The Instigator
hayhen13
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Christianity

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 3 votes the winner is...
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 823 times Debate No: 66401
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

hayhen13

Con

In this debate, I intend to debate whether what Christians believe is true or not. This encompasses God, the Bible, and any other subject under Christianity. The debate will be whether Christianity is possible or not. It will basically be about anything under Christianity. If you are incapable in holding a serious debate then I suggest that you do not accept. In order to be fair; the first round will be acceptance only. I wish whoever engages in this debate, the best of luck.
TryingToBeOpenMinded

Pro

I accept this debate.

As Pro, I am propounding that Christianity is possible.
Debate Round No. 1
hayhen13

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate even though the objectives weren’t made quite clear. I do not intend to narrow down my debates to a particular category, but would prefer to argue points solidified under the topic of Christianity. In these contain; existence of God, morality of Christianity, effect on society, the Bible etc. I wish to debate topics under the category of the title of the debate, I apologize for not making this clear previously. Now that this is resolved, I would like to move on to my main arguments.

Arguments:

Morality of Christianity:

Claims have been made that; without God, or religion, humans wouldn’t have morals, meaning or purpose. That only a God can give us morality or purpose in the world. I will show in this argument, the ‘true morality’ of God, or Christianity.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

So far Christianity wants all gays killed.

"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst." (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Now Christianity says to murder your family if they believe something other than Christianity

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Christianity believes that people should be regarded as property and condones slavery.

"Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city." (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

God will help us rape women.

“As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.” Deuteronomy 20:10-14

Step by step instructions on how to pillage a village.

These are just a few evil verses from the Bible that I cited. I would cite more, but I believe I have made my point clear. The very idea that we get our morals from this God is very untrue. This thus concludes my argument on the true morality of Christianity. I await your response to this argument.

God Cannot Exist:

In this section I will address multiple points portrayed in paragraphs on how God can’t exist.

"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it, because we need them." Bill Nye.

I agree that Christianity is completely inconsistent with everything we know about the universe because God violates most of the laws of the universe. God is a spirit, as it says in the Bible, and he has no physical existence. He is not made of matter; therefore he has to exist in light, sound or heat. But obviously he has to think, in order to think he has to have a brain, but if he has no physical form he can’t have a brain, therefore can’t exist.

In the Bible it says that God created everything. God is supposed to be a perfect omniscient being. So if he is perfect, he cannot create imperfect things, like let’s say cancer. I hope we all agree that cancer isn’t perfect; it is a horrible disease that only causes grief and disparity across the entire planet. So why did our loving God create such evil and imperfect things? He can’t create imperfect things like cancer because he is perfect, therefore not real.

According to the Bible, the universe is 6,000 years old. the Bible indicates that the universe is about 6,000 years old. For those who claim to believe the Bible, this difference alone should be sufficient reason to reject the big bang.” answersingenisis.org. So the Bible says that from the time that God created the Universe in Genesis, to 2014 A.D., is roughly 6,000 years. This obviously isn’t true since it directly defies facts yet again, because it is a fact that the universe is roughly 14 billion years old, therefore not real.

God is omniscient; knows everything, in the past, present, and future. If God knew everything in the future, then how did he not know that Adam and Eve would eat from the Tree of Knowledge? Or even better yet, why did he create it in the first place? How did he not know that life would become evil and that he would have to kill everything in Noah’s flood? Because he is not real.

The definition of prove is: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact” Merriam-Webster. I have proven that God can’t exist through scientific evidence using the laws of the universe.

If you have any evidence in favor of God, please state it in your response.

Logical Reason:

When I made my decision on which religion to follow, I made my own choice. I believe that people shouldn’t be born into something, or believe just what their parents believe. I wanted to make my own decisions, and believe what I want to believe, for that is what freedom is. So I looked at most of the major religions; Catholic, Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

If I wanted to believe in one of these religions, I wanted to make the right choice. I also knew that the only good reason to believe anything was through examination of evidence. So I examined the evidence; read the Bible, studied the Qur’an and other religions. None of the religions gave any evidence to prove their religion the right one; they all mostly just said to put it in faith. The definition of faith is: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” As I already established earlier, the only sound reason to believe anything is because of evidence. And to say to abandon all proof, evidence and reason and to come believe in God is irrational. Therefore, resulting in my belief in Atheism. I suggest to everyone this method, to step outside of yourself, and reevaluate your position. Learn about other religions, and choose the one that you want to believe in using evidence. I am not suggesting Atheism, merely a reevaluation of options to make the rational decision based on the most evidence. For me, science had abundant proof and evidence of how the universe worked and operated on truth and intelligence, not faith.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the universe. Religion is meant to sound good, and appeal to the emotions, but never explains much. Science is constantly open to being proven wrong, and then adjusting itself. Refusing to listen to the evidence so that you don’t get proven wrong is what religion does. Science is fundamentally trying to understand the universe. Science does not result to magic, or invent super arching entities that have no answers in themselves, or just writing the whole thing off as: God did it to explain the universe. I would rather believe in science, than in a book that was written by iron-age people, that thought the world was flat, and didn’t know the earth revolved around the sun. Believing in science is a logical choice.

Conclusion:

I have made multiple arguments on various subjects against the religion Christianity. I would expect my opponent to attempt to defeat these arguments using proof or evidence and to state his own arguments. Thank you and I wish my opponent the best of luck!

https://www.google.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

https://answersingenesis.org...

http://www.abc.net.au...

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

TryingToBeOpenMinded

Pro

I will address the shortcomings to Pro's arguments.

God's morality is irrelevant to whether he exists.

Pro makes an elaborate response that Christianity is not moral but it's pointless. Just because God is immoral, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. This is a red herring. God's morality is irrelevant to establishing God's existence.

Let me give you an example. Satan is the epitome of evil. But, the fact that he's immoral doesn't make him less possible. Similarly, God can be the most evil being in the entire universe, it doesn't make him less real.

Inconsistencies in the bible is also irrelevant to whether God exists.

Pro's 2nd argument is the bible is inconsistent and inaccurate so God cannot exist. This is another red herring. Just because the bible is inconsistent, it doesn't mean God cannot exist. Why? Because the bible might have been inspired by God but it was written by man who is inherently fallible. It's no surprise that there are mistakes. Such mistakes don't disprove the existence of God. It simply proves that man (or God) isn't perfect.

Let me give you an example. Many North Koreans believe their leader (Kim Jong-Un) is perfect and is a God. Well, this obviously isn't true but it doesn't mean that Kim Jong-Un is unreal.

Science can coexist with religion.

Pro's 3rd and final argument is that science has abundant proof and religion does not. However, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Imagine you lived 500 years ago. And, I told you that I can fly in the air. I can make an image of someone thousands of miles away to appear magically in front of me. I can make mechanical devices which can talk to each other on invisible waves in the air. And, I can make machines that look like people who can think and act like humans. Would seem ludicrous, no? You would say I'm crazy. Well, today, they are called: TV, bluetooth, and robots.

Similarly, God may be a highly advanced being whose power might seem like magic but is really just advanced science. Is it likely? I don't know. But, is it possible? Yes.
Debate Round No. 2
hayhen13

Con


Thank you for that very good response pro, and I hope I can match that in this response.


Rebuttal:


“Pro makes an elaborate response that Christianity is not moral but it's pointless. Just because God is immoral, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. This is a red herring. God's morality is irrelevant to establishing God's existence.”


My opponent is the one who’s actually pro, I’m actually con. My opponent bases their responses on the premise that my arguments were irrelevant and that they are ‘red herrings.’ I established that this debate was going to be on the topic Christianity, and not just the existence of God. In my introduction I said,


I do not intend to narrow down my debates to a particular category, but would prefer to argue points solidified under the topic of Christianity. In these contain; existence of God, morality of Christianity, effect on society, the Bible etc. I wish to debate topics under the category of the title of the debate, I apologize for not making this clear previously.”


I stated that I wanted to argue under multiple categories of the topic Christianity. I said this in the beginning of my response, so my arguments are, in fact relevant. I never said we were only going to debate God’s existence; I clearly gave permission to various topics. Two-thirds of my opponent’s arguments were on this point, and I have thus defeated them.


“Pro's 2nd argument is the bible is inconsistent and inaccurate so God cannot exist. This is another red herring. Just because the bible is inconsistent, it doesn't mean God cannot exist. Why? Because the bible might have been inspired by God but it was written by man who is inherently fallible. It's no surprise that there are mistakes. Such mistakes don't disprove the existence of God. It simply proves that man (or God) isn't perfect.”


Again, with what I said earlier, we are not just arguing God’s existence, as a made clear in my last response, we are arguing Christianity. So in this argument, you said that the Bible having so many inconsistencies doesn’t disprove God. This does not actually present any points to argue against since you admitted that the Bible has many mistakes, and that it doesn’t relate to God’s Existence. In the next response I would suggest you present arguments that I can respond to. Moving on.


Okay, so your introduction to your final argument is,


“Pro's 3rd and final argument is that science has abundant proof and religion does not. However, the two are not mutually exclusive.”


Based on this introduction, you would think that my opponent would present Christianity’s proof and back-up his claim that they are “not mutually exclusive.” However, as I read his/her argument, my opponent gave no proof or evidence to back-up his/her claim, only something like the; primitive people would be astounded at our modern day technologies and say they are magic. So therefore God can be somehow maybe super advanced technology. Your argument is false and doesn’t prove anything, only presents a thought. I suggest that my opponent provides evidence next time.


I also specifically asked my opponent to provide proof of God’s existence,


I would expect my opponent to attempt to defeat these arguments using proof or evidence and to state his own arguments.”


I asked my opponent of this last round, to provide evidence to his/her your claims, but my opponent has failed to do so. I ask my opponent to do so in their response.


Conclusion:


My opponent has failed to provide any proof or evidence to back up his/her claim, which I specifically requested in the last round. My opponents last two arguments were also mislead and therefore incorrect in that my opponent thought the whole debate was about God’s existence. I also made this clear last round. I hope my opponent can pick up next round and provide what is asked. To conclude, I have defeated all my opponents’ arguments while my opponent has attempted to by stating they are irrelevant, but as I established earlier, they are in fact very relevant. I thank my opponent for a very interesting debate; I wish you the best of luck, thank you!


Sources that I used to Construct my argument:


https://www.biblegateway.com...


http://www.big-bang-theory.com...


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...






TryingToBeOpenMinded

Pro

In the last round, Con states, "I never said we were only going to debate God's existence".

Actually, Con did. Con stated in the first round, "In this debate, I intend to debate whether what Christians believe is true or not. This encompasses God, the Bible, and any other subject under Christianity. The debate will be whether Christianity is possible or not. It will basically be about anything under Christianity."

So, I agree that Con can bring up topics such as morality, effect on society, and the Bible but since they are irrelevant, he's not going to win this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
hayhen13

Con


Thank you for that good response, and I again thank you for taking on this debate.


Rebuttal:


My opponent’s only argument was again on the topic of the debate. My opponent continues to attempt to show that my arguments are invalid and therefore show that my opponent somehow wins. My opponent gives textual evidence from what I stated earlier to try to show that my arguments are irrelevant.


My opponent try’s to make these two statements contradict themselves,


“In this debate, I intend to debate whether what Christians believe is true or not. This encompasses God, the Bible, and any other subject under Christianity. The debate will be whether Christianity is possible or not. It will basically be about anything under Christianity."


"I never said we were only going to debate God's existence".


I do not see how these contradict each other. I did indeed say, The debate will be whether Christianity is possible or not.” But I also say, “This encompasses God, the Bible, and any other subject under Christianity” and, “It will basically be about anything under Christianity.”


My opponent tries to find one sentence that I said, to show that everything is wrong. I clearly said in my responses that this was going to be about anything under the topic Christianity. I do not understand why my opponent continues to question this. The topic of the debate is literally Christianity, not, “God’s existence” or something like that. I also said multiple times that it was all topics under Christianity, not just God. The sentence that you were attacking does not even imply the topic of God’s existence. Please actually debate something in your next response.


“So, I agree that Con can bring up topics such as morality, effect on society, and the Bible but since they are irrelevant, he's not going to win this debate.”


These topics are very relevant. The topic of the debate is: ‘Christianity’ and these arguments are all about Christianity. If my opponent continues to evade this truth he will obviously lose. My opponent has never defeated any of my arguments while I have defeated all of his/hers. I hope my opponent will actually respond to my arguments in his/her reply.


“I would expect my opponent to attempt to defeat these arguments using proof or evidence and to state his own arguments.”


My opponent has continued to evade this. This is the third time I’ve asked and my opponent has not supplied it. Even if this debate was somehow only about god’s existence, my opponent has provided no evidence at all to support their side.


Conclusion:


As my opponent only had one invalid response and has never replied to any of my arguments. This makes me upset since I wanted to have an interesting debate and actually have someone try defeat my arguments, but my opponent has failed this over and over. Thank you.


TryingToBeOpenMinded

Pro

Con believes that his following statements do not contradict each other. "The debate will be whether Christianity is possible or not."
"It will basically be about anything under Christianity."

If Con cannot admit there that is an inconsistency here, then we cannot have an intelligent discussion.

It's not just me who thinks this way. Read the comments section of this debate. Every single commenter agrees with me. You've structured the debate in a way that limits it to only whether Christianity is possible. And, this is a very low bar for me to prove.
Debate Round No. 4
hayhen13

Con

hayhen13 forfeited this round.
TryingToBeOpenMinded

Pro

Extend.

Btw, I'm sorry that you were at such a handicap for this debate. In the future, you need to be careful in how you word the resolution.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hayhen13 1 year ago
hayhen13
I feel real bad cuz I pretty much lost this debate because of it. Sorry guys.
Posted by hayhen13 1 year ago
hayhen13
sorry guys I got grounded for a real long time and only got to go on for short periods of time, sorry.
Posted by TryingToBeOpenMinded 1 year ago
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Keynex is right. It'll be hard for Con to win this one since possible is defined as something that can occur no matter how remote. So, as long as I can prove that even if there is a 1 in a million chance for the events in the bible to have occurred, I win.

I have a feeling that this is going to be an uninteresting debate.
Posted by SNP1 1 year ago
SNP1
In order for Con to win he has to show a logical explanation for a definition of what a Christian is, somehow making it not the "No True Scotsman Fallacy", and then showing that it is illogical.
Posted by amigodana 1 year ago
amigodana
Yep, this is going to be a circus freak show!

Nothing will be gained from this one.
Posted by Sssomeone 1 year ago
Sssomeone
Actually Kaynex it is possible to make an argument that Christianity is impossible, although it is much easier to make the argument that it is unlikely. You just need to show any logical contradictions in the teachings of Christianity. As an example:
God allows man to sin because God wishes man to have free will.
God wishes man to have free will.
God has a plan for everyone.
Free will is the ability to decide upon your own action rather than follow a set path.
Therefor either God does not wish man to have free will, or God does not have a plan for anyone. And thus a God that wishes man to have both free will as well as having a plan for them is impossible.
Posted by Kaynex 1 year ago
Kaynex
I'm an atheist, but I know that there's nothing CON can say that would make christianity impossible, since it can shape shift. Con cannot win.
Posted by sengejuri 1 year ago
sengejuri
You are going to keep losing these debates if you continue to make them about "possibility" rather than truth....
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
This debate isn't as unfair as you'd think, consider that "The debate will be whether Christianity is possible or not." Key word is possible.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
I agree with kasmic. Too much ground to cover. Con can simply bring up a one sentence question, and Pro would have to spend 1,000 characters defending it. 20 questions by Con, and Pro's out of characters after 10.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 1 year ago
Tweka
hayhen13TryingToBeOpenMindedTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits a round
Vote Placed by NoMagic 1 year ago
NoMagic
hayhen13TryingToBeOpenMindedTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits a round. Debate to Pro for that reason
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
hayhen13TryingToBeOpenMindedTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round