The Biblical God is Immoral
The Biblical God can be shown to be immoral for many reasons. One of those reasons is that he commanded that people that work on Sundays should be put to death.
Exodus 35:2 (King James Version)
According to the bible, it is without error and inspired by God. Psalms 12:6 “the words of the Lord are flawless”.
“Biblical God” refers to the God as described in the Christian Bible.
Bible (definition): The infallible word of God.
Pro has decided that morality is objective. If pro was raised in an Islamic country, which I doubt, he realizes that Muslims would not deem this as immoral. Islam composes 1/3 of the world's population. 1/3 of the world at minimal, disagrees with pro. If Pro was born and raised in a Christianized country, he is basing his "morality" off of Christian "morality". There was a time in history, not all that long ago, where Atheism had no real voice and was not even a logical stance due to there being no other realistic argument outside of god(s). Every region of Earth has been significantly influenced by a religion.
"The majority of children born into the world tend to inherit the beliefs of their parents."
This would include Pro.
For example, if Pro was born in the U.S. or Europe, both areas were heavily influenced by Christianity, which decided laws and morality concepts passed down in these cultures. In Islamic countries, where Christianity has little to no influence, morality is defined different. Muslims would deem the actions of God that Pro deemed "immoral" as perfectly moral.
Saudi Arabia executed at least 157 people by beheading last year for breaking "morality laws" under the Sharia. The death sentence is not deemed as immoral to them.
Muslims approve of stoning adulterers. So breaking "morality laws" is a death sentence under the Sharia. The death sentence is not deemed immoral.
So I ask the question, "What does Pro define as 'moral', and how does he determine what is moral?" Pro is an Atheist. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god(s). So there is no objective morality to Pro. There is no power declaring what is moral and what is not moral to an Atheist. Pro has taken it upon himself to declare what is "moral" based on his Christian culture passing down a sense of what is moral to him despite now being an Atheist. Atheism concludes that we are simply the remenant of natural selection.
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
(Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life)
Without a God, there is no morality. There is no right. There is no wrong. We are just animals replicating dna and trying to survive through "survival of the fittest". An Atheist can not deem me "immoral" for doing what I need to do to consume and destroy anything other than myself. If there is an omnipotent God, He decides what is moral, thus He cannot be immoral because He defines morality based off of who He is and what He would do.
"We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment."
(Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene)
My next point is that Pro does not believe the Biblical God exists. So how can you claim someone who "does not exist" is immoral?
Pro must show us why the Biblical God commanded in Exodus 35:2
“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.”
Pro must show us the Biblical God's motives and the reason for this command. Then Pro must define morality and explain to us why his version of morality is correct without a God to define any objective morality in the first place. Pro, who is an Atheist, must show us why morality exists at all if we are simply the products of natural selection, the survival of the fittest.
First, I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate and look forward to a friendly and thought proving dialogue.
“So I ask the question, "What does Pro define as 'moral', and how does he determine what is moral?" Pro is an Atheist. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god(s). So there is no objective morality to Pro. There is no power declaring what is moral and what is not moral to an Atheist. Pro has taken it upon himself to declare what is "moral" based on his Christian culture passing down a sense of what is moral to him despite now being an Atheist. Atheism concludes that we are simply the remenant of natural selection.”
I am an agnostic pantheist, meaning that I would say that Pantheism is possible and maybe even likely but there is no way to know for sure with our current knowledge. Basically, I am 75% Pantheist and 25% Agnostic. Like Einstein and Thomas Paine, I consider the idea of an interventionist God childish. I believe if Pantheism is true, objective morality may also be true.
Since the majority of me believes objective morality exists, I’ll claim it as a suspicion of probability in an informal conversation and a belief for the purposes of this debate. Since I believe in objective morality, it doesn’t matter what the majority of the population thinks if it is contrary to objective morality.
So, now we have established we both believe in objective morality.
By definition, objective morality means that it is unchanging. We cannot propose that while rape may be wrong now, in the future it might be acceptable. We cannot propose that while the torture of a small child is wrong for one person to commit, it might be acceptable for a person with higher authority (such as a king) to commit.
Objective morality says it is wrong to murder someone for working on a particular day.
“Pro must show us the Biblical God's motives and the reason for this command.”
No I don’t. Killing someone for working on Sunday is wrong, not matter what someone’s motives were and that should be obvious. If you read in the news about some guy murdering his children for working on his birthday, would you wonder if he was moral? Would it matter what his “motives” were? Objective morality would say that it is wrong in all circumstances and virtually everyone would agree.
I think both objective moralists and subjective moralists would consider that verse immoral. One doesn’t have to have an outside source to impart the knowledge that it is immoral.
“My next point is that Pro does not believe the Biblical God exists. So how can you claim someone who "does not exist" is immoral?”
Because of the position I was taking in the argument, it was apparent I don’t believe that the god of the Bible exists. It was also obvious I was proposing that the character known as the God of the Bible is immoral.
Con must argue as to why it is moral for the Christian god to murder someone for working on Sunday. I have made a strong case for my argument that has easily withstood Pro’s attacks to my position. Con has not presented anything to support his position that the Christian god is moral for murdering people for working on Sundays.
Pro perceived that we both believe in "objective morality", but to be clear, I do not. I do not see the world as black and white.
Question: Is it immoral to allow a child to die when you could save him? The initial response could be "yes", but what if I then tell you that 1,000 children will die if the one lives?
Pro says he is a Pantheist and believes in objective morality.
Question: What if Pantheism is wrong?
What is Pantheism?
Pantheism is the belief that the Universe, or nature as the totality of everything, is identical with divinity,or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.
In theory, within this "oneness", we have many beliefs that are contrary to Pro's version of objective morality. Throughout most of human history, Pro's version of objective morality would have been foreign to all of our forfathers. Nevertheless, we must, for the sake of fair debate face Pro's assessment with questions.
1) Why should we believe objective morality exists?
2)Are there ever acceptions?
3)If objective morality does exist, why should we accept Pro's version of objective morality? Why is it not your version? Why is not a voted on version? Why can't I create a version? Why is it not one of our grandchildren's version?
4)How does one prove their version of objective morality as being "correct"?
Why is Saudi Arabia's version of morality not our source of objective morality? Islam takes "morality" so seriously that they actually have a "morality police".
-The Mutaween in Saudi Arabia are tasked with enforcing Sharia as defined by the government, specifically by the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. The Mutaween of the CPVPV consists of more than 3,500 officers in addition to thousands of volunteers, often accompanied by a police escort. They have the power to arrest unrelated males and females caught socializing, anyone engaged in homosexual behavior or prostitution; to enforce Islamic dress-codes, and store closures during the prayer time. They enforce Muslim dietary laws, prohibit the consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages and pork, and seize banned consumer products and media regarded as anti-Islamic (such as CDs/DVDs of various Western musical groups, television shows and film which has material contrary to Sharia law or Islam itself).
Why is Islamic Law not our version of objective morality?
-Under Islamic law, the crimes that carry defined penalties are murder, apostasy (rejection or desertion of Islam), adultery, fornication, homosexuality and theft. Interpretations of the law and punishments vary from state to state. Lesser offences might include debt, usury, alcohol and drug abuse, and use of pornography. The punishments range from flogging to cutting off of limbs, or even death.
Here is a short video on how white blood cells kill a parasitic worm. Are the white blood cells commiting an "immoral" act by killing the worm? Are doctors immoral if they don't prevent the white blood cells from killing the worm? Does the worm have the right to live? Do we "morally" have the right to allow the worm's death? It's a living creature just trying to get by isn't it?
What if someone thinks the worm should die because it is like a cancer to the body, and will kill its host? Shall we not allow the white blood cells to kill it? Is it immoral to let the worm die seeing it is a living thing?
Pro has forsaken one of the variables in this equation. This is that the Biblical account of God is that He is omniscient. To be omniscient meaning that He sees the future and knows all results from every angle possible. If you could see the future, you might come off as not only insane but somehow "wrong" to anyone who could not see the results.
For example, if you were a time traveler from the future and wanted to prevent Hitler from burning people in ovens, you would go back to before he came into power, and you might kill him. Are you immoral? You just saved millions of lives and prevented mass torture and slaughter. It's subjective. It's semantics. Is killing someone immoral or not? It depends on who you ask and what the circumstance is. If you add the ability to see the future, you further complicate the issue.
1)If you could see the end result, and that result was beyond spectacular, are you immoral, if you allow extreme things to happen to get that result?
2)Are you immoral if you prevent the extreme things from happening but now we do not get the spectacular result?
Here is a video of beings from the future telling us that there was no other way. It had to be exactly this way. These beings come back and tell us that nothing could have been different.
Con is trying to tell me what I believe or don’t believe to further his own argument. Con’s first argument was that I couldn’t evaluate what is moral because he didn’t think I believed in objective morality. When I stated that I do believe in objective morality, he argues that I might not believe in the right “type” of objective morality.
To be clear, there is only one definition of objective morality:
Objective Morality (definition): the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Source: http://rationalwiki.org...
By definition, there are not multiple versions of objective morality. If it exists, there is only one version and people may have correct or incorrect opinions about what objective morality encompasses.
“Why is Islamic Law not our version of objective morality?
-Under Islamic law, the crimes that carry defined penalties are murder, apostasy (rejection or desertion of Islam), adultery, fornication, homosexuality and theft. Interpretations of the law and punishments vary from state to state. Lesser offences might include debt, usury, alcohol and drug abuse, and use of pornography. The punishments range from flogging to cutting off of limbs, or even death.”
What is Con’s point with the above paragraph? Is he saying that other societies commit more horrendous acts than God? Even in the terrible and unjust punishments listed above, many people would consider execution for working on Sunday even more extreme.
“Here is a short video on how white blood cells kill a parasitic worm. Are the white blood cells commiting an "immoral" act by killing the worm? Are doctors immoral if they don't prevent the white blood cells from killing the worm? Does the worm have the right to live? Do we "morally" have the right to allow the worm's death? It's a living creature just trying to get by isn't it?”
Con’s argument has devolved into a desperate comparison between killing a worm and murdering a human for the crime of working on Sunday. This is a red herring if I’ve ever seen one. I don’t think the reader/voter needs me to explain the difference.
”Pro has forsaken one of the variables in this equation. This is that the Biblical account of God is that He is omniscient. To be omniscient meaning that He sees the future and knows all results from every angle possible. If you could see the future, you might come off as not only insane but somehow "wrong" to anyone who could not see the results.”
“For example, if you were a time traveler from the future and wanted to prevent Hitler from burning people in ovens, you would go back to before he came into power, and you might kill him. Are you immoral? You just saved millions of lives and prevented mass torture and slaughter. It's subjective. It's semantics. Is killing someone immoral or not? It depends on who you ask and what the circumstance is. If you add the ability to see the future, you further complicate the issue.”
What possible catastrophe could be averted by murdering someone for working on Sunday? Con is participating in this debate on Sunday. How could someone possibly argue that it would be moral to execute him for it? How would that affect the future? The death of the man of the household a couple thousand years ago might mean the death for the women and children also due to starvation, marauders, etc.
If God desired to kill someone for some future crime they did not yet commit, why not cause them to have a heart attack? What about having a commandment to kill every person that eats with their mouth open to prevent a few people from causing future catastrophes?
Con is comparing execution of someone for working on Sundays with executing someone for genocide. What is his argument here? Is he saying that if someone works on Sundays, they will commit atrocities comparable to genocide in the future?
Since Con brought up Hitler, where was God during Hitler’s reign? If an interventionist god existed, would God have executed him for working on Sunday or would he have executed him for killing millions of people?
The title of this debate is, “The Biblical God is Immoral”.
Here is a breakdown of my argument:
Here is a breakdown of Con’s argument:
The reason why Con’s argument is so strange and grasping is because a good argument for his position does not exist.
This isn’t a theoretical situation. A couple thousand years ago, people were actually murdered by their neighbors when they were caught working on Sundays.
Enough said. Please vote Pro.
Pro says I pointed out other cultures doing "evil things", but that wasn't what I was doing. I was pointing out that what he thinks is evil or immoral is not evil or immoral to some, and not only to some but to a group consisting of almost 2 billion people. They simply deem adultery, theft, apostasy, etc more harshly than our culture, thus they dish out a harsher penalty. Is it evil to punish breaking of rules? We punish law breakers just like they do, only they impose more extreme penalties. Muslims deem Western culture as so immoral that they refer to the U.S. as the "Great Satan". So are they immoral or are we immoral?
To start my next argument I provide the last link from my last argument again.
In the link the beings tell us it could be no other way. There was NO other way.
Based on this philosophical construct, the Biblical account tells us that the last thing the Biblical God said was,"It is good."
He knew that if anything was different than the path He saw, the end result would turn out "bad".
-Pro has used Exodus 35:2 to argue that the Biblical God is immoral.
Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
In this verse, Jesus tells the Jewish priests that man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath was made for man. But in Exodus 35:2, there is a strict penalty for not observing the sabbath. What does this mean?
Seeing that the Bible depicts Jesus as being "one as God", we can assume logically that the being who declared the extreme punishment of death for breaking the sabbath is the same being who said,"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Love your neighbor as yourself," etc. So what was the reasoning for this punishment to the ancient Israelites? God gave a different command later concerning the same exact subject.
We know God was merciful to the Israelites in that He saved them from their slavery under Pharoah. As slaves they worked every single day in Egypt. He was commanding them to take a day off now that they were freed.
One must understand the context of this command. Anyone who disobeyed this command was showing no gratitude towards God, but this still goes deeper.
In the story God saved them. Some murmered and began saying it was better as slaves.
In the story God fed them with mana and they didn't have to even work for it. Some began murmering about the food and commanded better.
God began to lose patience with the ingratitude of some, thus He gave this command. But why? We find out from Christ that this command was not to put them in bondage but to release them from it. He was commanding slaves to quit being slaves and turn to Him, freeing themselves. Anyone who pushed working every day still was dragging His people back into the mindset of slaves. He had offered them land they didn't earn, freedom from slavery/bondage, and food they didn't work for. He also protected them from their enemies. He had a mentality that demanded they quit being slaves and not turn back to the ways of bondage after being freed. He would not allow the mindset of a few ungrateful minds drag His people back into the spirit of the slave. He was drawing a line in the sand between His freedom and the bondage of Satan. To those who followed the Satanic mentality, He cut off from His people. He was omniscient and knew exactly how their presence would effect His people, thus, He divided them out and away from His people like a surgeon cuts off the cancer from the body. God is a spirit. He dealt with a wicked spirit with no mercy. We have no idea what His omniscient position is like in order to judge it based on even a Westernized version of morality, much less a theoretical objective morality that most of the world believes is not morality at all.
By discerning that Biblical God and Christ are the same being, we can judge Biblical God directly by Christ. In the Bible, Christ laid down His life for His people. Christ commanded mercy, patience, & forgiveness. If one reads the Old Testament, we find that God is described as merciful, kind, & forgiving, and shows examples of being these attributes. One must realize that God was looking out in omniscience, knowing the results, for His people whom He loved. He knew this would give them the result in the end that was best for His people. Being omniscient and omnipresent comes with a much more complex system of "doing what is best" than a human can know.
If I know you losing your legs will make you a better person am I morally obligated to let you lose your legs or must I show you "mercy" as you become an evil, ruthless dictatorial demon of a person?
If I know you losing your spouse is the only thing that turns you into a "good person" who changes the world do I allow your spouse to die? Morality is not black and white, and we do not have the ability to judge morality of an omniscient all knowing being who knows how every possibility ends.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|