Instigator / Pro
9
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5866
Christianity is more reasonable to believe in than Atheism is
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1512
rating
12
debates
37.5%
won
Description
The debate will go off of the resolved," Christianity is more reasonable to believe in than Atheism is "
PRO holds the BOP to show Christianity is more reasonable to believe in (than it is to believe in atheism).
CON holds the BOP to show Atheism is more reasonable to believe in (than it is to believe in Christianity).
Round 1
Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate.
I affirm the resolution "Christianity is More Reasonable to Believe in than Atheism is"
Here are the definitions I thought best fit this case:
Christianity: "the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices"
Reasonable: "(of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible:"
Believe: "accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of:"
Atheism: "disbelief in the existence of God or gods:"
My value for this case will be:
Rationality, which refers to the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic. In this case, rationality will be the foundation for why one Christianity offers more reasonable grounds to believe in it than Atheism.
My value criterion is:
Explanatory Power, which refers to a worldview’s ability to provide comprehensive, coherent, and satisfying explanations for various things, such as the origin of the universe, the nature of morality, the existence of human consciousness, and the purpose of life.
PRO holds the BOP to show Christianity is more reasonable to believe in (than it is to believe in atheism).
CON holds the BOP to show Atheism is more reasonable to believe in (than it is to believe in Christianity).
1st CONTENTION:
The Big Bang Theory ultimately favors Christianity rather than Atheism
According to Center for Astrophysics (Harvard & Smithsonian):
"About 13.8 billion years ago, the Big Bang gave rise to everything, everywhere, and everywhen—the entire known Universe."
Clarification:
Now it would be improper for me to state that this source says the Big Bang is the origin of the Universe. It only claims that it is the leading theory.
According to Nasa.gov:
"The Big Bang: It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now—and it is still stretching!"
The Big Bang, other theories, and atheism, have to concede to the fact that our universe is now something and had to of come from something. The Law of Causality tells us that every material effect must have a simultaneous cause.
Atheism doesn't have an answer for what the cause of the Big Bang was. However, Christianity provides a more Reasonable explanation that doesn't contradict the laws of science as we know it. Christianity also provides a better explanation for why the Big Bang occurred, how it occurred and what caused it.
If we look to the first book of the Bible, Genisis, it says:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."
Genisis 1:1-3
Therefore, it is more rational to assume that the Big Bang Theory favors Christianity rather than Atheism.
2 CONTENTION:
The Nature of Morality ultimately favors Christianity rather than Atheism.
Morality "as defined by Brittanica" is "morality, the moral beliefs and practices of a culture, community, or religion or a code or system of moral rules, principles, or values."
I appeal to OBJECTIVE MORALITY for my case. If CON wishes to contend it, I will rebuttal.
If morality is to be Objective to everyone and not subjective to each person, then morality is a force that transcends humanity as a whole. Objective morality requires a moral law.
Morality also requires a mind. Morality cannot be comprehended by a rock, or the dirt, or the wind. Morality requires some sort of conciseness'.
Therefore, Objective Morality requires:
A transcendent lawgiving mind.
Christianity more reasonably explains this transcendent lawgiving mind rather than Atheism. This is shown in the Bibles affirmation of a God.
Therefore, it is more reasonable to assume that the Nature of Morality favors Christianity rather than Atheism.
And with that I will hand it off to my opponent.
Hello @Jesusistheway,
BBT = Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang, other theories, and atheism, have to concede to the fact that our universe is now something and had to of come from something. The Law of Causality tells us that every material effect must have a simultaneous cause.
Laws such as the Law of Causality didn't have to exist before the world as we know it.
There was an absence of laws and logic before the universe's creation and so there would have been no need for the space to follow certain rules.
Atheism doesn't have an answer for what the cause of the Big Bang was. However, Christianity provides a more Reasonable explanation that doesn't contradict the laws of science as we know it.
There are plenty of circumstances in the Bible of miracles that are not scientific like the eyes of a man being healed from dirt and people walking on water.
You'll have to explain further what you mean.
I would like Con to better explain how the Big Bang Theory is supported by Christianity.
Con's thought process is: since the Law of Causality favors Christianity, the BBT must as well.
However, the BBT doesn't have to have been caused by God, and this event could have preceded any causality.
Atheists don't have to believe in the Big Bang Theory just because they reject God.
Con brings up the BBT like it is an event I am required to consider when defending the sensibility of Atheism.
2 CONTENTION:The Nature of Morality ultimately favors Christianity rather than Atheism.Morality "as defined by Brittanica" is "morality, the moral beliefs and practices of a culture, community, or religion or a code or system of moral rules, principles, or values."I appeal to OBJECTIVE MORALITY for my case. If CON wishes to contend it, I will rebuttal.If morality is to be Objective to everyone and not subjective to each person, then morality is a force that transcends humanity as a whole. Objective morality requires a moral law.Morality also requires a mind. Morality cannot be comprehended by a rock, or the dirt, or the wind. Morality requires some sort of conciseness'.Therefore, Objective Morality requires:A transcendent lawgiving mind.Christianity more reasonably explains this transcendent lawgiving mind rather than Atheism. This is shown in the Bibles affirmation of a God.Therefore, it is more reasonable to assume that the Nature of Morality favors Christianity rather than Atheism.
Atheists can also believe in a set of moral rules.
The objectivity of morality needs to be defined by context.
Objective morality, in the framework of considering how humans should interact with each other, can be explained by other means than Christianity.
There are natural consequences to actions, and we base their merit on what result they manifest.
This is how we have determined what is good and bad to do.
Our abstraction and understanding of actions has deepened throughout the years as the world has progressed and animals have evolved.
Certain actions were not possible until our minds and bodies had reached a new point of functionality, and then morality gained more depth and complexity because of the extended range of choices and rationalizations we could make.
Morality depends on what is necessary for harmony in the world.
Maintaining peace on earth seems like a good place to start for striving to practice good morality.
I think the main reason Atheism is more reasonable to believe in than Christianity is because of human nature.
Since there are many people who have suffered very much in this world, it is reasonable for them to reject a God that is said to have created them and be the reason they are here on the earth.
Suffering is common to all people, and we try to cope with its presence in our lives.
It is reasonable for humans to reject Christianity which praises this God that they believe is responsible for their suffering, and so they instead have an alternate belief system.
Also, people enjoy doing what they want even if it is sometimes bad.
Belief in Atheism can provide justification for doing whatever one may please since the person who holds this worldview does not think they are subject to God's judgement.
Round 2
Forfeited
Again, main reason that Atheism is more reasonable to believe in than Christianity is because of human nature and the prevalence of suffering.
Round 3
Forfeited
Extend
Round 4
Forfeited
Extend
Round 5
Forfeited
Extend to the end
He quit all of his activity and debates
yeah that is true I had to balance like 3 debates and i just lost all of them lol.
And did he stop all together or just only yours?.
@Jesusistheway was doing three debates at once.
When I first joined I became overwhelmed with doing multiple debates, and that was one of the reasons that lead to me taking a break.
Some people come in overconfident too and then are let down.
Though I don’t know for sure why he quit
Yeah, he did.
Stayed on for less than two weeks.
He left with the New Year
Did your opponent quit for good?
@Jesusistheway
There are ways to argue against what I am saying.
Try to find weak points in my arguments.
You don’t have to quit
@Jesusistheway
Hello, and welcome to DebateArt. (For some reason I couldn't tag you.)
You might find out from my profile that I am a Christian, but I've chosen Con in this debate because I want to test my argumentative abilities--and yours as well. ;)
Looking forward to it