Instigator / Pro
21
1395
rating
22
debates
20.45%
won
Topic
#830

Catholicism is not True Christianity

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
12
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
0
4

After 4 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
28
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

No information

-->
@bsh1

Just re-read the rules. I remembered FF's being forfeiting more than half the rounds, but I was mistaken. Thanks for the clarification.

-->
@Barney

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, S/G, and conduct

>Reason for Decision: Unmoderated due to forfeitures...
Arguments: No contest.
Sources: Well I prefer links, pro did some bible research, resulting in this being within the tied range.
S&G: Pro, next time put spaces between your paragraphs. Website writing and school papers follow different conventions. (I would not normally do this, but to help pro improve, I am doing this on an FF).
Conduct: FF.

>Reason for Mod Action: This is not a full-forfeit debate, as there are at least two rounds in which each debater posted. The voter must therefore explain the points they chose to award.
************************************************************************

-->
@oromagi

Well then you sir, have a religion that is not clouding your mind, in my humble opinion.

-->
@GeneralGrant
@Wrick-It-Ralph

#The debate topic itself is a no true scottsman fallacy.

agree

#GG basically made his topic unwinnable by virtue of how he worded it.

agree

#In the future, the best way to avoid this would be not to focus on the labels so much, but instead a specific concept. Like "catholics don't worship properly" or something to that effect that doesn't rely on counterintuitively denying the fact that catholics are Christian by definition.

agree

#I'm pretty sure that we got a catholic in the room, they'd likely say the same thing about your brand of Christianity.

I am an Irish Roman Catholic by heritage if not real faith anymore- baptized, confirmed all that. I would not say that GeneralGrant is not Christian whatever his religious brand- even lapsed Catholics tend to overvalue forgiveness.

-->
@oromagi
@GeneralGrant

The debate topic itself is a no true scottsman fallacy. GG basically made his topic unwinnable by virtue of how he worded it. In the future, the best way to avoid this would be not to focus on the labels so much, but instead a specific concept. Like "catholics don't worship properly" or something to that effect that doesn't rely on counterintuitively denying the fact that catholics are Christian by definition.

I'm pretty sure that we got a catholic in the room, they'd likely say the same thing about your brand of Christianity.

"You have used man's definition of Christianity, but not God's definition."

This is the most funny thing I have read all day.

-->
@Speedrace

Which one since you didn't like the first one I used?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You completely ignored all of my other sources which say how a document’s reliability is found

-->
@Speedrace

I'll stick to the first link you brought up:
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the-study-of-god/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-true/is-the-bible-reliable

It states "If, for instance, the Bible is full of historical and factual errors or blatantly contradicts itself, it's hard to trust it or view it as reliable."

"are key in establishing what we know about Jesus including his birth, ministry, teachings, death, resurrection, and more"
Doesn't mean it actually happen. It only states they have dates for supposed occurring.

They said this: "we can compare manuscript copies and fragments with copies we have today and find out if there have been significant changes or if the New Testament we have today is reliable."

And all they came up was this "So when it comes to manuscript evidence, the New Testament definitely has numbers on its side."
Having a lot of something doesn't mean you have compared it. Nor did this site even state that the manuscript was evidence instead accepted it as such.

"claiming that more than 500 people had seen the risen Christ. People who would still have been alive at the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians would have been around to corroborate or criticize the claims made in the letter."
I would have liked to prove that these 500 people were lying or we can even accept 500 people from such a long time ago as a reliable source but they did not.

So basically nothing they have said had anything to do with reliability in terms of the new testament. I don't see the point in talking about the old testament and please don't bring it up and address what I have brought in.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

How are they not credible?

-->
@Speedrace

If the Bible is reliable then your God is real. Not a point against me and simply read what I said before and add the Bible instead of God.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

None of my sources talked about God being real or not, they talked about the Bible being reliable and how to prove if a document is reliable or not

-->
@Speedrace

>> I literally cited the sources

Your sources did not help your case. They are not credible source by themselves and do not go to other credible sources to say God is real.

>> that showed how the reliability of documents is determined

In order for a source to be reliable it must either be a good source of correct information or it does a good job sourcing their points to reinforce the points they are making. I don't think any of your sources were reliable in respect to God is real.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

It does, actually. I literally cited the sources that showed how the reliability of documents is determined

-->
@Speedrace

I did read it because those were bad arguments.
Jesus fulfilling prophecies doesn't make your religion true if one prophecy was that God does exist. Having a lot of copies of something doesn't mean it is reliable.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Look at my God is Real Debate, I outlined it there

-->
@Speedrace

Remember evidence requires it to be reliable to be good. This can be with the site itself being reliable or the sources it proves to be reliable to draw their conclusions.

-->
@GeneralGrant

One question for you: Are/were you really a General or are you simply making it up?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Oof, I’m about to leave but I gotchu tonight, remind me though

-->
@Speedrace

Example?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Yeah! It does meet that standard

-->
@Speedrace

>>That doesn’t make historical findings any less accurate

I don't know what you mean but I will still respond.
If the historical finding is meeting a standard which is deemed accurate then it is.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

That doesn’t make historical findings any less accurate

-->
@Speedrace

>>That’s like saying you can throw quantum theory out the window because it’s too complicated to understand

Quantum theory is studied in science which tries to make sense of it. That is their aim and what is going on. I am guessing scholars are not using the same standards as scientists which is why it is not considered a science. It best based on written work with no observable evidence apart from that written work.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Oops, I thought for sure I tagged you?? That’s weird lol

That’s like saying you can throw quantum theory out the window because it’s too complicated to understand

-->
@Speedrace

I think that was to me.

>>My point was that saying you don’t understand my argument doesn’t make my argument any less credible

Yes it does. The burden is on you to provide your case in the current system that deems your stance to be reliable and credible. If it isn't then everything is neither right or wrong. If we can't understand your position it can be thrown to the side until you can provide an explanation.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Right, but it isn’t arbitrary

My point was that saying you don’t understand my argument doesn’t make my argument any less credible

-->
@Speedrace

>>Well me and Ralph were just talking about the classification of religions, whether they’re true or not

And if that classification is arbitrary. Wrick-It-Ralph would be correct on that basis.

>>I’ll have to send one when I get home, I can’t access that right now

Okay.

>>If you believe that God isn’t real you would know how to tell other people that, if you can’t, you don’t know and it isn’t based on belief then

To prove a negative requires a positive. Something like Christianity, Judaism and Islam would need to make the first claim and all I need to do is debunk it. Since it is not a new thing and plenty of material is online I can share the burden of proof and simply make rebuttals on the Religion rather then waiting for my opponent to make an argument so I can share the burden of proof instead of putting it all on my opponent. It is not difficult to state God does not exist because there is also many material online which does make it easier for me to simply rephrase what they say in my own words. I already know how to debunk most arguments so I don't think I need too much outside help.

>>And gotcha

Okay.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Well me and Ralph were just talking about the classification of religions, whether they’re true or not

I’ll have to send one when I get home, I can’t access that right now

If you believe that God isn’t real you would know how to tell other people that, if you can’t, you don’t know and it isn’t based on belief then

And gotcha

-->
@Speedrace

>>Emotion is involved because it’s religion, whether or not you believe

How much so and is reason more prevalent? If it isn't then Wrick-It-Ralph is correct to say it is arbitrary.

>>Because they found that the Bible is one of the most, if not THE most reliable document ever

Source? I think I have gone through with this and I hope you have improved the way you find sources. A source that does not have proper citations or is not a credible source is not good evidence.

>> But if you know that the laws work then you don’t need to know their history,

If you know God is real you would know how to tell other people it is real. If you can't then you don't know that God exists it is based on belief then.

>>like you don’t need to know the 10,000 different ways Edison tried to make light before he finally did make it, you can just know that lights work.

You can still learn from mistakes and yes I do agree specifically targeting just the answer only the best answer is the most relevant.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Emotion is involved because it’s religion, whether or not you believe

Because they found that the Bible is one of the most, if not THE most reliable document ever

But if you know that the laws work then you don’t need to know their history, like you don’t need to know the 10,000 different ways Edison tried to make light before he finally did make it, you can just know that lights work

-->
@Speedrace

>>Yeah...I’m not sure what you’re trying to say though

I take the position that a spider can create webs.
No emotion involved and it is correct.

>>I do know that Christianity is true...I don’t have to know who dug up the manuscripts to believe them

How do you know it is true then?

>>You don’t have to know Isaac Newton’s full name in order to use his laws of motion

You need to know what Newton did in order to understand how he got to the laws of motion. That is my stance.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Yeah...I’m not sure what you’re trying to say though

I do know that Christianity is true...I don’t have to know who dug up the manuscripts to believe them

You don’t have to know Isaac Newton’s full name in order to use his laws of motion

-->
@Dustandashes

Gotcha, that makes sense

-->
@Speedrace

I would say that, yes God spoke directly to the Jews throughout history. However, if we're to recognize Jesus as the Logos, the Word of God incarnate, I would say any rejection of Jesus becomes a rejection of God's ultimate communication. So I would say Judaism had the right God until they went on to reject the Logos, or God's ultimate Word, who is God himself. Any rejection of Jesus is a rejection of God, which is why the apostle John said if you don't have the Son, you don't have the Father.

Just my thoughts, very interesting discussion on this thread

-->
@Speedrace

>>Salvation as in the way to get to heaven

Is this based on reason? Can you make a point based on reason with this?

>>And I don’t know who the people who dug up the manuscripts are lol

So if you don't know if Christianity is true why do you believe it? It is best to understand what you are getting into rather then choosing to accepting it based on supposed benefits which may or may not be true. Isn't this a failure of what you believe in that you have not justified it in reasonable sense in order to detach it from being based upon emotion?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Salvation as in the way to get to heaven

And I don’t know who the people who dug up the manuscripts are lol

-->
@Speedrace

>>Well, since salvation is the whole point of religion then I don’t think it should arbitrary at all

What do you mean by salvation and how it is based on reason?

>>And by looking at the methods historians use to determine the reliability of documents

Name me a credible historian which found something that the Bible states. I don't think it would help your case too much because I hardly see dates in the Bible but I might be wrong that they X date for X item.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Well, since salvation is the whole point of religion then I don’t think it should arbitrary at all

And by looking at the methods historians use to determine the reliability of documents

And ok lol

-->
@Speedrace

>>I don’t have to conform to Ralph’s definition of arbitrary, his isn’t better than mine just because he said

The definition would be the same I am sure but it would depend on what would be considered arbitrary. I don't think you have a point to the definition because there is a really clear general definition of arbitrary.

>>And you have to find which one lines up with scripture and historical findings the best

But that doesn't mean the scripture and the historical findings are accurate.
How do you decide if they are accurate or not?
Edit: Show me a case that Archaeologists found something that is important and the Bible have it somewhere in their book with a date or something.

>>Also my bad dude lol I @‘ed him first and then I deleted the comment and redid it and I thought that I tagged you but I messed up again xD

Okay. Just don't make the same mistake twice and I won't complain.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Lol I don’t have to conform to Ralph’s definition of arbitrary, his isn’t better than mine just because he said

And you have to find which one lines up with scripture and historical findings the best

Also my bad dude lol I @‘ed him first and then I deleted the comment and redid it and I thought that I tagged you but I messed up again xD

-->
@Alec

Oh wow, that’s interesting

-->
@Dustandashes

That makes sense, my only thing is that God’s directly talks to Jews throughout scripture, so how did the God they worship become different?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
@Speedrace

I think I would disagree here and question the base assumption that the three Abraham faiths have the same God. If that were the case then I could see Judaism, Christianity and Islam all being the same base religion, with vastly different beliefs and practices though. If the three of us all worshipped Buddha we would all be Buddhists, regardless of anything we added or subtracted on top of that.

The issue is I don't believe are talking about the same God with the three Abrahamic religions.

Judaism:

God is an absolute unity, one being, one person, no Son named Jesus. No Tri-personal nature. God never became incarnate.

Christianity:

God is revealed as One but he also is revealed as three unique Persons. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God became incarnate.

Islam:

The greatest sin in Islam is to say that Allah has a son. Allah couldn't become incarnate because he is too transcendent. Allah has no Son.

I think these are too different to classify as the same God and thus the same religion. I as a Christian certainly don't worship Allah. My God has a Son. So I think the issue here is do they have the same God? If they did then yes I would say they could, in some very broad sense of the word be called variations of the same religion.

Just my two cents.

-->
@Speedrace

>>Me and Ralph were only arguing about the classification of religions and religious denominations though

If he calls it arbitrary it means you haven't justified the requirement you made well enough by whatever standard he uses.

>>By which one is true

How do you determine which is one true?

Can you put me in the receiver next time?

-->
@Speedrace

The catholic afterlife is different from the protestant one. Protestants don't believe in purgatory. Catholics do.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

By which one is true

Me and Ralph were only arguing about the classification of religions and religious denominations though

-->
@Speedrace

I just saw this right now so I was reading for about 5 minutes.

>>But anyway, salvation is the whole point of religion, so choosing it as the point from which one determines what a religion is is completely fair

How do you determine which salvation from a Religion is right or wrong?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Lol why are you officiating this?

But anyway, salvation is the whole point of religion, so choosing it as the point from which one determines what a religion is is completely fair

-->
@Speedrace

What is your rebuttal to Wrick-It-Ralph saying your requirements whatever it maybe is arbitrary?