The Instigator
steven.trellis
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
imnotsayingimjustsaying
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Is God real and is the Bible accurate

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 7 votes the winner is...
imnotsayingimjustsaying
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,086 times Debate No: 29814
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

steven.trellis

Pro

First of all use your brain and think how can a living organism come from nonliving things.Okay so you must think that makes sense because even the simplest organisms need parts the function all at one time with instructions and these instructions can not come about just anywhere so someone had to create them and that being is God.Please don't just answer without ACCUAL knowlege of what you are saying.
imnotsayingimjustsaying

Con

"how can a living organism come from nonliving things."
Scientists disagree on this and i really don't think about it that much. You say not to answer without actual knowledge of what i'm saying. But i'll still answer it the best i can.

I don't know

that's my answer. I don't know how life came from non-living things, but there is no evidence that points to the answer to this question being "God did it". If you do have proof of this i would love to hear it.

You didn't talk about the bible but i know you will later in the debate so i'll talk about that:
The bible is a book that has a "Old Testament" and a "New Testament". Together this book was written over the course of about 1,500 years by a lot of different people with different views. Example: Genesis 1 and 2 state different things. Was Adam created first or vegetation?
Depending on which type of Christianity you believe in you may not even think the Old testament was real. I think that's weird because Jesus talks about it in the New Testament and even supports it.

Now the whole "the bible is accurate" thing. Simply put...No, it's not accurate.
The bible says that bats are birds and not mammals.
Exodus 21:12 states: Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. When Romans 12:17 states: Do not repay any one evil for evil.
Genesis 3:14 states: So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, ... You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust" when snakes don't eat dust of dirt as some say.

The bible is full of things like this. And above all of that, the bible has been re-written hundreds of times and by now there is no way of knowing which one is the right one. This is the reason the bible is not a credible source for really anything. And if Atheists for some reason had a book that supported mass-murders, rape, slavery, child abuse and killing, Christians would say terrible things about said book and the people that support it. As they should. The bible is terrible and the only reason people still support it is because people say that the bad things in the bible weren't meant to be taken literally. (even though the bible says in 2nd Peter 1:20-21: But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.)

I commented on this debate about clarification but i already wrote this so meh...HERE YOU GO :)
Debate Round No. 1
steven.trellis

Pro

I would like to tell you that the Bible does have mistakes. But these mistake are not great and by this I mean that there are few spelling errors and animal mix ups because of the large number of translations. But as supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls this remains true in the way the only simple spelling mistake and animal mix ups are present. And as far as the snake shall crawl on its belly and EAT dust you have to think of it not so direct. What I mean by this is that when the serpent was to eat dust the Bible doesn't mean actually eat it what it is saying is that the serpent is level with it ,that other animals are blessed with legs to keep them off the ground (off of the dust). These so called problems with the Bible are not problems they have a more in depth meaning than what we may see and a glance. It's similar to reading a Shakespeare play now even though it makes complete sense at the time and even now if you think about it and don't just glance. Back to the how did organisms come from nonliving things this is reasoning question that has been thought about by every person for thousands of years and many many people have come to the same conclusion and this conclusion points to a god or entirety...God. And fast forward to about 2000 years ago. When Jesus was on the Earth. Scientifically Jesus of Nazareth was on Earth and but the only thing is whether people think of him as more. He did things that were incredible things that turned people away from there very strong belief in God (Judaism) I mean if people didn't actually see Jesus of Nazareth do these amazing miracle's why would they turn away from there very strong belief. The Bible does not support rape, murder stealing or anything of that nature. It is very against it. why don't you instead of looking it online because things can be changed ONLINE look in an actually copy of the Bible to get your answers then do some cross checking online to clarify. You see like I said there is a deeper meaning to the words in the Bible. I mean come on people of all types of intelligence even the genius of human kind all point that God and the Bible are true. Of course you will have some modern intelligent people going against it but the reason for this I believe is false information and lack of complex reasoning skills. I once did not believe that the Bible was true ,but I searched for information EVERYWHERE and bias and unbiased information and I found that the Bible makes complete sense and even using scientific evidence and reasoning it makes sense and this is why it is true and this is why it has withstood attacks for the past thousands of years.
imnotsayingimjustsaying

Con

You say the bible doesn't have mistakes. There are many. The bible was first handed down from generation to generation in songs, narratives, and poetry. The bible was first officially written in roughly 380 ad. That's a long time in-between. Genesis was told to Moses directly by god. Then he had to pass the word down generation to generation for century's. There is no way that everything was remembered exactly as it was supposed to. Is that not evidence that the bible is not accurate. I haven't even talked about what is actually in the bible yet.

The bible is inaccurate on a vast amount of accounts that at the time weren't inaccurate. If there was a god and he "inspired a bible for everyone. He would make sure that there were no errors in it. i'll assume that by the bible being accurate you mean that the bible is not only true for the time period it was written, but true for all time periods.
-Matthew 15:2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
Before germ theory people would have not known that washing your hands would stop disease. They didn't know this at the time.

Genesis 3 The whole thing about a talking snake.
There has never been any recorded evidence of a talking snake and i find it odd that anyone believes in such a crazy story.

Romans 10:18 But "I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world."
The whole world heard the word of god. Including the Native Americans and the Asians?
All of Jesus's miracles have no recorded evidence. You would think such things would be written down somewhere by someone.

Matthew 2:16 " Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men"
Herod kills all boys in and around Bethlehem that are two years old and under. Such a massacre would certainly have been noted by contemporary historians, but it isn't.

Matthew 4:2 "And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered"
nobody even someone like Jesus would have gone that long without food.

Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"
There is no mountain that can show all the kingdoms. Unless people back then thought that the earth was flat.

There are a lot of problems with the bible and these are only a few. The bible is not accurate and i hope you can agree with me on that.

"The Bible does not support rape, murder stealing or anything of that nature. It is very against it. why don't you instead of looking it online because things can be changed ONLINE look in an actually copy of the Bible to get your answers then do some cross checking online to clarify."

First off i find it funny that you think that a bible being but online somehow makes it somehow unreliable, BUT find it completely ok for the unreliability it the translations and edits of the bible over the years.

MURDER IN THE BIBLE

God murdered millions of people in the flood including young children.
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
Exodus 21:15 "Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death."
2 Chronicles 15:12-13 "They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

RAPE IN THE BIBLE

"Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, WOMAN RAVISHED; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city." (Zechariah 14:1-2)

"They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil." (Judges 5:30)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

"if people didn't actually see Jesus of Nazareth do these amazing miracle's why would they turn away from there very strong belief"

Why is Mormonism gaining followers every year. He saw an angel and it told him the truth. why would people they turn away from the beliefs they have?

The last thing i will say is i ask you to give be evidence and proof that god is real. Because for the whole time people have been studying and searching for god there has bee nothing that holds up and a lot of stuff that contradicts it.
Debate Round No. 2
steven.trellis

Pro

You obvously think that you are right because you have no reasoning at all. I mean come on you have people mordern people fast for two months and Jesus did it for 40 days (little over 1 month) I have studied the Bible for years and it does not contridict itself. People for the past few thousand years have read it understod it and stood by it be cause of it reliibility and accuracy. It was not told verbily it was recored and in fact scribs that wrote it down had to look at a letter and write look at a letter and write whitch took a while but it keeped it accuarcte. I really don't care wheather you agree with me or not because you WHAT it YOUR way and you think your right so you stick to it. I had a freaind just like (caresless,ignorant,thought he could succeseed in life,) but he i a pitiful little man because he does listen to others (i mean accualy listen) because he thinks he knows it all and he doesn't he thinks hes a genius and hes not, he can not comprehend that God is an nessesity that he creatied man and NOT the other way around. There is a lot of evedence to show God is real but just like him you DO NOT WANT to look and listen.
imnotsayingimjustsaying

Con

Something that i can proudly say about myself is that i am happy to admit that i'm wrong. I can say that i was wrong about Jesus fasting for 40 day's point. I thought it said that he didn't eat or drink at all for 40 days.

You say you studied the bible for years and know it doesn't contradict itself, but you have shown absolutely no evidence for proof in any of your arguments. Really, there is not one thing in this whole debate that tells me any reason that what you believe in is true. All you talk about is the bible. the bible is not evidence for god. The bible is a book and cannot be proven. Even if there is some historical truth to it. The story of the Trojan War was believed to be myth until the city of Troy was actually dug up. Just because Troy was found doesn't mean that Zeus is real. You cannot prove that Zeus isn't real but you don't just believe in something just because there is nothing disproving it. Even with Troy being real that shows nothing to prove that everything else in Mythology is real. That is a main reason that people don't believe in Greek and Roman Gods anymore. Lack of evidence.

Although it is not proven it is more widely excepted that the original part of the bible was passed down orally. This is not fact, but it is the most likely case because of the fact that it would have been very difficult to write symbols on stone and pass them on. Because back in 1500 bc there was no written language yet.

The bible is a very old book. Technology these days like apps and adobe flash have to be updated very often. Now this may not be true for the bible. The reason that the bible hasn't bee "updated" by god could be for only 3 reasons.
1. The bible is perfect and there is nothing wrong with it.
2. The bible has mistakes but we should just ignore those.
3. There is no God to change the mistakes/god does nothing to change these mistakes.
the first one is really one of the main points of this debate. The bible being accurate and all. The bible like i have said is inaccurate in many different ways. You have decided not to answer most of them. Something you have to decide is whether of not the bible was inspired by man or god. 1 is saying that god told everyone exactly how to write the bible. If this is what you choose to believe then i ask you is how? I wait to see proof of this.
2 shows that you cannot trust the bible and the whole base for Christianity falls apart.
3 is all that's left

You say that i don't want to look and listen, when that's all i do. I look for the answers and so far God isn't the one. Evolution is not an Atheist view, but it does hurt christian faith. Evolution shows that we did not come from Adam and Eve, and actually come from many many years of extremely small changes. Being able to breed dogs from wolves shows us that characteristics can be changed over time. Evolution is just a "all-natural" version of selective breeding. It shows that evolution is true and that in the very least that people weren't just placed here by god. I hear a lot that The Theory of Evolution is just that a theory. Well so is the Theory of Gravity and Gravity doesn't cause much argument. Evolution does because it contradicts the bible. That's the only reason.

You say that you don't care weather or not I believe in what you say. Well if you're right i would think you would care about what i believe, because i would go to hell forever if i'm allowed to believe what i want.

This is a direct quote from you:
I had a freaind just like (caresless,ignorant,thought he could succeseed in life,) but he i a pitiful little man because he does listen to others (i mean accualy listen) because he thinks he knows it all and he doesn't he thinks hes a genius and hes not, he can not comprehend that God is an nessesity that he creatied man and NOT the other way around.

I will assume that your friend was an Atheist. And that being an Atheist was the only reason he "could not succeed in life". I say to this HOW DARE YOU. Being An Atheist means nothing about a person. There are bad Atheists and bad Christians. You don't know anything about me. I know i'm not a genius. I know I don't know everything. You think that God is a necessity. That shows that you are stuck believing in something without even trying think differently. You cannot comprehend that there might not even be a god. You need to question you faith. It your faith can be justified that you have no worries about questioning it. If it can't then you have no reason to believe in it. I agree you have the right to believe whatever you want but not believing in god doesn't cause anything bad to happen to people.

Pro has shown no arguments to point that there is a God.Pro has also not proven that the bible is accurate. Vote for con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Fiochra 3 years ago
Fiochra
If you really want to look at the reliability of the bible, look into the strong evidence that the entire bible was re-written into monotheism from the original polytheistic Canaanite religion (similar to Greek mythological polytheism). A leading hypothesis is that the old testament was re-written during the Babylonian exile in an attempt to retain cultural identity by differentiating the Israelites from other tribes which were exclusively polytheistic. The hypothesis makes sense to me, it certainly explains why "god" is so preoccupied in the ot with the other gods of the Canaanite religion. In any case the the evidence that the Judaistic religions evolved (culturally) from polytheism. So if there is "a god" the Jewish-Christian-Muslim one isn't it
Posted by Fiochra 3 years ago
Fiochra
Just thought id point out, since it was glossed over in the debate (haven't read it all yet but couldn't let it stand), that the formation of organic molecules from inorganic precursors has been established science for Friedrich W"hler's synthesis of urea in 1828. The process is called total synthesis and has been shown to create the building blocks of life (although as far as I know the total syntheses of DNA has not been established as yet)
Posted by imnotsayingimjustsaying 3 years ago
imnotsayingimjustsaying
I just want to clarify. Are you saying that people and animals are so complex and amazing that because of that their has to be a god for things of this magnitude to happen?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wildcard173 3 years ago
wildcard173
steven.trellisimnotsayingimjustsayingTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never really put up any arguments saying that the bible was accurate and even said in R2 "the Bible does have mistakes." This undermine his own argument.
Vote Placed by tyler.schillim 3 years ago
tyler.schillim
steven.trellisimnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: God is real. Why do you think everything here around us exists? The bible is gods word which is the truth and nothing but the truth.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
steven.trellisimnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed errors in the bible. Pro has bad spelling and grammar. Pro uses insults in place of arguments.
Vote Placed by Krestoff 3 years ago
Krestoff
steven.trellisimnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Overwhelming vote for the Con. Pro never makes one argument to support the resolution besides "trust me guys". I wish I could give more points to Con for the last argument.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
steven.trellisimnotsayingimjustsayingTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Debates require logical thinking. Pro does not have the capacity for such.
Vote Placed by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
steven.trellisimnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct : Con for Pro's ad hominem. S/G: Con because Pro's spelling was attrocious. Arguments: Con because Pro failed to actually make an argument.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
steven.trellisimnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't know whether Pro is earnest in his beliefs or a troll, but either way loss of arguments for only addressing one of Con's round two arguments--and the low-hanging fruit at that; loss of conduct for the ad hominem attacks against Con; loss off s/g for obvious reasons ("I had a freaind just like--caresless,ignorant,thought he could succeseed in life,--but he i a pitiful little man)". They used the same sources.