The Instigator
Ruac
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
118 Points

Christians Being attacked

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,423 times Debate No: 11064
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (22)

 

Ruac

Con

I saw some of your debates, and I must say that I am quite offended. Especially the article "Children's welfare should take legal priority over their parents' freedom of religion"
You go on and on about how Christians are in power and that they are the main religion of the USA. This is bunch of propaganda against Christians everywhere. Every day, Christians are ridiculously accused of being 'evil' and 'cultists by people like you. Why, in Detroit, where some of my cousins live, there is a bunch of Muslims there. I do not question their right a an American citizen to live where they want, but very early in the morning, they praise their 'Allah', yelling and whooping at the top of their lungs. And my cousins don't get Christmas break there, oh no, they get some sort of Muslim holiday break. Why not have it be Christmas anymore? I'll tell you why, there are Muslim principals changing the name, or principals being threatened by Muslims.

That is just one of many examples of Christian prejudice.
Yours truly,
Ruac
brian_eggleston

Pro

Many thanks for the debating challenge, Ruac.

I'm very sorry if my last debate offended you. I can assure you that it is never my intention to offend people. Nevertheless, apart from Christians, somehow I have managed to offend many other groups on this site. For example, in recent months I have outraged:

The disabled.
'The handicapped should be given jobs on organic farms'
http://www.debate.org...

The obese.
'It's time to stop the obese from pigging out in restaurants'
http://www.debate.org...

Native Americans.
'It's time to reintroduce Red Indians into US National Parks'
http://www.debate.org...

Women with saggy breasts.
'It's time to outlaw push-up bras'
http://www.debate.org...

Muslims.
'The Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) was gay'
http://www.debate.org...

People who live in the countryside.
'Rural people should be banned from using the London Underground during peak hours'
http://www.debate.org...

The mentally retarded.
'ATM's should encourage selfish users to show some consideration for others'
http://www.debate.org...

Jews.
'The Government should do more to promote Jewish businesses'
http://www.debate.org...

Gays.
'A ban on sex between men should be introduced in order to help prevent the spread of AIDS'
http://www.debate.org...

Single mothers.
'It's time to re-introduce unemployed single mothers to the workhouse'
http://www.debate.org...

Gays again.
'It's time to apply positive discrimination to the entertainment industry'
http://www.debate.org...

Manchester United supporters.
'Kant was right: assisting Cristiano Ronaldo to commit suicide should be legal'
http://www.debate.org...

Michael Jackson fans.
'Jackson's kids should be auctioned off to help pay his debts'
http://www.debate.org...

Michael Jackson fans again.
'Michael Jackson faked his own death'
http://www.debate.org...

The disabled again.
'The all new Pak-a-Spak™ Rucksack will be a "must have" accessory for male commuters'
http://www.debate.org...

The obese again.
'The fat should be made to buy two seats on planes'
http://www.debate.org...

Gays yet again.
'Gay men should pay higher car insurance premiums than straight men'
http://www.debate.org...

In fact, the last time I offended Christians was over a year ago when I posted this debate:

'Jesus was gay and John the Evangelist was his boyfriend'
http://www.debate.org...

However, I do recognise that the Christian faith is coming under ever-increasing criticism. This is a result of society becoming better educated and thus able to comprehend the type of scientific theories that would have eluded many in the less enlightened generations of the past.

Thus, the education of the masses in the West has enabled ordinary people to liberate themselves from the antiquated and discredited theological shackles of the Church and reconcile themselves with the world around them using observable scientific evidence and so reject the implausible Bible stories that their forefathers were indoctrinated with.

The process of exposing the inadequacy the Christian doctrines actually began back in 1614 when Galileo Galilei espoused the Copernican theory that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system rather than the Earth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Back then, the Church accused Galileo of heresy and persecuted him for daring to contradict Christian "teachings". These days, however, all but the most fanatical Christians accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way round yet, incredibly, many Christians still reject the equally scientifically sound concept of evolution and teach their children creationism instead. In light of this, I think it is right that these Christian fundamentalists should be "attacked" for deliberately misleading children in this way.

Moving on, I note with interest that there are a "bunch of Muslims" in Detroit. My goodness! Soon all the bars will be closed down, the women will have to wear veils and they will have to rename the state "Michiganistan". Or possibly not. Anyway, just to set the record straight, Christmas continues to be a State Holiday in Michigan whereas no Islamic festivals are officially recognised.

http://www.michigan.gov...

By the way, I wonder my opponent chose to attack Muslims rather than, say, Jews or Buddhists? After all, there are twice as many Jews as Muslims in America and about the same amount of Buddhists.

http://www.adherents.com...

Whatever, the fact is that in the United States more Muslims are victims of religious hatred than Christians, Jews or Buddhists. Indeed, despite Muslims accounting for a tiny fraction of the population of America compared to Christians, the latest hate crime statistics show 201 victims of anti-Islamic crimes compared to only 68 anti-Catholic and 48 anti-Protestant victims.

http://www.fbi.gov...

Furthermore, not only do Muslims suffer more abuse than Christians, but their attackers are widely supported by mass media groups such as Fox News:

http://mediamatters.org....

That said, I do not wish to be portrayed as pro-Muslim or pro-Jewish or anti-Christian as I believe that all three of these Abrahamic religions' outmoded practices and beliefs should be open to scrutiny and, indeed, criticism.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Ruac

Con

I would like to say first it is an honor to debate with you.
_________________________________________________
Now, Christians deserving to be attacked because they pass their beliefs onto their children?!?! Now, listen buddy, every single religion on the planet has a right to pass on their beliefs to their children! I absolutely HATE the Muslim teachings, but I do not question their right to pass on their own beliefs! I do not question YOUR right to teach your children that God is not real. I may not like it, but I accept it, and you should accept Christians' right to pass on their belief. See my point? It is not misleading the children if they think it is real. The children, when their older, can choose to not believe what their parents told them.
brian_eggleston

Pro

Thank you for your compliment, ruac, and I would like to reciprocate by stating that I admire your willingness to express your views with such honesty and conviction.

Here's a true story:

I remember one time in the pub an old German chap I know, who is always complaining about how many black people there are round these days, telling me with a certain degree of alcohol-fuelled, misty-eyed nostalgia about his days growing up as the son of a prominent Nazi and how being a member of the Hitler Youth movement had made him a successful man by teaching him the importance of self-discipline and the value of hard work.

I didn't mention it, obviously, but it occurred to me then that his father and the Nazi Party also taught him to become a racist.

The point of this tale is to illustrate that while parents have the right to bring their kids up the way they think is best, what they teach their kids will affect the rest of their lives. Thus, while Nazi parents who teach their kids the importance of discipline and self-reliance should be applauded, they should be criticised if they then go on to tell their children that they are a member of a master race and that all other people are inferior to them.

Similarly, Christian parents who teach their children that (although God repeatedly committed murder on a wholesale basis) it is actually wrong to go around killing other people should be applauded, they should be criticised if they then go on to tell them their children that the world was created a few thousand years ago and that they shouldn't listen to scientists who tell them otherwise.

So, while I applaud my opponent's willingness to tolerate Muslim families' beliefs (even though he "HATES" them) I would suggest that he should, in fact, challenge the right of Islamic extremists to indoctrinate their children into believing that it is their religious duty to join the Jihad by killing ‘infidels' in America and elsewhere.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Ruac

Con

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for responding
______________________________________________________
Now, you said that Christian parents who teach their children that God created the world should be criticized, and not listen to scientists who tell them otherwise. This is very confusing. You say that Christian parents who pass on their belief of how the world was created, and to not listen otherwise should be criticized, yet you go on about that they should listen to some Atheist scientist instead of their flesh-in-blood-parents.
_______________________________________________________
You also say that the way kids are brought up by their parents will affect them for the rest of their lives. So, tell me, will being a Christian make you racist? A killer? A cultist? No. It will make you a normal functioning person like anyone else, Christian o non-Christian.
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to extend my thanks to Ruac for his response.

It seems I have given the impression that I am opposed to Christianity, which I am not. In my experience, Christians are usually gentle, benign people that are kind to animals and give generously to charity.

However, Christian extremists that misinterpret the scriptures to suit their own bigoted prejudices do concern me - the type of Christians that go around with placards reading: "God Hates F@gs"; "The Jews Killed Jesus" and "Obama is the Anti-Christ"

http://www.godhatesfags.com...

Also, those Christians that interpret the Bible in such a way as to believe it is their religious duty to refuse their children medical treatment trouble me.

In addition, I feel that those Christians who interpret the Bible literally and actually believe that the Noah's Ark story, for example, represents an accurate historical account of a global flood, are seriously misguided.

http://www.arksearch.com...

Apart from the total lack of geological evidence supporting such an event, if God did really did flood the planet to the depth of thirty cubits (13.716m) in order to destroy "both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air" because "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth", he clearly didn't think his plan through.

So God murdered all the humans and exterminated all the puppies and kittens and cute little bunny rabbits and all the parrots and budgies and all the other air-breathing animals but he let the sharks and crocodiles off scot-free, did he?

Now surely those thrashing, bloodthirsty sharks are at least as sinful as the cute little bunny rabbits that go around blamelessly nibbling on grass and leaves? Yet, as the result of this supposed flood the sharks would have not only have escaped the fate of the land-based animals but would have feasted on their drowned carcasses.

So this mythical flood not only belies the Christian assertion of God being "benevolent" it proves (if you believe the story) that God is a psychopath unable to rationalise cause and effect.

So, in conclusion, whilst I think it is fine for parents to bring their kids up as Christians and teach them to love their neighbours and not to bear false witness against them and not to covet their wives, slaves, oxen or donkeys, it must surely be wrong to deny them the benefit of scientific knowledge by teaching them that because science contradicts the Bible it should be disregarded?

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Ruac

Con

First I would like to thank my opponent
________________________________
Today,you say that God hates f@gs. God does not hate anybody. He will, however, punish those who are gay. People are not born gay. It isn't natural. Do you see homosexual dogs? Cats? No. Homosexuality is sick and wrong and therefore should be abolished.
_________________________________
You also go on to say that God is a psychopath who does not thik about the effect. God is all-powerful and knows everything. He knows full well what ill happen. You also say there is no scientific proof of God. Science cannot xplain the supernatural.
__________________________________
I do hope you can avert to Christianity, my friend. God know you and he loves you.
brian_eggleston

Pro

My opponent is not alone in his assertion that "homosexuality is sick and wrong and therefore should be abolished."

Following fierce lobbying from American evangelical Christian groups (1) Uganda has just introduced new anti-homosexuality legislation that stipulates that individuals convicted of having gay sex are sentenced, at minimum, to life in prison and may even be executed. (2)

At first glance, such a law might seem attractive – just think of all the homosexual people society would no longer have to tolerate: Elton John; George Michael; Sean Hayes out of Will & Grace – the list goes on and on!

However, anti-homosexual laws also forbid the "promotion of homosexuality" which in effect bans organizations working in HIV and AIDS prevention and that is not a good thing as AIDS also affects women, children and straight men.

Also, the law states that anyone who knows of homosexual activity taking place but does not report it would risk up to three years in prison. This means, for example, that Debate.Org members would have to grass known homosexual members of this site up to the police or face jail.

Furthermore, anti-homosexual laws apply to lesbians as well as gay men and a ban could cause serious damage to the porn industry.

Finally, I'm not sure that converting to Christianity would be wise as I very much doubt God loves people that call him a psychopathic half-wit like I did!

Thanks for a very enjoyable argument, Rag, I hope I will have the opportunity to debate you again.

(1) http://www.nytimes.com...
(2) http://www.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alex0828 5 years ago
alex0828
Ruac, I am a Catholic Christian and i agree with your general argument. But the way you are carrying out your argument is extremely immature. Also, statements like "God will punish gays" are extremely wrong. Scientists have proven that homosexuality is actually linked to a gene. God loves all his children, you're putting your own prejudice in to this discussion.
Posted by startrekfan1324 6 years ago
startrekfan1324
As a protestant christian, I have to say that I agree with the general point of Cons argument, but I have to say that he did carry it a bit overboard. (and I usually look to the anti-religion side for that!) Hating Muslim beliefs, Atheist scientists, and homosexuals. That's a lot of hate there, man. Muslims do not accept Christ. Sin. Atheists, same thing. Sin. Homosexuals, read the scriptures for yourself, in the KJV, where homosexuality is condemned. Form your own opinion, but, still, for the sake of argument. Sin. God detests all sin. He loves all mankind. A philosophy I uphold is, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Jesus wanted us to love each other, as the Father loves us. We can't call ourselves decent CHRISTians if we didn't do the biggest point. Follow the example of Christ. Passive Resistance, like Ghandi. Leading by example. I am very much against the idea of those lunatic, "Christians," that think its their duty to play God and pass judgment of all people. (Not that I'm trying to say that you are one of those kinds of people.) I have friends who are Gay or Bisexual. Most of my friends are either Atheist or Agnostic. Live and let live, I say. Christians were persecuted as cultists for YEARS before Constantine. We disgraced ourselves with horrors like The Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades. I think there has been enough hate connected with the cross, the symbol of everlasting love, for followers of the Lord to be spreading more hatred around.

P.S. Pro, I don't really think that Christianity has come under fire just because people are, to paraphrase, getting smarter. Christianity can easily coexist with science, in my humble opinion, provided you are willing to stretch the limits of both, a tad. I think that its simply because many people look through history and see Christians as bad guys. Which isn't hard. That, and it doesn't rule the world like it used to. Whether it SHOULD rule the world, is a debate for another day....
Posted by my.matryoshka 6 years ago
my.matryoshka
Con was destroyed.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
As for the Iraq thing, I think its Americans being stupid (prolly offended ppl) "some ppl from this area killed a bunch of our people now we're going to kill a bunch of their ppl, including children, that had nothing to do with it. We are completely justified because *3 year old voice* they started it!"
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Wow. I pretty much got sick reading that. btw homosexuality is in nature. One example is my friend was a rabbit breeder and one male wouldn't mate with any of the females, but later did with another male, who didn't seem to really fight it.
Posted by collegekitchen7 6 years ago
collegekitchen7
10/10 for brian. Ruac you're retarded.
Posted by GIjanedebate 6 years ago
GIjanedebate
I'm not gonna vote for a few reasons
1. Ruac your arguments were not founded solid. brian_eggleston argued very well and you would get caught up on something he said that was an example rather than the entire argument. I do commend you though for starting the debate
2. brian_eggleston, your interpertation of the Bible is very... twisted, one not all animals were killed, plus God gave us animals but He did not create them in His image, us He did. The people were killed for their sinful ways, which in the end if they were aloud to live the whole world probably would have ended rather than having us talk right now.
You are a very repectable debator which I appreciate, and I'm going to input about this evolution you included. Evolution is (or at least orginally) was stated as a theory. Theory being key word, believers have the proof of the Bible, evolutionist... may I ask what they (I am assuming you aren't exactly evolutionist) have as proof?

ignore this comment if you want, respond, makes no difference to me.
Posted by Kenostic 6 years ago
Kenostic
Hahahahaha! i love the number of people you have insulted! :D
Posted by Demosthenes 6 years ago
Demosthenes
Rockylightning, most supporters of the Iraq War are conservatives, most of the time such people are Christians.

It's not a religious war and whether you intended to paint it as one or not, don't make the mistake of trying.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
'Today,you say that God hates f@gs. God does not hate anybody. He will, however, punish those who are gay. People are not born gay. It isn't natural. Do you see homosexual dogs? Cats? No'

lol, we live with loads of Beagles (my mum breeds them), and you'd be hard pressed to call any of them straight. They certainly have no aversion at all to bangin' their own sex, and I'm pretty sure that we have a lesbian couple in there.

Regardless, this completely misses the point; which is that, if you think about it, no sane person would actually uphold the position that unnatural things are all bad, and natural things are all good.

Welfare, medicine: unnatural.
Viruses, starvation: natural.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DeafAtheist14 6 years ago
DeafAtheist14
Ruacbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by my.matryoshka 6 years ago
my.matryoshka
Ruacbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Ruacbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Voltar143 6 years ago
Voltar143
Ruacbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Doctor_Murray 6 years ago
Doctor_Murray
Ruacbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
Ruacbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Yurlene 6 years ago
Yurlene
Ruacbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by stina2bina 6 years ago
stina2bina
Ruacbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by ZT 6 years ago
ZT
Ruacbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by lliwill 6 years ago
lliwill
Ruacbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07