The Instigator
godofAtheism
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lfmskl
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Christianity is a Disease

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 1 vote the winner is...
lfmskl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,470 times Debate No: 17781
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

godofAtheism

Pro

The basic point of this argument is to discredit Christianity. The Christianity I will particularly disprove is ring-wing Christianity. The debate will be divided into 5 rounds, each with a different topic.

Round 1: God is not scientific
Round 2: Jesus did not historically exist
Round 3: Christianity is not philosophically and intellectually plausible
Round 4: Evolution is a fact, creationism is not even a science
Round 5: Conclusion
-------------------
God is Not Scientific:

Belief in "God" is based only in faith. There is absolutely no good evidence that there is a god. All claimed evidence of god has been disproved and is only accepted by desperate believers. No credible scientist is a Christian, let alone a conservative Christian. As Richard Dawkins points out in chapter one of "The God Delusion", the Christian god is a little god. Christians refuse to say "wow, the universe is bigger that Moses said". Instead, they maintain that god is small; the universe is only 6000 years old, and that the sun rotates around the earth.

The Christians say that their god is "trinitarian". Is this logical? How can one god also be three? This simple idea brings Christianity toppling down. Pope John Paul II claimed that the reason he survived his assassination attempt because "Virgin Mary" saved him. Why did she not just make the bullet miss him completely?

I know my argument on this particular argument is short, as the burden of proof lies with my opponent. Thank you.
lfmskl

Con

I thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate.
My opponent claims that God is not scientific, yet he fails to give one single example of the "claimed evidence of god [that] has been disproved". I, however, can give scientific evidence that does support the existence of the Christian God, along with the validity of the Bible.
1. The size of planet earth is perfect for sustaining life. If the earth were any smaller, it would have free oxygen like Jupiter (R.E.D. Clark, Creation (London: Tyndale Press, 1946), p. 20). Earth is the only known planet that has an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain life.
2. Earth is the perfect distance from the sun. The planet maintains temperatures between roughly -30 to 120 degrees. If we were any closer to the sun, we would burn; if we were farther, we would freeze. "The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day" (http://www.everystudent.com...).
3. The moons remains the perfect distance from earth. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents (The Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Institute of Science (Chicago, IL))
These are three of many evidences supporting the existence of God.

The God of the Bible is not "little". In fact, the Bible declares the universe as God's glorious creation: Psalm 19:1, Psalm 97:6, Isaiah 40:26, Romans 1:18-20. My God is not little, but a god that would use evolution is. He would be wasteful and irresponsible, and by no means omnipotent. The true God gets it right first time.

Virgin Mary did not protect Pope John Paul II. This idea is completely paganistic. See my debates on why Catholicism is not real Christianity.

I ask my opponent to answer the following questions in his Round 5 conclusion:

1. Why are the laws of the universe unchanging? Why is mathematics consistent?
2. How could everything start from literally nothing?
3. If atheism is true, then our minds are reducible to physics. Since physics is fundamentally deterministic, we have no free will. Is this true?
4. If God doesn't exist because He's immaterial, does that mean love doesn't exist? What about thought? What is thought?
5. If our IQ is a product of evolution and survival then why are humans the only ones with the higher intelligence? Why do people with higher IQ's not have longer life spans that others?
6. Are there absolutes? Can something be absolutely proven/disproven?
7. Without God, how do you know right from wrong?

God Bless
Debate Round No. 1
godofAtheism

Pro

Before I begin round 2, I would like to say that the questions my opponent asked are nothing new. My problem with Christians is they always ask the same questions over and over. Think of something else.

Jesus did not historically exist. Historians agree that ancient writings supporting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth were fabricated by the church. Once again, the burden of proof is on my opponent.
lfmskl

Con

If my opponent has heard these questions before, than surely he will have no trouble giving answers.

My opponent has again failed to present any evidence, or even cite his source, that "Historians agree that ancient writings supporting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth were fabricated by the church."

Many historians, Christian and pagan alike, have written on the historical existence of Jesus. While they may disagree on whether He is the Messiah or not, that is not the argument.

Cornelius Tacitus (Roman, c. A.D. 55-120, writing on Nero, Fire of Rome, and Christ): "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Jud´┐Ża, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." (Annals XV. 44)

Norman Anderson holds that "a most mischievous superstition" may refer to the Resurrection (Anderson, JC, 20)

See also: Lucian of Samosata: The Death of Peregrine, 11-13. Pliny the Younger: Epistles X.96. There are many more.

Jesus is found in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Sanh. 10-11; y. Sanh. 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9). Also in this Talmud, the disciples are found named (Sanh 107b), as is Mary (Sabb. 104b, Sanh 106a). These claim that Mary committed adultery in an attempt to explain away the virgin birth. The fact that the non-Christian Talmud has to try and explain away the virgin birth implies that Christ truly lived.

For Jewish confirmation of Jesus, see Joshephus (Antiquities, XVIII, 33).

Jesus' historical existence can be reduced to a simple logical argument:
When did Christianity begin?: About 2000 years ago
Was it a prominent religious belief?: Yes, thousands were killed for being Christian
Did it spread through Rome?: Yes, it became so popular that Emperor Constantine claimed to convert to it
Did it begin within the Roman Empire?: Yes
Is it logical, then, to claim that Jesus Christ did not exist, even though people living during His lifetime would come to believe in Him?: No. The Romans could simply look and see if Pilate was governor over Judea at the time and if he had truly crucified a man named Jesus. In short, if Jesus did not exist, Christianity wouldn't have lasted 100 years.
Debate Round No. 2
godofAtheism

Pro

I have decided that the layout for this debate is inefficient. I'm changing the layout, so from here on, I will simply ask my opponent to prove to me that the god of christianity exists.
lfmskl

Con

I understand my opponent has changed the format of the debate. I am disappointed, however, that he did not use the time he had to argue my points. Moving on, it is now my responsibility to prove the Christian God exists.

Please see my statement in Round 1.

"I am not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. " (Albert Einstein). Mister Einstein has a very valid point. Why is it that a man can look at a building and know there is a builder, or look at a painting and know there is a painter, yet not look at the creation and know there is a creator?
If the universe had come into existence naturalistically, everything would be reducible to materialism. There would be no love, because it is immaterial. Some will say that love is simply a chemical reaction to make us want to reproduce, yet they fail to answer why we can love friends. Why would we love friends? we won't mate with them, so they are actually a roadblock in our progression. Survival of the fittest, right? Please show me the chemicals that form "love". Also show me thought. Can you actually show someone thought? Of course not. God has given us immaterial things.

I will ask my opponent another question: Is murder wrong? If so, is it wrong for everyone or just some people, why?
Another: If God is false, that implies a standard of truth, correct? What is truth?

I request that my opponent will answer these questions along with the others I asked.
Debate Round No. 3
godofAtheism

Pro

I will answer my opponent's questions:

1. Why are the laws of the universe unchanging? Why is mathematics consistent?-
-The laws of the Universe are set in stone. It is by these laws that the Universe stays on course. Mathematics is man-made, the question has no point.
2. How could everything start from literally nothing?
-This is something we do not yet know. How did God come into existence?
3. If atheism is true, then our minds are reducible to physics. Since physics is fundamentally deterministic, we have no free will. Is this true?
-This is another thing that we simply have no answer for. That doesn't mean its not correct, it just means we don't know.
4. If God doesn't exist because He's immaterial, does that mean love doesn't exist? What about thought? What is thought?
-We evolved these traits of love and thought to encourage survival. We love others, and that makes us protect them. We think so we can solve problems.
5. If our IQ is a product of evolution and survival then why are humans the only ones with the higher intelligence? Why do people with higher IQ's not have longer life spans that others?
-We evolved this way. You're questions really show how dumb you are. If this were the wild, higher IQ people would survive longer because they can think better.
6. Are there absolutes? Can something be absolutely proven/disproven?
-There are no absolutes. We cannot really be sure of anything.
7. Without God, how do you know right from wrong?
-You do what feels right.
8. Is murder wrong? If so, is it wrong for everyone or just some people, why?
-Yes murder is wrong. And yes it is wrong for everyone. Why? Because no one has the right to kill.
9. If God is false, that implies a standard of truth, correct? What is truth?
-Truth is something that accords to reality.

These questions were very unnecessary. Maybe my opponent will respond to my answers.
lfmskl

Con

1. Why are the laws of the universe unchanging? Why is mathematics consistent?

My opponent said: The laws of the Universe are set in stone. It is by these laws that the Universe stays on course. Mathematics is man-made, the question has no point.

- This does not answer the question. For the big bang theory to be true, all of the universe's laws must have come into existence instantly. In fact, gravity must have existed before the big bang. If it didn't, how could "all the matter in the universe be compressed into a dot..."? Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change (Wikipedia). The actual force of mathematics is not man-made. On Monday can I take two apples and two oranges and wind up with four fruits, but on Tuesday take two apples and two oranges and have five fruits? No, mathematics is concrete and immaterial.

2. How could everything start from literally nothing?

My opponent said: This is something we do not yet know. How did God come into existence?

This is my point. If no one knows, why is the entire theory taught as a fact? Where did God come from? I could give you a long answer on how God is the first cause and therefore is self-existent, but when it comes down to it, I really don't know. But, this is the difference between you and I; I admit my belief is a religion.

3. If atheism is true, then our minds are reducible to physics. Since physics is fundamentally deterministic, we have no free will. Is this true?

My opponent said: This is another thing that we simply have no answer for. That doesn't mean its not correct, it just means we don't know.

Then why is this entire evolution theory taught as fact? This is a major problem.

4. If God doesn't exist because He's immaterial, does that mean love doesn't exist? What about thought? What is thought?

My opponent said: We evolved these traits of love and thought to encourage survival. We love others, and that makes us protect them. We think so we can solve problems.

You give a reason but no cause. Evolution is the changes over time in genetics. We know that things such as thought are not genetic; our supposed ancestors don't think like we do. They are designed to survive while we are designed to strive for truth. How can something immaterial be evolved when evolution is strictly materialistic?

5. If our IQ is a product of evolution and survival then why are humans the only ones with the higher intelligence? Why do people with higher IQ's not have longer life spans that others?

My opponent said: We evolved this way. You're questions really show how dumb you are. If this were the wild, higher IQ people would survive longer because they can think better.

You atheists always mock Christians for saying "God did it", yet you do the exact same thing. "We evolved this way". The burden of proof is on you. You claim that what you say is science, yet this is your best argument. Have you observed this?

6. Are there absolutes? Can something be absolutely proven/disproven?

My opponent said: There are no absolutes. We cannot really be sure of anything.

Are you absolutely sure there are absolutes? How do you know you can't know anything for sure?

7. Without God, how do you know right from wrong?

My opponent said: You do what feels right.

What if I want to kill you? Is what Hitler did alright? It felt right to him.

8. Is murder wrong? If so, is it wrong for everyone or just some people, why?

My opponent said: Yes murder is wrong. And yes it is wrong for everyone. Why? Because no one has the right to kill.

So there are no absolutes, and there are no real morals, yet it is absolutely immoral to kill?

9. If God is false, that implies a standard of truth, correct? What is truth?

My opponent said: Truth is something that accords to reality.

How did truth come to exist? It is immaterial after all. It isn't just some chemical.
Debate Round No. 4
godofAtheism

Pro

godofAtheism forfeited this round.
lfmskl

Con

Seeing that it is the final round, I will bring up no new arguments, however, I will give these links for those who would like to see more evidence from science for the Bible: http://genesispark.org...; http://www.allaboutcreation.org...; http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

I thank my opponent for this debate.

God Bless
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lfmskl 5 years ago
lfmskl
1) How can you say that the fact that the earth has each and every one of the requirements to sustain life, intelligent life at that, is not a "clear indication or sign" that the universe was designed? "There's no way you can draw a conclusion that our existence is not random since we don't know everything." How do you draw the conclusion that our existence is random? You go on to say that the earth's size is not evidence for either side. Are you saying that the earth's size is irrelevant? Because it seems that the fact that earth is so-far the only planet able to have life may be important.

2) While the article says the moon formed 4.5 billion years ago, we know that, because the moon recedes about 4 cm. per year (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...), the moon cannot be older than 1.2 billion years. I'm more inclined to believe astronomical observations and documentations that a model of the earth and moon.

The point of mine you proved was when you said: "But none of us know for sure, and until we figure it out, it's all speculation". My point is that both creationism and evolution (humanism) are both religions. Both are accepted by faith.
Posted by holden15 5 years ago
holden15
1) How can the earth's size be evidence of a creator?
Evidence: "something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: "

"Do you think that the perfect size of the earth and its distance from the sun is evidence that our existence is random?"
- We can all agree that the universe is gigantic (and getting larger every second). We've only seen with our own eyes a fraction that the universe has to offer. There's no way you can draw a conclusion that our existence is not random since we don't know everything. You can't even say it's evidence that we are random, because you could also say it's evidence that we are not random (since we've studied how planets, stars, and moons form).

2) The moon formed 4.5 billion years ago according to that article.
- What point are you trying to prove by saying this? I brought up the fact that the moon is getting further away from the Earth to contradict what you were stating about how the moon remains at a constant distance from earth (you probably mis-spoke when you said this)... This is a tangent discussion.
Posted by lfmskl 5 years ago
lfmskl
1) How can the earth's size not be evidence of a creator? It is perfect for sustaining life. Do you think that the perfect size of the earth and its distance from the sun is evidence that our existence is random?

2) "The simulation also implies that the moon formed near the very end of Earth's formation, some 4.5 billion years ago.
"The moon is believed to have played an important role in making the Earth habitable because of the stabilizing effect it had on the tilt of Earth's rotation." (Read the entire article here: http://articles.cnn.com...)

There it is, straight from CNN. These scientists claim the moon formed with the earth some 4.5 billion years ago, though we can clearly see that, because the moon is receding (which you pointed out), the earth-moon relationship cannot exceed 1.2 billion years.

You said: "But none of us know for sure, and until we figure it out, it's all speculation". The point you prove here is that both atheistic and creationist views on origins are faith-based. Neither can be 100% proven.
Posted by holden15 5 years ago
holden15
1) Your statement of "the earth's size is not complete "proof" for either side, only that it is evidence for a creator".
Earth's size isn't evidence of a creator. It's speculation of a creator in your mind perhaps, but definitely not evidence.

2) There's no problem with the theory that the moon was once "whizzing" around the earth. In-fact, it's widely supported. It doesn't propose a problem to those who claim the continents formed 4.54 billions of years ago. Perhaps the earth was formed 4.54 billion yeras ago, and perhaps even continents were. But we know that earth has gone through catastrophic cosmic events throughout its life so far. It's quite possible that one of those events disrupted the geographical structure of the planet... perhaps even one of those formed the moon.

If you think i've proven any of your points, please state which ones. Because the initial points I was debating against you were the claims you made that:

1) The earth is too perfect to be random
2) The moon remains a perfect distance from the earth

And I never proved either of those. In-fact, I brought up arguments that made it impossible for you to prove them, and discredited your #2 claim with science fact.
Posted by lfmskl 5 years ago
lfmskl
1) I'm simply stating that the earth's size is not complete "proof" for either side, only that it is evidence for a creator; you cannot "prove" either viewpoint completely because we con't observe the beginning of the universe. This is simply evidence.

2) The point is that the moon would be whizzing around the earth only 1.2 billion years ago. Scientists who claim the earth and it's continents formed 4.54 billion years ago have a problem: the tides would have eroded the continents a little over a billion years ago.

You have just proven my point; what I believe is a religion, I don;t deny that. I'm simply stating scientific evidence in its favor.
Posted by holden15 5 years ago
holden15
1) I think you're contradicting yourself. You agree that the earth's size isn't proof of a deity. But then you state it is evidence that the origin of the universe was not random. If it wasn't random, then it was planned or designed. if it was planned or designed, then it had to be by a conscience mind and not by science. This is supernatural, and deitistic. And there is no proof of either conclusion, so why is it fair to assume that one is right and the other isn't?

2) You're assuming that the moon "skidding" across the earth is unfathomable. There are many theories as to how the moon came to be where it is now. Most theories conclude that the moon was part of the earth at some point, and a cosmic collision broke it off of earth and it coalesced into what we know as the moon today.

The point I'm trying to make is, you're drawing conclusions that because there is no explanation for how the universe is the way it is, then it must be created by a deity. This is completely absurd to assume this is the only explanation. There are scientific theories that explain everything in this discussion. Are they right? Maybe. Are you right? Perhaps. But none of us know for sure, and until we figure it out, it's all speculation. But to deduce that there's no scientific answer so it must be God is not the way to solve problems.
Posted by lfmskl 5 years ago
lfmskl
If all the math is done, about 1.2 billion years ago the moon would be skidding across the earth.
Posted by lfmskl 5 years ago
lfmskl
@holden15:
While it is true that earth's size isn't necessarily proof of a deity, it is evidence that the origin of the universe was not random.

It is quite obvious that "moons" was a typo: it was unnecessary to bring up. It is true that the moon is distancing itself from earth. That would mean it used to be closer. You say to "multiply this out over time", and that "eventually the Moon will be catastrophically out of orbit with Earth". This is true, but it works two ways. If you reduce the moon's distance each year at the rate that it's receding, you will find that not too too long ago, the moon would be skidding across the earth. Not billions of years ago. (CSE http://www.drdino.com..., http://www.answersingenesis.org...).
Posted by holden15 5 years ago
holden15
I would like to state that Con's Round 1 arguments depicting the "perfectness" of Earth size, distance from the Sun, and distance from the Moon do not declare the Earth as being created by a deity.

Also, Con stated in Round 1 that, "The moons remains the perfect distance from earth."
This simply isn't true.
First of all, there's only one moon, not many moons.
Second, the moon is in actually moving further away from the earth as we speak. It's moving away at around 3.8 cm/year.

Multiply this out over time, and eventually the Moon will be catastrophically out of orbit with Earth, and well, I think we can all agree what this means for the future of the inhabitants of Earth.

Source: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
godofAtheism isn't going to win this debate if he continues to post cursory and briefly-written arguments like that....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
CD-Host
godofAtheismlfmsklTied
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: Wow what a lopsided debate. Pro failed to provide any arguments or evidence and was rude to boot.