RESOLVED: Christianity is Beneficial to the Individual Man

4R1NRC: On Semantics: Christian, Christianity and Race The opponent has provided an inadequate example of what justifies a Christian; if a Christian is someone who practices Christianity, both de facto and de jure, then the opponent’s case study falls under this category. For if the adopted boy chooses to renounce his faith, he is no longer a Christian; apart from this, this analogy/case study very is irreverent, for we are talking about the Christians who practice Christianity and have a “connection with Jesus Christ and God” not those who are in de jure Christian, but de facto irreligious. The opponent makes a very harsh formal logical fallacy here; ad hominem. “Hence he is x and I am y, therefore he would know more about x than me” This is ad hominem, as me being Buddhist has nothing to do with this debate. Apart from this, the opponent is just complaining; note that this is a debate, not a complaint section. The opponent bears the full BoP voluntarily. 4R2NRC: On Neurology: A Reply The opponent bases his fundamental arguments on the assumption; that there was “life before life” This is a circular argument; the opponent tries to support the afterlife by assuming that the afterlife already exists. Nevertheless, when refuting this case, we must understand that the brain is the only source of consciousness; without the brain, the mind simply cannot exist. An example of this comes from the jellyfish; it is without a brain and a heart. Henceforth, it is commonly known to not have any consciousness at all. Then a dilemma arises; how do these jellyfishes move? Cellular memory; a memory that can exist without the need for the brain. The Jellyfish has a nerve net, which allows for the animal the jellyfish to move, but it does not feel when it moves; it is unconscious. [1] This can only prove one thing; the brain is the center of consciousness. Humans do not have cellular memories; our body does not memorize, but our brain does. Henceforth, it is commonly known that for us to talk, touch, smell, eat, chew and for other sensory experiences to be possible, the brain needs to be intact. It is also commonly known that for us to have identity, differences, similarities of the mind, the brain has to be intact, for the mind cannot exist (in a human body), as explained via the Jellyfish analogy, without the brain. 4R3NRC: On Brain Damage: Psychiatry The opponent makes a very fatal mistake here. “The soul is not damaged via damages to the brain” is a very fatal proposition. The opponent attempts to explain mental disorders via philosophy; “the vessel is unable to represent the mind fully” is vague. In fact, through research, the causes of mental disorders are becoming clearer and clearer; the increases in NT release in substances like serotonin and dopamine causes the changes in behavior and mood swings. Mood swing changes the mind and the soul; for example, when an excess of serotonin is released, the mind changes from being at a sad and depressed state to a happy and joyful state. [2] If the soul is defined as something that the person has throughout his “life” and it can exist without the brain, then the brain shouldn’t be able to affect the state of the soul. Remember that the brain is not only the “ship” of the soul, it is the soul. The soul cannot exist with the soul as observed from Jellyfishes and mental disorders. Henceforth, the opponent’s point goes void. 4R4NRC: On Parallel Universes The opponent completely ignores the second part of Prop. 1, which states that “all things that do not exist physically make its existence clear to us” The existence of “other universes” outside this universe is still widely debated by cosmologists and astronomists. If the opponent considers my defense, then he is to see that physical substances exist and there is no doubt that it exists, and all non-physical substances that exist can be supported by a posteriori propositions! For example, gravity exists because we cannot magically float up without the help of mechanical machinery; the opponent assumes that not everything can be proven by a priori or a posteriori propositions. He also assumes that not everything can be proven by physical and empirical evidence. This is false; even a priori propositions, like “1+1=2” can be supported by the fact that when we put one finger with another finger, we have two fingers. Everything correct must be able to be proven by an a priori and an a posteriori proposition; if not so, then “a statement stated without proof has a much worth as dirt in a market” 4R5NRC: On False Biblical Prophecies “If something is true, therefore it is beneficial” is this logic. “The capitalist depression came as Marx predicted, therefore Marxism is the way to go! ” Correlation is not causation, and just because something correlates, does not mean that it is beneficial. Apart from this, Virgin birth is not possible, and that is an affirmed fact. Israel has indeed been driven out of Lebanon, and is being defeated in Gaza. The destruction of Egypt here is a literal; even the New International Version states that. However, using the Geneva version is clearer cut, as it is the original version of the Bible translated from Greek and Latin [4]. It states this: Eziekel 30: And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and fear shall be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, when they shall take away her multitude, and when her foundations shall be broken down. It still exists. The opponent also states the probability factor of modern dams. However, Isaiah 19:1 mentions it draining up via natural causes [5]: The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt 4R6NRC: Pascal’s Wager In refuting the opponent’s reply to the critics of Pascal’s Wager, we must reply to the opponent’s replies to each assumption. The Third Assumption: The opponent says that if God is benevolent, henceforth he will be pleased via prayer. But if a “killer genuinely repents” and he goes to heaven, then God is not just. But assuming that God is just, then he would not accept the prayers of the religious immoral, as prayers in this case are just literal divine corruption (if they get you into heaven). . The Second Assumption: The opponent talks about hope and this concept that if this view were true, Christianity still gives hope. However, Christianity gives a false and ignorant hope, and this hope weakens the mind, the body and the soul. Henceforth, this concept of “Christian hope” is a hope for the weak, the botched and the destitute. The First Assumption: The opponent states that “Christianity” is the most likely true religion. However, this is false; if the divine cannot be proven by the mortal, then there is no real way to know what religion is real and true. In fact, in this case, Buddhism seems to be the most viable; scientists have discovered that a Buddhist’s mind is a lot different from a person who adhere a different faith. A brain belonging to the Zen Buddhist monk was proven to the hugely different from a normal brain. Lord Buddha did not make any prophecies; just theories about how to achieve Enlightenment, and these theories are proving true and beneficial. 4R7NRC: Violent Christians The opponent accepts the definition of Christian as someone who practices Christianity, as he never provided an alternative definition to it. In this case, Christians have killed many millions; the world’s bloodiest epoch, the Taiping Rebellion, was caused by Christian Chinese citizens who attempted to usurp the Qing regime. The opponent attempts to divide factions; “Protestants” are “Christians” whilst “Catholics” aren’t “Christians” However, they both follow the fundamental points of Christianity, and henceforth, they fit the definition of practitioners of the Christian faith. If one had to compile a study of the deaths caused by the Christian faith, then the list would go on to the billions. Many conflicts have been said to have been caused, both directly and indirectly, by Christians and there destructive and violent doctrines. This was why the Shogun of Japan during the 17th Century ordered the hanging of many Christians; he feared that by their nature, they would cause the destruction of tranquility in Japan. However, we may compile a brief list of wars caused by Christianity and deaths it caused: Nigerian Civil War-3 million deaths Cause: The adoption and imperialism of a Christian tribe. Taiping Rebellion-100 million deaths Cause: The usurping of the Qing throne by Christians The Extermination of Natives by Christians-100 million deaths Cause: “Civilizing” the natives by Darwinist Christians Crusades-3 million deaths + Cause: The need to reclaim the Holy City from the Infidels Many more wars and incidents may be recorded throughout history, but it is clear; Christianity, in four war, has caused 200 million deaths. Is that figure reflective of Christianity’s benefits towards the individual man? With this said, I would like to conclude the only argument I presented on the concept of Christian morality. 2R1NC: Christianity and Pity This Christian concept of pity is simple; we are simply replacing the virtues of a lion with the virtues of sheep. We are disarming the man of his necessary aggressive virtues, and we are arming him with the passive unnecessary virtues. In Christianity, the concept of pity makes the man slow, depressive and unrational over his decisions. This is detrimental for the man; for he wishes to become a better human being psychologically, but yet he is deferred from doing so by showing pity. Christianity is thus unbeneficial; the resolution is negated. Citations: [1] . http://www.agenthuman.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . https://www.biblegateway.com... [4] . http://rationalwiki.org...