Instigator / Pro
6
1763
rating
29
debates
98.28%
won
Topic
#3283

THBT: Atheism is, on balance more reasonable than Christianity.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Bones
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
25,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1487
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Description

THBT: Atheism is, on balance more reasonable than Christianity.
--
Definitions:

General terms:

· Christianity - the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. In particular, Christians prescribe to the literal belief in the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being.
· More reasonable - To be an option that is based on or uses better judgment and is, therefore, more fair and practical
· Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods.
· Reasonable - agreeable to or in accord with reason; logical.

PGA2.0 Requested Terms:
The argument from Morality:
· Morality - the degree to which an action is right or wrong. Morals often describe one's particular values concerning what is right and what is wrong.
· Ethics - 1. the discipline dealing with what is good and (evil) bad and with moral duty and obligation
2a: a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values. Ethics can refer broadly to moral principles, one often sees it applied to questions of correct
behaviour within a relatively narrow area of activity

Biblical Evidence - Internal and External:
· Eschatology - the study of final things.
· Biblical Typology - the aspect of biblical interpretation that treats the significance of Old Testament types for prefiguring corresponding New Testament antitypes or fulfilment.

Life's Ultimate Questions - Worldview Analysis
· Worldview - the most fundamental (core) philosophical beliefs and assumptions a person holds about the universe and the nature of things.

Logic:
· Logic - a particular way of thinking, especially one that is reasonable and based on good judgment.
· Aristotelian Laws of Logic
· Law of Identity --> X = X, 2)
· Law of Non-contradiction --> X ≠ non-X.
· Inductive Argument - an argument that is intended by the arguer to be strong enough that, if the premises were to be true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false.
· Deductive Argument - a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises - are true.

Bones Requested Terms:

The argument from Gratutuious evils:
· Evil - morally bad, cruel, or very unpleasant.
· Good - morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious:

Occams Razor:
· Occams Razor - The principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more.

--

Contentions:

Bones will substantiate his burden of proof with the following four contentions:

· The Anti-Kalam Cosmological argument.
· The argument from Gratutuious evils.
· Occams Razor
· The Anti-Ontological argument.

PGA2.0 will substantiate his burden of proof with the following four contentions:

· Life's Ultimate Questions - Worldview Analysis
· Biblical Evidences - Internal and External
· Morality and Ethics and finally
· Logic

--

Rules:
1. No arguments made in bad faith i.e, kritiks.
2. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
3. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
4. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
5. A breach of the rules should result in a conduct point deduction for the offender.

-->
@Bones

Yes, I understand it did not meet the requirement.

-->
@PGA2.0

Thanks. I usually hate reporting votes because I think it's petty, but this was just too far below the bar for a debate of which substance.

-->
@PGA2.0

Thanks. I usually hate reporting votes because I think it's petty, but this was just too far below the bar for a debate of which substance.

-->
@Barney
@Tradesecret
@Bones

I understand and agree the vote lacked enough information to be justified.

-->
@PGA2.0
@Tradesecret
@Bones

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Tradesecret // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is non-specific to the debate, failing to name even a single contention. Please do better.

Arguments must always be reviewed.
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************

Tradesecret
Added: 14 hours ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I really enjoyed this debate although at times I got lost with the format. Both participants demonstrated excellent conduct and acquitted themselves admirably. the question of sources is a little contestable in my view - nevertheless, the participants both seemed at ease with this process and with the discussions as well.

I found I fell down on the side of Con - probably as I am more disposed towards the weight of his arguments. Pro however did not let himself down and gave lots of room for consideration of his POV.

thanks gentlemen for the debate.

-->
@Tradesecret

I believe a vote for a debate of this caliber is unreasonable and unjustified. Consider posting an RFD for your reasoning.

-->
@Tradesecret

Tad bit brief for a debate of over a hundred and fifty thousand characters?

-->
@Tejretics
@Ramshutu

Tejretics, I recall you saying a while back that you were interested in voting on high level debates - perhaps this will interest? Ram, ur a trusty, unbiased voter so maybe this will also interest you?

-->
@Bones

The link for audience relevance should be:
http://christeternalchristianchurch.com/position-papers/position-paper-1/

-->
@Bones

The source for "word of the Lord" is wrong. It should be:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=word+of+the+Lord&version=NASB

Also,
7. Inductive Argument - an argument that is intended by the arguer to be strong enough that, if the premises were to be true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. https://iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

-->
@Bones

Per Post 2:

Description Definitions I used:
1. agreeable to or in accord with reason; logical. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable
2. Deductive Argument - a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises [are true.] https://iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
3. 1) Morality - the degree to which an action is right or wrong. Morals often describe one's particular values concerning what is right and what is wrong. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
4. Ethics - 1. the discipline dealing with what is good and (evil) bad and with moral duty and obligation 2a: a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values. Ethics can refer broadly to moral principles, one often sees it applied to questions of correct behavior within a relatively narrow area of activity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic
5. Worldview - the most fundamental (core) philosophical beliefs and assumptions a person holds about the universe and the nature of things. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-worldview
6. Biblical Typology - the aspect of biblical interpretation that treats the significance of Old Testament types for prefiguring corresponding New Testament antitypes or fulfillment. https://www.bibleandtheology.net/what-is-typology-definition-and-its-relationship-to-biblical-theology/

-->
@Bones

I am from DDO, I had no idea about this site.
-
That was the impression of Aquinas I was under until very recently. In some of his writings, the regress Aquinas talks of is not temporal. He thought that for every physical thing, something had to be acting on it to keep in in existence, analogous to the earth resting upon the turtle, resting upon the turtle, etc. I like this argument more because it is not one that depends of abstracting into a inconceivable, but it is something that can be applied in the present. The down side is that, at least for me, it is not at all clear why physical things would just drop out of existence without being influenced by some immaterial force. A lot of evidence is required for this idea, which I think is why the five ways are often simplified beyond clarity or accuracy.
-
Though, I admit I may be wrong about this. I probably ought to read a book or two on it before debating it.

-->
@Svidrigailov

Also I don't think Aquinas rejected the Kalam - 3 of his 5 proofs operate on the same grounds, that is, they postulated the impossibility of an actually infinite past and invoked a God to terminate the regress. Though Aquinas would not have known about the Kalam, I believe he would have approved of it.

-->
@Svidrigailov

You are the one I called from DDO.

I think pro's anti-Kalam cosmological argument is quite good; I have never seen something comparable. As I understand it, Aquinas also rejected the Kalam argument (under whatever name it had in 1200).
I did find the subsequent arguments less convincing, however.

-->
@Vader

The short description of this debate is ".......... - agreeable to or in accord with reason; logical.". This is a typo, the short description is just supposed to be "..........", could you change this? I'm sure PGA2.0 won't have any issues with this.

-->
@Bones

Okay, thank you!

-->
@PGA2.0

In dont think you can Hyperlink in the comments, however you can provide just sources in any way you wish, without further annotation that is.

-->
@Bones

Request: Please allow me to cite my definitions via footnote or hyperlink in the comments section. They were not included in the Description.