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

bible presuppose sense, therfore its false

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 537 times Debate No: 78824
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




to the christian, you have been in a dream your entire life, i am but an imaginary figment and every word of the bible you have read you have written with your own mind unaware that you are in a dream... or, sensory experience is true, and therfore the bible is false, as you dont sense its content but have to imagine it

life is true, so can be is not life


There are multiple gaping holes in this argument.

First, there is no coherent logic behind the text of the pro's speech. The pro says that the Bible is a figment of our imaginations, as if suggesting we subconsciously made it. Many people claim that the Bible is unaccredited, unwarranted, a piece of fiction. But this is supported by cold, hard facts: You, as the pro is using "you," did not make the bible in any circumstance. The "you" the pro uses, which refers to the voters who shall decide the ballot of this debate, can't have made the Bible, as there are versions of the bible far older than the voters here (eg. the Kings James Version).

Second, it's highly unlikely the writers of the Bible wrote the bible as if they were in a dream. If that were true, the Bible would be an incoherent mess no one would bother to read. Clearly, this is not true, given Christianity is one of the world's leading religions.

Third, the very title of the pro's argument does not relate to the actual text. "Bible presuppose sense, therefore it is false"? The argument claims that the creators of the Bibles' senses was not in a complete conscious state. Clearly they contradict with each other.

Fourth, there is absolutely no statistics, evidence that supports any of what the pro says. While this is attributed to the Bible frequently ( I will argue that the Bible's negative connotation resulting from this lack of statistics is unwarranted), this is definitely attributable to the pro's arguments, and deserves to serve as a drawback to the pro's claims. From what I can see, not only is there no logic behind the construction of the speech, there is nothing that supports it-- in other words, it is GROUNDLESS. Clearly, what is driving the pro to make this claim is an unwarranted, unsupported bias of the Bible.

This leads me to my primary offcase: a Kritik of the bias against Christianity

In mainstream culture, the Bible is interpreted as this piece of fiction which has no link to the world. This has led people to criticize it, along with its believers, as a bunch of idiots who are wasting their time. One major contention they frequently bring up is a lack of statistics, evidence that ties the Bible to the world.

This criticism can be seen all over the Internet, ranging from caustic Youtube comments to rants on Tumblr, as well as this very 1AC.

But all of these rants-- the pro's 1AC included-- have one major thing in common: they have not truly felt what Christianity is. They have taken a glance at it, not even opened the Bible, and then continued to blast it. All of these posts nurture a world in which we do not closely examine issues, and give "YES" or "NO" stamps on, and move on. This culture of shallow examination has broad levels of consequences, ranging from not caring about what goes on outside our bubble, to not giving caring when such deep issues (eg. Ferguson) comes to impact us. While it doesn't have that much of a tangible impact (like lives lost), I believe this loss of analysis is just as poisonous to us as citizens.

Thus, I propose an alternative. The alternative is to embrace the Bible not so much as a set of facts listed out on a textbook but as a set of moral values, something that's BELIEVED, not TAUGHT.
Debate Round No. 1


im saying, if you are a christian denying senses are real, and then saying the bible is real when it presupposes sense.. is inherently flawed, how could you tell if the Words are not from your own mind while you are in a dream

is it true that men created the bible or was it advanced aliens?

there is no evidence that senses exist? i dont understand your fourth point

the bible is written to have some substance, the fool is easily fooled

a wise man choose's to believe in talking snakes witihout evidence any day of the week..

the claims of the bible are clear.. no need to read it

how is your alternate countering my claim in any way.. lying to yourself is an option that isnt going anywhere, i feel like being tricked into believing santa was enough..


The order is Kritik, then Case.

First, it is clear the pro does not understand the alternative. The alternative isn't to lie to oneself. It never advocated for entrance into Christianity, if that was the idea the pro was trying to suggest. The alternative was to look at the Bible not in the perspective of a textbook, but as something to believe. Second, the alternative is responding to the pro's claims by changing the grounds of the claims, the inherent presumptions of the claims. Thus the alternative solves the pro's claims.

Aside from that, the pro has completely conceded the majority of the Kritik. The pro has conceded that the 1AC was a rant against Christianity, unwarranted on account of not deeply understanding what he was criticizing. The pro has conceded the majority of the impact, and the Uniqueness as well. Therefore the Kritik should be evaluated as is at the end of the debate.


Even if the pro tries to clarify what his 1AC is saying, it still doesn't follow much of a clear flow. Even under his clarification, there are key flaws:
1) Since when did Christians ever say senses were not real? This not only is stupid, this further cements the Kritik's (might I add, conceded) link.
2) What does it mean to "presuppose sense"? This has no relevance to the majority of the pro's argument.
3) The pro assumes we are in a dream when we read the Bible. I don't need to elaborate on how stupid this argument is.

The pro's second point doesn't sufficiently respond to my own point, that the Bible's creators most likely were not dreaming when they made the Bible. It asks if the makers of the Bible are "bible or advanced aliens." There is ample evidence that the makers of the Bible were men. Thus they have conceded that not only the voters did not make the Bible, but the makers of the Bible were not dreaming. This takes out what appears to be the pro's internal link.

The pro's third point questions my 4th point, which I shall gladly explain. It says that the pro's claims are not supported at all by any statistics of any kind, it's a rant basically. I also used this 4th point as a segway to my Kritik. Nowhere did I say that there is no evidence senses exist.

The pro's 5th point simply doesn't relate to this entire debate. It's adding useless fluff.

6th, yes, that is correct. a wise man chooses to BELIEVE, which I have said in my Alternative to be DISTINCTLY different from a textbook, thus cannot be held up to the same standards (not necessarily of lower quality, just different). This the pro has also conceded.

7th, claims of the Bible are clear. That is just not true, at all. 1200 pages of Bible cannot be abridged to 1 or 2 sentences.

The pro has also conceded that the title doesn't really relate to the rest of the argument. At this point, not only is the pro's internal link gone (the voters did not make the bible, and the makers of the bible didn't dream), but the main thesis of the pro's argument is gone. It is clear the con should win-- whether it be from the massively conceded Kritik, or just how shredded the Pro's case is.
Debate Round No. 2


buy bull presuppose sense

belief=Be lie, as i dont know is true

what the hell are you talking about.. i dont have a warrent?

hmm you are right about the headline, i was just trying to claritfy by what i mean when i say bible presuppose sense.. not make an absolute statement.. i meant to say that the claim that you can only read the bible to get the truth is clearly false when its based on senses being false in the first place..

i think this is christian apologetics or presuppositionalism that makes these claims

to claim sense are false totally invalidates the bible

you have conceeded all my points therfore i win and the moon is made of cheese becasue i just said it btw


At the end of this debate, it is clear that the con has won this debate. The pro has not really contested much about the Kritik, rather the pro aims to extend his own arguments rather answering mine. Therefore the Kritik goes uncontested throughout the round. This means the Kritik outweighs the case, thus the con must win. Moreover, the pro has done nothing to answer my case attacks, choosing-- as I said before-- to extend, his case is shredded to pieces. Even if the pro wins that "the bible claims sense are totally false invalidates it", that just gives a link to the Kritik, further strengthening the link that has REPEATEDLY been conceded.

On the Kritik debate, the only answer he has on the kritik questions the "warrent" section of the alternative. What makes his (and many Youtube comments) rants-- as I call "unwarrented" is that the authors of such rants did not really look into what Christianity really was. Not only was this largely uncontested, attributes of this argument can clearly be seen throughout the pro's speeches, where he makes blatant, illogical assertions about christianity, like how "every word of the bible you have read you have written with your own mind unaware you are in a dream...".This is basically screaming "LINK!!!!!" Lastly, the pro strangely chose not to respond in the alternative debate, which means he concedes the alternative solves the case. Not only does the Kritik outweigh, it also solves the case.

On the case debate, he largely extends. He also claims I "conceded all [his] points" but clearly this is false. Upon examination of my second speech, detailed responses to each and every point will be found, plus observations of concessions of the pro.

The negative tries to place a new twist on his argument, adding that "reading the bible only to get the truth is clearly false...". First, this argument was added late into the debate, no new arguments should be made in the final speeches, thus this argument should not be counted. Second, my fourth point from my first speech answers this, that there is no clear statistics or proof this is so (which I might remind you, the pro has conceded this point). My first point also answers this (plus generally kills the entire case) that this case follows no coherent structure (this the pro has also conceded). Aside from these few remarks, the pro does nothing else, literally giving me the ballot (not to be rude). Therefore, the pro's case basically is dead. Whether it be from the case, the Kritik, or both, clearly the con has won this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
of course you are right. No religions. No talk about religions. No thoughts about religions. And they are not. Life is.
No votes have been placed for this debate.