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

The Bible is Ridiculous

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 757 times Debate No: 114447
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




First round will be why you think the Bible is NOT ridiculous.


Hello I accept this challenge and I will demonstrate why the bible is far from being 'ridiculous'
Debate Round No. 1


But you didn't demonstrate why you think what you do. That's what the requirement of the first round was.
Okay, I'll just say why I think the way I do.
Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe God is real. Some of the things that are said in it though just seem absolutely ridiculous once you read it. It makes sense for people to be atheists because of these things. A talking snake, a person living again and flying into the sky, a person giving birth yet still being a virgin, and a guy healing people with simple actions and/or words. It just doesn't make sense logically and scientifically.


I-/ About the storyline of the bible

The entire story of the bible is about the fight to eradicate the sin. The first human disobeyed so god had to intervene by making an alliance with human. He did set some laws that were a beginning of justice but not as perfect as he wanted in the old scriptures. God did all that in a pedagofic and progressive matter. God will after the fall was to save humanity from generalized damnation so he did that was remedies. In the new scriptures he perfected the law since humanity was ready for it. For that he sent his son that give us the perfect law and to pay the debt of sin for us by dying on a cross

II-/ About the supernatural events

You cannot say that a miracle is ridiculous since science can't explain it. God obviously is above the natural rules that he set on his creation. Thus, it is invalid to affirm that because science and natural logic can't explain the events in the bible are false. Science goal is to determine the limits between what is within the natural laws and what is above the natural laws. It is because the miraculous facts that are described in the bible that are above nature that it can prove that the bible is divine. It is perfectly logic to say that in order for us to believe god would have to give us some proof, so if he acted just in a way based on the natural laws we wouldn't have any proof of the divine caracter of his message. How would you believe Jesus is god if he only did things an human could do?

So I think logicaly science role would be limited to just affirm that these miracles are not reproductible using a natural law of the world. If these miracles are reproductible then it shows that they weren't real miracles and thus false. If it cannot be explained it is a proof of the divine nature of Jesus and in order to not believe you need to deny that these miracles occured.
Debate Round No. 2


I never once said that what happened in the Bible was false. All the stories sound ridiculous once you take a step back from everything. We are reading stories that sound as if they were made up by a child that were written approximately 2,000 years ago. Think about it from an atheistic viewpoint. Doesn't it seem kind of strange?

The miracles SEEM ridiculous for the most part. If science could explain it logically, I would have no trouble thinking that the stories seem perfectly normal.

Just because something can't be explained doesn't mean it's proof of God. If a unicorn suddenly burst through my window then suddenly grew wings and flew straight into the sun then does that prove that there is a higher power? Technically yes because I can't grow wings but you know what I mean.


1) Well I could say the exact same thing for modern science theories when you think about.

Evolution theory: I have nothing against micro evolution but the macro evolution model is basicly a fish turning over time to a human... Without even talking about some of the biggest hoax of science about human/monkey such as the Piltdown man.

Big Bang theory : From nothing so no matter comes an explosion and then matter appears and everything is organized into our universe...

2) I see what you mean if something is unexplained it isn't the proof of god in itself of course. It could be lack of scientific knowledge about it etc. But the real difference with this situation and the bible is that:

- The bible prophetized that the messiah would do some miracles
- JC said he was god himself and clearly stated that he was doing these miracles as a proof of his divine nature

So it is obvious that the miracles of the bible have a purpose and a strong causality link to god.

Then there is 2 possibilities: These miracles were true, these miracles had the purpose to prove that jesus is god = Jesus is god.
These miracles were false= Jesus is not god.

Since these miracles are in the bible, nowadays scientist can't verify that these claims occured, the only thing that they can do now is testing if the historical claims of the bible can be reproducible. Nowadays scientist still can't give life back to a dead person and consider it as being way past the limit of science, so the highest miracle of the bible = resurrection still hold his ground.

Conclusion: Unexplained event by itself is only a clue to a higher power but is not enough. Unexplained event in the bible is the way that god want to attest his divine nature thus providing a strong causality link.

Debate Round No. 3


If the Bible is fake, then that means what you just presented me with would not be proof. To atheists, the Bible isn't proof for God. So arguing that the Bible is true using the Bible is ridiculous, as is arguing God's existence and any prophecies using the Bible. You see how this works?


Well here is my logic :

A= Science nowaday know for sure that bringing a human back to life when his brain is clinicaly dead is impossible.

B= The bible states that if Jesus is resurrected the entire bible system is true, according to the bible Jesus rose from the dead so the bible is true according to the bible inner logic.


In order to say that the bible is not true you need to affirm that the factual/material evidence of resurrection is false. So here could be alternative explanations :

- The disciples were lying and their testimony is false as a result
- The disciples were hallucinating


But now science is irrelevant to deny the highest miracle of the bible resurrection because like I said if science claims that resurrection is impossible it then actualy give credit to the bible that define miracle as an event that is above the common natural laws.

Got it ?

Debate Round No. 4


Well, here is logic in general:

A: Your own personal logic and how you define it is irrelevant. Logic is logic.

B: Correct, science has not figured out how to bring a person back to life. That doesn't mean that God exists based on that factor.

C: For your point "B" please refer back to my argument for round 4. Proving the Bible with the Bible doesn't make sense.

Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of Christ, meaning that's it's up to us to believe or not. To those who do not believe, the stories of the Bible seem absolutely ridiculous and illogical.


Unfortunately Pro is stating that bible is ridiculous but yet cannot understand simple logic and thus prove any good rebuttals.

I am going to explain my argument once again in a detailedmanner for Pro to understand so he can find an answer for himself or for another debate.

1) Syllogism 1 : According to the dictionary a miracle is an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

Science claims that the resurrection of a dead body is something that surpasses natural power of our physical world

So, we can affirm that resurrection is a miracle according to science.

Conclusion: At this step I am only proving that resurrection is a miracle not that it necessary occured.

2) Affirmation : Pro claims that I am trying to prove the bibe with the bible.

Rebuttal: That is what pro didn't understand, I stated that the bible is true within the bible inner logic since jesus did rise from the dead according the bible. So the bible is considered within himself true.
That is where we can come to what could prove that the bible is true in an universal matter that will be syllogism n°2.

3) Syllogism 2 : According to the testimony of the bible, the miracle of resurrection of Jesus was a proof that he was the son of god and that his message was true.

The apostles did certify that Jesus rose from the dead

If the claims of the apostles are true. Then the bible is necessarly divine and jesus is the son of god.

Conclusion : Pro needed to refutate the apostles claim by using historical or logical argument but he didn't do it since he didn't understand my argument so vote Con.

Thanks for the debate.

Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by lilrose 3 years ago
1)The Mosaic Law commanded the Israelites to dispose of sewage in a covered hole "outside the camp." (Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) If there are no latrines or other sanitation systems nearby, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends: "Defecate at least 30 meters [100 feet] away from any body of water and then bury your feces."
2) If they touched a dead animal or human, the Israelites had to wash with water. (Leviticus 11:27, 28; Numbers 19:14-16) Hand washing and bathing gets rid of germs and viruses.
3)Lepers back then were quarantined until a physical examination confirmed that they were no longer contagious.R03;"Leviticus 13:1-8.In the early stages of an epidemic, isolation and quarantine control infectious diseases."
4)Some, for example, believed that the earth was supported by four elephants standing on a big sea turtle. the Bible stated: "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing". (Job 26:7) Many thought that the the earth was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe. . . .
Isaiah40:22"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" The concept of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until the Renaissance. When the bible speaks on scientific matters it is accurate.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
"But, as a bible reader i would like to say that its utterly impossible for the most widely distributed book in the whole world to be ridiculous".
What if Harry Potter was the most widely distributed book on Earth? Would that mean it's not ridiculous?
Give reason why it is scientifically accurate. I never have and likely will not think the same unless presented with scientific evidence.
Posted by lilrose 3 years ago
Ridiculous by definition is something deserving or inviting derision or mockery. You claim the bible is ridiculous. Granted,you are entitled to your opinion. But, as a bible reader i would like to say that its utterly impossible for the most widely distributed book in the whole wide world to be ridiculous. 90% of the worlds population own a bible. The most read book in the world is the Bible. The Bible far outsold any other book, with over 3.9 billion copies sold over the last 50 years.
Further, the bible contains timeless advice and it is scientifically accurate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 17djones 3 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: OK, so both had good spelling and conduct, and neither of them really used any "sources", per say, so it came down to arguments. CON had more convincing arguments due to the fact that PRO was making claims without proof or logic. So that is where my vote stands.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.