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

It is better to believe in the God of the Bible than to be an Atheist

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
DreamilyMidnightBlue has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 2,032 times Debate No: 103120
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (70)
Votes (0)




My position is as follows: If I believe in God and it turns out God did not exist then I don't have to face any accountability for my disbelief. If I am right that the Christian God does exist then eternal awards awaits me when I die and still do not have to face any accountability and do not have to face any judgment.

If the atheist is right and there is no God and no afterlife then he or she will not have to face any accountability for not believing in God. Should the atheist be wrong he/she will be held accountable and will have to face judgment accordingly.

It is therefore my resolution that that it is better to believe in the Christian God than not to believe in Him.

Rebuttals and arguments can be done from the first round. Thanks.


I'd like to thank Pro for posting this interesting debate!

As for rebuttals, I will forfeit my round of rebuttal, despite Pro's kind allowance for such. I would consider it unjust and would simply like to state my position.

It is better to be atheistic in modern society than it is to believe in a monotheistic God. If we take the supposed stance of there truly being a God, then one must assume that judgment isn't singularly about belief. As most Christian denominations believe, good works and charitable actions are a major aspect of paradise, and according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Christians/ monotheistic believers are the largest portion of criminals within the prison system, and if we assume atheists shall face judgment based on the 1st Commandment, then a large proportion of monotheistic disciples must be judged in the regards of criminal Commandments as well (thou shall not covet, thou shall not steal.)

Therefore, putting importance only on judgment in the afterlife, I believe monotheistic followers and atheists are to face equal judgment in acknowledgment of a God. The only way this would not be true is to assert that atheists do not possess a personal moral set and values, which is a definite logical fallacy.

(references Federal Bureau of Prisons statistic as well as other various studies.)
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting.

Con begins by using an argument usually directed at Pascal's wager but it fails against what I propose. The reason for this is because there are many differences between Pascal's wager and what I presented. The argument here is not which denomination is correct but simply belief about the afterlife based on atheistic beliefs that life cease when you die. It is specifically based on accountability and as such when you die. The argument I proposed can also be further extended to answer Con"s objection and since he mentioned it I will address it although it deviates from the initial proposal.

The orthodox view is that we are saved by faith without works in the finished work of Christ. Therefore it is required to believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior.

A Jehovah's Witness believe that if you do not believe like them that you will cease to exist when you die. In that respect I will not be held accountable for anything for believing the above (faith in Christ without works) but they do have something to be held accountable for. I will simply cease to exist, like the atheist proposes as well and not face any accountability.

The Roman Catholic Church these days teach everyone can go to heaven, even atheists. Rejecting the RCC will therefore not require accountability from me because good works can save you according to them. If I am right, the RCC believers will face accountability accordingly when they die because good works cannot save you. I can go on and on to show how distinction can be made. Your counter argument therefore does not hold any credibility against the orthodox view of Christianity.

Your argument for the statistics presented does not cover all possibilities and therefore is not a very good argument. Although the amount of people in prison does not justify whether a belief system is better or not and also irrelevant to this debate, I will however point out the short comings.

1. Many people become religious while in prison. It gives some serious reflection time. When they entered prison they were not religious.

2. Many people claim to be part of a certain religion in which they were brought up. That does not automatically make them a true follower. The statistics is therefore not very representative of the actual situation.

3. Many atheists claim to have been Christians. Based on their previous beliefs, should we consider them Christians or deem Christianity useful into bringing people to "light"?

4. Millions and millions of atheists in China and Russia over many years (to name but two countries) have killed and tortured people needlessly and never went to prison for it. It should be clear by now how deficient your argument really is. If all those people were to be placed in prison then your conclusions reached will be quite different.

Your concluding remark is based on a religion where works can save you and as I stated this is not my belief or the orthodox Christian view. If you kill someone and go to trial, will the judge let you go if you tell him: "Your honor, I only killed once, there are many other people out there whom I did not kill. I gave money to support charities, cared for my wife and children. Weighing the good I did against this single act should show I should be set free". See how preposterous your assertion is?
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kwagga_la 2 years ago
Hi, you forfeited the round so therefore the debate is basically over. It seems to be a glitch.
Posted by DreamilyMidnightBlue 2 years ago
Okay, I think this debate became bugged because it has not let me post anything the past few days :/ does anyone have a fix for this? I have tried over and over and over again to type a response and now it says I forfeited the round.
Posted by DreamilyMidnightBlue 2 years ago
Okay, I think this debate became bugged because it has not let me post anything the past few days :/ does anyone have a fix for this? I have tried over and over and over again to type a response and now it says I forfeited the round.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
God is only the creation of your imagination. So maybe it is better for you to believe in the creations of your imagination. if you fear the created consequenses of your imaginations..
That is really what is is all about....Fear..
Posted by MrDelaney 2 years ago

No problem at all, I can understand why you feel that way.
The comments section definitely isn't the place for something that wound up diving this deep.
It can easily become frustrating with the format, the character limits, etc.

It's a shame we can't simply sit down and talk this out in person - I'm fairly confident we'd have much less of a problem understanding each other's viewpoint that way. Inflection alone adds so much to understanding.

Regardless, thanks for your time throughout this discussion.
It's been interesting and thought provoking, and I appreciate that.
Posted by kwagga_la 2 years ago
@MrDelaney This debate is officially going no where so I will probably not check the page anymore. If you like to discuss the matter further we can always start a debate about it. Thanks for your insight and viewpoints on the subject!
Posted by MrDelaney 2 years ago

"Please do not take offense in what I reply because none is intended."

Not at all, and don't even worry about it (though I appreciate the clarification).
You've been nothing but polite throughout this whole exchange - no offense taken.

I am happy to respond to what everything you wrote point by point if you would like me to - but I also don't want to drag this out and make you feel like then you are required to respond to MY response point by point.

I will say this - I think we (somehow) miscommunicated. Since the first time we distinguished between indentured servitude and 'property' slavery I was under the impression we were only discussing 'property' slaves (I'm using those terms just for clarity). The bible draws a distinction between those two (using different terms for them) and so I was just drawing on that distinction in our conversation. I've never had an issue with indentured servitude and don't view it as a form of slavery - but I'm just now realizing that I think you have been viewing it as under that umbrella of slavery this whole time (which would help explain why you kept bringing it up and I kept saying we had already made the distinction but that wasn't what we were talking about).

This is the reason why I kept using the phrasing "owning people as property and passing them on to children." It wasn't to be a smarta**, I was just trying to be super clear about what it was that I find immoral (yet is still permitted under biblical law).

So if I aided in that confusion or miscommunication, I apologize. I tried to be as clear as I could, but perhaps something got lost between us at some point.

As far as the remainder of your points, if you'd like me to respond to them I am truly more than happy to.
Please just let me know. Thanks.
Posted by kwagga_la 2 years ago
@ MrDelaney Pointing out that good came from slavery does not mean I condone slavery it is a reaction to question the validity of your argument. I gave many examples to show the distinctions. I say again, God dealt with slavery as practiced in Israel. In the NT when the question of slavery came up Christ replied that they should obey their masters. That is not approving slavery but again deals with TREATMENT and in this case what is required of the slave. Christ did not came to abolish human structures and institutions. As said many times, God allows this for a time, just like slavery was allowed because man initiated it and practiced it.
Posted by kwagga_la 2 years ago
@ MrDelaney I presented you with an argument to correct my position so that I will not misrepresent yours. Asking specific questions that required a simple yes or no was answered by shifting the focus. In order for you to prove that ALL FORMS of slavery is bad in ISRAEL you must prove that no good can come from this. When I showed that there was good that came out of it you shifted from the Hebrews to the foreign slaves. Addressing your objection I pointed out foreigners could be circumcised and be counted as Hebrews and therefore set free the same as the Hebrew slaves. You did not address this point but regardless you did not show how EVERYTHING found in slavery as practiced by the Israelite's are bad. Therefore your argument is not proven or logical because you do not prove your argument by only focusing on 50% and ignoring the rest. Half way bad is not all the way bad.

How to TREAT a slave is central to the regulations God imposed on man who initiated slavery and is necessary to the point I made. I leave this discussion then by saying, slavery in the Bible should be discussed according to its context as applied to ISRAEL only and not universal by switching around and confusing the issue.
Posted by kwagga_la 2 years ago
@ MrDelaney The second reason why I think things have become circular is because you generalize too much. You fail to distinguish between different types of slavery but focus on a biblical interpretation for all types found. The type of slavery practiced in Egypt was different from what the Hebrews practiced and is also different from the Slavery practiced in the South in the USA. I have alluded to this previously by stating that if someone does not follow the Biblical prescriptions for the correct THREATMENT of slaves then they cannot claim the Bible as support for the type of slavery they practice. You mix different types of slavery view points by saying that you do not believe a slave is property to be dealt with any way you want to. This is NOT the Biblical view of what is found regarding slavery or how a slave must be viewed. The Bible gives specific rules how a slave is to be treated and set free. Taking this into account one can hardly make the claim that the slave in ISRAEL was "property" if the "owner" is restricted in what he can and cannot do with the slave. The master in Israel COULD NOT do as he or she liked with a slave and refutes your assertion if you want to apply it to slavery found in Israel. You cannot force your general comprehension of slavery on the Bible and ignoring the SPECIFIC context found in the Bible.

You do not make distinctions between the types of slavery that was practiced and therefore cannot use the slavery module found in the Bible and argue for or against all slavery. Using the Bible you can only argue for slavery practiced in Israel because that is what God dealt with, not Egypt, not Babylon, not Persia but Israel.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.