The Following Quotes Effectively Refute Christianity

Introduction: My opponent as consistently claimed that I have been elusive in this debate. However, I have been nothing but straightforward. In order to sufficiently uphold the resolution, Geo must show how his quotes EFFECTIVELY refute Christianity. Since any effective argument requires ACTUAL substance, I'm not sure that it is at all disingenuous to point out that his "philosophic" quotes are unilaterally lacking in that department. ======================================== 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." False. My contention is that all said quotes are making unwarranted claims – inasmuch as they all reference morality without proving that such thing actually exists. Dostoevsky's dictum seems true, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." Geo is either engaging in the traditional begging of the question, that is, morality is contingent on God, or he is presupposing an alternative, objective standard of morality by which we may determine immoral action. Obviously there is no gripe with the actions of said God (e.g. the flood). Evidence is not needed to establish that God indeed flooded the earth (at least when dealing with the issue philosophically), but evidence is absolutely needed when someone is making the philosophical claim that said actions are immoral. If they are immoral, they MUST be proven as such. Since all listed quotes call God, in some form or another, immoral, they must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the objective, transcendental and binding metric of morality which they reference. They stand merely as empty and unwarranted conjectures. "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" False. You would only be warranted to say so if an established system of morality was already proven. Since the book, in essence, sets the variables of the story and controls the morality of the system, then yes, Draco is evil according the system in which he resides. He is only evil because the book says he is. You have no warrant to call his actions ACTUALLY immoral, unless you have a warranted, objective system of morality. ======================== Fallacies and the Nature of the Quotes ======================== Let's briefly address the quotes in order. 1.This can be rejected via its dependence on conjecture. Dawkin's ascribes certain attributes to God without proving that said attributes are true. Moreover, he depends on a metric of morality that was not established – philosophically or otherwise. 2.The second quote, again, assumes a metric of morality that is not established – philosophically or otherwise. By claiming that said actions are morally perverse (or inferring it rather), he is claiming that God is bound by a morality that is yet to be evidenced. Moreover, Twain assumes that humans and God are morally analogous and that God is bound by the morality he creates – this is tantamount to saying that a game designer is bound by his own programming. 3.This quote is completely irrelevant and only makes claim to what the person quoted believes. 4.Hitchen's is bumbling on again, without substance. This quote presents no philosophical claims at all – my opponent's belief notwithstanding. What am I to refute? If he is trying to call God immoral, then we are where we are with most all these quotes – by what objective moral standard do such authors appeal? 5.Irrelevant. Ipse-Dixit. This, philosophical or otherwise, requires evidence. Let me quote the same author cited above, "what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." The author of Geo's quote said this. -http://www.goodreads.com... 6.This contention would address Judaism, not Christianity. Under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (i.e. Christianity), we are to turn the other cheek. 7.This is irrelevant to Christianity, in that it addresses the actions of Moses. Also, it ascribes actions to Moses which are not true. Moses never ordered rape and debauchery. This also makes the same error as all the others, it assumes a moral standard without warrant. ======= Contentions ======= "Why must my system of morality be challenged if the existence of God is assumed?" Because if God exists then he is not bound by whatever system of morality that you decided to never once reference or prove. "It should (or should not) be challenged either way and really makes no difference if God exists." If God is not, then everything is permissible. If God is, then he makes the rules. "No, that is not my obligation. I do not have to prove anything about my system of morality." So we are to just assume that you know what morality is? If everyone in the world claims that child molestation is right, will it be right? If the answer is no, then the appeal is being made to an un-sourced, and objective moral standard. If this standard is not God, then you have to show it to be something else. If the answer is yes, then morality is not actual, but merely contingent upon the subjective whims of an ever-changing mass of humanoids. "At least 5 of them are simply philosophic statements in which there are no insults that my opponent would need request evidence for." False, philosophic statements require philosophic evidence. Not one quote gave any philosophical evidence for why said actions were immoral. They certainly pointed out certain actions, and said or inferred that they were immoral – but that is quite a distance short from proving them as such. ======= Conclusion ======= To the contrary, twas my opponent who was being elusive in this debate. He gave quotes without substance, warrant, or sense. He was so bold as to suggest that a few sentences could effectively refute a system of belief that has survived for thousands of years – against much stronger criticism might I add. All of his quotes made moral claims without proving the morality on which they depended. Geo essentially believes that it is reasonable to believe that assumption can refute Christianity. It is at the pinnacle of ignorance to suggest that assumption can refute anything! I must end here and joyfully thank my opponent for the stimulating debate. Cheers!