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

Which is more reasonable Christianity or Athesim?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 7/12/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,079 times Debate No: 103176
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing that Christianity is more reasonable than Atheism because Christianity provides a foundation for the laws of logic, laws of nature, morality and senses and reasoning whereas atheism does not. The Bible supports this in John 14:6, Colossians 2:2-3, and 1 Samuel 2:3. This is also brought out by Jesus himself when he answered his critics and Satan himself when he said "have you not read" and "it is written". The Bible itself provides justification for the requirements for actually gaining knowledge such as the laws of logic (2 Timothy 2:13 and 1 John 2:21), the uniformity of nature (Jeremiah 33:25) and the reliability of the senses and reasoning. In his debate with David Hoover, Dr. Gordon Clark said "As indicated, more important than the dominion over animals, is the fact that God explained this dominion to Adam. That is to say, God spoke to Adam and Adam understood what God told him. Genesis 1:28-30 says in brief "God said unto them "be fruitful and multiply. Have dominion over every living thing that moveth over the earth."" Adam understood these directions. And to understand what God says requires as much as or even more intelligence than it does to manage lions and mules." We can also see that when atheists are confronted with this, they could not give sufficient justification for these things. I expect to see in this debate the same thing that I have seen many times in debate.


Firstly, I'd like to clarify your facts:
  1. Please provide evidence that Christianity provides a foundation for the law of logic and the laws of nature.
  2. Please provide evidence that Christianity provides a foundation for the senses and reasoning

None of the verses you quote supports any of these notions. So I have to reject your entire argument as unsupported until more details are provided.

Secondly, this is a very poor argument, and like most religious arguments, is is circular in nature - you're using the Christian Bible to "prove" something about Christianity. This fails because all you are really doing is repeating the claims of Christianity as opposed to proving it externally. You're literally saying Christianity says it is more reasonable because Christianity says so! Such question-begging is a basic logical fallacy so I have to reject your entire argument as fallacious that doesn't support your conclusions

Thirdly, Christianity is NOT more reasonable than Atheism for several reasons:
  1. Our American society is irreligious - i.e. it is secular and atheistic: no religion is more true than any other and everyone has the freedom to practice their religion without interference from the government. Note, this freedom is a secular declaration and not a Christian one. So right off the bat, when given the choice to decide how to govern ourselves, we decided NOT Christianity! And note that this declaration is from a Christian background!
  2. Even religious schools and religious countries use science, math and engineering to determine how the universe works and how to manipulate it. That is, architects don't just pray something that works, Christianity doesn't tell you how to engineer a building or a bridge so they don't fall down.
  3. Atheism is more reasonable than Christianity because it is entirely fact-based:
    1. There is no evidence to support a belief in Christianity (and indeed most of the humans that have ever existed agree)
    2. Christianity has seen so many splits that there are thousands of denominations, each convinced they are the correct way to practice the religion: even among themselves, Christians cannot agree on a single set of practices!
      Atheism is non-acceptance of the existence of deities: it is entirely reasonable since no-one can provide proof of one.
    3. An atheistic approach to philosophy, science, engineering, mathematics and nearly every discipline removes the need to adhere to paucity of detail in the religious texts in order to properly understand the universe. Starting from pure observations and repeatable process to reproduce results, an atheist approach (one that does not need God) produces a great deal of knowledge. On the other hand, explicitly-Christian based organizations, such as the Creationist Discovery Institute has added nothing to science, and indeed has been proven wrong at every turn.
  4. Christian thinking involves a great deal of unproven claims:
    1. that there is a God
    2. that there are souls
    3. that there is a heaven & hell & purgatory outside of the universe
    4. that there are supernatural characters such as angels and demons
    5. that there is such a thing as a supernatural power
  5. These claims bolster each other in such a way that Christianity is really one big circular argument that convinces NOBODY of its truth OTHER than its own adherents. So in that sense, Christianity is not reasonable at all, provably so by the existence of many other religious that disbelieve and have their own counter claims.
So in summary:
  1. Your Biblical quotes do not support any of your claims.
  2. Your argument is question begging and therefore logically invalid
  3. Christianity is so full of holes that it's practically an big hole.
  4. Secularism, non-theistic foundations, and atheistic governance have proven to produce better results and is chosen as the approach by nearly all religions.
Debate Round No. 1


I will respond to some of the claims and clarify my position. First, He states that American society is secular and atheistic. I agree that American society is secular in nature i.e. does not show favor to anyone religion. Actually, this falls in line with Christian teaching (Matthew 22:20-22). One of the criticisms of Jesus being the messiah was that his intention was not to take over the roman empire. Also this country is not atheistic in nature because atheism is the belief that there is no God. Webster defines atheism as "a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any god." My opponent also equivocates atheism and science which is a fallacy and also false. Christians like Galileo and Newton have started what we call today the scientific revolution. My opponent also states that Christian based organisations like the Creation Discovery Institute has added nothing to science and has been proven to be wrong. He has failed to cite specific instances. Second, if we consistently apply this argument to his worldview, then we would point out that organizations like the American Atheists have failed to add anything to science. I would say that individual atheists and individual Christians have and continue to add to science. He mentions that Christian thinking invoked unproven claims. I have a question. How do we actually prove something, since science is an inductive methodology instead of a deductive methodology? Science deals with the physical and material world and does not deal with the supernatural or the afterlife. There have been arguments such as the cosmological and the teleological arguments that seem to add some reasonable justification scientifically to believe that God does indeed exist.He claims that my arguments commits the fallacy of begging the question. Why according to his worldview is circular reasoning invalid? Can he account for his senses, reasoning, the laws of logic and uniformity of nature without committing the same fallacy? How do my biblical quotes not support my claims? I will leave my opponent to answer these questions and respond to my objections.


> American society is secular in nature

Not quite: Americans decided that the most reasonable way to run a multi-religious country is in a secular manner: it is not secular in nature it is secular in deed. I'm glad that Christianity teaches that Christianity is not a good way to run a country. I agree that non-Christianity is the most reasonable way to run a country.

On science being an atheistic enterprise
There is no false equivalency when I say that science is an atheistic enterprise: not only do NONE of our scientific discoveries NOT *refer* to God, even from Christian scientists, we are at a point where God is not even required at any point of the natural process. I don't disagree that there are scientists that are also Christians - my point is that the entire enterprise of science makes God irrelevant in the understanding of our Universe. This is critical since we can both not believe God as atheists but also not even need God.

On How Terrible the Discovery Institute is
On the point of proof that Discovery institute is a complete failure, I only need to point to Behe's so-called Irreducible Complexity that had one of it's primary arguments debunked. has more details but briefly Behe claimed to have shown that a certain chemical processes was too complex to have evolved - this was later proven to be false by scientists who provided pre-cursor processes that would have led to it.

On Science
The idea that science only deals with "natural things" and not "supernatural things or the afterlife" is laughable and circular: it's the classic "God in the Gaps" retreat - as soon as science explains something better than a religious explanation then all of a sudden, it's no longer supernatural but whatever is left as unknown is all of a sudden 'supernatural!'

This weird definition of science automatically excludes things that we don't know about (the supernatural of the afterlife) from being topics of study! This is a bizarre definition because science, as a human enterprise is ALL about understanding things and figuring it out. If it were discovered that there was a mechanism for afterlife the religious would be all over it (e.g. the constant barrage of stories of out-of-the-body or near-death experiences are often pointed to as examples of 'heaven' or a 'soul'): yet this is entirely within the purview of science to explore and understand!

Clearly, any arguments that define 'science' as 'not religion' is a poor one and the non-overlapping magisteria argument that it often invokes needs to be junked once and for all. Science is a method to discover the truth of a phenomena - religious claims fall entirely into that category! If Jesus was supposed to have been born of a virgin then it is entirely within the purview of science to figure out that happened; if Jesus supposedly also died and came back to life then we should be able to figure out how that was possible too.

I have to point also point out that more often than not, when science looks at religious claims; it is the claims that turn out to be nonsense: for example, the revered Turin shroud was proven not to have been from the time of Christ. Evolution and genetics explain our species and our place within the tree of life much better than the poor arguments that the Bible states; which is essentially "... because God" or "God did it".

American Atheists have failed to add anything to science(!)
This is a clear attempt to obfuscate the argument and needs to be called out since we're supposed to be having a serious debate. A nerdy club of atheists is not what we're talking about! We're talking about the enterprise of Christianity and the belief in the supernatural using circular reasoning and obfuscations VERSUS the application of logic on observations to create experiments to understand the universe. The former depends and relies on God and that methodology has produced no science and is normally called "religion"; the latter is normally called "science".

Please do not move the goalposts like that again - we're comparing the two modes of thought - 'with God' vs 'without God' and determining which is more reasonable. Thus far you have failed to support your OP nor explain your reasoning and also seem to be finding trouble as to what a circular argument even is!

Religious arguments are circular
I don't think we need to debate specific cosmological or teleological arguments here since the OP has not responded to the fact that his entire argument is circular. One needs to look no further for an example of circular reasoning than this OP that states Christianity is more reasonable than atheism because Christianity says so!

I have not yet seen a response to that charge, and until there is a concession on that specific matter, there is no point discussing other nonsensical arguments such as Kalam and other Cosmological or Teleological arguments (which incidentally convinces exactly zero atheists!)

To explain your circularity better: how about if we were talking about Christianity vs Islam. The Christian would claim that Jesus is divine; whereas a Muslim would claim Jesus was merely another prophet and Mohammed is the true Messenger of God. The Muslim would say that this is true because it says so in the Koran. Would you therefore, as a reasonable person, agree with the Muslim? Or would it be more reasonable to point out that the argument is circular: that it's not true just because the Koran states it's true? Do you now understand why your argument is circular?

How do my biblical quotes not support my claims?
Your quotes do NOT support your claims because you're just quoting them with no context or explanation! You say that Christianity is the basis for logic and science and produce a bunch of Biblical references as if the reader is supposed to figure out what you mean. That is NOT an argument - you're just stating a bunch of random claims with random quotes from the Bible. Until then, I maintain my first point that you have not supported your argument.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent starts off his rebuttal with straw-manning my position. Science is" systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." By this definition, the practice of science is an attempt to explain how the physical and material world works. Scientists have made no reference to God because how the world was created is irrelevant to how the world works. A more practical example is, I am typing my rebuttal on my computer and studying to get my Microsoft certifications with no knowledge about who made my computer. Science per the previous definition only studies the natural world. I believe that my opponent has a materialist philosophy. If my opponent agrees I will show why this is a problem. I have pointed out that saying that certain Christian organization have added nothing to science would be similar to me pointing out the American Atheists or any other atheist organizations have added nothing to science. The shroud of Turin is false according to the Bible. You can see a recognizable face on the shroud, yet the bible says the Jesus was beaten beyond recognition (Isaiah 52:1). Biologos believes you could reconcile evolutionary theory and Genesis. You said that religious arguments are circular. I have given my opponent two arguments, namely, the cosmological and teleological argument which are not circular. I believe that he is arguing outside his worldview by saying that religious arguments are circular. I have asked how he accounts for logic in his worldview and I have not seen an answer yet. It is irreverent to this debate if "religious arguments" convinces atheists. Proving something does not necessarily mean convincing someone. He mentions that Islam is circular when a Muslim claims that Jesus is not divine or Muhammad is a prophet. Although I fervently disagree with both counts, the arguments they use point outside the Qur'an to the Bible and other things to claim that Muhammad is a prophet and Jesus is not divine. Evidently he has not talked to a Muslim on these topics. If you could give me specifics on the verses that you would like to how I believe it fits my arguments, please do so in the rebuttal


Unsupported Arguments
We are near the end of the debate and the OP has not even supported his argument properly. This needs to be addressed immediately before continuing to discuss any further points. It's very frustrating when I have already asked this multiple times.

To wit, focussing just on science since that is what we have been discussing, the OP said in his first sentence:

- Christianity provides a foundation for the ... "laws of nature, "
- The Bible itself provides justification for the requirements for actually gaining knowledge such as ... the uniformity of nature (Jeremiah 33:25)

So you need to:

1. Demonstrate that Christianity provides a foundation for science and what Jeremiah 33:25 has to do with that claim.
2. Provide a link between Jeremiah and modern science.

Until you do so - this is merely an unsupported claim and summarily rejected.

Circular Arguments
My other criticism is that your argument is circular. It is circular because you use the Bible to show that Christianity is more reasonable. Just calling it a 'strawman' (which is isn't anyway - please look up what a strawman actually is!) is NOT an argument. What have I said is invalid? Quote me in your counter-argumnet.

In your Round 3 response, you said of my example of a circular argument that " the arguments they use point outside the Qur'an to the Bible and other things to claim that Muhammad is a prophet and Jesus is not divine". In that case, you are correct and my example is wrong and I withdraw it.

However, you have not pointed to "outside the" Bible to explain your own position! All you have been doing is making claims about Christianity and pointing to Christianity to 'prove' it. This is an entirely circular argument and fails immediately.

By your very own standards you have made a circular argument.

Shifting Goalposts
You said "Scientists have made no reference to God because how the world was created is irrelevant to how the world works".

This is a perfect example of shifting goalposts, changing your argument mid-stream. You had already stated that Christianity is the foundation of the laws of nature (science), which is what we're discussing. We're not talking about Creation but the "laws of nature", which is explicitly "how the world works" and not at all about creation!

Failure to convince
You said: "It is irreverent to this debate if "religious arguments" convinces atheists. Proving something does not necessarily mean convincing someone."

I think this is a valid point when you're talking about other religious arguments since religions are generally poor evidenced and mostly self-referencing and circular. So you can prove that Christianity is logically sound but so can other religions prove that their beliefs are logically sound.

An atheist rejects religious arguments at their very foundation: that the religious texts aren't to be taken for granted (as you are doing with the Bible to support Christianity). Atheists dig deeper and look at the unsupported claims of the Bible and find them unconvincing. So you can have as many logically sound arguments you like they still rely on the existence of a supernatural world; which is unproven to exist.

So the failure to convince is extremely important and shows that religious arguments only convince people that are already believing in the supernatural. Such arguments are the teleological and cosmological arguments: they're not even arguments - they're just making unsupported claims about the outside of the universe and magically linking the conclusion to a deity!

Gish Gallop
I cannot respond to your other new points since you have already failed to support your OP on the initial problems I pointed out: that you have not supported any of your claims that Christianity is more reasonable beacuse it provides the foundation for science, other than with a circular reference to Christianity own texts. The rest of it is a perfect example of a Gish Gallop
The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.

You're introducing wholly new issues to discuss, additional unsupported arguments (e.g. Biologos believes you could reconcile evolutionary theory and Genesis." - how does he do this?), distracting the main thread by asking about "logic".

It is becoming increasing clear that you are not debating seriously and I ask you to concede your argument immediately.

Not only is your argument not explained in any way, it is logically fallacious since it is circular, you're not even keeping your own argument straight, and you keep distracting with more unsupported statements.

I ask, with respect, that you either respond to the main charges above or withdraw.
Debate Round No. 3


Indeed we are coming to the end of the debate
First I will address Jeremiah 33:25 with also quoting verse 26
"Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them." This means that God created the laws of nature. This is why we could trust that the laws such as gravity will work the same as it did yesterday. In reading my rebuttal I see that I deleted the part where he was starmanning my position when he said that he is happy that Christianity agrees that Christianity is not a good way to run a nation. I apologize for that. But in my rebuttal I will address this. Christianity's entire purpose in winning the world to Christ by teaching the Gospel and allowing people to come to Christ by their own free will. Another strawman is in this rebuttal that i am responding to I did not change my argument. Christian scientists with the foundation that God created these laws of nature do the same job as atheistic scientists which is trying to figure out how the world works. Failure to convince only shows the psychological state of the person you are trying to convince not based on the power of the argument. I will give you a for instance.

"There is an old story about a man with a very strange problem: he was convinced that he was dead.
His doctor tried to assure him that he was not dead, and was in fact perfectly healthy. 'After all,'
argued the doctor, 'you"re able to walk and talk.' But the man remained convinced that he was dead.
He pointed out that muscle spasms can occur after clinical death, and this could explain his ability to
walk and talk. The doctor presented medical charts and tables. But the man wouldn"t budge; he
pointed out that charts can be falsified, and that the doctor probably wasn"t reading them correctly
Finally, the doctor had an idea " a way he could prove that the man was alive. The doctor asked,
'Do dead men bleed?' The man responded, 'Well, no. Dead men don"t bleed.' The doctor then took a
small needle and pricked the man"s arm. Sure enough, a small droplet of blood emerged. 'See,' said
the doctor. The man responded, 'Well how about that! I guess dead men do bleed!'" (The Ultimate Proof of Creation by:Dr. Jason Lisle)

Abraham said in the parable of the rich man and the lepor "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31

Show me where I have Gish Galloped or made new points that I have not responded to in the rebuttal.

You said that evolution proves that Christianity is wrong. I pointed out that a ministry called Biologos ( claims that you can reconcile evolution and Genesis. You can check out their claims on their website.
Since my opponent accuses me of circular reasoning, I have asked how he can account for logic in worldview and still have not have seen an answer yet.
I now await my opponent's response.


Jeremiah and Science
Thank you for the details regarding Jermiah what is being claimed by the Bible. But that it is still incomplete - just because you believe that gravity works and that you also believe God created gravity, that is insufficient. You have still failed to provide a direct link in the reasoning process to go from the Bible and gravity: how exactly God the foundation of how gravity is explained?

So we're close to the end of the debate and still there is nothing of real substance on the Bible being the foundation of science. The OP is merely quoting the Bible's claims, adding their own credulity and claiming that the Christianity is all of a sudden more reasonable than atheism. This is a poorly supported argument and must be rejected by readers and withdrawn by the OP.

Circular Arguments Again
Again, per your own understanding of a circular argument, this is still circular: you haven't reasoned from outside of the Bible that it is indeed the FOUNDATION of science. Indeed, the ONLY link you are explicitly providing is that you believe in the Bible therefore you believe gravity works!

Your argument is now circular in another sense: it is only true because you believe it to be true and that is it true because you are a Christian that believes the Bible is true!

Appealing to personal belief
You have finally revealed that your personal beliefs in the Bible is what drives your claim that Christianity is more reasonable than atheism! This reduces your unsupported, circular argument into one that is just a personal opinion based on your religious affiliation and beliefs. At this point, you need to abandon this as a debate regarding the objective truth of your claim (that Christianity is more reasonable than Atheism) and admit that this is just your own personal belief!

Failure to convince only shows the psychological state of the person you are trying to convince not based on the power of the argument
While in general this is a good story, what you are entirely missing is that:
1. You have fully failed to support the link between Christianity and Science.
2. You continue to ONLY refer back to the Bible to support your claim, making your argument circular in nature.
3. You finally admit that this link between the Bible and Science is your own personal beliefs! Not only is this circular anyway but it reduces your argument into your personal opinion: i.e. not an argument at all - I don't disagree that you believe it is true! The point of debate is that you argue that it is true and you continue to fail to do that.

In short, you haven't made a decent argument, and your OP is entirely flawed and your reasoning process circular from every angle, at every stage of this debate. So I have to reject your position that atheists have a psychological block regarding your arguments - you fail even by your own words! Note again, you tried to shift goalposts, you forgot what you were debating when you claimed that we were talking about creation even though you'd said you were talking about laws of nature in the OP, and let's not forget that you still haven't supported your argument, which is circular anyway. Your argument fails on its merits (or lack thereof)

Gish Gallop: This has already been explained and pointed out. It has to be noted that your entire OP is a big Gish Gallop; with only 5 rounds of debate we can't talking about science, logic and morality! That's why I have ignored your questions about logic - if you want to discuss only logic then write a new OP and I will attend. Until then, there is no time to talk about anything other than science. And if the flaws in your argument here are any indication, I suspect that you're not going to fair well there eithe!

Evolution Proves Christianity Is Wrong
I don't think I actually said that! I said Evolution and genetics explain our species and our place within the tree of life much better than the poor arguments that the Bible states; which is essentially "... because God" or "God did it".

The Bible doesn't even say anything of any relevance to make it wrong - it's not even detailed enough to be a decent explanation for life on this planet. It's just wishful thinking of ancient man who had no idea of how to even approach the problem of life. Just saying "because God" is the worst explanation for anything: it's tantamount to saying that you don't know.

I think we've reached the point that the OP cannot think outside of the Christian box and their own personal belief system. Round after round, it's one logical fallacy followed by poorly reasoned explanations for unsupported claims. I believe that the OP has entirely failed to support the claim that Christianity is more reasonable.

Indeed it seems as if Christianity is guaranteed to produce poor circular arguments for unsupported claims. This is no suprise since most religious arguments turn out to be circular anyway. I am glad that the prior round finally included the OP's personal beliefs to establish that this is an entirely circular Christian viewpoint and not at all true or plausible in any objective sense.

I again call on the OP to admit their circularity and concede the debate.
Debate Round No. 4


I would like to thank my opponent for the chance to debate him.
My opponent has failed to establish his foundation for logic. This is why I believe that his accusation of circular reasoning is arguing outside his worldview. I do admit that I base my beliefs on the foundation that the Bible is the word of God, therefore I could account for logic, senses, reasoning, the uniformity of nature and morality. My opponent has accused me of logical fallacies but has failed to give a foundation for logic. My opponent has said that science is atheistic but has failed to understand the nature of science as being knowledge gained through study of the natural material world. Again he has failed to provide a foundation for the uniformity of nature. I believe if he tried we would see the same circular reasoning he accuses me of.

In conclusion, I would, if you would like to know the hope the hope that only Christ can provide, please go to If you would like to talk to me, please use the contacts provided on If you would like to debate me, please go to If you would like me to to be a guest speaker please go to


This has been an interesting debate and I thank my opponent also for responding in a detailed and honest manner.

That Pro has continued to argue within of his core texts and personal beliefs is at odds with the fact that he understands fully what a circular argument is (" the arguments they use point outside the Qur'an to the Bible and other things to claim that Muhammad is a prophet and Jesus is not divine").

Thus whether we discuss the foundation of logic or not is entirely irrelevant because Pro's own understanding of a circular argument is exactly what he is doing! Indeed when he says "This is why I believe that his accusation of circular reasoning is arguing outside his worldview." appears to say that one must stay in own's lane in order to make a valid argument! Which doesn't quite make sense.

So in conclusion:

1. My first objection that the OP is self-referencing Christianity to support his case, remains; and indeed has been validated and admited to in the final two responses. On point alone, the OP is invalid and the case for Christianity being more reasonable has not been supported.
2. My second objection that the OP offers no evidence for his position (outside of his own religion's unsupported claims) and that is a second blow to the argument that Christianity is more reasonable than atheism. What is proclaimed with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence! And thus the OP is entirely unsupported.
3. I offered contrary evidence against the OP (using science as an example to reduce the length of the debate) by showing that science is an entire a-religious enterprise that doesn't need God at all in any part of it's axioms or reasoning process. The OP's offering of a glib quote from the Bible hardly constitutes a rejoinder. Therefore, my supported, defended and uncountered position that atheism in science shows that the OP is false, must be he prevailing judgement.
4. And I must remind the audience that the OP had also forgotten that we were even discussing science at all when he claimed that the discussion was about creation! This in addition to Gish galloping, a failure to understand or admit the circular nature of the OP and the OP's reasoning process, must surely question Pro's ability to support any position outside of his core belief system. This blinkered view sees Christianity as the beginning and end of all his arguments yet it fails to see the most obvious of points that Pro is not open to dissenting opinions that challenge the authority of his religion. Thus this is not even a valid debate since for Pro would have to go against his religion in order to concede (which of course would never happen)!

Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
The source for my argument was the OP and my opponent's final admission of his own personal beliefs as the foundation of his arguments. What other sources are really needed?
Posted by Ockham 2 years ago
Advice to both sides: Use more sources! I barely saw either of you cite any credible sources. Pro cited the Bible and Con cited Wikipedia and RationalWiki, which are only marginally more credible.
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
@wmickas: you have still not addressed the circular reasoning in your response! Please do so in the comments here.
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
@wmickas: We only have a couple of rounds left so if you need me to clarify why your argument is unsupported and that it is circular, let's do it here. I don't want to waste another round with you denying something that should be clear; even by your own measure, your argument is circular.
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
I'm not worried about the presuppositionalist argument since that's not what the debate is about. The OP is flawed on multiple fronts and god's existence isn't going to save it!
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
I'm not worried about the presuppositionalist argument since that's not what the debate is about. The OP is flawed on multiple fronts and god's existence isn't going to save it!
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
I'm not worried about the presuppositionalist argument since that's not what the debate is about. The OP is flawed on multiple fronts and god's existence isn't going to save it!
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
I'm not worried about the presuppositionalist argument since that's not what the debate is about. The OP is flawed on multiple fronts and god's existence isn't going to save it!
Posted by MrDelaney 2 years ago
A presuppositionalist argument is by it's very nature circular (or as Sye Ten would say, 'virtuously circular').
It attempts to make God axiomatic, which is an unjustified leap in my opinion.

Regardless of what you argue, he will claim you have no access to intelligibility without God, and so your arguments can be dismissed out of hand.

It's a flawed approach which necessitates either absolute certainty (which is impossible) or devolves into solipsism for both sides.

(Of course non of that has anything to do with the definition of atheism being used)
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
> I'm aware that there are multiple definitions often used - which is exactly why I said it is a shame that it wasn't defined clearly at the start.

I considered having a definition myself but from the gist of the OP's claims that Christianity is the basis of logic, science, morality and so on; it's clear that the OP believes (circularly and with no explanation mind you) that these advantages that Christianity has over non-believers of God.

In addition to pointing out the generally poor argument, I chose to point out that science is the one enterprise that has no requirement for God and indeed is responsible for the decline in religion's role in explaining the universe: God of the Gaps & NOMA are the results that mask the fact that religion's current role is really in the sidelines of all our great discoveries and inventions.

So in that sense, religion is the worst way to understand the universe, the least successful place to start, and constantly proven wrong on every point. It is literally the least reasonable approach (which of course means that the claim in the OP is entirely wrong) but even the OP admits that religious is really about the supernatural (whatever that means!)

While that isn't atheism per-se, I was attempting to prove the OP wasn't correct on the claim that Christianity provides anything of any worth to science (or logic and certainly not morality). This is in addition to the fact that the OP doesn't support his claims precisely anyway (even though they're not true) and that his whole argument is circular anyway (which I hope he understands now)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 2 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 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Atheism is more reasonable because they believe that anything that Christians believe in are false and fake. Con by default!

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.