The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

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 3 votes the winner is...
linate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 557 times Debate No: 60032
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

linate

Pro

the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

here is the text,which argues the flood was world wide, and wiped out every creature alive that was not on the boat.

"The clearest verses that show the extent of the flood are Genesis 7:19-23. Regarding the waters, "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished"birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

despite it being at least plausible to ignore the literal langauge of the story and say it was a local flood, a lot of christians insist on calling it a world wide flood, despite all the contrary scientific evidence.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org...

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
see also Luke 17:26

clearly, the scientific evidence indicates the flood being global and killing all the animals, was false.

the best a person could argue, is that the story was a myth. and the people of hte new testament didn't necessarily say that it was true that it was a global flood, and that animals were all killed. but they did, however, give credence to the story of noah, a story that is basically a myth. even if the flood wasn't worldwide, it is still said to be in the OTestament. that alone is discrediting.

------------

more reference to noah in the bible: (Isaiah 54:9; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 11:7)

""This is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you.

"because they formerly did not obey, when God"s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

"5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;"

"7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
Aerogant

Con

It's allegorical - you can't disprove poetry you nitwit. It's people like you that give people that simply cannot accept people's blind faith over logic and reason a bad name, because you don't understand that there is more beauty in this book when you are honest with yourself as a non-religious person than if you were a religious person - let go of your hatred towards the book, and take it upon those that use it as a tool for power and control.
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

it's described as literal in the bible, and the bible characters treat it as such, you nitwit. it's people like you who twist the bible to points it shouldn't be taken.... we can call it a metaphor, but that doesn't mean the bible is wrong overall. or, we can call it a metaphor, but it doesn't mean the bible is otherwise correct.... this example shows it has flaws. either way you take it, you are being dumb about it.
Aerogant

Con

It's a story. Taking it anymore than that makes you a fool.
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

it's a story that's described and treated as literal, by the bible itself and those in it, and many of its most ardent followers. we can call it just a myth or just a story, but that doesn't do justice to how it's otherwise been treated. not recognizing that makes a person a fool.
Aerogant

Con

If you know it's not literal, but argue with people that don't, then you're a fool for trying to reason with fools.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Who needs a religion, when you have the Universe? Everything you say, think and do does not amount to anything compared to the Universe - walk outside, get struck by lightning; there goes your entire life's experience.

There's no need to treat people like you do; separating them because they do not agree with ideas you have never proven yourself. These people exist - that's proof in its own right; it's silly to take something you can't prove and place it over the existence of those you can prove. These people already live in hell, by treating them like lesser beings, you're just being a hypocrite towards your religion by burning people with the same flames as your hatred.
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
bigtown
no, it's the lowest form of wit actually, and I'm quite good at it :-)
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
bigtown
you by your very words and actios are doing that exactly, or don't I deserve any respect as an individual now? We're all looking for truth.

Ok is truth relative?
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Sarcasm is the sign of only fear.
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
bigtown
please stop, no, no no more, I can't stand it anymore......:-)
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
It is not information you have, words do not always contain truth. You want to see truth in the words you were given, when there is a reason why they do not shape this world with technology, physics, chemistry, so on - they do not know what they are talking about; you do not understand they do not know what they are talking about.

Now, there's no need to keep defending them for the sake of being "different" as if you're "fighting for a cause" - we need to stop picking people apart and forging segregation between Man with our Ideas, when Man is real and Ideas are metaphysical.

Your condescension is the result of failing ascension.
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
bigtown
Hi, so that's why your username is what it is. I have given here a valuable source of information if anybody would like to read about it. I haven't insulted you or anybody in any way, and yet just personal insult from you. Are you self-aware? Have I brought out the hate and corruption in you? I think I have oh dear:-) I was adding some info to the debate and you attack me for my belief. Wow

Sorry, so you have the arrogance to use this man's wise words, mmm maybe you should pay heed to what you plagiarize. You are a hypocrite of the worst kind. It's so funny. Never commit yourself.... oh dear you're committed in your belief that's true. Haha I can't stop laughing.

By the way pantheists are illogical people. As proven by above :-)
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
For an example; I am non-religious. I do not need a religion, as I have the Universe. However, allegorically, I admire the bible. It's one of the best books in mankind; it painfully disturbs me that people like you are willing to succumb to the lie behind the bible, rather than the poetic sight it gives you and how it allows us to metaphysically relate to this entire Universe in a way that consequences are no longer existent - but people like you that believe in the literal version of the bible bring out the hate and corruption of man.

A wise man once warned us to take life like we would take a flash of lightning - never commit yourself to anything.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Bigtown, not understand Science doesn't mean that Science was blown out of the water. You clearly disregard Science, not as to say that you are being critically careful with what you are disregarding, but like someone who trashes other people's projects when they, themselves, fail to meet those standards.
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
bigtown
and the animals that don't breathe via nostrils. Ever heard of the hydroplate theory (Walt Brown Phd), that will explain everything about the flood you wanted to know. Yes it did happen by the way. A lot of so called science isn't really proper science, as they don't want to hear other theories, some that might prove the Bible true. They can't have that at all. Take a read, most informative. It blows plate techtonics out of the water, as it were!!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
linateAerogantTied
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: Con failed to prove that the story of the flood is only allegorical.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
linateAerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con, don't insult. Pro proved flood impossible and Bible literal, discrediting the Bible.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
linateAerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 showed that the story was unlikely to be true, discrediting the "truth" of the bible. Con responded with insult, and in the final round devalued the debate itself. A clear win on conduct due to the insults (though I'd caution Pro not to "sink" to the level of insults in response), and a clear win on the resolution for Con's failure to address it in any substantive fashion. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.