1489
rating
25
debates
64.0%
won
Topic
#5583
Belief in Christianity is not irrational
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,480
1465
rating
34
debates
55.88%
won
Description
Irrational = a groundless belief with no evidence
Round 1
Before I start, I want to make something very clear. I am not arguing the Christianity is the correct religion. I am arguing that it is based upon evidence.
Introduction:
It's easy to assume that Christians don't actually have any evidence for their beliefs, but there are reasons to believe that are based on logic.
Argument One:
Evidence for the Existence of God
In order to believe in Christianity, you have to believe that there is a god in the first place. For this argument, I'm copied in a segment I wrote from another debate .
"Let's start in the very present, with you, the reader. You, are reading these words with your brain, capable of (what we consider) intelligent thought. Well, how did that happen? Now let's go back to the very beginning. The big bang.
Now, let me ask you some questions. Where did that initial atom come from? And if there is no god, why and how did it suddenly expand into a universe.
Not just a mess of scattered elements. A universe with rules, life, and probably most impressively, human intellect.
How could a random atom that was just kind of existing, one day independently create such an organized universe.
How did DNA evolve in such a way it created conscious thought? DNA is like a language, and you need a writer for that."
So, we can see, that there is indeed evidence for the existence of god. This evidence makes the claim that a god exists rational.
Argument Two:
Christianity in Particular
Just because there is reasonable basis for the existence of a god does not make Christianity in itself logical. What would prove that Christianity is logical, however, is evidence for Jesus of Nazareth and the resurrection.
The overwhelming consensus among historians is that he existed and was crucified. https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
There is also evidence that the tomb was found empty, such as records of ancient historians, and even the Jewish, who claimed the tomb was empty because the body was stolen. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdriscoll/2020/04/resurrection-7-4-non-christian-sources-confirming-jesus-resurrection/
There are some problems with that though. Jewish people and the Romans alike wanted to ensure that Christianity died out, meaning they needed to make sure no one stole the body. Both of them had guards at their disposal. It makes sense that they would use them to protect the body.
Additionally, it was customary at the time to seal tombs off with large stones to prevent grave robbery. This would of made the task of stealing the body much harder.
More over, there is evidence the apostles were Martyred for their faith, and none of them repented.
Conclusion:
While we can't be certain, the belief in Christianity does have legitimate evidence to back it up. Based on the agreed upon definition in the description, Christianity is not irrational in its convictions.
Pros arguments are spotty at best and show a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence.
Argument 1:
Pro did not give enough evidence to say God exists. In order to say God exists, you must prove that he does through the scientific method of Understanding. Not only has Pro not done this, but none of his sources do either. They all range from pure speculation, such as the tomb Christians think was Jeus's tomb, or irrelevance, such as the apostles dying for their faith without regretting it. There is no ACTUAL evidence of the Christian God being real. Thus, Pro's evidence, much like their argument, is a fallacy.
Argument 2:
Pro tries to argue that logic is enough to justify Christian Beliefs. However, that itself is yet another fallacy because we know that logic can justify any belief, even when it is false. If I told you that Marvin was a vampire and all vampires were rich, you would logically agree that Marvin is a rich vampire. But does that mean Vampires are real? Clearly not. Therefore, Pro cannot claim that Christianity is rational purely by logic alone. Rationality should be grounded in proven facts, not only logic, and when it comes to Christianity, there is nothing to justify it but logic, and it is thus not rational.
Argument 3:
When asked if Christianity is a rational belief or not, we must ask ourselves what it means to be rational. It means to have good reason or understanding . Now, we know that Christianity, like every other religion, does not have any method of proving its beliefs in demons, angels, or Gods, and instead states that we should believe in such concepts without any shred of proof. Can we truly call that a rational mindset? If so, why would we tell anyone who thinks the tooth fairy is real to be irrational?
The concept is the same: Believing in things we don't know are real. If rationality is defined as having a good understanding, then Christianity cannot be a rational belief. For it is a belief based on faith, and thus lacks the knowledge required to have a good understanding of anything.
Rebuttals:
Now, let me ask you some questions. Where did that initial atom come from? And if there is no god, why and how did it suddenly expand into a universe.Not just a mess of scattered elements. A universe with rules, life, and probably most impressively, human intellect.How could a random atom that was just kind of existing, one day independently create such an organized universe.How did DNA evolve in such a way it created conscious thought? DNA is like a language, and you need a writer for that."So, we can see, that there is indeed evidence for the existence of god. This evidence makes the claim that a god exists rationa
Pro clearly has not done their research on the topic. First, science cannot be used as evidence that God is real because God doesn't meet the standards of the scientific method of understanding, which requires us to be able to observe God before considering such a being as a theory, and we cannot do that. Additionally, asking, "Where did the first atom come from?" is a blatant display of ignorance of the first law of thermodynamics. Which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the first Atom did not "come" from anywhere, much less the Christian God.
Just because there is reasonable basis for the existence of a god does not make Christianity in itself logical. What would prove that Christianity is logical, however, is evidence for Jesus of Nazareth and the resurrection.
Christianity might be "logical," but it is not rational as it is based on faith, not understanding. Nor do we have actual evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Pro themselves evidence only establishes a location. Not the actual resurrection itself. In fact, from a medical point of view, the resurrection is highly improbable. One such reason is that someone can only be brought back if clinically dead and a short period of time. Jesus was supposedly dead for four days, which would be beyond clinical death. Not only do we have no evidence of Jesus coming back to life, but its medically proven that he couldn't have been.
There are some problems with that though. Jewish people and the Romans alike wanted to ensure that Christianity died out, meaning they needed to make sure no one stole the body. Both of them had guards at their disposal. It makes sense that they would use them to protect the body.Additionally, it was customary at the time to seal tombs off with large stones to prevent grave robbery. This would of made the task of stealing the body much harder.
This is assuming that Bible Jesus was real at all. Despite Pro's claim, Historians and academics do not support the idea that Jesus of the Bible was real. When talking about Jesus, there is a difference between Jesus known in history and Jesus taught in the Bible, .
Conclusion: Christianity is not rational. It is based on faith, which lacks reasoning and is instead irrational.
Round 2
Rebuttals:
Pro did not give enough evidence to say God exists. In order to say God exists, you must prove that he does through the scientific method of Understanding. Not only has Pro not done this, but none of his sources do either. They all range from pure speculation, such as the tomb Christians think was Jeus's tomb, or irrelevance, such as the apostles dying for their faith without regretting it. There is no ACTUAL evidence of the Christian God being real. Thus, Pro's evidence, much like their argument, is a fallacy.
"They all range from pure speculation"
You are clearly ignoring all of the sources I added.
The cosmological argument is based off of logic and current information available to us. If you think about it, every thing in history is speculation. Speculation based upon logic and evidence. The evidence is the perfectly ordered universe around us. Con has not actually provided anything wrong with the logic or evidence of this argument. I could use all my time talking about it, but that wouldn't be productive. If you want to learn more, here is a link. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
Pro tries to argue that logic is enough to justify Christian Beliefs. However, that itself is yet another fallacy because we know that logic can justify any belief, even when it is false...Pro cannot claim that Christianity is rational purely by logic alone. Rationality should be grounded in proven facts, not only logic, and when it comes to Christianity, there is nothing to justify it but logic, and it is thus not rational.
This one just isn't true. As the readers whom have it to this point already know, I provided evidence for my claims, such as the accounts from both apostles and third party historians.
When asked if Christianity is a rational belief or not, we must ask ourselves what it means to be rational. It means to have good reason or understanding ...
I don't need to address this very strongly, considering I have very clearly defined the definition of rational that is to be used in this debate, as I wanted to ensure that it didn't become about definitions.
Pro clearly hasn't done their research on the topic...God doesn't meet the standards of the scientific method of understanding, which requires us to be able to observe God before considering such a being as a theory..."Where did the first atom come from?" is a blatant display of ignorance of the first law of thermodynamics. Which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the first Atom did not "come" from anywhere...
"God doesn't meet the standards of the scientific method of understanding"
We don't need to directly observe god to make an educated inference. We can make an inference through such evidence as the cosmological argument, and through Jesus of Nazareth, which are currently both topics of discussion.
""Where did the first atom come from?" is a blatant display of ignorance of the first law of thermodynamics."
An atom just "existing" doesn't make much sense either. An atom independently expanding into a universe violates the first law of thermodynamics. Additionally, you didn't rebut any of my other points regarding this argument. While the cosmological argument is not conclusive, it's still logical, and that logic is based off of evidence about the universe around us and the evidence of the big bang theory.
Christianity might be "logical," but it is not rational as it is based on faith, not understanding. Nor do we have actual evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Pro themselves evidence only establishes a location. Not the actual resurrection itself. In fact, from a medical point of view, the resurrection is highly improbable. One such reason is that someone can only be brought back if clinically dead and a short period of time. Jesus was supposedly dead for four days, which would be beyond clinical death. Not only do we have no evidence of Jesus coming back to life, but its medically proven that he couldn't have been.
"Nor do we have actual evidence for Jesus' resurrection."
That is, of course, the evidence I provided and you are yet to disclaim.
"In fact, from a medical point of view, the resurrection is highly improbable."
That was literally the whole point of the resurrection! If it happened, which I've provided historical evidence for, it was proof of an omnipotent being, and the witnesses were the reason Christianity became so powerful so quickly.
This is assuming that Bible Jesus was real at all. Despite Pro's claim, Historians and academics do not support the idea that Jesus of the Bible was real. When talking about Jesus, there is a difference between Jesus known in history and Jesus taught in the Bible.
I don't think I need to counter this fore reasons I find quite amusing. The source you cited is literally about how historical evidence backs up the resurrection of Jesus. Thanks for the help. Please keep this in mind when voting for the "sources" section.
Pro seems to have given up making arguments and has now gone on the defensive. So, I will address his counter arguments.
You are clearly ignoring all of the sources I added.The cosmological argument is based off of logic and current information available to us. If you think about it, every thing in history is speculation. Speculation based upon logic and evidence. The evidence is the perfectly ordered universe around us. Con has not actually provided anything wrong with the logic or evidence of this argument. I could use all my time talking about it, but that wouldn't be productive. If you want to learn more, here is a link. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
I didn't ignore what you said, pro. I specifically addressed them and explained that they range from mere speculation, such as a tomb that you can't confirm is where Jesus' body was supposedly buried to Irrelevance such as Jesus' apostles dying. So, saying Ignored it is a lie and so is saying I didn't say there was anything wrong with the logic or evidence. I stated what the issues were. You also completely ignored the part where I mentioned that none of your evidence proves God.
This one just isn't true. As the readers whom have it to this point already know, I provided evidence for my claims, such as the accounts from both apostles and third party historians.
You basically provided hearsay to support hearsay. My point was that logic alone is not what defines rationality, and your only source of evidence was from accounts from Jesus followers, which is hearsay and the false assumption that most historians believe in Jesus, which I refuted by showing the Historical version of Jesus is actually what most Historians accept. Not the Bible version.
I don't need to address this very strongly, considering I have very clearly defined the definition of rational that is to be used in this debate, as I wanted to ensure that it didn't become about definitions.
That's false. You didn't give a definite definition of rationality. You only stated that there was logic in believing in Christianity. The closest we have to you giving a definition was saying in the description that irrationality is a groundless belief with no evidence. Besides, if we are going to be dealing in words, we should go by their objective definitions and not subjective ones that were never mentioned.
We don't need to directly observe god to make an educated inference. We can make an inference through such evidence as the cosmological argument, and through Jesus of Nazareth, which are currently both topics of discussion.
That's a fallacy pro; you need to observe things in order to say you have evidence. I would strongly recommend you look up the definition of empiricism. Empirical Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster By saying you don't need to observe God in order to make an "educated inference," you are openly admitting that you not only lack evidence to justify Christianity, but you willfully substantiate evidence for speculation. So, we can establish that not only are you going by subjective definitions of rationality (that you did not mention beforehand), but you are also using the term "evidence" subjectively too.
An atom just "existing" doesn't make much sense either. An atom independently expanding into a universe violates the first law of thermodynamics. Additionally, you didn't rebut any of my other points regarding this argument. While the cosmological argument is not conclusive, it's still logical, and that logic is based off of evidence about the universe around us and the evidence of the big bang theory.
First of all, that's false. I never said anything about an atom "expanding into the Universe." My point was that the first atom is made from matter; matter, otherwise known as energy, cannot be created or destroyed. That means that the Universe was never created, and thus, the first atom was not created either. Atoms, along with anything else that takes up space, are a form of matter. And since matter cannot be created or destroyed, your argument that a God created it as evidence for one is debunked. You can lie and say I did not address your "evidence," but the voters can read Pro.
That was literally the whole point of the resurrection! If it happened, which I've provided historical evidence for, it was proof of an omnipotent being, and the witnesses were the reason Christianity became so powerful so quickly.
First, you did not provide "historical evidence" that Jesus was resurrected. You only provided a location and said that it would be hard to steal the body. I am giving medical science that shows it can't happen physically. I believe that trumps any speculative "History" evidence that you admit isn't confirmed.
As for the pros' last claim, if he bothered to listen to what I said, the point of that source was to show that historical Jesus and Christian Jesus weren't the same person. This debate went from serious to ridiculous fast.
Round 3
Rebuttals:
I didn't ignore what you said, pro. I specifically addressed them and explained that they range from mere speculation, such as a tomb that you can't confirm is where Jesus' body was supposedly buried to Irrelevance such as Jesus' apostles dying. So, saying Ignored it is a lie and so is saying I didn't say there was anything wrong with the logic or evidence. I stated what the issues were. You also completely ignored the part where I mentioned that none of your evidence proves God.
The Tomb
I didn't include the location because it's not relevant. I don't see why it matters what tomb he was in. However, I understand the point of your argument, so I have attached the tomb that most who have studied the subject believe to be that of Jesus, which the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is build around Here is my source:
The Apostles
The martyring of the apostles due to their faith isn't irrelevant. They could of just repented Jesus, but they didn't. I attached the sources, so don't try to claim I have no evidence for this.
You basically provided hearsay to support hearsay. My point was that logic alone is not what defines rationality, and your only source of evidence was from accounts from Jesus followers, which is hearsay and the false assumption that most historians believe in Jesus, which I refuted by showing the Historical version of Jesus is actually what most Historians accept. Not the Bible version.
"only source of evidence...from Jesus followers"
You're absolutely right, as long as you don't consider the accounts of Suetonius, Flavious, Thallus, Tacitus, the Jewish People, Celsius, and others. Here is a source I found that sums up all of them mentioned: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/
"which I refuted by showing the Historical version of Jesus is actually what most Historians accept. Not the Bible version."
The only evidence you provided when refuting this was an article that argued the historical version of Jesus supports the biblical version.
You didn't give a definite definition of rationality...The closest we have to you giving a definition was saying in the description that irrationality is a groundless belief with no evidence. Besides, if we are going to be dealing in words, we should go by their objective definitions and not subjective ones that were never mentioned.
Rationality is the opposite of irrationality. I clearly defined irrationality in the description. It doesn't matter if you don't think the definition I provided is the right one. By agreeing to this debate, you accepted that definition! <--(explanation point to express annoyance)
you need to observe things in order to say you have evidence...By saying you don't need to observe God in order to make an "educated inference," you are openly admitting that you not only lack evidence to justify Christianity
We can't observe Mesopotamia or living dinosaurs, but we know they were real real things. We know this from looking at remains. The remains in the context of the cosmological argument are things like perfectly structured DNA, cosmic order, and the existence of the universe in general.
I never said anything about an atom "expanding into the Universe." My point was that the first atom is made from matter; matter, otherwise known as energy, cannot be created or destroyed. That means that the Universe was never created...Atoms, along with anything else that takes up space, are a form of matter. And since matter cannot be created or destroyed,
The big bang theory has widespread trust among scientists and scholars alike. A god, a being who created and controls everything, could definitely produce some energy to start the big bang. Saying that the universe has just always existed doesn't make sense. We know the universe has not always existed.
The TombI didn't include the location because it's not relevant. I don't see why it matters what tomb he was in. However, I understand the point of your argument, so I have attached the tomb that most who have studied the subject believe to be that of Jesus, which the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is build around Here is my source:
Your evidence is indeed speculative. Christians believe it’s Jesus’ tomb, but it’s conjecture by your own admission. This also doesn’t prove Jesus was resurrected.
The ApostlesThe martyring of the apostles due to their faith isn't irrelevant. They could of just repented Jesus, but they didn't. I attached the sources, so don't try to claim I have no evidence for this.
As I said before, that is hearsay. People willing to die for their beliefs do not make the belief itself true. If you want to say the apostles died for Jesus, that's fine. But trying to say that the mere fact they may have died for a cause they believed in makes it logical to say Christianity could be true is indeed irrelevant because that does not establish for a fact the apostles were right. Plenty of people died for Hitler and had the opportunity to go back on their beliefs. That doesn't make Nazism a logical position.
You're absolutely right, as long as you don't consider the accounts of Suetonius, Flavious, Thallus, Tacitus, the Jewish People, Celsius, and others. Here is a source I found that sums up all of them mentioned: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/
So, you're trying to make an appeal of the majority argument. The fallacy in that approach, Pro is that hearsay said by an x amount of people is STILL hearsay. If 2 million people say they saw the moon become blue cheese, does that mean the moon turned into cheese? if the answer is no, then personal accounts, no matter how many does not make the argument correct. Fact is determined by evidence, not opinion.
Rationality is the opposite of irrationality. I clearly defined irrationality in the description. It doesn't matter if you don't think the definition I provided is the right one. By agreeing to this debate, you accepted that definition! <--(explanation point to express annoyance)
You provided a subjective definition of irrationality without defining rationality. Your definitions should have been explicit. Moreover, even from your subjective standpoint, Christianity would be categorized as irrational because you described it as "a belief without evidence." I have already demonstrated that Christianity is based on faith, which is inherently without evidence since faith, by definition, means believing in things that cannot be proven.
We can't observe Mesopotamia or living dinosaurs, but we know they were real real things. We know this from looking at remains. The remains in the context of the cosmological argument are things like perfectly structured DNA, cosmic order, and the existence of the universe in general.
You argued we can’t observe dinosaurs yet acknowledge the observable evidence of their remains. While we can’t see them alive, their physical remains are indeed observable. Thus, you are incorrect.
Also, the "Cosmological argument" is riddled with falsehoods. The structure of DNA is not always perfect. For example, incest can cause genetic birth defects. And genetic birth defects are a common occurrence. In fact, over 240,000 newborns die 28 days a year because of it. There is no cosmic order, as anomalies in space are studied and reported every year. The existence of the Universe is a poor example since the First law of thermodynamics, as I listed earlier, shows the universe is infinite and was never created.
The big bang theory has widespread trust among scientists and scholars alike. A god, a being who created and controls everything, could definitely produce some energy to start the big bang. Saying that the universe has just always existed doesn't make sense. We know the universe has not always existed.
The law of conservation of energy, which states energy can’t be created, debunks your idea. The Big Bang theory, representing matter changing form, doesn’t contradict this law. So, no energy cannot be "produced" because it cannot or destroyed. Furthermore, you have no evidence of a God. You merely speculate what a God could do if real, and you cannot confirm that.
Round 4
Rebuttals:
People willing to die for their beliefs do not make the belief itself true. If you want to say the apostles died for Jesus...does not establish for a fact the apostles were right.
Consider the apostles perspective. They conclusively knew whether or not they say Jesus alive after the crucifixion, so what they knew was not just a belief. It was either truth or an intentional lie. The apostles could have saved their lives if they exposed the lie, but not one of them did. We know as that would be valuable propaganda for the Romans, who would be quick to spread it.
So, you're trying to make an appeal of the majority argument. The fallacy in that approach...Pro is that hearsay said by an x amount of people is STILL hearsay... Fact is determined by evidence, not opinion.
Thee examples I provided aren't just your average witness, they are trusted ancient historians. Just because I provided several accounts from these people does not make it a fallacy. You requested non biblical evidence, and just because I provided more than one account does not make it a fallacy.
You provided a subjective definition of irrationality without defining rationality. Your definitions should have been explicit. Moreover, even from your subjective standpoint, Christianity would be categorized as irrational because you described it as "a belief without evidence." I have already demonstrated that Christianity is based on faith, which is inherently without evidence since faith, by definition, means believing in things that cannot be proven.
This is becoming legitimately very obnoxious. Rational is the opposite of the word irrational, which means it's the opposite of the definition I provided, which is different from the one you sourced.
You argued we can’t observe dinosaurs yet acknowledge the observable evidence of their remains. While we can’t see them alive, their physical remains are indeed observable. Thus, you are incorrect.
I am starting to seriously doubt the attention you are giving this debate. That is literally what I said, and then you said it again but for some reason put "you are incorrect at the end." Did you even read my point?
Additionally, you've cited sources that are saying the opposite of what you are, and seemingly ignoring mine.
You claimed I didn't site any non biblical evidence, when if you look back, I clearly did.
Also, the "Cosmological argument" is riddled with falsehoods. The structure of DNA is not always perfect. For example, incest can cause genetic birth defects. And genetic birth defects are a common occurrence. In fact, over 240,000 newborns die 28 days a year because of it. There is no cosmic order, as anomalies in space are studied and reported every year.
You aren't considering how odd it is that billions of DNA sets would randomly organize into intelligent and functional life. Things like that don't happen by chance, even if there are some imperfections. The cosmological argument does not state DNA is always perfect, and DNA was is just one example. How come the big bang developed into coherent forms and not just a mess of elements?
Conclusion:
Vote Pro for arguments
While the evidence is not conclusive, it is certainly there, and we can see it through accounts of those close to Jesus of Nazareth and from third party historians. Through common sense, we can see reasons to believe a greater power would be necessary in the creation of a universe.
Vote Pro for sources
It is apparent that Con does not review is sources. They cited something that contradicted the point they were trying to make and supported my argument.
When talking about Jesus, there is a difference between Jesus known in history and Jesus taught in the Bible, .
Vote Pro for conduct
My opponent is trying to argue a definition that was predetermined in the description.
First argument:
Pro has not made any valid arguments to prove that Christianity is a rational belief. All they have done is display a flawed misconception of modern sciences, the very definition of rationality, and what constitutes evidence overall. Pro believes that the universe has a creator despite the First Law of Thermodynamics debunking such unfounded beliefs and has no counterargument beyond it not "making sense" to them, which is meaningless in the debate.
Pro Argues that Christianity is rational despite the fact that rationality requires good reasoning and understanding, which Christianity lacks since it is an ideology based on faith instead of reason. Pro also thinks that evidence and speculation are the same thing, which they admitted to by arguing that one does not need to observe in order to have evidence. Overall, what pro considers a "logical belief" is instead a speculative argument supported by hearsay and fallacy that lack even a shred of scientific research.
Second argument:
I have proven that Christianity is not a rational belief as none of its ideological principles can be proven to exist, much less apply to the real world. There is no evidence of God, angels, Demons, or even the human soul.
Christianity may offer speculative reasons for its beliefs. Still, there is no actual rationality behind its beliefs, as it only has faith that it is correct. This means it assumes the existence of Gods with the standard of scrutiny or certainty, which is irrational. Furthermore, even though Christianity may appear logical on the surface, logic alone does not determine rationality, as rationality is defined by both logic and soundness. Christianity may be logical, but it is not factual in any capacity.
Third argument:
Pro has offered only feeble counterarguments. I have presented scientific and medical evidence that refutes many of Pro's positions, which he dismisses without providing any counter sources, claiming they are nonsensical. What little sources they did provide are biased Christian sources. For instance, he argued that the universe must have a creator because if a deity existed, it could create energy. This is incorrect, as energy is infinite and cannot be created. He also has tried to misrepresent my argument in his attempts at rebuttals.
For example, He claimed, "You've cited sources that are saying the opposite of what you are, and seemingly ignoring mine." This, however, is false as there was only one source he claimed worked against mine, which he clearly never read as it stated in it that "Allison thinks that by using the historical methodology we cannot connect the historical Jesus to the Biblical Jesus." I made it clear when I used the source that it was to refute the idea that most historians agreed the bible version of Jesus was the same as the Historical Jesus. So, contrary to what Pro claims, none of my sources actually work against my position.
Another clear example of Pro's failed attempts at rebuttal is that they claimed that they provided evidence of Jesu's resurrection. Not only did Pro never actually provide the evidence in question, which they admit is not conclusive. But when I refuted this position by giving medical journals that proved that people can only overcome clinical death, not actual death, and that Jesus's four days would have been well passed the clinical stage. Not only did Pro AGREE with this conclusion, but their attempt at a retort was also,
"That was literally the whole point of the resurrection! If it happened, which I've provided historical evidence for, it was proof of an omnipotent being, and the witnesses were the reason Christianity became so powerful so quickly."
Except, Pro DIDN'T provide historical evidence that Jesus died and came back, which is not even academically acknowledged as a historical event. All pro provided was hearsay accounts, an unconfirmed location, and a pointless argument about the difficulties of stealing Jesu's body, if he was ever there at all.
Conclusion: You should vote Con because Pro failed in their efforts to prove Christianity is rational. They only provided logical fallacies and self-defeating subjective definitions, which were occupancies by biased sources. Additionally, they had little to no response to the medical and scientific sources I provided. In contrast, I used science and medical research, as well as Pro's definition, to establish that not only is Christianity not a rational belief, but it is incapable of being rational, for it is founded on faith-based ideologies that cannot by their nature be proven. Nothing can be more irrational than having beliefs that are founded in blind trust rather than a rationalized foundation. Christianity is, as Pro's description defines irrationality as, "a groundless belief with no evidence." Vote Con!
ah. it was a good debate.
The title of this debate reminds me of a kritik I did on the rationality of belief in God. If memory serves, I argued for the less controversial figure of Santa Clause... Of course it's rational to believe in Santa, all the other kids do, your parents are telling you he's where the presents come from (and they do come... also whatever crimes you did are fine because you're still on the all-knowing nice list).
Would you be willing to revise your vote and re post it?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Moozer325// Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and sources to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is only a little below the threshold, and I appreciate the thought put into it.
The core problem can be extrapolated from what is the point of the debate? You need not list every minor contention, but certainly the core one.
Sources should only be awarded if impressive enough that you'd want to talk about one or two of them (at least naming them and how they applied to part of an argument)
**************************************************
Moozer325
07.18.2024 10:47AM
Arguments:
Con missed the point of the debate. Con provided counter points that didn’t work in the context of the argument and Pro also refuted most of Con’s arguments
Sources:
Pro provided more sources, much better sources, and more sources that were directly relevant to the debate resolution.
Legibility:
Neither side had a significant lack of legibility, so it’s a tie.
Conduct:
Ideally I would award this point to Pro, but the voting guide specifically says that if you are to award a point it must be for excessive breaking of conduct, and Pro was only slightly better at conduct than Con.
I have several objections to your vote. First, you claim that I "missed" the point of the debate without providing any details. This is particularly troubling to me as I presented multiple arguments demonstrating why Christianity is an irrational belief, using the definition of irrationality, the subjective definition provided by Con, and by delineating the distinction between faith-based ideologies and those founded on reason. Therefore, stating that I "missed the point of the debate" is entirely unfounded since you did not offer any explanation or examples.
You also say that I made counters that didn't "work in the context of the argument." How? for example, Pro made the argument
"Now, let me ask you some questions. Where did that initial atom come from? And if there is no god, why and how did it suddenly expand into a universe? Not just a mess of scattered elements. A universe with rules, life, and probably most impressively, human intellect. How could a random atom that was just kind of existing one day independently create such an organized universe? How did DNA evolve in such a way it created conscious thought? DNA is like a language, and you need a writer for that. "So, we can see, that there is indeed evidence for the existence of God. This evidence claims that a god exists rational."
In response, I pointed out that the first law of thermodynamics disproves the notion that a deity created the universe. This rebuttal is not only contextually appropriate but also remained largely uncontested by Pro, who simply retorted, "That violates the first law of thermodynamics," without providing any sources to support their claim. Please explain how that is out of context.
And then you say that Pro refuted everything I said, which is false. For example, Pro had no answer to the first law of thermodynamics, the medical improbability of Jesus coming back to life, and he even conceded that point by agreeing it was impossible. So, again, saying that Pro refuted everything I said is false.
On the sources vote. You say that Pro provided more and better sources. Explain that to me. Pro gave a total of 15 sources. of those 15, all but 3/4 are biasedly Christian. Meanwhile, I provided a total of 11 sources. Which rage from the scientific method of understanding, the law of thermodynamics, clinical death vs actual death, incest, genetic birth defects, statistical analysis of newborn dying every year, the definition of rationality and faith etc. So, not only are my sources more diverse, but they hold more academic credibility.
Lastly, you made it blatantly obvious that you wanted to give Conduct to Pro on principle bur didn't because the rules do not allow rather than because of an actual review of our conducts. I find that very biased and unprofessional.