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

The Church uses fear to gain believers and has no evidence of it's doctrines

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 549 times Debate No: 76429
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




As the negative, I would like to contend that there is no evidence of the Church's beliefs and that the Church does not use fear to convert people.
I will present my arguments in this way:

Round 1- Overview of my position
Round 2-Arguments and rebuttals
Round 3- Any necessary rebuttals and a conclusion.

Before I begin, I would like to wish my opponent the best of luck.

First, my definitions. The Church is a reference to the Catholic Church as a whole, it's doctrines are it's beliefs and customs, and evidence is proof of a claim. If you do not agree, please state so.

Now on to my first argument. The Church does have evidence of its doctrines. Many people argue that there was no human named Jesus, but it has been proven that there was. This is through Roman records and of course the Bible. The Bible can be thought of as 'made up stories,' but if the reader can see past the basics, the morals and the stories are quite in fact correct. Also it is in Roman records that the Man names Jesus who as buried was seen three days later. If that is not proof enough, I know not what proof is.

Secondly, I shall contest the prospect of fear. My opponent has recently stated that the prospect of hell is but a trick to scare people in following the church. I say this is very much incorrect. A person has the ability to chose independent of such things. The prospect of Hell also may not be what it seems, but as a whole, it is not merely a scaring trick.

That is an overview of my arguments and I shall explain these in further detail in the next round.

Also for this debate, I would like to advise my opponent that even if we do not agree, we must respect each other.

Good luck.


well first off id like to ask that people not take points off for grammar and spelling. next i would like to point out that church does not mean catholic church as was his definition of church. its all churches. this guy cant even interpret the words im using literally so how can i expect him to interpret anything logically. also evidence is not proof of a claim its a logical or otherwise fact that supports a claim or makes it more probable. . funny though. you want to argue that the church has proof supporting its beliefs you be my guest but you will lose that fight every time.

also he lies. there is no proof that there was a man named jesus at the time and place and even if there was he could have made the religion up and not have been the son of god. im not even going to debate if you cant do better than this. there were just a few historians that heard of jesus or said they did while the other 3000 historians in the mediterranean never heard of him. the bible also isnt profound enough to be from a god its clearly written by men with laws like women who are raped have to marry their attacker. or women should be put to death if they dont scream loud enough to be heard while they are being raped as accessories to their own defilement. you have no proof as you claim and your evidence definition was proof. lol the winners of wars write history and their morals change. heros of the past today would be terrorists and vice versa. soon we will lose almost all christian virtues as we should. and you will "need" a new god again making the same mistake your ancestors did a million times. its happened a thousand times (more). and thinking you know right from wrong when you dont is treacherous and most certainly isnt the work of a perfect god.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and for redefining the topic. May I remind my opponent that the redefinition from the second speaker is to show the opponent exactly what is being debated, not to create an opportunity of directly attacking the opponent. I agree with this definition. Firstly, I would like point out some flaws in my opposition's arguments. My opposition says that Historians of the Mediterranean do not know of Jesus and outright accuses me of lying. I am not lying. There was, in fact, Jesus. Roman artifacts themselves show evidence of Jesus. Is that not evidence enough?

Secondly, I would like to point out my oppositions conduct. This is not a website for insulting. You may not agree with the beliefs of the Church, but that does not mean that you can insult it.

And thirdly, you say that we should loose Christian values. So, you're saying that we should stop Charity, because that is a Christian Value, and let the people In Third World countries starve? So even though it helps people, because it is Christian, it should be gone.

Now for my argument. You seem to think that the Church uses hell as a fear tactic in order to gain supporters. I shall argue that this is not the case. this is incorrect because you don't need to be a Christian in order to go to Heaven, according to the Church, you just need to be a good person. how can you say I don't know right from wrong? I could just as easily say that to you. Is building schools and doing Charity work wrong? Is that not good enough? Also, even though hell is a dark place, constantly, the Church refers to it's destruction by good. How can hell be a scare tactic when there is a way to beat it?

And, by the way, where did you get such teachings of rape and such? Open your eyes, the Church has changed. It is one of the laws of the Church to change according to the time, so although you think such things, the Church HAS CHANGED. Now it is known that rape is wrong. And I do not see how my miss-definition of evidence is proof.

How is believing in God a mistake? Believing in God has led us to values such as Charity and helping others. I do not see how it is a mistake. you also question whether human treachery is the work of God. I agree with you that it isn't, but I disagree with you on the point that this leads to there being no God. And you questioned my logic. It is clearly shown in Genesis that God gave man free will, for if He created us to control us, this would go against all morals. It was because of man's free will that we have such traits. It is a viable argument to say that may Jesus the man was making things up. You know what, maybe he did, but this "made-up-religion" has led to so much good in the world, such as Charity, Education, the list continues. If the Church was so bad as you make it out to be, then why does it have so many missions? Man's free will can, notice CAN, choose evil, but many will NOT. This has led to so many advances. You also speak of the Church in general, so let me tell you this. When the Catholic Church became corrupt, the Lutherans split off and became their own religion in order to stay away from this corruption. Firstly, if they don't know wrong from right, then how did they know of corruption, and secondly, if they were so bad as you make them out to be and generalize them with other Churches, would they not have stayed and joined in on the corruption? Yes they would have, but the fact stands that they didn't.

To summarize, there is evidence of a living man named Jesus. Whether you choose to accept i is your decision, but many people's decision is to follow the Church, and this is not because of some scare tactic. This is because the Church does so much good in the World.

I advise my opponent to restrain the need to insult, and insulting IS wrong, and I once again thank my opponent for accepting this debate.


i am very sorry if it seemed like i was attacking you. i get angry debating some topics because im shocked and appalled at what they believe and why they believe it. you say artifacts prove there was a jesus. you dont explain how or havent provided proof or any evidence that he is the son of god and you also cant prove or show any evidence that there is a god. but i did get angry after reading your first post. i get angry that a person who thinks evidence means proof and church means catholic church thinks he has the smarts to debate me. you should no your irrational. and because you dont everyone around you (including animals) suffer greatly. its getting better with time but no thanks to religion and hasnt improved at all for animals. do you think any of our ancestors knew right from wrong? they all think they did. so how do you know your right? we cant all be right because we contradict each other on every precept. in what universe is that knowing right from wrong? but im supposed to believe that a perfect god is going to judge us for our wrong doings when he didnt first teach us right from wrong making him more deserving of punishment than anybody by far because he caused the evil by giving you the ability of it while not teaching you right from wrong making it inevitable. and then hes going to punish you for the evil he caused? you cant be good if you dont know what good is and religion teaches bad and a little bit of common sense so that people will see the common sense stuff and think wow this is profound (because they are lazy thinkers not knowing they could have figured it out on their own) the rest that i dont understand must be right too. lol and all our ancestors have done it giving our leaders everything they couuld ever want. the perfect society for their every desire. its hard not to get angry because i hate you. i dont think its your fault so i dont hate you in the same sense as you would hate me though. im not angry with you. im angry that i have to be a part of the universe and that i have to deal with people like you who submit to the will of god (our leaders) and screw life up for everyone around them. its not god and you have no proof or evidence. i know that. not know like you know your beliefs are right. i mean i literally know it aint god. god wouldnt make thousands of religions and billions of denominations and make you pick for salvation throwing all the losers in hell and that is what almost every religion implies. use your freaking noggin. as for your question is that not enough evidence no that is not enough evicence to believe that there is a god and a son of god and i already know about it and it doesnt support the claim that he is "jesus" (the son of god).

actually i think i can insult whoever i want as your people (christians) used to own people. now today your saying i cant even insult you for doing the same exact thing your slave owning ancestors did? f you i was going to start being nice. i said we should some christians values not all of them. sorry for the confusion.

and according to which church do you not have to be a christian in order to go to hell while the bible its founded on teaches that you must believe that jesus is the son of god admit you are a sinner and ask him for forgiveness for your sins. its that easy. murderers and rapists go free and good people go to hell because of a flawed yet "perfect" system? lol clearly underthought to say the least. you say how do i know you dont know right from wrong? your a christian with values consistent with the majority which is one of millions of majorities that all contradict all other majorities. thats how i know and i can say quite literally that being that case that im far over 99.99999 percent sure you dont know right from wrong. lol yes the church has changed. that means it was wrong before but still is believed to be right when its coming from the same book that gave them their last wrong views. if it is wrong now to own a slave or rape a woman it was wrong at any time in history. nothing has changed that would make this objective truth if it is such change. only lazy thinkers think objective morality changes with time. thats just something they need to believe to keep them from seeing the truth that we dont know right from wrong. when you punish a nazi for war crimes they dont know theyve done anything wrong. when you punish a christians for owning and raping slaves they think they have the right. come on. we are talking about views like every person of one race can rape anyone of another race or kill them or do anything to them. that was objective morality? i highly doubt it. our ancestors didnt know right from wrong clearly and thought they did so i dont expect to convince you that you dont know right from wrong but ill keep trying. you say you donate to charity and one other thing and used that as evidence that you know right from wrong? not hard to see why you think the little to no evidence supporting the desperate for evidence christian view point is conclusive. you know two precepts and you think thats enough to say you know right from wrong. funny. thanks for the laugh. lol hold on im still laughing at the fact that people like you think they are smart enough to know the nature morality and everything about god and judge him accurately. being that you have yet to make a single point im going to not read the rest of your pointless jibber jabber or drivel. because ive already won before i said anything because you prove one of my points and none of yours. lol this is pathetic. know your place. your stupid. learn that and life will be so much easier for everyone around you. why do we fight? because we always think we know right from wrong and are much smarter than we are while we dont and we arent and because of that we fight for wrong reasons. grow up. look around. and analyse.
Debate Round No. 2


rossila13 forfeited this round.


well my opponent has forfeited the round. i cant see anything else i need to refute that wont just come to you as common sense. this person seemed very educated but must be a very lazy thinker or have severe mental weaknesses that most certainly arent perfections btw. but i guess you religious people will believe anything. my opponent could not prove his points. he couldnt explain how the little of information he gave us on the evidence of jesus he was talking about is conclusive which i know he cant because that was not conclusive clearly. funny how a guy argues that there is conclusive evidence for something gives so little information that his argument even if true isnt conclusive evidence. so its obvious that what he calls conclusive evidence is not conclusive so why should any of you take his word that there is evidence when no church offers any evidence at all even if there is evidence. if there is evidence i imagine they would use it and anyone who goes to church should agree with me when i say that the christian god or the men who made him up control us by fear. they thought of the worst thing they could think of which is being burned alive and said youd burn for eternity. i guess i have nothing to say other than does it not seem to any rational person that the punishment is infinitely more than we deserve as it never ends and we do not deserve eternal torment for causing two seconds give or take of pain or none at all nor do we deserve to be punished for doing wrong when we didnt know right from wrong because god didnt teach us. most wrong doing is due to ignorance of the knowledge of right and wrong and is gods fault if he exists. how can we be good when god didnt teach us how to be good and when we are clearly not smart enough to figure it out on our own.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by steffon66 2 years ago
lol im an atheist. not a catholic
Posted by JMan1424 2 years ago
This debate is confusing me. Why are 2 non Catholics arguing about whether the Church is good or not?
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
>Reported vote: ThatChristianGuy// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Conduct, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro had abhorrent grammar. The lack of form present in his arguments are not appropriate for a formal debate.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) No explanation for Sources. (2) No explanation for Conduct and in fact, conduct was awarded to the side that forfeited. This requires further explanation. (3) Lack of specifics on S&G. It isn't enough to say that S&G was bad; voters need to explain why this poor S&G affected readability with examples of what the abhorrent grammar referred to was.
Posted by steffon66 2 years ago
i meant to proof read that and make a lot of changes but accidentally hit the submit button.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MarsUltor 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit