The Instigator
yoyopizza
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jakethesnake99
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

God

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 770 times Debate No: 36362
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

yoyopizza

Con

Pro can argue anything, so long as it is against my beliefs.
1) There is no evidence/proof of any god
2) The god of the bible is amoral
3) The bible is demonstrably wrong

In other words, make any case you can for religion.
jakethesnake99

Pro

1) OK as there was no proof of ghosts or aliens and tons of people still believe in them
2) he can be he's god almighty the man who created everything
3) and it is also right in many parts to compare and thank you for the debate
Debate Round No. 1
yoyopizza

Con

I meant for you to make a case for your religion, would you define your religion. Creationist? I'm just going to assume things since you haven't told me, just let me know if I'm wrong.

Your first point is that people believe in ghosts and aliens, and there is no proof of either. I would agree with you, people should know by now that ghosts are fictitious. As far as aliens, we know that life can form under the right conditions, and we know that the universe is so vast. People who believe that aliens come here are crazy, but those who say that, with the universe so big, extraterrestrial life is probable, are not crazy.

Your argument is that because he created people he can do what he wants? Assuming he did, then you're still wrong. If I have a child, me and a woman created a child. Then by this logic I have the right to do whatever I wish to said child. This is utterly false and everyone knows that.

You are admitting that the bible is wrong... Well I guess no argument here then! :)
jakethesnake99

Pro

jakethesnake99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
yoyopizza

Con

I really don't know what to say here. I guess I don't have anything to add...
jakethesnake99

Pro

jakethesnake99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
yoyopizza

Con

This is a little disappointing. I hope you'll respond at some point...
jakethesnake99

Pro

jakethesnake99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jakethesnake99

Pro

jakethesnake99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by yoyopizza 3 years ago
yoyopizza
I just meant I didn't want to debate you in the comments, I'd love to debate you, but I prefer it to be set up. Thanks for trying to help me, and I hope this will be fun. :)
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
yoyopizza,

| RE: " I'm done arguing in the comments."

That's fine... I didn't realize we were arguing. I just wanted to help you harden the parameters of your debate. Initially, you asserted that God is amoral/immoral and you didn't provide a standard by which that could be proven or refuted.

I'm done. Have fun...
Posted by yoyopizza 3 years ago
yoyopizza
Firstly, if you want to debate then send me a debate and I will always accept if I am opposed. Second, the golden rule has been around since before the bible or any Christianity. Off the top of my head I know that Confucius used a version long before Christianity. Now, you're saying that I haven't defined my moral framework, but you're under the impression that god is the moral framework. I am telling you that my morality is not arbitrary, but defined by whatever does the most good. What then, makes something good? It is what brings the most happiness and minimizes suffering, as I have previously mentioned. As far as god defines morality, send me a debate if you want the challenge, but I'm done arguing in the comments.
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
yoyo,

In a debate (or any rational discussion), we are not "allowed" to be arbitrary... We must have a rational basis for our assertions. It is fine for people to disagree, but if a debate/discussion is to be productive or make progress on any given topic, the parties must at least be able to show that their respective assertions have a rational basis.

For instance, I can say whatever I want, but if I have no rational basis for my assertion, my opponent is free to point out that my assertion is baseless and I will ultimately lose on that point. He has no obligation to even argue/refute the point.

Your assertion that the God of the Bible is amoral/immoral will ultimately require that you appeal to a rational moral standard/authority, unless you want someone to accuse you of making a baseless assertion. Otherwise, you have nothing more than an arbitrary moral standard underlying your assertion.

The problem with your initial declaration and then your appeal to authority was that you were attempting to back your assertion (that the God of the Bible is amoral/immoral) by appealing to a moral proverb given to us by the same God (of the same Bible). If God is immoral, then how can we trust that His Golden Rule is moral? We can't. We must consider Him to be morally consistent, otherwise, our basis for appealing to His moral statutes is irrational and again, arbitrary. In other words, we can't pick and choose what we like (or consider moral) about the God of the Bible. He is either morally consistent, or He is not. If (in your mind), He is not, then you cannot make a rational appeal to His morality.

Your opponent is now implying the same thing in his answer to your assertion that God is amoral/immoral: "he can be he's god almighty the man who created everything"

Now, I would have worded my assertion differently, but your opponent is being morally consistent. He's implying that "God defines morality, therefore, He cannot be immoral by His own standard."
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
yoyo,

RE: "The 'best' option is the one that minimizes suffering and maximizes happiness."

That is a moral declaration.

I'm asking: Where do you get your moral framework or authority for making such a general declaration?

Especially, considering the fact that you said the God of the Bible is "amoral" (and then modified that to "immoral")--so we know you don't want to use God as the moral standard/authority. However, you referred to His version of the Golden Rule as "[summing up morality] quite nicely". If we are using a standard from the Bible, and the standard was given to us from someone (Jesus) who claimed to be God [1] and was proclaimed to be God [2], how is it that you (in virtually the same breathe) accuse the standard-bearer of being immoral?

[1]
- ... the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. - John 5:-8 (NASB)
- "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM." - John 8:58 (NASB)
- "I and the Father are One" - John 10:30 (NASB)
- "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" - John 14:9 (NASB)

[2]
- In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. - John 1:1
- He was in the beginning with God. - John 1:2
- All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. - John 1:3
- And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14

Note: All of those references are just a few off the top of my head from one book of the Bible. There are many dozens more that support my point.
Posted by yoyopizza 3 years ago
yoyopizza
Yes, that was my main target, but I wanted to keep it open in case some other religion had a case. I did talk a lot about the bible in my 3 points, but I guess Christianity is the only religion I have any experience with.
Posted by dj21 3 years ago
dj21
yoyo,
My point was simply that your closing line, "In other words, make any case you can for religion" painted the word religion with far too broad a brush. I think it'd been more accurate to replace the word religion with Christianity. That seemed to be your contention.
Posted by yoyopizza 3 years ago
yoyopizza
@ dj21, then we really don't have an argument then, do we?
Posted by yoyopizza 3 years ago
yoyopizza
You picked correctly, I didn't know that there was more than one golden rule though. The "best" option is the one that minimizes suffering and maximizes happiness. This is not exclusive to humans, either. I don't understand your statement that "someone or something must serve as a basis for that kind of moral declaration".
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
RE: "I think that the golden rule sums up morality quite nicely."

Okay, since you didn't specify the origin or the form/expression (positive, negative, etc...), I'll pick one: "Treat others the same way you want them to treat you."

Now, according to what standard of morality is that proverb considered moral? Certainly, that could be considered a "good" rule... But who/what is the standard for "good" or "best"? Someone or something must serve as a basis for that kind of moral declaration.
No votes have been placed for this debate.