CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Take the stories of each holiday from a Christian perspective and you'll see that Christmas must be most important for, were it not for Christmas, Easter would be nevermore.
They are very important moments in various faiths around the world and to dismiss them so easily and carelessly is an insult to those faiths. In Christmas Jesus came into the world and began his adventures, and because of that I think that Christmas is most important, because Jesus couldn't have done the resurrection (and therefore made Easter important) if he had not been born (something that is celebrated at Christmas).
"They don't accomplish anything but making people greedy and fat"
Having a spiritual side is never a bad thing.
Having a religious side means that you have something to fall back upon, something that you can turn to if there is a problem or a hardship that you may face in life.
Being greedy is something that religions often speak against, however being fat is often seen as being whole, powerful, and well-nourished. That's why Buddha is often seen as fat.
to dismiss them so easily and carelessly is an insult to those faiths.
Some of people's faiths insult others directly, so I don't think it's that big of a deal that I made new direct attack on anyone's faith.
. In Christmas Jesus came into the world and began his adventures, and because of that I think that Christmas is most important, because Jesus couldn't have done the resurrection (and therefore made Easter important) if he had not been born (something that is celebrated at Christmas).
First of all, research the origins of those holidays before making such a claim. And that's what YOU believe.
Having a spiritual side is never a bad thing.
I didn't say it was, but being fat and greedy isn't spiritual, and that's basically what both of these holidays are all about now.
Having a religious side means that you have something to fall back upon, something that you can turn to if there is a problem or a hardship that you may face in life.
Which is one of the reasons I don't believe religions, I think that is one of the reasons they were created.
"I don't think it's a big deal that I made new direct attack on anyone's faith"
I think that if you were being bullied by the same person for ages, and then a new person decides to join it, it would be a big deal.
Research the origins of these holidays before making such a claim"
I don't understand. What I said where you quoted me there was all true. My opinion is not up to debate, anyway. I am entitled to my opinion and you cannot dispute that.
"That's what YOU believe"
Yes, and there is nothing wrong with using your own opinion to support your argument.
Barristers debate things all of the time, and I have seen them use their own opinions quite frequently, is there anything wrong with taking advice from those more experienced than you? No.
"Being fat and greedy isn't spiritual"
I know. I have already said that religion instructs people against greed. However, being fat is seen by some cultures as being spiritually fulfilled. That is what fatness often represents.
I just realized I put new... I meant to put NO direct attack on anyone's faith. Sorry, I was talking to one of my friends while typing. Mixed my words up.
I made NO direct attack on anything.
I don't understand. What I said where you quoted me there was all true. My opinion is not up to debate, anyway. I am entitled to my opinion and you cannot dispute that.
The origins of these religions aren't even Christianity, look it up.
And you are entitled to your own opinion, and I'm entitled to argue against it.
Your opinion is your position in an argument, you don't use it to support it. You use evidence to support opinions.
Being fat is not accepted by all religions. And the only reason it use to be was because it meant you were wealthy enough to feed yourself. It doesn't apply so much now.
You said that they were pointless and they made people greedy and fat. That is a direct attack upon them. I don't see how it can possibly be anything else.
The origins of these religions aren't even Christianity"
We are debating about religious festivals that derive from Christianity, look it up. Christmas is about the birth of Jesus, and Easter is about the resurrection of Jesus.
"It [being fat] doesn't apply so much now"
Well, many people look to Buddha, for example, as someone who was great - and his size represents this. I would say that, because of the fact that Buddhism is one of the most common religions on the planet, that being fat is still commonly looked at in that way by many cultures around the world.
You said that they were pointless and they made people greedy and fat. That is a direct attack upon them. I don't see how it can possibly be anything else.
I attacked holidays. If you think your faith has been attacked then you need reevaluate what your faith is about. It's not about the holidays.
We are debating about religious festivals that derive from Christianity, look it up. Christmas is about the birth of Jesus, and Easter is about the resurrection of Jesus.
Originally no. But yes, they've been turned into Christian holidays.
Well, many people look to Buddha, for example, as someone who was great - and his size represents this. I would say that, because of the fact that Buddhism is one of the most common religions on the planet, that being fat is still commonly looked at in that way by many cultures around the world
You attacked holidays that are from, and because of, this religion. Therefore if you are attacking these holidays then you are attacking the religion (Christianity).
"If you think your faith has been attacked then you need to reevaluate what your faith is about"
No, I do not.
As I have explained, to insult the holidays for these religions is to insult the very religions themselves.
"It's not about the holidays"
No, the holidays are about the religion.
However the holidays are included in the religion and therefore it is sort of about the holidays.
"Originally no ... they've been turned into Christian holidays"
Let me explain then, as you obviously do not understand.
In case you are mistaking the fact that Judaism and Christianity are the same religion, I must clarify that they are obviously not. Christianity derives from Judaism and to Jewish people Jesus is seen as a prophet - not the son of God.
Therefore, Christians (what this debate is about) celebrate Christmas as the day when the son of God was born, but the Jewish people do not.
Christianity does derive from Judaism, but the holidays that are most commonly celebrated today are celebrated from the Christian perspective.
Is this relevant to Christian holidays?"
No, after you went off on a tangent that didn't support either, though, and said that they just make people fat and greedy, we went off on a tangent. Although that began with you and therefore holding me accountable isn't really fair.
All I was doing was proving that being fat does have some weight in modern cultures over the world.
Both are important because Easter signifies that Jesus Christ rose from the grave and that He abolished death and saved us through the Gospel. Christmas signifies that Jesus Christ was born and He came into this world to save it.
True, they would have little effect on what God cares of the celebrations if he does not exist, but they would still present some meaning to those people who had celebrated them in the past and for those people who still believed. I doubt than unless God ever makes an appearance or some huge scientific discovery is made, that the Is God Real? debate will ever end. Therefore people will be celebrating events of this sort for pretty much eternity, I think - because of the benefits of having a religion to fall back onto in hard times.
The celebrations would mean something to the people who celebrated them, and the people who don't. There are several atheists I know who continue to celebrate Christmas and Easter by doing things like providing one another with Easter Eggs. They will always mean something to those people who have been given Easter Eggs, or those people who have eaten a Christmas Dinner.
They aren't false. The resurrection actually happened because the people recorded 504 witnesses that saw Jesus after He rose from the grave in the Bible.
If Jesus didn't rise from the grave all of His teachings would be worthless and we wouldn't be saved and we would still be dead in our sins.
You can't even say that with certainly. Just like I, an atheist, can't say that any religion is absolutely wrong, but there is a sufficient amount of evidence for me to not believe in it.
The resurrection actually happened because the people recorded 504 witnesses that saw Jesus after He rose from the grave in the Bible.
Link? And what if he was never dead? Perhaps it was a scam...?
"There is a sufficient amount of evidence for me not to believe in it"
There are all kinds of reasons that can be supplied for all kinds of things. I could supply reason for why 1+1 does not equal 2. However, there is also a lot of proof that religion does exist.
The link below provides seven reason why it is likely that the resurrection is true - and nobody has never been able to wholly disprove the resurrection. Historians have tried for years, and have failed.
You can't even say that with certainly. Just like I, an atheist, can't say that any religion is absolutely wrong, but there is a sufficient amount of evidence for me to not believe in it.
The Bible tells us that they didn't make up cleverly invested stories rather they were eyewitnesses that saw Him.
Link? And what if he was never dead? Perhaps it was a scam...?
It was only recorded in the Bible that there was more than 500 witnesses. And I am sorry I couldn't provide a link because back then they only had pen and paper and they didn't have the technology they had today.
It was only recorded in the Bible that there was more than 500 witnesses.
Here's my problem, I cannot bring myself to believe something extraordinary after someone tells me it's true and (insert #) of people witnessed it, or by reading it.
It's going to take more than word of mouth or literary word to convince me.
Why? What's to stop someone or a book from saying the same thing you did only inserting their god or Savior, or magician, oracle, etc?
Why should I believe The Bible over other sacred scriptures or beliefs?
I think that if more evidence could be provided at the time, it would have been. However, at that stage in history books were quite rare and they were an advance from long, pointless scrolls. So, with something like the resurrection, that is about as much proof as you are possibly going to get. There were 504 people who witnessed the resurrection. People throughout history have also tried to disprove it, and there has been no such thing. I also highly doubt that people would write around 2000 pages for the sake of tricking someone.
Why should I believe the Bible over other sacred scriptures or beliefs?"
Well, there is a lot of proof for the Bible.
Things such as the great flood have had a huge amount of evidence provided for them.
Therefore, although there is a lot of proof for some other religious scriptures, too, the Bible does have a lot of scientific proof to support it.
I think that if more evidence could be provided at the time, it would have been. However, at that stage in history books were quite rare and they were an advance from long, pointless scrolls. So, with something like the resurrection, that is about as much proof as you are possibly going to get.
Not necessarily. Jesus was supposedly buried in a tomb with a cloth. We have found neither. The cloth can provide evidence of having been in contact with a decaying body for "three" days at the location and time Jesus could have been there. The nails, cross or clothes Jesus had contact with could help provide evidence of his crucifixion.
While it doesn't necessarily provide evidence of a resurrection, it gives more credible evidence to the Jesus story and gives more consistency with the story of Jesus in the Bible.
There were 504 people who witnessed the resurrection.
Another problem. I'm having a hard time seeing a scenario back in that time, just after witnessing something that extraordinary, to do a head count and everyone comply.
And even if they did, how do you know? The Bible doesn't tell us the number of people who saw him. It doesn't even mention the names of everyone who witnessed it.
People throughout history have also tried to disprove it, and there has been no such thing.
Same with other religions.
I also highly doubt that people would write around 2000 pages for the sake of tricking someone.
I'm not saying that's how it started but it's a possibility. Have you seen how big rumors can get by people adding on? That's simply by stupid little rumors that have nothing to do with the big questions most humans are dying to know about. The Bible could have been compiled and written for a variety of reasons put together. Just because they didn't do it to trick someone doesn't mean the Bible must be true.
Well, there is a lot of proof for the Bible.
That's what other religions say.
Things such as the great flood have had a huge amount of evidence provided for them.
No... it really doesn't. No evidence we founnd has led to any conclusion that there might have ever been worldwide flood as described in the Bible.
Therefore, although there is a lot of proof for some other religious scriptures, too, the Bible does have a lot of scientific proof to support it.
Well, you may not necessarily exist - you could just be some weird, annoying, figment of my imagination. Research Descartes.
"We have found neither [tomb or cloth]"
Well, what are the chances of finding that particular tomb, and that particular cloth? We may have found both but just not realised it.
The fact that we do not know does not disprove the resurrection.
"It gives more credible evidence to the Jesus story and gives more consistency with the story of Jesus in the Bible"
It does, and it's a shame we can't prove we have it. The fact is, that is possibly in the world somewhere too, we just don't know it.
"It doesn't even mention the names of the Bible who witnessed it"
I think that if you are willing to write an entire book that could contain hundreds of pages, and when compiled into the Bible, thousands, it wouldn't be that much of a challenge to do a head count. However, if I walked through town and asked everybody that I saw what their names were, I probably wouldn't have been told the truth all the time, and God may have just said:
"Jamie, dude, don't bother mate, it's not worth it"
Can you see why there may have been some reason for them not to write down all 504 names now?
"Same with other religions"
That isn't relevant.
"It's a possibility"
Your saying that the prophets were just some people who thought it would be a laugh to trick billions of people into believing in Christianity? Really?
I bet Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can't stop laughing now, can they? And the Corinthians who made homosexuals feel bad after they told them that they'd go to hell?
That was one large-scale prank.
And the weirdest thing? It wasn't a prank.
"That's what other religions say"
And why shouldn't they?
If there is proof for their religion they are allowed to say it.
"No evidence we founnd has led to any conclusion that there might have ever been worldwide flood as described in the Bible"
Well, you may not necessarily exist - you could just be some weird, annoying, figment of my imagination.
I could, but there is no evidence of it, so there is no reason to conclude or believe that.
Research Descartes.
I know of Descartes. Perhaps you don't, since you seem to ignore "Cogito ergo sum" the very basic of Descartes philosophy.
Well, what are the chances of finding that particular tomb, and that particular cloth?
Your point? What are the chances that we find all these different artifacts from way before Christianity was a concept? But we did. In fact, I think finding the tomb and cloth would be in our favor if those people left them be and/or put in a place to preserve them. There is a limited number of land in that particular area where his crucifixion is told to have taken place. If we cannot produce the evidence, there is no point in believing it.
We may have found both but just not realised it.
Well then that sucks for us. Even if in the future, Jesus has been proven to exist. There is no reason I should believe it now, because there is no evidence. In the hypothetical scenario where Jesus is proven, I have no problem conceding to his existence.
The fact that we do not know does not disprove the resurrection.
It's not my job to disprove an unproven claim anyway. This argument is irrelevant even if I was to try and disprove it.
It does, and it's a shame we can't prove we have it. The fact is, that is possibly in the world somewhere too, we just don't know it.
It is a shame that something that extraordinary cannot be proven. It would be cool to know there is supernatural energy that a human like Jesus could control.
I think that if you are willing to write an entire book that could contain hundreds of pages, and when compiled into the Bible, thousands, it wouldn't be that much of a challenge to do a head count. However, if I walked through town and asked everybody that I saw what their names were, I probably wouldn't have been told the truth all the time, and God may have just said:
"Jamie, dude, don't bother mate, it's not worth it"
Can you see why there may have been some reason for them not to write down all 504 names now?
Yeah there were multiple authors of the Bible. It didn't take much to write their addition. Some unknown, some possibly by the same author.
Again, if it wouldn't be that much a challenge, then where is it? Where is that head count in the Bible? It's not there.
The best you will find is 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. And that's not a head count. It simply says more than five hundred, and it's the only source in the Bible which mentions that. So this number you and Srom are arguing (504), is purely conjecture.
"Same with other religions"
That isn't relevant.
Sure it is. If others have tried to disprove other religion claims of divinity and miracles of sorts, but cannot. Why does that only give "credibility" to the Bible but not other religions sacred scriptures or claims? Surely the argument would work for all claims that haven't been disproven, right?
Your saying that the prophets were just some people who thought it would be a laugh to trick billions of people into believing in Christianity? Really?
No. I am saying it's a possibility. Just like many other possibilities.
And why shouldn't they? If there is proof for their religion they are allowed to say it.
But shouldn't you believe them too?
There is a lot of evidence, actually. [Followed by link to a purely Christian site]
PS: My links are not meant to be taken as my sincere arguments. They are listed to prove my point that linking an obviously bias site doesn't really do any good, because the other side can do the same thing. It ends in a battle of bias sites instead of two or more initial users.
"There is no evidence for that, so there is no reason to conclude or believe that"
There is no proof to suggest otherwise other than your word, which is irrelevant if the theory is correct anyway.
"Cogito ergo sum"
I think therefore I am. Je pense danc je suis is the original French of it, as Descartes was French. If you do exist, how would I know?
"What are the chances of finding all ...? But we did"
All of these artifacts? How do you know that you have found every single one?
"Be in our favour if those people left them ... in a place to preserve them"
When you do not need something anymore, such as a scarf, do you decide to bury it in the ground with the thought that historians of the future will find it? I know that I have never done that. So why should they have wasted so much of their time like this in the past?
The odds wouldn't, therefore, be in our favour if people did the logical thing that we would expect them to do.
"It would be cool to know that there is a supernatural energy that a human like Jesus could control"
It would be awesome wouldn't it? Maybe that person is you, you just don't know it yet.
"It didn't take much to write their addition"
Whilst someone is rising into heaven, I would rather have a look around and say 'about 500', than ignoring the fact that the messiah is rising into heaven, and distract someone with "hey, what's your name? I'm writing the Bible, if you tell me, you'll get a shoutout!"
I would be focussed on the fact that Jesus is rising into heaven, as I probably won't see it again.
"That isn't relevant"
"Sure it is"
We are discussing Christianity, and the faiths in that religion. Therefore, other religions are not relevant.
"No. I am saying it's a possibility. Just like many other possibilities"
I think that it is more likely to be possible that the Bible was true, rather than a large-scale practical joke.
And nobody has actually ever been able to disprove the resurrection. There are all kinds of things in the Bible that people cannot disprove and therefore, unless it is just a large-scale prank, I think that, along with other things that are mentioned in the Bible, it is something true, something that has happened - and therefore celebrating these events is not something that should be frowned upon as though those who do are stupid, because religion is not something that is stupid. Although many people think so.
Well, you may not have noticed that there is a lot of evidence for religion, and there is a lot of evidence for why you should believe in it and there are a lot of things that science alone do not explain. Things that can be proven by religion.
Yet there are arguments. Religion explains a lot of things that science can not, and science explains a lot of things that religion can not. What is wrong with combining the two when they exist so harmoniously with one another?
Science and religion are near opposites. Religion claims some sort of deity created the universe. Science explains the cause of the universe with more rational claims, and more evidence.
Just because science can explain some things in more depth than religion does not mean that religion is completely wrong. As well as this, religion explains things that science cannot, and that is, in itself, proof for religion. The amount of evidence religion supplies is, from a religious perspective, about you finding God yourself.
Well, you see, it depends on whether you like the toys and stocking stuffers you can find in the stores at Christmastime, or the aisles of chocolate that magically appear overnight at Eastertime. Me, well, I really like chocolate, so I have got to go with Easter.