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

Christianity is too far into its own myth to turn back??

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 815 times Debate No: 67272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (1)




Christianity as a religion, has been spreading since its conception. The vast majority of its old testament is illogical, physically impossible and have no evidence to show it was real.
The new testament was written using the old as a basis thus open to the same criticism. Yet many people take the bible as literal as opposed to anecdotal. Thanks for reading those that did.


I'll accept this.
But, can you clarify what you mean to debate, exactly? As I understand it, you are trying to argue that the OT and NT are simply Christian-myth, right? ... So, you want me arguing that Christianity is not myth AND has relevance? I am confused by the "too far into its own myth to turn back??" bit, so that's why I was wondering if you meant "relevant" ... clarify please and lets go ...
Thanks again for posting. I look forward to ... converting you (jokingly ... a little) ... :P
Debate Round No. 1


Yes for clarity, it is to say that I would argue that many supporters, of the Christian faith in particular, know full well that their religion has mythical beginnings. And that for the church as a whole to turn round and say yes our faith is based on a myth, as opposed to us having said for millenia that it is based on factual scripture, would be tantamount to the destruction of the Christian church. This is my first attempt at this forum so thanks for sticking with me. My particular gripe is with the way the church adapts it's camouflage as times change. For example, the bible says god created the earth 6000 or so years ago. Science has proved this wrong, I'm sorry to say that if you argue that carbon dating can be out by 4 billion years you are only kidding yourself. But the church has now adapted to say " well a day in gods eyes is like a thousand years." to me that sounds like a cop-out or at least incredibly dishonest. I just see it as feeding on gullibility. I'd have a lot more respect for the powers that be, if they just came clean and gave the real basis which is we are all really agnostics. I think I could live with this a lot easier than the pretentious god stuff. Thanks for the giggle on converting me. Lol


Okay, so what?! I believe that G-d spoke the world into existence. YOU adhere to the idea that SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING that is just as Absurdly mythical!!
My friend:
I have a car. Did that come from nothing? Nope. It came from a FACTORY.
I have a computer. Did that come from nothing? No. It came from JAPAN!
I have a headache? Did that come from nothing? Again, the answer is NO. The synergies in my brain have been inflamed because of the change in air pressure in my northern climate; THE INFLUX RESULTS IN MY HEADACHE. So, it is JUST as Mythical to say that SOMETHING came from NOTHING as it is for a CHRISTIAN to say that his SOMETHING came from G-d. You believe in a mythical start to this whole thing JUST AS I believe in a mythical start that G-d created it all. So what?!?!? That argument is nothing.

I conceded your second gripe: "the church adapts it's camouflage as times change."
But again, this is groundless and without merit.
This is normal humanity.

For example:

I. Look at girls; don't they camouflage themselves? Do you really think they ALL like wearing black leggings, micro skirts, or this fashion or that? or modern haircuts in a particular style? They do NOT. The TRUTH is, they are human, and they Adapt. It may not be right, but it is human, nonetheless.

II. Consider guys. Why do you think we LOOK like the men we respect (hair styles, fashion, nike shoes, skinny jeans, etc.)? Swooped over hair. Slang and coined phrases... Why do you think we talk like the men we want to be like? It is because we camouflage ourselves. Look at yourself? Do you have a style? Do you have slang? Why do you have those? ... ... ...
because you camouflage yourself.

So, if it is hard to confront a few kids in our classrooms, how tough is it for a Church to confront the World? Think on that! The church is run by man. Man is tempted throughout. They bend and break. So yes, the church conforms and at times in error. So what?!?! ... all you have said is that the church is run by man ... and man is weak and feeble. THE SCRIPTURES TOLD YOU THAT ... thousands of years ago.

This does not mean camouflaging ourselves is right. It is not. But it does expend compassion to those who do. We understand why they camouflage themselves because they believe they are worth something and want to be accepted, and we forgive them (as we forgive the church, as Christ forgave us). Do the same to the church. It wants to be accepted. It has values and merit that IT believes should be expressed and heard. If you disallow it, you are as bigoted as the rest of humanity.
The church has error, as anything that is human driven will; yet, it has much to teach us. So expend compassion to the church and let it grow and develop and change with these times. It does not mean it is right (the brazen camouflaging). But it is human. And you can understand that, right? The church is, after all, RUN BY HUMANS.

Your "teachers" taught you evolution. So what!? My "teachers" taught me creationism. My teachers had doctorate degrees from a prestigious universities, (Vanderbilt, Northwestern, etc.). Sooooooo WHAT!? " " it makes no difference. Who cares?!? Your teacher graduated here. Mine from there. The point is: it"s all the same! Who cares where my professors graduated from. The point is, there are HOLES in Evolution just as there are HOLES in Creationism. Good luck fleshing those out!

So what?!?!?! " we are bantering back and forth " the Scriptures say over and over again that Man cannot figure out what G-d has hidden. He has hidden the mystery of our beginning.
This means that try as you might, you cannot figure out how we came to be. No man can!

But think on this (and this goes towards proving my point): you are a fascinating human, with the capacity too write, to think, to draw, to reason, to have empathy, to love, to hate, to debate (unsuccessfully :P), " and then, think on this "

We are ALL ALONE on this planet.

If we hop in our spaceship and begin to travel into the cosmos, how long will it take for us to find something concrete? " We will ride on ... and ride on ... and ride on ... and never come to something as precious and as unique as this: our earth, ourselves, our egos, our pathos, our errors, our ambitions. We are a UNIQUE CREATURE in a unique world (and if you try to argue that science has found planets that MAY BE inhabited in 4 MILLION YEARS I will call you out on that crap!). We, despite what science wants to say, are unique. We are one of a kind.

And look on your grandmother"s nightstand. There sits a book. It is full of wisdom (Proverbs) and heart wrenching stories (Christ crucified). And when you test it, apply it in real life, you find that some of the promises therein are true. Then I have to wonder, and this I argue with you: isn't it MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that the rest of it is true as well?

Debate Round No. 2


To begin thanks for the argument (debate is so gentile.)
You say my argument of the universe coming from nothing is absurd. I would never put that in the same bracket as, being spoken into existence by an imaginary being, whom we have no evidence of whatsoever. You need to invent a whole other realm for this to work. For mine you simply have to wait for the answer.
The church has had 2000+ years of riding off the back of science ie. We found cures for all sorts of diseases!!! Oh god guided them to the answer.... We invented machines to help with everyday life. God showed them how to do that...... It's all a bit too much like the playground to me, "I made this den." "Yeah well I gave you the idea!"
You named three things there 1.Car 2. Computer 3. Headache. And guess what? Science helped make and diagnose all three. But I'm going to guess you'll say with gods help.
The camouflage that people wear ie. Make-up, hairstyles etc. Is down to evolution. The brains urge to replicate and spread seed, a base primal drive. Or is it creationism??
The bible is so vague and open to interpretation it is risible. It is written that way in order to control the simple people, and to enable it to wriggle out of any difficult questions.
And the last section to do with life in the universe. Using the thinnest of thin edges of the drake equation 1000 civilisations exist. I think the greatest ego in the universe award goes to the theist, who believes that a being capable of creating a universe on a whim, 1. Actually cares about them and built a planet just for them. 2. Didn't go on to make any more civilisations, eco-systems, creations..... And finally 3. The greatest one of all.......... Made us in its image!!!! That sir is the biggest pile of steaming, you know what, I've ever heard. If that doesn't make that side of religion laughable, I cannot argue with someone that gullible!


MattStPaul forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by not-playing-golf 1 year ago
Oh I must have taken the bible out of context again?!?!? There is a surprise!!
Posted by MattStPaul 1 year ago
I was traveling for the Christmas holiday and when I got into my hotel room to check how much time I had for this last rebuttal I found that time had expired.

The argument was so scattered anyway and really had broken down. So, I will just address one thing I found thought-provoking from Con"s last argument: the idea of man made in G-d's image.

This is a simple idea to understand. Obviously it does not mean man looks like G-d, as G-d is a Spirit.
What that refers to is those things in man that are similarities of G-d: His ability to have compassion; His capacity to weigh "right" and "wrong"; His ability to judge; His triune nature (where He is 1) Father, 2) Son, and 3) Holy Spirit to man"s being 1) Body, 2) Soul, and 3) Spirit); His eternality; His ability to create (as man creates). Man reflects all of these because we were made in the image of G-d.

So, the idea that man is created in the likeness of G-d refers to us having capacities which are found in the Creator.

Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 1 year ago
If Santa Claus didn't exist he couldn't have taught us anything.
It's impossible to prove that God exists,
but that doesn't mean he's imaginary.
If God didn't exist, nothing & nobody else would either.
Externals aren't causative factors.
Allowing your thoughts to be influenced by externals doesn't mean that
externals are causing your thoughts.
You're using the logical fallacy-
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc. "
"After this therefore because of this. "
"Chance" "accidents" , "randomness" , etc. , don't exist.
Logic obviously involves a lot more than identification.
People smoke, drink, use drugs, etc. , because they want to & choose to.
There are no such things as "addiction" , "drug abuse" , "alcoholism" , etc.
Ideas, such as religions, can't, & don't, "do" anything-
they don't create emotions in people, make things happen
in the world, change things, etc.
The whole point of the information that bstock put out is that it had
absolutely nothing to do with "religion" .
If the Bible is, in fact, extremely correct in it's historical accuracy,
there's not much point in dismissing it as "supernatural nonsense" ,
"religious propaganda" , or whatever.
R.D. Wilson is on Wiki.
That's no religious site!
Does anybody actually believe that archeological evidence isn't scientific?
Try Searching for : Gold in seawater.
According to the NOAA, there's about 13 billionths of a gram of gold in a liter of seawater.
As I've stated over & over & over again, my name back then wasn't Jesus-
I had a Hebrew name, pronounced Yeshua.
People believed in Reincarnation LONG BEFORE Biblical times.
Since "death" doesn't exist, Incarnation would be a more accurate term than Reincarnation.
It is said that the Great Oath of the Bodhisattva ( Vajrasattva ) ,
which bring the end of the cycle of birth & death,
has been taken for countless eons of time.
Loose yourself from the suffering of maya, of birth & death.
& Reach Enlightenment.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
People can be good without god, but we are denied the after life if we do not believe. This is one reason why I do not believe.
I could not love someone that wants me to fear them. And would burn me for ever for not believing.
No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.
Posted by bstock 1 year ago
I'm happy to hear that you have a wonderful family and goals and meaning but without Christ your life will just end. I can promise you that all you have will be magnified by a life with Christ. A life so beyond yourself, for a much higher purpose than any temporary goal can provide. What better to pass to your family than abundant and eternal life in Christ? You could read testimony after testimony but what I'm talking about you'll only scoff at unless you experience it for yourself. Try it. Try Jesus Christ. He never disappoints. You're life will never be the same.
Posted by not-playing-golf 1 year ago
After a tad of research into carbon dating on a dozen or so sites. Carbon dating becomes less accurate around about 20,000 years ago so we are operating at an optimum with 2000ish years. The select few inaccuracies have been reviewed and proved to be hokum. I'll stick with real scientists on this thanks.
Posted by not-playing-golf 1 year ago
@bstock I struggled to find any mention of RD Wilson outside of religious sites thus I'll discount his work. And Ramsay promoted the finding of gold in seawater............hardly sounds like the greatest thinker of our era.
Posted by not-playing-golf 1 year ago
@bstock show me any one of those things that you mentioned in your first comment that required religion. All of those things could just have easily been achieved without religion. And my life is easy, meaningful and hopeful. I'm self employed, I have family, friends and life goals. And I look forward to what they all will achieve in their lives. The best bit is i only know two religious people I associate with. They all seem to get along just fine. I'll address the other comment soon.
Posted by bstock 1 year ago
Scholar R.D. Wilson, is fluent in 45 ancient languages and dialects, and he analyzed 29 kings from 10 different nations, each of which had corroborating archeological artifacts (primary source). Each king was mentioned in the Bible as well as documented by secular historians, which allows them to legitimately be compared. The names as recorded in the Bible matched the artifacts perfectly, down to the last jot and tittle! The Bible was also completely accurate in its chronological order of the kings. On the other hand, Wilson showed that the secular accounts were often inaccurate and unreliable.

Historian and archeologist Sir William Ramsay, once very skeptical of the accuracy of the New Testament, ventured to Asia minor over a century ago to refute its historical accuracy. He closely examined Luke's accounts in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, which contained numerous geographical and historic references. Dig after dig the evidence without fail supported Luke's accounts. Governors mentioned by Luke that many historians never believe existed were confirmed by the evidence excavated by Ramsay's archeological team. Without a single error, Luke was accurate in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands.

Other discoveries ranging from evidence for the Tower of Babel, the Exodus, and the Walls of Jericho, all the way to the tombs of contemporaries of St. Paul, have greatly enhanced the believability of the Bible.

Unless one tries to use carbon dating which yes, is so unbelievable accurate, it cannot be disproven. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time focusing on details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they omit discussion of the basic flaw in the method: you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
Posted by bstock 1 year ago
@not-playing-golf, Life must be so hard and so meaningless and so hopeless for you. I am so sorry. I know you may not realize it fully. Why do you try so hard to discount and discredit something that has withstood the ages, that has changed lives, given us better forms of government, improved conditions in the world, restored marriages, released people from addictions, brought people out of hopelessness, forged civil rights movements, creates humility, kindness, purity, joy, and peace in the hearts of those who truly go "all in"? Sure, there have been corrupt people involved in the "church" throughout history who have done awful things in the name of "Christianity." Those people were obviously as unfamiliar with the bible as those of you calling it fiction or fairytale. Let's just think about the question: how do we know the past? The best sources for historians (I happen to be one by degree and practice) are primary sources. Documentation from people who actually witnessed history unfolding. History cannot be "proven" using faulty methods by people in the present. The bible is a primary source backed up by original texts that have been discovered. It's pretty simple, should we believe you or the ones who lived it? Contrary to a popular misquote, the bible books were not written hundreds of years later by people who didn't actually witness the events recorded. Those statements are made by people who don't know the bible or obviously haven't seen the wealth of evidence to the contrary of that statement.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mr.Chorlton 1 year 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Difficult to judge here...neither really argued about the debate title. Although I don't agree with Cons argument it was a better argument than the one put forward by Pro and so picks up the points there. Con was penilased conduct points for forfeiting the last round and it was a tie on the sources points because neither used any.