The Instigator
Chuwilliams
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
SitaraPorDios
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

The Reason why Christianity is Looked Down Upon...

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 3 votes the winner is...
Chuwilliams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,841 times Debate No: 37190
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Chuwilliams

Pro

As a Christian, it's odd for me to know that so many people deny the existence of God. I think that if Christians understood why Atheists didn't believe in God, we could convince them to believe. Therefore, I started this debate to present why I think Christianity is viewed as a non-realistic fairytale. Here are the rules

1. You must be a Christian to accept this debate.
2. You must disagree with my opinion.
3. You must present your opinion on why you think Christianity is looked down upon by Atheists.
4. There is no burden of proof, since this is an opinion debate. However, you must show the reasoning behind your opinions.

Rounds:
1st Round: Acceptance and a brief overview of your opinion.
2nd Round: An in-depth analysis of your opinion (and reasoning behind your opinion)
3rd round: Rebuttals and conclusion

My opinion:
I think Christianity is looked down upon by Atheists because too many Christians belief in God only because of faith. Atheists are very fact and logic oriented people. Since most Christians don't have proof for the existence of God or Jesus Christ, Atheists look at the idea of Christianity as a fairytale rather than a theory with potential to be true.

Good luck to my opponent!
SitaraPorDios

Con

I except this debate challenge and I am a Christian. I will give a brief overview of why I think Christianity is looked down upon. In short: it is the character and conduct of some Christians themselves. Too many Christians abuse, bully and sometimes commit atrocities. Have you heard of the Crusades? Also, many Christians preach so called holy hate like Westboro Baptist Church. Before Christians bother with other people's sins, they need to deal with their own sins. I used to bully in the name of religion, and that is my biggest regret. How many people have a turned away from Jesus? May God have mercy on me.
Debate Round No. 1
Chuwilliams

Pro

Hello, welcome to my debate.

Contention 1: Christians without knowledge

If you look at my first video, you will see what I'm talking about. Titled "Crazy Christian Nonsense", it is exactly that, NONSENSE! The highlights of this video include a woman claiming to be a "FOOL for Christ", a man that attempts to heal someone over the phone and fails (as well as making ridiculous screams), several politicians that make nonsense claims, and two men who use a banana to try to prove the existence of God. Simply put, those people are all religious whack jobs who know little to nothing about the truth of Christianity. These are the people that symbolize Christianity in out modern day world. Obviously, the theories and statements made in that video are not in any way tied to Christianity. However, Atheists look at that video and say "If that's what Christianity is all about, then I'm never going to be a Christian". In the long run, the people in that video turn people off to Christianity, which gives the Christian religion a black eye.

Contention 2: Personal Experience with Most Christians

The area I live in is a densely Christian area. After some personal encounters with these Christians, I can say that most of them know nothing about Christianity. One question I will always ask somebody who claims to be a Christian is " Can you proof that God exists". They tell me "No, I can't prove it, but there's proof out there. I just have faith". That statement is what makes Christianity look like a fairytale, because 99.9% of all Christians have no clear proof as to why God and Jesus Christ are real. Therefore, if Christians can't prove the Christian theories to be true, then no Atheists would be willing to convert.

Contention 3: Atheists' Opinions of Christians

My second video pokes fun at religion through comedy. The two actors in that skit is what most people of religion sound like in the perspective of Atheists. Atheists, as I've said before, are very fact and logic based people. When someone who is looking for proof of Christianity wants facts as to why God and Jesus Christ exist and they hear "The things in the Bible are true because the Bible says the Bible is true...", they don't buy into it. The fact is, most of the things said in the video sound like a fairytale. Atheists won't buy into it because they are looking for a logical explanation as to why they all are here.

In conclusion:

I have presented my argument as to why Christianity looks like a ridiculous religion because most Christians don't know what they're talking about. The more Christians continue this behavior, the more ridiculous the Christian religion will look. However, if Christians prove their religion is true factually and logically, then there will be a lot of Atheists who "see the light" and convert. I await my opponent's 2nd round argument.
SitaraPorDios

Con

You said: I think Christianity is looked down upon by Atheists because too many Christians belief in God only because of faith. Atheists are very fact and logic oriented people. Since most Christians don't have proof for the existence of God or Jesus Christ, Atheists look at the idea of Christianity as a fairytale rather than a theory with potential to be true.
Then you said something totally different. You are contradicting yourself. Either Christianity is looked down upon because of Christian conduct or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.
Debate Round No. 2
Chuwilliams

Pro

Rebuttal 1:

I did in fact defend my opening opinion in Round 1 based on what I said in Round 2.

"I think Christianity is looked down upon by Atheists because too many Christians belief in God only because of faith."

In my round 2 argument, I posted a link to a video called "Crazy Christian Nonsense", which depicted the average Christian TV personnel. In that video, there were Christians that believed in God only because of faith. Therefore, I covered the first sentence in my Round 2 argument.

"Atheists are very fact and logic oriented people. Since most Christians don't have proof for the existence of God or Jesus Christ, Atheists look at the idea of Christianity as a fairytale rather than a theory with potential to be true."

I explained that most Christians don't give proof of the existence of God and Jesus Christ in all three of my contentions. I also stated that Atheists are fact and logic oriented and since Christians don't give proof that Christianity is the superior religion (Which I did explain), Atheists refuse to buy into it.

Therefore, I covered everything I said I was going to cover in my opening opinion statement.

Rebuttal 2: My Opponent's Response

Your response did not fulfill the rules and regulations I set forth in my opening statement.

"2nd Round: An in-depth analysis of your opinion (and reasoning behind your opinion)"

2nd Round was strictly supposed to be you giving your opinion on this subject and reasoning behind you opinion. You were not supposed to respond to what I said, because rebuttals are for 3rd round only.

"3rd round: Rebuttals and conclusion"

Therefore, you did not do what you should've done in the 2nd round.

In conclusion:

My opponent has not fulfilled his requirements for his 2nd round argument due to the fact that he responded to me, which I said wasn't allowed. Likewise, 3rd round is only for rebuttals and a conclusion. Therefore, any argument he makes for his case in the 3rd round is invalid.

I have showed why his 2nd round argument is false by pointing out exactly where I said everything that he claimed I didn't say. I await my opponent's final round statement.
SitaraPorDios

Con

I am sorry for not debating right. I have a learning disability so it takes a while to memorize things. Please forgive if I come across rude. My request is that those voting vote for my opponant. He is right anyway and I misunderstood. I feel so dumb.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
I expect scientists to provide as much proof as they can for what they claim. If I find the evidence to be strong enough, I accept their claims. Can't say as I know much at all about dark matter/energy. Of course, those would be physical entities, whereas gravity isn't. I can, however, easily see the effects of gravity. I can even feel gravity acting upon my body at this very moment.

As for the historical accuracy of the bible, I don't consider that relevant to whether or not it's accurate about God. If history textbooks for school included statements that God does not exist, would their historical accuracy give that claim any weight? And Jesus' crucifixion does not mean he was resurrected. Perhaps he was, I honestly don't know, but frankly, the assertion that he did does not do much to sway my thoughts.

As for order, I do believe the laws of physics can account for what little order can be found in the world and universe beyond. That's the thing about "blind mechanics"; Everything behaves according to them, regardless of what thing each is. Think about it like this:

At a four way intersection, where each way has a stop sign, the person who has waited the longest has the right of way. As long as this principle is observed, traffic moves in an orderly fashion. If that principle isn't followed, order is lost, and someone will probably collide with someone else. So, when followed, the principle creates order, when not followed, order is gone. For "blind mechanics", that everything must follow, what else can be expected besides order?
Posted by simpleman 3 years ago
simpleman
With all the weight of evidence regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible and the crucifixion of Christ following His ministry, are you certain that God has indeed left us in the dark? Do you ask the same proof to be made of physicists regarding unseen physical entities like dark matter, dark energy, or for that matter gravity, since only it's effects may be seen?
Perhaps you should inspect upon the logic of the order of things and ask yourself if blind mechanical principles can account for the rational order we see displayed more and more as we discover more of the world and universe?
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
Fair enough, but I don't believe there is a perfect God to worship. You say, "Even God makes his own glory his highest prerogative, because to not do so would be a lie, which would forfeit His perfection."

The problem is, God does not make his glory his highest prerogative. If he did, he would most certainly make himself known to us, leaving no doubt of his existence. An informed choice is a rational decision. An uninformed choice is nothing more than a guess. Personally, I could not truly commit to a guess. Doubt would always accompany it. And so I am incapable of truly worshipping God. An all knowing God would know that he would have to show himself to me for me to even have the choice of worship. And if glory were his highest prerogative, he would do so. He does not, and so his perfection is forfeited as you say.
Posted by simpleman 3 years ago
simpleman
In response to the question of why a perfect being would require worship of it's creation, I would posit that it is the only logical response to what is viewed as superior or perfect. But in the subject of a perfect being in the context of God, it is a transcendent perfection that assumes totality in it's scope. To worship that which is most good and most perfect is the only response which can be justified by truth, elsewise the lack of worship would be denying the assumption of the subject's worth. Even God makes his own glory his highest prerogative, because to not do so would be a lie, which would forfeit His perfection.
Posted by Chuwilliams 3 years ago
Chuwilliams
I posted my response in the forums. It's titled "Response to other Debate.org User's Questions". If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
Posted by Chuwilliams 3 years ago
Chuwilliams
Very well. I'll just give you the answers that I have for your questions. However, my response is well over 2000 characters, which is the limit for comments. So, I'll post it somewhere else on this site and let you know when I get it on.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
I generally prefer discussion over debate when it comes to religion, but I'll debate you if you'd like, depending on what you want for a resolution.
Posted by Chuwilliams 3 years ago
Chuwilliams
Your answers make a little sense. However, I do have answers for all of your questions. I have a proposal for you. We should make this an official debate. If you want to debate me about this, just let me know. Otherwise, I'll just answer your questions on here.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
I would love to hear some actual, reasonable answers to those questions from a religious perspective. But first, I'll give you the reasoning for why I answer them with "It wouldn't".

"Why would a perfect being require worship from its creations?"

This one I really don't get. I'm sure such a being would accept worship from those who want to give it, but many religions claim that if you don't you will suffer eternal damnation, which makes absolutely no sense. We are free thinking and generally rational creatures. If we were created by a God, then these traits were not accidental. And so, by requiring worship, God would be spitting in the face of our very nature, a nature God created in the first place.

"Why would a perfect being remain illusive to its creations?"

This also seems strange to me, especially when put alongside the previous question. By itself, there are probably many answers. But if God were to make its presence truly known, then the first question, the requirement of worship, would be a reasonable demand. As it stands, it is not.

"Why would a perfect being allow its creations to suffer?"

As for this, I understand the need for death, as balance is important in just about everything. But for a God, suffering would be an unnecessary part of that equation. Suffering brought upon a creature through its own or another creatures actions may be unavoidable in giving free will. But suffering from natural causes should not be needed.

Many times, I've heard that last one answered by talk of a divine plan, but that makes no sense either. If God knows what's going to happen, then we don't actually have free will. But many religions, including Christianity (as far as I know), claim that we do have free will.

Personally, I don't think we truly have free will, but my reasoning there has nothing to do with religion, so I'll leave that reasoning out, unless you want to hear it.
Posted by Chuwilliams 3 years ago
Chuwilliams
Nice analysis, mrsatan.

"Why would a perfect being require worship from its creations?
Why would a perfect being remain illusive to its creations?
Why would a perfect being allow its creations to suffer?

I could ask more, but I'm sure you get the gist. I have never heard a good answer to any of these questions. The closest would be along the lines of, "It's all a part of Gods divine plan" or "The Lord works in mysterious ways". But those are not answers. Those are evasions of the questions."

This is basically what I'm trying to say. People who claim to be Christians but don't know the answer to your questions, in my opinion, is why Christianity looks bad (at least with most non-Christians, some dislike Christianity for other reasons)

You are right, though. I should get opinions of Atheists to better comprehend why Christianity and other religions seem like fairytales in their eyes. Thanks for the comment man.

By the way, if you want me to answer your questions at any time, feel free to let me know.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
ChuwilliamsSitaraPorDiosTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't debate and just asserted that Pro had changed his opinion even though he hadn't. Pro presented actual arguments and is the clear winner here.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 3 years ago
Mrparkers
ChuwilliamsSitaraPorDiosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
ChuwilliamsSitaraPorDiosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: I think both Pros arguments were weak. Con also apologized for not understanding the topic while having some grammar errors. Thus tie by my vote.