The Following Quotes Effectively Refute Christianity

. . ======================================== Circumstantial Necessity of Evidence and Incomplete Arguments ======================================== My opponent's entire argument is a gripe he has with 1 of the 7 quotes, on the grounds that one particular quote is making unwarranted claims. However, I disagree, and say that they are perfectly warranted descriptions of the character Yahweh as described by the Bible. Just as I could call the character Draco, from the Harry Potter novels, a mischievous, dishonest, cruel, bully, and I would be warranted to say so, because these are the attributes given to this character by the book. I do not need to prove that this is true, because the evidence is easily accessible in the book itself. Just as the Richard Dawkins quote is warranted because the evidence for his claims, is easily accessible. My opponent needs to distinguish when it is appropriate to ask for evidence and when it is not. If I assert "fairies exist," then my opponent has every right to ask for evidence because it is an extraordinary claim, in which no evidence for it has yet to be seen. However, if I assert that the book-based character Harry Potter is a wizard who performs magic, casts spells, and fights evil, it would be both redundant and absurd to ask for proof because the evidence is easily accessible. Even at that, if my opponent were correct that the first quote is unevidenced conjecture or as he says, "petty insults," that is but 1 of the 7 quotes contended. I asked him to completely vindicate Christianity, philosophically and morally, and yet, at best he has barely made his first step. ======================== Fallacies and the Nature of the Quotes ======================== My opponent has committed an intentional fallacy [1] in which he treated all of the quotes as unevidenced conjecture, yet only one of the quotes can (possibly) be described as such. The remaining 6 quotes (perhaps with the exception of one) made no extraordinary claims, and were simply making philosophic and moral statements from which, no evidence is needed. For example, you don't bring evidence to a debate about the philosophic implications of existentialism. It's just not required in these circumstances. Evidence is for science, archaeology, and for confirming facts. Not philosophic thought. ======= Contentions ======= {*We both are assuming that God exists, therefore my opponents system of morality must be challenged. *} No, that parameter was never set and is essentially irrelevant. The Christian philosophy is based on the scriptures, and whether or not the scripture's claims are true (i. e. God exists), Christian philosophy is still derived from the book. Thus, the existence of the Christian God is irrelevant. Also, your conclusion does not follow. Why must my system of morality be challenged if the existence of God is assumed? It should (or should not) be challenged either way and really makes no difference if God exists. {*My opponent must prove that his system of Morality is the correct one, then prove that the quotes prove it to be undermined. *} No, that is not my obligation. I do not have to prove anything about my system of morality. I am challenging your Christian system of morality and am demonstrating how it both undermines it's own moral code, and undermines the inherent, basic morals of human beings. {*When one instigates that his quotes refute something such as morality, there must be examples, or evidence if you will of the occasions in which this is happening. *} Not necessarily. The evidence is easily accessible, and it would be redundant for the quotes to point out which specific chapter and verse it is referring to. You don't have to prove something that's already been proven. It's as if you are deliberatly ignoring or avoiding evidence, unless it is spoon-fed to you. And again, I stress that my opponent is only picking on one quote. At least 5 of them are simply philosophic statements in which there are no insults that my opponent would need request evidence for. {*My opponent has stated that the Christian God is omnibenevolent, which is defined as "Moral perfection", "perfect goodness", and "desire to do good. "*} No, I did not say anything like that. To the contrary, I'm actually arguing against that statement. This is, however, the position that Christians hold, and partly what I'm trying to do here is to show that what Christianity holds to be moral perfection, is far from moral. For example, Yahweh is apparently all-loving and all-good, yet is responsible for brutally drowning every living being on the planet. This is essentially what I was hoping to debate about. ======= Conclusion ======= In conclusion, my opponent has once again failed his duty to vindicate Christianity, philosophically and morally. He is denying the obvious (i. e. refusing to acknowledge the murders committed by Yahweh), in order to evade his duty to vindicate the morality of Christianity. I was expecting him to justify or vindicate statements such as "[a God] who mouths justice and invented hell - mouths mercy and invented hell," but instead nitpicked the fact that the quote didn't specify which verse. This prevented us from discussing the central point of this debate, and instead kept us occupied with a side argument. I thank you all for reading. [1] . http://www.iep.utm.edu...