The Instigator
TheRussian
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Prove a "Judeo" Religion

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...
TheRussian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 84575
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

TheRussian

Con

It has been a while since I've conducted a serious debate and have decided to once again engage myself in a religious argument. I would like for this debate to be cool-headed, rational and serious.

I don't care if my opponent plays devil's advocate (though I would prefer him/her to be a genuine believer), but I would like my opponent to prove a literal interpretation of any of the three "Judeo" religions (Judaism, Christianity or Islam).

Emphasis on "literal". There are dozens of ways to figuratively interpret any one of these religions and it seems to me that such a debate is pointless as my opponent can simply adapt/shift their interpretation.

Any questions will be answered in the comments.

My opponent must present arguments in the first round as BoP is on my opponent.
Jerry947

Pro

I am not going to play devil's advocate. I am a Christian and I will do my best to prove Christianity beyond a reasonable doubt. It should be noted since my opponent is a deist, I will not have to prove the existence of a God since they are already a believer. Lets us have a fun debate and let us learn a lot.

1. Morality as a clue to a personal God

Moral values exist and almost every person on the planet seems to know the difference between right and wrong. Pretty much everybody understands that lying, stealing, and murder are all immoral actions. These moral principles are universally understood which supports the idea that objective morality exists. In others words, there is a moral law that exists and all humans are aware of it. But how did this happen? It seems that this moral law is understood by all humans but yet why does this moral law exist?

God is defined as the most powerful being and creator of all things, and etc...Therefore along with the rest of creation, the moral law would have also had to been created by God. This moral law gives humans a hint at the character of the God that created us. God must be moral because he created morality itself. I mean, an immoral being can't produce flawless moral values. God must be moral and therefore must care about humanity. No moral being would just create people and leave them to suffer on their own. We could also look at creation. A God created a beautiful universe and this gives us a hint that God is also a creative being. In the same way an unartistic God couldn't create a beautiful universe, an immoral God couldn't create morality.

2. The Existence of Jesus

Almost all scholars in our age believe that Jesus was a real person. There are many ancient historians that have written about him and we even have writings from the people that knew Jesus (The New Testament). You should have no doubt that Jesus was a real person. The famous historian Josephus for example stated that "Jesus was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate" In other words, we also have proof that Jesus was crucified. The Bible affirms all of this and even explains why Jesus' body went missing from the empty tomb. More on that later...

Jesus claimed to be God and his friends and his brothers claimed that he was God. Josephus tells us that Jesus was a good teacher. But it is a mistake to believe that Jesus was only a good teacher. C.S. Lewis stated that "is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg R09; or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse." People of the time period indicate that Jesus was a good person and a good teacher...but you can't be these things if you are insane.

Lets go back to the empty tomb. The historian Luke states (chapter 24) that the tomb was found empty by women. How did this happen? The best explanation is that Jesus was who he said he was and did in fact rise from the dead. People might claim that Jesus never died but this is silly considering that we know he was crucified and that he was buried. No one could survive that process. Others claim that the body never went missing which is ridiculous considering the Romans and the Jews could have merely shown Christians the body and then their faith would be destroyed. And on top of that, there are people such as the New Testament writers that claim they along with 500 other people saw Jesus after his death. Even the brothers of Jesus (who previously disbelieved in the deity of their brother) came to believe that Jesus was God. Think about that for a moment...what would it take for you to believe that your brother (if you have one) was God? Would it take a resurrection? Nevertheless they became Christians.

3. The Problem of Evil

Deists usually state that God must not be all powerful or all loving because of the existence of evil. Christianity, unlike any other religion produces a solution to this problem. God allows people to have freewill which means that they can choose to be like God (good) or to be unlike him (evil). Does God prevent all evil...no. But why be angry at God when he is allowing humans to make their own choices? Hem allows evil at many times when he is allowing people to have freewill. When a murder happens, do not be angry at God for not preventing it...be angry at the person who made the choice to shoot the gun. God will deal with them in Hell according to Christian theology.

But will evil ever end? According to Christianity...yes. It will end when Jesus returns.

Can't wait to get your next response. I really enjoy these topics.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRussian

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and look forward to its unfolding.

I am not completely sure whether or not I believe in a God, but I accept my opponent's offer of ignoring the subject of God's existence for the purposes of the debate. However, the argument of existence does not include the argument of God's nature (which my opponent presents in Part 1 of his argument) which I also think should be ignored. My opponent is basing his description of God off of the Bible, so rather than argue about the nature of God, it seems more practical to argue about the Bible itself.

Before I go into rebuttals, I request that my opponent provide sources for his claims. Claims such as "almost all scholars in our age believe that Jesus was a real person" need a source, without which I can ignore this claim completely. I say this not just as a cheap way of getting away from arguing. I started this debate to find truth, not get an extra "win" on my profile. As a result, I want a real debate and I cannot argue against a point if I cannot even confirm its validity/truthfulness. It is the same if we were arguing in person and I said "Most Christians are bad people, so Christianity must be bad and immoral." Not only is this a logical fallacy, but there is no source to back up my claim that "most Christians are bad people". It is an empty phrase without backing that doesn't even deserve a rebuttal. So please, I request that you provide me with reliable sources to back your claims.

Rebuttals:
1) My opponent's first point rests solely on the assumption of a Universal Morality. That is, the idea that all humans abide by the same moral code. While this is generally true for most of the modern world, it was not always this way and probably will never be valid for every group on Earth. Our modern society may find certain behaviors to be immoral such as cannibalism, "foot binding", slavery and forced polygamy, however such behaviors were condoned in various societies before our time. Some are even present in societies today. This means that people's idea of "right and wrong" are not dependent on a set of "holy, God-given virtues" that every person is born with, but rather on individual's environment and the society's ideals. Having said this, I don't think that one can use humans' morality as a hint towards God because there have been (and still are) so many different moral codes around the world that one cannot conclude that there is a single, Universal Morality.

I will ignore the second paragraph of my opponent's argument in Part 1 because though I do not accept your arguments (for reasons mentioned below in my "Side note"), neither of us can refute or prove these arguments.

Side note: As mentioned, I am not sure whether or not I believe in a God. However, even if I do, I do not necessarily believe classical "Biblical creationist" ideas that God created things as they are today. Keeping this in mind, I request that my opponent stop the use of this notion in statements such as: "Therefore along with the rest of creation, the moral law would have also had to been created by God." and " A God created a beautiful universe and this gives us a hint that God is also a creative being. In the same way an unartistic God couldn't create a beautiful universe, an immoral God couldn't create morality."
To make things easier, I admit that I am a believer of the Big Bang Theory as well as the Theory of Evolution. Please keep this in mind from now on when making arguments that cannot really be proven (but that you assumed I agree with).

2) "Almost all scholars in our age believe that Jesus was a real person."
I would like a source for this claim.

"There are many ancient historians that have written about him and we even have writings from the people that knew Jesus (The New Testament)."
I would like examples of such historians (with sources). Also, the Bible cannot be used for proof of Jesus because that's essentially the same as using the Bible to prove Christianity. Of course the Bible is going to support Christianity, just as I could use the Koran (Quran) to prove Islam. Only sources independent of religious texts could be used to prove the religious texts themselves. If my opponent would like to use the Gospels as independent proof, please say so and we can engage in argumentative discussion about them specifically. Otherwise, the Gospels are part of the Bible and cannot be considered as valid evidence.

"You should have no doubt that Jesus was a real person."
At the moment, I don't see why not.

On the subject of Josephus, my opponent quotes the historian and claims that Josephus' writing is evidence for Jesus' crucifixion (and therefore existence). However, it should be noted that Josephus was by no means an eyewitness. Josephus was only born around the time (if not several years after) Jesus was crucified.
https://answersingenesis.org...

From what I've seen and read, there are no reliable eye-witness records of Jesus' existence or crucifixion besides the Bible itself.

"The Bible affirms all of this and even explains why Jesus' body went missing from the empty tomb. More on that later..."
Once again my opponent attempts to use the Bible as proof for itself.

"Lets go back to the empty tomb. The historian Luke states (chapter 24) that the tomb was found empty by women. How did this happen? The best explanation is that Jesus was who he said he was and did in fact rise from the dead."
Logically speaking, rising from the dead is the worst explanation. Being eaten by animals, stolen by humans or disappearing by other means is a much more logical explanation than resurrection.

The rest of the third paragraph of Part 2 of my opponent's argument is using the Bible as proof and can be disregarded.

3) This part of my opponent's argument seems to be a COUNTER-argument to a common claim. The claim is that there cannot be a benevolent God because evil exists. I have not made this claim and actually won't, so there is really nothing to argue here. Personally, I do not understand how one can praise a God for allowing us freewill which imminently leads to a lot of negative results like war, rape etc. Nevertheless, this section is not central to our debate as it addresses an argument which I have not made.

So, let's see what we have so far.

My opponent's argument in Part 1 seems to be more or less refuted as it relies on the assumption of Universal Morality, an idea that I think I have adequately addressed and proven to be false.

My opponent's argument in Part 2 of Jesus' existence seems inadequately supported. A lack of citation of information combined with a lack of independent sources results in a failure to prove Jesus' existence, much less his divinity.

My opponent's argument in Part 3 is more or less irrelevant to our debate for reasons stated previously.

I remind my opponent that unless he proves it to be a valid source in this situation, he can't use religious text (Bible) to prove his point in this debate. It is the same as me using the Koran (Quran) to prove Islam.

I also would like to ask my opponent a question. Do you believe the Theory of Evolution to be true?

I would also like to ask my opponent another question. Since he is defending a literal interpretation of the Bible, that means that he must defend everything written in the Bible as true without any metaphorical analysis or interpretation. So, do you believe that all of the laws of nature were changed by/for Jesus for just several decades during Jesus' supposed life? And then returned to normal after his resurrection? By asking this, I'm essentially asking whether or not my opponent truly believes that incredible events such as Noah's flood, the plagues, Jesus' miracles etc. were the results of "magic" from above?

I await my opponent's response.
Jerry947

Pro

First of all I just wanted to say that I had all of these links I wanted to add to support my claims. For some reason I forgot to include them at the end. But that will be the last time I make that mistake.

1. Morality is essential when looking at evidence for Christianity. The Bible argues that God is moral and when we look at the world and see morality playing a part in it we can know that God is moral. Now, my opponent says "I am not completely sure whether or not I believe in a God, but I accept my opponent's offer of ignoring the subject of God's existence for the purposes of the debate." This makes things really complicated because if a person is not convinced that a God exists then it is impossible for them to accept any of the three Judeo Religions. The only way I can convince my opponent of anything is if I first convince him that there is a God. By the way, I recommend that my opponent changes his profile religion because it is incredibly misleading.

2. TheRussian claims "Our modern society may find certain behaviors to be immoral such as cannibalism, "foot binding", slavery and forced polygamy, however such behaviors were condoned in various societies before our time."This does nothing to disprove that morality is objective, it just proves that people are evil. My opponent also asked me to support the claims I have made and now I will ask him/her to do the same. They claimed that "there have been (and still are) so many different moral codes around the world that one cannot conclude that there is a single, Universal Morality." Again, my opponent has proven nothing except that people behave immorally. Which by the way is ironic considering "the moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other" (Lewis 13). In other words, when you look at the immoral actions of societies, you are comparing them to a real morality recognizing that there is a real right and wrong. If morality were purely subjective, you could not say that cannibalism was wrong for a fact. You could only say that it was wrong in your opinion which would be meaningless considering your opinion does not create an ethical standard in which people have to follow.

3. My opponent admits that he is a believer in the Big bang Theory as well as Evolution. I assumed my opponent believed in the existence of a God because his profile said that he/she was a deist. That said, believing in these theories does not mean that a God didn't do anything creative in the creation of the universe. The Universe still shows that something created the beautiful creation and that something produced this moral law. You can still believe in these theories and be a Christian.

4. Here are some links supporting that almost all scholars in our age believe in the existence of Jesus.
http://www.is-there-a-god.info...
http://www.is-there-a-god.info...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Links for ancient historians backing up the existence of Jesus:
http://www.everystudent.com...
http://www.gotquestions.org...

This statement my opponent made bothered me "Also, the Bible cannot be used for proof of Jesus because that's essentially the same as using the Bible to prove Christianity." This shows a misunderstanding of what the Bible is. The Koran was written by one man. The Bible was written by over forty people and many in the New Testament knew Jesus personally. Some were friends of Jesus and some were relatives. These writings from the people who knew Jesus were eventually complied into one source for the benefit of the church. But you can't just throw out eyewitness testimonies just because you already assume Christianity to be false.

5. I assume you believe that Hitler was a real person and you weren't alive for his existence. The point is that Josephus should not be discredited because he was not an eyewitness. I mean, your standards for proving Christianity are becoming impossible. You won't except eye witness testimonies (complied into the Bible) for some bizarre reason and now you will not accept a secular historian because he lived a few years later. How am I supposed to prove anything to you if you don't accept what any person of the time period says?

6. My opponent says "Being eaten by animals, stolen by humans or disappearing by other means is a much more logical explanation than resurrection." I have already covered the stolen by humans alternative. As for the eaten by animals alternative...the tomb he was buried in was sealed by a rock and the body went missing three days later. Not only that but he was buried in a casket sealed shut and buried in the earth. No animal could have had access to the body.

7. My opponent says "The rest of the third paragraph of Part 2 of my opponent's argument is using the Bible as proof and can be disregarded." This is just not true...you cannot disregard eye witness testimonies merely because you assume that Christianity is false.

8. My claims about evil were for the common deist who made those types of claims. TheRussians' profile said deist so I thought I would include that in my opening argument. But he/she is clearly not a deist.

So let us indeed see what we have so far:

My opponent disregards the idea of Universal morality because other cultures have done immoral things. I think I have addressed this issue well.

The sources I have added do show that the majority of scholars believe in the existence of Jesus. He divinity is proven by eye witnesses of the time period and by the evidence of the Resurrection which I have begun to supply.

My opponent rejects the Bible for no reason other than he assumes that the writers were wrong.

I want to remind my opponent that the Bible is composed of many independent sources which we have and that he has given no reason to reject them other than him assuming that Christianity is false. By the way, the Koran was written by a man that originally thought the book to be inspired by demons and it was one of his many wives that told him that it was God and not demons. There are plenty of reasons to reject the Koran but lets stay on topic.

Answers to my opponents questions:

Do I believe the theory of evolution to be true? Absolutely not. See link on my debate about it for details: http://www.debate.org...

Do I believe that all of the laws of nature were changed by/for Jesus for just several decades during Jesus' supposed life?
No...I believe that because Jesus is God and created the laws of nature he can do anything he wants with nature.

And then returned to normal after his resurrection?
They never changed...I believe God was just showing people what he could do. He wasn't changing any of the laws he created.

By asking this, I'm essentially asking whether or not my opponent truly believes that incredible events such as Noah's flood, the plagues, Jesus' miracles etc. were the results of "magic" from above?
I don't believe it was magic. I believe that these things were a result of the power of God. But yes, I believe the flood happened, the plagues, and Jesus' miracles happened.

I thank my opponent for their respectful nature and I admire the boldness they possess. I will eagerly await for his/her next response.
Debate Round No. 2
TheRussian

Con

Allow me to try to further clarify my beliefs. They are irrelevant to the debate, but I do not want my opponent to have the wrong idea. The definition of a Deism according to Dictionary.com is "The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws." I emphasize the first half of that statement. In my eyes, there is no evidence for God, but no evidence against God. As a result, I have a hope and belief that there is some kind of supernatural being, BUT I do not believe that this being has at all intervened in the universe since the Big Bang. I would say that Deist describes my position more accurately than virtually any other term, perhaps except for "agnostic".

"First of all I just wanted to say that I had all of these links I wanted to add to support my claims. For some reason I forgot to include them at the end. But that will be the last time I make that mistake."
Not worries, sources just make the debate easier to conduct.

"TheRussian claims 'Our modern society may find certain behaviors to be immoral such as cannibalism...such behaviors were condoned in various societies before our time.' This does nothing to disprove that morality is objective, it just proves that people are evil."
This seems to be an absurd claim for several reasons. First off, it suggests that a person that doesn't follow Biblical values is "evil", even if the person was raised all their life in a different culture all their life and don't know any different. Secondly, this statement suggests that billions of people lived and died in an "evil lifestyle" just because they were raised in a particular society that supported particular values. If a child is raised to believe that the color red is bad, and every person around them thinks that red is bad, how can the child be blamed for also being convinced that red is, in fact, an "evil" color?
What exactly makes our moral codes superior to those of other societies or people in the past? Now, my opponent may say that the reason is because it is the moral code presented in the Bible. But the Bible is not unique in its moral teachings, the other two "Judeo" religions are very similar.
http://chinese-school.netfirms.com...

"If morality were purely subjective, you could not say that cannibalism was wrong for a fact. You could only say that it was wrong in your opinion which would be meaningless considering your opinion does not create an ethical standard in which people have to follow."
I completely agree with that statement. I don't think anyone can say that cannibalism or anything else I mentioned is wrong for a FACT. The point I'm trying to make is that people in societies with these other moral codes cannot be condemned for following their society's moral principles, even if they are different from our own. Personally, yes, I think cannibalism is wrong. However you can't blame a person for following the moral beliefs that their parents and entire society holds.

"You can still believe in these theories and be a Christian."
I disagree. If we are talking about a literal interpretation of the Bible, then there is no debate, you CANNOT believe in both theories and be a Christian. As for a metaphorical interpretation, I suppose one could believe in the Big Bang theory and be a Christian but not the Theory of Evolution. This is because if the Theory of Evolution is true, then there was no Adam and Eve as the "first humans" in perfect form, which means there was no original sin, which means there is essentially no point of Jesus dying on the cross and so the entire Christian faith crumples. Because of this, the Theory of Evolution alone can virtually counter all of the Christian faith and I would actually be more than willing to debate the validity of the Theory of Evolution. Speaking of Evolution, I'd like to ask why my opponent doesn't accept the Theory of Evolution? What flaws are present in the theory that causes my opponent to deny it?

"This statement my opponent made bothered me 'Also, the Bible cannot be used for proof of Jesus' ...These writings from the people who knew Jesus were eventually complied into one source for the benefit of the church. But you can't just throw out eyewitness testimonies just because you already assume Christianity to be false."
But who were these people? Why is there virtually no confirmation of the Biblical events from other sources? If there was truly a "God on Earth", there would be much more evidence, much more documentation and the Christian faith would spread like wild-fire. However, the faith spread very very slowly. By the year 312 AD (250 years after Jesus' crucifixion), only an estimated 5% of the Roman Empire was Christian. There such a huge lack of evidence for something so huge as a son of God on Earth, which arouses significant doubt.
http://ehrmanblog.org...

"I assume you believe that Hitler was a real person and you weren't alive for his existence."
But there is more evidence for his existence than Jesus. There isn't just one book compiled by his closest political followers. There are many documents, books (some written by Hitler himself such as Mein Kampf) and clear consequences of his actions that prove his existence. Despite Jesus being an alleged "miracle worker", there is very little evidence for this.

"How am I supposed to prove anything to you if you don't accept what any person of the time period says?"
I do not find the Bible to a reliable historical source, particularly for reasons mentioned below. The only other "person of the time period" that my opponent brings up as evidence is Josephus. Josephus supposedly makes a short reference to Jesus, and this statement is regarded by many to be solid proof of his existence. However, this small piece of writing has been thoroughly refuted and determined to be forged by the church and inserted into Josephus' writing. Dr. Gordon Stein wrote: "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars." There were many other historians in Josephus' time, and he was the only one that made mention of a historical figure named Jesus.
http://www.truthbeknown.com...

"My opponent says "The rest of the third paragraph of Part 2 of my opponent's argument is using the Bible as proof and can be disregarded." This is just not true...you cannot disregard eye witness testimonies merely because you assume that Christianity is false."
I am disregarding the Bible as a credible historical source by itself because of certain incongruities within it. Noah's flood, for example, is described in the Bible, but there is no real evidence for the flood (outside the Bible) and I'd be willing to argue that the story of Noah's flood would simply be impossible even if the flood itself did somehow occur. There are so many logistic problems with the idea of hundreds of thousands of animals on a wooden ship at sea for a year.
a) If the flood covered all dry land, there would have to be water above Mt. Everest. At this altitude, how would all the animals not die from freezing and low oxygen levels?
b) How were the animals be fed? How were their wastes removed?
c) How were microorganisms gathered to be saved on the ship?
d) Even if a ship of the necessary size was to be built, how did it not break at sea? Large wooden ships built in the 18th and 19th century by professional shipbuilders broke at sea because of the way the ship twists and bends.
https://skeptoid.com...
e) It should be noted that the story of Noah's ark is strikingly similar to the Epic of Gilgamesh, written long before.
http://www.icr.org...

Also, The Gospels contain many errors and contradictions. For example, the writers John and Luke have different reports for Jesus' last words. The last words of the Son of God on Earth seem pretty important, how did they miss this? The Gospels also have geographical mistakes, for example when in Mark 7:31 it is written that "Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee...". If one is to take a look at the map I provided in the third link below, one can easily see that Sidon is north of Tyre, while the Sea of Galilee is south of both cities. Mark wrote down precisely the wrong directions as one can't get to the Sea of Galilee THROUGH Sidon from Tyre. It seems that the Bible is not a reliable historical document.
https://www.biblegateway.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.bible.ca...

It seems that at this point, the argument is really about the reliability of the Bible as a historical document as well as Jesus' existence (reliability of Josephus' reference to Jesus).

I curiously await my opponent's response.
Jerry947

Pro

Before I get started I just wanted to say that your beliefs are relevant to the debate. I am trying to prove Christianity to you and it is really helpful to know what the opponent believes so that I know where to start. When debating deists, all I have to do is convince them that the God that created the universe is moral and therefore would intervene with the universe he created. But with you, you have stated that you don't know if God exists. Deists are sure that God exists. Therefore you are no deist but are in fact an agnostic. This made things really confusing for me because I have to debate differently when I am speaking to an agnostic. But I will do my best to play with the cards I have been dealt.

"First off, it suggests that a person that doesn't follow Biblical values is 'evil', even if the person was raised all their life in a different culture all their life and don't know any different. Secondly, this statement suggests that billions of people lived and died in an 'evil lifestyle' just because they were raised in a particular society that supported particular values."

I would never claim that a person who doesn't follow Biblical morals is evil. I would argue that all people are evil. If you have ever done something wrong, that makes you an evil person. Although, that is a different debate for another time. I would also like to mention that people who practiced Cannibalism did it at many times for religious purposes. I think they believed that it (sacrifices) would save the community they lived in or something like that. In other words, they were aware that murder was wrong (just like all people do) but didn't see what they were doing as murder since they were saving lives. The moral principle of saving people doesn't change, the only thing that changes is how the group of people carry out that principle. Although, this doesn't mean that people are mistaken about how to carry out moral principles. People can always be mistaken about the facts. Other reasons for Cannibalism were to satisfy hunger, scaring the enemy and etc. The point is that even Cannibals acknowledge murder as wrong but they saw their actions as justified and didn't see what they did as murder (facts change) since they thought they were doing something for the greater good.

" If a child is raised to believe that the color red is bad, and every person around them thinks that red is bad, how can the child be blamed for also being convinced that red is, in fact, an "evil" color?"

If the color red never does anything bad to the child or does anything evil, I would expect the child to eventually realize that the color red is not evil.

"What exactly makes our moral codes superior to those of other societies or people in the past?"

I assume that you know that Cannibalism is wrong. Our society doesn't practice this which makes us more moral in this area of morality.

"But the Bible is not unique in its moral teachings, the other two "Judeo" religions are very similar."

That is because Judaism is the original form of Christianity. The main difference between the two is that the Jews do not believe that the God man has come yet. As for Islam, I could go into all of the differences (Muslims support wife beating) but that is not my focus in this debate.

" I don't think anyone can say that cannibalism or anything else I mentioned is wrong for a FACT."

And that right there is my main problem with atheists/agnostics. They are not willing to say that cannibalism is wrong for a fact. You do realize that if you believe that morality is subjective, you could never tell someone that they were doing something wrong. You couldn't tell Hitler was wrong in World War Two. You wouldn't even have reason to do anything moral since there would be no universal standard of morality. All I can say is thank God the majority of people realize that there is a real right/wrong.

"Personally, yes, I think cannibalism is wrong. However you can't blame a person for following the moral beliefs that their parents and entire society holds."

Their moral beliefs about murder aren't different. The problem is that Cannibals see their actions as justified and perfectly moral (in many cases). The trick is to convince them that they have the facts wrong about the people they eat and that their actions are not justified. We must show them that they are actually murdering people.

"I disagree. If we are talking about a literal interpretation of the Bible, then there is no debate, you CANNOT believe in both theories and be a Christian."

Well, there are many smart Christians out there that would disagree with you. Nevertheless, this debate is not about these theories. That said, you can see my debate on evolution for more details. I on the other hand would agree with you that the theory of evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

"But who were these people? Why is there virtually no confirmation of the Biblical events from other sources? If there was truly a "God on Earth", there would be much more evidence, much more documentation and the Christian faith would spread like wild-fire. However, the faith spread very very slowly. By the year 312 AD (250 years after Jesus' crucifixion), only an estimated 5% of the Roman Empire was Christian. There such a huge lack of evidence for something so huge as a son of God on Earth, which arouses significant doubt."

I already answered the first question. Friends and relatives of Jesus wrote the New Testament. All you have to do is read the Bible to figure that one out. As for the second question, there is confirmation of Biblical events from other sources.
People confirmed: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...
Events: http://www.christiananswers.net...
Archaeology: https://carm.org...

Your unreliable source claimed that there were only 20 Christians after Jesus' death which is completely ludicrous considering Jesus spoke to crowds of people for three years before his death and his disciples/friends eventually started churches. It is literally like your source just made up the number to make Christianity look bad. The truth is that we don't know how many Christians there were during the time period but what we do know is that the religion did spread like wild fire. Persecution was a main cause for this spread. Christians had to flee their homes which caused them to spread all over the world. I can go more into that if you'd like.

"But there is more evidence for his (Hitler's) existence than Jesus."

Maybe...but I was trying to show you why it was ridiculous to deny Josephus as a reliable source since he lived a few years after the death of Jesus.

"However, this small piece of writing has been thoroughly refuted and determined to be forged by the church and inserted into Josephus' writing. Dr. Gordon Stein wrote: "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works."

The link you gave didn't open properly for me. That said, there is debate about Christian adding words to Josephus' quote but they didn't touch the part about Jesus' existence. See link for more details: https://carm.org...

"There were many other historians in Josephus' time, and he was the only one that made mention of a historical figure named Jesus."

Wrong, you just didn't read the links I gave you that mentioned other historians mention Jesus' name. Did you even read the links about scholars pretty much universally agreeing that Jesus was a real person. His existence really isn't debatable.

"I am disregarding the Bible as a credible historical source by itself because of certain incongruities within it. Noah's flood, for example, is described in the Bible, but there is no real evidence for the flood (outside the Bible) and I'd be willing to argue that the story of Noah's flood would simply be impossible even if the flood itself did somehow occur."

So basically you disregard the Bible as a reliable source merely because you assume Christianity to be false and that God cannot do all things. In my opinion, you shouldn't discredit a source just because you already assume something to be false. And there is actual evidence for the flood outside of the Bible. See link for details: https://answersingenesis.org... A link I gave earlier provides a list of other cultures with records of a worldwide flood.

Supposed Contradictions: Due to Character limits you will have to read the links

1. Jesus' last words: https://carm.org...
2. Error in Geography: http://www.tektonics.org...

"It seems that at this point, the argument is really about the reliability of the Bible as a historical document as well as Jesus' existence (reliability of Josephus' reference to Jesus)."

If this is all I have to do then you should be convinced that Christianity is true by the time you read this. You have no reason to deny the Bible as a reliable source other than your assumption about what is possible (surely if God exists all things are possible). And you have no reason to disbelief in the existence of Jesus when people of the time period confirm his existence and because almost all scholars believe that he existed.

This has been a good debate so far. Let the fun continue...
Debate Round No. 3
TheRussian

Con

I will essentially ignore my opponent's first 8 paragraphs in this Round simply because it is a dead end. We cannot truly argue about morality because we have different opinions, neither of which can be substantiated with evidence. (Same as our debate about the existence of God). I will however address my opponent's paragraph where he discusses that "...if you believe that morality is subjective, you could never tell someone that they were doing something wrong...you wouldn't even have reason to do anything moral since there would be no universal standard of morality". I am fully aware of the things that come along with believing that morality is subjective. I honestly don't think anyone has a reason to act morally beyond Earthly consequences. I personally don't think anyone can do something so bad on Earth that they deserve eternal damnation for it (so I don't believe in a hell). The majority of people feel guilt or that they've done something wrong if they hurt someone because of empathy (a basic biological adaptation). There has actually been research that shows that psychopaths aren't just people who decide to do evil, but that they have a smaller, underdeveloped amygdala (the part of the brain responsible for many emotions including empathy). Anyways, I just don't think that one can say anything is wrong for a FACT because there are always underlying circumstances that make the situation virtually impossible to judge.
http://www.livescience.com...

"Your unreliable source..."
My opponent calls my source unreliable and argues against it. If my source is unreliable, prove it. You can't just say it's unreliable and not provide an alternative source that is more credible and disproves mine.

"People confirmed"
The source my opponent provides gives a list of kings and pharaohs that are mentioned in the Bible that seem to have existed in reality. This doesn't seem to prove much, at least not to me. I never said (nor do I believe) that every word in the Bible in incorrect. I concede that this adds a bit of credibility to the Bible as a source but the mentions of certain kings and pharaohs is not what the Bible is attacked for. It is considered unreliable for the events it mentions (such as Noah's flood) for which my opponent provided a source that I will address below.

"Events"
My opponent's source for this says "A number of Babylonian documents have been discovered which describe the same Flood". Unless the source is referring to the Epic of Gilgamesh (which is not the "same flood"), I have not found any such Babylonian documents and request that my opponent refer me to them. The source goes on to speak of the Epic of Gilgamesh as if it is the story of Noah's ark and that it describes the same event. This is simply false. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written 900 years before the Bible, they are not describing the "same event", though I don't doubt that the two are related (maybe even a copy) because of how similar they are.
https://books.google.com...
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

"Archaeology"
Again, this adds minor credibility to the Bible, but does nothing to prove the things that the Bible is discredited for.

"It is literally like your source just made up the number to make Christianity look bad."
Then please provide a source with evidence to the contrary. Christianity spread very slowly, which shows that there weren't very many initial followers. By spread, I do not mean geographically, but by popularity. Essentially, Christianity was not really a religion until centuries after the supposed crucifixion of Christ.

"Did you even read the links about scholars pretty much universally agreeing that Jesus was a real person. His existence isn't really debatable"
First off, it isn't really my job to read the links. I read what an opponent writes in his argument, his links should be merely sources confirming his information. They shouldn't be speaking for him, otherwise, I could just paste a bunch of links that support my point of view and count that as my argument. However, I am indeed looking for truth, not just a win so I am fine with reading the links, but keep this in mind for future debates. Secondly, your statement above is not an argument. In fact, you are committing the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy. Saying that "scholars pretty much universally agree that Jesus was a real person" is not an argument. I could just as easily say "scientists pretty much universally agree that evolution is true" and with this, trump your entire case. But this is a logical fallacy. I would have to explain and PROVE that evolution is true, just as you have to PROVE that Jesus existed by providing actual evidence.

"So basically you disregard the Bible as a reliable source merely because you assume Christianity to be false and that God cannot do all things."
That's not at all what I said. I said: "I am disregarding the Bible as a credible historical source by itself because of certain incongruities within it. Noah's flood, for example, is described in the Bible, but there is no real evidence for the flood (outside the Bible)". I do not assume that God "cannot do all things" but the "God did it" cop-out is far too commonly used.

In regards to the flood itself, I ask a simple question. Where did all of the water come from?

"Jesus' last words"
My opponent provides a link in which the Gospel accounts of the last words of Jesus are put in chronological order. However, I am still confused on whether "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit." or "It is finished!" were his last words because by Luke, Jesus "breathed his last" after the former, but according to John, Jesus "gave up His spirit" after the latter. So which one is it?

"Error in Geography"
I agree with the source only to a certain extent because it depends simply on a different interpretation of the Bible's words. The wording is ambiguous to a large extent and because of this, I will no longer push this point because it is difficult to prove one side or the other.

Indeed let the fun continue. I thank my opponent for the debate thus far, he has been the most challenging and competent opponent I've ever had on the subject.
Jerry947

Pro

"I will essentially ignore my opponent's first 8 paragraphs in this Round simply because it is a dead end. We cannot truly argue about morality because we have different opinions, neither of which can be substantiated with evidence."

What a cop out that was. I can support my position on morality with evidence as I have already done so. If you can't then I'd suggest you go ahead and rethink your position.

"I honestly don't think anyone has a reason to act morally beyond Earthly consequences."

This sentence is incredibly disturbing. If you have no reason to be moral, or if there is no moral standard, you could never have a reason to prevent someone from being killed. You would have no reason to stop a man like Hitler from rising to power. Don't you understand why your worldview is so messed up?

"I personally don't think anyone can do something so bad on Earth that they deserve eternal damnation for it (so I don't believe in a hell)."

Christians believe that when people go to Hell, they are there because they reject God. And since God is the giver of all things good, people will be stripped of these good things in hell and therefore will continue to sin and be punished for it for the rest of eternity.

"The majority of people feel guilt or that they've done something wrong if they hurt someone because of empathy (a basic biological adaptation)."

But with your worldview there is no universal standard of wrong. Why feel guilty about something that doesn't exist? People have no reason to be moral (if it is subjective) like you have already stated. So why feel guilty about anything that happens?

"My opponent calls my source unreliable and argues against it. If my source is unreliable, prove it. You can't just say it's unreliable and not provide an alternative source that is more credible and disproves mine."

Your source was some random dude with a blog that had absolutely no sources of his own and he claimed that there was only 20 Christians after Jesus' death. I have already explained why this is impossible.

"It (Bible) is considered unreliable for the events it mentions (such as Noah's flood) for which my opponent provided a source that I will address below."

Okay...so you see it as unreliable because you assume that there isn't a creator and that he couldn't flood the earth. Again, you shouldn't disregard a source merely because you already assume to know what is possible/impossible.

"I have not found any such Babylonian documents and request that my opponent refer me to them."

If you read the rest of the link, it shows you some of those documents. But there are many cultures that describe a worldwide flood (http://www.icr.org...).

"Again, this adds minor credibility to the Bible, but does nothing to prove the things that the Bible is discredited for."

How can you say that? The Bible has places proven to exist, and people proven to have existed (including Jesus), and events that have actually happened? How does this add only a minor amount of credibility to the Bible?

"Then please provide a source with evidence to the contrary. Christianity spread very slowly, which shows that there weren't very many initial followers."

I have the Bible which states the Jesus appeared to over 500 people after his death and this source has survived for over two thousand years and you still can't give a good reason to deny it as an unreliable source. We also know for a fact that Jesus preached to people for over three years and that he had many followers. Even Josephus said that Jesus was a good teacher. How on earth can someone just say that there were only 20 Christians? Nothing about the spread of Christianity was slow. It spread like crazy after the death of Jesus.

"I read what an opponent writes in his argument, his links should be merely sources confirming his information. They shouldn't be speaking for him, otherwise, I could just paste a bunch of links that support my point of view and count that as my argument."

Usually I don't have to debate the existence of Jesus because it is generally common knowledge. I was hoping not to spend so much time on that. That said, my argument wasn't that you should believe in the existence of Jesus because scholars do. My argument is that you should believe in the existence of Jesus because the Bible, many early historians say his was real (such as Josephus) and because the majority of our scholars acknowledge that he existed. Also, claiming a theory to be true is much different then claiming that a person existed.

"I am disregarding the Bible as a credible historical source by itself because of certain incongruities within it. Noah's flood, for example, is described in the Bible, but there is no real evidence for the flood (outside the Bible)"

Not true, I have already shown you that cultures had a story of a worldwide flood (http://www.talkorigins.org...). So there is obviously something to be said about a worldwide flood. And aside from that, you can't say a source is unreliable merely because you assume that a God doesn't exist and that he can't flood the earth he created.

"In regards to the flood itself, I ask a simple question. Where did all of the water come from?"

There are many theories (https://answersingenesis.org...) on this but the fact is that an all powerful God could do anything he wanted. The Bible specifically says that God used water below the earth and above it. He could even create new water if he wanted to. The point is you shouldn't deny the Bible as a source merely because you assume that God does not exist.

"I am still confused on whether "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit." or "It is finished!" were his last words because by Luke, Jesus "breathed his last" after the former, but according to John, Jesus "gave up His spirit" after the latter. So which one is it?"

The words "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit" are the last words of Jesus since he breathed his last after saying those words. You can read about Jesus drinking the wine in Luke. That is when he would have said "it is finished."

Where are we know?

You dropped everything in my argument about morality and about Josephus. Does this mean that you believe that Jesus was a real person now? As for the Bible, are you going to be able to come up with an actual reason to discredit it?
Debate Round No. 4
TheRussian

Con

"What a cop out that was. I can support my position on morality with evidence as I have already done so. If you can't then I'd suggest you go ahead and rethink your position."
I'm not sure what "evidence" my opponent is talking about it, but as mentioned, we have different positions on the issue and neither can be proven without bringing in religious texts. Okay, to make things easier, let's pretend that I concede and admit that there is a Universal Morality which suggests that there is a God as you originally mentioned. That doesn't really move our argument forward.

"This sentence is incredibly disturbing. If you have no reason to be moral...you could never have a reason to prevent someone from being killed. You would have no reason to stop a man like Hitler from rising to power. Don't you understand why your worldview is so messed up?"
Yes, other than me not wanting people to get hurt or suffer, I have no reason to be moral. I don't need a religious text to tell me what's wrong and right, I trust myself to judge my decisions on their "morality". I don't need the threat of eternal punishment to keep me from doing bad things, and this can be said for the vast majority of people on Earth because of the adaptation of empathy, as I mentioned previously.

"So why feel guilty about anything that happens?"
As I mentioned, we feel guilty because of our well developed empathy. If we didn't have our empathy which is a biological adaptation, we wouldn't feel remorse (like psychopaths).

"Your source was some random dude with a blog that had absolutely no sources of his own and he claimed that there was only 20 Christians after Jesus' death. I have already explained why this is impossible."
My opponent, again, fails to provide a single source that contradicts mine and simply points a finger saying that the source is not credible. This "random dude" is a credible New Testament scholar who got his Ph.D. at Princeton. He was actually quoted in one of your own sources. Again, if you think the source is wrong, provide another, more credible source, with different information and we, along with the voters, can judge the sources side by side.

"Again, you shouldn't disregard a source merely because you already assume to know what is possible/impossible."
But couldn't I say that you do the same? You trust a source because you assume to know what is possible/impossible, that God makes everything possible? My point is that the "scientific worldview" is much more rational and doesn't require the constant "God did it" cop out. Humans used to use that card on just about every natural phenomenon until scientists came up with ideas on it actually happens. If you heard about a man that flied, it seems much more reasonable to listen to the scientist that tells you it's physically impossible and that it didn't happen rather than the person that says "God did it".

"If you read the rest of the link, it shows you some of those documents. But there are many cultures that describe a worldwide flood"
There are also many cultures that describe dragons in similar ways but that doesn't mean they're real. I did indeed look at the rest of the link, and it only speaks of the "Sumerian King List" documents. The "Babylonian documents" in question are not mentioned or referenced in the rest of the article.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

"How can you say that? The Bible has places proven to exist, and people proven to have existed (including Jesus), and events that have actually happened? How does this add only a minor amount of credibility to the Bible?"
Because as I said, no one contests those things in the Bible. I don't think the Bible is complete fiction, so it is not surprising to me that some things in the Bible can indeed be easily confirmed. However, as mentioned, this does nothing to prove the legitimacy of the things the Bible is actually attacked for. Other legends/myths also have elements of truth such as the real existence of Mount Olympus in Greek myths or the real existence of Troy and the Mycenaeans in the myth of the Trojan War.

"Nothing about the spread of Christianity was slow. It spread like crazy after the death of Jesus."
Another source-less, empty claim. I have a source written by a Bible scholar and historian that clearly says that the spread of Christianity was rather slow.

"Usually I don't have to debate the existence of Jesus because it is generally common knowledge. I was hoping not to spend so much time on that. That said, my argument wasn't that you should believe in the existence of Jesus because scholars do. My argument is that you should believe in the existence of Jesus because the Bible, many early historians say his was real (such as Josephus) and because the majority of our scholars acknowledge that he existed. Also, claiming a theory to be true is much different then claiming that a person existed."
While I am in heavy disagreement with the last sentence, I will address the subject of Jesus' existence later on in this argument.

"Not true, I have already shown you that cultures had a story of a worldwide flood (http://www.talkorigins.org......). So there is obviously something to be said about a worldwide flood. And aside from that, you can't say a source is unreliable merely because you assume that a God doesn't exist and that he can't flood the earth he created."
I addressed the first sentence in a small argument above. As for the third, I am still in very strong disagreement with this kind of logic. We might as well assume every historical myth and legend to be true because we "know" that God can do whatever he wishes.

"...the fact is that an all powerful God could do anything he wanted. The Bible specifically says that God used water below the earth and above it."
Well we know, possibly unlike the Bible's authors, that the Earth is not flat so you can't technically have water below it. However even if all of the water from aquifers was gathered (water from underground), it wouldn't be nearly enough. Simple geometric calculations would reveal that to flood the Earth in the way the Bible describes, 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water would be needed. However, we only have 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water on Earth, so it seems that the only possible way to counter this is to pull the "God did it" card. (I think the calculation can be done by calculating the volume of the Earth if the surface of the crust was as high as Mt. Everest and subtract from that the ACTUAL volume of the Earth). Now, let's just assume that somehow God did spawn all of this water. My next question would be, where did it go?
http://water.usgs.gov...
http://rationalwiki.org...

"You dropped everything in my argument about morality"
As mentioned above, neither of us can prove anything and it's really not central to our debate. You used it as proof for a God, this is not the focus of our debate as I am not contesting the existence of a God.

"As for the Bible, are you going to be able to come up with an actual reason to discredit it?"
I think I already have and I continue to support that position. I'm not even going to go into the ideas that God just spawned a man and made a woman out of his rib, but my position on Noah's flood stands.

I'm a bit disappointed that my opponent ignored my arguments, questions rather, on the topic of Noah's flood that I presented in Round 3 (presented in a, b, c, d, e format). I was curious to see what you could come up with, although it would most likely be the "God did it" card, I haven't ever found a way to really answer those points without the pulling of this card.

About the last words of Jesus:
I sort of see the logic in this argument, although I am not totally convinced because after he said "It is finished", he gave up his spirit which I assume would mean he died. And in the other account, having said "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit" he breathed his last, which I assume means he died. And even if I am wrong, I don't understand why both accounts wouldn't have the same things written down. Why didn't the second author write anything about the wine or the "it is finished" phrase? Let's not dwell on this too much, I am not in such strong disagreement with my opponent on this point.

Unfortunately, we could not cover everything in this debate such as Evolution, but I found this to be a fantastic debate. While I am absolutely no where near believing in Christianity, I will admit that I am now going to think twice about my views on the existence of Jesus and may do some more research about that on my own. Thank you so much for the debate, this has easily been the most enlightening and challenging debate I've ever had on this topic.
Jerry947

Pro

"Yes, other than me not wanting people to get hurt or suffer, I have no reason to be moral. I don't need a religious text to tell me what's wrong and right, I trust myself to judge my decisions on their "morality". I don't need the threat of eternal punishment to keep me from doing bad things, and this can be said for the vast majority of people on Earth because of the adaptation of empathy, as I mentioned previously."

The threat of eternal punishment is not the reason most Christians/religious people are moral. We are moral because our God commands us to be moral and we do what he says because we love him. But...I still don't think you get the big picture. There is no such thing as right and wrong without God. Without God, your opinion on what is right/wrong becomes just like your opinion on what ice cream flavor is the best. It doesn't matter! In other words, we do need a God to tell us (objectively) what is right and wrong or else you could never have any reason to be moral (expect for selfish reasons) or do anything right and wrong. As for empathy, you have no reason to feel bad about anything if there is no real right and wrong. You're reasoning is circular. You claim that morality is subjective and that you wouldn't say murder is wrong for a fact, but then you claim that the majority of people of earth do "moral" things because they have the desire to do what is right (empathy). See the problem here? You say morality is subjective but then seem to acknowledge that all people have an objective sense of what is right/wrong.

"My opponent, again, fails to provide a single source that contradicts mine and simply points a finger saying that the source is not credible. This "random dude" is a credible New Testament scholar who got his Ph.D. at Princeton. He was actually quoted in one of your own sources. Again, if you think the source is wrong, provide another, more credible source, with different information and we, along with the voters, can judge the sources side by side."

I provided the Bible as a source which has been around for 2,000 years and I also provided links about the apostles setting up churches. I even explained the fact that Jesus preached for three years before he was murdered. So when a source tells me there were only twenty Christians during that time period, a red flag goes up. I don't remember the author of your source being quoted in one of mine. But either way there were way more than twenty Christians. The truth is, all we know is that Christianity spread fast (http://myocn.net...). We don't know the exact number of Christians there were but we do know that Christianity became very popular.

"But couldn't I say that you do the same? You trust a source because you assume to know what is possible/impossible, that God makes everything possible? "

No, you couldn't say the same to me. The Bible is the book that convinced me that God is real and that he could do all things. I didn't start reading the book with the same assumptions you have.

"My point is that the "scientific worldview" is much more rational and doesn't require the constant "God did it" cop out. Humans used to use that card on just about every natural phenomenon until scientists came up with ideas on it actually happens. If you heard about a man that flied, it seems much more reasonable to listen to the scientist that tells you it's physically impossible and that it didn't happen rather than the person that says "God did it"."

You misunderstand. All I said was that God was responsible for the miraculous events recorded in the Bible. I am not claiming that everything that happens on earth is the result of supernatural intervention. But I would claim that God is the best explanation for the Resurrection of Jesus and the creation of the universe.

"There are also many cultures that describe dragons in similar ways but that doesn't mean they're real. I did indeed look at the rest of the link, and it only speaks of the "Sumerian King List" documents. The "Babylonian documents" in question are not mentioned or referenced in the rest of the article."

The Sumerian King List document is one of the Babylonian documents and that is the only one the source mentions. If that isn't enough for you take a look at this source if you have some time (http://www.livius.org...). As for the dragons, it is a little different since most ancient sources (those that include dragons) include the beasts in their stories. Also, as your link pointed out, dragons might have been based on other creatures. After all, back then (200 yrs ago) rhinos were refereed to as unicorns. But as for the flood, almost every culture (see past links for details) has a record of a flood. This is pretty significant if you think about it.

"I don't think the Bible is complete fiction, so it is not surprising to me that some things in the Bible can indeed be easily confirmed. However, as mentioned, this does nothing to prove the legitimacy of the things the Bible is actually attacked for. Other legends/myths also have elements of truth such as the real existence of Mount Olympus in Greek myths or the real existence of Troy and the Mycenaeans in the myth of the Trojan War."

No actually, people are almost trying to discredit the Bible on its historical correctness. People for years attacked the Bible for its mention of the Hittites. No one believed this civilization existed. But then people found the remains of the place and now no one attacks the Bible on that subject. The difference between the Bible and legends are that the Bible is told from eye witnesses that were actually there and not by Homer. The Bible actually claims it isn't a myth for whatever it is worth to you. And besides, myths take a long time to develop. But the Resurrection of Christ was written about 40 yrs after the event happened. There was no time for a myth to form.

"Another source-less, empty claim. I have a source written by a Bible scholar and historian that clearly says that the spread of Christianity was rather slow."

Your source is a biased agnostic. But aside from that see my link above to see how fast Christianity spread.

"We might as well assume every historical myth and legend to be true because we "know" that God can do whatever he wishes."

No...you should trust the Bible because it has given you no reason to discredit it. On the other hand, every other source that has legends/myths do have actual reasons to discredit them. For example, other sources contradict themselves, were written by people who thought a demon was speaking to them, and were told as stories merely for entertainment, not historically correct, were not supported by archaeology, and have no proof of the people in its "tale" existing (King Arthur?). The Bible is not guilty of any of these things and therefore you should trust it.

"Well we know, possibly unlike the Bible's authors, that the Earth is not flat so you can't technically have water below it."

Not true. The Bible says in Job that the earth is (Job 26:7) suspended in space. Nothing indicates that people thought that the earth was flat.

"Now, let's just assume that somehow God did spawn all of this water. My next question would be, where did it go?"

I did give you a link on the flood since I didn't have time to go into it. You should go back and read it if you have time. Here are some more links if interested...
https://answersingenesis.org...
https://answersingenesis.org...
https://answersingenesis.org...

"I think I already have and I continue to support that position. I'm not even going to go into the ideas that God just spawned a man and made a woman out of his rib, but my position on Noah's flood stands."

Your reason for discrediting the Bible is because you assume to know what is possible. Once you accept what the witnesses of the time period say about Jesus, you can accept that all things are possible with God. I mean, is it really that difficult to accept that an all powerful God could do all of these things?

"I'm a bit disappointed that my opponent ignored my arguments, questions rather, on the topic of Noah's flood that I presented in Round 3 (presented in a, b, c, d, e format). I was curious to see what you could come up with, although it would most likely be the "God did it" card, I haven't ever found a way to really answer those points without the pulling of this card."

Yes...and I am disappointed that we couldn't go into the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus since we had to spend so much time on Jesus' existence. But I did and have given you some links on the flood and maybe that will help you out with the questions.

"And even if I am wrong, I don't understand why both accounts wouldn't have the same things written down. Why didn't the second author write anything about the wine or the "it is finished" phrase? Let's not dwell on this too much, I am not in such strong disagreement with my opponent on this point."

When a crime happens, all the witnesses gather together and individually tell the police what happened. Not a single witness will describe the event the same way as the others. Same with the Resurrection, you got four witness that record things slightly different but not in a contradictory way.

"Unfortunately, we could not cover everything in this debate such as Evolution, but I found this to be a fantastic debate. "

I would love to have a debate on evolution in the future if so desired. But for now, I thank you for a good debate. I have enjoyed this as well and I am am happy to know that I wasn't the only person to have learned something new during this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
RFD 1/4

The BOP was on PRO for this entire debate. He was the only one who presented any arguments, and the debate will be judged depending on whether or not those arguments were passed and their weight/relevance to the resolution. PRO divided these arguments up into 3 basic categories. Morality, the existence of Jesus, and evil. However this later turned into a debate concerning only morality, and the credibility of the Bible [which in turn has huge effects on PRO's case.]
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
RFD 2/4

The morality debate on PRO's side was largely him arguing that there is a universal sense of morality, and that this must've been fashioned by a creator. However CON is quick to argue that there is no objectivity when it comes to judging morality. He brings up different cultures who do things that aren't viewed as "moral" in our society. PRO responds to this by saying that people who do these things are immoral, and that there will always be people who don't follow the universal moral code created by God. The debate goes back and forth in this manner for a bit, Con brings up the fact that we have a part of our brains that controls empathy, and that this part is normally smaller and undeveloped in sociopaths. However near the end Con concedes the argument about universal morality. He states that this doesn't do anything to further Pro's case however. Con doesn't actually explain why though, and in the beginning Pro already said that it is logical to believe that a universal moral code must have been created. This point goes to PRO.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
RFD 3/4

Before we go into the 2nd point, which is credibility of the Bible. I would like to point out that the side which wins this point wins the entire debate. PRO did win the universal morality since CON conceded. However that argument isn't nearly as strong as this one. Pro states that morality is a CLUE, to the existence of God, and that it's a likely possibility that a universal moral code was created. However the Bible is the very foundation of the religion that Pro is trying to prove to be real, if Con can discredit it, then Pro's case is really weak. Con has specific arguments against the credibility of the Bible. These include, Noah's Ark, and the rate of spread of the religion after Jesus' death. Both of these points were insufficiently refuted by Pro. Pro tries to refute the "Noah's Ark" argument simply with the fact that God can do anything. However this doesn't really explain how any of this happened, and to be honest there isn't any proof it happened either. Con discredited all sources provided by Pro that tried to prove that Noah's Ark was a real thing. The other point about the spread of religion also goes to Con. Con gave a source that stated a very low number of people were Christians after the death of Jesus. Pro first says that Con's source isn't credible. However Con reminds that the author is a biblical scholar with a PhD on the subject, and also that Pro didn't give a source of their own. In the final round Pro does give a source, but they say that the Bible is their source. This just isn't good enough, you can't use what is said in the Bible as a source to prove that what is said in the Bible is true. Due to Con discrediting Pro's key source and a pillar of his argument, the Bible, this point goes to CON.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
RFD 4/4

In the end it is 1-1, as a tie. However PRO's winning point was simply inferring that a universal moral code hints at a god. CON's winning point was discredited the very foundation of the religion that PRO was trying to prove. Now I know I did say that the BOP was on PRO, however CON was able to use one of PRO's points, the existence of Jesus, to turn the debate around and discredit the very source of Christianity. At this point Con was very much on the attack, and was trying to discredit Christianity. Due to Con's winning point having more weight than Pro's, the win goes to CON.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
I'll get a vote on this before midnight.
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
Marvelous.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
@TheRussian

You didn't sound brutal at all. You were very respectful and I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
@Sam When modern, evidence-backed science, observation and logic is contradicted by faith, it seems that this faith should have some backing no?
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
@Jerry Please don't take offense if some of the stuff I say sounds cold/brutal, I just gotta keep in "official" debate format.
Posted by Sam7411 1 year ago
Sam7411
Religion, including "Judeo", is not necessarily meant to be proved, that is the whole reason of Faith
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
TheRussianJerry947Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD IN COMMENTS - This is a vote from the Voter's Union, if you'd like one of your debates voted on please send it to either me or another moderator. If either side has any issue with this vote feel free to let me know.