Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[Old Seer]

Here is the first one:

Evolution is now (hopefully) fact for anyone who thinks rationally.
The Old Testament (used both in Judaism and Christianity, dunno for Islam) claims the story of Adam and Eve is true

If Evolution is right, Adam and Eve never existed. Hence, the Bible claimed something that is not true

Since one thing in the Bible is wrong, the Bible as a holy book that speaks the word of God is not acceptable, everything it says can be questioned, and the burden of proof is therefore on the bible-believers.

I know, this argument is shaky at best, but it is pretty simple to explain, does not require philosophical interrogation and rarely leads to the loop argument of "i believe because i believe".

It may be a matter of interpretation. It could be the document has something else going on that's not understood.

[chi pan]

"It's not taken out of context, it's just a snipped quote. I didn't feel the need to quote the whole paragraph but just what was necessary for anyone reading it to understand what I was responding to. I did read the whole thing and found nothing other than a desperate attempt to justify atrocious behavior by someone who couldn't even do it well."

well i guess you missed the part where i said "so yes, God did kill people himself but he always had a good reason for it. and you may say "isn't killing against the commandments of the bible?" well directly translated the hebrew word for it is to kill out of anger or hate. to kill someone for them to pay for a crime and not out of hatred or anger is justified, which is why they encourage the death penalty in the bible as well." if your going to correct me try to understand what i say or at least read it. it not only has your answer it has your question how could you miss that?

"For many theists, "in context" means the whole book from cover to cover. Anything less is distorting the message. Quite how anyone can distort something distorted already escapes me, however. "

we're talking about my post not the bible but in context in the bible means almost the whole chapter depending on how it's divided.

"Don't try to spin it into something it's not. It's human ownership. It's slavery. Most of them (if not all of them) did not choose to be there. They cannot choose to leave. There's no difference between slavers and slave owners in the bible and slave owners in actual history. It doesn't matter of they're treated well. "

i'm not spinning it they really were treated as servants and in fact the bible often uses the word servant instead of slave. and why do you make things so black and white? things aren't black and white like that example: killing is wrong. what about for self defense? well i guess that's ok. what about for the defense of others? well that's ok too i guess. what if your a solder and your ordered to do it? well i guess that's fine too.

"It's not comparable to butlers because butlers can choose to leave their job at any time and butlers have freedoms of their own, they're paid for their service (and not a slave wage mind you), and they can quit at any time."

actually slaves had a chioce in the matter too. they could leave, but b/c they had their payment in advance they have to give a lot of that back they didn't earn. often times someone's family would buy them out of slavery so your claim is JUST FALSE. and like i said, they are paid as well but you don't listen to a word i say do u? it was even in your own source you first presented to me and yet you don't read your own source?

"So according to the colored blue passage, it's okay to beat your slave to death, as long as you do it over the course of days."

no that's a couple of days after you beat them. if they die a couple of days after beating, you can pretty much say they did not die from the beating. and just b/c you can spank a child doesn't mean your gonna do it all the time for no reason. and why would anyone maim their slave? what good would they be if they can't work? slaves were there to work, not to get beaten to satisfy the master. just b/c it's allowed doesn't mean it's regular if they do a good job then they are treated well. if they steal something on the job they can get beat for it.

"No. No I don't. Perhaps it's just my modern sensibility and my own love of women in general that's giving me a bit of bias vs. the bible's inability to recognize women as more than mere playthings for men"

they weren't just play things. are you forgetting the part of the bible where it says love your wife? or is that taken for granted b/c you cannot comprehend what love is? women back then could not support themselves. this is why they lived with their parrents until they got married. this is why the parents decide who the daughter marries. this is how it's been not just in jewish society but in all societies b/c women could not take care of themselves until about 100 years ago when jobs started forming and possibilities opened up as children could go to school with dreams of being whatever they want to be rather than just following the family business. they didn't really have public schools back then people did what they were taught to do by their families.

"Do I consider a fine to be punishment for raping a woman, getting her as a wife (and all the free labor that women are forced to do for their husbands in the bible as well as the children they can bear for you), and possibly a tie to a powerful family in the exchange?"

do you honestly think that family would give him a cent after he violated their daughter? i'm telling you this was a very shameful act back in the day. you sure lay down some low fines but why don't i lay down some high ones. theft, assult, breaking and entering, arson etc. are those serious enough for ya? yes they include jail time too but again, they didn't have a lot of money to keep people in jails and support them for the rest of their days. hell if they had those back then a lot of people would want to go to jail it's free food. that's why they had the death penalty for a lot of things.

"Commandment #6 says: “You shall not murder."

wow does no one read what i put on there. IF ALL OF YOU HAVE TO TAKE WHAT I SAY OUT OF CONTEXT TO PROVE YOUR POINT THEN YOU HAVE NO POINT AT ALL. i already mentioned what i said to faith no more so just read what i said to him i'm not putting that quote out there again. and let me just make a little correction. he did not so much kill them as much as sentenced them to death and exicuted them. there happy? yes the bible supports the death penalty.

"Yes. I know this because I've seen the arguements hashed, rehashed, and double rehashed as well as refuted numerous times by evolutionists, fans of science, and anyone who has any working knowledge of the topic.

I've also done all of that myself with people with good knowledge of the topic myself. I don't enjoy tooting my own horn, but I do have some command of the topic."

i don't know what eyes you have but i've seen the opposite. i put some of these debates on here somewhere way back but people don't seam to care enough to watch them.

"Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it."

notice how they call them servants rather than slaves. maybe they weren't slaves at all but servants.

again i ask HOW DOES SOMEONE MAKE A LIVING BACK THEN IF THEY'RE HOMELESS? and like i've said before, they sell themselves into slavery and they can buy themselves out.

---

oh and one more thing do you know why the man had to marry the woman he raped? b/c back then a woman who lost her virginity before marriage was considered worthless by other men. so he owes it to her to marry her since no one else will b/c she lost her virginity. it's doing the woman justice

[Minimalist]

IF ALL OF YOU HAVE TO TAKE WHAT I SAY OUT OF CONTEXT TO PROVE YOUR POINT THEN YOU HAVE NO POINT AT ALL.

Your context is self-delusion. Funny that we can see that so clearly while you remain clueless.

[Cyberman]

oh and one more thing do you know why the man had to marry the woman he raped? b/c back then a woman who lost her virginity before marriage was considered worthless by other men. so he owes it to her to marry her since no one else will b/c she lost her virginity. it's doing the woman justice

Resulting in the woman becoming trapped in a legal bonding with a man who has a history of sexual violence against her. Speaking from the perspective of actually having supported someone who was raped, I have to say that if you truly think that any of what you said is morally justifiable, or right, or humane, then you are an abomination to the human species. In my humble opinion, of course.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

i'm not spinning it they really were treated as servants and in fact the bible often uses the word servant instead of slave. and why do you make things so black and white? things aren't black and white like that example: killing is wrong. what about for self defense? well i guess that's ok. what about for the defense of others? well that's ok too i guess. what if your a solder and your ordered to do it? well i guess that's fine too.

Yes, it does often use the term 'servent' but it also uses them synonymously with 'slave.' Whether you agree with me or not, the fact of the matter is that the bible does not condone slavery - otherwise known as the owning of another human being as property.
Further, I don't know where you're getting your facts from, but slaves in the bible are not required to be treated well. As the bible itself pointed out, they are money. Not people. MONEY.
I believe that it was the whole reason why a particular group of Jews decided to up and leave Egypt despite the Pharaoh's attempts to work around that. If I remember the story properly, I believe God murdered an entire city's firstborn children in cold blood in the process.

actually slaves had a chioce in the matter too. they could leave, but b/c they had their payment in advance they have to give a lot of that back they didn't earn. often times someone's family would buy them out of slavery so your claim is JUST FALSE. and like i said, they are paid as well but you don't listen to a word i say do u? it was even in your own source you first presented to me and yet you don't read your own source?

Really? You know this as a matter of fact? I wouldn't mind seeing the biblical passage about how slaves can leave their slavery at any point in time because for all my attempts otherwise, I can't find a single passage in the old or new testiment that
a) condemns slavery or
b) slaves are free to leave their slavery at any time

no that's a couple of days after you beat them. if they die a couple of days after beating, you can pretty much say they did not die from the beating. and just b/c you can spank a child doesn't mean your gonna do it all the time for no reason. and why would anyone maim their slave? what good would they be if they can't work? slaves were there to work, not to get beaten to satisfy the master. just b/c it's allowed doesn't mean it's regular if they do a good job then they are treated well. if they steal something on the job they can get beat for it.

You're comparing the brutal murder of a slave to the spanking of a child?
You're also missing the point - the bible not only says that slavery is fine, but it gives a how-to guide to treating and mistreating your property.
It also confirms that they are property. Your property.
Don't give me some ridiculous shpeel about how regular or irregular slave beatings are or how much business sense it makes. That's not the point of this discussion. The point is that the bible justifies and promotes the ownership of another human being and gives a clear how-to on beating and maiming them.

they weren't just play things. are you forgetting the part of the bible where it says love your wife? or is that taken for granted b/c you cannot comprehend what love is? women back then could not support themselves. this is why they lived with their parrents until they got married. this is why the parents decide who the daughter marries. this is how it's been not just in jewish society but in all societies b/c women could not take care of themselves until about 100 years ago when jobs started forming and possibilities opened up as children could go to school with dreams of being whatever they want to be rather than just following the family business. they didn't really have public schools back then people did what they were taught to do by their families.

Puh-lease. Women didn't have rights during the biblical times and like commandment #6, following the laws of God appear to be compulsory. They are frequently depicted as whores, deceitful, and other negative stereotypes.

do you honestly think that family would give him a cent after he violated their daughter? i'm telling you this was a very shameful act back in the day. you sure lay down some low fines but why don't i lay down some high ones. theft, assult, breaking and entering, arson etc. are those serious enough for ya? yes they include jail time too but again, they didn't have a lot of money to keep people in jails and support them for the rest of their days. hell if they had those back then a lot of people would want to go to jail it's free food. that's why they had the death penalty for a lot of things.

I'm extremely entertained how you state facts about life during bible times without quoting the bible.
At least, according to Genesis 34, rape is considered a crime against the man's (rapist's) honor - not against the woman.
How above Laviticus 19:20-22, where a man can rape a maid - the maid gets scourged, but the man isn't punished at all. The maid gets solice in that she isn't put to death.
How about Deuteronomy 22:23-24, where if a man rapes a betrothed virgin in the city, she has to die.

There are numerous examples, but these are some of them.
I'll also take this time to mention that marriage isn't defined as one man and one woman. It's always from the point of view of the man and he can have as many wives as he can afford, apparently.

wow does no one read what i put on there. IF ALL OF YOU HAVE TO TAKE WHAT I SAY OUT OF CONTEXT TO PROVE YOUR POINT THEN YOU HAVE NO POINT AT ALL. i already mentioned what i said to faith no more so just read what i said to him i'm not putting that quote out there again. and let me just make a little correction. he did not so much kill them as much as sentenced them to death and exicuted them. there happy? yes the bible supports the death penalty.

Bullshit. I didn't take your statements out of context. You stated that people can kill other people if they have a good reason.
Yet, god made ten commandments to be followed given that God is supposed to be the ultimate moral authority.
The sixth one states that YOU SHALL NOT MURDER.
NO MURDER. None. Zero. Zilch.

Not only does God not follow his own rules, he murders casually and usually only to prove a point and he allows handpicked people to murder casually as well. He has murdered men, women, and children numerous times and you can't tell me that when he decided to commit genocide against the entire human race in the story of Noah that every human being except Noah and his family were ALL EVIL or ALL SINFUL.

Even if they were committing crimes, it would be akin to rounding up every prisoner in the world, putting them on an island, and then detonating a nuclear weapon (or flooding the island - whichever you uprefer). Not just them, but also their families and children as well.
I'm being very lenient in that analogy because I'm assuming the victims were ALL CRIMINALS and their families. God murdered every human in the world except for a small handful.

i don't know what eyes you have but i've seen the opposite. i put some of these debates on here somewhere way back but people don't seam to care enough to watch them.

That's because those debates have been around a long time and most of us have seen and discussed them before and often with people who think intelligent design is a thing. I myself have been in at least a half dozen such debates since I joined - more if I include other scientific-sounding creationist conventions.

If you want to engage members here in an actual debate, it also makes good if you actually posit a debate and make a point vs. "look at this video - I think it's right. What do you think?" is not conductive to a debate.

[chi pan]

"Your context is self-delusion. Funny that we can see that so clearly while you remain clueless."

it's funny how you say that with no knowlage of what happened. the answer to his question was literally right above where he quoted me. the context was there he just failed to see it.

"Resulting in the woman becoming trapped in a legal bonding with a man who has a history of sexual violence against her. Speaking from the perspective of actually having supported someone who was raped, I have to say that if you truly think that any of what you said is morally justifiable, or right, or humane, then you are an abomination to the human species. In my humble opinion, of course."

do you think the bible ever calls it moral? here's a passage in the bible on what God thinks of rape.
Genesis 34:7 "And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved and very angry, because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, a thing which ought not to be done."
the context of the passage is that Shechem fell in love with this girl and wanted to marry her. he spoke with his father saying he wants to marry this girl but he said that Jacob had already defiled (raped) her. i don't think calling it disgraceful is any part of condoning it. oh and for those who are wondering THIS IS HOW YOU CAN SHOW CONTEXT. that passage doesn't make sense on it's own.

"Really? You know this as a matter of fact? I wouldn't mind seeing the biblical passage about how slaves can leave their slavery at any point in time because for all my attempts otherwise, I can't find a single passage in the old or new testiment that"

oh sorry i confused something you said with something blam said. it was actually in the context of what blam quoted. blam gave me Leviticus 25:44.

sorry for my confusion but it says in leviticus 25:48-49 "after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; 49 or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him; or if he is able he may redeem himself." -so yes he can buy himself out or as modern comparison "quit his job." as long as he didn't spend all his money he was paid he's able to pay him back.

"a) condemns slavery or
b) slaves are free to leave their slavery at any time"

don't you get it? since they have freedom to get themselves out they are not really slaves b/c slave= no freedom. it's just a way for them to make money b/c there weren't a whole lot of ways to make money back then without property. i've said this many times.

"You're comparing the brutal murder of a slave to the spanking of a child?"

no did you not read what i said? i said if they wait a couple days after a beating and the person dies, they can confirm they did not die from the beating. it's not murder if they're not responsible for the death b/c it was natural causes.

"You're also missing the point - the bible not only says that slavery is fine, but it gives a how-to guide to treating and mistreating your property."

no, this is a form of corpral punishment. you always assume the worst but people don't beat their slaves for the hell of it. they have to DO SOMETHING WRONG. what you have to understand is these people are already paid for thier services so they can't just get fired or the owner would lose out. they need some other way to keep them in line if they misbehave. if they're a good worker then they will be treated well.

"At least, according to Genesis 34, rape is considered a crime against the man's (rapist's) honor"

hey i just quoted that passage lol. and one more thing, i've said from the beginning that raping is and was a shameful act not encouraged in the bible. this only further proves my point.

i think the bible says a few things about fornication being a sin does it not? reguardless of what you may thing, the man get's punished for these things on earth ang in heaven (if he even goes to heaven).

"Bullshit. I didn't take your statements out of context. You stated that people can kill other people if they have a good reason."

i would have put a quote by me but i already listed the quote in the second parograph of my last post. read it again cuz that's the answer to your question.

"Not only does God not follow his own rules, he murders casually and usually only to prove a point and he allows handpicked people to murder casually as well. He has murdered men, women, and children numerous times and you can't tell me that when he decided to commit genocide against the entire human race in the story of Noah that every human being except Noah and his family were ALL EVIL or ALL SINFUL."

well it wasn't total genocide b/c the human race survived through noah. and i believe he did this b/c fallen angels had interbread with humans and they bore giants. these were a tainted breed and God would not allow their survival for they were an abonimation. this story is clearly explained in the book of Enoch though this book was not put into the bible so it's contriversial. and you must have missed it so i'll say it again "God sentenced these people to death and exicuted them." just as he allows humans to exicute other humans for their crimes on a governmental level.

[5thHorseman]

'well it wasn't total genocide b/c the human race survived through noah. and i believe he did this b/c fallen angels had interbread with humans and they bore giants. these were a tainted breed and God would not allow their survival for they were an abonimation. this story is clearly explained in the book of Enoch though this book was not put into the bible so it's contriversial. and you must have missed it so i'll say it again "God sentenced these people to death and exicuted them." just as he allows humans to exicute other humans for their crimes on a governmental level.'

How naive and credulous can one person be, angels interbreding with humans, can you be serious? You really believe in the validity of a book that was chopped and changed to suit the King James Bible editors/translators ideologies?

[LastPoet]

Yep, that one is already in the hall of shame

[Faith No More]

well i guess you missed the part where i said "so yes, God did kill people himself but he always had a good reason for it. and you may say "isn't killing against the commandments of the bible?" well directly translated the hebrew word for it is to kill out of anger or hate. to kill someone for them to pay for a crime and not out of hatred or anger is justified, which is why they encourage the death penalty in the bible as well." if your going to correct me try to understand what i say or at least read it. it not only has your answer it has your question how could you miss that?

No, I didn't miss that part, I just thought it was ridiculous. My questions were meant to be rhetorical to make a point. I wasn't actually looking for your answer, because as you said, it was already there. My point was that killing should never be okay, regardless of the reason, and it's silly to think that an omnipotent being couldn't realize a better solution.

I wasn't trying to correct you, I didn't misunderstand what you had to say, nor did I miss what you said. I just think what you had to say is ridiculous. Killing is killing, whether the killer thinks it was for a good reason or not.

[chi pan]

"I wasn't trying to correct you, I didn't misunderstand what you had to say, nor did I miss what you said. I just think what you had to say is ridiculous. Killing is killing, whether the killer thinks it was for a good reason or not."

reguardless of what your point of view is there is a difference between exicution and murder. it's a contriversy that exists even today whether the death penalty should be legal or not but we are not argueing whether the death penalty is just or not we are just talking about the fact that there is a difference between the 2. one is justified and the other is not. and killing is killing? is it not ok to kill in self defense? is it not ok to shoot someone who has a knife to ur wife's throat? it's not all black and white and again this is the second time i've said this.