azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

The Bible is known to be written by Jesus Himself - He'd no doubt make His deeds seem bigger than the real thing. Jesus was probably a normal Jew who others raised up as "Son of God", and that means He would favor himself and his students. Even if He had written the bible correctly, His students were bound to rewrite it to make them look good. The bible also encourages insanity which is supposed to be a virtue to the Jews.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

One reason some people don't believe the bible is the people like you who think they do.The entire old testament was written before Jesus was conceived and none of the people who wrote the new testament ever met Jesus and didn't write until decades after his death.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Jesus didn't write the bible- that's why it says the gospels ""according to John" etc. The original texts have books that were left out, and there is no proof of Jesus Christ. If you mean Jesus Christos different guy.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

We are talking about a book that tells you to stone your daughter if she is raped...enough said.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Where the devil does it say that? You're confusing the Christian Bible with the Islamic Koran.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

If you remove the bible completely does that mean people would have to finally have to figure it out themselves? That's asking too much!! *sarcasm.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Full of contradictions, and hypocrisy. The KJV is probably the 13th "revised" version. The book was written by men, and plagarized. It is a retelling of the Egyptian's Osiris.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

A baseless text with no evidence, contradictory statements throughout, immorality a common theme in many of its messages... Yeah, illogical that an all-loving, all-powerful deity would have such a thing created.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

If all of the nonsensically biased, illogical, ludicrously cruel and hypocritical verses in the bible (Which is all of the bible) are meant to be ignored or not taken literally, then the god --With no capital "G"-- which is included in the bible should be treated as just the same.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

I think from a scientific standpoint it is completely illogical. In historical context it can be unreliable, but somewhat useful. As far as theology goes, it is perfect. Because that is what it is. A religious book. But used in any other context and it becomes highly illogical.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

The Bible is actually totally logical as long as you interpret it's original texts from the perception of a religious scholar.What's illogical is how most normal people interpret the Bible and then say outrageously illogical shit that has nothing to do with what the Bible really says.The Bible is written so much in metaphor, that it's hard to discern many of it's points and topics and even individual words. That's why you talk to a religious scholar. They understand that the Bible tells many logical stories which were for the purpose of guiding people in ancient times.So the Bible isn't utterly illogical. Whatever your average Christian idiot says about the Bible, on the other hand, is.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

What about problems with slavery and sexism, because there ain't no special meaning for that. :PBecause you don't want people saying "From what I've learned from the bible, we should take away the rights of women and keep our slaves in check because we are loyal servants of god!"Okay, like I said before, The bible was written by men, for men, in a male dominated society.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

I'm not religious scholar myself, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct to say that slavery is not said to be good or bad in the Bible. It's barely mentioned, and when it is, it is mentioned with indifference. The issue of slavery has nothing to do with logic, it has to do with feelings over humanitarian rights.Besides, back then, most slaves were indentured servants or war criminals. Either way, they deserved it unless they were obtained as slaves illegally, something that any major writer in the Bible would agree is wrong... since it would be illegal.As for sexism... yes, today, it would be sexism. But if you would notice, I pointed out that the Bible was intended to guide ancient people. What we would call 'sexism' today is what back then that they'd call 'protection'. Limiting the rights of women back in more primitive times was their way of protecting women and their ability to have children from the horrors of war, politics, and crime. Today, we'd hate that idea, but today, we have acquired prosperity; of course it's illogical to us now, but back then, it was perfectly sensible. You're right. It was written my men and for men in a male dominated society.But so what?That was thousands of years ago.Whatever perceptions you have about the world today have nothing to do with the Biblical past. Humans don't do things for no reason. They do whatever they are programmed to do over time to help them survive.Which is why today, our entire mentality as human beings is to not let anyone be a second class citizen. And it's also way all the way back then, human mentality was to make certain groups of people second class citizens out of necessity.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

I'm not religious scholar myself, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct to say that slavery is not said to be good or bad in the Bible. It's barely mentioned, and when it is, it is mentioned with indifference. The issue of slavery has nothing to do with logic, it has to do with feelings over humanitarian rights.You are very much correct, but what does that say about this benevolent being who doesn't find anything wrong with slavery?Besides, back then, most slaves were indentured servants or war criminals. Either way, they deserved it unless they were obtained as slaves illegallyMost slaves back then were War captives, indentured servants would come in at a close second. Many of them were children, so I think it would be wrong to say they "deserved it", this is an abhorrent statement. As for sexism... yes, today, it would be sexism. But if you would notice, I pointed out that the Bible was intended to guide ancient peopleThis suggests that morals are relative, and furthermore what does that say about people who use it to guide their modern lives?If most of the stories within the bible are metaphors, Parables, and fables--and if the bible's only moral guidance is to people of ancient times, on what basis can one insist that the bible is a true and living document, when it most certainly is not?back then, human mentality was to make certain groups of people second class citizens out of necessity.There are numerous 'primitive' societies then and now where men and women are/were considered equal, where there is no second-class. I would argue the creation of second-class citizens came about, not as a result of necessity, but as a result of the consolidation of power by the ruling class.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

So your whole view of this debate is to defend a piece of ancient, wise, metaphorical literature, because of the morals that it tries to teach to the people of those times, and not because of the God that it claims to exist. In fact, you believe that they use this 'God' as a tool to help spread this message. But of course it does contain old practices of slavery and countless other things of that time, but you can't blame them for it because those morals of that time were different to the morals of this time and how we see things. Am I right? Is this what you mean?
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

So your whole view of this debate is to defend a piece of ancient, wise, metaphorical literature, because of the morals that it tries to teach to the people of those times, and not because of the God that it claims to exist.Correct.In fact, you believe that they use this 'God' as a tool to help spread this message.Probably. I'm pretty sure the original people's who though up these faiths during the start of their civilizations did so only because they knew it would help order and control the masses. Did it matter if people actually believed in it as if it were real if it stopped them from being chaotic? Not really.It was a logical way to slowly put and end to barbarism. And it has, since we now have an exponentially increasing technology rate and relative unity in the world in relation to how horrible it was in ancient times.But of course it does contain old practices of slavery and countless other things of that time, but you can't blame them for it because those morals of that time were different to the morals of this time and how we see things.Right. Moral values are relative to logical ways to efficiently survive. Slavery and war were okay in the those days in certain situations because people had to act far worse then we do today so that they would survive. Since their conditions were so much harsher then they were now, logically their moral values had to be much lower so that they could employ survival competition techniques that today we'd find vile.Am I right? Is this what you mean?You have it down, mostly.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

At best you are arguing that the bible seemed logical, not that it is logical which is the topic of the debate.Even at that you would have to ignore any direct contradictions.For instance Why treat your enemies children any different then your enemies themselves?I don't like it, but that's how they did things back then.It may have seemed logical for them to believethese versesExodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate meOr theseDeuteronomy 24:16 - Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.but not both
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

You make a good point, until you consider that the Bible was written over the course of hundreds of years and from the views of many not-necessarily aligned authors. It was a collaboration by the Church to form the Bible from various ancient scriptures. It's only a Biblical contradiction if you look at the Bible like you'd look at any book.The problem is that the Bible isn't just any book, since most books have one author with one goal, and on the rare occasion, multiple authors with multiple goals. But the authors of the books of the Bible weren't necessarily aligned as people, meaning you can't consider contradictions in the Bible real contradictions unless the contradictions exist within the same book of the Bible, not just the Bible itself.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Individual parts may have seemed logical in their time, but then that would not have been "the bible" would it?You might be able to say that the bible was a logical outcome of the times those people lived in, but not that the contents of "the bible" is logical.(PS many individual 'books' of the bible had multiple authors and contain contradictions within themselves - see Deuteronomy in my previous post)
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Why does it matter that the Bible was written thousands of years ago? As the Bible states very clearly several times, your god does not change. "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever" (Isaiah 40:8)
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Why does it matter that the Bible was written thousands of years ago? As the Bible states very clearly several times, your god does not change.The fact that it says god doesn't change means nothing. It doesn't mean the Bible wasn't a tool to shepherd ancient peoples and make them follow directions that contributed to their evolution.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

what a book is used for does not determine the logic of its contents
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Just like a Christian, picking choosing, revising. The way you make slavery acceptable is astounding. In actuality, Jesus was against all of these things. The law if not of God would have been ignored.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Just like a Christian, picking choosing, revising. The way you make slavery acceptable is astounding.I don't think slavery is acceptable today. But in ancient times, some things were necessary based in evolution to continue surviving, one of those things including the complete domination of your competition. That's why people used to enslave other people. The reason we don't enslave anyone anymore is because we've outgrown the need to be barbaric animals.In actuality, Jesus was against all of these things. The law if not of God would have been ignored.I don't know about you, but I'm not a Christian.I'm merely arguing with consideration for how ancient people's had to live day by day.People don't do things for totally irrational reasons. Especially in ancient times.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

People in fact, are more irrational and therefore refrain from logic, especially when they're religious minded.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

People in fact, are more irrational and therefore refrain from logic, especially when they're religious minded.Correction, they are nowadays when they're religious minded. Today, we don't need the rituals of religion to have our prosperity grow. Back then, they had to stick to religious rituals so they could survive.That's the entire point of the Bible.The only truly irrational people are the religious folks today who treat specific verses of the Bible as being literal and yet think it's wrong to stone people to death for working on the Sabbath.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)Keeping slaves is one thing, but condoning the mistreating of slaves seems a little illogical. It says that if you beat your slaves hard enough to kill them, then that calls for punishment, but if you were to beat them mercilessly till the brink of death, then that's just fine.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Exactly. If you want to punish them to near death but don't kill them, then you have saved your laborious slaves from dying so that they may work more and again once they get better. The efficiency of their work will be higher once they recover because they'll be scared to make mistakes.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Not if you injure them severely because that would be mighty useless if you don't want them to crawl with their bleeding hands in agony over their mangled, broken legs so they won't be able to work no more. Not to mention the child slaves...Why is the bible worth defending again?
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Not if you injure them severely because that would be mighty useless if you don't want them to crawl with their bleeding hands in agony over their mangled, broken legs so they won't be able to work no more.Then the punished slaves' agony will serve as an example for all the other slaves so they don't act defiantly out of line like the one you just punished.Not to mention the child slaves...I've explained one times too many times why it's a sensible thing to do in ancient times.Why is the Bible worth defending again?It's worthy defending because you're just as much a radical as neophyte Christians. I'll defend the Bible from you just as I will defend the scientific method from religious idiots.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Wow, these are some very nice values, lets teach them to everyone else! If the bible says so, why not?You seem determined to debate about a book of flawed values. Are you sure you are defending this book of it's values? Because surely you must have some kind of religious point of view to even think of protecting a piece of old literature.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Wow, these are some very nice values, lets teach them to everyone else!I'd believe in this statement if I were living a thousand or so years ago. That's not the point of my debate. I'm surprised you forgot my point while you were away from this subject.You seem determined to debate about a book of flawed values. Are you sure you are defending this book of it's values?I'm defending it's purpose, and therefore, it's values in the face of ancient reasoning. It's purpose was to contribute to shepherding troves of ancient peoples, people who were only a few strands of hair away from being cavemen.Because surely you must have some kind of religious point of view to even think of protecting a piece of old literature.I am not Christian, nor atheist. I am Pantheist, and a strong believer of neutrality in the face of issues that are not black nor white. Like I said, I will defend the Bible from you just like I will defend the scientific method from Christian neophytes.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

If you think hard enough, it is logical. You are starting to argue based on your personal morals rather than rationale.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

If you do not have slaves and think it is ok to beat them, then you already know the bible is illogical and get your morals from somewhere else.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

For the matter of slavery, the bible did contain instructions of how to handle and beat slaves, so surely it must of condoned it because if you were to condemn something you didn't like, you wouldn't start talking about how to do it. Having power over another being can't be justified, if it were of slavery or of sexism.From what I mean about "The bible is illogical" is that it not only doesn't make sense, but it is fictional and shouldn't be deemed as "True and logical."Now, for sexism, we can both agree that it was written by men, for men in a male dominated society, but stopping women from taking part in normal practices in society is not what I'd call 'protection.' When you agreed with my statement that the bible was man made and said that it was based on the ideas of people that lived thousands of years ago, you practically supported the bible's illogicality which is the basis of this debate. Which side are you truly on?
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Having power over another being can't be justified...Yes it can. How can it not be, ever, at all? From what I mean about "The bible is illogical" is that it not only doesn't make sense, but it is fictional and shouldn't be deemed as "True and logical."From what I mean 'the Bible is logical,' I mean that the Bible was totally logical and sensible for the audience it was intended for.And for the record, metaphors are not illogical. They're just metaphorical. Just because Aesop's Fables were fictional doesn't mean they weren't logical; they were totally logical, if you attempt to look at them as metaphors and not as an attempt to record history as accurately as possible....but stopping women from taking part in normal practices in society is not what I'd call 'protection.'Then apparently you have no idea exactly how dangerous ancient society was. The more rights you have, the more freedom you have. The more freedom you have, the more likely you are able to get hurt and/or hurt someone else. If you stop people from being able to do certain things, other things in turn become impossible to perform or happen.It's the same concept as 'if you repossess someone's car and revoke their driver's license, it's nigh impossible for them to die in a head-on car collision.'When you agreed with my statement that the bible was man made and said that it was based on the ideas of people that lived thousands of years ago, you practically supported the bible's illogicality which is the basis of this debate.No I didn't. Just because something seems logical and impractical now doesn't mean it wasn't once totally logical and utterly practical at some point.Which side are you truly on?The side that says the Bible is logical.I'm frankly tired of people interpreting the Bible improperly. Whether you're a religious cook who thinks the Bible is proof for demons, or an atheist snob whom thinks everything the Bible says is a violation of humanitarian rights, I don't agree.And the kicker is that I'm not Christian. Some Christians might even label me a Pagan. No, this is not ironic. I merely support what the Bible really tries to teach as opposed to what the extreme sides of the argument thinks it teaches.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Are you serious? Having power over another being is outrageous! So you are saying that it is right to own slaves and take their rights away from them? (well obviously you would deny this in the next reply) Aren't people all equals and deserve the same rights as others? I can't believe that there are still slavers out there who would like think this.Why do you sound like an immature kid that always says "You can't do that because you're a girl!!!" What is it that makes you think that women are inferior? Are you just a sexist? Do you bear a grudge against women? You say that society is dangerous for women, but wasn't it just as dangerous for men as well? The bible just insulted the rights of women. They made Eve the sinner and transgressor for a reason- because they loathe women, not because of protection. What makes you think I take everything in the bible literally? I understand what metaphors are but some things in the bible take it too far, like prejudice and discrimination. I will not stand for slavery and sexism and I have enough of people who try to sugar coat it with reassuring lies as they hold on blindly to their beliefs. Why do you try to protect the fictitious writers of the past who are not without evil and prejudice, I know that the bible tries to spread a message of peace and love but it does so with lies. I am not here to debate about the bible's flawed teachings and morals of life, I am here to debate the existence of God. Now I'm regretting the name of this debate.I'm a former Christian, and don't really go with Atheism, I only wish to highlight and inform the hard-head Christians that their bible is embarrassingly and terribly flawed that it's no longer funny, and I only want truth.