Christianity is probably the one true religion.
Debate Rounds (5)
I accept your challenge, and I disagree with you, Christianity is not just "another religion just like every other religion".
Our beliefs are based on a claim that could be investigated historically, which most other religions can't.
But anyways, good luck to you.
if god wanted us to believe in him he would give his true religion to everybody and give us something different than the rest of religions. if other people dont have to believe to go to heaven then why do we have to? and if other people dont have to believe to go to heaven then god either punishes them all by different standards than he punishes us for or not at all either are extremely unfair to us (but that is to be expected by a god that punishes children for the sins of their parents which they have no control over). And peoples belief that Christianity is true is almost always based on the belief that american morality and culture which are made subjectively are objective making christianity the morality of the heart which is really just the conscience which consists of vague reminiscences of precepts heard in early youth which in our case was christian precepts making us no different than other countries. and wtih so much of christian morality being contradicted by Christians today without christians even seeming to systematically choose which precepts to abide by (like women ought to serve there men while their men serve god) and which ones to ignore (like thou shalt not judge) its hard for a logical person to believe. Buddhism is founded mostly in reason while most other major world religions are much more faith based and has much fewer dogmas and many people around the world come to certain understandings (without ever knowing anything about Buddha) that Buddha came to years ago at a time when everyone else including Christians were more cruel by far than almost all criminals are today which wasn't that long ago. and Christians today are still more cruel to a lot of different types of animals like fish (which they skin or descale and fillet while they are still alive) or birds (that could fly around the world if they werent in our tiny cages in solitude) and justify it by one sentence from a book thats known to be wrong so often about moral issues and historical facts. (Christianity)
This is my opening statement, so i'll just dive right in...
The argument I will using is the Resurrection of Jesus.
I will be using the argument formulated by Resurrection expert, Gary Habermas, which is known as the minimal facts argument.
And the argument works like this...
If the Bible is inspired, Jesus is raised from the dead.
If the Bible is not inspired, but it's just reliable, Jesus is raised from the dead.
If the Bible is not inspired, nor reliable, then you can still get the Resurrection, and Jesus is raised from the dead.
So regardless of your view of the New Testament, Jesus is raised from the dead, which places skeptics in a dilemma.
How this argument works is, we take skeptical data, because the majority of times skeptics, like Con will just go "ah, I don't believe anything". But if we take someone as skeptical as they are, but they are well trained in Biblical studies, I will take what the skeptical scholar accepts, concerning what happened to Jesus after his resurrection and his followers, I can prove the resurrection from the data that the skeptics accept.
So there are 4 facts that the vast majority (we're talking 95-100%) of skeptical NT scholars accept (now just to be clear, I am not saying we should believe these facts just because the majority of scholars do, I am saying the evidence for these things is so great, which in turn is why the majority of scholars accept them as historical), but I will mention only 3 to save space:
1) Jesus' death by crucifixion.
Evidence for it: All 4 Gospels of the NT report the crucifixion for us, as well as virtually every book in the NT. Not only the NT reports it, but a couple of Non-Christian sources report it:
Josephus (A.D 37-100), a Jewish historian writes - "When he was indicted by the principal men among us and Pilate condemned him to be crucified" (Antiquities 18:63).
Tacitus (A.D 56-117), Roman historian writes - Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius" (Annals 15.44)
Even the Talmud states: "Yeshu was hanged on Passover Eve...he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy." (Tractate Sanhedrin 43a).
So the Crucifixion is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, which is why Gerd L"demann writes, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." (Gerd L"demann, The Resurrection of Christ, p.50)
2) The earliest followers of Jesus had experiences, which they believed were appearances of the Risen Jesus
This fact is agreed upon by the vast majority (98-99%) of NT scholars, most of whom are skeptical.
The Apostle Paul, a man who knew the original apostles, testifies that the disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them, he does so in 1 Corinthians 15, when he writes "I gave you, what I was given" after which he goes on to list resurrection appearances to the disciples. Now Paul is not making this up, he is making it very clear that he received it from an earlier source. There is a virtual consensus among scholars that Paul is passing on tradition, which dates back to 35 A.D at the latest (5 years after the cross). And this creed (1 Corinthians 15:3-7) can easily be traced back to the apostles themselves.
Not only Paul, but we have the testimony of Early Church Fathers about the beliefs on part of the disciples:
Clement of Rome (30 A.D-100) - this man was a disciple of Peter, but he also learned from Paul, and many of the other eyewitnesses of the events of the life of Jesus, so he knew what the apostles were preaching, he writes in his letter to the Corinthians:
"Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand." (Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 42)
Polycarp (69 A.D-156) - this man like Clement interacted with many of Jesus' disciples, and was even appointed Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostle John himself, he writes in his epistle to the Philippians:
"Paul himself and the rest of the Apostles...they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered.they loved not the present world, but Him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us." (Epistle to the Philippians, ch. 9)
Ignatius of Antioch (35 A.D-117) - this man was like the other 2, a personal student of the apostles, he studied mainly under the Apostle John, but it is possible that he was even ordained by Peter as Bishop of Antioch, he writes in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans:
He [Jesus] came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. "And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 3)
I could give more evidence to prove that the disciples sincerely believed Jesus appeared to them, but I think this is sufficient enough, the evidence is conclusive and strong, which leads Gerd L"demann, an Atheist NT skeptic to write:
"It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus's death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." (Gerd L"demann, What Really Happened?, p. 80)
3) Jesus' tomb was found empty 3 days after his burial
This fact, although not widely accepted among the vast majority of scholars, is still accepted by 75% of scholars (most of whom are skeptical) as historical. And there are good reasons to believe it:
The empty tomb story is found in the earliest Christian traditions (the Pre-Markan passion narrative used by Mark and the allusion to the empty tomb in the early creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7).
The empty tomb story lacks signs of any legendary development (the Gospels don't record how Jesus rose, they just say that his tomb was found empty)
The 1st witnesses to the empty tomb were women, which strongly suggests the authenticity of the account, and here is why - in 1st century Palestine, a women's testimony was considered to be useless, so it would've been self defeating to "invent the empty tomb story", yet have women as your first witnesses, any "invention" would've most certainly have had men as the 1st witnesses.
Rather than the critics pointing to the occupied tomb, the earliest arguments against it was that the body was stolen (Matthew 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculius 30).
There would have been absolutely no need to try to argue that the body was stolen if the tomb was occupied, the fact that the enemies of the Christians try to explain it away shows that the tomb was actually empty.
Due to all this evidence in favor of the empty tomb, Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist in the resurrection, states that "by far, most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb." (Die Osterevangelien: Geschichten um Geschichte, p. 49-50)
The claims of the disciples that Jesus appeared to them itself doesn't prove that Jesus rose, if the disciples were hallucinating, then we would expect to find that the tomb was occupied, but in fact, all of our early evidence supports the conclusion of the empty tomb.
The beliefs of the disciples combined with the empty tomb, provide a very strong case for the Resurrection.
The best explanation for all these facts is that Jesus really rose from the dead, it explains why the disciples reported appearances, and why the tomb was empty very well.
If Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true, I rest my case, Christianity is true, because Jesus left the tomb empty.
lol you havent left me in a bind at all.
if the bible is not inspired and not reliable then jesus didnt raise from the dead. you said and i quote:
"If the Bible is not inspired, nor reliable, then you CAN still get the Resurrection, and Jesus IS raised from the dead."
this last part is completely untrue and without premise in your argument. can be a resurrection doesnt imply is a resurrection. the bible could be false like every other religion. jesus could be a guy whos life was exaggerated like the other 99.9 percent of other religions that have to be made up because they all contradict each other. in science scientists suspend judgement until they have sufficient evidence. And only when one thing is by far more plausible and probable then all other possibilities they sometimes believe in that possibility. but often there are possibilities that are unknown that would be even more likely. but there are thousands that contradict yours without any more evidence backing it up. little to none. no first hand accounts even. and after all nothing was written about jesus until 40-70 years after he died by so few historians and i could use the same argument for Buddha.
if Buddhas work is inspired then Christians will continue to suffer in multiple more lives
if Buddhas work isnt inspired but reliable you will suffer more lives as animals
if it is not reliable and not inspired then you can still suffer multiple lives being multiple animals so you are going to suffer the lives of animals. ha! same thing and doesnt make christianity any more likely. you have a flawed premise
your premise and conclusion was ""If the Bible is not inspired, nor reliable, then you CAN still get the Resurrection, and Jesus IS raised from the dead."
how is jesus positively,absolutely, no doubt, sure enough raised from the death just because he could be? and if the bible is unreliable what are the cances that the most ridiculous claim in it is "reliable". unreliable must mean false unless your leaving out something in your argument. if the resurrection of jesus is false which is a huge possibility then he didnt raise from the dead. that was the dumbest argument i have ever seen in my life. you said if the bible is not inspired and not reliable it COULD be true. but it can be false as you said and youd think god would have the power to teach everybody right from wrong instead of far less than .1 percent of humans today by far considering all who have lived. false because thats what you must be talking about when you say it isnt reliable. if its false which is the only unreliable way it could be then the Resurrection didnt happen. are you a kid? i am running out of time and your completely irrational cant refute anything i said and im out of time and sure nothing you said beyond that was important. if so ill respond to it in the next round.
It is obvious to me that Con didn't even bother reading most of what I have presented, because I pretty much addressed everything if not all he said in his "rebuttal".
Con said that "There were very few historians that HEARD about Jesus. none of them ever heard of him. no one wrote anything about Jesus until 40 years after he passed which is one reason why most schools don't teach kids anything about Jesus."
My response: Maybe you should actually read my opening statement, because I gave you well known historians living at the time who mention Jesus.
The Jewish historian Josephus mentions him in the passing.
The Roman historian, Tacitus mentions Jesus.
Lucian, a Greek Satirist early 2nd century in a letter mentions the Christians, who, and I quote "worship a man to this day...who...was crucified"
Thallus, a 1st century Roman historian mentions the darkness that takes place after the crucifixion of Jesus.
The Gospel of Truth, a 2nd century gnostic Gospel mentions the crucifixon of Jesus.
The Apostle Paul, a man who was aquainted with the original disciples of Jesus (Peter, James, and John) mentions Jesus times without number in his letters.
Are you saying that a non-existent man had disciples?
I could go on and on, but just for the record, within 150 years of Jesus' life we have 40 independent sources that mention the existence of Jesus.
Con said "you cant pass a paragraph around the room by whispering person to person without the story being changed and exaggerated by the time it gets back to you."
My response: You have no evidence that this is what happened. The Jews at the 1st century was an oral culture. And not only that, they were very good at it. They weren't the type of people who would pass a message on to someone while changing the story little by little until we lose the full scope of what was originally intended.
Michael Licona, a conservative NT scholar says that a much better analogy to how the Gospel story passed would not be "the telephone game" but rather "the passing on of the martial arts form"
For example, I learn Taekwondo from the creator of Taekwondo, then I pass it on to my students, and they pass it on to their students and so on. I may try to alter what I was given, but the one who created it would be alive to correct me if I tried to alter what he gave me, and for every subsequent generation, so that every generation would be confident that they have what was originally invented. Now obviously some legends develop over time, no question about that, but these Gospels are 1st century material, during which the eyewitnesses were still alive.
Con said " deceptive leaders with an agenda of their own"
My response: So you are saying that the disciples just had an agenda of their own? You are aware that virtually every NT critic agrees that the disciples suffered for their beliefs in the Resurrection of Jesus, right? If you are going to say that they "just had an agenda" show me the evidence, I showed you my evidence that the disciples suffered for their beliefs, now show me yours.
Con said "And peoples belief that Christianity is true is almost always based on the belief that american morality and culture"
My response: I believe in Christianity because Jesus left the tomb empty, if I am going to listen to anyone tell me about God, it's probably good to listen to the man whom God has put his stamp of approval on, God isn't going to raise a fraud from the dead, that would be deception on his part.
Con said "which consists of vague reminiscences of precepts heard in early youth which in our case was christian precepts making us no different than other countries"
My response: Really? You are aware that I am an ex-Muslim right? I don't believe what my parents taught me was true, I believe something that I studied on my own and came to my own conclusions, does this sound like brainwashing to you, or rational investigation?
Con said "no first hand accounts even."
My response: This statement assumes that the Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses, which requires you to take a skeptical approach to all the early evidence of authorship of the Gospels. Scholarship in and of itself proves nothing, what is your evidence?
We have early testimony from Church Fathers telling us who wrote the Gospels, based on their early testimony (40-50 years for Mark and Matthew) of who wrote them.
There was never anyone in the history of the early church who denied that the Apostle Matthew wrote Matthew. Noe one in the history of the early church denied that John wrote John. It is only now that modern scholarship likes to cast doubt on everything, including the authorship of the Gospels. Would you accept this skepticism for your world view?
Con said " and after all nothing was written about jesus until 40-70 years after he died by so few historians and i could use the same argument for Buddha"
My response: Which again is begging the question, assuming what you have yet to prove. The only reason that the earliest Gospel is dated to 70 AD is because the world view of atheists require that, Jesus predicted an event in the Gospels that happened 70 AD, so if it was written earlier, than that would mean Jesus pedicted the future, which wreak havoc on an Atheist's postion. But the Gospels aside, you are wrong. The earliest NT book wrriten is 1 Thessalonians, written in either 49 or 50 AD (19-20 years after the death of Jesus), and these dates are not disputed, even amongst skeptical scholars.
Con said "and if the bible is unreliable what are the cances that the most ridiculous claim in it is "reliable""
My response: Look, the skeptical scholars have no problem with you citing the NT, yes they don't accept the majority of it, but if you don't quote the NT, they will, and what they do accept from the NT, we as Christians can build a solid foundation for the Resurrection. So I did NOT mean to say "assume the entire NT is unreliable", I meant to say that what a skeptical NT specialist accepts from the NT is considered "reliable", what they don't accept is "unreliable", remember, I only said assumption, not a given.
Con said "you said if the bible is not inspired and not reliable it COULD be true."
My response: I already answered this. See the response I gave to your previous objection.
Con said "if its false which is the only unreliable way it could be then the Resurrection didnt happen. are you a kid?"
My resonse: Yeah, maybe if you actually READ what I say, I never said "If the Bible is false, Jesus is still raised from the dead". At what point did I ever say that? See now you are attacking straw man because that's all you can do, you can't address the points I have raised. By the way, calling me a kid doesn't prove your atheism, maybe you're a kid, because you think that insults=case proven, kid. :)
Con said "i am running out of time and your completely irrational cant refute anything i said and im out of time and sure nothing you said beyond that was important. if so ill respond to it in the next round."
My response: Let me see...I didn't get a rebuttal until now, but yet, you are complaining that I didn't address anything you said. What did you even say? All you did was ramble on about a bunch of different topics like Buddhism or American culture, which don't prove your atheism.
You didn't address the evidence I gave that Jesus was crucified, no refutation at all. You didn't address the evidence I gave that the disciples of Jesus had experiences in which they believed was Jesus appearing to them, no refutation at all. You didn't address the evidence that I gave that Jesus' tomb was empty, no refutation at all. And here you are telling me that "you didn't address what I said", oh the irony.
It's time for you to start the debate. Give me solid evidence that I should trust your world view, simply getting emotional and saying "well all religions are the same anyways" does not prove your atheism. I am still waiting to hear better thought-out arguments, because so far, I have gotten nothing from you.
rebuttals for your rebuttals and answering questions:
the historians say jesus existed but have no first hand accounts of his miracles or anything that proves he is the son of god making it just as faith based as other religions not to mention anyone with certain knowledges would seem like a miracle worker back then. not to mention historical claims are made by every religion and you have failed to explain what makes christianity different. its not the only one that can be explored historically like you claim. not to mention the claims that make up the religion are not supported by any historians. only the life and teachings of jesus are supported by jesus and certainly not that he is the son of god which is what makes his teachings a religion. not to mention its full of lies like people know right from wrong or money is the root of all evil. without money there will still be rape hate crimes and many other evils so that is hogwash. it would be more profound to say desire is the root of all evil and more accurate by far as money is far too specific. surely im not smarter than a perfect god. i think many more people than 40 are independent sources that mention the existence of jesus but that doesnt prove his claims true which are what his religion is made of. same goes for jesus. history SAYS he existed but other countries say their saviors existed. this proves nothing. did historians witness the miracles? if they did could this not easily belies. to say that men lied about god a million times with well over 99.9 percent of what men said about god being untrue because of the contradictions it is insane to say that just recently men stopped lying about god and told the truth and that the truth which came after the lies are congruent and consistent with the lies men told before. what reason do we have to believe that?
"the passing down of Christianity is like the passing down of martial arts form. just because it was passed down unchanged which i dont buy you think it is more likely to be true. if the jews passed down the christian religion who knows what they said differently as they hated jesus and still do not believe in him. and if its passed down like martial arts forms then so are other religions because they were all passed down by people none of which are more credible than the others as they are all known to lie and manipulate. your religions is one of thousands or millions of contradictory major world claims and like most of the others yours has two punishments etneral life and eternal death which is more and less then most people deserve and not enough to cover all that is deserved are there is a gradation of how flawed we are that determines what we deserve and only one reward and one punishment for everybody is extremely unfair in is just as stupid as all the other religions. the contradictions prove its not perfect also. the bible says elhanan killed Goliath and david killed Goliath. the bible says the human race got started with two people which is not true and says it happened twice with every human and animal coming from one male and one female of our species which would make us all inbred and we would be extinct by nowalso have been proven to not have existed on the seventh day of earths existence. science is much more credible than history as its provable facts verse word of mouth. and science says they are lies proving that is the case. so is your claim that part of the religion is true because if thats the case its not a true religion its a partially true religion. the gospels werent written until forty years after jesus supposedly died making it unlikely that they were written by first hand account but even if they were who says they are telling the truth? also all the writers of the gospels used in the bible were anonymous and we dont know who they are so you lied.
you say that jesus predicting the gospel 70 years later? he is not the only one to predict things and wont be the last. you have failed to give a good reason to believe in the christian religion that cant be used as a reason to
Well we are already at round 4, and Con has simply just repeated what he said earlier. It's funny how he wants me to be "objective" yet, he isn't objective about the evidence I gave, because he didn't even bother refuting the poins I brought up.
Con said "all religions are considered to be history and a lot have historians that support their claims being almost every religious person in their country."
My response: This is false at its root. Most of the so called "religions" of this world, the creator/founder of the religion never said that their story is historical, sometimes, even the religion doesn't claim to be based off of a person who actually lived in history.
Con said "christianity is the word of men just like every other religion. and the conscience does consists of vague reminiscences of precepts heard in early youth and that has been proven shouldnt a religion be based on something more objective?"
My response: Which yet again, begs the question. This statement assumes that all religions are man-made, it also assumes that no God exists, then with that assumption in mind, you go back and read every religious text with that viewpoint in mind. And secondly, I already addressed the second objection of supposed indoctrination. Maybe if you bothered reading what I say instead of just being so stubborn, I already told you, I don't believe what my parents taught me was true, I am not a Christian because of someting my parents taught me, I am a Christian for something that I taught myself, big difference.
Con said " is your religion based on anything objective morally?"
My response: This again demonstrates that my opponent does not want to hear what I have to say, he just ignores what I say and insists on continuing to ask the same questions over and over again like a parrot in spite of me already addressing his questions. I already told you, I don't believe in Christianity because of blind faith, I believe in Christianity because of the evidence for the Resurrection, which you have not yet refuted, you just attacked the Bible and arrogantly thought you refuted my position, which yu didn't. Classical case of being delusional.
Con said "well how fair is it that in the story of noah, or adam and eve or so many other stories where god punishes children for the sins of their parents or ancestors?"
My response: Con has misrepresented the Christian position. We do not believe, nor do the scriptures teach that we get punished for sins that we didn't commit. This is the basics of Christian doctrine, yet my opponent has demonstrated that he does not know what he is talking about. The Christian position on original sin started with Adam and Eve. God made a covenant with Adam and Eve. So they had a choice to obey or disobey God. Then Satan deceived them into disobeying God, which resulted in the fall of man. Because of Adam's sin against God sin entered into the world and everyone born from two parents would suffer the effects of sin. But the ultimate thing to remember is we aren't forced by God to sin, we chose to sin. When I sin for example, I do it not because God forced me to, but because I chose to. That is why God punishes us, and that is exactly why we need a Savior to save us from the wrath of God.
Con said "but the bible claims god is perfect while he has treated us so unfairly by not teaching us right from wrong and causing our unfair behavior and letting other people be subjected to unfair cruel and detrimental rules and treatments because of the other religions of mans law which he apparently supports because these are laws of an extremely unfair and cruel god who is anything but just"
My response: God never choses to punish someone unless they deserve it. God does not just sit around thinking "ah yes, I am going to punish innocent people", that is not how it works. God's justice in the Bible shows how patient he is to people who sin. For example, God in his decision to completely wipe out the Cannanites in the Old Testament was 100% justified. God patiently waited and watched as the Cannanites commited all sorts of grave sins, all while not repenting, and every generation for 400 years continued commiting the sins of their fathers. There is a limit to how much sin God can put up with. Once you reach that limit, God has no choice but to wipe you out. This is a strong demonstration of God's patience and his mercy. All they had to do was repent of their sins and God would forgive them, yet they continued in their sins for 400 years, after which God got fed up with giving them more chances, so he wiped them out. Proof of this is Genesis 15, read it and God has a conversation with Abraham about this. I sincerely ask you if you want answers to your objections, read my responses.
Con said "and to be perfect he must be perfectly just."
My response: Con didn't even realize that he just contradicted himself. He first said "well it's unfair for God to punish people" then he said "God must be perfectly just". Well punishing people for sins they CHOSE to do (not forced to do) is perfectly just. Sure, God not punishing sin is merciful, but that's not just. If God requires all sins no matter how small to be punished, that is perfect justice, as nothing gets swept under the rug.
Con said "science says they are lies proving that is the case"
My response: Saying that science somehow "disproves" religion is one of the biggest deceptions of atheists. Do you know that atheists weren't the first ones to formulate to study of science, it was the Christians. Atheists might despise what Christians believe, but science started with Christians, not the atheists. All the biggest names in the world of science like Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Kepler, and Pascal were all devout Christians. Galilieo even believed that his theories fit with the Bible, and wrote a book arguing this.
Con said " the gospels werent written until forty years after jesus supposedly died making it unlikely that they were written by first hand account but even if they were who says they are telling the truth?"
My response: Which again assumes that is what took place, namely, that the earliest Gospel was written 40 years later. You can't even argue that is the case. Most NT scholars agree that it is hard to pinpoint the exact dates of the writings of the Gospels. Besides placing them in the 1st century, NT scholars agree that the arbitrary dates put forth for the Gospels are really just arbitrary. Different arguments are offered for earlier/later dates, but we really don't know the exact dates of them being written aside from the 1st century. Who says they are telling the truth? How about this...who says they are not? How do I know what you're telling me is true? How do I know science indisputably proves religion false? Unless you can disprove the accounts in the Gospels, then you aren't in a position to say "well they might be lying".
Con said "you have failed to give a good reason to believe in the christian religion that cant be used as a reason to"
My response: What debate are you participating in? My argument fro Christianity was never "blind faith" or "just believe what you are told". I clearly said that I beleive in Christianity because of the evidence for the Resurrection. I gave the outline of a basic case for the Resurrection and the evidences supporting my contentions. You on the other hand didn't even bother to respond to anything I said. All you have been doing so far is rambling on about a bunch of different topics, all the while ignoring the topic at hand. You are committing red herrings left and right.
Rather than me "failing to give good reason to believe in Christianity" it is you who has failed to give me good reasons to become an Atheist. Disproving Christianity doesn't prove Atheism, so stop assuming that. Saying "all religions are the same" doesn't prove atheism. It is time for you to start the debate once again. Because so far you have miserably failed to give evidence for your position.
christianity is supposed to be the source of gods perfect morals
christians today reject rules of the bible today to go along with the reason of men.
the bible morality is subjective and without premise.
eye for an eye judges results instead of intent and punishes bad results while they are sometimes an accident. turn the other cheek ignores both the results and the intent and punishes nothing. god is often punishing people for disobeying an entity they dont know without judging or even mentioning the intent and often ignoring the intent, the results, and evil altogether to allow murderers, rapists, and every other bad person like slave owners to get eternal happiness while people who dont hurt anyone and treat others justly unlike christians burn alive forever because they couldnt believe in something with such little evidence and so many similarities to mens ideas. all you have is the fact that a lot of people believe it. but if you lived in another country there is about an 80 percent chance you would believe that countries religion and it would not be your fault. if we were given an equal chance to believe the christian religion then the same amount of Arabians would believe christianity as americans. why would god be so unfair to give some of us good social parents and some wicked unsocial parents and some made ugly and some beautiful, and some influenced to believe the true religion and some influenced to believe another with some existing long before the religion.
if they (those who lived before Christianity) didnt have to believe to go to heaven and we do then god is unfair and punishes us by different standards or doesnt punish some at all. if they did have to believe to go to heaven then god is unfair and gave some a good chance to go to heaven and made it impossible for some. either way god is extremely unfair and not just or perfect. far from it. you cannot refute that! all these things make the christian god unlikely
STATISTICS prove that what you believe in is usually determined by where you were born and has nothing to do with evidence which is almost non existent. every single thing about life is unfair because whatever caused life is unfair. from how we are born to how we are treated its all unfair. life gives us all different contradictory evidence and im supposed to believe that god expects us all to draw the same conclusions? its probably random as everything that is possible happens eventually.
what matters when it comes to deciding whether or not a religion is probably true and important for us to know you have to look at its impact on the world which with Christianity is no different than other religions, the amount of people its given to because if its not important for some its not important for you, and is there any evidence for the claims making them probable which there isnt any with christianity as there is only evidence of a man named jesus and no evidence that he is the son of god. infact there is evidence against him being that the son of god is only talked about in christianity and christianity is not credible at it says we come from two people meaning we would all be inbred people and extinct by now and same with animals when there would have to be seven females and seven males of a species to populate the world with that species. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. you are lacking that making the claim unlikely
the identities of the authors of the bible are unknown. the religion could have easily been faked as all the evidence we have for it is historical which could have easily been exaggerate or faked. how easy would it have been for the leaders of the people who wrote it to have paid them?
all you have done is say that people who wrote the religion heard of jesus, people who believe in the bible agree that jesus was crucified, one man had a source that told him jesus rose from the dead while the source is unmentioned, admit that nothing was written untill about 4 decades after jesus died while you havent explained why such an amazing story wasnt written down by one person who saw it until at about 40 years later. thats not plausible at all. if something amazing happened people would have spoken about it and someone would have written something down about jesus much sooner. so why didnt they write anything about jesus until 35 years after he died and rose from the dead? all of your historians are hearing third hand accounts and worse. jesus is the one who knows god, the apostle is one who believes jesus when he says the christian god exists, and the historian believes the accounts of god through the apostles though jesus. these stories could have been fakes and im shocked to see how few people and historians are mentioned. what twelve people and a few followers of these people, no more credible than a cult as there wasnt more people than a cult who witnessed jesus's miracles which could have had a logical explanation and after all jesus showed so few people and his religion is only known by so few people of all who existed. bible was believed literally then it was believed many ways when dis-proven literally and now there are 35000 opposing interpretations of it. it isnt even enlightening. it just "justifies" what a hand full of people want to keep you from basing morality on the priority to prevent things we all think bad promoting things we think good and equality and fairness for all so they keep advantage
Well, round 5, and Con has yet again (for the 3rd time now!) completely ignored the evidence I gave for the Resurrection of Jesus. Notice that his only "evidence" against my claims were his attacks on the Bible, his claim that all religions are the same, or that there are millions of contradictory religions. Well that's great, how does that refute the evidence I gave? It doesn't.
I made it very clear that you don't have the believe in the Bible to get to the Resurrection. Notice how most of my evidence I gave wasn't even from the Bible, it was from sources outside of the Bible.
He didn't address the arguments I gave for the crucifixion of Jesus.
He didn't address the arguments I gave that proved that the disciples had experiences, which convinced them that Jesus appeared to them. Virtually every NT critical scholar agrees that the disciples had experiences, they may have been wrong, but the fact of the experiences are agreed upon by the majority of skeptical scholars, which yet again he did not address, he simply ignored it.
He didn't address the arguments I gave for the empty tomb.
Con was under the impression that "anything in the Bible can be dismissed, because they just have an agenda". Which doesn't even begin to address the evidence I provided.
So at the end of the day, I gave my evidence, I responded to the main objections of my opponent towards Christianity, but he didn't do the same thing back.
If this were a public debate, Con would be declared the loser for not giving refutations to my claims and going off topic over and over again.
And the arguments presented just demonstrate that this man has absolutely no clue what he is objecting to.
If you're going to object to something, at least understand what it is you're objecting to.
Simply attacking straw man arguments just demonstrate that you can't attack our actual position.
So in conclusion, Jesus Christ is risen and he is Lord.
He now sits at the right hand of God the Father as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
I bear witness that Jesus Christ is Yahweh to the glory of God the Father. And I bear witness that Jesus Christ died for my sins and left the tomb empty.
This confession saves you.
Any other confession only damns your soul to Hell.
I have established my case, Christianity is the ONLY true religion, proof of this: Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.