The Instigator
IEnglishman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DarthVitiosus
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Christianity v Atheism

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...
DarthVitiosus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 905 times Debate No: 66454
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

IEnglishman

Pro

I believe Christianity is a more correct world-view then atheism ever will be.

As per usual I take the burden of proof.
DarthVitiosus

Con

I as Con will be arguing the atheist narrative by urging that atheism is the more correct world view.

DEFINITIONS & ASSOCIATIONS:

Atheism:"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods[1]."

[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Christianity:"The religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices[2]."

[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

INTRODUCTION & PREMISES:
As we see in the definitions I have offered, atheism simply means living without god or the gods. If my opponent is arguing in favor of Christianity as being the correct world view, he must prove how it is the correct world view compared to all other world views. This mean my opponent is not making the case for theism but Christianity in particular. My opponent must make the case that Christianity is the more correct world view.

ARGUMENTS:

#1 Atheism mean simply living without a god or gods

Atheism is not a formal religion or an organized philosophy of sorts. It should be properly understood as a statement that one is in disblief about the existence of a god or gods. Atheism has nothing to do with good or evil, right or wrong, or similiar dualisms. Atheism does not assert values. Therefore, atheism does not need to defend the rightness or wrongness of the world. Atheism is just merely a statement that one lacks the belief in the god or gods.Atheism does not assert anything. Therefore, atheism does not need to defend anything. Atheism does not deny the existence of god becasuse a negative can't be proven. It just lacks the belief in the existence of a god or the gods. The lack of belief in a god or gods does not prove the existence of a god or gods.

#2 Christianity is a formal religion

If my opponent intends on arguing Christianity is the more correct world view; he must show how Christianity is correct. Unlike atheism, Christianity makes many assertions about the world and how people should function within it. My opponent will not only have to defend these assertions but he must also show us why Christianity is more correct than atheism.

Debate Round No. 1
IEnglishman

Pro

In this debate, it my intent to demonstrate that

1. a monotheistic God exists
2. this God is the God taught about in the Bible

In order to do this, I will present a number of arguments for

1. the existence of a God recognized by the world's monotheistic belief systems
2. the rectitude of the claims of Christ

First of all I will argue for a monotheistic Creator God.

In order to establish one I will first say that there are two classes of objects in this world: those that contain within themselves the causes of their existence, and those which depend upon some external cause apart from themselves. For example, I depend upon my parents as a cause for my existence. Since we know that at least some things depend upon other things for their existence, then we must assume there exists an ultimate ground for the Universe's existence. If we do not assume that then we cannot explain the existence of anything at all. Eventually we must designate something which has the causes of its existence in itself as the cause of everything. If that's not it, we must go backwards even further, but eventually we must have a self-caused thing that is the ground for the Universe's existence. Atheist's say this is the universe itself, but there are good reasons, both philosophical and scientific, to think it is not. Energy and matter do not appear to have existed forever but to have started existing at the Big Bang. Also, energy and matter do not generate from nothing but have causes in the quantum world. So we must get to a neccassary being who is the ultimate explanation, the creator of the Universe. This is what most monotheists believe to be God.

Secondly, I will present a moral argument for God. There exist a realm of real moral values and duties which we perceive in this world. Now of course an atheist may say these are illusory and ultimately explicable as second order phenomena. If we accept this, however, we could run a counter-factual argument to deny our physical senses are really correct. But obviously this would lead to premises which are less obvious than their opposites. Further there is a contradiction in thinking our moral senses are subjective. Moral subjectivism says we ought to think bad actions are wrong. But this is contradictory since it confers a moral obligation upon the person who accepts that moral belief system. So it seems logical to think there are moral obligations in this world. Now, on atheism, the existence of objective morality is inexplicable. But on monotheism, it is natural because it is simply obeying the will of the creator of all things- God.

Thirdly, I will present an argument known as the argument from religious experience. Now people experience visions of divine beings. As I have explained in the moral argument, it is more obvious our senses are accurate than it is not in an argument. So in this argument we should conclude such experiences are true. That means people have real experiences of God, and that God exists. That is an argument that should make one embrace some form of theism and is obviously only addressed by it.

Secondly I will use Bayesian probability theory to see the likelihood of Jesus being resurrected from the dead.

Jesus of Nazareth made extraordinary claims. Now those claims were that he was the king of kings of the people of Israel and would establish Heaven. If Jesus was raised from the dead then he would have created his Heaven in an afterlife he had promised to establish if he had died. This was the claim he made after many religious experiences.

Analysing the historical parts of the Gospels and the historical letters of Paul we see there are four pieces of evidence put forth that Jesus was raised:

1. Jesus was placed in an empty sealed tomb by Joseph of Arimathea after being crucified
2. the disciples discovered his empty tomb on Easter Sunday
3. people claimed to have seen Jesus after he had supposedly died
4. all the people who knew Jesus saw him and knew him as the person who had been crucified

Now these facts raise the probability of Jesus being ressurected (otherwise a virtually zero probability) as being much higher against the background probability of a person being alive after being crucified over three days and three nights. We can see there is a lot higher chance that he was raised given these facts and the facts of the sealed tomb. According to the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, chapter 6, the probability of Jesus being raised given these facts is at least 65%. As it is more likely than not Jesus was raised from the dead, and it is supported in history, we should accept he was raised from the dead. If my other arguments hold, those two facts should add credence to God existing and Jesus being who he claimed to be, and this proves he was God and that Christian theism is true.
DarthVitiosus

Con

My opponent has raised this debate to the heavens with his theoretical arguments. I fully intend to bring this debate crashing down the reality to which we all live and die in. My opponent is also attempting to shift his claims to monotheism. I won't allow it because the resolution is "Christianity versus Atheism." My opponent also stated in Round 1, that he believed "Christianity is a more correct world-view." Therefore, my opponent must defend Christianity not monotheism.

"Energy and matter do not appear to have existed forever but to have started existing at the Big Bang. Also, energy and matter do not generate from nothing but have causes in the quantum world."

How do you know that energy and matter have not always existed? How do you know how reality functioned before the Big Bang too? The Big Bang is merely a theory, not an authoritative fact.

"So we must get to a neccassary being who is the ultimate explanation, the creator of the Universe.This is what most monotheists believe to be God."

How does the the Big Bang theory confirm the existence of one god? What prevents it from being multiple gods? Ho does the Big Bang confirm the existence of agod at all? The Big Bang is a theory, therefore it is speculation regardless.

"There exist a realm of real moral values and duties which we perceive in this world. "

How do you know morals exist? The concept is metaphysical.

"If we accept this, however, we could run a counter-factual argument to deny our physical senses are really correct. "

Our senses do not confirm the existence of morals. Our senses however, do confirm the existence of rapport since homosapiens sympathize with each other as they know more about each other[1]. Do you cry every time someone is killed in Russia, Nigeria, or some distant foreign land? No, that is because you do not have any rapport with those people. If you have morals about it is wrong for someone to be killed. You should feel the same way about a murder in New York City and a murder in Rio de Janeiro. You probably won't feel the same way because you lack the necessary identication with those people to build an equal rapport. You won't feel the same way when a stranger is killed compared to a friend or family member due to rapport.Our senses do not relate to morals but rapport. Morals are abstract concepts.

[1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;

"Further there is a contradiction in thinking our moral senses are subjective. Moral subjectivism says we ought to think bad actions are wrong. But this is contradictory since it confers a moral obligation upon the person who accepts that moral belief system. So it seems logical to think there are moral obligations in this world."

Moral subjectivism does not assert the "rightness" or "wrongness" of actions. Only moral objectivism can assert the "rightness" and "wrongness" of an action. Moral subjectivism exists in practice and in reality. It is not a matter whether my opponent or I think moral subjectivism is pleasant. My opponent and I can state killing is wrong, theft is wrong, rape is wrong, and etc. but people will still do it regardless of what my opponent or I think. Moral objectivity may be our personal truths but it is not a fact in the real world with other people where different moral standards are observable. My opponent must also show how a moral obligation definitively exists.

"Analysing the historical parts of the Gospels and the historical letters of Paul we see there are four pieces of evidence put forth that Jesus was raised:

1. Jesus was placed in an empty sealed tomb by Joseph of Arimathea after being crucified
2. the disciples discovered his empty tomb on Easter Sunday
3. people claimed to have seen Jesus after he had supposedly died
4. all the people who knew Jesus saw him and knew him as the person who had been crucified"

I am tossing out the Gospels out as potentially inaccurate resources due to none of them being written by Jesus, someone that met Jesus, or someone that interviewed people who knew Jesus. None of the Gospels were written during Jesus' lifetime. The first one written was fifty years after his death. We must assume, that the Gospels will have inaccuracies as a result of being a secondary source. Then on top of that many of the Gospels are Christian propaganda pieces as well which leaves biases rather than a historical narrative to be taken seriously. The letters of Paul were also Christian propaganda written by a devout Christian apostle not a scholar, not an annalist, and certainly not a historian. The Gospels nor the letters of Paul should be taken as historically accurate considering the intent of the authors.

"Now these facts raise the probability of Jesus being ressurected"

No facts, I just debunked your resources for being propaganda pieces.

Notice how most of my opponent's arguments are grounded in theory. This is simply because he instinctively knows, his view has no basis in reality.
Debate Round No. 2
IEnglishman

Pro

My opponent is also attempting to shift his claims to monotheism. I won't allow it because the resolution is "Christianity versus Atheism."

I was providing arguments for a God that is mentioned in the Old Testament because his non-existence would stop Jesus' claims of being divinely provided by him would make no sense without a God of the Old Testament. I stated at the beginning of my comments that I was proving that Jesus was who he claimed to be and I would have thought people would be intelligent enbough to realize this involves proving God exists as well, so my opponents self-pitying claims I am only defending monotheism are obviously untrue.

"How do you know that energy and matter have not always existed? How do you know how reality functioned before the Big Bang too? The Big Bang is merely a theory, not an authoritative fact."

Theories in science are things backed up by physical evidence, not non-authoritative facts.

As to why we must have one God rather than multiple gods, that is posited because of Occam's Razor.

"How do you know morals exist? The concept is metaphysical."

Metaphysical claims can be proven logically as I have attempted to do in my moral argument. It's up to voters to decide whether I have done that or not.

"Our senses do not confirm the existence of morals. Our senses however, do confirm the existence of rapport since homosapiens sympathize with each other as they know more about each other[1]. Do you cry every time someone is killed in Russia, Nigeria, or some distant foreign land? No, that is because you do not have any rapport with those people. If you have morals about it is wrong for someone to be killed. You should feel the same way about a murder in New York City and a murder in Rio de Janeiro. You probably won't feel the same way because you lack the necessary identication with those people to build an equal rapport. You won't feel the same way when a stranger is killed compared to a friend or family member due to rapport.Our senses do not relate to morals but rapport. Morals are abstract concepts."

Just because one is amoral about something which one does not sense no more proves moral values are subjective than not seeing something from miles away proves are physical senses are subjective. This counter-argument is completely able to be reconciled with objective morality.

"Moral subjectivism does not assert the "rightness" or "wrongness" of actions. Only moral objectivism can assert the "rightness" and "wrongness" of an action."

Rightness and wrongness place obligations on you to act rightly and/or wrongly. That's a basic theory in ethical philosophy.

" Moral subjectivism exists in practice and in reality."

Bare assertion.

" It is not a matter whether my opponent or I think moral subjectivism is pleasant."

But it is a matter for a philosophy of ethics.

" My opponent and I can state killing is wrong, theft is wrong, rape is wrong, and etc. but people will still do it regardless of what my opponent or I think. "

This just proves people have not encountered moral standards yet. If I haven't seen a lighthouse before I may not know what it is when I look at it but it doesn't show my senses cannot detect lighthouses.

"Moral objectivity may be our personal truths but it is not a fact in the real world with other people where different moral standards are observable".

Sure different behaviours are observable, but most people still feel in their hearts that there is a correct way to act and behave.

"My opponent must also show how a moral obligation definitively exists."

https://en.wikipedia.org.... Ethics accepts there are moral oughts, the question is how well the moral philosophy encompasses them. To my mind, objective morality makes more sense of ethical philosophy than does subjective morality.

"I am tossing out the Gospels out as potentially inaccurate resources due to none of them being written by Jesus, someone that met Jesus, or someone that interviewed people who knew Jesus. None of the Gospels were written during Jesus' lifetime. The first one written was fifty years after his death. We must assume, that the Gospels will have inaccuracies as a result of being a secondary source. Then on top of that many of the Gospels are Christian propaganda pieces as well which leaves biases rather than a historical narrative to be taken seriously. The letters of Paul were also Christian propaganda written by a devout Christian apostle not a scholar, not an annalist, and certainly not a historian. The Gospels nor the letters of Paul should be taken as historically accurate considering the intent of the authors."

The early drafts of the Gospels and Paul's oral tradition relay those four facts I have mentioned. Look at the QMark source for example. They agree with my facts, those were definitely written within the generations that knew Jesus. There is no evidence they are conspiracy pieces, either archaeological or otherwise, as most New Testament scholars admit.[1]

Footnotes

[1] (Journal of the American Academy of Religion 68 [2000]: 171)
DarthVitiosus

Con

ARGUMENTS:
"I was providing arguments for a God that is mentioned in the Old Testament because his non-existence would stop Jesus' claims of being divinely provided by him would make no sense without a God of the Old Testament."
Fair enough.

"I would have thought people would be intelligent enbough to realize this involves proving God exists as well, so my opponents self-pitying claims I am only defending monotheism are obviously untrue."
The arrogance of my opponent and his feeble attempt to throw dirt in our eyes telling as we can see. As if we can't go back and read what he posted in the last two rounds. Did my opponent not post this in the second round: "a monotheistic God exists"?

"Theories in science are things backed up by physical evidence, not non-authoritative facts."
Is the Big Bang, a theory or fact? Last I checked theory[1].

[1]http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

"Metaphysical claims can be proven logically as I have attempted to do in my moral argument. It's up to voters to decide whether I have done that or not."
Correction, you meant to say metaphysical claims that haven't been supported or substantiated other than from your own personal perspective. Many claims are logical but we are looking for "a more correct world-view." Was it n my opponent who said that?

"Just because one is amoral about something which one does not sense no more proves moral values are subjective than not seeing something from miles away proves are physical senses are subjective. This counter-argument is completely able to be reconciled with objective morality."

Has my opponent even shown that morality exists? He hasn't brought any scientific evidence. Instead we received unfounded evidence which anyone can imagine in their head.

"Rightness and wrongness place obligations on you to act rightly and/or wrongly. That's a basic theory in ethical philosophy."
Irrelevant.

"Bare assertion."
It was a supported and substantiated assertion which my opponent didn't refute. This is a petty attempt at a distraction by my opponent because he is incapable of refuting my claim that moral subjectivism exists in reality.

"But it is a matter for a philosophy of ethics."
Irrelevant.

"Sure different behaviours are observable, but most people still feel in their hearts that there is a correct way to act and behave. Ethics accepts there are moral oughts, the question is how well the moral philosophy encompasses them. To my mind, objective morality makes more sense of ethical philosophy than does subjective morality."
If this is the case, why did so many Americans before 1860 thought slavery was acceptable? I would imagine in today's time it would be difficult to find that many Americans who would agree with having slaves. Why do some countries approve husband physically disciplining their wives and others don't? Why do some religions and some societies find suicide abhorrent while others consider it a virtue? There is no "correct way to act and behave." There are just more desirable ways to behave.

Let us not evoke Godwin's law or the totalitarian regimes in the 20th century to show the drastic difference in behavior amongst people from across the world.

If morality is objective, why are so many women in the Middle East demanded to wear the hijab, niqab, or the burqa. if morality is objective, shouldn't women have the standards in New York City, Tokyo, and London as well? If morality is objective why don't these women commit honor killings as they do in India, Pakistan, and many other places throughout the world? If morality is objective, why do some countries believe more in the welfare state than others? My opponent has not once shown how morality is objective. I just showed thoroughly with mainstream examples which most people know, morality is not objective. Objective morality is a theoretical construct which has no basis in reality. Morality subjectivity acknowldges the world should be dealt with meticously. While objective morality paints the world with one broad stroke that has no regard for reality or the details of the world.

"The early drafts of the Gospels and Paul's oral tradition relay those four facts I have mentioned. Look at the QMark source for example. They agree with my facts, those were definitely written within the generations that knew Jesus. There is no evidence they are conspiracy pieces, either archaeological or otherwise, as most New Testament scholars admit."

Notice, how my opponent has chosen to tiptoe past what i said. I am not going to ignore it. The Gospels are not accurate sources. Therefore those alleged facts don't matter. The Gospels were clearly written as propaganda pieces. How many non-Christian sources corroborate these facts? My opponent has not presented any non-Christian source to corroborate the Gospels findings at all. My opponent has only used Christian resources. Was the Gospels intentions not to advance the ideal narrative of Jesus of Nazerth's life? As I said earlier and I will say again, the Gospels were not historical narratives but clearly agenda driven works by Christians.

DV's TOP #10 DEBATE FACTS:
#1.My opponent did not support most of his claims.
#2. My opponent used the Gospel as sources.
#3. The Gospels are secondary sources.
#4. The Gospels are inaccurate.
#5. My opponent did not offer a single fact in this debate.
#6. My opponent did not even explain Christianity.
#7. My opponent avoided supporting the resolution which he created.
#8. My opponent offered mostly conjecture.
#9. My opponent's points were metaphysical. Therefore they were incapable of being measured in reality for their accuracy.
#10. Atheism means "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

CONCLUSION:
My opponent has asserted but has not backed up most of these assertions. I have counted up over 30 unsupported assertions throughout the debate. I would challenge the voters to do the same as well. This should be the clear difference between atheism and Christianity. Atheism should be considered the default position of most people. Why? Atheism does not make assumptions or assertions. Christianity is based on propaganda pieces written in the Bible to further than an agenda. Most of these pieces contain anachronisms and historical inaccuracies. This is why I pointed out the Gospels in the Bible are inaccurate because none of them are a primary source. My opponent didn't even show they were based off of a primary source either. Therefore, why shouldn't we take it as distorted narratives based on oral traditions? Christianity makes many assertions which can easily be debunked due to the problems associated with agenda driven works. Atheism, is merely the claim to be without god or the gods.

Vote early, vote often, and vote Con.

Music for all. All hail the Emperor!
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
IEnglishman: You obviously have no idea what an ad hom is. Also, why is it that your unsourced claims about a Jesus that rose from the dead are the same (and in the same order) as WLC's debate?
Posted by IEnglishman 2 years ago
IEnglishman
Whether or not we're in a discussion has no effect upon ad hom.

It's fine to just admit you were wrong, SNP.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
I decided to start the video now (couldn't sleep with this on my mind). I am 25 minutes in and this is what I have so far:

Considering how Pro never actually uses a source for the arguments that Jesus rose from the dead, it is hard to tell if this is purposeful copying or not. While it is not word for word, the information is strikingly similar.

In the debate, William Lane Craig claims 4 "facts" in this order (not word for word):

1) Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb
2) On the Sunday after Jesus' crucifixion, his tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers
3) On different occasions and circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus from the dead.
4) The original disciples declared that Jesus was risen from the dead despite predisposition to the contrary

Not only are these points pretty much the same as Pro's, they appear in the same order. This is what I actually realized first when reading the debate.

https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Sorry for the many posts (tired and keep realizing I forgot parts), but certain other arguments do seem familiar to some other videos by WLC. I honestly do not have enough time to rewatch every debate I have seen that involves him, but I will check out a couple.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
The parts about Jesus rising from the dead are the parts in question.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
I will say that not all your arguments remind me of that debate (if I am remembering the right one), but enough of them are.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
IEnglishman: It is not ad hom. We were not in any form of a discussion. Your arguments just remind me of one of William Lane Craig's debates (I think it was against Richard Carrier), so I pointed it out. I will rewatch the video when I finish my test in the morning and see if it is in fact ripping off WLC. If it is not, I apologize in advance.
Posted by IEnglishman 2 years ago
IEnglishman
Darthvitiosus you can just google any part of what I've written and see it was not plagiarized.
Posted by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
There needs to be a thorough investigation of this as soon as possible if Pro did plagiarize. The usual, "I'm not crook" business by Pro, no one is buying it.

Ad hominems have nothing to do with a statement being correct or not. Clearly you are trying to distract from these allegations. Try again. SNP1 is a credible member of this site and his claims warrant an investigation.
Posted by IEnglishman 2 years ago
IEnglishman
I didn't plagiarize.

Also this is blatant ad hominem against me to try and swing a debate. Go away.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
TheNamesFizzy
IEnglishmanDarthVitiosusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was much more convincing in this debate. Very methodical and orderly.