It Better to Have Lived a Christian, Than to have Lived an Atheist.

Pro opens up by saying, "The Christian's happiness can be found not only in worldly desires (Some worldly desires seeing that Christians are actually taught to leave many things of this world behind to follow Christ) but also in their desires in God. Even without their worldly desires they are still achieving happiness because they believe they are following the will of God, who is the ultimate source of happiness (if not in ideology. )" This is great, and I agree that Christians can be achieving happiness because they believe they are following the will of God. This, however, does nothing to prove Pros argument that Christians are happier than atheist because they think they are following the will of God. Pro can talk all he wants about how happy Christians are because they think they are following the will of God, but until he shows that atheist cannot achieve the same happiness through other means than the argument is useless. Further pro goes on to make a silly statement by saying, "He is where you are wrong, you see even though both Atheists and Christians have the same opportunity to live a good life, Christians inherently have more dedication and a higher will to act upon living a good life because they have a goal in doing so, which is uniting with God in Heaven. " Christians do not "inherently have more dedication" to living a good life. It takes about five seconds to look out into the world and see that. Atheist also have a goal in living a good life. There are, actually, many goals such as: simply wanting to be a good person, and/or make a positive impact in the world. Pro also says, "In addition, an emotional crutch is not bad at all, but actually advantageous to have. It allows Christians to get through their sufferings far easier. " I'm not sure if this statement is more offensive for Christians or atheist. Have you ever talked with a single mom working three jobs who is struggling just to put food on the table for her kids? Have you ever talked with a homeless man who is starving and unable to sleep for fear of sleeping in a place where he could be arrested? Because I have, and to say that these people who are Christians are getting through their sufferings "far easier" is repulsive to me. Secondly, God is not the only emotional crutch. Atheist can have other things as emotional crutch's such as: money, sex, family, and friends. Christians often time use these other emotional crutches as well. The other option is also simply getting through things without an emotional crutch. There's no reason why someone cannot go through something without an emotional crutch and still be happier than someone who is using God as an emotional crutch. My opponent said, "It would only be logical to believe that God is the ultimate source of happiness since all good things derive from him, and humans naturally seek what good. " I am going to assume my opponent meant "seek what is good. " but if I am wrongly assuming please correct me and I apologize in advance. My opponent has told me he is a Christian and I am glad for that, but his theology seems to be far from orthodox with this statement. Humans do not naturally seek what is good. Genesis 6:5 says, "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. " Genesis 8:21 says, "The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. " These are just two of the numerous biblical examples that show that humans do not naturally seek what is good as my opponent has claimed. My opponent either has to say that he is a Christian, but does not believe the words of the bible, or he has to admit that this argument is invalid. Pro boldly proclaims, "Money, sex, ect. are not equal sources of happiness because they do not provide an eternal happiness, only a temporary happiness. God being the ultimate source of happiness means that the happiness that derives from him is eternal, and not temporary like that of worldly things. " Belief in God is simply an equal source of happiness because as long as we are on this earth we, the voters, can not decisively say that belief in God is an eternal happiness. From our perspective right now in this debate there is no way you can say that belief in God is an eternal happiness without assuming that the Christian God does in fact exist which we are not doing for this debate. Pro tries to reiterate his claim that, "However, even if the Christian God exists the Christian is still at an inherently better position at living a better life because of their desire to be with God and follow him. " I have already shown this to be false. Atheist can have an even greater desire to live a good life because of their desire to be a good person simply for the sake of being a good person and wanting to help society. Pro makes the accusation that I dropped his win-win argument. He's essentially correct. I didn't take the time to respond to it because it doesn't help his argument in the least and I know the voters recognize this, but I will point out why now. Correct me if I'm wrong but reading over the win-win section again, it looks like you say that the Christian goes through there life believing that God exists and that helps them in life and then if it's true, they win. If it is false, they still had the security of it through their whole life which is also a "win. " This is a cool post and I actually agree with it, but none of it shows that Christians will be happier, have better morals, or have more of a positive effect on society than atheist which is exactly what Pro set the resolution to. My opponent goes on to talk about morals and says, "Never did I argue that the atheist cannot do as much good in the world as a Christian. However, it is undeniable that Christians have an inherent advantage to the dedication to do what is morally right do to their belief in God. It"s logically to believe that Christians will be keener to do what is morally right because it is how they achieve eternal life and ultimate happiness. Atheists do not believe in eternal life, ultimate happiness in God, ect. ect. therefore they will not feel as obliged to do what is morally correct. This is logically reasoning. .. " To say that this is logical reasoning is being intellectually dishonest. Christians do not have in inherent advantage to the dedication to do what is morally right. Christians and atheist have different reasons for doing what is morally right. Christians do it because it is what God has commanded. Atheist do it for the simple sake of being a good person. Not to mention that by saying that you never did "argue that the atheist cannot do as much good in the world as a Christian" you negated 1/3 of your resolution which says, "the positive affect given to others. " I look forward to hearing my opponents response.