The Instigator
Natsu145
Pro (for)
The Contender
xXKorvexiusXx
Con (against)

Christianity is stupid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Natsu145 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 341 times Debate No: 94314
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Natsu145

Pro

Hello there, today. I will be arguing that Christianity is one of the most non-logical, offensive, and overall idiotic religion of all time. I have no specific rules for this debate because frankly, I don't care. Anyways, here's are my reasons why Christianity is horrible.

-One of the most popular and known facts about Christianity is that they believe that people who are gay and lesbian should go to hell. They claim this because it goes against what god said about Adam and Eve, and they both each were assigned their own, "duties." Apparently, if you like a person of the same sex, you will go to hell because you are disobeying the duties that god has assigned you. Here are my counter points against this.

-There's absolutely no actual real life consequence to being gay or lesbian. Though sometimes you may get discriminated against other people, you can actually tell the police about the discrimination, and they could actually sue the discriminator because of the discrimination law enforced by the EEOC.

-There is no actual LOGICAL evidence actually supporting the fact that gays are horrible people and should go to hell. Some gay people are actually very nice and have never done anything wrong in their life. If there is any logical evidence supporting this claim, then please, tell me.

-Another thing that really bothers me about Christianity is about how they treat women and how their sexist towards them. Here are some examples

Corinthians 14:34-35
-34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

-35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

-First of all, woman are not to be "under obedience" of men. This is obviously sexism and I have know honest clue will rebuttal saying this isn't sexism. Same thing as for the women and church. A woman, just like any other human being, has the right to speak what they want to speak. They have feelings to you know.

Here are some other examples

Levictus 12:2
-Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

Levictus 12:5
-But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

-First thing that really gets me angry is that these people are basically saying that if you give birth to a man, you'll be unclean for a set amount of time, BUT if you give birth to a WOMAN, you'll be unclean 2x MORE than if you gave birth to a man. This is also obvious sexism. Also, how would a mother who's given birth to a child be "unclean." There is no logic to actually back this claim up. Women are just as sanitary as men. If not,even CLEANER to be honest.

Ecclesiastes 7:26

"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart [is] snares and nets, [and] her hands [as] bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her."

-So basically, this verse is saying that all women are evil and are apparently worse than death. First of all, not ALL women are mean, sassy b**ches. There are a lot of women that are sweet and caring. Again, sexism.

That's not all that annoys me about Christianity though. There's much more than that. But anyways, with that aside, and as always, I wish my opponent, good luck.
xXKorvexiusXx

Con

In this debate, Natsu145 tells us that he is arguing that Christianity is stupid in the title, and in his opening, he claims that "Christianity is one of the most non-logical, offensive, and overall idiotic religion of all time". I disagree, and thus I take him up on these various accusations.

Natsu has failed to define the parameters of this debate, and thus I shall freely define the term stupid as;

"Slow to learn or understand; obtuse." [1]

As we can see, this definition presupposes an actual ability to learn, and thus only things with an ability to learn can be 'stupid'. As far as the knowledge of humanity goes, the only things capable of this are minds or brains, and thus Con will either have to demonstrate the actual religion of Christianity itself is capable of processing information and being able to learn, or show that Christianity is "obtuse", which is "Lacking quickness of perception or intellect." [2] If Con fails to demonstrate this, the voter should take this into account.

Now, let's discuss whether Christianity is stupid or not on the basis that it is indeed somehow capable of processing information, even though it is merely an ideology. I will demonstrate that Christianity is not stupid by providing various factual claims made by the religion, which would establish that it is intelligent.

1. Scientific Intelligence: Firstly, the Bible teaches that the universe came into existence from a precedent non-existence, that the universe is in a continual state, and that all things are moving towards an error of disorder. [3] These things were recorded in the Bible long before the scientific advances in the 20th century were made to establish these as facts, such as Edwin Hubble discovering the universe is in a state of expansion in 1929 [4]. This would mean the author of the scripture preached by Christianity must have possessed great scientific knowledge, and thus be intelligent.

2. Historical Intelligence: The Bible makes an extremely long list of historically accurate claims. It gets more than 50 historical figures correct in the Old Testament [5], there are 84 confirmed historical facts in the last 16 chapters of the Book of Acts, which is in the Bible [6] , the Gospel of John has 59 confirmed or probably historical facts [7], etc, etc, etc. To know so much about history, you would need to be intelligent, and the mere fact that the authors of Christian scripture were able to write during that time frame in an age where illiteracy was past 80% just 200 years ago in Europe [8].

He claims he will be arguing for Christianity being offensive, however even if he were to establish this, it would be no indicator to the veracity of his contention that Christianity is stupid. He also claims it is idiotic, which simply mean "very stupid" [9], and I have already provided good reason to assume this is a false accusation.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, the following will be me rebutting his accusations for Christianity being offensive and idiotic, by addressing the verses from the Bible he quotes and claims on Christian doctrines to validate this claim.

First, he issues a classical Strawman Fallacy -- by putting claims in the mouth of Christian doctrine on homosexuality that are not actually there, and rebutting those made-up doctrines [10]. He claims that Christianity teaches that being gay has a real life consequence and that being gay automatically makes you a horrible person, when in fact I can find no piece of scripture from the Bible (Christianity's teachings) to confirm this is what Christianity says. Rather, the only thing that the Bible says about homosexuality is that it is a sin because it contradicts God's transcendent design plan [11]. This is the only reason why Christianity claims homosexuality is wrong.

The rest of his accusations on the Bible being offensive is on sexism. I was simply dismayed to see him rip out all of those verses out of their traditional and Biblical context. Let us quickly explain all of them.

First, he quotes 1 Corinthians 14 to show women cannot speak in Church -- this is merely a traditional role of women in Christianity. The Bible also ascribes traditional roles to men that they must follow that are not positive, such as saying to Adam that if he wants to eat he will have to day painful labor [12], which is to say the man must do all the laborious work in the household. Is the Bible sexist against men? Of course not.

Concerning Leviticus, this was part of the punishment instilled upon Eve for her sins along with Adam [11]. If Con wishes to proclaim punishment is wrong, he will not only need to prove this, but he must initially take the position that no one deserves punishment, not even murderers and thieves.

As for Eclessiastes, 7:26, it clearly only references women, as it literally says in the verse, "who is a trap, her heart a net, and her hands chains" [13], obviously not all women, only women who fit this description. All of these accusations lack credibility.

1: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
3: http://www.reasons.org...
4: https://www.spacetelescope.org...
5: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...
6: http://truthbomb.blogspot.ca...
7: http://truthbomb.blogspot.ca...
8: https://ourworldindata.org...
9: https://www.google.ca...
10: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
11: http://www.desiringgod.org...
12: https://www.biblegateway.com...
13: https://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by xXKorvexiusXx 4 months ago
xXKorvexiusXx
The page says "our system has not yet updated this debate", what on Earth should I do? It's been like this for half a day.
Posted by xXKorvexiusXx 4 months ago
xXKorvexiusXx
Thanks a lot brother.
Posted by quertyfoo 4 months ago
quertyfoo
Wow. I'm an agnostic, but used to be Catholic, but that was _some_ defense. I think the instigator is somewhat misguided, or making a generalization. Most Christians aren't like that.
Posted by xXKorvexiusXx 4 months ago
xXKorvexiusXx
Thanks brother. I sent you a friend request, hope you accept and God Bless you.
Posted by Whatsreallyright 4 months ago
Whatsreallyright
yeah i'm talking about you, your argument was solid...im just tired of the extreme lack of actual vocabulary and real logical argument
Posted by Whatsreallyright 4 months ago
Whatsreallyright
And if your going to attack a religion understand it first there is nothing in the bible saying that homosexuals are horrible people-just simply that its a sin which all people do
Posted by xXKorvexiusXx 4 months ago
xXKorvexiusXx
@Whatsreallyright I hope you're talking about me, LOL.
Posted by Whatsreallyright 4 months ago
Whatsreallyright
Well at least one debater is using real intellect
Posted by Phenenas 4 months ago
Phenenas
Leviticus is Old Testament law, which Christians don't follow. I agree with you about the rule that women should keep silent in churches, though.
Posted by Hillary4Prez 4 months ago
Hillary4Prez
A better title for this debate would have been "Christian Fundamentalism is Stupid."
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.