The Instigator
AlextheYounga
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mrparkers
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

i can support Christianity more than an athiest can support Athiesm.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Mrparkers
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,135 times Debate No: 23005
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

AlextheYounga

Pro

I am a Christian and I can support my beliefs. Many Christians, i will admit, have little or not knowledge of their own religion. I am not that kind of Christian. I can support my statements, probably better than an athiest could support Athiesm. Did God really create the world? In my opinion, yes.
Mrparkers

Con

I accept.

I offer the following definitions for this debate:

Atheism - a lack of belief in a higher power

Christianity - the belief in the following:

1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
2) This God created the universe and everything in it
3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sin
4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live again

(Feel free to make changes to my definition of Christianity)


Since there is no clearly defined resolution, I propose that the topic be:

"Christianity is an accurate representation of reality".

The Pro will affirm that Christianity is an accurate worldview, the Con will negate.


I will wait until the Pro posts their argument before I post mine.
Debate Round No. 1
AlextheYounga

Pro

I believe your definition of Christianity is accurate.
I will start off by saying i understand the flaws in the Bible and in Christianity. The fact that it was written by man is the cause for these flaws. Let me also say that science has its contradictions as well. Our accepted scientific beliefs have a good amount of flaws as well.
But let me explain my major view points on why i believe in Christianity.
1. We do not know enough about our universe to exclude God from the equation.
2. Science can never disprove God's existence.
3. Many scientific facts support religion.
4. Christianity can only benefit you as a person.
5. (My opinion) I would much rather believe there is more than just this life.

Your turn. :)
Mrparkers

Con

Framework for this debate:

There are a couple of things that must be outlined before I refute my opponent's arguments. First, my opponent has agreed with the definitions that I have provided for Atheism and Christianity. As such, in order to prove that Christianity is an accurate representation of reality, the Pro must prove the following claims:

1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
2) This God created the universe and everything in it
3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sin
4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live again

If my opponent cannot prove that all of these things are true, then he cannot win this debate. I will address this after each round.

Second, it is important to note that atheism does not have a burden of proof. Given that the definition of atheism is "the lack of belief in a higher power", there aren't any claims that are being made that must be justified. As such, I am only required to negate my opponent's arguments and defend the status quo; I am not required to prove that God does not exist.

Addressing the Pro's arguments:

Before I begin, I'd first like to point out that there aren't really any arguments that are being made. My opponent instead listed reasons as to why he believes in Christianity, which doesn't really pertain to the resolution, "Christianity is an accurate representation of reality". I am not required to address these, but I will anyways, because the reasons that he gave are illogical nonetheless.

1 & 2 (You can't prove that God DOESN'T exist):

Irrelevant. Anyone who uses this argument to defend the existence of a God doesn't know how the burden of proof works. Religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or even Scientology, is making a claim that a God exists. Thus, it is religion's job to prove that this claim is true. It is not the job of the negative side to prove otherwise. This logical fallacy is known as the argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). This fallacy asserts that a position is true because it has not yet been proven false. Consider the following scenario:

Me: I have a unicorn inside this box!
You: Why can't I see it?
Me: He's invisible.
You: Why can't I hear it?
Me: He's a quiet unicorn.
You: That box is too small to fit a unicorn inside.
Me: He's a tiny unicorn.
You: Why can't I feel him?
Me: He teleports away whenever someone gets too close.
You: Alright, can you PROVE that this unicorn exists?
Me: YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT HE DOESN'T!!!

Would you consider that last statement to be a valid argument in support of the unicorn existing? I didn't think so.

3. Science supports religion.

I am not required to address this claim because the Pro didn't explain it at all. The Pro didn't give me cited material, or even make a specific claim.

I'm sure later on in the debate, the Pro will make more specific claims and cite material to justify them, but before that happens, I must caution my opponent to please only cite legitimate scientific journals. If they're peer-reviewed, that would be even better.

4. Christianity can benefit you as a person.

Although this isn't true in every case (Adolf Hitler, for example), this still doesn't pertain to the truth of the claims that are being made.

5. I would rather believe in God than not.

My opponent stated that this was only his opinion, so I don't feel the need to address this.








Before I end this round, here is the status of the debate:

The Pro must prove:

1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
The status quo stands

2) This God created the universe and everything in it
The status quo stands

3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sin
The status quo stands

4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live again
The status quo stands

I'm looking forward to the rest of this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
AlextheYounga

Pro

Well, let me explain that i am new to this site, and im still figuring this out as i go. I will try to be more specific and stick to the point. And im a laid back dude so please excuse me if my language is simpler than most.

Well, the things I must prove.
The only proof that there is to support the Christian God is the Old and New testiment of the Bible. This explains that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It also explains that he created the universe and everything in it. It also explains that he sent his son, Jesus Christ who was resurrected after 3 days. All of this is included in the only proof that we have for it. There was a man named Jesus Christ who lived during that time period. Whether he actually performed miracles is still a mystery.

Now let me say that i probably should have been a little more specific in my topic on what i was going to be proving. But, in religion, you really cant prove anything. I can prove that everything that happened in the bible may have happened. One thing to understand is that, because these time periods were so far back, much evidence that may have existed may no longer exist or has still not been found.

Your statement about my argument of "how god can never be disproven" is partly true. But i was also thinking of something else. If God is all powerful, which the bible says he is, and if he created everything, than that also means that he created science. He created all of science. Therefore, he is above our ideas of science. Our laws of nature dont have to mean anything to him since he created them. That is why science can never disprove God because he is not affected by those laws if he is all powerful.

Science supports Religion in some ways.
I apologize for not stating any evidence to support my claims on how science supports religion in some cases. I didnt realize how little time you have to prove your point. lol. I'll lay out a few examples.

1. Evolution can support the Bible's concept of the world's creation in "seven days"
One must note that the Bible is...i think its like 2000 years old. It doesnt matter exactly how old, but we knows it pretty ancient. The text has been translated through thousands of languages (and on a side note, i find it amazing that it still makes so much sense even today after going through all that) and some words have had their meanings mistranslated or it just doesnt mean the same thing today.
The word "days" in the bible, actually is interpreted into the words "years, 1000 years, and times/eras" Therefore the Bible can support evolution and the creation of the Earth. God may have not invented the Earth in seven days, it may have taken a lot longer than that. And this hints that God might have pushed evolution along.
Note that this doesnt prove that the Bible is talking about evolution, but it supports it.
Also note that, since this is a religious argument, not everything can be proven. Same would work for a debate on the Big Bang or athiesm. Not everything can be proven.

2. The weight of the soul.
A scientist named Duncan MacDougall once measured the bodies of six dying human beings. Once they died, MacDougall found out that every human lost around 21 grams of bodyweight just as they died. The only theory he was able to come up with was that this was the weight of the soul. He also tested this in rats, dogs, and pigs, and its still all came out to be a similar weight.
Much of religion has to do with the idea of a soul. Although not completely proven that the soul has weight, it still brings much evidence to support religion and Christianty.

Christianity can only benefit you as a person.
No, Adolf has nothing to do with it. If a person follows the word of God and tries not to sin, a person can only benefit from it. The bible teaches moral and ethical values that, even after 2000 years, still make sense. And since the argument about stoning women always comes up, let me say that the bible also say that the bible also says, "He who is without sin may throw the first stone."

Okay, i think i addressed it all, or most of it. Tell me if i left something out by accident.




Mrparkers

Con

We were all new at some point :P
Trust me, you're doing fine.



The burden of proof

The Pro makes a couple of errors when trying to address his burden of proof:

1) Can the bible really be used as evidence?
In short, no. But don't take my word for it, allow me to quote the Pro when he said: "I will start off by saying i understand the flaws in the Bible and in Christianity. The fact that it was written by man is the cause for these flaws." This itself demonstrates why we can't look at the Bible as reliable evidence to demonstrate the four areas of proof for the Pro. What are the flaws in the bible? Where do the flaws begin? Where do they end? How can you distinguish flawed information from true information? When a source of information isn't credible in some areas, who's to say it isn't credible in others as well?

2) Can religion or atheism be proven?
As my opponent and I agree, no. But how exactly does this stand on a debate over whether or not Christianity is an accurate representation of reality? Well, the fact that religion can't be proven is exactly what makes atheism the most rational position to take. Take a look at the definition I offered in my first post:

Atheism - the lack of belief in a higher power.

The reason as to why atheism is so appealing is because it isn't making a claim that needs to be justified. Atheism is simply the defense of the status quo. Atheists don't claim that a God doesn't exist, they simply lack belief that one does. As an atheist myself, I reserve my belief for when it is actually proven that a religion is true. Once that is done, I will gladly subscribe to that belief. Until then, I choose to not make a decision between the thousands of different religions that exist because not a single one had offered any justification for their claims. This is what makes atheism the null hypothesis, which is what should be accepted by default when an alternative hypothesis cannot be proven to be true. It is for this reason that it is more rational to be an atheist than a Christian (until, of course, proof can be provided, and I'll leave that area of the debate for the Pro)

3) The presupposition of God
The Pro states that if God exists, then he is all powerful, meaning that he created everything, including science.
Sure, that would be true, if God existed. In an argument like this, you can't presuppose that a God exists, because if you happen to be wrong, then you argument will be wrong as well. For this argument to count as proof that God is above science, God must be proven to exist first.


Does science really support religion?

1) Evolution and the Bible
In this argument, the Pro claims that it is possible that the Bible supports the theory of evolution. While I'm glad that the Pro isn't attempting to discredit evolution, I'm disappointed that he didn't give any specific examples of text in the Bible which could support it. Not only that, but this isn't exactly an example of science supporting religion; it's more along the lines of religion supporting science. Even if what my opponent is saying is true, it doesn't give any truth to the other claims in the Bible (e.g: a God existing). These are separate claims that stand or fall on their own merits.

2) The weight of the soul
It's alright that the Pro didn't cite this study as I'm familiar with it as well. Unfortunately, this is a study that scientists have not been able to reproduce since the original experiment. This doesn't necessarily mean that the study is false, just that it can't be used to justify any claims made about a soul existing.
Among the other errors made in this study, the sample size was also too small to prove anything. The study was done on six humans and fifteen dogs, and like I said earlier, was never replicated. Even MacDougall realized this problem when he said "I am aware that a large number of experiments would require to be made before the matter can be proved beyond any possibility of error, but if further and sufficient experimentation proves that there is a loss of substance occurring at death and not accounted for by known channels of loss, the establishment of such a truth cannot fail to be of the utmost importance"[1]


Christianity can benefit you as a person.

As I said earlier, this argument does nothing to demonstrate the truth of the claims that are being made.




Status of the debate:

Look back to the argument I made about atheism being the most rational position to take if there is no evidence to justify the claims made by religion. If the status quo stands on any of the four areas of this debate, then the Pro has failed to support Christianity, and we must accept the null hypothesis (atheism).

The four proofs:

1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
The Pro attempted to prove this using the Bible. Given my response, the status quo stands

2) This God created the universe and everything in it
Same as #1

3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sin
Same as #1

4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live again
Same as #1



With that being said, I urge a negative vote.




Citation(s):

http://www.snopes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
AlextheYounga

Pro

Thank you for being patient with my newbness. :)

The Bible can be used as evidence.
I did state that it was written by man, therefore it has some flaws. But doesn't everything made by man have the capability of having flaws? You say because it was written by man, it cannot be trusted as evidence. But, you have to realize, who came up with the scientific theories for the creation of the world? People. And there are very many contradictions and flawed information in the Big Bang theory as well.
http://www.odec.ca...
http://rense.com...
(You may look at those if you want. Its just showing how the Big Bang has contradictions and too many theories to be seen as fact.)
And you also say that because Christianity cannot be proven, athiesm is the most logical belief. I would like to ask you a question. Does being an athiest automatically say that you believe in science? Ive always asumed so because i find it hard to believe in nothing whatsoever.
I ask that because, much of science cannot be proven. And its concepts are created by man. Doesnt this make science just as illogical? Also you say that believing in religion is illogical. But, if religion were true, (and im not directing this at you, i dont want you to think im using a scary idea to support my religion...even though i am sort of, haha.) But, if religion were true, wouldnt that mean an athiest would go to hell when they died. A belief in nothing is not always the most logical. In this case, believing in God would be the most logical, if you want to stay on the safe side.

And yes, I understand what you are saying about my evolution concept with the bible. It doesnt necessarily say that God exists. The only real "full proof" would be the bible. This concept merely supports the idea that a God could exist. And yes, it is religion supporting science. My apologies.

And yes, i have read about how this study had some flaws in it. Because i cannot show a concept that fully proves God's existence, but rather supports its probability, i will just leave them out of the debate. I will stick to the idea that the Bible can be seen as evidence.

By the way, this has been a good learning experience on debating. I thank you for that.
Mrparkers

Con

Is the Bible really evidence?

The first thing I'd like to point out is that my opponent didn't defend the credibility of the Bible, but simply stated the flaws that exist in the Bible can also exist in science, making science not credible as well. There are a couple of flaws with this statement. My opponent claims that "You say because it was written by man, it cannot be trusted as evidence". I'd like to point out that the Pro was the one who said this, not me. I simply quoted what the Pro said to demonstrate that the Bible cannot be used to justify the Pro's claims if he doesn't even think it's credible. As for me, I also don't think that the Bible is credible, but that isn't because it was written by men, it's because there isn't any evidence to support the claims that it makes. The reason that science does not have this flaw is because accepted scientific theories are backed by evidence. But this is besides the point, what I was getting at here is that if my opponent thinks that his own evidence isn't credible, then why should it be accepted as evidence? In short, it shouldn't.

The Big Bang

I don't even think this is relevant, but I will answer it anyways. To clarify, atheism isn't automatically "the belief in all science". Like my definition states, atheism is the lack of belief in a higher power. That's it. You can be an atheist and not accept the theory of evolution or the big bang theory; you can also be an atheist and accept those theories as well. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Sure, there may be flaws in the big bang. That's irrelevant. It isn't my job to defend alternatives to the God hypothesis, because the God hypothesis hasn't been proven to be true in the first place. Many people seem to think that because there are no alternative explanations to how the universe was created, then God must have done it by default. This is, of course, another example of the argument from ignorance (where someone asserts that a position is true because it has not yet been proven false). God isn't the default answer, it's a claim that must be proven first. One does not simply accept a claim because there are no alternatives to the claim. It must stand or fall on its own merits.

Pascal's Wager

The problem that the Pro brought up actually had a name. Blaise Pascal, who was a French scientist, theologian, and mathematician, didn't really believe in the claims of Christianity.[1] However, he chose to accept the God hypothesis since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved through reason, and there is much to be gained from wagering that God exists and little to be gained from wagering that God doesn’t exist. He concluded that a rational person would simply wager that God existed and then continued living their lives.

More simply, if one accepts the God hypothesis and is wrong, nothing will happen to them when they die. But, if one rejects the God hypothesis and is wrong, they will be sent to be tortured and burned forever (I thought God was all-loving?). It is therefore a safe bet to conclude that God exists.

The problems with this theory arose almost immediately after it was published. Here are my main objections:

1) Belief is not a choice
I do not choose to lack belief in God, just as you do not choose to lack belief in Bigfoot. I'm going to assume that no matter how hard you try, you will not believe in Bigfoot's existence until there is good evidence to prove that this claim is true. In the same way, I cannot choose to believe that God exists until I have evidence to prove this.

Of course, I can always lie and say that I believe in God's existence. I could go to church every Sunday, sing along to all of the psalms, receive communion, and put my hand on a stack of bibles and say that I think every word in them is true, but your God, who is supposedly omniscient, will know that I don't actually believe that he exists. Thus, as soon as I make this 'wager', it would seem that I am destined for hell regardless.

2) The presupposition of a Christian God
I think Homer Simpson said it best when he stated "Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder!". This raises a valid point: how can you be sure that the Christian god exists? What if it was actually Zeus that existed? Or Vishnu? Or Ra? Simply put, none of these supposed "Gods" have been proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. So, as Homer would phrase it, the best way to avoid angering one of these gods is to lack belief in any of them, rather than openly worship something else.

Status of the debate:

1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
The status quo stands

2) This God created the universe and everything in it
The status quo stands

3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sin
The status quo stands

4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live again
The status quo stands



Given this status of the debate, I urge a negative vote.

Citation(s):

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager






And yes, you learn something from every debate :P

Debate Round No. 4
AlextheYounga

Pro

I know I am going to lose this debate. Its not hard to see that. But I can back up part of what I have said.
And I understand a lot of what you're saying. Not that you're going to change my opinion on this matter because I mean, there really is no true way of proving his existence. I should have been more careful in the point I was arguing. More like Is it probable that God exists? lol

You're right. Belief is not a choice without some form of evidence. But the fact the God does have evidence is enough to believe in Him.
You argued that a person cannot believe in Bigfoot without good evidence. But, a person can believe in Bigfoot because they have seen Bigfoot. It doesn't have to be enough evidence to show that it actually exists. Same goes with God. A person can believe in God because they have read the Bible, which is evidence. Evidence does not have to completely prove somethings existence to be called evidence. And that fact that there is evidence shows that you can believe in it.
But I think you were talking about how you felt about God. You were not able to believe in him because you felt that the Bible was not enough evidence. That's understandable. I hold nothing against you for any of this. Its just your beliefs.

About Other Religions.
The only way into Heaven is through God. But, humans can make their own choices (kind of, because if God if omniscient then there is no free will) but you do have choices you can make. God creates life to test each person equally. Since everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, everyone's hardships throughout life are different. People born into, or people who have chosen other religions have just as much capability of believing in God as any other person. It might be harder, yes, but they are still capable. Its not the same as being born black and wanting to be white. That cant really happen (except for Michael) but religion is just a belief. God says "He who seeks, will find." So if a person wanted to get into heave, they have every right to seek it.
And yes, how do we know which one is the right one? Well, if one studies other religions, one will find which one sounds the most morally right. But God gives us all a chance to find him. The Bible explains life as a test. If one were really interested in wanting salvation, one would study all religions and find which is right for them.

Credibility of the Bible.
There are many things that have been found true in the Bible. Its not completely story tale. We have found evidence of Noah's Arc. We have found Sodom and Gomorrah, Mt. Sinai. We have even found where Moses parted the Red Sea. We have found a lot of evidence that supports Bible stories. I will leave a link at the bottom to show some of the discoveries. In my opinion, I believe the Bible is very credible evidence of God's existence.


Citations.
http://www.6000years.org...







Mrparkers

Con

Yeah, picking the resolution is usually the most important part of the debate. You've got to be careful with the word choice, because resolutions can and will be taken very literally. It probably would have been easier for you to argue that it is probable that a God exists, although I still believe that I could have made a case against that. Keep in mind, though, that even with this resolution, you still aren't required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists. These debates are judged based on who has made the most convincing arguments.

Pascal's Wager

1) Is belief a choice?
A lot of what you said is true. However, belief still isn't really a choice. I can't wake up one morning and say "Ok, now I'm going to believe that God exists". Different people believe for different reasons. Some people believe in God because they can't imagine the thought of no life after death. Some people believe in God because it gives them hope. Some people believe in God because they legitimately believe that the Bible is credible evidence to support that proposition. All of those people aren't actively choosing to believe that God exists, they just do for the reasons that make the most sense to them. In the same way, I cannot currently believe that God exists. Like I said earlier, I could always lie and claim that I do, but surely God's omniscience would see right through that. Thus, the belief aspect of Pascal's Wager is not a convincing argument to believe in God's existence.

2) Other religions
Pro pretty much concedes this flaw with Pascal's Wager. It is not logical to wager that the Christian God exists because there is no more evidence to prove this than there is for Zeus. The safest possible bet would be lacking belief in any of them, to avoid "making them madder and madder".


The Bible's Credibility

I'm going to forgive Pro for the conduct error (posting new arguments in the last round) because he is new to this.

1) Was Noah's ark found?
I suppose it's open for interpretation. Like I said earlier, people believe for different reasons, so there are people who believe that this is genuinely Noah's Ark, and this pretty much proves that it happened.
But was Noah's Ark really found? Scientists don't seem to think so.

First of all, the traces of metal that were found on the supposed ark are inconsistent with the claims that it was due to the iron brackets holding the wood together. According to a paper done by Lorence G Collins [1] (who has a Ph.D in geology from the University of Illinois) and David Fasold (author of the Book "The Ark of Noah"), "the mineral was thoroughly mixed with clay, calcite, quartz, and anthophyllite particles, and it showed a large amount of chemical variability across the sample. Neither of these properties would occur in smelted iron."
Second, the geological history of the supposed ark doesn't match with the structure itself. To sum this up, the conclusion of the cited paper has this to say: "Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation. It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure would so catch their attention that an eagerness to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or confirmed its existence would tend to override caution. An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994). Furthermore, if the Creationism Flood hypothesis were valid (Baumgardner, 1985, 1990), the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that cut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Noachian Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of the Ark."

Sodom and Gomorrah
The website given by the Pro claims that Sodom and Gomorrah have been found with overwhelming evidence that proves that God must have destroyed it. Although the structures seem to look like ancient archaeology, there isn't any evidence provided that proves that it must have been the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. This website also claims that there is overwhelming evidence that it must have been destroyed by the fire the God rained down upon them. The evidence provided is also consistent with the theory that it was actually a meteor that destroyed the cities, but whether or not God sent that meteor is unknown, and isn't exactly a provable claim.

The Red Sea
The evidence presented by 6000years fails almost immediately because the discovered "chariot remnants" weren't even in the Red Sea. In fact, what was discovered couldn't have survived in the Red Sea for that long due to the Red Sea's high salinity[2], which would have eroded the wood so much that it wouldn't even be distinguishable with a wheel.

Mt. Sinai
Finding a mountain with a black top isn't evidence that God burned the top of it. This section of the website provided by the Pro doesn't even give any arguments, it just shows pictures of a mountain with a black top. This does little to demonstrate claims of the supernatural.


Conclusion of the debate:

To reiterate, the resolution agreed upon is "Resolved: Christianity is an accurate representation of reality". I gave the Pro the burden of proof along with four things that must be proven in order to defend the resolution. Here is the status on those four proofs:

1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
The Pro, using the Bible and arguments like Pascal's Wager has attempted to prove this to be true. However, Pascal's Wager was debunked and the Bible was demonstrated to not be credible evidence, especially since the Pro conceded in the second round that it was not. Thus, the status quo stands (Pro has failed to prove this)

2) This God created the universe and everything in it
Same as #1.

3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sin
This proof was not even mentioned by the Pro, the status quo stands by default.

4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live again
Same as #3.



The resolution has been negated. I urge a vote for CON.



Citations:

1. http://www.csun.edu...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Mrparkers
Depending on how you define "God" then yeah, that's correct. It's true that Buddhism doesn't claim that a conscious personal being who created the universe and everything in it exists outside of time and space, but the philosophy does make claims of the supernatural. That is what I was referring to, and I supposed that is what they would call "God", though that's probably a bad word to describe their beliefs. So yeah, I probably should have been a little more clear on that.

By the way Roy, this debate http://www.debate.org... was what led me to join this site, so for that I thank you.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Con, you said "Religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or even Scientology, is making a claim that a God exists." It's a handy fact for religious topics to know that Buddhism does not make a claim that God exists. Buddhist teaching is that it is not worthwhile to consider the question of whether or not God exists. Instead, according to Buddhism, one should world on solving moral problems. Buddhism does not prohibit accepting gods from other religions, however.

Jainism is another atheist religion. They are the ultra-othodox religion in India that refuses to harm even insects.

Trivia aside, nice debate.
Posted by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Mrparkers
Absolutely. I'll gladly debate anything religious, whether it be morality, certain specific arguments, etc.
Posted by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
I probably shouldnt have made religion to be the first debate i have ever done on here. But Mr.parkers, maybe we could try this again with a different question later.
Posted by gr33k_fr33k5 4 years ago
gr33k_fr33k5
unfortunately pro lost in the first round. . . never let your opponent define the debate and make definitions . . .
Posted by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Mrparkers
I would tend to disagree with that. If you'd like, you can challenge me to a debate with that resolution, I'd be more than willing to give it a shot.
Posted by Joe1234 4 years ago
Joe1234
Just one thing to elaborate in Pro's argument: The Bible is not flawed!!! Man wrote the book from divine revelation. Look at the book of Revelations and John.

I speak from a Christian viewpoint.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
AlextheYoungaMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution is quite simple for Pro. He should have cited 2 Peter 3:15 - but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, An atheist cannot support atheism with hope. The only absolute for an Atheist is the eventual black void of decomposition. The Gospel is sufficient to provide hope. Should have been an easy win. Lean on your faith.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
AlextheYoungaMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro mainly made statements of belief rather than arguments. He needed to have formulated a resolution carefully, so it could have been logically argued.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
AlextheYoungaMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Not bad for a first try by Pro, but he never really came to grips with what Con was arguing or attempted to support all the elements of the revised resolution.
Vote Placed by gr33k_fr33k5 4 years ago
gr33k_fr33k5
AlextheYoungaMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Well Mrparkers you sorta lined this up for an automatic victory, however, you definitely won nonetheless.
Vote Placed by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
AlextheYoungaMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made better arguments, but both had good conduct and the spelling/sources was close enough to call a tie.