The Following Quotes Effectively Refute Christianity

. . =============== Evading the Argument =============== Unfortunately, my opponent has evaded his duty in this debate. I was expecting my opponent to demonstrate that Christian philosophy and beliefs are morally sound, contrary to what my quotes suggest. Instead, my opponent decided to digress by requesting evidence and picking on semantics, however, I clearly stated that this is from a philosophic and moral standpoint, not a factual debate. It's as if we are discussing planetary orbits and astronomy, and my opponent refusing to discuss the topic unless I can first prove that the Earth is round. That would be digressing from the debate topic. Despite all of that, I will still provide contentions to my opponents argument. ========= Contentions ========= {*The resolution is worded in a peculiar way, because "Christianity" is belief in the Christian God, but your quotes do not refute belief in the Christian God, but rather it seems he is attempting to say that Jesus undermines his own morality? *} Christianity is NOT merely the belief in the Christian God. That's borderline Deism and this is not a God existence debate. Also, you cannot merely believe in the *Christian* God, because he wouldn't be the Christian God if it weren't for the theological attributes ascribed to him by the Bible. Christianity includes Biblical scriptures, Christian philosophy, beliefs, and practices. {*So, as you wish I will not debate semantics, and will await your clarification. *} I clarified in my opening statement that "I will provide quotes that I think, effectively refute Christianity from a philosophical standpoint, and expose it to be morally unsound. " This has nothing to do with facts, evidence, or God's existence. This is a philosophy debate. {*Definition of refute: To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony. Dictionary. com*} I wish that we do not emphasize the word "refute. " I simply mean that my quotes expose Christianity to be immoral and philosophically unsound. Since you provided a definition though, I will emphasize "to prove to be false or erroneous. " {*But what my opponent has done, has merely posted quotes that SAID Jesus is an unpleasant character, racist, hysterically insane etc. With absolutely nothing to back it up. *} First of all, the quote you are referring to was not talking about Jesus. It was talking about Yahweh. Let's make this distinction very clear too. Despite the Christian claim that Jesus is God, the Bible gives specific attributes to Yahweh, and a different set of attributes to Jesus, and thus we will treat them as separate. Secondly, (with regards to the Dawkins quote about Yahweh) I do not have to prove that Yahweh is genocidal, just as I would not have to prove Dr. Doom is violent. The quote is attacking the God of the Bible and all of the attributes ascribed to him, and the Bible claims that Yahweh killed everyone on earth with a global flood. It is not my duty to prove that he did this, but that this character in the Bible (from which much of Christian philosophy comes from) is immoral. That's what this debate is about. ======== Conclusion ======== In conclusion, my opponent failed his duty to vindicate Christianity, philosophically and morally. He instead, picked on semantics and disputed facts, rather than discuss the philosophy and morals of Christianity. I encourage my opponent to argue within the realm of this debate, in which he must defend Christian philosophy and morality.