Instigator
Type1 avatar
Points: 3

Christianity is not based in reason or truth, it is based on superstition, brainwashing and stupidity

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
GeneralGrant
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
GeneralGrant avatar
Points: 7
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Christian Theology is arbitrary because it is the opinion of man thinking he is speaking for God when there is no proof of such and he is merely accepting that conclusion based on faith.

It is illogical because it relies on strictly faith based belief.

It is inconsistent in its view of morality because the Bible contradicts it's own morality.

Doing scientific inquiry is predicated on the Bible not being true. Belief in the bible is not only unscientific as it requires faith but it is also a book that contradicts what has been discovered by science.

 The Bible is stupid.

Lastly, Christianity leads to the path of absurdity.



Published:
"Christian Theology is arbitrary because it is the opinion of man thinking he is speaking for God when there is no proof of such and he is merely accepting that conclusion based on faith."
Well, that is your opinion on the subject, but since the Bible is the Word of God and not of man in is not arbitrary. You would have to prove to me and the world that the Bible is not God's Word.

"It is illogical because it relies on strictly faith based belief."
The notion of "faith versus reason" is an example of a false dichotomy. Faith is not antagonistic to reason. On the contrary, biblical faith and reason go well together. The problem lies in the fact that you have a misunderstanding of faith. Faith is not a belief in the absurd, nor is it a belief in something simply for the sake of believing it. Rather, faith is having confidence in something that we have not perceived with our senses. This is the biblical definition of faith, and follows from Hebrews 11:1. Whenever we have confidence in something that we cannot see, hear, taste, smell and touch, we are acting upon a type of faith. All people have faith, even if it is not a saving faith in God.
For example, people believe in laws of logic. However, laws of logic are not material. They are abstract and cannot be experienced by the senses. We can write down a law of logic such as the law of non-contradiction, but the sentence is only a physical representation of the law itself. When people use laws of logic, they have confidence in something they cannot actually observe with the senses; this is a type of faith.
When we, have confidence that the universe will operate in the future as it has in the past, we are acting on faith. For example, we all presume that gravity will work the same next Friday as it does today. But no one has actually observed the future. So we all believe in something beyond sensory experience. From a Christian perspective, this is a very reasonable belief. God (who is beyond time) has promised us that He will uphold the universe in a consistent way (Gen. 8:22). So we have a good reason for our faith in the uniformity of nature. For the consistent Christian, reason and faith go well together.
It is appropriate and biblical to have a good reason for our faith (1 Peter 3:15). Indeed, God encourages us to reason (Isaiah 1:18). The apostle Paul reasoned with those in the synagogue and those in the marketplace(Acts 17:17). According to the Scriptures, the Christian faith is not a "blind faith." It is a faith that is rationally defensible. It is logical and self-consistent. It can make sense of what we experience in the world. Moreover, the Christian has a moral obligation to think rationally. We are to be imitators of God (Ephesians 5:1), pattering our thinking after His revelation (Isaiah 55:7-8; Psalm 36:9).

"It is inconsistent in its view of morality because the Bible contradicts it's own morality."
I could post a whole bunch of YouTube videos and websites, but I don't because I think for myself. Now if you want to give me an example with your own words I will be happy to respond to your example.

"Doing scientific inquiry is predicated on the Bible not being true. Belief in the bible is not only unscientific as it requires faith but it is also a book that contradicts what has been discovered by science."
Actually doing science proves the Bible is true. We know that the laws of nature will be consistent to be able to do science because God said He would maintain it in that way. As for your second sentence I would like to be given an example.

"The Bible is stupid."
Since this is your opinion, this statement is totally arbitrary. I also doubt you ever read it all to make that statement.

"Lastly, Christianity leads to the path of absurdity."
Again, no proof. I will not rely on your arbitrary opinion. Also you got it from me. If you are interested in why atheism leads to absurdity I will give it to you: 

Path to Absurdity

The path of absurdity. Let's now assume that the atheistic worldview could make sense of logic. To say there is no God would logically require someone to look everywhere in the entire universe at the exact same time and for all time, past and future, and find no God.
Furthermore, the atheist would have to be powerful enough to look in the immaterial, spiritual realm for all time too. They would also have to be powerful enough to supersede God to make sure God was not cloaking Himself from their search. In other words, for an atheist to say ''there is no God'' would require the atheist to be omnipresent and omnipotent. The atheist would essentially have to be all-knowing to say God doesn't exist.
Thus, for an atheist to claim there is no God would require them to be God! This, it is an absurd and self-refuting worldview.


Round 2
Published:
Well, that is your opinion on the subject, but since the Bible is the Word of God and not of man in is not arbitrary.
It's just your opinion that the bible is the word of God. 

You would have to prove to me and the world that the Bible is not God's Word.
You would have to prove to me that it is. Since christians mindlessly believe that based on nothing but faith there is no real reason it should be believed. There is however a reason not to believe it, because there is no proof of it. Even christians accept that it was at least WRITTEN by humans so what is more likely, that these people made it up or that a God there is no proof of channeled his word into them?

The notion of "faith versus reason" is an example of a false dichotomy. Faith is not antagonistic to reason. On the contrary, biblical faith and reason go well together. The problem lies in the fact that you have a misunderstanding of faith.
Faith is a baseless belief, it is one that doesn't necessitate any supporting evidence or any kind of reason to be believed. In fact it is inherently unreasonable to believe without evidence, that is what speculation is for. Any legitimate truth seeker has no desire to accept something without evidence because they value the truth over their own assertions.

When people use laws of logic, they have confidence in something they cannot actually observe with the senses; this is a type of faith.
When we, have confidence that the universe will operate in the future as it has in the past, we are acting on faith. For example, we all presume that gravity will work the same next Friday as it does today.
The effects of Gravity has been observed and are rooted deeply in how our reality works. God has never been observed or shown to behave in any predictable way.
t is appropriate and biblical to have a good reason for our faith 
Brilliant, let's see some then.

I could post a whole bunch of YouTube videos and websites, but I don't because I think for myself. Now if you want to give me an example with your own words I will be happy to respond to your example.
Lol, the religious nut claims to think for itself and condemns me for using sources. 

Actually doing science proves the Bible is true. We know that the laws of nature will be consistent to be able to do science because God said He would maintain it in that way. As for your second sentence I would like to be given an example.
Your first statement is just plain stupid, your second is simple to answer. The bible claims that Jesus could walk on water and heal the sick etc. It also claims that burning bushes can talk, that candle-holders can be used as spaceships, and that the earth is flat among other things, all of which are known to be false by modern science.
Since this is your opinion, this statement is totally arbitrary. I also doubt you ever read it all to make that statement.
Most christians haven't read the whole bible. Also christianity is arbitrary because it is a superstitious belief system.

Again, no proof. I will not rely on your arbitrary opinion. Also you got it from me.
So you admit that your whole "argument" that I based this on was your arbitrary opinion? Cool.
The path of absurdity. Let's now assume that the atheistic worldview could make sense of logic. To say there is no God would logically require someone to look everywhere in the entire universe at the exact same time and for all time, past and future, and find no God.
Furthermore, the atheist would have to be powerful enough to look in the immaterial, spiritual realm for all time too. They would also have to be powerful enough to supersede God to make sure God was not cloaking Himself from their search. In other words, for an atheist to say ''there is no God'' would require the atheist to be omnipresent and omnipotent. The atheist would essentially have to be all-knowing to say God doesn't exist.
Thus, for an atheist to claim there is no God would require them to be God! This, it is an absurd and self-refuting worldview.
Nice mindless faith based asserting there buddy, but how can you prove that there is no other way to know if God doesn't exist?

Published:
"It's just your opinion that the bible is the word of God."
Actually it is God's opinion.

"You would have to prove to me that it is" God's Word.
I can tell you that we can prove the Bible is God's Word from the unity of message it has, from the fulfilled prophecies, and from internal and external evidence from archaeology. Another point is that is was written by humans, yes, but it was also inspired by God. Inspired means "breathed" in Greek. Also, most of the writers actually Spoke with God audibly.

"Faith is a baseless belief, it is one that doesn't necessitate any supporting evidence or any kind of reason to be believed."
Actually it is not. Faith according to Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So faith is the evidence of unseen things. For instance, the laws of logic are unseen, but we believe in them because there is evidence for it. 

"In fact it is inherently unreasonable to believe without evidence."
Faith is not believing without evidence. If this were so then believing in laws of logic would be unreasonable. Also, atheism believes in things that require faith. You have faith that there is no God even though you have no evidence for it. 

"The effects of Gravity has been observed and are rooted deeply in how our reality works. God has never been observed or shown to behave in any predictable way."
Gravity itself cannot be observed. You can see the effects of gravity, but you cannot actually see it. Show me a jar of gravity please. We cannot see God, but we can see the effect He makes in peoples lives. I personally know of a drug dealer turn from his lifestyle and now he is in church and reunited with his family. So we can observe God's effect in the world.

"The bible claims that Jesus could walk on water and heal the sick etc. It also claims that burning bushes can talk, that candle-holders can be used as spaceships, and that the earth is flat among other things, all of which are known to be false by modern science."
Though the Bible makes some extraordinary claims such claims are not truly illogical. The examples you mention, although not everyday occurrences they are not contradictory. They do not violate any laws of logic. You are simply dismissing those claims of the Bible that do not appeal to your personal unguarded sense of what is possible. You are being irrational. You are committing the logical fallacy known as "begging the question. " You have decided in advance that miracles are impossible, Thereby tacitly assuming that the Bible is not true because it contains miracles.
I don't know where you got the idea that candle holders are spaceships or where the Bible teaches the earth is flat.

Most christians haven't read the whole bible. Also christianity is arbitrary because it is a superstitious belief system.
Actually, Biblical Christians read the Bible regularly and the Bible says we are to meditate on it day and night. I actually read my Bible every morning and have been doing it for 10 years. I have read the Bible through now 4 times. Also, I don't believe you know what arbitrary means because your statement doesn't make sense. Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." The Bible is not based on a personal whim, it is based on the Bible. Atheism is arbitrary because each person has a different opinion on different subjects. In simple terms there is no absolute truth in atheism as there is in the Bible.

"So you admit that your whole "argument" that I based this on was your arbitrary opinion?"
No, because I gave a logical reason why atheism is absurd, you could not give one for why Christianity is absurd. There for yours only "begs the question."

"how can you prove that there is no other way to know if God doesn't exist?"
If there is tell me about it. I will ask you how do you know that there isn't other ways to prove that God does exist?

"Christianity is not based in reason or truth, it is based on superstition, brainwashing and stupidity"
I want to say, that by you saying that it is superstitious, stupid and not based on truth you would have to be calling all the greatest scientists throughout history stupid, superstitious and liars. I suggest you read some books.

Round 3
Published:
Actually it is God's opinion.
It's just your opinion that God exists.

I can tell you that we can prove the Bible is God's Word from the unity of message it has, from the fulfilled prophecies, and from internal and external evidence from archaeology. Another point is that is was written by humans, yes, but it was also inspired by God. Inspired means "breathed" in Greek. Also, most of the writers actually Spoke with God audibly.
Then stop just saying it and start proving it. 

Actually it is not. Faith according to Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So faith is the evidence of unseen things. For instance, the laws of logic are unseen, but we believe in them because there is evidence for it. 
Welp, the bible says it so it must be absolutely true then...
Actually no, if you pay attention all that verse does is make the arbitrary claim that the things which are "hoped for" have substance and the mere belief in them is evidence. Also the laws of logic are not literally "seen" or physical to the extent that you could poke them with a stick or look at them through a microscope but they are observable in the behaviour of things that are tangible.
Faith is not believing without evidence. If this were so then believing in laws of logic would be unreasonable. Also, atheism believes in things that require faith. You have faith that there is no God even though you have no evidence for it. 
There is evidence for the laws of logic. Not having faith that something exists is not the same as having faith in the fact that something doesn't exist.

Gravity itself cannot be observed. You can see the effects of gravity, but you cannot actually see it. Show me a jar of gravity please. We cannot see God, but we can see the effect He makes in peoples lives. I personally know of a drug dealer turn from his lifestyle and now he is in church and reunited with his family. So we can observe God's effect in the world.
Gravity is mass warping the fabric of space/time according to the standard model. This, or at least it's effect upon the observable universe, is clearly observable. A person improving themselves through religion is not proof the religion is true, it is proof that they were psychologically effected in a positive way by the religion. The same argument can be made for Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism etc. All of these religions have at least some good virtues and can motivate people to try and be a better person.
Though the Bible makes some extraordinary claims such claims are not truly illogical. The examples you mention, although not everyday occurrences they are not contradictory. They do not violate any laws of logic. You are simply dismissing those claims of the Bible that do not appeal to your personal unguarded sense of what is possible. You are being irrational. You are committing the logical fallacy known as "begging the question. " You have decided in advance that miracles are impossible, Thereby tacitly assuming that the Bible is not true because it contains miracles.
I don't know where you got the idea that candle holders are spaceships or where the Bible teaches the earth is flat.
You are assuming that highly unlikely things can happen just because they are in the bible. Who is really being irrational when I am doubtful of these things yet open to considering them but you are unquestioningly open towards any claim the bible makes and absolutely closed minded when it comes to any possibility that whatever the bible says could be wrong? I am not the one espousing beliefs here, that would be you, I am merely telling you what I DON'T believe and why you're an idiot for believing it.

The candle holder thing is in revelations, it says Jesus will fly to earth on a candle holder and that he will have red eyes and whatnot. The flat earth thing is only implied and I can't remember where it is from but I have heard it.

The Bible is not based on a personal whim, it is based on the Bible.
Therefor it is arbitrary because your only proof that the bible's claims are true is that it's in the bible. When Darwin wrote the origin of species did he just make a bunch of claims and say "because I said so" or did he explain why his claims are true? Don't answer that because I doubt you've ever read the origin of species, but I highly recommend that you do if you want to see the difference between a religious text and a scientific one.

No, because I gave a logical reason why atheism is absurd, you could not give one for why Christianity is absurd. There for yours only "begs the question."
My initial "argument" was based entirely on stating the inverse of what you stated to RM, therefore by attacking it's status as a real argument you are attacking your own and falling directly into my trap. What you have done is make a bunch of arbitrary claims, taken the bait when I reversed those claims, and now you are making the arbitrary claim that your arbitrary claims aren't arbitrary and mine are even though they are the exact same claims as yours only reversed. You are just stating things with no reason or evidence and by saying my claims are without reason and evidence you just proved me right, because I made the exact same argument as you, only instead of saying "atheism is stupid" I said "christianity is stupid".

I want to say, that by you saying that it is superstitious, stupid and not based on truth you would have to be calling all the greatest scientists throughout history stupid, superstitious and liars. I suggest you read some books.
The greatest Scientists throughout history are not Christians. The greatest scientists are mostly Deists, Atheists and Agnostics.

Forfeited
Ramshutu avatar
Added:
I forgot stupidity. Pro doesn’t argue this at all either, as such I would state this point is a draw to, but doesn’t change the determination.
#8
Absalon avatar
Added:
--> @Type1
I think this'll be my final post on this. I do not scorn the Christians for the failures of their laymen. If you want a smart Christian just look for a Jesuit, or a professional such as Alvin Plantiga, or Simon Conway Morris. Also Christian is applicable in the same way as Japanese because Christian is an Identity. That is however irrelevant as I have no interest in arguing wether it is justified to scorn a collective for the sins of another group within the said collective, Either way have a good day friend.
#7
Type1 avatar
Added:
--> @Absalon
The Japanese are a race which is not the same at all as a member of an ideology. As for capitalists I have a similar disdain for them. Capitalism was cutting edge 200 years ago and there are plenty of intelligent capitalists (whereas there are barely any intelligent christians) but capitalism is becoming outdated. There is a reason why the greatest geniuses in modern times who are specifically the smartest people in history were socialists. We need to socially evolve in the same way we are evolving technologically or we are in for a future where we bring about our own demise as a species and capitalism is clearly not the ideal system if we to make it to type 1 civilization.
Instigator
#6
Absalon avatar
Added:
--> @Type1
Well there's the distinction between you and I perhaps. I have been around Many a Christan, and I can say this fellow is quite the anomaly. The Orthodox tend to be very careful in how they argue. The Catholics have some of the MOST educated people I have ever seen under the banner of the Jesuits; I have a history in philosophy and even I find myself challenged by the average Jesuit. So maybe that is how we are different I do not see them as merely a group, but a vast collective with numerous shades in the same way you would examine the Japanese, or Capitalists.
#5
Type1 avatar
Added:
--> @Absalon
Well at least some people have some sense around here it seems.I personally find it extremely difficult to respect anyone's opinion who is not at least either an Atheist, Agnostic or Deist. Christians are absolutely retarded and I truly feel as if they are subhuman intellectually.
Instigator
#4
Absalon avatar
Added:
--> @Type1
Well I am no atheist (I am a Deist) nor have I ever been convinced of any of it's general tenets, but I must say "OH MY GOD! THIS GUY GRANT IS RETARDED!"
He has no logic, and he doesn't even quote a single exegete. You have my vote this time around.
#3
Type1 avatar
Added:
--> @Alec
Congratulations.
Instigator
#2
Alec avatar
Added:
1st comment!
#1
Ramshutu avatar
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This debate is clearly a rip off troll of another debate of a similar opposite topic, it appears clearly written to God’s the opponent, as is the multiple examples of pro belittling his opponent “Nice mindless faith based asserting there buddy” and repeated petulance in favor of arguments. The debate title and content alone is good cause to award conduct points. If pro wants to make shitty parody debates, they have no place here. While con forfeited the final round, pros behaviour is extraordinarily bad, and so should be penalized.
Arguments: I will assume the burden of proof is shared on all points, other than brainwashing - which is kind of off the default position.
Brainwashing: pro offers no argument at all on this point. He loses on this point.
Superstition: pro offers no argument at all on this point. Con made a broad argument relating to faith - specifically that religion is based on the implicit interpretation of the universe, like seeing gravity or logic. Pro mostly responded saying that there is evidence for logic, and that gravity isn’t the same - but offered no warrant. I would give pro the benefit of the doubt, has he not repeatedly admonished con for doing the same thing. Given that con attempted to explain the point whereas pro mostly just made an initial assertion without warrant and then ran, I would classify this as going ever so slightly in cons direction. So pro loses this point too.
Truth: pro asserted that the bible is false, and gave a generic peace of information. Pro argues that there is factual basis and prophecies were fufilled. As pro offered the only factual support for his claim on this count: I pro edges this point.
Reason: pro offers no examples, but makes a number of assertions, con does the same here. I’m looking for a clearly poorly reasoned basis for Christianity, rather than picking apart a specific side point. Neither really argued this point other than trading assertions about faith being correct, or there being something illogical about the bible. I would score this point as a tie.
Pro doesn’t win on all points - even if I share the burden on all points. As a result, the resolution is negated and con wins arguments.