The Instigator
Therearenogods
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Viana
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is Christianity true?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Therearenogods
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 80651
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

Therearenogods

Con

As a new member of Debate.org, 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 :)
Viana

Pro

My only rebuttal to this is the following: either you are a complete and utter idiot or you misrepresented your thoughts by posting the question. The answer to the question "Is Christianity true" is obvious. Christianity is the belief system where there is an omnipotent God who's prophet is Jesus Christ. You are a Christian if you adhere to this belief system. So since there are billions of people compatible to this definition the answer is yes. Christianity is true
Debate Round No. 1
Therearenogods

Con

1) HOW in any way does the fact that somebody holds a belief make the belief itself factual or true?

2) In the Christian tradition, Jesus is not just a prophet of God (Islam teaches that), Jesus is the physical embodiment/human form of God himself - he IS God

I agree that you are a Christian if you adhere to this belief system, but the fact that there are Christians does not mean that a deity created the universe, visited earth etc. How does the fact people believe it make it true?...

I fear you have gravely misunderstood
Viana

Pro

You did not ask if the belief system is valid though. You asked if Christianity is true i.e. if it exists. To which the answer is yes, of course it exists.
Debate Round No. 2
Therearenogods

Con

You would be correct if the question was 'Is Christianity real?', but questioning if something is true is questioning whether or not it is actuality and whether or not it conforms with reality. Clearly this is an invitation to debate on whether or not Christianity and its claims are correct.
Viana

Pro

But it is a belief system existing in reality. What more do you want me to say. You formulated your question incorrectly
Debate Round No. 3
Therearenogods

Con

Your slippery awkwardness shows some clear frustration or need for attention, and for that my condolences, but I clearly asked if it was TRUE, not if it EXISTS; the belief system clearly exists, but it is not clearly true.
Viana

Pro

Well, I just think you were unclear with your question and should specify which parts you wanted to debate. BTW I want to give a shout out to ultimatesinnerguy666 who apparently did not caught I was an atheist from the get go and was just trying to help this guy get some focus. You sir, are a retard
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Bluepaintcan123// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con made very good points on the argument and therefore I believe they deserve my vote.

[*Reason for removal*] Clear vote bomb. The voter doesn't justify the conduct, S&G or source points allocated. The voter insufficiently justifies their decision on arguments, as he must actually point to specific arguments made in the debate by both sides and evaluate their effectiveness to determine who won this debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
For the record, if a voter finds it to be problematic that a debater attacked someone in the debate or in the comments, it's still sufficient reasoning.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: johnlubba// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Arguments, Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro construes the resolution and further insults Con, Pro's argument is that Christianity is true because there are billions of believers, This deters from the resolution and holds no weight to the veracity of Pro's claim. Pro derails the debate by trying out a semantic tactic that just doesn't cut it. Arguments to Con and Conduct to Con for Pro calling Con an utter idiot and finishes with calling him a retard. Totally bad conduct.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains their decision, examining what informed it and why he found it problematic. It's unclear how, as the reporter put it, the voter failed to read and interpret the text of the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by Viana 1 year ago
Viana
Pro guy here.
So you'll find in the comments an individual by the name of johnlubba who seemed to have completely missed the point that I was trying to make and that is incapable of reading properly not even realizing that the guy I called a retard was some dude in the comment section who seemed very agitated because he thought I was a christian and making arguments to defend a christian position. The dialogue between me and Con guy went without any of us attacking the other so f you johnlubba educate yourself please
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
What version?
Posted by ultimatesinnerguy666 1 year ago
ultimatesinnerguy666
Just an uneducated way around the answer, typical bible thumpers you know what he meant the answer is NO BODY CAN POSSIBLY KNOW!!!!! You can believe all you want have all the faith you want that's fine its your right you can even feel that it's true, but bottom line, no one knows its a good idea in which inteliligent people starting basing a belef structure on cancelling out the whole intelligent part
Posted by Therearenogods 1 year ago
Therearenogods
Who is throwing insults??
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
You should have been more specific (even I understood what was meant by this debate.) People are extremely literal. So, now, you have that response to your entire argument (Sorry for you.)

Insults are unnecessary. Very unnecessary.
Posted by Therearenogods 1 year ago
Therearenogods
Brando the challenge has been accepted, if you make a similar debate I would be happy to debate you as well
Posted by Therearenogods 1 year ago
Therearenogods
Try now dude
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
TherearenogodsVianaTied
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: Con had better conduct, because Con never personally attacked Pro, but Pro did personally attack Con, by calling him "a retard". I understood both of them pretty well, so they tie for spelling and grammar. As for arguments, Con gave solid reasons as to why Christianity is mad-made, and also why the Biblical account of creation contradicts the objective truth of evolution. Pro just stated that Christianity exists, which is a misunderstanding of the question "Is Christianity true?". Pro confused something being true with something being real, which is not what the question was asking. Pro failed to answer the question properly. Neither of them used any sources, so they tie for reliable sources.
Vote Placed by YaHey 1 year ago
YaHey
TherearenogodsVianaTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I think a better debate would have been, "Are the main beliefs of Christianity correct?" because such a varied belief system like Christianity has truth and falsehoods. Some of the wars of the Bible may have actually happened, but that doesn't mean Jesus is God. Conduct goes to Con because Pro didn't try to debate what Con was asking, went for a technicality and called somebody a retard. Arguments go to Con because Pro didn't address any of Con's points and went with the fallacy of "I believe, therefore it is true." Truth is not subjective, nor is everything that exists "true".
Vote Placed by mrPrime 1 year ago
mrPrime
TherearenogodsVianaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a mess. First of all, OP thank you, and welcome. It was an admirable attempt but you shouldn't make the bulk (or all) of your debate assumption based. Lots of strong claims but nothing to support them other than you drawing your own conclusion with personal common sense. Also, even though "Pro" Trolled you with a technicality, a valid point was made that you were unable to address: "1) HOW in any way does the fact that somebody holds a belief make the belief itself factual or true?" This is pretty much the definition of "truth." Truth is subjective and based on the relative society associated with said fact. So if the christian community finds it to be "True" than it is. For them. This is the main reason why ideology is difficult to debate. There is no irrefutable evidence to completely rule out religion entirely. The best you can do is say it is "highly unlikely" based on ______ _____ ____. gg
Vote Placed by johnlubba 1 year ago
johnlubba
TherearenogodsVianaTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro construes the resolution and further insults Con, Pro's argument is that Christianity is true because there are billions of believers, This deters from the resolution and holds no weight to the veracity of Pro's claim. Pro derails the debate by trying out a semantic tactic that just doesn't cut it. Arguments to Con and Conduct to Con for Pro calling Con an utter idiot and finishes with calling him a retard. Totally bad conduct.