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

Is Atheism more Reasonable than Theism?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 351 times Debate No: 79767
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Here is the purpose of this debate: I am interested in discussing topics in this area to better understand atheism so to better understand my own faith through defending my faith (Catholic). The goal is also to be able to debate more effectively while being more courteous, in addition to being more aware about saying things that the other person might not agree with.

I am not picky about definitions, as long as the other side can understand what the first person is saying. Each side is free to define a definition in order to make the point they want to make. For example, one person can define belief to include knowledge, and the other can define belief as only having no reason. In addition, one can ask for clarification concerning that definition. I prefer this way because it is easy to talk about things one is more familiar with than otherwise.

Now, here are some examples of topics I am interested in debating:
(1)Is it reasonable to believe in the existence of God?
(2)Is Pascal"s Wager a valid argument?
(3)Are there valid arguments against the existence of God? (We can discuss the problem of evil, can God make a rock so heavy that He can"t lift it, etc.)
(4)Are there reasons to hope for the existence of God? For example, what about the idea that the Church lasts for an hour that doesn"t seem to be put to good use?
(5)Would God want me to go to a Church where I seem to get nothing out of it? (I have an interesting response for this one)
(6)If one uses the principle of cause-effect to explain God"s existence, then doesn"t one have to ask who created God? (Idea from Other ideas can come from here)

I would also be interested in debating another theist over ideas that I am not convinced about
(1)The idea against evidentialism. Though I haven"t explored the topic thoroughly, I am currently willing to take the side for evidentialism.
(2)Anselm"s Ontological Argument (for the existence of God)(a priori argument)
(3)Descartes" Ontological Argument (for the existence of God)(a priori argument) (I am less confident with this one, mainly because I haven"t explored it as much)

If you have another idea, or comment about any particulars of the debate, post it in the comments beforehand. I will expect at least a few of these to take more than 5 rounds. If that occurs, judging should only apply to the present set of rounds. I put five rounds, but if anyone wants fewer rounds, they can say so (I want to have at least one round to expand on my argument, and I ideally want the capability to critique an argument).


I thank my opponent/colleague for posting this challenge, although it seems like this is going to carry over into other things rather than "is atheism more reasonable than theism". I myself am not terribly religious, however i do believe that insight into as many other religions and belief systems as possible is vital to self-discovery. For now I will simply allow you to decide on the first topic of debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the challenge. Yeah, the title is very broad, and there are tons of directions this debate could go. My goal is to look at each direction and have my viewpoint be challenged in order to strengthen my argument, change sides, or clean my argument of weaknesses and errors.

Well, before we decide, let's at least make sure we don't completely initially agree with each other.

If you want to, you can choose the topic, but if not, I will choose (5): Would God want me to go to a Church where I seem to get nothing out of it? I want to take the side of yes, and I would like to argue from my perspective of God as one who "wants what is best for us." If you are against both of these points, then the debate can definitely go from there, and you can post your argument in Round 2. If not, then we'll deal with that.


Alright then. I most certainly am in opposition to both of these points, however I do not mean that yours may not be valid. I do apologize, however, for a lack of direct links, as many of my arguments will be based on personal reflection and observations.

Firstly would be my view of god. Personally I do not believe god exists, at least not in the sense that he can directly involve himself in this universe at any point in time. I have several theories to this, however the one that I can see being the most applicable and compatible in this situation would be that he is already starting over from scratch. I do not want to sidetrack from the main point but if needed I can clarify on why I think this in a later part of the debate.

As for the point about whether or not god would want for us to go to church, in essence it simply boils down to one's view of god, whether it be controlling or narcissistic, or out of touch and unable to act on such things, or anything else. I do not believe that god would want humanity to go to church and thereby praise him for all that has be given to us due to the fact that god has moved on. I believe that god would not care whether or not a failed experiment praises their creator for existence, when it has shown little to no interest for preserving it, only to accept those who come to him afterwards. By his lack of attention towards the failings of humanity as it attempts to march forward, its movement separating the faith of him from the actions and thoughts of humanity, and the atrocities that have come of the past (a very large part of the 20th century is marked by death and suffering), other than the occasional miracle similar to how one would find an old toy and play with it again before returning to their current occupation (or, more morbidly, to yank its chain), it is my opinion that God is no longer intent on saving humanity, but rather intent on watching how it thrashes as they follow what orders they think were left behind by him to achieve greatness.

I understand that this can seem very pessimistic, however due to the laws of entropy in science as humanity knows it today, the universe, and our plane of existence, is going to end and dissipate. It is under my inference, that with a god who is no longer attached to our world, entropy (and thereby the heat death of the universe) is kind of like a final Noah's Flood, intent on finishing what was started by the flood in the first place, possibly due to how disillusioned God may be about humanity. After all, Adam and Eve failed their test, and in Noah's time, the world was consumed by banality and desire. Both of these events have had God show his mercy, and leave humanity to correct itself (which, as shown, hasn't worked out as well as one might hope). However, each catastrophe has led to God being less and less involved with humanity, to the point where we barely see signs of Him anymore. This could be signs that He is planning to commit to finishing the sinful humanity once more, and possibly for good. If your experiment kept mutating and going out of control, no matter how many times you culled the aberrant specimens, would you continue the way that you have before or start over with a new design?

As for protecting the ones who call upon him, that has rarely worked out under scrutiny and testing in the past (trial by fire, trial by combat, persecution, etc.), and it would be easier to assume it is a way of pulling our chain. One last experiment as the specimen extinguishes itself. to see how far humanity can go without his influence and only his word.

TL;DR: God does not care for us anymore, less and less so the more we fail to live under his guidelines. Therefore, it would not be far off to assume that he who does not care for the actions of humanity would be impartial to them praising or cursing him, as He no longer cares about their direction, and only inserts stimuli to see their effects on the subjects, not unlike a science experiment. Not one to create a desired outcome, but one to see what outcome comes out of the circumstances.
Debate Round No. 2


Ok, so I want to clarify. I am assuming you are saying this:
(1)God can"t "directly involve himself in the universe at any point in time."
a.This is because He is starting over from scratch.
b.You said you have other reasons. That is yours to share if you are interested.
(2)If God wants us to go to Church, then God is "controlling or narcissistic, or out of touch and unable to act on such things, or anything else."
(3)God is a deistic sort of God who has made a mistake with creation and has decided to not deal with it but end it slowly.
a.Hence why He "would not care whether or not a failed experiment praises their creator for existence, when God has shown little to no interested for preserving it, only to accept those who come to him afterwards."
i.Your reason that "his lack of attention towards the failings of humanity as it attempts to march forward, its movement separating the faith of him from the actions and thoughts of humanity, and the atrocities that have come of the past (a very large part of the 20th century is marked by death and suffering), other than the occasional miracle similar to how one would find an old toy and play with it again before returning to their current occupation (or, more morbidly, to yank its chain)"
ii."God is no longer intent on saving humanity" God does not care for us anymore, less and less so the more we fail to live under his guidelines. Therefore, it would not be far off to assume that he who does not care for the actions of humanity would be impartial to them praising or cursing him, as He no longer cares about their direction, and only inserts stimuli to see their effects on the subjects, not unlike a science experiment."
(4)You give an explanation as to how the universe "is going to end and dissipate" by the law of entropy, relating it to a "final Noah"s Flood, intent on finishing what was started by the flood in the first place, possibly due to how disillusioned God may be about humanity."
a.After all, Adam and Eve failed, and mankind kept having issues after that, like with Noah"s time.
(5)"God showing His mercy" can mean "leaving humanity to correct itself," which doesn"t "work out as well as one might hope"
(6)"Each catastrophe has led to God being less and less involved with humanity, to the point where we barely see signs of Him anymore."
a."If your experiment kept mutating and going out of control, no matter how many times you culled the aberrant specimens, would you continue the way that you have before or start over with a new design?"
(7)"As for protecting the ones who call upon him, that has rarely worked out under scrutiny and testing in the past (trial by fire, trial by combat, persecution, etc.), and it would be easier to assume it is a way of pulling our chain."

As a comment, I definitely enjoyed your clarity and you definitely have a logical structure in place.

Pardon if I sound dogmatic or miss a point. You gave a lot of points. Call me on it and I can try to explain.

Ok, so if (1) is true, then God must be finite, meaning bounded. For (1) to be false, God must be infinite, meaning unbounded, which is what I believe. Now, if God is bounded, where do you think He is bounded and why? If God created our universe, which appears infinite, then how could a finite God produce such a universe if it is infinite? If God was everywhere in the first universe He created, then why can"t be in both the first and second one? As a side note, my faith believes that God is existence itself, meaning that wherever something exists, there God is, without being pantheistic.

(2) If God is infinite, then why would He need to control finite beings? I think He wouldn"t. Also, if God is infinite beauty, why shouldn"t we look to God? Though that is probably contested because of the things you said after that, which I will look at. Now, why can"t it be that God chooses not to force us to go to Church? The answer is that He can"t force us and not force us, because that is a contradiction. What if He decided that it was better to not force us than to force us? So, I do think that God is controlling, and that He does seem narcissistic, though it is because there is nothing else for Him to look at but Existence, but we should have a level of selfishness as well. We need to eat food, we need to breath. In fact, if we wanted to help others, we would be able to help more if we had our needs met than if we were hungry, sick, or dead. And not only that, when we help others in a completely selfless way, we end up helping ourselves, because that other person then realizes what a selfless deed you did, and you gain that.

(3a) Ok, so just because we make mistakes, does not imply that God messed up, especially if He gave us free will. He could have intentionally meant to do that, as free will is better than being deterministic atoms. Now, it is true that we have to praise God for something good. I have heard that in order for things to exist, God has to keep thinking about that thing, else it doesn"t exist. Not only that, but what if God intended this world to be a test of the will, and then the next world to be the world God intended (aka. (4) Heaven and Hell)?

(3ai) You ask, "How can a healthy God allow such great atrocities?" The answer is that such great atrocities are tiny in comparison. If Heaven and Hell are decisions that last for infinity, then if a finite amount of pain is compared with an infinite amount of "x", then the infinite "swallows up" the finite, seeming as though the finite didn"t even exist. In mathematics, infinity divided by a number is still infinity. Now, those atrocities are still bad, but the point is that in the big picture it could look like a dot.

(3ai) I am assuming the miracle part is or will be taken care of in the other parts of my argument.

(3aii) Yes, we do fail to live under his guidelines at times, and that is due to our free will. Now, from my faith, the question is whether one truly wants God, not whether one is currently perfect. In other words, God gives us the choice to choose Heaven or Hell, according to my faith. Now, there are people who choose Hell. They literally have no reason to do so, but they do it anyway. That"s the risk of free will. So, we make mistakes as we have a choice we can make: we can either strive for better, or let ourselves get worse.

Now, to say it is a science experiment is your own belief, which you support with facts. However, it seems that there are two or more possibilities. So, which one should we choose? Ask me next round! I am reaching my character limit!

(5) I believe that God allows evil so we can see evil and its ugly consequences, so we can freely choose God. So, it seems like it could be merciful of God to allow evil. It helps explain why Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden (4a), and the same with Noah, in not listening to God.

(6) We actually aren"t going out of control humanwise. We actually are getting significantly better. We have better technology, which we couldn"t do with chaos. Not only that, but we have more powerful weapons. If nukes were given to the ancient Greeks and Romans and barbarians around 2,000 years ago, we might be dead 1,000 times over. I don"t exactly know about that, but it might be because that they were not as humane back then. They had slaves and wars and rebellions, and some of that was in smaller countries. We have more unified countries. Yes, the world isn"t perfect, nor do I expect it to be, but we have had enough stability to send a person to the Moon! Also, many people seem to be learning from history. Lastly, we have the U.S., a country which is meant to be governed by the people, a new idea in the flesh for the first time in world history, it seems.

(7) I believe that He protects us in our efforts in reaching Heaven, where I believe it really matters. He tests because it is necessary to determine which way the will wills.


I think that the main difference in our views of God and deistic rule is that you think that God is good, He is all, and all He does is just and right, while on the other hand my view of things is that He creates us in his image, and thereby transferring all faults He may or may not have to us, exacerbated by the fact that we not only have free will, but that we do NOT know the exact pitfalls of evil (however real they may or may not be), that we cannot confirm if doing good in the name of God (and not just in our own) is going to get us into heaven, and that we have no direct way to communicate with the one who is "right". In essence, we are as left to follow whatever path we choose, and that God will not care whether we choose his or any other path, for it is simply to see not whether or not we choose his path, but to see what path we choose. Additionally (and warn me if this is just deep-rooted cynicism leaking through), if God does make a mistake, how could we tell? If He does something wrong and it messes up our universe, it can be passed off as a test or part of his plan. We have no other point of reference. I am not saying that He has for sure made mistakes, but that if He ever did, how would we know, and what would be the consequences of following His word in that instance?

1: I think he is bounded, because he chooses to be. He COULD interfere directly and bring brimstone and exterminatus upon any living being, but he does not choose to. I have said in my arguments that we seem to constantly shift away from God, possibly due to our nature to trust things which are directly in front of us rather than something somewhere in some other realm of existence, and that is what He has accepted it to be. We were shown evil, and we seem to embrace it in our lives as much as good (I: promiscuity, extreme greed, violence, all of which are things that can and often are harnessed to better ourselves, but for every person who has bettered themselves because of it there might be those who are consumed by it). Every time God punishes humanity for doing so, they move back towards it, and God seems to have decided to involve himself less in our affairs, leaving us without his assumed protection of the innocent (possibly to harness us for whatever build of humanity he has in store next I.E: and alternate, limbo-like heaven/hell), and less and less miracles and signs of Him as time passes (possibly due to science becoming more and more prevalent, but who knows?). This, along with climate change and the increasingly intense politics of today being possible trumpeters of the Apocalypse, seems to show that God simply does not want to change us towards him, but only to see where we go when he inserts certain stimuli into our universe.

2: This ties in more with my main point, but I think that He is leaving us to be our own moral judges, seeing where we go if there is no specific Heaven or Hell. I agree that he would have no need to control finite beings, but I do not believe that he is the standard that Humanity should look up to. It would be like a farm of ants looking up to the person studying the ant farm. In their eyes the person is infinite, able to restructure their world as they desire, able to toss them away with a single swipe, and with the right tools, can deliver any boons or punishment as they wish. The person has no reason to interfere with the daily lives of the ants, much less care about what they do in their spare time, the same way God would have no need to care whether or not humanity idolizes Him. He, in the place of a researcher, only seeks out where our path leads, and only possibly how we reached there.

3: I would not believe this world to be a test of will, as I have said before that there seems to be intention that He is going to restart everything either way (including his angels, demons, heaven AND hell, etc.) This could be a test, but not of our will. What I mean is that this could be a sort of litmus test for all of humanity, to see where we go when faced with what is perceived as evil. Not to further his own utopia, but out of curiosity about our human "build". There, in my eyes, is no Heaven or Hell, as those are things allowed/created by God to act as stimuli for us. There is only the next, possibly better build of Humanity. Our test may not be to cull the good and condemn the weak of heart, but to refine and re-adjust us to create one that works to his specifications. To clarify on this point, we have no idea whether or not we are the only build of His children, just one of them. Simply because we are said to be made by Him does not mean that He is perfect, only through our eyes is He perfect, as we have no other sample or reference to judge Him on, not that it would be possible to assume that it is possible to find a precedent on which to judge upon. As for why people choose hell, I can explain in length (with an analogy using Warhammer 40k, but I'll leave that for another round. Character count is at around 3000 at the moment, and I still have things to say.). In short, Hell, and those associated as such, show not hedonism and depravity, but a refection of our wants and needs. It reflects and embraces humanity's weaknesses, shows a way out against what some see as a repressed, dogmatic lifestyle, and sometimes (like in more modern versions of Satanism) endorses individualism, pushing for achievement, and critical thought of the world. Whether they actually do such is up for debate and scrutiny, but that's what is said (Not like Christianity, or any religion for that matter, hasn't had people take advantage of things or do horrendous acts in the name of their God(s)).

I would like to ask you about your other interpretations on what you think are the options.

5: While I do see that evil has it's consequences, there are such things as pathological altruism and the like. I believe it is simply a matter of having things in moderation. Also, this is more to the point that God has been merciful in allowing us to see evil, but it seems like we fail to get much better, which I will get into more detail later.

6: I don't believe that us getting better has simply been a matter of us learning from our mistakes, but more from "we have god-like powers of destruction, and abusing it could lead to the end of the world. We need to think about what we're doing." We have never had the ability to harness the majority of Earth's resources with ease before, nor have we had the power of Armageddon stored underground in missile silos. While we have gotten better, we move farther away from God, we become less reliant on Him to decide for us what is right and wrong, and while I believe that is very good, it does lead to the wants of Humanity being mixed into the bag of rights and wrongs. It is undeniable that a very small fraction of the population hold the vast majority of wealth, and while some of it may be earned through blood, sweat, and tears, there has been an increasing mentality for large conglomerates to monopolize and control markets to be in their favour, and that is definitely headed by greed. monogamy is on the decline, promiscuity is considered normal and is sometimes encouraged (while I agree with this sentiment, there are often times when people become very, very promiscuous and the downsides of being such aren't really acknowledged. As I've said, everything in moderation.), and it can be said that we are becoming more and more detached from each other and increasingly narcissistic.

7: Not so much to reach heaven, more to see where humanity goes to better create a "perfect" one, that can regulate itself and self improve without the constant interference of a deity or the threat of damnation hanging over their heads like the Sword of Damocles.

Phew, huge wall of text here, only got around 120 characters left.
Debate Round No. 3


Ok, so right now, my plan is to show that my side is plausible, not to show the other side can"t be plausible, though that is a good place to try eventually. To try to prove it is a whole another step which will probably need at least another s\et of rounds. You are trying to show my plan is not plausible or reasonable, and that"s perfect for what I want to get out of these debates.

(*1) - Not enough room

For my side, we don"t need to know all the exact pitfalls of evil to know the important pitfalls.

For my side, we can logically deduce that if God is all-good, then if we truly mean that we want to go to Heaven (meaning that we put our words into action) then God will bring us to Heaven. Otherwise, God is not all-good, as this goes against the good.

For my side, we can directly communicate with God.

We can tell if God makes a mistake through logic or contradiction.

Yes, your system says that it is a mistake, and my system says that it is a test. You can prove that God made a mistake through a contradiction. I have to try and disprove that it is not a contradiction, but an apparent contradiction.

Now, my side says that God is truth. A contradiction gives only false possibilities. Therefore, my side says that God can"t have any contradictions.


Yes, we constantly shift away from God, but there are people who also turn to God.

To say there is another realm of existence is a hypothesis which would need evidence.

Yeah, you (and other people, "we") are saying that evil is good there. First off, that doesn"t mean that evil actually is good there, that"s just an assumption. Second, when has doing those things lead to good consequences? Gaining money itself is a good consequence, assuming money can be used to buy more valuable things, but one fails to take into account the losses and liabilities. The liability of the truth being revealed always outweighs the gains.


So, why do people do evil things? They are ignorant, they haven"t thought it through. They see a good part and assume the thing taken as a whole (meaning including consequences) is good.

To say that whenever "God punishes humanity for doing so, they move back towards it," is to imply that the whole human race slips back in the same fashion, which is not the case. Yes, humans are imperfect, but that doesn"t mean that all humans turn on the whole away from God.

Your God seems to be demanding perfection here on Earth else it is a rejection of God. Well, my God desires perfection, but it is not attained here but at the end of his plan, which is Heaven, and not Earth. So, God allows the offenses to occur, which is a natural consequence of free will, else no free will. Now, why doesn"t God stop an offense from continuing to do more damage? Because if one doesn"t see the damage, what will make one turn away from doing evil?

On my side, you say that the innocent lose protection. However, my side says that the innocent don"t lose anything in the long run, but gain. What matters is Heaven and Hell and not Earth, as Heaven lasts an infinite amount of time, and Earth finite time. So, when you compare the two together, infinity makes the other thing look like nothing.

Now, on my side, God never said that He would protect us from evil. He said that He would be with us when evil came our way. Besides, on my side, evil can"t touch our free will or force us to not choose God.

(*4) Limbo
(*5) We don't know if we will go to Heaven

Just because you have noticed fewer and fewer miracles does not mean that this is actually the case. In fact, my side argues the exact opposite; that there are more and more miracles occurring than a long-time ago. Not only that, but science has failed to provide an explanation as to the why behind certain phenomena (though it was and still would be rude to impose scientific experiments without proper permission).

To point to problems in the world doesn"t imply that God doesn"t want us to find Him. That is an assumption of your argument, not a proof against my argument. Arguing about climate change and some people saying an Apocalypse doesn"t imply that God doesn"t want us to find Him. Now, if everyone were in agreement on something against God, then that would seem more serious, but that doesn"t mean that God can"t do something to turn it around (by making people see truths previously hidden).

(2) Yes, God gave us a brain. There is a natural moral law that we can reason to. My side looks to God as the measure with which to measure ourselves because He is perfect. Otherwise, it would be reasonable to not do this, as your side agrees to.

Yeah, you are giving an explanation of your side. We are currently in the process of understanding each other"s sides. Later on, we can then make arguments for or against our side. You are actually making arguments against my side, which is what I want to deal with first. I will give my arguments later on (maybe not in this set of rounds).

(3) On my side, God is perfect, so He doesn"t mess up the first time. Yeah, you seem to be saying that we will go back to nothingness, as there is no Heaven or Hell. I would repeat that we have reason we can use to judge God. I know that people can choose Hell, I"m just saying that there"s no good reason to do it. Hell doesn"t only show a reflection of our wants and needs, but it shows a misuse and abuse of those wants and needs, and not a proper use, which my side"s God knew we would have. Some examples of that is hedonism and depravity.

The good does allow and desire individualism, achievement, and critical thought of the world too. The good looks at everything, and takes everything good from those things, and leaves the bad out. Now, to say that individualism, achievement, and critical thought of the world as pure evil can be disproven, if I find one good out of any of those things you mention. For individualism, it is better to have free will than be an atom. An atom can"t be happy or joyful. For achievement, treating other persons as having a high value, and increasing it, is a good achievement. For critical thought of the world (assuming world means society in general), this can be shown if there exists any society that has done anything that is surely evil, like needlessly killing people, who have a high value, and getting no value back in return, like killing Jews because the society doesn"t like the Jews, versus killing a person in self-defense, to where you would otherwise lose a life or multiple lives.

To say that my side has dogmas is true, but I argue that its dogmas are plausible corollaries to the idea that God is all good, and so on, which ideas are the more foundational points. I argue that these more foundational points are where reasoning is possible and evidence exists for this.

(6) I agree in first two lines, and that Western society is less religious in general, though it doesn"t mean that Western society was greatly religious 100 years ago. I totally agree the world is in trouble. However, to abandon God when things get their worst is analogous to abandoning a stock when it reaches its lowest point. In fact, how are people going to hope to get out of this mess if they only see the misery, rather than also see the hope, the potential to become great again?

The fact that "monogamy is on the decline and promiscuity is considered normal and is sometimes encouraged" and that it is bad seems to show that it was better to follow religion than to not, as people were more religious 100 years ago with fewer problems. What has changed is that the positives and negatives have been magnified with technology and such.


(7) Yeah, the loss of fear of Hell, the loss of a sense of consequences (if there is nothing after death), means that there is no reason to avoid evil (and no reason to do it), but this is still terrible for mankind to accept.

(*7) People do horrendous things in the name of God
(*8) Your #(5)


I feel that we're getting far away from the main point so far here, of whether or not God would want His sentient creations to praise him and follow in his image and specifications. My biggest point here is that God doesn't interest himself with our actions, only the path we tread upon. I feel that the choice between heaven and hell is not simply a test of our will and our will to do good, but as a test to see what happens when a group of people are given one enticing, solid, but apparently punishing choice, and a nebulous and vague, but apparently rewarding choice. I think that they may be false decisions, to see whether or not we can curb and control our nature to turn to God's definition of greatness, to be of one kind. The problem is, I think, is that at one point in time, possibly long ago, God did try to turn us to his path, however we do seem intent on pursuing our own path, with His basic tenants in mind (compassion, fidelity, and cooperation), but maybe not His sentiments. To clarify, we may follow His path, but we tend to adapt it and change it, and appoint ourselves or our peers as judges of our character, not God. It may not be that we forsake Him, but that we set out on our own sense of morality and justice, kind of how a young adult sets out by himself and allows the world to judge him, not just seeking the approval and guidance of his parents, but still keeping their lessons and values within him. Although, that does also lead to the argument of whether or not we can regulate ourselves without a God, and whether or not He may or may not be a parent figure. I am going to have to pursue that line of inquiry and see where it leads some time in the future.

I am not saying that individualism is seen as evil, but a lot of deistic religions tend to advertise the word of their deities as infallible. I'm not saying whether the words of God are infallible or not, but that things should always be questioned and subject to analysis, if not at least to form a better understanding of it, and a better interpretation. The tendency of other religions to crack down on such thought (not saying that Christianity did it in the past, but it definitely can be seen to be possible for it) does tend to paint all religions as such, and that also leads to people splitting away from religion and forming their own criteria on morality.

God may protect us in Heaven, but many are beginning to think that Earth should be the best life we can live, mostly due to the fact that we don't know exactly lies beyond. It may not be God's problem to better our world and it still may not make it a valid argument in certain debates, but it is still a sentiment.

Also oops, I thought we were allowed to bring the intellectual guns to bear, so to say. I will refrain from direct attacks for now.

The main point here is that God may actually be looking for humanity to self-regulate, to know what is wrong (possibly off of His teachings and the punishments He set), and set worldly punishments so that as many people as possible follow the good path, without His influence. This mentality could have been brought on by how often we have descended into evil times before, and so God could possibly be allowing us to regulate ourselves, in an attempt to see whether or not we can learn better through self-reflection rather than commands from a higher power. We seem to be better moving in that direction, as you have said, even though there are inklings that things haven't gone perfectly. God seems to give us free will, but possibly with the end that we'll become independent, and that our actions and rules will not be affected by the threat of damnation or salvation, but through objective reflection and self-realization, possibly along with a sense of self-duty and goodness. In short, God could possibly be pushing for us to expand our thought away from him, much like a child and their parents, and for that reason He wouldn't want us to remain centered around Him as an objective standard and to praise and follow him, but rather as a guiding influence. I don't mean that we don't see consequences, but rather we can make our own and decide for ourselves without such nebulous consequences what is right, what is wrong, and how we should punish those for what they do wrong. In essence, we won't need the rule of god and the threat of Hell to tell us that something is wrong, and that people should be punished dearly for it.

And yeah, we might have been better off than we were today with religion, and it does still have it's place in the world, but I think that humanity should define itself and base it's actions on what it believes right and wrong. However religion and deities should give us a baseline of what is right and wrong, and that can be a good place to build upon further.

Sorry for waiting so long to post. I had to reevaluate what I thought and how I saw everything.
Debate Round No. 4


Actually, we are just clarifying our points, our systems to each other. We can begin to debate the systems themselves next time. Yeah, the clarification is important to help make explicit implicit assumptions we have been having. To believe in God is to also believe in His system, so it would be wise to do our homework and see what it"s about. Lastly, this discussion gives us ideas on what to go after if we continue the debate.

My side claims that God is interested in our actions, since my side claims that God is love. I believe that, since God is all-good and love itself, then He has to do that when looking at us. What this means is that He won"t force people to Heaven or Hell, as that takes away free will, which is good.

Earth is a test, but it is a test of free will. Earth lasts for a finite amount of time, and Heaven an infinite amount of time. In addition, a moment in Heaven is infinitely better, I believe, than on Earth. The thing with Heaven is that if we saw God, we wouldn"t want to change, so our will wouldn"t really be tested.

Now, I agree that we all want to pursue a path. However, for many of us, we choose a path that is extremely narrow. We want to be the best. Now, the problem isn"t that this occurs, but that we fail to recognize when we miss out on bigger and better opportunities to be greater in what is more important. The hindrance with one wanting to be the best is that we settle for a narrow version of best.

The fact that humans make mistakes and strays doesn"t mean that God isn"t there helping. It just means that He isn"t forcing us.

Also, there are, and have always been, people who wish to turn to Him, and who desire Him, even if it"s a vague sense of wanting the best.

The fact that the world seems to be getting worse and worse now would be akin to looking at the stock market on the basis of a bad month. Things seemed to be way worse in Old Testament times. In the Old Testament, God wanted a system of government of where God was in charge. However, the Israelites demanded for a king. In the U.S., we have that system that God desired of people. There is nothing between the people and God, as the people are in charge, and still are. People just haven"t yet stood up and realized how far the leaders have strayed, but people are realizing it more and more so. In fact, the worse things become, the more people will wake up.

Now, there are many types of theism, and even many types of Christianity. I am under Catholicism, one type. I am not defending those types, and am, in fact, with you against those types. I think we can use reason to show that those "infallible deities" have no basis in reason. Here is what I mean. God knows that people claim to have a revelation from God when they really didn"t, and so here is a reasonable system to deal with that. (1) God pre-announces His coming. (2) When He comes, He works miracles. (3) He doesn"t contradict reason. If a religion contradicts natural reasoning and the natural law, they are probably not worth following, as their logic can do damage to man and his freedom to be the best he can be.

The point of freedom isn"t to be free, but to be free to be the best. Note that just because God is infallible doesn"t mean that the followers are infallible. And if it is fallible, it should be able to withstand scrutiny on its own, given its proper context of what was meant. Scrutiny is necessary to prevent falling for a lie, so I agree with you. In fact, some may try and take advantage of it, or try to destroy that religion. It"s stupid, but they have the free will to be stupid.

Yes, we don"t know what lies beyond. However, we want the truth. Yes, we should live the best life we can on Earth. I think we should do this precisely because it can get us to see the beauty of life and thus choose Heaven. From my side, we want as many people in Heaven as we can. From my side, the best life is in contradiction with narrowness in being the best in one small field. It stunts one"s growth anyway.

Oh, and as a Catholic, I disagree with the idea that you have to be baptized to go to Heaven. Otherwise, it would be unjust for the Native Americans, as they didn"t have a choice. Same with the Jews. My side says that God is justice.

Your attacks are good and legitimate. You can just conceal them as questions :).

God did give us a natural law and reasoning with which to find it. For example, the principle of justice. He influences us in a way that keeps our free will in tact. I wonder if our own self-reflections are actually commands from a higher power without realizing it. Our own self-reflections seem to lead us to truth, but oddly enough my side says that God is truth.

Yeah, things aren"t going perfectly, but they are getting better, analogous to the difference of getting a 60 on an exam, and getting a 95 on an exam (give or take the actual grades). I hate it when people say that studying doesn"t help because they don"t end up with a hundred. I do not complain getting a 99 when I would"ve gotten a 65 or so.

My side says that God wants us to be free, so yes independent, but also in a relation with God, so dependent, at the same time. This reminds me of G.K. Chesterton"s Orthodoxy, where he says that we Catholics like to have our red and white together, and we detest signs of pink!

Yes, we are not perfect, but my side says that God is also mercy, in that He knows it and deals with sin and such effectively.

God wants us to be self-realized, have a sense of self-duty and goodness, AND get closer to Him at the same time. In fact, my side says it"s a two-for-one deal! To truly and honestly praise Him is to realize He is worthy of it. My side says that the more one understands God, the more one understands oneself, one"s purpose, one"s dignity, and so on, because of the connection between God and man.

We should base consequences on the truth. It would be analogous to being the best golfer we can be. Swinging backwards isn"t going to do any good.

Now, punishing occurs so that people can realize it"s not the best thing to follow. My side talks about Hell because my side says it is true, not because it is useful. Otherwise, that would rightly be scandalous.

I say that reason is a good way to measure religions. Does it respect human dignity? God"s rule shouldn"t contradict reason. I say that religion should work for man, and not man for religion!

Your reevaluation seems to have paid off! Thank you for spending more time and being caring about your response!

Two responses ago:
(*1) My side says that God isn"t dependent on time, that all time is in His present at every moment. We can critique God when He is done with us, which occurs in Heaven. God is infinite and man is finite. My side says that God is existence itself.

(*2) To do one of two contradictory possibilities is to be bounded by reason, which I agree is true in being applied to God. Oh, and my side don"t call that bounded, as that is a trivial boundary.

(*3) Nevermind (I decided to not say why this part is true).

(*4) Limo is a theory which seems to be more so rejected on my side, meaning that babies go straight to Heaven.

(*5) I say that we can know if we will go to Heaven because we get to choose (from earlier portion of this round).

(*6) My side is anti-promiscuous, no moderation in that, because my side sees it as evil, as hurting man.

(*7) People will get in trouble for doing evil in the name of God. God is justice and mercy at the same time, so those people will more likely choose Hell.

(*8) (Literal) Selfishness (Individualism)- you care about yourself. You strive to be the best version of yourself (Matthew Kelly). (Literal) Selflessness- you don"t care about yourself. You don"t even care if you go to Heaven or Hell. In helping others altruistically and gaining nothing, the other sees you as good --> selfish gain! Out of room! Thank you for your interest! I just gained 71 characters after clicking "Make Changes". Woah!


Pravdah forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Matt532 1 year ago
Ok tejretics. I'll send you an invite after this debate.
Posted by Pravdah 1 year ago
I'll take this up.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
I can debate Anselm's ontological argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.