The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
shift4101
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Is it logical to say that Christians have a more negative view on life than atheists?

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...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 944 times Debate No: 19737
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

If it brings someone more comfort to believe that this can't be the only life there is, then that must mean that it would bring them less comfort to believe that this is the only life we get to live.

This means that they must be the ones with a negative view on life, because if they weren't, then why would they feel so much more comfort in believing in a completely different life that may not even exist in reality? It seems the answer to that question is because they can't grasp the beauty of life the way it is. It reminds me of a beautiful girl who feels the need to get a boob job and lose 20 lbs to feel good about her self, when in reality you just need to accept the original beauty for what it is because it truly is good enough.

Also , what seems more genuine (which is obviously more positive than deception)?
A) I help human beings and don't wan't harm or misery to come to them because I myself in fact a human being, I look at all we have done and the animal kingdom, and think life is precious.
B) I wouldn't know not to harm or cause mystery unless a creator told me it was wrong to do so, I look at all what God has given us and think life is precious but only because the Lord created us.

It seems to me that it's logical to say the atheist wants to do good for more genuine reasons. I mean if I help somebody, it isn't because I fear hell, or think it will score me more points with the man upstairs to go to heaven, or think that if I don't help the person the Lord will watch me in disgust, I do it because I genuinely want to help my fellow human beings. I simply do not fear things that I don't believe exist.

So if a finite X is good enough for "A" to accept comfortably, but "C" needs to believe there is a Y that exists for when X ceases to exit to accept X comfortably, then it is clear that "A" has a more positive view on X.
shift4101

Con

Let me provide some definitions before I begin:

Logical - Characterized by clear, sound reasoning.
Life - The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional...

Actually, it is quite logical to say that Christians, Budhists, Atheists and the like all have the same view on life, considering perception is not affected astonishingly by a persons beliefs. But this is obviously not what my opponent is infering.



My opponent first 'argument' asserts that believing a greater life than the life you currently have causes you to diminish the value of what you current life. But this is begging the question (Why believe this in the first place?), and is certainly not the case everytime. For instance, one can view their greater percieved life and compare the qualities of the two in positive ways, for instance a heaven would have abundant human life just like Earth, as well as logic and love. You can also look at it in a negative way, like seeing all the sin in the world, and curse the bigots, homosexuals, greedy, and demons for what they are. But that really depends on what your indinvidual world view is, regardless of your religious beliefs.


My opponents next argument states that believing harm is wrong based on the beauty of life rather than harm being objectively wrong. Now, my opponent is begging the question again, as life is not objectively beautiful. It is simply an opinion to be held, and I regret to inform him that not all atheists think that life is beautiful and should not cause harm to others. Again, this has nothing to do with religion, but rather an individual's basic worldview.


And my opponent is begging the question one last time, as he is simply asserting that Christians need an afterlife to be comfortable with the life they have now. This most certianly is not the case, as the existance of an afterlife could have absolutely no affect on religious beliefs.



For my argument, I will use a few hypothetical African children. They are both starving, parentless, and probably going to die. Lets call the atheist one X and the religious one Y. Y believes there is a omnibenolovent God looking over him to make sure he is ok, while X believes that he is responsible for his own well being, and since nobody really cares for him because of prevailing subconcious racism in western culture, he is probably going to die and should really just stop trying to live anyways.

I think it is obvious, but which one do you think has a more grim outlook on life?
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

"One can view their greater percieved life and compare the qualities of the two in positive ways"

This is doesn't matter because it is a still a greater perceived life, meaning that person feels a deep need to believe in it instead of just accepting the likely hood that this life (the one we are debating about) is all you have. This clearly indicates that person doesn't think this life is good enough, which also indicates a negative view at least to the Individual.

Also you keep talking about an individual view assuming it isn't shaped by a belief or disbelief in God, which clearly isn't the case.

There is a huge difference in world view of people who believe that life has a start and and end , compared to someone who believes life doesn't end at death but rather continues in a different fashion. There is a huge difference between someone who believes that nobody watches them 24/7 and does good for genuine reasons instead of fear, and someone living in fear of eating pork or masterbating scared that a God that may be ashamed of them. There is a difference between someone who looks at Quantum Mechanics as something which further disproves the need for a God, and someone who looks at it as further proof of it's existence.

To try to play the "individual view" card on a subject of Christianity doesn't make any sense, this is because Christianity is purely based on shaping an individual view towards a certain way of looking at the world, this is it's purpose.

"One can view their greater percieved life and compare the qualities of the two in positive ways"

This is doesn't matter because it is a still a greater perceived life, meaning that person feels a deep need to believe in it instead of just accepting the likely hood that this life (the one we are debating about) is all you have. This clearly indicates that person doesn't think this life is good enough, which also indicates a negative view at least to the Individual.

Also you keep talking about an individual view assuming it isn't shaped by a belief or disbelief in God, which clearly isn't the case.

There is a huge difference in world view of people who believe that life has a start and and end , compared to someone who believes life doesn't end at death but rather continues in a different fashion. There is a huge difference between someone who believes that nobody watches them 24/7 and does good for genuine reasons instead of fear, and someone living in fear of eating pork or masterbating scared that a God that may be ashamed of them. There is a difference between someone who looks at Quantum Mechanics as something which further disproves the need for a God, and someone who looks at it as further proof of it's existence.

To try to play the "individual view" card on a subject of Christianity doesn't make any sense, this is because Christianity is purely based on shaping an individual view towards a certain way of looking at the world, this is it's purpose.

Also there is an incredibly huge flaw in your logic in assuming that it's positive to think a God is watching over the starving child making sure he/ she is OK, because if the child is dying of starvation, that means they are not OK. Not only are they not OK, but the only being powerful enough to stop the hunger, doesn't stop the hunger.

This is like taking comfort in leaving your child with a baby sitter who has the power to feed your child and stop it from hunger when you are not there, but doesn't and leaves it to die. I'm not sure how any logical mind can assume this is positive. It seems clear that it is much more positive to assume there is not a being who could have prevented the pain and suffering and chose to turn the other cheek, this would add more salt on the would like it could have been prevented but didn't.

It is always much more comforting and positive to think that nothing could be done about a horrible deed , than there is an all powerful being who let it happen and didn't stop the pain of that poor child in hunger. Atheists would help if they could have the power to help, but if they have no ability to help, then there is really nothing that can be done.

I believe the atheistic view of the starving child is more positive for this reason:

Believing a situation could have been prevented by an all powerful being, but wasn't, is more negative than the alternative. Some may argue that the starving child would go to a in a better place making God's willingness to do nothing, just. The problem with that is this:

If "C" believes Y is a better place than X, but "A" believes there is no better place than X and X is all there is, then it's clear that "A" has a more positive outlook on X

Conclusion:

The Atheist has a more positive outlook on life.
shift4101

Con

Most of my opponents arguments were ramblings about unjustified assumptions and "Huge differences" that appearently exist and were not elaborated on. He did, however, sum up his argument in a short little phrase towards the end of his round, which goes like this:


If "C" believes Y is a better place than X, but "A" believes there is no better place than X and X is all there is, then it's clear that "A" has a more positive outlook on X.


First, math. From an atheistic worldview.

X = X

Y > X

Y does not exist.

Therefore, X = X


And now from a Christian worldview:

X = X

Y > X

Y exists.

Therefore, X = X



What I'm trying to say is you are simply asserting that someone who believes in a God will have a more grim outlook on life than someone who doesn't, but have yet to explain why. Imagine an apple. Now imagine a better apple. Does this mean that you have a more grim outlook on your original apple? If so, why? If not, VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

You can call my arguments ramblings and beg for votes to your hearts content, but at the end of they day you really are making no sense.

Your math only indicated that you believe in an afterlife and that life is life, well obviously.

Plus this debate isn't whether a Christian has a more grim outlook on life according to his point of view, it is whether it is logical to assume that a Christian has a more negative outlook on life than an Atheist in general (not restricted to the individual Christian or Atheist point of view, but a logical one which can be accepted by anyone who thinks it is logical).

You claim that I haven't addressed WHY I believe it's logical to assume that a Christian has a more negative outlook on life, while I have provided many examples. Either your reading skills are not up to par or you simply chose to ignore all the logic and reason presented by my claims while you yourself, have made no attempt in the slightest when it comes to presenting an argument for how it is illogical to say that Christians have a more negative view on life than atheists.

Since you either missed/ ignored my reasons why I believe the way I do, I will repeat them:

1. If a Christian lives more comfortably throughout life thinking there is an afterlife waiting for them that is better than life, instead of coming to grips with the possibility that this may the only life he has, then that means they aren't as comfortable with life by itself, clearly indicating a more negative outlook ("grim" was your word) because if it was more positive, there would be no reason to add the extra entity (afterlife). This point hasn't even gone anywhere close to refuted on your side, and I doubt it will.

2. You claimed that Christians believe that there is an all powerful and just God who looks over starving children and makes sure they are alright, but if the God lets them starve when he has the power to actually make sure they are alright, then that means he cannot be just because he had the power to let them not suffer, but didn't execute it. Not only is it a negative view on life, it's a wicked belief.

3. The only way to turn reason 2 into a positive for the Christian side is to inevitably claim that the starving child will go to a better place. This argument just brings us to reason 4.

4. If an "afterlife" is better than "life" for a Christian, but "life" is the best thing that could possibly exist for an Atheist (we don't believe in an afterlife), then the Atheist clearly has the more positive view on life.

Conclusion:

It is logical to say that Christians have a more negative view on life than atheists, and my opponent has not demonstrated in any single form or fashion that it is illogical to make that claim.
shift4101

Con

Again, I have to say my opponents arguments are mostly assertions, and I say mostly because he did bring up one good point. But I will address all of them anyways, just to make sure my position isn't seen as a biased one.

1. The single good point made by my opponent, but he has yet to explain WHY someone might feel that way. He is grabbing on to what sounds nice to the logical ear, but provides no evidence to support the claim that looking forward to something else seems to diminish the value of whatever you have right now.

Imagine 2 children again, one who will go on to live forever, and one who knows he will die (And he will die) right after his 18th birthday. The one who live on will make plans for the future, not worry about the future too badly, and try to be a logically thinking human being. The other one, who will die at 18, couldn't possibly enjoy life. He would be too worried about making his last moments count, trying to organize his assets, and cling to appearent nonsense of an afterlife.

2. People don't suddenly realize that "Oh, I'm going to die, turns out God doesn't exist." They die thinking that things will still get better, even if they won't. Even if they suddenly believe that a God doesn't exist because God let them starve, they are no longer experiencing a Christian worldview, but rather an atheistic one. So while they are miserable in their final moments, they can be angry about how God doesn't exist or how they lost faith, both of which don't seem too appealing.

3. I disagree. Whatever, though.

4. I have asked this every round of the debate, and my opponent has ignored me every time. What does coming to terms with reality suddenly make your worldview better? Just because I know I have the best apple doesn't mean I am content with it. I might be pissed off that there isn't a better apple out there, and I just got the raw deal of the cosmic games.



I say vote tie or Con. Neither of us really presented any solid arguments, and really focused on appeals to emotion. I only say vote Con because my position isn't necessarily "Christians have a more positive worldive than atheists", but rather that "Christians and atheists share an equal worldview." Either way, without arguments, my position seems more likely.

Blah, vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by caveat 5 years ago
caveat
wow
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Well it was mentioned but it wasn't used as any basis for any argument, so mentioning it now really has no relevance.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Nobody mentioned hell in this debate.
Posted by Reid 5 years ago
Reid
The thing is certain religions believe in "hell," others don't. For instance, the Orthodox religion, which I am, doesn't believe in it. While we strive to be good, we know that we will be welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I double posted some things in my second round by accident, hopefully I don't get scored against for it lol
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Boogerdoctor 5 years ago
Boogerdoctor
Rational_Thinker9119shift4101Tied
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: This was kind of a weird debate. Anyhow, I give a tie, but I give conduct to pro. Con should really be more courteous. He seems to have a pretty negative outlook on life.
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
Rational_Thinker9119shift4101Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro asserts a straw man fallacy. Con uses a poor definition of logic. and life. Both should loose. This debate was may things, all of them far from Logic, the discipline of reasoned discourse.
Vote Placed by lannan13 5 years ago
lannan13
Rational_Thinker9119shift4101Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate topic, but I think the Pro and con could of done better*
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Rational_Thinker9119shift4101Tied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was ridiculously stupid in that both sides tried to use logic to imply how one group of people are more positive in life than another, and neither used actual evidence or sources. logic made no sense so it came down to conduct which i gave to pro...