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

Resolved: That Atheism is more desirable to general society than Christianity.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 789 times Debate No: 35526
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




This is a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. With that being said, I as the negative shall remain silent until the affirmative has given his first document. The responses shall be detailed as follows:
Round 1:
-Basis of Debate
-Affirmative Constructive
Round 2:
-Negative Cross-Examination Questions
-Affirmative Cross-Examination Answers
Round 3:
-Negative Constructive
-Affirmative Cross-Examination Questions
Round 4:
-Negative Cross-Examination Answers
-First Affirmative Rebuttal
Round 5:
-Negative Rebuttal
-Second Affirmative Rebuttal

I would like to present upon what the debate is based. This is NOT a debate about whether Atheism or Christianity is true or false, but rather which is more desirable to flourish in society.

Those who are voting must judge on the following criteria:
a. Skill in analysis. This includes not only the analysis of the resolution but also analysis of the debate argumentation as it progresses. The analytical debater is able to get quickly to the essence of the question.
b. Use of support. In Lincoln-Douglas Debate, arguments should be supported with appropriate support such as facts, analogies, and/or references to authorities. Logical reasoning must also be used to defend arguments. There is no need for overwhelming statistical support of values positions.
c. Validity of support. If a debater falsifies sources in support of a point, he/she shall lose that argument. If the falsification is obviously deliberate, the debater has lost the round in which he/she is debating and must be able to recover in the next round.
d. Validity of argument. This includes reasoning and conclusions drawn from the support presented.
e. Clarity of organization. This includes clear outlining of constructive arguments and easily followed handling of refutation.
f. Effectiveness of delivery. Is he/she persuasive with his/her reasoning? Is he/she controlling the debate? Determine how effectively the debater is influencing your way of thought.
g. Strength and conviction. In the final analysis, the debate should be decided on the strength and convincing-ness of the debater's arguments.

A judge"s decision in Lincoln-Douglas Debate should not be based
a. The merits of the debate resolution. The judge should not be influenced by prejudices in favor of or against the resolution. (For example, if you are a Christian, but the Atheist is winning the debate, vote for the Atheist. If your an Atheist, but the Christian is winning the debate, vote for the Christian.)
b. Partiality. The judge should not be influenced by the reputation of either debater.
c. Preconceived notions or arguments. The judge should not allow an idea of what the best affirmative or negative arguments or cases may be to influence the decision.
d. Personal preferences on debating style. A judge should not penalize a debater if his/her style, either in delivery or case construction, differs from that which the judge personally prefers. All styles should be evaluated on the basis of effectiveness in winning conviction.

Here are a few clarifying rules:
-Since this is Lincoln-Douglas debate, philosophy (not science) will be used. Logic and principles will decide the round, not examples. Examples may be used to illustrate an idea, but they never prove a certain philosophy or point.
-There will be no new arguments made in the final round (Round 5). Each side may, of course, respond to any arguments made in previous rounds, but he/she cannot create new arguments that had not been previously mentioned in rounds 1 through 4. Any new arguments presented in round 3 must be disregarded by the voters.
-Keep profanity and insult of each other's personal beliefs out of the round. One may, of course, present facts that are certainly undesirable to be stated by the other side, but personal insult of belief is not allowed.
-Every statement requiring a source must have that source cited. If one points out that his/her opponent's statement(s) has no support, then that statement and any logical flow stemming from that must be disregarded as unfounded and must be disregarded by the voters.
-If a debater points out dropped arguments by his/her opponent, and the opponent fails to address them later on, then those arguments remain invalid.

For anything more detailed, look into this link:

I strongly recommend my opponent to read this link if he/she is unfamiliar with Lincoln-Douglas debate. Thank you, and I earnestly await a response!


Ladies and gentlemen, when one is looking at this debate, you have to back and observe the societies that were theocratic and those that were ruled primarily by Christians. The first one that I want to bring to your attention to England under Oliver Cromwell in 1653 to 1658. He ruled heavily influencing Christianity, he banned beer, inns, theaters, sports and makeup. If you disobeyed his rule, you could be fined and/or arrested. Right off the bat, we see that freedoms were banned. Next, is the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace in the 1860's in Qing China. It was a Christian theocracy led by, self-proclaimed younger brother of Jesus, Hong Xiuquang. Despite it's name, it led a violent rebellion against Qing China, causing the bloodiest civil war. At lead 20 million, including civilians and soldiers [1]. Of course, how can one forget the Crusader states and the Crusades. Pope Urban II ordered the slaughter of 10 million heretics.

The killings do not end there. After the Reformation, where Christians began looking at other forms of Christianity and thinking for themselves, primarily Christian cultured nations began Inquisitions. It was estimated that several tens of thousands of people were heavily tortured for disagreeing with Christianity! Several tens of thousands of people. Then there's the witch trials in which 19 innocent men and women lost their life to the cruelty of the superstition done by the Christians. But the poor, right? Don"t the Christians help the poor? In the Middle Ages the senior clerics lived in luxury and the ordinary monks ate up to three pounds of red meat each day while the homeless starve to death nearby. Some priests even taught there are different heavens for rich and the poor. [2]

It"s not the atheists that were and still trying to suppress and oppress the homosexuals. It"s not the atheists that are against science. It"s not the atheists that want to ruin the lives of the child and the parents for an unplanned baby. It"s not the atheists trying to force our religion in schools to every child. I It"s not the atheists that sell fake, religious items like miracle water, and scam unfortunate and needy people for no other reason than greed. It"s definitely not the atheists that don"t take their children to the doctors and let a growth over their eye grow significantly large. [3] It"s the Christians that do this.

That is why Atheism is more desirable than Christianity.

[1] Stephen R. Platt. Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom: China, the West, and the Epic Story of the Taiping Civil War. p xxiii
[2] Wells, Religious Postures, p 121, referring to Scottish clergy in the seventeenth century.
Debate Round No. 1


LincolnDouglas123 forfeited this round.


Well since this debate is heavily influenced by each and every round, one forfeit ruins the debate.
Debate Round No. 2


Hello! I apologize for the lack of response. I had these questions written up before, and apparently there is a difference between review and submit. I am sorry for not having posted these sooner, but I hope my opponent is still willing to debate.

Cross-Examination Questions:

Hello Diirez! Thank you for accepting my debate. I have just a few questions before we get into the negative constructive.

1. How do nearly all of your examples actually relate to Christian principles? Does the Bible not teach against greed? Does it not teach against murder?

2. Why do you give examples of self-proclaimed Christians? Is not the resolution talking about Christianity and not fake Christians?

3. Where have you stated that Atheism is any better than Christianity?

Those are the few questions I have before I form my constructive.


1. Well no it doesn't. Murder runs rampant in the bible. It tells us to kill witches: "You should not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:17 NAB) To kill homosexuals: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) To kill those who cheat on their spouse: "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10 NLT) Kill those of another religion: "Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord, shall be doomed." (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers: 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
Kill false prophets: Zechariah 13:3
Kill the entire town if one person worships another god: Deuteronomy 13:13-19
Kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night: Deuteronomy 22:20-21

I implore you to look up these verses, the list continues to go on and on and on. But even if the bible did not have these, it STILL would be wrong. Only because it's habitual, the horrible acts against humanity in the name of this organization has happened again and again, through different times and culture. It shows that this organization cannot sustain itself with it's people.

2. I give examples of self-proclaimed Christians because IF you want a society under a religion, you have to look at what the religion does to it's people and how the people act with it. Religion fits both of those criteria in a society. Where as the morality of Christianity is horrible, so is it's people. Even if, let's say, Christianity was a moral philosophy, if it's become a tool used to commit evil, throughout history, then itself would not be good for society, even though it's innate principles are good.

3. In my last paragraph, I showed all the things that Atheists are not doing but the Christians. There's no record of Atheism being used for evil, to kill, or to brain wash people to die and fight. I've shown that Christianity doesn't suffice in a society, so by selection, Atheism would be more desirable.
Debate Round No. 3


Ladies and gentlemen, I believe this entire round has been debated through a misunderstanding by the affirmative. His examples used in each argument do not exemplify Christian teachings, but rather old Jewish laws. For this reason, he has not upheld the resolution. This will be discussed in this first negative constructive after the negative philosophy has been presented.

The value of the negative in today's debate round is that of Morality. Since the affirmative did not provide an alternative, whoever upholds the value of Morality best truly wins the debate. The central idea of the negative case is that since Christianity provides a moral code, it is more desirable to general society than Atheism, which presents no moral code. This will be fully illustrated in later contentions.

The criterion, or method of achieving this value, is that of Encouraging Christianity. This can be done by Christians and non-believers alike. Throughout this round, we will see that encouraging Christianity betters society because it lowers crime and influences non-believers and believers alike to remain good citizens. With the most fundamental thoughts presented, let's look into four main contentions, or reasons to vote for the negative side.

Contention 1: A Moral Code Is Desirable to General Society
A moral code presents an influence to humans to behave in good conduct, whether they are a Christian or not. In his book "More God, Less Crime", Byron Johnson illustrates through statistics that when a moral code represented within a society, crime is lowered. (1) A moral code, especially one stemming from Christianity, benefits society because of influence; when more people are doing good deeds and remaining righteous, others naturally follow along. Crime is lowered; families are stronger; and businesses can be more successful. Thus, a moral code is desirable to general society.

Contention 2: Christianity Presents a Moral Code
As explained above, Christianity influences society in a good way by lowering crime, strengthening families, and making businesses honest and successful. But, why is this the case? Where is the most basic Christian moral code? I think looking at the ten commandments is our best bet. "Thou shalt not murder." "Thou shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The list continues. These basic "don't's" provide a foundation for a moral code upon which others can build. Christianity presents a moral code.

Contention 3: Atheism Presents No Moral Code
Because Atheists do not believe in a God, they have no source for a set moral code. Generally, any moral code they present is subjective to one's own opinion. However, morality, by nature, must always be true; it cannot be subjective. Otherwise, that which is right to one person might be wrong to another, like sexual acts outside of marriage and lying. Atheists cannot answer fully whether a true, consistent moral code exists or not, because morality necessitates a founder. Man cannot create morality, because we break it all the time. Morality must come from a source that does not infringe upon it; otherwise, morality is once again subjective. For Christianity, the source of our moral code comes from God the Creator. Christianity presents a consistent moral code, while Atheism fails to present any of which to speak. For this reason, Christianity is more desirable to general society than Atheism.

With the negative contentions out of the way, I'll move on to refute the affirmative points.

Refutation Contention 1: Old Jewish Law Is Not the Current Christian Moral Code
The main problem with the affirmative is that every Scripture verse he counts is that of old Jewish law. None of the examples he gave in his last argument came from the New Testament, which gives us today's commands. Now, am I saying morality changed? Not at all, but the affirmative entirely misunderstood the context in which these verses were written. The verses he lists do not command us today to carry out these actions; they are a record of the Old Jewish law. If you have a problem with them, take it up with the Jewish congregation; they are not Christian laws. Also, these are, of course, extreme punishments, but they are still punishments for wrong-doing. We still have them today; murderers get life in prison or the death-sentence. Thieves get prison sentences. The difference is that the Old Jewish laws were far more extreme, but they still punished sin. To summarize, because the affirmative presented no real Christian principles that reject a moral code, he fails to uphold the affirmative side.

Contention 2: "Christians" Aren't Christians
He gave a few examples in his opening arguments of certain "Christians" or groups of "Christians" that did horrific things. However, this is not real Christianity. Whether they did it in the name of Christ or not, it isn't endorsed under Christ's teachings. An examples is Westboro Baptist. They claim to be people of Christ, and yet they spew hate. The Bible clearly says hate is murder, so Westboro is not upholding the teachings of Christ. That's why we must be careful in deciding who's Christian and who's "Christian". The true Christian upholds the teachings of Jesus Christ, where murder, greed, lying, and so many other acts "Christians" have done are entirely wrong. Furthermore, look at what true Christians do. They donate to charities. They love the sinner, hate the sin (homosexuals, sexually promiscuous, etc.). They bless those who curse them. They help people in need. They give to charity. The list continues. There is a difference between Christians and "Christians". The true ones follow the teachings of Christ, and the affirmative has not proven that true Christians harm society. (Also, God and science can co-exist, but that is a debate for another time.)

Contention 3: No Reason to Prefer
While he (inefficiently) argued against Christianity, he never provided any reason why Atheism is more desirable. He listed many things Atheists don't do, but he never provided any reason as to how Atheists benefit society and make it desirable.

For all these reasons above, I ask for a negative vote.



Alright let's get this going. I'm going to give the questions and first rebuttal so that way we can get all the rounds in, since Con has forfeited a round.

1. Why is it that I am not allowed to cite Old Testament law, even though Jesus says it still applies, yet you can use the Ten Commandments as a source of morality? It seems like selective reading really, you ignore the immorality but accept the morality.

2. Can you prove the moral code of Christianity?

3. Why is it that the basic philosophy is better than the way it makes people act? For example, I showed various historical record to show many groups of Christianity do vile acts against humanity, isn't it a narrow minded view to not look at how the philosophy affects others?

I think I'm done there. Refutation time:

So the biggest argument against me, is that I provided Jewish law and it does not apply to Christianity. Not only is this false and selective reading, it provides a lack of knowledge.
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets..." Matthew 5:17
There's a whole list: 2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 5:18-19, Mark 7:10, Matthew 5:4-7, Matthew 5:27, 1 Peter 2:18.
The best one is: "...the scripture cannot be broken." John 10:35

So not only do all of my verses I provided apply to Christianity, there's also immoral statements in the New Testament, since Con seems to think there isn't.
"So I will cast her on a bed of suffering and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds and I will repay each of you according to your deeds." Revelation 2:22-23
"Do not suppose that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

This isn't important though. The VERY core principles of Christianity are immoral. The fact that they teach that there's an unalterable, unchallengeable man, who's all knowing, who can convict you of thought crime, who subjects you to constant surveillance around the clock, every waking and sleeping minute, while you're alive and after you die. It's just like North Korea, but at least in North Korea you can die.
NOW, if you disobey this tyrant, he will throw his children in a pit of fire to not burn for a few minutes, or a week, or a year but for ETERNITY. Meaning, you will be forever tortured and burned and you will never stop.

Now put yourself in this situation. You're in a wonderful, sunny park. You're sitting on a bench by yourself and you see kids playing. You see a man and he calls for his kid but his kid ignores him because he's having a good time. So the man calls 3 more times and the kid still ignores him. So the father finally goes to get his kid and when he does, he pours gasoline on his kid and lights him on fire.
Would you worship this man? Would you worship a man who would light his own child on fire? Would you think this man is a moral man?
This man is better than God. Because at least his kid only burned for a certain time, God sends his children to burn forever.

But he's all loving, right?

The core idea of the Christian god is immoral.

Now you say Atheists are immoral? The fact that you called Homosexuals and sexually promiscuous people are sinners: "They love the sinner, hate the sin (homosexuality, sexually promiscuous)" show that Christianity should never control society. Sex is actually healthy for you and it's biologically programmed into us to want and like it. It helps relieve a lot of health problems, especially stress. Homosexuality is something you're born in and the fact that you call these people sinners and that they subscribe to a sin out of choice, shows that you're a bigot and Christianity is bigotry.

At the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations, such as Japan or Sweden, than they are in more religious places like the United States, which has a huge portion of the population in prison. The states in the United States that have the highest church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than the less religious states, like Vermont and Oregon.

Why is Atheism more desirable?
Because Atheists tend to score higher on measures of intelligence, especially verbal ability and scientific literacy [1]. Atheists tend to raise their children to solve problems rationally, make up their own mind on religion and philosophy instead of indoctrinating them, Atheists tend to practice more safe-sex (which reduces STI's and unwanted and poorly raised Children)[2]. The people are happiest when the society is Atheistic, look at Denmark! Denmark is one of the least religious country in the world and consistently rates as the happiest of nations.

Now you tell me, which is more moral? The philosophy that teaches it's members to kill, that indoctrinates and tells it's people that there's a benevolent, unchangeable, perfect dictator what watches you 24/7 but if you disobey him he can kill you on the spot and send you into a pit of fire to burn forever. Or the philosophy that tells its people to base your morality on how well does it helps others and to question everything and search for answers.

Debate Round No. 4


In this final argument, I will first answer the questions proposed by my opponent than move onto the final refutation. I believe this round will be decided by the fact that the affirmative has entirely misunderstood most of Scripture and is not well-rounded on actual Christianity. Furthermore, I would like to begin by stating that repetition is NOT refutation, and my opponent brings much repetition without refutation. With the view of this argument in mind, let's move onto the final arguments of the negative case, first with the responses to his questions.

1. There is a difference between moral law and Old Jewish civil law. The Ten Commandments and its branches dealt with moral law. The specific repercussions that were enforced deals with Old Jewish law. How we enforce morality changes, which is perfectly fine. Christ came down not to abolish moral law, but to provide a new way to salvation. Thus, the extreme methods of enforcing moral law where no longer required. Morality never changes; the way we enforce them does.

2. It is easy to prove the moral code of Christianity. It can be explained easily: is it wrong to murder? Is it wrong to steal another man's property? Is it wrong to lie? This moral code clearly exists; it's just something we can't prove with physical objects. It exists on the metaphysical level, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. Can you disprove its existence?

3. You showed historical accounts of "Christians". As I had said before, there is a difference between the fake ones who do horrendous things "in the name of Christ", and the true Christian acts. We can easily discern them by reading the statutes of the Bible. If someone does something in the name of Christ, but it's against the Bible's teachings, that is not an action endorsed by Christianity. Since many of the examples you provided were those of "Christians", they do nothing to refute real Christianity's benefit to society.

With the answers to the questions out of the way, let's go down to the key voting issues of the negative case.

1. Old Jewish Vs. Moral Law
As stated above, there is a difference between moral law and how we enforce it. Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:17 refer to the moral law; no one can re-write morality. Same with the others. The context on how the Old Jewish law was used in the Old Testament is in the sense of history. It is a record of how God told them to enforce morality. Moral law, however, remains the same. That is what Christ taught. I believe this has been evidently reinforced, and now I'll move down to my opponent's next paragraph with my second voting issue.

2. Misunderstood Context
The Revelations reference refers to what Christ will do to the sexual immoral in His final judgement. This doesn't only apply to fornicators, but the murderers, thieves, etc. Matthew 10:34 is in the context of the spiritual sword, the sword against immorality for the salvation of souls.

3. Justice
As for hell, yes. It is eternal punishment. The problem with people thinking this is extreme is because we have a tainted view of sin. We think one little lie isn't all that bad, but what if you're a perfect being? Sin is SO horrendous to God, that we deserve eternal punishment for what we have done. Sin is horrible; we just don't see it that way because WE SIN. We must have payment for our sin, like a debt. We can suffer for eternity for it OR we can accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ who took away our sin. All we have to do is accept Him and live for Him. That is the basic message of Christianity. Why would we find that man who lit his child on fire evil? Because he too is a sinner; he is no better than the child who disobeyed. Why is it justified for God? Because He is perfectly just; we must pay for our sin, through Christ or hell.

4. Loving God
"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." ~2 Peter 3:9 This is the view of God on our sin; He loves us all and doesn't want us to perish. But, He gave us free will; he wants us to decide for ourselves whether or not we will follow Him. Why, you might ask? If you could create a universe, would you want an army of robots who do everything you say? Or, would you rather have sentient beings with free will who can live their own lives and choose to follow you? I think God wanted the latter; he wanted independent creatures who could fend for themselves. The only dependence we have is God's grace and pardon for our sins. We just need to accept the gift and live for Him.

5. Sexual Immorality
True, we love the sinner, we hate the sin. That goes for murderers, thieves, and the sexually immoral. Furthermore, just because sexuality is healthy doesn't mean its moral. Sex in of itself is not a bad thing at all; it simply must be done between married couples. As for homosexuality, yes it is a sin. No, people are not "born that way". No one said that thirty years ago; it's just an excuse. There have been hundreds of homosexuals who were able to rid themselves of their inclinations and live happy lives as heterosexual beings. If homosexuality is so pure, why does it often result in STDs? Sin has consequences. Does this mean we hate homosexuals? No, nor do we hate those who have sex outside of marriage. Furthermore, a homosexual orientation isn't wrong; it's the thoughts and the actions that are wrong, just as heterosexuality outside of marriage. Now, why cannot homosexuals marry and justify sexuality? Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. Anything besides that is fake and not real marriage. And before you talk about gay marriage, we don't define what marriage is; the Bible and other religious texts do. Every religious text agrees on the definition of marriage: the union of one man and one woman.

Now, does this mean we should outlaw homosexuality and fornication? No, it's not the government's job. Government's job today is to protect the people. The issue of marriage should be left to the churches, separation of church and state. Those who marry homosexuals answer to God, not the government.

6. Murder Rates
You are really selective about what causes murder rates. There are so many more factors that just religion. Population density, commercial districts, economic status, distressed neighborhoods, race, age, and many other factors play into murder rates. Religion is not the only influence, and thus your assertion does not apply in any way.

7. Why Is Atheism Less Desirable?
So what if they test high in intelligence? That doesn't necessarily benefit society. Some intelligent people are snobby, while lower intellect people are nice. Intelligence has nothing to do with how one benefits society; morality does. Atheism provides no moral code; no standard by which to live. In the view of Atheism, because there is no God, there is no moral mediator. Morality is subjective to opinion. Murder may be ok some, not for others. You also provided no source on Atheists raising their children without indoctrination. I've personally known atheist families who have disowned their religion children. Indoctrination goes both ways, but that is still irrelevant. We are talking about which is better for SOCIETY, in which case...

8. Christianity Is More Desirable to General Society than Atheism
Which would you rather have? A belief that sets up moral bounds to stop murder, thievery, and other dangerous influences on society, or a belief that has not grounds of morality, allowing truth to be subjective and having no structured form of right and wrong? The picture painted by my opponent does not illustrate Christianity accurately. Remember the difference between the "Christians" and the Christians. True Christians are loving, benevolent human beings who do good for society and follow a moral code, encouraging (not forcing) others to do the same.

For these reasons, I ask for a negative vote.



"As started about, there is a difference between moral law and how we enforce it. Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:17 refer to moral law; no one can re-write morality."
I'm sorry, but did anyone else see Jesus say that only moral law applies? I didn't think so. He said every LETTER of the law is still valid and extended. My opponent is doing selective reading, he's ONLY interpreting what HE want's it to be.

"The Revelations reference refers to what Christ will do to the sexual immoral in His final judgement. This doesn't only apply to fornicators, but the murderers, thieves, etc."
Still doesn't make it right or moral.

"Matthew 10:34 is in the contexts of the spiritual sword, the sword against immorality for the salvation of souls."
I did not mistake the context of this passage. I went back and read around this verse to see if I could see where you get the idea of a spiritual sword, but the fact of the matter is, there wasn't. My opponent is, yet again, interpreting a passage to selectively put in a message that he wants and trying to pass it off as universal fact.

"3. Justice"
Oh boy.

"The problem with people thinking this is extreme is because we have a tainted view of sin. We think one little lie isn't all that bad, but what if you're a perfect being? Sin is SO horrendous to God, that we deserve eternal punishment for what we have done."
Eternal punishment for a lie?
This is the destructive mindset of the Christian. They think that it's actually OKAY to eternally punish someone for something as little as a lie because they refuse to worship a dictator.

"We can suffer for eternity or it OR we can accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ who took away our sin."
Jesus was never sacrificed! He consented to his sacrifice. Imagine you are a Jewish Rabbi and you have to sacrifice an animal for YHWH and instead of finding a prized animal to sacrifice, the animal took the initiative and volunteering to be sacrificed. It would lose it's meaning. Now to be sacrificed means to lose a significant amount, Jesus consented, he knew that he wouldn't lose anything, he knew he would resurrect, he knew he would join back up in Heaven with God, he didn't lose anything.

The fact is, God created us with sin in our nature. We know this because a child will sin because he doesn't know better. We sin because God gave us in. Then, he punishes us if we disobey him. For what? compulsory love. This is the CORE tenet of Christianity, that if you fail to give compulsory love to a celestial being then you deserve to be punished forever.

And you wonder why I don't want this dominating my society.

However, if you want to look at sin, sin and the "sacrifice" of Jesus is immoral. The idea that through the punishment and torture of another human being that your actions and moral responsibilities can be relieved is unethical and immoral. To bring it further, that to say that through this immoral sacrifice and torture, one that took place before you were born, in which you were never consulted on, but I have to treat it as if I was there present, putting in the nails into his hands and feet. For what? To relieve the sin that God GAVE US at birth. This is a sinister idea. You have no say in a sacrifice and torture of a human being but you are morally bound to it and you have to COMPULSORILY love the being that gave you sin and that planned the sacrifice of this being or else you DESERVE eternal punishment.

"4. Loving God."
You can have free will without sin. We can have our own lives, our own choices but still be immune to committing evil. EVEN SO, even if you allow us to commit evil, you can still have free will without making sin so prevalent in us. Children, before they even know better, commit sin. Which shows that sin is in our nature and God gave us our nature. We were born sick but commanded to be well.

"As for homosexuality, yes it is a sin. No, people are not "born that way". No one said that thirty years ago; it's just an excuse."
Just an excuse? Just because we weren't as advanced and knowledgeable in the past does not allow you to use it now. We once thought that disease was caused by immorality. Does not mean now we can say "Well no one said that disease was caused by a virus so therefore we can conclude it's just an excuse."

"There have been hundreds of homosexuals who were able to rid themselves of their inclinations and live happy lives as heterosexual beings."
Wrong, they weren't "cured". They were injected with so much moral guilt that they suppress their feelings because they think it's so wrong and THAT'S immoral.

"If homosexuality is so pure, why does it often result in STDs?"
Well...Heterosexual couples can get STDs, but if you're referring to HIV, then you're still wrong. Heterosexual couples still can get HI.

"So what if they test high in intelligence? That doesn't necessarily benefit society."
Yes it does. Hence why we focus on education. Intelligence moves humanity forward, unlocks answers and makes society better and

"Atheism provides no moral code."
Atheism does provide a moral code. It's imbedded in our evolutionary history and our instincts. Read up on morality from a non-religious view.

"A belief that sets up moral bounds to stop murder, thievery and other dangerous influences on society."
Most of America's prison population is FULL of Christians. This proves that this belief does NOTHING to stop the people from committing crimes.

why Atheism is better:

My opponent can argue all day at what the perfect Christian is, a "true" Christian. Except an actual true Christian would kill those who sin and beat their slaves properly. But, the fact of the matter is that there has been very few True Christian's, they barely exist so the arguments of my opponent are invalid.

Let me ask of you, what is better in society?

A philosophy that teaches it's followers to kill and compulsory love a celestial dictator or else you get eternal punishment. Or, a philosophy that teaches it's followers to do good for humanity.

I rest my case.

Thank you for reading and vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Quinney 3 years ago
xI was Christened as a baby and so I am technically a Christian, however since I was eleven or twelve years I have doubted religion. I did for a very long time believe that Atheism was just for people who were stuck up skeptics who believed in nothing and always thought they knew the answers. However through my teenage years I have matured to realise that this is not true and that this was just my ignorance. Getting to the point, I do understand the idea that religions are more together and supportive as a community. Atheists too are in now rising and more accepted, not to mention that the science community has increased and there have been huge advancements over the previous century. Besides all it takes is to look at the history of the worlds warfare in order to realise that most if not all wars have been because of or closely related to religion in some way. Whilst as Diirez stated at the bottom of his argument, a lot of debates in the US against abortion, gay marriage etc. Anyway, this isn't a political debate so I will just conclude that I think that Athiesm seems to be a more promising route, hopefully towards a brighter future.
Posted by wiggityp 3 years ago
I will accept if you can clarify exactly what you mean by Christianity. Obviously atheism is pretty cut and dry but Christianity has dozens of different sects many of which vary drastically in their practices and dogmas and thus have commensurately varying effects upon society. Thanks.
Posted by Cobo 3 years ago
Which Ld is this? UIL of NFL?
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
Dammit, I'm a theist and I agree.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Well to be fair my mind isn't thinking in the box right now hence why I want to be con.
Posted by Coltsterguy 3 years ago
Hmm, I'm intrigued. I myself am not christian but do love history, and history seems to be devided in this debate aswell. At certain points in history atheism was a theory, some poeple thought it was literally impossible to not have a faith or religion. But in the modern era more and more people seem satisfied living without god. But witch is truly best for society, probably religion. Not saing atheism is bad in fact I believe atheism promots individuality witch can be considered a good thing, but faith brings us together and witch does promot sociaty...

(sorry for all the spelling erros I'm only 16)
Posted by Emmo 3 years ago
would accept but too many regulations
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
I must say... I didn't expect everyone in the comments so far to be this pro-Christian. It's quite beautiful.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
What I would fight to the death to be con.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
Too many people brag about how Christianity is fake now. What a shame...
No votes have been placed for this debate.