The Instigator
Sagey
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
Truth_seeker
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Is The Bible Is The Best Advertisement For Atheism??

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Truth_seeker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,428 times Debate No: 60571
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (122)
Votes (7)

 

Sagey

Pro

I consider that the Bible is the Best Advertisement for Atheism, on the grounds that I myself and many I've known became Atheists from their reading the Bible and discovering it is Irrational Nonsense.

This is a common view as even Richard Dawkins (an Agnostic Scientist) has publicly stated that he wants Bibles in all school libraries so children can access it unguided, to attempt to read it like they would any other novel or story book.

It is my reading it like a novel that brought the gross carnage, megalomaniac warlord of an idiotic God to my attention.

The lack of genuine knowledge of reality and Irrational carnage in the Bible, for example the Global Flood, which was entirely nonsensical as it was totally unnecessary and only served to paint how the Bible God suffers from severe megalomania.

Though it was in my studying of psychology that I found a name for God's obvious mental disease, I could not follow any being with such a depraved mind, even as a teenager.

Thus I agree with Richard Dawkins that introducing children to the Bible as a novel, would turn those with Intelligent, Rational Minds away from ever wanting to believe in the contents.
And it certainly would turn them away from ever becoming Christians as such reading ended my ever wanting to continue being a Christian, for Life!

Best of luck to anybody who accepts the Con position.

Hopefully we'll have a Great Debate!!
Debate Round No. 1
Sagey

Pro

Thanks heaps TS for accepting this Debate/Discussion:

Firstly I will describe my experience in reading the Bible as a novel.
I believe that reading it this way is the most likely to give the reader the story in the way that the original authors intended.


Also, the original Bible Book authors had no idea of any writers of the future and many had no idea what was written in the past.

Though the Bible has been doctored and changed many times since it's inception, mostly for political reasons at the time. Also translation errors exist that have altered the context and meaning from what was originally intended.

Nobody really knows what the original authors intended, as language has changed too much since they were first inscribed.

Even modern times, language changes have occurred in less than a century, in my work doing historical research, the papers I use for research, published just over a century ago, have many words and structures, not used any more, some words now considered profanities, were commonly used nouns back then.


Thus it is ridiculous to link passages as though they are meant to be a consistent dialogue as my theology teacher was doing.
I disagreed with his method, so I decided to read it from start to finish.
This is what led me to my Atheism, where I originally thought that by understanding the Bible better would make me a better Christian.
Little did I know at the time how it was going to unfold.

My first encounter was of course with the Old Testament and Genesis, where I found Genesis Alarmingly Naive, a Flat Earth with a dome above it where there are two sources of light (they thought the moon was a light source, ha ha ) and stars stuck to the underside of this dome and Heaven above the dome.


I originally ignored the discrepancies of Genesis as being metaphorical, since it was written at a time when nothing was know about the Cosmos, so I sort of forgave them their Naivety, as that is likely how people of 4000 years ago viewed our world.
Though years later when I was told that there are people (Creationists) who take Genesis as literal, and an empirical description of Creation, I was gobsmacked. WTF: How could anybody be so Extremely Dumb and Ignorant in the 21st Century?
But, such people exist, to both my amusement and alarm, enter Ken Ham and Ray Comfort for starters.

Though the idiots that assert the Global Flood occurred and was warranted has always both amused me and annoyed me, since the story is ridiculous to the extreme: Had God been both Omnipotent (Luke 1:37) and Omniscient (Psalm 147:4-5) there was no need for the flood as God would know all Offenders (present and future) and could simply delete them like deleting bad words in an essay. Thus there was no need for any innocent people nor animals to suffer/perish.

Though we know from Geology that no such flood ever occurred, so it is all Mythical.

Though I haven't enough space to do my impression of all the books of the Old Testament so I'll cover one story that exemplified all the stupidity of the stories of the Old Testament, namely Exodus and the exploits of Moses and his apprentice magician, Aaron.

God had Moses and Aaron performing magic tricks to convince the Pharaoh to free the slaves, yet God was itself thwarting their efforts by hardening the Pharaoh's heart against his own missionaries.

This is like telling somebody to rob a bank and informing the police that they are going to do it. Sort of counter-productive and essentially Stupid.

Exodus 7:2-3 KJV: “Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land. 3And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

Since God could perform magic on the Pharaoh's heart, if he softened it, then there would have been no need for all the stupid magic tricks and plagues, the Pharaoh would have simply allowed the slaves freedom.

Such rampant stupidity and counter-intuitive Unintelligent Nonsense, I found all throughout the Bible. Especially the Old Testament.

Such as Moses and Aaron's magic, polluting all the River with blood and killing all the fish with a wave of Aaron's rod, was matched by the Pharaoh's own magicians: BTW: turning a river into blood, killing the fish, would have taken a week at least to become putrid and stink. Yet this was apparently done almost instantly. Then it was again done by the Pharaoh's magicians.

Which raises the question: How come the river cleared enough and became populated with fish again for the Pharaoh's own magicians to repeat the magical exercise within a reasonable time.

Exodus 7:20-22 KJV: “And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. 21And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river;and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt. 22And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments:

And. How come we cannot find any magicians, even with our technology that can repeat the magic that the Pharaoh's own magicians of 5000 years ago could achieve.

Image Source: http://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com...

If readers cannot see the Blatant, Stupidity Ignorance of reality in these passages, there is no hope for them in the real world.

Thus even at age 16, I found it hard to hide my diminishing respect for my Theology teacher who believed strongly that this nonsense was realistic.

The further I moved into the Bible and more similar stories I encountered, the lower was my respect for people who believed in the Bible. By the end of the Bible I had no respect for anybody who even had a passing belief in Christianity, I became a hardened Anti-Theist from reading the Bible.

I've softened in my attitude to Christianity over the years, but still find it deplorable that some people are so Utterly Ignorant of reality, especially Young Earth Creationists, they have to be the least informed or most unintelligent group of humans in current existence.

Though many Christians I have argued with over the years claim that every story I raised as ridiculous as being metaphorical, which in the end made the entire Bible metaphorical and why believe in a Metaphorical God, whose only evidence of existence (The Bible) is entirely Metaphorical?

Though I believe that most of the Bible stories were ripped off from Egyptian, Greek and Mesopotamian mythology, so the stories are not original, the Flood myth was Mesopotamian from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Moses found in the reeds myth was from the tale of King Sargon, who was also found as a babe in the reeds.

Most Modern Historians are now in agreement that Moses never existed, he was a concatenation of mythical characters or what is known historically as a Euhemerism.

A few now even believe that Jesus Christ himself may be an Euhemerism and did not actually exist as a person.

Here is an amusing look at 5 Bible stories ripped off from Greek Mythology.

http://www.cracked.com...

Enjoy!

Over to you TS for a thoughtful Response:

Truth_seeker

Con

"Though the Bible has been doctored and changed many times since it's inception, mostly for political reasons at the time. Also translation errors exist that have altered the context and meaning from what was originally intended."

This statement is false, no major changes were made to the old or new testament (1). The New Testament also has essentially no errors (2).

Language has no changed enough to the point where we cannot figure out the intended meaning. This is why we are able to learn biblical Hebrew and Greek.

If Hebrews knew about the stars, sun, moon, constellations, etc. then that means they knew about the cosmos. I as a Christian do not take sides with creationists or atheistic evolutionists.

The Bible actually does not support a global flood. The word for earth in Hebrew speaks of a local area (3).

It was not a magic trick, it was a miracle. Pharoah hardened his own heart (1 Samuel 6:6).

"How come we cannot find any magicians, even with our technology that can repeat the magic that the Pharaoh's own magicians of 5000 years ago could achieve."

That's what makes it so amazing and supernatural, the fact that no one living in this century can perform such a miracle.

"Though many Christians I have argued with over the years claim that every story I raised as ridiculous as being metaphorical, which in the end made the entire Bible metaphorical and why believe in a Metaphorical God, whose only evidence of existence (The Bible) is entirely Metaphorical?"

The Bible is not always metaphorical and it's not always literal. Context is key.

"Though I believe that most of the Bible stories were ripped off from Egyptian, Greek and Mesopotamian mythology, so the stories are not original, the Flood myth was Mesopotamian from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Moses found in the reeds myth was from the tale of King Sargon, who was also found as a babe in the reeds."

Is there any expert evidence to support those views?

"Most Modern Historians are now in agreement that Moses never existed, he was a concatenation of mythical characters or what is known historically as a Euhemerism."

"A few now even believe that Jesus Christ himself may be an Euhemerism and did not actually exist as a person."

Where are your sources?

You commit the fallacy of incredulity, just because it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean that it's not real. There are many natural things i cannot believe, should we also disbelieve them?

1. New Evidence That Demands a Verdict", Josh Mcdowell.

2. Geisler and Nix, 475.

3. Gleason Archer, Survey of OT Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1964), 194.
Debate Round No. 2
Sagey

Pro


bible contradictions about adam
Thanks Con for your comments and criticisms!


Firstly I'll consider a couple of your criticisms in reverse order:

1: "You commit the fallacy of incredulity, just because it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean that it's not real. There are many natural things I cannot believe, should we also disbelieve them?"

Not only do the stories not make Sense, the feats of the Magicians are not reproducible in modern times, even with all the technology we can muster and some excellent magicians around.
The feats asserted by the Bible are absolutely Impossible.

The staff to snake trick has been done by some snake charmers in India, but they cannot make them into convincing walking staffs nor have them stay stiff for long enough to fool anybody that they are a staff or rod. The River of Blood trick is entirely impossible and the story entirely improbable.

There is simply no rationality in the story and that is not making a fallacious statement, it is stating a demonstrable Fact.

2: Sources concerning Exodus and thus, Moses being Mythical: "Since no archaeological evidence has been found to support the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[4] While significant portions of the story told in the books ofExodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were never intended to be historiographic."

So since there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for Moses, nor for the Exodus, Archaeologists, Anthropologist and many Scholars of history have canned it as a non-event, it never happened.
Thus the Impossible Magic, never happened, it was all Metaphorical, not real history.


Though I realized this when reading it at the age of 16.
It's funny how many Theologians think of these as real events, which demonstrates their inability to think Critically nor Rationally.

Though Indoctrination destroys people's ability to Rationalize.


Theologians are examples of such people with their rationality diminished.
This is why they believe such Fallacies as the Cosmological, Ontological Arguments, and think they have merit in the real world.
Such delusional thinking is a demonstration of damaged Rationality.
Such is the harm of Indoctrination into Superstition/Religion.

"Mainstream history and archaeology now consider the Exodus never to have happened, and the story to be an entirely fictional narrative put together between the 8th and 5th centuries BCE.[1] Christian and Jewish literalists do not accept this."

Source: http://rationalwiki.org...

Though if Exodus never occurred, then it is highly probable that Moses never existed either.
Which explains why Exodus is written from a disinterested third party viewpoint.
It was not Moses writing any of it.

Though at 16 I chuckled a little at insects having four legs in Leviticus, but was a bit shocked and bemused, at the stupidity of the unnecessary massacres and debauchery of the Old Testament God, such as Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's wife, Jericho under the stupidity that is Joshua.
All that was totally unnecessary destruction and death.

Because by then I had realized that the Old Testament God is a Malevolent, Narcissistic, Megalomaniac.

Though I was also amused that even though God is supposedly Omnipotent (All Powerful), it couldn't help the army of Judah defeat Iron Chariots. Judges 1:19, "The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron."

Imagine how hopeless God would be in this era with armoured Helicopters,Tanks and Armoured Personnel Carriers. God wouldn't have a hope in Hell. :-D~


Con hasn't been able to dispute my exposure of the Stupidity of Exodus and the Old Testament.
Along with the extremely Idiotic, Beyond Irrational Stupidity of the Global Flood to rid the world of Evil that God itself Created.
Yes, since God was supposedly Omniscient and Omnipotent, the Flood was just a senseless Massacre.
God proved it's malevolence by creating Evil.
As it was God alone that forced Evil onto Mankind, not Adam.

Jews, Muslims and Christians cannot understand that when considered Rationally, their religion is Idiotic at best. Why worship a God that imposed Evil onto the world, just so as you would run to God for protection from the Evil God imposed.


Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."


God sends Evil Angel to destroy Jerusalem:


1 Chronicles 21:15,And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite."

God Created Satan, and being Omniscient, knew that this creation was going to be Evil and thus God pre-ordained Evil onto humanity.
So the Problem Of Evil became an issue in my 16 year old Mind.

But Enough of the rampant stupidity of the Old Testament.

The extra stupidity which was the New Testament, or the story of God sending his own Son to be executed to absolve Humans of the Evil God created and imposed on Humanity anyway, did not make any sense to my 16 year old sense of Rationality.


When all God had to do was absolve humans of their supposedly God imposed Sins, but the entire story of the New Testament did not make any sense to me at all.
It was a light, less violent change from the Old Testament, but the stupidity continued.


Miracles such as bringing a man (Lazarus John 11) who was already rotting, back to life made me extremely distrustful of the New Testament tales, as it was beyond idiotic.
So I became very skeptical of the went to the local library and started looking into Encyclopaedias and books on archaeology, looking for historical evidence for Jesus.

I found none, apparently even the Gospels were never written from contemporary sources for Jesus's life. So my skepticism and disbelief in Christianity increased.
All sources for information on Jesus's life were from people who never met the living person.


Saul, Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger, all wrote about Jesus decades after his life, thus it is possible that he never existed and Saul being the first to write of Jesus, may have invented him and his own story about looking for the followers of Jesus.


From reading the books Saul supposedly wrote, I did not think he was an honest person, I started believing Saul had deliberately deceived his believers to gain a position of power and make Christianity his own.


By this time I had long left my Christian college and had tried a new variety of Christianity called Pentecostal Christianity, which also studied its Theology, but, after a year, I also found out that it was Bunkum and so started my Anti-Theism.

I started reading the Bible thinking it would make me a wiser and better Christian, yet, the sheer stupidity of the stories and conceptualization of the Bible, drove me to becoming more than an Atheist, It made me and Anti-Theist.

I’ve since softened my Anti-Theism over the years, but it was the Bible that turned me away from Christianity.

As it has also done for many of my Atheist friends, who know more about the Bible than most Theists.

Most agree with me that The Bible Is The Best Advertisement for Atheism.

Just read it like a novel with an open, rational mind, and you will soon see why?

Here is a dude who has read the Bible and has the same concepts as I concerning the rampant stupidity in the Bible.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com...

Here is an ex Christian Minister who came to a similar opinion to I.
Matt Dillahunty:


Here is a more exciting/amusing view of Biblical Stupidity.


Enjoy!

Thanks Con, Your turn M8!

Truth_seeker

Con

"Not only do the stories not make Sense, the feats of the Magicians are not reproducible in modern times, even with all the technology we can muster and some excellent magicians around.
The feats asserted by the Bible are absolutely Impossible."

"The staff to snake trick has been done by some snake charmers in India, but they cannot make them into convincing walking staffs nor have them stay stiff for long enough to fool anybody that they are a staff or rod. The River of Blood trick is entirely impossible and the story entirely improbable. "

What scientific evidence do you have that's impossible? Doesn't that contradict science which says that nothing (observable) is certain? Where is the evidence that people in India did the miracles in the Bible?

"Since no archaeological evidence has been found to support the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[4] While significant portions of the story told in the books ofExodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were never intended to be historiographic."

"So since there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for Moses, nor for the Exodus, Archaeologists, Anthropologist and many Scholars of history have canned it as a non-event, it never happened. Thus the Impossible Magic, never happened, it was all Metaphorical, not real history."

Not sure where you got that from, but it's wrong. There are many archaeologists and historians who agree that Exodus did occur (1). The city of Ramses and caravan routes were discovered in the Sinai desert (2).

" Judges 1:19, "The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron."

God will only fight if his people have faith in him (Deut. 1:31-32).

"God Created Satan, and being Omniscient, knew that this creation was going to be Evil and thus God pre-ordained Evil onto humanity"

No verses used to support that he made Satan.

"I became very skeptical of the went to the local library and started looking into Encyclopaedias and books on archaeology, looking for historical evidence for Jesus.

I found none,"

"Saul, Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger, all wrote about Jesus decades after his life,"

That still counts as evidence for Jesus.

Like i said, you keep committing the fallacy of personal incredulity which is as follows:

"Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true." (3)

You made attacks on the Bible once again resorting to logical fallacies based on no evidence.

Conclusion: The Bible is not the best advertisement for Atheism as my opponent was not aware of the evidence in support of the Bible.

Sources:

1. Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks (Ha'aretz Magazine, Nov. 5, 1999).

2. http://www.biblearchaeology.org...

3. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Debate Round No. 3
122 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
BTW Ash,
Just message Airmax about your problem voting and he will sort it out for you.
I had a similar issue in that it cannot verify my mobile number, so Airmax had to fix it for me.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
So true Ash,

Science does not question God, it stays out of religion as religion should stay out of science.

The God of Einstein, Spinoza, often called philosophically as Pantheism is in line with the Vedic gods and thus there is never a problem.
The only problem has always been with the Judaic God, based religions that were started by Josiah in the 7th Century BCE. Where Yahweh was promoted as the Major God when it was only a minor God along with many other Gods. Being the God of pastoralists (a war like people who promote the Us/Them mentality) it is naturally very aggressive and Narcissistic in it's demanding to be worshiped.

This is the problem between Science and Josiah's Yahweh, it demands worship and thus Islam and Christianity demands it to be put above Science as the answer to everything.
This is why Atheists exist.
The Christians and Muslims demand their God be worshiped, which is Wrong and thus opposition arose from the ranks of Rational Humans, this opposition is what we call Atheism.
It's a rational cry from the public to stop pushing your nonsensical God onto us as something real that we ought to believe in.

There is no such pressure with the Vedic God or Vishnu and his avatars, Rama, Krishna etc..

If the western world worshiped such more natural, less demanding (narcissistic) Gods, Atheism would likely not exist.
Because rationalists and Scientists would have nothing opposing them to complain about.
Posted by Ash_RationalTheist 3 years ago
Ash_RationalTheist
I agree with sagey ...Due to some technical problems i'm unable to vote..
If atheism be associated with modern scientists, then scientists like Einstein only objected to the Biblical God. They could not explore the Eastern philosophy ( like Vedic) . But whatever views Einstein suggested for God was very much in lines of Vedas " an impartial God who does not change his laws and meddle with our personal lives.

Atheism basically denies the concept of "God" as given by Semitic religion of Church. However it has no basis to refute the God of Vedas. Perhaps the only 2 objections are:

a. The word God evokes different emotions due to its more prominent association with an anthropomorphic (human-like) Emperor of world. This can be eliminated by using a different phrase instead of God. Lets call that "Source behind all Laws of Nature".

b. A second objection is the anathema against the optimistic perception that Laws of Nature are there to help us. But this is only a psychological problem that certain people tend to avoid optimism and yet seek happiness in their own lives indirectly! This pessimism in a very hardcore small group of atheist also emanates from a repulsion against the hype of a merciful forgiving God that is emphasized by Bible.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
If you want experts on the Bible, I have the evidence here.

From Archaeologists, Biblical Scholars and Theologians, who no longer believe the Bible to be literally True.

https://www.youtube.com...

Moses most likely never existed and the Exodus is fraudulent, it is more about freedom in Judea than Freedom of Slaves, the Moses and Aaron freeing the slaves is False, it never happened.
Thus the miracles of Moses and Aaron are Fictitious.

I know as much about the Bible as TS, yet as far as the History of the Bible, I know a lot more.
It is the history of the Bible that destroys my ability to ever believe in it.
The contents of the Bible are mostly Imaginary.

The exploits of Jesus never really happened, there is no evidence anywhere for them and the Gospels conflict too much for the stories to ever be true.
Though there is more of this in the Rote debate.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
TheMatt hasn't read any of Richard Carrier's books, Richard Carrier believes there is no Evidence that proves Jesus Christ really lived and Richard is technically Correct. Everything written about Jesus arrived over 20 years post his supposed existence.
There is nothing written while Jesus supposedly lived and none of those writing about Jesus ever met Jesus.
Saul had a vision, that was either Fraud or a Hallucination, but Saul never met Jesus at all.

Richard Dawkins has admitted that he is not saying God doesn't exist, in fact if somebody gave him good evidence for God, Richard would believe in God, as Richard has admitted being unsure about the existence of God, and that he is really agnostic, not Atheist. His interview with the English Bishop he made these claims.
Richard does not believe that God definitely does not exist, only that Religions have never demonstrated evidence for God that he can consider as verified and truthful.

Show Richard Dawkins or myself real Evidence for gods and we will both become believers.
That is how simple it really is.

But all we say is that it is unlikely, since Religion has been around for thousands of years without ever demonstrating that they have any reality on their side.
Posted by Truth_seeker 3 years ago
Truth_seeker
I read some of his stuff and i can honestly say that he's not in a position to speak about the "errors of the Bible" when he hasn't even studied the religions he is criticizing.

1) He's only a biologist and has no credentials to form a pro. expert stance on the Bible

2) He cites no experts to point out errors in the Bible

3) He simply claims that the Bible has not been proven when in this debate, i just cited a few proofs of it.

Now i don't hate him, but he needs to stick with science. The more he talks of the Bible, the more he makes me want to debate him. He's not advancing the field of science, he's just spreading religious intolerance and bigotry.
Posted by Idealist1 3 years ago
Idealist1
@Truth-seeker: Well said . . .
Posted by Truth_seeker 3 years ago
Truth_seeker
Richard Dawkins is insanely hostile against religion. He made a book called "the magic of reality" claiming that his goal is not to indoctrinate children, but that's exactly what he does. He lists the different beliefs of each religion and then has a heading called "now what really happened?" While i do appreciate him upholding compassion and empathy towards other humans despite it being an alternative to religion, ironically, his actions are contrary to his claims. He claims that religious people hate each other, but he clearly has contempt for religious people by starting a campaign against it.
Posted by Idealist1 3 years ago
Idealist1
Calling Richard Dawkins an "agnostic scientist" is a whopper of an understatement. Everything I've seen about him indicates that he is one of the most aggressive atheists in the scholarly world. He even uses his own standing and spends his own money to combat religious ideology and support atheistic "logisticism."

I do agree, however, that the Bible would be a more sensible book if it's take on spirituality had evolved along with the increase in human knowledge. Things said thousands of years ago must sometimes be re-investigated and even re-determined based upon more recently revealed information. Like the U.S. Constitution, the Bible needs some flexibility in order to account for changing times. Despite this weakness, however, I still find it an interesting book filled with useful knowledge and philosophy.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 3 years ago
Phoenix61397
SageyTruth_seekerTied
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: As stated below, pro's conduct wasn't great and he doled out a lot of not necessitated insults. I feel that con's argument wasn't necessarily as strong as it could be, but pro did not meet their burden. They did not prove that the Bible is the best advertisement for atheism. Pro also used personal opinion more often than not as a source for arguments.
Vote Placed by frio937 3 years ago
frio937
SageyTruth_seekerTied
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: Many of Con's points were based on opinion rather then sourced information. Now I do believe pro is wrong stating that the bible advertises for Atheism he did make a convincing point and argued in a professional manner.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 3 years ago
kingcripple
SageyTruth_seekerTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pro provided pictures and videos demeaning to the Christian faith, therefore con gets conduct. Pro stated that the bible talks about magic and magicians, when in fact the only magic would be the inexplicable methods evolutionists speak of, therefore con gets argument points. I dont trust an atheist's sources as they tend to be demeaning towards Christians. Con gets points here as well
Vote Placed by MailboxVegetable 3 years ago
MailboxVegetable
SageyTruth_seekerTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro may have put up one of the most contentious and downright mean-spirited debates I have ever seen. Throughout the debate, he was constantly degrading the Bible and anyone who is Christian as stupid and unworthy of respect. In addition to this, Pro's arguments were riddled with capitalization and grammatical errors while Con had much less. Despite all of this, I have to agree with him that the Bible is a collection of irrational, immoral, and scientifically impossible myths. Pro was correct in characterizing the Old Testament God as a megolamanical and genocidal tyrant. Pro also exposed many of the logical contradictions and arbitrary mass-killings that the supposedly all-loving God had instrumented.
Vote Placed by medv4380 3 years ago
medv4380
SageyTruth_seekerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to make their point that the Bible is an advertisement for atheism, or even the best. At most Pro's argument could be an argument against the Bible being accepted, but not for Atheism. Sources go to Pro for a major contradiction by Con. Pro made the point that "translation errors exist", and Con claimed it was false. Then Con claimed "The word for earth in Hebrew speaks of a local area". This is by definition a translation error. Since this is a miss application of sources I'm taking away only the source points.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
SageyTruth_seekerTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt pro really didn't do a good job, especially since lots of arguments were against the Bible
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 3 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
SageyTruth_seekerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically disproved his reasoning by saying the Bible is not valid in any way. Con gets sources because Pro didn't support his arguments with any. I hate to say it but a lot of Pro's sentences didn't make sense - such as "Though we know from Geology that no such flood ever occurred, so it is all Mythical, " although Con had some lower case sentence starters and accidentally misspelled some words. That is tied. Overall, I think Con won because he refuted nearly all Pro's arguments while Pro took it too lightly and didn't do a very good job at rebuttals.