The Instigator
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Ste93
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points

There's as much evidence that Wotan and Lord Krishna exist as there is that Yahweh exists

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,832 times Debate No: 13580
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (7)

 

vardas0antras

Con

My opponent may begin first but before he does I should mention that Yahweh is the Christian God.
Ste93

Pro

Just to clarify, Wotan is the supreme god of Germanic and Norse mythology (analogous to Zeus in ancient Greece. Some people believed Wotan and Zeus to be the same god). Lord Krishna is (believed by Hindu's to be) the 8th incarnation of Vishnu. Lord Krishna is the embodiment of love and joy and the destroyer of pain and sin.

I am arguing that the Christian god in particular (not god in general) is no more likely to exist than Wotan or Lord Krishna (at least in the superhuman state that is claimed).

Ok, let's start with Wotan. What evidence do we have that Wotan exists? I think we can be certain that no one alive today has ever met Wotan. Here are some of things that Wotan is responsible for:

1. Along with his brothers, Wotan slayed the Giant Ymir, then subsequently made the Earth out of Ymir's flesh. There is no evidence that this event occurred, it contradicts an incredible amount of scientific evidence for how the earth was formed. It contradicts the laws of physics. I think anyone who believes this did indeed happen would struggle to justify it.

2. Wotan and his brothers then found 2 logs. Together, they gave the logs breath and life and brains and hearing and sight etc; the logs became the first humans. There is no evidence that this event occurred and contradicts the overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution. Once again, believing this to be true would be difficult to justify.

I could give more examples, but I think you get the idea. From the evidence we have, concluding that Wotan exists (or existed) would be highly irrational. We have no evidence that Wotan exists and solid scientific evidence contradicts things that he apparently did. The only rational conclusion is that it is extremely unlikely that Wotan exists.

Now, Lord Krishna. He is believed to be the manifestation of god in human form (for which no evidence has been presented). The 'proof' that he exists can be found in scripture; this does not constitute evidence. Any scripture can assert anything, they don't present any evidence for the claims they assert. Given the evidence available, the existence of Lord Krishna as a person (and more importantly, as a divine being) cannot be claimed with any reasonable certainty. My main point on Krishna is that if he did exist (which there is only anecdotal evidence) we would struggle to justify claiming him to be divine, due to the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of this.

Finally, Yahweh. What evidence do we have that Yahweh exists? The Bible? Does this inconsistent, self-contradicting article constitute valid evidence? What the Bible does is assert that Yahweh exists, nowhere in the Bible is there any evidence of this claim. Furthermore, the pathetic and sometimes outright evil actions of this god do not do his credibility any favours. The almighty creator of the universe, the most perfect being imaginable, thinks it is so vitally important that no-one is jealous of their neighbours or (heaven forbid) works on the Sabbath, that he felt the need to personally write it out in stone (one can't help wondering why Yahweh would not use more sophisticated means of writing, but that would be digressing). The almighty, perfect god decides to create gay people and then order them to be killed. He decides to create people and allows them to be enslaved. Women and girls being brutally raped does not seem to concern him. I have many, many more examples of how Yahweh is morally abhorrent and how people's views of him contradict the Bible, which I will happily discuss on request.

This, of course, does not prove that Yahweh does not exist. It shows that if he does, he is an extremely vile character (and I can't help wondering why he doesn't come down with a tablet of stone and order all atheists to be pillaged). When you look at the people of authority at the time, the Bible becomes terribly contrived. Because of what god (apparently) said, the rich men who ruled over the people, could be rich and have as many women and slaves as they desired. I find it hard to believe that the almighty creator of everything would behave in such a shallow manner (although this doesn't prove he doesn't exist). The point here is that the Bible is very convenient for the people in charge at the time.

Also note that Yahweh has seized to make appearances on Earth (at least to any credible person). All Yahweh needs to do is make an appearance, which he was not afraid to do back in the time of Moses. Why would he not do this?

Taking all of this into consideration, what reason can we find to believe that Yahweh did indeed exist? There is absolutely zero tangible evidence that he existed. Powers he gave to individuals (such as Moses) resulted in phenomena such as magically parting water, which contradicts the laws of physics and is therefore not credible. The actions of the supposed almighty being are abhorrent to us mere humans, which is not very credible. We should expect that a being capable of creating a universe and all of the infinite complexity of it, would be more enlightened than one of his creations.

So, conclusively, there is no evidence and no reasoning that leads to the existence of Yahweh being any more likely than the existence of Wotan or Lord Krishna (at least in his supernatural form).
Debate Round No. 1
vardas0antras

Con

First Id like to thank my opponent for doing my work by proving that Wotan and Lord Krishna are unlikely deities.

The Yahweh case:

"Does this inconsistent, self-contradicting article constitute valid evidence?"

1)"inconsistent, self-contradicting" This is a pure assertion which is rejected by 2.1 billion Christians in the world (about (one third of the total population of the planet). I advise you to show me one contradiction, the ultimate or the biggest contradiction there is. If this contradiction is untrue then how likely is it that all your "contradictions" are also pure assertions?
2)"article" That's an incorrect word. The Bible is a collection of books (Written over a period of 1500 years,over 40 generations,over 40 authors from many walks of life). Furthermore the Bible may contain the books of Apocrypha but since its only an addition I wont defend it.
3)A bible contradiction is not a mistranslation furthermore please do not add an extra contradiction even if the previous one is refuted. For convenience please use KJV.
Moreover use common sense before you claim that something is a contradiction. The aim of this is to save time because after that one contradiction I have proved my point.

Is Yahweh an evil,cruel and an unrighteous God:

1)Please provide references for me to refute (Preferably one because of the same reasons I've just provided). I only request that you don't make this an gratuitous evil argument. I recently had this argument and what you have presented so far has nothing to do with gratuitous evil therefore I think we can all agree that this argument is uncalled for.

Is Yahweh hiding?

1)Your argument was one which requests explanation and the only way it works is if I cant give an explanation.
2)God has already spoken, and His words have been miraculously kept for us down through the ages. Now we have the full "Word".We need nothing more, and we are not to seek extra-biblical revelations. To do so calls into question the efficacy of Scripture which God has declared to be sufficient.
3)God does not give His people a continual chain of miraculous signs. He expects them to trust what He has already done, search the Scriptures daily, respond to the Holy Spirit within, and live by faith, not by sight (Matthew 16:4; John 20:29). When a Christian says "not by sight" he means that we're not to believe because there are no other options.
4)Let us remember that even in those times when it seems that God is doing nothing, He is still the sovereign Lord of all creation, and He is constantly at work, bringing about the fruition of His perfect plan. One of the best examples of God's "hidden" working is the book of Esther, in which God is never mentioned, but which plainly shows His sovereign hand at work from beginning to end.
5)Although miracles and God revealing himself may seem like an everyday event in the Bible, the truth is that in those days miracles seemed to be as rare as they are today. For example Jesus didn't perform a miracle until he was 30 and he stayed on earth for about 3 years and if one stretches the miracles of Jesus to 3 years, one can see that while it was an extraordinary time, miracles were not an everyday occurrence.

Just pure assertion:

"We should expect that a being capable of creating a universe and all of the infinite complexity of it, would be more enlightened than one of his creations."

Indeed you are brighter than God and a third of worlds population (me included).

My Evidence:

1.The Resurrection

One:To begin with, we have demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony. Early Christian apologists cited hundreds of eyewitnesses, some of whom documented their own alleged experiences. Many of these eyewitnesses willfully and resolutely endured prolonged torture and death rather than repudiate their testimony(In some cases the same was with their family). This fact attests to their sincerity, ruling out deception on their part. According to the historical record (The Book of Acts 4:1-17; Pliny's Letters to Trajan X, 96, etc) most Christians could end their suffering simply by renouncing the faith. Instead, it seems that most opted to endure the suffering and proclaim Christ's resurrection unto death. Please remember they knew and not believed whatever or not Jesus resurrected.

Two:Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem. It would have been impossible for faith in His resurrection to take root in Jerusalem while His body was still in the tomb where the Sanhedrin could exhume it, put it on public display, and thereby expose the hoax. Instead, the Sanhedrin accused the disciples of stealing the body, apparently in an effort to explain its disappearance (and therefore an empty tomb).

Three:Another evidence is the first generation of Christians were absolutely brutalized, especially following the conflagration in Rome in A.D. 64 (a fire which Nero allegedly ordered to make room for the expansion of his palace, but which he blamed on the Christians in Rome in an effort to exculpate himself). As the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recounted in his Annals of Imperial Rome (published just a generation after the fire) in The Annal, XV, 44

Four:Four:For the sake of space Ill say that I also approve the first five points made by the Bible-Defender in the first round:http://www.debate.org......

My opponent must prove to me that there's as much evidence for Wotan and Lord Krishna as there is for Jesus. I advise my opponent to deal with the resurrection first because if not dealt properly I win even if hypothetically your arguments are correct.
Ste93

Pro

My opponent has argued that the fact that 2.1 billion Christians believe something (that I am wrong to declare the Bible to be self-contradicting) is evidence that what they believe is true. This is a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad numerum: asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is to be correct.

I have been requested to point out a contradiction in the Bible. Matthew traces the descendants of from David to Jesus via 28 generations. The following is taken from the King James version of the Bible, as requested by my opponent:

Matthew 1
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

In the Gospel of Luke, he traces the descendants from David to Jesus via 41 generations. The following is also taken from the KJV Bible:

Luke 3
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

I you studies these, you will see that there is hardly any overlap. My point is proved.

I also described the Bible as being inconsistent, so I will justify this. Mary and Joseph have to be in Bethlehem to meet the Old Testament prophesy: (Micah 5: 2) 'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.' In the Gospel of Luke, he gives a reason why Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem:

Luke 2
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

The census mentioned above is indeed confirmed by independent historical documents. However, the census occurred in 6 AD, which is too late. Furthermore, why would Joseph be required to return to Bethlehem because a remote ancestor (David) lived there 1000 years previously? This shows that the Gospel of Luke is inconsistent, because the excuse he gave for Mary and Joseph travelling to Bethlehem is incorrect and shows signs of being contrived.

I apologise for my use of the word 'article,' this was inaccurate.

I have also been requested to justify my claim that Yahweh is an evil, cruel and unrighteous god. My opponent does not agree with the comments I posted in the debate 'does the Christian god exist?' Readers may wish to decide the validity of these for themselves. I struggle to understand how he does not see rape and murder at 'gratuitous evil.' In any case, god claims that he does indeed create evil in Isiah 45:7 - 'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.' I could quote many immoral passages from the Bible, but if my opponent cannot see my quotes on rape and murder as evil, then I can't really go much further. Readers should decide this for themselves.

Is Yahweh hiding?

My opponent has said that god has already spoked and his full 'Word' is in the Bible. He is asserting that the Bible is the word of god without providing any evidence. I suggest he does this for this assertion to have any credibility.

My opponent has also suggested that god expects people to live by faith, not by sight. This is also based on the assumption that the Bible is accurate. Furthermore, how are people who have had no access to the Bible supposed to have faith in something they know not of? Are you saying that god would condemn them to hell?

My statement "We should expect that a being capable of creating a universe and all of the infinite complexity of it, would be more enlightened than one of his creations," is accused of being an assertion, whereas it is infact an inference; I shall explain. You believe that god created the universe. The universe is very complicated; we have discovered many complexities in the universe, such as gravity and quantum theory. God must also have set all of the scientific constants to extreme degrees of accuracy. All of this suggests that god is intelligent. Since no human can even understand all of this, god is therefore more intelligent than humans. His moral views in the bible are, however, less enlightened than our own, suggesting god in not intelligent. Ergo, the biblical account of god's word leads to a contradiciton, that god is both intelligent and unintelligent.

With respect to the resurrection, my opponent claims "we have demonstrable sincere eyewitness testimony." I ask him then to demonstrate this. He uses the Bible to confirm that Christians suffered rather than renounce their faith. Once again, I request evidence that the Bible is accurate. Moreover, the fact that Christians would rather suffer and die then renounce their faith is not evidence that their faith is correct, only that they think it is. I don't doubt their sincerity (assuming the biblical account is accurate).

Other than the Bible (which has not been shown to be accurate, and I have shown to be inconsistent) there is absolutely no evidence of the resurrection. Also, the resurrection contradicts the laws of physics and biology. They have never before been contradicted and so this has little credibility.

I have now run out of space, but I shall continue to answer my opponents questions in round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
vardas0antras

Con

Argument ad numerum

The sharp people who have been reading this debate have probably already noticed that I made no such argument.
I said:
"This is a pure assertion which is rejected by 2.1 billion Christians in the world"
He says that I said:
"asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is to be correct."

My point was that hes assertion is completely ridiculous by itself. The only way one could interpret my point the way my opponent has, is if my opponent had backed up his assertion which he at that point didn't.

Bible contradictions

a)"Matthew traces the descendants of from David to Jesus via 28 generations."
b)"In the Gospel of Luke, he traces the descendants from David to Jesus via 41 generations."

First, it is not uncommon for the generations in one line of descent to increase more rapidly than in another. Second, and more important, in Jewish thinking son might mean "grandson," or, even more generally, "descendant" (as "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham," Matt. 1:1).Similarly, begat (rendered by the patter "'X' [was] the father of'Y'" in the New International Version, Matt. 1:2-16) does not necessarily mean "was the actual (that is, immediate) father of" but instead may simply indicate real descent.

Just the fact that Matthew casts his list in the form of three groups of fourteen generations suggests this was a convenient though arbitrary arrangement from which some generations may have been omitted. In fact, it can be shown that Matthew's list has omissions (cf. 2Kings 8:24; 1 Chron. 3:11; 2 Chron. 22:1,11; 24:27; 2 Kings 23:34;
24:6). Omission of generations in biblical genealogies is not unique to this case, and Jews are known to have done it freely. The purpose of a genealogy was not to account for every generation,but to establish the fact of an undoubted succession, including especially the more prominent ancestors.

Websites to visit (which probably have extra arguments I approve of):
http://www.bcbsr.com...
http://www.lifeofchrist.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Please elaborate and explain more clearly your "inconsistency" argument because I'm a bit confused. Sorry about that, if there were less rounds left I wouldn't have done this but for the sake of convenience and time I decided to ask.

Is God evil

You said in the comment section:
"Genesis 19: 7-8 - 'I pray you brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out onto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof'
This is highly misogynistic and is condoning rape. You believe the almighty creator of the universe would personally write this? Imagine if this was preached in churches!"

Rebuttal:
Genesis 19 is indeed preached in churches and here is commentary written down:

The wickedness and depravity of the men of Sodom.(Edit:This is the title)

Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof." And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door.(Edit:This is what they first read)

(Edit:Below you can see the points the priest shall cover)
a. Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us: These citizens of Sodom clearly came to homosexually abuse and rape these two visitors. That is a shocking demonstration of depravity, but we are just as shocked at the willingness of Lot to give up his daughters to the mob as we are at the sinful desire of the mob itself.

b. I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish: The offer is horrible and cannot be justified. We understand it a little more when we consider the low place of women in the pre-Christian world and the very high place of any guest in your home. It was understood a guest was to be protected more than your own family.(Edit: Spread the Word !!!!!!)

c. That we may know them carnally: The sin of the men of Sodom is plainly connected to their homosexuality. There is no doubt the Bible declares homosexual conduct is sin (Romans 1:26-28).

I think its clear that my opponent has never read the Bible nor does he understand what the Bible is hence he thinks that God approved rape, now that you have read what was actually said by the Bible please don't go to Atheist websites and assume that what they say is true instead consider Christianity I'm not asking for conversion but that you would start to hear the Christian opinion. When I said that "you just don't get it", I was joking about your obvious ignorance also I don't believe in the Quaran but Ill never support the arguments you made there against it.Finally the Isaiah quote has nothing to do with God creating evil (evil is the absence of God) but the point is that there are not two gods or forces in heaven, one good and one bad, as in a dualistic "yin and yang" sense. "Cyrus was a Persian, and Persian had a dualistic concept of God and th world. Their good god they called Ahura-mazda and the evil god Angra-mainya. The former had created the light, the second the darkness. While this is irrelevant I think that I should make your scriptural knowledge obvious. You were honest about your mistake of calling the bible an article. I hope you will also admit that you obviously didn't bother to verify your arguments using the Bible and Christian websites.

Is Yahweh hiding ?
You argument was one which only required an explanation because it involved the mind of God. It would be valid if:
1.I couldn't think of a response
2.Bible contains contradictions
3.My argument contradicts other statements in the Bible

"people who have had no access to the Bible supposed to have faith in something they know not of?" This is a different argument though similar. So I don't have to answer this but I'll give you a link nevertheless:
http://www.godandscience.org...

The Resurrection
"Moreover, the fact that Christians would rather suffer and die then renounce their faith is not evidence that their faith is correct, only that they think it is." They knew whatever or not they saw Jesus hence they knew whatever or not their suffering is vain or not.

I already mentioned two non biblical sources "Pliny's Letters to Trajan X, 96" and " The Annal, XV, 44"

He didn't even scratch the surface of what I've already presented (for example the empty tomb) but he said he'll continue on round 3 and I'm fine with that.

I feel a great need to remind you that this is not whatever or not Atheism is more likely than Christianity but this debate is about Wotan and Lord Krishna being as likely as Yahweh. Furthermore I would like to remind you that I have presented only one argument which isn't enough hence I'll present another one. I ask you to find something as believable as the resurrection (concerning the proof of Krishna and Wotan) and if you don't I win, funnily enough I would still win if you proved the Bible as inconsistent but couldn't give good evidence for Krishna and Wot
Ste93

Pro

Regarding my claim of my opponent's logical fallacy: We are, here, having a debate. Points that are made should provide reasoning for a particular claim. Why then, did he bother to make the completely irrelevant point about how many Christians exist? If he was using it against my argument that the Bible is self-contradicting, then he has committed this fallacy. He said my claim is rejected by 2.1 billion Christians, well I ask then, what is the significance of this if it is not to support your view that my claim is incorrect? If he has not used this statistic against my claim, then he is causing ambiguity by making irrelevant points.

The reader should also note that my opponent has still made no attempt to prove that the Bible is valid; he is assuming the Bible is valid, therefore every point he has made using Biblical quotes is invalid unless he can show that the Bible is valid.

Regarding my claim of the contradiction I pointed out, my opponent has asserted an explanation. I would first like to challenge his 'evidence' of the omissions from Matthew's list. These omissions are based on Bible verses, which he has not shown to be valid. Indeed, this omission suggests inconsistency and causes ambiguity. Because this debate is not about the consistency of the Bible, I shall not continue this argument. If you look at the two lists, the descendants are not even in the same order, so even if there is not a direct lineage of descendants, the lists remain mutually exclusive.

My opponent has asked me to clarify the inconsistency I claimed in the book of Luke. Jesus, according to independent evidence, was born between 5BC and 3AD. So, according to Luke, the censor I mentioned must have taken place during this time (as this this is claimed to be the reason that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem). Independent evidence shows that this census was only a local census, and took place in 6AD, which is after Jesus was born. This therefore cannot be the reason that Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem and so this account in the book of Luke is false and the Bible is therefore inconsistent.

Now, my claims about the immorality of the Bible. My opponent has, in a nutshell, suggested that this was the way things were in those times (i.e. the inequality of women), which I agree with. Since the Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of god, why would he use these abhorrent examples of morality in his perfect book? Why does it take mere humans to decide that women have feelings too? In any case, men are taking priority over women. This no longer happens? Why not? Because of feminism, more generally, because of secularism. Because the low status of women is condoned in the Bible, Christians have treated women unequally for many centuries (i.e. witch burning, women not being allowed to be bishops). The Bible is still the same as it always has been. Shouldn't you then be promoting the inequality of women, as it is in your holy book? Women are now treated equally in spite of what the Bible says.

My opponent is then pleading with me not to visit atheist websites but consider the Christian view. This is clearly biased. I take a more objective view and advise that everyone interested in the Christian vs Atheist debates, to visit both Christian and Atheist websites and then draw conclusions.

"I think it is clear that my opponent has not read the Bible" = assertion; I have indeed read the Bible.

"I don't believe in the Quaran, but I'll never support the arguments you made there against it." (not my spelling mistake). Have you read the Koran? If not, you are not in a position to judge my arguments against it (I have read the Koran). You may also wish to read about the Danish cartoon scandal and the conviction of Salman Rushdie.

As for the Isaiah quote. My opponent has demonstrated that there are different ways to interpret this. He has not proved his interpretation to be true and neither have I. This is true for the rest of the Bible, hence its invalidity as a source of evidence. Indeed, this ambiguity leads to extremist views, and potentially terrorism (as is the case with Islam at the moment. The Christians are no exception; The Holy Inquisition can be justified using the Bible).

In Pliny the younger's letter to Emperor Trajan, he does indeed state that he believes the Christians to be sincere about their beliefs. However, using this as evidence for the resurrection is a logical fallacy. Just because Pliny believed that the Christians believed that the resurrection occurred, it does not imply that the resurrection did occur, only that the Christians thought it did (in Pliny's opinion). To give another example by way of comparison, the Mormons sincerely believe many aspects of their religion, such as the golden plates etc. despite the fact that their leader was a convicted charlatan. Anyone can believe anything; without valid evidence, these claims cannot be verified.

The passage from Tacitus is very distressing, but again, this does not prove that the resurrection occurred.

Also, the tomb being empty is not conclusive proof that the laws of physics were suspended for the desires of an individual. My opponent is valuing the words of uneducated people above the laws of physics.

"I ask you to find something as believable as the resurrection..." I think the resurrection is not believable, as it involves manipulating the laws of nature, therefore I have done this.

To justify my claim that the resurrection is not believable, I recommend the following: www.godisimaginary.com/i15.htm

This debate, for my opponent, concerns proving that Yahweh is more likely to exist than Wotan or Krishna. So far, he has used an unverified source to attempt to prove things that are not related to this. I ask him to provide (valid) evidence that Yahweh, specifically, exists.
Debate Round No. 3
vardas0antras

Con

"Points that are made should provide reasoning for a particular claim."
Indeed this is something which you didn't provide hence I mocked this action with a statistical claim. After that you did provide arguments but this is irrelevant concerning this subject.

"made no attempt to prove that the Bible is valid"
You're failure in showing error is good enough for me. However I don't see how this effects our current arguments.

"this omission suggests inconsistency and causes ambiguity."
This is a mere history fail. Its only another example of an intentional omission which was common in the past.

"the descendants are not even in the same order"
I am unwilling to dwell on this but Ill point out that:
most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary's genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph's. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus' legal father), through David's son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus' blood relative), though David's son Nathan. There was no Greek word for "son-in-law," and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother's side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke's explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought" (Luke 3:23).

"Independent evidence shows that this census was only a local census, and took place in 6AD, which is after Jesus was born. "
Evidence please.

"Since the Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of god, why would he use these abhorrent examples of morality in his perfect book?"
This is ignorance and not an argument.

"This no longer happens? Why not? Because of feminism, more generally, because of secularism"
Another history fail. Women got their equality by revolution, tears and blood. The same goes for equality in general. Men got freedom of speech in heavily religious times and women also got their equality when all people went to church. Secularism is very recent. Hence secularism had nothing to do with equality.

"Women are now treated equally in spite of what the Bible says."
Now your ignorance simply cant be ignored. I cant believe I am even bothering to debate this with you but here is a website for your own education:
http://www.womeninthebible.net...

" to visit both Christian and Atheist websites and then draw conclusions."
You've shown great ignorance which I usually don't find among other atheists hence I conclude that you don't take your time to see the other view. The same goes for "I have indeed read the Bible." yes I am calling you a liar.

"not my spelling mistake"
Koran isn't the only correct spelling

"If not, you are not in a position to judge my arguments against it"
No but bad arguments are bad, and your arguments were bad.

"My opponent has demonstrated that there are different ways to interpret this."
No you simply didn't read Isaiah. Please show me how your interpretation is correct when considering the whole chapter. The only conclusion one could draw from reading the bible is that evil is created by mans sin (separation from God).

"Christians thought it did (in Pliny's opinion)."
If I recall correctly I already told you this but hey the second time is more fun! Christians knew whatever or not they saw Jesus.

" My opponent is valuing the words of uneducated people above the laws of physics."
Uneducated people ?!? Do you realize that you have no sensible explanation concerning this.

"I think the resurrection is not believable, as it involves manipulating the laws of nature, therefore I have done this."
No you are failing terribly, very badly indeed. Resurrection by definition ignores laws of physics hence usually there is no proof of it but when it comes to Jesus for some reason there is an ample amount of evidence.

"To justify my claim that the resurrection is not believable, I recommend the following:"
1.Its too late to present new arguments
2.Presenting this website to a Christian is like presenting Kent Hovind to an Atheist, simply inexcusable.

My opponent has failed tremendously to disprove Christianity and the fact that Christianity is arguable means that its more likely than Wotan or Krishna hence I win (I usually don't do this but my opponents ignorance killed my enthusiasm)

Vote Con
Ste93

Pro

My opponent has failed to disprove Christianity." The responsibility is not on me to disprove Christianity. You're the one asserting it is true without evidence, the responsibility is on you to provide evidence for your claim. By your logic, we should all believe in pink unicorns because we can't disprove them.

"this is something which you didn't provide hence I mocked this action with a statistical claim." I claimed that the Bible was contradictory and inconsistent and provided evidence, therefore this claim by my opponent is false.

"you're failure in showing error is good enough for me." It is irrelevant whether or not it is good enough for you. As I have already explained, you have asserted that the Bible is true, so it is your responsibility to provide evidence. In any case, I have shown error so this claim is also false.

"assume Luke is recording Mary's genealogy." Instead of assuming, provide evidence. Also, if there were 2 different lines of descendants, why is there some overlap? This is inconsistency

"so was the virgin birth." The virgin birth was the result of a mistranslation: Isaiah uses the Hebrew word 'almah' meaning young woman, which was mistranslated to the Greek word 'parthenos' meaning virgin.

'"Independent evidence shows that this census was only a local census, and took place in 6AD, which is after Jesus was born. "
Evidence please.' Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"You've shown great ignorance." Likewise. Anyway, this is an assertion. You've persistently ignored my request to show that the Bible is true.

"yes I am calling you a liar." Go for it. It is of no consequence.

With regard to secularism, yes it is recent, that's the whole point! Moral issues like the equality of women are nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible does not condone equality amongst men and women. Therefore our modern views contrast with the Bible.

"No but bad arguments are bad, and your arguments were bad." Assertion. A defensive assertion at that.

"Christians knew whatever or not they saw Jesus." Evidence please. From a source you can show to be accurate.

My point about considering the views of uneducated people over the laws of physics. They were indeed uneducated, as most people in that place at that time has little education. The laws of physics stand up to even the most intelligent person alive today, why are you considering the views of non-scientists above demonstrable facts? This is ignorance to science.

"but when it comes to Jesus for some reason there is an ample amount of evidence." No there isn't. The Bible and some letters do not prove beyond doubt that the only conclusion to draw contrasts the laws of physics. This is horribly irrational, as well as ignorance of science. The laws of physics cannot ever be contrasted in any case. Why are you so happy to believe they were on anecdotal evidence? That is a huge claim with massive implications. The evidence for your claim is minimal and certainly not conclusive. You haven't even proved your main source (the Bible) to be valid.

"Presenting this website to a Christian is like presenting Kent Hovind to an Atheist, simply inexcusable." Assertion and ignorance. The website contained valid points.

"Now your ignorance simply cant be ignored. I cant believe I am even bothering to debate this with you.." If you read the Bible, you will notice that women are treated by men like their possessions. This no longer happens, ergo our modern morality contrasts with the Bible.

"Koran isn't the only correct spelling." Indeed, there are several, including Koran, Qur'an, K'oraen. Quaran (my opponent's spelling) however, is not.

My opponent has failed tremendously to verify his main source of reference. He has not provided a single shred of evidence that Yahweh is more likely to exist than Wotan or Lord Krishna.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 4
vardas0antras

Con

- My opponent has failed to disprove Christianity, wait what ?!?
Sorry wrong wording, I meant that your arguments fail.
- Keep on lying !!!
Readers please go back and see that in the first round he provided only an assertion "Does this inconsistent, self-contradicting article constitute valid evidence?" which I mocked. Only after that did he support his claim.
- It is irrelevant whether or not it is good enough for you.
Besides your great failure in showing error in the Bible, you make this statement. May I remind you that this isn't Atheism versus Christianity but Wotan and Krishna versus Christianity.
- Instead of assuming, provide evidence.
An adequate explanation is all that I need.
- Virgin birth.
Since this doesn't affect me I wont bother.
- Census of Quirinius
This ought to be the only good argument you've made and I haven't heard of it before so, "salut" ! In the future I ought to read more about it however now I must give you an explanation. So here are two:
1. The Greek word for "first" in Luke 2:2 is protos and can be translated "before." Thus Luke 2:2 could actually be translated, "This was the census taken before Quirinius was governor of Syria."
http://www.searchgodsword.org...
To find original texts you either use google.com or download e-Sword.
2.The more likely explanation.
Quirinius actually ruled Syria on two separate occasions and there were actually two censuses taken. The "first census" mentioned in Luke 2:2 occurred during his first term as governor, and another was ordered during his second term as governor mentioned in Acts 5:37 which probably took place between 6-7 AD (Josephus links this census to an uprising under Judas of Galilee). With Luke being the author of both Luke and Acts and wanting to write in "consecutive order" (Luke 1:3), it would seem unlikely for Luke to make such a mistake in dating.
- My opponents ignorance
Readers decide
- My opponent is a liar
This seems to be a very good explanation and I don't see why I should think otherwise.
- Therefore our modern views contrast with the Bible.
As far as pornography and cursing is concerned then yes but all these revolution happened in religious times, something like a secular society in those times was inconceivable. Also you never explained thought I kept forgetting to ask, how can secularism lead to equality (mere curiosity).
- Christians saw Jesus
They said that they saw Jesus or have you not read what I've posted in my previous rounds ? I could add more but since you don't even know why they were tortured, I don't see a reason to go on.
- Considering the views of non-scientists above demonstrable facts?
The fact is that the tomb was empty and the fact is that many people were tortured for what they knew to be true or not. What are the opposing facts ? Well people can't come back to life by laying in a protected tomb for three days. I suppose that just means that there shouldn't be evidence for the resurrection but there is.
- Your website
Assertion and truth. You sincerely take that website seriously ?!!?! Honestly I'm not surprised.
- You will notice that women are treated by men like their possessions.
This is how the society worked in the past, true. Thats not an argument nor is it something unknown by many Christians.
- Quaran
It seems that this is indeed an incorrect spelling, my apologies.

May I remind you that you still have to provide evidence for Wotan and Krishna for them to be as likely as Yahweh. However I'm sure you wont instead you'll simply ramble a lot.
Ste93

Pro

May I remind you that you still have to provide evidence for Wotan and Krishna for them to be as likely as Yahweh. However I'm sure you wont instead you'll simply ramble a lot." May I remind you that I have already shown these two 'gods' to be unlikely and you have agreed. I feel that , for the benefit of the reader, I should explain further my 'burden of proof' argument.

If I was to declare that pink unicorns exist, I would have to demonstrate this. If I did not do this, I could not criticise people for rejecting my claim on the bases that they haven't disproven it. Think about it, there are countless things that we cannot disprove. Indeed, we cannot disprove that Wotan or Lord Krishna exist. We can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster. My opponent is claiming victory because I haven't disproven the Bible or the existence of Yahweh. "You're failure in showing error is good enough for me." Not only did I show error, but even if I didn't, the burden of proof is not on me to show error. I cannot disprove the Bible, just like my opponent cannot disprove the Koran. Just like in the example I mentioned above, if you're claiming something which cannot be disproven, the responsibility is on you to provide evidence, otherwise there is not reason to believe it's true. Readers are again reminded that my opponent failed to prove the Bible to be valid.

"...he provided only an assertion "Does this inconsistent, self-contradicting article constitute valid evidence?" which I mocked. Only after that did he support his claim." At least I did support my claim, which is more than can be said for my opponent, who has failed to provide any evidence for the source he uses to support his claims.

"- Virgin birth.
Since this doesn't affect me I wont bother." My point here was showing inconsistency in the Bible (a mistranslation) which my opponent has not refuted.

"1. The Greek word for "first" in Luke 2:2 is protos and can be translated "before." Thus Luke 2:2 could actually be translated, "This was the census taken before Quirinius was governor of Syria."" You could probably say this about any verse in the Bible in order to justify a particular opinion. Readers may also like to know that there is no evidence of any census taking place. Since the census of 6AD does have independent evidence, it's reasonable to think that this census would as well. It does not.

"Quirinius actually ruled Syria on two separate occasions and there were actually two censuses taken. The "first census" mentioned in Luke 2:2 occurred during his first term as governor..." Again, my opponent has provided no evidence of this census.

"As far as pornography and cursing is concerned then yes but all these revolution happened in religious times....how can secularism lead to equality (mere curiosity)." My point here is that humans have lead to the equality of other humans, god played no part and so it seems he doesn't care. Here is how secularism leads (or rather can lead) to equality:

Secularism - a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn )
By not taking into account religion, we are free to choose our own moral values (as we don't have to follow any scripture). As a result, people have free speech (because they do not have to act in accordance to any dogma). Groups of people who are not satisfied with the way they are treated in society can come out and say so. They can campaign for equality (women, blacks, gays etc.) without fear of condemnation on religious grounds. Since people in power don't have the excuse of 'the Bible says so,' they have little reason to deny people equality. Over time, people will come to be treated equally, as the issue of their inequality will raise awareness and gain support from others. As humans, we are naturally sympathetic towards other people, for good evolutionary reasons. It is worth pointing out that in the developed world today (UK, USA etc) there is a high degree of equality amongst different groups of people. In the developing world however (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan etc) in which the governments are not secular, there is a high degree of intolerance and inequality. For example, two boys in Iran were publicly hanged for being gay. This abhorrent intolerance is the result of scripture and these things would never happen in developed secular countries.

"They said that they saw Jesus or have you not read what I've posted in my previous rounds ?" I could say that I saw Jesus, so could anyone. Just because people said something doesn't make it true.

"The fact is that the tomb was empty and the fact is that many people were tortured for what they knew to be true or not. What are the opposing facts ? Well people can't come back to life by laying in a protected tomb for three days. I suppose that just means that there shouldn't be evidence for the resurrection but there is." There isn't though. Since you can't verify the Bible, you have no evidence that the resurrection happened.

"- You will notice that women are treated by men like their possessions.
This is how the society worked in the past, true." God obviously approved of this, as he spoke of it with no revulsion in his own book. If you're wondering what the relevance of this is, a being of infinite wisdom and intelligence would not hold these irrational views, if even us humans can get over them. This reduces the credibility of Yahweh, although of course it does not disprove him, as I have mentioned, that would be impossible.

Readers should also notice that religion often works on geographical terms. People in this place believe X and people in that place believe Y. As humans are not predisposed to believe any one religion over another, it is almost statistically impossible that such people would honestly and independently choose to follow a particular faith. This is a sign of childhood indoctrination. If my opponent had be born in Afghanistan, it is almost certain that he would be a Muslim and would believe in Islam to the degree that he believes in Christianity. This clearly undermines faith, as it is the result of where one happens to be born and seldom the result of honest inquiry. Indeed, the majority of people I know who have not been brought up in a particular faith are atheists. The point of this is to further show that Yahweh is unlikely, as my opponent only believes in him because of where he was born.

I urge everyone to open their eyes. Science is a fascinating and inspiring subject; it leads to answers and explanations through honest inquiry. Over the millennia, we have acquired such a vast, diverse range of knowledge which we have been able to apply to our societies. We have wondered, ask questions and sought answers. It is worth noticing that god had not been necessary in any of this. Some things we cannot explain and indeed we may never be able to. But asserting an unlikely being is highly irresponsible and dishonest. We have explained the whole of life without the need for a god. God could have easily just made humans as we are, so we would know he must exist, but for some reason, he decided against this. When scientists have spent their entire lives trying to seek truth, uncovering minute details in very complicated events, which can explain so much, and someone then comes out and says "actually, a magical being just magically did it all" with no evidence, you can see why they would get annoyed and fight against it.

Indeed, the heavy use of magic also reduces the credibility of the existence of Yahweh. Magically creating man, magically impregnating a virgin who has a son who magically performs miracles and magically comes back from the dead. This is serious ignorance of biology and physics.

So, I have shown that Wotan and Krishna are unlikely; my opponent has not shown that Yahweh is any more likely (and the burden of proof is on him). I thank readers for their time.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pat 6 years ago
Pat
vardas0antras hands down.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
The 10 points Ste93 got disturb me to no end
Posted by Ste93 6 years ago
Ste93
In the wise words of Sam Harris:

'All complex life on earth has developed from simpler life-forms over billions of years. This is a fact that no longer admits of intelligent dispute. If you doubt that human beings evolved from prior species, you may as well doubt that the sun is a star.'
Posted by Ste93 6 years ago
Ste93
Delusion - an erroneous belief that is held in the face of contradicting evidence.

How exactly am I delusional? What am I believing in the face of evidence? You on the other hand believe many things in the face of contradicting evidence. Ergo, you are delusional.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"And you think I'm delusional"
Its painfully obvious that you are
Posted by Lock 6 years ago
Lock
Really? As much evidence as there is for the earth going around the sun? That's rich. There are very few evolutionist scientists that would agree with you. I refuse to argue with someone so unreasonable. Read AiG and at least try to open your mind a little bit. I'm done here.
Posted by Ste93 6 years ago
Ste93
Hmm, resorting to bitching, how very mature of you. And my conclusion was true, you never did show that Yahweh is likely to exist. And you think I'm delusional?! You believe in impossible magic and other things in the face of science because someone wrote it down thousands of years ago and I'm delusional? Classic! You resort to insulting me because you can't prove that Yahweh exists or that the Bible is true.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
@Vardas: You saw what he did on my debate... it's basically the same. He's on some substance, most likely.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"So, I have shown that Wotan and Krishna are unlikely; my opponent has not shown that Yahweh is any more likely (and the burden of proof is on him). I thank readers for their time."

At first I thought that you were a simple minded idiot but now I think that you're delusional. There is no way one can't laugh or scoff at this conclusion !
Posted by Ste93 6 years ago
Ste93
Lock, there is as much evidence that evolution is true as there is that the Earth goes round the Sun (another thing that Christians thought was wrong). Your ignorance to this topic is very apparent: "The facts are that you have no intermediate links and no fossil record to back anything you say." This is completely false, we have many intermediate links and a huge fossil record. We have also mapped the genomes of over 180 species. This alone is convincing evidence for evolution. What's more, all of the evidence for evolution is available for anyone to study. I advise readers to do this, if they do not wish to end up ignorant to this epitome of human ingenuity.

I recommend 'The Greatest Show On Earth - The Evidence For Evolution' by Richard Dawkins
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
vardas0antrasSte93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Elmakai 6 years ago
Elmakai
vardas0antrasSte93Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
vardas0antrasSte93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
vardas0antrasSte93Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
vardas0antrasSte93Tied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Lock 6 years ago
Lock
vardas0antrasSte93Tied
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:40 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
vardas0antrasSte93Tied
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:40