Atheism is pointless

No real contest...

Let's see, pro pulls the old Christians are terrorists cliche, but fails to support it with anything beyond the base assumption... Con of course countered this with a reminder that nearly every religion has a big sin of believing in the wrong gods, so you're almost certainly damning yourself way worse if any one of them happens to be right.

On time, pro might have taken this had she stuck to the lack of a time requirement angle, but she directly contradicted herself by then insisting the need for a time investment every Sunday (which con went into great detail laying out how much time that adds up to). She then chose to drop the analysis of time investment required (giving her this argument, would require failing to even skim the bold text in the debate).

Con makes some other arguments, but they were left unchallenged so it'd be pointless to restate them.

Pro puts forth the argument "As an atheist if any of these religions are true you are going to go to hell and that will be horrible for you." in Round 2 and this follows on from Round 1 Pascal Wager logic-esque argument of "because you have a chance of making it to happen and you lose nothing if you join a religion."

this is wrong but I can't use my own deduction when voting like that (although Ramshutu loves to use his own deductions on my argument-logic when voting against me). Instead, I must see if Ramshutu opposes it well enough.

In Round 1, Ramshutu attacks every element of Pascal's Wager that the mainstream rebuttals of people like Sam Harris use but it misses the most essential one:

YOU DO LOSE BY BELIEVING IN RELIGION. This ability to explain that the core idea 'lose nothing but potentially gain' that the Pro side says is what the Theist side is, is wrong because you lose things. This is gently brushed upon by the following from Con:

"You don’t have to spend time going to church, engaging in worship or other activities - this saves time for other more useful activities."

but what other activities? What is the POINT IN ATHEISM? Why GUARANTEE the God hates you?

Ramshutu could have Kritik'd PW from the angle of a 'God that punishes those that believe in it' being equally likely to one that rewards them (since we're dealing with infinity) but also doesn't do this.

This angle of time wasted at Church is rebuked by Pro in R2:

"Yes in Atheism you don't have to go to church but you don't have to go to church to be a christian either. You just have to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior."

but this is where Con wins the debate... In R2, Con properly annihilates the 'lose nothing' point by Pro:

"All religions have their own edicts and requirements. Pro argues that you don’t need to go to church: yet other denominations strongly encourage it for communion, for confession, and others.[1]

Christianity requires you to keep the Sabbath Holy, to not cover your neighbours ass[2], and to be specifically repentant of supposed sins. Some forms of Buddhism enforce or encourage vegetarianism[3], Islam requires daily prayers[4], Zeus worship requires burning Hecatombs to curry favour.[5]

Each religion has its own specific requirements, that you need not consider or be bound by as an atheist, making yourself morally and ethically responsible for your own actions to your own neighbours: and freeing up time and energy for other meaningful aspects of your life."

At this point the entire 'this vs that' of Pascal's Wager is DESTROYED by Con. Con should have done this in Round 1, but at least in R2 does it.

Pro's response is a Round-3 Forfeit.

RFD:

Pro presented a good intuitive argument by pointing out that being a Christian doesn't require one to go to church. Nice semantic argument ;)

Con's arguments were either non sequiturs or already covered by Pro. Con mentioned that one doesn't waste one's life going to church. This was countered by Pro's initial statement that one does not have to go to church.

Con stated that atheism gives you a lust for life but Con does not explain why this is the case for an atheist but not a theist. Without the information. I the voter was not able to put this into context.

Con makes a comment about trying to fool God. While this point is valid. Pro never claimed this to be the case and Con did not elaborate enough for me to conclude this from the arguments alone.

Con mentions moral edicts but does not provide reasoning as to why we should follow said edicts. In contrast. Pro's argument of the Christian not have to participate in the church would almost have been a rebuttal for this if it was elaborated on.

In the end I have a decent point by pro and a point that kind of slid through for con.

So pro's argument was more intuitive and semantic ;) I award point to Pro.

SIDE NOTE: I would have addressed the forfeit round with a conduct point. But since this was a decision debate I am unable to do that.