The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Are Christians gullible and stupid?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,321 times Debate No: 38001
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Christians are stupid! They believe in a STORY made up by un-educated people ages ago to try and explain things, now we have scientific explanations so the Bible is no longer needed.


sourcing... please give something to argue against.
In order to allow some expansion I'll keep this round concise.

"Christians are stupid!" (I'll write the most on this since it seems to be the main point of the Pro's argument) - What does the pro consider a christian? There are many definitions of what a Christian is. I'm assuming (for this round) that by "Christian" the pro is mentioning any follower of any "bible" written in the past based on the shared Muslim/Christian/Catholic/etc. god (1 - There are about 52 large monotheistic religions which can all be split into different sects) . If this is the case the population mentioned is far to general to label or "stereotype" as the Pro wishes to do. (1)
A quick list ^ if you want a fuller idea of monotheistic religions you'll end up reading much more.

Suggesting that the entire monotheistic population is "stupid" is very ignorant. A list of some better known christian scientists (for the sake of saving you time looking up their contribution to society) follows.

Issac Newton -

J. J. Thomson -

Max Planck -

John Ambrose Fleming -
The Evidence of Things Not Seen Christian Knowledge Society: London (1904)
The Wonders of Wireless Telegraphy : Explained in simple terms for the non-technical reader Society for promoting Christian Knowledge (1913)

"They believe in a STORY made up by un-educated people ages ago to try and explain things" - Suggesting that the entirety of the bible was made up in order to suggest scientific oddities and that those who wrote it are uneducated (this is one word). Please reword so that you can have a valid argument here; this is far to vague.

"now we have scientific explanations" - for what? Again the statement is far too vague. If the Pro is suggesting the creation of the universe we still lack a fortified theory for this.

"so the Bible is no longer needed." - Suggesting that the bible's only purpose was to serve as a pseudo-science guide to the universe. Most of the christian bible's contents are moral stories meant to teach a person how to be accepting towards others (other religions, types of people, races), forgiving, patient, etc. I think that lessons like this do have a place in this world where these values are so often forgotten.

To conclude on this and give my point of view (anything above is objective). I am not a christian, but I do visit their church occasionally. I enjoy playing with their bands (jam sessions) and the way the majority of them act. I have studied many religions or "faiths" as the christian followers prefer to be called and this is my view.
Debate Round No. 1


I was hoping for a Christian to argue against :(
Anyway the Bible is a very flawed story and believing in it is like believing in Harry Potter. Sure there are smart Christians, but if they were all smart them they wouldn't believe in the Bible. Some flaws are, Why did God make the Tree of Knowledge and Satan if he knew that they would ruin a lot of things for the humans that he so dearly cared about (although he killed 1,000's of them, not including Noah's Ark) and Noah's Ark was completely unnecessary, explained by this in a fairly amusing way:


Pro did not clarify his point. I'll keep this round short.
Questions for the Pro regarding his argument.

What does the Pro consider to be a christian?
There are many different followers of "God" (The god of Abraham) under many different religions (muslim, jew, christian, catholic, lutheran, etc.). The list of people who follow the god of Abraham is excessively lengthy. If Pro is talking about another religion then argument is invalid.

What does the Pro consider to be "the Bible"?
There are many variations of "The Bible". Calling a religious book by "The Bible" is to assume said person is following your religion. Pro needs to be more specific about which books, writers, etc. are included in "the Bible" he is mentioning.

To address the flaws mentioned:

Just a reminding note: Since clarification was not received I will assume that by christian, the pro is referring to the christian religion and that alone (no variations).
Context: The christian religion currently follows the New Testament cannon of "The Bible" (assuming "The Bible" is referring to the catholic old testament). Christians do not read/follow the books written by those they believe to be "uninspired" (not influenced by god).
Side note: I refer to the "chapters" in "The Bible" as books because, that is what they are. "The Bible" is a compilation of books written by many different people who believe (or pretend to believe) they have interacted with god.

The Pro makes multiple references to the "Genesis" book without context. The "Tree of Knowledge" is from the "Genesis" book used commonly by followers of the god of Abraham. The "Genesis" book is not included within the modern christian bible. The story "Noah's Ark" is also contained within the "Genesis" book and is likewise irrelevant to the argument.
Debate Round No. 2


Mixlop forfeited this round.


Pro did not post.

Nothing to clarify or argue against.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by hengenkaosu 3 years ago
Guess pro gave up, I'll give him a day to post some sort of counterargument in comments before replying.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Yes hengen, you are so right.
Catholics are not Christians, Jesus did not support the hierarchy principle, it was designed after Jesus to give the church a business structure to fleece the pockets of followers. Thus it should be taxed as such.
Yet Catholics claim to be the only true Christians because of a fraudulent lineage they created back to Simon (Peter) by joining in non-participant priests that they discovered later post Constantine in order to quash correct questioning of their claims as Christians.
The Catholic church is truly a product based on the Usurper Saul (Paul), who essentially never met Jesus, but he pretended to meet Jesus in a vision and conned his way into the heart of the Christian movement and then started to produce his own Religion.
Some who studied Catholicism, have called it Constantine's Paulianism, or a business and political movement based on Paul (Saul) and not Jesus Christ. Thus it is in no way Christian.
Posted by hengenkaosu 3 years ago
@Sagey As someone who has studied many religions in my time, Catholics are not at all Christians to me. It's like trying to compare nightshade to grapes because they look similar (kinda).
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
So true hengen.
An argument I have been having with Catholics, who consider themselves the only Christians, because of the fraudulent direct line to St. Peter (truly Simon).
Neither Jesus nor the O.T. specified any Hierarchy.
Posted by hengenkaosu 3 years ago
@Sagey - Calling the pope a christian is about the same as calling Einstein a christian. The christian religion does not believe in popes or other forms of church leaders other than a pastor (who is treated somewhat equivalently to a teacher).
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Einstein a Christian: Not!
He was a naturalist who saw God as something in the forces of nature, more like the Deistic founding Fathers Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.
If you equate Stupidity to "Lack of Intelligence" and since Intelligence is now measured in Industry as RQ (Rational Quotient) or the ability to think and consider what you are taught Rationally, then for Christianity it ranges from very Intelligent almost agnostic, moderate Christians like Obama, to extremely Stupid or very Unintelligent (Irrational) Fundamentalist Christians like Ray Comfort and the previous Pope Benedict.
The current pope appears a little more intelligent, more humanistic, some think he appears to be a closet atheist. LOL :-D~
Posted by Mixlop 3 years ago
Jesus was a phycopath, who believed he was the son of God and could walk on puddle- I mean water.
Posted by iUnderdog 3 years ago
Also, are you arguing that things in the bible that aren't true because plenty of scholars and historians agree that jesus lived, died, and his body was gone on the third day. Not he arose but his body was gone. So for you to say that christians believe in a "story" that was actually real makes you sound quite uneducated and ignorant.
Posted by Biochemistry92 3 years ago
It would seem that the Pro is a thirteen year old kid, while the con is an educated individual. To argue that all christians are stupid is a generalized statement that we all know isnt true, enter Einstein or another member of the knowing and you arrive at a more than logical conclusion. To encompass everyone into a certain category is an unattainable feat.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and far more effort by Con