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

Introduction Thank you for your response. My opponent once again seems to misunderstand the point of my arguments. He agrees with the kind of happiness Christians have specifically, then argues that my arguments do nothing to prove that Christians are happier people than Atheists. The point of the argument is to show that Christians have certain inherent advantages to being happier than Atheists. “until he shows that atheist cannot achieve the same happiness through other means than the argument is useless. ” This point is not mine to argue. You must argue that atheists can achieve the same happiness through other means (which you have not yet done. In fact, all you have argued throughout this debate is that until I show that Atheists aren’t as happy then I lose. I’m arguing the advantages Christians have, as you should argue what advantages Atheists have). The Win-Win Situation “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. ” I opponent claims that Christians don’t have an inherent dedication to doing good in the world, but never argues why. I have given logically sound reasons for this and instead of refuting them in a reasonable way he just argues “No they don’t” then moves on. I do not deny that some Atheists want to live a good life. However, they do not have an inherent dedication to helping others, and doing what is moral. However, it’s a lot easier to go out and do the right thing when you are aiming for eternal happiness. “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 makes and argument from emotion, with no logically sound reasoning backing up his arguments. As a stated before, it is sound reasoning to presume that Christians are able to get through their sufferings easier than those who are Atheists due to believing that an all-loving, omnipotent God is watching over them and helping them through times of trouble. Unlike God, money, sex, family, friends, ect. are not an emotional crutch that will always be there for you, always watching over you are, and have the power to stop all your suffering. Christians have a much “sturdier” emotional crutch, since in belief, theirs’ never fails. Morality and Dedication to Good “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…" I apologize; the “good” I was using meant happiness, not morally good. I meant humans naturally seek happiness. So, when I made the statement, "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 meant that humans naturally seek happiness and that true happiness derives from an ultimate since of morality. Since God is the ultimate source of morality, ultimate happiness comes through him. “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. ” It is not an equal source of happiness, since in belief he is the ultimate source of happiness, therefore you will tend to be more happy thinking that ultimate happiness is ahead of you in the afterlife. Think of it logically. Who will be happier? The person who eats some delicious food, or the person who believes that an omnipotent, all loving God, is watching over them, and that you are going to be with him in Heaven to see your loved ones, and live in eternal happiness? It doesn’t matter whether the belief is a reality or not. It’s kinda like Santa. Kids are much happier when they believe he exists, even if he does not. “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. ” One again, my opponent gives an argument where he claims it is a false, or logically unstable argument then gives absolutely no reason why. Christians will be happier because they believe that an omnipotent, all loving God, is watching over, and that you are going to be with him in Heaven to see your loved ones, and live in eternal happiness. They are going to have better morals because they will have a dedication to live a good life through God’s commands. They will give a positive affect to society because of their dedication to good, put in action. All of this is logically sound, and you have done nothing to refute it. “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. " Yes, they do have different reasons for doing what is right. However, Christians will be more obliged to do what is right since they have the goal of eternal happiness in mind when they do it. Atheists will not be as obliged because there is no ultimate goal in mind except helping others, because they believe that this is the only life we have and I think many would much rather spend that time focusing on their own personal happiness, and because they believe everything is ultimately temporary anyways. Please Keep In Mind That My Opponent Completely Dropped the Argument: Long Term Happiness Vs. Short Term Happiness.