The Instigator
Notograptus
Pro (for)
The Contender
kwagga_la
Con (against)

Christianity: A disgusting religion, Like all others, And a wrong one, Like all others.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Notograptus has forfeited round #2.
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: 9/7/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 243 times Debate No: 122933
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

Notograptus

Pro

First of all, I'd like to state that in my first argument I will not mention evolution to support it as I'd first like to see my opponent's argument against evolution before showing that evolution is right.

With that out of the way, Let's get into my main arguments.

1. Conflict
On the planet Earth, We have many fights between nations, Many fights between peoples, And a lot are caused due to religious reasons. For example, The Reconquista was a pretty big religious war, With the Muslim Conquest of Iberia in 711 until the fall of Granada. This was not a small war, It was the longest war in human history, Not excluding blood, Because of Christian Kingdoms wanting to take out the Muslim Kingdoms. Yet no God intervened to stop this bloodshed from occurring by simply revealing himself without showing his own body, An easy thing to do. What was preventing God from doing such a thing as mentioned? If he's omniscient, He should be able to find out how to do such a thing with ease, With omnipotence helping God as well.

2. The Flood
The Flood, A well-known event in the Bible, Was a ripoff of a ripoff of a ripoff. The most well known story that Noah's Flood was ripped off from was the Epic of Gilgamesh, Which came a mere 1, 000 years before the Bible was even beginning to be written. But even if that wasn't true, How did the Ark even get built? You have to get all of the animals, All of the food, All of the resources, Not fall and die, Etc. With only 8 people in the BCs? That is not nearly impossible, That IS impossible.

3. The Need
What is the need for God? We already have explanations for how humans came around with evolution, We already have an idea of the beginning of the universe, Questions which were originally just answered by people lazily shouting "God! " were answered correctly by science. Yet, It would seem that Christians have not yet learned from the past, And still lazily shout the same thing each time: God! God! God! Instead of actually investigating the questions to come to their own conclusion.

4. Contradictions
In the Bible, There is loads of contradictions. I will not give examples as it will waste my time, But you can just look up Bible contradictions and you will probably get tons of results, From atheists and religious people both. If you deny that there is contradictions in the Bible, You will first have to do the word twisting Olympics to get a Gold Medal, As in reality, The Bible is one of the most contradictory popular stories ever.
kwagga_la

Con

1. Conflict

Pro starts with pointing out that "a lot" of wars are caused or were caused by religion. He is correct, But then again a lot of wars have been caused by atheists as well. It is estimated by some on the Internet that more people were killed during the communist era, Which was atheistic, Than during all the religious wars before it. Today we have communist Chinese atheists killing Tibetan Buddhist atheists. Not to mention North Korea and many Asian countries who are atheistic and kill anyone who oppose them. It should be obvious that war does not require a belief or disbelief in God and therefore the argument fails from the start because the basic primes is wrong. The argument may be valid against some religions but Jesus taught not to fight but to love your neighbor. If so called Christians disobey His commandments and war against others then it is not a failure on Christ"s part but on their own part for disobeying Him. The argument seems to be a case of misplaced guilt.

Pro then asks why God does not stop wars? By default, If God does not stop wars then it is because He does not exist. But the question is, Why should God stop wars to prove He exists? Many world leaders had the chance to stop wars in the past and they did not. Can we apply this type of reasoning and say therefore they could not have existed? Obviously not. Pro will probably counter that God is different and therefore it is not the same. Well, Let"s look at what Pro is asking for. He wants a God who must intervene to stop people from doing things they want to do and by doing so, Deny them their freewill and freedom to choose and act. Should God strike down all the soldiers with sickness? Tie them up or kill them? Pro"s loving God who must intervene is actually a fascists dictator! Pro wants to prove his argument by deciding what he thinks God should be or not be or do. The God of the Bible gives many reason why he does not intervene and one of them is because He allows freewill inspite the fact that many chose to reject Him. Your argument is a distortion of Biblical reasons. Perhaps you are arguing against some other religion? Because you misrepresent what Christ taught.

2. The Flood
There are many flood stories across the world in different cultures. This actually lends credibility to the claim that a flood did occur. How could people from the Philippines across Africa to the Inca's all have the same story? They did not know each other, There could not have been a conspiracy, They just reported an event that touched them all. How do you know that the Bible is a rip off? The Bible states that memorial events was communicated from father to son among the Jews and that tradition is still ongoing today in Israel. My point is that oral tradition preceded written tradition, A well known facts if you study history. The first mention in writing is not necessarily the origin of the event that was written down. You commit the fallacy of "either or". It took around 120 years to build the Ark, If I remember correctly. 120 years seems to be more than enough to get all the materials, Resources etc.

3. The Need
Do you need your left arm to exist? How about your eyes? It should be obvious that need cannot determine existence because you can still exist without your left arm. Many people think they do not need medical insurance, Until they get terminally ill that is. You make the same mistake again by generalizing. The God of the gaps argument is another fallacy because it is a generalization. The Bible claims that the earth hangs as ball in the air. It claims the earth is round. It makes many other scientific statements that are true. Explain to me how this was an attempt to explain things because they did not know anything? Some cultures may fall into the category you speak of but definitely not the Jews. This is why I said your generalization leads to a fallacy. I remember watching a program where Richard Dawkins tried the same argument against a Rabbi. After Dawkins presented his case about how science knows and religions guess, The Rabbi simply answered, But we Jews have always believed the earth was round. Dawkins did not know what to say.

4. Contradictions
Since you do not mention any, I will respond by pointing out the contradictions with evolution based on what you stated. There are many different theories of how the universe began, At least three, That I know of and the one proves the other wrong. Evolution is not constant. Many scientists today do not accept Darwin"s original theory. There are also contradictory explanations how mankind evolved. Did the universe start 15 Billion years ago? 4. 5 Billion years ago? 7 Billion? Go back to Darwin and compare the estimates, You will find many contradictions. So, If I understand you assertion correctly, Then we should not believe in evolution because there are many contradictions to be found in it"s history. The argument "science corrects itself" sounds like an excuse the Watchtower Society uses when they are proved wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 1 week ago
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet
"It seems you have a habit of taking things out of context. "

Best ironic young earth creationist quote of the century.
Posted by kwagga_la 1 week ago
kwagga_la
@WhoPutYouOnThePlanet Nobody is forcing you to argue with me, Take the advice from Frozen, Just let it go.

"which is basically the same as a scientific hypothesis" A hypothesis is an assumption, Guess, Supposition or suggestion " not much better than a theory. You just supported what I said.

"A scientific theory is a model that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method using proper methods of observation and measurement" VERSUS "Also claiming that we have to repeat the "entire" process in order for it to hold any virility at all is absurd. " That one speaks for itself " no comment.

"This is laughably wrong, It was Issac newton who proposed that space and time were constant" If you want to laugh then the joke is on you. I said the original theory was based on the assumption that the universe was not expanding, It was constant. I suggest that you take your own advice and do some research. It seems you have a habit of taking things out of context.

" Yes, It is the best model of reality we have. . . Constantly making accurate predictions which are accordant with observation and evidence while still being potentially falsifiable, Problem? " How many "accurate" predictions were made for 30 years based on Hawkins theory? To mention only one example

"Well if he was wrong its no longer a scientific theory assuming it was one to begin with" That means there is no certainty you can do proper scientific investigation because when it is proven to be wrong it was not science to begin with. Circular reasoning to say the least. In the history of so called science, This is and will remain a contradiction " which was my point to begin with.

"Look im getting pretty tired of arguing with you" VERSUS "If you want to continue this we can do it in a actual debate. " To do what? Continue arguing?

"Evolution doesn't lack the observational evidence theory" Of course it does, You admit you only observe in part, That's the point.
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 1 week ago
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet
"Let me give you an example of a Creationist argument and forget what the beliefs are of the person who raised it. The evolution process takes millions of years. No one living today was around millions of years ago and no one today will be on this earth millions of years from now to observe any one given process. Although you may see in part, No one alive today will ever see the whole process. Science says we must test, Repeat and falsify. So, Evolution is only a theory because it lacks observational evidence that Science requires. No one can obviously do that with evolution as a whole. Is this not a valid point? "

Evolution doesn't lack the observational evidence and its not a theory in the casual use of the word theory, Also claiming that we have to repeat the "entire" process in order for it to hold any virility at all is absurd.

Look im getting pretty tired of arguing with you on this subject matter and its becoming quite clear why some people don't want to debate you, So im pretty much done, If you want to continue this we can do it in a actual debate.
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 1 week ago
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet
"Evolution is still called the "theory" of evolution. It is not the fact of evolution because there are many gaps and contradictions in the theories out there. In the courses taught in University you will find that they say, They follow evolution because it is the best current explanation "we" have"

No, The word theory has a completely different meaning when used in a scientific context compared to casual context, A scientific theory is a model that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method using proper methods of observation and measurement, Theory is the highest ranking in science, When creationists say "evolution is just a theory" they are using the casual meaning of the word theory which is basically the same as a scientific hypothesis, So put simply.

*Evolution is just a theory = Evolution is just a hypothesis - which is horse crap.
General reality is also "just a theory" but i don't see you jumping out a window do i?

"They follow evolution because it is the best current explanation "we" have. "

Yes, It is the best model of reality we have that explains biodiversity while constantly making accurate predictions which are accordant with observation and evidence while still being potentially falsifiable, Problem?

"Hawkins was wrong about black holes for 30 years, How many credible scientific theories were based on his wrong theory? "
Well if he was wrong its no longer a scientific theory assuming it was one to begin with, Also if other scientific theory's were established on it they would have been overturned.

"Einstein"s theory of relativity based on a universe that was constant"
This is laughably wrong, It was Issac newton who proposed that space and time were constant, General relativity proposed that time is relative to the observer and this scientific theory as stood strong ever since along with quantum mechanics.
Posted by kwagga_la 1 week ago
kwagga_la
@WhoPutYouOnThePlanet I said: "lucky for them the judicial system etc. You are taking my statement out of context and applying it to the whole judicial system. So no, I am not high, Try putting things in context please.

You can try and ridicule the bias I pointed out but that will not make it go away. It is well documented. Do you think Hawkins Black hole error was not peer reviewed and passed the peer review? There are many instances of peer review cases that was peer reviewed but actually in error, Take Einstein"s original theory of relativity as an example. So what"s your point? Peer review is not the alpha and omega to establish truth, Yet that is what you assert. If it"s not peer reviewed then it is not valid is what you basically assert. I say it again, Many peer reviewed papers were invalid through the history of science. The scientific community"s bias do not allow that certain opposing theories be peer reviewed to begin with.

"Explain to me your opinions regarding Kitzmiller v. Dover" " Why don"t you explain to me why the flat earth theory was taught in universities and believed by just about everyone else while being biased against a round earth theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover case was won because they said creationism is not scientific, The round earth was also not regarded as scientific.
Posted by kwagga_la 1 week ago
kwagga_la
@WhoPutYouOnThePlanet You state that that you discredit "this minority of religious fundamentalists". The fact is that it is not only religious fundamentalists who have a problem with evolution, But I get you point that is related to specifics they believe. Evolution is still called the "theory" of evolution. It is not the fact of evolution because there are many gaps and contradictions in the theories out there. In the courses taught in University you will find that they say, They follow evolution because it is the best current explanation "we" have.

When Christians point out problems with evolution theories, I think it should be evaluated on merit and not disregarded purely because some think it is not scientific. People were persecuted for saying the earth was not flat, So I agree that individual belief should not be used to discredit someone.
Hawkins was wrong about black holes for 30 years, How many credible scientific theories were based on his wrong theory? I can mention other examples like for instance Einstein"s theory of relativity based on a universe that was constant. The list go on and on how "science" got it wrong through the years. Is it possible that they also got it wrong now?

Let me give you an example of a Creationist argument and forget what the beliefs are of the person who raised it. The evolution process takes millions of years. No one living today was around millions of years ago and no one today will be on this earth millions of years from now to observe any one given process. Although you may see in part, No one alive today will ever see the whole process. Science says we must test, Repeat and falsify. So, Evolution is only a theory because it lacks observational evidence that Science requires. No one can obviously do that with evolution as a whole. Is this not a valid point?
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 1 week ago
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet
"That means, Evolution by default, Does not necessarily support or prove atheism is right. Science cannot pinpoint how the universe started. The Catholic Church accepts evolution and says God started it. No Scientist to date have presented irrefutable proof to show them they are wrong. "

I never had a problem with this, In fact i made it quite clear that i didn't, Its the religious fundamentalists who have built this false dichotomy that if you believe in evolution then your not a true this or it proves this or something else completely absurd. I am not an atheist simply because of evolutionary theory.

it was the fundamentalists who came up with the whole EVOLUTION=NO-GOD horse crap.

"the judicial system is more unbiased than the scientific community"

Are you high? The judicial system is one of the most biased and dishonest and fundamentally broken systems ever, Its not a system designed to figure out what is true its a system that basically boils down to whoever can create the most convincing case no matter how deceitful, This is what lawyers get payed to do, Also if you think the judicial system is so unbiased then would you care to explain to me your opinions regarding Kitzmiller v. Dover which was a court case regarding intelligent design which lost horribly?

"If all articles were given equal merit, You would see articles published that contradict evolution theory, But it is suppressed by the people who decide what goes into the journals. "

So if all articles that failed to pass peer review were given a free pass to cheat peer review, Then you would see articles that contradict evolutionary theory. .

So when someone random writes online about their personal beliefs and it isn't held to the same standard as a peer reviewed scientific paper, Its not because what they wrote is unsupported empty asserted nonsense to the highest order, Its because there is a freaking conspiracy -_- of course. .

"Based on court case records and documentaries"
Like
Posted by kwagga_la 1 week ago
kwagga_la
@WhoPutYouOnThePlanet There was no emotional appeal. The people mentioned in the article was from prestigious scientific bodies, But because the article was published in a "Christian" website, You automatically questioned their opinions. Your "fact" is wrong because there were many scientists who rejected or did not accept the popular theory of evolution in their day, So the "very small" minority does not exist looking back in history. I googled the "small minority" but only found opinion and no actual data. I was and am talking about the history of evolution to point out that there are many contradictions in the history of evolution.

If you are talking about a small minority today, Then I would expect some poll result to show it is true. Secondly, I have listened to some secular scientist who accepts evolution but still believe in God or thinks that an afterlife exists. That means, Evolution by default, Does not necessarily support or prove atheism is right. Science cannot pinpoint how the universe started. The Catholic Church accepts evolution and says God started it. No Scientist to date have presented irrefutable proof to show them they are wrong.

You state that people must be published to be credible. It is a well-known fact, Based on court case records and documentaries, That the "scientific community" is not as unbiased as they say "science" is. The journals receive articles which they reject because it disagrees with what they accept. Scientists were fired from their jobs because they went against what was "acceptable" but lucky for them the judicial system is more unbiased than the "scientific community" and ruled in their favor. If all articles were given equal merit, You would see articles published that contradict evolution theory, But it is suppressed by the people who decide what goes into the journals.
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 1 week ago
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet
Or put simply.

I don't have a problem what a scientist believes nor do i discredit them because of it as long as they are honest about it just being their beliefs and claim nothing more of it without evidence and having it going through the scientific method and sufficient peer review process. Basically they only claim what they can sufficiently prove and don't cheery pick science like the honest individuals they are.

I DO have a problem when a "scientist" claims that his beliefs are factual and evidently supported and that it overturns entire scientific theory's without having sufficient evidence, And without it going through the scientific method and peer review process, But instead posting it on online sources and claiming absolution while cheery picking science to their own predetermined conclusions, Which is not science, But pseudoscience.

"The article I quote is from a U. S. Geological Survey, Are they a credible source? "

You see here is the problem, You didn't properly source any of this, You just stated a bunch of stuff and said it was from U. S. Geological Survey which means i can't go look at exactly where/what you supposedly got all of this information in order to fact check its credibility, Which means while the site may possibly be credible i cannot verify whether the information you claim to have gotten from the site is credible or not, See my problem here? I suggest in future debates you properly source things.
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 1 week ago
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet
Also i think your trying to commit a strawman on my position here.

I don't have a problem whether a scientist is christian/Islam/Jewish/etc or discredit them based on that, The vast majority of scientists are actually religiously affiliated and you know why i don't have a problem with them? Because they are actual honest respectable scientists.

Despite the majority of the scientific enterprise being religiously affiliated they still accept evolutionary theory, The big bang theory, Etc because they are more them aware that it is where the evidence leads, And more importantly while these scientists may talk about their beliefs they will never claim them as a fact or scientific theory without the proper evidence and peer reviewed work to back it up because they are also aware that no evidence supports it and to conclude otherwise would be dishonest and peudoscientific, Which is also why they will not teach religion in a science class room.

What i will discredit is this minority of religious fundamentalists who often claim absolution and claim that creation is a fact and that evolution and the big bang are just a theory and other non-sense with no support or peer reviewed work whatsoever and just post random crap work on sites like answers in genesis, And by the way the previously before mentioned religious scientific majority also thinks the same way about these fundamentalists which wouldn't make much sense if they had legitimate work and evidence right?

Also remember Issac newton, The individual who invented calculus and the equations for motion, He also believed in alchemy, Does that mean we should automatically believe him as credible and take alchemy seriously? Or is it possible that its far more complicated them someone simply having credentials as you seem to propose.
This debate has 2 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.