Atheism is more rational than Christianity

1. Definition of Atheism "Most atheists, nearly every single one you will ever meet, will never tell you they actively believe there is no god."If this is the case, then that's quite remarkable. It would mean very few people on Earth would believe that God does not exist. Unfortunately, I think it is clear that this is not the case. It could even be said that this sort of retreat is simply to attempt to shift the burden of proof entirely to the theist. "What you will here is that they lack a belief in god."A "lack of belief" is not a view, but merely a psychological state. If this definition were accurate (and by no means is this definition accurate) it would mean all babies are atheists. It would even mean that your pet dog, along with every other living animal, is an atheist due to the fact that these animals do not have a belief on the matter. The theist affirms that there is a God. The atheist affirms that there is no God. The agnostic does not have a belief. Below I have given 5 independent dictionary definitions for the words atheism and agnosticism. The sources are listed at the bottom of the page.Atheism:"The belief that there is no God; or denial that God or gods exist." [1]"Someone who believes that God does not exist." [2]"The doctrine or belief that there is no God." [3]"The doctrine that there is no deity." [4]"The doctrine that there is no God or gods." [5]Agnosticism:"The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty." [1]"Someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists." [2]"Anintellectualdoctrineorattitudeaffirmingtheuncertaintyofallclaimstoultimateknowledge." [3]"A person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." [4]"ThebeliefthattherecanbenoproofeitherthatGodexistsorthatGoddoesnotexist." [5]As we can clearly see from these definitions, atheism affirms that there is no God. The attempt made by Pro to absolve his/herself from the burden of proof is a failed one.2. Arguments in favor of GodAt the beginning of the debate, I presented three arguments in attempt to show that Christianity is at least as rational as atheism:i. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.ii. The universe began to exist.iii. Therefore, the universe has a cause.Pro's refutation to this argument (with regard to the first premise) was "We dont know that." Pro went on to say that we can't make any sort of claims about the origin of the universe. I think it is perfectly reasonable to claim that the universe had a cause, given the facts that everything that begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist. This argument holds sound.i. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design. ii. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.iii. Therefore, it is due to design.Pro has not responded to this argument. This argument holds sound.i. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.ii. Objective moral values and duties do exist.iii. Therefore, God exists.Pro has not responded to this argument. This argument holds sound3. Pro's concession that his claim (atheism is more rational than Christianity) is falseCon: "But if we cannot agree on the terminology, we can at least both acknowledge that "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" (whatever word we want to apply to that) is not more rational than Christianity."Pro: "I agree. And so will every atheist you meet."Pro has conceded that atheism, or the belief that there is no God, is not more rational than Christianity. 4. ConclusionThanks for the debate, Pro.Throughout the course of this debate, Pro has failed to shoulder the burden of proof for his claim that "atheism is more rational than Christianity." Pro has even gone so far as to concede that atheism (or at least the common definition which was also found through at least five independent dictionary sources) is not more rational than Christianity. Even if we grant Pro the agnostic definition that he/she appears to endorse, it seems to me that Pro has failed in shouldering the burden of proof that this definition is more rational than Christianity as well. Pro failed to put forth sound arguments against Christianity. The only structured argument that was put forth in the entire debate (the question of whether or not God could create a rock so heavy that even He could not lift it) by Pro was abandoned in his last round. On the other side, two of the three arguments that I put forth in favor of Christianity were not addressed by Pro. In the argument that was addressed, Pro merely stated that we cannot know anything about the origin of the universe. Pro failed to knock down any of the premises in the three arguments presented, thus it follows (for now at least) that these arguments hold sound. Pro was responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in this debate, due to his claim that "atheism is more rational than Christianity." Pro failed to shoulder this burden and also failed to knock down arguments that were presented in favor of Christianity. Sources:http://www.yourdictionary.com...http://dictionary.cambridge.org...http://dictionary.reference.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...