The Instigator
Diagoras
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Crypto247
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The religious teachings of the bible are scientifically accurate

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,505 times Debate No: 18754
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (3)

 

Diagoras

Con

Whatever theist takes this may start right away. By "religious teachings" I refer to those about god and his miracles.
Crypto247

Pro

Ok I willl take this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Diagoras

Con

As mentioned by others in the comments, the BoP is on Pro. Because no argument was made, I have nothing to refute. Pro, please try to make some kind of argument.
Crypto247

Pro

OK then I will start. The bible is scientifically accurate because it's the bible. If it is in there then it is real. There is no proof against it right? So that means it is real because the bible says so.
Debate Round No. 2
Diagoras

Con

I see that I get the joy of debating the typical christian. The claim that the bible is correct because it is the bible is circular reasoning. Saying there is no proof against it so it must be real is an argument from ignorance. Crypto offers no logic what-so-ever to defend the bible.

Some cases where the bible contridicts science.

1) jesus walking on water. This would not be possible as the surface tension is not great enough to support human weight. jesus would need to have feet the size of boats to accomplish this. I would imagine that if his feet were that big, someone would have noticed and wrote about them.

2) jesus photocopying fish and bread. This is not possible because matter and energy cannot be created or destoryed, only change form.

3) Virgin birth. Many "virgins" have claimed this, it seems that one got away with it.

There are many more, but these are just some examples.
Crypto247

Pro

Crypto247 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
@MIG,
That was not the form of his argument.
He stated that the Bible contained it and what the Bible states is real.

More like the President said it is so, thus it is so.

It is assenting to the validity of an authoritative source.

Basically I did not see Con refute the authoritative source.
Con only called into question how certian "real occurances" could be scientifically explained.
All pro had to do is give a possible scientific explanation and Pro would have won.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
I completely agree with RA.
Can't go pro Diagoras?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Typical cowardly move to post a debate like this as con. It's amazing how so few atheists are willing to prove what they believe.
Posted by Diagoras 5 years ago
Diagoras
Still waiting for you to finish this up.
Posted by Crypto247 5 years ago
Crypto247
Convert now! Get saved by jesus! Convert or you will go to hell! Convert!
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
"There is no proof against it right? So that means it is real because the bible says so."

Jill: I heard an old ghost keeps stealing our socks.
Bill: How do you know?
Jill: Nobody can't prove that she doesn't exist. So therefore she does.

Classic logical fallacy.
Posted by Crypto247 5 years ago
Crypto247
Ok I will do this!
Posted by Spaztoid 5 years ago
Spaztoid
Unfortunately, the burden of proof is on Pro to demonstrate that the teachings were scientific, which is neigh impossible considering a.) These teachings of many popular religions pre-date modern scientific findings and b.) most of the teachings are centered around moral concepts which lack "scientific" backing as they are primarily faith based. One could try to show that modern scientific findings don't contradict religious teachings, however that too would be difficult as much of scientific research can be interpreted to suit any number of arguments, and there are many researchers whose goal is to disprove religion, meaning that there are many findings which lend themselves to being used to oppose religion.

The issue with this debate is two fold. Firstly, the instigator seems to be intent on either bashing religion or starting a flame war, and has thus created a debate in which the contender is trapped with no real hope of victory. Second, regardless of the instigator's intent, the scientific debate won't solve the philosophical one. No matter how one poses scientific evidence showing the creation of the universe, a theist can say "that only explains how God created the universe, and understanding thee mechanics doesn't diminish its miraculous nature;" and an atheist can always claim, "These findings clearly demonstrate how the universe was created, which eliminates the need for a God. Thus, without proof, there is no logical foundation to show the existence of God."
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Yes, but you really shouldn't try to win with semantics. I'm disappointed no Christian debater will take this. All one needs to prove is that no scientifically proven concept contradicts the notion of "god" or "miracles" as described in some generic "bible." It's not hard. I wish I had more time.
Posted by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
Can anyone think of a way I can win this with semantics, because I'm raking my brain here.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by byaka2013 1 month ago
byaka2013
DiagorasCrypto247Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Crypto is not skilled at debating
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
DiagorasCrypto247Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro stated that the bible was true despite no evidence or sources. he forfeited the last round so conduct goes to con
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
DiagorasCrypto247Tied
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: forfeit