Should the Bible be used as a moral compass?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.
So for example, if my moral system defined intelligence as the valuable trait in humans, by logical extension any being with intelligence is also valuable.
However, consistency isn't the only thing we're looking for we also need a moral system that we agree with where we get consistent outcomes we like.
So back to that example it may be consistent however if intelligence is the trait than by logical extension, mentally challenged people also aren't valuable.
To summarize, a good moral system is consistent and doesn't lead to absurdity both of which the Bible lacks which will be elaborated on by me later.
Rules:
- Keep it civil
- This debate is going to assume that Gods version of morality is subjective and not objective morality
- We're going to be examining the Bibles morality, the Bible does have a place in a modern society in the form of studying for academic purposes. Similar to Hitlers books and killers manifestos.
Pretty simple debate topic, if I left any rules or definitions you feel I should have clarified I urge you to tell me so that I may clarify.
Con offers three key rules of morality from the bible, which within the context they are objectively horrible. Pro tried to counter with an appeal to the cosmological argument (I suspect he meant to use Divine Command Theory), but failed to suggest any reason why it's relevant to this debate, or that we should use the bible, or any way con's offered counter evidence against those morals should be rejected or reinterpreted.
So con's argument stands wholly uncontested, and pro never makes one (a vague assertion is not an argument).
Arguments
~~~~~~~~~
Con proves God to be destructive via relishing in destroying Israel if need be among other lines quoted from the Bible. Pro's rebuttal was LITERALLY that because something can't come from itself that therefore there is a need for the Bible to be used as a moral compass. If you think it makes no sense, that's because it doesn't.
In Round 2, Con annihilates Pro's Kalam-esque case for the Christian God by both sandwiching Pro in between needing to prove other Gods than the Bible's God false while simultaneously needing to prove the God of the Bible correct and necessary to existence. Pro was left checkmated at this point and nothing resembling actual debate continues from there on.
============
Sources
~~~~~~
Only Con used sources and it was to back up terrible Bible verses existing which is superior to what Pro did which was use 0 sources.
============
Spelling and Grammar
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The entirety of Pro's R1 was incoherent to the extent that so many times where a comma was actually needed, it wasn't used but sometimes when it was used it was arguably correct, rarely...
Let me give you some examples:
Soft-error #1: "Before the universe, there was nothing."
This is the most grammatically correct part of Pro's entire R1 and it still is written off-kilter. Before the universe... There was nothing... either add in the word 'began' or 'came into existence' before the comma or don't use a comma at all then. This was an acceptable sentence but if you compound it with the other errors it builds up why it was confusing.
Hard-self-made-error #2: " Nothing, and only nothing can "
This beginning of the sentence could be written simply as "Only nothing can" but since it was written like that, the error was to not put another comma after the second 'nothing'. This is not a soft-error at all, it severely confused even Pro himself such that in Round 2 he conceded he hadn't conveyed what he even meant.
Hard-inevitable-error #3: "Nothing, and only nothing can come from nothing, as logic says."
So, if you continue from error #2, we now have the sentence actually reading that "Nothing as logic says and only nothing can come from nothing." This is literally what the sentence reads if you correctly extrapolate the commas.
I am a genius and understood exactly what Pro was arguing but if I wasn't, I know I would struggle. I see things systematically but most humans read English grammatically, following the sentence left-to-right etc. I skim read and piece together puzzles in my head and even then it was confusing what Pro was saying because Pro basically seemed to be building a case that God was logically impossible to have come from nothing, which contradicts his side.
Hard-error #4: "in this nothing, there is"
If Pro had literally just removed that comma, so much more about the sentence before and after would make sense to most people. Because of that comma, the 'there' is severely confusing and the entire case began to become fuddled.#
===========
Conduct
~~~~~~~
Tied, Pro was lazy but Con wasn't harshly offended or mistreated.
I think it is nearly impossible to win this debate as Pro. Even Christians would be warry of presenting the bible as a moral compass. Pro committed intellectual seppuku making no connection to using the bible as a moral compass other than it was formed. Of course the world was formed and all sorts of books were formed as Pro states but I wouldn't be able to write this if I didn't read them, and understand that we don't use them as a moral compass because they exist so I found that unconvincing. Con's arguments that "sexism is repulsive" from a potential interpretation of a passage about women being quiet in church goes unabated. Any fool can pick up the bible and justify all sorts of things to themselves, and that's an adequate example for these purposes.
Do outlines a series of points of why the morality of the Bible should not be followed as a moral compass. These were all ignored by pro and must be accepted on their face..
Pros counter argument was irrelebant to the resolution - in that even if I accepted everything he said as true it did not show the resolution was correct. As a result, con clearly wins arguments.
So the nastiness of salt pillar people vs the do unto other
I am not against the bible in terms of literature and history to be studied for academia purposes.
I want to debate whether or not the Bibles moral message should be taken.
Perhaps the title is a bit too vague and I should change it.
I like it. So, I can argue that the benefits of the Bible as literature, history, archeology, moral philosophy, etc outweigh the harms?
No; but I don’t think the Bible is harmful to society.
Are you implying that you weren't an atheist a week ago or something?
If it was 1 week args, I’ll take it.