The Instigator
Commondebator
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
cheyennebodie
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

The Bible cannot be taken literally, and cannot be a viable source of evidence

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...
Commondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,042 times Debate No: 61358
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

Commondebator

Pro

In this debate, I will be arguing how the Bible cannot be taken seriously, and consists numerous logical fallacious to do so. I will also include on how the Bible cannot be a Viable source of evidence.

Please no swearing
No name calling
Be respectful
Have fun

Good luck
cheyennebodie

Con

By what argument you are about to give, no book can be taken seriously. All books are written by men.Tyherefore you should give all your reasonings solely on your own life experiences.
Debate Round No. 1
Commondebator

Pro

By accepting this debate, you disagree that the Bible cannot be taken literally. Doing so, you disagree to the title, and making changes during the argument will be considered unfair.

Here are a some logical fallacious from the Bible.

"When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons"-Mark 16:9

Once a human being is dead, he is dead. There is no coming back if there is a total chemical death. The only time when people can come back from dead is 4 minutes prior to the heart stopping. If doctors can figure out a way to revive the heart in 4 minutes, the person can very much be alive. If jesus was dead for 3 days, there is no way he can come back to life.

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."-Genesis 1:27. (Adam and Eve)

We know that these characters are not real and mythical because we do not have any evidence for them. 2 people are not enough to bring a population of 7 billion. There is not enough genetic diversity. Adam and Eve disproves evolution, and since evolution is a fact, we know Adam and Eve are mythical.

"Then the lord 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."-Genesis 2:7

Again, god cannot be quantified so we know this statement is false. There is lack of evidence. There is no biological way that plain dirt, can turn into a fully functioning man in one breath. "Dirt" does not contain the proper elements to create a human cell, let alone a fully functioning body.

"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive"-Genesis 6:19-6:20

It is said that Noah brought 2 of each species that living thing of flesh. That is completely mythical because a 450 food long wooden boat cannot possibly carry 2 blue whales and 2 of every other "living thing of flesh". Its is a physical impossibility. Furthermore, the titanic was 882 feet and made out of parts of metal and it sank. A wooden boat carrying 2 blue whales alone would sink, let alone 2 of each species

"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work."-Genesis 2:2

Again, since there is no evidence of god and he cannot be quantified, he does not exist, We know the Earth, moon, and sun cannot be created in 7 days. It is impossible. And since day and light was created BEFORE sun and moon, it is impossible. Plus it took him a longer time to create the Earth than the Sun"Which is irrelevant.

Furthermore, I would like to add that the Bible has gone through many changes. History can be modified and twisted by mankind. (Source-http://www.reclaimingthemind.org...) (http://www.greatsite.com...)
cheyennebodie

Con

You say the bible cannot be taken seriously. That is false. I do take it very seriously. I base my whole life on it. And I do not consider myself different. The bible just has given me a very different perspective on life.And I have never seen anything in human behavior that the bible did not clear up for me.
You say that a man cannot be raised from the dead. And yet God raised Jesus from the dead.And how do you prove he did not. You have to take by faith he did not. Since you were not there to see with your own eyes that he stayed dead.God says the carnal mind is at enmity with God , and is not subject to the knowledge of God. You, being carnally minded cannot believe it. But if you were to ever become spiritually minded, you would see very clearly.I believed that Jesus was raised from the dead in 1974 and have never had any doubts about it since.
You say Adam and Eve could not have existed because there is no evidence they ever existed. Of course not. There has been 6000 years of history that buried any evidence of them. Even a world wide flood.The house I grew up in has been torn down and graded over. There is no evidence it ever existed either. Just a memory.
And you say that 2 people over a space of 6000 years could not have produced that many offspring. Just to clarify that , it was 8 people left after the flood. That was 5000 years ago. If you were to take one kernel of corn on the first square of a chess board and doubled it every square, What do you suppose the number on the 64th would be. Off the charts.It was not but a few decades ago that there were just 5 billion. I seem to remember that in the early 50's I heard the U.S had a population of 180 million. Now that is almost doubled. And that after killing 60,000,000 in the womb. It has never taken man long to populate anything.
And again. You say that dirt cannot make a body. But if it was very well put together dirt, like enough of all the right elements put together. That would work very well.And for a being ( God) who operates on 100% mental capacity that would be no big trick . Now that body did not have life in it till God breathed and spoke life into it. Then man became a speaking spirit, housed in a material body.If the man ( spirit) leaves , that body will fall down and start to decay in a matter of hours. The life left to spiritual environment.And return to the dust it was made of.
Nowhere in the word does it say God told Noah to bring any fish in the Ark.And why do you think he had to bring full grown animals and birds in.I don't know how big the ark actually was, but it was sufficient. He did not have to bring in all the different cats and dogs. Just one of each species.

Here you are , a being operating on at most 5% of all available knowledge with only at most 20% mental capacity telling a being that operates on 100% knowledge with 100 % mental capacity what he can and cannot do. Does anyone else see what is wrong with this picture?
Debate Round No. 2
Commondebator

Pro

" And yet God raised Jesus from the dead.And how do you prove he did not."

I would like further evidence from your statement, for it to be viable. The Bible is a biased piece of religious text, written in a time of superstitions, where people had little scientific literacy. As I said earlier, the Bible has been rewritten and gone through many changes in history. How exactly can that be a reliable piece of evidence? Where is evidence for the Bible, and its numerous statements that have yet to be proven? Unless my opponent can not answer those questions, the argument rests.

"Since you were not there to see with your own eyes that he stayed dead."

I find it funny how my opponent uses this against me, when human biological limits are around 100 years to live. I am certain that my opponent did not live for 2,000 years, and he was not there to see Jesus' resurrection. So, using he's reply, how does my opponent know Jesus did rise back from the dead? Based on our knowledge, its a scientific impossibility to come back from the dead in 3 days.

"There has been 6000 years of history that buried any evidence of them. Even a world wide flood.The house I grew up in has been torn down and graded over. There is no evidence it ever existed either. Just a memory."

Actually, we can recover DNA evidence from the smallest tissues, to a full fossil. For decomposed bodies, we can work with the bones or teeth. Or, any tiny bit of hairs or any tissues left behind. (http://www.forensicdnacenter.com...)

If there was a world wide flood, how do you know it was god? How do you know it was not just melting snow from the ice age? Please provide further evidence for the world wide flood, and that it was the cause of god.

If an entire house is torn done, they could know it was your house by the blue prints and and leftover material.

" Just to clarify that , it was 8 people left after the flood. That was 5000 years ago. If you were to take one kernel of corn on the first square of a chess board and doubled it every square"

Yes, 8 people is not enough to bring a population of 7 billion either. Even 500 people wouldn't be enough to fully colonize another star system. There simply is not enough genetic diversity. You would need at least 10,000 people to colonize another planet, and maintain stability. (http://science-beta.slashdot.org...). If it is 5,000 years ago, then it is even more scientifically impossible. It is just too little of a time. You cannot compare a non-living thing, (kernel) to a living thing, with many chemical reactions taking place (human).

The reason why our population has sky-rocketed because there were 180 million people. Not 8 people. Plus, due to our better medicine, life spans have increased.

"You say that dirt cannot make a body. But if it was very well put together dirt, like enough of all the right elements put together."

Dirt contains gases, liquids and a myriad of organisms. Let me point out that the human or any other animal cell, is far to complex to come from dirt. Here are the list of cellular organelles:

Nucleolus
Nucleus
Ribosome
Vesicle
Rough endoplasmic reticulum
Golgi apparatus
Cytoskeleton
Smooth endoplasmic reticulum
Mitochondrion
Vacuole
Cytosol
Lysosome
Centrosome
Cell membrane

(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Dirt does not contain the proper elements or compounds to create a fully functioning cell. Then, how can dirt create a fully functioning body? I would also like to ask, what kind of dirt did god use? There are many kinds of dirt or soil on this planet.

"Nowhere in the word does it say God told Noah to bring any fish in the Ark.And why do you think he had to bring full grown animals and birds in.I don't know how big the ark actually was, but it was sufficient."

Actually, if you had read my reply, I never said fish. I said whale. Whales are nostril breathing species, and they are not fish. They are mammals and they breath air. If you did not know how big the ark was, how do you know it held all the grown animals and birds? My opponent admits he did not know how big the ark was, therefor the fact that Noah brought animals into the ark is considered false at the moment.

If you must know how big the ark was, it was 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft). (Source-http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Ark)

Let me point out that Blue whales are 30 meters in length and 190 tons. Two blue whales would sink a boat that big. Let alone 2 of each species. The titanic was 882 feet, made out of metal and it sank. (Source- http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Thank you for your reply con.
cheyennebodie

Con

You are very weak in your observations. Sure the house I lived in may have had blueprints, may not have . It was built before there were any permits.And there are not materials left. They were burned and hauled away maybe 30 years ago..And we do have a blueprint called the bible. And there was no reason to bring whales or any other creatures that can live very well in a flood, even one of that size.
Of course the bible is biased. God is very biased about what he did. After all, he was the one that did all these things. And don't you think that God who can do all these things can also keep his book intact with what he wants us to know?Your only arguments for all of these things is YOU do not think it can be done.You cannot know for sure God does not exist. Have you ever peeked past your own death and looked over there and saw for yourself there is nothing to look forward to. I dare say, you have not. So, you have to take by faith that God is not there.

I never said I was there. I take by faith that he did rise from the dead. I am pointing out that you have to take by faith that he did not rise from the dead also.

I will take this slow so you may understand it.We are both walking by faith. All faith is is confidence in anothers word that what they have said is true.You take the word of " scientists" that the flood did not happen. And I could bring up plenty of scientisits that will say there is plenty of evidence for the flood.I believe that the bible is God speaking to man.I have even found sea shells on the top of mountains here in Pennsylvania.

Did you fail math or something. Just take those 8 people. They had children . Now there are 24 , maybe 30 in just a couple of years. In twenty years that very well could have doubled again. So, lets say that every 40 years it doubled.Now that has been 125 doubles. Do the math, if you can. Just take the original eight. Double that every 125 times. I think you will get to 7 billion long before the 5000 years are up.

Maybe you need to rethink what you said about the kernel of corn being a non-living thing. I think you did not think that through, like you are doing with everything else in this post. And you are mistaken. The bible has been translated once from the original Hebrew and Greek to English. We have the original manuscripts carefully copied. We have today scholars to translate it accurately. You just don't like what it says.

And when I say dirt, I am talking about the elements that make up this planet. The human body has all the elements that make up this earth.Now how did all those things just happen to come together all in one place all at once all in the proper proportions And then life just magically enter it. If you do not believe in creation, then you must believe in magic. Nothing else fits.And you base your whole defence on your position on scientists that cannot even remotely make it happen.You have tremendous faith in people who have never created life.

You gave the list of all the " organelles " that make up cells. Then why not get all your wizard of smart scientists to put them together in the same proportion as living cells and make it come to life. Maybe it takes a certain kind of gamma ray, or the right chemical reaction. Because you could make a cell look exactly like a living cell and you will never put life in it.It will just sit there and do nothing, let alone reproduce into more complicated organisms.The faith you have in these scientists really makes me stand in awe of you. I could never muster the kind of faith you have. I do admire you for that.

This brings to mind what God said about you. " EVER LEARNING, BUT NEVER COMING TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH.'
Debate Round No. 3
Commondebator

Pro

"You are very weak in your observations. Sure the house I lived in may have had blueprints, may not have . It was built before there were any permits.And there are not materials left. They were burned and hauled away maybe 30 years ago."

There are many records that your house was there. Even though it was burned down, we can still collect some material from your house, along with construction data when your house was being burned. (Although I must say, sorry for your loss) .

"I never said I was there. I take by faith that he did rise from the dead. I am pointing out that you have to take by faith that he did not rise from the dead also."

Definition of faith: strong belief or trust in someone or something

There is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection. It doesn't require belief to know to that he didn't, since there is no viable evidence.

"I will take this slow so you may understand it.We are both walking by faith. All faith is is confidence in anothers word that what they have said is true.You take the word of " scientists" that the flood did not happen"

How are we walking by faith? Science isn't a belief structure. Science relies on observations, evidence, theories, and inferences. You don't say in science "Well, it seems evaporating water is defying gravity, therefor god." You need further evidence and proof to know why the process is happening. Sure, you could say that you believe in scientists, but science itself is not a belief structure. You could experiment what scientists say, and you could see it yourself.

"Did you fail math or something. Just take those 8 people. They had children . Now there are 24 , maybe 30 in just a couple of years. In twenty years that very well could have doubled again."

If you live in the U.S, and look outside, you will see multiple races and different traits of personalities. If we all came from one single family, then why are there different blood types? We should have similar physical features and personalties if we came from one family. In order have that many different physical features, we would need at least 10,000 people from different families. That way, we would have different traits, personalities, and maintain a steady population with many genetic diversities,

"And when I say dirt, I am talking about the elements that make up this planet. The human body has all the elements that make up this earth."

It is true that we originate from this planet. However, this "dirt" you speak of, has to be extremely wet, and it has to be under the right conditions to form microorganisms that can evolve into multicellular organisms. It doesn't require a magic man do to so.

"if you do not believe in creation, then you must believe in magic."

Definition of magic: " the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces"

God is a supernatural being. There is no viable evidence for god. The idea of god doing things, with is own will, (magically) is more "magic" than the science requiring factual evidence.

"Maybe it takes a certain kind of gamma ray, or the right chemical reaction. "

For your information, gamma rays is the thing that destroys cells. Gamma rays come from the sun (our main light source that god created by magic, and gives us cancer).

"Because you could make a cell look exactly like a living cell and you will never put life in it.It will just sit there and do nothing, let alone reproduce into more complicated organisms."

Actually, all you really need to do is, give it a right amount of time, under the right conditions, and it will start duplicating itself using mitosis. If you put pressure on that cell, it will slowly adapt to the environment, becoming more complicated.

The phrase "ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth" can be most certainly debatable (on another topic) and it can be applied to both sides.

Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://science-beta.slashdot.org...

Back to you con.
cheyennebodie

Con

I am telling you, there is no evidence that the house I grew up in is there.And if a record was put in the ciourthouse, then that is the same argument I have about the bible being evidence that Adam existed, The bible was written maybe starting 2000-2500 years after the flood. We have records of people that lived that long ago.So that is my recorded evidence.

And I was thinking about how long it would take to populate the earth starting with just 8 people. 4 men and 4 women.I had 4 kids within 11 years. Would have had more if we had stayed married.But from our union there are now 13 grandchildren, and I great grandchild. And would have been even more if one of my kids had had children. That is 16 people from 2 in just over 30 years.And for most of history, that would have been an very low number.Now even if you gave that number to those eight, that would have been 56 from those 8. Now those 56 each reproduced 16 children in just 30 years, now you have 886 plus the 56.. That is just 60 years after the flood.Now you still have 4940 years to go.Why can't you figure this out. Is your mind that closed to just simple math.

And once again I will say this slowly. God told Adam to take birds, animals, and everything that creeps on the earth. Earth is not water. God is not operating on less than 20% mental capacity like you are.He kind of figured during a flood, even one of that magnitude, fish would survive. Or anything else that lived in the water. You really are beating a dead horse to keep bringing that one up.

And you say that Jesus could not have been raised from the dead because scientists say he couldn't.Just because they cannot do it, does not mean that our creator can't.That is still a lame argument. There are different blood types, but you cannot tell who each type came from. Or what race.The bible does say that man is of one blood.And we do not know for sure what diet and climate did to people. And as far as different languages, God did that.To slow down the evil that was building up at babel.

So, you and the wizards of smart do have an idea what started life. Just the right pressure and the right time and the right composition, life would begin. Well, lets hop to it. But you do have to have faith in that theory to even try.Start your osmosis or whatever else you may come up with to create life.Wet dirt did it, according to you.So, until you do , then my conclusion is you are not yet as smart as wet dirt. Or any other combination of elements that started the first amoeba.

That has to really disturb you spontaneous, unintelligent, No purpose start to life, people.You and all the other wizards of smart people have no clue whatsoever how life started.And never will. I do have faith in that statement.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Commondebator 3 years ago
Commondebator
@Gordon, I believe you should address that to both sides.

I will try to have more evidence when needed.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
GoOrDin
Okay I just read it, @Commondebator, although your name is very witty. You presented nothing to back up your claims. You sound very juvenile.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
GoOrDin
I am neutral in this debate.
the Bible is what it is.
the Bible can literally be taken for what it is, and what it has always been intended to be.

however, the Bible CAN be a viable source of information if the information is proven accurate or can be supported by various witnesses. It can be supported in both these manner, as well as historical record.

The Bible not being taken literally is an absurd idea, because that cannot be proven. There is no means to prove it is not literal? of which portions do you make reference? There are clear situations where the narrator is not attempting to sound literal, but his message is. "Pluck out the eye that makes you sin." ~ a direct reference to friends/associates who delight in sins, Or personal perspectives that are leading you down a negative path. No one expected to pull out here eyes if they were in fact in any understanding of God.

what other examples would you have presented.

I will credit Cheyenne the win for taking it upon herself to defend this debate, regardless of her knowledge concerning the Style and function of the Biblical scriptures ( as I have not read the debate.

Factually. as the third day of creation is scientifically proven (the planet expanding from within itself when the energies of light were first introduced to the material world.) the bible is reliable and literal.

All un-literal portions of the Bible are logically not so and for both function and purpose regularly followed up by clarifications.
Posted by Commondebator 3 years ago
Commondebator
@LubricantSanta

I will go over my debate once again, and fix and mistakes for my upcoming debates.
Posted by Commondebator 3 years ago
Commondebator
Thank you for your advice @InnovativeEphmera

I will keep that in mind in my upcoming debates.
Posted by LubricantSanta 3 years ago
LubricantSanta
I should have been the one to accept this. There are SO many good arguments the con could have made and instead he argued crap.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
RFD (1/3)
This was a weak debate from all sides, and while I am voting Pro, it is by a small margin. The debate was not so much won as lost.

Conduct easily goes to Pro. Con repeatedly made statements like "I'll slow down for you" and acted as if a specific piece of scripture was written exclusively for Pro. This is in bad taste and is poor sportsmanship. In future, have some respect for your fellow debators.

S&G goes to Con. Pro, the plural of 'fallacy' is 'fallacies'. 'Fallacious' is the adjective.

Arguments were resoundingly poor on both sides. I'll touch on a few examples.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
RFD (2/3)
- The corn kernal thing is absurd. Come one. If you start with one corn kurnal (which is supposed to represent humans) how is it supposed to have children without a second kernal? There will then be three people. Population will then rise exponentially, not arithmetically, as you pretended to calculate. Not only did neither of you point out that population actually rises exponentially and that to calculate an arithmetic increase is absurd, but neither of you pointed out that people also die. You got to your massive numbers because after 5000 years your figures predicted that the first people are still alive.

- Con is abismal at mathematics and it was in poor conduct to call Pro bad at maths when yours is comparable to that of a 3rd grader. As I have already indicated, you're doing the wrong calculation for population, because it has to be exponential and not arithmetic. But hell, why don't we see what would happen if you had actually finished your computation? You got up to this point: 60 years after the flood, there are 942 people (886 + 56). I wanted to see what would happen if you applied your calculation for 6000 years (that is, EVEN more than your estimate of 4940; I'm being generous). We take (using your arithmetic approach) 942 people in 60 years. To make six thousand years, we need to find out how many lots of sixty years (because it's 942 every sixty years according to you) it will take to get to six thousand. So all we need to do is multiply by one hundred (100 stages of 60 years = 6000 years). So 942 x 100 = 94 200. You're trying to tell us that there are 94 200 people on earth? Right now? In fact, more than a thousand years from now, that will be the population? Did you not finish your calculation because you know it's the wrong thing, or is it because you didn't know how to do it? This is NOT the way to calculate population.How dare you accuse your opponent of having their mind closed to simple maths?
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
RFD (3/3)
- Con concedes that evolution is true. Apparently you only need two of each species, not all the different species, on the ark. Ok, so where did all the species we see today come from?

- Con made some bizarre comment about their old house. Seriously? You do know we've found dinosaur bones and stuff. Those are substantially older than your house. And the supposed period of Adam and Eve. Please. If you're telling me we can't get evidence for what happened 30 years ago then there's no way you're going to convince anyone about 6000 years ago.

- "You have to have faith that he did NOT rise from the dead". That's true in the same way that YOU have to have faith that a flying purple people eater isn't hiding inside your shower at this very moment. There is nothing that we can disprove the existence of. Nothing. Why do you make such a big thing about not being able to disprove god and jesus? You also can't disprove unicorns or fairies at the bottom of your garden and not believing in those things does not require faith because it is the default position.

- Con spurted out some weird "20% of brain capacity" thing. Obviously incorrect, humans do not use only 20% of their brain, irrespective of what you've heard in popular fiction movies.

- Con said you can't tell who the blood came from, though you can tell blood types. Also a contemptable statement. How do you think forensic evidence is collected from crime scenes then?

- Con defers to, "I'm telling you!" This is not an argument. If you make a claim you have to demonstrate it to be true or provide sound reasoning for your position.

Sources to Pro because Con never used any.
Posted by UsernameSoHardToFind 3 years ago
UsernameSoHardToFind
I am seriously thinking that I should do my three debates. Anyways, here's my 'vote:
Con argues with the principles in the Bible, whose exact reliability is being questioned. Con cites no sources and is very subjective during the debate. In the last round, Con simply says 'I am telling you, there is no evidence that the house I grew up in is there.And if a record was put in the [ciourthouse]sic, then that is the same argument I have about the bible being evidence that Adam existed, The bible was written maybe starting 2000-2500 years after the flood. We have records of people that lived that long ago.So that is my recorded evidence.' Con's source is no other than him/herself. Additionally, Con refers to the Bible as their sole source of arguments, whose viability of being a source of evidence is being questioned.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
CommondebatorcheyennebodieTied
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: con mostly made....incorrect statements, to be nice.
Vote Placed by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
CommondebatorcheyennebodieTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.