Christianity vs. Atheism, which is more reasonable? Atheists, shall we debate?

Question

Guidelines:

The first 5 serious atheists who respond to the question "Christianity vs. Atheism," which is more reasonable," will be "qualified" to be the question selected to provide a counter to my claim that I believe Christianity is more evident, therefore reasonable, than a belief in a lack of belief in atheism. The 1 counter response I will respond to will be selected among the first 5 responses, according to who's response entices 5 thumbs up with 0 thumbs down first, or the one with the best thumbs up to thumbs down ratio after 10 minutes. Note: Anyone can vote as to which of the first 5 atheists responses is the best response. The same rules apply for every counter-response during the rest of the debate. This debate can last 20 minutes, or 7 days, I will continue until everyone is done responding.

I'd like to thank everyone in advance for participating, and let's have some fun!

If anyone has any suggestions on how to make this debate more orderly, let me know.

Searcher: You are right, I guess I have no choice, but to debate with him.

BGrimey: Your response was, "Atheism is more reasonable because the concept of God is logically impossible."

Do you mean, you believe atheism is more reasonable because, you believe the concept of God is logically impossible? Because if you didn't, this would mean you are in need of proof that the concept of God is logically impossible. So, what is your proof?

BGrimey: You say you know that God's character is contradicting? Is this what you mean when you say God is logically impossible? If so, in what ways are God's character contradicting? Please be specific.

BGrimey: The Bible teachs us that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. God is not one separate being, but three in one, called the Trinity. Therefore this is not a contradiction.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

You asked, "If God is a limitless being, Then God is nothing?"

I understand the concept you are trying to make. This goes back to the question, "If God can do everything (limitless), can He create a big enough boulder, that even He can't lift?

The answer is no, He can't. The reason He can't is because it's outside His nature and character. God can do nothing inconsistent with Himself.

BGrimey: You defend: "The Arguement from Evil." You state: Since: God cannot be omnibenelovent with all the evil in this world and since there is evil, there is no God.

Michael Horner said this in a debate in 1996 with Atheist Dan Barker concerning evil...."This does not prove there is no God. to blame God for the evil in the world, one must prove that it's logically impossible that God could have good reasons for allowing what He's allowing for a greater good. Unless you can do that, prove it's logically impossible that God had good reasons, you can't draw the conclusion that God is not good."

...Or that He doesn't exist.

BGrimey: You said, "Evil in this world greatly exceeds the necessary amount to make souls strong."

This is your opinion, sometimes it is bad to understand God's infinite wisdom, when using our finite wisdom.

You said: "Well if God can do nothing that is inconsisent with himself then he has a limit Futhermore if God "Can`t" do something well then guess what? He is not omnipotent (An all powerful being, because he cannot do something)"....

To argue your point, you misinterpret what it means to be omnipotent. There are certain things that are impossible, with God or not. Like making a two sided triangle or a married bachelor. Just because we can string words together like this doesn't mean He does not maintain the highest power.

Sorry, I had to eat... BGrimey: In response to your response to this question: "In response to Micheal Horner, he said: God could have good reasons for allowing what He's allowing for a greater good."

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean you still don't have to prove it. Again, God is infinite in wisdom, and you as well as I, are not in a position to judge Him with our finite minds.

The Bible doesn't claim God to be "omnibenevolent according to how you believe it means."

BGrimey: You said, "If Jesus is God, then how did Satan tempt Jesus/God?
This does not make any damn sense. Can Satan entice the heavenly father to do wrong with the promise of gain or pleasure? Most people would say of course not, he`s God. Satan cannot tempt God. Well then how did he tempt Jesus if Jesus is supposedly God?"

This wouldn't make any sense on the surface. This is why it important to study the Bible, instead of just reading it like so many atheists slash self-proclaimed Christians who feed the world misconceptions... As I stated before and as the Bible also states, Jesus is God, He is apart of God. And Jesus is also the Son of God, in human form. When Jesus was born on earth, He transformed himself into that of human qualities. This would make sense, because otherwise if He wouldn't have been able to sacrifice Himself and die for our sins.

continued: When you say, "Can Satan entice the heavenly father to do wrong with the promise of gain or pleasure?" But, satan wasn't enticing God the Father, He was enticing Jesus the Son of God, in HUMAN form, with the same HUMAN characteristics as us.

BGrimey: I'd also like to point out that the first half of your point about an omnibenevolence is flawed. The Bible does not state that God is omnibenevolent. Even though God is all good, doesn't mean He's all nice. Source: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=197346

Answer 1

One answerer said:
"Christianty says do twice the work you are asked to do.
What does ATHEISM say?"

Answer:
Atheism says if the bible tells you to do twice the work, then you're following the instructions of a fiction novel.

The same answerer asked again:
"Christianity says love your enemy.
What does ATHEISM SAY?
Well, speak!"

Okay. The answer is:
Atheism says, "If what Christians are doing is 'loving their enemies,' than I'd hate it if they hated me any MORE obviously!
:)
.

Answer 2

yeah I'm in i am an atheist it is more reasonable to be atheist since no one knows what god is has any evidence to back any of their definitions or evidence that god is real. it is not up to me to prove that god doesn't exists but up to you that god does exist. I ask you all if god is omnipotent then can god create a universe where there would be no reason to believe god is real? is that the universe we are in? and if not why not? no one has really paid any attention to my propositions!!!!!! Nick d are you speaking to me then please state that you are . English is my 3rd language thus i am sorry if i seem retarded. but at least i have sense enough not to use words that are intrinsically paradoxical. like the word god unless i am pointing out a logical flaw or some such thing in using the word. Christianity is the belief that god is a zombie who got tortured by a human in order to stop people from behaving badly (like satisfying their biological drives) people behaved badly because a snake spoke to a woman and told her to eat an apple. Where is the rational in believing this paragraph as having any historical truth? I will gladly debate with anyone. princesses yum yum how about showing some humility in that you don't know anything about anything esp about god. your claim that you have met jesus doesn't prove anything I have met a few people called jesus and one man called allah. in a psychology summer school. But just because someone has a name that can be found in a work of fiction it doesn't prove anything.

Answer 3

I am happy to debate.

The claim that Christianity is more evident than Atheism, is a true statement if your claim is that there are evidently more Christians than Atheists in existence.

However, if you are trying to claim that the beliefs of Christians are more reasonable than the beliefs of Atheists you are well off the mark, and I would be more than happy to have a go with you.

Your claim that Christianity is more evident, therefore more reasonable is clearly not supported by history or the facts. Brittany Spears is more evident than Stephen Hawking in the press and in current documentation, but it would be a far stretch to claim that she is more reasonable as a result. The same applies to Christianity, popularity doesn't equate to reason what so ever.

My first question might be, which flavor of Christianity are you espousing?

Answer 4

First, we would need to define "reasonable," since obviously we cannot agree which perspective is "more reasonable" if we cannot agree on what "reasonable" means.

I'd say reasonable must mean "arising out of a rational consideration of experiential data." Thus, we look at our exeriences of the world and project some kind of conclusion about what we have experienced. If that conclusion is grounded in the experiential data and does not rely on any subjective assumptions (for the moment we'll ignore the fact that ALL experience is subjective...) it can be said to be reasonable.

So for example, if experience shows that lightning bolts always seem to come out of big clouds in the sky, and travel from areas where there is a strong negative charge (according to instruments that can be used to measure such things) to areas where there is a strong positive charge (measured by simiar instruments), it's reasonable to conclude that lightning strikes have something to do with the difference in electrical charges, and come out of big clouds. It's unreasonable to conclude that there is some guy in the sky throwing lightning bolts at people who annoy him, as there is no evidence to support this conclusion.

Can we agree on this definition?

If so, there is another issue to consider. You are going to argue that CHRISTIANITY (not just some general belief in God) is more reasonable than atheism, or LACK of belief in God, correct? It's one thing to say it's reasonable to believe in some kind of concept of God; it's something else entirely to say it's reasonable to believe in a guy who was born from the union of a "spirit" and a virgin, who performed miracles, died and arose from the dead.

If we're in agreement here, I will argue for atheism (without arguing AGAINST Christianity, per se). Here goes:

Everything I have experienced in my life can be understood by reference to scientific principles. These principles, moreover, have never been violated in my experience. That is, I have never encountered a person being raised off the ground (into Heaven?) without some physical device lifting him; the sun has always risen on one side, and set on the other; etc., etc.

The fact that these experiences conform to a set of expectations that can be generated from a fairly well-understood set of rules leads me to conclude that those rules operate in the universe, and are part of the nature of the universe in which I live. I can see no reason to project some "supernatural force" who exists outside the limits of this universe and is not subject to the rules that I experience everywhere else I look in the universe. There is nothing whatsoever in my experience that provides the slightest evidence for such a being. Therefore, it is more reasonable to assume there is no such being than it is to assume there is such a being.

(This makes me realize, it may also be necessary to define what is meant by the term "God" ...)

Answer 5

Atheism is more reasonable because the concept of God is logically impossible. Please give me 5 thumbs up so that I can have a debate with this gentlemen.

Edit: No, I mean the concept of God is logically impossible. It has nothing to do with belief. It is equivalent to saying my shirt is blue all over and my shirt is red all over. These two statements are logically impossible despite belief. Same thing goes for the concept of the Christian God that he is omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent.

Edit: Christians say that God is a transcendent spiritual being. Beyond space and time, yet they also say that he is omnipresent everywhere all the time.
If God is a transcendent spiritual being then that means he is not anywhere at anytime. If God is omnipresent that means he is everywhere and at every time.
See this contradiction? Either he is beyond space and time or he is everywhere all the time, which one is it?

Edit: If God is a limitless being, Then God is nothing?
P1. Everything that exist has a limit.
P2. The limits of things that exist, Gives existing things an Identity.
P3. Everything that exist has an Identity.
P4 God is said to be a limitless being.
P5. God has no Identitiy,
Conclusion, God does not exist.

When I say I exist, there are billions upon billions of things that I`am not!
I was not born in Tehran, I do not have red Hair, I was not born in the 2nd century, I`am not a women etc..... etc... etc...
When one compares our limitations to the things we are, We get our identity.
I`am 25 years old. My hair is brown, I`am a black man etc... etc...

To talk of limitless beings and/or things is to talk of "Nothing." Nothing does not apply to anything. It has no limitations in the phsycial world, in fact the only limitation that it has is that it is nothing anything in the physical world. Everything that does exist (Trees, Animals, Plants, Humans), has many limitations.Therefore to say that God is a limitless being, one is suggesting that God is "Nothing.
God does not Exist!?
Arguement proves this point. Everything that exists is dependent upon relative realms of scope and possiblity to exist. This is a property of existing which God fails to meet.

P1. If God is an all Powerful being Then God does not exist.
P2. Everything that exist is dependent upon relative realms of scope and possiblity to exist.
P3.Humans exist but are dependent upon Air, Water, Food, Solar Energy, Planet Earth to exist. Water exist but is dependent upon Two hydrgen and one oxygen atom to exist. Trees exist but is depedent upon water, soil, photosynthesis to exist. Atoms and Sub-atomic particles exist but is depedent upon other Atoms or Sub-Atomic particles to exist.
Ex. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon
Electron - Proton - Nucles
P4. If God is an all powerful being, Then He would not be depedent upon relative realms of scope and possibility to exist.
Conclusion - Hence, There is no God
*Or there is no All powerful being.

Edit: The Arguement from Evil. God cannot be omnibenelovent with all the evil in this world.

P1. If there is a God that being would be All knowing, All Good, All power (All PKG) for short.
P2. If an All PKG God existed there would be no evil in this world.
P3. There is evil.
Conclusion, hence there is no God.

* There are a couple problems with Premesis 1 and 2.
1. Attempts to define the Nature of God. But as I said for the sake of arguement we are considering the Christian belief in an All PKG being.
2. This premises assumes that if an all PKG existed there would be no evil. But why?
One good argue that there is a necessary amount of evil necessary in this world to make soul's strong (Soul building Minimum) I.E. You might not want to shed your child from all the evil's in this world because when he/she grows up they will definetly encounter some evil - therefore sheliding your child from any and all evil you make him/her weaker in the long run. Perhaps a little bit off tough love is necessary in certain situations. However if that is the case with God's childern (humans) Then the question becomes why does evil exist at such a great degree.

Revised Arguement.

P1. If there is a God that being would be All knowing, All Good, All power (All PKG) for short
P2. If an all PKG existed then there would be no more evil than necessary to make souls strong (Soul Building Minimum).
P3. Evil in this world greatly exceeds the necessary amount to make souls strong (Soul Building Minimum)
Conclusion, hence there is no God. Or there is omnibenelovent being.

Which one is it? I say it`s both.

Edit: Let`s debate you said: The answer is no, He can't. The reason He can't is because it's outside His nature and character. God can do nothing inconsistent with Himself.

Well if God can do nothing that is inconsisent with himself then he has a limit Futhermore if God "Can`t" do something well then guess what? He is not omnipotent (An all powerful being, because he cannot do something)

Edit: In response to Micheal Horner, he said: God could have good reasons for allowing what He's allowing for a greater good.

Excuse me? Are we to assume that childern get molested and abused for a greater good? That all the genocides and atrocities happened for a greater good? If that`s the case then God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenelovent. Why you ask? Because if God is omnipotent then he would have to power of us reaching a so called greater good without the degree of human suffering. And if he is omnipotent then he is not omnibenelovent. Why? Because he has the power of us reaching a greater good without childern getting molested, murdered and abused, but chooses not too.

Let`s debate - The concept of God is logically impossible.

Edit: Let`s dabate lets stray away from The concept of God for a minute and focus on a ridicoulous notion of Christianity. Answer this question.

If Jesus is God, then how did Satan tempt Jesus/God?
This does not make any damn sense. Can Satan entice the heavenly father to do wrong with the promise of gain or pleasure? Most people would say of course not, he`s God. Satan cannot tempt God. Well then how did he tempt Jesus if Jesus is supposedly God?

Let`s debate - I`m going to step out for awhile but would be glad to continue this debate, later on. Since I have already presented several arguements and/or quesitons perhaps you would like to do the same. I would be happy to answer any questions or arugements that you have towards atheism.

Answer 6

Belief in the invisible leprechaun under your bed vs. non-beleif in the invisible leprechaun under your bed.

Shall we debate?

Guidelines:

Roll the die. The person whose name starts with K goes first. Whoever rolls a thirteen will go last. The person can hold thier cat's tail the longest without being bitten is the winner. The prize shall be guacamole muffins topped with eggplant scramble. Ready, set.... STOP!

Answer 7

Saying Christianity makes more sense than atheism is like saying astrology makes more sense than astronomy....it doesn't.

Here, if I told you that invisible aliens from Neptune run the government, would you believe me? You would certainly expect evidence or even proof for such an absurd claim right? Well, If you told me some mega powerful invisible man who is his own son created some mysterious place called 'Heaven' and 'Hell' where he determines which one we go to when we die based on some 2000 year old, silly, non-sense guidelines (the Bible), then I too would expect evidence which Christians fail horrifically at producing.

Answer 8

I think Atheist have a reading comprehension problem. Seriously, most of the time they come no where close to the question they are answering, just state their rhetoric. It is just as bad as what some Christians do.

So far BGrimey, is the only one that seems to understand what you are looking for. He actually presented an argument.

Answer 9

This is a strange game you are playing.
No one thought or belief is best for all.
Leave everyone to make their own choices.

Enjoy your religion and don't tell others what to believe.

Answer 10

I don't want to play games. There is not any evidence that God is real, therefore he is not to be believed in. There is much evidence for Evolution, therefore it is to be believed in until counter evidence surfaces.