i can support Christianity more than an athiest can support Athiesm.

Is the Bible really evidence?The first thing I'd like to point out is that my opponent didn't defend the credibility of the Bible, but simply stated the flaws that exist in the Bible can also exist in science, making science not credible as well. There are a couple of flaws with this statement. My opponent claims that "You say because it was written by man, it cannot be trusted as evidence". I'd like to point out that the Pro was the one who said this, not me. I simply quoted what the Pro said to demonstrate that the Bible cannot be used to justify the Pro's claims if he doesn't even think it's credible. As for me, I also don't think that the Bible is credible, but that isn't because it was written by men, it's because there isn't any evidence to support the claims that it makes. The reason that science does not have this flaw is because accepted scientific theories are backed by evidence. But this is besides the point, what I was getting at here is that if my opponent thinks that his own evidence isn't credible, then why should it be accepted as evidence? In short, it shouldn't.The Big BangI don't even think this is relevant, but I will answer it anyways. To clarify, atheism isn't automatically "the belief in all science". Like my definition states, atheism is the lack of belief in a higher power. That's it. You can be an atheist and not accept the theory of evolution or the big bang theory; you can also be an atheist and accept those theories as well. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.Sure, there may be flaws in the big bang. That's irrelevant. It isn't my job to defend alternatives to the God hypothesis, because the God hypothesis hasn't been proven to be true in the first place. Many people seem to think that because there are no alternative explanations to how the universe was created, then God must have done it by default. This is, of course, another example of the argument from ignorance (where someone asserts that a position is true because it has not yet been proven false). God isn't the default answer, it's a claim that must be proven first. One does not simply accept a claim because there are no alternatives to the claim. It must stand or fall on its own merits.Pascal's WagerThe problem that the Pro brought up actually had a name. Blaise Pascal, who was a French scientist, theologian, and mathematician, didn't really believe in the claims of Christianity.[1] However, he chose to accept the God hypothesis since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved through reason, and there is much to be gained from wagering that God exists and little to be gained from wagering that God doesn’t exist. He concluded that a rational person would simply wager that God existed and then continued living their lives.More simply, if one accepts the God hypothesis and is wrong, nothing will happen to them when they die. But, if one rejects the God hypothesis and is wrong, they will be sent to be tortured and burned forever (I thought God was all-loving?). It is therefore a safe bet to conclude that God exists.The problems with this theory arose almost immediately after it was published. Here are my main objections:1) Belief is not a choiceI do not choose to lack belief in God, just as you do not choose to lack belief in Bigfoot. I'm going to assume that no matter how hard you try, you will not believe in Bigfoot's existence until there is good evidence to prove that this claim is true. In the same way, I cannot choose to believe that God exists until I have evidence to prove this.Of course, I can always lie and say that I believe in God's existence. I could go to church every Sunday, sing along to all of the psalms, receive communion, and put my hand on a stack of bibles and say that I think every word in them is true, but your God, who is supposedly omniscient, will know that I don't actually believe that he exists. Thus, as soon as I make this 'wager', it would seem that I am destined for hell regardless.2) The presupposition of a Christian GodI think Homer Simpson said it best when he stated "Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder!". This raises a valid point: how can you be sure that the Christian god exists? What if it was actually Zeus that existed? Or Vishnu? Or Ra? Simply put, none of these supposed "Gods" have been proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. So, as Homer would phrase it, the best way to avoid angering one of these gods is to lack belief in any of them, rather than openly worship something else.Status of the debate:1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.The status quo stands2) This God created the universe and everything in itThe status quo stands3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sinThe status quo stands4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live againThe status quo standsGiven this status of the debate, I urge a negative vote.Citation(s):1. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_WagerAnd yes, you learn something from every debate :P