The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FMAlchemist
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Christianity is the most rationally based faith

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
FMAlchemist
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 958 times Debate No: 59882
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

I argue that Christianity is the most logical and factual religion on earth.

First round acceptance
FMAlchemist

Con

I accept your debate.Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

I will define a Christian and rational

A Christian - A person who follows the teachings of Christ. basically, someone who strictly obey what the Bible says. (we'll talk later about denominations)

Rational - Agreeable to reason and factually based on methods such as science

I start with addressing the existence of God. I argue that we should only believe in God when he reveals himself to us. Now this might be subjective, but so is every humans with an experience. I cannot prove to you that God exists no more than you can prove to me that a tree exists unless I see it and choose to accept it. To pick the natural world and reject the supernatural is to be biased.

Now for biblical interpretation. There is a strict procedure for studying the Bible known as hermeneutics. It incorporates science, logic, history, linguistics, archaeologicy, literature, etc. No other religion i know is that factually based.

Canon - Which books belong? The books that fit together with the history of Israel and God and his character. Authorship, date of composition, literature, and consistency with the rest of the books.

Authors - The Bible was written by people inspired by God from all wakes of life such as doctors, philosophers, theologians, farmers, kings, wise men, poor people, rabbis, fishermen, tax collectors, etc. Whereas other religions like Islam stick to one author. If you want to find out what God is saying, study that particular author and come to a logical conclusion.

Creation - No other religion has such a rational and scientifically accurate account of creation than Genesis. For example, many ancient religions obviously give mythical elements to their stories, while Genesis is very realistic. Why aren't you supposed to worship idols and the sun? because they are simply creations of the creator God. Pure logic.

History - Many of the events, people, etc have been proven as authentic which will help guide you to a rational conclusion on faith. Most of the events of the Bible were witnessed by thousands, leaving no room for bias and deception.

Prophecy - We as Christians base our beliefs on empirical evidence of Jesus fulfilling many biblical prophecies, so it safeguards against simple biased opinions.

Interpretation - The Christian is to interpret Scripture as it is and base his/her life on Scripture. There is no room for private opinions.

Thank you for this debate and i wish to see you next round.
FMAlchemist

Con

"I start with addressing the existence of God. I argue that we should only believe in God when he reveals himself to us. Now this might be subjective, but so is every humans with an experience. I cannot prove to you that God exists no more than you can prove to me that a tree exists unless I see it and choose to accept it. To pick the natural world and reject the supernatural is to be biased."

I have never heard of a Christian seeing his God in the modern times. The feelings you got are not God revealing himself to you,they are mere hormones and other substances acting in your brain. An atheist can feel the same things even without believing in God[1].Also,why would God only reveal himself to people who are really convicted that he exists and that are sure that they are going to heaven and let people who needs to believe him going to hell without reveal himself?

"Canon - Which books belong? The books that fit together with the history of Israel and God and his character. Authorship, date of composition, literature, and consistency with the rest of the books."

The bible is not consistent,it has a lot of contradictions. I can give examples to you:

Some parts of the bible that there are things that God can't do:

"That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:" - Hebrews 6:18

"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." - Judges 1:19



But others say that with God nothing is impossible:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible." - Luke 1:37

"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." - Matthew 19:26

"And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." - Luke 18:27


"History - Many of the events, people, etc have been proven as authentic which will help guide you to a rational conclusion on faith. Most of the events of the Bible were witnessed by thousands, leaving no room for bias and deception."

Indeed,i believe that Jesus existed,but he was no different that all the false prophets himself talked about,just a bit more convincing. And i think that if the bible was indeed the word of God it would be more accurate. And a lot of events in the Bible are easily proved wrong,like the worldwide flood. If there was really a giant flood the fossils of the Grand Canyon wouldn't be organized in the correct layers the same way geology predicts,you would be able to find dinosaur fossils in the same place as bunny fossils,what doesn't happen. Another thing is that the miracles in the bible seem to not happen today. If God really wants to save us why he doesn't make incredible miracles that are not simply unlikely things to happen(like 1000 people dying in an accident and one surviving being considered an miracle) but supernatural things that defy the laws of nature?And you can't know if they were really witnessed by many or someone started to tell tales about him and people believed it.

"Prophecy - We as Christians base our beliefs on empirical evidence of Jesus fulfilling many biblical prophecies, so it safeguards against simple biased opinions."

The prophecies of the bible are just things that are very unlikely not to happen,like some passages that say that there would be false prophets and mockers. Also,nothing of the book of Revelations really happened,and when people claim they are happening they aren't the way they are in the bible,they are just guessed interpretations with nothing to do with the hermeneutics.By the way,there is a bonus:A Christian following this "empirical evidence" and with no biased opinions[3]!

"Interpretation - The Christian is to interpret Scripture as it is and base his/her life on Scripture. There is no room for private opinions."

So why there are so many ways to interpret the bible,in a way there is even a field of research dedicated to decipher what the bible means?And why there are so many denominations if there are no "private opinions".How do you know what is the right interpretation?

[1]https://www.youtube.com...
[2]http://rationalwiki.org...
[3]http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

Rebuttals:

"I have never heard of a Christian seeing his God in the modern times. The feelings you got are not God revealing himself to you,they are mere hormones and other substances acting in your brain. An atheist can feel the same things even without believing in God[1].Also,why would God only reveal himself to people who are really convicted that he exists and that are sure that they are going to heaven and let people who needs to believe him going to hell without reveal himself?"

I will refute this guy's claims on youtube and point out his flaws. He starts off saying that it's more likely that a divine experience is based on a brain disorder, where are his sources? He didn't say. He also says that we base our reasoning on Occam's Razor, but fails to point out that science also uses the same principle (1). He also assumes that my experience is based on pure feeling when it's not. God did not make me "feel him", he gave me a revelation of Jesus Christ. Therefore, his argument is dead.

This was more of a philosophical argument, but before you bring science into this, i will refute your future attacks ahead of time. Science uses inductive reasoning (you can find more on wikipedia) which is inference without proving it definitely. Now to illustrate why this is it's downfall, i will give a quick example of how Darwin came to a conclusion for evolution:

1. Darwin saw that finches were different across the Galapagos

2. He saw they were isolated from each other and there were variations between the sub species

3. Conclusion - he concluded that finches and later that species came from a common ancestor and this is the basis for his theory

The problem? His logic is not absolute. He has not scientifically explored all the animals on earth to see if his claim is true. If we find a species that did not evolve, his argument is gone. Similarly, you cannot use a scientific experiment to completely disprove a phenomenon.

The bible is not consistent,it has a lot of contradictions. I can give examples to you:"

I was specifically talking about canon, not about contradictions, but we'll address that too.

"Some parts of the bible that there are things that God can't do:

"That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:" - Hebrews 6:18

Your right, there are some things God can't do and that is contradict himself.

"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." - Judges 1:19"

God could fully let the Israelites win, but he chose not to, why? 1) Lack of faith on Israel's part (Exo. 23:20-21) 2) disobedience (Judg. 2:1-3,4:1). No contradiction found.

"but others say that with God nothing is impossible:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible." - Luke 1:37

"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." - Matthew 19:26

"And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." - Luke 18:27"

Matt. and Luke are not contradictory and Luke 1:37 essentially says the same thing. Nothing with God is impossible, therefore that implies that everything is possible. No contradiction.

"Indeed,i believe that Jesus existed,but he was no different that all the false prophets himself talked about,just a bit more convincing. And i think that if the bible was indeed the word of God it would be more accurate. And a lot of events in the Bible are easily proved wrong,like the worldwide flood. If there was really a giant flood the fossils of the Grand Canyon wouldn't be organized in the correct layers the same way geology predicts,you would be able to find dinosaur fossils in the same place as bunny fossils,what doesn't happen. Another thing is that the miracles in the bible seem to not happen today. If God really wants to save us why he doesn't make incredible miracles that are not simply unlikely things to happen(like 1000 people dying in an accident and one surviving being considered an miracle) but supernatural things that defy the laws of nature?And you can't know if they were really witnessed by many or someone started to tell tales about him and people believed it."

The Bible doesn't teach a global flood, but a local one. The earth in Genesis 6 in Hebrew "Eretz" is mostly used for a local area (2). Ancient people also understood the world to be a local geography (3). Finally, Noah's flood is based on a historical event (4).

"The prophecies of the bible are just things that are very unlikely not to happen,like some passages that say that there would be false prophets and mockers. Also,nothing of the book of Revelations really happened,and when people claim they are happening they aren't the way they are in the bible,they are just guessed interpretations with nothing to do with the hermeneutics.By the way,there is a bonus:A Christian following this "empirical evidence" and with no biased opinions"

There are false prophets and mockers right now (Richard Dawkins, David Koresh, etc.) to name a few, that proves that it's true. Revelation is proven true. Rev. 11 describes the building of the Third Temple which is currently taking place as we speak (5). Furthermore, science confirms the Bible's foretelling of there being more disasters than ever in the last days (6). Those who don't use hermeunitcs are in error, but i'm using it, so your argument is dead..

"So why there are so many ways to interpret the bible,in a way there is even a field of research dedicated to decipher what the bible means?And why there are so many denominations if there are no "private opinions".How do you know what is the right interpretation?"

There is so many ways to interpret the Bible because people are ignorant of it's ancient context. The fact that there are denominations is simply for the fact that people base their beliefs on their own biases, not because the Bible cannot be understood. For example, study the history of the UPCI and you'll see that it's teachings are wrong and based on a faulty understanding of how God works, not only that but it's already based on existing doctrines such as the Trinity which were and are biblical (7).

Sources:

1. http://science.howstuffworks.com...

2. Gleason Archer, Survey of OT Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1964), 194.

3. Map of the World BM 92687, British Museum, London.

4. "Among many theorists, George Smith in 1872 [33] famously linked the great Biblical Flood of the book Genesis to an historical event, probably of the 3rd millennium BC, which deposited a 50-cm- sediment-layer in the Mesopotamian lowland.", Haigh

5. http://www.al-monitor.com...

6. http://www.livescience.com...

7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
FMAlchemist

Con

"I will refute this guy's claims on youtube and point out his flaws. He starts off saying that it's more likely that a divine experience is based on a brain disorder, where are his sources? He didn't say. He also says that we base our reasoning on Occam's Razor, but fails to point out that science also uses the same principle (1). He also assumes that my experience is based on pure feeling when it's not. God did not make me "feel him", he gave me a revelation of Jesus Christ. Therefore, his argument is dead."

What do you mean by "reveal"?You story of him "revealing" himself is not anymore credible than people who claim to have abducted by aliens!It is simply psychological[1]!

"This was more of a philosophical argument, but before you bring science into this, i will refute your future attacks ahead of time. Science uses inductive reasoning (you can find more on wikipedia) which is inference without proving it definitely. Now to illustrate why this is it's downfall, i will give a quick example of how Darwin came to a conclusion for evolution:"

That's how science works. It doesn't works to prove something,it works to create patterns that can be used to predict things,but by using the scientific method they test repeatedly,and when one idea goes wrong they try to find another answer. And about Darwin,no he didn't,he traveled around the world in the HMS Beagle to analyze the species[2].

"The problem? His logic is not absolute. He has not scientifically explored all the animals on earth to see if his claim is true. If we find a species that did not evolve, his argument is gone.

No but he explored a lot of them and it is a really strong evidence that his hypothesis was true. And the problem is,there are over 100 years and people still didn't found an species that disproved Darwin's theory.

"Similarly, you cannot use a scientific experiment to completely disprove a phenomenon."

Indeed,because you have the burden of proof. I can only defeat your arguments.

"Matt. and Luke are not contradictory and Luke 1:37 essentially says the same thing. Nothing with God is impossible, therefore that implies that everything is possible. No contradiction."

What i meant is that they contradict with the passage that says that it is impossible for god to lie.

"The Bible doesn't teach a global flood, but a local one. The earth in Genesis 6 in Hebrew "Eretz" is mostly used for a local area (2). Ancient people also understood the world to be a local geography (3). Finally, Noah's flood is based on a historical event (4)."

You didn't say anything about the miracles. And even if there was really a flood we can't know for sure that there was a giant boat with all the animals of that area in it. A really old man and his family would to construct a giant boat what would need a lot of wood and need to gather seven of which animals in the area,the food,fit both in the arch and clean everything.

"There are false prophets and mockers right now (Richard Dawkins, David Koresh, etc.) to name a few, that proves that it's true."

That's what i meant,but that doesn't prove anything,he just predicted that there would be people that wouldn't buy it,people that existed before he made those predictions. And if i say "tomorrow will rain" and it happens to be true would i be able to predict every event in the world?By using the same logic you used with Darwin i could say you would need to examine every prophecy of the bible and all the lost books of it,if one was not true,it would prove the entire bible wrong.

"Revelation is proven true. Rev. 11 describes the building of the Third Temple which is currently taking place as we speak (5)"

It is like me saying "tomorrow a giant rock will fall from that building" and the next day going there and throwing a giant rock from it. They are only building the temple because the Bible predicted.

"There is so many ways to interpret the Bible because people are ignorant of it's ancient context. The fact that there are denominations is simply for the fact that people base their beliefs on their own biases, not because the Bible cannot be understood. For example, study the history of the UPCI and you'll see that it's teachings are wrong and based on a faulty understanding of how God works, not only that but it's already based on existing doctrines such as the Trinity which were and are biblical."

I rarely see Christians that know hermeneutics,and if it is God's word and he wanted people to know it,why would he create a book that is not easily interpreted?He wants his true followers to study hermeneutics?

And i think Christianity is not more factual than Sikhism[3],Satanism or other religions. It talks about a being like you God,but they have not a lot of incredible events that hard to prove and he didn't send his son to die for no reason at all,because him being omnipotent and omniscient he would know how to do something else and would be able to do said thing,and Satanism is one of the most accurate religions to this time. It does not contradict with any scientific pattern we have today. And i can also use the same logic you used with Darwin again,saying you would need to explore every religion to see which one is the most factual.

[1]http://www.healthguidance.org...
[2]http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[3]http://www.religiousforums.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

I can't disprove that people saw an alien and neither can you. Like I said, you believe in things that you can see, but you haven't proven it, you just take it as real. Science isn't necessarily about proving the existence of beings, but about figuring out how the world works.you don't always you science in day-to-day life, therefore your beliefs are inconsistent.like I said,you cannot prove to me that The Sun for example exists unless I see it for myself, only you can convince yourself that it exists. That being said, I can't objectively prove God to you.

You took those scriptures completely out of context and I will explain how.

Luke 1:35-38

"35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible."

38 Then Mary said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her."

In this context, it's speaking of God's abilities in making miracles happen, not his moral character. No contradiction.

I think that Noah's flood story wasn't intended to be literal when comparing it to other flood myths.

"That's what i meant,but that doesn't prove anything,he just predicted that there would be people that wouldn't buy it,people that existed before he made those predictions. "

You just admitted that the Bible's predictions are true and accurate.

"And if i say "tomorrow will rain" and it happens to be true would i be able to predict every event in the world?"

If you predict "Tomorrow will rain" then it's very likely to happen. but "tomorrow will rain" isn't a biblical prediction and i will show why.

Matt. 24:3-8 says "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." How likely is it for people to self-proclaim themselves as the Messiah of Israel and be deceived? According to Peter W. Stoner's book "Science speaks", he uses probability to calculate the likelihood of people predicting future events with precise accuracy and it is very very low (1). When you examine the archaeological, linguistic, mathematical (in this case the prediction of false messiahs), scientific, historical data, political events, etc. it confirms the accuracy of prophecy.

"They are only building the temple because the Bible predicted."

You just admitted that their prediction is true.

"I rarely see Christians that know hermeneutics,and if it is God's word and he wanted people to know it,why would he create a book that is not easily interpreted?He wants his true followers to study hermeneutics?"

He does want his followers to study hermenuetics.

"And i think Christianity is not more factual than Sikhism[3],Satanism or other religions. It talks about a being like you God,but they have not a lot of incredible events that hard to prove and he didn't send his son to die for no reason at all,because him being omnipotent and omniscient he would know how to do something else and would be able to do said thing,and Satanism is one of the most accurate religions to this time. It does not contradict with any scientific pattern we have today. And i can also use the same logic you used with Darwin again,saying you would need to explore every religion to see which one is the most factual."

Show me evidence for the claims of other religions. The Bible states that once a person dies, it's over, confirming scientific fact. Where's the evidence for that we are reincarnated into this life?

Sources:

1. http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.net...
FMAlchemist

Con

"You took those scriptures completely out of context and I will explain how."
"In this context, it's speaking of God's abilities in making miracles happen, not his moral character. No contradiction"

So "nothing" isn't to be taken seriously or isn't literal?In original Greek it doesn't seem to refer only to miracles too[1].
It literally refers to "every thing" in Greek. I really think the original "word of God" would try to be more clear.

"You just admitted that the Bible's predictions are true and accurate."

No i didn't,what i meant is that it is very unlikely that in every person born in 2000~ years no one would mock your religion,given that even before the prediction there were people mocking God so that isn't too big of an accomplishment,it is the same as someone guessing that in the future it will rain,because it eventually will. It doesn't proves anything. It just happened to be true because it was very unlikely not to be.

"If you predict "Tomorrow will rain" then it's very likely to happen. but "tomorrow will rain" isn't a biblical prediction and i will show why."

But even less likely that in 2000~ years there wouldn't be a single mocker.

"Matt. 24:3-8 says "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." How likely is it for people to self-proclaim themselves as the Messiah of Israel and be deceived? According to Peter W. Stoner's book "Science speaks", he uses probability to calculate the likelihood of people predicting future events with precise accuracy and it is very very low (1). When you examine the archaeological, linguistic, mathematical (in this case the prediction of false messiahs), scientific, historical data, political events, etc. it confirms the accuracy of prophecy."

This refers to someone saying that he is Christ or the Messiah and not to mockers,and i don't see anyone saying that he is Christ and being deceived,the examples you gave are just mockers.

"They are only building the temple because the Bible predicted."

Again,no i didn't,i'm just saying that if i predict something and then force it to happen i don't think it is very credible. In my rock example,do you think i would be able to predict everything after forcing my prediction to be true?If there was some prediction in the Qur'an that could be forced would you think they were true too because people who followed it made it happen?

"He does want his followers to study hermenuetics."

Instead of making his word clear and easier for Christians?

"Show me evidence for the claims of other religions. The Bible states that once a person dies, it's over, confirming scientific fact. Where's the evidence for that we are reincarnated into this life?"

No it doesn't,it says that you are going to you are going to be judged after you die and that you are going either to hell or to heaven. The idea of reincarnation is more simple and likely. If your God does exist hell must be really crowded,because new people keep being born and taking the burden for what their ancestors did instead of just going to another body and passing the "test" again. And hell and heaven must be pretty giant,as it must fit a really large amount of people inside it,i think it would be noticeable. Even if a creator existed i don't think it would be contradicting as the bible,Deism is more likely to be true. There are absolute laws that don't have a motive,like gravity,what points to a creator. Your bible doesn't say anything about those laws. Also,you didn't said anything about Satanism[3],which is based only on morality and reason,but it is still a religion. And you made the claim,you have the BoP to show me that Christianity is the most factual religion,not me,and i think it will be pretty hard for you to show it.
Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

"It literally refers to "every thing" in Greek"

Everything within the scope of causing a miraculous event to happen.

How is it likely for people to make those kinds of predictions? Predicting it will rain is more likely than predicting that false messiahs will proclaim themselves as the true one thousands of years later don't you think?

"Again,no i didn't,i'm just saying that if i predict something and then force it to happen i don't think it is very credible. In my rock example,do you think i would be able to predict everything after forcing my prediction to be true?If there was some prediction in the Qur'an that could be forced would you think they were true too because people who followed it made it happen?"

At the time that the event was predicted to happen, it was far separated from thousands of years into the future. Where is the evidence that people forced the event of the Temple to happen throughout that time period?

Where's the scientific evidence to back up the claims of Buddhism? And other religions? The fact that the Bible's claim alone of people
FMAlchemist

Con

"Everything within the scope of causing a miraculous event to happen."

I thought the word of God would be more specific to make it more clear to the followers,but it doesn't happen even when we use hermeneutics. Doesn't God wants his followers to read and understand the Bible by using hermeneutics?

" How is it likely for people to make those kinds of predictions? Predicting it will rain is more likely than predicting that false messiahs will proclaim themselves as the true one thousands of years later don't you think?"

If you consider the amount of people born in the entire world in 2000~ years it would be outstanding if from all those people no one would ever question and mock the Christian God,even when the Christians themselves mocked other gods and were already mocked. And i don't see anyone in those times saying they are Jesus or the Messiah and being deceived. And even if someone did it would still be easy to have some crazy guy in around all those people saying he is the Messiah and convince some people. Considering the world now has a population of 7.183 billions people[1],what is already a a gigantic number,the amount of people born in 2000~ years would be colossal.

"At the time that the event was predicted to happen, it was far separated from thousands of years into the future. Where is the evidence that people forced the event of the Temple to happen throughout that time period?"

The bible doesn't give the specific time it would happen,just vague hints that mean nothing. And what i meant was that people reading the bible would follow the predictions of the end and try to prove they are correct,by forcing them to happen. They are only building the temple because the bible said there would be a temple,and this idea has been there since the 19th century[2].They are building a temple but the other predictions they can't force are not happening.

"Where's the scientific evidence to back up the claims of Buddhism? And other religions? The fact that the Bible's claim alone of people"

You have the BoP,and you didn't say anything about Satanism or Deism. Satanism is a religion,but it doesn't make any claims,it just aims to create an objective morality for their followers,one better and more clear than the Bible,and Deism has the evidences that point to a creator,like laws that seem to be completely arbitrary,like gravity,electrical polarities[3] or time. There isn't a "why" to certain fundamental laws of the universe,they just work like that because they do. And i have no idea what you meant after that.


[1]:http://www.census.gov...
[2]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I like Pro's source of:
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." - Judges 1:19"

Yes, God cannot defeat Iron Chariots.
We could have defeated the Iron Chariots with rifles.
God needs rifles to defeat Iron Chariots.
:-D~
Hardly a Rational book the Bible.
Posted by FMAlchemist 2 years ago
FMAlchemist
Yep.I didn't put use the word atheism anywhere in my arguments.
Posted by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
Alchemist, you have done nothing to address the situation at hand. We are talking about different faiths, so you can not argue for Atheism, as it is the lack of a faith. You must argue for a different religion or faith.
Posted by FMAlchemist 2 years ago
FMAlchemist
All Christians i know believe because their parents did too,and that isn't a goo reason.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
Burncastle: TOTALLY wrong. One cannot come to faith without the use of reason. Do you actually think that people believe in God for no reason at all? Sorry, but that is rather absurd. Ask anyone why they believe as they do and they will give your a REASON why they do.
Posted by ChristianPunk 2 years ago
ChristianPunk
O_O

This debate has to be a joke right?
Posted by FMAlchemist 2 years ago
FMAlchemist
@LMEiG I was going to tackle it but i don't think i can now,because that would be interpreted as getting help in the comments,and it seems a little unjust.
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
Saying that X is the most rationnally based faith is contradictory; faith is the absence of reason. It would be like saying that X is the sphere with the most corners; a sphere is defined as not having any corners.
Posted by lifemeansevolutionisgood 2 years ago
lifemeansevolutionisgood
FMA: Deism looks like a good one to argue for
Posted by gt4o2007 2 years ago
gt4o2007
@FMA
you only need to prove Christianity doesn't offer any new "knowledge" about the creation of the universe i.e. all religions just say there god did it. If they're all the same then it can not possibly be true that Christianity is more rational.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Truth_seekerFMAlchemistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a relatively close one. Pro had BoP to show that Christianity was the most rationally based faith. The majority of the debate was just Con arguing against Christianity--which doesn't necessarily attack the motion under consideration. But Con DID bring up alternative faiths, and Pro never really rebutted them; he would have had to do so in a similar manner to Con's attacks on Christianity. Thus, by a narrow margin, points to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.