The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

The God of the Bible is mostly evil.

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 5 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,064 times Debate No: 16396
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (114)
Votes (5)

 

kohai

Pro

In this debate, I will attempt to prove that the God of the Bible is mostly evil--not good.

Good luck to my opponent, the first round is just to accept and everything else will begin in round 2.

socialpinko

Con

Following the rules set forth by my opponent I will not argue in this round. However I think we should define the God that we will be debating on so as to keep confusion to a minimum.

According to the resolution, my opponent and I will be debating on the moral goodness or lack of goodness of the God of the Bible. We may define the God of the Bible as: The God described in the Old and New Testaments as the creator of the world, omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent who interacts in human affairs in the form of answering prayers and performing miracles. For this debate my opponent and I will be assuming the existence of God.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

First, we need a few definitions.

God: The name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions(and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.[1]

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence(unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere),omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), apersonal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim
Remember. This debate is the God of the Bible and is referring to the Christian God.

Evil: the intention or effect of causing harm or destruction, usually specifically from the perception of deliberately violating some moral code.

Good: The opposite from evil.

Remember, we are talking about the God of the Bible. Not the deistic God, Hindu gods or anything like that.

Given these definitions, let us look at how evil God is.

1. Rape

A. If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

This verse is very clear. If a man is raping a young woman, and the woman is not engaged, the woman must MARRY her rapist. THAT IS RIGHT! MARRY HER RAPIST!
What kind of sick lunatic would FORCE a woman to marry the person who attackted her?

Now, I can go into an argument to tell you how this is sick and evil. I feel I don't need to. It is self-explanitory.


B. Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Here, a kind and loving God is assisting rape! How sick is that!

2. Murder

Kill Sons of Sinners

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

Why should the sons die for what their fathers have done?

You Have to Kill

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

My favorite

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalm 137:9 KJV

3. Slavery

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and screws them!

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

If these aren't evil, what is?! Back to you con! Good luck refuting them.

socialpinko

Con

My opponent's basic argument that God is evil is that he condones and sometimes orders instances of: Rape, murder, and slavery. I, for the sake of this debate, will not deny that God ordered any of these things.

I will however ask my opponent what moral code he is referring to when he says that evil is "deliberately violating some moral code".

If my opponent is arguing from a subjectivist position I will ask if it is from an individual subjectivist position, in which case my opinion is as good as his and the fact that I may say that slavery, murder, and rape are morally good would make them good. This would simply cancel out my opponent's claims and make this debate a boring stalemate.

If my opponent is arguing from an inter-subjectivist position then it is the community at large that decides the validity of any moral statement and in that case my opponent automatically loses seeing as most of the Western world believes that the Christian god is the pillar of moral goodness.

If my opponent is arguing from an objective standpoint then the very fact that we are assuming the Christian God exists proves my case seeing as God is by definition the pillar of moral goodness and the creator of morality.

I will ask my opponent to first take a meta-ethical stance so that we may begin arguing seeing as right now I do not know why my opponent specifically believes that rape, murder, and slavery are wrong and thus have no way of arguing against it.
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

Note to voters and readers of this debate, my opponent and I have agreed on a definition of evil that we will be using throught this debate. However, I do wish that my opponent was a Christian so I could hear a Christian argument. I should have posted that in my first round.

Evil: Profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Malevolent: Having or showing a wish to do evil to others
Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

I will attempt not to make this a definition debate, as definition arguments are the weakest of the weak.

My opponent's basic argument that God is evil is that he condones and sometimes orders instances of: Rape, murder, and slavery. I, for the sake of this debate, will not deny that God ordered any of these things.

My opponent has admitted that God has ordered those things. Therefore, there is no need to debate this further.

I will however ask my opponent what moral code he is referring to when he says that evil is "deliberately violating some moral code".

What moral code? The "Law of God" specifically the 10 commandments.

In the 10 commandments, God commands that, "Thou shalt not kill."

However, we see that God clearly ordered the genocide of the innocent. Sure, they were decendants of the enemies of the Children of Israel, but why should they die for that reason alone? God also ordered the killing of babies and children. Again, just because they're the children of the enemies, doesn't mean they will be enemies. What makes it right to commit genocide?

As for rape, the Bible clearly condemns fornication--which is what rape is. Obviously not for the person being raped, but for the person that is the perpetrator, that is adultry and fornication.

As for slavery, the Bible condones slavery which is one of the most heinous things you could do.

Let's take a look at a few passages

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

So much for the, "Slavery was different back in those days" argument. The slave master can beat his slave as much as he wants as long as he doesn't die.

What does Jesus say?

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

"But people who are not aware that they are wrong will be punnished" sure it says only lightly, but how can you punnish someone for being ignorant to a law or to a command? That would be the equivalant of the government changing the speed-limmit on I-95 from 65 and suddenly changing it to 60 without warning the public. Can we get a ticket if we still go 65? Not really since we don't know about the law. Thus the reason why when a bill passes, it takes a couple of months for it to take effect.

My opponent automatically loses seeing as most of the Western world believes that the Christian god is the pillar of moral goodness.

How do I automatically lose? Perhaps they believe that the God is the pillar of moral goodness because they have not took time to read the laws, and they just "cherry pick" the Bible.

Also, how does the majority of people believing in something make it right? You are an Atheist (according to your profile) yet most of the world believes in a diety. Does that mean a diety has to exist?

There are a couple of replies you could make:

1. Anything God does it is automatically good, even if it is evil.

Then let us set all the people convicted of rape, murder and slavery free! If it is okay for God to do something, what makes it any different from a person to do it?

2. You're not getting the big picture, God has a plan for those rape victims, murder victim's family etc.

So if one can have a plan for a person that he rapes or a plan for the family of the person he murdered, does that justify his crime?

3. Revenge?

So if one is getting revenge on someone, then it is okay for murder, rape or other immoral deeds?

Back to you, con!






socialpinko

Con

As Pro mentioned in the last round we have agreed on a definition of what evil is and I will abide by it fully.

//"My opponent has admitted that God has ordered those things. Therefore, there is no need to debate this further."//

My opponent believes that since god did order instances of rape, murder, and slavery he must be evil or at least mostly evil. However this argument is a very clear contradiction of terms. It is like saying that a circle is actually a square because it knows a square even when it has already been agreed that it is a circle.

The same goes with god. My opponent and I defined god as and agreed that god was "omni-benevolent". God is also the ultimate creator of morality and so what he does is thus automatically moral. Even without this fact that my opponent must accept I will refute his arguments in another way.

Even seeing as the God that my opponent and I agreed to debate on, to be immoral, would be a clear contradiction my opponent still believes that God is mostly evil because he broke his own rules that he had set in place for his creation. Let's explore this concept in more detail with some examples.

God gave the Israelites the Ten Commandments and then broke some of his own rules.

I will ask the voters, if a person over the legal age smokes a cigarette is it wrong only because it is wrong for a five year old to smoke a cigarette? My opponent here makes the mistake of believing that the morality put forth in the Bible is universal, or that it applies to everyone including God. However seeing as God is defined as omni-benevolent and morally perfect these rules cannot apply to him seeing as it is logically impossible for him to break a rule because it would then make him morally imperfect which contradicts the very definition of God. The conclusion we must make from this is:

A.God is not morally perfect. This is as I already pointed out is not an option seeing as it is the same as saying there is such thing as a material that is both completely yellow and at the same time completely blue. It is condradicting in nature.

B.The rules which God made do not apply to him. This is actually the most plausible option. We can even look for confirmation in the natural world where we see the relationships between other rules that god has made.

-God made it a rule that living organisms are finite in nature and will one day die. This objective rule obviously does not apply to God seeing as he is necessarily eternal.

-God made humans finite in power. No human is all powerful. This rule also does not apply to God seeing as he is necessarily omnipotent.

-God made humans finite in their knowledge. No human knows everything about everything and probably never will. Again, this objective rule about the world does not apply to God seeing as he is necessarily omniscient.

Now one could argue that morality is different from physical laws of nature. I personally believe this but then again I don't believe in God. However my opponent uses God's own rules to supposedly prove that he is evil. This is important because Christians believe that the rules of conduct set forth by God are actually objective qualities of the world around them. To a Christian, adultery for example would be objectively wrong for a person to commit because morality is a constant of the universe independent of any human thought.

So why should we believe that God's rules of moral conduct apply to him and have power over him anymore than we believe that he is finite in power or knowledge? We shouldn't. We must accept that God's rules of conduct do not apply to him if we are to abide by my opponent and I's definition of God.

Because God's code of moral conduct that he set for humans does not apply to him, no example of God's behavior where he breaks these codes can be used to prove that God is mostly evil.

I would also like to point out that my opponent misquoted me in the last round. I would like to clear that up here. My opponent quoted me as saying:

//"My opponent automatically loses seeing as most of the Western world believes that the Christian god is the pillar of moral goodness."//

The full passage reads:

//"If my opponent is arguing from an inter-subjectivist position then it is the community at large that decides the validity of any moral statement and in that case my opponent automatically loses seeing as most of the Western world believes that the Christian god is the pillar of moral goodness."//

I was merely theorizing on what sort of meta-ethical stance my opponent was arguing from and preparing defenses from those points of view. Now I would like to list and refute my opponent's three points.

1. Anything God does it is automatically good, even if it is evil.

My opponent here does not understand the nature of morality that we are to assume in the event that we assume God exists. If we assume God exists as we have defined him then yes, anything he does is automatically good. There is no "even if it's evil" because it logically cannot be evil. However this is not even my main defense. I will ask my opponent and voters to refer to my above point.

2. You're not getting the big picture, God has a plan for those rape victims, murder victim's family etc.

Strawmanning is what my opponent has done here. I have and not and will not argue this position. I see it as more of an argument from ignorance fallacy than anything else.

3. Revenge?

Again, strawmanning. I am not going to argue this position in this debate.

As you can see I have properly refuted each of my opponent's arguments for why the God of the Bible is mostly evil. Besides the God of the Bible being evil is logically contradicting, I showed that the objective rules of moral conduct do not apply to God in the same way that objective physical rules do not apply to him. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

My opponent believes that since god did order instances of rape, murder, and slavery he must be evil or at least mostly evil. However this argument is a very clear contradiction of terms. It is like saying that a circle is actually a square because it knows a square even when it has already been agreed that it is a circle.

We all know that slavery, rape and murder is evil. Let's do us all a favour and release the rapist, murderes and other evil men since there is no difference from God doing it than a person doing it.

I do not get your logic. Of course a circle isn't a square!

The same goes with god. My opponent and I defined god as and agreed that god was "omni-benevolent". God is also the ultimate creator of morality and so what he does is thus automatically moral. Even without this fact that my opponent must accept I will refute his arguments in another way.

Let me copy and pace our definition of God that we have agreed upon.

God: The name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions(and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.[1]

This bolded part is our definition

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence(unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere),omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), apersonal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim
Remember. This debate is the God of the Bible and is referring to the Christian God.

This italicised part is just added on characteristics people claims that God has. No where in my definition do I claim that God is omni-benevolent. I just simply point out that it is one of his characteristics. Notice I say, "God has also been conceived" instead of "God has been defined"

You have no ground to stand on with that argument.

Your argument "if God by definition is good, then everything he ordains is good" is actually an argument against God being "omnibenevolent," since we all "know" that genocide is evil. The point is that such a God contradicts our innate sense of what good is. No one should accept a God who violates our own sense of good and evil.

My opponent here does not understand the nature of morality that we are to assume in the event that we assume God exists. If we assume God exists as we have defined him then yes, anything he does is automatically good. There is no "even if it's evil" because it logically cannot be evil. However this is not even my main defense. I will ask my opponent and voters to refer to my above point.

Again, where in my difinition do I say God is omni-belevolent? I just simply point out it is a characteristic many people claim he has.

As for the strawman arguments, I agree those are strawmen arguments. I was pointint out those strawmen arguments before you made them.

I feel my work here is done.
socialpinko

Con

My opponent in the last round has changed up his argument, drastically. He has completely dropped his argument that God is mostly evil because he broke his own rules. For readers who do not want to have to go all the way back to read this, I will copy/paste it below.

I asked my opponent to define what moral code God was breaking when he ordered instances of rap, murder, and slavery. My opponent answered:

//"What moral code? The "Law of God" specifically the 10 commandments."//

I specifically refuted this in the last round though by showing that if we accept the existence of God, we accept that his rule of law is an objective quality of the universe. We can then draw on the fact that we know God did not create the laws of physics for himself to abide by, seeing as he allegedly breaks them numerous times in the Bible in the form of answering prayers and performing miracles.

So are we to conclude that God created a moral code as part of the universe in the same way that physical laws are an objective part of the universe, but then agree that he can break any physical law but not a moral law?

Of course not. God, the one of the Bible, is necessarily omniscient and omnipotent. To say that God can be evil is the same as saying he can not be all-powerful or all-knowing. It contradicts the very definition of God.

Even if we were to agree that moral laws as created by God are different in quality then physical laws, we must ask ourselves if God is still wrong in breaking them. I agree that he did the things my opponent described him as doing, but did he break a rule?

To answer this we must think to ourselves, if a 31 year old man smokes a cigarette, is it against the law? Of course not. If a 3 year old girl smokes a cigarette is it against the law? Of course. But is the fact that it is wrong for a little girl to smoke a cigarette make it automatically wrong for the 31 year old man to have a smoke?

My opponent here makes the mistake of assuming that God's moral law is universally applicable to everyone and anything. We of course know this reasoning to be fallacious. If a tree falls on someone's house and kills someone, is that tree guilty of breaking the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill"? Does the fact that animals rarely practice monogamy make them all guilty of adultery?

When you look at this issue of whether or not God broke his own rules, you must ask yourself, did God intend those rules to be all inclusive? Does he intend to punish trees for falling and killing or apes who have multiple partners? Or did he intend for them to govern over humans? I will let the voters decide on that aspect of my opponent's case. Now to move on to the rest of it.

My opponent also tries to change the definition of God to something much more vague. He tries to change it to "the name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions(and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism". I will however ask the readers of this debate to glance up at the title of this debate. It says "The God of the Bible is mostly evil." By this my opponent means the God of Judaism and Christianity.

If my opponent is to accept some of the Bible, he must accept all of it. The God of these two religions is necessarily defined as being omni-potent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent. In the first Vatican Council God is defined as:

"""almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. Since He is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in Himself and from Himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides Himself which either exists or can be imagined"""

When my opponent decides to argue on the God of the Bible, he is necessarily accepting these qualities. If my opponent is to argue ONLY on the bolded part of his definition then he cannot argue that God is mostly evil seeing as his definition does not describe any specific god, acts by god, or attributes of god. Again, as with whether or not God meant his own rules of moral conduct to apply to him, I will leave this matter of definition up to voters.

Now let's move on to the specific points made by my opponent in the last round.

My opponent begins by quoting me in saying that for God to be evil would be to contradict the definition of God. For a clarification of this point, see above. However my opponent's response to this quote is very intriguing. He writes:

//"We all know that slavery, rape and murder is evil."//

However this statement is much too vague. It would be like if I said:

"We all know that smoking cigarettes is wrong."

It is too vague in the sense that according to government legislation, it is "wrong" for a baby to smoke but not for an adult to smoke. This also applies to God. It is wrong for a human being to kill because God says it is wrong. It is wrong because our Father in the sky decreed it to be wrong for a 'person' to commit. We know this because in the Ten Commandments, when God addresses murder he uses the noun "Thou" to address who the law is aimed at. He did not say "It" is wrong to murder. If he had then murder being immoral would be a universal rule. However he did not and so we cannot apply the same criteria of "wrong" and "right" to God.

This next quote is my favorite made by my opponent over the course of this debate. The reason being that he unknowingly settles on a meta-ethical position to argue upon. So far he has simply argued that God broke his own laws and I have refuted this. However here he seems to settle on individual subjectivism. I quote him as saying:

//"Your argument "if God by definition is good, then everything he ordains is good" is actually an argument against God being "omnibenevolent," since we all "know" that genocide is evil. The point is that such a God contradicts our innate sense of what good is. No one should accept a God who violates our own sense of good and evil."//

Our "innate" sense of good? My opponent is arguing that the God of the Bible is evil because his actions contradiction my opponent's own personal view of what is right and wrong. If he is to argue purely based off of personal emotion then my own opinion, which for this debate I will say is the opposite, contradicts and thus cancels out his own.

I will ask my opponent, why is your own personal meta-ethical stance on what is good and bad closer to the objective truth of what is right and wrong when it is completely subjective?

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Pro

Good luck in the final round.

if a 31 year old man smokes a cigarette, is it against the law? Of course not. If a 3 year old girl smokes a cigarette is it against the law? Of course. But is the fact that it is wrong for a little girl to smoke a cigarette make it automatically wrong for the 31 year old man to have a smoke?

Strawman. The law specifically says you got to be 18 to smoke. There is a difference, because, according to the law, the 31 year old man is elegable to smoke.

Again. I ask, "What is the difference between God ordering rape, murder and slavery and a human doing those things?"
This argument FAILS MISERABLLY!

As for our definition of God, if anyone would go back and carefully read what I laid out, he would clearly see that he is taking my word OUT OF CONTEXT when he is saying that I admited God to being omi-belevolent.

So are we to conclude that God created a moral code as part of the universe in the same way that physical laws are an objective part of the universe, but then agree that he can break any physical law but not a moral law?

Of course not. God, the one of the Bible, is necessarily omniscient and omnipotent. To say that God can be evil is the same as saying he can not be all-powerful or all-knowing. It contradicts the very definition of God.

Another example of how my opponent takes my word out of context. Again, it contradicts the NATURE of God that Christians and other "Myth-wizards" have set up for him. However, it does NOT contradict the DEFINITION of God.

When my opponent decides to argue on the God of the Bible, he is necessarily accepting these qualities. If my opponent is to argue ONLY on the bolded part of his definition then he cannot argue that God is mostly evil seeing as his definition does not describe any specific god, acts by god, or attributes of god. Again, as with whether or not God meant his own rules of moral conduct to apply to him, I will leave this matter of definition up to voters.

What I have attempted to do this entire debate is to prove that: 1) God of the Bible is evil and 2) The god of the Bible cannot be God because he contradicts his very nature.

//"We all know that slavery, rape and murder is evil."//

However this statement is much too vague. It would be like if I said:

"We all know that smoking cigarettes is wrong."

Slavery, rape and murder can be proven evil. I'm sorry. Are you saying that rape, murder and slavery is not evil?

Our "innate" sense of good? My opponent is arguing that the God of the Bible is evil because his actions contradiction my opponent's own personal view of what is right and wrong. If he is to argue purely based off of personal emotion then my own opinion, which for this debate I will say is the opposite, contradicts and thus cancels out his own.

I think everyone is going to agree rape is wrong. Period. No ifs ands or bust.

If we read the OT, we will see that the Bible is really out dated.

I will ask my opponent, why is your own personal meta-ethical stance on what is good and bad closer to the objective truth of what is right and wrong when it is completely subjective?

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Final appeals: It is clear my opponent was not arguing. He was throwing everything except the kitchen sink against the idea that anyone can establish an objective morality. But that isn't the topic of the debate. The topic is whether the God of the Bible is evil. If he can't agree on what "evil" is, then he has no platform from which to argue -- unless he wants 1) to argue that there are no suchs thing as good or evil actions, and/or 2) that he thinks a God that condones slavery, mass murder, genocide, and killing unobservant Jews is "good." If the latter, he has to justify how anyone could defend these as "good" actions.

He has not at all shown that God was justified in his order of rape, murder and slaver. Not has he touched on some of the evil Bible verses I have presented.

Another thing. Re-read our definition of God. NO WHERE DO I SAY THAT GOD HAS TO BE OMNIBELEVOLENT! My opponent CLEARLY took some of what I said out of context.

This debate is clearly won for me.

Vote pro

socialpinko

Con

My opponent has responded to my argument concerning the fact that God did not set up the Ten Commandments as rules for his own conduct, and simply asserts that it is a strawman. He specifically writes:

//"Strawman. The law specifically says you got to be 18 to smoke. There is a difference, because, according to the law, the 31 year old man is elegable to smoke."//

I completely agree here with my opponent that in order to determine who the law was directed at we should look at the specific wording of it. Let's look at the specific wording of God's rule against killing.

--Thou shalt not kill.--

Now if we follow the story then God gave this rule to Moses on a tablet with nine other rules. The main subject in most of them being "thou" or some variation of it. In all of the commandments, and in this instance we will refer to the simpler Anglican Reformed version of the Ten Commandments, God commands the Israelites to either do something(Remember the Sabbath, honor one's parents) or refrain from doing something(Do not kill, do not steal).

In all cases they are in the form of commandments for the subject to follow. If I say "You should not kill." I am necessarily commanding you not to kill. It is a very different situation then if I were to say "It is wrong to kill." Nowhere is this phrase or any like it to be found in OT law. God is not telling the Israelites that killing is wrong but that it i not their place to decide when to end a life.

//""What is the difference between God ordering rape, murder and slavery and a human doing those things?"
This argument FAILS MISERABLLY!"//

The difference is not in the specific act, it is in who is doing it. We must take this under consideration in the wording of the specific rule. God commanded human beings not to kill. He did not say that killing was wrong. There is a difference and my opponent seems not to understand. Again, I will let voters decide.

My opponent still tries to argue that we should only accept the incredibly vague definition which my opponent put forth even though it completely contradicts the resolution which my opponent provided.

The resolution states that the God "of the Bible" is evil. This necessarily means the Christian and Jewish god. Here is the definition that my opponent provides.

//"God: The name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions(and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism."//

However, if we are to agree on this definition alone, as my opponent wishes, then he cannot argue that God is evil based on any actions or attributes not specifically in the definition which he provided. This means that he cannot use any actions described in the Bible because the God described in the Bible is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent. Either my opponent uses his definition and his definition alone and he cannot use any actions described in the Bible (which completely destroys his own case) or we may follow the obvious conclusion that one would come to based on the resolution itself and God can necessarily never be morally wrong or "mostly evil".

My opponent then attempts to further his case by answering my question as to why these things(rape, murder, slavery) are evil when my opponent never took a stand on a meta-ethical position. He writes:

//"Slavery, rape and murder can be proven evil. I'm sorry. Are you saying that rape, murder and slavery is not evil?"//

My opponent claims that these actions can be proven evil, yet he neglects to show why. And I am not saying that they are not evil, I am saying that my opponent has not shown why they are.

Also, my opponent responds to my moral agnosticism in the face of insufficient evidence with an argument from ignorance fallacy. He writes:

//"I think everyone is going to agree rape is wrong. Period. No ifs ands or bust."//

Here my opponent asserts that these actions are wrong only because most people agree with that idea. I wish that he would have known that appealing to the majority is neither a logical nor a rational reason for one to believe that these actions are wrong. Now before we end this debate I will analyze my own opponent's final appeal and then write my own. My opponent writes:

//"It is clear my opponent was not arguing. He was throwing everything except the kitchen sink against the idea that anyone can establish an objective morality."//

I believe that my opponent should lose conduct points for this. It is an incredible insult to my methods of debating. But now on to the other part of his sentence. He claims that I am trying tirelessly to persuade voters that a person can't simply create objective morality based on their own subjective , personal, and probably flawed opinions. I will not deny that I am against this idea.

//"But that isn't the topic of the debate. The topic is whether the God of the Bible is evil. If he can't agree on what "evil" is, then he has no platform from which to argue"//

I somewhat agree with my opponent here. I agree that we need to agree on what constitutes being evil. This is why I have been so questioning of my opponent's sources of morality. So far in this debate he has to resorted to three sources for what constitutes being evil. I will list them below and show why they have problems in their conclusions or premises.

Society, Majority

Here my opponent argued that most people would agree that things like rape, murder and slavery are wrong and he is right in this aspect. But this is of course a subjectivist position to hold, all it means is that most people agree so it's right. By my opponent's logic, Hitler was right to do what he did simply because a lot of people supported him.

God

My opponent also argued that God is evil because he broke his own rules. I however showed this to be fallacious reasoning in that it did not take into account who the rules were meant for. God's laws in the OT are in the form of commands. He is commanding the Israelites not to do certain things. He never says that they are wrong in themselves only that it is not a human being's place to commit those actions.

My opponent's opinion

My opponent also tried to argue that because he personally felt that the actions commited by God were wrong, that this makes it objectively wrong. However if the criteria for something being right or wrong is simply someone's opinion then the very fact that I hold a differing opinion cancels out whatever objectivity came out of my opponent's opinion.

I have clearly shown all of my opponent's reasons for anything being evil are either insufficient and subjective or helpful to my own case. My opponent provides two ways that I can proceed. I will show why I have done both of these.

//"argue that there are no suchs thing as good or evil actions"//

Voters may assume either this, because my opponent has not brought much of an argument for objective morality, or diving command theory. If voters accept this, as I have provided rigid argumentation for it, then my opponent loses this debate by default.

//"hat he thinks a God that condones slavery, mass murder, genocide, and killing unobservant Jews is "good." If the latter, he has to justify how anyone could defend these as "good" actions."//

I have also argued this in the event that we accept objective morality. This however goes further to my opponent's definition of God and whether or not we should accept God as being necessarily omni-benevolent. I repeatedly argued that if we are to agree to debate the "God of the Bible" then we must accept all of the qualities that this entails, including omni-benevolence.

My opponent also claims that I did not touch on the Bible verses he presented. I admit to this. But only because if we accept my opponent's vague definition of God he cannot use the Bible verses seeing as it does not describe the god of the Bible, but only the name given to the deities of monotheistic religions.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 5
114 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
I gave you the s/g point for it.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
That should be a win there for me
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
Really?
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Lol. Forgot who you were
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
Sh1t nvm! That was not meant as a concession! I simply mixed them up!
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
"Vote pro" it appears my opponent forfeited
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
So true. I mean, creation, resssurection, pascals wager-how can you not overlook them??
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
Well, people like you and me are evil projected on the paths of the righteous, as we only disagree because we hate Jesus so much rather than seeing a completely lack of evidence for their claims, so it's clearly understandable that we should be done away with.

It's only common sense!
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
I know! The bible says to kill em! Not pray for em
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
Those evil people, knowing that you're really right and still disagreeing with you! What should we do about their evil, kjw47?!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
kohaisocialpinkoTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: while I agree with kohai and most of his arguments he failed to show that god was breaking a social norm that he himself created in the beginning (or so they say) that social nor was then developed to now, the point where morally is defined by someones upbringing where seeing and hearing are examples of people breaking social norms placed by us.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
kohaisocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needed a metric by which to judge God evil, didn't provide much of one, and Con tore down what was there. Saying god condoned things most people consider evil doesn't do it. Per con, the concept of the Christian god is usually the source of morality and Pro needed to deal with that. Innate morality can be argued, but wasn't fleshed out/defended. In R5 Pro limited voters to considering a definition of God that was so generic it wasn't really the God of the Bible, or Con's auto-win definiti
Vote Placed by AznWords 6 years ago
AznWords
kohaisocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was at times very rude (resorting to ad hominens), incoherent and illogical. He is clearly not well read on rudimentary formal logic, which has reflected his written quite well. Pro did make a few tempting arguments but quickly did they fall and without much resistance. Con wins.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
kohaisocialpinkoTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Dominating performance by socialpinko, kohai you had to either deal with his arguments or challenge their validity or argue abuse/conduct, you can not just ignore them. I agree with RA (see RFD below) on sources/conduct as well.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
kohaisocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Kohai loses conduct for his generally sarcastic and disrespecful tone. He loses sources and arguments for plucking verses out of the Bible with no regard (or attempt) for context or authorial intent. Socialpinko's arguement's weren't terribly impressive, but they were less unimpressive than Kohai's.