The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Christianity's teachings and beliefs are false (clear enough?)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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: 10/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 258 times Debate No: 80653
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




As a new member of, I would like to start by just saying I do not wish to offend anybody or attack/slander anybody personally. I simply wish to entertain myself and others, expand my knowledge and voice my opinions as well as learn the opinions of others to grow as an intellectual. I welcome debates from anybody and everybody and hope somebody will challenge me in this debate. I would like my challenger to be a christian.

I don't particularly care for an organised structure to the arguments, so let's say either side may bring up or refute any points they wish in any round they wish, as long as they do address each others points and finish with a conclusion in the final round. That out of the way, I will begin my argument.

I will be arguing that Christianity and its teachings are absolutely not true at all, and in this first round I will do so with three main points:
1) The fact that all religions and myths are ultimately made-up
2) The utterly nonsensical claims and teachings of Christianity
3) The weakness and inconsistency of the bible as an authoritative text

Firstly, the fact that all religions and myths are ultimately made-up.
We can observe the origins and development of mythology and religion throughout the history of humankind. The undeniable fact that, like us (whether you like to accept it or not), religion and mythology have evolved over time, beliefs and superstitions constantly changing and adapting to suit the culture and civilisation they are present in, alone, is reasonable evidence to suggest that religion is fundamentally untrue. Throughout all cultures in history, all tribes, all peoples, all areas, myths have developed as a result of man's questioning nature combined with his inherent conceited arrogance. Each culture has had a different account of the beginning of existence, the being(s) that caused it, why we exist, how we should live, and what happens when we die. The numerical vastness of these different stories suggest to us that none of them are likely to be true as they are clearly developed by the tribes and cultures themselves. Christianity, therefore, is no different to any other myth ever created by humans; it is just another tradition developed by primitive tribesmen to explain the world in a time when much (more than now) was left unexplained.
We can track the origins of religion back to the lowly beginnings of humans as a species and observe that it evolved alongside us. Increase in brain size and complexity of ritual/religious behaviours are very positively correlated. What began with simple paintings and carvings then became more formal burial rituals, and eventually complex stories about creation, epic godly wars and battles, cataclysmic disasters and so on. The largely abrahamic concept of ultimate religious morality is, as religion goes, a fairly new one, which is evidence of its development over time and, therefore, its being man-made.
Science has, based on observation, correlated the development of complex religious beliefs with the development of the characteristics of being 'self-aware' and understanding that one day we will ultimately die. This led to paranoia, worry and curiosity about the life we happen to have found ourselves in, and Living in a pre-scientific society, people had no way to resolve the questions of 'how did we get here?' And 'where do we do after death?' As a result of this ignorance, myths developed, and individuals realised that with the threats of bad things occuring after death, something which nobody could disprove, they could seize quite a lot of power. I give you, ladies and gentlemen, the beginning of absolute religious moralities and the doctrine of hell.
The fact that Christianity is not even an early myth created by humans far closer to nature than we will ever be should be evidence enough to make you ignore its claims abut revelation, truth and the afterlife, but for those still not convinced, understand that each myth developed differently depending on geography; CLEARLY it is man-made.

Now I will address the utterly non-sensical claims Christianity makes. Throughout the bible and the christian tradition we can see claim after claim that have been proven to be false. The creation myth, for example, in which God, the cosmic overlord of all existence, actually required rest after his creating everything - why on earth would the embodiment of omnipotence require rest? Laughable.
The biblical creation theory utterly disproven by evolutionary proofs of man's development from other hominid species over thousands, millions of years, we are left thinking why we shouldn't just put down the bible and conclude that it's fallen at the first hurdle and proven itself an untrue story, but if we must go on we could also touch on Christianity's claim, and the actual foundation for all of its teachings, that it was necessary for God, the cosmic overlord himself, to become a human so that he could be murdered, in order to forgive us for our original sin - that sin which we are born into because of the actions of Adam in the garden of Eden (even though it has already been made clear to us that Adam never even existed in the first place). Not only does Christianity already concede the fictionality of Adam and therefore the fact that there is no such thing as original sin to be born into, but the idea of THIS being God's method of forgiving humanity is utterly obsurd and, if anything, insulting to the deity they refer to, and his intelligence. If humankind was riddled by sin and God wanted to forgive us, why not just forgive us?! Why would it be necessary to send himself to earth (one tiny spec of dust in the vast expanse of a potentially infinite universe) to be tortured and murdered first? How in any way does God being tortured do anything to forgive sins? It makes no sense whatsoever. Laughable.
A final nonsensical claim is the very immoral idea that God, who is apparently perfect and moral as can be, refuses acceptance into Heaven, and thereby condemns to ETERNAL torture anybody who does not believe this ridiculous story. In what way is this God moral? To put it in easy-to-understand terms, to be a christian you must believe the core teaching of Jesus, that there is 'no way to the father' except through him. To be a christian you must believe that you are damned to rot and be tormented for all eternity if you do not believe this most unbelievable, immoral, masochistic, contradictory story. It just makes no sense to condemn those who do not believe the unbelievable. To quote Christipher Hitchens, we are essentially placed in a celestial dictatorship in which we are 'created sick, and then commanded to be well', and in fact threatened with eternal punishment if we do not become well. It is simply immoral, and therefore contradicts its own claim of 'absolute morality' and an omnibenevolent God. It therefore cannot be true, and we should all be thankful that it isnt true.

Finally, I will touch on the issue of how weak, contradictory and silly the bible actually is, and its total irrelevance in today's intelligent, civilised world.
For starters, it makes very little sense at all to refer to the bible when looking for truth and guidance is it is clearly a flawed, man-made book. Would the ultimate creator of existence itself make a mistake as bad as being wrong about creation stories and evolution? Why on earth would a book that goes into great detail about creation, Adam and his descendents, and Moses (whose moral code, given to him by God, contradicts the moral teachings of Jesus AKA God massively (very laughable indeed), all of whom have no actual archeological or even logical evidence to back up their supposed existences, be a good guideline for morals and authority, in particular, governing states and deciding how to act. I would love to go into more detail about how stupid the bible is, alas I am running out of characters, so we'll have to wait.

Good luck, challenger :)


To make this argument you must feel that the consequences of religion are worse than the consequences of atheism. You can't make that argument because you can't play out an alternate timeline where religion never existed. This anti-theist argument is primarily "God is a jerk who wants to cramp my style". Pretty much I've noticed that if God wouldn't like the idea. you're heading for a train wreck objectively and with all due skepticism.
Debate Round No. 1


My argument doesn't really have anything to do with if religion had never existed or the 'consequences', moral or otherwise, of religion or atheism. I'm trying to debate whether or not the claims and teachings of the christian religion are TRUE. All the evidence seems to suggest that it is not true, and little at most, and at least, no, evidence, supports the view that Christianity is true.


Is it true an apple hit Newton on the head? I guess we just need to toss the laws of gravitation.

How true is modern mainstream Christian dogma? More true than WTF?
Debate Round No. 2


Please explain this truth then


The truth is that if God calls it a sin, logic does too.
Debate Round No. 3


I find it highly ILLOGICAL, in fact, for 'God' to say that:

Adulterers and adulteresses should be killed (Deuteronomy 22:22)

Homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 20:13)

A man should cut off the hand of his wife when she helps him in a fight by grabbing his opponents testicles (seriously, what the...) (Deuteronomy 25:12)

It is a sin to disbelieve in the most unbelievable story (The Ten Commandments)

Women may not teach or have authority over men (Timothy 2:11)

Etc etc

How, then, does God's apparent definition of sin match logic's morals? And even if they do agree on morals, so do other myths and religions totally different to the christian one, so how could this actually be evidence that the creator of the universe came down to earth in human form, was born of a virgin in the middle east, was crucified and resurrected in order that he may forgive us? Please refute my points by showing me how this is logic.


retrovision forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mrPrime 1 year ago
sigh.. still not using any resources.
Just claiming, "God sucks and was made up by stoopids centuries ago" is very weak and unfounded.

Something isn't wrong just because you don't like it and it's old...
Posted by Therearenogods 1 year ago
I will respond to any points made about any sect my opponent chooses to bring up :)
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
Which version of Christianity are you debating against? They don't all believe the same thing.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better conduct, because Con forfeited 1 round, while Pro didn't forfeit any rounds. I understood both of them pretty well, so they tie for spelling and grammar. Pro made solid arguments for things in the Bible that could be interpreted as inaccurate or immoral, but Con just said that the truth was that if God said that something was a sin, then logic said so, too, which is a baseless claim bordering on circular reasoning. Con gives no proof of this. Neither of them used any sources (unless you count Pro's Bible passages, but those are more references than sources), so they tie for reliable sources.