Debate Rounds (3)
I accept. I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion on the topic(s) presented.
As the title of the debate is unclear, I would kindly ask that my opponent please provide a more specific claim that he/she will be either attacking or defending in this debate. For now, I will just address the points that were made in Pro's opening statement. As I do not know exactly what I am to be arguing in favor of/against, I will wait until further information is provided to present my own arguments.
"However in the bible is jealous, cruel, condones slavery, condones genocide, promotes misogyny, and is altogether an unreasonable person."
I won't refute the accusation of jealousy, as this does not seem to present in issue whether it is true or not. However I will take issue with the idea of God being cruel, endorsing slavery, genocide, & misogyny, and being unreasonable.
The Bible clearly displays God as a loving God. Here is just one example from 1 John 4:8:
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
We must consider slavery in the context of the ancient Hebrews, as opposed to the context of modern day slavery. The Bible talks about servants and masters; servants who are paid, and masters who are obligated to treat their servants with respect. It is disgraceful to compare this to, say, the slavery during the Civil War era of the United States, where slaves were treated as though they were sub-human.
"Just war" may very well encompass the so-called genocides that Pro talks about. I think my opponent would be hardpressed to find Biblical evidence of God commanding the murder of innocents. This idea is clearly prohibited throughout the Bible (i.e. The Ten Commandments).
As for misogyny, I will only say that gender roles were certainly more prevalent in ancient times. Whether this is a good or a bad thing I am indifferent, but either way, gender roles are a subject for another debate. I can say with complete confidence, however, that misogyny is not endorsed in the Bible. Misogyny is defined in the dictionary as "hatred of women". The most honored and respected figure in the entire Bible, with the exception of Jesus, is Mary. The claim that the Bible endorses the hatred of women, along with the previous claims that have been made regarding slavery and genocide, is unfounded.
As for the claim that God is "an unreasonable person", I can only say that this is relative opinion. What is unreasonable to one may very well be perfectly reasonable to another. I would not only consider God to be the most reasonable being there is, but I would consider God to be the most reasonable being that there possibly could be.
"Christians like to claim that the bible holds absolute morality, however in the ten commandments it is only the second half that actually addresses morality whereas the first half only addresses on how to worship god."
I would say that all 10 of the commandments address morality. If the God of the Bible exists, then I would think that worshipping him would be a moral act. In either case, Pro concedes that the Ten Commandments address morality.
"Morality isn't absolute and should be reasoned and changed the more we progress as human beings."
Nonsense. For any argument that Pro can provide in an attempt to show that we shouldn't believe morality to be objective, I can construct a parallel argument to show that we shouldn't believe the external world to be real. Furthermore, this quote demonstrates a contradiction in Pro's thinking.
Previously, Pro stated that the Bible condones a list of immoral acts. Now, Pro has stated that morality is not absolute. If morality is absolute, then there is no reason to think that anything (including the acts mentioned by Pro, even if true) is "wrong". I invite Pro to reconsider his/her stance or provide an explanation for his/her contradictory statements.
"For instance, the bible makes an absolute claim that lying is wrong and that it is a sin, however there are situations where lying can be justified."
Here, Pro provides us with another endorsement of objective morality, contrary to previous claims. Also, I would argue that there is no situation where lying is justified. This brings us to the classic means vs ends discussion, of which I am confident I am on the "right" side. But again, this would be a discussion for another debate (which I would gladly accept).
"In the bible it tells slaves to obey their masters, so by the bible's standards Harriet Tubman's escape from slavery is nothing more than a sin."
I have already addressed the issue of slavery, but I will touch on it again here. The Bible calls for servants to respect their masters, just as it calls for masters to respect their servants.
"Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, realizing that you too have a Master in heaven." -Colossians 4:1
I disagree with the laughable claim that Harriet Tubman's escape is a sin by Biblical standards. This is an obvious distortion of what is said in scripture.
"The bible is filled with contradictions within its own texts, it's also filled with contradictions with historical and archaeological findings, but most importantly contradicts science."
I invite Pro to provide a list of these "contradictions" that are found within the Bible. It would be difficult for me to refute something that doesn't exist, so I don't have much to work with here. Also, the idea that the Bible contradicts science is among the most palpably false views that one could possibly hold. How could it be any more evident that it is certain interpretations of Biblical text, not the Bible itself, that stand in contradiction with modern science? There is not a single scientific theory that I disagree with due to its conflict with the Bible, simply because there are no such conflicts in existence!
"I've heard the argument before that the reason why we see trees that are older than 6,000 years old, which is the chronology of the bible, however it is inconsistent with the fact that all those trees wouldn't have been able to survive the flood."
I would ask Pro to please quote for me the verse he/she is referring to which supposedly claims that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old. Once again, this view is a radical (and quite stupid) interpretation of Biblical text. I believe that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and I can see no conflict between this belief and the Bible.
I have addressed each individual point that Pro made in his/her opening statement. As we have seen, Pro has made several unwarranted assertions. I could not see a single piece of evidence provided for even one claim that was made by Pro in this round. Furthermore, nearly every assertion Pro made regarding the Bible and its interpretation was blatantly false. Pro contradicted him/herself by arguing that the Bible was immoral and then going on to endorse the idea that morality is relative, in which case he/she would have no moral standard by which to judge the Bible's morality/immorality.
Pro has not only failed to put forward any convincing arguments in favor of his/her position, Pro has failed to even identify a position in this debate. I invite Pro to please state a clear topic for this debate in order to guide the discussion. Furthermore, I ask that Pro take a stance on that claim and provide some kind of logical arguments with justification in the next round.
ifonlyblackheart forfeited this round.
I have nothing to add, as my opponent has failed to respond to my last argument.
P.S: Thank you for accepting this debate. I have looked at your past debates and they proved to be very interesting, so I also look forward to this debate. Now lets begin!
Update: I feel that you find this as a excuse , but I have school to attend so i did not have time to finish
#1 Position And Introduction
My position is that I don't believe that there is a god,so I'm a agnostic atheist. I would like you to also state what religion or side you are on(if you are ok with that). I will admit I forgot to state that before. I'm against the idea of a god , but I wont only believe what I said;therefore, if you give me a good debate I certainly will take that to account.
I grew up in a mostly Christian home. But when I was young my parents broke up, my dad being Christian and my mom not really caring about religion. So I lived with my mom and when a got older I questioned god and what is out there in this world. So being the curious one I am I asked her about the topic. She told me I could believe what I wanted (even atheism) and she wouldn't care. I said " What if I became a atheist" she replied " he has not been here for many many years,so I bet even he wouldn't be mad." That's when it all started for me. I bet now you wonder how I grew up Christian if my mother did not care? Well things happened and I ended up living with my father,step mother,and step siblings. There I felt being a Christian was the only option that I would be judged and even yelled at if I wasn't. I know this isn't true for all Christianity,but where lived(I will not tell because of reasons) there were lots of religious options. Luckily I had people to talk to about the topic.
I'm bringing up a big debate between Christians. In the Bible it states " Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" Leviticus 18:22 and also "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them" Leviticus 20:13. The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis does not explicitly identify homosexuality as the sin for which they were destroyed. Most interpreters find the story of Sodom and a similar one in Judges 19 to condemn the violent rape of guests, rather than homosexuality,but the passage has historically been interpreted within Judaism and Christianity as a punishment for homosexuality due to the interpretation that the men of Sodom wished to rape the angels who retrieved Lot. Most American members of the Christian Right consider homosexual acts as sinful and think they should not be accepted by society. They tend to interpret biblical verses on homosexual acts to mean that the heterosexual family was created by God and that same-sex relationships contradict Gods design for marriage and violate his will. Christians who oppose homosexual relationships sometimes contend that same-gender sexual activity is unnatural. I would like you to state what you think about this topic.
This is where you and the Bible contradict. Using data (from the bible), the average date of the creation of the earth is 4045 B.C. This still yields an average of about 6,000 years for the age of the earth. So please explain why you believe that the word is 4.5 billion.
I'd be happy to debate this topic with you again if you're interested. For now, I'll go ahead and follow your lead with regard to the structure of the debate (even though it's the last round).
#1 Position and Introduction
I believe that there is a God. I think belief in God is a properly basic belief, and as such requires no empirical justification. That being said, I think there is ample evidence of God's existence which outweighs the evidence in favor of atheism. As for my religion, I am a member of the Catholic Church. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and that He was resurrected from the dead.
I'm sorry to hear about your negative experiences with Christianity in the past with your family. It's a great shame that so many "Christians" don't follow the teachings of Christ, and so end up setting a bad example for others.
As for me, I was born and raised in a Protestant Christian family. I converted to Catholicism a little over 3 years ago after a great deal of soul-searching, research, and prayer. I'm very happy with my religion and I believe that the Catholic Church is the ultimate pillar of truth on Earth.
My view on this subject is that those with a homosexual orientation are just as able to live a Christian life as those with a heterosexual orientation. That being said, I think that homosexual acts are sinful only because these are acts that take place outside of marriage. In other words, homosexual acts are no more or less sinful than premarital sex, extramarital sex, divorce, etc. I find it a bit annoying that so many people are opposed to homosexuality yet have nothing to say about these equally sinful acts. Anyway, the point remains that I believe an individual with homosexual orientation, who lives a life of chastity, is able to be just as good a Christian as any individual with a heterosexual orientation.
The Bible gives no specific age to the Earth. It is biased interpretations of the Bible that put out beliefs such as the Earth being less than 10,000 years old, evolution not occuring, etc. The Bible itself doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth or how life came to be the way it is today. It is open for interpretation. This puts the Christian in a nice position. Whereas the atheist is stuck to believing in purely natural theories, the Christian is able to follow the evidence where it leads. Because of this, I feel I am justified in believing that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and believing that evolution is the best explanation for how life came to be the way it is today. None of the beliefs I hold contradict the Bible and none of the beliefs I hold contradict mainstream science.
Unfortunately, we weren't able to have much of a debate. As I stated earlier, I'd be happy to debate again if you're interested. Or if you have any more questions you can always shoot me a message. Thanks for the debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round and didn't respond to any of.con's rebuttals
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.