Is the Bible a reliable basis to have a debate on?

Asked by: jacksch
  • Bible is truth

    Bible is total truth and all wisdom, it is far older than the universe, and in it all science is contained. All thoughts, are contained in it. Every fool atheist should read the psychology of William James to get really smart. Then, they will know the complete false standing of heathenism. All thoughts are electrical waves.

  • I am a Christian.

    I believe in God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You may not, and I am sorry for being so outright, but you are wrong. The reason you don't think of it as a reliable source is because you don't believe it was made by God. If you do not believe in the bible, if you do not know God, then I would not expect you to trust him. I pray for all you lost souls.

    God is real. I cannot prove it, but I do know it. Say what you will, but the Bible Is God's word, purest and true.

  • The bible is translated tooooooo much

    The bible has been translated by many rich people who sought ever-more power.

    More importantly, the bible contradicts itself too much to be worth while.

    Any book that tells us to kill our neighbors for working on Sundays is a very sad tome indeed.
    Few who use it to argue have clear goals other than arguing

  • How can your interpretation consent grounds for a debate?

    Currently, all that the bible is based on is fictional and non-fictional interpretations of different events in history, all that portray a connection to a greater being; God.

    But, since the bible isn't something that can be debate factually on, and doesn't have substantial proof backing up it's roots to attack its foundation (Yes there are some skeptical ounces of 'proof' regarding a 'head of jesus' imprint, but this is not enough quantity or quality to sustain factual proof of the bible's legitimacy), how is there any way to debate over what the bible states?

    Example: You're reading a rulebook. This rulebook is set in stone. Both of you follow the rulebook. The rulebook hypothetically says do not touch elephants. Your friend disagrees, and has his own interpretation that the rulebook really means do not touch elephant-like creatures, such as a mastodon in the past, and says that elephants really can be touched without breaking the rulebook.

    You can see here that there is no means that they can truly debate because it is simply a test of fate. There is no legitimate way to prove either has a consistent basis to prove their claim is correct.

    There is NO way that you can have a factual debate about something that is purely interpretation-based, and has no true proof of what is real and what is not. You cannot change what is real and what is not in the bible as these events are only perceived to the beholder, meaning that only the person reading the bible itself can decide what it means.

    There is no solid ground that the bible stands on, so it should not be a solid ground to have a debate on, therefore it shouldn't be used as proof in this debate round either. Only proof stating that the bible is a 100% Word-by-word majority confirmed scientifically confirmed basis for proof or record, with no faith or beliefs involved.

  • Using the bible for a reliable basis to have a debate on is illogical.

    No. You can not use the bible as a reliable resource in debates. It is pure circular logic to say it is a reliable source simply because someone believes it is true. Believing in something with out solid evidence of its objective truths makes it worthless to any kind of argument based on fact.

  • No, it's not at all.

    No religion can use their spiritual book to be able to prove their religion - it's inane. For someone outside of religion to convert and believe in something such as Christianity [or any religion for that matter], the theist must provide facts and evidence that are applicable to both the non-theist and the theist.

    Another way to look out at is like this: the Bible has not been proven true in any account, if it has, then it is coincidence. There are so many contradictions and violent undertones in the book that it shouldn't even be allowed as evidence - not to mention that religious people tend to use only the good inside of the book instead of naming the bad.

  • In most cases, no.

    Is "Grimm's Fairy Tales" a reliable basis to have a debate on? Only if the debate is completely theoretical, and centered around the fact that it is completely theoretical. Otherwise, no. Using the Bible as proof of any kind, evidence of any kind, or a moral basis of any kind is simply ridiculous.

  • Not a chance.

    Unless you are specifically debating the morality of the Biblical Yahweh, the Bible is not a valid source of information, either scientific or historical. Genesis never occurred, scientific evidence contradicts a 2 person population bottleneck, a global flood, a 6,000 year old Earth and a talking snake. Exodus - Joshua never occurred, archaeological evidence shows that the Israelites were indigenous to Canaan and simply adopted the sole worship of a brutal Midianite war god.

  • Too many stories

    Its not even gods word if there even is a god. It was written by different authors but they weren't even in the same time period. You cant say that it is a reliable source because it isn't. There are loop holes, contradictions, and the stories just don't make sense.

    So God, our father, loves us and sent his son which is actually himself in human form to earth to redeem the people of earth...And now if you do something really bad, your father that loves you with all his heart sends you to burn in a fiery pit of doom?

    That's just one upon many irrational things of the bible

  • It does not contain facts

    ...Unless it is used to cite something in history that is also recorded in the Bible. To say god says this about this so I am right only proves your existence in god. Which is half the reason people bring it up in the first place: so god will notice them and pat them on the head.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-08-21T02:04:45.070
I'd say Yes and No. On a Bible based vs Bible based debate, yes. Any other combination including Bible, no.