The Instigator
Con (against)
8 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 Points

Christianity is the one true religion

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,528 times Debate No: 44202
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




I propose this debate on friendly terms. I propose that the Pro has no evidence that Christianity is the one true religion. Here is why:

Point 1: There is no more reason to believe in the Christian god, or even a deist god, than the gods of ancient Greece.

It is impossible for me to look beyond the fact that there are so many gods to choose from that the Pro does not believe in, yet decides to look upon this particular god as being the one true god above in and beyond any other potential god. I do not want to assume that the Pro has never investigated these other claims, yet I am wondering if he has subjected his own beliefs in his god in the same manner that he has dismissed the others?

Point 2: The Pro cannot provide us with contemporary, derivative, and comparative evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

The resurrection is the pinnacle of the Christian faith, such a great claim as rising from the dead requires great evidence. I know that the Pro takes this on faith, with no other evidence than the bible and his own feelings. Does he do this with all gods?

Point 3:The bible is no greater than any other historically ancient book.

The gospels are anonymously written, dates are not certain, geographical errors, contradictions, historical errors, comparable similarities from other myths in history. Just because someone begs the question that the bible is true this does not grant one grounds for holding that it is true. Now it is important to understand that I am referring to the resurrection of Christ as being viable above and beyond one source, and I am saying in the matter of the resurrection having only the bible is not proof enough that such an event happened. I am not claiming that the bible is not creditable in any sense, because that is not true. I will not debate that the bible contains some truth, I am merely stating that the resurrection of Jesus needs more proof than one ancient book professing it.


Belief is something we do not always choose but rather it is a process of gathering information and using the information to build our beliefs. As children sometimes we are taught things that are not true, but most of us come to realize that these things are not aligned with the reality we experience as we get older. We then put off such things until a time they are proved. I have since never again believed in Santa Claus. I mean no disrespect with the example, but it is the simplest to use. As a Muslim or a Hindu we grow up with our care takers beliefs, this is what we do as people, we feel like we must pass on our beliefs, for whatever reason, but why should we believe things just because someone else did? Just because we believe something doesn't make it true, so if we are going to determine what we believe by our experiences then we are required to experience god. The only problem is what does this mean, really? If it is subjective then how can we know what someone else believes is true or real? If it is merely a faith issue, then what is faith, other than excepting something without seeing or experiencing? The Pro will have his hands full with this. I look forward to an interesting debate, with much detail and evidence for the reason why Christianity is the one true religion and that the god of the Bible is the one true god.

I open the debate to the Pro.


Point 1: I can see why you would see that since science has proved to be useful, but it doesn't bury God or religion. Belief in gods is mainly that of a personal thing to bring happiness and peace as well as a set of moral values. I'm not saying religion is the only place for morals, but rather that morals can come from Religion. And Religious beliefs can be seen more as philosophies. It's a two way thing such as atheism. Atheism can be considered a religion because of the beliefs of the universe's creation, purpose, and existence. I have looked into other religions before deciding if Christianity was going to truly be my religion. I even considered Atheism. Christianity not only brought peace, but made more sense to me. I also thought of it as an inspiration to learn more about the universe and religion in general. I do put my own beliefs like anarchism and punk in my beliefs as well as my politics.

Point 2: Your right. I can't provide contemporary evidence. All I could find is if the tomb was open. We could debate numerous accounts on the incident of the resurrection like it could've been grave robbers, the woman who claimed to see Jesus was hallucinating, etc..... But it is my faith to believe it was resurrection. I honestly, don't know what I can say to disprove you on point 2. Just consider this. Do we know for sure what a Dinosaur looks like? We know their bone structures and species, but I mean skin, skin color, eating habits, all of that. Scientists will claim Christians don't know if people like Jesus was as The Bible claims him to be because we didn't see it, but we didn't see the dinosaurs neither. We didn't watch them walk, eat, sleep, nothing. So we can't make positive claims unless evidence of live experiments are made. Therefore, to me, Dinosaurs are no different from God. Noah's ark was found as well as Dinosaur skeletons. Do we know for sure everything about the finding, no. Therefore, it is a case of faith. I can't provide you the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus just as much as you can't provide me the evidence of everything about Dinosaur's to be true.

Point 3: On the contrary, we still follow the Constitution and it's Amendments, which seem like an ancient book of history to me. Based off historic documents and works, we know of philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. We haven't met these people, yet we know they exist, based off their works. There will be mistakes. Why, because of technology. While the myths are similar to Christ's story, note that most of these myths are usually sun gods because of a point where it was assumed (I fully don't know the story) that the Sun was hanging at a certain point in the universe for three days and then it rose again. I believe it was Zeitgeist that explains this. But they were all sun gods. Jesus was the son of the Judeo-Christian God. I believe he was God in human form, but let's save that debate for another time. I agree with you that the resurrection of Jesus needs more evidence, but think of it. It's the unexplainable. Could you explain a ghost if you were the only one to be haunted by one in your town? Sometimes, things are more about testimony evidence and not physical evidence. Notice the video I have uploaded is using rl footage as well as acting from Milla Jovovich. You can make claims that she was probably insane due to her denial of how her husband died, but then you have to consider the other people she put under hypnosis and if you watch the movie, you'll see at the credits, it's full of recorded audio of eye witnesses either claiming to have seen a pattern of the same thing (Usually four UFOs, one bigger than the other three) or that they have fuzzy memories of being abducted and waking up with strange markings on their body that wasn't their before.

I don't see it as offensive anyways with the Santa Claus example. I can understand it. Thing is, God is able to be invisible or more like a ghost as a spirit. If you have anything to educate me about the God Particle, then I would like to understand your opinion on that since I haven't made one of my own yet. Testimonies are the most and closest thing you'll get to evidence towards religious experience. But I would like to say this. I believe that a religion should be true if it's fair. I would believe that Christianity is fair. Back then, Judaism isn't. I probably would believe Judaism is not for me. I believe in Christianity since it is fair. Anybody can be a part of it. It is not an exclusive membership, it can be for anybody. And this last videos is for you by apologists. I'm not sure what your reaction will be, but you be the judge.
Debate Round No. 1


Point 1 Bury god or religion?
My objective here is not to bury any gods or religion, all I have to do is show that Christianity is not the one true religion. You have evaded my point and have given no proof concerning it. The question was merely inquiring how you determine, out of all the gods and religion of the world , which one is true and why? You have the burden of providing us with WHY you believe Christianity to be the one true religion. Happiness and peace are not evidences proving that Christianity is the one true religion. Your points about morality does not prove this as well, you have stated that morals can come from many sources, to which I agree, but does not prove your point.

Atheism as a religion:
How can the lack of belief in something be a religion? I really would like you to answer this question. First of all define for us religion, then tell us how atheism fits in that definition:

1 the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2 an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
3 an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Its seems that even the dictionaries are confused about religion. Number 3 makes no sense to me but I did not want to leave it out, but if you think about it everything would then be defined as religion that anyone finds interesting or any activity that is very important to a person or a group. So any hobby can be a religion, to which I do not agree with.

To say that atheism is a religion without defining atheism or religion is moot and does not prove your statement. I do not believe in gods, therefore I am an atheist, I practice no rituals, adhere to no organization that practices any observance to supernatural claims of the world and mankind. I am sure you have heard the example of the non stamp collector:

" If stamp collectors demanded that people who don't collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors probably would criticize stamp collectors in the way atheists criticize many religious people, and with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby, or a religion."

How does one consider atheism as a belief system?
By default it becomes a position when you cannot believe in god or gods, this is not something I chose, yet rather it is the only position I am left with after careful study of world religions. It is also interesting that you claim to be anarchist towards Christianity, when all of Christianity is already and has been in a state of disorder and chaos since it arose, much like all religions.

Point 2:
Dinosaurs did not die and resurrect from the grave, so really it is not a valid point that I need to know what dinosaurs looked like, we know that they existed, hell I am sure that the Jesus of the bible was not the only man named Jesus in that time period, yet he is the only one being pronounced as being raising from the dead and being god or god's son, either way my opponent has conceded point two. Comparing our knowledge of Jesus or the bible to our knowledge of dinosaurs does not make my point invalid.


You almost got this one by me, it sounded like you said that we have found Noah's ark, please clarify your statement with certainty and evidence, because I am sure they have found it many time over and over again.

Point 3
Again it is not that the bible does not contain truth at all, but that it makes great claims about certain things, as for the mistakes, yes we all expect errors in historical documents because of certain issues, but these other documents are not claiming to have the answers to life here and afterwards and if they do make these claims then there needs to be compounding evidence to support them or else we wouldn't know what to believe or why we should believe them outside of our own personal experiences. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle never claimed to be writing god's word, so again the point is moot. Using the historical validity of the constitution in comparison with the validity of the bible as an valid historical source for great claims is like comparing apples and oranges. The constitution does not make the claims of such things as the dead rising.

The PRO stated this: "Sometimes, things are more about testimony evidence and not physical evidence."

I agree, that is why in my first post I stated that this is what many call faith, but this does not prove anything about Christianity as being the one true religion and this can apply to all the religions of the world. I have already shown that atheism is not a religion so I do not find it in this category, on the contrary I find atheism to be the position that refuses to accept things on a subjective personal basis, just because people claim to have supposed personal experiences does not make something true. Point being that you do not believe in the gods of Hinduism, yet many people have claimed to have had experiences with them. My position on atheism is not required to point out that Christianity is not the one true religion, I could just as well be a Buddhist or a Muslim.

1: The Pro need not only deal with my arguments, but he is in the affirmative and needs to bring his evidence for the agreed topic, showing that Christianity is the ONE TRUE RELIGION. The PRO cannot do this beyond a subjective position.
2: The three types of evidence that makes something believable beyond personal subjectivity cannot be provided and the PRO has already conceded to this.
3: Historically the bible holds some truth, yet it matters not, only because we are seeking to find out how the bible proves that Christianity is the one true religion. My point was that the bible makes great claims about something that is the pinnacle of the Christian faith, the resurrection of Christ, which has no evidence to prove its position. First because the bible is not as reliable as many make it out to be as I stated in my first post, secondly, if we cannot prove the resurrection of Christ, there is no reason to believe what Paul or the bible says about the resurrection:

1 Corin. 15
12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up"if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. NKJV

So why is it that we apply rational logic to most things in our lives except this great claim of a man being raised from the dead? Paul says that your faith is futile if Christ did not rise from the dead. You cannot prove that Christ was raised from the dead, so what position are you left with? If you cannot prove the Christ was raised from the dead you have no basis for Christianity being the one true religion.

Note that just because I take kindly to my opponent due to his gracious demeanor and likable spirit, this does not mean that I take kindly to Christianity or religion, but I must remind my opponent that he has a burden to prove here. I offered some points to get the ball rolling with the debate, showing why I do not believe Christianity to be the one true religion, but I must I encourage the PRO to bring forth the evidence that Christianity is the one true religion, so far he has not done this.

I look forward to hearing your arguments.


Here's what my dictionary says and I agree since Christians believe in Creation.

Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Some or most atheists believe that the cause of the universe can be Big Bang or just that the universe never had a beginning or cause. That it was there all the time. They believe the nature of the universe can be many things up for discussion. But the ones I meet say there is no purpose of the universe. No designer made us or had plans for us. We just were there due to evolution and natural selection. Atheism also has what I call denominations. Some disagree on the Big Bang, some are agnostic, some are militant, some are what is called New Atheists. Organizations exist to carry out laws to say religion shouldn't have control over government or get respect by government. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened, due to our 1st Amendment.

But back to the topic.

P.S. Noah Ark claim was from my friend who studies a ton on Christian apologetics. And I mean study. He once brought 20 papers of research to a security officer on campus when told he couldn't smoke E Cigs in the building. I can't find any proof, but that is something I still plan to research.

Why is Christianity the one true religion? Well I've said it's most peaceful, caring, forgiving, and reasonable compared to others, but that's up for debate. I look to the bible and see if anything it says is true. You even said yourself the bible contains some truth. If it has some, I wanna see how it can all be true. It's turned skeptics into believers. C.S. Lewis originally saw Religion has harmful fairy tales and myths. He went to convert people. Especially at Oxford where he met the great Tolkien. They would have discussions. In a movie about Tolkien, Tolkien was asked "Surely you can't believe in myths." Tolkien replies "Why not? I can. In fact, I do." Myths aren't entirely lies. They are the mere opposite of a lie. Are ghosts myths? Big foot? Big Bang? They start as theories and myths, but can become great vitalities of truth.

Sorry if I sound like I'm trying to take this conversation to another place. But even Lewis himself said Christianity was The Big Myth. I'd look into C.S. Lewis and his conversion. Especially seeing if your local library has Mere Christianity, where he attempts to approach Christianity as a skeptic.

You really want to know about the ressurection though. That part is the only thing reason can't solve. It is something you see in movies. That's where faith mostly is. Everything like Gods Law, Morals, Behavior, and everything physical, is reason. The spiritual is more faith. Some say Jesus didn't commit miracles, just duped folks. Some say he did. Some say he knew wonderful remedies and cures in medicine. It's all for interpretation.

I liked the bible verse you brought up cuz it made me think. But like I said, it's spiritual when it comes to Ressurection. Paul was like any non believer saying Jesus died. But Paul persecuted those who followed Christ. Then he converted. Tell me these questions. Think about em.

1. Why do many people who convert from non theistic or theistic lives, usually convert to Christian?

2. Would you consider Newton and Galileo to be believers in something which could be false, even though they made very historically famous discoveries in astrology and physics?

3. It seems that when you go to the New Testament, it seems more like a realistic approach at life. Jesus heals people and is considered a saint or new leader, but those in charge of power and government want him gone. Would things like Islam, Himduism, or other religions seem unrealistic?

And to end this, here's what I've heard. Religions say they are the truth. Jesus says HE is the truth.
Debate Round No. 2


Defining religion:

The definition used by the Pro is very narrow when it comes to defining the term Religion, this is why I included all 3 definitions, which I pointed out as being strange in my last post. Religion is more than just beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Just because you have like minded people does not mean you have a religion. The question is begged, if we are to assume or believe anything, why should it automatically be a god or a creator, we have to assume there is a creator as much as we can assume other possibilities such as the big bang and the universe from nothing idea.

Again the Pros job is not to disprove atheism, but to prove that Christianity is the one true religion. The PRO has not been asked to defeat all the other beliefs and religions of the world, just to prove the affirmative declaration of Christianity.

Examining the proof of the PROS affirmative in regards to Christianity being the one true religion:

PRO: "Well I've said it's most peaceful, caring, forgiving, and reasonable compared to others, but that's up for debate."

My response: With all do respect this proves nothing. This can account for just about all the religions of the world.

The PRO then says :" I look to the bible and see if anything it says is true"

My response: We have already agreed that there some truths in the bible, just as there are truths in most historical writings. This also proves nothing.

In regards to the resurrection the PRO says: "That part is the only thing reason can't solve."

My response: Now I understand that we cannot just throw out the possibility that the resurrection happened, but it claims are great as I have stated already, and if you must take the issue on merely faith, you could be wrong and be believing in something that never happened. Now if it were mere believing and truly peaceful, then I would have no problems with it, yet as we all know that is not the case. Religion has done good, yet does the bad out weigh the good, many think it so, but reality tells us no!

The PRO then says that "Its all up for interpretation"

I say if that is the case then god has done us a great injustice of ever knowing truly what is truth and what is just otherwise words of men.
In regards to the bible verse, I will agree that Paul speaks of spiritual things, yet he is declaring the great feat of Jesus raising from the dead, without this actually happening, spirituality towards Jesus would be in vain, if you cant prove it then it is not logical to believe it to the point of blindly interpreting what men thought 200 years ago and how it applies to us today. We have evolved beyond the morals of the Old and New Testament. Even the PRO acknowledges that the Christian Religion is dogmatic and if you do not fall in line with anyone's particular views you are shunned, cast out, dis-fellowship-ed, and or removed from said denomination(s).

Answering the Pros questions:

1: Before we can answer this question we need to see some statistics at least for the claim of many. I looked for info or stats on this claim and I cannot find any, perhaps you could enlighten us with info.

2: Yes I can consider Newton and Galileo believing in something false, there is a term for this kind of argument, but I am not sure what it is called, but just because smart people or inventive or even scientific people believe something does not qualify the beliefs as more valid, that would be like me naming smart, scientific atheist that do not believe in said beliefs of these two gentleman who lived in a time when knowledge was flourishing. It is ironic that first of all Newton believed in the practice of alchemy and " In spite of his deep religious conviction, Newton was unorthodox when it comes to his belief of the devil, spirits and ghosts. He also assailed people who claimed to be tempted by personal demons as deluded by their own imaginations.
This might seem like a reasonable position for a man of science, but in that era, the reverse was actually true: most learned men believed in the existence of Satan, and considered Newton's view as blasphemous." (Source: Snobelen, Stephen D. (2002) Lust, Pride and Ambition: Isaac Newton and the Devil. Link)

Newton also wrote a thesis arguing against the Council of Nicaea [wiki] and the Church's doctrine on the Holy Trinity. Realizing that his position would not be accepted by the public, Newton never published this thesis in his lifetime. Indeed, it was released 27 years after his death. (Source: Isaac Newton's Religious Views [wiki])

Galileo was not a big fan of the church when it came to progress, and in the end it was the Catholic church that made is life miserable he was subjected to house arrest for the rest of his known life, why Galileo would believe in the things that these people who condemned him to a life of imprisonment for his scientific beliefs is beyond me, perhaps he was not as smart as history tells us.

3: What is truth? It sounds clich"' but really, Jesus said he was the truth, what truth specifically, all truth, and how does that prove Christianity as the one true religion?

Conclusion: The PRO seems to be hinting at possibilities as truths without ample evidence, to which he has already admitted that there is a lack of.

The evidence for Christianity being the one true religion is still in need of presentation by the PRO. We have received no more evidence for Christianity than we would have for any religion. So by this supposed claims for belief given so far, we could apply them to any religion and feel just justified, so why then Christianity, and doesn't that kind of make Islam just as plausible then Christianity? If not, then please explain why.

I am also still eager to hear what the PRO has to say about the issues of the bible that make it harder to believe, I will not list the discrepancies here because I listed prior. If god authored the bible it should be perfect, unless you believe in an imperfect god, then I guess it does not matter then what is truth.


Religion doesn't have to necessarily have Gods or creators. Buddhism is an example where there is no creator. The Buddha was asked about this and though he said gods existed, he said that when confronted later, he said to people that the idea of a creator was false and that people who thought that were suffering and becoming delusional.

Now the main question I am confused: You asked me to prove that Christianity is the ONE true religion, yet you say I'm not being asked to defeat all the other beliefs and religions of the world, including atheism since it is a set of beliefs or at least a philosophy. I don't understand. Proving that Christianity is the one true religion must mean that I have defeated the other beliefs and religions in the world? Am I wrong? Tell me if I am.

I'll just start by saying this. I'm not trying to convert anybody. I believe that converting requires self conviction. It's basically like a journey. Christianity can only be seen as a truth by those who take the time to really look into it and find their answers. Christianity has so many denominations and everything. Galileo is like Leo Tolstoy who was kicked out of the Russian Orthodox Church for beliefs of what would later be called Christian Anarchy. Galileo may have seen the church as corrupted. I wouldn't blame him if he did. The church is mostly corrupted these days anyways. I can tell you that I have seen agnostics, Muslims, and Jews who converted in my town. In fact, last month, my agnostic friend who actually laughed at the Christian culture of music, turned to Christ. He had been dealing with struggles in his life, like being homeless. I'll show a couple of wiki sites of conversion, but as I suspected, Islam is the 2nd in ranks of conversion.

One thing I can mention is that while religion has done a great amount of harm, so has atheism. Stalin didn't do the things he did with other communists because of HIS atheism (though that is another thing for debate), but because of the Marx/Lennin political ideology to create equality among all citizens. Anarchists would agree with Marx about no social classes, but Anarchists like myself do not want a government to be in charge of us, while Marx says a government with authority figures must be kept to maintain balance and order. That turned to sham when Stalin forced his citizens to starve. He also destroyed what to me, was a great historical piece of architecture. The Russian Orthodox Church. He blew up churches and arrested many religious people. Now I can say atheists always defend their reasons on this the same way religious people do. They say, Stalin didn't do it because he was an atheist, but because he was an insane mad man who was paranoid. Religious people say the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, and Army of God aren't doing this because of Christianity, but because there is a personal agenda behind it. I believe that with Westboro because I believe that this all really took effect after Fred Phelps lost his lawyer license and rumors about him possibly being gay at some point in his life started to show up. A Muslim I met said that Muhammad would've never approved of 9/11 or Jihad in today's world and that those who believe in Jihad are actually doing it for a political agenda of control.

I'm sorry for the rant. I'll leave it there for people to just look at. But yes, truth can lack the ample evidences. We could also be wrong about Christ, God, the universe in Christianity just as much as atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, and all other religious organizations could be. I got asked the same question Richard Dawkins was asked. We could all be wrong. We are all held with the accountability of the Burden of Proof. I then responded by asking what he believed in. He said he believed the Earth was formed by first being a big lava rock and then a meteor crashed into it and created the earth. I then asked him "What if your wrong about that?" I then began to ask him about his belief on Nature or Nurture in Psychology. He said he believed in Nature, I said Nurture. He asked I am wrong based off his hypothesis on what he believes is the reason we think the way we do. I then asked, "Well what if your wrong about that?" We kept going until we both agreed to disagree.

Note: I am not going to give a straight answer because questions like this is impossible to have one.
Debate Round No. 3


What I am saying is that you have not investigated all the possible religions of the world, so how can you eliminate the possibility that another religion maybe true. It is like me stating that I can prove god exists without having the ability to search the whole universe to prove that he does not exist, I cannot do this, so that is why I declare that is it is improbable that he does exist instead of declaring that he does not exist.

Your burden is to prove that Christianity is the one true religion, thus far you have not. I have pointed out several reasons why you cannot do this. Your belief is in faith, which is claiming to know things that are not true or that have been proved. This is the core of the debate. Can you prove beyond faith (claiming to know things that are not true) that Christianity is the one true religion? I believe that you have already hinted that you cannot.

I kept this simple due to time restraints.

I am still very interested to still hear the proof that Christianity is the one true religion, how can the PRO know this beyond faith?


I have investigated the possible religions. Especially Islam and Judaism. I notice other religions have the same pattern except some who believe in multiple gods. I basically look for morality in the religion as truth. I have been meaning to say this. What is morality? What do we consider moral? One can say it is moral to not be a rapist, but another will say the opposite. Who is right? But to the point. God can pretty much say if He created the world, then he knew what it would be like on Earth. And if he spiritually created us, then He knows what our morals will soon come to. Some people blame God for things like letting kids die in a flood while parents prayed for help. While that claim is false, I see two solutions to God doing good out of this for the kids and parents.

A. God sent them to heaven and away from the sick, disgusting modern day world that is corrupt with greedy politicians, corrupt cops, dictators, fascists of unbelievable control in politics and church.


B. The parents can see it as a way to be strong. They know what it's like to lose a kid and they can cope with people or family members who've had the same problem.

God wouldn't have done this. Instead, it was Satan, who God did allow to be free in his decisions. It's about the after effect that counts.

Now I provided with a burden of proof that is practically IMPOSSIBLE to prove physically. You can't see God by looking in the sky. You could see a cloud shaped like Jesus, but that's about as close as it gets. History has had accounts of certain Christian documents to be true. The Amazing Atheist always puts emphasis on Jesus being a fictional character that might as well be like the Cat in the Hat. There are letters about a man named Jesus and two address the man known as Pilate in the letters. To me, that's too much to be a coincidence. Also, back then, it was recorded many people died for refusing to denounce their faith in Christ. Why so many?

Summary 1.Evidence from Christian sources
The actual 27 New Testament documents and writings of the early church leaders (fathers)

2.Examples of evidence from secular sources a02;Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman Historian mentions that Jesus was the founder of the Christians and was put to death by Pontius Pilate. (Writing in 112 AD)
a02;Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (born in 37 AD) mentions that Jesus' brother James was stoned after he was brought before a council assembled by Ananus.
a02;Thallus, one of the first Gentile writers, wrote to try and explain away the darkness that occurred when Jesus died. (Writing in 52 AD)
a02;Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia, wrote a report on how he was killing both Christian men and women, boys and girls. There were so many being put to death that he wondered if he should only kill certain ones. (Writing in 106 AD). Why would so many people die for someone that didn't exist?

There is large documented support, both Christian and secular, for the historical existence of Jesus Christ. The Jesus-myth is groundless speculation contrary to all evidence, and totally without basis.

But even though we can't see God, the Heavens, or any of those such as much prove with 100% positivity, we can't prove much of anything of how the Earth or Life was created unless we experienced it by sight and proof. I can take Evolution because of the proof and observation of Charles Darwin, a great man in the field of science who was agnostic, not atheist. He knew we couldn't be 100% sure about the existence of God. There is a theory that atheists even believe in called the Big Bang. It's not considered The Big Bang conclusion, but the Big Bang Theory, a hypothesis. We know there must be a beginning to the universe due to the continuing addition today. So rewind, the big bang happens once all that light and stars are together and BOOM! Big Bang. But we haven't observed it for ourselves. Unless we can create another universe. Which I think Heaven is by MY hypothesis. It's another universe we can't see til death. Same for Hell.

Now I leave you the Burden of Proof on Big Bang as a challenge. Why should I believe it as a 100% proven theory and not something that is still a hypothesis? I believe in it, but I still don't think it's 100% true. Which means I am putting faith into the Big Bang. Same can be done with Psychologists and Sociologists with the Nature and Nurture issue. Both can be right, but both are theories. How can you prove which one is right? I am a believer of Nurture due to my genetics didn't leave me to be an alcoholic like my mother. I became an independent Straight Edge guy, a Christian, a Punk Rocker, and an anarchist. Besides Christian, I am all those things my parents are not.

You say it's improbable because it seems improbable. We cannot grasp power like God has. We can't empathize what it's like or the possibility. We only know what we know now. Technology, science, music, dancing, working, etc.

My belief in God, Christ, and the Bible is the same as my belief in Big Bang, Cavemen, and monkeys being our ancestor. Richard Dawkins has stated we didn't come from monkeys, but rather we both have the same features thanks to a common ancestor who is unidentified. I make another hypothesis, Neanderthal. Did I look it up? No. Do I care? No. It's a hypothesis. I could be wrong, I could be right.

So there is as much proof for Christianity being right as there is for the Big Bang or Cavemen. Maybe those writings were ancient Indians or Indians in general.
Debate Round No. 4


Morality can stem from many beliefs. For religion to claim exclusiveness to morality is a false idea, not that morality cannot come from religion, but that it can come from other sources as well. Unless of course you think that the only morality worth following is from the bible. Then of course we must deal with all the morally counterproductive claims and laws, examples, and the declaration of things that we would be considered immoral today. Which tells us at least one thing for sure, that the words spoken then were not for today, so then one must come to the notion of feeling responsible for deciding which rules to follow.

Your example of the parents and the child is lacking possibilities. Yet by default you claim that it is the devil or Satan that did it, which is another assumption that cannot be proved, I have just as much proof that god did it. Either way god must at least allow it, which makes him responsible. Your burden of proof is impossible to prove physically.

Which Christian documents are true? Which parts, is it all true or just parts? What about the resurrection, is that part true? How do you know?

There are speculations over the writings of early fathers and Tacitus, which is fine either way only because if there was or was not a man named Jesus killed by Pilate, it proves nothing for the greatest announcement of a resurrection!

In regards to Tacitus: Pilate was a prefect " not a procurator as in the "Tacitus" quote " as a famous block of limestone, which was found at Caesarea in 1961 stated.

Richard Carrier says this about Thallus and his writings: " We know next to nothing about Thallus or his works. We don't even know if he wrote only one book or several. The only information we have about him, even his name, comes entirely from Christian apologetic sources beginning in the late 2nd century, and that information is plagued with problems. Scholars since the 18th century have even invented facts about him, and some of these groundless notions--like the idea that he was a Samaritan--are repeated even today. Claims are also made, mainly but not exclusively by modern Christian apologists, which make Thallus into the earliest literary witness to the gospel tradition."

"The Armenian reference places the end of Thallus' "brief compendium" at the 167th Olympiad (which spans 112-109 BC). This would remain uncontested if it were not for a single reference to Thallus regarding an event long after that time: namely, the darkness at the death of Christ. Since this event must have occurred in the 1st century AD, and no doubt sometime between 28 and 38 AD, there are two possibilities: either the Armenian text is referring to a different work, or the date has been corrupted. Virtually every scholar to date has opted for the latter and made efforts to conjecture the original date--the only two plausible (though still unlikely) options are the 207th Olympiad (which spans 49-52 AD) and the 217th Olympiad (which spans 89-92 AD). The latter in fact is the more likely, judging from palaeography. But as I've already noted, it seems far more likely that the Armenian reference is to a different work. It could even be an excerpted epitome of a longer chronology."

Pliny the elder: Around 112 AD, in correspondence between Emperor Trajan and the provincial governor of Pontus/Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, reference is made to Christians for the first time.

"It's worth noting that unlike the 247 letters Pliny himself prepared for publication (so-called books 1-9), book 10, which contains the celebrated letters "96" and "97", was published posthumously and anonymously. "It is surprising," says Betty Radice (translator of the Penguin edition), "that no more letters were to be found in the imperial files or among Pliny's personal papers to add to this record of the relations between one of the best of Rome's Emperors and his devoted servant."

Why would so many people die for a lie? Has there ever been a time where large amounts of people died for their beliefs? Yes the Muslims in the conquests. Does this mean that Islam is the one true religion?

The myth aspect is not the point, the point is the truth behind the resurrection, which you already know is the focus I am aiming at. Truth in the raising of the dead and the ascension into heaven. So I will not follow the myth card, I am not interested. It is more of a red herring, just because a man named Jesus lived among potentially many named Jesus does not prove the resurrection, in fact all the writings in history do not prove the resurrection, and you know it.

The point here again is not to prove the beginning of the universe or who or what, it is about whether Christianity is the one true religion. Grasping the power of god is like trying to grasp the power of Zeus. It would make no difference unless we knew what we were looking at. With or without a god is a misnomer, rather with or with out religion, specifically Christianity.

As for Richard Dawkins, he is just one man like anyone else, yes smart, but not without the same limitations as anyone else has to see the evidence for or against any possibility. Again it does not matter monkeys or not, it is a diversion from the point of the debate. You say you don't care, but you have chosen Christianity for all these reasons and when it is boiled down, the evidence is wanting and not clear, therefore it is only by faith that you can accept the great claims of any religion, let alone Christianity.

So even if we are on level playing field as for evidence, for and against any possibilities, this only proves that we cannot know for sure and therefore, Christianity is as much the one true religion as any other.

I want to thank the PRO for a rather interesting debate. I am however certain that the PRO has no good argument for Christianity being the one true religion among the many and has offered and cannot offer proof of the bibles validity (dates, authors, mistakes, historically, geographically,). The PRO cannot give any evidence for the resurrection other than faith, which is to claim that you know something you do not know. To set up a whole belief system on things we cannot know for sure is faulty. The PRO may throw at me the Atheist stigma of doing the same, yet I am not making claims of the origins of life here or the origins of the universe, I am merely stating that I will believe what I can come to understand, life is full of things we might believe without actually knowing or observing physically, and with those things we can speculate, but to set up a whole world view on something we don't know, seems counter productive to whatever reality is.

I will ask that the PRO does not introduce any new arguments in the next round, because I will not and cannot respond, but to respond with only that in which is on the table at this point.

Thank you.


Now then. I have realized this.

Con has won.


He keeps asking me why Christianity is the one true religion and I try to explain in various ways. But he mainly wants to discuss the resurrection and if it can be proven. I have mentioned more than once that the resurrection cannot be proven with history or science, but by faith. All we know is that the body of Christ was no longer in the tomb where he resided. He was gone. Vanished. So faith alone is the only answer. I'm sorry that I have merely wasted time my opponent, who was strong in his defenses. I apologize to him and tell you to vote for Con simply because he has easily won this debate.

Thank you Con. It was a nice debate. :)
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 4 years ago
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: It is near impossible to prove something of that which can't be scientifically, historically or philosophically tested today. Pro's honorable concession was... admirable and inspiring. It is never easy to surrender one's beliefs in a scholarly discussion such as this. For that, I will give Pro a point for conduct- as insignificant as that may seem. Arguments obviously go to Con.
Vote Placed by Sagey 4 years ago
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't envy pro, because it was a tough question to begin with. Though Pro's use of "Because it is a Nice Religion" doesn't really convince me, because Buddhism is more humanistic than Christianity and Buddhists on average are less narcissistic than Christians or nicer people to know. So if the choice was on the most peaceful, Humanistic and Sincere religion, Buddhism would win easily. Pro really had the cards stacked against him and the diatribe in pro's sources didn't really help much. Though attacking the basis of Christianity was a little unfair from Con's side, because there is no evidence for much of Christianity, nor any other religion's past, there is little or no evidence for Buddha, Muhammad nor Vishnu, so this is a line Pro could have worked on.