The Instigator
unitedandy
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
Wyndeson
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism is more rational than Christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,913 times Debate No: 13087
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

unitedandy

Pro

Planning to make my first debate a subject where I think I've pretty much heard all the
arguments on both sides, and hope to provide some of my own perspectives on these positions. Format should require both sides to present a case, and interaction will occur when each of us does so.
Wyndeson

Con

Thank you, unitedandy, for posting your chalenge; I am honored to be able to debate it with you. Since you did not specify who was to present the first case and you did not take the liberty of presenting the first case yourself, I naturally assume that I am at liberty to present the first case myself.

Firstly, I would like to assert that the purpose of this debate is to determine the rationality of Christianity as opposed to Atheism, or vice versa, and NOT to debate the existence of God. Therefore, please be aware that I am not remarking upon the fact of whether God exists or not.

I would also like to define Christianity as the belief in The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Since you did not define any terms, I would like to define Atheism as the belief in no God. Keep in mind that this is a debate between the rationality of Christianity as opposed to Atheism, and NOT the rationality of Christianity as opposed to Science.

Next, I would like to assert that evolution is a TRUE principle. The Bible supports the theory of evolution. This can be seen in Laban's Flocks in Genesis 30 (1).

Christianity is a very rational religion. In fact, the Holy Bible is one of the only religious texts that makes absolute historical sense (I will explain this momentarily). We must remember that the Holy Bible was originally written in Hebrew, and that while the Hebrew text retains its meaning in its entirety, official English versions of the Hebrew Bible like the King James Version have become slightly distorted through translation.

Let's start with the first few verses of Genesis, and in doing so, I would like to draw a distinction between the Hebrew word, "Bara," the Hebrew word, "asah," and the Hebrew word, "Shamayim." "Bara" is a verb reserved to God; it means "to create (2)," as if through a miracle. The verb "asah," on the other hand, is a verb that humans can use as well. "Asah" means something along the lines of "to make (3)." In fact, "asah" takes the connotation that when we "asah" something, we are using materials already in existence to make something else. We can "asah" a pancake. We can "asah" war. We cannot "asah" the heavens and the earth. The word "shamayim" means NOT ONLY "heaven," but "shamayim" also means "everything in the sky." I take this to include the sun, moon, planets, and other celestial bodies, as well as our entire universe. Next, I would like to define "yom." The Hebrew word "Yom" does not only mean "day." More often than not, the word "yom" can mean a set period of time.

So, let's define some stuff.

Bara: To create with a miracle.
Asah: To make using stuff already there.
Shamayim (4): Everything in the sky. All that is above the Earth. I take this to include the sun, moon, and planets, and the entire universe.
Yom (5): A set period of time.

Indeed, in the first verse of Genesis, God didn't simply create the Heavens and Earth. Literally, in Hebrew, he "baraed" the "shamayim" and the Earth. Let's translate this LITERALLY into English. We'll have none of that inaccurate translation in the King James version and other versions of the Bible. We're gonna translate the Bible literally from Hebrew. Ergo, in verse 1 of Genesis, God created "everything in the sky including the celestial bodies like the sun and moon" and the Earth "with a miracle." However, in the next verse of the Bible, God "asahed" light. This is rational because He used the celestial bodies that he created in verse 1 to "asah" the light.

Next, God "asahed" three expanses. These expanses can refer to basic levels of the atmosphere, namely the Tratosphere, Stratosphere, and Mesosphere.

It is interesting to notice that God didn't "asah" the "lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years" until after verse 13 of Genesis. Let me put this another way. Verse 13 is when God "asahed" the plants and vegetation. The "lights in the expanse of the sky" came AFTER God "asahed" the vegetation. This makes perfect sense.

Have you ever been in a desert and see rain fall, only to evaporate before hitting the ground? Same concept. The Earth must have been very hot before God "asahed" plants and vegetation, and therefore, it makes sense that not much rain would have fallen. Where do you think all that water would end up? Water would doubtlessly end up in Earth's atmosphere, thus obfuscating the sun, moon, and other celestial bodies and preventing them from being seen. The sun, moon, and other celestial bodies were already there. They just couldn't have been seen. It was only after God "asahed" plants and vegetation that he could "asah" lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night.

Next, God started his "week of creation," made not out of seven DAYS necessarily, but of seven "YOMS." God also "asahed" human beings. Now imagine that God used evolution as a tool, and each "yom" was approximately 6.5 million years.

The Book of Genesis in the Holy Bible is scientifically compatible, and I would like to remark that the two even complement each other in a beautiful way.

Sources
1) Book of Genesis, Chapter 30
2) and 3): http://www.answersingenesis.org...
4) http://www.mainemediaresources.com...
5) http://www.godandscience.org...
Debate Round No. 1
unitedandy

Pro

Thanks Wyndeson for agreeing to debate me, and if you're like any of the Christians I know, you will be more than willing to engage in an open-minded and fair debate.

First, I'd just say that I think the rationality of any belief, or belief system is whether or not it is true, whether it sets out to do what it accomplishes and whether or not is represents our current knowledge, and for that reason, if no other, the single most important aspect of the rationality of Christianity is its central claim - that God exists, and what the world would look like given this proposition, and it is for this reason that I feel it is necessary to start with the elephant in the room, mainly, does the Christian God exist?

Hi, thought I would start out with a definition of the Christian God, as I see it:

God is all good, all knowing, all powerful, timeless, spaceless, personal and the creator and sustainer of the universe.

Obviously, the Christian God has additional characteristics, but these are the ones which I think are most important.

First thing to do is to define terms. I will defend atheism as:

A single, solitary belief that there are no good arguments for theism, and that there are good arguments against such a proposition, particularly Christian theism. It is not a statement about science, morality, politics, or any other discipline. It is not a worldview. It is not a religion. It is not an ideology and it is not a commitment to any other principle or proposition.

Christian theism is simply adherence to the belief of the being defined above, as well as a belief in the resurrection and (to a greater or lesser extent) that the bible is the word of God. With those definitions in mind, why Atheism?

The WSA inductive problem of evil

(P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.

(P2) There is lots of evil in the world.

(P3) Much of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.

(C2) Therefore, there is no God who is all powerful and all good.

I define evil as:

Anything which causes pain, suffering, disability and death.

I suspect that we can all agree that evils exist and that they are frequent in the world. From the Holocaust to the Tsunamis, both moral evil and natural evil puncture our world. Anyone who doubts this need only turn on a T.V or read newspaper, visit a children's ward or suffer personal loss. Thus premise 2 is self-evident.

For premise 1, we can return to an analogy. When we go to the dentist with toothache, we do so, as rational agents, to prevent pain. The consequent jags and yanking out of the tooth is (in this scenario at least) the only way to prevent the toothache. Thus, we rationally choose to suffer this, first because there is no other way to relieve the toothache (the pain of jags and pliers and is logically necessary) and the result is a relief of the toothache (the adequately compensating good). Therefore, in order for evil to be justified, it must be logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. If a pain-free pill was available (all other things being equal), then the evils of the pain at the dentist would not be justified. There must therefore be no other way to achieve an end, and the end must in turn be worth it. The first part of premise 1 refers to the character of God. If He distributed evil arbitrarily, with no end-game in mind, then, logically, He cannot be either all-good or all-powerful. Plantinga's free-will retreat is both accepted and actually used explicitly in the argument, making it a probabilistic argument, which means that any such arbitrary evil is evidence against Christian theism, which solidifies premise 1, and with the existence of evil established, all that remains is whether there is any such evil.

Premise 3 is justified by what historians call an inference to the best explanation, and will I suspect be subject to the denial of the argument. An all powerful being is able to prevent the evils that occur, and an all good being is obviously willing, so the question becomes, is there always justification for the evils in the world, in the ways described above? The answer, I think, is quite clearly, no. Consider the examples of mass murders, torture, rape and other unimaginable cruelties in Indonesia, under Suharto, in Pinochet's Chile, in Stalin's Russia, Pol-Pot's Cambodia, or in Nazi Germany, and many, many more. What possible reason could there be for this horrendous evil? What compensation can there be for such barbarism? To use an economist's phrase, the short-term costs of such evil are so frighteningly high, so intuitively horrific and so apparently unnecessary that to attempt to justify it would is a tremendously difficult and, I suspect, an insurmountable task. Yet there is more.

In conjunction with moral evils, there are natural evils, one of which is described in the following example:

"Many babies each year are born with Down's syndrome. Most of these babies, with normal paediatric care, will grow up healthy. A significant number, however, have intestinal obstructions that will kill them if they do not receive an operation. Without the operation, dehydration and infection will cause these babies to wither and die over a period of hours and days. Today this operation is relatively simple, but not long ago these babies could not be saved . . . This baby (one born in the past with this) suffers for days, then dies." (Sinnott Armstrong,2004, P84)

Again, what possible reason, what possible compensation could explain this natural evil? But it gets far worst for the Christian, because God is both necessarily able and willing to prevent these evils, among countless others, yet they remain, and there are no obvious reasons why this is so. Lets finish with an analogy:

Suppose a politician could have prevented these genocides above, or that a doctor in the past had a remedy to such ailment as expressed by Sinnott-Armstrong, and could do so with no cost whatsoever to themselves or anybody else? What are we to think of such a refusal to act? That their reasoning is above our comprehension, even although we do not no what it is? Or are we conclude that the only possible excuse is that they were unable or ignorant or unconcerned at all with even the most basic precepts of morality?

I am open to an answer to solve this problem, but, thus far, the responses have been incredibly insufficient and woefully underwhelming.

As for your own case, Christian rationality cannot be merely maintained on selective fitings with Genesis, however liberally one translates them, because there are, it seems to me at least, clear mistakes, not least in the first line of Genesis, that the earth was created, "in the beginning" (even if this is a mistranslation, it creates a problem, as discussed below). Secondly, the acceptance of evolution as a fact, although honest, does not really help one's case, being as it is a case of "retrospective evidentialism", much like when one uses a prediction of Nostradamus AFTER the event. Also, with many made first in all, and evolution being violent, destructive, inefficient, and continually compromising force with no foresight, which creates somewhat of an arms race betweens species, it strikes me as difficult to reconcile this with Christian theism. Furthermore, the fact that the bible itself been seemingly misinterpreted by many, for many years is not exactly indicative of perfect foresight from a perfect being with a divine message. The message is further muddled with question over interpretation, clear contradictions and abhorrent morality displayed within the pages of the Good Book.

You say that this is not a debate over the existence of God, but surely if God does not exist, then Christian theism cannot be maintained, thus these arguments must be addr
Wyndeson

Con

Thank you, unitedandy, for your polite and timely response. I accept your definitions.

Atheism: "A single, solitary belief that there are no good arguments for theism, and that there are good arguments against such a proposition, particularly Christian theism."

Evil: "Anything which causes pain, suffering, disability and death."

We are to debate rationality.

Since you have brought up the existence of God, it must be debated at this time. I will do so as I attempt to refute your arguments below. Firstly, I would like to address the WSA inductive problem of evil, which you have already defined for us.

==============================

The WSA inductive problem of evil

(P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.

(P2) There is lots of evil in the world.

(P3) Much of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.

(C2) Therefore, there is no God who is all powerful and all good.

==============================

You defined evil as "anything which causes pain, suffering, disability, and death." You also defined two types of evil: "moral evil, and natural evil. I shall now split your definition up to address the WSA argument.

I would also like to define "all powerful." Although you argue that Christian rationality cannot be merely maintained on selective fittings with Genesis, you do acknowledge that certain selective passages in Genesis are rational. Therefore, I must reiterate the importance of my "bara" v. "asah" case. God's omnipotence comes from His ability to "bara." God cannot simply strike down Hitler with a thunderbolt. He needs favorable scientific conditions in order to "asah" that thunderbolt. The Christian God's only choice is to punish sinners like Hitler, and the theoretical politician or doctor you mentioned, in Hell.

I believe that Premise 3 of your WSA argument is a simple fallacy of exclusion. God can allow the presence of "pain, suffering, disability, and death," both morally and naturally, however, there is ALWAYS an adequately compensating good, from a Christian perspective. I believe that I am able to support my argument for each type of example of evil you stated in your argument. First, however, I would like to define "compensating good."

Assuming that a Christian God exists, the Christian God is a "jealous" God. The Christian God (assuming He exists) ultimately wants all of mankind (his creations) to love and respect Him, and follow His laws. Therefore, I would like to define the phrase "compensating good" as "1) the potential of the said measure of evil to serve as a warning and compensate for mankind's sins related to crimes against nature in the present and past, or 2) the potential of the said measure of evil to affect people around the Earth and rally people toward the Christian God and his teachings."

Let's start with the Tsunami. The Tsunami is indeed an evil event, but it's occurrence is fully compensated with definition 1 of the phrase "compensating good." Mankind's first responsibility when he was put onto God's earth was to "care for the garden," and to make sure that the Earth was supervised with integrity. Obviously, mankind has not cared for "God's garden." Man persists in polluting the water, causing disease. Man's persistence in using CFCs, nuclear reactors, oil rigs, etc. etc. etc. and the disasters resulting from these events are far more numerous than the Tsunami. The Tsunami is in fact a disaster "to compensate and serve as a warning for mankind's sins related to crimes against nature in the present and past."

Mankind is also an important part of God's garden. I would like to define "deliberate sin" as the "deliberate infliction of pain, suffering, disability, and death" to oneself or others. Without getting into a long protracted discussion about deliberate sin, assuming that the Christian God created mankind, mankind certainly cannot expect God to take immediate action to save them from their own deliberate sin. In short, if you jump off a bridge, don't ask God to save you, because you did it deliberately. If you put a gun to your head, don't ask God to save you, because you did it deliberately. If you take drugs, don't ask God to save you, because you did it deliberately.

Let's talk about Down Syndrome. Down Syndrome is a justified evil due to definition 2 of "compensating good." The ultimate goal of our existence, assuming that God exists and that we believe in Him, is to bring his teachings into the lives of other people. We cannot relate to other people unless we have gone through what they are going through. To quote John Clayton:

"Some years ago my wife and I decided that as a part of service to the Lord we would adopt some children. We had this child for about six months when we began to recognize that something was not developing normally in the child. While my wife went in to get something at a shopping center, I can remember sitting in the car holding this little baby in my arms, looking into that little face I had grown to love, and saying to God over and over, 'Why Lord, why? Why would you do this to me? After I've sacrificed everything I know to sacrifice. After I've done everything I know to do, why would you do this to me?' I kept reading passages like John 9, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." I read passages that said that " … all things work together for good to them that love God …" (Romans 8:28). Because of this experience, I began to realize that I had a talent. I had an ability. I had an opportunity to relate to people to whom no one else in my immediate area could relate. A couple months later when I was in New York I met an elder in the Church who had a Mongoloid (Down syndrome) child. I could relate to him. I could help him realize that there were others who shared his burden and his problem. Sometime later in my own congregation a family that we loved very much had a child born with the same problem. Once again we could help, advise, and relate to their needs. We could help them get programs that were useful to them and to their child. You see I have a talent and an ability that nobody else has in my immediate area relate to people and to bring Christ into the lives of people who are experiencing this kind of difficulty."

Furthermore, I would like to state that although I understand and appreciate the concept of "retrospective evidentialism," I must assert that there is no way to prove that it is or that it is not intellectually dishonest to use events to justify previous judgments or viewpoints. Dr. George Kerkut writes in his book, meanings and implications of evolution, that Evolution involves a "forest of many different tree models", not just a single "tree model." According to 1 Corinthians 15:39, there are four kinds of flesh: Birds, beast, fish, and man. Kerkut's viewpoint is remarkably similar to this model in the Bible. Also, I cannot presume to know how God works. Because of these factors, I do not doubt for a second that this form of evolution is compatible with Christian theism.

Lastly, I'd like to close by offering some contentions of my own.

Our universe arose from a certain point called the Singularity.

Matter cannot arise from nothing. In the concept of nothing, there is no space, no matter, and no energy. If matter is able to arise from nothing, even if it was by chance, all our laws of chemistry and physics would have to be instantly invalidated.

Therefore, someone or something created the universe.

Nobody knows how long it took for the Universe to be created. If Earth and the Universe were created in the same exact instant "in the beginning", which is highly probable, then the Holy Bible is one of the only scriptures to provide rational evidence of Earth's beginnin
Debate Round No. 2
unitedandy

Pro

First, to his "argument" at the end of his last post:

1. The argument suffers from being poorly presented (syllogisms please), seemingly invalid (the conclusion doesn't follow from what I take to be the premises, and NONE OF THE PREMISES ARE ARGUED FOR!!! Compare this to my own argument, which has all of these features., and we can conclude that this Christian theist is not more rational than this atheist (at least thus far).

2. Even in its strongest form, presented infinitely better by professional philosophers, it is still just a bad argument from ignorance.

3. You may want to type "God did not create the universe" into google.

4. The Earth WAS NOT "created in the beginning", but is over 4bn years old, while the singularity, consensus holds, was around 13.7bn years ago(1). Hmm . . .

On evolution, Evolution is a zero sum game, i.e. what is best for the cat is worst for the mouse. Also, many of the points from my first post about it were left vacant. On the compatibility of Genesis with the science perhaps I wasn't clear. If one wants to interpret it to succumb to evolution then fine. It is perhaps possible to reconcile the 2, when and only when the bible is subordinate to the science. I think that there are still clear problems, but I think conceding your whole case would make your Christian theism no more rational than those who can do the exact same thing for Nostradamas' notoriously vague predictions about the future after these things have already happened. I'd recommend an article by Michael Shermer, "Genesis Revisited", which shows what Genesis should have said.

Before I get on to dealing with the bible specifically, I should perhaps address your response to the problem of evil. First, I seem to be in danger of inevitably losing the debate because my opponent claims omniscience:

"there is ALWAYS an adequately compensating good, from a Christian perspective"

How one could possibly know this when they could not even know all the evil in the world, past and present, is, in short, why I am an atheist. This statement is, sorry to be rude, perhaps the single most ridiculous response to the problem I have ever heard. To deal with moral evil, God is restricted, and his Righteousness vindicated in Hell, which seems to me like curing a headache with a guillotine. Hell creates far more problems than it solves, mainly UNCOMPENSATED EVIL! We also have problems with free-will, and whether this can be reconciled with threats of eternal damnation, as well as the obvious and most basic moral principle that retributive torture is wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Even in the case of the most reprehensible of people, at worst, you accept this, as and when you accepted premise 1. In the case of Down's syndrome, a "retreat to the possible" will not save you, because you need to show IN EACH CASE that there is an adequately compensating good, that this is only brought about by logically necessary evil. Your response does neither, but seems to suggest something like a Christ-finding theodicy, and begs the question by assuming that compensation will be in the next life when THIS IS THE PROPOSITION AT STAKE! So let's summarise and clarify this. You need to show, in the case of these suffering children, both that there was an adequately compensating good AND that this good could only be achieved through their suffering. Saying that their suffering warns people of God or brings people closer to him fails because of these crucial reasons:

1. You have not shown that it is either logically necessary for this to create a compensating good.
2. You have not shown any evidence of the compensating good, merely speculated on its possibility.
3. These things happen to people who have already accepted God into their lives, as well as the existence of evil which is never heard of, such as William Rowe's famous hypothetical fawn burning alive in a forest.
4. Evil, as it turns out is actually perpetuated by one's mere survival. We all require plants and animals to die to sustain our own life.
5. Many, if not most atheist have the problem of evil as their primary reason for disbelief. If this said disbelief earns them a 1 way ticket to hell, then even the appearance of uncompensated and /or unnecessary suffering becomes a problem in and of itself.

As perhaps the world's single most respected Christian scholar N.T Wright pointed out in his debate with Bart Ehrman:

"If you think you have solved the problem of evil, lie down. It will pass."

On the bible in original Hebrew, I am reminded of hearing about an American politician, who when asked if the bible should be translated into Spanish said, "if English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me." And, apparently, he wasn't joking. As for Con's case, you use translations without argumentation (5 different translations of Yom, why choose yours?), and as for creation ex nihilo (bara‘), THIS DOES GO AGAINST EVOLUTION BECAUSE CERTAIN ANIMALS (including men and whales) WERE BARA'ED OUT OF NOTHING!(2) With that, I think your case is perhaps unique, in being both irrelevant and wrong. Even if it sort of, vaguely, distantly does resemble evolution, SO WHAT? Seriously, why not just admit that the bible is wrong in some places, and that this is the corruption of it by man? Christian liberalism would get you where you want to go with no arguments from me, but, this, I fear would not even come close for a case that Christian Theism is more rational than atheism.

It seems to me that you seem to want to square a circle, which, in my opinion, is not only clearly contrived, but utterly pointless. This laborious and unenviable task of intellectual gymnastics I think somewhat proves my point, and, in a way, becomes somewhat of a bludgeon to the motion at hand. Instead of simply accepting the data, whatever it may be, you are constantly trying to give credibility to Christianity through vague and utterly unconvincing interpretations.

Anyway that's enough for you to think about for know. I'm pretty sure that this will keep you occupied, and sorry for the delay in responding. Someone thought it would be a good idea to turn off the phones where I live. Growl.

Kind regards,

unitedandy

(1) http://www.aip.org...
(2)http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org...
Wyndeson

Con

Wyndeson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
unitedandy

Pro

I see that Con missed the deadline to post his response. I hope everything is well and that he can return to the debate. If not, then I am sure he has a good reason and would like to thank him anyway. One piece of house-clearing is to address Con's charge that my third premise in the PoE presented commits the Fallacy of Exclusion. Before refuting this, let's define our terms:

The Fallacy of Exclusion - "Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration." (1)

Now not only did I allow evidence that would undermine premise 3 to be ‘included‘, but I actually explicitly acknowledged that there were cases where evil was logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. The word "Much" at the beginning of premise 3, which has been present since my argument's formulation from my first post, quite willingly concedes this, that this may be the case for some, and may be even most evil in the world. The key is that it is not the case for ALL evil, which is where the argument succeeds or fails, depending on one's point of view. But more than this, I actually gave the analogy of visiting the dentist, an everyday example which we all can relate to where the evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. This is basically a framework for what a correct answer to the problem would look like, and far from being exclusive, I perhaps suffer because I am being far too generous in my presentation of the problem and possible solutions to it, rather than just letting you answer it wrongly and criticising you for it. I think anything more on my part to share any more information would be beginning to argue with myself. I am being as inclusive as I can here. Anymore so and I would be in danger of trying to refute a problem which I don't think can be refuted. It's up to you Con to now show me where I went wrong, and address my response to your criticisms, criticisms which I think were unfounded, and if I am permitted to say so, even a little unfair. The floor is yours.

Hope all is well.

Kind regards.

Unitedandy

(1) http://www.onegoodmove.org...
Wyndeson

Con

Wyndeson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
unitedandy

Pro

Wyndeson forfeits again, and thus the debate has ended with my positions defended and his defeated.
Wyndeson

Con

Wyndeson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wyndeson 6 years ago
Wyndeson
It's difficult to say, especially since nobody knows the identities of the original writers, but I was simply remarking upon the fact that there is a very high probability that the each writer of the Bible wrote his or her account separately, and then someone else put their accounts all together. Firstly, here is some material that will offer (I wouldn't call it proof, but I might be able to go so far as to call it) compelling evidence that there were originally four authors to the Holy Bible, as well as offer proof that Biblical bloodlines are inconsistent and there may be generations of descendants not mentioned in the Bible.

In the book of Ezra, four people are listed between Azariah and Amariah. However, in 1 Chronicles 6:3-14, 12 people are listed between Azariah and Amariah. Also, Matthew dictates that there are 42 descendants in a specific sequence, while Luke gives 55 descendants, starting from the same person.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Well I would consider that to be a problem.. If there are four different authors, which account is the most accurate? Or, who is to be the judge as to which parts of which accounts to take as accurate?
Posted by Wyndeson 6 years ago
Wyndeson
One more argument. As you said, information is inconstistant throughout the bible. That may be because the bible had up to four different authors. Biblical bloodlines are also inconsistant; there may be generations of decendents that are not mentioned in the Bible.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Alright well, given that you're skeptic, I'll cut you some slack :P
Posted by Wyndeson 6 years ago
Wyndeson
1) I don't completely believe in the Bible, I'm simply trying to support my side in the debate. Someone's gotta do it, right? I think I have some compelling arguments for my side.
2) No offense taken for your previous comment.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Make Noah as old as you want. I'm sure you're not gonna tell me he's 6,000,000,000+ years old?
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
If you honestly think that the bible is free of internal, historical, and scientific contradictions, there is a problem you need to address. That's all
Posted by Wyndeson 6 years ago
Wyndeson
You're assuming that Noah was 297 years old? Wow, and I thought that I took the Bible literally. They had a different way of counting dates and years back then, I am currently at school, so I will quote it for you in a few hours.

Also, lay out some of your other arguments and I will adress them as well.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
"explicitly" isn't the only way to make a statement. If I said "Wyndeson, I don't think you're very intelligent", I'm explicitly saying that "I don't think you're very intelligent", but I'm implicitly calling you dumb. Just an example... I don't mean any of it, again, just an example.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 8 months ago
KingDebater
unitedandyWyndesonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
unitedandyWyndesonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 3 years ago
Maikuru
unitedandyWyndesonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
unitedandyWyndesonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
unitedandyWyndesonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongoosecake 6 years ago
mongoosecake
unitedandyWyndesonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
unitedandyWyndesonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60