Christianity is a healthier lifestyle than atheism

I would also like to apologise for omitting some references at the end of my opening argument; they will be recorded amongst the other references at the end of this rebuttal. It has also become apparent that the formatting has not worked as intended. Again, I apologise for any inconvenience that might have caused. I will address each rebuttal with a separate heading. Lack of proof on the part of atheism My argument against atheism is constructed as follows: P1) Atheism has no morally good doctrines P2) Atheism does not encourage morally good acts P3) A morally good lifestyle equates to a healthy lifestyle C1) Atheism is not specifically healthy Given the conclusion that Christianity is healthy, it would follow that Christianity is healthier than atheism. Logical inconsistency My opponent challenges the logical conclusion derived from my two premises. It is true that my argument included a supressed premise: morally good acts are considered healthy. Whilst I assumed I would not have to illustrate this, I will waste no time in addressing it. What, then, are the key doctrines of Christianity? I will demonstrate how these doctrines, which have been proven to be morally good, also validate the following: P3) A morally good lifestyle equates to a healthy lifestyle I will use, as evidence, the following: (1) Mental well-being (evidence for "forward") (2) Abstention from harmful activities (evidence for morality and health) (3) Prayer as a placebo (evidence for "forward") It is undeniable that the current medical evidence points to a significant correlation of religiosity and well-being. Consider, for example, the study done by the American Psychologist: “higher levels of an intrinsic religious orientation have been associated with better mental health, including self esteem, meaning in life, family relations, a sense of well-being, and lower levels of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and sexual promiscuity. .. ” [1] Another journal article corroborates that a “consistent” positive correlation was found between religiosity and well-being. [2] This consistency is once again demonstrated by a review of different studies, all of which confirm my first piece of evidence. [3] I conclude, therefore, that (1) serves as evidence for a healthy lifestyle. The standard Christian doctrine of “thy body is a temple” is a theology which promotes the sanctity of the human body. Active Christians refrain from excessive drug and alcohol consumption, both of which have adverse effects on the human body. [4] Finally, prayer has been demonstrated to hold several positive effects, including relaxation, placebo, and the positive emotional effects worship and prayer entail. [5] Given the truth of my three evidences, we can safely conclude that Christianity is a healthy lifestyle. Whilst my opponent claims “normal” and “natural” to be subjective, it is too premature an assumption to simply dismiss them. If I asked whether or not Albert Einstein was intelligent, to say that it is “subjective” would be ludicrous! When dealing with subjectivity we appeal to the majority. Thus, if I presented a man with the chance of being healthier (i. e. , Christianity) or the chance of being the same, I would assume he would pick the former. Hence our definition of “desirable. ” Not only is Christianity healthy in a physical sense, it is also healthy in our debate-specific definition. (See natural below) Forgiveness as destructive My opponent has confused the idea of Christian forgiveness with justice. He incorrectly assumes that forgiveness excludes justice; rather, it should be the opposite. When a priest visits a prison, he is not petitioning for their release. Instead, he is appealing to reformation. A child should not be let off “because they are forgiven” but rather punished and then forgiven. They should not be regarded as mutually exclusive. In order to be convinced that Christian forgiveness is destructive, it should be expected that Con provides evidence that this happens regularly. Christianity as unnatural If we view Christianity in the light of natural selection, it would follow that decreasing the risk of harm would be considered beneficial. Indeed, to endure harm would be to decrease that organism’s chance of reproducing. Thus, given my evidences, Christianity does has an advantage in terms of natural selection. Also, there is accumulating evidence for theistic tendencies at birth. [6] Christianity as a “forward” belief If we accept my opponent’s challenge as true, that Christianity cannot be “forward” in a moral sense, then we should be expecting to find the same widespread misogyny, homophobia and racism as was observed in the past. My opponent seems to disregard alternative interpretations as opportunities for moral progression. As our understanding of a culture and a society grows, we can draw different conclusions. My opponent might be interested in a liberal view on women [7] or a liberal view on homosexuality. [8] I would also like to note that Christianity has shaped society in numerous ways; our ideas of equality and the founding of the education system, for example. Today, the nation welcomes Christian initiatives such as Home for Good [9] and the local food banks, which “insist that it is Christian-led. ” [10] Sadly, we find little to praise amongst the atheists of society. The commonly touted Richard Dawkins Foundation is, ironically, campaigning to “remove the influence of religion in public policy. ” [11] Conclusion I understand that the majority of my rebuttal has been addressing why Christianity is a healthy lifestyle rather than comparing it to atheism. However, my sole contention is this: because atheism lacks any motivational doctrine, it is incapable of matching Christianity in terms of well-being, moral progression, charities and initiatives. Until my opponent can demonstrate that atheism draws level with or surpasses those qualities, we have no reason for assuming that Christianity is not healthier than atheism. [1] The American Psychologist, p5, . http://www.psychology.hku.hk... [2] . http://europepmc.org... [3] . http://www.jstor.org... [4] Smoking, . http://www.nhs.uk...; Alcohol, . http://www.nhs.uk... [5] . http://faithhealth.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com... [6] The New Scientist, 2012; excerpts found here: . http://www.rightreason.org... [7] . https://www.heartcryforchange.com... [8] . http://www.amazon.com... [9] . http://www.homeforgood.org.uk... [10] Trussell Trust, p25, . http://www.trusselltrust.org...-(2011)-The-Trussell-Trust-Foodbank-Network---Exploring-the-Growth-of-Foodbanks-Across-the-UK.pdf [11] . http://richarddawkins.net... Missed References: The American Psychologist [see 1] The Hoover Institute, . http://www.hoover.org...