CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Go into history and count the number of events in which atheists have done drastically-immoral things to harm those who are religious, and count the number of events in which Christians have harmed those who are non-believers (don't worry, I'll even leave out the Jewish just to give you a handicap). Don't write an ineffective counter-argument stating that atheists have done more in wrongs than Christians without mentioning both parties mistakes.
Oh, and by the way, no one's perfect. Not even you.
Can you PROVE that there were many that were truly religious and many that only claimed to be. Because the only way you could do that is taking telepathy to another fictional extreme: reading the minds of individuals from the past.
If you can prove it otherwise, then do so right now. If you can't, you are arguing with a statement that has no basis, and therefore is an opinion, and not a fact.
If you've ever bothered to read Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot argument at all, you would see that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim, not the person who refutes it.
Here, you've committed another fallacy called the 'ad hominem tu quoque' fallacy. By saying that he cannot prove other-wise, it does not in any way prove that your claim is true. Why not you try to provide logical arguments for your claim?
That is nonsense. It shows that you have not read or heard any theists philosophers speak about religion. Why don't you read some proper writings by the top theologians and philosophers, like Professor William Lane Craig from Biola University in the US and Professor Simon Blackburn, a Fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge, in the UK?
You might actually learn something from reading works by philosophers and stop committing fallacies in your arguments.
A 'fallacy', as defined by the OED, is simply a "false statement". By saying that you do not "believe in fallacies", are you claiming that you do not believe in false statements?
Secondly, I repeat, as an atheist, I have no god. Is it up to you to decide who my god is or which god I should believe in?
Are you now backing down? You can't even define what 'god' means, let alone proved that I have a god. If you dare to claim that I have a god, then why don't you tell me who he/she/it is?
Why don't you prove by logical argument why I have a god. What are your premises? Where is your evidence?
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
As Winston Churchill once said, "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." You have not proved that I have a god and you can never do so because you do not understand and appreciate the rigour of debate, as seen from the number of fallacious arguments you have put forth.
Once someone like me calls your bluff, you shirk away from the burden of proof. If you have any logical arguments and pieces of evidence to show that I or any atheist should have a god, why don't you prove it?
As usual you have the facts wrong, your is spelled correctly. I used the wrong one and so I failed to use proper grammar, not incorrect spelling. No wonder you are an atheist, you have the facts wrong.
My intentions in making the remark "I don't believe in fallacies" is that every statement cannot be a false one. Just remember, lies are based on truths. The truth may not your own, but it is still the truth.
You have committed two more fallacies in these lines. First, the fallacy of special pleading. You are miscontruing facts to suit your own argument, evident from how you say that just because "lies are based on truths", therefore there are no false statements.
Second, you committed the genetic fallacy. This is where you decide the value of something based on how it originates, e.g. "lies are based on truths". Just because they are "based on truths", they are STILL lies. This proves rather than disputes my 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.
Like there are any radical pro-religious people here? If you call any one that believes in God a radical, then there maybe a few here. Personally I'd like to see the list of those believe in God on here, I'm betting it's a very short list.
Why would you make it more? Is it because he appears to be popular and so you wish to be in his shadows? If one cannot be himself, hang with somebody that is.
Just wondering; If david jumped off a bridge, would you?
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.
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.
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.
The upvotes are in support of my argument. Your entire debate is flawed from the beginning, so it doesn't matter what you're trying to claim with "either they believe the bible, or they admit that it's true".
Then by that account, the tag you selected for your only comment that wasn't a dispute or support indicates even you don't believe your premise. In this case, the tags are meaningless anyway, it is about what we say in regards to the topic. Now, about my actions....show me taking the Bible literally. Or any atheist doing so.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
That is patently false. Mathematicians use these kinds of arguments all the time (in mathematics, called a "proof by contradiction"). It is useful because it allows one to entirely disprove a proposition (which is usually the opposite of how a normal proof works; normally proofs are the affirmative) by finding a logical contradiction if we assume the result is true.
Example: We are told to prove that there is no greatest even integer.
We begin by assuming the negative (i.e. that there is a greatest even integer), let N=greatest even integer where for all even integers n, N greater than or equal to n.
Let M=N+2, so M is an even integer, and M is also greater then N (because M=N+2) so, the initial assumption invalid.
Therefore, there is no greatest even integer.
See the parallels?
Example: Prove the bible is not completely true.
Assume that the bible is completely true.
All statements in the Bible must be true. The Bible claims the Earth is 6,000 years old. Modern technology proves, conclusively, that the Earth is greater than 6,000 years old, and so the initial assumption is invalid
Who ever said the Bible is completely true? Your arguing against something that already is a known fact. Congratulations on proving what is already known.
How many of those know who is the President? My point is that polls are whatever you what them to be and thus meaningless.
If I take a poll and want the results to come out a certain way, I take the poll where this will happen. Example: Prove that people are stupid. Ask a question near bars at 1:00 am.
Prove that people are smart, ask only those reading a newspaper near a college campus.
I call do this same thing by call certain area codes. The more expensive area the greater the chance they went college. Those area codes that are from poorer, less educated.
Claim miracles don't exist and believe polls are accurate, atheist are better at critical thinking. (haha)
Show me that miracles do exist. Prove that poll was intentionally rigged. Display even a modicum of critical thinking ability for two post in a row, then...maybe...you can laugh.
And regardless of the veracity of polls, you have to be a complete shut-in to believe that a rather notable portion of our population are not Biblical literalists. Hell, there's been at least a dozen on this site over the past year.
Except that atheists do not take the Bible literally. Quoting from the Bible to prove how it is flawed (and therefore should not be taken literally) is not the same as being a literalist. In fact it is quite the opposite.
A literalist is someone that literally sees things the way they are. Not opposites at all. The problem is that different literalist see things differently.
Well, since the point is almost always to point out a contradiction or inaccuracy in the Bible, typically to Christians who claim to take it literally, it is called "invalidating the source." How do you fail to understand this?
I can prove that only atheist take the Bible literally. It says in the Bible an eye for an eye, does it not. If this was the case then if some one killed some one you would have to get revenge. Right. The same for theft, adultry, etc. This would lead to total havoc, right? Society as a whole is not in total havoc and yet the majority of citizen in the USA are religious. Please explain why it is not?
And the Bible ALSO says turn the other cheek. The contradictory nature creates problems for the believer, but since THOU SHALL NOT KILL, it seems better to some to not "eye for eye" everybody. It is pretty much impossible for one to actually live all of the commands of the Bible, but that doesn't seem to stop certain Christians from claiming to anyway.
By the way, how many atheists have you met arguing for creationism, a young earth or Noah's flood? How many Christians?
I believe most everyone would be capable of seeing that the Bible is an interpretation of morality, and morality is not an interpretation of the Bible. The same applies with justice, fairness, and equity, the precepts of our legal code. Society as a whole is not in total havoc because a majority of people wish to follow agreed upon rules that they see mutually beneficial. The fact that the majority of citizens in the US are religious is merely coincidental and hardly causal.
You will readily see in my argument (or rather won't see anything of the sort) that I never said anything about proving God's existence. I was merely arguing that it is an appropriate argument for an Atheist or Agnostic to use the Bible in a proof of contradiction. I believe this debate is not titled "Prove God's Existence." It's titled "How can one take the Bible literally and be against it?" And I responded appropriately and accurately to the prompt.
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.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make now. I don't know of anyone dumb enough to try and prove the non-existence of something. Proving a negative is well, impossible. You prove in positives.
The point is atheist bashing God. Retarded is trying to prove something you don't believe in is bad. This is like campaigning for an elected position that doesn't exist.
Where are these militant atheists that are bashing God? I don't hate what I don't believe in, how can you?
I think it's merely pointing out that the Judeo-Christian God is kind of an asshole in the Old Testament, which is pretty clearly evident.
It's like telling someone who believes unicorns are real that unicorns breathe fire and kill everything they come into contact with, when, from an objective viewpoint, that's what the unicorn is doing.
It's merely another side to a debate that shouldn't happen in the first place.
