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

Question

Guidelines:

The first 5 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 the most thumbs up after a short period of time. Also, you must state that you are willing to debate. 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.

PS: Keep things relatively short and discuss only one point at a time. Thanks.

I can prove the first 5 answers are flawed in understanding.

Please state that you are willing to debate, as specified in the details of my question. So far, no one has, therefore I cannot choose a response to counter without knowing if it's actually going to be read...

Thank you.

Penster: You said: "you certainly can't prove it. The simple fact is that when you prove God then you destroy the system upon which religion is founded i.e. faith."

Your accusation is flawed. I stated that I can prove your understanding is flawed. I didn't not state I can prove God's existence.

I did not state that I can prove God's existence.*

Penster: You stated, "But on the other hand Christianity have still to prove God exists..."

Again, your statement is flawed in understanding. My question was not, "Christianity vs. Atheism, which is proven to be true?"

You make the accusation that we must prove Christianity to be true, before it is allowed to become more reasonable than atheism. You are withholding the criteria that which makes something more reasonable than something else, is the evidence if favor for that something.

Penster: You stated, "The only thing they offer is a book." Meaning the Bible is our only evidence.

Are you a man, full of infinite wisdom? Can you prove to me now, that this is the only evidence of God or Christianity? Or would you like to rephrase you question by stating, "I believe the only evidence of Christianity is the Bible."

Penster: You said, "If a book is good enought as proof then all other religions with such religious texts have proved their Gods too. Thus the there is polythesism - more Gods that simply the Christian God."

Okay, you are dismissing the idea that the Bible is backed by the same evidence of historicity as others, and therefore if it is a book, it must account for it having the same evidence as other religious books.

So if I buy three random pizzas, will it be proof, that since they are all pizza, they will all taste the same? What if one pizza was made a month ago, and another was made 20 minutes ago? Which will be more reliable to eat? The point is, just because they are all books, doesn't mean they are all the same.

You stated "Take a polar bear for instance. Adapted to exist in the extreme cold. Did Noah travel all the way to the pole to gather these animals? That is not reasonable to believe. And if he didn't then the only reasonable conclusion to make is that these animals evolved at a later stage of life - thus providing evidence for evolution and trashing your whole Adam and Eve creation myth!"

I would agree in your understanding, this seems unreasonable. But when you understand that the Bible did not ask Noah to gather the animals, but only to build the ark, then it becomes reasonable to understand. "And of every living thing of all flesh, . . . two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive" (Genesis 6:19-20).

....shall come unto thee......

Penster: You ask me to state sources outside of the Bible. We must back up this debate then, and answer not to the question, "Christianity vs. Atheism, which is more reasonable?" But we must now discuss the evidence of the reliability of the Bible.

Penster, do you agree with this?

Penster: You said, "The fact that these books exist does not however prove the existence of God."

Penster, I agree. But you also assume the Bible has no evidence of its reliability. You realize this is a belief and not a fact, since you agree or disagree that your wisdom is infinite?

Penster: Look no further than Paul H.'s response on evidence outside of the Bible.

Penster: You said: "So explain how the Tasmanian Tiger made this journey across land and water."

It would be unreasonable for a Tasmanian Tiger to cross water.

"We cannot be sure what the earth's geography was like prior to the Flood. Five or six generations after Noah, we can read in Genesis 10:25 that in the days of Peleg (which means "division") that "the earth was divided." Many believe that this means that God divided the earth into the continents we now see (though, I have to admit, it might instead mean that God divided people by language). If the land prior to the Flood was one big continent, this would indeed have facilitated the migration of animals to Noah's location." -Michael S. Cole, M.D.

BTW - I had to eat breakfast. Sorry for the long time it took me to get back to the debate.

Penster: You said: "To counter Paul H with physics, we were created after a big bang occurred. The mechanism for this always existed much like Christians believe God always existed. There - my reasoning is just as good as Paul H's.

Your reasoning is not as good, for this reason: You state as fact, that we were created after a big bang occured, yet, you have no evidence of this big bang. Whereas there is evidence of creation through order on the earth and in the universe.

"So provide me with evidence that is not simply based upon belief."

This is not simply based on belief, that the world and universe is full of order. If we were a few miles closer to the sun, or a few miles further from the sun, we would not be able to sustain our existence. The fact that our planet is at the right distance from the sun in order to sustain life is evidence of order. This is something you cannot deny. Also, the golden ratio 1 to 1.618 is present all throughout nature on earth.

Here is an unbiased source of the evidence of creation through the divine proportion. Source: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/technical/04/033104.asp

Penster: "The creation story show that God created night and day before he created the mechanism for night and day. clearly this is wrong and illogical."

Again it is clearly wrong and illogical... in your understanding. Really, almost all of your questions could have easily been answered through research, like this one. Read the answer to the question half way down this link that questions exactly like yours. It asks:

Objection 2

According to Genesis 1, the sun was not created until day four. How could there be day and night (ordinary days) without the sun for the first three days?

The answer follows this question in this link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/sixdays2.asp

In conclusion, you have given no evidence that Atheism is more reasonable. You've only, tried to explain how Christianity was unreasonable, which you've failed to do in any of your attempts. I would still like to hear from you so I will still refer back to this question, since this debate is not finished.

Answer 1

A) Espousing that a magic man who lives in the sky listens when you talk to yourself at night is not a reasonable proposition.

B) In all seriousness, this is not a debate site. Yahoo chat is a more appropriate venue for this type of thing.

Just trying to keep YA! clean and friendly. Have a good one.

Answer 2

If ever there was a theory that was merely the figment of man's imagination, it is the theory of evolution!

We have five hundred muscles in the body, and they are all controlled by the will, the mind. When I strike with my hand or beat with my fist, there is a will behind the hand and the fist. My muscles do not act unless there is a command to contract. The thing that is all essential is the will, it is the commanding power. My arm will contract and cause the fist to beat; but it beats only when my will commands.

But here is a muscle in the body that beats when I am asleep. It beats when my will is inactive and I am utterly unconscious. It keeps on beating all the time. What will is it that causes this heart to beat? The heart cannot beat once without a command!

In the beating of that heart that you can feel, as you put your hand upon the breast, or as you put your finger against the pulse, we have THE EVIDENCE of another will, a divine will, an unseen, mighty Intelligence, a power, a will within, that is commanding the functions of our bodies and controlling them. The entire being is under the SUPERVISION of God!

"In Him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:28.

All created beings live by the will and power of God!

This is an undeniable SCIENTIFIC FACT that can only be explained by the presence and power of God!

Answer 3

Creation is the evidence of a Creator...simple as that. There's no operational, testable, observable science that proves evolution from low-order to higher order of life or any other factual explanation of how life and the universe began from nothing or non-living materials in the case of biological evolution. The only reasonable conclusion is that some supernatural being had to create the matter and complex laws of the universe and the informational code of DNA as well as the complex design of nature. Life simply cannot begin by itself from non-living materials. It's up to everyone to decide which religion or faith best explains that Creator. I believe the Bible is the only true Word of the Triune God, the Creator of the universe. I'll take God's wisdom over man's any day.

Answer 4

Given that one of the first five answers pointed out that this is not a debate forum, and in reality this is a totally true statement. I believe that you also disagreed with the bible being "fairy" tales, perhaps not the best wording but so far the Bible lacks compelling evidence that it is a trustworthy source of information about god - it is fairly accurate about locations and civilizations.

I suggest you post your proof/evidence in the form of question and many of us will be happy to explain why or why not it is reasonable evidence.

By the way, "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel is a very one sided, non-objective book. It promises eye witness testimony (or talk about its importance) and then never provides any. I'd rate it as a good book for some one who wants to and thinks they ought to believe, but not for serious searchers for truth.

Answer 5

Atheist's are always going to say they are more reasonable and vise versa with christianity. These debates go nowhere they will go around in circles it wont matter if either side really does make a reasonable answer the other side wont have a bar of it


EDIT ILL JUMP INTO THE DEBATE:

ok ill add on...the big major thing abotu christianity is god right...what caused god to be created or did he just suddenly appear? nothing created him? if nothing created him then its a possibility that nothing created the universe it just happened? Also if god is perfect than why did he build a world of imperfections, what benieft was it to him?

You says christianity is more evident so more reasonable but you cannot prove god exists andif you cannot prove he exists than who created earth? who created universe? Who created man....If you cannot prove that the main part part of christianity is real than you cannot say it is more reasonable than an athiest's point of view of believing scienstist with the big bang theory and evolution.

Answer 6

A few problems with Christianity:
1) No reliable evidence that god exists
2) No proof that the Bible is the word of god
3) Many questions over the reliability if the Bible
4) Many parts of the Bible can be proven to be factually incorrect
etc etc etc

Answer 7

I encourage all unbelievers to read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

He was an agnostic journalist - furious at his wife for becoming a Christian - so he set out in a very "All the President's Men" kind of way to prove that Christianity was a lie, the greatest hoax ever perpetuated upon mankind.

After years and years of exhaustive research - he wound up converting.

Answer 8

Since there is neither valid argument nor objective evidence for the existence of any gods, declining to believe in the existence of gods is the only reasonable position to take.

Answer 9

Your question assumes that reason has a place in Christianity. It doesn't Christianity is based upon faith and faith over rides reason.

Athiesism based on scientific fact is also based on reason. Science has proved many facts of the Bible wrong. Even history questions many facts of the Bible e.g. the total lack of any historical record (outside of the Bible) of the Jesus Christ.

Science has fact and testable theory about the origin of man while Christianity doesn't. There is nothing testable about the Bible. Science is build upon the testing theory.

There are so many arguments against creation, the flood, and many other occurances in the Bible which Christians simply can't respond to in any reasonable way. The usual answer is grounded solely in faith and as I said above faith and reason don't mix.

EDIT you certainly can't prove it. The simple fact is that when you prove God then you destroy the system upon which religion is founded i.e. faith. If God is fact then I don't need faith. Much like I don't need faith when I jump. I don't need faith that I will return to earth. I know for a fact that gravity will pull me down again.

And when you take a point like that made by Lion of Judah. He is correct. You can't prove a negative. But on the other hand Christianity have still to prove God exists and if they did they would destroy the foundation i.e. faith. The only thing they offer is a book. There many other religious books. If a book is good enought as proof then all other religions with such religious texts have proved their Gods too. Thus the there is polythesism - more Gods that simply the Christian God.

I'm always willing to debate, so long as you proviode fact and not simply rely on an argument such as I believe therefore it is true.

EDIT Reason is based on logic and logic produces and end result. a conclusion which can be followed back to the beginning. This can be done with science but not with a belief system. There is simply no reason allowed in religion. It is a set of rules which forbids reason. You follow the rules and you get to heaven. You don't and you go to hell. You can't stop to think about whather what you are doing is reasonable or not. Whether religion is reasonable or not.

Reason and logic are the core of science and not religion. Is it reasonable to believe that Noah somehow took the Tasmanian Tiger onto the ark? The tasmanian Tiger exists only in Australia. Thus for Noah to get it he would have had to journey to south east asia, cross thousands of miles of sea, find the tasmanian tiger and journey all the way back. he would have had to do that for thousands of species which exist only in certain areas of the world and only in certain habitiats. Take a polar bear for instance. Adapted to exist in the extreme cold. Did Noah travel all the way to the pole to gather these animals? That is not reasonable to believe. And if he didn't then the only reasonable conclusion to make is that these animals evolved at a later stage of life - thus providing evidence for evolution and trashing your whole Adam and Eve creation myth! Answer those little paradoxs please.


EDIT You are showing nothing other than the fact that you are good at missing the point. Christianity only has a book which it claims is the word of God. Other religions have this too - thus all religions have the word of their God and thus all their Gods exist. Different Gods just like different pizzas. The fact that these books exist does not however prove the existence of God. The Lord of the Rings exists but it doesn't prove the existence of Hobbits, Elves and wizards. There is no historical record of these creatures outside the record in LOTR just as there is no historical record of jesus outside of the Bible!!!! That says a lot. Not one writer of the time documents anything about a miracle worker, teacher, preacher, who moved people by the thousands and who was called Jesus. Not one record. Think about that. David Blain sits in a box without food for many weeks and it is all over the news. Yet back then raising the dead, healing the sick, feed the 5000 - not one line written about it by anyone outside of the few who created the religion and indeed did so several years after the fact.

EDIT You give me evidence of Christianity outside of the Bible. Something that is not written in the Bible.

So explain how the Tasmanian Tiger made this journey across land and water. Explain also how it made the journey back without breeding along the way and leaving a trail of these animals all over Asia and the Middle East? It does not stand up to reason! The same goes for Polar Bears, Dingoes, Kangaroos, cassowaries, and various other native animals that exist only in specific lands. It is not reasonably that all these animals swam tthousands of miles to the mainland.

Also why do we still have both fresh and salt water fish. When a flood covers the earth then the water reaches a certain salinity. Fish can't survive in both. The majority are one or the other. Why then do we still have both varieties. Again the logic points us to both the impossibility of the flood or the flood justifying evolution. i.e. salt/fresh water fish evolved after the flood.

EDIT and now you want to back away from your question. I give you one challenge. Provide me with one first hand account of Jesus Christ. Just one. I mean something not written after the fact. I bet you can't. There is no evidence he existed. Much like the Elves, Wizards, and Hobbits.

If you want to e-mail me you evidence I will deal with each point. Just keep to fact and not belief.

Paul H provides NO evidence. He provides a belief that we were created. If it is reasonable to believe that we were created then it is equally as reasonable to believe that something created God!!!! Is lightning created. No. It occurs through physical/electrochemical processes. It is not created. You are assuming that everything has to be created and can't occur randomly. Physics clearly shows us that randomness is an inherent part of our universe.

To counter Paul H with physics, we were created after a big bang occurred. The mechanism for this always existed much like Christians believe God always existed. There - my reasoning is just as good as Paul H's.

So provide me with evidence that is not simply based upon belief.

EDIT Your silence tells me that you can't provide evidence. You cannot use reason. Therefore I win! Don't let it get to you. Be happy with your belief. It doesn't matter if it is true or not - what matters is that it helps you get through life.

Just one final thought. The creation story show that God created night and day before he created the mechanism for night and day. clearly this is wrong and illogical. The moon and the sun which dictate our night and day i.e. the earth revolving on its axis to make night and day as it travels round the sun were created on day 4 but night day appeared on day two. That is anything but reasonable.

Answer 10

not a Christian or an atheist, but I fail to see how a partisan can be accepted as a neutral 'referee.'

If you truly want a debate that would be viewed as fair and honest, you would not be imposing your own arbitrary rules at the outset.