Instigator / Pro
6
1395
rating
22
debates
20.45%
won
Topic

Atheism is Arbitrary, Inconsistent and Borrows from the Bible

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
2
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and 8 points ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
14
1603
rating
352
debates
65.34%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Atheism is arbitrary because it is the opinion of man sitting as the absolute authority of any subject.

It is illogical because it relies on strict materialism.

It is inconsistent in its view of morality and borrows from the Bible for morality.

Doing scientific inquiry is predicated on the Bible being true.

Atheism also borrow the laws of logic from the Bible.

Lastly, atheism leads to the path of absurdity.


Con
For the purposes of this debate and to respect the way in which my opponent is treating 'atheism' I will, from this moment onward capitalise 'Atheism' as it is being treated as an official philosophical school of thought. I am aware that the softer, agnostic type of Atheist is going to dislike this; they see Atheism as a humble person's conclusion in an ever-confusing abyss of information regarding our origin and purpose. I apologise but I believe it necessary to do this and keep things consistent.

Atheism being illogical is irrelevant to the debate. If it is consistently illogical but not illogical in the sense that one part of it contradicts another, then it is actually completely able to not meet the criteria of being arbitrary, inconsistent and borrowing from the Bible.

I want to highlight that the resolution reads 'and' and not 'or'. This means that I need only disprove one of the three and I win. Out of respect to the other debater and the reader, I will cover my bases on all three but if 2 of them are true and one is false, Con still wins because it says 'and'.

I render the following angles that Pro takes as totally irrelevant to the resolution and proving it true:
(Atheism) is illogical because it relies on strict materialism.

(A)theism leads to the path of absurdity.

These do not have to do with being arbitrary, inconsistent and borrowing from the Bible.

Arbitrary

Atheism is arbitrary...
Firstly, I think we need a solid definition of 'arbitrary' to continue on this quote. In the context of this debate I believe the best online definition available is this one:

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

So, let's see how Pro supports the idea that atheism is arbitrary, in the sense of the above definition.

because it is the opinion of man sitting as the absolute authority of any subject.
While someone can invent their own religion, I believe it's impossible to invent one's own Atheism. The reason is that Atheism has only a maximum of three 'flavours' and many atheists would argue these are actually just the same thing from three different points of view: Anti-Theism (strongest), Solid but Peaceful Atheism (medium) and Truly Passive Atheism (agnosticism).

Yeah, you can semantically pick at that and say 'Proudly Gnostic Atheism', 'Quietly Gnostic Atheism' and 'Agnostic Atheism' but the point I'm getting at is other than that, there's literally no further possible form of atheism, let alone way to invent your own kind of it. It's true that some Theistic cults and/or religions, such as LaVeyan Satanism, Buddhism and Taoism, are not God-adhering but they all three actually consider themselves to be a Theistic form of religious outlook (LaVeyan's least so as they have an Anti-Theistic attitude but are ultimately adhering to some kind of demonic concept of moral authority).

So, unless we go to very edge cases like LaVeyan Satanism and such cults, or the guy who invented Taoism as well as Siddhārtha Gautama (the first Buddha, sometimes colloquially known literally as 'Buddha' yeah this is the guy they make the man-bun meditating statues of), then I don't really see how people reach Atheism by being arrogant enough to assume they are the absolute authority of any subject. I also don't understand how, even if one assumes they are the absolute authority of a subject, that that in any way defaults their conclusions on the subject as based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.


Inconsistent

It is inconsistent in its view of morality and borrows from the Bible for morality.
The inconsistency in moral outlook is actually identical to (and far more in depth in the reasoning behind) as the difference in sects of Christianity. The difference in this case is that unlike Christianity, Atheism never states that it is a moral guidance system and therefore it is actually more consistent than Christianity, in an absolute sense of 'consistent'.

Atheism doesn't cover morality because it ends at the conclusion that there is no supreme moral authority in the first place. This is a very consistent thing when held against the fact that atheists have a huge array of moral codes and ways of getting there.


Borrows from the Bible

It is inconsistent in its view of morality and borrows from the Bible for morality.
This is not true. Atheism doesn't borrow from the Bible, rather it borrows from the very same thing that the Bible borrows from; subjective, innate justice converted into an objective-seeming code of ethics. This is all us humans can ever hope for being a rock-solid source of morality and is what led to every single Commandment as well as the lessons taught in (and interpreted from) the Bible. The different sects of Christianity each have their unique take on the Bible and on how flexible to interpret and enact the moral code(s) hinted at within it. Similarly, all atheists are split into sects independent of Atheism (because Atheism never claims to be a source of morality, unlike Christianity) and come to their own conclusions, whether it be a Utilitarianism-variant, Nihilism-variant, Moral Imperative AKA Humanist variant or whatever else.

Doing scientific inquiry is predicated on the Bible being true.
No it is not. I don't have a clue what this is supposed to mean.

Atheism also borrow the laws of logic from the Bible.
Such as?
Round 2
Pro
I do want to make clear that I am not arguing for theism in general, but for Christian theism. I unashamedly argue for the God of the Bible.

Arbitrary

Isaiah 2:22 says, 'Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?' Next to God, the ideas of man are but a breath. God's ways are much higher than man's according to Isaiah 55:9. This is logical, as God is all/knowing and man isn't.
When the opinions of man sit as the absolute authority on a subject, then they are arbitrary. Each person sits in the supposed position of authority, so no one is in authority. This is the case for atheism. There is no God or ultimate authority to appeal to in an atheistic mindset. In the absence of God, man is viewed as the final authority on all matters.
Appealing to man's opinions as the truth is a faulty appeal to authority. Thus, it is illogical. The entire philosophy of atheism is based on man being the ultimate authority on all matters which is an arbitrary position that can never provide a source of truth.

Borrow Morality From the Bible

Now, if we follow the atheistic worldview, everything came from nothing and all things are merely chemical reactions doing what chemicals do, since this is the case there would be no such thing as right and wrong. In other words, if someone decides to kill all the atheists in the world, from the atheist position that is okay since an atheist cannot argue that killing atheists is wrong within an atheistic worldview. If people are merely a sack of chemicals interacting, then there is no consistent reason to forbid killing others.
Don't get me wrong, atheists most likely want some moral code, atheists don't want to be murdered or lied to, but that doesn't come from your religion. Instead it comes from God who has written the law on your heart, and your conscience knows it. Really, you must borrow morality from God's Word, whether you realize it or not.

Borrowing Laws of Logic From the God of the Bible

Here is why you borrow the laws of logic from the God of the Bible. You hold that all things consist of matter and energy. You argue with the loudest voice that there is no immaterial, spiritual, or ideal realm. Your position relies on strict materialism. However, there are immaterial things like logic, knowledge, truth, concepts, dignity, respect, love, care, conclusions, information and so forth. The logically consistent position is that atheists cannot believe in these either. They are not material; they must not exist. So you use immaterial laws of logic while adhering to a materialistic worldview. So you have to step out of you atheistic worldview and borrow the Christian world view that does make sense of logic. God created all things and uphold all things in a logical fashion. Logic is a tool we use to think God's thoughts after Him.

The Uniformity of Nature

Again I say that doing scientific inquiry is predicated on the Bible being true. Here is why. God upholds the world in a consistent fashion and has promised to do so in Genesis 8:22. So the Christian can do observable and repeatable science, knowing that the result will be the same day by day.
God, who knows all things past, present and future has promised the future will be like the past-not in the conditions of course, but in the way God upholds things. To clarify, the wind may not blow at the same speed each day, but the laws that govern the wind will be the same each day, allowing predictions about the future. In your worldview, laws of nature changed in the past, the big bang defies the laws of physics; there were no laws, now there are laws. In the future they may change again. Since no one really knows the future in your framework, the laws of nature could change as early as tomorrow. Why do science if the laws of science might change tomorrow?

Path to Absurdity

The path of absurdity. Let's now assume that the atheistic worldview could make sense of logic.To say there is no God would logically require someone to look everywhere in the entire universe at the exact same time and for all time, past and future, and find no God.
Furthermore, the atheist would have to be powerful enough to look in the immaterial, spiritual realm for all time too. They would also have to be powerful enough to supersede God to make sure God was not cloaking Himself from their search. In other words, for an atheist to say ''there is no God'' would require the atheist to be omnipresent and omnipotent. The atheist would essentially have to be all-knowing to say God doesn't exist.
Thus, for an atheist to claim there is no God would require them to be God! This, it is an absurd and self-refuting worldview.



Con
I do want to make clear that I am not arguing for theism in general, but for Christian theism. I unashamedly argue for the God of the Bible.
Aside from the fact that the correct interpretation of 'The Bible' is that OT and NT's 'God' may not actually be the same character (that's for another debate so let's ignore and concede that for now), "The Bible" and "Christian Theism" are and were precisely what I was arguing against in my Round 1.

I also want to note that I am not arguing against Christianity in this debate, I am actually arguing a defence-lawyer-style case in favour of Atheism (but outside of this debate I actually believe in a god).


Arbitrary

Isaiah 2:22 says, 'Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?' Next to God, the ideas of man are but a breath. God's ways are much higher than man's according to Isaiah 55:9.
Okay, let me just stop you there... See, what you're trying to do here is argue that Atheism is incorrect and inferior to Christianity, not that it's arbitrary. I would like to note that the Testament you drew those from would lead you to be a Jew, not a Christian, but again I will leave my advanced OT vs NT dynamic-slanting for another enthralling theological debate.

(Referring to the above quote) This is logical, as God is all/knowing and man isn't.
The debate resolution doesn't have the word 'illogical'. Just because Atheism is based on flawed logic doesn't mean it's not based on any system or based on anything other than random chance; which means it is de facto incapable of being arbitrary as you admit it is based on a system of thinking that isn't random but is systematically flawed.

When the opinions of man sit as the absolute authority on a subject, then they are arbitrary.
This is a lie. This is nothing but an outright, intentional deceit. The term arbitrary, especially in the context of this debate, is best defined as 'Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.' is it not? You never fought my Round 1 definition offered, nor have you offered your own with any reliable sourcing. What you mean is perhaps 'insignificant' or 'unimportant' but while I could disprove both, given how significantly the movement of Atheism is growing, I don't need to delve into that in order to win this debate and will thus not do so.

Mankind can be considered the utmost authority on a matter/topic and still have a system or reasoning behind what led them to their conclusions (including why they consider themselves so authoritative on the matter).

Each person sits in the supposed position of authority, so no one is in authority. This is the case for atheism. There is no God or ultimate authority to appeal to in an atheistic mindset. In the absence of God, man is viewed as the final authority on all matters.
This is something we can agree on for this debate's sake and just move on with as it's totally irrelevant to the Debate Resolution.

Appealing to man's opinions as the truth is a faulty appeal to authority. Thus, it is illogical.
Atheism is illogical according to Pro. Con agrees that Atheism is illogical for the sake of this debate to narrow down to the three things in the topic (which all have to be proven true for Pro to win, as it is connected with 'and' not 'or'). The word 'illogical' is not in the Title of this debate.

The entire philosophy of atheism is based on man being the ultimate authority on all matters which is an arbitrary position that can never provide a source of truth.
No it's based on more than that, but you can say that it requires us to consider human brains as valid authorities on matters, as opposed to the word of God, yes. The reasoning that goes into reaching Atheism is not at all negated by the fact that the philosophy holds humankind as severely capable, if not the most capable, species and type of being capable of concluding on matters of philosophy and reason, in the pursuit of truth. Let's just say it's illogical since it's not the word of the so-professed all-knowing God, why can't it be illogical as well as incorrect and yet non-arbitrary? Don't you understand that the two, if not three, attributes are not the same?!


Borrow Morality From the Bible

Pro has to prove that the innate system of morals that led to the morals written in the Bible (by humans, who edited it for centuries since) is derived from the Christian God. If it is derived from any other source, that would imply that the Bible's morals and Atheist's morals can be, and overall are, from the same source and that source is clearly superior to the Bible itself, as it is what the Bible derived its morals from. I, as Con, assert that the Bible's morals (and reason so many sects disagree on the correct interpretation of it) are derived from innate human urges for 'good' and apply reason to the urge for good in hindsight, not foresight. Furthermore, I assert that Atheists who are not psychopaths derive their morals ultimately from the very same source with just as much margin for debate and error as there are between the many sects of Christianity and their differing views of the specifics of what's Right and Wrong to do in a situation, morally speaking.

Borrowing Laws of Logic From the God of the Bible

Pro is firstly incorrect. Atheism doesn't support, nor negate, hyper-materialistic and mechanistic takes on the universe. The term of the outlook that Pro is referring to is Monism but the term 'Monist' is barely ever used as they are, indeed, Materialists and/or "Mechanists" by name. Monism argues that whether or not reality is simulated and whether or not feelings are in any way 'real' that the sole plain of actual existence is entirely physical (nerves in the brain, hormones etc) and that the experience of life is occuring via this plain alone. They go beyond saying we have no 'soul' that lives forever past the body's death; they say that consciousness is actually a glitch and/or error almost that is beyond current understanding (how the hell do we experience ourselves and our life if the consciousness if purely physical processes as opposed to an actual level of reality in and of itself?).

Con concedes to Pro that Monists are deluded. Con agrees with Pro that whatever consciousness is and this entirely experienced side of life, no matter how attached it is to the physical, is definitely part of reality itself but is non-physical in how it operates and 'where' it is taking place. Pro and Con agree that something as simple as being awake (not even in a proper dream while asleep) and imagining things that are different to your surroundings has indeed created that experience and those things in some non-materialistic sense. I think Pro and Con disagree that this isn't just part of the same ultimate thing though; a mechanistic, inevitable unfolding of events that happen to have part physical and part 'raw consciousness' as interconnected parts of it. Pro would have you believe that Atheism takes from Theism the idea of there being something beyond the pure physical, mechanical events of the body and brain, but this already is known as the opposing idea go Monism, and it goes by Dualism.

To be clear, there is a third one to Materialism (AKA Mornism) and Dualism and that outlook is the opposite of Monism; Idealism. Idealism believes everything is simulated and ultimately imagined and encoded as an experience. Outside of this debate, Con is actually an Idealist in this sense of the word (inverted Monist) but for the sake of this debate is agreeing with Pro that Dualism is plausible because really it's irrelevant to the debte once you realise that there are non-Monist Atheists.

Materialist views say that, despite appearances to the contrary, mental states are just physical states. Behaviourism, functionalism, mind-brain identity theory and the computational theory of mind are examples of how materialists attempt to explain how this can be so. The most common factor in such theories is the attempt to explicate the nature of mind and consciousness in terms of their ability to directly or indirectly modify behaviour, but there are versions of materialism that try to tie the mental to the physical without explicitly explaining the mental in terms of its behaviour-modifying role. The latter are often grouped together under the label ‘non-reductive physicalism’, though this label is itself rendered elusive because of the controversial nature of the term ‘reduction’.

Idealist views say that physical states are really mental. This is because the physical world is an empirical world and, as such, it is the intersubjective product of our collective experience.

Dualist views (the subject of this entry) say that the mental and the physical are both real and neither can be assimilated to the other. For the various forms that dualism can take and the associated problems, see below.

Since Atheism doesn't tie you to be Materialist, but allows for Dualism and Idealism (AKA "pure simulation/solipsist" and/or "endless matrix" theory) this then means that I don't need to go into detail about how plausible it is that we have no soul and how Monism/Materialism can be the true outlook of the three. I can simply prove that Atheism neither asserts Materialism nor stole the 'non-Materialist' aspects from the Bible and win.

The remainder of Pro's case was some kind of rant to prove Atheism unimportant as well as wrong. Atheism can be unimportant and wrong and still fail to fit this debate's Title's criteria.
Round 3
Pro

Arbitrary

''Mankind can be considered the utmost authority on a matter/topic and still have a system or reasoning behind what led them to their conclusions (including why they consider themselves so authoritative on the matter).''

Atheists deviate from one another in their belief systems showing how relative they are regarding man's opinions. Thus relativism reigns supreme among them. But relativism is fallacious, being arbitrary.

Inconsistent

Atheists have behavioral inconsistencies. They talk about how humans are simply chemical accidents - the end result of a long and purposeless chain of biological evolution. But the they go home and kiss the wife and hug the children, as if they were not simply chemical accidents, but valuable, irreplaceable persons deserving of respect and worthy of love.
Consider the atheist who is outraged at seeing a violent murder on the new. He gets upset and hopes the murderer gets punished for his actions. Bu in his worldview, why be angry? In the point of view from an evolutionary perspective we are all just animals and murder is like a lion killing an antelope. But we don't punish the lion! If we are just chemical accidents, then why punish one for killing another?

Morality

I will ask Con where he believes that morality comes from if not from the Bible?

Logic

The atheist cannot account for the laws of logic. Atheists must borrow from God's logic to reason, for how could there be laws without a lawgiver? Atheists cannot account for he existence of the laws of logic, why they are immaterial, why they are universal, why they don't change with time and how humans ca possibly know about them or their properties. Biblical Christianity can account for them. The best roof for the existence of God is that without Him we would not know anything.





Con
The fact that atheists differ from one another in how they view morality and such is not evidence that atheism is arbitrary, if anything you should have put that in the 'inconsistent' section. The inconsistency of how someone can value their own family, friends and even enemies while maintaining that they are all just deterministic blobs of flesh that are playing out an ultimately meaningless series of events and chemical reactions is not actually the inconsistency of atheism, rather it is testament to just how consistent atheism is in proving itself valid and correct. If we are all accidents and ultimately meaningless blobs of chemical reactions then it means we're absolutely as entitled to be psychopaths as we are to be highly empathetic parents to our children and carers to our family and friends in general. Absolute consistency is seen between the notion that we have no ultimately correct way to think and feel about life and others and the notion that someone can care about their family in spite of this as well as care about no one at all 'due to' it. The inconsistency of morals is consistent with the atheistic notion that morals and 'care' are optional psychological and sociological constructs that there's no right or wrong option on past what you feel is good/evil.

This, actually, is linked to the entirety of the remainder of your Round 3, Pro. Whether it's laws of physics or laws of morality, God needn't have been there to invent them when it is us who invented God as an idea in the first place. There isn't a single religion in existence that isn't entirely start-to-end only provable to be humans inventing it. This doesn't mean that the appearance that humans created it is necessarily true, it's possible that there's an undercover ninja God (or gods) hiding behind it all but it is absolutely plausible that the entirety of Theism is subject to human brains, as opposed to human brains being subject to the God(s) of that religion.

Moral psychology, In psychology, study of the development of the moral sense—i.e., of the capacity for forming judgments about what is morally right or wrong, good or bad. The U.S. psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg hypothesized that people’s development of moral standards passes through several levels. At the early level, that of preconventional moral reasoning, the child uses external and physical events (such as pleasure or pain) as the source for moral decisions; his standards are based strictly on what will avoid punishment or bring pleasure. At the intermediate level, that of conventional moral reasoning, the child or adolescent views moral standards as a way of maintaining the approval of authority figures, chiefly his parents, and acts in accordance with their precepts. At the third level, that of postconventional moral reasoning, the adult bases his moral standards on principles that he himself has evaluated and accepts as inherently valid, regardless of society’s opinion. Beginning in the 1970s Kohlberg’s work was criticized by psychologists and philosophers influenced by feminism. According to Carol Gilligan, Kohlberg’s stages are inherently sexist, because they equate moral maturity with an orientation toward moral problems that is socially instilled in males but not in females. Whereas the male “ethic of rights and justice” treats morality in terms of abstract principles and conceives of moral agents as essentially autonomous, acting independently of their social situations according to general rules, the female “ethic of care” treats morality in terms of concrete bonds to particular individuals based on feelings of care and responsibility and conceives of moral agents as connected and interdependent through their feelings of care and responsibility for each other.
- Duignan, B. (2019). Moral psychology. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/moral-psychology [Accessed 11 Mar. 2019].
Round 4
Pro
If atheism is not arbitrary, then who is the one person who sets the standard for atheism? If atheism is not arbitrary then do all the atheists agree in their beliefs? If atheism is not arbitrary then do all the atheists have a written set of beliefs they all follow. If not, then everyone has a different opinion, thus there is no absolute truth making atheism arbitrary.

Con is mostly correct in that religions are man made. There is one exception, Judeo-Christianity is not. The God of the Bible is not made by man. His thoughts are well established in His Word written to man. Judeo-Christianity is not arbitrary for One God makes the rules and His truth is absolute.
Con
Both Christianity and Atheism have no central agency having power over them. All non-Catholics have a chaotic disagreement over who exactly defines and dictates the finer points of Christianity and even Catholics would probably immediately go back on their ideas if the Pope were to go back to the more homophobic, racist style of Pope there was in the past. The point is that something have no real authority is not proof of it being arbitrary but quite to the contrary, it means that there's a non-arbitrary basis for the belief system and that when an authority figure on the matter disagrees with the core reasoning, that is immediately the moment that their authority is questioned and even negated.

If atheism were to have a central authority that told people the right way to live life, think morally and practise Atheism, this would not only mean that Atheism then becomes completely arbitrary (as Islam is, cough-cough) whereby the authority can snap their fingers and make pokemon illegal because it disagrees with their views on evolution, polytheism and gambling [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/20/saudi-arabia-pokemon-go-ban] and then snap their fingers and say that evolution can be taught in their schools and that gambling on the stock markets is okay as well as practising non-Islamic religions in the nation is alright too such as UAE and Turkey being more liberal on the matter with Saudi being strict [http://www.nielsenlab.org/2016/02/teaching-evolution-in-the-middle-east/]. 

It is the very fact that Atheism is not arbitrary that leads people to not allow there to be a central agency that dictates or shapes it. Atheism is rooted in science and reasoned deduction. Whether or not it's correct, it has a system that leads one to conclude it that runs deeper than any authority. This is why it's not Arbitrary. It's also very consistent because if there is no God, there's no right way to live life in any objective sense. This is not inconsistency but consistency. Inconsistency in the morals of Atheists would probably not occur if there was inconsistency in Atheism whereby it came up with an absolutely morally objective way to believe in right vs wrong and live one's life, sure by pure luck all Atheists could end up agreeing on the matter but that's pure luck and indeed would be an arbitrary consistency if it were to occur.

Pro states that somehow Christianity is magical and not man-made. Christianity is actually one of the easiest religions to prove is completely arbitrary and man-made in terms of its origin since it completely defies the entirety of Judaism by saying 'your Testament is nothing more than a prequel to ours'. There has never ever been a religion, not even Islam which is the 'sequel' to Christianity, where a religion says another religion's holy scripture is nothing more than the first half of their own. This is not only disrespectful and unbelievably arrogant but proof that it's just about power and human greed, not about any sort of supernatural God telling us all to be humble. No way on Earth could a religion come along and take the entire holy scripture of the old religion and tell them that's now scripture for the new religion and basically a prequel/first-half to their storyline (old testament bible is literally what is written on Torah's but when it's a Torah it has to be Hebrew and written on a scroll).
Round 5
Pro
"Both Christianity and Atheism have no central agency having power over them. All non-Catholics have a chaotic disagreement over who exactly defines and dictates the finer points of Christianity and even Catholics would probably immediately go back on their ideas if the Pope were to go back to the more homophobic, racist style of Pope there was in the past. The point is that something have no real authority is not proof of it being arbitrary but quite to the contrary, it means that there's a non-arbitrary basis for the belief system and that when an authority figure on the matter disagrees with the core reasoning, that is immediately the moment that their authority is questioned and even negated."

I should have been more prepared for this answer. I am sorry that I am going to bring this up late, but I adhere to Biblical Christianity. The Catholic church would not fall under that category seeing as they believe in many things that contradict the Bible and therefore are arbitrary in their religion for God's Word is not the absolute truth in the Catholic religion. I am a Biblical Christian that only follows and obeys God's Word and interpret the Bible by the Bible comparing Scripture with Scripture. 

Again, atheism is arbitrary because it does not have an absolute truth. Each person is can come up with their own point of view and their own belief system.

"Whether or not it's correct"
This proves my point. You do not know if atheism is the absolute truth.

 "It's also very consistent because if there is no God, there's no right way to live life in any objective sense."
Subjectiveness is arbitrary. It is based on personal whims.

"Pro states that somehow Christianity is magical and not man-made. Christianity is actually one of the easiest religions to prove is completely arbitrary and man-made in terms of its origin since it completely defies the entirety of Judaism by saying 'your Testament is nothing more than a prequel to ours'. There has never ever been a religion, not even Islam which is the 'sequel' to Christianity, where a religion says another religion's holy scripture is nothing more than the first half of their own. This is not only disrespectful and unbelievably arrogant but proof that it's just about power and human greed, not about any sort of supernatural God telling us all to be humble. No way on Earth could a religion come along and take the entire holy scripture of the old religion and tell them that's now scripture for the new religion and basically a prequel/first-half to their storyline (old testament bible is literally what is written on Torah's but when it's a Torah it has to be Hebrew and written on a scroll)."

Biblical Christianity does not say that Judaism is the prequel to the New Testament. Actually Judaism, as practiced today, is not even the same as the Old Testament. Judaism is based on man because they rely on rabbis to interpret the Old Testament when the Old Testament is clear that the Levites were to teach the law. Biblical Christianity views the New Testament as the fulfillment of the Old. The Old Testament established the sacrificial system to point to the Messiah and the New Testament is the coming and sacrifice of the Messiah for our sins. As for Islam, all religious scholars know that Muhammad plagiarized parts of the Bible and other parts are very similar to it. Also Muhammad said himself that the Old and New Testaments were the Word of God.
Also the Torah is only the first five books of the Old Testament. You wanted to say the Tanakh.
Con
It is that stage of the debating process where RM must bury his foe. There is no shame in this defeat, you fought the topic and side you had the best that you could, it's just that you're on the wrong side and I played the correct side in the most optimal way possible. In simpler terms, you could never have won this against me, while on that side of the debate.

Pro bring brand new points in the last Round. This is poor conduct for a debater as the last Round (especially of a 5-Round debate) is meant to be used not even for rebuttals but for analysing previous points and rebuttals and summarising it in a brutal manner, nothing more and nothing less.

I will be forced to break protocol and rebuke the brand new points and I will do my level-best to use as many old rebuttals and points from myself as possible. This is not me being bad in conduct, rather it is me doing what I must and addressing new points brought up by Pro as valid-seeming enough to demand rebuttal.

So, a new concept that was brought up 3 times is 'absolute truth'. Atheism can be false and remain non-arbitrary, non-inconsistent within itself and also failing to borrow from the Bible. Thus, Con needn't prove Atheism true in order to win this debate. It is not arbitrary to not have something as an absolute truth and also not arbitrary to have some morals built aside from and kept separate from that Theological outlook, as subjective. You have subjective elements to all moral codes (even 'objectivism' is fallaciously claiming to be an objective source of morality but that's for another debate). Atheism doesn't have any moral aspect to it, it simply is doubt in there being any God. Anything else to do with theology and ethics, is not necessarily Atheism but simply what the one who has concluded (and believed in) Atheism has decided is a sound moral code to have that doesn't contradict Atheism.

I do not care whether Pro is Catholic or Protestant and that really doesn't disprove me at all. Protestants have what; 30ish solid sects and even more less established sects? That's all I was getting at. 

Pro has failed to prove the resolution true. I note that the resolution says 'and' and not 'or' meaning that Pro had to prove all three true in order to win. I don't care if this is unfair and abusing the fact that Pro worded it as 'and' since I disproved all three anyway.