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

Presupposing the truth of Christianity, atheism is morally wrong

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,757 times Debate No: 31160
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (1)




Continuing a controversy started in the opinion page, Morgan2252 and I have agreed to debate two different aspects of the opinion that it is morally wrong to be an atheist, this first one that given the truth of Christianity it is morally wrong to be an atheist, and later on perhaps another one debating the presupposition of the existence of God.

As agreed, we have four rounds, first for acceptance and fourth for closing statements.


I accept. I'm looking forward to a great debate. :-)
Debate Round No. 1


The argument is rather straightforward, I will be interested to see how my opponent responds.

If the Christian view is true, then the following propositions are also true:

1. Justice requires as a minimum measure, giving to each his due. (1)
2. God, as the Creator and supreme Good is due worship. (2)
2. Atheism denies God his due worship. (3)

From this perspective, atheism would be morally wrong insofar as it denies God what He is due (love and worship) which would go against the virtue of justice.

Atheism can also be considered morally wrong on the Christian view form another perspective, since the following propositions also hold true:

1. Faith in God is necessary for Salvation.
2. Atheism excludes faith in God.
3. Atheism leads people away from Salvation. (4)

The fact that atheists may not be saved due to their lack of faith is in itself a moral evil, all the more so if they are successful in convincing others of their position and therefore putting even more souls in danger of eternal damnation.




My opponent claims that atheists have morally wrong standards because they do not worship God. However, if no God exists, or if creationism is false, this cannot hold true.

How reliable is the Bible?
Before you claim something is true because it says it in the Bible, you need to decide whether you can rely on it. For example, the New Testament is not variant-free. [1]

of Writings

Number of Verses

of Verses with Variants

of Verses with Variants













Catholic Epistles












As you can see, even the work with the least variants, the Pauline epistles, is 25% variant verses! One fourth of that group of writings is unreliable! And for the Revelation and the Gospels, almost half of each group of writings is corrupted. If the Bible is this unreliable already, why are you depending upon it to say that others’ beliefs are morally wrong? How do you know which verses are right and which are wrong?

False prophecies
According to Deuteronomy 18:22,
“If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.”[2]

In other words, if someone creates a prophecy in the name of the Lord that does not come true, he is a false prophet.

Both Matthew and Luke quote Isaiah by stating that Jesus was born from a virgin birth. [3] But the question is, was Isaiah really a true prophet?

Isaiah foretold the drying up of all the waters of the Egypt, and the destruction of all land used for plantation due to this drying up of the River Nile.

Isaiah 19:5-7 “And the waters of the Nile will be dried up, and the river will be parched and dry; and its canal will become foul, and the branches of Egypt's Nile will diminish and dry up, reeds and rushes will rot away. There will be bare places by the Nile, on the brink of the Nile, and all that is sown by the Nile will dry up, be driven away, and be no more.”

This part of Isaiah is about 2750 years old. And yet, this prophecy hasn’t been fulfilled in more than 2000 years! And from the context, it’s also evident that Isaiah’s prophecy was meant for the Egypt of his time; it was with that Egypt that Isaiah and his people had a grievance against, and the prophecy was a warning to them. This is a clear example of an unfulfilled prophecy. [4]
Isaiah also said that the King of Judah would not be harmed by his enemies.

Isaiah 7:1-7 “In the days of Ahaz,...king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but they could not conquer it...And the Lord said to Isaiah “Go forth to meet Ahaz...and say to him, ‘Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be the fierce anger of Rezin...and the son of Remaliah. Because Syria...and the son of Remaliah has devised evil against you saying “Let us go up against Judah and terrify it and let us conquer it for ourselves...” thus says the Lord God: “It shall not stand and it shall not come to pass...”

However, in II Chronicles, Syria and Pekah really did conquer Judah! [4]

II Chronicles 28:1, 5-6 “Ahaz was 20 years old when he began his reign...[T]he Lord God gave him into the hand of the king of Syria, who defeated him and took captive a great number of his people...He was also given into the hand of the king of Israel who defeated him with great slaughter. For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew a hundred and twenty thousand in Judah in one day...”

In that case, Isaiah was a false prophet. But he wasn’t the only one. Jeremiah also had a failed prophecy that said that Jehoiakim would have no successor.

Jeremiah 36:30 “Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, he shall have none to sit on the throne of David.”

However, according to II Kings,

II Kings 24:6 “So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.”[4]

And yet, despite the fact that the Bible contains many false prophets, many still rely on the book to say that others are wrong. Why depend on something so full of error?

Because of the many mistakes in the Bible, Christianity cannot be 100% fact. We do not completely know which verses hold true, and which don’t. The Bible being so full of error, one cannot be sure in saying that atheism is morally wrong.

Debate Round No. 2


Con's entire case is based upon ignoring the premise. I agree that, if it were true that God did not exist it would not be true that atheism is a moral evil. That is a debate we have agreed to hold in the future, but it is not the debate we have today. The debate we have before us is on whether or not atheism is morally wrong presupposing the truth of the Christian claims.

The arguments set forth by my opponent are interesting, and I am tempted to answer to them, but it would be distracting to the actual debate. Were we to hold a debate on the reliability of the Sacred Scriptures or on the truth of Christianity, this would be entirely appropriate. As it is, my original statements still stand and I await a pertinent answer.


My opponent has chosen to ignore my argument altogether to make the case that it isn’t related to the topic. As I said before, if Christianity is not true or reliable, then atheism isn’t immoral.

My opponent said:

“If the Christian view is true, then the following propositions are also true:

1. Justice requires as a minimum measure, giving to each his due. (1)
2. God, as the Creator and supreme Good is due worship. (2)
2. Atheism denies God his due worship. (3)”

Yet, if the Christian view is untrue, as I explained in my last argument, then those other propositions were not true. Arguments extended.

“1. Faith in God is necessary for Salvation.
2. Atheism excludes faith in God.
3. Atheism leads people away from Salvation. (4)”

Once again, if this so called “salvation” does not exist, or if it is a complete lie, then atheism cannot be morally wrong because it demonstrates the truth.

The debate we have before us is on whether or not atheism is morally wrong presupposing the truth of the Christian claims.”

And yet, the reason atheists don’t think that they are morally wrong is that they believe that Christianity is false. I am taking the “con” side of this debate because I don’t agree that we should simply assume atheism is wrong because Christianity is true.

My points still stand and my opponent is yet to refute my arguments in the last round.
Debate Round No. 3


This is disappointing. I had thought I was quite clear in our exchanges previous to setting up this debate, at least as clear as the prompt is. "Presupposing the truth of Christianity, atheism is morally wrong".

My opponent and I had something of a disagreement on the opinion page on my opinion that atheism is immoral. In our exchanges in setting up this debate I mentioned I thought it best to divide the statement into three different debates in order to cover the issue appropriately, and offered her to chose which ones she disagreed with to debate, they were as follows:

1. Presupposing the truth Christianity, atheism is morally wrong

2. Presupposing the existence of God, Christ is the son of God and founded the Catholic Church

3. God exists

My opponent said chose to argue 1 and 3 and now insists on using arguments appropriate to the one she left out. I gather she actually agrees my logic is correct in saying that given the truth of Christianity atheism is a moral evil and look forward to holding the debate she seems to be keen on (the truth value of the Christian faith) in the future. As it is I cannot see any alternative to considering the resolution stands.


I talked with my opponent in the comments section, and we decided that this was just a misunderstanding on my part. We may do another debate later, but for now, I would like to forget this one. Please do us a favor and do not vote. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
Daktoria: I have sent you a PM. Although for clarity's sake, I had not considered the possibility that she was affirming Christianity while denying the Bible, I suppose this is because I cannot conceive of Christianity apart from Sacred Scripture. In any case, judging from Morgan's answers after that point it does not seem that was her intention, which is why we came to the decision to make this debate a draw. Should she feel otherwise she need only say so and people would be free to vote. I don't think either of us has been swindled into taking the positions we have taken.

Philochristos: As far as I can tell both mean the same thing. In any case that was indeed the intention of the resolution.

Johnlubba: Whatever your position on Christianity or personal taste with regards to this resolution, the contention among Christians (as shown in Wiploc's and Philochristos' comments) alone makes it a debatable resolution; the atheist perspective would have given it a fresh twist.

Morgan: I save the best for last. I have no problem with you using this argument. We would have to change the resolution to be more specifically about the Christian God in order for the Bible to have direct relevance to the issue, but your arguments are interesting enough that I should be glad to do so in order to (finally) have this debate.
Posted by Daktoria 3 years ago
Tragsu, please scroll back and look at my previous comment.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
I don't see it as the same, one is asking you to suppose it's true and the other leaves room for doubt.

Anyway I have t go, nice chatting to you, have a nice day.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
John, I think "presupposing the truth of Christianity..." means exactly the same thing as, "If Christianity is true..." TrasguTravieso can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that was the intention of the resolution.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
The person themsleves are not morraly wrong, but atheism is if we presuppose Christianity is true.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
PPhiloschristos, this is where I see a flaw in this logic. it concerns the word presuppose,

The resolution is not IF Christianty is true, but that we should presuppose it is true. Once we reach a conclusion that Christianity is true, then we must accept that atheism is wrong, or false. making atheism morraly wrong.

I think we can agree that something being right or wrong is not concluded by if we belive it to be right or wrong....Weather something is right or wrong does not depebody believes it or not. isn't that the arguemnt for objective morality. somethins are right and somethings are wrong regardless if we believe it or not.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
But the debate isn't over whether atheism is true or not. The debate is over whether it's immoral to be an atheist if Christianity is true. I don't see how Christianity being true would automatically make it immoral to be an atheist. After all, it's true that 2+2=4, but that doesn't mean it's immoral to think 2+2=5. So you need something more than "atheism is false" to say that atheism is immoral. It's possible to have a false belief and not be immoral for it.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
Philochristos is possible I am wrong also, I admire your humbleness and will emulate it. fair do's my friend.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
The resolution become heavily tipped in theisms favor if you claim that we PRESUPPOSE Christanity is true, so how can atheism be right if we presuppose the truth of Christianity...It's not.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
Johnlubba, I suppose it's possible that I'm the one with the misunderstanding.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry TrasguTravesio, But I do not like your style, your resolution is even sillier than the one you claimed mine was.......What type of argument is that? Presupposin Christianity is true.....and all it entials..Then of course atheism is morraly wrong....what is there to talk about....zilch....what a very silly resolution. and a silly as it is I have to give you points for arguments. but really!!! and after reading the comments you call for a tie....thats fair enough.