The Instigator
AKMath
Pro (for)
The Contender
BertrandsTeapot
Con (against)

Catholicism

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
AKMath has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 308 times Debate No: 115670
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

AKMath

Pro

You said you wanted some proof on Christianity/Catholicism. Here are just a few.
A priest somewhere in South America (don't remember exactly) convinced a non-believer that Catholicism was real. He blessed a sacrament/cracker (it's not a cracker rather unleavened bread used a lot by the Jews too) in front of the non-believer. He left it in the tabernacle for a week, and the non-believer came back a week later. When he opened the tabernacle and showed him the golden bowl inside layed a small chunk of flesh. Scientists carbon dated the flesh, and they found it was about 2,000+ years old.

When scientists found a barrel of wine from the wedding at Cana, it's chemical composition perfectly resembled water.

Any more things you want proven/ explained?

P.S. The Bible does not explicitly state the abortion is bad. But Catholic doctrine does.
BertrandsTeapot

Con

Thank you for this challenge. As with your other debates, I don't think the sarcasm and pretentiousness are appreciated, helpful, or productive on anyone's account. Nonetheless, let's proceed logically:

I'm not sure it is a valid argument to cite an ambiguous, highly-questionable story that happened at an unknown time in an unknown place as evidence of your point, but we can set that aside for the sake of argument.

Suppose this unknown priest, at an unknown time in an unknown place, "blessed" a sacrament in front of an unknown non-believer and left it in the tabernacle for a week. Further suppose that when this unknown priest, at an unknown time, in an unknown place opened the tabernacle, a small chunk of flesh was present. Even further, let's suppose that an unknown group of scientists somehow verified that this "flesh" was approximately 2,000+ years old.

How and why does that prove that Catholicism exists? Why doesn't it prove that there is a flying spaghetti monster roaming the churches of South America looking for priests performing these blessings and replacing crackers with flesh it has preserved for two millenia? Why doesn't it prove that a Jewish God, or Muslim God, or Hindu God exists? Why doesn't it prove that, in the middle of the night, two kids ran into the church and replaced the cracker with a piece of flesh they found in a local mortuary or science lab?

Even if this far-fetched story is true, I don't think it is remotely reasonable to believe with conviction that it is proof of the existence of a Christian/Catholic God that said that the ill should use prayer rather than doctors (James 5:14), women should not speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:34), runaway slaves should be returned to their owners (Philemon 1:12), people should gouge out their eyeballs should they feel lust (Matthew 5:29), people should not defend themselves if attacked (Matthew 5:39), people should not save money (Matthew 6:19), people should not to wear nice clothes (Matthew 6:28-29), and people must give away all of their possessions (Luke 14:33).

Let's not get caught up in relative absurdity of these biblical passages and the inherent contradiction shown by believers who adhere to certain words of the New Testament and not others. Rather, let's just focus on the fact that a cracker turning into 2,000-year-old flesh in no way is demonstrative of an exclusively Christian God (if any at all).

You say that "when scientists found a barrel of wine from the wedding at Cana, it(s) chemical composition perfectly resembled (that of) water." I would be very curious to see a scholarly article or journal entry about these scientists. To my knowledge, there has never been a scientific discovery or analysis of any such wine. Even if said analysis had been done, to my knowledge there is no such thing as wine that has a chemical composition perfectly resembling that of water. If two substances have the same chemical composition, they are the same substance. There is no scientific equivocation on this point. Again, I am excited to see any proof of this type of scientific finding or analysis having been done, but if this substance perfectly resembled water, how does anyone know it wasn't just water, and not wine? Was it in a jug labeled, "wine"? If so, is it not possible this jug was mislabeled, accidentally or deliberately?

Even IF all of this was corroborated, I go back to my first point. How does the finding that "Jesus" transformed

You ask, "Any more things you want proven/ explained?" I answer, no more things...just the two things you threw out as supposed "proof" that are in fact unsubstantiated and baseless and, even if proven true, still fall victim to the issue at large - why/how in the world do these far-fetched, anecdotal accounts of "miracles" go on to "prove" the entire doctrine of Catholicism?
Debate Round No. 1
AKMath

Pro

People say there should be no religion, because there is no God. These events shows that only such thing as a God could do these things. These were simply responses to your pancake and Elvis thing in the abortion debate. If there is a God, then Catholicism and all other religions are true as there is in fact a God.
The Eucharist one happened in Buenos Aires in 1996. http://www.loamagazine.org...
As for the water to wine thing I can't exactly find an article about it as I believe it was an old documentary I watched. Try to find it on YouTube I guess.
P.S. Most (like 98.999...% :) agree Jesus of Nazareth was a real person
P.S.S. Good luck on the 0.999... = 1 debate.
BertrandsTeapot

Con

I would again ask that you try to refrain from bringing in aspects of other debates as the voting public doesn't have any idea what they mean or what their context is. Nonetheless, I take issue with nearly everything you said there.

"People say there should be no religion, because there is no God."

I think there are many, many reasons there should be no religion, with the unlikelihood of God's existence being just one.

"These events shows that only such thing as a God could do these things."

You provided two "events" that "show that only such a thing as God" exists.
  1. Eucharist in Buenos Aires in 1996 - Your source for this is a Christian website. "It is an ideal tool of evangelization...We use it as a prayer book...May the magazine become a landmark of the Universal Church in the East." - I don't think it's valid to use a Christian newsletter, the basis of which presupposes a Christian God exists, to prove that it does. It seems nearly all accounts of this event are maintained by such publications (e.g. TheDivineMercy.org, ChurchMilitant.com, CatholicJournal.us, VisionOfJesusChrist.com). In order to be a valid piece of evidence, I think Pro should be required to provide at least a few scholarly articles.
  2. Water to wine - If Pro can't find an article about it, I think it's safe to say it's not true. Citing "an old documentary (Pro) watched" is in no way valid evidence. As the burden of proof is on Pro, I should not have to "try to find it on YouTube." However, I did look on YouTube for over an hour and could not find any such story containing scientific proof of the discovery of a substance which had a "chemical composition perfectly resemble(ing) water." All that aside, let's assume Pro is able to dig up scientific sources confirming your point. I think it is your next sentence that makes the most egregious deduction.

"If there is a God, then Catholicism and all other religions are true as there is in fact a God."

Among the most glaring errors with belief in religion is the fact that in no way, shape, or form can all of the religions be true. Rather, for the most part, only one can be. I have read the Old Testament, New Testament, and Qu'ran in addition to studying the doctrines of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism and can personally attest to the fact that there are stark incompatibilities that draw attention to the inherent conflict between most religions and, thus, the complete dismantling of this very important point of yours. For example: Muslims, Jews, and Christians all claim Jerusalem as their holy land. This is such a point of contention that wars have been fought and countless people have died over this clash. Surely it would not be the case if " Catholicism and all other religions are true."

  1. The Qu'ran states that Jesus was not crucified, while that is a huge component of the New Testament
  2. Certain Islamic sects, particular Sunni Muslims, especially hose who subscribe to Wahhabism are of the belief that it is permissible to wage jihad by killing anyone who does not convert to Islam. They are also okay with capturing and raping women who are not Muslims and making them their milk al-yamin, or sex slaves. These two actions aren't just permissible they are seen as praiseworthy. On the other hand, in many religions (as well as secular philosophies), murder and rape are seen as wrong, immoral, and evil.
  3. Also, in the Mesoamerican religion of the Aztecs, human sacrifice was thought to be a good, as death and sacrifice was believed to be necessary to keep the world in existence. The sacrifices would come from those who were captured during war, as well as from the children of the native population. These people would be sacrificed and killed against their will, yet the Aztec priests saw this as a good, and saw this as the right thing to do. In contrast, most religions and secular philosophies see child sacrifice and the ill treatment of war criminals as wrong and immoral.
  4. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church believe that God hates certain groups of people, and desires their death. However, this is contradictory to what other Christian religions believe; that is, that the Abrahamic God is love itself, and that God loves everyone despite how people choose to live their life of their own free will
  5. In Islam and Judaism, Jesus Christ was not a God nor divine in any way. He was just a prophet.
  6. In Christianity, on the other hand, he has divine aspects. Christians believe that accepting Jesus is the only way to heaven. Muslims believe that accepting Allah is the only way to heaven. They are inherently different Gods who command different ways of being and conducting oneself.
  7. Many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Baha'i Faith, and Sihkism, are purely monotheistic. In fact, they admonish those who believe in any other God. On the other hand, many religions, including Hinduism, Mahayana, Confucianism, Taoism, and Shinto, are purely polytheistic.
  8. Islam and Christianity differ greatly on many of their core beliefs and are incompatible in this sense.
  9. Most Catholics think their church is the one True Church.
  10. Jehovah's Witnesses consider the Catholic worship of the Trinity as devil worship. At the same time, Protestants regard them as idolaters.

I hope this is sufficient.

"P.S. Most (like 98.999...% :) agree Jesus of Nazareth was a real person."

First, no they don't (see below). Second, people believing in something doesn't mean it's true. The whole of humanity used to believe, with great certainty, that the rest of our solar system revolved around the Earth. It is clear today that this is not true. A great deal of people used to believe the Earth was flat, but now many/most believe it is round. I'd be happy to debate anyone who feels it is flat, but that's neither here nor there. Where is this statistic from? Yet again, Pro seems to be making statements that are nothing more than pure conjecture reflecting their own, unsubstantiated views.

Here are is one of many sources that beg to differ: "40% of people doubt Jesus existed." - Steve Cooper.

Even if "like 98.999... %" agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, that statistic is not at all relevant to the conversation. Rather, we should look at the percentage of people who believe in the resurrection or divinity of Jesus. See the following real statistics:

  1. "43% of the people asked said they did believe in the resurrection - although many did not think it happened as described in the Bible." - BBC
  2. "Most adults—not quite six in 10—believe Jesus was God (56%), while about one-quarter say he was only a religious or spiritual leader like Mohammed or the Buddha (26%). The remaining one in six say they aren’t sure whether Jesus was divine (18%)." - Barna
  3. "24% believe Bible is literal word of God, the lowest in Gallup's 40-year trend." - Gallup

Let's look even further at Bible passages that indicate Jesus was not God:

  1. "Why do you call me good? No one is good, except God alone." (Mark 10:18) - Here Jesus emphatically makes a distinction between himself and God.
  2. "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) - This is another strong statement that makes a distinction between Jesus and God.
  3. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only." (Matthew 24:36) - Here Jesus makes a distinction between what he knows and what the Father knows.
  4. "By myself, I can do nothing: I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who has sent me." (John 5:30) - Jesus says, “by myself, I can do nothing.” This indicates that Jesus is relying upon his own relationship with God. He is not trying to “please myself” but rather is seeking to “please the one who sent me.”
  5. "The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does also." (John 5:19) - Jesus declares that he is following a pattern laid down by God. He is expressing obedience to God.

"P.S.S. Good luck on the 0.999... = 1 debate."

Unwarranted aggressiveness aside, this is not relevant here.

I have now gone through all of Pro's most recent arguments and taken them apart, one by one.

  1. I stated that there are many reasons other than God's non-existence for people saying there should be no religion
  2. I showed that the two "events" cited by Pro were completely invalid as claims based on lack of evidence, among other things
  3. I dug into the most glaring error in Pro's argument, showing that even if there was a God, that doesn't mean Catholicism is true and, moreover, there is simply no way that "all other religions are true"
  4. I disputed Pro's claim about the percentage of people who agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, first by offering a counterclaim and then by drilling down further to reveal that the particular statistic has no bearing even if it were accurate
  5. I drew attention to Pro's unwarranted use of aggression, specifically in a case that bears no relevance to the debate at hand
Looking forward to hearing back!
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Considerthefollowing 3 years ago
Considerthefollowing
Lol. Bro how does Akmath believe this stuff?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.