Christianity v Atheism

ARGUMENTS: "I was providing arguments for a God that is mentioned in the Old Testament because his non-existence would stop Jesus' claims of being divinely provided by him would make no sense without a God of the Old Testament."Fair enough. "I would have thought people would be intelligent enbough to realize this involves proving God exists as well, so my opponents self-pitying claims I am only defending monotheism are obviously untrue."The arrogance of my opponent and his feeble attempt to throw dirt in our eyes telling as we can see. As if we can't go back and read what he posted in the last two rounds. Did my opponent not post this in the second round: "a monotheistic God exists"?"Theories in science are things backed up by physical evidence, not non-authoritative facts."Is the Big Bang, a theory or fact? Last I checked theory[1].[1]http://www.big-bang-theory.com..."Metaphysical claims can be proven logically as I have attempted to do in my moral argument. It's up to voters to decide whether I have done that or not."Correction, you meant to say metaphysical claims that haven't been supported or substantiated other than from your own personal perspective. Many claims are logical but we are looking for "a more correct world-view." Was it n my opponent who said that?"Just because one is amoral about something which one does not sense no more proves moral values are subjective than not seeing something from miles away proves are physical senses are subjective. This counter-argument is completely able to be reconciled with objective morality."Has my opponent even shown that morality exists? He hasn't brought any scientific evidence. Instead we received unfounded evidence which anyone can imagine in their head."Rightness and wrongness place obligations on you to act rightly and/or wrongly. That's a basic theory in ethical philosophy."Irrelevant."Bare assertion."It was a supported and substantiated assertion which my opponent didn't refute. This is a petty attempt at a distraction by my opponent because he is incapable of refuting my claim that moral subjectivism exists in reality."But it is a matter for a philosophy of ethics."Irrelevant."Sure different behaviours are observable, but most people still feel in their hearts that there is a correct way to act and behave. Ethics accepts there are moral oughts, the question is how well the moral philosophy encompasses them. To my mind, objective morality makes more sense of ethical philosophy than does subjective morality."If this is the case, why did so many Americans before 1860 thought slavery was acceptable? I would imagine in today's time it would be difficult to find that many Americans who would agree with having slaves. Why do some countries approve husband physically disciplining their wives and others don't? Why do some religions and some societies find suicide abhorrent while others consider it a virtue? There is no "correct way to act and behave." There are just more desirable ways to behave. Let us not evoke Godwin's law or the totalitarian regimes in the 20th century to show the drastic difference in behavior amongst people from across the world. If morality is objective, why are so many women in the Middle East demanded to wear the hijab, niqab, or the burqa. if morality is objective, shouldn't women have the standards in New York City, Tokyo, and London as well? If morality is objective why don't these women commit honor killings as they do in India, Pakistan, and many other places throughout the world? If morality is objective, why do some countries believe more in the welfare state than others? My opponent has not once shown how morality is objective. I just showed thoroughly with mainstream examples which most people know, morality is not objective. Objective morality is a theoretical construct which has no basis in reality. Morality subjectivity acknowldges the world should be dealt with meticously. While objective morality paints the world with one broad stroke that has no regard for reality or the details of the world."The early drafts of the Gospels and Paul's oral tradition relay those four facts I have mentioned. Look at the QMark source for example. They agree with my facts, those were definitely written within the generations that knew Jesus. There is no evidence they are conspiracy pieces, either archaeological or otherwise, as most New Testament scholars admit."Notice, how my opponent has chosen to tiptoe past what i said. I am not going to ignore it. The Gospels are not accurate sources. Therefore those alleged facts don't matter. The Gospels were clearly written as propaganda pieces. How many non-Christian sources corroborate these facts? My opponent has not presented any non-Christian source to corroborate the Gospels findings at all. My opponent has only used Christian resources. Was the Gospels intentions not to advance the ideal narrative of Jesus of Nazerth's life? As I said earlier and I will say again, the Gospels were not historical narratives but clearly agenda driven works by Christians.DV's TOP #10 DEBATE FACTS:#1.My opponent did not support most of his claims.#2. My opponent used the Gospel as sources.#3. The Gospels are secondary sources.#4. The Gospels are inaccurate.#5. My opponent did not offer a single fact in this debate.#6. My opponent did not even explain Christianity.#7. My opponent avoided supporting the resolution which he created.#8. My opponent offered mostly conjecture.#9. My opponent's points were metaphysical. Therefore they were incapable of being measured in reality for their accuracy.#10. Atheism means "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."CONCLUSION:My opponent has asserted but has not backed up most of these assertions. I have counted up over 30 unsupported assertions throughout the debate. I would challenge the voters to do the same as well. This should be the clear difference between atheism and Christianity. Atheism should be considered the default position of most people. Why? Atheism does not make assumptions or assertions. Christianity is based on propaganda pieces written in the Bible to further than an agenda. Most of these pieces contain anachronisms and historical inaccuracies. This is why I pointed out the Gospels in the Bible are inaccurate because none of them are a primary source. My opponent didn't even show they were based off of a primary source either. Therefore, why shouldn't we take it as distorted narratives based on oral traditions? Christianity makes many assertions which can easily be debunked due to the problems associated with agenda driven works. Atheism, is merely the claim to be without god or the gods.Vote early, vote often, and vote Con.Music for all. All hail the Emperor!http://www.youtube.com...