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

The Most Prolific Purveyor of Human Misery in History: The Insidious Evil of Christianity

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,829 times Debate No: 67553
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (43)
Votes (0)




Resolution: Misery is a state of being, and no other single institution, nation or regime can match the totality of physical suffering, psychological damage and destruction of life caused directly or indirectly by Christianity.

Pro will argue in support of the resolution.

Con will argue against the resolution.

There are no restrictions placed on either debater as to methodology, other than staying within the parameters of the resolution. Claims of 'good works' are not relevant to this debate ... i.e. tying a man to a stake and burning him alive is not balanced out by providing a meal for 50 people.

Round 1. is acceptance.

Rounds 2, 3, are unrestricted other than noted above.

Round 4. final rebuttal/close.


I accept! Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Kind of you to take on this challenge.

It has always been the practice of the religious to blame bad behavior on the people involved ... never on the tenets of the religion. Understandable, of course. I apologise in advance, for words will offend but are unavoidable, being central to the argument. I am not attacking you personally, but in practical terms, it's a distinction without a difference.

Presumably we can stipulate to a few tenets of the faith. If not I will include the appropriate scriptures next round.

The majority of Christians/Catholics in the US believe you either serve God or you serve Satan, and if so you are possessed and/or controlled by evil spirits. Demons. [1] And by definition an enemy of God and Christians.

They also believe they are God's chosen, and have been granted domain over all living things 'not' Christian. Some Christians count Muslims and Jews among the chosen. All that exists is God's Creation to do with as He sees fit, and until He returns Christians (again, not all) believe they have a duty to carry out God's wishes.

It is worth noting that atheists are particularly despised by a significant (41) percentage of Christians in America. [2] It is also worth noting that at least some self-described atheists are not atheists. Fully 8% of atheists are certain God exists, and 13% are less certain. [3] Perhaps they think atheism is an obscure Christian sect.

Should Christian animosity matter to atheists and other non Christians? Yes. I took an informal poll yesterday of those who self-identify as Christian/Catholic. Anyone can repeat this, although it's a little tedious. Not surprisingly, the numbers matched very well with national polls. [4] Very disturbing numbers coming from members of DDO. Only 28% of Catholics reject torture. Mainstream Christians were even worse. 19%. Yes, I checked and was particularly disheartened to discover only 46% of the Atheists rejected torture. Looking at other criteria though, it is clear to me that at least a few were pseudo-atheists. I polled 100 Christians in a row and 50 each Catholic and Atheist, if you are curious.

How could so many Christians be willing to do this? They are the enemy. Evil. The Bible says so. They deserve no pity, no compassion. Their very existence is an affront to their God. How could they have ever come to believe this? The answer is the insidious evil. I will get to it.

The real Atheists? There could be many causes, but it's safe to assume many used to identify as Christian, and for those I have a reasonable explanation which I will cover later. Further, there is a critical difference. By definition, they do not perceive Christians as being possessed by evil spirits. They don't perceive them as being less than human. They don't believe a god granted them special ruling status over the Christians. And they are not under a mandate to rid the earth of them.

I have claimed no single institution has caused as much misery as Christianity. Misery comes in many forms, of course. But let's deal the obvious first: The body count. Christians insist theirs is the religion of love. Nothing that has been done in the name of the Christian God compares to horrors inflicted upon humanity by Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and others.

According to them, they have always been opposed to torture, and capitol punishment. On the Inquisitions ...

In short, no blame attaches to the Church for her behavior towards heresy in those rude days. Among all the bishops of the period, so far as can be ascertained, Theodwin of Liège, successor of the aforesaid Wazo and predecessor of Adalbero II, alone appealed to the civil power for the punishment ofheretics, and even he did not call for the death penalty, which was rejected by all. who were more highly respected in the twelfth century than Peter Canter, the most learned man of his time, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux? The former says ("Verbum abbreviatum", c. lxxviii, in P.L., CCV, 231):

Most of the punishments that were properly speaking inquisitional were not inhuman, either by their nature or by the manner of their infliction. Most frequently certain good works were ordered, e.g. the building of a church, the visitation of a church, a pilgrimage more or less distant, the offering of acandle or a chalice, participation in a crusade, and the like. Other works partook more of the character of real and to some extent degrading punishments, e.g. fines, whose proceeds were devoted to such public purposes as church-building, road-making, and the like; whipping with rods during religious service; the pillory; the wearing of coloured crosses, and so on.

The hardest penalties were imprisonment in its various degrees, exclusion from the communion of the Church, and the usually consequent surrender to the civil power. "Cum ecclesia" ran the regular expression, "ultra non habeat quod faciat pro suis demeritis contra ipsum, idcirco, eundum reliquimus brachio et iudicio saeculari" — i.e. since the Church can no farther punish his misdeeds, she leaves him to the civil authority.

On the whole, the Inquisition was humanely conducted. Thus we read that a son obtained his father's release by merely asking for it, without putting forward any special reasons. Licence to leave risen for three weeks, three months, or an unlimited period — say until the recovery or decease of sick parents— was not infrequent. Rome itself censured inquisitioners or deposed them because they were too harsh, but never because they mere too merciful. [5]

I do not expect you to accept an atheist's research on this matter, and I couldn't find a Catholic, but perhaps we can compromise with a Christian from a very prestigious university who seems to value his reputation.


David A. Plaisted

One can excuse a few thousand cases as exceptional, but millions and millions of victims can only be the result of a systematic policy, thereby showing the harmful results of church-state unions.

In this study I have attempted, with some success, to penetrate the veil of obscurity that surrounds the Middle Ages in order to determine the true history of this period.

In order to consider this subject, it is necessary to recall many unpleasant events. The dreadful totals, computations, and examples that follow, one after another, are not for the faint hearted. These atrocities should convince us not so much of the evils of a particular religious system as of the depravity of the sinful human heart, and lead us to turn to Christ for repentance and salvation that we might have new hearts and be cleansed from sin.

Is the Church credible?

Let's look at another comparison. Excerpts from the church's version of the Cathari ... [7]

About 1110 some heretics, probably Cathari, and among them two priests, appeared at Trier, but do not seem to have been subjected to any penalty. Some years later (c. 1143)Cathari were discovered at Cologne. During the trial they were, against the will of the judges, carried off by the people and burned.

In 1163 the Rhenish city witnessed another execution, and a similar scene was almost simultaneously enacted at Bonn. Other districts, Bavaria, Suabia, andSwitzerland, were infected, but the heresy did not gain a firm foothold. It disappeared almost completely in the thirteenth century.

The Cathari, 40,000 in number, left Bosnia and passed into Herzegovina (1446). The heresy disappeared only after the conquest of these provinces.

The Catharist system was a simultaneous attack on the CatholicChurch and the then existing State. The Church was directly assailed in its doctrine and hierarchy. But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race.

From Wiki ...

Arnaud-Amaury, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His reply, recalled by Caesar of Heisterbach "—"Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own."The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed.

(He) wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."The permanent population of Béziers at that time was then probably no more than 5,000, but local refugees seeking shelter within the city walls could conceivably have increased the number to 20,000. [8]

From New World Encyclopedia ...

The Albigensian Crusade, or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229), was a twenty year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the heresy of theCathars of Languedoc. An estimated one million people died during the crusade. [9]

To answer the question, no. According to them, the Christians were perfectly justified in their actions, but really it was the secular authorities that were to blame for the vast majority of deaths. But there really weren't all that many.

As the Church says ... They are blameless.

Just in the time frame of Dr. Plaisted's book, not even looking at ongoing violence in places like Ireland, North America, and numerous other places, the death toll alone could easily be in excess of 150 million.












First I would like to apologize as I usually do not log on to on the weekends as I do not have much time to do so. As such this will be not as well thought out or thourough as I would like.

Part 1: Burden of Proof.

A: The following is taken from the New Member Orientation.

"The burden of proof

Be aware that there are least four theories as to who has the burden of proof:

1. Whoever is Pro.
2. Whoever instigated the debate.
3. Whoever wants a change in the status quo.
4. There is no burden of proof. Whoever makes the better argument wins.

"Often 1, 2, and 3 are the same person, but not always.. 4 is usually only favored by novice debaters. Sometimes a debater calls himself Con, but is clearly the proponent of the resolution."(1)

In this debate Pro meets the criteria of 1 and 2. It behooves my opponent to recognize that he holds the burden of proof.

B: The resolution reads “Misery is a state of being, and no other single institution, nation or regime can match the totality of physical suffering, psychological damage and destruction of life caused directly or indirectly by Christianity.”

Misery: Pro seems to have defined misery as “physical suffering, psychological damage and destruction of life.”

Pro must fill the burden of proof demanded by the resolution. This burden includes

1: Showing that Christianity causes misery as he defined it.
2: That Christianity has done so more than any single institution, nation or regime.

If Pro does not meet this burden the resolution falls. This is a huge burden of proof to fill.

I apologize but this is all the time I have. I will respond to my opponents round 2 and three next round as I am out of time. Thanks for you patience.

Debate Round No. 2


Pywakit forfeited this round.


As I rushed round two having not really addressing Pro's arguements, and as he has forfieted a round, I suggest that we null this debate. Perhaps we could try again in a few days when the New year is passed and time is less pressing? Let me know if this is reasonable to you.
Debate Round No. 3


ok. I figured this out.

I will post a quick note. I am a stupid noob, and I screwed this up. kasmic and I are going to start same debate over . don't bother voting.

you do the same right after. then it should g0o straight to vote and I will repost what i had here on new . ist round only, then you can redo your first round since you couldn't do it justice.


Please dont vote, we are going to redo this debate....
Debate Round No. 4
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
Wow. 5 seconds to late. Shouldn't have checked the spelling. Lol.
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
@ Reformed

You are probably right. Thankfully, I am not one of those who hate it. I do perceive it as a serious problem, of course.

You have it backwards. Christians hate me. I reject their god. I don't hate them. They can't help the way they think.
Posted by ReformedPresbyterian72598 2 years ago
Perhaps it is not Christianity, but those who hate it who cause suffering. Ever thought of it that way? Those who are against Christianity are those who, in any way, pervert it's truth.
Posted by Rubikx 2 years ago
Yes I realize that. Same with my unicorn theory. but the point remains the same.
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
That is not my personal belief Rubikx. It was a hypothetical situation based on Christian dogma.
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
I will try not to abuse that ...
Posted by Rubikx 2 years ago

I was referring to this
"My 'belief' is that you either serve God or you serve Satan. Since you clearly reject God, you must serve Satan. This means you are possessed by evil spirits. Demons. Your very existence is an insult to my God. I also believe as one of God's chosen, God granted me (and those who believe as I do) domain over all things ... including you. Technically, according to my beliefs, you are the property of God who can do whatever He wants to with you. But since He isn't here right now, and I have domain over you at the moment (until He returns) I intend to kill you and send you to Hell where you belong. Well, I would, except that it's illegal at the moment. But once we get these laws changed back where your existence is a Capitol Offense, then you are going to wish you had not rejected God."

Not to your debate. Sorry for the confusion. I realize there is tons of evidence to argue that christianity is evil (just as there is evidence to say its not evil). I was saying your previous comment had no evidence. just as my unicorn theory has no evidence.
Posted by Beagle_hugs 2 years ago
So..."directly or indirectly" is a little...subject to abuse.
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
join away then
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
I am still willing!
No votes have been placed for this debate.