The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Christianity is false

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 779 times Debate No: 98566
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)




This format must and will be followed.

1st.) Introduction and Challenge, no stances will be posted, just the acceptance and the handshake.
2.) Primary argument.
3.) Main Rebuttal.
4.) Counter Rebuttal.
5.) Conclusion, no more arguing.

Best of luck to my opponent, whoever that may be.


Hello, Thank you for the chance to argue against your proposition, or in this case for Christianity. First off I am not a Christian and argue against it very often. I hope I can do the con (in this case pro Christianity side) justice. I think its important to be able to debate both sides.

Good Luck to you.
Debate Round No. 1


All my sources will be posted in the last round, as many would say Christianity has been the most relevant religion for many years. Many Christians including yourself would use the "knowledge" in the bible to reign on my arguments and shatter the theories that would be viewed as "common sense." In this case, I will not necessarily focus on dismissing the facts in the bible, I will primarily focus on dismissing the bible itself.

Before I begin I would like to say that most of the bible doesn"t fit common sense standards. If you look at the Quran you would say that it sounds like fantasy, many view Greek mythology as fantasy. However, a man raising from the dead 3 days after his initial demise is likely just as convincing as a crazy snake lady that turns people to stone. In other words, it"s not convincing at all.

I can rant all day about how the Bible doesn't many any logical sense, however that will be saved for my counter rebuttal. The rest of this argument will likely be focused on the bible itself, 2000 years worth of unreliable information.

Through the course of time it has been made quite relevant that the Bible is viewed as a historical document, primarily wrote by 40 authors over the course of 1500 years. View this in a retrospective, the world is billions of years old, the Bible only, theoretically will cover only a small fraction of history. That being said, all christians claim the only sinless man is Jesus Christ, how does that make sense? To trust a scripture that was written by men, and though it should be considered that people are known to lie?

How hard would it be to jot something in there that is over exaggerated, that may manipulate are views about the world and most importantly, our family? However after the events of the new testament, it should be noted that the greedy priests of the dark ages had all access to the Bible. This leaves another few centuries of vulnerability.

Historical documents have been noted to have flaws, and Christians still view the bible as a flawless piece of work, when no two bibles are actually the same. If you put two bibles right next to each other, you will see minor differences. Though this isn"t enough to change the story itself. However over the course of 1600 years, the changes could escalate severely, to the point where the story may also change.

The concept of salvation is a terrible one, as a good man that's an atheist will end up in an eternity of flames. My general theory here is that the popes of the medieval ages have used this to manipulate the views of the poor, as that has been the mindset during that time. Religion has been used as an excuse to twist the minds of people, make them think that they are lesser then they actually are. Nowadays though the Morales can be fantastic, but that's not to say that there are a lot of things wrong with it.

The ten commandments are saying that we must all follow the God, the God that will send people to hell if we do not believe in what he believes in. Though Christians most likely have good morales, the bible itself is a big contradiction.

I will list a bunch of contradictory quotes and post an explanation afterwards.

GE 1:35 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting.
GA 6:15 It is of no consequence.

GE 17:8 God promises Abraham the land of Canaan as an "everlasting possession."
GE 25:8, AC 7:2-5, HE 11:13 Abraham died with the promise unfulfilled.

GE 50:13 Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite.
AC 7:15-16 He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem bought from the sons of Hamor.

EX 20:4 God prohibits the making of any graven images whatsoever.
EX 25:18 God enjoins the making of two graven images.

LE 19:18, MT 22:39 Love your neighbor [as much as] yourself.
1CO 10:24 Put your neighbor ahead of yourself.

There are many more quotes and verses that share the same issue, so how must I put my life on thousands of pages of unconfirmed scriptures? How do we know whether the bible is true or fake, if many of these incidents happen. This puts the Bible as an outdated and unreliable source of information, and I can't believe any of it when this is such a occurrence.

So many edits and changes have been made, and several churches have denied many of the things that have been written down.

If the bible holds some truth, its clearly misunderstood, as many scriptures contradict itself, and no truth can be determined.


I would like to thank Pro for his opening salvo. I however am not a Christian, so I don't think I will make a conventional argument that a Christian would make, and it allows me to be objective. I have argued the Pro side of this many times and would be most afraid of the argument I am going to make as I think it is very tough to beat, so good luck Pro.

Pro start by pointing out the many issues with the Bible, and religion in general, which I would agree with in principle. However, this is not the end of the story but the beginning. Christianity should be defined as belief in Christ and his teachings, and following his moral guide. Which is the definition I will use for this debate.

I think anyone with a historical knowledge can see that there most likely was a man named Jesus that lived, and by all accounts was a very moral person and lead a lot of people, the best interpretation of this in modern terms is that he was a populist and lead a populist uprising.

Matthew 21:12 Is a perfect example of his great dislike for the "money changers" the modern day bankers. He understood that they were the real source of power and lead the people up against them, and was very successful.

Of course the "elites" of the day were not going to take this lying down, so they had him killed and set an example of him. Though this only made him a martyr and his popularity continued to rise. Rome continued to persecute people that followed Christs teachings supposedly feed them to lions in the coliseum, whether true or not, they were undoubtedly trying to stop the uprising Jesus caused, and when unsuccessful they did what all elites inevitably do when they know they are not able to control a movement, they co-opted it. After 300 years or so of trying to stop the Christian movement the elites under the guise of priests met in Nice and constructed the bible, including adding the old testament to give it antiquity thus validity. They also incorporated most of the traditions of the current religions hence Christmas is at the winter solstice and Easter is close to Passover, its much easier to tell your people, "we are not changing our belief just the name of who we believe in" that way you are getting the best of both world.

Thus the Roman Catholic Church is born, and the Bible was officially assembled. Thus using the bible as more than a historical lesson of Jesus, and it can not be interpreted on a line by line basis. As the translations and historical context have been changed and manipulated. This does not invalidate Jesus and his teaching, rather it means that much of the historical truths of his life were lost. It is impossible to prove the facts of Jesus because of the co-opting of them by the church, and it is obvious they assembled the bible and basically rewrote it, other historical text have been found that directly shows different stories that were not included in the bible, most notable are the Gnostic scrolls. These do however give extremely strong evidence that Jesus was a real person. Whether he is divine or not is not as relevant as his moral teachings and his leadership against the elites of the day.

People always find ways to gain power over their fellow man, and this is preciously what Jesus was against. He would not agree with religious leaders of today, and would encourage us to be good moral people.

One of the key problems today with acknowledging the problems inherent in the bible is to ignore the fundamental teachings of the new testament. When you tear down religion and its ethical teachings and don't replace them with secular ethics I believe it has detrimental effects on society, esp since they do not teach ethics in school and very little has been done to advance ethics outside of a religious framework. You see this very clearly today with most atheists that replace religion with worship of the state, as they try to fill the void that religion normally fills.

So while all of your biblical critiques are valid, and the bible is obviously man made (I personally think they made a big mistake adding the old testament and it would have been a better book if you got rid of it as well as Revelations, in all its silliness) it does not invalidate Jesus as a person or his teachings. Thus belief in Jesus and his teachings on life are very valid today and a good way of teaching ethics especially to children. I argue that that is the heart of Christianity, and thus is not false.

I will conclude there, and I look forward to Pro's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2


You made the argument that Christianity is about Jesus, and that is fair. However though Jesus was a huge teacher that doesn't necessarily mean he was a cosmic man that could be resurrected.

Your quote in Matthew 21:12 does portray him as good man, and he is certainly a great person based on documents. I cannot argue against that nor will I try to, I entirely agree that Jesus was a fantastic person historically.

So yes, the "elites" then decided to execute him, but the well constructed Bible was not so well constructed.

You mentioned that a well organized scripture was put together by the priests, but the Bible was only available to the priests. When Christianity became main stream, people didn't use it as a source of love, rather to use it as a way of greed. Priests who assembled the bible used it to manipulate others into doing what they wanted. This made lower class accept there fate rather than trying to improve. Christianity itself is the reason why so many peasants say "this is our fate and we will die poor." It made them believe that they will never improve.

The old testament was added to establish rules and mindsets that were heavily utilized by the common people. Genesis and Exodus has some fairly terrible quotes in it, expressing hatred to women, the weak and a negative reference to slavery. The old testament was not added to give antiquity, it was added so people could utilize it to manipulate individuals further.

It is better to say you are changing the name you believe in, but if you're christian you are taking from the Bible. The Bible is the single source of Christianity, sure the Morales of it say you follow Jesus and his teachings, but every chapter in the "holy book" plays a significant part.

Under your statement of the Roman Catholic church being born and Jesus being a real person, what you said was entirely true, I am not denying the existence of Jesus. But his teachings are not what makes someone Christian, what defines a Christian is his sacrifice on the cross, he is an influential figure whether he was divine or not. But according to most Christians, if you think he isn't divine, then you are not christian.

Jesus would clearly not agree with people based on the historical context, however that is not what I am arguing against.

In conclusion the heart of Christianity is not on the basis of Jesus being real or not, its under the basis that you believe he has made a sacrifice and ascended into heaven 3 days later. Though his teachings is the heart of Christianity, you will be shunned down if you don't think that he was divine. Christians believe that Jesus is a God.


Thank you Pro for a great rebuttal. I think we agree on the fact that the bible is clearly not Jesus's writing, and that the Church put it together as a form of control over the masses. The particulars of this process are not that important, the reason why they added the old testament is interesting but not crucial to the debate at hand.

You rightly came to the conclusion that the crux of the debate is Jesus's divinity. Do you have to believe in Jesus's divinity to be Christian. I would say no, but you rightly point out 99% of Christians would say yes, this is a simple argumentum ad populum, and can't be accepted without proving the underling issue. I also agree that most churches and pastures would say the same thing, but this is an appeal to authority (an expert at the bible that we both agree was manipulated by man has no expertise relevant to the issue at hand). So we arrive at a very sticky situation. I have to prove that you can be Christian and not believe that Jesus can be proven as divine, and you have to prove that to be Christian means believing that he was divine and died for his believers sins.

Their is very good evidence that Jesus was human, and the divinity must be taken on faith, based on inaccurate manipulated sources, I intentionally chose Matthew 21:12 because it shows Jesus as human, and not divine (an interesting side note for anyone believing the validity of the bible. Look at all the different versions of this one passage alone, most omit that he was driving out priests that were selling animals for sacrifice. Most people don't know that Jews sacrificed animals in the time of Jesus, and it is interesting how this fact gets omitted from the majority of the bibles[1]).

This bring me to my next point, what does it change if Jesus is or is not divine? If he his or is not divine would that influence how someone should behave or interpret his validity as a teacher and leader? I would obviously argue that it would not change anything, and that most Christians are adult enough to realize if they found Jesus's tomb tomorrow and his body was laying inside, that they would not burn all the bibles and go out and start murdering and such. I think they would realize that it would be ok and that they could continue to follow his teachings as a moral and political leader. (in fact I would argue this would be very good for the mental health of most Christians, and other religions as well).

I think we agree with more than we disagree here. I argue that you can not invalidate Christianity because of the bible being false, and that is the only real source for Jesus's divinity. If Christians could be honest about history and their beliefs I think more would understand that it does not in fact change anything if Jesus was not divine, and they might be able to focus on the main lessons Jesus taught and not on the mystical properties. This would be a very good revelation for most Christians, and I would argue make them closer to the teaching of Jesus and let them evaluate the world based on a true sense of humanity and morals. For example most Christians refuse to see the horrible things Israel has done and continues to do to Palestinians, but they are blinded by the messianic passages of the bible and dehumanize and justify and deny (usually all at the same time) the Muslims and Israels treatment of them, and this is clearly not what Jesus taught.

I will conclude there, I look forward to your counter-rebuttal Pro.

Debate Round No. 3


"Do you have to believe in Jesus's divinity to be Christian. I would say no, but you rightly point out 99% of Christians would say yes."

Well that concludes a lot then doesn't it, if that is the Christian way of thinking then that's how it should be labeled as. Christians believe in the ascension of Jesus as a God, believing in his teachings wouldn't make you a Christian, accepting him as a God and making the assumption that he resurrected into heaven is a huge basis of Christianity.

"Their is very good evidence that Jesus was human."

Yes, no matter what way you view it as Jesus was a man, divine or not he is considered to be a historical figure.

"This bring me to my next point, what does it change if Jesus is or is not divine?"

It changes a lot, accepting Jesus Christ as a God is what brings and ascends you into heaven, at my old church when I was a Christian the pastors would constantly tell us to accept Jesus as your master and as a god. The holy trinity is a gigantic part of Christianity, the father, the son and the holy spirit. Failure to accept one of these divine figures is considered to be failure of acceptance.

" I think they would realize that it would be ok and that they could continue to follow his teachings as a moral and political leader."

I think that it would shift the view points of the bible by a drastic amount, and could even possibly make people become "unfaithful." Christians use the bible as a way of hope, and they also use it as a way to feel good about an after life, this will disrupt the Christians and cause them to question there beliefs.

"I argue that you can not invalidate Christianity because of the bible being false, and that is the only real source for Jesus's divinity."

However most Christians will argue that the bible is true, creationist and premillennialism is also a key view point. The teaching if Jesus is a small fraction though it is the main view. Don't forget these key views.

divinity of Jesus Christ
Doctrine of Scripture
End Times
ex nihilo
Faith and Works
Holy Spirit
Human Nature
Imago Dei
New Perspective on Paul
Other Religions
Trinitarian monotheism

Those twenty things are all related to Christianity, the teachings of Jesus is not the only thing that makes one Christian.

Sorry for the lack of a counter, however its greater to write smaller amount of things that are more meaningful, most of my points would have just been dragged on if I responded to the whole thing you wrote, as most of it can be responded with the same counters.


Thank you Pro, I know you could argue I turned this into a semantical argument, and to a small degree you might be right, as I am not arguing against the most commonly held version of Christianity or what most would think of it as, and you would be correct. But, that does not make my argument it any less true or compelling. I think a lot of Christians that are not the hard core bible thumping type, take a more rational approach to the bible, and this is the case I am putting forward even if they are a minority, the still are Christians, and their interpretation is not false, as Pro argues.

I am sure there are millions of anecdotal stories of how Jesus must be divine. But like I said this is merely an argumentum ad populum (argument from popularity). If the debate was most Christians believe Jesus is divine, absolutely correct. Lucky for the Con it is not :) If you believe in Jesus and his teachings then you can call yourself a Christian if you so choose, and still be agnostic towards the bible, and use it as a guide rather than dogma. I do not think this would make the person less of a Christian rather it would make them a more honest one, which I would argue is closer to the teachings that Jesus was actually teaching based on what historical evidence we can actually rationally interpret of the character of Jesus.

So I would say don't be so quick to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. There are good moral lessons that can be easily understood, and rather than trying to deny Christianity deny the irrational destructive parts of the bible and encourage people to take a logical moral and ethical view of the Christian faith and keep the positive aspects as for a lot of people they need such a crutch to help them live moral ethical lives, and encourage them to be critical thinkers and evaluate the bible along with the rest of the world from a skeptics point of view so they are not so easily lead astray by those trying to manipulate them past, present and future.

Thank you Pro, I look forward to your conclusion.
Debate Round No. 4


Thanks for the fantastic debate, now it's up to the voters.


Thank you Pro, very interesting getting to argue this side of it. I would conclude by pointing out that it is not good to destroy a system that provides objective moral without first replacing them. Christians have a system, while not perfect by any means it is still better than no objective morals.

Jesus can be used as a teacher of these objective morals and that is important in the current world. So while the bible has many flaws that can not be reconciled, Jesus really lived and taught people to be free from the rulers of the day, and to be be objectively moral people, and these teaching are what it is to be Christians. The finer unprovable details can be endlessly debated. The fact the bible being 100% accurate and the word of God is not a necessity to following Jesus, and those that interpret it this way are still CHRISTIAN aka Followers of Jesus Christ.

Thanks again Pro, it was fun and you did very well considering you didn't get the debate you expected :)
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
You should attend this debate:
Atheism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!
Posted by SirBadgerLock 1 year ago
I am just working on two debates at once, as soon as I figure this phone argument I will post it within a few hours.
Posted by SirBadgerLock 1 year ago
No I certainly will, do not worry I will not forget, I am working on it constantly.
Posted by Ozzz169 1 year ago
Don't forget to post your response time is almost up :/

I am sure your not loving my argument as its not an easy one to rebut. I think people forget that Jesus did not write the bible, and that it is not the end all be all in the debate over Christianity, no matter how much religious leaders have tried to convince everyone of that for millennium now.

Have a shot at it though, I wont hold it against ya as you thought you were going to debate a bible thumper, not a critical thinker.
Posted by SirBadgerLock 1 year ago
Good to see a Christian using one line from an outdated source count that as an argument, I detect a lot of ignorance from a brainwashed man. I feel bad for you. @FollowerofChrist1955
Posted by Ozzz169 1 year ago
That is not an argument. It is sad the more brainwashed by a religion someone is the more Judgmental and evil they get. The God you believe in will not look kindly upon what is in your heart my friend. The way you and many "Christians" interpret the bible is not anywhere close to what Jesus was teaching, so for your sake you better hope your wrong.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
Main argument: Absolute rejection of Jesus Christ!

Rebuttal: Proverbs 1:24-26
Because I called and you refused, I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention; And you neglected all my reproof; I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your dread comes,

Conclusion: No more arguing!
Posted by Ozzz169 1 year ago
Hope I did not over promise and under-deliver, got me all nervous now. ;) Just kidding I am not nervous about it. I think this is a very credible argument and one most Christians would do much better making (and believing, cause it is most likely the truth) as it lets one still be a Christian and not sacrifice intellectual honesty.
Posted by stcornerap 1 year ago
I'm really excited to hear your argument. I'm assuming that you don't think your opponent can beat it but it's not unbeatable because you can beat it. Very interesting! :)
Posted by SirBadgerLock 1 year ago
It will be posted momentarily
No votes have been placed for this debate.