The Instigator
B3N
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Resolved: Christianity and the Bible are true and the correct faith.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,669 times Debate No: 29118
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (5)

 

B3N

Pro

This is what I call an "old fashioned" debate. There is no citing or evidence, just strictly head to head debating. First round is acceptance and only accept if you truly are opposed to this statement and will follow the rules. Voters, for the evidence part of voting, put neutral.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I accept. My arguments are as follows:

1) The Bible's events did not happen. My opponent cannot provide any evidence otherwise. From the Garden of Eden through to Noah's Ark and Jews in Egypt all the way to Jesus' resurrection: there are countless events which do not have any evidence to have happened, each of which are crucial to the Bible being true.

2) There is no reason or evidence to believe in God. No philosophical evidence, nor empirical evidence has justified the existence of God.

3) Finally, there is no reason to suppose an afterlife exists. Again, no philosophical nor empirical evidence has justified the existence of the afterlife.

In the words of Clarence Darrow, belief in at least three tenets is necessary to the faith of a Christian: a belief in God, a belief in immortality, and a belief in a supernatural book. None of these three tenets are sufficiently justified, and as such we should negate the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
B3N

Pro

1) First of all, there are historical records and scientists believe in major biblical events such as the plagues in Egypt sent from God to free his people. Some say this is just caused by volcanic activity in the area and some natural disasters. The first thing I would say to that is why then did none of the destruction hit the Israelites? Now with some plagues like hail, it may just be in one place by weather, but things like disease, or locust invasions, none at all hurt Israelites. They left soon after and 40 years later took the city of Caanan and lived there as the Father promised. Then the Bible says God punished their leader, Abraham by letting him die when he arrived and God hid his body. This would be reason why no one found him. Yet the capture of Caanan historically accurate.

2) Also, according to the Bible, after Jesus died and his disciples were spreading the Word of God, the authorities captured them. During this time a member of the Sanhedrin, also people recorded in history named Gamaliel, made a good point. He said that all throughout our history, there have been many who have come and called themselves the true king of kings. Theudas once rose and gained 400 followers. He was then slain and his followers scattered and disappeared. After that Judas the Galilean rose up during the census and brought many more to believe in his word. He was then killed also for his works and his followers scattered.
Gamaliel finishes his speech by saying that the people have rose and killed the the apostles leader, Jesus. If this is by man, they will scatter and it will end. If their God is true and what they say is right, then it will not stop no matter what we do.
So they are released. Afterwards the church made not even a month before grows by thousands. The followers of God spread and teach to the nations around them. They do not scatter. They do not disappear. All who hear of it follows them and they heal many people by touch.
If this is not a God or creator speaking through them then what is it?

Magic? About every religion or theory denies any magic.
Manly power? People were healed left and right by a touch of the disciples. Never has science revealed how.
Fake stories? Historical accounts cans say they don't believe it but they have no way to get out of that the church did rapidly grow from a group of men.

Again I ask, what else could this be? A random spark in the universe? All from monkeys over time? Magic supernatural military leaders?
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

1) There's still no evidence of the biblical events. Claiming "Nuh-uh!" isn't an argument, it's being anal. Also, notice how I did not deny anything regarding the plagues and the parting of the Red Sea happening - some, like locusts, probably did - but this is a good case of "The Bible says it, so it's true". The story of Canaan also is historically false, and unless my opponent can actually justify it other than "it IS historically accurate", then there's no reason to accept that these biblical events as happening.

2) Why did people follow the Bible? Luck. The same happened with Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Islam, and the Native American Inca and Aztec religions. Of course, it is not just luck: there's also the fact that culturally the Roman faith was dwindling. The great empire of Rome was collapsing at its seams. That's why as the centuries went on, Christianity became more successful. Moreover, Christian religion simply trumped Rome. Roman Faith offered a King? Christianity offers King of Kings. Roman Faith offers Elysium if you're good? Christianity offers life with God if you believe. It set itself from the start as better, more powerful, and ultimately a better deal, like a door-to-door salesman competing with other pitchers.

3) The point on the afterlife has been completely ignored, and quite possibly conceded.

Now, does Christianity appeal to magic? Well, if by magic we mean the ability to heal people on whim using no logical methodology short of "wish for it to be true" or "touch my coat", in an anti-scientific, anti-rational way, then yes, Christianity appeals to magic. Moreover, Christianity, as I still contend, has fake stories in. Unless my opponent can prove beyond reasonable doubt that events like the resurrection happened, the Ark existed, Jews were in Egypt, etc. , then we have every reason to vote against him. Moreover, he still has to show that a deity exists, and an afterlife exists, two crucial points to his argument.
Debate Round No. 2
B3N

Pro

This is my rebuttle.

There is proof in old censuses that the twelve apostles name in the bible were actual people. So what I'm hearing is that you think it is a book of stories or just a claim that got lucky. Well what reason would they have to make that up? Popularity? No. A lot of people hated them for what they said. For fun or own pleasure? Of coarse not. They didn't get rich or anything recording these things. They were persecuted. Many Christians were killed for doing these things.

Even if they were making it up, then how so did it correspond with the censuses of that time?

On to another point, Cristianity is the only religion that believes the earth is around 6 thousand years old. Others say the earth is billions of years old. Well there is plenty of evidence the earth can not possibly be that old.

1- The earth's spinning on its axis causes the top and bottom slowly to drift tiward each other. Scientist have tracked this and found the rate. If we multiply it by billions of years the earth would be I the shape of a disk.
2- There is a set rate of salt increase in oceans each year. If we again multiply it by the billions of years, every ocean would be denser than the Dead Sea.

Since there is no recorded major change to earth's climate or shape in history, these things must have been consistent for thousands of years.

Next, if you say that the stars, planets, humans, minds, etc, all came from two molecules in darkness running into each other, it makes no since at all. And with evolution, it tells of all these different creatures that are in the series too. There is one major flaw in this theory:
If things evolve in that way, why aren't all animals humans? Most say that some times they stop evolving. Well where are all the half evolved creatures. Not once in all the things we have discovered has there been any signs of monkey-men stuck or dead during evolution. Also why would there be a sudden stop? Why have all the humans been stuck in this form for thousands of years? They must have been made separate from the others. That is why I say there is a creator.

Lastly, science can not explain everything.
Water- No one has ever been able to create more of the perfect liquid in all our time.
People- No "clones" have ever been made of our perfectly made bodies.
Minds- No science can explain how everything goes on in our heads, much less recreate it.
Feelings- We are not robots, or something that just happened. Not one person in this world can say they can explain love, or joy, or embarrassment and know exactly how to "build it."

If there is not a creator, how did all this happen?
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Stephen_Hawkins forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
B3N

Pro

Since the debate was due at night, i understand if he couldn't write it in time. I want to be equal and give up my turn so i don't win because of that.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Stephen_Hawkins forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
B3N

Pro

I believe my opponent has forfeited the debate. I just want to say please do not vote for your own religion. Christian or not, vote by the content. And for one last rebuttal, Christianity was not lucky and just influenced by roman government to start. The most important figure in Christianity, Jesus, was killed by the people. And who arrested him and allowed this to happen? What guards stood and watched a perfect man suffer for hours? I bet a lot of you smart readers got it.

ROMANS

Therefore you have no reason to say they started the jurassic growth of the faith. They just followed the crowd. What else could they do? Kill the leader? They already killed Jesus and nothing happened. Kill them all? Well don't we all know what Hitler did? He had a massive army, jets, bombs, etc. If that failed do you think some guys with swords could kill off all of the Jews. Plus, not all christians were Jews. So imagine taking on what I mentioned before, plus multitudes of Gentiles, Samaritans, Romans, and more.
Now after hearing that, how do you think it began? The government issued it and it got lucky, or God gave His people power to stand up for what is right and proclaim the truth to the world. The Romans just agreed.

Thank you for accepting this challenge. I urge the voters to vote pro.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Assuming lack of conduct goes in favour of my opponent (as it should), I'll continue as if this is a concluding remark and rebuttal in one.

Historicity

The "old censuses" aren't anything to add to historicity. For one, the "old censuses" don't exist. Censuses are only known to exist because of people citing them (like Seutonius) or the titles of people as being Censor (like Censor Aemilius). Second, from 1st century BC onwards, the role of censor and the act of creating census was abolished (due to civil wars, impracticalities of the role of censor, and dictatorships of the Emporers). Thirdly, even if there was a censor, how do we identify the 12 apostles? Of a list of tens of thousands of people, the names John and Luke appearing isn't anything special. The census are irrelevant, and in fact reason to doubt the historicity of the Bible: for if there was no census of Quirinius, yet the Bible claims it happens (which causes the events leading to the birth of Christ, so it is nothing trivial), then we have massive reason to doubt the Bible is accurate at all.

Moreover, again, religious minorities being persecuted is nothing new. There has been persecution on a much larger scale of Zoroastrians, of the mystery religions, and of nazis: it doesn't make them valid just because people still believe in them.

Science

Ignoring how you explicitly said this "is plenty of evidence" while saying "There is no evidence" at the first round, let's get to each point.

1 - Earth spins, so it becomes a disk

I don't know where to start with this one. For one, the top and bottom of the earth are not slowly drifting towards one another. Every few months the earth tilts and then tilts back. The earth itself rotates on its axis. But the spinning doesn't cause the top and bottom to drift towards each other. This simply isn't grounded in fact. If the rate was mentioned, then it'd be useful and I could work out what this point came from. However, it seems to be based on some strange system in which something spinning means that the top and bottom push into each other, which frankly isn't remotely similar to any system I've ever heard of.

2 - Salt rate

Salt influx is a more popular argument which I have heard of, and by googling can actually be found(if anyone can find me a link in the comments to the first argument to a more comprehensive explanation, bye the by, It'll be appreciated). This originated from Kent Hovind's 100 proofs, and goes like this:

"Given the rate of salt influx to the oceans, they should be much saltier than they are if the earth were billions of years old."
Of course, the rebuttal is as simple as the statement: it assumes that salt isn't taken out of the oceans. If it is in a steady state (the amount of salt in is virtually the same as goes out), as we've known since '54, then this holds no problem to an old earth. All salt tells us is the minimum age, based on the original salt content (as we can work out via a geometric series to be roughly thirty thousand years old, not six thousand. Melvin Cook, a noted and respected scientist and creationist agrees this argument is simply wrong).

3 - No Climate Change?

My opponent seems to shoot himself in the foot here slightly: he agrees there has been no major change to its climate or shape, but Noah's Flood would precisely cause such an event. A flood on global proportions would remodel the position of the tectonic plates, temperatures, wildlife... everything would be astronomically different. However, the agreement that there is no change in recent history and thus the consistency over the last thousands of years simply hurts creationism, and not those who challenge it.

4 - Cosmology

Why can't two small things cause something astronomical? However, this still assumes that the beginning was two molecules: I believe it was caused by a condensed singularity erupting all the particles into existence (or the form of existence they currently take, with negligible exceptions like virtual particles).

5 -Evolution

This simply is a complete misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution has no goal, so it cannot "half-build". If anything was half-built, it would not survive, would die out, and thus wouldn't exist. That's why there's no "half-built" things: evolution does not permit them. There exists animals with unnecessary organs, because evolution streamlines them to no being no longer necessary (and thus need less to survive). Moreover, "half-evolving" is nonsensical. If you half-dig a hole, you've got a hole. Even if evolution was a process with a goal, it still is nonsensical to view it as being able to create half-finished products.

Evolution moreover does not make all animals humans. It wouldn't make sense. A fast animal or buffalo did better than humans hundreds of years ago in America against the tribes because they could outrun, outbreed, and beat them. Animals are subjugated because we work faster than evolution - we work within generations to make massive breakthroughs. You cannot evolve a gun, and so lions lost in the fight.

Finally, the reason we haven't evolved in thousands of years is based on many misconceptions. Starting from the most obvious: evolution takes place over millions of years when a species is under biological pressure. Humans have never been under pressure to evolve over a large period of time. Mass starvation is needed for evolution on the scale my opponent wants. Furthermore, evolution arguably has happened, if we include microevolutionary minor changes. We have grown in hieght, for example, by a foot since a few thousand years ago. Furthermore, since we act faster than evolution, many argue (myself included) we are post-evolution, and no longer subject to its laws. We have "broken free" of its principles.

Cloning stuff

Water - There are many ways to make water. Rockets do it to take off, nuclear reactors, oxygen and hydrogen lit on fire, all of these create water. Water is the single easiest substance to create.
People - When mummy and daddy love each over very much... or get IVF treatment, or get surrogacy, or get "test tube babies". The major reason we haven't cloned people is because lobbyists (Christian lobbyists specifically) keep saying it is immoral and wrong and we can't do it. We certainly can: we've cloned sheeps with no problem (short of the expected issues like aged cells). People is no issue
Minds - This is a philosophical, not a scientific issue, on what is classed as a mind. Many scientists in the field of philosophy of mind though agree that things like cleverbot is an example of a mind which is a machine (the supercomputer one in the US, not necessarily online).
Feelings - Chemicals. This one cannot be explained without reference to complex biology which I cannot go into in a thousand characters, but things like seratonin or ocytonin are all ways of creating or manufacturing "feeling".

But how did all this happen without a creator? Simple. Water is easily produced through the two most common elements in the universe, People via evolution and abiogenesis, minds and feelings are useful products (though that is a certain understatement).

CONclusion

I cannot help but smile at the concluding remarks claiming, again, Romans couldn't kill Christianity, therefore it is right. We haven't killed Zoroastrianism or Fascism or Marxism off either, yet it doesn't stop them being wrong - what would stop them is reason. This is the burden that Christianity fails to reach.

Voting:

S&G - repeated misspelling of "rebuttal" as rebuttle, "coarse not" instead of "course not", etc. makes me urge a vote CON
Conduct - PRO, for being courteous about my inability to access a computer at 4 in the morning (tongue-in-cheek)
Sources - Tied
Argument - Of course, I shouldn't comment on who won, but I want to remind that the burden was justifying "a belief in God, a belief in immortality, and a belief in a supernatural book" Not only do I think neither God nor the Bible were justified, but immortality was not even mentioned.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
why is "being anal" loss of conduct? Is this a dialect thing, cos it's a common phrase where I am from. Someone is being anal. They never listen, and won't hear anyone saying otherwise: they're being anal on the issue.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
C3PO, I like DefiantGenie, has a nice ring to it. I am defiant, you are submissive, submissive to a fictional petty bully written about 2000 yrs ago :)

However, the fact remains 9 out of 10 scientists agree with me. You know who scientists are right?

They are the people who advance medicine and healthcare through science.

What saves more lives, prayers, or scientific advances in medicine?

Thats right, clasping your hands, chanting, murmurs and whispers dont save lives, intelligent people who think you are delusional do the hard work of advancing society :)

Logic and reason has evades religious minds like a priest evades adult women :)
Posted by B3N 4 years ago
B3N
Defiant.genie:

I couldn't help but notice your voting is all toward him even the sources in a no source debate. Obviously you didn't read through it all and just voted for your religion, breaking the rules. It is possible this was an accident but I highly doubt it.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
I think it is fair to assume he'll be counterbombed, so it is not too large of a worry.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Why I Raise My Children Without God

by Deborah Mitchell posted on January 15, 2013 10:12PM GMT

Deborah Mitchell, a mother of two teenagers in Texas, blogs about raising her children without religion. An avid reader of the Belief Blog, she said she shared this essay on CNN iReport because 'I just felt there is not a voice out there for women/moms like me. I think people misunderstand or are fearful of people who don"t believe in God.'

When my son was around 3 years old, he used to ask me a lot of questions about heaven. Where is it? How do people walk without a body? How will I find you? You know the questions that kids ask.

For over a year, I lied to him and made up stories that I didn"t believe about heaven. Like most parents, I love my child so much that I didn"t want him to be scared. I wanted him to feel safe and loved and full of hope. But the trade-off was that I would have to make stuff up, and I would have to brainwash him into believing stories that didn"t make sense, stories that I didn"t believe either.

One day he would know this, and he would not trust my judgment. He would know that I built an elaborate tale"not unlike the one we tell children about Santa"to explain the inconsistent and illogical legend of God.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Word of advice: if you do a debate, make it 3 days to post. Not only is it common courtesy for this site, but it stops any timezone issues. Even 1 day can be bad for many people (if it was tomorrow or Friday I'd not be able to even access a computer for example).
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Come on guys, this is wicked, its vile, disgusting and completely immoral from a douche bag. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, "This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Troublemakers 2:39--If truth were a china shop, religion would be the bull :)

BestFatherEver 9:10--"Look, I have two daughters, virgins both of them. Let me bring them out to you and you could do what you like with them. But do nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my roof."--Genesis 19:8 :)

LunchBreak 1:15--Then because of the dire straits to which you will be reduced when your enemy besieges you, you will eat your own children, the flesh of your sons and daughters whom the lord has given you--Deuteronomy 28:53

Ouchies 2:9--No man whose testicles have been crushed or whose organ has been cut off may become a member of the Assembly of god--Deuteronomy 23:1

Lets look at some differences between how a loser views women and a stud views women:

Misogyny 2:12--"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)

Quotes 5:21--A pessimist is a man who thinks all women are bad. An optimist is one who hopes they are--Chauncey Depew :)

Science is my favorite subject, especially the old testament--Kenneth on 30Rock :)
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
B3N, this may come as a shock to you, actually Im sure it will come as a shock to you, the beautiful and mysterious nature of life wasg who thinks human sacrifice shows love and forgiveness :)

There is Not a single line in the bible, that could have not been written by a 1st century dork with little intellect. There are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals and keep slaves, and who to kill and why. There is nothing about electricity. Nothing about DNA. Nothing about infectious disiples of infectious disease.

There is nothing particularly useful, and there is a lot of barbarism in there and superstition. Plus this is really not a candid book, I mean, I could go into a bookstore blindfolded and pull a book off the shelf which is going to have more relevanc and more wisdom for the 21st century than the bible.

This is not an exaggeration at all! Every single one of our specific sciences has superceded and surpassed "scripture"

FRAUD 7:2--Lance Armstrong. He's like the main character written about in the holy binky, when first introduced, impressed us, now, science is the reason behind them both being a disappointment :)
Posted by B3N 4 years ago
B3N
Sorry. I live in the US and its 4 pm here.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
UK Time Zone, so currently it is half past ten and I am finishing off an essay before I get up at six to go to school.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
B3NStephen_HawkinsTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: revised vote: wrong person to give points. Gave conduct to pro, I understand time zone can be a issue but con insisted pro to have conduct, other then that, without sources, there can be no proven facts, even with sources, pro would still have a harder time since the bible does contradict it self and since there is no actual proof of a god, only hear say from a man who wrote the bible.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
B3NStephen_HawkinsTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I can award Pro great conduct, be he is far, far, far away from proving Creationism. Given he had already handicapped himself with no sources, he should've made good use of Con's two forfeited rounds. Con deftly addressed both of his proofs that the earth is young rather than old.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
B3NStephen_HawkinsTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: A poor debate, because the resolution is mostly a question of fact, yet Pro set the debate up to exclude references. Pro had the burden of proof, which he could not hope to meet without sources. Pro's claims based on alleged science were preposterous. Con lost conduct for the forfeits, but would have lost conduct for the "it's being anal" characterization. Pro's S&G errors were minor, and didn't interfere with understanding.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
B3NStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: countering devient's clearly biased vote
Vote Placed by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
B3NStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: CaptainObvious 10:22--Obviously there is a reason for everything, however defining it with unequivical evidence and proof that you know absolutely, the big reason out of the trillions of possiblitites, the reason for everything, involves ritualistic practices, not limited too, human sacrifice on a cross, and is personal to the point of keeping track of who is naughty or nice. This reason for everything is also responsible for the complex make up of the universe, and the beautiful, complex and extremely efficient sub atomic world of particle physics, and is concerned with your sex life......really? Do you lose your common sense after dismissing zeus and mythology? Does your common sense disappear when it comes to flying horses called unicorns or leprechauns, no, it works fine there, it only goes away when you say the reason for life is admittedly jealous :)