Christianity is not based in reason or truth, it is based on superstition, brainwashing and stupidity
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
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.
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.
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.
t is appropriate and biblical to have a good reason for our faith
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.
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.
Since this is your opinion, this statement is totally arbitrary. I also doubt you ever read it all to make that statement.
Again, no proof. I will not rely on your arbitrary opinion. Also you got it from me.
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.
Actually it is God's opinion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Bible is not based on a personal whim, it is based on the Bible.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Congratulations.
1st comment!