The Instigator
dwright
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Christianity is true

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...
CosmoJarvis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 100164
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

dwright

Pro

The BoP is on me
Feel free to debate with me or comment
CosmoJarvis

Con

The Krusty Krab Pizza is the pizza for you and me

I accept this challenge. I shall also provide a burden of proof assessing the correctness of the beliefs of Christianity and such.
Debate Round No. 1
dwright

Pro

First, the early dating of the gospels.
The early church fathers (The followers of the apostles) quoted the New Testament in their letters, and as these were written in the 2nd century we can assert the New Testament was completed before then.
The Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is the oldest manuscript of the New Testament, ranging from around 100-150 AD, and as this is credited as the last gospel the gospel accounts existed before 100-150 AD
Thirdly, the book of Acts, written by Luke to tell the story of the Apostles does not mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, or the deaths of James the brother of Jesus, Paul and Peter which took place in the early 60 ADs. At the end of Acts Paul was still alive, and the fact that these important events in Christianity were not recorded by Luke, who was a historian and a doctor, shows that at 3/4 of the gospel and Acts were completed before 60AD, as Matthew and Mark were completed before Luke.
CosmoJarvis

Con

My opponent's burden of proof is simply stating names of Holy Scriptures and such, but fails to provide any factual evidence which can support the ideals of Christianity.

A warning before you, my honored spectators and opponent: don't bother putting your socks off because I'm going to blow them right off ;)

Outline:
I. The Validity of the Christian Bible

II. Scientific Falsehoods of the Bible
III. Sources

I. The Validity of the Christian Bible

The Bible is a collection of holy scriptures and was compiled in 450 BCE, though there are some texts believed to be as made as early as 1500 BCE. With this being said, it is wise to say that this religious book was created during a time where magic and religion was used to explain what could not be explained by preexisting logic and science.


We have to put into perspective of who wrote the Bible. This was written by multiple people over approximately a thousand years. It was written in a time where people used God to explain things, rather than apply logic and science.

This pattern of using religion to explain oddities is not uncommon, with the Greeks using Zeus to explain how rain and thunderstorms occured, the Norsemen using Ymir to explain the coming of man, and so on.

II. The Scientific Falsehoods of the Bible

This religious folklore of man being formed from clay or a fragment of a person's rib, alchemy, or the belief that the world is a meager six thousand years old as opposed to four billion years, or the entire Earth being flooded is outright impossible.

For example, the Bible claims that the world is approximately 6,000 years old (S1). However, this idea can easily be dismissed. Through radiometric dating, geologists have found rocks surpassing 3 billion years of age (S2). Additionally, there are trees older than 6,000 years such as the "Old Tjikko," which is over 9 thousand years old (S3). Additionally, Bill Nye, a prominent speaker for atheism, argued against the young-Earth beliefs saying "My scientific colleagues go to places like Greenland, the Arctic, they go to Antarctica and they drill into the ice with hollow drill bits; it's not that extraordinary, and many have probably done it yourselves, like with hole saws to put locks in doors, for example. And we pull out long cylinders of ice, long ice rods. And these are made of snow and ice. It's called snow ice. Snow ice forms over the winter, and snow flakes fall, and are crushed down by subsequent layers. They're crushed together, and are entrapping little bubbles. The bubbles must needs be [from] ancient atmospheres; there's nobody running around with a hypodermic needle squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles. And we find certain of the cylinders to have 680,000 layers. 680,000 snow winter/summer cycles. How could it be that just 4000 years ago, all of this ice formed? We can just run some numbers. Let's see we have 680,000 layers of snow ice, and 4000 years since the great flood, that means we need 170 winter/summer cycles every year. For the last 4000 years. Wouldn't someone have noticed that? Wouldn't someone have notice there's been winter/summer, winter/summer for 170 times in one year?" (S4).

Additionally, the tall-tale, "the story of Noah's Ark," when put into perspective, is unrealistic entirely. According to the Bible, Noah and his two sons and his wife managed to make a boat capable of housing two of every creature on this Earth. It would be an estimated around 510 feet long and 51 feet tall capable of sailing for around 150 days (S5). This also means that Noah would have to travel to find the the emus in Australia, the wild boars in Europe and the Canadian Geese in North America. However, during the time of Noah, the "New World," or North and South America, were not even discovered yet, and the voyages to successfully retrieve every animal on this world would take lifetimes.


III. Sources
S1) https://answersingenesis.org...

S2) http://www.extremescience.com...
S3) http://mentalfloss.com...
S4) http://www.youngearth.org...
S5) https://answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 2
dwright

Pro

If you want to look a Genesis as well, fine.
Young Earth creationism, which I do not endorse due to the wording of the creation story, interprets the Hebrew word YOM to mean a 24 hour day, which was also used to mean a generic period of time. Proving the Earth is more than 6000 years old only disheartens young earthers who interpret the creation a bit more literally.
Yes, I admit, a worldwide flood seems improbable at the least, a more local flooding would be likely, as the Sumerian Legend of the Epic of Gilgamesh shows similar elements and was written earlier. This would solve the problem of the animals of the ark, as Noah would only need to house local animals. Once again, there are many interpretations of the accounts, due to the nature of translating Hebrew into English and due to alternate theories about scripture.

However, you did not rebuke my early dating of the Gospel accounts, and I therefore add another thing for you and spectators to think about, we know Jesus was a real Jew in Israel and Judea in the 1st century, and we know 4 historical facts about his death:
1) he died - the disciples had no reason to make this up and it is regarded as a historical event anyway
2) the tomb was empty - if it wasn't, they authorities could parade Jesus's body in the streets to end Christianity
3) the disciple said they saw him alive - the reason Christianity exists
4) the disciples were changed men - afterwards they were willing to risk their lives for their cause, all being tortured and executed along the way

I propose that no other alternative theory other than the Gospel accounts could account for all 4 of these points with the simplicity of the Bible

Sources: http://www.historywiz.com...
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com...
http://www.oldearth.org...
CosmoJarvis

Con

Firstly, I apologize to my opponent for not responding to his early dating of the Gospel accounts. I do not know how they exactly can be debatable, nor do I see why they support your argument.

My opponent has attempted to nullify my argument regarding Noah's Ark by saying that even though a "a worldwide flood seems improbable at the least, a more local flooding would be likely," explaining that the story of Noah's Ark is unclear on this. He suggests that the flood in Noah's Ark was a local one, rather than a world-wide flood. However, according to Genesis 5:32-10:1, the story of Noah's Ark in the Bible, "Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, 'I am going to put an end to all people...' ... The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth... The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days." The story of Noah's Ark claims that all living creatures and the entire Earth had been covered by water. It blatantly says that the flood covered the Earth for a hundred and fifty days.

My opponent continues by saying "I therefore add another thing for you and spectators to think about, we know Jesus was a real Jew in Israel and Judea in the 1st century, and we know 4 historical facts about his death." He continues on to talk about how Jesus was a real person, had died, and he was never found in his supposed grave, and that his followers were devoted. My opponent, however, used baseless claims. He assumes that Jesus was real but fails to provide anything that can support these claims. Jesus has no birth records, his corpse was conveniently not in his grave, and there's little to no trace of him rather than an old Bible which possessed many tall-tales. In fact, it isn't much of a stretch to assume that he's another piece of mythology in this book.

Some of the "prime examples" of Jesus's existence are things such as "the Shroud of Turin," which is believed to be the burial cloth of Jesus, the nails believed to havebeen the ones to bind Jesus to the wooden cross, and Christ's crown, have been debunked. The Shroud of Turin, a 14-by-14-foot linen blanket, has revealed that it does not date back to the time of Christ, but instead the 14th century. Two nails were allegedly discoved in a 2,000 year-old tomb in Jerusalem. However, this was dismissed as no more than a publicity stunt, with experts debunking the case. A crown housed in the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris is believed to be the crown Jesus wore. It is referred to as "Christ's Crown." However, this crown is not old enough to have existed in 30 AD (as proven by carbon dating), and the crown is a circlet of brush and does not contain any thorns (S1).

Sources:
S1) http://www.livescience.com...

Debate Round No. 3
dwright

Pro

My opponent's mention of sacred relics, however, does not realise that after 2000 physical evidence of a executed Jew from an obscure village in Israel, he chance of such relics surviving is very slim, and is similar to cold-case homicides that are decades old, where forensic evidence is pretty much absent and circumstantial evidence is more common.

Many late 1st and early 2nd century writers acknowledge the existence of a historical Jesus, but give little mention of divine power (as these sources were "unfriendly" pagan and Jewish sources with no reason to endorse Jesus). For example the Jewish historian Josephus, who references Jesus in Jewish Antiquities (Book 18) in a section known as the Testimonium Flavianum. This has sections that could be deemed suspicious and show evidence of Christian tampering (due to Josephus being a Jew and thus an "unfriendly" source), but once these are removed you still get a coherent idea of who the historical Jesus was:
Around this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who did surprising deeds, and a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place came to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, have still to this day not died out.
The suspected edits have references about the resurrection and the deity of Jesus, which the Jews denied as blasphemy.

The Roman historian Tacitus also mentions Jesus in his last major work, Annals. The context of the quote is that Tacitus was writing about the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, where Emperor Nero blamed Christians for the fire:
Therefore, to put down the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts … whom the crowd called “Christians.” The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate … Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular.
Although the mention of Jesus this small, it does mention Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judea at the time of Jesus, who's existence was supported by the Pilate Stone and several coins found from the time of Jesus.

The Talmud, a collection of Rabbinical writings from 70 AD to 200 AD, mentions Jesus, albeit equally as short, but significant as it is a Jewish source with authority in Judaism:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

"Rabbi Eliezer said to the Elders: 'Did not the son of Stada practice Egyptian magic by cutting it into his flesh?' They replied: 'He was a fool, and we do not pay attention to what fools do. The son of Stada, Pandira's son, etc.' " as above in Sanhedrin, 67a.

Stada means prostitute in this context, alluding to the circumstances of Jesus' birth, and acknowledges that he performed miracles, but blamed them on witchcraft. It also mentions the death of "Yeshu" the Hebrew name of Jesus, by being hanged (also alluding to the method of execution, crucifixion).

Sources:http://www.bethinking.org...
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...
http://www.talmudunmasked.com...
http://www.bible-history.com...
http://www.coinsoftime.com...

CosmoJarvis

Con

To conclude my argument, because of the scientific fallacies contained in the Bible and because of the warriness of the validity of the people who created the Bible, Christianity and its holy scriptures is, as I believe, false.

I have presented the arguments that Christianity is untrue, explaining that the Bible was written by unreliable sources (people who lived thousands of years ago who used religion to explain nature rather than logic and science), and closely analyze somethings the Bible takes for fact such as the belief that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old and the story of Noah's Ark. I have also incorperated the idea that Jesus might have not existed by presenting the supposed evidence of his existence and explaining how they have been debunked.

In the second round, my opponent presents early dating of the gospels. In the third round, he tries to refute my point about Noah's Ark by suggesting that the flood in Noah's Ark was a local flood. However, I presented direct quotes from Genesis to support the belief that the flood in Noah's Ark was a worldwide flood. He also incorperates four points about Jesus and his disciples, calling them "facts," yet failing to provide evidence explaining why they're "facts." In the fourth round, my opponent talks about how, because writers from the first and second centuries and other pieces of literature acknowledge Jesus's existence, he apparently "exists."

My opponent has failed to refute my points on how the Bible has many scientific fallacies, and failed to provide a burden of proof properly demonstrating that the ideas that Christianity preach are true. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Good debate.
Posted by HeyTheist 1 year ago
HeyTheist
Even the earliest dating of the earliest manuscripts of the gospels place them at least 40 years after Jesus was supposed to have died, meaning not only did plenty of time pass for any real events to be mythicized but also an entire generation had past (the Hebrew meaning of generation to be specific). This alone makes the gospels unreliable, further evidence which has been greatly studied by academic theologians has lead to the conclusion that the gospels were certainly not eye witness accounts, the authors themselves are actually unknown the church later attributed the works to the followers of Christ written about in the new testament, this naming took place in the second century AD. Not to mention the internal inconsistencies within the gospels such as the two wildly different genealogies of Joseph which contradict each other completely given in Mathew and Luke.
Posted by dwright 1 year ago
dwright
If the Gospels are early, the more likely it is that these were written by eyewitnesses and the less likely the Gospels get corrupted by myth
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Why does the dating of certain events of the Bible relate to this debate?
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Disproving.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Disproving.
Posted by dwright 1 year ago
dwright
Are you disproving or proving Christianity?
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
The Krusty Krab pizza is the pizza for you and me
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
dwrightCosmoJarvisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling/Grammar: The Pro side seems to sparingly use commas when they're actually necessary... Con 1-0. Arguments: How does one prove Christiniaty without quoting books written by Christians (i.e. the Bible)? They can't. Pro doesn't actually provide solid arguments for why one should affirm, therefore scientific fallacies pointed out by Con carry the points. Con 4-0. Sources: See Con Round 2. Con 6-0.