Instigator / Pro
1
1462
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Atheism is pointless

Status
Finished

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

Voting points
1
2

With 3 votes and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Ramshutu
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
2
1758
rating
42
debates
94.05%
won
Description
~ 69 / 5,000

We will be debating atheism and if it has a point to believing in it.

Round 1
Pro
Okay what i want to say first is that if you have a chance of going to heaven and not hell why not join a religion because you have a chance of making it to happen and you lose nothing if you join a religion.
Con
Given it wasn’t specified in the resolution, I’ll go with the definition of “Atheism” as
“A lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods”
“an end or object to be achieved ”

In the context of the debate, pro appears to argue there is no beneficial purpose served by Atheism: so in this regards I must show that Atheism has a beneficial purpose. I present 4 simple benefits.

1.) You don’t have to spend time going to church, engaging in worship or other activities - this saves time for other more useful activities.

2.) Your life becomes precious, and meaningful: as you have one life, with no eternal afterlife your life is inherently more valuable. This is because each moment becomes all there is - every minute becomes precious time you should use wisely - rather than just a minute to be ensured waiting for an afterlife. Knowing that we only have a limited amount of time to be, rather than an eternity to experience the universe, makes the moments we have rare, and thus more valuable.

3.) You’re being intellectually honest: if you do not believe in God, why try and fool him by going to church, and pretending to believe? It’s better to remain true to your own beliefs. It’s more accurate, less dishonest and is easier to live up to for those that don’t believe. After all - you can’t simple decide to believe in God.

4.) Almost all religions have a clause or edict saying not to believe in other Gods - if you decide to follow one particular religion, in all likelihood this religion will be the wrong one.[1][2]

These together show a clear point to Atheism - negating the resolution.



Round 2
Pro
Yes in Atheism you don't have to go to church but you don't have to go to church to be a christian either. You just have to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior. Also the religion you choose may be wrong but at least you get a chance of going to heaven. As an atheist if any of these religions are true you are going to go to hell and that will be horrible for you. With christianity all you have to do is accept Jesus and go to church for an hour on sundays. But you have nothing to lose as an atheist because you have a chance to not go to hell but by not believing in any god or religion you are simply sending yourself to hell.
Con
Thank you for your quick reply! I also forgot to thank your for the debate in the previous round!

1.) Atheism Avoids uses of time and effort better served for other things.

“Yes in Atheism you don't have to go to church but you don't have to go to church to be a christian either. You just have to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior.”
Pro contradicts this later saying: 

“With christianity all you have to do is accept Jesus and go to church for an hour on sundays.”
Assuming that in pros faith we need not go to church, my opponent seems to be under the misapprehension that there is a choice between Atheism and Christianity. Instead if there is a choice, if is between Atheism and all other religions.

All religions have their own edicts and requirements. Pro argues that you don’t need to go to church: yet other denominations strongly encourage it for communion, for confession, and others.[1]

Christianity requires you to keep the Sabbath Holy, to not cover your neighbours ass[2], and to be specifically repentant of supposed sins. Some forms of Buddhism enforce or encourage vegetarianism[3], Islam requires daily prayers[4], Zeus worship requires burning Hecatombs to curry favour.[5]

Each religion has its own specific requirements, that you need not consider or be bound by as an atheist, making yourself morally and ethically responsible for your own actions to your own neighbours: and freeing up time and energy for other meaningful aspects of your life.

2.) Life and time are precious.

Pro mostly drops this argument, but does add:

“With christianity all you have to do is accept Jesus and go to church for an hour on sundays. But you have nothing to lose as an atheist”
At the very least I lose that hour. And the time getting to church and back, and any additional church related activities. 

Assuming there is 2 hours spent at or going to church, over ten years that equates to 1040 hours (52x2x10) over 10 years.

What could you achieve in those 1040 hours? That’s 26  40hour work weeks.

So I have my precious time to lose. Finite time I will never get again and can never get back.

3.) Intellectual honesty

Pro mostly drops this point.

“You just have to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior.”

“But you have nothing to lose as an atheist because you have a chance to not go to hell but by not believing in any god or religion you are simply sending yourself to hell.”

One of the main issues here with my opponents position relates to the position of belief.

Unfortunately, humans don’t have the ability to chose what we believe. I cannot simply decide one day to believe in God any more than my opponent can decide to disbelieve.

I think I could be made to believe if I were shown compelling evidence to the fact - but I am unable to chose what to believe in.

This can be trivially evidenced by asking voters to start believing the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. It’s not possible - because we can’t consciously override our core beliefs in that way. Humans don’t work like that.


4.) Religions preclude other religions.

“Also the religion you choose may be wrong but at least you get a chance of going to heaven. As an atheist if any of these religions are true you are going to go to hell and that will be horrible for you.”

I already get a chance of going to heaven. There’s nothing to stop me being reincarnated if I live a good life if Hinduism or Buddhism is true[6], making it to the undergloom is Zeus is correct[7], returning to nature with Wicca[8]; I’m mostly in the clear with variants (such as Catholicism) of Christianity where good unbelievers can make it to heaven[9]. I can make it to Yomi[10] with Shintoism.

As a result, Atheism is covered in the majority of outcomes, and means making a choice renders my chances of both wasting my time (see point 1 and point 2) AND being sent to hell, or missing out is substantially increased by picking a specific religion due to many religions having a neutral stance on disbelief. So in many respects picking a side ends up worse for me, plus I am required to engage in all manner of required activities if I join a religion.



Summary:

Clearly, my opponents objections are unwarranted - and there is a clearly beneficial purpose to believing atheism - negating the resolution.

Sources:
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_(religion)
[2] https://www.topmarks.co.uk/judaism/the-ten-commandments
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism
[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/salat.shtml
[5]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecatomb
[6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)
[7] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades
[8] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca
[9]http://vaticanfiles.org/fr/2018/05/149-atheists-go-heaven-pope-francis-says-yes/
[10] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto



Round 3
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Extend all my arguments: as shown, there is a point and benefit to Atheism.