CreateDebate


Debate Info

136
48
Hang onto every word Beyond Comprehension
Debate Score:184
Arguments:84
Total Votes:204
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Hang onto every word (59)
 
 Beyond Comprehension (44)

Debate Creator

Thewayitis(4071) pic



How can one take the Bible literally and be against it?

It puzzles me how one can take the Bible literally and then be an atheist.  To believe that the words are true and yet believe the subject is not.

 

Hang onto every word

Side Score: 136
VS.

Beyond Comprehension

Side Score: 48
11 points

Goddamn you're a weirdo.

How can one take the Bible literally and be against it?

I think anyone who believed the old testament literally at least should be against this god character just from a human aspect, whether they believe in a god or not. The guy was a douche. That's one way to be "against" it I suppose.

As for your atheist fetish, it's simple.

1. Believe that whomever wrote the bible meant for it to be literal.

2. Read the bible.

3. Be terrified by the amount of violence and the childish nature of this supposed god.

4. Be "against" it as a rational human.

Like, a better question is, how on earth could you be so confused by such a rational point of view?

Even if you disagree, how can you not understand the simplicity of it?

Really the only way to be "for" the bible would be to either "not" take it literally, or to be too dumb to decipher it, or to simply not care to ever read it and follow some other religion of your own head and call it whatever Judeo-Christian religion one is claiming.

Side: so weird
3 points

1. Believe that whomever wrote the bible meant for it to be literal.

Except that's the flaw in the reasoning, somewhat.

The Bible was not written to be literal towards us.

It was written to be a brainwashing tool to herd ancient peoples.

I doubt the Catholic Church brought the books of the Bible together as they did because they believed it literally. I'm pretty sure the Papal States just realized that they would rule all of Europe for hundreds of years because everyone else would believe the Bible literally.

Side: Hang onto every word
2 points

I tend to agree. I wish there were some way to know for sure but I suspect it's a combination of both insane rantings (revelations for instance) and purposeful manipulation of human behavior, mostly for power but to be fair in some instances to actually benefit people at first as in:

"Hey, these idiots keep fucking their sisters and we have all these retarded kids... what should we do?"

"Well they're too dumb to realize it's the fucking their sister part that makes a retarded kid, shoot, half can't figure out it's the sex that turns into a kid 9 months later... er, let's just say there's some scary person in the sky who will burn them if they keep fucking their sisters."

At some point even the useful bits have been twisted for pure manipulation purposes, but I'm sure there was some goodwill in some of it.

It would be interesting to figure out what was purposefully manipulative, what was genuine, what was pure insanity taken entirely too seriously.

Side: so weird
2 points

I'd ask how anyone can read the bible and not be against it, it takes some seriously tinted spectacles.

Side: Hang onto every word
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

An atheist that takes God's name in vain, what a surprise.

As far as me being a weirdo; You know what they say, "It takes one to know one."

Your last paragraph, I couldn't agree more. The same can be said for anybody that says the Bible is illogical for the same reasons. "Really the only way to be "for" the bible would be to either "not" take it literally, or to be too dumb to decipher it, or to simply not care to ever read it and follow some other religion of your own head and call it whatever Judeo-Christian religion one is claiming."

Yet this wasn't the case in the following debate: see link. Most of your atheist friends said the Bible was illogical. Be careful who you call dumb, you maybe in that group.

Supporting Evidence: Bible logical or illogical (www.createdebate.com)
Side: Beyond Comprehension
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

As usualy you're missing some vital, simple and obvious connection.

Which is why I and just about everyone you argue with believes you must have some weird minor insanity or autism or something.

One can believe the Bible is literal, but literally wrong. Like, if I say "The sky is literally red" I'd be wrong, literal, but wrong.

I could also say figuritively "the sky is grey" - The sky may not be literally grey, but I may be figuratively saying "the sky is grey" for any number of reasons, like some tragedy just took place and I'm trying to be poetic or something.

In either case, whether I'm right or wrong has no bearing on whether it is literal or figurative. They are not mutually exclusive in any instance.

So you see, the Bible can be literal and illogical and false. It can be figurative and illogical and false. It can be literal and logical and true. It can be figurative and illogical and true... etc, every combination.

Again, the weird thing is not this debate itself, the debate is simple.

The weird thing is how you can possibly not understand such a simple thing and still function in society.

Truly, I'm not being flippant. It's a marvel.

Side: so weird
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

iamdavidh, It is mystery how there is five radical anti-religious people here and you got five up-votes. Probably just a miracle.

Side: Beyond Comprehension
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
5 points

Only five radical anti-religious?

That sucks. Oh well.

Take heart, unlike radical religious, radical anti-religious don't go around blowing things up, burning people at the steak, or damning people to eternal hellfire.

We just kind of laugh at how completely insane people like you sound sometimes.

Now, you start getting the radical religious on you about being weird, that's when you have to change your phone number and go into hiding. They're a bloody thirsty bunch them.

Side: so weird
1 point

It's appalling how you employ argumentum ad hominem so blatantly. Such a statement does nothing to support your stand whatever. You have not provided any logical arguments to show that iamdavidh's replies are irrational to believe.

Side: Hang onto every word
0 points

Why not make that seven, I gave him an upvote, and I'm sure he's received some downvotes too. Perhaps from a few radical pro-religious people?

Side: Beyond Comprehension
4 points

Christians often tend to cite the Bible as proof of the claims made within the Bible, ranging from the existence of God, to Jesus' status as savior to the flood etc. In many cases, this is the only evidence they provide. If this is their tactic, and if we don't believe in the Bible, than it is up to us to point out errors, contradictions, and what-have-you that negate the Bible's place as a verifiable source. Note that this is not typically used to disprove God, per se, but to invalidate the Bible itself. If it is the all-true word of God, than we should not find errors. If we find errors, it is not the all-true word of God, you are going to need to provide better evidence. Pretty simple.

At no point are we claiming veracity of a literal interpretation of the Bible. We are directly pointing out selected reasons WHY we don't.

Side: Hang onto every word
4 points

Christianity: One woman's lie about having an affair that got seriously out of hand.

Side: Hang onto every word
3 points

We don't take the bible literally... that's kind of the point.

Atheists, like Jews, aren't Christians because they don't believe that what the new testament is claiming is true.

Some Atheists, such as myself, believe that poets and philosophers helped put the bible together. It was much like the mythologies of Greek and Roman times, but preserved in one large, official, formalized book.

If Plato had gotten his way, HIS Republic would have eventually had put together the works of poetry (depicting our Gods) to represent the Gods fairly and accurately. All that preservation could have easily been put into one book in a certain order, depending on what period the epics portrayed. An organized and formalized book would be seen as the official beliefs of the people of the Past, and could have continued to have been believed around the world if the Greeks wanted to spread these stories as Truths and Facts.

I don't believe that this is what happened exactly, but I do think of it as a reasonable possibility. The bible was put together, and there were left out scrolls and doctrines that were left out and not believed to be the true word of God (for whatever reason, it is uncertain). The bible was preached around the world to be true. People devoted their lives to that bible.

Atheists don't believe in any of the religions that claim that God exists. That is the point in being an Atheist. If you don't believe in God, there is no reason to believe in a circle of thought that says that God exists.

And I don't know who put the bible together. But if they meant it to be stories alluding to absolute truth, it's the same as to what the Greeks and Romans did.

Side: Hang onto every word
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

When somebody that doesn't believe in God uses words in the Bible in attempt to prove God doesn't exist; This is what I'm talking about and it is attempted in most religious debates here. An atheist quoting the Bible, what a ironic turn of events.

One cannot use something they deem as false (the Bible) as valid proof that God doesn't exist, because the evidence they present is already false by their own account.

Side: Beyond Comprehension
ThePyg(6743) Disputed
5 points

I don't use the bible to disprove God. That's not how it works.

I use the bible to show Christians how stupid their beliefs are.

Side: Hang onto every word
Conro(767) Disputed
4 points

Again. Reductio ad absurdum. Proof by contradiction. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp. Process: assume negative of what you wish to prove (i.e. the bible is true); find contradiction between initial assumption and known fact; therefore assumption is wrong (i.e. the bible is false).

Side: Hang onto every word

Uh what? Atheists don't believe a word of the bible. What you are talking about are Diabolists and Luciferians. They are Satanists that believe in the Christian bible but choose to follow the devil.

Side: Hang onto every word
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

See above dispute. Many atheist do this .

Side: Beyond Comprehension
yamancool63(17) Disputed
5 points

Atheists tend to take the Bible literally because it is supposed to be THE BOOK. The book that Christians get their morals from, the book that they worship.

Now, if you take one part of the Bible saying that Jesus loves everyone from the New Testament, and you take one part of the Bible saying homosexuals need to be put to death, and you look at it from an objective point of view, it seems a bit absurd on the surface.

How can you say that this part counts and not that? If biblical teachings were law (especially OT ones), there would be chaos, murder, rape, etc. You could rape a virgin and then give her father 50 pieces of silver for her hand in marriage.

Many Christians believe that their God and Jesus are this benevolent being, and that all they do is for a purpose. The Bible they claim to worship says differently. If you take a look at the OT god, he looks like someone who deals out punishment because it's fun, and not good for the human race. It's illogical to claim belief and ignore half the shit that your religion is supposed to be founded on.

Side: Hang onto every word

Once again, this is one of those times I agree with you.

I don't understand why people, religious or not, take the Bible literally.

There was only one time it was supposed to be taken literally, and that was thousands of years ago when ancient people's needed to take the Bible literally so that they could survive.

But we aren't that crowd anymore.

Why does anyone at all treat the thing like it's supposed to be literal when we aren't the crowd it was intended to be taken literal by?

Side: Beyond Comprehension

Ok this point takes some thinking.

Think back to when the Catholic church came into power. Now, how many people do you know were there to see what they did? Nobody, that's who. Now this being said how is anybody to know that the Catholic church, known to be corrupt in days of old, didn't change the bible to say what they wanted it to say? They had the power to change people's opinions and if they didn't want to conform they simply snuffed them out. Give that a thought.

Side: think about it
0 points

Irony is the atheist that uses the Bible to prove God doesn't exist .

Side: Beyond Comprehension
Conro(767) Disputed
4 points

I believe it's called reductio ad absurdum. It isn't ironic; you just don't seem to understand how an argument is formed or the art of debating.

Side: Hang onto every word
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
0 points

Reductio ad absurdum: is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence. (From Wikipedia)

Even-though this is the definition; How can one do something logically in an illogical way? Doesn't this imply that the overall picture is illogical?

Reductio ad absurdum is an oxymoron by its' own definition.

I know that one cannot win an argument by agreeing with the other party. An atheist that qoutes the Bible has already lost by doing so. If you want proof that God exists, ask an atheist.

Side: Beyond Comprehension
yamancool63(17) Disputed
2 points

Why do atheists prove that God didn't exist? They're not the ones making the claims that supernatural, all powerful beings exist.

Side: Hang onto every word
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

Why do atheist "attempt" to prove that God doesn't exist? What harm does it cause to you that such a claim is made? I suggest you put your efforts toward something more useful. There is a five year old that just colored outside the line.

And yet many atheist feel the need to prove a non-existent god doesn't exist. Yep, their the logical ones.

Side: Beyond Comprehension