The Instigator
DonovanMGwinn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Fanath
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Christianity is Hypocritical and Fake

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Fanath
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 56179
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

DonovanMGwinn

Pro

I hear a lot about Christianity is 'real' and a lot of Christians bash on other religions like Islam for things like terrorism when Christianity has done the worst acts of atrocity in recorded history.
Fanath

Con

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
DonovanMGwinn

Pro

First part: Opening argument for reasoning.
Christianity is fake due to the fact that it can never be told by one thing, which is by the the New Testament. Changing the Old Testament means that you are changing your entire religion, meaning anything afterwards confirms that it is fake and you made it up. Another is that Christians do things that are against their holy book. It says not to wear mixed fabics, support slavery, wipe out villages, and all kinds of sadistic things. Another is that it says there is one god when in fact there are multiple. I could carry on, but it would be too many to use in characters.
Fanath

Con

"Changing the Old Testament means that you are changing your entire religion, meaning anything afterwards confirms that it is fake and you made it up"

False. Not everyone had changed to the old testament. In fact, some Christians who call themselves fundamentalists adopt both of the bibles. It doesn't prove that it's fake at all. Furthermore, just because someone doesn't believe in something doesn't mean it's fake. For example, if I don't believe in Australia it doesn't mean that it'll magically disappear.

"Another is that Christians do things that are against their holy book. It says not to wear mixed fabics, support slavery, wipe out villages, and all kinds of sadistic thing"

Not all Christians are fundamentalists. I want to make sure everyone understands that in Con's last point he was essentially arguing that all Christians have dropped old testament stuff. I'm not contradicting myself by saying Christians have gone in different directions. It also doesn't prove that something is false just because someone doesn't follow it. For example, if someone chooses to brake the rule of "Don't kill people" t doesn't mean the rule shouldn't be followed nor does it mean the law book which it comes from is invalid.


"Another is that it says there is one god when in fact there are multiple"

Pro needs to prove this claim...

I've disproved his arguments. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
DonovanMGwinn

Pro

Actually, yes it is. The Old Testament was fire and brimstone while the newer is a slightly matured one. If you had one religious book, then change it, you are essentially changing everything. Hence, proving that humans created a fabricated story. If you change an aspect of a god, how is this supposed to be the same exact one? They can't be.
No, I was referring to the New Testament that 'Christians' supposedly follow. Well, if you are going to follow a religion, but your gods say that you have to do something, how are you following the religion? You would be disobeying your dieties.
Not really. Voting isn't open yet. Now, you have said prove it. You have your main one, YWHY, a son conceived of a ghost and a Virgin which is impossible that makes two, and then you have the holy spirit which is three. Another would be Lucifer since he has the characteristics that all three has.
Fanath

Con

"Actually, yes it is. The Old Testament was fire and brimstone while the newer is a slightly matured one. If you had one religious book, then change it, you are essentially changing everything. Hence, proving that humans created a fabricated story"

This simply isn't proven. Let's look at what her argument is:

P1: If someone edits the original claim, the original claim is definitely false.

P2: Christianity's original claim was changed.

C: Therefore, Christianity is false.

The problem lies with premise one. It simply hasn't been proven. Just because someone changes something doesn't mean that the original claim is false.

"If you change an aspect of a god, how is this supposed to be the same exact one? They can't be"

God wasn't changed, just rules in the bible.

"No, I was referring to the New Testament that 'Christians' supposedly follow"

Not all Christians follow solely the old testament. There's fundamentalists who follow both.

Well, if you are going to follow a religion, but your gods say that you have to do something, how are you following the religion? You would be disobeying your dieties.

"Not really. Voting isn't open yet"

Of course it isn't.

"Now, you have said prove it. You have your main one, YWHY, a son conceived of a ghost and a Virgin which is impossible that makes two, and then you have the holy spirit which is three"

This is just my opponents faulty knowledge on the Bible. Notice how he's using the Bible, which she claims to be false, as proof of multiple Gods.

So we have God, the creator of the universe. The Holy Spirit is God Himself, not a separate being. Jesus Christ is the Redeemer promised to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15, the only Son of God, and by that very fact, Lord of all Creation. He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity, sent to the world by the Father to become man and save us from our sins.

Hope this helps.
Debate Round No. 3
DonovanMGwinn

Pro

Well first off, I'm a guy which is why my name is Donovan.
Tell me how you change parts of a religion and its not the same if you read the Old Testament it was violent with mass genocide. The New Testament is just a matured version, but still has many inconsistencies with the Old. Now taking this logic you are basically saying that the religion is the same even though events in these two books are different. If events are made different it becomes invalid since you can't take either with a grain of salt. It's like saying you bought a car, smashed it, than saying it's the exact same car as before. It isn't since you had to change pieces to make it operate. Now you may be right about how the original claim may be right, but it is less accurate now that people believe more in the New than Old.
And right there is one of the biggest problems of your religion: You don't know your own gods' name. God is a common noun, not a proper noun. YHWY would be the correct name. And the rules in the Bible, if changed, would mean that your god just changed everything about itself.

"No, I was referring to the New Testament that 'Christians' supposedly follow"

"Not all Christians follow solely the old testament. There's fundamentalists who follow both"

Did you not read about the New Testament part? I wasn't referring to the Old. Please pay more attention while you debate.
Of course I know that, but you obviously think it is just on your opinions.
Now continuing with debate it will even say so in the Bible. And I'm using your holy book as proof of how and why it is false. Now you claim them to be the same people. You are saying that the Holy Ghost had intercourse with Mary, who is supposedly a virgin, yet she gives birth to a son, called Jesus. This is false since they are two different types of entities. You can say they are the same, but if they are, tell me how a god dies by something it created since it was born from a human?
And right there is checkmate. You say that Jesus was sent by YHWY, which means a different entity is present.
Fanath

Con

Fanath forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
DonovanMGwinn

Pro

DonovanMGwinn forfeited this round.
Fanath

Con

"Now taking this logic you are basically saying that the religion is the same even though events in these two books are different. If events are made different it becomes invalid since you can't take either with a grain of salt. It's like saying you bought a car, smashed it, than saying it's the exact same car as before. It isn't since you had to change pieces to make it operate. Now you may be right about how the original claim may be right, but it is less accurate now that people believe more in the New than Old."

I never claimed the old testament was the same as the new one, lol. But that doesn't mean that both aren't true. A can be different from B, and both can be true. And like I said before, fundamentalists believe in both. And furthermore, negating this point completely, is the fact that just because someone doesn't believe in something or stops believing in something doesn't mean that it isn't true. This negates Pro's arguments completely.

"And right there is one of the biggest problems of your religion: You don't know your own gods' name. God is a common noun, not a proper noun. YHWY would be the correct name"

It was a typo. Furthermore, I'm an atheist.

"the rules in the Bible, if changed, would mean that your god just changed everything about itself"

False. This is like saying if a law was changed that the person who changed it would change everything about itself. It's absurd to suggest. Pro doesn't realize that during that time, the law was appropriate. Later on, it was better to change the laws obviously.

"Now you claim them to be the same people"

False. God is not a person.

"You are saying that the Holy Ghost had intercourse with Mary, who is supposedly a virgin, yet she gives birth to a son, called Jesus. This is false since they are two different types of entities. You can say they are the same, but if they are, tell me how a god dies by something it created since it was born from a human"

"You say that Jesus was sent by YHWY, which means a different entity is present"

Pro doesn't understand that God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, he can cast another form of himself, Jesus Christ, into our world. Not being able to do so would be a contradiction of his omnipotence.

Notice how in this debate I'm not claiming that Christianity is true, merely I'm negating Pro's claims that it's hypocritical and fake. He seemingly dropped the claim that it was hypocritical, and he also never proved his claim that it was fake. Again, I had no BOP in this debate. I merely need to counter Pro's arguments in order to negate the resolution, which I did.

Thank you. Make good choices.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DonovanMGwinn 2 years ago
DonovanMGwinn
I follow the rules of debate. You post your argument and use arguments against ones statements. If you have to post rules of how to debate, you are sounding like this isn't a debate, but a controlled argument that restricts you from debating your side.
Posted by Unknown_player 2 years ago
Unknown_player
I agree, you don't want to be put into a hole in the first round. You never want to be the one that is "noob-sniped."
Posted by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
Pro, I really suggest you to define terms and establish rules before posting the debate. I highly encourage you to cancel this debate first and then make the necessary edits. After that, you should post this debate challenge again. This is how the etiquette works in this site.

I mean, I understand that you're new to this site. However, there are higher-rated debaters who look for new DDO users to get easy wins.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
DonovanMGwinnFanathTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro didn't fulfill much of his BoP, with fairly weak arguments
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
DonovanMGwinnFanathTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had poor argumentation.