The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
joe_dev
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

Resolved: It is rational to believe that God only lets Atheists into Heaven

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 634 times Debate No: 36591
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

imabench

Pro

The FULL debate resolution is that it is rational to believe God only lets atheists into heaven.

Agnostics too...... And Buddhists.....

Basically anyone who DOESNT believe in God gets into Heaven, is what is rational to believe.

First round acceptance only.
1000 character limit.
Go crazy
joe_dev

Con

To even begin to debate this topic one would have to make several assumptions.
One: An intelligent creator exists
Two: A classical, metaphysical form of state exists and can be called a spirit
Three: A Christian-judo understanding of metaphysics is correct
Four: The current philosophy for these religions is incorrect
Five: Creationism/ theism/ metaphysics is rational thought when compared with scientific understanding of physics
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

Sorry it took me so long, back to school shopping has been a real b*tch.

"Five: Creationism/ theism/ metaphysics is rational thought when compared with scientific understanding of physics"

That one doesnt have anything to do with this. For the sake of the debate everything else was implied and accepted...

Now then, the one argument for why God would only allow those who dont believe in him into heaven is that God allows/gave people free will and the will to make up their minds about anything. Atheists, Buddhists, etc dont believe in an all powerful God since there is close to no evidence implying his existence, whereas all God-Fearing people do believe in God/Gods despite little to no actual evidence for their existence.

I argue that God wouldnt give humans the capacity to reason just to only reward those who believe crazy sh*t without evidence and punish those who dont, which implies that God would only allow for Atheists and those who dont believe in God/Gods entry into Heaven
joe_dev

Con

If god/ gods would allow those who deny their/his/her possibility than why would those who "believe crazy sh*t without evidence" not be allowed. If humans were given reason by an all powerful being than wouldn't be logical and within this reason to fear this being? For evidence I look to the flood of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the twelve plagues of Egypt due to the prevalence of Christianity.
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

"If god/ gods would allow those who deny their/his/her possibility than why would those who "believe crazy sh*t without evidence" not be allowed?"

Because believing something tremendously outlandish without a shred of evidence and then using that unfounded belief to deny rights to other people is the biggest d*ck move you could ever pull in life. Also, nobody likes having a bunch of conspiracy theorists in their house. You think God would want heaven to be full of people who think the Illuminati control everything? Of course not! Conspiracy theorists suck which is why nobody, not even God, lets them into their house. When was the last time you actually let a Jehovas Witness inside your home?

Exactly. People hate conspiracy theorists, which is why they dont let them into their home, and why God wouldnt let crazy religious people into Heaven.
joe_dev

Con

I does say, to the same effect, that god loves all people, in most monotheistic religions so then why would he/she/it ban some from heavan depending on what they think? You are assuming that the Christian-judo god thinks and acts like humans, which is completely incorrect according to these religion's principles.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Noctan 3 years ago
Noctan
I would accept this and just troll but I don't want this to be the first debate I lose.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
imabenchjoe_devTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: The Con's last point was conclusive. The Pro had a fatal flaw--God most nearly would not think as we do.
Vote Placed by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
imabenchjoe_devTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the BOP. Here is what he did prove which might confuse. I think he convinced that G-d SHOULD let Athiests into heaven. He proved that they should not go to hell. However he did not provide a single argument for why other people like christians shouldn't go to heaven. Spelling is pretty obvious.
Vote Placed by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
imabenchjoe_devTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct because Con took the debate seriously. Spelling and grammar because most of the time it was hard to understand by what means Con was taking the debate seriously because his grammar didn't make sense and his spelling was bad. Convincing arguments because Pro was the only one to make an argument, and a very good argument at that. No sources were used, so that one cannot be given.