The Instigator
Dave_82
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The Bible is both illogical and immoral.

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 4 votes the winner is...
KeytarHero
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,538 times Debate No: 20876
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (4)

 

Dave_82

Pro

I will be arguing that the bible is both illogical and immoral. I would prefer that my opponent believe the bible front to back, as my evidence is scattered throughout the whole book. I look forward to a good debate.
KeytarHero

Con

I accept your debate. To be clear, I accept as inspired the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.

I look forward to Pro's opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Dave_82

Pro

I welcome my opponent to a respectful and intelligent debate. To open things up I will offer some verses that support my point. The first of which being Deuteronomy 22:20-21 and 22:28-29. Those are great examples of the bible being immoral, and as far as illogical, I will start with the most obvious. Noah's ark was not only too small for all those animals, but also there is the fact that there would be some physical evidence of a boat that size. In conclusion of the ark, if the entire human race had come down to Noah's family, the human race would have died off from incest producing genetically damaged offspring.
KeytarHero

Con

I thank Pro for instituting this challenge. He has made the contention that the Bible is both illogical or immoral. However, he has not issued a standard of morality by which he is judging the Bible. While the Bible may not conform to some peoples' ideas of morality, the Bible can be shown to conform to its own morality and not contradict it. And as for it being illogical, I will show that the Bible does conform to logic as we understand it.

Pro has made a few arguments here. I would ask that in the interest of space, he either keep these arguments and rebut my objections to them, or drop the arguments altogether if he wishes to make new ones.

Morality

Pro has used Deuteronomy 22:20-21 and 22:28-29 as his examples of the Bible's alleged immorality but has not made an argument as to why the Bible in these passages is immoral. As such, I have nothing to respond to and ask that he explain why he considers the Bible immoral in these cases.

Logic

As for his claims of the Bible's illogic, he uses Noah as an example. Was the ark really too small to carry all the animals? Let's find out.

First, let's look at the dimensions of Noah's Ark. Noah was instructed to make the ark 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. A cubit was about 18-20 inches. [1] This made the ark about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. It was basically a huge rectangle, which also made it very stable on the water. The total volume inside the ark was about 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would have fit 569 modern railroad stock cars.

Now, not every single type of animal would have been brought on board, but only those "kinds" of animals. For example, the canine family includes 14 genera of dog-like animals including coyote, dog, wolf, etc. Only two dogs would have had to be brought on board then after the flood, all the types of dogs would branch off from the one saved by the flood.

Many writers have used different numbers as to how many animals were actually on the ark. If we use a conservative figure of 40,000 animals (that's 35,000 as used in The Genesis Flood by Doctors Morris and Whitcomb, plus additional animals accounting for those that have gone extinct), we can see that the ark easily could fit all the animals. Consider the previously mentioned railroad stock cars. Each stock car can hold about 240 sheep. Most animals were not very large, and the ones that were larger were certainly represented by young. All 40,000 animals could have easily fit into the ark, considering that 569 stock cars could fit into it. Each stock car has a capacity of 2,670 cubic feet. Which means that one sheep (one animal) would require 11.125 cubic feet of space. So we have 40,000 animals, times 11.125 ft^3 of space, equals 445,000 ft^3, which means that only 29% of space on the ark was used up by the animals. [2]

As far as the physical evidence, the Scriptures indicate that Noah's ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat (Gen. 8:4), which is in modern-day Turkey. Some have tried to search for the ark, some have been kidnapped while trying, and for the most part, expeditions are not allowed by the government of Turkey. Some have even claimed to find possible evidence of the ark. However, it is unlikely that after all this time any physical evidence of the ark would remain.

Finally, when God created Adam and Eve, he created the perfectly (Gen. 1:26-31). By the time of Noah genetic degradation hadn't yet occurred to the point where having incestuous relations was forbidden. It wasn't until the time of Moses that laws against incest were first instituted in the book of Leviticus.

[1] http://www.answersingenesis.org...;
[2] http://www.biblestudy.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Dave_82

Pro

I didn't know I needed to define right and wrong, I figured we all knew the difference, but OK. The standards of morality I will be using is our modern day understanding of right vs wrong. As to the bible verses I used I thought their immorality was apparent. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 talks about if a man sleeps with a woman who is not his wife, then they are to be both stoned to death. The second one, and one of the worst in the bible says that if a man rapes a woman then he just pays her father 50 pieces of silver and he takes her for his wife and can never divorce her. Now I wouldn't think this would need any explanation as to why this is immoral, but I will offer one. If a woman is raped, her attacker is a source of much anguish, and yet this passage commands her to spend her life with him. Also, a rapist deserves to be punished, not rewarded with a wife. As to Noah's ark, I don't have the time to verify and work through that math, so I will concede that point. As to the incest, though, genetic degradation has been a result of incest since the beginning of the human race. It has nothing to do with gods permission. One final point for this round is that the idea of original sin in and of itself is immoral. What right does your god have to punish a person for the sins of their father? How is that the action of a just god?
KeytarHero

Con

"I didn't know I needed to define right and wrong, I figured we all knew the difference, but OK."

The problem is that people ascribe to different standards of morality. While I believe in objective truths, there are also subjective truths. By having you define your stance on morality it lessens the chance that I will create a strawman argument against you through misunderstanding of your position.


Also, you seem to be arguing from commonly accepted morality. While most people know the difference between right and wrong, there are disagreements on the punishment for wrong actions and how they should be handled.

For example, most people believe that rape is wrong (and it is), but I believe that rape should be punishable by capital punishment. Someone who doesn't agree with capital punishment would be in favor of a less severe punishment (such as life imprisonment). The Bible teaches that sexual immorality is wrong and in the Old Testament, specifically, the physical punishment for such is severe.

Morality

Pro uses Deuteronomy 22:20-21 and 28-29 as examples of immorality in the Bible. However, the Bible is talking about punishments involving adultery and rape.

God considers sexual sins to be especially heinous and deserving of death (which is to help deter most from attempting to commit those sins). This is because it violates God's plan of the family, that a man leave his parents to marry a woman, then they bear children and raise a family. Loyalty is utterly important to God and aside from violating God's plan for the family, adultery violates the trust one spouse has for another. This particular sexual sin was punishable by death.

The Bible teaches that adultery is immoral, it just has a much more severe penalty in Biblical times than it does in our country. Although there are probably still some countries today which punish adultery by capital punishment.

Regarding Deuteronomy 22:28-29, this is a prime example of someone misunderstanding Biblical teaching and jumping to the conclusion that it is a contradiction or simply an immoral teaching. Here God is condemning the act of rape and offering the punishment for it. If a man rapes a woman, he is to pay the father a fine, but he is not forced to marry her. Instead, the woman may consent to marrying the rapist and he cannot divorce her for any reason, no matter how much below him she was or how unpleasing she might be to him afterward. This is why "he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." [1]

Pro has also offered a new argument against the morality of the Bible.

The thing is, God does not punish someone for the sins of their father. Deuteronomy 24:16 says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." No one dies for the sins of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve committed the original sin which put a curse on all creation, including humans (Genesis 3). So while all of creation, including us living today, feels the effects of the original sin and we live in a sinful world, each person is responsible for their own sins. We are not punished for Adam and Eve's sins, or Rahab the harlots, or Satan's, or anyone else's.

Logic

Pro has conceded the point about Noah's ark having ample room to carry all of the animals.

I didn't argue that genetic degradation has to do with God's permission. Adam and Eve were created perfect, with perfect genes, as I have shown. By the time of Noah, genetic degradation had not occurred yet to the point where it was no longer a good idea to do so.

I will also respond to Pro's point that he left in the comments, since he had intended to argue the point here:

"I forgot about the physical evidence rebuttal before I sent my argument through. While it's true that most of the wood would have decomposed, some of it would have surely petrified. All they need to be convincing is one slab of petrified gopher wood that could be dated back to that time through the process of absolute dating."

Actually, the only thing it would do was to lend credibility to the story by showing that gopherwood was in use in Noah's time, which I believe isn't really in dispute anyway.

[1] http://www.blueletterbible.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
Dave_82

Pro

Con makes the claim that I have misunderstood and misinterpreted the bible, but I have to argue that he is the one who has made that error. He made the case that in the case of rape, it becomes the woman's option of whether or not to marry the rapist, but this is simply not true. Nowhere in the following verse does it even mention choice, not to mention that when you read a more modern translation, such as NIV or something equally "modern English" then the phrase actually becomes "they will be forced to marry". I don't know what Bible your source was citing, but I think it was more his own translation, because in all the versions I've read, I've never seen what he claims.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 KJV
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
As to what con said about the sins of the father,
Exodus 20:5 KJV
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
Admittedly this is concerning the specific sin of worshipping another god, and the next verse talks of the mercy shown to those who do love God, it doesn't change what the verse says. Also, you didn't show that Adam and Eve were created perfect, just that the bible says so, which proves nothing. On that note, if they were really perfect before the apple, then why did they eat it? Isn't low willpower an imperfection? The whole creation story is one of the most illogical that I have seen in all the mythology I've read, (creation story being planetary creation up to when they were exiled). One final point on the illogic of it is simple. Where did Cain's mystery wife come from? The only people on the planet were him and his family. The land of Nod should have been empty.
KeytarHero

Con

Remember that Pro's contention is that the Bible is both illogical AND immoral. In order to win this debate, he will have had to prove that the Bible is both. However, he has not proven that the Bible is either, especially proven in the fact that he has dropped several arguments.

Morality

Here Pro has dropped the argument from Deuteronomy 22:20-21 altogether, thereby conceding the point to me.

Regarding his second argument from morality, he has not shown that my argument is incorrect. In fact, when the Bible says "they shall be forced to marry," as I have already stated, if she wants to marry the guy, they are forced to marry and he cannot divorce her at any time, no matter how annoying or unlovable she becomes.

Regarding the sins of the father, the verse that Pro quotes does not disprove my earlier argument. Notice God says "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children." In other words, the same sins the fathers were committing, the children were committing and therefore, they were as guilty as their parents were.

Logic

Here, Pro drops the arguments from Noah altogether. Not only did he drop the argument about the ark not being big enough to hold all the animals, but he also drops the argument about genetic degradation from Noah on to future generations.

I don't understand why Pro doesn't accept the argument about Adam and Eve. After all, this entire debate has been about what the Bible says, whether it is illogical and immoral. I do not have to "prove" that Adam and Eve were perfect, just that the Bible is not being illogical in claiming that they were. In Genesis 1, everything God created was perfect. It wasn't until Adam and Eve sinned in Genesis 3 that all of creation was cursed and they no longer lived in a paradise, and according to the book of Romans, chapter 5, verse 12, through that act of sinning humans were now going to get sick and die.

But now Pro makes a fundamental misconception of perfection. In order for Adam and Eve to be considered perfect, there must always be the possibility for sin (or wrongdoing), for one could not be considered perfect if one were incapable of doing wrong. There was nothing magical or mystical about the fruit on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but God forbade Adam and Eve from eating of it because the possibility of sin was necessary.

It's not about low willpower. In fact, it wasn't until the serpent met Eve in the garden that she started to consider eating of it. She was deceived by the serpent but no less responsible for committing that sin.

Additionally, Pro says that the whole creation story is one of the most illogical he has seen in all the mythology he's read, but makes no argument to support his claims and doesn't even tell us how many creation stories he's seen. In actuality, the Bible's account of popular stories (e.g. Creation, The Flood, etc.) actually tends to be the more down-to-earth version of the events.

Finally, Pro offers one last argument, regarding Cain's wife and the Land of Nod. Adam and Eve had three sons which were each specifically named in Genesis (Cain, Abel, and Seth). However, they had other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). In fact, Genesis 5 gives the genealogy of Adam and his children and future generations. However, the early books of Genesis are not specific as to periods of time. The Earth had been populated by the time Cain murdered Abel and was exiled. In fact, in Genesis 4:15 God puts the mark of Cain on him, "lest anyone should find him and kill him." Obviously the Earth had already been populated because Cain was concerned someone would kill him out of vengeance for murdering his brother.

So where did Cain's wife and everyone else come from? Apart form Adam and Eve having children, Cain married his sister. Incestuous relationships were required back then in order to populate the Earth, specifically because there were no other people to marry and procreate with. It wasn't until much after the time of Noah (another argument Pro dropped) that genetic degradation had become a problem and God declared incest off-limits.

I have adequately disproved Pro's assertions. Not only did he drop several arguments, but I have shown that the Bible is neither immoral nor illogical. Remember that his contention is that the Bible is BOTH immoral and illogical. If he has failed in either one of those, he has not fulfilled his burden of proof. However, he has thoroughly failed in both. Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Case in point, Ricky went and voted against in me in other debates I've had. I didn't post them in the forums because I know that I didn't do as strongly on those debates.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
I didn't ignore the forced marriage issue, I covered it. Just because you don't care for my explanation doesn't mean anything.

Again, I don't mind losing, as long as I do it fair and square. Ricky and others are obviously biased.
Posted by iPwnuNOW 5 years ago
iPwnuNOW
LOL Biased Votes
Posted by Dave_82 5 years ago
Dave_82
Wow, Keytar. You posted in the forums because Ricky voted against you? Talk about immature and being a sore loser. And yes, you can still be a sore loser when you happen to be winning. You keep bringing up the fact that I dropped the ark, yet at every turn you ignore the forced marriage issue. Talk about a double standard.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Wow. What are you, ten? I'm now officially finished discussing this with you.
Posted by Ricky_Zahnd 5 years ago
Ricky_Zahnd
Your mom votes like that.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Additionally, as I indicated I don't mind losing debates as long as I lose fair and square. I have lost debates. The problem is you did not vote fairly and so I posted it in the forums. I also indicated that if someone doesn't believe you voted incorrectly, they should still vote so as not to let this end in a tie. The problem is, you believe that your position is so strong that it can't possibly be argued against, and when someone does you don't look at the merit of their arguments you believe they are faulty because they disagree with yours.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Ricky,

You are constantly proving that you are the sore loser here, which is evidenced by finding my other debates still in their voting periods and voting against me. The reality is I argued better than Dave, but you didn't award me points which I should have earned because it would have put me in the lead. You are the one who is voting based on your biased.

Secondly, I deftly refuted Dave's arguments about the ark and he dropped them which showed that he couldn't refute my arguments. You must vote based on how the debate goes, not based on what you personally believe (which is how you vote).
Posted by Dave_82 5 years ago
Dave_82
Keytar, you talk about how I dropped my arguments, but you did the same thing. Take your claim that the woman has a choice about marrying her rapist. I showed in the bible where she in fact doesn't, and you never refuted it. That alone proves how immoral the bible is, because only a sycophant would FORCE a woman to marry her rapist, and according to the bible, that's exactly what your god does.
Posted by Ricky_Zahnd 5 years ago
Ricky_Zahnd
Oh, keytar, sorry I didnt see you down there. Your refutation re: morality in cases of rape justice seems to imply that women would love to marry their rapists. Which I guess is true, cause rapists are all such .,/+*^DREAMBOATS^*+\,. Also you were really reaching when you refuted the Ark point, and failed to cover a lot of ground in justifying that particular whopper. as for illogicality, there's plenty of that wrapped up in the morality arguments. davey seems like he was pretty strapped for time here (or something) so he let a lot go, but there were always more (and will always be more) examples at the ready.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by JoshBrahm 5 years ago
JoshBrahm
Dave_82KeytarHeroTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Dave_82KeytarHeroTied
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 needed to prove that the Bible was both illogical and immoral. He never did make a constructed well defended case for either. Con was very thorough in refuted pro. Pro was not. Con argued that every person holds different moral views, thus it requires a well argued standard for morality. Pro did not delve into this enough. Pro drops the Noah's ark argument and con completely refutes all of his arguments about logic. Con used sources when needed. Pro needed to use sources but did not.
Vote Placed by Ricky_Zahnd 5 years ago
Ricky_Zahnd
Dave_82KeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: While Dave_82 did not organize his argument particularly well, the points of evidence he submitted were sufficient to demonstrate illogicality and immorality. Keytar's refutation seems to suggest that since the bible dictates morality, things in the bible that we see as immoral are actually moral and we are the ones with warped morality. This is circular logic, and not a effective refutation.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Dave_82KeytarHeroTied
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: pro dropped a lot of arguments, but looking back the con had enough proof to show how even though the bible is a little contradictory, it is not necessarily immoral, and so the BOP was met.