The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Is The Bible Just a Fairytale?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 539 times Debate No: 73562
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




This debate is open to anyone, who believes that the Bible is fake, and not real.


1.) 4 Rounds, 48 Hours to Argue
2.) Forfeit = Immediate loss(Unless unintentional)
3.) No Profane Language
4.) All sources must be cited (Format does not matter)

First round is acceptance, last round is conclusion.

I will state my argument next round, good luck to my opponent


As Con, I have the burden of proof to show that The Bible is a fairy tale.

In the dawn of civilization, deities of every shape and size started to pop into existence. Soon, these deities had written texts to their name, which were supposedly their own inspired Words.

Only a handful of deities have survived into modern culture, most noticeably the Supreme being held by Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

While these religions have at least three distinct writings attributed to them, today we are focusing on The Bible.

I shall defend the definition of fairy tale as follows:

"a fabricated story, especially one intended to deceive." -

Now, onto the debate.

The Bible is a collection of written works, compiled in the first centuries A.D. by many different councils. As such, the way to show how The Bible is a book of fairy tale, we must show that its writings encompass fairy tales.

These are just a few events recorded in The Bible which modern science and history has deemed unsupported:

1. The Creation of Man
2. Noah's Flood
3. Lifespan of people as recorded in The Bible
4. The Exodus

I shall defend each point:

1. The Creation of Man is a topic of much controversy in theological discussion. However, the manner in which The Bible depicts the creation of Man has been deemed incompatible to the modern theory of evolution.

The verse is Genesis 2:7
"Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." -

Clearly, this shows that man was created from dust, instead of being descended from a primate modern science has concluded. -

2. Noah's Flood is yet another topic of discussion.

The Flood of Noah as depicted in Genesis is a global flood, one that covers all the mountains of The Earth:

"The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits." -

This is scientifically impossible, as there is not enough water on or in The Earth to cover Mt. Everest, a mountain which is 29,029 feet tall ( by 15 cubits. -

3. The genealogies of Adam can be found here:

This shows that Adam lived to be 930 years old. There exists no scientific evidence that the cellular regeneration system can exist for such a long period of time.

4. The Exodus
The Exodus is the story of how Israel became free of enslavement. It tells that over 2,000,000 people were freed from Egypt.-

There is no evidence so suggest that over 2,000,000 Israelites inhabited Egypt, as Egypt in the 14th century had a total population of about 3 million. - (If my opponent does not allow for wikipedia articles, I will provide a more scholarly source.)

These are just a few of the many tales of The Bible, which fit the definition I have given to fairy tale, meaning I have proved that The Bible is a book of fairy tale.

(I am a Christian fundamentalist. I believe that there are reasonable responses to each of these. Just playing Devil's Advocate here...quite literally)
Debate Round No. 1


There is no possible way for humans to create its self. Astronomer and Mathematician Fred Hoyle calculated the odds for a one-cell animals to emerge by chance, and the result was a 1 in 10^40,000 chance. He concluded that the odds for a complex human to emerge by chance were too high to calculate. Biophysicist Dr. Harold Morowitz calculated the time it would take for simple bacteria to reassemble after all the chemical bonds are broken. The answer was 10^100,000,000,000 years. So the claim that human being were emerged by chance is invalid, therefore there is a greater being that made us." (Source at bottom)

"Soils (including clay) contain dissolved minerals which are incorporated and stored by plants for our consumption or eaten by an animal that we later consume. The most abundant elements in the Earth’s crust are oxygen (46.6%) and silicon (27.7%). Minerals that combine these two elements are called silicates, which are the most abundant minerals on the Earth. Eight main elements account for more than 98 percent of the crust’s composition. The earth’s crust contains most of the mineral nutrients our body requires. Oxygen is the most abundant element in both the human body and the earth’s crust. The human body is made up almost entirely of 13 elements. Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen make up 96% of our body’s mass. The other 4% of body weight is composed almost entirely of sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, and iodine. Silicon as an element in the human body (less than one percent) is not as prevalent as it is in the earth’s crust; however we require this small amount of silicon for bone development, and it is found in skin and connective tissue. Silicon dissolves in water and can be abundant in oceans and nearly all other waters. Microscopic single-celled algae, called diatoms, and some brown (Phaeophycota) and green (Pediastrum boryanum) algae require silica to build their cell walls.8 So we can see that the composition of living things is not simply a mirror image of the elements available to them." (THIS IS DIRECT INFORMATION FROM A CREDIBLE WEBSITE NOT MY INFO)(Source at bottom)

Please take a look at this websites chart to show how we were made from dust:

The Dead Sea Scrolls which were found in 1956 contained copies of the the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament. The Bible contains 66 books written over 1,500 years by 40 different writers but it tells one "big story" of God's plan of salvation that culminated in Jesus Christ. You can't even pass a secret around a circle of 12 people and get the same message at the end. We have proof that the Bible is true, for example Noah's Arks was found in 1977 with the exact, precise measurements that were given in the Bible. (Source at bottom)

This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits. (Genesis 6:15)

"The distance from bow to stern was 515 feet, or exactly 300 Egyptian cubits. The average width was 50 cubits. These were the exact measurements mentioned in the Bible."

Also it was found exactly where the Bible said it rested. On Mt. Ararat(Modern Day Turkey)

"and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."(Genesis 8:4)

You cannot tell me that this is a coincidence

More archaeological finds include:

Burnt city's of Sodom & Gommorah ( (

Red Sea Crossing w/ Chariot wheels when Egyptian soldiers drowned ( (

Please provide a better source for The Exodus argument



Con starts off this round claiming that mathematics suggests that the odds of life emerging by chance is extremely low.

This does not show that The Bible is not a fairytale, nor does it show that any of my claims about The Bible are wrong. I claimed that the modern theory of evolution shows that Man was not created directly as its own being, as The Bible asserts. Nothing about the mathematical probability of the emergence of life pertains to any issue regarding this topic or my arguments.

Also note that one of his sources, infidels, shows detailed rebuttals of both the mathematicians my opponent named.

Next, Con pastes a piece on the issue of man being created from dust. He uses an excerpt from an Answers in Genesis article to back his claims. I shall only be responding to credible sources, AiG is not one of them. I ask my opponent to give a credible source for man being created from dust.

Con then goes on to talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls. This has nothing to do with The Bible not being a fairy tale. He also says that The Bible was written over a long period of time by many others, ending in a concise story. I would like to note that much of the Old Testament was already formed by Judaism, and The New Testament was created using a canon in 3rd and 4th century A.D. Nothing Con states here furthers the position that The Bible is not a fairy tale.

Next, Con asserts that The Bible's narrative of Noah's Ark states that the mountain depicted in the story is shown to be true by a recent expedition. Con's sources indicate the same exact expedition discussed in the sources below:

These show that the expedition, in fact, is not reliable and has been thoroughly rejected in the field of archaeology.

Con goes on to claim that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as The Red Sea account, are accurate as The Bible entails.

Firstly, even if the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is true, there is no reason to think that this makes The Bible any less of a fairy tale. The great Greek myths still showed the truth of historical events, just with a mythical spin. The cities could have been burned by tribal peoples, which then gave credit to their God for the destruction.

Also, the sources given by Con on this issue are simply unacceptable. 6000years and arkdiscovery are extremely biased sources.

Finally, my opponent requests a more credible source for The Exodus.
Debate Round No. 2


I am really sorry to Pro and all supporters in the comment section, but I can't continue this debate. The end of the school year is coming fast for me and teachers are piling up homework to prepare for the final exam. I was forced to forfeit my other debate also just because I don't have the time. Please accept my apology, Pro thank you for being just an awesome opponent. I know from your comment that you are Christian so you are a very strong person to be able to be doing this debate. Voting will be determined by pro. He or she may take this as an automatic win, or just to vote based on posted debates. Thanks again for all the support and help in the comment section, may God bless you all!


Con, thank you for the debate.

However, Con has conceded the debate. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AlphaTBITW 1 year ago
Yes, it was.

Unless it was once a flat land that has raised at a continual rate of 7.5 feet per year, then it was around the same height now as it was 4,000 years ago.

Any sort of argument about the rise of Mt. Everest due to a catastrophic event has been put into the dirt by science.
Posted by BootsWithDefer 1 year ago
Was mount Everest that tall during the time? Given the fact that its still rising I'd think not.
Posted by AlphaTBITW 1 year ago
You know, it gets so hard to do this kind of thing...when you know that you can't go too far but you don't agree with your opponents assertions.
Posted by pyevchik 1 year ago

Please keep it PG
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 1 year ago
@The SubtleMechanic

How was that irrelevant when it's in the Bible? How does that not make any sense?
Posted by TheSubtleMechanic 1 year ago
Ummm What TheWordIsLife I'm sorry but quite frankly what the hell are you talking about you made no sense in any of that that was completely irrelevant
Posted by Canuckleball 1 year ago
The Bible is not a fairytale. Even a committed atheist, like myself, can see that the Bible is an anthology, with sections of poetry, law, history, and mythology. While the vast majority of events in the Bible did not happen, that does not make it a fairytale. It reads much more like ancient mythology than a fairytale, because while impossible events take place in the Bible, they aren't caused by magic.

If the debate were "Is the Bible's account of history accurate" things would be different. But whether or not you accept the Bible as fact, you should be able to accept that the Bible is larger, more complex, and very different in structure than a fairytale.
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 1 year ago
If you say the Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales, then what your saying is that slavery was just a fairy tale, 9/11 was just a fairy tale, terrorism is just a fairy tale, war is just a fairy tale, racism is just a fairy tale, along with everything else that is currently evolving around the world.
Posted by AlphaTBITW 1 year ago
vi_spex, if you wish to vote please do not vote based on bias. Thank You.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
Automatic win for pro, the bible is nothing but stories, not real
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
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: Concession.