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

Atheism vs. 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,358 times Debate No: 42518
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




It is the responsibility of the religious believer to prove his/her position. It is the responsibility of the Atheist to disprove said claims, but not to prove their own position merely disprove the religious claims.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Common Religious arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: New Material
Round 5: Final Rebuttals (no new Arguments/material)


Challenge accepted.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting the debate, I'm interested to hear what you have to say on the topic.

Since it is my responsibility to disprove Christianity I will begin with one of the most well known biblical texts, the story of Noah's ark.

First, a ship the the size of the ark (450 ft long 75 ft wide and 45 feet deep ) would in know way be able to accommodate two of every species in the world. Which brings me to the second reason that Noah's ark is a work of fiction. Some common replies to this argument is that it only would have had to carry the land treading air-breathing animals. The ark still wouldn't meet the needed size requirements and if the flood covered the entire Earth than salt and fresh water would have mixed killing all aquatic animals in the process. Lastly how would Noah have met the food requirements of the animals. There would be no room left aboard the ship for the food. After the 40 days and nights when Noah made landfall and released the animals what would the carnivores eat before the other animals repopulated the Earth?

The next biblical account I will attempt to disprove is the biblical account of the Earth's creation.

The Earth was created in 6 days and God rested on the 7th day.

If God truly is omnipotent then why would he need to rest?

There are also several contradictions in the creation story:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.
Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.
Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.
Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

The bible states that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Scientist have disproved this using multiple dating methods. Many creationists will argue that carbon dating isn't precise. Which is true, and geologists know this, which is why they use multiple other dating methods instead. Such as:

-Radiocarbon dating
-Thermoluminescent dating
-Optically stimulated luminescence
-Potassium-argon dating
-And many others that I haven't listed here.

Another common argument Christians like to quote is that the bible is the only true guide to morality, and that there is no such thing as "good without God".

In the bible God did all the things stated below, tell me do they sound like the acts of a moral god?

-God threatened hostility, punishing people for their sins "seven times over," making them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters. (Leviticus 26:27-29)

-God was displeased with Miriam, so he struck her with leprosy and banished her from the camp for seven days. (Numbers 12:9-14)

-God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." The virgins were presumably raped. (NOTE: How could the soldiers know which women were virgins?) (Numbers 31:17-18)

-There are hundreds of more examples at

I did not cite that much information because a lot of it came from past research, and from memory.


In order for me to prove that God DOES exist, I will start by talking about how and why there is a God.

A critic can promptly cry foul and declare, "But you're saying that only God will prove God!" it's true that only God will tell us He has forever existed within the past which He is aware of everything. though we have a tendency to may physically see God, at some point we've to believe he's precisely who He claims to be in His Word, as well as His unlimited power and infinite information. however this doesn't mean our faith is blind and can't be confirmed in some way. It also doesn't mean that faith within the Bible contradicts operational science. God has given us confirming evidences so our religion isn't a blind religion however rational religion. once we begin from the Bible, we will see evidences that powerfully ensure what God has already said. we don"t believe God exists and is true only because He says this.

Unfortunately, skeptics rarely take time to verify the elaborated fulfilled prophecies of the Bible. Given our inability to prove the eternal God by our own human customs, ignoring these could be a serious error so. as an example, God Himself identifies correct foretelling of the future to be what separates Him from all false concepts of God.
Also, Acts 1:3 says the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus"to as several as five hundred individuals at a time"are "many infallible proofs" that Jesus was specifically who He claimed to be: the Son of God. Matthew, Mark, John, Paul, and Peter all wrote that they saw Jesus up from the dead. many of us believe the written testimony regarding the events surrounding the american Revolutionary War while not one picture or video, however they fail to believe the written testimony of the forty authors whose works we have a tendency to collectively call "the Bible."

Scripture makes it clear that God"s eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen within the creation of the planet around us. God is saying that the look and complexness of nature makes it obvious that He exists. however arduous hearts typically refuse to simply accept any proof that the Bible is true, for it makes them responsible to a Creator God.
While we might not be able to scientifically prove the eternal, almighty God exists, we will see however the Bible is consistent with operational science. With the account of the Flood, we'd expect to search out billions of dead things buried in rock layers arranged down by water everywhere the world, that is exactly what we do find! we additionally see the universe is logical and orderly, and our Creator, as described within the Bible, is the God of order and logic. Ultimately, love, reason, knowledge, logic, and morality are all not possible to explain in a purely materialistic universe that exists out of the blue.

Over and over again the statements within the Bible are often confirmed as true (especially prophecies that solely God may have known) and in keeping with science, showing it can be trusted on all accounts, as well as the existence of God. Biblical faith in God is rational, not blind.

(Exodus 24:11)
(Isaiah 41:21"23, 44:6"8, 45:1"6, and 46:8"11)
(Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1; 97:6; Job 12:7"10)
Debate Round No. 2


You are still basing your argument on the assumption that the bible is correct. There are no reasons to assume that the bible is correct. The only reason that Christians have to believe that the bible is correct is that it says so itself. Which would be the same as J.K. Rowling stating that the Harry Potter series is fact, or Christopher Paolini saying the same thing about the inheritance cycle, or J.R.R. Tolkien about the Lord of the Rings. You speak of the 40 authors who write testimony in the form of the bible. This would be the same as if I took 40 fiction/fantasy writers, combined them together, and claimed that it was one hundred percent factual.

You go on to state that God reveals himself through the complexity of our universe. It is true that our universe is complex, however that is no reason to assume that it had to have a creator. Conway"s "Game of Life" shows how complex systems evolve over time from the simplest of rules. It is the same with the universe, the rules are just different. Instead of defining which squares would live or die, they are in the form of Quantum mechanics.

You then state that there is geologic proof of the flood in the fossil records. This is not true, scientists have searched for years and haven"t found any proof of the flood. If you could, please add a link to where you found this information.

The universe is not a logical or orderly place at all. In space there is literally places where the laws of physics as we know them break down,places where the temperatures reach into the millions of degrees, places where stars and entire galaxies are destroyed by one another, and places where giant gas clouds dominate for light years in all directions.

Love, reason, knowledge, logic, and morality are just names we give to thoughts and emotions within the human brain. They are ruled by chemicals released by the brain, the chemicals that we call hormones. If they can"t be explained within the materialistic universe than why can scientists control emotions with chemicals. We are simply biological machines that react to our environment and have evolved into being self aware of the fact that we are alive.

Finally can you add evidence to what you state in the last paragraph. What statements are proved as true? I already stated that the bible does not agree with science. The bible states that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Science has proved that it is, in fact, about 4 billion years old.


You are trying to say that the bible is not true, how do you know this? Do you think that anyone could just think of humans excreting cow dung (Ezekiel 4:12-15), Jesus exorcising Legion from a man and into a flock of swine (Mark 5), or even a talking donkey (Numbers 22:21-39)?

And this is nothing like having 40 different fiction/fantasy authors coming together to write a book. You want to know why? Because neither J.K. Rowling, Christopher Paolini, nor J.R.R. Tolkien had God tell them what to write.

And also recent analysis by a team of creation scientists referred to as the R.A.T.E. (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) group has showed the unreliability of radiometric dating techniques. Even the utilization of isochronal dating, which is supposed to eliminate some initial condition assumptions, produces dates that aren't reliable. Despite the actual fact that there are several scientific issues with radiometric dating, there's a more important problem. The Bible provides a far different image and explains that counting on man"s reasoning is foolish. A concern of God and reverence for His Word is the start of knowledge. Beginning with the Bible and developing a model for geological dating events in earth history can lead us to the truth. The Bible provides us a much additional reliable history of the planet because it was recorded by God.

Since you brought up morality, an evolutionist may say that Individuals will start making their own moral code aside from God. They will adopt their own standards of right and wrong. However, this sort of thinking is arbitrary, and can result in absurd consequences. If everybody can produce his or her own morality, then nobody could argue that what people do is truly wrong, since people can also invent their own personal moral code. As an example, an individual may choose for himself a moral code in which murder is utterly acceptable. This may appear displeasing to us, but how may we argue that it's wrong for others to murder if morality is nothing but a personal standard? If morality may be a subjective personal choice, then Hitler can't be denounced for his actions, since he was acting in unison along with his chosen standard. Clearly this is often an unacceptable position.

There is geological proof that the Genesis flood actually occurred, we can find and have found fossils of ocean creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For instance, most of the rock layers within the walls of the Grand Canyon (more than a mile higher than ocean level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found within the Himalaya Mountains.

Without a doubt, the foremost complicated information-processing system alive is the human body. If we take all human data processes together, i.e. aware ones (language, information-controlled, deliberate voluntary movements) and unconscious ones (information-controlled functions of the organs, endocrine system), this involves the processing of 10^24 bits (106 ZB) daily. This astronomically high figure is higher by an element of 1,000,000 [i.e., may be a million times greater] than the full human information of 10^18 (111 PB) bits held altogether the world"s libraries.

ZB=Zettabyte - 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes
PB=Petabyte - 1,000,000,000,000,000 bytes
Debate Round No. 3


Evolution has given many creatures the ability to imagine scenarios, humans just take this a step further and write it down to entertain others. So yes, humans do have the ability to "just think up" fictional accounts. It has been proven many times over. If humans couldn't than their would only be one section in every library, non-fiction.

It is exactly like having several fiction writers come together to write a book, and then having a character in the book saying that the book is correct. The bible is no different.

It is true that radiometric dating techniques are not always accurate which is why scientists use multiple methods to cross reference, instead of just one such as:

fission track dating helium
optically stimulated luminescence

You again base your argument on the bible being correct. Can you please provide some examples to prove that the bible is historically accurate?

The definition of morality as given by the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
noun \mə-G2;ra-lə-tē, moM5;-: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior
: the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something
If God truly is omnipotent and governs morality through the word of the bible then how were biologists able to change people"s perception of right and wrong by stimulating the brain with magnets?
How would brain damage inhibit the power of the bible?

If the only way to be moral is through the bible then why is there a smaller percentage of atheists (0.02%) in prison than there are christians (74%)?

There are fossils in the Grand Canyon because millions of years ago it was under the ocean, but not from a "Great Flood" but because of plate tectonics.
There are fossils in the Himalaya mountains because mountains are formed when tectonic plates collide and push upwards. The area at and around the Himalaya mountains were once underwater, and when the mountains were formed fossils were carried up along with the rock.

The human body is highly complex but so are other organisms. Complexity does not have to immediately point to creation, evolution can be accredited for the complexity. Our brain does process a lot of information but that is no reason to say that there must be a creator.


Some Christians have argued for the reality of Scripture on the idea of various lines of external proof. For instance, archeological discoveries have confirmed several events of the Bible. The excavation of Jericho reveals that the walls of this town did so fall as described within the book of Joshua. Indeed, some passages of the Bible, that critics once claimed were simply myth, have currently been confirmed archeologically. for example, the five cities of the plain represented in Genesis 14:2 were once thought by secular students to be legendary, however ancient documents have been found that list these cities as a part of ancient trade routes.

Such consistency is to be expected. Yet, using archaeology in an effort to prove the Bible appears inappropriate. After all, archaeology is an unsure science; its findings are inevitably subject to the interpretation and bias of the observer and are generally turned by newer proof. Archaeology is beneficial, however fallible. Is it acceptable to use a fallible procedure to judge what claims to be the foolproof Word of God? Using the less certain to judge the more certain appears logically blemished.

A number of passages within the Bible predict future events in nice detail"events that were future to the writers however are currently in our past. As an example, in Daniel two a prophecy foretold the next three world empires (up to and as well as the Roman Empire) and their falls. If the Bible weren't inspired by God, how could its mere human writers possibly have known concerning events within the distant future?

The Bible conjointly touches on matters of science in ways in which appear to travel on the far side what was better-known to man at the time. In Isaiah 40:22 we tend to examine the spreading out (expansion) of the heavens (the universe). Nonetheless secular scientists didn't discover such enlargement till the 1920's. The spherical nature of the world and therefore the undeniable fact that the world hangs in space are steered in Scriptures like Job 26:10 and Job 26:7 respectively. The book of Job is believed to have been written around 2000 BC"long before the nature of our planet was generally known.

Such proof is actually consistent with the claim that the Bible is inspired by God. And a few individuals notice such proof convincing. Yet, persons who tenaciously resist the thought that the Bible is the Word of God have offered their counterarguments to the above examples. They have steered that the predictive prophetical passages were written after the actual fact, much later than the text itself would indicate. Samples of apparent scientific insight within the Bible are chalked up to coincidence.

Moreover, there's one thing inappropriate about using secular science to gauge the claims of the Bible. As with archaeological claims, what constitutes an observation is usually subject to the bias of the interpreter. Some individuals would claim that particles-to-people evolution may be a scientific fact. Though creationists would disagree, we must concede that what some individuals suppose is nice science doesn't always coincide with the Bible.
The Bible will show agreement with a number of what's normally accepted as scientific fact. However what's thought of scientific fact these days may not be tomorrow. We are once again within the embarrassing position of trying to gauge what claims to be foolproof revelation from God by the questionable standards of men. Again, how will we choose what claims to be unerring revelation by a standard that's itself unsure and ever-changing? This would be like using one thing we simply suspect to be about three feet long to check whether or not a yardstick is correct. Using the less-certain to gauge the more-certain simply doesn"t make sense. At best, such things simply show consistency.
Debate Round No. 4


It is true that some accounts in the bible may be partially correct, but that does not mean that it is completely correct. Archaeologists have discovered evidence that the walls at Jericho fell from an earthquake. Not a supernatural force, but a natural event. The people that observed what happened at Jericho didn"t know about plate tectonics, so they acquitted what happened to God. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years. Zeus is a prime example, humans didn"t understand what caused lightning, so they assumed a God must have been behind it. We now know that lightning is a meteorological event. The same happened at Jericho, except instead of lightning and Zeus, it was an earthquake and YaHweh.

Archaeology is an unsure science, as is all science. When a new discovery is made the old one is replaced. That"s what makes science work. Once Religion has a set opinion about a matter it never changes. It doesn"t matter what evidence is presented religions do not change their opinions. Science however, changes its ideas based on evidence. Scientists once thought the Earth was the center of the universe, but when new evidence was presented it changed its position based on the evidence. This occurs all the time.

"Is it acceptable to use a fallible procedure to judge what claims to be the foolproof Word of God?"

The bible can claim that it is the word of God but that doesn"t mean that it is. I can claim that I can fly, but that doesn"t mean that I can. I would be asked to prove it, and of course I, wouldn"t be able to, and no one would believe me. Why is it any different with the bible.

"Using the less certain to judge the more certain appears logically blemished."

I could be highly confident that I could fly, but that that doesn"t mean that I could. A better argument would be "Using the less proven to judge the more proven appears logically blemished". However, that argument is not in your favor.

None of the passages you listed (Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:10, or Job 26:7) clearly state anything about the shape of the Earth or the expansion of the Universe. It is possible to warp them into a blurry resemblance of modern day science, but nothing more.

There is a rather large amount of proof disproving the actual date that the prophecies of Daniel were written.

Proper science is unbiased, that is probably the greatest aspect of science. Whenever a scientist conducts an experiment and it doesn't work out to match his hypothesis he learns from it. He doesn't change his results to make him look smart or correct he simply learns from it.

Again, science changes what it considers fact when presented with new evidence.

"Using the less-certain to gauge the more-certain simply doesn't make sense."

No it does not, so why then are you trying to judge something based on evidence and facts with something based on superstition and fear?

And I leave you with this,

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

...Stephen F Roberts


In round 4 you speak that the fossils in the Grand Canyon were from millions of years ago because of plate tectonics. The evolutionists didn't have people millions of years ago to write down what happened. Creationists, however, have had people from thousands of years write down what had happened. There were many people who wrote the bible based on what God said. Also, there are multiple authors of the bible whod haven't even heard of or seen each other, and have written the same thing in the bible.

Then you say that Jericho's walls didn't fall because of supernatural acts, what if God used tectonic plates to crumble the walls, or if people mistaken the huge rubble falling to ground as an earthquake?

The thing about atheists is that y'all don't just believe, y'all have to question everything. Science isn't meant to prove stuff right, but to prove stuff wrong. So good luck proving God wrong!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Jimi_Hendrix 5 years ago
Music is the only religion that matters, so....giraffes.
Posted by brains 5 years ago
MABY! just MABY! we should accept each other even though you may
think that the 'other' isn't happy or well off believing or not believing. we are all different our body's are different. some people are longer some aren't some peoples brain work different so its only normal that they behave or belief different!
Posted by Turpis 5 years ago

Creationists have added together different time periods in the bible and have reached that number, here is one website describing the process:
Posted by Dmot 5 years ago
To Both debating this issue:
**Where does the Bible claim that the earth is 6000 years old?

To Con:
Are you attempting to prove God using the Bible?
Also, how do you know which books should be in the Bible? In other words, lets suppose that the Gospels proved the existence of God. Would it follow that any other part of the Bible would prove God's existence? Would it follow that any other books are even accurate? Would it follow that they should also be in the Bible?
The Bible is a collection of books, not one thing.

to deny that the universe/earth are both older than 6000 years is an absurdity. It simply flies in the face of science. However, not all Christians believe this.
Posted by telisw37 5 years ago
I say bible is correct. Religion is in error. The ark could do exactly what the bible said. I learned that in US NAVY. Also Adam was God in flesh. The guy who returned virgin born. Also there where more than 8 people. Gentiles were there too. Adam started the Jewish race. Not all people.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Matt_L 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: