The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Do Richard Dawkins' words really describe God of the old testament?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,644 times Debate No: 45101
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (57)
Votes (4)




I will start the debate with Richard' description of God of the old testament:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

I totally agree with Dawkins. Anyone who disagrees with Dawkins is welcome to a debate.

I wish good luck to the contender


Eh, why not. I'll accept this debate. My opponent asserts that "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

I will attempt to show that other pagan religions are: more bloodthirsty, more prone to ethnic cleansing, more misogynistic, more racist, more infanticidal, more genocidal, more megalomaniacal, more sadomasochistic, and more malevolent than the Jewish God.

I will draw from the practices of several ancient religions, including: Phoenician, Carthaginian, Grecan, Celtic Druids, Ancient Chinese, Mayan, Aztec, Incan, and others.

My main objective will be to undermine the absolute nature of my opponent's statement. I will focus on the assertions of ethnic cleansing, bloodthirstiness, genocide, sadomasochism, and malevolence.

Good luck to my opponent, I look forward to this debate!
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

It is true that The God of the Old Testament was not *the* most unpleasant character in all fiction. I agree that there are many pagan Gods that are more genocidal,racist,bloodthirsty etc. But i have to say that all those pagan religions are now extinct. Yet many people still worship the God of the Old Testament unaware of his wrath,anger,bloodthirstiness etc. and plus,they are claiming that he is an omnibenevolent God.

You can look at the biblical flood,the Sodom and Gomorrah,the sexism from the bible,that bible is supporting slavery,Joshua's order to kill the people from many cities and towns...

Also...there are plenty of verses from the bible,from the God himself:

For jealousy and unforgiveness: "He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins." - Joshua 24:19
Bloodthirstiness: "And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD." -Leviticus 4:17
Unjust: "If thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." - Exodus 4:23

This is only the small piece of puzzle...there are many verses like this. I wonder how can people think he is omnibenevolent!

But i got an impression that my opponent,however,does accept what Richard Dawkins says,except the *most* part. I may be wrong,however. Also i think my opponent is taking this debate out of context by mentioning that pagan Gods are more unpleasant. And if these pagan Gods are no longer worshiped because of their bad characteristics and personalities that were hated by people from different religions,why not stop worshiping Yahweh too?


Firstly, I will address one of the comments. I will restrict my part of the debate to religion, as Dawkins refers to religion as "fiction" and to make the claim valid across the entirety of the literary genre, the Jewish God would have to contend with the likes of JRR Tolkien's Melkor, and fictional serial killer Joe Carroll, who created his own cult based on Edgar Allen Poe's writings, and whose followers brutally kill at random without discrimination and self-mutilate themselves as offerings to Carroll. There are numerous entities of pure evil in fiction, and endless choices to pick from who would outdo the Jewish God in all the categories listed by Dawkins. Restricting this to religion, I think respects the original intent of the discussion, unless my opponent would rather open it up to the entirety of the literary genre. I would also like to say that by discussing other religions, I am not taking the debate out context. The very resolution demands a comparison, and as such, I am well within the bounds of this debate when I discuss the competition Jehovah faces.

Secondly, I would like to address a contention of my opponent. My opponent says that many people claim the God of the Old Testament to be omnibenevolent. I have never met a Jewish person who claimed their God to be omnibenevolent, and denied his wrath and anger. Several of my relatives are orthodox Jews, and others are more Liberal Jews, and no Jewish Rabbi would ever make such a claim. And no Christian worships the God of the Old Testament, for all Christian Denominations worship God as He is in the New Testament, loving and forgiving. Evangelical Christians speak of God's wrath only in the context of the end times and Revelation.

Next, I will address my opponent's observation regarding what I accept and what I deny in Richard Dawkin's quote. I reject the characterization of Jehovah as petty, unjust, unforgiving, a control-freak, vindictive, bloodthirsty, an ethnic cleanser, a misogynist, a racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacla, sadomasochistic, capricious, malevolent, and a bully. The homophobic accusation is incorrect as well, as to be homophobic means to fear homosexuality. Jehovah does not fear it, nor does he fear anything of man.

Now I will move to the first part of my discussion: dissecting the nature of God, and the accusations of those who believe like Dawkins.

If we are to discuss the character of God in the context of a fictional account, we must accept all the rules of the fictional account itself, or else lack true context. Firstly, that Jehovah is considered the true God, and his laws and morality are the true morality for the Jews. To be just is defined as "acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good: righteous <a just war> (2) : being what is merited : deserved <a just punishment>" [1]. Next, we must consider the instances in which God may be considered all of these adjectives listed by Dawkins.

Petty. Jehovah can hardly be considered a petty God. He does not punish men for failure to pray each morning, breath in time, or eat breakfast, lunch, dinner, etc. What is defined as a Sin in Leviticus is very strict. First, there are Sins committed through ignorance of the Law. Leviticus lays out the process someone who has sinned while ignorant of the law must follow in order to make things right again. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse in the Old Testament, and this is a principle we see today. We can hardly consider God's requiring of justice in the circumstances of ignorance unjust, for our own legal systems follow the very same principle.

Next, God lays out the sins themselves. First, Jews are not allowed to eat or touch anything unclean, and he lays out the process of making things clean and acceptable for consumption. How is this any more petty than our governments prescribing how healthy food must be, or what foods we can and cannot consume? And yet, we have people clamoring for bans on Soda, bans on meat, bans on consuming certain types of fish. Next, God forbids the Jews from eating the fat off of meat that is used in offerings, and bans his people from consuming Blood. Does this sound like the laws of a bloodthirsty God? That is, a God eager to spill blood? God also provides ways for people to remove their sin, by bringing offerings to Him. Would a petty, unjust God give people a way to redeem themselves in his eyes? Would a God eager to spill blood allow those who did not follow him to have dominion over his chosen people? There is no evidence of Jehovah being unforgiving. The very fact that he allowed Nebuchadnezzar to repent and continue his reign during the story of Shadrach, Meshiach, and Abednego provides us evidence that Jehovah is not unforgiving. Time and time again the tribes of Judah themselves turned against Jehovah, and time and time again he allowed them to come back into his favor, meting out justice when it was required, and forgiving them. This is not an unforgiving God, nor is it an Ethnic Cleansing God. None of the people in Canaan who the Israelites fought were peaceful people, and the narrative in the Old Testament tells us that the Kings of the individual peoples and cities came in force against the Israelites without first parleying with them, and captured their citizens and imprisoned them. In the wars that followed, the Israelites were victorious. We know from our archeological evidence that the Canaanites were not morally just people. Child Sacrifice, Human Sacrifice, Bestiality, all are observed in our records of their histories. Furthermore, Jehovah directs his wrath at the Canaanite religion, and individual Canaanites were not slaughtered or massacred entirely, and some were forgiven. This is hardly a genocidal, bloodthirsty, unforgiving God. [3]

God is in no way sadomasochistic. In order for God to be sadomasochistic, he would have to derive pleasure from sexual acts that humiliate and impart pain. Nowhere in the Old Testament does Jehovah even exhibit such behavior.

Soddom and Gomorrah were punished because their entire population of men tried to rape one of God's angels. Not for their homosexuality, but because of what they tried to do to God's Angel. The bible says they surrounded the house the Angel was staying at, and demanded he come out and be gang-raped. Both young and old participated, and what people often forget is that the Angels were sent by God to determine if there were truly good people in the city, and if there were, per an agreement with Abraham, he would spare them! [2]

The bible itself does not condone slavery. We must remember that when we think of slavery today, we mostly think of forced slavery, enslavement against people's will, but we forget that people during the time of the Old Testament could enter slavery willingly to pay off debts, and leave once the debts were paid. Thus, when the Old Testament lays out protocols for treating slaves well and justly, we cannot say entirely that such protocols condone slavery as we think of it thanks to Imperialism and Colonialism.

As for the plagues of Egypt, the Israelites were enslaved against their will. God gave them plenty of warnings that if they continued on that path, his judgement would fall. Considering we must operate within the bounds of the fictional account, God's morality and truth is the true morality, and more often than not, he showed himself to the very people he warned, and they still persisted in their disobedience.

The next part of my discussion will deal with Jehovah's competition in religions around the world. All discussions of biblical accounts come from the King James Bible, widely regarded as the most reliable translation of the bible. I look forward to the last round and discussion with my opponent!

Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for the argument. Here i will do my complete rebuttal and conclusions at the end.

First of all i would like to correct my opponent's statement that Dawkins refers to religion as "fiction". He does not refer to religion,he refers to God,or any kind of deity.

God of the old testament (i will call him Yahweh until the end) would beat Meklor and Carroll in being "the worse" because it is said he is omnipotent,and by this he is capable of anything,but it's not just that.Compared to the evil that has been done by,say,Carroll,he is at least 100 times worse (the flood,the repulsiveness of "The 10 Commandments" like part for not working on Sabbath and so...,all the genocide he committed etc. and ironically the 6th commandment says "Thou shall not kill")

I've seen some people state that Yahweh is omnibenevolent on Youtube,Google,Yahoo and other social networks.There are verses that say Yahweh is loving God. Those people state only the verses that say he is a loving God,effectively making other people (unfamiliar with this) ignore the other verses that claim otherwise (by the way it is quite weird that there are opposing verses in the "perfect book"). In fact,many people say they believe in the biblical flood,which is scientifically impossible! Some of the verses:

The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. Psalm 145:8
It is God who arms me with strength and makes my way perfect. 2 Samuel 22:33

Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be
discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go. Joshua 1:9
Hmm,my opponent disagrees with every adjective used to describe Yahweh.

Petty: Yes there is a bit of pettiness in his image (Deuteronomy 23:1)
Bloodthirsty: Bans people of consuming blood? Don't think so,he is bloodthirsty:

Isaiah 34:7-8 "The sword of the LORD is filled with blood,...their land shall be soaked in blood,...for it is the day of the LORD's vengeance"

Isaiah 49:26 "And i will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh and they shall be drunken with their own blood,as with sweet wine"

Ezekiel 39:18 "Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty and drink the blood of the princes of the earth"

Unforgiveness: I think the evidence of his unforgiveness is pretty obvious.Why would he send Jesus to earth so he can be tortured to death and crucified for all the people's sins? If he truly was forgiving,he would not do that. He would've forgive everyone without sacrifice of his own son. Also here is a verse:

Ezekiel 8:18 "Mine eye shall not spare,neither will i have pity; and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice,yet i will not hear them"
Although this doesn't mean he will not forgive you for everything,it states that when it comes to forgiving,It is question will Yahweh forgive or not.
There is also a verse for his sadomasochism (Ezekiel 23:34)

As for Sodom and Gomorrah,Yahweh's original reason for destroying the cities was because of violence,cruelty,unjustness and selfishness of people. By the deal with Abraham,Yahweh would've spared the city if there were just 10 good people.Lot and his family were the only ones judged as "respected and good",but what about the infants,toddlers,children and some women? Infants and toddlers could not be saw as guilty for the problems of the cities! So there had to be more than 10 good people,yet Lot and his family were the only ones saved from the destruction of the city.I would consider that Yahweh did not keep the deal. The only moral i can see from this is: "If your city is mostly bad people,God will destroy it. Don't live in bad cities!" All jokes aside, this story proves even more how Yahweh is unforgivable,and how he committed yet another genocide.

The slavery was he worst position any human being could be into (in my opinion). Christian religion had to be respected by slaves in that time,but anytime slaves tried to protest,they ended up being beaten and tortured and had bible shoved in their noses. That's right! For many centuries bible has been used to support slavery. People that owned their slaves did not care about the slave's needs,they only cared for their satisfaction. People also thought slavery was right according to the bible. The verses to look for this are Exodus 21:20-21 and 21:26-27 which tell that beating and torturing slaves is fine,because slave is master's property! Maybe the bible was not directly supporting slavery,t it has been used like it was!

So to conclude:

1.There are plenty of verses from the bible that show and prove Dawkins was mostly right.
2.Yahweh might not be *the* worst character in all fiction,but he is arguably so.
3.If morals actually do come from God (in which i doubt),i would rather have them come from Allah than Yahweh.
4.I think the whole thing should be reconsidered by the ones who still worship the Jewish God or have no doubts about him.

I now hand the debate back to my opponent. Although i will not be able to answer again for my opponent's last argument,i will do so in the comments. I would like to thank my opponent and everyone who read this!


I thank my opponent for allowing me to participate in this debate! Now I move to my final comments.

Firstly, My opponent's statement that Jehovah would be worse than Melkor or Carroll ignores a vital component: both Melkor and Carrol killed without reason, destroyed without concern, and offered no quarter to their enemies. Jehovah did so on ALL occasions in the Old Testament. The Hebrew God gave humans who sinned against him a chance to redeem themselves. Remember that for the Jews, all humans knew Jehovah at one time, but many turned against him. Actually read the accounts of the Old Testament. Before Moses and the Israelites went into the land of Canaan, God sent warnings to the Kings of that land to let them be. Yet, they all came out in force against the Israelites. God always warns those who sin against him, he warned David when he was having an affair with a soldier's wife, he warned Nebuchadnezzar, he warned Babylonian Kings, Judean Kings, Israeli Kings, Egyptian Kings. My opponent acts as if out of the blue, these people were caught unawares and massacred. It is simply untrue, in the narrative of the Old Testament.

Next, I can tell my opponent has not actually read the Bible. My opponent first picks one verse only, and doesn't bother to find out the context. Psalms is a book of songs, songs of both praise to God and sorrow. The Psalms were written by David, and the one my opponent described is one of many that were written in thanks for protecting the people of Israel and providing for them. And the God of the Old Testament is very slow to anger, and easy to forgive. All it takes is for someone to actually read the entirety of the Old Testament with an objective mind.

As to the biblical flood being scientifically impossible, there is no consensus on that:

Next, my opponent says it is ironic for God to say "thou shalt not kill," and then allow the Israelites to conquer enemies. First, in order to say this objectively, you must first say that laws against murder are hypocritical since we have militaries. If my opponent will concede this point, I will at least give the respect he deserves for being self-consistent. But we must also remember that for the Old Testament, these peoples the Israelites conquered didn't just shake their fists at God for centuries. Yes, centuries. It took many hundreds of years for God to deal out his wrath through the Israelites, which runs precisely counter to my opponent's assertion that Jehovah is not slow to anger and rich in love. He allowed the people of Canaan to practice their barbaric religions for a long long time before he finally had enough, and even then, when Moses and the Israelites were sent into the land, God gave them a chance. He forgave the Israelites for sacrificing to the Bronze Serpent constructed by Moses in the desert, there are countless examples of Jehovah's patience and willingness to forgive in the Old Testament.

I caution my opponent from taking Isaiah out of context. It is a book of prophecy, not a historical or religious account. God does have wrath, but does that make him a bloodthirsty God? By extension, all humans experience anger, and punishment for wrongs is found throughout the animal kingdom. Does that make all animals bloodthirsty? Over-genralization based on taking verses out of context is extremely dangerous to someone seeking to make an argument. Isaiah was saying what would happen if people did not turn from their evils ways. The relationship between God and humans in the Old and New testament is that of a parent and their children. Should we indict all parents who punish their kids for breaking their rules as malevolent, capricious bullies? Does that make parents who punish their children sadomasochistic, petty, unjust, bloodthirsty, unforgiving people? I also remind my opponent that Ezekiel too is a book of prophecy only. And even my analogy here is imperfect, because human parents punish their children for things like not doing HW, and disrespect. God punishes people for child and human sacrifice, brutality, and other crimes we ourselves consider worthy of the death penalty in some, if not all, cultures. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who was in favor of letting a person who tortured and sacrificed infants, and drank their blood, escape the death penalty.

Now I move to a very critical question. Why would God send Jesus to earth so he can be tortured to death and crucified for all the people's sins, when it would be simpler to just forgive it from the outset? Let me ask my opponent: Do people learn anything of the value of something when it is handed to them from birth? Don't children become spoiled when their parents let them do whatever they want and just roll over for them? In the same way, God needed people to understand 1) That He was the true God, and 2) The magnitude of Adam and Eve's sin, and his own Sacrifice. And still today people need this to be spelled out to them, like yourself. Jesus' sacrifice was God's way of saying "This is what I will do for you, this is how much I love you." What would you learn if your parents just gave you everything without explaining or showing you the significance? Nothing. Finally, Jesus' sacrifice was the ultimate "F*#$ You!" to Lucifer. The Apostle's Creed states "He was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell. On the Third Day he rose again from the dead." Death was Lucifer's chief way of separating humans from God. Jesus conquered death, and provided humans a way to salvation. His sacrifice was not just a way of forgiving sins, not just to show peoplehow much God cared about them, but to conquer death itself and take away one of the Enemy's weapons.

For Soddom and Gomorrah, the bible is clear. OLD AND YOUNG.

My opponent admits the bible does not support slavery! He moves beyond the bounds of the debate, and discusses how humans used the bible for their own gains. This is a debate about God, Jehovah, and his actions. Not human actions. I already addressed how giving protocols for the treatment of slaves does not imply the bible sanctions slavery.

Now I will briefly discuss Jehovah's opponents:

Tanit, Carthage. Archeology reveals hundreds of infant skeletons, infants which were sacrificed willingly to appease the Goddess Tanit.

The Rus, slavic peoples, sacrificed female slaves at funerals. Retainer sacrifice was also practiced in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Levant (not by Jews).

The Chinese sacrificed people to river Dieties.

The Mayans sacrificed humans to the God Chaac, while the Aztecs famously sacrificed people to their god Huitzilopochtli, in an effort to stave off the end of days.

Human sacrifice is documented in West Africa for centuries, even as late as the 1600-1700s.

The God Jehovah required no human sacrifice and forbade it. He is far less bloodthirsty than any of these dieties, far less petty, far less unforgiving, far less malevolent than these. There can be no argument when the number of Dieties which allowed and even demanded practices that were forbidden by the Hebrew God for moral reasons far outnumbers the actions of the Hebrew God.

To conclude:

1) My opponent's characterization of Jehovah and use of scripture reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the Old Testament, specifically that they lacked complete context and theological understanding.
2) The examples provided by my opponent are, when placed in correct context, none of the adjectives described by Dawkins, and anyone who has read the Old Testament entirely would undersand that.
3) Yahweh's competition actually fits the adjectives used. Several pagan dieties were far more bloodthirsty and violent, even more genocidal

Thanks to my opponent, and good luck in voting. All discussionsof Jehovah's competition require a simple google search of "Human Sacrifice." All discussions of biblical passages come from King James Version of the Bible. Link above.

Debate Round No. 3
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
@RebelRebelDixieDixie01: Yes-But they are pretty much all Hindus or Taoists. Paganism is a catch-all term for all non-Christian gods, it isn't a single religion.
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 2 years ago
You know millions of people still worship pagan gods right? You sound very ignorant when you talk about things you have no idea about.
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
To all DDO Users:
I have created a 2020 Mock Presidential Election, located in the forum. If you wish to participate as a candidate, sign up. If you do not wish to participate, feel free to watch and vote anyway.
Posted by chewster911 2 years ago
@Comrade_Silly_Otter thank you very much! The snow leopards are the most beautiful cats. I love blaze8's surprised kitty too!
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
@blaze8: No I did not know that. I'm glad you don't actually believe the arguments that you are giving.
However, even from a theological perspective, the God of the Bible makes no sense whatsoever, mainly because of the contradictions between his descriptions and his actions.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago

I transferred our discussion to a forum because the lack of formatting options was getting on my nerves.
Please do check it out and respond.
Posted by blaze8 2 years ago
Thanks Comrade_Silly_Otter! I love shocked cat pics lol.

And Romanii, you do know I'm playing devil's advocate here, right? I don't actually believe the God of the Old Testament is completely right in the way he treated people, but I understand it from a theological perspective, and I believe God's new covenant through Jesus is one of love and compassion. I just find it very fun to try and argue things from different perspectives.
Posted by Comrade_Silly_Otter 2 years ago
Both of you have adorable cat pics.
Posted by blaze8 2 years ago
If you are defining Forgiveness by the severity of the punishment, you don't understand forgiveness at all. You can forgive, and still punish.

Let me get this straight. You get miracles performed before pharaoh. God sends ten massive and widespread plagues to the country. And you ask for MORE proof of his existence? What more proof could he offer you?!? Short of the burning bush itself, which even then, is no guarantee of pharaoh accepting it as God.

The first Born were brought up in his society, acknowledging him as a deity. First born means first in each family. That doesn't necessarily mean infants and children! I'm the firstborn in my family, and I'm 21. My dad was the firstborn in his family, and he's 56. First born has nothing to do with age. Secondly, Pharaoh was not the only one at fault here. The Egyptian people as a society, both women and children, committed these crimes. They kept the Israelites as slaves. They brutalized them. The crimes were that of a society, so God went to the ruler of that society. But he punished all of the society for their crimes.

God doesn't demand worship. You have every right and ability to not worship him. But if you do so, knowing that he exists, and knowing the punishments for defying him, you accept the consequences. Telling me this is unreasonable is like telling me that when I break a law, even if I knew it was a law and knew what the consequences are, I shouldn't be subject to them. Good luck with that argument.

As for Canaan, I already explained that. God waited a long time and gave the Canaanites plenty of warnings. Just as with Egypt, the society as a whole is at fault here, even the young children who worshipped the same gods that required Infant sacrifice of their brothers and sisters.

Lastly, not once have I said that the God of the Old Testament is an all-loving God. Rather, I have said that he does show love, and patience, and justice. All loving comes with Christ and the NT.
Posted by blaze8 2 years ago
The word "bet" nor any words synonymous with it are not in the book of Job at all. You decry it as a bet, but you don't know that is one. For all we know, God may have been intending to remove his special protections from Job anyways. And children die all the time, their parents have new children all the time. God takes what is his, and in the narrative of the Old Testament, God made all man and the entire world, and is entitled to do with it as he pleases.

God's rant was more along the lines of "Dude, I'm God, I created you for goodness sake. I have a plan, and while it may seem horrible now, it's for your own good. Don't question me when you don't understand what I'm doing, and if you think you know better than me, the one who created everything you know, if you think you know better than God, then say so." Within the narrative of the Old Testament, God is God, and you may not like it, but you're sure as hell going to shut up and deal with it, because what you consider to be right and wrong, just and unjust, may not always be the correct version. And within the Old Testament, this is a valid argument.

For that matter, you assume your "modern" lawmakers have a better sense of justice. Prove it. Show that their sense of justice is the objective sense, across all times and all space and all creatures. You can't. What this boils down to is, you don't like God's sense of justice, so you condemn it. You don't like any sense of justice that rubs you the wrong way, regardless of whether or not it may be the best objective sense of justice. If the "modern lawmakers" decided to make laws that you think are wrong, even if they were for the good of the world, you would decry them. Who are you to say your sense of justice is superior? You have no objective proof of it's superiority, nor can you find any. Also, that sort of punishment is prescribed for the ten commandments, which are all on equal footing. For God, not keeping the sabbath is equal to murder
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was winning until he attempted to use the argument that Isaiah and Ezekiel are "just prophecies"-even if they're prophecies, they're in the Bible, and therefore they are still God's word. Con's examples of "more malevolent deities" basically boiled down to "human sacrifice happened". Con states that "young and old" in terms of Sodom and Gomorrah means the babies were rapists too-I find myself incredulous, even for the Bible.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to give argument points to Pro, as while Con presented an interesting argument it ignores the facts of what we would call cruel in today's world. To justify mass killing requires slick maneuvering, but is a very difficult sell to any rational person. Con used sources and so source points to Con. S&G is tied, and conduct was great for both so split points. Nice debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and S&G were equal. No sources were cited, but I suppose that wouldn't really be possible anyways in a debate like this. Pro definitely proved that according to the Bible, the God of the Old Testament CAN be described by each of the descriptive terms used by Dawkins. Con mostly answered Pro's contentions with the standard "out of context" phrases that are so often used to defend the supposed omnibenevolence of the Biblical God.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Nobody actually cited external sources, but Pro did provide Biblical references that confirmed Pro's case, Con did not provide any backing references, I was awaiting the more Malevolent Gods of other religions, but was disappointed that Con did not deliver, I'm sure they may exist, some religions are very brutal and banal. Overall Pro was more convincing, Con's play on Con's own subjective semantics is not a convincing argument, one may not believe one's God is an idiot, but evidence in written scripture speaks louder than belief.