Religion Agnostic

AcceptanceI accept. I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion on the topic(s) presented. As the title of the debate is unclear, I would kindly ask that my opponent please provide a more specific claim that he/she will be either attacking or defending in this debate. For now, I will just address the points that were made in Pro's opening statement. As I do not know exactly what I am to be arguing in favor of/against, I will wait until further information is provided to present my own arguments. Rebuttal"However in the bible is jealous, cruel, condones slavery, condones genocide, promotes misogyny, and is altogether an unreasonable person."I won't refute the accusation of jealousy, as this does not seem to present in issue whether it is true or not. However I will take issue with the idea of God being cruel, endorsing slavery, genocide, & misogyny, and being unreasonable. The Bible clearly displays God as a loving God. Here is just one example from 1 John 4:8: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." We must consider slavery in the context of the ancient Hebrews, as opposed to the context of modern day slavery. The Bible talks about servants and masters; servants who are paid, and masters who are obligated to treat their servants with respect. It is disgraceful to compare this to, say, the slavery during the Civil War era of the United States, where slaves were treated as though they were sub-human. "Just war" may very well encompass the so-called genocides that Pro talks about. I think my opponent would be hardpressed to find Biblical evidence of God commanding the murder of innocents. This idea is clearly prohibited throughout the Bible (i.e. The Ten Commandments). As for misogyny, I will only say that gender roles were certainly more prevalent in ancient times. Whether this is a good or a bad thing I am indifferent, but either way, gender roles are a subject for another debate. I can say with complete confidence, however, that misogyny is not endorsed in the Bible. Misogyny is defined in the dictionary as "hatred of women". The most honored and respected figure in the entire Bible, with the exception of Jesus, is Mary. The claim that the Bible endorses the hatred of women, along with the previous claims that have been made regarding slavery and genocide, is unfounded.As for the claim that God is "an unreasonable person", I can only say that this is relative opinion. What is unreasonable to one may very well be perfectly reasonable to another. I would not only consider God to be the most reasonable being there is, but I would consider God to be the most reasonable being that there possibly could be."Christians like to claim that the bible holds absolute morality, however in the ten commandments it is only the second half that actually addresses morality whereas the first half only addresses on how to worship god."I would say that all 10 of the commandments address morality. If the God of the Bible exists, then I would think that worshipping him would be a moral act. In either case, Pro concedes that the Ten Commandments address morality."Morality isn't absolute and should be reasoned and changed the more we progress as human beings."Nonsense. For any argument that Pro can provide in an attempt to show that we shouldn't believe morality to be objective, I can construct a parallel argument to show that we shouldn't believe the external world to be real. Furthermore, this quote demonstrates a contradiction in Pro's thinking.Previously, Pro stated that the Bible condones a list of immoral acts. Now, Pro has stated that morality is not absolute. If morality is absolute, then there is no reason to think that anything (including the acts mentioned by Pro, even if true) is "wrong". I invite Pro to reconsider his/her stance or provide an explanation for his/her contradictory statements."For instance, the bible makes an absolute claim that lying is wrong and that it is a sin, however there are situations where lying can be justified." Here, Pro provides us with another endorsement of objective morality, contrary to previous claims. Also, I would argue that there is no situation where lying is justified. This brings us to the classic means vs ends discussion, of which I am confident I am on the "right" side. But again, this would be a discussion for another debate (which I would gladly accept)."In the bible it tells slaves to obey their masters, so by the bible's standards Harriet Tubman's escape from slavery is nothing more than a sin."I have already addressed the issue of slavery, but I will touch on it again here. The Bible calls for servants to respect their masters, just as it calls for masters to respect their servants. "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, realizing that you too have a Master in heaven." -Colossians 4:1I disagree with the laughable claim that Harriet Tubman's escape is a sin by Biblical standards. This is an obvious distortion of what is said in scripture. "The bible is filled with contradictions within its own texts, it's also filled with contradictions with historical and archaeological findings, but most importantly contradicts science."I invite Pro to provide a list of these "contradictions" that are found within the Bible. It would be difficult for me to refute something that doesn't exist, so I don't have much to work with here. Also, the idea that the Bible contradicts science is among the most palpably false views that one could possibly hold. How could it be any more evident that it is certain interpretations of Biblical text, not the Bible itself, that stand in contradiction with modern science? There is not a single scientific theory that I disagree with due to its conflict with the Bible, simply because there are no such conflicts in existence! "I've heard the argument before that the reason why we see trees that are older than 6,000 years old, which is the chronology of the bible, however it is inconsistent with the fact that all those trees wouldn't have been able to survive the flood."I would ask Pro to please quote for me the verse he/she is referring to which supposedly claims that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old. Once again, this view is a radical (and quite stupid) interpretation of Biblical text. I believe that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and I can see no conflict between this belief and the Bible. SummaryI have addressed each individual point that Pro made in his/her opening statement. As we have seen, Pro has made several unwarranted assertions. I could not see a single piece of evidence provided for even one claim that was made by Pro in this round. Furthermore, nearly every assertion Pro made regarding the Bible and its interpretation was blatantly false. Pro contradicted him/herself by arguing that the Bible was immoral and then going on to endorse the idea that morality is relative, in which case he/she would have no moral standard by which to judge the Bible's morality/immorality.Pro has not only failed to put forward any convincing arguments in favor of his/her position, Pro has failed to even identify a position in this debate. I invite Pro to please state a clear topic for this debate in order to guide the discussion. Furthermore, I ask that Pro take a stance on that claim and provide some kind of logical arguments with justification in the next round. Sourceshttp://www.vatican.va...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...