Instigator / Pro
Points: 1

Atheism is pointless

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Ramshutu
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Points: 2
Description
We will be debating atheism and if it has a point to believing in it.
Round 1
Published:
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.
Published:
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
Published:
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.
Published:
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
Forfeited
Published:
Extend all my arguments: as shown, there is a point and benefit to Atheism.
Added:
--> @swetepete540
If trying to reply to someone, put their name in the receivers textbox, otherwise they will not get a notification.
"did not say that christians are terrorists"
The threat of 'do what I want or be tortured,' is itself a terrorist threat. If it doesn't count because you believe you are right, would mean the 9/11 terrorist attacks were not acts of terror, because they thought they were right and that god was on their side.
#14
Added:
--> @Ragnar
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ragnar // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: Con
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
#13
Added:
virtuoso the vote that I reported the first time was based on opinions before the argument that's why I reported it it is not valid.
Instigator
#12
Added:
also in wikipedia the information doesn't have to be valid anyone can put whatever they want to on wikipedia that's why the sources are invalid.
Instigator
#11
Added:
I am a male btw also did not say that christians are terrorists
Instigator
#10
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: RationalMadman // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: Con
Reason for mod action: This vote is sufficient.
*******************************************************************
#9
Added:
I did not have anything else to say and I thought I had more time
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Wirck-It-Ralph // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: Con
Reason for mod action: This vote is borderline. Per our standards, a borderline vote is deemed sufficient.
*******************************************************************
#7
Added:
--> @Debaticus
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Debaticus // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Con
RFD: Very simple. amazing arguments, followed by concession.
Reason for mod action: To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole. Furthermore, one forfeited round does is not equivalent to a concession.
Most significantly, the voter fails to meet the eligability requirements. In order to be elligable to vote, the voter must first read the COC (found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules) and complete two non-troll/non-forfeited debates. The voter fails to meet both requirements.
*******************************************************************
#6
Added:
--> @InFakeWars
Is it, tho? I consider Wikipedia a very acceptable go-to. What is your objection?
#5
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Who uses Wikipedia for 7/10 sources?!?! That's REALLY horrible to source XD
#4
Added:
--> @swetepete540
Only 3 hours left
Contender
#3
Added:
*sigh* These arguments though
#2
Added:
can you make another of this debate? I want to argue the points of atheism.
#1
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
No real contest...
Let's see, pro pulls the old Christians are terrorists cliche, but fails to support it with anything beyond the base assumption... Con of course countered this with a reminder that nearly every religion has a big sin of believing in the wrong gods, so you're almost certainly damning yourself way worse if any one of them happens to be right.
On time, pro might have taken this had she stuck to the lack of a time requirement angle, but she directly contradicted herself by then insisting the need for a time investment every Sunday (which con went into great detail laying out how much time that adds up to). She then chose to drop the analysis of time investment required (giving her this argument, would require failing to even skim the bold text in the debate).
Con makes some other arguments, but they were left unchallenged so it'd be pointless to restate them.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Pro puts forth the argument "As an atheist if any of these religions are true you are going to go to hell and that will be horrible for you." in Round 2 and this follows on from Round 1 Pascal Wager logic-esque argument of "because you have a chance of making it to happen and you lose nothing if you join a religion."
this is wrong but I can't use my own deduction when voting like that (although Ramshutu loves to use his own deductions on my argument-logic when voting against me). Instead, I must see if Ramshutu opposes it well enough.
In Round 1, Ramshutu attacks every element of Pascal's Wager that the mainstream rebuttals of people like Sam Harris use but it misses the most essential one:
YOU DO LOSE BY BELIEVING IN RELIGION. This ability to explain that the core idea 'lose nothing but potentially gain' that the Pro side says is what the Theist side is, is wrong because you lose things. This is gently brushed upon by the following from Con:
"You don’t have to spend time going to church, engaging in worship or other activities - this saves time for other more useful activities."
but what other activities? What is the POINT IN ATHEISM? Why GUARANTEE the God hates you?
Ramshutu could have Kritik'd PW from the angle of a 'God that punishes those that believe in it' being equally likely to one that rewards them (since we're dealing with infinity) but also doesn't do this.
This angle of time wasted at Church is rebuked by Pro in R2:
"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."
but this is where Con wins the debate... In R2, Con properly annihilates the 'lose nothing' point by Pro:
"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."
At this point the entire 'this vs that' of Pascal's Wager is DESTROYED by Con. Con should have done this in Round 1, but at least in R2 does it.
Pro's response is a Round-3 Forfeit.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
RFD:
Pro presented a good intuitive argument by pointing out that being a Christian doesn't require one to go to church. Nice semantic argument ;)
Con's arguments were either non sequiturs or already covered by Pro. Con mentioned that one doesn't waste one's life going to church. This was countered by Pro's initial statement that one does not have to go to church.
Con stated that atheism gives you a lust for life but Con does not explain why this is the case for an atheist but not a theist. Without the information. I the voter was not able to put this into context.
Con makes a comment about trying to fool God. While this point is valid. Pro never claimed this to be the case and Con did not elaborate enough for me to conclude this from the arguments alone.
Con mentions moral edicts but does not provide reasoning as to why we should follow said edicts. In contrast. Pro's argument of the Christian not have to participate in the church would almost have been a rebuttal for this if it was elaborated on.
In the end I have a decent point by pro and a point that kind of slid through for con.
So pro's argument was more intuitive and semantic ;) I award point to Pro.
SIDE NOTE: I would have addressed the forfeit round with a conduct point. But since this was a decision debate I am unable to do that.