It is better to believe in the God of the Bible than to be an Atheist

Rebuttal: Con's argument starts with comparing Islam with Christianity to somehow counter the resolution presented that compares Atheism with Christian belief. The argument presented by me is based on whether there is a God or not in the afterlife that will hold one accountable or not based on beliefs determined by a particular view. In this case it is God who requires accountability versus no God and no accountability rather than God versus another God who both demand accountability. Comparing two religions who both believe that God exist to proof that God does not exist because they are inventions is therefore not very logical and a different Debate altogether. Whether the God of Islam or the Christian God exists is immaterial in this Debate because, according to Con who admits it, one or the other will exist (according to the logic of the argument) and therefore a God exists in the end that will require accountability. Comparing Islam, the Christian may be wrong as Con suggests but the Atheist will also be wrong and therefore nothing is disproved in the resolution for this Debate. As a side note: There are many reasons why people do not accept Islam based on logic and an examination of the tenants of Islam. Con quotes from the Quran but is either unaware or have not studied Islam enough to realize that Allah is believed to be "ALL merciful". An ALL MERCIFUL being that only saves his own devotees is not ALL MERCIFUL. Muslims may teach that Christians are infidels and will burn in hell but that is purely human speculation if Allah is indeed "ALL Merciful". The belief that Allah is "ALL Merciful" therefore makes Con's argument very weak because it is improbable that a Christian or an Atheist will end up in a Muslim hell. "O My slaves who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. " (Surah Az-Zumar 39:53) If Allah does not forgive the sin of unbelief then it cannot be said that he forgives "ALL sins". Abu Hurairah (RA) relates Rasulullah (SAW) said: "Indeed, before Allah created the creation, He decreed for Himself, "Indeed My Mercy prevails over My Anger. " (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) "My Mercy prevails over My Anger" is self explanatory. I mention this to point out that the argument applied to the two different religions is in a different category based on specifics that Con did not take into account. The reasoning may be parallel according to Con but not on par based on logic. Con continues to try and apply this comparison by substituting his argument with an anti-god which is puzzling because the end result includes an afterlife with accountability that is not an Atheistic belief. The argument is illogical because this anti-god must be able to exist to have determined where people will go in the afterlife and so Con defeats his own Atheism by his hypothesis. Con then concludes that it is better to be an Atheist but I fail to see the logic in his reasoning. Heaven is a place where the imperfections of this world have been corrected and a life without suffering awaits one as opposed to the Atheistic view that says when we die we cease to exist and do not experience anything. It's LIKE claiming that a 1 star hotel is better than a 5 star hotel. Con states: "Moreover, since both the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are completely arbitrary inventions, I can just invent a God and be on equal footing with either of them". Whether the gods are inventions or not is immaterial to the argument. Atheism lacks conclusive proof that there is no God out there in the Universe and can therefore also be called an invention. No human has ever traveled the universe to such and extend to be able to say that there is absolutely NO God. No supernatural power intervened on earth to say there is no God as opposed to the claims of the Bible. Of course, no supernatural intervention can even be expected by the Atheist so the Atheist therefore requires PHYSICAL OBSERVABLE proof which can only be obtained by physically searching the Universe to substantiate the claims made. Contrary to Con's statements, that completely ignore history, the Christian religion is supported by historical evidence and not some wild invention as is suggested. Con's invention will therefore be identified as such because it lacks historical evidence. The flying spaghetti monster type argument Con presents fails by comparison based on history and historical evidence. Con concludes: "But isn't this all ridiculous? Why not just go by the evidence and accept the conclusion that it points to, instead of believing whatever arbitrary claim has the scariest hell? " Quite a paradox that Ockham (probably a reference to Ockham"s razor? ) presents without a simple explanation. Perhaps Con can point out what the evidence is that is referred too and how it will lead anyone to become an Atheist (I assume that is what is implied). To correct my opponent, the opening line in round one state that this argument is about accountability and not the "scariest hell" as Con mentions. Thanks!