The Instigator
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Darklordcomp
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Belief in the Bible is not rational

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Darklordcomp
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 606 times Debate No: 52311
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Benshapiro

Pro

Now, I understand that some of the bible is metaphorical but not all of the bible is metaphorical. Otherwise there would be no absolute certainties in the Bible that Christians believe are absolutes such Jesus' life for example.

First round is for acceptance.
Darklordcomp

Con

As a Christian I accept your challenge and hope that we can debate in a respected manner
Debate Round No. 1
Benshapiro

Pro

Thanks con.

What does it mean to be rational?

Rational: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." -Google

I don't need very many stories from the bible to prove that it isn't rational since everything contained in the Bible is the infallible word of God and must be taken as 100% truth. The only exception to this are the presence of metaphor's throughout the bible. I'll use two examples of stories in the bible that defy reason or logic.

1) the snake in the garden of Eden spoke to Eve. Snakes have never spoken because they don't have vocal cords and any animal doesn't have the conscious ability to speak our language.

2) the story about the donkey that spoke to his master after being beaten defies reason and logic because donkey's don't speak or know our language either.

Given that the bible is infallible, and these stories aren't metaphors, then belief in the bible defies rationality.
Darklordcomp

Con

Thank you for the challenge and I hope to debate more with you in the future. in his argument my opponent gave me the definition of rational witch I hope he sticks with.

My rebutal to your points is this.

1: The snake in the garden of eden was not a snake but a physical representation of Satan, the fallen archangel. Thus he is able to speak.

2: The donkey was given the ability to speak by the spirit of God.

Now before you say that defies logic, reason and the like remember that God is an all powerful being and Satan is a demon, they are both able to do things that defy human logic. This debate shouldn't devolve into a debate about God's existence but if you'd like I shall debate that with you at a later date.
Debate Round No. 2
Benshapiro

Pro

I'd like to do a debate on God's existence as well sometime in the future.

1. Satan may have been a physical representation of a snake, but snakes still don't have vocal chords. Unless satan shape-shifted to look like a snake but was actually just a spirit?

2. The spirit of God allowed the donkey to talk? Why doesn't God allow tortured animals to speak anymore then?

One more point to bring up: The epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest story recovered from ancient babylon pre-dates the flood story of the Bible but is almost identical to the story of Adam and Eve and Noah's ark:

"Various themes, plot elements, and characters in the Epic of Gilgamesh have counterparts in the book of Genesis, notably the accounts of the Garden of Eden and Noah's Flood.

The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[18] In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity.

Andrew R. George submits that the flood myth in Genesis 6"8 matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[19] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives." (http://en.m.wikipedia.org...)

So which is older?

"There is no conclusive proof that one came before the other, however both physical and literary evidence evidence suggests that the Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Biblical account of Noah and the flood by hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.
The earliest physical account of the Epic of Gilgamesh was found written on a series of Akkadian tabletsA279; that are dated earlier than 2000BCE. Conversely the earliest physical account of Genesis (the Dead Sea Scolls) has been dated as between 150BCE and 70ACE
Additionally certain features of the two myths suggest that the Biblical account borrowed from the Mesopotamian flood story. For example, the concept of a single omnipotent god is a relatively recent one. It was commonplace in ancient culture to believe in multiple deitys that have relatively human-like qualities. Indeed the Epic of Gilgamesh discusses many gods that bicker with and deceive one another.
The most common means of learning about mythology in ancient times is through aural tradition. It is likely that the passing on of the flood myth from generation to generation lead to various changes (e.g. changing the name of the hero from UtnapishtiA279; to the more culturally appropriate Noah). When the author of the Biblical flood account wrote the story of Noah, they were simply writing the most culturally salient and up-to-date version of the story. "http://wiki.answers.com...'s_ark_or_epic_of_Gilgamesh_and_why
Darklordcomp

Con

First things first, Satan is the ruler of the world as it says in the bible, he can do what he wants with the world and all of the lesser creatures of it as long as god doesn't stop him. Thats why when he takes Jesus to the highest mountain in Israel he says that he can give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. Because Satan rules the world the kingdoms of the world are his.

It would be easy for the being of supreme evil to give a snake vocal cords or even to speak without a mouth.

God doesn't speak through animals because it isn't an effective means to talk to the people of the world anymore. he uses the holy spirit to whisper in your ear and disguises it as your voice, he is the voice of reason that enters your head when you need help or need to understand something while Satan is the voice of doubt and the voice that tells you "oh just one more". If an animal started talking to you and you told someone it was talking they'd think you're crazy.

And also are we arguing whether the Bible is old or rational, the epic of gilgamesh while a great story has nothing to do with this argument.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
(continued) thus making it logical from a human perspective. Just look at those people who believe in aliens.. You could claim that they are irrational, but they do have logic behind their reasoning. This being said I gave points for most convincing to Con. When it comes to conduct I also gave points to Con because of Pro going off track of the debate, and talking about the Bible's credibility. This being said, I gave conduct points to Con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
BenshapiroDarklordcompTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins arguments, as he showed that snakes and donkeys don't speak, to defeat this Con had to show that these animals could speak. The only other option was to prove the existence of the biblical god and then show that said god speaks through animals. All other points are shared. I would suggest more sources in future for definitions.
Vote Placed by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
BenshapiroDarklordcompTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: So, Pro tries to argue that the Bible is not rational. The only problem is his claims get rebuttaled each time. First Pro says,"1) the snake in the garden of Eden spoke to Eve. Snakes have never spoken because they don't have vocal cords and any animal doesn't have the conscious ability to speak our language. 2) the story about the donkey that spoke to his master after being beaten defies reason and logic because donkey's don't speak or know our language either." Con comes back shows how these things could be understood through human logic. So, Pro then tries to make the claim as quoted,"1. Satan may have been a physical representation of a snake, but snakes still don't have vocal chords. Unless satan shape-shifted to look like a snake but was actually just a spirit? 2. The spirit of God allowed the donkey to talk? Why doesn't God allow tortured animals to speak anymore then?" Con comes back and explains how G-d and Satan have greater powers above a human being, check