The Instigator
claw4
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
The-Holy-Macrel
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

God is not great

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
The-Holy-Macrel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 505 times Debate No: 62540
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

claw4

Pro

I am arguing that the Christian religion is not only unreasonable, but their god is a horrendous creation of the collective human mind.
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

I accept, game on.
Debate Round No. 1
claw4

Pro

It's a common belief among Christians that their god is a perfect being only capable of love. However in the bible is jealous, cruel, condones slavery, condones genocide, promotes misogyny, and is altogether an unreasonable person. 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. Morality isn't absolute and should be reasoned and changed the more we progress as human beings. 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. If we look at WW2 for instance, all the people in Europe that went to great lengths to hide the Jews from the Nazis technically were liars, but through that lie they were able to save people from death and torture. 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. 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'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'll end it here, because I'm looking forward to hearing your side.
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

He is capable of anthing but does things for love. When someone passes away he wants you to be strong and carry on. A lot of what he does are tests. Some times god has to use tough love. Him being great i but an opinion but is proveable.

You state that "the bible has contradictions within its own texts, it's also filled with contradictions with historical and archaeoloical findings, but most importantly contradicts science." Since this is true according to your arguement then the bible, according to your arguement is false which tears apart your other points.
Debate Round No. 2
claw4

Pro

He allowed the Israelites to commit mass genocide, he tells women that they are lower than men, curses the Israelites to wander the desert for 40 years just for complaining, sends bears to kill children just for making fun of his prophet for being bald, says that you must stone homosexuals, that women are unclean when they are on they're menstruating, and I a can keep going on but I think you get the point. Point is this is not a god of love, this is a cruel god who won't accept anything but complete obedience from people. I've heard people claim that god advocate for free will, but does so by threatening to burn anyone who doesn't believe in him for eternity.

The second claim I made is that the Christian religion is unreasonable so my other points doesn't tear apart my other points because they are points to a completely separate claim. Just in case I haven't mentioned it before I'm not requiring sources from you, I'm only interested in your argument, I just have to point that out before I continue. In the bible it claims that for a day the earth stood still, this is counter intuitive to science because if the earth were to ever stay still, in other words stop rotating, this would bring about disastrous implications for the earth. The bible states that there is a flood, but we often find trees that are much older than the time of the flood. Also, if we look at the supposed size of the boat it would have been impossible for all the species we know today to have fit on the boat, however with the amount of species that could have fit on the boat we would have to witness new species being made everyday since the flood to now to account for the variations of species we see today. Below I will post a link to the biblical contradictions within its own texts, I will leave it up to you if you want to address them, but it won't be necessary for our argument. Because the bible defies logic and reasoning in the modern world, then it's easy to see that the bible is in fact unreasonable.

http://www.sacred-texts.com...
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

It may not be the bible that is unreasonable but that modern science that is so. Here are some examples of so:

1- Fleischmann"Pons"s Nuclear Fusion

Cold fusion is a supposed kind of nuclear reaction that would occur at relatively low temperatures compared with hot fusion. As a new type of nuclear reaction, it gained much popularity after reports in 1989 by famous electrochemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. The craze about cold fusion became weaker as other scientists, after trying to repeat the experiment, failed to get similar results.

2- Phrenology

Now widely considered as a pseudoscience, phrenology was the study of the shape of skull as indicative of the strengths of different faculties. Modern scientific research wiped it out by proving that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain.

3- The Blank Slate

The Blank Slate theory (or Tabula rasa), widely popularized by John Locke in 1689, proposed that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Modern research suggests that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with innate instincts of course, also play a very important role.

4- Luminiferous Aether

The aether (or ether) was a mysterious substance that was thought to transmit light through the universe. The idea of a luminiferous aether was debunked as experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light, and later Einstein"s special theory of relativity, came along and entirely revolutionized physics.

5- Einstein"s Static (or Stationary) Universe

A static universe, also called a "stationary" or "Einstein" universe, was a model proposed by Albert Einstein in 1917. It was problematic from the beginning. Edwin Hubble"s discovery of the relationship between red shift obliterated it by completely demonstrating that the universe is constantly expanding.

6- Martian Canals

The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that some 19th century scientists erroneously thought to exist on Mars. First detected in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, modern telescopes and imaging technology completely debunked the myth. The "canals" were actually found to be a mere optical illusion.

7- Phlogiston Theory

First postulated in 1667 by German physician Johann Joachim Becher, Phlogiston Theory is an obsolete scientific theory regarding the existence of "phlogiston", a fire-like element, which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. The theory tried to explain burning processes such as combustion and the rusting of metals, which are now jointly termed as "oxidation".

8- The Expanding or Growing Earth

The Expanding Earth or Growing Earth is a hypothesis suggesting that the position and relative movement of continents is dependent on the volume of the Earth increasing. Modern science has turned down any expansion or contraction of the Earth.

9- Discovery of the Planet Vulcan

A small planet that was supposed to exist in an orbit between Mercury and the Sun, French mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier coined the name "Vulcan" while trying to explain the nature of Mercury"s orbit. No such planet was ever discovered, while the orbit of Mercury was explained in detail by Albert Einstein"s theory of general relativity.

10- Spontaneous (or Equivocal) Generation

Spontaneous generation or equivocal generation is an obsolete principle concerning the origin of life from inanimate matter. The hypothesis was brought out by Aristotle who advocated the work of earlier natural philosophers. It was proven wrong in the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, drawing influence from Francesco Redi who was an early proponent of germ theory and cell theory.

Who is to say alot more theories are phony?
And about people suffering, sometimes god needs to use tough love.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Innerstrength 2 years ago
Innerstrength
i don't want to offend anybodies religion but i will say that if you believe any of it your a moron.
Posted by claw4 2 years ago
claw4
It's interesting to hear their side, nonetheless.
Posted by NoobBomb 2 years ago
NoobBomb
"their god is a horrendous creation " It is irrational to debate facts. We know for a fact that god of bible is evil because god advocates killing newborns, rape and genocide. According to our morals, this is evil. Therefore, its a fact that god is evil. Do not debate facts. They are facts and so don't require any debate.
Posted by claw4 2 years ago
claw4
Sorry my computer is acting up I don't know why it posted the unfinished comment too.
Posted by claw4 2 years ago
claw4
Since the bible encompasses the old testament and the new testament, I figured that covered the Jewish god as well, and by extension Islam. The purpose was to keep the debate focused. I'm more interested in the debater's argument, that's why I'm not requiring sources from the debater either, although I can provide them to you if you'd like. The WW2 analogy works because the bible claims absolute morality, if there are exceptions and circumstances where lying can be permitted then it's the bible that doesn't work.
Posted by claw4 2 years ago
claw4
The purpose was so that the debate would be more focused. I'm more interested in the debater's argument, that's why I'm not requiring sources from the debater either, although I can provide them to you if you'd like. The WW2 analogy works because the bible claims absolute morality, if there are exceptions and circumstances where lying can be permitted then it's the bible that doesn't work.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
Why only single out Christianity? The Jewish G-d is technically the Christian one. Islam has also borrowed heavily from both religions and claimed their G-d as its own.

Practically all the reasons you've stated are without source, and the WW2 analogy just doesn't work. Naturally there's exceptions and circumstances where lying can be permitted; that's not where the Old Testament is coming from.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
claw4The-Holy-MacrelTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: You can't really simultaneously claim that a given source is untrustworthy and proof of your position, which is what Pro attempts to do with scripture. To say you are making separate claims really doesn't make it any less contradictory. Does not carry BoP and does not adequately respond to o Con's objections.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
claw4The-Holy-MacrelTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was unable to carry the burden of proof. As far as I could tell, there wasn't a single substantive argument constructed from Pro's side.