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

Eight reasons why christianity is dishonest and deceitful

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ChickenWaffles has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 739 times Debate No: 120936
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




Taken from. . . Atheist Alliance International:
There is very little that we can prove in this world. We can look for evidence to support claims people make and when there is robust supporting evidence, And no contrary evidence, We can conclude a claim is probably, But not definitely, True.

However, It is easier to prove something is false"all you need is one piece of contradictory evidence. So, What about Christianity? Is there evidence that contradicts, Or casts grave doubt on Christianity? I think there is rather a lot.

To keep this article brief, I will describe the falsifying evidence without giving all the sources and details but, Actually, Most of it is so well-known, That even Christians should be aware that this evidence exists.

1. There is clear evidence that prayer does not work despite the Bible promising prayers will be answered.

2. There is clear evidence that humans invent gods. Humans have invented so many gods that the default assumption should be that a god is a supernatural entity invented by humans. Christianity would need solid evidence that the Jewish god is an exception to this rule but there is no such evidence.

3. There is clear evidence that religions and gods are propagated through culture by infecting children, And no evidence that they are propagated by gods.

4. There is clear evidence that Christianity has evolved as human understanding of the world has changed whilst a real, God-given religion, Should never need to change.

5. There is clear evidence that humans on this planet have unequal access to Christianity so, If Christianity were true, Billions would be condemned to hell for no fault of their own. This contradicts the Christian notion that God is omnibenevolent.

6. There is clear evidence that the Bible, Supposedly inspired by God, Is liberally sprinkled with the type of errors we would expect from its Iron Age authors but would not expect from the creator of the universe.

7. Christian theology is incoherent to the point of absurdity. God killing his son so he can forgive our future sin is like me breaking my son"s legs so I can forgive my neighbor in case she ever parks her car on my drive. It is quite ridiculous.

8. There is clear evidence that the arguments presented for the existence of the Jewish God are logically flawed"all of them have been shown to be unreliable. If this were not the case, All honest and intelligent people would accept that God exists, Just as all honest and intelligent people accept that black holes exist.

All that is left for Christians is faith and their feelings. We know that faith and feelings can be used to believe in any god at all including non-existent gods. So faith and feelings cannot help us determine if Christianity is true.

But that is all Christians have.

Prove christianity to be true.

dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.


I will be debating backwardseden not the comments. If you want to debate concerning this topic, Send me a challenge.

Let's get started.
I will start by debunking every one of his points.

1. Sometimes God says NO, Or later.
2. Humans cannot invent something that is outside of time, Space, And matter. I will provide proof for the existence of a Christian God now. It is recognized worldwide that Jesus existed. I will present proof for his reservation after being crucified.
The historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ is very good. Scholars such as William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, And others have done an especially good job of detailing that evidence. 1 It is the aim of this article to offer a sort of synthesis of some of their key points and show the strength of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ.

A method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation. " William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, If true, Provide the best explanation of that evidence. " In other words, We ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it.

When we look at the evidence, The truth of the resurrection emerges very clearly as the best explanation. There is no other theory that even come close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, There is solid historical grounds for the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

It is worth pointing out that in establishing the historicity of the resurrection, We do not need to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy. While I do believe these things, We are going to focus here on three truths that even critical scholars admit. In other words, These three truths are so strong that they are accepted by serious historians of all stripes. Therefore, Any theory must be able to adequately account for these data.

The three truths are:

The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
As a result of the preaching of these disciples, Which had the resurrection at its center, The Christian church was established and grew.
Virtually all scholars who deal with the resurrection, Whatever their school of thought, Assent to these three truths. We will see that the resurrection of Christ is the best explanation for each of them individually. But then we will see, Even more significantly, That when these facts are taken together we have an even more powerful case for the resurrection--because the skeptic will not have to explain away just one historical fact, But three. These three truths create a strongly woven, Three chord rope that cannot be broken.

The Empty Tomb
To begin, What is the evidence that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion?

First, The resurrection was preached in the same city where Jesus had been buried shortly before. Jesus' disciples did not go to some obscure place where no one had heard of Jesus to begin preaching about the resurrection, But instead began preaching in Jerusalem, The very city where Jesus had died and been buried. They could not have done this if Jesus was still in his tomb--no one would have believed them. No one would be foolish enough to believe a man had raised from the dead when his body lay dead in the tomb for all to see. As Paul Althaus writes, The resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, For a single hour, If the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned. "

Second, The earliest Jewish arguments against Christianity admit the empty tomb. In Matthew 28:11-15, There is a reference made to the Jew's attempt to refute Christianity be saying that the disciples stole the body. This is significant because it shows that the Jews did not deny the empty tomb. Instead, Their "stolen body" theory admitted the significant truth that the tomb was in fact empty. The Toledoth Jesu, A compilation of early Jewish writings, Is another source acknowledging this. It acknowledges that the tomb was empty, And attempts to explain it away. Further, We have a record of a second century debate between a Christian and a Jew, In which a reference is made to the fact that the Jews claim the body was stolen. So it is pretty well established that the early Jews admitted the empty tomb.

Why is this important? Remember that the Jewish leaders were opposed to Christianity. They were hostile witnesses. In acknowledging the empty tomb, They were admitting the reality of a fact that was certainly not in their favor. So why would they admit that the tomb was empty unless the evidence was too strong to be denied? Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source. In essence, If a source admits a fact that is decidedly not in its favor, The fact is genuine. "

Third, The empty tomb account in the gospel of Mark is based upon a source that originated within seven years of the event it narrates. This places the evidence for the empty tomb too early to be legendary, And makes it much more likely that it is accurate. What is the evidence for this? I will list two pieces. A German commentator on Mark, Rudolf Pesch, Points out that this pre-Markan source never mentions the high priest by name. "This implies that Caiaphas, Who we know was high priest at that time, Was still high priest when the story began circulating. " For "if it had been written after Caiaphas' term of office, His name would have had to have been used to distinguish him from the next high priest. But since Caiaphas was high priest from A. D. 18 to 37, This story began circulating no later than A. D. 37, Within the first seven years after the events, " as Michael Horton has summarized it. Furthermore, Pesch argues "that since Paul's traditions concerning the Last Supper [written in 56] (1 Cor 11) presuppose the Markan account, That implies that the Markan source goes right back to the early years" of Christianity (Craig). So the early source Mark used puts the testimony of the empty tomb too early to be legendary.

Fourth, The empty tomb is supported by the historical reliability of the burial story. NT scholars agree that he burial story is one of the best established facts about Jesus. One reason for this is because of the inclusion of Joseph of Arimethea as the one who buried Christ. Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrein, A sort of Jewish supreme court. People on this ruling class were simply too well known for fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way. This would have exposed the Christians as frauds. So they couldn't have circulated a story about him burying Jesus unless it was true. Also, If the burial account was legendary, One would expect to find conflicting traditions--which we don't have.

But how does the reliability of Jesus' burial argue that the tomb was empty? Because the burial account and empty tomb account have grammatical and linguistic ties, Indicating that they are one continuous account. Therefore, If the burial account is accurate the empty tomb is likely to be accurate as well. Further, If the burial account is accurate then everyone knew where Jesus was buried. This would have been decisive evidence to refute the early Christians who were preaching the resurrection--for if the tomb had not been empty, It would have been evident to all and the disciples would have been exposed as frauds at worst, Or insane at best.

Fifth, Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, It suggests that his bones weren't there.

Sixth, Mark's account of the empty tomb is simple and shows no signs of legendary development. This is very apparent when we compare it with the gospel of Peter, A forgery from about 125. This legend has all of the Jewish leaders, Roman guards, And many people from the countryside gathered to watch the resurrection. Then three men come out of the tomb, With their heads reaching up to the clouds. Then a talking cross comes out of the tomb! This is what legend looks like, And we see none of that in Mark's account of the empty tomb--or anywhere else in the gospels for that matter!

Seventh, The tomb was discovered empty by women. Why is this important? Because the testimony of women in 1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless. As Craig says, "if the empty tomb story were a legend, Then it is most likely that the male disciples would have been made the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that despised women, Whose testimony was deemed worthless, Were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb can only be plausibly explained if, Like it or not, They actually were the discoverers of the empty tomb. "

Because of the strong evidence for the empty tomb, Most recent scholars do not deny it. D. H. Van Daalen has said, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions. " Jacob Kremer, Who has specialized in the study of the resurrection and is a NT critic, Has said "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb" and he lists twenty-eight scholars to back up his fantastic claim.

I'm sure you've heard of the various theories used to explain away the empty tomb, Such as that the body was stolen. But those theories are laughed at today by all serious scholars.

I am out of Characters so I will finish my argument in the comment
Debate Round No. 1


OK its simple. I haven't even read your arguments and I'm not going to. I made the simple rule for you to prove christianity to be true and there's no possibility that you can because in order for you to do that you would have to test, Demonstrate and once that done you would have to assert your god. And once that's done you would have to declare your god. And once that done you would have to pack all that together and submit what idiocies you've got to scientific communities of merit from around the world so that they would agree with what you have to say. This has never happened with ---any--- creationist or any human that has ever lived. Why? Do you want to dig into it and further be humiliated in further RD'S? Its not a problem. Oh and oh yeah I will use the "Eight reasons why christianity is dishonest and deceitful" + a whole lot more and youtube videos because I don't feel like typing out a whole ton of things to a degenerate like you that I've done to thousands of others. K? If you don't like it, Tough. You do not make the rules on MY debate. Got it you punk kid? I do. If you don't like it, Leave. I'm---not---here---to---please---you. I don't care.


My opponent has admitted that he did not read my argument. That is VERY POOR CONDUCT. If my opponent read my argument. He would see that I am doing exactly what he wanted me to do. Giving evidence. My opponent has stated that there is clear proof. I would like to see that proof. You can't make statements without proof.

" Do you want to dig into it and further be humiliated in further RD'S? "
I am not the one being humiliated here. My opponent is the one using useless arguments. He is also insulting me which is POOR CONDUCT.

" I'm---not---here---to---please---you. "
Neither am I, I am here to have an intelligent debate with intelligent people. Apparently, I chose the wrong person to debate with.

I have looked at backwardseden's previous debates and all he does is insult other people. He has no viable arguments with any evidence. Posting Youtube videos is not how debating is supposed to work. Nobody will go out of their way to watch seventeen youtube vids created by biased people.

I will not continue this debate and recommend others to do the same. Backwardseden is not a debater, He is a bully.
Debate Round No. 2


"My opponent has admitted that he did not read my argument. That is VERY POOR CONDUCT. " Hmm wow. My opponent does not understand what he says. Perhaps he should.
"I will be debating backwardseden not the comments. " So in his words he completely RD1 completely and avoided the "Eight reasons why christianity is dishonest and deceitful" and spattered off on his little lonesome own and decided to completely avoid them and be a contradictory hypocrite and decided to take on an entirely new bank of idiocies on his own as the rules of this debate does state "Prove christianity to be true. " OK great. It doesn't matter. If my opponent cannot prove his god exists, On which was 100% proved unto him that in no possible way that he can in RD2, And no one else has in the history of the human race also has not thus proven his god exists, He's s--t out of luck.
"" Do you want to dig into it and further be humiliated in further RD'S? "
I am not the one being humiliated here. My opponent is the one using useless arguments. He is also insulting me which is POOR CONDUCT. "
Wrongo badbreatistu of cut up cabbage batbrain with el closed minded jesus jujitsu ooga booga campfire girl scout moldy diaper runny excuse superhero He-Man excuse you are not the power boy? Since you obviously point blank do not have the ability to rationalize, Think, Reason, Use common sense, Use logic, And neither does your superior ego god complex in which your bible is entirely about and nothing else, And you'd know that if you were to have read the damn thing in which you obviously haven't, Then go right ahead and test, Demonstrate, And the assert and the declare your god right now. Oh but wait, Golly gosh gee gosh darned it all you can't. Why? Because you haven't done your pretend yoga properly form that granny fart that you so proudly hold within your beauty mark kissy kissy poo poo She Ra can't wait to see season 2 to see what powers of her magical sword and horsey will save her troubles of the day. When you show NO INTELLIGENCE then you deserve to be humiliated. Darn.
You want an "intelligent" debate. You got one. If only you were intelligent.

Now you prove your god exists, Because no one else has. No one in the history of the human race.

Let's give you some more tests. You prove faith as being true because in order for you to believe in your god, You must have faith. "Faith is the reason people give when they don't have evidence". Matt Dillahunty

Also prove that your storybook bible is 100% true. Oh and oh yeah, Duh. No god would ---ever--- be stupid enough to use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. There's at least 50 reasons why this is true. Surely if you are reasonably "intelligent" you can think of a few.

Oh btw, The next RD will contain youtube videos to humiliate you further. Darn. They are created by professionals who know what they are talking about. You don't.

Ta ta. Let's see if you can survive.
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
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
hey backwardsman how are you?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
"Actually we do have eye witnesses. . . " Well wowzers there's eyewitnesses of someone whacking off their pig from next door 2 days ago. Or gee, 6 days ago. I forgot. There's also eyewitnesses of my strawberry growing an inch from yesterday. There's also eyewitnesses of a 6 year old girl being raped by her father so bad that her a$$ turned into her vagina. Ah ye-as$, If you believe in YOUR god, You know he creates all of these situations, Especially the third because he gets off on it, Otherwise he would not knowingly create it. Or if you state that this god of YOURS does not create these situations, Then you take the positioning that YOUR god is not a god and is not in control of everything, Does not know everything, Is most certainly not in charge of everything, Is definitely NOT omnipotent, And wow is not perfect. So which is it Splat the winder Smog? Just because you are a complete buffoon and MUST invent excuses to stay afloat above burning toxic battery acid, That's not in any way our problem. That's yours. It also shows the universe that you have no genuine friends or loved ones. Its also A HUGE monumental red flag.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
"Matthew and john were both disciples of Jesus and there were many eyewitnesses"
And how do you know this? Let me guess, It was written somewhere, And you read it? So if I write something, It is true? I didn't know that's how proof works.

"not to mention we have over a million manuscripts that all document Jesus as we read of in the bible. "
Yeah, Million copies of same text copied over and over by deluded Christians during their rule, While at the same time destroying all documents that didn't match. These same people also burned women because they were witches.

And also, Your Bible says that people shouldn't do magic arts. Apparently, The God that wrote the Bible thinks that people can use magic.

Also, I thought there were only few women as witnesses to the Jesus's empty tomb? So how can there be a million manuscripts made by only a few women? Obviously, Manuscripts were made by people who weren't even there, So these are heard-told stories.
So let's get this right, If I copy a million times that sphagetti monster is real, I will prove it?
Christians really have low standard for proof. I guess that's a necessary thing when believing in fairy tales.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
not to mention we have over a million manuscripts that all document Jesus as we read of in the bible. Whether copied from the original manuscripts, Or copies of copies etc, They all affirm and believe this and there was more written on Jesus than Beowulf, Zeus and other beings.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
Actually we do have eye witnesses of Jesus, Matthew and john were both disciples of Jesus and there were many eyewitnesses of an empty tomb other than the women who first saw the tomb as empty, Infact the pharisees paid off the guards to tell people that the disciples took away jesus's body, But he was seen by the 12 and up to 500 people in 1 corinthians 15:6. Josephus and a few others show historical proof of jesus as well.

this wasn't something that was just imagined, There were many people to see jesus alive and walking after his death. 500 people can't have a shared hallucination.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
backwardsman has gone insane
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
Taken from. . . .

jeez you can't make your own argument
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@melcharaz - You might not want to say some things that are completely ignorant and are laughable at the same time. You don't even deserve to be insulted.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Don't worry folks, Melcharaz has absolutely NOTHING to say when he says the dumbest thing of all time, Far worse when someone tries to state that one of the ten commandments is overeating and obesity. . .
"The American Cherokee Indians worship the Supreme Being, Ye ho waah or Yo ho wah, Which is very similar to the Hebrew name of God (Yahweh or Yahoveh).
The Cherokee Indians believe in one Supreme Being--the Creator-- and have surprising connections to Christianity.
Ancient Cherokee Indians believed before 1750 that God was going to appear on Earth as a man and they called this person by five different Old Testament (Hebrew) names for Jesus.
The Cherokees have three actual cities of refuge, They have the stories of the great flood, And many other Old Testament stories.
They also adhere to the prohibitions found within the Ten Commandments.
Cherokees keep one day without work for prayer. "

NO ONE of merit would EVER BE STUPID enough to agree with this.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
"I haven't even read your arguments and I'm not going to. "
I have to say this was very funny.
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.