It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

"Finally, You said that to negate the resolution is to agree with atheists, But I want to stress the point that you can negate this resolution from a Christian perspective, As I have already. " -No, The rules clearly lay out the sides, This is a debate on God's existence, Not Christianity's merit. "The secular definition is "A firm belief in something that can't be proved, " or something along those lines. You can't use that definition. The true BIBLICAL definition of faith is a belief based on fact and reason. " 1. That is not the full definition: Here is the definition of faith, According to Dictionary. Com: " Faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing" (https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/faith) Notice: It does not say faith is without evidence, Faith is just a strong belief, It could be reasonable, Or not, With evidence, Or not. 2. You contradict yourself. You agree with the Bible in saying that " definition of faith is a belief based on fact and reason" -which I agree with, But you contradict your definition in saying that faith is "A firm belief in something that can't be proved". Facts and reason proof or disprove a belief, The reason why the bible tells you this is to the avoid exactly what you are affirming! That faith is without reason and evidence! "Christian faith is way more complicated than what atheists believe. We have many more things to be proved than atheists" 1. I think not, If God exists, Then Christianity is the next step (again not the point of this debate regardless). The Atheist on the other hand has to explain the origins of the universe by imaginary means, Ignoring the many questions that it presents: Who created the universe, Since it cannot be explained by nothing? Why are some things objectively right or wrong? Why is anything objectively true at all? Many Atheists either concede and or dismiss these questions, But cannot come with a plausible answer. You agreed with me here, By accepting my two contentions. 2. Unless you think that Atheism itself is more reasonable than Theism, Then you cannot say that they have a more reasonable belief, Thus requiring "more faith" indicating a need to believe a whole lot more in order to blot out God, Getting rid of rational reasoning and explanations for these questions. In conclusion then, We see that this debate has already been won by side Pro, As con agrees in the rational basis for God, My contentions and conceded my side of this debate. I gave Con a chance to see his mistake, But instead Con continued. Let's take a look of what this debate is, And how it turned out: In the beginning I laid out the job of Pro and Con: "For side Pro (For Theism): To support (build evidence on) and defend the existence of the Theistic God. For side Con (For Atheism): To support (build evidence on) and defend that the Theistic God does not exist. " Con agreed to my contentions: In Con's first speech: "Both of his contentions I agree with" My contentions: 1. There are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist) 2. There is good reason for Theism This debate can down to whether or not God exists, Con made it about the definition of faith, Ignoring my clarification of the sides in my first speech. At this point Con concedes the round, Agreeing that Atheism is unreasonable and Theism is reasonable (my contentions) And thus we see that it takes more faith to be an Atheist. To Truth! -logicae