Christianity is Dumb

While some of the statements that con has put foreward are more or less reasonable, I will state some of the ones that are illogical: If we have never seen an example in nature of something appearing spontaneously out of nothing, it is irrational to assume that that's what happened for the universe. "Oh well the Big Bang singularity..." came from where? "Where did the singularity come from?" You ask. Well to put it plainly, we just don’t know. Just as you don’t know where your God came from. What makes you so sure that the singularity even came from somewhere at all? This assumption that there must be a clear beginning to something as complex as the universe is fallacious. The claim that there was a beginning to the universe begs the question of what was before the beginning of everything that exists? When you ask “what was before existence?” The clear answer is nothing, and nothing, by definition, can’t exist. According to your logic, that everything that exists must have a creator, God (as he is an entity that exists) must also have an origin. If we can agree that god is “something” and you say that “something can’t come from nothing” either he was created by another God or he wasn’t created at all and thus does’t exist. There is however, one other option- that he always existed. This seems to be the consensus amongst the religious community. So if you agree that God has always existed (which I assume you do) why is it farfetched to assume that the singularity hasn’t also always existed? You ask “Where did the singularity come from?” Well why don’t you ask yourself where God came from first? Why do Christians never stop to question their own religion in the same way they question science? I see this time and time again, that Christians are generally so afraid to turn the same criticism on their own religion. Theists always have a hard time being as critical of their own beliefs as they are to science. I believe this fear is caused by the deep down knowledge, that as soon as religion is questioned, the fragile and thin logical fabric on which it is held, would break apart and it would fall through the holes. "Nature does not allow for something to be its own creator, therefore there must be a creator who is outside of nature." "Therefore, I am operating under the assumption that my opponent is open to at least the possibility of a god's existence, whether or not they actually believe one to exist." Possibility is not a strong enough base for an extraordinary claim. I think that it’s about as “possible” for there to be a god, just as I think it’s Possible that there are aliens hiding under the surface of mars. But while possible, it is very very unlikely. I believe it may have been “possible” that Noah fit every single species of animals onto a wooden ship that he built by hand, but i thinks its about as likely to be true as the existence of invisible unicorns. But I will say this again, Possibility is not a strong enough basis for an extraordinary claim. Almost anything you could imagine happening is “possible” but we can’t confidently call these possibilities realities unless we have evidence for them being so. Pro claims that theistic religion (and therefore Christianity) is a collection of fairy tales. The bible has significant value as a historical document, and has been used not only to help construct a chronology of the Ancient Near East, but also to discover places and peoples that would otherwise have been left to history (for instance, we have the bible to thank for our discovery of the Hittites, as no other document mentioned their existence. I stand by my claim, and here’s why. My main argument in this debate, is that the beliefs of Christianity are an unreasonable source of universal truth. The fairy tails come in to play when the people of the time were faced with an unexplainable natural phenomenon. This lead them to create they’re own explanations based on what made sense to them. Remember, that the main goal of the bible was to provide explanations of our reality and our purpose here, and the fact that there is valid history in the Bible, does not in any way validate some the outrageous claims made in the novel. It makes sense that the history is fairly accurate since at the time, the history was observable. Only when Christianity tries to explain the unexplainable does it leave you asking yourself “what were these people smoking?” While the bible may provide historical chronologies, it does not provide universal truths. Christianity has endured for thousands of years, Making it a reasonable thing to believe. If billions of people believe the same thing, I would certainly argue that it is a reasonable thing to believe in. I don’t for a minute, think that the number of people believing in something adds to it’s credibility. There were over 90 million Nazi followers not including the Axis, who all believed in the racist principles that Nazism held, do you think Nazism was a reasonable thing to believe in? I realize that the people who held these beliefs were a minority, but in the heart of Germany, the anti-Semitic principles were abundant. Even then, the beliefs are not reasonable. In the 18th and 19th century, when american slavery flourished, the majority of americans supported it. Was slavery a “reasonable” thing to believe in then? I don’t think I really need to say anything else. Faith is required when logic and reason can go no further. Example: We're not sure if King Arthur was real, but we have faith that he was because these sources suggest so. You’re right. We're not sure if King Arthur king Arthur existed. This is why so many historians are skeptical. The fact is, folklore is not a reliable source of history, just as the Bible is not a reliable source of truth. Despite what I just said, the existence of King Arthur is still more reasonable than the existence of God. I will explain: Major historical figures, such as King Arthur, are observable, and therefore more credible, while paranormal phenomenon like the existence of god and the resurrection of Jesus simply are not. Second, many books and stories can be found, containing consistent information documenting King Arthur’s reign. When you have multiple documents from all across a country documenting a story, consistent with one another, the puzzle begins to take form. Furthermore, coming to the conclusion that an influential King existed based on countless documents, is far more reasonable than assuming something paranormal exists based on the claims made in a single book.