The Instigator
MonsieurSoutenir
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
amVoiceofReason
Pro (for)
Winning
4 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 1 vote the winner is...
amVoiceofReason
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 75595
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

MonsieurSoutenir

Con

Perhaps this topic is overused, and one may tire of these religious debates. However, I feel that it is always good to discuss important topics, and religion is certainly an important topic, whether or not one agrees with a religion or not.

I will be arguing against Christianity and beliefs associated with it, including the belief of the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent god, beliefs represented in the Bible (Old Testament as well as New Testament), and the broad umbrella of Christianity in general. I argue that Christianity itself is a delusion, and presents many claims that cannot be logically or rationally defended by any evidence available. I contend that there is no foundation for the existence of God, for the truthfulness of the events in the Bible, for the truthfulness of events asserted by the Bible, and any other assertions made in the name of, or by, Christianity and Christians.

In regards to the Bible, the events it depicts and of which Christians take as truth, there is simply no historical, archaeological, or rational basis for such claims, especially ones undertaken by a singular, unverified book written thousands of years ago in a period of instability and great superstition, where nobody and the faintest clue what was going on, where people turned to religion and superstition as comfort and as an attempt to satisfy the insatiable demand for knowledge. Furthermore, Christians often employ circular reasonings and arguments in asserting the truth of the Bible, as well as in attempting to explain away valid arguments presented to them. I conclude that the Bible, while still worth a read, is intelligibly just a work of fiction.

1st round will be acceptance, but Pro may state his or her arguments or position on the topic. Each of us will be able to provide a rebuttal in each of the rounds, and can present new topics in all but the last round. Please no trolls or any of the like, let's have a serious debate.

I believe that the burden of proof should be entirely on Pro, however, in this debate, the burden of proof will be mostly shared. Questions or clarifications will be answered in the comments.

*Be aware that whenever I talk about any text-based quotes, "God", or any of the like, I am speaking in a hypothetical situation, in the scenario that Christianity is true. I am an atheist, so I strongly disbelieve in the idea of a god or gods, and disagree with religions in general, in this case, Christianity.

Pro may not agree with all of my arguments, but let's keep this debate civil, and I wish my opponent a good debate.
amVoiceofReason

Pro

I accept your terms and proposals.

I will argue the Pro of this debate.

I wish to extend gratitude to my opponent for his desire to retain a rational and civil conversation between two human beings. Regardless of difference on opinion, there is no excuse for two mature people being unable to get together and talk about those differences.

I have one term of my own that I would ask of my opponent: That the usage of Wikipedia.org be discounted. It is my belief that Wikipedia.org barely qualifies as a tertiary source and it tries me to no end to see otherwise intelligent debates ruined by the lax standards imposed on the writing of Wikipedia.org articles. This is more of a quirk of mine in regards to the integrity of professional writing style. Due to this, I would still respect the choice of my opponent to deny this term. However I would wish to inform you that I will hold myself to that term regardless of my opponent's decision.

I wish the best of luck to my opponent.
-amVoiceofReason
Debate Round No. 1
MonsieurSoutenir

Con

MonsieurSoutenir forfeited this round.
amVoiceofReason

Pro

My opponent has forfeited this round. Due to this I feel it would be improper for me to present my argument at this time. If scheduling is an issue I would gladly redo this debate at a later time.
Debate Round No. 2
MonsieurSoutenir

Con

MonsieurSoutenir forfeited this round.
amVoiceofReason

Pro

My opponent has forfeited this round. Due to this I feel it would be improper for me to present my argument at this time. If scheduling is an issue I would gladly redo this debate at a later time.

I would ask anyone voting on this debate to score it as a tie.
Debate Round No. 3
MonsieurSoutenir

Con

MonsieurSoutenir forfeited this round.
amVoiceofReason

Pro

I would ask anyone voting on this debate to score it as a tie.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by amVoiceofReason 1 year ago
amVoiceofReason
I completely understand, no apologies necessary. I finished the school year last week so I've been fairly busy myself. Good luck on your finals. -amVoiceofReason
Posted by MonsieurSoutenir 1 year ago
MonsieurSoutenir
I apologize profusely, this week is not the best time for my to debate. I still attend school, and finals are coming up, leaving me in a very tight schedule filled with studying. As is such, I propose that we postpone this debate until another time. Perhaps in a week or so I will be able to call you up again to pursue this topic of debate again. Let me know. Again, I apologize, I just haven't been able to get much done, I hope you understand.
Posted by amVoiceofReason 1 year ago
amVoiceofReason
Agreed.

That's alright, it's been a pretty busy week for me as well.
Posted by MonsieurSoutenir 1 year ago
MonsieurSoutenir
Actually, I will just post my argument, and we can proceed from there. I apologize for not posting my argument earlier.
Posted by MonsieurSoutenir 1 year ago
MonsieurSoutenir
Yes, sorry, I had events that were unexpected crop up, and it took longer than I wished. I will cancel this debate a start a new one.
Posted by MonsieurSoutenir 1 year ago
MonsieurSoutenir
Thanks, the best of luck to you as well. Currently, it is around 10 pm in my timezone. I will attempt to finish my first arguments as soon as I can. Until then, amVoiceofReason.

-MonsieurSoutenir
Posted by amVoiceofReason 1 year ago
amVoiceofReason
Best of luck to you. I look forward to hearing your 1st case. I don't know what time zone you're in, but it's midnight here. I'm going to get some shut eye. I will review and respond to the debate as soon as possible. Until then, MonsieurSoutenir. -amVoiceofReason
Posted by MonsieurSoutenir 1 year ago
MonsieurSoutenir
Yes, I agree to your condition.
Posted by amVoiceofReason 1 year ago
amVoiceofReason
I don't want to take up word space in your argument. Do you agree to my Wikipedia stipulation?
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
I think the real question is. How is it posible to believe/know anything without proof. I have never understood that. I can explain it with things like fear of life and death. Fear of responsebilety and more.. But i will never understand why many can convince them self of that dream.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
MonsieurSouteniramVoiceofReasonTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff