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

The Central Principle of Christianity is IMMORAL

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,960 times Debate No: 59831
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (144)
Votes (5)




The Central Principle of Christianity is IMMORAL

The central principle of Christianity is predicated on believing that Jesus Christ died in order to redeem the sins of Man:

I shall argue that this belief is IMMORAL.

Con agrees that in order to be "saved" (according to the modern Evangelical standard) one must believe Jesus was sacrificed and died on the cross to save man kind.


1) 5 round debate

2) 8,000 word max per round

3) No forfeiture - Forfeiture of any round is automatic disqualification & loss

4) PLEASE - Serious debate only. Do not accept this debate if you have no intention of finishing the debate.

Debate Format


2nd - 4th Round - Open Format - Arguments and rebuttals can occur at anytime - EXCEPT for 5th and final round.

5th Round - Closing statements and conclusions - No new arguments.

Any Questions or Issues

Any question or issues regarding the debate - please place in comments before accepting!

All comments welcome!



Hi, yes i accept your debate and the rules. I'm presuming this is just for acceptance. I'm a non denominational Christian and some of my views may not be what you call 'mainstream'. I will just contest that in view of the history of man from creation down, that Jesus Christ was the Creator's plan for the salvation of whole human kind. I may introduce topics that may seem wild or fanciful, but I believe they are not. If anything is controversial I will include them without fear of retribution. I do not believe in the mainstream idea of religion, so Catholicism, Islam and Judaism will come under scrutiny at times. Also some aspects of Christianity may come under that same scrutiny also.

If that's good for you then I will be happy to have a lively informative debate with you.
Debate Round No. 1


May Reason and Logic Win the Day in the Face of Religious Ignorance!


Con, your 1st round acceptance comments are revealing!

However, I appreciate your honesty - let's begin!

"We are punished by our sins, not for them"

Contention 1 :
Vicarious Redemption - Through Human Sacrifice

A. To put it bluntly, the idea that one can throw their sins onto someone else is immoral.

In essence, Vicarious Redemption is a kind of scapegoating. For this reason the concept has a vulgarity and element of barbarism.

B. Vicarious Redemption abolishes personal responsibility to live rightly.

To alleviate or relieve someone of their torments for wrong doing creates a dichotomy in which the sinner need only ask for forgiveness to be fully restored. This obfuscates the responsibility to live rightly for the sake of others and themselves.

A truly moral person is haunted by their transgressions and for wrong doings. An immoral person is not.

C. As this is the central principle, Christianity is rendered as a kind of cult-religion predicated on human sacrifice. Human sacrifice is immoral.

D. Vicarious Redemption (in the Christian narrative) also pollutes the notion of love by making love compulsory. A rejection of this vulgar and immoral "free gift" comes with the consequence of eternal punishment in Hell.

This means that a person who recognizes the immorality of Vicarious Redemption must accept an immoral premise in order to secure their own personal salvation and avoid Hell. This is a kind of evil in and of itself.




Hello Philosurfer, hopefully my comments weren't too revealing for you. So you have an idea of where I position myself in this mixed up world I hope, so now I have to justify myself of course. I appreciate your opening argument and related commentary and I will argue that the notion of vicarious redemption is completely valid if understood properly from a Biblical perspective. Hopefully!

I hope you don't mind but I won't copy and paste your arguments in here as it gets a little confusing for me and takes up too much space. It's a pretty heavy topic so I want to give it a little room for manoeuvre and give some good responses if I can. I will, however, put some sort of reference to your arguments in my rebuttals.

I think to start I should just clear up what is essentially mainstream Christian doctrine on the essence of God. As you possibly know, the Christian perspective on God is one of a triune nature. That is to say God the Father (supreme Creator), Jesus Christ the Son (God made man) and the Holy Spirit (the essence of God). Water, Ice and Steam if you prefer and it helps to make a mental picture of what that means. Also I do believe that God will only judge according to what is in a man's heart when the time comes, so I won't make any judgement on who is eligible or not for salvation. My only statement on this is that if a man does come to know God through study and reflection then he will accordingly adjust his lifestyle in order to become more acceptable to God. Sinning all you want, consciously knowing it's wrong and expecting redemption is not really knowing God. Sinning is part of human nature but God will give you the inspiration to move away from sin generally and help you lead a better life. If you flaunt the free gift that is given, then you no longer deserve that gift, just as Esau sold his birthright very cheaply to Jacob and paid the consequences. It is a gift, so if you love the gift giver, then you will want to show that you really did deserve it.

A. In response to this, I don't think any true Christian believes they are throwing their sins onto someone. God, through Jesus Christ as a man, ultimately sacrificed himself for humanity. It is not human sacrifice, a man was put to death sure, but even Jesus stated 'No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to receive it again. This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:18). In essence it is ultimately altruism that we see, not human sacrifice or something more gory. Would you say a soldier that throws himself on a land mine to save 20 of his mates is immoral, No, he would be a hero worthy of praise indeed and quite rightly. I or most recognise that the human condition is in all respects open to all kinds of sin, small and great. I also recognise that God, through his sacrifice alone, can offer salvation or redemption to those who believe in Him and love Him accordingly, so that our sins can be forgiven at the time of judgement.

B If you truly believe in Him and his sacrifice, you will want to stop sinning and change your life accordingly. Do we all still sin. YES, because we fail all the time and we accept that we can never live up to those ultimate standards. Do we sin because we know we will be forgiven, NO, as that is not knowing or loving God at all. Repenting to avoid punishment, and continually doing it knowing it is displeasing to God, is not really a good defense for anyone I'm afraid. Even self-righteous church goers who look down on others and go through the motions on a Sunday, could be accused of not really knowing God at judgement time. Sin continually attacks the soul and spirit that you move further away from God so that He may not even know you when the time comes. Yes a moral person with a conscience can feel guilt for their transgressions, which is why we ask for forgiveness from God. Immoral persons who feel no guilt cannot ask for forgiveness without committing to changing their lives accordingly and make a move in the right direction. Jesus forgives an adulteress of her sin, but requests that she go and sin no more. Repentance and forgiveness is a two way agreement. We have been given a gift, so you would not want to abuse that gift in essence.

C As stated it's not human sacrifice. If anything it is an altruistic act, by an all-loving God who does not want to see humanity become completely corrupted by sin. We are His creation and knows very well the nature of man. If we do not turn and accept the gift then essentially we will be condemned to this short life only and our souls will be destroyed accordingly thereby forfeiting any chance of an everlasting life with Him. Heaven, you being in the presence of God, and hell being the absence of God. If you want to be with Him then you trust in Him, he won't force you to be with Him, that is your choice.

D I disagree, the sacrifice was the ultimate act of love by a God who does not want to see man crumble and fall into a state of sin and evil continually. I always think it is funny when men judge things immoral without realising the true meaning or sacrifice of a perfect entity such as God. Throughout human history (6000 years) you see man corrupting this divine creation of His and He is calling all men back to Him. Love is not compulsory at all. If you can appreciate the very life and goodness that you have, then love will come naturally. I don't force myself to do it. If you don't want to love or respect your own very creation and the mind you have, then He won't force you to. Eternal can be misconstrued, the effect of the punishment is eternal and everlasting, but I don't think people will continually burn in hell for what is essentially a short life time of 70 to 80 years on earth. If you do not wish to know Him or love Him then obviously everlasting life is not on the table. Obviously there are mitigating circumstances for many people and as I said, only God will know what is in anyone's heart and mind.

I don't believe the gift is in anyway immoral, a Creator sacrifices himself as a man, to save humanity from it's own self destruction. That is the true love of a true friend. Who would not want to humbly accept a gift such as that and give your love in return. I very much doubt that if Jesus had not made this sacrifice, we would even have the luxury to sit down and debate this topic as we are. Many of us would have been made human sacrifices to strange gods I'm sure. I truly believe it would have been all over a long time ago.

Ok good luck for next round. I will bring in another couple of arguments also.
Debate Round No. 2


May Reason and Logic Win the Day in the Face of Religious Ignorance!


Thanks again for your honesty and your candid opinions.

These kinds of discussions work the best if we are both genuine and honest and yet still respectful! So please forgive me is my following articulations are a bit harsh and barbed. I assure you that is not my intention nor my motivation.

Overview & Criticisms of Your Opinions:

It appears you are strict about some of the core principles but become "loosey-goosey" about them in the same breath!

On one hand you call some of these concepts one thing but then on the other hand call them something else!

Allow me to explain.. I don't think you even realize that you do this.

For example(s), you said, "I do believe that God will only judge according to what is in a man's heart when the time comes.." ..but you went on to say, "I won't make any judgement on who is eligible or not for salvation."

You went on to say later, "I also recognise that God, through his sacrifice alone, can offer salvation or redemption to those who believe in Him.."

..Well which is it, a man's heart or recognizing the sacrifice..? Isn't it a judgment to decide that God will judge a man's heart..? Secondly, note that you believe a time will come for this judgment (we will get back to this point in later rounds)..

You said, "Sinning all you want, consciously knowing it's wrong and expecting redemption is not really knowing God.." ..But then went on to say right after, "Sinning is part of human nature.."

No one said anything about "sinning all they want" ..Rather, it is the very idea of Vicarious Redemption that creates a moral dilemma in which responsibility of living rightly for the sake of simply doing what is right is shirked and perverted.

I hope you are not a moral person simply because you think God says to be! I hope you are a moral person because you are a moral person! If you are only moral because of the great surveillance camera in the sky, you are in fact not truly moral! At least your motivations or reasons are very contemptible reasons then..

Natural Human empathy and compassion, qualities like these, are enough! These virtues become polluted and the integrity of morality spoiled if we accept the concept of Vicarious Redemption at its face-value! One need only ask for forgiveness when they do sin (whether consciously or unconsciously) and they mask and cover-up part of what it means to be moral and what it means to be a ethical human-being. Vicarious Redemption is not intellectually healthy or morally respectable. It is scapegoating.

You said, "I don't think any true Christian believes they are throwing their sins onto someone.."

The word itself has an ironic history [scapegoat]: "a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur" [1]. "a person who is unfairly blamed for something that others have done" [2]. "one that bears the blame for others" [1].

You go on to say to start a rebuttal to section C., "As stated it's not human sacrifice.." ..but you go on to say, "..a Creator sacrifices himself as a man, to save humanity.."

Honestly, you are all over the place and change the meaning and semantics in whichever way you like or prefer the spin to be..

It is or it isn't..?! These are important points that you decide to be non-specific about but then want to still be kinda specific about to save face..! You really come off as lacking the courage of your convictions or not being sure how or why you believe what you say that you do.

There is a saying out in Texas, "You know, you really oughtta cowboy up..!" - which is of course a way of saying ...make a firm decision..!

Jesus is literally called the Lamb of God for a reason! When Jesus is called the Lamb of God it is referring to Him as the perfect and ultimate sacrifice for sin [3]. Lamb, sheep and goats were sacrificed consistently throughout the Biblical texts and historical eras. Human sacrifice is quite common in the Bible, the story of Jephthah killing his daughter as a burnt offering in Judges 12:7 pleases God.

You are basically trying to sugar-coat the whole thing!

Comparing the concept of Vicarious Redemption to soldiers dying to save each other is so insulting and shameful, but, again, I don't think you even realize it! I think you really think its comparable and analogous, which makes me very sad..

Torture and human sacrifice for scapegoating metaphysical Christian ideas of Sin and to secure reward in Heaven, which is immoral to start, is not altruism. I understand that you buy the whole concept because you think that it is. I'm sorry my friend. Its a bad idea. Its not.

I AGREE, most Christians don't realize that scapegoating is precisely what they are doing by accepting the concept of Vicarious Redemption; but that is in fact what you and everyone else is doing who does accept this notion..!

You are deciding that Jesus (as a human sacrifice; don't sugar-coat it) is the best way to alleviate the burden of Sin (in fact the words and terms often used to describe this process are "wash" and "cleanse" [from Sin]).. worse (Christians) calculate this to be THE ONLY way to live eternally in Heaven. You even said, "I also recognise that God, through his sacrifice alone, can offer salvation or redemption to those who believe in Him.." Still worse yet, one will go to Hell if they find this concept to be immoral or not likely.

This is not love. Sorry again my friend.. and if it is, it becomes compulsory as the mechanism of reward and punishment makes it to be so.. This is not love, it is evil. Nothing moral about this.

You have probably never thought about it in this way.. you bought the farm & were sucked into the whole idea hook, line and sinker! For you to accept or realize that the very notion of Vicarious Redemption is immoral after the fact would be detrimental to the way you hold your Christian beliefs. I realize this, so I can understand why you can't or wont consider what I'm breaking down for you fairly. My hope is that maybe one day you will now that you are aware of it.

You said, "If you truly believe in Him and his sacrifice, you will want to stop sinning and change your life accordingly."

This is simply not true and here are some examples of why this is not true from statistical points of reference:

Prison Population: Non-believers and atheist make up less than 0.02% of the prison population nation wide (less than 1%). On the contrary, Christians, Muslims, and other religious groups make up over 99% of the prison population. The highest are Christians [4].

It is true that more people in the US are religious, so naturally we would expect to see more religious people in prison systems and less non-believers/atheist, however, if we adjust for this and do the ratios, we would then expect to see at least 15% to 20% of the prison population comprised of non-believers. We don’t. It’s just the opposite. Non-believers and atheist are less than 1% the prison populace while they comprise 15% to 20% of the entire population in the US.

Divorce Rates: Divorce rates are higher among religious groups (the highest are Christians) and lower for non-believers. When we adjust for the population ratios, as we saw with the prison rates, Christians divorce more than non-believers [4].

Violent Crime: Violent crime rates in the Western World are lower in non-religious communities. Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden are among the most atheistic countries in the world and they are also the safest having the lowest violent crime rates. The United States is almost dead last [4].

According to you, all of these people don't truly know God or aren't true Christians.. Yikes!

Cited Source References:




[4] [Gallup polling and Prison Census]



Hi Philosurfer, thanks for your rebuttals and comments and no I don't believe you are being harsh or making barbed statements intentionally, no problem with that. It's clear that we obviously have different world views which is great for debate.

Just before I start with my rebuttals, I wanted to make it clear to you what my first statement said in effect. I don't think you applied that overriding statement to any of my further comments, which is why you think I was all over the place in essence. I would read it again just to make sure you understand it properly. It can be a little tricky otherwise to take my arguments seriously if you don't apply the nature of the triune God in context and as an overarching theme here and the issue of sacrifice.

With that said, I think you also misapply my comment on who's eligible for redemption or salvation. What I said was that there are many cases where mitigating circumstances would and hopefully necessarily have to apply. You didn't seem to notice that at all. I don't think for a minute anybody who has no contact with the Biblical God would automatically be sent to hell. So for these instances, I myself personally am reserving judgement on this and it's not really the topic of the debate. I did not want to get bogged down in discussions of eligibilty etc. So my overriding statement is that God would rightfully and hopefully judge according to what is in a man's heart or mind and the knowledge that he may have at any time. That's all, and I think it's a fair statement to make and good for framing this debate. We gotta start somewhere I think you'll agree.

Also the later use of statistics to prove something is totally disingenuous I'm afraid. I know how it all works. And I'm not sure what you were even trying to prove there. For example the statistics garnered would show no example of the form used to collect that data. Maybe there's not a box on the form for atheist, hence default position Christian. Dood really have you never heard there's lies, damn lies and then statistics. It just doesn't wash with me. Yes, I've studied statistics, one wrong move and you can make anything seem real if you want it to. A tool that somehow tries to influence opinion in rags and mags. I'm truly sad now, I am :-) I won't rebut anything in that section, as I could just argue that the decline of Christian teaching of morality in the West has caused all of these problems in the first place. Statistics, not good. Estimated 250 million people killed by their own governments in the 20th century alone based on Marxist materialist philosophy. Nice.

So to go on and clear a few things up, with my preceding comments in hand hopefully.

I would like to know first off where you think you get your idea of natural human empathy and compassion from. They're all lovely words and they make you feel warm and good inside, but where is it from? From your perspective we are essentially animals right? Altruism and charity is therefore not really normal in a materialistic and purely physical world, but we all like to be thought of as good and defend it at any cost. That's really odd, why do we like to be thought of as 'good' ? Just a thought.

No, I believe I'm a moral person because we were all made that way. But it goes wrong, doesn't it. Does that mean I sin, yes by the nature of being human and interacting with the environment and other people. Your idea of morality is different to mine. You will just go with whatever is cool or happening in society, whereas I will look to a higher standard to base my life upon. Society generally tends downwards over time, I will try to improve myself upwards towards an impossible standard. So essentially, even though I cause no harm to anybody on purpose, I cause harm to myself which you may not see as sin, but I do. Again where do you get your ideas of right and wrong to judge people? You're a relativist, so you will change over time, whether it's right or wrong to me, it doesn't matter. You place yourself on a pedestal of moral superiority in essence, and you don't even know you're doing it. Pride and lifting yourself up against God, in essence is the starting point for all sin in mankind. Just look at history, it's not pretty. You worship yourself and other men essentially, I worship God as my creator and His plan for mankind's salvation is evident from the start.

Scapegoating. I have to presume you have fairly good knowledge of the history of man in the Bible, and I don't think you think it is some sort of fairy story. I don't think we debate fairy stories here do we? So, I have to presume we have a disagreement on the understanding of it only.

Man was created perfect, then by the deception of Satan, man fell into a state of sin against God. He rebelled essentially, as he disobeyed God. He experienced a spiritual death as such, as he now had the knowledge of good and evil and felt the shame or guilt of that sin. He moved away from a spiritual oneness with God who is morally perfect. The sacrifice of an animal to therefore cover the sins or repent of those sins of the subsequent generations was the normal practise. From that generation down of God's people this is what they were instructed to do. All around people were being sacrificed to strange gods throughout that same time period, so in context I think I know who had the moral high-ground there. If you read the Bible, you will follow that the Hebrews fell in and out of favour with God because of their transgressions against Him. It's so clear the struggle of man against God's commands has been evident throughout history. Through pride, greed, money, power and control of others it has led mankind to state of permanent rebellion against the very basic teachings in the Bible. You can cowboy up as it were and stop following the herd, and personally take responsibility for yourself and others. That's the only way change will come. Even Lucifer descended as an angel of light, probably promising peace and security, but he's a very deceptive character of course. I know who my guide is, and it isn't any man. Look around, why would it be?

So Jesus as a scapegoat? Who do you think Jesus reserved His most consternation for, if you read what He had to say? Was it the people in general sinning, nope. It was the very organisation that essentially did not teach simply the Law of Moses and love of the one true God, but oral traditions of the elders added to constantly by the Pharisees and High Priests. He basically called them all hypocrites as they mislead the people away from God and His commands, and therefore from ever knowing God in their hearts and minds. They were not acting within the spirit of God. So, is He condemning the people or the powers exercising spiritual control over them? Get to know that, as every single religion that has been in existent since has done this, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, some Christian churches. We don't need mediators when the Bible is clear as day in it's message. Jesus, as God remember, in the form of a man only, came to end the sacrificial system of the Hebrews, and to send His message to the whole of the world, Hebrews and Gentiles alike. This was to ultimately end the special relationship between His people and that all man could now become a part of spiritual Israel or Jerusalem if you like. So yes God, in a man's body only, sacrificed Himself for the salvation of humanity and therefore to put humanity back on course to move toward a spiritual oneness with Himself. That's what I call altruistic. You having little regard to the situation apply your superior morality and accuse anyone who believes in that as immoral. Sorry, you just sound so arrogant and you must be rather ignorant in not seeing the world for what it is. What do men hope to accomplish with their thinking and ideals? Peace and security......

It won't ever happen, Satan is a deceiver of the worst kind. More rebuts in the next round, no space left....
Debate Round No. 3


May Reason and Logic Win the Day in the Face of Religious Ignorance!


Thanks bigtown. Feel free to comment any additional ideas you might have during and post debate.

I would personally like to cover other contentions for the motion but some of this stuff, and some your commentary, is just too good to pass commenting on!

Readers, please forgive us! Some of these ideas are very important though it might seem like we are going around in circles.

bigtown, thanks for having fun with me!

Con's Back and Forth

On one hand you say God in the flesh is Jesus (a man), even agree it was a sacrifice, but then DON'T want to say that it was a "human sacrifice" (?) If it wasn't a human sacrifice then that kind of defeats the purpose! What price would have been paid on our behalf? Easy for a god to do but harder for a man don't you think? To not realize it was a human sacrifice is a bit disingenuous or naive.

On one hand you say the only way to salvation is through accepting and believing in this sacrifice (Vicarious Redemption), but then on the other you want there to be exceptions to accommodate those who might not have heard of the idea, what you referred to as mitigating circumstances (?)

In almost everything you said, you put forward an idea but then tempered the notion or somehow reserved fully endorsing the position! Maybe you should re-read what you wrote! Which leads me to believe that you don't have these ideas worked like you think you do.

Later you then go on to say the most obnoxious thing you could say, "I know how it all works." What?!

Wow, the hubris stinks to high heaven! Clearly you don't!

My Opinion of Your Opinions

This is basically why you are having to go back and forth; you are having to accommodate your religious ideas and beliefs with what you also know about the modern world. Most of your beliefs stem from traditions, cultures and histories in which human sacrifice was actually quite common - thus the history of the word scapegoating!

Scapegoating and Vicarious Redemption is a religious concept derived out of tribal Middle Eastern, pre-literate, pre-scientific, cultures and history! This is a place in the world where they still behead and stone people!

What you don't understand is that Vicarious Redemption (scapegoating) is a religious concept and word - its not a secular opinion of these practices! Its what it actually is!

But when we hold these ideas up juxtaposed to what we know today, in conjunction with what we agree are the ethical and moral normatives of today, the immorality and absolute barbarity becomes evident - which in turn makes you want to double talk, sugar-coat, and try to make the idea of human sacrifice seem moral - and spin it as a good thing so that everyone can go to Heaven.. (whether you realize it or not) ..this is madness!

You are stuck trying to intellectualize the whole thing with ice, water and steam, natural altruism and dead soldiers!

The truth is you have never thought about it in this way, nor do you know as much about it as you think you do, except for maybe the parts that help you sleep better at night! No this is no fairy-tale my friend. It is the sad, shameful, infantile part of our human story that I hope we will one day out-grow!

In a previous round did you really say humans have only existed for 6000 years? Seriously? You really mean that? You really believe that?


Bigtown, I read and comprehended everything you wrote just fine. You mentioned a Triune-god but failed to explain how this relates to any of the other concepts or how this makes Vicarious Redemption (human sacrifice) any less immoral.

What are we supposed to do - just think of ice, water and steam and then - PRESTO! - everything will all make sense?!

By-the-way, ice, water and steam are PHYSICAL and change due to temperature and pressure! Is God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit really just like water..? No. Why not say or use Beer, liquor and wine - all three are alcohol.. -PRESTO- ..!

Issue of Statistical Data

So far there has been much conjecture and pure assertion in this debate. At some point data, evidence and reliable sources should be introduced to support claims.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do about data and statistical analysis bigtown, but this is how we support arguments rather than just give an opinion. If my data is skewed or flawed please find reverse data or provide analysis that can be supported to corroborate your position. If you know how it all works this should be a breeze for you!

My guess is that you probably don't want to touch any of the data I mentioned.

You said, "I could just argue that the decline of Christian teaching of morality in the West has caused all of these problems in the first place."

-Okay, find the reliable and raw data, I will wait. The studies of divorce rates and prison populations religiosity I put forward already negates this!

You said, "Estimated 250 million people killed by their own governments in the 20th century alone based on Marxist materialist philosophy."

-Okay, well lets bring up the Crusades, the Inquisition, all the religious wars, the burnings and honor killings that have occurred for years, and the daily bomb blasts that still occur if you want to play that game.. I can assure you that this wont win you any points.

The data is important because it indicates that being religious actually DOESN'T make people more moral, less likely to commit violent crime, keep their marriage, etc., and so on.. Its actually just the opposite [1][2][3][4].

If you eliminated all of the atheist and agnostics in the US you would lose over 90% of the National Academy of Science [5][6] but only 0.02% of the prison population or less, never more than 0.07% (this is less than 1%)! This is the raw data [1][2][3][4].

It is also a fact, in general, as one's education level goes up the less likely they are to be religious. Study after study demonstrates this over and over.

Natural Morality

I will have this discussion with you in the comments if you like. I have already debated the issue of Natural Morality in a previous debate if you would like to read what I think about it.

You ask where does it come from? Where do you think it comes from?

Your Assumptions of ME

"You're a relativist" ...No I'm not a relativist because I believe some things are more true than other things - therefore cannot be relative. I'm someone who still believes there is truth in the world.

"You will just go with whatever is cool or happening in society" ...No, you are doing what society says to do, ironically. Christians make up the majority of the population, so you are the majority of society. I understand the Christian mentality to distinguish its adherents from a so called secular world - but none of the individuals from the group really does except for extremist groups like the Westboro Baptist Church - which is ironic because they are like the only Christians who do not lack the courage of their convictions in the political and social arena and live as such - though we would both agree they are extremist.. But they are right in their behavior as it is indicative or a true literalism and reading of the Bible, which is what you have to water down to accept as I have pointed out.

Cited Source Referances:






Hi Philosurfer, yes I'm enjoying this too. I said I would hold up my end of the bargain. This is going to be difficult of course as it's 2 ends of the spectrum. I believe I have given you a very fair evaluation of my belief and why, yet you still make accusations that are unwarranted I'm afraid. You have made many assumptions about me and my personal belief unfortunately in your arguments. It's seems like you personally know all Christians and how they get there.

So I will spell it out again for you

Yes, I believe in the existence of God.
Yes, I believe in the Bible as the true word of that God.
I do not belong to Catholicism, Islam nor Judaism nor a Chrisitan church as such.
I do not follow a 'typical' Christian doctrine of traditions. 'Typical' as I'm trying to presume you know about faith and Christians.
My faith came to me over 30 years of searching and observing the world around me. I looked at all different types of religion and what they believed. I live with Buddhists by the way, and these guys are great. Every religion has moral teaching but why is that? Religion does not form your morality it acts as a guide to your morality so that you do not stray too far, as a reminder.

I will give you a link to the book that finally nailed by belief in a one true God.;

Why would a book like that seal my belief? Well God is the source of all order in the universe. Pure logic is essentially divine. It's so simple and elegant, it cannot be by chance random processes of evolution. You deny the power of logic to find the truth, you deny God. Which is why I'm surprised, you as a philosopher, take such views as you do and get deceived by the world. Plus not teaching these concepts to children I find is immoral literally. This was the basis of a good all-round education generally Christian based for may be 1800 years. The public school system finds no use for the liberal arts, as we are indoctrinated to serve the state through the servile arts. We don't teach children how to think!!! That's immoral.

Logical and mathematical proofs transcend space and time. You think they are physical unfortunately which is bizarre. You should say something like, those poor Christians have all the wrong chemicals, not like me as I'm superior to them, but instead you attack and try not to understand the very basis of your own belief. Atheists are illogical people. They have to deny logical absolutes exist to make their case. They sit in a tree and saw off the very branch they sit on, or sit in God's lap to slap him in the face. Don't you see it? I would apply some deep thinking to that topic when you get chance. That's how I certainly know God exists. I am on level 3, when you will remain on level 2 thinking if you deny the existence of God. You sit in your lap of luxury in the West (originally wholly Christian founded of course) and criticise the very thing that gave you your life that you have. That's pride or ignorance. You will exercise level 2 thinking and be swayed with any popular opinion that's around as you cannot see the truth of it all. Humanity is a brotherhood fella. I stand on a rock in my beliefs, you stand on Jello dood.

'But when we hold these ideas up juxtaposed to what we know today, in conjunction with what we agree are the ethical and moral normatives of today'
Who's we? Again, what stops these from changing tomorrow, next year, next decade. You seem like the person that would engage in rape and murder if it was the norm of society, of course only of certain people that society didn't like, because you're not even that immoral. You don't and can't deny this from your very illogical position. You haven't thought about it. It's incredible really.

So, no I didn't buy the farm hook line and sinker as you suggest, as you have already boxed me up in your mind. Which is sad really. I am a well-reasoned logical person who has the will and God given tools to find the truth. You admit there is an absolute truth in the World, yes? Well I would try looking with that God given brain of yours and see what you find. Where you are at the moment, there's nothing but human deception. Sadly self-deception through pride. You cannot bear to think there is a higher moral power as that would make you accountable, and you don't like the thought of it do you? So what you haven't killed anyone or stole anything, great job I applaud you along with 98% of the human race. Maybe that's objective morality implying a law giver perhaps?

So, God exists. Can the Bible be the word of that God. Why not? You believe there are a group of people in history that were God's chosen people, else why have the state of Israel now. You want to see that gone do you? Ultimately that's your belief. Why don't you stick to your beliefs ultimately and deny Israel?? You are the ultimate hypocrite in all of this, I just hope you realise one day. God exists, the bible is the testament of the existence of those people. It's so funny how you think people of this era were dumb or illiterate. You apply your highly evolved (?) apparently superior brain and make blanket statements to people you don't even know. So what, you have your TV, laptop , Iphone, but you've given your brain up in return for material comforts. It's so funny. Take a look back in history and say these people were dumb or uneducated. Better still read the OT and see how not dumb they were. I think you'll find a lot that were highly educated. Languages have not evolved, they have devolved. Ever thought about that?

Vicarious Redemption - you make it sound like it's going on today!! We're talking Jesus' sacrifice right. I don't know where you're going with all this Middle Eastern business. You're clutching and grasping at anything to make a point. You only have blanket accusations to make ignoring my actual position. Look at the title of the debate please. I've explained fully my position that you still do not take into account. It was the end of all sacrifice for humanity and it deserves attention as it was so monumental. It changed the course of history for the better, but of course you wouldn't believe that, as I said you are very ignorant of ancient history. It seems like you do need to get some basic history lessons in there somewhere. I would try
Tragedy and Hope by Prof Carroll Quigley when you have the time, then you will see what you are dealing with.

'The truth is you have never thought about it in this way, nor do you know as much about it as you think you do, except for maybe the parts that help you sleep better at night! No this is no fairy-tale my friend. It is the sad, shameful, infantile part of our human story that I hope we will one day out-grow'
Wow you know all of human history without showing me an ounce of that knowledge, except parroting blanket accusations from your moulded view. Not moulded by you of course. I'm a little tired now of your childish non sequituurs and assumptions really. You don't like Christians, so any attempt to trash me is fine by you. I have opened up my thoughts to you honestly and with respect, and you trash me as a person. I think you are most disrespectful at times. But atheists attack from a position of weakness, I understand.

Statistics - non sequituur here really, not the topic, as you are using it to somehow to trash Christian belief, while trying to take a moral highground. I hope you don't deflate yourself one day. You are applying statistics of people in prison to trash the rest of Christians in society. Kind of novel, but as I said very disingenuous and dangerous. Most dictators use that sort of methodology when they're deciding which of their own people they should kill to create a supposed better one.

As stated I'm not Catholic, Muslim or Jew. Crusades, Inq all irrelevant, and exactly how I came to my own beliefs. Power, money, greed and pride. Not true Christianity.

6000 years, what do you have?

Once upon a time, billions of years ago...

Debate Round No. 4


May Reason and Logic Win the Day in the Face of Religious Ignorance!


Thanks bigtown, I appreciate the debate and that you were open and honest about your opinions and beliefs!

Thanks for seeing the conversation and debate to the end of all the rounds.

I appreciate you!

Final Rebuttals

You said, "You have made many assumptions about me and my personal belief.."

You believe Jesus died to save mankind from sin. You agreed by accepting this debate and confirmed.

You believe that humans have only been around for 6000 years. You have confirmed this.

So, NO, I'm not assuming anything here. There are conclusions that are safe to draw about someone who believes these things as you do.

I DID, however, give my opinion on/of your opinions - but it was stated and entitled as such - My Opinion of Your Opinions.

This is more-or-less a preliminary hypothesis of how otherwise smart people believe bad ideas and why - and how they try to rationalize bad ideas. Just my opinion.

You said, "I didn't buy the farm hook line and sinker as you suggest, as you have already boxed me up in your mind."

Okay, are you going to change your mind about your beliefs then?! No...? so you do believe all of the things you said that you do? Yes...? well then I didn't box you up.. you have boxed yourself up!

You believe all of the religious ideas that you do on your own. You have boxed yourself in!

You said, "I do not follow a 'typical' Christian doctrine of traditions."

I'm having a hard time seeing exactly where you differ from other American Christians in your beliefs. How exactly are you different from most other Christians..? You believe all or most of the same stuff just with added stuff.

You are a typical American-brand Evangelical - Young Earth Creationist - mixed with a little bit of Sci-fi - all rolled into one. You haven't said anything to set yourself or your beliefs apart.

So these aren't really assumptions. As I said to start, your comments are revealing. So I'm not assuming anything about you that you haven't already made perfectly clear.

You said, "Pure logic is essentially divine. You deny the power of logic to find the truth, you deny God."

I don't know about this one. Lets agree to disagree. You equate logic to being God, which is a neat idea, but what happens when it (logic itself or its use) pushes theism out of the arena of likely possibility..? To say logic and God are the same isn't wise for this reason if you ask me. Also, it "poisons the well" - which is a fallacy.

Further, I accept the logical forms as I believe there is truth in the world - as I am not a relativist as previously stated. So I don't in fact reject logic to find truth - conversely I use it to help get closer to truth.

You said, "I'm surprised, you as a philosopher, take such views as you do and get deceived by the world."

Saying something like this after being offended that you thought that I made assumptions about you is funny!

You went on to say, "I am on level 3, when you will remain on level 2 thinking if you deny the existence of God."

But, again, that's not what we find.. as education increases, religiosity drops [1][2][3].

You suggested to me that, "I would apply some deep thinking to that topic when you get chance."

You assume I haven't given much thought to these issues for some reason..

My formal education and academic vocation is in the field of philosophy - specifically with a specialty in dealing with these concepts (Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Religion) - but I haven't given it much thought..?! That idea is patently ludicrous.. (makes me laugh)

AND again, as education increases, religiosity declines [1][2][3].

I think you have just taken the cake in assuming..!

You made this even worse when you said, "You seem like the person that would engage in rape and murder if it was the norm of society.."

Whoa, and I'm the one making assumptions about you..?! Wow, I think almost every reader will see this and be appalled!

Yikes bigtown, besides not being true, a comment like that is rude! Very insulting!

Still worse you said, "You are the ultimate hypocrite in all of this, I just hope you realise one day."

Man, in my opinion, you really put your foot in your mouth in the last round.

So for you to then say, "I think you are most disrespectful" ..really becomes a mute point.

But no hard feelings :)


You said, "Statistics - non sequituur here really, not the topic, as you are using it to somehow to trash Christian belief.."

My use of stats was to show that religion(s), not just Christianity, doesn't automatically make people more moral, commit less violent crime, stay married, just because they are religious..etc.

Again, you should have used data and/or reliable cited sources to suggest otherwise if you disagree. You didn't.


You said, "..we are indoctrinated to serve the state...we don't teach children how to think.."

I agree, we should teach children HOW to think - not WHAT to think..!

BUT you would want them to be in a program to teach something very specific - which you admitted you feel a moral obligation about. But what you are then doing is teaching them WHAT to think rather than HOW to think..!

To teach that very specific religious ideas are true is teaching them WHAT - NOT - HOW. Which I think and believe is immoral, as what you are suggesting is actually indoctrination, not critical thinking.

The CRUX of the Debate

You said, "Vicarious Redemption - you make it sound like it's going on today!"

So you do admit its immoral and impractical..! You wouldn't have phrased this comment this way if you didn't at least see it..! YOU SEE IT!

"..blanket accusations...ignoring my actual position.."

No, I'm reasoning the logic and the likelihood of any of this (religious theology) actually being true constantly and I'm basically pointing it out to people who haven't considered these religious ideas in this way..

Keep in mind, I am the architect of this debate! Do you think I created this debate for fun and didn't know what I was doing the whole time..?

"You don't like Christians"

I like Christians just fine - but the philosophical tragedy is when religious ideas are then used and claimed to be accurate descriptions of the world. These are religious idea that then also become testable objective ideas. We then have an obligation to ask if these ideas are actually true or not. This is the issue.

As an example, Jesus' sacrifice (Vicarious Redemption) is either really a way to redeem the sins of all of mankind or its not. This is an objective statement about reality and how the world really is, not just a belief.

It would be different if Christians and other religious folks used their stories and narratives only to make a better life. But this is not what happens. Religious folks claim their metaphysical religious concepts are objectively how the world actually is. So these are religious ideas but then they also cross-over into the domain of objective science also. This is the problem. The world around us doesn't support the literalism of your brand of religiosity.


I believe I have shown that the core precept of Christianity [Jesus being sacrificed for metaphysical ideas of sin] as immoral - as it is human sacrifice (Vicarious Redemption). I believe I was able to show bigtown the reason why it is immoral - though Con will more than likely disagree.

Closing Statement

1) Please note that Con didn't not use any cited sources.

2) Please note that Con dropped the majority of the arguments and debated issues.

3) Please note that Con resorted to egregious red herrings and blatant disrespectful comments.

I will not try to sway the audience in my closing remarks but ask only that DDO's voting guidelines be followed.

Many thanks!

Cited Source References:





Hello Philo, I'm really glad we made it this far. Anyway I will echo your comments to the readers who may be asking, what the hell was going on here. My apologies also to any readers if you felt we went off topic slightly, or should I say a lot!

My thanks to my opponent also. I think we've had a good discussion, if not debate around this topic. Obviously it was going to get into morality and belief as a whole and things went a little wayward. Thanks for sticking in also, here and in the comments.

Firstly, I would just like to reiterate the topic, and what I feel was discussed or argued reasonably on both sides. Then I will attempt to rebut some of my opponents straw man arguments he made in his last round. I don't want to make this too onerous, so I will stick to the big errors that were made.

The question or claim that the central principle of Christianity is immoral, has not been argued successfully by my opponent here unfortunately, and I will explain why:

He states vicarious redemption or the belief in it as immoral.

He says he understands in Chistianity the concept of the trinity. I had to reiterate this concept twice to my opponent, as I do not believe he really does.

He still believes somehow, that in Christianity our belief that a 'man' who died a most vile death, is the subject of our veneration, and that we have some sort of bloodlust about it.

He has ignored the most important concept of Christianity of that of the Trinity, and also did not therefore factor into the argument anything about Jesus' resurrection from the dead. He was God made man and exactly who He said He was and is now.

Without factoring any of this into his argument, he therefore has had to either state the claim more strongly, such that I am or collectively Christians are in their belief somehow sick and twisted on top of being immoral. He still thinks Jesus was a man only. A martyr for the day, that we throw our sins off onto. It couldn't be further from the truth.

Jesus was God, making an ultimate sacrifice of Himself for all of humanity, that we may somehow realise the full implications of being a man and turn to make a spritual journey towards God and away from sin. it was the full and final revelation of God to humanity.

He thinks we believe that we enjoy bloodlust and martyrdom of humans for our sins. It's only the very reason that Jesus did die and was resurrected, therefore proving His ultimate divinity, that we sit up and take note and try to lead better lives throughout Jesus' example and teaching. Do we make it, no, it's impossible, but that doesn't stop us trying and believing that He will have mercy on us at the time of judgement.

I feel my opponent thinks that we don't care about sin or morality as we will be forgiven anyhow. It couldn't be further from the truth unfortunately. Our aim is to realise what God has revealed to us and make every effort to make ourselves better individuals. This is how we show our love for Him. I raised the subject of altruism, which my opponent could not make any argument against. The moral criticisms just became more harsh, but no real argument, just restate his claim in 100 different ways.

If the resurrection did not happen, then Christianity would be untenable and nobody would reject that. That's the point.

No serious historian doubts the existence and historicity of Jesus. There are 4 main independently verified and historically proven facts in relation to Jesus. Remember historians are some of the most sceptical people.

1. Jesus' burial in a tomb.
2. The discovery of the empty tomb by women
3. The multiple independently attested appearances of Jesus after his death.
4. The sudden belief of the apostles of Jesus' resurrection, and the meteoric rise of the early Christians throughout the lands in the Middle East and Roman empire.

These are historicalfacts. Even Bart Ehrman, a pure sceptic had to come to the belief that these facts are indeed true. He however, does not believe in the resurrection as a hypotheses accounting for these facts. He doesn't seem to have any that he would himself believe in, however. Ref Bart Ehrman v WLC on youtube sometime for the full debate.

So, to recap. The historicity of Jesus is not debatable. The resurrection does indeed logically account for the above 4 historical facts, and the Christian belief of Jesus' being God has some great evidence and proof. If you want to argue that essentially God is immoral, then good luck to you, as you must think of yourself as the standard to which everybody should venerate themselves. No person can ever attain those standards, but that's not the point is it. I think Satan deceived the first human with, 'you shall not surely die, yea shall be as gods' Mmm something ringing true in humanity nowadays I fear.

My opponent did try to attack Christianity in general with some much beloved statistics. Quantitive analysis of widescale qualitative characters. As I noted, this is rather foolhardy. The actions of a dictatorship or those with an agenda.

The best stats ever would be '9 out 10 cats prefer Whiskas' thats the best you can hope for in reality. The data collection methods, interview techniques, pre and post prison beliefs, sampling size, prisoner category, forms used and the list goes on, all need to be known. So please ignore any prisoner beliefs statistics to prove trends of the rest of society. It's kind of dishonest, but I understand how people are fooled by it.

I'm not going to rebut much else in this discussion as I think you will see that most of my statements of belief have been somehow twisted and attacked in general,with no real understanding of the situation.

One point I will now address to sum up my opponents use of non sequituurs and straw men arguments throughout the debate is this:

I clearly stated a book I had read to do with logic and rhetoric. This book helped me seal my belief in general. It is not a religious book, but a very informative book regarding thinking skills. I stated that I believed may be children should be taught some of these skills, so that they are indeed able to think for themselves so they are not so easily deceived in their lives. Not teaching these things is immoral in a society where we all desire the best for our children and the future.

My opponent has then erected a complete straw man argument, stating I desire children to be indoctrinated with religion!!. I don't know how you can make those 2 statement connect. I believe children should be taught skills so that they are not indoctrinated at all. It's called critical thinking. I believe that religion or belief should be out of the domain of school. Creation and origin is a deeply personal belief and a right, and therefore evolution should not be taught as a science when dealing with these beliefs. You have no idea how insulting it must be to Christian parents or children do you? It is complete attempted indoctrination of atheist belief in a quasi-scientific cloak, and you still don't see it.

Let me explain. A Christian believes in the divine creation, as observable by anyone and everyone. You can't prove anything in science about origin. You won't. You can make up a godless theory, in a scientific guise of course and palm it off as such.

The bible (Jesus/ God) says this 'But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea' Matthew 18.

So, no indoctrination EITHER way.You will understand it one day I'm sure and I hope.

This has been really good and I would like to thank my opponent who did his best to wrestle the argument away from the topic. I think you will agree that his claim has not been argued successfully on this occasion. He has not shown in any way how that stated belief is immoral, and has had to resort to religious generalisations to try and prove his point.
I don't think he even knows why he thinks its immoral.

Take care and God bless.

Debate Round No. 5
144 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by philosurfer 2 years ago

You just said he (Jesus) was human again.. just now. "in human form" .... But you are saying he wasn't human...?

How does this not make him human? God sacrificed himself as a human so he is technically not human..?

I read what you wrote just fine buddy.. AGAIN, then if what you are saying is true, it defeats the purpose of the sacrifice. Jesus had to be "human" for a price to be paid..

Wish you read the debate.

Saska and I are saying that the resulting consequence (going to Hell) which makes the whole concept wicked.. because this means you don't in fact have free will, love is made compulsory, its not a free gift, the classic ideas of God's omnipotence and omniscience are logically violated, etc., etc.
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago

Jesus was God in human form so technically no he was not human.

Also, once again it was overall Jesus' decision to die (said it three times). Go back and look for more details.


If it wasn't for Jesus we would have all gone to hell because of the constant sins of man. I think he deserves credit for that don't you? Christians acknowledge the sacrifice made by Jesus by praying to him and worshiping him. It is a simple and easy decision to follow Christ and you have plenty of time to do it. I think that is a reasonable enough time for God to wait don't you? God gets angry and upset just like a human being does, and it is understandable for him to be mad at the fact that someone didn't give credit where credit was due. God gives all of us enough chances to follow him, and he gives us the choice of whether or not to follow him.

There is only two places to go after you die, heaven or hell. God doesn't cast you into hell. He prevents those who had forsaken him from entering the kingdom of heaven. So there is only one other place to go hell. The devil takes people to hell because they are marked with sin. If there was another place to send people God would send them there, but there is none (according to Protestants).

Now there is the theory of Purgatory which is like a waiting room for heaven. I believe there is some form of Purgatory, but you can never be sure.
Posted by DarwinBulldog 2 years ago
@bigtown, I'm not sure the flood of words answered my question exactly.

Posted by philosurfer 2 years ago
Oh, I don't think that the Bible is a science text book and I'm glad that you admitted its not! We agree, the Bible is NOT a science text book. Then we have no motivation for positing and vehemently defending the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old then! Among other things!

Science is not attacking your belief in God, nor does it care to.. Again, science is just a method, it is indifferent of your beliefs and has no motivations to attack your beliefs or religion.. However, scientific discoveries do not support your belief claims about the world either, in fact, the evidence suggests something else.

This is the harsh reality for someone who believes in the way that you do - claiming the world is only 6,000 years old and the like. Your religious beliefs are held in faith but are then said to be the way the world actually is..

I think you get this and understand this but it still needs to sink in..

Creation Science STARTS out to prove something... That is not "good" science.. again, it is the opposite of how science really works! You don't set out to use ideas to prove the world is one way.. You set out to collect the raw data and and observations to try to piece together how the world actually is, which is completely different than your approach!

Look, you are already decided on these things.. You have your mind already made up. And you look for the info that only reinforces your confirmation bias.. That is very clear. I know no one likes stepping in their own dookie but that's the case here. Don't get it twisted.
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
We are going to go round with this. No I'm not a Joseph Campbell type and really do sincerely believe the truth in it. If that disturbs you in some way, then imagine how I felt.

I don't do the opposite of anything, you are touting your very questionable beliefs as fact and they are far from it. Good science would not attack my belief in God, it would confirm my belief, of that I would have no doubt. Really, no doubt. Your available data does not support your claims, unless I now have to take a leap of faith in the other direction towards your beliefs. You think I will do that? No. You are not offering me anything by doing that.

The Bible is not a science text book, get that straight. If on the other hand that you say the Bible has been scientifically proven false beyond a reasonable doubt, I would like to know where and your standards of proof. That's why there is creation science to exactly prove it as true beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not about who is the better scientist or how moral people are, it is the fundamental implications of saying something is definitely true without a good standard of evidence and without bias. Yes, creation scientists can question everything because who else will? You? You start with the notion God does not exist, and then complain if people question your science and belief. It's hypocritical I'm afraid. I don't like to say that to you either. This very conversation is hinged on a philosophical idea and therefore not science.

1. Your proof God does not exist.
2. Your proof of cosmic evolution by chance given fine tuning.
3. Your proof of natural laws coming into existence from nothing, laws cannot create anything.
4. Your proof of life arising from non-life.
5, Your proof of the origin of math and logical proofs. The universe is mathematical in nature.
6. Your proof of chemical evolution. From 3 basic into 81 core.

You have no reason for me to believe in your world view. Ah wait long enough, and we will get it
Posted by philosurfer 2 years ago
No, you can have logical basis for beliefs... but if your religious beliefs are then said to be an accurate description of the world and objective reality, you claims also at that point become testable (just like everything else and any other claim) by science..

If the available data doesn't support your claim to be true then you should be willing to amend your beliefs..

Again, you do the opposite of this.

You are getting offended but understand this is the same standard we would use for any other claim supposed to be true about the world, medicine, sports, politics, physics, technologies, etc., etc... if its wrong, its wrong.

Now if you were saying, like Josph Campbell, that of course these stories aren't literally true, but are good moral parables, or good historical litterateurs, good metaphors and good folklore and mythologies that help us live a richer fuller life, we would not have a disagreement.

But you don't say this.. you actual believe the Bible is the better science text book before science was really developed..

Again, your ideas aren't JUST beliefs.. You are claiming the world is actually really this way, as truth and objectively true.. and if that is the case we can test this idea.

You are free to posit whatever hypothesis you want for primary factors or causes or whatever.. you still need to support your claims in this world just like everyone else has to..

I'm not saying and have never said belief in God is false. I'm saying your statements claims about objective reality are not supported inductively by evidence. In other words, there is no reason to believe any of it is true.. and not only that, the evidence supports a completely different probable idea..

..this is how we understand objective scientific and philosophical reality so far... which is admittedly subject to change as new data arrive.. but, even still, we are sure some of the other ideas aren't probably the case; yours is one.
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
You are right, my beliefs are a world view. Let me just get this straight again with you though. Science has implications for society. Good science is great, you must know that. Junk or bad science has bad implications for society. That is really the issue here. If, I as a non scientist, can recognise bad science, then it must truly be full of holes and it is somehow attempting to change my worldview. How can a child recognise this at an early age? It is taught as fact but it is far from it. That worries me indeed. Get creation and origins out of the science classroom and put it in with religion, as that's what it is. Keep good science in science. Theories that cannot stand up to any rigorous examination is junk science and constitutes an indoctrination of bad philosophical ideas. I hope you recognise that. Keep the research sure, but on no account teach it as fact in science. As I said the issue of origin is a deeply personal subject, and if science can't make a good case for itself with high standards of evidence, it shouldn't be taught as fact. That is indoctrination, whether you accept that as such or not, it is. That's me standing up for what is right I'm afraid.
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
Are you saying we can't have any logical basis or reason for our beliefs now? Are you in essence removing those reasons from us and saying there you go, you have no reason to believe now. Wow, if I did that to you, you might have something to say, and I daresay stand up for what is right. It's incredible Philo really. You are standing up for your beliefs, you are not standing up for what is right at all, and who are you to say what is right and what we should believe? Are we getting back to moral relativity again here? Did you get your morals through the 'human construct' too? The argument is futile for both parties, as the existence of God is a primary factor. Your philosophy is no better or more right than a believers philosophy, yet ours is the more logical and reasonable of course :-) no matter how you personally decide to dress it up to attack it. Again the use of the genetic fallacy against religion. You have got to work this through properly. It does not make the existence of God a false proposition, no matter what you think about religion. That's a totally different proposition, which I could go on about for hours, but I won't.

and back to square one, are we going around again? This is fun
Posted by philosurfer 2 years ago
bigtown, you treat science like it is an entity and a force out to swallow up and religious believers..

No, I actually don't think you should do anything BECAUSE of science.. Science is just a method, a toll, a process that has been developed and we know emphatically and definitively that it absolutely works. I like to reference technologies on this point.

The implications of discovery is where the issues arise- NOT science itself.

You will always use science which supports your agenda & position - BUT - turn around and attack scientific methodology when it doesn't serve your cause.... all the while not realizing you are attacking the very thing that you will use in other scientific claims and other aspects of everyday life.

Its incredibly frustrating because you will then cite very small seemingly anomalous ideas that are curious but then use that to try and undo well established and sturdy and grounded scientific bodies of evidence.. you have become a professional at doing this to preserve religiously motivated desires.

You know, they award scientists for disproving other general scientific ideas that hold the primary consensus.. ..meaning, that build within the scientific process is already a self-correcting mechanism and desire to procure truth despite bias.

You are doing the opposite from this, you are approaching the idea of objective reality with already preconceived notions of what you would like the truth to be...and you attack the more honest and working system (science) we have developed so far to do it..

Its very sad an alarming to people like me and it makes us scared of religious people and for our future.. it effects politics, it effects our schools, it effects our world.. so it matters which of us is right and what is true.

You are claiming the world is objectively a certain way! Your beliefs aren't just sweet nice little metaphorical narratives..
Posted by philosurfer 2 years ago

Was Jesus human? (yes or no)

Was Jesus a sacrifice? (yes or no)

Yes and yes - therefore WAS "human" & a "sacrifice" - this stands true whether he knew and chose or didn't.

Consider if it is a self-sacrifice, if the self is human, then it is still a human sacrifice....!

A man had to die in order to redeem the sin of mankind, right? You agree, yes..?

Then this is pretty straight forward.

YOU GUYS (believers) are the ones who are having to try to intellectualize this tradition of scapegoating through sacrifice, common during the time and culture, and squaring it with what we understand today. I DON'T. I recognize the immorality of the idea and concept.

I know you want to say Jesus was also God, and God was also Jesus, and with the holy spirit all rolled into one - BOOM - Bam _ Bing - PRESTO! - its all good and God is loving and saved everyone from sin and its wonderful and somehow all makes sense, etc., etc.

BUT - it doesn't - it is immoral - and I believe in standing up for what is right! The idea is awful. Its terrible.

The only way people stomach the stuff and never bother to question it is because of social and cultural normatives mixed with psychological suggestions that we are all susceptible to..

The harsh reality, is that most people aren't religious because they have thought long and hard about theology or philosophy.. Most people are religious because that's how they were raised, and their parents or people close to them in their culture told them its true... and all the social pressures and cultural factors mixed in with interpersonal concerns and worries of life.. and you have a powerful mixture for religions to fill the void and niche.

Sorry to generalize so much, but I believe this stuff really matters.

Again, sometimes its the very goodness of a man which makes him an unbeliever..
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes a very solid argument for the topic at hand. Con's defense of that argument is very unclear... Jesus' death was not human sacrifice because of the trinity... but then there were other mentions of Jesus' humanity. It was a poorly constructed rebuttal by Con. Beyond that, Con is all over the place arguing various irrelevant points and refuses to address the valid use of statistics to show that immorality and a lack of religion are not linked. Con also uses no sources. Pro gets the conduct point for two reasons: 1) Con accused pro of being willing to rape people if the majority was doing it... completely pathetic and despicable... and 2) because Con ignored the rules and submitted several new arguments in the final round, such as claiming the resurrection is proven by historical facts and that Jesus' life is not debatable. Con's spelling and grammar were not great, but Pro also made a few spelling and grammar errors, so I will leave that a draw.
Vote Placed by DarwinBulldog 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: After spending some time with this debate, reading it over the last couple days, I don't see how the Trinity makes the sacrifice moral or less immoral. The Trinity idea just confused the issue I think. Also I don't see how God willfully sacrificing himself as a man makes the sacrifice not human sacrifice, as he is a man (Jesus). Con use any sources at all but then argues statistics and the data, which makes no sense. Con said that Pro would rape people which was very uncouth so Pro gets conduct vote. Spelling not worth scoring. I would really like Con please explain how the Trinity makes the idea of killing someone to wash away sin more moral or less immoral? I'm confused by this. Con please explain in the comments!
Vote Placed by WhizKid 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate seemed to be drowned in much unrelated to the motion. I found Pro's argument to be predicated on a standard of morality that he assumes we all agree to. Is human sacrifice immoral? I think it depends on the reasons and Pro made a compelling case that the reasons for Jesus's sacrifice would make this sacrifice even more immoral. If you take the position that Jesus is a human sacrifice then I believe his argument stands. If you take the position that God sacrificed himself as a man, it would still be human sacrifice though its not forced and so the reasons for the sacrifice (to wash away sin) can be debated. I am not Christian so I think Pro was slightly more convincing but I don't believe he will convince a Christian audience or voters as they wont see it his way, vise versa. Con did a pretty good job stating the Christian position but I felt he was on his heels most of the debate. Con would be wise to use sources.
Vote Placed by mubaracus 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Hello! This was a fun debate. In the future I recommend significantly decreasing the word count if you actually want people to follow everything you say. Despite what pro said, I did find aspects of his argument flippant and rude. I also found attempts to create holes in Con's argument, in fact illogical. Lastly, I was just overall unconvinced. "As stated it's not human sacrifice..' ..but you go on to say, "..a Creator sacrifices himself as a man, to save humanity..' This is an example of you claiming to locate a contradiction which in fact does not exist. When Con say's human sacrifice, Con means something forced. The second part reflects the altruism that Con spoke of. It is a really simple concept. If somebody personally sacrifices them-self, they are not a scapegoat I think this overall argument reflects Pro's ignorance of Christian doctrine and his attempt to grossly oversimplify it and the individuals who follow it as a religion.
Vote Placed by MasterOfTheUniverse 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I like this debate. It seemed like Pro made only made the one argument but Con spent all his time defending it. Besides the normal christian arguments con didn't offer an alternative of his own. Pro at least made an argument and advanced it. Pro Sources. Con had no cited sources. Everything else was unimportant or too close.