Debate.org is closing and the website will be taken offline on May 30, 2022.
Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account. For more information, please refer to our FAQs page.
The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
The Contender
manticore239
Con (against)

Atheism is -ALWAYS- better than christianity. No exceptions. None

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2020 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 449 times Debate No: 123893
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

It is much better to be an atheist than it is to be a simple toothed supposed popcorn neanderthal christ christian. Why? There are so many reasons. But let's start out with three of the most basic of basics.

1. Nobody in the history of the entire human race has ever proven ---any--- god from ---any--- religion to have ever existed. So why not believe in yourself first? Put yourself first and foremost ahead of something you can't prove even exists. Why not get evidence first and then believe rather than believing without evidence?

2. Do you believe that its perfectly OK for your unproven character storybook god of print only to hate on children and babies for no reason at all and in some cases murder them? Y____? N____? Why? Why not?
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=2zYG_fJLjBg - god hates children
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=5kQTIX7NRE4 - Atheist debates get em while they"re young
LM4: 9-11, MT 10:37, MT 2:16, JG 21:10, DT 2:34, NU 31: 17-18, LV 26: 21-22, HS 13:16, EZ 9: 5-7, HS 9: 11-16, EX 12: 29-30, IS 13: 15-18, MT 2:16, EX 21:17, LV 20:9, MK 7:10, MT 15:4, MT 10:21, JG 11: 30-33, PS 137: 8-9, DT 21: 18-21, DT 32:25, DT 2: 32-34, DT 3: 3-6, JG 19: 24-29, EX 12:29, LV 26:29, JM 11: 22-23, JM 19: 7-9, JM 51: 22-26, LM 2: 20-22, RV 2: 18-23 (btw with this exercise some of the verses are from your lovely NT so you have no excuses)
There is no justifiable reason that ---anyone--- can think of to murder any child or baby. Yet somehow supposed christians are AGAINST ABORTIONS? ! ? ! ? ! WHAT? ! ? ! And their god MURDERS babies and children? ! ? ! ? ! Yeah, That"s not only contradictory and hypocritical from their s--t of a god"s point of view, But their god also gave one of the 10 commandments of "thou shalt not kill". But wait gosh golly gee gosh darned it all, Their god kills, Well actually murders. Damn right there are BILLIONS of atheists on this planet (those who do not believe in a god or gods) who are not going to MURDER because a jacked up high on mighty uterus explosions wants to get his tickles at a gucci party unproven character storybook god of print only says so.

A child, Age 6 for example who has stage 4 cancer, Does not know what is happening to him/ her. Their cries are not heard, That they are in constant pain unless they are given sedatives/ pain killers, That they are terrified, That they are in an unfamiliar place (a hospital of some kind as an example), And are not home unless it is special circumstance, That they really do not understand what suffering is, But those around them probably do, Etc etc etc.
Oh and btw, YOUR god put children in that position of suffering to begin with which is 100% pure evil and hate. YOUR god absolutely loves to knowingly suffer, Otherwise he would not create their situations for them to suffer.
And btw, I know that you know that you cannot contemplate suffering at all. Your precious jesus went through 12 hours, Tops, Of suffering. Some children go through decades of suffering. Your precious jesus had it easy. Now please do tell me what a child can possibly learn from suffering? Much less an adult? If you"ve answered "nothing", You"ve answered correctly.
----------
god knowingly creates children to be raped, Beaten and tortured at the hands of their abusers. . . Sometimes for decades. An example is daddy is sticking in his you know what inside of his daughter age 5 while punching her in the face twice per week for 15 years. To knowingly create children to suffer is 100% pure evil and hate at its finest. You can not get more evil than that with all the hate if you wanted to. Please DO NOT bring in the "Free Will" argument either because children DO NOT have the Free Will to escape from these monsters who commit these horrific acts. And god creates these children to suffer as well as these monsters to commit their unspeakable crimes to begin with. God must also love it, Otherwise he would create these horrific events. Please DO NOT invent the excuse that "its not god's fault". Well yeah it is. Otherwise, God is NOT in control of everything, Nor is he all knowing nor is he all powerful. Nor is god omnipotent. Nor does god care enough to not create these horrific acts. And the worst of the absolute worst is god is giving a greater value, A greater meaning to these monsters to commit these horrific acts while these children suffer at the hands of these savages who have no free will to SCREAM. God IS hate and evil. Pure and simple. So invent better excuses please. Sure, Call me that I "hate" when it was just proven that YOUR god hates and nothing but. AND GOD MUST HAVE GIVEN THAT HATE TO ME AND ALL OF MANKIND. And yes, Absolutely 100% that includes YOU by gum! Wow. What a loving god huh? Pathetic, But typical smug christian ideal that doesn't work - ever - excuse on your part.
In other words, God truly hates children which is a truly "duh "situation. The bible proves this time and time again. Also notice how children do not get to say a single sentence in the bible? Not one. Its like having your mouth glued shut for your entire childhood. That's the worst form of child abuse there is - to be neglected and ignored. And the bible does it so well. Sure god and jesus have stated that they love children or whatever, But that's not the same thing. Not by a longshot. How would you like it if someone spoke for you for your entire childhood and you could not say a single word on your behalf? Well, You'd naturally hate it. Also the bible is surely incomplete because there are no voices of children, There are no children talking or singing, Or voices of them playing, When it is most assuredly required. How would you like it if you as an adult, Who worked so hard for your children, As well you should, And they should always be the center of your life, Were to find out that they were left out of your life? Well, Once again you'd naturally hate it. And that's exactly what the bible and god has done in leaving children completely out of "their" most supposed sacred book of history that is supposed to engulf everything that was known within their supposed surroundings up until that special moment in time, And yet it completely ignores and neglects children. Well good job for the men who wrote the bible. Not---toooo---bright.

3. Oh absolutely, The bible is phenomenally inconsistent. Its all over the map. Especially with who did what to whom, Where when and there"s of course no why from its god, There is only just because of its jealousy. But the NT is even more immoral than the OT BY FAR. 1. In order to make it to this mythical heaven, The only way to do this is through the belief in the unproven jesus christ. Everybody else is doomed to be committed to the mythical hell to be tortured and burned forever and ever in eternal flames of fire. It gets worse. . . So Hitler who was a devout christian, And Hong Xiuquan who knew of himself to be the younger brother of christ, They both with their belief in christ will have made it to this mythical heaven. This is also true for all serial killers, Torturers, Rapists, Sodomizers, Pedophiles, Etc etc etc. If they find this mythical christ, They are guaranteed a spot in this mythical heaven. This is a completely immoral bankrupt corrupt law when they, If anybody. Should burn in hell and be tortured to burn eternally forever and ever. But then again, Why should this crapola happen to anybody? If this supposed unproven character storybook god of print only truly exists, It would know ---EXACTLY--- what its dogmeat playthings are going to be doing every single day of every single second throughout time and would thus present peace, Kindness, Care, Love, Harmony etc etc etc. Throughout all of eternity. Nah. That's far too much to ask as this thing as it has never happened for 60 years, Just 50 stinking years since its inception. Not anywhere, Not at any time, And not with any culture. This shows that this supposed god has no power except for the obvious power of its main preference to hate, And have Anger, Wrath, Evil, Vengeance, Rage, Fury, Jealousy etc etc etc and wallows in it as this unproven character storybook god or print only in its bible has freely admitted to all of them. So on the opposite end of the loop, There's the atheist who does not believe in god or christ. Wow. 2. Then we who number in the billions are doomed to go to this mythical hell to forever burn eternally simply for not believing in this mythical christ. If that is not the most immoral thing from ---any--- religion, What is? So this is true love huh? Nope.

All 3 of those reasons are very thankful reasons out of thousands of reasons to be an atheist any day of the year. This isn't hard to figure out. Pour some salt on those dimples. Smile! Have fun. You deserve it.

Next time, If there is a next time, We'll get into A LOT MORE!

dsjpk5 (aka flappy) is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
manticore239

Con

The argument that "Atheism is always better than Christianity" without exception appears trivially easy to counter, As it requires only presenting any situation where Christianity affords some advantage over Atheism. I find myself in the amusing situation of contending against an atheist viewpoint, To point out that such an absolutist stance, Without a comparatively well-defined metric for qualifying "better, " is easily upended. Since none was specified, I'll provide the simplest metric by which I'll compare the two.

Metric for comparison: The utility afforded by the ideology to the individual having it. If a belief in Christianity affords the person a greater advantage than an Atheist perspective, Then Christianity is "better" in this circumstance.

Since "Christianity" is used by the instigator in the broadest sense, I'll be using the broadest definition of it, Rather than referring to a particular denomination: Christianity refers to a general belief in a historicity of an individual named Jesus Christ and his status as a god. Note that this definition does not distinguish responsibilities to be had in response to such a belief, And is absent of beliefs specific to any given church. This is on purpose, To allow for some version of Christianity which does not conform to existing organized religions.

For "Atheism, " I'll assume a similarly broad definition: Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god. While Atheism is sometimes used more loosely, Or instead with special emphases on the nature of disbelief, I expect such particulars won't change the nature of my argument during this debate.

I want to clarify the points you have made:
  1. God is not proven to exist. Additionally, You criticize a presumed hierarchy of consideration, Suggesting one ought to elevate the consideration one gives oneself over that given to the pursuit of god worship.
    1. I point out that this is not strictly relevant to the topic of advantage afforded by belief. The advantage of belief is independent of the authenticity of its subject. A belief in Santa Claus, Controversies aside, Can be argued to affordsome value in terms of entertainment and creativity. The topic we discuss here is whether there is ever a net positive utility in a belief in Christianity, Not whether the subject is authentic.
    2. Your additional point requires some context, As it presumes additional responsibilities toward a belief which is in addition to the belief alone. While it may be a valid criticism of a particular church, It does not necessarily pertain to Christianity as a whole. Since this is about Christianity as a whole and not about the vaguely implicated religion, Your additional point made here is not pertinent to this debate.
  2. The bible (primarily Old Testament) suggests acts taken by god and/or worshippers which are controversial or inconsistent with mainstream Christian values.
    1. Your criticism appears mainly to be with the bibilical account of the Christian God, And perhaps by extension a criticism of how he's represented by mainstream religions. This is also not relevant to the current debate, Since the historicity of Jesus Christ can be argued independent of the historicity of the bible. In other words, It could be argued that Jesus Christ existed and that the bible and mainstream religions completely misrepresent him.
  3. An expansion on point 2. Christians historically commit cruel acts, Yet are presumably rewarded for their faith.
    1. This is beside the point. The topic is on advantage afforded by Christianity, Not on its authenticity, Consistency, Or even ethicality. You point out that some persons purporting to be Christian behaved unethically. However, You dismiss that values allowing such behavior are extraneous to Christianity as I have defined. You also don't indicate why, For example, Hitler's being Christian was a disadvantage to him. You've instead implied a disadvantage to his victims.
This round I'll make my argument with a single point. Christianity is better than Atheism if it advantages the person to have such a belief--specifically, Being Christian can aid a person's capacity to cope with hardship, And therefore afford them a better quality of life. The simplest example would be the one put forth by Terror Management Theory, That religious values help one cope with anxiety, Particularly with the inevitability of death (1). While not necessarily requiring it, Christianity commonly provides a framework which provides purpose, Continuance beyond death, And compensation for injustices suffered, Which allows the individual to reframe their negative situation in a more positive context--that they will be eventually compensated (i. E. Upon death). The victims of all of your examples could benefit from such a belief, Allowing them to cope through such immensely abusive circumstances, Imbuing the Christian with feelings of hope where depression might otherwise be inevitable. Granted that these victims would benefit psychologically from a belief in Christianity, Rather than its absence, Your argument that "Atheism is always better" is false because I have provided a circumstance where it is not better.

(1) https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Terror_management_theory
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Yes, The argument is Atheism is ---always--- better than christianity, No exceptions, None. Well I mean come on here, Christianity is a non proven religion. There"s over 33, 480 denominations of christianity alone. Pick one. You choose. Now that you"ve chosen, You prove, Hands down, Which one of those 33, 480 + denominations is the correct one. That"s why there are over 33, 840 of them is because there"s no consensus. *****To prove it, You take YOUR ideals to 20 different churches within a 20 mile radius on the most basic of things like if someone can recite the 10 commandments and if they can recite what happened on each day of creation and 1 billion to 1 if you are honest, There will be no consensus. Simple rules" no goading and you must pick the churches at random with no warning of your approach.
Wow. You cannot even prove that YOUR god even exists. After all, No one has proven any god from any religion exists in the entire existence of the human race. So YOUR examination of christianity is an automatic stomping ground failure. Should I end this debate right now on technicality issues or should I let this smoldering smothering debate possibly continue into further RD"s in which case you cannot possibly win by those grounds alone? I dunno. Let"s and see where you're thin finer than an atoms thread leads. . .

"The argument that "Atheism is always better than Christianity" without exception appears trivially easy to counter, " You do 100% realize I should end this debate on those grounds alone - correct? Nah. Let"s see what you can juice up, If anything?

"Metric for comparison:" Well gosh. I"ve been doing this for 45+ years and have talked with over 22, 000 on this subject and have never in my jumbo rainbow of jellies heard that terminology before. " Golly! Let"s continue. But let"s also play nice nice, K butterfly lobster press fluff bunny? If there is the slightest hint of you making up crap from you clearly not knowing what the f--k you are squawking about and yet you pretend that you do as so so so many here on DDO do, Especially considering that this is a subject that you are clearly claiming to profess having knowledge upon and you really don"t have that knowledge, And you thus try to invent excuses and or flatly lie about it to score points against me because you think you can = a very bad idea because I can assure you that I do know better and we will play the 3 strike rule. 3 strikes of that B. S. , And this debate will be over. Kapeesh? Good. If you don"t like it, Tough. These are nonnegotiable rules.
Oh well whoopsi with a darned! No idiot god if true, Namely the one you are supposed to believe in, Would ever use text, Namely your bumbling babbling baby brained big black blank hole bible, The worst form of communication, Advertisement, Correspondence possible TO A GOD! Oh there"s at least 50 reasons why this is so. Care to take one fish hook of a noodled prayer and guess why for at least 3 of them are true? If you cannot figure this one out then don"t even bother sending me another argument. I will ignore ---every single---thing you have to say except for this, And I will let you know that this debate is now over. This HUGE as to why atheism is 100% better.

"The utility afforded by the ideology to the individual having it. If a belief in Christianity affords the person a greater advantage than an Atheist perspective, Then Christianity is "better" in this circumstance. " Well see, That makes no sense until you list that ideology.
Here"s that thought in play" You get two supposed christians in one room. One claims to know the bible and it"s unproven storybook character god of print only extremely well. The other doesn"t know anything at all about YOUR supposed unproven christian god but makes the audacious rich blooded claim that he knows the god of the bible better than the first person. Now who is more correct with their assumptions out of the over 33, 480 denominations of chrstianity? So your ideal ---never--- works ESPECIALLY if a child is reading your bible and is attempting to gain something from it and is just learning to read and has a truly rotten mind. OR this child could quite possibly have a good mind, But what good is this child going to get from learning to read from first reading the bible when in turn, Obviously, It won"t have the foggiest idea as to what YOUR bible says?
So that scratch ticket bible is now out of play from your p. O. V. It can no longer be used as evidence.

"Since "Christianity" is used by the instigator in the broadest sense, "
S-T-R-I-K-E 1. No need for an explanation, Especially coming from a true dolt. Really?
"Christianity refers to a general belief in a historicity of an individual named Jesus Christ and his status as a god. " Gee. Well according to what? Not the biblical booby prize bible, That"s for sure. You might want to recheck that as the christ sneezerag was not even the messiah. Now off you go with a scuffling BANG! And you thus prove that every single jew on this planet is WRONG.
Also, You really want some verses? DO YOU? AND EVEN BETTER! Suppose that this dogmeat christ was the messiah, There"s no possible way that ---anybody--- except for perhaps 1, 000 people on this planet today even follows the jerks laws, Rules and regulations as to what is printed in the bible. You most certainly don"t. That"s a 100% guarantee. DO YOU want those verses? That"s what I thought no bang-bang peep out of you because you stepped in some poo and you have no idea, None, As to what you are squawking about because like nearly 100% of the supposed christians on DDO, You CAN"T READ and haven"t read YOUR bible. Don"t you dare say you have!

definition: Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god. While Atheism is sometimes used more loosely, Or instead with special emphases on the nature of disbelief, " tack on "in a god" and cancel out the word "nature". In other words, Try as you may, And sorry you don"t get to fumble around in the cookie-cutter jar trying to make folderol turn into toothpaste. This is ---EXACTLY--- to-the-letter what so-called christians do is they fumble around with their bible and because it doesn"t sound good to them, They make changes to their wants, Needs and desires and they trash the rest. I betcha 1 million to 1 you do the same. Care to take on that bet?

"I expect such particulars won't change the nature of my argument during this debate. " Well, It"s not a "nature". I used the thesaurus for the terminology of "nature" and this sounds like a goodie" "outlook".

"I want to clarify the points you have made:"
1. "God is not proven to exist. Additionally, You criticize a presumed hierarchy of consideration, Suggesting one ought to elevate the consideration one gives oneself over that given to the pursuit of god worship. " Um no wrong. Cancel that word "pursuit". How can there be a "pursuit" if someone doesn"t know what they are looking for? How can someone gain evidence for something if no one else in the history of man ever has - that"s the odds of 1. 082 billion to one. It"s foolhardy. If I mention "Why not get evidence first (in which case there"s no evidence for any god having ever existed), Then it would be an exact repeat of what was stated in the first sentence of #1. Why underestimate someone"s intelligence and education? Oh but wait, Let me guess, YOU are that person with that unintelligence and lack of education - right?

"The advantage of belief is independent of the authenticity of its subject. " 100% false.
That"s a very easy S-T-R-I-K-E 2. This clearly 100% shows that you have no idea, None, As to what you are talking about and you should be strung up for saying something like that.
I get it. I really do" So according to YOU and YOU only + other idiot supposed jerk zits on their you know where areas to spring some cottage cheese, Supposed completely immoral christians, Someone should believe in Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Hong Xiuquan, Stalin, All serial killer, All pedophiles, All torturers, All sadists, All rapists etc etc etc because YOUR supposed god, Jesus s--t for brains has given ALL OF THEM pardons if they suddenly "believe" in this christ - correct? Now say "yes" and nod for the camera because this is exactly what YOU believe in as this is what your fricken bible ultimately teaches. This is by far the most completely immoral thing among ---any--- religion has ever dreamed up. Is atheism better than christianity? Damn right.

Belief in anything takes responsibility. Belief in something that cannot be proved, Namely the god of the bible in this case, And is of terror, Hates children, Issues death warrants for no reason other that it was jealous, The same is true and has committed countless genocides, Murdered babies and children and pregnant mothers (abortions), Issues commandments that are ridiculous and cannot possibly be followed, Murders innocent animals, Chooses to communicate through text in which case no true god ever would, Flatly lies - a supreme deity that lies? Really? There's anger, Wrath, Vengeance, Rage, Fury, Evil, Jealousy? WHAT? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear.

"The topic we discuss here is whether there is ever a net positive utility in a belief in Christianity, Not whether the subject is authentic. " Who is this "we"? There"s no "net positive unity" as once again, There"s no consensus. Regardless, The subject you present is not authentic. How can it be if you cannot prove your god"s very existence?

"As it presumes additional responsibilities toward a belief which is in addition to the belief alone. " Nothing wrong with that. Btw, Who"s talking about the church? You? Yes. Me? Supposed pretend christians like you who really guess at best and don't know what they are talking about. You're not a christian. Really. You"re not.
"Your additional point made here is not pertinent to this debate. " *****Well it does pertain to christianity as a whole.
That should be a strike 3.

I"m out of space.
manticore239

Con

(This is a cached version of my response for Round 2. The original was lost a day or so after submission. This one is from an old cache, Updated to reflect the original's content with some minor fixes for readability. I do not know if my opponent was aware of some version of this in providing their Round 3 argument, But it is provided to give context to such a response. )

You spent very little time on the topic this round. Instead you spent your round committing a number of logical fallacies:

Ad Hominem: This is when ". . . Genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, Motive, Or other attribute of the person making the argument, Or persons associated with the argument, Rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself (1). " You did this by insulting me multiple times in your response.

Straw Man: It is ". . . Giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, While actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent (2). " Your argument was aimed at refuting the validity of Christianity altogether, Which is not the topic of this debate. The validity of Christianity would be more appropriate as a separate topic, And so I will refrain from discussing it. We are discussing the benefit one might obtain from such a belief. This does not necessarily require Christianity to be valid--see my argument for an example.

Appeal to Accomplishment: You cite your years of experience on the topic (45+ years. . . With over 22, 000 persons). While this information is appropriate in a job interview, It is not relevant to your argument or to the topic being discussed here, And instead serves to intimidate your opponent and distract readers with your bragging (3). Experience should lend itself to presenting a stronger argument, It is not necessary to flaunt it outright. The fact that you resorted to this suggests to me that you're desperate in defending an argument which is too weak to stand on its own.

Since you apparently had issue with my selection of vocabulary, I will elect to use a more elementary set for the remainder of this debate. I hope that the rest of the debate is more constructive. I gave my only argument last round, And you didn't even touch it. Please address my argument. My argument is the one from Terror Management Theory (4). The idea is that religion benefits people because it helps them cope through hard times. This refers to religion in general, Not just Christianity. It does not matter for this debate if the religions are true. For the sake of this debate we can suppose Christianity is completely false. It does not hurt my argument. Think of it like how some children can enjoy believing in Santa Claus, A fictional character whose influence is significant nonetheless. Someone could have hope from believing is Jesus Christ, And it doesn't even matter if he ever existed. They only need to think that he existed, That he was a god, And benefit from that belief. This means the religion is helping that person. This is how Christianity is sometimes better than Atheism, Disproving your argument.

Please stay on topic next round and refrain from throwing insults. You claim you are the smarter one, And so I would expect your professionalism to exceed my own. The insults detract from the discussion. Since you and I are not juvenile, I expect the rest of the debate will not include any more name-calling.

Do not spend any more time complaining about Christianity's validity. It is an interesting topic in itself, But it is a separate topic from what we discuss here. If you spend all your time venting about off-topic issues, I will never get to hear your response to my argument. I only gave one argument, I'll phrase it again: Christianity benefits people emotionally, By providing a framework to cope with hardship and especially the prospect of death. Since people exist to reap this benefit, Christianity is functionally better than Atheism in these cases. I welcome you to refute it, Presumably this would mean showing that nobody benefits from Christianity in this way. Although you yourself inadvertantly alluded to the thousands of different varieties of Christianity doing exactly this, Albeit to your disapproval.

(1) https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Ad_hominem
(2) https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Straw_man
(3) https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Appeal_to_accomplishment
(4) https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Terror_management_theory
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

2. "The bible (primarily Old Testament) suggests acts taken by god and/or worshippers which are controversial or inconsistent with mainstream Christian values. "
Do you even know what "christian values" are? I doubt it. But let"s see if you do out of the 33, 480 different denominations of christianity. Sure, You might mention or two of them (in which case after reading all of your text, You missed all of them), However if you miss ---any--- of what they are, In which case you clearly did, Without me even looking at the gibberish that you texted, Because there"s nowhere near enough gab for you to have done as such, We"ve (that"s you and I) have amounted to an automatic S-T-R-I-K-E 3.
"1. Your criticism appears mainly to be with the bibilical account of the Christian God, And perhaps by extension a criticism of how he's represented by mainstream religions. This is also not relevant to the current debate, "
OK way off. You didn't even list why christianity is better. Nor did you make any attempts in stating why Atheism is NOT -ALWAYS- better than christianity. No exceptions. None. All you've done is, Simply by avoiding the subject matter completely, Which is more than proven why atheism is a far better bet for someone to be an atheist than it is to be a christian simply by you completely avoiding the topic. So we're done by an automatic ruling of a very simple easy going strike 3. Bye.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by manticore239 2 years ago
manticore239
The site is doing us no favors, It seems you are being prompted again for your Round 3 argument @backwardseden. Feel free to take the opportunity to update your own Round 3 response. Hopefully the site works better for the remainder of our debate.
Posted by manticore239 2 years ago
manticore239
It seems the site has lost my Round 2 response. I'll wait to see if this debate updates, As the site is still requesting my Round 2, And we are well into Round 3.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
backwardseden
@anc2006 - Tisk tisk. Yes! Always. No exceptions. None for the ruling of "Atheism is -ALWAYS- better than christianity. No exceptions. None".
Btw, Since when does "more" mean "better"? That's just like saying "quantity" is better than "quality". Things don't work that way. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think you did a debate on that?
Now I have not heard and or watched Melanie Martinez or Nikola Tesla until you mentioned them. However, There's no comparison in apples VS oranges.
Also, There's no comparison if someone absolutely loves what they are doing. Let's take 7 rock bands for instance. . . * Hawkwind who have celebrated their 50th last year. * Magnum has been together since 1972 even though there was a breakup of a couple of years. * Einsturzende Neubauten has been together since 1980. * Melt Banana have been together since 1992. * Cannibal Corpse has been together since 1988. * The Residents (Nobody really knows when they got their start as they were really obscure, However, One of the founding members died in 2018 and they stopped recording and touring at that time). They've done countless albums and live albums and have influenced thousands if not hundreds of thousands. * Laibach has been around since 1980. All of these bands simply love what they are doing and for no other reason. Damn success! If they cared about success, They would have broken up a long time ago. I've seen Melt Banana, Laibach, The Residents, Einsturzende Neubauten. . . Einsturzende Neubauten, Hawkwind, Magnum they either do not tour the states or have stopped touring the states. Thankfully Rammstein has set up a few tour dates for this summer! However, Grrrrrrr their dates are too far away so only by an absolute miracle will I get to see them, Perhaps the very best concert of all time.
Posted by anc2006 2 years ago
anc2006
Always? Then how come there are more christians than atheists. You could prove that atheism is theoretically better, But there are exceptions for people. If there are people who know who Melanie Martinez is but not Nikola Tesla, You cannot blame them for being. . . Themselves.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
backwardseden
@manticore239 - Right now my nap is at hand and I sleep for a day. But it took you forever, And many times in trying, To post you argument at any rate. I will not be able to post until tomorrow night at roughly 9:00pm at the very earliest. Btw, When you mention "You spent very little time on the topic this round. " That really is a strike 3 entanglement for you and I should, But won't end this debate. There's PLENTY in the previous RD to utterly prove that what the headliner post "Atheism is -ALWAYS- better than christianity. No exceptions. None" states is 100% true and all I did was stick and respond to YOUR #1 statement which was so ridiculously fatally flawed that rigor mortis could not make it become unglued. So RD 3 will contain what you've had, If anything of worth for what else you had to say in RD1. If it's 0% of nothing as I've thus far dealt with, And you've got that esteemed S-T-R-I-K-E, I'm not even going to deal with it. I have better things to do. However, I will let you know and not cop-out of it like nearly everybody else does.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
canis
Atheism is the non invention of gods. Is it always better? Well think some people can use religion as an escape when reality gets to hard to handle. . The problem is that it is of no use otherwise. Its just takes you away from reality.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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