The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
SkepticsAskHere
Con (against)
Winning
17 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 3 votes the winner is...
SkepticsAskHere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,966 times Debate No: 16472
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (3)

 

kohai

Pro

My last opponent to this debate was an Atheist so I couldn't get a good debate.
Whoever accepts this debate MUST be a Christian, or they will automatically LOSE by conduct.

First round is for acceptance only. Good luck to my opponent.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

I accept this debate and I am a Christian. I will post a short video in round two under two minutes like my opponent requested and my duty is to say that the God of the Bible is not evil. So I will defend the trinitarian God of the Bible.

I must remind my opponent to bring out his favorite and/or strongest arguments to keep the points quick in decisive. I hope this will be a good round and good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. As requested, I will try to limit my arguments.

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. 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.

Note that the bolded part is the actual definition; however, the italicised are just atributes and characteristics that many have thought of as God.

Evil: Profoundly immoral and malevolent.

Malevolent: Having or showing a wish to do evil to others

Good: The opposite from evil.

Ok, on to the actual arguments.

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

I think this verse is very clear. This verse is FORCING a woman to marry her rapist. How sick is that!

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)

Very clear. A son must die for the sins of their fathers. Is that fair?

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

Self-explanitory.

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)

A father can sell his own daughter as a slave! What kind of family values are those?

"Ah, but slavery wasn't that bad..."

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)

Not that bad, eh?

Can we accept that the God of the Bible is loving, fair, and kind? I think not. I am interested in hearing from my opponent. Again these are some of my favourite arguments.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

Hello DDO! My name is Taylor from Skeptic's Ask and first off I would like to thank my opponent for posting such an interesting topic. This should be good.


DEFINITIONS:

Well of course first off most of my opponent's definitions are good and I'm not going to challenge any of them so that this does not become a definition debate. However I would like to point out that my opponent himself stated in his attributes of God that God was omnibenevolence. I will expand on this throughout my case.

Now on to my arguments!

When we are to examine at is evil we must examine morality. Morality seems simple enough and could be describe as good and evil and such. Yet, where do we get any authority to say that something is immoral. Not only that, we can see that morality CHANGES from one society to another. For example, in America it would be considered immoral to partake in cannibalism, however in a few African tribes, cannibalism is a way of life! Polygamy is illegal in the United States while throughout the middle-east the maximum wives you can have is four! And we can even see through time morality is altered. For example, a couple hundred years ago in the U.S., it was perfectly fine to have slaves, now it is completely immoral! So if we can see that morality is relative to your time and location. Morality can be seen as subjective if it is based off of something subjective. For example, if I were to ask my opponent if it were wrong to kill, my opponent would most likely say yes! Yet, when he was asked why he wouldn't be able to answer because he has nothing absolute to base his morals off of. Therefore who is to say that anything is truly immoral? For this
is reason I negate the resolution. Resolved: The God of the Bible is mostly evil.


1 Contention: Assuming the Bible is true, the morality of the Bible is objective and my opponent has no base to make any moral statements.
Now whether or not you believe in the Bible or not, if it is true then Christians have an objective stance on morality.


Here are 2 most important moral imperatives in the Bible.
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. [a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with your entire mind and with all your strength.’[b] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”

http://www.biblegateway.com...;

But how do we know if these moral imperatives are absolute? Well assuming the God of Christianity is real, then it is said throughout scripture that God is eternal, everlasting and does not change. Therefore the morality of Christians is based upon something that will never change, while most others base their morality on society and circumstance which is always changing.


"I the LORD, do not change." - Malachi 3:6
http://biblia.com...
"17 because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged." Hebrews 6:17-18

http://www.biblegateway.com...

The whole point of this argument is that my opponent has no way of saying weather something is evil or not. Unless there is something absolute providing an objective moral standard, there is no reason to prefer one moral claim over another.

Contention 2: The God of the Bible is, by definition, all good. Throughout the Bible God is said to be in His own nature good, therefore the opposite of Him is evil. So if we are to debate the God of the Bible then He is entirely good.

"No one is good - except God alone." - Jesus in Luke 18:9

Contention 3: According to the Bible, no one is innocent. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) No one is good so if God destroys a city or kills someone, then of course he has the right because He knows all things and the person is deserving of their punishment.

Now on to my opponent’s case!

First of all my opponent cannot say that any of these things are absolutely immoral; however I will address a few verse he took out of context.

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

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New Living Translation)

28 “Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, 29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. [a] Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives.

I found this translation and it just says sex and not rape. This is due to an improper translation where my opponent is using an outdated in incorrect manner of translation.

"Very clear. A son must die for the sins of their fathers. Is that fair?"- My opponent
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life!" - said Jesus in John 9:3


Happy is the one who takes your babies
and smashes them against the rocks!

My opponent completely takes this out of context! This is referring to the Edomites who destroyed many people.
It is NOT saying you will be happy if you stone children. Read the whole chapter before attacking like that.

Slavery:
Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

  • The Bible acknowledged the slave's status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46).
  • The Bible restricted the master's power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
  • The slave was a member of the master's household (Lev. 22:11).
  • The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14).
  • The slave was required to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
  • The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
  • The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
  • When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).

The reality of slavery cannot be denied. "Slave labor played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately-owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force

We can see that my opponent has completely misrepresented these verses, without looking at the context or what the verse was actually referring to.

Now good luck to my opponent in the next round,


Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

I again thank my opponent for taking the time to debate with me and about this subject. You have presented some pretty good arguments in your round. Good luck to you.

Well of course first off most of my opponent's definitions are good and I'm not going to challenge any of them so that this does not become a definition debate. However I would like to point out that my opponent himself stated in his attributes of God that God was omnibenevolence. I will expand on this throughout my case.

You are taking words in my mouth. According to the Biblical God, is just and all good. This does not mean that He is. The purpose of my debate is to take the characteristics of God, and prove that the God of the Bible is NOT God because he contradicts his very nature. Therefore, I have to prove that he does contradict his nature. Because "Jesus (who people claim is God) is the same yesterday, and today, and forever", we know that God is also unchangeable.

When we are to examine at is evil we must examine morality. Morality seems simple enough and could be describe as good and evil and such. Yet, where do we get any authority to say that something is immoral. Not only that, we can see that morality CHANGES from one society to another. For example, in America it would be considered immoral to partake in cannibalism, however in a few African tribes, cannibalism is a way of life! Polygamy is illegal in the United States while throughout the middle-east the maximum wives you can have is four! And we can even see through time morality is altered. For example, a couple hundred years ago in the U.S., it was perfectly fine to have slaves, now it is completely immoral! So if we can see that morality is relative to your time and location. Morality can be seen as subjective if it is based off of something subjective. For example, if I were to ask my opponent if it were wrong to kill, my opponent would most likely say yes! Yet, when he was asked why he wouldn't be able to answer because he has nothing absolute to base his morals off of. Therefore who is to say that anything is truly immoral? For this
is reason I negate the resolution. Resolved: The God of the Bible is mostly evil.

If morality CHANGES from one society to another, we should have allowed the different genocides and should not be involved in Lybia or be involved with trying to humanize the barbarians. Therefore, you must also state that Hitler was right in the fact that he killed millions of Jews.

Where do we get our morality? Well, it has evolved just like us! You can study the different cultures and see some sick laws that were in effect in the past--even that in the Bible.

1 Contention: Assuming the Bible is true, the morality of the Bible is objective and my opponent has no base to make any moral statements. Now whether or not you believe in the Bible or not, if it is true then Christians have an objective stance on morality.

Well, there are some "Morals" and "Family values" that are in the Bible that Christians would be appalled to keep. If you need some examples, I shall bring forth them in my next round.


Here are 2 most important moral imperatives in the Bible.
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. [a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with your entire mind and with all your strength.’[b] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”

http://www.biblegateway.com......;

But how do we know if these moral imperatives are absolute? Well assuming the God of Christianity is real, then it is said throughout scripture that God is eternal, everlasting and does not change. Therefore the morality of Christians is based upon something that will never change, while most others base their morality on society and circumstance which is always changing.


"I the LORD, do not change." - Malachi 3:6
http://biblia.com......
"17 because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged." Hebrews 6:17-18
http://www.biblegateway.com......

The whole point of this argument is that my opponent has no way of saying weather something is evil or not. Unless there is something absolute providing an objective moral standard, there is no reason to prefer one moral claim over another.

You have ADMITED that the law of the Lord is PERFECT. Since it is PERFECT it cannot change. Let us look at a few verses.

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. Exodus 21:7-2

Is this the type of morals you have? Should a father be allowed to even sell his daughter for any reason? I would hope the answer is no.

"It was just referring to Israel."
If the law of the LORD is PERFECT as you claim, then how can a law (moral) in the Bible change from one place to another? Clearly, you are contradicting yourself if you say that.

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Exodus 21:20-21 KJV

If you take this verse in context by reading the verses before and after, you'll clearly see that it is talking about a servant's (slave's) relationship to his master. Apparently, the servant is mere property and not human. Is this the type of morals you have?

It was just applying to Israel

Again, the law of the Lord is perfect. How can the law change from place to place? If it can, it is clearly not perfect because it can change.

That was the old times, we no longer have to follow that!

Several verses in the NT say otherwise. Again, if the Law of the Lord is perfect, how can it change it several thousand years? Clearly, if it can the law of the lord is not perfect!

That is all for this round. Good luck to my opponent, and I thank you for your good conduct in the last round.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

I again thank my opponent for offering me this chance to debate. Good luck to you.

"You are taking words in my mouth."

I'm not taking words out of your mouth I'm simply agreeing with that particular attribute as I stated in my second contention that God, by definition, is the very definition of good.

"If morality CHANGES from one society to another, we should have allowed the different genocides and should not be involved in Lybia or be involved with trying to humanize the barbarians. Therefore, you must also state that Hitler was right in the fact that he killed millions of Jews."

No, we should not have allowed the Holocaust to happen because from an objective moral stance, what Hitler did was evil. My opponent can't really say what is evil and what is good because he has nothing to base it upon except society. I have no idea what so ever, how my opponent jumping from my claim that he has subjective morality, to saying that I should therefore support Hitler would like to see how he got from the first point to another unrelated point.

"Well, there are some "Morals" and "Family values" that are in the Bible that Christians would be appalled to keep. If you need some examples, I shall bring forth them in my next round."

My opponent makes no attack on my claim that he cannot determine what is evil or moral. He continually tries to bring up verses that, in his own subjective opinion, are evil.

"You have ADMITED that the law of the Lord is PERFECT. Since it is PERFECT it cannot change."

Yes I admit and follow the Law of the Lord, I say and believe it is perfect and it does not change. My opponent reaffirms my initial position in this debate thinking of it as a victory?

My opponent then goes on to say how slavery was allowed in the Bible, yet he does not even attack my defense of the reasons why slavery was permitted in the Bible. My opponent is simply copying and pasting his arguments.

So here is the Biblical stance on slavery once again, this time please attack it or agree.

Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

The Bible acknowledged the slave's status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46).
The Bible restricted the master's power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
The slave was a member of the master's household (Lev. 22:11).
The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14).
The slave was required to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).

The reality of slavery cannot be denied. "Slave labor played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately-owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opponent in his first round presented several verses. I examined those verse and showed how my opponent had either taken the verse out of context, used an incorrect translation, etc. And he did not defend his position on any of those verse. He did bring back the verse he had previously brought up on the subject of slavery yet he still failed to attack my arguments for that as well. He disregards my second and third contentions completely!

If this was a formal debate I could claim victory right now due to my opponent not attacking the majority of my case. However, for the sake of the debate I will pursue.

My opponent took verses out of context in the first round, and then my arguments in the second. I expect him to do so again, but I stand by my first contention. So I want the last question in this round to be what basis do you have to say anything is wrong?

Good luck in your next round
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

I again thank my opponent for this debate and replying in a timely manner. I apologize for the wait in between rounds. I have been super busy and have learn a major lesson—don’t have too many debates at one time!

No, we should not have allowed the Holocaust to happen because from an objective moral stance, what Hitler did was evil. My opponent can't really say what is evil and what is good because he has nothing to base it upon except society. I have no idea what so ever, how my opponent jumping from my claim that he has subjective morality, to saying that I should therefore support Hitler would like to see how he got from the first point to another unrelated point.

Basically, you are using what is known in philosophy as the “Objective moral argument for the existence of God.” In case you do not know what that is, it states this:

1. If objective morals exist, then God exists
2. Objective morals exist
3. Therefore, God exists.

However, this argument fails miserably because there is no ground for the 1st argument! The very first point fails! Does God have to be the author of objective morality? If you can prove that God has to be the author of objective morality, then you have a won debate. However, you cannot prove that.

Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

So, if God is all good and all perfect, then how could he possibly allow slavery? But who created sin? If you think about it—God did!

this article admits that God did not create sin because he is holy and cannot create sin
http://carm.org... (from a reputable, Christian source.)

Let me provide some Biblical and logical evidence that God created sin.

The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.1 Corinthians 15:6

this begs the question: Who created the law? Well, as we clearly see throughout the entire Bible—GOD CREATED THE LAW! This verse is saying that the law is sin’s strength—i.e. without the law, there is no sin; God created the law, therefore he created sin. God permitted slavery because of sin; however, God created sin as we clearly see.

Back to you, con. Good luck!

SkepticsAskHere

Con

I thank my opponent and I want to say don’t worry about how long it takes to post the arguments, as long as you post them on time! On to the debate!

Basically, you are using what is known in philosophy as the “Objective moral argument for the existence of God.”In case you do not know what that is, it states this:

1. If objective morals exist, then God exists.
2. Objective morals exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

This is a very incorrect statement. To use objective morality to prove God exists is illogical. This would be it. Remember that we are assuming that the Christian God is real.

  1. God exists.
  2. God never changes and he is always true and good.
  3. God’s morality is objective, because he cannot change.
  4. God’s morality can be seen in the Bible.
  5. The morality of the Bible is objective.

It’s a rough outline, but I think you can see the picture I’m trying to paint here.

However, this argument fails miserably because there is no ground for the 1stargument! The very first point fails! Does God have to be the author of objective morality? If you can prove that God has to be the author of objective morality, then you have a won debate. However, you cannot prove that.

Why can’t I prove that? Also, God doesn’t necessarily have to be the author of morality, however I have never seen anyone else offer a position based off of something absolute. If you can show me a system of absolutes that do not change and are able to translate them to morals, then you may be able to say if something is evil. However, you have not presented one so far and introducing one now may be pushing the limits on abuse, but if you have one introduce it.

So, if God is all good and all perfect, then how could he possibly allow slavery? But who created sin? If you think about it—God did!

This article admits that God did not create sin because he is holy and cannot create sin
http://carm.org......(from a reputable, Christian source.)

God has two types of wills, his direct will and his permissive will. We have permissive will when we sin because he allows us to sin. This works with the same way with slavery, he used his permissive will to allow slavery to come about. Now why did he do this? Well he sees all outcomes so for some reason that we don’t know (because we can’t see the outcome) God permitted slavery to come about. The Law simply was a reflection of God’s character. God did not create sin because sin is the act of doing something that is opposite of God. This is what is described throughout the Bible. Now you can believe differently, but this is the nature of sin, the law, etc. as described by the Bible (which is the precedent in this debate).

Let me provide some Biblical and logical evidence that God created sin.

The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.1 Corinthians 15:6

This statement does not say that God created sin; it seems my opponent has yet again taken another verse out of context.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again I will extend my arguments from the last round with a few details added.

My opponent FAILED to answer the last two questions I asked him last round and also dropped other arguments such as “I have no idea what so ever, how my opponent jumping from my claim that he has subjective morality, to saying that I should therefore support Hitler would like to see how he got from the first point to another unrelated point.” He is consistently dropping arguments that he is unable to answer, while also not responding to any questions I have for his case.

“My opponent in his first round presented several verses. I examined those verse and showed how my opponent had either taken the verse out of context, used an incorrect translation, etc. And he did not defend his position on any of those verses. He did bring back the verse he had previously brought up on the subject of slavery yet he still failed to attack my arguments for that as well. He disregards my second and third contentions completely!

If this was a formal debate I could claim victory right now due to my opponent not attacking the majority of my case. However, for the sake of the debate I will pursue.

My opponent took verses out of context in the first round, and then my arguments in the second. I expect him to do so again, but I stand by my first contention.So I want the last question in this round to be what basis do you have to say anything is wrong?

I will explain more in my closing argument.

Vote Con and good luck to my opponent in the next round.

Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Pro

I have been sick lately and haven't had a good time to debate and think about my closing arguments. Therefore, I humbly resign this debate.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

That's very unfortunate, but I do accept my opponent's forfeit.

However I would like to say something to the audience of this debate:

My opponent has misinterpreted several verses to justify his world view. All of his other arguments ended up being subjective, so I would like to pose this question to any non-Christians. Is the truth determining your worldview or is your your world view determining what is true?

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Hey Justin, I'm not defending slavery, murder, or rape in the least, however let me ask you a question. Why are any of those things wrong?
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Justin, you should debate some of the theists on DDO.
Posted by Justin_Chains 5 years ago
Justin_Chains
I find these kind of debates very amusing... The God portrayed in the bible is obviously evil. The entity in the bible is filled with Christian "sin". If a Christian can't see that... then they have already been brainwashed. Rape, Murder, Slavery, Etc. are not good things. Anyone with half of a brain knows this.

The fact that Christians defend rape, murder, and slavery just shows how evil they really are.

The "god" in your bible is really the devil. How would you know? Because some entity appeared and spoke to a man? Or because someone heard a voice in their head? That entity could be and evil deceptive one. That voice could be an evil deceptive spirit or your own mind playing tricks on you. What if the image a man saw as "God" was a hallucination?

Christians are funny to me because they don't use logic. They just follow blindly into the evil.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Fair enough! I was just concerned because I glanced over the debate with the same resolution and it seemed rather short, I'm more of a let's get to the big issues kind of a debater. So I'll post my acceptance round I guess now
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Fair enough! And you to show that god is good
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Oh ok if that be the case I ask that you could just have two or three main points? Your favorite examples of where you see that God is evil and whatnot so that we won't have to write essays back and forth.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Well, round 1 is just to accept. Opening statements in round 2.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
So just one 2 minute intro video for this round would be acceptable if I wrote out my words so you could quote me?
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
I'd prefer not to so I can bold terms and members can clearly see what I'm quoting is true. Plus it is a pain to go thru the videos. If you use a video, keep it under 2 minutes per debate round
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Well of course I accepted the debate and therefor I came under your terms, and I'm not asking for you to respond with a video. However, it would make a great video just for the youtube channel I have on the subject of evil. So it's up to you.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
kohaiSkepticsAskHereTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Kohai forfeited, but still Skeptics gave stronger arguments. I hope Kohai is feeling better.
Vote Placed by brokenboy 5 years ago
brokenboy
kohaiSkepticsAskHereTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: L
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
kohaiSkepticsAskHereTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Kohai was behind before the forfeit, he needed to press all arguments consistently and not constantly introduce new ones.