The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
Jifpop09
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

Christianity Is Stupid

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 16 votes the winner is...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,795 times Debate No: 47934
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (81)
Votes (16)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I cautiously welcome my opponent to this debate and warn him not to be offended. (I guess it's a little too late for that now)

First round is acceptance!
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Christianity is stupid because it is based on the Bible, which is nothing more than a fairy-tale.

1. Prophecies

The Bible is like your neighborhood tarot card reader; it makes a bunch of predictions that fail, then brags about the one that didn't.

For example, in 2 Peter 3, Peter claims “scoffers” will come and deny Noah's Flood and the Creation story. Obviously, nobody is “scoffing” at Noah's Flood, so this is bunk.

Then in Ezekiel 11:17 & 28:25, and Jeremiah 30:3, “God” makes the absurd prediction that the Jews will one day return to Israel and reclaim it as their own: another bust.

2. Acts of God

Remember all those amazing things the Old Testament describes God doing? Like parting a sea so people could cross, sending plagues to the Egyptians, and wiping out the perverted cities of Soddam & Gomorrah with fire?

Why don't we see any of that kind of stuff today? Oh yeah, because those types of things never happened in real life. I might change my mind if God, like, sent a plague to wipe out gays or something.

3. Science

This one is simple: the Bible is easily disproved by science. For example, scientists have used the Scientific Method to prove people evolved from apes and all life shares a common ancestor. I'd like to see some “Young Earth” quack make a valid scientific prediction and have it actually come true.

Also, Science has conclusively proven that a human embryo is not a person, yet most of Christianity (the Catholics) call this clump of tissue a person and even say it's murder to kill it!

4. Cannibalism

Ok this beef is mostly with Catholics (but I feel it's a valid point since most of Christianity is Catholic anyways). They say Jesus was talking in analogy when he said to eat his body and drink his blood, but if Catholics would actually read the Bible verses, they'd see that Jesus clarified it was just a parable and he wasn't really promoting vampirism.

Good luck to my opponent. He'll need it!

Jifpop09

Con

I shall begin and will be of the assumption that my opponent is arguing all christian believers are stupid.

Reasons why Christianity is not stupid
----------------------------------------
1. Many Christians are not blindless followers
a. Many christians go through a vigorous journey of questioning and study before they take the commitment to be baptized. Contrary to beliefs, true christians are
taking a life long commitment.

http://www.bethinking.org...



2. Christian Scientists
a. There have been many christian scientists. These include
- Isaac Newton (Rules of Gravity)
- Nicholas Copernicus (Astronomer)
- Sir Francis Bacon ( Scientific Method)

http://www.godandscience.org...



b. Just because some Christians are stupid, does not mean all of them fall into the same category. Examples....

- Not all Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old.
- Not all Christians believe abortion is wrong.
- Not all Christians believe that god hates homosexuality.

http://notalllikethat.org...



Rebuttals
------------

Remember all those amazing things the Old Testament describes God doing? Like parting a sea so people could cross, sending plagues to the Egyptians, and wiping out the perverted cities of Soddam & Gomorrah with fire?

Why don't we see any of that kind of stuff today? Oh yeah, because those types of things never happened in real life. I might change my mind if God, like, sent a plague to wipe out gays or something.

A. Maybe it is because The lord no longer has any need to use his powers. We have learned what he has desired to give us, and we can not claim to understand someone as wise and all knowing as god ( Under the assumption that god exists).

B. The lord does not hate anybody. It is very clear in the bible.

http://biblethumpingliberal.com...



This one is simple: the Bible is
easily disproved by science. For example, scientists have used the Scientific Method to prove people evolved from apes and all life shares a common ancestor. I'd like to see some “Young Earth” quack make a valid scientific prediction and have it actually come true.

Also, Science has conclusively proven that a human embryo is not a person, yet most of Christianity (the Catholics) call this clump of tissue a person and even say it's murder to kill it!

A. Sources.

B. Not all Christians are young earth "quacks". Only a very small minority.

C. Not all Christians deny evolution. Believe me, this is a common misconception. Just not in the exact same way.

D. Not all Christians believe the bible should be taken litterally.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org...




Ok this beef is mostly with Catholics (but I feel it's a valid point since most of Christianity is Catholic anyways). They say Jesus was talking in analogy when he said to eat his body and drink his blood, but if Catholics would actually read the Bible verses, they'd see that Jesus clarified it was just a parable and he wasn't really promoting vampirism.

A. This does not actually happen. Most churches just have you go up and drink a cup of grape juice and bite on a styrofoam cracker. We do not actually cannibalize church goers. At least not that I know of.



Reasons Why I should Win
-----------------------------
1. Sources
2. I proved that not all followers of Christ are stupid.
3. I proved that sometimes mainstream Christianity is not always right. As Isaac Newton and Copernicus have proven.
4. I proved that not all christians are homophobic, anti abortion, young earth, or cannibalists.
5. I proved that most TRUE christians are not blindless followers, and study and research extensively before commiting to baptism.

Debate Round No. 2
81 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wwwwh 2 years ago
wwwwh
I would call this debate illegitimate upon many things First is that people who vote proably have a strong bias from the begining. Next is that the word stuiped was never defined and that word is the whole point of the argument. Next con did not follow the topic with his first few words changeing it. It was horrible, with almost all of it obviously emotionaly fueld which no serious debate should incorperate 100%. (all debates need emotion but this is way to much)
Posted by KaileyFox 2 years ago
KaileyFox
@Dishoungh:
Thank you! Very well put!
Posted by ZMowlcher 2 years ago
ZMowlcher
How the hell is this front page? I made a debate with a topic worth discussing, and stupid trolls with their hate debates remain front and center.
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
First off, if you think Christianity is so stupid, why are you even studying it? Second of all, you're saying that every Christian is the same. Third of all, you're saying that Christian beliefs are fiction. Yeah......that's why they are called BELIEFS. It's to answer our existence. If those beliefs were scientific facts, then we will call them scientific facts.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Yes, Delgado, maybe it is because they are arguing for things or ideas they have not researched very well or are out of their own field of beliefs/studies.

Like a Young Earth Creationist (YECs) arguing for Evolution would be atrocious, since 100% of YECs don't even understand Evolution, otherwise they wouldn't be YECs.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
@ ESocialBookworm: Many arguing for Christianity on DDO are Atheists, so why can't a Christian argue for Atheism? It's just an exercise in trying to think like the opposition.
It's a good exercise, so maybe you should try it too.
Posted by delgadojustin2146 2 years ago
delgadojustin2146
Both of these debaters have horrible arguments.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
You want to know the saddest part. . . Pro is a Christian.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
@ Raelistic: The Bible was originally meant to be taken literally. The original manuscripts were written to be considered as absolute truth coming from God to man. It is only that science and knowledge has destroyed most of the Bible's literal interpretations that now churches are claiming it to be metaphorical.
The original writers were not very clever and did not understand Metaphor, as they were only partially literate sheep, goat and camel herders.
So your position is wrong, it was written to be take literally, but it is only that we now know too much about the world to ever consider the Bible as having any literal merit.

Fact is that most of the Bible is now proven wrong: Chronologically, Scientifically and Morally.

There is very little worth reading in the Bible, in fact it is reading the Bible that is creating many of the world's most ardent Atheists, such as myself.
I've done Theology at college and read the Bible from start to finish, it was the latter combined with reading Encyclopedia references to the actually History of religion and Christianity that sealed my current position for good.

Reading the Bible, which I'm certain Garret has probably done more than yourself, and I possibly have as well, will not change any of our minds.
Posted by Raelistic 2 years ago
Raelistic
Hello. You're not supposed to take the Bible literally. Why do you think it is considered to be one of the most influential books of all time? Stupid or what? Our religion practices many forms of English, not just literal. One thing that the Bible has that you don't is common sense. Go get your copy today.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 2 years ago
jzonda415
GarretKadeDupreJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct for the resolution. Nothing stuck out with S&G (Although, Con should remember to capitalize "God"). Arguments are a clear win for Con. Pro's case was weak to begin with and was easily dismantled by Con. Sources go to Con for having them. Pro made some absolutely factless assertions and did not have any source to back him up (especially when he said "Science has conclusively proven that a human embryo is not a person..."). Overall, a win for Con.
Vote Placed by medv4380 2 years ago
medv4380
GarretKadeDupreJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both failed to properly define Terms and as a result both are using different definitions of Christianity. Is Christianity the Bible, or is Christianity the People. Pro focused on the Bible, and Con focused on the People. Pro's argument focuses on little more than ad hominem arguments from the start. For example, pro started off by stating that the bible is nothing more than a fairy-tale. Since Pro failed to define what a Fairy Tail is to him I have to go off of the technical definitions, and the Bible qualifies as Legend not Fairy-Tail. Legends are based in part on historical facts. Fairy-Tails may become incorporated into a Legend, but they are two very different things. Properly defining terms, and avoiding vague attempts at slurs is important for a good debate. Con's argument amounts to yes there are stupid people in Christianity, however there are smart people as well. It wouldn't have been hard for Pro to have at least anticipated this argument.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
GarretKadeDupreJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't find either side very convincing in this debate, but Pro was the only one to actually spend his entire post arguing the resolution, and so the debate goes to him. Con, note what the resolution says. "Christianity Is Stupid." Not "Christians Are Stupid," not "The Ways Christianity Is Practiced Are Stupid." So long as those are not the topic, all your points are moot. The followers of a religion don't necessarily embody that religion. You even say that taking it literally is a problem, which is very problematic. The only argument of yours that I can actually use is the increased study argument, and even that is iffy. More importantly, it depends what they're studying. If the religion is stupid, and they're studying the religion and sticking to it, that could be called an exercise in stupidity.
Vote Placed by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
bubbatheclown
GarretKadeDupreJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct, because the very basis of this debate is offensive towards 2 billion living people. Pro used his own pro-abortion bias all by itself as an argument, and the Catholics never practiced cannibalism as far as I know. Con gets sources because he used pictures for everything.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 2 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
GarretKadeDupreJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to actually argue the resolution, therefor loses conduct and arguments.
Vote Placed by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
GarretKadeDupreJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I dont know why my older vote has been removed and I dont know why people voted CON. now, let me explain: The debate is about CHRISTIANITY, NOT about christians or not about the people who believe in christianity. all things written by CON is not about the topic of the debate, CON talked about christians while debate is about christianity. considering this, PRO's conduct was better. spelling and grammar: I dont care it but I always vote it for the side who made better arguements. convincing arguements: PRO's arguements are about the christianity, CON's are about christians, hence I conclude that all of the arguements of CON is offtopic and arguements of PRO is not answered nor replied. about sources: PRO didnt use any source but CON used sources for offtopic thing, in fact, I need to not vote for sources but offtopic sources gave minus to CON, hence I will vote PRO for sources.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
GarretKadeDupreJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Con mistook Pro's argument as being that all Christians are stupid, I did not read it that way, I read it as stating the underlying concepts of Christianity as defined in the Bible is Stupid, not all Christians, as many Christians have hardly ever read the Bible, it appears from DDO that more Atheists have read the Bible more thoroughly than most Christians. The Bible is why I'm a Confucian follower/Atheistic. Pro's sources were mostly Biblical but demonstrated his claims, though so did Con's, but I ended up going for Con's as the most interesting sources. Con made some very obvious spelling mistakes like I'm certain he meant Blinded, not Blindless. and litterally only has a single 't', literally.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
GarretKadeDupreJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seems like an angry teenager in his debate, that is why I had to give conduct points to con. I didn't really see any spelling or grammar errors on either side so I had to tie that catagory. because pro seemed like an angry teenager i had to give argument points to con. Pro mainly stuck to accusations. Con was the only one to provide sources
Vote Placed by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
GarretKadeDupreJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented weak arguments when compared with Con's (CA). Con used comic sans (Conduct). Both sides had equal grammar, but many of Con's information was cited.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
GarretKadeDupreJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro (even though I do not agree with arguments used) upheld the burden of proof for the proposition. In contrast Con was arguing for Christians (an assumption) and not Christianity. This means the debate points were addressed in the incorrect way and the rebuttals are not valid. Source points go to Con, as Con provided some. Other points are shared. I must say I do wonder sometimes if Pro is trolling us atheists. :)