The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

If the story of Noah's Ark is true then God is either totally incompetent or a celestial psychopath

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 6 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,007 times Debate No: 35530
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

All the cute little kittens, frisky little puppies, adorable little bunny rabbits and gurgling little babies who drowned in God's great flood would have made tasty snacks for crocodiles, alligators and sharks that, of course, were spared God's wrath.

Why would God punish innocent people and land animals and, in so doing, provide killer whales and other aquatic predators with a bounty of food unless He either didn't properly consider the consequences of His plan to flood the Earth or He is actually some sort of divine homicidal maniac?

Back in the real world, there is evidence for several very large floods in the Mediterranean region in ancient times which we now know were associated volcanic eruptions. It is probable that the collective memory of these catastrophic events was passed down through the generations in forms of folk tales and that these legends were the basis of the Noah's Ark story. [1,2,3]

However, if devout Christians are right in their belief that the story of Noah's Ark is not mere fiction then, clearly, God either didn't think his flood idea through properly or He is an immortal mass murderer (that's if He exists at all, of course).

Thank you.

[1] http://www.pbs.org...
[2] http://www.lewisdt.com...
[3] http://www.etap.org...
xXCryptoXx

Con

This debate is nice and simple, so let’s get down to business.

Now, I honestly don’t believe the story of Noah’s Ark to be something to literally interpret, but for the sake of this debate both my opponent and I will assume that the story of Noah’s Ark actually did happen.

So in order for me to win this debate I must only show that God either not entirely incompetent, or show that God is not a psychopath.



Total Incompetence

This is the easy part to debate. My argument is simply. God’s goal was to wipe out humanity (except for Noah).

If God was totally incompetent he wouldn’t have even been able to even complete this goal. However, he did. Meaning he’s not totally stupid. After all, he only wanted to destroy humanity, who cares how he did it?


Psychopath

Well you see, if God is the judge and the ultimate source of morality, then really who are you to say that what he did was particularly unjust?

God realized that humans were azzholes and kept on disobeying him even though he kept on revealing himself to them saying “to this and do that” and they were all like “Nah, ima worship this cow” so God was like “screw you guys” then flooded the world.

You see, in order to be a psychopath God must kill without reason, but obviously humans just kind of pi$$ed him off and after all, he created them, so he should have the right to destroy them.


Contentions

“All the cute little kittens, frisky little puppies, adorable little bunny rabbits and gurgling little babies who drowned in God's great flood would have made tasty snacks for crocodiles, alligators and sharks that, of course, were spared God's wrath.”


Sure, but God didn’t care to kill off all the animals, hence the reason why Noah took two of each animal on his ship. God only cared to kill off 99.99999999999999999999999999% of humanity. Also, kittens are evil.

Those animals dying was probably just one those negatives that went along with his whole “flood the world” plan.


Also, keep in mind that these people are not in a sense, innocent. God understood that humans were basically inherently evil and would continually disobey him. In addition, he knew what these babies would do in the future. It’s like killing Hitler before he actually does the stuff he did… just on a much, much, much, much much muchmuchmuchmuchmuchmuch smaller scale.

Even if some of those babies would have grown to be good, God probably just didn’t think it was worth it with the whole good/evil ratio going on.

“He either didn't properly consider the consequences of His plan to flood the Earth or He is actually some sort of divine homicidal maniac?”

Well we’ve checked off the homicidal maniac part, and we checked off the total incompetence of God. I mean, even if his plan had tons of consequences and was just badly thought out in general, he still completed his goal which doesn’t express complete stupidity.


CONCLUSSSSION!

So basically God had some reasons to kill off humanity so he did, He created humans so he has the right to destroy them, and even if his whole plan with Noah’s Ark was badly planned it doesn’t express total incompetence because God had a goal in mind and completed it.


Back to you Pro.

(By the way, everything I am saying should not be taken seriously in any way at all, nor do I believe in anything I am saying. Me arguments are here simply for the sake of the debate. These arguments do not correspond at all with the Christian view on Noah’s Ark.)

Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

brian_eggleston forfeited this round.
xXCryptoXx

Con

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Well that debate was mildly entertaining, thank you for instigating it.

Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
Sorry for the forfeit: I was on my boat and out of range of an Internet signal.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Humorous rebuttal by Con.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
brian_egglestonxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Because you really need my vote to win this. ;-)
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
brian_egglestonxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Missed round (in a 2 round debate, effectively an FF). Argument: Pro made no attempts to defend refuted points. I mean even failing to address the point about kittens being evil... Sources: 3-0 in pro's favor.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
brian_egglestonxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 4 years ago
gordonjames
brian_egglestonxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - FF; Grammar - more writing style and readability; arguments - con made sense, pro not so much; sources - pro
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 4 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
brian_egglestonxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: LoLed at the end. :) RFD: Pro couldn't handle the truth.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
brian_egglestonxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I was looking forward to Pro's response and moreover after that, Con's.