The Instigator
judopop1
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Buckethead31594
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Christianity is an illegitimate religion

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,030 times Debate No: 16303
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (6)

 

judopop1

Pro

I am trying to debate whether being Buddhist or Christian. If an opponent can prove to me why Christianity is A) accurate in terms of the bible and B) provide offensive arguments why Christianity is the true religion, I will become a Christian.

I define Christianity as the Churches of the Catholic Church for two reasons, if I am to be Christian it would be Roman Catholic and also because I do not want to get in the controversial debate of the split of the Christian churches.

illegitimate = Something that is fake or not legitimate.

I would like my opponent to give an introduction, not state their arguments and in the second round the debate will get started. The 4th round will be voter issues (weighing and why you won etc.). May the best debater win.
Buckethead31594

Con

I gladly accept this debate, and I thank my opponent for deciding upon such an interesting and controversial topic.
I fully comply with Pro's terms.

I will be arguing that Christianity is, in fact, the one and only legitimate religion- through Biblical, philosophical and historical evidence. (If necessary) Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
judopop1

Pro

Voters Before I start I ask that you put aside your religious preferences and vote fairly.

Also, I would like it if the stories from the bible are not considered facts. I accept the words and quotes from it but for example you cannot site the source of Noah's Ark for your evidence.

Contention 1) Christianity is known to have many fallacies within its bible.

A) Adam and Eve- The Christian Church has supported that till the very beginning of its creation. They said god sent down the two as a punishment six thousand years ago. But science has proven otherwise. Darwin proved that man was created much before that and proved it is evolution how humans were formed from apes.

B) The pope really is a god like the bible says-
If he is truly god as described in the bible, he would be immortal. But if I am not wrong every pope except the current one has died.

C) Noah's Ark
The bible says there was a great flood that covered much of the land in the world. But if that is the case I would like scientific proof of this water and where it currently is.

D) The bible is the "word of god."
If this is true why do many people like Pope Peter have their own opinions in the bible itself

E) Jesus was born to a "virgin."
I do not see how this is even possible!

Contention 2) Christianity has had many corrupt times in its past.

At one point, indulgences were given out daily to collect money or the church. Now if what the bible says (that the only way to get into heaven is being a good human) how does this work? I do not see how the "true religion" could let this happen to it!

Additionally, the current priests of the church are pedophiles. Yes I said it. They were supposedly picked by gods but in countless news reports by CNN, they were raping young boys. Yes, they were Gay Raping Pedophiles. Isn't being gay forbidden by the Catholic bible? That just contradicts what they're dedicated to!

Contention 3) The bible cannot be the religion because it wasn't the first religion. Hinduism started thousands of years before Christianity, what about the people during that time period? If they did not have Christianity did they simply burn in hell? That time period remains unaddressed by the Church even today!
Buckethead31594

Con

Before I begin, I must first mention that I applaud my opponent for his open mind; he truly seems to be searching for the�truth, which is something that should be commended. Secondly, I must mention that I am a protestant, meaning that I believe Catholicism to be an inaccurate interpretation of Christianity. For the sake of the debate, I will be posting my rebuttals without bias towards any denomination. My points will derive directly from the Bible. Now without any further or do, let me begin by re-posting your arguments and my responses to them.

REBUTTALSContention 1) Christianity is known to have many fallacies within its bibleA) Adam and Eve- The Christian Church has supported that till the very beginning of its creation. They said god sent down the two as a punishment six thousand years ago. But science has proven otherwise. Darwin proved that man was created much before that and proved it is evolution how humans were formed from apes.- There are�many sects of Christianity that believe evolution played a major role in the creation of the earth. These people believe that the book of Genesis is figurative in its account of the origin of the universe. Many evolutionist Christians call this theory the "Gap Theory[1]," as an excuse to incorporate this into the Creation. However, this is entirely illogical, and is impossible. Namely because death did not come before sin- but evolution claims otherwise, which is contradictory. Also, science has yet to prove evolution undeniably true- It is still considered a theory[2], hence it�should not be considered a fact.




B) The pope really is a god like the bible says-
If he is truly god as described in the bible, he would be immortal. But if I am not wrong every pope except the current one has died.- There is absolutely no place in the Bible that mentions�the�Pope, or any of the Popes, are God.�Secondly, this would create an immediate contradiction considering the first Pope, St. Peter, was actually a disciple of Jesus[3]. Why then, would "God" worship, let alone, follow in the footsteps of himself (Jesus)? The logical conclusion is that Peter was not God.




C) Noah's Ark
The bible says there was a great flood that covered much of the land in the world. But if that is the case I would like scientific proof of this water and where it currently is.

- As of now, there is definitive evidence supporting the existence of Noah's Ark. A boat-shaped land formation was discovered on a mountain in Turkey; at first it was disregarded as a mere land-formation, however, there was one issue: Fossilized man-made metals and beams were uncovered upon the discovery[4].�The expedition began in 1960, and was directed by an archeologist by the name of Ron Wyatt[4]. The supposed Ark not only�perfectly fits the Biblical�length of Noah's, but contains many other shocking similarities. For example: upon further lab analysis, evidences of petrified wood have been uncovered, as well as man-made aluminum and titanium metals[4]. Not to mention the discovery�of vertical rib timbers which comprise�the similar skeletal structure of a boat[4]. These are just a few interesting points, nonetheless, I advise my opponent to further�research source 4 it is quite fascinating.

- Concerning the remnants of the Great�Flood water, it would only be fair to remind my opponent�of the fact that 70 percent of the planet is covered in ocean, and the average depth of the ocean is several thousand feet[5, 6]. This goes without mentioning the atmosphere, containing clouds and water vapor, plus all the other forms of water that dwell in and on�landmasses. It can be noted then, when God flooded the earth, the force of which was enough to shift and shape Earth's typography. This is why the earth's oceans are so deep, as a matter of fact, if the earth was not leveled out by the flood, the water on the planet would cover the earth's surface to a depth of 1.7 miles[6]. It is quite clear then, that the Great Flood's water currently resides in ocean basins.




D) The bible is the "word of god."
If this is true why do many people like Pope Peter have their own opinions in the bible itself

- I would like to request my opponent to elaborate on this topic, as I am not sure if he is regarding the Bible's authenticity or the personal actions of Pope Peter himself.




E) Jesus was born to a "virgin."
I do not see how this is even possible!

- Considering this is a debate of truth, I will be honest in stating that there is no definite way to scientifically prove the virgin birth,�as it is an act of Divine Intervention.However, there is staggering Biblical evidence. Isaiah, an old-testament prophet, predicted�the virgin birth of Jesus 700 years before Jesus' birth[7]. Observe Isaiah 7:13-14

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

- Jesus has fulfilled over 400 Biblical prophecies in one lifetime. The chance that one man could fulfill at least 48 prophecies in one lifetime, is 1 in 10157[8]. This ratio could be summed up in an analogy:

"If we take 1 X 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas, they'll cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one?[8]"

- Obviously, the chances are slim to none�for an average human, but if the Bible is true- this facet only proves Jesus' authenticity even more.



CONCLUSION

I have thoroughly researched all of my opponent's arguments, and have attempted to rebut all of them, however,�being limited to character restrictions;�I will post my rebuttals to contentions 2, and 3 in round three. I am willing to provide more evidence, if necessary, in the next round. Again, I thank my opponent for his lack of ignorance- I look forward to the rest of this debate. Onto Pro.





[1] http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org...
[2] http://mall.turnpike.net...
[3] http://www.newadvent.org...
[4] http://www.arkdiscovery.com...
[5] http://science.howstuffworks.com...
[6] http://www.christiananswers.net...
[7] http://www.teachinghearts.org...
[8] http://www.raptureready.com...
Debate Round No. 2
judopop1

Pro

Refutations as always

1) A) Adam and Eve

My opponent says evolution has not been proven, it is a theory but I would like to point out that the multiple specimens they compared like homosapiens were in fact proven by the CPO science group, this source of his is from 1993 and that one man does not have the education that a whole council of scientists have.

C) Noah's Ark, now this Boat Shaped structure is just a THEORY. This theory could just be a ship that was washed up there at a time before. And his source is completely bias. It is a site that promotes Christianity, how can that be fair in a debate asking if it is legitmate?!!?

D) There have been multiple quotations by different people like Matthew in it, if this is Gods words to the People, why are there words written by other men in the bible. That is my point.

E) These many prophecies that occurred once again I question the reliability of his source, a Christ promoting website. How do you know these prophecies were not completed by Jesus, it is impossible to say! And these prophecies could be made by propagandizers of Christianity when the Church became corrupt!

As for a baby being born to a virgin... No prophecy can explain that. There are scientific facts against that, you cannot deny this fallacy.

I would like to bring up another sub point.

F) The Christian Church in the Middle Ages claimed that it was Gods word that the world was Geocentric however the Earth isn't the middle of our solar system! The sun is! Clearly that is a LIE by the Church! How can this be a true religion!

Voters I have clearly refuted my opponents refutations and I await is other refutations I ask him that he keep his paragraphs short so he may refute more and he could.

Thanks you
Buckethead31594

Con

I will comply to my opponent's wishes and keep my paragraphs short.



A) Adam and Eve

There are
two flaws in my opponent's refutal

"One man does not have the education that a whole council of scientists have."

- This statement is subject to opinion; assumptions will not be considered evidence.
- Secondly, Pro has not provided any sources, therefore we can consider this argument invalid.


B) I believe we have resolved this issue. Moving on.


C) Noah’s Ark

Again, two flaws.

"This theory could just be a ship that was washed up there at a time before."

- If Pro is willing to believe this, one might ask what makes Noah's Ark so far-fetched. Not to mention this "boat-like structure" was discovered on a mountain top in Turkey. It would be perfectly logical to assume, based off of evidence, that this "boat" only arrived upon this mountain top due to a rise of water. But how could water cover a mountain? Simple, it was the waters of the Great Flood.

- Pro cannot criticize my sources, as he has not provided any of his own. Secondly, I might mention that there is
no such thing as a non-bias source; everyone is bias towards something, such is the nature of this debate.


D) The Bible- written by men?

- My opponent has brought up an excellent point. The entire Bible was written by approximately 40 men of diverse backgrounds over the course of 1500 years[1]

- The Bible is believed to be the inspired, inherent Word of God; Christians believe this to be a flawless record of God's many revelations with humanity. In this debate, my opponent and I believe in the existence of a
powerful, omnipotent God. How then would it be illogical to conclude that God is powerful enough to reveal his Truth to the people through the people?


E) Prophecies

Again, my opponent criticizes my source, it would be understandable if he provided "
non-biased" sources of his own.

"How do you know these prophecies were not completed by Jesus..."

- We can
logically assume Jesus fulfilled every prophecy about him. If Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies of the old testament, Christianity would simply not exist today. Mainly, because his disciples witnessed every one of his miracles. If his disciples did not witness his miracles, they probably wouldn't have died for their beliefs.

"And these prophecies could be made by propagandizers of Christianity when the Church became corrupt!"

- Possible, but not probable. A further criticism concerns whether the copies we possess are credible. Since we do not possess the originals, people ask, how can we be sure they are identical to them? The initial answer is that we will never be completely certain, for there is no means at our disposal to reproduce the originals. This has always been a problem with all known ancient documents. Yet this same question is rarely asked of other historical manuscripts which we refer to constantly[2]. I would advise my opponent to further investigate source 2, as it would forfeit his previous quote.


F) The virgin birth

"As for a baby being born to a virgin... No prophecy can explain that. There are scientific facts against that, you cannot deny this fallacy."

- Under no circumstances can
God's actions be justified through science. If my opponent believes in God, it wouldn't be so far-fetched as to believe him powerful enough to bend the very laws that he created. Secondly, one must assume there was a significant importance of the messiah being born of a virgin.

I have refuted all of my opponent's refutations for this round. In round two, I stated that I would cover my opponent's contentions, 1 and 2 in this round. However, I find it unnecessary as of now, considering this debate is slowly coming to a close. Nonetheless, if Pro would rather me present the topics in the final round, so be it. Onto Pro.





[1] http://www.gotquestions.org...

[2] http://debate.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
judopop1

Pro

A) YES I HAVE PROVIDED EVIDENCE.. The CPO Science Council and text book... www.cpo.com/ I do not have a link to that exact page in the book...
CPO is a group of America's best scientist on a council.. I should know my mother is learning from them...

B) Yes I dropped this argument.

C) Noah's Ark.. I would like to point out http://articles.cnn.com...

There are floods in turkey.. That does not mean the ship washed up there is from the story of Noah's Ark.. and my opponent accused my "Theory" of evolution saying it cannot be trusted.. But once again HE USED A THEORY FOR the proof of Noah's Ark..

D) I suppose that is your view point however I have met many Christians who said God wrote the first bible himself.

E) Let me explain to you my reasoning readers. My opponent used a CHRISTIAN encyclopedia. Now I looked further into it, their only source is the BIBLE. Therefore using that source is unfair and cannot be included in this debate therefore the "prophecies" he fulfilled are NOT true can be thought to be 100% true. And I would like to point out, many religions in the past have groups of disciples proclaiming things for money.. They cannot be a valid source..

And another point within this argument is the birth of Jesus being o a Virgin.. My opponent once again as a last resort says god has the power to do all. This debate is based on evidence and science.. Not a proclamation therefore this pathetic plea to the voters cannot be accepted...

F) UNREFUTED BY MY OPPONENT

Voters, I ask you forget my other contentions because my opponent did not have space to write them so please just vote on the parts we have debated to make it fair for both of us.

Voters, I have clearly refuted all of my opponents refutations and he has still left one of my points unaccounted for. That is why the Pro should win. Might I remind you religious beliefs be put aside from this debate.
Buckethead31594

Con

I will begin by saying that this debate has almost certainly gone nowhere, due to the fact that my opponent is playing the devil's advocate. He claims to believe in God, however, he constantly persists in demanding "scientific evidence" to the existance of God- There is absolutely nothing wrong with scientific evidence, Nonetheless, God cannot be "proven" in scientific terms today. In other words, my opponent has a divided foundation, claiming the existance of God and then later doubting his existance. However, I shall proceed to the refutations, and conclusion:

A) I appreciate that you have finally presented a source, and I can believe you in that you have read about this before on this website. However, not everything in textbooks can be 100% trusted. For example- A scientist by the name of Ernst Haeckel was credited for creating sketches of embryo development, and how similar it is between different species. However, these sketches were later proven to be hoaxes. A perfect example of how sometimes, even textbooks aren't always as accurate as we may think[1].

C) Once again, I appreciate the source. I suppose it is possible that this "ark" could be a mere boat that washed up on this mountain due to flooding long ago. With that said, we cannot conclude this factual withought further archaeological research. However, that also means that we cannot conclude this unfactual due to lack of research.

E) Yes, but they didn't just use the Bible, they also used the historic manuscripts that make it up. My opponent continues to build strawman then proceeds to immediantly tear them down- his assumptions are nothing but mere conjectures, because he has yet to realize the validity of said historic manuscripts.

F) I will state it plain and simple, the church has had corrupt times in it's past, and some churches still do. Is this the fault of Christianity? No. It is the fault of the people. People make mistakes, when the real truth lies in the wisdom of Jesus Christ. This can also be said for my opponent's previous contention to the pedophiles in the curch. therefore, anything acredited to lack of wisdom in the past due to the church is the fault of the poeple, and not the word of God. There is nowhere in the Bible that states the earth is the center of the universe.

...seven minutes left. I will conclude in saying, I have enjoyed this debate because I have learned more about the Truth, and more about my opponent. I hope the points that I have risen will bring new light into Pro's worldview and I wish him luck on the search for truth- even when he has already found it. Furthermore, Jesus Christ loves everybody, so much that he would die on a cross- tortured and spat on, so that we may live in a relationship with God. I would challenge my opponent to name another religion where God was to act so selflessly as that? If one was to acquire additional resources, I would suggest two books- as they would enlighten anybody: The Shack, a great story that explains the great love God has for us. and Case for Christ & Case for Faith- Two books where a skeptical journalist searches for evidence to the extent that christianity is an illigetiment religion... And discovers how it is not.









[1] http://www.discovery.org...
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Buckethead31594 6 years ago
Buckethead31594
Oh! Stay safe maninorange!
Posted by maninorange 6 years ago
maninorange
Judo:
Apologies for not responding sooner. I actually live in Joplin Missouri, and the entire city kinda got derfed up by a series of tornoadoes (We made national news it was so bad.), so I haven't exactly had an internet connection until now. Do you will want to debate the existence of God?
Posted by Buckethead31594 6 years ago
Buckethead31594
No problem. And if push comes to shove, I wouldn't mind mailing you a free Bible.
Posted by judopop1 6 years ago
judopop1
thanks...
Posted by Buckethead31594 6 years ago
Buckethead31594
Go to www.youversion.com, its an online Bible study webapp. Its free and easily accessible even with iphone and android :-)
Posted by judopop1 6 years ago
judopop1
LOL you think thats legit? Im 14 XD
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
According to your profile your 33. I don't think your parents should have much say in the matter. ;)
Posted by judopop1 6 years ago
judopop1
Can someone suggest a place I start my study of the Bible. My parents refuse to let me go to church or get a real copy of the bible. Websites of any sort would be helpful...
Posted by medic0506 6 years ago
medic0506
--"I realize now there is a truth... Somewhere... I am determined to find out what it is... However this debate has opened my eyes"--

I think you're cheating yourself if you only look at one denomination (Roman Catholic). Take your time and research as much as you can. Also, you don't have to align yourself with one particular denomination. I can't find anything, in the Bible, that endorses any particular one. Good luck to you.
Posted by Mr.Black 6 years ago
Mr.Black
another fact is that people around the world wrote down what they've seen then put it together with other peoples writings and turned out to fit perfectly with the other's writings. Isn't that weird haha and they have never met each other.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by medic0506 6 years ago
medic0506
judopop1Buckethead31594Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins hands down. He seems to be trying, and hopefully, that will continue, but pro does not yet seem to have a good grasp on the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, or what the Bible actually states, on some of his issues. Also, as pro, he needs to provide some poof, other than just stating what he thiks the Bible says. He asked for scientifdic proof from con, but provided none of his own to help meet the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Mr.Black 6 years ago
Mr.Black
judopop1Buckethead31594Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Well you were using God as a person, not god like with powers. All evolutions animals have been dropped because of inaccuracey. Therefore= theory. They don't even know when it started. Also con and pro didn't mention that the 'boat' found matched the EXACT dimensions. Pro said things that were never in the bible.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
judopop1Buckethead31594Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses source points for recommending a FICTION book to describe God (not only is the Shack fiction... it's garbage and heretical). The arguments clearly went to Con. Pro made all sorts of unfounded assumptions, and as Pro and instigator, he has burden of proof... which he did not fulfill.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
judopop1Buckethead31594Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: This is an interesting exchange as Pro shifted the burden of proof in the OP, but it was part of the debate rules. The effort and presentation was clearly and obviously set to Con, though Pro did oppose the arguments the arguments were at times very thin. 3:1 for Con.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
judopop1Buckethead31594Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had wonderfully constructed arguments as well as fascinating sources to back them up. The arguments and sources regarding Noah's ark were very interesting. Pro dropped point B as well as did not counter Con's arguments adequately and did not post any sources whatsoever.
Vote Placed by maninorange 6 years ago
maninorange
judopop1Buckethead31594Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. I can't believe I'm actually giving 5 points to an evolution skeptic. Suffice it to say that you are the most rational I have ever seen of your kind. Congratulations.