Christians I would love to answer them. :)


I used to believe in a God:

I believed in a Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent God. I believed such a God to be very personal. A father to "us" his children. I prayed multiple times daily about anything and everything. I believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. That he "atoned" for my sins. That through him I could return to live with my father in heaven. I believed that I knew this by the Holy Spirit which manifest truth through my thoughts and feelings.

My Issues:

I will briefly outline issues I have I am willing to talk about any of these in depth via personal message or perhaps in a debate.

1) Faith is inherently irrational

I am bothered by this concept. There is no rational way to contend with a religious concept that requires "faith."

2) Literalism

I have long sense stopped believing in scripture as literal or historical. But to do so seems to undermine the entire concept. If I don't believe the bible to be literal what reason do I have to believe Christ's suffering brings salvation.

3) The atonement itself

How can Justice be satisfied by the suffering of someone innocent? Even if I grant the story true, the idea that an innocent sacrifice had to be made on my behalf to save me from "sin" seems odd and immoral. Not only do I doubt the atonement happened... I am no longer sure I want it to be true.

4) God

If such a God exists that I was taught to believe in, why do so many receive different answers to prayers? Why ask a species that has the capability to act and think rationally to rely on faith rather than reason? Why not have clear evidence? Why have us "walk by faith and not by site?"

5) Revelation

How is it that I could have thoughts and feelings affirming my faith, but so do many others about their faith which contradicts my own? Of course people feel strongly about the Bible, or whatever scripture they were brought up to believe in. I spent 2 years doing nothing but studying the Bible and teaching from it. Do that with anything for two years and you will no doubt have strong feelings about it. There are too many conflicting issues with personal revelation.
Debate Round No. 2


Rational? Once people didn't think television was rational, yet everyone has one now. Is it rational to believe that a explosion created the very brain we're thinking this in? It takes faith to shift in a chair, it takes faith to turn on the oven and believe it won't catch on fire. Why are you bothered by this concept?

What shook your faith in the Bible? Why don't you think it's accurate? Because it is.

That's the point, it's not justice. It's the giving of a perfect being,a spotless lamb, to save all of the dirty old sheep. It's not justice, it's a sacrifice God was willing to make to save us all.

We don't have evidence because God gave us free will fit a reason. He wants us to choose to have faith, to choose to believe and to choose that He is God. Have you ever had a crush on someone when you where young? And then found out that you really didn't like that person after all? It's that way with other people thinking they have the answer, they haven't felt the real thing yet, they don't know better.
Please don't think I'm trying to convert you, I'm just trying to show you that the is a God, and He is more amazing than we can possibly imagine.


Faith is Irrational:

In Hebrews 11: 1 we read
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (1) Notice the lack of evidence is inherent in the definition provided of faith. From this we see that the Biblical concept of faith is to hope for things that are unseen. Things that the evidence for is absent.

As much as it may seem pedantic or overkill to quote a dictionary, it is worth doing in this case. Evidence is “that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.”(2) Thus we see that the notion of “walking by faith, and not by sight” (3) is to believe in something without grounds for belief. This is clearly nonsensical. Can I tell you to walk without the means to walk, or to see without the ability to see? Surely not, but here the concept of faith is just that. To believe when one should not.

We see than that faith is unreasonable.

The great danger in faith is the blind obedience that accompanies it. In James 2:17-18 we read that “Faith without works is dead.”(4) Thus it is not enough to profess belief in something without grounds to believe, you must act on it. Let say, for example, I have faith that the world is to end tomorrow. This means that despite lack of evidence of any kind I believe that the world is to end. I must now act in a way that demonstrates this belief. No matter what evidence is provided, rational reasoning, persuasion or whatever, doesn’t matter. “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than man” I am to have my faith override all. (5) This makes those acting on faith unable to be reasoned with… unreasonable.

I have shown that the concept of faith taught from the Bible is unreasonable. Additionally it causes those who adopt it to act unreasonably.

There is no rational way to contend with a religious concept that requires "faith." This is because Faith as taught by the Bible is unreasonable. I would like to present Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s new clothes.”

A vain Emperor who cares about nothing except wearing and displaying clothes hires two swindlers who promise him the finest, best suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid". The Emperor's ministers cannot see the clothing themselves, but pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions and the Emperor does the same. Finally the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him and the Emperor marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk play along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid. Then a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspects the assertion is true, but continues the procession.” (6)

The issue of Faith is much like the “clothes” in the story. I have repeatedly pointed out the issue of faith to which, the “faithful”, like the emperor must see this issue, but choose to ignore it or don’t mind believing a bare assertion or acting unreasonably.



Issue of Literalism:

The Bible:

Evidence is overwhelming that many stories of the Bible are fabricated, ahistorical, and false. The Creation Story immediately comes to mind. If you take the story literally, and believe the earth to be only six thousand years old then you believe that which has been disproven. Another easy example is that of the World Flood in Noah’s story. Not only could it not have happened; it has been demonstrated to have not happened. In February of 2014 Bill Nye authenticates this position in his debate with Ken Ham. (1) Thus we know that Noah’s ark did not happen.

Due to these example and many others it is obvious that scripture should not be taken literally or historically. It is worth noting that there are many who claim parts of these books to be figurative and not literal. This is an untenable position. Considering that only taking scripture figuratively seems to undermine the entire concept. If one does not believe the Bible to be literal what reason do they have to believe Christ's suffering brings salvation. How can one say, well obviously the creation and Noah’s flood are figurative, while in the same breath profess the resurrection of the dead and walking on water as literal. It is far past time for someone to point out that to do so is void of logic and is a prime example of the Cherry Picking Fallacy. It seems clear that to believe in scripture implies to take them literally.


Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kasmic 11 months ago
Here is the link I placed in the debate.
Posted by YourMomoness 11 months ago
My apologies, and by whom was it demonstrated to be impossible? I'd this person a reliable source?
Posted by kasmic 11 months ago
How about.... The story of the flood is ahistorical, impossible, and demonstrated to have not happened. Thus the Bible cannot be a perfect book.
Posted by kasmic 11 months ago
I studied it for over twenty... I spent two years where thats what I did all day every day.
Posted by YourMomoness 11 months ago
Kasmic, I would just like to comment that you said you studied the bible for two years, I have studied, read, meditated upon, and memorized it since I was in kindergarten, and still have not found one credible reason as to the idea that a God does not exist. And one other thing, just a comment, I would have appreciated just a bit more specifics, as in, "the problem with the bible is that this does not work with this and thus this is discredited". Just saying.
Posted by YourMomoness 11 months ago
Agreed, votes are not needed.
Posted by kasmic 11 months ago
I don't think votes on this debate are necessary...
Posted by miloisqueer 11 months ago

I agree wholeheartedly with you, and debates don't typically work great between those with like minds.
Posted by kasmic 11 months ago
Are you talking to me or YourMomoness?
Posted by miloisqueer 11 months ago
I'd like to debate this with you. I'll send you a challenge.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by HomelySherlock 11 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Both were respectful about their viewpoint Spelling and Grammar: Pro was more professional, minor errors with Con. Arguments: Pro had significantly more convincing and well-supported arguments Sources: O]nly Pro used sources.